Is the Irish left anti-Semitic?

[Fiona_L]

It's cute that one of you asks if they should give the land back to Fatah or Hamas. As if that would of been a problem years ago. It's like a Free State split, this divide and rule tactic is so overdone - because it works well.

I have read history books and am quite familiar with the matters at hand. Just as you say my readings are biased or haha anti-semitic, I can say the same thing about yours.

Jewish oppression lead to more oppression. This excuse that the Jews fleeing Russia, Europe, etc...why didn't they set up in Britain then? Or the US? Or Ethiopia? Why? It's easy to mandate away someone elses land. Maybe we should do that with the Kurds, send them to Israel - mandate the Kurdish state in Israel. Partition some of it off. It doesn't make any sense and neither does this.

I don't see how you can deny that homes and property were seized and insist that there wasn't a mass of Palestinians essentially forced to leave. That's as blind as those are who say Hitler never had any camps.

If you think Palestinians are being treated fairly, you then belong in one of their camps. There are plenty of books out there, like My Enemy, My Self by Yoram Binur. It was about a former Israeli soldier, now journalist, who, for various reasons, wanted to pose as a Palestinian. His book starts off, much as your posts are, pro-Zionist lies and rants. But towards the end, after living with the people and experiencing first-hand the oppression (random detainments, camps, beatings at checkpoints, etc) his tune starts to change. He spoke Arabic and Hebrew fluently and his study took place over six months. He was convincing enough to be singled out for harassment and violence from the police, and he experienced subtle discrimination from everyday Israelis. He learned to really feel the terror Arabs in Israel feel every time an army vehicle approaches them, or even passes by their house at night, knowing they could legally be brutalized at any time for no reason. It was an eye-opening account from inside one of the most complex political situations on earth, and Binur always kept it personal and involving. He was an Israeli patriot as well, I believed he belonged to some elite IDF paratroop regiment...but I guess he was just a self-hater too huh? This book isn't exactly what I'd call new either, I read it in 1990.

And of course, you can ignore the many Amnesty International reports - which are easy to find - that document lorry loads of abuse and human rights violations on behalf of the Israelis. I guess they are anti-semitic too. Here's one link: http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/prin ... DA004611D5

From Harper's, May 2005, p. 19

From the transcript of radio communication among Israeli soldiers near Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip. The recording was submitted in January in the trial of the company commander, whose name has been withheld due to a military court order. He faces a maximum of three years in prison. Translated from the Hebrew by Nomi Friedman

SENTRY: We spotted an Arab female about 100 meters below our emplacement, near the light armored vehicle gate.

HEADQUARTERS: Observation post "Spain," do you see it?

OBSERVATION POST: Affirmative, it's a young girl. She's now running east.

HQ: What is her position?

OP: She's currently north of the authorized zone.

SENTRY: Very inappropriate location.

[Gunfire]

OP: She's now behind an embankment, 250 meters from the barracks. She keeps running east. The hits are right on her.

HQ: Are you talking about a girl under ten?

OP: Approximately a ten-year-old girl.

HQ: Roger.

OP: OP to HQ.

HQ: Receiving, over.

OP: She's behind the embankment, dying of fear, the hits are right on her, a centimeter from her.

SENTRY: Our troops are storming toward her now. They are around 70 meters from her.

HQ: I understand that the company commander and his squad are out?

SENTRY: Affirmative, with a few more soldiers.

OP: Receive. Looks like one of the positions dropped her.

HQ: What, did you see the hit? Is she down?

OP: She's down. Right now she isn't moving.

COMPANY COMMANDER [to HQ]: Me and another soldier are going in. [To the squad] Forward, to confirm the kill!

CC [to HQ]: We fired and killed her. She has...wearing pants...jeans and a vest, shirt. Also she had a kaffiyeh on her head. I also confirmed the kill. Over.

HQ: Roger.

CC [on general communications band]: Any motion, anyone who moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, should be killed. Over.

