Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:39 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:So the Arab populations were pulled out by the Arab states in order to simplify the task of genocide they had before them, and you blame the Jews for removing the Arab population of Israel--rather than the Arab states who made the call of "withdraw from Palestine and we will drive the Jews into the sea and give you their lands"?
Where did you get this from? As I have tried showing previously is that the Arabs fled because of the war, people flee in war, it was not premeditated nor complicit in some slaughter, they fled because they feared they'd be killed by the Jewish army, either in pure slaughter or because they were near troops. You know the reason people flee wars. A smaller portion were expelled.
Philwelch wrote:
these Arabs did not flee because they were gleefully expecting the slaughter of Israelis, but because they feared getting slaughtered by them, they fled for legitimate reasons and they were denied the right of return for illegitimate reasons.


Funny then, that the Arabs who stayed in Israel were not slaughtered or repressed and remain citizens today.

The Arabs who fled Israel cast their lot in with the Arab states, and the Arabs who stayed cast their lot in with Israel. As it happens, Israel, the lone Jewish state in the region, was a safer bet for those Arabs than the Arab states.
There were a number of massacres, as well as a lot of civilian casualities. So the ones who fled might have saved their lives by doing so. Now as is usual in war way more fled than died, and there appears to have been instances where massacres were either made seem worse than they were as well as reported very widely which had the effect of people fleeing, but none the less people legitimately fled what was, as was very standard at the time, a rather bloody and brutal war. The Arabs who fled then were not in any way "throwing their lot in with the Arabs", they had legitemate reasons for fleeing the oncomming Israeli army, and under international law they need not have feared being denied the right of return, even if I imagine they might have suspected they would be.

And god forbid I respect international law, it's not like these very laws were formed to prevent the stuff Israel has been doing, formed because when you do the things Israel have been diong, siezing land and expelling the local population, you exacerbate a conflict and encourage war. And of course the laws that prevent civilian suffering.


It was the UN that partitioned Palestine and gave the Jews a homeland there in the first place. The Arab states were the ones to reject the plan and attempt genocide. Quite frankly, I challenge any civilization to do any better than Israel has done since then, given a similar situation.

I question the notion that genocide would have been the conclusion to an Arab victory. Second, the situation is assimilar to most other conflicts due to the highly localized wealth and power in the small state of Israel. Obvious analogues pre say the 1900's are inept, not only was the weaponery entirely differently but there were only vague notions of rules of war and going further back it only gets worse. Holding a nation to the same standards as Rome would not inspire the conscience. An obvious analogue would be with that of Great Brittain and Ireland, and I think no doubt that situation has been handled vastly better, without for example resorting to jet strikes or bombing campaigns despite the prolonged and deadly bombing campaign of the IRA.
Another analogy would be South Africa, which certainly in terms of relations between groups has come a great deal further, and abandoned the plan of "Cantons", but it too is a rather vague analog.
But okey, let's look at the Gaza massacre, it was one year ago. Could it have been handled better? There is no question yes, it could have been handled vastly better, I believe you're a FaiDite so if you want more details you can look at the topic there, it's a bit tiring detailing these things in every topic. But in short to quote the Goldstone report it was by this "model state" an attack to "“punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population". I think they could have done not that.
Okey let's look a bit further back at past conflicts, could the 1972 war have been handled better? Yes, Israel could have agreed to have peace by agreeing to abide by International law and returning the Sinai. And they did, after the War. Not a hard standard for a country to beat.
Deflecting criticism by saying "others could not have done better" isn't really valid when you look at the facts.

Two words: "Iraq" and "Afghanistan". The 60 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have resulted in fewer casualties than the American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't merely supported by the United States but perpetrated by it. They result in less controversy than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Depending on how you meassure it this is most certainly untrue, judging by the size of protests again the Iraq war both on the eve of war and after it's vastly less controversial than Israel/Palestine. This goes for Internal US debate, there is much more debate regarding Iraq and Afghanistan than there is re supporting Israel.
Second I think the evidence suggests that the US does behave better than Israel in Iraq and Afghanistan, the vast majority of civilian casualties in Iraq are caused by internal conflict as Iraq unlikely Palestine consists of three major factions and there is only a very weak nationalist movement, whereas it was the nationalist movement that Israel was trying to beat down before and during the first intifada.
To the extent that it's true is simply is a mix of lack of time and lack of easy sources. If I want to catch up on the recent news re Israel it's very easy, if I want to look up atrocities committed by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan it's much harder, but this is a local source.
And I'm sure that the Palestinian Arabs would feel the same way if someone had actually integrated them instead of holding them in decrepit refugee camps in order to "preserve their cultural identity" and to "protect their right of return".
Accepting those refugees is commendable, even though of course it is essentially the purpose of a Jewish state, but the Arab states are not required to accept these refugees. It would be nice if they did, and it is possible they will be forced to or that these will be encouraged to live in a future Palestinian state, but they have no obligation. Israel has an obligation. So putting the blame of the Arabs is not reasonable.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:41 am UTC

Zauderer wrote:
Philwelch wrote:So the Arab populations were pulled out by the Arab states in order to simplify the task of genocide they had before them,


It's amazing that even a very old and long-refuted piece of Israeli propaganda such as this is still believed by some people to be actually true.

It's amazing that some people still think you can refute a well-established historical fact just by calling it Israeli propaganda.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:42 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
Zauderer wrote:
Philwelch wrote:So the Arab populations were pulled out by the Arab states in order to simplify the task of genocide they had before them,


It's amazing that even a very old and long-refuted piece of Israeli propaganda such as this is still believed by some people to be actually true.

It's amazing that some people still think you can refute a well-established historical fact just by calling it Israeli propaganda.

You must have seen my post when you wrote this. You didn't even bother skimming it.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:49 am UTC

Well yes, fjan, because you're the one going around claiming that - because the Levantine Arab states weaponized a population, labeled them "Palestinian" and convinced people that 30% of an ex-province of the Ottoman Empire with no distinguishing cultural features constituted an independent nationality - they have absolutely no obligation to naturalize or in any way help their fellow Levantine Arabs. That's not "anti-Zionist" or anything, it's just damn cold and inhumane.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:12 am UTC

They're refugees from another country, if you want to argue about ethnic similarity they should certainly have been let into Israel. And when I say obligation I say the obligation any nation do, the US are not obliged to accept refugees from Iraq even if it was the aggressor, nor do Iran or any of it's neighbors. That doesn't mean I think it would be good, I said it would be good, but we're talking about what you have to do under the law.
EDIT: ant it's amusing how now suddenly YOU deny Palestine as a country. Way to regress the debate.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:27 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:ant it's amusing how now suddenly YOU deny Palestine as a country. Way to regress the debate.


