Why Palestinians have given up on non-violence

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/17/1047749691604.html



An Israeli army bulldozer has crushed to death a US peace activist trying to prevent house demolitions in the Gaza Strip, where Israeli fire also killed two Palestinians in separate incidents.

The killings occurred as Israel sealed off the Palestinian territories amid fears of a Palestinian attack during the Jewish spring festival of Purim and as a US-led war against Iraq loomed.

Peace activist Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old woman from Washington DC, died today when a military bulldozer ran over her in the town of Rafah, said Rafah hospital's chief doctor Ali Mussa and another US activist who witnessed the incident.

"She was sitting in the path of the bulldozer. The bulldozer saw her and ran over her. She ended up completely underneath it," fellow activist Joseph Smith told AFP.

"He absolutely knew she was there," added Smith, a 20-year-old student from Missouri.

The peace activists from the International Solidarity Movement were blocking the paths of two bulldozers and an Israeli tank tearing down Palestinian buildings in Rafah, which sits on the Gaza Strip's Israeli-controlled border with Egypt.

[rikzilla]

Sounds like a new finalist for the 2003 Darwin Awards....

Sheesh..and I thought that after all the "human shields" high-tailed it out of Baghdad that the 2003 ceremony would be hurting for material!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Troll]

Well gee, if they've given up on non-violence then I guess it's time for the Israeli's to do so and just go all out, huh? Who do you think is gonna win?

ever think that if they just stopped the freaking violence altogether for a few weeks that maybe, just maybe, Israel would decide something aong the lines of "Okay, there's hope now. Let's start working on a deal with them"?

No, you blame the jews, call it a jew thing, want to see them destroyed as much as any member of hmas does.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll
Well gee, if they've given up on non-violence then I guess it's time for the Israeli's to do so and just go all out, huh? Who do you think is gonna win?

ever think that if they just stopped the freaking violence altogether for a few weeks that maybe, just maybe, Israel would decide something aong the lines of "Okay, there's hope now. Let's start working on a deal with them"?

No, you blame the jews, call it a jew thing, want to see them destroyed as much as any member of hmas does.

ad hominem. maybe if they stop bulldozing homes, hamas won't get so much support.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Sounds like a new finalist for the 2003 Darwin Awards....

Sheesh..and I thought that after all the "human shields" high-tailed it out of Baghdad that the 2003 ceremony would be hurting for material!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
ROFLMAO!!!!

[corplinx]

Since when has the PLO been non-violent? They have been responsible for mideast turmoil for half a century.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


ad hominem. maybe if they stop bulldozing homes, hamas won't get so much support.

Yeah stop bulldozing. That's like saying stop responding to suicide bombers.

How's this? Stop hitting me back and maybe even harder when I slap ya upside the back of the head and then I will stop slapping ya upside the back of the head. sound cool to you? It has to. Afterall that's what you've consistantly proposed Israel do.:rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

What do you mean, "given up" on non-violence?

1). The palestinian national charter, from its writing in 1964, called for the "overthrow of the zionists" and "liberation of palestine" by violence. It still is in force.

2). The so-called "giving up" of violence--the signing of the Oslo "peace" accords--had resulted in an IMMEDIATE 10,000% INCREASE in the number of israelies killed by palestinian violence per year. As we now know, this was planned, since (as Arafat's speeched repeatedly show) the entire Oslo "peace" process was part of the "Stage plan" to israel's destruction by force.

3). In 2000, israel offered Arafat a palestinian state, despite the terror. Result? The so-called "second intifada", or war of terror against israel. Reason? The agreement actually demanded the palestinians stop calling for israel's destruction and curb terror. (Imagine that!)

So, before you talk about the "reasons" that palestinians "given up" on non-violence--namely, those horrible jews actually fighting back--you might want to estalbish they ever THOUGHT about the "non-violent" policy, let alone implement it. They never did.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
What do you mean, "given up" on non-violence?

1). The palestinian national charter, from its writing in 1964, called for the "overthrow of the zionists" and "liberation of palestine" by violence. It still is in force.



they are just more upfront about it, and the reference to violence has been removed. Israel is still hell bent on formally taking over the occupied territories, despite the illegality of such an action.



2). The so-called "giving up" of violence--the signing of the Oslo "peace" accords--had resulted in an IMMEDIATE 10,000% INCREASE in the number of israelies killed by palestinian violence per year. As we now know, this was planned, since (as Arafat's speeched repeatedly show) the entire Oslo "peace" process was part of the "Stage plan" to israel's destruction by force.



and the increase in settlements never stopped, either. 10,000% is a meaningless statistic. And who as that guy who was threatening to stop the settlements, wasn't he assasinated by one of those horrible jews?



