Mitchell Bard is Wrong On Israel

[Daniel]

"We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." - Moshe Dayan, former Israeli Minister of Defense speaking about Palestinians in the occupied territories.

A friend sent me Mitchell Bard's recent blog post on the Israeli invasion of Gaza to ask me what I thought about his stance. The post titled: 'Hamas Is Responsible for the Civilian Casualties in Gaza', was particularly provocative given the images on network TV of Israel brutalizing the Gaza strip. Hoping to be enlightened by a thoughtful article explaining his rationale, I found myself disappointed by a one sided diatribe devoid of any historical context or balanced perspective.


Bard's piece made a series of assertions which I will deal with one by one.

1. Hamas started the conflict after firing rockets into Israel

Hamas did not start this conflict. Here's an extensive time line of events, making clear that Israel broke the ceasefire, not Hamas. Israel, contrary to popular opinion, also never left the Gaza strip and still controls taxation, the sea, air and land borders. If China had the same control over the United States, would Bard understand if Americans wanted to defend itself? After all, the U.S went to war with Great Britain over taxation, something Bard no doubt supports in retrospect.

2. Hamas wanted Israel to attack Gaza to boost its popularity and damage its reputation internationally.

Bard offers no evidence for the assertion that Hamas wanted its own people killed, other than it is his opinion. According to serious analysts Hamas miscalculated Israel's response rather than provoked it. They do of course, bear responsibility, but evidence is required before accusations like this are thrown around.

3. Hamas is at fault for civilian casualties as it uses "mosques, schools, private residences and even hospitals as locations to manufacture, store and launch weapons at Israel and hide its leaders."

Israel cannot bomb schools and hospitals just because it believes Hamas may be hiding there. It is a direct violation of international law, and therefore constitutes a war crime.

4. "Hamas's stated intention is the destruction of Israel"

There are certain elements of Hamas that want to see the destruction of Israel, just like there are extreme Zionists who believe Palestine belongs to Jews. You can't brand an entire organization in a certain light just because it is convenient to you. Here is Khalid Mish'al, head of the Hamas political bureau in an article in the Guardian:

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.


Also, a question for Bard: Can you find another example in international law where one country was forced to accept the right of another country to exist? Was Mexico forced to recognize the United States right to exist after it took its land? Where Native Americans forced to accept the right of the United States to exist after it killed most of their people and took their country? Of course not, they simply dealt with the reality and moved on, just as some in Hamas are willing to do (ie a long term truce) rather than admit humiliating terms of defeat. There were many members of the ANC in South Africa who wanted whites to leave South Africa, and this was used by the Apartheid Government to dismiss it as a terrorist organization, just as apologists for Israeli state crimes are doing with Hamas. The only way towards peace is an acknowledgment that Hamas is a legitimate political entity and MUST be negotiated with, just as the Apartheid Government negotiated with the ANC.

5. Israel is "the only Democratic country in the immediate region" and had been systematically attacked by Arab countries since its inception.

Stating that Israel is "the only democratic country in the immediate region" in one sentence then in another saying, "the Palestinian people, given a free choice in elections, voted Hamas into power," requires no rebuttal. Israel is the only democracy in the region because Bard wants it to be. Yes, Arab countries have attacked Israel since its inception, but Arabs view the creation of Israel as an attack on them. It just depends on your point of view.

6. Israel "Seized the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 not out of imperialistic aggression, but as a means of defending itself from its neighbors."

Regardless of whether Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza out of imperial aggression or self-defense, acquisition of land through war is explicitly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, and a direct violation of international law.

7. If a "right of return" were granted, Israel would immediately cease to be as a Jewish, secular democratic state".

I don't think Bard really understands what he is saying here, as the sentence contradicts itself on many levels. Being a 'Jewish, secular state' is a contradiction in terms. Judaism is a religion, so a Jewish state is therefore a religious one. Also, Israel's refusal to give the 800,000 dispossessed Palestinians the right of return is a huge thorn in its side when claiming to be a democracy. Under international law, dispossessed people are entitled to return to their land, so if Israel was a functioning democratic nation that followed international law, the majority of it's citizens would be Arab, and they would have the right to vote. Bard might not like the outcome, but then that is what we call democracy.

