A Few Questions For Liberals

...

If I may, I'd like to offer my views on these questions though I don't fall under your definition of liberals, or any for that matter.

1. I'm not quite sure if i understand you here. What does the fact that these areas have arab majorities have to do with it being akin to imperialism?

2. Who says he's a symbol of fredom or so on? I think you have a seriously skewed view of liberals.

3. To me, the palestinian cause is not the governments, but the people - the people that are living in these places and truly suffer through loss of their homes, pushed around, etc. That's the cause to me.

4. If people wish to live under a ruler, then that is there their choice. However, I support peoples' rights to overthrow their government if they do not like it.

5. I agree that there is something wrong with the not helping the refugee camps in the sudan, but that is hardly a liberal issue - so much as a government and world issue. I do believe we need to provide money to the citizens in gaza (directly to the less fortunate, not the gov't)

6. He didn't make them disappear, they were likelly buried, burned, etc.

7. I personally don't find the gasing of Kurds to be peace.

8. Ultimately I would like to see Israel with it's own country, and the Palestinian people with their own country. I'm tired of the loss on both sides and wish that the people - the blow hards - who perpetuate this would just...go away.

You are ignoring the issue. I am talking about _Arab rule_, not Arab majority. Arabs are not a majority in Kurdistan, Morocco, or western and southern Sudan. But the rulers (except in Kurdistan) are Arabs.

The Arab League demands dominion over Israel as well, and Israel does not have an Arab majority.

I have seen enough liberals celebrating Che Guevara, thank you.

People are not a cause.

All the people had to do to remain in their houses and not be pushed around was not attack Jews. The "Palestinian cause", however, made them attack Jews instead.

The "Palestinian cause" is older than the current situation of the population and Fatah was founded years before the "occupation".

Add to that the fact that Palestinian Arabs have a higher standard of living than Egyptians and I begin to wonder how the "Palestinian cause" keeps attracting people who claim not to hate Jews, despite the fact that all prominent leaders of the "Palestinian cause" regularly call for the death of all Jews.

Non sequitur.

Why? Why do we need to provide money to them? What makes them more deserving than the hungry in west-Africa and the enslaved in Sudan?

Why the heck do we have a moral duty to provide money to people who call for a Holocaust?

How? How did he bury or burn that many bodies? The Nazis needed furnaces, Saddam needed mass graves; how did Bush do it?

Good, something we can agree on.

However, were those who protested the invasion of Iraq "peace activists" given that the situation they tried to preserve was not, according to my definitions and yours, "peace"?

(Make no mistake. Kurds and Shiites were still being attacked by the Iraqi government and whenever the world didn't watch closely, Saddam invaded the north and south again, driving the Kurds into the mountains and the Shiites into the dry land that used to be arable land.)

That doesn't answer my question. That is what the Zionists want and wanted from the beginning. What I would like to know is why so many liberals CLAIM to want that but then support the "Palestinian cause" instead. Do liberals simply not read translations from the Arabic when it comes to what Hamas and the PLO actually want or what is the problem here?

The "Palestinian Cause" as described by its leaders of old who are still admired as heroes by the PLO...

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat's uncle and mentor, in 1940 sent this to Germany and Italy for the Nazis to sign:

Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.

Gamal Abdel Nasser, still considered a hero by the "Palestinians" had this to say about the "Palestinian Cause" in 1965:

We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.

Cairo radio in 1967 announced that

All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel.

The chairman of the PLO in Jerusalem said in 1967, before the Six-Day-War:

Those who survive will remain in Palestine. I estimate that none of them will survive.

He was referring to Jews (or "Zionists").

Those are the words of the leaders of the "Palestinian Cause", celebrated and supported by liberals all over the western world.

Can you honestly say that you think that supporting their cause has anything to do with a two-state solution (or even the plain survival of both populations)?

Do you not find yourself in an odd position when you support the side that was not only allied with Hitler in World War 2 but even after the war continued to call for genocide?

