Brutal bastards in Israel military [Archive]

resisting arrest with violence

24th March 2005, 22:33

This is a while back of course. But it still sends a shudder through me. Noviolence is not the way to fight injustice.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/rachel_corrie.gif

http://www.melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/rachelafter.jpg

http://bbsnews.net/bbsnphotos/Israel-Palestine/rachel-corrie-flag-shrouded.jpg

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/corrie.html

http://www.usnewslink.com/rachelcorrie.htm

http://www.sectioaurea.com/magnificat/rachelcorrie.htm

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/rachelposter.html

Redmau5

24th March 2005, 22:51

The Israeli governement are scum. But according to some people, we shouldnt call them scum without calling calling every other country in the world scum as well. <_<

T_34

24th March 2005, 22:57

lol indeed

LSD

24th March 2005, 23:14

The Israeli governement are scum. But according to some people, we shouldnt call them scum without calling calling every other country in the world scum as well.

hmm.. I wonder who that's in reference to...

:P

For the record, I never said that you can't critisize the Israeli government, I do it often myself, I merely said that it is unfair to single out Israel or "Zionists" as being especially cruel or "evil".

In the top 10 list of the worlds worst countries, Israel doesn't make it.
In the top 20 list of the worlds worst countries, Israel doesn't make it.
In the top 50 list of the worlds worst countries, Israel doesn't make it!

Is Sharon a war ciminal? Yes.
Is Isreal right-wing and discriminatory? Yes.
Is Israel "Fascist"? No.
Is Israel remarakable in the world? Unforetunately no.

There is a tendency in the left to overfocus on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

If I were living in Gaza it would be the top issue on my mind, but for those of you who are not, there are far more important issues in the world.

FAR more important.

T_34

24th March 2005, 23:54

Why can't we single them out as being evil? They are, so why not? We single out Hitler and Stalin quite easily.

LSD

25th March 2005, 01:11

Why can't we single them out as being evil? They are, so why not?

I have no objection to pointing out the problems with Israeli domestic policy, but the obsessive focus on Israel is ridiculous!

We single out Hitler and Stalin quite easily.

Yes but both of them are among the worst criminals in history!

The state of Israel isn't even in the top 100!

LSD

25th March 2005, 01:22

On this point, I would point out that on the first page of this forum alone, there are three threads on Israel, but not a single one on the Sudan.

That is the kind of warped priorities I am talking about.

Redmau5

25th March 2005, 02:02

Well start a thread on Sudan.

Pardon me for forgetting, but Israel is plastered all over the news on a daily basis and Sudan hasn't been mentioned in weeks, if not months. Thats what makes for the constant obsession with Israel.

LSD

25th March 2005, 02:11

Exactly!

That's precisely the problem I'm talking about. Believe me, I'm by no means saying that it's all "your fault"! :lol:

It's a systemic problem which finds itself reflected on this board. Unfortunately its a disease that seems to aflict the lef as much as the right, if not more. It just bothers me to see so much of the left buy into the myth that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is truly a "critical" one and ignore the really important events in the world.

Honestly, its exactly what the rulling classes want us to do. The more attention focuse on Israel, the less is focuse on them!

Redmau5

25th March 2005, 02:25

I respect what you're trying to say. I know we should focus more on other issue's, but sometimes they slip to the back of the mind and i wish they didn't, but unfortunately they do. When Israel is being talked about everywhere, it is easily remembered and therefore easier to discuss.

But i do believe Israel is operating a new form of fascism. If there was a more politically apt word to describe Israel, i would use it. But fascism is the closest comparison i can find, and i know you disagree, but that's what i believe.

LSD

25th March 2005, 02:59

But i do believe Israel is operating a new form of fascism. If there was a more politically apt word to describe Israel, i would use it. But fascism is the closest comparison i can find, and i know you disagree, but that's what i believe.

Well that's being debated in the other Israel thread (one of 3 currently active <_< ).

I respect what you're trying to say. I know we should focus more on other issue's, but sometimes they slip to the back of the mind and i wish they didn't, but unfortunately they do. When Israel is being talked about everywhere, it is easily remembered and therefore easier to discuss.

Yeah, that's the problem with living in a capitalist society.

So much of the debate is shaped by the rulling classes, its nearly impossible to actually discuss the things that matter.

