Israel to complain to the UN about clashes in Israeli-occupied Golan Heights

[Ulysses G.]

geriatrickid is right as usual. jingthing is as liberal as you can get, but he still strongly supports Israel's right to exist.

It is important to not forget that most of the hateful rhetoric about destroying Israel originates from either radical Islamic fanatics or bitter Western failures who are just looking for any excuse to hate someone besides themselves. Unfortunately, hating Israel and Israelis and making up absurd jusifications for it is fashionable amongst these types.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

:blink:The Reform Syria opposition website said on Sunday that the “Naksa” protesters were poor farmers who were paid $1,000 by the Syrian regime to come to the border. The source also claimed that Syria has promised $10,000 to the families of anyone killed.

This seems strangely familiar... were the protesters wearing red too?

So it might not be the Arab Spring that is driving these demonstrations after all.

[Credo]

Geriatrickid is right. I am about as liberal as you get. I am certainly not anti-Israel, but I feel quite sorry for the Palestinians. I've also spent some time in Syria and I liked the Syrian people. My time in Israel was very limited.

But let's be realistic. Israel exists. It is a country. The military of nearly any country is not something you want to mess with, especially at a contentious border. I don't know of any military which keeps a pile of rocks to throw at people. Military personnel carry guns. When threatened, they shoot. I think a look at the Thai-Cambodian border will show this to be true.

The liberal side of me is outraged that any government would send or allow their citizens to cross into a contentious area knowing full well what awaits them. Shame on Syria.

[Pakboong]

Geriatrickid is right. I am about as liberal as you get. I am certainly not anti-Israel, but I feel quite sorry for the Palestinians. I've also spent some time in Syria and I liked the Syrian people. My time in Israel was very limited.

But let's be realistic. Israel exists. It is a country. The military of nearly any country is not something you want to mess with, especially at a contentious border. I don't know of any military which keeps a pile of rocks to throw at people. Military personnel carry guns. When threatened, they shoot. I think a look at the Thai-Cambodian border will show this to be true.

The liberal side of me is outraged that any government would send or allow their citizens to cross into a contentious area knowing full well what awaits them. Shame on Syria.

I can be as anti-Israel as anybody but they have to protect their borders as would be the case with any nation. Has nothing to do with liberal or conservative IMO. Has nothing to do with love or hate for Israel.

[Steely Dan]

Geriatrickid is right. I am about as liberal as you get. I am certainly not anti-Israel, but I feel quite sorry for the Palestinians. I've also spent some time in Syria and I liked the Syrian people. My time in Israel was very limited.

But let's be realistic. Israel exists. It is a country. The military of nearly any country is not something you want to mess with, especially at a contentious border. I don't know of any military which keeps a pile of rocks to throw at people. Military personnel carry guns. When threatened, they shoot. I think a look at the Thai-Cambodian border will show this to be true.

The liberal side of me is outraged that any government would send or allow their citizens to cross into a contentious area knowing full well what awaits them. Shame on Syria.

Very interesting this! Of course I really have nothing against liberals in the traditional meaning of the word. Humanism, concerm for others are perfectly laudable ideals, it's just the politics of how you get there that separates most. My scorn is reserved exclusively for the quasi-liberals who apply a double standard whereby Israel and the U.S come under intense scrutiny over their every action, whilst the most appalling behavior elsewhere seemingly goes unnoticed and is even condoned if said behavior is iflicted on Israel. Phyllis Chessler, in her book 'The new antisemitism' described how the feminist bandwagon had similarly been hijacked by an antisemitic bandwagon, who suddenly became almost indifferent to womens issues in the Arab world, just so long as said Arabs were hostile to Israel.

I think Pat Condell, who used to be a liberal, yes liberal, described it best.

