Jews Were The Original Middle East Terrorists

[Mondial]

With the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber and media condemnation of British oil and trade deals with Colonel Gaddafi of Libya I would point out that this is nothing new. At least two former Israeli prime ministers were members of terrorist organisations - Menachem Begin belonged to the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Yitzhak Shamir the LEHI (better known as the Stern gang). Their outrages included the assassination of Churchill's envoy to the middle east Lord Moyne and the UN mediator on Palestine Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden as well as blowing up the King David hotel with 91 dead. They also killed many British soldiers and policemen until the British mandate in Palestine ended in 1948. The point is neither of these Israeli prime ministers ever apologised or condemned their terrorist actions yet they were welcomed at 10 Downing Street and the White House. And of course Britain and the USA trade with Israel. I condemn all terrorism whether it is by Jews, Muslims, Christians or anyone else but the media has a selective memory and likes to omit or downplay zionist terrorism. A double standard is at work here. www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm)

[lionking]

And the connection between Lockerbie, Gaddafi and the Stern gang is?

[paximperium]

That's nice. So?

[quixotecoyote]

bad jews.

no matzah.

[lionking]

bad jews.

no matzah.
Oh yes, goes without saying.

I'm waiting for the revelation that Gaddafi was trained by the Stern gang.

[paximperium]

bad jews.

no matzah.
That may actually be a good thing.

[oldhat]

Jews did 9/11.

[lionking]

Jews did 9/11.
Ah thanks. That links everything together rather neatly.

[McHrozni]

With the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber and media condemnation of British oil and trade deals with Colonel Gaddafi of Libya I would point out that this is nothing new. At least two former Israeli prime ministers were members of terrorist organisations - Menachem Begin belonged to the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Yitzhak Shamir the LEHI (better known as the Stern gang). Their outrages included the assassination of Churchill's envoy to the middle east Lord Moyne and the UN mediator on Palestine Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden as well as blowing up the King David hotel with 91 dead. They also killed many British soldiers and policemen until the British mandate in Palestine ended in 1948. The point is neither of these Israeli prime ministers ever apologised or condemned their terrorist actions yet they were welcomed at 10 Downing Street and the White House. And of course Britain and the USA trade with Israel. I condemn all terrorism whether it is by Jews, Muslims, Christians or anyone else but the media has a selective memory and likes to omit or downplay zionist terrorism. A double standard is at work here. www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm)

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

[Ignorantbystander]

Why would the Jews have resorted to terrorism if they controlled the world?

[lionking]

Good first post Ignorantbystander and welcome to the forum.

[Safe-Keeper]

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.
Thank you for making use of a word I would like to see make a more common appearance in peoples' daily vocabulary.

'Terrorism' is a very strong term, but today it seems to be used to describe even the harmless vandalism. The toppling of the AM towers by ELF was highly annoying and will cost money to undo, but 'terrorism' is way too strong a word to describe it. Call it what it was - 'sabotage'.

[Eddie Dane]

Why would the Jews have resorted to terrorism if they controlled the world?

Because they're eeeeeeeeeeevil.

It's true that the various zionist organizations used assassinations and bomb attacks. But nothing that compares to Lockerbie, as far as I know.

I saw an interview with someone from the Algerian anti-colonial resistance. He claimed that they based their tactics on what the zionist's did to successfully kick out the British.

[Thunder]

The Jews invented Middle Eastern terrorism...but the Muslims CLEARLY perfected it. Jews get Bar-Mitzvahed at age 13 while Muslim begin their shaheed training.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The "Jews Were The Original Middle East Terrorists"?

Original? Original? Like predating the Babylonian Civilization? :boggled:

[Mondial]

The following link is to THE BUNCHE REPORT which is a chronology of zionist terrorist acts from 1944-48 when Palestine was a British mandate -
www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/bunche-report.htm (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/bunche-report.htm)

[paximperium]

The following link is to THE BUNCHE REPORT which is a chronology of zionist terrorist acts from 1944-48 when Palestine was a British mandate -
www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/bunche-report.htm (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/bunche-report.htm)

That's nice. So?

[Thunder]

The following link is to THE BUNCHE REPORT which is a chronology of zionist terrorist acts from 1944-48 when Palestine was a British mandate -
www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/bunche-report.htm (http://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/bunche-report.htm)

Maybe if the Nazis hadn't killed all of our relatives we wouldn't have been so angry.

[LtWaRr]

The following link is to THE BUNCHE REPORT which is a chronology of zionist terrorist acts from 1944-48 when Palestine was a British mandate



So its a webpage containing information with no evidence to back it. is that all you have??? :jaw-dropp omg

[Jontg]

The "Jews Were The Original Middle East Terrorists"?

Original? Original? Like predating the Babylonian Civilization? :boggled:

Well, oddly, you're almost on the ball there. The first time the Hebrews enter the historical record, they're riding around looting and conquering. They were never enslaved in Egypt; they ruled Egypt until Ahmose I kicked them out. From that point on, the Biblical account seems to be mostly accurate--minus the miracles, of course. So yes, Mondial, the early Jews were vicious, nomadic raiders, just like our ancestors. And they lied like dogs in their official histories, just like every other ancient people from the Egyptians to the Romans. And this has what bearing on anything?

[Jono]

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

Yes the heart of the british Secretariat and Military HQ was found, if I recall correctly, in the King David Hotel. The odd attempt at pulling this one together with Lockerbie aside, wether Irgun is correctly called a terrorist group or not is pointless semantics imo. Wether this particular deed qualifies as an act of terrorism has been an oft debated point though. Most of the people killed were not soldiers or police, but hotel staff and government clerks.
Al Qaueda or similar terrorist branches bombing embassy's are generally accepted as acts of terrorism. Or if the plane that crashed into the Pentagon had been empty, would it still not be an act of terrorism? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. And I think Irgun at that point can in hindsight be excused of very little, despite the loaded terminology of what label to put on them.

[Doctor Evil]

Quite a stupid thread, on several counts.

First, I should point out that I do not mind if someone calls the Stern gang a terrorist organization. One may debate on whether one of their particular act was a terrorist or not, but the whole collection of their actions was reprehensible enough.

The problem starts when someone tries to present the Stern gang as if they represent the community they lived in. Far from it, they were a small splinter group from another small extremist organizations. I would say that they were as representative as the truthers are representative of current US politics.

The OP goes beyond this, as can be ascertained by reading the title. It clearly tries to append the actions of the Stern gang to all Jews. Can't say that I am surprised, knowing the author, but I am disgusted.

Turning to the spectacularly stupid claim that Jews where the original, as in first, terrorist. Such a position could be held only by arbitrarily deciding that history have started at some convenient date. Actually, this is not enough. One also have to completely ignore the actions of the Arab side.

It should not be surprising to anyone bothering to read some history that both sides of the conflict attacked each other. (Actually, I should have said all sides, and include the British.) I would give one example, just to demonstrate that lack of historical knowledge of the OP.

A crowd composed mostly of Jews was leaving Edison cinema in Jerusalem after watching a movie. A gunmen opened fire on them killing three and injuring two. The date was, May 16, 1936. Somewhat earlier that the dates mentioned in the OP. Perhaps history did not begin in 1948? (Please, do not make this into an argument about who started first. My only point was to show that the OP is ridiculous.)

Actually, Gord_in_toronto had an excellent point. Why concentrate on the 20 century. Why not the ancient world? If so, I will pick the Assyrians. They had the first empire, which they kept by brute force. They left us writing in which the boast on the cities the destroyed and the enemies they tortured. They were fiercely hated by all their neighbors. They will be my first pick for the original middle eastern terrorists.

[Piggy]

The Conquest of Canaan is pretty rough stuff, but sadly, par for the course back then.

If you want to find the "original middle east terrorists" you're going to have to go a lot further back than you've gone in this thread.

[Whiplash]

That's nice. So?


So it's completely justified to hate them, and want to commit genocide on them.

[McHrozni]

Yes the heart of the british Secretariat and Military HQ was found, if I recall correctly, in the King David Hotel. The odd attempt at pulling this one together with Lockerbie aside, wether Irgun is correctly called a terrorist group or not is pointless semantics imo. Wether this particular deed qualifies as an act of terrorism has been an oft debated point though. Most of the people killed were not soldiers or police, but hotel staff and government clerks.

Yes, the line between sabotage and terrorism is often blurred. That aside, military HQ is indisputably a military target, even if it is placed in a building alongside civilians.

Al Qaueda or similar terrorist branches bombing embassy's are generally accepted as acts of terrorism.

The only military target in an embassy is the small defense detail, with negligible military value. A killing of a guard could be an act of sabotage or resistance, but an attack against an embassy is an act of terrorism.

Or if the plane that crashed into the Pentagon had been empty, would it still not be an act of terrorism?

Had they stolen an empty plane (or purchased one, or whatever), then it wouldn't be an act of terrorism.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Yeah, but in some cases of the type that fights freedom, not fights for freedom :) The Taliban are a prime example.

McHrozni

[Skeptic]

First they say terrorism is a wonderful, wonderful act of bravery against the evil racist exploiters of the world.

Then they blame Jews for being terrorists.

Go figure.

[Simon39759]

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


Actually, it does fit in the definition of terrorism which is, basically 'a military or paramilitary operation that is not officially sanctioned by a recognized government'.

That's very vague but the term is vague and was used, for example, even for victimless sabotages by the resistance of the FLNC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Corsica), a group present on the Terrorist list ("http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/List_of_terrorist_groups/" ).
The difference between terrorism and revolutionary or resistance groups, or even just plain old criminals (a lot of terrorist groups finance themselves through kidnapping or drug traficking and it is sometime unclear when the 'business' side of thing become less of a mean but rather a goal onto itself) is often iffy and has more to do with propaganda than objective criteria.


What is certain is that the Stern group, even if what it did could be qualified as terrorism, was much less violent and vicious than what terrorist groups Israel is confronted too now.

[Marduk]

And the connection between Lockerbie, Gaddafi and the Stern gang is?

the bible
duh
:rolleyes::p

[McHrozni]

Actually, it does fit in the definition of terrorism which is, basically 'a military or paramilitary operation that is not officially sanctioned by a recognized government'.

For that classification to be accurate, state-sponsored terrorism cannot logically exist. I don't really care who uses it, it is inaccurate :) Hamas, for example, would not be a terrorist organization in this case.

I consider terrorism to be usage of clandestine methods of attack against civilian casualties, with intent to cause mass casualties, and a terrorist organization one that does that (which is probably what you wanted to say).
I believe it is a much, much better classification. I know it's not under any official use, but at least it covers what we generally accept to be terrorism without giving some weird inclusions. It is far from perfect, of course.

McHrozni

[Simon39759]

For that classification to be accurate, state-sponsored terrorism cannot logically exist. I don't really care who uses it, it is inaccurate :) Hamas, for example, would not be a terrorist organization in this case.

I consider terrorism to be usage of clandestine methods of attack against civilian casualties, with intent to cause mass casualties, and a terrorist organization one that does that (which is probably what you wanted to say).
I believe it is a much, much better classification. I know it's not under any official use, but at least it covers what we generally accept to be terrorism without giving some weird inclusions. It is far from perfect, of course.

McHrozni


Hmm, you are right about state sponsored terrorism (although, this support is most often not official). But, as I mentioned, many terrorist organization did not attend to cause casualties, and many others balked away from targeting civilians. Especially at first.
After all, in this definition the term 'cyberterrorism' is an oximoron.

[Mondial]

In the 1970's the Israeli government of Menachem Begin issued postage stamps honoring the terrorist leader Avraham Stern. The journalist Russell Warren asked Begin if he considered himself "the father of terrorism in the middle east". Begin's answer was "No, in the entire world!". The double standards of the zionists are blatantly obvious.

[paximperium]

In the 1970's the Israeli government of Menachem Begin issued postage stamps honoring the terrorist leader Avraham Stern. The journalist Russell Warren asked Begin if he considered himself "the father of terrorism in the middle east". Begin's answer was "No, in the entire world!". The double standards of the zionists are blatantly obvious.
That's nice. So?

[McHrozni]

Hmm, you are right about state sponsored terrorism (although, this support is most often not official). But, as I mentioned, many terrorist organization did not attend to cause casualties, and many others balked away from targeting civilians. Especially at first.

An organization targeting strictly legitemate military targets would not be a terrorist organization in my opinion. One that occasionaly targets enemy civilians less so ... and the lines become blurred, as we can see.

An organization that starts out as a pure paramilitary partisan movement and then proceeds to transform itself into a terrorist organization by planting bombs in day care centers and so on would be a terrorist organization. Pointing to the exact date it became one might be more difficult, but that's about it.

After all, in this definition the term 'cyberterrorism' is an oximoron.

Casualties doesn't necessarily mean killed and wounded, in it's broadest sense it is people negatively effected by an event. If that was deliberate and clandestine, we could be quite comfortable with the term. :)

McHrozni

[Moss]

My old philosophy teacher defined (if I remember correctly that is) terrorism as a tactics that terrorise the populace and thus blackmail a government to give in to terrorist claims.
It's in the name, terrorism has the intention to put terror or fear into someone and to make them or the people responsible for them react according to the wishes of the terrorist. A terrorist act is only part of the practice of terrorism as it is either to establish the ability of the terrorists to inflict damage or to inflict damage as punishment for not meeting the terrorist's claims.
The widespread use of the word has the deliberate effect of bolstering the justification of antiterrorist laws that came into effect after 9/11.

I really wonder why mondial wants to establish the jews as a whole, not just the Stern gang or the Irgun, as the first middle east terrorists. Going for the antisemite "all jews are evil and need to be eradicated" stereotype again?
Holding a whole religious community responsible for the acts of an extremist splinter group is both bizarre and inhumane.

[McHrozni]

My old philosophy teacher defined (if I remember correctly that is) terrorism as a tactics that terrorise the populace and thus blackmail a government to give in to terrorist claims.

Threat of an attack via nuclear bomb, openly, via bomber for example, would then qualify, wouldn't it?

This is why I like to put in "intent to produce casualties" and "clandestine" :)

McHrozni

[fuelair]

With the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber and media condemnation of British oil and trade deals with Colonel Gaddafi of Libya I would point out that this is nothing new. At least two former Israeli prime ministers were members of terrorist organisations - Menachem Begin belonged to the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Yitzhak Shamir the LEHI (better known as the Stern gang). Their outrages included the assassination of Churchill's envoy to the middle east Lord Moyne and the UN mediator on Palestine Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden as well as blowing up the King David hotel with 91 dead. They also killed many British soldiers and policemen until the British mandate in Palestine ended in 1948. The point is neither of these Israeli prime ministers ever apologised or condemned their terrorist actions yet they were welcomed at 10 Downing Street and the White House. And of course Britain and the USA trade with Israel. I condemn all terrorism whether it is by Jews, Muslims, Christians or anyone else but the media has a selective memory and likes to omit or downplay zionist terrorism. A double standard is at work here. www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm)
No argument from me - I agree fully. But, that doesn't change any facts about Hamass, Al Q or Hisblsht.

[godless dave]

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


Word. And this applies to Iraq too.

There have been a few attacks on civilians carried out by Israeli forces, but they were by no means the first terrorist acts in the region.

[Simon39759]

Threat of an attack via nuclear bomb, openly, via bomber for example, would then qualify, wouldn't it?

This is why I like to put in "intent to produce casualties" and "clandestine" :)

McHrozni


The problem is that many organizations that are considered terrorist, especially in Western Europe, did not intent to cause fatalities.
The FLNC has an habit to give a call a little while in advance to warn about the bombs they planted, so that people would have time to evacuate the building.

Right now, especially since 9/11, violent Islamist terrorist organizations really dominate the news.

Also, shouldn't Michael Colins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_%28Irish_leader%29) be considered the 'father of world terrorism'?

[Almo]

I disagree with the word "original." Sure, they were at it before the current crop. You could argue they are still at it. But they weren't the first...

[Thunder]

In the 1970's the Israeli government of Menachem Begin issued postage stamps honoring the terrorist leader Avraham Stern. The journalist Russell Warren asked Begin if he considered himself "the father of terrorism in the middle east". Begin's answer was "No, in the entire world!". The double standards of the zionists are blatantly obvious.

yeah? what of it?

[Toke]

Terrorist have been around since the first state was formed.
They can later be told from freedom fighters by the fact that freedom fighters are the ones that win and create governments. (ANC, American rebels, Sandinista, Stern)

[Thunder]

Terrorists are people who use violence against civilians in order to enact political or social change. Was the first terrorist act in the Middle East during the 1930s???

I truly doubt that. Crusaders, Muslims, Romans, Ottomans, Judaeans, Byzantines, Mongols, etc etc had enacted acts of terror in this region for 2,000 years.

Perhaps Zionists were some of the first MODERN-DAY terrorists, but that really don't matter.

[McHrozni]

Word. And this applies to Iraq too.

Yup. However, if an organization devotes, say 2/3 of it's resources at killing civilians, and 1/3 at killing police and military forces, it is still a terrorist organization, and many of it's members will rightfuly be labeled terrorists.
In addition, if they're hiding among civilians for example, they're still unlawful combantants, a charge that can be of almost comparable severity.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

The problem is that many organizations that are considered terrorist, especially in Western Europe, did not intent to cause fatalities.

