When the driver is warning you that he WILL run you over, and you ignore it, you can't ignore the factthat you've at least been warned.
That doesn't excuse the driver at all, but as some one who has engaged in peaceful protests myself, I can't help but htink of her as an idiot. She was given a choice between stepping aside, and allowing the house to be destroyed, or staying there, and being killed and ALSO allowing the house to be destroyed. She threw away her life, as far as I'm concerned, andit's hard for me to have sympathy for her.
That doesn't mean that I think her being killed was AT ALL right, though. Bad things can happen to idiots too.
She never received a single warning.
The Bulldozer drivers defense in this case is that he never saw her when he ran her over. If he was "Warning (her) that he WILL run (her) over" then he very clearly saw her. In addition before her incident, that very day other bulldozers had come close to activists, but stopped short of crushing them, was it really such a stretch to expect this one to do the same?
[Between 13:00 and 13:30, activists] noticed that two Israeli Army bulldozers and one tank [had] entered onto Palestinian civilian property near the border and [were] demolishing farmland and other already damaged structures. The military machine was severely threatening near-by homes, so the 3 activists went up onto the roof of one home, and then called for others to come.
[Between 13:30 and 14:00], I arrived, and one of the three activists at[sic] the house joined me on the ground ... [W]e began to disrupt the work of the bulldozers ... At this point, Rachel and the two other activists joined us ... Rachel and a British activist were wearing jackets that were fluorescent orange and had reflective stripping [sic] ...
[Between 14:00 and 15:00], Rachel and two other activists began interfering with the other bulldozer, which was attempting to destroy grass and other plants on what used to be farmland. They stood and sat in its path, and though it would drive very close to them, and even move the earth on which they were sitting, it always stopped in time to avoid injuring them ...
[Between 15:00 and 16:00], one bulldozer pushed Will, an American activist, up against a pile of barbed wire. Fortunately, the bulldozer stopped and withdrew just in time to avoid injuring him seriously, but we had to dig him out of the rubble, and unhook his clothing from the wire. The tank approached to see if he was ok. One soldier stuck his head out of the tank to see, and he looked quite shocked and dumbfounded, but said nothing ...
Between 16:45 and 17:00], [o]ne bulldozer, serial number 949623, began to work near the house of a physician who is a friend of ours ... Rachel sat down in the pathway of the bulldozer ... [It] continued driving forward headed straight for Rachel. When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer. She got so high onto it that she was at eye-level with the cab of the bulldozer ... Despite this, he continued forward, which pulled her legs into the pile of rubble, and pulled her down out of view of the driver ... We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted, one activist with the megaphone. But [he] continued forward, until Rachel was underneath the central section of the bulldozer ... Despite the obviousness of her position, the bulldozer began to reverse, without lifting its blade, and drug [sic] the blade over her body again. He continued to reverse until he was on the boarder [sic] strip, about 100 meters away, and left her crushed body in the sand. Three activists ran to her and began administering first-responder medical treatment ... She said, "My back is broken!" but nothing else ...
Nohman on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
edited August 2007
t Evander: Jesus dude it took you long enough. We've been shining a big searchlight with an occluded Star of David at the sky for a week now.
She was given a choice between stepping aside, and allowing the house to be destroyed, or staying there, and being killed and ALSO allowing the house to be destroyed.
The sticking point is that in a civilized society, she should have no reason to believe that the bulldozer driver would actually murder her.
Except, you know, that he SAID HE WOULD.
He was wrong to do it, but she still threw her life away. She accomplished absolutely nothing, and sacrificed herself in a gesture that showed that she lacked a real understanding of the situation (these houses aren't being bulldozed in a vacuum. It is done as a reaction to terrorist attacks, not as a pre-emptive action, and done to punish families who support their children's choice of martyrdom, not simply to oppress. I DO NOT agree with the tactic, but for her to simply stand there and say that Israel should do nothing at all shows that she really didn't see the bigger picture at all. FAR different from Tieniman Square.)
Choosing not to tear down houses doesn't mean that one chooses to do nothing at all. There are other options.
It's been a few odd decades now, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down. What is this idea based on?
Doing something is better than doing nothing?
No one is being blind to the fact that there is a problem here. Israelis even have a specific word for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it translates roughly to "situation") and awareness of it isvery ingrained in their culture, from the men with machine guns on every other corner, to the metal detectors at the mall, to the mandatory periods that they spend in the Army.
But steps HAVE been made forward in the past. Israel has signed peace treaties with former enemies, and the hope is that, some day, there will be enough treaties to count all of the neighboring states.
Until then, though, it is arguably better to try to actively help yourself, rather than sitting around and waiting for the next guy to come along who wants to exterminate you.
I meant the idea that the terrorism will just end on it's own naturally. What is that idea which you stated based on? Other than idealism, I mean.
I never said terrorism will go away on its own. I said that if we work at it for long enough, it will eventually go away.
Egypt and Jordan didn't suddenly wake up one day, and say "hey, let's sign treaties", it took a lot of hard work, but eventually there were results.
I know I'm picking your post apart, but this is really the KEY to all of this, so please excuse me.
The above quote is a common misconception, but is 100% wrong. Zionism does not hold Jews as more important than anyone because it does not deal with anyone else at all. Zionism states that Jews need to depend on themselves, because they aren't safe if they depend on others. It says ABSOLUTELY nothing about whether or not to allow others to depend on them, etc. Zionism isn't really about the Jews as seperate from the rest of the world, but rather, since Zionism is, itself, a Jewish philosophy, it is about the "self". Zionism is a philosophy of self-preservation. Specifically, it says that one must actively seek to be self-dependant, because your safety cannot be ensured by dependancy on others. No one would argue that the above bolded section is somehow discriminatory to other people.
