Trying to neuter the Greens’ left

It’s no secret that News Ltd wants to “destroy” the Greens. This morning’s Weekend Australian follows yesterday’s outright lies by David Penberthy with an all-out series of attacks on the party (you could go through line by line picking out the exaggerations, half-truths and misrepresentations), basically attempting to portray Lee Rhiannon’s support of a boycott of Israel as “racist” and “bigoted” and, and this is the thing I wanted to comment on here, “the Hard Left”.

Now, I’m a lefty – and I’m a lefty because I believe in, at core:

  • public services over tax cuts; and

  • human rights over profit.

These perspectives are generally referred to as “Left”. (If you’ve got a better name, I’d like to hear it.) I’m an advocate for the Greens for those reasons, not the environmental aspects of the party. As a voter and supporter, you could call me part of the Greens’ “left”.

But News Ltd – and, mystifyingly, the ALP – seems to be trying to redefine the political term “Left” to mean “racist”. The whole attack on the Greens being “taken over” by a “left” that is “extreme” is premised on Rhiannon supporting the Israel boycott – The Australian, naturally, doesn’t publish a single explanation or argument by those in favour of that policy, so readers (including me) are left in the dark on the rationale behind it* – in contrast with the “not so bad” environmentalists in the party.

Why would News Ltd be trying to work so hard to destroy the “Left”? It’s not like it’s suddenly doing it because it’s outraged by this BDS policy – its antipathy existed well before that. The BDS thing is a means of attacking the Left, not the reason for it.

Well, I suspect News Ltd’s real problem with the Greens is people like me – people who support better opportunities and services for the vast bulk of the Australian population, at the expense of the privileged like their proprietor. So they use fringe issues like this – and a local council’s boycott of Israel to send a message that they want it to reform its treatment of the Palestinians within its borders is hardly a core policy of the Australian Greens, but nor is it the madness The Australian is pretending it is – to attack us, and try to get the party to move back to a stance that’s less threatening to their interests.

The ALP and the Coalition are, to a large extent, house-trained by the nation’s corporations and most powerful people. The Greens aren’t.

And clearly that’s what’s behind News Ltd’s campaign to “destroy” (or at least neuter) them. Because they don’t want to see real change, real social and economic equity, and the Greens are the only party in parliament genuinely committed to that. It’s hardly surprising that those on top right now will do anything in their power to keep in that way – or that they’ll happily utilise every dirty trick in the book to do it.

*News Ltd’s strategy here seems to be to train its readers not to even ask what the Greens’ rationale for a policy is. By constantly calling them “extreme” and twisting their suggestions in as one-sided a fashion as possible, never giving them a chance to explain themselves, readers are trained to just assume that there is no explanation or rationale. The Greens are crazy because their policies make no sense, and their policies make no sense because I never see the other side which I assume isn’t there because the Greens are crazy. Repeat.

UPDATE: The other thing to note is how they turn a proposed boycott of Israel into “anti-Semitism”. That doesn’t make any sense unless you claim – dishonestly – that the Greens don’t care about other human rights abusers, and that they’re only picking on Israel because it’s full of JEWS and they must therefore HATE JEWS. (Which only works if you have a particularly gullible audience who don’t actually know any Greens.)

Anyone who’s watched the Greens seriously knows that they are relentless campaigners against all those who abuse human rights – from allies (the US) to competitors (China) to brutal dictatorships (they’ll even support military action against them to protect human rights, eg Libya), to ourselves. They are the only party in our parliament that consistently stands for the human rights side of an argument. (Compare Labor and the Liberals kowtowing to China, and the Nationals on wheat to Saddam.)

The BDS campaign is not a Greens policy, and I haven’t looked into it in detail, but there’s nothing inherently anti-semitic about criticising the government of Israel or – precisely because it’s a democracy and therefore its government is more subject to pressure from its people – attempting to put economic pressure against it with the aim of defending human rights.

If you can only attack such a plan by relying on an asinine condemnathon demand, it’s a good sign that you’re not debating honestly.

UPDATE #2: The Weekend Australian‘s editorial gives the game away:

Ms Gillard has cited the new parliament as reason for breaking her promise on carbon tax. We can only hope her robust critique of the Greens’ economic ineptitude will steel her will against their calls to limit industry compensation in the tax package.

That’s what it’s all about. Making sure that big business gets to screw over the rest of us. That’s what it’s always really been about.

Advertisements

118 responses to “Trying to neuter the Greens’ left

  1. Pingback: News Ltd War on the Greens tactic #1: shamelessly make stuff up – Pure Poison

  2. This whole Greens-bashing thing is really starting to piss me off, because it’s constancy is starting to sucker in otherwise rational people. I’ve had a couple friends and even my partner suggest that the Greens are anti-gay because they’re “supporting” homophobic Palestine over “gay-Friendly Israel”.

    The Greens being anti-gay? You’ve got to be kidding me. But this is what some (admittedly conservative) gay people are willing to believe about them thanks to the sustained media campaign against them. If you can turn people against the only party willing to fight for their rights, then your spin is working.

    I don’t really know what Gillard and Labor are trying to achieve by squabbling over the the same conservative base while abandoning the progressives. If they’re trying to out-hate the Liberal party they’re well on the way. The end result though, is that they’re pushing people to support the Greens, not leave them.

  3. It irked me when it was simply a comical stoush between big business and politicians, but now they are starting to get a little close to home and that is making me angry. I was wondering if it would be wrong to suggest fighting back, so to speak?

    Clearly you couldn’t just give tit for tat… no amount of made up spin about Rupert’s agenda could match the actual truth for brazen depravity.

    My suggestion is a public humiliation campaign.. soft, subtle and persistent. Whenever you see someone reading or buying a Rupert paper to loudly scoff, deride or outright criticise their poor, misguided choice of entertainment. Suggest that reading these papers brings into question their masculinity or their family values. Generally, try to popularise a distaste for News on branding rather than content.. because lets face it, there is not a hell of a lot of content.

    Would that be wrong?

  4. Pingback: Punch doubles down – doesn’t just refuse to retract clear untruth, actually repeats it – Pure Poison

  5. baldrickjones

    Of course, people could just be making their own minds up about the Greens and scrutinising their policies – BDS was put forward by a Greens candidate and cost them a lot of flak – and potentially votes. It’s about time that their policies get some scrutiny. They are all published on their website and therefore are easy to find and mock.

  6. The Israel boycott is also important in Limited News because Rupert is a long time friend of Israel. Don’t forget the dodgy part of the organisation that cracked a rival satellite network’s encryption and leaked it to destroy other broadcasters’ business, NDS, is based in Haifa. There’s several other arms of the empire based in Israel too.

    (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDS_Group#Canal_Plus_lawsuit)

  7. “Of course, people could just be making their own minds up about the Greens and scrutinising their policies”

    Why the need for the outright lies about them, then?

    “BDS was put forward by a Greens candidate and cost them a lot of flak”

    I like the way you imply there that it was a Greens policy, rather than a Marrickville council policy that a Greens candidate supported for Marrickville.

    “It’s about time that their policies get some scrutiny.”

    Honest scrutiny would be great.

    But, Baldrick, you’re a hardline rightwinger. They’re not meant to appeal to you. You’re hardly going to pick public services over tax cuts, or human rights over profits. They’re not trying to represent your viewpoint. You’ve got the other two big parties for that.

  8. baldrickjones

    “I like the way you imply there that it was a Greens policy, rather than a Marrickville council policy that a Greens candidate supported for Marrickville.”

    I didn’t imply anything – just stated the situation.

    I’m not a hardline right winger – just someone who has scrutinised the Published greens policies (if you can call some of their dot-point-a-thon musings policy) and have an understanding of where this could take Australia should they gain more power and influence than they have now. Some of their policies have long term negative implications on Australia’s security and position within the region.

    For example on their peace and security policy page:

    18. a reduction in Australian and global military expenditure.
    19. an ADF adequate to Australia’s defence and peacekeeping needs.

    Yeah, nice one fellas – what are these? How much? What is adequate and to whose needs? Stuff like this makes me doubt that they should be taken seriously as a potential governing party.

  9. “I’m not a hardline right winger”

    Yeah, you’re open to better funding of public services paid for by a progressive taxation system, aren’t you?

    You’re a supporter of ending discrimination against gay people?

    Sure you are. Sure, the Greens really have a hope at getting your vote.

  10. “Yeah, nice one fellas – what are these? How much? What is adequate and to whose needs? Stuff like this makes me doubt that they should be taken seriously as a potential governing party.”