--

I suppose that's justified. You're sick, really. All you apologist and defenders are sick. You'll counter with some melodramatic incident of how some PLO operative blew himself up or whatever...as if that makes your wrong, as a "State" justified or OK. JFK said it quite correctly: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

This shoot to kill policy wasn't ok when enacted on the Irish, but Palestinians meh - let it happen right?

But none of this will ever be good enough for the Zionists or Zionist-apologists. When I chat with Zionists and their apologists, I begin to understand what it must of been like to disagree with the fascists of the 30s and 40s.

[yanshuf]

Fiona_L:

Jewish oppression lead to more oppression. This excuse that the Jews fleeing Russia, Europe, etc...why didn't they set up in Britain then? Or the US? Or Ethiopia? Why? It's easy to mandate away someone elses land. Maybe we should do that with the Kurds, send them to Israel - mandate the Kurdish state in Israel. Partition some of it off. It doesn't make any sense and neither does this.

I don't see how you can deny that homes and property were seized and insist that there wasn't a mass of Palestinians essentially forced to leave. That's as blind as those are who say Hitler never had any camps.

If you think Palestinians are being treated fairly, you then belong in one of their camps. There are plenty of books out there, like My Enemy, My Self by Yoram Binur. It was about a former Israeli soldier, now journalist, who, for various reasons, wanted to pose as a Palestinian. His book starts off, much as your posts are, pro-Zionist lies and rants. But towards the end, after living with the people and experiencing first-hand the oppression (random detainments, camps, beatings at checkpoints, etc) his tune starts to change. He spoke Arabic and Hebrew fluently and his study took place over six months. He was convincing enough to be singled out for harassment and violence from the police, and he experienced subtle discrimination from everyday Israelis. He learned to really feel the terror Arabs in Israel feel every time an army vehicle approaches them, or even passes by their house at night, knowing they could legally be brutalized at any time for no reason. It was an eye-opening account from inside one of the most complex political situations on earth, and Binur always kept it personal and involving. He was an Israeli patriot as well, I believed he belonged to some elite IDF paratroop regiment...but I guess he was just a self-hater too huh? This book isn't exactly what I'd call new either, I read it in 1990.

Oh on the isuue of Yoram Binur's book, good for you that you read books of Israeli journalists. I don't need to start explaining what the set of mind of Israeli Jews was during the years you talk about. Wheather it's a lofty one, a patronising against the Arab minority or fearing terrorism.

Aactually it was during the end of the 80's when terror attacks had happened. Not that it justifies any maltreatment, but it does explain why there was fear of them, just like Yoram Binur got to sensitive places like Ben-Gurion airport etc and was not greeted benevolently.

But your posts and excuses from which I can easily understand that you don't want Israel to exist are far-reaching than any of the recent evolutions in Israel.

Besides this book is anachronistic one, and changes have been made. More Arabs in the govenment, more Arabs in the academia, and more arabs in everything almost.

Compare the numbers and statistics and you'll see why Arabs with all you said, still wouldn't leave Israel and go live in any other Arab state.

Did you ask yourself why? After all you are calling for the dismantling of this same state they don't want to abandon, even nominally - [taking another identity (palestinian) on them]. Check the statistics and compare them even to Muslims in European countries!

your publication of the transcript of the army dialogue makes it even more complicated to deal with, cause you give only part of the matter, you don't publish the fact that the commander never heard the communication between the posts.

It's a small but extenuating information, according to the court, since you can't proove he intended to kill her.

Now instead of that why wouldn't you promulgate the many instances where terrorist who you tend to support targetted small children and their mothers just because they were Jewish? The Hatuel family, the Kibbuts Metser incident, the many suicide attacks on buses that were not targetted but to kill jews, and so on.

We are not sick. The one who should look in the mirror and ask herself why she is defending on the same people who now slaughter those who she used to defend, is you.

[Fiona_L]

Figures you'd dismiss Yoram Binur's findings. This is typical of the Zionist machine.

