It's hilarious how you equate the actual genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinians by the jews with the empty statements of those being exterminated. You place no stock in actual events, death tolls or any kind of sanity. You're a laugh.
@kokogro please do your own research to confirm the following: 13/09/93 yassir arafat on jordanian TV - "since we cannot defeat israel in war, we do this in stages. we take any & every territory that we can for palestine, and establish sovereignty there. and we use it as a springboard to take more. when the time comes, we can get the arab nations to join us for the final blow against israel." said on the very same day he signed the olso peace accords!
HAHA-finklestein ur a fuckwit.My family fought that war in Lebanon.the PLO was ethnically cleansing Lebanon of Christians.They were firing into Israel & running into Lebanon.Israelis were attempting to stop the external attacks.The Christians who werent involved in the jihad were armed to defend themselves & rid the country of the armed plo.It was mutually beneficial.Murders,rapes,kids being shot.Someone had to stop it.No one did.Lebanese Christians thank the israeli boys for their sacrifice.
That's lie. It was not factor. Brits were going to leave anyway. There was nothing for them to hold for
Your numbers are bullshit. Absolute majority of land in this area was gov. land and private property confiscated by arabs from jews is 5x of entire Israel.
Israel is a country of Jewish immigrants, it was founded by Jewish terrorists who were not native to the land of Palestine. Jews owned only 7% of Palestinian land in 1947, Jews were 11% of the population in 1922, and 33% of population in 1947, the UN gave them 50% of the land and Arab natives obviously rejected it. In 1948 Jewish terrorists occupied 78% of the land, kicked 750k natives out, and proclaimed "Israel", in 1967 the Zionist terrorists invaded the rest (Gaza and West Bank).
Obviously the Palestinians claim the right of return to Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem but the PLO was willing to settle for less than what is their right under international law (i.e. right of return of all refugees forced out by an occupying Army). The PLO was willing to settle for a two state solution and so is Hamas. You use Israeli propaganda videos to show what PLO "really wanted" but obviously Native Americans would never see USA as legitimate but they accept the reality of USA.
The population of historic Palestine was only 11% Jewish in 1922, even in 1947 it was barely 34%, so obviously most of the towns had a majority of Muslims. In 1948 they were kicked out by European colonialists, why should Jews of Europe have a right to move to Palestine today any more than the natives who are not allowed to go back to their homes?
Jews had been living in Palestine, North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt) and Middle East (Arabia, Yemen, Iran) and Turkey for hundreds of years before 1948. Unlike when Crusaders took Jerusalem, there was no massacre when Muslims took it in 697, not when Muslims took it in 1187. Muslims allowed the Jews back in the Holy Land. Israel was born with massacres, ethnic-cleansing and apartheid that continues today. Read the history, turn off Fox/CNN/MSNBC.
“UN says Gaza blockade hinders reconstruction aid... Most of the property and infrastructure damaged in Israel's offensive on the Gaza Strip was still unrepaired 12 months later and aid efforts have been largely ineffective, a UN report said Sunday.”
The article goes on to quote from a UN report that says "In view of the scale of the needs, international assistance in Gaza is tantamount to tinkering at the edges."
"Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. As a form of collective punishment, Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law."
"The blockade prohibits most exports and restricts the entry of basic goods, including food and fuel. Much of the available food is provided by the UN and other aid agencies, or smuggled in through tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border and then sold on at exorbitantly high prices to Gaza’s beleaguered residents."
"Rather than targeting armed groups, the blockade mainly hits the most vulnerable, such as children (who make up more than half of the population in Gaza), the elderly, the sick and the Gaza Strip's large refugee population."
"World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials."
You mentioned the difficulty with taking public statements by organisations at face value at the beginning of the video. You say that Finkelstein realises this but ignores it to further his argument.
Then, ironically you use a load of public statement by the PLO to back up your own stance.
Everything in this video may be true. But to put it off on the Palestinians as if they're the problem with a 2 state solution is dishonest. The UN votes every year for the 2 state solution and every year Israel and the U.S. rejects it. Why didn't you explain that in your video?
Finkelstein is worst enemy of the free world. He closes his personal account with Israel on international level. Pathetic. For me he represents Hitler in many ways...
Finkelstein's parents both survived Nazi Holocaust and all his uncles and aunts perished, he stands up for the truth and for justice, shame on you for throwing dirt at a person who has sacrificed his career to fight for justice for the occupied and oppressed!! In a few years the victims of Nazis became Nazis and people like you have the audacity to call the good Jews Hitler!
Norman Finkelstein. Habitual liar, attention seeker, and the filthiest professor of all. Speculates on the memory of his parents (who lived through the Holocaust) everywhere he can. Has been fired by Brooklyn College, N.Y.U., and several other schools for incompetence, mental instability, and abuse of students.
Peter Novick (University of Chicago): "many of [Finkelstein's] assertions are pure invention. ... No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites"
Prof. Omer Bartov (an authority on genocide) called "The Holocaust Industry" "a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' ... brimming with indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics ... indecent ... juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid"
When Finkelstein spoke at Yale on Nov. 10, 2005, he said, "In academia, you can say anything as long as it is footnoted."
From his April 28, 2005 lecture at University of Buffalo: "...the protagonist in the novel, Exodus, was named 'Ari', which is short for 'Aryan' - an example of the Jew's true intent and Jewish racism. It is the whole admiration for this blond haired, blue eyed type." (Total nonsense. Ari is short for 'Ariel', from Aryeh - Hebrew for lion.)
He called Dean Elana Kagan of the Harvard Law School "an Eichmann-like bureaucrat," then added, "Were my mother still around, ... she would have taken the first train to Cambridge and - just as she did with the Nazi guards from Maidanek when confronting them at the postwar trial in Dusseldorf in 1979 - called Kagan a whore to her face and then throttled her."
Another example is the mud-slinging fight into which he dragged Alan Dershowitz. First he called Alan Dershowitz "Adolf Eichmann" and accused him of expressing "Nazi moral judgments." Later he commissioned cartoonist Latuff to make a cartoon published on the Website indybay.
The cartoon, titled "Dershowitz Hard at Work," shows Dershowitz at an "Israel peep show" masturbating with a rapturous look on his face as he views live film from Beirut of dead Lebanese. It was accompanied by an article written by Finkelstein titled "Should Alan Dershowitz target himself for assassination?"
This is not the worst of Finkelstein. The worst is his support for Hezbullah. But it should be enough. So how come he still enjoys such credibility and support after this?
Finkelstein is a popular speaker among German neo-Nazis. Ingrid Rimland (wife of Ernst Zuendel) referred to him admiringly as the "Jewish David Irving"
In return, he praised David Irving as "a good historian!" and as having "made an indispensable contribution to our knowledge of World War II."
"[Finkelstein is] poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock." - Leon Wieseltier
Finkelstein is not irrational, nor is he necessarily hateful. He is like a spokesman for a tobacco company who denies that smoking is harmful because his money and fame depend on it. He has found a pretty niche for himself, a sinecure, where he can make his money and earn prestige among the naive, leftist, and Jew-hating by demonizing his own people or attacking the only Jewish country. And always covers himself with "I am Jewish myself" and "my parents went through Holocaust."
Interesting how Finkmoron (and his fanboi) on one hand accuse Israel on use of holocaust on one hand and on other hand always use his parents holocaust past.
I find this "has sacrificed his career" amusing. He just switch from academic to antisemetic career for good deal of money too.
@optimistsRUS i dont care about his family. he is self-hating "jew" who is worse than Hitler. He abuses the holocaust and the fact he is "jew" so to influence people to believe his lies that sound almost true. I am happy that this nazzi cant enter Israel. I would guess that this small hitler is financed by the criminals that followed his spiritual father and his dog Haj Amin al husseini.
Yawn... calling someone a "Self-hating" Jew is not an argument, it means that you have no argument against him and his facts are true and the only thing you can do to discredit him is throw dirt at his motives. Care to highlight where exactly Finkelstein is wrong? Anyone who stands up for truth and doesn't play the bitch of Israeli terrorists is a self-hating Jew? Yonatan Sharpira and 82 year old Holocaust survivor who went on Jewish flotilla to break Gaza siege are also self-hating?
@optimistsRUS this is my argument.i dont just discredit it. this thing shouts at jews not to "abuse" the holocaust while it doest it itself. Where he is wrong? 1st there was never such a nation called "palestinians" that is why they cant claim for anything especially no land and no rights.
u and such are far from the truth since u have no idea about history and politology. your agenda is HATE. holocaust survivor who support flotilla sold his number as if it was a taxi.
My agenda is hate? My agenda is justice, equality, freedom and self-determination for all. Your agenda is apartheid, chosen people / master race, just like Germans thought they were the superior people you believe that Russian Jews have the right to go to another country and demolish the natives' home and kick the residents out. Based on your logic there never was such a nation called "Jews" who had a country called Jewland so that means Jews don't have the right to have a country.
yonatan shapira is same as the other thing and they do it out of need of attention and of course autoantisemitism these things are no different than the nazzis. Such things are not new for the jewish people and we understand they exist. Good for them
The problem with critiquing the resistance is that Israel has their final word by force. In the rest of the Finkelstein interview you would hear him say that. So besides on the record/off the record - lets examine yesterday's agreements vs. today's Israeli enforced policies:
- Jerusalem as "corpus seperatum" vs. Palest. house demolition in Est Jrslm
- W. Bank as Pales. territory vs. expanding settlements
There cannot be any peace under the two state solution Israel must end it's racist regime.
You had the "privilige to debate with Marxists". You complete loser with your shitty little videos and your pathetic emo face. Get a life, and get off the Internet, you absolute fool.
The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesnt even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to—there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.
Even Barghouti is too intransigent for you? Of course he desires the dissolution of Israel as we know it. What self-respecting Palestinian wouldn't? Obviously, the two state solution is a ploy for both sides of the conflict -- it is an offer the Israelis cannot accept, and the Palestinians do not desire.
No, there are people on both sides who are serious about the two-state setup. As far as I can tell, Salam Fayyad and other Palestinians with a less revolutionary history are more interested in international investment and other aspects of serious state-building than in carrying on a war of liberation. There's just not enough of them.
Whether the collaborator/putschist Salam Fayyad's program is best for Palestine is a question the Arabs can consider after they emancipate themselves under terms that allow for dignity, freedom of movement, an equitable share of natural resources, etc.
