Israel and USA

[Cleopatra]

I have been trying to avoid this subject but now I am furious!

I have just read in BBC that USA has vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution denouncing Israel's policy of "removing" Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3115114.stm)

While participating in varia fora I have observed that American people have the tendancy to forgive whatever Israel does.

I rarely read a fair criticism for Israel posted by an American.Posters that object to Israel do it for other reasons( antisemitism-- we have a couple of "fruits" of this kind in this forum as well).

Don't take me wrong. As an Israeli citizen I am grateful for the financial, diplomatic and military support USA has provided for us all these years but I strongly believe that it's because of USA that the Middle East problem hasn't been resolved yet.

Or... is it exactly about that?

Is it because USA doesn't want the ME conflict to be resolved?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Don't take me wrong. As an Israeli citizen I am grateful for the financial, diplomatic and military support USA has provided for us all these years but I strongly believe that it's because of USA that the Middle East problem hasn't been resolved yet.

Or... is it exactly about that?

Is it because USA doesn't want the ME conflict to be resolved?

No, the problem is that Israel won't go far enough... and even then it won't be far enough for the Palestinians. And killing or removing Arafat will just make the Intefada all that much worse (see Saddam and Iraq).

What exactly are you suggesting the U.S. should do? If you're going to point a figure of blame, at least have the decency to give your reason for doing so, and how you think we should fix it.

[a_unique_person]

I think the US genuinley wants it resolved, it is just that, as has been shown in Iraq, it is too inclined to think that a military solution is the answer.

As Renata was shocked to find out, there are people there cheering on the debacle as they believe it is a part of the fulfillment of the prophecies for the end of times and the rapture.

Also, don't forget the Jewish Lobby. You regularly criticise the outsiders like me who have an opinion on the issue, but forget that the American Jewish Lobby has a much more powerful weight of opinion and influence. They also do things like financing the extremist parties, including Jews in Australia, who seem to be one of the main causes of all the trouble in the first place.

While I have an opinion, I don't finance settlements or the politics of Israel itself. I leave that to Israel to sort out.

Finally, don't forget that strange mix politcal extremism that any good aspiring Bin Laden would be proud of, the American interlopers like Rabbi Kahane. Mix American enterprise and militarism with Jewish hyperole and mysticism and you get mass violence and racism.

[Cain]

As I noted in an earlier thread, you can find far more criticism of Israeli policies within Israel than inside the United States. Far more. Here people like Paul Wolfowitz get booed for merely acknowledging Palestinian suffering.

But look: We need Israel to fulfill an important Biblical prophecy, thus our uncompromising, blindly idiotic, highly immoral support. God-fearing, upstanding Christians among us can't wait until Jesus comes, kills all the Jews (whew), and reclaims his kingdom. That's gonna happen, uh, really, really soon.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
No, the problem is that Israel won't go far enough... and even then it won't be far enough for the Palestinians. And killing or removing Arafat will just make the Intefada all that much worse (see Saddam and Iraq).

I am not sure I got this. I agree that killing or expelling Arafat if the worst possible idea,It's the first part of the paragraph I don't understand.

What exactly are you suggesting the U.S. should do? If you're going to point a figure of blame, at least have the decency to give your reason for doing so, and how you think we should fix it.

Oh I have been through this many times, I just didn't want to repeat myself US that's all :)

In my opinion a serious part of the problem is that USA openly supports Israeli politicans that they do not wish to negociate with the Arabs. USA supports at any cost--even by chosing to isolate itself in UN -- the destructive policy and the fanaticism of Ariel Sharon.

Sharon is a military with an old mentality. He hasn't realized yet that times have changed and the time to negotiate has come.

USA doesn't pressure him to remove the settlements and they didn't even dare to object to the erection of this outrageous Wall in the West Bank although at the beginning C.Rice expressed her disagreement.

If USA doesn't exercise pressure on Sharon to negotiate, things will become much worse for the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon is leading Israel to destruction and none in the States seems to realize that.

[Some Friggin Guy]

CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT!!!


Totally off the wall theory, admitadly, but sometimes at 3:00 AM, that happens to me. After some sleep, I will probably retract this theory.

Perhapse the US supports Isreal because it knows that eventually, Israel will be over-run. This would give the US the excuse to, essentiall or literally I'm not sure, nuke the entire region, allowing themto then colonize and start drilling.

The above described theory is total codswallop and not based in anything other than sleep deprivation and a broken air conditioning unit, resulting in paranoid delusions and nonsensical ramblings. It is not meant to be taken seriously by anyone with an intellect equivalent to a squash or greater.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am not sure I got this. I agree that killing or expelling Arafat if the worst possible idea,It's the first part of the paragraph I don't understand.

Sorry I usually don't get involved in hot button issues like Middle East peace as my solution is about as simple as it gets - stop killing each other, and start talking. Unfortunately people don't seem to think my solution is worth trying.

To clarify what I said, "No, the problem is that Israel won't go far enough... and even then it won't be far enough for the Palestinians."

What I meant was Israel won't go far enough to create or negotiate with Egypt, Jordan and Syria the creation of Palestine with East Jerusalem as it's capital and even if they were willing to go that far, it wouldn't be enough for the Palestinians who seem to want nothing short of complete destruction of Israel and the expulsion of all Jews.

If you want to hear about it, I have an alternate plan... "Six Flags Over Jerusalem." ;) Take this link if you don't get my joke (http://www.sixflags.com/parks/overtexas/index.asp).

[Cleopatra]

Some Friggin Guy :

Hmmmm...

I think the reason USA decided to support Israel on the first place was exactly to avoid to send troops to the area.

Israel was established in order to play the policeman of the West in the Middle East. Israel was the most convenient solution: Europeans got rid of the Jews and Americans found a nation ready to shed its blood for promoting their interests.

The Arab League is grateful to Israel for its existence, on the other hand. It keeps their people busy, they think that the only problem they have in their lives is Israel and that way, funny ideas [like " What about some Democracy?" or "What about a secular State? "] don't get into their head...

[kittynh]

Im not sure why there is this blind support of everything Isreal does: I cant imagine they approve of all we do

I think the UN thing was a mistake. If we object to Arfat being kicked out , as several top officals have said; then we need to have to vote that way. Some Arabs actually say the US is just a "tool" of Isreal, they tell us what to do....;

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
don't get into their head...

Cleo, I would disagree.... The reason the USA supported Isreal initially was because there was a very powerfull and vocal Jewish community in the US around the end of WWII. Most people felt very sorry for the Jews and not very sorry for the Arabs (who had to a large degree supported the Nazis, the Mufti of jerusalem was an SS officer, unless Im mistaken).

The Palestinian Jews (soon to be Isrealis) mobilised this support and used it to obtain money and arms to be shipped in as soon as the British "papa uncle foxtrot oscared". The British on the other hand were tending to be pro-Arab because 1) A new nation would soon be born and the chances were 10,000:1 it would be run by Arabs not Jews and 2) Britain wanted to get in good with the Arabs as good realtions would mean a good oils supply 3) Many Arab leaders at the time were very anglophile in any case.

As it turned out, the Egyptians and Syrians were so hopelessly incompetent that the Jews knocked the stuffing out of them anyway. The proffesional Jordanian 'Arab Legion' however was well equipped and partly officered by experienced British Sandhurst graduates. This was the army that took over what is now the West Bank and about half of Jerusalem. They would have taken the whole country except 1) the Egyptians kept pinching their ammunition shipments at the Suez canal and 2) The US informed Britian that if it sent any more arms or ammo to any Arab countries they would pull the plug on the financial aid upon which Britain depended at the time. No more arms, no ammunition and the Jordanians ruefully agreed to a ceasfire.

After all that, the whole thing degenrated into a superpower proxy war thingy. The Arabs made the bad mistake of completely alienating the west and toadying up to the Soviets. The current US support for Isreal is simply a legacy of the above events.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Cleo, I would disagree.... The reason the USA supported Isreal initially was because there was a very powerfull and vocal Jewish community in the US around the end of WWII. Most people felt very sorry for the Jews and not very sorry for the Arabs (who had to a large degree supported the Nazis, the Mufti of jerusalem was an SS officer, unless Im mistaken).



According to Finklestein, (No, not him again), the US didn't support Israel at any great extent till after the 6day war. The first fighters in the IDF were German Mescherschmits.



The Palestinian Jews (soon to be Isrealis) mobilised this support and used it to obtain money and arms to be shipped in as soon as the British "papa uncle foxtrot oscared". The British on the other hand were tending to be pro-Arab because 1) A new nation would soon be born and the chances were 10,000:1 it would be run by Arabs not Jews and 2) Britain wanted to get in good with the Arabs as good realtions would mean a good oils supply 3) Many Arab leaders at the time were very anglophile in any case.

As it turned out, the Egyptians and Syrians were so hopelessly incompetent that the Jews knocked the stuffing out of them anyway. The proffesional Jordanian 'Arab Legion' however was well equipped and partly officered by experienced British Sandhurst graduates. This was the army that took over what is now the West Bank and about half of Jerusalem. They would have taken the whole country except 1) the Egyptians kept pinching their ammunition shipments at the Suez canal and 2) The US informed Britian that if it sent any more arms or ammo to any Arab countries they would pull the plug on the financial aid upon which Britain depended at the time. No more arms, no ammunition and the Jordanians ruefully agreed to a ceasfire.

After all that, the whole thing degenrated into a superpower proxy war thingy. The Arabs made the bad mistake of completely alienating the west and toadying up to the Soviets. The current US support for Isreal is simply a legacy of the above events.

I think it was the Soviets who courted the Arabs, who were pretty pod that GB had betrayed them after the end of WWI.

[Cleopatra]

I do not want this thread to be turned into a hatred thread as every thread about Israel becomes by the moment you decide to step your foot in, Unique.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I do not want this thread to be turned into a hatred thread as every thread about Israel that you decide to step your foot in Unique.

In what way. Mr F just had some interesting views of the internal politics of the Jews that I found interesting. None were libellous. I have tried to confine myself to the topic at hand. If you can point me to where I have erred specifically, please do so.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


In what way. Mr F just had some interesting views of the internal politics of the Jews that I found interesting. None were libellous. I have tried to confine myself to the topic at hand. If you can point me to where I have erred specifically, please do so.

Really?

In the thread about Finkelstein you suggested that he wasn't discussing this issue.How did you change your mind here.

If you want to defend Finkelstein go to the thread you started about the only book you have read in your life about Holocaust and Middle East.

Stop trolling!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Really?

In the thread about Finkelstein you suggested that he wasn't discussing this issue.How did you change your mind here.

If you want to defend Finkelstein go to the thread you started about the only book you have read in your life about Holocaust and Middle East.

Stop trolling!

I am honestly not trolling. I don't recall saying he did not not discuss this issue. The first part of the book is mostly made up of that, the politics of the USA and Israel. It is entirely relevant to this thread. However, if you like, I will not refer to it again here.

[Cleopatra]

No no no...

You can refer to it it as much as you wish. It's me that I won't reply to Finkelstein's arguments at all in this thread.

I intend to answer to Jon analytically when I will return home later in the day.

Jon touches in his message a couple of serious issues that have to do with the Political History of Europe and USA ( as The Balfour Declaration for example the role of Soviet Union-- we have discussed this before but it worths another discussion)

[a_unique_person]

Well, it is your thread.

I think I see what your objection to the book is now. It is not so much what he says, which I believe you would actually find interesting if you read it dispassionately, but rather the hyperbole he uses.

This was indeed one of the criticisms of the book that I saw in a review, and thought that it did hit home. Finklestein is an angry man, and it shows. However, his hyperbole is something that I think you often see used in Jewish political debates. It would aid his cause if, when he attacks it, he does not use it.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Cleo, I would disagree.... The reason the USA supported Isreal initially was because there was a very powerfull and vocal Jewish community in the US around the end of WWII. Most people felt very sorry for the Jews and not very sorry for the Arabs (who had to a large degree supported the Nazis, the Mufti of jerusalem was an SS officer, unless Im mistaken).


Not true on more than a couple counts.

First--the US supported Israel, sure, but most of Israel's support came from Britain--until 1967. Israel's essentially a European colony in the Middle East and was treated as such. After 1967, the US really began funnelling money to Israel once they figured out they could use Israel as leverage against Soviet influence in the region.

Second, regarding Arab "Nazi support"--the Mufti wasn't an SS officer. The SS would never allow a non-white officer in its ranks. There was some collusion, mostly of a opportunist nature--the Mufti wanted to use the Nazis to get rid of the Zionist settlers, who were making life hell for the Palestinians, and the Nazis wanted to use the Palestinians to make life difficult for the British.




The Palestinian Jews (soon to be Isrealis) mobilised this support and used it to obtain money and arms to be shipped in as soon as the British "papa uncle foxtrot oscared". The British on the other hand were tending to be pro-Arab because 1) A new nation would soon be born and the chances were 10,000:1 it would be run by Arabs not Jews and 2) Britain wanted to get in good with the Arabs as good realtions would mean a good oils supply 3) Many Arab leaders at the time were very anglophile in any case.



Not entirely true either. The British were neither pro-Arab nor pro-Jewish in the region--they were trying, quite consciously, to play the two against each other. The main thing Britain was concerned with during this period was keeping the Empire. They wanted to maintain their control over the region, and would play their cards as pro-Arab or pro-Jew as the situation called for in order to do so.


After all that, the whole thing degenrated into a superpower proxy war thingy. The Arabs made the bad mistake of completely alienating the west and toadying up to the Soviets. The current US support for Isreal is simply a legacy of the above events.

I think that's part of it, but I think the real reason the US is supporting Israel is because doing so serves US interests in the region. The US is just as concerned about money and power as Britain ever was--only, not being a kingdom (for now), it goes about it slightly differently. Usually, rather than dominating a country with a colonial force, the US tries to dominate the politics through financial, political, and as a last resort, military, means. (The Pinochet coup didn't happen out of love for the Chilean people.)

The US really doesn't have a lot of influence in the Middle East. Yeah, there are military bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but these governments aren't particularly friendly to the US. (The reasons for that go in a different post.) So the US has to be behind Israel--the only Middle East country that the US controls lock, stock, and barrel. (Doubt it? Think about it--what would happen if the US started to give Israel the same amount of aid, per capita, as it gave, say, Zimbabwe?)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


According to Finklestein, (No, not him again), the US didn't support Israel at any great extent till after the 6day war. The first fighters in the IDF were German Mescherschmits.



I think it was the Soviets who courted the Arabs, who were pretty pod that GB had betrayed them after the end of WWI.

Well I dont think there was direct US government support for the Isrealis until '67 but the money to buy the arms that formed the nascent IDF came from US Jews. Up to '67 the anti-semetic lobby in the US was denouncing Isreal as commnist. Of course it was hard to keep up this pretence when thousands of detroyed communist built tanks and aircraft littered the region.

My enemy's enemy is Isreal.

Certainly the Soviets did court the Arabs but it men like Nasser who fomented anti western 'anti-imperialist' rage amongst the mob who really poisoned the west against them. He did this to remain in power, give the mob someone to hate and they will forget that you are a corrupt despot and that the country is falling apart at the seems. Had Nasser been wiser, he could have had the best of both worlds but he saw it as essential to spout vitriolic rhetoric at the west................... the soviets were only to happy to funnel as much arms into Egypt as they could, whether or not the Egyptians could even maintain this hardware let alone use it effectively in battle is something else........

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Cleon
First--the US supported Israel, sure, but most of Israel's support came from Britain--until 1967. Israel's essentially a European colony in the Middle East and was treated as such. After 1967, the US really began funnelling money to Israel once they figured out they could use Israel as leverage against Soviet influence in the region.


In addition to post above: Isreal's relationship with the UK has always been somewhat ambiguous. In the last months of the Palestinian mandate, the British were happy to turn a blind eye to any Arab walking around with grenades and ammo-belts slung over his shoulder. The Jews had to smuggle bullets about one at a time because the British were so strict... The British rarely did anything to help if a Jewish conoy came under attack from Arabs.
I find this a bit shamefull to tell the truth........... Nonetheless, a quite a bit of British military hardware found its way into Isreali hands by '67 (centurion tanks) and Isreal's air force was laregly made up of French Mirages.

Post '67, the whole thing had become a cold-war proxy stand off.

Originally posted by Cleon
Second, regarding Arab "Nazi support"--the Mufti wasn't an SS officer. The SS would never allow a non-white officer in its ranks. There was some collusion, mostly of a opportunist nature--the Mufti wanted to use the Nazis to get rid of the Zionist settlers, who were making life hell for the Palestinians, and the Nazis wanted to use the Palestinians to make life difficult for the British.


Maybe so. I may be wrong about the mufti being in the SS but you would be suprised how many non-whites were in the German forces.

http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/365.html


Husseini recruited thousands of European Muslims for service in the Waffen-SS. He escaped trial for war crimes, and after 1946 he spent the rest of his life entertained in various Middle Eastern capitals.


Im sure some Arab big-wig around that time was an SS officer, but I no longer have the source book I got that info from :(
Its very hard to get good sources for this from google on account of the massive volume of hate-sites from both sides on the web.

http://cghs.dade.k12.fl.us/normandy/balanceofforces/german/wehrmacht_composition.htm


By the beginning of 1944, the Wehrmacht had "volunteers" from France, Italy, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Asian Russia, North Africa, Russia, Ukraine, Ruthenia, and even some Muslims and Indians.



Not entirely true either. The British were neither pro-Arab nor pro-Jewish in the region--they were trying, quite consciously, to play the two against each other. The main thing Britain was concerned with during this period was keeping the Empire. They wanted to maintain their control over the region, and would play their cards as pro-Arab or pro-Jew as the situation called for in order to do so.


I disagree. The British knew their control was slipping and they aimed to have a pro-British Arab world when it had slipped for good. Theres no other way you can explain the biased behaviour of British security forces to the Arabs and Jews (see above) and ther desire Britian had to keep the Arab armies well supplied with ammunition in 1948.



The US really doesn't have a lot of influence in the Middle East. Yeah, there are military bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey, but these governments aren't particularly friendly to the US. (The reasons for that go in a different post.) So the US has to be behind Israel--the only Middle East country that the US controls lock, stock, and barrel. (Doubt it? Think about it--what would happen if the US started to give Israel the same amount of aid, per capita, as it gave, say, Zimbabwe?)


Cant argue with that one! IMO, this is why the US is the focus of Arab terrorists.

[Mike B.]

Correct me if I am wrong.
Did not the Soviets support Israel very early, like in 1948?
The reason being that one of their main enemies, Great Britian was assumed to control the Arabs. They supported Israel as a counter-weight, and to hopefully plant Communism there.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Did not the Soviets support Israel very early, like in 1948?
The reason being that one of their main enemies, Great Britian was assumed to control the Arabs. They supported Israel as a counter-weight, and to hopefully plant Communism there.

Yes, intially the Isrealis recived support from both sides but with the development of the cold war, things naturally got v.polarised.
Im not sure about those reasons you site though....

[Cleon]

Maybe so. I may be wrong about the mufti being in the SS but you would be suprised how many non-whites were in the German forces.

http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/365.html


At the risk of getting into a "racial" discussion, Muslim != Arab. European Muslims are, for the vast majority, white.

The Nazis didn't give a damn about religion, their hangup was race.

Many people involved in Palestine at the time--yes, that includes Zionists as well--tried to deal with the Nazis. (In fact, some of the militaristic Zionist movements of the time were openly fascist--such as Betar, a group Ariel Sharon was a member of as a youth.)


I disagree. The British knew their control was slipping and they aimed to have a pro-British Arab world when it had slipped for good. Theres no other way you can explain the biased behaviour of British security forces to the Arabs and Jews (see above) and ther desire Britian had to keep the Arab armies well supplied with ammunition in 1948.


The Zionist militias got their share of weapons, too. They didn't just "find their way" into Israeli hands. They also got plenty of cash from Britain, too.

Remember, since the Balfour declaration of 1917 the British had committed themselves to the idea of a Zionist state in Palestine. It specifically declared "sympathy for Jewish Zionist aspirations." (You can google it and find the exact text--it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.)

So the British wanted Israel from the get-go--it's just a question of on what terms. After Ben-Gurion announced the state of Israel, the Palestinians rebelled and were supported by neighboring states--Israel simply could NOT have fought them off without British aid. ("Israelis" were outnumbered by Palestinians by a factor of 3 to 1 or so at the time.)

Britain played both sides to get what it wanted...Which I think it did in the end, but Israel attaching itself to the US rather than Britain, like many other things it didn't save the Empire.

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
think the reason USA decided to support Israel on the first place was exactly to avoid to send troops to the area.
There was no prospect of US troops being sent into Palestine. The main reason for US support was a feeling that the Jews deserved a homeland after what they'd just suffered - no deeper or more conspiratorial a motive than that. The policy went ahead because nobody opposed it with any great force. In the end the matter - like Wilson's endorsement of the Balfour Declaration - was not considered terribly important, and might be worth some votes. After all, the reason that Mandate Palestine is now such a shambles and political hotpoint is the creation of the Jewish Homeland. Otherwise it would probably be a rather interesting and prosperous place with a large Jewish population.

Russia's support is generally attributed to the problems Nationalist Zionism caused for Britain. Again, they didn't think it a big deal at the time.

There are a lot of popular and simplistic misconceptions about what happened in 1948-49 and often no conception at all about what happened before then. The idea, for instance, that the British troops were allowing random Arabs to wander around armed rather ignores the guerilla war the Arabs were fighting against the Brits - who were, true to type, fighting back. The Brits were also being attacked by the Hagganah and Irgun, and were glad to get out. Nationalist Zionism wasn't smuggling in the odd round, they had well-established armouries of the important weapons (small-arms, machine-guns and mortars) for the war they launched. The Arab Legion of Jordan never attacked across the Green Line - the line drawn by the UN partition resolution that Israel rejected - but defended Jerusalem against furious assaults. (Not East Jerusalem, the actual Jerusalem. "West Jerusalem" had nothing to do with Jerusalem, it was just a name that was given to an area of Zionist settlement to the west.) The Syrian and Egyptian armies were indeed pretty inept, but given that each country had gained it's independence a year or two before its not terribly surprising. The Syrian army, for instance, comprised about 4000 trained and armed men who had some successes before they ran out of supplies, money and orders and went home. Many Egyptians grunts went into battle thinking they were on manoeuvres.

The US has gradually got itself caught up in this whole fiasco, to the extent that the Israeli tail is now wagging the American dog. The US administration doesn't even seem to notice the insults that are handed out to them so regularly. They're just too polite themselves to realise that people are making fun of them.

[CapelDodger]

From jon_in_london:
Up to '67 the anti-semetic lobby in the US was denouncing Isreal as commnist.
Oddly enough, this is the same class of people that is so pro-Israeli now. (I don't think that means they've stopped despising the Christ-killers, though.) It's remarkable how the US is so committed to a thoroughly socialist state like Israel.
Of course it was hard to keep up this pretence when thousands of detroyed communist built tanks and aircraft littered the region.
What pretence? To these people Clinton was a communist.

One thought: how long will it be before the fundie Zionists in the US start asking why some Jews aren't going back to their own country? Given that the return of the Jews is part of the whole Revelations gig, might it not be another example of Jewish intransigence if they prefer to stay in the US? God's will might require that they be forced back. A policy that would be warmly endorsed by Sharon.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleon:
So the British wanted Israel from the get-go
The Balfour Declaration was strongly opposed at the time it was issued, but in the end the matter was not thought important enough to stop. The British Cabinet did force Balfour to clear the idea with the US, which at first dismissed it (as its opponents had expected) then suddenly reversed their view. The Declaration itself wasn't binding on British policy in the future, and there was constant division in the Establishment over the whole "Jewish Homeland" idea. During WW2 the Brits had a completely pragmatic policy in the region, which came with a recognition that a Jewish Homeland was a recipe for unending conflict. (Not proved wrong yet.)

[CapelDodger]

From Cleon:
After Ben-Gurion announced the state of Israel, the Palestinians rebelled and were supported by neighboring states--Israel simply could NOT have fought them off without British aid. ("Israelis" were outnumbered by Palestinians by a factor of 3 to 1 or so at the time.)
It isn't numbers that count, it's such things as a unified command and strategy that win such wars. "Arab nation" sounds like a powerful thing, but remember that these countries were under colonial rule until a year or two before the conflict. The Nationalist Zionist strategy had been evolving since the 1920's - when it became clear that most Jews had no interest in Palestine- and worked rather less well than might have been expected. The Jordanians (with the only effective army) undertook not to cross the Green Line, and occupied Jerusalem to support the UN resolution. The Palestinian resistance was fractured and the best it could do was hold out against the Israeli onslaught in a few areas. And, of course, most Arabs didn't get involved in matters that they assumed were not their affair (they learned better, but too late).

[Cleopatra]

Hi AN@S

I am glad to see you back :)

How did the exams go ? :) As you see, the bleeding hearts of Middle East have the courage to start controversial topics :)


Capel Dodger, thanks for posting here :)

[AN@S]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Some Friggin Guy :

The Arab League is grateful to Israel for its existence, on the other hand. It keeps their people busy, they think that the only problem they have in their lives is Israel and that way, funny ideas [like " What about some Democracy?" or "What about a secular State? "] don't get into their head...

Hi Cleopatra..
As an Arab, I do not accept all of your ideas of course, but I am agree with you about your point. Arab leaders want to keep their people busy, in thinking about (How to destroy Isreal), so Arabs forgot any other problems like the lack of democracy in the Arab world.
Israel is a big problem not only for Arabs but also for the whole world and for the humanity . Arabs have a lot of problems to resolve before resolving the problem of Israel :cool:

[Tony]

Originally posted by AN@S



Israel is a big problem not only for Arabs but also for the whole world and for the humanity.

:dl: :dl:

[Cleopatra]

Tony, AN@S is a civil fellow poster, I'd very much appreciate if you treated him with some respect, he has never insulted anybody in this forum.

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

As Renata was shocked to find out, there are people there cheering on the debacle as they believe it is a part of the fulfillment of the prophecies for the end of times and the rapture.


When was I shocked to find that out? I am not naive about Christian extremists using Israel for their means. Please refrain from ascribing opinions to me I do not hold in threads I choose not to participate in.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Tony, AN@S is a civil fellow poster, I'd very much appreciate if you treated him with some respect, he has never insulted anybody in this forum.

Thank you, Cleopatra. Tony is like one of those young boys watching a standoff at lunchtime at school, trying to encourage a fight for his own amusement.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Sharon is a military with an old mentality. He hasn't realized yet that times have changed and the time to negotiate has come.



Cleopatra,

I'm curious. What makes you think now is the time to negotiate? What has changed from before?

[peptoabysmal]

I just read the minutes of that UN session where the resolution was voted down. Here (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/689b92f2bc11b54985256da4004addaf!OpenDocument)

I'm curious, it is really illegal for Israel to deport Arafat?

As an American, I would like nothing more than to have the Mideast crisis resolved. But, I have very little political clout :(

For myself, I won't be too critical of Israel until the Palestinian terrorist activities stop. I don't care about the history of the region or the conflict, if you want my support as an American; stop the suicide bombings and the terrorist activities.

