Natanyahu Lowers the Boom


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

Israel's real purpose in Gaza operation? To kill Arabs

The why drop leaflets warning civilians when and where the attack is coming and advising them to get out of the way?

If one's purpose was merely to kill, one would mount a stealth operation.

You are peddling a canard, so shame on you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Agreed.

As if the IDF couldn't mow down virtually every structure in the West Bank or Gaza if that were it's goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 684
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Natanyahu made a succinct comment highlighting moral difference between Israelis and Palestinians...

"We protect our people from their missiles,

while they use their people to protect their missiles."

There's a fair number of folks here flunking the Israel test big time. :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natanyahu made a succinct comment highlighting moral difference between Israelis and Palestinians...

"We protect our people from their missiles,

while they use their people to protect their missiles."

Um...Greg...perhaps you should look at post # 8 before you continue to do what I almost did.

Unless, of course you can establish that that sentence was in his speech, which, it was not.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since you called me out for calling you out: how does one go about "genocide"** in a "round-about" way?

**And please-- in anticipation of your knee jerk response-- don't insult your audience by going squishy on what the word "genocide" means. Words do have meaning, and "genocide" is one of the big ones, so to speak, especially when it comes to discussing the topic at hand.

You do that by making conditions for the persecuted population completely unlivable and dependent for their basic sustenance on you. Israel has slowly conquered Palestinian water reserves and farmable land, bit by bit over the years. They continue to dispossess Palestinians of their homes and lands and then hand them over to Israeli settlers. They refuse to recognize Palestine as a state in order to deprive it of many of the protections of the UN and Geneva conventions. They impose embargoes on the Palestinian territories, so they can't trade what they produce on the world market and face serious food shortages and nutritional deficits. They divide up Palestinian territory with Israeli only highways and dividing walls which separates many Palestinians from their families, jobs, lands, and basic utilities such as hospitals, power, and water. They impose an apartheid regime where only Israelis have access to civil courts, but where Palestinians are tried in military tribunals where they face arbitrary arrest, where they may be detained for long periods of time without being charged, where they face steeper punishments for the same crimes, where they often don't have access to legal representation, and where obtaining permits to build their homes is next to impossible. And finally, they deliberately target civilians in military strikes, under the pretext of their hiding supposed missiles and weapons, in order to clear the way for new infrastructure projects to support the settlers.

Most of the info above can be found here points 39 and on:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/FFM/FFMSettlements.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natanyahu made a succinct comment highlighting moral difference between Israelis and Palestinians...

"We protect our people from their missiles,

while they use their people to protect their missiles."

Um...Greg...perhaps you should look at post # 8 before you continue to do what I almost did.

Unless, of course you can establish that that sentence was in his speech, which, it was not.

A...

It wasn't in a speech, Adam...

I actually heard Natanyahu personally make that statement during an interview on the radio. :smile:

I understand your concern for accuracy. There are more than a few jewhating vipers slithering around just waiting to sink their fangs into anything with the slightest flaw.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since you called me out for calling you out: how does one go about "genocide"** in a "round-about" way?

**And please-- in anticipation of your knee jerk response-- don't insult your audience by going squishy on what the word "genocide" means. Words do have meaning, and "genocide" is one of the big ones, so to speak, especially when it comes to discussing the topic at hand.

You do that by making conditions for the persecuted population completely unlivable and dependent for their basic sustenance on you. Israel has slowly conquered Palestinian water reserves and farmable land, bit by bit over the years. They continue to dispossess Palestinians of their homes and lands and then hand them over to Israeli settlers. They refuse to recognize Palestine as a state in order to deprive it of many of the protections of the UN and Geneva conventions. They impose embargoes on the Palestinian territories, so they can't trade what they produce on the world market and face serious food shortages and nutritional deficits. They divide up Palestinian territory with Israeli only highways and dividing walls which separates many Palestinians from their families, jobs, lands, and basic utilities such as hospitals, power, and water. They impose an apartheid regime where only Israelis have access to civil courts, but where Palestinians are tried in military tribunals where they face arbitrary arrest, where they may be detained for long periods of time without being charged, where they face steeper punishments for the same crimes, where they often don't have access to legal representation, and where obtaining permits to build their homes is next to impossible. And finally, they deliberately target civilians in military strikes, under the pretext of their hiding supposed missiles and weapons, in order to clear the way for new infrastructure projects to support the settlers.

