Ed Hudgins

Israel vs. Palestinian Moral Smuggling

Recommended Posts

The inmates of Gaza are not starving. If the Israelis imposed starvation, they would all be dead by now. No starvation, no death camps. The only death camp in the area is Gaza itself and it is run by Hamas.

I guess it's a "Freudian slip" that you referred to the residents of Gaza as "inmates", as in "inmates" of a prison camp. No, they're not actually starving to death. That would be bad publicity for the Israeli government and would bring up uncomfortable parallels to Stalin's starvation of the kulaks or, even worse, the Nazis. The objective of the Israeli blockade is not to actually starve the "inmates" to death but just to consign their lives to utter misery. But, according to a post on another thread recently started by Kat, the people trying to break the Israeli blockade are the real war criminals, not the wonderfully benevolent Israeli government imposing these conditions on the "inmates". And freedom is slavery too!

Below are several descriptions of the actual nature of the Israeli blockade of Gaza:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2010/06/squalor-victoria.html

From Peter Beinart:

"The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations greeted news of the flotilla disaster by repeating a common “pro-Israel” talking point: that Israel only blockades Gaza to prevent Hamas from building rockets that might kill Israeli citizens. If only that were true. In reality, the embargo has a broader and more sinister purpose: to impoverish the people of Gaza, and thus turn them against Hamas. As the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has reported, the Israeli officials in charge of the embargo adhere to what they call a policy of “no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.” In other words, the embargo must be tight enough to keep the people of Gaza miserable, but not so tight that they starve.

This explains why Israel prevents Gazans from importing, among other things, cilantro, sage, jam, chocolate, French fries, dried fruit, fabrics, notebooks, empty flowerpots and toys, none of which are particularly useful in building Kassam rockets. It’s why Israel bans virtually all exports from Gaza, a policy that has helped to destroy the Strip’s agriculture, contributed to the closing of some 95 percent of its factories, and left more 80 percent of its population dependent on food aid. It’s why Gaza’s fishermen are not allowed to travel more than three miles from the coast, which dramatically reduces their catch. And it’s why Israel prevents Gazan students from studying in the West Bank, a policy recently denounced by 10 winners of the prestigious Israel Prize. There’s a name for all this: collective punishment."

From Mark Leon Goldberg:

"The World Health Organization seems to be seizing on the spotlight by renewing a call to allow for the unimpeded access into Gaza of medical supplies and technical know-how. From a WHO statement released moments ago:

Hundreds of items of equipment have been waiting to enter Gaza for up to a year, procured by WHO and other organizations, says Mr Tony Laurance, head of WHO's office for Gaza and the West Bank. These items include CT scanners, x-rays, fluoroscopes, infusion pumps, medical sterilization gasses, laboratory equipment, UPS (uninterrupted power supply) batteries, and spare parts for support systems like elevators.

"It is impossible to maintain a safe and effective healthcare system under the conditions of siege that have been in place now since June 2007," Mr Laurance says. "It is not enough to simply ensure supplies like drugs and consumables. Medical equipment and spare parts must be available and be properly maintained."

[snip]

Gaza's second biggest hospital, the Gaza-European Hospital, operates without 2 out of its 3 elevators not functioning due to disrepair.

All hospitals have been waiting for over 6 months to get spare parts to repair their main sterilizers.

Spare parts needed for the cardiac catheterization laboratories in the Gaza-European Hospital have been waiting to enter for 6 months."

From Daniel Larison:

"Th[e] economic and political purpose of the blockade has never been a secret. During Operation Cast Lead, we heard all about how inflicting deprivation and misery on the Gazan population with the siege was intended to turn the population against Hamas>. As I noted at the time, sanctions and embargoes do not cause people to rise up against their rulers, but they do make them resent the people imposing the sanctions and embargoes. Now that the blockade has produced an enormous political disaster, we are supposed to forget about that and focus on arms smuggling that has nothing to do with what the flotilla was attempting to bring to Gaza.

The blockade is a policy aimed at the steady immiseration and deeper impoverishment of Gazans. This not only deflects attention from Hamas’ abuses and misrule, but it also ensures that there will not be enough prosperity in the future to foster any sort of viable political opposition against Hamas. That tells me that Israel is actually quite willing to tolerate a Hamas-run enclave on its doorstep so long as it can keep the people living there poor and dependent."

From Dan Izenberg:

"The great catastrophe is not starvation, but the fact that 80% of the population are charity cases. In OCHA's eyes, Gaza is not Somalia, but there is a crisis of human dignity there. [...]

Even when it comes to food, [uN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)] maintained in a study published in August 2009 that Gazans are suffering from what it calls “food insecurity.” According to the organization, 1.1 million of Gaza’s 1.5 million population is food insecure, up from just over half in 2008.

