Israel is not allowed to defend itself

A few days after the publication of the report in which the Europeans admit anti-Semitism has worsened there, Europe took another step from which the same stench rises. The European parliament effectively redefined Israel's self-defense against terror as an "act of terror," because Palestinian civilians are hurt in the war.

The background to the decision was the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin - the person who effectively invented and encouraged the suicide terror, and who recently allowed women to conduct suicide terror missions. Nothing was said, for example, about the latest suicide terror attack in Ashdod port, in which 10 Israelis were killed, and which preceded the Yassin assassination. That is the same self-righteous Europe with air forces that bombed Yugoslavia for 73 days, even though no European state was threatened by any existential danger.

<snip>

"Pinpoint prevention" provoked a tsunami of complaints, as if this wasn't a war in which one side, the Palestinian side, deliberately strikes at civilians - on buses, in restaurants and malls - filling the explosives belts with large amounts of nails to make sure as much human damage as possible takes place. That is targeted killing of Israelis. But in the eyes of the critics, the pursuit of terrorists appeared to be a criminal act, not hostilities during warfare. The criticism was even leveled at the size of the bombs used buy the air force. And there were complaints against the IDF's rules of engagement. What army in the world has better rules of engagement? The Americans? The Egyptians? The Indians? The French? Or the Russians and Turks? All of them could learn from the IDF about how to comply with the orders. But when it comes to Israel, they even complain about the rubber-coated bullets the IDF fires. Nearly every Israeli statement is greeted with mockery. The Israeli legal system has also been mocked.

<snip>

Read more...

screw Sharon and the Likud slime

It's time to kick those bastards out of the Isreali government.

exaggeration is absurd. Look at all the bombings done in self-defense, and Israel looks like a flower child.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There is no genocide going on in Israel. The only time the word is appropriately used in that area is the complicity of certain Arab/Muslims with the Germans' attempted GENOCIDE of Jews.

"One Cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland"

-- Izaak Greenbaum

Zionists Offer a Military Alliance with Hitler
It would be wishful thinking if it could be stated that the leaders of the Zionist movement sat back and ignored the plight of their dying brothers and sisters. Not only did they publicly refuse to assist in their rescue, but they actively participated with Hitler and the Nazi regime. Early in 1935, a passenger ship bound for Haifa in Palestine left the German port of Bremerhaven. Its stern bore the Hebrew letter for its name, "Tel Aviv", while a swastika banner fluttered from the mast. And although the ship was Zionist owned, its captain was a National Socialist Party (Nazi) member. Many years later a traveler aboard the ship recalled this symbolic combination as a "metaphysical absurdity". Absurd or not, this is but one vignette from a little-known chapter of history: The wide ranging collaboration between Zionism and Hitler's Third Reich. In early January 1941 a small but important Zionist organization submitted a formal proposal to German diplomats in Beirut for a military-political alliance with wartime Germany. The offer was made by the radical underground "Fighters for the Freedom of Israel", better known as the Lehi or Stern Gang. Its leader, Avraham Stern, had recently broken with the radical nationalist "National Military Organization" (Irgun Zvai Leumi - Etzel) over the group's attitude toward Britain, which had effectively banned further Jewish settlement of Palestine. Stern regarded Britain as the main enemy of Zionism.


http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/holocaust/gedalyaLiebermann.htm

We know who was complicit with genocide, and it wasn't the Arabs. A small Zionist terror organisation in Palestine offered a military alliance with Hitler if he would free them from Britain. Of course, they were rebuffed.

is offensive to the memory of *actual* cases of genocide

i suggest you get a dictionary

"Genocide" does not mean "killing Jews." They do not own the word.

I'm sure I found it on a website having to do with the Declaration of Human Rights.

give me a break--try making an actual argument instead of just putting words in my mouth

from dictionary.com: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

That is not going on in Israel/Palestine, on either side. Do not make such claims so lightly.

The Palestinian population is increasing.

Case dismissed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Palestinian population is increasing.

Case dismissed.

Ah. I see. How silly of us to think that anybody's opinion matters except yours.

Or it could be those pesky facts getting in the way of the outlandish claim of genocide.

But nobody on our side is proclaiming, "Case dismissed."

That's why.

Read for example #38, #81, and #124.

Oops. #124 was one of yours, wasn't it?

On Edit: Oh, hey, in #127 someone on your side did make the genocide accusation! But again, nobody on our side is trying to silence debate with "Case dismissed."

...(bombing)bulldozing Palestinian homes....
:( :( :(

bulldozing=bombing. Now I getcha. Arrests=genocide.

:eyes:

Arrests, by all means, when will Israel stop its Illegal
extra-judical assasinations which accidently kill many
inocent by standers ... and start arresting suspected
terrorists and give them a fair trial,..its the law ..

Palestinians houses = Palestinians. Who knew? :shrug:

The Palestinian population is increasing.

Case dismissed.

describing the I/P situation as genocide, yes ..Exaggeration

bulldozing homes vs bombing homes no difference to me

Mr. Magistrate

Palestinian homes are routinely destroyed. To point that out is in no way indulging in over-exaggeration...


Violet...

but comparing the destruction of homes to genocide, however reprehensible that tactic may be, is exxageration.

...but the post that started off the replies I followed didn't say anything like that. It said: 'bombing palestinian homes and taking their land is not self defence



screw Sharon and the Likud slime

It's time to kick those bastards out of the Isreali government.'

A comment about genocide must have been made in the deleted post after it, which wasn't part of the sub-thread being discussed...

Violet...

sorry, I was confused.

Suicide bombers know that after they die, their families will be well taken care of. They will get plenty of money from Hamas (and formerly from Saddam Hussein, although that doesn't constitute the 'link to terrorism' Bush* kept talking about, so it didn't justify the war), they will be heroes in the community and won't have to worry about much. There has to be some negative for the suicide bombers. If they know that their families will suffer instead of prosper because of their actions, then perhaps they will reconsider.

I know that sounds cruel, but Israel is running out of options. The wall which many of you so vehemently oppose might help protect Israel and make home demolitions obsolete, but it is being challenged in international court and in the Israeli Supreme Court. I'm willing to give Israel a break on some of this. The fear they experience daily gives rise to some reactions which we may not disapprove of. However, unless any of us have been directly affected by a terrorist attack, or live in fear of dying at the hands of a suicide bomber every time we leave our homes, then we cannot judge the Israelis.

of palestinians to exist on their own land

but hey, you reap what you sow

Hamas et. al. have sworn to drive Israel off the map.

reaped the occupation by sowing a war of extermination against Israel.

to take over all of Israel and respect the right of Israelis to exist on their own land...
but hey, you reap what you sow.

The Palestinians want their own state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To claim otherwise is to ignore the fact that Arafat has recognised Israel and that most Palestinians would like Israel to respect the right of Palestinians to exist on their own land....

Violet...

Sure they do. AS a first step to totally destroying Israel. YOu know it, and I know, but most importantly, the Israelis know it. Arabs must prove they can live in peace before they can be trusted with a state. So far, they have failed miserably.:eyes:

you are 100% correct.

No Peace = No Land.

So far the PA have failed miserably.

