Zionists say SA hypocritical

[krycor]

whats new.. nothing. One has terrorists the other thinks they own everything and above the law [while being supported by the 'world police' US hah]. Until one of them take the blame or act more justified this will go on, on and on.

Zionism is predominately Jewish but is not limited to Jews. In fact in the US i think their may be more Christian supporters. Its just the support of idea that the land was given and belongs to the 'Jewish' people only. Of cause a lot of Zionist groups are European in origin and were not originally from there but thats the way it is. Much like the 'Palestinians are only Muslim Arabs' this is a common misconception.

 

[IanC]

nthdimension: The UK should have just carried out a few bombing raids on Belfast. That'd sort out those Irish scum

.
To the best of my knowledge the UK never bombed Belfast Although the UK were certainly guilty of some highly questionable activities, they were never guilty of bombing Belfast.

I don't think offing a few more members of Sinn Fein or the IRA would have troubled them overly much.

 

[noxibox]

Hardly anything like a teenage conflict, is it?

It's called an analogy.

Isarel believes that terrorists are hiding among civilians with active help from palestine community, so they dont count as civilians any more. As to 'excessive' force, what is your idea?

Well you know as long as the Israelis believe it then I guess its OK for them to be attacking civilians. Good justification. I'm sure it'll come in handy.

It's not 'excessive', just excessive. See earlier analogy.

"where rocket came from, did hamas do it or was it aliens? are we 100% sure?"

Did Hamas do it? Did the orders come from the government? Did civilians actively participate? Are they even 1% sure? How willing is Israel to kill thousands of civilians on the off chance that maybe they're voluntarily helping some terrorists?

 

[IanC]

If they had evidence to this effect then they could back up their claim that they were in fact attacking terrorists rather than simply just killing civilians in the hope of frightening the Palestinians. There was no urgency for a response since even the Israelis acknowledge there have been many small attacks. This was a not a response to a specific immediate threat.

You haven't answered my question: What good would be done to Israel by running to the international community with evidence???

The correct analogy would be to say we assumed you helped a criminal last time so we're going to use our previous assumption as evidence this time to back up our latest assumption.

Why would that be the correct analogy? Where is the assumption?

Israel is at best saying that they believe some civilians helped those firing rockets so they dropped some bombs on buildings in the general area.

Precisely, which is all a court could say i.e. we believe you are guilty of this crime hence we are sentencing you to ...

They are going after who they believe to be responsible

 

[IanC]

Well you know as long as the Israelis believe it then I guess its OK for them to be attacking civilians. Good justification. I'm sure it'll come in handy.

Tell me, how would you classify someone who gets on to a bus and blows themselves and the passengers up? A soldier, perhaps? In what army??

Did Hamas do it? Did the orders come from the government? Did civilians actively participate? Are they even 1% sure? How willing is Israel to kill thousands of civilians on the off chance that maybe they're voluntarily helping some terrorists?

What proof do you require?

 

[nthdimension]

To the best of my knowledge the UK never bombed Belfast Although the UK were certainly guilty of some highly questionable activities, they were never guilty of bombing Belfast.

I did not say they did.

I don't think offing a few more members of Sinn Fein or the IRA would have troubled them overly much.

No they never had any problem with murdering the Irish.

However the UK government regularly tried to use the fact that most of the terrorist groups were vicious murderous scum to justify their own oppressive actions. There comes a point where your behaviour is no better than your opponent's.

Firstly, the PLO was sponsoring terrorism for at least 30 years so its not like voting in Hamas was some radical new move, it was just an escalation.

It was an indication that they were no longer willing to support an organisation that had ultimately acquiesced to the Israelis without that acquiecence gaining the Plaestinians much protection from further hostility.

Secondly just because Israel is the one "killing more people" doesn't make them wrong. As others have said here, if you pick a fight with a someone stronger then you don't cry when they hurt you worse then you hurt them. So in some ways it is the Palestinians fault, they initiate attacks aimed at civilians, Israel responds aggressively. I am not saying it is acceptable to kill civilians but that is what happens in these situations, it is a reality of war and life.

That in no way prevents us from condemning Israel's level of response.

When Nazis slaughtered people for helping the resistance should we have said that's what you get for fighting against a stronger enemy?

