How would you react if your neighbors fired 45 missiles at your house? Palestinians fire at Israel

There's enough proof for the solidity of Hamas ideology regarding a global Islamic caliphate. One sample:

https://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=627&doc_id=11336

The reason many on the left support the secular Assad regime (of course "secular" in a Muslim country is not "secular" in the US, but still...) despite this regime's deeds and atrocious allies - terrorist organization Hezbollah and the Iranian theocracy - it's the same reason the same people are bitterly opposed to Saudi Arabia's religious rulers while fawning over Iran's religious leaders: the pro-Assad coalition is anti-American and an enemy of Western civilization, while Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US. Something in the leftist ideology makes many of its adherents believe that the Western world is irreversibly ill and corrupt, and that nothing less than totally destroying its foundations will redeem humanity. The third world anti-Western dictatorships become thus allies against the bigger evil, their own faults and sins explained away as consequences of bad Western imperialist influence.

It's quite a racist, bigoted attitude, by the way, even if the adherents employ the language of human rights and sincerely believe they fight for a better world. Frankly I'm stunned by the sheer naivete of people who are absolutely sure they know what's best for everyone else on this rather large planet.

There are several problems with MSM: some related to reliance on local stringers - doubtful objectivity at best - for news in troubled areas like the Middle East, some related to editorial bias, some related to poor understanding of reality, some related to political and ideological bias of journalists themselves. Basically, news that sell are in the "man bites dog" category. MSM is essentially a news selling business, after all, and it shouldn't become gospel for its readers.

This is not the main issue however. The fight against Islamism should be a priority for political bodies at both national and international level. Information channels should be created for the public - don't ask me how, if I knew I'd probably be too busy briefing my own Prime Minister right now instead of babbling on forums. Islamist charities should be outlawed (yes, even the worse terrorist organizations dabble in charity, it's a must according to Islam and it keeps ordinary, non-radicalized Muslim families in the fold). It's absurd that the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance, has been banned in Muslim countries for its poisonous ideology, but thrives in Western democracies. Should world democracies adopt a decisive stand against Islamism in all its forms, this united front would definitely empower reformers of Islam who seek to reconcile their traditional culture and customs with the modern way of life. Such a stand would also send citizens of democratic countries a strong, reassuring message: the government is doing what it takes for the safety of the people, message that will certainly help to clip the wings of far right white supremacists and their ilk.

For all the criticism showered on Israel's security barrier, it had an unexpected side effect: it's erasing the deep mistrust once prevalent between Jewish and Arab communities inside Israel. Since the construction of the barrier terror attacks in Israel are virtually non-existent, which means that Israeli Arabs are not terrorists, which means that Jews can trust those Arabs they meet on the streets, shops, restaurants, buses, work places. This in turn means that relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel are steadily improving. Feeling secure is key for a healthy relationship between communities.

If the idea of individual liberty being above the legitimate authority of the Government is debatable - the definitions of individual liberty may vary according to personal interests (like the liberty to be an Islamist recruiting fighters for a global caliphate...), there's no doubt in my mind that the one absolute individual right governments should do everything humanly possible, and then some, to protect is the right to live.

 

Pisa above

Palwatch is this an invitation for people to put in information from 'jewwatch' and Israelis will say it is legit?

 

It's "Palestinian Media Watch".

Now rephrase using "Israeli Media Watch", featuring translations from Hebrew newspapers and TV shows. Sounds legit, doesn't it?

 

I don't care which hate site it is from. Whether this guy said what he said I have no idea but one man spouting off is not the position of the Palestinians or even Hamas. Who translated that so that you could come on board and claim that Hamas in general are after a Caliphate when they never have been.

Using your thinking I could say that it is not just Israel's justice Minister and Defence Minister and one of her Chief Rabbis that want a genocide against the people of Gaza but all of Israel - and that is probably a lot nearer than what you are trying to provide as an excuse for that.

 

Palestinian Media Watch is not a hate site. The hatred is in the translated media.

You'll never understand Hamas, or the Middle East, unless you learn Arabic. The Middle Eastern leaders usually say one thing in English, for civilized democratic ears, and another in Arabic, for their own peoples.

Translations by MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch are accurate. During a debate with an Egyptian blogger who worked for the UN he told me that the translations are good, but generalizations are bad. I'm well aware of the dangers of generalization.

I trust the different Israeli organizations dedicated to monitoring, translating and interpreting the Palestinian media not because they're Israeli, but because we can't afford to make mistakes. Our enemies are not fans of second chances, you know.