    According to the right wing bed wetters. Oh my God we’re going to be invaded by the yellow peril again. Funny that! I’m still waiting for the tanks of the N.V.A. to come cruising down Hay St. Maybe next year.

    Australia a worlds power no less. Australia couldn’t defend Botany Bay on a hot summer Sunday afternoon.Not me saying it, Lance Barnard x defence minister. We could spend billions more it wouldn’t matter.

    Better to spend the money on Green sustainable projects.

  11. narcoticmusing

    if you can call some of their dot-point-a-thon musings policy

    Did you see the Liberal policies for the last 3 elections (Fed, Vic, NSW)? They didn’t even know how to interpret the Budget papers. They didn’t get it. The most basic parts of fiscal and financial management – the so called economic managers couldn’t figure it out. Their policies were un-costed, high risk, dot points.

  12. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy: “Now, I’m a lefty – and I’m a lefty because I believe in, at core:
     public services over tax cuts; and
     human rights over profit.

    The good thing about that formulation is that it shows that the various strands of Australian politics are not really that far apart. Of course we need tax and of course we need human rights. Also it is clear that if you destroy profitability you are not going to collect much tax.
    The main debate is about balancing the priorities.

    Still, this is a world away from the views of revolutionary Marxists, eco-terrorists, anarchist nutters and proponents of sharia law.

    The problem for the Greens is that some of their prominent politicians seem stuck in the rut of their previous Marxist incarnations. It is good to see Bob Brown try to bring them to heel. The ALP also had issues with communist infiltration of its ranks at one time, but has dealt with this problem. Hopefully the Greens will too.

    Most Australians understand the selective demonisation of Israel as evidence of fringe fanaticism. If the Greens want to be more than a fringe party they should marginalise the loons and select candidates ordinary Australians can relate to. There is a lot more to Australia than the elites and their smug and comfortable inner-urban enclaves.

    There is a lot of gamesmanship in the way politicians try to portray their opponents and often the media gets on board with it. The Greens play this game as well, for example Brown’s faux outrage when calling on Abbott to apologise about a rally when in the past Brown is on record as saying that a much more violent rally sent a “positive message”.

  13. narcoticmusing

    Do I dare bite? [sigh] I dare.

    It is not ‘selective demonisation of Israel’ – it is selecting human rights abusers for condemnation. There is a difference. Most Australians understand that I hope.

    Where the hell do you pull these stupid “elites and their smug and comfortable inner-urban enclaves” – do you think all the Liberal voting bankers/businessmen/anti-distribution of wealth rich ppl condemning the poor as easy targets/Christians who believe in small government unless they are dictating the way we can live, play games and love/etc live in hovels? They don’t. They live in big fucking McMansions (or bigger) and have inner city apartments – having enough wealth for an inner city apartment for work and a rural property for weekends doesn’t make you from rural Australia (and thus somehow more ‘real Aussie’), it just makes you out of touch with average Australians (I think you’ll agree those stereotypes unfair – so why use them against the left?)

    There is a lot of gamesmanship in the way politicians try to portray their opponents and often the media gets on board with it
    Yes there is, and it is normally stereotyping the left (and/or downright lying) in the exact way you just did and rarely does it criticize the Right in any objective manner.

  14. “There is a lot more to Australia than the elites and their smug and comfortable inner-urban enclaves.
    There is a lot of gamesmanship in the way politicians try to portray their opponents…”
    I think that’s called irony.

  15. The counterfactuals and slurs about the Greens by Murdoch, Gillard and Abbott suggest a de-facto alliance or at least common interest. They’ll all be looking at the newly-elected Green “Premier” of a German state with dread.

    The sad thing is, Murdoch’s mob wouldn’t publish these lies unless they felt sure they could get away with it, that the majority of the voting public is so dumb, and it’s probably an accurate estimation.

  16. Splatterbottom

    Narcotics: “It is not ‘selective demonisation of Israel’ – it is selecting human rights abusers for condemnation. “

    The demonising comes in because Israel is not a human rights abuser. Its opponents on the other hand regularly perpetrate human rights abuses, but this does not attract the attention of of the Israel bashers.

    Auchel, my statement is accurate. For an example of smug see this comment from Dave: “the majority of the voting public is so dumb”.

    As to the other demographic characteristics, just look at the voting patterns.

  17. Splatterbottom you wrote:
    “The demonising comes in because Israel is not a human rights abuser. ”
    Really? Not at all? Or just not much of a human-rights abuser?

    This is how PJ O’Rourke, everyone’s favourite Republican (well, mine anyway) summed up Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians:

    “This is bullishit. This is barbarism. I’ve covered a lot of rioting and pushes-come-to-shoves, and there is no excuse for this kind of civilian-hammering by soldiers and police.”

    There seems to be a very strong belief that if Israel does something it can’t be wrong.

    Well that’s just plain stupid.

    Brendan O’Reilly

  18. “The demonising comes in because Israel is not a human rights abuser. “

    FFS what do you call the imprisoning of everybody in Gaza? The decent call it for what it is – collective punishment!

    “Its opponents on the other hand regularly perpetrate human rights abuses, “

    No, not on the other hand, it’s opponents are abusers of human rights too, the decent know this, the one eyed, religious conservatives on the other hand, that would be YOU, the Israeli Govt and Hamas always blame the other side.

  19. Israel is not a human rights abuser.

    **splutter**

    Of COURSE they’re not. And the USA is not a human rights abuser, EITHER! That Abu Graib thing was a ONE OFF ABERRATION. And that nice Mr Pinochet did such WONDERFUL THINGS for Chile … oh you SHOULD have seen what a DREADFUL mess it was in before then …

  20. Splatterbottom

    Israel, taking reasonable steps to defend itself against regular and repeated attacks from Gaza, is not an abusing human rights. The reason for the blockade is the decision of the Hamas government to fire rockets into Israel. That is collective punishment by terrorising the Israeli population. Israel has an obligation to protect its people from the rabid Jew-hating scum that surround it.

    Cause and effect is very simple here. In 1948 Israel chose peace and the Palestinians chose war and terror. That should come as no surprise given that the Palestinian leaders spent WWII helping Hitler with the holocaust. Unlike the Germans, the Palestinians have not given up their anti-Semitic beliefs. Apparently Israel has no right to defend itself without being vilified by morally vacant leftists.

    Given that the Palestinians “are abusers of human rights too” at the very least one would expect a BDS campaign against them as well. I’m not holding my breath.

  21. narcoticmusing

    No, Israel taking reasonable steps aren’t the issue – it is the unreasonable steps that are the issue.

  22. narcoticmusing

    And Palestine already has blockades and sanctions – that Israel does not, suggests that they are being ‘selected’ for favourable treatment, not discrimination

  23. Splatterbottom

    It means that Israel are not murderous terrorists.

  24. returnedman

    Gosh SB … I’m sure I’ve heard that before … probably several thousand times before. It’s collectively known as “hasbarah”. You might want to try:

    – We took their houses because they ran away and didn’t come back.
    – The people who owned the houses were absentee landlords living in Turkey anyway.
    – The Arab countries didn’t take any of their “brethren” as refugees – how dare they!
    – John Pilger?! The man is a dangerous extremist. Don’t listen to anything he says. No, not even that. No, not that, either.

    And if you’re really on a roll, you might want to try: “There is no such thing as a ‘Palestinian'”. Any other clangers that people can think of?

    Your reference to Rachel Corrie as “St Pancake” on another thread shows just how measured and “Christian” your views really are on this, by the way.

  25. returnedman

    Gosh, why do you think Palestinians are like that, incidentally, SB? Is it their genes? Are they suckled on the teats of Kalashnikovs? Is it “just how they are”??!?!

  26. The demonising comes in because Israel is not a human rights abuser.

    Hmmm, I think we’ve pinpointed where you’re going wrong. You’re welcome to live in an alternate reality where Israel can do no wrong, but there’s no reason to expect more objective people to join you there. Best keep quiet on this one, SB. Your ideological bias is showing.

  27. returnedman

    … the Palestinian leaders spent WWII helping Hitler with the holocaust …

    You’re aware, of course, that the Zionist leaders were also in cahoots with the Nazis during WWII? Good thing they didn’t succeed in getting all of them to Palestine during that time – it would have made von Braun’s job so much easier: “Look, mein Fuhrer – zey are all in ze one place! Ve chust need vone rocket und – KABOOM! Tinkle tinkle …”

  28. Pretty much the whole world holds an unfavourable view of Israel:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6421597.stm

    I’m guessing in the conservative mind, this is easily explained as the knock-on effect of all those spiteful UN resolutions. Either that or anti-semitism is pretty much prevailing everywhere (except Israel, of course).