8. "Israel has showed remarkable restraint and proportionality, evidenced by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Palestinian casualties have not been civilians. The world should be lauding Israel for its efforts to minimize civilian casualties."

Israel has just bombed two U.N schools in the Gaza strip, and have thus far killed over 700 people, 220 of them children. The 'remarkable restraint and proportionality' Israel had shown is over 100-1 in terms of the Palestinian to Israeli death toll, on top of many millions of dollars in structural damage. Bard may laud Israel for this, but the majority of the world does not.

9. "Since the Palestinian people elected Hamas to power, they have themselves to blame for the damage done to them by their leaders."

Just because Palestinians voted for Hamas does not give Israel the right to kill them. Collective punishment is explicitly illegal under international law. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.


George Bush illegally invaded Iraq, committing the supreme war crime of preemptive aggression. I don't believe Americans should be punished for his actions, even though they voted for him. Bard omits to mention international law or any historical context because if he did, his case would fall apart.

A grievous crime was committed against Palestinians when their land was forcefully taken from them in 1948. They had committed no crimes against Jews, and were not consulted when their land was given away. European nations had systematically slaughtered Jews for centuries, then laid the burden on the Palestinians, a fact that the West would rather forget. The Palestinians will never get their land back, just as Native Americans won't get theirs. But at least we can acknowledge what has happened to them, and work seriously for a lasting solution. The Palestinians are an oppressed people, and to blame them for their own predicament is simply inexcusable.

The Hebrew poet Aharon Shabtai once wrote:

And when it's all over, My dear, dear reader,

On which benches will we have to sit,

Those of us who shouted 'Death to the Arabs!'

And those who claimed they 'didn't know'?

----

This guy does a sloppy job of making some of his points. Sometime being "Illegial" under international is not "desirable" but in this world it definitely doesn't make it instantly wrong. I thought he could have gone into more detail on the bombing of schools. For instance, the justification of Israel for one of the bombing was that the school was in the "same area" hardly the same as using the school itself. If you're in an urban area you're bound to be in the same area of schools, hospitals etc and it's not like Gaza is some vast expanse of land.

In any event,

Feel free to discuss.

[Daniel]

For contrast here is the article this is in response to:



Israel cares more about the Palestinian people in Gaza than Hamas does. Yes, I know this statement will get jeered and mocked by those who support the Palestinians, but, in my view, the facts bear out my assertion.

Hamas made the decision to fire rockets at Israeli civilians on a daily basis, even after Israel completely pulled out of Gaza (and violently uprooted some of its own citizens in doing so). It is ludicrous to believe that Israel would sit back and accept the daily attacks on its civilians without reacting. It seems clear that Hamas's rocket fire was intended to bring upon an Israeli offensive, a strategic decision to draw the Israelis into Gaza so that the Israelis could suffer casualties and, more importantly, to push international opinion and pressure against Israel. Further, Hamas has used mosques, schools, private residences and even hospitals as locations to manufacture, store and launch weapons at Israel and hide its leaders. By placing what are obvious military targets in civilian areas, Hamas put its own people at risk. By choosing tactical advantages over the safety of its citizens, the terrorist organization chose its military goals over the safety of its fellow Palestinians in Gaza.

Hamas is clearly far more interested in self-preservation and doing the bidding of its sponsor, Iran, than it is in actually making the lives of its people any better. Surely a peaceful settlement to the conflict with Israel and the creation of two side-by-side states would be the quickest path for Palestinians to improve their day-to-day lives. The post-Oslo period represented a high point for Palestinian civilians, both in their economic development and their aspirations for their own independent state. But Hamas isn't interested in such a result. Rather, Hamas is single-mindedly focused on destroying Israel, no matter the effect on Palestinian civilians.