First off, as long as Israel has all of the military power in the region they will give up nothing, will give the Palis nothing. Certainly will not allow any Palestinian state. Next, a two state solution seems to me untenable. The only solution is one state with Jews and arabs living together as full citizens. Israel of course does not want this as their big problem is demographics -- there just are not enuff Jews to maintain dominance is such as state of it is going to be a democracy
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you said "the dissolution of Israel as we know it," as if these people really just want a Middle Eastern Switzerland...just a peaceful bi-national abode where two linguistic communities can live peacefully side by side. This is funny to me, and it gets funnier when people make the claim that this is actually what the Arabs wanted all along. Even if they did want to maintain a Jewish national presence, peaceful bi-nationalism simply won't work at this point.
The peace is there now? What is "working" now? The peace you envision is a pernicious peace in which the Palestinians essentially give up. That is no peace at all. That is a victory for the bad guys. And it assumes, incorrectly, that the Palestinian bargaining position weakens over time. Our Little Serbia ain't so tough.
The peace I envision is a partition setting the framework for both sides to gradually outgrow their respective nationalisms and irredentism while collaborating in various realms of commercial enterprise, culture, and security. Where does that lead? Probably Belgium, maybe even Switzerland if we're lucky. As I've said before, partition needs to precede real bi-nationalism. That you just write off one side as "the bad guys" makes it nice and clear that this conversation is pointless anyway.
I don't see why a partition is needed first, the South African apartheid didn't end with partition, why should Israeli apartheid have a partition phase?
"That you just write off one side as "the bad guys" makes it nice and clear that this conversation is pointless anyway."
If you are defending apartheid, occupation and home demolitions carried out by one side against the other, then this conversation is pointless. Only one side is occupying, has hundreds of nukes and bombs civilians with F-16, Apache, white phosphorus, and even boasts of killing pregnant women and children. One side kills 5-10 times more civilians, how is it equal?
You can sit here and knit pick every little phrase and comment made by various past organizations and individuals but you have to look at the real reason why all of this has been going down for so long. And the reason is because of the Zionists. Plain and simple. Take them out of the equation, there wouldn't be any Middle East conflict.
Phooey, my knowledge of the economy history of that region is the result of lots of researching. Because of my lack of time (and the fact that I do actually have a life) I can't give you detailed footnotes. What I can do is encourage you to check the international database of the U.S. Census Bureau and look at quality of life indicators over time in Gaza and the West Bank. It's important to then compare these to those of neighboring Arab societies, namely Egypt and Jordan.
Lest you think I'm being evasive, I will now send you a personal e-mail here on YouTube with the link to the U.S. Census Bureau's international database, along with some supplementary material.
To anyone else following this exchange, let me know if you would like me to send this information to you, as well.
You'll understand the relevance if you follow the conversation between phooey and me. The U.S. Census Bureau maintains an international database that, in my opinion, is presented more neatly than what I've seen from the UN. I'm 99% sure that the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't do original research for its international section; they harvest information from international research agencies (including the UN) and then just categorize and present the data.
mbrown: "The West Bank economy suffered during the intifadah because nearly all of the Palestinians who had previously been working in Israel were replaced by foreign workers".
Of course, heaven forbid that the Israelis do any of their own labor. They can use US taxpayer billion$ to hire foreigners to do it for them
Oh, now I see why you removed the previous comment. The image of me vomiting out revisionist history is much more potent than what you had previously.
The Gaza Strip is similar to the West Bank in this respect. Remember, when people say that life in Gaza has "deteriorated," they're implying that life there used to be a great deal better. Yes, there were sanctions imposed during the years preceding the blockade (as I recall, there was also an intifadah and a bunch of rockets), but the Gazan economy and quality of life did improve considerably when Israel assumed control.
The West Bank economy suffered during the intifadah because nearly all of the Palestinians who had previously been working in Israel were replaced by foreign workers. The same was the case for Gaza. But before the second intifadah, Gaza's economy was about even, if not better than, the economies of neighboring Arab countries.
I don't buy the argument that PL leadership would behave so recklessly once they had something to lose. Israelis want the world to believe this so that they can continue doing whatever the hell they want. It's the same deal with that thug that runs Iran; he knows full well that the moment he arms a nuclear missile, his country will be wiped off the map. I'm sorry, but I dont buy these assumptions that these "crazy muslims" are out to systematically annihilate their countries and their people.
If the majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel, then they won't elect organizations that openly call for Israel's destruction. I understand that many Palestinians voted for Hamas because many of the other options were ridiculously corrupt, but this is an issue of civil society. As for target practice, they should encourage Hamas to stop operating among them. Unfortunately, that can be quite difficult, as evidenced by this: watch?v=4O2iKY6ROkU
"withdrawal from Gaza was not met with a reciprocal act of progress from Palestinian society there. "
You're blatantly omitting the reason for the lack of a "reciprocal act of progress."
You know full well that the blockade has had an utterly devastating effect on the economy of the region and you know full well that it's wrecked its infrastructure. I notice that a reoccurring theme with apologists like yourself is the blatant distortion of cause and effect.
You're unqualified to lecture me on "cause and effect" as long as you're not informed enough to know that the blockade followed--not preceded--Hamas' rise to power, the violent expulsion of Fatah from Gaza, the looting of the Gaza greenhouses, and countless rockets fired into Israel.
Israel had every right to impose the blockade after the withdrawal did not bear fruit.
Egypt was also justified in imposing a blockade.
And the international community was also justified in suspending trade.
In regards to article 33, a 10 year solution or truce of such nature was offered by Hamas in January of 2004. ( and not-so incidentally, the two Hamas men that offered it were assassinated shortly thereafter)
While it's true that Hamas' offer of peace was temporary, it was still a prelude to peace and more importantly, a way to minimize the imminent danger that constituted the legal the justification for preemptive force of action.
Ah, right...you're referring to the "hudna." Do I really need to go into what a hudna is according to Sharia?
That aside, the conditions of the hudna were ridiculous.
"Here's the deal...you completely withdraw from the entire West Bank and Gaza...giving us unfettered access to supply lines from Iran and so on, and we'll re-arm--er...cease hostilities--for ten years."
I like my idea better. As per the roadmap, after Israel withdraws its settlers from the Gaza Strip, Palestinians there vote in a moderate leadership, abolish anti-semitic television programming, and begin working towards statehood as Israeli military presence diminishes in conjunction with Palestinian progress.
If that works, the scenario replicates (with due caution) in the West Bank, where Israel has more to lose.
Article 2, section 4 of the UN charter forbids it, section 51 of the UN charter allows for self defensive action if imminent threat exists.
section 33 states "the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,FIRST OF ALL, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."
Now that you've proven yourself wrong by demonstrating that the UN does recognize the scenario of just preemptive war (that is, "try your very best to avoid it, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do"), we can further analyze the situation.
It's convenient that you went out of your way to mention article 33, which appears under chapter six of the charter. Resolution 242 was filed under this chapter, which deals with "pacific settlements of dispute." Unlike chapter seven resolutions, these are non-binding because they only provide the framework for negotiation ("pacific settlement").
Put simply, if you were to cite 242 to claim that Israel is obligated to withdraw from territories acquired in the 1967 conflict, I could also point out the section that states "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
At which point you should see more clearly the relevance of the above video. The settlements are problematic and need to be abandoned, but Israel's military presence in the territories is justified until there is sufficient confidence to leave. I truly believe that the PLO (with perhaps some exceptions, such as Fayyad, who did not grow up with the classic PLO radicalism) espouses the notions illustrated by the quotations in the sidebar.
However, if they demonstrate enough seriousness about preventing more militant forces from taking over, then the withdrawal should commence. This is not the case with Gaza, which is run by an organization that is overtly militant and completely uninterested in recognizing Israeli sovereignty in historic Palestine. Therefore, there is no point in engaging in negotiation, especially since the withdrawal from Gaza was not met with a reciprocal act of progress from Palestinian society there.
If the kind of "self defense" you advocate (which is typical Israeli policy, currently exemplified by their shouts for Iranian blood) was permissible by the law, every nation state would have a legal pretext to carry out acts of aggression.
Once again, special pleading that has no relevance whatsoever when talking about the application of international law.
Preemptive acts of aggression are illegal. Furthermore, even if a nation has legitimate grounds for self defensive action, inflicting punishment (Gaza blockade) and terror (Gaza "war" of 2008/09) on civilians in the course of such action remains illegal.
Please refer me to the piece of international legislation that marks pre-emptive acts of "aggression" as illegal.
As for civilian casualties, please see my videos "Post-Cast Lead," "The Problem with International Law," and my recent video "IDF vs. Guerillas."
I know that's a lot, but you're making arguments to which I've already responded in my video statements. If you want a broader understanding of how I view this whole issue, see my video "The Two-State Solution..."
Formal, informal, it's not important, because the entire focus of your argument is that Israel is justified in its illegal acts because, ideologically, Palestinian leadership envisions a Palestine with no Israel. You can't special plead on those grounds.
Are South Korea and the United States invading North Korea because the Communist dictatorship claims sovereignty over the Korean peninsula?
Since you seem so confident in labeling me a propagandist, I'll assume you've watched at least several of my videos. I shall further assume that you've had the bad luck of missing those videos in which I clearly express my disapproval of Israel's settlement policy. As for Israel retaining military control over the West Bank while it remains evident that there are forces in Palestinian society that would continue militancy upon a withdrawal, I see no problem with this.
The point here is to dispel the misguided notion that Palestinian militants are fighting only for the West Bank. You seem to be finding difficulty parting with this notion, as evidenced by the strained parallels with the Korean Peninsula you're attempting to draw. I've had good experience dealing with people who think that geopolitical situations are board games that you can just replicate across geography (Korea, Ireland, Algeria, etc., etc). If you want to dissect these two scenarios, we can.
"This channel is devoted mostly to arguments revealing the complex nuances of Israel's security and diplomatic situation. "
No, it's Israeli propaganda. You are purposefully distorting the matter and you are special pleading to justify Israel's flagrant violations of international law.
You are falsely and deceptively claiming that the ending of formal hostilities is a requirement for an informal peace. The obvious rebuttal is the armistice and subsequent stalemate between North and South Korea.
I hadn't realized that the PA and Israel were discussing an informal peace. I could have sworn the roadmap and all the peace initiatives had a formal peace in mind.
