Jews Were The Original Middle East Terrorists

[Marc39]

I'm not denying that, but claiming that Jews are completely clean in this neverending conflict seems simplistic. This is what Marc seems to claim.

This doesn't apply to you, however, injecting a modicum of balance and a factual defense of Israel against the usual onslaught of defamation of Israel by those with educational deficiencies, psychological imbalances and an unfamiliarity with the subject matter may appear to suggest Israel is "completely clean" however, when you're under constant threat of attack by adversaries who murder each other and are eager to see their own children die in shahid, Israel is compelled to take draconian measures in order to survive.

[Skeptic]

I agree with that although, to be perfectly honest, one must mention that the Palestinian refugees are very numerous and so giving them all a passport would often cause considerable demographic shift in the country's population. An attempt to do that is what precipitated the Lebanese civil war, after all.

That doesn't have to be the only solution. There could be, if nothing else, permanent residency which allows them to work and get on with their lives without letting them control the election. Or there could be some sort of internal autonomy.

This is off the top of my head -- I am not giving these as actual workable solutions that would be fair -- but whatever the solution would be total citizenship or some sort of autonomy or permanent residency or anything like that, ANY one of such solutions would be miles away from reality: deliberately keeping them as homeless, right-less, oppressed refugees by their Arab "brothers", just so that Israel could be blamed.

[Marc39]

Not really.
First of all; Israel has more population that Jordan or Lebanon which are two of the countries were refugees are the most numerous.

Jordan is around 35,000 square miles in size to Israel's 8,000 square miles.

Seems that Jordan is a far more spacious and accommodating place for Pals to live.

Plus, Queen Rania is a little hottie.

[Thunder]

Jews in Israel want to live in peace.
Muslims don't want them to.

No shades of gray.

That's funny. My friend Wassim, an Israeli-Arab, thinks Israel is okee dokee.

[Thunder]

Jordan is around 35,000 square miles in size to Israel's 8,000 square miles.

Seems that Jordan is a far more spacious and accommodating place for Pals to live.


New York State has 55,000 sq. miles. Maybe all the Israeli-Jews can go there. The weather is a lot more temperate and the people more friendly.

[Marc39]

So Arabs are evil and Jews are good, 'that it ?



Who has been attacking whom?

Whose bible devotes half of its text to condemning the Jews?

Who trains their children to become jihadists and murder Jews and, in so doing, kill themselves?

Who has a historical connection with the Nazis?

Therein is your answer.

[Marc39]

Arafat died of AIDS. That's why his medical treatment was so shrouded in secrecy.


Sounds like an argument from ignorance, to me.

Sounds like you don't know, so, why argue the point?

[Thunder]

Who has been attacking whom?

Whose bible devotes half of its text to condemning the Jews?

Who trains their children to become jihadists and murder Jews and, in so doing, kill themselves?

Who has a historical connection with the Nazis?


Half of the Koran is devoted to condemning Jews? Wow...you clearly never read the Koran.

Jews also have a connection with the Nazis. The Zionists made the Transfer Agreement with the Nazis in the 1930s. Plus up to 100,000 half-Jews and quarter-Jew fought for the Nazis during WW2.

FAIL

[Belz...]

I tend to agree with you about Marc, but the point is that the both sides are imperfect hardly means both are equally guilty.

I think we all agree to that.

[Belz...]

This doesn't apply to you, however, injecting a modicum of balance and a factual defense of Israel against the usual onslaught of defamation of Israel by those with educational deficiencies, psychological imbalances and an unfamiliarity with the subject matter may appear to suggest Israel is "completely clean" however, when you're under constant threat of attack by adversaries who murder each other and are eager to see their own children die in shahid, Israel is compelled to take draconian measures in order to survive.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that all of their actions are justified.

Also, I dislike that you label your adversaries in this debate as having psychological problems. It suggests to me that you might be too emotionally attached to the subject at hand.

[Simon39759]

Point taken. At the same time, Islamic law has offered Jews only two concrete options...

Convert to Islam
Submit to second-class status in dhimmitude

Hence, Muslim intolerance today of the existence of an independent Jewish state of Israel, contemptuously referred to as "the Zionist entity"

Yes... Because one thousand years of cohabitation spanning three continents can be summarized in one sentence... :rolleyes:



I tend to agree with you about Marc, but the point is that the both sides are imperfect hardly means both are equally guilty.

Well, first of all the 'two-sides' bit is not all that accurate. The average Palestinian is not ineluctably allied to the Hamas or to the powers controlling it. The 'Palestinian side' actually is a smattering of groups with varied agendas.
The Hamas and the Fatah have been militarily fighting each others since 2006...

On the other hand, I don't see people arguing that Israel is just as bad as the Hamas of the Hezbollah. I know that I mentioned several times that Israel is a democracy that respects of human rights and that the Arab Israelis are still quite well treated.
Despite that, let's be honest and not pretend that discrimination is not well-spread.

[Belz...]

Who has been attacking whom?

Whose bible devotes half of its text to condemning the Jews?

Who trains their children to become jihadists and murder Jews and, in so doing, kill themselves?

Who has a historical connection with the Nazis?

Therein is your answer.

No, it really isn't. Questions are not answers and are not evidence.

"Good" and "evil" are rarely simple matters to determine, and I tend to be skeptical of people who claim that it really is easy.

[Belz...]

Sounds like you don't know, so, why argue the point?

Who's arguing ? You said he died of AIDS but offered no evidence. Perhaps he did, but I'd like to judge from more than your personal opinion on the matter.

[Marc39]

Who's arguing ? You said he died of AIDS but offered no evidence. Perhaps he did, but I'd like to judge from more than your personal opinion on the matter.

Not my personal opinion. Arafat's proclivities were well known.

[Skeptic]

Simon:

Arabs in Israel today are somewhat like Blacks in the USA in the 1970s. There was, and is, racism against them -- yes. Legal restrictions, 2nd class citizenship, "dhimmitude" -- no. What's more, there had been a huge improvement in their situation (economic, educational, social standings, etc., etc.) in the last decade or two -- much like with Blacks between 1950 and 1970.

So, nobody is denying there is discrimination. Nobody would deny there was discrimination against Blacks in the 1970s in the USA. But to claim their situation is that of "dhimmitude" is the equivalent of saying that Blacks in the 1970s USA and in 1950s South Africa were in the same situation.

[Simon39759]

Well; I guess it depends of your definition of "dhimmitude". The use of this word in this thread have make it a overwhelming negative term, but, in reality, the chief notion of the concept of Dhimmi, has the word itself implies, was to insure the protection of the Jews and Christians under Muslim rules.
The Dhimmis still did not have as much right as the muslims, but, giving them the name Dhimmi did come with additional rights.

That's not to say that Muslim governments always respected that law, but the basic premise is unequivocally one of protection and religious tolerance.


But, as far as I know, you are right and the discrimination the Arab minority suffers is informal.

[Marc39]

Well; I guess it depends of your definition of "dhimmitude". The use of this word in this thread have make it a overwhelming negative term, but, in reality, the chief notion of the concept of Dhimmi, has the word itself implies, was to insure the protection of the Jews and Christians under Muslim rules.
The Dhimmis still did not have as much right as the muslims, but, giving them the name Dhimmi did come with additional rights.

That's not to say that Muslim governments always respected that law, but the basic premise is unequivocally one of protection and religious tolerance.


But, as far as I know, you are right and the discrimination the Arab minority suffers is informal.


Egyptian scholar Bat Ye'or, an authority on dhimmitude who first coined the term dhimmitude, provides an insightful view of the realities of the repressive condition of dhimmis in her book, "The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam"...

These examples are intended to indicate the general character of a system of oppression, sanctioned by contempt and justified by the principle of inequality between Muslims and dhimmis...Singled out as objects of hatred and contempt by visible signs of discrimination, they were progressively decimated during periods of massacres, forced conversions, and banishments. Sometimes it was the prosperity they had achieved through their labor or ability that aroused jealousy; oppressed and stripped of all their goods, the dhimmi often emigrated.

…in many places and at many periods throughout the nineteenth century, observers have described the wearing of discriminatory clothing, the rejection of dhimmi testimony, the prohibitions concerning places of worship and the riding of animals, as well as fiscal charges- particularly the protection charges levied by nomad chiefs- and the payment of the jizya…Not only was the dhimma imposed almost continuously, for one finds it being applied in the nineteenth century Ottoman Empire…and in Persia, the Maghreb, and Yemen in the early twentieth century, but other additional abuses, not written into the laws, became absorbed into custom, such as the devshirme, the degrading corvees (as hangmen or gravediggers), the abduction of Jewish orphans (Yemen), the compulsory removal of footware (Morocco, Yemen), and other humiliations…The recording in multiple sources of eye-witness accounts, concerning unvarying regulations affecting the Peoples of the Book, perpetuated over the centuries from one end of the dar al-Islam to the other…proves sufficiently their entrenchment in customs.

[Jontg]

Bigjelmapro, in another time, I would have liked to get to know you better. I'm actually a student of military history myself, and while I focus mostly on the 19th and 20th centuries, I always enjoy talking with people who've actually used the latest hardware. I think you know, despite your insults, that I'm not a Nazi or an anti-Semite just because I disagree with Israel's claim to the moral high ground; it's your religion and your politics that offend me, not your ethnicity. If there were European Christians occupying Jerusalem and environs, acting like you are and doing what you do to a Jewish or Muslim population, I'd have exactly the same feelings on the matter.
War doesn't solve problems; it removes things from existence. When you attack another power, your goal should never be to simply repel invaders, or retaliate in equal measure to an earlier attack--when you do that, you leave the enemy even angrier than before and with nothing preventing him from seeking what he thinks is perfectly justified revenge later. America and most of Europe learned that in the first World War; if you can't or won't completely destroy your opponent's ability to fight for long enough that he'll be unlikely to retaliate by the time he regains the ability, you should try something other than fighting. Neither you nor your enemies seem to understand that, and so you continue to take bloody and righteous vengeance for each other's treacherous and utterly unprovoked attacks.
But both of you lack either the ability or the desire to completely disable your opponents by military force--that means your only real option is to talk. But neither of you have leaders sane enough to seriously do that unless a bigger, meaner nation forces you to.
ETA: And btw, you know what the last thing I did on Youtube was? Shouting down a David Icke supporter while hugging a weeping German soldier in the comments page of a clip from Schindler's List.

[Marc39]

War doesn't solve problems; it removes things from existence. When you attack another power, your goal should never be to simply repel invaders, or retaliate in equal measure to an earlier attack--when you do that, you leave the enemy even angrier than before and with nothing preventing him from seeking what he thinks is perfectly justified revenge later.

History edifies differently. Only by completely decimating the enemy can peace be attained with that enemy. The Allies' decisive victory in World War II eventuated in dplomatic relations with Germany and Japan.

Had Germany been leveled in World War I, Germans never would have elected Hitler into power.

Muslim anger against Jews is ideological, based on Quranic doctrine and Islamic law that negates the right of Jewish self-determination.

I suggest reading Yassid Qutb's anti-Semitic tract, "Our Struggle With The Jews," written in 1952, just a few years after Israeli statehood.

Qutb is the ideological godfather of Islamic fundamentalism and provides important insights into the root causes of Muslim belligerence toward Jews and Israel. It has less linkage with war or land and a more direct connection with Jewish independence.

The mere existence of a sovereign Jewish state among the Islamic ummah is antithetical to Muslim doctrine.

[Simon39759]

Egyptian scholar Bat Ye'or, an authority on dhimmitude who first coined the term dhimmitude, provides an insightful view of the realities of the repressive condition of dhimmis in her book, "The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam"...

She is not Egyptian you know? Considering that she left the country at the age of 22 and have been living in Europe for 50 years.
The term 'scholar' is also a bit misleading, it would implies that she is an academic. She is not, she is a freelance journalist, and hence, there is no academic quality control...

She has her views. In my opinion, these are over-simplistic. Certainly, they are not prevalent scholarly view on the subject.

[Marc39]

She is not Egyptian you know?

I know Bat Ye'or was born in Cairo, Egypt.

Considering that she left the country at the age of 22 and have been living in Europe for 50 years.

Which means nothing.

The term 'scholar' is also a bit misleading, it would implies that she is an academic.

She is not, she is a freelance journalist, and hence, there is no academic quality control...

She has her views. In my opinion, these are over-simplistic. Certainly, they are not prevalent scholarly view on the subject.

Historical scholarship, such as that of Bat Ye'or, consists of applying techniques and adhering to guidelines of using primary sources and other evidence to research and then to write history.

Bat Ye'or has met these criteria.

Bernard Lewis, Middle East historian and Islamic scholar, references Bat Ye'or in his book, "Jews of Islam"

The eminent historian Sir Martin Gilbert has endorsed Bat Ye'or's scholarship in remarking about her book on Jewish and Christian dhimmis under Islam...

Most of those who went elsewhere did so as ‘stateless refugees, among them Gisele Orebi (later Gisele Litrman), who was to become the acknowledged expert on the plight of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands, and their vigorous champion: her book The Dhimrni. Jews and Christians under Islam, written under the pen name Bat Ye’or, brought the issue of continuing discrimination to a wide public.

[Simon39759]

Bernard Lewis, Middle East historian and Islamic scholar, references Bat Ye'or in his book, "Jews of Islam"


And many others have criticized it.
For example, Joel Beinin; that you quoted in this thread; described it as 'neo-lacrymose', that wasn't meant as a compliment.

[Marc39]

But, yes, considering that the refugees come from Israeli territory...

The vast majority of refugees of the '48 War are deceased.

Descendants of refugees are not refugees.

Refugee status is inherently a temporary condition until resettlement is realized.

Perpetual, intergenerational Palestinian refugee status, which is unique, is fostered on the basis of continued welfare and UNRWA employent.

... and fled the Israeli army...

And, Palestinians fled as a consequence of the wars against Jews Palestinians initiated.

And, Palestinians fled as a result of Arab leaders imploring them to do so to allow Arab forces to annihilate Jews.

Had Arab aggression against Jews not materialized in 1947 and 1948, there would have been no Arab refugees.

...the idea of letting them return does make perfect sense.

It makes no sense whatsoever, for reasons stated. There is no legal or moral basis of right of return that applies to Israel and Palestinians.

Indeed, no large mass of people has ever been granted any right of return in the history of the world.

I was only pointing out that, while welcoming them back is not realistic for Israel, the alternative 'the surrounding nations just have to give them nationality' is also very simplistic and maybe not doable either.
Eh... I never said that it was a simple and easy situation... Quite the contrary, in fact.

Many of the 900,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries in 1948 resettled in Israel.

Arabs and Muslims should show some love to their Palestinian brethren after over half a century of apathy.

[Marc39]

And many others have criticized it.
For example, Joel Beinin; that you quoted in this thread; described it as 'neo-lacrymose', that wasn't meant as a compliment.

Endorsements from Bernard Lewis and Sir Martin Gilbert, two of the most eminent historians of their time, of Bat Ye'or's work help establish her credibility.

Pick your poison.

[Marc39]

Persecution in ultra religious Spain was far worse.

Doh.

I would agree.

Anyone suggesting the Spanish Golden Age conferred any benefits to the Jewish population is mistaken.

The Golden Age reflected a highpoint in culture, in literature, art, architecture, etc, not in the condition of Jewish life, which was terrible.

[jakesteele]

What's there to downplay? The King David Hotel was a headquarters of British military and mandate offices and clearly a military target, plus the Israelis issued a timely warning to the Hotel. It was an act of sabotage and resistance, not terrorism, by any standard. Comparing that to Lockerbie is disgusting.

Killing occupying military and police is not an act of terrorism. It never was.

McHrozni

You're bantering semantics.

