No terrorists here

[jillian]

No, nor are Pals confined to the Gaza/West bank.

True.

Foreigners in their own homeland? Pretty much. And Pals are NOT shot dead every time they try to leave them.

Except that Israel isn't the "homeland" for palestinians any more than Belarus is still my family's homeland. Just because we were run off by pogroms doesn't mean we get to go back. It's the way the world works. It's only the palestinians that anyone says should "go back". So, you asked for an example of disparate treatment... how's that?

Pals are second class citizens.

Pals aren't citizens of any kind.

Dictatorship? Not quite. Racist? Yes, but not to the extent that either the US or South Africa were.

Not a dictatorship at all... rather a parliamentary democracy. As for racist? No more than an Arab country that wouldn't even allow me past customs. Again, disparate treatment for the jewish state and the states that surround it.

By the way, when you speak in such blatantly political terms such as calling Israel, Palestine you do yourself no favors and make yourself look like a screeching pro-Palestinian zealot.

Have you read his stuff?

Israel does not need to subjugate the Palestinians for its security, but it does need to reach an agreement with them and that means that likely BOTH sides will have to have some sacrafices.

Part of the problem is that people like Jose (and he's joined by many countries and groups in the mid east) encourage the palestinians to continue their current course. It deflects attention from the way these arab countries treat their own citizens. Arafat could have had a deal. Certainly Rabin wasn't what you would call a hard-liner. (In fact, he was killed by one of Israel's loonies for it). Barak after him wasn't a hard-liner either. A deal could have been had. Don't people make choices about how they want to live? (BTW, THIS is what Grump and I were both essentially asking you. We weren't saying Israel was blameless... we were saying what happens when the palestinians make a decision that they don't want two autonomous states with defensible borders?)

 

[Larkinn]

If we had focused on that originally, I think we'd have argued less and agreed on more.

That was one of the FIRST things I said. You ignored it and chose to focus solely on my criticism of Israel. Whenever this topic comes up I invariably say both sides are fucked and do terrible things.

Citizens should never be *targeted*. Sometimes they do get killed though.

And if they are killed too much it doesn't matter that much if its intentional or not. States not only need to not target civilians, but actively try to avoid that result.

Just for the record, if Israel can be a bit heavy handed sometimes (and we already agreed it can), it has to tolerate real threats from people like Jose (the wanna-be terrorist without the cojones to blow himself up) who do blow themselves up and who do send missiles into its cities. So perhaps that being the case, it's concern about wiping out threats is justified.

Jose is not a real threat. Lets differentiate between the idiots who advocate civilian murder and those who actually try and accomplish such things. Jose isn't taken seriously in any corner of the globe except those which already have massive biases.

Nobody said Israels concern about wiping out threats isn't justified (or at least I've never said that). However that concern isn't an overriding concern allowing it to trample on human rights whenever the hell it feels like it.

So, with that in mind, what do YOU think would have been a "proportionate" response to Hezbollah's missiles?

Targeted strikes. Or something similar. I don't claim to know exactly what a proportionate response is. There is no exact definition. There are plenty of Israeli incursions and strikes in Gaza and the West Bank that can be claimed to have been disproportionate. There is some play in the joints of the term and I don't claim to know enough about the military and tactical strategy, nor the actions preceding them to claim that those are disproportionate. However the invasion of another country is not something that should EVER be taken lightly and a serious, serious, SERIOUS breach needs to happen before contemplating that. And no, a border skirmish/border attack is not that kind of a breach.

Except that Israel isn't the "homeland" for palestinians any more than Belarus is still my family's homeland. Just because we were run off by pogroms doesn't mean we get to go back. It's the way the world works. It's only the palestinians that anyone says should "go back". So, you asked for an example of disparate treatment... how's that?

Do you want to go to Belarus?

Many of the Palestinians who were removed still feel as if they have a personal connection to the land. Further generally when a people have been pushed out the country behind them is a shithole. Israel isn't. They want to go back to Israel because they have a connection to the land and the living conditions there are significantly better than in Palestine, in party due to Israels actions and the de facto control it enjoys over Palestine.

Where else in the world is that the case?

Pals aren't citizens of any kind.

Some are lucky enough to get Israeli citizenship, and still aren't treated equally based on the color of their skin.

Not a dictatorship at all... rather a parliamentary democracy.

Not entirely. Israel has control over the West Bank and Gaza. Do they get a say in Israels government?

As for racist? No more than an Arab country that wouldn't even allow me past customs. Again, disparate treatment for the jewish state and the states that surround it.

I'll take that as an admission that, yes its racist. But you excuse it for bullshit reasons.

Part of the problem is that people like Jose (and he's joined by many countries and groups in the mid east) encourage the palestinians to continue their current course. It deflects attention from the way these arab countries treat their own citizens. Arafat could have had a deal. Certainly Rabin wasn't what you would call a hard-liner. (In fact, he was killed by one of Israel's loonies for it). Barak after him wasn't a hard-liner either. A deal could have been had. Don't people make choices about how they want to live? (BTW, THIS is what Grump and I were both essentially asking you. We weren't saying Israel was blameless... we were saying what happens when the palestinians make a decision that they don't want two autonomous states with defensible borders?)

Again, I don't have an answer for it. I never claimed I had a solution to the problem. But not having a solution doesn't mean anything the sides do is acceptable. I'm not sure I have a realistic fix for the UNSC either, it has massive problems with it. But getting rid of it is unacceptable.

 

[Dr Grump]

Until the Pals grow up a little I don't blame the way Israel treats them with regard to trying to defend themselves...racism or no racism...

 

[Larkinn]

Until the Pals grow up a little I don't blame the way Israel treats them with regard to trying to defend themselves...racism or no racism...

Wow...your fair minded responses are just blowing my mind

I mean, I guess the Pals are just so inferior, aren't they? Like little immature children, them silly Palestinian people are. Nothing like the superior Jewish race who cluster bomb civilian areas.

But of course the Palestinians will change and form a responsible coherent unified government...somehow. Wait they can't really travel? Well phone calls always work well to try to reign in different powers. "Pretty please fall into line?....pretty pretty please?..."

Tell me, since you hate armchair critics so much, how do you expect the Palestinians to "grow up" considering how fractured they are? Do tell me which group should lead them. Fatah? Hamas? Some other group? Do tell me what leader they will unite behind. Go on, I'd love to hear your substantive ideas.