Hawkmoon, please maintain minimum standards of discourse. You cannot make an untrue allegation (that I allegedly made a claim that Arabs do not have flaws in their societies as compared to Israelis), and when I point out that I emphatically made NO such claim (in fact, I said clearly otherwise), you then switch to saying that "in effect" I did so because most of my critical remarks were about Israelis and not Arabs.
Hawkmoon - rhetoric 101, pay attention. THE SUBJECT of my post, was pinpointing Israeli behavior. OF COURSE I'm going to talk about Israeli behavior. That's the SUBJECT - or did you miss composition classes at school? In fact, if I suddenly talked about Arab or Eskimo behavior, it would be OFF SUBJECT. That doesn't mean I'm not aware of Arab behavior (in fact I mention it in passing), but that is not the SUBJECT. If someone asks you about the rape that occurred next door, do you answer by saying: "why don't you mention the 1000 rapes that occurred that day elsewhere in the country?". Hello?!
In general, your entire post is in the same hopeless vein:
Where were the people like yourself from 1948-1967 when the Jordanians occupied that land and FORCED all of those people to become Jordanians?? Why aren't you complaining about the fact that a Hashemite Arab King is ruling over a population that is 70% Jordanian??
Can you stay focused at all or are you simply not equipped to conduct a discussion? What are you talking about "people like you"? What do you mean? I am talking about the illegal under international law, Israeli occupation of land, and you want me to somehow answer for what "people like me" were saying or not saying back in 1948?
Try and absorb. Read slowly if you have to. If a criminal is charged with rape, he cannot answer:
1)Please do not talk about my rape, first you must talk about the rapes in Tibet.
2)Others raped and got away with it: "Where were people like you, the prosecution in those cases?"
We are talking about YOUR crimes. The crimes of others DO NOT EXCUSE NOR ARE A JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR CRIMES.
The fact that I am discussing Israeli crimes, does not mean I am not aware or "outraged" by Arab crimes, or Chinese crimes, or Eskimo crimes. BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT ISRAELI CRIMES. Try and focus. Arab crimes do not excuse Israeli crimes. What Jordan is doing to their citizens does not excuse Israeli behavior to their Arab citizens. You are like the little kid, who confronted with their misbehavior says: "but Johnny did it too!". The fact that Johnny did it, does not excuse YOUR doing it!
Israel is illegally occupying land. That must end. And the fact that Jordan occupied this or that, or that the Chinese occupy Tibet or whatever else you drag in, does not make the ISRAELI occupation legal. It is illegal under international law. And it must stop.
Why are the Palestinians so "special"??
What about the Kurds? What about the Maronite Christians of Lebanon?? What about the Bedouins? What about the Coptic Christians of Egypt??
"What makes you dear rape-victim so special? Forget about your rape - others are also getting raped." Hello?! There you go again.
When Israel murders a Palestinian child, it is not OK to say to the grieving mother "what about the Coptic Christians of Egypt?" A crime is a crime is a crime.
Israel's illegal brutal occupation must end. It is ILLEGAL. That others do illegal things does not give Israel a mandate to go on a crime spree.
As to how Israel doesn't use nuclear weapons... Not out of the goodness of their hearts or some superhuman restraint, or because "they can be trusted with them". They don't, because it would be a disaster for them. If Israel nuked Arab countries, Israel would forever become an international pariah, with 100% isolation. Even the U.S. would abandon them. And that my friend would, would be the end for Israels dream of becoming a normal country. Even the South African Apartheid regime understood that - which is why they didn't go ahead an weaponize and use nuclear devices to hold on to apartheid - they knew that total international isolation means the end in the long run. No, it was not because apartheid South Africa could be "trusted" with nuclear weapons or had a heart of gold. Same for North Korea - no golden heart there.
As to your supposition that somehow the colonization of S.A. was justified because "the Zulus came from the north" - well, that's just a sad lack of historical knowledge. Those territories had a lot more peoples than the Zulus, and they were there for millenia. The Brits and others simply colonized those territories and subjugated the natives, eventually instituting apartheid. A crime.
And there are the Israelis.. a group of people who just want what was promised to them by the British and French, their historical homeland
That land was not for the British and French to give to anyone. The fact that Brits and French conquered and colonized does not give them the right to then "deed" a territory away from the natives, or deed it to ANYONE at all. They have no right to decide anything.