Unless we're regressing to a factual basis, your comment is off-point. Palestine wasn't a country, nor is it today (although Gaza is debatable). And there's no need to deny that fact to establish the Palestinians were wronged in '48.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

Zauderer
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 6:47 pm UTC

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Zauderer » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:32 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
Zauderer wrote:
Philwelch wrote:So the Arab populations were pulled out by the Arab states in order to simplify the task of genocide they had before them,


It's amazing that even a very old and long-refuted piece of Israeli propaganda such as this is still believed by some people to be actually true.

It's amazing that some people still think you can refute a well-established historical fact just by calling it Israeli propaganda.


The claim you call a "fact" has been rejected by basically every reputable historian outside of Israel (and, by the way, the Haganah's secret service).

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:49 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
fjafjan wrote:ant it's amusing how now suddenly YOU deny Palestine as a country. Way to regress the debate.


Unless we're regressing to a factual basis, your comment is off-point. Palestine wasn't a country, nor is it today (although Gaza is debatable). And there's no need to deny that fact to establish the Palestinians were wronged in '48.

It was a mandate, or whatever you want to call it, but I can agree it was perhaps not a country. But it was certainly neither a part of Egypt, a part of Lebanon or a part of Jordan. So the people who fled from Palestine and Israel were fleeing from a different country, and it's understandable that these poor countries were not interested in accepting refugees that Israel refused to grant the right of return.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:56 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:It was a mandate, or whatever you want to call it, but I can agree it was perhaps not a country. But it was certainly neither a part of Egypt, a part of Lebanon or a part of Jordan. So the people who fled from Palestine and Israel were fleeing from a different country, and it's understandable that these poor countries were not interested in accepting refugees that Israel refused to grant the right of return.


That's fine -- but the comment you were responding to never really assumed it was part of any of those states. It, at best, implied that by virtue of those states' facilitation of the situation the Palestinians eventually found themselves in, that they had some responsibility to bear in helping them out when they got screwed.

Questionable on other terms perhaps, but not in any way regarding the Palestinians not being part of any of the Arab states, or not having their own.
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:00 am UTC

Right, but as I analogized the United States have no formal obligation to accept refugees from Iraq, nor do any of the "Coalition of the Willing". So neither did the Arab states. I would say it implied that as Palestine was not really a country, it was just this place where these people lived, and these people fled from there these countries populated by largely similar people (which is certainly untrue in the case of Lebanon) they should have accepted those refugees.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

yoni45
Posts: 2123
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:16 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby yoni45 » Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:04 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:Right, but as I analogized the United States have no formal obligation to accept refugees from Iraq, nor do any of the "Coalition of the Willing". So neither did the Arab states. I would say it implied that as Palestine was not really a country, it was just this place where these people lived, and these people fled from there these countries populated by largely similar people (which is certainly untrue in the case of Lebanon) they should have accepted those refugees.


Aleflamedyud: "...because the Levantine Arab states weaponized a population, labeled them "Palestinian" and convinced people that 30% of an ex-province of the Ottoman Empire with no distinguishing cultural features constituted an independent nationality..."

This leads me to believe that the implication was not merely on the basis that the Palestinians were similar, but also on the basis that the surrounding Arab states had a hand in the events that led to the Palestinians' situation.

Either way, this doesn't rely on a claim that they belonged to other states, nor misuses the fact that Palestine wasn't a country...
I sell LSAT courses and LSAT course accessories. Admittedly, we're still working on the accessories.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby EMTP » Mon Jan 04, 2010 2:14 am UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:Well yes, fjan, because you're the one going around claiming that - because the Levantine Arab states weaponized a population, labeled them "Palestinian" and convinced people that 30% of an ex-province of the Ottoman Empire with no distinguishing cultural features constituted an independent nationality - they have absolutely no obligation to naturalize or in any way help their fellow Levantine Arabs. That's not "anti-Zionist" or anything, it's just damn cold and inhumane.


That's total propaganda, dated propaganda; they don't even teach that way in Israeli schools any more.

Leaving aside the irony of a Zionist accusing other people of fabricating a national identity, your claim is wrong on the facts. Any of several good histories of the period (I like Tom Segev's "One Palestine, Complete") or even statements by the prewar Zionists themselves give the lie to the myth that the Palestinian nation was an invention of the Arab states:

Spoiler:
In July 1922, after the Palestinian Arab commercial strike, Ben-Gurion acknowledged privately that a Palestinian national movement is evolving. He wrote in his diary:

"The success of the [Palestinian] Arabs in organizing the closure of shops shows that we are dealing here with a national movement. For the [Palestinian] Arabs, this is an important education step." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 80)

Similarly in 1929, he also wrote about the Palestinian political national movement:

"It is true that the Arab national movement has no positive content. The leaders of the movement are unconcerned with betterment of the people and provision of their essential needs. They do not aid the fellah; to the contrary, the leaders suck his blood, and exploit the popular awakening for private gain. But we err if we measure the [Palestinian] Arabs and their movement by our standards. Every people is worthy of its national movement. The obvious characteristic of a political movement is that it knows how to mobilize the masses. From this prospective there is no doubt that we are facing a political movement, and we should not underestimate it."

"A national movement mobilizes masses, and that is the main thing. The [Palestinian] Arab is not one of revival, and its moral value is dubious. But in a political sense, this is a national movement." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 83)

. . .

In 1923, Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote of how Palestinians really felt about their attachment to Palestine:

"They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true favor that Aztec looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence." (Righteous Victims, p. 36)


http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre ... ry707.html


A good book with articles that address both the myth that the Palestinian nation was created as a weapon against Israel, and the myth that the Arab nations told the Palestinians to flee to clear the way for genocide (both of which are thoroughly discredited garbage, as you can read in any serious history of the conflict) is "Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (ed.s Said and Hitchens). But really, you can read almost anything: Morris ("Righteous Victims,") Pappe ("A History of Modern Palestine,") Charles Smith ("Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents,") or the big dog, Kimmerling ("The Palestinian People") ("Chapter One: The Revolt of 1834 and the Making of Modern Palestine.")

fjafjan wrote:It was a mandate, or whatever you want to call it, but I can agree it was perhaps not a country. But it was certainly neither a part of Egypt, a part of Lebanon or a part of Jordan. So the people who fled from Palestine and Israel were fleeing from a different country, and it's understandable that these poor countries were not interested in accepting refugees that Israel refused to grant the right of return.