Marxists are followers of the very guerilla tactics you describe. The last chapter of Communist Manifesto has the same flavor. Of course they will not admit their own techniques. Moreover, thorough Marxists are so psychologically "into it" that they deceive even themselves.
Generally, arguing with Marxists, unless they are ready to open their minds, is counterproductive. It's a bit like arguing with schizophrenics: the more you argue, the more it convinces them that they are right.
Arafat was the most duplicitous, lying, deceaving, disingenuois, corrupt person I have ever come across. There wasn't a shred of integrity in his entire being. Hitler doesn't come close to Arafat in this respect.
As general Zinni said after the first meeting with him, "Such duplicity I've never seen in my life."
But of course Arafat was that way because he "stood on the shoulders" of other duplicitous, lying, deceaving creatures. There are still plenty of them, maybe more than ever.
For those whoi forgot, here is the famous statement by Arafat's closest adviser:
"The Greek Army was unable to break into Troy... [Following the Greeks' apparent defeat,] the people of Troy climbed on top of their city walls and could not find any traces of the Greek army, except for a giant wooden horse. They cheered and celebrated, thinking that the Greek troops had been routed and had left behind only a harmless wooden horse.
"So they opened the gates of the city and brought in the wooden horse. We all know what happened next... The Oslo accords were a Trojan Horse; the strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea." - Feisal Husseini, Arafat's closest advisor. Interview, given to Egypt's Al-Arabi newspaper.
You said its irrelevant who's land Israel is occupying and I wonder how? May be in Zionist ideology of expansion ''this land is mine God gave it me'' it is irreverent :(
You said Israel is obligated to protect its citizens..Israel is not only obligated to protect its citizens but it is also obligated to abide by international law, protect human rights and get back to its territory and stop illegal settlements.
No, I said it's irrelevant whose land it is that Israel is fighting in. Israel is not occupying Lebanese land, for example. As for international law, please see my video "The Problem with International Law." I think I might also make a video in the near future on resolution 242.
That wasnt even a reply to my post but anyways. According to which law Israel has the right to fight with Hamas in occupied Palestinian territories? You can fight from own land if you are attacked but not from others by attacking them and killing their children. Its not even called fighting it called aggression, invasion and occupation of others land in earthly languages. Its as simple as that.
International law does allow for self-defense. We're not in such a post-war era that we have forgotten about the right to self-defense. And yes, this does allow for entering other people's territory. If you're hinting at resolution 242 here, your reading of it is grossly oversimplified. It would be absurd to insist that a country can only do battle from its owns oil. What should the United States have done when attacked by Japan? Lobbed missiles over the Pacific?
First because in Normans statement, he didnt say anything about Zionists at all it wasPLO on record was supporting 2 states settlement.Secondly you've tried to prove it with what hedidnt chose to say about PLO. Thirdly on Israel Palestine conflict everybody knows that Norman clearly focuses on what Zionist are openly doing i.e. violating international law, UN resolutions, human rights and so on. This doesnt seem something that Zionists are doing behind the closed doors to anybody!!
I'm not talking about what Zionists did. I'm talking about what they planned, and I was talking about early Zionism, which is why I brought up Ben-Gurion. With all due respect, all of your criticisms emanate from clear misunderstandings of my use of Norman Finkelstein. The entire point of my video remains intact even if you take Mr. Finkelstein out. I'm talking about Arab rejectionism, plain and simple.
Thanks for attempting. Hope this will clarify you what my claim is. You picked Normans statement PLO on record was supporting two states settlement. Then you went on explaining that in his literature he tends to focus on what goes in the Zionist meeting behind the closed doors... Well this statement of yours is a total deception here.
3. Does that mean Israel can keep on violating UN resolution 242 4. Does that mean Israel can keep violating international law 5. Does that mean Israel is still innocent after the 15/0 votes against it in international court of justice? Nobody gives a crap about your version of history or your way of seeing things. We live in this world and we have made a law to follow and human rights to protect. We all agree on it and also on its enforcement except Zionist Israel.
Now you said Norma is a leftist where he is proved realistic academic scholar. People labelling him leftist could only be either ignorant arses or fliiping Zionist illusionists.
I never said Norman Finkelstein is a leftist (though I do believe he is, actually). Norman Finkelstein actually plays a very minor role in this video. I just use him in the introduction to illustrate a commonly held view.
Lets just suppose neither Hammas nor PLO has ever supported two state resolution so 1. Does it give Israel right to invade Palestinian land?2. Does it give Israel any right to target and kill civilians (now if you have to prove this wrong then dont come up with typical stupid Dershowitz version of self righteousness, refer to some respectable organization as human rights watch amnesty int etc or even btselesm and Israeli human rights organization)
Israel has the right to fight Hamas and other adversaries so long as it remains clear that making further gestures towards peace will accomplish nothing. Whether or not this is Palestinian land or Lebanese land or any land is irrelevant. Israel is obligated to protect its citizens.
Wow you have tried to manipulate it mate but shamefully you aren't successful. 1.U picked up Norma's statement to disapprove PLOs support for two start settlement. BUT you went on and explaining Arafat's point of view ONLY? Why? That doesn't prove PLO stand. 2.
If u'd listen to the whole interview Norman has clearly mentioned that PLO and Arafat had a different stand point. Bin Ami had never pointed Norman out during the interview. Give Evidence for your statements!!!
Huh? I don't understand exactly what your claim is, but I'll try my best to respond. Norman Finkelstein's claim was that the PLO had publicly announced support for a two-state settlement. I then demonstrated with plenty of evidence that it's much more worthwhile to follow internal discourse within the PLO supporting the notion that there is no intention to be content with the 1967 borders. The "record" is a front. I wasn't even bringing up Ben Ami. He's irrelevant to this statement of mine.
Your video has convinced me... it is OK to occupy Gaza and the West Bank for over 40 years. I understand now why Israel HAD to bomb that hospital with white phosphor... THNX.
There is, indeed, one monolithic code of human rights law that applies to both Iceland and Israel, despite vastly different circumstances. Every legitimate military person I have ever talked to (not just Israeli) has acknowledged that it exists as an important expression of sentiment and a guideline for the ideal. But, especially for countries dealing with determined non-state actors, tough measures are sometimes necessary, even if unpalatable. See my latest video "good behavior."
that argument MIGHT have some moral weight IF the "determined non-state actors" were not a people resisting a military occupation. in any case, i only say MIGHT because such arguements are almost always made by a military which backs it ultimately by an appeal to expediency vis-a-vis military objectives, thereby rendering the motive for the argument questionable.
It saddens me that the effort I put into making this video seems to be accomplishing little. Did I not demonstrate effectively enough that the PLO, its associates, and even its rivals are not simply trying to throw off a military occupation of the West Bank? Did I not make it clear enough in the end that Israel's military presence in that territory can actually be seen as a response to unceasing Arab rejectionism? See my video on the two-state solution.
No you didn't establish this. The claims you make and the kind of evidence you use is EXACTLY the same sort of thing the Indonesian govt used to do with Fretlin in East Timor. And low and behold, no matter what the Indonesian govt said AND what the radical elements in the East Timorese community said, in the end it all came to nothing. Today, East Timor and Indonesia have good relations despite over 25 years of military occupation, conflict and human rights abuses.
The "kind of evidence"? You mean people saying explicitly that the struggle will not end until all of historic Palestine is liberated? And remember, that's just the PLO. I haven't even gone into Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the new strain of Al-Qaeda that's recently popped up in Gaza. By the way, I can assure you that Al Qaeda would have had a much more difficult time showing up in Gaza if Israel were still militarily occupying the region beyond the blockade and control over airspace.
Also, consider that Hezbollah is smuggling in weapons even while the UN acknowledged in 2000 (and I'll provide a link in the bottom of the sidebar just for you) that Israel has fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from Lebanon. And still, you say Israel ought to let the arms smuggling ships continue to pass by even while adherence to international law (as demonstrated by the impotent UNIFIL) is proven to be wholly ineffective ("arms smuggling? we don't see any arms smuggling...").
If some govt decides to define shipments of weapons to Israel as "weapons smuggling", should we say, "no, countries can acquire weapons as they see fit, as per international law", or should we chuck out international law and stop the 'smuggling' into Israel? I go for the former, and I apply it regardless of race or creed.
The UN passed a resolution requiring "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state." You're the one who said that the IDF's tough measures amount to "not wanting to be constrained by international law." Are you not applying the same analysis to Hezbollah? If so, I have to suspect bad faith.
The Security Council is not a fair example for practicing international law. 5 nations of 15 have the ability to veto any resolution that's drafted. The Security Council only exists to protect the interests of imperialist nations.
Re Hizbollah, so you would have no problem then if it were simply integrated into the Lebanese army, as has been suggested at times? Then the question of "smuggling" would be moot by your own standards. Are do you have special standards for some?
Of course I would have a problem if Hezbollah were integrated into the Lebanese Army. That would be very dangerous for the Israelis and Lebanese. But you're right, the question of smuggling would be moot. As far as I know, the Lebanese Army doesn't smuggle weapons. It purchases them from other nations in legitimate transactions.
I realize it's a matter for the Lebanese people, but you did ask me if I would have a problem with it. The answer is yes. I'd see that as a very bad development. With respect to procuring weapons, however, the integration of Hezbollah would render the issue of arms smuggling moot.
I would still expect Israeli surveillance to continue, as I don't think Hezbollah's integration would dilute its goals. Likewise, I would expect Hezbollah to continue maintaining agents in Israel.
I'll take that as agreement, since "surveillance" is simply something all countries do with respect to all other countries of strategic interest (note that the Hizbollah agents would then be Lebanese govt agents - which I assume you would find acceptable).
In that video we see a perfect case study of adhering to international law leading to potentially dire consequences. We have a party breaking international law by arms smuggling (though does it apply to them if they're non-state actors?) and we have Israel (a UN member state) with the choice of either adhering to international law (tantamount to allowing the other side to break it) or doing the necessary dirty work and preventing the enemy from pursuing the advantage.
i suppose if one does not want to be constrained by international law, then it merely becomes a question of how barbaric one feels like being (or how successfully one can sell barbarism to one's constituency). liberal democratic values only count as such if they are upheld under pressure. in israel's case, they obviously aren't really values at all because they get routinely dumped at the first sign of pressure.
