Originally posted by no1marauderThat's all very righteous of you and I agree, but it's got nothing to do with reality nor does it dispute my position.
The most responsible course for the criminal is not to engage in crime. Reducing the amount of murders you commit in order to steal something from someone else isn't a particularly laudatory course of action as compared to not stealing.
Perhaps if the Nazis couldn't keep themselves from 'doing something about them jooos' it would have been more responsible to put them on trains headed out of town instead of trains headed toward prison camps?
And if perhaps Israel decides someday it has to 'do something about them Paleos' it would be better for them to move the them out instead of kill them?
Originally posted by MerkIf the people who run Israel someday decide to forcibly expel all Arabs from Israel and kill those who resist, they will be monsters. Unlike you, I will not grant them any excuse for being monsters.
That's all very righteous of you and I agree, but it's got nothing to do with reality nor does it dispute my position.
Perhaps if the Nazis couldn't keep themselves from 'doing something about them jooos' it would have been more responsible to put them on trains headed out of town instead of trains headed toward prison camps?
And if perhaps Israel decides ...[text shortened]... about them Paleos' it would be better for them to move the them out instead of kill them?
Originally posted by MerkI am amazed at where this thread has gone. The ball that Merk has picked up and is running with, is almost AThousandYoung-like in its daft, flippant, make-people-gasp-at-a-dinner-party hubris.
Heres Baghdad. The killing subsided when the populations separated. A lot of people died until people moved.
The killing subsided when the populations separated?
The killing was the ethnic cleansing. The killing subsided because the people had been killed or they weren't there to be killed. A lot of people died until people moved? A lot of people were murdered so that they would move.
Are you really suggesting pre-emptive collusion with groups intent on mass murder. Wouldn't you have to start buying into other parties' racial theories, master race pretentions, notions of scientific racism, racial purity concepts etc. Wouldn't groups merely have to threaten genocide to then get your support and assistance?
"Lend your support to the ethnic cleansers and mass murderers so that, hopefully, they won't be ethnic cleansers and mass murderers." Not quite as pithy and catchy as "Might is right". But a similar contribution to human race's long struggle to set its moral compass.
How utterly precocious of you!
But, I suspect, the dinner party ends eventually, and the Rascal Thinkers go to bed and dream their dreams - wake up and go back to being unhappy school teachers and selling second hand cars.
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't put words in my mouth. I never said I would 'excuse' them. I said relocating a population is more reasonable than killing a population.
If the people who run Israel someday decide to forcibly expel all Arabs from Israel and kill those who resist, they will be monsters. Unlike you, I will not grant them any excuse for being monsters.
Originally posted by FMFThe killing subsided when the populations separated?
I am amazed at where this thread has gone. The ball that Merk has picked up and is running with, is almost AThousandYoung-like in its daft, flippant, make-people-gasp-at-a-dinner-party hubris.
The killing subsided when the populations separated?
The killing [b]was the ethnic cleansing. The killing subsided because the people had been killed or they wer ...[text shortened]... s - wake up and go back to being unhappy school teachers and selling second hand cars.[/b]
That's pretty clear.
The killing subsided because the people had been killed or they weren't there to be killed.
Exactly! Weren't there to be killed!
Being forced to move prevented their death. How hard is that to grasp?
Given the choice between killing them or moving them, I would take moving them. And they moved them across town, for crying out loud. It's not like they made them go to Siberia.
Given the choice between Hitler killing millions of Jews or moving them out, I would take moving them.
Given the choice between Isrealis killing the Palestinians or moving them, I would take moving them.
Same goes if the Palestinians had the ability and desire to do both to the Joos in the future. I'd prefer moving them.
Unless you prefer murderous genocide, I don't see how you can disagree.
What is it about the genocide that makes people apoplectic anyway?
Originally posted by no1marauderI may be misreading the posts, but I don't see anyone extolling the virtue of ethnic cleansing.
The ethnic cleansing you are extolling is always done by threat of force on those who are unwilling to be dispossessed of their homes. Killing invariably is required as there will always be persons who will resist such inhumane violations of their basic, natural rights. Your support of such crimes is monstrous.
The simple facts of world history are that conflicts have been generally settled by the use of force, or by the voluntary submission of one side! Right, wrong, that's the way conflicts have been settled. How else? Many of those conflicts were based on ethnicity, in Europe, Asia, Africa, even among native american tribes, and most like among the Aboriginals of Australia and New Zealand.
