IDF General Sued For "Targeted Killings"

[gnome]

You think I'm harsh? You should see the kind of crap the "Israeli-right-or-wrong" crowd have inflicted on those who disagree with them...

Anyway, you've been warned... Have fun!

Cheerio.

I am not interested in treating webfusion according to how others have behaved... only according to how he behaves. I think it's an important component of such debates to get information from someone that was on the ground in those situations. Can you be specific about why you think webfusion has misrepresented himself?

 

[davefoc]

ImaginalDisc has stated the view of people like myself about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict about as succintly and clearly as it possible to do.

Of course the situation, is not that simple as I suspect ImaginalDisc would concede. Yes, there was some kind of Jewish presensce in the land for as far back as historical records can be found. Yes there were acts of intolerance or racism against the native Jewish population of the area and yes efforts were made to buy land for Jewish immigrants rather than just confiscating it. And perhaps more important than any other fact, many of the Jewish immigrants to the area viewed the immigration as a means of saving their lives and when people are acting out of the instinct for self preservation it is reasonable to empathize greatly with their situation because, if for no other reason, in a similar situation we all might be doing the same thing.

But the bottom line here is that the native population of Palestine did not want a massive influx of non-Islamic religious zealots and by most people's standards a resistance by them to that kind of immigration was reasonable. I think Ben-Gurion understood this exactly, it was just that he considered his Zionist goals more important than the rights of the native population.

On the negative comments about webfusion:
I am sure that webfusion does not need me or anybody else to speak in his defense, but I would like to none the less.

webfusion is an asset to this forum. I believe that he has always spoken honestly about his views and I think his observations as a person who actually lives in the area are of considerable interest. I think he has on occasion shown intellectual honesty with his willingness to consider other points of view.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I rightly concede that the historical situation is complicated, and that the Jewish immigrants into Palestine were not marching abreast, sweeping Palestinians out of the country. I am however saying that the formation of Israel wasn't a cut and dry moral affair.

 

[Mycroft]

...I am however saying that the formation of Israel wasn't a cut and dry moral affair.

I agree completely.

 

[David Swidler]

But the bottom line here is that the native population of Palestine did not want a massive influx of non-Islamic religious zealots and by most people's standards a resistance by them to that kind of immigration was reasonable. I think Ben-Gurion understood this exactly, it was just that he considered his Zionist goals more important than the rights of the native population.

The vast majority of the immigrants were not religious. Modern Zionism has been largely a secular affair.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I agree completely.

Well, good. You see, we can find some common ground. Incidentally, merely because there is such a thing as the fallacy of the middle ground does not mean that every attempt to find a middle ground is in error.

 

[Mycroft]

But the bottom line here is that the native population of Palestine did not want a massive influx of non-Islamic religious zealots and by most people's standards a resistance by them to that kind of immigration was reasonable.

A couple points:

1) While there is such a thing as religious Zionism, Zionism was primarily a secular movement. Characterizing them as "non-Islamic religious zealots" is just plain wrong and misleading.

2) I don’t accept it as a given that the native population was so unwelcoming to the Zionist immigrants. There was a small handful of key leaders that were hostile to the idea, who stirred up resentment and encouraged violence, but the Zionists also brought economic development that was hugely beneficial to the non-Jewish populations. Different leaders with a different agenda could have created a completely different history.

3) I don’t agree that race riots are ever reasonable. We rightly condemn them when they happen in France, Australia or the United States, we should avoid double-standards and condemn them when they happen in the Middle East as well.

 

[zenith-nadir]

What right had the Brittish to hand over the lands and people of Palestine to foreign invaders?

Well the "British" didn't hand over Palestine. There was a democratic vote at the UN as to the status of Palestine after the British Mandate ended. The idea was to make two states, one jewish, one Arab. The jews said yes, the Arabs rejected the democratic vote at the UN, and without any negotiation invaded on May 15th 1948. The result of that rejection is the situation today.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181

In favour: 33

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13

Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10

Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

Please note that there was no "state" called Palestine to vote for or against UN Resolution 181.

 

[Mycroft]

Well, good. You see, we can find some common ground. Incidentally, merely because there is such a thing as the fallacy of the middle ground does not mean that every attempt to find a middle ground is in error.

That is true, however you find that middle ground by following the evidence, not just by rejecting differing opinions as "extreme."

 

[ImaginalDisc]

That is true, however you find that middle ground by following the evidence, not just by rejecting differing opinions as "extreme."

Extreme is a descriptive term. The position that Israel's borders, as they exist now, will remain fixed, and that Israel will not submit to any demands by the Palestinains is extreme, whether that's the morally correct response or not.

Edit: The U.S.A.'s offical stance of never submitting to terrorist demands is likewise extreme, morally justified or not.

 

[davefoc]

The vast majority of the immigrants were not religious. Modern Zionism has been largely a secular affair.

I am aware of this to some degree, although I doubt vast majority is accurate. I think Ben-Gurion might have been an atheist, but playing to relgious zealotry was at least part of the pitch.

But in a way that seems strange to me, even non-religious people, like ZN still use the relgious stories that are part of the Jewish culture as a justificaton for the Zionist movement. I am not sure exactly how ZN sees this, but in at least two threads discussing the Israel/Palestinian conflict he has referred to David.