Most of the info above can be found here points 39 and on:

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/FFM/FFMSettlements.pdf

Was unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 a "round-about" way of, to use your words, clearing "the way for new infrastructure projects to support the settlers?" Are you at least willing to withdraw the term "genocide" from your quiver in this discussion? There really is no harm in admiting to a mistake in judgment, even here on OL.

You know, there are actually morally complex treatments of the issues that pertain to the Jews and the Arabs, and even the very issues you are trying to project knowledge about.** As one example, you could read Michael Oren's Six Days of War in less than a week if you really are interested in this issue. Sure, it's a harder slog than paraphrasing a website, and getting your hand on it is more effort than a google search, but I assure you it's worth it.

You have appear to have a full life ahead of you. I say this based on snippets I have read of yours that seem to indicate you are a college sophomore, or some such age. You also seem to have intellectual curiosity, one of the great pleasures in life. I can assure you that your life will be much better if you learn to think independently, for yourself--not by sacrificing your mind to a mental image of seeming intellectual superiority. What you gain in temporary satisfaction from seeming intellectual superiority over your "lessers" is a vapor. But thinking independently does require recalibration, and even the occasional admission of error.

The funny thing about admitting to error is that you then become even more intellectually curious about what life has to offer. Momentum then begets momentum.

Try to think for yourself. Such behavior truly is its own reward.

---------------

**For what it's worth, I am not Jewish, and have no paricular dog in this fight on that particular front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a good little mouthpiece.

...apartheid regime...

Define apartheid...here is the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa

Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpartɦɛit]; an Afrikaans[1] word meaning "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood")[2][3] was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation by the National Party (NP) governments, the ruling party from 1948 to 1994, under which the rights, associations and movements of the majority black inhabitants were curtailed and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained. Apartheid was developed after World War II by the Afrikaner-dominated National Party and Broederbond organisations and was practiced also in South West Africa, which was administered by South Africa under a League of Nations mandate (revoked in 1966 via United Nations Resolution 2145),[4] until it gained independence as Namibia in 1990.[5] By extension, the term is nowadays currently used for every kind of segregation, established by the state authority in a country, against the social and civil rights of a minority of citizens, due to ethnic prejudices.[citation needed]

Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times under Dutch rule.[6] Apartheid as an officially structured policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. Legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups, "black", "white", "coloured", and "Indian", with Indian and coloured divided into several sub-classifications,[7] and residential areas were segregated. From 1960 to 1983, 3.5 million non-white South Africans were removed from their homes, and forced into segregated neighbourhoods, in one of the largest mass removals in modern history.[8] Non-white political representation was abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.[9]

Apartheid sparked significant internal resistance and violence, and a long arms and trade embargo against South Africa.[10] Since the 1950s, a series of popular uprisings and protests was met with the banning of opposition and imprisoning of anti-apartheid leaders. As unrest spread and became more effective and militarised, state organisations responded with repression and violence. Along with the sanctions placed on South Africa by the international community, this made it increasingly difficult for the government to maintain the regime. The role of Britain in the emerging of apartheid is often ignored.[citation needed] However it was a British man who played a key role in taking away the rights of black and coloured people. It was not

Hendrik Verwoerd, but Cecil Rhodes who constructed the first segregation law.[11] Apartheid reforms in the 1980s failed to quell the mounting opposition, and in 1990 President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid,[12] culminating in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, won by the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela. The vestiges of apartheid still shape South African politics and society. De Klerk began the process of dismantling apartheid with the release of Mandela's mentor and several other political prisoners in October 1989.[13] Although the official abolition of apartheid occurred in 1991 with repeal of the last of the remaining apartheid laws, nonwhites were not allowed to vote until 1993 and the end of apartheid is widely regarded as arising from the 1994 democratic general elections.

Just trying to help you Tinkerbell...all we have to do is what?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I like Yaron Brook. This is one of them.

He filled in for Peikoff on Peikoff's podcast:

To YB: Can Palestine be considered a state?

Man, that is cutting to the essence.

The issue is individual rights, not collective ones.

I agree with him 100% in this case.

On a core story level, the Palestinian propagandists are quite clear and competent. They set these people up as victims. That's from the UN all the way to the mainstream culture.

But I don't get the image of Palestinian leaders as freedom-fighters--that they want freedom for the individual in their country. I do get the image they ultimately want submission of the individual to the religion, and by extension, to the religious state.

Basically, if groups like Hamas are the standard, the push to make a Palestinian state is the push to institute an apartheid state for real.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't in a speech, Adam...