If the Palestinians and their supporters were being peaceful and "Ghandi-like", I would be hopping mad at what Israel is doing. But, if I were in Israel's shoes right now, I feel as if I might be doing the same as they are.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I just read the minutes of that UN session where the resolution was voted down. Here (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/22f431edb91c6f548525678a0051be1d/689b92f2bc11b54985256da4004addaf!OpenDocument)

I'm curious, it is really illegal for Israel to deport Arafat?

As an American, I would like nothing more than to have the Mideast crisis resolved. But, I have very little political clout :(

For myself, I won't be too critical of Israel until the Palestinian terrorist activities stop. I don't care about the history of the region or the conflict, if you want my support as an American; stop the suicide bombings and the terrorist activities.

If the Palestinians and their supporters were being peaceful and "Ghandi-like", I would be hopping mad at what Israel is doing. But, if I were in Israel's shoes right now, I feel as if I might be doing the same as they are.

These are the same Americans who are very protective of their second amendment and their right to bear arms and resist with arms any invaders or tyrannical governments?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


These are the same Americans who are very protective of their second amendment and their right to bear arms and resist with arms any invaders or tyrannical governments?

The gun-owning Israelis protect themselves from the bomb-wearing Palestinians.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


These are the same Americans who are very protective of their second amendment and their right to bear arms and resist with arms any invaders or tyrannical governments?

The very same. I live in California, are you saying I should be out shooting Mexicans? :D

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The very same. I live in California, are you saying I should be out shooting Mexicans? :D

All I am saying is that Americans reserve the right for violent resistance, and this right is enshrined in their constitution.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


All I am saying is that Americans reserve the right for violent resistance, and this right is enshrined in their constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that we have the right to strap on bombs and go kill civilians from the invading country?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Where in the Constitution does it say that we have the right to strap on bombs and go kill civilians from the invading country?

I have seen film of Palestinians trying to take on the IDF with guns. They don't have a chance. They don't have a formal army, so they have had no training. What I saw was a guy appear around the corner of a building with his old reliable AK-47, only to get picked off by snipers in a few seconds.

I don't take pleasure in the human bomb tactics, but the conventional war of groups of armed men shooting at each other is clearly not an option.

If it was me in that situation, I would be after military targets or infrastructure, but then, it's not me over there and I'm not fighting that war. Even so, a human bomb isn't going to do too much damage to these things either. Tanks and armoured vehicles will withstand such an attack without any trouble.

IMHO, attacking civilian targets only serves to unite them. Witness the Blitz in London, or the Allied bombing of Germany.

In Israel, a majority has been prepared to hand over the West Bank to Palestine for peace. This hasn't happened due to the minorities who manipulate the political system to their own advantage, or resort to assasination when that fails. However, recent polls indicate that Israelis are united in their opposition to these tactics. Not a particularly smart way of getting what you want.

My guess, and it is only a guess, but a pretty good one, is that if the Palestinians were handed tanks and cannons, they would be only too happy to use these instead of human bombs.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't take pleasure in the human bomb tactics, but the conventional war of groups of armed men shooting at each other is clearly not an option.

Non-violent protest is an option, however.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

If it was me in that situation, I would be after military targets or infrastructure, but then, it's not me over there and I'm not fighting that war. Even so, a human bomb isn't going to do too much damage to these things either. Tanks and armoured vehicles will withstand such an attack without any trouble.

And in choosing those tactics, you would avoid war crimes.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

In Israel, a majority has been prepared to hand over the West Bank to Palestine for peace. This hasn't happened due to the minorities who manipulate the political system to their own advantage, or resort to assasination when that fails. However, recent polls indicate that Israelis are united in their opposition to these tactics. Not a particularly smart way of getting what you want.

This hasn't happened because the Palestinians havn't offered peace. The PA claims they can't control these terrorist groups. Instead of dismantling them as Oslo requires, the PA offers to consolidate them.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
My guess, and it is only a guess, but a pretty good one, is that if the Palestinians were handed tanks and cannons, they would be only too happy to use these instead of human bombs.

That's been tried too.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
I rarely read a fair criticism for Israel posted by an American.Posters that object to Israel do it for other reasons( antisemitism-- we have a couple of "fruits" of this kind in this forum as well).

Are you suggesting that the only reason posters on this site object to Israel is antisemitism? Can you back up your serious allegations about unnamed others and tell us who exactly you are accusing of anti-semitism and the basis on which you claim that some un-named people on this forum are anti-semitic "fruits"?

[CapelDodger]

From peptoabysmal:
For myself, I won't be too critical of Israel until the Palestinian terrorist activities stop. I don't care about the history of the region or the conflict, if you want my support as an American; stop the suicide bombings and the terrorist activities.
When does the history start? All the terrorist activities are history now. Mostly days old. You may not care about history when you're in Outer Mongolia, but one day it might come in the night and bite you.

If you don't know how we got into this position, how can you expect to have an interesting opinion on the subject?

What support have the Palestinians ever got from the Americans when they weren't engaging in terrorist activities? Before the Second Intifada, for instance? Leaving aside tiny ex-pat splinters such as Abu Nidal and Black September, which had damn-all to do with ordinary Palestinians. When the Palestinians are quiet, their land gets appropriated, their houses are demolished and they are condemned to a life as "hewers of wood and carriers of water". When they aren't quiet, they're called terrorists and their land gets appropriated etc. By now they're not needed for labouring - there are plenty of Russians for that. Not that they're terribly happy about it, but then they've always got the Russian Mafia to aspire to. (The home-grown variety is getting blown out of its cosy niches, just like the US Mafia.)

[CapelDodger]

From Mycroft
This hasn't happened because the Palestinians havn't offered peace. The PA claims they can't control these terrorist groups. Instead of dismantling them as Oslo requires, the PA offers to consolidate them.
A problem with this, of course, is the history of Israel-Hamas relations. Israel used to promote the religious parties - including Hamas - as a way of undermining Arafat. That policy of undermining Arafat continued after the Oslo Accords, with every effort being made by Israel to embarrass and belittle both Arafat and the PA. (Things like spotty Israeli youths not letting him through road-blocks because he didn't have the right (unspecified) papers.)

Just as the Northern Irish Prods recognised Jerry Adams as their greatest threat, the Israelis have always recognised Arafat as their greatest threat. The common element: their recognition that only political action would achieve an acceptable future. Their enemies: the violence-addicted, blood-and-iron deadheads on their side and the war-mongers on the other side. Take away the smoke-screen of violence and "terrorism" and the ugliness of the Unionist and Israeli regimes is exposed to the light of day.

From my (limited) sampling of the zeitgeist today, Israel can no longer rely on a knee-jerk sympathy. This may not be the case in the US, but it certainly is around here. Even older generations, previously sympathetic to Israel, are starting to say they've gone too far and aren't interested in peace. The younger generation knows about the Holocaust but doesn't see what the Palestinians had to do with that. The anti-war movement has been a political awakening for a lot of young people, and they've been introduced to the Palestinian plight from a different starting point than the Holocaust. This may also be the case in the US.

The whole Jewish State idea was crazy, and it's going to come to a bad end.

[TillEulenspiegel]

The formula has always been land for peace but the reason the second camp David accords and the Oslo agreement were never implemented was because of the assassination of Minister Rabin and Israel's slow decline into right wing intransigence on territorial return.
Starting with the election of Nethanyahu who would not set a time table for the relinquishment
of occupied territories through Barak (After becoming prime minister, Barak refused to implement the remaining withdrawals demanded of Israel) and finally to Sharon.

( as an aside)........
The "founding fathers" of Israel were regarded as terrorists by the British and most country's of the world.In fact by the same standard We use today , they would conform to that definition

Shamir,Began,Perez,Diane,Sharon ..All were terrorists. They assassinated Brittins, Americans and Arabs as well as innocents to achieve a political goal. Began was directly responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel that killed 200 people . He was also responsible as the driving force behind the assassination of the Official U.N. Representative.( This was not an isolated event but one of many.) All of these warriors later became statesmen who advocated peace and accommodation, with the exception of Mr.Sharon the current head of the Israeli government. He is a thug. As Defense Minister in 1982, Sharon was the principle architect of the Peace for the Galilee operation AKA the invasion of Lebanon, which caused the death of thousands of civilians and left about half a million homeless. Fast forward 2002. His tactic of unfettered retaliation (unless you consider children and women throwing stones and curses to be a threat to Abrams tanks and helicopter gunships ) and collective punishment which is inexcusable as it goes against the tenets of the Geneva convention and various U.N. proclamations. Sharon will not stop settlement building on contested land regardless of protestations of the U.N. or American diplomatic pressure or demolish the existing ones that are covered under 242. Now in 2003 targeted political asasanation, exicution without trial..would We as Americans ever tolarate this behavior for an enemy of ally? Why then is it then we say and do nothing here?

The most disheartening part is that Israel is not a dictatorship run by despots. Israel has a democratically elected government. To me that suggests the consent of the Israeli people. We as their ally supply $4B in direct aid and some $2b in arms subsities yearly. Does that make us culpable ? I feel so.

Sharon insists on calling illegally occupied territories as: Liberated territories. As in to liberate? Def:"to free (as a country) from domination by a foreign power". I'm afraid that his position is the antithesis to the definition.The foreign power in this case being Israel.

The labeling of those who disagree with Israel's murderous tactics as anti-semites is slimey rhetorical feint, it's like calling someone a bigot or a child molester, it doesn't matter if it's true or not because once it's uttered, the debate flies out the window and everything you have to say is discounted automatically.

Is an Israeli life intrinsically worth more then a Palestinian one? Can you really accept the disparity of deaths and it's machinations in these lands. Do the numbers reduce the emotional impact because of their isolation from you? These are rhetorical questions ( and so require no answer)But in my estimation I don't believe that until you strip away all the labels and political affiliations can you truly appreciate the magnitude of this disaster.



One death is a tragedy a million is a number - Stalin
Every time one person dies a universe collapses - Heinline

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Tony, AN@S is a civil fellow poster, I'd very much appreciate if you treated him with some respect, he has never insulted anybody in this forum.


I wouldnt respect a member of the KKK and I so no reason why i should respect AN@S.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Tony



I wouldnt respect a member of the KKK and I so no reason why i should respect AN@S.

I don't think that you expect me to reply to this, don't you?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I don't think that you expect me to reply to this, don't you?


You just did. ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't take pleasure in the human bomb tactics, but the conventional war of groups of armed men shooting at each other is clearly not an option. /QUOTE]

Non-violent protest is an option, however.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person

If it was me in that situation, I would be after military targets or infrastructure, but then, it's not me over there and I'm not fighting that war. Even so, a human bomb isn't going to do too much damage to these things either. Tanks and armoured vehicles will withstand such an attack without any trouble./QUOTE]

.....
That's been tried too.

You left out the first bit. When they take on the IDF head to head, they don't have a chance.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You left out the first bit. When they take on the IDF head to head, they don't have a chance.

I can't disagree there, but that's all the more reason to try non-violent protest.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I can't disagree there, but that's all the more reason to try non-violent protest.

We noted in an earlier thread a non-violent protest. It was all but ignored.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
We noted in an earlier thread a non-violent protest. It was all but ignored.

It is ignored, isn't it! Why so? We expect Israel to meet violence with peaceful negotiations and condem them when they don't, but nobody seriously suggests that the Palestinians set aside violent solutions for peaceful ones.

How come? Is it because we just can't imagine it from Palestinians? Is it that we've become so used to suicide bombers and attrocities against civilians that we just don't expect anything more from them?

If so, doesn't that attitude suggest anti-Arabic racism?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From peptoabysmal:

When does the history start? All the terrorist activities are history now. Mostly days old. You may not care about history when you're in Outer Mongolia, but one day it might come in the night and bite you.

If you don't know how we got into this position, how can you expect to have an interesting opinion on the subject?

What support have the Palestinians ever got from the Americans when they weren't engaging in terrorist activities? Before the Second Intifada, for instance? Leaving aside tiny ex-pat splinters such as Abu Nidal and Black September, which had damn-all to do with ordinary Palestinians. When the Palestinians are quiet, their land gets appropriated, their houses are demolished and they are condemned to a life as "hewers of wood and carriers of water". When they aren't quiet, they're called terrorists and their land gets appropriated etc. By now they're not needed for labouring - there are plenty of Russians for that. Not that they're terribly happy about it, but then they've always got the Russian Mafia to aspire to. (The home-grown variety is getting blown out of its cosy niches, just like the US Mafia.)

You might be surprised by how I much do know about the history of this region. What I'm saying is that it should be considered irrelevant what happened in 1968 to what's going on today, otherwise, they are stuck fighting a war about the past that there is no possible solution of, and we are stuck arguing a point that there is no possible solution of.

To me, the Ottoman Empire has no bearing on the merits or lack thereof of some young Palestinian strapping on a bomb and going into a supermarket to blow themselves and everyone around them into kingdom come.

I agree with the point that history is definitely a good teacher and useful for predicting the future, however that region has become perpetually concerned with past, to the point where it impedes it's future. It is almost an example of a time paradox.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
The labeling of those who disagree with Israel's murderous tactics as anti-semites is slimey rhetorical feint, it's like calling someone a bigot or a child molester, it doesn't matter if it's true or not because once it's uttered, the debate flies out the window and everything you have to say is discounted automatically. [/B]


:roll:

Have you heard the story of the man who murdered his parents and begged for clemency because he was an orphan?

This is such a great tactic. Paralyze the liberal mind with the charge of narrow mindedness, and then watch as they ignore your lies in an effort to prove they're not.

This paragraph of yours is a slimy rhetorical feint. People criticize Israel all the time without being called anti-Semitic. If that's not your experience, I'd suggest you examine the differences between what you say and what they say.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft



:roll:

Have you heard the story of the man who murdered his parents and begged for clemency because he was an orphan?

This is such a great tactic. Paralyze the liberal mind with the charge of narrow mindedness, and then watch as they ignore your lies in an effort to prove they're not.

This paragraph of yours is a slimy rhetorical feint. People criticize Israel all the time without being called anti-Semitic. If that's not your experience, I'd suggest you examine the differences between what you say and what they say.

I started a thread here the other day about people in the Australian Labor Party being critical of Israel. They were promptly shut up by those fearful of the Jewish Lobby and it's cries of 'anti-semitism'. I am constantly called an anti-semite here. (Not by all people, and certainly not by all the Jewish members). Look up Skeptics criticisms of me some time. It doesn't matter why anyone criticises Israel, by definition, they are anti-semites.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I started a thread here the other day about people in the Australian Labor Party being critical of Israel. They were promptly shut up by those fearful of the Jewish Lobby and it's cries of 'anti-semitism'. I am constantly called an anti-semite here. (Not by all people, and certainly not by all the Jewish members). Look up Skeptics criticisms of me some time. It doesn't matter why anyone criticises Israel, by definition, they are anti-semites.

I found the thread and read the article. Nowhere in the article was anyone accused of anti-Semitism.

Maybe you should read the article again and figure out why your perception is so off.

[peptoabysmal]

You know, this thread was about the relationship with Israel and the US. I want to be very honest in this thread about the way I feel and why. I don't particularly care to hear someone tell me how I *should* feel.

I consider myself to be a fairly mainstream American, at that. Your mileage may vary.

To re-iterate my feelings toward the Israel / Palestine / US relationship:

I have watched the world cower from PLO / terrorist attacks ever since the Vietnam war was over. At least that's when I became personally aware of them. You might say that diplomacy was tried and it didn't work, well fair enough. Terrorism was tried and it hasn't worked, either. Terrorism has been used a lot more and for a greater time span than diplomacy.

If the Palestinians want sympathy for their cause from me and quite a few other US citizens I know of, they have to stop the terrorist activities - period. If the Palestinians think the rest of the world (other than the US) is going to come to their rescue, well then carry on, you're doing a wonderful job.

I don't think that any of our (US) leaders will be willing to jeopardize the relationship between Israel and the US, unless the terrorism stops. Until then, we have no diplomatic ammunition to go to Israel and say "See here now, what you're doing is wrong".

I have yet to get on a plane and wonder if some Israeli is going to hijack it. I don't think anyone else from any other country has wondered that either.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I found the thread and read the article. Nowhere in the article was anyone accused of anti-Semitism.

Maybe you should read the article again and figure out why your perception is so off.

Sorry, I did not make myself clear. Skeptic regularly accuses me of anti-semitism.

The ALP thread was about people being silenced for speaking what they think because it might upset the Jewish Lobby. Which is pretty crazy, as there are plenty of secular Jews in the Labor party who would not be zionists.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
You know, this thread was about the relationship with Israel and the US. I want to be very honest in this thread about the way I feel and why. I don't particularly care to hear someone tell me how I *should* feel.

.....

I have yet to get on a plane and wonder if some Israeli is going to hijack it. I don't think anyone else from any other country has wondered that either.

You are not a Palestinian. If you were, you would be wondering when your house was going to be bulldozed or your land taken. You would not be able to move freely in your own country, you would be living under an army of occupation, for many, their whole lives. That may get your mind ticking over.

It is also ironical that you mention the Vietnam War. In many ways, this was the greatest act of terrorism in history. There weren't thousands killed, there were millions. The exact number is highgly debateable, but I think the figure of at least one million is accepted all around. This was sheer terror for the Vietnamese. The only difference was the US had planes to carry in the bombs with.

Your post is very 'ethnocentric', that is, it is, as you say, 'an American'. There are many more ways to view the world.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Sorry, I did not make myself clear. Skeptic regularly accuses me of anti-semitism.

The ALP thread was about people being silenced for speaking what they think because it might upset the Jewish Lobby. Which is pretty crazy, as there are plenty of secular Jews in the Labor party who would not be zionists.

Then I'm confused as to why you bring it up. It's not an example of what you were talking about.

I'm also confused as to why you specify secular Jews. Among the Jewish people I know, there is a variety of opinion on Israel, and religious belief doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Then I'm confused as to why you bring it up. It's not an example of what you were talking about.

I'm also confused as to why you specify secular Jews. Among the Jewish people I know, there is a variety of opinion on Israel, and religious belief doesn't seem to have anything to do with it.

Because the only ones I knew were secular.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

You are not a Palestinian. If you were, you would be wondering when your house was going to be bulldozed or your land taken. You would not be able to move freely in your own country, you would be living under an army of occupation, for many, their whole lives. That may get your mind ticking over.

Nor am I an Israeli.


It is also ironical that you mention the Vietnam War. In many ways, this was the greatest act of terrorism in history. There weren't thousands killed, there were millions. The exact number is highgly debateable, but I think the figure of at least one million is accepted all around. This was sheer terror for the Vietnamese. The only difference was the US had planes to carry in the bombs with.

Terror is when you don't know if you should shoot a little boy running up to you, because you don't know if he's going to throw a hand grenade at you or not, and then come home and have people spit on you and call you "baby burner".


Your post is very 'ethnocentric', that is, it is, as you say, 'an American'. There are many more ways to view the world.
Duh, that was the whole point of my post. To give you an honest insight into how an American feels about the situation and why we feel protective about Israel, from an 'ethnocentric' point of view. Have I taken the "Israel and USA" title of this thread too literally?

Maybe I've taken this thread completely wrong. I get it now, this is a thread to complain about Israel and the US, not to try to understand their viewpoints.

Sorry, my bad.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You are not a Palestinian. If you were, you would be wondering when your house was going to be bulldozed or your land taken. You would not be able to move freely in your own country, you would be living under an army of occupation, for many, their whole lives. That may get your mind ticking over.


Does this justify murder? I can think of a few non-violent alternatives:

1) Stop glorifying martyrs. They are a part of the problem, not the solution.

2) Vote for Palestinian leaders who are willing to negotiate. Leaders with qualifications other than membership in terror organizations.

3) Condemn the practice of giving cash and pensions to families of suicide bombers. Raising a suicide bomber should not be rewarded.

4) Stop teaching hate to the children. Kids throw rocks because their parents encourage them. Stop that. The kid that throws a rock today (could kill someone or get killed) will carry a gun or a bomb tomorrow.

5) Accept a two state solution. Two states means one Jewish state, one Palestinian-Arab state. This "Jordan River to the sea" crap doesn't make friends west of the Green Line.

6) Non-violent protest. It worked for Ghandi, it can work in the West Bank. We can and should expect civilized behavior from these people.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Your post is very 'ethnocentric', that is, it is, as you say, 'an American'. There are many more ways to view the world.

Good point. There are many ways to view the world. In my view, any way of looking at the world that excuses terrorism is invalid. Anyone that thinks one should negotiate with terrorists is insane.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Nor am I an Israeli.


Terror is when you don't know if you should shoot a little boy running up to you, because you don't know if he's going to throw a hand grenade at you or not, and then come home and have people spit on you and call you "baby burner".



That was self-imposed terror. The US went to Vietnam, the Vietnamese didn't go to it. The Vietnamese still came out of it far worse than the US ever did, but all I hear about is how tought it was for the US.



Duh, that was the whole point of my post. To give you an honest insight into how an American feels about the situation and why we feel protective about Israel, from an 'ethnocentric' point of view. Have I taken the "Israel and USA" title of this thread too literally?

Maybe I've taken this thread completely wrong. I get it now, this is a thread to complain about Israel and the US, not to try to understand their viewpoints.

Sorry, my bad.

The actual title of the thread refers more to the relationship between the US and Israel itself. It has, like all relationships, it's distinguishing features and peculiarities. It's dynamics and how it works and what the consequences of it are, are more the point.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Does this justify murder? I can think of a few non-violent alternatives:

1) Stop glorifying martyrs. They are a part of the problem, not the solution.

2) Vote for Palestinian leaders who are willing to negotiate. Leaders with qualifications other than membership in terror organizations.

3) Condemn the practice of giving cash and pensions to families of suicide bombers. Raising a suicide bomber should not be rewarded.

4) Stop teaching hate to the children. Kids throw rocks because their parents encourage them. Stop that. The kid that throws a rock today (could kill someone or get killed) will carry a gun or a bomb tomorrow.

5) Accept a two state solution. Two states means one Jewish state, one Palestinian-Arab state. This "Jordan River to the sea" crap doesn't make friends west of the Green Line.

6) Non-violent protest. It worked for Ghandi, it can work in the West Bank. We can and should expect civilized behavior from these people.

I could go on, but you get the idea.



Good point. There are many ways to view the world. In my view, any way of looking at the world that excuses terrorism is invalid. Anyone that thinks one should negotiate with terrorists is insane.

You don't know that the children are encourage to attack tanks with rocks.

They know that Sharon's idea of a two state solution is to have them in a virtual jail, surrounded by a fence, with no land.

Non violence has been tried many times.

Requiring that leaders in negtiotiations not be members of terrorist groups would disqualify many Israeli leaders, past and present.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You don't know that the children are encourage to attack tanks with rocks.

Sometimes tanks, mostly soldiers and Israeli citizens.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They know that Sharon's idea of a two state solution is to have them in a virtual jail, surrounded by a fence, with no land.

How can sovereignty be described as a virtual jail? The fence is a defense against terrorism. An effective and humane deterrence.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Non violence has been tried many times.

When? For how long? By how many people?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Requiring that leaders in negtiotiations not be members of terrorist groups would disqualify many Israeli leaders, past and present.

We can agree that electing terrorists to government is not a good way to achieve peace, but it’s strange that you only fault Israel for this. At the same time, you’re comparing events from fifty years ago to events that are happening today. Arafat is still the official head of several terrorist organizations.

You’re very good at finding reasons why Palestinians can’t find peaceful solutions to their problems, but can you find any reasons why they can? We can and should expect civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs. If we don’t, they will never live up to that ideal.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Sometimes tanks, mostly soldiers and Israeli citizens.



How can sovereignty be described as a virtual jail? The fence is a defense against terrorism. An effective and humane deterrence.



Have you seen where the fence is being built? It is not along the green line, but encircles towns. It reminds me very much of the old Jewish ghettos, and is meant as a container, not a barrier.



When? For how long? By how many people?



I have started a thread on one such example. These are not popularly noted. Another example is Rachel Corrie. The IDF apologists were quick to point out it was her fault for getting killed in an example of peaceful resistance.



We can agree that electing terrorists to government is not a good way to achieve peace, but it’s strange that you only fault Israel for this. At the same time, you’re comparing events from fifty years ago to events that are happening today. Arafat is still the official head of several terrorist organizations.



I was not denying Arafats terrorist roots, just pointing out that Israel has it's fair share too.



You’re very good at finding reasons why Palestinians can’t find peaceful solutions to their problems, but can you find any reasons why they can? We can and should expect civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs. If we don’t, they will never live up to that ideal.

I think the example of Norther Ireland shows that struggles between ethnic and political groups can reach the stage of a bloody stalemate such as this. The only solution is persistence. Eventually, peace will come. Demonising the participants produces no results.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Mycroft



:roll:

Have you heard the story of the man who murdered his parents and begged for clemency because he was an orphan?

This is such a great tactic. Paralyze the liberal mind with the charge of narrow mindedness, and then watch as they ignore your lies in an effort to prove they're not.

This paragraph of yours is a slimy rhetorical feint. People criticize Israel all the time without being called anti-Semitic. If that's not your experience, I'd suggest you examine the differences between what you say and what they say.

Well evidently you are exactly type of person I was describing. Not only am I anti-Semitic but I'm a liberal as well. I am neither I am a libertarian and agnostic , I hold no special antipathy towards Jewdism then I do for Bah'i, I find all religions equally silly ( not the Grand tenets just the dogma), and actually the application of the moniker "Anti-Semitic" is a misnomer as both the Israelis and the Palistinians are Semites related to Abraham through his sons.

What I am is vehemently against the murderous actions of the Israeli government as an expression of State policy. I do not condone but condemn , the terror tactics of a few homo/suicidial individuals who cannot be controlled in any rational way.They however do not enjoy the sanction of any government ( ya, I know the constant cacophony of Sharon and his government..show me the beef ) especially one funded by the US who also supplys weapons that allow them to persue this tract.

What I meant if you read the phrase is that people are labeled as anti-Semites all the time because they disagree with the Israeli. doctrine of collective punishment and worse, yes there are many times that does not occur but, I disagree with You believing it is the norm and not the exception.

Finally I believe we can all see the mettle of your character by reading your litany of actions you believe should be taken to create peace in the territory in question. The laundry list of proposals does not include one (1) action by the Israeli side, I think that in and of itself demonstraits that you are among the armys of the righteously self-convinced` and any further debate between us would be pointless , so don't feel any obligation to reply I won't be listening.

[demon]

Mycroft:
"I can't disagree there, but that's all the more reason to try non-violent protest."

Oh here we go again!
Isn`t it a shame that Palestinian resistance does not live up to your exacting standards for anti-colonial resistance? Well, what can one say, what is wrong with the natives?

When Britain had it's back to the wall during world war II, Churchill said: "We will fight them on the beaches...we will fight them in the streets and in the hills..we shall never surrender"
That meant that Britain would use ANY means necessary against the enemy invading our lands.

Guerilla warfare, resistance fighting, suicide bombing, Cologne, Dresden...you name it and we did it and would have used it.

This example of resistance against occupation wasn't just accepted as right and correct, it was fully EXPECTED as well.

Why then, in a land that has been illegally occupied for more than 50 years by an invading force, whose people are kicked out of their homes on a regular basis and are denied free movement in their own country do we expect a different set of rules and expectations?

