Any 'pro-Palestinian' atheists here?

[Thunder]

The F35 program is in serious trouble. Giving some away might also a part the attempt to get enough volume to make it viable.

we aren't giving them away. they are not produced by the USA.

the USA is buying them, and we are giving them to Israel.

at least, that's Obama's lastest plan.

 

[Virus]

I'll admit that I hold Israel's behavior to a higher standard than I do Palestine's. I don't hold the oppressed to the same standards as the oppressor. I don't hold the weak to the same standards as the powerful.

Your analysis is trite without context. After the Arab regimes started a bunch of wars and got their asses kicked every time, the PLO kept the war going with random terror in addition to starting wars in Jordan and Lebanon. The problem with acquitting the Arabs due to low standards is that it ignores the people who started the conflict it and want it to continue.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Your analysis is trite without context. After the Arab regimes started a bunch of wars and got their asses kicked every time, the PLO kept the war going with random terror in addition to starting wars in Jordan and Lebanon. The problem with acquitting the Arabs due to low standards is that it ignores the people who started the conflict it and want it to continue.

You have heaped the sins of the entire Arab world upon the shoulders of the Palestinians, those least likely to be able to shoulder that burden. The majority of which were not even alive during your period of "context" (the median age in Gaza and the WB is around 19).

 

[funk de fino]

Too late to change the OP funk. Any new threads would just get merged with this one.

No comment at all on the law the Palestinians have that could result in the death penalty for blasphemy?

Says it will be a life sentence.

Don't care?

Yes, same as I care when people get 25 to life sentences for stealing cookies. Now where can that happen I wonder?

Your hatred of the OP trumps any concerns for human rights you may or may not have?

I suspect you have no idea what human rights are.

 

[Virus]

You have heaped the sins of the entire Arab world upon the shoulders of the Palestinians,

Not really. I'd love it if the Arab states would man-up and take responsibility for the wars they started. Instead they've done what you accuse me of doing; heaped responsibility for what they started onto the Palestinians.

those least likely to be able to shoulder that burden.

I agree that they can't shoulder the burden of destroying Israel. So they should surrender.

The majority of which were not even alive during your period of "context" (the median age in Gaza and the WB is around 19).

Big deal. A lot of Israelis weren't alive when the Arabs started all those wars.

 

[davefoc]

Or perhaps the historical analogy you are trying to promote is simply wrong. For instance, South America was colonized by Spain and Portugal, the US by great Britain, etc.

Can you tell me which country, in your opinion, has sent these Jews to colonize in its name?

And is this an important distinction to the indigenous population being colonized? Every example of European colonization was different than every other. But just in case there is any doubt, I agree, you are right, the colonization of Israel by European Jews was not done under the banner of a European nation.

So what exactly made them colonists in your opinion? Is it the fact that they came from Europe? If the first Jews to come were ones from Arab lands and not from Europe -but the history would have evolved along paralel lines - then they would not have been colonists? Does being a colonist is determined by some criteria other than the land you were born in? I would hope so, since I do not think that the place you were born in can determine such things.

I think moving into a land in a significant numbers, setting up governmental and quasi governmental organizations, working to segregate the immigrant population from the indigenous population are all characteristics that justify describing the movement of European Jews into the area known as Israel today as colonial.

In addition, setting up settlements outside Israel onto land recognized as not-Israel by almost every country in the world is reasonably characterized as colonial.

The European and middle east Jews that immigrated into Israel after it's establishment as a country would, I think, not be characterized as colonists by the normal meaning of the word. They are just emigrants from one country and immigrants to another.

As an aside, it seems that a few things have remained consistent in this thread with all other Israeli/Palestinian threads.
1. Israeli partisans fail to acknowledge that enormous harm came to many Palestinians as a result of a giant foreign immigration that they did not want and did not approve.
2. Repeated claims that the Palestinians or Arabs started wars with Israel without for a second noting that the resistance of foreign immigration is pretty much an accepted right of indigenous populations.
3. The ostensible topic will not be discussed because the real purpose of the topic put forth is to provide a platform to denigrate Palestinians and justify Israeli actions against them.

 

[bigjelmapro]

I don't know what all this is supposed to mean.

Is not in line with the claims made below.

The US has been dumping about 2.5 billion dollars worth of military aid into Israel a year since about 1967 and about a billion dollars worth of civilian aid. The civilian aid, I believe, has been reduced or eliminated of late because of the Israeli settlements (again I'm not sure). Did the US dump military aid on Israel out of the goodness of its heart? I'm not exactly sure why they did, but self interest of the politicians and their attendant benefits from local employment and kickbacks to their campaigns and other benefits channeled to them via AIPAC were certainly factors. In addition to this there are all the other little benefits like early transfer of aid and debt forgiveness that is part of Israel's US benefit package.