You missed this part of my earlier post:
Casualties doesn't necessarily mean killed and wounded, in it's broadest sense it is people negatively effected by an event.

McHrozni

[MaGZ]

Because they're eeeeeeeeeeevil.

It's true that the various zionist organizations used assassinations and bomb attacks. But nothing that compares to Lockerbie, as far as I know.

I saw an interview with someone from the Algerian anti-colonial resistance. He claimed that they based their tactics on what the zionist's did to successfully kick out the British.

Israel once shotdown a Libyan airliner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114

[MaGZ]

Yes, the line between sabotage and terrorism is often blurred. That aside, military HQ is indisputably a military target, even if it is placed in a building alongside civilians.



The only military target in an embassy is the small defense detail, with negligible military value. A killing of a guard could be an act of sabotage or resistance, but an attack against an embassy is an act of terrorism.



Had they stolen an empty plane (or purchased one, or whatever), then it wouldn't be an act of terrorism.



Yeah, but in some cases of the type that fights freedom, not fights for freedom :) The Taliban are a prime example.

McHrozni

Was the Pentagon on 9/11 a justifiable military target?

[paximperium]

Israel once shotdown a Libyan airliner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114
Yeah. So?
Was the Pentagon on 9/11 a justifiable military target?Yes it was. Your point?

[Thunder]

Yes. The attack on the Pentagon was not in itself an act of terrorism. They used a civilian aircraft though, full of civilians. But if they grabbed a UPS jet and let the pilots go free, it would not have been an act of terrorism.

[sacrilege]

Well, oddly, you're almost on the ball there. The first time the Hebrews enter the historical record, they're riding around looting and conquering. They were never enslaved in Egypt; they ruled Egypt until Ahmose I kicked them out. From that point on, the Biblical account seems to be mostly accurate--minus the miracles, of course. So yes, Mondial, the early Jews were vicious, nomadic raiders, just like our ancestors. And they lied like dogs in their official histories, just like every other ancient people from the Egyptians to the Romans. And this has what bearing on anything?


You are wrong on several levels.

I study Ancient Near East in school and I specialize in cuneiform (Mesopotamian writing). I've also studied Middle Egyptian hieroglyphs and I have taken some Hebrew. So I've read and translated many of the sources regarding what you are talking about.

1. Yes, the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. That story was really meant to be more of a fable than anything else at the time it was recorded. To say they were lying is to really take the whole thing out of historical context.

2. The Jews did not rule in Egypt. I believe that you are referring to the Second Intermediate Period. In Lower Egypt, a group called the Hyksos ruled for a brief period of time.

2a. While scholars are not positive about who exactly the Hyksos are, we are absolutely sure that they were not Jewish. The reason for this is because the Hyksos' names were made up of gods from a Semitic pantheon-- NOT from a monotheistic religion.

2b. The Hyksos did not take over Egypt in a violent manner. The Egyptian monarchy fell apart because there were disagreements about who would be the next pharaoh, so many kings came and went. The Egyptian people themselves, although considering the Hyksos "invaders", actually approved of their rule and were faithful subjects. Their rule was marked by a time of peace and prosperity.

3. Assyrian/ Akkadian annals and war policy (what I actually translate) is so unbelievably brutal that it's ridiculous. They would impale decapitated heads on posts and leave them outside of city walls to scare civilizations into submission. Those people "terrorized" everyone in the vicinity of the Near East and conquered Jerusalem on multiple occasions. I would say that by comparison to their Mesopotamian neighbors, the Jews weren't so bad.

4. All kings at the time recorded annals in which they would give very flattering accounts of themselves which would stretch the truth. That was normal and certainly not unique to the Jewish kings. A lot of that stuff was put into the Bible. This is another instance of people taking biblical writing out of historical context.


And by the way, how dumb is it to draw an arbitrary line in history and then claim that someone is the "first" to do anything? This whole thread is ridiculous.

[McHrozni]

Was the Pentagon on 9/11 a justifiable military target?

Yes, it was. Using a plane full of civilians wasn't, and the attack itself is unjustifiable because of that.

McHrozni

[Moss]

And by the way, how dumb is it to draw an arbitrary line in history and then claim that someone is the "first" to do anything? This whole thread is ridiculous.

Well, after giving it a bit thought I agree on that making an arbitrary line somewhere is ridiculous.
But the thread proved to be highly interesting despite the antisemitic insinuations of mondial in the OP.
Btw. aren't the Hyksos sometimes seen as precursors to the Philistines? I saw a documentary on that a year or two ago on German tv.

[Simon39759]

2a. While scholars are not positive about who exactly the Hyksos are, we are absolutely sure that they were not Jewish. The reason for this is because the Hyksos' names were made up of gods from a Semitic pantheon-- NOT from a monotheistic religion.

It might be a minor nitpick, but my understanding was that the Israelite did not really convert to monotheism until the Babylonian exile, almost 1000 years later.

[Doctor Evil]

3. Assyrian/ Akkadian annals and war policy (what I actually translate) is so unbelievably brutal that it's ridiculous. They would impale decapitated heads on posts and leave them outside of city walls to scare civilizations into submission. Those people "terrorized" everyone in the vicinity of the Near East and conquered Jerusalem on multiple occasions. I would say that by comparison to their Mesopotamian neighbors, the Jews weren't so bad.


That is why I noted the Assyrians in my earlier reply in this thread. By the way, you must have links to a translation of one or two of these texts. I was looking for one for my earlier comment but they proved to be harder to find than I expected.

[Toke]

I wonder if the romans called the Jews terrorists?

Was masada a terrorist stronghold?

[Moss]

I wonder if the romans called the Jews terrorists?

Was masada a terrorist stronghold?

Well, If you take the Sicarii or Daggermen, an extremist Zealot offshot you might be tempted to say that. The only problem I have with that is that I haven't found a primary source on them yet and some of the secondary literature on them seems a bit esoteric.

[sacrilege]

That is why I noted the Assyrians in my earlier reply in this thread. By the way, you must have links to a translation of one or two of these texts. I was looking for one for my earlier comment but they proved to be harder to find than I expected.

Believe it or not, translating cuneiform is one thing that is so obscure that it has barely even made an appearance on the internet. It's just that it's such a small community of people who can even read the stuff.

For the past few years I've worked on and off on the CDLI, where we're digitizing many of the tablets and transliterations (haven't been a member long enough to post the link-- look it up on google) but we don't do much in the way of translation. Unless I go to the library at school and actually scan the transliterations and translations from 100 year old books that are probably in German, I don't think I have any way of showing you any primary sources over the internet.


Well, after giving it a bit thought I agree on that making an arbitrary line somewhere is ridiculous.
But the thread proved to be highly interesting despite the antisemitic insinuations of mondial in the OP.
Btw. aren't the Hyksos sometimes seen as precursors to the Philistines? I saw a documentary on that a year or two ago on German tv.

I should have said that "the whole premise of this thread is ridiculous."

I don't know what that German TV show was talking about. The later Pharoahs claim to have "kicked the Hyksos out" but in reality they mostly assimilated into the Egyptian population and culture.

But still, the pantheon of the Hyksos is different than the one that preceded Judaism. Sure they were tribally related in the same way that the Mesopotamians and the Jews were related, but not the same people. There are common gods in the Hyksos' names to the proto-Jewish pantheon (like Ba'al) but then there are ones that aren't part of that pantheon at all-- and there is no mention of Yahweh, who was a major god before he was the "one" god. And as I said... the descendants of the Hyksos assimilated, so they wouldn't have become Jewish.

It might be a minor nitpick, but my understanding was that the Israelite did not really convert to monotheism until the Babylonian exile, almost 1000 years later.

I think it was more like 250-300 years later-- but before the Babylonian exile. I'm honestly not positive.

[Toke]

Well, If you take the Sicarii or Daggermen, an extremist Zealot offshot you might be tempted to say that. The only problem I have with that is that I haven't found a primary source on them yet and some of the secondary literature on them seems a bit esoteric.

My studies on the subject include "life of Brian" and a movie named Masada.

That does not stop me from assuming that a roman occupier/liberator will have some choice terms for any resistance.:D

[Moss]

I don't know what that German TV show was talking about. The later Pharoahs claim to have "kicked the Hyksos out" but in reality they mostly assimilated into the Egyptian population and culture.

But still, the pantheon of the Hyksos is different than the one that preceded Judaism. Sure they were tribally related in the same way that the Mesopotamians and the Jews were related, but not the same people. There are common gods in the Hyksos' names to the proto-Jewish pantheon (like Ba'al) but then there are ones that aren't part of that pantheon at all-- and there is no mention of Yahweh, who was a major god before he was the "one" god. And as I said... the descendants of the Hyksos assimilated, so they wouldn't have become Jewish.


Sorry, that was a kind of a brainfart on my part. Somehow I got the "Sea Peoples" and the Hyksos mixed up in my brain. :blush:
And I wasn't refering to the becoming Jewish, just that there is the hypothesis that the Sea Peoples might have settled in Canaanite territory and influenced the culture of the Philistines.

[Simon39759]

I think it was more like 250-300 years later-- but before the Babylonian exile. I'm honestly not positive.


Well, the date of the Babylonian exile is fairly well established at 586BC and, as for the Exodus, I went with the often mentioned date of 1440, 480 years before Solomon's reign. But this datation is certainly not definitive, what, with the Exodus being very probably fictional, and all.

[Thunder]

wasn't the crucifixion of Jesus..the first act of Jewish terrorism?

:)

[theprestige]

wasn't the crucifixion of Jesus..the first act of Jewish terrorism?

:)
You mean the same crucifixion that was a Roman execution method, carried out on Jesus in accordance with Roman law by Roman officials?

Next you'll be telling us that the imprisonment of Charles Manson was the first act of Canadian terrorism.

[Doctor Evil]

You mean the same crucifixion that was a Roman execution method, carried out on Jesus in accordance with Roman law by Roman officials?

Next you'll be telling us that the imprisonment of Charles Manson was the first act of Canadian terrorism.

I think that Parky76 was joking.

[Thunder]

I think that Parky76 was joking.

;)

[Jontg]

Hrm. Interesting stuff, Sacrilege, and a lot that I hadn't heard before. But why the parallel between the Biblical account of a Semitic people having some problems in Egypt and the historical account of a Semitic people having some problems in Egypt (let along the suspicious nature of the points that they differ on!) if they were two completely different Semitic peoples? Was there enough cultural exchange that the Hebrews might have picked up the myth somewhere? Or is it sheer coincidence, and I'm just conflating the Hyksos with the Hebrews for the same reason my predecessors looked at some rocks on Crete and thought they'd found the Labyrinth?

[Simon39759]

Hrm. Interesting stuff, Sacrilege, and a lot that I hadn't heard before. But why the parallel between the Biblical account of a Semitic people having some problems in Egypt and the historical account of a Semitic people having some problems in Egypt (let along the suspicious nature of the points that they differ on!) if they were two completely different Semitic peoples? Was there enough cultural exchange that the Hebrews might have picked up the myth somewhere? Or is it sheer coincidence, and I'm just conflating the Hyksos with the Hebrews for the same reason my predecessors looked at some rocks on Crete and thought they'd found the Labyrinth?

The Hyksos came from roughly the same region and seemed to have had a pretty similar culture to that of the Hebrews (the two being, in fact, quite related).
The dates also kinda fit between the expulsion of the Hyksos and the Biblical date of the Exodus.
So your 'conflating' certainly has some justifications.

But it's a bit light to draw any definitive conclusions, especially considering the difference between the two accounts (the Hyksos were never slaves and they did not sneak out one night, they were slowly expulsed through a series of battles lasting years) and the fact that the rest of the history, the conquest of Canaan, does not seem compatible with archaeological findings.

[Doctor Evil]

For the past few years I've worked on and off on the CDLI, where we're digitizing many of the tablets and transliterations (haven't been a member long enough to post the link-- look it up on google) but we don't do much in the way of translation. Unless I go to the library at school and actually scan the transliterations and translations from 100 year old books that are probably in German, I don't think I have any way of showing you any primary sources over the internet.


Link. (http://cdli.ucla.edu/)

Browsed around for a while. But if you would say that it is like Greek to me, that would be a massive understatement. I can't read that ! ;)

[Jontg]

@Simon: Well, what I meant to imply was that the originators of the Exodus myth, like most of the peoples who were writing their own histories at the time, indulged in a bit of prevarication to turn a series of embarrassing defeats into a victory. The Egyptians also did as much--case in point, Rameses II's "victories" against the Assyrians, which were written before the battles were even over--so if you assume that they're talking about the same event, it's basically the Semitic word against the Theban, and given that the Semitic account is the one riddled with historical inaccuracies and unsubstantiated slander for the other side, I find the Thebans to have a bit more credibility.

[Simon39759]

But we don't know that it is the same event.
We don't even know that the Exodus happened at all, in fact, evidences seem to point that it did not.

Not only would the Egyptian account actually be much less flattering for them than the Hebrew account: 'They ruled over us for decades but, after a series of battle, we slowly managed to root them away' versus 'They were scared and ran away during the night' but the archaeological record supports the Egyptian version strongly (ruins in egypt) but not the Hebrew one (no systematic destruction in Canaan; the Exodus story describes the Israelites society as monotheistic with strong punishment against heretics while we know from dig in Israel that polytheistic worship was still prevalent for centuries after that, basically up to the return from the Babylonian exile).

There is also the date during which the Exodus account was written down (as far as we know the first version in the history): during the Babylonian exile, 1000 years or so after the alleged facts. Not only does that distance does not leave much credibility to the idea of an accurate transmission, it also provides a pretty good reason for inventing the story (whose moral basically is 'stick to your God and culture and everything will work out'), as the exiles were probably in a position to abandon their own culture and get assimilated.
Finally, there are account in the story, such as the birth of Moses, that not only appear fictional but appear inspired by the known older Babylonian legend of Sargon, suggesting that at least this part of the story was made up during that time.

[Jontg]

Hmm, you're right, I suppose. Point conceded. While we're on the subject of Babylon, though, is there any truth to the claim that Zoroastrian influences picked up there may have been a factor in the eventual development of Christianity? The version of events I always believed goes roughly like this: Babylonian Jews take the dualistic monotheism ball and run with it all the way to Rome, where it crossbreeds with the dozens of local mystery cults and picks up powerful, nigh-universal symbolism to become the syncretic hotrod that controls most of the civilized world.

[Ragnarok]

Why would the Jews have resorted to terrorism if they controlled the world?

Because any truly clever master race( that is what The Chosen Ones are, isn't it?) would know that they can never have complete control, and would rely instead on applying great influence and hoping for the best, knowing that their asses were covered anyway, by having the blame point in another direction.

Kin' 'ell! - this aint rocket science we are talking about!

[bigjelmapro]

Threat of an attack via nuclear bomb, openly, via bomber for example, would then qualify, wouldn't it?

This is why I like to put in "intent to produce casualties" and "clandestine" :)

Look up the term clandestine in the first place.

And who made this threat of using nuclear weapons? Hope you're not getting your news bits from rense.

Anyways, what another ridiculous thread...

[Jontg]

Oh, I dunno, I'm actually learning stuff. ^^

[Simon39759]

Hmm, you're right, I suppose. Point conceded. While we're on the subject of Babylon, though, is there any truth to the claim that Zoroastrian influences picked up there may have been a factor in the eventual development of Christianity? The version of events I always believed goes roughly like this: Babylonian Jews take the dualistic monotheism ball and run with it all the way to Rome, where it crossbreeds with the dozens of local mystery cults and picks up powerful, nigh-universal symbolism to become the syncretic hotrod that controls most of the civilized world.


I agree with your version.
The Persians defeated the Babylonian and freed the Israelites from exiles and they were perceided as liberators by the Israelites. It is well documented, Cyrus evenr received the title of Messiah.
Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the Persian empire at the time.

Now, it is not clear exactly when the Exodus was written, some think it might actually have been shortly before the exile, or during it so the strong monotheism of the text might pre-date the exposure to Zoroastriasm.
But, what is quite clear is that the shift to monotheism correspond to the return of the exiled Israelites. Also, the story of the Exodus is traditionally linked with the tradition of Passover, a holiday that happens within a few days from the older Persian tradition of Nawruz.
But, if they exist, these direct influences are very difficult to detect.
In fact, Zoroastrism, even at that time, seems much more religiously tolerant than the monotheism of the book of Exodus.
I wonder if it might not be that Judaism independently evolve toward monotheism during the exile, by focussing on the God of the Pantheon that was perceived as the Israelite patron God. Then, when they encountered another monotheistic religion, especially one that was very beneficial to the Israelite cause, they might have assumed that they worshipped the same supreme being.

[Ignorantbystander]

Because any truly clever master race( that is what The Chosen Ones are, isn't it?) would know that they can never have complete control, and would rely instead on applying great influence and hoping for the best, knowing that their asses were covered anyway, by having the blame point in another direction.

Kin' 'ell! - this aint rocket science we are talking about!

ok, so complete control is out of the question...
But having the blame point in another direction? what direction?

[Skeptic]

1. Yes, the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt. That story was really meant to be more of a fable than anything else at the time it was recorded. To say they were lying is to really take the whole thing out of historical context.

No disagreement with anything you say, but I would add that the story of the conquest of Cna'an is no more historically accurate than the story of the enslavement in Egypt. We have very good archeological evidence that Joshua's alleged genocide of the Cna'anites simply didn't occur: one population replaced the other eventually, but it took hundreds of years.

