Saturday, June 5, 2010

Quote of the Day 6.5.10

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Those Troublesome Jews. “The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. . . . The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.” I think if I were Israel, I’d build a Doomsday Machine. It’s the only way to make the rest of the world anxious for Israel’s survival, instead of its destruction. . . .
Instapundit.
As Helen Thomas has shown, the press is as anti-Semitic as the NAZIs were. The fact that several other aid ships from Turkey allowed the Israelis to search them, and then the aid was transferred to Gaza - that is not what is important to the press, or apparently to the Turks. What is important is that the barricade be run with bloodshed and martyrdom, so that unmonitored shipments can be made to the Palestinian terrorists.

I do disagree with Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit). A doomsday machine only works if the other side does not wish to die for martyrdom. Obliterating the opposing force along with yourself is not the correct option. For survival, a massive defense machine needs to be operable, and part of defense is a good offense when it is necessary. Eliminating the weapons of the opposition is always a rational approach.

Never forget that the Hamas governing charter quotes the Muslim principle that Muslims will ultimately kill all Jews. Read the charter. Then ask what you would do if you were born a Jew.

13 comments:

Unknown said...

I wouldn't confine a people to the Gaza ghetto simply because they aren't what I believe to be God's chosen race. I also wouldn't roll in tanks everytime a rocket crosses our border. How is that eye for an eye? How are thousands of Palestinians killed equal to a dozen Isralis?

Israel is a human rights violation. Its very existence spits in the face of justice. It's not anti-Semitic to point out that the land "Israel" occupies was stolen from the people who rightfully lived there for centuries. Just because it was a colony does not mean it is a bargaining chip for trying to compensate the Jewish people for the holocaust.

Anonymous said...

HIJACKING IN PROGRESS!!!


how can these HEADLESS IDIOTS BET AGAINST GOD!!!
________________________________________


what happens when you LOSE Pascal's Wager...


http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/pascals-wager.htm

_____________


you FIGHT PAPER MONSTERS...

the blood and bodies of the atheist movement...


you mofos killed MICKEY MOUSE!!!!


this has more TRUTH then what Dawkins, Randi, Harris, Myers, and Shermer combined have said in their entire lives...


http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=5R2wE8Sduhs&playnext_from=TL&videos=hht1U_19anc&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_fresh%2Bdiv-1r-3-HM



they tried to BULLDOZE the entire METAPHYSICAL DIMENSION...

they LOST THE WAR......

you have FORFEIT YOUR SOUL, shermer... you have become an object in the material world, as you WISHED...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/7/11792994_ffaaee87fa.jpg

we're gonna smash that TV...

They had become ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE AND OF GOD...
you pushed too much and *CROSSED THE LINE*

degenerates (PZ) or children (HEMANT) - ATHEISTS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRRg2tWGDSY

do you have anything to say, you STUPID LITTLE F*CKER?

how about I tell you, Mr. Shermer, EVERYTHING YOU THINK ABOUT THE WORLD is

*WRONG*

THE BOOBQUAKE - 911!

http://dissidentphilosophy.lifediscussion.net/philosophy-f1/the-boobquake-911-t1310.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7XNb3Q9Ek

RUN, ATHEISTS, RUN!!!

-------------------

Martin said...

JazzyJ,

"Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser."

Everything you say may be correct, but it is irrelevant to Ginx's criticism.

I would like to hear a good answer to that. Israel may very well have a right to defend themselves from people known to want to wipe them off the map, but nonetheless the fact remains that there were already people living there when they were moved there by Britain. Who speaks for them? Is it kind of the same thing that happens here in the US, when you criticize Obama and are instantly accused of being racist? Can't criticize Israel either without being an anti-semite?

Stan said...

Two interesting articles, one on Israeli incompetance (aren't all democracies?) and another on Hegemony as power shift.

http://volokh.com/2010/06/05/more-on-israeli-incompetence/


http://volokh.com/2010/06/05/how-to-be-a-hegemon/

JazzyJ said...

Martin, I acknowledge that my criticism of Gnix's comment appeared to justify Israel's actions.

The actual point I was trying to highlight was that there's a lot of hypocrisy flying around.

I also find the 'disproportionate response' argument I see often somewhat ridiculous. In the context of war or conflict, is it not logical to try and overwhelm your opponent? When America applies it, no problem. Israel tries it and codemnation pours out from all over the world.

I don't deny that the current treatment of the Palestinians resembles closely what the Germans did to the Jews in WW2, by basically imprisoning them in ghettos.

My question is, what viable alternative do the Israeli's have that won't see a return of Israeli civilian deaths by suicide bombing pre 2004?

If you have terrorists and extremists living amongst a group of people, how do you protect yourself? You either isolate yourself from the entire group or you just accept that some of your people are going to killed on a regular basis. You can't blame Israel for choosing the former option. Is it fair to the innocent members of the isolated group? Hardly. But terrorists don't play fair either.

A two state solution seems the logical way to go. Will this bring and end to the conflict? I have my doubts.

Alon said...

Ginx...

"Israel is a human rights violation. Its very existence spits in the face of justice. It's not anti-Semitic to point out that the land "Israel" occupies was stolen from the people who rightfully lived there for centuries."