In short, Zionism does not deal with the issue of treatment or consideration of others in ANY regard, because it does not deal with others in ANY way.
But there ARE other people, Evander. Such as the various Arabs and Palestinians that live near the Israelis. How can Zionism be a useful ideology if doesn't even address how to deal with non-Jews?
Because it is not meant to exist within a vacuum.
Zionism is not meant to be the ONLY ideology that a person has, but rather, to be a part of their ideological make-up.
Personally, I see the argument that, if the survival of MY people is important, then so is the survival of ALL OTHER peoples, since they aren't any different from me.
It's good that you view others who are not Jewish as being human, but very often, people view only those of their own "tribe" as human, and everyone who isn't as a non-human Other. You are the exception to the rule, unfortunately.
That's not a rule specific to Jews, though. It is also a rule that Jewish values, and even Jewish Law, directly goes against.
Never said it was. My point was that your particular idea, that valuing ones own people means that you value the lives of other people not of your own as well, is not the norm.
...since Zionism is, itself, a Jewish philosophy, it is about the "self". Zionism is a philosophy of self-preservation. Specifically, it says that one must actively seek to be self-dependant, because your safety cannot be ensured by dependancy on others. No one would argue that the above bolded section is somehow discriminatory to other people.
Sure I can. That statement might have some legitimacy if you were talking about, I don't know, absurdism or nihilism or something. But Zionism isn't an individual philosophy, its a collective one.
A more accurate rewrite of this statement would be "Specifically, [Zionism] says that Jews must actively seek to be self-dependent, because the Jewish individual's safety cannot be ensured by dependancy on others - unless the "others" are fellow Jews."
That's already pretty discriminatory. But when you factor in Jewish exceptionalism and double standards in Israel, it becomes clear that Zionism isn't just about not relying on people who aren't Jews, its about not including them.
The same article also contains an account of the scene as mourners gathered to commemorate Corrie at the spot where she was fatally injured. "The desolate sandy stretch is now strewn with the rubble from the demolition of houses which she could not prevent. As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down.
It's been a few odd decades now, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down. What is this idea based on?
Doing something is better than doing nothing?
No one is being blind to the fact that there is a problem here. Israelis even have a specific word for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it translates roughly to "situation") and awareness of it isvery ingrained in their culture, from the men with machine guns on every other corner, to the metal detectors at the mall, to the mandatory periods that they spend in the Army.
But steps HAVE been made forward in the past. Israel has signed peace treaties with former enemies, and the hope is that, some day, there will be enough treaties to count all of the neighboring states.
Until then, though, it is arguably better to try to actively help yourself, rather than sitting around and waiting for the next guy to come along who wants to exterminate you.
I meant the idea that the terrorism will just end on it's own naturally. What is that idea which you stated based on? Other than idealism, I mean.
I never said terrorism will go away on its own. I said that if we work at it for long enough, it will eventually go away.
Egypt and Jordan didn't suddenly wake up one day, and say "hey, let's sign treaties", it took a lot of hard work, but eventually there were results.
This is what you said:
"The idea is that Terrorism doesn't have to be permanent, and that one day there will be peace."
You mentioned nothing about working long enough to make it end.
If Israel did not posses those occupied terretories today, do you really think terrorism would actually be worse.
That depends on who possesed them.
If we are talking about an established Palestinian state, as long as it is not some kind of rogue nation, but an actual entity within the world community whichis held responsible for its own actions, I imagine things would honestly be better. So too do I imagine that things would be better, although maybe no to the same degree, if the occupied territories went back into the hands of the countries that Israel conquered them from, specifically theWest Bank to Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt, as those countries are no longer Enemies of Israel, but I don't know if that would be fair to the Palestinians, as for ALL of the time that those lands were under the control of those countries, there was ZERO moveby those countries to hand that land over to the Palestinians, or even to make the Palestinian refugees living onthose lands into citizens of the Arab nations occupying those lands.
If the lands were left open, though, without the control of ANY real government capable of monitoring, let alone controlling, its own borders, and what takes place therein, I believe that the terrorism would be MUCH worse. We don't get much coverage, out here of all of the foiled terrorist plots in Israel, but there are many of them, and unfortunately they often occur because of certain Israeli tactics that are considered to be deplorable, like checkpoints and border walls. Israelis stop ambulances as they enter the country because they've found terrorists being smuggled into the country in the backs of ambulances before, etc.
Personally, I am ALL FOR handing over the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the Palestinians, for the creation of a Palestinian state, and telling all of the settlers who refuse to leave to go fuck themselves. This requires, though, a serious Palestinian government, with the ability and intent to control any violent anti-Israel activities within their borders. Every time the Palestinian government claims that they can't control the terrorist attacks, I just see it as more of an argument against the creation of a Palestinian state at the present time. I am, of course, infavor of assisting them to reachthat point, as well, if they so desire.
The Golan Heights, however, which were taken from the Syrians, not the Palestinians, need to remain in Israelli hands because they are FAR too dangerous to bein the hands of another nation (you can launch rockets off of them into basically all of Northern Israel.) The Golan is not considered Occupied territory by Israel, though, but is included within the country proper.
The terrorism did not start when Israel occupied the Westbank and Gaza Strip. Simply pulling out of those lands, all by itself, will not end the terrorism. Any solution requires work on BOTH sides; there is nothing that Israel can do all by itself to make things stop.
I really hate the "We'll give them a state when the attack stop excuse," because it's incredibly obvious that the attacks will not begin to stop until there is a Palistinian state. By waiting until the attacks stop, Israel is allowing a small, fanatical minority of Palistinians to have control over the existance of the Palistinian state in the first place.