Here's a quick primer course on Zionist terrorism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

[Simon39759]

The vast majority of refugees of the '48 War are deceased.

Descendants of refugees are not refugees.

Refugee status is inherently a temporary condition until resettlement is realized.

Perpetual, intergenerational Palestinian refugee status, which is unique, is fostered on the basis of continued welfare and UNRWA employent.

But this resettlement never occurred, so they still are refugees.




And, Palestinians fled as a consequence of the wars against Jews Palestinians initiated.

No; that simplistic to the point of untruth. The violences were a slow escalation of violence from both sides. Hence, there was no clear beginning for these violence and hence, not a clear initiator for them.
You can't blame the Palestinian for the actions that the surrounding nations either. It's not as if a legitimate Palestinian government asked them to enter the war on their behalf; there was no such thing as a legitimate Palestinian government.


And, Palestinians fled as a result of Arab leaders imploring them to do so to allow Arab forces to annihilate Jews.

Yeah. That's BS too.
The reason why the refugees left their town was a) to flee the violences (real and rumored)
b) Because some Israeli army leaders did practice a politic of uprooting the population and razing the villages.



It makes no sense whatsoever, for reasons stated. There is no legal or moral basis of right of return that applies to Israel and Palestinians.

Indeed, no large mass of people has ever been granted any right of return in the history of the world.

Hum?
What about ISRAEL ITSELF!
You know, the 'Law of freaking return'!


But, let make another silly comparison:
After days of progressively more heated arguments, Bill hears a rumour that his neighbour Bob is heading this way to kill him; Bill flees his house.
The house being vacant; Bob claims it as his own to complement his own (that's the part of the metaphor about the 'Absentee' lands) and refuse Bill's right to come back.
Bill settles at his aunt's place. She gives him her old dog-house, 'cause she is not that nice. Also, she doesn't care for Bill, she just like Bob even less for some reason.
Does that means that Bob's get to keep the house? After all, Bill is now leaving at his aunt's. Isn't he his aunt's problem now?
Bill dies in exile, of pneumonia, I'd assume.
Does that mean that his son, Bill junior, has also lost his rights on the house? Wouldn't the fact that Bill junior is leaving in a freaking be another consideration for Bob to make an effort?


Now, there are practical reasons why the return of too many of the refugees is not realistic.
But to pretend that there is 'no legal or moral basis for their return' just is a freaking selective reading of both history and moral.




Arabs and Muslims should show some love to their Palestinian brethren after over half a century of apathy.

Amen to that, although, as mentioned, the technical difficulties to do so are not necessarily less significant that they would be for Israel.

[Skeptic]

Well; I guess it depends of your definition of "dhimmitude". The use of this word in this thread have make it a overwhelming negative term, but, in reality, the chief notion of the concept of Dhimmi, has the word itself implies, was to insure the protection of the Jews and Christians under Muslim rules.

Yes -- protection from violence by Muslims. The same Muslims who were "generous" enough to create the concept of the "Dhimmi".

Dhimmitude is extortion by threats: it you keep your head down, Jew, pay extra taxes, and wear demeaning clothes, we might not kill you.

[Marc39]

But this resettlement never occurred, so they still are refugees.

Incorrect.

Resettlement has occurred throughout the Middle East, in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, the West Bank, Kuwait, Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the US and elsewhere in the world.

Demographic surveys have verified that nearly 100% of Palestinians are second, third and fourth generation removed from the original refugees.

Descendants are not refugees.

No; that simplistic to the point of untruth. The violences were a slow escalation of violence from both sides.

Historically counterfactual.

Arab resistance to Jewish immigrants in Palestine surfaced almost immediate to their arrival in the late 19th century and escalated into violence in 1920 with Jewish massacres that culminated in the Hebron Massacre of 1929.

Indeed, those Jewish immigrants arrived as pacifists unarmed and with no military.

Arab aggression against the Jewish community in Palestine further escalated over the years and reached a climax with Palestinian guerilla attacks in the civil war that was launched the day after UN Res. 181 had been issued in late Nov of 1947.

60 Jews were murdered within the first week of the Arab-initiated civil war.
1200 Jews were murdered until the full-fledged Arab war against Israel was launched in 1948.

The Arab League issued a declaration of war.

Hence, there was no clear beginning for these violence and hence, not a clear initiator for them.

Absolutely, there was a clear beginning of Arab violence against Jews, as I just outlined.

I recommend historian Benny Morris's definitive book on the '48 War and events leading up to it, entitled, "1948"

In it, Morris unequivocally assigns blame to Arabs for the conflicts and the ensuing refugee situation.

You can't blame the Palestinian for the actions that the surrounding nations either. It's not as if a legitimate Palestinian government asked them to enter the war on their behalf; there was no such thing as a legitimate Palestinian government.

The Palestinian civil war against the Jewish community led to the '48 War.
Palestinian rejection of UN Res. 181 according them statehood resulted in their "statelessness"

The Palestinians are adults and accountable for their actions, which have proven catastrophic to them.

The reason why the refugees left their town was a) to flee the violences (real and rumored)
b) Because some Israeli army leaders did practice a politic of uprooting the population and razing the villages.

The "violences" (sic) were initiated and continued by the Palestinians.
Had they not done so, no uprooting would have occurred.

350,000 Iraqis were uprooted in Falujah.

Population displacement is an inevitable consequence of war.

What about ISRAEL ITSELF!
You know, the 'Law of freaking return'!

There is no "law of return" pertaining to Arabs and Israel.

But to pretend that there is 'no legal or moral basis for their return' just is a freaking selective reading of both history and moral.

There is no law forcing Israel to extend citizenship to even one Arab, let alone millions of Arabs, particularly belligerent Arabs.

The issue of right of return of Arabs to Israel is a non-issue.

[Simon39759]

And the Jews were dispensed from serving in the local armies. And they were guaranteed freedom of Religion and to own businesses and to serve in official governments, sometime in high ranking positions.

As a rule, the status of the Dhimmi were pretty good compared to that of other Religious minorities at the time. It was accorded as a special favour toward other members of the Abrahamic religions. That these favour seem small and inconsequential to our eyes, used as we are to Religious freedoms and equality, does not mean that, in the context of the time, it was a bad thing.

And, once again, that does not mean that this basic concept was not twisted or betrayed many times during the many centuries it spanned.

[Marc39]

You're bantering semantics.

Here's a quick primer course on Zionist terrorism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

Not a very scholarly primer from Wikipedia, now, is it?

To contextualize historical events, Zionist "terrorism" was self-defensive countermeasures in direct consequence of Arab terrorism against Jews in Palestine combined with an adversarial British army that persevered in undermining the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which was inimical to the wishes of the World War I Allies and the League of Nations.

Even Jews have the inherent right of self-defense and other rights accorded them under international treaties for Jewish sovereignty.

[Skeptic]

As a rule, the status of the Dhimmi were pretty good compared to that of other Religious minorities at the time.

Yes.

But that's not saying much.

[Marc39]

And the Jews were dispensed from serving in the local armies. And they were guaranteed freedom of Religion and to own businesses and to serve in official governments, sometime in high ranking positions.

A feeble and rather pathetic attempt at putting a positive spin on repression, which is what dhimmitude amounts to.

As a rule, the status of the Dhimmi were pretty good compared to that of other Religious minorities at the time. It was accorded as a special favour toward other members of the Abrahamic religions. That these favour seem small and inconsequential to our eyes, used as we are to Religious freedoms and equality, does not mean that, in the context of the time, it was a bad thing.

Dhimmitude was and is a life of submission, subjugation and humiliation.

You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.

[McHrozni]

Not really.
First of all; Israel has more population that Jordan or Lebanon which are two of the countries were refugees are the most numerous.

Irrelevant. Israel is demanded to take in all refugees, whereas Jordan and Lebanon would only take a part each. Combined population of Jordan and Lebanon is greater than Israel. Part would also be taken by Egypt and Syria, further skewing the numbers.

Then; I never said that they were 'allowed' to ignore the plight of the Palestinians. I did point out, repetitively, the hypocrisy of these nations for doing so. The refugees' status is, as I said, but a political ploy by these countries to justify their politic toward Israel.

This would indicate you agreed with the second statement, and are retracting the "what if we just let them return" one. Is that correct?

McHrozni

[Jontg]

History edifies differently. Only by completely decimating the enemy can peace be attained with that enemy.
An insurgency can't be defeated with force like a proper nation can. The only way you'll ever defeat the Palestinians is by destroying their will to fight.
Study our wars--specifically, study the one we lost. Palestine isn't a democracy, so it's not as vulnerable to information warfare as we are, but even theocrats are somewhat mindful of popular opinion, and enough Arabs watch TV that it's a viable propaganda outlet. I'll leave it at that.

[Marc39]

An insurgency can't be defeated with force like a proper nation can.

Seems to have worked with Hamas and Hezbollah. Perhaps, not decisively, however, the IDF was constrained in their military operation.

The only way you'll ever defeat the Palestinians is by destroying their will to fight.

Fight for what?

Fight for democracy?

Fight for freedom?

Fight for human rights?

Fight for governmental transparency?

Nooo, Palestinians waste their lives, and train their children to die, fighting their pitiful fight against...Jews.

Where has it gotten them? Nowhere.

[McHrozni]

Fight for what?

Fight for democracy?

Fight for freedom?

Fight for human rights?

Fight for governmental transparency?

Nooo, Palestinians waste their lives, and train their children to die, fighting their pitiful fight against...Jews.

This is tragically true. The Palestinians aren't fighting for a goal, but against an enemy. As a consequence anything short of a total victory and expulsion of Jews from Israel is a defeat. This quite effectively prevents a lasting peace from being achived.

McHrozni

[Jontg]

In their minds, they're fighting for God--serving His will by wiping the Jew and his American servants from the face of the Earth. That, coupled with their perception of themselves as the underdog, makes them incredibly dangerous.

[Belz...]

Not my personal opinion. Arafat's proclivities were well known.

How does that prove that he had AIDS, much less died of it ?

[bigjelmapro]

I'm not denying that, but claiming that Jews are completely clean in this neverending conflict seems simplistic. This is what Marc seems to claim.
Where does he make this claim? Haven't seen this in any of his posts. But I'm sure you assume that since we're not playing the ever-redundant game of moral equivalence, that means to say that one side is truly 'clean'?

[bigjelmapro]

Jews also have a connection with the Nazis. The Zionists made the Transfer Agreement with the Nazis in the 1930s. Plus up to 100,000 half-Jews and quarter-Jew fought for the Nazis during WW2.

FAIL
You mean people like Rezso Kasztner who paid Nazis to save Jews from extermination? This is what you assume is a 'connection with the Nazis' is? You've hit a low.

That last sentence I don't really know what the intention is there. More of the usual deflections?

I've come to the conclusion, reading on the many posts of yours on this forum, is that if you had the option to physically cut the Jew out of yourself, you would. Beyond the concept of 'self-hating Jew'.

[Simon39759]

Yes.
But that's not saying much.

Well; that's saying that the Dhimmis were better of than people that did not receive that status; hence the status of Dhimmi was beneficial rather than detrimental.
You can argue that it was not nearly enough and was still unfair and it certainly was, by modern standards.




A feeble and rather pathetic attempt at putting a positive spin on repression, which is what dhimmitude amounts to.
Dhimmitude was and is a life of submission, subjugation and humiliation.

You can put lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig.


Dude; if you were not part of the tiny elite, life in the middle age was one of submission, subjugation and humiliation.



Irrelevant. Israel is demanded to take in all refugees, whereas Jordan and Lebanon would only take a part each. Combined population of Jordan and Lebanon is greater than Israel. Part would also be taken by Egypt and Syria, further skewing the numbers.

This would indicate you agreed with the second statement, and are retracting the "what if we just let them return" one. Is that correct?
McHrozni

Ok; I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Marc39]

Well; that's saying that the Dhimmis were better of than people that did not receive that status; hence the status of Dhimmi was beneficial rather than detrimental.

How about the concepts of democracy and human rights?

Doesn't seem to have caught on in the Arab and Muslim worlds after all these years.

How's their system working out, so far?

[Simon39759]

They are anachronistic when speaking about the Dhimmis? Considering that they were introduced during the colonization and, by that time, the responsibility of the government had been assumed by the colonizing powers.


And, indeed, the Muslim world seems to be trailing behind in adopting the concept. As is Africa, as still are large parts of Asia.
You seem to believe that Muslims are inherently violent, intolerant, fundamentalist despotic and barbarous.
I happen to disagree with this opinion and find it hateful.

[Jontg]

You're one to talk--Israel's government is getting more vicious and right-wing every year. Restricting free speech, cultivating a climate of hate and fear, casting yourselves as the beleaguered victims of the people you repress, even an actual, honest-to-god false flag attack... it's like there's something in the water over there that causes children to be born with no sense of historical irony. A hundred years from now, with both you and your enemy are an unpleasant memory, this war will form the backdrop of a darkly hilarious movie about a Mossad operative who wants to be an avant-garde playwright. It will be like Blackadder, with more yarmulkes. We may tap the disembodied brain of Mel Brooks to direct. And then will come the stage musical...

[Marc39]

They are anachronistic when speaking about the Dhimmis? Considering that they were introduced during the colonization and, by that time, the responsibility of the government had been assumed by the colonizing powers.

Dhimmis exist today. They're called Iraniain Jews.


You seem to believe that Muslims are inherently violent, intolerant, fundamentalist despotic and barbarous.
I happen to disagree with this opinion and find it hateful.

The Qur'an advocates global warfare/jihad against all non-believers/infidels.

What could be more "inherently violent and intolerant"? I know of nothing.

[Darth Rotor]

Then what the hell do you call dropping incendiary munitions on a civilian target? Even the IDF itself admitted it used white phosphorus--why do you continue to maintain the lie on their behalf?

Willy Peter is a spotting round. Its use is typically restricted to that. If it is used deliberately as an anti personnel round (your "civilian targets smoke screen is the usual rubbish) then the valid complaint can be made that it was not correctly used, and that use ought to be investigated and corrected (if possible) by establishing better guidance. In some cases a formal punishment is warranted. "Incendiary rounds" are not illegal. FAE's are not illegal. High explosives are not illegal. Willy Pete is not illegal.

Problem is, the battlefield is not a chess board, nor a video game, and the urban battlefield, which much of Gaza was, makes for a messy discrimination between "civilian" and "military" targets given that most of them are UNDER COVER/in a building.

I appreciate that careless use of Willy Pete is wrong. It is. Your assumptions on its deliberate use as an anti personnel munition, rather than its typical use as a spotting round for indirect or airborne fires, is typical of

The Ignorant.

While I am not convinced that the IAF has pristine hands in the Gaza case, I do not find most criticisms, including yours, to be informed enough by fact to be worth more than the desert dust in the hoof of a camel.

DR

[Marc39]

You're one to talk--Israel's government is getting more vicious and right-wing every year. Restricting free speech...

Untrue.

Israel extends freedom of speech and to protest to all citizens.

I was in Israel while Israeli Arabs were demonstrating, chanting, "Death To Israel"

What do you suppose would happen to anyone protesting in Saudi Arabia?

...cultivating a climate of hate and fear...

Like having Arabs in powerful positions in the Israeli government, judiciary and military, including an Arab judge in the Supreme Court?

How many Jews are in similarly influential positions in Arab and Muslim countries?

casting yourselves as the beleaguered victims of the people you repress...

I see Fatah and Hamas repressing their beleaguered victims in the West Bank and Gaza, and, I see Lebanon, Syria and Jordan repressing their beleaguered victims.

Israel, on the other hand, recognizes human rights for all Israelis.

Anyone with evidence of repression can petition the courts.

Anyone petitioning an Arab or Muslim country gets imprisoned or worse.