I'm glad to have someone agree with me. I have taken a lot ofgrief on this subject on various threads. Thanks

when Zionist terrorists were murdering people in order to establish Israel we'd never have had the "problem of the holy land"

but it is in the past, the israelis won. So did numerous other movements at the time. But the Palestinians won't.

This isn't a matter of opinion, but hard, cold fact. Please don't try telling me what I 'know' in future...

PLO-Israel Letters of Mutual Recognition

Now, if you have some actual proof that this letter is a fraud, feel free to share it....

'Arabs must prove they can live in peace before they can be trusted with a state.'

So, is this rule something that only applies to Arabs? Because using that sort of criteria, Israelis shouldn't have a state either. The US also hasn't got a stellar track record of living in peace. Do you think they should have to prove themselves? Seeing how the current administration operates under a rule of only recognising sovereignty of states when it suits them, I think the rule could be safely applied to the US...

Violet...

in English. But this isn't what he tells his fellow Arabs. Besides, anybody can lie, and Arafat has proven himself to be a world-class liar.

As for the 'rule'. The US is already a state. So is Israel. The Palestinians never were. Previous to 1967, they were part of Jordan. Prior to that, part of the Ottoman Empire. They are trying to obtain a state. Israel, naturally, and rightly, does not want to let them have one that will be used as a base for further attacks.

And you do know it.

Oh, I wasn't aware you were fluent in Arabic!! Or is this just the usual ill-thought out line where Arabs are accused of being liars because they speak in Arabic as well as English? Why doesn't that apply to other languages, like for instance, Hebrew? When that line of thinking is applied to one language by folk who can't even speak it, but not to other languages, it makes me a bit on the uncomfortable side. So here's what you have to do to be taken seriously. Provide me the Arabic version of the document I provided you where it gives a completely different translation than what you were just shown, or provide me with a reputable translation of 'what he tells his fellow Arabs' that's been made later than Oslo...

Nope, that 'rule' of yrs is rubbish. Did you miss the part where I pointed out that the US is very selective about recognising sovereignty of states? Whether a state exists already or not means nothing nowadays...


Violet..

www.memri.org from time to time. it will expand your horizons.

If it doesn't, why complain about not getting it?...

requested in advance. That was not the MO of Israel.

No it's not permission, it's the overwhelming distortions in the media and in the feedback. Read the final paragraph, please, of the article posted. No permission is requested.

Yeah, that's rich.

Israel is the model Bush is using in Iraq, with the same results BTW.

"You have to stop violence with violence. It's the only language those (insert name of enemy here: Communists, Islamic terrorists, VC, Castro, Khaddafi, Noreiga, IRA etc. etc.) understand."

So the violence never ends . . .

It does end, and the wall/fence is a good way to prevent violence on a continuous scale.

by assassinating Sharon? or why isn't any dictator allowed to "defend himself" by assassinating whomever they accuse of plotting against their regime?

you say this is a "war"? how can it be a war when only one side has an army, tanks, planes, ships, helicopters, missiles? and the same side that piteously whines about being "unable" to "defend" itself.

sheesh.

So you think that the conflict should be fair, like in the Olympics. It's not a sport, but a real-life survival of cultures, and sometimes history and the hand of G-d play a role.

Are you insisting that Israel have a fair chance to defend itself, or are you defending Israel's oppression of the Palestinians on the grounds that fairness doesn't matter? Surely you see that those two positions are inconsistent. If fairness doesn't matter, why are you asking for fairness?

you ....:yourock:

I'm not really asking for fairness in Israel's chances. I'm opposing the opinions that say that Israel should not use any force, should not kill any terrorists, as they are defending themselves, and that is their right. If terrorists have a right to self-defense, so does Israel. I'm not asking for something that doesn't exist, and I'm not pleading for anyone to give that to Israel. Israel is in a more powerful position. Many here argue that the "underdog" is always right and should have equal power (i.e. tanks and planes) that Israel has, so they can drop bombs on Tel Aviv. Increased warfare is not, in my opinion, going to help establish peace and justice for Israelis or Palestinians. Undoubtedly, the Palestinian terrorists would use all means available to try and destroy Israel. Israel's role is to contain and/or eliminate terrorism in the area, especially that directed toward killing innocent citizens.

Oppression isn't something to defend. Oppression occurs because of impoverished situation. With better government, the Palestinians could be prospering. The increased oppression has come about because of the terrorism. When you have 105 innocent civilians killed in one month, you don't sit back and wait for the next attack because you worried about imposing hardships.

You seem to be under the impression that Palestinians are the only ones killing innocent civilians. Or maybe Palestinian civilians by definition can't be "innocent."

"With better government, the Palestinians could be prospering."

People don't prosper when you bulldoze their homes and take their land to give to settlements. People don't prosper when you herd them into refugee camps. People don't prosper when you put up an uncrossable wall between them and their jobs, their schools, their families.

But you're right - the Palestinians would be better off under better government. Unfortunately, they're stuck with Sharon.

How does that statement imply that no one else has ever been an innocent victim?

Israel's options were to counter the terror with an effort to eliminate the threat, or to continue to be attacked daily. It was that clear.

You seem to think that the response to the suicide bombing attacks Israel should have invited Arafat to dinner and given him an award.

of taking the Palestinians and their grievances seriously. Barak was closing in on that (remember how many suicide bombers there were back then? - try none) when Sharon went and spoiled it by deliberately inciting the Palestinians with what amounted to an armed assault on the Temple Mount. Sharon started this war and he started it deliberately. Kill or be killed is a false choice. Listening is also an option, and it is being deliberately ignored.

There were daily attacks under Barak. Sharon didn't incite the Palestinians. Incitement blared from their broadcast stations all day. Sharon walked into a hornets' nest, but the nest was carefully laid by the terrorist organizations.

If you really believe that "terrorist organizations" started the second intifada and that Sharon had nothing to do with it and was perfectly innocent in marching on the Temple Mount with armed troops, I can't change your mind. But don't be astonished that the rest of the world has more respect for the actual facts.

Arafat called for the "armed uprising". He also called on the Palestinians to resist search and arrest operations as IDF looked for the terrorists responsible for the attacks on Israeli citizens, suicide attacks that were a daily feature in Israel for three months before Israel launched the operation into the PA cities.

Your "facts" are very speculative.

The Temple Mount is a Jewish site, and Sharon had every right to be there. The security that accompanied him was not "armed troops". The uprising began before he entered, with an Israeli guard being shot, and continued the days following his visit.

No you can't change my mind, but you could review the facts and look at realize that the Intifada was timed to start after Arafat walked out of the Camp David discussions. He was planning this threat and for sure, Barak was aware, that the Intifada was going to break out. Arafat held this threat as a gun to the head of Israeli negotiators.

In Iraq, negotiations are taking place to release hostages. The Iraqis threaten to kill hostages and the American have reinforced troops around the area in case talks break down.

The deadline has also passed for U.S. troops to withdraw from Fallujah, as militants holding U.S. truck driver Thomas Hamill demanded, threatening to kill him if their demand is not met.

Arafat is a master of manipulation. His threats to give power to Hamas and other terrorists is not going to make Israel yield. There would be no end to his demands, if Israel were to give in. Terror would rule the area.

Israel is not going to fold under pressure. There is no other Jewish state.