Legally Palestine was a country, an "independent nation":

The first group or Class A mandates were communities formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to "... have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_ ... f_mandates

The mandate system, as the Covenant of the League states explicitly, applied to "independent nations" who (in theory) were being assisted prior to exercising full self-determination, as is their right under the mandatory system. (Of course, in the case of the British Mandate, this principle of self-determination was turned on its head, and Britain was instructed to prepare Palestine for a takeover by the tiny ZIonist minority, not help the vast Palestinian majority towards independence.)

So the international community, as represented by the League, recognized Palestine as its own "independent nation" when they established the Mandate in 1920.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:46 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
fjafjan wrote:Right, but as I analogized the United States have no formal obligation to accept refugees from Iraq, nor do any of the "Coalition of the Willing". So neither did the Arab states. I would say it implied that as Palestine was not really a country, it was just this place where these people lived, and these people fled from there these countries populated by largely similar people (which is certainly untrue in the case of Lebanon) they should have accepted those refugees.


Aleflamedyud: "...because the Levantine Arab states weaponized a population, labeled them "Palestinian" and convinced people that 30% of an ex-province of the Ottoman Empire with no distinguishing cultural features constituted an independent nationality..."

This leads me to believe that the implication was not merely on the basis that the Palestinians were similar, but also on the basis that the surrounding Arab states had a hand in the events that led to the Palestinians' situation.

Either way, this doesn't rely on a claim that they belonged to other states, nor misuses the fact that Palestine wasn't a country...

The implication was on the basis that the Arab states had a hand in the Palestinians situation and totally invented, from whole cloth, the notion that the "Palestinians" were different from the other Levantine Arabs. For God's sake, until the Europeans drew colonial boundaries for the Middle East there was no cultural or national distinction made between an Arab of Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Beirut, Damascus or Amman. The distinction between the "Palestinian" Arabs and all the other kinds of Arabs in the Levant is an entirely artificial difference created by the Arab states to weaponize the Palestinian population. Even then, "Palestinian" identity didn't become truly popular until the downfall of Nasserite pan-Arab nationalism in the '60s and '70s. The Arab states didn't invade Israel to free the "Palestinian" people from the Zionist yoke but to incorporate the land of "Palestine" into their dream of resurrected Arabic empire from stretching across Southwest Asia and North Africa.

Now, I grant that 60 years of distinct history has made that once-fictitious distinction a real one and I support the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian-Arab state alongside Israel -- despite the fact that a large, Judenfrei Arab state in the area is already 80% Palestinian but massacres Palestinians whenever they try to make a state there. Just don't spew Arab propaganda about the so-called existence of a so-called Palestinian nation 60 years ago when no such thing existed 100 years ago as justification for inflicting untold suffering with the intent of turning a human population into weapons of war!
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Philwelch » Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:05 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:As I have tried showing previously is that the Arabs fled because of the war, people flee in war, it was not premeditated nor complicit in some slaughter, they fled because they feared they'd be killed by the Jewish army, either in pure slaughter or because they were near troops. You know the reason people flee wars. A smaller portion were expelled.


So why must Israel take responsibility for refugees who fled from a war that the Arabs initiated?
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby EMTP » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:11 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:The implication was on the basis that the Arab states had a hand in the Palestinians situation and totally invented, from whole cloth, the notion that the "Palestinians" were different from the other Levantine Arabs. For God's sake, until the Europeans drew colonial boundaries for the Middle East there was no cultural or national distinction made between an Arab of Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Beirut, Damascus or Amman. The distinction between the "Palestinian" Arabs and all the other kinds of Arabs in the Levant is an entirely artificial difference created by the Arab states to weaponize the Palestinian population. Even then, "Palestinian" identity didn't become truly popular until the downfall of Nasserite pan-Arab nationalism in the '60s and '70s. The Arab states didn't invade Israel to free the "Palestinian" people from the Zionist yoke but to incorporate the land of "Palestine" into their dream of resurrected Arabic empire from stretching across Southwest Asia and North Africa.

Now, I grant that 60 years of distinct history has made that once-fictitious distinction a real one and I support the establishment of a peaceful Palestinian-Arab state alongside Israel -- despite the fact that a large, Judenfrei Arab state in the area is already 80% Palestinian but massacres Palestinians whenever they try to make a state there. Just don't spew Arab propaganda about the so-called existence of a so-called Palestinian nation 60 years ago when no such thing existed 100 years ago as justification for inflicting untold suffering with the intent of turning a human population into weapons of war!


Citations please. You have added more color to the myth, but no evidence that supports it, and as several people have pointed out, this is old propaganda that serious historians have shredded.

Some of your especially dubious assertions: "no cultural or national distinction made between an Arab of Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Beirut, Damascus or Amman." Given that they were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, there wasn't going to be a "national" distinction. But there were many cultural differences. Palestinian communities, for example, had many more Christians compared to most other Arab communities. They had higher literacy rates. There were many periodicals published in Palestine -- including one nationalist journal called "Palestine," first date of publication, 19081.

Or: ""Palestinian" identity didn't become truly popular until the downfall of Nasserite pan-Arab nationalism in the '60s and '70s." Evidence please. I think you're confusing an organized guerilla warfare campaign with "identity." Many national groups never develop a united leadership that can speak for everyone, in the way the PLO came to speak for the Palestinians. That in no way implies that prior to the acceptance of the PLO as spokesperson, there were no Palestinians.

Here's another: " The Arab states didn't invade Israel to free the "Palestinian" people from the Zionist yoke but to incorporate the land of "Palestine" into their dream of resurrected Arabic empire from stretching across Southwest Asia and North Africa." Yeah, but no. Of the tiny forces sent into the field following Israel's defeat of the Palestinians and expulsion of hundreds of thousands of refugees onto their territory, two of them, Jordan and Iraq, absolutely kept within the borders assigned to the Palestinians by the partition resolution. Lebanon's contingent was tiny. Egypt and Syria were greatly outnumbered by the Jewish forces. These different nations distrusted one another and did not even coordinate their military movements effectively (nor could they have, given that they all had different objectives). There is no evidence anyone was pursuing a "resurrected Arabic empire"; it's far more plausible, given how they behaved, that those states reluctantly and half-heartedly intervened against Israel when the tide of public opinion in their own countries responded to news of Zionist atrocities and waves of refugees.

Ah, irony: "despite the fact that a large, Judenfrei Arab state in the area is already 80% Palestinian but massacres Palestinians whenever they try to make a state there." Jordan is the only Arab state to grant citizenship to the Palestinians and attempt the integration you have indigently demanded for the refugees expelled by Israel (much like a rapist who complains about the absence of women's shelters and post-traumatic stress counseling). Their reward for giving the refugees more of a home than anyone else: to be targeted by Zionists who want to destroy the Jordanian nation and establish a Palestinian state in its place. That attitude certainly furthers the acceptance of Palestinian refugees.

