Shame on Israel!!!

[SoulSearcher]

It's time for you to get a clue. The right to free speech and every other freedom that you enjoy in my country has been bought and paid for by the blood of American soldiers. I welcome people who want to come and live in the freedom that we enjoy. But I don't feel the need to sit silently by and see the brave men and women of our armed services slandered by someone who is clearly on the wrong side of argument.

Enlighten me [Text: Removed by Moderator], which out of these interventions and wars that your flunkies took part in that has ensured my freedom of speech and other freedoms? Did the flunkies get rid of Jim Crows laws, did the flunkies get rid of lynchings? Did the flunkies desegregate? Did the flunkies allow blacks to vote? Did the flunkies allow women to become more than just pets? Which war from the following? Please enlighten me! I hear that argument so often, but it defies logic. Tell me!

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Like I said, linking "freedom" to the hundreds of military bases and constant cycle of wars will work with the complacent clueless masses, but not with me.

So now, in addition to characterizing our military as barbaric flunkies and now terrorists, you also appear to have a problem with poor people and minorities who elect to serve.

I have nothing against the poor or minorities, [Text: Removed by Moderator] the people who take us to war, have personal investments in oil companies, reconstruction companies, defense contracting firms, weapons manufacturing companies, etc., but hardly bear the burden of being at the employ of the military itself. Military recruiters don't go to the elite malls and country clubs to recruit flunkies, they deliberately target poor whites and minorities. They clothe wars with sanitised words like freedom, democracy, etc., to get the simpletons falling right in line with their flags, but use the security apparatus to open new markets abroad, and to maintain economic and strategic hegemony.

And BTW, if you've grown tired of living amongst us simpletons and want to head back to whatever slice of heaven you call home, let us know. We'd be happy to take up a collection to make that happen for you. You see, Americans are also the most generous people on earth.

No, leaving is not an option, I was hoping that instead of letting China fund your wars, you could perhaps have them fund schools and prevent them from closing and cutting budgets, education is the only way to uplift the ignorant masses in this country. And as I said above, unless you are Native Indian, I don't pay no mind to hicks who often say "leave". Thats like saying, "If you don't like Nazis, then leave Germany" during Nazi rule. [Text: Removed by Moderator] If we don't like something, we will do all we can to change that!

As for Americans being generous, whereas America does give more in aid as per quantity, it gives way less of its overall GDP than many other developed countries. Norway, Sweden, Japan, etc., give much more of its overall GDP than does the US. And European countries give most of their aid in humanitarians supplies, but much of the US "aid" is in the form of weapons and military equipment. Furthermore, Europe gives aid where the need is the most, whereas the US uses "aid" as a foreign policy tool. Take for instance, the fact that my country, Israel, which makes up a very very small percentage of the world population, receives more annual aid from the US, than all of Sub-Saharan Africa combined. Did you comprehend any of this?

 

[Kulindahr]

But the Palestinian Authority did not consent to the blockade! How does Israel gain "entitlement" over that coastline?

(one hesitates to point out something so obvious, but this key point is somehow lost in a sense of awe at Israel's "entitlement.")

It goes without saying that the Palestinians are "entitled" to skirt the blockade or it wouldn't be a blockade.

So when the international community weighs in to a dispute between two parties, we find that
a) opinions vary from country to country about the probity of the blockade
b) it is less about entitlements than reasons why the blockade should stand or not.

Turkey would evidently make the case that it should not stand.

If the Palestinian Authority objects to the blockade, they should take that up with the terrorists on whose account it exists.
Oh, wait -- they are those terrorists!

 

[JB3]

Really Soulsearcher? You're really belittling America for being the most generous nation on the planet when it comes to donations? Really?

And stop with this 'we' nonsense. You're not one of us, and you're clearly working against us based on your hate of this and other nations. You're sinking to new lows in this thread, Soulsearcher, and it isn't reflecting well on you.

 

[bankside]

If the Palestinian Authority objects to the blockade, they should take that up with the terrorists on whose account it exists.
Oh, wait -- they are those terrorists!

You're living in fantasy land if you think Israel has come at this situation with clean hands. They are going well beyond their borders (and I'm not even referring primarily to this incident), in a way that makes no tangible contribution to their security, and their intransigence, rather than acting even as a bargaining chip, merely teaches Palestinians and the Palestinian diaspora that they have nothing to lose.