I concede that it's a damn shame that Israel has to live on its sword and that it has to sidestep international law when dealing with other parties that are doing the same. It would be great if Israel were Iceland and everyone got along and the issue of breaking international law simply never had to come up. The situation is, indeed, crappy. But, given the alternative, (letting arms shipments pass by freely) one should be able to at least appreciate the complexity.
israel probably wouldn't have to "live by the sword" if it adhered to international law by withdrawing from the occupied territories to its actual (i.e. pre-june 1967 borders). of course, the fear is that israel has created a 'monster' in the Palestinian people because it has maintained the occupation for so long. alas, since for israelis, fear of Arabs is like mother's milk, the belief in 'the monster' is pretty much 'built in' now. it is probably fictional, but that is beside the point.
The views I have revealed in this video are mainstream, but they do not represent the mentality of each and every Palestinian and Arab. I, for one, think that Salam Fayyad, for example, is genuinely interested in building a vibrant and moderate Palestine alongside Israel. His history and present behavior indicate that. I do believe that there are real moderates out there--just not enough.
At what point has Israel ever sought genuine peace with the Palestinians? Never, I think. The focus genuinely needs to be on those who actually possess the power to make peace. This confuses matters, however, for the degree of sovereignty Israel still possesses to actually seek peace, in relation to their dominance by the US and subjugation to US needs, is hard to discern.
Let's leave aside for now the issue of whether Israel has ever sought genuine peace. The truly enticing question, given the information I have presented here, ought to be how Israel would go about seeking genuine peace with a movement that wishes to see it done away with.
They could stop trying to undermine the possibility of a Palestinian state for starters.
Conflicts generally consist of two sides who want to do away with the other. Then, in negotiations, they make compromises. But why are you placing such weight on things said by Palestinians in the 70s when Israel today has clearly shown by its actions that it has no desire for peace? (Although I'm not sure whether they're acting out of their own self-interest or on America's orders, to be honest.)
I maintain that Israel should withdraw from settlements deep in the West Bank, but I am under no impression (as you and so many others are) that withdrawal from these territories will actually precipitate peace. Quite the contrary, it will fit perfectly into a platform adopted in the 1970s reflecting a sentiment from the 1940s and echoed until today (those videos were from the 2000s, so don't try to dismiss this as irrelevant history).
As I said in my statement, you people try to dismiss the Phased Plan as a relic of the past, even while I have provided quotes and videos demonstrating conclusively that this sentiment is alive and well. For the record, Abbas Zaki (the man in the second video I provide) repeated his statement on the collapse of Israeli ideology followed by Palestinian advance and conquest in a statement just this past May. I'll post the article (with video) in the sidebar. You'll find it at the bottom.
If peace negotiations take place then compromises will be made. Look at other conflicts. Both sides during the conflict will obviously hold extreme positions on which they compromise for peace. But why talk about the 'Phased Plan' when Palestine is being further diminished day by day? Surely that should be the main concern if you're concerned about peace? How can people take seriously the idea that they are planning to wipe out Israel when currently it is they who are being wiped out?
Israel is the side who insist all their demands be met before negotiations take place. Palestinian demands will then be 'considered' when certain conditions are met. If thats not a misuse of negotiation then I don't know what is. State the actual reason you want to talk about the 'Phased Plan' - to deflect the appearance of extremist rejectionsists from Israel onto the Palestinians. In any case, the shibboleth that Israel must exist is receding all the time - due entirely to Israel's behaviour.
You're still stuck on this negotiation issue. Do you not understand the whole point of my statement here? If some random guy on YouTube can put together a coherent presentation with ample source material about the phased plan, then IDF intelligence officials undoubtedly have an idea of what's going on---plus the other issues, such as Hamas.
If my bringing up the phased plan somehow deflects attention from Israeli radicals, who cares? That doesn't mean one ought to not consider it.
Well you brought up negotiations in your last comment so....
I'm sure IDF 'intelligence' would also be aware of the military capabilities of the Palestinians and would know that, as the Palestinians don't have an army, the idea that they could destroy Israel after a settlement (which would be underwritten and guaranteed by the international community in any case) is ridiculous. Doesn't stop Israel and its supporters from promoting the idea though, does it? Seedy, underhanded, and dishonest.
We saw during the intifadah that the Palestinians can create plenty of damage with relatively simple bombs and stolen weaponry. If you watch my video "Thoughts on Proportionality," you'll see that they can do a lot more damage if they have access to greater resources, and they will if Israel withdraws its intelligence-gathering and preventive measures. The whole point is to gradually exhaust your enemy and ruin the economy until tactical advantage shifts. Basic guerilla doctrine.
So - what? Are you saying that because of the existence of a 'Phased Plan' Israel currently has the right to reject peace, destroy the Palestinian economy and basically do what it wants ie. 'intelligence gathering and preventive measures'? Because that's what it's doing now and is what you seem to be justifying by saying the status quo should be maintained due to a falsely exaggerated threat. And so Israel won't negotiate until certain demands have been met whilst meeting none themselves?
Going to bed now, but I'll respond to this last comment in a YouTube message. I'm tired of having to deal with character limits. To anyone else who is viewing this exchange...if you wish to see my responses to shakeystevensVIII, please let me know.
cafeafuh - "Palestinians and Arabs never meant to have Peace with Israel. "
When the majority of the sitting dignitaries in the UN and the world media paint Israel as the enemy of all mankind, not just Jordanian Palestinians, this truth, and all truths such as described in this video, get washed away and fall on deaf ears.
Change the propaganda machine and there might be hope. Otherwise the moderates will never be heard among a crashing sea of liars, haters and murderers.
unfortunately it seems that the only palestinians who want peace are the ones old enough to remember tanks in the streets of jericho and house to house fighting in jenin..
the new generation is fed with alot of hatred, i have seen many palestinians who realize the right of return will never happen through force.
hamas however is very attractive to kids and teens living in poor conditions with dead- end lives.
thats the main obstacle, the next generation of the conflict.
which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the extra-judicial killings, the arbitrary detentions, the torture, the checkpoint humilitation, the bulldozing of houses, the extremination of children by aerial raids, the sonic boom fly-overs, the blockaging of medical supplies, food and fuel, the psychopathic uber-racist settlers, or anything else to do with the longest military occupation in living memory. I agree with you completely.
israel supplies all the fuel, food and medicine to both the west bank and the gaza strip, on multiple occasions it was revealed there are no shortages on whats being delivered, people arent starving in the west bank,
you really think the "occupation" is more then disgrunteled soldiers with 2 humvee patrols a sector, maybe a checkpoint and orders to cause the least ammount of troule to locals?
you would think that being a jew he would be adept in the art of deceit
busterhyman21 3 days ago
It's hilarious how you equate the actual genocide being perpetrated on the Palestinians by the jews with the empty statements of those being exterminated. You place no stock in actual events, death tolls or any kind of sanity. You're a laugh.
nilbud 5 months ago
I hope there is never a 58th Muslim terrorist state. The Arabs do not need yet another state, pushing Israel into Abba Ibin's "Auschwitz lines."
Musicofthissphere 1 year ago
Your argument is riddled with holes. The record clearly shows the Arabs have been voting for a 2 state solution honoring the 67 borders. Debunked.
kokogro 1 year ago
@kokogro please do your own research to confirm the following: 13/09/93 yassir arafat on jordanian TV - "since we cannot defeat israel in war, we do this in stages. we take any & every territory that we can for palestine, and establish sovereignty there. and we use it as a springboard to take more. when the time comes, we can get the arab nations to join us for the final blow against israel." said on the very same day he signed the olso peace accords!
that's just 1 example of the complications
oc00011 10 months ago
HAHA-finklestein ur a fuckwit.My family fought that war in Lebanon.the PLO was ethnically cleansing Lebanon of Christians.They were firing into Israel & running into Lebanon.Israelis were attempting to stop the external attacks.The Christians who werent involved in the jihad were armed to defend themselves & rid the country of the armed plo.It was mutually beneficial.Murders,rapes,kids being shot.Someone had to stop it.No one did.Lebanese Christians thank the israeli boys for their sacrifice.
Pitttdog 1 year ago
"Israel is a country of Jewish immigrants"
So? Is it bad?
"it was founded by Jewish terrorists"
That's lie. It was not factor. Brits were going to leave anyway. There was nothing for them to hold for
Your numbers are bullshit. Absolute majority of land in this area was gov. land and private property confiscated by arabs from jews is 5x of entire Israel.
Greywind30 1 year ago
Israel is a country of Jewish immigrants, it was founded by Jewish terrorists who were not native to the land of Palestine. Jews owned only 7% of Palestinian land in 1947, Jews were 11% of the population in 1922, and 33% of population in 1947, the UN gave them 50% of the land and Arab natives obviously rejected it. In 1948 Jewish terrorists occupied 78% of the land, kicked 750k natives out, and proclaimed "Israel", in 1967 the Zionist terrorists invaded the rest (Gaza and West Bank).
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
Obviously the Palestinians claim the right of return to Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem but the PLO was willing to settle for less than what is their right under international law (i.e. right of return of all refugees forced out by an occupying Army). The PLO was willing to settle for a two state solution and so is Hamas. You use Israeli propaganda videos to show what PLO "really wanted" but obviously Native Americans would never see USA as legitimate but they accept the reality of USA.
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@optimistsRUS "Obviously the Palestinians claim the right of return to Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem"
In other word ... my half is mine but your half is half mine.
Greywind30 1 year ago
@Greywind30
The population of historic Palestine was only 11% Jewish in 1922, even in 1947 it was barely 34%, so obviously most of the towns had a majority of Muslims. In 1948 they were kicked out by European colonialists, why should Jews of Europe have a right to move to Palestine today any more than the natives who are not allowed to go back to their homes?
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@Greywind30
Jews had been living in Palestine, North Africa (Morocco, Tunisia, Lybia, Egypt) and Middle East (Arabia, Yemen, Iran) and Turkey for hundreds of years before 1948. Unlike when Crusaders took Jerusalem, there was no massacre when Muslims took it in 697, not when Muslims took it in 1187. Muslims allowed the Jews back in the Holy Land. Israel was born with massacres, ethnic-cleansing and apartheid that continues today. Read the history, turn off Fox/CNN/MSNBC.
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@Greywind30
“UN says Gaza blockade hinders reconstruction aid... Most of the property and infrastructure damaged in Israel's offensive on the Gaza Strip was still unrepaired 12 months later and aid efforts have been largely ineffective, a UN report said Sunday.”
