Israel Plunges Gaza Into Darkness

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

link

The top three wealthiest senators are Democrats: John Kerry of Massachusetts, with a net worth of at least $164 million.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the news with the release of her memoir, reported a net worth ranging from $352,000 to $3.8 million.

wonder if that includes bill?

link2

According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million

I wonder if anyone here has, or personally knows anyone with that level of wealth...

not i. but given your earlier statement, george having less money makes him closer to the people than kerry

Same point though - the people in power are wholly unrepresentative of the experience of most Americans.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Same point though - the people in power are wholly unrepresentative of the experience of most Americans.

ergo, everyone should be able to marry a rich, ugly heiress

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Same point though - the people in power are wholly unrepresentative of the experience of most Americans.

ergo, everyone should be able to marry a rich, ugly heiress

And pass laws favouring the interests of their friends and colleagues.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That's the American dream, boys.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That's the American dream, boys.

Apparently.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

wife_of_mahmoud,

Do you remember what sparked the second Intifada in September 2000?

It is widely claimed that it was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (aka "Haram

al-Sharif") in Jerusalem. Provocative as it was, it was hardly justification for the

campaign of terror against Israelis that was subsequently unleashed by the

Palestinians.

I'm sure you're going to say that the Intifada was justified as a reaction to

worsening conditions in Palestine during the years of peace negotiations.

True as it may be, you can't deny that things were much better then for the average

Mohammed, Khaled and Ali.

If you're going to defend the Palestinian overreaction to Sharon's visit in 2000,

you should also be able to understand that Israel's overreaction to the recent

events was hardly unprovoked.

When the people of Palestine collectively vote in favour of a group that is openly

hostile to Israel, they are asking for collective punishment. You want to play

hardball and vote for a terrorist group hell-bent on Israel's destruction? Fine -- but

don't be surprised when access to water and food is sealed off and electricity is shut

down. Collective action begets collective punishment.

Hmmmmmm. They "deserve" collective punishment, eh ?

Apparently you didn't give that statement quite enough thought before you hit the "add reply" button.

Because if you follow the line of your own bizarre logic, then you would also be saying that Palestinians have the "right" to "punish" any and all Israeli citizens simply because they "collectively" elected a war criminal like Ariel Sharon, who dedicated his life to the destruction of the Palestinian people.

Just for the record, let us review a few of Sharon's own statements.

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."

-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

and:

"Everyone there should move, should run, should grab more hills, expand the territory. Everything that's grabbed, will be in our hands. Everything we don't grab will be in their hands."

-- Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of the Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, Nov. 15, 1998.

Anyway, despite all your attempts to put lipstick on the pig, collective punishment is still a war crime. At least according to the Geneva Convention.

Oh wait. I forgot. The Zionists think the Geneva Convention somehow doesn't apply when it comes to Israel's actions.

"Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial."

-- Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001 quoted in BBC News Online

[mawilson 2,133]

Because if you follow the line of your own bizarre logic, then you would also be saying that Palestinians have the "right" to "punish" any and all Israeli citizens simply because they "collectively" elected a war criminal like Ariel Sharon, who dedicated his life to the destruction of the Palestinian people.

I never said that Israel had the "right" to punish the Palestinians, no more than the

Palestinians have the right to punish the Israelis, but that's just the way things are.

Doesn't Hamas kill civilians precisely because they think that "no-one is innocent"?

Palestinian suicide bombers affect all Israelis collectively -- every time they enter a

shopping mall, a bus station or a restaurant; every single day they have to live with

the possibility of being randomly targeted for punishment. What does your Geneva

Convention say about that?

But more to the point, why did the Palestinians have to punish the citizens of Israel

for electing Ehud Barak, a man who had done them no wrong? Sharon was elected

in the wake of the terrible intifada that started in 2000 when Barak was still Prime

Minister. And for what? Even if Barak's offer wasn't entirely acceptable, it was

undeniably a good start, and certainly the best offer any Israeli Prime Minister had

ever made (or could ever make, politically speaking.)

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Because if you follow the line of your own bizarre logic, then you would also be saying that Palestinians have the "right" to "punish" any and all Israeli citizens simply because they "collectively" elected a war criminal like Ariel Sharon, who dedicated his life to the destruction of the Palestinian people.

I never said that Israel had the "right" to punish the Palestinians, no more than the

Palestinians have the right to punish the Israelis, but that's just the way things are.

Doesn't Hamas kill civilians precisely because they think that "no-one is innocent"?