[...]

“The main causes of food insecurity are the increase in poverty, the destruction of agricultural assets, and the inflation in prices of key food items,” it wrote.

Operation Cast Lead severely damaged the industrial sector in Gaza, which had already been badly hit by the blockade imposed by Israel in June 2007. According to a study published by the Palestinian Trade Center and the Palestinian Federation of Industries, 44% of a sample of 324 industries in Gaza were totally damaged during the fighting. Those that resumed production afterwards, rehired only 23% of their original work force.

Overall, more than 40% of Gaza’s workforce, amounting to 140,000 people, is unemployed."

Now, having established how wonderfully kind, benevolent, and caring the Israeli government is for imposing this blockade, lets try the evil people who are trying to bring attention to this blockade in order to break it as the evil war criminals that they are. That will teach any future prospective war criminals not to try to bring any food or medical supplies to impoverished people! They should know that the number one rule for getting by in our modern world is unquestioning obedience to governments, no matter tyrannical they may be.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Dan Izenberg:

"The great catastrophe is not starvation, but the fact that 80% of the population are charity cases. In OCHA's eyes, Gaza is not Somalia, but there is a crisis of human dignity there. [...]

Just like I said.

By the way, inmate means resident of a dwelling (British usage). Such as the inmates of school or hospital.

I am sure the inmates of Gaza would rather being living elsewhere, such as in buildings and houses currently owned by Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin, this is much more believable than what else has been published to this point on OL. I would like to hear an informed contrary or rebuttal view. If Egypt has lifted its own blockade much of this should soon be solved, one would think. The Israeli government has long pursued policies toward Palestinians I do not agree with in the least: bulldozing homes, confiscating land and excessive use of checkpoints among other things. I consider them expressions of a state seriously biased toward socialism. U.S. economic aid, at least, has helped make that sustainable.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin, this is much more believable than what else has been published to this point on OL. I would like to hear an informed contrary or rebuttal view. If Egypt has lifted its own blockade much of this should soon be solved, one would think. The Israeli government has long pursued policies toward Palestinians I do not agree with in the least: bulldozing homes, confiscating land and excessive use of checkpoints among other things. I consider them expressions of a state seriously biased toward socialism. U.S. economic aid, at least, has helped make that sustainable.

Brant,

It would obviously help the residents of Gaza very much if Egypt were to lift its blockade. But it's not surprising that they have participated in this blockade. The Palestinians have always been treated horribly by neighboring Islamic countries like Egypt, as well as by Israel. Among other things, Egypt has a strong financial incentive to keep the US happy by keeping Israel happy, since it is also the recipient of a huge amount of foreign aid from the US. Right now, both Israel and Egypt receive about $3 billion a year in foreign aid from the US. So our tax dollars are going to pay for the strangulation of Gaza from both ends. Of course, this policy appears to be just fine with most objectivists. I don't recall hearing anyone on this site suggesting that this aid be terminated.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read one comment somewhere about the Palestinians that if Hamas laid down its guns, there would be no more killing. If Israel laid down its guns, there would be no more Israel.

From everything I have seen so far, this is accurate.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin, this is much more believable than what else has been published to this point on OL. I would like to hear an informed contrary or rebuttal view. If Egypt has lifted its own blockade much of this should soon be solved, one would think. The Israeli government has long pursued policies toward Palestinians I do not agree with in the least: bulldozing homes, confiscating land and excessive use of checkpoints among other things. I consider them expressions of a state seriously biased toward socialism. U.S. economic aid, at least, has helped make that sustainable.

Brant,

It would obviously help the residents of Gaza very much if Egypt were to lift its blockade. But it's not surprising that they have participated in this blockade. The Palestinians have always been treated horribly by neighboring Islamic countries like Egypt, as well as by Israel. Among other things, Egypt has a strong financial incentive to keep the US happy by keeping Israel happy, since it is also the recipient of a huge amount of foreign aid from the US. Right now, both Israel and Egypt receive about $3 billion a year in foreign aid from the US. So our tax dollars are going to pay for the strangulation of Gaza from both ends. Of course, this policy appears to be just fine with most objectivists. I don't recall hearing anyone on this site suggesting that this aid be terminated.

