Sunday, January 11, 2009

Dear wanks: What exactly is it with you and Israel, anyway?


At the risk of embarrassing myself, I'm going to admit that I truly, sincerely don't get this unabashed, drooling love affair that right-wing wanks have with Israel. Seriously, I don't get it at all so perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Consider, for instance, Canada's wanks. First, I doubt most of them have ever been to Israel, so it's not like this slobbering adulation is based on personal experience of any kind.

More to the point, it's not like these people even like Jews. I mean, they go on and on and tediously on about supporting "Israel" while at the same time being virulently anti-Semitic, what with their "Jews control the banks" and "Jews control Hollywood" and "Hey, wasn't the Holocaust a hoot?" In fact, I'm guessing most of those conservative dingbats don't even know any Jews, so we can't look there for an explanation.

Perhaps it's based on some sort of international geopolitical issues. Yeah, as if. These are, after all, some of the stupidest human beings imaginable so it's safe to assume that their panty-moistening longing for Israel doesn't come from any deeply intellectual analysis of worldwide political dynamics.

Perhaps, maybe, it's just a laudable supporting position for the underdog, the underprivileged, the downtrodden, which no doubt explains their unswerving public support for, say, East Timor and the like. No, I'm fairly sure that explains very little. And if we want to make a religious argument, well, that gets kind of awkward given that whole "Dirty Jews killed our Saviour" thing from some time back. So ... what's left?

Well, there's the frighteningly obvious -- that said wanks really and truly don't give a rat's ass about Jews but care deeply about Israel because, um, it's purely in their mind-numbing, deluded, batshit crazy self-interest:

The Rapture Factor

Why conservative Christians' love of Israel is intertwined with the Battle of Armageddon

Evangelical Christians have overwhelmed the White House switchboard in recent weeks with phone calls urging President Bush to continue supporting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In early May, more than 250 Christian leaders attended a prayer breakfast at the Israeli embassy. Last week, former Christian Coalition chairman Ralph Reed announced the formation of a Christian "Stand for Israel" campaign.

There have been many recent media reports of this "strange bedfellows" relationship between Jews--here and in Israel--and the conservative Christians who love them, especially since the relationship seems to be influencing government policy. Some have explained it as a result of the declining dependence on Arab oil, which meant leaders here needn't be as allied with Arab countries. Others suggest that after Sept. 11, Americans felt an immediate, gut-wrenching identification with Israelis, who have lived with the Muslim militant threat for decades.

But the least understood, and probably most important, reason has been missed by most secular analysts. Evangelicals support Israel because of biblical prophecy, including passages that tie the survival of Israel to the Second Coming of Jesus.

And even though this rationale really, really creeps me out, frankly, I can't think of a better reason. Is it truly that simple? "I support Israel because I am a deranged, religious whackjob waiting for the Rapture." Is that it? Because beyond that analysis, I have to say, absolutely nothing else makes a lick of sense.

64 comments:

Kusotarre said...

I think the support comes from more than just the their longing for the reconstruction of the Temple of Solomon.

In no particular order:

1) Biblical prophecy.

2) Hatred if Islam, which is a large chunk of the motivation for attacking Israel, thus making Israel an enemy-of-my-enemy ally.

3) Simplistic support for democracy. Israel is a democracy, even if they have a racist immigration policy and use Gazans as throw-away pawns in electoral politics.

4) Ideological momentum from Israeli lobbying efforts, primarily in the US.

5) Conservative inability to deal with nuance and accept the reality of contradictory facts (racist immigration, apartheid conditions, religious fundamentalism in the form of Zionism, the fact that even dirty Persians and Arabs have human rights).

Mix all those together and you get wingnuttery.

LeDaro said...

CC, think of Senator Larry Craig of Idaho -the pious guy.

sooey said...

People who call themselves Pro-Israel are pretty funny. Lucky Israel - it has a fat middle-aged Western idiot cheerleading squad. Our stupidest citizens regularly singing the praises of Israel.

Zach said...

Of course it's religious in nature. The whole damned conflict is motivated by religious ignorance from all sides.

The sad part here is when you condemn Israel, you don't also condemn the other side as well. There are no responsible or honourable character in what would seem to be a work of fiction become reality. It is all so nonsensical as to be beyond belief were it not for the pictures that flood our computer screens on a whim.

Cheers

shlemazl said...

More to the point, it's not like these people even like Jews.

Can you give me 1 example of a main-stream right-winger who is "supporting "Israel" while at the same time being virulently anti-Semitic, what with their "Jews control the banks" and "Jews control Hollywood" and "Hey, wasn't the Holocaust a hoot?" "

You see, as a Jewish conservative I have never met the kind of animal you are describing. Which means that your whole post is a lie.

Wayne said...

Why I back Israel.

1. The rise of totalitarian Islam, which must be stopped at any cost.

2. Israel is a Democracy in a modern way. Is there any true Arab Democracy?

There may strict immigration laws, but there laws also have strong anti-discrimination laws.

Arabs cab run and do win elections there.

Education, healthcare, social services, freedom of all religious practice, and freedom of expression are a right for its entire people..... this means Arabs as well. This leaves their country as one of the best in the world.

6. The military might of Israel has all ways been used in a way that would limit civilian casualties. Arabs fighting Israel or Arab on Arab military target civilians.

But, then again I'm talking to moonbats who love Ernesto "Che" Guevara the Butcher of La Cabana, Mao Zedong the killer of millions of his own people and Joseph Stalin killer of millions of his own people.

A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic. -Joseph Stalin
You bash the Jews for every single Palestinian death and forget that the Hamas charter calls for the death of millions of Jews.

You morons live and breathe communist crap and I cannot understand you useful idiots.

Zach Bell said...

The whole post isn't a lie but that portion of it certainly colours the post with CC's hard left wing leanings. Of course the assumption is that hard right personalities are pro Israel and anti-semitic at the same time while ignoring that idiots like those who populate the ranks of the KKK aren't exactly Israel friendly.

