You've quickly resorted to personal epithets. That's revealing.
You can't verify what you say.
I've seen that website before. It's an unreliable source. Nothing to do with the legitimate desire of Palestinians to end Israeli oppression and for statehood.
How long have you lived there? What makes you think you have ANY IDEA AT ALL what is really going on there?
Because I heed the testimony of Israeli veterans who've been in positions to know.
Starting with Uri Avnery. He came to Palestine in 1933 from Germany. At 15, he joined the Jewish terrorist group the Irgun. Four years afterward he quit because he refused to set any more bombs in Palestinian civilian complexes. He then fought with the Samson’s commando unit in the '48 war. He spent the next 20 years editing Israel’s foremost alternative-media paper. In '65 he was elected to the Knesset. He founded Gush Shalom, the Peace Bloc, which calls for the dismantling of Jewish settlements and the founding of a viable Palestinian state. In '06, Baruch Marzel, a West Bank settler, demanded that the Israeli military conduct a “targeted killing” of Avnery.
Avnery, at 84, had this to say:
“You can’t talk to me about terrorism, I was a terrorist... When tanks run amok in towns, crushing cars, destroying walls, tearing up roads, shooting indiscriminately and causing panic amongst a whole population, it induces rage and creates suicide bombers. When soldiers crash through a wall into the living room of a family, terrifying them, ransacking their belongings, destroying a lifetime’s hard work, and then continue into the next apartment and wreak havoc, it induces rage and creates suicide bombers."
There is also the example of former chiefs of Shin Bet, Israel's Security Service, which has primary responsibility for anti-terrorism. People like Yaakov Peri, Maj. Gen. Ami Ayalon (also former Commander of the Navy), or Avraham Shalom and Carmi Gilon.
Their thoughts were recorded in an ’03 translated interview in the Israeli daily paper
Yediot Aharonot (also reported in the
New York Times,
The Washington Post, etc.):
Yaakov Peri:
"Why is it that everyone – (Shin Bet) directors, chief of staff, former security personnel - after a long service in security organizations become the advocates of reconciliation with the Palestinians? Because they were there... We know the material, the people in the field, and surprisingly, both sides."
Avraham Shalom:
“We are taking sure, steady steps to a place where the state of Israel will no longer be a democracy and a home for the Jewish people. We are on our way (to an abyss) because all the steps that we have taken are steps that are contrary to the aspiration for peace. If we do not turn away from this path, of adhering to the entire Land of Israel, and if we do not also begin to understand the other side, damn it, we will not get anywhere.
We must, once and for all, admit that there is an other side, that it has feelings and that it is suffering, and that we are behaving disgracefully. Yes, there is no other word for it. Disgracefully. It is all disgraceful. We debase the Palestinian individual to all and sundry. And nobody can take this. We too would not take it if it were done to us. And neither do they take it, why should they suffer? And we are incapable of taking even a small step to correct this.”
Peri:
"I can say that from whatever aspect you look at it, whether the economic, political, security, or social aspect, in each of these aspects we are going in the direction of decline, nearly a catastrophe. And that is why, if something doesn’t happen here, we will continue to live by the sword, we will continue to wallow in the mud and we will continue to destroy ourselves.
I think that much of what we are doing today in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (the Palestinian territories) is immoral, some of it patently immoral. And I think that over time, they pose a very big question mark on where we will be in another 20-30 years.”
Avraham Shalom:
“(The wall) creates hatred, it expropriates land and annexes hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to the state of Israel. The result is that (it) achieves the exact opposite of what was intended. The Palestinians are arguing, 'You wanted two states, and instead you are closing us up in a South African reality.' Therefore, the more we support the fence, they lose their dream and hope for an independent Palestinian state."
Gillon:
"I am very concerned about our future. I look at my daughters, who are still young, and it is clear to me that we are heading for a crash."
Peri:
"The problem is that to this day no leader has ever gotten up in the State of Israel, pounded on the table and said, ‘We are going home, because that is what an agreement entails'... What you see is apathy, repression, a lack of desire to think deeply. Look what has been going on over the last three years: there are no demonstrations, no rallies, almost no protest. Those who do bother to come out strongly against the government of Israel or against the leadership, put an ad in the newspaper at their own expense. There is almost nothing organized. Look what they’ve managed to do to us.”
”They,” meaning Israeli extremists.
Ami Ayalon, by his own admission, killed and tortured Palestinians, routinely employing his own horrific technique of pulling the faces of his victims apart. That's the level of hate. After leaving Shin Bet in 2000, he wondered why Palestinian violence dropped dramatically. He concluded that it didn't happen because of his killing and torturing, or because of some information the Shin Bet discovered. It happened, he realized, because the Palestinians felt that some progress was being made in the peace process, and that hope turned them from seeing terrorism as the only viable means of resistance.
Ayalon:
“Should we speak with Hamas? They have blood on their hands. I have more blood on my hands... I killed more terrorists than they killed Israelis... Until we understand what a Palestinian child draws when he looks at an Israeli, what is the meaning of an Israeli soldier, what is the meaning of an Israeli checkpoint, what is the meaning of humiliation, we won’t truly understand what they are going through.”
In '03, Avalon started “The People’s Voice,” with Palestinian Dr. Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University. The purpose was to collect signatures of Israelis and Palestinians in support of a two-state solution, with borders approximating the '67 lines, removing settlers from Palestine, Jerusalem as an open city and capital of both states, with Palestinian refugees returning only to Palestine and Jews only to Israel.
reply
share
denis-mcgrath
9 years ago
Nice to see the IMDB message boards have turned into their usual smoking tire fire.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
by denis-mcgrath Thu Jun 18 2015 01:42:20:
Nice to see the IMDB message boards have turned into their usual smoking tire fire.