  29. Splatterbottom

    RM, their religious beliefs have a lot do with it and their hideous anti-Semitism. They tried war but the illegal wars they started didn’t work out for them so they have resorted to terrorism. Their vile cheer-squad encourages them in this by championing their right to “resist occupation”.

    Buns, it seems to me that most of what Israel is accused of is little more than self-defense against Jew-hating terrorists.

  30. I call bullshit.

    SB’s not a fool – he knows perfectly well that one can engage in human rights abuses while prosecuting a campaign of self defence. The two are quite obviously not mutually exclusive. I think he’s pretending to see the conflict in manichean terms simply in order to provoke other commenters.

    It’s the same motivation behind his idiotic accusations of anti-semistism against the Greens (yes, yes SB we all know you never had the guts to actually say it, you just strongly, deliberately and repeatedly implied it).

    He knows they’re not really anti-semites, just as he knows that Israel is the only party capable of breaking the cycle of violence in the conflict with Palestine (and therefore the one against which pressure should logicaly be applied) , but where’s the fun in taking a measured, mature and non-objectionable position?

    Those engaging SB should at least know that his recalcitrance is largely an act generated for his own amusement.

  31. Splatterbottom

    Mondo: “one can engage in human rights abuses while prosecuting a campaign of self defence”

    Most of what the cheerleaders for Palestine call human rights abuses are not that at all. Those abuses that do occur are dealt with under Israeli law. The Israelis police and prosecute Jewish extremists whereas the Palestinian governments sponsor terrorists and publicly honour them.

    The cycle of violence will only be broken when the Palestinians choose to rejoin the human race and give up trying to murder Jews at every opportunity. There have been many opportunities for the Palestinians to make peace, starting in 1948. If they had taken that opportunity they would now have far more land than they are ever likely to get.

    The sad fact is that the Palestinians are, due to their racist religious beliefs, unable to accept the existence of the state of Israel. The Palestinians should take a leaf out of Israel’s book and negotiate the best deal they can now, and get on with their lives. In fact if they had any sense at all they would beg the Israelis to rule them. They Israeli Arabs have more freedom and are economically better off than any other Arabs in the region. Instead they continue down the path of violence cheered on by the prancing ghouls of western nihilism.

  32. “The cycle of violence will only be broken when the Palestinians choose to rejoin the human race “

    What a foul, racist comment.

    BTW SB, let’s be clear, (I know, that’s very difficult for you.) had the UK acted against your Catholic (terrorist) bretheren in Ulster the same way the IDF acts against the Palestinians, you’d have no problem? Say they bombed them from 30 000 feet? Say they locked up children in adult prisons, indefinitely….for throwing stones? You’d have no problem with this would you?

  33. returnedman

    Wow, SB, you’ve outdone me with these blazing jewels of hasbarah:

    – If they had taken that opportunity they would now have far more land than they are ever likely to get.

    – The sad fact is that the Palestinians are, due to their racist religious beliefs, unable to accept the existence of the state of Israel.

    Looking forward to your blistering sermon condemning the actions of the IRA.

  34. Splatterbottom

    RobJ there is nothing wrong with calling out the racist and terrorist actions and beliefs of the Palestinians as inhuman or pointing out that their will not be peace until the Palestinians renounce their murderous ways. They should be called out for this. Of course the morally inverted Western leftists merely provide cover for them.

    Your analogy with the IRA is all wrong. The difference with the catholics and the IRA is that the Pope rightly forbid catholics from supporting them whereas Palestinian terror has clerical support. The IRA did not have the support of any government. The Irish government hunted down the IRA whereas the Palestinian governments support and honour the terrorists.

  35. “RobJ there is nothing wrong with calling out the racist and terrorist actions and beliefs of the Palestinians as inhuman or pointing out that their will not be peace until the Palestinians renounce their murderous ways”

    But you wrote:

    “The cycle of violence will only be broken when the Palestinians choose to rejoin the human race”

    You chose to demonise an entire people.

    “The IRA did not have the support of any government.”

    Only because Sinn Fein and the terrorists were a minority however the Libyan Govt supported them and the US govt were not interested in stopping US citizens arming them so they supported them too.

    All Hamas are Palestinians. All IRA are Catholic, I realise that doesn’t mean all Palestinians are Hamas and all Catholics are IRA. I can make the distinction. Unfortunatley you can’t (I know you can but I also know you’re dishonest) you can distinguish between Catholic and terrorist but not Palestinian and terrorist, because of your overt racist attitude to Palestinians.

    What did you write the other day? Something like: “RobJ, I didn’t expect you to get the distinction”… Well with your warped definitions who cares?

  36. The cycle of violence will only be broken when the Palestinians choose to rejoin the human race

    You certainly hold some abhorrent views, don’t you? I suppose it is OK for Israel to treat the Palesitinians like animals in your eyes, since that’s all they are.

    In fact if they had any sense at all they would beg the Israelis to rule them.

    You really do live in fantasy land, don’t you? Tell you what, go and live among the Palestinians for 12 months and then see how you feel about Israel.

  37. The sad fact is that the Palestinians are, due to their racist religious beliefs, unable to accept the existence of the state of Israel.

    It might also have something to do with the Israelis occupying Palestinian land and subjugating the Palestinian people. It’s also probably fair to say that the view you pretend to hold, i.e. that Palestinians are not real human beings, is actually prevalent amongst a large section of the Israeli population.

    But you already know that, don’t you SB.

  38. Splatterbottom

    RobJ: “You chose to demonise an entire people.”

    I make no apology for castigating in the strongest possible terms the racist violence perpetrated by Palestinians and supported by a vast majority of the populace. We are talking about a culture that is rotten to the core. When Palestinian gunmen broke into a seminary and murdered 8 students in cold blood over 80% of Palestinians supported that action. When Israel released a prisoner who had shot a child dead at point blank range he was welcomed home a hero.

    I am not saying that every last Palestinian supports these views, but I am saying that the culture is pervaded by rotten racism from the kids TV programs to the mosque. It shows when they elect an avowed terrorist organisation to lead them. When the UN announced they would teach the Holocaust in the schools they run in Gaza, Palestinian teachers and political leaders said that that was unacceptable and that doing so would “open the gates of hell”.

    Mondo, my point is not that that Palestinians are “not real human beings” (your words, not mine) but rather that beliefs which pervade their society are inhuman. That is a valid point and I’m not sorry for the way I expressed it. Of course it would be a more honest of my critics to quote the full sentence, but then I wasn’t really expecting honesty from my opponents in this debate.

  39. “I am not saying that every last Palestinian supports these view”

    Wriggle wriggle.. We know what you’re saying and now, true to form you’re back pedaling. To be honest, I haven’t read your latest post, what’s the point, it’s just more bullshit. The only line I read is the one I quoted. It stands out like the proverbial’s.

  40. Oh and I read this one:

    “Of course it would be a more honest of my critics” Just another example of your hypocrisy.

  41. Splatterbottom

    RobJ: “I haven’t read your latest post, what’s the point, it’s just more bullshit.”

    I see your point RobJ. Why read what I actually say when you can just cherry-pick. Your not even wriggling, just making shit up.

  42. Mondo, my point is not that that Palestinians are “not real human beings” (your words, not mine) but rather that beliefs which pervade their society are inhuman.

    Funny – when you said above that Palestinians needed to rejoin the human race I thought it fairly safe to assume that you believe they currently are not members of the human race – i.e. that Palestinians are not humans.

    But now you retreat from your own words, just like you did last week with your Anti-Israel = Anti-semitic stupidity.

    Yours is the literary equivalent of lobbing a hand-grenade and then quickly looking away and whistling with your hands in your pockets. “What, me? No – it was YOU who threw it!”

  43. returnedman

    the culture is pervaded by rotten racism

    So, it’s The Culture which is at fault. If it is The Culture which is to be blamed on that side of the fence, how do you explain the Jewish Defense League, the Jewish Defense Organisation, B’nai Elim, Baruch Goldstein, Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination …?

    And don’t go saying that these are extreme people and organisations who are widely condemned in Israel – they are supported by many people there who also control or influence Israel policy. These are the religious extremists on the other side of the fence.

  44. returnedman

    Mondo, I notice that SB hasn’t responded to criticism of his “St Pancake” comment on a previous thread, either.

  45. narcoticmusing

    When Palestinian gunmen broke into a seminary and murdered 8 students in cold blood over 80% of Palestinians supported that action

    So, do you think support from the population counts as calling them all racists? Do you think the Israli people support the bombings of Palestine? Or is that suddenly justified as ‘self defence’?