Martin

The aid to Israel is, for the most part, a hidden subsidy to American corporations. Most of the aid is spent by Israel to buy arms from American companies. The money goes to Israel and comes back here as corporate revenue. In a sane world Israel would be like Japan which makes it money from high end value added technology. If Israel did not have to devote its economy mostly to survival from attacks made by its neighbors it would become a wealth country carried upward by high value added sales in the technology markets and agricultural markets. Israeli fruit is among the best in the world and sells well all over.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin, this is much more believable than what else has been published to this point on OL. I would like to hear an informed contrary or rebuttal view. If Egypt has lifted its own blockade much of this should soon be solved, one would think. The Israeli government has long pursued policies toward Palestinians I do not agree with in the least: bulldozing homes, confiscating land and excessive use of checkpoints among other things. I consider them expressions of a state seriously biased toward socialism. U.S. economic aid, at least, has helped make that sustainable.

Brant,

It would obviously help the residents of Gaza very much if Egypt were to lift its blockade. But it's not surprising that they have participated in this blockade. The Palestinians have always been treated horribly by neighboring Islamic countries like Egypt, as well as by Israel. Among other things, Egypt has a strong financial incentive to keep the US happy by keeping Israel happy, since it is also the recipient of a huge amount of foreign aid from the US. Right now, both Israel and Egypt receive about $3 billion a year in foreign aid from the US. So our tax dollars are going to pay for the strangulation of Gaza from both ends. Of course, this policy appears to be just fine with most objectivists. I don't recall hearing anyone on this site suggesting that this aid be terminated.

Martin

The aid to Israel is, for the most part, a hidden subsidy to American corporations. Most of the aid is spent by Israel to buy arms from American companies. The money goes to Israel and comes back here as corporate revenue. In a sane world Israel would be like Japan which makes it money from high end value added technology. If Israel did not have to devote its economy mostly to survival from attacks made by its neighbors it would become a wealth country carried upward by high value added sales in the technology markets and agricultural markets. Israeli fruit is among the best in the world and sells well all over.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The foreign aid is a direct subsidy to Israel and an indirect subsidy to the American corporations that are part of the military-industrial complex. Israel gets $3 billion a year in American arms, the "defense" corporations get the money back in sales to Israel, and the American taxpayer gets screwed, as usual. Since objectivists are supposedly in favor of laissez-faire capitalism and against corporatism and foreign aid, they should object violently to this arrangement, if in fact that they being true to their principles.

Martin

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read one comment somewhere about the Palestinians that if Hamas laid down its guns, there would be no more killing. If Israel laid down its guns, there would be no more Israel.

From everything I have seen so far, this is accurate.

Michael

Whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, since noone here has suggested that Israel lay down its guns and stop defending itself. This comment is in fact only relevant to the Gaza blockade if one equates Israel's ending of the blockade with Israel laying down its guns and leaving itself defenseless. This is, of course, the hidden premise behind the comment. Every time anyone points out a particular attrocity committed by the Israeli government, the response invariably is something to the effect of, "Israel has the right to defend itself!", as though anything the Israeli government does, no matter how many innocent people are killed, is automatically a legitimate act of self-defense. Interestingly enough, if a Hamas fighter kills an Israeli, even an Israeli soldier rather than a civilian, one never hears this justification, that "Palestinians have the right to defend themselves". Every act of killing by Israel is automatically labeled as self-defense, and every act of killing by Palestinians is automatically labeled as terrorism. This same double standard applies to the US government. If US military are killed by insurgents, this is terrorism. If the US military drops cluster bombs from airplanes thousands of feet in the sky, or uses depleted uranium shells or white phosphorus, or uses unmanned drones to fire missiles, killing hundreds or thousands of people, this is "self-defense" or "collatteral damage" or "an unfortunate accident".

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin,

You couldn't be more mistaken. No hidden premises at all.

If I have any premise that is not so obvious, it is to refuse the tribal mentality your posts habitually show. I stand for a person doing his/her honest and best individual thinking, not peer pressure, etc., even when I disagree with the person's thinking.

I look mostly at facts and character. Those are my criteria and I have not hidden anything about any of this.

On the contrary, I reject your tribalist bias and if you don't believe me, you might ask some of the people I have pissed off on both sides...

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read one comment somewhere about the Palestinians that if Hamas laid down its guns, there would be no more killing. If Israel laid down its guns, there would be no more Israel.

From everything I have seen so far, this is accurate.

Michael

Whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, since noone here has suggested that Israel lay down its guns and stop defending itself. This comment is in fact only relevant to the Gaza blockade if one equates Israel's ending of the blockade with Israel laying down its guns and leaving itself defenseless. This is, of course, the hidden premise behind the comment. Every time anyone points out a particular attrocity committed by the Israeli government, the response invariably is something to the effect of, "Israel has the right to defend itself!", as though anything the Israeli government does, no matter how many innocent people are killed, is automatically a legitimate act of self-defense. Interestingly enough, if a Hamas fighter kills an Israeli, even an Israeli soldier rather than a civilian, one never hears this justification, that "Palestinians have the right to defend themselves". Every act of killing by Israel is automatically labeled as self-defense, and every act of killing by Palestinians is automatically labeled as terrorism. This same double standard applies to the US government. If US military are killed by insurgents, this is terrorism. If the US military drops cluster bombs from airplanes thousands of feet in the sky, or uses depleted uranium shells or white phosphorus, or uses unmanned drones to fire missiles, killing hundreds or thousands of people, this is "self-defense" or "collatteral damage" or "an unfortunate accident".