Phalanx

25th March 2005, 05:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:25 AM
I respect what you're trying to say. I know we should focus more on other issue's, but sometimes they slip to the back of the mind and i wish they didn't, but unfortunately they do. When Israel is being talked about everywhere, it is easily remembered and therefore easier to discuss.
Right, but when the Mideast conflict has killed 4,000 compared to Sudan 100,000+, to me Sudan's bodycount cannot just slip to the back of my mind. Sure, the activities of the Israeli army is sometimes atrocious, but so is the activities of the militants. And when we dwell on one westerner because she is white while many civilians are being killed by malnurition in the DRC or Sudan, it is incomparable. Why does the leftist movement obsess about this conflict? To me, turning our backs on the thousands of other victoms is despicable.

iffiness

25th March 2005, 07:24

Well i dont know too much about the sudan conflict and i am not too sure about other peoples level of knowledge on it but that may be a factor because people mainly talk about what they know. Although i would like to read about it. But in any case one reason that Israel is such a widely spoken about topic is that it involves the most powerful country in the world. America attempt to act as a world police that seeks justice while infact they are just another capitalist country trying to maximise profits and in doing so is causing the death of hundreds and thousand and if not millions of innocent people. Their role in this conflict i believe should be focused on they claim to be world police, they claim to protect people and they claim that they are trying to bring democracy throughout the world. America caused this problem in the middle east and so far have been unable to fix it. Israel is a right winged government who have been allowed to do the things they do because of America. Many countries around the world have done these things but have been condemed for it while Israel has far from being condemned last time i checked they didnt have sanctions imposed on them (although i aint sure i have a feeling a few european countries might have) and although many people look upon Israel and do say what they are doin is wrong. The world powers are yet to condemn their actions and stop the brutality of Israel.

LSD

25th March 2005, 16:33

Many countries around the world have done these things but have been condemed for it while Israel has far from being condemned last time i checked they didnt have sanctions imposed on them (although i aint sure i have a feeling a few european countries might have) and although many people look upon Israel and do say what they are doin is wrong. The world powers are yet to condemn their actions and stop the brutality of Israel.

um...how many UN resolutions has the General assmbly passed condemning Israel?

Wasn't there one that declared that Zionism was intrinsically racist?
I think a couple others just said basically The UN condemns Israel...

How many of those have been passed against, say, Saudi Arabia?

. But in any case one reason that Israel is such a widely spoken about topic is that it involves the most powerful country in the world. America attempt to act as a world police that seeks justice while infact they are just another capitalist country trying to maximise profits and in doing so is causing the death of hundreds and thousand and if not millions of innocent people.

Ah, but if that were the case, why are most of the critisisms lobbed at Israel and "Zionists" (whatever that means) and not the US?

I, for one, am a HUGE critic of the US's actions, not just in Israel, but pretty much everywhere. And if people were condemning the US from getting involved in the Israeli-Palestinian situation and, effectively, sabotaging any chance of a peaceful resolution, as well as in countless other places in the world, I would jump on the banwagon tomorow.

But they're not.

They are focusing attention on the Israeli government, on the PLO, on settlements, on Gaza, and the West Bank... on specifics of this particular minor conflict.

And that isn't about the US, it's about the neo-postcolonial "last great cause" bullshit that infects far too much of the left.

T_34

25th March 2005, 16:41

We have a member of the Israeli fan club.

Minor conflict??? Get real. There aren't many bigger conflicts this day and age.

LSD

25th March 2005, 16:55

Minor conflict??? Get real. There aren't many bigger conflicts this day and age.

:o

Here's a brief list of "bigger conflicts this day and age":

Algerian Civil War
Burman Insurgency Crisis
Burundi Civil Conflict
Colombian Civil War
Congo War
Indian Assam Conflict
Indian Kashmir Conflict
Indonesian Maluku War
Ivory Coast Civil War
Liberian Civil War
Nepal Civil War
Nigerian Civil War
Chechen Uprising
Somalian Civil War
Sudanese Civil War
Ugandan Civil War

Phalanx

26th March 2005, 16:50

How about:
Pakistani civil war (govt troops invaded tribal lands)
Domestic violence in South Africa (kills 40,000 every year, as opposed to the Mideast conflict toll of 4,000 over 4 years[U]
Soloman Islands conflict.....

T_34

26th March 2005, 16:58

Israel lover

bunk

26th March 2005, 17:09

How contstructive. They prove your point wrong and then you resort to childish comments.

