Israel probe finds war 'failure'
breakfast news comment
Israel probe finds war 'failure'
Israel's 2006 war against Hezbollah in Lebanon was a "large and serious" failure, according to an Israeli government-appointed inquiry. "We found grave failings in decision-making... both on the military and political levels," said the inquiry's chairman Eliyahu Winograd. PM Ehud Olmert has insisted he will not step down despite the findings. However, strong criticism could put pressure on partners in his governing coalition to pull out, analysts say.
What a sad little final chapter in a very sick story, what the report doesn’t talk about was the reasoning behind this gross attack on the people of Lebanon and that was because the US, in the hope of keeping an attack on Iran alive in 2006, wanted a neutralizing of the elements that would counterstrike an Iranian attack, they green lighted months prior Israel’s desire to ‘settle scores’ with Hizbollah and Israel implemented a series of provocative moves including the kidnapping of a prominent professional Palestinian family which culminated in a quid pro quo kidnapping of Israeli security forces, this was the ‘excuse’ the Israeli’s were waiting for and they launched their incredibly pointless and bullshit war that killed over a thousand Lebanese. Israeli’s should feel deeply ashamed.
posted by Bomber @ 6:51 am
185 comments
185 Comments:
Heh - I sorta said this 18 months ago. They lost. Now no doubt Brewerstroupe will be all over this, but my reading of that bbc news story was a tactical failure, and it doesnt criticise the reason for war
"All in all, the IDF [Israeli army] failed, especially because of the conduct of the high command and the ground forces, to provide an effective military response to the challenge posed to it by the war in Lebanon," retired senior judge Mr Winograd said.
And in a more simplistic sense, they didnt even achieve the return of the kidnapped soliders....
Scott
"And in a more simplistic sense, they didnt even achieve the return of the kidnapped soliders....".
Like the recent siege of Gaza, the 'official' justification for Israel's acts of aggression are always deceiving. They didn't go into Lebanon to 'save' the kidnapped soldiers. (by now we know the strategic reason for it)) Just like they aren't committing war crimes in Gaza due to a few rockets.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9245.shtml
May be the real reason for the assault on Gaza.
Bomber, if Israelis are feeling bad about the incursion into Lebanon, it's only because of the suffering it brought to Israelis themselves.
-Anti-Flag.
SDM, you have to realise that anti-flag doesn't like Jews...once you get past that you kinda see where she's coming from lol
The fighting began with a relatively minor incident (by regional standards) and one that was entirely predictable: Hizballah attacked a border post, capturing two soldiers and killing three more in the operation. Hizballah's leader Hassan Nasrallah proposed a prisoner swap. Israel declared war the very same day, unleashing a massive bombing campaign that over the next month killed nearly 1,200 Lebanese civilians.
An editorial in Israel's leading newspaper Haaretz noted again this week that, by rejecting Hizballah's overtures, "Israel initiated the war."
WHAT'S WITH THE "BODY PARTS" THOUGH?
I have no idea who anti-flag is. I am just troubled by his/her post. But the thing is, there are a lot of but jobs out there you blame everything on the US and/or Israel for every problem. Some people even go as far as to blame them for 9/11, it was a CIA plot, which is clearly nuts.
Sdm, relax. Who said anything about a conspiracy? Where did I say the kidnapping didn't actually occur? If you read my post carefully, you'd understand I was not questioning the kidnapping, I was questioning the use of the kidnapping as the actual justification for the incursion.
If you actually read beyond the news reports on the incursion, you'd have understood what I meant in my previous post. Considering the subject has been discussed on Tumeke on several occasions, which you yourself have participated in, i'm astounded you're still regurgitating the same rhetoric and ignoring other motives for the invasion discussed in both Israeli press and outside.
Lol: After reading your post, I actually laughed out loud. An appropriate nick I think.
-Anti-Flag.
Anti Flag, so you would be happy for all Jews living in the current state of Israel to continue to live there in the future under any long term peace accord?
One of the strangest things I ever encountered was the unshakeable belief amongst all arabs I knew at Auck University, in the truth of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' if this is indicative of such an opinion being widespread amongst arabs throughout the middle east, and these guys were from a variety of countries, what hope do Jews have for peace at all?
Antiflag/Bomber et al.
My point was in the broader sense that Israel always get all the blame. What many have done is basically appoortioned no blame to Hezbollah for the kidnapping, and its ALL israels fault. I am not a defender of Israel, but rather look for some fairness and balance. I seem to remember during that discussions very time I quoted a source, for instance Dr George Friedman and Dr Paul Buchanan (both of whom were 'beyond the headlines'), they were attacked. It seemed that the only sources that were acceptable were ones that brewerstroupe etc brought up, despite the unquestionable expertise of the two aforementioned gentlemen.
As for the CIA - how can they be blamed, for instance, for the staging of 9/11 when the undisputable truth is that 19 al qaeda operatives crashed four planes. Surely anybody who thinks it was a CIA hoax speaks not objectively but out of blind hatred. This hatred clouds judgement.
Lol: You didn't seriously think I was calling for ethnic cleansing as a solution to the conflict? Unlike Chief Rabbi of Israel Metzger? Who recommends 1.5 million people in Gaza be transferred to the Sinai. See: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article/19222.htm or visit www.enqalabe.blogspot.com because i'm not sure if that first link works for some strange reason.
Considering the time period since the establishment of the settler state of Israel, it would be immoral and unfair to remove Jews living there for generations. But I don't support the existence of Israel in the state that it is. As Robert Fisk pointed out, which Israel are we talking about? 1948? 1967? What? Nor do I support a two state solution. I believe in a single state, but should NOT be called Israel.
Considering what appears to be the general attitude of arabs I know toward Jews, as well as their general distrust of them, based on the aforementioned Protocols, what hope is there for the saftety of Jews in the state you propose antiflag?
Christ Sdm: Are we really going to repeat ourselves again? I really am not in the mood to have the same discussion with you over the same information. But i'll repeat a few things briefly. Israel was violating Lebanese airpsace for months prior to the case, Israel is occupying the sheeba farms which Lebanon considers to be theirs. Whether it's Syria's or Lebanon's is irrelevant: It's Arab territory. This contributed to the the kidnapping itself? And don't forget the kidnapping that occurred in Gaza around the same time? (amongst the many). Considering the gross power imbalance, Israel is the occupier, the oppressor, the one who is in violation of several international laws yet claims to be a democracy- Yes. It is going to be blamed.
As for using Buchanan as a source. His CIA background, his media commentary and articles on the Middle East makes him lose credibility in my eyes. By explaining the Israeli and U.S. rationale, he thereby justifies it. Not to mention his dismissal from the University of Auckland for sending a racist email.
So yes, considering the historical record of the conflict. Israel will be blamed.
Well considering the email Buchanan sent, was not racist, and he should never have been fired, I still cant see why he isnt used as a source. And as far as I can tell, he is a vocal and outspoken critic of the Bush administration, so why you would conclude he isnt credible is beyond me.
And as for "By explaining the Israeli and U.S. rationale, he thereby justifies it."
Well thats just nonsense. Just because you can logically explain why a group or individual doesnt mean you justify or support it. One could explain the strategic logic of suicide bombings for instance, without necessarily being a fan of it.
It seems to me that your criticism of Buchanan, who from my readings seemed to be a vocal critic of US foreign policy and a supporter of Islamic rights, is weird.
Most of them are now based overseas, but by way of names Khaldoon, Tareq, Miniar, Fahdi are some of them, there are a few others whose names I never knew but who I used to chat with - all guys who trained at the Uni Gym. In addition to that are others I have met more recently, some of whom even believe that the Jews control Iran. If I seem like an 'orientalist' its mainly that the weight of evidence has made me one,
August 01 2006
Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into Lebanon
By Anders Strindberg
NEW YORK –
As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism.
Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict.
Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern.
In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?
Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.
Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.
Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.
For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.
Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.
Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.
The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0801/p09s02-coop.html
Anti-flag. Scott is the ultimate conservator. He recycles every argument.
(in)Credible statements of Paul G Buchanan
1. “The asymmetries are many. Hezbollah is a non-state, irregular armed movement sponsored by Iran and Syria in order to serve as a proxy agent in the fight against the so-called "Zionist entity," but more importantly, indirectly against the US itself (since Iran and Syria cannot afford to engage the US directly at this time). Hezbollah has little natural origins in Lebanon”
Response:
“Hezbollah are the tangata whenua of Southern Lebanon defending their turangawaewae”
- Philip Khouri of Auckland, a New Zealand lawyer of Lebanese descent and past president of the Federation of Ethnic Councils of New Zealand.
2. “What it (Israel) does not have in this instance--somewhat surprising given its reputation--is good strategic and tactical intelligence, the former to alert it to the extent of Hezbollah's military build up over the last six years and the latter to give it the real time capacity to strike at Hezbollah leadership targets and prevent ongoing missile attacks against Israeli cities.”
Response:
Israel knows all about Iran’s non-existent weapons but doesn’t know what goes on over it’s back fence? Hizbollah boasted about it’s “military build up”.
3. “It is possible that Hezbollah acted to divert attention away from Iran's nuclear weapons program,”
Response: No such programme.
4. “the Iranians are not yet be ready to risk a direct confrontation with Israel (something which they fully expect to change once they acquire nuclear weapons).”
Response: No such programme, no such intent.
The nasty stuff:
“Confronting the internal threat requires more of a militarized, covert approach, which will undoubtedly impact on civil liberties for both the few and the many.”
“The key to success is to specify targets with absolute certainty, act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake apologize and compensate. Read differently: if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd and a Delta Force squad ruins your day, your survivors need to remember that you were only as a good as the company you kept. The inevitable lawsuits over mistakes can be dealt with by legal limits on liability for actions undertaken in combating the terrorist threat and a whole lot of “sorry.””
“Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties with liberty.”
“It (the U.S.) also must admit the possibility that it will have to respond
in similar kind to atrocities, perhaps with some measure of decorum in order to maintain some
type of ethical supremacy in the eyes of its own people and world opinion. And it must admit the
necessity of resorting to weapons of mass destruction”
Sdm: You're arrogant enough to tell the student the email wasn't racist? Incredible. I read the email, knew the context it took place in etc. It was racist, no matter how you put it. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension.
“Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties with liberty.”
Um, why did so many lefties defend this guy? They were almost hysterical in their response. I know why-most don't bother reading.
The really silly stuff:
"When I asked whether he had ever wanted to work for the CIA, he said, no, he wasn't a person to betray trusts. "But I could have made a lot of money doing it. I fancied I might have made a great covert operative." This seemed preposterous, unless standing out is considered discreet. I asked him what covert abilities he possessed. He said, "Observational skills. I like to watch. I should rephrase that! I like to observe people. Mostly in their political inter-actions, but if I was a very old person, I would not go to malls and sit around and watch people. I'd go to airports. If I'm going to observe a crowd, I'd rather I did it well, and airports are far more interesting places."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikatotimes/4303177a6442.html
I can see him sitting on an airport bench pretending to be Austin Powers. From the same article:
"I had excellent relationships with numerous military officers. I think I'm very well regarded in the intelligence community."
It seems he is well regarded by neither Academia nor the military:
"Sacked Auckland University lecturer Paul Buchanan says he has been forced to seek help from Winz after being unemployed for two months."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10466742
Here's a starter for ten. Which of these statements is true?
"he described his work experience as a former CIA adviser in Latin America"
"I asked whether he had ever wanted to work for the CIA, he said, no"
Get over him Scott.
TJ: I know Khaldoon and know of the others via friends and and siblings. They're intelligent and informed people. I find it hilarious you're even accusing them of such a thing. If they did say it in passing, it's likely to be to rile you up. That's usually the case. Try to come up with an actual argument that's preferably not based on your delusions. Yeah?
TJ: I know Khaldoon and know of the others via friends and and siblings. They're intelligent and informed people. I find it hilarious you're even accusing them of such a thing. If they did say it in passing, it's likely to be to rile you up. That's usually the case. Try to come up with an actual argument that's preferably not based on your delusions. Yeah?
