Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You have lost all credibility. With you stupid fucking Hillary Clinton photoshops, and your autistic posting and re-posting of the Robert Byrd/Klan robes photoshop, and the elephant ass-fucking the donkey (although that at least was honest in that it genuinely portayed your current politcal discourse. You have become a parody. A satire of whatever it was that you honestly wanted to say.

Your message is now so polluted with the bile and hyperbole that have become your trademark that I, and I imagine many others, find it impossible to dissociate you from the hateful antics.

At least when you had 1000 socks people could pretend there was some small distance between you and the bullshit. But that's gone now. It's all to painfully apparent that there's this massive troll on board and his name is Penske.

Maybe some day you'll regain your sense of perspective and your ability to hold an honest dialogue. When that day comes, let me know. We'll talk.

Cool, another thing you have in common with Fringey.

I am always willing to have an honest dialogue. You spew hatred about W but get upset that I rightfully point out the damage the Clintons did to our nation and the world and the that Bobby Byrd, a leader of the Dem party, is a Klansman.

Truth hurts.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's called self-defence.

That's one term for it.

There are some who might claim that violence is violence, and its performance by sanctioned institutions is no better or worse than groups of private citizens with greivances.

He is a terrorist. Israel is a nation and an ally. Saddam was the leader of a real nation. Arafat was a terrorist. Why can't the left admit it? Why glorify a anti-semitic babykiller?

I'm not glorifying him. You are. I simply noted his existance and status. And you forgot about the Iranians. Don't like to talk about treason in your own tent, do you?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
There are some who might claim that violence is violence, and its performance by sanctioned institutions is no better or worse than groups of private citizens with greivances.

And they would be morons. It is this sort of moral relativism that leads to tyranny and oppression. Following this line of reasoning it would have been wrong to bomb the killing camps in Germany because "violence is violence".

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Penske to try and elevate this discussion. I would like you to answer some questions:

1) The main reason why the UN equated Zionism with racism is that any Jew anywhere in the world can move to Israel and become a citizen. However, any muslim palestinian who lived in Israel proper prior to its creation may not move back to their home. In addition, none of their decendants may either. If this is not a racist (or at least bigoted policy) why not?

It's self-preservation. If the Palis were not committed to the destruction of Israel and the jewish People, I think that they all could have lived together. The Arabs went to War and set the agenda, Israel is just preserving its existence.

Originally posted by Spanky


2) The West Bank and Gaza are occupied by the Isreal.
(a) What right does Israel have to occupy these territories? (b) Palestinians in the West Bank are taxed by Israel but they have no representation in the Israeli government. Is this not taxation without representation? (c) Do the citizens of West Bank and Gaza have any right to self determination?

The spoils of a war of self defence. I speculate that if the Arabs had not attacked in 48, Israel would have been happy to live in peace. the Arabs did and have made their agenda of the destruction of Israel clear. Israel has no choice but to defend itself. I think it should annex the West Bank and the Golan and be done with it. there are plenty of other borders in the world that have been changed by War, the Palis gripes are no more legitimate than the Poles and no one is realistically arguing to restore Poland's borders.

Originally posted by Spanky


3) What gave the Jews in Palestine in 1948 the moral right to create Israel. At the time only fifteen percent of the Jews in Palestine were born in Palestine and the native borns jews in Palestine only represented about three percent of the population of Palestine (Even sixty years later only twenty percent of Isreal's population was born in Israel).

G-d, as affirmed by the UN before it went to the dogs.

Originally posted by Spanky


4) Is it possible to not be anti-semetic but anti-zionist?

Probably, but a significant majority of the Arab world is both. The euro-liberals are both. The American left is probably more anti-zionist but they have become dupes for the anti-semites in the Arab world and France.

Originally posted by Spanky


5) General Marshall (of the Marshall Plan) argued against the US recognition of Isreal because he said the result will be that our only friends in the middle east will be the Jews that immigrate there. Therefore, for US strategic interests this will be a disaster. Why was he wrong?