As one of the writers on the show, of all people you ought to realize that the very nature of the story directly evokes contemporary situations, and in turn stirs people's strong feelings and opinions about them. That it is likely to spark controversy. From what I have read of the showrunners' sensibilities, I highly doubt they'd look down their noses on debates provoked by their story as merely "smoking tire fires."
It's astonishing, and disappointing, to find that a writer on this series is so out of touch with its nature. It should be self-evident that the show's primary relevance isn't historical; if it is to have meaning and value it must speak to people's concerns in the here and now. Nationalist movements, rogue states, the question of what is a terrorist, the morality of violent resistence, foreign policy, specific conflicts and oppressions, war crimes, these are all directly relevant and extremely significant subjects for people today.
Our world is on fire, edging to the brink, and people are rightly anxious about it. A rare show like Company X addresses those present concerns while centering on the past. But you come here and snipe from the sidelines when people do talk about these highly relevant issues, which the very show you're privileged to work on evokes.
Glibness is so easy. It takes zero thought.
reply
share
denis-mcgrath
9 years ago
The second you make a new argument - not one endlessly litigated in every corner of the Internet, that grows like kudzu and zebra mussels and overwhelms every board, every cranny, every nook, I will get interested.
But this aint that.
If you were engaging in a wide- ranging and inclusive discussion, you'd probably see more than two participants. This is a pissing match.
Ironically, one of the informal rules of the Internet is that whoever invokes Godwin's Law first (the comparison to Hitler) loses the argument. Partly because it's hoary and cliche, and partly because it's a grenade that one can't come back from. This show, of course, is a jim dandy place to make comparisons to Hitler because of the subject matter. But the general principle still applies.
There are certain subjects, like abortion, like (in some corners) Islam, Israel, Race -- that rapidly descends into a cesspool. The IMDB seems to be a place where this happens Zero-to-100 in no time at all. And then it leads to posturing. Which is exactly what's happened here, in my opinion.
The pas de deux that this argument has become, to anyone casually looking in, would suggest, "ugh, why would I go in there...I don't want any part of that."
In the exercise of your freedom of speech, I feel you're chasing away others. It doesn't mean I don't think the subject is worthy. Or worth discussing.
But there's so much heat here, and not nearly as much light as you seem to think. This is now the Monty Python Argument Sketch. Nobody's exchanging ideas. Just ego blows.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
It is irrelevant that you are only interested in new arguments, and prefer wide-ranging ones. You may be familiar with the informed judgments of the former heads of Shin Bet, but most people have not heard those important voices, and when they do, are frequently taken aback. What you consider a lack of "light" is to someone else enlightening.
The debate is only hours old, taking place on a board that sees little traffic, even when the show is airing. That is a major factor accounting for there being three participants.
The irony is that it is you who have invoked Hitler to make your point. Your implication that this debate is representative of "cesspool" arguments on IMDb is inaccurate, and a rationalization for a glib attitude. I have taken care to rely on evidence rather than induldge in personal invective. I never take the bait of name-calling, and if it persists here I plan to withdraw.
reply
share
denis-mcgrath
9 years ago
Neither one of us gets to decide what's "relevant."
That's the point.
Enjoy your pas de deux.
Be well.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
You missed the point that the irrelevance is elevating one's opinion as if it represents "anyone." You decided what is relevant for "anyone" according to your own criteria, and I objected to that. Now you're responding with barely concealed passive aggression.
I don't think it's the wisest move for a writer on a show to visit a chat forum about that show, and under his own name put people down who either talk about it or about issues it evokes. You've visited before, making glib commentary.
reply
share
denis-mcgrath
9 years ago
Dude. I "decided" nothing.
Whereas you have decided that I'm "glib" that I've been "glib" before,
that I'm being "passive aggressive",
what is and what is not relevant,
that my words are not wise,
and that somehow I'm out of bounds.
You're quite the arbiter of others' behavior.
You may well think that I'm glib. Maybe I am.
But you come off as a bully.
And that's not cool.
Now. You can choose to turn that lens that suggests such insight and judgement into my behaviour around and ask, "hmm, am I really inviting discussion here? or am I playing bigfoot on a very hot button issue, and actually choking off discussion..."
Or you can NOT do that. It's entirely up to you.
You can, if you like, argue Israel and Palestine with the other guy in the thread called, "Re: Fantastic show. Let's all join the French Resistance!" til Judgement Day.
But as you're doing it, tell you what...stop telling other people what their posts mean, and what's in their heart, while you hide behind a pseud.
I find that kind of icky.
And it makes me sad to think that people who might want to talk about the show won't because the King of the Thread has decided he gets to categorize the contributions and comments of others.
I left off the last message by saying, "Be well."
I'll do so again.
I don't expect I'll be responding to you again.
So be well.
Which I guess could be construed as glib, on the Internet, where everyone always gets to be their most outraged self.
reply
share
Whatlarks
9 years ago
You keep dodging the point, which was made in plain English. What is glibness if not an expression of ego? I care deeply about the subject, yet you decided that my only motivation to engage that warrants mention is egoistic. You can merely stamp your feet and insist you "decided nothing," but for the reasons mentioned that's just not the case. So okay: don't reflect. But you're accusing me of exactly your own behaviour, Mr. Outrage.
reply
share