Martin

Killing the Bad Guys who are trying to kill us is justified. That is part of the price we must pay to survive. If you can't tell the difference between the Bad Guys and us, then work harder to learn it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin,

You couldn't be more mistaken. No hidden premises at all.

If I have any premise that is not so obvious, it is to refuse the tribal mentality your posts habitually show. I stand for a person doing his/her honest and best individual thinking, not peer pressure, etc., even when I disagree with the person's thinking.

I look mostly at facts and character. Those are my criteria and I have not hidden anything about any of this.

On the contrary, I reject your tribalist bias and if you don't believe me, you might ask some of the people I have pissed off on both sides...

Michael

It's nice that you have accused me of having a tribal mentality, without providing any actual evidence whatever to support your accusation. To exactly which tribe am I biased?

Since I have been misrepresented here, I will state my position as clearly as possible.

I am a libertarian. As such, I believe in the individual rights of every human being to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I believe that these rights belong to every human being, no matter what race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or nationality, no matter which country they happen to live. I believe in the individual rights of Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Africans, Israelis, Iraqis, Iranians, Mexicans, Canadians, Australians, and all other people living on earth. If there were humans living on Mars, I would believe in their individual rights as well. As such, I am opposed to the killing of any people anywhere, except in self-defense, and I morally condemn all such killing. I don't believe that governments have any special rights in this regard. I do not support collective punishment in any way. I do not believe that killing one person in self-defense gives anyone, including governments, the right to kill other innocent bystanders. I regard these moral principles as universal, applying across the board to everyone. As such, I consider myself to be the precise opposite of a tribalist, for I support no special rights for any tribe over any other tribe. It is morally wrong for Americans to kill innocent Iraqis, just as it is morally wrong for Iraqis to kill innocent Americans. It is morally wrong for Israelis to kill innocent Palestinians, just as it is morally wrong for Palestinians to kill innocent Israelis. It is morally wrong for anyone to kill anyone else, except in self-defense. Period. I grant no special moral dispensation to those who are of my tribe. Nor do I grant any special moral dispensation to those who are of other tribes. These are the beliefs for which you have labeled me as having a tribal bias.

The reality is that almost all self-identified objectivists exhibit a real tribal bias. Their tribe is the United States. The name commonly given to this tribal bias is "American exceptionalism". Because of this tribal bias, they justify acts of murder committed by the US government that they would unreservedly condemn as murder if committed by another government or by private citizens. Thus, of the two major objectivist organizations, ARI and TAS, neither has morally condemned in any way the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed at least 100,000 Iraqis (almost certainly, many more than this) and created millions of Iraqi refugees. I think it safe to say that, if the government of Iraq launched such an attack against the US, killing an equal number of Americans, the moral outrage would be profound. Yet, because this act was committed by the US government, who is presumed to act on behalf of their tribe, it is given a complete moral pass. They may condemn the act on practical grounds, because of its horrendous cost and its failure to achieve its alleged objectives. But no word is said about the moral evil of the war started by our government. Because it is, after all, our tribe. This is but one example of an endless list of ways in which they apply a double standard of morality to their own tribe with respect to all other tribes.

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a United States exceptionalism; unfortunately it all too often gets transmogrified into unnecessary foreign wars and entanglements. The Iraqi wars were essentially oil wars. The Afghan war is just so completely stupid it can't engage my brain. In the context of the Cold War Korea and Vietnam made some kind of sick sense. Our United States has been essentially an imperialistic enterprise going well back into colonial days. One big reason for the American Revolution was Great Britain's attempt to rein in westward expansion. U.S. moral hubris more and more is being turned on Americans themselves as more and more are finding themselves lashed to various spits turning over statist fires.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read one comment somewhere about the Palestinians that if Hamas laid down its guns, there would be no more killing. If Israel laid down its guns, there would be no more Israel.

From everything I have seen so far, this is accurate.