Compare apples with apples, I may be wrong but I don'y believe the stated aim of the IRA was ever the abolishment and destruction of England.

Doesn't matter. It's the terrorism and the response that matters. There is no way Hamas could actually wipe out Israel any more than Israel could ever win this conflict.

You get hit across the border by a rocket bomb, you are not going to have a 3-year legal investigation as to "where rocket came from, did hamas do it or was it aliens? are we 100% sure?". Isarel believes that terrorists are hiding among civilians with active help from palestine community, so they dont count as civilians any more. As to 'excessive' force, what is your idea? In war, if A side kills 3 people and damages 4 buildings , should B side kill exactly 3 and destroy 4 buildings and no more?

So you'd agree with what was mentioned earlier that if one of our neighbouring countries was hit with a rocket out of South Africa they'd be justified in flattening a South African city and killing a few thousand South Africans as a response?

There'd be no reason to bother finding out who was responsible. No need to use an elite force to track down and kill the specific individuals responsible. Much easier to level a few neighborhoods. Anyone living there obviously gave their voluntary assistance.

It definitely qualifies as stupidity if their claimed aim is self-defense because their latest action is guaranteed to make them less safe. They're playing right into the hands of those firing the rockets. They may or may not have had the real support of those civilians who were killed, but they're going to get real support now.

At least some of those groups who continued the violence after the negotiations started in Ireland were people who simply wanted to revive the conflict.

 

[IanC]

No they never had any problem with murdering the Irish.

Equally the IRA seemed to have little problem murdering the British public or anyone else who got in their way.

There comes a point where your behaviour is no better than your opponent's.

Very true.

 

[noxibox]

You haven't answered my question: What good would be done to Israel by running to the international community with evidence???

Actually answered already. Right now Israel is being rightly viewed as a state out of control, killing thousands of civilians with minimal provocation. So can they provide specific evidence on how those particular buildings they just bombed were picked? Or did they just figure there'd probably be some terrorists around and well the civilians should know better than to be living there because everyone knows the Israelis will just kill them?

Why would that be the correct analogy? Where is the assumption?

Israel has assumed that those civilians were actively supporting the terrorists claimed to have been firing rockets from that location.

Precisely, which is all a court could say i.e. we believe you are guilty of this crime hence we are sentencing you to ...

They are going after who they believe to be responsible

Actually courts require something we call evidence. They don't call in people and ask them if they believe this person must have committed the crime. Magistrates don't say because you live in a neighbourhood from where someone has been launching their criminal activities that you are therefore guilty of committing the crime yourself.

Tell me, how would you classify someone who gets on to a bus and blows themselves and the passengers up? A soldier, perhaps? In what army??

They're terrorists. Just like the guys that fire rockets from helicopter gunships into civilians buildings and neighbourhoods.

I don't know why you're responding with this statement.

 

[surface]

It's called an analogy.

okay, let us dissect your analogy in terms of source and target.

a) your teenage child hitting me : I respond by blowing up your suburb.
::
b)rocket bomb coming from palestine border killing people: israel launching counter-attack killing people


When you transfer anology from a) to b), in what context do you want to transfer it?

1. Mild response : Harsh response
as in teenage child hitting me was mild, so response is harsh..

2. Rational Response : Irrational response
as in teenager doesnt understand reason but you being adult understand it so why irrational response from you.

3. Irrational Response : More & more irrational response

4. anything else if i missed..
5. ditto

 

[nthdimension]

Equally the IRA seemed to have little problem murdering the British public or anyone else who got in their way.

Not least of which their fellow Irishmen. No the various IRA groups were worthless scum. I'd have been happy to kill them myself. But equally I have no time for the vicious bastards on the other side who used the IRA evil to justify their own. And I feel the same way about what is going on in Israel. The vile scum on both sides need to be rooted out and dealt with. Israel will never be able to justify attacking Palistinian civilians by saying that some Palestinian psychos attacked Israeli civilians.

 

[nthdimension]

okay, let us dissect your analogy in terms of source and target.

a) your teenage child hitting me : I respond by blowing up your suburb.
::
b)rocket bomb coming from palestine border killing people: israel launching counter-attack killing people


When you transfer anology from a) to b), in what context do you want to transfer it?