[luckizuchinni]

<br />

<br />If Israel defend themselves from sworn enemies, they get a lashing from liberals.<br />If Israel complain to UN, they get a lashing from the liberals.<br /><br />So, they should just capitulate to the Arabs, right?<br />

<br /><br />It is erroneous to affix labels of liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing to this situation. There are many people  you would label liberals that support Israel  and there are those considered right wing that are on the opposing side. I don't believe any "liberal" would support the PFLP's decision to  sacrifice  people for the sake of some headlines. I also believe that you will find a great many liberals abhor the fact  that Syria and its cronies in the PFLP sent molotov carrying people to the border with the intent of setting people alight. It is the liberal  element that was the first to condemn Syria's brutal crackdown, while it is the conservative element that has said, better to leave the known Syrian devils alone lest one get a more violent alternative, Both sides have valid views. The people  labeled "liberal" are not liberal in any sense of the word as this would entail supporting groups that are opposed to the values of  true liberals. The violent attackers certainly did not share the values of any liberal I know.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Beat me to it.

The use of the term "liberal" here is merely a supposedly derogatory label without basis to the facts.

In the US, at least, the Democratic party is considered the bastion of Israeli support. Many more Jews are registered Democrats than Republicans. It is also true that the conservative Christian demographic of the Republican party are also considered adamant Israel supporters, none the less, it is the more "liberal" side of US politics which is considered the more "pro-Israeli." And you bring up some very specific cases in your post as well.

Whether Israel is right or wrong, whether the Syrians are right or wrong, or whether it is a combination of the two (for the record, in this case, I am coming down on the "Syrians are wrong" camp) this is hardly a matter of Israel "getting a lashing from liberals."

[geriatrickid]

I bet no one realizes that the Golan Heights are an important nesting and migration set down point for many endanged bird species. Wouldn't it be wonderrful if everyone just agreed to make the Golan a world national park, demilitarized and with as few humans as possible, except for the rangers to protect the wildlife? Now that's a liberal dream, or as a conservative might point out, a smart way to conserve both the peace and nature.

[luckizuchinni]

<br />I bet no one realizes that the Golan Heights are an important  nesting and  migration set down  point for many endanged  bird species. Wouldn't it be wonderrful if everyone just agreed to make the Golan a world national park, demilitarized and  with as few humans as possible, except for the rangers to protect the wildlife? Now that's a liberal dream, or as a conservative might point out, a smart way to conserve both the peace and  nature. <img src='http://static.thaivisa.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Actually, not a bad idea!

[Wallaby]

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm

[Steely Dan]

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm

I think a trip to Saudi Arabia should distress him a lot more then, though he would have to leave his cruxifix, bible and rosary beads at home, unlike Israel. P.S Obama is also a Nobel prize winner, as was Yasser Arafat.

[Wallaby]

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm

I think a trip to Saudi Arabia should distress him a lot more then, though he would have to leave his cruxifix, bible and rosary beads at home, unlike Israel. P.S Obama is also a Nobel prize winner, as was Yasser Arafat.

I have no idea about the relevence of Arafat and Obama being Nobel prize winners. Also, th thread is not about Saudi Arabia. In any event, yes he has called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia.

Desmond Tutu is a champion of human rights. He highlights injustices and atrocities that are perpetrated across the globe.

The fact that Israel is associated with Jews is inconsequential

His call to boycott Israel is based on furthering the cause of human rights, and follows his recent call to boycott Saudi Arabia.

http://www.newstime.co.za/blog/UriMarks/Desmond_Tutu_is_not_an_anti-semiteHes_anti-Christian/54/2879/

[chuckd]

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm

Please note the date of this astonishing piece of journalism...

You are in: World: Africa

Monday, 29 April, 2002, 11:55 GMT 12:55 UK

Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'

[chuckd]

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm

I think a trip to Saudi Arabia should distress him a lot more then, though he would have to leave his cruxifix, bible and rosary beads at home, unlike Israel. P.S Obama is also a Nobel prize winner, as was Yasser Arafat.

I have no idea about the relevence of Arafat and Obama being Nobel prize winners. Also, th thread is not about Saudi Arabia. In any event, yes he has called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia.

Desmond Tutu is a champion of human rights. He highlights injustices and atrocities that are perpetrated across the globe.

The fact that Israel is associated with Jews is inconsequential

His call to boycott Israel is based on furthering the cause of human rights, and follows his recent call to boycott Saudi Arabia.

http://www.newstime.co.za/blog/UriMarks/Desmond_Tutu_is_not_an_anti-semiteHes_anti-Christian/54/2879/

Following are the author's remarks that close out your link. You might try reading your own links all the way through from now on.