See? The pro/anti Israel/Arab argument sucks, whoever is making it.

KEvron said...

"I have never met the kind of animal you are describing. Which means that your whole post is a lie."

i have, which makes your whole comment a lie.

KEvron

Wayne said...

Thanks for that Zach.

It is the "colours" that get me the most. The colour here is
black and black is really a shade.

"In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny."
John Stuart Mill

Wayne said...

KEvron you would not know a lie, if it kicked you in the balls, you have drank the Kool-Aid and licked the bottom of the punch bowl.

burpster said...

First time I've seen the "rapture factor" floated on a canuck blog, good job CC. While I'm sure it's not the only reason for unwavering Israel support, it makes sense when looked at from a hard right bible-thumper angle.

Filcher said...

Wayne says : "1. The rise of totalitarian Islam, which must be stopped at any cost. "


Is Islam a real threat to Israel and the reason that Palestinians hate Israel, or would it have something to do with the theft of Palestinian lands and the intimidation of Palestinian peoples to move off the land to make way for Israeli settlers.


Wayne says:"2. Israel is a Democracy in a modern way. Is there any true Arab Democracy? "

Hamas was elected in fair and non corrupt elections, Ahmadinjhad is elected leader of Iran, Iraq holds elections, as does many arab nations. That you do not see it aa a western style democracy still does not mean it is not democracy.


Wayne says: "Arabs cab run and do win elections there. "


And Jews can represent in the Iranian counci8l also. Both countries limit how far these people can rise as far as leader of the nation. Israel is a Jewish country and the religion is protected by law, similar to what Iran is like.


Wayne says :"Education, healthcare, social services, freedom of all religious practice, and freedom of expression are a right for its entire people..... this means Arabs as well. This leaves their country as one of the best in the world."

And yet they still deal with the collective punishments of the people on the Gaza Strip, and steal and occupy land on the West Bank. Is this action typical of a "best country in the World"?


Wayne says: ". The military might of Israel has all ways been used in a way that would limit civilian casualties. Arabs fighting Israel or Arab on Arab military target civilians."


Which is not borne out by the statistics on the deaths of Palestinians within either west Bank or Gaza. It is a common talking point, but not true. The occupying force has a responsibility to reduce civilian deaths. You do not do this by bombing, air striking or mortaring large areas of civilian infrastructure, or by targetting random people.


Wayne says "A single death is a tragedy, are million deaths is a statistic. -Joseph Stalin "

David Ben Gurion says: "“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.”


Wayne says: "You bash the Jews for every single Palestinian death and forget that the Hamas charter calls for the death of millions of Jews."

You forget that Hamas has said several tinmes that they are desirous of peace with Israel, and will recognise Israel if it withdraws to 1967 borders.

Israel has never explored this proposal.

shlemazl said...

Filcher, the Ben Gurion quote is a fabrication. Blood libel.

Guess this answers the question whether the right or the left are anti-Semitic.

Zach Bell said...

Not only is the Ben Gurion quite a fabrication, it's attributed to the wrong person.

The first person who was supposed to have said this was Israel Koenig. Since the quote came from a private discussion paper, I guess the idiots who came up with it thought no one would be able to look and see if it was actually said.

Of course, nothing even resembling the quote was said by either Koenig or Gurion.

The whole debate is full of farcical and ridiculous nonsense just like that.

Cheers

harebell said...

The actions of the dominionists in the US are akin to that of a farmer. They insist on keeping their calf safe and well fed because they intend for that investment to pay off in the future.
Kirsch's a history of the end of the world covers some of the issues very well, but the dominionists will have to find 144000 jewish male virgins when the temple is rebuilt to convert if their plan is to succeed.
The fundies are in fact just using people to further their own sad and deluded ends. It's what they do best look at the number of poor folk who they've convinced to finance them and vote for people who will bleed them dry.
Nobody is as corrupt as religious leaders and I do include politicians in that too.
How many times has the world been due to end and yet here we still are.

JABbering Stooge said...

I can't think of a better reason. Is it truly that simple? "I support Israel because I am a deranged, religious whackjob waiting for the Rapture." Is that it?

Pretty much, CC. And if Israel has to "exterminate every sand n****r from the Nile to the Khyber Pass," so much the better.

JABbering Stooge said...

you have drank the Kool-Aid and licked the bottom of the punch bowl.

Would that be the punch bowl you just shit in, Wayne?

JABbering Stooge said...

Wayne:

There may strict immigration laws, but there laws also have strong anti-discrimination laws.

Arabs cab run and do win elections there.

Education, healthcare, social services, freedom of all religious practice, and freedom of expression are a right for its entire people..... this means Arabs as well. This leaves their country as one of the best in the world.


Really? You might want to tell that to the Israeli Arabs. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear that as they're being herded into the Galilee Ghetto.

shlemazl:

Can you give me 1 example of a main-stream right-winger who is "supporting "Israel" while at the same time being virulently anti-Semitic, what with their "Jews control the banks" and "Jews control Hollywood" and "Hey, wasn't the Holocaust a hoot?" "

Two words: John Hagee.

toujoursdan said...

It's simple. The dirty Moooslems are the Jews of the 21st Century and Israel's Jews have moved up a notch because they are whiter and more European. I even had a troll on my blog who tried to convince me that because I am gay and Hamas is anti-gay I shouldn't care how Israel treats the Gazans because Israel is relatively gay friendly. Gazans deserve long term starvation and death because they elected Hamas. It was bizarre.

Also, Israel puts on a good propaganda campaign to convince westerners that they are just like us, though western countries generally stopped treating minorities the way Israel treats the Arabs under its power way back in the 1960s. Most are too stupid to think critically.

Paladiea said...

Why is shlemazl even here?

To accuse everyone here of anti-semitism that's why!

Begone, and leave the discussion to adults.

Kusotarre said...

I'll take my own whack at Wayne, I suppose.

Wayne says : "1. The rise of totalitarian Islam, which must be stopped at any cost."

