A GOOD Israel Analogy:

[Rimbo]

quoted verbatim from a post made by a SoCal lawyer named Rob Pongetti

Picture Mexico, except the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), instead of being the peaceful political party they are now, are instead a violent terrorist organization preaching the destruction of the U.S.

Then, picture the PRD going on a violent campaign against the U.S. I'm not talking about just killing gringos in Mexico, I mean a full on military attack on the U.S.

We're talking firing 3,000 full on Katyusha, Grad and Thunder 1 rockets. Right into U.S. cities San Diego and El Paso.

Calls in the U.S. abound to destroy Mexico. The rocket attacks actually continue. "Nuke Mexico!" is all over right wing talk radio. The fury is incredible.

The President (President Bush, President Clinton, President Britney Spears, whoever) then comes forward and preaches calm, saying we will attack a few PRD targets we know (like we do now with terrorists) and let the Mexican government disarm the PRD. Outrage ensues. People are furious.

Then, the Mexican government actually comes back and bluntly states that they flatly refuse to disarm the PRD. Seriously. Then, the PRD holds rallies openly chanting "kill the Gringos", burning our flag on TV, then launching 100 more Katyusha rockets at San Diego and El Paso. The Mexican government doesn't budge.

I don't even want to think about what we'd do. All cameras would be on the border. Militias would be forming. Honestly, with our national freakouts, nukes might not be out of the question. Massive areas of Mexico within 30 miles of our border (rocket range) would likely be just f-ing flattened by unbridled conventional attacks (non of that pinpoint targeting we've done post-WWII), at a minimum. And, of course, for openly harboring terrorists at that point, Mexico City would be under a thundering attack, trying to take out leaders.

[Daniel Morris]

Just to complete the analogy for P&R purposes:

1. The USA deserves the incoming rocketfire for its treatment of Mexicans within its border.

2. Surely the USA should be willing to "take a few on the chin" for the sake of peace.

[SlyFrog]

Add to that: A good chunk of the world has the debateable opinion that the United States stole large chunks of, if not all, of its land from Mexico (or at least the Mexicans or groups affiliated therewith) and has basically told it to fuck off while stealing even more land in the years since.

This is fun!

[Jason McCullough]

Can you include that this kind-of already happened back in the 19th century (Pancho Villa, etc.), and we took half the continent from Mexico in the process?

It's a pretty good Isreal analogy though - it paints the opponent as hating you for no particular reason, leaving anything you might have done.

Add, say, "the US continually takes all of Mexico's water" or something and you might be getting somewhere.

[foogla]

Or replace Mexico with the Native American reservations. Sioux Wild Cats in action!

[Tim Partlett]

Add:

The US only pulled out of an occupation of Mexico a few years ago after being chased out by the said rebels. The occupation left the country in a state of total anarchy which it is only just recovering from. Mention that before the rocket attacks the US had bombed the fuck out of Mexico City in retaliation for a kidnapping event.

Remove: Hyperbolic exaggerations. It's not 3000 rockets. Israeli reports that about 5 or so rockets hit Haifa. One killed all the casualties in one go when it hit a station.

[jeffd]

Tim I'm curious: Do you consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization?

[Tim Partlett]

Obviously.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

What's with the bad analogies? Why can't you people just look at the situation at hand and not try to make comparisons that'll be contentious and flawed at best?

[Oghier]

What's with the bad analogies? Why can't you people just look at the situation at hand and not try to make comparisons that'll be contentious and flawed at best?

It's easy to tell another country to "take it on the chin" for the sake of peace. I don't think anyone believes the US would do so, under even vaguely similar circumstances. *Any* US President, Bush or otherwise, would have bombers in the air as a response.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

It's easy to tell another country to "take it on the chin" for the sake of peace. I don't think anyone believes the US would do so, under even vaguely similar circumstances. *Any* US President, Bush or otherwise, would have bombers in the air as a response.
Well, yeah, but everyone knows you guys are fucking crazy and don't even need a provocation in order to bomb and invade countries in the Middle East; your presidents can just make shit up and you'll go along with it. Also, where did that come from?

[Anders Hallin]

People often seem to forget that the same logic applies to the civilians of Palestine and Lebanon. They don't agree that the Arabs started it, thus chances are they'll be pretty pissed of in response, and turn to some means of opposition. Like an already existing group dedicated to fighting Israel, say Hezbollah.

[Oghier]

Where did that come from? You asked "Why the analogies." I think it's useful to think about how one's own country would react under similar circumstances. I did like the bit about "you guys are fucking crazy." I can understand the hatred of Bush. However, I believe most leaders of most country would react in a manner this thread describes.

[steve]

Why do we need analogies? Look at Afghanistan. I seem to recall fairly unilateral support for our actions there; Iraq, not so much.

Is a few deaths and kidnappings the equal of 9/11? No, not really. Then again, Al Queda hadn't been taking potshots at our border for the last 20 years.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Where did that come from? You asked "Why the analogies." I think it's useful to think about how one's own country would react under similar circumstances. I did like the bit about "you guys are fucking crazy." I can understand the hatred of Bush. However, I believe most leaders of most country would react in a manner this thread describes.
Ah, I see. That's just it, though, you're talking about your own country, not the country in question. Circumstances are different, and I find that analogies often just adds another layer of confusion and things to be argued about. Situations like this are too complicated to be transferred into hypotheticals like the one above.

As for you guys being fucking crazy (a somewhat flippant remark, as you seem to have gathered): I don't hate Bush (or the US), but the US and its allies in the war against Iraq are the only democratic nations to have acted even more agressively than Israel in the Middle East in recent years, without even a provocation to launch a far larger act of aggression against another sovereign country. That makes me consider comparisons with the US somewhat less than universal.

[bigdruid]

I don't hate Bush

Then you really haven't been paying attention.

The worst thing about the Bush-led unilateral aggression in Iraq is that it basically crushes any ability the US has to seize the moral high ground in discussions like this, and sets the precedent for any nation with the wherewithal to do whatever the hell they want.

No, wait, the worst thing about our little Iraq adventure would be the piles of bodies paid for by my tax money. So I guess the moral high ground thing would have to be #2.

[Rimbo]

Mention that before the rocket attacks the US had bombed the fuck out of Mexico City in retaliation for a kidnapping event.


The rocket attacks from Hezbollah at Israel have been nearly continuous for the past 5 years or so, so I'm not sure where you get that.

[Flowers]

Israel is to Hezbollah as Chogglepants are to Chlamydia.

[Mike O'Malley]

Don't ruin the innocent joy of choggle pants with this political bullshit.

[Dirt]

Why are so many people always so quick to absolve Israel from the blood that they spill when it is an evil inherent in all societies?

[Shiroko]

Remove: Hyperbolic exaggerations. It's not 3000 rockets. Israeli reports that about 5 or so rockets hit Haifa. One killed all the casualties in one go when it hit a station.

God damnit.... what kind of press are you reading? I had 15 rockets here yesterday. I counted. And there were over 150 rockets a day, for three days.
That's 450 rockets. not 5.
And yes it etiher kills a lot or not at all usually.
Same goes for israeli bombs. They either mistakangly hit a lot of people no one noticed or just destroy the target.