Joshua was recast as a killer of the Cna'aniates for complicate political and social reasons having to do with the society at the time the account was written -- hundreds of years after the alleged events. In this, it is similar to the story of the enslavement in Egypt: not history, but fable, having more to with the situation at the time of the writing of the events, not with the time of the (alleged) events.

[McHrozni]

Look up the term clandestine in the first place.

conducted with or marked by hidden aims or methods

Seems fine to me?

And who made this threat of using nuclear weapons? Hope you're not getting your news bits from rense.

US threat in 1949 to bomb Moscow with nuclear weapons with long range bombers if they prevented the Berlin airlift was a tactic that terrorises the populace and thus blackmail a government to give in to (terrorist?) claims.

But labeling it terrorism seems more than slightly weird to me. That was my issue with this definition, to which the post you quoted was adressed.

However, I sometimes do read Rense and KCNA for the same reasons as I watch Monty Phyton from time to time. Comedy value :)

McHrozni

[Ragnarok]

ok, so complete control is out of the question...
But having the blame point in another direction? what direction?

Whichever might suit their long-term goals.

A race that has survived persecution for so long - nothing to do with them claiming to be The Chosen Ones, mind; the persecution, that is - doesn't do so without learning a lot of dirty tricks and subterfuge.

[bigjelmapro]

conducted with or marked by hidden aims or methods

Seems fine to me?

Again, how is this clandestine? Both the US and the Soviets knew of each other's major nuclear sites, except the mobile TEL's (which there really isn't a deterrent against except when they launch). So each knew what would be the major strike zones. The only question would be who would strike the fastest and eliminate eachother's launch capability first. This was the whole concept behind MAD. So again, not clandestine.


US threat in 1949 to bomb Moscow with nuclear weapons with long range bombers if they prevented the Berlin airlift was a tactic that terrorises the populace and thus blackmail a government to give in to (terrorist?) claims.

But labeling it terrorism seems more than slightly weird to me. That was my issue with this definition, to which the post you quoted was adressed.

The Berlin airlift/blockade is considered by you as a terrorist claim/demand? Do you even know what it was?

Don't know of any threat in 1949 by the US to strike the Soviets with nuclear weapons. Not at this point, but further down the road during the Cold war. Perhaps you can link these threats (albeit its way off topic here)? No conspiracy websites please.....

[McHrozni]

Again, how is this clandestine? Both the US and the Soviets knew of each other's major nuclear sites, except the mobile TEL's (which there really isn't a deterrent against except when they launch). So each knew what would be the major strike zones. The only question would be who would strike the fastest and eliminate eachother's launch capability first. This was the whole concept behind MAD. So again, not clandestine.

Um, I was trying to exclude, not include, "conventional" nuclear warfare from terrorism.
I think we may be actually agreeing on it :)

The Berlin airlift/blockade is considered by you as a terrorist claim/demand?

Which part of the sentence:

But labeling [the threat to Moscow during the Berlin airlift] terrorism seems more than slightly weird to me.

is unclear to you?

You apparently misread the entire point I was trying to make.
This is my definition of terrorism:
usage of clandestine methods of attack against civilian casualties, with intent to cause mass casualties

This was a definition of terrorism I disagreed with for precisely the same reasons as you:
a tactics that terrorize the populace and thus blackmail a government to give in to terrorist claims.

McHrozni

[Polaris]

With the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber and media condemnation of British oil and trade deals with Colonel Gaddafi of Libya I would point out that this is nothing new. At least two former Israeli prime ministers were members of terrorist organisations - Menachem Begin belonged to the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Yitzhak Shamir the LEHI (better known as the Stern gang). Their outrages included the assassination of Churchill's envoy to the middle east Lord Moyne and the UN mediator on Palestine Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden as well as blowing up the King David hotel with 91 dead. They also killed many British soldiers and policemen until the British mandate in Palestine ended in 1948. The point is neither of these Israeli prime ministers ever apologised or condemned their terrorist actions yet they were welcomed at 10 Downing Street and the White House. And of course Britain and the USA trade with Israel. I condemn all terrorism whether it is by Jews, Muslims, Christians or anyone else but the media has a selective memory and likes to omit or downplay zionist terrorism. A double standard is at work here. www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm)

Hassan i-Sabbah is jumping up and down in the back of the class, waving his hand in the air. He looks hurt and unappreciated.

[bigjelmapro]

This was a definition of terrorism I disagreed with for precisely the same reasons as you:
a tactics that terrorize the populace and thus blackmail a government to give in to terrorist claims.

McHrozni
Hmm...fair enough.

[kleinjahr]

Look up Hashishien, for a group that might be classed as terrorist. There are plenty more throughout history and not just in the Mideast. Some, are nowadays acclaimed as freedom fighters. Ie: Stern Gang, Maumau, Sons of Liberty, Bolsheviks.
Consider this, a revolutionary is a rebel who won. In other words, history is written by the victors.

[normdoering]

"Jews Were The Original Middle East Terrorists."

Actually, that goes back to Jesus' time. Flavius Josephus wrote about Jewish Sicarii, or "dagger men" who would assassinate Roman leaders. They were led by the ancestors of Judas of Galilee, who revolted against Roman rule. Judas proclaimed that the Jews should be ruled by God alone.

Ah thanks. That links everything together rather neatly.

How about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-3Lzwz6K4

[McHrozni]

Actually, that goes back to Jesus' time. Flavius Josephus wrote about Jewish Sicarii, or "dagger men" who would assassinate Roman leaders. They were led by the ancestors of Judas of Galilee, who revolted against Roman rule. Judas proclaimed that the Jews should be ruled by God alone.

Assasinations of regents of an occupying power or of military leaders of an occupying power is not terrorism. If it were, French and Norwegian resistance movements during WW2 would have to be classified as terrorists, among others.

McHrozni

[Toke]

Assasinations of regents of an occupying power or of military leaders of an occupying power is not terrorism. If it were, French and Norwegian resistance movements during WW2 would have to be classified as terrorists, among others.

McHrozni

They were classified as terrorists, and executed as such, by the Germans.
I was only by being on the winning side they got promoted to freedom fighters.
The definitions depends on who is in power.

[McHrozni]

They were classified as terrorists, and executed as such, by the Germans.

And? Are you suggesting they were right to do so?

I was only by being on the winning side they got promoted to freedom fighters.
The definitions depends on who is in power.

The classification of individual groups can depend on who is in power. The definition should stay the same. Some groups will, of course, abuse the classification for their own political gain, but that doesn't mean anyone ever classified by someone else as a terrorist, indeed is (or was) a terrorist.

McHrozni

[Simon39759]

Yes; I agree with Toke.

[bigjelmapro]

They were classified as terrorists, and executed as such, by the Germans.
I was only by being on the winning side they got promoted to freedom fighters.
The definitions depends on who is in power.
Classified by Nazis as terrorists, how quaint. You being serious or this some attempt at dark humor? With a name like Toke, who knows?

[Simon39759]

The point is that there is little clear and objective criteria to define what terrorism is, while nobody is arguing against 9/11, for example, being an act of terror, there is still a considerable grey area.
A lot of the definition is dependant of the political agenda of the person reporting it.

[Oliver]

And? Are you suggesting they were right to do so?


You missed the point:

From Gazan POV, Israels military interventions are terrorism.
From Israeli POV, Gazan rockets are acts of terrorism.
From AlQaida's POV, Americas Middle East policies were terrorism.
From American POV, 9/11 was terrorism.
From Nazi POV, the resistance was terrorism.
From Iranian POV, Americas military support for Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war was terrorism
From British POV, the American declaration of independence was terrorism.
... ad infinitum ad nauseam ...

All of that isn't a matter of right or wrong. From a neutral POV, all the above views are "right" for those who use the term terrorist against their opponents.

Maybe the term terrorism itself doesn't have that much of a meaning in a skeptical light - besides the political one of being a wonderful tool to unite opinions, shut up the opposition and move into action. ;)

In other words - and to get back to the OP: Yes, the Israelis, just like every other group of people throughout history are - always have been - and always will be terrorists. :p

[Toke]

And? Are you suggesting they were right to do so?

I did not realize it could be misunderstood?
I am a Danish citizen and very much in favor of resisting occupation of my country.
My point is that at the time the freedom fighters/resistance were badmouthed/hunted/executed, by the occupiers because they had the power to do so.

The classification of individual groups can depend on who is in power. The definition should stay the same. Some groups will, of course, abuse the classification for their own political gain, but that doesn't mean anyone ever classified by someone else as a terrorist, indeed is (or was) a terrorist.

McHrozni
That is a bit unclear, do you agree that in the real world the terrorist/freedom fighter definition depends on who wins.

[McHrozni]

My point is that at the time the freedom fighters/resistance were badmouthed/hunted/executed, by the occupiers because they had the power to do so.

That doesn't make them terrorists. They were called that, sure, but that's where it ends.

Giving credence to such labels is like saying your cat is actually a helicopter and then try to use it to fly around.

That is a bit unclear, do you agree that in the real world the terrorist/freedom fighter definition depends on who wins.

No, I don't. A freedom fighter is the one who fights for freedom of the country, and the people (usually but not necessarily his country and his people). A fighter that fights for despotism or totalitarianism is not a freedom fighter, no matter what he calls himself and no matter how history paints him later on.

McHrozni

[Toke]

Classified by Nazis as terrorists, how quaint.
What stops nazis from calling somebody terrorists?

You being serious or this some attempt at dark humor? With a name like Toke, who knows?

Sounds like you have a problem.

[McHrozni]

You missed the point:

From Gazan POV, Israels military interventions are terrorism.
From Israeli POV, Gazan rockets are acts of terrorism.
From AlQaida's POV, Americas Middle East policies were terrorism.
From American POV, 9/11 was terrorism.
From Nazi POV, the resistance was terrorism.
From Iranian POV, Americas military support for Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war was terrorism
From British POV, the American declaration of independence was terrorism.
... ad infinitum ad nauseam ...

About half of these I agree with, for the other half see my cat and helicopter analogy. They were called terrorism, that alone doesn't make the label valid.

Maybe the term terrorism itself doesn't have that much of a meaning in a skeptical light - besides the political one of being a wonderful tool to unite opinions, shut up the opposition and move into action. ;)

I don't dispute that the term is being abused. Giving wrong labellings any credence whatsoever is nonsensical, however.

In other words - and to get back to the OP: Yes, the Israelis, just like every other group of people throughout history are - always have been - and always will be terrorists. :p

Which is precisely the reason we should ignore obviously unjustified labellings :)

McHrozni

[Toke]

That doesn't make them terrorists. They were called that, sure, but that's where it ends.


Correct.
And you still miss the point that there were somebody with the power to do the name calling. So it was not until after the occupation was ended they could be called freedom fighters in public.

Giving credence to such labels is like saying your cat is actually a helicopter and then try to use it to fly around.
:confused: ok.

No, I don't. A freedom fighter is the one who fights for freedom of the country, and the people (usually but not necessarily his country and his people). A fighter that fights for despotism or totalitarianism is not a freedom fighter, no matter what he calls himself and no matter how history paints him later on.

McHrozni
Brilliant, the terrorist is the evil guy and the freedom fighter is the good guy.
I did not realize it was that simple, problem solved.

[Simon39759]

No, I don't. A freedom fighter is the one who fights for freedom of the country, and the people (usually but not necessarily his country and his people). A fighter that fights for despotism or totalitarianism is not a freedom fighter, no matter what he calls himself and no matter how history paints him later on.


But, isn't Bin Laden fighting for the freedom of his country's (and the rest of the muslim world's) from the Western corrupting influence? He most certainly seems to believe so.

And the leftist terrorists of the 60ies and 70ies were fighting for the freedom of the people from the evil of capitalism. And the IRA is/was fighting for the people of the North-Irish Catholic from the British rule. And the PLO before and now the Hamas is fighting for the freedom of the Palestinians from the Israeli domination...


And quite a few of them believe it too...

[Toke]

But, isn't Bin Laden fighting for the freedom of his country's (and the rest of the muslim world's) from the Western corrupting influence? He most certainly seems to believe so.

And the leftist terrorists of the 60ies and 70ies were fighting for the freedom of the people from the evil of capitalism. And the IRA is/was fighting for the people of the North-Irish Catholic from the British rule. And the PLO before and now the Hamas is fighting for the freedom of the Palestinians from the Israeli domination...


And quite a few of them believe it too...

It is not nice of you to try to confuse the man.:D
He just had this pretty good/evil setup.

[McHrozni]

Correct.
And you still miss the point that there were somebody with the power to do the name calling. So it was not until after the occupation was ended they could be called freedom fighters in public.

And? I don't see how this affects anything. They were labeled as terrorist by the occupying power, for it's own political gain. The label obviously wasn't from a neutral POV, nor justified in any way.

Brilliant, the terrorist is the evil guy and the freedom fighter is the good guy.
I did not realize it was that simple, problem solved.

It is fairly simple if you are consistent in the application of sensible definitions.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

But, isn't Bin Laden fighting for the freedom of his country's (and the rest of the muslim world's) from the Western corrupting influence? He most certainly seems to believe so.

He is fighting for Islamic totalitarianism at least across the muslim world, and he believes that too. That is not freedom by any sensible definition of the term that I know of.

And the leftist terrorists of the 60ies and 70ies were fighting for the freedom of the people from the evil of capitalism. And the IRA is/was fighting for the people of the North-Irish Catholic from the British rule. And the PLO before and now the Hamas is fighting for the freedom of the Palestinians from the Israeli domination...

And quite a few of them believe it too...

I didn't realize I ever hinted at belief of fighting for something was the same, or even similar to actually fighting for something. IRA is the gray area, Hamas and PLO less so, though they also have non-terrorist activities.
Leftie terrorists are, and always were terrorists. They fought for totalitarianism, and against the one system that allowed them to freely express their opinions. They were deluded by the idea that forcing a man to accept a certain idea as gospel was actually liberating him... somehow. That doesn't make them freedom fighters.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

It is not nice of you to try to confuse the man.:D
He just had this pretty good/evil setup.

Not quite ;)

I strongly doubt you can find anything illogical or contradictory in my belief. It is possible, even plausible, something may arise from ignorance about a particular group, but the underlying logic behind it should be fairly sound :)

McHrozni

[Ferguson]

The problem with classifying things as terrorism or not terrorism definitively is that terrorism is not a word with a hard and fast intrinsic definition. Much like the word tyrant, was X King a tyrant? It will come down to opinion. A few egregious Kings, (virtually) everyone will agree are tyrannical, others will be argued. In the end it will come down to opinion and ideology.

Why is Timothy McVeigh a terrorist and the Norwegian Resistance not? Because the U.S. Gov't is still standing.

[McHrozni]

The problem with classifying things as terrorism or not terrorism definitively is that terrorism is not a word with a hard and fast intrinsic definition. Much like the word tyrant, was X King a tyrant? It will come down to opinion. A few egregious Kings, (virtually) everyone will agree are tyrannical, others will be argued. In the end it will come down to opinion and ideology.

I do agree that it sometimes boils down to an opinion in both of these cases. There certainly is a substantial gray area in such controversial cases. That doesn't mean, however, that all cases are arguable for one or the other direction.

Why is Timothy McVeigh a terrorist and the Norwegian Resistance not? Because the U.S. Gov't is still standing.

No. He was a terrorist and Norwegian resistance wasn't because Norwegian resistance targeted military targets, while Timothy McVeigh targeted civilians, including children.

McHrozni

[Simon39759]

And Bin Laden would tell you that American civilians voted for the people whose policy it is to bomb Afghan villages, or that finance Israel bombing Palestinian ones as well as paid the taxes that finance this policy, hence they are part of it and legitimate target.

I agree that whatever your definition of terrorist is, it will include al Qaida, but my argument is that the grey area is actually very big and significant.

[McHrozni]

And Bin Laden would tell you that American civilians voted for the people whose policy it is to bomb Afghan villages, or that finance Israel bombing Palestinian ones as well as paid the taxes that finance this policy, hence they are part of it and legitimate target.

If you ignore the facts where bin Laden bombed US civilians before the attacks in Afghanistan, and in fact, the US attacks in Afghanistan were a direct response to his attacks, and ignore the parts where he targets Muslim civilians, or indeed that the ones he attacked in New York didn't actually vote Bush in, other parts of the country did it, and that paying taxes for a policy is involuntary and most people try to get around it as much as possible, plus that paying taxes is an extremely remote connection to a government policy ... then maybe.

It is quite clear this is but a very flimsy excuse, however. It doesn't pass the snicker test. Objectively, he can just admit he's killing civilians because they're easier targets, and his standing won't be affected in the slightest.

I agree that whatever your definition of terrorist is, it will include al Qaida, but my argument is that the grey area is actually very big and significant.

It is big and significant, and it is arguable where the limit is, but some can be certainly said to belong in one corner or the other - bin Laden and McVeigh would be prime examples for indisputable terrorists. It is also certain that there are some movements that won't fall into the definition, despite being called that way by another group in the past, Norwegian resistance would be such example.

Other clear-cut cases could be added to both categories, of course. These are just the cases we discussed.

McHrozni

[normdoering]

"Jews Were The Original Middle East Terrorists."