  46. I trust SB is aware that many Palestinians (such as Hanan Ashrawi) are Christians.

  47. Yours is the literary equivalent of lobbing a hand-grenade and then quickly looking away and whistling with your hands in your pockets. “What, me? No – it was YOU who threw it!”

    Childish, isn’t it? Pretty much every thread nowadays, too.

  48. Splatterbottom

    Mondo, you are such a truculent turd.

    Either quote me in full or don’t bother. If you have a legitimate point to make, make it. But don’t just quote a few words and lob a grenade without even trying to analyse my position.

    Then tell me what you think “rejoin” means and how it fits in with your literalist interpretation of a few words taken out of context. Do you really think your trite point-scoring is reasoned analysis? All it is is evidence that you are a lying hypocrite. You don’t have the guts to quote me in full and analyse that statement. Instead you start hurling abuse, which is hardly surprising given the irrationality of your position.

    RM if you want to make a specific argument rather than list some names, please do so.

    What criticism RM. If you’ve got a point to make, get it out. If some moron intent on making a spectacle of herself jumps behind a bulldozer forgetting that she might be in the driver’s blindspot she is certainly a candidate for the Darwin awards.

    Narcotic: “So, do you think support from the population counts as calling them all racists?”

    Try to rephrase that into some sort of proposition.

    “Do you think the Israli people support the bombings of Palestine?”

    Que? The Palestinians fire thousands of rockets randomly into Israel, each one a war crime. Israel fire a few rockets into Palestine specifically directed at the war criminals assaulting Israelis. Every decent person applauds the latter and condemns the former. I doubt you even understand the difference.

  49. Israel fire a few rockets into Palestine specifically directed at the war criminals assaulting Israelis.

    Which regularly – REGULARLY – hit innocent families and children and kill them. I highly doubt the IDF can make that many “mistakes”. Keep going SB, this is great.

  50. Splatterbottom

    RM have you got any evidence for your suggestion that the IDF targets civilians? Didn’t think so.

    Maybe the civilians of Gaza should try to get the terrorists they elected to stop firing bombs into Israel. That’s where the cycle of violence begins.

  51. returnedman

    I didn’t imply they were targeting civilians. I implied they were careless. And as the occupying force of the Palestinian Territories there is a greater moral (and legal, for that matter) imperative on them to NOT be careless.

    Or do you not believe they are an “occupying force”?

  52. Then tell me what you think “rejoin” means and how it fits in with your literalist interpretation of a few words taken out of context. Do you really think your trite point-scoring is reasoned analysis?

    His complaint is that you back-pedal when called on your bullshit, and you respond by continuing with more back-pedalling.

    Perhaps it would assist us in determining where you are going wrong if you would explain which part of this you don’t understand (from Mondo’s last post here):

    when you said above that Palestinians needed to rejoin the human race I thought it fairly safe to assume that you believe they currently are not members of the human race – i.e. that Palestinians are not humans

    You can’t “rejoin” something if you are already a part of it. How’s your comprehension? If you didn’t mean what you said, man up an admit it. Don’t be a weasel.

  53. Splatterbottom

    Buns here is what I said:

    “The cycle of violence will only be broken when the Palestinians choose to rejoin the human race and give up trying to murder Jews at every opportunity.”

    That is a strong statement of my utter disgust at their murderous anti-Semitic culture where cold-blooded murder of innocents is celebrated and publicly honoured.

    This attitude is inhuman. Clearly the use of the word “rejoin” indicates that I am not referring to any genetic characteristic but rather their hateful culture, which they are free to renounce at any time.

    My comment was meant to express extreme disgust which is entirely appropriate. You should focus your invective more on those who say nothing about this, or even worse, excuse or support it, than on people who rightly point to the rottenness of these racist murderers and the society which honours them.

  54. Far from being some sort of “trite, point scoring” issue, the attitude of commentators towards the Palestinian people is of fundamental importance to any discussion of this dispute.

    An immature and hyperbolic belief that the Palestinians are sub-human, or are genetically or culturally incapable of behaving like reasonable human beings, indicates a gross distortion of reality as well as a slavishly one-sided and irrational view of the conflict. In other words – it identifies the commentator as a fundamentalist and a fanatic.

    My responses to you SB are no different to the way I would respond to a pro-Palestine agitator making grossly anti-semitic remarks in pursuit of a borderline racist ideological agenda.

    I’ve siad it before and I’ll say it again – your commentary on this issue identifies you as an utter fanatic, incapable of taking a measured and intelligent view of the conflict and what needs to be done to resolve it. You are an irrelevancy as far as the solution goes, although one that is replicated many times over on the extreme Right.

    You’re no different to the fanatic Palestine supporters you are so eager to damn.

  55. returnedman

    their hateful culture, which they are free to renounce at any time.

    What is the former and how do they achieve the latter?

  56. Splatterbottom

    Mondo there you go with another idiotic false equivalence argument, which is indicative of your trite point-scoring approach.

    Nothing I have said comes anywhere close to the ingrained anti-Semitism of the Hamas charter say, or the views of the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qaradawi, who said that the Holocaust was Allah’s will carried out by the German’s and that he hoped that Allah would deign to permit Muslims to implement the next one, or the sermons which preach that Israel is a cancer, the Jews are a virus and the Muslims will finish them off. It is nothing like the kids comics and cartoons exhorting the m to Jew-hatred and martyrdom.

    My point is not that Palestians are “culturally incapable of behaving like reasonable human beings” but rather that they need to disavow those strands of their culture that truly are inhuman. Until that happens there is no prospect of peace. Gruesome Western wankers who respond to terrorism by prattling on about the right to resist occupation are the enemies of peace.

    RM “hateful culture” in this case is one so polluted by anti-Semitism that murdering Jews receives wide popular support. They can achieve the latter anytime by renouncing terrorism and ridding their culture of the anti-semitic memes that pervade it.

  57. Nothing I have said comes anywhere close to the .

    Of course your comments are not worse than a cherry-picked list of the worst stuff coming from the other side SB. But equally, nothing Palestine has done comes close to the

    My point is that those who are determined to resolve this conflict by identifying the side that’s “good” can pick and choose from a huge range of atrocities on either side to buttress their position. But in the end they are doing nothing but engaging in childish stupidity on a massive scale.

    If you desperately grasp at every rumour, exaggeration and one-sided anaysis you can find to demonise the side you have decided are the the “baddies” then you become a cartoon – incapable of making a rational or reasonable contribution.

    You, SB, have become a cartoon in relation to this conflict. Your one-sided, manichean approach identifies you as a fundamentalist who is no longer capable of meaningful or useful comment.

  58. Splatterbottom

    Mondo, you’ve got it arse-up again.

    You said: “My responses to you SB are no different to the way I would respond to a pro-Palestine agitator making grossly anti-semitic remarks in pursuit of a borderline racist ideological agenda.”

    You make this comparison and suggest some crazed false equivalence between me and an anti-Semite. When I refute this, giving examples to show that there is actually some difference, me making comparisons is unhelpful to a peaceful resolution. Do you even understand that I was answering a specific point you made, not proposing a solution to the conflict? Cartoon logic indeed.

    As to resolving the conflict step 1 is stop the rockets and Jew-murder. Step 2 is to hold both Israel and the Palestinians to account if either breaches the peace. Then comes the hard part – negotiating terms of settlement. This is generally understood to be the way forward and not much different to the Roadmap to peace of the Bush era.

    In fact his has been the situation since 1948. From 1948 to 1967 there was no issue of “occupied” territories. Yet even then the Palestinians resorted to violence and war. That was about Israel’s right to exist, which is still the major issue.

    My theory is that until Palestinian society cleanses itself of Jew-hatred there is no possibility of peace. This is no easy matter because it is so deeply ingrained in the religious beliefs of the Muslims of the region. This is not a fringe issue, it is central to even the possibility of a permanent peace.

    In the meantime real differences between the two sides should be acknowledged. For example that Israel polices and locks up its violent fanatics whereas the Palestinian authorities publicly honour theirs. Until this changes nothing else will.

  59. returnedman

    From 1948 to 1967 there was no issue of “occupied” territories.

    So where were the Palestinians all this time? Hiding in the attic?

    And I’d like to know exactly how much violence the Palestinians themselves were enacting during that period. My understanding of the history of that time is that Nasser, an Egyptian, was causing most of the trouble.

  60. returnedman

    Israel polices and locks up its violent fanatics

    Or elects them to public office. Sharon is a good example.

  61. Great example returnedman. War criminal turned Israeli PM. Then again, these days he’s in a living hell at the moment, maybe there is a god?