Got any other falsehoods and libels against Israel I can dispel?

[Jontg]

The Qur'an advocates global warfare/jihad against all non-believers/infidels.

What could be more "inherently violent and intolerant"? I know of nothing.

Numbers, Chapter 31:
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

[Marc39]

Numbers, Chapter 31:
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Got anything from the Old Testament advocating global warfare against anyone not converting to Judaism and stealing their "booty" as in the Qur'an?

[Jontg]

I appreciate that careless use of Willy Pete is wrong. It is. Your assumptions on its deliberate use as an anti personnel munition, rather than its typical use as a spotting round for indirect or airborne fires, is typical of

The Ignorant.
You deliberately used it on unarmed civilians--on a refugee camp--and tried to cover it up. It took American intervention to make you even admit you used it at all. Your lies and evasion sicken me.

[Jontg]

Got anything from the Old Testament advocating global warfare against anyone not converting to Judaism and stealing their "booty" as in the Qur'an?

Deuteronomy 17:
2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

[Simon39759]

Have you ever read the Bible?
It's full of hateful passages, the Qu'ran did not strike me as significantly more violent.

It's just that the Islamic violent extremists happen to be in power in many countries to use these violent passages.
But the book itself is not any worst than the Bible.

[Slayhamlet]

You deliberately used it on unarmed civilians--on a refugee camp--and tried to cover it up. It took American intervention to make you even admit you used it at all. Your lies and evasion sicken me.

Er, what? Who's "you"? Darth Rotor is American.

[Marc39]

Deuteronomy 17:
2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Proselytism is forbidden in Judaism.

There is nothing in the Old Testament calling for Jews to convert non-Jews as the Qur'an does with Muslims and non-Muslims.

[Marc39]

You deliberately used it on unarmed civilians--on a refugee camp--and tried to cover it up. It took American intervention to make you even admit you used it at all. Your lies and evasion sicken me.

You "deliberately" libeled the IDF by deliberately referencing hearsay.

You should deliberately learn that even Jews are deliberately innocent until deliberately proven otherwise.

[Jontg]

Er, what? Who's "you"? Darth Rotor is American.

Ahh, sorry about that.
Marc: No, you never bother with trying to convert, do you? You just unleash your Lord's most righteous fury on those whom He has delivered unto you, then deny you did anything wrong and label anything that contradicts your story as "hearsay." Because the Human Rights Watch is just packed with closeted Nazis. :rolleyes:

[Marc39]

Ahh, sorry about that.
Marc: No, you never bother with trying to convert, do you? You just unleash your Lord's most righteous fury on those whom He has delivered unto you, then deny you did anything wrong and label anything that contradicts your story as "hearsay." Because the Human Rights Watch is just packed with closeted Nazis. :rolleyes:

HRW's closeted Nazi is now out of the closet...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/middleeast/15nazi.html

You gave me this one on a silver platter.

[Jontg]

:notm

[Simon39759]

HRW's closeted Nazi is now out of the closet...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/world/middleeast/15nazi.html

You gave me this one on a silver platter.


What?
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that the problems HRW finds with Israel is because the organization is actually an anti-semitic front?
That's your argument?
Do you freaking know who founded the bloody HRW? Have you heard about Natan Sharansky?

[Marc39]

What?
Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that the problems HRW finds with Israel is because the organization is actually an anti-semitic front?
That's your argument?
Do you freaking know who founded the bloody HRW? Have you heard about Natan Sharansky?

HRW is an anti-Israel front, though, their [suspended] Middle East analyst, who has a record of Israel bashing, being a Nazi fetishist would be comical were it not so alarming.

Sharansky founded the predecessor of HRW, Helsinki Watch, 30 years ago to monitor human rights in the then-Soviet Union. He is not affiliated with HRW.

HRW has a well-documented anti-Israel bias. Traveling to Saudi Arabia, one of the most egregious human rights violators in the world, begging for donations by boasting about their aggressive tactics with Israel is illustrative of HRW's hypocrisy and corruption.

Its flawed information-gathering methodologies and other conflicts of interest in fund raising have reduced HRW to an organization with very compromised integrity.

[Simon39759]

All of these being allegations presented as facts, of course.

[Jontg]

Honestly, the fact that he accuses me of being an anti-Semite should discredit any further accusations he makes to that effect. If collecting knickknacks is proof of allegiance to some sinister agenda, then I'm an agent of the powerful and mystical Order of the Tacky Souvenir Spoon.

[McHrozni]

Ok; I have no idea what you are talking about.

This:

I agree with that although, to be perfectly honest, one must mention that the Palestinian refugees are very numerous and so giving them all a passport would often cause considerable demographic shift in the country's population. An attempt to do that is what precipitated the Lebanese civil war, after all.

Your posts indicate, that you agree with this statement, and not with this one:

Or maybe let them come back where they come from?

Which answered my question which of these two contradictory statements you actually agree with. Thanks :)

McHrozni

[bigjelmapro]

All of these being allegations presented as facts, of course.
Haven't been following the news lately, have you? Even B'tselem is arguing against HRW and the fallout of the Goldstone report. How about its questionable funding practices, i.e. the Saudis if it keeps its anti-Israel stance? Bit slow out of the gate, aren't we?

But, wait, wait.....there's a Jew involved in HRW, everything's ok now. Pfft. Seriously, when is this argument going to finally be put out of its misery and buried?

[bigjelmapro]

Honestly, the fact that he accuses me of being an anti-Semite should discredit any further accusations he makes to that effect. If collecting knickknacks is proof of allegiance to some sinister agenda, then I'm an agent of the powerful and mystical Order of the Tacky Souvenir Spoon.
You have made no solid arguments from what I've seen outside of the Youtube/Liveleak faulty logic and propaganda ploys. Wide and baseless accusations, rinse and repeat, then play the victim, repeat. Did I miss anything?

[Jono]

This conflict always reminded me a bit, on a simplistic level albeit, of the farmers in way northern Sweden who moved out into the woods, got sheep and live stock and quickly saw an upsurge of more farmers in their vicinity. The problem was; the farmers had moved into wolf territory, and as a consequence they had to take a variety of measures to hold off the wolfs from attacking their sheep, usually involving shooting them. The farmers are upset that their sheep and other live stock are at risk by the wolfs, who they view as hostile intruders.
Today this conflict is split, the community there wants to get rid off the invading wolfs alltogether, some wants measures taken to have them relocated, shooed off in some way etc. Others, like some animal rights people, are on the side of the wolfs, and say the farmers have themselves to blame for moving into a proverbial wolf's den.

[Belz...]

Where does he make this claim? Haven't seen this in any of his posts. But I'm sure you assume that since we're not playing the ever-redundant game of moral equivalence, that means to say that one side is truly 'clean'?

Well, as they say, when you're sure, it's time to question your knowledge.

Who said anything about "moral equivalence" ? In fact, I specifically said "I'm not denying that" to a claim against moral equivalence. Have you been reading ?

The point is that Marc makes it appear that Israel is "simply" defending itself. I don't think it's that simple. Do you ?

[Thunder]

Well, as they say, when you're sure, it's time to question your knowledge.

Who said anything about "moral equivalence" ? In fact, I specifically said "I'm not denying that" to a claim against moral equivalence. Have you been reading ?

The point is that Marc makes it appear that Israel is "simply" defending itself. I don't think it's that simple. Do you ?

Listen, if you believe that Jews can do no wrong, and that it is anti-Semitic to accuse Israel of institutional racism, then OF COURSE they were simply and only defending themselves.

To accuse Israel of anything less then benevolence is a blood-libel.

Right?

[Marc39]

Today this conflict is split, the community there wants to get rid off the invading wolfs alltogether, some wants measures taken to have them relocated, shooed off in some way etc. Others, like some animal rights people, are on the side of the wolfs, and say the farmers have themselves to blame for moving into a proverbial wolf's den.

If you're going to characterize Jewish immigrants in Palestine who bought up a lot of real estate as "invading wolfs" then Asian, Mexican, Italian and the millions of other immigrants who have resettled in America are invading wolfs, too.

It's also racism and xenophobia, somehow, justified, overtly so, when Jews are involved.

[Jontg]

Mexicans don't set fire to refugee camps.

[Marc39]

Mexicans don't set fire to refugee camps.

Mexicans aren't strapping belt bombs onto their children and sending them into California to blow themselves up in restaurants, discos and on buses.

[Jontg]

If California started shelling them, they'd be quite justified in doing so. And if California then went beyond the realm of acceptable retaliation and descended into the same barbarism from the opposite direction, we might begin to have a decent metaphor.

[Simon39759]

But, wait, wait.....there's a Jew involved in HRW, everything's ok now. Pfft. Seriously, when is this argument going to finally be put out of its misery and buried?

Ok; HRW was FOUNDED by a FORMER ISRAELI MINISTER!
It is kinda relevant to mention if you want to imply is being an anti-Israeli propaganda organization.





This:

Your posts indicate, that you agree with this statement, and not with this one:

Which answered my question which of these two contradictory statements you actually agree with. Thanks :)

McHrozni

Nope. They are not contradictory.
In the first part, I mention that there are real difficulties for the surrounding countries to just give the nationality to the refugees and that it is not just bad faith that prevents the Arab countries to just give them all passports (although I do acknowledge it is the main reason).

In the second part; I illustrate the hypocrisy of Marc. Sure, the neighbours are evil not too welcome the Palestinian refugees; but he doesn't even consider the option of Israel accepting them back after taking away their lands.
Now; if we want to discuss seriously, I am not actually arguing that it is a realistic solution. But then, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very complex. I am not the one pretending it is simple and black and white...

[Marc39]

If California started shelling them, they'd be quite justified in doing so. And if California then went beyond the realm of acceptable retaliation and descended into the same barbarism from the opposite direction, we might begin to have a decent metaphor.

Palestinians shelling Israel with 12,000 rockets over the course of eight years justified Israel retaliating.

The definition of "barbarism," evidently, lost on you, is Hamas timing their shelling of Israel to coincide with school buses taking children to their destination.

Unlike Hamas, who follow no guidelines on the rules of war and who sought to incur the death of its own people in the Gaza war, the IDF is trained extensively in the law of armed conflict and exercises a greater level of humanity than any other military.

[Belz...]

You have made no solid arguments from what I've seen outside of the Youtube/Liveleak faulty logic and propaganda ploys. Wide and baseless accusations, rinse and repeat, then play the victim, repeat. Did I miss anything?

Hopefully that still doesn't make him a Nazi.

[Simon39759]

To clarify further; I do not believe as some other posters here that the IDF is morally equivalent to the terrorists they are fighting.
While some abuse have been committed by and large, the Israeli government seems to try and follow its own laws and respect Human rights as much as it can in a very tense and difficult situation. However, there have been abuses in the past and there seem to be a relatively recent pattern of drifting toward more violence that worries me.

I also disagree with Marc's position that Arabs and muslims are sub-human vicious barbarians with whom peace is impossible; that Israel has never done anything wrong and that the Palestinians deserve whatever the IDF sees fit to throw at them.
I also resent the implication that you must be some kind of Nazis to disagree with any Israeli policy and to point out the abuses when you think they are being committed.

[bigjelmapro]

Well, as they say, when you're sure, it's time to question your knowledge.

Who doesn't endlessly question? I sure do


Who said anything about "moral equivalence" ? In fact, I specifically said "I'm not denying that" to a claim against moral equivalence. Have you been reading ?

That's what it sounds to me. I know you made the statement that the two sides are not equal in guilt or whatnot, but I still don't see where you can make this 'completely clean' allegation. If you want to talk about specifics rather than the endless generalizations (not implying you specifically, mostly TFT, Parky and the lot), then by all means. Let's talk.

I personally have never made claims that Israel hasn't made mistakes and poor judgments/actions throughout its 60+ years as an independent country.


The point is that Marc makes it appear that Israel is "simply" defending itself. I don't think it's that simple. Do you ?
Which war? Which action? How can you possibly talk about specifics here?


At the very least Marc makes the effort of talking about specifics, be it international law, historical events, diplomatic efforts and the like, and although he is more of a hardliner than I am, I tend to agree with him and Skeptic more than any others on this thread. Namely because they have actually been/lived in Israel and/or served in the IDF and have been in the disputed territories, like myself, and at the same time observed Israel and how various countries/organizations/NGO's reacts towards Israel outside of the bubble.

So, where do we go from here?

[Marc39]

Ok; HRW was FOUNDED by a FORMER ISRAELI MINISTER!

I just told you in an earlier post: Sharansky was involved with the founding of Helsinki Watch, which later evolved into HRW. Your suggestion that he founded HRW is misleading.

Sharansky has no current affiliation with HRW.

I mention that there are real difficulties for the surrounding countries to just give the nationality to the refugees...

Jordan and Syria, "surrounding countries," have given citizenship to millions of Palestinians.

...the option of Israel accepting them back after taking away their lands.

Israel did not "take away their lands"

Palestinians have started wars against Israel in an effort to commit genocide against Jews---There is no rule in law that forces Israel to provide asylum to these people and their families.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject matter rather than reposting the same erroneous nonsense.

And, as a historical note, Egypt stole "their lands" when it illegally seized and occupied Gaza for 20 years, and, did not allow mass numbers o Palestiniains to resettle in Egypt.

[bigjelmapro]

To clarify further; I do not believe as some other posters here that the IDF is morally equivalent to the terrorists they are fighting.
While some abuse have been committed by and large, the Israeli government seems to try and follow its own laws and respect Human rights as much as it can in a very tense and difficult situation. However, there have been abuses in the past and there seem to be a relatively recent pattern of drifting toward more violence that worries me.

There's no recent pattern that I can see and have experienced. Quite the contrary, I see more control and enforcement in the IDF. For a couple of years immediately after 9/11, there was the issue (one of the biggest in my eyes), that on site decisions were made by on site officers rather than consultations with higher ups in the disputed territories.


I also disagree with Marc's position that Arabs and muslims are sub-human vicious barbarians with whom peace is impossible; that Israel has never done anything wrong and that the Palestinians deserve whatever the IDF sees fit to throw at them.
I also resent the implication that you must be some kind of Nazis to disagree with any Israeli policy and to point out the abuses when you think they are being committed.
Don't see where he has made this wholesale allegation against Muslim or Arabs in general. To the Quran yes, the followers no.

This idiotic allegation of being a Nazi if you disagree with Israel's policies is getting quite tiresome and simply put, the laziest approach to a reply that I've seen ad nauseam in multiple threads. Have you guys become so lazy that you can't seem to put together a cognitive response? Or is this the constant knee-jerk response all that we can argue against.

[Simon39759]

Don't see where he has made this wholesale allegation against Muslim or Arabs in general. To the Quran yes, the followers no.


The two seem a bit interchangeable in his mind; but his pattern of bigotry is self evident:


As for the wall, it is a fence and it stays since it helps prevent suicide monkees from streaming into Israel to blow themselves up in the name of Allah.

The sheeple rallied around him until they carried his AIDS-infested body out to France for medical treatment, where his wife, today, lives in luxury on the billions Arafat stole from the sheeple.

Arafat died of AIDS. That's why his medical treatment was so shrouded in secrecy. Arafat's sexual predilections were well-known.


Arafat died of AIDS. His bodyguards did more than just guard his body.
All that matters is Arafat is dead, which is a good thing.
Arabs in Palestine didn't own anything. They were Bedouin peasants. They lived in mudhuts and grazed on grass like goats.

Anti-Semites don't much like Jews who win wars and who know how to smack down those who would cause a second holocaust. Such Jews are thugs.


The Pallies have historically demonstrated total intolerance of Jews. Qur'anic doctrine and Islamic law forbids Jews from living independent lives in their own state in the Middle East.

Arabs and Muslims do not appreciate civilized behavior. They only respect brute force.