Actually, that goes back to Jesus' time. Flavius Josephus wrote about Jewish Sicarii, or "dagger men" who would assassinate Roman leaders. They were led by the ancestors of Judas of Galilee, who revolted against Roman rule. Judas proclaimed that the Jews should be ruled by God alone.



How about this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-3Lzwz6K4

The original youtube video was removed, edited, and re-uploaded here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEwkeH2XiTQ

[Marc39]

It should be noted that Begin was a awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in establishing peaceful relations between Israel and Egypt.

[bigjelmapro]

Arafat was awarded the same prize. Strange how the world works eh?

[Toke]

With a name like Toke, who knows?
Does my name have any English/US meanings other than the joint bit?

[McHrozni]

Does my name have any English/US meanings other than the joint bit?

Apparently, yes:
* a puff of a marijuana or hashish cigarette; "the boys took a few tokes on a joint"
A gratuity; A puff of marijuana; To give a gratuity to; To smoke marijuana; To inhale a puff of marijuana

McHrozni

[Marc39]

Arafat was awarded the same prize. Strange how the world works eh?

More than strange. Vulgar, given Arafat's intentions were never of peace.

[kleinjahr]

No, I don't. A freedom fighter is the one who fights for freedom of the country, and the people (usually but not necessarily his country and his people). A fighter that fights for despotism or totalitarianism is not a freedom fighter, no matter what he calls himself and no matter how history paints him later on.

McHrozni

So, by your own definition, Iraqi "insurgents" are freedom fighters. As well as the Fenians/IRA, Provosts, Shining Path, AIM, The Order, Aryan Brotherhood,SDS, Black Panthers,ALF, Friends of the Earth etc. ad nauseum. Please note that all these groups were or are fighting against what they perceived as repressive and oppressive regimes. Whether that regime actually was, or is, is not that important to them. Though it is useful to them if the regime is actually oppressive. Which is why one of the tenets of terrorism is to cause the regime to react excessively. ie: suspension of freedoms, habeus corpus, restrictions on travel etc. Thus creating more support against the regime on the part of the public.

[Simon39759]

I don't know about that.
It seems to me that, at that time, Arafat's intentions, as well as his best interest was in peace.
The relative accalmy had given him a country to govern and he had stacked his reputation pretty heavily on it. His political opponents, the Hamas, however, had everything to win from a resurgence of the war...

[McHrozni]

So, by your own definition, Iraqi "insurgents" are freedom fighters. As well as the Fenians/IRA, Provosts, Shining Path, AIM, The Order, Aryan Brotherhood,SDS, Black Panthers,ALF, Friends of the Earth etc. ad nauseum. Please note that all these groups were or are fighting against what they perceived as repressive and oppressive regimes. Whether that regime actually was, or is, is not that important to them. Though it is useful to them if the regime is actually oppressive. Which is why one of the tenets of terrorism is to cause the regime to react excessively. ie: suspension of freedoms, habeus corpus, restrictions on travel etc. Thus creating more support against the regime on the part of the public.

Nope. You grossly misinterpreted what I was saying, in no small degree because you didn't read the context in which this was written. Read my earlier posts and come back to me if you still have any questions.
The stuff you quoted should put you on the right track, however.

McHrozni

[McHrozni]

I don't know about that.
It seems to me that, at that time, Arafat's intentions, as well as his best interest was in peace.

Didn't he walk away from peace negotiations after approximately 95% of his demands were met, without giving a counter offer?
Hardly actions of a leader desiring peace.

McHrozni

[Simon39759]

Are you referring to Camp David?
It's a bit more complex than that, the Israeli did make a lot of territorial concession but most of these concessions concerned territories that had previously been attributed to Palestinians by the U.N.
Most importantly, were the concessions that were not made. The right of return, for example, had been a staple of Palestinian revendications for decades. The Israeli government also claimed sovereignty on a lot of the city of Jerusalem, especially the holy sites on the temple mounts. These, simply, were not acceptable for the Palestinians. Signing up would, quite likely, have mean a revolution, simple as that.

Now, I still don't understand why Arafat did not try harder and came up with counter-offers. Partly, he thought right from the beginning that the negotiations were premature. It was mostly Clinton trying to achieve another diplomatic victory before the beginning of the 2001 elections.

But, the idea that Arafat was offered use compromises and walked away from them is just propaganda.
He certainly walked away too early before giving the talks a fair chance of succeeding, but it had not been offer any particularly generous compromises.

[Marc39]

But, the idea that Arafat was offered use compromises and walked away from them is just propaganda.
He certainly walked away too early before giving the talks a fair chance of succeeding, but it had not been offer any particularly generous compromises.

What compromises did Arafat offer? I know of none.

And, he didn't merely walk away from Camp David. Arafat either ignited the second intifada in 2000, according to reliable accounts, or, at the very least, he stood by while the intifada was inflicted upon Israel, a four-year reign of terror resulting in the deaths of 1,000 Israelis and wounding 6,000 more.

[oldhat]

Arafat either ignited the second intifada in 2000, according to reliable accounts.

Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount with hundreds of riot police ignited the 2nd Intifada.

[Marc39]

Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount with hundreds of riot police ignited the 2nd Intifada.

It later was revealed the al-Aqsa intifada had been planned long before Sharon's visit. Sharon was a convenient pretext.

In any case, civilized people do not blow themselves up, taking 1,000 Israelis with them and wounding 6,000, for any reason.

[oldhat]

It later was revealed the al-Aqsa intifada had been planned long before Sharon's visit. Sharon was a convenient pretext.

Passive voice. Got a source?

In any case, civilized people do not blow themselves up, taking 1,000 Israelis with them and wounding 6,000, for any reason.

I agree, I also don't think civilized people build towns on their neighbor's land without asking permission nor do they send in tanks and bulldozers to knock over apartment buildings when people get angry at decades of humiliation and start lashing out.

[Marc39]

Passive voice. Got a source?

There are several sources. If I have time, I'll look through my books.

[quote] I agree, I also don't think civilized people build towns on their neighbor's land without asking permission nor do they send in tanks and bulldozers to knock over apartment buildings when people get angry at decades of humiliation and start lashing out.

I agree, though, Jews purchased the land they came to live on and did not need "permission" of their neighbors to do so, just as I didn't need permission of my neighbors to buy my land, build my house and live in it.

Decades of humiliaton are derived from an evident inability to transition out of the Middle Ages and adapt to modernity, as the Jews have successfully been able to do.

Arab self-hatred is unfortunate, but, it's no excuse for them to unleash that anger upon innocent Israelis.

[Moss]

I admit to being a cynic but I find it hilariously funny that the peace process in the Middle East mostly involves the Israelis trying to meet the demands of the Palestinian leaders, going as far as evicting their own citizens while the Palestinians continue with more demands and no sign of any compromise on their part. That does look a bit lopsided to me.
The wall needs to go but the Palestinian extremists need to stop the shooting, bombing, kidnapping first.

[Marc39]

I admit to being a cynic but I find it hilariously funny that the peace process in the Middle East mostly involves the Israelis trying to meet the demands of the Palestinian leaders, going as far as evicting their own citizens while the Palestinians continue with more demands and no sign of any compromise on their part. That does look a bit lopsided to me.
The wall needs to go but the Palestinian extremists need to stop the shooting, bombing, kidnapping first.

Genocide against Jews being threatened by numerous Palestinian and Muslim terrorist factions bears no humor, not even dark humor.

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.

[oldhat]

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.

You have an unusually sophisticated understand of the subtle nuances of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

[Simon39759]

What compromises did Arafat offer? I know of none.

And, he didn't merely walk away from Camp David. Arafat either ignited the second intifada in 2000, according to reliable accounts, or, at the very least, he stood by while the intifada was inflicted upon Israel, a four-year reign of terror resulting in the deaths of 1,000 Israelis and wounding 6,000 more.


Depends how you consider the things.
They had already reached a compromised in Oslo in 93. The Camp David proposition was the Israelis coming back to the agreement, cutting, for example, the West bank territories by more than one fourth.

The thing is that for blaming Arafat for the second intifada, you need to believe that Arafat was still in control of the Palestinians by then, and it wasn't the case.
Arafat negotiation with Israel, and the obvious weakness and corruption of his government lead to a loss of credibility and support for the government .

[Simon39759]

[QUOTE=oldhat;5142285]Passive voice. Got a source?

There are several sources. If I have time, I'll look through my books.



I agree, though, Jews purchased the land they came to live on and did not need "permission" of their neighbors to do so, just as I didn't need permission of my neighbors to buy my land, build my house and live in it.

Decades of humiliaton are derived from an evident inability to transition out of the Middle Ages and adapt to modernity, as the Jews have successfully been able to do.

Arab self-hatred is unfortunate, but, it's no excuse for them to unleash that anger upon innocent Israelis.


A more accurate metaphore is that you'd go to the local mayor and pay him for a part of you neighbour's property.
Also, you buy all the land surrounding your neighbour's property and then decide that your property, as well as your neighbour's are now an independent Nation.

Let's be clear here, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to be upset there are one of history many people that received the bad end of the stick (yes, like the Jews before).
Their plight is real and, indeed, the Israelis (look up for Sabra and Shatila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre) sometime) are partly responsible, as are the Palestinian governments and the surrounded Arab nations that were all to happy to exploit the situation for shellfish political purposes.

Now, Israel is a reality, and the three generations that were born there have now a right to live there and live there in peace.
But that does not mean that the Palestinians, including the thousands that lost their lands and are now leaving in refugees camps should be denied their own right, if only because a long term peace can not achieved without their contentment.

[Marc39]

You have an unusually sophisticated understand of the subtle nuances of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

You probably mean "understanding", not "understand" "Subtle nuances" is also redundant.

Lastly, "Israel-Palestine" conflict is confused as Israel encompasses most of "Palestine"

[Marc39]

Depends how you consider the things.
They had already reached a compromised in Oslo in 93. The Camp David proposition was the Israelis coming back to the agreement, cutting, for example, the West bank territories by more than one fourth.

And, based on Oslo, Arafat was to dismantle terrorrist factions and inculcate an atmosphere of peace with Jews.

How'd that work out?

The thing is that for blaming Arafat for the second intifada, you need to believe that Arafat was still in control of the Palestinians by then, and it wasn't the case.
Arafat negotiation with Israel, and the obvious weakness and corruption of his government lead to a loss of credibility and support for the government .

Arafat was "still in control" of the so-called Palestinians until the day he croaked. 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.

[Marc39]

...you'd go to the local mayor and pay him for a part of you neighbour's property.

I did nothing of the kind. I purchased the property from its owner.

Similarly, Jews in Palestine purchased their property from owners, too.

Also, you buy all the land surrounding your neighbour's property and then decide that your property, as well as your neighbour's are now an independent Nation.

I buy all the land surrounding my neighbor's property and then the appropriate legal bodies establish an independent nation on my behalf. My neigbors have no say in the matter as they have no property rights and have no nation of their own.

Let's be clear here, the Palestinians have a legitimate right to be upset there are one of history many people that received the bad end of the stick (yes, like the Jews before).

Except, the "Palestinians" are mostly Arab migrants from outside of Palestine and have no legitimate right to be upset. They're lucky to even be living in Palestine and receiving welfare for 60 years.

Their plight is real and, indeed, the Israelis (look up for Sabra and Shatila (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre) sometime) are partly responsible, as are the Palestinian governments and the surrounded Arab nations that were all to happy to exploit the situation for shellfish political purposes.

Their "plight" is their own doing. Israel is a scapegoat for their own failures.

Now, Israel is a reality, and the three generations that were born there have now a right to live there and live there in peace.
But that does not mean that the Palestinians, including the thousands that lost their lands and are now leaving in refugees camps should be denied their own right, if only because a long term peace can not achieved without their contentment.

They "lost their lands" as a conseqence of "their" wars they initiated against the Jews.

Today, they live in refugee camps because their leaders and their Arab brethren in numerous Arab countries do not give them refuge.

[Simon39759]

Ok; you are crazy, got it.

The first two aliyah was authorized by the Ottoman empire in exchange of monetary retribution, the local Palestinians opposed it at the time.
Palestinians had live in the lands for centuries, the idea that they are 'Arab migrants' does not make sense.
When the Israelies declared independance, they were still outnumbered by Muslims.

As far as the 'plight' of the refugee being, in part dues to the other Arab nations refusing to welcome them, so that they could exploit it for their own political gain, yes, I agree and already mentioned it.

[Marc39]

Ok; you are crazy, got it.

No, just well-informed.

The first two aliyah was authorized by the Ottoman empire in exchange of monetary retribution, the local Palestinians opposed it at the time.

The local "Palestinians" were Syrians, not Palestinians, since the area was part of the Syrian vilayet, and, it was they who sold their land to Jews, in addition to absentee Arab landowners.

Ottoman land reform in the mid-19th century transferred most land to the Arab aristocracy who lived outside of Palestine.

Palestinians had live in the lands for centuries, the idea that they are 'Arab migrants' does not make sense.
When the Israelies declared independance, they were still outnumbered by Muslims.

Too bad they sold their land. So, too, any property rights.

The guy who sold me the land I bought from him? He cannot knock on my door and ask to live in my house.

As far as the 'plight' of the refugee being, in part dues to the other Arab nations refusing to welcome them, so that they could exploit it for their own political gain, yes, I agree and already mentioned it.

The Palestinains started the wars in '47 and '48. They bear the onus for the consequences of war. They also rejected statehood offered them on a silver platter. Bad choices whose after-effects are still felt today.

[Simon39759]

Ok; my comment was about you buying in the 'Arafat died from AIDS ********' as well as in the crazy 'Palestinians are not, actually, from Palestine'.

As for the war of 48, Palestinian did not start it. It was a series of riots and violences on both side that followed the Independence proclamation and that progressively got nastier and more militaristic. It was not a formal war and was not started by either sides.

If you don't like my neighbour's metaphore, let's try this one: It's a bit like Mexican immigrants bought lands in California and declared their return to Mexico tomorrow (Hispanics represent roughly one third of the population in California today, which is about the same as the proportion of Jews in Israel in 48).
Do you think it would be considered legal?

[Marc39]

Ok; my comment was about you buying in the 'Arafat died from AIDS ********' as well as in the crazy 'Palestinians are not, actually, from Palestine'.

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

Palestine was never a country, so, there could not have been Palestinians, could there?

It was not until Palestine became the legal Jewish homeland in the early 20th century that Palestine was known as Palestine.

The term Palestinian applied to Arabs didn't occur until the 1960s.

As for the war of 48, Palestinian did not start it. It was a series of riots and violences on both side that followed the Independence proclamation and that progressively got nastier and more militaristic. It was not a formal war and was not started by either sides.

Factually untrue. Palestinians initiated the civil war against Jews after UN Res. 181 was issued in Nov/1947 and that guerilla war escalated into the full-out war in '48 initiated by the Arabs against Israel. The Arab League issued a formal declaration of war.

The rejection of UN Res. 181, which accorded statehood both to Jews and Arabs in Palestine, was obliterated for Arabs when they rejected it and violated the UN Charter in launching the '48 war.

If you don't like my neighbour's metaphore, let's try this one: It's a bit like Mexican immigrants bought lands in California and declared their return to Mexico tomorrow (Hispanics represent roughly one third of the population in California today, which is about the same as the proportion of Jews in Israel in 48).
Do you think it would be considered legal?

Let's try this one: Arabs knowingly sold their land to Jewish immigrants in Palestine. A Jewish nation eventuated in the reestablishment of the State of Israel which was designated to exist beside a "Palestinian" state.

The Jews accepted the option. The Palestinians did not.

Today, Israel is one of the most advanced countries in the world.

Palestinians? No so much.

[Simon39759]

Yeah... That's bulshit.
Arafat, most likely, died of food poisoning. Some people believe he was poisoned by the Mossad but that's quite unlikely.

The war started with riots, leading to death, leading to reataliations, leading to more drastic retaliations... The concerted effort really only arrive late in the process.
Saying that one side started it is just plain propaganda.

As for the land sell, some Palestinians did sell the land to Israelis but so what. You realize that you don't have the right the right of a Nation to any given land?
If I bought a couple of hectars in the Arizona desert and sold it to Lybia, it would not magically become part of Lybia. You do realize that?
And, beside that; there is the fact that the lands bought by Israel only represented a small portion of the Palestine mandate. And, of course, since then, a lot more land was acquired by confiscation, including from the many refugees.

[Marc39]

Yeah... That's bulshit.
Arafat, most likely, died of food poisoning. Some people believe he was poisoned by the Mossad but that's quite unlikely.

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.

The war started with riots...

The Arab riots took place 1936-1939.

The Palestinian civil war against the Jews started in late Nov/'47.

...leading to death...

60 Jews were killed during the first week of the civil war.
1200 Jews were murdered between Nov and May/'48 when the 1948 war broke out.

[[...leading to reataliations...

You kill my people, I kill your people. Seems reasonable to me.

... leading to more drastic retaliations... The concerted effort really only arrive late in the process.
Saying that one side started it is just plain propaganda.

Saying one side started it--the Arab side--is a matter of historical fact.

As for the land sell, some Palestinians did sell the land to Israelis but so what. You realize that you don't have the right the right of a Nation to any given land?

The San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine legally established "the right" of Jews to Palestine.