It's a excuse that perpetuates the conditions for its own validation, and it's obvious that those conditions are how the Israeli government would prefer things to be.
First off, I didn't say "until violence stops", I said "until the Palestinian government has shown that they have the capicty to have some kind of control over the violence."
Beyond that, though, how do you explain all of the violence that occured when the West BAnk and Gaza strip were in Jordanian and Egyptian hands, if you think that the lack of Palestinian state is the reason for the violence? Why weren't the palestinians attacking the Jordanians and Egyptians back then?
There is NOTHING smart in creating a nation without a stable government ready to be in place, and as history has shown us, stable governments aren't exactly a dine a dozen. Creating a nation WITHOUT a government, in a land that is already full of suicidal terrorists is probably one of the worst ideas ever.
Now, I am infavor of Israel taking steps towards the creation of Palestine during the intervening time; hell, I think it's absolutely neccessary. I think that it should be orchestrated so that, when the Palestinian government is ready, litterally the only thing left to be done is to dot the "i"s. Giving up the terretories immediately and entirely, in exchange for absolutely no let up on terrorist attacks, is an absolutely idiotic move, and one that no one would EVER consider for themselves, so to suggest it of others is crazy.
The same article also contains an account of the scene as mourners gathered to commemorate Corrie at the spot where she was fatally injured. "The desolate sandy stretch is now strewn with the rubble from the demolition of houses which she could not prevent. As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down.
Throw Flowers at a tank -> Get Run Over.
Wonder if the soldiers on the tank got in any trouble because of their aborhent behavior? Oh, who am I kidding, of course not.
It's been a few odd decades now, and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down. What is this idea based on?
Doing something is better than doing nothing?
No one is being blind to the fact that there is a problem here. Israelis even have a specific word for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (it translates roughly to "situation") and awareness of it isvery ingrained in their culture, from the men with machine guns on every other corner, to the metal detectors at the mall, to the mandatory periods that they spend in the Army.
But steps HAVE been made forward in the past. Israel has signed peace treaties with former enemies, and the hope is that, some day, there will be enough treaties to count all of the neighboring states.
Until then, though, it is arguably better to try to actively help yourself, rather than sitting around and waiting for the next guy to come along who wants to exterminate you.
I meant the idea that the terrorism will just end on it's own naturally. What is that idea which you stated based on? Other than idealism, I mean.
I never said terrorism will go away on its own. I said that if we work at it for long enough, it will eventually go away.
Egypt and Jordan didn't suddenly wake up one day, and say "hey, let's sign treaties", it took a lot of hard work, but eventually there were results.
This is what you said:
"The idea is that Terrorism doesn't have to be permanent, and that one day there will be peace."
You mentioned nothing about working long enough to make it end.
The working was implied by all the talk I hadbeen making about actively taking control of your destiny, and whatnot.
And as for the double standard being caused by Zionism, if you're gonna call bullshit on it, then back that up. Zionism says NOTHING about anyone other than Jews, so it's kind of hard to claim that treatment of other peoples, in ANY regard, is based on Zionism.
By your own statement, Zionism requires a Jewish ethnic majority in charge of the Zionist state. This directly says "Other races cannot be the ethnic majority in charge of the Zionist state." That, right there, says something about non-Jews. The logical follow-through is how will that ethnic majority in control of the state be presevred. The answer, for most people, is discrimination based on race. Racism. You even admit this:
So, is their racism involved? No. Is there discrimination involved? Yes, but in the sense that one group is being picked to be given a certain privilege, not in the sense that anyone is being oppressed
Which is just doublespeak, for yes, it is racism. Discrimination based on race is racism. Giving rights to certain ethnic groups and not others is racism. Given the above description of the mission statement of Zionism, it is completely expected that a Zionist state will implement racist policies.
Not to spam the thread with this, but I'm wondering where the flaw in my logic is, and didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.
Beyond that, though, how do you explain all of the violence that occured when the West BAnk and Gaza strip were in Jordanian and Egyptian hands, if you think that the lack of Palestinian state is the reason for the violence? Why weren't the palestinians attacking the Jordanians and Egyptians back then?
Actually, Palestinians did agitate violence in Jordan and Egypt. King Hussein was very nearly overthrown when the influx of Palestinian refugees led to squalor and violence.
The same article also contains an account of the scene as mourners gathered to commemorate Corrie at the spot where she was fatally injured. "The desolate sandy stretch is now strewn with the rubble from the demolition of houses which she could not prevent. As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down.
Throw Flowers at a tank -> Get Run Over.
Wonder if the soldiers on the tank got in any trouble because of their aborhent behavior? Oh, who am I kidding, of course not.
Got in trouble for making threats?
I mean, what the hell do you want to be done to them for just talking?
Let alone the fact that, in Middle Eastern culture, aggresive posturing when some one pisses you off is basically par for the course. As long as they didn't ACTUALLY run them over, whatthe hell did they do to get punished for?
Beyond that, though, how do you explain all of the violence that occured when the West BAnk and Gaza strip were in Jordanian and Egyptian hands, if you think that the lack of Palestinian state is the reason for the violence? Why weren't the palestinians attacking the Jordanians and Egyptians back then?
Actually, Palestinians did agitate violence in Jordan and Egypt. King Hussein was very nearly overthrown when the influx of Palestinian refugees led to squalor and violence.
Source?
Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to be able to have it for my own perusal, since I am unfamiliar.
That's already pretty discriminatory. But when you factor in Jewish exceptionalism and double standards in Israel, it becomes clear that Zionism isn't just about not relying on people who aren't Jews, its about not including them.