Haha, I remember those comments Brewer. What's even funnier was when he tried to blame his sacking on students at university and not on his own behaviour and that disgusting email. (see Herald)
Tj, they're Palestinians who have been deprived of their homeland. Their history. Their basic human rights. Instead, they have to live in Arab countries and beyond marginalised and demonised. They see the suffering of their people everyday and are infuriated at the world's silence. A little hostility towards Israel is understandable. I don't blame them nor am I surprised.
tj.
The simple and obvious answer is that "they" don't hate Jews per se. This is evidenced by Daniel Barenboim being offered and accepting Palestinian citizenship and the fact that most Palestinians are in favour of a single state solution to the problem i.e. the two races living together in a truly democratic nation.
You will probably ask why the Pals fire rockets if they don’t hate all Jews. Again the answer is simple. The settlers are complicit in a war crime under the Geneva Convention. They move into occupied territory knowing it is outlawed under Article 49 of the convention, specifically:
”The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”
This makes the settlers into an “enemy combatants” not just in Palestinian eyes but as defined under the Geneva convention.
What you have to decide is what your response would be if Japan had occupied New Zealand 60 years ago and was knocking down Kiwi houses and transferring half a million Japanese down here. Would you hate all Japanese, just the ones who settle here or love all of them while they are killing your friends and family?
Brewer you don't know these guys. In every other aspect of their lives they are urbane, multi lingual, educated. But they hate Jews, fact, they have said so on many occasions. They don't favour Jews being allowed to remain in their vison of 'Palestine' at all.
One can understand Jews being unwilling to give up control of their own destiny when one looks at their fate in the context of the Holacaust experience when such control was absent.
One question, do you believe that Palestinian Arabs generally reject the tenets of Haj Amin al Husseini? The fact that there are virtually no Jews remaining within the arab countries of the middle east (With the exception of Morocco I think) is not encouraging.
Anti-flag
The email wasnt racist. How can you possibly claim it was "preying on western liberal guilt" i think was the line, and surely that cant be racist in any way. What evidence do you have to support your argument? What is this context that you speak of? Wasnt she failing anyway? To dismiss him for just an email?
Brewer my old mate:
"Here's a starter for ten. Which of these statements is true?
"he described his work experience as a former CIA adviser in Latin America"
"I asked whether he had ever wanted to work for the CIA, he said, no"
This is not mutually exclusive. An advisor is not "working for". In a project I am working on at the moment, I used the services of an economic consultant. He advised me - he didnt work for me. There is a difference...
I wanna know, why do you have it in for thiks guy so much? Wrongly dismissed , career ruined, for no reason. No sensible employer could sack someone over a minor matter like an email.
And for the left to lead this? Didnt he speak at Galloway (I never got an invite)? Who was the champion for Achmed Zaoui? Do they hate him because he is American? Now that would be racist.
This character assasination is odd and from what i have read, undeserved.
hmmmmmmmmmm......Surely there is more to why Dr Buchanan was sacked. Is he really CIA? Is this why? Anyone know any hard facts?
"former CIA adviser in Latin America"
Had he said "adviser to the CIA" you might well be accused of simply nitpicking sophistry but a "CIA adviser in Latin America" is a CIA spook advising Latin Americans.
Buchanan is a closet neo-con. I doubt you will think so but I am absolutely sincere in stating that one of the reasons I dislike this man so much is because of the effect he has had on you and (I shudder to think how many other) students.
Ask yourself. Did he ever inform you about PNAC, AIPAC and Neo-Con philosophy? Are they not relevant to any study of geopolitics? As an expert on intelligence, how could he get so much wrong without trying? He revealed himself as gnadmasher and the attacks made under that pseudonym where scurrilous. Does it not strike you as odd that he makes those ridiculous statements about the failure of Israeli Intelligence when we know that the U.S. shares it's data with Israel? In other words, the very intelligence that he states has failed is the self-same intelligence he relies on.
If you look carefully at what I have posted, it is not I who has assassinated his character, he is condemned by his own words.
So you think he should have been fired for being a neo-con? I dont have any issues with you if you want to engage in debate with or about any comments Buchanan may or may not have said. But to suggest that his political beliefs are a reason for dimissal really does go beyond what could be considered to be reasonable.
I thought he was sacked over an email? As an employer myself it seems a massive overreaction for someone with a clean record? The guy made a mistake, and lost his career over one email. How can you defend that?
I have'nt ventured an opinion as to why he was sacked. I'm just happy that he has gone.
Why no comment on the paragraph following "Ask yourself"? Nothing there prick your curiosity?
"The email wasnt racist. How can you possibly claim it was "preying on western liberal guilt" i think was the line, and surely that cant be racist in any way. What evidence do you have to support your argument? What is this context that you speak of? Wasnt she failing anyway? To dismiss him for just an email?"
What you conveniently missed out was the bit before it your quote... "CULTURALLY DRIVEN". She wasn't failing and even if she was are you suggesting she was deserving of such an appalling response? I hope not.
"I wanna know, why do you have it in for thiks guy so much? Wrongly dismissed , career ruined, for no reason. No sensible employer could sack someone over a minor matter like an email".
Do you really believe the email alone was the reason for his sacking? Of course not! The email was the last straw. I suggest you don't hold such strong views on an issue you don't exactly know much about.
"And for the left to lead this? Didnt he speak at Galloway (I never got an invite)? Who was the champion for Achmed Zaoui? Do they hate him because he is American? Now that would be racis".
Who is this 'they'? Would love to know. Yes, he was at the Galloway talk, and he didn't say anything special just what the audience already knew: Religious extremists are not a threat to lil' ol' New Zealand.
Ugggh, I really hate dwelling on the Buchanan topic. But this isn't about character asassination at all. Character assassination would be him bringing up other people's name (including the student herself) in the media in an effort to distract people. As Brewer rightly pointed out, he's done the job himself.
I think we shouldn't go off into another discussion on Buchanan and stick to the more salient issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict.
tj.
Any post beginning "Brewer you don't know these guys" hardly warrants a reply. Despite the fact that your posts betray profound ignorance of history and a lack of logical method, I do not comment on it. Nevertheless, the points you raise:
The Holocaust.
Most races have had a similar experience to the Jews at some point in their history. It is not an excuse for perpetrating the same crime, especially against those who had nothing to do with the original offence. Should the Israelis be exacting revenge against the Germans it would possibly be understandable but wrong nevertheless.
"the tenets of Haj Amin al Husseini?"
No, I do not believe Palestinian Arabs generally espouse these any more than I believe that all Jews agree with Sharon:
"Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us. . "
I do however believe that all Zionists pursue the agenda laid down by David Ben Gurion in 1938: "after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine"
...and Menachem Begin in 1948: "The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel [the land of Israel] will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever."
...and Raphael Eitan:
"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle."
For your information there are approximately 30,000 Jews in Iran who have refused to leave despite financial inducements offered by Israel to do so. 26,000 in Turkey.
If you study the history of Jewish exodus from Arab states it directly follows the Wars that Israel initiated. This should come as no surprise. Britons left Germany before WW2. It makes sense to do so.
Wars Israel 'initiated' lol.
"Al Husseini is our hero" Yasser Arafat - Al Quds - August 2 2002.
Brewer despite your breathtaking condescension, you might be surprised to know that neither Iran nor Turkey would consider themselves 'Arab' countries, a qualification to my statement that you obviously missed.
Given that you mention Turkey however, are you so vociferous in your support of the Greeks ethnically cleansed and dispossesed in northern Cyprus?
Anti-flag:
"Do you really believe the email alone was the reason for his sacking? Of course not! The email was the last straw. I suggest you don't hold such strong views on an issue you don't exactly know much about."
Well how come thats what we have been told. I am really keen to get the full picture here, so would be most greatful if you could share what you know so as we can be enlightened and make an informed judgement.
The term 'culturally driven' I thought was a reflection on western culture, and how we tend to be overly liberal.
1948:
According to Morris, "During May [1948] ideas about how to consolidate and give permanence to the Palestinian exile began to crystallize, and the destruction of villages was immediately perceived as a primary means of achieving this aim...[Even earlier,] On 10 April, Haganah units took Abu Shusha... The village was destroyed that night... Khulda was leveled by Jewish bulldozers on 20 April... Abu Zureiq was completely demolished... Al Mansi and An Naghnaghiya, to the southeast, were also leveled. . .By mid-1949, the majority of [the 350 depopulated Arab villages] were either completely or partly in ruins and uninhabitable." (Morris) By the time the United States had extended formal recognition of Israel on January 30, 1949, only 97 Palestinian villages remained. It wasn't long before much of the land reserved to the Palestinians under the Partition Plan was seized and occupied by the nascent nation of Israel.
1956
Knowing that Egypt would not invade without a provocation, Israel launched a raid on Egyptian territory. On February 28, 1955, Israel raided the Gaza Strip, killing 37 Egyptians and wounding 31. The raid was totally unprovoked; Nasser said it "was revenge for nothing. Everything was quiet there" (Love)
The raid had the predicted effect of inflaming passions throughout the region. The Arab world was properly outraged. Yet it did not provoke the invasion and war that Ben-Gurion had hoped.
Since the seizure of the Suez Canal by the Egyptians was in defiance of Ben-Gurion's warnings, the Israelis viewed it as a legitimate pretext to invade Egypt, and on the 29th of October, 1956, they crossed the border and within days, occupied the entire Sinai.
1967
In a surprise raid in the early hours of June 5, 1967, Israeli fighter jets struck the Egyptian air force, wiping out the entire Egyptian air force on the ground before the Egyptians had time to react, and simultaneously invaded the Sinai. In the carefully calculated plan, the Israeli government simultaneously announced that they had been attacked by the Egyptians (a charge that was totally baseless), and Israel considered itself in mortal danger of extermination. The credulous international press accepted the announcement, and it became the drumbeat of Israel's propaganda campaign. It was not true, as Ezer Weizmann, the Israeli Air Force general later admitted: "there was never any danger of extermination" (Weizmann, Ezer) Some years later, one of the architects of the plan for the war and the accompanying propaganda campaign, General Matityahu Peled, confessed in an interview with El Ha'aretz, an Israeli daily, "The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff" (Peled)
1982
On the sixth of June, 1982, the Israeli Defense Forces moved into Lebanon, on Israel's northern border. The invasion was astonishingly brutal and merciless. Sharon was quite carefree in his bombing of not just military targets, but quite literally any structure that he felt may at some point harbor resistance. This included refugee camps, schools, hospitals, churches, religious and charitable institutions and the facilities of the government of Lebanon. It was the invasion of Lebanon that earned him his nickname, "The Bulldozer."
On the 8th of August, Sharon began a massive bombing of Beirut, which some foreign correspondents in the city compared to the massive Allied bombing of Dresden in World War II. Nothing was sacred and no effort whatever was made to spare civilians.(Giannou) Much of the infrastructure of the city was damaged or destroyed and the bombing stirred up ethnic passions and hatred in Beirut, which sparked a communal war that went on for a decade and left the city, once called "The Paris of the Middle East," in ruins. More than two hundred American nationals and about 20,000 Lebanese, nearly all innocent civilians, died in the bombing.
I will concede Yom Kippur
"Iran nor Turkey would consider themselves 'Arab' countries"
Beg pardon, I read "middle East" and responded. In which case I revert to the last paragraph in my post. It is good sense to go home when one's compadres are waging war. The literature abounds in tales of Jews who experienced a "golden" and Silver" age in Arab countries before 1948.
This thread is about Palestine.
Maps:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/6761/palastinianlandloss8tz.gif
Brewer
Buchanan's comment that Hezbollah has ties to Iran is backed up by many, including Adam Shatz who wrote
"The movement first emerged during Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in which between twelve and nineteen thousand Lebanese died, most of them civilians and many of them Shiites. Militant followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Hezbollah's original cadres were organized and trained by a 1,500-member contingent of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, who arrived in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley in the summer of 1982, with the permission of the Syrian government. "
So a definate Iranian link.
