Israeli elections: with left-of-center Zionist Union pulling ahead in polls, is a new chance at Palestinian peace coming?

[Loren Pechtel]

You still can't tell the difference between terrorism (aimed at civilians) and insurgents (aimed at the government.)

I am challenging your claim that "The truly oppressed don't engage in terrorism, they don't have the ability to do so." I believe the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto thoroughly disprove that assertion, and I believe if you apply one single standard to determining who is oppressed you will eventually come to the same conclusion. It's not something you can determine by counting the number of Molotov cocktails and grenades they have on hand. It is determined by the treatment they receive at the hands of those who wield power over them.

The Jews of the ghetto attacked the Nazis. Insurgent, not terrorist.

Insurgents can attack from the shadows, the difference is the targets.

 

[Arctish]

I am challenging your claim that "The truly oppressed don't engage in terrorism, they don't have the ability to do so." I believe the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto thoroughly disprove that assertion, and I believe if you apply one single standard to determining who is oppressed you will eventually come to the same conclusion. It's not something you can determine by counting the number of Molotov cocktails and grenades they have on hand. It is determined by the treatment they receive at the hands of those who wield power over them.

The Jews of the ghetto attacked the Nazis. Insurgent, not terrorist.

So Palestinians who attack Zionists and the IDF are insurgents. Good to know.

Insurgents can attack from the shadows, the difference is the targets.

You appear to be backing off from the claim that the truly oppressed don't have the ability to engage in terrorism. Are you?

I'm not asking because I want to score some stupid rhetorical point. I'm asking because claims like these have a way of coming back to haunt discussions. Has this claim been discarded, or can we expect to see it again later?

 

[angelo]

People are dangerous when you oppress them.

You can't oppress for decades and then cry about how dangerous you have made your victims.

The thing I find so sorry here is that Loren is attempting to reify his idea of what Palestinians are like in order to be able to close his eyes to the inhuman treatment the Israelis have visited upon them. If he can convince himself that they all are evil and devoted to the destruction of Israelis, then whatever happens to them need not be a concern of his. His position is anti-humanist. Thus he equates being Palestinian with not being eligible for any human consideration. This is the method and perhaps the ailment of the warmonger. He just can't fathom the idea that some people are human and should have human rights. He tells us how the Palestinians hate the Israelis. He can't prove that because it is not even true overall. It can be true in cases where Israeli soldiers did harm to family members, but there are 1.5 million of them in Gaza who don't have safe water to drink. Who did this? The Israelis.

If he can convince himself and others that a Palestinian child is the equivalent of a baby rattlesnake, then he can ignore killing women and children and denying them access to the things children need in order to mature into healthy adults. There is hate in Palestine and the vast majority of hateful acts are being performed by the Israelis. So when you think of hate, can you envision enough hatred to unleash white phosphorus on children in a U.N. school? I would call that a pretty high level of hate burning in some Israeli breast.

This is utter bullshit and you know it, or if you don't know it then open your fucking eyes and see for yourself. Gaza and the so called Palestinians get billions of dollars in aid to fix things like water supplies ect. The aid is spent in building tunnels and buying rockets and on Hamas terrorists themselves. Another war crime committed by Hamas in misdirecting aid money. If your country was under attack you would expect that the nations defence forces defend it. That's exactly what IDF is doing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Jews of the ghetto attacked the Nazis. Insurgent, not terrorist.

So Palestinians who attack Zionists and the IDF are insurgents. Good to know.

You're still being willfully blind here.

The Palestinians only attack the IDF when the IDF invades. Otherwise their attacks are almost all aimed at civilians.

Insurgents can attack from the shadows, the difference is the targets.

You appear to be backing off from the claim that the truly oppressed don't have the ability to engage in terrorism. Are you?

I'm not asking because I want to score some stupid rhetorical point. I'm asking because claims like these have a way of coming back to haunt discussions. Has this claim been discarded, or can we expect to see it again later?