Unlike the South Africans for example, in the case of the Palestinians, there is very little "official" moral indignation towards their plight. What little popular indignation there may be doesn't register on the official radar, and the little that does is conveniently swept under the carpet and called anti-Semitism.

The Palestinians have almost zero help from the outside world. They are partitioned off like animals in a zoo. They have curfews, they are losing their homes, they are dying... the humiliations are unimaginable. Also, there is more than just the physical and economic oppression. There is also a deep cultural and religious humiliation involved. The occupation strikes at the very heart of their identity and yet we have those who expect them to act like super-human Ghandis en masse.

Palestinians have been denied all or any protection for their inalienable and universally recognized rights, they have been denied all or any route to redress from those who have dispossessed them, they have been denied all or any international protection in line with the duties of the signatories to numerous international treaties and the international communtity.

If you think it`s ok for Israel to steal land from people and participate in state terrorism to achieve its goals then just say so for christ`s sake.
To suggest peaceful protest is a realistic course of action against any Zionist based Israeli regime is an insult to everybody who has ever looked at this issue with a modicum of understanding.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


....Your post is very 'ethnocentric', that is, it is, as you say, 'an American'. There are many more ways to view the world.

Try this worldview.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110004036

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by demon

Oh here we go again!
Isn`t it a shame that Palestinian resistance does not live up to your exacting standards for anti-colonial resistance? Well, what can one say, what is wrong with the natives?

When Britain had it's back to the wall during world war II, Churchill said: "We will fight them on the beaches...we will fight them in the streets and in the hills..we shall never surrender"
That meant that Britain would use ANY means necessary against the enemy invading our lands.

Guerilla warfare, resistance fighting, suicide bombing, Cologne, Dresden...you name it and we did it and would have used it.

This example of resistance against occupation wasn't just accepted as right and correct, it was fully EXPECTED as well.

Blah...blah...blah....

Your entire post is a justification of brutal murder of innocent schlubs who sit on a bus because they can't afford a car! That's who Hamas murders...not the people they'd REALLY like to kill...no, that would be too hard. They murder children on those buses. Your use of Churchill is particularly disgusting! Do you assume for one brief second that Churchill would be blowing up bus loads of bus riding civilians and children?? Do you suppose that is what he meant?? If so you are the worst kind of idiot.

Now imagine for a second that the average Israeli were to take up the fervent cry of Hamas et al....that he would use EVERY MEANS to remove the Palestinian. How long do you suppose there would be Palestinians? I figure about the same amount of time it took the 3rd ID to roll from Kuwait to Baghdad.

Israel could commit a very complete genocide if only they desired. Luckily for the PA they do not. They remember Nazi Germany and don't wish to visit that crime upon anyone else...but unlike the Palestinians, the Jews were not running around murdering German children on buses. If they had done so the Nazis would have had a reason for the Holocaust that almost everyone in the world could understand if not agree with.

Calling Israel a criminal Nazi-like nation is perverse given the circumstances. Let the Palestinians stop their barbarism and finally honor a REAL cease-fire. Absent that, there is no hope for them or peace. Someday a straw will come that breaks the back of Israeli restraint. Personally I'm so disgusted with Arafat, et al that I'm starting to look forward to that day.

-z

[demon]

"Your entire post is a justification of brutal murder of innocent schlubs who sit on a bus because they can't afford a car! That's who Hamas murders...not the people they'd REALLY like to kill...no, that would be too hard. They murder children on those buses. Your use of Churchill is particularly disgusting! Do you assume for one brief second that Churchill would be blowing up bus loads of bus riding civilians and children?? Do you suppose that is what he meant?? If so you are the worst kind of idiot."

Churchill?
Maybe you are talking about a different one than I am...maybe the one in the big book of "Might is Right".
The Churchill I make reference to is the one who said "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using."
The Churchill I refer to also ordered the saturation bombing of civilain cities...are you so naive as to think no civilians were killed in that? No children? No innocents?

You have the mind of an thug come goon zilla, but some consolation...don`t be disgusted by my mention of Churchill here, we are clearly talking about two different people.

[TillEulenspiegel]

rikzilla:
"Israel could commit a very complete genocide if only they desired. Luckily for the PA they do not. They remember Nazi Germany and don't wish to visit that crime upon anyone else...but unlike the Palestinians, the Jews were not running around murdering German children on buses"

You are correct the might of the IDF belies thier constant cry of "security", In the US if your relative is say shot and you go to the police station and kill the criminal , even if theirs no doubt of guilt, YOU will be charged with murder. That an individual can take retribution into his own hands is disallowed under our law and also archaic and common law. That it follows that a state cannot do the same is common sense and also international law based on common law and a plethora of treaties and UN declarations.
The premise here is that somehow Israel is a special case and allowed to be extra-judicial in their treatment of "suspected (insert category here)_____________ and their families and their families properties and that families neighbors. Is there anywhere anytime you can adopt and defend that kind of behavior? Because if you can then Israel is not a special case, take maybe the Ottoman Turks and the Armeianin genocide, the Spanish Inqusion?, the Crusaiders?, modern day Mexico and it's treatment of the indigent Indian population.Take any example in history ( American citizens of Japanese extraction locked in concentration camps) defend that action and demonstrate to me that behavior is acceptable under any circumstance and maybe we can forget that the people who have been the most subject to tyranny and oppression in history, the Jews, are allowed to become the thing they most hate and that the phrase "never again " only applies to them and no other.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Your entire post is a justification of brutal murder of innocent schlubs who sit on a bus because they can't afford a car! That's who Hamas murders...not the people they'd REALLY like to kill...no, that would be too hard. They murder children on those buses. Your use of Churchill is particularly disgusting! Do you assume for one brief second that Churchill would be blowing up bus loads of bus riding civilians and children?? Do you suppose that is what he meant?? If so you are the worst kind of idiot.



Now who's being naive? Have you ever studied the american mass bombing tactics of Vietnam?



Now imagine for a second that the average Israeli were to take up the fervent cry of Hamas et al....that he would use EVERY MEANS to remove the Palestinian. How long do you suppose there would be Palestinians? I figure about the same amount of time it took the 3rd ID to roll from Kuwait to Baghdad.



Remove them from what?



Israel could commit a very complete genocide if only they desired. Luckily for the PA they do not. They remember Nazi Germany and don't wish to visit that crime upon anyone else...but unlike the Palestinians, the Jews were not running around murdering German children on buses. If they had done so the Nazis would have had a reason for the Holocaust that almost everyone in the world could understand if not agree with.



They are too smart to just go out an kill everyone. The process of gradually bulldozing land, appropriating it, settling it, checkpointing it, fencing it does a much more effective job while avoiding the sensastionalism of headlines. It does, however, achieve the same end, one of genocide.



Calling Israel a criminal Nazi-like nation is perverse given the circumstances. Let the Palestinians stop their barbarism and finally honor a REAL cease-fire. Absent that, there is no hope for them or peace. Someday a straw will come that breaks the back of Israeli restraint. Personally I'm so disgusted with Arafat, et al that I'm starting to look forward to that day.

-z

IIRC, they did honor the recent cease fire. Israel still continued with it's 'selective' assasinations of Hamas leaders. As Cleopatra asked, how many leaders of Hamas are there.

[espritch]

I have been trying to avoid this subject but now I am furious!

I have just read in BBC that USA has vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution denouncing Israel's policy of "removing" Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Odd. When I responded negatively to the thread EvilYeti posted about the Jerusalem Post article suggesting that Arafat should be killed, you promptly responded as follows:

Come-on espritch from all the threads about Arafat you chose this one to post, a thread that is about an editorial of a newspaper and it has a provocative title.

You just showed how much you care.

You’ll have to pardon me if seem a bit confused. Do you think killing Arafat is a good idea or a bad one? I gather from your post here that you think it’s a bad idea. If so, what was that response in the other thread about?

I think the reason USA decided to support Israel on the first place was exactly to avoid to send troops to the area.

Israel was established in order to play the policeman of the West in the Middle East. Israel was the most convenient solution: Europeans got rid of the Jews and Americans found a nation ready to shed its blood for promoting their interests.

How exactly does Israel promote US interests? In the first Gulf war, we had to ask them to not fire back at Iraq because we knew that if they did, Arab support for the coalition would vanish. Our support of Israel produced the Arab Oil Embargo of the 70s and is largely responsible for terrorist attacks against the US in recent years.

The only real interest we have in the Middle East is oil. And yet here we are supporting the one country in a region awash in oil that doesn’t have any. All the countries that do have oil hate Israel - and they hate us for supporting Israel. If this was about our national interests, we would be giving our support to the Palestinians.

The reason the US supports Israel is purely national politics. The Jewish lobby in the US is rich and influential, and it controls a lot of the American media. The Conservative Christian lobby is also strong and finds common ground with the Jewish lobby since they believe the reestablishment of Israel is a necessary precondition to the second coming of Christ. Most American politicians don’t want to offend either constituency so they support Israel come hell or high water.

As long as I can remember, American presidents have wasted inordinate amounts of time and effort trying to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians with no success. In a large part, this failure is a direct result of our blindly unwavering support of Israel. If we really want to solve the Israel/Palestine problem, we need to start playing hard ball. The US should tell the Israelis to either cease building West Bank and Gaza settlements and to tear down the ones that exist, or else kiss the golden nipple of US tax dollars goodbye. Then we might actually see some progress.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

That was self-imposed terror. The US went to Vietnam, the Vietnamese didn't go to it. The Vietnamese still came out of it far worse than the US ever did, but all I hear about is how tought it was for the US.
Self-imposed for the US as a whole, perhaps. There was a draft on then, which increased the population of Canada. Canada is just too cold for my blood.


The actual title of the thread refers more to the relationship between the US and Israel itself. It has, like all relationships, it's distinguishing features and peculiarities. It's dynamics and how it works and what the consequences of it are, are more the point.

How is sympathizing with and defending Palestinian terrorists equivalent to discussing the relationship between Israel and the US?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Have you seen where the fence is being built? It is not along the green line, but encircles towns. It reminds me very much of the old Jewish ghettos, and is meant as a container, not a barrier.

It's a wall. As a deterrent to terrorism, you must admit it’s much more humane that the alternatives.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have started a thread on one such example. These are not popularly noted. Another example is Rachel Corrie. The IDF apologists were quick to point out it was her fault for getting killed in an example of peaceful resistance.

Rachel Corrie’s death was a tragic accident and one can’t help but feel sympathy for her friends and family. At the same time, if the point you’re trying to make is that her death proves that non-violent protest doesn’t work, you logic is fatally flawed. Suicide bombers always die. That’s why they’re called suicide bombers.

Something I’ve always wondered in looking at the pictures of Rachel Corrie: Where are the Palestinians? You don’t see them in the pictures of that day. Was that an American only protest?

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I was not denying Arafats terrorist roots, just pointing out that Israel has it's fair share too.

Fair? You equate a handful of incidents from fifty years ago to a fifty-year long campaign that continues today? Perspective is a part of fairness.

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I think the example of Norther Ireland shows that struggles between ethnic and political groups can reach the stage of a bloody stalemate such as this. The only solution is persistence. Eventually, peace will come. Demonising the participants produces no results.

I think we agree here. Especially the part about demonizing the participants.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Well evidently you are exactly type of person I was describing. Not only am I anti-Semitic but I'm a liberal as well.

Not at all. I said your rhetoric is designed to play on a liberal mind. I have no idea if you’re liberal or not.

As far as being an anti-Semite, anyone who can mention the Peace for Galilee operation and blame Israel for the suffering of the Lebanese people without mentioning the PLO that was occupying huge tracts of Lebanon while brutalizing its Lebanese population, the bloody Lebanese civil war between the Christians and Muslims, and the involvement of Syria and Iran is someone who has got issues with reality.


Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
… and actually the application of the moniker "Anti-Semitic" is a misnomer as both the Israelis and the Palistinians are Semites related to Abraham through his sons. [/B]

Did you know that the word awful once meant, “full of awe”? It’s correct use was more like how we use awesome today. Over time the meaning of the word has drifted to mean really bad. There are many words in the English language that are like this, where their meaning is something different than the history of the word suggests it should be. For that reason, we have to look at the usage of the word to determine its definition. Anti-Semite does not mean one who hates Arabs because that’s not how it’s used.

I don’t think anti-Semitism is a very good word. I think bigot is much more apt. Unfortunately, that word is a little too strong and tends to shut down conversation, so I use the more common anti-Semite which is understood to mean one who hates Jews.

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Finally I believe we can all see the mettle of your character by reading your litany of actions you believe should be taken to create peace in the territory in question. The laundry list of proposals does not include one (1) action by the Israeli side, I think that in and of itself demonstraits that you are among the armys of the righteously self-convinced` and any further debate between us would be pointless , so don't feel any obligation to reply I won't be listening. [/B]

If you had read closer, you would have noticed my “litany” was alternatives to Palestinian violence. Suggestions for Israel would not have been appropriate for such a list.

As far as my responding to your posts…you can imagine how eager I will be to follow your direction. :roll:

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon Oh here we go again!
Isn`t it a shame that Palestinian resistance does not live up to your exacting standards for anti-colonial resistance? Well, what can one say, what is wrong with the natives?

Living up to some standards would be nice. I admire your double-speak in characterizing genocidal terrorism as “anti-colonial resistance.”

Originally posted by demon
To suggest peaceful protest is a realistic course of action against any Zionist based Israeli regime is an insult to everybody who has ever looked at this issue with a modicum of understanding.

I don’t have time to reply to your entire post, so I’ll just respond to this.

Non-violent protest will not work if the goal is the elimination of Israel. Non-violent protest would be very effective towards the goal of establishing a second Palestinian-Arab state.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They are too smart to just go out an kill everyone. The process of gradually bulldozing land, appropriating it, settling it, checkpointing it, fencing it does a much more effective job while avoiding the sensastionalism of headlines. It does, however, achieve the same end, one of genocide.


It's a strange sort of genocide that increases their population, lengthens their life expetency and improves their education system while building roads and drilling wells.

C'mon. Genocide is the systematic killing of a population. You can't kill a population of three and a half million people one or two at a time. The use of the word is nothing more than a rhetorical slander of Israel.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Rikzilla
Do you assume for one brief second that Churchill would be blowing up bus loads of bus riding civilians and children? I guess you haven't heard of the bombing of Dresden then? See http://proliberty.com/observer/20030402.htm for details of that particular event.

[E.J.Armstrong]

[originally posted by Mycroft It's a strange sort of genocide that increases their population, lengthens their life expetency and improves their education system while building roads and drilling wells.
Perhaps Palestinians should be appropriately grateful that suspects (note - not people tried and found guilty according to the law) are assassinated in circumstances which guarantee that their innocent children are routinely killed or that their land is being stolen or they have their houses bulldozed if a suspect ( note suspect- not a person tried under the law and found guilty) is suspected of living nearby or that their olive groves are bulldozed or that their rights of way are barricaded or that an apartheid state is being built around them and they are being progressively ghettoised or that they are being collectively punished by a militarily superior power financed by another country?

Would the average American be grateful if that happened to them. Nope - don't think so somehow.

All Israelis are entitled to live in peace, free from terror - so are all innocent Palestinians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


It's a strange sort of genocide that increases their population, lengthens their life expetency and improves their education system while building roads and drilling wells.

C'mon. Genocide is the systematic killing of a population. You can't kill a population of three and a half million people one or two at a time. The use of the word is nothing more than a rhetorical slander of Israel.

Drilling wells? The palestinians have less water now than ever. The only wells being drilled are for settlers. Read the newspapers a little more deeply than just the front page of your favourite conservative rag. Each Palestinian has less land than ever. Their roads are unnavigable due to check points. Their education is constantly interrupted by curfews and universities being closed down.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990227/1999022734.html



PLO accuses Israel of stealing water
Palestine-Israel, Politics, 2/27/1999

The Palestinian Liberation Organization warned against continuing to keep Palestinian water resources under Israeli domination, and it considered it as undermining the chances for peace in the Middle East.

A report presented by the organization to the Arab League's general trusteeship under the title "Policies and the Palestinian water positions under occupation" stated that Israel persisted to use water as a weapon to exert political pressure and that it continues to steal and threaten the basins in Jordan, Yarmouk, Golan and in the occupied West Bank.

The report also stated that Israel pumps 140,000 cubic meters of water daily in the southern West Bank, 115,000 thousand cubic of meters of which are specified for nearly 35,000 thousand settlers who live in 31 settlements, and 25,000 thousand cubic meters for more than half a million Palestinian citizens in Bethlehem and Galilee.

The report spoke of an agreement that allows the Palestinians to dig water wells, but Israel has only allowed since signing the agreement in 1993 the digging of six Palestinian wells.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
[
Perhaps Palestinians should be appropriately grateful that suspects (note - not people tried and found guilty according to the law) are assassinated in circumstances which guarantee that their innocent children are routinely killed or that their land is being stolen or they have their houses bulldozed if a suspect ( note suspect- not a person tried under the law and found guilty) is suspected of living nearby or that their olive groves are bulldozed or that their rights of way are barricaded or that an apartheid state is being built around them and they are being progressively ghettoised or that they are being collectively punished by a militarily superior power financed by another country?

Would the average American be grateful if that happened to them. Nope - don't think so somehow.

All Israelis are entitled to live in peace, free from terror - so are all innocent Palestinians.

Even Sharon has admitted the Palestinians have been living under military occupation. That is what they are resisting, a military occupation. As I said earlier, I would like to see how the US responded to such an act.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Perhaps Palestinians should be appropriately grateful that suspects (note - not people tried and found guilty according to the law) are assassinated in circumstances which guarantee that their innocent children are routinely killed or that their land is being stolen or they have their houses bulldozed if a suspect ( note suspect- not a person tried under the law and found guilty) is suspected of living nearby or that their olive groves are bulldozed or that their rights of way are barricaded or that an apartheid state is being built around them and they are being progressively ghettoised or that they are being collectively punished by a militarily superior power financed by another country?

Would the average American be grateful if that happened to them. Nope - don't think so somehow.

All Israelis are entitled to live in peace, free from terror - so are all innocent Palestinians.

First, keep in mind that Israel goes after terrorists because the Palestinian Authority doesn’t. If you want to see rule of law where these terrorists rights are respected, where they are arrested, tried and punished (or not) according to law, then one of two things needs to happen:

1) The Palestinian Authority needs to do it. They need to live up to their agreements according to the Oslo accords and take action against the terrorists. That means arresting them and putting them on trial, and taking the responsibility onto themselves to punish them.

2) Failing that, Israel would have to take away whatever autonomy the Palestinian Authority has and do it themselves. I suspect you would agree that this would be a step backwards.

When innocent children die, it’s a tragedy. You and I certainly agree on that point. Where you and I disagree is where the responsibility for these tragedies lay. It is against the Geneva Convention to place combatants and military objectives among civilian populations for exactly these reasons, because it makes it impossible for an opposing force to go after these targets without inflicting civilian casualties.

The Palestinian Authority and the various terrorist organizations get plenty of financing from foreign nations.

If citizens of the United States were crossing the border to bomb civilians in Canada or Mexico, you can be sure that the United States government would be doing everything in their power to stop them, so speculation on how US citizens would react to how a foreign power would stop such behavior is moot.

I agree that Israeli citizens and Palestinians are entitled to live in peace, free from terror. I only add that some responsibility falls upon the Palestinians to make that happen.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Drilling wells? The palestinians have less water now than ever. The only wells being drilled are for settlers. Read the newspapers a little more deeply than just the front page of your favourite conservative rag. Each Palestinian has less land than ever. Their roads are unnavigable due to check points. Their education is constantly interrupted by curfews and universities being closed down.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990227/1999022734.html



You can find all sorts of things in the Arabic press that support anything anti-Israeli, but that misses the point. My issue was with your use of the word “genocide”. Genocidal policies do not lead to better health care, increased life expectancy, increased population and better education. The Palestinians have enjoyed all of these since 1967.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Sharon is a military with an old mentality. He hasn't realized yet that times have changed and the time to negotiate has come.

USA doesn't pressure him to remove the settlements and they didn't even dare to object to the erection of this outrageous Wall in the West Bank although at the beginning C.Rice expressed her disagreement.

If USA doesn't exercise pressure on Sharon to negotiate, things will become much worse for the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon is leading Israel to destruction and none in the States seems to realize that.

You need to think about like a chess game. Israel has a strong military.
The Egyptians in the west have a treaty with Israel and probably wont
attack, Jordan has spent its resources bulding and educating the people.
Turkey being part of NATO will be restrained and Iraq currently under
occupation by the United States will block action by Iran. Blow up the
Dome Of The Rock with a few extremists and you only have Syria to fight
with. Israel will not be destroyed. It's that simple.

P.S. Of course predicting future history is more of an art than a science. ;)

[CapelDodger]

from peptoabysmal:
You might be surprised by how I much do know about the history of this region. What I'm saying is that it should be considered irrelevant what happened in 1968 to what's going on today ...
I'm surprised at you knowing the history and saying you don't care about it. If what happened in 1968 is irrelevant then presumably so is what happened in 1917 so we can forget about the Jewish Homeland and move on.
... otherwise, they are stuck fighting a war about the past that there is no possible solution of, and we are stuck arguing a point that there is no possible solution of.
The Sharonist, nationalist Zionist solution is the achievement of its objective - a Jewish majority on both banks of the Jordan. This is possible only with US assistance, and requires one of two things: a huge influx of Jews (which isn't going to happen voluntarily) or the expulsion of many Arabs. No other solution will be acceptable, and no Israeli government that tried to prevent it would survive. Very few countries will support either strategy, and just possibly not the US.

The Palestinian solution is simpler: a viable state in which they can establish normal lives. This is impossible unless Israel collapses, since Israel will never accept recognition by the Palestinians and will never recognise a Palestinian state in a part of what they see as Israel. (Maps in Israeli school textbooks have always shown Israel as occupying the whole of the Mandate territory.)

So the possible solutions boil down to three: expulsion of enough US Jews to Israel to outnumber the Arabs; expulsion of enough Arabs for Jews to outnumber them; or the collapse of Israel as a Zionist State. The last seems the most likely, but the second is possible.
To me, the Ottoman Empire has no bearing on the merits or lack thereof of some young Palestinian strapping on a bomb and going into a supermarket to blow themselves and everyone around them into kingdom come.
I do trust Samson is no longer being presented to Israeli children as an inspirational figure. Suicide bombings in Israel have a history of 12 years or so. Why are they constantly used to define the way Palestinians and Zionists have interacted over the last hundred years? Yet the US insists that a motion about Israel's threat to assassinate a foreign, democratically elected leader must include references to suicide bombers.
I have watched the world cower from PLO / terrorist attacks ever since the Vietnam war was over
I lived through the same period and didn't notice any cowering. The IRA, Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, Japanese Red Army, Morituri, Tupumaros, Weathermen, SLA and whoever else didn't really have that great an effect, although they were a great boost to security services world-wide. What PLO actions led to cowering in your experience?
I don't think that any of our (US) leaders will be willing to jeopardize the relationship between Israel and the US, unless the terrorism stops. Until then, we have no diplomatic ammunition to go to Israel and say "See here now, what you're doing is wrong".
The current dependence of Israel on US subsidy is a rather big stick, diplomatically speaking. Like the rack, it can be tightened - a billion now, no change?, another billion, is that starting to sting? etc. There are lots of billions to go.

[CapelDodger]

From rizkilla:
Israel could commit a very complete genocide if only they desired. Luckily for the PA they do not. They remember Nazi Germany and don't wish to visit that crime upon anyone else...but unlike the Palestinians, the Jews were not running around murdering German children on buses. If they had done so the Nazis would have had a reason for the Holocaust that almost everyone in the world could understand if not agree with.
Don't want to? Or recognise that such an action would leave them isolated from every nation except the US and India, and possibly from them as well? Obviously the supporters of Kach aren't included in the "don't want to". Have the recent trials and arrests of settler terrorists for murders and bombings - not suicide bombings, although to my mind there's not much distinction - received much coverage in the US media? It seems that Israel is not able to do to Kach what they demand a thoroughly wrecked PA do to Hamas. (Of 12 recently arrested settlers suspected of terorism, 9 have been bailed or released to house arrest. The Israelis clearly take terrorism seriously.)

As to murdering children, dropping a tonne of bombs on an apartment block because there's talk of a Hamas cease-fire takes some beating.

[CapelDodger]

From espritch:
The reason the US supports Israel is purely national politics. The Jewish lobby in the US is rich and influential, and it controls a lot of the American media.
This is Elders of Zion stuff. The Jewish lobby could be ignored if the US recognised that its interests conflicted with Israel's. The "Jewish Vote" is as much a fiction as the "Jewish People", and as for control of the media, words fail me.

(Sorry if someone's made this point already, I'm playing catch-up debating.)

The US has an interest in a client state in the region, a client which is (in US thinking) utterly dependent on them. It gives them an entry-point to the region and a cat's-paw to unleash when they want. The Six-Day War was principally against Soviet-friendly Egypt and Syria. Iraq's nuclear program was whacked by Israel. The Middle East has provided a testing-ground for US military equipment against Soviet-made equipment with no US body-bags.

The concept isn't new; Kuwait was created for the same sort of reasons, as was Pakistan. Obviously nobody ever expected the Kuwaitis to be active allies, but Pakistan would have been if the Brits had decided to re-establish the Raj. To my mind an independent Kurdistan would have been a better option in the Middle East.

[CapelDodger]

From a_unique_person:
That was self-imposed terror. The US went to Vietnam, the Vietnamese didn't go to it. The Vietnamese still came out of it far worse than the US ever did, but all I hear about is how tought it was for the US.
Hurricane Isabel: big news, sad deaths and destruction. Tropical storms in Bangladesh, tens of thousands dead, half a million homeless. No story there. I just saw some American on CNN in (I think) Baltimore describing the flooded town as "the biggest flood in the world". The USA is a world unto itself.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Unique You raise an issue that is very much in the forefront of the controlling dynamics of the situation in Israel, but You don't go far enough. This issue will probably be THE most contentious problem that will have to be addressed in order to have regional peace and not just within the confines of an Israeli/Palistinian context. The geographical disposition of water resources and their political context.

Israel will never give Syria back the Golan because it is the source of the majority of "good " water. The major aquifer for Siria and Israel runs from Syria through the mountains down to northern Israel.. The Lake Kinneret basin is the main supplier of water for Israel and that is fed by the mountainous run off and various springs which feed the Jorden and its smaller tributaries. The over pumping of the from the costal aquifer has reduced the supply past a dangerous limit and salinization seems to be creeping in. So now that crappy piece of land has become more important strategically then it ever was.

OK that's the Geo, now the political...

Syria and Lebenon started a project to divert the mountain run off and other sources , which Israel called a pretext to war. Syria seems to be acting slowly, but Lebenin's President has not shown restraint. . I'm sure there were tight lipped ultimatums from Israel about their reaction to such a project. This was not the first attempt at diversion, the original effort was by Israel to divert the Jorden in 1953 and they desisted when pressured by the UN. The treatment of Palistinians in regards to restrictions of thier water rights is a well known fact, I was made aware of this whole situation from a 60 minuets program , Mike Wallece I believe, the main thrust being the disparity ( as usual ) of Israel's insistence on thier rights and the way they dispense those same rights to the Palistianins in both Israel proper and the occupied territories. The Golan question was handled as an aside , but now seems to have blossomed into the nexus of this dilemma. Once again we see Irsrael's propensity for absconding resources and land that is not theirs, threatening war when they see a threat in the form the owner of land or resources exersizing thier sovereign right as to the disposition of same. The last time I looked at the law both federal and international , the disposal of resources on territory was at the discretion of the owner. Israel evidently enjoys a self-actulized reality ( which has , unfortunately the blind support of the US ) that supercedes laws they find a threat or inconvenient.