But tell me, and be explicit, what are your thoughts on the sacking
I INSIST that Hezbollah has links with Iran and you know it. What is pure propaganda and patently false is this:
“Hezbollah is a non-state, irregular armed movement sponsored by Iran and Syria in order to serve as a proxy agent in the fight against the so-called "Zionist entity," but more importantly, indirectly against the US itself (since Iran and Syria cannot afford to engage the US directly at this time). Hezbollah has little natural origins in Lebanon”
I have relayed my thoughts on the sacking. I am old school. His inability to spell or parse a sentence should be sufficient condition for dismissal in my book(as is yours by the way, I wish you'd take more care. Surely proper use of the language is a prerequisite for even the lowliest University post?).
The WINZ and Braunias pieces indicate a somewhat unhinged personality prone to delusion. This is underscored by the inconsistencies inherent in the stories he told students about being a covert operative in the jungles of South America versus his later denial and gnadmasher's tirade. I suspect that Anti-flag may be right about the email being the opportunity rather than the cause. More than that I do not know.
How to you know that he was gnadsmasher?
Yes you may be as you claim, old school, but even so, to sack somebody for either a harsh email, or grammatical mistakes, is over the top and surely if those are the only reasons then undeserved.
Clearly you cant support firing people because of the beliefs they hold - slightly Orwellian to me.
Again I dont see his covert claims as contradictory, for the reasons I have outlined above. Anti-flag seems to have gone quiet, which is a shame because I was genuinely interested in what he/she had to say.
And as for my grammar, well it is carelessness and I do apologise.
From the Winograd report:
"Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated"
"Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory, Israel did not use its military power wisely or effectively,"
"...two main alternatives - the first was a short, severe strike [on Hezbollah], the second was to fundamentally alter the reality in southern Lebanon through a wide-scale ground operation."
Now can we have no more nonsense about kidnapped soldiers? Please?
He let slip things that only Buchanan would know.
The odd grammatical mistake is pardonable but Buchanan's text was littered with them. This, as I have pointed out before indicates incompetence.
His beliefs are not the issue. What he has written is evidence of either a disregard for, or ignorance of, principles of democracy and jurisprudence reaching as far back as the Magna Carta. This is again a lack of grounding in his field. In other words, incompetence.
Incidentally, how do you view the statements I quoted? Do you countenance extra-judicial killing, curtailing of civil liberties, lying on the part of government to cover these activities etc.?
Incidentally, when I was a student, grammatical mistakes would get you downgaded or, if numerous, failed in any discipline. It was not excusable at University level. Buchanan's standard would not have been tolerated as a student, much less as faculty. I cannot understand how he attained a Doctorate as he he not that much younger than me. Are you sure he is not a fraud?
Well until somebody presents evidence, I will believe he is the real deal.
You are talking about grammar in an email. Now perhaps this is a generational thing (my late grandmother believed everything had to be perfect), but email is different to say a formal article or thesis situation. I know I have regually sent off an email in a hurry without checking.
Heck in the 4th form I misspelt Organism in a science exam - much to the amusement of my class mates.
Rather than indicating incompetence, Buchanan's gramatical errors indicate nothing more than he wrote the email in a hurry. Undoubtably he had numerous things on his plate at the time.
I do know that I have experianced a downgrade for gramatical mistakes at University.
But again, there is still absolutely no evidence that anything he did warranted sacking. If you want to decry societials butchering of the english language, go for it. If you want to suggest that we should all (especially me) take more time proofreading - I agree. But to say a man should be fired and have his career ruined for it? No way.
Sdm, I can't be sitting at the computer all day and reading your rather amusing posts on Buchanan. I had things to do.
To be honest, i'm tired of talking about him. I spent half the year discussing his sacking and don't think the attention he's getting is deserving. In fact, our discussion on the conflict has come to an end thanks to your zealous defence of Buchanan.
His grammar is irrelevant to me. His political views, I may not agree with but i've taken a couple of his papers and do think he's a competent lecturer. However, on the social aspect, he's far from competent and that was his downfall. It's as simple as that.
I'd rather not discuss his sacking any further but just to suggest you use your common sense and realise that no staff member can be sacked for just an email (even an appalling one as this). Unless the University were really asking for trouble- considering the legal consequences.
As for his career, don't worry sdm, he's a security analyst, so I really doubt he'll have trouble getting work. Which is why I found his comments on WINZ hilarious.
Anti-Flag.
Suggest you read some of his stuff other than the email. My judgement is based on his published writing.
I would like to read his thesis. Have you? Do you know where I can find it?
If Buchanan is what he says he is, how is it that his career is so easily ruined? Surely he could recover from an unjustified sacking in a place most Americans have never heard of by simply picking up the phone? What about his military friends? Previous employers? Wouldn't they have him back?
Why is he in WINZ's office just two months after the sacking and was the Herald photographer just passing by at the time? I don't think so. I thought he had a house in Florida. Did he tell WINZ about that?
I may well have an overly sensitive nose but there is an aroma arising out of this affair.
Well you and I have never discussed the Buchanan sacking. But you seem to have the inside word on it, and that fascinates me.
I mean if its just over an email, then one would imagine that the university would get taken to the cleaners financially, or would even have to reinstate him. One would hope that the university followed due process, because if they didnt then they will have big problems.
My defence of Buchanan, which you describe as zealous, is my own thoughts derived by what I have seen and read, and my own experiance as an employer. If I have missed some of the facts, please enlighten.
The point is that we have been told, and the only evidence we have seen, relates to this email. If there is more that we dont know then somebody is telling lies.
As for getting a job - last I heard he had to leave the country as he couldnt find work. Maybe finding him having to go to WINZ is sad rather than hilarious.
Brewer: You might be on to something there!
-Anti-Flag.
Sdm: Legally, it's seen and treated as a private matter and not a public matter. Question, if Buchanan really was treated unfairly, why didn't he show his employment record at the university? Where we would have seen how many warnings etc he received. That ought to have backed up his case.
-Anti-Flag.
Im with you Brewer - the aroma is that this man was sacked for reasons unknown, and that stinks!
I think his career is ruined - google the guy and you come up with all sorts of nonsense about being a racist. Those accusations are career ruining - hence the unemployment.
Like you I want to know the truth - why he was fired, the real reasons. Anti-flag indicated it was more than just an email, and that is probably true. Im keen to know what...
Are you suggesting Buchanan should make public his employment record? Have there been other complaints in the past perhaps?
interesting...
I would like to read his thesis. Have you? Do you know where I can find it?
No, i'm asking if this case was an isolated one, why not prove it with disclosing his record? Simple way to deal with it.
-Anti-Flag.
Brewer, maybe the univesity's library has a copy? I'll ask around and get back to you. It should be interesting to have a look at it actually...
-Anti-Flag.
Well if there was nothing on his record, you would agree he didnt deserve the sack?
I havent read his thesis sorry
Well, I was pretty appalled by his email, and did think he deserved to be severely punished, perhaps not fired for it. However, in general, I don't think he should teach when he's incapable of acting in a civil manner, under pressure or not. It's what you expect from professionals.
-Anti-Flag.
I would suggest the University act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake apologize and compensate.
The inevitable lawsuits over mistakes can be dealt with by legal limits on liability ....and a whole lot of “sorry.”
- sorry about the impact on (Buchanan's) civil liberties
People do make mistakes - i do every day. Even professionals. I just dont think people should be fired for them, especially without evidence to indicate a pattern (warnings being given, due process, etc). It sounds to me as though there is a near universal opinion that the university was wrong to dismiss.
So Buchanan's standards of evidence only apply to innocent parties who lose their lives, not to those who lose their jobs. As you are wont to say Scott - interesting.
Why do you keep referring this back to Buchanan's writings, albeit indirectly. There is nothing that I can see in his background that should count against him?
Possibly because you have yet to comment on them.
alright what would you like to comment on - one at a time.
Incidentally, how do you view the statements I quoted? Do you countenance extra-judicial killing, curtailing of civil liberties, lying on the part of government to cover these activities etc.?
Is that what he said?
(off to bed now, meeting early morning, will respond tomorrow)
"Clearly you cant support firing people because of the beliefs they hold - slightly Orwellian to me."
How do you feel about the gaoling of revisionist historians?
I wouldnt support that.
(off to bed now, meeting early morning, will respond tomorrow)
Is that what he did?
Who Buchanan or me?
You
What are you talking about?
will respond tomorrow
did you
yes
I think you've picked up a fan Scott. I think he is waiting to read your response to PGB's intemperate statements, as am I.
Anonymous said...
"Clearly you cant support firing people because of the beliefs they hold - slightly Orwellian to me."
How do you feel about the gaoling of revisionist historians?
1/2/08 6:50 AM
sdm said...
I wouldnt support that.
1/2/08 9:01 AM
See, i did respond!
We used to have a name for that sort of tactic. I think it was "duck-shoving". I expected better of you Scott.
Well what is it you want me to respond to?
Do you countenance extra-judicial killing, curtailing of civil liberties, lying on the part of government to cover these activities as expounded by PGB:
“Confronting the internal threat requires more of a militarized, covert approach, which will undoubtedly impact on civil liberties for both the few and the many.”
“The key to success is to specify targets with absolute certainty, act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake apologize and compensate. Read differently: if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd and a Delta Force squad ruins your day, your survivors need to remember that you were only as a good as the company you kept. The inevitable lawsuits over mistakes can be dealt with by legal limits on liability for actions undertaken in combating the terrorist threat and a whole lot of “sorry.””
“Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties with liberty.”
“It (the U.S.) also must admit the possibility that it will have to respond
in similar kind to atrocities, perhaps with some measure of decorum in order to maintain some
type of ethical supremacy in the eyes of its own people and world opinion. And it must admit the
necessity of resorting to weapons of mass destruction”
All Buchanan is arguing is that in a that to prevail in an irregular and asymmetric conflict, the US and other major powers will have to fight asymmetrically, or in other words, establish force symettry How hard is that to understand?
These are measures he recommends for DOMESTIC consumption
So the fact that he opposed the NZ police's action against those in the Urewera's says what exactly?
That he runs with hares and hunts with hounds perhaps I dunno. What I would like to know is whether or not you support such measures.
Liberties are important, but so is security
So is it your contention that an attack that kills the same number of people as die in road accidents in one month is sufficient condition to warrant security measures that undo every civil and human right since the Magna Carta as well as the citizen's right to life itself?
Before we get to that - you accept 9/11 was an attack and not an inside job?
I haven't had cause to change my opinion that it was probably "one let through the net". That being said, the evidence is overwhelming that "Al Quaida" is a CIA creation. Can back that up if you want but it would involve you in some reading.
I am familiar with the argument, and it isnt without merit. That, in order to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan, the CIA funded the mujahedeen etc etc etc, al qaeda come out of that. Cool. We get that.
My question. Are you part of the 9/11 truth community who believe it was an inside job?
Quit shagging about Scott. It is two days since you said you would address Buchanan's fascist recommendations and now you're reiterating questions I have already answered. You've got a problem with defending this man. Let's see how you handle it.
Well let me answer by way of an example. Zacarias Moussaoui is caught August 16 2001.
On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation[15]. Materials itemised when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, 747 flight manuals, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting[15].
Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down. FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations.
In my opinion such incidents demonstrated the need for reform. Yes the Patriot Act went too far, but law enforcement needed new tools to fight the new enemy.
The sidebar on Buchanan is getting old, particularly Brewerstroupe's pathological obsession with him (and to a lesser extent SDM's ripostes). For an old fart Brewer shows little wisdom, just regurgitates the usual anti-Zionist line on related threads, and writes about nothing else. As an example:
Fascism is a regime type not a particular set of laws. Countries have curtialed civil liberties since time immemorial to combat national security threats, with democracies demarcating the lines of propriety as best as they can but sometimes erring on the side of security (think Western democratic approaches to national security during WW2, including here in NZ). The Magna Carta is a particularly western document, which has little historical currency in the Eastern world (perhaps Brewer thinks all easterners are savages except the ones he annoints as "nobel" (i.e anti-Israeli), and which is pre-dated by Roman and Greek jurisprudence in any event (if one wants to make a Western democratic argument about civil liberties). In a word, Brewer is ignorant of basic concepts in Western law when it comes to the balance between civil rights and collective security.