Nonsense. Israel would face complete annihilation were it to let its guard down for one moment.
The savage cowards even attacked Israel today in 1973, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish year.
It doesn't get more barbaric.



Gaza was Dresden because a few buildings were damaged? Poor babies, the Palestinians.
They got off easy. Israel didn't finish the job in Gaza.

I've long since taken off my rose-colored glasses as have most Israelis, including those on the Left. Israelis are resigned to never living in peace with the Pals, who have proven beyond any doubt they are not only iincapable of living in peace with one another, so, too, are they incapable of living in peace with Jews in their own state.
That viewpoint pervades the Palestinian mindset today and always will.


Muslims are the bigots and racists.

Deportment would be nice. Well, I can dream.


The Qur'an advocates global warfare/jihad against all non-believers/infidels.
What could be more "inherently violent and intolerant"? I know of nothing.





I just told you in an earlier post: Sharansky was involved with the founding of Helsinki Watch, which later evolved into HRW. Your suggestion that he founded HRW is misleading.

Sharansky has no current affiliation with HRW.



He was still a founding member of the group. Your position is that the group, initially founded by a future Israeli minister, evolved so far since his departure, as to be a neo-Nazi front. You need to provide some evidences to that.
The fact that some former military collected Nazi medals is far too short. Many former militaries are military-history buff.

Sure, HWR has been accused by Israel to have anti-Israeli bias.
It was also accused by being anti-West and anti-China and pro-USA.
It's not exactly uncommon for a Nation to answer to critics by accusing them of bias.
As for your story o


Israel did not "take away their lands"

Ever heard of the 'absentee lands'?
It is land taken away from the refugees by any definition you might want to make for the expression.




Palestinians have started wars against Israel in an effort to commit genocide against Jews---There is no rule in law that forces Israel to provide asylum to these people and their families.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject matter rather than reposting the same erroneous nonsense.

What are you talking about?
What wars did the Palestinian start?
Are you still referring to the independence war? But the idea was never one of genocide, it was only to maintain the status-quo. And, of course, nobody started it, as I explained before.
Are you referring to the following wars? But you'd be had pressed to demonstrate that any of them were started by the Palestinians themselves...

I also have to reject the last sentence of your post, as I intend to familiarize myself with the real history of the real world in all its gritty complexity; not the twisted monochrome version that only exists in your paranoid mind.

[Marc39]

He was still a founding member of the group.

Sharansky was still not a founder of HRW.

You need to provide some evidences to that.

Wrong. Do your homework. That's not my role.

Ever heard of the 'absentee lands'?
It is land taken away from the refugees by any definition you might want to make for the expression.

This is meaningless gibberish.

What wars did the Palestinian start?

1947 civil war. Participated in 1948 War.

Are you still referring to the independence war? But the idea was never one of genocide, it was only to maintain the status-quo. And, of course, nobody started it, as I explained before.

More gibberish. The 1947 and '48 wars were initiated by the Arabs.

The Arab League issued a declaration of war.

I intend to familiarize myself with the real history of the real world in all its gritty complexity; not the twisted monochrome version that only exists in your paranoid mind.

I commend you on a much, much, much-needed information-gathering effort.

Shoud have done so before deciding to post so much silliiness.

[Simon39759]

Sharansky was still not a founder of HRW.

Why? Did the change of name made it into a new organization?
That's stupid.



Wrong. Do your homework. That's not my role.

You are the one making the assertion that HWR is driven by neo-Nazi ideals. You are the one that need to prove it.



This is meaningless gibberish.

Absentees' lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws_relating_to_the_Isr aeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#The_.27Absentees _Property_Law.27).
You pretended that 'Israel did not "take away their lands" '. You were wrong.




More gibberish. The 1947 and '48 wars were initiated by the Arabs.

The Arab League issued a declaration of war.

Sorry; I thought that the expression, "Palestinians have started wars against Israel in an effort to commit genocide against Jews" meant we were talking about the Palestinians.
And, no matter how much you repeat it; Palestinian did not initiate the violences. It's not like the Irgun was a pizza delivery service.
Certainly, let me anticipate your apologetics, they were isolated and did not represent the Jewish population as a whole. But they certainly participated in the escalation of violence that was the beginning of the civil war.
You might also argue that the Irgun was only acting defensively and in retaliation to crimes from the Arabs but you'll need to prove that, not just dogmatically assess it.


I commend you on a much, much, much-needed information-gathering effort.

Shoud have done so before deciding to post so much silliiness.

The information is not the source of our disagreement. The problem is that I am looking at all the facts together while you only consider the one that support you pre-suppositions.

[Marc39]

Absentees' lands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws_relating_to_the_Isr aeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#The_.27Absentees _Property_Law.27).
You pretended that 'Israel did not "take away their lands" '. You were wrong.

You have to be careful with a highly unreliable source like Wiki. In the instance of your link, its footnotes are almost completely anti-Israeli sources and, thus, present concerns of diminished credibility.

Come back with reputable sources.

Sorry; I thought that the expression, "Palestinians have started wars against Israel in an effort to commit genocide against Jews" meant we were talking about the Palestinians.

Palestinians are Arabs, last time I checked.

Palestinian did not initiate the violences.

Historian Benny Morris, author of, "1948," would disagree ...


The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible in some bizarre way for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

...in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders).

The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another and not from their country (which is the usual definition of a refugee) - was not a racist crime but the result of a national conflict and a war, with religious overtones, from the Muslim perspective, launched by the Arabs themselves.

[Simon39759]

You have to be careful with a highly unreliable source like Wiki. In the instance of your link, its footnotes are almost completely anti-Israeli sources and, thus, present concerns of diminished credibility.

Come back with reputable sources.

What about the Knesset (http://www.knesset.gov.il/review/ReviewPage.aspx?kns=1&lng=3)?



Palestinians are Arabs, last time I checked.


That they are. But they only joined the Arab league in the 70ies.

Your point, let's try to keep on the ball, was that the Palestinian were responsible for the war because the Arab League attacked Israel in 48.
Considering that the Palestinian were not part of the league until three decade later, it is irrelevant, as I pointed out.
Now; stop trying to move the goal posts, thank you.


Historian Benny Morris, author of, "1948," would disagree ...

And he might very well be right; too bad he does not explain his position.

He also makes no mystery about the expulsion policies (http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm) and war crimes committed by the Israeli side you pretend did not happen.
Reading his book: "1948: a history of the first Arab-Israeli war" also does not leave me with the impression that the impression that the initial violences were one-sided.
If anything, it sounds like the British really dropped the ball and fail to insure the safety of the Region placed under their mandate.


But, obviously, you only care for the facts that seem to support your own prejudgement.

[Thunder]

"The displacement of the 700,000 Arabs who became "refugees" - and I put the term in inverted commas, as two-thirds of them were displaced from one part of Palestine to another"

Oh, I get it. Back to the "Jordan is Palestine" garbage. Nevermind the fact that an internal refugee is STILL a refugee, Jordan was part of Palestine for the incredibly long period of 4 years.

[Marc39]

What about the Knesset (http://www.knesset.gov.il/review/ReviewPage.aspx?kns=1&lng=3)?

What about the Knesset?

That they are. But they only joined the Arab league in the 70ies.

The PLO was formed in 1964.

Palestinians are Arabs, not a distinct ethnic group.

Your point, let's try to keep on the ball, was that the Palestinian were responsible for the war because the Arab League attacked Israel in 48.
Considering that the Palestinian were not part of the league until three decade later, it is irrelevant, as I pointed out.
Now; stop trying to move the goal posts, thank you.

Your post couldn't be more confused.

Good luck with your intentions to learn about the Middle East.

[Thunder]

[quote=Simon39759;5164438]What about the Knesset (http://www.knesset.gov.il/review/ReviewPage.aspx?kns=1&lng=3)?]

Palestinians are Arabs, not a distinct ethnic group.


No, but they are a distinct nationality. Just as Israelis are.

[Marc39]

And he might very well be right; too bad he does not explain his position.

I recommend you read Morris's book on the 1948 war, in which he details his positions.

Put his book on your list of things to do.

He also makes no mystery about the expulsion policies (http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm) and war crimes committed by the Israeli side you pretend did not happen.

Expulsions happen in every war.

12 million ethnic Germans were expelled from eastern Europe during WW II.

900,000 Jews were expelled from their Arab homes in 1948.

But, obviously, you only care for the facts that seem to support your own prejudgement.

Facts are facts. I have no prejudgment. I have weighed both sides and based on the facts, conclude the Jews are the good guys.

[Marc39]

I also resent the implication that you must be some kind of Nazis to disagree with any Israeli policy and to point out the abuses when you think they are being committed.

Internet resentments are of no interest to me, frankly.

Fixating on Israel and spewing false allegations and historical falsehoods while being unfamiliar with actual transgressions among Arab and Muslim countries is the very definition of anti-Semitism.

If the shoe fits...

[Thunder]

900,000 Jews were expelled from their Arab homes in 1948.


not...exactly. many left on their own accord. Including the Jews of Morocco.

[Marc39]

And, no matter how much you repeat it; Palestinian did not initiate the violences.

Given Palestinians have been "initiating violences" (sic) against one another with great alacrity in committing fratricide since 2006, Pals initiating violences against Jews shouldn't be an abstract concept...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=94790&categ_id=17

[Simon39759]

What about the Knesset?

They have an official record of the laws allowing the expropriation you said never happened? You know, the ones that are made up by anti-Israeli propagandist.




The PLO was formed in 1964.
Palestinians are Arabs, not a distinct ethnic group.
Your post couldn't be more confused.


So... Palestinian are Arabs... so they are responsible if an unrelated Arab organization starts a war? An organization that was not to incorporate a Palestinian representation until 30 years later?
YOU are confusing.



Good luck with your intentions to learn about the Middle East.

If it was not that ironic, I'd thank you, as, indeed, I intend to learn more about it.
Unlike you, I always try to learn more about any subject rather than deciding an opinion in advance and then only even considering information that agrees with my presupposition.



Internet resentments are of no interest to me, frankly.
Fixating on Israel and spewing false allegations and historical falsehoods while being unfamiliar with actual transgressions among Arab and Muslim countries is the very definition of anti-Semitism.
If the shoe fits...

Yeah... Whatever.
But, please note that your use of the term 'unfamiliar' suggest an honest mistake rather than a dogmatic position. So, it actually tends to contradict the term 'anti-Semite'; it certainly does not define it.
But I guess that, in the absence of actual arguments, vague allusions is the best you can come up with, or are you just projecting your own bigotry?

[Marc39]

They have an official record of the laws allowing the expropriation you said never happened? You know, the ones that are made up by anti-Israeli propagandist.

Do you have proof of expropriation?

My grandfather's property was expropriated in Poland.

150 million refugees' property was expropriated during WW II.

And, you honestly suggest Arabs who started a war with Israel should have their property returned?

Thanks for the chuckle.

So... Palestinian are Arabs... so they are responsible if an unrelated Arab organization starts a war?

Palestinians are responsible for the civil war they initiated against the Jews in 1947.

I recommend you study the events surrounding the '48 War. Your recycling of misinformation and confusion is getting tedious.

An organization that was not to incorporate a Palestinian representation until 30 years later?
YOU are confusing.

Who's confused, again? Arabs in Palestine initiated the 1947 civil war against the Jews. Arabs in Palestine. Palestinians. Pick your poison.

Unlike you, I always try to learn more about any subject rather than deciding an opinion in advance and then only even considering information that agrees with my presupposition.

Learning is an ongoing process.

[Marc39]

Given Palestinians have been "initiating violences" (sic) against one another with great alacrity in committing fratricide since 2006, Pals initiating violences against Jews shouldn't be an abstract concept...

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=94790&categ_id=17

Above link doesn't contain entire content. Here is entire article...

Hamas and Fatah Are A bigger Threat
To The Palestinians Than Israel (Lebanon Daily Star)

It is a damning indication of just how bad things have become in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip when Fatah militants there must look to Israel for protection from their Palestinian rivals.

The Jewish state announced on Monday that it would help a group of 150 Fatah fighters who had fled weekend clashes in Gaza relocate to the West Bank, after determining that they would face "imminent danger" if they were to return home.

The scenes of Israel coming to the rescue of Palestinians after a bout of Arab fratricide were reminiscent of the events of Black September, during which scores of Palestinians sought asylum in Israel to escape King Hussein's crackdown on the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The only difference this time around is that instead of seeking refuge from a heavy-handed Arab crackdown, Palestinians are fleeing from the murderous hands of their own Palestinian brothers.

Achievement of the Palestinian cause requires that all factions maintain a semblance of orderliness and keep their eyes on the price of independent statehood. In this both Fatah and Hamas have been miserable failures. Both have put partisan interests ahead of national ones and therefore have failed to maintain anything like a united Palestinian front.
Even the mediation attempts of Egypt, Yemen and Saudi Arabia have not been enough to curb the political infighting and internecine bloodshed that have served to further threaten the Palestinians' very right to existence.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza has been deteriorating since the international community callously decided to punish an entire people for having exercised their democratic rights in the legislative elections of January 2006.
But the Hamas movement is now exacerbating the situation by undermining the rule of law in the territory. After accusing its Fatah rivals of carrying out a deadly bombing late last week that killed five Hamas leaders and a little girl, the Islamist party launched what can be only be described as a witch-hunt, rounding up some 200 Fatah activists.

Fatah provided an equally bad example of governance in the West Bank when it retaliated against the move by rounding up scores of people it branded "Hamas activists," including many judges, students and activists who have no known affiliation with the Islamist party.
On both sides of divided Palestine, civilians must now add Fatah and Hamas to the long list of threats to their security and wellbeing.

The events of the last week are just the most recent example of how the situation in the Occupied Territories has gone from bad to worse under the watchful eyes of elected Palestinian "representatives."
Hundreds of people were killed last year when the two groups allowed their rivalry to degenerate into street violence. Hundreds more were prevented from going about their normal activities such as attending school, going to work or expressing political views.

Over the past few days the two Palestinian factions seem to be close to repeated the same disastrous mistakes. We have seen Palestinians denigrating the legitimacy of other Palestinians, Palestinians making war on other Palestinians, and Palestinians arresting other Palestinians, while the Jewish state has come to the rescue of those Palestinians who fear for their lives. Israel has never looked so good.

[Simon39759]

Do you have proof of expropriation?

Apart from the Knesset voting to allow it?
Or I can link a second time to Benny Morris (http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm)' interview. You mention Benny Morris yourself,


My grandfather's property was expropriated in Poland.


That sucks but, unless his land was given to Palestinians, I fail to see how that's relevant.


150 million refugees' property was expropriated during WW II.
And, you honestly suggest Arabs who started a war with Israel should have their property returned?
Thanks for the chuckle.


First of all; I did mention that I did not think the right of return as realistic.
If it was possible, yes, I do believe that it would be among the most fair solutions, but it will never work. Not for any significant numbers of people.




Palestinians are responsible for the civil war they initiated against the Jews in 1947.
I recommend you study the events surrounding the '48 War. Your recycling of misinformation and confusion is getting tedious.


And you have any proof for that?
You keep on repeating it but, so far, every bit of information I found out indicate a progressive rise in violence with each side answering to the other in an escalation of violence.
In these circumstances, deciding which side started it seems arbitrary.

So, unless you have any objective proof of that, stubbornly repeating it is just "getting tedious".
The obnoxious attitude is also annoying.




Who's confused, again? Arabs in Palestine initiated the 1947 civil war against the Jews. Arabs in Palestine. Palestinians. Pick your poison.

And you were talking about the 48 invasion by the Arab league. The Arab league that did not include Palestine at the time (yes, despite them being Arabs).
You may not be confused on the subject; you are just dishonest and misleading.