It's forbidden to accept non-Jewish evidence of wrongdoing of the Israeli state, we'll label them anti-semitic.
As for the Jews inside Israel who criticise, if they get too popular or validated - we'll label them as soft or non-Jews, or self-haters. The list goes on.

I don't understand why the Palestinians should even have to leave, or the point that they don't want to. Why didn't all the Catholics leave in Northern Ireland? Why did any of them stay?

I'm just completely baffled by the souless accounts you continually give. This is typical, but still baffling. The commander never heard the communication? You can't prove he intended to kill her? He later said it was a deserved thing and legit. It was in public statements. That's as believable as saying the British never intended on killing Aidan McAnespie.

Like I said...you'd probably "counter with some melodramatic incident of how some PLO operative blew himself up or whatever...as if that makes your wrong, as a "State" justified or OK. JFK said it quite correctly: Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

I'm not going to argue whether the "terrorists", as you group them together, are bad or good. There's more than one group fighting Israeli occupation and my feelings are mixed depending on who they are. One thing is, Israel tends to treat them all the same. Shoot to kill, or softly put "maltreatment" of the Palestinians in general.

They cling to that UN mandate, but ignore all the other ones that pass overwhelmingly (but get shot down by one country in the SC) that condemn Israel on a regular basis. But I guess the same UN is just blind. Like Amnesty International and the countless other human rights groups who rank Israel as an apartheid theocracy rather than democracy.

[L'Chaim]

Oh Fiona_L, when I said you should read some history books before you bail in with dodgy facts or half quotes, I meant history books. Now maybe our definations of history books are different, but when you said "I have read history books" and the example you gave of a history book is a book written by a journalist who posed as a Palestinian. First off, does logic not tell you that this 'history book' is biased and more than likely the situations you quoted from it were put in place by the journalist to get the results he wanted? Let's face it, any book about Palestinians would have to show oppression, violence against and harassment. There would hardly be a market for any other story now would there?

I love your solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. "Give it back" (the land). That's basically your suggestion for a solution. Earlier in this thread I asked what the Israeli government should do? I said that people criticize and condemn Israel for defending itself and it's law abiding citizens against attack form inside and outside it's borders, but what do you suggest they do? If people are going to criticize Israeli security measures they should be able to suggest realistic alternatives. Your alternative is to "give it back". If you don't mind me saying, that's not realistic. It's not going to happen. It is not a realistic solution.

A realistic solution might be more agreements like The Hebron Agreement. The Hebron Agreement when signed ten years ago, recognised lands in the West Bank that came under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority and also recognised that there were certain areas that would remain under the jurisdiction of the Israeli authorities. This is the way forward. It shows compromise and agreement on both sides. Your preachy "Give it back" argument really has no place in reality and as such is neither use nor ornament.

I'm sorry, but I did get a laugh at one of your posts earlier today. "When I chat with Zionists and their apologists....." Based on the tone of all your posts in this thread I really can't imagine you being capable of 'chatting' about the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Chatting implies friendly and informal conversation. Somehow I can't see you chatting with people who are pro Israeli. I can imagine you shouting slogans and half, or heavily edited quotes, but chatting.......hehehehehehe, that's a laugh

[Fiona_L]

Oh Fiona_L, when I said you should read some history books before you bail in with dodgy facts or half quotes...(snip) blah blah blah, read above if you want to know what he said

Oh L'Chaim, I never said it was the only book I've ever read about Israel. Or the "Palestinian problem" or whatever you want to call it. It's telling that you believe that any book about Palestinians would *have* to show oppression, violence and etc..., but what's funny is that you think it's because of the "market". A book wouldn't sell otherwise? That's what gives me a good laugh. Such information is readily available, because that's how it is.

The facts aren't dodgy, no more so than most the lies and excuses I hear from your lot. The quotes aren't deliberately halved or modified, just reduced - the full text can easily be found. Of course, third party amnesty international and human rights columns are rarely commented on. Why? It's easier to ignore them, I guess. It's better to talk about something where the details can be obfuscated.

