The "unconditional support for Israel" cult

Post Reply New Topic

The concept that one must not criticize any horror unless all horrors are equally criticized is, to say the least, a rather peculiar exercise in logic. No murderer should be punished if all murderers are not punished, no thief should be prosecuted unless all thieves are simultaneously prosecuted, etc.. The quality of your thinking seems equal in your other conclusions.

It's no less of a "cult" the the "unconditional support of Israel" cult, which is the title of this thread. Did you even watch the video? If the condemnation of Israel over the storming of that ship was in any way legitimate, then why would the media have to outright lie about it bringing in humanitarian aid when they are bringing in arms? Or call it a "massacre" when 7 out of 700 of the people aboard were killed? That's what the video shows.

The video showed no arms comparable to the military equipment carried by the Israelis. They were attacked in international waters which is illegal. The American who was killed was shot in the back while he was prone. How many people do you require killed to call it a massacre?

See http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... al_blunder

All talk about Israel being founded on the basis of ethnically cleansing the original inhabitants is fundamentally biased and not entirely accurate because:

1. it usually does not take into account nor acknowledges the fact that their were massacres of Jewish villages perpetrated by the Arab opponents as well and ...

2. there was a lot of propaganda in the Arab media which caused most of the prior Palestinian Arab population to flee rather than a deliberate plan by anyone trying to wipe them out. If you doubt this point, it is testified to by even amongst some of the Arabs who were there.

It is a basic matter of fairness that if one side gets hold accountable for what they did the other must also, That is not a case of saying that "for one thief to be punished, all must be punished" like you said.

Also, while there were Palestinian Arabs who fled Israel during the War of Independence, there were Jews who fled other Arab countries and settled in Israel. Yet a right for those Jews to return to their countries of origin has never been recognised by any of the Arab countries even though they campaign for a right to return for the Palestinian refugees. The fact that those Arab countries do not recognise a right for those Jews to return to their countries of origin created a legal precedent for Israel not having any obligation to recognise a Palestinian right of return. In fact a right of return has never been recognised for any previously displaced population and under International Law, it is the country accepting the refugee status of those populations that has the responsibility to repatriate them if needed, not the obligation of the country of origin.

Part of the reason for the blockade was to prevent weapons from entering Gaza and the ship was warned about the blockade before they boarded. Also they did lie about not having weapons on board because they use those weapons to attack the Israeli soldiers with when they boarded. The video shows the Israeli solders being attacked with stun grenades and firebombs. I don't think think the IDF opening fire with paintball guns would count as a deliberate attempt to kill.

Previous to this particular flotilla was another from Iran which actually had military hardware, destination Hamas. Hence, the inspection rerouting of cargo which is part of this naval blockade.

Here's a few more videos on this subject,

Regarding humanitarian aid to Gaza,
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wlWcNXzstI[/youtube]

Regarding the legality of the use of naval blockade,
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2W457Ot6qw[/youtube]

A statement from PM Benjamin Netanyahu,

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUG12kU8-jE[/youtube]

And one which may be apropos regarding the publicity stunts of leftmedia in association with "enemy of my enemy" friends in Hamas, Hezbollah and the like....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg[/youtube]

Speaking of blocking weapons from going into Gaza, I think we should also be concerned with how to block US miltary aid to Israel, which Israel is not using responsibly. Of course, this is virtually impossible to do since the US is really powerful.

See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37423584/

Prove that Israel isn't using weapons responsibly. They have nuclear weapons, yet in the hands of such as former Iraq, Iran, the PLA, Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetera ad naseum, how quickly do you think that they'd be used once developed? Israel has shown restraint even while under constant attack. Their attackers would not do the same.

The much of the attitude I described comes from the attitudes of "From Time Immemorial" and "The Case for Israel" where they trivialize and seek to marginalize the Palestinian presence and others, working from those sources, have expounded on that to imply that the "Palestinians" there today are, in fact, little more than immigrants who went there to fight Israel.

I'm more in line with Dr. Finkelstein on the matter but apparently, Alan Dershowitz believes that he is someone who fits in with the "Holocaust deniers, revisionists, trivializers or minimizers" and so refuses to debate him on their differing of opinions.

But I guess I can see how such an opinion can come up when he goes around talking like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FhlzIWh82Q[/youtube]

In the video, the activists attacked the Israeli solders who said what they did was in self-defence. Also, here's a quote from that article you linked to:



If they were trying to brake through the blockade then they must understand what's coming to them. Also a maritime blockade is something perfectly legitimate under International Law in the case of armed conflict, especially when Hamas is launching rockets at Israeli civilian areas. In that case it's perfectly legitimate for Israel to use a blockade to prevent such rockets and other weapons from entering Gaza.

Edit: I'm willing to take back some of what I said, however keep in mind that I still stand by the view that unconditional support for Palestine is as much a "cult" as unconditional support for Israel. Take a look at paragraph 172 on page 38 in the following PDF:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.pdf.

If that is true then there would be no excuse for that.

If you want to know the facts of Israeli Zionism see the true history as recounted by a Jewish historian.

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/20 ... palestine/

First of all, there is no solid evidence Iran has nukes. Secondly, you can't really make a solid proof that Israel's enemies would use the nukes if they had them. In fact, Hezbollah has missiles that can reach as far as Tel Aviv and perhaps Jerusalem and they haven't used them (yet).

White phosphorus on UN schools full of refugees, cluster bombs in Lebanon. Carelessly killing civilians (they justify it saying that at least some in the pile of dead bodies were miltants)

Collateral damage, one of the infelicities of modern warfare. The Allies killed one million civilians, many of them women and children in their air attacks against Axis industrial centers. C'est domage. C'est la guerre. Sh*t happens.

ruveyn

No one really cared about international law back then. The UN didn't even exist. If you are gonna say "Sh*t happens" and play by the rules, then thats exactly what Hamas and Hezbollah say. They also say "Sh*t happens". Sorry but in the 21st century it doesn't work like that. Besides, it was Nazi Germany the Allies were fighting. Hamas and Hezbollah do not have tanks and warplanes.

Last edited by jc6chan on 02 Oct 2010, 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The devil it doesn't! Read the daily newspapers. That is exactly how the 21st century works. It started off with a bang on 9/11/2001 in NYC and it has gone other places since.

ruveyn