If I bought a couple of hectars in the Arizona desert and sold it to Lybia, it would not magically become part of Lybia. You do realize that?
And, beside that; there is the fact that the lands bought by Israel only represented a small portion of the Palestine mandate. And, of course, since then, a lot more land was acquired by confiscation, including from the many refugees.

No Jewish confiscations took place. That's a libel.

Arabs in Palestine didn't own anything. They were Bedouin peasants. They lived in mudhuts and grazed on grass like goats.

900,000 Jews had their property and possessions confiscated when expelled from their Arab homes in 1948 merely for being Jewish.

[Simon39759]

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.



You know, after all the anti-semitic bigots that plagues these boards in the last few months, it was a nice change of pace to have a pro-Israel one for a while.
But the thread certainly has outlived this initial interest.

You are an idiot only interested with she side of evidences that support your position and not even considering the others.
If you did, I think, you'd find it's a bit more complicated than that.


Name-calling is uncivil and impolite. Please re-read your Membership Agreement. Thank you.

[bigjelmapro]

But, the idea that Arafat was offered use compromises and walked away from them is just propaganda.
He certainly walked away too early before giving the talks a fair chance of succeeding, but it had not been offer any particularly generous compromises.
There was no compromises on Arafat's and the PLO's part since Arafat refused to even consider the concept of compromise. No maps were ever looked at in light of territorial concessions. The Israeli party involved was ready to talk about specifics, Arafat (as he made the decisions, not by any majority vote by the PLO 'government') however, was not. This was only a show, and an opportunity for Arafat to pay lip-service to the idea of peace negociations. Arafat was never serious about this process. All he wanted was to fill his coffers with international aid and transfer it to Swiss and off shore account. Talk to Sufa Arafat and how much she managed to funnel out.

Please get a clue about this subject matter, since judging from what you've said thus far, all that you're making are a wide-range of misinformed decisions and taking positions about a conflict you know very little about. Don't interpret this as cockiness...

[Marc39]

You know, after all the anti-semitic bigots that plagues these boards in the last few months, it was a nice change of pace to have a pro-Israel one for a while.
But the thread certainly has outlived this initial interest.

You are an idiot only interested with she side of evidences that support your position and not even considering the others.
If you did, I think, you'd find it's a bit more complicated than that.

History is my close friend. History is on my side.

[Toke]

You know, after all the anti-semitic bigots that plagues these boards in the last few months, it was a nice change of pace to have a pro-Israel one for a while.
But the thread certainly has outlived this initial interest.

You are an idiot only interested with the side of evidences that support your position and not even considering the others.
If you did, I think, you'd find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Once you start looking at the details and try to sort through the propaganda on each side you loose the comfort of a black and white world view.:)

[WildCat]

shellfish political purposes.
Damn that all-powerful oyster lobby! :mad:

[Thunder]

History is my close friend. History is on my side.

God help us.


Please keep the tone civil.

[Thunder]

Arabs in Palestine didn't own anything. They were Bedouin peasants. They lived in mudhuts and grazed on grass like goats. .

lies. outright BS lies. and racist to boot.

[Tebtenri]

Perhaps the Biblical text known as the Apocrypha, tells of the Maccabees who were doing asymmetric warfare, could be one of the first written accounts of terrorist activity.
Circa 160BCE
Not a bad read actually.

[Marc39]

Once you start looking at the details and try to sort through the propaganda on each side you loose the comfort of a black and white world view.:)

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

No shades of gray.

[Jontg]

I must agree with Simon here; after being labeled a Zionist by the Nazi thugs, it'll bring a comforting sense of balance to have a Zionist thug call me a Nazi. Of course, it takes so much less effort; Nazis put up a veneer of smug superiority, and assume that you're just one of the Ignorant Brainwashed Sheeple until you've torn apart some of their favorite canards. Your typical Zionist, on the other hand, is so hysterical that they reflexively label any dissenters as bigoted anti-Semites hankering to turn Jerusalem over to the Palestinians and start a second Holocaust. I'm afraid, however, that that isn't on my agenda.
I want to nuke Jerusalem into a glass-lined crater visible from space.
I want to watch the Jews and Muslims and Christians hunt for their precious city with Geiger counters.
I want to see you try to worship fallout. Kill each other over piles of ash.
And you know what? I think you would.

[Toke]

A holy hole in the ground? :D

Perhaps that would spare the rest of us their bickering.

[Jontg]

Sort of the point, yes. Maybe someday every theist on Earth will be dead or sterile, and they'll have to resort to adoption to infect new hosts. I say we let the homosexuals get together and pen some nice, ironic legislature addressing that last vector, and then we as a species can finally wash our hands of the matter and get on with actually existing.

[Toke]

Sort of the point, yes. Maybe someday every theist on Earth will be dead or sterile, and they'll have to resort to adoption to infect new hosts. I say we let the homosexuals get together and pen some nice, ironic legislature addressing that last vector, and then we as a species can finally wash our hands of the matter and get on with actually existing.
I got coffee on my table now. :D

[Marc39]

I must agree with Simon here; after being labeled a Zionist by the Nazi thugs, it'll bring a comforting sense of balance to have a Zionist thug call me a Nazi. Of course, it takes so much less effort; Nazis put up a veneer of smug superiority, and assume that you're just one of the Ignorant Brainwashed Sheeple until you've torn apart some of their favorite canards. Your typical Zionist, on the other hand, is so hysterical that they reflexively label any dissenters as bigoted anti-Semites hankering to turn Jerusalem over to the Palestinians and start a second Holocaust. I'm afraid, however, that that isn't on my agenda.
I want to nuke Jerusalem into a glass-lined crater visible from space.
I want to watch the Jews and Muslims and Christians hunt for their precious city with Geiger counters.
I want to see you try to worship fallout. Kill each other over piles of ash.
And you know what? I think you would.

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.

Better a live thug than a meek corpse.

[bigjelmapro]

Your typical Zionist, on the other hand, is so hysterical that they reflexively label any dissenters as bigoted anti-Semites hankering to turn Jerusalem over to the Palestinians and start a second Holocaust.

What a load of bs. What's a typical zionist? Right wing? Left wing? Labor? There's many different types, but I guess the ignoramus in you, as I've seen with many posters, conveniently group everyone who is pro-Israel, even in the slightest, into one group to be easily attacked. Utter laziness.


I'm afraid, however, that that isn't on my agenda.
I want to nuke Jerusalem into a glass-lined crater visible from space.
I want to watch the Jews and Muslims and Christians hunt for their precious city with Geiger counters.
I want to see you try to worship fallout. Kill each other over piles of ash.
And you know what? I think you would.
What does this even mean? Looking for some vociferous response? Well, you won't get any. Just ridicule. How about you scamper off now and go play with your toys.

[Jontg]

Not in the least--I'm speaking from personal experience and a great deal of exasperation with every side of this ridiculous war. I find people like you and Marc no different from the Palestinians who rant about "sweeping the Jews into the sea;" stupid, bloody-minded little people who lose sight of the big picture in the face of petty, temporal squabbles.
The big picture is this: you and people like you have been murdering each other over that damn city since time immemorial--all because a bronze-age warlord made his capital there, a con artist was executed there, and a man who was both at once spun the greatest bull story of his life there. Whichever dead reprobate you rally behind is immaterial and pointless; anyone who is willing to kill over that accursed, blood-soaked city deserves death himself. Jerusalem is at the eye of a whirlwind of hate, violence and endless revenge stretching back so far that truth itself becomes academic--a benighted relic of a vicious, barbarous age that needs to be purged, with nuclear fire if need be, before it contaminates another generation.
I am not a Nazi. I am not a Zionist. I am just fed up. I don't care who rightfully owns Jerusalem--anyone who wants that city after all it's responsible for is a fool. I finally understand that all the marching and praying and sensitivity in the world won't stop you animals from shedding each other's blood and dragging the whole damn world into your stupid little conflict. We've asked both sides for peace, over and over and over again, and now I now that if we want it, we have to take it. When children won't stop fighting over a toy, it's the responsibility of the grown-ups to take it away!

[Marc39]

Not in the least--I'm speaking from personal experience and a great deal of exasperation with every side of this ridiculous war. I find people like you and Marc no different from the Palestinians who rant about "sweeping the Jews into the sea;" stupid, bloody-minded little people who lose sight of the big picture in the face of petty, temporal squabbles.
The big picture is this: you and people like you have been murdering each other over that damn city since time immemorial--all because a bronze-age warlord made his capital there, a con artist was executed there, and a man who was both at once spun the greatest bull story of his life there. Whichever dead reprobate you rally behind is immaterial and pointless; anyone who is willing to kill over that accursed, blood-soaked city deserves death himself. Jerusalem is at the eye of a whirlwind of hate, violence and endless revenge stretching back so far that truth itself becomes academic--a benighted relic of a vicious, barbarous age that needs to be purged, with nuclear fire if need be, before it contaminates another generation.
I am not a Nazi. I am not a Zionist. I am just fed up. I don't care who rightfully owns Jerusalem--anyone who wants that city after all it's responsible for is a fool. I finally understand that all the marching and praying and sensitivity in the world won't stop you animals from shedding each other's blood and dragging the whole damn world into your stupid little conflict. We've asked both sides for peace, over and over and over again, and now I now that if we want it, we have to take it. When children won't stop fighting over a toy, it's the responsibility of the grown-ups to take it away!

You have an incomplete understanding of the matter.

The Jews have been amenable to living side-by-side in peace with the Pallies.

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.

The Israeli Declaration of Independence speaks of peace.

The PLO, Fatah and Hamas charters speak of violence, terrorism and genocide against Jews.

Don't paint with a broad brush.

[Jontg]

Mhm. So that little bit with the white phosphorus was, what, a gesture of friendship? People say a lot of things; it's what they do that matters, and what Israel did would have been considered a war crime if it had been committed by any other nation.
I may be painting with a broad brush, but at least I'm not drawing a black-and-white picture.

[Skeptic]

I admit to being a cynic but I find it hilariously funny that the peace process in the Middle East mostly involves the Israelis trying to meet the demands of the Palestinian leaders, going as far as evicting their own citizens while the Palestinians continue with more demands and no sign of any compromise on their part. That does look a bit lopsided to me.
The wall needs to go but the Palestinian extremists need to stop the shooting, bombing, kidnapping first.

I only add there was no wall before the shooting, bombing, and kidnapping moved into high gear.

[Marc39]

Mhm. So that little bit with the white phosphorus was, what, a gesture of friendship?

You forgot "the little bit" about 7,000 rockets Gaza fired into Israel over the course of several years?

And, the little bit about missiles lobbed into Israel from Gaza the moment Israel withrew from Gaza?

The little bit with the white phosphorous was part of a military operation in response to the afore-mentioned Palestinian aggression against Israel to put an end to such threats to Israeli security.

Cause and effect.

People say a lot of things; it's what they do that matters, and what Israel did would have been considered a war crime if it had been committed by any other nation.
I may be painting with a broad brush, but at least I'm not drawing a black-and-white picture.

Hamas's charter calling for annihilation of Israel violates numerous anti-genocide and anti-terror regulations.

Hamas rocketing Israel constituted war crimes in targeting non-combatants, especially school children and acts of war against Israel.

Israel's military response was legal under international law. Indeed, the Israeli government was duty-bound to intercede in Gaza and prevent further Hamas threats to Israeli population centers.

Get a new brush.

[Skeptic]

You forgot "the little bit" about 7,000 rockets Gaza fired into Israel over the course of several years?

But that's just dead Jews, Marc, just dead Jews... when will you learn that doesn't matter?

[Jontg]

Aaaaaand it officially kicks off, with the first accusation of closet-Nazism after only eleven posts. You really are predictable--anyone, regardless of stated opinions, political affiliations, or evident glee in bashing the resident Holocaust deniers, automatically develops a bad combover and a dorky little mustache the moment they criticize Israel.
Frankly, dead Jews are dead Muslims are dead Christians, and there's too many of all three. This craziness needs to end, and it's become obvious to me that it's not going to as long as there's even two people left in Jerusalem. If we can't make it glow, we need to make it empty--let it stand, abandoned, until nature erases it, as a monument to all our mistakes.

[Marc39]

This craziness needs to end

Sure, it does.

Why don't you do something about it?

Here's a suggestion: Start your own real religion of peace, persuade 1.5 billion Muslims to join your religion (Mass conversion is imperative as Islamic law calls for death to apostates) and you're on your way.

Before you know it, Muslims don't want to kill Jews any longer, peace breaks out in the Middle East and you've got a shiny, new Nobel Prize for your efforts.

[Thunder]

Jews in Israel want to live in peace.
.

Yeah, without Arabs in their schools, or government, or neighborhoods.

[Jontg]

Sure, it does.

Why don't you do something about it?

Here's a suggestion: Start your own real religion of peace, persuade 1.5 billion Muslims to join your religion (Mass conversion is imperative as Islamic law calls for death to apostates) and you're on your way.

Before you know it, Muslims don't want to kill Jews any longer, peace breaks out in the Middle East and you've got a shiny, new Nobel Prize for your efforts.
Sorry, I'm a militant atheist. We don't discriminate between one pile of hateful claptrap and the next--we're out to decon the world, not just the unkosher parts.

[Marc39]

Sorry, I'm a militant atheist. We don't discriminate between one pile of hateful claptrap and the next--we're out to decon the world, not just the unkosher parts.

Good thing you don't live in the sort of fascist Muslim places Israel is contendng with. They have little tolerance for non-believers, militant or otherwise.

[Jontg]

And I'm also glad I don't live near lunatics with a poor grasp of historical irony who think my house was ceded to them by an invisible man in the sky. Your point?

[Marc39]

And I'm also glad I don't live near lunatics with a poor grasp of historical irony who think my house was ceded to them by an invisible man in the sky. Your point?

As I am. However, history edifies that "houses" were not ceded as much as sold in legitimate, legal real estate transactions.

[Jontg]

Mhm. And now they want another one--and when the occupants turned out to be hateful primitives, they quickly descended to the same level, using inhumane weapons and treating the native population as second-class citizens. Don't bother trying to play the persecuted minority card on me--you've already proven yourselves capable of acts just as monstrous. White phosphorus is not a munition of dispassionate, defensive warfare--it is a weapon of spite, of hatred and revenge. And now the Arabs are taking their revenge, and probably working on something even worse. You'll conveniently forget that you did anything to provoke it, and smite the unbelievers even as they smite you back, having themselves forgotten what they did to deserve it. And so it will continue, as it's done for three thousand years, until the last Jew, the last Christian and the last Arab all throttle each other with their voodoo paraphernalia.

[Marc39]

Mhm. And now they want another one--and when the occupants turned out to be hateful primitives, they quickly descended to the same level, using inhumane weapons and treating the native population as second-class citizens. Don't bother trying to play the persecuted minority card on me--you've already proven yourselves capable of acts just as monstrous. White phosphorus is not a munition of dispassionate, defensive warfare--it is a weapon of spite, of hatred and revenge. And now the Arabs are taking their revenge, and probably working on something even worse. You'll conveniently forget that you did anything to provoke it, and smite the unbelievers even as they smite you back, having themselves forgotten what they did to deserve it. And so it will continue, as it's done for three thousand years, until the last Jew, the last Christian and the last Arab all throttle each other with their voodoo paraphernalia.

White phosphorous is legal and used by militaries around the world, including by the Allies in World War II and by the US military in Iraq.

Had Palestinians not gone to war with Israel, white phosphorous would not have been used.

Several bloodthirsty Arab countries ganging up on Israel over the years and, today, about 10 ruthless Muslim terrorist organizations whose raison d'etre is complete destruction of Israel and mass murder of Jews gives Israel justification for being aggressive in warfare.

This is not a video game.

[Marc39]

You'll conveniently forget that you did anything to provoke it

Arabs did not forget that Hamas was responsible for the war in Gaza.

Mahmoud Abbas, PLO Chairman...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlxIERLmlCg

Egyptian official...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XEXsbTLfXE

Trying to invent history is useless.

[Jontg]

I never said they didn't--in fact, I specifically said that they were hateful primitives. That does nothing to excuse what you did and continue to do in retaliation. And neither does the legality of white phosphorus or any other incendiary excuse its use on anyone by anyone. This is exactly the problem I've been ranting about for two pages. No--you are the problem. Zionists and Jihadis who can't see beyond your own tiny little hate-filled worlds, who take turns exacting bloody revenge on each other over and over and over and over and over again until who started it is immaterial--both sides are complicit in this, and both sides deserve to burn!
And you're right--this isn't a video game! There are no points to score! No experience to earn! No princesses to save, no skulls to collect, no heroes, no villains, no objectives! And no leaderboards! It doesn't matter how many kills you rack up before you die, because you only have one life! Do you know who keeps fighting when you die? Your children! And your children's children! All caught up in this endless cycle, killing and dying over this blood-drenched city as if it were a team base in Halo *********** 3! How can you accuse me of treating this like a game when none of you superstitious primitives can get it through your heads that there are no *********** continues?! :mgbanghead

[Marc39]

I never said they didn't--in fact, I specifically said that they were hateful primitives. That does nothing to excuse what you did and continue to do in retaliation. And neither does the legality of white phosphorus or any other incendiary excuse its use on anyone by anyone. This is exactly the problem I've been ranting about for two pages. No--you are the problem. Zionists and Jihadis who can't see beyond your own tiny little hate-filled worlds, who take turns exacting bloody revenge on each other over and over and over and over and over again until who started it is immaterial--both sides are complicit in this, and both sides deserve to burn!
And you're right--this isn't a video game! There are no points to score! No experience to earn! No princesses to save, no skulls to collect, no heroes, no villains, no objectives! And no leaderboards! It doesn't matter how many kills you rack up before you die, because you only have one life! Do you know who keeps fighting when you die? Your children! And your children's children! All caught up in this endless cycle, killing and dying over this blood-drenched city as if it were a team base in Halo *********** 3! How can you accuse me of treating this like a game when none of you superstitious primitives can get it through your heads that there are no *********** continues?! :mgbanghead

There is no moral equivalence between Zionists and jihadists. The former are pacifists. The latter, terrorists.

