Heartland

Posted: **06 Jan 2009, 02:45**

EvilBastard wrote:As do chinchillas...

Ya got me...

Posted: **06 Jan 2009, 13:58**

<devils_advocate>
You know, what with Israel being a democratic nation (at least for its Jewish citizens), each and every Jewish citizen is complicit in, and at least partially responsible for the murderous actions of Israel's government. After all, if they don't like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, they are free to protest the government's actions, and if that won't work, they can leave Israel; most Jewish Israelis have dual nationality with somewhere else anyway.

That being the case, under the principle that "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem", each and every Jewish Israeli is a legitimate target for retaliation from Hamas.
</devils_advocate>

Posted: **06 Jan 2009, 14:50**

markfiend wrote:<devils_advocate>
You know, what with Israel being a democratic nation (at least for its Jewish citizens), each and every Jewish citizen is complicit in, and at least partially responsible for the murderous actions of Israel's government. After all, if they don't like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, they are free to protest the government's actions, and if that won't work, they can leave Israel; most Jewish Israelis have dual nationality with somewhere else anyway.

That being the case, under the principle that "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem", each and every Jewish Israeli is a legitimate target for retaliation from Hamas.
</devils_advocate>

FYI, Muslims can and do vote in Israeli elections, and hold positions in the Knesset.

Posted: **06 Jan 2009, 14:58**

markfiend wrote:<devils_advocate>
You know, what with Israel being a democratic nation (at least for its Jewish citizens), each and every Jewish citizen is complicit in, and at least partially responsible for the murderous actions of Israel's government. After all, if they don't like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, they are free to protest the government's actions, and if that won't work, they can leave Israel; most Jewish Israelis have dual nationality with somewhere else anyway.

That being the case, under the principle that "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem", each and every Jewish Israeli is a legitimate target for retaliation from Hamas.
</devils_advocate>

On last night's news on the telly a local reporter of german TV station ZDF said there is some problem for the Israeli government to balance on the edge of Israel's public acceptance for actions against Palestinians and what the government would like to do..

It seems the Israeli public does not *really* support the attacks, only they like to be rid of the Kassams.
Those rockets are, judging by their millitary efficency some kind of throwing-stones 2.0, achieving the occasional kill which merely means pinching the lion until it attacks.
What did the Hamas morons think would be the outcome of that?
They toyed with the lifes of those who voted for them, now their voters pay with their blood. 1933 to 1945, anyone? If only I could feel of the story as cynical as I think.

Sure, Hamas had to work up to some expectation they aroused in their voters, posing as the big warriors that will ride a wave of god's own anger to wash the infidels of the face of the earth. But in the end they had nothing to offer except for war. They simply were not prepared to run an earthly government. They had to take combat successes as justification for their power. Which reminds me of the situation of a bloke they dubbed as evil itself.

Posted: **06 Jan 2009, 15:55**

sultan2075 wrote:FYI, Muslims can and do vote in Israeli elections, and hold positions in the Knesset.

I know, just playing the game here.

Posted: **06 Jan 2009, 16:11**

sultan2075 wrote:
markfiend wrote:<devils_advocate>
You know, what with Israel being a democratic nation (at least for its Jewish citizens), each and every Jewish citizen is complicit in, and at least partially responsible for the murderous actions of Israel's government. After all, if they don't like what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, they are free to protest the government's actions, and if that won't work, they can leave Israel; most Jewish Israelis have dual nationality with somewhere else anyway.

That being the case, under the principle that "if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem", each and every Jewish Israeli is a legitimate target for retaliation from Hamas.
</devils_advocate>
FYI, Muslims can and do vote in Israeli elections, and hold positions in the Knesset.

If memory serves, I think there are 12 current Arab members of the Knesset, one of whom is the Minister for Science, Culture and Sport.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 12:24**

markfiend wrote: Israel's supporters, particularly in the US, definitely try to paint Israel as part of the Western complex of democratic, civilised nations. If they want to wear that mantle, they have to be judged to the same standards as the rest. The Palestinians, and Hamas in particular, are probably more in the mould of a resistance to an occupying power than of a democratic state.