It is also sacred and holy to Muslims. Sharon's march on it was a deliberate provocation. There is simply no other way to interpret it. There are no facts to review that indicate that Arafat "timed" the second intifada - no facts at all. Likewise no facts to support "there would be no end to his demands," and "Terror would rule the area," only hysteria and paranoia.

And just so we're clear - you support the invasion of Iraq by the United States?

Although the Muslims share the temple mount, they have a gold dome over the rock where Itzhac was to be sacrificed, and Abraham heard G-d telling him not to harm the child.

Of course, the Muslims have their own events surrounding the site, but in the end, they have to learn to share.

There are many facts that indicate Arafat timed the intifada, some of which I have already given to you. If you choose to keep your head in the sand, that's your prerogative.

The US invasion of Iraq is another question. I think that they could have gotten rid of Saddam in a better way. Perhaps they could have just swooped down and arrested him in the first place.

You haven't given me fact one about Arafat timing the intifada. You've given me a lot of opinions and conclusions, and some outright falsehoods such as that there were "daily" Palestinian attacks under Barak before the Temple Mount incident.

You don't teach people to "share" by forming up a squad of armed troops and invading a holy site. And it's cheap and patronizing to weasel-word "the Muslims have their own events surrounding the site," when in fact it's the second-holiest Muslim site in the world after Mecca.

The invasion of Iraq by the United States is another question. Did you answer it? Am I correctly interpreting your answer as saying that you believe the US invasion to depose Saddam was wrong?

Unless you have a few hours to waste, since myself and others have been through this (the 'timing' of the 2nd Intifada) with Gimel dozens of times, presenting substantial evidence from the highest U.S. and Israeli sources (considered irrelevant because they don't conform to the requirements of hasbara).

JMHO :)

you think that I have given no valid information, I won't further tax the issue. Posting links in support of arguments is frowned upon and my personal experience with the matter is considered irrelevant. That leaves no options. Of course the IE and Palestinian sources out-weigh everything. Blah blah blah

snip < when in fact it's the second-holiest Muslim site in the world after Mecca.>

i believe its third. mecca then medina then jeruasalem. to jews it is the number one holy site.
armed troops or not sharon had a right to visit the temple mount. although the most religious of jews wont step foot in it, for fear of stepping into the area where the 'holy of holies' was once. only the high priest of the temple could go there, and even then only once a year on yom kippur.

peace
david
:hippie:

but the fact that the Temple Mount is the holiest Jewish site seems to move you not at all. Why, for you, are only Muslim sensibilities respected?

When did Arafat get together a uniformed army of Palestinians, arm them for combat, and march them on the Temple Mount? Don't demand equivalent reactions unless there have been equivalent provocations. What Sharon did was a deliberate provocation. If the Palestinians had done something like it, that also would have been a deliberate provocation. But they didn't.

was approved by arafat beforehand. sharon didnt necessarily have to get permission, but did so because the PA at the time had nominal authority over the temple mount.

sharon, like any person running for major political office (or leader of a country)in most countries, has bodyguards to protect him against assasination attempts (arafat has the similar guards)

did he bring too many with him to the mount? perhaps.
but also remember the current infidata (sp?) began BEFORE sharon stepped one foot on the temple mount. a place he had every right to go to (as does anyone who visits jerusalem be they jewish, muslim, christian, hindu etc)

peace
david
:hippie:

Get 100 or so friends, dress them in, say, Russian army uniforms, outfit them for combat (helmets, loaded AKs, etc.) and march them into Saint Peter's in the Vatican. You have a right to be there, right? You have a right to protection against assassination attempts, right? So no one should have a problem with it, I suppose.

Are you a major political leader who has a security force that is protecting you? Are you in your OWN territory?

to avoid actions that are provocative. No matter how many times you repeat that Sharon had a right to be there and a right to take an army with him, the fact remains that it was a deliberate provocation. It is not possible that Sharon didn't know what the inevitable effect would be. He's not an idiot.

In the Mideast, going to the bathroom can be considered a provocation. And visiting a holy site -- the holiest site in Judaism -- is a right all Jews share no matter how unhappy that makes Muslims.

No, it was not deliberate provocation. However, the Muslims deliberately saw it that way, even though Arafat knew of the visit in advance and it had been cleared by Muslim authorities.

They all know that everything they say and everything they do is subject to scrutiny a la "What did he mean by that?" And Sharon is no idiot, as I said before - he knew exactly what effect his "visit" would produce, and produced it on purpose. I would be interested in your evidence that the "visit" had been cleared by Muslim authorities, but even if it had been, that didn't justify the army. And no, I'm not buying the b*llsh*t about it being a security detail. The President of the United States has a security detail (and is, arguably, a more important figure than Ariel Sharon). Look at a public appearance by Bush or any other president and then look at the footage of Sharon's "visit" - that was an army.

Sharon has a right to visit the holiest site in Judaism and if the Muslims don't like that, then that is yet another reason why they should not ever retain full control of such a site.

You need a squad of armed soldiers to "visit" a site?

Of course it was a deliberate provocation! Look at the timing! Look at the result!

The result is not something he caused, it was how the Palestinians chose to market their response.

I can see them now, flocking into the mahogany-paneled boardroom, passing out the Perrier and crunching the marketing data, flipping through the graphs and charts, running different proposals up the flagpole, until some marketing genius had the idea of using rocks and bottles and homemade bombs to attack an enemy with guns, tanks, and missiles.

And then there's reality.

You need to work in the field just a bit.

The whole Palestinian spin of a Israeli Jewish leader somehow not allowed to visit the holiest site in Judaism is remarkable.

Reality. Try it.

He marched an army on it! It is NOT the same thing!

Afterward, the outraged Muslims have numerous times claimed he had no right to be there. Hell, I've seen that claim a bunch right here in I/P.

He went in with security because, gosh, lots of Muslims want to kill him.

A holy place. Marched an army on it. Just at the most delicate point in negotiations, Sharon feels nostalgic and decides to visit the Temple Mount. Just to get a good look at the place. And takes his army with him, because he's nervous about security. Never occurred to him that this might be taken as an act of provocation, marching an army into the other side's holy place. It's that inscrutable Muslim mind, never know what those crazy people will take offense at. But certainly Sharon had no intention of starting a war, crippling the negotiations, and getting himself elected as the ultimate hawk.

By the way, apropos of nothing, I have some prime real estate in the Florida everglades to sell. Interested?

Clearly, you have never seen security guards used for major leaders before. Perhaps a little time watching CNN...

If the Muslims/Arabs choose to consider a Jewish leader visiting the HOLIEST site in Judaism a provocation, then TFB.

But at least you're being fair and compassionate about it. At least you're showing some respect for the religion and culture of the Palestinian Arabs and not just dismissing their natural feelings and their basic humanity out of hand.

Or - wait - TFB does mean "That's Fully Believable," doesn't it? I trust that at least it doesn't mean anything callous, crude, and hateful.

I've showed tons of respect for a place I consider to be not just holy but downright stunning.

However, I have no respect for people who would deny that same right to others.

And TFB is not particularly callous or crude and it sure isn't hateful. It simply a more current version of c'est la vie.

did Palestinian Muslims EVER deny Ariel Sharon the right to visit the Temple Mount? Because without that "fact," your whole argument dissolves into mean-spirited nonsense.