Just don't spew Arab propaganda about the so-called existence of a so-called Palestinian nation 60 years ago when no such thing existed 100 years ago as justification for inflicting untold suffering with the intent of turning a human population into weapons of war!


Expelling the people and destroying their homes led to the suffering. Refusing to allow them to return to their homes has inflicted further suffering. The academic debate of who was organized as a nation when -- a debate which, I think the above suggests, you will lose -- can never justify the ethnic cleansing perpetuated by Israel or Israel's continued refusal to abide by UNR 194 and allow the refugees to return home.

1. The Iron Cage, Rashid Khalidi. Also mentioned in One Palestine, Complete, Tom Segev.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:56 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:
fjafjan wrote:As I have tried showing previously is that the Arabs fled because of the war, people flee in war, it was not premeditated nor complicit in some slaughter, they fled because they feared they'd be killed by the Jewish army, either in pure slaughter or because they were near troops. You know the reason people flee wars. A smaller portion were expelled.


So why must Israel take responsibility for refugees who fled from a war that the Arabs initiated?

Because the Arab civilians that fled had little choice in the matter, they are civilians, and have just like the German civilians that fled after the allies invaded Germany have the right of return.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby nowfocus » Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:38 pm UTC

Question for those more knowledgeable about the expulsions: Was it primarily Arabs living in the Arab partition, or did the Arabs living in the Jewish partition flee as well?

fjafjan wrote:One of the main reasons it's such a controversial conflict is because one of the parties is a close ally of the United States, and one that considers itself (and arguable is) part of the west. When two African countries are at war and kill each other ruthlessly it's less of an issue because we're not supporting either (I mean often countries will sell weapons but that's for profit). Israel has massive diplomatic and military backing of the United States. And normally when there is an atrocity committed by a state you won't have a "support [country committing atrocity] organization on Campus. So when the Tsotsis are killing civilians there are very few people going "well they had to defend themselves!", people go "that's a tragedy" and it's over. And these boards pose an excellent example, if I were to make a thread about the massacres in Darfur there would be no poster who would go out and defend the massacres. There would be no debate, we all agree that something should be done, and we all agree we should not support the attacker. When i made the topic (I think it was me.. actually it probably wasn't me, whatever) about the Gaza massacre one year ago (based on the causalities of the attackers it's clearly not a war, vastly asymmetric force with large civilian casualties => massacre) many posters jumped to the defense. there had been a few rockets, killing no one but threatening, so clearly this action was justified. The reports that were coming in were biased, the UN are all anti-Semites, etc.


I have to disagree with this. Of the conflicts posted, the US has a major role in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Mexico, and Colombia. It certainly has had an impact on Turkey as well through the war in Iraq. But lets take the Mexican Drug Wars. This conflict is largely funded by American Citizens, Weapons used are thought to be Illegally purchased in America, the law enforcement on these gangs was part of the US-led 'War on Drugs', and there is a major risk if it spilling over the border. Clearly, not only the US government but American Citizens are incredibly closely tied to this conflict, and I'd argue it has a larger impact on their day to day lives.

There is certainly controversy about it as well, some saying you need to reduce demand, some saying you need to attack supply, and massive disagreements on how to do both. I don't think its a given that people agree on how to deal with drug problems and the violence the spews from them. But how often do we talk about the mexican drug wars?

Similarly, it feels like the War on Iraq is talked about far less than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict far in countries that are directly involved. Walking around campus I saw many flyers for a pro-Gaza event, and I've never seen them for an Iraq-war event (I live in Canada). But objectively the War on Iraq is a much worse conflict than the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and there is certainly a large amount of controversy surrounding it.

For 2 I don't think we can debate because we trust very different sources, but thats okay.

For 3, the only reason were not as loud about it is because we didn't keep ourselves in poverty all these years. I think if you want to move this conflict there has to be some reason for both sides to do so, and clearly the Jewish people were robbed of far greater sums of land than the palestinians (estimated on wiki as 4 times the size of Israel itself). Bake that into a peace agreement, both in the interest of fairness and progress, and I think you could get somewhere.

fjafjan wrote:it's understandable that these poor countries were not interested in accepting refugees that Israel refused to grant the right of return.


What I don't understand is why they didn't absorb them into the population during there occuption from 48-67. While Israel may have had more money, the scale of the population they were absorbing was far greater, so we can just say the Arab countries couldn't have done it because they were poor.

And, even if they weren't going to absorb them, why ban other countries from offering them passports? To me that just seems malicious.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:30 am UTC

nowfocus wrote:Similarly, it feels like the War on Iraq is talked about far less than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict far in countries that are directly involved. Walking around campus I saw many flyers for a pro-Gaza event, and I've never seen them for an Iraq-war event (I live in Canada). But objectively the War on Iraq is a much worse conflict than the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and there is certainly a large amount of controversy surrounding it.

How many worldwide, millions strong, coordinated mass demonstrations do you remember being held in support of Palestinian rights? I remember all these demonstrations against the Iraq war, but maybe I missed the far greater pro-Palestine demos. I'm a little embarrassed, to be honest, I should really have been there...
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:22 am UTC

Dream wrote:How many worldwide, millions strong, coordinated mass demonstrations do you remember being held in support of Palestinian rights?

If you're asking about a size comparison, obviously the war on Iraq takes the cake, but haven't lived in a city that hasn't held protests for the Palestinians, and I've lived in every corner of the US and spent about 3 months in Israel... I'm not sure if you're suggesting the world isn't concerned with the Palestinians or not, but in case you are, I humbly disagree.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Dream » Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I'm not sure if you're suggesting the world isn't concerned with the Palestinians or not

C'mon, you know me. I'm not suggesting that at all. But we both know there hasn't been anything like the specific, significant, mass demonstrations against Israeli activity in Palestinian land as there were against the Iraq war. There is a very large movement in support of Palestine, but it has never come close to the anti-Iraq War demos, with millions literally in the streets together. It was these actual demonstrations I was referring to, and that make me doubt nowfocus's point. I thought he9?) was advancing a position based on a unique treatment of Israel vis a vis Iraq, and I was merely pointing out that the opposition to the Iraq war has been immense, and global, and visible.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby nowfocus » Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:16 am UTC

Dream wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:I'm not sure if you're suggesting the world isn't concerned with the Palestinians or not

C'mon, you know me. I'm not suggesting that at all. But we both know there hasn't been anything like the specific, significant, mass demonstrations against Israeli activity in Palestinian land as there were against the Iraq war. There is a very large movement in support of Palestine, but it has never come close to the anti-Iraq War demos, with millions literally in the streets together. It was these actual demonstrations I was referring to, and that make me doubt nowfocus's point. I thought he9?) was advancing a position based on a unique treatment of Israel vis a vis Iraq, and I was merely pointing out that the opposition to the Iraq war has been immense, and global, and visible.