From a moral standpoint he was wrong because it would have resulted in a second holocaust. From a geopolitical standpoint he was wrong because Israel is the only democracy and relatively economically vibrant (for reasons other than strategic natural resources) nation in the region and the only nation there likely to be a loyal ally.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
And they would be morons.

Your objection to the founding fathers is duly noted.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


3)Considering the fact that if Isreal will be only seven miles wide right in its middle if the West Bank is given up, why should Isreal give control to the West Bank to a people intent on destroying it. Wouldn't giving up the West Bank be an act of suicide?

so Clinton's plan was assisted suicide rather than passive genocide?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
And they would be morons. It is this sort of moral relativism that leads to tyranny and oppression. Following this line of reasoning it would have been wrong to bomb the killing camps in Germany because "violence is violence".

2.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
It's self-preservation. If the Palis were not committed to the destruction of Israel and the jewish People, I think that they all could have lived together.

An opportunity lost, Spanky.

I think the above is correct. I also think that if the Israelis were not committed to the destruction of Palistine and the Palistinian people, I think they all could have lived together.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Your objection to the founding fathers is duly noted.

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, which was endorsed by most if not all the founding fathers, was a justification for revolution. If they believe what you stated, we may have declared independence but we would have never created a continental army to promote that independance. The only people that would endorse your statement are pacifists and the founding fathers were definitely not pacifists.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by baltassoc
An opportunity lost, Spanky.

I think the above is correct. I also think that if the Israelis were not committed to the destruction of Palistine and the Palistinian people, I think they all could have lived together.

Where is part that Israel's actions are anything but in furtherance of self-defence? If the Arabs had not set the agenda, there would have been no issue. The US never would have supported a non-defence based policy of aggression on Israel's part.

[i]eta: I don't think Israel is committed to the destruction of the
"Palestinians", although I am not sure such an indigenous people distinct from say, Jordanians ever existed but for political purposes. Israel is committed to existing. Having a group of people committed to ending that existence within its borders is problematic, so the workable result would be Jordan or, Gaza. We shall see how that works.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Penske to try and elevate this discussion. I would like you to answer some questions:

1) The main reason why the UN equated Zionism with racism is that any Jew anywhere in the world can move to Israel and become a citizen. However, any muslim palestinian who lived in Israel proper prior to its creation may not move back to their home. In addition, none of their decendants may either. If this is not a racist (or at least bigoted policy) why not?

2) The West Bank and Gaza are occupied by the Isreal.
(a) What right does Israel have to occupy these territories? (b) Palestinians in the West Bank are taxed by Israel but they have no representation in the Israeli government. Is this not taxation without representation? (c) Do the citizens of West Bank and Gaza have any right to self determination?

3) What gave the Jews in Palestine in 1948 the moral right to create Israel. At the time only fifteen percent of the Jews in Palestine were born in Palestine and the native borns jews in Palestine only represented about three percent of the population of Palestine (Even sixty years later only twenty percent of Isreal's population was born in Israel).

4) Is it possible to not be anti-semetic but anti-zionist?

5) General Marshall (of the Marshall Plan) argued against the US recognition of Isreal because he said the result will be that our only friends in the middle east will be the Jews that immigrate there. Therefore, for US strategic interests this will be a disaster. Why was he wrong?

The Isreali conflict began in biblical times, when Nebuchadnezzar first drove the Jews from Judea, while allowing the Phillistines, the ancestors of today's Palestinians to expand byond their then-boundary in Canaan and occupy Judea. Subsequent banishment of Jews from Isreal came during the reign of the Romans, and the Ottoman Turks.

In 1945, the Zionists of Britain and the Unisted States saw the historical homeland of Israel as a place for the millions of Jews displaced from their homes by the Nazi occupation of continental Europe to find safe haven. Anti-semitic influences in the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Empire found it convenient to allow this migration as a means of avoiding the problem of resettlement of these Jews in Europe. They clearly had no stomach to repatriate the land, property, and businesses of which the Jews had been stripped.