If the intervention in question was executed by some third country doing a weapons search to determine the validity of the claims that it was only humanitarian supplies, that might be a different situation. But it certainly isn't the topic of this thread.

And as one who has frequently advocated the idea of unorganized (i.e. not responsible to goverment) militia as a means of national defence, I can't help but note you're just ignoring the role of palestinian self-defence in this conflict.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm still not seeing how these are not humanitarian supplies.

If they were humanitarian supplies, there should have been no problem letting the IDF inspect them. In fact, if these were really peace activists, they should have loaded the ships in such a way that everything was obviously in plain sight, and called ahead to invite the IDF to come look, and had camera teams ready to film the inspection.

Incidentally, I have no affection for Hamas. I agree they are a terrorist organisation. I think it would be productive to disqualify them from future elections. However I also think it would be productive to disqualify Netanyahu. And that damn wall will be on the green line, one way or another.

Hmmm -- banning Netanyahu in exchange for banning Hamas sounds good to me!

As for that wall, all things being equal, it should have followed a mathematical smoothing of the 'border' so as to keep the area on both sides equal.


And that brings to mind something Israel should have done back when they had the Sinai: told Egypt they could have it back but they had to take all the residents of Gaza with it, and the U.S. should have handed every resident of Gaza $10k as compensation for the exercise of 'eminent domain', plus enough to build better, roomier copies of the neighborhoods in Gaza in locations chosen by the Egyptians.

Now if I had a time machine.....

 

[JB3]

If the intervention in question was executed by some third country doing a weapons search to determine the validity of the claims that it was only humanitarian supplies, that might be a different situation. But it certainly isn't the topic of this thread.
.

Except Israel asked, quite reasonably I might add, that they be allowed to inspect the cargo and these agitators refused. The entire point of this was to bait Israel into responding the way they did. It had nothing to do with humanitarian aid and nothing to do with helping the people of Gaza.

 

[SoulSearcher]

and the U.S. should have handed every resident of Gaza $10k as compensation for the exercise of 'eminent domain', plus enough to build better, roomier copies of the neighborhoods in Gaza in locations chosen by the Egyptians.

The US should have paid? What the US should do with their money is build more schools, invest in more cancer research, fix the roads, and invest in the health of their own population, thats what the US needs to do. By what logic should the US give anything to residents of Gaza when that has nothing to do with the US?

 

[Kulindahr]

You're living in fantasy land if you think Israel has come at this situation with clean hands. They are going well beyond their borders (and I'm not even referring primarily to this incident), in a way that makes no tangible contribution to their security, and their intransigence, rather than acting even as a bargaining chip, merely teaches Palestinians and the Palestinian diaspora that they have nothing to lose.

If the intervention in question was executed by some third country doing a weapons search to determine the validity of the claims that it was only humanitarian supplies, that might be a different situation. But it certainly isn't the topic of this thread.

And as one who has frequently advocated the idea of unorganized (i.e. not responsible to goverment) militia as a means of national defence, I can't help but note you're just ignoring the role of palestinian self-defence in this conflict.

Your first point depends on how one defines "borders". Israel has occupied those territories in response to aggression. When they turned to turning out Palestinians to build settlements, though, they became aggressors. In such places, if Palestinians in organized militias struck to reclaim land that belonged to Palestinians, I'd have no problem.

I made my proposal for who should inspect humanitarian supply shipments. As it is, though, Israel has every business doing so. If the current Pope weren't a total dick, he could offer to let Dominicans do the inspections, supervised by Franciscans -- people sufficiently thorough and sufficiently peace-oriented it would be hard for anyone to complain (though I'm sure someone would come up with some reason).

Back to self-defense, Hamas does not qualify as a militia, and neither do the thugs who attacked the IDF. A real militia would have had officers who formally informed the IDF that the ship was under their protection, and that while they would happily allow inspection by people from countries on a list provided, they would not allow any IDF people to set foot on the ship. If such a thing had been done, and the statement been sent to the press of the world by internet and to the people by YouTube, Israel would have been in a real tight spots: if they proceeded then, it would be without justification, because the militia had declared the willingness of the flotilla to be searched -- just not by Israelis or other prejudiced parties.