There was a spike in protests before the war started (just as there was likely a global spike in protests during the war of 1967), I'm just saying that it seems much easier to find a protest for Gaza than one against the war in Iraq, and, to be fair, my main comparison was to the Mexican drug war. Measuring overall interest in Iraq is difficult because the US is actively behind it, but it seems to me that on campuses (and not just my own), there is far more interest in Gaza. Waterloo had a dedicated club to the cause, several large demonstrations (for Waterloo), controversial speakers. University of Toronto had a massive Israeli apartheid week, and some other event coming up next week as well. Concordia became famous for its anti-Zionist protests after forcing Netanyahu to cancel his talk by breaking the plate glass of the building http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_conte ... rticle=381. The student union tried to ban Hillel from campus, and after much legal wrangling would only reinstate there funding if they agreed not to 'promote war'. York University had a protest where they marched up to the jewish students association and blocked them in - the students had to leave under police escort http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2009/f ... 9feb17.htm. You can see videos on that link, and I've never seen any protest of that size on a Canadian campus against Iraq in the same time frame.

Here is a link to an article detailing events at other Canadian Universities, including derogatory posters of Jews: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2 ... heid-week/. The event is now in 40 cities, so there clearly is a lot of interest.

The conversation about the Iraq war is, in my opinion, far less vocal in Canada.

Anyways, if you disagree with me about the specific conflict in Iraq, look at the other ones on that list. Mexico? Turkey? Colombia? A US hand is in all of these, and I doubt many universities even have clubs set up for these causes. But protest for Gaza seem alive and well, and leaves one to wonder about why so many choose this cause as opposed to others.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:03 pm UTC

nowfocus wrote:There was a spike in protests before the war started (just as there was likely a global spike in protests during the war of 1967),

Are you talking about the Israel 67' war? Israel was not really on the Radar at that point, society was very different in how it looked at foreign conflicts etc. I can find no stories about protests against the 1967 war, there might have been some tiny ones.
Second there was no real "spike" in protests, there have been several protests almost as big since, but it's understandable that there is a fatigue on the issue, both as Obama has promised to pull out(what would you protest? It could go faster? , and as there has been virtually daily media coverage for the last four years, very public figures speaking out against the war. You cannot possibly claim Israel-Palestine gets more attention outside of some circles, Canadian universities. This is a very specific point and you tried to argue a much bigger one. So why are there more Palestinian interest groups than anti-Iraq war? Well first of all I am very skeptical this was the picture even two years ago.

nowfocus wrote:I'm just saying that it seems much easier to find a protest for Gaza than one against the war in Iraq, and, to be fair, my main comparison was to the Mexican drug war. Measuring overall interest in Iraq is difficult because the US is actively behind it, but it seems to me that on campuses (and not just my own), there is far more interest in Gaza. Waterloo had a dedicated club to the cause, several large demonstrations (for Waterloo), controversial speakers. University of Toronto had a massive Israeli apartheid week, and some other event coming up next week as well. Concordia became famous for its anti-Zionist protests after forcing Netanyahu to cancel his talk by breaking the plate glass of the building http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_conte ... rticle=381. The student union tried to ban Hillel from campus, and after much legal wrangling would only reinstate there funding if they agreed not to 'promote war'. York University had a protest where they marched up to the jewish students association and blocked them in - the students had to leave under police escort http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2009/f ... 9feb17.htm. You can see videos on that link, and I've never seen any protest of that size on a Canadian campus against Iraq in the same time frame.


There's a vast difference between economically a driving force to being politically a driving force. The war in South America and Mexico are certainly not unrelated to American policy, but saying it's an American war because it's funded by the American population is just not true, all resource wars and generally wealth founded wars, which are a majority, would then be wars caused by the big economic powers. We should not deny that our societies have significant blame in the conflict, but that there are fewer groups protesting drug use (cocaine use in particular) should not be surprising, after all who are you expecting to come out and announce they will no longer be buying cocaine? They are largely using illegally exported American arms, which again are supported by a minority that the government is trying to stop. It's illegal. Who are you trying to convince with these protests, the drugs lords? I doubt they would be much moved by public opinion. It's vastly different from Israel which recieves arms directly from the US government and direct financial aid from the US government, an official policy an elected official will have to defend if there is pressure by voters.

nowfocus wrote:Here is a link to an article detailing events at other Canadian Universities, including derogatory posters of Jews: http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2 ... heid-week/. The event is now in 40 cities, so there clearly is a lot of interest.

That article didn't detail many events, it talked about students arguing and supposedly anti-semitic posters (There were no pictures).


nowfocus wrote:Anyways, if you disagree with me about the specific conflict in Iraq, look at the other ones on that list. Mexico? Turkey? Colombia? A US hand is in all of these, and I doubt many universities even have clubs set up for these causes. But protest for Gaza seem alive and well, and leaves one to wonder about why so many choose this cause as opposed to others.

Okey, strike Mexico and Columbia as they are not officially supported. When you say Turkey you'll have to specify if you mean the Turkish/Cyprus conflict which seems to be largely in the past, or Kurds in Turkey, who are nowhere near under the same oppression as Palestinians in the occupied territories. So there is good reason people care less about it, it's far less important.
In general there is also the fact that the Middle East is important what with the Oil, and Israel is a very important actor in the region, where the oppression of Palestinians is a key issue. When talking about Iran the role of Israel, and the Israel lobby, is hugely important, and with Israel comes the Palestine conflict, it's sort of the price of "fame" if you so will.

For 2 I don't think we can debate because we trust very different sources, but thats okay.
And this is why debating with "Israeli supporters" is so often hopeless, they disbelieve any sources that are not IDF. It doesn't matter how many independent sources you pile up, the IDF are the only honest organization. How this can be deemed reasonable by so many people is absolute madness, they not only get away with it but they get people from all over the world believing them, usually without even looking at the evidence. The reasoning truly is "Israel is such a good nation, they always try not to kill civilians!" "look at what these people who investigate such claims all over the world say" "Well they're racist/wrong, I'm going to believe the Internal closed investigation by the military, they say they did nothing wrong".
You're free to prove me wrong though, what independent sources do you trust?