I'm sure the British government never thought that giving India "back" was ever going to happen either. Most occupiers don't consider that a plausible solution. Second, I didn't realise the burden for a problem I'm not part of is placed on me. While I can condemn the treatment of Palestinians, I didn't realise that the absolute solution was mine to bear.

I love the line "Israel defending itself" - that's always a classic. "If people are going to criticize Israeli security measures they should be able to suggest realistic alternatives." - I see...so curfews, torture, mistreatment and such is all good and acceptable, as I have failed to give a reasonable alternative? Those should never, ever have been considerations in the first place.

We can talk about what is more realistic or likely, but that doesn't mean that's how it should of been. It should never of been this way. You can call my "give it back" preachy, that's fine...it probably is, but that's hardly an invalidation of what would be most just. Neither use nor ornament, that's a laugh and quite convenient too, since Israel has much to gain by keeping all prospects of that off the table. Nations come and go, as do occupations and colonies, it isn't beyond this reality, no matter how much Zionists would like that to be.

I'm glad I gave you a good laugh with my "When I chat" bit. But it's true, I've had chats. Friendly ones, civil ones, and angry ones. Online or at university. The rest of your ponder is your imagination and slur, such as that of me shouting slogans and heavily editing quotes; I guess like how I imagine you cheering as the IDF shoots another 14 year old girl who was in a part of the city she shouldn't of been. Course, I don't get a laugh out of that image.

[L'Chaim]

"I never said it was the only book" No, but it's the only example you gave. And trying to persuade anyone that a journalist pretending to be a Palestinian is somehow a factual account of history? The word 'pretending' should give you some idea of how historically factual his book really is. Try reading some history books that report events from both sides.

"The quotes aren't deliberately halved or modified" Yes they are! As I pointed out in the examples of quotes you posted from Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, they were half or modified quotes. Thery were half or modified quotes which not only distorted what was actually said by these people, but also changed the context of what they said to make it suit your argument. That was a dishonest manoeuvre on your part.

You say the burden of the solution isn't based on you. Well thank God for that! However, if you are going to criticize, you should be able to give an opinion on what you think is a realistic solution. "Give it back" (the land) is not realistic. It's not going to happen! Israel is a country that isn't going to be handed over to anyone! It's not going away! You see, your argument has no substance. You haven't been able to give an opinion to any solution, other than the unrealistic "give it back". Behind all your waffle, all that's left is "give it back". Now do you really think that "give it back" is a solution that's going to happen , especially when the Israelis believe that Israel was always theirs in the first place? "Give it back" might be a solution if you took Israel out of the equation, but that's unrealistic.

[Fiona_L]

"I never said it was the only book" No, but it's the only example you gave. And trying to persuade anyone that a journalist pretending to be a Palestinian is somehow a factual account of history? The word 'pretending' should give you some idea of how historically factual his book really is. Try reading some history books that report events from both sides.

"The quotes aren't deliberately halved or modified" Yes they are! As I pointed out in the examples of quotes you posted from Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, they were half or modified quotes. Thery were half or modified quotes which not only distorted what was actually said by these people, but also changed the context of what they said to make it suit your argument. That was a dishonest manoeuvre on your part.

You say the burden of the solution isn't based on you. Well thank God for that! However, if you are going to criticize, you should be able to give an opinion on what you think is a realistic solution. "Give it back" (the land) is not realistic. It's not going to happen! Israel is a country that isn't going to be handed over to anyone! It's not going away! You see, your argument has no substance. You haven't been able to give an opinion to any solution, other than the unrealistic "give it back". Behind all your waffle, all that's left is "give it back". Now do you really think that "give it back" is a solution that's going to happen , especially when the Israelis believe that Israel was always theirs in the first place? "Give it back" might be a solution if you took Israel out of the equation, but that's unrealistic.

I don't really feel the need to list off every book I've read about this to you. It was one example that came to mind, not as a history book but as a book on the subject. I thought it represented both sides quite nicely, I doubt you've read it.