If one looks at the overall thrust of Buchanan's work before and after he arrived in NZ, particularly his published work, it is clear that his bias is in favour of human rights. Brewer needs to wise up so that SDM can get some sleep.
Scott.
So Massaoui's arrest, which occurred three and a half weeks before the September 11,2001 terror attacks (absent the measures recommended by Buchanan) and subsequent to which, Samit warned his superiors 70 times about the impending attack incidentally, demonstrates the need for Buchanan's recommended suspension of a citizen's right to life and the justification for Government agencies to lie about their extra-judicial killing???
How the fuck do you stitch that together?
Anonymous.
G'day gnadmasher. Singapore is sure hot this time of year ain't it?
What it does is show the need for change. The systems in place before 9/11 were insufficent to deal with the new threat.
Sorry Brewer,
I'm neither Paul or gnadmasher. Just another former student who learned a lot from Paul and think that you have got him wrong and who is tired of the beat up on this blog. Believe it or not, he did a lot of good while here and it was our loss to see him go (although word is that he is on his way back so perhaps you will have opportunity to apologise someday for some of your more inane comments). BTW--did you ever go to University? If so, where?
O.K One last time and I'm off to bed. Don't expect a reply until tomorrow.
Scott.
"What it does is show the need for change."
Why? They got Massaoui without:
-Extra-judicial Killing
-Torture (though they did torture him after his arrest, the results of which were worthless)
Anon.
If you want me to take you seriously, stop posting anonymously.
But what they werent able to do is get a warrant to search his laptop, to maybe discover a vital clue that could have, and i say could, have helped prevent 9/11. The game changed, and sometimes new games require new rules.
And I'd like to see you respond to anon
"But what they werent able to do is get a warrant to search his laptop"
Sounds like a simple proceedural matter between the agency and the Judiciary. How is this relevant to:
“Confronting the internal threat requires more of a militarized, covert approach, which will undoubtedly impact on civil liberties for both the few and the many.”
“The key to success is to specify targets with absolute certainty, act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake apologize and compensate. Read differently: if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd and a Delta Force squad ruins your day, your survivors need to remember that you were only as a good as the company you kept. The inevitable lawsuits over mistakes can be dealt with by legal limits on liability for actions undertaken in combating the terrorist threat and a whole lot of “sorry.””
“Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties with liberty.”
“It (the U.S.) also must admit the possibility that it will have to respond
in similar kind to atrocities, perhaps with some measure of decorum in order to maintain some
type of ethical supremacy in the eyes of its own people and world opinion. And it must admit the
necessity of resorting to weapons of mass destruction”
Does it go something like this:
"Mr President. I need you to authorise my chaps to kill and disappear citizens we think are bad."
"That hasn't been done in a while. Why?"
"Well the Judge wouldn't give us a warrant to search this raghead's computer."
"Oh sure, go ahead then. I'll just ink over a few bits of the Constitution and give it a new signing statement. Do you want an atrocity waiver to go with that? How 'bout some pre-emptive nukular whatsit?"
That isnt want buchanan is saying and you know it. The whole bit about "specify targets with absolute certainty"....
Those are his words Scott. It's a straight cut and paste. Here is the full section, no bits left out:
Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties with liberty. One of the perceived weaknesses of Western
democracies is their relatively weak border controls and their equally weak powers of internal
surveillance and administration. The issue is simply one of realizing that this is a war on multiple
fronts, including the internal, domestic front which constitutes the western rear guard and which
is its softest point precisely because of the emphasis on individual rights. Confronting the
internal threat requires more of a militarized, covert approach, which will undoubtedly impact on
civil liberties for both the few and the many. Yet with proper legal demarcation and the use of
temporary exceptional rules of internal control, the infringements on the rights and movement of
the general population can be minimized. The key to success is to specify targets with absolute
certainty, act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake
apologize and compensate. Read differently: if you are hanging out with the wrong crowd and a
Delta Force squad ruins your day, your survivors need to remember that you were only as a
good as the company you kept. The inevitable lawsuits over mistakes can be dealt with by legal
limits on liability for actions undertaken in combating the terrorist threat and a whole lot of “sorry.”
Unfortunately, this is not what the US government has been doing.
Wow – pity I missed the earlier discussion… Haj Amin al Husseini, the holocaust, monkey Buchanan, Al Qaeda… How many more ol’ tricks can we muster to protect a colonial project based founded on racial privilege and superiority?
I know the topic has shifted to Buchanan, Al Qaeda, 9/11 now… I won’t even pretend that I have read this entire thread. I just don’t have the time….
But here’s my two cents worth.
If a society needs to violate any of its citizen’s rights to life, freedom, privacy, for the sake of protecting their lives, freedom and privacy, then it is not better than the authoritarian ideology it is trying to protect itself against. .
Some thing like:
"one who would give up freedom for security deserves neither freedom nor security" - Benjamin Franklin.
As for Buchanan – he has received far too much attention, in the media and on this site. I don’t care how smart, brilliant, righteous he is. Racist comments have no place in our educational institutions, disregarding his background of working with shady organisations.
There must be plenty of others who can replace him, minus his inherent racism.
As for 9/11 and Al Qaeda – The more we assimilate these at the centre, and as the sole understanding of the current situation in the world, the more we give tacit consent to our leaders to rape other countries and their innocent civilians.
Let’s move on.
The key to success is to specify targets with absolute certainty, act decisively and without equivocation, and only in the instance of absolute mistake apologize and compensate.
oh - I retract my previous comment on Buchanan. He is really brilliant!
As if the Intelligence Agencies ever know anything with absolute certainty. WMD anyone? Iranian Nukes anyone else?
Stop stroking it Paul!
"That being said, the evidence is overwhelming that "Al Quaida" is a CIA creation. Can back that up if you want but it would involve you in some reading."
Do you have anything on NASA faking the moon landings too?
It might come as a surprise to you brewer but not everything on the internet is true.
Karlos. Let me say this really slowly for you. Nothing in Buchanan's email was racist. Anti-flag and you may have substandard reading comprehension skills, but I will repeat it - nothing in his email was racist. I'd be very careful if I were you making serious allegations such as the one you did - if I were you I'd retract. And id do it quickly. And as for calling people 'monkey' - you dont play cricket for India do you?
oh no, not this again Scott.
Buchanan wrote to her: "You are close to failing in any event, so these sort of excuses – culturally driven and preying on some sort of Western liberal guilt – are simply lame.
I have highlighted the racist component Scott. But really, I don't think it is worth going over this again. You think Paul is a saint, I think he is a bit of a scumbag. You know him better having been in his classes, I base my judgment on what I read.
I stand by my comment and won't retract it.
At any case, the point of my post above was to suggest you don't allow "al qaeda" and "9/11" to override the human morality that you were not doubt raised with.
Perhaps you could bother to reply to that, rather than jump to Paul's defense.
Oh Karlos, you aren’t that clever are you? According to your logic, you don’t support jailing killers. I mean, you are taking away their freedom, and as you say yourself, “I will never be ashamed of criticising a man who thinks it is right to take away people's freedom to protect people's freedom”. Guess you don’t want to lock away sex offenders either, because you don’t think its right to take away their freedom
Let me be really simple so as not to confuse you – sometimes people do bad things, and those bad things need to be punished. Your statement is unbelievable naïve – one wonders how you got admitted to university.
So lets deal with your criticism of Paul Buchanan (do you, anti-flag and brewer play tag team)?
Consider the mans own writing:
“In dictatorships denying legal rights to those suspected of terrorism is of little concern. In liberal democracies—particularly small open democracies with a history of political toleration and non-violent protest—it is a troubling development. In dictatorships, security overrides human rights. In democracies, civil liberties must be the priority, with domestic security operations constrained by notions of due process and full disclosure regardless of the ideological persuasion of defendants. The threat of “terrorism” does not alter that foundational premise”
Hardly advocating a extreme position is he?
Which brings me to my point. The assault on Paul’s reputation, in public forums, is despicable. The notion of racism is clearly garbage. If Buchanan is a racist, why is it that Keith Locke and the Greens, Matt McCarten, Bomber and several prominent Muslim leaders, among other progressives, all defended him against attacks that he is a racist. Are they all stupid and wrong? By your own admission you never took his class, and yet you condem him. There are words for people like you...
I guess if I were Buchanan here is what I would do: win the case, and then look to pursue civil action against all those who sort to defame him. Id look closely at how those emails got to the media, as it was a deliberate attempt to slander Paul. I’d be looking at who put them out, what their intentions were, and what liability they may have in respect to damages. As the accusations of racism are both baseless and defamatory, and as those accusations have been aired globally, I would imagine that those who made them would need to get very good lawyers because, if it were me, and somebody had said those things about me, Id take them to the cleaners.
Nice Scott, but there's no need to get nasty.
I thought you'd know the context of the discussion here. By 'taking people's freedom' I refer to the abuses of people's civil liberties, privacy and human rights, their right to life without extra judicial killing.
I am all for justice against killers etc... your casting of my statements out of context belittles you.
What are we to think if someone advocates civil liberties in one paragraph, and then advocates curtailing those civil liberties in another?
To me, no circumstance, especially trumped up 'terrorism' scares justify such action. You may be more malleable because you're afraid of the boogey man.
I based my statement on the quote from Benjamin Franklin. Perhaps you think he is naïve too?
Scott, I have been in the real world for over 10 years now and have traveled extensively. Perhaps when you leave the ivory towers of university too, you will understand.
I will say it again for you.
I don't give a toss if his is a racist or not. However I do care about the way people like him justify the violation of human rights under the guise of fighting for freedom.
As for Buchanan taking people to the cleaners for defaming him... Sounds very American. Go for it. Like I said, I'm all for justice.
Perhaps one day someone will take him to the cleaners for creating consent for human rights abuses?
Karlos
If you dont want what you said to be twisted - dont make stupid comments. Anyway
I think it hilarious you tell me to leave the ivory towers. Infact I am not at university, while I understand you still to be there. I have actually spent my whole life in the real world, havent seen you there however. I will tell you a little bit about what I do.
I manage a business. I am pretty good at it. Here is the thing. If somebody were to defame my business, I'd go after them. It move quickly and aggressively. And guess what? Under defamation law, the burden of proof is higher for a company than it is an individual.
I dont think you know the first thing about the real world. You certainly dont seem to understand the concept of 'consequences'. Because this is my take on things.
Various people decided that because they had different political views than Buchanan, took it upon themselves to destroy him. They decided to feed information to various media outlets in an attempt to damage his reputation. They view themselves are heroic - they think they have won. But here is the thing: In doing so they open the ability for action to be taken against them for damages.
These people are self proclaimed believers in human rights, and justice. But they arent actually. They certainly didnt care about Paul's rights or justice for Paul. So they are hypocritical. And like I said, if I were Buchanan, I'd seek my own justice.
And by the way, for somebody who is an expert on what Paul thinks, can you tell me what you have read of his works. Also can you tell me when you have discussed it with him. Or do you just take Brewer as gospel?
Scott,
If what you say about Buchanan is correct, then the injustice dealt to him is a shame. If you pass round a “Give Paul Justice” collection box, I would likely give you a donation.
But I cannot pass judgement on the matter. I merely form an opinion based on what I have read.
I have not read his papers, only sections and quotes. In these I have noted disregard for things that I hold dear. I have read his infamous email in which I noted racist overtones.
This may not be an accurate reflection of the man, but it is what I have to go on.
Really, I am not interested in Buchanan’s personality or whatever. I think it is a shame that we spend more time discussing him rather than ideas such as the topic of this thread. His ideas have bearing on such matters and it would be more beneficial us to discuss that and find a common ground.
I think what is happening in the Middle East is a travesty, almost solely instigated by the US and Israel. When people, Buchanan or others, defend these instigators and lend them justification, I find I have to engage them in discussion. Sometimes that means criticising them.
I don’t tag team with Brewer, though I appear to have hijacked our discussion with him.