[Flowers]

God damnit.... what kind of press are you reading? I had 15 rockets here yesterday. I counted. And there were over 150 rockets a day, for three days.
That's 450 rockets. not 5.
And yes it etiher kills a lot or not at all usually.
Same goes for israeli bombs. They either mistakangly hit a lot of people no one noticed or just destroy the target.
Hmm, that's odd. There were no rockets flying near my house, that's probably because my country doesn't practice Apartheid against its armed neighbors.

OH SNAP.

[Shiroko]

We're practicing apartheid against Lebanon without being there?

Damn, we rule...

(Or is it possilbe you do not know what "apartheid" means, or just what happens in the middle east?)

-Shiroko

[Flowers]

That would be Palestine and the Palestinians? Your neighbors are human beings, not just governments. You don't let Palestinians and other Arabs work fairly in your country. You ghettoize Palestinians. You try to steal their land, you rocket their neighborhoods and kill innocents when a radical acts up. What the motherfuck do you think is going to happen? Are you completely in the fucking dark about how your racist nation appeals to Jews in America for funding and support of its batshit policies? Could you not fathom that, organized so by race as your country is, attempting to elicit loyalty based on blood ties, that someone else might do the same?

Is your Down's Syndrome flaring up again?

[Shiroko]

I'm completely in the dark.
And here I thought all arabs in Israel have full rights.
And that since 1992 all palestinains were under palestinians authorities. And that they had every right they wanted to until September 2000 when they restarted the violance.
I was also sure we left Gaza, but we're still ruining their freedom to shoot rockets on your neighbour (Is that the 4th one?).
Notice that the right to life, comes before the rest. We did not start by taking back palestinian rights we did that as a nessecity to preserve Israeli lives.
Ever since 1992 it is clear to all but radical groups that the settlements will be evacuated. When we couldn't do it with an agreement with even did it ourselves.

If you had an analoy to the Apartheid, it is wrong since 1992. But don't let the facts slow you down.
You'll be better reading the wiki a little more before writing down your analysis based half truths.

-Shiroko

[Uncle Larry]

But don't let the facts slow you down.

Lawyers rarely do. (http://ohsnap.ytmnd.com/)

[Aeon221]

Maybe it would be a tad wrong, but I sure wouldn't mind my tax dollars being used to build mountains of skulls, a la the Great Khan. That would be hawt, and I'm sure that those Queer Eye guys could get a nice military contract to do it tastefully.

Now back to your regularly scheduled hateration.

[Flowers]

Full rights my ass.

You bog down your Palestinian workers at checkpoints, forcing them to be late for work and lose their jobs the same as the South Africans did. You cannot strip rights wholesale from people when they don't behave to your liking. What the shit is wrong with you? Has it ever turned out for the good when the government doles out rights and living arrangements based on race?

Zionism is racism.

[Shiroko]

You bog down your Palestinian workers at checkpoints, forcing them to be late for work and lose their jobs the same as the South Africans did.


Oops, there were no blockades before spetember 2000, people just took their car and went freely to Tel Aviv. Could it be these check-points have to clear any suspicion a terrorist might enter. While these workers come to work on what is pretty much a different state? (And if the palestinians were willing to take responsibility it would have been exactly a state, 6 years ago already)

You cannot strip rights wholesale from people when they don't behave to your liking.

Suicide bombers are bit more severe than "not liking" them. I can strip rights to save lives. These things only came as response to suicide bombers. Fact is they weren't there prior ro September 2000, and fact is once we got it working that there are rarely anymore suicide bombings in Israel. (Like that one that was stopped today in a bloackade).

Zionism is racism.

No, but hating jews is. You hate Israel because it has jews and you earlier characterized it as a money sucking hiding in the shadows kind of state. Somewhat similiar to popular racist claims against jews.

[extarbags]

Fact is they weren't there prior ro September 2000

You keep saying this, as though everyone's entitled to one decade of denying rights to a racial or ethnic group. Stop it. This whole conversation looks like this:

Flowers: Israel practices Apartheid.

You: Only since 2000!

Flowers: It isn't right to deny rights to a racial group.

You: We've only been doing it for six years!

Flowers: You bog down your Palestinian workers at checkpoints, forcing them to be late for work and lose their jobs the same as the South Africans did.

You: You couldn't be more wrong! We only started doing that in 2000! Why aren't you listening to me?

[Flowers]

Two things.

You cannot strip rights from all Palestinians simply because some Palestinians commit crimes. When you attempt punitive measures against an ethnic class, you violate basic precepts of human rights.

Regarding whether I hate Jews. You assume that I hate Jews because I disagree with Israel. Wrongo. I like Jews. The nearly all Jewish dorm that I lived at and the all-Jewish fraternity with whom I partied throughout college would beg to differ. The Jewish roommate with whose family I celebrated Passover would beg to differ. The women, well, I don't name names, but suffice it to say that I would expect glowing recommendations regarding my ability to conduct under-the-covers racy relations after two and sometimes three party talks.

It is troubling that you would assume simply because your country practices Apartheid, that I must have something wrong with myself. You must realize, that, although your accusation in this case is false, and demonstrably so, it would actually be irrelevant to whether Israel conducts its affairs in contravention of basic human rights law. If I hated all white people, that would not make what the white South Africans did to Steve Biko legitimate. If I was some type of Jew-hater, it would not mean that Israel does not engage in torture. As a neutral observer, with soccer coaches on one side and drinking buddies on the other, I can tell you, what you are doing is fucked. Racial homelands are a recipe for disaster, and having second class citizens is wrong. Our country used to have second class citizens, we had a lot of reasons for it, they were all wrong. We still have problems because of what we did to a group of people based on their race. Do not make the same mistake we did.


"The Gileadites captured the fords of the Jordan leading to Ephraim, and whenever a survivour of Ephraim said, "Let me go over," the men of Gilead asked him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" If he replied, "No," they said, "All right, say 'Shibboleth'." If he said, "Sibboleth," because he could not pronounce the word correctly, they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand Ephraimites were killed at that time." (Judges 12:5-6, NIV)

[Dirt]

Nation owning is ugly business. I heartily welcome the Jews to the club.

[Shiroko]

You cannot strip rights from all Palestinians simply because some Palestinians commit crimes. When you attempt punitive measures against an ethnic class, you violate basic precepts of human rights.

The root of the problem here is that you see as the suffering from bloackades as the goal. Where I and most of the people in Israel see it as a nessecity to save Israeli lives.
Fact is, it saves Israeli lives, so I feel no need to be ashamed for it.
In the apartheid, the rules weren't made to save white people from being murdered by the blacks. They were made to preserve white supremacy.

The cases are totally different all the people yelling apartheid insist on seeing only half the picture. They see jews in Israel dominating palestinians just for spite, or from religious motives. That's plain wrong, even through those people exists in Israel, they're a minority, and don't dictate Israel's policy.

Any resemblance you make to South Africa takes out all of the palestinian-israeli conflict and is either lacking or cheap propaganda.

If you believe it, I only see it as a testamony to the enviorment you grew up in. Nothing else.

[Kyle Wilson]

You bog down your Palestinian workers at checkpoints, forcing them to be late for work and lose their jobs the same as the South Africans did.