For 3, the only reason were not as loud about it is because we didn't keep ourselves in poverty all these years. I think if you want to move this conflict there has to be some reason for both sides to do so, and clearly the Jewish people were robbed of far greater sums of land than the Palestinians (estimated on wiki as 4 times the size of Israel itself). Bake that into a peace agreement, both in the interest of fairness and progress, and I think you could get somewhere.
The phrase "we didn't keep oursleves in poverty" is a pretty ballsy statement, because every organization I have heard that have looked into poverty in the occupied territories have found that the Israeli occupation is by far the main force hampering development. So Israel has kept Palestinians in poverty. Now you didn't say it outright but it's still pretty fucking ballsy to say to the people you've been oppressing the last sixty years "You're keeping yourself in poverty". How do you think that should be baked into a peace agreement with the Palestinians though? They still have no responsibility or blame for the actions of neighboring Arab states.



What I don't understand is why they didn't absorb them into the population during there occuption from 48-67. While Israel may have had more money, the scale of the population they were absorbing was far greater, so we can just say the Arab countries couldn't have done it because they were poor.

And, even if they weren't going to absorb them, why ban other countries from offering them passports? To me that just seems malicious.

There were several reasons why, I listened to a talk by Benny Morris where he mentioned it and he had found three reasons
1 They were poor, they had no interest and no obligation to accept lots of poor refugees
2 They could seriously affect the demographics, a good example is of course Lebanon.
3 They didn't want to help Israel, accepting the refugees would be a major help to Israel who DID have (and still do) an obligation to allow them back, and they didn't want to help Israel. (I believe it was this talk)
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

nowfocus
Posts: 948
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:34 am UTC

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby nowfocus » Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:18 pm UTC

I'll be the first to admit that there is no solid data on the number of activists for a given conflict. At the same time, its my perception that there has been far more interest in the Arab Israeli conflict than Iraq or most others. Certainly the Iraq War garners more interest in the US, but it is the invading country.

But, with no data we have to rely on our perceptions, and I think some others here were would readily agree with me.

The wars in Mexico and South America to me are far more intertwined with America than the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The wars are an instrument of US government policy, and elected officials in the US started the crack down on these gangs. The Mexican conflict risks spilling over the border for christ sake. In these wars BOTH sides get there funding and weapons from the US. I would hope that the concerned American citizen could protest the use of cocaine by there fellow citizens. Make cocaine uncool. Advocate for increased border security, or increased counseling for cocaine addicts.. I don't expect the US public to be united on this issue, and they certainly aren't united on the Israeli Palestinian issue, but I would hope they would at least care. Given the attention this gets it seems like they don't.

The conflicts I posted were only active conflicts, as in taking place now, so I was referring to the Kurds. There have been more fatalities there, and the Kurds have a massive importance to the US in Iraq, but I'll agree the connection is far less than that of Mexico or Colombia.


fjafjan wrote:That article didn't detail many events, it talked about students arguing and supposedly anti-semitic posters (There were no pictures).


That article, and the other I have posted, have detailed issues in the student body in 6 universities (York, Concordia, UBC, Carlton, Manitoba, Ottawa), and these are just the ones with recent violent/derogatory content.

fjafjan wrote:There were several reasons why, I listened to a talk by Benny Morris where he mentioned it and he had found three reasons
1 They were poor, they had no interest and no obligation to accept lots of poor refugees
2 They could seriously affect the demographics, a good example is of course Lebanon.
3 They didn't want to help Israel, accepting the refugees would be a major help to Israel who DID have (and still do) an obligation to allow them back, and they didn't want to help Israel. (I believe it was this talk)


Reasons 1 and 2 are good reasons not to accept refugees yourself, but bad reasons to ban other countries from doing so.

3 is probably closer to the truth, they wanted to hurt Israel more than they wanted to help the lives they endangered. I'm glad, for my sake, that Israel didn't follow such a stupid policy.

fjafjan wrote:You're free to prove me wrong though, what independent sources do you trust?


I don't really follow the conflict well enough to judge the credibility of individual sources. I do know the Arab world has a history of demonizing Jews, and that fraud has a way of spreading around to all organizations. Most recently we had the photo scandal: http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/. Also, the 'Massacre' in Jenin, which plenty of news/NGO bought into. As a rule I don't generally trust anyones opinion down there, I just go by what makes sense given everyones motives. The Israeli version often makes more sense to me.

fjafjan wrote:Now you didn't say it outright but it's still pretty fucking ballsy to say to the people you've been oppressing the last sixty years "You're keeping yourself in poverty". How do you think that should be baked into a peace agreement with the Palestinians though? They still have no responsibility or blame for the actions of neighboring Arab states.


Just as you view the Israeli Palestinian conflict in the scope of the broader Middle East, so do I. The War that started this mess was between Israel and the Arab world, and I think the peace should come between Israel and the Arab world. I'm also looking for a compromise that could work, which means its not simply Israel admitting they've been wrong for 60 years. How about this: All territory seized from Palestinians and Jews is valued at prices based on when the territory was seized. The Arab states set up commissions where individual Jews who had there land seized can receive compensation. The remaining value (since far more land was seized from Jews than Arabs) is then used to buy the land the major settlements are on from the Palestinians (which would be well above the market rate). Note Israel doesn't keep a dime, this is Arab governments basically transferring wealth the Palestinians. East Jerusalem is still a tricky point, as it always is, and I'm a fan of both sides renting out the territory to a neutral party for 1 dollars for the next (insert long time here). Neither side gives up there territorial claim and peace can move forward.

You still have all the border issues, but thats a problem with any solution.

Obviously a bit biased towards the Israeli side, but the point is that compromise gives both sides something.

Also, you probably didn't intend this, but I'm not personally oppressing anyone. I'm in Canada. Hi.
Jahoclave wrote:Besides if you observe romance, you change the outcome. Especially if you put his/her friend Catherine in a box.

Menacing Spike wrote:Was it the copper hammer or the children part that caused censoring?

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby fjafjan » Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:56 am UTC

These posts always turn out way too big. I should learn to be more concise...


nowfocus wrote:I'll be the first to admit that there is no solid data on the number of activists for a given conflict. At the same time, its my perception that there has been far more interest in the Arab Israeli conflict than Iraq or most others. Certainly the Iraq War garners more interest in the US, but it is the invading country.

But, with no data we have to rely on our perceptions, and I think some others here were would readily agree with me.

Here you invented the notion that there is no data. There are tons of data, however on most conflicts we agree on our assumption about the data so we don't check it (that there is less reporting of the drug wars than Israel Palestine, this is probably true, and I would expect it to be true based on the kind of relevance it has to America and the west in general). But the comparison with Iraq is pretty crazy, there was so little opposition to the Iraq war why do you think All democratic candidates promised to pull out? It's not because it's some fringe movement.