I actually agree. Religious fundamentalism of all stripes is acid to liberal democracy, and Islam especially so, both for scriptural and historical reasons.

However, this is said in the context of why you support Israel, and implicitly the current attacks on Gaza. Your implicit premise - that attacking Gaza in such a way will help defeat Islamic fundamentalism - is obviously false.

I could go on at length about how absurd it is, but instead I'll be snarky and say that if you want to kill fundamentalism, give them enough money to buy an xBox and teach them evolutionary biology.


Wayne says:"2. Israel is a Democracy in a modern way. Is there any true Arab Democracy? "

Israel is not a democracy in a modern way. They do not observe the rule of law.

Turkey is an Islamic democracy. Iran was, until the CIA overthrew them (that worked out well).

Further, though, getting Hamas participating in politics was maybe the best chance Israel had to get this all over with in the past decade. Of course, they pissed it all away by attacking Gaza again as soon as Hamas decided they wanted to push for a peaceful resolution along the June 1967 borders.

Wayne says: "There may strict immigration laws, but there laws also have strong anti-discrimination laws."

Not true at all.

The immigration policy is just the start of it. Any Jew can move to Israel and become a citizen right away, with full rights. Not Jewish? Tough shit.

Illegal settlements spread throughout the occupied territories, and attacks on Palestinians are relentless and barely attempted to be controlled by the IDF (by the way, unless something has changed, every non-military Israeli death in this scuffle has been in an illegal settlement).

Israel is a democracy like America was a democracy... in 1820.

Wayne says: "6. The military might of Israel has all ways been used in a way that would limit civilian casualties. Arabs fighting Israel or Arab on Arab military target civilians."

Complete bullshit. Every time Israel uses it's airpower to hit a target, it knows it will kill civilians. This is in no way ethically superior to just firing shitty ass rockets East and hoping it kills a Zionist. It's not even ethically superior to blowing yourself up in a cafe.

Both Islamists and Israelis know full well that when they attack, be it with a suicide vest or a clusterbomb missile, that civilians will surely die.

Further, it's completely lunatic to say that Israel does everything possible to avoid civilian death. They have repeatedly targeted UN buildings, schools, press vehicles, etcetera. Maybe you've forgotten already that they killed Canadians working for the UN in their last idiotic and pointless invasion of Lebanon?

Wayne says: "But, then again I'm talking to moonbats who love Ernesto "Che" Guevara the Butcher of La Cabana, Mao Zedong the killer of millions of his own people and Joseph Stalin killer of millions of his own people."

I don't support those people, and I doubt most of the people here do. But, of course, you're a nutter, and nuance isn't possible for you. You are either Good. Or Evil. There is no gray in Wayne's World.

Wayne says: "You bash the Jews for every single Palestinian death and forget that the Hamas charter calls for the death of millions of Jews."

None of us forget that Hamas is terrible. We can, however, accept the fact that this attack will only strengthen Hamas among the Palestinians, particularly since Israel started this particular fight unprovoked.

And BTW, the Palestinians won't support Hamas more because they are inherently awful people, they will support Hamas more because they are inescapably human, and humans do very weird things.

You would, too.

Wayne says: "You morons live and breathe communist crap and I cannot understand you useful idiots."

You know, I really don't get why I bother starting these responses.

CC is right.

You are too ridiculous to actually argue with.

Wayne said...

toujoursdan:

Being gay, you should be very worried if Islam wins. Your thinking is bizarre.

Israel is a middle eastern nation and it treats minorities in its nation better than any middle eastern nation treats its minorities. Could they improve...yes.

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness...."
Adolf Hitler

"I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as Ican see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself."
Alexis de Tocqueville

Paladiea said...

Here Wayne I'll help you out. KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG. KILLING PEOPLE ON A LARGE SCALE IS MORE WRONG.

Do you understand that?

mikmik said...

Isreal is an outpost of US military influence. They are a US ally, ergo wingnuts like them.

Wayne said...

Kusotarre:

I'll take my own whack at Wayne, I suppose. GOOD

Wayne says : "1. The rise of totalitarian Islam, which must be stopped at any cost."

I actually agree. Religious fundamentalism of all stripes is acid to liberal democracy, and Islam especially so, both for scriptural and historical reasons. - AGREE

However, this is said in the context of why you support Israel, and implicitly the current attacks on Gaza. Your implicit premise - that attacking Gaza in such a way will help defeat Islamic fundamentalism - is obviously false.

I could go on at length about how absurd it is, but instead I'll be snarky and say that if you want to kill fundamentalism, give them enough money to buy an xBox and teach them evolutionary biology. – AGREE BUT GIVING THEM AN XBOX AND WESTERN EDUCATION WOULD LEAD TO DEATH. YOU NEED TO GET RID OF THE FANATICS FIRST…. HOW…. I DON’T KNOW. LOOK HOW FAR THE WEST HAD TO GO TO STOP THE JAPANESE.


Wayne says:"2. Israel is a Democracy in a modern way. Is there any true Arab Democracy? "

Israel is not a democracy in a modern way. They do not observe the rule of law. –COMPARED TO THEIR NEIGHBOURS THERE LAWS ARE HIGHLY ENLIGHTENED.

Turkey is an Islamic democracy. Iran was, until the CIA overthrew them (that worked out well). – AGREE TO A POINT. TURKEY IS A SECULAR DEMOCRACY THAT HAS A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ISLAMIC, WHICH WILL BE THEIR DOWNFALL IN THE END. THE CIA ALSO FUCKED UP SOUTH AMERICA IN SIMILAR WAYS.

Further, though, getting Hamas participating in politics was maybe the best chance Israel had to get this all over with in the past decade. Of course, they pissed it all away by attacking Gaza again as soon as Hamas decided they wanted to push for a peaceful resolution along the June 1967 borders. – DON’T AGREE. ISRAEL GAVE GAZA BACK; HAMAS HAS JUST KEPT FIRING THE ROCKETS. WHY WOULD ISRAEL EVEN THINK OF GIVING THE 1967 LAND BACK TO AN ELECTED MOVEMENT BENT ON ELIMINATING THEM?