And that's what I don't understand about liberals, even moderate liberals like you. Do you ignore such history or do you genuinely believe that a little fascism won't hurt? Or do you assume that Jews or Israelis must automatically be as bad or worse than their enemies?

Mmm, well I like the Che Guevara in the beginning. I truly feel that he, at first, wanted to help people. What he became however, was a monster.

That's my point though Leauki, to me, the cause for palestinians comes down to just living their lives peacefully.

Not saying "he" (bush) did it.

It's my belief that any people, regardless of their beliefs, deserve compassion. I disagree that the people - the settlers living in their homes and those who have been pushed out for whatever reason - want a holocaust. Their government officials/groups don't necessarily represent them.

Nope, it's answering your question because to me, it doesn't matter what *I* would like to see, it's what the people in the countries want. If they want to live under a dictator, then that's their right/choice.

Compassion knows no political affiliation or group.

That is the Zionist cause, not the "Palestinian cause".

If the "Palestinian cause" had been "just living their lives peacefully", why would they attack the Jews in 1948? Why would they abandon the Jews to (what seemed like) certain death? Why would they have allied with the Nazis and called for the extermination of Jews in the entire Arab world? Don't you see that something doesn't fit right?

If the "Palestinian cause" would ever have been what you see in it, there wouldn't have been a war. Contrary to common belief the Jews did not set out to start a war against the Arab world from their position of weakness against a British-trained and British-commandeered Transjordanian Arab legion.

It doesn't matter whether you agree that they want this. What matters it that they make it clear that they do.

They could have surrendered to Israeli forces in January when Hamas was in a position of weakness. But they didn't. At what point will they be held responsible for their actions and votes?

And I am not talking about them not deserving compassion at all. I am wondering why they deserve four billion dollars while the Africans in Sudan are being slaughtered by the hundred thousands and get NOTHING.

I am under the impression that if the Fur and Massalith had attacked Jews and lost rather than having been attacked and murdered by Arabs, they would have received lots of aid from the UN.

If that were true, why are liberals advocating giving money to anti-Semites and not to Israelis?

If compassion knew no political affiliation or group, wouldn't that mean that the UN owed Israel as much money as the UN ever paid to Palestinian terrorists since Israel represents as many and more Jewish refugees as the terrorist groups Arab refugees?

No, my friend, for liberals compassion knows political affiliation and groups.

Your "death to the Jews" liberals will never ever demand compensation to be paid to Jewish refugees or help for Israel.

And I will never willingly give money to those who want to kill me (or anyone).

If you buy a murderer a machine gun, you are not being compassionate, you are a criminal.

Call it whatever you want, I want to see the Israeli's AND palestinians to be at peace. To say it's one thing or another, or to say that the palestinians dont want it...is obtuse and prejudiced.

I would think because they think that by giving money to these people they could help the refugees/displaced palestinians, etc. not the gov't.

Leauki, I think you're talking about the PLO, hamas, etc. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the innocents; women, children,etc.

No, it is not. It's being realist.

You seem to think that peace can be achieved by firmly believing in the fantasy that the people who tried to exterminate the Jews are actually just waiting for a chance to make peace with them.

And why do they think that? Has it worked well in the past?

If you find me a Palestinian party with more popular support than those I will happily admit that Palestinian Arabs do not believe in the philosophies of Hamas and the PLO and are equally willing to live in peace with the Jews as the Jews are to live in peace with the Arabs.

It is also noteworthy that liberals did protest Israel's war against Hamas, but did not protest Hamas' attacks against Israel, Hamas' murder of hundreds of PLO officials, and Hamas' murder of hundreds of innocent unaffiliated Gazans. It is pretty easy to see on whose side the protesters were.

Hamas kills innocent Jews: no protests.

Hamas kills innocent Arabs: protests against Israel for the blockade.

Hamas kills innocent PLO officials: protests against Israel for not evacuating them quickly enough.

Israel attacks Hamas: "Jews to the gas!"