If TFB is "simply a more current version of c'est la vie," try saying it to your wife or your boss sometime.

And yes, saying TFB to people who react angrily to a deliberate insult to their religion is callous, crude, and hateful.

This so enraged Arafat that he gave the signal to Hamas, IJ and his own Fatah movement to unleash wave after wave of suicide attacks on Israeli citizens, slaughtering more than 650 innocent people, all because of Ariel Sharon. That'll show those Israeli Jews their place in the world!/<sarcasm tag>

that all these things are planned out by a committee, operating in stable and comfortable conditions, reading the polls, conducting marketing research, and choosing from an infinite variety of options available to them. Riots aren't planned. They happen when enough people are enraged. Sharon enraged enough people. Arafat could no more have stopped the intifada than he could have reversed the flow of the Nile.

Arafat rejected the offers presented to him by Barak and Clinton. That was a major signal, and of course, can't be ignored by any student of the history of the year 2000 in the I/P conflict.

and the other side is obligated to accept it, no matter what. Not think about it. Not make a counter-proposal. Just accept it. Period.

Other than terror I mean.

if Sharon had not chosen that moment to provoke a war? Good question.

for Palestinian terror.

Right. And freedom is slavery, etc. etc.

Then they can be provoked by a sunny day as well.

I've only pointed that out about a dozen times, but apparently it's a little thick in here.

Is the HOLIEST site in Judaism which also predates the mosque and Dome of the Rock by several hundred years. But picky picky.

It is ALSO a Muslim holy site, which means Sharon leading uniformed and armed troops on it was a deliberate provocation. He wasn't just "visiting" it.

I have little doubt some famous Muslims have done the same visiting the Temple Mount themselves, but it wouldn't be the first time Israel and Israelis were held to a different standard.

Great facts. Very enlightening. Thank goodness you cleared that up.

From the interviews that I've heard of those who were present, some of the Palestinian negotiators were working honestly to reach an agreement. Your idea of a plan presented without detailed work done on both sides is erroneous.

Dennis Ross was interviewed on Israel radio. He did not feel that Arafat was working in good faith.

What followed were lower level negotiations that carried on the momentum, but it mattered little, if Arafat wasn't going to give his approval. While letting negotiations proceed, the first shots at Israeli guards were already being fired, killing one soldier prior to Sharon's famous visit to the courtyard of the Al Aqsa Mosque.

Ambassador Ross was a witness to the Camp David conferences.

I did not "goggle" for the information, but I looked for this account by Ross to confirm to you and to others who may wish to verify the situation at Camp David. This letter by Dennis Ross gives essentially the role of Arafat in rejecting any offers at Camp David and in the preparation for the Intifada, Arafat, in retrospect, can be seen as preparing the ground.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14529

If Dennis Ross says it, it must be true.

:eyes:

And a 'war' does not have to be between two equal sides. The Arabs think that they are at war, 'resisting the occupation'. So Israel is entitled to think that it is a war, also.

doesn't that seem fair?

And it's also fair to call Israelis "terrorists" for doing things that get Palestinians called "terrorists."

Yes, I agree. When was the last Israeli suicide bombing? Hell, when was the first? But maybe you mean hiding their cowardly carcasses behind women & children when the Israelis come hunting? Or perhaps you mean recruiting retarded teenagers who just want to get laid with the promise of 72 virgins?? Yeah, I agree those Israelis that do that ARE terrorists.

On the other hand, bringing overwhelming force to bear to supprress terrorism is not, itself, terrorism.

So unlike the Jewish defenders of Jerusalem during their fight for independence, right?

:dunce:

of over 50 years ago to do with today? quite possibly they did it. But now the Arabs are doing it. If you can't make an argument, which you obviously can't, then change the subject.

:silly:

The associates of the people who "hid their cowardly carcasses" behind women and children (to use your phrase) are actually in positions of power in Israel right now, and the state they run is the one constantly pouring forth the hypocritical talking points you're reciting.

The reason I point this out (seems to have flown right by), is that events of "50 years ago" are exactly related to contemporary ones, because every national movement in history has "cowardly hid" their "carcasses" behind women and children.

Repeat: every national movement.

So yes, now "the Arabs are doing it", but the moral value of that astounding insight is precisely zero, because they're no different from anybody else.

Either accept that, or accept that your laser-like focus on the Arabs use of the exact same tactics as the pre-state Zionists is because you'd prefer not to talk about or deal with the crimes currently being carried out by the state of Israel.

The latter is something you can influence - namely, by withdrawing your support for those crimes.

Since you can do precisely nothing about the (real) crimes of the Palestinians with regards to their "hiding behind civilians", your denunciations of those should be dismissed with the disdain they deserve.

Of course, you're free to believe that the above is "changing the subject" if you like.

for 'national movements', is it? But they didn't do it in the American Revolution.

The end does not justify the means. And, while Israel has undoubtedly committed some crimes in the conflict with the Aras, they are not crimes of policy. Please, no comments about the Wall, I do not consider this a crime given what it is meant to prevent. It costs no lives. The Arabs, on the other hand, deliberately target women and children, and then hide behid their own women and children when the Israelis retaliate. then they whine about the civilians killed that they are repsonsible for. They send retarded children to murder and commit suicide with bombs. They lie. They say one thing to America, and another to their own people. They have never given up their desire to destroy Israel. They lost the West BAnk and Gaza in an aggressive war against Israel. Now they want it back without declaring peace. The crimes of the Aras far outweigh those of the Israelis, in my opinion.

Er, siege of Boston?

Genocide of the native americans?

Give me a break.

about the civilians murdered in the siege of Boston.

As for the 'genocide' of the Native Americans, I am not at all approving of that, but I fail to see how that was a part of a national liberation movement. Seems to me that would be oppression by colonists, not revolution against the oppressor. But educate me.

give me a break, also. Whaat does whatever anybody did 200 years ago have to do with the murdering going on in the Mideast now. Yeah, yeah, history, and all that. I agree. But because someone somewhere has done evil, does not excuse blowing up women and children, targeting innocent civilians, which seems to be the only weapon, strategy, or tactic, that the Palestinians have.

Though I think you misunderstood the point - the reference was not to "civilians murdered" (incidentially that happened, but lets put that aside) in the siege of Boston, but the "hiding" of "cowardly carcasses behind women and children" during the siege of Boston.

Once the misunderstanding is cleared up, you can see that the parallel is almost exact.

As for the Genocide (perhaps I should use a capital letter, just as I use one for Holocaust - i.e. not 'holocaust') of the Native Americans, if you fail to see how that was related to the national movement (not just the national liberation movement, two different things), I don't think this discussion is going to go places.

For fun, you might want to check the history of 'clearing the continent' and note the laudatory mentions of this Genocide. There are numerous references to the Native Americans 'giving of themselves' in order that the 'great nation could grow and prosper'. etc etc. Quite sick, and could not be gotten away with in the current climate I should say.

As for:

what does whatever anybody did 200 years ago have to do with the murdering going on in the Mideast now

The answer: plenty. Assuming you want to analyse national liberation movements honestly, that is. If not, forget it.

But because someone somewhere has done evil, does not excuse blowing up women and children, targeting innocent civilians

Of course not, and implying that I have ever in any way "excused" suicide bombing is slander, backed with nary a shred of evidence (as usual). Either cease making these comments, or at least have the decency to try and substantiate them once in a while.

which seems to be the only weapon, strategy, or tactic, that the Palestinians have.

