Re:virus: UN report on Jenin released - israel not guilty

Date: Sun Aug 04 2002 - 19:44:11 MDT

On 4 Aug 2002 at 17:55, 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).
> [Joe Dees 4] 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:
> [Hermit 5] I've studied it - you have not. There is no justification
> for it (the reason behind it was the vast oppression introduced by the
> Nats), but it is understandable. When 11 poorly trained policemen are
> surrounded by 20,000 stone throwing, panga wielding blacks, something
> is going to give. The PAC knew this and relied upon it happening,
> knowing that some blacks would probably die to provide them with
> newsworthy material. To assert "completely unarmed" is to assert that
> stones and pangas are not weapons. This is manifestly untrue.
Well, they're not SKS's and AK-47's, like the Palestinianterrorists have.
>On the
> other hand, the correct response is to use non-lethal weapons in order
> to create a stand-off zone- and the South Africans, horrified by
> international reaction, developed and deployed such systems - which
> was why, outside of black-on-black violence, later mass death tolls
> tended to be much lower. Israel doesn't bother to do this, because
> unlike South Africa, Israel basks in the glow of American approbation.
Unlike South African blacks, Palestinians are shooting live ammunition -
that's real bullets. During the first, relatively nonviolent (or at least
nonlethal) intifadeh, Israeli forces used rubber bullets and tear gas. In this
intifadeh, the Palestinians raised the stakes by resorting to violence
employing lethal force, and suicide bombings.
> [Hermit 5] Apropos of another thing, repeating "52 dead Palestinians"
> (i.e. restrictiong your observation to Jenin, when the total toll was
> 497 dead Palestinians) doesn't make your case stronger, it makes it
> weaker. Because it is transparent that you are juggling figures in
> order to attempt to support your argument. Not needed if you had one
> to begin with.
The discussion was centered arojund whether or not specifically Jenin
qualified as a massacre; that's why the specific Jenin figures are germaine.
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] 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.
> [Hermit 5] Limpet mines. They can be stuck to things. Walls, under
> tables, etc. Often placed in a shopping bag. Carried into stores,
> railway stations, restaurants, offices and other places where people
> meet. Policy in the late 80s was to detonate them at times when
> children would be present to maximise the psychological impact. No
> difference. As I said, you speak from vast ignorance.
They weren't the kind buried in the ground then, so why did you mention
mining roads?
Also, please provide sources to show that limpet mine explosions in South
Africa killed scads per blast.
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 2] This is in sharp contrast with South Africa, where less
> than one-fifth of the population oppressively ruled the vast majority.
> [Joe Dees 4] 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.
> [Hermit 5] If you knew anything about the situation, your attitude
> would be different. The combination of importing "Jews" and exporting
> "Palestinians" has been a continuous one. As has the assimilation of
> land. If the Palestinian refugees were to be allowed to return (no
> chance) they would greatly outnumber the Jews. So what we have is a
> tiny Jewish population that has dispossessed, oppressed and
> disenfranchised a much larger Palestinian population. So how is this
> not parallel?
At present, as I said before, the population ratios in the area, unlike those
in South Africa, are roughly equal. At present Israel is not expelling
Palestinians in significant numbers, and has not done so for some time.
Before the apartheid system crumbled in South Africa, they 'internally
exported' millions of blacks to a completely landlocked and impoverished
pocket of land inside South Africa, and called it a country (Lesotho).
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] 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.
> [Hermit 5] As above, you are raving when it comes to percentages, but
> much more relevantly, ask why the need for aid exists. Zimbabwe and
> South Africa were, for a very long time, the largest food exporting
> countries in Africa. What has changed? (Hint, think 20,000+ murdered
> farmers).
I am accurate when it comes to percentages, which draws your ranting ire.
And as for parallels, it was just as wrong for blacks to kill those farmers as it
is for Palestinian terrorists to suicide-bomb teens at a nightclub.
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] There is no alternative; Israel has found ways 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.
> [Hermit 5] You are more of a fool than I took you for. The fact that
> the "desert is blooming" is the root cause of the problem - not a
> solution. Israel has looted the groundwater which took 15,000 years to
> build up - in the last decade. Now the little which is left is already
> becoming saline at an exponential rate. The ground has been poisoned
> by over-irrigation with saline sources. The country cannot support the
> existing population. Period. And the Israelis know it. So, we assume
> does the US State Department.
Depleted aquifers is indeed a huge problem. The only solution that springs
to mind is a massive desalinization program (there is access to mucho
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] Where's the provision that says suicide bombing of
> civilian children is ok?
> [Hermit 5] Resisting occupation.
Show the provision to me. Besides, to resist occupation is to resist the
occupying occupiers when they are engaging in occupying, not for suicide
bombers each to occupy Israeli land in solo, and blow up teens who's only
occupations are sex, drugs and music.
> [Hermit 5] Lex Talionis (The law of tooth and claw) , the only
> international law you appear to recognize, is based on the principle
> that if you harm my citizens you can be harmed in turn. How many
> Palestinian children starve to death each year as a direct consequence
> of Israeli behavior? To civilized people, this is an anathema - which
> is why the system of treaties and laws have been established. But as
> you have been capably articulating, Americans don't think that
> treaties and laws are necessary in the modern world.