T_34

26th March 2005, 17:19

another one

LSD

26th March 2005, 17:20

*sigh*

You're not going to actually defend your claim are you?

Ah well, I suppose that's a too much to ask for... :(

RedAnarchist

26th March 2005, 17:31

Are they the only two words you can write? "Israel Lover, Israel Lover, Israel Lover" <_<

Listen, if you are going to contribute, at least give us a comment, instead of acting like some demented parrot!

There are far worse conflicts going on in the world. I'm sorry that you can only focus on one conflict at a time, but at least air your views on that conflict, instead of mindless repitition.

Man?orAstroman?

26th March 2005, 17:59

Thats what happens when you put yourself in front of a bull dozer. Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

RedAnarchist

26th March 2005, 18:03

How can you say that, you sad little person?

She had the guts to do that in the name of peace. Would you have had the guts?

Man?orAstroman?

26th March 2005, 18:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:03 PM
How can you say that, you sad little person?

She had the guts to do that in the name of peace. Would you have had the guts?
You mean, "would I be that stupid"? No, no I would not have. If you stand infront of a moving bull dozer you kind of have to expect it to keep moving.

RedAnarchist

26th March 2005, 18:17

And if that driver of the bulldozer carries on, he/she is both a monster and a murderer.

Man?orAstroman?

26th March 2005, 18:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:17 PM
And if that driver of the bulldozer carries on, he/she is both a monster and a murderer.
If I'm driving my car and you run out in front of it, that makes me a murderer? I really don't see why the driver is at fault.

RedAnarchist

26th March 2005, 18:22

Dont be so naive. Its not like the protesters jumped in front. They would have been in front of the building before the bulldozer even got near it, yet he/she chose to continue without concern for the protestors.

Man?orAstroman?

26th March 2005, 18:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:22 PM
Dont be so naive. Its not like the protesters jumped in front. They would have been in front of the building before the bulldozer even got near it, yet he/she chose to continue without concern for the protestors.
So they knowingly put themselvs in danger. This is the same case as the military. You join the military to put yourself in harms way. She put herself in harms way, and she got hurt. Its not like Isrealie soldiers threw her infront of the bull dozer.

RedAnarchist

26th March 2005, 18:29

The protesters put themselves in harm's way for their principles, and for peace. The army puts itself in harm's way only to serve the ruling classes - soldiers murder their fellow workers under the orders of the bourgoisie.

Man?orAstroman?

26th March 2005, 18:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:29 PM
The protesters put themselves in harm's way for their principles, and for peace. The army puts itself in harm's way only to serve the ruling classes - soldiers murder their fellow workers under the orders of the bourgoisie.
The protesters put themselvs in harms way, therefore assume the risks that come with such actions. Same with the military men and women.

As for your view on the military, you might want to consider who kept this world from becoming a fascist state in which you wouldn't be allowed to express any such oppinions.

LSD

26th March 2005, 18:38

As for your view on the military, you might want to consider who kept this world from becoming a fascist state in which you wouldn't be allowed to express any such oppinions.

You mean the Red Army?

The protesters put themselvs in harms way, therefore assume the risks that come with such actions.

No one is saying that she didn't assume risks, but does that mean that we are wrong in condming her murder?

Its the same for any peaceful demonstration that ends with deaths. The protesters know that there is a chance that they will be fired upon / bulldoezed, but that doesn't absolve Israel of responsbility for its actions.

Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

How about Ghandi?

How about Martin Luther King?

Many African Americans were killed or beaten for peaceul protests in the South. Should they have not been there? After all, they knew that there was a risk in protesting segregation in states like Alabama, but they went anyway.

Was that "stupid"?

Man?orAstroman?

26th March 2005, 18:51

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 26 2005, 06:38 PM

As for your view on the military, you might want to consider who kept this world from becoming a fascist state in which you wouldn't be allowed to express any such oppinions.

You mean the Red Army?

The protesters put themselvs in harms way, therefore assume the risks that come with such actions.

No one is saying that she didn't assume risks, but does that mean that we are wrong in condming her murder?

Its the same for any peaceful demonstration that ends with deaths. The protesters know that there is a chance that they will be fired upon / bulldoezed, but that doesn't absolve Israel of responsbility for its actions.

Shouldn't have been there in the first place.

How about Ghandi?

How about Martin Luther King?

Many African Americans were killed or beaten for peaceul protests in the South. Should they have not been there? After all, they knew that there was a risk in protesting segregation in states like Alabama, but they went anyway.