    SB are you at all familiar with the massacre at Sabra and Shatila? Where the CHRISTIANS massacred hundreds, if not thousands of Palestinians?

  62. You make this comparison and suggest some crazed false equivalence between me and an anti-Semite.

    There’s nothing false about it in the context of this discussion.

    An anti-semite can’t contribute meaningfully to the debate since they are intrinsically biased against a Jewish state – but it is equally true that someone intrinsically biased against Palestinians can’t contribute either.

    A commentator who has picked sides is useless in this conflict. One who is happy to imply that the entire population on one side of the conflict is sub-human is especially useless. It is utterly irrelevant how much ‘evidence’ such an ideologue can cherry pick from the historical record to support their prejudice: the evidence is not the issue – the fanatical mindset is.

    You consistently identify yourself as a fundamentalist in relation to Israel v Paletine: you are utterly one-sided in your ability to perceive the conflict. You demand concessions from an occupied, traumatised and, let’s face it, brainwashed people that reality dictates can never be forthcoming.

    That’s what makes you irrelevant SB, and what makes your invective effectively worthless. It’s all bluff, bluster and moral posturing simply for the sake of your own personal gratification.

  63. Splatterbottom

    RM many Palestinians were in Israel enjoying more freedom and prosperity than the Arabs in neighbouring states. The rest were Jordanians or Egyptians. Given that they declined a state of their own, preferring instead to join together with five neighbouring states to start a war, it is hard to blame Israel for the lack of a Palestinian state. Nazi collaborator, Palestinian leader and notorious Jew-hater Sheik al-Husayni encouraged Egypt to attack Israel in conjunction with the Palestinians and neighbouring states.

  64. Splatterbottom

    Mondo I am not “intrinsically biased” against anyone. My conclusions are fact-based and subject to change.

    “A commentator who has picked sides is useless in this conflict.”

    You mean like those who single out Israel for demonisation with their BDS campaigns?

    “You demand concessions from an occupied, traumatised and, let’s face it, brainwashed people that reality dictates can never be forthcoming.”

    Like what? That they stop murdering Jews? That they renounce their terror fetish?

    I agree with you that a permanent peace is impossible. This because it seems impossible for Palestinians to accept the existence of a Jewish state in the region.

  65. You mean like those who single out Israel for demonisation with their BDS campaigns?

    If the BDS campaign is generated from a simplistic pro-Palestine position, rather than from a belief that specific Israeli behaviour is unacceptable from a human rights perspective, then yes. Such a person should clearly be marginalised from the debate and their policy positions discounted. Simplistic fealty to one side in the conflict (such as that which you have displayed over the years towards Israel) does nothing but highlight the intellectual limitations of the protagonist.

    Like what? That they stop murdering Jews? That they renounce their terror fetish?

    Insisting that an occupied people to cease resisting their brutal occupation as a pre-condition of ending that brutal occupation is a solution that could only be offered by someone monumentally ignorant of human history (or so blinded by ideological loyalty that they deliberately ignore human history).

    It is, quite simply, a worthless suggestion offered only as a weak moral justification for further brutality.

  66. Splatterbottom

    Mondo: “Insisting that an occupied people to cease resisting their brutal occupation as a pre-condition of ending that brutal occupation is a solution that could only be offered by someone monumentally ignorant of human history”

    So you are supporting terrorism? You are far more one-eyed about this than I am. The reason there is a problem at all is because the Palestinians chose the path of violence in 1948 and continued it ever since. If they had chosen their own state which included the “occupied territories” and whole lot more there would be no issue now.

    History is important in this dispute. If you don’t understand how the history you won’t understand what is going on now. What the history shows more clearly than anything else is that the resort to violence is the cause of the problem. It is not any part of the solution.

  67. Mondo I am not “intrinsically biased” against anyone. My conclusions are fact-based and subject to change.

    It’s obvious you genuinely believe this. But it isn’t true. In fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth. You attribute 100% of the responsibility for the problem to the Palestinians. How could you possibly be any more biased than that? By definition, that is the most bias you could have.

  68. Splatterbottom

    Buns

    This is a pretty polarised area. If you are honest about it there are not a lot of people who comment on this issue who fall into the undecided category.

    Ultimately the Palestinians have a lot to answer for on the biggest issue – choosing violence in 1948 and not renouncing it.

    Also I don’t see how peace can be reached if the only way your enemies will permanently settle with you is on a basis that you cease to exist as a country.

    There is a heap of stuff Israel is responsible for, a lot of bad choices they have made, but I think they would take a peace which allowed a separate Palestinian State at some point. I don’t believe the Palestinians will ever make a permanent peace that allows a Jewish State to exist.

  69. Blast Tyrant

    The reason there is a problem at all is because the Palestinians chose the path of violence in 1948

    You mean when the Zionist militias went around masacring Palestinian civilians?
    I’m sure those Palestinian villagers at Deir Yassin were just itching for a fight. They just all coinincidently died whilst in a line against a wall…

    Seriously, what was the Irgun, Hagana, Stern Gang even created for if not to perpatrate violence against Palestinians when the Zionists wanted Palestinians of Palestinian land?

    And speaking of Nazi sympathisers SB, despite being questioned on it, you’ve never bothered to try and explain (or even acknowledge) why Israel were rolling out the red carpet to John Vorster whilst he was running Aparthied in South Africa.

    Oh but no, it’s all about these disgusting Jew haters!
    Infamous TERRORISTS; B’TSelem show 4 terrified (and masked) Israeli and masked Israeli Setttlers defend themselves from this unarmed JEW HATING sheperd.

    Look at this family here – they may look like they’re just trying to get a pregant woman to hospital, but in fact they’re on their way to MURDER SOME MORE JEWS and save the remains to FEED TO THE BABY when it’s born!

    Sure they just look like kids, but they’re JEW HATERS! and that’s why the IDF need to beat them up.

    This ANTI-SEMITE TERRORIST only looks to be about 8 years old, but he’s cold blooded and deserves everything he gets

    Talk about brain washing kids, these Israeli’s can tell the difference between a civilian woman and her baby and what is actually another JEW HATER and her midget TERRORIST friend cleverly disguised as an infant

    At least David Ben Gurion understood the situation:
    “If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

    But that’s SB. As people have rightly pointed out, he’s a fanatic and a fundamentalist.
    I would add that he’s a racist and a pathetic little worm.

  70. Blast Tyrant

    This link of the poor defencless Israeli Settlers beating back the JEW HATER didn’t get entered into the previous post.

  71. returnedman

    Don’t forget that one of the first official declarations of the Palestinians around the time of partition was that the partition would be a bad idea. It wouldn’t work. The only solution was one state.

    And what are many right-wing Israeli politicians now proposing? The one-state solution.

  72. Splatterbottom

    Mondo your exception for those who have “a belief that specific Israeli behaviour is unacceptable from a human rights perspective” is meretiricious. The mere fact that they choose to single out Israel for demonisation and special treatment is evidence of that they have picked sides and are (according to you) useless and irrelevant to the resolution of the issue.

    The only effect of their actions will be to isolate Israel and make an extreme response from them more likely.

    BT here is a list of quotes along the same lines.

    They are not relevant to my point that in 1948 the Palestinians had a choice for peace and didn’t take it. You can quote all the horrible things people said on both sides, but the Palestinians didn’t give peace a chance.

    Most of the porn you displayed in your last comment is a direct consequence of choosing violence.

    The Israelis took their state when offered it in 1948 even though it was much less than what they wanted or expected. The Palestinians had the same choice. Terror attacks and guerrilla warfare had been going on since the 1920’s, and continued after May 1948. The Palestinians convinced 5 neighbouring Arab states to attack Israel. There was a clear choice then to opt for peace but the road to violence was chosen instead. Sadly the parties are still on that road, and it won’t end until the Palestinians renounce violence and make peace.

  73. Blast Tyrant

    They are not relevant to my point that in 1948 the Palestinians had a choice for peace and didn’t take it

    The quotes are completely relevant. They show that the David Ben Gurion knew that the result of stealing land would be violence, and it shows that the Zionist leadership WANTED to bring violence, because they (like you) were racist towards Palestinians – deserving of no rights to their land, that there was nothing wrong with killing them for it.

    In 1948, the Zionists invaded Palestine, started masacring civilians, as in Deir Yassan, and displaced hundreds of thousands from their homes.
    THAT is what started large scale violence.

    Yet you claim that the invaded chose to be violent whilst the invader chose peace?
    What a ridiculous notion.