As alliances between nations became more prevalent, even alliances like the League of Nation, and the UN, the alliances that were to curb violence have actually become a part of the violence. No one will argue that Slobadan Milosovic and his ethnic cleansing in Kosevo were a good thing, but was the UN solution of having America bomb the hell out of Serbia any better?
We can take the position of elitists and judge from afar who are the bad guys in any conflict, but in the end, one side will end up in disagreement.
The UN or the United State might have intervened in Rwanda, but did not. Many here are crying out for intervention in the Sudan. Guaranteed if the US became involved in either conflict, we would be as hated by the opposition as we are for remaining neutral.
My point is that intervention in even a fist fight in a bar may get you injured, and regardless of who was right or wrong, you may end up hated by both parties.
The fighting usually stops and the killing when one fighter or group is submitted by the other. That's been the way of the world, and I don't see how to change it. Anyone have a suggestion?
Originally posted by FMFNo the majority of Arab Israelis are uninvolved with the jihad. Clearly some are. As I've already said, moderate Arabs must clearly and loudly articulate their opposition to jihad. Otherwise their silence may be taken as support.
Yes, please clarify what you meant. Are suggesting that Arab Israelis are in some way to blame for the tide of suicide bombings and retaliatory air strikes? Are you proposing that Arab Israelis are stripped of their citizenship? You say: "I am capable of saying what I think." Then please do. The post I responded to seemed to be a messy attempt to change the subject.
No, I don't support mass deportation, but I can empathize and understand why some Israelis might consider that an option.
I've heard Americans wanting to silence "hate speech" of Neo Nazis, or Aryan nation types, or of radical Black supremacists, or of various cults. I can understand why they feel as they do, but recognize that Freedom of Expression in America is more vital than squelching ideas that anyone is opposed to.
The problems of the Palestinians and Israelis are milleniums old, and aren't going to be settled by Western diplomats, or our comments on a chess site forum. Arabs and Israelis will have to settle this. The unfortunate history of the world is that most often these things are settled by violence and the eventual submission of one party or the other.
Originally posted by FMFI am attempting to point out that often there isn't any good, much less perfect solution.
But your questions were not about the beginning of the thread and not about the proposed ethnic cleansing of Arab Israelis. You appear to want to indirectly justify it by talking about something else - suicide bombings and air strikes. What have they got to do with Arab Israelis? If you are, as your own words seem to indicate, lending your support to the propose ...[text shortened]... reprehensible one to most decent people, surely, rather than me calling you on your obfuscation.
I believe that is the same thing Merk is attempting to say.
In English the term "balkanization" comes from the ethnic struggles in the Balkans. People all over the world generally tend to voluntarily choose to live among people ethnically and culturally similar to themselves.
Attempts by governments to blend these populations by force are usually doomed to failure.
So no I don't favor the solution proposed, but I don't favor continuing the status quo of the last 6 decades.
I don't think that expelling Arab Israelis will make any difference, except to perhaps convince some who were on the fence to join the jihad. I also think that moderate Arabs, whether in Israel, or elsewhere in the world must become more outspoken and demonstrative, so that they are not mistaken for being sympathetic to or in cooperation with the jihad.
Originally posted by FMFI'm trying as best I can to get into the heads of Israelis. Such a proposal as expelling all Arab citizens didn't originate out of thin air, or without any thought of motivation.
That is your response/retort to criticism of the proposal that Arab Israelis are stripped of their citizenship and rights and ethnically cleansed from Israel??
Surely it is you who is being argumentative?
In what specific way are you linking Arab Israelis to suicide bombings? You say: "If we [here in the U.S.] had one year with attacks as common as ...[text shortened]... ou mean? Say what you mean. Your posts are littered with nasty little insinuations. Be clear.
You can pile on the Israelis, as is popular among western elitists, or you can attempt a bit of empathy. Sure the majority of Arab citizens aren't terrorist bombers. Some are!
OK, so the solution proposed seems somewhat radical. Got a better one?
Is there something these Arab Israelis can do either as individuals, or as a group?
Originally posted by FMFFrom Israel to Cambodia and Laos.
Where did you get this idea from? A web site? A pamphlet?
The American aerial bombings of Cambodia and Laos in the early 70s apparently killed no one.
In Iraq, water supply infrastructure was bombed "surgically" and tens of thousands have died of preventable, and previously non-existent, waterborne diseases. Do you factor this in or do you factor this out ...[text shortened]... re is a modern day concentration camp with 2,000,000 people in it down just the road?