Learning is an ongoing process.

So is self-delusion. I will stick with learning.



Above link doesn't contain entire content. Here is entire article...

Hamas and Fatah Are A bigger Threat
To The Palestinians Than Israel (Lebanon Daily Star)

So, your argument is that the Palestinians fighting each other is a proof that they are naturally violent?

[Marc39]

Apart from the Knesset voting to allow it?
Or I can link a second time to Benny Morris (http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm)' interview. You mention Benny Morris yourself,

Good for the Knesset. I see no immorality in the Israeli government deciding, in the interest of national security, to disallow belligerents to enter Israel.

Loss of land is a consequence of going to war.

900,000 Jews were ejected from Arab countries.

If the Arabs would like to agree to reciprocal remuneration on lost property, they can pony up the estimated $300 billion in lost Jewish property and businesses.

Such a deal!

First of all; I did mention that I did not think the right of return as realistic...

No right of return exists, so, the issue of its realism is moot.

If it was possible, yes, I do believe that it would be among the most fair solutions, but it will never work. Not for any significant numbers of people.

5 million hostile Arab Muslims who have been indoctrinated with searing hate of Jews move to Israel? Yah, sounds like a recipe for success.

And you were talking about the 48 invasion by the Arab league. The Arab league that did not include Palestine at the time (yes, despite them being Arabs).
You may not be confused on the subject; you are just dishonest and misleading.

The Arab League was formed in 1945, three years prior to their war against Israel in '48.

While Arabs did not invent Palestinians until the 1960s, Palestinian Arabs lived in...Palestine prior. They launched a guerilla war against the Jews the day after UN Res. 181 was issued in Nov/'47 according Israeli statehood and statehood for a Palestinian Arab state.

The consensus of historical narratives of every historian I've read is the '47 civil war was initiated by the Palestinian Arabs.

And, for good reason: Had Jews initiated the civil war, it would have violated the UN Charter and terminated UN Res. 181, and, thus, would have jeopardized Israeli statehood.

Indeed, Arab rejection of 181 with the ensuing civil war obliterated their opportunity for statehood, a catastrophic decision whose results follow them to this day.

[Simon39759]

Good for the Knesset. I see no immorality in the Israeli government deciding, in the interest of national security, to disallow belligerents to enter Israel.

True; but a number of Palestinian refugees actually fled the war, quite the opposite of belligerents.



Loss of land is a consequence of going to war.
900,000 Jews were ejected from Arab countries.
If the Arabs would like to agree to reciprocal remuneration on lost property, they can pony up the estimated $300 billion in lost Jewish property and businesses.
Such a deal!


You still have to explain to me why Palestinian Arabs would be responsible for the actions initiated by other (Non-Palestinian) Arabs.
But I am glad that you implicitly admit about being wrong before when you said that no land was ever confiscated by the Israeli government.



No right of return exists, so, the issue of its realism is moot.

Why? The refugees left the country forcefully (fleeing the dangers of war is just as forceful as the active extradition some went through). It seems to make sense to have their property reinstituted to them...
Once again, we hit the issue of feasibility, of course, but I believe compensation will be required for any long term peace settlement.



5 million hostile Arab Muslims who have been indoctrinated with searing hate of Jews move to Israel? Yah, sounds like a recipe for success.

Indeed. While this kind of hate can dissipate surprisingly fast, especially when there is an economic incentive in trading with one's neighbour, at that time, it is simply not realistic.



The Arab League was formed in 1945, three years prior to their war against Israel in '48.

Yes. And, none of its forming members included the Palestinian governments. Hence, your point of the Palestinians being responsible for the war the Arab league started does not make sense to me.




While Arabs did not invent Palestinians until the 1960s, Palestinian Arabs lived in...Palestine prior.

It depends how you look at it. The term 'Palestine' has been used on and off
since the Roman Empire. The term was definitively used during the British mandate.
Now the self-identification of the Arab Palestinians as an independent people does come later, mostly in contrast to the independent nation of Israel but the date of the 60ies seems a bit late to me.
And, of course, long before that, the Palestinian people had no problem identifying itself as part of the Muslim Arab world, just not necessarily as their own nation.


They launched a guerilla war against the Jews the day after UN Res. 181 was issued in Nov/'47 according Israeli statehood and statehood for a Palestinian Arab state.
The consensus of historical narratives of every historian I've read is the '47 civil war was initiated by the Palestinian Arabs.
And, for good reason: Had Jews initiated the civil war, it would have violated the UN Charter and terminated UN Res. 181, and, thus, would have jeopardized Israeli statehood.
Indeed, Arab rejection of 181 with the ensuing civil war obliterated their opportunity for statehood, a catastrophic decision whose results follow them to this day.

Well; as I said; you have to put an arbitrary "starting date" to start tallying. But the tensions did date back further than that, to the 1936 revolt, for example, once again, you are over-simplifying a complex issue.

Similarly, you keep on trying to see it as the clashing of two sides: "Had Jews initiated the civil war".
But the Jews were not one homogeneous block with one coherent policy. While the majority of the Jewish population did support the resolution, they were groups that did condemn it and, indeed, wanted it to fail. The Irgun, for example, did oppose the plan and did contribute to the escalation of violences that became the civil war.

Similarly, while the Arabs did oppose the plan, there never was a consensus to start the violence, if only because there was never a centralized government to take such decision. You could certainly mention the 1947 Jerusalem riots... But they were the spontaneous reaction of a small number of people. You can hardly blame the whole of the Palestinians for that.

[Whiplash]

If California started shelling them, they'd be quite justified in doing so.



That's certifiably insane.

There is never any justification for people suicide bombing civilians and children and the like.

NEVER. EVER.

They'd be justified to put together a military force and take war, under standard conventions. They would never be justified to go off and just murder umpteen civilians and the like.

Moral equivication of this type makes me so sick to my stomach.. It's putrid and disgusting.

[Marc39]

Yes. And, none of its forming members included the Palestinian governments.

The 1947 civil war initiated by the Palestinian Arabs was a guerilla war. No "governments" were involved.

The term 'Palestine' has been used on and off
since the Roman Empire.

The term Palestine is derived from the Romans, who renamed Palestine Palaestina after the Philistines.

Arabs regarded Palestine as part of Syria. Palestinians were known as Syrians.

Now the self-identification of the Arab Palestinians as an independent people does come later, mostly in contrast to the independent nation of Israel but the date of the 60ies seems a bit late to me.
And, of course, long before that, the Palestinian people had no problem identifying itself as part of the Muslim Arab world, just not necessarily as their own nation.

Palestinians were invented by the Arabs as political pawns with which to defeat Israel.

UN Res. 181 conferring "Palestinian" statehood in 1947 never mentions the term Palestinian.

The United Nations did not recognize the "Palestinians" as a nation.

While the majority of the Jewish population did support the resolution, they were groups that did condemn it and, indeed, wanted it to fail.

Immaterial. The majority of Zionists agreed to UN Res. 181.

The Irgun, for example, did oppose the plan and did contribute to the escalation of violences that became the civil war.

The Irgun consisted of just a few hundred members.

The Irgun did not oppose Israeli statehood.

The Irgun was formed as a defensive militia to combat Arab aggression too immense for the Haganah, alone to thwart.

Self-defense is an inherent right.

[Thunder]

Self-defense is an inherent right.

And the Palestinians are enacting that inherent right.

[Thunder]

900,000 Jews were ejected from Arab countries.


Again, many of these Jews left of their own free will. And thousands chose not to leave and still remain in their home countries.

[Marc39]

Indeed. While this kind of hate can dissipate surprisingly fast, especially when there is an economic incentive in trading with one's neighbour, at that time, it is simply not realistic.

An increasing number of Israeli Arabs hate Israel, despite enjoying the highest standard of living among Arabs in the Middle East and freedoms and human rights non-existent elsewhere in the region.

Recent public opinion surveys reflect anti-Israel sentiment among Arabs in Israel who also deny the Holocaust.

The Israel hate is based on Quranic doctrine "indoctrinated" into Muslims that Jews may only live as dhimmis if they do not convert to Islam. The only other option is death to Jews.

Popular Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb's anti-Jewish diatribes are based on the Quran, such as, "Our Struggle With The Jews," written in 1952, just a few years after Israeli statehood.

Middle East historian and Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis writes extensively about the culture of Judeophobia in his book, "The Crisis Of Islam"

An independent Jewish state, which the Pals refuse to even acknowledge, reflecting that Quranic doctrine, will never be accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.

Christians--Palestinian and otherwise--are not accepted by Muslims, either, who have been persecuting Christians out of the region for years. Israel has become a refuge for many of those Christians

[Thunder]

An increasing number of Israeli Arabs hate Israel

I guess Israel should just put them into box cars and ship them to the East..huh?

[Simon39759]

The term Palestine is derived from the Romans, who renamed Palestine Palaestina after the Philistines.
Arabs regarded Palestine as part of Syria. Palestinians were known as Syrians.
Palestinians were invented by the Arabs as political pawns with which to defeat Israel.
UN Res. 181 conferring "Palestinian" statehood in 1947 never mentions the term Palestinian.
The United Nations did not recognize the "Palestinians" as a nation.

The Resolution 181 still do confer the local Arab a right to their own state; whatever the name is.
My point was that the term Palestine had been in use for centuries; so was the calling of the inhabitants of the region. the term was not, as you said, "invented in the 60ies".



The 1947 civil war initiated by the Palestinian Arabs was a guerilla war. No "governments" were involved.

Immaterial. The majority of Zionists agreed to UN Res. 181.
The Irgun consisted of just a few hundred members.
The Irgun did not oppose Israeli statehood.
The Irgun was formed as a defensive militia to combat Arab aggression too immense for the Haganah, alone to thwart.
Self-defense is an inherent right.

But, there is the point; why would the initial rioters of 47 or the Jihad al-Muqadas be more representative from the Arab Palestinian than were the Irgun from the Jewish?
In reality the immense majority of the Palestinians seems to have sit tight and stayed on the sidelines.

[Thunder]

The Resolution 181 still do confer the local Arab a right to their own state; whatever the name is. .

you do realize that you are wasting your time, right?

[Simon39759]

I guess.
I guess I should have stopped when he called me an Anti-Semite

[Doctor Evil]

And you have any proof for that?
You keep on repeating it but, so far, every bit of information I found out indicate a progressive rise in violence with each side answering to the other in an escalation of violence.
In these circumstances, deciding which side started it seems arbitrary.


You may find this article from Morris (http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm)to be of interest. It paints a fairly complicated picture of the 1947 civil war. However, it is fair to say that the Palestinian and Arab irregulars had the attacking initiative for the first few months of the war. The main Jewish force, the Haganah had an explicit defensive strategy until it was clear it became untenable (around march 1948). Hence the title of the article - Lashing back.


PS this is not to say that I support whatever positions marc39 have expressed here. In fact, I have him on ignore and do not know what he wrote.

[Marc39]

The Resolution 181 still do confer the local Arab a right to their own state.

Absolutely incorrect.

UN Res. 181 was obliterated by the Pals when they rejected it in 1947 and proceeded to launch a war, in flagrant violation of international law and the UN's own charter, against the other party to 181, Israel.

The Pals don't just get to hit the reset button on statehood, especially given their rejection of Israel, a sovereign state.

My point was that the term Palestine had been in use for centuries; so was the calling of the inhabitants of the region. the term was not, as you said, "invented in the 60ies".

Palestine was not used in history by Arabs. The Qur'an does not reference Palestine once.

Arabs viewed the territory as part of the Syrian vilayet for most of the last 500 years, governed by Damascus and, during other times, by Beirut when the area was part of the Lebanese vilayet.

Arafat, as a sidenote, the icon of Palestinians, was Egyptian.

[Marc39]

PS this is not to say that I support whatever positions marc39 have expressed here. In fact, I have him on ignore and do not know what he wrote.

Yet, you read every word I post.

How else can one learn about the Middle East?

[Simon39759]

You may find this article from Morris (http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm)to be of interest. It paints a fairly complicated picture of the 1947 civil war. However, it is fair to say that the Palestinian and Arab irregulars had the attacking initiative for the first few months of the war. The main Jewish force, the Haganah had an explicit defensive strategy until it was clear it became untenable (around march 1948). Hence the title of the article - Lashing back.


PS this is not to say that I support whatever positions marc39 have expressed here. In fact, I have him on ignore and do not know what he wrote.


Thank you; it was indeed very instructive.
But it does seem to me that the war was really started by a tiny contingent of Arabs, while the vast majority of the population did not participate and mainly defensively.
I am not sure one can say 'the Arabs' attacked first.






Yet, you read every word I post.

How else can one learn about the Middle East?

Yes; that's not arrogant at all.

[Doctor Evil]

Thank you; it was indeed very instructive.
But it does seem to me that the war was really started by a tiny contingent of Arabs, while the vast majority of the population did not participate and mainly defensively.
I am not sure one can say 'the Arabs' attacked first.

I do not think that is true. The events are complicated, but one side was clearly pushing to war, while the other was not.

You can say there was not an official order or decision to start the civil war. However, it definitely was not as small scale as you describe. The Jews have suffered roughly 2000 causalities in the civil war, out of a population of 600,000. This is a rather high causality rate. Similarly, it is hard to say what was the true size of the Palestinian + Arab forces, but it would be (at least) of the order of 1% of the local population. More or less the same as the US military now.

There is also another aspect here, which has to do with the events leading to the war. Both Arabs and Palestinians leaders have threatened a war if the UN partition plan is approved. They have inflamed the atmosphere with repeated threats of violence. Indeed, violence ensued.

The Arab-Palestinian fighting force was composed of both local militias and some better organized volenteers from other Arab countries. Now, these forces were housed in Palestinian villages. They were fed and supplied by local Palestinians. They were given political support from local Palestinians. All this was going on for months. Months where they had the initiative, and the opportunity to scale down, or stop the civil war.

It is true that there were some villages which were not interested in the war. Some had especially good relations with their Jewish neighbors. Some did not think they could win. However, they were not the majority. There was no Palestinian political movement which opposed the war.

If we add everything, the Palestinians do share the larger responsibility to the outbreak, and continuation of the civil war.

PS. That is not to say that they deserved the results, or anything like that. It is the nature of war that most victims are innocent. My point is that they were the driving force behind the political climate that had started the war. They were also the ones sustaining the initiative and continuing the war until somewhere in March or April 1948.

[Belz...]

I personally have never made claims that Israel hasn't made mistakes and poor judgments/actions throughout its 60+ years as an independent country.

Speaking of blanket statements...

Saying someone makes mistakes is not the same as saying that they are stepping over the line. So it's an easy concession to make.

Which war? Which action? How can you possibly talk about specifics here?

Me ? We're talking about Marc "Israel can do no wrong" 39.

I tend to agree with him and Skeptic more than any others on this thread. Namely because they have actually been/lived in Israel and/or served in the IDF and have been in the disputed territories, like myself, and at the same time observed Israel and how various countries/organizations/NGO's reacts towards Israel outside of the bubble.

That's like woo-woo defenders who say they believe because they've seen. Unfortunately their being in the thick of the conflict might actually interfere with their objectivity in the matter.

[Belz...]

Palestinians are Arabs, not a distinct ethnic group.

So, what you are saying is that if, say, France declares war on, say, Congo, then by definition Canada is involved because it is also mainly populated by caucasians ?

[Belz...]

And, you honestly suggest Arabs who started a war with Israel should have their property returned?

Careful, Marc. Your bias is showing. Might want to zip that.

[Thunder]

And, you honestly suggest Arabs who started a war with Israel should have their property returned?


Of course not. Any Arab who actually fought against Israel in any of the wars forfeits the right to have property in Israel.