I actually heard Natanyahu personally make that statement during an interview on the radio. :smile:

I understand your concern for accuracy. There are more than a few jewhating vipers slithering around just waiting to sink their fangs into anything with the slightest flaw.

Greg

I am listening...give me something...year month station...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't in a speech, Adam...

I actually heard Natanyahu personally make that statement during an interview on the radio. :smile:

I understand your concern for accuracy. There are more than a few jewhating vipers slithering around just waiting to sink their fangs into anything with the slightest flaw.

Greg

I am listening...give me something...year month station...

Yesterday... 870AM The Answer... Los Angeles

Here's a text confirmation:

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to American airwaves to defend a deadly offensive in Gaza, warning sirens wailed in his country.

A few minutes later there was an all-clear — underscoring what Netanyahu said was the constant threat of attack from Hamas.

“When we began this interview we were under bomb alert, and as the minutes passed, now we’re told people can go out into the open air again,” Netanyahu, speaking from Tel Aviv, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“This is the kind of reality we’re living in. And we’ll do whatever is necessary to put an end to it.”

aptopix-general-assembly-israel.jpgRichard Drew/APIsrael's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday blamed Hamas for the violence in the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu said Israel is facing the equivalent of “all the cities of the United States from the East Coast to Colorado” coming under an unyielding barrage of rocket attacks. “Sometimes you just have to fight against people who want to murder you,” he said on the sixth day of a military battering that has killed at least 160 Palestinians. More than 1,000 have been injured.

Netanyahu said Hamas terrorists brought the carnage upon the people of the Gaza Strip.

“The difference between us is that we’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles,” he said. “So naturally, they’re responsible for all the civilian deaths that occur accidentally. We’re sorry for any accidental civilian death, but it’s Hamas that bears complete responsibility.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israel-prime-minister-defends-air-strikes-gaza-strip-article-1.1865498#ixzz37UgvboQG

He reiterated the same idea but it was during a radio interview and not a speech.

There. Satisfied now? :wink:

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza in 2005 a "round-about" way of, to use your words, clearing "the way for new infrastructure projects to support the settlers?" Are you at least willing to withdraw the term "genocide" from your quiver in this discussion? There really is no harm in admiting to a mistake in judgment, even here on OL.

Yes. Israel withdrew only because maintaining the settlements in Gaza was costly while Gaza held essentially no economic resources.

Are you at least willing to withdraw the term "genocide" from your quiver in this discussion?

No, because I'm right, and you haven't really presented any arguments to the contrary. The genocide is at the stage of herding the undersirables into ghettos. They're just one step away from concentration camps.

You know, there are actually morally complex treatments of the issues that pertain to the Jews and the Arabs, and even the very issues you are trying to project knowledge about.** As one example, you could read Michael Oren's Six Days of War in less than a week if you really are interested in this issue. Sure, it's a harder slog than paraphrasing a website, and getting your hand on it is more effort than a google search, but I assure you it's worth it.

You have appear to have a full life ahead of you. I say this based on snippets I have read of yours that seem to indicate you are a college sophomore, or some such age. You also seem to have intellectual curiosity, one of the great pleasures in life. I can assure you that your life will be much better if you learn to think independently, for yourself--not by sacrificing your mind to a mental image of seeming intellectual superiority. What you gain in temporary satisfaction from seeming intellectual superiority over your "lessers" is a vapor. But thinking independently does require recalibration, and even the occasional admission of error.

The funny thing about admitting to error is that you then become even more intellectually curious about what life has to offer. Momentum then begets momentum.

Try to think for yourself. Such behavior truly is its own reward.

---------------

**For what it's worth, I am not Jewish, and have no paricular dog in this fight on that particular front.

That's nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a good little mouthpiece.

...apartheid regime...

Define apartheid...here is the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid_in_South_Africa

Apartheid (Afrikaans pronunciation: [ɐˈpartɦɛit]; an Afrikaans[1] word meaning "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood")[2][3] was a system of racial segregation in South Africa enforced through legislation by the National Party (NP) governments, the ruling party from 1948 to 1994, under which the rights, associations and movements of the majority black inhabitants were curtailed and Afrikaner minority rule was maintained. Apartheid was developed after World War II by the Afrikaner-dominated National Party and Broederbond organisations and was practiced also in South West Africa, which was administered by South Africa under a League of Nations mandate (revoked in 1966 via United Nations Resolution 2145),[4] until it gained independence as Namibia in 1990.[5] By extension, the term is nowadays currently used for every kind of segregation, established by the state authority in a country, against the social and civil rights of a minority of citizens, due to ethnic prejudices.[citation needed]