I will tell you this: Brewer is very well read and his posts are always well researched and of sound logic. For this I afford him more respect that Buchanan.
Not sure why you thought I am at University. I never alluded to that. When you say you have been in Paul’s classes, I assumed you were a student.
I think your views on defamation are ill founded. You have a right to defend your name and your business, as does Buchanan. Maybe I find your tone too much like that of Americans who take out lawsuits against people at the drop of a hat.
Since you told me about yourself, I will do you the same respect.
I work in IT, I build large computer networks for multinational corporate. People complain to me when a system is broken that they are losing millions of dollars a minute.
I was born in Beirut and have lived in Saudi Arabia and the US (quick! set delta force onto me!!). I have traveled through most of the Middle East including Bush’s axis of evil. I learnt that these are people, humans. And I learnt to be wary of the media when it acts to desensitize us to that fact so that some monkey can wage a war for profit.
Oh, and no, I don’t play for India.
I am busy so this will be my last post on this thread.
So what are we left with apart from a whole lot of spluttering?
The Winograd Commission admitted Israel's culpability for the attack on Lebanon:
“Israel embarked on a prolonged war that it initiated”
....it's incompetence:
“Though it was a war of our own initiative and waged in a defined territory, Israel did not use its military power wisely or effectively,”
and it's failed objective:
“...to fundamentally alter the reality in southern Lebanon through a wide-scale ground operation.”
I think, Scott, you and Buchanan have to revise your positions on who started this affray.
Buchanan also has to question the quality of the intelligence he relies on if it is American/Israeli for he cannot have it both ways. If Israeli/American intelligence is unable to penetrate South Lebanon where a Journalist can roam freely and it has had deeply embedded operatives for decades, I doubt that reports of Iran's nukes from that particular source should be relied upon.
Buchanan also has to decide if he has been a spook:
"he described his work experience as a former CIA adviser in Latin America"
...or not:
"I asked whether he had ever wanted to work for the CIA, he said, no"
...and whether he is a fascist:
"Sometimes it is necessary to curtail domestic freedoms in order to thwart those who would take liberties".....etc
or a liberal:
"In dictatorships denying legal rights to those suspected of terrorism is of little concern......In democracies, civil liberties must be the priority"
Cool - make money of the multinationals - I suppose all multinationals are cool as long as they arent US based.
"I think your views on defamation are ill founded. You have a right to defend your name and your business, as does Buchanan. Maybe I find your tone too much like that of Americans who take out lawsuits against people at the drop of a hat."
So how are my views ill founded. Lets say a court rules it wasnt racist - then clearly those who called him racist have defamed him. I know what I would do in his shoes. My issue isnt that you criticse his writings - do so to your hearts content. But dont defame as you do so - remember, these allegations have destroyed a mans reputation.
I read what brewer you and antiflag have to say. YOu dont support a two state solution, which is a covert way of getting the destruction of Israel. Every thesis you put forward is premised in "Israel bad". You think that Iran is benign.
Need I continue?
"Buchanan also has to decide if he has been a spook:
"he described his work experience as a former CIA adviser in Latin America"
...or not:
"I asked whether he had ever wanted to work for the CIA, he said, no"
He consulted to the CIA - he didnt work for - get it?
Sorry to move a bit further off-thread, but it is interesting that as far as I can tell no Arab or Muslim leaders, much less certain people on this blog, have condemned the use of mentally handicapped females as suicide bombers--detonated by remote control in a pet market FFS--in Baghdad. I can imagine what they will say about the suicide bombing in Dimona, and the fact that Israeli cops shot dead the second would-be bomber while he on the ground. The point being that even though there is plenty to critisise, it is hard to take criticism of Israel seriously when the people doing it cast a blind eye on atrocities committed by Muslims against their own as well as others. Of course, some believe that all "others" are legitimate targets, including Shiia wimin and children.
"Lets say a court rules it wasnt racist "
Good for him, and if the court further rules that his dismissal wasn't justified, then he should be compensated.
"- then clearly those who called him racist have defamed him."
I disagree. It's like calling George Bush a war-monger or child killer. It's not defamation or slander, just valid/invalid criticism against a public figure. You'd probably find a home with the Anti Defamation League who specialise in stifling criticism of Israel by taking out law suits against those who dare.
"YOu dont support a two state solution, which is a covert way of getting the destruction of Israel."
Scott!! For fucks sake!
I support a two state solution because that is what Arafat accepted in '87.
Yet it is Israel's own actions which have made, and continue to make a two state solution impossible! You do know that 500,000 Israeli live in Jewish-Only Settlements in the West Bank? The West Bank that is to constitute the 2nd state in the two state solution. You know that right??
You also know that Israel wants the Palestinian State to be built on around 13% of the 22% Arafat accepted in '87? And that the Palestinian State would be dis-contiguous blocks of land to make up 13%? Is that really a realistic two state solution??
So, I am lead to prefer a one state solution. One where Jew, Arab, Israeli or Palestinian is EQUAL before the State and have the same human rights accorded to them. This is based on Justice, equality and respect of all parties. This is what you call the "Destruction of Israel"??
I call it the destruction of a racist state and the establishment of a just State, perhaps the first in the region.
Tell me Scott: How is Israel destroyed if all the Israelis are allowed to stay on their land, but the refugees are allowed to return also?
Oh - it's JEWISH demographic is changed hear you say. So you'd accord Israel the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of around 5 million refugees?
OK. One more.
I have made my position very clear. I support a single state solution, I think that Iran has no aggressive intention.
"Dr Buchanan was popular with students, telling them stories from his early years as an armed fighter against a right-wing government in Argentina and later working with the CIA in Central America."
"His tales of fighting for, and against, guerrillas in the South American jungle were intoxicating," said journalist Peter Malcouronne, a masters student in 1998.
....some advice he was giving, or was it bullshit?
How quickly we rise to the bait.
The evidence that the perps suffered from Down's Syndrome was "one of the heads (recovered after the explosion) was deformed".
Semtex or TAPT let off close to your face'll do that to ya.
The War Party propaganda scores again. Trolls will trumpet the "barbaric Islamofascists use of retarded victims" meme for years after forensic evidence proves it false.
One thing is for sure, no devout Muslim would countenance such an act.
"It turns out on the following day, that the evidence for the mentally disabled part was that one of the alleged bombers' head recovered after the blast was deformed, suggesting Down's syndrome. Now the AP and The New York Times point out that the severed head may have merely been deformed by the blast.
Also, McClatchy's crack Baghdad bureau now reports that Iraqi officials "have made similar claims in the past" about mentally crippled bombers -- and a police official told them "that authorities were still investigating whether the explosion at the second market might have come from a bomb hidden in a cage or a box of eggs."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/articl e_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003705961
fuck off Troll
"His tales of fighting for, and against, guerrillas in the South American jungle were intoxicating,"
Priceless!
Early to bed tonight S.D.M.??
I'm sure SDM will be around and will reply to my points about Israel and the 1 or 2 state solutions.
As for abdul al-rauf,
And please, this thread is not about Iraq or your hatred of Islam. Some of us genuinely want to discuss Israel / Palestine with the likes of SDM.
So go find a bridge to hang out under.
I think sdm has a meeting in the morning
Karlos.
Something wrong with your blog man. Can't post comments.
"I have made my position very clear. I support a single state solution, I think that Iran has no aggressive intention."
Well I support a two state solution. I think the jewish people deserve a homeland, as do the palestinians.
Again I come back to your premis - you refuse to condem anything down by the palestinians, blaming Israel for everything. abdul al-rauf raised the point of mentally impared suicdie bombers. Karlos etc dont condem this - merely tell him to fuck off.
Would you support, for instance, the burning of Josephs tomb so that a mosque could be errected in its place? Now you might justify this and use the attacks on Mosques as justificiation - but two wrongs.....
WHen you start saying "the problems at the middle east lie totally with the israelis and americans" - you look silly. I have been attacked on this forum for offering balance, trying to be objective.
But alright, to quote one of my favourite authors, Dr George Friedman
"It must be remembered that Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel and seem not to care one whit about the Palestinians. The Saudis have never risked a thing for the Palestinians, nor have the Iranians. The Syrians have, but they are far more interested in investing in Beirut hotels than in invading Israel. No Arab state is interested in the Palestinians, except for those that are actively hostile. There is Arab and Islamic public opinion and nonstate organizations, but none would be satisfied with Israeli withdrawal. They want Israel destroyed. Even if the United States withdrew all support for Israel, however, Israel would not be destroyed. The radical Arabs do not want withdrawal; they want destruction. And the moderate Arabs don't care about the Palestinians beyond rhetoric."
Anon: dickhead.
Thanks Anon - i broke it when I moved hosts. Fixed now so feel free to post.
Shit Scott,
You're much better than that.
How is mention of Saudi, Egypt, Syria, Jordan relevant to this discussion? Surely you don't want to model a solution on what those dictatorships think?
I pointed out that Israel has destroyed the Two State Solution by annexing so much land that there is only around 13% of historic Palestine left for a Palestinian State. Are you going to respond to this?
I told abdul al-rauf that he was off topic, I didn't want him to give you an excuse to deviate from my points about a Solution. But if it makes you respect me more, i think suicide bombing is a tragedy for both the victims and the bombers themselves. Killing of innocents is a tragedy. But it takes a disturbed person to carry out such an act. I believe it is Israel's brutality that drives the Palestinians to this.
I condemn Israel first because it is responsible for the oppression. Give the Palestinians justice and they will stop the violence. I concede that there will always be radical elements in Palestine as they will always be in Israel. That does not make peace impossible.
I don't want to comment on the Iraq bombing... It's off topic and Iraq is a different case.
Well ok - would you support a solution that mirrored the Taba Summits proposals? I have a personal preference for Jerusalem to maybe have some sort of seperate rule - christian, jew, muslim administered, an international city.
Sorry if I distracted you from the Buchanan debate-Israeli war debacle arguments. My point was about the moral utility of suicide bombings, using the recent Dimona and Baghdad bombings as examples (FYI, Dimona is in Israel, and in fact is where they have their nuclear reactor. That should send some of the commentators above into a lathery froth). Hence I thought it germane, especially given that individuals who may not be mentus competus were involved. And even if they are, as Karlos said, that does not mean that they are not deranged by hate. Which again, speaks to the utility of the tactic.
The charge of Islamophobic is rejected. I hate all organised religions equally. What I find difficult to understand is the Sunni-on-Shiia violence Inot only in Iraq), except if it is a case of raw power struggles masquerading as religious and ethnic pre-destination.
I shall now retreat to my alcove under a mighty impressive US Army Corps of Engineers-built bridge (over the Euphrates, as it turns out). :-0
Scott,
As I said before I have preference for the One State Solution because it is more just... But I would accept a Two State Solution that is agreed upon by the Palestinians, as long as they are not coerced into it, as they are currently doing with Abbas.
But the real question here is: Would Israel agree to a solution that mirrored the Taba Summits proposals? If you look at the facts, you can only conclude that Israel will not. For them, a peace process is a substitute for actual peace. They know that if they drag this out for another 60 years, they will have occupied most of the land of historic Palestine anyway. They have no motive for creating a Palestinian State. Don't say they'd do it for security, Israel is not under any significant threat. Not from Hamas, Fatah or even Hezbollah. If they were, they'd be finished by now.
The Palestinians have already accepted the Two State Solution but they demanded it be fair and give them contiguous land over which they had complete autonomy. Israel wanted to keep most of the Settlement, giving the Palestinian State pockets of land, denied them the right to have an army, wanted to have sole control of the skies and reserved the right to deply Israeli military on Palestinian land if it deemed it necessary.
The arrangements for the refugees were vague and left much room for injustice.
International Status for Jerusalem was part of the original UN Partition Plan. But if you look at the facts on the ground. Israel has built a ring of Settlements around all of Jerusalem. They're going to annex the entire city.
Wonder why the talks failed huh???
I'm not convinced you know what the Israeli politicians say. There is no way they will give up Jerusalem or the Settlements that occupy ~45% of the West Bank. No way. They'll burn in hell if they do.