You're off by almost 2 decades on the magical 2.5-3 billion per year bit that one hears so often in the media.

Economic aid/grants have already been phased out for several years already and the amount in question that was diverted to WB settlement construction/security was taken into account in subsequent packages.

Private military industry is a lucrative business and since it employs tens of thousands of US citizens, it does benefit the US economy. Same reason the US exports weaponry to a number of other countries, for profit.

As for AIPAC, this isn't part of the discussion, so no real need for this deflection to creep in on this subject.

Your post also implies, but doesn't quite say that the US gets some sort of employment benefit because it gives stuff to Israel. Well, yes it does, sort of. Hiring people to run around town breaking windows also increases employment in specific industries, but the net effect is not increased employment and a loss of resources to the town hiring the window breaker. This is of course obvious, sort of. But somehow, people think that when the US gives weapons to Israel that the US doesn't suffer a loss of resources as a result. This is no less inaccurate a characterization of the situation than claiming the town that hired the window breaker is better off as a result.

$30+ billion per year in military hardware that goes to Israel is the economic/employment benefit to the US. I would say that I have stated it. 24% of this aid/grant goes into the Israeli military industry to produce and sell its military hardware to other countries, many of which have been joint US-Israel R&D projects. As with the US, military hardware sold decreases the per unit cost.

I do quite enjoy the laughable strawman though. If you have issues with the private military industries around the world and how its such a powerful business, as I do to a certain extent, then that should be the issue, not simply the narrow viewpoint that you, as with a number of posters on this forum have, with merely the US to Israel military purchases.

A per year kickback of about 600 million per year on a grand total of over 30 billion in purchases, is somewhat miniscule in the grand scheme of things eh?

And what about the inclusion of the overall issue of offsets? Do you conveniently misunderstand this?

 

[Virus]

As an aside, it seems that a few things have remained consistent in this thread with all other Israeli/Palestinian threads.
1. Israeli partisans fail to acknowledge that enormous harm came to many Palestinians as a result of a giant foreign immigration that they did not want and did not approve.

How were they enormously harmed?

2. Repeated claims that the Palestinians or Arabs started wars with Israel without for a second noting that the resistance of foreign immigration is pretty much an accepted right of indigenous populations.

Says who?

 

[bigjelmapro]

And is this an important distinction to the indigenous population being colonized? Every example of European colonization was different than every other. But just in case there is any doubt, I agree, you are right, the colonization of Israel by European Jews was not done under the banner of a European nation.

Good thing this region has been in such a state of flux and has had many different types of people settle the region in question that there really isn't such a thing as an 'indigenous population' is there? Not like the 10,000-15,000 years the native Americans have had in Canada/US.

Question though, how is it you think these European Jews managed to get to Europe in the first place? Another bout of selective reasoning on your part.

I think moving into a land in a significant numbers, setting up governmental and quasi governmental organizations, working to segregate the immigrant population from the indigenous population are all characteristics that justify describing the movement of European Jews into the area known as Israel today as colonial.

Sounds like the US/Canada to me. The prior of which didn't quite segregate, but rather exterminate en masse.

Or the Ottomans, Philistines (Greek European, no relation to Arabs), Hellenistic, Romans, Rashidun/Umayyad caliphates, Malmuks etc? All resulted in movement of ethnic groups, of which include a good portion of Jews to Europe.

In addition, setting up settlements outside Israel onto land recognized as not-Israel by almost every country in the world is reasonably characterized as colonial.

Bit more to colonialism than that, especially when it comes to disputed land that was settled before, in this case, the Jordanians occupied the WB.

Then again, don't quite understand the issue of settlements amounting to about 50 square kilometers has so many people up in arms. This doesn't include the bypass roads and buffer zones that would be pulled out of by Israel which has been stated for over 2 decades of peace initiative offers by Israel. Crickets and bickering on the PA side.

As an aside, it seems that a few things have remained consistent in this thread with all other Israeli/Palestinian threads.
1. Israeli partisans fail to acknowledge that enormous harm came to many Palestinians as a result of a giant foreign immigration that they did not want and did not approve.
2. Repeated claims that the Palestinians or Arabs started wars with Israel without for a second noting that the resistance of foreign immigration is pretty much an accepted right of indigenous populations.
3. The ostensible topic will not be discussed because the real purpose of the topic put forth is to provide a platform to denigrate Palestinians and justify Israeli actions against them.

Too bad this isn't solely an issue about the Palestinians now, is it? Immigration to the WB isn't 'giant' by an stretch. Definitely not enough to outdo the natural growth of Palestinian in the WB.