The article goes on to quote from a UN report that says "In view of the scale of the needs, international assistance in Gaza is tantamount to tinkering at the edges."
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Greywind30
Amnesty Int'l June 1 2010.
"Mass unemployment, extreme poverty and food price rises caused by shortages have left four in five Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid. As a form of collective punishment, Israel’s continuing blockade of Gaza is a flagrant violation of international law."
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
Amnesty Int'l June 1 2010 (contd)
"The blockade prohibits most exports and restricts the entry of basic goods, including food and fuel. Much of the available food is provided by the UN and other aid agencies, or smuggled in through tunnels running under the Egypt-Gaza border and then sold on at exorbitantly high prices to Gaza’s beleaguered residents."
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@Greywind30
Amnesty Int'l June 1 2010 (contd)
"Rather than targeting armed groups, the blockade mainly hits the most vulnerable, such as children (who make up more than half of the population in Gaza), the elderly, the sick and the Gaza Strip's large refugee population."
"World Health Organization (WHO) trucks of medical equipment bound for Gazan hospitals have repeatedly been turned away, without explanation, by Israeli border officials."
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
You mentioned the difficulty with taking public statements by organisations at face value at the beginning of the video. You say that Finkelstein realises this but ignores it to further his argument.
Then, ironically you use a load of public statement by the PLO to back up your own stance.
kitelooperrr 1 year ago
Everything in this video may be true. But to put it off on the Palestinians as if they're the problem with a 2 state solution is dishonest. The UN votes every year for the 2 state solution and every year Israel and the U.S. rejects it. Why didn't you explain that in your video?
Suicide666Commando 1 year ago
Finkelstein is worst enemy of the free world. He closes his personal account with Israel on international level. Pathetic. For me he represents Hitler in many ways...
gingerXLL 1 year ago
@gingerXLL
Finkelstein's parents both survived Nazi Holocaust and all his uncles and aunts perished, he stands up for the truth and for justice, shame on you for throwing dirt at a person who has sacrificed his career to fight for justice for the occupied and oppressed!! In a few years the victims of Nazis became Nazis and people like you have the audacity to call the good Jews Hitler!
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@optimistsRUS
Norman Finkelstein. Habitual liar, attention seeker, and the filthiest professor of all. Speculates on the memory of his parents (who lived through the Holocaust) everywhere he can. Has been fired by Brooklyn College, N.Y.U., and several other schools for incompetence, mental instability, and abuse of students.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
Peter Novick (University of Chicago): "many of [Finkelstein's] assertions are pure invention. ... No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites"
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
Prof. Omer Bartov (an authority on genocide) called "The Holocaust Industry" "a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' ... brimming with indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics ... indecent ... juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid"
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
When Finkelstein spoke at Yale on Nov. 10, 2005, he said, "In academia, you can say anything as long as it is footnoted."
From his April 28, 2005 lecture at University of Buffalo: "...the protagonist in the novel, Exodus, was named 'Ari', which is short for 'Aryan' - an example of the Jew's true intent and Jewish racism. It is the whole admiration for this blond haired, blue eyed type." (Total nonsense. Ari is short for 'Ariel', from Aryeh - Hebrew for lion.)
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
In the same lecture said, "In the last fifteen years, there has not been a single death attributed to anti-Semitism in Europe." (Another nonsense.)
Praised David Irving as "a good historian!" and as having "made an indispensable contribution to our knowledge of World War II."
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
He called Dean Elana Kagan of the Harvard Law School "an Eichmann-like bureaucrat," then added, "Were my mother still around, ... she would have taken the first train to Cambridge and - just as she did with the Nazi guards from Maidanek when confronting them at the postwar trial in Dusseldorf in 1979 - called Kagan a whore to her face and then throttled her."
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
Another example is the mud-slinging fight into which he dragged Alan Dershowitz. First he called Alan Dershowitz "Adolf Eichmann" and accused him of expressing "Nazi moral judgments." Later he commissioned cartoonist Latuff to make a cartoon published on the Website indybay.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
The cartoon, titled "Dershowitz Hard at Work," shows Dershowitz at an "Israel peep show" masturbating with a rapturous look on his face as he views live film from Beirut of dead Lebanese. It was accompanied by an article written by Finkelstein titled "Should Alan Dershowitz target himself for assassination?"
This is not the worst of Finkelstein. The worst is his support for Hezbullah. But it should be enough. So how come he still enjoys such credibility and support after this?
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
Finkelstein is a popular speaker among German neo-Nazis. Ingrid Rimland (wife of Ernst Zuendel) referred to him admiringly as the "Jewish David Irving"
In return, he praised David Irving as "a good historian!" and as having "made an indispensable contribution to our knowledge of World War II."
"[Finkelstein is] poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock." - Leon Wieseltier
Kurtlane 1 year ago
Finkelstein is not irrational, nor is he necessarily hateful. He is like a spokesman for a tobacco company who denies that smoking is harmful because his money and fame depend on it. He has found a pretty niche for himself, a sinecure, where he can make his money and earn prestige among the naive, leftist, and Jew-hating by demonizing his own people or attacking the only Jewish country. And always covers himself with "I am Jewish myself" and "my parents went through Holocaust."
Kurtlane 1 year ago
@optimistsRUS
Interesting how Finkmoron (and his fanboi) on one hand accuse Israel on use of holocaust on one hand and on other hand always use his parents holocaust past.
I find this "has sacrificed his career" amusing. He just switch from academic to antisemetic career for good deal of money too.
Dont cry for him RUS
Greywind30 1 year ago
@optimistsRUS i dont care about his family. he is self-hating "jew" who is worse than Hitler. He abuses the holocaust and the fact he is "jew" so to influence people to believe his lies that sound almost true. I am happy that this nazzi cant enter Israel. I would guess that this small hitler is financed by the criminals that followed his spiritual father and his dog Haj Amin al husseini.
Such dirt is ashame to humanity.
gingerXLL 1 year ago
@gingerXLL
Yawn... calling someone a "Self-hating" Jew is not an argument, it means that you have no argument against him and his facts are true and the only thing you can do to discredit him is throw dirt at his motives. Care to highlight where exactly Finkelstein is wrong? Anyone who stands up for truth and doesn't play the bitch of Israeli terrorists is a self-hating Jew? Yonatan Sharpira and 82 year old Holocaust survivor who went on Jewish flotilla to break Gaza siege are also self-hating?
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@optimistsRUS this is my argument.i dont just discredit it. this thing shouts at jews not to "abuse" the holocaust while it doest it itself. Where he is wrong? 1st there was never such a nation called "palestinians" that is why they cant claim for anything especially no land and no rights.
u and such are far from the truth since u have no idea about history and politology. your agenda is HATE. holocaust survivor who support flotilla sold his number as if it was a taxi.
gingerXLL 1 year ago
@gingerXLL
My agenda is hate? My agenda is justice, equality, freedom and self-determination for all. Your agenda is apartheid, chosen people / master race, just like Germans thought they were the superior people you believe that Russian Jews have the right to go to another country and demolish the natives' home and kick the residents out. Based on your logic there never was such a nation called "Jews" who had a country called Jewland so that means Jews don't have the right to have a country.
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@optimistsRUS
yonatan shapira is same as the other thing and they do it out of need of attention and of course autoantisemitism these things are no different than the nazzis. Such things are not new for the jewish people and we understand they exist. Good for them
gingerXLL 1 year ago
The problem with critiquing the resistance is that Israel has their final word by force. In the rest of the Finkelstein interview you would hear him say that. So besides on the record/off the record - lets examine yesterday's agreements vs. today's Israeli enforced policies:
- Jerusalem as "corpus seperatum" vs. Palest. house demolition in Est Jrslm
- W. Bank as Pales. territory vs. expanding settlements
There cannot be any peace under the two state solution Israel must end it's racist regime.
broadcast308 1 year ago
You had the "privilige to debate with Marxists". You complete loser with your shitty little videos and your pathetic emo face. Get a life, and get off the Internet, you absolute fool.
ChadLonergan 1 year ago
You talk as if isreal are the oppressed and its existance is under threat, be real!
You should have just went to uganda and messed up the whole afican contenant instead of the arab world.
786LILJOKER 2 years ago
The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesnt even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to—there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.
LSRochon 2 years ago
Even Barghouti is too intransigent for you? Of course he desires the dissolution of Israel as we know it. What self-respecting Palestinian wouldn't? Obviously, the two state solution is a ploy for both sides of the conflict -- it is an offer the Israelis cannot accept, and the Palestinians do not desire.
ListenLiberal 2 years ago
No, there are people on both sides who are serious about the two-state setup. As far as I can tell, Salam Fayyad and other Palestinians with a less revolutionary history are more interested in international investment and other aspects of serious state-building than in carrying on a war of liberation. There's just not enough of them.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Whether the collaborator/putschist Salam Fayyad's program is best for Palestine is a question the Arabs can consider after they emancipate themselves under terms that allow for dignity, freedom of movement, an equitable share of natural resources, etc.
ListenLiberal 2 years ago
First off, as long as Israel has all of the military power in the region they will give up nothing, will give the Palis nothing. Certainly will not allow any Palestinian state. Next, a two state solution seems to me untenable. The only solution is one state with Jews and arabs living together as full citizens. Israel of course does not want this as their big problem is demographics -- there just are not enuff Jews to maintain dominance is such as state of it is going to be a democracy
oldjoe5 2 years ago
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you said "the dissolution of Israel as we know it," as if these people really just want a Middle Eastern Switzerland...just a peaceful bi-national abode where two linguistic communities can live peacefully side by side. This is funny to me, and it gets funnier when people make the claim that this is actually what the Arabs wanted all along. Even if they did want to maintain a Jewish national presence, peaceful bi-nationalism simply won't work at this point.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
The peace is there now? What is "working" now? The peace you envision is a pernicious peace in which the Palestinians essentially give up. That is no peace at all. That is a victory for the bad guys. And it assumes, incorrectly, that the Palestinian bargaining position weakens over time. Our Little Serbia ain't so tough.