The same article also contains an account of the scene as mourners gathered to commemorate Corrie at the spot where she was fatally injured. "The desolate sandy stretch is now strewn with the rubble from the demolition of houses which she could not prevent. As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down.
Throw Flowers at a tank -> Get Run Over.
Wonder if the soldiers on the tank got in any trouble because of their aborhent behavior? Oh, who am I kidding, of course not.
Got in trouble for making threats?
I mean, what the hell do you want to be done to them for just talking?
Let alone the fact that, in Middle Eastern culture, aggresive posturing when some one pisses you off is basically par for the course. As long as they didn't ACTUALLY run them over, whatthe hell did they do to get punished for?
Did you miss the part where they sprayed the mourners with tear gas? Or is that acceptable behavior for Israeli soldiers, too?
Beyond that, though, how do you explain all of the violence that occured when the West BAnk and Gaza strip were in Jordanian and Egyptian hands, if you think that the lack of Palestinian state is the reason for the violence? Why weren't the palestinians attacking the Jordanians and Egyptians back then?
Actually, Palestinians did agitate violence in Jordan and Egypt. King Hussein was very nearly overthrown when the influx of Palestinian refugees led to squalor and violence.
Source?
Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to be able to have it for my own perusal, since I am unfamiliar.
Sorry, it's in an article I left at home. All I have right now is my word that it did happen, and was a good part of the reason that Hussein wanted to wash his hands of the Palestinian problem as of 1967. You don't have to believe me, but I'd look around in scholarly journals for articles on the subject, because they do exist.
That's already pretty discriminatory. But when you factor in Jewish exceptionalism and double standards in Israel, it becomes clear that Zionism isn't just about not relying on people who aren't Jews, its about not including them.
What is "Jewish Exceptionalism"?
ex·cep·tion·al·ism [ik-sep-shuh-nl-iz-uhm]
–noun
a theory that a nation, region, or political system is exceptional and does not conform to the norm.
It's a quick and dirty term to reference Israel's belief that it can be a democracy without conferring full democratic benefits to non-Zionists, who by and large tend to be non-Jews.
edit: man, why did Evander have to come in and spark interesting discussion right before I had to leave my computer for a few hours?
And as for the double standard being caused by Zionism, if you're gonna call bullshit on it, then back that up. Zionism says NOTHING about anyone other than Jews, so it's kind of hard to claim that treatment of other peoples, in ANY regard, is based on Zionism.
By your own statement, Zionism requires a Jewish ethnic majority in charge of the Zionist state. This directly says "Other races cannot be the ethnic majority in charge of the Zionist state." That, right there, says something about non-Jews. The logical follow-through is how will that ethnic majority in control of the state be presevred. The answer, for most people, is discrimination based on race. Racism. You even admit this:
So, is their racism involved? No. Is there discrimination involved? Yes, but in the sense that one group is being picked to be given a certain privilege, not in the sense that anyone is being oppressed
Which is just doublespeak, for yes, it is racism. Discrimination based on race is racism. Giving rights to certain ethnic groups and not others is racism. Given the above description of the mission statement of Zionism, it is completely expected that a Zionist state will implement racist policies.
Not to spam the thread with this, but I'm wondering where the flaw in my logic is, and didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.
To the first part, I say that, essentially, I was pointing out the same thing in my intial "real" post in this thread. It is a GIANT issue, and the Israelis are struggling with it. There simply is not easy answer, and condemning the nation entirely for it is ALSO not an easy answer.
To the second part, on the one hand, I seperate it from racism because I see it more akin to things like handicapped parking spaces, or affirmative action. Yes, these technically do fulfill the definition of "discrimination" but not in the same sense that the usual connotations of the word imply.
And as for sayingthat because Israel is "racist" once it is safe to assume that they will be "racist" more, that is a slippery slope argument taking a single item and trying to extrapolate it to EVERYTHING. As I've pointed out, this particular item arises out of the specific area where the two key goals of the Country intersect,whichis WHY it is there. It is, in fact, BECAUSE ofthe Right of Return that it is arguablly safe to assume that there WON'T be racist legislation within Israel, because the purpose of the right of return to to PROTECT the equallity of all of the citizens of Israel. If Israel was going to go ahead and create a special citizenship class only for Jews, why bother with the Right of Return in the first place?
The same article also contains an account of the scene as mourners gathered to commemorate Corrie at the spot where she was fatally injured. "The desolate sandy stretch is now strewn with the rubble from the demolition of houses which she could not prevent. As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down.
Throw Flowers at a tank -> Get Run Over.
Wonder if the soldiers on the tank got in any trouble because of their aborhent behavior? Oh, who am I kidding, of course not.
Got in trouble for making threats?
I mean, what the hell do you want to be done to them for just talking?
Let alone the fact that, in Middle Eastern culture, aggresive posturing when some one pisses you off is basically par for the course. As long as they didn't ACTUALLY run them over, whatthe hell did they do to get punished for?
We could start with tear gassing a memorial, then threatening to murder everyone there?
That's already pretty discriminatory. But when you factor in Jewish exceptionalism and double standards in Israel, it becomes clear that Zionism isn't just about not relying on people who aren't Jews, its about not including them.
a theory that a nation, region, or political system is exceptional and does not conform to the norm.
It's a quick and dirty term to reference Israel's belief that it can be a democracy without conferring full democratic benefits to non-Zionists, who by and large tend to be non-Jews.
edit: man, why did Evander have to come in and spark interesting discussion right before I had to leave my computer for a few hours?
There is no such thing as "Jewish Exceptionalism" then.