I guess we can abandon the claim that liberals see compassion as something unrelated to political opinion or group. And those liberals who disagree with their fellow lefties should maybe abandon their camp and stop supporting the "Palestinian cause" which has not proven to lead to peace. (And I am still at a loss as to how exterminating Jews would lead to peace between Jews and anybody else.)

So the people living in their homes, the palestinian refugees....are out trying to kill them?

You know leauki, I'm finished here. You're so fucking biased it's ridiculous.

Try it out.

Dress up as a Jew and walk through an Arab city. 

Of course I am biased. What exactly is wrong about that? Are you saying that I should talk about murderers and innocent people as if they were the same type of person and as if I have to expect the same behaviour from them?

I am biased against terrorists, against anti-Semites, against racists, and against their western supporters.

And I am proud of it.

Anyway, I didn't get my answers really.

I really do want to know why liberals so enthusiastically support the "Palestinian cause" given that "Palestinian" leaders happily describe it as an extension of the Holocaust and given that wars against Israel, fought for the "Palestinian cause" have almost succeeded in killing another few million Jews.

And whenever I ask the question, I hear about "innocent civilians just wanting to live in their houses", as if those people represented the problem, as if those people were those who attacked Israel and called for the death of the Jews.

I wanted to know why liberals support the "Palestinian cause", not why they support "innocent civilians" they seem to see wherever major wars are being fought against Jews.

What I understand now from what I have heard is that liberals support genocide because in doing so they help "innocent civilians". And the money given to the terrorists is not used to stop the genocide in Sudan because there, presumably, it wouldn't help "innocent civilians".

An estimated 52 percent of Palestinians would vote for Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas if elections were held today, compared to 38 percent for the Islamist Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah, a poll released Monday indicated.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108132.html

That's 90% of Palestinian citizens voting for either Fatah or Hamas.

Hamas have the destruction of Israel in their charter, believes in the truth of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and is widely regarded as the "extremist" faction among the two.

Fatah was founded by the nephew and protegee of Hitler's Arab ally, called for the extermination of all Jews in the middle east and started two wars against Israel in the last 20 years. They are the "moderates". They have never publicly disowned their ties to the Nazis or the terrorist who founded the party.

I assume that at least one of those popular parties represents whatever the "Palestinian cause" is.

Hamas support marrying children to grown men while Fatah merely execute homosexuals for being gay. Both support the death penalty for citizens who sell land to Jews.

This, my friends, is the "Palestinian cause" as represented by the parties that represent 90% of Palestinian citizens.

A "two-state solution" might be part of it. Maybe it's mentioned somewhere between "kill all the Jews" and "destroy Israel", I don't know.

Fatah, as most liberals know, was founded to resist the occupation. I assume the liberal time machine was used again since Hamas was founded in the 1950s, ten years before the occupation began.

Hamas are simply the local chapter of the "Muslim Brotherhood", known for murdering Egyptian president Sadat because he made peace with Israel.

It is clear to most liberals that supporting the "Palestinian cause" will somehow bring peace to the middle-east.

But maybe they are not talking about the "Palestinian cause" as 90% of "Palestinians" see it because I really fail to see how calling for the murder of all Jews, murdering those Arab politicians who actually make peace, and executing homosexials will immediately lead to peace. But that's just me.

Not many peoples have the means to do this. Many countries ban ownership of weapons or only allow them to its supporters as a means of control. Kind of what many on the left want to do in the US. Can't have those pesky mobs armed as well.

Comment about liberals = Strawman

Otherwise, if there is a will, there is a way. Simply put, if people believe in something enough, they will sacrifice the time, blood, and effort to achieve it.

Not at all. It's pointing out hypocrisy.

Ironically, your calling those a strawman is a strawman. Instead of addressing the points about the disconnect between what liberals claim are their ideals and what liberals actually do, you just call it a strawman to point out the issue.