Israel as usual in invoking it's right to "Security" has ridden roughshod over international law in a way that even it's closet ally , the US, would not allow any other country in the world to commit. This is one more example of the tail wagging the dog , and as an American I am ashamed at the dupliticious nature of the relationship we hold with Israel and the rest of the world.

The smartest thing Israel could do , IMHO , is to build de-sal plants as not to have to be victim to water blackmail. Heck they could even sell the salt as "Moses' Own", or Salt O'The Sea, the condiment that gave flavor to the last supper. =)

[CapelDodger]

From TillEulenspiegel:
The smartest thing Israel could do , IMHO , is to build de-sal plants as not to have to be victim to water blackmail
De-salination can only make a significant contribution in limited, coastal areas. The problem is that the water has to be pumped upward to its consumers from sea-level, whereas good old rainfall comes down from the sky and the hills. Water is heavy, and above a few metres cost become exorbitant.

What Israel needs to do is start living in tune with the environment they're in, but the country is simply too alien to them. They grow European crops for European markets (in which I include Israel). Olives are, of course, the best crop in the circumstances but Israelis in general hate olive groves. They're so native, so non-Western. They also have deep roots in the land - which most Israelis don't have - and their presence shows the lie of "a land without a people". Their economic importance to the Arabs is another reason to despise them.

Just another reason why the whole crazy project was doomed from the start.

[TillEulenspiegel]

well I don't want go too far out of scope , but the technology offers an alternative to bellicose interchanges punctuated by war. Heck look at Arizona USA, the fools have grass on thier front lawn ...AARGH!. The newest reverse osmosisis membrane technology would allow pumping of un treated sea water to on sight evaperation ponds for irrigation or potable water. The truth is we ALL will have to be goverend by resource management and alternative technology in the future.

I live in florida and the paper screames dailey about water concerns . As we speak there is a court battle about Florida sharing it's water resources to Georga ( Atlanta ) Lousianna and others . This is in the US, amoungst States in a common confederation and is rancourous. How will it be in the Godforsaken Middle east? bleh

[CapelDodger]

TillEulenspiegel:
Have you read "Water Wars", by Marq di Villiers? It's an interesting read.

The problem with de-sal isn't so much the method of H2O extraction from sea-water, it's the sea-level quality of the water. Rain-water can be gathered high-up and provide pressure to get itself into the upper levels of buildings. Where ground-water is pumped up it's usually done with wind-pumps which are cheap; try the same thing when you're serving a city full of high-rises and the cost is generally excessive.

The bellicosity problem in Israel isn't because of water but statements like "... the Bible is our mandate, the Bible which was written by us ..." (ben Gurion) and the sheer artificiality of the place. And, on partition, "...Jewish State in part of Palestine is not the end but the beginning. The establishment of such a Jewish State will serve as a means in our historical efforts [sic] to redeem the country in its entirety".

[TillEulenspiegel]

Don't wanna hijack the thread but,

No I haven't read the book, but will make an effort to do so. The problem is deeper and more pervasive then most people realise.

We have this rediculious penchent to believe that because the planet is 2/3 water that it means that an inexaustable supply of safe, clean drinking water. Which I am here to announce is untrue =) actually the majority of fresh water is locked inside of glasiers and 1 ofr 2 lakes in the world. This discussion does really belong in its its own forum.

Mean while back at the ranch......

To be sure , most of what you have said is true but you must admit that the intransegence of the Israelis is only reflected and contrasted by the same absolutest positions by the Palastinians.

I cannot tell you how many times I have pounded my head against the wall asking " When will these stupid people get the clue". in regards to the Palistinians. <sigh> Every time there is a deal, it's not enough, no thing goes directly from proposal to acomplishment in one motion.

The last effort of neutral accomidation came from Minister Rabin an accomodation of the camp David and Oslo Accords. I wept like a child when he was assinated by his own and rejoiced by much of the populas of Israel. Can you imagine rejoicing at the death of a John Kennedy or Nelson Mandala figure? If the PA had accepted the accomodation of the Oslo accords the question and fighting would be nonexistant. All other questions would be solved by on going negoatations. We find ouirselves to be transported back to 1968...Oh God I am weary

[Elind]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have been trying to avoid this subject but now I am furious!

I have just read in BBC that USA has vetoed a UN Security Council draft resolution denouncing Israel's policy of "removing" Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Read here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3115114.stm)

While participating in varia fora I have observed that American people have the tendancy to forgive whatever Israel does.

I rarely read a fair criticism for Israel posted by an American.Posters that object to Israel do it for other reasons( antisemitism-- we have a couple of "fruits" of this kind in this forum as well).

Don't take me wrong. As an Israeli citizen I am grateful for the financial, diplomatic and military support USA has provided for us all these years but I strongly believe that it's because of USA that the Middle East problem hasn't been resolved yet.

Or... is it exactly about that?

Is it because USA doesn't want the ME conflict to be resolved?

The point is, as stated by the US, that there was no condemnation of terrorism, which Arafat is the modern father of.

When was the last time the Security Council (or the piddling General Assembly) made a direct condemnation of Hamas and their cousins? As to your comments that the USA doesn't want peace...I think it's stupid, and insulting.

And to your blaming the USA...doubly insulting and doubly stupid.

How many of your cousins (do you?) live in those settlements you got on the cheap? If you hadn't had this lebensraum policy, driven by the same religious fundamentalism as Hamas (or simple greed), then no-one, General Assembly included, would be able to support Arafat's suiciders.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by A_Unique_Person
As I said earlier, I would like to see how the US responded to such an act.
I have routinely asked apologists for Sharon's disreputable behaviour how they would act if what Sharon and the Israeli government was doing to innocent Palestinians was done in America because I believe that it would be unacceptable to the vast bulk of Americans.

If it would be unacceptable to decent Americans we need to ask why should it be acceptable to the rest of the decent-thinking world?

The answer is that what Sharon and the Israeli government are doing to innocent Palestinians in building an apartheid state is an international disgrace.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from peptoabysmal:

I'm surprised at you knowing the history and saying you don't care about it. If what happened in 1968 is irrelevant then presumably so is what happened in 1917 so we can forget about the Jewish Homeland and move on.

The Sharonist, nationalist Zionist solution is the achievement of its objective - a Jewish majority on both banks of the Jordan. This is possible only with US assistance, and requires one of two things: a huge influx of Jews (which isn't going to happen voluntarily) or the expulsion of many Arabs. No other solution will be acceptable, and no Israeli government that tried to prevent it would survive. Very few countries will support either strategy, and just possibly not the US.

The Palestinian solution is simpler: a viable state in which they can establish normal lives. This is impossible unless Israel collapses, since Israel will never accept recognition by the Palestinians and will never recognise a Palestinian state in a part of what they see as Israel. (Maps in Israeli school textbooks have always shown Israel as occupying the whole of the Mandate territory.)

And the map of Palestine looks like what?


So the possible solutions boil down to three: expulsion of enough US Jews to Israel to outnumber the Arabs; expulsion of enough Arabs for Jews to outnumber them; or the collapse of Israel as a Zionist State. The last seems the most likely, but the second is possible.

Too absurd to qualify for a response.


I do trust Samson is no longer being presented to Israeli children as an inspirational figure. Suicide bombings in Israel have a history of 12 years or so. Why are they constantly used to define the way Palestinians and Zionists have interacted over the last hundred years? Yet the US insists that a motion about Israel's threat to assassinate a foreign, democratically elected leader must include references to suicide bombers.

I read the proposal for the resolution, and to me it looks like a bit of flim-flammery designed to make it much harder for Israel to expel any suspected terrorist, not just Arafat.


I lived through the same period and didn't notice any cowering. The IRA, Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, Japanese Red Army, Morituri, Tupumaros, Weathermen, SLA and whoever else didn't really have that great an effect, although they were a great boost to security services world-wide. What PLO actions led to cowering in your experience?

They were mostly copy cats of what the PLO was doing. If a terrorist recieves any response to his actions other than a bullet through the skull, it spawns more terrorists. (See below for an incomplete list)


The current dependence of Israel on US subsidy is a rather big stick, diplomatically speaking. Like the rack, it can be tightened - a billion now, no change?, another billion, is that starting to sting? etc. There are lots of billions to go.
I agree, but not until Palestinian terrorism stops - period.

That List:

1968: July 23rd – Three members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijack an El Al plane to Rome

November 22nd – Twelve people were killed at a bombing in the market in Jerusalem

1969-
February 18th An El Al aircraft in Zurich Switzerland was attacked, the copilot was killed

February 21st were killed and eight injured in a bomb blast in Jerusalem

August 29th A TWA 707 was hijacked by Palestinian terrorist to Damascus

September 29th – A TWA plane flying from Rome to Lodi Italy was hijacked to Damascus

November 27th- The El Al office in Athens was attacked. Innnocent bystanders were killed

1970-

February 10th. A bus carrying passengers to an a plane is attacked by Palestinian terrorist at the Munich airport

February 21st- A Swissair plane on a flight to Israel is blown up in mid air by Palestinian terrorists.


April 21st- A bomb explodes aboard a Philippines airliners. All 36 aboard are killed

May 22nd Eight Israeli schoolchildren are killed by Arab terrorist.


September 6th- An attempt is made to hijack four planes. The attempt to hijack an El Al plane fails, while three other succeed. The planes all end up in the Jordanian desert.


1972

January 26th A bomb explodes on a Yugoslav plane killing all but one passenger


May 30th- 24 people are killed at Lod airport by Japanese terrorist recruited by Palestininians


July 21st twenty two bombs go off in downtown Belfas killing 11 people

September 5th – Eleven members of the Israeli Olympic team are killed by Black semtember an arm of the PLO led by Yasir Arafat at the Olympic games in Munich

1973-February 23rd- Israel shoots down a Libyan plane over the Sinai desert fearing it was a flying bomb

March 8th- Two IRA bombs explode in London killing one person and injuring 200

1973- August 5th Five people are killed when a Libyan terrorist group attacks a TWA plane

1974- September 8th Libyan terrorist plant a bomb on board a TWA plane flying from Athens to Rome, all 85 passengers are killed.

November 21st The IRA explodes a series of bombs in Birmingham England- 21 people are killed

1975- September 30th A Hungarian airplane explodes killing all 64 persons on board

1976- January 1st-Eighty-two people are killed aboard a Lebanese plane

June 24th- An Air France plane is hijacked to Uganda. Israeli later stages a daring rescue mission to free the hostages.


1978 –March 12th Thirty seven Israelis are killed on a bus by Palestinian terrorists.

1981- April 19th -Thirteen people were killed and 177 injured in a terrorist attack in Davao Philippines.

1982- August 6th- A kosher restaurant is attacked in Paris killing eight.

1983- April 18th Eighty-three people are killed at the US Embassy in Beirut.

Septermber 29th- A Gulf Air plane explodes killing all 166 people aboard.
October 29th- 241 US Marines are killed in a truck bombing in Beirut by the Islamic Jihad ( controled by Syria)

1984-September 20th- The US embassy in the Beirut is bombed- 15 are killed

1985 June 23rd 345 people are killed when Sikh terrorist explode a bomb aboard an Air India 747

October 7th- The Cruise ship the Achillo Laura was hijacked by Palestinian terrorists



1986- September 5th A Pan Am aircraft is hijacked by Palestinain terrorists. Twenty passengers are killed.

1988- Pan Am flight 103 is blown up over Lockerbie Scotland. All 259 passengers and crew are killed.

1992-
The Israeli embassy in Buenes Aires is bombed and 14 die

1993- February 26th- A bomb explodes in the basement of the World Trade Center in New York- Six die 1,000 are injured.


July 27th- Five are killed in a car bombing in Milan Italy

1995- March 20th 12 people are killed when nerve gas is released in a Tokyo subway.

April 19th- The Murrah Federal office building is destroyed by a bomb in Oklahoma City Oklahoma killing 168.

1998- August 7th – The US embassies in mairobi Kenya and Dar es Salamm Tanzania are bombed.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I have routinely asked apologists for Sharon's disreputable behaviour how they would act if what Sharon and the Israeli government was doing to innocent Palestinians was done in America because I believe that it would be unacceptable to the vast bulk of Americans.

Terrorism is unacceptable to the vast bulk of Americans. If US citizens were committing such atrocities on citizens of Canada or Mexico, the US government would do everything in its power to stop them. You can’t compare the Palestinians to Americans without making that distinction.

If the Palestinian Authority were to do everything they could to stop terrorism, then your argument would make sense. They’re not doing anything to stop terrorist, so it doesn’t.

Palestinian apologists have this weird logical disconnect between terrorist acts and their consequences. When one suicide bomber blows himself up to kill women and children, putting up a roadblock is not an overreaction.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
If it would be unacceptable to decent Americans we need to ask why should it be acceptable to the rest of the decent-thinking world?

We’re not talking about the rest of the decent-thinking world. We’re talking about a part of the world where terrorism is acceptable behavior and suicide-murder is rewarded with money for the family of the killer. The Palestinian Authority is ruled by corrupt thugs, their police don’t hunt murderers, and they teach their children that dying while committing murder is glorious. You want to complain about how hard it is to be a Palestinian-Arab, then look to the terrorists that make their lives so hard.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
The answer is that what Sharon and the Israeli government are doing to innocent Palestinians in building an apartheid state is an international disgrace.

Those “innocent Palestinians” need to take back their own government, hunt down the terrorists in their midst, and sue for peace. That’s what Americans would do in their place.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Terrorism is unacceptable to the vast bulk of Americans.



Ah, then that would explain the millions of deaths in the Vietnam war.

[Cleopatra]

Allow me to return to the origins of the state of Israel and to address a couple of points made by Jon, Capel Dodger and Cleon.

I will agree that The British policy towards the Jews was rather ambiguous not in the early fifties only but much earlier—I’d say since the 20ies.

The British strategic practice of controlling colonies was to trap established ruling groups against those they have oppressed. Despite what most people think, Jews were never involved in conflicts during the period of Ottoman rule. The British, investing on the old contempt for the Jews that they have never left Middle East and promoting the undercurrent resentment towards the Jewish immigrants, thought to support those Arab leaders that didn’t pay any effort to hide their hatred towards the Jews.

And here we come to the notorious mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin Al Husseini. Hajj Amin wasn’t a SS as many Zionist sources suggest.

During the WWII he went first to Germany and then to Bosnia to organize the Bosnian Muslims that collaborated with Hitler. The only brigade of Muslim Bosnians that belonged to SS was “Hazar”. The second non-German SS brigade was the Albanian “ Skederbei” but these people became a problem for the Greeks mostly rather than the Jews.

Some Zionists Historians claim that Hajj Amin is the man who connected Islam to the National Socialism of Hitler and that PLO is a Nazist organization (Yasser Arafat was Hajj Amin’s protégée and his Arab Higher Committee that created Fatah had strong relations with Hitler). Personally I disagree the truth is though that until he died in 1973 he claimed that whatever Hitler did during the War was right…

But Hajj Amin didn’t pop-up in 1937. In 1920 Hajj Amin leaded the riots against the Jews of Jerusalem and for that he was trialed and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment but British intelligence officials helped him escape to Cairo and only one year later Herbert Samuel brought him back to Palestine and appointed him mufti of the City although he wasn’t one of three candidates for the office.

The British established the Supreme Moslem Council in 1922 to replace the Turkish Caliphate and named Hajj Amin its president. So, in the context of his authority he controlled all the financial aid that the council received for its religious purposes without providing any account. This is how the Palestinian National movement was financial supported!

Now the next logical question is why the British signed the Balfour Declaration.

Well, if you believe Capel Dodger (who must empty his PM Box BTW-popularity cannot be hidden-*sigh* ) is because Chaim Weizman was a traitor of his country (Germany) and he persuaded Balfour that "The Jews" controlled the grain trade of Russia, and that he could have them deny grain to Germany… If you find Capel Dodger in one of those moods ( when he composes the best of his posts, I must admit) he can go as far as suggesting that it was this betrayal of the German Jews that made them victims of Hitler…when asked to compare this with what the Jews of Saloika did you will get a different answer ( pun intented) I remind you that Capel Dodger enjoys to play chess with the rules of backgammon ( he enjoys to cheat ;) )

If you believe Cleopatra with her unpassionate moderate views, British signed the Balfour Declaration because they realized that the Jews would help them keep the road to India open.

Now Cleon asked something else.

Have the Zionist leaders collaborated with the Nazis?

I will be back to that in the evening :)

Mycroft welcome to the forum.

[CapelDodger]

from peptoabysmal:
September 5th – Eleven members of the Israeli Olympic team are killed by Black semtember an arm of the PLO led by Yasir Arafat at the Olympic games in Munich
This particularly egregious example of your utter ignorance of the subject really says it all.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleon

Many people involved in Palestine at the time--yes, that includes Zionists as well--tried to deal with the Nazis. (In fact, some of the militaristic Zionist movements of the time were openly fascist--such as Betar, a group Ariel Sharon was a member of as a youth.)


Zionist leaders came into negotiations with the Nazis twice actually. During the 30ies they tried to negotiate with the legal government of Germany ( the Nazi regime) and exchange Jews with easing the boycott in return.

It is also true that some people in the Israel Freedom Fighters group (which the English call the Stern Gang) tried to contact the Nazi Germans later, but the latter were not interested.

Sharon was not in Beitar - he grew up in the opposite movements.

In Beitar was Uri Avneri - the no. 1 anti-Israel Jew in Israel.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
This particularly egregious example of your utter ignorance of the subject really says it all.
That's a bit harsh. Abu Daoud claimed that Black September was just the cover name that Fatah members used when they wanted to carry out terrorist attacks, so this is not a claim rooted in complete fantasy, even if it has never been proven.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from peptoabysmal:

This particularly egregious example of your utter ignorance of the subject really says it all.

Coming from someone wearing the rosy glasses of complete denial, I consider this quite a compliment.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Ah, then that would explain the millions of deaths in the Vietnam war.

They had guns, we had guns. We didn't strap on bombs and go running into temples. The Cong or NLF were very adept at making booby traps, though. Is that what you are referring to?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


They had guns, we had guns. We didn't strap on bombs and go running into temples. The Cong or NLF were very adept at making booby traps, though. Is that what you are referring to?

Why strap on bombs when you can press a button from 50,000 feet and release 70,000 pounds of bombs?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Why strap on bombs when you can press a button from 50,000 feet and release 70,000 pounds of bombs?

I could have done that!?! Damn, if only I had known, it would have saved me a lot of trouble.

So, let me get this straight, if a country doesn't have the resources to support a war it is engaged in, then the other country is guilty of terrorism, because it has better equipment?

Alright, I've hijacked this thread enough. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program on the history channel...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


I could have done that!?! Damn, if only I had known, it would have saved me a lot of trouble.

So, let me get this straight, if a country doesn't have the resources to support a war it is engaged in, then the other country is guilty of terrorism, because it has better equipment?

Alright, I've hijacked this thread enough. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program on the history channel...

Terrorism is that which causes terror, I would guess. The B52 was an instrument of terror, as much as anything else.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Cleopatra raises an interesting point : "The British strategic practice of controlling colonies was to trap established ruling groups against those they have oppressed...."

I didn't know it was a policy , I thought it was cyclical stupidity . British colonialism was responsible for the dynamics that caused regional conflict and much war in the 20th century. In central Europe the arbitrary dissection of the ruin's of the Ottomen and Austro-Hungerian empire that ignored historical ethnic and religious animosities , causing the setting for WW2. In India with the same reckless eye on "spheres of influence" , rather than on the ground accommodation. Then finally to WW2 and its aftermath, a repeat performance in central Europe planting the seeds of strife that would emerge later as the Serbian/Bosnian conflict and finally to Palistine and it's "apportionment". Where the British played out thier last days as Empire builders and need to be a Major world power. They have given up such aspirations long ago, the French however still are trying to revive that long dead corpse.


The fact that these events occurred and set the stage , however, is and cannot be an excuse for bad behavior, up to and including genocide. The list of j 'accuse and counter claim by either side is the strait jacket that hobbles the two warring groups and goes back for years, decades... Where do you stop and realize that the tendency to include the weight of historical grievance guarantees failure and grasp the future in order to move on?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
British colonialism was responsible for the dynamics that caused regional conflict and much war in the 20th century. In central Europe the arbitrary dissection of the ruin's of the Ottomen and Austro-Hungerian empire that ignored historical ethnic and religious animosities ,

oh. I guess the French, Italians, the US and other allies were not in the least bit responsible for any of the bad things that happened in the 20th Century? :rolleyes:

Why is it always Britains fault? :mad:

[Cleopatra]

Hey Jon, don't take it personally :)

Greece owe it to Great Britain ( I have mentioned before that I am biased towards the British people, I totally admire them). If Churchill abandoned us in Stalin's arms after the War we would be worse than Albania now.

If one of my professors in England could read what you wrote he would reply: " Relax my dear. The French? Please. I thought that our discussion was a serious one" :D

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


oh. I guess the French, Italians, the US and other allies were not in the least bit responsible for any of the bad things that happened in the 20th Century? :rolleyes:

Why is it always Britains fault? :mad:

No Jon don't take offence , but you must remember your own history. To be sure other allys of the US were involved, but at the time only The UK remained the real power on the continent, so naturally policy was moderated by British sensitivities and realpolitik. The picture portrayed by Pres.W.Wilson and his idea of the Legue of Naations was scuttled to accommodate the aspirations of the British, French and others , but the UK was the desicive factor.

A Mea Culpa

Feel not abused, because the polices of the US are now probably the single largest factor in re the mess in Israel/Palistine. Rest assured that the Americans can play out gigantic stupidities like anyone else....No! better ! =)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Terrorism is that which causes terror, I would guess. The B52 was an instrument of terror, as much as anything else.

By that definition the guys that own and operate our local amusement park are terrorists. They’ve built some wicked roller coasters, but my daughter loves them.

I can sort of understand the mentality of someone who equates a B52 pilot with a terrorist who plants a bomb to kill civilians. I don’t agree with it, but if you just take the position that killing is wrong no matter why you’re doing it, I can understand that.

What I don’t understand is that same person excusing violence. How does that same person condemn the soldier and turn a blind eye to the suicide bomber that kills people in a café or a bus stop? How does that same person dismiss non-violent alternatives to attaining political ends?

Can you explain this to me?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Mycroft welcome to the forum.

Thanks! Ihope we get to know each other better. :)

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
Terrorism is unacceptable to the vast bulk of Americans. I would really like to believe that is true. If it is true we have to ask what the vast bulk of Americans did when the US supported and supplied terrorists like Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Osama Bin Laden and General Pinochet?

To take only one example, the American government knew that Saddam Hussein had murdered many of his people at Halabja and terrorised the population of Iraq in so doing yet chose to double its annual commodity credits to an acknowledged terrorist.

Now, I do not claim that any country in the world is entirely free of skeletons in the cupboard but it does seem that it is not terrorism as such that is unacceptable to the USA but terrorism the USA chooses not to like.

If US citizens were committing such atrocities on citizens of Canada or Mexico, the US government would do everything in its power to stop them. You can’t compare the Palestinians to Americans without making that distinction. Really, please see this site http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/v37/v37_4tm.htm where certain terrorist groups appear to be curiously little molested on USA soil. America doing everything in its power to stop terrorists operating from US soil - I don't think so.

Apologists for Sharon always seem to have problems when the reality of the actions carried out by the Israeli government are brought to the world's attention. Let's make another couple of simple analogies. If Cuba decided to take it upon itself to bulldoze a few towns in Florida because the US government was not doing enough to stop the terrorist activities against it, would the good citizens of the US accept that? No - they would rightly be up in arms. If Mexico decided to engage in a military occupation of part of Texas in frustration at the US's inability to stop dope smuggling, would the vast bulk of Americans accept it? No - they would rightly be up in arms. It is always interesting to see how certain groups expect others to accept what they themselves would not.If the Palestinian Authority were to do everything they could to stop terrorism, then your argument would make sense. They’re not doing anything to stop terrorist, so it doesn’t. Like the US and the terrorist groups in Florida the Palestinians are clearly not doing enough for the Israelis about terrorism. Does that give the Cubans the right to bulldoze a few towns in Florida? That would be ludicrous. Your argument might make sense if you ignore what the US itself is doing.

The Spanish government did not have an extradition treaty with the UK and citizens of the UK who terrrorised parts of the Uk wiith their crimes went to live the good life in Spain. I do not recall the UK bulldozing parts of Spain or killing innocent Spanish children by using helicopters and M16s to assassinate mere suspects.

The Palestinian authority has had its infrastructure largely wiped out by Israel. Now if the Palestinains were to wipe out large parts of Israel's infrastructure would they then be justified in invading Israel because Israel no longer had the infrastructure to combat settlers who murder Palestinians? That would be ludicrous. Let us all condemn terrorism but let us not be ridiculous in only turning on the terrorism we don't like. Palestinian apologists have this weird logical disconnect between terrorist acts and their consequences. When one suicide bomber blows himself up to kill women and children, putting up a roadblock is not an overreaction. This just shows how apologists for Sharon often need to resort to straw man arguments to support their cases. Where have I compared killing women and children with putting up a roadblock? Please supply one example. Any time you want.

As you well know my argument is the Sharon has a choice in what tactics he uses. A man who was culpable over some aspects of what happened at the massascres of Sabra and Shatila has chosen to assassinate suspects (note - suspects, not people tried and found guilty in a court of law) using helicopters and jets in a way that guarantees the death of innocent children. In exercising that choice he is terrorisng innocent Palestinian people.

I come from a terrorised land and know that Sharon's methods will merely exacerbate the tensions and death in the Middle East. The evidence suggests that he is not stupid enough to fail to understand the implications of his actions such as his actions at the Temple mount and therefore if that is the case then he is doing what he is doing deliberately.We’re not talking about the rest of the decent-thinking world. Yes I am.We’re talking about a part of the world where terrorism is acceptable behavior and suicide-murder is rewarded with money for the family of the killer. Unfortunately Sharon's terrorism of innocent Palestinians has a lot of support as does Hamas but then again, the US supported Osama Bin Laden in that part of the world and the terrorist Saddam Hussein when it suited it. Who has clean hands here? The Palestinian Authority is ruled by corrupt thugs, their police don’t hunt murderers, and they teach their children that dying while committing murder is glorious. You want to complain about how hard it is to be a Palestinian-Arab, then look to the terrorists that make their lives so hard.In case you haven't noticed I have stated that Israelis are entitled to live free from terror.

Israel was in fact founded by terrorists. Sharon was culpable in what happened at Sabra and Shatila. Have all the settlers who have shot Palestinians been caught? Why not? Isn't Israel committed to stopping terrorism?