    Most of the porn you displayed in your last comment is a direct consequence of choosing violence.
    Yeah, of Israel choosing violence. Of ideologicial settlers choosing violence. Of the IDF choosing violence.
    I hardly see how IDF soldiers bashing and 8 year old is somehow the fault of the 8 year old.
    As for being called ‘porn’ – only for sick fucks like you, who the concept of violence against ‘dark people’ causes you to reach for the lube.

    The Israelis took their state when offered it in 1948 even though it was much less than what they wanted or expected
    Offered by who exactly? Certainly not the actual owners of the land so what right did they have have to annex and partition it off?

    Luckily for the world, racist ideological voices like yours- although growing more fantatic and lunatic in their claims by the day- are becoming fewer and fewer as the attrocities of Apartheid Israel become more and more obvious to reasonably minded people.

    And Hopefully the revolutions in the Middle East continue to grow, and scum bags like Netinyahu continue to shit their pants at the prospect of Palestinian liberation at the hands of their brothers and sisters in the rest of the region.

    But no point debating you. I’d have more chance of having a reasonable discussion if I was on the O’Reilly Factor discussing the Iraq war.

  74. returnedman

    in 1948 the Palestinians had a choice for peace and didn’t take it.

    They didn’t take it because many of them knew it wouldn’t create peace.

    The one-state solution is just a matter of time. If the current wave of grass-roots politics in the Middle East and North Africa continues along the right path, it will provide an ideal environment for such a solution. My prediction is that Modern Hebrew as an everyday language will also decline and possibly disappear within 200 years. Classical Hebrew will continue to exist.

  75. Splatterbottom

    BT you still can’t get away from the fact that the Palestinians chose violence over peace in 1948 and have persisted with it ever since. We are still living with the consequences, and will continue to do so until the Palestinians give up on the terror tactics. More likely we will end up having some form of conflagration with another 6 million dead Jews, something that will obviously make you very very happy.

    “I’d have more chance of having a reasonable discussion if I was on the O’Reilly Factor discussing the Iraq war.”

    O’Reilly was sceptical about the Iraq war – you’d probably get a reasonable hearing from him. It’s sad you jump to conclusions without actually knowing any facts.

  76. Splatterbottom

    RM, a one state solution is a polite way of saying that the Jews will be killed or expelled as has happened in the neighbouring Muslim countries. It is not a serious option.

  77. returnedman

    Wow I want a copy of the cool phrasebook BS is quoting from.

  78. returnedman

    The Jews were expelled from the neighbouring countries in … when? Late 40s / early 50s? Gee, I wonder what ELSE was happening in the Middle East at that time that could explain it … let me think …

  79. returnedman

    It is not a serious option.

    So explain why so many right wing Israeli politicians are now proposing it.

  80. Splatterbottom

    You mean the plan to have one Jewish state including Judea and Samaria?

  81. narcoticmusing

    until the Palestinians give up on the terror tactics

    So what do you propose SB? They are out-gunned, out-manned, out-supported. Israel has the US in its corner. They are supported by the Western World despite constant UNHCR violations. While it isn’t 100% applicable here, there is merit to the adage, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I am curious as to what solution you suggest, considering the Palestinian point of view that they are being invaded. Do you suggest that if you were invaded, just because someone gave you a chance for something less than what you had earlier, you should just accept your circumstance?

    It is interesting because in the freedom of speech thread, you say we shouldn’t allow threat of violence to dictate our rights – is this not what the Palestinians are doing? I’m not condoning Palestinian acts of violence, however if one accepts that Israel’s acts are ‘self-defense’ then is it not just as reasonable that Palestinian’s are acting via their very limited military mechanisms that are then translated as terrorism (despite being a very effective anti-occupation mechanism that has long been employed in the case of military oppression and to resist occupation).

  82. The mere fact that they choose to single out Israel for demonisation and special treatment is evidence of that they have picked sides and are (according to you) useless and irrelevant to the resolution of the issue.

    A relatively facile statement, even from you SB. It is, of course, quite possible (some might argue adviseable even) to seek to resolve a dispute by singling out the party most likely to be receptive, or the party over whom you hold most influence. Pressuring one party to a conflict to make a concession obviously doesn’t mean you’ve taken sides with the other.

    Any parent of two fighting children can explain this concept to you if you’re having trouble with it.

    You attribute 100% of the responsibility for the problem to the Palestinians. How could you possibly be any more biased than that? By definition, that is the most bias you could have.

    You’ll note, Buns, that SB did not attempt to refute this assertion of yours – he only made excuses for it. Your observation is obviously correct, and a much more succinct way of arguing what has taken me hundreds of words above to communicate.

  83. So you are supporting terrorism?

    It would be more fair to say that I understand the motivations of occupied people who seek to resist that occupation. Firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas may seem abhorrent by the standards of comfortable middle-class people tapping away at computers like us in a free and peaceful society, but I might well do the same if Australia was invaded and then occupied by a foreign force. Particularly if friends and family members had been killed by that force.

    But this is simply a distraction: I am pandering to your affliction.

    Trying to paint all those who oppose Israel as supporters of terrorism is simply another way in which your powerful bias and manichean impulses prevent you from meaningfully participating in any solution to this longstanding dispute.

  84. narcoticmusing

    These sorts of conflicts have been fought out and judged on their merits prior to the events of Sept 11 – then suddenly big military powers were allowed to crush others and any form of retaliation was immediately used to justify oppression. It doesn’t justify indiscriminate killing, but nor does firing rockets justify such disproportionate responses ie more indiscriminate killing.

  85. Blast Tyrant

    More likely we will end up having some form of conflagration with another 6 million dead Jews, something that will obviously make you very very happy.

    Ah yes, the old “if you dont 100% support Israels right to take as much land and kill as many Palestinians as is neccessary to achieve this, you must be a JEW HATING ANTI SEMITE and want ALL THE JEWS TO DIE”.
    It’s the last refuge of a fanatical lunatic SB, and history disagrees with you (as did Ben Gurion)

    O’Reilly was sceptical about the Iraq war – you’d probably get a reasonable hearing from him. It’s sad you jump to conclusions without actually knowing any facts.
    Yeah, he was one of the key speakers at the anti war rallies eh?

    Anyway, I’ve spent more time provding evidence that you’re just a delusional racist creep than should be wasted on the likes of you.

    I do hope however it burns you inside to see Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa standing up for themselves, rather than be subjected to US dicates and the racism of Israel.

    Returned Man:
    The one-state solution is just a matter of time. If the current wave of grass-roots politics in the Middle East and North Africa continues along the right path, it will provide an ideal environment for such a solution.

    I agree completely.
    It’s also amusing to watch the talking shit-heads in Washington squirm and change their tunes to try and keep up.

  86. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “So what do you propose SB? They are out-gunned, out-manned, out-supported.”

    They have been trying violence for 60 years and have gone backwards in that time. Israel felt most vulnerable when Sharon begged Bush not to treat Israel like Czechoslovakia (a reference to the way the West sacrificed Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler). Fortunately for Sharon the terror resumed and Bush gave up any attempt to appease the Palestinians.

    Palestinian violence is a massive distraction from the underlying issues and is a (very real) card Israel can rely on in any argument. Take that away and there will be a lot more sympathy for the Palestinians and a lot more pressure on Israel.

    One thing that is absolutely certain is that recourse to violence has done much more harm than good to the Palestinian cause.

    Mondo: ” Pressuring one party to a conflict to make a concession obviously doesn’t mean you’ve taken sides with the other.”

    The US does that all the time to Israel. However, treating one country as a pariah state is most definitely “taking sides”, particularly when you are prepared to encourage Palestinian terrorism.

    And I did answer Buns.

    ” but I might well do the same”

    The fact that you also have terrorist inclinations does not justify terrorism. No doubt you get vicarious revolutionary pleasure by excusing and encouraging Palestinian terror, notwithstanding the damage it does to the Palestinian cause.

    Also your history is more than a bit off. Israel was attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Syria in 1967 and in the ensuing war Egypt and Jordan both lost territory which they did not want back. Since then things have been a complete mess. There is no realistic basis on which a single Palestinian state could conceivably be bought into existence at the moment.

    RM that looks awfully like a Jewish state with diminished rights for Palestinians, and Gaza excluded. There are also ultra-orthodox who don’t want the state of Israel to exist at all. I don’t think either of these propositions are realistic.

  87. Blast Tyrant

    O’Reilly was sceptical about the Iraq war – you’d probably get a reasonable hearing from him. It’s sad you jump to conclusions without actually knowing any facts.
    Yeah, a reasonable hearing indeed…

  88. returnedman

    It looks awfully like any number of things at the moment, because it’s an idea whose time is only really coming into play now. Any one-state solution will only work if it is not imposed unilaterally by Israel, which behaviour has caused so many problems in the past. It will need to be decided by the UN – it looks like that much-maligned body seems to have managed OK with Timor Leste and the recent South Sudan events, so I’m sure they’ll cope with Palestina.