I would submit you are paying zero attention to current developments in the Palestinian national movement.¹

That's the charitable interpretation. The less charitable one is that you are paying attention, simply don't care and would prefer to falsify, in order to put the best possible sheen on the savagery² and deceit³ the occupation forces are currently unleashing to combat this terrible threat.


-----

1. To pick virtually at random, cf. 'The Peaceful Way Works Best', Ha'aretz, 11 Feb 2004 (noting the assimilation of Hamas into peaceful demonstrations against the fence), 'As in Tiannamen Square', Yediot Aharonot, 30 March 2004 (examining roots of the anti-fence demos). In addition, see the reports of the recent Right of Return conference in Haifa, organised by Israeli doves and Palestinian activists (BADIL being the main one), or the latest campaign by Al-Haq. One other example: note the signatories of the recent call for non-violent means to oppose the liquidation of Yassin (published in Arabic) - one of which is Sibham Thabet, the widow of the late Dr. Thabet Thabet, murdered by Israel (no known or plausible connections to terror).

2. See the article by Reinhart, cited above. The contents of which should come as no surprise to anybody reading the reports on these demonstrations in the Israeli press (or the far harsher ones from activist circles - Gush Shalom's condemnations of the "trigger happy army", the same from Ta'ayush, not to mention ISM which is even more scathing).

3. For one illustrative example, see 'Telling Left From Right', Ha'aretz, 27 Jan 2004 (heb, detailing the long-known story of harassement of Israeli doves by the internal security forces in Israel, with blacklists, humiliation, threats etc). I should note for fairness that the same paper published a 'denial' a few days later, given by an Israeli government high official. 'Denial' is in quotes because he proudly admitted that such blacklists exist, but (vaguely) countered that they were not as extensive as reported.

is discussion of the problems on one set of terms. I don't like to have the discussion expanded and contracted at the whim of another party. That way one side, or the other can be convinced.

Still, discuss the siege of Bosston in more detail, please. I haven't been able to find a reference to whatever you are refering to that I considered relevant, and I don't have a lot of time just now to continue the research. Maybe if I knew your point?

I guess my real problem is that a lot of people, and a lot of people on this board, seem to feel that you cannot address a problem unless your hands are completely clean. If you havenj't been 100% correct all along, then who are you to lecture, or in the government's case, coerce others? Well, this isn't the way the world works. You can be a thief, and still be a loyal husband. You can be generous with strangers and stingy with your family, or vice versa. And you cand have wiped out numerous Native American tribes, and still be right about the Palestinians being evil.

Though, admittedly, it wasn't exactly hiding "cowardly carcasses" near innocent women and children, it certainly qualifies next time someone brings up the callaboration issue...

If you want an analogy to demolish that, you don't have to go back hundreds of years - in fact not much further than Jewish sources and Zionist history.

You can pick killing of the Judenrat in the Warsaw Ghetto (praised at the highest level), or the murder of Jews by Zionist groups like LEHI (personally carried out by Shamir in one case, as is alleged) etc.

Again, uncanny parallels.

GW's policy, or was it any body's policy? Or was is riots and lynchings by individuals or mobs? There is a considerable difference, morally, between policy murders and individual murders even in war.

That being said, intentional killing of non-combatants, especialy prisoners, is wrong, no matter who does it. I wish that those who support the Arabs could bring themselves to say that.

by both sides in the war, whether or not it was an actual policy of the Revolutionary leadership is another matter.

My guess would be that it was at the very least approved by the Revolutionary leadership; as tinnypriv has pointed out, that sort of thing is very common in revolutionary movements. Of course, since the killing of collaborators is often done by gangs and mobs not necessarily tied to the PA/PLO, the analogy still applies.

Asssuming that you are referring to active DU members posting here regularly, those of us who "support the Arabs" (whatever you mean by that) have been very clear in stating that targeting noncombatants is wrong, regardless of who does it.

Most people think that killing civilians makes one a terrorist, likewise assassination of anybody. But for you, apparently, what matters is the weapon. If you use a rock or a bomb, you're a terrorist, but if you use a rocket, gun, or tank you're a defender. Then give Israel all the rockets, guns, and tanks and deny same to the Palestinians and Look! The Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists!

What an incredibly cheap argument.

Targeting a civilian makes one a terrorist. If civilians are caught in the cross-fire, it is unfortunate, but not terrorism. However, if legitimate targets are hiding behind the skirts of women and children, then they are responsible for their deaths.

Israel is at war with the Arabs. So, yes, they can target and assassinate their leaders. The Arabs are free to do the same. But on a war, the stronger side, which seems to be the Israelis, will win. Unless, of course, they hold themselves back out of pity for their enemies, out of humanitarianism, which the leaders of Israel have shown to a much greater degree than the baby-slaughtering goons of the PLA, Hamas, etc. Including that sainted old Sheik that is now enjoying 72 virgins.

everybody's out of step but me. Nothing's right unless I say it's right, nothing's wrong unless I say it's wrong. How dare anyone call me dogmatic!

of this situation are not determined by a popular vote. I have examined the facts as carefully as I can. I have decided which side I can support. I may be wrong but in this case I definitely do not think so. People who target innocent women & children are evil. Those that target such people are the good guys.

I'm always ready to change my mind, based on facts. but the Arabs have damn few of them on their side.

By the way, do you change your mind everytime the majority is against you? Why?

What books did you read to come to yr conclusion that the conflict is only about suicide-bombings and nothing else? Or to come to the conclusion that instead of Palestinians, Syrians, etc, there's just Arabs? Why is it so important to you what the ethnicity of people are? Constantly referring to Palestinians as Arabs is to me no different than if someone were to constantly refer to Israelis as the Jews. There's more focus on what their ethnicity is and some people tend to forget that they're all human beings and all deserve the right of self-determination, protection from bigotry, and a bit of respect...

Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In the occupied territories, Palestinians are being held in conditions similar to those in South Africa under apartheid, only worse. They cannot vote, although Israel presents itself as a democracy. Their right to hold property can be suspended at whim. Their right to security of their persons is a bad joke. They are currently being cut off from their livelihoods and their loved ones by a wall being built across their land, public and private.

Is this to go on perpetually? Would you tolerate it if that was your life? It is ridiculous to think that one fine day millions of Palestinians are suddenly going to agree that it's okay for Israel to hold them in subjugation and squalor and stop fighting back. People who have nothing and have no rights have no incentive to keep the peace or "listen to reason." Israel has left these people nothing of significance to lose.

So again, how long is it supposed to go on? Until there's peace? That's to say, for ever. So Israel has the right to hold these people captive, for ever, because it doesn't feel sufficiently secure. That's basically the logic behind PNAC and the Iraq war.

compare the Israelis to the South Africans and cut off all debate. what is happening to the Palestinians they have more or less brought on themselves. If they had not been trying to destroy Israel from day 1, they wouldn't have lost all their land in 1967. Oh, wait, that was Jordan. Israel WILL protect itself, and I, for one, have no problem with that. The Palestinians should not be able to vote is Israel, they are not citizens. The Arabs attacked israel, lost some land, now they want it back without ever making peace. why should Israel oblige. Let Arafat publicly tell his people that they will never have a so-called 'right-of-return', in Arabic. Let the Palestinians make a few compromises to start the 'peace-process' again. The Israelis have been fools before; I see no reason why they wouldn't again. The Israelis have proven, over, and over, and over again that they will take chances for peace. The Arabs have proven over, and over, and over again that they do not desire peace on any terms but the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

Your whole analysis misses the point that these people have been victimized by the very existence of the state of Israel in Palestine. If you were in their shoes, I strongly suspect you would do as they have done. Regarding the "genocide of the Jews," you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that all Jews live in Israel.