Racial segregation in South Africa began in colonial times under Dutch rule.[6] Apartheid as an officially structured policy was introduced following the general election of 1948. Legislation classified inhabitants into four racial groups, "black", "white", "coloured", and "Indian", with Indian and coloured divided into several sub-classifications,[7] and residential areas were segregated. From 1960 to 1983, 3.5 million non-white South Africans were removed from their homes, and forced into segregated neighbourhoods, in one of the largest mass removals in modern history.[8] Non-white political representation was abolished in 1970, and starting in that year black people were deprived of their citizenship, legally becoming citizens of one of ten tribally based self-governing homelands called bantustans, four of which became nominally independent states. The government segregated education, medical care, beaches, and other public services, and provided black people with services inferior to those of white people.[9]

Apartheid sparked significant internal resistance and violence, and a long arms and trade embargo against South Africa.[10]Since the 1950s, a series of popular uprisings and protests was met with the banning of opposition and imprisoning of anti-apartheid leaders. As unrest spread and became more effective and militarised, state organisations responded with repression and violence. Along with the sanctions placed on South Africa by the international community, this made it increasingly difficult for the government to maintain the regime. The role of Britain in the emerging of apartheid is often ignored.[citation needed] However it was a British man who played a key role in taking away the rights of black and coloured people. It was not

Hendrik Verwoerd, but Cecil Rhodes who constructed the first segregation law.[11] Apartheid reforms in the 1980s failed to quell the mounting opposition, and in 1990 President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to end apartheid,[12] culminating in multi-racial democratic elections in 1994, won by the African National Congress under Nelson Mandela. The vestiges of apartheid still shape South African politics and society. De Klerk began the process of dismantling apartheid with the release of Mandela's mentor and several other political prisoners in October 1989.[13] Although the official abolition of apartheid occurred in 1991 with repeal of the last of the remaining apartheid laws, nonwhites were not allowed to vote until 1993 and the end of apartheid is widely regarded as arising from the 1994 democratic general elections.

Just trying to help you Tinkerbell...all we have to do is what?

A...

All you have to do is change some names around and you have the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Israel accepted a cease-fire proposal from Egypt, then Hamas, right on cue, rejected it (see here).

For a people subjected to genocide in a "round-about" way, they sure seem to have a lot of freedom to reject stuff like that.

Seems like they've been doing it for decades, well over a half a century, too. (Not Hamas formally, since it has not existed that long--just the power behind it, the Muslim Brotherhood. The name may change, but the essence stays the same.)

Will this genocide ever start, already? All the Jews do is pussyfoot around on genocide. Dithering forever.

:)

Look next door. ISIS sure as hell hasn't been waiting to get massive public executions underway...

(I was going to put a smiley, but I can't bring myself to do it right here.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will this genocide ever start, already? All the Jews do is pussyfoot around on genocide. Dithering forever.

:smile:

Hmmm.... I wonder why? (Yes Michael, I got the quip..;)

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I wonder if the fact Hamas (its 'military wing', anyway) has thus far rejected a truce offering, will change any perceptions about its real purpose to those of progressivist bent? I don't expect so. Perhaps to some who've been wavering in between.

Hamas would countenance further deaths of its citizens, for what? false pride, a publicity stunt for its 'cause'. This should forever put the matter to rest about who are the murderers here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't in a speech, Adam...

I actually heard Natanyahu personally make that statement during an interview on the radio. :smile:

I understand your concern for accuracy. There are more than a few jewhating vipers slithering around just waiting to sink their fangs into anything with the slightest flaw.

Greg

I am listening...give me something...year month station...

Yesterday... 870AM The Answer... Los Angeles

Here's a text confirmation:

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to American airwaves to defend a deadly offensive in Gaza, warning sirens wailed in his country.

A few minutes later there was an all-clear — underscoring what Netanyahu said was the constant threat of attack from Hamas.

“When we began this interview we were under bomb alert, and as the minutes passed, now we’re told people can go out into the open air again,” Netanyahu, speaking from Tel Aviv, said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“This is the kind of reality we’re living in. And we’ll do whatever is necessary to put an end to it.”

aptopix-general-assembly-israel.jpgRichard Drew/APIsrael's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday blamed Hamas for the violence in the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu said Israel is facing the equivalent of “all the cities of the United States from the East Coast to Colorado” coming under an unyielding barrage of rocket attacks. “Sometimes you just have to fight against people who want to murder you,” he said on the sixth day of a military battering that has killed at least 160 Palestinians. More than 1,000 have been injured.