3). In 2000, israel offered Arafat a palestinian state, despite the terror. Result? The so-called "second intifada", or war of terror against israel. Reason? The agreement actually demanded the palestinians stop calling for israel's destruction and curb terror. (Imagine that!)



a 'state' that was not viable, and had no future, as was clearly demonstrated. a perpetual military presence, 'private' settlers roads, continual creation of illegal settlements. Oslo was a start, but cetainly not the finish of a process, as BOTH sides clearly demonstrated. Don't criticise one without criticising the other. Form the start, it has been about land and occupation. Neither of those was addressed by Oslo in the sense that a final settlement was reached.



So, before you talk about the "reasons" that palestinians "given up" on non-violence--namely, those horrible jews actually fighting back--you might want to estalbish they ever THOUGHT about the "non-violent" policy, let alone implement it. They never did.

You always forget, quite conveniently, the relentless force of occupation that has been occurring. Kick out the woo woo kooks, (for that is all they are), and their exploited patsies, from the settlements, and some sense of sanity might start being shown.

[crackmonkey]

Wasn't the PLO responsible for starting the Lebanese civil war? It seems that Arafat isn't merely content with killing Israelis...

[CapelDodger]

Palestinians have, it seems, two choices. They can be quiet and the world pays no attention to them, or they can resist and be deemed terrorists. Even the Arabs within Israel have attempted to assimilate and they have been rewarded with confiscation and discrimination. The opinion is often expressed that the expellees of 1948-9 should simply have vanished away and accepted the right of might. Those that remained should have learned their lesson. And those subjected to daily humiliation, assault and expropriation under occupation should accept that it's all their fault for being unwanted by the powerful in the place of their birth. This may be the American way, but it's not the way of the normal world.
Something to think on is what happens if the Zionist project is completed. A Jewish majority on both banks of the Jordan. The Arabs of the West Bank have been expelled across the Syrian Desert, the Gazan Arabs have been forced into Egypt, Southern Lebanon and the head-waters of the Litani have been annexed. Jordan now has a Palestitian majority (unless a lot of West Bank Palestians are killed in the process), Egypt has an influx of indigent and angry Gazans, Syria has once again been humiliated, but none of this is a threat. The Zionist dream of peace with security in the National Homeland/lands granted by Yahweh has been achieved.
So, who's a good enough Jew for that nation?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


Yeah stop bulldozing. That's like saying stop responding to suicide bombers.

How's this? Stop hitting me back and maybe even harder when I slap ya upside the back of the head and then I will stop slapping ya upside the back of the head. sound cool to you? It has to. Afterall that's what you've consistantly proposed Israel do.:rolleyes:

How about this, don't run over unarmed civilians trying to use peaceful means. How was this unarmed, american citizen harming anyone? What was she threatening? Who was she attacking?

[crackmonkey]

.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
.

Well said.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think there is a lesson to be learned here:

Don't stand in front of a bulldozer.

[a_unique_person]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/vert.corrie.ap.jpg

ricks nomination for the darwin award. LOL.

[aerocontrols]

http://www.omjp.org/Feb1503GazaReuters.jpg

Sometimes she was slightly angrier. Here she is, giving a demonstration in the proper method of flagburning.

[renata]

AUP,
I did not notice you starting any threads and posting pictures of Americans killed by Palestinians in the last few years. This, while very sad, is the first death of a foreign activist in the last 29 months of fighting.

Here are some American citizens killed by Palestinians. They were not laying under bulldozers at the time- they were going on trips or having lunch.


On March 5 2003, Abigail Litle, 14, was killed in a Palestinian suicide bombing attack on a bus in the northern Israeli city of Haifa. Last July, five Americans died in a bombing at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

A thriteen year old boy, named Koby Mandell, a U.S. citizen, was stoned to death on May 8, 2001.

June 19, 2002, Jerusalem - Gila Sara Kessler, 19, suicide boming

Jun 18, 2002, Jerusalem - Dr. Moshe Gottlieb, 70, a suicide bombing in Egged bus no. 32A traveling from Gilo to the center of Jerusalem.

January 15, 2002, Bethlehem, West Bank. Avraham Boaz, 71, kidnapped at a Palestinian Authority (PA) security checkpoint in Beit Jala and murdered.

August 9, 2001, Jerusalem, Israel. A suicide bombing at Sbarro's, 31-year-old tourist from New Jersey, Shoshana Greenbaum

May 29, 2001, Gush Etzion, West Bank. Drive-by shooting Samuel Berg, and his mother, Sarah Blaustein.