I think once you've read the thread the context of this analogy should make it obvious which it is?

Note this was not a single deadly attack - single deadly counter-attack scenario. The Israelis acknowledge that the Qassam rockets have been causing damage and injuries, with the occasional death. They were not really responding to any specific attack. Naturally they need to look at ways to stop this, but are they truly so deranged or stupid that they think shelling civilians is going to achieve this? Can they really be that stupid?

 

[IanC]

Actually answered already. Right now Israel is being rightly viewed as a state out of control, killing thousands of civilians with minimal provocation. So can they provide specific evidence on how those particular buildings they just bombed were picked? Or did they just figure there'd probably be some terrorists around and well the civilians should know better than to be living there because everyone knows the Israelis will just kill them?

No actually, you haven't answered the question: Let's assume Israel did what you asked and provided evidence, to the international community, of exactly who was attacking her. What do you think the international community's response would be?

I don't know why you're responding with this statement.

For the simple reason that I think that certain responders to this thread have been watching far too many Chuck Norris movies i.e. with their suggestion that Delta Force Squads, Navy Seals, SBS, SAS, etc be sent in to deal with the perpetrators.

Given Israels current position on the business end of rockets, what do you think the solution is?

 

[SuperAntMD]

That in no way prevents us from condemning Israel's level of response.

When Nazis slaughtered people for helping the resistance should we have said that's what you get for fighting against a stronger enemy?

No you say thats what you get for fighting against Aryan race hooligans with massive amounts of fire power and half of Europe under its control. There really is no comparison between these two situations and to imply that Israel is in any way like Nazi Germany is so tasteless, misinformed and ignorant that I can only assume it was not your intention.

Your statement, however, is such a non-sequitor I don't even know where to begin. The Nazis in your ill conceived analogy were the initiators and perpetrators of the atrocities.More pertinent to the issue at hand: the resistance never ran around saying look at these Nazis they dont play fair we blew up the *whatever* and now they've done twice as much . They were well aware of the risks and repercussions. Also you never had completely unrelated countries (in the instance of WW2 S. Africa would have had more right to comment) saying you Nazis dont play fair. The statements by the minister are idiotic, uncalled for and therefore worthy of rebuttal. Which is the topic of this thread.

 

[MailMan]

What or what not the Ministery of Foreign Affairs has to add in terms of

valuable comment and noticed abroad by others and taken into consideration

when it has gained balance, maturity, and dogmatism cease to statements

and opions whih at best are perceived as imature

 

[surface]

/Me waiting for complete sentence of MailMan

 

[Xarog]

Do you know who the Palestinian gvt is? Ever heard of Hamas? These people voted terrorists into government, they refuse to recognise Israel. Now don't get me wrong, im not for even a second saying all Palestinians are terrorists, but you have to realise that this is more then "a small band" it is a large diverse group of militias, or for the most part have the peoples support. And they fire their rockets from these civilian areas.

And do you even follow the news? Hamas was on the verge of declaring a hudna with Israel after they got elected into the Palestinian government. That's hardly the kind of behaviour that a group of mindless terrorists would persue.

"There is a major difference in values between Israeli forces and the Palestinian terrorists who are operating from within Beit Hanoun. While Israel does not intentionally set out to harm innocent civilians, those who continue to launch Qassams fully intend to cause the maximum amount of death and destruction irrespective of the effectiveness or otherwise of these missiles.

The media is unlikely to acknowledge this difference in values, as demonstrated by the evacuation of Palestinians injured in Beit Hanoun to an Israeli hospital for treatment. "

"Qassams continued to fall even after the withdrawal of IDF forces from Gaza on Tuesday, including a strike on a school in Ashkelon, which was thankfully empty at the time but could easily have led to massive loss of life."

Yup, firing rockets at Israeli schools, Hamas are definately holding a moral high ground

And exactly where is the proof that hamas was aiming at the school specifically? Those rockets are unguided, which means Hamas doesn't have a hope in hell of aiming them accurately anywhere.

Israel, on the other hand, likes resorting to assassinating people by blowing up the block of apartments they happen to be living in.

But of course, they don't "intend" this, right? It's okay to kill civilians as long as you weren't actively aiming for them, right?