Now, if you are actually suggesting that because "the Arabs" fought against Israel in 1948 and 1967, then any and all Arabs have ZERO right to any compensation for any lost land in Israel, then you are walking into very very dangerous territory.

Many Jews served with the Soviet military. Some of these Jews most likely participated in the invasion and occupations of Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bugaria, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states.

By your logic, because many Jews may have played a part and even in the decision making of these events, therefore NO JEWS are entitled to ANY compensation or get ANY of their property back from ANY state that was occupied by the Soviet military.

Is this really where you wanna go Marc?

:(

[Marc39]

So, what you are saying is that if, say, France declares war on, say, Congo, then by definition Canada is involved because it is also mainly populated by caucasians ?

So, what I'm saying is Palestinians are not a distinct ethnic group.

Palestiniains are Arabs originating from everywhere from northern Africa to Syria.

Maghrebi is a common Palestinian surname, reflecting their Maghreb family histories.

[Thunder]

He is saying that if France attacks Canada, then Quebecois can no longer sue Canada for lost property...even if they didn't take up arms against Canada. All French are the same....get it?

[Belz...]

Yes, we French are all the same. Got it.

[Belz...]

So, what you are saying is that if, say, France declares war on, say, Congo, then by definition Canada is involved because it is also mainly populated by caucasians ?

So, what I'm saying is Palestinians are not a distinct ethnic group.

I'll take that as a "yes".

[Marc39]

Yes, we French are all the same. Got it.

Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. are all Arabs.

[Thunder]

Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. are all Arabs.

Um....excuse me?

#1. The Palestinian people are made up of a conglomaration of Muslim peoples. This includes Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Bosnians, Egyptians, Berbers, Persians, and others.

#2. Most North Africans (Algerians, Moroccans, Libyans) are a mixture of Arabs and Berbers.

#3. Lebanese and Syrians are a mixture of Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Assyrians, and other local peoples.

Its fascinating though. The concept that these people are "all Arabs" is a major thrust of Arab propaganda.

[Marc39]

Careful, Marc. Your bias is showing. Might want to zip that.

I freely admit to bias in favor of Jews and against those with belligerence to Jews.

In the Middle East, hostility toward Jews emanates from the Arab-Muslim communities.

It is no mere coincidence the vast majority of the ME is comprised of Islamic countries, which are 99% Muslim. Therein lies the bias.

[Thunder]

I freely admit to bias in favor of Jews

;)

[McHrozni]

Its fascinating though. The concept that these people are "all Arabs" is a major thrust of Arab propaganda.

Not really, their culture is broadly similar, and they speak the same language. Where their ancestors came from carries very little relevance. For example, it is possible to have two Frenchmen, where one is a mix of a Celt and Italic (Roman), while another is a mix of Viking and German blood. Neither is more French than the other, though.

McHrozni

[Marc39]

Not really, their culture is broadly similar, and they speak the same language. Where their ancestors came from carries very little relevance. For example, it is possible to have two Frenchmen, where one is a mix of a Celt and Italic (Roman), while another is a mix of Viking and German blood. Neither is more French than the other, though.

McHrozni

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism

[Thunder]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_nationalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Arabism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Zionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moledet

[Belz...]

Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. are all Arabs.

Yes, and French canadians are French. Therefore if France attacks a country, Québec is responsible as well. Got it.

[Marc39]

Yes, and French canadians are French. Therefore if France attacks a country, Québec is responsible as well. Got it.

Palestine, for most of the past 700 years, had not been recognized by Arabs, being part of Syria and Lebanon.

Arabs in the area known as Palestine had self-identified as Syrians or by religious affiliations--Muslims, Christians, etc--or as Ottoman natonals or by tribes and clans or by class or by the various "qada" or "nyila" adminstrative districts comprising the area.

Until Israeli statehood, Jews, in point of fact, were known as Palestinians, as reflected in their institutions...

Palestine Post: Now, Jerusalem Post
Anglo-Palestine Company: Now, Bank Leumi
Palestine Orchestra: Now, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra

The term "Palestinian" applied to Arabs is a relatively recent development in the grand scheme of history, in the mid-1960s.

[McHrozni]

Palestine, for most of the past 700 years, had not been recognized by Arabs, being part of Syria and Lebanon.

Arabs in the area known as Palestine had self-identified as Syrians or by religious affiliations--Muslims, Christians, etc--or as Ottoman natonals or by tribes and clans or by class or by the various "qada" or "niyala" adminstrative districts comprising the area.

Until Israeli statehood, Jews, in point of fact, were known as Palestinians, as reflected in their institutions...

Palestine Post: Now, Jerusalem Post
Anglo-Palestine Company: Now, Bank Leumi
Palestine Orchestra: Now, Israel Philharmonic Orchestra

The term "Palestinian" applied to Arabs is a relatively recent development in the grand scheme of history, in the mid-1960s.

What he's trying to tell you that if some of the Arabs do a certain evil act, not all Arabs can be held responsible. If Palestinians attack the Jews it doesn't automatically mean that Moroccans do as well.

Sadly, the qualifier automatically above is necessary, but that's another story.

McHrozni

[Marc39]

What he's trying to tell you that if some of the Arabs do a certain evil act, not all Arabs can be held responsible. If Palestinians attack the Jews it doesn't automatically mean that Moroccans do as well.

Sadly, the qualifier automatically above is necessary, but that's another story.

McHrozni


OK, however, if a so-called Palestinian were to relocate to Morocco and become a Moroccan citizen, he would become a...Moroccan.

There are those under the misapprehension, including so-called Palestinians, themselves, that Palestiniains are some ancient tribe when it's really just a geographic designation.

[Thunder]

There are those under the misapprehension, including so-called Palestinians, themselves, that Palestiniains are some ancient tribe when it's really just a geographic designation.

And the Israelis think they are somehow the direct descendants, unchanged for 2,000 years, of the ancient Israelites.

Both theories are utter BS.

[McHrozni]

OK, however, if a so-called Palestinian were to relocate to Morocco and become a Moroccan citizen, he would become a...Moroccan.

And?

There are those under the misapprehension, including so-called Palestinians, themselves, that Palestiniains are some ancient tribe when it's really just a geographic designation.

That's another matter entirely. Palestinians are currently understood to be Arabs living in or originating from the area we call Palestine, among other names. You could call them Bozanis, and the whole issue would be essentially unchanged.

McHrozni

[Belz...]

Palestine, for most of the past 700 years, had not been recognized by Arabs, being part of Syria and Lebanon.

Yes, yes. We all get that. Now all I have to do is hope France doesn't do anything stupid or else we in Québec could get in serious trouble.

[Marc39]

Yes, yes. We all get that.

Evidently, not, hence, your illegitimate analogies.

[Belz...]

No, no. You don't get to dodge this one.

[bigjelmapro]

Speaking of blanket statements...

Saying someone makes mistakes is not the same as saying that they are stepping over the line. So it's an easy concession to make.

How is this a blanket statement?

That latter bit doesn't even make sense.


Me ? We're talking about Marc "Israel can do no wrong" 39.

No. You made the statement:


The point is that Marc makes it appear that Israel is "simply" defending itself. I don't think it's that simple. Do you?

I'm asking you for specifics since you yourself stated it isn't that simple. So apart from continuing with this line of rhetoric, the only solution I see is to ACTUALLY talk specifics.

Marc39 has done this, even though I don't agree with all of his statements, I do agree with a great deal of it.


That's like woo-woo defenders who say they believe because they've seen. Unfortunately their being in the thick of the conflict might actually interfere with their objectivity in the matter.
Hehe. I find this statement quite entertaining, although it has been used extensively. You do realize you're talking to another person situated in Israel who has done his fair deal of reserve duty? Ever hear of the concept of first-hand experience? Very doubtful one can actually deem themselves as 'objective' if they aren't actually interested in the subject matter compared to those who actually experience it and have investigated the matter for most of their lives. Which one bears more credence?

We going to part from the fallacies and get down to actual debate? I find it quite boring otherwise.

[Belz...]

That latter bit doesn't even make sense.

That's an interesting way to say that you don't understand it.

I'm asking you for specifics since you yourself stated it isn't that simple. So apart from continuing with this line of rhetoric, the only solution I see is to ACTUALLY talk specifics.

Okay, so what do you want me to say, then ?

Hehe. I find this statement quite entertaining, although it has been used extensively. You do realize you're talking to another person situated in Israel who has done his fair deal of reserve duty?

Yes, that's why I said what I said. Sometimes being in the actual context hinders objectivity, is all I said.

Ever hear of the concept of first-hand experience?

Yes. Like someone who tries homeopathy and swears to its efficacy.

[Oliver]

By the way -and while you're whining about the Arabs all day long, Marc, weren't the Israelites "Arabs" themselves? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#Genetic_evidence_of_common_descent

[bigjelmapro]

That's an interesting way to say that you don't understand it.

Its pretty simple English, so not difficult to understand. The context and the application of it in this thread doesn't make any sense.


Okay, so what do you want me to say, then ?

What? Aren't you supposed to decide this by yourself via examples? Have at it. Otherwise its like playing chess against oneself.


Yes, that's why I said what I said. Sometimes being in the actual context hinders objectivity, is all I said.

Weren't you the one who tried to use this angle of 'objectivity' on Skeptic regarding his reservist duty as well? Perhaps you can find this post of his where he quite thoroughly explains how being in the thick of things and living outside of Israel gives you a much, much clearer picture of this conflict and the international community's view of things. I don't quite like being redundant.


Yes. Like someone who tries homeopathy and swears to its efficacy.
I think you win the award of the best straw man on this forum :D

[Belz...]

Its pretty simple English, so not difficult to understand. The context and the application of it in this thread doesn't make any sense.


What? Aren't you supposed to decide this by yourself via examples? Have at it. Otherwise its like playing chess against oneself.


Weren't you the one who tried to use this angle of 'objectivity' on Skeptic regarding his reservist duty as well? Perhaps you can find this post of his where he quite thoroughly explains how being in the thick of things and living outside of Israel gives you a much, much clearer picture of this conflict and the international community's view of things. I don't quite like being redundant.

Fine. You seem to be needlessly confrontational. Talking to you doesn't sound very productive, then.

I think you win the award of the best straw man on this forum :D

It's an analogy. You can look up the word by yourself.

[Bill Thompson]

And Alabamans were the Cherokee terrorists.

[Thunder]

By the way -and while you're whining about the Arabs all day long, Marc, weren't the Israelites "Arabs" themselves? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#Genetic_evidence_of_common_descent

actually....genetically speaking....no.

The Jews are most closely genetically similar to the Kurds, not the Arabs.

[Marc39]

By the way -and while you're whining about the Arabs all day long, Marc, weren't the Israelites "Arabs" themselves? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#Genetic_evidence_of_common_descent

What you really meant to say is the Arabs pray 5 tmes a day for the destruction of Israel

[bigjelmapro]

Fine. You seem to be needlessly confrontational. Talking to you doesn't sound very productive, then.

Ok then, if you wish to walk away from any realistic debate rather than one based on rhetoric, and then somehow blame it on me for pressing you to debate, then sure.


It's an analogy. You can look up the word by yourself.
Still a straw man, look up the fallacy...

[Belz...]

Ok then, if you wish to walk away from any realistic debate rather than one based on rhetoric

Turn it into a "win" if you want. I'm not playing that game.

Still a straw man, look up the fallacy...

I think you should look it up.

My point is that beign an insider in a particular situation doesn't necessarily make you more objective about it. Often quite the opposite, because you'll then have emotional attachment to some side of the issue.

[Thunder]

What you really meant to say is the Arabs pray 5 tmes a day for the destruction of Israel

Arab Christians don't pray 5 times a day.

[bigjelmapro]

Turn it into a "win" if you want. I'm not playing that game.

I find this amusing. I'm asking for a proper debate and somehow you think that you can play the victim card. We haven't even started any form of debate, so why pull this card now?


I think you should look it up.

My point is that beign an insider in a particular situation doesn't necessarily make you more objective about it. Often quite the opposite, because you'll then have emotional attachment to some side of the issue.
No. Was I the one who equated homeopathy to first-hand experience? No. I'm trying to understand why you do such a thing. Is it somehow related to the previously stated issue that rather than having a debate about the actual specifics, you would rather sit in your rhetoric filled comfort zone?

If you have nothing to add, then just move on already. Unless you want to play 'the last word' angle.

[Marc39]

My point is that beign an insider in a particular situation doesn't necessarily make you more objective about it. Often quite the opposite, because you'll then have emotional attachment to some side of the issue.

It's far superior than acquiring information through someone else's prism.

[Belz...]

It's far superior than acquiring information through someone else's prism.

I'm not saying it's worthless, but it can certainly affect objectivity.

[Belz...]

No. Was I the one who equated homeopathy to first-hand experience? No. I'm trying to understand why you do such a thing.

For the umpteenth time, I'm simply saying that first-hand experience with a thing doesn't mean you've thinking objectively about it. I've said so explicitly several times already, so I'm at a loss as to why you're having trouble with it still.

[Cleon]

What you really meant to say is the Arabs pray 5 tmes a day for the destruction of Israel

You know, if you're going to present yourself as an informed insider, you should probably refrain from making claims that are obviously false.

[Marc39]

I'm not saying it's worthless, but it can certainly affect objectivity.

Few are truly objective. Most have preconceived ideologies.

[Marc39]

You know, if you're going to present yourself as an informed insider, you should probably refrain from making claims that are obviously false.

You might want to familiarize yourself with the content of Muslims' prayers.

Dua Qunoot, a Muslim prayer for the destruction of Allah's enemies...
http://www.islamicacademy.org/html/Dua/Qunoot.htm

[Jono]

If you're going to characterize Jewish immigrants in Palestine who bought up a lot of real estate as "invading wolfs" then Asian, Mexican, Italian and the millions of other immigrants who have resettled in America are invading wolfs, too.


I find that an odd interpretation of what I had written. I didn't characterize jewish immigrants/settlers as the wolfs. Nor did I state that the wolfs in my example actually were invading. You missed the point, or projected something else into the conflict the other way around.

[Oliver]

Few are truly objective. Most have preconceived ideologies.


So true.

[Jontg]

And the Israelis think they are somehow the direct descendants, unchanged for 2,000 years, of the ancient Israelites.

Both theories are utter BS.

Good point--and why do the Ashkenazi, the Sephardi, the Mizrahi, and the Falasha all get to be one ethnicity if all the Arabs don't? I mean, the Falasha are Africans, ffs--calling them Jewish is like saying Norwegians are ethnically Japanese because their languages are distantly related.:boggled:

[Thunder]

Good point--and why do the Ashkenazi, the Sephardi, the Mizrahi, and the Falasha all get to be one ethnicity if all the Arabs don't? I mean, the Falasha are Africans, ffs--calling them Jewish is like saying Norwegians are ethnically Japanese because their languages are distantly related.:boggled:

Well, I believe it is highly historically and ethnically incorrect to identify the Jews as one single ethnic group. I don't know of any historians who do this. Clearly, there are many Jewish ethnic groups. But they are all of the Jewish family. Just as there are several Celtic ethnic groups (Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Brittany, Isle of Man, Catalonia, etc).

[bigjelmapro]

For the umpteenth time, I'm simply saying that first-hand experience with a thing doesn't mean you've thinking objectively about it. I've said so explicitly several times already, so I'm at a loss as to why you're having trouble with it still.
Rubbish. You've made no clear counter-claim that first-hand experience actually diminishes objectivity and actual insight into this conflict. Stating it profusely doesn't make it any truer.

I do find it interesting that people without first-hand experience, without a real interest in this conflict other than a fleeting one, one that hasn't been anywhere near this conflict area, and relies on filtered and often biased media coverage, thinks that he/she is more 'objective'. Truly astounding.