Wayne says: "There may strict immigration laws, but there laws also have strong anti-discrimination laws."

Not true at all.

The immigration policy is just the start of it. Any Jew can move to Israel and become a citizen right away, with full rights. Not Jewish? Tough shit. – JAPAN IS THE SAME WAY. SO WHAT.

Illegal settlements spread throughout the occupied territories, and attacks on Palestinians are relentless and barely attempted to be controlled by the IDF (by the way, unless something has changed, every non-military Israeli death in this scuffle has been in an illegal settlement). -AGREE

Israel is a democracy like America was a democracy... in 1820. –AGREE, THE ARABS ARE IN THE 7TH CENTURY.

Wayne says: "6. The military might of Israel has all ways been used in a way that would limit civilian casualties. Arabs fighting Israel or Arab on Arab military target civilians."

Complete bullshit. Every time Israel uses it's airpower to hit a target, it knows it will kill civilians. This is in no way ethically superior to just firing shitty ass rockets East and hoping it kills a Zionist. It's not even ethically superior to blowing yourself up in a cafe.

Both Islamists and Israelis know full well that when they attack, be it with a suicide vest or a clusterbomb missile, that civilians will surely die.

Further, it's completely lunatic to say that Israel does everything possible to avoid civilian death. They have repeatedly targeted UN buildings, schools, press vehicles, etcetera. Maybe you've forgotten already that they killed Canadians working for the UN in their last idiotic and pointless invasion of Lebanon? – DISAGREE IN ISRAEL WAS AN ARAB NATION, GAZA WOULD HAVE BEEN SHELLED UNTIL NOTHING BREATHED.

Wayne says: "But, then again I'm talking to moonbats who love Ernesto "Che" Guevara the Butcher of La Cabana, Mao Zedong the killer of millions of his own people and Joseph Stalin killer of millions of his own people."

I don't support those people, and I doubt most of the people here do. But, of course, you're a nutter, and nuance isn't possible for you. You are either Good. Or Evil. There is no gray in Wayne's World. –GOOD, I HAVE MY DOUBTS THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE AGREE WITH YOU. THERE IS SO MUCH GRAY THAT I CAN HARDLY TELL ONE SHADE FROM THE OTHER.

Wayne says: "You bash the Jews for every single Palestinian death and forget that the Hamas charter calls for the death of millions of Jews."

None of us forget that Hamas is terrible. We can, however, accept the fact that this attack will only strengthen Hamas among the Palestinians, particularly since Israel started this particular fight unprovoked. –UNPROVOKED… BULL. HAMAS HAS SENT SUICIDE BOMBERS AND ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL, THE PALESTINIANS ELECTED HAMAS; THE PALESTINIANS ARE GETTING THEIR WISHES GRANTED.

And BTW, the Palestinians won't support Hamas more because they are inherently awful people, they will support Hamas more because they are inescapably human, and humans do very weird things. –AGREE.

You would, too.

Wayne says: "You morons live and breathe communist crap and I cannot understand you useful idiots."

You know, I really don't get why I bother starting these responses.

CC is right.

You are too ridiculous to actually argue with.-THANKS

Wayne said...

Paladiea:

Murder is wrong, killing is unfortunately necessary sometimes. It all depends on the intent. Reality bites.

I want the fucking bloodshed to stop. Who doesn't?

Paladiea said...

Murder is wrong, killing is unfortunately necessary sometimes. It all depends on the intent. Reality bites.

There's that moral relativism you right wingers claim you hate.

The ends don't justify the means.

Wayne said...

How is it moral relativism?

I think this is a neutral concept; intent is the difference between murder and killing.

"The ends don't justify the means."

What a clichéd and paradoxical statement that defies intuition. I believe "The ends don't ALWAYS justify the means."

Adam C said...

I'm late to the discussion, but I can't believe you guys are arguing with Wayne.

To the point, CC, I think a lot of it is just picking sides. The people they identify with as their leaders back Israel, so they do too. The same thing happens all the time with global warming. Evidence and argument are secondary to belonging to the conservative tribe.

lenny said...

"intent is the difference between murder and killing."

No Wayne. Intent is the difference between first and second degree murder.
Regardless, to maintain that Israel has no intent despite all the evidence to the contrary, isn't credible.

Paladiea said...

I think this is a neutral concept; intent is the difference between murder and killing.

A death is a death. And the deaths of people is wrong if it can be prevented.

What a clichéd and paradoxical statement that defies intuition. I believe "The ends don't ALWAYS justify the means."

You clearly don't understand what the phrase means then.

If I kill 10,000 people so I can get a year of peace, is that justified? It's not because the outcome (the ends, in this case peace) does not excuse the fact that I had to kill 10,000 people to do it.

If you believe that you can justify the killing of hundreds of people for the sake of security then you're indulging in the most odious kind of moral relativism.

Wayne said...

Paladiea:

"You clearly don't understand what the phrase means then."

I know exactly what you mean. Do not presume that I don't. You are wrong, in my opinion. You missed "always"

"If I kill 10,000 people so I can get a year of peace, is that justified? It's not because the outcome (the ends, in this case peace) does not excuse the fact that I had to kill 10,000 people to do it." YES, YES, YES


"If you believe that you can justify the killing of hundreds of people for the sake of security then you're indulging in the most odious kind of moral relativism."

It is not moral relativism, do I think there are many ways to look at this situation, and find them equally valid, no. Killing for security is a neutral concept.

If you kill 100,000 when you only have to kill 10,000 then you are not justified.

“Moral relativism (or in other words, letting the laws, standards, and permissible acts of society change with the whims and desires of the populace) leads to anarchy, chaos, and ultimately, nihilism.”

Wayne said...