And what about the various cases where Israeli snipers recieve a slap on the hand for killing palestinian children when it's clear that they are children and pose no danger to anyone whatsoever?

Secondly just because Israel is the one "killing more people" doesn't make them wrong. As others have said here, if you pick a fight with a someone stronger then you don't cry when they hurt you worse then you hurt them. So in some ways it is the Palestinians fault, they initiate attacks aimed at civilians, Israel responds aggressively. I am not saying it is acceptable to kill civilians but that is what happens in these situations, it is a reality of war and life.

On the other hand, Israel is doing everything it can to treat the Palestinians like animals. And that's the real crux of the problem. Israel is denying the Palestinians their basic human rights - much like the Apartheid government did to blacks in this country. The Palestinians, whether through the PLO or Hamas are right to fight back against this mistreatment. It's just sad that terrorism is their only option against the juggernaut that is Israel.

People like to ignore this little fact though - they say that if the palestinians stopped their **** then Israel wouldn't have to bomb them or send in commando teams and everyone could live in peace. But if this happened, Israel would still be denying the palestinians their basic human rights. It's not fair to expect the Palestinians to cease their activity until the state of Israel recognises their right to exist.

No you say thats what you get for fighting against Aryan race hooligans with massive amounts of fire power and half of Europe under its control. There really is no comparison between these two situations and to imply that Israel is in any way like Nazi Germany is so tasteless, misinformed and ignorant that I can only assume it was not your intention.

So, you're saying we should frame the sentence thus : "That's what you get for fighting against zionist race hooligans with massive amounts of firepower and all of Palestine under its control."?

Your statement, however, is such a non-sequitor I don't even know where to begin. The Nazis in your ill conceived analogy were the initiators and perpetrators of the atrocities.More pertinent to the issue at hand: the resistance never ran around saying look at these Nazis they dont play fair we blew up the *whatever* and now they've done twice as much . They were well aware of the risks and repercussions. Also you never had completely unrelated countries (in the instance of WW2 S. Africa would have had more right to comment) saying you Nazis dont play fair. The statements by the minister are idiotic, uncalled for and therefore worthy of rebuttal. Which is the topic of this thread.

So countries not involved in WW2 have no right to denounce the holocaust? That's not what you're trying to say, I hope.

 

[SuperAntMD]

And do you even follow the news? Hamas was on the verge of declaring a hudna with Israel after they got elected into the Palestinian government. That's hardly the kind of behaviour that a group of mindless terrorists would persue.

Hamas has categorically refused to recognise Israel from the day of their inception. Its hard to negotiate with someone who denies your right to existence. They offered a Hudna on condition Israel withdraw to the pre 1967 borders, it was more a threat of attack if Israel didn't agree. You cant tell me they really thought Israel would just surrender half their land even though Hamas still refused to recognise them. "...the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel." Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi

And exactly where is the proof that hamas was aiming at the school specifically? Those rockets are unguided, which means Hamas doesn't have a hope in hell of aiming them accurately anywhere.

Kind of contradict yourself above with below don't you think?

But of course, they don't "intend" this, right? It's okay to kill civilians as long as you weren't actively aiming for them, right?

And what about the various cases where Israeli snipers recieve a slap on the hand for killing palestinian children when it's clear that they are children and pose no danger to anyone whatsoever?

I'd love moreinfo on this, from a reputable source if you will

On the other hand, Israel is doing everything it can to treat the Palestinians like animals. And that's the real crux of the problem. Israel is denying the Palestinians their basic human rights - much like the Apartheid government did to blacks in this country. The Palestinians, whether through the PLO or Hamas are right to fight back against this mistreatment. It's just sad that terrorism is their only option against the juggernaut that is Israel.

People like to ignore this little fact though - they say that if the palestinians stopped their **** then Israel wouldn't have to bomb them or send in commando teams and everyone could live in peace. But if this happened, Israel would still be denying the palestinians their basic human rights. It's not fair to expect the Palestinians to cease their activity until the state of Israel recognises their right to exist.