2nd statement is a repeated false claim and ignores history of migration on both sides, both external and internal, and ties in with the false allegation of an indigenous people above.

3rd point is just that of paranoia and that the topic isn't the usual Israel bashing one. This isn't an issue about the Palestinians overall, but rather the people leading them. It has been since this mess started and continues today.

 

[DC]

How were they enormously harmed?



Says who?

Are you ready to split up your country and give half of it to other people?
for example, are you ready to give back at least half of Australia to the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia ?

and if not, why not?

 

[WildCat]

Says it will be a life sentence.

Well, that makes it soooooo much better.

Yes, same as I care when people get 25 to life sentences for stealing cookies. Now where can that happen I wonder?

Can't criticize the PA without throwing a dig at the US? Do you assume I support "3 strikes" laws just because I'm American? You think every state has such laws? Do you think Illinois does?

I suspect you have no idea what human rights are.

I have enough understanding of it to know petty squabbles with another poster pale in comparison to real-life atrocities. You, not so much eh?

 

[davefoc]

OK, this is my last post in this thread unless somebody has something to say about the topic, Palestinian or Arab persecution of anti-Islamic speech.

1. The justification of US giveaways to Israel because it is somehow good for the US economy is so bogus that it hardly justifies comment. This is theoretically a forum with an emphasis on skepticism. I guess where some piece of data can be evaluated in some way that can be tilted towards Israel some skeptics in this forum can suspend their skepticism. There is no doubt that US giveaways to Israel are good for US military suppliers but extending that to a net US economic good is stupid and it is logic that in other contexts is completely rejected by some of the pro-Israeli partisans participating in this thread.

2. The age old, the Jews-were-here-first non-sense or the Jews-have-a- special-relationship-with-Israel arguments, that becomes a part of every one of these discussions are, on a secular basis, so stupid that they hardly deserve a response either. The idea that some group of people that has some limited cultural and genetic connection to a people that lived on this land several thousand years ago get a do over and get to move back is bizarrely inane. Do any of the Israeli partisans ever give a thought to how many billions of people on this earth based on this reasoning have a claim to some place else because they had some ancestors living there a few thousand years ago?

FWIW, I am, by world standards pretty much of a moderate or perhaps even an Israeli partisan on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The Israeli state has formed, it is functioning as a stable country with something approaching a democratic government. Whether in the details one can find either that the formation of Israel was morally justified or not is now clearly moot.

The US involvement in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is harmful to both sides and it is absolutely harmful to the interests of the US. The process of acceptance by both sides has been essentially put on hold while the sustenance of hostilities is subsidized.

The ability of Israel to manipulate US government actions is a fact of life and a somewhat ironic one at that. The process of moving towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict will not begin until Israel loses that power and I see no signs that this will happen any time soon.

 

[Thunder]

Are you ready to split up your country and give half of it to other people?

no one is asking Israelis to split their country in half. the West Bank is not part of Israel. its never been annexed by Israel.

 

[WildCat]

2. The age old, the Jews-were-here-first non-sense or the Jews-have-a- special-relationship-with-Israel arguments, that becomes a part of every one of these discussions are, on a secular basis, so stupid that they hardly deserve a response either. The idea that some group of people that has some limited cultural and genetic connection to a people that lived on this land several thousand years ago get a do over and get to move back is bizarrely inane. Do any of the Israeli partisans ever give a thought to how many billions of people on this earth based on this reasoning have a claim to some place else because they had some ancestors living there a few thousand years ago?

It's almost like you know nothing at all about the founding of Israel, nor do you seem to have read this thread. And the only people whining about the "special relationship" are the anti-Israel people in this thread, no one else brought it up.

But hey, don't let any of this stop you from burning your straw man.

 

[Rolls]

Israelis and Palestinians should be held to the same standards, this is why I find both sides to be at fault in a lot of ways, but I generally support the Israelis because I believe them to be generally less likely to do something I consider bad. I also note that the state of Israel is a far far safer and freer nation than any of the surrounding states with the possible exception of Egypt. Palestine is run by Hamas who are willing to sacrifice the people they support to get rid of Israel, whereas Israel generally try to protect themselves, sometimes going overboard in doing so, sometimes not.

A very fair, and realistic take on the situation. Well said.

Rolls

 

[Thunder]

Palestine is run by Hamas

um..when you make ignorant statements like this, it kinda makes the rest of your statements null and void.

 

[Virus]

Are you ready to split up your country and give half of it to other people?
for example, are you ready to give back at least half of Australia to the Aboriginal inhabitants of Australia ?

and if not, why not?

What country? There was no country of Palestine at the time. The first time it became a country in the modern sense was under the British, who divided the defeated Ottoman empire up and parceled it out to various tribal monarch families. How is the state of Israel any less legitimate than Jordan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia? The Jews seem to be the only people in the region that didn't make a complete arse out their new-found sovereignty.