 

[Mycroft]

I am aware of this to some degree, although I doubt vast majority is accurate. I think Ben-Gurion might have been an atheist, but playing to relgious zealotry was at least part of the pitch.

Then I can only suggest you do more reading.

But in a way that seems strange to me, even non-religious people, like ZN still use the relgious stories that are part of the Jewish culture as a justificaton for the Zionist movement.

I don't understand why that would be strange to you or to anyone. A religion is an important part of your culture, even if you don't personally believe in the religion. Think of how many atheists celebrate Christmas, or just acknowledge the contributions of Christianity (both positive and negative) to western civilization.

Also, when the claim is made that race-riots and race-wars are “understandable” because you sympathize with one race losing dominance over a region, it becomes an issue that the other race had a presence also.

 

[Mycroft]

Extreme is a descriptive term. The position that Israel's borders, as they exist now, will remain fixed, and that Israel will not submit to any demands by the Palestinains is extreme, whether that's the morally correct response or not.

That would be an extreme position, but I don't know of anyone who takes that position. At least, nobody that is taken seriously.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I am not sure exactly how ZN sees this, but in at least two threads discussing the Israel/Palestinian conflict he has referred to David.

I was born jewish but I am totally atheist after I realized, at a young age, that god is similar to Santa Claus. The "existence" of god and/or Santa Caus was drilled into me by society, at school, through popular media, by my friends and family. Yet to this very day neither entity has ever been seen or demonstrated. The funny thing is God and Santa is that both are magical - one has flying reindeer and the other has flying angels - and they both "reward" you with heaven or presents.

Now as far as King David is concerned we have the Tel Dan Stele which says in ancient Aramaic "of the House of David" and "king of Israel". Which is 100% more proof than anyone has ever shown me regarding God or Santa.

Here is an interesting book review on King David at the nytimes if you are interested in reading more.

 

[webfusion]

Not sure what is required...

How would one go about proving IDF status on a forum such as this? Would posting a link to pictures of myself taken during military service be suffucient?
No problem, I have a webpage online...
{{of course, there is nothing to prove the photos are indeed of ME, is there? Oh well, now Orwell can come back and resume decrying it all as an unbelievable fabrication, by 'webfusion the deceiver.' }}

http://home.comcast.net/~advent99/gazastrip.html

In one respect, Orwell is absolutely correct --- I am a partisan to the conflict, and have taken a side, to defend. I reject totally his characterization of my participation here as that of a "hack" (propogandist). The thread that Orwell is complaining about being savaged on was about IDF 'targeting' civilians, and he persisted in avoiding making his case about that, and instead brought forward all manner of "abuses" as evidence. The topic was not Israeli abuses, although he decided it was, and no amount of refuting or counter-argument would bring him to address the actual topic.

For instance, was a little girl "targeted" in the famous incident brought up by demon? She was indeed shot and killed by an IDF officer (an officer who was tried in a court martial, and came to be acquitted after a set of conflicting witnesses muddied the legal case).
But was she "targeted" in the sense that the IDF went out looking to kill her, as a matter of orders that dictated to IDF soldiers to proceed to "kill several little innocent girls on the roads of Gaza and in the villages and in their schools" ??? I'll answer that -- the response is clearly "no".

===============================
Now, so that there is no further charge of hackism -- I offer the following:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/661722.html

• The Israel Defense Forces should target civilian areas in the Gaza Strip as part of its attempt to halt Qassam rocket fire on Israeli targets, current and former defense officials said Friday.

Whadda ya know, Orwell left this thread a bit early -- this is an interested development which might bolster his claims. (or not)

 

[Skeptic]

The vast majority of the immigrants were not religious. Modern Zionism has been largely a secular affair.

Like the jews for the antisemite, who were "primitive religious zealots" or "spreaders of atheism and anti-christian humanism", depending on need and opportunity and what one wishes to blame the jews for this week, the zionists for the "anti-zionist" were either "jewish religious zealots" or "not really a jewish phenomena", depending on what they are to be blamed for this time.

 

[Orwell]

In one respect, Orwell is absolutely correct --- I am a partisan to the conflict, and have taken a side, to defend. I reject totally his characterization of my participation here as that of a "hack" (propogandist). The thread that Orwell is complaining about being savaged on was about IDF 'targeting' civilians, and he persisted in avoiding making his case about that, and instead brought forward all manner of "abuses" as evidence. The topic was not Israeli abuses, although he decided it was, and no amount of refuting or counter-argument would bring him to address the actual topic.

You're making stuff up. I defined what I meant by "targeting" at least half a dozen times during that thread, in a way that was consistent with what I was saying, but you (and others of the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd), in typical partisan hack fashion, decided that the word "targeting" meant what you wanted it to mean. That's why I keep accusing you of not being a honest debater. You don't debate, you bicker.

 

[Mycroft]

You're making stuff up. I defined what I meant by "targeting" at least half a dozen times during that thread, in a way that was consistent with what I was saying...

You can't just go around redefining words to make your previous statements correct.

That's why I keep accusing you of not being a honest debater. You don't debate, you bicker.

 

[Orwell]

Mycroft, I used definitions out of a couple of dictionaries. I even gave links to web dictionaries.

 

[WildCat]

Mycroft, I used definitions out of a couple of dictionaries. I even gave links to web dictionaries.

None of which agreed w/ your definition, IIRC.