Oh please this argument is more flawed then any you've posted yet. Go read your history books. Not those written by some propagandist either. Most Palestinians are actually Jordanian, the surrounding arab nations have treated them as badly if not worse then Israel. They all turned their backs on them and left Israel to work out what to do with them. Israel offered (begged) the Gaza strip to Egypt when they gave back the sinai peninsula and Egypt said "no way". The Palestinians are used as bargaining chips and pawns by the rest of the Arab world who will stop at nothing to destroy Israel. Human rights abuses?

Israel has never not recognised their right to exist quite contrary to Hamas as stated so many times previously

So, you're saying we should frame the sentence thus : "That's what you get for fighting against zionist race hooligans with massive amounts of firepower and all of Palestine under its control."?

Yes I'm saying name calling is always the answer, don't quote half of my response from above without the rest. Have a real argument. There is no comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany.

So countries not involved in WW2 have no right to denounce the holocaust? That's not what you're trying to say, I hope.

Not at all. The argument from page one clearly says:

“The government continues in its hypocritical role ... It fails to acknowledge that Israel acted in response to completely unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians,” said federation spokesperson Avrom Krengel.

“They also ignore the carnage and bloodshed in other areas of the world."

Which I was agreeing with. It would make sense for a government to speak out about some issues more then others, or from a position of bias, if they were involved in some way. But the fact is S.Africa is not involved in any way and therefore its unbalanced and biased comments are questionable.

 

[Xarog]

Hamas has categorically refused to recognise Israel from the day of their inception. Its hard to negotiate with someone who denies your right to existence. They offered a Hudna on condition Israel withdraw to the pre 1967 borders, it was more a threat of attack if Israel didn't agree. You cant tell me they really thought Israel would just surrender half their land even though Hamas still refused to recognise them. "...the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel." Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi

Well, to be honest I don't recognise the right of any theocracy to exist, so I can't really fault Hamas for their conclusion even if I disagree with their reasons.

But that's entirely besides the point. A hudna is in effect a cease-fire or a truce, and it would pretty much have been a landmark event had it occured. Does recognition of Israel really matter if Hamas isn't doing anything to attack Israel?

Kind of contradict yourself above with below don't you think?

Not really. I didn't say Hamas didn't intend to fire rockets at Israel proper (with the intent of killing people), I just questioned how the hell anyone, even Hamas, could guess beforehand what the hell they were going to hit.

Israel, on the other hand, claims to be targetting terrorists, and they also have precision munitions which they can aim to the point of having an excellent idea of where they're going to hit.

I'd love moreinfo on this, from a reputable source if you will

Define reputable.

Oh please this argument is more flawed then any you've posted yet. Go read your history books. Not those written by some propagandist either. Most Palestinians are actually Jordanian,

Yes, we know they're human beings.

the surrounding arab nations have treated them as badly if not worse then Israel.

So because the other guys are bliksems, we can be bliksems too? Kinda sounds like the justification for the mistreatment the San got...

They all turned their backs on them and left Israel to work out what to do with them. Israel offered (begged) the Gaza strip to Egypt when they gave back the sinai peninsula and Egypt said "no way".

Relevance?

The Palestinians are used as bargaining chips and pawns by the rest of the Arab world who will stop at nothing to destroy Israel.

You mean like the peace treaty that was offered to Israel (along with recognition and granting Israel the right to exist) recently offered by the king of Saudi-Arabia, which was supported by the rest of the arab powers?

Israel has never not recognised their right to exist quite contrary to Hamas as stated so many times previously

Ok, so as long as we say we recognise their right to exist, we can do whatever we like? If Israel recognised the Palestinian's right to exist, they wouldn't be commiting warcimes against them.

“The government continues in its hypocritical role ... It fails to acknowledge that Israel acted in response to completely unprovoked attacks on innocent civilians,” said federation spokesperson Avrom Krengel.

“They also ignore the carnage and bloodshed in other areas of the world."

Which I was agreeing with. It would make sense for a government to speak out about some issues more then others, or from a position of bias, if they were involved in some way. But the fact is S.Africa is not involved in any way and therefore its unbalanced and biased comments are questionable.

I suppose we're just supposed to take Israel at its word that the people who died were related somehow to the recent rocket attacks, right?

So far as I can see, S.A's comments with regard to this incedent is not biased. Feel free to try and prove otherwise, though.

 

[SuperAntMD]

This is going to go backwards and forwards forever and we both know it. I would just like to clarify one of my points above and leave it at that, feel free to comment.