No, Alexa. I never claimed that Palestinians are religious fanatics hell-bent to take over the world. Hamas are though. So if you want your equivalent on the Israeli side, you can safely assume that the ideas of Bennett or Shaked are probably shared by some, if not all, of their party members, but you can't say that these ideas are shared by Israeli citizens. Furthermore, open dissent, even within a political party, is a normal feature of the democratic process, but stifled in a dictatorship, something any comparison between Israel and Gaza should take into account. Therefore, any utterance of a leader in a democratic country is likely to be debated, accepted by some and rejected by others, while utterances of dictatorial leaders are unopposed and often become law.

I hope you won't claim Gaza is a democracy...

 

No they are not and that is known by everyone. That is who I assumed was translating and hence why I asked.

If you genuinely wanted the truth it is very difficult to imagine you would choose a 'watch' site or Memri. It has been well aired that they are not to be trusted so this will not help you in what you are claiming you want. If you genuinely believed you could not afford to make mistakes then you would look for more objective sources and this is particularly so when it is so obvious from recent things the IDF has said that their word is meaningless. No idea what you mean by

unless this is an excuse for killing people who could possibly at some time in the future be a danger to you which I guess it is. You want Iranians destroyed because it is not impossible that Iran will one day attack you just like the people I mentioned want Palestinian babies killed because they may grow up to fight Israelis.

Really you are the only person I have heard that from. I did not say it and it is not true.

I know they are not shared by all Israelis. I was just saying that your idea that what one man may or may not have said coming from a watch site meant that was the Palestinian or Hamas position when it is well known it is not, would be like me saying their desire for genocide was the view of all Israelis - I also said that was probably nearer the truth and you have just confirmed that.

No democracy has a justice minister and a defence minister and one of their top Religious leaders calling for genocide. No democracy discusses whether they should get up to genocide or not. Israel has tried banning arab parties from the knesset and it suspends them or tries to ban them if they have political opinions which Israel does not like

https://www.google.com/search?clien....35i39k1j33i22i29i30k1j33i160k1.0.4oEeJSJpZiU

so lay off Israel being a democracy. A democracy also has equal rights for all its citizens which Israel does not.

Of course a place where people are kept prisoner under siege and killed daily by the prison guards, yourselves, is not a democracy. We were not talking about democracies but your previous claim that Hamas is not a Nationalistic movement which is the truth but rather one who wants a Caliphate which is not true.

Having said that your belief in what constitutes a democracy must be exceptionally low if you believe having more freedom than the people you keep under siege. killing at will, refusing them the rights which all human beings should have is all it takes to be a democracy.

 

No idea. Have you?

 

Well. I’m an American taxpayer, and I approve

What? You do not approve? Who cares?

 

A thoughtful post, thanks. An idealistic objective (Jerusalem being anything but Israel's capital) which will never be other then Israel's capital. So that is not on the table. Illegal settlements? Israel maintains, Judea and Samaria are disputed territories and are administered by Israel, pending direct negotiations between Israel and Palestinians; so, until negotiations happens, Israel will do in Judea and Samaria what it deems necessary.

And all Palestinians are doing is throwing stones and flying kites. So be it.

 

Media watch on Memri

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/middle-east-media-research-institute-memri/

anyone who uses MEMRI again can't claim they do not know what they are doing.

 

We' been through it, alexa. Are MEMRI translations flowed? I dunno... do you? Perhaps, someone among PF members is fluent in Arabic and can tell us?

 

1) By definition - in a Constitutional republic the rights outlined in that Constitution are above the legitimate authority of Gov't. That is the whole point of a Constitutional Republic = to limit the power of Gov't.

The principles by which the constitution and law are to be interpreted are given in the DOI - "Live liberty - pursuit of happiness come from a higher power - ABOVE the legitimate authority of Gov't to mess with"

2) the authority of Gov't comes from "we the people/consent of the Governed" as opposed to divine right/God as was the case previously.

Keep in mind that rights end where the nose of another begins. The legitimate authority of Gov't begins and ends there.. it is for protection from direct harm (rape, murder, theft and so on) as per the principles of Classical Liberalism - the principles on which this nation and republicanism were founded.

Now if one says they believe in limitations to Gov't power - that's nice but, what then are the limitations to Gov't power if not as outlined above.

The Gov't has no legitimate power "of its own volition' to mess with individual liberty. It is supposed to appeal to "we the people" if it wants to mess with individual liberty - a change to the social contract - construct by which Gov't is "granted" its power to punish by we the people.

The bar btw is not 50+1 - simple majority mandate - if this were the case there would be no point in putting individual liberty "above" the legit authority of Gov't. This is referred to as "tyranny of the majority" in both classical liberalism and republicanism. The bar is "overwhelming majority" at least 2/3rds.

If something is thought to be so dangerous to the public at large that the Gov't needs to be given power to punish - then an overwhelming majority will agree.

There are few that think murder, rape and so on should be legal. It is an overwhelming majority. The bar is no different for any other law.

Unfortunately - through 12 years of school we fail to teach the main principles on which this nation was founded.