It's a totally different situation--the Warsaw ghetto wasn't a truly oppressed population. They were a population subject to an attack with the intent of genocide--which they resisted to the best of their ability.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is utter bullshit and you know it, or if you don't know it then open your fucking eyes and see for yourself. Gaza and the so called Palestinians get billions of dollars in aid to fix things like water supplies ect. The aid is spent in building tunnels and buying rockets and on Hamas terrorists themselves. Another war crime committed by Hamas in misdirecting aid money. If your country was under attack you would expect that the nations defence forces defend it. That's exactly what IDF is doing.

Or look at how they claim that Israel is keeping people from rebuilding--by showing that nobody has rebuilt. (Which is false--some Hamas people have rebuilt.) They claim this is evidence Israel isn't allowing in the supplies but the NGOs have brought in a lot of stuff. It's just their tracking is to the homeowner with a damaged home, not to the actual use of the material. The homeowner buys it and turns around and sells it to Hamas.

 

[Arctish]

So Palestinians who attack Zionists and the IDF are insurgents. Good to know.

You're still being willfully blind here.

The Palestinians only attack the IDF when the IDF invades. Otherwise their attacks are almost all aimed at civilians.

Their attacks are aimed at Israelis, which makes sense since Israelis are the ones who oppress them. Some of those attacks are acts of terrorism, but some are not. There is a difference, and it has nothing to do with who is attacking whom.

Terrorism is a tactic. People who employ that tactic are called terrorists. For example, kidnapping and murdering teenagers in order to instill fear in a population is terrorism, and the ones who do that are terrorists. It makes no difference if they are Jews or Muslims or Christians. Anyone who kidnaps and murders a teenager for the purpose of terrorizing others is a terrorist.

Insurgents can attack from the shadows, the difference is the targets.

You appear to be backing off from the claim that the truly oppressed don't have the ability to engage in terrorism. Are you?

I'm not asking because I want to score some stupid rhetorical point. I'm asking because claims like these have a way of coming back to haunt discussions. Has this claim been discarded, or can we expect to see it again later?

It's a totally different situation--the Warsaw ghetto wasn't a truly oppressed population. They were a population subject to an attack with the intent of genocide--which they resisted to the best of their ability.

So you really are saying that the Polish Jews forced out of their homes and into the Warsaw Ghetto weren't truly oppressed. That's a very eccentric opinion. Most people believe the very act of forcibly relocating them into a walled-off slum where they suffered from disease and deprivation was oppression. It certainly meets the definition of oppression.

I think you might be trying to pull a Cheney, here. That's where you take a word with a well known definition and insist it means something else to you, so you can avoid calling it what everyone else calls it. For Cheney that word is torture. For you that word appears to be oppression. You want that word to mean something else so you can deny it applies to the Palestinians living under the Occupation, enduring the loss of their homes, land, and resources, and the on-going violation of their human rights.

Good luck convincing people Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto weren't truly oppressed. I think you're running the risk of being called a Holocaust denier, but whatever.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're still being willfully blind here.

The Palestinians only attack the IDF when the IDF invades. Otherwise their attacks are almost all aimed at civilians.

Their attacks are aimed at Israelis, which makes sense since Israelis are the ones who oppress them. Some of those attacks are acts of terrorism, but some are not. There is a difference, and it has nothing to do with who is attacking whom.

So you can't tell a civilian from a soldier? Then you shouldn't object to Israel killing civilians when it shoots at Hamas.

Terrorism is a tactic. People who employ that tactic are called terrorists. For example, kidnapping and murdering teenagers in order to instill fear in a population is terrorism, and the ones who do that are terrorists. It makes no difference if they are Jews or Muslims or Christians. Anyone who kidnaps and murders a teenager for the purpose of terrorizing others is a terrorist.

And note which side did that: Hamas.

So you really are saying that the Polish Jews forced out of their homes and into the Warsaw Ghetto weren't truly oppressed. That's a very eccentric opinion. Most people believe the very act of forcibly relocating them into a walled-off slum where they suffered from disease and deprivation was oppression. It certainly meets the definition of oppression.

The issue is the timeframe. The Nazis hadn't had enough time to crush them to the point they couldn't offer substantial resistance.