______________________________________________________

"Okay,……

Did you really believe my 'report' that a Conference of Anglican Bishops took place in Saudi Arabia…

Or my 'report' that Desmond Tutu has EVER called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia because of its treatment of Christians?

Wouldn’t it be great if The Most Rev. Dr. Desmond Mpilo Tutu loved Christians more than he despised Israel"

______________________________________________________

[SAffer]

<br />

<br />If Israel defend themselves from sworn enemies, they get a lashing from liberals.<br />If Israel complain to UN, they get a lashing from the liberals.<br /><br />So, they should just capitulate to the Arabs, right?<br />

<br /><br />It is erroneous to affix labels of liberal or conservative, right wing or left wing to this situation. There are many people you would label liberals that support Israel and there are those considered right wing that are on the opposing side. I don't believe any "liberal" would support the PFLP's decision to sacrifice people for the sake of some headlines. I also believe that you will find a great many liberals abhor the fact that Syria and its cronies in the PFLP sent molotov carrying people to the border with the intent of setting people alight. It is the liberal element that was the first to condemn Syria's brutal crackdown, while it is the conservative element that has said, better to leave the known Syrian devils alone lest one get a more violent alternative, Both sides have valid views. The people labeled "liberal" are not liberal in any sense of the word as this would entail supporting groups that are opposed to the values of true liberals. The violent attackers certainly did not share the values of any liberal I know.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Beat me to it.

The use of the term "liberal" here is merely a supposedly derogatory label without basis to the facts.

In the US, at least, the Democratic party is considered the bastion of Israeli support. Many more Jews are registered Democrats than Republicans. It is also true that the conservative Christian demographic of the Republican party are also considered adamant Israel supporters, none the less, it is the more "liberal" side of US politics which is considered the more "pro-Israeli." And you bring up some very specific cases in your post as well.

Whether Israel is right or wrong, whether the Syrians are right or wrong, or whether it is a combination of the two (for the record, in this case, I am coming down on the "Syrians are wrong" camp) this is hardly a matter of Israel "getting a lashing from liberals."

OK, point(s) taken. I was referring to the folks on this forum, and elswhere, who look for any opportunity to have a go at Israel. I guess anti-semites would be a better label. As a South African who grew-up and was educated under the apartheid system, and then later having lived and worked in Israel, I do not agree with those who compare the 2 regimes. Another poster has already pointed out the differences.

In Israeli terms, Conservatives are hard-line settlers and liberals are opposed to occupation, with the majority (moderates) seeking a balance.

In the modern context, I believe it is not considered 'liberal' to support Israel. Conversations with young people will usually confirm this.

[Wallaby]

Granted I did not read ALL of it Tutu about Saudi Arabia, that is because it is totally irrelevent anyway, this is about Israel and he DID comment about that.

It is trite to say that Arrafat and Obama have won Nobel prizes, so has Doctors without borders, Mandela, Rabin, Perez, Dalai Lama,

It is yet another high profile person, of substance, that has commented negatively on Israel. an ever growing list.

[Wallaby]

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians. The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1957644.stm

Please note the date of this astonishing piece of journalism...

You are in: World: Africa

Monday, 29 April, 2002, 11:55 GMT 12:55 UK

Tutu condemns Israeli 'apartheid'

Is that all you can say about it? You comment on the 'journalism' and the date of it but don't actually make any relevant comment on what Tutu said?

[Wallaby]

Is this more recent enough for you? He hasn't changed his view since 2002. Easy enough to find recent comments on google.

Cape Town - An online petition has accused the revered Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu of "demonising Israel", with its organisers demanding he be axed as the patron of local holocaust centres.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Tutu-accused-of-demonising-Israel-20110112

[chuckd]

Granted I did not read ALL of it Tutu about Saudi Arabia, that is because it is totally irrelevent anyway, this is about Israel and he DID comment about that.

It is trite to say that Arrafat and Obama have won Nobel prizes, so has Doctors without borders, Mandela, Rabin, Perez, Dalai Lama,

It is yet another high profile person, of substance, that has commented negatively on Israel. an ever growing list.