What standards? If I were an Israeli, I'd ask why a Briton reckons he can criticise when his army has recently reduced a sovereign nation to rubble and near civil war. Or a Frenchman with his country's record in Algeria and towards it's own Muslims, and as for a German..

markfiend wrote:Surely two good reasons to compromise are the continued survival of Israel itself, and (hopefully, eventually) peace in the Middle East. The notion that dialogue with terrorists is impossible (whatever one's definition of "terrorist") is given the lie by the political resolution to the "troubles" in Northern Ireland. To abandon even the idea of compromise, well, if a tree won't bend before a storm, it will break.

I doubt Ulster would inspire any Israeli. A part of the UK which voted to remain so basically handed over to the governance of sectarians in order to settle Bill Clinton's campaign financing? Seeing a hate-filled bigot like Paisley enjoying a merry jest with McGuiness, a man with so much blood on his hands he makes Lady MacBeth's look lily-white makes me sick. A dishonorable peace bought by surrender. We never got the IRA to disarm, we never found the bodies of the "disappeared", we released their men. They won, and it's about time we stopped pretending otherwise.

markfiend wrote:You seem to be contradicting yourself here: "capable of making their own decisions" yet prone to be "regularly stirred up by the neighbouring Arab states"? You can't have it both ways.

Maybe I explained it badly. They are easy prey for agitators, because their means of expressing themselves is not via debate, it is through mass protests and riots. The heart rules the head, if you like.Treat them like adults, engage in rational debate, and make it clear that the money tap is turned off if they don't get their house in order. The EU and US aren't obliged to finance them, after all.The Palestinian Authority will soon turn a deaf ear to outsiders if they see their comfortable lives threatened.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 12:49**

DeWinter wrote: What standards? If I were an Israeli, I'd ask why a Briton reckons he can criticise when his army has recently reduced a sovereign nation to rubble and near civil war.

This is something I have thought about a lot. While I do not support what Israel is doing right now, because I find their actions way out of proportion to the threat they are facing (and because this can only be counterproductive), I am always astonished to see how comparatively accepted it is to critizise what Israel does, even if the US and the UK have killed more Arab civilians (from a country that posed no military threat to any of those two countries) the last decade than Israel has since it was founded! Correct me if I'm wrong. That does not include effects from the embargo imposed long before the war broke out.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 13:58**

DeWinter wrote:What standards? If I were an Israeli, I'd ask why a Briton reckons he can criticise when his army has recently reduced a sovereign nation to rubble and near civil war.

That's a very good point, but see threads passim: many of us are holding the UK and US governments up against some kind of standards, and finding them wanting. "You're just as bad" is hardly a justification of Israel; two wrongs and all that.

It's difficult from a British perspective to know how many Israelis are opposed to their government's policies, similarly I suppose not many Israelis will know (or care) about UK anti-Iraq-war protests. (Incidentally, I believe that my "devil's advocate" argument above was used (in essence) as justification for the 7/7 attacks on London.)

DeWinter wrote:I doubt Ulster would inspire any Israeli. A part of the UK which voted to remain so basically handed over to the governance of sectarians in order to settle Bill Clinton's campaign financing? Seeing a hate-filled bigot like Paisley enjoying a merry jest with McGuiness, a man with so much blood on his hands he makes Lady MacBeth's look lily-white makes me sick. A dishonorable peace bought by surrender. We never got the IRA to disarm, we never found the bodies of the "disappeared", we released their men. They won, and it's about time we stopped pretending otherwise.

I agree with your characterisation of "The Reverend" Ian Paisley, but Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, not the Irish Republic. Hardly an unqualified win for the IRA.

But that's the point, compromise is necessary for the sake of peace.

DeWinter wrote:Maybe I explained it badly. (...)