(Continued)

 

Compared to other Muslim nations - Syria is as Secular as it gets. They do not have strict sharia - women are not stoned for adultery and gays are not thrown of buildings. There is drinking alcohol and dancing in bars. Women wear skirts and proper bathing suits. Women do not need permission from a man to be educated and they drive cars. There are Christian Churches and freedom of religion. Apostasy is not punishable by death .. and so on.

The reason people fight for Assad has ZERO to do with some Americanism. The rebel opposition is a holy Jihad which has as its goal to turn Syria into a strict Sharia Theocracy. The people do not like Assad much but they are terrified of the rebel opposition which is comprised of and led by Islamist extremists - groups that follow the extremist Saudi Salafi ideology.

The reason the people fight for Assad is because they want to keep their freedoms and they do not want to live in some Saudi style totalitarian sharia Orwellian nightmare where sharia police are everywhere monitoring behavior.

Some try to couch this as a Shia/Sunni affair. 50% of Assad's regular army are Sunni. Not all Sunni's are Islamist.

An Islamist hates individual liberty - they want to force their extremist religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law) or Holy Jihad. The whole call to Jihad in Syria was on the basis of the fight against the dreaded "Secularism".

The western infidel is one thing - Secularism in a Muslim nation is a cancer from within.

 

Funny same can be said about israeli bombs and shootings.

With the difference hundreds of palestinian civilians have died in these past few years while barely any israeli civilians got hurt.

No one is going to sit back and let the bombs keep coming. The main source of their oppression is their own leadership.

 

Thats because Israelis send their children to bomb shelters while Palestinians put them where they will become casualties so that they can use their bloody images for PR. If they only loved their children as much as they hated Jews!

I do agree 100% with your last line!

 

Neither do palestinians, despite the no doubt plentyfull propaganda yu sawthe very vast mayority of palestinians just want a normal life.

You do realise that was about israel?

 

Most of the propaganda I get is anti-Israel. That line does not describe Israel. They are a thriving state where Jews, Christians, atheists, gays, Muslims, and people with an opinion of their own, can safely enjoy life. Just look at what is considered "normal" in the surrounding region.

 

Until there is a second free country in the middle east, I don't see how anyone can complain about Israel. Muslims have more rights in Israel, than in any Muslim nation. Complaining about equality, when you have it better than Muslims in Muslim nations, falls a bit flat. And that's even before we get in to the crimes and history, of the specific people in the conflict.

 

Syria was a free country - not as free as Israel but not that far off.

 

Tell me my friend, why do Gazans launch rockets from thickly settled areas and not from rural areas, which Gaza Strip has aplenty of?

 

Article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Right to life, liberty and personal security.

Now, obviously for all governments to achieve these basic rights , a system of international law must be in place, otherwise you get the endless disagreement you are witnessing on this thread, which translate to the endless warfare we see out there in the real world.

Will you help rid the world of the veto power, in the UNSC?

(Currently, the US serves as 'world policeman', but we are now witnessing the collapse of that world order).

 

Many folks on this forum are very concerned that a foreign power's (Israel) priorities take precedent over regular American's priorities, and it is very disturbing to all of us. We are Ron Paul Republicans, there are lots of us. We want Isreal to get off of America's tit. We also want to get Saudi Arabia and Egypt off of the American nipple as well. Do you Understand?

 

Thank you for this post, rarely do I see on any media platform something even remotely as clear and easy to understand regarding US.

Yes, I'm all for limiting government power, but the definition of what constitutes "acts that are injurious to others" should be updated regularly. Not all individual liberties should be equal, that's what I was trying to say. Religious freedom is a tricky proposition at the best of times, and the present isn't the best of times.

Syrians have lived under martial law for 48 years, that was one of the reasons for the popular uprising against Assad. The Shabiha and the crumbling economy following 29 years of conflict in Lebanon didn't help either.

People who never lived under a dictatorship can't understand the terrible weight of knowing that the arbitrary rules. Everyone can be arrested, tortured, killed, on a whim, without due process. Laws are optional.

The government may have been secular, but honor killings were still not punishable until the law was changed in 2009, and then the maximum term for the perpetrators was two years imprisonment.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/07/28/syria-no-exceptions-honor-killings

The fact that the situation in Syria wasn't as bad as in Iran or Saudi Arabia from a religious point of view, doesn't mean that the situation in Syria was all pink and fluffy. Communist regimes were atheists, but nobody can say with a straight face that Stalin's Russia was a good place to live.

The Syrian civil war started as a popular uprising. Jihadists arrived later, exploiting a situation they didn't create. Assad and his allies are selling the "good pro-Assad secular coalition against the evil jihadists" narrative, but the pro-Assad coalition itself has a jihadist organization and a theocracy at its core. The religious conflict is a consequence of, not the reason for, the Syrian civil war.