"Any person who claims to be tolerant naturally defines himself in opposition to those who are intolerant. But that makes him intolerant of certain person - which invalidates his claim to be tolerant."
- Judea Pearl speaking on the famous paradox formulated by Bertrand Russell in 1901, but in a political form, instead of mathematical.

Do you see?

toujoursdan said...

Being gay, you should be very worried if Islam wins. Your thinking is bizarre.


I live in a 30% Muslim neighbourhood and have neighbours who know I am gay and have no trouble with it. There are Muslim organizations that supported gay marriage in this country.

I am much more worried about ideologicals and tribalists of all stripes including yourself. They are the ones who pose the greatest danger to humanity.

P.S. My Jewish boyfriend agrees and thinks what Israel is doing is an extremely poor Jewish witness to the world, is self defeating and makes the Islamist threat worse. They are contributing to the rise of radical Islam.

shlemazl said...

The murder/killing discussion is interesting. In legal terms it's very simple. If

1. You take a hostage.
2. Shoot at a policeman
3. Policeman shoots back at you but kills the hostage

Then in law YOU will be charged with murder. Not the policeman.

Your condemning the policeman rather than the hostage-taker promotes hostage-taking. Which is why some of you are inadvertently promoting terrorism.

Filcher said...

Schmezzle says : "shlemazl said...
Filcher, the Ben Gurion quote is a fabrication. Blood libel.

Guess this answers the question whether the right or the left are anti-Semitic."


The point is that anyone can take a quote off the internet about practically anything.



Wayne says: “DON’T AGREE. ISRAEL GAVE GAZA BACK; HAMAS HAS JUST KEPT FIRING THE ROCKETS.


Not true Wayne. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs bears out the fact that until Israel attacked into Gaza on Nov 5 that Hamas had reduced the number of rockets launched into Israel to hardly anything. There is also no actual evidence that Hamas was behind those few launchings, and quite a lot, considering the ordnance they are now using, that it wasn’t them launching the rockets but other extremists.


Wayne says: “WHY WOULD ISRAEL EVEN THINK OF GIVING THE 1967 LAND BACK TO AN ELECTED MOVEMENT BENT ON ELIMINATING THEM?


Israel is giving nothing back, because the lands don’t belong to Israel, but to the Palestinian peoples? Palestinians are conceding lands by agreeing to 1967 borders,.

Wayne says:” DISAGREE IN ISRAEL WAS AN ARAB NATION, GAZA WOULD HAVE BEEN SHELLED UNTIL NOTHING BREATHED.


The word I think is ‘if’
This is simply supposition and opinion.


Wayne says:” GOOD, I HAVE MY DOUBTS THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE AGREE WITH YOU. THERE IS SO MUCH GRAY THAT I CAN HARDLY TELL ONE SHADE FROM THE OTHER.


There is no grey when it is a disproportionate response. There is no grey when we talk about shelling refugee shelters, schools, hospitals, aid workers, trucks and vehicles on the road, workers, police stations, government offices. The key word is target. Israel is targeting their missiles to strike where civilians are. They are not showing concern at all for civilian casualties.



Wayne says: –UNPROVOKED… BULL. HAMAS HAS SENT SUICIDE BOMBERS AND ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL


I have not read of a suicide bombing in Israel for years, and I have already discussed the rockets.
B’tselem has infitada data on their website. It definitely shows that Palestinians have not been a major threat to Israel or it’s people since Hamas came to power, but Israel has remained a large threat to the Palestinians.



Wayne says:” THE PALESTINIANS ELECTED HAMAS; THE PALESTINIANS ARE GETTING THEIR WISHES GRANTED. “


The Palestinians elected Hamas in a democratic election, and Israel and the US and other ‘democratic’ nations, rather than deal with the new government, or even attempt to discuss the Palestinian problem with them, marginalized them, stole their money, punished the people they represent, and then agonised due to the Palestinians having hatred for Israel. What has Israel ever done for the Palestinians who’s land Israel has been built on?



Schmiegel says: "Then in law YOU will be charged with murder. Not the policeman.

Your condemning the policeman rather than the hostage-taker promotes hostage-taking. Which is why some of you are inadvertently promoting terrorism.



You are looking at it from a Israeli POV. You should equate it to a thief stealing your possessions (ie land), and abusing and degrading your family (collective punishments of birder closures and energy, water and food rationing), and you trying to stop him.

Paladiea said...

If you kill 100,000 when you only have to kill 10,000 then you are not justified.

I'm glad to see the callous disregard for human life on such open display. You do your affiliation well Wayne.

"Any person who claims to be tolerant naturally defines himself in opposition to those who are intolerant. But that makes him intolerant of certain person - which invalidates his claim to be tolerant."

Uh huh, except that's irrelevant.

Let me illustrate this for you.

The taking of human life is wrong. IF you want to claim that such killings are justified, you must proclaim a very good reason.

The nebulous "security" that Israel is promoting is NOT A VALID REASON.

Therefore this is wrong.

Furthermore you agreed with me initially that killing someone was wrong yes?

To claim after that killing is wrong EXCEPT when there are circumstances (which you have not defined yet by the way) Is changing how you view/interpret the law at your whim (changing the standards of society should you get your way). Therefore it's moral relativism.

Some questions for you wayne. In what cases is it ok to kill someone?

If a person is said to be in defence, what does the law say about excessive violence?

Get back to me with those.

Shlemazl, no one's talking to you. In fact, no one here even thinks you have something substantial to say. GO AWAY.

Wayne said...

toujoursdan:

You just lucky to live in Canada and not Europe. You have nothing to fear from me.

shlemazl: 5 out of 5 stars.

Frank Frink said...

Still arguing with Wayne? It's futile, kiddies. He knows he's lying and pulling stuff out his ass but you'll never ever get him to admit it.

May as well talk to a rock. At least the rock is incapable of lying or pulling stuff out it's ass. ;-)

Paladiea said...

Haha too true Frank...

I give up for the night, logic and reason are hopeless. And just forget about compassion! Best to ignore them and move on.