On February 15, millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history, protests occurred among others in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica. The largest demonstration this day occurred in London, where 2,000,000 protesters (about 1 in 30 of the population) gathered in Hyde Park; speakers included the Reverend Jesse Jackson, London mayor Ken Livingstone, and Liberal Democrats leader Charles Kennedy.

15 million people! That's just so many orders of magnitude bigger than any protest against Israeli actions in the occupied territories, especially in the west. Even the attacks on Gaza did not amass more than 20 000 people, which was in NYC. In Canada the protests (according to wiki) were even smaller, tha largest in Toronto of merely 2000 people. There were much bigger protests in the middle east which we should expect what with them living near where this massacre was occurring.
But protests are a relatively poor measure, more or less right up until the 2008 elections the war in Iraq was the front-line news every other day, some new strategy, some new blunder, some new thing going on, and there were always people urging the US to leave. I would be shocked if there in the mainstream media during 2003-2007 was more coverage of Israel Palestine than Iraq. In 2009 it's arguably true for the reason I have mentioned, namely that the US is in the process of pulling out of Iraq, so even if terrible things happen there they will be less interesting.

The wars in Mexico and South America to me are far more intertwined with America than the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The wars are an instrument of US government policy, and elected officials in the US started the crack down on these gangs. The Mexican conflict risks spilling over the border for christ sake. In these wars BOTH sides get there funding and weapons from the US. I would hope that the concerned American citizen could protest the use of cocaine by there fellow citizens. Make cocaine uncool. Advocate for increased border security, or increased counseling for cocaine addicts.. I don't expect the US public to be united on this issue, and they certainly aren't united on the Israeli Palestinian issue, but I would hope they would at least care. Given the attention this gets it seems like they don't.

And you fail to respond to my points, all US support for the 'drug wars' in South America, actually mostly in southern North America, are already illegal. The money they make from cocaine is illegal, the weapons they are sold are illegal, there's nothing more public officials can do. Well, certainly they could prioritize it higher, but that's vastly different from publicly and openly supporting another "war". But to whatever extent it does risk spilling into America it is getting increased coverage, the last few months everyone has heard about it, so there's movement, but you can't expect such a relatively new issue (the threat to the US, not the violence) to overtake an occupation the US has been openly supporting for ~40 years, if it is to overtake it at all.

The conflicts I posted were only active conflicts, as in taking place now, so I was referring to the Kurds. There have been more fatalities there, and the Kurds have a massive importance to the US in Iraq, but I'll agree the connection is far less than that of Mexico or Colombia.

There are more fatalities but it's not state action, at least not in recent history. This of course means it's still a problem, but local infighting is obviously of less concern to Americans.

Reasons 1 and 2 are good reasons not to accept refugees yourself, but bad reasons to ban other countries from doing so.

3 is probably closer to the truth, they wanted to hurt Israel more than they wanted to help the lives they endangered. I'm glad, for my sake, that Israel didn't follow such a stupid policy.

As I said In the case of Lebanon the demographic argument is very real, and in the case of Jordan the poverty argument is also valid. It's not really serious to without an argument dismiss the documentary record put forth by a serious historian based on your "intuition". Second what countries have banned them? There is a policy of the Arab League to discourage people from diong so, but for example the vast majority in Jordan are now Jordaian citizens

newfocus wrote:I don't really follow the conflict well enough to judge the credibility of individual sources. I do know the Arab world has a history of demonizing Jews, and that fraud has a way of spreading around to all organizations. Most recently we had the photo scandal: http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/. Also, the 'Massacre' in Jenin, which plenty of news/NGO bought into. As a rule I don't generally trust anyones opinion down there, I just go by what makes sense given everyones motives. The Israeli version often makes more sense to me.

All organizations are quite a lot, you pressume then that the experienced and trusted judge Goldstone, who investigated human rights abuses in Kosovo and (his native) South Africa and is also a Jew and a self proclaimed Zionist, got "tricked" by people on the ground?
Spoiler:
Taken from this interview (emphasis added) (and a good interview by the way, I recommend it even if I don't agree with everything Goldman says)

Bill Moyers and Judge Goldstone wrote:M: Your report, as you know, basically accuses Israel of waging war on the entire population of Gaza
G: That's correct
M: There are allegations in here, some very tough allegations, of Israeli soldiers shooting unarmed civilians who posed no thread, of shooting people whose arms were shackled behind them, of shooting two teenagers who were ordered off a tractor they were driving, apparently carrying wounded civilians to a hospitals, of homes, maybe thousands of homes, left in rubble, of hospitals bombed. There are some questions about one or two of your examples here, but it's basically a damning indictment of Israel's conduct in Gaza, right?
G: Well it is outrageous, and there should have been an outrage. The response has not been to deal with the substance of those allegations, I've seen or read no detailed response in respect to the incidents we report.
M: Why is that?
G:Well, you know I don't know, people hate being attacked. There is a knee jerk reaction to attack the messenger rather than the message and I think this is typical of that. And of course a lot of the allegations, I don't claim infallibility, but I would like to see a response to the substance. Especially the attack on the infrastructure of Gaza which seems to me to be absolutely unjustifiable


And how do you know what motivations people have? Well based on what sources tell you. The thing is you don't need to try individual sources, you can make a very simple argument. First of all the IDF would never admit to serious war crimes, no military ever would no matter how obvious it is. You admit small misstakes made by some people on the ground when there is so much evidence and attention that you can't avoid it. This of course is not evidence that there are war crimes, but there are usually independant sources that monitor these conflicts, and there are lots in the occupied territories. Most prominently, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Doctors for Human Rights and the United Nations council for Human Rights. All organizations that, with the exception of B'Tselem (which is based in and focused on Israeli human rights in the occupied territories) have ample experience dealing with human rights abuses in military conflicts. Now if there was any disagreement among these sources about what's going on, well you could argue that some are biased, looking at wrong sources or something. But thee is no such disagreement, they all report largely the same things, there is torture of Palestinian prisoners, people are inprisoned without a trial and detained indefinately, houses are demolished without explanation or motivation, people are beaten up at checkpoints, the siege on Gaza is taking lives due to lack of proper medical supplies, IDF soldiers used human shields in the Gaza massacre (ironic as per usual, but it's well documented, see here for one) etc etc. Given that all these sources report the same thing you have to conclude that they are all wrong, every report they have made have been wrong, and that the IDF and the Israeli government are the only people telling the truth. Or you come to the conclusion that at least on some occasions have the IDF been lying or misinforming the public about what's going on, as it's often in direct which I would argue is pretty standard for a military to do.