Don't believe me? On Meet the Press yesterday, David Gregory read an excerpt from a book by panelist Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, who wrote about Nizar Rayyan, the Hamas leader who was killed by Israel during the current offensive (along with at least two of his four wives, but notice how Al Jazeera described him as dying with "14 members of his family," failing to note the fact that he had four wives). Goldberg, who had interviewed Rayyan, wrote:

"The question I wrestle with constantly is whether Hamas is truly, theologically implacable. That is to say, whether the organization can remain true to its understanding of Islamic law and God's word and yet enter into a long-term nonaggression treaty with Israel. I tend to think not, though I've noticed over the years a certain plasticity of belief among some Hamas ideologues. ... There was no flexibility with Rayyan. This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: `The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.' There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. `Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God.' ... What are our crimes? I asked Rayyan. `You are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah,' he said. `Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God.' Can Israel achieve deterrence with someone like that?"

The world is now clamoring for a cease fire, but as Shimon Peres pointed out on This Week yesterday, a cease fire and opening the crossings into Gaza would only serve to give Hamas the opportunity to rearm and prepare for the next conflict with Israel, just as Rayyan described to Goldberg. Why should Israel do that?

I am amazed sometimes at the demands made on Israel. The country is a democratic nation (the only one in the immediate region) that has, since the second of its inception, had to repel attacks from its neighbors who seek its destruction. Israel has not had a day of peace in which it didn't have to prepare to defend its very existence. Every action Israel takes is in this context. It seized the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 not out of imperialistic aggression, but as a means of defending itself from its neighbors. And the current Gaza offensive is about ensuring its survival, nothing more.

Hamas's stated intention is to destroy Israel. If you believe Rayyan (and there is no reason not to, since he was one of the leaders of the terrorist group in Gaza), there is no way Hamas would agree to the existence of a Jewish state. And the Palestinian people, given a free choice in elections, voted Hamas into power.

And yet the calls come for Israel to show restraint with Hamas, and that Israel's defense against daily rocket attacks lacks proportionality. My response to such statements is, what ratios or proportions are you talking about? Israel is defending itself from the attacks of a terrorist organization that has been elected by its people to take the very actions that threaten Israeli civilians. How should Israel respond? What is "proportional" to terrorists trying to destroy you? If Hamas puts its attack apparatus in the middle of civilian populations, how can you defend yourself without harming civilians? What would these critics have Israel do? Ignore the daily rocket attacks aimed at its population? What country would do that? Israel actually called in warnings to targeted locations to warn civilians about upcoming attacks. The only reason to do such a thing is to try and minimize civilian casualties.

To me, Israel has showed remarkable restraint and proportionality, evidenced by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Palestinian casualties have not been civilians. The world should be lauding Israel for its efforts to minimize civilian casualties. If Israel truly didn't care about the Palestinian people, its military would have indiscriminately bombed any and all possible Hamas targets, without the warnings it used, regardless of risks to the civilian population. Such a strategy would have been quicker and more efficient, and would have entailed far less threat to members of the Israeli Defense Force. But that's not the strategy Israel employed. Instead, Israel used every technological tool in its arsenal to attempt to limit targets to Hamas strongholds. It is clear extensive efforts were made to limit civilian casualties.

It is Hamas, by using civilians to act as human shields for its military operations, that has put the Palestinian civilians in jeopardy, and the blood of the injured and dead civilians is on Hamas's hands.

The long-term answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two side-by-side states, each respecting the other and its right to exist. For that to happen, the Palestinian people have to embrace a peaceful approach to settling the difficult differences that exist between the two sides. But as long as the Palestinian people embrace violence -- and make no mistake, by putting Hamas into power, they have spoken loudly and clearly that they prefer violence to negotiations -- there cannot be peace. And in that context, any call on Israel for a cease fire is really just asking Israel to grant Hamas a time-out so it can regain strength for its next assault on Israel.