This whole situation, BTW, brings up the question of how long it takes for a population to become a "people". Before 1948, the term "Palestinian" meant "resident of the legal area of Palestine", and it included Jews among others. The term now is virtually antithetical to "Jew". The term previously included Arabs, Persians, and others; now it is used essentially as an ethnic term. Many hold the position that the term is a fiction; others say the people to whom it refers have come to constitute a people. How do we decide?

 

[SoulSearcher]

Except Israel asked, quite reasonably I might add, that they be allowed to inspect the cargo and these agitators refused. The entire point of this was to bait Israel into responding the way they did. It had nothing to do with humanitarian aid and nothing to do with helping the people of Gaza.

Yes, but pretty much all the military analysts on Hebrew language news in Israel are saying that the IDF are more than amply trained to simply sabotage the engines of a ship in that particular situation, instead of sending in soldiers. Of course, American talking heads on the news didn't quite get there.

 

[Kulindahr]

The US should have paid? What the US should do with their money is build more schools, invest in more cancer research, fix the roads, and invest in the health of their own population, thats what the US needs to do. By what logic should the US give anything to residents of Gaza when that has nothing to do with the US?

Because Israel should have paid it, but they were getting so much aid from the U.S. the U.S. would have been effectively paying it. So I figure, cut out the middle man, and make the offer as a contribution to peace.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, but pretty much all the military analysts on Hebrew language news in Israel are saying that the IDF are more than amply trained to simply sabotage the engines of a ship in that particular situation, instead of sending in soldiers. Of course, American talking heads on the news didn't quite get there.

Okay, but that merely postpones the use of soldiers: at some point, people have to go on board in order to inspect. And given the not unlikely reception, like what occurred, who are they going to send but soldiers?

 

[SoulSearcher]

This whole situation, BTW, brings up the question of how long it takes for a population to become a "people". Before 1948, the term "Palestinian" meant "resident of the legal area of Palestine", and it included Jews among others. The term now is virtually antithetical to "Jew". The term previously included Arabs, Persians, and others; now it is used essentially as an ethnic term. Many hold the position that the term is a fiction; others say the people to whom it refers have come to constitute a people. How do we decide?

The same way every other "people" got their names. In social science, its called "imagined communities", it is not unique to Palestinians, virtually all "people" became a people the same way. And yes, there were always a presence of Palestinian Jews. And with the emergence of "new historians" in Israel, and as more and more Mizrahi Jews are becoming prominent, they are increasingly asserting their own unique identity as "Arab Jews". It doesn't quite fly with the official Zionist narrative, but I think it'll become more mainstream in the coming years.

 

[Kulindahr]

The same way every other "people" got their names. In social science, its called "imagined communities", it is not unique to Palestinians, virtually all "people" became a people the same way. And yes, there were always a presence of Palestinian Jews. And with the emergence of "new historians" in Israel, and as more and more Mizrahi Jews are becoming prominent, they are increasingly asserting their own unique identity as "Arab Jews". It doesn't quite fly with the official Zionist narrative, but I think it'll become more mainstream in the coming years.

That's interesting about the Mizrahi. I like non-conformists.

I didn't ask "how", I asked "how long"? Do we measure in years? generations? How many of those?

 

[SoulSearcher]

That's interesting about the Mizrahi. I like non-conformists.

I didn't ask "how", I asked "how long"? Do we measure in years? generations? How many of those?

There are no rules. Only the people themselves get to decide. Modern nationalism itself in the Middle East is a product of Western European influence, particularly as an affront to colonialism, and as an organisational tool to push for decolonisation. Previously, many of these communities would have a more religious, clan, village, town, etc., as their primary identity.

 

[JB3]

Yes, but pretty much all the military analysts on Hebrew language news in Israel are saying that the IDF are more than amply trained to simply sabotage the engines of a ship in that particular situation, instead of sending in soldiers. Of course, American talking heads on the news didn't quite get there.

Are you really that cynical? Israel has searched many ships in the past and not sabotaged them; what makes you think they're about to start.

 

[opinterph]

Wow

A better question is, how many Native Indians are still alive to benefit from your latest technology anyways. And it is also good to keep in mind the difference between advancement and being evolved.

I think I understand at least some portion of your admonishment.