And while not all Jews live in Israel, all Jews around the world are potential targets of terror.

In the United States right now, you're most likely to be targeted if you're an Arab, or look or dress like one. For example.

And yes, I disagree with the UN mandate. I certainly don't expect the Palestinians who were dispossessed by it to support it.

And yet, you expect people to take your opinion seriously.

And yet, you expect people to take your opinion seriously.

Oh, hey, I've got a friend who's homeless and I feel bad about it. I think I'll just give him your home. That's fair, right?

Yet you still oppose the existence of an entire state. Hell, even Arafat REPORTEDLY accepts the existence of an Israeli state.

Of course, whether you or Hamas (the only group I know right off hand that agrees with you) agree or not, Israel exists.

I accept the Holocaust. I accept the American Holocaust against the aboriginal peoples of America. I accept these things because they are done and can't be undone. I damn well don't support them. See the difference?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is that you don't accept the state of Israel. Is that correct? Even Arafat accepts the existence of Israel.

that he accepts the state of Israel but doesn't support it.

I didn't think it was complicated . . .

Just trying to see where you fall on that subject. Still not really sure.

55 years ago Resolution 194 ordered Israel to allow the repatriation of Palestinian refugees expelled from what became Israel, and also on the internationalisation of Jerusalem, yet you strongly oppose both. So, what gives? UN Resolutions are only to be treated as though they carry some sort of weight when it suits yr purposes, and the rest are to be conveniently ignored?

Also, the UN didn't just 'rule' and say that Israel should exist. It divided the British Mandate up into TWO states. As you've claimed many times you only support a Palestinian state if there's peace, and then also claimed in another post that there will never be peace, what is the difference between anyone opposing the existence of either of the two states (and as an explanation for those who need these things spelt out, one of those states still to come into being)

Violet...

Arabic looking people have been killed in the US, as opposed say to mugged. That statement is crazy!!

from searching "hate crimes arab united states" on Google.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=hate+crimes+arab+united+states

It's just anecdotal result.

I'd have to read all 116,000 hits and count the number of Arab deaths in the US to give you the "stat." Riiiiiiiiiight. No facts required from your side, of course. And of course victimizations of Arab-Americans that don't involve actual deaths don't count. Way to shrug off the facts! :thumbsup:

Or articles. So yes, shocking but you would actually have to find legitimate research.

If I had the exact number, you'd insist that I come to your house and read it to you.

Have you considered a career in politics? I'd mention a party, but that'd get my post deleted.

Because certainly the folks inside the World Trade Center weren't targeted because they, "you're an Arab, or look or dress like one."

so yeah, I guess I was talking post 9/11. There is a difference between right now and three years ago.

An Arab/Muslim terror attack on the U.S. that killed 3,000 people.

Hmmm. Now care to provide stats to prove you are right even then?

because some poster was crying about Jews being the targets of terrorism worldwide, not just in Israel. I pointed out that all kinds of people are targeted by terrorism worldwide just now, notably Arab-Americans in the US. Rather than refute that, you bring up 9/11, and the only possible connection I can see is that it somehow supposedly justifies hate crimes against Arab-Americans. Is that really what you're saying? That 9/11 justifies any action against any person of Arab descent?

And since we post those statistics all the time here, you know that is true.

However, you seem to be claiming without ANY evidence, that Arabs suffer more here in the U.S.

My points were merely to burst your bubble and show how unsubstantiated it was.

Humor me. Post one. Substantiate it. It's been all demand and no supply from your side regarding facts in this string.

Feel free to search for yourself.

Color me astonished.

We post around here about attacks on Jewish people. Like the one the EU tried to suppress for instance.

I simply lack the inclination to do YOUR research.

Color me astonished again.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How long is the present situation (the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza a captive people with no rights) to continue? What is your vision of how this is ultimately going to be resolved?

Instead of stepping to the plate and ending it.

Israel has no motivation at all to negotiate and give up land and get nothing in return.

Ultimately, I am hoping Arafat is replaced by a responsible leader who wishes peace and shuts down Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and others like the murdering psycho scumbags they are.

Then and only then will the Palestinians get a state.

Great formula for endless conflict.

Arafat is their leader and Hamas and the terrorist groups hold sway in their areas.

If the Palestinians want peace, they have to set aside terror. Otherwise, they will never get a state.

See how productive this "I won't change my behavior until you change yours" crap is?

The Palestinians want a state. Until they change their behavior, they won't get it.

None so blind as they that will not see.

From yr post: 'For every link you have showing how 'oppressed' the Palestinians are, I can find one about how murderous they are.'

I didn't ask you to get into some linking competition. I asked you what sort of books you'd read because I was actually genuinelly interested to know what you've read to make you come to a conclusion that showing sympathy for the plight of the Palestinian people must equate to being on their 'side' and Israelis are the bad guys. I asked because not all that long ago I really didn't know anything else about the conflict but what I read on the front page of the newspaper and I held a completely different stance to what I do now. I'm not entirely sure why yr so opposed to discussing what sort of stuff you've read, but seeing you are so opposed to it, I'm sorry I bothered asking...

So why bother. I am not going to change my mind on this, neither are you.

Psst. Yr doing it again. Trying to tell me what I think and getting it abysmally wrong. How about we stick to you telling me what YOU think and I'll fill you in on what I think? I find that approach works real well most of the time...

Only two posts ago you were saying you were willing to change yr mind based on facts, yet now yr saying you'll never change yr mind. I must tell you I'm in awe of meeting someone who is in possession of all the facts on the I/P conflict. I, and I assume quite a few others, come to this forum because we actually learn about the conflict from what we read here. So when yr ready to bestow facts, as opposed to opinion on us, I'll be waiting eagerly ;)

History teaches us a lot of things, and so does commonsense. And commonsense is telling me that it's incredibly simplistic to approach this conflict by neatly placing Palestinians and Israelis into boxes labelled 'Bad Guys' and 'Good Guys' respectively. To act as though being opposed to attacks on Israeli civilians (which I am) means that one must then ignore or loudly make excuses for the wrongdoings done to the Palestinian people is a ridiculous approach. And to be honest, if yr approach is to treat the conflict in such a one-dimensional, Good Guys vs Bad Guys style, then I very much doubt you and I will see eye-to-eye on very much at all...


Violet...

But I will answer you, anyway. What books I've read, you ask. Well, on the specific problems of Palestine, none. Furthermore, I don't intend to. I know their claimed history well enough. I read a lot of political journals, and it is covered over and over. I hang out a www.democraticunderground.com, where I find plenty of links, many of which I've read. I read at www.arabnews.com every day. I read and post at www.islamicity.org on a fairly rregular basis (under another name, of course). For cryin' out loud, I go read at www.yellowtimes.org at least twice a week. I defy you to find a site more dedicated to the Palestinian cause. But I also read the Israeli side.