In my view, anyone who supports Hamas in the current conflict with Israel does not believe that Israel has a right to exist. I make that admittedly strong and sweeping claim because anything that Israel cedes to Hamas will only be used by the terrorist organization in its efforts to destroy Israel. If Israel were to unilaterally pull back to the 1967 borders, and if Hamas were to take control of the Palestinian state, it would have the ability to reach Tel Aviv or any other city in Israel with its rockets. With no restrictions, Hamas would be able to import any weapons it wanted from Iran, even nuclear arms if/when Iran reaches that capability. If a "right of return" were granted, Israel would immediately cease to be as a Jewish, secular democratic state. In short, to give in to Hamas is to risk the existence of Israel. For Israel to survive, Hamas has to be defeated, both by the Israeli military and, more importantly, by the Palestinian people. Until that happens, there can be no peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

So in the framework of Hamas's rejection of a peaceful two-state solution to the larger Israeli-Palestinian problem, Hamas's use of civilian locations for its military operations, and Israel's efforts to limit civilian casualties despite Hamas's actions, yes, I do believe that Israel cares more about the lives of the Palestinian people than Hamas does. The terrorist organization has demonstrated that its primary goals are to try and destroy Israel, to protect its power base, and to serve Iran, no matter the damage to its people. Of course, since the Palestinian people elected Hamas to power, they have themselves to blame for the damage done to them by their leaders. It will ultimately be up to the Palestinian people to reject Hamas and their methods.

Maybe the latest Israeli offensive will help turn public opinion, and the Palestinian people will realize that their Hamas leadership has failed them. In a sea of media stories highlighting the Palestinian civilian casualties and the failure of Israel to negotiate a cease-fire agreement, I was heartened to see on the front page of the New York Times today an article quoting a grieving Palestinian woman in Gaza shouting, "May God exterminate Hamas!" This woman understands who has inflicted death and destruction on her family. As soon as a majority of Palestinians agree with her, peace will again be possible between Israel and the Palestinians. But as long as Hamas is in power and firing rockets at Israeli civilians, there can be no peace. Hamas's obsession with the destruction of Israel has only brought poverty, injury and death to its people in Gaza.


Both can be found here respectively:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/mitchell-bard-is-wrong-on_b_156130.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/hamas-is-responsible-for_b_155261.html

[TheRunt]

Bard's piece made a series of assertions which I will deal with one by one.

1. Hamas started the conflict after firing rockets into Israel
Hamas did not start this conflict.

Hard to say who really started it Israel went into Gaza got into it with some militants and Hamas launched rockets. Maybe Israel shouldn't of went in but it doesn't say who fired the first shot.

http://www.hagada.org.il/eng/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=248

2. Hamas wanted Israel to attack Gaza to boost its popularity and damage its reputation internationally.

Bard offers no evidence for the assertion that Hamas wanted its own people killed, other than it is his opinion. According to serious analysts Hamas miscalculated Israel's response rather than provoked it. They do of course, bear responsibility, but evidence is required before accusations like this are thrown around.

They provoked a response just perhaps not the one they wanted. But with Israels history what else would a logical person think? They don't back down if they get hit they hit back twice as hard and twice as fast.

3. Hamas is at fault for civilian casualties as it uses "mosques, schools, private residences and even hospitals as locations to manufacture, store and launch weapons at Israel and hide its leaders."

Israel cannot bomb schools and hospitals just because it believes Hamas may be hiding there. It is a direct violation of international law, and therefore constitutes a war crime.

Kinda like randomly launching 35 or so rockets into civilian territory? Or perhaps like sending suicide bombers into a crowded marketplace? If they don't want to follow the rules fuck the rules.

4. "Hamas's stated intention is the destruction of Israel"

There are certain elements of Hamas that want to see the destruction of Israel, just like there are extreme Zionists who believe Palestine belongs to Jews. You can't brand an entire organization in a certain light just because it is convenient to you. Here is Khalid Mish'al, head of the Hamas political bureau in an article in the Guardian:

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.