 

[Arctish]

Their attacks are aimed at Israelis, which makes sense since Israelis are the ones who oppress them. Some of those attacks are acts of terrorism, but some are not. There is a difference, and it has nothing to do with who is attacking whom.

So you can't tell a civilian from a soldier?

Not always. Mosssad agents don't wear uniforms. Militant Zionists look like non-militant Zionists. IDF, Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah infiltrators dress like the locals. But if you see someone destroying your house, your well, and your orchard, fighting them is justified no matter if they're wearing BDUs or Carhartts.

OTOH, if you see someone walking along the side of the road and you decide to attack them because you want to instill fear in a group of people, that's terrorism regardless of what your intended victim is wearing.

Then you shouldn't object to Israel killing civilians when it shoots at Hamas.

I object to Israelis needlessly killing civilians regardless who they say they are shooting at. Shelling a beach where kids are playing is gratuitous violence and a war crime. I do not accept the excuse that 10 year olds playing soccer out in the open are a legitimate target because Hamas might have something to do with it.

Terrorism is a tactic. People who employ that tactic are called terrorists. For example, kidnapping and murdering teenagers in order to instill fear in a population is terrorism, and the ones who do that are terrorists. It makes no difference if they are Jews or Muslims or Christians. Anyone who kidnaps and murders a teenager for the purpose of terrorizing others is a terrorist.

And note which side did that: Hamas.

And note which side kidnapped an even younger boy and burned him alive: militant Zionist Israelis.

The people who kidnapped and murdered the four yeshiva students were terrorists. The people who kidnapped and murdered Mohammed Abu Khdeir were terrorists. It is the act of terrorism that makes them terrorists, not their ethnicity or nationality or religious affiliations.

Terrorism is a tactic. The use of that tactic is what makes a terrorist a terrorist.

So you really are saying that the Polish Jews forced out of their homes and into the Warsaw Ghetto weren't truly oppressed. That's a very eccentric opinion. Most people believe the very act of forcibly relocating them into a walled-off slum where they suffered from disease and deprivation was oppression. It certainly meets the definition of oppression.

The issue is the timeframe. The Nazis hadn't had enough time to crush them to the point they couldn't offer substantial resistance.

So now you're saying the timeframe is what determines whether or not people are truly oppressed? People can't be truly oppressed if it's just been a couple of years between the loss of liberty and the loss of everything else? Well, the Occupation has been going on for 50 years. How's that for a timeframe?

 

[angelo]

What occupation would that be. There are millions of Arabs living in Israel, aaren't they also occupying.

 

[Ford]

What occupation would that be..

That's right. I forgot that there are some people who believe that there's no such thing as occupied territory. It is just barren land that hasn't been settled by Israelis yet.

Gaza, the West Bank, and half of Jerusalem were just sitting around with nobody living there until those dirty Arabs decided to move in and deny the Israelis their rightful territory given to them by God.

 

[Arctish]

What occupation would that be..

That's right. I forgot that there are some people who believe that there's no such thing as occupied territory. It is just barren land that hasn't been settled by Israelis yet.

Gaza, the West Bank, and half of Jerusalem were just sitting around with nobody living there until those dirty Arabs decided to move in and deny the Israelis their rightful territory given to them by God.

And don't forget all those "occupied" bathrooms inside the 1967 borders. It's an outrage!

 

[Arctish]

nm

 

[angelo]

Who was it that knocked back a chance for a Palestinian state at Camp David? Wasn't it the terrorist Arafat that walked away from negotiations after the Israelis agreed to 90% of Palestinian demands?

 

[Arctish]

Who was it that knocked back a chance for a Palestinian state at Camp David?

Ehud Barak, with help from Bill Clinton. They both put a permanent end to the transfer of land to the PA under the Oslo Accords when they attempted to replace that agreement with a different one.

Wasn't it the terrorist Arafat that walked away from negotiations after the Israelis agreed to 90% of Palestinian demands?