ListenLiberal 2 years ago
The peace I envision is a partition setting the framework for both sides to gradually outgrow their respective nationalisms and irredentism while collaborating in various realms of commercial enterprise, culture, and security. Where does that lead? Probably Belgium, maybe even Switzerland if we're lucky. As I've said before, partition needs to precede real bi-nationalism. That you just write off one side as "the bad guys" makes it nice and clear that this conversation is pointless anyway.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
@mbrown0315
you say "the peace I envision"
there's no "I" in "BI" nationalism...more like us or we
:)
LSRochon 1 year ago
@mbrown0315
"partition needs to precede real bi-nationalism"
I don't see why a partition is needed first, the South African apartheid didn't end with partition, why should Israeli apartheid have a partition phase?
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
@mbrown0315
"That you just write off one side as "the bad guys" makes it nice and clear that this conversation is pointless anyway."
If you are defending apartheid, occupation and home demolitions carried out by one side against the other, then this conversation is pointless. Only one side is occupying, has hundreds of nukes and bombs civilians with F-16, Apache, white phosphorus, and even boasts of killing pregnant women and children. One side kills 5-10 times more civilians, how is it equal?
optimistsRUS 1 year ago
You can sit here and knit pick every little phrase and comment made by various past organizations and individuals but you have to look at the real reason why all of this has been going down for so long. And the reason is because of the Zionists. Plain and simple. Take them out of the equation, there wouldn't be any Middle East conflict.
smileythegnome 2 years ago
(please) Provide the sources of your claims about the Gaza strip's economy over the past 10 years.
phooey108 2 years ago
Phooey, my knowledge of the economy history of that region is the result of lots of researching. Because of my lack of time (and the fact that I do actually have a life) I can't give you detailed footnotes. What I can do is encourage you to check the international database of the U.S. Census Bureau and look at quality of life indicators over time in Gaza and the West Bank. It's important to then compare these to those of neighboring Arab societies, namely Egypt and Jordan.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Lest you think I'm being evasive, I will now send you a personal e-mail here on YouTube with the link to the U.S. Census Bureau's international database, along with some supplementary material.
To anyone else following this exchange, let me know if you would like me to send this information to you, as well.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Why would U.S. Census Bureau opinion matter in this conflict?
LSRochon 2 years ago
You'll understand the relevance if you follow the conversation between phooey and me. The U.S. Census Bureau maintains an international database that, in my opinion, is presented more neatly than what I've seen from the UN. I'm 99% sure that the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't do original research for its international section; they harvest information from international research agencies (including the UN) and then just categorize and present the data.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
@mbrown0315
The Goldstone Report is most accurate of any kind of census....it even comes with photos and video.
LSRochon 2 years ago
source your claims.
phooey108 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mbrown: "The West Bank economy suffered during the intifadah because nearly all of the Palestinians who had previously been working in Israel were replaced by foreign workers".
Of course, heaven forbid that the Israelis do any of their own labor. They can use US taxpayer billion$ to hire foreigners to do it for them
oldjoe5 2 years ago
thanks for proving my point about israel apologists and the revisionist history they vomit out.
phooey108 2 years ago
Oh, now I see why you removed the previous comment. The image of me vomiting out revisionist history is much more potent than what you had previously.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Comment removed
phooey108 2 years ago
Were the six years of sanctions that preceded the blockade some sort of boon to the regional economy?
phooey108 2 years ago
The Gaza Strip is similar to the West Bank in this respect. Remember, when people say that life in Gaza has "deteriorated," they're implying that life there used to be a great deal better. Yes, there were sanctions imposed during the years preceding the blockade (as I recall, there was also an intifadah and a bunch of rockets), but the Gazan economy and quality of life did improve considerably when Israel assumed control.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
That is, assumed control from Egypt...
And this in spite of the terrible mismanagement and corruption introduced by the PA's control of Gaza following 1994.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
The West Bank economy suffered during the intifadah because nearly all of the Palestinians who had previously been working in Israel were replaced by foreign workers. The same was the case for Gaza. But before the second intifadah, Gaza's economy was about even, if not better than, the economies of neighboring Arab countries.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
"t the blockade followed--not preceded--Hamas' rise to power"
So what are you calling what preceded the total blockade in 2006?
an economic investment?
phooey108 2 years ago
I don't buy the argument that PL leadership would behave so recklessly once they had something to lose. Israelis want the world to believe this so that they can continue doing whatever the hell they want. It's the same deal with that thug that runs Iran; he knows full well that the moment he arms a nuclear missile, his country will be wiped off the map. I'm sorry, but I dont buy these assumptions that these "crazy muslims" are out to systematically annihilate their countries and their people.
phooey108 2 years ago
"I don't buy the argument that PL leadership would behave so recklessly once they had something to lose."
Well, then I guess that settles it. I disagree with you.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Comment removed
phooey108 2 years ago
Comment removed
phooey108 2 years ago
If the majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel, then they won't elect organizations that openly call for Israel's destruction. I understand that many Palestinians voted for Hamas because many of the other options were ridiculously corrupt, but this is an issue of civil society. As for target practice, they should encourage Hamas to stop operating among them. Unfortunately, that can be quite difficult, as evidenced by this: watch?v=4O2iKY6ROkU
mbrown0315 2 years ago
"withdrawal from Gaza was not met with a reciprocal act of progress from Palestinian society there. "
You're blatantly omitting the reason for the lack of a "reciprocal act of progress."
You know full well that the blockade has had an utterly devastating effect on the economy of the region and you know full well that it's wrecked its infrastructure. I notice that a reoccurring theme with apologists like yourself is the blatant distortion of cause and effect.
phooey108 2 years ago
You're unqualified to lecture me on "cause and effect" as long as you're not informed enough to know that the blockade followed--not preceded--Hamas' rise to power, the violent expulsion of Fatah from Gaza, the looting of the Gaza greenhouses, and countless rockets fired into Israel.
Israel had every right to impose the blockade after the withdrawal did not bear fruit.
Egypt was also justified in imposing a blockade.
And the international community was also justified in suspending trade.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
maybe you're not a propagandist. but i still dont agree with a thing you've said
phooey108 2 years ago
In regards to article 33, a 10 year solution or truce of such nature was offered by Hamas in January of 2004. ( and not-so incidentally, the two Hamas men that offered it were assassinated shortly thereafter)
While it's true that Hamas' offer of peace was temporary, it was still a prelude to peace and more importantly, a way to minimize the imminent danger that constituted the legal the justification for preemptive force of action.
phooey108 2 years ago
Ah, right...you're referring to the "hudna." Do I really need to go into what a hudna is according to Sharia?
That aside, the conditions of the hudna were ridiculous.
"Here's the deal...you completely withdraw from the entire West Bank and Gaza...giving us unfettered access to supply lines from Iran and so on, and we'll re-arm--er...cease hostilities--for ten years."
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I like my idea better. As per the roadmap, after Israel withdraws its settlers from the Gaza Strip, Palestinians there vote in a moderate leadership, abolish anti-semitic television programming, and begin working towards statehood as Israeli military presence diminishes in conjunction with Palestinian progress.
If that works, the scenario replicates (with due caution) in the West Bank, where Israel has more to lose.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Article 2, section 4 of the UN charter forbids it, section 51 of the UN charter allows for self defensive action if imminent threat exists.
section 33 states "the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall,FIRST OF ALL, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice."
phooey108 2 years ago
Now that you've proven yourself wrong by demonstrating that the UN does recognize the scenario of just preemptive war (that is, "try your very best to avoid it, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do"), we can further analyze the situation.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
It's convenient that you went out of your way to mention article 33, which appears under chapter six of the charter. Resolution 242 was filed under this chapter, which deals with "pacific settlements of dispute." Unlike chapter seven resolutions, these are non-binding because they only provide the framework for negotiation ("pacific settlement").
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Put simply, if you were to cite 242 to claim that Israel is obligated to withdraw from territories acquired in the 1967 conflict, I could also point out the section that states "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."
mbrown0315 2 years ago
At which point you should see more clearly the relevance of the above video. The settlements are problematic and need to be abandoned, but Israel's military presence in the territories is justified until there is sufficient confidence to leave. I truly believe that the PLO (with perhaps some exceptions, such as Fayyad, who did not grow up with the classic PLO radicalism) espouses the notions illustrated by the quotations in the sidebar.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
However, if they demonstrate enough seriousness about preventing more militant forces from taking over, then the withdrawal should commence. This is not the case with Gaza, which is run by an organization that is overtly militant and completely uninterested in recognizing Israeli sovereignty in historic Palestine. Therefore, there is no point in engaging in negotiation, especially since the withdrawal from Gaza was not met with a reciprocal act of progress from Palestinian society there.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
If the kind of "self defense" you advocate (which is typical Israeli policy, currently exemplified by their shouts for Iranian blood) was permissible by the law, every nation state would have a legal pretext to carry out acts of aggression.
phooey108 2 years ago
Again, refer me to where it says pre-emptive action is illegal. As for Iran, I comment on the matter in my video "Iran, Nukes, and Misconceptions."
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Once again, special pleading that has no relevance whatsoever when talking about the application of international law.
Preemptive acts of aggression are illegal. Furthermore, even if a nation has legitimate grounds for self defensive action, inflicting punishment (Gaza blockade) and terror (Gaza "war" of 2008/09) on civilians in the course of such action remains illegal.
phooey108 2 years ago
Please refer me to the piece of international legislation that marks pre-emptive acts of "aggression" as illegal.
As for civilian casualties, please see my videos "Post-Cast Lead," "The Problem with International Law," and my recent video "IDF vs. Guerillas."
I know that's a lot, but you're making arguments to which I've already responded in my video statements. If you want a broader understanding of how I view this whole issue, see my video "The Two-State Solution..."
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Formal, informal, it's not important, because the entire focus of your argument is that Israel is justified in its illegal acts because, ideologically, Palestinian leadership envisions a Palestine with no Israel. You can't special plead on those grounds.
Are South Korea and the United States invading North Korea because the Communist dictatorship claims sovereignty over the Korean peninsula?
You sir, are a propagandist.
phooey108 2 years ago
Since you seem so confident in labeling me a propagandist, I'll assume you've watched at least several of my videos. I shall further assume that you've had the bad luck of missing those videos in which I clearly express my disapproval of Israel's settlement policy. As for Israel retaining military control over the West Bank while it remains evident that there are forces in Palestinian society that would continue militancy upon a withdrawal, I see no problem with this.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
The point here is to dispel the misguided notion that Palestinian militants are fighting only for the West Bank. You seem to be finding difficulty parting with this notion, as evidenced by the strained parallels with the Korean Peninsula you're attempting to draw. I've had good experience dealing with people who think that geopolitical situations are board games that you can just replicate across geography (Korea, Ireland, Algeria, etc., etc). If you want to dissect these two scenarios, we can.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
"...because, ideologically, Palestinian leadership envisions a Palestine with no Israel."
