MovieChat Forums > Vals Im Bashir (2008) Discussion > Sabra and Shatila massacre = Srebrenica ...

Sabra and Shatila massacre = Srebrenica massacre; Sharon = Milosevic

posted 14 years ago by JustMammal
9 replies | jump to latest

I am sick and tired that my tax money goes to support the evil state of Israel. When thousands of Muslims have been massacred in Srebrenica, US was quick to intervene. When thousands of Muslims have been murdered in Sabra and Shatila, US kept on supplying Israel with tanks. And while Milosevic faced Hague, Sharon was promoted by Israeli people to Prime Minister !

So what if Israel is a democracy if it pursues racist aims ? While there are many pacifists among Jews, and probably most Jews are liberal, only a relatively small minority of Jews in Israel are liberal, while most of them seem to vote for war criminals like Sharon and/or be obsessed with nationalistic and religious zeals. While I love and respect many of my Jewish friends, oh how I hate Israel ! And by the way, I was OK when the rest of the world hated US when we've reelected Bush, arguably also a war criminal.

At least Iranian and North Korean people don't have a choice who governs them, but I can tell that Israeli Jews who elect racists deserve as much respect from me as German people who (albeit indirectly) elected Hitler, or Serbs who elected Milosevic !

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JustMammal 14 years ago

Israel is no less entitled to be a state than the United States. They took land, we took land. They killed people, we killed people. I think it's only just that you put your money where your mouth is and leave the U.S. if you feel so strongly about indigenous people's rights to their land.

Native Americans were mistreated centuries ago, when the standards were much lower, Palestinian are being mistreated NOW by the so called "civilized, developed nation". Of course U.S. mistreated a lot of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, but had it not been for our sucking up to Israel and U.S. blind acceptance of Israel's atrocities, 9/11 would never had happened, and we wouldn't had wasted trillions and take thousands of lives in Iraq and Afghanistan !

Israel is NOT good for US, Israel it's NOT even good for the Jews, who could've just immigrated after WWII to U.S. instead of provoking regional wars and world tensions for more than half a century by insistently humiliating an already humiliated Muslim world !

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] PVarjak 14 years ago

You are obviously a troll; but although I know it's useless to post an opposing opinion, I will.

First, if one were to actually use your 'analogy;' The DUTCH would be equivalent to the Israelis (nominally responsible for guarding the enclave where the Palestinians/Srebenican Muslims were). I don't think it's as clear cut that not preventing a massacre is quite the same thing as actively killing people (like Milosevic).

If you weren't obviously biased from the beginning, you wouldn't label A STATE as evil; but their ACTIONS as evil (if in fact they are). By your logic, ALL Muslims would be evil because a group of them perpetrated 9/11. Or all Christians would be evil because they perpetrated the Crusades. Or 'Americans' would be evil because they persecuted African-Americans and Native Americans. Your reductive, simplistic thinking is laughable; and obviously really about something entirely separate from this movie and the events that occurred at the Sabra and Shatilla camps.

[–] JustMammal 14 years ago

First of all just because I have strong opinions about something doesn't make me a troll.

(1) Unlike Israeli, who have vested interest to see Muslim fail, like Americans had a vested interest to see elected socialists fail, Dutch or Belgians (who bailed out on protecting Hutu in Rwanda genocide) are just cowards of the toothless UN , not trained Israeli forces who strategically choose not to intervene (if not to facilitate the genocide)

(2) A state that is a democracy, unlike Islamic or Christian theocracy, is evil when its people elect a president like Sharon, Milosevic, or Bush for that matter !

[–] PVarjak 14 years ago

You couldn't be more wrong. How does it benefit 'Israeli' to see 'Muslim' fail (nice grammar). And failing to intervene is hardly the same thing as actually doing the killing, which the Christians did. And don't leave Americans out of responsibility for Rwanda.

#2 is just too foolish to even debate. It implies that being totally messed up and evil is a better defense than having a viable constitutional state that makes mistakes. Right.

[–] JustMammal 14 years ago

(1) Back to my cold war analogy. If we assume that communism is an arch enemy of capitalism, than it was in the interest of US to see communist and even socialist regimes fail (even those democratically elected). Hence CIA helped to overturn democratically elected regimes like in Chile and Guatemala.

So if Muslim states are arch enemies of Israel, then it would be in the Israel's interest to see Muslim states fail (and replaced by Christian or secular one). It's politics 101

(2) All I was saying is that I have, for example, more respect for Iranians as people, than for Israeli. Iranians would gladly have replaced Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and have replaces their theocracy with a democracy, but they can't due to the massive state repression.

On the other hand Israeli freely elected the war criminal Benjamin Netanyahu who among other things is guilty of:

* Authorizing extra-judicial executions throughout his term as Prime Minister.

* Authorizing the torture of over approximately 2500 Palestinians in Israeli jails, leading to the deaths of several detainees and injury to many more. The International Convention against Torture -- ratified by the state of Israel -- as well as the Convention on Civil and Political Rights explicitly prohibit torture under any circumstances.

* Authorizing over 249 house demolitions in the occupied territories -- unequivocally prohibited by the 4th Geneva Convention -- constituting a war crime in the form of collective punishment.

* Authorizing the construction of 6500 settlement-housing units in the occupied territories -- in contravention of several United Nations Security Council resolutions as well as Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention -- and increasing the number of illegal settlers in the Palestinian occupied territories by 9%.

* Authorizing the deadly and disproportionate use of force in September 1996 against unarmed demonstrators protesting his order to blast a tunnel under Al-Haram Al-Sharif (Temple Mount).

To reiterate: while Israel's government may be less evil than that of Iran; most Israeli citizens are more evil than most Iranian citizens, since they've elected a government that is evil as a whole, while Iranians didn't have a say in electing its current government

[–] PVarjak 14 years ago

You're out of your mind. To compare the Iranian situation to Israel's is patently absurd.

All of the 'crimes' you list are either settlement issues, which are far more complex than you portray, or specious. Israel controls the Temple Mount and were operating reasonably. It was the ARABS who escalated that situation. If they'd gone about their business, nothing would have happened: their place of worship would have been the same. j

Your first part makes a fallacious assumption. Israel just wants to be left alone. They certainly don't want most Arab countries (or Muslim countries) 'to fail.' That would just be worse for them. They do want the current Iranian REGIME to fail. They don't trust the regimes in Syria, the instability in Lebanon, or the jury-rigged 'governments' in the West Bank or Gaza either. But they don't want them to fail. They operate fine with Egypt and Jordan.

[–] antonhamilton 13 years ago

I AGREE 100% with the writer of this post and its well thought out and historically correct title , well done for posting something i was thinking