But yes, continue with the rhetoric. Its getting you places...

[bigjelmapro]

Well, I believe it is highly historically and ethnically incorrect to identify the Jews as one single ethnic group.
Who does? I don't know of any who claim this 'single ethnic group' position, other than yourself.

Can we move on?

<rhetoric>Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, racist, apartheid,........</rhetoric>

[Jontg]

Well, how can you be objective? You're right there, in the middle of the conflict--all you can see, for your own mental health, is barbarians at the gates. It's the same on the Palestinian side--they think they're fighting for their lives at this point, and anything they tell themselves and their children is in their minds either completely true or bound to be true sooner or later. Maybe you aren't stealing Arab children for their organs yet, but who knows what will happen if we don't wipe them out soon?

[bigjelmapro]

How can you be objective, if you're way over there, reading a modicum of internet drivel? Nice one.

Barbarians at the gates? Surely you are objective. Hehe. You're full of it, but I do find it entertaining. Just like those Youtube loonies who immediately block you when you actually try to debate with them.

Who is talking about wiping out anybody, well, besides Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qud and Iranian republican guard....hmm.

[Jontg]

Well, you seem to think they can't be reasoned with, and they seem to agree on that point themselves. You've been fighting each other for so long that you're just taking turns taking revenge on each other. It's not going to end unless one or both of you stops existing--I'd prefer it be the Arabs, but I'm open to suggestions.
ETA: Oh, and "them" meant you. That was the point of that sentence.

[Marc39]

Well, you seem to think they can't be reasoned with, and they seem to agree on that point themselves. You've been fighting each other for so long that you're just taking turns taking revenge on each other. It's not going to end unless one or both of you stops existing--I'd prefer it be the Arabs, but I'm open to suggestions.
ETA: Oh, and "them" meant you. That was the point of that sentence.

Arabs and Muslims have been fighting Jews since Jews rejected Muhammad and his cult in Medina. The Qur'an, consequently, rejects Jews, which is the basis for Arab intolerance of Israel and violence against Jews for hundreds of years.

You'll forgive the Jews for desiring to exist and defending themselves against the Muslim onslaught.

[Thunder]

Arabs and Muslims have been fighting Jews since Jews rejected Muhammad and his cult in Medina. The Qur'an, consequently, rejects Jews, which is the basis for Arab intolerance of Israel and violence against Jews for hundreds of years. .

Ah, so Israel's denial of full civil rights to its Arab citizens, the theft and destruction of Palestinian land, and the pogrom in Gaza, has NOTHING to do with Muslim's anger at Israel.

Zionist rule #1= Israelis can do no wrong.
Zionist rule #2= When Israelis do something wrong, see rule #1.

[Whiplash]

I think the "you live there, you are biased" vs "you don't live there, you can't understand" argument is interesting, but I'm not sure it's so cut and dry.

It reminds me of parents who will say "You don't have children!" if you were to criticize them for anything they do regarding their children. It strikes me that yes, someone who has children will understand much more about how children think and work. But at the same time, I think that it's fair to suggest that someone who is a parent may also not be completely objective, because it is their child. They may be more likely to say things like "Ya, well children may do X, Y or Z, but NOT MY JOHNNY!".

I think it's the same in the Middle East to some extent. But if I had to put my faith in the word of someone regarding it, I'd probably put more weight on the person who actually lives there over someone who does not. They may have objectivity issues, but they are there, in the middle of it. I feel they will have more substantive opinions related to direct experience.

But I can also understand that someone far away can view the matter dispassionately. But at the same time, it has to be based on second hand information from others, no matter which side you are on.

It reminds me again of Global Warming. It drives me nuts because I don't have enough knowledge or education to understand the issue. So I have to choose who I want to believe or trust on the matter. I don't like having to work that way. I want to understand things. But when it's out of your league, then all you can do is refer to those who are experts, and then do your best to decide who you think makes the most sense.

[Marc39]

I think the "you live there, you are biased" vs "you don't live there, you can't understand" argument is interesting, but I'm not sure it's so cut and dry.

It reminds me of parents who will say "You don't have children!" if you were to criticize them for anything they do regarding their children. It strikes me that yes, someone who has children will understand much more about how children think and work. But at the same time, I think that it's fair to suggest that someone who is a parent may also not be completely objective, because it is their child. They may be more likely to say things like "Ya, well children may do X, Y or Z, but NOT MY JOHNNY!".

I think it's the same in the Middle East to some extent. But if I had to put my faith in the word of someone regarding it, I'd probably put more weight on the person who actually lives there over someone who does not. They may have objectivity issues, but they are there, in the middle of it. I feel they will have more substantive opinions related to direct experience.

But I can also understand that someone far away can view the matter dispassionately. But at the same time, it has to be based on second hand information from others, no matter which side you are on.

It reminds me again of Global Warming. It drives me nuts because I don't have enough knowledge or education to understand the issue. So I have to choose who I want to believe or trust on the matter. I don't like having to work that way. I want to understand things. But when it's out of your league, then all you can do is refer to those who are experts, and then do your best to decide who you think makes the most sense.

The Internet characters perpetually bashing Israel not only suffer from lack of first-hand experience by never having been to Israel, they rely on self-selected sources with an anti-Israel bias that reinforces their skewed perspective.

Generally, they are educationally deficient, and, often, psychologically imbalanced.

[Jontg]

Tell me how that works out.

[bigjelmapro]

I think the "you live there, you are biased" vs "you don't live there, you can't understand" argument is interesting, but I'm not sure it's so cut and dry.

It reminds me of parents who will say "You don't have children!" if you were to criticize them for anything they do regarding their children. It strikes me that yes, someone who has children will understand much more about how children think and work...

An addition to that analogy would be a childless parent who claims to more (objectively) understand what is it to be a parent with children in a place/region devoid of children.

Lastly, can a parent with children who is passionate about parenting be more or less objective than a parent who is dispassionate about parenting?

But this is just splitting hairs here.

The argument is about objectivity, not the lack of ability to understand this conflict. The argument here lacks credibility. To claim that one is automatically more objective about a certain subject just on the basis that he/she is removed and/or dispassionate about said subject is a complete farce. Its been used time and time again as a means to exclude and denigrate an argument without actually addressing the issues within the argument itself.

I realize you agree with the brunt of my position regarding this, but I just wanted to comment.

[bigjelmapro]

Well, you seem to think they can't be reasoned with, and they seem to agree on that point themselves. You've been fighting each other for so long that you're just taking turns taking revenge on each other. It's not going to end unless one or both of you stops existing--I'd prefer it be the Arabs, but I'm open to suggestions.
ETA: Oh, and "them" meant you. That was the point of that sentence.
You seem to claim that there hasn't been numerous attempts to reason with the Arab/Islamic uhmmah from the get-go. Many chances and numerous failures on the part of the Arabs. If you somehow think that the Jewish community residing in the area is more to blame, or somehow, is equally to blame for the failures of peace latching on to some more recent issue, i.e. settlements, then explain yourself.

This current conflict has only been occurring since the beginning of the last century. Prior to this, it was a combination of wars of religion and that of claiming a major marketing/trade hub. This latter bit wasn't really about land or laying important claims to religious spots, albeit, during this time, only Christianity and Judaism made these claims.

So you're for the Arabs (regardless which religion, which displays your sheer ignorance in the matter) and support the elimination of the Jews. Duly noted.

And thanks for another round of rhetoric. I'm sure you can state the same drivel in another 1/2 dozen ways and contribute nothing to the actual OP. :rolleyes:

[Jontg]

Amazing. You somehow manage to warp and twist every word you hear to make the world seem a little more hostile towards your poor, beleaguered people. I suppose if I'm going to get past your all-non-Zionists-are-anti-Semites field, I'll have to word things as clearly and unambiguously as possible:

Neither of you will ever stop killing each other, so one of you has to be completely exterminated for this moronic war to end. I would prefer that it be the Arabs, since they hate Americans as much as they hate you. However, if tomorrow the entire city of Jerusalem was swallowed up by the earth, Jews, Christians, Muslims and all, I would be just as happy with that outcome, since as long as the city exists, somebody is going to be willing to kill over it. Edited for civility.

[bigjelmapro]

Amazing. You somehow manage to warp and twist every word you hear to make the world seem a little more hostile towards your poor, beleaguered people. I suppose if I'm going to get past your all-non-Zionists-are-anti-Semites field, I'll have to word things as clearly and unambiguously as possible:

So more drivel. I'm quite surprised you haven't used the word 'shill' here and there as of late.


Neither of you will ever stop killing each other, so one of you has to be completely exterminated for this moronic war to end. I would prefer that it be the Arabs, since they hate Americans as much as they hate you. However, if tomorrow the entire city of Jerusalem was swallowed up by the earth, Jews, Christians, Muslims and all, I would be just as happy with that outcome, since as long as the city exists, somebody is going to be willing to kill over it.

Hasn't been too much of anything lately, why? Because there haven't been too many (successful) suicide attack and not a sizable amount of mortars or rockets launched at Israel to justify another incursion.

Don't quite care about your pessimistic, war-mongering, and apocalyptic wet-dreams you have regarding this conflict. Don't care what would make you 'happy'. You have more than enough portrayed your lack of insight into this conflict, the causes and the possible end to hostilities. I'm hopeful that this could finally end, which I can't say for you.
edited for civility.
[edited quote of modded post. [/edit]
What's your ad hominem count now? Laughable. Go back into the cave wherest you came from. Thanks for the entertainment.

[Marc39]

:

Neither of you will ever stop killing each other...

The Qur'an instructs Muslims to kill and oppress Jews. The Old Testament has no reciprocal exhortations.

Concomitantly, since Jewish immigration to Palestine, Jews have been subjected to Arab-Muslim persecution and violence, while Jews have historically wanted to be left alone and to live in peace.

Be careful of the mistake of painting with a broad brush.

[Thunder]

Concomitantly, since Jewish immigration to Palestine, Jews have been subjected to Arab-Muslim persecution and violence, while Jews have historically wanted to be left alone and to live in peace.
.

well, since 1948, we Jews have been getting lots of payback huh?

[Toke]

The Qur'an instructs Muslims to kill and oppress Jews. The Old Testament has no reciprocal exhortations.

The old testament does not have a specific paragraph about Mohamed and his followers to be.

Guess the writers were not precognitive/true profets.

[Simon39759]

The Qur'an instructs Muslims to kill and oppress Jews. The Old Testament has no reciprocal exhortations.

Actually (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44&version=KJV), Leviticus 25:44 says:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


So, no, not killing them, jsut enslave their children...
Pretending that the Old testament is inherently more religiously tolerant is just one more illustration of your ignorance.

[Thunder]

The old testament does not have a specific paragraph about Mohamed and his followers to be.

Guess the writers were not precognitive/true profets.

I'm sure the Talmud has some choice words for Mohammed and Muslims.

"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honour the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30


"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855

"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405

"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b

"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b

"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b

"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1

"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b

"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25

"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5

"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b

"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."
Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772

How does a Jew prepare for his crime?
Moed Kattan 17a . If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.


Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God
Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (gentile) hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed.


O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

Jews Have Superior Legal Status
Baba Kamma 37b. "If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite gores an ox of an Israelite...the payment is to be in full."


Jews May Steal from Non-Jews
Baba Mezia 24a . If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile ("heathen") it does not have to be returned. (Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Sanhedrin 76a. God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean..."


Jews May Rob and Kill Non-Jews
Sanhedrin 57a . When a Jew murders a gentile ("Cuthean"), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.


Baba Kamma 37b. The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." Jews May Lie to Non-Jews
Baba Kamma 113a. Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a Gentile.


Non-Jewish Children are Sub-Human
Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.


Abodah Zarah 36b. Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth.

Abodah Zarah 22a-22b . Gentiles prefer sex with cows. Insults Against Blessed Mary
Sanhedrin 106a . Says Mary was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.


Horrible Blasphemy Against Jesus Christ
Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is being boiled in "hot excrement."
Sanhedrin 43a. Jesus deserved execution: "On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu (Jesus) was hanged...Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defense could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer)?"



Talmud Attacks Non jews beliefs
Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.


Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

Dr. Israel Shahak of Hebrew University reports that the Israelis burned hundreds of New Testament Bibles in occupied Palestine on March 23, 1980 (cf. Jewish History, Jewish Religion, p. 21). Sick and Insane Teachings of the Talmud
Yebamoth 63a. States that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.


Yebamoth 63a. Declares that agriculture is the lowest of occupations. Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).


Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

Yebamoth 59b. A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a Jewish priest. A woman who has sex with a demon is also eligible to marry a Jewish priest.

Abodah Zarah 17a. States that there is not a whore in the world that the Talmudic sage Rabbi Eleazar has not had sex with.

Hagigah 27a. States that no rabbi can ever go to hell.

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

Pesahim 111a. It is forbidden for dogs, women or palm trees to pass between two men, nor may others walk between dogs, women or palm trees. Special dangers are involved if the women are menstruating or sitting at a crossroads.

Menahoth 43b-44a. A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.

[bigjelmapro]

:D Basic mistake, you're quoting the Talmud, which is not the OT. Like stating that Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, and Ahmed Ali is the Quran.

You're still claiming to be Jewish? Pfft.

[Marc39]

Actually (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44&version=KJV), Leviticus 25:44 says:



So, no, not killing them, jsut enslave their children...
Pretending that the Old testament is inherently more religiously tolerant is just one more illustration of your ignorance.

Nonsense. The Old Testament does not call out for global warfare in order to convert non-Jews or, alternatively, murder them, as the Qur'an does.

Jihad is Quranic.

Jews are not committing mass murder of Muslims in the name of their savior.

[Cleon]

parky, I'd recommend against trolling anti-Semitic websites for Talmudic quotes. I've seen those accusations before, and they usually turn out to be garbage.

[Marc39]

parky, I'd recommend against trolling anti-Semitic websites for Talmudic quotes. I've seen those accusations before, and they usually turn out to be garbage.

Ha. IIRC, he also posted about Jew-Only roads in Israel that, of course, turned out to be bogus.

Bad troller. Tsk tsk.

[Thunder]

Ha. IIRC, he also posted about Jew-Only roads in Israel that, of course, turned out to be bogus.

Bad troller. Tsk tsk.

gee tanks

[Jontg]

Big, what the hell is wrong with you? You're about as skeptical as Richard Gage--but you use our words and take on the trappings of critical thought to press your own whacked-out agenda and paint those who won't adhere to your warmongering, judeocentric worldview as lunatics. You attack me with empty rhetoric and loaded words to try and make me out to be sort of neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist--but the only bigot here is you.
And I will not "go back" to someplace I have never been. I've been here longer than you have, seen idiots like you come and go after trying and failing to sway skeptical minds to your "cause." Your pretensions of skepticism are fooling nobody, and neither are your ridiculous attacks against my person. Baiting people to call you a shill and comparing them to youtube commenters does not make you a skeptic--it makes you a poor imitation, a woo-ridden zealot who wouldn't know an actual freethinker if I beat you over the head with The God Delusion. If every Israeli is as thoroughly infected as you, then I take back what I said about the Arabs being the problem; the first thing we try should be purging you.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point and do not in any way threaten another forum member.

[Thunder]

:D Basic mistake, you're quoting the Talmud, which is not the OT. Like stating that Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, and Ahmed Ali is the Quran.

You're still claiming to be Jewish? Pfft.

Yes, I am a Jew. wanna see proof?

:p

[Thunder]

parky76, please stop trolling antisemitic websites for Talmudic scholarship. It's embarrassing for someone who claims to be Jewish. Most of those quotes are mistranslations of the original, deliberately mangled.

proof?

The Koran says some pretty horrible things. I see no reason to believe that the Talmud, written around the same time in the same area, would be any more moral or polite. especially since the Babylonian Talmud is a huge collection of the views and opinions of probably thousands of Rabbis.