OK, I wasn't there when Israel was founded, but I was politically aware at the time of the 1967 war. The Arab side, not just the Palestinians, lost and lost territory in doing so. what makes them so special?? Other people have done so. Perhaps, All Muslim Arabs ought to move back to Saudi Araabia and give the rest of the Mid-East back to the Greeks, who were running the Byzantine Empire at the time they exploded out of Arabia, conquering territory, and forcibly converting Christians to Islam??

When I hear 2 contradictory stories of which I have no first hand knowledge myself, I will decide who to believe by who I can determine is otherwise lying to me. This has proven to be the Palestinian side, most often.

So why bother. I am not going to change my mind on this, neither are you.. You're right. I'm sorry, you made me mad. However, what I meant to say was that based on the facts, as I know them at theis time, and as presented by you and the other pro-Palestinian side, I wasn't going to change my mind. And, as you seem to know the fact that the Palestinians are targeting] innocent Jewish women and children for murder, and you don't, insofar as I can tell, think that affects the legitimacy of their cause, I don't think that anything I can say will change your mind.

Let me give you an opinion. Regardless of the justice, or lack thereof, of the Palestinian cause, the Israelis would be foolish to address it until the Palestinians are beaten. The P's say that they intend to drive the Jews into the sea, they say that there will be no Jews in Palestinian lands, they say that they want to come back to Israel to vote it out of existence. and they are willing to do murder to do it.


As far as commonsense goes, history teaches us that in war, one side wins and the other side loses. It gets to be a case, for the opposing sides, if not for spectators like me, and, I am assuming here, you, of us or them. We may deplore that, but that is a fact of history. It is not, however, necessarily, a question of good vs bad. But, any 'peace process' that doesn't end with the Palestinians getting everything they want is doomed to fail. So the Israelis have no choice but to wage war. The Palestinians, on the other hand, do not want to wage war, they want to murder, and there is a considerable difference.

Seriously, you cannot suppose that the Israelis are morally obligated to let themselves be murdered, or to be driven into the sea, can you? As nice talk does not seem to work, hard actions are the only options left. that is my opinion

This was the King David Hotel bombing:


On July 22, 1946, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews. Few people in the hotel proper were injured by the blast.2

But these bombers of course would be called "Freedom Fighters" because they were lead by Menachem Begin. So they couldn't possibly be called terrorists could they?

I think that is was terrorism.

Not only was the King David serving as the HEADQUARTERS for British troops, but also they were told about the bombing ahead of time. Of course, they ignored the warnings.

was serving as the headquarters of the USA's global economy

Do you support 9-11?

It doesn't.

End of stupid comparison.

Lots of civilian policemen killed in the blast, just like 9-11.
www.nysfop.org/WTCdisaster/Fund.html

There were 15 Jews among the dead, including women who had been working as secretaries in the building.
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Kingdavid.htm

But an even better comparison to 9-11 was the Deir Yassin Massacre by the same terror gang a bit later on.

http://www.deiryassin.org/index1.html

Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin ... they have come to acknowledge during the creation of the state of Israel, thousands of Palestinians were killed and over 700,000 were driven or frightened from their homes and lands on which they had lived for centuries.

So you support terrorists, but only if they are zionists?

Wasn't terror. It was the MILITARY HQ for the British in the area. Further, they were notified ahead of time about the bombing.

I don't support terrorists of any stripe.

The King David Hotel was also a hotel. You make no mention of the civilians killed by the terrorists.

The terrorists do claim they warned the British, but there is no evidence to support this.

I notice you ignore Deir Yassin.

The zionist terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel went on to attack a Syrian orphanage -

Schneller Camp was originally an orphanage for blind Arab children. It had a main block consisting of a cobbled courtyard surrounded by heavy stone rooms. There were other buildings in the camp namely on the west side near the perimeter fence....In the early hours of the morning of 12th March 1947 I was asleep in an upper room at the rear of the north wing of ‘A’ block. There were six of us in the room and our first indication of trouble was a huge explosion. This was followed by a light outside so I realized the perimeter wall had been breached and that the trip flare had been activated.
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Syrian-Orphanage.html

I'm glad to hear you don't support terrorists.

You do support the Irgun, the Stern Gang and the government of Ariel Sharon.

housing the military. The civilians who died were staff, not guests. And they were thoroughly warned and chose to ignore the warnings.

Newsflash: The staff WERE civilians. And whether or not warnings were given does not place the blame on the VICTIMS, which is what yr trying to do...

I find it a bit ironic that there's posts in this subthread from someone who is loudly claiming that Zionist attacks on military targets aren't terrorism who in a thread a few weeks back was claiming that Palestinian attacks on a military target (a checkpoint) was indeed terrorism. Diffrent strokes for diffrent folk, I guess...

Violet...

huh, Violet? I said the staff were civilians, I wasn't blaming the staff but the military, and I've never said that attacking a military target is terrorism. I'm even skeptical about the terrorism claim in the Cole incident. It was a military target, although it wasn't doing anything threatening at the time.
So I guess you must have been responding to someone else's post altogether.

You responded to a post saying that civilians had been murdered in the bombing by saying they were staff and not guests, as though this was some sort of mitigating factor in the bombing. It wasn't....

No-one is to blame for that bombing but the bombers themselves...

And I don't recall saying in my post that it was *you* who'd claimed the King David Hotel bombing wasn't terrorism yet attacks on Israeli military targets are. I would have even said who'd made those claims, but I was a bit worried that Article 6578, subsection g(iiiii) of the DU rulebook might see that as calling out another poster...

So I guess I really was responding to yr post after all, eh?

Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So yes, there is no legal way to do it. When Israel pulls back to the borders that were agreed upon, then it can defend itself however it likes. Until that time, it's all illegal and deserves universal, world-wide condemnation.

The peace agreements were broken too many times. The problem is that the borders are meant for Israel to mind (as you mention) not the Palestinians. Otherwise, there would be no open border crossings, and no problems with terrorism. The wall is the best idea of the century.

the pilgrims shouldve built a wall to keep the native americans in as well huh?

they built walls around their forts to keep them out, however.

Call it Fortress Israel.

mass land theft and genocide?

but that is for the history books. Read up on it. There are several view points. It's a full year college course.

The peace agreements were broken too many times.

The peace agreements included a promise by Israel to desist colonizing Palestinian land. Under Ehud Barak, new illegal settlements were built in the Occupied Territories and thousands of Israelis moved into them.

http://www2.gol.com/users/tuc/PDF/Classes/Oslo_%20Camp%20David_%20and%20Taba.pdf
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20001030&s=said

Barak was a bigger weasel than Arafat. Ariel Sharon OTOH is a mad dog. If he was building the Apartheid Wall along the internationally recognized border (green line) instead of using it to steal half the West Bank and 70% of its water, the Wall would not have been challenged in the courts.

The wall is the best idea of the century.

The Wall is the most short-sighted idea this century. It will force Palestinians resisting the occupation to professionalize and attack Israelis throughout the world like the Armenian Secret Army's war on the Turks last century.

And if the agreement has been finalized, when are the Arabs going to carry out their part of it?

are lying.