Palestine was at the time a British Protectorate. The British, not quite sure what to do about the overcrowding created by the displaced Jews and the Palestinian underclass waffled, hoping that the whole mess could be foisted on the fledgling United Nations. The British, in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, had declared Palestine a Jewish Homeland, but they never really took steps to create an independent state, or to mediate the burgeoning tension between Jews and Arab Palestinians.

The Jews newly arrived in Palestine, along with the minority of native Jews who had been kept in ghettos in the cities of Palestine, took matters into their own hands in 1948. In that year, they gave birth to terrorism by blowing up the East Wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. Among the terrorists was Yitzhak Shamir, later to be elected Prime Minister of Israel.

The British response was to flee Palestine, summarily dividing it into two halves, one Jewish, one Arab. The Arab League and the Hagunah, the two primary paramilitary terrorist organizations of the Arabs and the Jews then began the 1948 War of Israeli Independence. To make a short story even shorter, the Jews won.

It was during this war, the war started by Egypt in 1956, and the war started by Syria and Egypt in 1967, that large numbers of Palestinians either fled as refugees or were expelled as hostile combatants from Israel.

The Arab League eventually split up into many groups, among the Hamas, the PLO, and Al-Fatah. The Haganah became the Israeli Defence Force, and ultimately, the Israeli Army.

To this day, it is still the official political and limitary position of Hamas that the Palestinian people will not rest until every last Jew in Israel is pushed into the sea.

So, to answer your questions...

1. So, the same rule that says that we don't have to give the country back to the Indians, England is free to ignore the Pope, and Mexico no longer has to pay a ransom in gold to the King of Spain is the reason that the Jews are allowed to be in Israel and they needn't move back to the land that was stolen from them by non-Jewish Europeans in WWII.

2. Israel occupies the West Bank and the Gaza strip because they have always been a historical part of Judea/Canaan/Palestine/TransJordan/Israel. That and because the Syrians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Yemenites, Egyptians, and the Arab League lost the wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1972.

3. The Jews did not create Isreal in 1948, the British did. However, after the British turned tail and ran, the Jews won the 1948 War. For parallels in other British colonies, see South Africa, no longer ruled by the Afrikaans, Zimbabwe, no longer ruled by white plantation owners, etc.

4. Yes, it is possible to be anti-Zionist without being anti-semitic. However, in order to take such a position, you need to decide at exactly what point in the history of civilization we need to decide who should be in Israel/Palestine. Of course, no matter what point you choose, there will be both Arabs (or Phillistines) and Jews there. And they will be warring over territory.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
My question for the Liberals on the board?

1) Considering the hatred of Israel among the population of Iraq, how is democracy in Iraq going to help Israel?

2) What evidence is there that the invasion of Iraq was to help Israel at the expense of US interests.

3)Considering the fact that if Isreal will be only seven miles wide right in its middle if the West Bank is given up, why should Isreal give control to the West Bank to a people intent on destroying it. Wouldn't giving up the West Bank be an act of suicide?

1 and 2. Who the fuck is stupid enough to believe that Iraq has anything to do with Israel?

3. If it would actually buy peace, ceding control over the 'West Bank, save for joint occupation of Herusalem, is a small price to pay. Do I believe it will buy peace? No.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, which was endorsed by most if not all the founding fathers, was a justification for revolution. If they believe what you stated, we may have declared independence but we would have never created a continental army to promote that independance. The only people that would endorse your statement are pacifists and the founding fathers were definitely not pacifists.

FWIW, Jefferson and most of his other Virginia planters were against the notion of a continental army.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
1 and 2. Who the fuck is stupid enough to believe that Iraq has anything to do with Israel?

Cindy Sheehan, for one.

[SlaveNoMore]

baltassoc
I also think that if the Israelis were not committed to the destruction of Palistine and the Palistinian people, I think they all could have lived together.

Thank you, ANSWER.ORG.