Wayne said...

Paladiea:

"Furthermore you agreed with me initially that killing someone was wrong yes?" Murder is wrong.

"To claim after that killing is wrong EXCEPT when there are circumstances (which you have not defined yet by the way) Is changing how you view/interpret the law at your whim (changing the standards of society should you get your way). Therefore it's moral relativism." OK, I see what you mean by "moral relativism", I just don't agree with your view.


"In what cases is it ok to kill someone?" In self-defence.

If a person is said to be in defence, what does the law say about excessive violence?

It depends on the particular facts and circumstances. You should only use enough force to stop the violence and kill only if have no doubt and are fearful that you would be killed. (Excessive violence in hockey, seems to be ok.)

Wayne said...

Frank Frink:

So you would rather just preach to the converted? I don't want to comment where everyone agrees, how do you get new ideas or insight into how others think? I might not like what I see or you might not like what you see, but it deserves to be seen. How else do we grow and learn to get along?

Paladiea, Filcher, Kusotarre have made points that I have not thought about before, a different angle.

shlemazl is the one that makes the most sense to me.

JABbering Stooge said...

shlemazl is the one that makes the most sense to me.

Right. The person whose sole "contribution" to the conversation has been to call anyone who dares to so much as criticize Israeli traffic laws anti-Semitic is the one who makes the most sense. Sure.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.

shlemazl said...

You are looking at it from a Israeli POV. You should equate it to a thief stealing your possessions (ie land), and abusing and degrading your family (collective punishments of birder closures and energy, water and food rationing), and you trying to stop him.

How far back are you looking? Sixty years? There was Arab attack, civil war then aggression from a bunch of Arab nations which lost the war. Hundred years? There was purchasing of land. Why not look back 2000 or 3000 years?

Although Jews have a much stronger historic argument arguing about history is pointless. It's complex, circular and isn't going to get you anywhere. The point is that today the vast majority of Israelis were born in Israel, including all their leaders and the vast majority of Palestinians were born outside Israel. Arafat was born in Egypt.

Are you telling me that it's OK for Hamas to shoot at kindergardens because great great grandfathers of these babies won a war against Arabs?

There are only two perspectives: normal and that of a terrorist.

shlemazl said...

Right. The person whose sole "contribution" to the conversation has been to call anyone who dares to so much as criticize Israeli traffic laws anti-Semitic

Can I have a reference? You see I never said anything of the kind. The author of this post on the other hand claimed that all right-wingers are anti-Semites. He lied, just like you did.

Frank Frink said...

shlemazl is the one that makes the most sense to me.

Oh, that's such a surprise. No, really! Pretty much says a whole lot about you, too.

And I suppose this is why you thought you would like to come over and Pale & Prole's house to lay a big steaming coil on their carpet. Sorry, Wayner, they're already on to you.

I love word verification here. I swear I am not making this up.
wv = "ariblib"

Frank Frink said...

Shlemazl, re: JAB's comment to you -- you do understand sarcasm?

Do you take everything so literally? Do you always take yourself waaaaaay too seriously? Wait, don't answer that last one.

shlemazl said...

Frank Frink:

Do you always ask clever questions? See sarcasm only makes sense if it bares semblence to reality.

sassy said...

Shlemazl - what's with your blog?

This blog is open to invited readers only
http://shlemazl.blogspot.com/

Frank Frink said...

I thought I asked you not to answer that last question.

Thanks all the same.

Filcher said...

Schmiegel says :"Although Jews have a much stronger historic argument arguing about history is pointless."


Actually I think Rome has a much stronger historic claim to the land. Palestinians have a claim because the falmilies lived in the region, grew up in the region and moved to and from the region.

There are many Palestinians in the concentration, I mean Gaza, that were born in Israel and forced to move out.


Smegiel says: "How far back are you looking? Sixty years? There was Arab attack, civil war then aggression from a bunch of Arab nations which lost the war. Hundred years? There was purchasing of land. Why not look back 2000 or 3000 years?"


Sixty years is far enough back. That is within living memory to a great deal of people, people that were born inside Israel's borders, and not allowed to return. Going back before the creation of Israel? There was purchasing of land, but when israel was founded most of the land in Israel was still held by Palestinians, many of whom left due to fear of war, or intimidation by Israeli groups.

Schmeigel says: "Are you telling me that it's OK for Hamas to shoot at kindergardens because great great grandfathers of these babies won a war against Arabs?


Palestinian rockets are not shooting at anyone, as they lack proper targetting mechanism. The rockets are not as dangerous as you seem to think anyway, in 6 months of bombardment during the ceasefire no one was killed by a rocket attack, in fact no Isreali had been killed by a rocket attack since Nov of 2006.

You are confusing the issue, the hatred of Israel stems from the loss of the land, it has nothing to do with the war of 1948, except as a catalyst for the arab nations.

As for the shooting rockets into Israel at random, it is a crime, and if someone is hit and killed it's murder. Under the same Laws however, targetting or not attempting to reduce civilian casualties is a war crime. Shooting missiles that are targetted to hit UN schools with hundreds of refugees inside, or blowing up houses that are known to hold refugees, is a war crime, as the target of the missile is known along with the certainty it will cause injury and likely death to those inside.

shlemazl said...

@sassy

I can give you access if you give me an e-mail address. Haven't decided what to do with my blog.

shlemazl said...

Filcher

1. Please stop calling me names. It creates the impression that I am arguing with a 5-year old.

2. Sixty years is far enough back. That is within living memory to a great deal of people, people that were born inside Israel's borders, and not allowed to return

"Living memory"? That's a new one for me. Can I assume that you would also support the transfer of Sudets, Koeniegsberg and Danzig to Germany, Kurils to Japan and, naturally, of Kosovo to Serbia to be accompanied by major expulsions of the current inhabitants?

Your "great deal" is about 2%. Some 3.4% of the population of Gaza are over 64 years of age and are therefore old enough to remember anything. I am guessing more than half of these 3.4% were born in Gaza itself.