This seems to be a double standard. Isn't the end goal an independent Palestinian state? That's what Gaza was, until its residents kidnapped an Israeli soldier and launched rocket attacks on Israel. So why should that border be any more permeable than the border between the United States and Mexico? Or are you talking about the million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel? (I had thought they were treated better, though I don't know enough about the situation to know whether that impression is correct.)

[Dirt]

After over a hundred years, Mexico isn't trying to bomb us anymore. They just send us their poor.

[Enidigm]

Continued terrorism does one of the most important things possible for the resistance movement - maintain the idea across the world that the legimacy of Israel is still in question.

This is the exact reason why the hypothetical US/Mexico example doesn't work, and why comparisions to places like Chechnya are more apt.

If there were to be a true peace between all parties involved for many years it would be increasingly difficult politically to raise new forms of militant resistance. But by continuing the fighting, the kidnappings, the suicide bombings, it forces the issue that -despite the proximal immediate causes for terrorist acts- the core issue is the legitamcy of Israel.

This is reflected in Iranian leaders whom still spout nonsense about pushing them into the sea, or whatever other inflammatory rhetoric of the day they choose to proclaim. It's not what they're saying that is terribly important, it's the context. It's publically announcing that good and large parts of the Arab/Muslim world still reject the right of Israel to exist.

[Shiroko]

You keep saying this, as though everyone's entitled to one decade of denying rights to a racial or ethnic group. Stop it. This whole conversation looks like this:

Flowers: Israel practices Apartheid.

You: Only since 2000!

Flowers: It isn't right to deny rights to a racial group.

You: We've only been doing it for six years!

Flowers: You bog down your Palestinian workers at checkpoints, forcing them to be late for work and lose their jobs the same as the South Africans did.

You: You couldn't be more wrong! We only started doing that in 2000! Why aren't you listening to me?

I only point the dates to prove there's analogy to the Apartheid. I did not say Israel practices apartheid since 2000 and such.
I simply trying explain Flowers the history of the region so he won't be chanting on a few sad pictures as if they tell the whole story.

Until 67 these territories were under Egypt and Jordan's control. Palestinians didn't shout for independence, and Jordan and Egypt weren't that happy controling the territories. In 67 when Israel surprised even itself and took those territories it didn't know hoe exactly to swallow that. Jordan didn't want them back that much, and martial law started lengthening, Egypt didn't want the Gaza strip back in the peace agreement. And the palestinians defintely didn't want a martial law to last forever.
After enough mistakes of Israel, and we did enough of our share there. We started the peace process at 89 with the palestinians, in 1992 the agreement to create the palestinian authority came to place. But part of the palestinians didn't abandon terror, Arafat saw it as a good tool to affect Israel and pressure it and allowed the existance of militias there. When Arafat wasn't happy with the agreement he blew the thing. In the first time with a small fight (96) and a second serious fight in 2000 that escalated seriously. Ever since the situtation in the territories was just worsening. The fact that Israeli's don't trust palestinian authorities ever since created the disengagment, and right now it's pushing the realignment. We have no intentions in controling the palestinians or these territories. We simply don't have a good way out. I know that even if you pull out from all the territories the attacks won't stop. Like they didn't stop in Lebanon, like they didn't stop from Gaza. The palestinians reap what they sowed. The numerous militias prevent them from actually building a real country, when every guy has an AK, that every guy thinks he's the king and thinks the police should watch out from him. That's what is happening in Gaza now. And if the palestinians want to stop it they'll go through a civil war. They're afraid from that, instead of handling their own problems they rather cry out and blame someone else. The palestinians haven't built almost any economy during all these years, they got the biggest donation supports in the world, which simply encouraged them to keep a refugee mantality. I see it in when I see what has become of the abandoned israeli fields in Gaza, all the support from the UN and funding from the world bank and nothing. The palestinians did not bother in manning the fields or using the territory. Or using the rubble to build homes or anything else. They rather show the world 2 year odl wreckage and ask for help than to actually take their fate in thier hands and do something.
And that makes all the difference in world. That's what created Israel, when Jews around the world decided to take their fate in their hands and actually live in a land where they can live normally. That's why in 50 years the israelis built a country from an abanadoned swamp no one cared about, long before anyone even knew what race is a palestinian...

[Flowers]

Your feigned ignorance of your nations racist crimes tries my patience. Please accept this poorly worded and formatted wikipedia article as payment.
Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid)

You separate the people into ghettos, you don't let people return to the country unless they are Jews and you build walls like some sick mixture of an ancient Chinese Emperor and Erich Honneker.

You really aren't going to get anywhere until you drop this "us and them," bullshit. You know how you don't like having shit in your neighborhood blown up? Neither do your Palestinian countrymen. Racial divisions of people, something that you attempt with every wall you build, is fucking backwards.

Remember, this doesn't mean that what the other guy is doing isn't wrong, it just means that what you are doing is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. You need to drop the entitlement and overly militaristic nature.

Pride cometh before a fall.



Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as follows[3]:

"For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
(d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
(f) Persecution of organisations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid."

Thanks Wikipedia!

[Tim Partlett]

God damnit.... what kind of press are you reading? I had 15 rockets here yesterday. I counted. And there were over 150 rockets a day, for three days.
That's 450 rockets. not 5.
And yes it etiher kills a lot or not at all usually.
Same goes for israeli bombs. They either mistakangly hit a lot of people no one noticed or just destroy the target.

What kind of press are you reading.

I said "about five or so rockets hit Haifa"

"At least five rockets hit Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, police said." - San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15051417.htm)

"At least five rockets fired by Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah hit Haifa" - Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1646098.htm)

"Israeli medics said more than a dozen people had also been wounded in Haifa, Israel's third largest city. It was hit by at least five rockets, including one that struck a train station. " - Malaysia Star (http://thestar.com.my/news/nastory.asp?file=/2006/7/16/worldupdates/2006-07-16T132235Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-259698-11&sec=Worldupdates)

"At least five rockets hit Haifa on Sunday morning" Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/16/ap2881416.html)

So where's your 150 rockets a day figure from? Even if that figure is true, it still a long way from 3000. So what's your point in responding?

[Shiroko]

Your feigned ignorance of your nations racist crimes tries my patience. Please accept this poorly worded and formatted wikipedia article as payment.
Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid)

You separate the people into ghettos, you don't let people return to the country unless they are Jews and you build walls like some sick mixture of an ancient Chinese Emperor and Erich Honneker.

You really aren't going to get anywhere until you drop this "us and them," bullshit. You know how you don't like having shit in your neighborhood blown up? Neither do your Palestinian countrymen. Racial divisions of people, something that you attempt with every wall you build, is fucking backwards.

Remember, this doesn't mean that what the other guy is doing isn't wrong, it just means that what you are doing is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. You need to drop the entitlement and overly militaristic nature.

Pride cometh before a fall.



Article II of the ICSPCA defines the crime of apartheid as follows[3]:

"For the purpose of the present Convention, the term 'the crime of apartheid', which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation and discrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the following inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them:
(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groups of the right to life and liberty of person
(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;
(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group or groups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom or dignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;
(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the members of a racial group or groups;
(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of living conditions calculated to cause its or their physical destruction in whole or in part;
(c) Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognised trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;
(d) Any measures including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof;
(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group or groups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour;
(f) Persecution of organisations and persons, by depriving them of fundamental rights and freedoms, because they oppose apartheid."

Thanks Wikipedia!