[Moss]

There is no moral equivalence between Zionists and jihadists. The former are pacifists. The latter, terrorists.

Nahum Goldstein and the Kach movement are what in your opinion? They are not mainstream, but still they show that both sides have their idiotic extremists.
You seem to be either unable or unwilling to see that the vicious circle of action and reaction, of violence and revenge will not end unless people see that their fellow humans on the other side have also suffered and that you should work together to prevent further suffering. To claim that only the other side is both responsible and reprehensible for all the violence leads only to a dehumanisation of the other side.
If you can understand and relate to the fear of the Israeli populace of getting in harm's way, why can't you do the same for the Palestinians that only want to live in safety?

[Marc39]

Nahum Goldstein and the Kach movement are what in your opinion? They are not mainstream, but still they show that both sides have their idiotic extremists.
You seem to be either unable or unwilling to see that the vicious circle of action and reaction, of violence and revenge will not end unless people see that their fellow humans on the other side have also suffered and that you should work together to prevent further suffering. To claim that only the other side is both responsible and reprehensible for all the violence leads only to a dehumanisation of the other side.
If you can understand and relate to the fear of the Israeli populace of getting in harm's way, why can't you do the same for the Palestinians that only want to live in safety?

How many wars did Kach start? When did Kach align itself with the IDF? How many rockets did Kach fire into neighboring Arab countries.

When did the Kach intifadas occur? How many Kach suicide bombers were there? Kach car bombers?

How many different Kach factions were there, as there are numerous Palestinian terror factions?

What years was Israel governed by Kach?

Kach was banned from Israel.

When will Fatah ban al-Aqsa Brigades, the terrorist organization they recently aligned with?

When will Hamas and Hezbollah ban Iranian support for their terrorist activities?

When will Lebanon ban Hezbollah?

When will Gazans ban Hamas?

When will Palestinians ban Tanzim, PFLP and Islamic Jihad?

When will Muslims ban al-Qaeda?

[Marc39]

You seem to be either unable or unwilling to see that the vicious circle of action and reaction, of violence and revenge will not end unless people see that their fellow humans on the other side have also suffered and that you should work together to prevent further suffering. To claim that only the other side is both responsible and reprehensible for all the violence leads only to a dehumanisation of the other side.
If you can understand and relate to the fear of the Israeli populace of getting in harm's way, why can't you do the same for the Palestinians that only want to live in safety?

Vicious cycle of violence: Muslims kill Jews and Jews defend themselves.

No rational person would draw a parallel.

Palestinians voted in terror organizations for their governments and give them safe harbor, making all Palestinians complicit in terrorism.

Jews just want to be left alone.

[Jontg]

Vicious cycle of violence: Muslims kill Jews and Jews defend themselves.

And this is it--right here, the core of the cycle. See, the Muslims see it the other way around. As far as they're concerned, Jews kill Muslims (and steal children, and harvest organs, and fake Holocausts, and are secretly giant space reptiles, and so forth), and Muslims defend themselves. And as long as both sides see their atrocities as justified acts of self-defense, you're just going to keep killing each other.
Somebody has to end this cycle, and if one of you doesn't, someday we will.

[Marc39]

And this is it--right here, the core of the cycle. See, the Muslims see it the other way around.

Untrue. Muslims are clear about Israel not being permitted to exist, both mainstream Muslims and extremists. There is no reciprocal viewpoint regarding the existance of Muslim countries on the Israeli side.

A recent public opinion survey among even Israeli Muslims revealed a large percentage do not believe in Israel's right to exist--their own
country!--and they deny the Holocaust, to boot.

Indeed, the historical link between Nazis and Muslims is well-documented. Muslims are the new Nazis and their goal is to complete the Final Solution.

[Thunder]

Muslims are the new Nazis and their goal is to complete the Final Solution.

Actually, it is the Israelis who are the new Nazis.

[Doctor Evil]

Actually, it is the Israelis who are the new Nazis.

Actually, it is you who sunk to Marc's level. You can join him on my ignore list.

Please keep the tone civil. Thank you.

[Marc39]

Actually, it is you who sank to Marc's level. You can join him on my ignore list.

Translation: Marc is far too knowledgeable in Middle East affairs for me to even attempt to debate him, so, why even try?

[Simon39759]

But that's just dead Jews, Marc, just dead Jews... when will you learn that doesn't matter?


Yeah... Except for the fact that there have been many more innocent civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intifada_deaths.svg) (that means, non-combatant civilians) to die on the Palestinian side. At least three times as much, being as conservative as possible (that means, not counting anybody for whole there is any doubt)<.


Actually, it is the Israelis who are the new Nazis.

Yeah... No. Simply no.
I object to the idea that Israel is absolutely innocent of any wrong-doing whatsoever and that the Arabs are solely to blame. I object even more to the notion that the Palestinian were primitive 'grass-eater' that somehow, did not deserve the land.

But you just can't compare Israel policy to the Nazi's.
Mistakes were made; sometime leaders on the Israelis side were so concerned by their legitimate concern for the safety of their people, as well as by the weight of the particular history of the Jews, that they overlooked the fate of the Palestinians and, yes, the Israelis too had their share of bad evil people.
But, no, that certainly does not make them Nazis. They are still the only Middle-Eastern democracy and, despite the ambient prejudices, the Arabs are quite certainly better treated in Israel than a similar minority would be in any of the opposing countries.
That does not mean we should pretend that the situation is black and white or look the other way when Israel's actions are unfair, but they still are the good-guys.

[Marc39]

Yeah... Except for the fact that there have been many more innocent civilians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intifada_deaths.svg) (that means, non-combatant civilians) to die on the Palestinian side. At least three times as much, being as conservative as possible (that means, not counting anybody for whole there is any doubt)<.

So? No Palestinian "non-combatants" would have died had they not been in "combat" with Israel--Combat initiated by...Palestinians.

People die in war. One million died in the Iran-Iraq War.

Palestinian "non-combatant" casualties were caused by their own government when Hamas routinely hid behind civilian structures, like homes, schools, mosques and hospitals.

War crime.

Palestinian non-combatant casualties were caused by Hamas fighting out of uniform, deliberately causing confusion in differentiating them from non-combatants.

War crime.

Palestinian non-combatant casualties were caused by Hamas booby trapping zoos and other buildings.

War crime.

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

I object to the idea that Israel is absolutely innocent of any wrong-doing whatsoever and that the Arabs are solely to blame. I object even more to the notion that the Palestinian were primitive 'grass-eater' that somehow, did not deserve the land.

Travelers to the Ottoman Empire, including the British in post-World War I, have chronicled the extreme poverty of the Arab Bedouins so poor they were seen grazing on grass along with goats. Your "objections" are to historical fact.

[Jontg]

See what I mean, Simon? There are no "good guys" in Jerusalem anymore; only war criminals and their enablers fighting terrorists and their enablers. It's the Fourth Crusade meets the Battle of Stalingrad--bad guys, fighting bad guys.

[Marc39]

See what I mean, Simon? There are no "good guys" in Jerusalem anymore; only war criminals and their enablers fighting terrorists and their enablers. It's the Fourth Crusade meets the Battle of Stalingrad--bad guys, fighting bad guys.

By your warped viewpoint and lack of understanding of warfare, Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman would have been brought up on war crimes charges and hanged at Nuremberg.

Perhaps, you'd like to exhume their bodies and put them on trial posthumously.

[Doctor Evil]

See what I mean, Simon? There are no "good guys" in Jerusalem anymore; only war criminals and their enablers fighting terrorists and their enablers. It's the Fourth Crusade meets the Battle of Stalingrad--bad guys, fighting bad guys.

I suspect that most people living in Jerusalem are fairly decent fellows. If your confirmation bias is that bad, perhaps you should consider a short break from news?

[Toke]

One of the problems for Israel is that it is a civilized democracy, and therefore held to those standards, it gives a major PR problem.

[Marc39]

One of the problems for Israel is that it is a civilized democracy, and therefore held to those standards, it gives a major PR problem.

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

[Simon39759]

So? No Palestinian "non-combatants" would have died had they not been in "combat" with Israel--Combat initiated by...Palestinians.

People die in war. One million died in the Iran-Iraq War.

Palestinian "non-combatant" casualties were caused by their own government when Hamas routinely hid behind civilian structures, like homes, schools, mosques and hospitals.

And Israelis death were due to the Israelie government hiding behind it's civilian population. I mean, silly murder apologetics work both ways...

[Thunder]

One of the problems for Israel is that it is a civilized democracy, and therefore held to those standards, it gives a major PR problem.

yes. Israel is a civilized Democracy. Therefore, it is held to a MUCH higher standard then the theocratic and right-wing dictatorships of the Arab and Muslim world.

Israelis love to flaunt how democratic they are but hate the baggage that comes along with that. Democracies are expected to ACT like democracies.

[Marc39]

And Israelis death were due to the Israelie government hiding behind it's civilian population. I mean, silly murder apologetics work both ways...

The "Israelie" government protected its civilian population by punching Hamas's lights out, which Israel was justified in doing under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Provide links to International Criminal Court judgments against Israelis for murder.

There are none, rendering your allegation as baseless, reckless and libelous.

[Marc39]

One of the problems for Israel is that it is a civilized democracy, and therefore held to those standards, it gives a major PR problem.

There is no moral tenet or rule of law that excludes "civilized democracies," such as Israel, from the fundamental principle of self-defense.

America dropped atomic bombs on Japan, killing a million Japanese.

America has contributed to the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis.

Israel is no less a civilized democracy than the US and a case can be made that Israel is more a civilized democracy than the US.

[Simon39759]

There is no moral tenet or rule of law that excludes "civilized democracies," such as Israel, from the fundamental principle of self-defense.

America dropped atomic bombs on Japan, killing a million Japanese.

America has contributed to the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis.

Israel is no less a civilized democracy than the US and a case can be made that Israel is more a civilized democracy than the US.


I guess. And this is relevant how?
It's not like people give a free pass to the US when they screw up. I personally opposed the Iraq war with the all the (very limited) means I had.

But that Israel is a 'civilized democracy' does that mean it is fawless. The world is not all black and white, you know?

[Marc39]

It's not like people give a free pass to the US when they screw up.

Any UN human rights commissions ever hassle the US?

Any ICC inquiries into actions by the US military?

Any widespread calls for boycotts of America?

Any urgent demands for colleges to divest from US-based companies?

I personally opposed the Iraq war with the all the (very limited) means I had.

What of World War II? Did you oppose that? Israel's enemies have the same fascist and genocidal policies as the Third Reich.

But that Israel is a 'civilized democracy' does that mean it is fawless. The world is not all black and white, you know?

No country is flawless. The IDF is less flawed, however, than any other army.

[Toke]

yes. Israel is a civilized Democracy. Therefore, it is held to a MUCH higher standard then the theocratic and right-wing dictatorships of the Arab and Muslim world.

Israelis love to flaunt how democratic they are but hate the baggage that comes along with that. Democracies are expected to ACT like democracies.
Another problem is that Israel civilized but also the stronger one in the relationship and should be acting the adult.

Perhaps the problem is that right wing nutters only have to appeal the the baser instincts in the populations.
Israel is not the only country in the world that have large minorities or otherwise mixed populations I am not sure what makes the difference.
It could be those "holy" places and the pilgrim money.

[Marc39]

Another problem is that Israel civilized but also the stronger one in the relationship and should be acting the adult.

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.

Act like an adult? Please.

Perhaps the problem is that right wing nutters only have to appeal the the baser instincts in the populations.

Israelis, in general, supported the Gaza war. Israelis, in general, recognize the Palestinians want to exterminate Jews.

Read what Benny Morris has to say on the subject. You know who Benny Morris is, don't you?

Israel is not the only country in the world that have large minorities or otherwise mixed populations I am not sure what makes the difference.
It could be those "holy" places and the pilgrim money.

The difference is Muslims in Israel want Israel destroyed. Muslims outside of Israel want Israel destroyed.

It doesn't take a Henry Kissinger to figure it out.

[Simon39759]

Well; Israel is in a tight place, makes no mistakes.
The rhetoric from its aggressive neighbour is very dangerous and scary.
The refugees are desperate and many are ready to anything to escape their harsh conditions and are easily manipulated.
Finally, the Holocaust is still very present, as it should be, in the mind of many Jewish people and leader.

So, it is perfectly understandable for Israel to be very proactive when their own safety is concerned. But, the problem is that this policy can, and has, lead to abuses in the past, from the involvment in the Sabra and Shatila massacres; to the forced expulsion and blocus of Arab settlements to the razing of houses of innocents based on who their family are.

[Marc39]

But, the problem is that this policy can, and has, lead to abuses in the past, from the involvment in the Sabra and Shatila massacres; to the forced expulsion and blocus of Arab settlements to the razing of houses of innocents based on who their family are.

Weren't the Lebanese involved in Sabra and Shatila?

Forced expulsions? Razed houses? If you build a house illegally and that is not up to code on property you do not own, don't be surprised if your house gets torn down.

In the US, you get evicted and tossed out on the street.

[Simon39759]

Weren't the Lebanese involved in Sabra and Shatila?

Forced expulsions? Razed houses? If you build a house illegally and that is not up to code on property you do not own, don't be surprised if your house gets torn down.

In the US, you get evicted and tossed out on the street.


Sabra and Shatila was the fact of Israeli backed Christian militia.
The Israeli army was surrounding the camps and either did not notice the amred militia entering through the gates they were in charge of guarding and the following massacres or let it happen or actively participated, depending who you ask.
It is worth noting that the Kahan commission did conclude on Sharon's personal responsibility. It is worth noting that, after being judged responsible of the death of between 2500 and 3500 mostly civilians refugees, Sharon was not initially forced to resign from the post of ministry of defence. After he did so, accommodation were made to keep him in the government.

Stating that Israel is purely defending itself and has never been the aggressor is purely revisionism.

[Marc39]

Sabra and Shatila was the fact of Israeli backed Christian militia.

Who committed the massacre?

The Lebanese.

The Israeli army was surrounding the camps and either did not notice the amred militia entering through the gates they were in charge of guarding and the following massacres or let it happen or actively participated, depending who you ask.

You still refuse to acknowledge the Lebanese committed the massacre?

It is worth noting that the Kahan commission did conclude on Sharon's personal responsibility.

Why didn't Lebanon have a commission, since the Lebanese committed the massacre?

It is worth noting that, after being judged responsible of the death of between 2500 and 3500 mostly civilians refugees, Sharon was not initially forced to resign from the post of ministry of defence. After he did so, accommodation were made to keep him in the government.

Did anyone from Lebanon resign, since the Lebanese committed the massacre?

Stating that Israel is purely defending itself and has never been the aggressor is purely revisionism.

Did I mention Lebanese committed the Sabra and Shatila massacre?

[Simon39759]

Who committed the massacre?
The Lebanese.

Yes; the Lebanese, with the tacit approval, or maybe active cooperation, of the IDF.
It doesn't mean that the IDF that let them do it does not share a responsibility, as the freaking Israeli driven Kahan commission readily agreed.


Why didn't Lebanon have a commission, since the Lebanese committed the massacre?
Did anyone from Lebanon resign, since the Lebanese committed the massacre?

So, your point is that we should not expect better from Democratic Israel than the civil war torn Lebanon?

In addition, Elie Hobeika was scheduled to go to trial, and apparently planned on implicating Sharon, when he was murdered.


I reiterate, you are cherry picking facts and events, only being interested in bolstering your bigoted world view. You are no better than any other denialist.

[Marc39]

Yes; the Lebanese, with the tacit approval, or maybe active cooperation, of the IDF.
It doesn't mean that the IDF that let them do it does not share a responsibility, as the freaking Israeli driven Kahan commission readily agreed.

What did the Lebanese commission find?

So, your point is that we should not expect better from Democratic Israel than the civil war torn Lebanon?

Why not expect more from the Arab and Muslim countries? How will they improve if you continue to think of them as animals? How racist!

I reiterate, you are cherry picking facts and events, only being interested in bolstering your bigoted world view. You are no better than any other denialist.

You're the one cherry-picking. You had to go back nearly 30 years to Sabra and Shatila to try to find fault with Israel and the Lebanese committed that massacre.

I could go back to the 7th century for the Muslim invasion.

[Jontg]

By your warped viewpoint and lack of understanding of warfare, Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman would have been brought up on war crimes charges and hanged at Nuremberg.