Was that "stupid"?
The Red Army defended Moscow during WWII against a brutal dictator, only to let one rise to power in their own kingdom. However, they still are due credit for defending their people.

She also didn't have to stand infront of the bull dozer.

Whats funny is that no one seems to condem Burma for shooting its people (5,000-10,000) for a peaceful demonstration for democracy. But you get on Israel for running over one protestor. Double standard?

Diffrent cases. They still put themselvs in danger, and assumed all risks that happend to them. This girl didn't have to protest by standing in front of a bull dozer, she could have got the same point accross by standing off to the side.

LSD

26th March 2005, 19:04

Whats funny is that no one seems to condem Burma for shooting its people (5,000-10,000) for a peaceful demonstration for democracy. But you get on Israel for running over one protestor. Double standard?

Believe me I've made this point a thousand times, read earlier in this thread.

There is indeed an unreasonable focus on the Israeli issue, but that does not mean that we should "blame the victim"!

She also didn't have to stand infront of the bull dozer.

And black marchers didn't have to "stand infront" of firehoses.

It's called a protest.

Diffrent cases. They still put themselvs in danger, and assumed all risks that happend to them. This girl didn't have to protest by standing in front of a bull dozer, she could have got the same point accross by standing off to the side.

Maybe, maybe not.

But the guy driving the bulldozer certainly could have...um...turned it off!

The Red Army defended Moscow during WWII against a brutal dictator, only to let one rise to power in their own kingdom. However, they still are due credit for defending their people.

No, they deserve credit for single-handedly winning the second world war.

Man?orAstroman?

26th March 2005, 19:14

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 26 2005, 07:04 PM
No, they deserve credit for single-handedly winning the second world war.
Wow, now I know everyone on this board is full of shit. If public schools taught history then I wouldn't need to tell you about the heavy US and English involvement. As well as Australia, Africa, China, South America, and Carribean nations. Seriously, you are delusional if you think the Red Army was responsible for winning WWII. You do realise if America didn't step in, and if the winter wasen't one of the coldest in hundreds of years the Germans would have marched into Moscow? The Russians lost around 140 million, thats not what I would call a winning battle.

LSD

26th March 2005, 19:23

Wow, now I know everyone on this board is full of shit. If public schools taught history then I wouldn't need to tell you about the heavy US and English involvement. As well as Australia, Africa, China, South America, and Carribean nations.

Clearly I'm talking about the European theater and not the Pafific.

But you're right, Russias involvement in the War against Japan was marginal and largely only threat value.

eriously, you are delusional if you think the Red Army was responsible for winning WWII.

The Red Army pusehd the Wehrmacht back from Moscow to Berlin, they effectively, destroyed the Panzer Core, the Waffen-SS, and the Mechanized divisions.

Not to mention that the Red Air Force demolished the Luftwaffe in the east.

ou do realise if America didn't step in

Then what?

America didn't really enter the war until 1944. Sure they had marginal action in Africa and helped out in the English invasion of Italy, but after the German reoccupation, there really wasn't any action on that front until '44 either.

By the time of the Normandy landings, Russia was already pushing into Germany herself.

Sorry, but America, no America, Russia was winning the war.

and if the winter wasen't one of the coldest in hundreds of years the Germans would have marched into Moscow?

Excuses, excuses...

The fact remains that alone, the Red Army was winning and besides, they had to deal with the same cold as the Germans.

The Russians lost around 140 million, thats not what I would call a winning battle.

140 million?

More like 40.

The Entire population of the Soviet Union was only something like 250 million, so I highly doub that they lost half their population!

The numbers that historians typically use are ~20 million civilian deaths, ~20 million military. Still, easily the most of any country in the war.

I didn't say that the USSR's victory was easy, I just said it [b]was[b].

Redmau5

26th March 2005, 19:31

Phalanx

26th March 2005, 20:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 07:14 PM
Wow, now I know everyone on this board is full of shit. If public schools taught history then I wouldn't need to tell you about the heavy US and English involvement. As well as Australia, Africa, China, South America, and Carribean nations. Seriously, you are delusional if you think the Red Army was responsible for winning WWII. You do realise if America didn't step in, and if the winter wasen't one of the coldest in hundreds of years the Germans would have marched into Moscow? The Russians lost around 140 million, thats not what I would call a winning battle.
The Soviets were fighting 75 percent of the German military. The U$ and the UK were fighting only 25 percent. Without Russia, a fortified Europe would be an impossible task to invade. The U$ devoted only 20 percent of its manpower to the Pacific war (including manpower), while 80 percent was devoted to fighting Germany. So please, stop humoring yourself with the myth that the U$ won the European war. Besides, when was the last time america fought an enemy larger than itself? I believe that was the Revolutionary war.