October 8, 2000, Nablus, West Bank. The bullet-ridden body of Hillel Lieberman, a U.S. citizen living in the Jewish settlement of Elon Moreh, was found at the entrance to the West Bank town of Nablus.



February 1996 Sara Duker and her fiance killed on a bus boming in Jerusalem i

April 9, 1995, Kfar Darom and Netzarim, Gaza Strip. Suicide bomber crashed an explosive-rigged van into an Israeli bus in Netzarim, killing eight including U.S. citizen Alisa Flatow

[gnome]

I really think the article was missing some critical information--what was going on at the time. It doesn't say if there were armed palestinians there shooting at the israeli's... or if the only aggression was on the part of the Istraeli soldiers.

It just seems to have a dearth of information necessary to draw a really good picture of the situation.

It really sounds bad though.

[Skeptic]

An Israeli army bulldozer has crushed to death a US peace activist trying to prevent house demolitions

That's funny, but when palestinians kill american jews in israel--over 100 of the victims of the latest "inftifada" had american citizenship--then that's THEIR fault, for "coming from Brooklyn to stir up trouble" in the first place.

Well, that's what THIS "human shield" protestor did, didn't she?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
http://www.omjp.org/Feb1503GazaReuters.jpg

Sometimes she was slightly angrier. Here she is, giving a demonstration in the proper method of flagburning.

And, if you look closely, the stars on the american flag are blue stars of david--just like on the israeli flag. Obviously, this "peace protestor" is making quite clear her opinion that a). the US is controlled by the evil jews, and b). both must be destroyed "for peace".

Incidentally, I checked out the reports. What we have here is the first "peace protestor" killed by the israelies in two and a half years of fighting, who completely ignored all IDF official, repeated, and consistent warnings to stay away from bulldozers at work for obvious reasons, who was run over by mistake since the bulldozer driver couldn't hear her shouting over the din of the motor (believe me, I KNOW these bulldozers--you can't hear s**t from the driver's seat), who, the moment it was discovered that she was run over, was taken to a hospital in an attempt to save her life.

Does this really look to you like an evil israeli attempt to kill americans? Or is it looking a lot more like individual fanaticism on part of the "peace protestor" when she was not busy shouting "death to america" and "death to the jews", as the photos show? Compare this to the american victims of palestinian terrorism from the current intifada--none of which were doing anything except for being jewish.

Once again, instead of showing the "evil and cruel" israelies, AUP manages to essentially prove that israel was acting in a way that no other nation on earth would ever think of acting in terms of PROTECTING the lives of noncombatants.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
http://www.omjp.org/Feb1503GazaReuters.jpg

Sometimes she was slightly angrier. Here she is, giving a demonstration in the proper method of flagburning.

She should have died then. that flag burning killed a lot of people, didn't it. And the star of david, obviously that was a reference to the WW Jewish conspiracy, or maybe it was a reference to the US and Israel being partners in a long battle against the palestinians. in hindsight, maybe she should have armed herself.

have you seen other news on that site?

http://www.omjp.org/






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olympia Women Oppose War
March 08, 2003

Women, their children, and partners gathered in Olympia today for the Women and Children's Peace Vigil scheduled to coincide with International Women's Day.

Meanwhile, WA State Republicans squelched a previously routine Senate resolution supporting International Women's Day. According to The Olympian (Under the Dome, March 03), Republicans objected to resolution language inclusive of sexual orientation: "WHEREAS, Women of every age, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, economic status, occupation, and degree of ability or disability have made considerable contributions to the growth and development of our communities, states, country, and nations around the world . . . ".

The Washington State legislature achieved international notority this past week after racist anti-Islam remarks by Republican legislator Lois McMahan (2 lawmakers spurn Muslim's prayer).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
by Lawrence Mosqueda, Ph.D.
February 26, 2003

"As the United States government under George Bush gets closer to attacking the people of Iraq, there are several things that the men and women of the U.S. armed forces need to know and bear in mind as they are given orders from the Bush administration. This information is provided for the use of the members of the armed forces, their families, friends and supporters, and all who are concerned about the current direction of U.S. policy toward Iraq."

This article provides links to numerous resources.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


How about this, don't run over unarmed civilians trying to use peaceful means. How was this unarmed, american citizen harming anyone? What was she threatening? Who was she attacking?

How about not suicide bombing unarmed civilians from all nations while they try to drink a cup of coffee? Who were they attacking? Who were they threatening other than possibly a rival of starbucks?