What on Earth makes you think that ideology can't translate into actual militancy? We're talking about the Middle East, not the midwest.
...Or the Korean Peninsula for that matter.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
"This channel is devoted mostly to arguments revealing the complex nuances of Israel's security and diplomatic situation. "
No, it's Israeli propaganda. You are purposefully distorting the matter and you are special pleading to justify Israel's flagrant violations of international law.
phooey108 2 years ago
You are falsely and deceptively claiming that the ending of formal hostilities is a requirement for an informal peace. The obvious rebuttal is the armistice and subsequent stalemate between North and South Korea.
phooey108 2 years ago
I hadn't realized that the PA and Israel were discussing an informal peace. I could have sworn the roadmap and all the peace initiatives had a formal peace in mind.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Marxists are followers of the very guerilla tactics you describe. The last chapter of Communist Manifesto has the same flavor. Of course they will not admit their own techniques. Moreover, thorough Marxists are so psychologically "into it" that they deceive even themselves.
Generally, arguing with Marxists, unless they are ready to open their minds, is counterproductive. It's a bit like arguing with schizophrenics: the more you argue, the more it convinces them that they are right.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
Arafat was the most duplicitous, lying, deceaving, disingenuois, corrupt person I have ever come across. There wasn't a shred of integrity in his entire being. Hitler doesn't come close to Arafat in this respect.
As general Zinni said after the first meeting with him, "Such duplicity I've never seen in my life."
But of course Arafat was that way because he "stood on the shoulders" of other duplicitous, lying, deceaving creatures. There are still plenty of them, maybe more than ever.
Kurtlane 2 years ago
For those whoi forgot, here is the famous statement by Arafat's closest adviser:
"The Greek Army was unable to break into Troy... [Following the Greeks' apparent defeat,] the people of Troy climbed on top of their city walls and could not find any traces of the Greek army, except for a giant wooden horse. They cheered and celebrated, thinking that the Greek troops had been routed and had left behind only a harmless wooden horse.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 2 years ago
(cont. quote)
"So they opened the gates of the city and brought in the wooden horse. We all know what happened next... The Oslo accords were a Trojan Horse; the strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea." - Feisal Husseini, Arafat's closest advisor. Interview, given to Egypt's Al-Arabi newspaper.
How much clearer about one's goals can one get?
Kurtlane 2 years ago
You said its irrelevant who's land Israel is occupying and I wonder how? May be in Zionist ideology of expansion ''this land is mine God gave it me'' it is irreverent :(
You said Israel is obligated to protect its citizens..Israel is not only obligated to protect its citizens but it is also obligated to abide by international law, protect human rights and get back to its territory and stop illegal settlements.
Reptile0000 2 years ago
No, I said it's irrelevant whose land it is that Israel is fighting in. Israel is not occupying Lebanese land, for example. As for international law, please see my video "The Problem with International Law." I think I might also make a video in the near future on resolution 242.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Israel has right to fight hamas...
That wasnt even a reply to my post but anyways. According to which law Israel has the right to fight with Hamas in occupied Palestinian territories? You can fight from own land if you are attacked but not from others by attacking them and killing their children. Its not even called fighting it called aggression, invasion and occupation of others land in earthly languages. Its as simple as that.
Reptile0000 2 years ago
International law does allow for self-defense. We're not in such a post-war era that we have forgotten about the right to self-defense. And yes, this does allow for entering other people's territory. If you're hinting at resolution 242 here, your reading of it is grossly oversimplified. It would be absurd to insist that a country can only do battle from its owns oil. What should the United States have done when attacked by Japan? Lobbed missiles over the Pacific?
mbrown0315 2 years ago
First because in Normans statement, he didnt say anything about Zionists at all it wasPLO on record was supporting 2 states settlement.Secondly you've tried to prove it with what hedidnt chose to say about PLO. Thirdly on Israel Palestine conflict everybody knows that Norman clearly focuses on what Zionist are openly doing i.e. violating international law, UN resolutions, human rights and so on. This doesnt seem something that Zionists are doing behind the closed doors to anybody!!
Reptile0000 2 years ago
I'm not talking about what Zionists did. I'm talking about what they planned, and I was talking about early Zionism, which is why I brought up Ben-Gurion. With all due respect, all of your criticisms emanate from clear misunderstandings of my use of Norman Finkelstein. The entire point of my video remains intact even if you take Mr. Finkelstein out. I'm talking about Arab rejectionism, plain and simple.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Thanks for attempting. Hope this will clarify you what my claim is. You picked Normans statement PLO on record was supporting two states settlement. Then you went on explaining that in his literature he tends to focus on what goes in the Zionist meeting behind the closed doors... Well this statement of yours is a total deception here.
Reptile0000 2 years ago
3. Does that mean Israel can keep on violating UN resolution 242 4. Does that mean Israel can keep violating international law 5. Does that mean Israel is still innocent after the 15/0 votes against it in international court of justice? Nobody gives a crap about your version of history or your way of seeing things. We live in this world and we have made a law to follow and human rights to protect. We all agree on it and also on its enforcement except Zionist Israel.
Reptile0000 2 years ago
Now you said Norma is a leftist where he is proved realistic academic scholar. People labelling him leftist could only be either ignorant arses or fliiping Zionist illusionists.
Reptile0000 2 years ago
I never said Norman Finkelstein is a leftist (though I do believe he is, actually). Norman Finkelstein actually plays a very minor role in this video. I just use him in the introduction to illustrate a commonly held view.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
My version of history? Are you suggesting that this phased plan stuff is nonsense? If that's what you think, provide evidence for your saying so.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Lets just suppose neither Hammas nor PLO has ever supported two state resolution so 1. Does it give Israel right to invade Palestinian land?2. Does it give Israel any right to target and kill civilians (now if you have to prove this wrong then dont come up with typical stupid Dershowitz version of self righteousness, refer to some respectable organization as human rights watch amnesty int etc or even btselesm and Israeli human rights organization)
Reptile0000 2 years ago
Israel has the right to fight Hamas and other adversaries so long as it remains clear that making further gestures towards peace will accomplish nothing. Whether or not this is Palestinian land or Lebanese land or any land is irrelevant. Israel is obligated to protect its citizens.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Wow you have tried to manipulate it mate but shamefully you aren't successful. 1.U picked up Norma's statement to disapprove PLOs support for two start settlement. BUT you went on and explaining Arafat's point of view ONLY? Why? That doesn't prove PLO stand. 2.
If u'd listen to the whole interview Norman has clearly mentioned that PLO and Arafat had a different stand point. Bin Ami had never pointed Norman out during the interview. Give Evidence for your statements!!!
Reptile0000 2 years ago
Huh? I don't understand exactly what your claim is, but I'll try my best to respond. Norman Finkelstein's claim was that the PLO had publicly announced support for a two-state settlement. I then demonstrated with plenty of evidence that it's much more worthwhile to follow internal discourse within the PLO supporting the notion that there is no intention to be content with the 1967 borders. The "record" is a front. I wasn't even bringing up Ben Ami. He's irrelevant to this statement of mine.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Your video has convinced me... it is OK to occupy Gaza and the West Bank for over 40 years. I understand now why Israel HAD to bomb that hospital with white phosphor... THNX.
VaQm10 2 years ago
p.s. when it comes to the law and human rights, you don't get to define torture as you see fit.
ludwigau 2 years ago
There is, indeed, one monolithic code of human rights law that applies to both Iceland and Israel, despite vastly different circumstances. Every legitimate military person I have ever talked to (not just Israeli) has acknowledged that it exists as an important expression of sentiment and a guideline for the ideal. But, especially for countries dealing with determined non-state actors, tough measures are sometimes necessary, even if unpalatable. See my latest video "good behavior."
mbrown0315 2 years ago
that argument MIGHT have some moral weight IF the "determined non-state actors" were not a people resisting a military occupation. in any case, i only say MIGHT because such arguements are almost always made by a military which backs it ultimately by an appeal to expediency vis-a-vis military objectives, thereby rendering the motive for the argument questionable.
ludwigau 2 years ago
It saddens me that the effort I put into making this video seems to be accomplishing little. Did I not demonstrate effectively enough that the PLO, its associates, and even its rivals are not simply trying to throw off a military occupation of the West Bank? Did I not make it clear enough in the end that Israel's military presence in that territory can actually be seen as a response to unceasing Arab rejectionism? See my video on the two-state solution.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
No you didn't establish this. The claims you make and the kind of evidence you use is EXACTLY the same sort of thing the Indonesian govt used to do with Fretlin in East Timor. And low and behold, no matter what the Indonesian govt said AND what the radical elements in the East Timorese community said, in the end it all came to nothing. Today, East Timor and Indonesia have good relations despite over 25 years of military occupation, conflict and human rights abuses.
ludwigau 2 years ago
The "kind of evidence"? You mean people saying explicitly that the struggle will not end until all of historic Palestine is liberated? And remember, that's just the PLO. I haven't even gone into Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the new strain of Al-Qaeda that's recently popped up in Gaza. By the way, I can assure you that Al Qaeda would have had a much more difficult time showing up in Gaza if Israel were still militarily occupying the region beyond the blockade and control over airspace.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Also, consider that Hezbollah is smuggling in weapons even while the UN acknowledged in 2000 (and I'll provide a link in the bottom of the sidebar just for you) that Israel has fulfilled its obligation to withdraw from Lebanon. And still, you say Israel ought to let the arms smuggling ships continue to pass by even while adherence to international law (as demonstrated by the impotent UNIFIL) is proven to be wholly ineffective ("arms smuggling? we don't see any arms smuggling...").
mbrown0315 2 years ago
If some govt decides to define shipments of weapons to Israel as "weapons smuggling", should we say, "no, countries can acquire weapons as they see fit, as per international law", or should we chuck out international law and stop the 'smuggling' into Israel? I go for the former, and I apply it regardless of race or creed.
ludwigau 2 years ago
The UN passed a resolution requiring "the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of July 27, 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state." You're the one who said that the IDF's tough measures amount to "not wanting to be constrained by international law." Are you not applying the same analysis to Hezbollah? If so, I have to suspect bad faith.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
The Security Council is not a fair example for practicing international law. 5 nations of 15 have the ability to veto any resolution that's drafted. The Security Council only exists to protect the interests of imperialist nations.