I read most of the article it was nice. Some of the older qoutes were new and....
Did you notice the article is named
Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid) and not "Israeli apartheid". That's a bit of a differenece. If you read it all you see there's enough there about critisizing these allegations.

As for the second part. It's just a point of view. I'll tell you we don't murder palestinians because killing a terror planning palestinians is o.k., and it might accidently cause the death of innocents. You'll say I'm wrong.
I'll say the wall is to block terrorists from getting in, you'll say it's for locking the palestinians in their cities.
I'll say the palestinians freedoms are only deprived in order to save lives, and you'll say we're simply after thier destruction.

Unless you have proof that Israel's intentions are to preserve the ruling of a minority over a majority, and the destruction of the palestinian as a whole. I think I can pass the test.

[Gav]

Your feigned ignorance of your nations racist crimes tries my patience. Please accept this poorly worded and formatted wikipedia article as payment.
Allegations of Israeli Apartheid. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid)

So, according to that article, Arab Israelis can vote, can live anywhere they want, and have members in the Israeli Parliament. Yup, very analogous to South Africa.

Also, according to the article, attempts to set up a two-state solution actually contribute to apartheid. But if Israel tries to rule over the West Bank and Gaza, that's also apartheid. This is all so very clear to me now.

Luckily, we have Syria, that noted bastion of human rights, quoted in the article to reassure that Zionism is, in fact, equivalent to Nazism. Clearly, when Syria has something to say on the matter of terrorism, they come from a position of vast expertise in the matter. Good to have them weighing in on the topic.

Thanks Wikipedia!

Thanks, indeed.

[Flowers]

Apparently Shiroko, despite living in the Holy Land, has not at this point seen fit to sit at the feet of the greatest Jewish thinker of the 20th Century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book)

[Shiroko]

What kind of press are you reading.

I said "about five or so rockets hit Haifa"

"At least five rockets hit Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, police said." - San Jose Mercury News (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15051417.htm)

"At least five rockets fired by Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah hit Haifa" - Reuters (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1646098.htm)

"Israeli medics said more than a dozen people had also been wounded in Haifa, Israel's third largest city. It was hit by at least five rockets, including one that struck a train station. " - Malaysia Star (http://thestar.com.my/news/nastory.asp?file=/2006/7/16/worldupdates/2006-07-16T132235Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_-259698-11&sec=Worldupdates)

"At least five rockets hit Haifa on Sunday morning" Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/07/16/ap2881416.html)

So where's your 150 rockets a day figure from? Even if that figure is true, it still a long way from 3000. So what's your point in responding?

We have more than one city...

The rest aren't "news". To this morning the number of rockets fired since wednesday was 750 according israeli press, which listens to my authorities and the guys who go cleaning the area after each fall.
I'll see if

The 5 yesterday were in the first volley, which all the world saw as important news. There were to addtional volleys. I counted 15 booms. :)

http://news.google.co.il/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=rockets+fired+at+Israel&ie=UTF-8
Tried google news about the subject. If you wanna see the a little more than 5 rockets hit Israel.

[MatthewF]

No, but hating jews is. You hate Israel because it has jews and you earlier characterized it as a money sucking hiding in the shadows kind of state. Somewhat similiar to popular racist claims against jews.

Don't do that. This is really becoming a typical response to any criticism of Israeli actions and you should know better -- once you pull the race card, you've already lost the argument. Being jewish but living outside of Israel, I try to look at the situation objectively. And to be quite honest, I agree with almost everything Flowers says. Does that mean I hate myself? I've been to Israel. I've had family there until only recently. And personally, I think if Israel continues to act the way they do, it's going to get worse. You're not solving anything.. tell me, has it been getting better there? Has the Israeli/Palestinian situation really improved in the last 20 years? Or are you still killing each other in the streets almost every day? I don't know, maybe it's just me being my anti-semitic jew self, but it seems like you're due for a change.

[Flowers]

Now I forget, was Dr. Seuss Jewish? Doesn't matter. Enjoy your bloodbath.

[Tim Partlett]

We have more than one city...

Yeah... but I only mentioned the one city where people died, and you vented at me for distorting the truth. Perhaps you should read my replies with more patience if you wish to respond, and don't assume that I am an anti-semite simply because I have a little criticism for Israel's actions.

PS. I have even more criticism for Russia, Turkey and Zimbabwe and I don't hate Slavs, Muslims or blacks either.

[Shiroko]

Or are you still killing each other in the streets almost every day?

You don't live here. I can tell from this line you never did. Life here is quite good. Certainly better than most of the world.

[MatthewF]

You don't live here. I can tell from this line you never did. Life here is quite good. Certainly better than most of the world.
I never said I did, only that I had been there to visit family. And life may be good... for you. But "better than most of the world" doesn't mean everyone is just having a grand old time over there. Didn't you guys just get hit with rockets? Aren't you in a near-cold war with Palestine right now? I had family there that left recently to escape what they described as a "constantly tense living situation." That doesn't sound all that peachy to me.

[Shiroko]

With all respect to terror, we have more deaths from road accidents. And my biggest concerns now are my finals.

Though I did get bored today. Hopfully I'll gather some of my friends and go out to some pub this evening. TV took a turn to the worse since it all started.

[Flowers]

If terrorism is not such a concern, would you please, Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall?

[Shiroko]

We're minimizing the problem with such stuff. Tearing down the fence will simply make it easier for terrorists to sneak in. If you're worrying about that fence staying there forever fear not. Even the goverment says the fence is fully movable. And we already destroyed parts and moved them in order to ease up on the palestinians as much as possible. (As much as possible as we can without damaging security, I'll save you some typing.)

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

Isn't the end goal an independent Palestinian state? That's what Gaza was, until its residents kidnapped an Israeli soldier and launched rocket attacks on Israel.
Uh, what? How was Gaza an independent state?

[Lizard_King]

Apparently Shiroko, despite living in the Holy Land, has not at this point seen fit to sit at the feet of the greatest Jewish thinker of the 20th Century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book)
That actually explains a lot. About you, that is, not so much about Israel.

[Jason McCullough]

Fact is, it saves Israeli lives, so I feel no need to be ashamed for it.

Is there evidence of fewer casualties as a result? Even assuming there is, every day it goes on and slightly pisses off your enemies more makes it even harder for the long-term solution to take place.

[Dirt]

Nationlism and the valuing of the innocent lives of your own people and the concurrent devaluing of the innocent lives of other races/religions/nationality is what made places like Auschwitz possible.

Just saying.

[Shiroko]

Is there evidence of fewer casualties as a result? Even assuming there is, every day it goes on and slightly pisses off your enemies more makes it even harder for the long-term solution to take place.

As an Israeli I get to see all these IAF press conference where they show missiles hitting rocket launchers, or amunition hangers (I assume a usual building doesn't blow up that big and that they don't lie)

Today there's a good video of what at start Al-Jazeera thought as an Israeli plane shot down, which is known to be a Zilzal rocket (Scud sized rocket, with 200km range in older models) flying into the air and landing after IAF shot down a lanucher vehicle in south beirut.

The destruction of transportation system should also slow down Hizbullah's logistic efforts to reinforce the south with addtional Katyushas.

Of course that every day that passes all disgrunts the Lebanese sympathetic to our cause. Obviously it is clear to our goverment that this won't go on forever.