The design of European comprehension and technology certainly overpowered the Native American way of life, but I think it reasonable to note that the aggressor lost a portion of his own “purity” through the process of that conquest. As is inevitable, individual elements from each side discovered ways to develop common ground and the culture of each was thus consequentially influenced and changed by the other. Native Americans were not annihilated, though their populations were severely decimated and their culture was essentially supplanted. Individuals who survived the conquest were either assimilated into the aggressor’s population or restricted to zones of insignificance.

As a general principle, it is perhaps true that “technology” is what usually determines the winner – not the righteousness of those who possess it.

… unless you are Native Indian, I don't pay no mind

Know all men by these presents;

My blood carries within it the spirit of my Native American ancestors.

 

[SoulSearcher]

Really Soulsearcher? You're really belittling America for being the most generous nation on the planet when it comes to donations? Really?

Wow, you sound so heart broken! Let me put it this way to make it easier for you. "A" gave me 5 of his 500 cans of tuna. "B" gave me 1 of his 10 cans of tuna. "A" obviously gave me more cans than "B", but "A" is in no way more generous, as he gave me less of his than "B". Rocket science? I think not.

And stop with this 'we' nonsense. You're not one of us, and you're clearly working against us based on your hate of this and other nations. You're sinking to new lows in this thread, Soulsearcher, and it isn't reflecting well on you.

That is beautiful and romantic and I'm sure they'll make a mini series about it! Until then, rest with the understanding that I don't care how anything reflects on me, especially from you.

Ps. In case aunt JoLynn didn't tell you, just because you speak out against a country's policies doesn't automatically make you hate that country or its people or ideals. In actuality, it is only the people who truly love the country who dissent and speak out when the country does things wrong. No person or entity deserves unconditional support ever.

 

[jackoroe]

Wow, you sound so heart broken! Let me put it this way to make it easier for you. "A" gave me 5 of his 500 cans of tuna. "B" gave me 1 of his 10 cans of tuna. "A" obviously gave me more cans than "B", but "A" is in no way more generous, as he gave me less of his than "B". Rocket science? I think not.



That is beautiful and romantic and I'm sure they'll make a mini series about it! Until then, rest with the understanding that I don't care how anything reflects on me, especially from you.

Ps. In case aunt JoLynn didn't tell you, just because you speak out against a country's policies doesn't automatically make you hate that country or its people or ideals. In actuality, it is only the people who truly love the country who dissent and speak out when the country does things wrong. No person or entity deserves unconditional support ever.

You've apparently never been hungry either. The poor don't really care how many cans of tuna I may have. Their only concern is that they now have 5 cans of tuna and not 1. Socialists like to busy themselves with worrying about how much I may or may not have.

Speaking out against our policies doesn't make you hateful. We actually rather enjoy dissent. Problem is you don't criticize in a constructive matter. You've simply dismissed a majority of Americans as simpletons. You've called our military terrorists. You don't get to screw up like that and then try and hide behind honest differences. You've lost the ability to have any honest debate by virtue of your hatred. And please, spare us all the books that you've read about America written by those who also hate us. I've lived here all my life. I know more about what America is and stands for than you can ever hope to.

 

[bankside]

jackoroe, you still have no idea, do you, of the judgement of many many sober thoughtful people in countries all around the world about the American "adventure" in Iraq.

Terrorism is not an accurate description of that campaign, in technical terms, but it aptly expresses the outrage (substantiated outrage) at what Bush did there on a whim.

Of course you don't have to agree with it, but without conceding that that is the sincerely held, and well-considered, opinion of many observers, it is you who are not ready for debate. Hide under your blanket of "they all hate us" or "they all hate U.S." or whatever, but that won't get taken seriously and you'll miss an opportunity to regain the standing that your country once enjoyed.

 

[Jack Springer]

If you were Native Indian, I would probably pay some mind to such hickish idiocracy! I'm not going anywhere! And I've heard this phrase so many times, but mostly from extreme right crypto-white supremacists and Republicans. No old white granddaddy can tell me that!

I'm not a native American - but they came from somewhere else too -- mostly likely from asia. Not sure what your point is about that.

It's just amazing to to me how you come into a foreign country and criticize the country and still live here.

In my simple life that is called being a hypocrite.