By the way the parts of Cambodia and Laos serial bombed were largely uninhabited, and were known as "The Ho Chi Mihn Trail", used by the RNVA to infiltrate into S. Vietnam. The bombing in that era was pretty primitive compared to that used in Serbia, and stone age compared to that used in Iraq.
Yes the water and electric infrastructure, and command and control targets were extensively bombed. Civilian casualties as a result were minimal compared to previous air bombardments. Yes, and historically pandemic is a normal consequence of every war.
The difference is that Israeli cluster bombs were directed at known terrorist stronghold, while Hezbolah rocket attacks were indiscriminate and often simply lobbed toward civilian population centers. If the Israelis had the same immoral disregard as did their enemies they could have inflicted massive civilian deaths beyond imagination.
The moral equivalencies you draw are totally bizarre, and your hatred of the West and Israel are finally up front for all to see.
War is an always has been hell. Start one, and there is hell to pay. IMHO the US was absolutely wrong to call off the Israelis in Lebanon. All the talk, diplomacy, and blaming of Israel hasn't stopped or even slowed down the jihad. Some conflicts must be fought to the death, or until someone "taps out". Then the winner must take such precautions as are necessary to prevent the enemy from retooling and rearming, as was done after WWII with Japan and Germany.
Originally posted by FMFThat is purely a sophomoric idea.
Would you favour some kind of military action by the U.S. against Israel if it carried out this threat of ethnic cleansing?
[b]Until moderate Arabs and Palestinians, are vocal in distancing themselves from the jihad, many Israelis will take their silence as a sign of sympathy with the jihad.
They do. What newspapers have you been reading?
How is it ...[text shortened]... ar, used the term "Arab Israelis"? How can you claim that your posts have been truly on-topic?[/b]
I think we ought to stay out of the business between Israel and their jihadist neighbors.
Not vocal enough! We have one of the largest concentrations of Arab Americans in my part of America. Once in a while a spokesman of moderates is heard denouncing the jihad, usually after some particularly terrible terrorist attack. The stuff from the Arab militants is non stop. Perhaps it is the media coverage, which I admit is not very good.
Originally posted by vistesdI've not read anyone making that claim or assumption.
As FMF keeps pointing out, the question here is about Israeli citizens who are also Arabs. There seems to be an awful lot of presumption about what those Israelis want or don’t want, would or would not do, in the event of a two-state solution, etc., etc. –beginning with Foreign Minister Livni’s comment about “national aspirations”.
Why [ ...[text shortened]... ying that they don’t want to be expelled from the country in which they hold citizenship.
However, even the polls you cite indicate substantial disagreement, or roughly 60/40 depending on the poll.
That is a bit more than the majority determining the American Presidency, and would be considered a "landslide".
I simply don't believe that mass deportation would be tolerated, never mind favored by any majority of Israelis, but I can see how it gets mentioned as a possibility.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWould we consider the nationalization of farms in Zimbabwe to be ethnic cleansing?
You seem to be saying that because people stopped being killed once the ethnic cleansing stopped, ethnic cleansing was somehow a positive force. As if to say because Armenians in the USA are better off, the murder of their people was somehow justified. Let alone what happened to the Jews. Then there are the Chechens ... also victims of ethnic cleansing ...[text shortened]... removal of people from their lands to be justified? Please supply examples from history.
How about other Statist solutions not involving ethnics, but rather classes of people, such as landowners in Cuba after Casto's revolution? We can find endless examples where opposition to a statist dictator where either expelled or more often summarily executed.
Originally posted by no1marauderI can find no fault with the truth of what you say. However, I also don't see a better way. Where in history is there a model solution?
The ethnic cleansing you are extolling is always done by threat of force on those who are unwilling to be dispossessed of their homes. Killing invariably is required as there will always be persons who will resist such inhumane violations of their basic, natural rights. Your support of such crimes is monstrous.
Originally posted by normbenignI'd call it that.
Would we consider the nationalization of farms in Zimbabwe to be ethnic cleansing?
How about other Statist solutions not involving ethnics, but rather classes of people, such as landowners in Cuba after Casto's revolution? We can find endless examples where opposition to a statist dictator where either expelled or more often summarily executed.
Yes, many examples, none positive. For example, some Zimbabwean farmers were killed (it wasn't 'voluntary separation'😉. And no positive outcome. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here.
Do you think the USA would continue supporting Israel if it gave its Arab citizens the choice: march or die?