Palestinian suicide bombers affect all Israelis collectively -- every time they enter a

shopping mall, a bus station or a restaurant; every single day they have to live with

the possibility of being randomly targeted for punishment. What does your Geneva

Convention say about that?

But more to the point, why did the Palestinians have to punish the citizens of Israel

for electing Ehud Barak, a man who had done them no wrong? Sharon was elected

in the wake of the terrible intifada that started in 2000 when Barak was still Prime

Minister. And for what? Even if Barak's offer wasn't entirely acceptable, it was

undeniably a good start, and certainly the best offer any Israeli Prime Minister had

ever made (or could ever make, politically speaking.)

LOL. You said:

When the people of Palestine collectively vote in favour of a group that is openly

hostile to Israel, they are asking for collective punishment. You want to play

hardball and vote for a terrorist group hell-bent on Israel's destruction? Fine -- but

don't be surprised when access to water and food is sealed off and electricity is shut

down. Collective action begets collective punishment.

So you are clearly saying here that Palestinians "asked" for it, insinuating that Israel's response is to be expected and is reasonable. But now you kind of tone it down after I point out how the shoe is also on the other foot.

Hmmmm. Decide which side of the fence you're on -- either collective punishment is right/acceptible no matter whether its directed at Israeli or Palestinian civilians, or it must be condemned as wrong/unacceptible for both sides.

But at least you've sort of tacitly admitted now that the actions of the Israeli state to "collectively punish" are not really different in principle from the actions of Palestinian "terrorist groups," and that neither has the "right" to do so. Now we're getting somewhere.

And you really need to admit that the number of innocent Israeli victims of Palestinian terror attacks are far fewer than the number of innocent Palestinian victims of Israeli state terror.

It's a completely illogical situation -- a much bigger, stronger, more organized terrorist aggresses against a much weaker people. Some of them start to retaliate, although in much smaller, weaker, less organized terror attacks. Meanwhile, the aggressor unabashedly continues to claim to the international community that it is actually the victim. The Zionists are apparently criminally insane. What's even more disturbing, many people in the U.S. who would characterize themselves as Christians, and knowing so very little about the facts of the conflict, enthusiastically cheer them on.

Now for Ehud Barak. I wouldn't exactly call him "a man who had done Palestinians no wrong."

Under Barak's leadership, the illegal settlement activity (to which even U.S. foreign policy officially continues to object) proceeded at an extraordinary pace -- even faster than during Netanyahu's tenure, with over 22,000 more settlers. This was done, as Barak admitted in an interview with Benny Morris, in order to "mollify the Israeli right which he needed quiescent as he pushed forward toward peace."

Also, under Barak's premiership, Israel began the policy of extra-judicial assassinations (what Israel terms "targeted killings") against accused terrorist organizers, accused bomb-makers, and what Israel calls "potential attackers." Hmmm. This policy is rather convenient for "democratic" Israel -- it makes the annoyance of actually have to prove one's allegations in a court of law totally unnecessary. Also, a state policy of perpetrating extrajudicial executions (without arrest or trial) in a country that doesn't even have the death penalty under its own statutes is an abrogation of democracy in itself.

Ehud was a bit better at watching his mouth than other Israeli leaders. But he still had a few slips of the tongue that offer an insight to his attitudes. He characterized Palestinian refugees as "salmons," opining that their desire to return to their land should somehow fade away in the 80 years or so of Zionist occupation. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think ? At least if you accept the idea that the Jewish people's similar yearnings never faded and never lost their legitimacy, even after two thousand years.

Barak also denounced the idea that Israel should be a "state for all its citizens," defending its character as a "Jewish state." I guess he momentarily forgot the fact that Israel still has a sizeable minority of Arab citizens (both Muslim and Christian) -- the remaining fragment of the original Palestinian residents that managed to escape being massacred or driven out by the Zionist invasion -- and which now make up nearly 20 % of Israel's population.

Most disturbing (and telling) of all is his racist description of Arabs:

They are products of a culture in which to tell a lie...creates no dissonance. They don't suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judeo-Christian culture. Truth is seen as an irrelevant category. There is only that which serves your purpose and that which doesn't. They see themselves as emissaries of a national movement for whom everything is permissible. There is no such thing as "the truth."

This is a pretty prejudiced characterization of an entire people, do you not agree ?