Israel's goal of meshing democracy with zionism isn't because they think they are somehow specially able to do it, it is because they see it as a thing that needs to be done, no matter how impossible it is, and so they keep tryingto do it as best they can. The current situation is by no means the way that everything will be forever, it is just the best working system for the time being.
Jews don't think that they are inherently better than anyone else, it's anti-semites who sit around claiming that Jews think they're better. They repeat it enough, and because there are so few Jews out there, and many people don't have the exposure to see otherwise, it becomes "common wisdom" that Jews think they are better. I assure you that is not the case.
The same article also contains an account of the scene as mourners gathered to commemorate Corrie at the spot where she was fatally injured. "The desolate sandy stretch is now strewn with the rubble from the demolition of houses which she could not prevent. As the memorial service got under way, the Israeli army sent its own representative. A tank pulled up beside the mourners and sprayed them with tear gas. A bizarre game of cat-and-mouse began as the peace activists chased the tank around to throw flowers on it, and the Israeli soldiers inside threatened, in return, to run them down.
Throw Flowers at a tank -> Get Run Over.
Wonder if the soldiers on the tank got in any trouble because of their aborhent behavior? Oh, who am I kidding, of course not.
Got in trouble for making threats?
I mean, what the hell do you want to be done to them for just talking?
Let alone the fact that, in Middle Eastern culture, aggresive posturing when some one pisses you off is basically par for the course. As long as they didn't ACTUALLY run them over, whatthe hell did they do to get punished for?
We could start with tear gassing a memorial, then threatening to murder everyone there?
Man, if the Terrorists used tear gas, instead of explosives, this wholesituation would be SO MUCH easier.
To the first part, I say that, essentially, I was pointing out the same thing in my intial "real" post in this thread. It is a GIANT issue, and the Israelis are struggling with it. There simply is not easy answer, and condemning the nation entirely for it is ALSO not an easy answer.
To the second part, on the one hand, I seperate it from racism because I see it more akin to things like handicapped parking spaces, or affirmative action. Yes, these technically do fulfill the definition of "discrimination" but not in the same sense that the usual connotations of the word imply.
And as for sayingthat because Israel is "racist" once it is safe to assume that they will be "racist" more, that is a slippery slope argument taking a single item and trying to extrapolate it to EVERYTHING. As I've pointed out, this particular item arises out of the specific area where the two key goals of the Country intersect,whichis WHY it is there. It is, in fact, BECAUSE ofthe Right of Return that it is arguablly safe to assume that there WON'T be racist legislation within Israel, because the purpose of the right of return to to PROTECT the equallity of all of the citizens of Israel. If Israel was going to go ahead and create a special citizenship class only for Jews, why bother with the Right of Return in the first place?
A few problems.
1. Saying it is a complicated issue that people struggle with does not address the argument that racism is endemic to Zionism and therefore any state based on Zionism will be inherently racist. I'm glad it is a giant issue that people struggle with; what is even a theoretical fix that shows that this problem can be worked around and isn't a founding principle of a Zionist state?
2. Discrimination based on race is racism. Israel is using race as a criteria for citizenship. It is no way analogous to handicapped parking spaces and affirmitive action.
3. Not allowing citizenship to people due to race is not better than denying citizens rights because of their race. It's government legislated racism, and it is a direct result of Zionism.
Israel's goal of meshing democracy with zionism isn't because they think they are somehow specially able to do it, it is because they see it as a thing that needs to be done, no matter how impossible it is, and so they keep tryingto do it as best they can. The current situation is by no means the way that everything will be forever, it is just the best working system for the time being.
If it is impossible to implement Zionism in a non-discriminatory fashion, then Zionism is discriminatory.
How about commenting on the woman crushed by the bulldozer, you know, the one you claimed was warned repeatedly to move, yet witness reports say she wasn't?
Beyond that, though, how do you explain all of the violence that occured when the West BAnk and Gaza strip were in Jordanian and Egyptian hands, if you think that the lack of Palestinian state is the reason for the violence? Why weren't the palestinians attacking the Jordanians and Egyptians back then?
Actually, Palestinians did agitate violence in Jordan and Egypt. King Hussein was very nearly overthrown when the influx of Palestinian refugees led to squalor and violence.
Source?
Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to be able to have it for my own perusal, since I am unfamiliar.
Sorry, it's in an article I left at home. All I have right now is my word that it did happen, and was a good part of the reason that Hussein wanted to wash his hands of the Palestinian problem as of 1967. You don't have to believe me, but I'd look around in scholarly journals for articles on the subject, because they do exist.
Like I said, I don't disbelieve you, it's just something I haven't heard of, even in the very Israeli-critical classes that I have taken, and if I HAVE missed this piece of information, I'd like to educate myself on it. If you get access to your article at a later time, I would love if you could share it with me.
2. Discrimination based on race is racism. Israel is using race as a criteria for citizenship. It is no way analogous to handicapped parking spaces and affirmitive action.
3. Not allowing citizenship to people due to race is not better than denying citizens rights because of their race. It's government legislated racism, and it is a direct result of Zionism.
Well, don't you have to be a part of the Jewish religion to have the right of return, and not the race, because the race thing is kinda tricky?
How about commenting on the woman crushed by the bulldozer, you know, the one you claimed was warned repeatedly to move, yet witness reports say she wasn't?
That one?
Yeah.
The witnesses who were part of her group claim she wasn't warned.
The witnesses who were with the bulldozing crew say she was warned.
So, yeah, personally I take the word of government over the word of a bunch of protestors, especially when the government isn't actually defending the actions that were taken (the bulldozer operator WAS considered to be at fault, for whatever little bit that is worth.)
Of course, I am not without bias, myself.