Phalanx

26th March 2005, 20:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 04:58 PM
Israel lover
You have to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers on this planet. Please, for the sake of everyone, shut the hell up.

FeArANDLoAtHiNg

26th March 2005, 22:07

There was a huge political banner on a building near my University talking about how the Israeli Army killed Corrie. I was glad to see it there.

barret

26th March 2005, 23:57

Just to get slightly back on topic, usually protestors know the fact that they're safety is not in concern. I believe that poster is a little over-played, as LSD ( if I may) said earlier, there are many more important conflicts to be focused on. My neighbors Escaped from The Congo, and to hear their story of how their son, a perfectly normal civilan, was murdered is, in my opinion, way more important than some one who was murdered in the process of a protest.
But, don't get me wrong I'm not saying its a big issue, I'm just saying that there are many other important things to focus on.

iffiness

27th March 2005, 03:08

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide i am just replying to the post in repsonce to my post. I believe their is a big differnece puting sanctions on a country and just condemning it. I mean who really cares about the UN it has no official power unless America lets it have official power. Who really controls the UN, isnt the president of the UN an American? Now about America i forget but how much "aid" (or whatever you want to call it) is given to Israel and how much of that money is spent on arms. No remind me again on how much support Israel is recieving from America because of rich jews in AMerica that sponsored the zionist movement. I am not sure which fantasy world you are living in but Americas role in this conflict is purely on the side of the Israelis. Id also like you to remind about how long Israelis had a wall that seperated to parts of the country and this is in breach of International law and i dont remeber America bombing them like they bombed Serbia for breaching international law. Now if i recall America has stepped into many conflicts which have produced less human loss than this and bombed a country for much less than this. How can you say that America are doin all they can to stop this. Look you seem to be very intelligent and some of your arguments about Israel are valid and i even have jewish blood in me but i can see whats happening their. And America are not doin enough to stop it. America pick and choose their wars, the wars that benefit their image their wallets they will join, others they dont care about. I may be very anti American and sometimes it can blind me and make me say stupid things but be under no illuisions America has no other agenda but to make sure that Israel get what they want, the palestinians and arabs are segregated from the rest of the world so that America can dominate the world. very simple

LSD

27th March 2005, 03:24

No remind me again on how much support Israel is recieving from America because of rich jews in AMerica that sponsored the zionist movement.

Actually it's far more complex than "rich Jews". Israel is a good strategic resource in the middle east, and it assures an American dependency in the region should the arab nations threaten US interests.

I am not sure which fantasy world you are living in but Americas role in this conflict is purely on the side of the Israelis.

Granted (wel, more or less.... I'd actually say that they're really on no one's side but their own, but for now that does mean backing Israel)

How can you say that America are doin all they can to stop this.

:angry:

I NEVER SAID SUCH A THING!

In fact I said the exact opposite, that America has done all they can do toy prevent peace in Israel!

Please, show me where I said anything else!

America has no other agenda but to make sure that Israel get what they want, the palestinians and arabs are segregated from the rest of the world so that America can dominate the world. very simple

Well...segregating a few million Palestinians doesn't exactly allow America to "dominate the world", and America's agenda isn't to "make sure that Israel gets what they want" but to make sure that America gets what it wants.

But you're generally correct in that America doesn't give a rats ass for the people in the middle east (or anywhere else for that matter).

redstar2000

29th March 2005, 06:06

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
Ah, but if that were the case, why are most of the criticisms lobbed at Israel and "Zionists" (whatever that means) and not the US?

I, for one, am a HUGE critic of the US's actions, not just in Israel, but pretty much everywhere. And if people were condemning the US from getting involved in the Israeli-Palestinian situation and, effectively, sabotaging any chance of a peaceful resolution, as well as in countless other places in the world, I would jump on the bandwagon tomorrow.

But they're not.

They are focusing attention on the Israeli government, on the PLO, on settlements, on Gaza, and the West Bank... on specifics of this particular minor conflict.