Also, a question for Bard: Can you find another example in international law where one country was forced to accept the right of another country to exist? Was Mexico forced to recognize the United States right to exist after it took its land? Where Native Americans forced to accept the right of the United States to exist after it killed most of their people and took their country? Of course not, they simply dealt with the reality and moved on, just as some in Hamas are willing to do (ie a long term truce) rather than admit humiliating terms of defeat. There were many members of the ANC in South Africa who wanted whites to leave South Africa, and this was used by the Apartheid Government to dismiss it as a terrorist organization, just as apologists for Israeli state crimes are doing with Hamas. The only way towards peace is an acknowledgment that Hamas is a legitimate political entity and MUST be negotiated with, just as the Apartheid Government negotiated with the ANC.

Russia and its former satellites? And does this guy have any clue what he's saying? Yes Mexico and the Native Americans were forced to accept the right of the US to exist. The Roman empire, the Mongol horde, Napoleon they all forced other countries to admit they existed as there rulers.

5. Israel is "the only Democratic country in the immediate region" and had been systematically attacked by Arab countries since its inception.

Stating that Israel is "the only democratic country in the immediate region" in one sentence then in another saying, "the Palestinian people, given a free choice in elections, voted Hamas into power," requires no rebuttal. Israel is the only democracy in the region because Bard wants it to be. Yes, Arab countries have attacked Israel since its inception, but Arabs view the creation of Israel as an attack on them. It just depends on your point of view.

How is the creation of the nation of Israel an attack on arabs?

6. Israel "Seized the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 not out of imperialistic aggression, but as a means of defending itself from its neighbors."

Regardless of whether Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza out of imperial aggression or self-defense, acquisition of land through war is explicitly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, and a direct violation of international law.

Actually no its not at least not according to the link provided it lists what the Occupying Power shall not and may do doesn't say there not allowed to occupy it.

7. If a "right of return" were granted, Israel would immediately cease to be as a Jewish, secular democratic state".

I don't think Bard really understands what he is saying here, as the sentence contradicts itself on many levels. Being a 'Jewish, secular state' is a contradiction in terms. Judaism is a religion, so a Jewish state is therefore a religious one. Also, Israel's refusal to give the 800,000 dispossessed Palestinians the right of return is a huge thorn in its side when claiming to be a democracy. Under international law, dispossessed people are entitled to return to their land, so if Israel was a functioning democratic nation that followed international law, the majority of it's citizens would be Arab, and they would have the right to vote. Bard might not like the outcome, but then that is what we call democracy.

Well according to Websters definition of Jew
1 a: a member of the tribe of Judah b: israelite2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people4: one whose religion is Judaism

It could be secular see numbers 1-3 And since they occupied Palestine from the 6th century b.c. I think they have the oldest claim on the land.

8. "Israel has showed remarkable restraint and proportionality, evidenced by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Palestinian casualties have not been civilians. The world should be lauding Israel for its efforts to minimize civilian casualties."

Israel has just bombed two U.N schools in the Gaza strip, and have thus far killed over 700 people, 220 of them children. The 'remarkable restraint and proportionality' Israel had shown is over 100-1 in terms of the Palestinian to Israeli death toll, on top of many millions of dollars in structural damage. Bard may laud Israel for this, but the majority of the world does not.

A 100-1? so Hamas has only killed 70 Israelites? Hell they launched over 35 rockets this last time alone. Not including the suicide bombers or rifle fire or anything else.

9. "Since the Palestinian people elected Hamas to power, they have themselves to blame for the damage done to them by their leaders."

Just because Palestinians voted for Hamas does not give Israel the right to kill them. Collective punishment is explicitly illegal under international law. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

The civilians aren't being punished its just collateral damage.

Feel free to discuss.

Thanks I will

[Daniel]

Can you at least italicize what you wrote? It's hard to follow.

[Clove]

Isn't also against international law to store weapons in hospitals, etc?

[Khariz]

Isn't also against international law to store weapons in hospitals, etc?

ROFL @ anyone giving a shit what international law is.

Edit: Not literally...but yeah...I mean...right.

[Methais]

The Palestinians will never get their land back, just as Native Americans won't get theirs.

.
.
.

In any event,

Feel free to discuss.

The solution is to give Palestinians casinos.