[Kalle]

As an Israeli I get to see all these IAF press conference where they show missiles hitting rocket launchers, or amunition hangers (I assume a usual building doesn't blow up that big and that they don't lie)

Imagine that, an army putting a positive spin on what it's doing.

[Shiroko]

Nationlism and the valuing of the innocent lives of your own people and the concurrent devaluing of the innocent lives of other races/religions/nationality is what made places like Auschwitz possible.

Just saying.

No you're tying totally different things here. There's no connection to nazism. Nor valuing your life over someone elses to nationalism.

[Gav]

There's a meme in this thread that Israel keeps trying the same thing over and over, and it doesn't get them anywhere, so they should just stop.

It seems to be ignoring the fact that Israel pulled out of Lebanon six years ago, and hasn't retaliated against the many rocket strikes since then. Seems that didn't work so well, either.

Gav

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

There's a meme in this thread that Israel keeps trying the same thing over and over, and it doesn't get them anywhere, so they should just stop.

It seems to be ignoring the fact that Israel pulled out of Lebanon six years ago, and hasn't retaliated against the many rocket strikes since then. Seems that didn't work so well, either.

Gav
There's also this meme going that there's been no change in Lebanon those past six years, specifically, that the main backers of Hezbollah, Syria, ran the country for the first five of those six years, while there's now a democratically elected anti-Syrian government in place that wants to see Hezbollah disarm.

[Dirt]

No you're tying totally different things here. There's no connection to nazism. Nor valuing your life over someone elses to nationalism.
No, actually, I'm presenting the extreme of a given situation. I certainly hope it never comes to that.

[Tim Partlett]

There's a meme in this thread that Israel keeps trying the same thing over and over, and it doesn't get them anywhere, so they should just stop.

It seems to be ignoring the fact that Israel pulled out of Lebanon six years ago, and hasn't retaliated against the many rocket strikes since then. Seems that didn't work so well, either.

Gav

You are mistaken, Israel has been retaliating against Hezbollah attacks. From a CNN timeline (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/14/israel.lebanon.timeline/) the only reported exchanges since 2000 were as follows:

September 2003: Israeli warplanes hit southern Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's firing antiaircraft missiles at Israeli planes in the area.

October 2003: Israel and Lebanon exchange gunfire in the disputed area known as Shebaa Farms.

Israel was criticised for violating Lebanese airspace, and Hezbollah were reprimanded for recklessly firing AA missiles which landed on nearby villages. It also doesn't mention Hezbollah flying a drone over Israel as retaliation for Israel's repeated airspace violations.

For context, most of the trouble between the two sides occurs over the border between Lebanon and Sheeba Farms. These "farms" have long since been abandoned and are occupied now only by IDF troops as part of the Golan Heights occupation force.

The area of Sheeba Farms is claimed by Lebanon, but Israel won't give it back saying they took it from Syria in 1967. Syria doesn't want it, and says Lebanon can have it.

All this pissing about over a piece of unoccupied farmland shows me just how petty it is on all sides. Why doesn't Israel just give it over the Lebanon, it's not theirs anyway. Why do the Lebanese and Hezbollah care about it when nobody even lives there?

[Kyle Wilson]

Uh, what? How was Gaza an independent state?

Israel left. Gaza was an occupied territory. It ceased to be occupied. Much like Lebanon.

Yes, I know Israel wasn't as hands-off in Gaza as we would hope. It still withheld tax revenues and controlled Gaza's border with Egypt. But Gaza was certainly more independent than Lebanon was two years ago, and was moving toward true Palestinian statehood. And yet Hamas chose to respond to Israel's withdrawal by firing rockets across the border and kidnapping soldiers. Just as Hezbollah chose to respond to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon by doing the same.

As far as I can tell, the only winner in all of this is Iran, whose nuclear program was all over the front page two weeks ago and now hardly seems worth a mention.

[Shiroko]

Lets assume we gave it, you reckon it will make Hizbullah stop?
Probably not, but from their new fortifications they will be able to start the fire more easily.

The land is Syrian btw, if anything.

[Shiroko]

Israel left. Gaza was an occupied territory. It ceased to be occupied. Much like Lebanon.

Yes, I know Israel wasn't as hands-off in Gaza as we would hope. It still withheld tax revenues and controlled Gaza's border with Egypt. But Gaza was certainly more independent than Lebanon was two years ago, and was moving toward true Palestinian statehood. And yet Hamas chose to respond to Israel's withdrawal by firing rockets across the border and kidnapping soldiers. Just as Hezbollah chose to respond to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon by doing the same.

As far as I can tell, the only winner in all of this is Iran, whose nuclear program was all over the front page two weeks ago and now hardly seems worth a mention.

The tax revenue issue is about east Jerusalem and west bank not Gaza.
The border is not occupied by Israel, though there were some problems until UN watchers came to the border pass.
Long before Hamas restarted his rockets, the palestinians simply didn't stop or tried to stop the Jihad from shooting them.

-Shiroko

[MikeSofaer]

Is there evidence of fewer casualties as a result?If you mean as a result of the fence, there is overwhelming evidence that it is effective.

[extarbags]

Israel left. Gaza was an occupied territory. It ceased to be occupied. Much like Lebanon.

You're nuts if you can't tell the difference between a semi or mostly autonomous area and a country.

[Tim Partlett]

Long before Hamas restarted his rockets, the palestinians simply didn't stop or tried to stop the Jihad from shooting them.

Or couldn't stop. Israel refused to pay them the tax money they'd collected from Palestinians in Gaza. Without taxes to pay your police you can't be expected to control the criminals firing rockets into Israel. In fact you can't be expected to even control your own police force, and they didn't. Hamas had the Gaza police force rioting for the pay that they couldn't give them.

Of course, it's all the Palestinian's fault.

This has, unfortunately, been a vexating problem with Israel's policy in dealing with Palestine. On the one hand they say that they want the Palestinians to deal with the criminals that operate in their society, and on the other hand they destroy whatever chances the Palestinians have of doing so.

Back when Israel re-occupied Gaza and the West Bank the IDF systematically destroyed the Palestinian government infrastructure, to the point of destroying opticians and burning school records in the education ministry. One Palestinian commentator said that subsequent Israeli demands that they clean up their house was like tying up a man, throwing him into the sea, and then demanding that he swim.

These kinds of policies are so self-defeating it has been seen by some as deliberate. The idea being that the Israelis set the Palestinians up for failure by destroying their infrastructure or denying them tax revenue, and then when they do fail, they turn to the world and say "look the Palestinians can't police themselves so I guess we have to do it for them. And the occupation continues.

[Shiroko]

I swear you haven't read two lines above the line qouted.
The money in question is only tax revenue from East Jerusalem, nowhere else.
It was also only delayed BTW, because it didn't go through the legal issues as I recall.

The riots on not paying the police wages are because Hamas claimed too many of these jobs were fake and corruption by the Fatah. And we're also talking on the 5 months between Hamas winning the election and Israel leaving, the Jihad was shooting then without much interference.

[Shiroko]

BTW of course they can stop it, but who wants a civil war in a land where every family has its own army?
You reap what you sow.

[Tim Partlett]

And yet Hamas chose to respond to Israel's withdrawal by firing rockets across the border and kidnapping soldiers. Just as Hezbollah chose to respond to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon by doing the same.