Perhaps, you'd like to exhume their bodies and put them on trial posthumously.
Funny, I don't remember denying that the Allies committed war crimes, or that the methods we used were vicious and unethical by modern standards. I'll freely admit that we not only used incendiary ordinance, but deployed infantry and armor with flamethrowers, trained attack dogs to hate Asians, and retained officers who didn't need training to be hateful bastards to minorities in their own ranks. But frankly, they were fair for their time, and up against enemies infinitely worse.
You have no such excuse--your pointlessly cruel arsenal and tunnel-visioned approach to this conflict have no place on a modern battlefield, and mark you as just as vicious and bigoted as your enemies, who at least have the excuse of being barbarians mired in an even earlier age. You should know better. You can do better. The fact that you descend to their level makes you more disappointing to me than if you had never risen above it in the first place.
People like 9/11 Investigator point to your nation as evidence that you should never give power to a Jew--that the only place where you aren't a liability is at the bottom of the totem pole, because when you're given power you instinctively use it to crush those under you and take everything for yourselves. Prove him and his ilk wrong--use the power you've been given wisely, and prove you're better men than your enemies.
You have one of the most advanced militaries in the world, and access to even greater resources if you properly leverage whatever gentile guilt America still feels. Why not use the money you expend dropping firebombs on civilians developing more precise and efficient combat tools that allow you to dispatch your real enemies without slaughtering innocents? We learned in Iraq that erring on the side of caution is a win-win scenario when you're dealing with terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents; when you're right you avoid civilian deaths, and when you're wrong the enemy looks bad for taking advantage of your better nature. If you adopted more humane, precise, and measured responses in contrast to the more brutal, indiscriminate tactics of the Palestinians, you'd not only be the better man, you'd look like it to the whole world--but you don't, and that says volumes about your real motives and goals.

[Marc39]

You have one of the most advanced militaries in the world, and access to even greater resources if you properly leverage whatever gentile guilt America still feels. Why not use the money you expend dropping firebombs on civilians developing more precise and efficient combat tools that allow you to dispatch your real enemies without slaughtering innocents? We learned in Iraq that erring on the side of caution is a win-win scenario when you're dealing with terrorists/freedom fighters/insurgents; when you're right you avoid civilian deaths, and when you're wrong the enemy looks bad for taking advantage of your better nature. If you adopted more humane, precise, and measured responses in contrast to the more brutal, indiscriminate tactics of the Palestinians, you'd not only be the better man, you'd look like it to the whole world--but you don't, and that says volumes about your real motives and goals.

First, you falsely accused the IDF of murder.

Now, you're falsely alleging the IDF firebombed Gaza?

Why did the IDF drop hundreds of thousands of leaflets on Gaza alerting them to the military action and place hundreds of thousands of phone calls and text messages to Palestinians with warnings if they were planning on fire-bombing Gaza?

Because, the IDF did not firebomb Gaza.

Gaza was Dresden because a few buildings were damaged? Poor babies, the Palestinians.

They got off easy.

The US military destroyed 10,000 buildings in Falujah and damaged 25,000 more, out of 50,000 buildings.

Israel didn't finish the job in Gaza.

[firecoins]

With the recent release of the Lockerbie bomber and media condemnation of British oil and trade deals with Colonel Gaddafi of Libya I would point out that this is nothing new. At least two former Israeli prime ministers were members of terrorist organisations - Menachem Begin belonged to the Irgun Zvai Leumi and Yitzhak Shamir the LEHI (better known as the Stern gang). Their outrages included the assassination of Churchill's envoy to the middle east Lord Moyne and the UN mediator on Palestine Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden as well as blowing up the King David hotel with 91 dead. They also killed many British soldiers and policemen until the British mandate in Palestine ended in 1948. The point is neither of these Israeli prime ministers ever apologised or condemned their terrorist actions yet they were welcomed at 10 Downing Street and the White House. And of course Britain and the USA trade with Israel. I condemn all terrorism whether it is by Jews, Muslims, Christians or anyone else but the media has a selective memory and likes to omit or downplay zionist terrorism. A double standard is at work here. www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm (http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm)


I am the original terrorist. I hide in a cave in NY.

[Tricky]

A few more posts moved to AAH. May I remind you of this mod box? Please keep the tone civil. Thank you.Mods get cranky when their warnings are ignored.

[Jontg]

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?

[Simon39759]

What did the Lebanese commission find?

I am not aware there has been such a thing, but, then again, after years of civil war, the country was ruled by an authoritarian regime under the control of Syria.



Why not expect more from the Arab and Muslim countries? How will they improve if you continue to think of them as animals? How racist!


WTF.
The Arabs countries are ruthless dictatorship, that was never the debate.
I am not saying, I was never saying, that the Arabs were totally innocent and Israel totally guilty.
I am saying that, while the surrounding countries are bloody dictatorship that voluntarily prolong and exploit the conflict for political gains, Israel did share part of the blame and did, in several occasions, engage in criminal behaviour itself.
You are the only one around here who persist in seeing the things in black and white.



You're the one cherry-picking. You had to go back nearly 30 years to Sabra and Shatila to try to find fault with Israel and the Lebanese committed that massacre.
I could go back to the 7th century for the Muslim invasion.

BS; considering that, by that time, you had already mentioned multiple times the early XXth century zionism and the independence war.
And, indeed, Sabra and Shatila is, in my opinion, the worst and most clear cut case of abuse committed by Israel.
If you want a more recent example, what about the use of live ammunition (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/israelandthepalestinians3); often as disproportionate response (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/27/palestinian-west-bank-bilin)?
Once again; I am not trying to shift all the blame to Isarel's leadership. They are in a difficult situation where the lives of their citizens is in daily danger.

But then, again, pretending that Israel is always only defending itself is simply not accurate. Nor his a policy of blindly endorsing what Israel does conductive to ever achieving a long term peace.

[Simon39759]

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?

Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.ece) is an article on the issue. It's one more example of an unnecessarily ruthless operation.

[Marc39]

Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.ece) is an article on the issue. It's one more example of an unnecessarily ruthless operation.

Not any more "unnecessarly ruthless" than the US military's use of WP...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4440664.stm

[Marc39]

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?

First, become familiarized with the definition of murder before you falsely accuse the IDF of murder.

Then, become acquainted with firebombing before you do the same thing as with murder. The use of white phosphorous does not constitute firebombing.

Here is much-needed information...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

No need to thank me, I'm a giver.

[Chaos]

Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.ece) is an article on the issue. It's one more example of an unnecessarily ruthless operation.

There is no unnecessary ruthlessness for Marc39. For him, there´s only dead Muslims, more dead Muslims, and Pure Bliss.

[Marc39]

There is no unnecessary ruthlessness for Marc39. For him, there´s only dead Muslims, more dead Muslims, and Pure Bliss.

Ruthless is several Arab Muslim countries repeatedly ganging up on Israel in a concerted effort to commit a second holocaust of Jews, inclluding trying to catch them by surprise in attacking Israel on Yom Kippur. What would Allah say?

Ruthless is Muslims teaching their children the nobility of jihad against Jews.

Ruthless is Arabs walking into an Israeli restaurant or onto an Israeli bus wearing a bomb belt and blowing themselves up.

Ruthless is Muslims beheading Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl on-camera merely because he was Jewish.

Ruthless is Muslims flying airplanes into office buildings.

[Thunder]

Ruthless is several Arab Muslim countries repeatedly ganging up on Israel .

how should Arab countries respond to the persecution of their Palestinian brothers?

how should they respond to the theft of Palestinian homes?

how should they respond to the desecration of Palestinian Mosques?

how should they respond to the destruction of Palestinian land?

by doing nothing? I think not.

Israel commits crimes and has reaped what they sow.

[Simon39759]

Ruthless is Arabs walking into an Israeli restaurant or onto an Israeli bus

That strikes me as much less ruthless than desperate.
If a people is in such a state than a significant portion of it considers death an acceptable alternative, then, most probably, they too are among the victims.



how should Arab countries respond to the persecution of their Palestinian brothers?
how should they respond to the theft of Palestinian homes?
how should they respond to the desecration of Palestinian Mosques?
how should they respond to the destruction of Palestinian land?
by doing nothing? I think not.
Israel commits crimes and has reaped what they sow.

Meh; you seem to imply that the surrounding Arab governments actually care for the Palestinian beside using them as propaganda fooder. I don't agree with it.

As for Israel 'crimes', sure, it does, at time, use excessive force but it is not as systematic as your post seems to imply. Furthermore, Israel do make some efforts to keep this violence under control and does, on occasion, crack down on the worst offences.
At any rate, it would certainly NOT justify the violence Israel and its citizens are threatened with and subjected to.

[Marc39]

That strikes me as much less ruthless than desperate.
If a people is in such a state than a significant portion of it considers death an acceptable alternative, then, most probably, they too are among the victims.

The basis for Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel is Islamic law forbidding the existence of a Jewish state on what is perceived as Muslim waqf land.

The basis for Palestinian suicide bombings against Jews is Quranic doctrine against Jews and Shari'a law that Jews may only live as dhimmis if they do not convert to Islam, rather than have their own state.

Palestinian belligerence toward Jews is theological, not "desperate"

To wit...

During the 1948 War, Egypt illegally seized and occupied Gaza, which it retained for 20 years, denying Palestinians statehood and repressing them...
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244034989178

There were no "desperate" Palestinian suicide bombings against Egypt.

During the 1948 War, Jordan illegally seized Judea and Samaria, renamed it the West Bank and proceeded to illegally occupy it for 20 years, denying Palestinians statehood.

In 1970, Jordan's King Hussein murdered thousands of Palestinians in Black September.

There were no desperate Palestinian suicide bombings against Jordan.

After the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinians.

There were no desperate Palestinian suicide bombings against Kuwait.

In Lebanon today, 400,000 Palestinians live in squalid refugee camps since 1948, denied citizenship, healthcare and employment.

There are no desperate Palestinian suicide bombings against Lebanon.

In Syria, Palestinian refugees are denied employment in civil jobs.

There are no desperate Palestinian suicide bombings against Syria.

In Jordan today, Palestinians are denied entry and the remaining Palestinian population is being stripped of their citizenship.

There are no desperate Palestinian suicide bombings against Jordan.

The Arab League, in general, comprising 22 countries, has had an ongoing policy denying Palestinians asylum and citizenship since the 1948 War.

Palestinians are now in their 4th generation of refugee status as a result of Arab denial of resettlement, making them the only intergenerational refugee group in the history of the world.

There are no desperate Palestinian suicide bombings against the Arab League.

[Simon39759]

Well, first of all, you obviously need to read up on the Lebanon civil war and how it started.

Furthermore, in each and every of these cases, the Palestinians ultimately blame Israel for it. Certainly, that's a simplistic view of the situation. Where did I say that the Palestinian refugees had a clear and fair view of the political situation?
I mentioned many times that the surrounding countries did not actually care for the Palestinians, what are you arguing about again?


Let me reiterate.
-The Palestinian, and the refugees in particular, are in a terrible situation.
-This can be traced back to the independence war when many of them either fled the exactions (some real, other often fictitious) exaction from the Israel army) and when several Israeli commanders appear to have had a politic of chasing away the refugees.
-Despite this situation enduring for a long time, the neighbouring countries have done little to improve the situation, partly because these countries have limited means -There are 2 millions Palestinian in Jordan; compare that to the 5 millions of the rest of the population, you quickly understand why there would be concerned in just giving them nationality- but also because many of these countries are quite happy to exploit the situation for political purposes.
-When given an opportunity to lead their own country, the Palestinian leadership seriously screwed up. Arafat's government was corrupt, inefficient and weak and the Hamas leadership is more interested in continuing the war that gives it what little legitimacy it can claim rather than improving the lot of the population.
-These results in many desperate attempts to strike back at Israel, the perceived culprit for this situation.
-While Israel itself is in a very difficult situation and certainly must insure the safety of its own population, its policy has, on occasions, be excessively ruthless and, in addition to the human rights concern, has contributed to the deterioration of the relationship, hence feeding the circle of hatred and violence.
-Despite these genuine concerns, Israel remains a democracy, the only one in the Middle East and still is treating its Arab minority better than they would probably be in any of the surrounding countries.
-While the situation of the Jewish Israeli is difficult and security concerns are real, they, at least, have the comfort of a prosperous Western democracy. The situation of the Palestinians is certainly worse.
-Peaceful cohabitation is possible and there is nothing inherent in Arab culture that would make them incapable of progress, or Democracy or peaceful cohabitation with their neighbour. Certainly, peace will be difficult to achieve, after 60 years of hatred, but it is not impossible.
-For peace to be achieve, special consideration will have to be given to the Palestinians. It is hardly fair but the Palestinians authorities, always less stable and more fragile than the Israeli, will always be the weakest link in any peace process.

[Marc39]

Certainly, peace will be difficult to achieve, after 60 years of hatred, but it is not impossible.
-For peace to be achieve, special consideration will have to be given to the Palestinians. It is hardly fair but the Palestinians authorities, always less stable and more fragile than the Israeli, will always be the weakest link in any peace process.

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.

Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, the ideological godather of Islamic fundamentalism, wrote his anti-Semitic diatribe, "Our Struggle With The Jews," back in 1952, well before Israel "occupied" any land in the West Bank. Qutb's indictment of Jews is their very existence in the Middle East.

That viewpoint pervades the Palestinian mindset today and always will.

[Jontg]

First, become familiarized with the definition of murder before you falsely accuse the IDF of murder.

Then, become acquainted with firebombing before you do the same thing as with murder. The use of white phosphorous does not constitute firebombing.

Here is much-needed information...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

No need to thank me, I'm a giver.
Alright, point conceded--apparently, just because you're dropping bombs on people designed to set **** on fire doesn't mean that you're firebombing them in the technical sense of the word. Good for you--you got me to use the proper phrase for what you're doing. It's still an incendiary weapon, and it's banned by the CCWC, which you signed just like we did. Your military is as full of war criminals as ours is--the difference is that you make no effort to control or punish your dogs, deny they did anything wrong in the first place, and state that they need to do it more often.

[Marc39]

Alright, point conceded--apparently, just because you're dropping bombs on people designed to set **** on fire doesn't mean that you're firebombing them in the technical sense of the word. Good for you--you got me to use the proper phrase for what you're doing. It's still an incendiary weapon, and it's banned by the CCWC, which you signed just like we did. Your military is as full of war criminals as ours is--the difference is that you make no effort to control or punish your dogs, deny they did anything wrong in the first place, and state that they need to do it more often.

What seems to be lost on you is Israel was not the aggressor in the Gaza war. The Palestinians provoked the war with 12,000 rockets fired into Israel from Gaza over the course of 8 years.

Now, how many other countries would have tolerated that?

What do you suppose the US's response might be if Cuba lobbed even one missile into Miami? We'd turn the country into a Cuban sandwich.

The IDF were dragged into war against a savage adversary who adhere to no rules of war and who kill their own people.

The IDF are trained extensively in the law of armed conflict and every military operation has to be pre-approved by legal counsel.

Israel and the IDF function on law. Hamas are terrorists and Gaza is a lawless jungle.

[Simon39759]

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.

Egyptian writer Sayyid Qutb, the ideological godather of Islamic fundamentalism, wrote his anti-Semitic diatribe, "Our Struggle With The Jews," back in 1952, well before Israel "occupied" any land in the West Bank. Qutb's indictment of Jews is their very existence in the Middle East.

That viewpoint pervades the Palestinian mindset today and always will.


So, what is that?
What does make the Palestinian people incapable of peace?

That's a silly, simplistic and bigoted view and that certainly does not explain how Jews and Muslims lived in peace together for centuries before hand.

[Marc39]

So, what is that?
What does make the Palestinian people incapable of peace?

That's a silly, simplistic and bigoted view.

What makes the *Muslim* Palestinian people incapable of peace with Jews, as opposed to Palestinian *Christians* being persecuted out of the region in droves by Muslims, is Islamic doctrine that forbids Jews from existing on what is viewed as Islamic land, unless, perhaps, as dhimmis.

In Quranic and Islamic law, Jews must either convert to Islam or live as dhimmis. There is no independence accorded to Jews. Therefore, Israel cannot exist.

It is no mere coincidence that, excepting Israel, the vast majority of the entire Middle East is comprised of Muslim countries, who deny Jews and Christians from living in them.

Muslims are the bigots and racists.

[Marc39]

..Jews and Muslims lived in peace together for centuries before hand.

The Muslim invasion of Palestine in the 7th century was not peaceful nor were the Muslim massacres and forced conversions of Jews and Christians.

Jews were forced to live lives of subjugation and humiliation in any Islamic countries "tolerating" them as dhimmis. Jews were routinely spat on and were forced to wear insignia indicating they were Jews.

Hardly the peaceful picture you paint.

[Thunder]

Jews were forced to live lives of subjugation and humiliation in any Islamic countries "tolerating" them as dhimmis. .

I guess this is why the centuries of Jewish life in Muslim Spain is referred to as the "Golden Age", right? Because life was sooo tough under Muslim rule?

:D

Oh, and where did the Jews go after being kicked out of Spain? Turkey, Bosnia, Syria, Algeria, and other Muslim countries. They did so because Muslims treated Jews sooooooo horribly, right Marc?

FAIL

:p

[Simon39759]

As I said; history and facts are easily weight little compared to one's bigotry.
What's scary is to wonder what is the logical position for Marc? If Palestinian will never leave accept to live in peace with Jewish Israelis, what the solution but ethnic cleansing?