Michael

Whether or not this is true, it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, since noone here has suggested that Israel lay down its guns and stop defending itself. This comment is in fact only relevant to the Gaza blockade if one equates Israel's ending of the blockade with Israel laying down its guns and leaving itself defenseless. This is, of course, the hidden premise behind the comment. Every time anyone points out a particular attrocity committed by the Israeli government, the response invariably is something to the effect of, "Israel has the right to defend itself!", as though anything the Israeli government does, no matter how many innocent people are killed, is automatically a legitimate act of self-defense. Interestingly enough, if a Hamas fighter kills an Israeli, even an Israeli soldier rather than a civilian, one never hears this justification, that "Palestinians have the right to defend themselves". Every act of killing by Israel is automatically labeled as self-defense, and every act of killing by Palestinians is automatically labeled as terrorism. This same double standard applies to the US government. If US military are killed by insurgents, this is terrorism. If the US military drops cluster bombs from airplanes thousands of feet in the sky, or uses depleted uranium shells or white phosphorus, or uses unmanned drones to fire missiles, killing hundreds or thousands of people, this is "self-defense" or "collatteral damage" or "an unfortunate accident".

Martin

You are mixing up too much truth and half truth with you want-it-to-be truth.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had time to read the posts in this topic, but have any of you heard or read Stephen Kinzer's Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America's Future? I've started listening to the audiobook version and it's interesting so far. He's actually arguing for changing US relations in the Middle East more toward closer relations with Turkey and Iran -- and less close relations or, at least, very different ones with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that almost all self-identified objectivists exhibit a real tribal bias. Their tribe is the United States. The name commonly given to this tribal bias is "American exceptionalism". Because of this tribal bias, they justify acts of murder committed by the US government that they would unreservedly condemn as murder if committed by another government or by private citizens. Thus, of the two major objectivist organizations, ARI and TAS, neither has morally condemned in any way the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed at least 100,000 Iraqis (almost certainly, many more than this) and created millions of Iraqi refugees. I think it safe to say that, if the government of Iraq launched such an attack against the US, killing an equal number of Americans, the moral outrage would be profound. Yet, because this act was committed by the US government, who is presumed to act on behalf of their tribe, it is given a complete moral pass. They may condemn the act on practical grounds, because of its horrendous cost and its failure to achieve its alleged objectives. But no word is said about the moral evil of the war started by our government. Because it is, after all, our tribe. This is but one example of an endless list of ways in which they apply a double standard of morality to their own tribe with respect to all other tribes.

Martin,

I just realized that perhaps the saddest aspect of all this is that the critical reviews of Atlas Shrugged are coming true in the Objectivist movement now. Those reviews included comments like: "Galt is arguing for dictatorship." and "To a gas chamber go."

We are seeing that right now by the people running ARI and TAS. They argue for dictatorships and are basically arguing for the genocide of over one billion people. In this case, Galt's Gulch is Israel. All of Israel's enemies are to be killed. Israel really doesn't discriminate either. They also despise the few Christians who live there.

Edited by Chris Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized that perhaps the saddest aspect of all this is that the critical reviews of Atlas Shrugged are coming true in the Objectivist movement now. Those reviews included comments like: "Galt is arguing for dictatorship." and "To a gas chamber go."

We are seeing that right now by the people running ARI and TAS. They argue for dictatorships and are basically arguing for the genocide of over one billion people. In this case, Galt's Gulch is Israel. All of Israel's enemies are to be killed. Israel really doesn't discriminate either. They also despise the few Christians who live there.

Just who are "the enemies of Israel"? One billion people? WTF?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just who are "the enemies of Israel"? One billion people? WTF?

--Brant

<br><br>The whole cult of Zionism is based on the very wrong belief that everybody hates Jews. Because "everybody hates Jews," Jews must have their own country to be "safe." When you think about it, Zionism really is a cult. All cults have this belief that "everybody hates us."<br><br>There are well over one billion Muslims in the world.<br><br> Edited by Chris Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just who are "the enemies of Israel"? One billion people? WTF?

--Brant

<br><br>The whole cult of Zionism is based on the very wrong belief that everybody hates Jews. Because "everybody hates Jews," Jews must have their own country to be "safe." When you think about it, Zionism really is a cult. All cults have this belief that "everybody hates us."<br><br>There are well over one billion Muslims in the world.<br><br>

Chris,

I'd say rather that the ideology of Zionism is based on the very real belief that it only takes one evil empire at a time, to make life 'difficult' for the Jews: eg.:

Spain under the Inquisition; Russia under the Tsars, the Soviets; Germany under the Nazis; various Arab nations for 100's of years.

For the Jewish race to largely disappear, it certainly wouldn't necessitate "everybody" hating them.

They are our canaries in the world's coal mine: "First, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew..."

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Here's another example of the profound irrationality found in Islamic culture (not forgetting the profound irrationality found in some of the crazies on this thread!).]