Hamas did not carry out the rocket attacks. One could argue that they should have stopped them, but you need a functioning paid police force to do that. The kidnapping, while criminal and inexcuseable, came after Israel had bludgeoned Gaza with thousands of shells for weeks and left an unfunded Gaza on the brink of collapse, and not as a result of beneficent behaviour on the part of the Israelis.

The exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel have occurred mostly over the disputed Sheeba Farms, which Syria, Hezbollah and Lebanon claim to be Lebanese. While it is pathetic, it isn't Israeli land, and they again aren't attacking Israel simply because Israel is a nice and does only good.

[Oghier]

Hamas did not carry out the rocket attacks. One could argue that they should have stopped them, but you need a functioning paid police force to do that

Certainly, Hamas cannot stop Hezbollah without a proper police force. You need funds to do that. However, do you believe that Hamas would have used their police to disarm Hezbollah?

[Dirt]

Hamas would have used their police force to protect their own national and state interests. Things change when you actually have a country. If Hezbollah is threatning Hama's (for instance) grip on power in their own nation, then yes, Hamas would use their police force to crack down on Hezbollah with a prejudicial vengeance.

[Tim Partlett]

I swear you haven't read two lines above the line qouted.
The money in question is only tax revenue from East Jerusalem, nowhere else.
It was also only delayed BTW, because it didn't go through the legal issues as I recall.

Why would the Israelis be collecting money from people in East Jerusalem to transfer to Gaza?

The tax money comes from customs duties imposed on foreign goods entering Israel bound for Palestine. It also charges VAT on this. The total for this comes to approximately $60 million dollars a month, after Israel takes off charges for water and electricity supply. This is almost twice what the Palestinians collect internally.

You don't think withholding two-thirds of a country's tax revenue is likely to totally destroy them?

The riots on not paying the police wages are because Hamas claimed too many of these jobs were fake and corruption by the Fatah. And we're also talking on the 5 months between Hamas winning the election and Israel leaving, the Jihad was shooting then without much interference.

The rioting from the police was because they hadn't been paid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4912306.stm).

"Police in Gaza have held a violent protest at the new Hamas government's failure to pay their wages." - BBC

"We don't have enough to pay salaries" - Omar Abdel-Razek, Palestinian finance minister

Where are you getting this apologist bullshit from?

[Tim Partlett]

Certainly, Hamas cannot stop Hezbollah without a proper police force. You need funds to do that. However, do you believe that Hamas would have used their police to disarm Hezbollah?

Hezbollah and Hamas are in two separate countries separated by the state of Israel.

If you are talking about the random Palestinian militants firing their crappy home made missiles into Israel, then I have no real idea whether Hamas would have tried to stop them or not. I think they possibly would. They had already kept a long held and unilateral cease-fire with Israel. They did this because they wanted to establish a Palestinian state. Random rocket attacks from criminals isn't going to help that.

While it probably wouldn't be their top priority, and they wouldn't do it out of a love for Israel, pragmatic concerns would probably force them to act if they could

[Shiroko]

Why would the Israelis be collecting money from people in East Jerusalem to transfer to Gaza?

The tax money comes from customs duties imposed on foreign goods entering Israel bound for Palestine. It also charges VAT on this. The total for this comes to approximately $60 million dollars a month, after Israel takes off charges for water and electricity supply. This is almost twice what the Palestinians collect internally.

You don't think withholding two-thirds of a country's tax revenue is likely to totally destroy them?



The rioting from the police was because they hadn't been paid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4912306.stm).

"Police in Gaza have held a violent protest at the new Hamas government's failure to pay their wages." - BBC

"We don't have enough to pay salaries" - Omar Abdel-Razek, Palestinian finance minister

Where are you getting this apologist bullshit from?

I'm tired and seem to have been mistaken on the exact facts of the tax money in question.
However this does not change the fact that the Hamas Goverment entered office in mid february. over 6 months from the disengagment where palestinians authorities did nothing. (Or more acuuratley didn't do enough)

[Tim Partlett]

How can they do anything without even enough money to pay the wages of their police force?

They inherited a government that was costing a bare minimum of $170 million a month just in operating costs, and were receiving just $35 million in taxes.

People weren't working for them because they weren't getting paid. Worse, the police were rioting because they weren't getting paid.

Tell me: how can they stop crappy home made rocket attacks on Israel in a situation like this?

[MikeSofaer]

Tell me: how can they stop crappy home made rocket attacks on Israel in a situation like this?Get your imports through Egypt and collect the taxes yourself, would be a good step forward.

[Tim Partlett]

These are private goods and services. Banning the passage of these through the border with Israel and/or collecting taxes on these goods themselves would require the policing of this border which Israel won't allow (even if they had the funds to actually do it).

[Unicorn McGriddle]

<Ragg> i'm x
<Ragg> | |
<Ragg> -----
<Ragg> |x|
<Ragg> -----
<Ragg> | |
<Ragg> your move
<UnicornMcGriddle> | |
<UnicornMcGriddle> -----
<UnicornMcGriddle> |o|
<UnicornMcGriddle> -----
<UnicornMcGriddle> | |
<Ragg> I ALREADY PUT AN X THERE
<Ragg> CHEATER
<UnicornMcGriddle> Your x was an act of terrorism, so I retaliated with an o.
<Ragg> I'm never playing anything with you again :(
<UnicornMcGriddle> Sounds like it's time to steal money from your government <3

[Ragnar Oppedal]

You cheating bastard.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Even if I weren't a cheating bastard, you'd still be a subhuman terrorist! I can't win. World opinion will always be against me. I might as well use whatever means are necessary to win this tic-tac-toe game -- which, I might remind you, is TOTALLY supposed to be mine.

[Shiroko]

How can they do anything without even enough money to pay the wages of their police force?

They inherited a government that was costing a bare minimum of $170 million a month just in operating costs, and were receiving just $35 million in taxes.

People weren't working for them because they weren't getting paid. Worse, the police were rioting because they weren't getting paid.

Tell me: how can they stop crappy home made rocket attacks on Israel in a situation like this?

However this does not change the fact that the Hamas Goverment entered office in mid february. over 6 months from the disengagment where palestinians authorities did nothing. (Or more acuuratley didn't do enough)

Geesh... (Because I must have some new text here)

[Tim Partlett]

Oh, sorry. I was having difficulty understanding you. I think you are saying that Fatah didn't do enough in the four (not six) months between the Israeli withdrawal (I think that spin-talk of "disengagement" helped confuse me) from Gaza.

But what is the point of saying that? My initial response was to this statement:

But Gaza was certainly more independent than Lebanon was two years ago, and was moving toward true Palestinian statehood. And yet Hamas chose to respond to Israel's withdrawal by firing rockets across the border and kidnapping soldiers.

So you think that Hamas is responsible for the inaction of Fatah?

[Shiroko]

Actually I think Lebanon was more free than Gaza today, since Lebanon has ecnomical independencies that Gaza doesn't have to this day, and even if everything goes excellent can't be fixed in under a year.
But they both had the power, to those things and chose not to.