Many West Bank and Gaza Palestinians were formerly gainfully employed
in Israel and earning wages sufficient to not only feed their families, but
also help feed their unemployed friends. Then the suicide bombings
started, and in self-protective response, the Israelis restricted passage from
these areas, the areas where the suicide bombers originated. By such
logic, since it was the advent of Palestinian suicide bombings that
necessitated the travel restriction and subsequent hardship, those
Palestinian families who have hungry children should be biting and
scratching the terrorists among them.
> [Hermit 5] How many children have American's killed in the last
> decade?
I can't recall too many american suicide bombers. I am quite sure that
we've fed millions of people gratis in the last decade, sometimes (in
Somalia) getting killed for trying to do so.
>Yet your official stance is "It's worth it." Is it the fact
> that kids are being killed by suicide bombers that changes things, or
> the fact that they are Jewish?
The fact that they're being blown up outside nightclubs by fanatical
extremist zealots (or their tools) that are racially and religiously anger, hate
and rage driven. Is the fact that those kids are Jewish why we never hear
you deplore their deaths, although you cry a Nile for Palestinian kids?
> [Hermit 5] Now go read the report to find out why (according to
> Protocol IV, the Jews are in breach of International law).
No nation would obey any international law that risked the destruction of
their state and the deaths of their people. Israel is doing no more that what
it deem necessary in order to protect its own citizens from a wave of lone
explosive aggressors.
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] 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 5] And if you had been reading the news, you would have seen
> that the Israelis have been saying the same thing. At the end of the
> day, if it weren't for the ecological catastrophe, that would open the
> door to negotiation.
If both of the sides wanted the Whole Enchilada (and most Israelis do NOT
maintain this), that rather looks to me like a recipe for gridlock and standoff.
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] 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 5] You don't need to make the point and once would have been
> smart enough to be able to figure out why. As I have stated many times
> before, I don't approve of any terrorism by anybody.
The relative strength of your varied deplorals, however, varies widely.
>WHether it is a
> government (such as Israel or the US) or an organization (such as
> Hamas or al Qu'aeda). Having said that, given the degree of repression
> in the world, and the disparity in effective power between oppressive
> governments and their victims, I can understand why terrorism is all
> too frequently resorted to. The only good news is that, in my
> opinion, the problem is more with the systems that create them than
> with the terrorists (i.e. we could do something about many of the root
> causes). The tragedy is that we probably won't - clumsily addressing
> effects rather than causes and thus perpetuating the cycle.
One of the causes is an ideological religio-political one, and that is the
warlike and aggressive propinquities that are so easily cultivated within the
Muslim faithful themselves due to the violent, confrontational, aggrandizing
and infidel-dehumanizing aspects found in more than ample supply in the
Qu'ran. There are plenty of children around the world that are hungrier
than Palestinian children, yet their parents and older siblings do not do
what the Palestinians do.
> [Hermit 5] Besides, Israel has a responsibility under International
> law to prevent such attacks - and don't need them anyway. Genocide by
> slow starvation seems to be working perfectly well for them.
Actually, the Palestinian population is increasing faster than the Israeli one
over there. And it has a responsibility to its own people to prevent suicide
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] 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.
> [Hermit 5] What happens when the Islamic Socialist Republic of Saudi
> Arabia, created in response to US meddling in the Gulf, decides to
> help them and gets nuked in response? Will you still beam sweetly on
> Israel and perhaps say that they did the right thing against these
> evil muslims?
I will say that any nonnuclear country that militarily threatens the existence
of a nuclear country is exceedingly dense and obtuse, perhaps because of
an ideology of manifest religious destiny that brooks no objections from
contrafactual technological realities. And they do help them, by means of
charity (one of the five pillars of Islam), just in my view, not enough
considering how wealthy they are, and all too often directed towards
financing violent insurgency rather than feeding, clothing, housing,
educating and medically treating people.
> [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?"
> [Joe Dees 4] 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.
> [Hermit 5] So as long as a few token Palestinians are left behind,
> it's all hunky dorey by you?
Neither side is even gonna come close. There will be millions of both of
them there for the forseeable future.
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 4] 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.
> [Hermit 5] Or the singularity. Or other things. That's what I said.
> But you left out the biological and chemical materiel which will
> probably be more significant in terms of casualties. But are you not
> here saying that it is a good thing that Israel has weapons of mass
> destruction? I also recall Israel previously attacking her neighbors
> and repeatedly threatening them. So how is she different from how you
> perceive Iraq?
She had to arm herself for her wn defence. It's a frigging pity that the Jews
lost 2/3 of their worldwide population to secular Nazism, only to settle on a
tiny patch of land surrounded by millions upon millions of religiosly fascist
Muslims, who have launched four wars at her since she's been there. This
is, of course, patemtly not the case with Iraq's saddam Hussein; he
attacked first Iran to the east, then, when he couldn't make any headway,
he turned his ambitions south and attacked Kuwait.
> Whose neighbors, by the way, appear to be getting
> downright cuddly with her as a result of dubya's ranting.
They prefer the devil they know to the devil that has not yet emerged. But
whoever emerges there once Saddam is deposed would be less of a devil,
or at least have and be able to obtain less materiel with which to practice
> [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.
> [Joe Dees 2] It certainly does for those who are territorially,
> historically and genetically joined at the hip.
> [Hermit 5] And today, the US as the sole superpower is the neighbor of
> everyone. Time to reconsider your approaches Joe?
Nope; we are trying our best to be an honest broker in the area, but we're
having immense difficulty getting both sides to accept an equitable deal.
However, no other kind of deal has a charcoal's chance in Alaska of
> ----
> This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of
> Virus BBS.
> <;action=display;thread
> id=25915>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT