One way the fence is good for Palestinian-Arabs [Archive]

zenith-nadir

17th February 2004, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And where did ananova get the story? From Palestinians investigating the possible link. BTW, how is Sharon going with his fraud investigation? I bet nothing much happens, even with evidence on tape of him organising illegal funding.

Yes, Sharon is being investigated for over illegal financing in his 1999 election campaign. Israeli police are investigating a £1 million loan paid to Sharon's son during Sharon's 1999 leadership campaign. There, it's been said. All the cards are on the table about Sharon's "wicked", "horrible", "zionazi" crimes.

Now back to the topic at hand. The "wall" and Palestinian Authority "corruption".

The best quote I ever heard concerning the "wall" is this one;

"Terrorism is a deadly obstacle to peace. The fence is an obstacle to terrorism."

People who are against the wall will say that it is a "land grab". Well yes, parts of the wall do criss cross onto "disputed" lands. Land that is meant to be part of the future Palestinian state.

But the wall is not a political border, it is a defensive measure that Israel has had to build. It does not change the legal status of Palestinians or the legal status of the ground under the wall. The legal status of the ground under the wall is still to be negotiated.

So there goes the "land grab" argument out the window.

Now people who are against the wall will say that it is a "apartheid".

Israel is not racially segregating all jews from arabs inside Israel. That would be the definition of "apartheid". The only reason that Palestinians have in recent years been restricted from entering into Israel is because of their terrorist attacks against Israelis.

Arabs inside Isreal own businesses and property, in fact the Palestinians blew up the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, a city with a great reputation for Jewish and Arab cooperation. The Maxim restaurant was a well-known arab owned restaurant with arab and jewish employees!...yet even it was suicide bombed, by a palestinian lawyer!!!!....killing 20 arab and jewish Israelis and wounding over 40 seriously.

So there goes the "apartheid" argument out the window.

The security wall is being built because the Palestinian Authority refuses to stop the Hamas, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah, Tanzim and Islamic Jihad terror groups from launching attacks on Israelis from inside the West Bank. These attacks kill jewish AND arab Israelis. Period.

Now to the topic of Palestinian Authority corruption. The corruption of the Palestinian Authority is legendary.

It has been proven that Arafat has stolen nearly 2 billion from the Palestinians, it has also been proven that Arafat controlled monopolies in commodities with his cronies that ripped off the Palestinian people for gas, flour AND cement. The French government is investigating his wife who gets millions a year to live in Paris, the EU's anti-fraud unit and Belgian police are investigating claims that money earmarked for aid was paid to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades through Belgian and German affiliate organisations.

In response to September 11, President Bush signed Executive Order 13224, requiring all recipients of U.S. aid to guarantee that their organization does not support terrorism. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the United States has distributed $1.3 billion for Palestinian programs in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Palestinian organizations are refusing to accept U.S. foreign aid this year, (U.S. Agency for International Development 2004), rather than sign a pledge promising that the money will not be used to support terrorism.

As one can plainly see after all that, it is easy to believe that Ahmed Qureia's family's cement business may be profitting from cement for the security wall.

Otther

17th February 2004, 06:44 AM

Has anyone considered the money the 911 terrorists spent on hire cars and hotel rooms? The Pilot training schools made a bit out of it too.....anyone F*cking offended yet? Nope. :D

toddjh

17th February 2004, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
People who are against the wall will say that it is a "land grab". Well yes, parts of the wall do criss cross onto "disputed" lands. Land that is meant to be part of the future Palestinian state.

But the wall is not a political border, it is a defensive measure that Israel has had to build. It does not change the legal status of Palestinians or the legal status of the ground under the wall. The legal status of the ground under the wall is still to be negotiated.

I think the problem here is Israel's unwillingness to fight the good fight. If Israel wanted to avoid allegations of a "land grab," it should've built the wall on land that was clearly undisputed. This would avoid all arguments about expansionism as well as raise Israel's image in the international community. And if Israel has no desire to exploit the land behind the fence, then what's the big deal?

Really, this whole situation won't be resolved until one side admits that it will have to bear the brunt of the conflict. Think about it: right now, you have Palestinian terrorists sending suicide bombers on the one hand, and the IDF sending tanks and rockets on the other, with significant collateral damage. The ways things are now, it's very easy for each side to point their finger at the other. Both can make the other look bad, and with some justification: Israel is pretty damn trigger-happy.

But suppose Israel stopped retaliating in kind. Suppose it just "takes one for the team," builds the wall on its own land, and does its best to weather the storm. Then, public opinion would shift dramatically. Instead of a regional squabble in which both sides take things too far, you would have a clear aggressor and a clear victim. I'm guessing the rest of the world would polarize around Israel fairly quickly.

So, regardless of Israel's actual intentions, its unwillingness to avoid even the appearance of impropriety is prolonging the conflict. If Israel really has no designs for the land behind the fence, why would they do this?

Jeremy

zenith-nadir

17th February 2004, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by toddjh
I think the problem here is Israel's unwillingness to fight the good fight. If Israel wanted to avoid allegations of a "land grab," it should've built the wall on land that was clearly undisputed. This would avoid all arguments about expansionism as well as raise Israel's image in the international community.

That would be in a perfect world.

The "wall" is to prevent terrorists from infiltrating into Israeli population centers. In order to attain that goal, the "wall" cannot simply be built on the "green line". That would not stop palestinians terrorists from infiltrating into Israel. The "wall" has to follow topographical considerations in order to stop infiltrations.

When it becomes necessary, and infiltrations can be stopped by the Palestinian Authority, the relevant parts of the wall can be moved to different locations or even torn down.

Originally posted by toddjh
Really, this whole situation won't be resolved until one side admits that it will have to bear the brunt of the conflict. Think about it: right now, you have Palestinian terrorists sending suicide bombers on the one hand, and the IDF sending tanks and rockets on the other, with significant collateral damage.

I disagree. The situation can be resolved once the terror groups no longer want the destruction of Israel. Just like Al Qaeda will no longer be a threat once they A) no longer want the destruction of America or B) are all dead.

On the topic of collateral damage you have palestinian terror groups deliberately hiding, operating, and launching attacks from within Palestinian civilian areas. They also disguise themselves as palestinian civilians, they do not wear uniforms.

If you want to lessen collateral damage then the Palestinian Authority should remove terror organizations from operating in civilian areas.

Originally posted by toddjh
But suppose Israel stopped retaliating in kind. Suppose it just "takes one for the team," builds the wall on its own land, and does its best to weather the storm. Then, public opinion would shift dramatically. Instead of a regional squabble in which both sides take things too far, you would have a clear aggressor and a clear victim. I'm guessing the rest of the world would polarize around Israel fairly quickly.

Israel has been taking "one for the team" since the 1960's. See the history of the PLO. :)

Originally posted by toddjh
So, regardless of Israel's actual intentions, its unwillingness to avoid even the appearance of impropriety is prolonging the conflict. If Israel really has no designs for the land behind the fence, why would they do this?

As I said before, the wall is based upon topographical considerations in order to stop infiltrations, not on setting a political border which will not stop infiltrations.

I wish they didn't have to build a wall, it is a huge expense and nothing but another excuse for the Palestinian Authority to blame Israel for not stopping Palestinian terrorism.

No terror = no IDF = no collateral damage.

demon

17th February 2004, 08:54 AM

Ah, ZN, there you are.

zenith-nadir, I`m calling you out for the fourth time now.

You said: "Show everyone on the Palestinian Ministry of Information Website where it says the Palestinian Charter is "effectively annulled" Demon. Failure to do so will mean only one thing. You are lying."

I supplied entirely different reasons for why I stated that the PC was "effectively annulled" as you and anyone else who read my post will know, if they agree with it or not.
Those reasons have nothing to do with anything appearing on or off of the PMI website.
You have accused me of being a liar on the basis of a straw man argument. Will you now show some character and retract your "you are lying" statement?

I`ve called you three times on this already, why won`t you address it? Are you letting your silence answer that which you are incapable of answering?
demon.

Mycroft

17th February 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
oh well.... can you think of any other ways to belittle the plight of these people mycroft? Maybe a story about the boom in the coffin industry?

I don't see how it belittles them at all. There is Palestinian-Arab industry, and when things are built, they are involved. I don't see that this article does anything more than add a little depth to peoples understanding of the situation.

zenith-nadir

17th February 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by demon
Ah, ZN, there you are.

zenith-nadir, I`m calling you out for the fourth time now.

You said: "Show everyone on the Palestinian Ministry of Information Website where it says the Palestinian Charter is "effectively annulled" Demon. Failure to do so will mean only one thing. You are lying."

I supplied entirely different reasons for why I stated that the PC was "effectively annulled" as you and anyone else who read my post will know, if they agree with it or not.
Those reasons have nothing to do with anything appearing on or off of the PMI website.
You have accused me of being a liar on the basis of a straw man argument. Will you now show some character and retract your "you are lying" statement?

I`ve called you three times on this already, why won`t you address it? Are you letting your silence answer that which you are incapable of answering?
demon.

Ok. Let's go over this again very briefly because it is not the topic of the thread.

1) You claim the Palestinian Charter is "effectively annulled".

2) You cannot find any text on the Palestinian Authority's website that says "this palestinian charter is effectively annulled".

3) The Charter remains on the Palestinian Authority's website as originally written.

4) No new Palestinian Charter OR Palestinian Constitution has ever been published or seen by anyone on the planet earth.

5) Therefore the charter, as it appears on the official Palestinian Authority's website, is not "effectively annulled" until the Palestinian Authority puts that claim in writing.

The charter remains in effect.

If it was not in effect the Palestinian Authority would A) Remove it from their own website, B) Say it was "effectively annulled" on their own website, and on which date it was annulled, C) Publish a new Palestinian charter which reflects the official annulments for the world to see.

Therefore Demon, you can claim all you want that it has been "effectively annulled", in fact you can say the sky is pink if you so desire, but the evidence on the Palestinian Authority's own official website disproves your annulment theory.

You can't say something is true Demon when all the evidence points to the contrary. In layman's terms that is a lie. Sorry.

Perhaps you are giving the Palestinian Authority too much credit, they said they would have free and fair elections in 98, yet none have ever taken place, they said they would draft a Palestinian constitution in 96, yet that has never taken place, they said they would stop the terror groups in 11 different preace agreements, yet that has never taken place.........you may start to think about the fact Demon that maybe the Palestinian Authority has lied to you.

toddjh

17th February 2004, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
In order to attain that goal, the "wall" cannot simply be built on the "green line". That would not stop palestinians terrorists from infiltrating into Israel. The "wall" has to follow topographical considerations in order to stop infiltrations.

So, adjust the topography to make it effective. We do it with roads all the time. No biggie, just a little more expensive.

I disagree. The situation can be resolved once the terror groups no longer want the destruction of Israel. Just like Al Qaeda will no longer be a threat once they A) no longer want the destruction of America or B) are all dead.

So, assuming that it will never be possible to stop Palestinian terrorists from wanting to destroy Israel, your only solution is to kill them all? Do you think that's practical? Do you think that will lead to greater acceptance of Israel by its neighbors, and eliminate future terrorism?

I think it will do just the opposite. It will continue the cycle of violence that has gone on for the last 40 years. Same old, same old. We need to change things, not keep them the same.

On the topic of collateral damage you have palestinian terror groups deliberately hiding, operating, and launching attacks from within Palestinian civilian areas. They also disguise themselves as palestinian civilians, they do not wear uniforms.

I am not defending Palestinian terrorists. Odds are I'd agree with most of the thing you'd say about them. That being the case, I'd appreciate it if we could limit the discussion to Israel's actions, since they actually have a central government capable of controlling things.

If you want to lessen collateral damage then the Palestinian Authority should remove terror organizations from operating in civilian areas.

SOMEONE is going to have to bit the bullet and just do what it takes. It's pretty clear that it's not going to be the PA. Thus, we're back to Israel's actions. The current "you bomb us, we bomb you" cycle is accomplishing nothing. Radical change is required. Israel could win the PR war hands-down if they'd just avoid the appearance of impropriety. It would be so easy. Why won't they do it?

It's not a question of whether or not they should have to. It's a question of practicality. What's more important: feeling smug, or stopping the cycle of killing that has lasted for decades?

Israel has been taking "one for the team" since the 1960's. See the history of the PLO. :)

In a sense, yes. But they've been doing it half-assed. They've managed to alienate just about everybody except the U.S. by responding to violence in kind. They need to decide whether they're going to be the good guys here, or just one half of a regional squabble.

Jeremy

Mycroft

17th February 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by toddjh

So, adjust the topography to make it effective. We do it with roads all the time. No biggie, just a little more expensive.

If you look at a map, you will see that it follows the borders closely. Take a look:

http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence1.htm

Originally posted by toddjh
SOMEONE is going to have to bit the bullet and just do what it takes. It's pretty clear that it's not going to be the PA. Thus, we're back to Israel's actions. The current "you bomb us, we bomb you" cycle is accomplishing nothing. Radical change is required. Israel could win the PR war hands-down if they'd just avoid the appearance of impropriety. It would be so easy. Why won't they do it?

Here we have a solution that reacts to violence with non-violence, which attempts to end the cycle of reacting to violence with more violence. What could be better? Yet in the anti-Israel media campaign this non-violent solution is spun into a negative. Instead of a solution that doesn’t require that anyone die, it’s spun into a “land grab”, “apartheid” or “ghetoization”.

toddjh

17th February 2004, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
If you look at a map, you will see that it follows the borders closely.

Then why not just keep the wall inside the borders? If it's so close already, how hard can it be?

Here we have a solution that reacts to violence with non-violence, which attempts to end the cycle of reacting to violence with more violence. What could be better? Yet in the anti-Israel media campaign this non-violent solution is spun into a negative. Instead of a solution that doesn’t require that anyone die, it’s spun into a “land grab”, “apartheid” or “ghetoization”.

The "land grab" accusation is the only one I'm addressing, and I don't think it's true, it's just that I think Israel would do better to avoid the issue entirely and save themselves the PR trouble. As for the apartheid stuff, I think the accusations there are just dumb.

Jeremy

demon

17th February 2004, 10:22 AM

1)You claim the Palestinian Charter is "effectively annulled".

2) You cannot find any text on the Palestinian Authority's website that says "this palestinian charter is effectively annulled".

My claim didn`t rely on the PMI website and you know it. You are a piece of s**t lying scum without the balls to accept when you are wrong.
I hope anyone who read my post, agreeing with it or not will realise what a disembling and disingenuous wanker you are.

Mycroft

17th February 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by toddjh

Then why not just keep the wall inside the borders? If it's so close already, how hard can it be?

That’s a great question for an engineer. It’s a government project so it’s natural to assume that the end result is a result of costs, geography, engineering needs and politics.

Originally posted by toddjh
The "land grab" accusation is the only one I'm addressing, and I don't think it's true, it's just that I think Israel would do better to avoid the issue entirely and save themselves the PR trouble. As for the apartheid stuff, I think the accusations there are just dumb.

Jeremy

If it were just the one issue, I’d agree. Right or wrong, fair or not, if it were just a matter of changing a few things and moving on, I say do it.

The problem, as I see it, is that it’s not just the one issue. Every defensive measure Israel takes receives the same unfair criticism. Killing a terrorist is characterized as assassination or revenge. If a civilian gets killed in the process, then Israel is accused of doing it on purpose or the action gets labeled as terrorist. When Israel seals its borders, the cry goes up of the economic devastation caused to the Palestinian-Arabs, when Israel opens them up again, the critics say it’s not enough. Checkpoints designed to capture terrorists before they get into Israel are bashed for being humiliating to Arabs. When Israel does Bite the Bullet and give concessions, it’s criticized as being not enough or duplicitous no matter how much is conceded and how little they get in return.

After a while you get the idea that it’s not any one measure that the critics object to, it’s that Israel defends itself at all.

Clancie

17th February 2004, 12:23 PM

Its sickening to me that Israelis (many of whom had relatives who were forced to live in a prison-like ghetto in Europe) don't see the parallel here.

Our continuing support for Sharon is a disgrace.

Mycroft

17th February 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its sickening to me that Israelis (many of whom had relatives who were forced to live in a prison-like ghetto in Europe) don't see the parallel here.

Our continuing support for Sharon is a disgrace.

I agree it’s sickening and I’m sure the parallels are not lost on many Israelis, but the Ghettos (most often called Refugee Camps) are not maintained by Sharon, they are maintained by the Palestinian-Authority, and the nations of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. Fifty-five years is too long, it’s time to let them get on with their lives.

a_unique_person

17th February 2004, 02:20 PM

Gem

17th February 2004, 02:54 PM

On the topic of collateral damage you have palestinian terror groups deliberately hiding, operating, and launching attacks from within Palestinian civilian areas. They also disguise themselves as palestinian civilians, they do not wear uniforms.

If you want to lessen collateral damage then the Palestinian Authority should remove terror organizations from operating in civilian areas.

I already replied to this, but I don't know if you rebuted it, so here it is again:

A: Hiding, operating, and launching attacks from civilian areas.
Alternative: Stand in the middle of a desert.

B: Disguise as civilians, no uniforms.
Alternative: Stand with a sign that says: "I'm going to blow up tomorow at 9 AM, don't miss me!"

And as coup de grace, could you please numerate how many of these complaints you listed apply to the French Resistance in France?

Thank you

Gem

zenith-nadir

17th February 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Gem
A: Hiding, operating, and launching attacks from civilian areas.
Alternative: Stand in the middle of a desert.

Better alternative : Stop the terror. Blowing up buses and restaurants full of civilians 100 km from the battle is not 'resistance'.

Originally posted by Gem
B: Disguise as civilians, no uniforms.
Alternative: Stand with a sign that says: "I'm going to blow up tomorow at 9 AM, don't miss me!"

Better alternative : Stop the terror. Blowing up buses and restaurants full of civilians 100 km from the battle is not 'resistance'.

Originally posted by Gem
And as coup de grace, could you please numerate how many of these complaints you listed apply to the French Resistance in France?

Palestinian suicide bombers are the same as the French Resistance in WW2?...Plaaaaaaaeeeeeze :roll:

Originally posted by Demon
My claim didn`t rely on the PMI website and you know it. You are a piece of s**t lying scum without the balls to accept when you are wrong. I hope anyone who read my post, agreeing with it or not will realise what a disembling and disingenuous wanker you are.

Sticks and stones may break my bones.....:D

Originally posted by Clancie
Its sickening to me that Israelis (many of whom had relatives who were forced to live in a prison-like ghetto in Europe) don't see the parallel here. Our continuing support for Sharon is a disgrace.

Ghettos?...Palestinans are free to go to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, where ever they want, except into Israel...nor is Israel marching palestinians into death camps or working them to death.....there is no comparison to WW2.

a_unique_person

17th February 2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Ghettos?...Palestinans are free to go to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, where ever they want, except into Israel...nor is Israel marching palestinians into death camps or working them to death.....there is no comparison to WW2.

Palestinians who have tried to make it to Australia often are refused refugee status. I get the impression Syria, Egypt and Jordan would not want millions of refugees flooding into their own countries.

Apart from that, maybe they want to live there. The ethnic cleansing you are proposing is part of the Israelis tactics, make life for them so miserable they just up and leave.

demon

17th February 2004, 03:32 PM

"Ghettos?...Palestinans are free to go to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, where ever they want, except into Israel...nor is Israel marching palestinians into death camps or working them to death.....there is no comparison to WW2."

quote:
"Israeli government minister Avigdor Liberman has called for the creation of four Palestinian cantons in the West Bank.
The minister told Israel Radio his plan was an alternative to proposals drawn up by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Mr Liberman said Palestinians would be allowed to travel between the cantons, but not to live outside them.
Mr Sharon has proposed that Israel should disengage unilaterally from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.
The prime minister's idea has dismayed many on the Israeli right because it would involve the dismantling of some Jewish settlements. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3492561.stm
__________________________________________________ __

Brilliant idea -then all they'll have to do is rename them as Treblinka, Belsen, Dachau, and Auschwitz.

Gem

17th February 2004, 04:01 PM

Better alternative : Stop the terror. Blowing up buses and restaurants full of civilians 100 km from the battle is not 'resistance'.

Palestinian suicide bombers are the same as the French Resistance in WW2?...Plaaaaaaaeeeeeze

We aren't talking about suicide bombers. All the complaints you made were about palestinians hiding in civilian areas. Suicide bombers don't fight in palestinian civilian areas. Let's be clear: you critize the palestenian resistance/insurgence/whatever combat methods. in their urban areas by: hiding there, setting up bases there, firing from civilian homes, and not wearing uniforms. We're not talking about suicide bombers. We're talking about gerrilla fighters (the ones that pick up an AK-47). I pointed out to you that this list of complaints could be compared to the french's tactics for resistance of world war 2 (Mainly: no uniform, based in civilian population). I also pointed out the absurdity of not doing these tactics. In another thread, it was mentioned that Great Britain was prepared to do terrorist like cells for resistance against Germany if they ever invaded.

These tactics you cry out against are typical of guerrila fighters and other resistance/rebellion/revolution throughout the modern world and history. Now that I restated my rebutal, your turn.

Gem

demon

17th February 2004, 04:41 PM

Mycroft:
"The problem, as I see it, is that it’s not just the one issue. Every defensive measure Israel takes receives the same unfair criticism. Killing a terrorist is characterized as assassination or revenge. If a civilian gets killed in the process, then Israel is accused of doing it on purpose or the action gets labeled as terrorist. When Israel seals its borders, the cry goes up of the economic devastation caused to the Palestinian-Arabs, when Israel opens them up again, the critics say it’s not enough. Checkpoints designed to capture terrorists before they get into Israel are bashed for being humiliating to Arabs. When Israel does Bite the Bullet and give concessions, it’s criticized as being not enough or duplicitous no matter how much is conceded and how little they get in return."
_________________________________________________

"Checkpoints designed to capture terrorists before they get into Israel are bashed for being humiliating to Arabs."

Of course, you prove that you know you're talking nonense when you say that this is a defensive measure. These "checkpoints" are illegal institutions in someone else's land, which Israel illegally invaded and illegally holds. The checkpoints are there to stop armed resistance against an Occupation of which they are a principal component.

You see? A perfect tautology. In your mind, if we are to believe you are sincere, the checkpoints are a defence against attacks provoked by the checkpoints. Of course, you don't believe this because you're presumably not irrational.

Because you say such ridiculous things, I`m really tempted to label you a troll...this should not surprise you.

"When Israel seals its borders, the cry goes up of the economic devastation caused to the Palestinian-Arabs, when Israel opens them up again, the critics say it’s not enough. "

This must also be a joke. Israel never seals its borders. It seals its legal borders yet still occupies other people's land. If it genuinely did seal its borders, after withdrawing behind them, there would be no problem.

This, of course, is the defensive option that would be genuine, and for which Israel would receive no criticism -to obey the law, withdraw its troops, and stop oppressing the Palestinians. That would remove the cause of Palestinian violence and attacks against Israel would cease. The Occupation is NOT a defensive act, it is the cause of the problem. If you want Israelis to stop being killed, press in every way you can for Israel to get off Palestinian land. It really is as simple as that.

Of course, Israel doesn't do this -and for a simple reason. The costs to Israeli civilians are outweighed by the interests of the Israeli comprador class and the US Government. The Israeli Government needs the Occupied Territories for purely imperial reasons -mainly water. The US needs to keep Israel frightened and insecure because it wouldn`t make such a good military base if it wasn't.

That is the cold, hard truth -it is the Israeli and US Governments who are willing to let Israelis get blown up in cafes etc. because it is "a price worth paying".

These are all elementary facts. It requires amazing dedication on your part not to see them.
Ever thought of demoting yourself to Sherlock?

Gem

17th February 2004, 05:14 PM

it wouldn`t make such a good military base if it wasn't.

Since when did the US have bases in Isreal? Don't you think the Arab world would go up in flames if the US had troops defending Isreal?

Gem

demon

17th February 2004, 05:27 PM

"Since when did the US have bases in Isreal? Don't you think the Arab world would go up in flames if the US had troops defending Isreal?"

I didnt make myself clear.
Israel is the American presence in the Middle East, just take a look at the aid it receives.
If you note, I didn`t say "bases", I said "base". Figuratively speaking, Israel is not overly adverse to being one huge American base so long as their interests coincide. It`s America`s Sparta in the ME.

Gem

17th February 2004, 06:54 PM

I didnt make myself clear.
Israel is the American presence in the Middle East, just take a look at the aid it receives.
If you note, I didn`t say "bases", I said "base". Figuratively speaking, Israel is not overly adverse to being one huge American base so long as their interests coincide. It`s America`s Sparta in the ME.

Oh! That makes much more sense, thank you.

This is a great example of how you can mis understand someone else's claim.

Gem

Mycroft

17th February 2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by demon
Of course, you prove that you know you're talking nonense when you say that this is a defensive measure. These "checkpoints" are illegal institutions in someone else's land, which Israel illegally invaded and illegally holds. The checkpoints are there to stop armed resistance against an Occupation of which they are a principal component.

You see? A perfect tautology. In your mind, if we are to believe you are sincere, the checkpoints are a defence against attacks provoked by the checkpoints. Of course, you don't believe this because you're presumably not irrational.

I think it’s funny that you ascribe to me the same circular logic you need to support your own point of view. The defensive measures defend against the attacks caused by the defensive measures. Of course, in your own mind, you avoid the cognitive dissonance such reasoning creates with the artifice of denying that the defensive measures are, in fact, defensive.

The attacks are a result of the Intifada ordered by Arafat after the failure of Camp David in 2000. It is absurd to claim that I believe them to be caused by Israeli defense against the attacks when that is at the heart of your belief system.

Originally posted by demon
Because you say such ridiculous things, I`m really tempted to label you a troll...this should not surprise you.

Of course it wouldn’t surprise me. Nothing you could say would surprise me. Nothing. Really.

Originally posted by demon
This must also be a joke. Israel never seals its borders. It seals its legal borders yet still occupies other people's land. If it genuinely did seal its borders, after withdrawing behind them, there would be no problem.

You mean these (http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/annex1.htm) legal borders?

The problem is that there are so many borders to choose from. The one in the above link is the most legally binding one I can find, having been agreed to by both Israel and Jordan back in 1994 (and there is a similar one between Israel and Egypt) but I don’t think it would be very satisfying to the Palestinian-Arabs, do you? You imply that the 1948 armistice line is a legal border, but it’s not; it’s an armistice line, and if Israel were to withdraw to it you know damn well they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing further to the UN partition plan boundary, and if they withdrew to that, they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing to the west side of the border with the Mediterranean Sea.

Originally posted by demon
This, of course, is the defensive option that would be genuine, and for which Israel would receive no criticism -to obey the law, withdraw its troops, and stop oppressing the Palestinians. That would remove the cause of Palestinian violence and attacks against Israel would cease. The Occupation is NOT a defensive act, it is the cause of the problem. If you want Israelis to stop being killed, press in every way you can for Israel to get off Palestinian land. It really is as simple as that.

It’s the definition of Palestinian land that’s the issue. Some definitions are pretty encompassing.

Originally posted by demon
Of course, Israel doesn't do this -and for a simple reason. The costs to Israeli civilians are outweighed by the interests of the Israeli comprador class and the US Government. The Israeli Government needs the Occupied Territories for purely imperial reasons -mainly water. The US needs to keep Israel frightened and insecure because it wouldn`t make such a good military base if it wasn't.

Comprador class?!

Pure fantasy. Only a conspiracy-theory fruitcake would believe that the United States keeps Israel as a military base when they have to ask Israel to stay out of every conflict that comes along.

Oh yeah, interesting to note that you resent Israel having access to water.

Originally posted by demon
These are all elementary facts. It requires amazing dedication on your part not to see them.
Ever thought of demoting yourself to Sherlock?

Your handle is aptly chosen too.

a_unique_person

17th February 2004, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

The problem is that there are so many borders to choose from. The one in the above link is the most legally binding one I can find, having been agreed to by both Israel and Jordan back in 1994 (and there is a similar one between Israel and Egypt) but I don’t think it would be very satisfying to the Palestinian-Arabs, do you? You imply that the 1948 armistice line is a legal border, but it’s not; it’s an armistice line, and if Israel were to withdraw to it you know damn well they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing further to the UN partition plan boundary, and if they withdrew to that, they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing to the west side of the border with the Mediterranean Sea.

You want to watch that you don't slide down that slippery slope into the sea yourself. Withdrawing to the green line does not mean that Israel will cease to exist by next April. The fact is, Palestine and Israel need each other. Israel has the technology, but not the population, Palestine has the population but not the technology. After Oslo, the economic interdependence of the countries was growing. In case you hadn't noticed, besides there being more deaths since Sharon came to power, the ecnomies of both countries stink worse than ever.

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You want to watch that you don't slide down that slippery slope into the sea yourself. Withdrawing to the green line does not mean that Israel will cease to exist by next April. The fact is, Palestine and Israel need each other. Israel has the technology, but not the population, Palestine has the population but not the technology. After Oslo, the economic interdependence of the countries was growing. In case you hadn't noticed, besides there being more deaths since Sharon came to power, the ecnomies of both countries stink worse than ever.

How do you miss the point so consistently? Is English down under really so different? I wasn’t saying withdrawal to the Green Line would make Israel cease to exist, I was saying that the critics of Israel would not be satisfied no matter what she did.

a_unique_person

18th February 2004, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

How do you miss the point so consistently? Is English down under really so different? I wasn’t saying withdrawal to the Green Line would make Israel cease to exist, I was saying that the critics of Israel would not be satisfied no matter what she did.

Cleopatra is a critic.

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Cleopatra is a critic.

But not a bigot.

a_unique_person

18th February 2004, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

But not a bigot.

I didn't say she was. But you claimed all critics want the destruction of Israel.

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I didn't say she was. But you claimed all critics want the destruction of Israel.

Go back and read it again.

a_unique_person

18th February 2004, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Go back and read it again.

I was saying that the critics of Israel would not be satisfied no matter what she did.

You imply that the 1948 armistice line is a legal border, but it’s not; it’s an armistice line, and if Israel were to withdraw to it you know damn well they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing further to the UN partition plan boundary, and if they withdrew to that, they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing to the west side of the border with the Mediterranean Sea.

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Go back and read it again.

I know you have a problem with ideas that are similar but not the same, but do you get it now or do I have to explain it to you?

zenith-nadir

18th February 2004, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
I know you have a problem with ideas that are similar but not the same, but do you get it now or do I have to explain it to you?

I truely believe that some consider blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv or a restaurant in Haifa full of unarmed civilians is 'resistance' to Israeli 'occupation'. But by blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv or a restaurant in Haifa full of unarmed civilians what is one resisting? The bus fare?...the menu selections?

Then when the IDF goes into Nablus to blow up the suicide bomber's house that is blamed as the cause of suicide bombing.

The IDf operations are so great an offence that families eating pizza just have to die.

Then the bogus term "cycle of violence" is applied. Meaning the suicide bombing is equal to the bombers house being blown up or suicide bombing is equal to the checkpoints, or suicide bombing is equal to settlements, etc, etc.

See the strange part is that if the IDF goes into the West Bank or Gaza that is called a "crime against humanity"....if a palestinian blows up a bus it is called 'resistance'.

Crazy situational ethics are in play here.

Zero

18th February 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I truely believe that some consider blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv or a restaurant in Haifa full of unarmed civilians is 'resistance' to Israeli 'occupation'. But by blowing up a bus in Tel Aviv or a restaurant in Haifa full of unarmed civilians what is one resisting? The bus fare?...the menu selections?

Then when the IDF goes into Nablus to blow up the suicide bomber's house that is blamed as the cause of suicide bombing.

The IDf operations are so great an offence that families eating pizza just have to die.

Then the bogus term "cycle of violence" is applied. Meaning the suicide bombing is equal to the bombers house being blown up or suicide bombing is equal to the checkpoints, or suicide bombing is equal to settlements, etc, etc.

See the strange part is that if the IDF goes into the West Bank or Gaza that is called a "crime against humanity"....if a palestinian blows up a bus it is called 'resistance'.

Crazy situational ethics are in play here. There sure is something crazy in your post...

Answer me just one question: how do you retaliate against a suicide bombing, when the guilty party died in the attack?(see, the word "suicide" means "to kill yourself")

zenith-nadir

18th February 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Zero
There sure is something crazy in your post...

Answer me just one question: how do you retaliate against a suicide bombing, when the guilty party died in the attack?(see, the word "suicide" means "to kill yourself")

Suicide bombings are always claimed by one Palestinian organization or another. It is one of the most hideous acts a human being can commit...suicide AND murder at the same time...

Suicide bombers leave videos, pictures, statements, get bombs made, are smuggled into Israel...all that takes planning, organization and money...therefore someone is helping them.

If you want me to believe that the average palestinian knows how to manufacture a bomb and uses thier own money and can smuggle themselves into Israel without help then you are delusional.

So here are your choices.

1) Target the organizations who help the suicide bombers.

2) Target the organizations that finance the suicide bombers.

3) Arrest or kill the planners and facilitators of the suicide bombers.

4) Show an effect for suicide bombing -- checkpoints, closures, destroying the bombers house are examples of saying "if you suicide bomb here is the repercussion"

5) Try to thwart the suicide bomber infiltrations by building physical barriers.

Or would you be happier Zero if Israel just acted like Assad did in Hama Syria or Saddam did in Halabja and just wipe out 10,000 people in one move and be done with it all.

Zero

18th February 2004, 09:13 AM

See, you try to pretend you are rational, and then you trip yourself up with your own words.

How does murdering a dead criminal's family, or his neighbors, punish the dead criminal? You have repeatedly said "destroy the bomber's house"...the bomber is dead, are you saying that an appropriate response is to at best make his wife and kids homeless, or at worse kill them and anyone standing too close to the building?

zenith-nadir

18th February 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Zero
See, you try to pretend you are rational, and then you trip yourself up with your own words. How does murdering a dead criminal's family, or his neighbors, punish the dead criminal? You have repeatedly said "destroy the bomber's house"...the bomber is dead, are you saying that an appropriate response is to at best make his wife and kids homeless, or at worse kill them and anyone standing too close to the building?

Well theres a really cool thing called "time" Zero.

"Time" didn't start yesterday, or the day before or the day before that even.

And there was a "time" when Israel didn't destroy the bombers house Zero. They tried other ways to stop the suicide bombers.

Some examples are;

Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, May 94.

Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities, Aug 94.

Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, September 28 1995.

The Wye River Memorandum, Oct 98.

The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, Sept 99.

Protocol Concerning Safe Passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Oct 99.

Israeli-Palestinian Joint Statement (Taba), Jan 2001.

The Tenet cease-fire, Jun 2001.

Beirut Declaration on Saudi Peace Initiative, Mar 2002.

....But guess what Zero, those "other methods" didn't stop the suicide bombers... and when those methods failed to stop suicide bombers from blowing up in Israel, Israel chose Sharon and chose to start destroying bombers houses as a punishment.

Crazy huh?

Zero

18th February 2004, 09:29 AM

Completely insane...your attitude is completely insane.

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 09:30 AM

zenith-nadir

18th February 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Completely insane...your attitude is completely insane.

If wanting to punish suicide bombing innocent civilians is insane Zero then I am certifiable.

zenith-nadir

18th February 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
They don't kill the criminal's family and neighbors, you just destroy the house.

It is a very controversial measure, but the reason for it is that the families of suicide-bombers get enormous financial benefits for raising a shaheed. They get a cash award, their debts are paid off, and they get a continuing pension for the rest of their lives. The purpose of knocking down a house is to take away this financial incentive to raise suicide-bombers.

I don't think Zero remembers Saddam's $25,000 for suicide bombers families or that the Hamas supports the families of "martyrs"....

Giz

18th February 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Zero
See, you try to pretend you are rational, and then you trip yourself up with your own words.

How does murdering a dead criminal's family, or his neighbors, punish the dead criminal? You have repeatedly said "destroy the bomber's house"...the bomber is dead, are you saying that an appropriate response is to at best make his wife and kids homeless, or at worse kill them and anyone standing too close to the building?

You dont think that there could be a deterrant? The PA, Hamas, Saddam in his day, lionised, financially supported etc the families of the suicide bombers. If you see little hope for your family, but at the cost of your own life you could "strike a blow for the cause" and far from leaving your dependants in the lurch, actually improve their finances, their status in the community etc. Targetting bombers homes isnt just punishing dead bombers. It discourages new ones.

(heck - life insurance policies dont tend to cover suicide - can you figure out why for extra credit?)

It would be better if the bombers assets could be siezed and liquidated and donated to victims of terror (on either side) but short of that - which seems a bit impractical - a policy of deterance has some logic behind it (you could argue the dependants are innocents/accomplices - should they / shouldn't they be targets-, and its certainly a far from perfect solution but its also a far from perfect, and rather messy situation).

(heck - life insurance policies dont tend to cover suicide - can you figure out why for extra credit?)

Zero

18th February 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

If wanting to punish suicide bombing innocent civilians is insane Zero then I am certifiable. You sure are...because the person who committed the crime is dead. That is a fact you seem to miss.

zenith-nadir

18th February 2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You sure are...because the person who committed the crime is dead. That is a fact you seem to miss.

So in Zero's world once the suicide bomber blows themselves up all responsibility dies with the bomber? The planners, financiers, bombmakers and smugglers who facilitated the bomber's mission are absolved of all responsibility?

:nope:

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Zero
You sure are...because the person who committed the crime is dead. That is a fact you seem to miss.

In a sense, the suicide-bomber is a victim too of the terror networks that recruit him, indoctrinate him, train him, arm him and smuggle him to his target. The individual bomber is just a tool, the real responsibility lay with the terrorists that use him.

Zero

18th February 2004, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

So in Zero's world once the suicide bomber blows themselves up all responsibility dies with the bomber? The planners, financiers, bombmakers and smugglers who facilitated the bomber's mission are absolved of all responsibility?

:nope: No, but making victims of his children is no solution either. You want to take out terrorist camps, sieze assets of the financiers, etc? Perfect, sounds like a grand idea. Leave the children out of it.

zenith-nadir

18th February 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, but making victims of his children is no solution either. You want to take out terrorist camps, sieze assets of the financiers, etc? Perfect, sounds like a grand idea. Leave the children out of it.

I wish the IDF didn't have to blow up houses Zero. I wish the IDF didn't have to protect Israel from the north, south, east and west. I wish the world never heard of the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah and Tanzim. I wish alot of things.

But guess what?...they exsist, there are groups who are not fighting Israeli 'oppression', they are only interested in killing as many jews as possible and destroying Israel....and these groups blow up arab and jewish Israelis, they don't distinguish between the two...and they have to be stopped so that an Arab Israeli who wants to own a restaurant or a jewish family from America eating pizza on holiday in Jerusalem doesn't have to pay for it with their lives.

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I wish the IDF didn't have to blow up houses Zero. I wish the IDF didn't have to protect Israel from the north, south, east and west. I wish the world never heard of the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah and Tanzim. I wish alot of things.

And that’s really the bottom line here is that it’s not reasonable to expect perfect solutions in an imperfect world. Yes, it would be great if somehow it were possible to only punish bad people in a way that innocents were never affected, but that doesn’t happen anywhere.

War is by its very nature brutal and ugly. People get hurt, innocents suffer. When there is terrorism involved, it gets even uglier, more brutal. There are no easy solutions.

And let’s not forget that innocents suffer on both sides.

Zero

18th February 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I wish the IDF didn't have to blow up houses Zero. They don't.

a_unique_person

18th February 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I wish the IDF didn't have to blow up houses Zero. I wish the IDF didn't have to protect Israel from the north, south, east and west. I wish the world never heard of the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah and Tanzim. I wish alot of things.

But guess what?...they exsist, there are groups who are not fighting Israeli 'oppression', they are only interested in killing as many jews as possible and destroying Israel....and these groups blow up arab and jewish Israelis, they don't distinguish between the two...and they have to be stopped so that an Arab Israeli who wants to own a restaurant or a jewish family from America eating pizza on holiday in Jerusalem doesn't have to pay for it with their lives.

Once again, the only lives that matter are those lost in Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are like a different universe, they don't exist.

Mycroft

18th February 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Once again, the only lives that matter are those lost in Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are like a different universe, they don't exist.

Interesting how you can turn an expression of sympathy for the Palestinian-Arabs into its exact opposite. How did you develop such selectivity in your reading skills?

A question that’s been nagging at me for a few days: In Australian lingo, is the word unique used as a euphemism in the same way that the word special is used the United States?

Maybe you’re not the best person to ask, but if another of the Australian crew sees this, I’d be interested to learn the answer.

demon

18th February 2004, 03:25 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
Of course, you prove that you know you're talking nonense when you say that this is a defensive measure. These "checkpoints" are illegal institutions in someone else's land, which Israel illegally invaded and illegally holds. The checkpoints are there to stop armed resistance against an Occupation of which they are a principal component.

You see? A perfect tautology. In your mind, if we are to believe you are sincere, the checkpoints are a defence against attacks provoked by the checkpoints. Of course, you don't believe this because you're presumably not irrational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it’s funny that you ascribe to me the same circular logic you need to support your own point of view. The defensive measures defend against the attacks caused by the defensive measures. Of course, in your own mind, you avoid the cognitive dissonance such reasoning creates with the artifice of denying that the defensive measures are, in fact, defensive.

The attacks are a result of the Intifada ordered by Arafat after the failure of Camp David in 2000. It is absurd to claim that I believe them to be caused by Israeli defense against the attacks when that is at the heart of your belief system.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
Because you say such ridiculous things, I`m really tempted to label you a troll...this should not surprise you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it wouldn’t surprise me. Nothing you could say would surprise me. Nothing. Really.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
This must also be a joke. Israel never seals its borders. It seals its legal borders yet still occupies other people's land. If it genuinely did seal its borders, after withdrawing behind them, there would be no problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean these legal borders?

The problem is that there are so many borders to choose from. The one in the above link is the most legally binding one I can find, having been agreed to by both Israel and Jordan back in 1994 (and there is a similar one between Israel and Egypt) but I don’t think it would be very satisfying to the Palestinian-Arabs, do you? You imply that the 1948 armistice line is a legal border, but it’s not; it’s an armistice line, and if Israel were to withdraw to it you know damn well they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing further to the UN partition plan boundary, and if they withdrew to that, they would get the same criticism for not withdrawing to the west side of the border with the Mediterranean Sea.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
This, of course, is the defensive option that would be genuine, and for which Israel would receive no criticism -to obey the law, withdraw its troops, and stop oppressing the Palestinians. That would remove the cause of Palestinian violence and attacks against Israel would cease. The Occupation is NOT a defensive act, it is the cause of the problem. If you want Israelis to stop being killed, press in every way you can for Israel to get off Palestinian land. It really is as simple as that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It’s the definition of Palestinian land that’s the issue. Some definitions are pretty encompassing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
Of course, Israel doesn't do this -and for a simple reason. The costs to Israeli civilians are outweighed by the interests of the Israeli comprador class and the US Government. The Israeli Government needs the Occupied Territories for purely imperial reasons -mainly water. The US needs to keep Israel frightened and insecure because it wouldn`t make such a good military base if it wasn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comprador class?!

Pure fantasy. Only a conspiracy-theory fruitcake would believe that the United States keeps Israel as a military base when they have to ask Israel to stay out of every conflict that comes along.

Oh yeah, interesting to note that you resent Israel having access to water.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
These are all elementary facts. It requires amazing dedication on your part not to see them.
Ever thought of demoting yourself to Sherlock?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's quite an easy post to respond to, since you haven't really said much of substance, Mycroft.

For you to argue that the current attacks are simply the result of the current Intifada is to be wilfully blind. As you well know, this is the second intifada and Palestinian armed resistance has been going on since 1967. The current intifada is just the latest phase of the resistance against the Occupation. The cause of all the Palestinian violence is the Occupation -or are you seriously suggesting that, if Israel withdrew to its legal, 1967 borders that the situation wouldn`t change as far as Palestinian attacks are concerned?

The checkpoints are not a defensive measure -they are a measure of population control -designed to restrict freedom of movement and to cripple Palestinian economic activity. That they have a ancillary security function is entirely dependent on the continuance of the Occupation.

Your argument that there are a variety of legal borders to choose from is not correct. Israel's legally binding borders were specified in UNGAR 181 and reinforced by UNSCR 242.
The Israel Jordan Treaty has no bearing on the borders since Israel, in that Treaty, made decisions about territory over which it has no jurisdiction. The only reason Jordan signed the Treaty is that niether state has been in favour of an indpendent Palestinian State and both saw the treaty as a way of preventing large scale population transfer (by signing the Treaty, Israel agreed not to forcibly transfer the Palestinians to Jordan, while Jordan agreed not to allow Palestinian refugees in Jordan to return to Palestine).
The idea that Israel can sign a treaty which affects land that does not belong to it is forbade by UNGAR 1514, which was passed in 1960.

My argument that Israel is the US's policeman on the block is not a fantasy -simply the straightforward military analysis which has applied for decades. A peaceful Israel is worthless to the US. Israel's value stems from its function as a modern day Sparta: It has an advanced military, is technologically sophisticated, but doesn't have an independent economy. Therefore, it is reliable and can perform tasks unacceptable to other clients, such as supporting genocide in Guatemala, and acting as a base for US power projection in the Middle East. This it has done very well, and, for the most part, very obediently -a point you tellingly make yourself when you rightly state that Israel has stayed out of conflicts when it hasn't suited the US's purposes.

Israel has also acquired various secondary functions: it has been a conduit for US clandestine action in African states as well as providing arms and training (on the US's behalf) to various thrid world dictatorships. In fact Israel was the frontline state in the US's (and UK's), fight to undermine sanctions against Apartheid South Africa and was the main contact with the SA military. All of this only works, so long as the Israeli population are frightened and are willing to serve the function America wants it to. If that ever stops, the US will transfer its funding (probably to Turkey, perhaps one day to a compliant Iraq), and Israel will become what it would be without US subsidy -Luxembourg, effectively. If you'd like to learn about this, I suggest, for a start, you read "Issues Arising Out of the Situation in the Near East,” (29th July, 1958, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958-1960, Vol.XII ) or "The United States and the Israeli Lobby" by Clinton Fernandes.

As for your final point, I don't resent Israel having water -that's just a cheap shot by you. What I resent is Israel stealing water from territory that isn't its own and, in the process, depriving other people. According to the Israeli Human Rights group, B't selem, Israeli per capita water consumption if four to five times that in the Occupied Territories and results from a policy of discrimination.
(http://www.btselem.org/english/water/consumption_gap_eng.asp)

The Israeli military also enforce a permits system which bars Palestinians from drilling wells in their own territory and amount to a tool of racial discrimination
(http://www.btselem.org/english/water/control_over%20_water_eng.asp).

All of this (and I'm just scratching the surface) is a clear violation of Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
(http://www.btselem.org/english/water/international_law_eng.asp)

Incidentally, water is the principle reason for the Occupation (as is also a major guiding principle behind much of Israel's actions, annexations (Lebanon and Mount Hermon and the Litani river, deals with Jordan and Turkey), etc. Much of this motivation is detailed by Yossi Beilin, the former Labor Party Minister in his study of internal Government documents, "Mechiro shel Ihud".

As I said before, it really does require an amazing dedication on your part keep arguing against the obvious.
Do you discuss any of this with Palestinians Mycroft?

demon

18th February 2004, 03:39 PM

Mycroft, in your own mind, you can tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?

Mycroft

19th February 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by demon
For you to argue that the current attacks are simply the result of the current Intifada is to be wilfully blind. As you well know, this is the second intifada and Palestinian armed resistance has been going on since 1967. The current intifada is just the latest phase of the resistance against the Occupation.

I am well aware of the first Intifada, what I’m puzzled about is how you think it changes the situation today. You can call it the latest phase if you want, but it just happened to have started just after Arafat thumbed his nose at the opportunity to end it.

Originally posted by demon
The cause of all the Palestinian violence is the Occupation -or are you seriously suggesting that, if Israel withdrew to its legal, 1967 borders that the situation wouldn`t change as far as Palestinian attacks are concerned?

Certainly it would change. The emphasis would change and a pretext would be invented to continue struggling to “liberate” historic Palestine.

Originally posted by demon
Your argument that there are a variety of legal borders to choose from is not correct. Israel's legally binding borders were specified in UNGAR 181 and reinforced by UNSCR 242.
The Israel Jordan Treaty has no bearing on the borders since Israel, in that Treaty, made decisions about territory over which it has no jurisdiction. The only reason Jordan signed the Treaty is that niether state has been in favour of an indpendent Palestinian State and both saw the treaty as a way of preventing large scale population transfer (by signing the Treaty, Israel agreed not to forcibly transfer the Palestinians to Jordan, while Jordan agreed not to allow Palestinian refugees in Jordan to return to Palestine).
The idea that Israel can sign a treaty which affects land that does not belong to it is forbade by UNGAR 1514, which was passed in 1960.

Well, I’ll ignore the non-binding General Assembly resolutions and concentrate on that tired worn out Security Counsel Resolution 242.

Contrary to your assertion it does not specify borders. It does presume that there would be a withdrawal, but it also call upon all parties to negotiate a solution and that the withdrawal would be to unspecified secure borders in exchange for peace guarantees from all parties.

The peace agreement between Israel and Jordan fits into its spirit nicely. Are you seriously saying Jordan had no jurisdiction to make decisions about the West Bank?

Originally posted by demon
My argument that Israel is the US's policeman on the block is not a fantasy -simply the straightforward military analysis which has applied for decades.
Yes, by vilifying the United States you appeal to the peanut gallery. You build the usual complicated web of puppet strings of power and influence so that every evil in the world can be attributed to the Unites States and thus by association Israel (or vise-versa).

Genocide in Guatemala? That’s a new crime to lay at the feet of Israel.

Originally posted by demon
As for your final point, I don't resent Israel having water -that's just a cheap shot by you. What I resent is Israel stealing water from territory that isn't its own and, in the process, depriving other people.

Exactly, they can have any water except what is available.

Water is a serious issue, but to characterize Israel as stealing Palestinian water, like every other issue, presumes ownership that has not been negotiated yet. It is one of the issues that will have to be addressed in any lasting peace agreement, but in the meantime it is worth noting that Israel has invested substantial resources in making the water available to the Palestinian-Arabs. Has Israel been perfectly fair in doing so? Arguably not, but that, like everything else, is also a result of the continuing conflict.

Going back to UNSCR 242, it is arguable that secure borders does not only speak to security in a military sense, but security that provides the resources necessary for survival.

Originally posted by demon
Do you discuss any of this with Palestinians Mycroft?

Every Sunday with my afternoon tea.

Originally posted by demon
Mycroft, in your own mind, you can tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?

Didn’t you hear? The Jooz want it all! They put it down in this book that was smuggled out of one of their secret meetings a hundred years ago. It talks all about how all us goyim are cattle and they’re going to control the world to ensure their supply of the bones of Christian babies to make their matsa!!

demon

19th February 2004, 09:23 PM

Yet again, there's little in your post beyond assertion without evidence, so there's not much to which I can respond. One point I can correct is that I did not assert that UNSC 242 specified borders -I said that it reinforced those specified in UNGAR 181. What 242 did do was call for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and emphasized the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". One doesn't really need to get into a debate on semantics to understand the intention this Resolution.
Of course, this only matters if you consider international law to be binding. By your use of the phrase "tired" and "worn out" I assume you're one of those people who don't accept that Israel is subject to the law.
Of course -and this is an elementary point- Israel would be subject to all manner of fresh Resolutions, were it not for the unilateral US veto protecting it`s asset (just as Iraq would not have violated any Resolutions if it, or a close friend, had the veto). I won't even bother to mention the consistant (and virtually unanimous) stance taken by the UN General Assembly or Israel's violations of the Charter (to which the Security Council is subject) since it presumably doesn't interest you.

The rest of your post, which -for example- can make laughable statements like "Israel has invested substantial resources in making the water available to the Palestinian-Arabs" (despite the evidence I cited which demonstrates the reverse), isn't really worth a response. If you're impervious to facts, logic, and reason there's nothing else I can say to you.

I hope others might notice that you treat the idea of actually discussing this issue with Palestinians as laughable too. I wish this was just another example of your flippant juvenile drivel but obviously it is not. It`s the keystone in the arch that supports your monumental racist bigotry.

a_unique_person

20th February 2004, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I wish the IDF didn't have to blow up houses Zero. I wish the IDF didn't have to protect Israel from the north, south, east and west. I wish the world never heard of the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Fatah and Tanzim. I wish alot of things.

But guess what?...they exsist, there are groups who are not fighting Israeli 'oppression', they are only interested in killing as many jews as possible and destroying Israel....and these groups blow up arab and jewish Israelis, they don't distinguish between the two...and they have to be stopped so that an Arab Israeli who wants to own a restaurant or a jewish family from America eating pizza on holiday in Jerusalem doesn't have to pay for it with their lives. \

They don't have to blow them up, they could just leave the areas they are blowing the houses up in.

a_unique_person

20th February 2004, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

In a sense, the suicide-bomber is a victim too of the terror networks that recruit him, indoctrinate him, train him, arm him and smuggle him to his target. The individual bomber is just a tool, the real responsibility lay with the terrorists that use him.

Moral Relativism at it's worst.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2004, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They don't have to blow them up, they could just leave the areas they are blowing the houses up in.

Ever heard of the Oslo Accords? Forget that for a sec. Ever heard of the concept of time?

You forget about time. There was a time when Israel did not blow up houses of suicide bombers. That "time" was pre-2001. Freaky huh? Only 3 years ago Israel started blowing up Palestinian suicide bombers homes when all other methods failed. Yet suicide bombings have been happening since the mid 90's.

There was also a time when Arafat signed the Oslo accords with Israel. The principles agreed were, in essence, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and the Palestinian right to self-government within those areas through the creation of the Palestinian Authority.

The Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (also called Oslo 2), was signed in September 1995 which gave the Palestinians self-rule in Bethlehem, Hebron, Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Tulkarm, and some 450 villages.

Guess what a_unique_person,.... the suicide bombers kept coming out of Jenin, Nablus, Qalqilya, Ramallah and Tulkarm after Arafat controlled those areas....so Israel CAME BACK TO STOP THE BOMBERS.

I just don't get you, Demon, davefoc, the fool....you guys constantly try start time after the act that caused Israel to respond.

Mycroft

20th February 2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Moral Relativism at it's worst.

Explain how that’s moral relativism.

Hey, you never answered my question about Ausie lingo. Is the word unique used as a euphamism in the same way we in the States use the word special?

zenith-nadir

20th February 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
Explain how that’s moral relativism.Hey, you never answered my question about Ausie lingo. Is the word unique used as a euphamism in the same way we in the States use the word special?

I am waiting to hear a_unique_person admit that he lives on land stolen from the aboriginies. That he is in fact 'occupying' stolen aboriginal lands...;)

And if the aboriginal population of Australia decided to start blowing up buses and restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne would a_unique_person say they are justified?

After all that is the 'template' he put's the Israeli-Palestinian issue in endlessly.

Mycroft

20th February 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by demon
Yet again, there's little in your post beyond assertion without evidence, so there's not much to which I can respond. One point I can correct is that I did not assert that UNSC 242 specified borders -I said that it reinforced those specified in UNGAR 181. What 242 did do was call for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and emphasized the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". One doesn't really need to get into a debate on semantics to understand the intention this Resolution.

In politics, semantics is everything.

For example, did you know that the PLO rejected resolution 242? Their reasoning was that it didn’t deal with Palestinian-Arabs as a people with national rights. This makes perfect sense, of course, as before 1967 they weren’t a people; the term Palestinian didn’t come into common usage until after 1967, prior to that they self-identified as Jordanians, or Egyptians or simply Arabs. Nope, the PLO didn’t accept Resolution 242 until 1988, and only after pressure from the United States which set it as a precondition to recognizing them.

But what about the resolution itself? What does it mean?

Well, let’s take a look at some statements from some of the diplomats of the time:

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries ... would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically, there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description... such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon. An agreement on that point is an absolute essential to a just and lasting peace just as withdrawal is... "

Arthur Goldberg, U.S. ambassador to the U.N

“The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary . . . "

Lord Caradon Britain’s representative to the U.N

"Until the states concerned in the dispute make peace in accordance with Resolution 242, the Security Council decided, Israel could remain in the territories it held after the Six Day War as occupying power. The legality and legitimacy of its presence as occupying power is thus certified by the Security Council"

Eugene V. Rostow U.S. Undersecretary of State.

So who cares what Eugene Rostow, Lord Caradon, and Arthur Goldberg think? Well, if you want to invoke UNSCR 242, you should. They’re the guys who wrote it.

Resolution 242 doesn’t call for Israel to withdraw from all the territories occupied in 1967. It presumes that a withdrawal will be a part of a negotiated peace between all parties involved, but it also presumes that the negotiated peace will include secure and defensible boundaries that are not the armistice lines of 1949.

E.J.Armstrong

20th February 2004, 12:28 PM

originally posted by Mycroft
Killing a terrorist is characterized as assassination or revenge.

Even for you this is a bit rich.

Israel has a state policy of assassinating suspects.

Do you understand the difference between a suspect and the guilty?

It's a simple question.

E.J.Armstrong

20th February 2004, 12:31 PM

originally posted by zenith-nadir
You forget about time.
Is this meant to be a serious claim?

E.J.Armstrong

20th February 2004, 12:33 PM

Mycroft, in your own mind, you can tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn’t you hear? The Jooz want it all! They put it down in this book that was smuggled out of one of their secret meetings a hundred years ago. It talks all about how all us goyim are cattle and they’re going to control the world to ensure their supply of the bones of Christian babies to make their matsa!!

Another question answered by Mycroft.

QED.

The Fool

20th February 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

I am waiting to hear a_unique_person admit that he lives on land stolen from the aboriginies. That he is in fact 'occupying' stolen aboriginal lands...;)

And if the aboriginal population of Australia decided to start blowing up buses and restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne would a_unique_person say they are justified?

After all that is the 'template' he put's the Israeli-Palestinian issue in endlessly.

Are you proposing that Palestinians should have the same land rights as indigenous australians? Are you proposing Australian land rights legislation as a solution in the middle east? Because if you are you have just changed sides in this discussion. If you are, you are proposing something that The current Israeli government would never accept. ..welcome aboard ZN. Its always refreshing to get up in the morning to find you have already dismantled your own argument and changed camps...It saves me a lot of time (at least 2 minutes)

Have you ever wondered why Australian Aboriginals are not blowing up things and palestinians are???? when it dawns on you, let me know.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Have you ever wondered why Australian Aboriginals are not blowing up things and palestinians are???? when it dawns on you, let me know.

That one is easy...Because Australian Aboriginals do not belong to militant groups who idolize martyrdom and suicide.

The Fool

20th February 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

That one is easy...Because Australian Aboriginals do not belong to militant groups who idolize martyrdom and suicide.
as I said, when it dawns on you let me know..

are you adding my other question to your list of unanswerable questions?

In case you have forgotten the question...Are you proposing Australian land rights legislation as a solution to palestinian land right issues?

demon

20th February 2004, 01:23 PM

"That one is easy...Because Australian Aboriginals do not belong to militant groups who idolize martyrdom and suicide."

Keep digging ZN :D

The idea

20th February 2004, 01:30 PM

Why doesn't MADD use suicide bombing? They are against drunk driving, but the letters MAD also stand for "Mutually Assured Destruction."

Mycroft

20th February 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Have you ever wondered why Australian Aboriginals are not blowing up things and palestinians are???? when it dawns on you, let me know.

Because your ancestors spent almost two centuries killing them almost to the point of extinction, and as recently as the 1950s was busy stealing their babies so they could be raised by white folk and thus destroying whatever sense of cultural identity they had left. No, I don’t wonder that they are not blowing things up, I wonder that there are any left alive.

Personally, I hope for a more humane solution in the Middle East.

a_unique_person

20th February 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong

Another question answered by Mycroft.

QED.

I noted that evasion too.

demon

20th February 2004, 02:15 PM

It`s not for the first time he`s evaded this question.

zenith-nadir

20th February 2004, 02:19 PM

Allow me to point out the irony...

Lets take a few pages out of Australian Aborigial history.

The Aboriginal population was decimated by British colonisation which began in 1788. The founding of the modern Australian nation led to the disruption of the Aboriginal traditional way of life -- to death, disease and dispossession and outright murder reduced the Aboriginal population by an estimated 90% during the 19th Century and early 20th Century. A wave of massacres and resistance followed the frontier. The last massacre was at Coniston in the Northern Territory in 1928.

European settlers gradually made their way into the interior of Australia, appropriating water and land for their own exclusive use.

Land and property rights fueled an important civil rights movement in the 1970s. Aborigines spoke out for equal rights, and specifically for land rights for property that had been forcibly taken by British settlers. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act, passed in 1976, became instrumental in territories with tribal associations. The 1990s witnessed further rights milestones, including government legislation that returned a great degree of autonomy, and increased wages and welfare benefits to aboriginal people.

And Aborigines gained all those "equal rights" and "land rights for property" without resorting to TERRORISM, SUICIDE BOMBING AND THE GLORIFICATION OF MARTYRDOM....unlike "others"

Crazy huh?.....

The Fool

20th February 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Because your ancestors spent almost two centuries killing them almost to the point of extinction, and as recently as the 1950s was busy stealing their babies so they could be raised by white folk and thus destroying whatever sense of cultural identity they had left. No, I don’t wonder that they are not blowing things up, I wonder that there are any left alive.

Personally, I hope for a more humane solution in the Middle East.
lol...my ancestors did that did they?

I truly fail to see the relevance of this, is it any more or less relevant than American treatment of thier native people...Oh hang on...I get it. Israel Isn't a colonial oppressor as long as you can point to another colonial oppressor and say they did it too?

The Fool

20th February 2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
And Aborigines gained all those "equal rights" and "land rights for property" without resorting to TERRORISM, SUICIDE BOMBING AND THE GLORIFICATION OF MARTYRDOM....unlike "others"

Crazy huh?.....

It may dawn on you one day.... Equal rights, land rights...won through legitimate peaceful legal processes rather than armed resistance....now think hard ZN could this have anything to do with the peacefull legal processes actually being available to them? Could it have something to do with the High court of Australia being concerned with the fate of all Australians rather than just those who subscribe to a particular god?

You constantly avoid answering the question of what is Israels ultimate borders. Is it because Palestinians have no chance?...no matter what they do. Are they doomed to an inevitable fate ZN?...Is Israel marching relentlessly on towards the zionist goal of occupying the entire mandate plus all of the Jordanians part of the Jordan valley plus the Golan plus southern lebanon plus the west bank and gaza. Gotta get all that water under Israeli control..........whats the "last territorial demand" ? Dust off the old zionist maps ZN its time for the true goals of zionism to be clearly identified and there is no place for Arabs in there . They can go quietly or fight, it doesn't matter...of course, it would be much more convenient for you if they just gave up quietly but the result is going to be the same isn't it.....

The idea

20th February 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
And Aborigines gained all those "equal rights" and "land rights for property" without resorting to TERRORISM, SUICIDE BOMBING AND THE GLORIFICATION OF MARTYRDOM...unlike "others"

Crazy huh?.....
More information is required to come to a conclusion. One could take what you say as confirmation that the European settlers were willing to negotiate. One might suppose that, if the European settlers had refused to negotiate, then the Aborigines might have resorted to terrorism.

Mycroft

20th February 2004, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
lol...my ancestors did that did they?

I truly fail to see the relevance of this, is it any more or less relevant than American treatment of thier native people...Oh hang on...I get it. Israel Isn't a colonial oppressor as long as you can point to another colonial oppressor and say they did it too?

You fail to see the relevance? You’re the one who brought it up. Let me remind you:

Originally posted by The Fool
Have you ever wondered why Australian Aboriginals are not blowing up things and palestinians are???? when it dawns on you, let me know.

You made the comparison. You pretend that the Australian treatment of their Aboriginal population is so great because your government is considering some form of token compensation for having taken away an entire continent, destroying their culture, literally stealing their babies from their mothers and beating them down so badly that their pitiful remnants hardly remembers who they are as a people, and then you have the audacity to hold this up as a model of how other peoples should interact?!

You ask why the Aboriginals are not blowing things up? It’s certainly not because the Australians have been good to them. The only kindness your culture has shown them is the dubious mercy of waking up within the last several decades and realizing that maybe these people are human beings and that it would be a bad thing to complete your genocide.

And for the record, so there is no misunderstanding, I am not saying that what the Australians have done to the Aboriginals is any worse that what my ancestors have done to the Native Americans, nor am I saying anything that happens anywhere else in the world is made any better or worse by comparison. What I am saying is that your comparison between the Palestinian-Arabs and Australian-Aboriginals is both ignorant and insulting to both these peoples.

Mycroft

20th February 2004, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by E.J.Armstrong
Another question answered by Mycroft.
QED.
Originally posted by a_unique_person
I noted that evasion too.
Originally posted by demon
It`s not for the first time he`s evaded this question.
Originally posted by The Fool
Dust off the old zionist maps ZN its time for the true goals of zionism to be clearly identified and there is no place for Arabs in there .

Oh stop! It’s too funny!

I expect this sort of thing from the likes of AUP and Demon. It’s a bit of a surprise from E.J.Armstrong, but he doesn’t say much that’s his own ideas. That it comes from The Fool, who’s always the first to squawk racism at the drop of a hat, it’s a tremendous dark irony.

You see, Jews are not like normal people. Oh, they blend in well enough, the ones that don’t wear those funny clothes, but inside they’re different. If you pay attention, you can just sense it.

Jews are naturally inclined toward, well, conspiracy. They do all kinds of secret things, read secret books written by other Jews, meet in secret places where they discuss secret ideas. Some even learn secret languages such as Aramaic or Hebrew so that they can pass secret messages that the goyim don’t understand. They’re also good at organization, so watch out!

Because they’re so good at conspiracy, at working together in secret, you can be assured that whatever one Jew thinks, it’s the opinion of all Jews. So if you ever hear a Jew say anything critical of other Jews, Zionism, or Judaism, you can be sure that it’s true because he’s a Jew so he would know. If you see any sort of logical contradiction in the idea of all Jews thinking the same yet some Jews criticizing the group, it’s not important and you don’t need to let it worry you.

Also, Jewish thought never changes, it never progresses. The proof in this is that there still are Jews. If they ever had even the slightest tendency to change or think independently, they would have assimilated long ago and stopped being Jews. You see, their very existence is proof.

With other groups such as Catholics, Baptists, Republicans, Germans, Japanese, Arabs, or whoever, you wouldn’t assume that some document written fifty or one hundred years ago represented today’s thought without first considering the context of history and the changes that have taken place. With normal people, changing circumstances make plans change, they get dropped or become irrelevant. This is why The Fool doesn’t feel personally responsible for the way Aboriginal babies were taken from the mothers to be raised by white people back in the 1950’s, that was a long time ago and the world is different now. Back then, the word genocide only meant camps, ditches filled with corpses, or mountains of skulls. Nobody ever thought to apply the term to quieter less physically brutal ways to erase a people.

So yes, because Jews, especially Zionist Jews are conspirators, because they all think alike and because Jewish thought never ever changes, you can dust off these old Zionist maps from long ago and know, know for a fact that somewhere (we don’t know where, but a Jew would know) that there is a secret cabal of Zionist Jews working diligently to make them a reality with complete disregard to their practicality, the last hundred years of history, and the fact that they were little more than fanciful speculations to begin with.

So yes, I “dodged” the question. Why? Because I don’t think a question founded in racism deserves the dignity of a direct answer. It is enough to expose the racism and then move on.

The Fool

20th February 2004, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Oh stop! It’s too funny!

(long self indulgant straw man rant that "skeptic" would have been proud of was clipped to save bandwidth)

So yes, I “dodged” the question. Why? Because I don’t think a question founded in racism deserves the dignity of a direct answer. It is enough to expose the racism and then move on.

Racism? Lol.... are you a zionist mycroft? Even if you are not is it a racist question to ask zionists how big Israel should be....Clutch at straws mycroft but that is one of the weakest excuses for running from a question I have ever heard .... Do you support the goals of zionism? If you do what are those goals? All the maps I have ever seen of the zionist vision of Israel, and its no secret conspiracy, don't show any Palestinian states.....My conclusion has to be that no matter what palestinians do...give up, fight, whatever...As far as zionists are concerned, they are doomed. If this is not the case then answer a simple question. What are your last territorial demands in the middle east?

All this pussy footing has gone far enough, its time to get down to the basic issues....when will Israel stop expanding? Every time someone draws a line on a map I hear people like you telling me you just need a little bit more to be secure, then a little bit more and a bit more...will it ever end? If so, where?

Mycroft

20th February 2004, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Racism? Lol.... are you a zionist mycroft? Even if you are not is it a racist question to ask zionists how big Israel should be....Clutch at straws mycroft but that is one of the weakest excuses for running from a question I have ever heard .... Do you support the goals of zionism? If you do what are those goals?

Speculating on the final borders of a two-state solution with the Palestinian-Arabs is entirely different from saying that Zionism has some secret ambition to march on Amman.

Now suppose you entertain us and tell us what you think Zionism is and what it’s goals are?

E.J.Armstrong

21st February 2004, 01:58 AM

So yes, I “dodged” the question. Why? Because I don’t think a question founded in racism deserves the dignity of a direct answer. It is enough to expose the racism and then move on.

Are you claiming that I am a racist because I pointed out and am continuing to point out that you did not answer a simple question about your own views?

As you know, I have asked you some questions that you have declined to answer. I have repeatedly said that you do not have to answer questions yet you have claimed that you love questions. I then highlighted another question you did not answer. You have still not answered that simple question directly and now in a bizarre fashion have claimed that it was founded in racism.

The question in question was
'Mycroft, in your own mind, you can tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?'
i.e. a simple request for your own opinion. Once again, as you have done with me on occasion, you have occupied more space than an answer would require with an irrelevant rant.

Rather than exposing racism all you have exposed once again is a strange mindset where simple requests for your own views are apparently deemed too offensive to answer.

..but he doesn’t say much that’s his own ideas.

Oh dear. Failed again. I must try harder. Never mind, here's one of my very own ideas.

It's a good idea, especially when starting threads on a sceptics forum, to answer simple questions and back up your own claims.

Does that count as an idea? I do hope so.

demon

21st February 2004, 03:05 AM

Mycroft:
"So yes, I “dodged” the question. Why? Because I don’t think a question founded in racism deserves the dignity of a direct answer. It is enough to expose the racism and then move on."

One quick question...if you can bring yourself to answer that is.

When you say this question is "founded in racism", who are you speaking for? Just yourself or for Jews in general?
I know Jews who ask this question too...are they being racist? Are they being anti-Semite?

zenith-nadir

21st February 2004, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by The idea
More information is required to come to a conclusion. One could take what you say as confirmation that the European settlers were willing to negotiate. One might suppose that, if the European settlers had refused to negotiate, then the Aborigines might have resorted to terrorism.

The Aboriginies and the government of Australia negotiated in good faith and the Aboriginies did not choose the course of suicide bombing and terrorism to get what they wanted. Mainly because the Aboriginies didn't have the most notorious serial-terrorist of the 20th century, (Arafat), making all of their decisions.

And Israel has tried to negotiate with Arafat many times;

Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (1993), Letters of Mutual Recognition (1993), Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (1994), Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (1994), Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (1995), Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron (1997), The Wye River Memorandum (1998), The Sharm El-Sheikh Memorandum (1999), Trilateral Statement on the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David (2000), The Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2002).

Yet all of those treaties failed because the Palestinian Authority and Arafat refuses to stop the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah Tanzim, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

One could logically conclude that the Aboriginies are better statesmen, more honest, and less tolerant of suicide and homicide than Arafat and the Palestinian Authority can ever be.

zenith-nadir

21st February 2004, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
It may dawn on you one day.... Equal rights, land rights...won through legitimate peaceful legal processes rather than armed resistance....now think hard ZN could this have anything to do with the peacefull legal processes actually being available to them?

This is how empty your position is the fool.

Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (1993), Letters of Mutual Recognition (1993), Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area (1994), Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities (1994), Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (1995), Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron (1997), The Wye River Memorandum (1998), The Sharm El-Sheikh Memorandum (1999), Trilateral Statement on the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David (2000), The Performance-Based Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (2002).

You should probably read those "legitimate peaceful processes" the fool.

Now complain some more about how the world hasn't tried legitimate peaceful processes with your hero Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

zenith-nadir

21st February 2004, 05:14 AM

Palestinians Rally for U.S. Convoy Bombing Suspects (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040220/ts_nm/mideast_militants_usa_dc_1)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20040220/mdf476857.jpg

Palestinian militants from the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) take part in a demonstration in Gaza City, February 20, 2004. Thousands of Palestinians took to the streets in Gaza City to urge President Yasser Arafat to free four militants who are on trial for the killing of three U.S. Fulbright Foreign Scholarship security guards last October.

Arafat, Qureia in Dispute Over Reform (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians_3)

A disagreement over financial reform erupted into a major dispute between Yasser Arafat and his prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, and threatens to hold up vital foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority, officials said Tuesday.

International donor countries are becoming increasingly impatient with what they see as Palestinian foot-dragging on reform, and are scaling back aid.

Similar disputes with Arafat pushed Qureia's predecessor, Mahmoud Abbas, to resign last September.

.....Just another typical day in Arafatistan...

Mycroft

21st February 2004, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by demon
"So yes, I “dodged” the question. Why? Because I don’t think a question founded in racism deserves the dignity of a direct answer. It is enough to expose the racism and then move on."

One quick question...if you can bring yourself to answer that is.

When you say this question is "founded in racism", who are you speaking for? Just yourself or for Jews in general?
I know Jews who ask this question too...are they being racist? Are they being anti-Semite?

If I said I'd never date/marry a black person because I wanted someone who could hold a job and didn't want anything to do with gangs or drugs, would you consider that a racist thing to say?

Would your opinion of the statement change if you discovered I was black?

It’s not uncommon for racial stereotypes to be internalized by individuals who are the subjects of the racism. Just as children who are abused and women who are raped often develop feelings that it’s their fault, that they did something wrong, an individual member of a minority might also seek to blame his own group for the racism directed against it.

A racist idea is a racist idea no matter who says it. Finding an individual member of the group that is the subject of the racism who holds the racist idea and pointing to it as proof that the idea is not racist is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

demon

21st February 2004, 03:46 PM

Mycroft, are these racist questions?

To a Nazi -"can you tell us where/when the desire for a "thousand year Reich and liebensraum" ends?"

To the Afrikaners - can you tell us where/when the desire for a white homeland ends?"

To a 19th C Australian - "can you tell us where/when the desire for a larger New South Wales ends?"

To a 19C Brit "can you tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Empire" ends?"

To a Japanese WW2 "can you tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater co-prosperity economic region" ends?"

To a Russian 20th C - "can you tell us where/when the desire for a Soviet Union embracing foreign hostile lands ends?"

To an American 20-21st c - "can you tell us where/when the desire for rapacious corporate globalisation ends?""

Israel is not alone in its injustices - it`s just particularly ruthless and has used my taxes and my democracy, and my country's cultural institutions to destroy another people. And you still don't recognise your country's facism and the entire racist premise that you come here with - that Israeli concerns should be foremost in the Palestinian mind, that victory on Israeli terms is to be legitimised by Palestinians assuming the behaviour that you deem they should assume, a standard you don't even mention, in your tortuous, ranting posts for yourself.

Not once have you expressed remorse for your actions, not once do you reflect on the scale of the Israeli atrocity. Nothing troubles those placid, self-satisfied waters to the degree that you are up in arms by your own country's institutional fascism. That's your duty as a member of the human race. Not to whine on how the whole world particularises you.
The only people on this site who hash over the old anti-semitic cliches of the past in these threads is you and your fellow zionist apologists because you cannot tolerate respecting others positions without conflating them each time with this racism. YOU NEED US TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC to justify your position. So every thread we embark on has these old cliches in them - exclusively put forward by the Zionist apologists!

Who's perpetuating these myths then?

The Fool

21st February 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

If I said I'd never date/marry a black person because I wanted someone who could hold a job and didn't want anything to do with gangs or drugs, would you consider that a racist thing to say?

Would your opinion of the statement change if you discovered I was black?

It’s not uncommon for racial stereotypes to be internalized by individuals who are the subjects of the racism. Just as children who are abused and women who are raped often develop feelings that it’s their fault, that they did something wrong, an individual member of a minority might also seek to blame his own group for the racism directed against it.

A racist idea is a racist idea no matter who says it. Finding an individual member of the group that is the subject of the racism who holds the racist idea and pointing to it as proof that the idea is not racist is committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
This is a fat flying joke Mycroft...
you run up the Anti-semirism flag and shut down discussion.

Please point out the racist statements....If you don't want to, or can't answer a simple question then simply don't....But please, spare me the fabrications and misrepresentations. I have not suggested anywhere that there is a secret or hidden conspiracy, why do you claim I have? The borders of Israel as proposed by the founders of the zionist movement are not dark hidden secrets mycroft...they published the maps. Now If I ask you what your personal map looks look like I am being racist?? Lol.... You can't answer for one simple reason ....you don't know how much land you can get before the rest of the world finally stops you.. As soon as you draw a line on a map you are going to have to disagree with the taking of further land...you are not allowed to disagree so you must say nothing about the matter, just wait and agree with whatever land is taken. This leads me to ask a simple question....where does it all end? What is your last territorial demand in the middle east? Without statements to the contrary I can only assume that it must be the stated goals of the Zionist movement that is the ultimate goal.....you must know what that map looks like mycroft... The zionists were showing it to anyone who was interested when they were trying to convince the british..

demon

21st February 2004, 03:59 PM

ZN:
"I am waiting to hear a_unique_person admit that he lives on land stolen from the aboriginies. That he is in fact 'occupying' stolen aboriginal lands...
And if the aboriginal population of Australia decided to start blowing up buses and restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne would a_unique_person say they are justified?
After all that is the 'template' he put's the Israeli-Palestinian issue in endlessly.

ZN:
"And Aborigines gained all those "equal rights" and "land rights for property" without resorting to TERRORISM, SUICIDE BOMBING AND THE GLORIFICATION OF MARTYRDOM....unlike "others"
__________________________________________________

I have several family members who are Australian and have read many posts by Australian forum members and as such I`d like to say that the ability for self reflection - to criticise ones own culture without resort to blaming the victim - is apparent among all of them. Unfortunately it is uttelry missing in you - and most Zionists.

These family members were born in Australia. They are Australian, they are nothing else. Thus Israelis born in Israel are in an analagous situation right? You can barely blame them for an accident of birth or then say that they have no attachment to the land. We all have an attachment to the land we are born in and we are all human beings of the same value. So none should bear any guilt for their birth.

Yet, my Australian acquaintances all bear and accept an enormous responsibility not to further victimise Aborigines and to speak out against any further oppression. Which they do. Regularly. Their opinion of how we treat Aborigines today is equally bleak and angry.
"So what?", you might ask. Well they speak out. Starting to see the difference between you and them now ZN?

Furthermore, if it is true that there is a police culture of violence and killing, a white culture of racism and superiority and a real amnesia to a murderous and inexcusable history, Australian law, whilst used to victimise Aborigines in parts of the country, is in fact based in non-racial precepts - except to the degree that Aborigines have more rights than the rest of the population - which is as it should be since they destroyed them on the ground and need to restitute over time. The greater (but currrently neutered by Howard) rights merely reflect a recognition that they were abused, killed raped pillaged (fill in your own word here), and that restitution cannot take place within a cannon of property and civil law that currently exist for the population.

By the way, you know nothing of Aboriginal history. The Aborigines fought long and hard against whites, uprooting homes and settlements where they could, killing women and children - as the whites did to them on a far larger scale. It was not the Ghandian outlook of their culture which sorted this out - for 150 years. And if it were, considering the near extinction of their culture I'd question as to whether I'd suggest it as a way forward. The fact is neither Ghandi nor the spear were able to prevent the destruction of the Aborigines. And the spear, resistance, is no longer feasible.

THAT is your real argument. The Palestinians are guilty of not recognising they're beat, why can't they, like other lesser people, realise it.

On top of this, no one is arguing (well I'm not), that the resitution of lands and right of return to Palestinians should form the basis of expulsion of any Israeli. That`s not part of the argument anymore for numerous supporters of Palestine, on this forum and in the real world and they have made this explicit in their comments.

So lets not compare Australia now to Israel now, because while I'm happy as hell to go to town on Australia for current and historical sins of commission and ommission, Australia does NOT lock its Aboriginal people out of the country, it does NOT bring out the army on a permanent basis to oppress Aboriginals, nor does it bomb and shoot at them in their caged millions. Nor does it checkpoint them, nor does it discriminate against them in law. So don't come the "raw prawn" with me, you clown. At least the people I know do reflect, criticise and attempt to come to terms with the enormity of their culture's crime, be them Australian, British, American or whatever.

The scale of your current atrocities holds you hard in the light. Israel is systemically fascist in action, law and governance. Australia has certainly been this low in the past and their current behaviour is appalling on many levels, but don't try to kid anyone that modern Australia is analogous to Israel.

The Fool

21st February 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Yet all of those treaties failed because the Palestinian Authority and Arafat refuses to stop the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah Tanzim, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

You Are absolutely correct these treaties failed because the invaded simply refused to stop resisting the invasion... the bastards....can't they see they would be much better off as the Israeli underclass than to continue to resist! There is just no limit to some peoples ingratitude....you offer them culture and civilization and they throw it back in your face....

TillEulenspiegel

21st February 2004, 04:16 PM

NO NO . Your misinterpreting Mycroft's message!

Mycroft's thesis:" One way the fence is good for Palestinian-Arabs"

He's being completely scholastic and not dogmatic in his view.

Well I would say he is a cheerful optimist, so in the same vain I would propose this thought using the same yard stick:

One way the concentration camps were good for Jews.
The camps altho not knowing it at the time were a major contributor to the gene pool of the Jews , and provided an unforeseen effect that gave rise to these people , altho being thinned out , there was a development towards a propensity to fight back , therefor the strongest survived. The smart , the caloricly deprived all went on to become the next generation of the chosen............. Ya YA I see it!

a_unique_person

21st February 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Palestinians Rally for U.S. Convoy Bombing Suspects (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040220/ts_nm/mideast_militants_usa_dc_1)
.....Just another typical day in Arafatistan...

:p

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7229162A-7163-44F1-9795-D6AEF5AD1D10=htm

Rabbis attacked by armed settlers
By Shaista Aziz

Wednesday 29 October 2003, 10:46 Makka Time, 7:46 GMT

A group of rabbis from a peace group in Israel have been attacked by armed settlers.

Rabbis from the peace group Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) were attacked by five armed settlers. Some of the men had their faces covered when they threatened to attack the rabbis with clubs.

The attack took place near the settler outpost of Mitzpeh Yutzahr, which is connected to one of the most hard-line settlements of Yitzahr, near Nablus.

The idea

21st February 2004, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Now If I ask you what your personal map looks look like I am being racist?? Lol.... You can't answer for one simple reason ....you don't know how much land you can get before the rest of the world finally stops you.. [...]
This is just speculation on my part, but perhaps the answer is the amount on their side of the fence. Of course, that's based on the assumption that the fence would be difficult to move. Is that true?

Mycroft

21st February 2004, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
This is a fat flying joke Mycroft...
you run up the Anti-semirism flag and shut down discussion.

How does this shut down discussion? It seems to have inflamed it.

Oh yeah, projection. You accuse others of racism to shut down discussion, so that must be what I’m doing too. Is that right? How come it’s okay when you do it?

Originally posted by The Fool
Please point out the racist statements....If you don't want to, or can't answer a simple question then simply don't....But please, spare me the fabrications and misrepresentations. I have not suggested anywhere that there is a secret or hidden conspiracy, why do you claim I have?

Crap, I quoted it back at you and put it in my signature. What more do you want? Should I come visit and tattoo it on your forehead? It’s time for the true goals of Zionism to be clearly identified…

True goals, huh? Are you contrasting them with some false goals?

You see, you didn’t ask my opinion of a fair and just border between Israel and a potential future state of Palestine should be. If you had, you would have gotten an honest straightforward answer. Instead, you asked, ”Is Israel marching relentlessly on towards the Zionist goal of occupying the entire mandate plus all of the Jordanians part of the Jordan valley plus the Golan plus southern Lebanon plus the west bank and Gaza.”

Originally posted by The Fool
The borders of Israel as proposed by the founders of the zionist movement are not dark hidden secrets mycroft...they published the maps.

They published maps a hundred years ago. Just like your ancestors, they had grand ideas some of which turned out great, others didn’t. So what? The world has changed a lot since then. Of what relevance are they today except as historical curiosities?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Jewish thought never changes, it never progresses. If a Jew said it a hundred years ago, you know there must still be a secret cabal of Jews hidden away somewhere diligently working away to make it a reality.

Originally posted by The Fool
Now If I ask you what your personal map looks look like I am being racist?? Lol.... You can't answer for one simple reason ....you don't know how much land you can get before the rest of the world finally stops you.. As soon as you draw a line on a map you are going to have to disagree with the taking of further land...you are not allowed to disagree so you must say nothing about the matter, just wait and agree with whatever land is taken.

Oh, okay. Now it’s me personally. I must be part of the cabal. I must be following a directive of the Grand Zionist Conspiracy never to define the limits of Zionist aspirations otherwise the secret would be out. It’s in the handbook you get when you reach the 4th circle of the conspiracy.

Or I could just be some guy on a computer in some backwater town in the Midwestern United States.

Originally posted by The Fool
This leads me to ask a simple question....where does it all end? What is your last territorial demand in the middle east? Without statements to the contrary I can only assume that it must be the stated goals of the Zionist movement that is the ultimate goal.....you must know what that map looks like mycroft... The zionists were showing it to anyone who was interested when they were trying to convince the british..

The ultimate goal is world domination, didn’t you read the book? Control the money, control the media, control the politicians and pit all the goyim against each other. No evil is too vile to be contemplated. That must be it, right? It couldn’t be that that a small group of people just wanted a place where they didn’t have to worry that the next change in the political wind might bring on a new series of persecutions. No, it couldn’t be. That would make them seem too human, too much like everybody else.

Mycroft

21st February 2004, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by The idea
This is just speculation on my part, but perhaps the answer is the amount on their side of the fence. Of course, that's based on the assumption that the fence would be difficult to move. Is that true?

That's a fair question.

One of the controversies surrounding the fence is that the Palestinian-Arabs and their apologists say it’s an attempt to create new borders that would prejudice future negotiations. The Israelis say it’s just a fence and it can be taken down or moved.

Overall, the fence follows the borders pretty closely except in some areas where it loops into Palestinian-Arab territory to protect some Israeli settlements. I posted a map in some other threads, later I’ll pm it to you if you want a look.

The overall answer to your question is yes, it’s probably pretty close to what a future border would be. Hopefully, in the event such a thing is ever negotiated, the fence will no longer be necessary.

The Fool

21st February 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Crap, I quoted it back at you and put it in my signature. What more do you want? Should I come visit and tattoo it on your forehead? It’s time for the true goals of Zionism to be clearly identified…

well, sorry but I don't think its an unreasonable thing to miss...."its time for the true goals of zionism to be clearly identified" is a racist statement is it? what a jolly joker you are becoming. I suppose "its time for the true goals of hamas to be clearly identified" is racist too? I always have to be mindfull of the fact that you don't see anything racist in refering to palestinians as bloodthirsty savages....Lol, selective vision must be a very handy power.

True goals, huh? Are you contrasting them with some false goals?

yes... the false goal that zionists see any possibility of any other fate than subjugation for the palestinians

You see, you didn’t ask my opinion of a fair and just border between Israel and a potential future state of Palestine should be. If you had, you would have gotten an honest straightforward answer. Instead, you asked, ”Is Israel marching relentlessly on towards the Zionist goal of occupying the entire mandate plus all of the Jordanians part of the Jordan valley plus the Golan plus southern Lebanon plus the west bank and Gaza.”

In that case I humbly apologise if you were offended and ask you to tell us all what, in your opinion, is the limit of Israels expansion.

They published maps a hundred years ago. Just like your ancestors, they had grand ideas some of which turned out great, others didn’t. So what? The world has changed a lot since then. Of what relevance are they today except as historical curiosities?

are they just historical curiosities mycroft? There are plenty of people who still subscribe to them, are you not one of them? Are Zionists misguided?

Oh yeah, I forgot. Jewish thought never changes, it never progresses. If a Jew said it a hundred years ago, you know there must still be a secret cabal of Jews hidden away somewhere diligently working away to make it a reality.

Unless you are trying to suggest I have stated this I would encourage you not to copy the methods of "skeptic" I don't see the point in straw man conspiracy theories.

Oh, okay. Now it’s me personally. I must be part of the cabal. I must be following a directive of the Grand Zionist Conspiracy never to define the limits of Zionist aspirations otherwise the secret would be out. It’s in the handbook you get when you reach the 4th circle of the conspiracy.

Or I could just be some guy on a computer in some backwater town in the Midwestern United States.

The ultimate goal is world domination, didn’t you read the book? Control the money, control the media, control the politicians and pit all the goyim against each other. No evil is too vile to be contemplated. That must be it, right?

your straw men are much more entertaining than "skeptics"

It couldn’t be that that a small group of people just wanted a place where they didn’t have to worry that the next change in the political wind might bring on a new series of persecutions. No, it couldn’t be. That would make them seem too human, too much like everybody else.
At who's expence mycroft? It sounds like a noble romantic adventure when you state it in childrens bible story style....What about the small group of people that didn't want to be invaded, evicted and looted?

The Fool

21st February 2004, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

The overall answer to your question is yes, it’s probably pretty close to what a future border would be. Hopefully, in the event such a thing is ever negotiated, the fence will no longer be necessary.
probably pretty close? would you have a problem if it wasn't? This fence is designed to separate palestinians from land not terrorists from Israelis. It is a structure designed to enforce and formalise land confiscation..... So, when future outposts and settlements continue to take more and more palestinian land will it be ok to say that the fence surrounding those new settlements will also be "probably pretty close to the new borders"

Once again I have to ask, when is enough enough? How much more is to be annexed? What it Israels final territorial demands in the middle east?

Mycroft

22nd February 2004, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
yes... the false goal that zionists see any possibility of any other fate than subjugation for the palestinians.
.

Really? What exactly do you think a Zionist is?

Originally posted by The Fool
In that case I humbly apologise if you were offended and ask you to tell us all what, in your opinion, is the limit of Israels expansion.

If you’re asking my opinion on what a fair and just border between Israel and a potential future state of Palestine should be, my honest answer is I don’t care. Really.

There are many potential solutions to this issue, and a two-state solution is only one of them. At the moment, it is getting the most attention and it’s likely to be implemented. Whatever solution is implemented, if ever, I want it to be one that provides for the safety and security of all peoples involved. As for preferring one solution over another, wanting a border to jig here or jag there, the bottom line is I’m an American and Israel is very far away. I’ve never been there, and I don’t know anybody that lives there.

Originally posted by The Fool
are they just historical curiosities mycroft? There are plenty of people who still subscribe to them, are you not one of them? Are Zionists misguided?

Unless you are trying to suggest I have stated this I would encourage you not to copy the methods of "skeptic" I don't see the point in straw man conspiracy theories.

Unbelievable! In response to my pointing out that your referring to hundred year old maps as though they were relevant today is absurd, you do it again and then deny doing it in the very next paragraph!

Originally posted by The Fool
At who's expence mycroft? It sounds like a noble romantic adventure when you state it in childrens bible story style....What about the small group of people that didn't want to be invaded, evicted and looted?.

One of the things I’ve noticed that conspiracy theories have in common is the assumption that anything that happens is always the intended consequence of someone’s planning. The law of unintended consequences never applies. Do you think your ancestors first came to the shores of Australia with the plan of spending the next two hundred years killing the natives? I don’t think so, I bet they just wanted a place to put a farm. Sure, that meant the natives couldn’t use that specific piece of land anymore, but Australia is so big and a farm, or even a town, is so tiny by comparison, it doesn’t seem like very much is being taken away. Do you think anyone stopped to think what effect that tiny action would have when it was multiplied by a few hundred thousand?

Contrast that to the earliest days of Zionism. The year is 1881 and about 35,000 people fleeing persecution in Russia come to Palestine and build a community. Do they just pick a spot and start building? Do they just take the land away from the natives? No, they purchased land.

At who’s expense?

I don’t know, I can’t see a victim here. I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with moving to another country, buying some land, and building a community. World history is filled with the migrations of people. The only thing different about Zionist migration is that they didn’t all come from one place. Does that change anything? I don’t see how.

Originally posted by The Fool
This fence is designed to separate palestinians from land not terrorists from Israelis. It is a structure designed to enforce and formalise land confiscation..... So, when future outposts and settlements continue to take more and more palestinian land will it be ok to say that the fence surrounding those new settlements will also be "probably pretty close to the new borders"

1) The fence is to block terrorism. It’s a non-violent solution to a very ugly problem.

2) It’s a fence, it can be moved or taken down.

3) There is no “Palestinian land” until there is a “Palestine” to govern it. If Arafat had lived up to his obligations under Oslo, Palestine would have been formed in 1998. If he hadn’t walked away from Camp David in 2000, there would have been another opportunity to form a state called Palestine.

a_unique_person

22nd February 2004, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Really? What exactly do you think a Zionist is?

There are, of course, many types. The ones who seem to be calling the tune are the ones who want all of the 'traditional' or mythological boundaries of Israel.

If you’re asking my opinion on what a fair and just border between Israel and a potential future state of Palestine should be, my honest answer is I don’t care. Really.

There are many potential solutions to this issue, and a two-state solution is only one of them. At the moment, it is getting the most attention and it’s likely to be implemented. Whatever solution is implemented, if ever, I want it to be one that provides for the safety and security of all peoples involved. As for preferring one solution over another, wanting a border to jig here or jag there, the bottom line is I’m an American and Israel is very far away. I’ve never been there, and I don’t know anybody that lives there.

Unbelievable! In response to my pointing out that your referring to hundred year old maps as though they were relevant today is absurd, you do it again and then deny doing it in the very next paragraph!

One of the things I’ve noticed that conspiracy theories have in common is the assumption that anything that happens is always the intended consequence of someone’s planning. The law of unintended consequences never applies. Do you think your ancestors first came to the shores of Australia with the plan of spending the next two hundred years killing the natives? I don’t think so, I bet they just wanted a place to put a farm. Sure, that meant the natives couldn’t use that specific piece of land anymore, but Australia is so big and a farm, or even a town, is so tiny by comparison, it doesn’t seem like very much is being taken away. Do you think anyone stopped to think what effect that tiny action would have when it was multiplied by a few hundred thousand?

Contrast that to the earliest days of Zionism. The year is 1881 and about 35,000 people fleeing persecution in Russia come to Palestine and build a community. Do they just pick a spot and start building? Do they just take the land away from the natives? No, they purchased land.

At who’s expense?

I don’t know, I can’t see a victim here. I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with moving to another country, buying some land, and building a community. World history is filled with the migrations of people. The only thing different about Zionist migration is that they didn’t all come from one place. Does that change anything? I don’t see how.

1) The fence is to block terrorism. It’s a non-violent solution to a very ugly problem.

2) It’s a fence, it can be moved or taken down.

3) There is no “Palestinian land” until there is a “Palestine” to govern it. If Arafat had lived up to his obligations under Oslo, Palestine would have been formed in 1998. If he hadn’t walked away from Camp David in 2000, there would have been another opportunity to form a state called Palestine.

The land of the people who live there. They are people, you are committing genocide by sophistry.

The Fool

22nd February 2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Really? What exactly do you think a Zionist is?

In my view it is a person that believes someone has the right to land because a god promised it to them.....

If you’re asking my opinion on what a fair and just border between Israel and a potential future state of Palestine should be, my honest answer is I don’t care. Really.

fair enough at least we know that you don't care.

Unbelievable! In response to my pointing out that your referring to hundred year old maps as though they were relevant today is absurd, you do it again and then deny doing it in the very next paragraph!

deny doing what? I have reread this thread and can't find anywhere that I have denied that the zionist vision of an Israel occupying the entire british mandate and more is very old indeed...maybe you can point out to me when the zionist movement dropped this Idea? Or is saying that Zionists exist a conspiracy theory in itself?

One of the things I’ve noticed that conspiracy theories have in common is the assumption that anything that happens is always the intended consequence of someone’s planning. The law of unintended consequences never applies.

Is it your suggestion that Israel is accidentally expanding? Is the IDF in the west bank because they took a wrong turn?

Do you think your ancestors first came to the shores of Australia with the plan of spending the next two hundred years killing the natives? I don’t think so, I bet they just wanted a place to put a farm. Sure, that meant the natives couldn’t use that specific piece of land anymore, but Australia is so big and a farm, or even a town, is so tiny by comparison, it doesn’t seem like very much is being taken away. Do you think anyone stopped to think what effect that tiny action would have when it was multiplied by a few hundred thousand?

Once again you refer to Australia. I honestly can't see the point you are trying to make. The First British to arrive proclaimed "Terra nullius" (no ones land) They simply erased the indiginous population from any consideration with one proclaimation. The natives were viewed as part of the wildlife...A common zionist line about palestine was "a land with no people for a people with no land" they also liked the myth that there was nobody in the way. Is this the comparison you want to make?

Contrast that to the earliest days of Zionism. The year is 1881 and about 35,000 people fleeing persecution in Russia come to Palestine and build a community. Do they just pick a spot and start building? Do they just take the land away from the natives? No, they purchased land.

At who’s expense?

I don’t know, I can’t see a victim here. I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with moving to another country, buying some land, and building a community. World history is filled with the migrations of people. The only thing different about Zionist migration is that they didn’t all come from one place. Does that change anything? I don’t see how.

I don't disagree with your summary of the early migration of people to palestine....but what happened when it dawned on zionists that there were an awful lot of Arabs there...the "arab problem" (what a lovely expression). They were then stuck in a bind. Democracy? how can this be achieved if there is not a Jewish majority? No point in establishing a homeland for displaced people if they don't control it. The only way to retain a majority is to drive out the Arabs at the point of a gun... That is the point where the dream turned sour. When the oppressed were willing to become the oppressors.

1) The fence is to block terrorism. It’s a non-violent solution to a very ugly problem.

Terrorists are going to be stopped by a wall? The Atlantic ocean can't keep terrorists out of America...

2) It’s a fence, it can be moved or taken down.
Or not built...but you are right. Once its job is finished, ending all possibility of a palestinian nation on the west bank, it will most likely be removed....

3) There is no “Palestinian land” until there is a “Palestine” to govern it.

"a land with no people for a people with no land"

If Arafat had lived up to his obligations under Oslo, Palestine would have been formed in 1998. If he hadn’t walked away from Camp David in 2000, there would have been another opportunity to form a state called Palestine.
lol...that is just a sick joke mycroft. The "offer" was just silly. Have you ever looked at the "offer"? Splintered fragments surrounded and crossed by fences, restricted roads, military posts, settlements...It was simply a fomalisation of the occupation. The creation of a large ghetto.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2004, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
:phttp://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7229162A-7163-44F1-9795-D6AEF5AD1D10=htm

And your completely irrelevant point is?

1) Because 5 settlers attacked some Rabbis in October 2003 it justifies Arafat's corruption?

2) Because 5 settlers attacked some Rabbis in October 2003 it justifies armed terror groups marching in the streets of Gaza?

3) Because 5 settlers attacked some Rabbis in October 2003 it justifies suicide bombing?

4) Because 5 settlers attacked some Rabbis in October 2003 it justifies why the Palestinians chose terrorism to negotiate and the Australian Aboriginies did not?

5) Because 5 settlers attacked some Rabbis in October 2003 it justifies blowing up a Fulbright Scolarship Convoy in Gaza killing three Americans?

Which one a_unique_person?

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2004, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
Once again I have to ask, when is enough enough? How much more is to be annexed? What it Israels final territorial demands in the middle east?

This argument always makes me laugh...

"What is Israels final territorial demands in the middle east?"

Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt = 3,249,912 sq km

...and....

Israel = 20,330 sq km

Wow, look how much land Israel has, they've pretty well taken over the entire middle east....;).....better go stop them the fool!

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2004, 05:31 AM

Suicide bomber kills 7 in Jerusalem (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/22/jerusalem.blast/index.html)

Sunday, February 22, 2004 - CNN - JERUSALEM (CNN) -- A suicide bomber on Sunday killed at least seven passengers on a crowded bus in Jerusalem at the height of rush hour, according to police in the city and Israeli ambulance services.

Jerusalem police spokesman Gil Kleiman said the suicide bomber also died in the terrorist attack, which wounded more than 50 people, 11 of them seriously.

One of the people killed in the attack was an 18-year-old high school student identified by the Jerusalem daily Haaretz as Lior Azulai, a pupil at the Gymnasia Rehavia. Nine other students at the school were wounded in the blast, Haaretz reported.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- the military offshoot of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement -- claimed responsibility for the blast in a statement.

So what was the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades "resisting" on the Egged number 14 bus?

1) occupation?

2) the price of bus fare?

3) the anti-terrorist barrier?

4) an IDF incursion into Gaza?

If they are "resisting" an IDF incursion into Gaza why don't they go after the IDF? What do kids going to school and passengers on the #14 bus today have to do with an IDF incursion into Gaza ?

Herein lies the bizzare logic of the palestinian terror groups. If all Israeli civilians are legit targets for the Palestinians, then all Palestinians should be legit targets because of the Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah Tanzim and Islamic Jihad....Those are the 'rules' the Palestinian terror groups are playing by.

But it gets even better,

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat condemned Sunday's attack. "We condemn this attack and once again we urge the United States, and other members of the Quartet [Russia, EU and U.N.] to exert every possible effort to revive the peace process and put it back on track," Erakat said,

See how clever that is.

The Palestinians condemn the attack that they failed to stop and lay the responsibility on the United States, and other members of the Quartet [Russia, EU and U.N.] for failing to exert every possible effort to revive the peace process.

Very savvy P.R. All the responsibility is taken off the Palestinian Authority by Saeb Erakat. And here is the problem with Saeb Erakat, some here, and the Palestinian Authority....a complete lack of responsibility for the current situation.

zenith-nadir

22nd February 2004, 05:54 AM

Here is a snapshot of life with suicide bombers;

Police close Maxim restaurant after security flaw (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077423454268)

Police issued a closure order to Haifa's Maxim restaurant, the scene of a suicide attack on October 4 in which 21 people were killed, after a policewoman wearing a dummy explosive belt successfully entered the restaurant after she was checked by a security guard.

Haifa Police Chief Asst. Cmdr. Nir Meriesh told the Jerusalem Post that the inspection was part of routine police work.

"It is a serious [security] flaw and the restaurant owners are to be held responsible," Meriesh said. "We issued the closure order for thirty days until they come up with an alternative security plan."

Imagine if the Maxim restaurant was in New York City and the NYPD had to have policemen go around wearing dummy explosive belts to check New York's restaurant security systems!...wow, what a crazy mixed up world...

demon

22nd February 2004, 06:36 AM

ZN:
"So what was the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades "resisting" on the Egged number 14 bus?

1) occupation?

2) the price of bus fare?

3) the anti-terrorist barrier?

4) an IDF incursion into Gaza?

If they are "resisting" an IDF incursion into Gaza why don't they go after the IDF? What do kids going to school and passengers on the #14 bus today have to do with an IDF incursion into Gaza ?

Herein lies the bizzare logic of the palestinian terror groups. If all Israeli civilians are legit targets for the Palestinians, then all Palestinians should be legit targets because of the Hamas, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah Tanzim and Islamic Jihad....Those are the 'rules' the Palestinian terror groups are playing by.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just more proof of the abject failure of the zionist project.

And if you want anybody to take you seriously here, you'll have to start posting articles about pregnant Palestinian women who lose their unborn children at checkpoints and then ask pointless rhetorical questions about what the Israeli Defence Fascists were trying to achieve by keeping her at the checkpoint all day.

Cleopatra

22nd February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by demon
Just more proof of the abject failure of the zionist project.

And if you want anybody to take you seriously here, you'll have to start posting articles about pregnant Palestinian women who lose their unborn children at checkpoints and then ask pointless rhetorical questions about what the Israeli Defence Fascists were trying to achieve by keeping her at the checkpoint all day.

Chill out demon ok? Today's attack was condemned even by the Palestinian authority.

If God exists and he has some pity in him will make the injured die. I have read some stories about the injured that I started thinking that those who died were the lucky ones.

May God forgive this person who spread horror and may he rest in peace.

edited to re-write a phrase in English

demon

22nd February 2004, 09:46 AM

Cleo:
"Chill out demon ok? Today's attack was condemned even by the Palestinian authority."

I know that, why are you telling me? I`m also aware of the reasons they gave for it too. Why don`t you direct that comment at some of the others here who don`t seem to know it?

As an aside, would it be racist of me to ask you where and when in your own mind, the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?
I`m not saying you think there should be a "Greater Israel". I`m just asking if you think this question is "founded in racism" and if you do, then why.
Haven't you heard? Jews who criticize Israeli policy have internalised the perverse value systems of their oppressors and thus subconsciously hate their own Jewishness. (What other rational explanation could there be, after all?) Hence the term "self-hating Jew" or "Jewish anti-Semite."
There's a lot of it about.

Mycroft

22nd February 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by demon
Mycroft, are these racist questions?

To a Nazi -"can you tell us where/when the desire for a "thousand year Reich and liebensraum" ends?"

No, but putting this question to a German of today would be. By taking statements, ideas, political aspirations out of context of time and situation without regard to the changes of history, you can demonize anyone. Would it be fair for me to criticize the Democratic party based on positions from decades ago? Would it be fair to criticize the Catholic Church for positions taken centuries ago? No rational person would think so.

Mycroft

22nd February 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
In my view it is a person that believes someone has the right to land because a god promised it to them.....

In your view, huh? Did you ever bother to look it up and find out? Did you ever stop and consider that your definition applies to both sides?

Originally posted by The Fool
fair enough at least we know that you don't care.

I care about the people. Jewish and Arab. I want to see a solution that brings peace and security to everybody. The violence and killing is sickening, but it’s also sickening to see the double standards that are applied, to see Israel and only Israel vilified for defending itself in war and from terrorism.

Originally posted by The Fool deny doing what? I have reread this thread and can't find anywhere that I have denied that the zionist vision of an Israel occupying the entire british mandate and more is very old indeed...maybe you can point out to me when the zionist movement dropped this Idea? Or is saying that Zionists exist a conspiracy theory in itself?

The problem isn’t that you don’t recognize that the ideas are old, the problem is that you take some vague fantasy from a century ago and pretend that it has relevance today. Do you really think it’s rational to look at some map from 1920 and say that it proves that Israel wants to conquer Jordan today? That can’t possibly be supported unless you believe that Zionist thought, unlike any other group, never changes.

Originally posted by The Fool
Is it your suggestion that Israel is accidentally expanding? Is the IDF in the west bank because they took a wrong turn?

No, but that’s a nice straw man. What I’m saying is that those early Zionists didn’t anticipate a century of conflict any more than your or my ancestors anticipated the consequences to the natives of their settlements.

Originally posted by The Fool
Once again you refer to Australia. I honestly can't see the point you are trying to make. The First British to arrive proclaimed "Terra nullius" (no ones land) They simply erased the indiginous population from any consideration with one proclaimation. The natives were viewed as part of the wildlife...A common zionist line about palestine was "a land with no people for a people with no land" they also liked the myth that there was nobody in the way. Is this the comparison you want to make?

Not comparison, contrast. Your ancestors just showed up and declared the land free for the taking because the natives didn’t have the same concepts of land ownership that the Europeans did. The early Zionists, by contrast, worked within the framework of the government in place by purchased land from its owners, and negotiated with the government in charge. This behavior you describe as invading, evicting and looting.

Originally posted by The Fool
I don't disagree with your summary of the early migration of people to palestine....but what happened when it dawned on zionists that there were an awful lot of Arabs there...the "arab problem" (what a lovely expression). They were then stuck in a bind. Democracy? how can this be achieved if there is not a Jewish majority? No point in establishing a homeland for displaced people if they don't control it. The only way to retain a majority is to drive out the Arabs at the point of a gun... That is the point where the dream turned sour. When the oppressed were willing to become the oppressors.

What happened when it dawned on the Arabs that there were an awful lot of Jews there? What happened to the British when it dawned on them they had made seemingly conflicting promises to two different peoples? What happened to those Zionists when it dawned on them they had the armies of five Arab nations coming at them with the purpose of obliterating them as a people?

You agree that there is nothing wrong with buying land and creating a settlement, you agree that there is nothing wrong with a people migrating to seek safety, but you then turn around and characterize defending that land, defending your people against an invasion as the oppressed becoming the oppressors. Outrageous!

Originally posted by The Fool
Terrorists are going to be stopped by a wall? The Atlantic ocean can't keep terrorists out of America...

And police don’t stop crime, should we get rid of them?

The wall works. It’s virtually shut down terrorism from the Gaza Strip and it’s reducing terrorism from the West Bank. Will it stop it completely? No, but it will stop a lot.

The Fool

22nd February 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

This argument always makes me laugh...

"What is Israels final territorial demands in the middle east?"

Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt = 3,249,912 sq km

...and....

Israel = 20,330 sq km

Wow, look how much land Israel has, they've pretty well taken over the entire middle east....;).....better go stop them the fool!
It makes you laugh does it? but you won't answer it.....Can I then assume that you believe Israel has the right to take whatever land it can get away with? Anything you can manage short of triggering a US invasion?;)

Cleopatra

22nd February 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by demon
[quote]I know that, why are you telling me?

I am telling you because since you live so far away I expected you had some respect for the victims. You can continue tomorrow which is another day.

As an aside, would it be racist of me to ask you where and when in your own mind, the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?

Well, it's well known in this forum that I am not afraid of question and above all I am not afraid to give a honest answer.

Haven't you heard? Jews who criticize Israeli policy have internalised the perverse value systems of their oppressors and thus subconsciously hate their own Jewishness. (What other rational explanation could there be, after all?) Hence the term "self-hating Jew" or "Jewish anti-Semite."
There's a lot of it about.

People that claim such things do not believe in Yahweh but in Saint Elsewhere.

demon

22nd February 2004, 03:54 PM

"No, but putting this question to a German of today would be. By taking statements, ideas, political aspirations out of context of time and situation without regard to the changes of history, you can demonize anyone. Would it be fair for me to criticize the Democratic party based on positions from decades ago? Would it be fair to criticize the Catholic Church for positions taken centuries ago? No rational person would think so."

You seem to be implying that the desire/intent for a greater Israel is some sort of historical curiosity. As it isn`t it would seem by your own reasoning that the original question was perfectly legitimate.

Likud members speaking at a Likud Party meeting June 2003..

Gilad Erdan, Knesset member:
"Dear Brothers. Go up every mountian. Seize every hill. It`s not an occupation. It`s Zionism."

Eli Shitrit code named "Commandar Elizar" from his Irgun days:
recited an anthem which says that both the west bank and the east bank of the Jordan are "ours".
He said "You (Sharon) were not elected on a personal ticket but as Likud`s representative...That`s why you have no right to announce redines to give the Palestinians a state, whatever the conditions and restrictions might be".

Uzi Landau, Likud Cabinet Minister:
"How is it that you, a prime minister in Israel, offers to give land of our forefathers to strangers".

Seems the intent to establish a Jewish state both sides of the Jordan is still the Likud`s anthem. It`s not such an outdated idea after all. The fuzzy reasons you give for questions being "founded in racism" because they address some long lost historical issue don`t apply here but we all really knew that anyway, didn`t we? The question was and is, do you sing from the same hymn sheet?
So we all know, I`ll ask you again: Mycroft, in your own mind, can you tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends?

The Fool

22nd February 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

The early Zionists, by contrast, worked within the framework of the government in place by purchased land from its owners, and negotiated with the government in charge. This behavior you describe as invading, evicting and looting.

I'm trying to be patient.....exactly where did I describe purchasing of land from its owners as "invading, evicting and looting" I said it in connection to this statement of yours

"It couldn’t be that that a small group of people just wanted a place where they didn’t have to worry that the next change in the political wind might bring on a new series of persecutions. No, it couldn’t be. That would make them seem too human, too much like everybody else.

It seems the "small group of people" was quite happy to drive out the original population at the point of a gun to ensure thier majority...Later in the thread you stated that when they first arrived they purchased thier land and I agreed with that. It was when they realised that imigration was not going to provide enough people to comfortably outnumber the "arab problem" that the solution of ethnic cleansing was implemented.
To claim I described the purchasing of land to live on as "Invading, evicting and looting" is simply dishonest....why do you do that? You even highlight your fabrication in your very next statement where you tell me I have no problem with land purchase...Oh what a tangled web we weave eh? Which one is it...I have no problem with land purchase or I think its Invading, evicting and looting?

You agree that there is nothing wrong with buying land and creating a settlement, you agree that there is nothing wrong with a people migrating to seek safety, but you then turn around and characterize defending that land, defending your people against an invasion as the oppressed becoming the oppressors. Outrageous!

Once again this is simply not true.

here is what I said..

"The only way to retain a majority is to drive out the Arabs at the point of a gun... That is the point where the dream turned sour. When the oppressed were willing to become the oppressors."

Now where am I characterising "defending that land, defending your people against an invasion" as the oppressed becoming the oppressors"????

I clearly stated (don't know how I could have been any clearer) that I was refering to the eviction of Arabs at gunpoint.....Why do you constantly misrepresent my statements.

I have grown to expect this from Zenith-nadir who thinks quoting half sentences is clever, I have come to expect it from "skeptic" because he lives in a fantasy world anyway.....But you too? I spend more time in these pointless Middle East threads correcting misrepresentations of my statements than I spend actually making the statements....

[/B]

demon

22nd February 2004, 04:17 PM

Cleo:
"I am telling you because since you live so far away I expected you had some respect for the victims. You can continue tomorrow which is another day."

Hold on a minute here; ZN jumps on todays attack in Israel to score cheap political points and I answer him and I`m the one not showing respect? If I had dived on here to use it an an example of the failure of the Israeli policy then fair enough but I didn`t. I don`t get it.

Cleo:
"Well, it's well known in this forum that I am not afraid of question and above all I am not afraid to give a honest answer."

Well, I take it then that you don`t find my original question to Mycroft as "founded in racism" and reject his characherization of Jews who might ask this question as being the same "as children who are abused and women who are raped", who "often develop feelings that it’s their fault, that they did something wrong".
He seems to think Jews who question expansionist policy are suffering from some psychological disorder.
There he goes again. He gets better all the time doesn`t he?

demon

22nd February 2004, 11:18 PM

Lets talk about the wall and how it is good for Palestinians.

By NOAM CHOMSKY
Published: February 23, 2004

AMBRIDGE, Mass. — It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel's so-called security fence, which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.

Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law.

This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America's opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has written that the wall is "unlawful." Another ministry official, who inspected the "security fence," said it should be on the Green Line or "indeed on the Israeli side of the line." A British parliamentary investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli land, condemning the barrier as part of a "deliberate" Israeli "strategy of bringing the population to heel."

What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also — as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of "politicide" against the Palestinians — helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.

Even before construction of the barrier was under way, the United Nations estimated that Israeli barriers, infrastructure projects and settlements had created 50 disconnected Palestinian pockets in the West Bank. As the design of the wall was coming into view, the World Bank estimated that it might isolate 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians, more than 10 percent of the population, and that it might effectively annex up to 10 percent of West Bank land. And when the government of Ariel Sharon finally published its proposed map, it became clear the the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state.

The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources, which Israel and its settlers can appropriate as they choose, while the indigenous population often lacks water for drinking.

Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands. "Hiding behind security rationales and the seemingly neutral bureaucratic language of military orders is the gateway for expulsion," the Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in the daily Haaretz. "Drop by drop, unseen, not so many that it would be noticed internationally and shock public opinion." The same is true of the regular killings, terror and daily brutality and humiliation of the past 35 years of harsh occupation, while land and resources have been taken for settlers enticed by ample subsidies.

It also seems likely that Israel will transfer to the occupied West Bank the 7,500 settlers it said this month it would remove from the Gaza Strip. These Israelis now enjoy ample land and fresh water, while one million Palestinians barely survive, their meager water supplies virtually unusable. Gaza is a cage, and as the city of Rafah in the south is systematically demolished, residents may be blocked from any contact with Egypt and blockaded from the sea.

It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel. This has been true since 1971 when, with American support, Israel rejected a full peace offer from Egypt, preferring expansion to security. In 1976, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement in accord with an overwhelming international consensus. The two-state proposal has the support of a majority of Americans today, and could be enacted immediately if Washington wanted to do so.

At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/opinion/23CHOM.html?hp

zenith-nadir

23rd February 2004, 04:59 AM

NOAM CHOMSKY?....Noam Chomsky?...Hahahahahahahahaha!

Quoting Noam Chomsky Demon on the middle east problem has about as much validity as quoting Jerry Falwell on homosexuality and the Telly Tubbies!

I find it sad and ironic that on the day before the Arabs and Palestinians go to court in the Hauge to fight the "wall" to stop suicide bombers another palestinian blows up a bus full of Israeli civilians.

That is like showing up for court for a DWI completely stone drunk.

As Abba Eben once said; "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity".

zenith-nadir

23rd February 2004, 05:22 AM

PA envoy to ICJ: Fence prevents ability to create state (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077514629390)

Opening the hearing at the International Court of Justice at The Hague on the legality of the West Bank security fence on Monday, the head of the Palestinian delegation said that the security fence prevents the establishment of an independent Palestinian state

Arafat Says No Peace Possible with W. Bank Barrier (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=BPILM5FRT3KRWCRBAEZSF EY?type=worldNews&storyID=4413213)

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, in a speech marking World Court hearings on Israel's West Bank barrier, said on Monday no peace was possible unless the screen of fences and walls was removed.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.....once again the Palestinian Authority makes up excuses why they haven't had free and fair elections over the past 10 years, why they haven't had a palestinian constitution over the past 10 years, why they haven't tried to stop the terrorist groups over the past 10 years, why they couldn't negotiate for a peaceful settlement over the past 10 years, why they couldn't stop Palestinian Authority corruption over the past 10 years....

This latest flavor-of-the-day excuse is "the wall", before that it was "IDF raids to stop terror groups", before that it was "checkpoints", before that it was "closures", before that it was "Mossad plots", before that it was "Sharon policies", before that it was the "offer at Camp David", before that it was more excuses, excuses, excuses....

demon

23rd February 2004, 02:47 PM

ZN:
"I find it sad and ironic that on the day before the Arabs and Palestinians go to court in the Hauge to fight the "wall" to stop suicide bombers another palestinian blows up a bus full of Israeli civilians."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again, you seem to assume that "the Palestinians" are some sort of homogenous entity, as with "Israel" and "America". This is something everyone should be careful of, I think, since as somebody pointed out earlier, nations and states are not human beings. "The Palestinians" (have you ever met any ZN?), are a group of people with a common culture who claim the right to live in a certain part of the world. Some Palestinians are suicide bombers. Some are terrorists and fanatics. Most are not - just as most Americans are not gun-toting survivalists or election-stealing oil barons, and most Israelis are not the kind of people who run peaceful protesters over with bulldozers.

It follows, then, that the Palestinian authorities do not necessarily have the power to stop suicide bombers from murdering Israeli citizens, just as the President, Congress and the Senate do not have the power to stop every crime now being committed in the USA - even though the people of the USA, for all their troubles, are in a far less parlous state than the Palestinians. Countries under military occupation by a foreign power are not that easy to keep under control, as the Iraqi experience testifies even now.

"Excuses, excuses, excuses...../...latest flavor-of-the-day excuse is "the wall", before that it was "IDF raids to stop terror groups", before that it was "checkpoints", before that it was "closures", before that it was "Mossad plots", before that it was "Sharon policies", before that it was the "offer at Camp David", before that it was more excuses, excuses, excuses.... " (ZN)

I thought that Mycroft dude was insane but you're 10x worse. A true schizoid.

Mycroft

23rd February 2004, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by demon
Once again, you seem to assume that "the Palestinians" are some sort of homogenous entity, as with "Israel" and "America". This is something everyone should be careful of, I think, since as somebody pointed out earlier, nations and states are not human beings. "The Palestinians" (have you ever met any ZN?), are a group of people with a common cultureArab culture who claim the right or who are forced to, it’s not as though they have a choice.to live in a certain part of the world. Some Palestinians are suicide bombers. Some are terrorists and fanatics. Most are not - just as most Americans are not gun-toting survivalists or election-stealing oil barons, and most Israelis are not the kind of people who run peaceful protesters over with bulldozers. [/B]

I’ll point out that recognizing this diversity in Palestinian, American and Israeli thought makes your assertion that Zionists still harbor secret desires to conquer Jordan even more bizarre.

Originally posted by demon
It follows, then, that the Palestinian authorities do not necessarily have the power to stop suicide bombers from murdering Israeli citizens, just as the President, Congress and the Senate do not have the power to stop every crime now being committed in the USA - even though the people of the USA, for all their troubles, are in a far less parlous state than the Palestinians. Countries under military occupation by a foreign power are not that easy to keep under control, as the Iraqi experience testifies even now. [/B]

The difference is that the President, Congress and the Senate, through funding of federal, state and local law enforcement, do make an effort to stop crime. If the Palestinian Authority made any effort at all to stop terrorism, it would be understandable if the efforts were not 100% effective. Instead we have PA officials publicly praising shaheeds and Arafat getting caught passing money to terrorist organizations.

a_unique_person

23rd February 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I’ll point out that recognizing this diversity in Palestinian, American and Israeli thought makes your assertion that Zionists still harbor secret desires to conquer Jordan even more bizarre.

I have pointed out many times that the majority of Israelis are happy to give the Palestinians the West Bank and Gaza for peace, and couldn't care less about the settlers. The vagaries of the Israeli electoral system mean that the majority opinion is ignored.

Mycroft

23rd February 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by demon
You seem to be implying that the desire/intent for a greater Israel is some sort of historical curiosity.Yep. As it isn`t it would seem by your own reasoning that the original question was perfectly legitimate.
Let’s look at your “evidence”.
Likud members speaking at a Likud Party meeting June 2003..

Gilad Erdan, Knesset member:
"Dear Brothers. Go up every mountian. Seize every hill. It`s not an occupation. It`s Zionism."
A clear reference to the disputed territories. Controversial? Yes. Inflammatory? Yes. An indication that Zionism still harbors secret plans on Jordan? No.
Eli Shitrit code named "Commandar Elizar" from his Irgun days:
recited an anthem which says that both the west bank and the east bank of the Jordan are "ours".Imagine! An old warrior singing an old war song! Tell me, if a politician from the deep South sang and old southern Civil War song, would you think he supported a return of the Confederacy and slavery?
He said "You (Sharon) were not elected on a personal ticket but as Likud`s representative...That`s why you have no right to announce redines to give the Palestinians a state, whatever the conditions and restrictions might be".Again, a clear reference to political decisions to be made about the disputed territories. He’s telling Sharon not to overstep his mandate. So?

Uzi Landau, Likud Cabinet Minister:
"How is it that you, a prime minister in Israel, offers to give land of our forefathers to strangers". Another clear reference to the disputed territories. Where does he say there is a plan to march on Jordan?

Seems the intent to establish a Jewish state both sides of the Jordan is still the Likud`s anthem. It`s not such an outdated idea after all.Yet the only evidence you have of that is someone reciting the lyrics of an old song. Are you kidding? The fuzzy reasons you give for questions being "founded in racism" because they address some long lost historical issue don`t apply here but we all really knew that anyway, didn`t we? The question was and is, do you sing from the same hymn sheet?I am the secret Master Zionist that controls the world.
So we all know, I`ll ask you again: Mycroft, in your own mind, can you tell us where/when the desire for a "Greater Israel" ends? Didn’t you read the book? You know the one I’m talking about. It doesn’t end, the world is not enough! Your sons will be my slaves and your daughters will be my whores! Muhahahahaa!

I’ll also take this opportunity to point out the double standard you apply to your evidence. Some Likud party member reciting the words to an old song is “proof” of secret Zionist plans to march on Jordan, but you scoff at the idea that the Palestinian Authority still wants to destroy Israel even though they say so on their website. When it comes to the Palestinian Authority, you will talk about changing times and changing circumstances, but you will shut your eyes and cover your ears if someone points out that editing an HTML page is so very easy, and a simple asterisk with a footnote saying no longer applies would be an indication of a willingness to reconciliation, and that they don’t even make that effort should say something.

One last thing, I ran your quotes through google and came up with zero hits. What's your source?

Mycroft

23rd February 2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
I'm trying to be patient.....exactly where did I describe purchasing of land from its owners as "invading, evicting and looting" I said it in connection to this statement of yours

"It couldn’t be that that a small group of people just wanted a place where they didn’t have to worry that the next change in the political wind might bring on a new series of persecutions. No, it couldn’t be. That would make them seem too human, too much like everybody else.

I’m trying your patience? Suddenly you’ve become E.J.Armstrong! My statement was said in connection to this statement of yours:

you must know what that map looks like mycroft... The zionists were showing it to anyone who was interested when they were trying to convince the british..

When were they trying to convince the British? What time period was that? Were they invading anyone then? Does buying land and building a community count as invading? Does it count as evicting and looting? When was the Balfour Declaration? When was the League of Nations Mandate?

I’ll save you the effort of looking it up. The Balfour Declaration was in 1917 and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was in 1920. At this period in history, they were buying land and building communities. Nobody was being invaded, evicted or looted.

Originally posted by The Fool
It seems the "small group of people" was quite happy to drive out the original population at the point of a gun to ensure thier majority...Later in the thread you stated that when they first arrived they purchased thier land and I agreed with that. It was when they realised that imigration was not going to provide enough people to comfortably outnumber the "arab problem" that the solution of ethnic cleansing was implemented.

The British, charged with the Mandate for establishing a national home for the Jewish people, placed stiff limitations on Jewish immigration into Palestine even in the 1930’s when anti-Semitism in Europe was on the rise and European Jews were in great danger. At the same time, there was a great deal of Arab immigration into the region, which the British did not restrict.

The issue of a Jewish majority in the region mandated to become a future Jewish state was the lesser issue. The greater issue was that people were dying because they were not allowed to immigrate.

What you characterize as a small group of people driving out the original population was the Israeli war of independence. It was a defensive war against five invading Arab armies launched within 24 hours of the declaration of independence. Prior to and during this war, many Arabs did flee, both on their own and at the urging of the invading Arab armies. Arabs were also expelled who had taken up arms against the new state of Israel, or who had supported those who had. Some also were expelled who should not have been, who were not belligerents. It was a war for survival. Defeat was not an option, and security after victory was of paramount importance.

Even so, it’s worth noting that large Arab populations were not expelled. The 1.1 million Arab-Israelis in Israel today are these Arabs and their descendents.

Originally posted by The Fool To claim I described the purchasing of land to live on as "Invading, evicting and looting" is simply dishonest....why do you do that? You even highlight your fabrication in your very next statement where you tell me I have no problem with land purchase...Oh what a tangled web we weave eh? Which one is it...I have no problem with land purchase or I think its Invading, evicting and looting?

When you talk about Zionists convincing the British you can only be referring to the period of time prior to the Balfour Declaration in 1917. At that time Jews were purchasing land and building communities. If you refer to that time and characterize Jewish activity as invading, evicting and looting, what am I supposed to think?

Originally posted by The Fool Once again this is simply not true.

here is what I said..

"The only way to retain a majority is to drive out the Arabs at the point of a gun... That is the point where the dream turned sour. When the oppressed were willing to become the oppressors."

Now where am I characterising "defending that land, defending your people against an invasion" as the oppressed becoming the oppressors"????

I clearly stated (don't know how I could have been any clearer) that I was refering to the eviction of Arabs at gunpoint.....Why do you constantly misrepresent my statements.

I’ve read it again, and it still reads as you characterizing the Israeli war of independence as the oppressed becoming the oppressors. I call it defending your land and your people from invasion. How am I reading this wrong?

Originally posted by The Fool I have grown to expect this from Zenith-nadir who thinks quoting half sentences is clever, I have come to expect it from "skeptic" because he lives in a fantasy world anyway.....But you too? I spend more time in these pointless Middle East threads correcting misrepresentations of my statements than I spend actually making the statements....

Either everyone else is wrong, or you need to learn a bit more history.

The Fool

23rd February 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Either everyone else is wrong, or you need to learn a bit more history.
Whatever.......As I said, I spend more time in these threads correcting misrepresentations of my statements than making the statements in the first place.....
and anyone who thinks that zionists lobbying the british about the borders of the new jewish homeland somehow ended in 1917 needs a serious reality check. And anyway...even if it were true it has squat to do with your straw version of my opinions...and you say Its me that needs to learn a bit more about history?

Anyway...what would us anti-semites know....I give up...

Mycroft

23rd February 2004, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Noam Chomsky
As the design of the wall was coming into view, the World Bank estimated that it might isolate 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians, more than 10 percent of the population, and that it might effectively annex up to 10 percent of West Bank land. And when the government of Ariel Sharon finally published its proposed map, it became clear the the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state.

Map of fence. (http://www.mideastweb.org/thefence1.htm)

Be patient. It takes a while to load.

Mycroft

23rd February 2004, 11:02 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

Whatever.......As I said, I spend more time in these threads correcting misrepresentations of my statements than making the statements in the first place.....
and anyone who thinks that zionists lobbying the british about the borders of the new jewish homeland somehow ended in 1917 needs a serious reality check. And anyway...even if it were true it has squat to do with your straw version of my opinions...and you say Its me that needs to learn a bit more about history?

Anyway...what would us anti-semites know....I give up...

Then maybe you could clear this up and show one of these maps?

zenith-nadir

24th February 2004, 04:01 AM

Top 10 Reasons you can't take 'Demon' or 'the fool' seriously.

10) All humans that are jewish are refered to as "zionists".

9) They quote Chomsky as intellectual evidence.

8) They use maps from electronic intifada.

7) They characterize the 1948 war where Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt attacked Israel simultaneously as "driving out the original population, [palestinians], at the point of a gun to ensure thier majority"

6) They claim "zionists" want to take over the entire middle east.

5) They call Israel 'racist' when they themselves call all jews 'zionists'

4) They call Israel 'apartheid' when they themselves can't stand even one jew living anywhere on the West Bank

3) They refuse to answer the question "After 30 years of Arafat's rule has the quality of life for Palestinians become better or worse?"

2) They feel suicide bombing Israeli civilians far from the battle is 'resistance' because A) Palestinians don't have F-16s or Apaches, B) the settlements, C) the anti-terror wall, D) evil zionist plots.

1) They never ever critisize Arafat or the Palestinian Authority for the plight of the Palestinians or hold them responsible as the leaders of the Palestinians.

shuize

24th February 2004, 05:19 AM

One way the fence is good for Palestian-Arabs... Has the massive increase in free handball courts been mentioned yet?

The Fool

25th February 2004, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Top 10 Reasons you can't take 'Demon' or 'the fool' seriously.

10) All humans that are jewish are refered to as "zionists".

first Lie...please show where I have said this

9) They quote Chomsky as intellectual evidence.

2nd lie please site one time i have quoted him.

8) They use maps from electronic intifada.

3rd lie please show one example

7) They characterize the 1948 war where Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt attacked Israel simultaneously as "driving out the original population, [palestinians], at the point of a gun to ensure thier majority"

4th lie please show one example of where I have said this.....I believe mycroft decided that when I talked about ethnic cleansing of arabs I was specifically talking about one perticular war...you must be confused...no I take that back, you are probably not confused...this is the 4th lie in a row. That tends to indicate deliberate lying rather than confusion.

6) They claim "zionists" want to take over the entire middle east.

5th lie...not the entire middle east. I said it is the goal of zionism to have israel cover the entire original british mandate...this is the last time I correct you on this topic.

5) They call Israel 'racist' when they themselves call all jews 'zionists'

6th lie....please show me where I have "called israel racist" and show me where I have called all jews zionists.

4) They call Israel 'apartheid' when they themselves can't stand even one jew living anywhere on the West Bank

7th lie....please show me anywhere I have ever mentioned anything about jews living on the west bank????

3) They refuse to answer the question "After 30 years of Arafat's rule has the quality of life for Palestinians become better or worse?"

8th lie...please show me where you have asked me this question and I have refused to answer .....anyway, answering it is easy. The quality of life of palestinians has become much worse in the last 30 years. Arafat is an Idiot, can you think of any other contributing factors in the decline of the palestinians?

2) They feel suicide bombing Israeli civilians far from the battle is 'resistance' because A) Palestinians don't have F-16s or Apaches, B) the settlements, C) the anti-terror wall, D) evil zionist plots.

9th lie... Please quote me saying this.

1) They never ever critisize Arafat or the Palestinian Authority for the plight of the Palestinians or hold them responsible as the leaders of the Palestinians.

10th lie....Now to be fair I can't ask you to quote me not critisizing Arafat or the palestinian authority...I do, people who post here or a little longer than you and have an IQ above room temperature have probably noticed this....If you want to make an issue of it try searching my posts for the word ARAFAT....possibly you could have checked before you shot your mouth but as this is obviously yet another part of your goebbells disinformation campagn it would have been pointless to gather facts first.

So what is it to be ZN...are you going to put up this time....or will this be yet another lie and run effort. This many blatant fabrications in one post is some sort of record....I can't wait to hear your excuses for not being able to find a single shred of evidence to support them....come on doofus...just a single little quote to back up your fantasies...just one.

[/B]

The Fool

25th February 2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

Then maybe you could clear this up and show one of these maps?
what? you cannot enter eretz israel on a search engine?

ok...if you insist.

firstly the American Zionists movement pointing out one of its goals of jewish people occupying the historic "eretz israel".....A current goal...not some ancient expired desire as you try to present it.

http://www.azm.org/aboutus.html

"The ingathering of the Jewish people in the historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries

here is an interesting map showing the names of the provences east of the jordan.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/geomap.html

In his Complete Diaries, Vol II, Page 711, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish state stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates."

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9, 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."

Here is a definition of what is meant by the common usage term "eretz israel"...from

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Eretz-Israel

The Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisrael) refers to the land making up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The term has been used by Jews and Christians throughout history. This territory includes the modern State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as parts of the modern Kingdom of Jordan, south-western Syria, and southern Lebanon.

I really find it hard to believe that you don't accept the vast majority of zionists believe they have an absolute right to the god given lands. The west bank, Gaza and bits and pieces of Jordan, Syria and lebanon.....God gave it to them and god never mentioned the arabs did he.....Do you ever listen to what modern Zionist are saying? do you read thier published works?

Mycroft

27th February 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
what? you cannot enter eretz israel on a search engine?

I have, on many occasions. Your whole posts seems to stem from a basic misunderstanding of the term Eratz Israel. You read it like it’s some sort of secret Zionist code word with a sinister meaning. It’s not.
Originally posted by The Fool firstly the American Zionists movement pointing out one of its goals of jewish people occupying the historic "eretz israel".....A current goal...not some ancient expired desire as you try to present it

"The ingathering of the Jewish people in the historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliyah from all countries

Eratz is Hebrew for “land of”. If you take the Hebrew words in that paragraph you quote and translate them to English, it reads: The ingathering of the Jewish people in their historic homeland, the land of Israel, through immigration from all countries.

It doesn’t sound very sinister to me.

Originally posted by The Fool
here is an interesting map showing the names of the provences east of the jordan.

A very interesting historical map.

Originally posted by The Fool
In his Complete Diaries, Vol II, Page 711, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish state stretches: "From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates."

Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on July 9, 1947: "The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. It includes parts of Syria and Lebanon."

You know, you make my argument for me. I accuse you of using fifty and hundred year old statements as though they were relevant today, as though Jewish thought never changes, and here you are! Two quotes, one fifty years old, the other one hundred years old.

Yes, those statements were made, they were made a very long time ago when the borders of this “Jewish State” was still vague and undefined, they are no longer relevant in today’s political reality.

Are there still some fruitcakes who subscribe to this vision? Absolutely! Do they represent the majority of Zionist thought? Absolutely not! Are they even a significant voice? Not really. If you talk to them, they tend to have this vague idea that somehow God will make all this happen regardless of what humans do. Some of the Christian Zionists see this vision of “greater Israel” as becoming a reality after the “rapture” after the Messiah has come back, presumably by then all the Jews and Muslims will have become Christians.
Originally posted by The Fool
Here is a definition of what is meant by the common usage term "eretz israel"...from

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Eretz-Israel

The Land of Israel (Hebrew: Eretz Yisrael) refers to the land making up the ancient Jewish Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The term has been used by Jews and Christians throughout history. This territory includes the modern State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as well as parts of the modern Kingdom of Jordan, south-western Syria, and southern Lebanon.

I’m so very disappointed in you, Fool. I expect lies and half-truths from the likes of Demon and AUP, but I thought you had more intellectual honesty than that. Why would you quote only part of a definition? Here is the rest of it:

During the British Mandate of Palestine, the name Eretz Yisrael (abbreviated Aleph-Yod), was part of the official name of the territory, when written in Hebrew.

Consequently, in its modern usage, the term usually denotes only those parts of the land which came under the British mandate, i.e. the land currently occupied by Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and sometimes also Transjordan (currently occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan).

And frankly, that’s not a very good definition. Transjordan is an archaic term, and what kind of idiot would say that Jordan is occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan? As that site gets it’s articles from user contributions, it’s not surprising that some of them are not as good as others.

Eratz Israel translates to “land of Israel”. The precise definition of this will change depending on the context and the time period you’re referring to. If I said Eratz Israel in reference to the bible, obviously I’d be talking about the ancient kingdom of the Israelites, which is different from the Eratz Israel of the British Mandate period which is different from the Eratz Israel of modern Israel today.

Check out a modern usage of the term:

http://ohr.edu/a/study/derech/love.htm

They offer tours for people who want to become acquainted with Eratz Israel. the tour includes:

The scenic Jordan Valley, swimming in Tiberias, feeling the holy mysticism of Ancient Tzefat, walking in the Old Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem (including the Kotel Tunnel Tour), climbing Masada, visiting an authentic Bedouin camp (and riding camels), hiking and swimming at Ein Gedi, visiting Yad Vashem (Israel's holocaust museum), crawling through the Bar Kochba caves, etc.

Now, I invite you to check out these locations on a map and see where they are.

Originally posted by The Fool
I really find it hard to believe that you don't accept the vast majority of zionists believe they have an absolute right to the god given lands. The west bank, Gaza and bits and pieces of Jordan, Syria and lebanon.....God gave it to them and god never mentioned the arabs did he.....Do you ever listen to what modern Zionist are saying? do you read thier published works?

No. While there are Zionists who are Zionists for purely religious reasons, the vast majority of Zionists are not. Perhaps the difficulty is with your understanding of what Zionism is.

Zionism was a movement to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in the Holy Land. It was a response to anti-Semitism worldwide, the very same anti-Semitism that culminated in the murder of millions of Jews. Its goal was to create a refuge; one that history has proven was badly needed.

Modern Zionism is the support for the continued existence and defense of Israel.

Within these frameworks, the old goal to create a Jewish State and the modern goal to preserve it, there is a wide variety of opinion, methods and goals. To fixate only on the religious aspect is to adopt a very skewed perception of what Zionism is as a whole.

The Fool

27th February 2004, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I have, on many occasions. Your whole posts seems to stem from a basic misunderstanding of the term Eratz Israel. You read it like it’s some sort of secret Zionist code word with a sinister meaning. It’s not.

Are you seriously suggesting that the term Eretz Israel is used in any context to mean the modern boundries of Israel? I'd love to see some examples...I liked the one example you claim supports this interpretation of "Eretz Israel"...a tourist itinerary...lol, pardon me for laughing but sheeeeesh...is this all you can find? I suppose if you were taking groups of Jewish American tourists around historic jewish ruins you would march them through the west bank and Gaza? Lol....Mycroft, don't ever start a tour company.

you also casually dismiss the words of the founders of Zionism as if they were some irrelevant historic curiosity...do you have the same dismissive attitude to the words of the founding fathers of America? I don't think so...

To suggest that the overwelming central theme of Zionism is some sort of ancient curiosity that nobody takes seriously is a long stretch indeed....Once again I ask, do you spend much time reading current zionist material?

And just to sum up you pull up this additional material defining the term "eretz israel"

During the British Mandate of Palestine, the name Eretz Yisrael (abbreviated Aleph-Yod), was part of the official name of the territory, when written in Hebrew.

Consequently, in its modern usage, the term usually denotes only those parts of the land which came under the British mandate, i.e. the land currently occupied by Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and sometimes also Transjordan (currently occupied by the Kingdom of Jordan).

and claim I was dishonestly hiding it....why? because it apparently reinforces your theory that Eretz Israel should be interpreted as meaning only the current modern borders of Israel????

Please continue to do this as I sometimes miss some stuff that reinforces my position and its nice of you to gather it for me.

Mycroft you can continue to try to massage reality into some sort of version of Zionism that does not include a desire to occupy the promised land....the fact that this is what zionism was founded to achieve seems to be irrelevant. The fact that this goal is a foundationstone of modern zionism is apparently irrelevant. The fact that all actions of Zionists in Israel appear to be moving towards that goal is irrelevant

The conclusive fact is apparently that tour group brochure....

E.J.Armstrong

28th February 2004, 02:12 AM

originally posted by Mycroft
I’m trying your patience? Suddenly you’ve become E.J.Armstrong!

Asking you to justify your own claims is trying your patience?

Modern Zionism is the support for the continued existence and defense of Israel. Do you have a definition for the land of Israel as implied in this definition?

Mycroft

28th February 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
Are you seriously suggesting that the term Eretz Israel is used in any context to mean the modern boundries of Israel? It translates to land of Israel.. You tell me how that should be interpreted. I'd love to see some examples...I liked the one example you claim supports this interpretation of "Eretz Israel"...a tourist itinerary...lol, pardon me for laughing but sheeeeesh...is this all you can find? The first example I came across that wasn’t in a historical context.I suppose if you were taking groups of Jewish American tourists around historic jewish ruins you would march them through the west bank and Gaza? Lol....Mycroft, don't ever start a tour company.

you also casually dismiss the words of the founders of Zionism as if they were some irrelevant historic curiosity...do you have the same dismissive attitude to the words of the founding fathers of America? I don't think so...It depends on the statement. Thomas Jefferson raised doubts that negro slaves had the intellectual capacity of whites, yes I dismiss that. It was based on a perception of a people who, being slaves, had not the opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities. Even more enduring documents, such as the Constitution of the United States of America have gone through 200+ years of interpretation based on new political and cultural realities. Are you telling me that there are no writings of the first settlers of Australia that are no longer relevant?

To suggest that the overwelming central theme of Zionism is some sort of ancient curiosity that nobody takes seriously is a long stretch indeed....Once again I ask, do you spend much time reading current zionist material?The overwhelming central theme of Zionism was the establishment of a homeland and refuge for the Jewish people. That has been accomplished, but the support for the continued existence and defense of that state is very much a central theme of Zionism today. Pointing to 50 and 100 year old statements as evidence to the contrary makes no more sense than pointing to 50 and 100 year old statements of Australian politicians as evidence of what current Australian political thought is. That it seems natural and reasonable for you to do this for this one group of people is what I point to as bias.

and claim I was dishonestly hiding it....why? because it apparently reinforces your theory that Eretz Israel should be interpreted as meaning only the current modern borders of Israel????Not only did you cherry pick a questionable definition, but having done so you only quoted part of that definition. Honest?

Mycroft you can continue to try to massage reality into some sort of version of Zionism that does not include a desire to occupy the promised land....the fact that this is what zionism was founded to achieve seems to be irrelevant. The fact that this goal is a foundationstone of modern zionism is apparently irrelevant. The fact that all actions of Zionists in Israel appear to be moving towards that goal is irrelevant. All actions? Including the peace agreements between Jordan and Egypt? Withdrawing from the Sinai Peninsula?

The conclusive fact is apparently that tour group brochure....

rikzilla

28th February 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by demon
Lets talk about the wall and how it is good for Palestinians.

By NOAM CHOMSKY
Published: February 23, 2004

AMBRIDGE, Mass. — It is a virtual reflex for governments to plead security concerns when they undertake any controversial action, often as a pretext for something else. Careful scrutiny is always in order. Israel's so-called security fence, which is the subject of hearings starting today at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, is a case in point.

Few would question Israel's right to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks like the one yesterday, even to build a security wall if that were an appropriate means. It is also clear where such a wall would be built if security were the guiding concern: inside Israel, within the internationally recognized border, the Green Line established after the 1948-49 war. The wall could then be as forbidding as the authorities chose: patrolled by the army on both sides, heavily mined, impenetrable. Such a wall would maximize security, and there would be no international protest or violation of international law.

This observation is well understood. While Britain supports America's opposition to the Hague hearings, its foreign minister, Jack Straw, has written that the wall is "unlawful." Another ministry official, who inspected the "security fence," said it should be on the Green Line or "indeed on the Israeli side of the line." A British parliamentary investigative commission also called for the wall to be built on Israeli land, condemning the barrier as part of a "deliberate" Israeli "strategy of bringing the population to heel."

What this wall is really doing is taking Palestinian lands. It is also — as the Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling has described Israel's war of "politicide" against the Palestinians — helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.

Even before construction of the barrier was under way, the United Nations estimated that Israeli barriers, infrastructure projects and settlements had created 50 disconnected Palestinian pockets in the West Bank. As the design of the wall was coming into view, the World Bank estimated that it might isolate 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinians, more than 10 percent of the population, and that it might effectively annex up to 10 percent of West Bank land. And when the government of Ariel Sharon finally published its proposed map, it became clear the the wall would cut the West Bank into 16 isolated enclaves, confined to just 42 percent of the West Bank land that Mr. Sharon had previously said could be ceded to a Palestinian state.

The wall has already claimed some of the most fertile lands of the West Bank. And, crucially, it extends Israel's control of critical water resources, which Israel and its settlers can appropriate as they choose, while the indigenous population often lacks water for drinking.

Palestinians in the seam between the wall and the Green Line will be permitted to apply for the right to live in their own homes; Israelis automatically have the right to use these lands. "Hiding behind security rationales and the seemingly neutral bureaucratic language of military orders is the gateway for expulsion," the Israeli journalist Amira Hass wrote in the daily Haaretz. "Drop by drop, unseen, not so many that it would be noticed internationally and shock public opinion." The same is true of the regular killings, terror and daily brutality and humiliation of the past 35 years of harsh occupation, while land and resources have been taken for settlers enticed by ample subsidies.

It also seems likely that Israel will transfer to the occupied West Bank the 7,500 settlers it said this month it would remove from the Gaza Strip. These Israelis now enjoy ample land and fresh water, while one million Palestinians barely survive, their meager water supplies virtually unusable. Gaza is a cage, and as the city of Rafah in the south is systematically demolished, residents may be blocked from any contact with Egypt and blockaded from the sea.

It is misleading to call these Israeli policies. They are American-Israeli policies — made possible by unremitting United States military, economic and diplomatic support of Israel. This has been true since 1971 when, with American support, Israel rejected a full peace offer from Egypt, preferring expansion to security. In 1976, the United States vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a two-state settlement in accord with an overwhelming international consensus. The two-state proposal has the support of a majority of Americans today, and could be enacted immediately if Washington wanted to do so.

At most, the Hague hearings will end in an advisory ruling that the wall is illegal. It will change nothing. Any real chance for a political settlement — and for decent lives for the people of the region — depends on the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/23/opinion/23CHOM.html?hp

Ah! Like all Chomsky writings, he ends with the same old basic tired theme; "if you are a thoughtful and reasonable reader you will plainly see that it's all the USA's fault"

Indeed...if continued Israeli security is our fault then I am a proud American that we have helped our little friend defeat the combined military might of the Arab world. While bus bombings may never end, at least the Jewish citizens of Israel have no fear of being defeated militarily as long as we are with them.

Thanks Demon and Chomsky....you've both given me yet further good reasons to vote proudly for George W. Bush come November. ;)

-z