I'm not sure how many Syrians are still fighting for Assad. The simple fact that he needs three armies besides his own to keep his arse glued on the presidential chair seems to indicate that he lost support among the majority of his people.

Frankly, I fail to understand how can anyone support a man who'd rather butcher his own people, and sell them and his own country to foreign powers, than relinquish power. Not that he has much power left now, anyway.

 

The honor killing thing has little to do with much. The religious tensions in Syria have always been highly charged. Some regions are dominated by Sunni Islamist's .. what else do you expect. The martial law claim is dubious and I would need to see some evidence.

I have studied the conflict in Syria since it started. It caught my attention when a friend of mine visited his family there just prior to the start of the insurgency when the protest movements were happening.

I talked to him in detail about the situation and he characterized it like this .. he said "The people of Syria do not like Assad much but they hate the extremists - especially the Christians who are terrified that the Islamist's will take over "

https://www.christianpost.com/news/...om-anti-government-protestors-in-syria-50104/

In the beginning the protest movements were "moderate" folks. Regular people wanting change and reforms. The protest movements were quickly taken over by the extremists.

When armed insurgency broke out it was dominated by the extremists who's goal was to turn Syria into an Islamic State.

It was extremist right from the get go - and we knew it.

Here are declassified documents from the Defense Intelligence agency.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...12-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

= No moderate rebels. This was not a civil war - it was an armed insurgency. There are a plethora of other sources from reputable journalists on the ground that have said the same.

Here is from the horses mouth:

https://mideastshuffle.com/2014/10/04/biden-turks-saudis-uae-funded-and-armed-al-nusra-and-al-qaeda/

This was a gaff by Biden as it contradicted Obama's "Moderate Rebel Lie" - mind you the lie was not in full swing yet.

This is from the NY-Times .. prior to the moderate rebel lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/w...-create-dilemma-for-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=

When the dog(ISIS) went off its leash in 2014 and went into Iraq this created a problem and necessitated the moderate rebel lie as Obama was supporting ISIS in Syria but fighting them in Iraq.

The NY-Times quickly forgot its previous reporting.

Rand Paul on the CNN Sunday morning show "State of the Union" summed it up nicely - to the horror of the CNN interviewer

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...-my-son-into-that-mess-on-the-crisis-in-iraq/

So here we have a US congressman going on national television and stating "we are arming and fighting along side Al Qaeda". One would think that the headline on every national print media and leading story of every network would be " Congressman Paul says Obama is arming the 911 terrorists".

I mean seriously - is this not News ? Apparently not. The media response was abject silence - same thing with the Biden gaff.

I am just getting started here but this post is already too long and it is late. I will continue with comments later.

 

I wonder what you'd have thought of the French Revolution back when Robespierre and his cronies were killing and persecuting people in the name of the people.

The way to the American dream went through two bloody wars and slavery.

Should I mention the religious wars of Europe in the 16th and 17th century? Is Europe a theocracy ruled by the Inquisition today?

Maybe a little faith in the capacity of humans to deal with extreme situations wouldn't hurt. After all, the al-Qaeda and ISIS experiences led the Saudi rulers to the conclusion that softening their brand of Islam is the solution to their terrorist problem. Every upsurge of religious extremism in the Muslim world has so far created an opposite reaction of rapprochement to secularist values. It happened in Tunisia and Egypt faster than other places, and it's still an ongoing process.

The Assad dynasty ties with Iran have deep roots in the religious conflicts of the Middle East, secular veneer notwithstanding. Being Alawites, a sect despised and persecuted, the Assads had no choice but to tie their fate to the one and only Shia power in the Middle East. There's no way to separate sectarian conflicts from any other type of conflict in the region. Assad's alliance with the hated Shia regime is what made it so easy for jihadists to find recruits and gain territories in Syria. It's also the reason for Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's initial attempt to help ISIS in the hope that the organization will fight Iran for them. On the other hand, the rapid and unopposed advance of ISIS in Iraq prove that both the Shia Iraqi leaders and Iran also tried to use ISIS as a pawn, creating a situation in which Iran had no choice but to fight the Sunni horror to save Iraqi Shia from the scourge ("bad Sunni bullies" vs "good liberating Shia angels" kind of narrative), gaining for itself - and the Shia community - a comfortable hold on Iraq in the process. ISIS has been used by both sides in the conflict from the beginning.

The Assad issue started as just a moment in the Middle Eastern history, but it rapidly became a symptom of the upheaval that gripped the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, a maelstrom of conflicting interests and ideologies fueled as much by nationalistic ideals as by resistance against changes to a traditional way of life.

I'm not interested in American - or European - politicians' statements and opinions on Syria. They never really understood the region.

Regarding martial law in Syria:

https://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/syria1007/3.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-03-28/syria-to-end-48-years-of-martial-law/2639462
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13134322

Not quite a secular safe haven, was it?