"But maybe they are not talking about the 'Palestinian cause' as 90% of 'Palestinians' see it because I really fail to see how calling for the murder of all Jews, murdering those Arab politicians who actually make peace, and executing homosexials will immediately lead to peace. But that's just me."

If you don't see how it might be hypocritical to claim to want peace and a "just solution" and then support the side where 90% of the people vote for Nazis and worse, what can I do?

If Israel executed homosexuals and openly announced a will to exterminate all Arabs (or even some of them) and tried to do exactly that, I would be a hypocrite if I claimed to be for peace and justice when I support Israel. And liberals are hypocrites when they talk about peace and then support the war against Israel. (And make no mistake, that's what the "Palestinian cause" is and always has been, according to their own words.)

I agree it seems odd, but I've talked to many of those very people that you bash nearly ever day. At one time I was extremely active in helping the truly innocent people in palestine. Those people I worked with wanted peace for both sides, but felt that Israel was - even if it was in "self defense" - being borderline unethical. They felt that Israel could handle it better.

In my opinion, Taltamir just went and bagged up all liberals in one fell swoop. Sorry, but that's not exactly sound thinking.

So at least you see the weird part of it.

How do you determine who the innocent are?

Are the 90% who vote for war "innocent"? I assume their children are. Do you recommend that we take their children away from them so that the guilty cannot use the innocent as human shields? Because they do.

Are the 90% who vote for the PLO or Hamas, who both want war with Israel truly "innocent"?

The other 10%, I grant, are for all I care truly innocent.

But the 90% voting for war will have to vote against war before I count them as "innocent".

Yes, I am sick and tired of people who think that Israel is automatically borderline unethical, despite the fact that Israel goes far beyond any other country's attempts when it comes to protecting the innocent even among the enemy.

Which other country builds field hospitals for enemy civilians for a single attack? Do the US build field hospitals in Pakistan to treat victims whenever they bomb a village? Israel does when it attacks Gaza.

You really don't realise it, I see that, but that automatic assumption that Israel is unethical (or borderline such) is the problem.

If the stories were true, I wonder why any Arab ever walks the streets in Israel without fear. And I wonder why Israeli tax payers pay so much for hospitals for the enemy. I wonder why Arab women from Gaza give birth in Israeli hospitals while the same hospital is being bombed by the government the Gazans elected.

I agree that Israel could handle a lot of things better. But I do believe that supporting the cause of war and genocide goes a bit far when it comes to opposing Israel's alleged unethical behaviour.

There are better ways to handle Israel's shortcomings than to support those who want war with Israel and scream for the death of all Jews.

And don't tell me Palestinian Arabs are not doing that. Their voters were very clear about what they want. And if it was election fraud, the people are free to demonstrate against the government they didn't want. I somehow doubt that the PLO or Hamas could afford to violently crush a revolution that Israel would certainly support.

If you are truly interested in making the world a better place you can invest your energy into helping the truly innocent, like the people of Darfur. If the money invested to rebuild Gaza were to be spent instead on rebuilding and defending Darfur, we would have two wars less in the world. But who would want that?

Leauki... I'm not a liberal, but would you mind if I defend them and get upset if someone says something unflattering about them? But, I repeat, I'm not a liberal.    /sarcasm

Be my guest.

I really can't comment on behave of liberals Leauki. Just wanted AJ to know how he appears to my eyes on your thread and others, for when he asks for proof, but I'm sure you're aware.

I get it.

I was a bit worried when he re-defined what the "Palestinian cause" is (for him) in order to avoid the actual question and when he summarised my remark about Arab imperialism with "if people wish to live under a ruler, then that is there their choice".

For me the "Palestinian cause" is whatever the Palestinian Arabs themselves say in Arabic. When Hamas, backed by the votes of the people, tells me that it is about murdering all Jews and believing in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that's good enough for me. And when the PLO tell me that Arafat's mentor and Hitler's friend, the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem" is their "national hero", then he is their national hero for all I care.

Wtf, ultimately it IS their choice. If people like it that way, then what right do we or anyone have to change that?