If you look into the situation in enough detail, you will see that the only realistic and fair solution is One State. One man, one vote, all equal. Isn't that what freedom and democracy is all about?
Tell me Scott. Why do you not like the One State alternative?
My opposition to the One state solution is I believe that the Jewish people (and for that matter the Palestinians) deserve a home land. Thr fundamentalists on both sides I dont see working together. There is a jewish fear of being outnumbered, and so losing control of their affairs
History shows us that prior to 1948, when in effect there was a binational arrangement, violence was still frequent.
And of course there is the obvious - its what they want. Polls of both the Israelis and Palestinians indicate majority support for a two state solution.
I quote:
"If Anti-Racist Action and its supporters are truly concerned with the welfare of the millions of Palestinians and Israelis who suffer from the tragic conflict on a daily basis, rather than with relentlessly promoting an impractical and naïve ideology, then it should look no further than what the majority of the Israeli and Palestinian publics are saying: two states for two peoples."
"In fact, the latest joint poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research and the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, both respected independent polling organizations, has shown that 63 percent of Palestinians and 70 percent of Israelis support the notion of mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people after the settlement of all issues in dispute. Furthermore, 54 percent of Palestinians and 64 percent of Israelis polled showed support for a comprehensive peace agreement based on the tenets of the Geneva Accord."
"A one-state solution is not in the best interests of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and who can know better than the people who are affected day after day. To think otherwise is tantamount to calling for continuing violence and bloodshed since these would be the inevitable consequences from abandoning the two-state solution framework. It is especially important that given the conflict's protracted history and the daily hardships and mistrust on the ground that we do advocate for a just and negotiated peace process that will allow both peoples the right to independent self-government, dignity and security. A one-state solution runs counter to these long sought after goals and, in turn, counter to the hopes and dreams of the majority of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples."
Hi Scott,
We may be getting somewhere after all. At least we're talking about solutions.
I'm not sure who you quote, but the tone is consistent with Israeli measure to protract the conflict.
It is farcical to say a One State Solution is tantamount to calling for continuing violence and bloodshed. A fair and just democracy is not tantamount to violence and bloodshed. Continuing violence and bloodshed is what the region has known since 1948 when Israel was unilaterally created... Anyway.
You say: I believe that the Jewish people .... deserve a home land.
Ok. What do you base this on? And what ties the “Jewish People” to the land of historic Palestine? You have only 4 options that I can see:
1. Ethnic heritage, 2000 – 3000 years old. This is a baseless claim. Who in the world has a right to claim land based on a 2000 year old connection, even if they could prove it? At any rate, it cannot mean displacing the current natives who have been there for as long as the original Jews, so a One State is the only fair option.
2. Religious – The Jews are the chosen people... This leads to racial superiority and racism. I don't acknowledge this as a valid reason for displacing a people. Hopefully you don't either.
3. Post Holocaust guilt – The onus is on those complicit in the horrors of the Holocaust to compensate the survivors (or their descendants if they are suffering because of the Nazi crimes). But this does not allow the European Jews to take the land of a people not responsible for the murder of millions of Jews in Europe.
4. The Jews have no safe haven anywhere in the world – The Jews are humans like the rest of us and they should be accorded the same rights as the other citizens in which ever country they live.
Let me know if I have missed something.
You also say There is a jewish fear of being outnumbered, and so losing control of their affairs. In a fair and just democracy, they have the same right as every other human being. You are suggesting to give them special privilege, which I reject.
The quote you provide indicates that Israelis and Palestinians support the two state solution. If that is the case, why does Israel make it impossible to implement? Is this a Two State Solution based on the UN Partition Plan? The 1967 borders? Or along the lines of the current apartheid wall Israel has built (which has effectively annexed a large % of Palestinian land, making a fair Two State solution impossible)? I think you will find that Israel will accept a Two State Solution, so long as it gives them the advantage.
Zionists will accept it as temporary (even if it is called permanent) and work to annex land later.
In 1938, Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:
"[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."
You see therein lies the problem. The cross over between the religious and the political. And without getting into a debate about Issac v Ishmael, its hard to resolve.
Id be ok going back to 1967.
“Everyone talks like it’s complex and difficult to understand. That’s a cop-out for not wanting to accept reality. It’s just a classic ethnic conflict about who owns this piece of land. It’s as simple as that.”
– Niel McDonald, CBC News Middle East Bureau Chief
without getting into a debate about Issac v Ishmael, its hard to resolve.
Bullshit Scott. Giving people their basic human rights is not hard to resolve. Don't cop-out so easily, as Anon said.
Id be ok going back to 1967.
Do you think Israel would be ok with that?
I don't think they'll abandon the 1/2 million Israelis living illegally in West Bank.
And I don't think they will allow the Palestinians to have a contiguous and autonomous State.
Would you care to comment on Ben Gurion's quote I posted?
I'm also still keen to hear why you think all Jews have a right to migrate to Isarel / Palestine.
Again it comes down to their percieved religious entitlements. They consider that they have a divine right to those lands. They believe, with Issac being the 'legitimate' son of Abraham, that their entitlement goes back to Moses - that god 'promised' them this land.
And thats the problem - you cant argue logic against religion. The jews think that they are gods chosen people and this is the land that god gave them. Imagine if the jews had a claim against Mecca.
But, Israel operates within a global system that contains (or should) rules abour decency. If they want to have a home land, let them. The poster before (antiflag I think) who argued for a one state solution, but definately not called Israel, is actually arguing for the destruction of the state of Israel - and I cant and wont support that. In terms of your Gurion quote - 1938, different time, different context.
I can't believe sdm has resorted to threats in reference to Buchanan. I won't even dignify that with a response.
"And thats the problem - you cant argue logic against religion. The jews think that they are gods chosen people and this is the land that god gave them. Imagine if the jews had a claim against Mecca".
Sdm: Religion didn't really come into it for the original Zionists who looked at South America and North Africa to settle in. Religion had a very small role up until the settlement in Palestine where it became the prevailing narrative. It's interesting how the secular political and religious justification and narrative is often intertwined and used selectively.
"But, Israel operates within a global system that contains (or should) rules abour decency. If they want to have a home land, let them. The poster before (antiflag I think) who argued for a one state solution, but definately not called Israel, is actually arguing for the destruction of the state of Israel - and I cant and wont support that."
-Instead, you'd rather maintain your position on the conflict largely in defence of Israel, and by doing so being perfectly okay (and legitimising) with what this position means: The destruction of Palestine and the historical denial of its existence. Love that contradiction.
The one state will be called Canaan.
That is all.
If they want to have a home land, let them."
How about in YOUR back yard Scott?
Or should we give them the North Island instead. Imagine that. The Jewish State of Aotea-WeAreTheChosenPeople-Roa.
Sorry, but I really don't think you have a valid argument. Convince me otherwise.
My opposition to the One state solution is I believe that the Jewish people (and for that matter the Palestinians) deserve a home land.
What does that even mean? If having a home land is incompatible with having a country where people are politically equal regardless of race, then fuck home lands. No one "deserves" political superiority on the basis of race, gender, hair colour, favourite Doctor Who or any other morally arbitrary bullshit.
I quote Ami Isseroff:
"Advocates of a one-state solution insist that the first law to be repealed will be the "law of return," which guarantees any Jew the right to live in Israel. This suggests that a one state "solution" might well make it impossible for Jews to live in this land, as well putting an end to Jewish self-determination. The one state "solution" is no solution at all. It is just victory for one side, and total denial of the national rights of the other side. It is not "justice" and it is not "peace.""
And anti-flag: I wasnt threatening re Buchanan at all - I was saying what I would do if in his shoes.
Scott,
That's your argument??
Think for yourself and stop quoting others' rubbish.
On what do YOU base YOUR advocacy of the "law of return"?
A One State solution need not necessarily repeal such a law, this would be up to the new State to decide. Perhaps they may allow all Jews, Christians, Arabs, Palestinians, Europeans and Rastafarians to migrate to Canaan (the new State),
Anyway, the "law of return" is misleadingly named. More accurately it is the "law of immigration".
impossible for Jews to live in this land.
Under One State, all ISRAELIS can continue to live there. I don't want to make anymore refugees.
"as well putting an end to Jewish self-determination"
What does that mean? Jewish self-determination is more important to human self-determination?
"It is not "justice" and it is not "peace.""
So you don't think human equality is justice? Are you a racial supremacist?
It will end conflict over land by giving the land to all its inhabitants. Such an end of conflict S peace.
That is the poorest quote I have seen from you. Look at the language it uses, as if "Jews" are the be all and end all of this issue. The Palestinians don't exist for Isseroff.
Isseroff describes his position as: Pro Israeli & Palestinian Self-Determination to the question "What are the solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?".
Whats wrong with that?
This is backed up by Ziad J. Asali, who wrote:
"Well, there has emerged, over the course of the past ten years at least, a sense that the only way out of the situation in the Middle East is to establish a State of Palestine alongside Israel so that there will be an end of conflict. There is no other solution to end the conflict in reality. There is an international consensus about it as reflected by the so-called Road Map Quartet [the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations], which is after all the whole world. You have the United States, you have Europe, you have the Russians and the United Nations, which is the whole world, and then there is the Arab League, which is twenty-two different states, and there is the previous Palestinian administration, and the Israeli administration, all of them committed to the two-state solution."
I dont like your habit of labelling people with whom you disagree a racist - you were quick to do so with Buchanan, and its not called for.
Scott,
Perhaps you are busy and not reading my posts thoroughly.
I tell you that Palestinians don't exist for Isserof, and you reply that he pro-Palestinian.
I tell you that Israel itself has made the Two State Solution impossible, and you reply that the whole world supports the Two State Solution.
I tell you to think for yourself and answer a question, and you reply with another pointless quote.
Insisting that Jews and Jews alone have a right to live on the land is racist.
Insisting that Jews and Jews alone have a right to live in Jews-Only Settlements is racist.
Insisting that non-Jews are treated by different laws in srael is racist.
Insisting that it is ok to allows Jews to take others' land is racist.
If you also insist on these things, I will tell you that you support a racist ideology.
I never called you racist personally.
Let me summarise the items you neglect to comment on:
1. Israel has rejected the Two State Solution in practice, yet pays it lipservice.
ie. peace process is a substitute for actual peace.
2. Your justification for "law of return".
3. Basis of your support for a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine.
4. A valid argument for rejectng One State.
5. "So you don't think human equality is justice? Are you a racial supremacist?"
6. The 1/2 million Israelis living in the West Bank.
I am spending my time taking you seriously because I care about this issue. Not sure if you're interested in discourse or just finding quotes to 'backup' your opinion.
If you're not interested, just say and I'll go talk to someone else.
If you are interested, answer the questions.
Yes perhaps I am not giving this as much attention as I should be. I write between meetings etc, and when I have the time. Often I hit send because I have to go, rather than because I am finished.
First of all. My support for a two state solution is conditional upon the viability of the palestinian state itself. What I want for the jews I want for the palestinians. Thats not racist.
And I am not a racist. At all. Nor a supremacist.
And I agree there are some very challenging ussues to be worked through. But considering the broader issue - could there be peace in a one state situation, where fundamentalists on both sides contend that the other has no right to exist, then violence, in my mind anyway, would be inevitable. And if Israel needs to move its position to make it work, then it must. Simple as that
SDM: Of course there's good reason to call the email racist. GO READ IT. I've explained the racism in it (can't believe I even have to) on a number of threads in this blog.
As for defaming him. If anyone has been defamed, it would be the student who he disclosed personal information about, and the students he mentioned to the media who he blamed for his sacking. At least the criticism of him having racist tendencies is based on some evidence: an email. While his appalling behaviour in the media lashing out at everyone (with no evidence and refusing to acknowledge he screwed up is more grounds for defamation.
Your list of those who support the two state solution is premised on the assumption the majority of GOVERNMENTS and institutions support the two state solution. That agenda has nothing to do with political and economic capital, right? Don't be so naive. How about the consideration of the majority of Palestinians who want a one state solution? Because if anyone knows what a farce the two state solution is it's them. Unfortunately, Palestinians have little say in their affairs. They're even told who should be their leader. The world still recognises Abbas as their leader when majority of them support Hamas and democratically voted them in! So let's not exhaust ourselves with the facade of this two-state 'solution'.