And, arguably, focussing on ANY of these specifics is sidestepping the REAL issue of the conflict as a whole, since NONE of this stuff exists by itself.
2. Discrimination based on race is racism. Israel is using race as a criteria for citizenship. It is no way analogous to handicapped parking spaces and affirmitive action.
3. Not allowing citizenship to people due to race is not better than denying citizens rights because of their race. It's government legislated racism, and it is a direct result of Zionism.
Well, don't you have to be a part of the Jewish religion to have the right of return, and not the race, because the race thing is kinda tricky?
Those who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. Controversy has arisen as to whether all those claiming citizenship rights under the Law of Return should be registered as "Jewish" citizens for census purposes. Jewish status is traditionally granted according to the halakhic definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well or if you convert to Judaism (though conversions to Reform and even Conservative Judaism streams are generally not recognized by many people in Israel). However, any Jew regardless of affiliation may return and claim citizenship in Israel.
Originally, the Law of Return was restricted to Jews only. A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law...are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew" (Law of Return).
It looks like they're using Jewish in the cultural/ethnic sense. The distinctions don't make a lot of sense to me though, but I think it goes beyond religion.
2. Discrimination based on race is racism. Israel is using race as a criteria for citizenship. It is no way analogous to handicapped parking spaces and affirmitive action.
3. Not allowing citizenship to people due to race is not better than denying citizens rights because of their race. It's government legislated racism, and it is a direct result of Zionism.
Well, don't you have to be a part of the Jewish religion to have the right of return, and not the race, because the race thing is kinda tricky?
Those who are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return are immediately granted citizenship. Controversy has arisen as to whether all those claiming citizenship rights under the Law of Return should be registered as "Jewish" citizens for census purposes. Jewish status is traditionally granted according to the halakhic definition of being Jewish-- if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish as well or if you convert to Judaism (though conversions to Reform and even Conservative Judaism streams are generally not recognized by many people in Israel). However, any Jew regardless of affiliation may return and claim citizenship in Israel.
Originally, the Law of Return was restricted to Jews only. A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law...are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew" (Law of Return).
It looks like they're using Jewish in the cultural/ethnic sense. The distinctions don't make a lot of sense to me though, but I think it goes beyond religion.
What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Do you have a problem with Judaism being passed Matrilineally or that their family doesn't have to stay behind?
2. Discrimination based on race is racism. Israel is using race as a criteria for citizenship. It is no way analogous to handicapped parking spaces and affirmitive action.
3. Not allowing citizenship to people due to race is not better than denying citizens rights because of their race. It's government legislated racism, and it is a direct result of Zionism.
Well, don't you have to be a part of the Jewish religion to have the right of return, and not the race, because the race thing is kinda tricky?
I'm not sure how exactly it works.
I believe the current guidelines are that you must have either at least one Jewish grandparent (Jewish grandparent being defined as some one who, themselves had at least one Jewish grandparent, ad infinitum), or be a convert to Judaism, or be married to some one who fits the first two catagories,so it's not quite race,but it's also not quite religion.
And, also, just to dclear up possibly confused wording, there is nothing stopping non-Jews from immigrating, the issue is that there is a special express-lane for Jews only. Non-Jews CAN still become citizens, and, among Israeli citizens, the government recognizes equality for all.
The ONLY place where there is inequality is in the ease of immigration.
What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Do you have a problem with Judaism being passed Matrilineally or that their family doesn't have to stay behind?
It gets confusing because the words "Jew" and "Jewish" are somewhat overloaded in everyday discussion. Since it can refer to practioners of Judaism, those who claim ethnic Jewish heritage, or both, it's not always clear what, exactly, is being referred to. It's not specific to the linked law, just to the use of those terms in general.
How about commenting on the woman crushed by the bulldozer, you know, the one you claimed was warned repeatedly to move, yet witness reports say she wasn't?
That one?
Yeah.
The witnesses who were part of her group claim she wasn't warned.
The witnesses who were with the bulldozing crew say she was warned.
So, yeah, personally I take the word of government over the word of a bunch of protestors, especially when the government isn't actually defending the actions that were taken (the bulldozer operator WAS considered to be at fault, for whatever little bit that is worth.)
Of course, I am not without bias, myself.
And, arguably, focussing on ANY of these specifics is sidestepping the REAL issue of the conflict as a whole, since NONE of this stuff exists by itself.
Can you cite the witness who says she was warned? The drivers defense for his actions are that he did not see her. How can you warn someone you did not see?
Also, Amnesty International, and The Human Rights Watch have both called into question the validity of the Israeli report into the incident, so its more than just "A bunch of protestors"
In fact, cite ANY of your evidence, for ANYTHING at all;
"The driver at no point saw or heard Corrie. She was standing behind debris which obstructed the view of the driver and the driver had a very limited field of vision due to the protective cage he was working in.
"The driver and his commanders were interrogated extensively over a long period of time with the use of polygraph tests and video evidence. They had no knowledge that she was standing in the path of the tractor. An autopsy of Corrie's body revealed that the cause of death was from falling debris and not from the tractor physically rolling over her. It was a tragic accident that never should have happened.
"The International Solidarity Movement, to which Corrie belonged, was directly responsible for illegal behavior and conduct in the area of Corrie's death and their actions directly led to this tragedy."
That looks like they say it was the protestors fault, not the drivers.
What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Do you have a problem with Judaism being passed Matrilineally or that their family doesn't have to stay behind?
It gets confusing because the words "Jew" and "Jewish" are somewhat overloaded in everyday discussion. Since it can refer to practioners of Judaism, those who claim ethnic Jewish heritage, or both, it's not always clear what, exactly, is being referred to. It's not specific to the linked law, just to the use of those terms in general.