 

[Skeptic]

How is the state of Israel any less legitimate than Jordan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia?

It's Jews.

The Jews seem to be the only people in the region that didn't make a complete arse out their new-found sovereignty.

You forget, say, India, the Persian Gulf states, or Southern Asia -- those countries, like South Korea, who supported the evil imperialist expansionist neo-colonialist Americans, I mean. (For some strange reason all those countries who used their liberation to embrace Communism failed. Isn't that surprising?)

All have their own problems, some quite big -- as does Israel -- but you can't say they are failed states or thuggish dictatorships.

 

[Skeptic]

Some people on this forum think a Palestinian state is the best way towards peace for both sides. You can agree or disagree but, that is one thing. The so-called "peace camp" on this forum, however, doesn't want Israel to sign a peace agreement. What they really want is that Israel be declared an illegitimate racist colonialsit enterprise that has no right to exist, because that fits with their hard-left historical fantasies. The actual lives of Israelies, let alone their right to live securily without being blown up, matter not at all to them.

The difference between the two camps -- as between any two camps -- is sometimes fuzzy. But as a general rule, those who really care about peace say something to the effect of, "Arafat betrayed the Israelies' trust but we think now Abu Mazen and others are moderates and will do better". Again one need not agree with this to note that this is not an anti-Israeli or antisemitic view. Those who rant constantly about "Israeli occupation", call the random shooting of civilians "resistance" (as long as they're Jews), etc., however...

 

[Doctor Evil]

And is this an important distinction to the indigenous population being colonized? Every example of European colonization was different than every other. But just in case there is any doubt, I agree, you are right, the colonization of Israel by European Jews was not done under the banner of a European nation.

You have not made a case that the term colonization is relevant here. (See also below.) What you are essentially doing is just asserting that this is so without actually providing reasons. I do not find this convincing.

I think moving into a land in a significant numbers, setting up governmental and quasi governmental organizations, working to segregate the immigrant population from the indigenous population are all characteristics that justify describing the movement of European Jews into the area known as Israel today as colonial.

No. Far from it. A colonial movement would have used the governmental institutions of its "home country", not construct its own.

The Jews built various institutions because they wanted self determination - that is to govern themselves. I may add that at the time there were no other alternatives for many of these institutions so it was either building these or having none. What I am left with is that for you "Jewish self determination = colonialism". Really?

Lastly, what do you mean by "working to segregate the immigrant population from the indigenous population"? Jews settled in places where they could buy land. In some they had many contacts with neighboring Arabs. In others less. As a whole, the main determining factor was the attitude of the Arabs to their neighbors. For instance, places such as Haifa and Abu Gosh had fairly amicable relations.

Perhaps you mean that there was a movement to encourage Jewish labor. In any case that had more to do with a rebellion against aspect of Jewish life in Europe than anything to do with Jewish-Arab relations.

In addition, setting up settlements outside Israel onto land recognized as not-Israel by almost every country in the world is reasonably characterized as colonial.

Are you trying to claim that actions taken in the 70's and 80's somehow are relevant to the pre 1948 British mandate? There is such a thing as causality.

As an aside, it seems that a few things have remained consistent in this thread with all other Israeli/Palestinian threads.
1. Israeli partisans fail to acknowledge that enormous harm came to many Palestinians as a result of a giant foreign immigration that they did not want and did not approve.
2. Repeated claims that the Palestinians or Arabs started wars with Israel without for a second noting that the resistance of foreign immigration is pretty much an accepted right of indigenous populations.
3. The ostensible topic will not be discussed because the real purpose of the topic put forth is to provide a platform to denigrate Palestinians and justify Israeli actions against them.

This is a huge strawman, for several reasons.
i) Thinking that the term colonialism does not apply is not the same as failing to acknowledge that some Palestinians were hurt during as a result of said immigration.

Furthermore, you have not actually stated what being hurt consists of. Living in a state were you are the minority is one such type, which does not seem to me to be that bad, if the state tries to give equal rights. As it happens, many Palestinians suffered more, but that resulted from rejecting a compromise and initiating a war instead.

ii) What does this accepted right of resistance actually mean? Does it include the right to murder? The right to start a war aiming to forcibly drive all the immigrants away?

iii) Not sure what you mean here, but it seems to me that you claim that people arguing with you are not doing so in good faith. Is this true? (I can assure you that this is not true in my case.)

Finally, you seem to be judging the immigrating Jews. Lets assume that I am a Jew in 1934 Germany or in Poland. I am concerned for my safety, due to an avalanche of anti Jewish hatred. What do you think I should do?