Where is the apartheid wall the Palestinians are building. Where are the Palestinian helicopters that have killed innocent Israeli children? Where are the Israeli houses bulldozed by Palestinian authority? I hope you are not falling into the trap of assuming that there are no innocent Palestinians but from your latest claims it seems very like it. Is that what you are saying? Those “innocent Palestinians” need to take back their own government, hunt down the terrorists in their midst, and sue for peace. That’s what Americans would do in their place. It seems that you are. At last we can see your position in all its true glory. It seems that you do not believe that there are any innocent Palestinians. Can I just ask you how the dead Palestinian children were suppposed to take back their own government and hunt down the terrorists in their midst and sue for peace?

At least we now can now identify you as one of those who consider that there are no innocent Palestinains when you chose not to use the simple words, innocent Palestinians, outside of quotes.

To suggest that is what Americans would do in their place is to ignore the reality of history. If that were the case can I just ask when the people of Montana turned over Timothy McVeigh and when the people of Florida turned over the terrorists of Alpha 66 and when the people of New York turned in the terrorists of the Mafia and when the people of the deep south turned over the murdering terrorists of the Ku KLux Klan. Now when the terrorist Ku Klux Klansmen are all turned in by the American people you might have more weight in asking others around the world to do the same. And when you learn to count all the votes in a presidential election you might be able to tell others how to run their countries.

You see its not the war against terrorism (which is what it should be) its the war against the terrorists Dubbya doesn't like and that is very, very depressing and a great sham.

All Israelis are entitled to live free from terror. So are all innocent Palestinians but then again apparently you don't think there are any. Perhaps that means all of Palestine should become a free fire zone if there are no innocent Palestinians. Those two year old children just can't be trusted any more!

[Giz]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

I didn't know it was a policy , I thought it was cyclical stupidity . British colonialism was responsible for the dynamics that caused regional conflict and much war in the 20th century. In central Europe the arbitrary dissection of the ruin's of the Ottomen and Austro-Hungerian empire that ignored historical ethnic and religious animosities , causing the setting for WW2. In India with the same reckless eye on "spheres of influence" , rather than on the ground accommodation.

Arbitrary? Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Slavs et al might disagree with it being totally arbitrary... I seem to remember self determination involving something about siting new nations where ethnic groups actually lived rather than kowtowing under the aegis of the oh so un-arbitrary Hapsburgs.

I would have thought that Germany, not being willing to stomach the loss of some territory after starting and losing ww1, was more to blame for that than British colonialism:rolleyes:
Of course, the territory Germany lost was actually Polish or French ethnically but losing it to ze arbitrary British diktats still smarted.

I take it your reference to India refers to the Pakistan and India partition? Now as an honest question, how much longer should we have stayed? I'm trying to recall when Gandhi started his campaigns - 1920's was it? Seems like a lot of Indians were happy to have self rule much earlier than it was given. How much many more years should we have hung around and told em that they weren't ready for self rule yet???

So forget Kaiserism, forget Fascism, forget Communism! War in the 20th century is all about British cyclical stupidity!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Hey Jon, don't take it personally :)

Greece owe it to Great Britain ( I have mentioned before that I am biased towards the British people, I totally admire them). If Churchill abandoned us in Stalin's arms after the War we would be worse than Albania now.

If one of my professors in England could read what you wrote he would reply: " Relax my dear. The French? Please. I thought that our discussion was a serious one" :D

There were plenty of Australians died in Greece too.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I would really like to believe that is true. If it is true we have to ask what the vast bulk of Americans did when the US supported and supplied terrorists like Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Osama Bin Laden and General Pinochet?

What a wonderful piece of rhetorical sleight of hand. Let’s shift the discussion to United States cold war foreign policy, and maybe nobody will notice that wasn’t what we were talking about all along.

Well, I noticed. The topic is Israel. If you would like to talk about Pinochet or Noriega, I will be happy to accommodate you, but it will have to be in another thread.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Really, please see this site http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/v37/v37_4tm.htm where certain terrorist groups appear to be curiously little molested on USA soil. America doing everything in its power to stop terrorists operating from US soil - I don't think so.

You got me there. The US should not be supporting terrorist activity aimed at Cuba. However, I did find this one quote in the article you may have overlooked:

The Cuban government has a sovereign right to defend its people from the criminals that operate out of Florida.

I agree with that statement. Cuba, like any other country, has a sovereign right to defend itself.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
Apologists for Sharon always seem to have problems when the reality of the actions carried out by the Israeli government are brought to the world's attention. Let's make another couple of simple analogies. If Cuba decided to take it upon itself to bulldoze a few towns in Florida because the US government was not doing enough to stop the terrorist activities against it, would the good citizens of the US accept that?

If you’re going to make an analogy, make it fit. Israel isn’t bulldozing homes in Egypt, they’re bulldozing terrorists homes in Israel. Castro isn’t likely to send bulldozers into Dade County, but if there was an American enclave in Cuba, and US citizens living in that enclave were launching terrorist attacks into Havana, I would support Castro’s right to bulldoze a few homes to put a stop to it.

The United States has laws where criminals and families of criminals can lose their homes. We call it the War on Drugs. It would be hypocritical of us to condemn Israel for bulldozing terrorist homes while we bulldoze drug dealers homes.



Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
The Spanish government did not have an extradition treaty with the UK and citizens of the UK who terrrorised parts of the Uk wiith their crimes went to live the good life in Spain. I do not recall the UK bulldozing parts of Spain or killing innocent Spanish children by using helicopters and M16s to assassinate mere suspects.

Are you suggesting that because Spain harbors terrorists it’s okay for the Palestinian Authority to do so?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
The Palestinian authority has had its infrastructure largely wiped out by Israel. Now if the Palestinains were to wipe out large parts of Israel's infrastructure would they then be justified in invading Israel because Israel no longer had the infrastructure to combat settlers who murder Palestinians? That would be ludicrous. Let us all condemn terrorism but let us not be ridiculous in only turning on the terrorism we don't like.

Israel paid to train and arm Palestinian police back in ’93. What stopped them from going after the terrorists then? This is why Oslo failed. Issues of support and resources can be solved if there is a real desire on the part of the Palestinians to earn peace and fulfill their promises, but instead they are used as excuses.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
As you well know my argument is the Sharon has a choice in what tactics he uses. A man who was culpable over some aspects of what happened at the massascres of Sabra and Shatila has chosen to assassinate suspects (note - suspects, not people tried and found guilty in a court of law) using helicopters and jets in a way that guarantees the death of innocent children. In exercising that choice he is terrorisng innocent Palestinian people.

Oh please. Sabra and Shatila were Lebanese Crimes. The blame falls on Bashir Gemayel. Sharon’s guilt is in not realizing that it could happen. If you want Palestinian terrorists to have fair trials, then the burden must fall on the Palestinian-Arabs to create a society where such things can happen, where such people are punished.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
I come from a terrorised land and know that Sharon's methods will merely exacerbate the tensions and death in the Middle East. The evidence suggests that he is not stupid enough to fail to understand the implications of his actions such as his actions at the Temple mount and therefore if that is the case then he is doing what he is doing deliberately.

Oh, Temple Mount. Never mind that the violence started before his visit, I’m sure it had nothing to do with Camp David.



Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
In case you haven't noticed I have stated that Israelis are entitled to live free from terror.

Thank you for that. Details like that can be easily overlooked while wading through all your apologetic rhetoric.

Let me ask you a question. If you ignore everything else, answer this: What, in your opinion, is Israel allowed to do to defend itself from terrorism? What measures or methods would you find acceptable?

You’re very good at criticism and condemnation, at finding fault and assigning blame, but can you put forth anything proactive?

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
Israel was in fact founded by terrorists…

Read your history, it’s not as simple as that.

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong [B]
At least we now can now identify you as one of those who consider that there are no innocent Palestinains when you chose not to use the simple words, innocent Palestinians, outside of quotes.

Several months ago I read an article, and I wish I had saved the link, about a Palestinian protest against the Palestinian Authority. A good many of them had grown tired of the policies of their own leadership that led to more and more violence.

People are people all over the world. Most people want the same things, to be able to work for a living, to support a family, to teach their children and watch them grow into adulthood. These are things we all have in common.

Are there innocent Palestinians? Of course there are. They just happen to be a people manipulated and abandoned by their brother Arabs, and led by thugs.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


What a wonderful piece of rhetorical sleight of hand. Let’s shift the discussion to United States cold war foreign policy, and maybe nobody will notice that wasn’t what we were talking about all along.

Well, I noticed. The topic is Israel. If you would like to talk about Pinochet or Noriega, I will be happy to accommodate you, but it will have to be in another thread.



He did no such thing. You claimed the US does not support terrorism, and he supplied example where it has. The list could have been a lot longer.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mycroft


By that definition the guys that own and operate our local amusement park are terrorists. They’ve built some wicked roller coasters, but my daughter loves them.

I can sort of understand the mentality of someone who equates a B52 pilot with a terrorist who plants a bomb to kill civilians. I don’t agree with it, but if you just take the position that killing is wrong no matter why you’re doing it, I can understand that.

What I don’t understand is that same person excusing violence. How does that same person condemn the soldier and turn a blind eye to the suicide bomber that kills people in a café or a bus stop? How does that same person dismiss non-violent alternatives to attaining political ends?

Can you explain this to me?


Originally posted by Mycroft


You can find all sorts of things in the Arabic press that support anything anti-Israeli, but that misses the point. My issue was with your use of the word “genocide”. Genocidal policies do not lead to better health care, increased life expectancy, increased population and better education. The Palestinians have enjoyed all of these since 1967.


AUP seems to have dropped the ball on these points. I'll put them up again as a reminder. I'm sure he meant to get back to them.

The words being discussed are "terrorist" and "genocide".

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra (I'm playing catch-up here):
... popularity cannot be hidden ...
Popularity is the last of my problems given the mood I've been in lately. Mea culpa, and I will undertake to count to 10 before hitting "Submit Reply" in future.

... he can go as far as suggesting that it was this betrayal of the German Jews that made them victims of Hitler…when asked to compare this with what the Jews of Saloika did you will get a different answer ...
That's not really my position. My point is that Weizmann claimed that he had gained the Balfour Declaration in exchange for enlisting "World Jewry" to assist the British. It wasn't true - there is no "World Jewry", as I have mentioned often before - but to people looking for an excuse it was believable. What happened to the people of Salonika was one of the vile results of Hitler coming to power, nothing to do with the Salonikis (correct plural?). The fate of your friend's family, and of yours, was not in their hands but dictated by the machine that was set in motion.

If you believe Cleopatra with her unpassionate moderate views, British signed the Balfour Declaration because they realized that the Jews would help them keep the road to India open.
They'd needed no help keeping the road to India open when the Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine; why would they feel they needed help when that Empire was to be replaced by weak Arab nations very much under British sway? A combination of Christian Zionism, mild anti-semitism and a belief in the power of a Jewish Cabal which could (amongst other things) prevent the Germans from buying Ukrainian grain was what led to the Balfour Declaration. See the memoirs of Halifax (who opposed it) and Lloyd George (who was convinced by Weizmann's apparent influence in the White House). (I haven't got Balfour's, which must be excrutiatingly boring.)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


He did no such thing. You claimed the US does not support terrorism, and he supplied example where it has. The list could have been a lot longer.

:roll:

You can't even offer a definition of terrorism that distinguishes between a suicide bomber and an amusement park operator. Work on that, then you can tell me the connection between US cold war foreign policy and Palestinian-Arabic support of anti-Israeli terror.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


:roll:

You can't even offer a definition of terrorism that distinguishes between a suicide bomber and an amusement park operator. Work on that, then you can tell me the connection between US cold war foreign policy and Palestinian-Arabic support of anti-Israeli terror.


Side-step noted.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Side-step noted.

Certainly, but don’t try to pretend I’m the one doing the side-stepping.

This is the very heart of the issue. If you can't make a legal and moral distinction between an act of criminal violence and any military or police action, then every government on the planet becomes the equivalent of a terrorist organization. You might just as well call a police officer arresting a criminal an act of terrorism. After all, the threat of force is implied, the criminal may be afraid, and the arrest serves a political purpose.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Certainly, but don’t try to pretend I’m the one doing the side-stepping.

This is the very heart of the issue. If you can't make a legal and moral distinction between an act of criminal violence and any military or police action, then every government on the planet becomes the equivalent of a terrorist organization. You might just as well call a police officer arresting a criminal an act of terrorism. After all, the threat of force is implied, the criminal may be afraid, and the arrest serves a political purpose.

Moves to address this issue from an international level have been made. The US appears to want to ignore them.

You are also implying that the US can do no wrong.

[demon]

Mycroft
"Certainly, but don’t try to pretend I’m the one doing the side-stepping.
This is the very heart of the issue. If you can't make a legal and moral distinction between an act of criminal violence and any military or police action, then every government on the planet becomes the equivalent of a terrorist organization. You might just as well call a police officer arresting a criminal an act of terrorism. After all, the threat of force is implied, the criminal may be afraid, and the arrest serves a political purpose."

Exactly.
"Every government on the planet becomes a the equivalent of a terrorist organization"

You dictate a moral and a legal distinction and there in lies your prejudiced interest.
It`s just the same old, same old colonialism attitude that those nasty fellows don`t play by the rules we do. Get a bloody grip on yourself, show me how we play by better rules than the "natives" do.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You don't know that the children are encourage to attack tanks with rocks.




http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/080300palestinian-camp.html

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Moves to address this issue from an international level have been made. The US appears to want to ignore them.

I'm not addressing it on an international level, I'm addressing it with you.

C'mon. Rise to the occasion. I want to know your opinion of when force is acceptable, and when it’s not. How is the policeman or soldier different from the terrorist or criminal?

Originally posted by a_unique_person You are also implying that the US can do no wrong.

No, I’m not. You do have a way of throwing things into the discussion to spin it away from points you don’t like.

[renata]

This is I think the third time I posted this. Seems nobody bothers to read it. The report mentions the explicit use of children in the conflict and the steps taken to prevent such actions.



Emphasis mine throughout.


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/


This is not the first time that Palestinian armed groups have used suicide bombings to target Israeli civilians, although the scale and intensity of the current wave of attacks is unprecedented. Between September 1993 and the outbreak of the latest clashes between Palestinians and Israelis in late September 2000, Palestinian groups carried out fourteen suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians, mostly in 1996-97, killing more than 120 and wounding over 550. 12 Hamas said it committed most of the attacks; Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the others.

The PA responded by detaining hundreds of Hamas and Islamic Jihad members and supporters, but they were not charged or brought to trial in connection with the bombings. Following these detentions, the bombings ceased. Many of the detainees, however, were released from PA custody once the clashes between Palestinians and Israelis resumed in September 2000. Coincidentally or not, the new round of suicide bombings began within a few months, again under the auspices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

....

For Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the stated goal is the creation of a Palestinian Islamist state comprising not only the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also the entire territory over which Israel has held sovereignty since 1948. The PFLP also calls for a Palestinian state encompassing Israel, though not an Islamist one. By contrast, the nationalist agenda of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades calls for establishing Palestinian rule over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and for freeing those territories from Israeli military occupation.
...


Palestinian officials, while denouncing the attacks on Israeli civilians, implicitly sought to justify them by pointing to the provocative impact of incidents such as an alleged Israeli booby-trap bomb that killed five young boys in Khan Yunis on November 22, 2001. "Everyone should realize that atrocities lead to atrocities," said Nabil Sha'ath, the PA minister of planning and international cooperation. "This is the inevitable outcome of the accumulation of atrocities committed by the Israeli army against our civilians, the humiliation, the torment, the unmitigated persecution," Sha'ath said.51

...

Public officials, because of the political authority they embody, should never legitimize attacks on civilians. Yet political leaders have made statements that appear to endorse attacks against civilians, both within the Occupied Territories and externally. These span the range from ambiguity to outright support, and undermine other statements condemning attacks against civilians.85 Political leaders such as President Arafat have repeatedly praised "martyrs," without distinguishing between those who die as victims of attacks or while attacking military targets and those who intentionally die in the course of a deliberate attack against civilians.86 Yasir Abed Rabbo, the PA minister of culture and information, reportedly defended the use of the term "martyr" with reference to suicide bombers. "You can call him a shahid and denounce what he does politically," he said.87

Other officials have expressed more unequivocal support for attacks on civilians. On April 10, 2002, PA Cabinet Secretary-General Ahmad `Abd al-Rahman described that day's attack on a Haifa bus as a "natural response to what is taking place in Palestinian camps."88 Six weeks later, `Abd al-Rahman described suicide bombings in an interview with the Qatar-based satellite television station al-Jazeera as "the highest form of national struggle. There is no argument about that."89

....

Apologetic statements by public officials have also been accompanied by the broadcast of incendiary statements on publicly funded television. There were several recorded instances of such broadcasts on the official PA television channel in 2001, particularly in the broadcasts of weekly Friday prayer sermons. Among these were the live broadcasts of Shaikh Ibrahim Ma`adi delivering sermons from a Gaza mosque on June 8, 2001, and again on August 3, 2001. "Blessed are the people who strap bombs onto their bodies or those of their sons," Ma'adi said on the first of these occasions. On the second, he explicitly called for bombings in Tel Aviv, Hadera, Ashkelon, and other Israeli cities, adding:

The Jews have bared their teeth. They have said what they have said and done what they have done. And they will not be deterred except by the color of the blood of their filthy people. They will not be deterred unless we willingly and voluntarily blow ourselves up among them.93

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such statements constitute incitement to crimes against humanity. Under international criminal law, the PA has a responsibility to ensure they are neither broadcast nor published, and should bring to justice those who make them.
.....

Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes.124 Persons who commit, order, or condone war crimes are individually liable under international humanitarian law for their crimes.
.....


Many Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights Watch said attacks on civilians were their only weapon with which to respond to repeated IDF use of tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, and warplanes.

Many conflicts, whether internal or international, take place between parties with radically differing means at their disposal. This is true of almost all wars that could potentially qualify under Additional Protocol I, article 4(1) as wars of national liberation, where one party frequently has vastly more sophisticated technical and military means than the other. Yet Protocol I reaffirms that all the basic rules of international humanitarian law still apply in those circumstances. Indeed, such a practice would be an exception that would virtually swallow the rules of international humanitarian law, since most wars are between forces of unequal means. The prohibition against intentional attacks against civilians is absolute. It cannot be justified by reference to a disparity of power between opposing forces.

....

Most perpetrators of suicide bombing attacks have been young men aged eighteen to twenty-four. At least three bombings, however, have been carried out by children-persons under the age of eighteen.

...

On June 28, 2002, an Israeli military court sentenced a sixteen-year-old boy to life imprisonment after he was apprehended in an attempt to blow himself up on or near a bus. At his sentencing, the boy said he had been "deceived" by Hamas into participating in the unsuccessful attack.249 Islamic Jihad acknowledged that to perpetrate a bombing on June 9, 2002 at Megiddo Junction, its members taught Hamza Samudi to drive; his age has been given variously as sixteen, seventeen, and nineteen.250

The participation, acknowledgment, and acceptance of the use of children to perpetrate suicide bombings have continued despite widespread Palestinian unease with such tactics. This unease intensified in April 2002 following three separate incidents in the Gaza Strip in which several Palestinian boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen were killed as they charged the perimeter of an Israeli settlement armed with knives and crude pipe bombs.

...

There have been several reports of segments on PA television that explicitly encourage children to take part in clashes with Israeli forces and extol the virtues of martyrdom.

...

On August 26, 2002, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate called on Palestinian armed factions to stop using children, and declared that it was "absolutely forbidden" for photojournalists to take pictures of children carrying weapons or taking part in militant activities. The statement said that footage of armed children served "the interests of Israel and its propaganda against the Palestinian people." Tawfiq Abu Khousa, deputy chair of the syndicate, said, "We have decided to forbid taking any footage of armed children, because we consider that as a clear violation of the rights of children and for negative effects these pictures have on the Palestinian people."3

It is the encouragement of children to carry weapons and take part in armed activity that is wrong, not media coverage of these activities.

...

Syria has consistently refused to take steps to limits its assistance to armed Palestinian groups that perpetrate suicide attacks. It claims that such groups are engaged in legitimate resistance against occupation but makes no effort to disassociate itself from attacks on civilians, in clear violation of international humanitarian law.32

....
The government of Iraq has expressly endorsed and encouraged suicide bombing attacks against civilians. Iraq, in its provision of funds to families of "martyrs" and others, has established a differential in which families of suicide bombing operatives are said to receive a considerably larger sum of $25,000, while other families that have suffered a death receive $10,000.33 In promoting suicide attacks, Iraqi leaders have made no distinction between attacks against civilians and attacks against military targets.
....


Among the PA documents captured by the IDF in April-May 2002 are records relating to payments from the Saudi Arabian Committee for Support of the Intifada al-Quds, headed by the Saudi Arabian Interior Minister, to the Tulkarem Charity Committee.53 Under the arrangement, all payments or distributions were made on the basis of information supplied by "Palestinian elements," and were arranged through some fourteen local charity committees, many of which had links to Hamas.54 Each charity committee made payments or distributed food to the needy, and also gave both lump-sum and ongoing payments to families of individuals killed, injured, or imprisoned in the intifada, including the families of individuals from Hamas or other armed groups who had carried out suicide attacks against civilians.55 The PA strenuously objected on the grounds that it was designed to undercut its authority, but not because the payments were rewarding attacks on civilians.

....

One of the most contested questions in the debate about Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians is what, if any, role has been played by the Palestinian Authority and specifically, President Arafat. Israel charges that the PA has ordered and systematically participated in "terror," a term it applies to all armed activity against Israeli targets, whether military or civilian. It holds the PA responsible every time an attack occurs. The PA denies having any role in attacks against civilians.

The PA, under the terms of the Oslo Accords, assumed law enforcement responsibilities for those areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip under its control-namely, the major cities and Palestinian population clusters, amounting at the time of the outbreak of clashes in September 2000 to approximately 26 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of the Gaza Strip.62 The PA thus has had an obligation to take all available and effective measures consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law to prevent suicide or other attacks against civilians by the armed groups operating from these areas.

Human Rights Watch found that there were steps that the PA could have taken to prevent or deter such attacks, but that it remained unwilling to risk the political cost of acting decisively. The PA routinely failed to investigate, arrest and prosecute persons believed to be responsible for these attacks, and did not take credible steps to reprimand, discipline, or bring to justice those members of its own security services who, in violation of declared PA policy, participated in such attacks. In addition, although President Arafat repeatedly condemned suicide attacks against civilians, he consistently failed to insist that terms of honor and respect such as "martyr"-which Palestinians use to designate persons who have died or suffered grave loss in clashes with Israeli forces or settlers-should not apply to people who die in the course of carrying out indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

....
The PA's failure to act in an effective and consistent manner against Palestinian attacks on civilians contributed to an atmosphere of impunity, allowing the armed groups to conclude that there would be no serious consequence for those who planned or carried out attacks that amounted to war crimes, and in the cases of suicide bombings, crimes against humanity. This failure reflects a high degree of political responsibility on the part of President Arafat and the PA leadership for the many civilian deaths that have resulted.

...

As the spiral of violence wound tighter, the Palestinian Authority continued to condemn publicly armed attacks that deliberately targeted civilians but, except for a brief period from mid-December 2001 to mid-January 2002, took no clear or credible actions to prevent such attacks or to punish those responsible.

...

Although the PA's legal governing authority derives from the Oslo Accords signed with Israel, the duty to prevent systematic indiscriminate attacks against civilians is not contingent on Israeli compliance with those accords or rendered null by what the PA regards as Israeli violations of the accords. That duty should not be a bargaining chip whose implementation is subject to political negotiations. As the political authority in place, the PA has a responsibility to bring to justice individuals who order, plan, or carry out attacks against civilians. The PA has failed to meet this obligation.

When the PA made arrests, they were often indiscriminate, picking up supporters of one or another militant group without regard to any alleged responsibility for the serious crimes being committed in the name of that group. Instead of being investigated, detained suspects were typically held without charge and later released. The PA has explained these releases as a response to the danger posed by Israeli bombings of places of detention, but it has not tried to explain why suspects were not investigated, charged, or brought to trial.

PA officials also claim that Israeli actions, such as the destruction of PA police and security installations, have undermined the PA's capacity to act. However, the record indicates that the PA for the most part did not attempt to exercise its capacity to prevent or punish such crimes even when it had the ability to do so.
...


In the first weeks of the clashes, the PA released numerous detainees, most of them members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, some of whom had been in PA detention without charge or trial for several years.78 According to press reports, the first releases took place on October 4, 2000, when twelve Hamas detainees were released from Gaza Central Prison. Subsequent releases occurred over the following week. A PA security official in Gaza claimed that by mid-October the PA had "begun to re-arrest them."79 In Nablus, fourteen of the thirty-five who had been released reportedly responded to a summons to turn themselves back in.80 Hamas political leader `Abd al-`Aziz al-Rantisi was rearrested on October 18 and released again on December 26, 2000, at the end of Ramadan.81

The Islamic Jihad organization has cited these releases as a factor contributing to the group's ability to carry out attacks against Israeli targets.
...

Some of the detainees released at the beginning of the uprising, as well as other armed militants and political critics of the PA, were re-detained and re-released periodically during 2001. Some were formally arrested and, beginning in late October 2001, the PA started using administrative detention orders to detain suspects. Individuals known to be leaders of groups responsible for attacks against civilians nevertheless continued to operate openly in the West Bank and Gaza Strip-in the case of Bethlehem-area al-Aqsa Brigades leader Atef Abayat, even when technically under "house arrest."

...

In mid-April 2001, the PA confirmed that it had released Muhammad Deyf, imprisoned since 1996 for his role in the Hamas suicide bomb attacks in February of that year, although officials insisted he remained under their control in "a safe place where he cannot be reached by the Israeli authorities."86 No such pretenses were made when Deyf narrowly escaped death in an Israeli rocket attack targeting him as he traveled by car in Gaza city on September 26, 2002.87

...

Those measures taken by the PA to limit armed activities failed to include meaningful efforts to bring perpetrators of suicide attacks on civilians to justice.
...

Fatah officials authorized these six requested payments despite widely available evidence that, in at least the cases of two individuals, the named recipients had participated in attacks on civilians in the Occupied Territories. Fourteen of the forty-one individuals for whom payment was authorized were at the time "wanted" by Israel. Twelve of these individuals, in seeking financial assistance, identified themselves as "wanted."
...

The clearest case in which President Arafat authorized payment despite the recipient's widely reported links to attacks on civilians was that of Ra�Œid al-Karmi, the al-Aqsa Brigades leader in Tulkarem. 119 An undated request from Ramallah-based Fatah leader Hussein al-Sheikh asked Arafat to provide al-Karmi and two others with $2,500 each; Arafat apparently authorized payments of $600 each on September 19, 2001.120 The IDF had placed al-Karmi on its "most wanted" list in August 2001, accusing him of involvement in "numerous" shooting attacks and responsibility for the deaths of seven civilians and two soldiers. Al-Karmi himself openly boasted of his involvement in the execution-style killing of two Israeli restaurateurs visiting Tulkarem on January 23, 2001-in retaliation, he said, for Israel's assassination several seeks earlier of local Fatah leader Thabet Thabet.121 The PA had arrested al-Karmi and three others later in January 2001 in connection with the killing of the two restaurateurs, but he fled prison several months later. Al-Karmi had survived a well-publicized Israeli assassination attempt on September 6, 2001, shortly before President Arafat authorized the payment in question, and had spoken openly of his intention to continue attacks against Israelis.122

In another captured document, al-Karmi approached Arafat via Marwan Barghouti, requesting payments to twelve "fighter brethren," not including himself.123 Despite al-Karmi's own self-proclaimed responsibility for attacks on civilians, Arafat granted a payment of $350 to each individual on al-Karmi's list, again without making any apparent effort to ensure that these fighters were not responsible for attacks on civilians. The payments were made on January 7, 2002, a week before al-Karmi was assassinated. At the time of his assassination, according to media reports, the PA had assured European Union officials that al-Karmi was under arrest.124 According to one report, he was assassinated "while visiting his wife and daughter during a furlough from the `protective custody' of a PA jail."125

....