Hamas is just Hamas, those are the same guys with the charter about Haifa as being occupied territory and such. They don't even agree to acknolwedge Israel.
Hamas hasn't tried or wants to take a step towards peace. (And I'll blame Haled Mashal for that much more than I blame the local political leaders)

[Flowers]

In RE: Dr. Seuss and "The Butter Battle Book,"
That actually explains a lot. About you, that is, not so much about Israel.

Awww, someone a little upset that an idol from his childhood considers him part of a wide scale problem? Do you realize that I can see your bias on this one from a mile away? You are paid to stand by the wall with weapons. Just like in the Butter Battle Book, la.

[Lizard_King]

In RE: Dr. Seuss and "The Butter Battle Book,"
Awww, someone a little upset that an idol from his childhood considers him part of a wide scale problem? Do you realize that I can see your bias on this one from a mile away?

I'm sorry, I've never really been enthusiastic about attaching too much depth to the Grinch or the Cat in the Hat, either. The BBB was a simplistic if entertaining analogy for the American and Soviet cold war, but it only tangentially relates to the subject matter at hand. But far be it for me to argue against you sourcing your arguments on a children's book; I suppose that puts you somewhere between those namedropping the Bible and George Orwell as woulda been/coulda been sponsors for whatever cause they've embraced at the moment.

More importantly, I bet your suggestion would have been more clever had it not been made by other, more serious anti Zionists before, like this guy (http://www.vtjp.org/articles/Historiography_of_Pre-State_Zionism.htm).
1. Doctore Seuss (Theodore Geisel) albeit an American of German ancestry took an advance garde position to propagandize against everything for which Nazism stood and to advocate early entry of the USA into a war against Nazi Germany. American Jews and Ashkenazim have no excuse not to imitate Geisel with similar opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel.
You are paid to stand by the wall with weapons. Just like in the Butter Battle Book, la.
I only wish I could be a part of an inherently noble profession such as yours. It's a good thing you never disagree with what your kind are called on to do, or it would make your alleged point even more childish.

[Flowers]

If you show me a Shel Silverstein poem critical of my profession, I promise to cry myself to sleep tonight. Anyways, I wouldn't expect someone from Exxon Mobil to read their child The Loraxx at night.


As an aside, I was going to compare the conflict to the book about the star-bellied sneetches, but I picked Butter Battle Book because I could use it on you, too. Cheap shots still count.

[Qenan]

Flowers, that is a completely lame attack.

[Lizard_King]

If you show me a Shel Silverstein poem critical of my profession, I promise to cry myself to sleep tonight.
Like I said, it's not everyone that can be in an objectively virtuous profession like yours. Those who can, practice law, and the rest do something else less important, and all that.

Anyways, I wouldn't expect someone from Exxon Mobil to read their child The Loraxx at night.
What? Now you've gone beyond not scoring points to not making sense. What does that mean?

As an aside, I was going to compare the conflict to the book about the star-bellied sneetches, but I picked Butter Battle Book because I could use it on you, too. Cheap shots still count.
No, you didn't. I didn't even enter into the equation until after you opted for that awesome maneuver (Look! A famous Jew who might have disagreed with you were he still alive, and a children's book author to boot! BURN!).

The only reason it caught my eye is because, as I noted, I've heard that little one liner before, but from committed anti Zionists in a relatively polite academic setting, and I was sure it had to be one of those "memes" McCullough is always talking about (or one of the Andrews or someone, I forget who always brings that up). I half expected you to come back with some equally inane Einstein quote about world peace or something, but I guess you decided to quit early, and I commend you for that choice at least.

[Gav]

It's clear that Flowers brings up a very important point.

On the one hand, Dr. Seuss, that famed philosopher, points out that North and South-going zaxes must be able to step to one side on occasion. (see his exposition in "the Sneetches and Other Stories").

But, as points out in "The King's Stilts," it can be dangerous to let the enemy nizzards attack with impunity, because you are too pre-occupied by the loss of stilts to retaliate.

Fortunately, he has a message of hope for all on both sides, in his aptly-titled thesis "You Don't Know how Lucky You Are." No matter how bad things get for the Lebanese, they should take heart that they're not working on the Bungle-Bung Bridge, and that they're not Herbie Hart, who has taken his thrm-dim-bulator apart.

Fortunately, we've got Flowers here to explain the depths of Dr. Seuss's thinking to us.

Gav

P.S. It's pretty clear that the creature in the 3rd story of "I Can Lick Twenty Tigers Today" is a lawyer--he talks and talks, saying nothing, and his talking costs money by the minute. Sorry that I don't have time to find a Shel Silverstein poem, but that'll have to do.

[Flowers]

That'll do, it's going to be a tearjerker of a night tonight.


Lizard, the point is that nine-year-olds can comprehend that building high walls and threatening death to people based on the fact that they are on the other side is silly. I'm sorry if you need to have these stories explained to you, there really isn't a deeper meaning to any of the stories, they wear their messages rather plainly.

P.S. I never killed someone I don't know just cuz someone told me to.

[Lizard_King]

Lizard, the point is that nine-year-olds can comprehend that building high walls and threatening death to people based on the fact that they are on the other side is silly.
Which would be hilariously on target if it were an accurate analogy. It wasn't for the cold war, and it isn't for Israel now. It's good thing nine year olds grow out of that whole absence of nuance phase. Well, apart from you and President Bush.

I'm sorry if you need to have these stories explained to you, there really isn't a deeper meaning to any of the stories, they wear their messages rather plainly.
What wondrous feat will you perform next? Interpret some Iron Butterfly for me?

P.S. I never killed someone I don't know just cuz someone told me to.
Neither have I. Were you serious in critiquing the entire occupation of the military, or is this just an offhand insult spun out of control? I have trouble believing you are that stupid, but you just keep lowering the bar.

[Flowers]

It's a quote. And yes, I am saying that there is a great amount of moral ambiguity in volunteering to kill people you don't know because some rich old men determined it had to be done. It also isn't an analogy at all. It is an allegory.

I must also take some time to question why you think the fact that "The Butter Battle Book," was written in response to the Cold War isolates Israel from looking stupid in its shadow.

The book is about two groups of people who do the same thing in a slightly different way. One side butters their bread on top, one side prays to Allah. A large and long wall was built between the groups, despite the fact that it would exacerbate any safety issues they may have by implicating the pomp and circumstance of guards, breaches, DMZ's, checkpoints, watchtowers, and the like.

The difference you point out, that there is no arms race, is nevertheless illusory. First and foremost, there is an escalation in the level of force that both parties threaten to employ. In our case, it is all the more foolish since both parties actually do demonstrate their weapons on the other side, a sort of grim "proof of concept." One side goes off to secure a more powerful weapon, and when they do, their opponent brings the next highest threat to the table. In Israel, you may have noticed that the Palestinians have graduated from rock throwing to carbombs to suicide bombs to rockets. As soon as Palestine finds a friend with a nuclear weapon, the region will finally be eligible for a full clusterfuck of destruction.

So what was the difference? That the book was written years ago and continues to be true, continues to spot and call out negative human behavior is not a point against it. Quite the contrary. Even Dr. Seuss and tiny children know that every human being has the proclivity to engage in escalating threats against a neighbor inspite of the great cost to both parties and for reasons no greater than suspected ideological slights and ancient emnity. It's a bit disningenous of you to fault Dr. Seuss for not writing a book on the latest developments in the Middle East because; first, he's dead, second, he already wrote a number of books that cover the conflict quite completely.