[Stanley Burrell]

I'm just spontaneously going to agree with Daniel and renounce my Judaism so that my craniofacial features shift based upon the genetics of religion. Plus, I really don't want Al-Qaeda to recruit him as he's a cool dude.

[TheEschaton]

Israel is wrong in most of its actions towards Palestine. That doesn't mean Palestine is an oppressed victim, it is a rather fiesty, angry, crime-commiting victim.


How is the creation of the nation of Israel an attack on arabs?


Because it was Arab land, given to the Jews by non-Arabs? If India went on a holocaust to kill all Sikhs, and the world stepped in....and gave all the remaining Sikhs who couldn't bear to stay in India a nation, that overran and supercede an entire people's land, like, say.....Norway, would you blame the Norwegians in that?

[Stanley Burrell]

[COLOR=black]Because it was Arab land, given to the Jews by non-Arabs? If India went on a holocaust to kill all Sikhs, and the world stepped in....and gave all the remaining Sikhs who couldn't bear to stay in India a nation, that overran and supercede an entire people's land, like, say.....Norway, would you blame the Norwegians in that?

Wow. I'm glad none of my practicing Jewish relatives lived in Israel prior to the Balfour. You know, like under the Mufti? Let's give the land back to the Philistines.

What religion is Norwegian, btw?

Edit: You could tell the creation of Bangladesh was totally in-tune with India's peaceful practice and admiration of the non-violent Ghandi.

Contemporary fact: Israel exists. The UN has no teeth. Especially in creating peace. They're about as good at preventing the loss of human life right now as when they (The UN) used a third of our funding pleasantly provided to their prodium to do data analysis between the ever-so-small conflict between, say, the Hutus and the Tutsis. No teeth. None.

BTW: Assuming that the Palestinians/(Gazan Israelis when they want to flaunt the secondary citizenship card) didn't elect Hamas into being, all shall be fucking saved in the Middle East: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSG5Colc1Pk :banghead:

[TheRunt]

[COLOR=black]
Because it was Arab land, given to the Jews by non-Arabs? If India went on a holocaust to kill all Sikhs, and the world stepped in....and gave all the remaining Sikhs who couldn't bear to stay in India a nation, that overran and supercede an entire people's land, like, say.....Norway, would you blame the Norwegians in that?

Well according to Websters definition of Jew
1 a: a member of the tribe of Judah b: israelite2: a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the sixth century b.c. to the first century a.d.3: a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people4: one whose religion is Judaism

See #2 seems like it could of been their country to begin with and they just got it back.

[thefarmer]

If the US suddenly took away 2-3 midwest/central states and gave them to the Native Americans to create their own country, plenty of people would be pissed.

[TheEschaton]

Contemporary fact: Israel exists. The UN has no teeth. Especially in creating peace. They're about as good at preventing the loss of human life right now as when they (The UN) used a third of our funding pleasantly provided to their prodium to do data analysis between the ever-so-small conflict between, say, the Hutus and the Tutsis. No teeth. None.


The U.N. has no teeth BECAUSE of countries like Israel, who, with the help of the U.S., have ignored 30+ General Assembly resolutions, and a few binding Security Council Resolutions. Except, unlike oher violaters of resolutions (Iraq, Korea, Iran), no one ever places sanctions or does shit to Israel.

There can be no international law system if the participants refuse to adhere to its rules.

I also think it's a pretty shitty thing to say: "Well, tough shit, Israel exists now, fuck off" when Israel's existence was brought about by criminal actions on the part of the British.

-TheE-

[Miscast]

The solution is to give Palestinians casinos.
And porn :unclesam:

[Khariz]

The U.N. has no teeth BECAUSE of countries like Israel, who, with the help of the U.S., have ignored 30+ General Assembly resolutions, and a few binding Security Council Resolutions. Except, unlike oher violaters of resolutions (Iraq, Korea, Iran), no one ever places sanctions or does shit to Israel.

There can be no international law system if the participants refuse to adhere to its rules.

I also think it's a pretty shitty thing to say: "Well, tough shit, Israel exists now, fuck off" when Israel's existence was brought about by criminal actions on the part of the British.

