Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

So why does Israel do what it does?

In the sense that Einstein could not recognise the need for an Israel strong enough to beat off repeated attacks by its Arab Muslim neighbours.

So you'd generally accept the fascist Jabotinsky's Iron Wall argument then?

Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot breakthrough. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
source above
 
Hmmm... I wonder if a kicking has anything to do with their sudden desire for peace.

Who broke the existing truce? Was it Israel? No. That's right, it was Hamas.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Bidding the people out of the dungeon, giving them food sufficient, clean garments, and strengthening whoever is about to die; but you seem to fear that a fair mitre will be set on their heads.

Samson was more righteous than you: he said in his heart that he would do unto his enemies as much as they had done to him, and after he was avenged, he would cease.
 
<snip> Jew baiting is becoming quite a sport round here.
If you read back over my posts, I think it's quite clear that I have a more specific target. I am focussing on the neo-fascist tradition in Israeli politics, specifically the tradition running through from Jabotinsky to Begin and Shamir and currently represented by Olmert (a former Begin aide).

I'm doing this because I think that the answer to the question in the OP is at least partially to be found in this particular historical movement within zionism.
 
Bidding the people out of the dungeon, giving them food sufficient, clean garments, and strengthening whoever is about to die; but you seem to fear that a fair mitre will be set on their heads.

Samson was more righteous than you: he said in his heart that he would do unto his enemies as much as they had done to him, and after he was avenged, he would cease.

I don't recall claiming to be righteous.
 
If you read back over my posts, I think it's quite clear that I have a more specific target. I am focussing on the neo-fascist tradition in Israeli politics, specifically the tradition running through from Jabotinsky to Begin and Shamir and currently represented by Olmert (a former Begin aide).

I'm doing this because I think that the answer to the question in the OP is at least partially to be found in this particular historical movement within zionism.

Convenient cover, isn't it?
 
So do you buy the fascist Jabotinsky's Iron Wall argument Sass?

All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions ... on practical questions like a guarantee against expulsion, or equality and national autonomy ... But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an agreement now.

source above

It rather sounds like you do.
 
I could make the same reply about the practice of reflexively accusing Israel's critics of anti-semitism, even when they are pointing to clear evidence of war crimes and so on, but that wouldn't really get us anywhere would it now?



Ah, war crimes. That would cover dropping rockets indiscriminately on civilians, I believe. Hamas leaders heading for the Hague?
 
Ah, war crimes. That would cover dropping rockets indiscriminately on civilians, I believe. Hamas leaders heading for the Hague?
Certainly it is a war crime, but so is the retaliation. I find myself quite puzzled as to why pointing that out makes one an anti-semite.
 
So Sass, remind me again, given that you evidently support the current crop of neo-fascists running Israel, do you also support the BNP, who stand in much the same relationship to Mosley's Blackshirts as Olmert's bunch and Likud do to Jabotinsky's happy little band of Mussolini worshippers?

(To his faint credit, Jabotinsky did at least have the sense to slap down the branch of his followers who were open fans of Hitler. It wasn't until after his death that future Israeli PM Shamir and his terrorist mates could let their freak flag fly and offer allegience to the Nazis against the British empire)
 
So Sass, remind me again, given that you evidently support the current crop of neo-fascists running Israel, do you also support the BNP, who stand in much the same relationship to Mosley's Blackshirts as Olmert's bunch and Likud do to Jabotinsky's happy little band of Mussolini worshippers?

(To his faint credit, Jabotinsky did at least have the sense to slap down the branch of his followers who were open fans of Hitler. It wasn't until after his death that future Israeli PM Shamir and his terrorist mates could let their freak flag fly and offer allegience to the Nazis against the British empire)

1941.

Show me where these things were said in 1945.
 
So Sass, remind me again, given that you evidently support the current crop of neo-fascists running Israel, do you also support the BNP, who stand in much the same relationship to Mosley's Blackshirts as Olmert's bunch and Likud do to Jabotinsky's happy little band of Mussolini worshippers?

(To his faint credit, Jabotinsky did at least have the sense to slap down the branch of his followers who were open fans of Hitler. It wasn't until after his death that future Israeli PM Shamir and his terrorist mates could let their freak flag fly and offer allegience to the Nazis against the British empire)

As a Jew, I support the JEWISH state of Israel.

You cannot separate Jew and Israeli, that you try to do so is despicable sophism.
 
Israel cannot defeat Hamas? They can pound Gaza flat, and with a bit of luck, that is what they will do.

Christ, Sas, what I've seen of your posts in the past always made me rate you as one of the more intelligent conservative types around, but extolling the virtues of genocide? Do you really, seriously mean that you want thousands of innocent people to die?
 
Having said that, Lehi's legacy apparently lives on within the Likud party.

This paper published an interview with Feiglin from 1995, conducted by Ada Oshpiz. "When he reads about Hitler, it is with astonishment," the reporter wrote.

In describing Adolf Hitler, Feiglin is quoted to have told her, "Hitler was an unparalleled military genius. Nazism promoted Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system and public order. Hitler savored good music. He would paint. This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals."

The time has come to break free from the shackles of politically correct speech and call these people - Feiglin and his cronies - by their explicit name. They are not "radicals" but fascists by any acceptable definition. And had they not been born - through no fault of their own - to Jewish mothers, they would have been damn anti-Semites to boot.

"There can be no doubt that Judaism is racist in some sense," Feiglin went on to say in that interview. "And when they asserted at the United Nations that Zionism was racist, I did not find much reason to protest. The people who take racism to mean a distinction between races - and this is a very primitive distinction - must argue that Zionism is racist."

Later in the interview, Feiglin addressed the Palestinians. "There is no Palestinian nation. There is only an Arab-speaking public which has suddenly identified itself as a people, a negative of the Zionist movement, parasites. The fact that they hadn't done so earlier only serves to prove how inferior they are. The Africans have no nations either. Only Zulus, Tutsis."
source
 
I'd lift the siege I'd placed around the north, I'd allow their ports to operate so they could fish and trade, I'd send in food and supplies to help alleviate the suffering the siege had caused. .

But: what if before the seige started, they'd been firing the missiles from the next neighborhood over? ie the closer they come, the closer the bases where the missiles get launched from?
 
I'd initiate talks to get everyone talking about how we could solve the issues caused when my people kicked their people out of their homes and moved 'my' ethnic group in in their place..

Another good idea, but given the fact that the feud had been pretty intractable up to this point, it means that the North and South Londoners would be locked in talks for a long time: and in the meantime, missile attacks every day.
 
I'd be demanding the rich of my country paid for it all - as well as the US and UK - because they're the only ones who've benefitted from decades of war while its the ordinary northers and southers suffered death and destruction.

Would you make the North Londoners who'd benefitted by skimming billions in aid money, [we'll call him Yasser Johnson :)] and their heirs, cough up all the money they stole as well?
 
Back
Top Bottom