[Lizard_King]

You infer that I don't understand Dr Seuss. I believe it's far more critical to the matter at hand that you don't understand asymmetrical warfare at all. In either case the point is not that BBB can't be extended to the matter at hand, it's that it doesn't offer anything constructive or remotely realistic to it. Just like it didn't for the cold war. In short, it is much like your posts: clever, entertaining, but pointless for grownups who actually want to deal with problems to take seriously.
It's a quote. And yes, I am saying that there is a great amount of moral ambiguity in volunteering to kill people you don't know because some rich old men determined it had to be done. It also isn't an analogy at all. It is an allegory.
Right, right. So you really are questioning the military profession's existence as a whole, as well as apparently the role rich old men have had in every country since time immemorial. Do you want to kick out a rendition of Kumbayah once you're done vandalizing John Lennon? Fables are great for teaching morals to children, but have never been literally applied in international relations. Well, not by anyone who succeeded, anyway.

[Flowers]

You infer that I don't understand Dr Seuss. I believe it's far more critical to the matter at hand that you don't understand asymmetrical warfare at all. In either case the point is not that BBB can't be extended to the matter at hand, it's that it doesn't offer anything constructive or remotely realistic to it. Just like it didn't for the cold war.

Right, right. So you really are questioning the military profession's existence as a whole, as well as apparently the role rich old men have had in every country since time immemorial.

First Paragraph:
Are you actually claiming that the Cold War was a good idea? What kind of fucking dipshit are you?

Pop Quiz
1. What did we do with regards to weapons production at the end of the Cold War?
2. What was the event that was the symbolic end to the Cold War for most countries, and the in-fact end to the Cold War in two?

Second Paragraph:

If the shoe fits, wear it.

[Lizard_King]

First Paragraph:
Are you actually claiming that the Cold War was a good idea?
You had a better one, right? One where everyone lays down their arms and lives in peace and harmony?

What kind of fucking dipshit are you? Apparently, one who disagrees with you. That's me, quivering in fear at the prospect of more of those pithy one liners of yours.

Pop Quiz
1. What did we do with regards to weapons production at the end of the Cold War?
2. What was the event that was the symbolic end to the Cold War for most countries, and the in-fact end to the Cold War in two?
Pop quiz: What happens when stupid people mistake an effect for a cause? You think destroying the Berlin Wall or reducing weapons arsenals caused the end of the Cold War, or that the eventual bankruptcy of Russia due to the ever escalating arms race and their unsustainable economic model forced them to consider both those events as plausible outcomes? I'll give you a tip: if you believe the first you are stupid.

Second Paragraph:

If the shoe fits, wear it.
I will, and gladly. I'm dismayed that you are trying to transition the thread from yet another discussion of Israel to a magical display of your disconnect from reality, but I suppose that is a lot more straightforward than continuing the steady drizzle of your fantasyland cynicisms. Nothing in human history supports your viewpoint as anything other than the delusional byproduct of the security that people with my approach temporarily create for you. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I am disappointed to find that behind the facade of a bitter George Carlin wannabe, there is nothing more than a Flower Child. I guess you've come around full circle, now.

[Flowers]

Nothing in human history supports your viewpoint as anything other than the delusional byproduct of the security that people with my approach temporarily create for you. Enjoy it while it lasts.


I WANT THE TRUTH.

[DeepT]

I'm confused. What are we arguing about?

[Lizard_King]

I WANT THE TRUTH.
Clearly (sigh), you can't handle the truth. Doesn't it bother you that you are playing Tom Cruise's part in this argument? Only Hollywood would craft a happy ending for him...

[Flowers]

Pop quiz: What happens when stupid people mistake an effect for a cause? You think destroying the Berlin Wall or reducing weapons arsenals caused the end of the Cold War, or that the eventual bankruptcy of Russia due to the ever escalating arms race and their unsustainable economic model forced them to consider both those events as plausible outcomes? I'll give you a tip: if you believe the first you are stupid.


I am bored, so you get your response in the vernacular of an Insane Clown Posse fan until I decide to type normally.

Too bad for you that SALT I negotiations began in 1969, beeyoiayitch. Leonid Brezhnev in the haaaoooouse. Furthermore, juggalo, a SALTy dueIIce was crapped out in the 1970's part of a gradual process of de-mothagrabbin-escalation. We did not ratify that motherfucker, but it was respected like a young hustler should be. Also a prodizzuct of this time period is the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty John Hancocked by Dick Milhouse Nixon in a stone cold war playa fashion, in effect for a triple decade before sizzlin' hot dipshit George What What? Bush withdrew in double naught naught deuce. To his fat credit he did control his missile bitches with a pimp slap entitled SORT at a point close in time.

You are thinking of the START treaty, where START I was signed a short five months before the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989, thus, as I said, serving as a symbolic end to the Cold War, it was from this rallying point that the East spilled back into the West and the Iron Curtain of Soviet control over the foreign affairs of satellite nations was lifted.


As an aside;
The ongoing talks throughout the decades prior to the formal end of the Cold War supplied each side with the all important opportunity to control the amount of money the other side was spending on the conflict by promising to limit their own expenditures. This is what is called a win-win scenario. The additional benefit of these treaties, apart from preventing the development or production of simply more and larger nuclear weapons, also prevented the parties from engaging in overmuch development of Nuclear countermeasures. Nuclear countermeasures are a very dangerous prospect to face when mutually assured destruction has been the paradigm under which the parties have operated. As you can guess, if destruction is not mutually assured, the deployment of the nuclear option by the countermeasure protected parties is assumed to be more likely.

Destablizing technological developments aside, the face time between the parties can be seen as all important. It is only superior information about what the enemy is doing that allows cooler heads to prevail. It is simple child's play to assume the worst and react accordingly citing preparedness, security, self-defense or any other nothing word in the realm of foreign affairs. Although it may seem counterintuitive, the opening of one's affairs to some small amount of spying or inspection can be key when the stakes are high.

[Jason McCullough]

.....the eventual bankruptcy of Russia due to the ever escalating arms race and their unsustainable economic model forced them to consider both those events as plausible outcomes

It's a pleasing theory - we can win wars by wasting money! - but there's little actual evidence that keeping up with our military expenditures destroyed the Soviet empire. Their crap economy being behind it is pretty well supported, though.

[Lizard_King]

It's a pleasing theory - we can win wars by wasting money! - but there's little actual evidence that keeping up with our military expenditures destroyed the Soviet empire. Their crap economy being behind it is pretty well supported, though.
I think it's enough of a commonly held (by people other than Reaganites, even) point to be mentioned in the same breath. Either way, it is hardly evident that not matching the Soviet Union would have been successful. The important thing for the purposes of this discussion is that climactic events like the fall of the Berlin Wall were brought about by a complex series of events and decisions that are not, in fact, encompassed to a reasonable degree in the Butter Battle War. In fact, it could be argued that its oversimplifications and misconceptions are what results in posts like Flowers', where otherwise intelligent people can be blinded by appealing ideals with none of the corresponding subtext or reasoning that makes them relevant in any practical way.

[Jason McCullough]

Oh, I don't think us wasting money hurt, but the soviet military expenditures seemed to track their perceived level of control in the Warsaw Pact than anything else.

But yeah, not a single-source explanation.