"The Accursed Jews are Masters of Terrorism Who ... Spread Corruption Wherever They are"

MEMRI ^ 6/14/10

Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Al-Zoghbi

(The following excerpts are from a show with Egyptian cleric Muhammad Al-Zoghbi, which aired on Egypt's Al-Rahma TV on March 17, 2010. )

To view the clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.o...0/0/0/2487.htm.

Muhammad Al-Zoghbi: "Tonight's show continues what we discussed in previous shows. I call tonight's show 'Who is the Terrorist?' in order to show the entire world – near and far, from north to south, from east to west – the tolerance of Islam. I will show the entire world who the real terrorists have been throughout history. Therefore, let me tell you that tonight's show is very important.

"I will not be talking about my personal beliefs, nor will I recite poems in order to make women cry. Absolutely not. The time has come for us to raise a generation of real men, to unveil the real criminals and terrorists, and to reveal the true tolerance of Islam. [...]

"The annals of history bear witness, in letters of light, to the tolerance of Islam, and to the tolerance of Muslims throughout the times. History also bears witness to the terrorism of the accursed Jews, of the hostile Crusaders, and of the enemies of the Muslims. This has been recorded in black letters in the annals of history. I will begin with the terrorism of the sons of apes and pigs in the Holy Land. I will begin with some indispensable words. Oh monotheists, know that wherever the Jews may be found, they wallow in mud and spread corruption. [...]

"I would like to tell the entire world that these people are the masters of terrorism. They are producers of terrorism, they are criminals and murderers. [...]

"Know that terrorism has never been perpetrated by the monotheists. I challenge anyone on planet Earth to produce one piece of evidence or one case in history of terrorism perpetrated by the monotheists against others. No! [...]

"What have we been doing for the sake of the Al-Aqsa Mosque? Crying like women? Reciting poetry? Making hollow statements, enticing speeches, and deceptive promises in order to purge our hearts of rancor towards the enemies of Islam? What have we been doing for the sake of all the mosques that are being transformed day in and day out, into archeological sites by the sons of apes and pigs? [...]

"The Jews falsely claim that they killed Jesus, son of Mary. The truth is that they did not kill him, yet they take pride in this, because they are the slayers of the prophets and the messengers, and because they have no heart or brains whatsoever. [...]

"We have not learned a thing. This is why our destiny is determined by four million dogs."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I'd say rather that the ideology of Zionism is based on the very real belief that it only takes one evil empire at a time, to make life 'difficult' for the Jews: eg.:

Spain under the Inquisition; Russia under the Tsars, the Soviets; Germany under the Nazis; various Arab nations for 100's of years.

For the Jewish race to largely disappear, it certainly wouldn't necessitate "everybody" hating them.

They are our canaries in the world's coal mine: "First, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew..."

Tony

Evil empires make life difficult for lots of people. The Nazis killed as many non-Jews as they killed Jews. This probably includes over a million Roma (Gypsies). The Russian czars did the same thing with all the minorities under their flag.

Of course, when King Ferdinand was expelling Jews from Spain, who wrote him a letter offering to take all the Jews in? The Turkish sultan did, and about half the Spanish Jews took the offer. Today's Israeli propagandists will never acknowledge that one.

What I favor is a nation that protects the rights of all individuals. Such a nation would be safe for Jews and for every other minority group with a chip on its shoulder. That's individualism.

As an individualist, I oppose all forms of collectivism. Zionism is nothing but a form of collectivism.

Some years ago, I was talking with a Jewish friend of mine who is a social worker. He's a textbook busybody do-gooder type and probably votes something like a straight Blue ticket every election. He's a nice guy and is pretty smart though. I made the comment to him that Objectivists seem to have a fetish for Israel. This guy was quite puzzled and simply said to me: "They know it's socialist, don't they?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Here's another example of the profound irrationality found in Islamic culture (not forgetting the profound irrationality found in some of the crazies on this thread!).]

"The Accursed Jews are Masters of Terrorism Who ... Spread Corruption Wherever They are"

MEMRI ^ 6/14/10

Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Al-Zoghbi

(The following excerpts are from a show with Egyptian cleric Muhammad Al-Zoghbi, which aired on Egypt's Al-Rahma TV on March 17, 2010. )

To view the clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.o...0/0/0/2487.htm.

Muhammad Al-Zoghbi: "Tonight's show continues what we discussed in previous shows. I call tonight's show 'Who is the Terrorist?' in order to show the entire world – near and far, from north to south, from east to west – the tolerance of Islam. I will show the entire world who the real terrorists have been throughout history. Therefore, let me tell you that tonight's show is very important.