Be consistent. Are you fighting just as passionately for the rights of Native Americans? Is the very existence of the U.S.A a human rights violation that spits in the face of justice because it occupies land stolen from people who rightfully lived there for centuries?

Stan said...

The land called Palestine was owned by the Ottoman empire until the end of WWI, when the Germans and Turks lost. The French took over Syria and Lebanon and the British took over Palestine, under the mandate of the Sykes-Picot Agreement at the end of the war.

The British took over control of Palestine in 1917, and in 1922 they divided Palestine into 75/25, giving 75% to the Arabs, and 25% to the Jews and Arabs living there. This 25% was reduced to 15% by the UN Resolution 181 in 1946, and in 1947, under UN Resolution 181, Israel asserted its independence from Britain and its nationhood on 15% of the area of the former Palestine. Gaza and the West Bank were Arab.

One day later it was attacked by nine Arab nations. The Arabs resident in Israel were encouraged by the invading Arab nations to leave Israel in order to avoid the war. Roughly 70% did leave, expecting to return to an all-Arab Israel. However, the Israelis defeated all the invaders; the Arabs that left Israel became known as the Palestinian Refugees, while the millions of Arabs that remained in Israel remained citizens with full rights, including the vote, and parties with representation in the Knesset.

Meanwhile, the Arabs known as the Palestinian Refugees were not offered any land by the Arab countries to which they ran - countries with 85% of Palestine, including Trans-Jordan, now known as the country of Jordan. They have remained impoverished and alienated.

In 1967, Israel was attacked on all sides, and long story short, it defeated all invaders and captured Golan heights, Gaza, the West Bank, and the entire Sinai peninsula. Israel ultimately returned the Sinai and Gaza in return for Egypt's recognition of Israel's right to exist.

Egypt refused to take Gaza.

Israel was stuck with Gaza. Since Gaza was now a part of Israel, the Israelis were stuck with administering it. Gaza was and is an enemy enclave, entirely within its host nation, Israel.

In the Camp David Accord of 2000, the Palestinians refused to accept nationhood for Gaza and most of the West Bank, with Arafat insisting on returning into Israel. The Palestinians have consistently refused to recognize Israel's right to exist.

In 2005, under Sharon, Israel moved out of Gaza; Gaza elected a largely Hamas government, and Hamas staged a coup in 2007, taking full control from Fatah.

Egypt and Israel immediately formed a blockade of Gaza.

In October of 2009, Hamas banned elections in Gaza.

Arabs had no nations prior to 1917; they lived under the Ottomans as nomads. The Palestine region was lightly populated by Christians, Muslims, and Jews, living together. Arab nations were created under the same mandate that created Jewish Palestine, which the UN shrank, which became Israel, and which did and does have peaceful Arab Muslim full citizens, lots of them.

Arab Muslims are not discriminated against; insurgents and combatants are. The charges of Israeli genocide and other human rights violations are both false, and, under the conditions of permanent warfare declared by the Gaza Palestinians, stringent isolation is to be expected. All Israel is doing is inspecting cargo into Gaza, and allowing non-war-materiel to flow unimpeded. This is ignored by the proponents of anti-Semitism of an alarming portion of the world, including the American Left; when facts are ignored, prejudices are all that remain.

Martin said...

Yeah, see, it does help to know the background history. I myself am going to have to study up on this quite a bit more before I can decide to "choose" a side that is "right." I just finished doing that with The Troubles in Northern Ireland, another situation where it was difficult decide who was "right."

Stan said...

Martin,
That's interesting, care to give a short synopsis of what you found concerning the North Ireland situation?

My understanding is that it was not really religious, it was nationalists vs. loyalists (to Britain), where the nationalists happened to be Catholic and the loyalists happened to be Protestant. Is that correct?

Martin said...

The religion was not the primary driving force, but it probably did add another layer of identity to each side.

A large British population (mainly protestant) had settled in Northern Ireland in the 17th Century, and so when Ireland became independent from Great Britain in the 1920s, the northern section opted out. However, there was also a large population of native Irish (mainly Catholic) folk living within Northern Ireland, who obviously wanted the country to join with Ireland in independence.

At first it didn't cause too many problems, other than an occasional flareup.

But in the late 60s the Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland felt discriminated against in civil rights by the British-Irish Protestants, and began protesting. Violence broke out between the two sides. This sparked the creation of the Provisional IRA and the violent 30-year conflict.

So, as you can see, it's kind of hard to choose a side as the "good guys" and the "bad guys." It's kind of an intractable problem happening at the tragic intersection of two nationalities. No one is really "right," at least in my opinion.

I suspect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be similar, but I'll withhold judgment myself until I can read as many unbiased histories of the area as possible. It's difficult to find them as everyone seems to already have a side they think is right.

Stan said...

Just a suggestion: Read histories from both sides, then look at the specific points where they disagree.

Admittedly that is difficult in the case of the Palestinian - Israeli situation, because the non-western logic of the one side is difficult to decipher in western terms.

Stan said...

Martin, When you get a solid picture of the Gaza / Palestinian situation, would you consider sharing it here? It would be interesting to me to see how it compares with my understanding, and perhaps you will uncover facts that I don't have.

Thanks,
Stan

Martin said...

Will do.