As far as I see it its both. You have to have a mother who's jewish, or you need to be a convert.
And, also, just to dclear up possibly confused wording, there is nothing stopping non-Jews from immigrating, the issue is that there is a special express-lane for Jews only. Non-Jews CAN still become citizens, and, among Israeli citizens, the government recognizes equality for all.
The ONLY place where there is inequality is in the ease of immigration.
As I've pointed out, this particular item arises out of the specific area where the two key goals of the Country intersect,whichis WHY it is there. It is, in fact, BECAUSE ofthe Right of Return that it is arguablly safe to assume that there WON'T be racist legislation within Israel, because the purpose of the right of return to to PROTECT the equallity of all of the citizens of Israel.
This, relatively minor, racist policy is in place to prevent the Isreali government from enacting racist legislation to protect an ethnic majority in power. This in no way means Zionism isn't an inherently racist policy and, in fact, just adds more evidence that it is.
What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Do you have a problem with Judaism being passed Matrilineally or that their family doesn't have to stay behind?
It gets confusing because the words "Jew" and "Jewish" are somewhat overloaded in everyday discussion. Since it can refer to practioners of Judaism, those who claim ethnic Jewish heritage, or both, it's not always clear what, exactly, is being referred to. It's not specific to the linked law, just to the use of those terms in general.
As far as I see it its both. You have to have a mother who's jewish, or you need to be a convert.
Posts
She never received a single warning.
The Bulldozer drivers defense in this case is that he never saw her when he ran her over. If he was "Warning (her) that he WILL run (her) over" then he very clearly saw her. In addition before her incident, that very day other bulldozers had come close to activists, but stopped short of crushing them, was it really such a stretch to expect this one to do the same?
Not to mention eyewitness reports state;
Choosing not to tear down houses doesn't mean that one chooses to do nothing at all. There are other options.
I never said terrorism will go away on its own. I said that if we work at it for long enough, it will eventually go away.
Egypt and Jordan didn't suddenly wake up one day, and say "hey, let's sign treaties", it took a lot of hard work, but eventually there were results.
Never said it was. My point was that your particular idea, that valuing ones own people means that you value the lives of other people not of your own as well, is not the norm.
Sure I can. That statement might have some legitimacy if you were talking about, I don't know, absurdism or nihilism or something. But Zionism isn't an individual philosophy, its a collective one.
A more accurate rewrite of this statement would be "Specifically, [Zionism] says that Jews must actively seek to be self-dependent, because the Jewish individual's safety cannot be ensured by dependancy on others - unless the "others" are fellow Jews."
That's already pretty discriminatory. But when you factor in Jewish exceptionalism and double standards in Israel, it becomes clear that Zionism isn't just about not relying on people who aren't Jews, its about not including them.
Throw Flowers at a tank -> Get Run Over.
This is what you said:
"The idea is that Terrorism doesn't have to be permanent, and that one day there will be peace."
You mentioned nothing about working long enough to make it end.
First off, I didn't say "until violence stops", I said "until the Palestinian government has shown that they have the capicty to have some kind of control over the violence."
Beyond that, though, how do you explain all of the violence that occured when the West BAnk and Gaza strip were in Jordanian and Egyptian hands, if you think that the lack of Palestinian state is the reason for the violence? Why weren't the palestinians attacking the Jordanians and Egyptians back then?
There is NOTHING smart in creating a nation without a stable government ready to be in place, and as history has shown us, stable governments aren't exactly a dine a dozen. Creating a nation WITHOUT a government, in a land that is already full of suicidal terrorists is probably one of the worst ideas ever.
Now, I am infavor of Israel taking steps towards the creation of Palestine during the intervening time; hell, I think it's absolutely neccessary. I think that it should be orchestrated so that, when the Palestinian government is ready, litterally the only thing left to be done is to dot the "i"s. Giving up the terretories immediately and entirely, in exchange for absolutely no let up on terrorist attacks, is an absolutely idiotic move, and one that no one would EVER consider for themselves, so to suggest it of others is crazy.
Wonder if the soldiers on the tank got in any trouble because of their aborhent behavior? Oh, who am I kidding, of course not.
The working was implied by all the talk I hadbeen making about actively taking control of your destiny, and whatnot.
Sorry if you misunderstood.
Not to spam the thread with this, but I'm wondering where the flaw in my logic is, and didn't want it to get lost in the shuffle.
Actually, Palestinians did agitate violence in Jordan and Egypt. King Hussein was very nearly overthrown when the influx of Palestinian refugees led to squalor and violence.
Got in trouble for making threats?
I mean, what the hell do you want to be done to them for just talking?
Let alone the fact that, in Middle Eastern culture, aggresive posturing when some one pisses you off is basically par for the course. As long as they didn't ACTUALLY run them over, whatthe hell did they do to get punished for?
Source?
Not that I don't believe you, I'd just like to be able to have it for my own perusal, since I am unfamiliar.
What is "Jewish Exceptionalism"?
Did you miss the part where they sprayed the mourners with tear gas? Or is that acceptable behavior for Israeli soldiers, too?
Sorry, it's in an article I left at home. All I have right now is my word that it did happen, and was a good part of the reason that Hussein wanted to wash his hands of the Palestinian problem as of 1967. You don't have to believe me, but I'd look around in scholarly journals for articles on the subject, because they do exist.
ex·cep·tion·al·ism [ik-sep-shuh-nl-iz-uhm]
–noun
a theory that a nation, region, or political system is exceptional and does not conform to the norm.
It's a quick and dirty term to reference Israel's belief that it can be a democracy without conferring full democratic benefits to non-Zionists, who by and large tend to be non-Jews.
edit: man, why did Evander have to come in and spark interesting discussion right before I had to leave my computer for a few hours?