"And I agree there are some very challenging ussues to be worked through. But considering the broader issue - could there be peace in a one state situation, where fundamentalists on both sides contend that the other has no right to exist, then violence, in my mind anyway, would be inevitable. And if Israel needs to move its position to make it work, then it must. Simple as that".
Let's put the geographical issues aside. What makes you think the extremities on both sides will subside with the two-state solution? If anything, it'll contribute to it even more as the fledgling Palestinian state will be economically and politically vulnerable to Israel( who will continue and even more so exploit Palestinian labour etc) and by its Arab neighbours. This will feed further resentment and violence will ensue. This will not be a solution. It'll be a disaster.
"If you also insist on these things, I will tell you that you support a racist ideology.
I never called you racist personally".
Actually, if someone supports a racist ideology that makes them racist. Simple as that.
Calm down sdm, it seems to me you're taking this issue a little personally. Are you an ex student of his? I am too. In fact, I consider Buchanan to be a good lecturer. However, I haven't allowed that to cloud my judgement and see things for what they really are.
How is the email in reference to his own culture? The second part is only in reference to his own culture or else it would not make sense at all. Should we go over the email again? One bit at a time for you to fully grasp why so many people understood it as racist and completely offensive? You're only focusing on the racist bit of the email; the entire email is offensive, appalling and completely unprofessional. That is what the courts will be considering. I'm surprised you're even reducing it to nothing more than an 'angry' email. It was the email as a whole that contributed to his sacking. (not the only reason, from what I know)In fact, i'm disgusted you're even trying to downplay the offense it caused.
As for the defamation law, i'm quite familiar with it, thanks.
This whole discussion is getting ridiculous where everyone is basically repeating themselves.
Once again, Buchanan distracts us from the matter at hand. Scott, you post better comments about him than you position on Palestine / Israel.
But you really have mis-read his email. I think the linguistics is lost on you, if you think "culturally driven" refers to himself.
Let me try and present it to you like this:
"so these sort of excuses" : refers to the student making excuses for some transgression.
"– culturally driven and preying " : refers to the words before the hyphen, ie. the excuses the student is making.
"on some sort of Western liberal guilt –" : refers to the cultural guilt he thinks the student is targeting with her excuses. This last line accuses the student of trying to manipulate the difference in culture, but it also reflect the mindset he is coming from, that of cultural difference. This should have no bearing on academia.
"Are they all stupid and wrong? "
I don't think they're stupid... But I think for myself. Try it sometime Scott. And when you do. Please answer my questions.
Once again, Buchanan distracts us from the matter at hand.
Agreed, and it's absolutely ridiculous we've spent so long on him.
By the way Karlos, if you're interested, we're having a protest for Gaza this Saturday at 12pm Aotea Square.
Suggested reading on the Single State Solution :
Power and History in the Middle East: A Conversation with Ilan Pappe
Ilan Pappe is senior lecutrer, department of political science, Haifa University and Chair of the Emil Touma institute for Palestinian studies, Haifa. Pappe's recent books include, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1992), The Israel\Palestine Question (1999) and A History of Modern Palestine (2003).
(Now at Sussex Uni I think)
I also still like to recommend Bidstrup's piece for a potted history:
http://www.bidstrup.com/zionism.htm
Sorry, the url for Pappe:
http://www.logosjournal.com/pappe.htm
Buchanan:
Anti-Flag - Id love to know what it is that you claim to know about Buchanan's sacking. If there is other stuff that we are unaware of, tell us. Back up what you are saying. Or are you lying?
I find it ironic that you talk of clouded judgement, when it seems to me that you and others on anti-buchanan bandwaggen wanted him gone for other reasons, perhaps political. And in terms of so many people - i think you will find that public support for him was overwhelmingly in favour.
Here is what I am disgusted at - you have taken an extreme interpretation of what the email meant, and supported its use to destroy a fine academic career.
Karlos - dont be so arrogant as to say the linguistics are lost on me.
"culturally driven and playing on some sort of western liberal guilt" - implys a tendency of western culture to feel guilty for whatever reason, and her actions are preying on THAT western guilt.
Israel:
I think you are incredibly naive if you think that Israel is going anywhere. Perhaps you should reflect upon the fact that a number of Arab countries themselves recongise the right of Israel to exist. This started with the Irsaeli-Egyptian treaty, and was followed by the normalisation of the relationship between Israel and Jordan. So you have got Arab countries acknowledging the right of Israel to exist. And I am sure you dont want to get into the historical reasons why Israel was located where it was.....
"Here is what I am disgusted at - you have taken an extreme interpretation of what the email meant, and supported its use to destroy a fine academic career".
Extreme? I agree. The email was extreme, and which is why the reaction of the university was extreme.
"culturally driven and playing on some sort of western liberal guilt" - implys a tendency of western culture to feel guilty for whatever reason, and her actions are preying on THAT western guilt".
Playing? I believe the word used was preying. Jesus sdm, are you serious? Let me show you that entire bit to help you understand better:
"You are close to failing in any event, so these sort of excuses-culturally driven and preying on some sort of Western liberal guilt-are simply lame" PB.
-Tell me how YOUR interpretation can make sense when you read the above? Clearly, he is referring to her culture and implying it is susceptible and has a tendency to exploit and prey on the guilt of the West. In other words, she is an opportunist. The use of 'AND' to separate the reference to her culture and Western culture is obvious and i'm surprised you don't see it. It's intersting that from what I witnesed of the coverage and discussion of the issue, every non-pakeha person in other words someone who belonged to an ethnic minority saw the racism straight away. While pakeha by and large had to have it explained to them because they did not recognise the racism in it. Hmmm. Obviously not the case for all, but it seemed a general pattern.
Excuse the typos. Witnessed* Interesting*
Scott,
You must feel like we're teaming up against you. Sorry. Nothing personal.
""culturally driven and preying on some sort of western liberal guilt" - implys a tendency of western culture to feel guilty for whatever reason, and her actions are preying on THAT western guilt."
That would be so if the sentence had read : "preying on some sort of culturally driven western liberal guilt". But it didn't. Therefore you have to tack on "because of her culture." to the end of your sentence.
I think anti-flag explained it well too.
Israel:
I don't see how it is relevant how many States recognise Israel. The Arab League has repeated offered Israel a peace treaty (based on the Two State Solution) which Israel has repeatedly scoffed at.
Also, I don't want Israel destroyed as you suggest.
I will repeat it to you: I want justice and human rights given to the Palestinians. If that means Israel has to change, then Israel has to change. If that means it has to treat people equally regardless of race, then that is a good thing.
You on the other hand seem to want is Israel to stay the same no matter how racist and oppressive it is.
I don't like the way you lend justification it's racist and oppressive polices. Yet time and time again I give you a chance to explain why you do this, and all I get is "other states have recognised Israel". You might as well have sad "just because".
Well then you mustn't of paid much attention if you think that every non-Pakeha viewed it as racist. My casual reading of the coverage, together with personal conversations had (with people of different cultures) concluded that Buchanan got screwed.
Btw: playing was a typo, which you yourself are guilt of, on occasion.
""You are close to failing in any event, so these sort of excuses-culturally driven and preying on some sort of Western liberal guilt-are simply lame" PB"
Is not a racist statement - shit if you think it is, good luck when you leave university and get into the cut and thrust of the real world private sector...don't be so precious. God if you twist every statement the way you did/do, you are going to spend your whole life being offended.
He says this
"you are close to failing in any event" - self explanatory, she was clearly not doing well
"so these sort of excuses-culturally driven and preying on some sort of Western liberal guilt-are simply lame"
Well there was the topic that I have seen brought up in which the death of a relative was used as an excuse whenever people wanted to get out of something. When I worked in the public sector, the number of times the same individuals would have somebody die (usually an aunty) was remarkable. So he says it was an excuse. And the point was, liberal western culture tends to accept excuses as face value. Thats not a racist statement. Its a statement of fact.
So lets look at context. In a prior email published in the herald, he told her what she had to do to qualify for an extention. She didnt take his advice. Then she comes the day after its due and asks. Perhaps Buchanan should have just failed her on the spot. Instead he writes this email, apologises the very next day, accepts her paper, and she passes. If she was really offended, why did she still submit the paper? I bet she waited till she got her pass before she complained. All she had to do was take his advice........
The Israeli Armed Forces (IDF) launched 5,000 missiles, five-ton bunker-buster bombs and cluster bombs as well as anti-personnel phosphorus bombs each day into Lebanon for 27 days -- totaling over 135,000 missiles, bombs and artillery shells. During the last seven days of the war Israel launched 6,000 bombs and shells per day -- over 42,000, for a grand total of 177,000 over a heavily populated territory the size of the smallest state in the US. In contrast, the Lebanese national resistance launched 4,000 rockets during the entire 34-day period, an average of 118 per day. The ratio was 44 to 1 -- without mentioning the size differentials, the long-term killing effects of the thousands of un-exploded cluster bombs (nearly 50 killed or maimed since the end of hostilities) and Israel’s scorched earth military incursion.
The Jewish lobbyists publish the number of Israel’s civilian dead as 41, forgetting to mention that only 23 were Jews, the remaining 18 were members of Israel’s Arab Muslim and Christian minority who constitute around 20% of the population. The disproportionate number of Israeli Arabs killed was a result of the Israeli government policy of providing shelters and siren warning systems to Jews and ignoring the security needs of its Arab citizens. The proportion of civilian deaths to soldiers was 41 to 116 or 26% of the total Israeli dead (but if we only consider Jewish Israelis and IDF members the proportion 23 to 116 or 16% of the Jewish dead were civilian.) Clearly the Lebanese resistance was aiming most of its fire at the invading IDF. In contrast, in Lebanon, of the 1,181 so far known to have been killed, 1088 were civilians and only 93 were fighters. In other words 92% of the Lebanese dead were civilians -- over three times the rate of civilians killed by the Lebanese resistance and almost six times the rate of Jewish civilians killed (the only ones who count in the Lobby’s propaganda machine). To put it more bluntly: over 47 Lebanese civilians were slaughtered for each Jewish Israeli civilian death.
The Jewish Lobby’s claims of Israeli moral and military superiority in the Middle East -- which is paradoxically combined with warnings that Israel’s survival is at stake -- has been shredded to tatters as a result of their failure to annihilate Hezbollah.
The Lobby’s echoing Israeli military claims of the invincibility of the Israeli armed forces is largely based on their ‘fighting’ against rock throwing Palestinian school kids. Today it is clear that they are quite vulnerable when faced with well-armed, veteran Lebanese guerrilla fighters. According to a United Nation Report, from June 26 to August 26, 2006, Israel killed 202 Palestinians, 44 of whom were small children, while losing one soldier; while in Lebanon, Israel lost 116 soldiers to 93 Lebanese fighters in 34 days (almost half the time period). In other words, 157 times more Israeli’s were killed as a result of the Lebanese invasion in one month than died in Palestine in two months (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, August 26, 2006). The Jewish Lobby’s propaganda campaign in the US Congress, throughout the mass media and even in our small communities in defense of Israel’s “Summer Rain” (raining bombs on civilians) against the Palestinians has been thoroughly exposed as a murderous scorched earth policy by the United Nations report and summarized in the Israeli daily Haaretz (August 27, 2006): “The [campaign] . . . is still taking a severe toll on 1.4 million Palestinians . . . thousands of Palestinians have been forced to flee their homes following continuing IDF incursions into the Strip (Gaza) and heavy shelling . . . the Israeli Air Force has conducted 247 aerial assaults in Gaza…more than a million people have been left with no regular supply of water and electricity.” The Lobby, like skilled totalitarians, reverses the roles calling the Palestinian victims (all 202 of them) terrorists and the executioners (the Israeli Defense Force) victims (one dead soldier who was most likely killed by ‘friendly fire’).