OK, that's fair enough, my misunderstanding.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 19:57**

Speaking as a pacifist, any conflict is bad. Whether that's Israel's actions in the Occupied Territories, the USA's "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan, or Britain's actions during the Imperial era, it makes no difference - taking up arms is wrong.

Criticising Israel (as I believe we have explored) is seen in many quarters as "anti-semitism", and is actively discouraged by those who believe that the State can do no wrong. In countries like Britain and the US, criticism of the State has a long tradition - indeed, the US was founded on the principle. In recent years it has become fashionable to use the "love it or leave it" argument - if you don't like what your country does, then why do you live here? Fortunately this seems to be losing currency in most places.
It is the responsibility of every person to question and criticise the behaviour of any government that does something that they don't agree with. Witness the mass protests against the Apartheid policy in South Africa, America's involvement in Vietnam, or China's violent put-down of students in Tiananmen Square.

Using the "you did it, why shouldn't we?" argument is the last, desperate, position of someone who knows that his actions are abhorrent. "You killed millions at Hiroshima, you invented concentration camps, you shipped thousands of slaves from Africa, you murdered millions of jews - what gives you the right to criticise us for slapping a couple of ragheads?" Yes, these things happened - given the stain that they represent on humanity's record, it is everyone's responsibility to prevent them from happening again. The key is to prevent them from happening using a measured, coherent, non-violent means. All too much emphasis is placed on the "who?" of an event, rather than the "why?":

Q. Who is coordinating attacks on Israel?
A. Hamas
Response - right, let's go kick the shit out of them, their friends and neighbours, and anyone they sent a christmas card to. This wins votes and helps to support the military industrial complex (and means we don't have to think about exploring the universe).

Q. Why are these people attacking Israel?
A. Well, there's widespread poverty, political instability, a lack of economic opportunities, and a massive displaced population who have been so conditioned to think only of the moment that martyrdom looks like a reasonable idea/
Response - oh shizz. We can actually come up with rational solutions for these problems. There are people who have experience in fixing situations like this and they could help us. The problem is that this solution costs money, doesn't win votes, will anger our backers who insist we spend a large chunk of our GDP on their weapons systems, and means that might have to think about exploring the universe in peace and harmony with our brethren. Fcuk it - let's bomb the bastards anyway.

You can see the problem here.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 20:07**

Just a short note on Hamas and IRA.

The IRA/Sinn Fein's policy, was the return of the North to mainland Ireland, by any means.
Luckily Gerry Adams (good or bad man??) realised that this was not possible, he therefore manouvered Sinn Fein in another direction. This eventually got them the powersharing government of today.
Conclusion everybody (almost) happy/satisfied/no more murders/economic growth etc.

Hamas can maybe learn something.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 20:15**

Hezbollah are getting a bit anxious since Israel made some flights over the Lebanese border earlier in the week.

Interesting times to come, I wouldn't consider playing a gig there soon...

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 20:51**

darkparticle wrote:Hezbollah are getting a bit anxious since Israel made some flights over the Lebanese border earlier in the week.

Interesting times to come, I wouldn't consider playing a gig there soon...

I don't find the articles now, but I know I read in more than one article about a week ago that Israeli authorities made it clear they are going to attack Syria, not Lebanon, should the rockets once again begin to fly from Hezbollah - EVEN if they originate in Lebanon.

The gigs? I certainly would if it was only up to me. I hope both will take place. However, Andrew's not alone, he has a crew to consider as well, so you may be right.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 20:52**

Gollum's Cock wrote:Just a short note on Hamas and IRA.

The IRA/Sinn Fein's policy, was the return of the North to mainland Ireland, by any means.
Luckily Gerry Adams (good or bad man??) realised that this was not possible, he therefore manouvered Sinn Fein in another direction. This eventually got them the powersharing government of today.
Conclusion everybody (almost) happy/satisfied/no more murders/economic growth etc.

Hamas can maybe learn something.