  89. The fact that you also have terrorist inclinations does not justify terrorism.

    You like to throw labels around in an insipid attempt to smear opposing views without addressing them, don’t you SB?

    Express opposition to Israeli policy and you immediately vomit the “anti-semite” label into the discussion. Indicate sympathy with the Palestinian urge to resist and you make accusations of “terrorist inclinations”.

    It’s lazy and insipid argument SB, and while you may think that you’re successfully distracting from your own genuinely fanatical views you’re actually doing the opposite. You’re only further highlighting your proximity to your fellow travellers on the extreme right.

  90. Splatterbottom

    Did you even watch the video you posted BT?

    1. Donahue got ample opportunity to make his points.
    2. O’Reilly broadcast opinions of viewers criticising his performance.
    3. O’Reilly stated that he did not embrace the war, that it was handled poorly and could turn out to be a tactical error.
    4. Donahue asserted that it was unconstitutional to go to war without congressional approval. I wonder if Obama was listening before he attacked Libya.
    5. Donahue said that the US would never win that war as it would get its troops out before it could win.

    It was a perfectly reasonable discussion. I might start watching O’Reilly again.

    RM the Jews cannot risk the consequences of living in a Palestinian controlled state. It is not an option. There is a serious risk they would end up in a worse position than the Christians enjoy in Iraq or Egypt.

    Mondo: “Express opposition to Israeli policy and you immediately vomit the “anti-semite” label into the discussion.”

    That is a gross mischaracterisation, but I suppose it is all you can come with if you are all out of rational arguments.

    ” Indicate sympathy with the Palestinian urge to resist and you make accusations of “terrorist inclinations”.”

    No silly. It is because you said that you may well take up terrorism yourself.

  91. The Oz was having another go at the Greens today.

    But in a piece of wonderful irony, after having a go at the Greens for not responding immediately to questions from Oz ‘journos’ (which of course makes it the Greens fault when they get the facts wrong), Oz journo Matt Franklin then declines to answer the ABC’s question on the matter.

  92. Blast Tyrant

    1. Donahue got ample opportunity to make his points.
    No, Donahue made ample opportunity to make his points. Donahue stood up to O’Reilly’s bullying tactics and that allowed him to make his points. It was hardly the format O’Reilly was aiming for going into the interview.

    2. O’Reilly broadcast opinions of viewers criticising his performance. yeah, 2 of them. Although it’s hardly here nor there.

    3. O’Reilly stated that he did not embrace the war, that it was handled poorly and could turn out to be a tactical error.
    O’Reilly also implied that if you support Iraqi’ right to resist then basically your a traiter or a terrorist lover.

    4. Donahue asserted that it was unconstitutional to go to war without congressional approval. I wonder if Obama was listening before he attacked Libya.
    What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Although you like to peddle the fucking stupid notion that Obama is a left winger, he is right wing shit bag, like bush, and like you.

    5. Donahue said that the US would never win that war as it would get its troops out before it could win.
    What the fuck is your point moron? Jesus Christ you’re a great big fucking didlo.

  93. “he is right wing shit bag, like bush, and like you.”

    Not only are they shitbags, they’re scared shitbags:

    http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/53269-right-wingers-have-larger-fear-center-in-the-brain

  94. SB has been conditioned to fear and hate the left, why? Because they have better brains than him!

  95. No shit RobJ?!

    That explains the racism, the homophobia, the religious intolerance..so much falls into place.

  96. I’ve known it for years, science is now being used to back it up.

  97. Who said a new state would be “Palestinian-controlled”? The new state-makers are the UN, not the toffy British Imperial authorities. It was thanks to the latter that we have so many current (yet in many cases, unravelling) problems in Middle Eastern and African countries. Thankfully the sun IS finally setting on that unpleasant piece of history.

    The same story is happening in Latin America, where the era of the US Empire is also facing its own sunset and the consequent – messy but progressing – democratisation is taking place.

    This is in spite of the propagandistic use of fear that is still strong in the US today, and has existed since the Cold War. Unfortunately SB chooses to buy into that fear.

  98. Splatterbottom

    BT, when Donahue wanted to speak, which was quite often, O’Reilly let him. He finished what he was saying and then said “go” to Donahue who then had is pissy little rant. At the end he gave Donahue the last word. It was a good combative interview.

    “O’Reilly also implied that if you support Iraqi’ right to resist then basically your a traiter or a terrorist lover”.

    How is that wrong? It is merely stating the bleeding obvious!

    No doubt you really got off on those suicide bombers that blew up 50 people at a time, or was your favorite the naked mutilated corpses strung up on the bridge? Everytime you replay them you’d be digitising your anus with fingers still sticky from jacking off over the highlights.

    “you’re a great big fucking didlo.”

    Better a dildo than a tampon like yourself, though I shudder to think what would happen if I fell into your hands.

  99. Blast Tyrant

    Yeah bravo SB, you can’t even be original when making up insults.

    And the problem with your ridiculous little “try and blame the anti-invastion left for TERRORISM” is that suicide bombing is a reaction to the invasion, continued occupation and policies of the occupying forces (especially of that little turd Bremmer).
    There was actually very little, if any at all, suicide bombings before the invasion.

    So in reality, if you want to play the game of
    No doubt you really got off on those suicide bombers that blew up 50 people at a time, or was your favorite the naked mutilated corpses strung up on the bridge? Everytime you replay them you’d be digitising your anus with fingers still sticky from jacking off over the highlights.,
    you might wanna put down the lubricant & subscription to “Copraphilia Monthly”, and take a good hard look in the mirror.

    That is, if you weren’t so fucking chicken shit of what an ugly insipid excuse for a human being you would see there.

  100. Blast Tyrant

    Rob, Duncan – it’s all starting to make sense now!

  101. Blast Tyrant

    I just read the article Rob.
    It actually kinda makes sense. However the question posed at the end is the money question. I reckon the difference in grey matter will turn out to be the effect, not the cause.

    There’s been some study into the same areas of the brain on returned veterans, and it’s been found that the vet’s with more PTSD issues etc are similar, and that there is less communication between the two parts of the brain.
    This book covers it in part, although it’s not the main focus of the book.
    http://www.ivaw.org/blog/book-review-lethal-warriors

    If really interested, I’m sure the google machine can help you find articles on it.

    Cheers.

  102. Splatterbottom

    BT: “ou can’t even be original when making up insults”

    You mean like calling someone a dildo?

    “suicide bombing is a reaction”

    Well that makes it all right then. The dead civilians can just suck it up eh? I’m sure you would if your family were the victims, or would you just blame the Jews?

    “There was actually very little, if any at all, suicide bombings before the invasion.”

    It took the clerics a while to get comfortable with suicide bombing, but when they did they found plenty of people looking for the 72 virgins.

    Before that there was plenty of more orthodox terrorism going back to the ’20s.

  103. “I reckon the difference in grey matter will turn out to be the effect, not the cause.”

    Yeah, which would back up the anecdote, that we get more conservative with age. I’m not a believer in that anecdote myself, in my experience I’m not getting more conservative with age.

    So, a brain can degenerate (and the person becomes more conservative 🙂 ) But it can’t ‘unevolve’ so I contend that wingnuts have more primitive/racist brains than us lefties….

  104. “So, a brain can degenerate (and the person becomes more conservative ) But it can’t ‘unevolve’ so I contend that wingnuts have more primitive/racist brains than us lefties….”

    There is nothing contentious about that belief. I mean even old Albert Einstein himself was a progressive lefty.I notice in all of SB’s comments, not a mention about the Jewish terrorism against British soldiers and their families in forming the state of Israel.. Ah well, I guess those poor old British baggy arsed privates that got blown up (just doing their job like Gary Powers snigger! snigger), were just anti Semites.

  105. Blast Tyrant

    Well that makes it all right then. The dead civilians can just suck it up eh?

    No, it means that if they stopped oppressing the Palestinians they might find less terrorism against them.
    Hence, the first step towards peace is not for the oppressed and invaded peoples to continue to make concessions (and the Palestine Papers show they made a hell of a lot more than Israel) but for Israel to stop their state sponsered terrorism.

    I’m sure you would if your family were the victims, or would you just blame the Jews?
    My family wouldn’t ever be in that situation because we’re not a bunch of racists who think we have a right to disposses Arabs of their land and shoot their kids for fun.