Based on its own investigation as well as media accounts and publicly available, captured PA documents, Human Rights Watch identified instances in which individuals employed in one or another Palestinian security force were involved in shooting or suicide bomb attacks targeting civilians. Human Rights Watch also found that individual members of the PA security forces have had ongoing associations with armed groups that have carried out suicide bombing attacks on civilians. On at least two occasions, individual members of PA intelligence services assisted perpetrators in carrying out such attacks.139
...

The PA should have made credible efforts to reprimand, discipline, or, where appropriate, bring to justice members of its own security services who, in apparent disregard for declared PA policies, participated in or lent support to those responsible for attacks against civilians. Insofar as Human Rights Watch could determine, it did not do so.
...


High-ranking PA officials, including President Arafat, failed in their duty to administer justice and enforce the rule of law in compliance with international standards. Through their repeated failure to arrest or prosecute individuals alleged to have planned or carried out suicide attacks against civilians, they contributed a climate of impunity-and failed to prevent the bloody consequences. Their payments to, and recruitment of, individuals responsible for attacks against civilians likewise demonstrate, at least, a serious failure to meet their political responsibilities as the governing authorities, if not a willingness to support them. However, there is no publicly available evidence that Arafat or other senior PA officials ordered, planned, or carried out such attacks.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by demon Mycroft
You dictate a moral and a legal distinction and there in lies your prejudiced interest.
It`s just the same old, same old colonialism attitude that those nasty fellows don`t play by the rules we do. Get a bloody grip on yourself, show me how we play by better rules than the "natives" do.

So you’re saying that it’s hypocritical of us to judge the Palestinian-Arabs terrorism because we, the United States and other western powers are also guilty of miss-deeds?

There is a certain attractive logic in that. I don’t agree with it, but it is attractive.

If you believe that we don’t have the right to dictate moral and legal values to the Palestinian-Arabs, then the same logic should prevent you from dictating moral and legal values on the Israelis. Personally, I think it’s less important what standard of ethical behavior you hold them to, so long as you apply that standard to both sides.

To paraphrase: If you expect civilized behavior from the Israelis, you should expect civilized behavior from the Palestinian-Arabs too. To do otherwise is anti-Arabic racism.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by renata
This is I think the third time I posted this. Seems nobody bothers to read it. The report mentions the explicit use of children in the conflict and the steps taken to prevent such actions.


Bravo, Renata!

In addition to the use of children in the conflict, one should also pay attention to how the Palestinian Authority has failed to take any action against terrorism. If one is ever tempted to criticize Israel for not living up to some part of some agreement, keep in mind that the autonomy of the PA was granted based on it's promise to police terrorists.

[Mycroft]

What, nobody has anything to say to Renata?

[renata]

Originally posted by Mycroft
What, nobody has anything to say to Renata?

:)

Mycroft, I generally do not participate in Israel and anti Semitism type threads here any longer, as the same arguments have been replayed here dozens of times, and I simply lack the patience to go over them again. But this HRW report does seem to be a tad of a thread killer, does it not?

And, welcome! :)

[a_unique_person]

Not at all a thread killer, I can post one just as long, detailing general human rights abuses by both sides.


Erased in a Moment:
Suicide Bombing Attacks against Israeli Civilians
The people responsible for planning and carrying out suicide bombings that deliberately target civilians are guilty of crimes against humanity and should be brought to justice, Human Rights Watch said in a new report today. The 170-page report is the first full-fledged examination of individual criminal responsibility for suicide bombings against civilians in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories. The report, Erased in a Moment: Suicide Bombing Attacks against Israeli Civilians, also provides the most thorough study to date of the suicide bombing operations of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the groups that have claimed responsibility for almost all recent suicide bombings. Since January 2001, 52 Palestinian suicide bombings have killed some 250 civilians and injured 2,000 more. Well-established principles of international law require that those in authority be held accountable when people under their control commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. Leaders who order such crimes, fail to take reasonable preventive action, or fail to punish the perpetrators are also responsible for such crimes.
November 2002
Download PDF
Purchase online
ISBN: 2807

Jenin:
IDF Military Operations
On April 3, 2002, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) launched a major military operation in the Jenin refugee camp, home to some fourteen thousand Palestinians, the overwhelming majority of them civilians. The Israelis' expressed aim was to capture or kill Palestinian militants responsible for suicide bombings and other attacks that have killed more than seventy Israeli and other civilians since March 2002. The IDF military incursion into the Jenin refugee camp was carried out on an unprecedented scale compared to other military operations mounted by the IDF since the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in September 2000. The presence of armed Palestinian militants inside Jenin refugee camp, and the preparations made by those armed Palestinian militants in anticipation of the IDF incursion, does not detract from the IDF's obligation under international humanitarian law to take all feasible precautions to avoid harm to civilians. Israel also has a legal duty to ensure that its attacks on legitimate military targets did not cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Unfortunately, these obligations were not met. Human Rights Watch's research demonstrates that, during their incursion into the Jenin refugee camp, Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes.
May 2002
Download PDF
Purchase online
ISBN: E1403

In A Dark Hour:
The Use Of Civilians During IDF Arrest Operations
This report documents the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) practice of coercing civilians to assist military personnel and operations, a serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL). The report is the result of investigations carried out regarding four IDF raids in late 2001 and early 2002 into the Palestinian towns of Beit Rima, Salfit, Artas, and Tulkarem. The violations documented in these cases exemplify current IDF practices in other incursions, whether in villages, refugee camps, or towns. One journalist reported being forced to strip and march at gunpoint to search offices in Ramallah during the largest and most recent IDF operation, "Operation Defensive Shield." Other civilians had similar testimony. Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations have reported incidents in which the IDF coerced civilians to assist military operations in Nablus, Tulkarem, East Jerusalem, and elsewhere. While the location and scale of the raids have varied, the dynamics have been the same. In the four cases researched in detail by Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses described a night of panic and terror, including death threats, house demolitions, and wide-scale arrests. In each of these cases, the IDF routinely coerced civilians to perform life-endangering acts that assisted IDF military operations. Eyewitnesses and victims described to Human Rights Watch how friends, neighbors, and relatives of "wanted" Palestinians were taken at gunpoint to knock on doors, open strange packages, and search houses in which the IDF suspected armed Palestinians were present. Some families found their houses taken over and used as military positions by the IDF during an operation while they themselves were ordered to remain inside. In one case documented by Human Rights Watch, a civilian was held as a hostage in order to pressure his brother to surrender.
April 2002
Download PDF
Purchase online
ISBN: E1402

Second Class:
Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools
Second Class: Discrimination Against Palestinian Arab Children in Israel's Schools, is based on Human Rights Watch investigations at twenty-six Arab and Jewish schools and on nationwide statistics compiled by the Israeli government. Nearly one-quarter of Israel's 1.6 million schoolchildren are Palestinian Arab citizens and are educated in schools run by the Israeli government, but operated separately from those of the Jewish majority. The report found striking differences in virtually every aspect of the education system. The Education Ministry does not allocate as much money per head for Palestinian Arab children as it does for Jewish children. Their classes are 20 percent larger on average. They get far fewer enrichment and remedial programs-even though they need them more-in part because the Ministry uses a different scale to assess need for Jewish children. Their school buildings are in worse condition, and many communities lack kindergartens for three and four-year-olds. Palestinian Arab schoolchildren do not have the same access to counseling and vocational programs. One of the largest gaps is in special education, where disabled Palestinian Arab children get less funding and fewer services, have limited access to special schools, and lack appropriate curricula. ISBN: 1-56432-266-1, 187pp, 20.00,
December 2001
Purchase online
ISBN: (2661)

Justice Undermined:
Balancing Security and Human Rights in the Palestinian Justice System
People detained by the Palestinian Authority are frequently subjected to torture and denied access to fair trials, Human Rights Watch said in this new report. The 50-page report documents how the Palestinian Authority executive branch - including President Yasser Arafat, his ministers, police, and various security forces - has seriously undermined the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. The report estimates that as of September 2001, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was holding about 450 people in detention without charge or trial. Most were suspected of being informants for Israeli security forces; others were alleged to have sold Palestinian land to Israelis. The PA has done virtually nothing to identify the perpetrators of about thirty vigilante-style executions, the report says. The report, charges the PA with failing to bring to justice militants who have attacked Israeli civilians. The report also says that Israeli responses to the current "intifada," including severe restrictions on freedom of movement and the destruction of Palestinian law-enforcement infrastructure, have aggravated the deterioration of the Palestinian justice system. 50pp, 7.00
November 2001
Download PDF
Purchase online
ISBN: (E1304)

Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District
For the past six months, the West Bank city of Hebron has been the scene of serious and sustained human rights abuses, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. The eighty-two page report, Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District, documents excessive use of force and unlawful killings by Israeli forces, Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians, and a systematic policy of Israeli blockades and curfews that amount to collective punishment. The report also brings to light a disturbing pattern of violence committed by Jewish settlers against Palestinian civilians in and around Hebron, often committed with the knowledge of Israeli Defense Force (IDF) soldiers in the area.Human Rights Watch urged the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority take immediate steps to stop abuses by the forces under their control, and called for an independent, international monitoring presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to monitor and report on Israeli and Palestinian abuses. Human Rights Watch researchers spent a total of five weeks in Hebron in November 2000 and February 2001. They completed more than 180 interviews with victims and witnesses to abuses, Israeli and Palestinian officials, international observers, medical and educational personnel, and Israeli settler representatives.
April 2001
Download PDF
Purchase online
ISBN: 2602

Investigation into Unlawful use of Force in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Northern Israel, October 4 through October 11
Human Rights Watch today released results of a week-long investigation that condemns Israeli police and security forces for a pattern of using excessive, lethal force in clashes with demonstrators over the past two weeks. In the report, Human Rights Watch also strongly criticized the failure of the Palestinian police to act consistently to prevent armed Palestinians from shooting at Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from positions where civilians were present and thus endangered by the Israeli response. Human Rights Watch said its week-long investigation of clashes in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and northern Israel showed repeated use by Israeli security forces of lethal force in situations where demonstrators posed no threat of death or serious injury to security forces or others. In situations where Palestinians did fire upon Israeli security forces, the IDF showed a troubling proclivity to resort to indiscriminate lethal force in response. At least 100 Palestinians have been killed and 3,500 injured in clashes with Israeli security forces. Human Rights Watch also expressed concern at the IDF's use of medium caliber munitions, which are meant for penetrating concrete and other hard surface barriers, against unarmed demonstrators in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The military munitions were particularly devastating when they hit civilians.
October 2000
Purchase online

Civilians Expelled from Lebanon for Refusal to Serve in Militia
In southern Lebanon, boys as young as twelve years of age have been subject to forced conscription by the South Lebanon Army (SLA), an Israeli auxiliary militia. When men and boys refuse to serve, flee the region to avoid conscription, or desert the SLA forces, their entire family may be expelled from the occupied zone.
July 1999

Israel/Lebanon: Persona Non Grata The Expulsion of Civilians from Israeli-Occupied Lebanon
For more than a decade, Israel and its auxiliary Lebanese militia have been expelling innocent civilians from their homes and villages in south Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said today. In this report, Human Rights Watch says that entire families have been expelled from the occupied zone in a summary and often cruel manner, without due process law. The victims, who have included elderly men and women as well as children, have been forced to leave their homes and villages without any advance notice and were generally not permitted to bring any personal possessions with them.The expulsions are carried out in secrecy. Israel bears ultimate responsiblity for both its own actions and those of its proxy militia.Human Rights Watch called on the U.S. and the member states of the European Union to publicly condemn the expulsions, and to press Israel to allow the expelled Lebanese civilians to return to their homes and recover their property under safe conditions, free of any form of coercion or initimidation from occupation security authorities.
July 1999
Purchase online
ISBN: ISBN 1-56432-237-8

Israel's Record of Occupation: Violations of Civil and Political Rights
On July 15 and 16, 1998 Israel presented its initial report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the U.N. body of independent experts responsible for monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its two Optional Protocols. Already more than five years overdue, the 369-page report should have included detailed information on the measures Israel had adopted to give effect to the rights recognized in the covenant, and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights. Instead, as Human Rights Watch argued in its submission to the Human Rights Committee, Israel's report failed to give sufficient information on the implementation of the covenant in practice, left out any discussion of Israel's implementation of the covenant in the territories it controlled in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and South Lebanon, and misrepresented Israeli practice on important issues including torture and administrative detention
August 1998
Purchase online

Human Rights Under the Palestinian Authority
The first three years of Palestinian self-rule have been characterized by widespread arbitrary and abusive conduct by the PA and its mushrooming security agencies. Hundreds of arbitrary detentions were carried out that violated defendants' most elemental due-process rights. Those who were interrogated were commonly tortured. Physical abuse caused or contributed to many of the fourteen deaths that occurred in custody.
October 1997
Purchase online

Without Status or Protection: Lebanese Detainees in Israel
This report concerns twenty-one Lebanese imprisoned in Israel and the conditions and indefinite prolongation of their detention. These detainees have been held for up to ten years, some of them in secret locations, denied even the guarantees of due process and humane treatment required by the laws of war. Some of them "disappeared" after their transfer to secret detention in Israel, their custody denied for up to two years by Israeli officials. All of the detainees were initially held incommunicado, in conditions in which ill-treatment and torture by Israeli security forces is known routinely to occur. Two of the detainees continue to be held in utter secrecy and isolation in undisclosed locations; one of them has been in this situation since 1989. Others among these prisoners completed prison sentences in Israel up to nine years ago: orders for their deportation upon release were suspended without explanation and their long imprisonment under administrative orders began. All of the twenty-one were captured inside Lebanon by Israeli troops or Lebanese militia with close ties to Israel, such as the Lebanese Forces and the South Lebanon Army SLA).
October 1997
Purchase online

Israel/Lebanon: "Operation Grapes of Wrath" -- The Civilian Victims
In this report, Human Rights Watch examines the activities of Israeli military forces and Lebanese guerrillas during the escalation of military activities that raged in Lebanon and parts of northern Israel from April 11 to 27, 1996 -- code-named "Operation Grapes of Wrath" by Israel. Israeli pilots carried out 600 air raids with fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, and artillery units fired some 25,000 shells into Lebanese territory. Some 154 civilians were killed in Lebanon, and another 351 injured. The guerrillas fired 639 Katyusha rockets into Israel. There were no Israeli civilian deaths, although three Israeli women sustained serious injuries. In any international armed conflict, the conduct of all sides is governed by international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which is codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I). Protocol I, which supplements the Geneva Conventions, contains detailed rules which implement the customary international law principles that a distinction should be made between combatants and civilians, and that civilians and civilian objects may not be targeted for attack. The rules of the protocol are designed to provide more effective protection to the civilian population against the effects of hostilities during international armed conflicts. Israel has not ratified Protocol I. However, many of the provisions of Protocol I reaffirm, clarify, or otherwise codify pre-existing, customary international humanitarian law. As such, these rules are binding on both the Israel military and Lebanese guerrilla forces, and in this report Human Rights Watch uses the rules to assess the military conduct of both sides.
September 1997
Purchase online

Legislating Impunity: The Draft Law to Halt Palestinian Tort Claims
Israel's Ministry of Justice has drafted a law that would exempt the State of Israel and its security forces from tort liability for the wrongful bodily injury and killing of Palestinians during the period of the intifada. Human Rights Watch calls for the withdrawal of the draft because it would drastically curtail the right of victims of human rights abuses committed by state agents to seek and obtain compensation. And by stripping Israeli civil courts of jurisdiction over these complaints, it would weaken one of the few existing mechanisms for accountability for the conduct of Israeli security forces toward Palestinians, and remove a deterrent against the commission of abuses in the future.
July 1997
Purchase online

Israel's Closure of the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Since late March 1993, following a series of stabbings inside Israel, a general policy of "closure" — the term referring to Israel's sealing of the West Bank and Gaza — has been in effect in the occupied territories. The general closure has, for the last three years, prohibited the movement of Palestinians and of goods from or into the West Bank or Gaza, as well as movement between the occupied territories, except by persons in possession of permits issued by Israel. In addition, Israel has repeatedly imposed "total closure," preventing even those who hold valid permits from entering or leaving the West Bank and Gaza.
July 1996
Purchase online

Civilian Pawns: Laws of War Violations and the Use of Weapons on the Israel-Lebanon Border
For over a decade, a conflict has raged on the border of Israel and Lebanon, where Israel occupies a large section of Lebanese territory. Civilians have been the principal targets and victims in this conflict. Both sides—Israel and its allied Lebanese militia, the South Lebanon Army, on one side, and guerrillas affiliated with Hizballah and a number of small Palestinian factions on the other—have exhibited a willful disregard for international humanitarian law, directly targeting civilians and indiscriminately lobbing shells and firing rockets at population centers. Tensions are high; periods of relative calm are punctuated by sharp attacks. The fighting has spiraled into massive Israeli military forays into Lebanon on several occasions. During the intervals, barrages back and forth have led to a situation in which no one is ever secure. A set of informal, unwritten "understandings" between Israel and Hizballah, brokered by the U.S., governed the conflict between July 1993 and April 1996. Each side committed itself to refrain from attacking civilians—unless the other side had attacked civilians first. Thus the civilian populations of southern Lebanon and northern Israel were rendered pawns in the hands of the belligerents. This report exposes the inherent fragility of these understandings.
May 1996
Purchase online
ISBN: ISBN 1-56432-167-3

The Gaza Strip & Jericho: Human Rights Under Palestinian Partial Self-Rule
The perilous state of human rights in the Palestinian self-rule areas is among the key factors — along with continuing political violence, Jewish settlement activity and economic development — that will determine the long-term success of any peace process in the region. Both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities share blame for human rights violations in the Gaza Strip and Jericho since the start of the autonomy agreement. Human Rights Watch recommends that the international community place a greater emphasis on promoting respect for human rights by the respective authorities.
February 1995
Purchase online

Torture and Ill-Treatment: Israel’s Interrogation of Palestinians from the Occupied Territories
Despite the historic peace process that is under way in the Middle East, Israel’s interrogation agencies in the occupied territories have continued to engage in a systematic pattern of torture and ill-treatment. Well over 100,000 Palestinians have been detained since the start of the intifada in 1987. Of these, thousands have been subjected to severe abuse under interrogation, including many detained since Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed the Declaration of Principles in September 1993. The dominant interrogation strategy is a coordinated, rigid and increasingly painful regime of physical constraints and psychological pressure applied over several days, and often for weeks at a time, on detainees who are held without charge and usually without access to a lawyer. The chief methods include prolonged sleep deprivation, the use of blindfolds or tight-fitting hoods, shackling or otherwise forcing detainees into body positions that grow increasingly painful, prolonged toilet and hygiene deprivation, and verbal threats and insults. Many, but not all, detainees are also beaten during rounds of questioning. The extraction of statements under these coercive conditions compromises the fairness of the military courts that try Palestinians in the occupied territories. Human Rights Watch calls on the government of Israel to end the practice of torture and ill-treatment of detainees under interrogation, by adhering to and enforcing the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which Israel acceded to in 1991.
June 1994
Purchase online
ISBN: 1-56432-136-3

A License to Kill: Israeli Undercover Operations Against “Wanted” and Masked Palestinians
Undercover units of the Israeli army have been responsible for over 120 killings in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip since 1988. Many of the victims were shot while posing no serious imminent threat to soldiers or others. Through interviews with soldiers, court transcripts, analysis of the open-fire regulations and seventeen case studies from 1992-1993, we charge in A License to Kill that unjustified killings by undercover units are not aberrations; rather they constitute a pattern that could only continue with the complicity of the Israeli government. That pattern has continued during Yitzhak Rabin’s first year as prime minister. The officially stated mission of these units, whose members frequently disguise themselves as Palestinians, is to apprehend armed fugitives "with blood on their hands." In fact, many of the Palestinians killed by the undercover units are youths who are neither "wanted" nor carrying firearms, and who are shot when they are posing no immediate danger to the lives of others. We contend that Israeli soldiers who participate in the search for "wanted" and masked activists routinely violate both international norms governing the use of lethal force as well as the rules of engagement that the Israeli army professes to apply in the occupied territories. In fact, a parallel, officially denied set of open-fire regulations seems to have come into being that gives these soldiers permission to kill with virtual impunity.
August 1993

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Not at all a thread killer, I can post one just as long, detailing general human rights abuses by both sides.

Interesting that you took note of the size of her post, but not the content.

Yes, any of us can cut and past and create a post of any size we wish.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


Interesting that you took note of the size of her post, but not the content.

Yes, any of us can cut and past and create a post of any size we wish.

And if you read my post, Israel has been actively targetting innocent people too. There is a low level war going on. I have not said anything different from the start, I believe. The only reason I get ropable about all this is that so many people, such as you and Rick, only seem to be able to look at the terrible things that are happening, that are placed under your nose, and cannot move past that. Get the big picture. I believe that the extremists on the Palestinian side can't get past the injustice they see too.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mycroft
What, nobody has anything to say to Renata?

I backed out of this thread because initially I had hoped to gain better understanding of the current relationship between Israel and the US, not to take yet another trip through history trying to prove who is right and wrong and one side defending Israel and the other side defending Palestine.

[Cleopatra]

This is totally my fault peptoabysmal because I kind of adandoned this thread.

I cannot have reasonable discussions with Unique and some others about the currert situation in Middle East that's why I focused on the historical perspective.

Unique is more fanatic than Sharon and Arafat together. If this wasn't about a serious issue it would be the most ridiculous case I have came across.

Although Capel Dodger and I significantly differ, his vast knowledge on the subject but above all his politeness and empathy keeps me in discussing and thinking over and over the issue.

I disagree with you though because I think that in this particular matter History is essential in order to understand the current situation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Unique is more fanatic than Sharon and Arafat together. If this wasn't about a serious issue it would be the most ridiculous case I have came across.



??? You cracked the sh*** when I mentioned Finkelstein. As it turns out, you finally told me why you hate him so much. For something that I don't think he said and I don't think I said.

However, one of his main interests is precisely this relationship.

[Cleopatra]

As always, you reply to something irrelevant.

You are more fanatic than Sharon Unique, I have told you before that you remind me of the Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn.

If it wasn't about a serious matter that concerns me personally I 'd let myself to be amused by the whole situation and your posts but I am afraid that I can't do that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As always, you reply to something irrelevant.

You are more fanatic than Sharon Unique, I have told you before that you remind me of the Orthodox Jews of Brooklyn.

If it wasn't about a serious matter that concerns me personally I 'd let myself to be amused by the whole situation and your posts but I am afraid that I can't do that.

I think this is quite a serious subject.

I am not more fanatical than Sharon, I do not go around killing people to achieve my aims in life. I do more than go around praying to god all my life. When I switch off this subject, I have plenty of other things to do in my life.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I think this is quite a serious subject.

I am not more fanatical than Sharon, I do not go around killing people to achieve my aims in life. I do more than go around praying to god all my life. When I switch off this subject, I have plenty of other things to do in my life.

I appreciate your efforts to amuse me and let the tension go but I am not your teenager child to be persuded that fanatics are only the murderers... :)

Ok maybe you are right, you are not more fanatic than Sharon but you are as fanatic as him.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I appreciate your efforts to amuse me and let the tension go but I am not your teenager child to be persuded that fanatics are only the murderers... :)

Ok maybe you are right, you are not more fanatic than Sharon but you are as fanatic as him.

How am I the fanatic. I am prepared to admit fault on both sides, for what it is worth. However, there are plenty here who will not admit fault on the side of Israel.

[Cleopatra]

Some people in Greece celebrate tomorrow "27 September. International Day of Protest of the Jewish Crimes against
Humanity." And they protest at 12 noon at Syntagma Square, Athens, Greece Voila! (http://users.otenet.gr/~ergatiki/main.htm)

What makes me laugh is that if you call those people antisemites they will reply that they are not!!! Regardless if they are talking about the Jewish crimes...

I am a criminal soap. Tomorrow I am celebrating :)

Unique I am sorry but you don't admit that both sides are wrong ...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Some people in Greece celebrate tomorrow "27 September. International Day of Protest of the Jewish Crimes against
Humanity." And they protest at 12 noon at Syntagma Square, Athens, Greece Voila! (http://users.otenet.gr/~ergatiki/main.htm)

What makes me laugh is that if you call those people antisemites they will reply that they are not!!! Regardless if they are talking about the Jewish crimes...

I am a criminal soap. Tomorrow I am celebrating :)

Unique I am sorry but you don't admit that both sides are wrong ...



I have so, people just don't tend to notice. Also, I don't have to point out that Palestinians do things they shouldn't we already have plenty of people here to do that for me.

I don't see why Jews should be immune to protest. Australians regularly protest about the French and Americans, and before, the South Africans. I would just hope that (a) they are protesting about actual things that are worth protesting about, and (b) not just indulging in anti-semitism. Israel has a lot to answer for, but if it is ony attracting the protests of one small group a year, it should be able to handle it. Besides, if Greece went to war with Israel, I think I know who would win.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Renata
Mycroft, I generally do not participate in Israel and anti Semitism type threads here any longer[/I]
I will be replying to Mycroft's claims shortly, however I would just like to pin you down a bit on the implications of your remarks.

Are you saying that this particular thread is anti-semitic? If so, please substantiate that claim. How is it anti-semitic? Who has been anti-semitic? What has been said which is anti-semitic?

So that we can all understand where you are coming from can I ask in your opinion, is any criticism of the actions of Ariel Sharion and the Israeli government by definition anti-semitic?

You claim that there are anti Semitism type threads on this site. Please specify which threads you are talking about and how they are anti-semitic and who the anti-semites are this site and why you believe that they are anti-semitic?

Let us get these implied claims out into the open and justified properly and fully so that we can all understand your claims.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
Regardless if they are talking about the Jewish crimes...

Can I ask you to justify your claims this time and ask you if the mere talking about crimes committed by Jewish people makes that person anti-semitic by definition? If so, does that mean that when courts around the world deal with crime they are anti-semitic when they have to deal with a Jewish person and anti-Catholic when they deal with Catholic people or anti-white when they deal with the crimes of a white person?

Do you believe that it is fact possible to talk about the internationally unacceptable actions of Aerial Sharon and the Israeli government without being an anti-semite?

Just asking.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't see why Jews should be immune to protest.

You confuse Jews with Israelis. Are you doing it deliberately?

Also, it's more possible for Australia to go to war with Israel than Greece.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You confuse Jews with Israelis. Are you doing it deliberately?

Also, it's more possible for Australia to go to war with Israel than Greece.

Yes, a slip of the tongue.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Yes, a slip of the tongue.