I'd like to see you document the claim that Barak agreed to 90% of the Palestinians' demands but it should probably go in a separate thread. Right now we are discussing the Occupation, the definition of the term "terrorist", whether Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were truly oppressed, and the chances for a peace deal given the results of the most recent election in Israel.

BTW, what do you think of Loren's attempt to belittle the oppression of Jews in WWII Poland?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So you can't tell a civilian from a soldier?

Not always. Mosssad agents don't wear uniforms. Militant Zionists look like non-militant Zionists. IDF, Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah infiltrators dress like the locals. But if you see someone destroying your house, your well, and your orchard, fighting them is justified no matter if they're wearing BDUs or Carhartts.

If you were talking about attacks on people doing those things you would have a case.

OTOH, if you see someone walking along the side of the road and you decide to attack them because you want to instill fear in a group of people, that's terrorism regardless of what your intended victim is wearing.

Or when you lob a rocket onto that street.

Note that you're describing Hamas, not the IDF.

Then you shouldn't object to Israel killing civilians when it shoots at Hamas.

I object to Israelis needlessly killing civilians regardless who they say they are shooting at. Shelling a beach where kids are playing is gratuitous violence and a war crime. I do not accept the excuse that 10 year olds playing soccer out in the open are a legitimate target because Hamas might have something to do with it.

You don't get it about human shields. Hamas likes to have kids around their operations.

And note which side kidnapped an even younger boy and burned him alive: militant Zionist Israelis.

And note that Israel is punishing them. Hamas rewards the people that kill Israeli kids.

 

[Arctish]

Not always. Mosssad agents don't wear uniforms. Militant Zionists look like non-militant Zionists. IDF, Hamas, Fatah, and Hezbollah infiltrators dress like the locals. But if you see someone destroying your house, your well, and your orchard, fighting them is justified no matter if they're wearing BDUs or Carhartts.

If you were talking about attacks on people doing those things you would have a case.

OTOH, if you see someone walking along the side of the road and you decide to attack them because you want to instill fear in a group of people, that's terrorism regardless of what your intended victim is wearing.

Or when you lob a rocket onto that street.

Note that you're describing Hamas, not the IDF.

I note that you are dodging the point. Terrorism is a tactic. People who employ that tactic are terrorists. Their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs, choice of mates and preferred internet service provider doesn't matter. They are terrorists regardless of where they live, which gods they pray to, how strongly they feel they have been wronged, or even if they feel they have been wronged.

Then you shouldn't object to Israel killing civilians when it shoots at Hamas.

I object to Israelis needlessly killing civilians regardless who they say they are shooting at. Shelling a beach where kids are playing is gratuitous violence and a war crime. I do not accept the excuse that 10 year olds playing soccer out in the open are a legitimate target because Hamas might have something to do with it.

You don't get it about human shields. Hamas likes to have kids around their operations.

You don't get it about human rights. You don't understand that kids playing on a beach don't have to die just because they are living in Gaza. I think you might get a glimmer of a clue if those kids had been Jews and Hamas blew them up, but I'm not sure. You don't think Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were truly oppressed, so perhaps you don't think Jewish 10 year olds playing soccer are truly innocents, or that dropping artillery shells on them when they're the only ones on that part of the beach is truly unnecessary.

And note which side kidnapped an even younger boy and burned him alive: militant Zionist Israelis.

And note that Israel is punishing them. Hamas rewards the people that kill Israeli kids.

I note that you continue to dodge the point. The people who murdered Mohammed Abu Khdair are terrorists. We know this because they employed the hallmark of a terrorist: the tactic known as terrorism. Refusing to acknowledge that point doesn't invalidate it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you were talking about attacks on people doing those things you would have a case.

OTOH, if you see someone walking along the side of the road and you decide to attack them because you want to instill fear in a group of people, that's terrorism regardless of what your intended victim is wearing.

Or when you lob a rocket onto that street.

Note that you're describing Hamas, not the IDF.

I note that you are dodging the point. Terrorism is a tactic. People who employ that tactic are terrorists. Their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs, choice of mates and preferred internet service provider doesn't matter. They are terrorists regardless of where they live, which gods they pray to, how strongly they feel they have been wronged, or even if they feel they have been wronged.