There is plenty of hypocrisy in Europe, but he knows full well that's a strawman.

In any case, it's sad to see a great correspondent drift into the abyss of ultra-right, super-shill. I never thought he'd be brazen enough to defend the "size of the bombs used" even though he himself has been lied to by the IDF about exactly that. :shrug:

Incidentially, the article is actually titled:

'Is Israel not allowed to defend itself'

are always more accurate than taking isolated events and indulging in "holier than thou" criticisms. Look at the current activities in Iraq for a larger scale operation using the same armaments, only larger bombs and killing more innocents.

The title remains as posted. Look again.

The Hebrew and English titles are different.

The headline on the English subject page. The Hebrew title doesn't contain a negative.

'Is Israel allowed to defend itself' is what I meant. :)

self defense. Nor is building a wall beyond the green line.

Who do you speak of and how do you know?

Are you a member of a special services force? Or perhaps a general?

.

Why risk that again?

"Palestinian civilians are hurt in the war"? The word is killed. Killed, not hurt. These are indigenous people whose land was taken from them by a foreign conqueror and given to other foreigners who are trying to push them off it. If that happened to you, you would do what they are doing.

The Sharon government and its supporters stick out their jaw and say that they have a right to do anything whatsoever, no holds barred, to defend their security. Then the tough guys dissolve into tears every time someone criticizes their actions. Their idea of fair treatment by the press is for Palestinians to be labeled terrorists by definition and for their own assassinations and atrocities to be described as giving the Palestinians candy.

In quoting the EU opinion, to change the words to fit the reality. The note of Palestinian suffering is greater, so of course Israelis should be made to suffer more children deaths. In fact, they might really commit a genocide. Glad the Europeans are a minority in the world.

It is more painful to live with your brain filled with shrapnel and body scarred beyond recognition than to be struck with a single bullet and killed.

The term to use when speaking of Israeli casualties is is "severe injury", not death, which would have been more merciful.


Jews didn't come as foreign conquerers, anyway, so that's another misconception. G-d forbid. I would never kill myself and innocent people. Not even if I was starving.

I didn't say they did. What I said was, "These are indigenous people whose land was taken from them by a foreign conqueror and given to other foreigners who are trying to push them off it." The foreign conquerors in question were the British. The "other foreigners" are the Jews.

As for killing yourself and innocent people, you have no idea what you'd do if you and everyone you know were being oppressed by an alien people and had been since you were born in a refugee camp. It's cheap and easy to assert your moral superiority in hypotheticals.

They are not an "alien people."

The overwhelming majority of the Jews presently in Israel are of European or American descent.

The area in question was not wildly populated by anyone for a long time. But there were many Jews there.

Before Zionism, area overwhelmingly populated by Palestinian Arabs, with "many Jews" (maybe even many dozens of Jews). Afterwards, populated by Jews of European and American descent, AKA "an alien people." Please explain to me how this proves your point. It's easy to see how it proves mine.

continue to place Moroccans as the largest ethnic group in Israel today. The Europeans and Americans are ethnic Jews who originated from the ME. They were exiled at the destruction of the second Temple in Jerusalem, and many were forced to return or die in the Holocaust.

The fact is that those people are Caucasian, not Semitic. They are European and American by culture, language, everything except religion, and in fact there is no European or American religion.

Your elimination of the Jewish people as an identifiable ethnic group is factually wrong and morally questionable. Like saying there was no Holocaust.

Like saying there was no Holocaust.

Someone said of (former) Israeli PM Golda Meir "She's basically illiterate in half-a-dozen languages, but all she has to do is mention the Holocaust and she can retire the side".

Describes your style nicely. Neo-Nazis everywhere can rejoice that people like you are around to discredit Jews.

Would you like to try again? This time, reply to the post, instead of making cowardly accusations.

to be supported by facts themselves. Sometimes, apparently, we are disappointed. I won't waste any breath on the "morally questionable" accusation, or the ridiculous comparison to Holocaust denial.

We are talking about people who lived in the Caucasian west and crossbred with Caucasian westerners for more than a thousand years. To pretend that they were Middle Eastern natives because some of their ancestors lived there more than a thousand years ago would be like calling me a Roman citizen or like calling you an African based on remote ancestry. This is a people defined by religious heritage, which gives them a right to a particular plot of land only in their own mythology. My ancestors came from Germany, Sweden, England, Ireland, and Scotland. That doesn't give me the right to go to any one of those countries and start bulldozing people's homes to make room for one of my own.

n/t

As part of that "alien people", I can tell you that oppression comes in many forms. There is oppression everywhere among third world populations. So claiming that Israel is "oppressing" the Palestinians is a cop out, in my opinion. The economic situation in Israel is oppressive. The people oppress one another. However, even though I've been oppressed, in fact in very difficult situations, I tend to look for survival by using my skills, not by annihilating others. I'm not "asserting my moral superiority" as such in hypotheticals, but because I know myself, I know what I would do.

The Israeli Jews are genetic cousins of the Palestinians, and not alien at all. Trying to paint Israelis in a role of "Alien Oppressors" is not a very authentic picture. Trying to tell me that I would become a suicide bomber if I was them, is rather like condoning murder. An English MK was sacked for saying that.

If I were brain-washed from birth, you are saying, I would think like them. There would be no difference. Well duh. I would loose my identity and take on a Palestinian identity. I do not justify the actions that way. I think that the suicide attackers are brain-washed, and given no option. But it is not the "Israeli oppressors" that are doing that. the Palestinian educators and media glorify murder. The children are taught to believe that the ideal is to be a martyr. I don't accuse the young people who are also victims of this, but their leaders and the terrorist organizations. They have built a cult of death.

It doesn't mean "poor" and it doesn't mean "facing difficulties." The American Heritage Dictionary defines "Oppress" as follows: "To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny." Or like, I don't know, conquering a people, herding them into refugee camps, bulldozing their homes, taking their land, denying them the vote while calling your society a democracy, and killing them indiscriminately to put down the resistance of some of them.

So, all that stuff has happened to you and those you love, has it? That's the kind of situation in which you "look for survival by using my skills, not by annihilating others," is it? Not hypothetically, someone has actually bulldozed your house, taken away your ancestral land, herded you into a refugee camp, etc. etc. Really. Because otherwise, all the moral posturing is just plain cheap.

"Oppression comes in many forms" is what I said. I did not give a definition, as you have. I suggest that you read up on Israel-Palestinian history, instead of going for your dictionary.

You said the people were "conquered" which is not the history. They were offered a state by partition, and refused. That is a fact. Their leaders chose violence, forcing the Jewish state to defend itself.

Gaza and the West Bank not conquered in "the history"? What history, or rather whose history, is that?

Her family picked themselves up with the help of other Jews, moved to America and started over. They didn't wallow in camps for generations and they weren't left to rot there by their co-religionists. So we know what Jews would do if "you and everyone you know were being oppressed by an alien people and had been since you were born in a refugee camp" because we know what they did. Why do you think it's beyond the capacity of Palestinians to do the same and how many generations do you think should be sacrificed to an all or nothing principle?
BTW, Jews are not descendants of Europeans and Americans. European and American Jews are descendants of Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews and those who wish to return to their ancestral homeland deserve your understanding.