George Orwell would have written a scathing essay on the Lobby’s version of Israel’s Animal Farm where one Israeli death is worth more than 202 Palestinians.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras29.htm
IS THIS FIGHT STILL ON GOING?
Well Bomber the Israel stuff is actually quite interesting - two state v one state solutions.
But the Buchanan stuff highlights a sad truth - people are keen to defame a man who did very little wrong, ruining his career. Those people should be ashamed
Scott, You’ll like this:
I recently listened to a lecture by Prof. Norman Finkelstein about the Two State Solution.
He pointed out that the International Court of Justice (the highest judiciary in the world), in 2004, advised that:
1. The wall Israel has built in the West Bank is illegal; and that the International Community has an obligation to see it dismantled.
2. West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza are Occupied Palestinian Territories; Israel’s occupation of which (since 1967) is illegal.
3. The Israel Settlements in West Bank and Gaza constitute transfer of population into an occupied territory (a violation of the 49th article of the Geneva Conventions). The Settlements are thus deemed illegal.
4. The international community has a duty to ensure pressure is applied to remove the Settlements.
Finkelstein advises that this “advisory opinion” by the ICJ be cited in all discussions regarding the conflict.
The main thrust of his argument was that we can chose to argue for an One State Solution if we so desire, but we will lose the ICJ’s backing. In his opinion, the PLO should organise 1 million Palestinians, armed with hammers and pick-axes, to approach the wall and start dismantling it. Should the Israelis open fire, the PLO need only refer to the ICJ ruling.
Now, I personally think a One State Solution is more just, but it doesn’t matter what I think. The opinion of the World Court however has some weight.
So what does this mean?
It means that when Scott or anyone else talks about a Two State Solution, it must imply:
1. Removal of the Settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem.
2. Removal of the separation wall.
3. East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian State.
4. The Palestinian State must have complete autonomy over it’s territory.
I don’t believe Israel will accept any of these conditions, which leads me to support One State.
However I do think Finkelstein has an excellent point: Supporters of Palestine must capitalise on the “paper victory” they have won, just as the Zionists capitalised on the paper victory of the Balfour Declaration.
Of course the wall and the settlements have to go. Thats obvious. And as you said in a previous post "If that means Israel has to change, then Israel has to change." Absolutely.
I have a personal preference for Jerusalem to be an internationally administered city for christians, jews, muslims.
Scott,
Ok. Good.
But Israel is not going to comply with any of this. Israel refuses to change. In fact, it is still expanding it's Settlements and has all but annexed East Jerusalem.
Hence, Israel must be criticised. How about boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel?
If all this fails and Israel insists on flouting the ruling of the ICJ, then perhaps the UN Security Council should authorise use of force against it.
Regarding your preference for Jerusalem. It doesn't matter what you or I think.
Well I find that a bit rich. If you begin to endorse the Security Council sanctioning force when its resolutions are not met, then you must have been supportive of the invasion of Iraq. Did you support the use of Force there?
you wrote:
"Regarding your preference for Jerusalem. It doesn't matter what you or I think"
which contradicted your previous
"But I think for myself. Try it sometime Scott. And when you do. Please answer my questions"
The use of force against Iraq was not based on International Law. In fact, it contravened International Law. That's why the "coalition of the willing" acted unilaterally. So it's a different situation that's not really relevant.
Use of force against Israel would be based on flagrant violation of the ICJ ruling. I'd advocate boycotts, divestment and sanctions first.
Context Scott. Stop taking my comments out of context.
I asked you many times to answer my questions without substandard quotes (to think for yourself). You still haven't.
Now, my comment about it not mattering what you or I think is based on a judicial ruling having already been given on the status of Jerusalem.
I'd still like to have your answers to my questions, when you have time to think.
Well hangon - you are saying that the UN should sanction an attack against israel for ignoring their resolutions. Logically, whats good for the goose, Iraq ignored some UN resolutions - therefore by your logic the UN should have sanctioned an attack.
errr. No.
The UN should sanction force against Israel for violating specific International Laws: acquisition of land through war; transfer of population into occupied territory; construction of a wall deemed illegal....
This is not about Iraq, but since I have already taken your bait...
The INVASION of Iraq was not based on violation of UN Resolutions per se. Iraq had withdrawn from Kuwait a decade earlier. It had not acted aggressively towards any nations.
The INVASION was based on phantom WMD that all the monkeys in the world knew didn't exist. And still, they tried to sell it to us as a "liberation".
Ok this is a quote, but addresses your question:
UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967 is a Chapter VI resolution which, when taken together with Resolution 338, leads to an Israeli withdrawal from territories (not all the territories) that Israel entered in the 1967 Six-Day War, by means of a negotiated settlement between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The resolution is not self-enforced by Israel alone; it requires a negotiating process.
"it requires a negotiating process."
...it requires America to say "enough already."
Oh dear, here the language interpretation issue again.
UN resolution 338 actually says:
The Security Council
1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy;
2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;
3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations shall start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
It does not nullify 242 and absolve Israel from unconditional withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Instead it calls for the implementation of 242 in all its parts.
242 says "(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"
And in 2004, the International Court of Justice deemed that all territories acquired by force (the 1967 war) are Occupied and must be vacated. No negotiation. No peace process. They are illegally acquired and must be returned.
I think I'll go with the ICJ interpretation on this one.
The questions / items I wanted you to comment on are:
1. Israel has rejected the Two State Solution in practice, yet pays it lipservice.
ie. peace process is a substitute for actual peace.
2. Your justification for "law of return".
3. Basis of your support for a Jewish homeland in historic Palestine.
4. A valid argument for rejectng One State.
1. Then it must stop paying lipservice and get out of the settlements
2, 3. A percieved entitlement that goes back to biblical times in which the jewish people believe that god has given them this land.
4. Political reality - Israel isnt going anywhere
"4. Political reality - Israel isnt going anywhere"
sdm has difficulty with the idea that Israelis could live in a country with any other race.
This is called racism.
anonymous - why dont you call yourself something, so we can take you seriously.
Its not a racist statement. I am merely observing that Israel as a nation state is here to stay.
Are you friends with anti-flag, who has referred to statements of fact as being racist quite frequently
ok Scott.
So from 1. above, this is deemed the central reason why Two States has not bee implemented.
If you agree, I ask you to acknowledge that in future discussions.
2, 3 above, have no factual basis and no weight in this discussion. At any rate it is inadmissible to use religious extremism to oppress innocent people. You should consider this when supporting "law of return" or "Jewish homeland".
4. You assume that One State spells the end of Israel. In fact it spells the end of Israel as it is currently made. ie. Changed. Above you said that Israel has to change. I ask that you consider the changes for One State vs Two States.
Two States means that Israel is allowed to maintain a false racial separation that was imposed on the region with force. As it does not resolve all the issues, it maintains a pretext for further conflict.
One State means that Israel acknowledges that the refugees have a "right of return" same as the Jews have a "law of return". This leaves little room for support of extremism. It does not spell endless violence; peace is inevitable under this solution.
Unfortunately Scott, I think Anon is correct.
There is one reason and one reason alone why Israel has neither drawn it's borders nor annexed the West Bank and Gaza.
It wants the land but not the indigenous people.
This is called ethnic cleansing.
It is based on an inherent racism.
Using the numbers
1. I acknowledge that it is a key issue yes
2,3: You asked for a historical context - I gave you that
4. Israels pulls back to either the 67 or 73 borders, gets out of the settlements, pulls down the wall....
I have question - if the israelis are so bad, why would the palestinians want to share a country with them?
For 2,3 - You gave a religious context not a historical context. This compels those Jews to occupy all of Palestine, including West Bank.
"I have question - if the israelis are so bad, why would the palestinians want to share a country with them? "
Interesting question, which has several answers:
* It's their country too.
* Their parents / grandparents have told them stories.
* It is the Israeli government that is 'bad'. You don't blame all Israelis for the actions of some radicals, the same of the Palestinians.
* They live in enforced poverty and oppression.
* Israel has nice beaches.
* I think you will find that it is the Settlers that are 'bad' not all Israeli citizens.
I have 2 question for you:
Is the Israelis are so righteous and deserving, why don't they want to share a country with another race?
AND
If Palestinians are so evil and violent, why do Jews (American, Russian, European etc...) want to leave their country where they have lived for centuries, and go live in a militarised nation or Settlement where everything is different?
Well the most idiotic thing I have read in a long time was your definition of racism on your blog. I note you have not responded to my comment.
Question then: If a country defines itself as Muslim, is it too a racist state?
And as for the one state solution, would you apply the same geopolitical considerations to that scenario. For instance, what would happen to the IDF and Mossad? Would they cease to exist? no. Would they continue to ensure that the jews held a position of, as you define it, priviledge? of course. So my question is, what is in the one-state solution for palestinians.
And besides The Arab and Islamic worlds hardly are bastions of tolerence and living along side their jewish and christian brothers and sisters.
Posting on this legendary thread.
Everybody write some more jew hating shit up so we can get the count up to 200 posts.
"write some more jew hating shit up"
I hate Zionists. I don't hate Jews.
There is a huge difference.
Scott,
Do you know what you're talking about??
The difference is:
A Jewish State defines the State by ethnicity.
An Islamic State defines the State by religion.
Therefore an Islamic State is not racist, but nonetheless not acceptable in my opinion.
"would happen to the IDF and Mossad"
Huh? Perhaps they would comprise of the extremist elements we admitted would exist in a single State. But all extremist elements in a single state would be much weaker than today. People would not lend them as much support in the midst of relative peace.
'what is in the one-state solution for palestinians."
This question assumes Jewish Supremacy in the single State. I reject that assumption and so find this question redundant. One State = Equality for All.
The issue isn't between Jews and Arabs per se, but between Zionist activity and the Arabs.
When I traveled through the middle east, I saw synagogues in all the major cities.
Well my point was that anti-flag said on her blog that only white people can be racist. Check it out if you dont believe me, seriously warped.
I still believe that the single state is advocated by either the far left or far right, using it as a cloak to hide their real intention - in this instance the destruction of israel.
Question - would you support a two state solution if Israel teared the wall down and got out of the settlements?
Sdm, clearly you're incapable of understanding my post. Racism, as I defined it is a system of thought and belief that reduces the Other. These constructs have been created and mastered by colonial powers and results in the systematic control of this Other. That was my point. I didn't answer your question because I thought it was stupid- to be frank.
Question then: If a country defines itself as Muslim, is it too a racist state?
'Muslim' isn't a race. It's pluralist.
Question - would you support a two state solution if Israel teared the wall down and got out of the settlements?
I wouldn't. The issues that have been raised in regards to the two-state solution still remain!
-Anti-Flag.
"
Question - would you support a two state solution if Israel teared the wall down and got out of the settlements? "
Yes I would, but they have to do more than tear down the Settlements. There's the issue of the refugees and the internally displaced Palestinians. And would 'Palestine' have full sovereignty over it's territory, land, sea and air? Will they be allowed an army, an sir force? My support would be conditional on how those issues were resolved.
And I'd see a two state solution as a stepping stone to the inevitable unification of historic Palestine. After Two States, I would see them working together to voluntarily unite.
'Palestine' would have full soverignty, but part of the game would be keeping its militants under control.
Whether or not they work for unity would be for the future, but I dont have any problem with the conditions you set out.
Scott,
Question: What is your preferred course of action if Israel refuses to remove the wall and the settlements?
That is, refuses to abide by the requirements of the Two State Solution?
In addition to my above question:
"but I dont have any problem with the conditions you set out."
What of the right of return for the refugees? Surely you feel this would "destroy Israel" and therefore pose a problem to the two state solution?
Id tie US funding to compliance. Hows that? And the right of return can be determined as part of a negotiated state.
"And the right of return can be determined as part of a negotiated state."
Why is that Scott? Is International Law not enough? There is nothing to negotiate here.
"Id tie US funding to compliance."
That's ok, but we know that is as likely to happen as Israel is likely to withdraw from the Occupied Territories.
The only point I am trying to illustrate is that Israel is not interested in peace. When you see that as fact, you will understand why people like myself are so aggressively critical of it.
We made it people!!
201 jew hating posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home