newfocus wrote:Just as you view the Israeli Palestinian conflict in the scope of the broader Middle East, so do I. The War that started this mess was between Israel and the Arab world, and I think the peace should come between Israel and the Arab world. I'm also looking for a compromise that could work, which means its not simply Israel admitting they've been wrong for 60 years. How about this: All territory seized from Palestinians and Jews is valued at prices based on when the territory was seized. The Arab states set up commissions where individual Jews who had there land seized can receive compensation. The remaining value (since far more land was seized from Jews than Arabs) is then used to buy the land the major settlements are on from the Palestinians (which would be well above the market rate). Note Israel doesn't keep a dime, this is Arab governments basically transferring wealth the Palestinians. East Jerusalem is still a tricky point, as it always is, and I'm a fan of both sides renting out the territory to a neutral party for 1 dollars for the next (insert long time here). Neither side gives up there territorial claim and peace can move forward.

There is a vast difference between understanding that the Israel Palestine conflict is very important to the region, and viewing the entire conflict as one between Jews and Arabs. Hint: You seem to be doing the latter. There is no legal or moral basis that the Palestinians that have been suffering for 60 years because of the actions of other nations and other people should suffer more because people who looks like them did bad things. Second comparing the land lost by Palestinians and that lost by Jews in Arab countries is not at all equivalent, the conditions during which Jews left the Arab countries is far more ambiguous, and as far as I know have not been denied the right of return. So the number previous cited comes from the organization WOJAC, World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries, this then includes people who left after and before the 1948 war, for example several Arab countries came under Vichy France rule, which then imposed several anti-jewish laws, or the fact that regional instability or starvation drove other refugee streams. But it's mostly a distraction, people who were dispossessed should be compensated, but it has no or very small relevance to an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty.

What's needed is not "a new treaty" it's to get both parties to the table, the fact that Israel has commited further transgressions
newfocus wrote:You still have all the border issues, but thats a problem with any solution.

Obviously a bit biased towards the Israeli side, but the point is that compromise gives both sides something.

Also, you probably didn't intend this, but I'm not personally oppressing anyone. I'm in Canada. Hi.

Hi. And you did say "we didn't keep ourself in poverty" which implied you were one of the refugees, pressumably then living in Israel. So sorry if I falsely accused you, but the comment is still rather offensive
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby aleflamedyud » Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:06 am UTC

You cannot possibly claim Israel-Palestine gets more attention outside of some circles, Canadian universities.

And in liberal/leftist American communities, especially universities.

Without going into a page-long post correcting everyone on everything, I'll note that we here a bloody fuckton about Israel-Palestine compared to other conflicts or issues because it's become a cause celebre among one of the two major political wings. The further to the political left you go (and I've done a page-long post here on the historical reason for this before), the more people view the Israeli-Arab conflict as Emblematic of Everything Wrong with the World. In communities where the left (or rather, the people who think they're the left ;-)) dominates, you'll find lots and lots of people willing to protest about Israel. "Internet culture", including the XKCD boards, tends towards leftism and libertarianism rather significantly, so these anti-Zionist (and occasionally crypto-antisemitic a la EMTP) views show up more prominently here than they do in Real Life.

And in contrast, the further to the right you go the more people consider the Arabs' actions against Israel Emblematic of Everything Wrong with the World. Same shit, different side. Their blogosphere behaves the same way, too.

The people in the center are the ones I like. They understand that Israel is pretty much just like every other ethnonationalist country, but with some shitty circumstances.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby clintonius » Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:42 am UTC

If you want to accuse someone of anti-semitism, do it over PM.

~CM
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby EMTP » Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:59 am UTC

Save for some guilt-ridden Europeans, the entire world, excepting America, has either outright rejected the Zionists' brutal Crusade, or expressed deep skepticism of it and, frequently, outrage over its abuses. Governments like Egypt's and Turkey's that hold their noses and do business with Israel find these polices to be deeply unpopular among their peoples.

The real question is why America has proven so much more gullible -- why so many American lap up Zionist propaganda the rest of the world rolls its eyes at. That's a complex and charged issue, but suffice to say, like paying outrageous prices for mediocre healthcare and having more privately owned guns than people, it's just one of America's little quirks.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:25 am UTC

clintonius wrote:If you want to accuse someone of anti-semitism, do it over PM.

~CM

We pretty much had that debate in another thread quite recently, and if I find material suiting the accusations *again* I'll simply hit the report button.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I checked and that was *this* thread. EMTP has displayed crypto-antisemitism in this thread. When I feel like actually troubling myself to read his posts here (he's on my foe list for a reason) I'm going to report him for racism and trolling.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:06 am UTC

EMTP wrote:the entire world, excepting America, has either outright rejected the Zionists' brutal Crusade


And a number of nations have taken the organizations you insist are doing well for their people and striving to end this 'Zionist Crusade', and placed them squarely at the top of terrorist watch lists. Because, you know, they are full of terrorists.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Philwelch » Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:12 am UTC

It's really no use, alef. The Western left--and, more specifically, our dear board moderators--have long stopped caring about anti-semitism. Whether or not the Jews can continue to exist as a people without having their homes shelled by rockets or their transit buses blown apart by walking bombs depends entirely on what Israel is willing to concede--until they concede enough, then let the terror continue, the victim is to blame.

The real problem is whether or not there are enough female comedians. That's real oppression.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:29 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:It's really no use, alef. The Western left--and, more specifically, our dear board moderators--have long stopped caring about anti-semitism. Whether or not the Jews can continue to exist as a people without having their homes shelled by rockets or their transit buses blown apart by walking bombs depends entirely on what Israel is willing to concede--until they concede enough, then let the terror continue, the victim is to blame.

The real problem is whether or not there are enough female comedians. That's real oppression.

Political views aside, the last time I complained of antisemitism in this thread (or another of our dear EMTP's numerous Israel-bashing threads) I got a week-long ban from N&A with a message from the mods saying to report racism instead of just kvetching about it.

Also, lol at the "female comedians problem".
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Indon » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:43 pm UTC

Philwelch wrote:The real problem is whether or not there are enough female comedians. That's real oppression.


Hells yes. It's more clear cut than the israel/palestine murderfest, too.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Israel admits to Harvesting Organs

Postby Philwelch » Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:53 pm UTC

You know, I'm okay admitting that the Israelis are racist, too. Warfare is a lot more "oppressive" than not being able to make a living telling jokes, though.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ConMan and 26 guests