For comparison, 75% of Israelis were born in Israel. Whose "living memory" is better? The balance includes Jewish refugees from the Arab countries.

3. when israel was founded most of the land in Israel was still held by Palestinians

False. When Israel was founded most of the land belonged to the British Mandate, which in turn inherited the land from the dissolved Ottoman Empire. Or are you using the Hamas principle that once the land belongs to an Islamic state, it is classed as "Muslim" for eternity?

4. the hatred of Israel stems from the loss of the land

False. There were anti-Jewish murderous pogroms in the year of 1920 and most years after that. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs supported Nazi Germany. Did Nazi hatred of Jews stem from the "loss of land" as well?

5. in fact no Isreali had been killed by a rocket attack since Nov of 2006.

False, but even if it were not false, terrorism, maiming and attempted murder are NOT OK. It is the primary duty of any state to ensure safety of its citizens and the State of Israel is guilty of negligence in not acting decisively much sooner.

6. Palestinian rockets are not shooting at anyone, as they lack proper targetting mechanism.

False and false. Chinese Grads in particular have fairly sophisticated targeting mechanisms; you just need to know how to use it. Gaza-manufactured missiles are designed with shrapnel to inflict maximum damage on humans. We know for a fact that Hamas is targeting civilians as a matter of policy. Suicide bombs exploded in the nightclubs, schoolbuses, pizzerias, etc... When they kill Israeli children there are celebrations and the giving out of sweets in the streets of Gaza.

7. not attempting to reduce civilian casualties is a war crime

Agreed. If Israel did not try to reduce civilian casualties it could have flattened Gaza in a matter of hours without ANY risk to Israeli soldiers. Avoiding civilian casualties in Gaza is not possible. Terrorists wear civilian clothes, use Mosques and schools for military purposes. No reliable data, but based on what I've seen Israel is doing better at avoiding civilian casualties than, for example, NATO during the Kosovo conflict.

Wayne said...

Frank:

"And I suppose this is why you thought you would like to come over and Pale & Prole's house to lay a big steaming coil on their carpet. Sorry, Wayner, they're already on to you."

Know I thought I could have a dialog, but it is impossible.

Good news is Raskolnikov is back.

Wayne said...

If you never change your mind, why have one?
-Edward de Bono

Frank Frink said...

Wayne,

You thought you would have a dialogue with Pale & Prole? Geez, are you ever dumb. Either one would have your balls on a stick before you even noticed they were missing.

Besides, Pale really, I mean really, hates having to fumigate the place.

No, actually the truth here Wayne is you wanted to troll me. Better luck next lifetime.

wv - "psidi" as in "You psidi boy, Wayne"

Filcher said...

shlemazl said... “1. Please stop calling me names. It creates the impression that I am arguing with a 5-year old.”

I do apologize. It is just that the name is hard to remember and I found after a while just easier to type. I will just italicise your quotes from now on.


"Living memory"? That's a new one for me. Can I assume that you would also support the transfer of Sudets, Koeniegsberg and Danzig to Germany, Kurils to Japan and, naturally, of Kosovo to Serbia to be accompanied by major expulsions of the current inhabitants?


The Palestinians and their offspring do remember a recent past that included living on the land where Israel is. For the last 60 years there have been Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank who have lived inside Israel. Your post really makes it seem that Israel is not seeking peace in order for the older Palestinians to die off, so they can claim no one in the Territories has any personal claim on the land.

This actually would make sense, considering the blockade and rationing of water and power, as the older people are generally not as healthy and strong as the young ones.


False. When Israel was founded most of the land belonged to the British Mandate, which in turn inherited the land from the dissolved Ottoman Empire. Or are you using the Hamas principle that once the land belongs to an Islamic state, it is classed as "Muslim" for eternity?

I really would like proof that the land belonged to the British Mandate. My understanding is that it belonged to the indigenous people of the area, and the League of Nations had allowed Britain to administer the area. If Hamas is using the principle that land which once was Muslim, should stay Muslim, it would be no less ridiculous than the claims of some that the land was Israel’s 2000 or 600 or 4000 years ago, or that an invisible man with a robe and a beard gave it to them, so they are the true owners of it.

I also understand that Palestinians who were driven off the land, privately owned much of the land in Palestine, when Israel was founded. These Palestinians have never been paid for this land that was lost and then claimed by Israel.

False. There were anti-Jewish murderous pogroms in the year of 1920 and most years after that. The vast majority of Palestinian Arabs supported Nazi Germany. Did Nazi hatred of Jews stem from the "loss of land" as well?


Much of the hatred was started by Zionists who regaled the arabs with tales of establishing a Jewish state, run by Jews and for Jews, making the arabs, who had originally been supportive of allowing Jewish immigration, uneasy. There were also instances of Jewish intrusion into arab culture and beliefs, that caused problems. The problems were economic, social and cultural in scope, with the increasing immigration putting pressure on the arabs, and creating a Palestinian nationalism in counter of Jewish nationalism. The focus on religion was a useful tool used by both sides, but it was not a major factor in creating a feeling of uneasy in the early Palestinians.


False, but even if it were not false, terrorism, maiming and attempted murder are NOT OK. It is the primary duty of any state to ensure safety of its citizens and the State of Israel is guilty of negligence in not acting decisively much sooner.

Until the breakdown of the ceasefire, there were no casualties from rocket fire since May 2007, when Osri Oz and Shiret Friedman were killed by a Qassam rocket landing near them.

I never said that terrorism, maiming and attempted murder are okay, I have repeatedly said the people who launch rockets into Israel are murderers, and that it is as much of a war crime as intentionally targeting a school where refugees are, or bombing a hospital compound, or targeting trucks on a road, or any of a number of things the Israel apologists are defending. A war crime is a war crime, and it is childish to use the excues, “well hamas does”

If Hamas jumped off a bridge would you automatically jump off a bridge? I hope not, so quit your support of Israel’s crimes against the people of Palestine, and Gaza in particular.