To the first part, I say that, essentially, I was pointing out the same thing in my intial "real" post in this thread. It is a GIANT issue, and the Israelis are struggling with it. There simply is not easy answer, and condemning the nation entirely for it is ALSO not an easy answer.
To the second part, on the one hand, I seperate it from racism because I see it more akin to things like handicapped parking spaces, or affirmative action. Yes, these technically do fulfill the definition of "discrimination" but not in the same sense that the usual connotations of the word imply.
And as for sayingthat because Israel is "racist" once it is safe to assume that they will be "racist" more, that is a slippery slope argument taking a single item and trying to extrapolate it to EVERYTHING. As I've pointed out, this particular item arises out of the specific area where the two key goals of the Country intersect,whichis WHY it is there. It is, in fact, BECAUSE ofthe Right of Return that it is arguablly safe to assume that there WON'T be racist legislation within Israel, because the purpose of the right of return to to PROTECT the equallity of all of the citizens of Israel. If Israel was going to go ahead and create a special citizenship class only for Jews, why bother with the Right of Return in the first place?
We could start with tear gassing a memorial, then threatening to murder everyone there?
There is no such thing as "Jewish Exceptionalism" then.
Israel's goal of meshing democracy with zionism isn't because they think they are somehow specially able to do it, it is because they see it as a thing that needs to be done, no matter how impossible it is, and so they keep tryingto do it as best they can. The current situation is by no means the way that everything will be forever, it is just the best working system for the time being.
Jews don't think that they are inherently better than anyone else, it's anti-semites who sit around claiming that Jews think they're better. They repeat it enough, and because there are so few Jews out there, and many people don't have the exposure to see otherwise, it becomes "common wisdom" that Jews think they are better. I assure you that is not the case.
Man, if the Terrorists used tear gas, instead of explosives, this wholesituation would be SO MUCH easier.
A few problems.
1. Saying it is a complicated issue that people struggle with does not address the argument that racism is endemic to Zionism and therefore any state based on Zionism will be inherently racist. I'm glad it is a giant issue that people struggle with; what is even a theoretical fix that shows that this problem can be worked around and isn't a founding principle of a Zionist state?
2. Discrimination based on race is racism. Israel is using race as a criteria for citizenship. It is no way analogous to handicapped parking spaces and affirmitive action.
3. Not allowing citizenship to people due to race is not better than denying citizens rights because of their race. It's government legislated racism, and it is a direct result of Zionism.
EDIT:
If it is impossible to implement Zionism in a non-discriminatory fashion, then Zionism is discriminatory.
Nice attempt at sidestepping the issue though.
How about commenting on the woman crushed by the bulldozer, you know, the one you claimed was warned repeatedly to move, yet witness reports say she wasn't?
That one?
Like I said, I don't disbelieve you, it's just something I haven't heard of, even in the very Israeli-critical classes that I have taken, and if I HAVE missed this piece of information, I'd like to educate myself on it. If you get access to your article at a later time, I would love if you could share it with me.
I'm not sure how exactly it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat
Yeah.
The witnesses who were part of her group claim she wasn't warned.
The witnesses who were with the bulldozing crew say she was warned.
So, yeah, personally I take the word of government over the word of a bunch of protestors, especially when the government isn't actually defending the actions that were taken (the bulldozer operator WAS considered to be at fault, for whatever little bit that is worth.)
Of course, I am not without bias, myself.
And, arguably, focussing on ANY of these specifics is sidestepping the REAL issue of the conflict as a whole, since NONE of this stuff exists by itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
It looks like they're using Jewish in the cultural/ethnic sense. The distinctions don't make a lot of sense to me though, but I think it goes beyond religion.
What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Do you have a problem with Judaism being passed Matrilineally or that their family doesn't have to stay behind?
I believe the current guidelines are that you must have either at least one Jewish grandparent (Jewish grandparent being defined as some one who, themselves had at least one Jewish grandparent, ad infinitum), or be a convert to Judaism, or be married to some one who fits the first two catagories,so it's not quite race,but it's also not quite religion.
And, also, just to dclear up possibly confused wording, there is nothing stopping non-Jews from immigrating, the issue is that there is a special express-lane for Jews only. Non-Jews CAN still become citizens, and, among Israeli citizens, the government recognizes equality for all.
The ONLY place where there is inequality is in the ease of immigration.
It's hard for me to take anything from that Egyptian Carpet-bagger seriously, but I'm willing to swallow my pride and give it a shot.
But right now, I need to run.
Don't worry, though, I'll be back shortly to lend all of you my money in exchange for a mere pound of your flesh.
It gets confusing because the words "Jew" and "Jewish" are somewhat overloaded in everyday discussion. Since it can refer to practioners of Judaism, those who claim ethnic Jewish heritage, or both, it's not always clear what, exactly, is being referred to. It's not specific to the linked law, just to the use of those terms in general.
Can you cite the witness who says she was warned? The drivers defense for his actions are that he did not see her. How can you warn someone you did not see?
Also, Amnesty International, and The Human Rights Watch have both called into question the validity of the Israeli report into the incident, so its more than just "A bunch of protestors"
In fact, cite ANY of your evidence, for ANYTHING at all;
That looks like they say it was the protestors fault, not the drivers.
As far as I see it its both. You have to have a mother who's jewish, or you need to be a convert.
Yes, and as you said:
This, relatively minor, racist policy is in place to prevent the Isreali government from enacting racist legislation to protect an ethnic majority in power. This in no way means Zionism isn't an inherently racist policy and, in fact, just adds more evidence that it is.