-TheE-

That's why earlier I said "LOL @ International Law". It's a joke right now, with every country essentially picking and choosing which parts of treaties and resolutions and conventions that they are going to follow, on a whim.

[Gan]

The solution is to give Palestinians casinos.

:lol:

[g++]

"We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." - Moshe Dayan, former Israeli Minister of Defense speaking about Palestinians in the occupied territories.


An obscure quote supposedly heard by only one man (Chomsky) who happens to have an anti-Israeli agenda and absolutely no way to be involved in a conversation with Dayan in the first place. Good work Huffington post.

[Stanley Burrell]

The U.N. has no teeth BECAUSE of countries like Israel, who, with the help of the U.S., have ignored 30+ General Assembly resolutions, and a few binding Security Council Resolutions. Except, unlike oher violaters of resolutions (Iraq, Korea, Iran), no one ever places sanctions or does shit to Israel.

Lol. The UN has no teeth, solely, because a nation the size of New Jersey prevented it from stopping Rwandan genocide to the point that Francophone(sp?) had to send troops in. When The motherfucking French have to take up military action to save lives because The UN is way too busy jacking off on the podium we pay for: It is a testament that...

The UN can't do shit for shit.

It wouldn't matter if Israel stuck its head up its ass and validated 110% of the half-truths spoken out at this hate pedestal we've given to these nations to spit on us with. The UN can't do shit the second anyone sneezes wrong, TheE.

The occupation of Israel by Arabs is criminal.

...Is about as much sense as you make preaching the laws of what is/isn't criminal when you talk about Jewish migration during WWII. You can't focus for shit on the present or make the distinction that Israel != Iraq/N. Korea/Iran (omg, awesome Axis of Evil almost-analogy, high five!!!!!)

By the way, if I grew up as a Gazan without any education and 70% unemployment, saw my family killed by an Israel airstrike I wouldn't exactly have the wits to know that Hamas gives a rat's ass about Palestine as is and would promptly hop on their bandwagon. It's ugly. There isn't a damn thing you or I can do about it no matter what stance we take.

The only thing to do is make sure that the suffering Muslim world knows your pain is by announcing your proud Indian sociocultural heritage in the middle of Islamabad, TheE. Because sometimes you're just silly. No offense.

Edit: Sometimes I think about what would actually happen if Israel combined its weaponry with the lack of discretion these dickwads use. You can't tell a terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter/etc. not to burrow themselves in women and children. I will say, though, that Israel doesn't fuck around; and like the United States, if its survival is ever threatened, you're going to see some geiger counter readings spiking.

[TheEschaton]

I think your blind defense of Israeli actions in Gaza are just as silly, SB. Hell, I don't do the same shit when India tries to exterminate Sikhs.


Lol. The UN has no teeth, solely, because a nation the size of New Jersey prevented it from stopping Rwandan genocide to the point that Francophone(sp?) had to send troops in. When The motherfucking French have to take up military action to save lives because The UN is way too busy jacking off on the podium we pay for: It is a testament that...

Because certain countries, IE the US, prevented the Security Council from sending troops to Rwanda, a thing only the SC can do. If you look back at it, Russia and France thought we should send troops, but was threatened by a veto by the US.


...Is about as much sense as you make preaching the laws of what is/isn't criminal when you talk about Jewish migration during WWII. You can't focus for shit on the present or make the distinction that Israel != Iraq/N. Korea/Iran (omg, awesome Axis of Evil almost-analogy, high five!!!!!)

Hi, Israel was partitioned, by the British, out of land that they didn't have the right to partition. That's the criminal act I'm talking about. If you can't assert anything more than "OMFG THE JEWS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to say against that, I don't know what you're smoking.

Oh, and btw, just because Muslims have made attacks in my "mother country", doesn't mean I can't defend the rights of Muslims elsewhere. Stop being a fucking moron.

-TheE-

P.S. How do you assert that Hamas is not serving the Palestinian people? They were elected, and their political side took a hard step back from their militant policies. When Sinn Fein did that, it was called progress.