Barak also discussed an alternative way of "cleansing" Israel of its Arab citizens. He said that in any future agreement with the Palestinians, Israel might make a condition that some areas of Israel which currently contain large Arab concentrations (such as the "Little Triangle" and Umm al-Fahm bordering on the West Bank) might be transferred to a new Palestinian Arab state, along with their inhabitants. Israel could then characterize its annexation of the illegal settlement blocs in the West Bank as a "trade." However, he knew better than to talk about it in an official capacity:

But this could only be done by agreement—and I don't recommend that government spokesmen speak of it [openly]. But such an exchange makes demographic sense and is not inconceivable.

So it's difficult to take your assessment seriously that Barak was "a man who had done them no wrong."

As far as specifics on Barak's ultimatum at Camp David, I believe that we have already had this discussion and I have pointed out the not-so-nice facts about this so-called "generous offer," and the obvious reasons that it was declined by Yasser Arafat.

I will address your question about the beginning of the 2nd Intifada next.

We have gone considerably off-topic from the issue of the Gaza invasion, although I certainly would agree that all the historical aspects of what has happened should be taken into consideration as part of the "big picture," rather than looking at each event as occurring in a vacuum.

[mawilson 2,133]

So you are clearly saying here that Palestinians "asked" for it, insinuating that Israel's response is to be expected and is reasonable. But now you kind of tone it down after I point out how the shoe is also on the other foot.

Of course Israel's response was to be expected -- you have to be an idiot to believe that

you can capture an Israeli soldier and get away with it! Whether the invasion was justified

or "reasonable" is another story. Knowing the history of the conflict, it would be unreasonable

not to expect collective punishment in response to the actions of terrorist groups which

affect the Israeli society (and economy!) as a whole (or at least in places such as Sderot or

Ashkelon.)

My point was that you can't justify the actions of one side (suicide bombers, crude rockets)

as valid forms of resistance and at the same decry the actions of the other side as "collective

punishment".

Thanks for your explanation though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So you are clearly saying here that Palestinians "asked" for it, insinuating that Israel's response is to be expected and is reasonable. But now you kind of tone it down after I point out how the shoe is also on the other foot.

Of course Israel's response was to be expected -- you have to be an idiot to believe that

you can capture an Israeli soldier and get away with it! Whether the invasion was justified

or "reasonable" is another story. Knowing the history of the conflict, it would be unreasonable

not to expect collective punishment in response to the actions of terrorist groups which

affect the Israeli society (and economy!) as a whole (or at least in places such as Sderot or

Ashkelon.)

My point was that you can't justify the actions of one side (suicide bombers, crude rockets)

as valid forms of resistance and at the same decry the actions of the other side as "collective

punishment".

Thanks for your explanation though.

As I see it, the problem is still the fact that militant groups and individuals do not necessarily act with the knowledge and blessing of the Palestinian authorities. Terrorism and violence through lawlessness is not the same as reciprocal violence and repression carried out by an organised military with the tacit permission of its democratically elected government (and therefore from its people).

From today's news.

UN agencies including the World Health Organization, Unicef and the World Food Programme said Gaza was on the brink of a public health disaster.

They said there were water shortages and the situation at the sewage plants was now critical.

The WHO said hospitals and health centres - which are having to use their own generators for electricity - have at most two weeks' supply of fuel.

This is completely inhumane.

Annan warning on Gaza 'disaster'

Edited July 9, 2006 by Fishdude

[MandR 0]

A

Edited July 10, 2006 by MandR

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

A

Oh

[mawilson 2,133]

As I see it, the problem is still the fact that militant groups and individuals do not necessarily act with the knowledge and blessing of the Palestinian authorities. Terrorism and violence through lawlessness is not the same as reciprocal violence and repression carried out by an organised military with the tacit permission of its democratically elected government (and therefore from its people).

A 2-mile long tunnel is not something a bunch of lawless street thugs could have built

without the knowledge, blessing and financial support of the Palestinian authorities.

Gaza Attack

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I see it, the problem is still the fact that militant groups and individuals do not necessarily act with the knowledge and blessing of the Palestinian authorities. Terrorism and violence through lawlessness is not the same as reciprocal violence and repression carried out by an organised military with the tacit permission of its democratically elected government (and therefore from its people).

A 2-mile long tunnel is not something a bunch of lawless street thugs could have built

without the knowledge, blessing and financial support of the Palestinian authorities.

Gaza Attack

Still no justification for depriving a major metropolitan center of power and other essential services.

[slim 1,525]

Still no justification for depriving a major metropolitan center of power and other essential services.

Remember, there is still 1 Israeli soldier in there somewhere!