And you're missing the fact that it's almost always Hamas engaging in such tactics, not Israel.

You don't get it about human rights. You don't understand that kids playing on a beach don't have to die just because they are living in Gaza. I think you might get a glimmer of a clue if those kids had been Jews and Hamas blew them up, but I'm not sure. You don't think Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were truly oppressed, so perhaps you don't think Jewish 10 year olds playing soccer are truly innocents, or that dropping artillery shells on them when they're the only ones on that part of the beach is truly unnecessary.

You don't get it about war. Sometimes innocents die.

And note which side kidnapped an even younger boy and burned him alive: militant Zionist Israelis.

And note that Israel is punishing them. Hamas rewards the people that kill Israeli kids.

I note that you continue to dodge the point. The people who murdered Mohammed Abu Khdair are terrorists. We know this because they employed the hallmark of a terrorist: the tactic known as terrorism. Refusing to acknowledge that point doesn't invalidate it.

You found one example by a few Israelis, not by the government. You're turning a blind eye to thousands of examples by the Palestinian government.

 

[Arctish]

If you were talking about attacks on people doing those things you would have a case.

OTOH, if you see someone walking along the side of the road and you decide to attack them because you want to instill fear in a group of people, that's terrorism regardless of what your intended victim is wearing.

Or when you lob a rocket onto that street.

Note that you're describing Hamas, not the IDF.

I note that you are dodging the point. Terrorism is a tactic. People who employ that tactic are terrorists. Their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs, choice of mates and preferred internet service provider doesn't matter. They are terrorists regardless of where they live, which gods they pray to, how strongly they feel they have been wronged, or even if they feel they have been wronged.

And you're missing the fact that it's almost always Hamas engaging in such tactics, not Israel.

You don't get it about human rights. You don't understand that kids playing on a beach don't have to die just because they are living in Gaza. I think you might get a glimmer of a clue if those kids had been Jews and Hamas blew them up, but I'm not sure. You don't think Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were truly oppressed, so perhaps you don't think Jewish 10 year olds playing soccer are truly innocents, or that dropping artillery shells on them when they're the only ones on that part of the beach is truly unnecessary.

You don't get it about war. Sometimes innocents die.

And note which side kidnapped an even younger boy and burned him alive: militant Zionist Israelis.

And note that Israel is punishing them. Hamas rewards the people that kill Israeli kids.

I note that you continue to dodge the point. The people who murdered Mohammed Abu Khdair are terrorists. We know this because they employed the hallmark of a terrorist: the tactic known as terrorism. Refusing to acknowledge that point doesn't invalidate it.

You found one example by a few Israelis, not by the government. You're turning a blind eye to thousands of examples by the Palestinian government.

This is one of those points on which you and I should be in complete agreement, but it just never happens. Instead, all that happens is dodging and handwaving and attempts to change the subject.

Why is to so hard for you to call a terrorist a terrorist unless you can put him in the Palestinian camp? Why is it so hard for you to distinguish between Palestinians who use terrorism and those who don't?

If you were trying to make the case that the men who killed the yeshiva students were kidnappers who only committed murder when their plan fell apart rather than actual terrorists, it could be a valid argument if you properly supported it. If you were claiming the ones who kidnapped Mohammed Abu Khdeir were seeking simple revenge, not engaged in actual terrorism, that could also be a valid argument given the proper support. But you're not. You're just trying to change the subject before anyone starts to judge both Israelis and Palestinians by their actions, not by your words.

Oh, and you're also trying to justify the needless deaths of children playing soccer at the beach with an airy (and morally bankrupt) "Sometimes innocents die", while also denying Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were truly oppressed before they threw their last Molotov cocktail.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you were talking about attacks on people doing those things you would have a case.

OTOH, if you see someone walking along the side of the road and you decide to attack them because you want to instill fear in a group of people, that's terrorism regardless of what your intended victim is wearing.

Or when you lob a rocket onto that street.

Note that you're describing Hamas, not the IDF.