An excellent point - even among the hardliners there is a realisation that any plan that calls for the eradication of Israel as a state will never get any kind of support in the international arena. You can make the same comparison between "old" and "new" labour - they were never going to get in as long as the old guard union men were in charge - Kinnock et al. John Smith was the first leader who really had a chance of leading the party to victory.
Nasrallah is leaning in this direction as well, and he's got a good chance - he's widely acceptable to both radical and conversative islamic factions, can do business with world leaders, and as he moves Hizb'Allah away from armed struggle (as Mandela did with the ANC, Adams with Sinn Fein) towards a political struggle he's likely to make a lot of headway. Now that Lebanon seems to be on the way to stability, what would be good to see is Nasrallah building a coalition among Christian and Druze groups there, Rafsanjani coming to power in Iran, and Lipni becoming Israeli PM. This way there would be a lot of new faces that don't have to service age-old alliances, and they would have a far greater chance of being able to make moves towards a peaceful settlement.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 21:28**

I tend to share your optimism, EvilBastard. I think there is an enormous feeling of hopelessness on both sides, now more than ever. It's of course a lot more comfortable to be an Israeli in Israel than to be a Palestinian in Gaza or even the West Bank, but I think the Israelis begin to realize the rockets are an enemy they cannot beat at the end of the day. For each year, the rockets will reach longer, get stronger and eventually start hitting their targets.
In short, I think the situation has reached the turning point people talk about when they say "it has to get worse before it gets better".
Apart from that, not only Rafsanjani and Livni are new faces - so is Obama. I'm not happy with his choice of foreign secretary though, but I hope for the best anyway.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 21:57**

Further to evilbastard's excellent pacifism point above:

Ghandi wrote:An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 22:19**

markfiend wrote:Further to evilbastard's excellent pacifism point above:
Ghandi wrote:An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

At the very least the eye-patch industry would have a banner year; still, it was a damn sight better than the way things might have been done previously.

Genesis 4:19-24 wrote: â€œAdah and Zillah, hear my voice;
Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!
For I have killed a man for wounding me,
Even a young man for hurting me.
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.â€�

It's easy to forget what an improvement "an eye for an eye" was.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 22:38**

markfiend wrote:<devils_advocate>
You know, what with Israel being a democratic nation (at least for its Jewish citizens), each and every Jewish citizen is complicit in, and at least partially responsible for the murderous actions of Israel's government. [/b]

Hamas has also been elected democratically.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 22:53**

markfiend wrote:Further to evilbastard's excellent pacifism point above:
Ghandi wrote:An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

Gandhi's approach worked because the British were cultured enough not to massacre unarmed people.

The Jews had tried this (involuntarily) the last time they were attacked and lost 6 million of their own. They're not going to make the same mistake twice.

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 23:08**

nowayjose wrote:
markfiend wrote:Further to evilbastard's excellent pacifism point above:
Ghandi wrote:An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.
Gandhi's approach worked because the British were cultured enough not to massacre unarmed people.

This is an excellent point. One that should probably be kept in mind...

Posted: **07 Jan 2009, 23:24**

nowayjose wrote:Gandhi's approach worked because the British were cultured enough not to massacre unarmed people.

Assuming we consider the pygmies of Umboto Gorge to have been armed...

The British have never been squeamish about massacaring unarmed people, or indeed people who are considerably more lightly armed than themselves. Culloden springs to mind. It likes to make sure the odds are heavily in its favour - when David Pacifico had his gaff trashed by some greek skinheads, we parked a flotilla of warships off Athens, blockaded Piraeus, and told Stavros to pay up or suffer the consequences.
But we're most at home killing civilians - women and children, for preference, they're less likely to pick up guns and fight back. Of the long list of things invented by the British (the steam engine, the postage system, and the welfare state) concentration camps are perhaps our most enduring and endearing gift to anyone wanting to subdue an enemy population. Makes yer proud, dunnit?