"I will not be talking about my personal beliefs, nor will I recite poems in order to make women cry. Absolutely not. The time has come for us to raise a generation of real men, to unveil the real criminals and terrorists, and to reveal the true tolerance of Islam. [...]

"The annals of history bear witness, in letters of light, to the tolerance of Islam, and to the tolerance of Muslims throughout the times. History also bears witness to the terrorism of the accursed Jews, of the hostile Crusaders, and of the enemies of the Muslims. This has been recorded in black letters in the annals of history. I will begin with the terrorism of the sons of apes and pigs in the Holy Land. I will begin with some indispensable words. Oh monotheists, know that wherever the Jews may be found, they wallow in mud and spread corruption. [...]

"I would like to tell the entire world that these people are the masters of terrorism. They are producers of terrorism, they are criminals and murderers. [...]

"Know that terrorism has never been perpetrated by the monotheists. I challenge anyone on planet Earth to produce one piece of evidence or one case in history of terrorism perpetrated by the monotheists against others. No! [...]

"What have we been doing for the sake of the Al-Aqsa Mosque? Crying like women? Reciting poetry? Making hollow statements, enticing speeches, and deceptive promises in order to purge our hearts of rancor towards the enemies of Islam? What have we been doing for the sake of all the mosques that are being transformed day in and day out, into archeological sites by the sons of apes and pigs? [...]

"The Jews falsely claim that they killed Jesus, son of Mary. The truth is that they did not kill him, yet they take pride in this, because they are the slayers of the prophets and the messengers, and because they have no heart or brains whatsoever. [...]

"We have not learned a thing. This is why our destiny is determined by four million dogs."

There are about 1.5 billion muslims in the world. You quote the ravings of one crazy Muslim cleric and think that this somehow proves "the profound irrationality found in Islamic culture"? How hard do you think it would be for me to find at least one Israeli zionist wackjob who believes that all non Jews should be killed or forcibly expelled from Israel, and that Israel should be expanded to its biblically defined boundaries, no matter how many people are killed or driven from their homes? Should I quote Pat Robertson and other fundamentalist Christian wackjobs to prove "the profound irrationality found in American culture"?

Martin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Here's another example of the profound irrationality found in Islamic culture (not forgetting the profound irrationality found in some of the crazies on this thread!).]

"The Accursed Jews are Masters of Terrorism Who ... Spread Corruption Wherever They are"

MEMRI ^ 6/14/10

Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Al-Zoghbi

(The following excerpts are from a show with Egyptian cleric Muhammad Al-Zoghbi, which aired on Egypt's Al-Rahma TV on March 17, 2010. )

To view the clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.o...0/0/0/2487.htm.

Muhammad Al-Zoghbi: "Tonight's show continues what we discussed in previous shows. I call tonight's show 'Who is the Terrorist?' in order to show the entire world – near and far, from north to south, from east to west – the tolerance of Islam. I will show the entire world who the real terrorists have been throughout history. Therefore, let me tell you that tonight's show is very important.

"I will not be talking about my personal beliefs, nor will I recite poems in order to make women cry. Absolutely not. The time has come for us to raise a generation of real men, to unveil the real criminals and terrorists, and to reveal the true tolerance of Islam. [...]

"The annals of history bear witness, in letters of light, to the tolerance of Islam, and to the tolerance of Muslims throughout the times. History also bears witness to the terrorism of the accursed Jews, of the hostile Crusaders, and of the enemies of the Muslims. This has been recorded in black letters in the annals of history. I will begin with the terrorism of the sons of apes and pigs in the Holy Land. I will begin with some indispensable words. Oh monotheists, know that wherever the Jews may be found, they wallow in mud and spread corruption. [...]

"I would like to tell the entire world that these people are the masters of terrorism. They are producers of terrorism, they are criminals and murderers. [...]

"Know that terrorism has never been perpetrated by the monotheists. I challenge anyone on planet Earth to produce one piece of evidence or one case in history of terrorism perpetrated by the monotheists against others. No! [...]

"What have we been doing for the sake of the Al-Aqsa Mosque? Crying like women? Reciting poetry? Making hollow statements, enticing speeches, and deceptive promises in order to purge our hearts of rancor towards the enemies of Islam? What have we been doing for the sake of all the mosques that are being transformed day in and day out, into archeological sites by the sons of apes and pigs? [...]

"The Jews falsely claim that they killed Jesus, son of Mary. The truth is that they did not kill him, yet they take pride in this, because they are the slayers of the prophets and the messengers, and because they have no heart or brains whatsoever. [...]

"We have not learned a thing. This is why our destiny is determined by four million dogs."