There was no dishonesty on my part, only on yours to discredit them. I pulled them from various sources - you can interpret the quotes how you like...but they are as they are. But that's fine, attack me and my deceptive handling rather than the issue at hand. Never mind the shoot-to-kill policy, even if it applies to children. As one of your cohorts said on a different thread here - killing children isn't a big tragedy, because they grow up to be the enemy, right?

You missed my point entirely over the burden of the solution, likely intentionally. I have realistic opinions on the solution to the problem. Whether you think they are realistic or not, matters not to me and really has no play on whether or not it is ok for the IDF to murder innocent people. No play whatsoever. You can cry about how unrealistic "give it back" is all you want or say I'm waffling, but it has no impact whatsoever that what the IDF does or Israel's policy of "protecting itself" is wrong and violates the UN Charter on Human Rights.

I don't care that Zionists think it was always theirs in the first place. The Bible isn't a land deed. Now, I'd concede that "give it back" isn't likely going to happen in my lifetime - but that doesn't mean that Israel is going to be a permanent fixture forever. Nation-states come and go. I'm sure Britain thought India be theirs forever too. The odds of it happening also have no play on whether it is the just thing or right thing either.

If a thief steals my radio, I probably won't get it back, but I should. Or maybe a better example is if the police break into my house, steal my radio, and give it to the thief - I probably won't get it back, but I should.

[L'Chaim]

I can't remember the last time I read such unbeliveable waffle. That was an all over the place response.

How did I miss your point over the burden of the solution? What was your suggestion for a solution.....apart from the unrealistic "give it back"? You say you have realistic opinions on the solution of the problem. Would you care to share them?

I mentioned the Hebron Agreement earlier on as the type of solution that might work. I gave details of that agreement so I won't rewrite them. But the thing is, all conflicts eventually end up at the negotiating table. But the longer conflict goes on, the harder it is to get to the table to talk. But eventually both sides will sit down to discuss options and reach agreements.

At the moment the Palestinian idea of discussion is throwing opponents out of high rise buildings or killing other Palestinians who don't share their narrow view of the world, or using suicide bombers as a weapon. But eventually, when in the words of Golda Meir, "they love their own children more than they hate the Jews", they will sit down and negotiate peace with Israel. And somehow I don't think "give it back" (which includes land bought by Jewish people as early as 1808) will be a realistic outcome of these discussions and agreements

[AziBenYezri]

I'm glad there's a couple sane people in this discussion like you, L'Chaim and yanshuf. At one time I would have said I'm sick of people not understanding the Palestinian problem, and only "understanding" their pov. Now I just chuckle and shake my head at how ignorant and child-like they are.

I've seen how actually effective and humane Israel is when treating the Palestinians. They could just murder them all like the Palestinians do, but no. They actually try to work with them before being forced to resort to "reasonable" tactics. If someone is trying to kill you, do you think knocking down their hunts is such a bad idea. What about knocking down all their huts? When you want to get rid of cockroaches what do you do?
Just like the little girl, killing off one female cockroach can stop the spread of many others.

Israel has been paramount in research of science and engineering in the past 50 years. We've produced so much. What have Palestinians accomplished besides breeding? I think this goes to show you what any given Israeli life is worth when compared to an Arab or Palestinan. I'm not sure how to quantify it but when I think a good comparison would be a boulder and a grain of sand.

Israel, in my opinion, has been quite reasonable in EVERY action since the formation of the country. Perfect? No. Reasonable? Yes. If there was a way to make "safe" nuclear bombs I think Isreal would be at peace the day after.

[XRoot]

You can call my "give it back" preachy, that's fine...it probably is, but that's hardly an invalidation of what would be most just.

I'm confused.

You seem to be proposing (unless I'm mistaken) the dismantling of the entire Israeli state and removal of land from Jewish ownership. Is this what one is to take from the 'Give it Back' peace plan?

What precisely are you proposing be given back? And to whom?

Bring back the Ottomans?