Ghandi was an educated man and knew enough about history and his own time to know that Pax Britannica often relied upon widespread violence against a civilian (unarmed) population. By pursuing a course of non-violence he was able to highlight the savagery and barbarism that occurs when someone decides to stop talking and start shooting.

Posted: **08 Jan 2009, 10:33**

"Rockets hit Israel from Lebanon"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7817135.stm

Here we go again! Okay, no group has actually claimed responsibility as yet but...crap.

Posted: **08 Jan 2009, 16:07**

darkparticle wrote:Hezbollah are getting a bit anxious since Israel made some flights over the Lebanese border earlier in the week.

Interesting times to come, I wouldn't consider playing a gig there soon...

Israel violate Lebanese airspace most days, and have since they withdrew in the early nineties, this is not an unusual event in any sense, but the heightened tension is making people pick up on very small things.

I can't see this jepordising the Beirut show, the fire from South Leb has been minimal, and hardly anybody thinks it's Hezzbollah action. Not that we can rely on Israel not to react in a mental manner. Their behaviour in 2006 was disgusting, bombing residential areas in Beirut because of Hezzbollah action on the border did nothing for Israeli security and made them look like the aggressors abroad, and military failures at home.

I spent time in Beirut before and after the 2006 war, and even a month after the cease-fire Israeli jets were performing acrobatics and sonic booms over the sea-front. Well whatever amuses them when they're not flattening resedential areas

Posted: **08 Jan 2009, 18:28**

Israel violate Lebanese airspace most days, and have since they withdrew in the early nineties, this is not an unusual event in any sense, but the heightened tension is making people pick up on very small things.

For sure, there's some troop movements on the border too. Again this probably relates to the hightened tension but the grand-standing is growing. Hezbollah reckon the UN resolution saved Israels skin last round and that they have 'unfnished business' on that front.

I don't find the articles now, but I know I read in more than one article about a week ago that Israeli authorities made it clear they are going to attack Syria, not Lebanon

This could be, still no group has claimed to have fired the rockets. I would find this a strange position for israel as the USA began strengthening ties with Syria late last year - It is US hadware being used after all, including the new D.I.M.E. warheads (EDIT) Also UK weapons systems to the tune of Â£19 million in 2008, an increase of 110% on '07 sales to Israel....

Should this be happenning though?

http://www.thelondondailynews.com/black ... -2099.html

Posted: **08 Jan 2009, 21:01**

EvilBastard wrote:
nowayjose wrote: The British have never been squeamish about massacaring unarmed people, or indeed people who are considerably more lightly armed than themselves. Culloden springs to mind. Of the long list of things invented by the British (the steam engine, the postage system, and the welfare state) concentration camps are perhaps our most enduring and endearing gift to anyone wanting to subdue an enemy population. Makes yer proud, dunnit?
Culloden? Highland Scots fighting Highland and Lowland Scots commanded by a German?
And wasn't Kitchener Irish? So why the faux Cockney bit at the ending? Surely you should be affecting a charming burr of the Celtic fringes?

Markfiend: I don't think the 7/7 attacks can be justified that way. The killers were home-grown, and can't have been unaware of the lack of support for the war amongst the public. And didn't Blair and Labour lose the popular vote at the last election in England anyway? Blow up something in Edinburgh which gave birth to the lying swine, and is the capital of the country which did endorse his party by that logic!
(I like to remind everyone that Blair is a Scot. Usually when I hear the less cerebral Scots Nats ranting about being "dragged into English wars".)

As for the IRA, they didn't disband, Dublin has a say over matters in Ulster without, incidentally any financial contribution that I'm aware of, and Ulster's independence from the UK in all but name but with England's wealth bankrolling them is the best outcome they could have asked for.

Oh, and Gerry Adams has been part of the IRA's leadership for donkey's years. Karma would be his family being blown to pieces by a bomb ,just like the ones he ordered. So a bad man, in my opinion.

Heartland

a civil thread on Israel and the Middle East