Thanks for the clarification. I asked because I was wondering if you belong to those that they believe that every Jew on the globe is responsible for the Middle Eastern conflict.

[renata]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

I will be replying to Mycroft's claims shortly, however I would just like to pin you down a bit on the implications of your remarks.

Are you saying that this particular thread is anti-semitic? If so, please substantiate that claim. How is it anti-semitic? Who has been anti-semitic? What has been said which is anti-semitic?

So that we can all understand where you are coming from can I ask in your opinion, is any criticism of the actions of Ariel Sharion and the Israeli government by definition anti-semitic?

You claim that there are anti Semitism type threads on this site. Please specify which threads you are talking about and how they are anti-semitic and who the anti-semites are this site and why you believe that they are anti-semitic?

Let us get these implied claims out into the open and justified properly and fully so that we can all understand your claims.

:D :D

Such a tirade over such a small sentence! Threads that discuss Israel and anti Semitism, relax. If I wanted to imply people or threads were anti semitic, I would say threads about Israel and anti Semitic threads. Example of a thread that discusses anti-Semitism is a Finkelstein thread. Considering any "implied" claims I made are all a figment of your misunderstanding, I will dismiss the rest of your post.

[Cleopatra]

Saint Renata: Patron Saint of the patient people in On-line Communities :)

[Elind]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Thanks for the clarification. I asked because I was wondering if you belong to those that they believe that every Jew on the globe is responsible for the Middle Eastern conflict.

Your original quote in this thread has little to do with the above, but I thought I would ask why you have avoided any response to my earlier comments. Not that my feelings are hurt, but you don't seem to want to comment on your original (insulting) position which relate to Israel's settlements. Do you or you relatives, or friends, live in those settlements?

Do you feel you have a right, god given or otherwise, to live there?

[Cleopatra]

I do not reply to posters that their behavior reminds me of the monkey house in banana time.

I wouldn't mention that (edited to add: ) your behavior reminds me exactly that but since you insisted...

[E.J.Armstrong]

originallyposted by Renata
Such a tirade over such a small sentence! Threads that discuss Israel and anti Semitism, relax. If I wanted to imply people or threads were anti semitic, I would say threads about Israel and anti Semitic threads. Example of a thread that discusses anti-Semitism is a Finkelstein thread. Considering any "implied" claims I made are all a figment of your misunderstanding, I will dismiss the rest of your post
Interesting. It appears that merely asking questions is now a tirade. Sort of like the response psychic investigators have to James Randi when he asks them about their claims. They often get very defensive and aggressive towards his simple questions.

You also haven't given any links to any specific Finkelstein thread.

Refusing to answer simple questions about your position and claims is your perogative. It just puts your remarks about those areas into perspective and people will just have to make their own minds up why you won't answer.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Interesting. It appears that merely asking questions is now a tirade.
No, but the somewhat shrill manner in which you ask those questions does appear to be a tirade. It's not what you say, so much as how you say it. If enough people are getting the wrong idea about that, you may want to reconsider your mode of expression.

[Cleopatra]

Thank you James!

Yes, tirade, this is the word that can describe the behavior that reminds me of the monkey house in banana time... Does the word tirade describe the type of questions that bring to memory interrogations and Holly Inquisition too?

[renata]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Interesting. It appears that merely asking questions is now a tirade. Sort of like the response psychic investigators have to James Randi when he asks them about their claims. They often get very defensive and aggressive towards his simple questions.

You also haven't given any links to any specific Finkelstein thread.

Refusing to answer simple questions about your position and claims is your perogative. It just puts your remarks about those areas into perspective and people will just have to make their own minds up why you won't answer.

Your questions about any "implied claims" of mine seem to be borne out of a misunderstanding about the substance of my statement. I see no need to answer them after I corrected your misunderstanding of my comments. As to me linking to the Finkelstein thread- I thought the thread titled "Finkelstein" might tip you off.

As to the rest- what JamesM said.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
What a wonderful piece of rhetorical sleight of hand. Let’s shift the discussion to United States cold war foreign policy, and maybe nobody will notice that wasn’t what we were talking about all along.

Well, I noticed. The topic is Israel. If you would like to talk about Pinochet or Noriega, I will be happy to accommodate you, but it will have to be in another thread.
Interesting. Mentioning something on a public forum is a way of hiding it? Not one of your more cogent arguments I fear.

You also appear to have a problem remembering what you actually said. Can I just remind you that you claimed Terrorism is unacceptable to the vast bulk of Americans. I responded directly to that claim.

When two or more people engage in a debate or discussion it is normal practice for each party to make the points they wish. The others can then take issue with them as appropriate. If you want to prevent others commenting on certain of your own claims can I just suggest that either you don't make them or you place a caveat before them along the lines of 'I am about to make a claim which no-one is allowed to take issue with.' While being a fundamentally dubious tactic this would at least have the merit of avoiding others wasting time on those claims which you are not prepared to discuss at the time of making them. I hope that helps.

Now, in the - albeit possibly mistaken - belief that you actually do want to engage in a debate about all the points you and I have raised I will take your other points in order.

I agree with that statement. Cuba, like any other country, has a sovereign right to defend itself. That being your position, how should they do so? By doing what Sharon is doing in Palestine and bulldozing innocent peoples' houses or by killing a few innocent USA children while targeting suspects? Much of what Sharon is doing in Palestine would be unacceptable in the USA.If you’re going to make an analogy, make it fit. Israel isn’t bulldozing homes in Egypt, they’re bulldozing terrorists homes in Israel. Palestine is not a state however under the terms of the 1993 Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, a Palestinian Authority was created to administer the territories.

Let me return to an analogy I have used before. Despite their parliamentarians being bombed to death the British never sent helicopter gunships to destroy suspects in circumstances that guaranteed the deaths of innocent children. That would have been unacceptable internationally and would have led to a escalation of the conflict. In doing just that Sharon is effectively terrorising innocent Palestinians.

Castro isn’t likely to send bulldozers into Dade County, but if there was an American enclave in Cuba, and US citizens living in that enclave were launching terrorist attacks into Havana, I would support Castro’s right to bulldoze a few homes to put a stop to it.
Can I also say that I find you attitude to bulldozing innocent houses very worrying because implicit in that approach, as we have seen in Palestine, is that bulldozing the houses of innocent people is inevitable. That is unless you believe that there can be no innocent people in neighbourhoods where a terrorist might live.

To take a couple of examples, is the baby neice of a terrorist suspect guilty of a crime or the terrorists' mother? Not according to US law they're not - as the cases of the American Taliban and Timothy McVeigh clearly show. The logic of your argument appears to be that their houses should have been bulldozed in a collective punishment of all the relatives. That is Sharon's practice and that is why it is so abhorren to the wider world.

From the reponse of people I have talked to around the world this failure to recognise the existence of innocent people in the midst of a terrorised society is often symptomatic of those who have never experienced the realities of being poor and living in a terrorised state with no other place to go.

I come from a terrorised country. Within individual families living in densely populated areas of Northern Ireland there were people of vastly differing views regarding terrorism. On the basis of your and Sharon's attitude to innocent people my family, which was wholly and vehemently anti-terrorist of any kind, would have had their peoperty bulldozed while the authorities tried to assassinate suspects (note suspects - not people tried under the law).

I do not believe that Sharon is an idiot. Assuming that he is not implies that he is therefore carrying out these actions in a premeditated way. The United States has laws where criminals and families of criminals can lose their homes. We call it the War on Drugs. It would be hypocritical of us to condemn Israel for bulldozing terrorist homes while we bulldoze drug dealers homes. Please provide support for your claim by providing examples of where the homes of suspects (note suspects - not people tried and convicted under the law) have had their homes destroyed as well as those of their family and neighbours who have not been tried nor suspected or found guilty of any crime as Sharon has done and where that action has been accepted by the citizens of the USA without protest. Are you suggesting that because Spain harbors terrorists it’s okay for the Palestinian Authority to do so? No. Obviously not. No helicopter gunships were used in targeting suspects in Spain and no Spanish children were killed. Israel paid to train and arm Palestinian police back in ’93. What stopped them from going after the terrorists then? This is why Oslo failed. Issues of support and resources can be solved if there is a real desire on the part of the Palestinians to earn peace and fulfill their promises, but instead they are used as excuses The Palestinian Authority has a duty to arrest people if they are suspected of crimes. So has Israel. If I was in charge of a country I would refuse to act as Sharon has done in asassinating mere suspects in a way that guarantees the deaths of innocent children, if that is what he asked me to do. Oh please. Sabra and Shatila were Lebanese Crimes. The blame falls on Bashir Gemayel. Sharon’s guilt is in not realizing that it could happen. If you want Palestinian terrorists to have fair trials, then the burden must fall on the Palestinian-Arabs to create a society where such things can happen, where such people are punishe Oh please. Once again you resort to the 'Sharon is stupid' argument in defence of his actions. Your claim is untenable because he was warned of what was going on both before it happened and whilst it was going on. The massacre still took place. Please see the following from http://www.tehelka.com/channels/commentary/2001/july/28/com072801Michael.htm
I for one do not suscribe to the 'Sharon is stupid' argument or that everything that he does such as Sabra and Shatila is the result of a lack of knowledge. He was warned what would happen and was told about it while it was happening. Israeli forces under his ultimate command lit the site and controlled access to the site.

I understand that a judicial case against Sharon is proceding in a Belgium court.[QUOTE]Oh, Temple Mount. Never mind that the violence started before his visit, I’m sure it had nothing to do with Camp David If you want to make the argument that what is happening has nothing to do with Sharon's actions then feel free. I fear few in the rest of the world believe you. Thank you for that. Details like that can be easily overlooked while wading through all your apologetic rhetoric. Bizarre. Once again you seem to imply that by posting something on a public website it somehow becomes difficult to see. Can I just suggest that it is only difficult to see for those who do not wish to see?

You will also have to tell me what I am supposed to be apologetic about. I am not apologetic about highlighting the human rights abuses carried out by Sharon or Hamas or the IRA. I am not apologetic about highlighting the fact that Sharon and Hamas target people in a way that has guaranteed the deaths of innocent children. I am not apologetic about highlighting the fact that Sharon, as the leader of a democratic country, assassinates suspects without trying them. I am not apologetic about highlighting the atrocities committed by all terrorists such as the IRA, Hamas, Hizbollah, Saddam Hussein, Osam Bin Laden as well as terrorist acts if committed by any state or authority such as the Palestinian Authority or Israel.

You see I am simply pro innocent people around the world - whether they are Israeli, Palestinian, Irish, South American, African or whatever. I make no apology for highlighting abuses carried out against them.

Let me ask you a question. If you ignore everything else, answer this: What, in your opinion, is Israel allowed to do to defend itself from terrorism? What measures or methods would you find acceptable? I am very happy to answer your question. Firstly let me remind you once again as you seem to have had some difficulty finding my comments on this matter - I have repeatedly stated all Israelis are entitled to be free from terror as are all innocent Palestinians.

Israel is entitled to defend itself and its people from terror in internationally acceptable ways. That includes using acceptable security checks at borders. It includes using appropriate action including force of arms against those in the act of perpetrating terrorist acts. It includes the gathering of intelligence to allow the capture of those suspected of engaging in terrorist actions and the use of that intelligence in internationally acceptable ways to prevent terrorism. It includes the use of acceptable police techniques and the use of proportionate force in preventing no-go areas developing. It includes normal riot control methods. It includes the application of policing methods and the law uniformly without fear and favour to all sides whether Israeli or Palestinians. It includes placing suspects in front of properly convened and operated courts of law and of gaoling them according to the law if found guilty. In short it involves using all legal and internationally acceptable methods to prevent terrorist attacks.

What does it not include is terrorising innocent Palestinians by targeting suspects in circumstances which guarantee the killing of innocent children - it does not include bulldozing the houses of innocent people or detroying the heritage of Palestine by bulldozing archaeologically important towns or collectively punishing entire groups or assassinating suspects without trial, or building an apartheid state. It does not include preventing man and wife living together if one of them merely happens to be a Palestinian. It means not demonising an entire people.

Israel is entitled to ask the Palestinian Authority to act as it would any other state to act. If the Palestinian Authority does not take action then Israel is entitled to act as it would when any other state does not follow its requests.You’re very good at criticism and condemnation, at finding fault and assigning blame, but can you put forth anything proactive? REally. Are you saying that I am not allowed to highlight the unacceptable actions of Sharon?

I must say that I do find this particular point somewhat strange. Surely if I point out that someone is killing people without trial implicit in that observation is the suggestion that the way to stop killing people without trial is at the very least not to kill them until after you put them on trial. I would have thought that was self evident. Apparently not.

In the same manner I have repeatedly pointed out what I believe is wrong with what Sharon has been doing. If you are unable to interpret that as a suggestion that he stop targetting suspects in circumstances which guarantee innocent children get killed then perhaps that reflects your unwillingness to accept that Sharion has a choice to stop targetting people in circumstances which guarantee innocent chuildren don't get killed.Read your history, it’s not as simple as that. Very little can be compressed satisfactorily and accurately into one or two sentences. Let me therefore point to a number of terrorist atrocities carried out by a group led by a subsequent Prime Minister of Israel during the attempts to found the State of Israel. Menachim Begin was Prime Minister of Israel between 1977 and 1983. He became the leader of Irgun Tsvai-Leumi in 1943. On July 22 1946 Irgun, comanded by Menachim Begin, bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, headquarters of the British civil and military administration, killing 91 people (17 Jewish). On 31 October 1946 Irgun bombed the British Embassy in Rome. On Sept 29 1947 Irgun bombed a police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing four British and four Arab policemen, and two Arab civilians. On December 29 1947 Irgun terrorists threw grenades into a cafe in Jerusalem, Palestine killing four British and four Arab policemen, and two Arab civilians. See http://www.4reference.net/encyclopedias/wikipedia/Irgun.html for more details of the terrorist acts committed by Irgun.

Several months ago I read an article, and I wish I had saved the link, about a Palestinian protest against the Palestinian Authority. A good many of them had grown tired of the policies of their own leadership that led to more and more violence. All right thinking people are entitled to protest against injustice whatever its source, be it the Palestinian Authority or the Israeli government.People are people all over the world. Most people want the same things, to be able to work for a living, to support a family, to teach their children and watch them grow into adulthood. These are things we all have in common Exactly. That is why a state founded after a massive injustice perpetrated on the Jewish people of Europe should not engage in internationally unacceptable methods such as targeting suspects in ways guaranteed to result in the deaths of innocent children or in collective punishment of entire groups of people.Are there innocent Palestinians? Of course there are. They just happen to be a people manipulated and abandoned by their brother Arabs, and led by thugs. I really am not clear what your point is here. The type of leadership a two year old child has in Palestine has nothing at all to do with the child's innocence. I believe all right thinking people around the world accept that simple proposition.

Sharon should stop targeting suspects in ways that guarantee the deaths of innocent children.

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft

Can you please leave the post that lies above mine unanswered? We have been throught these "arguments" that you can find in every site of zionist and antisemitic propaganga millions of times...

Let's focus on something else. Don't make me reply to Capel Dodger tonight :)

Please :)

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by JamesM
No, but the somewhat shrill manner in which you ask those questions does appear to be a tirade. It's not what you say, so much as how you say it. If enough people are getting the wrong idea about that, you may want to reconsider your mode of expression.

I don't want to be a party pooper but could I just give you the definition of tirade from the Oxford Compact English Dictionary 1996 edition.
Tirade n. a long vehement denunciation or declamation.

Nope. Nothing there about simple questions.

It seems that I have failed your posting criteria in some as yet undefined manner because you have failed to provide an explanation of how your particular tirade test works or what you mean by enough.

I may have missed them but I don't see your similar interjections in relation to other more objectionable posts so perhaps it is the points I am making that you actually object to? Perhaps you have something concrete to contribute on those matters?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes, tirade, this is the word that can describe the behavior that reminds me of the monkey house in banana time... Does the word tirade describe the type of questions that bring to memory interrogations and Holly Inquisition too?


The Jedi Knight response in triplicate - straight from the manual. It seems that the bullseye has been well and truly hit.

This measured and rational post apparently encapsulates the appropriate intellectual response to those who ask questions about Sharon's actions.

Duly noted.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Renata
Your questions about any "implied claims" of mine seem to be borne out of a misunderstanding about the substance of my statement. I see no need to answer them after I corrected your misunderstanding of my comments. As to me linking to the Finkelstein thread- I thought the thread titled "Finkelstein" might tip you off.

As to the rest- what JamesM said.


As to the rest, please see dictionary definition of tirade.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft

Can you please leave the post that lies above mine unanswered? We have been throught these "arguments" that you can find in every site of zionist and antisemitic propaganga millions of times...

Let's focus on something else. Don't make me reply to Capel Dodger tonight :)

Please :)

You're right Cleo...EJ's posts are best ignored. Whenever he's challenged on any issue he responds by post a mind-numbingly long screed in hopes of boring you to death.

It's an effective tactic. :rolleyes:

-z

[JamesM]

I may have missed them but I don't see your similar interjections in relation to other more objectionable posts
I'm not obliged to reply to objectionable posts.

so perhaps it is the points I am making that you actually object to?
I already said that it's not what you say, it's the way you say it. I find the content of your posts to be entirely uncontroversial.

For others, it may well be that they don't want to answer your questions because your incisive commentary cuts like a laser beam through their flummery and equivocation. Alternatively, they may merely not consider it worth the effort to engage in a fruitless exchange with someone who comes across as a self-righteous windbag.

Perhaps you have something concrete to contribute on those matters?
I have contributed plenty on the subject of Israel. I don't feel it necessary to do so in the form of pompous demands from other posters.

[E.J.Armstrong]

[QUOTE]originally posted by Cleopatra
Can you please leave the post that lies above mine unanswered? We have been throught these "arguments" that you can find in every site of zionist and antisemitic propaganga millions of times...
QUOTE]

Can I just point out that the fact that you have personally engaged in a debate about any issue is totally irrelevant. If all discussions stopped after you had talked about a subject that would make a mockery of the word debate. For your information neither I nor anyone else requires your permission to engage in debate.

You have already demonstrated the intellectual poverty of your arguments by recent posts. If you want to stymie debate can I just ask why you bother to come to a sceptics site?

What is of more concern to me is your continued implied smears about people on this site and the implications for the site as a whole.

I have asked you simple questions before about your implied smears and you have refused to answer. I challenge you to say if anything I have said is in any way anti-semitic or if this site is a site of zionist or antisemitc propaganda?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Rikzilla
You're right Cleo...EJ's posts are best ignored. Whenever he's challenged on any issue he responds by post a mind-numbingly long screed in hopes of boring you to death.

It's an effective tactic.

Ah the Jedi Knight response again. If you don't want to engage in debate why do you come to this site?

Must be a problem for you having people who ask you to stand by your claims.

[Cleopatra]

Uh-hoh!

The board was hit by the "Jerusalem Syndrome"...

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by JamesM
I'm not obliged to reply to objectionable posts.
No. I merely note that you are selective about those you do.For others, it may well be that they don't want to answer your questions because your incisive commentary cuts like a laser beam through their flummery and equivocation. Alternatively, they may merely not consider it worth the effort to engage in a fruitless exchange with someone who comes across as a self-righteous windbag
I like the second one - its got that self reflective quality about it.

Still no explanation of the tirade test though. I wonder why?

I have contributed plenty on the subject of Israel. I don't feel it necessary to do so in the form of pompous demands from other posters.
You certainly don't have to engage in a debate on the topic of any thread. That is entirely up to you. Unfortunately I am not psychic (interestingly, psychics don't like simple questions of the type James Randi likes to ask). Funnily enough, Cleopatra seems to feel that hers is the last word on the matter too and Rikzilla also appears to feel that engaging in debate is superfluous but then big words appear to hurt his head.

Naturally I'm quite sure that reaction is completely unrelated to the subject under review and that you agree with the rest of the rational world that Sharon should avoid killing innocent children.

Just to return towards the topic a bit - all Israelis are entitled to live free from terror, as are all innocent Palestinians.

[E.J.Armstrong]

Oops - edited for duplication.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
The board was hit by the "Jerusalem Syndrome"......

Who was it that said 'All that could be heard was the sound of crickets chirrping.' A brilliant man no doubt.

I note that once again you are not prepared to stand by your own remarks.

Just like Jedi Knight.

[Cleopatra]

Wow and I'd say that we are witnessing a crisis since somebody keeps hitting the reply button...

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
Wow and I'd say that we are witnessing a crisis since somebody keeps hitting the reply button...

Ah - the intellectual returns. Still using the ad hominem attacks I see. Just to return to the thread - will she ever stand by her own statements?

Chirp chirp.

[hammegk]

Should I take E.J. off my ignore list? That's a whole lotta postin' anyways. :D

[JamesM]

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
I merely note that you are selective about those you do.
If your implication is that I only complain about the attitude of anti-Israeli posters, that is untrue.

I like the second one - its got that self reflective quality about it.
Rest assured, I'm perfectly at ease with my pomposity.

Still no explanation of the tirade test though. I wonder why?
If I choose not to indulge your demands for an explanation of exactly in what way your spluttering outrage constitutes a tirade, it may be because it would be tiresome in the extreme - a common motif when it comes to your contributions, unfortunately.

You may choose to continue to interpret this as evidence for the unassailable rightness of your opinions, rather than evidence of your unbearably smug self-regard. For someone who sees fit to compare himself with James Randi, it would be best to consider all the non-supernatural options.

Naturally I'm quite sure that reaction is completely unrelated to the subject under review and that you agree with the rest of the rational world that Sharon should avoid killing innocent children.
Despite your snide and baseless implications to the contrary, I agree with you. Once again, I can only say that it's not the content of your posts I have any problem with. I think you make some serious and thought-provoking points. But egads, are you insufferable with it. I don't propose to spend any more time on the subject of your partonising finger-wagging, so please have the last word.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by hammegk
Should I take E.J. off my ignore list? That's a whole lotta postin' anyways. :D

Is E.J in your ignore list? I am shocked, I thought that you were as pervert as me in certain things :D

[demon]

E.J said:
"will she ever stand by her own statements?"

As far as that goes, we are still waiting for the devastating "Shermer Weapon" to be brought out of storage on the Finkelstein thread. That would be more interesting than descriptions of granny`s two kitchens.

"There`s no business like Shoah business", (Abba Eban, Yaffa Eliach etc)...understand and accept that and you`ll understand all the evasions and smears.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft

Can you please leave the post that lies above mine unanswered? We have been through these "arguments" that you can find in every site of Zionist and anti-Semitic propaganda millions of times...

Let's focus on something else. Don't make me reply to Capel Dodger tonight :)

Please :)

Such a moral dilemma you place on me!

My chivalrous instincts would plague me with guilt if I refused such a polite and simple request, yet I am equally pained at the idea of letting such spew go unanswered. How can I resolve this?

May I suggest a compromise?

Instead of going through his post line by line and refuting every word, which would be tiresome and hard to follow anyway, maybe I could just pick one or two main points and respond to them? Your stress would be kept to a minimum (you may even be entertained), Capel Dodger might stay out of it, and I won’t suffer the guilt of refusing a mitzvah.

I will await your word. If you still want me to bow out, I will.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
E.J said:
"will she ever stand by her own statements?"

As far as that goes, we are still waiting for the devastating "Shermer Weapon" to be brought out of storage on the Finkelstein thread. That would be more interesting than descriptions of granny`s two kitchens.

"There`s no business like Shoah business", (Abba Eban, Yaffa Eliach etc)...understand and accept that and you`ll understand all the evasions and smears.

Demon

I don't think I have ever found Cleopatra to be into the 'Shoah' business. She is much more level headed than that. Others on this board, maybe, who claim to be Skeptical thinkers. Not Cleopatra though.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Demon

I don't think I have ever found Cleopatra to be into the 'Shoah' business. She is much more level headed than that. Others on this board, maybe, who claim to be Skeptical thinkers. Not Cleopatra though.

You say that like you're defending her from something. From what? When did it become a bad thing to talk about the Shoah?

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft

I only made a suggestion. My grandmother used to say that it's better to avoid debating idiots because in order to do that you must go down to their level, in that level that will be inferior to yours, you have no chance to win.

It's a pleasure to discuss with people that I disagree with, for example I enjoy discussing with Unique.

Discussing with Capel Dodger with whom I strongly disagree, is more than a pleasure because he gives me the incentive to open a couple of books and educate myself before attempting to reply to his bright posts.

Debating a smarter person than me is an honor debating an idiot is a loss of time.

Have you ever seen me replying to demon?

Do as you wish, it was just a friendly suggestion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


You say that like you're defending her from something. From what? When did it become a bad thing to talk about the Shoah?

Demon was referring to Finkelsteins reference to the 'Shoah business'. Not shoah itself.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by hammegk
Should I take E.J. off my ignore list? That's a whole lotta postin' anyways. :D

Don't bother...he's said nothing that you couldn't find and cut/paste/reposted from the Jerry Springer website. Putting him on ignore is too much trouble...the scroll button is just as easy.

-z

BTW: He does seem to be having a mini-meltdown eh Cleo? Perhaps we can all urge him to take his medication?? But really, WGAS?

[demon]

"My grandmother used to say that it's better to avoid debating idiots because in order to do that you must go down to their level, in that level that will be inferior to yours, you have no chance to win."

Ha! Your granny used to say that?
I know she had two kitchens but even she didn`t invent the idea that debating idiots is a waste of time. Talking in cliches is part of your family history is it? Trojan horses with nothing inside.

Smearing the whole of Eurpoe these days as anti-Semite? Individuals as anti Semite with no proof?
Sorry AUP, thats Shoah business all the way.

Still waiting for Shermer weapon..crickets chirrping

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by demon
"My grandmother used to say that it's better to avoid debating idiots because in order to do that you must go down to their level, in that level that will be inferior to yours, you have no chance to win."

Ha! Your granny used to say that?
I know she had two kitchens but even she didn`t invent the idea that debating idiots is a waste of time. Talking in cliches is part of your family history is it? Trojan horses with nothing inside.

Smearing the whole of Eurpoe these days as anti-Semite? Individuals as anti Semite with no proof?
Sorry AUP, thats Shoah business all the way.

Still waiting for Shermer weapon..crickets chirrping

Hmmm, she has already been pulled up for saying 'Europeans' are anti-semitic. However, given that she also believes that Said was a good man, when he is held to be evil by much of Israel and it's supporters, also indicates she does not just go along with the 'Shoa' crowd either, like Skeptic does. There will always be points we disagree on, but Cleopatra shows independent thinking and gives as well as takes in debates.

I think if you can tone down the posts, you will find that we all get along fine. At least, it would be good if we could.

[Cleopatra]

Unique whilst I aprreciate your attempt to defend me expressions like " Shoa business" are beyond my understanding and I'd very much appreciate if you didn't use them in the same paragraph with my name.

I expect you to comment the fact that the person who keeps talking about "Shoa business" is somebody who posts only about this subject and only to bash Jews.

I cannot help but wondering. Is he a doppleganger apart from being a troll?

Also, have you noticed that none but you answers to his posts?


edited to add: Said was considered evil by the Palestinians in Palestine, so what Israelis think about him seems irrelevant to me

[demon]

Cleo...
You choose to charcaterize me as a troll....
I`d say most of my posts havent been...Im not on about one line or two liners ok.
Some of my posts have been more than that.

