From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Sun Aug 04 2002 - 16:22:04 MDT
On 4 Aug 2002 at 15:16, Hermit wrote:
>
> [Casey] Palestinians strike at the heart of Israel with terrorist
> attacks using suicide bombers and armed militants. Which prompts army
> incursions, arrests, and airstrikes by the Israeli government in
> response. Loop it and repeat.
>
> [Hermit 1] I observe that Israel has been illegally occupying and
> oppressing the Palestine for 30 years, and has victimized, pauperized
> and have ejected the Palestinians that once lived in territory seized
> by Israel. The economics make it transparently clear. 45% of
> Palestinians earn less than the UN poverty datum - $2 per day, or less
> than $ 730 per year - while average Israeli income at $17'000, is only
> $1'000 a year less than the average UK income.
>
> [Hermit 1] Drawing on parallels, blacks in South Africa had more
> rights under apartheid (and certainly were never attacked by South
> African military units) than a Palestinian in his home country,
> currently occupied by Israel.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] What about the March 21, 1960 Sharpeville Massacre by
> South African police forces wielding submachine and Sten guns, which
> killed fifty-six black South African civilian citizens, incuding women
> and children (70% shot in the back as they were fleeing), and wounded
> 162, and tipped a previously peaceful and nonviolent ANC over into
> armed resistance?
>
> [Hermit 3] Err, reading problem? Comprehension issue? I said, "never
> attacked by South African military units" you respond, what about
> "South African police forces"... While all I know about this event is
> from examining history, I also take isuue with comparing tanks firing
> explosive shells and 50mm machine gun rounds and helicopters
> delivering 1 ton A2G missiles and 50mm gatling shells with "submachine
> and Sten guns" (the former of which was only issued to SAP in the
> 1970s (when SA licenced them from Israel) and the latter of which
> AFAIK has never been issued to SA Police).
>
Nevertheless, 56 dead blacks is more than 52 dead Palestinians, 23
dead Israelis is many more than O dead South Africans, and unlike the
Palestinian terrorists, the citizens gunned down in Sharpeville were
completely unarmed.
BTW, since you're so enamored of the guardian, here's what they have
to say about Sharpeville. Go to:
http://www.guardiancentury.co.uk/year/0,6050,128372,00.html
>
> [Hermit 1] The rest of the world, including the US and UK, supported
> the ANC (as no doubt did some of the "social liberals" in our midst),
> despite the ANC's highly overrated use of terror. Yet this is not
> acceptable for the Palestinians. Instead, the oppressor, Israel
> receives support. Why should this be? While I loath all terrorism,
> something seems to be unbalanced here.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] The deluge of suicide bombings perpetrated by the
> Palestinians has no parallel in recent history, and certainly not in
> the ANC.
>
> [Hermit 3] I see no difference in the effect between killing masses of
> civilians with limpet mines, and killing them with explosive belts
> worn by a suicide bomber. In either case large numbers of civilians
> die. So there is a direct parallel. I see no difference between mining
> roads and shooting farmers as done by the ANC with the mining and
> shooting of Israelis in vehicles by the Palestinians. The situations
> are precisely parallel.
>
No, because, among other things, the effects are not the same. A
stepped-on mine will of necessity have been planted in an area that is
not trodden over all the time, in other words, not a high
traffic/population area, for it has to be planted when no one sees.
Otherwise it may be avoided. Thus, it most likely will kill a person or
two, or, if it is planted in a road, take out a vehicle. This is quite
different from fanatics seeking out crowds of kids in front of a disco on
order to take out as many as possible when one triggers a belt harness
bomb.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] The Israelis are not a tiny minority in the region;
> Palestinian and Israeli populations are roughly equivalent.
>
> [Hermit 3] This is the situation today, after Israel has removed vast
> numbers of Palestinians, driving them into Palestinian territories
> and into exile, while simultaneously importing huge number of "Jews of
> convenience" from other areas, 2.5 million from the ex Soviet
> republics in the last decade alone. Right now more Palestinians are
> living as seemingly "permanent refugees" in other countries than in
> Israel and Palestine combined. Again, the parellel is very precisely
> equivalent.
>
The purpose of the establishment of Israel was to provide the Jews with
a homeland to which they could relocate. I am in favor, as I said before,
of Palestinian refugees in other countries having the right to return to
Palestine, just as I am in favor of Jews having the right to emigrate to
Israel if they so desire. And the situations are not parallel when on one
hand you have rough population parity and on the other hand you had a
wide differential, with the tiny minority oppressively ruling a vast
indigenous majority.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] This is in sharp contrast with South Africa, where less
> than one-fifth of the population oppressively ruled the vast majority.
>
> [Hermit 3] Some of the currently starving people of Southern Africa
> might agree with you. I'm not prepared to discuss it with somebody who
> so blatently knows so little about the history.
>
The population percentages are roughly correct. As far as starving
southern Africans goes, I'm all in favor of food, medical and
developmental aid being provided wherever a sufficiently dire need
exists.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] Still, the land must be fairly divided, with the
> Palestinians being ceded the West Bank, Gaza and a travelling corridor
> between them, all of the Jewish settlers in these areas, willing or
> not, should be relocated back into Israel proper, and either Jerusalem
> should be split, with east jerusalem being ceded to the Palestinians,
> or the city should be internationalized, perhaps under UN
> administration.