Netanyahu said Hamas terrorists brought the carnage upon the people of the Gaza Strip.

“The difference between us is that we’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles,” he said. “So naturally, they’re responsible for all the civilian deaths that occur accidentally. We’re sorry for any accidental civilian death, but it’s Hamas that bears complete responsibility.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/israel-prime-minister-defends-air-strikes-gaza-strip-article-1.1865498#ixzz37UgvboQG

He reiterated the same idea but it was during a radio interview and not a speech.

There. Satisfied now? :wink:

Greg

Thanks Greg...I had heard him use similar language and I thought the phrase was excellent in it's rhetorical balance.

"We protect our people from their missiles,

while they use their people to protect their missiles."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I wonder if the fact Hamas (its 'military wing', anyway) has thus far rejected a truce offering, will change any perceptions about its real purpose to those of progressivist bent? I don't expect so. Perhaps to some who've been wavering in between.

Hamas would countenance further deaths of its citizens, for what? false pride, a publicity stunt for its 'cause'. This should forever put the matter to rest about who are the murderers here.

Certainly not the people who broke the previous cease fire agreement and inflicted 100% of the casualties in their pursuit of collective punishment for the Palestinians' imagined crimes. :rolleyes:

To see why Hamas would reject a cease-fire from Israel, all you have to do is look at the history.

1. Israel breaks ceasefire agreement and due to its superior military force accomplishes its goals quickly

2. Palestinians retaliate

3. Israel calls for ceasefire before Palestinians have a chance to defend themselves or regain lost territory or whatever.

4. Palestinians obviously reject ceasefire

It's like somebody punches you in the face, takes your money, and then when you start to fight back says "Hey, you know,... this fighting and violence is pointless. Let's all just live in peace and harmony."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I wonder if the fact Hamas (its 'military wing', anyway) has thus far rejected a truce offering, will change any perceptions about its real purpose to those of progressivist bent? I don't expect so. Perhaps to some who've been wavering in between.

Tony,

I don't think it will change their perspective. These people have the capacity to blank out huge chunks of facts and only see what they want to, or worse, only what fits the core story they believe in.

They remind me of a statement I read on a forum years ago. It was by an avowed communist (but I was looking on a forum about scams and money laundering, not politics--don't even ask :) ). The guy was talking about someone who was irrationally stubborn--I forget the issue. But the person was like the current progressives you mention who ignore the mass executions next door to Israel and the refusal of cease-fire within Israel, while they blank out the Islamist treatment of women and gays.

The guy said it was like talking to a Jehovah's Witness. You could win the argument and the JW would even acknowledge it, but you will not change his mind.

That is the power of core story.

Here's the root. Rand said it was philosophy, but I believe philosophy is only part of the reason. I believe the root is emotional and fed by story.

Imagine a story you tell yourself all the time (24/7)--and you get strong social approval from your tribe for believing it--where you are one of the mental elite while the rest of mankind is stupid. That your current task is to enlighten who is capable of being enlightened and look down your nose on the rest, poor things. That it's OK and even good to feel arrogance toward them.

I don't mean for you observe such a person, think hypocrisy, then dismiss them. I mean really try to get into their head and see the world from their perspective. Through their eyes. With their heart. Take a leap of faith just for an instant to see what it feels like.

Are you with me?

Go...

What do you feel?

When I do it, it's intoxicating.

Feels damn good.

Imagine trying to give that up once you start believing it for real.

It doesn't matter that it's a delusion. You want to feel like that so the delusion doesn't count.

From that mindset, it's easy to blank out facts that don't fit. Inconvenient facts make you feel bad and--on your inside, deep down where nobody can see--they threaten your elite standing above others. They threaten your self-image. The one you shaped with a core story someone told you a long time ago.

Incidentally, that is one of the beefs I have with the Objectivist movement (not the entire thing, just parts). In certain quarters, this is precisely the attitude that is encouraged by both leaders and peer pressure. This cuts off all critical thinking.

Look at your typical Randroid who constantly claims the world is perishing from lack of thinking like him (as he posts this from his perishing iPhone :) )--or interact with people who compare the Gaza strip to concentration camps--to see good examples of what I am talking about.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To see why Hamas would reject a cease-fire from Israel, all you have to do is look at the history.

Would you give us a time frame for this particular slice of history that you refer too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now