Israel's existance is justified by a U.N. resolution. Fine. Israel has the right to exist, and to live in peace (something the Arabs would accept - see Saudi initiative). But the U.N. has also declared Israels FURTHER land grab illegal. Israel's borders are recognized as 67 borders internationally. That's all. The settlements are illegal. The occupation is illegal. It is a crime.
I'm not going to spend my life feeling guilty because my ancestors were more powerful than the people they took land from. And even though I'm part indian, I have no desire to see the US return all of those lands to the tribes whom they put on reservations.
Conquest, either military or economic, is a fact of life. It's the way the world has turned for thousands of years.
I guess one could simply sum up your argument as: "might makes right", "let the strongest win", "that's the way of the world".
We can debate back and forth. But fine. Let us accept that argument for the time being, although I can't say I agree with such sentiments.
If so, then when Arabs get nuclear weapons - and it is only a matter of time when they do... already a Muslim nation (Pakistan) has nuclear weapons (btw. many Pakistanis are virulently anti-Israel, even anti-Semitic, a scary prospect). One day, you can be 100% sure, an Arab nation will have nuclear weapons - they may fail 1000 times, but all they need to do is succeed once.
And then, dear Hawkmoon, they can cite your dictum:
"I'm not going to spend my life feeling guilty because my ancestors were more powerful than the people they took land from"
and proceed to incinerate Israel, because down the generations future Arab Hawkmoons will say: "I don't feel guilty for what my ancestors did", because:
Conquest, either military or economic, is a fact of life. It's the way the world has turned for thousands of years.
So too for Arab conquest. Why not destroy Israel, including Israel proper in 67 borders? Of course, Israel will defend itself - it is exactly that reason why Israel has nuclear weapons... to use in extreme situations when the very state is in imminent danger of extermination... they don't "fling" them around not because they are "responsible", but because to use them in OTHER circumstances would be counterproductive - these are weapons of last resort.
And by your logic, you have nuclear war - exchange between Arab and Israel nukes. How nice.
I prefer to say: stop the madness. Try and reach a settlement, without resort to "might makes right", because that can only lead to ultimate disaster. Logically, and with inexorable force, that will be the end result - nuclear war - you can bet on it.
So, the alternative is to say: no military solution, only political. That means: let Israel exist, as it was meant to, in the 67 borders and give up the mad Arab dream of pushing Israel into the sea. And Israel needs to stop its murderous occupation and give back the stolen land.
Remember, "might makes right" is a very dangerous argument.
Today, Israel is much, much more powerful than all the Arabs combined. But Israel cannot take advantage of that power to nuke the Arabs for reasons I outlined before - it would mean the end of Israel. Israel cannot do a "final solution" either - there are also the billions of Muslims in the rest of the world, breathing hatred for Israel.
And here's the bad part: one day, the Arabs will be more powerful. They have the population advantage, and ONE day will have the economic and military advantage. And then those in Israel who lived by the maxim of "might makes right" will tremble. For if you live by the sword, you die by it too.
Israel should not give the Arabs the precedent of a murderous occupation, of disregard, contempt and discrimination of Arabs. Israel should not fan the flames of hatred for countless generations of Arabs and billions of Muslims world over. It is a losing game. Those few settlements stolen from the Palestinians are not worth it in the long run.
The irony of it all, is that you and some others suppose that somehow I am opposed to Israel, or have an anti-Israeli bias. Far from it.
So happens, that I think that Israel is on a suicidal path. And that we should not abett that. What I say, I say only with Israel's long term (and short-term) interests at heart.
I happen to think that Israel can best protect itself by withdrawing to 67 borders and ending a mad, insane, murderous, and completely unsustainable occupation, which producing an ocean of hatred that can only mean disaster for Israel long term. And for the U.S., if the U.S. insists on unconditionally supporting Israel. The U.S. is like an enabling parent giving the wayward son money for drugs - the kid will end up dead, and drag down the parents too. Better face up to reality and confront Israel over its insane path. Nations have had moments of madness. Greater Germany. Greater Serbia. Greater Israel. They all thought they could do it, and all they did is bring the world to flames. You do the Israelis no favors by abetting their crimes, because that means allowing them to commit slow suicide - and you too, will pay a price for it, with 9/11 being a small down payment. There is worse, much worse to come.
I am sure that when voices of dissent were raised in Germany, warning that Hitler was leading the nation to disaster, they were seen as complainers perhaps even unpatriotic. The opposite was true. And so it is too in the U.S. Many are opposing Israeli policies not out of opposition to Israel as such, but because they think it will lead to disaster for both Israel and the U.S. I am firmly in that camp. |