>
> [Hermit 3] It is not going to work. Israel has destroyed the delicate
> ecology of the area, and the land, when in good condition, could only
> sustainably support 30% of the people now living there.
>
There is no alternative; Israel has found weays to make the desert
bloom; I'm reasonably certain that, subsequent to a comprehensive
settlement, they would be quite willing to share these methods with
Palestinians wishing to peacefully farm and live on (and off) the land.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] Of course, for this to hold, the Palestinian bombings and
> shootings of Israeli citizens must cease, which will require that the
> members of the various and sundry Palestinian terrorist organizations
> be hunted down and apprehended or, if they refuse to allow same and
> violently resist, killed.
>
> [Hermit 3] Why? They have international law on their side. They are
> entitled to resist occupation. The Israeli's do not have international
> law on their side - indeed they are in breach of the Geneva
> Conventions. Read the UN report again.
>
Where's the provision that says suicide bombing of civilian children is
ok?
>
> [Joe Dees 2] The problem is, of course, that the terrorist
> organizations don't just want Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem;
> they want it ALL, the whole enchilada, and will continue to terrorize
> until they get either it all or are killed.
>
> [Hermit 3] I doubt it. But as you have seemingly never dealt with such
> a situation, and obviously haven't research any of the history of
> terror organizations or their conclusions, are speaking from a
> position of vast ignorance.
>
According to speeches made by Abdel Rantisi, spokesman for Hamas,
and Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, their spiritual leader, that is EXACTLY what
they want. BTW, the original seven founders of Hamas, in addition to
these two, are Abdel Fattah Dukhan, Mohammad Shama, Ibrahim al-
Yazour, Issa al-Najjar, and the leader of their military wing, the recently
deceased (in an Israeli missile attack) Salah Shehadeh.
For instance:
Would [Hamas] formally recognize Israel?
No recognition of the Zionist entity. For if I cannot liberate [Palestine] then
future generations will inevitably do so.
And by Palestine he means of course The Whole Enchilada.
>
> [Hermit 1] Casey left out these very important facts, necessary to
> comprehending what is happening. The state of Israel, supported by the
> US and UK, oppresses the Palestinian and the Palestinian left with no
> legal, political, military or social options, responds with terrorist
> attacks - to which the state of Israel responds with more oppression.
> Countries supporting Israel get drawn into the fray. Why is this not
> obvious? What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] Yeah, maybe it's time for some ultraorthodox Jewish teens
> to don some explosive belts and head for some Palestinian civilian
> crowds.
>
> [Hermit 3] "As long as they are our terrorists..." International law,
> which you so disparage, says that this is not the case.
>
I'm just making the point that if it would be horrendous for Israelis to do
it, then it is ipso facto horrendous for palestinians to do it. You cannot
remove the personhood from Israeli civilians and justify their suicide-
bomb slaughter by appealing to occupation or oppression; nothing
whatsoever could possibly justify such execrable tactics.
>
> [Hermit 1] It does not just depend on the Israelis. So long as people
> around the World can assert that Palestinians have no rights and are
> not people*, the disaster will continue.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] I support the Palestinians' rights to a homeland of their
> own, just like I support the Israelis' rights to the same thing. At
> this point, it looks to me like a greater percentage of Israelis are
> in favor of a two-state solution than the percentage of Palestinians
> who would be willing to accept the same.
>
> [Hermit 3] You forget (or maybe never knew). The Palestinians have a
> right to their own state. Not homeland. And it is way larger than the
> current discussions include. They are not going to get it - or even a
> fraction of it, because it would control the water supply - and of
> course, their neighbors have weapons of mass destruction and friends
> with deep pockets and vast influence.
>
The state they so fervently desire includes all of Israel. And they won't
get Israel. They should accept the West Bank, Gaza and East
Jerusalem, because that's all that they're gonna get.
BTW, Palestinians has some Saudi friends with a bit of money and
influence of their own.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] Both sides have to learn that both peoples are their for
> the long-haul duration, that is, no one's gonna get pushed into the
> sea over there.
>
> [Hermit 3] Want to take a side bet on this? How about the Palestinian
> refugees?Have they not already been "pushed into the sea?"
>
By 'no one', I meant that neither side will be able to completely vacate
the land of all members of the other side. Ain't gonna happen.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] Neither side is gonna be able to expel or extinguish the
> other.
>
> [Hermit 3] The Palestinians can't. But watch what happens during WW
> III if humanity lasts that long.
>
Yeah, there might be an asteroid strike before then. But the entire Dar-
al-Islami Ummah will not be able to dislodge Israel. They have their
Dimona nukes.
>
> [Joe Dees 2] These Siamese twins have to, both of them, realize that
> when they slap each others' faces, each slap hurts both of them.
>
> [Hermit 3] This probably goes for other nations too.
>
It certainly does for those who are territorially, historically and
genetically joined at the hip.
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;thread
> id=25915>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:51 MDT