And that isn't about the US, it's about the neo-postcolonial "last great cause" bullshit that infects far too much of the left.

That's an interesting criticism that deserves to be elaborated.

Why do you think the Palestinians are "the last great cause"?

Some of the reasons that occur to me for western lefties to identify with the Palestinian resistance...

1. Israel is a "surrogate warrior" for U.S. imperialism in the Middle East...and is financially and militarily supported by the U.S. for that reason.

2. Israel is an "apartheid" state...with all the implications thereof.

3. Israel claims to be a "western-style civilized society" -- and thus is held to higher standards than the primitive despotisms in other places.

4. The idea of a western "settler state" arbitrarily imposed on a populated non-western area rankles...it's "too much" like the settlement of North or South America.

To be sure, there are other struggles going on in the world -- many with far greater casualties. Africa, in particular, is a running sore...what westerner can even say with any assurance how many vicious conflicts with multiple atrocities are taking place there right now? Through western eyes, Africa appears to be a "basket case" -- there's nothing "good" there happening.

Of course, that's "our own" provincialism speaking...if we were deeply familiar with one or two African countries, we'd probably be able to pick out "the good guys" and support them. I imagine that there are forces in every country that are progressive...at least in a limited sense.

But "time presses" and our ability to assimilate information and act on it is limited. We most readily grasp that which we already "understand"...and the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are "familiar" to us.

Thus, we "play it up" at the expense of Burma or Indonesia or Sudan, etc.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

LSD

29th March 2005, 19:39

But "time presses" and our ability to assimilate information and act on it is limited. We most readily grasp that which we already "understand"...and the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are "familiar" to us.

Exactly.

Again, I don't think most people are being malevolent or intentionaly selective, I think its just that this issue is far more publicized and far more visible than similar, or worse, problems in the world.

In some ways, I think this is intentional. Not by the left, but by the right. Because what's great about the conflict in Israel is that it isn't a class conflict. It's really almost a traditional colonialist struggle, and one of the last ones. So as long as the left concentrates its efforts on an ethnic conflict, they are ignoring the class ones all around them.

1. Israel is a "surrogate warrior" for U.S. imperialism in the Middle East...and is financially and militarily supported by the U.S. for that reason.

That's probably a part of it. But there are many US proxies around the world, and Israel is hardly the most brutal.

2. Israel is an "apartheid" state...with all the implications thereof.

While it is debatable whether Israel is truly comparable with Apartheid South Africa, certainly it is true that it imploys disciminatory policies reminiscent of that country.

Either way, though, again, there are countries around the world with far more discriminatory policies and laws than Israel.

3. Israel claims to be a "western-style civilized society" -- and thus is held to higher standards than the primitive despotisms in other places.

Yes, that's undoubtably a part of it. Israel as a republic and a western-style state is fare more relevent to the Western mind then the government of the Sudan or of Burma.

4. The idea of a western "settler state" arbitrarily imposed on a populated non-western area rankles...it's "too much" like the settlement of North or South America.

Ding, Ding, Ding!

That's the big one.

It's all, ultimately about colonialism and trying to "make up" for it. It's the same reason that so much of Europe is retiscent to critisize Islamic sexism or African excesses.

In many ways its undestandable and almost commendable, because, I suppose, anti-colonialism is better than colonialism. But the problem is that it doesn't fix the problems of the world today, it just makes white people feel better.

I agree that Israel's actions are appalling, but the fact that its a northern-style state oppressing a southern people, doesn't make it any worse than the dozens of other oppressions, state-sponsored and otherwise, happening every day.

Oppression is always wrong, no matter what colour the hand that's holding the gun.

Intifada

29th March 2005, 19:47

The Palestinian struggle may not be against the most brutal of regimes in this world, but all leftists must stand up for the oppressed.

Maybe the Palestinian issue is over-emphasised by the left in general, but this is better than ignoring a decade-old injustice.

viva le revolution

29th March 2005, 23:22

In my opinion Israel is an extension of the imperialistic state. The same people who have a vested interest in Israel are running the imperialist beast. So what happens when an unarmed woman stands up to the imperialist behemoth?
she gets trampled over!
As i have already stated on countless previous occasions, the imperialist empire is not founded on the people it is founded on rich oligarchs who doubtless have profitted on the destruction of the palestinian's home.
I have read often that we should focus on other issues, but ignoring the problem isn't going to solve it.