[Cleopatra]

Since I subscribed to this forum in March I have never read a post of yours that could be characterized as contribution to a discussion.You hit and run.

Also, Israel and Jews seem to be the only discussion topics that attract your interest, I have never seen you posting about anything else.

You don't post to debunk arguments but to stir-up passions.

All the above are indications of trollery.

I will be honest. The reason I do not have you in my ignore list is because I believe that you are a sockpuppet and it's only a matter of time for me to discover whose.The fact that you post only a couple of lines make things more difficult but it's ok. I am patient. Like my grandmother.

[demon]

"Since I subscribed to this forum in March I have never read a post of yours that could be characterized as contribution to a discussion.You hit and run"

We`ll leave grand mothers out of it.

How many of my posts have you actually read? I tell it like I see it most of the time. From suicide bombers to Finkelstein. It`s not for fun or trollery.

[Cleopatra]

First of all, you were the one who referred to my grandmother ironically believing that you can harm somebody that lives only in my heart and memories.

I have been reading your posts since March. I have never seen a post that could be considered as an argument to the issue.

You just hit and run and it seems that I am one of your favorite targets,exactly because I am not a fanatic.

Maybe this is the reason that none-apart from AUP- responds to your posts, you have nothing of essence to say about this issue.

I think I was clear and honest about what I am thinking about you I have nothing else to add since discussing with you isn't one of my favorite pursuits in this forum as you might have observed.

[demon]

Nothing do to with the fact that anyone is waiting for the "Shermer Weapon" of course?

Nothing to do with one of the most implicit rascist comments I ever heard on these forums concerning the fact that Arab citizens have the right to vote in the country they are citizens in ie France.
That`s right out of the mouth of Barak.
You take time out to defend Dershowitz from plagiarlism but you dont take time out to condemn Rikzilla and his "pikey" comment but you have no problem including references to that racist in your posts.

Forked tongue is a nice thing to get away with, you are doing it very well...in some quarters. Some of us have head it all before.

[a_unique_person]

The "Pikey" was up there with the best. I have kept it as a momento. But I still think you are too hard on Cleopatra. JamesM is also good value. I think you have to be loyal to your team, that is human nature, but I think that loyalty tempered with skepticism is evident in both. I also hope people can see that in me, although I appear to be accused of the worst forms of racism. Still, I can remember being accused of the worst forms of racism, but I can't recall uttering anything as bad as the Pikey comment from Rik.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can't recall uttering anything as bad as the Pikey comment from Rik.
I've just gone back to read that post. Was Rikzilla referring to gypsies as 'pikeys'? The point of his post was not clear to me, either within the context of the holocaust or the right of return. Perhaps he could provide some clarification.

I've never heard pikey used except as the equivalent British term for trailer trash anywhere in England where I've lived. The extract from the web Rikzilla quoted also did not make that link (unless people think gypsies serve in kebab vans, which is bizarre). Are you saying that it was racist because he implied a comparison between pikeys and Palestinians?

[demon]

None of us have uttered such despicable comments as "pikey", I know that word and all it`s implications since I was a youngster.

What I find ironic is that I get jumped on and called an anti-Semite by those who profess to be enraged by such terms but yet let Rikzilla away with such terms, and make reference to him in their posts.
As as aside, I see the apologists got all bent out of shape defending Dershowitz...if Chomsky or Finkelstein had have got caught plagiarising like that he would have been hung drawn and quarterd before the ink had dried...and rightly so.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM

I've just gone back to read that post. Was Rikzilla referring to gypsies as 'pikeys'? The point of his post was not clear to me, either within the context of the holocaust or the right of return. Perhaps he could provide some clarification.

I've never heard pikey used except as the equivalent British term for trailer trash anywhere in England where I've lived. The extract from the web Rikzilla quoted also did not make that link (unless people think gypsies serve in kebab vans, which is bizarre). Are you saying that it was racist because he implied a comparison between pikeys and Palestinians?

Rik was comparing the right of Gypsies to compensation for the Holocaust to Jews claims by implying that the 'Pikeys' were just sub human trash who deserved nothing.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by demon
None of us have uttered such despicable comments as "pikey", I know that word and all it`s implications since I was a youngster.
Pikey is a racial epithet? If Rikzilla used it in that sense, then it is indeed despicable.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Rik was comparing the right of Gypsies to compensation for the Holocaust to Jews claims by implying that the 'Pikeys' were just sub human trash who deserved nothing.
That makes a bit more sense. As I have never heard anyone use the word pikey to refer to gypsies, his point was not clear. However, he doesn't actually say that gypsies don't deserve compensation, he says (or rather implies) that they don't deserve a right of return to Israel. I have to say, I still don't understand what his point was, and I'm still not sure if he was making a racist comment.

I suspect that others also share this confusion, which is why no-one's made any comment about it, rather than because there is a double standard at work. If he wants to confirm the meaning of his post, and if it does mean what you say he means, I will be happy to declare him a racist jerk. But I will wait for Rikzilla to speak up.

[a_unique_person]

The whole tone of the post in question was that Gypsies are contemptible and not comparable to the noble Jews.

All in all, racism from both ways.

[JamesM]

Just to be sure, we are talking about this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870109938#post1870109938) post?

[Cleopatra]

When did I say that Arabs shouldn't be voting? Can you or AUP who is the one who finds pleasure in discussing with you can you show me that?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The "Pikey" was up there with the best. I have kept it as a momento. But I still think you are too hard on Cleopatra. JamesM is also good value. I think you have to be loyal to your team, that is human nature, but I think that loyalty tempered with skepticism is evident in both. I also hope people can see that in me, although I appear to be accused of the worst forms of racism. Still, I can remember being accused of the worst forms of racism, but I can't recall uttering anything as bad as the Pikey comment from Rik.

Is it possible for you to stop answering to demon referring to me?

Is this too much from my part to ask?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM
Just to be sure, we are talking about this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870109938#post1870109938) post?

Yep, that's the one. It displayed the sort of vitriol I would reserver for a xian fundamentalist.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Is it possible for you to stop answering to demon referring to me?

Is this too much from my part to ask?

I will try, but it is pretty hard to pretend that certain people do not exist when they do.

[Cleopatra]

Unique I didn't ask you to stop answering to demon. I just asked you if it is possible for you not to refer to me when replying to demon and don't try either to interpret or to justify me to him.

I wonder if this is too much for me to ask.

[demon]

"Unique I didn't ask you to stop answering to demon. I just asked you if it is possible for you not to refer to me when replying to demon and don't try either to interpret or to justify me to him.

I wonder if this is too much for me to ask."

Oh grow up...it`s an internet forum, not a bar.

[Cleopatra]

I'd appreciate an answer to my question.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I'd appreciate an answer to my question.

Dammit, you didn't. Now you can get mad at me again.

The whole point of the question is that Demon is asking about the question of whether Palestinians are accepted as equal citizens or given their own country. Sharon and friends want to give the Palestinians nothing but a few square miles of sand.

No point wasting several posts to get to the point that both of you know this question is about.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/30/1064819926495.html



Marwan Barghouti, the highest-ranking Palestinian on trial in Israel for terrorism, has defended the past three years of violent intifada by warning that if Israel failed to deliver independence to the Palestinians it would have to accept Arabs as equal citizens.

The former Palestinian leader, who has been tipped as a likely sucessor to Yasser Arafat, denied he supported the terror attacks on civilians for which he now faces multiple murder charges in Israel, but said that only people who fought Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza could aspire to Palestinian leadership.

Speaking in fluent Hebrew, Barghouti, 43, used the climax of his trial - during which he refused to mount a defence to the murder charges against him - to present a comprehensive Palestinian vision of what was wrong in the Middle East, and what the future held.

[Cleopatra]

Mad at you? No I am not getting mad at you. Can you stop referring to your replies to demon to my name?

Is it such a big deal to ask?

Please let me know about what you think on that.

[Cleopatra]

Also, don't lecture me on Barghoudi because you didn't know him when I first mentioned him in this forum.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, don't lecture me on Barghoudi because you didn't know him when I first mentioned him in this forum.

You're damm right I had never heard of him. I was hardly lecturing you about him. It just happened, by coincidence, that they had this article in my Bible today. It is a very good Bible, as it didn't suddenly stop 2,000 years ago.

[Cleopatra]

As I said to the PM I have just sent you, I cannot continue discussing with you in the public forums.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As I said to the PM I have just sent you, I cannot continue discussing with you in the public forums.
nooooooooooooooo:(

[Cleopatra]

Oh yes! Unique must choose with whom he will discuss about ME in the forum.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by LuxFerum

nooooooooooooooo:(

Where the hell did you appear from?

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Where the hell did you appear from?
It is a kind of magic. :D

[Cleopatra]

Hi Capel Dodger.

Have you observed how crazy people that can hardly point Middle East on the map can get when they try to post an opinion about this issue ? Strange isn't it?



Originally posted by CapelDodger
That's not really my position. My point is that Weizmann claimed that he had gained the Balfour Declaration in exchange for enlisting "World Jewry" to assist the British. It wasn't true - there is no "World Jewry", as I have mentioned often before - but to people looking for an excuse it was believable. What happened to the people of Salonika was one of the vile results of Hitler coming to power, nothing to do with the Salonikis (correct plural?). The fate of your friend's family, and of yours, was not in their hands but dictated by the machine that was set in motion.

I think that he claimed that after the War isn't this right?

I am glad that you aknowledge that there is not such a thing as " World Jewry", I hope that you understand why I find it ridiculous when people are talking about " The Jewish Establishment".

I do understand that the faith of Jews of Salonika wasn't in their hands and you can tell that the same stands for the post WWII period. I have mentioned this many times in response to your argument that they could have chosen not to go to Israel. I am not persuaded that they could have made such a choice.

They'd needed no help keeping the road to India open when the Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine; why would they feel they needed help when that Empire was to be replaced by weak Arab nations very much under British sway?

Because as you have pointed many times, nationalism never worked for the Arabs since they were divided in tribes that they were in constant wars with each other.

A Jewish nation could provide the stability that the Arab clans and tribes couldn't.

A combination of Christian Zionism, mild anti-semitism and a belief in the power of a Jewish Cabal which could (amongst other things) prevent the Germans from buying Ukrainian grain was what led to the Balfour Declaration.

So was Weitzmann right? For the record I think that it's more reasonable to believe that there is not only one reason that can justify the Balfour Declaration.

(I haven't got Balfour's, which must be excrutiatingly boring.)

How did you know that are you a psychic? :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


There was no prospect of US troops being sent into Palestine.

Obviously I didn't make myself clear to the opening post. I meant that the reason USA supports Israel that passionately since 1967 is because Israel during the 1967 war proved that it could play perfectly the role of the cop of the Middle East.

It's cheaper for USA to support Israel and have Israelis killing themselves in order to keep the Arabs busy than having American soldiers in the area because eventually, if Israel didn't exist, West would have to face serious problems in the area.


Russia's support is generally attributed to the problems Nationalist Zionism caused for Britain. Again, they didn't think it a big deal at the time.

I'd say that at the beginning Israel was considered a socialist state-- Stalin thought that he would have a socialist Israel planted in an area of strictly Anglosaxonic interests.

You know, Stalin thought that Jews were like the Greek Communists that betrayed their country to the vision of Communism, he hasn't realized how serious Jews were with their vision of having a national state of their own.

Now you can get furious for the comment above :)

There are a lot of popular and simplistic misconceptions about what happened in 1948-49 and often no conception at all about what happened before then. The idea, for instance, that the British troops were allowing random Arabs to wander around armed rather ignores the guerilla war the Arabs were fighting against the Brits - who were, true to type, fighting back. The Brits were also being attacked by the Hagganah and Irgun, and were glad to get out. Nationalist Zionism wasn't smuggling in the odd round, they had well-established armouries of the important weapons (small-arms, machine-guns and mortars) for the war they launched.

I have the same image slightly different though. I don't think that the Arabs of Palestine were fighting against the British.

The Arab Legion of Jordan never attacked across the Green Line - the line drawn by the UN partition resolution that Israel rejected - but defended Jerusalem against furious assaults. (Not East Jerusalem, the actual Jerusalem.

And yet Capel Dodger none accuses them of being traitors of the common Arabic cause...


"West Jerusalem" had nothing to do with Jerusalem, it was just a name that was given to an area of Zionist settlement to the west.)

This is true and very few people know that, even in Israel, you know.

The Syrian and Egyptian armies were indeed pretty inept, but given that each country had gained it's independence a year or two before its not terribly surprising. The Syrian army, for instance, comprised about 4000 trained and armed men who had some successes before they ran out of supplies, money and orders and went home. Many Egyptians grunts went into battle thinking they were on manoeuvres.

Hey hey Capel Dodger you decribe the whole situation as if the Arabs had to fight with a super power, this is not true. I think that Arabs didn't know how to play in team and they never really believed that a Jewish State would be established.

I will dare to say that the majority of them didn't care Capel Dodger. Arabs back then didn't see themselves as one nation, they didn't even aknowledged the existence of Palestinians among them.

The US administration doesn't even seem to notice the insults that are handed out to them so regularly. They're just too polite themselves to realise that people are making fun of them.

I couldn't agree more!!!!

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:
I'd say that at the beginning Israel was considered a socialist state-- Stalin thought that he would have a socialist Israel planted in an area of strictly Anglosaxonic interests.
It's remarkable how much support the US gives to a nation as socialist and statist as Israel still is. That socialism, of course, goes backs to the failed Russian Revolution of 1905 when so many Russian socialist Jewish (and non-Jewish) political refugees arrived in Palestine.
And yet Capel Dodger none accuses them of being traitors of the common Arabic cause...
Very droll :)
Hey hey Capel Dodger you decribe the whole situation as if the Arabs had to fight with a super power, this is not true. I think that Arabs didn't know how to play in team and they never really believed that a Jewish State would be established.
Superpower is a relative term, and in comparison to the Arabs "states" Israel was at least the major power (as evidenced by the result). The Syrians had some success before they ran out of money, supplies and orders and went home. The Iraqis held their lines for a while and then went home. The Egyptians were woeful, but I have a suspicion the Brits had deliberately trained their officers to behave in a bizarre fashion. There was no actual co-operation, and never has been. Quite possibly never will be.

(The quote in your sig is not original to me, by the way. Damned if I know where it came from, but I think it's used in Frank Herbert's Dune Messiah )

[Cleopatra]

(The quote in your sig is not original to me, by the way. Damned if I know where it came from, but I think it's used in Frank Herbert's Dune Messiah )

This is a Maniot proverb Capel Dodger.I am deadly serious now. I just quoted your English translation.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by renata


:D :D

Such a tirade over such a small sentence!


Small sentiences

We the People...
Thou shalt...
It was the best of times it was the worst of times...
In the beginning....
I propose....
The authors are of no absolute consequence as the ideas are the real meat of the issue.

A simple word can change the world....

[CapelDodger]

Small sentences:

But I thought ..
They said ...
Is that a ...?

[Dilettante]

(Cleopatra)
It's cheaper for USA to support Israel and have Israelis killing themselves in order to keep the Arabs busy than having American soldiers in the area because eventually, if Israel didn't exist, West would have to face serious problems in the area.

Doesn't this conversation feel a little bit dated by now?

Our guys aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Obviously I didn't make myself clear to the opening post. I meant that the reason USA supports Israel that passionately since 1967 is because Israel during the 1967 war proved that it could play perfectly the role of the cop of the Middle East.

It's cheaper for USA to support Israel and have Israelis killing themselves in order to keep the Arabs busy than having American soldiers in the area because eventually, if Israel didn't exist, West would have to face serious problems in the area.


Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with this, somewhat. I don't think that's all there is to the relationship, though. I think most Americans (US) feel a compassion towards Israel that they don't feel towards the Arab states. At an emotional gut level, not just a "doing business" level.

You might think from this board that there is a majority of Americans sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and we just support Israel because we need her to be a cop for us. I don't think that this board represents an accurate cross section of American views at all.

As for why the US government supports Israel, yes, I believe that this has a lot to do with it, as well as the government's commitment to upholding the UN's decision to create Israel. Sometimes I think that our government goes as far as to support Israel's actions at times they should be chastising Israel for it's actions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Dilettante


Doesn't this conversation feel a little bit dated by now?

Our guys aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon.

Well, if Israel wasn't established your guys would be in Middle East since the middle 60ies...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with this, somewhat. I don't think that's all there is to the relationship, though. I think most Americans (US) feel a compassion towards Israel that they don't feel towards the Arab states. At an emotional gut level, not just a "doing business" level.

You might think from this board that there is a majority of Americans sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and we just support Israel because we need her to be a cop for us. I don't think that this board represents an accurate cross section of American views at all.

As for why the US government supports Israel, yes, I believe that this has a lot to do with it, as well as the government's commitment to upholding the UN's decision to create Israel. Sometimes I think that our government goes as far as to support Israel's actions at times they should be chastising Israel for it's actions.

Let's hope that I will reply to this without causing any misunderstandings...

The American people is brain-washed to be sympathetic towards Israel I am afraid. However shocking this might sound I cannot pretend that this fact doesn't exist.

The American Jewish Diaspora has done an excellent job in putting the foundations of this small state. We are grateful, I think...

American Jews have been carrying Israel on their backs for decades now. Zionists and ultra-orthodox religious groups have a good distraction for their audience and the American Administrations have found a good and cheap way to do business in the country and in the area the same time. Elections are coming, you know what I mean.

The whole structure doesn't work any more in my opinion. Israel was a solution for USA now it has turned into a problem and if this is not obvious now wait for a couple of years to see how bad things will turn for the Israelis and the Jews of the States because I am afraid that at the end, they will have to pay for everything.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Let's hope that I will reply to this without causing any misunderstandings...

The American people is brain-washed to be sympathetic towards Israel I am afraid. However shocking this might sound I cannot pretend that this fact doesn't exist.

I don’t know where you get this idea. Honestly, the American public really doesn’t notice world events at all except in a very egocentric way. The majority of us, say 90% have no opinion at all. The remainder are either American Jews, who are generally supportive of Israel but have mixed opinions on specific issues, or fundamentalist Christians who support Israel 100% because they expect Israel to fulfill some role in Christian prophesy.

We’re not brainwashed. We’re ignorant and apathetic.

Originally posted by Cleopatra American Jews have been carrying Israel on their backs for decades now. Zionists and ultra-orthodox religious groups have a good distraction for their audience and the American Administrations have found a good and cheap way to do business in the country and in the area the same time. Elections are coming, you know what I mean.

The whole structure doesn't work any more in my opinion. Israel was a solution for USA now it has turned into a problem and if this is not obvious now wait for a couple of years to see how bad things will turn for the Israelis and the Jews of the States because I am afraid that at the end, they will have to pay for everything.

You’ve been paying too much attention to the conspiracy theorists.;)

[Cleopatra]

Mycroft, of course I will reply to you but can you have a look at this thread and tell me what do you think about my post? (http://http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870118251)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mycroft, of course I will reply to you but can you have a look at this thread and tell me what do you think about http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870118251 (http:// my post?

The link isn’t working, but I assume it’s to the post that started this thread?

The US vetoed the resolution not because it supports Israel targeting Arafat personally (it doesn’t, and has made that opinion known) but because the UN has a long history of anti-Israeli bias. The UN is constantly criticizing Israel while turning a blind eye to the actions of the PA and other nations in the region.

US Ambassador to the UN John Negroponte said the resolution was "flawed" because it did not include a "robust condemnation of acts of terrorism" by Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

[Cleopatra]

Apologies!

I was having in mind this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870118363#post1870118363)

[Mycroft]

Oops, I see that my assumption was wrong. I'll have a look at the other thread and reply when I have more time.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I have been wondering. Who could effectively speak on behalf of the Arabs in the States. Who could protect them?

Yes, you read my mind: The Jewish Diaspora of the States has the obligation and the moral authority to speak for those people and to fight against any abuse of human rights and constitutional freedoms.

Am I daydreaming? Well, these are my dreams, I have the right to dream.


My opinion? I wonder that you're not a practicing Jew. Why not? You've got that Jewish sense of ethics down pat, you might as well embrace the religion too.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Let's hope that I will reply to this without causing any misunderstandings...

The American people is brain-washed to be sympathetic towards Israel I am afraid. However shocking this might sound I cannot pretend that this fact doesn't exist.

The American Jewish Diaspora has done an excellent job in putting the foundations of this small state. We are grateful, I think...

American Jews have been carrying Israel on their backs for decades now. Zionists and ultra-orthodox religious groups have a good distraction for their audience and the American Administrations have found a good and cheap way to do business in the country and in the area the same time. Elections are coming, you know what I mean.

The whole structure doesn't work any more in my opinion. Israel was a solution for USA now it has turned into a problem and if this is not obvious now wait for a couple of years to see how bad things will turn for the Israelis and the Jews of the States because I am afraid that at the end, they will have to pay for everything.

I will admit to being a bit brainwashed towards Israel. Like I said there is a gut reaction.

Every time there is a mid-east crisis, the Americans are accused of not being tolerant enough towards Arabs and not understanding them. I think that is a two edged sword. The Arab nations have done just about everything they could to alienate themselves from the US.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft


My opinion? I wonder that you're not a practicing Jew. Why not? You've got that Jewish sense of ethics down pat, you might as well embrace the religion too.

But she hasn't got that sense of religious hypocrisy.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mycroft


My opinion? I wonder that you're not a practicing Jew. Why not? You've got that Jewish sense of ethics down pat, you might as well embrace the religion too.

I was baptised Orthodox Christian when my parents decided to move from Israel to Greece. 99,9% of the Greek population is Christian Orthodox and the presence of Church in every day life in Greece is very strong.

Greece is an Orthodox State the same way Israel is a Jewish state. I have mentioned that my father being an atheist and married to an Israeli Jew didn't favor discussions about religion at home. We even avoided celebrating Christmas...

Teenagers usually do the opposite of their parents will so at 13 I started going to the church school. My father didn't prevent me he just made clear that if he ever heard me making the smart to my mother I'd have to leave the house and I knew that he was serious about it.

I am a religious person, I guess that this has to do with the nature of my character but for reasons I have mentioned numerous times in this board I do not practice my religion any more.

Embracing another religion is pointless and I do not wish to.

I love Israel and I do not need to prove it by embracing Judaism. It's my country I do have a home, relatives and friends in Jerusalem.

After all, when some Jews were enjoying their martinis in the Oak Room of Plaza Hotel in NYC analyzing the situation in Middle east ( Alas! The Oak Room is a victim of financial crisis, it doesn't exist anymore) I was serving the Israeli Army.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I love Israel and I do not need to prove it by embracing Judaism. It's my country I do have a home, relatives and friends in Jerusalem.


My comment was meant as a compliment on your sense of morality, perhaps I could have phrased it better. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you needed to prove anything.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But she hasn't got that sense of religious hypocrisy.

It's better to hold high standards and fall short than to hold no standards at all, even if you risk being called hypocrite by someone who doesn't even try.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Mycroft


It's better to hold high standards and fall short than to hold no standards at all, even if you risk being called hypocrite by someone who doesn't even try.
Comments on Judaism as a religion would be better off in the R&P forum.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by hammegk
Should I take E.J. off my ignore list? That's a whole lotta postin' anyways.
If you do you might be asked to justify your claims.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by JamesM
If your implication is that I only complain about the attitude of anti-Israeli posters, that is untrue
No. My statement stands by itself.Rest assured, I'm perfectly at ease with my pomposity. And so say all of us.If I choose not to indulge your demands for an explanation of exactly in what way your spluttering outrage constitutes a tirade, it may be because it would be tiresome in the extreme - a common motif when it comes to your contributions, unfortunately. If you don't want to jusrify your claims that is entirely up to you. It may be taken into consideration when assessing whether to believe you or not. You seem to be too tired to read posts. Perhaps you will let us know the limit on the length of post you can sustain interest in? Just asking.You may choose to continue to interpret this as evidence for the unassailable rightness of your opinions, rather than evidence of your unbearably smug self-regard. For someone who sees fit to compare himself with James Randi, it would be best to consider all the non-supernatural options No. I continue to interpret this as evidence that you are not prepared to back up your assertions with evidence.

You will also now have to provide evidence for you false claim that I compare myself to James Randi if you want to be taken seriously unless, like the rest of your posts you see no reason to provide evidence of your claims.

I notice that once again you decline to engage in the subject of the thread. Despite your snide and baseless implications to the contrary, I agree with you. Once again, I can only say that it's not the content of your posts I have any problem with. I think you make some serious and thought-provoking points. But egads, are you insufferable with it. I don't propose to spend any more time on the subject of your partonising finger-wagging, so please have the last word. My observations have simply been prompted by your own. If I am insufferable, I invite you not to suffer me. Thank you for inviting me to have the last word.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
Is E.J in your ignore list? I am shocked, I thought that you were as pervert as me in certain things

I guess it's official now. I won't expect her to answer any questions.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Mycroft
...yet I am equally pained at the idea of letting such spew go unanswered.

And which particular part is spew? Asking you to justify your own claims perhaps? Cleopatra won't. I wonder why.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
I only made a suggestion. My grandmother used to say that it's better to avoid debating idiots because in order to do that you must go down to their level, in that level that will be inferior to yours, you have no chance to win.

Another false claim I notice. Cleopatra clearly considers that mere assertion is sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of her claims and that ad hominem attacks are easy but do nothing to advance the accuracy of her claims.

Perhaps this is not something Cleopatra understands but when she makes a claim she have to stand by it. Like Jedi Knight she refuses to stand by her claims. I hope that one day she will learn why it is necessary to do so.

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Cleopatra
I'd appreciate an answer to my question.

Cleopatra clearly feels that it is appropriate for her to ask questions but for some reason sees no requirement to reciprocate. Just like Jedi Knight.

Interestingly she has tried to stifle discussion by other people. Maybe there is an underlying reason for this?

[CapelDodger]

from E J Armstrong re Cleopatra:
... she refuses to stand by her claims
I've never found a problem in engaging with Cleopatra, and we hold diametrically opposite views on most things. Perhaps it's the approach some people take. Brevity, keeping to a point and absence of mutual personality deconstruction may be good, not regurgitating screeds of stuff we all know may also help. Sometimes it's like being in a roomful of teenagers.

Ahhh ...

More to the point: Israel understands the US, the US doesn't understand Israel. Outcome: probably not good for either.

[Cleopatra]

I've never found a problem in engaging with Cleopatra, and we hold diametrically opposite views on most things.

This is because I respect your age Capel Dodger ...I never argue with teenagers... :c1:

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by CapelDodgerI've never found a problem in engaging with Cleopatra, and we hold diametrically opposite views on most things. Perhaps it's the approach some people take. Brevity, keeping to a point and absence of mutual personality deconstruction may be good, not regurgitating screeds of stuff we all know may also help. Sometimes it's like being in a roomful of teenagers.
I'm glad that you have had no problem with Cleopatra. Unfortunately in this thread she has tried to stiffle debate on a thread she started. She has made claims and refused to justify them, she has resorted to peronal abuse, again without justification and requests answers without supplying them herself. I wonder why?

Perhaps that is short enough for you?

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Demon
Oh grow up...it`s an internet forum, not a bar.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Have you noticed how prone she tries to stifle debate and how she declines to answer simple questions about her own claims? Interesting behaviour on a sceptic's forum.