JimmyeDallas 2 years ago
Re Hizbollah, so you would have no problem then if it were simply integrated into the Lebanese army, as has been suggested at times? Then the question of "smuggling" would be moot by your own standards. Are do you have special standards for some?
ludwigau 2 years ago
Of course I would have a problem if Hezbollah were integrated into the Lebanese Army. That would be very dangerous for the Israelis and Lebanese. But you're right, the question of smuggling would be moot. As far as I know, the Lebanese Army doesn't smuggle weapons. It purchases them from other nations in legitimate transactions.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Comment removed
ludwigau 2 years ago
"That would be very dangerous for the Israelis and Lebanese."
In the latter case, I think that is a matter for the Lebanese people. It is not entirely clear that they would necessarily agree with you.
ludwigau 2 years ago
I realize it's a matter for the Lebanese people, but you did ask me if I would have a problem with it. The answer is yes. I'd see that as a very bad development. With respect to procuring weapons, however, the integration of Hezbollah would render the issue of arms smuggling moot.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I would still expect Israeli surveillance to continue, as I don't think Hezbollah's integration would dilute its goals. Likewise, I would expect Hezbollah to continue maintaining agents in Israel.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
I'll take that as agreement, since "surveillance" is simply something all countries do with respect to all other countries of strategic interest (note that the Hizbollah agents would then be Lebanese govt agents - which I assume you would find acceptable).
ludwigau 2 years ago
In that video we see a perfect case study of adhering to international law leading to potentially dire consequences. We have a party breaking international law by arms smuggling (though does it apply to them if they're non-state actors?) and we have Israel (a UN member state) with the choice of either adhering to international law (tantamount to allowing the other side to break it) or doing the necessary dirty work and preventing the enemy from pursuing the advantage.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
i suppose if one does not want to be constrained by international law, then it merely becomes a question of how barbaric one feels like being (or how successfully one can sell barbarism to one's constituency). liberal democratic values only count as such if they are upheld under pressure. in israel's case, they obviously aren't really values at all because they get routinely dumped at the first sign of pressure.
ludwigau 2 years ago
I concede that it's a damn shame that Israel has to live on its sword and that it has to sidestep international law when dealing with other parties that are doing the same. It would be great if Israel were Iceland and everyone got along and the issue of breaking international law simply never had to come up. The situation is, indeed, crappy. But, given the alternative, (letting arms shipments pass by freely) one should be able to at least appreciate the complexity.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
israel probably wouldn't have to "live by the sword" if it adhered to international law by withdrawing from the occupied territories to its actual (i.e. pre-june 1967 borders). of course, the fear is that israel has created a 'monster' in the Palestinian people because it has maintained the occupation for so long. alas, since for israelis, fear of Arabs is like mother's milk, the belief in 'the monster' is pretty much 'built in' now. it is probably fictional, but that is beside the point.
ludwigau 2 years ago
Idiots as always
Acunga 2 years ago
What's the name of the ambassador to Lebanon guy?
AhazAlford 2 years ago
Abbas Zaki.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
mbrown0315,
Neither Moderation nor Tolerance are characteristics of the Arab/Islamic culture.
If Fayyad is a "real moderate", then he is a rare bird in this region, and soon to move on to "better places", if you know what I mean.
cafeafuh 2 years ago
Palestinians and Arabs never meant to have Peace with Israel.
The conflict with them is not about Land, but about All the Land -- they want it all.
cafeafuh 2 years ago 5
The views I have revealed in this video are mainstream, but they do not represent the mentality of each and every Palestinian and Arab. I, for one, think that Salam Fayyad, for example, is genuinely interested in building a vibrant and moderate Palestine alongside Israel. His history and present behavior indicate that. I do believe that there are real moderates out there--just not enough.
And certainly not enough in power.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
At what point has Israel ever sought genuine peace with the Palestinians? Never, I think. The focus genuinely needs to be on those who actually possess the power to make peace. This confuses matters, however, for the degree of sovereignty Israel still possesses to actually seek peace, in relation to their dominance by the US and subjugation to US needs, is hard to discern.
shakeystevensVIII 2 years ago
Let's leave aside for now the issue of whether Israel has ever sought genuine peace. The truly enticing question, given the information I have presented here, ought to be how Israel would go about seeking genuine peace with a movement that wishes to see it done away with.
Thoughts?
mbrown0315 2 years ago
They could stop trying to undermine the possibility of a Palestinian state for starters.
Conflicts generally consist of two sides who want to do away with the other. Then, in negotiations, they make compromises. But why are you placing such weight on things said by Palestinians in the 70s when Israel today has clearly shown by its actions that it has no desire for peace? (Although I'm not sure whether they're acting out of their own self-interest or on America's orders, to be honest.)
shakeystevensVIII 2 years ago
I maintain that Israel should withdraw from settlements deep in the West Bank, but I am under no impression (as you and so many others are) that withdrawal from these territories will actually precipitate peace. Quite the contrary, it will fit perfectly into a platform adopted in the 1970s reflecting a sentiment from the 1940s and echoed until today (those videos were from the 2000s, so don't try to dismiss this as irrelevant history).
mbrown0315 2 years ago
As I said in my statement, you people try to dismiss the Phased Plan as a relic of the past, even while I have provided quotes and videos demonstrating conclusively that this sentiment is alive and well. For the record, Abbas Zaki (the man in the second video I provide) repeated his statement on the collapse of Israeli ideology followed by Palestinian advance and conquest in a statement just this past May. I'll post the article (with video) in the sidebar. You'll find it at the bottom.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
If peace negotiations take place then compromises will be made. Look at other conflicts. Both sides during the conflict will obviously hold extreme positions on which they compromise for peace. But why talk about the 'Phased Plan' when Palestine is being further diminished day by day? Surely that should be the main concern if you're concerned about peace? How can people take seriously the idea that they are planning to wipe out Israel when currently it is they who are being wiped out?
shakeystevensVIII 2 years ago
Not if one side views peace negotiations as a mechanism for furthering the conflict. That's exactly why we should be talking about the phased plan.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Israel is the side who insist all their demands be met before negotiations take place. Palestinian demands will then be 'considered' when certain conditions are met. If thats not a misuse of negotiation then I don't know what is. State the actual reason you want to talk about the 'Phased Plan' - to deflect the appearance of extremist rejectionsists from Israel onto the Palestinians. In any case, the shibboleth that Israel must exist is receding all the time - due entirely to Israel's behaviour.
shakeystevensVIII 2 years ago
You're still stuck on this negotiation issue. Do you not understand the whole point of my statement here? If some random guy on YouTube can put together a coherent presentation with ample source material about the phased plan, then IDF intelligence officials undoubtedly have an idea of what's going on---plus the other issues, such as Hamas.
If my bringing up the phased plan somehow deflects attention from Israeli radicals, who cares? That doesn't mean one ought to not consider it.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
Well you brought up negotiations in your last comment so....
I'm sure IDF 'intelligence' would also be aware of the military capabilities of the Palestinians and would know that, as the Palestinians don't have an army, the idea that they could destroy Israel after a settlement (which would be underwritten and guaranteed by the international community in any case) is ridiculous. Doesn't stop Israel and its supporters from promoting the idea though, does it? Seedy, underhanded, and dishonest.
shakeystevensVIII 2 years ago
We saw during the intifadah that the Palestinians can create plenty of damage with relatively simple bombs and stolen weaponry. If you watch my video "Thoughts on Proportionality," you'll see that they can do a lot more damage if they have access to greater resources, and they will if Israel withdraws its intelligence-gathering and preventive measures. The whole point is to gradually exhaust your enemy and ruin the economy until tactical advantage shifts. Basic guerilla doctrine.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
So - what? Are you saying that because of the existence of a 'Phased Plan' Israel currently has the right to reject peace, destroy the Palestinian economy and basically do what it wants ie. 'intelligence gathering and preventive measures'? Because that's what it's doing now and is what you seem to be justifying by saying the status quo should be maintained due to a falsely exaggerated threat. And so Israel won't negotiate until certain demands have been met whilst meeting none themselves?
shakeystevensVIII 2 years ago
Going to bed now, but I'll respond to this last comment in a YouTube message. I'm tired of having to deal with character limits. To anyone else who is viewing this exchange...if you wish to see my responses to shakeystevensVIII, please let me know.
mbrown0315 2 years ago
cafeafuh - "Palestinians and Arabs never meant to have Peace with Israel. "
When the majority of the sitting dignitaries in the UN and the world media paint Israel as the enemy of all mankind, not just Jordanian Palestinians, this truth, and all truths such as described in this video, get washed away and fall on deaf ears.
Change the propaganda machine and there might be hope. Otherwise the moderates will never be heard among a crashing sea of liars, haters and murderers.
They DO want it all
zihava 2 years ago
unfortunately it seems that the only palestinians who want peace are the ones old enough to remember tanks in the streets of jericho and house to house fighting in jenin..
the new generation is fed with alot of hatred, i have seen many palestinians who realize the right of return will never happen through force.
hamas however is very attractive to kids and teens living in poor conditions with dead- end lives.
thats the main obstacle, the next generation of the conflict.
IDFArmor 2 years ago
"the new generation is fed with alot of hatred"
which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the extra-judicial killings, the arbitrary detentions, the torture, the checkpoint humilitation, the bulldozing of houses, the extremination of children by aerial raids, the sonic boom fly-overs, the blockaging of medical supplies, food and fuel, the psychopathic uber-racist settlers, or anything else to do with the longest military occupation in living memory. I agree with you completely.
ludwigau 2 years ago
torture?
extermination of children by aerial raids?
are you serious???
israel supplies all the fuel, food and medicine to both the west bank and the gaza strip, on multiple occasions it was revealed there are no shortages on whats being delivered, people arent starving in the west bank,
you really think the "occupation" is more then disgrunteled soldiers with 2 humvee patrols a sector, maybe a checkpoint and orders to cause the least ammount of troule to locals?
IDFArmor 2 years ago
Oh, didn't you know that the Landau Commission legalised torture in 1987?
ludwigau 2 years ago
physical torture is illegal, sleep deprevation and threats might be called torture but are used in extreme conditions.
trust me, i know a whole lot more then you do.
IDFArmor 2 years ago
then why didn't you know about the legalisation of torture?
ludwigau 2 years ago