There are about 1.5 billion muslims in the world. You quote the ravings of one crazy Muslim cleric and think that this somehow proves "the profound irrationality found in Islamic culture"? How hard do you think it would be for me to find at least one Israeli zionist wackjob who believes that all non Jews should be killed or forcibly expelled from Israel, and that Israel should be expanded to its biblically defined boundaries, no matter how many people are killed or driven from their homes? Should I quote Pat Robertson and other fundamentalist Christian wackjobs to prove "the profound irrationality found in American culture"?

Martin

The primary cause of the conflict we can be described as "in" is state sponsored terrorism as from Iran and Syria and The United States mucking around the world with its oil wars and whatever it is doing in Afghanistan for whatever reasons: nation building for a nation that can't be built?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's nice that you have accused me of having a tribal mentality, without providing any actual evidence whatever to support your accusation. To exactly which tribe am I biased?

Martin,

You answered that.

I am a libertarian.

:)

I don't mind (even as I reject the tribal mentality--and no, not all libertarians are tribal).

You want "evidence"? All right. Your overemphasis on scapegoating and distortions through dualities show your hand. The scapegoating is obvious in most any post, so I see no reason to go back through the nastiness just to select one over the other. There are too many and I just don't like sifting through nastiness. For an example of the duality distortions, you often accuse people of saying things like "When Side A does X, yada yada yada good, but when Side B does it, yada yada yada evil." Then you bash the person for doing that. The trouble is that your attribution is rarely what the person meant or said. These are clear signs of a collectivist mentality. Another example. You give lip service to a principle, but save your vitriol for only one side of the divide, when (1) such a divide is not based on the principle you cite, and (2) both sides breach it. These are some of the things I have read in your posts. There are others.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I'd say rather that the ideology of Zionism is based on the very real belief that it only takes one evil empire at a time, to make life 'difficult' for the Jews: eg.:

Spain under the Inquisition; Russia under the Tsars, the Soviets; Germany under the Nazis; various Arab nations for 100's of years.

For the Jewish race to largely disappear, it certainly wouldn't necessitate "everybody" hating them.

They are our canaries in the world's coal mine: "First, they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew..."

Tony

Evil empires make life difficult for lots of people. The Nazis killed as many non-Jews as they killed Jews. This probably includes over a million Roma (Gypsies). The Russian czars did the same thing with all the minorities under their flag.

Of course, when King Ferdinand was expelling Jews from Spain, who wrote him a letter offering to take all the Jews in? The Turkish sultan did, and about half the Spanish Jews took the offer. Today's Israeli propagandists will never acknowledge that one.

What I favor is a nation that protects the rights of all individuals. Such a nation would be safe for Jews and for every other minority group with a chip on its shoulder. That's individualism.

As an individualist, I oppose all forms of collectivism. Zionism is nothing but a form of collectivism.

Some years ago, I was talking with a Jewish friend of mine who is a social worker. He's a textbook busybody do-gooder type and probably votes something like a straight Blue ticket every election. He's a nice guy and is pretty smart though. I made the comment to him that Objectivists seem to have a fetish for Israel. This guy was quite puzzled and simply said to me: "They know it's socialist, don't they?"

Chris,

Do you believe that a group of people bound by some common characteristic or purpose has the right to seek self-autonomy?

Does this group have the right to withdraw its 'sanction' (involving capital, skills, and ideas)

from its host nation... especially when it experiences threats to its very life?*

Whatever the common ideology is - historically, religions - this was one of the driving forces for people fleeing repression - to find self-expression and freedom.

As it was with early America (also, the Dutch and French Huguenots of early South Africa), so it was with Zionism.

Until that "nation that protects the rights of all individuals" comes along, we individualists cannot depend on any State, and must look to our own survival.

*(And to really stretch a point, as it 'was' with Galt's Gulch, so it was with Israel. <_< Each is a 'collective' of individuals with a common bond, aren't they?)

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe that a group of people bound by some common characteristic or purpose has the right to seek self-autonomy?

How do you define self-autonomy?

Does this group have the right to withdraw its 'sanction' (involving capital, skills, and ideas) from its host nation... especially when it experiences threats to its very life?

It most certainly does. Palestinians have every right to withdraw their sanction from the Israeli government. For that matter, any Israeli who actually believes in freedom does as well.

Whatever the common ideology is - historically, religions - this was one of the driving forces for people fleeing repression - to find self-expression and freedom.

The Quakers are about the only religious group I can think of that has been sincere about religious freedom. For most religions, "freedom" simply means the freedom to persecute others. That goes all the way back to Moses and probably even earlier.

Until that "nation that protects the rights of all individuals" comes along, we individualists cannot depend on any State, and must look to our own survival.

That's true. Jews can't depend on Israel to protect their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...