[Clove]

Sinn Fein agreed not to blow shit up anymore.

Doesn't the Security Council have 5 members?

[TheEschaton]

15 members, 5 permannet members whose one veto can override the wishes of the other 14.

I actually don't know China's stand, the UK sided with the US in not going into Rwanda.

[Clove]

Great Britain partitioned the land which the UN ratified... sooooo, you could say the UN created the problem.

[CrazyEyesMcKinney]

Mitchell Bard is wrong on Israel. Only Cynthia McKinney knows the path to salvation for the promised land.

[Stanley Burrell]

I actually don't know China's stand

China's like, "Let's go beat up monks." Because of all these fucking monk threads and your hard-on for The UN.

I am not even kidding. You are partially responsible for the deaths of monks everywhere. I say partially because I am being fair.

Edited to Add: This should say Tibetan monks, because all the Wu-Tang movies are based on their awesomeness and that's why Israel is eeevil, zomgzorz.


I HAVE FELT THE OPPRESSION OF THE WHITE MAN!

[Stanley Burrell]

I think your blind defense of Israeli actions in Gaza are just as silly, SB. Hell, I don't do the same shit when India tries to exterminate Sikhs.

I'm not blind. Israel is damned if it acts and doomed if it doesn't. I prefer the former.


Because certain countries, IE the US, prevented the Security Council from sending troops to Rwanda, a thing only the SC can do.

Goddamn Jews/Israel taking the teeth out of The UN again.

I have a newsflash for you, no one gives a flying fuck about Africa. That's why we send you there and make you look pretty and decorated. Unfortunately, I live in the real world, and realize I can't actually do anything about anything, pretty much. So we're like brothers in that respect.


Hi, Israel was partitioned, by the British, out of land that they didn't have the right to partition. That's the criminal act I'm talking about. If you can't assert anything more than "OMFG THE JEWS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" to say against that, I don't know what you're smoking.

Israel could have been partitioned by colonial imperialism, it wouldn't make a bit of difference that when a person on Axis X, Y decides to consciously fire rockets into it (Israel) that there won't be retaliation.


Oh, and btw, just because Muslims have made attacks in my "mother country", doesn't mean I can't defend the rights of Muslims elsewhere. Stop being a fucking moron.

No. But you probably would have a statistically higher chance of getting your throat slit in every area of growing Muslim populations where you seem to know that the higher education of the existential interpretations and personal opinions regarding what you know are International Law obscurities and an Internet gaming forum to discuss the what-ifs of the Balfour Declaration is powering the hatred of radicals.


P.S. How do you assert that Hamas is not serving the Palestinian people?

Because I have a hard time believing that the women and children who died in Israel's reciprocity wanted to end it then and there because every time food and medicine could have been smuggled into their oppressed stronghold, Grad rockets mysteriously replaced fruits, vegetables and penicillin.

[Keller]

See #2 seems like it could of been their country to begin with and they just got it back.

Let me know when you're ready to move back to Italy and give Pocahontas her land back.

[Clove]

Let me know when you're ready to move back to Italy and give Pocahontas her land back.Not until the Saxons are repatriated bitches.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Let me know when you're ready to move back to Italy and give Pocahontas her land back.

Pocahontas still has her land, she married a white guy (and she was a race traitor).

[TheRunt]

Let me know when you're ready to move back to Italy and give Pocahontas her land back.

Sure will :) As soon as Pocahontas's kin moves back across the landbridge to Russia. Followed by them moving either into China or parts of Africa depending on the current in vogue scientific theory of where man first came into being. And as an aside to the best of my knowledge I'm not of Italian descent, but southern Italy is a beautiful county and I wouldn't mind visiting there.

And according to some dna studies were all related if we go back I think 15? generations so I actually am decended from native americans and there for according to your logic allowed to be here.

[Miscast]

I'd fuck Pocahontas even if we're related.

[Parkbandit]

I'd fuck Pocahontas even if we're related.

Wouldn't you fuck anyone (or anything) for a couple bucks though? I mean come on.. you are in porn, ffs.