Israel is in a very difficult and intricate position with regards to the Palestinians. I don't think anyone would dispute that. They were put in this position (for the most part) by the surrounding nations who like Israel refused to let the Palestinians into their countries after 1948, even though many of them had been living in these countries up until that point on a semi-permanent basis. They are now effectively a refugee nation without a place to live. This is not particularly different to many Jews post WW2, and therefore equally so, it can be argued that they too should be given an autonomous homeland like the Jews received Israel.

It is worth pointing out at this point that, that is exactly what was proposed in 1948, before all this started and all the Arab parties concerned categorically said no. But what was was so lets forget about it.

It is probably true (although very hard to substantiate) that Israel would be willing to offer a 2 state solution, as they have in the past, if the Palestinians stop demanding Jerusalem as part of the deal. This demand is ridiculous from many perspectives and blatantly apparent to everyone as something that will never be agreed to.

Without concession on the above issue the status quo will remain. Radical militants will continue to murder Israelis and Israel will respond with a full show of force. Followed by a round of finger pointing.

Until the peace talks with Arafat broke down and the second intifadah began Palestinians and Israelis had a tentative peace many Palestinians worked in Israel and Israel was itself giving huge amounts of aid, financial medical or otherwise to the Palestinians, despite the media shying away from this fact and the obvious decline in recent years.

There will always be antagonists to peace on both sides, but the fact that Hamas, and before them the PLO are the democratically elected leaders of the Palestinians is very telling. They teach hatred, and raise generation after generation of suicide bombers with the sole aim in life of destroying Israel. You can not say that Hamas and by extension the Palestinians are committed to a true and lasting peace with Israel if they in fact deny its right to exist.

This makes it very hard for Israel to establish a "second state" for the Palestinians as they are saying that they will continue to fight Israel after its inception.

 

[Xarog]

It is probably true (although very hard to substantiate) that Israel would be willing to offer a 2 state solution, as they have in the past, if the Palestinians stop demanding Jerusalem as part of the deal. This demand is ridiculous from many perspectives and blatantly apparent to everyone as something that will never be agreed to.

Jerusalem is a holy place to 3 religions. Maybe it would be better to turn Jerusalem into an independent state somewhat like the vatican all on its own - one which caters to the needs of all the three religions which considers it holy.

That's probably a pipe dream; but the point I'm trying to make is that Jews want Jerusalem because of its religious heritage. It's not fair to then deny the same desire of the Palestinian Muslims when it mirrors the Jewish one.

But I honestly doubt that Israel would ever willingly accept the 2 state solution without severe external pressure. There are far too many that dream of 'Greater Israel' within the Israeli power structure.

There will always be antagonists to peace on both sides, but the fact that Hamas, and before them the PLO are the democratically elected leaders of the Palestinians is very telling. They teach hatred, and raise generation after generation of suicide bombers with the sole aim in life of destroying Israel. You can not say that Hamas and by extension the Palestinians are committed to a true and lasting peace with Israel if they in fact deny its right to exist.

Hamas was not elected because the Palestinians are a group of irrational hating people. They were elected because they were the only ones doing something to resist the inequities which Israel was creating.

As I have already said, I deny the Israeli state's right to exist. It shouldn't exist, just like the Apartheid state that used to be in control of South Africa should never have existed. But that doesn't mean I'm about to strap some home-made explosives to my chest and try to blow up a few Israelis. Similarly, if Hamas offers an honest truce, whether or not they recognise Israel's right to exist is largely irrelevant in terms of making peace.

This makes it very hard for Israel to establish a "second state" for the Palestinians as they are saying that they will continue to fight Israel after its inception.

But then why does it sabotage and ignore moves towards peace? As I said, Hamas was willing to extend a hudna which is an unprecedented event. The Arab League has also offered Israel a peace treaty in which its right to exist is recognised - so why does it ignore these things?

I think the truth is that Israel needs conflict. It cannot justify its huge military budget and its conscription policies without some serious threat to its existence. By now such a threat has been embedded into the Israeli national conciousness. If peace was on the horizon, it would have to contemplate giving back the occupied territories, which is anathema to anyone who believes that those territories should be part of Greater Israel.