You are missing the point entirely. You cite the article as being a piece about Tutu blasting Saudi Arabia when he didn't do so.

Now you are spinning your mistake. Why not simply admit you screwed up and didn't read it all.

'Oopsies' are acceptable in this forum, if admitted.

[chuckd]

Is this more recent enough for you? He hasn't changed his view since 2002. Easy enough to find recent comments on google.

Cape Town - An online petition has accused the revered Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu of "demonising Israel", with its organisers demanding he be axed as the patron of local holocaust centres.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Tutu-accused-of-demonising-Israel-20110112

Thanks for the more recent post.

Sometimes bigots change their positions as they get older and wiser. Unfortunately Tutu hasn't chosen to do so.

[Wallaby]

Granted I did not read ALL of it Tutu about Saudi Arabia, that is because it is totally irrelevent anyway, this is about Israel and he DID comment about that.

It is trite to say that Arrafat and Obama have won Nobel prizes, so has Doctors without borders, Mandela, Rabin, Perez, Dalai Lama,

It is yet another high profile person, of substance, that has commented negatively on Israel. an ever growing list.

You are missing the point entirely. You cite the article as being a piece about Tutu blasting Saudi Arabia when he didn't do so.

Now you are spinning your mistake. Why not simply admit you screwed up and didn't read it all.

'Oopsies' are acceptable in this forum, if admitted.

ChuckD, if you look at the first line of my post I do say........'Granted I didn't read it all'. BIG oops. Though Saudi Arabia is still irrelevent.

[kuffki]

How is Tutu relevant to Israel complaining to UN about border breach with Syria ? And how do his comments on Palestine relate to Syria border clash and border breach?

c

Granted I did not read ALL of it Tutu about Saudi Arabia, that is because it is totally irrelevent anyway, this is about Israel and he DID comment about that.

It is trite to say that Arrafat and Obama have won Nobel prizes, so has Doctors without borders, Mandela, Rabin, Perez, Dalai Lama,

It is yet another high profile person, of substance, that has commented negatively on Israel. an ever growing list.

You are missing the point entirely. You cite the article as being a piece about Tutu blasting Saudi Arabia when he didn't do so.

Now you are spinning your mistake. Why not simply admit you screwed up and didn't read it all.

'Oopsies' are acceptable in this forum, if admitted.

ChuckD, if you look at the first line of my post I do say........'Granted I didn't read it all'. BIG oops. Though Saudi Arabia is still irrelevent.

[Ulysses G.]

Sometimes bigots change their positions as they get older and wiser. Unfortunately Tutu hasn't chosen to do so.

Not this bigot.

"Archbishop Tutu's judgment must be so impaired by his bias that he cannot think clearly, for his conclusions are so nonsensical and outrageous as to border on the absurd."

- Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director

However, Tutu's usual kooky comments about Israel are not relevant to this thread in any way.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Scott]

A few posters are starting to move off-topic and this usually ends up in an argument that really isn't even relevant to the topic. And then I have to delete posts and my internet is really slow, so please stay on-topic.

Thanks.

[kuffki]

While the usual suspects are too busy blaming Israel for defending its borders, Syrian government uses tanks against its own people.

Refugees flee to Turkey as Assad sends tanks to quell rebellion

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=224114

[Huey]

I've stolen your land, I've shot you and now I'm off to complain.

Exactly, they are good for that, crying and complaining.

[WeeGB]

I've stolen your land, I've shot you and now I'm off to complain.

Exactly, they are good for that, crying and complaining.

You forgot to mention holocaust and six million - they always bring that up. The simple fact is Israel does not want peace - under any terms. Whether Syria is trying to deflect attention from what they are doing to their own citizens is irrelevant, the jews have no right to be in territory they occupied illegally, whether it is the Golan Heights or Palestine.

[Steely Dan]

I've stolen your land, I've shot you and now I'm off to complain.

Exactly, they are good for that, crying and complaining.

I take it you are refering to the Arab nations who lost three wars they started themselves and are now whining that there may have been some reprocussions resulting from their actions.

P.S Syria are the topic of discussion at the next security council meeting, let's hope we hear the phrase 'regime change'.

[sbk]

I hate these threads. You people can't seem to keep it civil

//CLOSED//