False and false. Chinese Grads in particular have fairly sophisticated targeting mechanisms; you just need to know how to use it. Gaza-manufactured missiles are designed with shrapnel to inflict maximum damage on humans. We know for a fact that Hamas is targeting civilians as a matter of policy. Suicide bombs exploded in the nightclubs, schoolbuses, pizzerias, etc... When they kill Israeli children there are celebrations and the giving out of sweets in the streets of Gaza.

When did the Grads come into play, after Hamas started retaliating the attacks into Gaza by Israel forces. Before that there were the Qassam , and home made rockets, that can’t be targeted. As long as Israel is running military operations in Gaza, and targeting civilian infrastructure in Gaza, I doubt there is a moral argument that says that Hamas can’t do the same.

That both actions are war crimes, and should be viewed with repugnance seems lost on you.


Agreed. If Israel did not try to reduce civilian casualties it could have flattened Gaza in a matter of hours without ANY risk to Israeli soldiers. Avoiding civilian casualties in Gaza is not possible. Terrorists wear civilian clothes, use Mosques and schools for military purposes. No reliable data, but based on what I've seen Israel is doing better at avoiding civilian casualties than, for example, NATO during the Kosovo conflict.

But Israel is not trying to reduce civilian casualties by purposely targeting the buildings that hold civilians. It does not matter if there are terrorists inside; it is a war crime to target these civilians, with the knowledge you will kill them.

Again, you are using the excuse “Well NATO did it. Why can’t I?”

JABbering Stooge said...

See sarcasm only makes sense if it bares semblence to reality.

Okay,

shlemazl, 1/11/09, 2:27 PM:
Filcher, the Ben Gurion quote is a fabrication. Blood libel.

Guess this answers the question whether the right or the left are anti-Semitic.


shlemazl, 1/11/09, 9:49 PM:
Your condemning the policeman rather than the hostage-taker promotes hostage-taking. Which is why some of you are inadvertently promoting terrorism.

shlemazl, 1/11/09, 11:14 PM (four minutes before you accused me of lying):
Are you telling me that it's OK for Hamas to shoot at kindergardens because great great grandfathers of these babies won a war against Arabs?

There are only two perspectives: normal and that of a terrorist.


The prosecution rests, your honor. *sits back and waits while shlemazl fumes, rages, shifts the goalposts and calls me an anti-Semite for the thoughtcrime of criticizing any Israeli policy*

shlemazl said...

Your post really makes it seem that Israel is not seeking peace in order for the older Palestinians to die off, so they can claim no one in the Territories has any personal claim on the land.

That's not what I said. I am simply responding to the ridiculous "living memory" argument, which clearly does not work. Lots of changes and popultion movements happened in the last 60 years, but none of them justify terrorism against Israelis or anyone else.

Israelis do seek peace. There could have been one in 48 - Arabs attacked. Israel offered peace for land after victory in 6-day war - arabs said "no no no!". Israel gave away Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt. Barak/Clinton tried with Arafat, but it didn't work. Israel uprooted her people from Gaza unilaterally - received escalation in missiles and terror in return.

Hamas charter clearly states that they seek extermination of all Jews. Sorry, I doubt Israel will ever accept peace on these terms.

blockade and rationing of water and power

Israel has no obligation to supply entity which is terrorizing her civilians. Let Egypt supply Hamas if they want to. Your point does not work because there is no blockade of the West Bank which makes it clear that Israel has no evil intent as per your wild claims.

Your points on Grads and Qassams are factually wrong. My uncle is a surgen in Israel who has been helping thousands of Qassams victims. They have used Grads in the past and you appear to be excluding non-lethal casualties, but it does not matter. The damage is goes beyond physical - it's not OK for kids to have to run to bomb-shelters every single day for years. Anyway, we agree that either way shooting missiles targeting Israeli civilians is not unacceptable and therefore that self-defense is justified; let's leave it at that.

As long as Israel is running military operations in Gaza, and targeting civilian infrastructure in Gaza, I doubt there is a moral argument that says that Hamas can’t do the same.

The moment Palestinian terrorist groups running Gaza renounces the objective of destroying Israel, exterminating Jews and stop attacking Israel, there will be no Israeli military operations in Gaza. Until then Israel's obligation is to defend her citizens. Anything else is criminal negligence on behalf of any government.

But Israel is not trying to reduce civilian casualties by purposely targeting the buildings that hold civilians. It does not matter if there are terrorists inside; it is a war crime to target these civilians, with the knowledge you will kill them.

False. If attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists using this infrastructure have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities.

If Allies used your principle during WWII, you'd be speaking German right now and I wouldn't even be around.

shlemazl said...

@JABbering Stooge

Your jokes missed the target. Either they are too dumb for me or I am to dumb to understand them. Let's leave it at that.

Wayne said...

shlemazl: I don't get the jokes either.

I have enjoyed your comments, thank you.

Frank: I was not trying to troll you, just talk with you. If I am an asshole over at your blog, cut me off. But, I would like a chance.

Frank Frink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Frank Frink said...

Wayne, quite simply the choice or decision at ACR isn't mine to make. It is not my blog - i.e. I do not own or operate ACR, Pale & Prole do. I am merely their occasional house guest and they tolerate me even though I only come over, for the most part, to raid the refrigerator, drink all of Pale's Belgian beer and rare single malts, belch and fart loudly, and pass out on the couch half-dressed.

It wouldn't be my decision to 'cut you off' at ACR. I have neither that power nor authority. It's Pale & Prole's hizzle, not mine. If you're referring to 'frankfrink.blogspot', it's not a maintained blog. Just wanted to grab the name before anyone else did.

Just so you also know, Pale & Prole don't need my input to reach a decision to decline your registration request. They've seen your act, and believe me it's probably all for the best (and your own good) that you were declined. As I mentioned earlier, they would easily rip you to shreds but don't see any good reason to expend any energy doing so.

Wayne said...

More than fair, thanks Frank.