[Marc39]

As I said; history and facts are easily weight little compared to one's bigotry.
What's scary is to wonder what is the logical position for Marc? If Palestinian will never leave accept to live in peace with Jewish Israelis, what the solution but ethnic cleansing?

Jews are people of high morality who do not ethnically cleanse.

Arabs have been attempting to ethnically cleanse Jews out of Palestine since 1920 through the present with three wars and numerous massacres, such as the Hebron Massacre, the Farhud, the Hadassah Massacre and the Tripoli Massacre, and, the 4-year al-aqsa intifada that resulted in the deaths of 1,000 Israelis and 6,000 more wounded.

Arabs ethnically cleansed 900,000 Jews out of their countries in 1948 for no reason other than being Jews, leaving behind hundreds of billions in property and businesses.

And, Jordan ethnically cleansed Jerusalem of Jews and destroyed dozens of synagogues after seizing and occupying Judea and Samaria in 1948.

Arabs are proficient at ethnically cleansing one another, too, such as Kuwait expelling 400,000 Pals after the Gulf War.

PLO, Fatah and Hamas charters call for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the Middle East and from the rest of the world.

In contrast, Jews simply want to be left alone in their little country.

[Simon39759]

And what are you going to do about the Arabs that had the gall to sneak into the country before he existed?

Seriously, you sir, sounds just almost like 9/11 investigator, except for the Jews being the good guy in your posts.

[Marc39]

And what are you going to do about the Arabs that had the gall to sneak into the country before he existed?

Deportment would be nice. Well, I can dream.

[kleinjahr]

Actually, no, I did not misinterpret anything. The definition of just who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist is made by the victors. At present( throughout history) in any contest between differing groups, it is common for each to identify their opponent as terrorists or using terrorist tactics. It's called demonizing the opponent. Of course each group, from their POV, is defending liberty, way of life, etc. Pick the buzz word or phrase you like.

[Marc39]

Actually, no, I did not misinterpret anything. The definition of just who is a freedom fighter and who is a terrorist is made by the victors. At present( throughout history) in any contest between differing groups, it is common for each to identify their opponent as terrorists or using terrorist tactics. It's called demonizing the opponent. Of course each group, from their POV, is defending liberty, way of life, etc. Pick the buzz word or phrase you like.

Given Israel is the only country in the Middle East recognizing Arab and Muslim freedom, shouldn't those freedom fighters be fighting the good fight for freedom in the Arab and Muslim countries?

[Simon39759]

Deportment would be nice. Well, I can dream.


Yeah... At this point I don't think there is anything more to say. You just are one more bigot. Congratulation.


Remember to keep the tone civil. This applies to everyone in the thread.

[Marc39]

Yeah... At this point I don't think there is anything more to say. You just are one more bigot. Congratulation.

I'm prejudiced against terrorists. My bad.

[Skeptic]

how should Arab countries respond to the persecution of their Palestinian brothers?

We could start with:

1). Not attacking Israel in 1948 the minute (literally) it was declared with intent to wipe it off the map and throw the Jews into the sea -- you know, the war the caused the whole Palestinian refugee problem.

2). Actually giving their Palestinian brothers citizenship, instead of keeping a third, and now fourth, generation in "refugee" camps -- making them the only nation on the planet where being a refugee is an inherited and unchanging condition -- just so they can use them as a demographic timebomb for Israel's destruction through the so-called "right of return".

3). Not expelling them from Kuwait, Libya, etc., whenever the local leaders think it's a good idea.

You got it completely back-asswards. The Arab world doesn't want to destroy Israel due to the Palestinians' suffering. The Palestinians are suffering, first and foremost, due to the Arab world's desire to destroy Israel.

[Simon39759]

We could start with:

1). Not attacking Israel in 1948 the minute (literally) it was declared with intent to wipe it off the map and throw the Jews into the sea -- you know, the war the caused the whole Palestinian refugee problem.

2). Actually giving their Palestinian brothers citizenship, instead of keeping a third, and now fourth, generation in "refugee" camps -- making them the only nation on the planet where being a refugee is an inherited and unchanging condition -- just so they can use them as a demographic timebomb for Israel's destruction through the so-called "right of return".

3). Not expelling them from Kuwait, Libya, etc., whenever the local leaders think it's a good idea.

You got it completely back-asswards. The Arab world doesn't want to destroy Israel due to the Palestinians' suffering. The Palestinians are suffering, first and foremost, due to the Arab world's desire to destroy Israel.


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.
But, yes, it seems obvious to me that all the surrounding countries have been less interested in improving the lot of the refugees than use them as cheap propaganda fodder.

[Marc39]

...one must mention that the Palestinian refugees are very numerous...

Yeah, about 10x as many refugees today as in 1948. Don't refugee groups normally diminish over time?

The "Palestinian refugees" are growing in size.

Better make a country to contain them.

[Simon39759]

Or maybe let them come back where they come from?

[Marc39]

Or maybe let them come back where they come from?

They "come from" Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, Egypt, Morocco and Algeria.

Virtually all present-day "Palestinian refugees" were born outside of Israel.

[bigjelmapro]

I'll freely admit that we not only used incendiary ordinance, but deployed infantry and armor with flamethrowers, trained attack dogs to hate Asians, and retained officers who didn't need training to be hateful bastards to minorities in their own ranks. But frankly, they were fair for their time, and up against enemies infinitely worse.

And Israel doesn't and hasn't from what's stated above. So what's your point?


You have no such excuse--your pointlessly cruel arsenal and tunnel-visioned approach to this conflict have no place on a modern battlefield, and mark you as just as vicious and bigoted as your enemies, who at least have the excuse of being barbarians mired in an even earlier age.

What's your wide-view of this conflict? Cruel arsenal? Give examples. And no, phosphorus airbursts do not apply. So no need to try that one. I'm really curious what a civi has to say. Perhaps some excerpts from international laws? Treaties?


You should know better. You can do better. The fact that you descend to their level makes you more disappointing to me than if you had never risen above it in the first place.

From what's stated below, who in the bloody hell cares what disappoints you?


People like 9/11 Investigator point to your nation as evidence that you should never give power to a Jew--that the only place where you aren't a liability is at the bottom of the totem pole, because when you're given power you instinctively use it to crush those under you and take everything for yourselves. Prove him and his ilk wrong--use the power you've been given wisely, and prove you're better men than your enemies.

Next you'll start quoting the International Jew and the Protocols. Any more wide-swept anti-semitic allegations/statements (since this is by definition what they are) dressed up as 'concerns' you'd like to make?


You have one of the most advanced militaries in the world, and access to even greater resources if you properly leverage whatever gentile guilt America still feels.
blah blah blah

So Israel picks its enemies? Hmm, that's news to me. Since 1948, Israel was one of the lesser advanced militaries in the region, now its at the top in the region. Why? Because its won against its neighbors through the succession of wars and extensive development.

Unless there's something you'd really want to discuss seriously, then state it, rather than making the Youtube/Liveleak-esk allegations. Otherwise, just go back to those sites.

[bigjelmapro]

I guess this is why the centuries of Jewish life in Muslim Spain is referred to as the "Golden Age", right? Because life was sooo tough under Muslim rule?

Lol. 'Golden age' as referred to the Islamic uhmmah's Golden age, not that of the Jews. Moorish Spain was relatively more tolerant of dhimmihs.

You really have an utterly simplistic view of history, don't you?


Oh, and where did the Jews go after being kicked out of Spain? Turkey, Bosnia, Syria, Algeria, and other Muslim countries. They did so because Muslims treated Jews sooooooo horribly, right Marc?

And the countries that were more tolerant of Sephardic Jews and even conversos, which included a handful of Western nations. The level of tolerance was relative. Compared to Spain and Portugal, these other nations were a natural choice to emigrate to.

[McHrozni]

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.

Or maybe let them come back where they come from?

Which of these two arguments do you agree with, Simon? You claimed both, but they are mutually exclusive.

If Arab countries, with populations significantly larger than Israel and with a much more similar culture are allowed to ignore the plight of their part of Palestinians, why would Israel, with over 60 years of violent conflict with the same should be asked to take in all of them?

McHrozni

[Marc39]

Lol. 'Golden age' as referred to the Islamic uhmmah's Golden age, not that of the Jews. Moorish Spain was relatively more tolerant of dhimmihs.

You really have an utterly simplistic view of history, don't you?


And the countries that were more tolerant of Sephardic Jews and even conversos, which included a handful of Western nations. The level of tolerance was relative. Compared to Spain and Portugal, these other nations were a natural choice to emigrate to.

Jews in Spain during the so-called Golden Age lived lives of dhimmitude, repression and violence. Suggestions to the contrary constitute revisionist history.

The massacres of Jews in Córdoba in 1011 and in Granada in 1066 are well-documented.

Dr. Bernard Lews, Islamic scholar, weighs in on the lives of Jews in Spain and under Islam, in general, and ahistorical claims of any "absurd" Golden Age of tolerance for Jews, from his acclaimed 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.

[bigjelmapro]

Jews in Spain during the so-called Golden Age lived lives of dhimmitude, repression and violence. Suggestions to the contrary constitute revisionist history
Hence the term 'relatively'.

[Thunder]

Jews in Spain during the so-called Golden Age lived lives of dhimmitude, repression and violence. Suggestions to the contrary constitute revisionist history.

years of Jewish education, and yet this is the FIRST time I am hearing about this. amazing huh?

and, if Jews were soo very persecuted by the evil Muslims in Spain, why did they flee to Muslim countries after the Spanish exile?

hmmmmmm?

your posts on this matter are completely illogical.
"
Moorish Conquest

With the victory of Tariq ibn Ziyad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_ibn_Ziyad) in 711 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/711), the lives of the Sephardim changed dramatically. In spite of the stigma attached to being dhimmis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmis) (non-Moslem members of monotheistic faiths) under Moslem rule, the coming of the Moors was by-and-large welcomed by the Jews of Iberia.
Both Moslem and Christian sources tell us that Jews provided valuable aid to the invaders [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_in_spain#cite_note-Roth1994-5). Once captured, the defense of Cordoba was left in the hands of Jews, and Granada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granada), Málaga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1laga), Seville (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seville), and Toledo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain) were left to a mixed army of Jews and Moors. The Chronicle of Lucas de Tuy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_de_Tuy) records that "when the Christians left Toledo on Sunday before Easter to go to the Church of the Holy Laodicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Holy_Laodicea&action=edit&redlink=1) to listen to the divine sermon, the Jews acted treacherously and informed the Saracens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saracens). Then they closed the gates of the city before the Christians and opened them for the Moors." (Although, in contradiction to de Tuy's account, Rodrigo of Toledo (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodrigo_of_Toledo&action=edit&redlink=1)'s Historia de rebus Hispaniae (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historia_de_rebus_Hispaniae&action=edit&redlink=1) maintains that Toledo was "almost of completely empty from its inhabitants," not because of Jewish treachery, but because "many had fled to Amiara, others to Asturias and some to the mountains," following which the city was fortified by a militia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia) of Arabs and Jews (3.24). Although in the cases of some towns the behavior of the Jews may have been conducive to Moslem success, such was of limited impact overall. The claims of the fall of Iberia as being due in large part to Jewish perfidy are no doubt exaggerated (Assis, pp. 44-45).

In spite of the restrictions placed upon the Jews as dhimmis, life under Moslem rule was one of great opportunity in comparison to that under prior Christian Visigoths, as testified by the influx of Jews from abroad. To Jews throughout the Christian and Moslem worlds, Iberia was seen as a land of relative tolerance and opportunity. Following initial Arab victories, and especially with the establishment of Umayyad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad) rule by Abd-ar-Rahman I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd-ar-Rahman_I) in 755 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/755), the native Jewish community was joined by Jews from the rest of Europe, as well as from Arab territories, from Morocco to Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon) (Assis, p. 12; Sarna, p. 324). Thus the Sephardim found themselves enriched culturally, intellectually, and religiously by the commingling of diverse Jewish traditions. Contacts with Middle Eastern communities were strengthened, and it was during this time that the influence of the Babylonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq) academies of Sura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sura_%28city%29) and Pumbedita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumbedita) was at its greatest. As a result, until the mid-tenth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_century), much of Sephardic scholarship focused on Halakhah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakhah). Although not as influential, Palestinian traditions were also made manifest in an increased interest in Hebrew language and biblical studies (Sarna, pp. 325-326).
Arabic culture, of course, also made a lasting impact on Sephardic cultural development. General re-evaluation of scripture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture) was prompted by Moslem anti-Jewish polemics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemics) and the spread of rationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism), as well as the anti-Rabbanite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinical_Judaism) polemics of Karaite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karaite) sectarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism) (which was inspired by various Moslem schismatic movements). In adopting the Arabic language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language), as had the Babylonian geonim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geonim) (the heads of Babylonian rabbinic academies), not only were the cultural and intellectual achievements of Arabic culture opened up to the educated Jew, but much of the scientific and philosophical speculation of Greek culture, which had been best preserved by Arab scholars, were as well. The meticulous regard which the Arabs had for grammar and style also had the effect of stimulating an interest among Jews in philological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philology) matters in general (Sarna, pp. 327-328). Arabic came to be the main language of Sephardic science, philosophy, and everyday business. From the second half of the ninth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_century), most Jewish prose, including many non-halakhic religious works, were in Arabic. The thorough adoption of Arabic greatly facilitated the assimilation of Jews into Arabic culture (Dan, p. 115; Halkin, pp. 324-325).
Although initially the often bloody disputes among Muslim factions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_faction) generally kept Jews out of the political sphere,

the first approximately two centuries which preceded the "Golden Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain)" were marked by increased activity by Jews in a variety of professions, including medicine, commerce, finance, and agriculture (Raphael, p. 71).

By the ninth century, some members of the Sephardic community felt confident enough to take part in proselytizing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism) amongst previously Jewish "Christians"."

[Marc39]

Hence the term 'relatively'.

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"

[McHrozni]

years of Jewish education, and yet this is the FIRST time I am hearing about this. amazing huh?

and, if Jews were soo very persecuted by the evil Muslims in Spain, why did they flee to Muslim countries after the Spanish exile?

Persecution in ultra religious Spain was far worse.

Doh.

No one said the Western world at the time were angels, just that by contemporary standards, Muslims weren't anywhere near tolerant. They were marginally above the Western average, and better than the worst of the West at the time.

Hardly a major achievement, really.

McHrozni

[Thunder]

They were marginally above the Western average,

sorry, the evidence proves otherwise.

this sudden re-writing of history is 100% motivated by politics.

very shameful indeed.

[Thunder]

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

Just as Israel today offers Muslims second-class citizenship. Seems like today's dhimmis are known as Israeli-Arabs.

[bigjelmapro]

Just as Israel today offers Muslims second-class citizenship. Seems like today's dhimmis are known as Israeli-Arabs.
You have time and time again tried to push this 2nd-class allegation against Israel, and yet, here we are again, in yet another thread, where you push this allegation. You have failed to prove this in the other threads, so why bother putting it here now?

Enough with the fantasies.

[Belz...]

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

Sounds like an argument from ignorance, to me.

[Simon39759]

Which of these two arguments do you agree with, Simon? You claimed both, but they are mutually exclusive.

If Arab countries, with populations significantly larger than Israel and with a much more similar culture are allowed to ignore the plight of their part of Palestinians, why would Israel, with over 60 years of violent conflict with the same should be asked to take in all of them?

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.

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.

But, yes, considering that the refugees come from Israeli territory and fled the Israeli army the idea of letting them return does make perfect sense.
Now; I have never argued for that. It is not a realistic option and would, indeed, cause havoc in Israel.

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.

[Belz...]

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

No shades of gray.

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

Methinks it isn't that simple.

[bigjelmapro]

sorry, the evidence proves otherwise.

this sudden re-writing of history is 100% motivated by politics.

very shameful indeed.
Bernard Lewis put Jews living in Moorish Spain as 'tolerant superiority'. Jews were told what they could do, paid special taxes, told to dress a certain way, and were used predominantly, as with the Ottomans, as purely assets in trade and industry. This isn't a 'Golden age'. This was simply relatively better than what Jews experienced living under Christian hegemony.

There's no politics involved here, just your desire to see relative tolerance as an acceptable existence.

[bigjelmapro]

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

Methinks it isn't that simple.
Its a bit simple, but the majority in the Islamic uhmmah (not 'Arabs' since the terms aren't interchangeable) do not want to Israel to exist and justify the use of terror as a means to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

[Belz...]

Its a bit simple, but the majority in the Islamic uhmmah (not 'Arabs' since the terms aren't interchangeable) do not want to Israel to exist and justify the use of terror as a means to end the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

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.

[Skeptic]

Just as Israel today offers Muslims second-class citizenship. Seems like today's dhimmis are known as Israeli-Arabs.

Funny. My boss' boss is an Israeli Arab. So is the emergency room doctor which treated my children when they had accidents. And my previous division commander (a Beduin) in reserve duty. Oh, and my direct commanding officer (a Druze).

You know, I'm ashamed how we jews keep those Arabs in all the low, menial jobs.

Were you ever in Israel? I'm asking since you seem both so completely sure of what it's "really like", and yet so completely wrong.

[Skeptic]

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.

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