I note that you are dodging the point. Terrorism is a tactic. People who employ that tactic are terrorists. Their ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs, choice of mates and preferred internet service provider doesn't matter. They are terrorists regardless of where they live, which gods they pray to, how strongly they feel they have been wronged, or even if they feel they have been wronged.

And you're missing the fact that it's almost always Hamas engaging in such tactics, not Israel.

You don't get it about human rights. You don't understand that kids playing on a beach don't have to die just because they are living in Gaza. I think you might get a glimmer of a clue if those kids had been Jews and Hamas blew them up, but I'm not sure. You don't think Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were truly oppressed, so perhaps you don't think Jewish 10 year olds playing soccer are truly innocents, or that dropping artillery shells on them when they're the only ones on that part of the beach is truly unnecessary.

You don't get it about war. Sometimes innocents die.

And note which side kidnapped an even younger boy and burned him alive: militant Zionist Israelis.

And note that Israel is punishing them. Hamas rewards the people that kill Israeli kids.

I note that you continue to dodge the point. The people who murdered Mohammed Abu Khdair are terrorists. We know this because they employed the hallmark of a terrorist: the tactic known as terrorism. Refusing to acknowledge that point doesn't invalidate it.

You found one example by a few Israelis, not by the government. You're turning a blind eye to thousands of examples by the Palestinian government.

This is one of those points on which you and I should be in complete agreement, but it just never happens. Instead, all that happens is dodging and handwaving and attempts to change the subject.

Why is to so hard for you to call a terrorist a terrorist unless you can put him in the Palestinian camp? Why is it so hard for you to distinguish between Palestinians who use terrorism and those who don't?

If you were trying to make the case that the men who killed the yeshiva students were kidnappers who only committed murder when their plan fell apart rather than actual terrorists, it could be a valid argument if you properly supported it. If you were claiming the ones who kidnapped Mohammed Abu Khdeir were seeking simple revenge, not engaged in actual terrorism, that could also be a valid argument given the proper support. But you're not. You're just trying to change the subject before anyone starts to judge both Israelis and Palestinians by their actions, not by your words.

Oh, and you're also trying to justify the needless deaths of children playing soccer at the beach with an airy (and morally bankrupt) "Sometimes innocents die", while also denying Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were truly oppressed before they threw their last Molotov cocktail.

Where do you see me justifying the terrorism by those Israelis?

What I see is the acts of a few that were acting contrary to their government's wishes vs the acts of many acting with their government's wishes.

And you have no idea of the circumstances around those kids--you're simply assuming there was no possible reason without considering that there might be more going on than you saw.

 

[Arctish]

Where do you see me justifying the terrorism by those Israelis?

I didn't say you were.

Mostly you have been ignoring it.

What I see is the acts of a few that were acting contrary to their government's wishes vs the acts of many acting with their government's wishes.

What I see is an attempt to define terrorism in such a way that it can be used to justify the killing of any Palestinian, no matter how young, powerless, or innocent, while excluding all Israelis no matter how old, powerful, and guilty. I see you refusing to accept the common definition of terrorist, and ignoring the common "tells" of one, the moment you see it being applied to Zionists, not matter how well the definition suits them.

I've been seeing you do this for more than 10 years. Whenever a general statement is made about terrorists and terrorism, you are sure to point to Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO and fight like hell to keep the same statement from being applied to anyone who commits those same acts.

The definition of terrorism is one of those things where you and I should be able to agree, yet it never happens.

And you have no idea of the circumstances around those kids--you're simply assuming there was no possible reason without considering that there might be more going on than you saw.

You're reaching. There was nothing before, during, or after the shelling that indicated a need to kill those children. Nothing at all. Not even a bullshit propaganda blurb from the IDF explaining why it was necessary to fire just those few shells at just that one part of the beach, and nothing more.

You prefer to think that Hamas was to blame for the IDF killing 10 year olds playing on the beach. That doesn't make it so. The IDF officers in charge of that emplacement made the call to fire artillery rounds at those kids while they played soccer on an otherwise empty part of the beach, and no amount of finger pointing or crying "Hamas, Hamas!" takes that responsibility off them.