[marksman]

The Koran says some pretty horrible things. I see no reason to believe that the Talmud, written around the same time in the same area, would be any more moral or polite.Rather than have me sit around translating Aramaic and Hebrew for you, why don't you let me know where you got the quotes from?

especially since the Babylonian Talmud is a huge collection of the views and opinions of probably thousands of Rabbis.
Okay... so since you understand that the Talmud is simply the recorded opinions of individual rabbis and therefore couldn't be taken as a general pronouncement of Jewish religious teachings on Islam, are you acknowledging that your citation to Talmud to counter Marc39's quotations of Quran is quite misplaced?

As far as I can tell, you saw Marc39 post a lot of inflammatory stuff form the Quran and you thought it was a decent idea to quote a lot of stuff from Talmud, knowing that it wasn't analogous or a rational counterargument, right? I mean the counter to "The primary book of this religion says nasty antisemitic stuff" is not "Well, some rabbis a long time ago said nasty stuff too." I'm pretty sure that's a tu quoque fallacy, in addition to being irrelevant for not citing the primary book of the Judaism.

[marksman]

This article (http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/man.html) debunks your first quote.

This website (http://www.geocities.com/athens/cyprus/8815/qts.html) debunks most of the quotes from your post.

As an aside, when I tried to just google the citations in your post, I came across the most hateful antisemitic websites I've ever seen. I shudder to think where you came up with this crud.

[Toke]

This is strange.
We started with a discussion on the definition of a terrorist and are now at which religion is the most evil.

Anyway,
Marc39, do you know why the OT does not have anything against muslims specifically?:D

(see your post 423)

[Belz...]

I think the "you live there, you are biased" vs "you don't live there, you can't understand" argument is interesting, but I'm not sure it's so cut and dry.

It reminds me of parents who will say "You don't have children!" if you were to criticize them for anything they do regarding their children. It strikes me that yes, someone who has children will understand much more about how children think and work. But at the same time, I think that it's fair to suggest that someone who is a parent may also not be completely objective, because it is their child. They may be more likely to say things like "Ya, well children may do X, Y or Z, but NOT MY JOHNNY!".

Pretty much what I was trying to get across, but much more eloquent.

[Belz...]

To claim that one is automatically more objective about a certain subject just on the basis that he/she is removed and/or dispassionate about said subject is a complete farce.

For the umpteenth time, I'm simply saying that first-hand experience with a thing doesn't mean you've thinking objectively about it.

The two are quite different. I think you're reading whatever the hell you want to read.

[Jono]

Nonsense. The Old Testament does not call out for global warfare in order to convert non-Jews or, alternatively, murder them, as the Qur'an does.


There's an abundance of homicidal, genocidal, xenophobic, hateful rants in the OT (by contemporary western sentiments and moral that is). Israelites were directly commanded by their God to, in contextual OT texts, kill men, women and children in enemy cities. Take the killing of the children of Amalek or the caananite genocide.
This doesn't mean those who believe the text to be divinely inspired necessarily approve of above mentioned aspects.

For example, take this from Deuteronomy:
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction.

-- Deuteronomy 22:20-21

I.e, if we find someone in a given that do not ascribe to God's laws and word, one that has a different belief and talks about it, God says kill 'em all. Does this mean that christians believe genocide is therefor warranted?

You see, people so oft engane in this kind of approach, using arcaic passages of comparetively cruel nature to apply as a reason why and how the given groups act the way they do today. It's an approach one should treat cautiously, not because it might be offensive but moreso because it's so easy to get an utterly pee-poor grasp of the contemporary dynamics and what lead to them.

[marksman]

ETA: No offense, Parky--though Whitelion and Jelma are right in this case. The Talmud isn't really a good source for this stuff.

He wasn't actually quoting Talmud, mind you. He was quoting some hate site that was misquoting (and in some cases fabricating quotes from) the Talmud.

ETA: Which isn't to say you can't find some pretty nasty stuff in the Torah. You absolutely can. But parky didn't do that. Instead he just looked for the first thing his web browser gave him and posted it without any critical thought being employed at all.

[Marc39]

There's an abundance of homicidal, genocidal, xenophobic, hateful rants in the OT (by contemporary western sentiments and moral that is). Israelites were directly commanded by their God to, in contextual OT texts, kill men, women and children in enemy cities. Take the killing of the children of Amalek or the caananite genocide.
This doesn't mean those who believe the text to be divinely inspired necessarily approve of above mentioned aspects.

For example, take this from Deuteronomy:


I.e, if we find someone in a given that do not ascribe to God's laws and word, one that has a different belief and talks about it, God says kill 'em all. Does this mean that christians believe genocide is therefor warranted?

You see, people so oft engane in this kind of approach, using arcaic passages of comparetively cruel nature to apply as a reason why and how the given groups act the way they do today. It's an approach one should treat cautiously, not because it might be offensive but moreso because it's so easy to get an utterly pee-poor grasp of the contemporary dynamics and what lead to them.

The Old Testament talks of purging the promised land of idolatry, it does not call for global conquest and violence against non-believers. The Old Testament has also ceased being any sort of literal plan for Jewish nationalism and serves as a spiritual guide to avoiding personal transgressions.

The Qur'an, in contrast, openly instructs violence against and oppression of non-Muslims. Jihadists are merely following an interpretation of Islam that is not very abstract. Ultimately, this is all that matters, really.

[Thunder]

um....the Israelites did not conquor Canaan with smiles and warm milk. They took the land by force, murdering and raping all those who opposed them. Kind of like a mini-Crusade. Just like Islam...except in a smaller scale.

[Jono]

And I've been thinking about the whole tu quoque thing, and I don't think it applies here. Pointing out that Judaism has just as bloody a history and as violently insane a holy text as Islam isn't fallacious, because Marc's whole point is he is morally superior to the Palestinian people.

The tu quoque fallacy looks like this:
Person A: You have done X. X is wrong. Therefore you should cease to do X.
Person B: You have also done X. Therefore, you are a hypocrite. Your argument is invalid.

Well it's more often than not a road plagued by low-brow insinuations and assumptions, e.g the manner of debating "which group has the most conquestal, arcaic and violently vile texts". It's one stone-throw away from arguing in the sandbox about whose daddy can kick all other daddies' arses.
Very often, however, I've tried to present examples in the face of such tactics of just how plagued with zealotry such reasoning ultimately is. The issue, for any productive end for Marc, should not be on which religious/ethnic group has the bloodiest or more violent a history as per its doctrinal text or written accounts (not in this thread's context). No, rather he should, for sake of fruitful and coherent discussion, stick with the possible reasons why the religous extremist wings of contemporary Islam in the Middle East specifically are openly violent toward non-muslims, compared to the vast majority of muslims that aren't not so.
It clearly has more to do with their regional/geographical base, the conflicts inherent thereof, as a group as opposed to using religious adherence as a yardstick proxy.

[Oliver]

Marc39, do you know why the OT does not have anything against muslims specifically?:D


Good question, indeed. What's up with the OT's God, is that guy just a blind, impotent, senile moron without any capability to foresee any future development whatsoever?

.
.
.

BOOOOOOOO! :D

[bigjelmapro]

um....the Israelites did not conquor Canaan with smiles and warm milk. They took the land by force, murdering and raping all those who opposed them. Kind of like a mini-Crusade. Just like Islam...except in a smaller scale.
And bringing up ancient biblical history gets us where again?

So how was the US made? Canada? Australia? Oh yeah, bit more recent there.

[Belz...]

The Old Testament talks of purging the promised land of idolatry, it does not call for global conquest and violence against non-believers.

Well, that's an interesting contradiction if I ever saw one...

[Thunder]

:beartongue:

this is the most exciting thing since mickey mouse.

[Thomas]

Man, jews are not quite capable of all the things they are accused of, but that's what you get for killing the J man. Oh my. Those damn Catholics, one billion conspirators :D

[bigjelmapro]

So, let me get this straight. If I perceive an erroneous claim on the part of a participant on this thread, I can't point it out unless I have a claim of my own or some relevant other fact to mention ?
I have yet to see what perceived 'erroneous claim' you're referring to.

I, however, am still trying to find the claims you made of 'Israel can do no wrong' and why you reversed the assertion I made about objectivity.

Anyways, I don't really see how I can get a response out of you...

[Belz...]

I have yet to see what perceived 'erroneous claim' you're referring to.

And then:

I, however, am still trying to find the claims you made of 'Israel can do no wrong' and why you reversed the assertion I made about objectivity.

The "erroneous claim" is that Palestinians are absolutely the bad guys and Israelites are necessarily the good guys. This is pretty much the position that Marc has taken, and it assumes that there is something inherently inferior or inhuman about the Palestinians that the Israelites don't have. It's fallacious thinking at its simplest.

[Marc39]

And then:



The "erroneous claim" is that Palestinians are absolutely the bad guys and Israelites are necessarily the good guys. This is pretty much the position that Marc has taken, and it assumes that there is something inherently inferior or inhuman about the Palestinians that the Israelites don't have. It's fallacious thinking at its simplest.

The Arabs and Muslims have not given Jews a moment of peace since the Muslim invasion of Palestine in the 7th century.

Today, more Palestinian terror groups than I can even keep track of continue to carry the torch for Muslim terrorism against the Jewish people.

So, yes, on balance, Pals are the bad guys and Jews the good guys.

[Thunder]

The Arabs and Muslims have not given Jews a moment of peace since the Muslim invasion of Palestine in the 7th century.
So, yes, on balance, Pals are the bad guys and Jews the good guys.

The Jew's centuries in Muslim Spain was known as "The Golden Age". Jews who fled Spain once it was reconquered by the Catholics fled to...Muslim countries.

And today, Israel is using terrorism against the civilian population of Gaza. Withholding food, fuel, and basic necessities to convince them to rebel against Hamas.

Withholding food and other needs in order to achieve a political goal IS TERRORISM.

[Belz...]

This 'pretty much' is the assumption you made.

Actually, "pretty much" is me giving Marc some wiggle room in case I'm wrong, so it's not an assumption.

And if Marc's position on this is wrong he's had more than one opportunity to correct me.

Secondly, is this baseless inferiority tactic. Also used extensively, but not as much as the first.

Huh ?

My position is that both camps have done things that we usually consider "wrong". I don't doubt that one camp may be considered "wronger", but I also don't think that any one of them is blameless. That's what I'm saying.

[Marc39]

Actually, "pretty much" is me giving Marc some wiggle room in case I'm wrong, so it's not an assumption.

And if Marc's position on this is wrong he's had more than one opportunity to correct me.



Huh ?

My position is that both camps have done things that we usually consider "wrong". I don't doubt that one camp may be considered "wronger", but I also don't think that any one of them is blameless. That's what I'm saying.

Everyone has done wrong in their lives.

However, there are gradations of wrongful behavior.

The Arabs and Muslims are at the top of the scale.

The Jews, at the lower end of the scale.

[commandlinegamer]

I'd have put the Nazis at the top of the scale.

[Thunder]

I'd have put the Nazis at the top of the scale.

well, since the Arabs are daring to fight the Jews, they have become the most evil people on Earth.

[Tricky]

A number of posts have been moved to AAH for bickering. Because there is so much history and so many MA violations resulting from this kind of thread, I've set the bar pretty low for bickering. Don't say anything about other members or you risk moderation. Discuss the topic only.

[Belz...]

"And if Marc's position on this is wrong he's had more than one opportunity to correct me."

Everyone has done wrong in their lives.

However, there are gradations of wrongful behavior.

The Arabs and Muslims are at the top of the scale.

The Jews, at the lower end of the scale.

Thanks for making my point for me, Marc.

[Marc39]

I'd have put the Nazis at the top of the scale.

The Nazis emulated the Muslims.

[bigjelmapro]

The Jew's centuries in Muslim Spain was known as "The Golden Age". Jews who fled Spain once it was reconquered by the Catholics fled to...Muslim countries.

Rehashing the same argument of this 'Golden age' drivel again here I see. You didn't bother replying in the other thread where this was addressed, so now you're posting it here again.

So you going to address this here or not? Or better yet, go back to the thread where this was already discussed and continue from there.


And today, Israel is using terrorism against the civilian population of Gaza. Withholding food, fuel, and basic necessities to convince them to rebel against Hamas.

Withholding food and other needs in order to achieve a political goal IS TERRORISM.
Those are called sanctions. Its not terrorism. Or perhaps you want to quote how this is supposedly 'collective punishment' as well:

HRW’s Letter to President Bush on Gaza: The “Collective Punishment” Hoax (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/hrw_s_letter_to_president_bush_on_gaza_the_collect ive_punishment_hoax)

HRW continues to apply the label of “collective punishment” selectively and incorrectly to Israel (see NGO Monitor’s analysis here (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/ngo_monitor_s_report_on_hrw_bias_and_double_standa rds_continue)). Restriction on the flow of goods in a war environment does not constitute “collective punishment” under international law. “Collective punishment” refers to the imposition of criminal penalties and does not refer to the legal act of retorsion (e.g. sanctions, blockades). In fact, pursuant to Article 23 of the Geneva Convention (which sets standards for the provision of limited humanitarian aid), [2] Israel has no obligation to provide any goods, even minimal humanitarian supplies, if it is “satisfied” that such goods will be diverted or supply of such goods will aid Hamas in its war effort. As numerous credible accounts have reported, Hamas has diverted supplies from Gaza’s civilian population. Although Israel is under no legal obligation and despite the diversion as well as attacks on the Israeli border crossings, including the April 9 attack on the Nahal Oz fuel depot and the May 22 truck bomb attack at the Erez crossing, Israel continues to provide hundreds of tons of humanitarian supplies to Gaza on a weekly basis. This is above and beyond any obligation under international law, and the claim of “collective punishment” is entirely unjustified.

So there's no basis for the 'collective punishment' accusation against Israel when it comes to Gaza in international humanitarian law, Roman statutes, or the Geneva conventions (namely article 33 of the 4th Geneva convention).

So what are we left with here when there's no legal basis for these accusations? Why the terrorism accusation! :D Doesn't surprise me. Try making that one stick.

[Marc39]

Originally Posted by parky76
The Jew's centuries in Muslim Spain was known as "The Golden Age". Jews who fled Spain once it was reconquered by the Catholics fled to...Muslim countries.


Rehashing the same argument of this 'Golden age' drivel again here I see. You didn't bother replying in the other thread where this was addressed, so now you're posting it here again.

Rehashing fiction.

The Golden Age was a golden shower for Jews.

The Golden Age refers to the heightened level of art, literature and architecture in Spain, not the treatment of Jews in Spain. There were well-documented massacres of Jews during the so-called Golden Age.

Where people dream this stuff up, I don't know.

Eminent Islamic historian and scholar Bernard Lewis on the Golden Age, from his excellent book, "The Jews In Islam"...

The claim to tolerance, now much heard from Muslim apologists and more especially from apologists for Islam, is also new and of alien origin. It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity

[Belz...]

The Nazis emulated the Muslims.

I hope that was sarcastic, but now we'll never know.

[commandlinegamer]

Why was he banned? Can we ask?

[Belz...]

Perhaps you should PM Darat or ask on the forum management section.

[Skeptic]

well, since the Arabs are daring to fight the Jews, they have become the most evil people on Earth.

(Shrug) the battle cry of the the Arabs was (and for some, at least, still is) "Itbah Il Yahood" -- butcher the Jews.

There are at least 300,000,000 or so Arabs in the world, and only 15,000,000 (at most) Jews.

Why it is particularly "daring" for the Arabs to fight someone they outnumber at least 20 to 1, or what is "daring" (as opposed to simply evil) about the goal of genocidal eradication of the "yahood", is a mystery to me.