    What would your reaction be SB if it was you and your family being kicked out of their homes and having White Phosperus dropped on your and your children whilst the local hospital was targetted with air strikes eh?

    You should also get your facts correct, as Fatah already has a ceasefire with Israel – yet violence continues to be metted out by the IDF and the settlers against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and East J.
    Israel continues to evict Palestinians from their homes and steal more land, making a viable Palestnian state impossible.
    Livni also conceded this has been policy for a long time now.
    What more can Fatah offer the racists running Israel SB?

    And Hamas has repeatedly offered a cease fire but is continually knocked back.
    I guess you wouldn’t read about that stuff in the fanatic ‘blame everything on the arabs’ web sites that pass for journalism that you read.

    The trolling is getting pretty tiresome SB. As i mentioned before, you’ve wasted more of my (and everybody elses) time than you deserve, so I dont think I’ll bother responding to you again unless you come up with something other than blatant racism and shrill cries of anti-semetism.

  106. narcoticmusing

    I think the summary of views here, is that having a well financed, high tech military doesn’t make you any less capable of terrorism than being desperate, starving and under-resourced – it just makes the tactics different.

    It also means that a well organised and resourced military has a much better capacity to be accurate and also a greater capacity to harm – which imposes certain responsibilities. The capacity to do great harm with military might imposes a responsibility to behave proportionally and with care; to seek out targets and not use such massively destructive weaponry – not just because you should, but because you can. Accuracy comes with all that resourcing.

  107. Splatterbottom

    BT: “No, it means that if they stopped oppressing the Palestinians they might find less terrorism against them.”

    So you want the Israelis to stop defending themselves? The best tactic the Plaestinians have is to stop the violence. Then all the pressure goes on to Israel.

    “My family wouldn’t ever be in that situation because we’re not a bunch of racists who think we have a right to disposses Arabs of their land and shoot their kids for fun.”

    Most of the victims of Palestinian terror attacks are not in that category either.

    Hamas usually asks for a cease fire to rearm or when their gutless leadership is getting killed off.

    Narcotic the biggest danger in all of this is the acquisition of sophisticated rockets by Hizballah and, if Egypt lifts the Gaza blockade, Hamas. If Tel Aviv is destroyed by rockets Israel will have no choice but to use some tactical nukes. Hopefully they will save some for Tehran, who is supplying the rockets.

  108. I haven’t much commented on this thread from fear of feeding SB’s obsession, but…..

    It’s always interesting to turn the apologists logic on it’s head and see if they still find it so compelling – ‘if Gaza is destroyed by rockets/bombs/artillery (as it has almost been) then Hamas will have no choice but to resort to WMD. Hopefully they will save some for Washington, who is supplying the rockets etc ‘

  109. narcoticmusing

    It is frightening when you turn their logic around, isn’t nawagadj?

    SB, my only response would be that while I abhore either side using such weapons against each other, why shouldn’t Palestine have more sophistocated weapons? It is not like Israel have demonstrated that they can be trusted with their sophistocated weapons… and the whole ‘they’ll have no choice but to use tactical nukes’… bullshit. They’ll have a choice, but we all know they’ll use them based on their previous over-reaction to everything else thrown at them. The fact that you acknowledge Israel will believe they have no choice demonstrates the point of everyone on this thread – that it is Israel who cannot be trusted. I’m not suggesting no right of retaliation if Hamas were to strike with sophistocated weapons; but it is the irresponsible manner in which they yield far superior power I take issue with.

    Btw, ‘tactical’ nuke? Nukes are hardly tactical. It may be a tactic, but they are not tactical.

  110. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, I would hope that Israel can be trusted to use all weapons at it’s disposal if that is the only to prevent its cities being destroyed and its people driven into the sea. If it does not protect its civilians from the savages who wan’t to destroy it, it has failed in its primary duty.

    “why shouldn’t Palestine have more sophistocated weapons?”

    Are you serious? For the last 60 years at least the Palestinians have used every method at their disposal to kill Jews as and when they can and you want to give them more firepower? That certainly doesn’t look like a path to peace. It looks like a path to escalating the conflict. How will this help exactly. Yesterday Ahmadinejad, who has been instrumental in giving modern weapons to the Palestinians said that the day is soon coming when there will be no more Israel in the Middle East. Is that what you really want?

    “I’m not suggesting no right of retaliation if Hamas were to strike with sophistocated weapons; but it is the irresponsible manner in which they yield far superior power I take issue with.”

    First retaliation is not the issue, but rather Israel defending its citizens. since its foundation it has succeeded in doing this. It has used its weapons to defend itself and for that it is slimed with statements like: “It is not like Israel have demonstrated that they can be trusted with their sophistocated weapons”.

  111. All decent people condemn the violence of the IDF, Hamas and Fatah and all the little factions. Those with stupid, primitive, racist brains on the other hand see everything in black and white.

    Also the stupid, ignorant racists (who see everything in black and white) don’t realise that one condemning IDF actions aren’t automatically supporting the terrorism/violence from the other side.

  112. Are you serious? For the last 60 years at least the Palestinians have used every method at their disposal to kill Jews as and when they can and you want to give them more firepower?

    My goodness! Did something happen 60 years age to provoke the Palestinians into this aggression, or are they just murderous animals who hate jews on a genetic level?

    SB’s solution in a nutshell: just hand the Palestinian people one big tube of lube and tell them “it only hurts if you fight back honey”.

  113. My goodness! Did something happen 60 years age to provoke the Palestinians into this aggression, or are they just murderous animals who hate jews on a genetic level?”

    No. Moses said like Lurch from the Adams family ‘Follow me’ End of.

  114. narcoticmusing

    but rather Israel defending its citizens

    So how is nuking a country after they’ve shot a rocket at you ‘defence’? Defence is an attempt to prevent, not retaliation. Defence might be things like, not violating the cease fires and treaties… It might be perhaps, not retaliating in such disproportionate ways that it forces teh other side to feel that they now too have to retaliate (and thus the circle of violence continues).

    You say it is about defence and not retaliation but also say that if Hamas fires rockets then that justifies Israel nuking Palestine.

  115. Blast Tyrant

    So you want the Israelis to stop defending themselves?

    Oh yes, that’s right. In the video’s posted above the Israelis were “defending themselves” from unarmed:
    farmers, pregnent women and children of various ages.

    Look who else Israel needs to “defend themselves” against!
    Peaceful protestors, and not all of them JEW HATING arab TERRORISTS!
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/21/emily-henochowicz-israel-gaza-protest
    This 21 year old JEW MURDERING white jewish girl from New York was just such a threat to those, um, other Jewish people? what?

    or all these JEW HATING zoo animals? That giant turtle and pregnant camal were seriously thinking about going on a rampage in downtown Tel Aviv. Luckily the IDF stepped in…

    Replace the word term “defending themselves” with something like “stealing more and more land and shooting more and more civilians in a continual cycle of terrorism with the aim of genocide and ethnically cleansing the entire Occupied Territories”.

    Most of the victims of Palestinian terror attacks are not in that category either.
    Yet apparently ALL victims of Israeli terror are JEW HATERS eh?

    Narco:
    why shouldn’t Palestine have more sophistocated weapons
    Um, they apparently do! according to SB:
    Yesterday Ahmadinejad, who has been instrumental in giving modern weapons to the Palestinians said that the day is soon coming when there will be no more Israel in the Middle East. Is that what you really want?

    So why are they still using home made rockets if Iran is supplying them with “modern weapons”?
    And apparently, if you dont side with Israel then you must automatically love Ahmadinejad.

    Hamas usually asks for a cease fire to rearm or when their gutless leadership is getting killed off.
    So Hamas needs to what now?
    If they continue firing rockets then Israel have every right to wipe out Gaza. Yet if they ask for a ceasefire then Israel has every right to wipe out Gaza.
    Again, what specifically would you like Palestinians to do again?

    I’m no fan of Hamas, but by your own logic they’re damned if they do and damned if they dont.

    And no reply to the fact that in the West Bank Fatah actually works WITH Israel yet Israel continues land theft and killing of civilians (IDF and Ideoligcal settlers), so unsure what you expect Palestinians in the West Bank to do.

    It’s just decending further and further into crackpottery here. Do you really only form your opinion of this conflict based on the J’Post and Fox News???

  116. Blast Tyrant

    narco:
    You say it is about defence and not retaliation but also say that if Hamas fires rockets then that justifies Israel nuking Palestine.

    but you fail to realise that it’s those home made rockets that have a kill ratio of about 1 per 10,000 fired actually have the capacity to destroy Tel Aviv.
    So far they’ve just been firing warning shots…

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s