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/rafah.death/vert.corrie.ap.jpg

ricks nomination for the darwin award. LOL.

She was actually kinda cute. Glad she stood in front of a bulldozer and prevented me from dating her and finding out what a psycho she was later. Been through enough of them.

what? am I supposed to feel sympathy and remorse for someone that thought flesh could stop several tons of metal? She was an idealist, therefore an idiot. I feel sorry for the guy that may be feeling grief for running over her.

I don't. Sorry. Call her a martyr for her cause. Just like those suicide bombers you support. Rejoice in her dying for the cause. There will be more like her. More idiots blaming one side over the other. More idiots failing to see that no matter how many times we say " Stop the suicide bombings for a while and then we'll talk", that like you and UCE will stand up and justify suicide bomings as a means to fight while other's place conditions on peace.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


She should have died then.

I'm surprised you feel that way.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
have you seen other news on that site?



It's not a news site. It's the website of her sponsoring organization.

[Skeptic]

(AUP) She should have died then.

I'm surprised you feel that way.

Maybe he found out she has a jewish parent, or something.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


How about not suicide bombing unarmed civilians from all nations while they try to drink a cup of coffee? Who were they attacking? Who were they threatening other than possibly a rival of starbucks?

tit/tat/tit/tat

how about not destroying houses.

[Brown]

From the article originally posted by a_unique_person
"She was sitting in the path of the bulldozer. The bulldozer saw her and ran over her. She ended up completely underneath it," fellow activist Joseph Smith told AFP.

"He absolutely knew she was there," added Smith, a 20-year-old student from Missouri.I heard this story reported on public radio, and according to the account presented there, this is not a correct account of what happened.

It is perhaps too early to know what really took place.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


tit/tat/tit/tat

how about not destroying houses.

And why are houses destroyed? Because some idiot straped explosives to himself and killed a pregnant lady at a cafe.

tit/tat? You know, I hate to say it but you seem to have a lesser value for the human life than I do. That's rather sickening, but then not surprising coming from you

[Reginald]

It seems she was trying to block 2 bulldozers and a tank, however the Israelis have claimed that due to the bulltproofing on these things the driver did not see her.

A thing like this was bound to happen, in fact its suprising that it dosnt happen more often.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Reginald
It seems she was trying to block 2 bulldozers and a tank, however the Israelis have claimed that due to the bulltproofing on these things the driver did not see her.

A thing like this was bound to happen, in fact its suprising that it dosnt happen more often.

Not too surprising really. Most sane people don't think 100 plus something pounds of flesh, blood, bone and water will stop several tons of steel and therefore don't stand in front of them.

[Vega 4]

This conflict between the Hamas liberation group and the terrorist regime of the Jewish state will only end through bloodshed. Peace is not an option because an agreement will never be reached. The Jews want the same thing that the Palestians want. Therefore fighting will occur. In the end, it will not be the ones with the most technology or man-power that will win. The one with the most willpower will win.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Troll


Not too surprising really. Most sane people don't think 100 plus something pounds of flesh, blood, bone and water will stop several tons of steel and therefore don't stand in front of them.

You mean this guy
http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/leaders/images/profilepix/rebel.jpg
is crazy?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Vega 4
This conflict between the Hamas liberation group and the terrorist regime of the Jewish state will only end through bloodshed. Peace is not an option because an agreement will never be reached. The Jews want the same thing that the Palestians want. Therefore fighting will occur. In the end, it will not be the ones with the most technology or man-power that will win. The one with the most willpower will win.

so what is it that the Jews and the Palestinians want then?

[Troll]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


You mean this guy
http://i.timeinc.net/time/time100/leaders/images/profilepix/rebel.jpg
is crazy?

yeah. He was a nut. sure, it worked for him. But it apparently doesn't work for everyone, does it? If I hunted bear with a knife and was successful, would you try it or consider me a lucky nut?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Troll


yeah. He was a nut. sure, it worked for him. But it apparently doesn't work for everyone, does it? If I hunted bear with a knife and was successful, would you try it or consider me a lucky nut?

Which sorta is the tangental point I was trying to make.

How big are you? What size was the bear? A really big knife or a pocket folder? Too many factors are involved.

Given the governments previous actions, the man in the photo had more reason to suspect that the tank would run him over than the girl had to think that the bulldozer would, yet he stopped a while column while she was smushed.

[Troll]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Which sorta is the tangental point I was trying to make.

How big are you? What size was the bear? A really big knife or a pocket folder? Too many factors are involved.

Given the governments previous actions, the man in the photo had more reason to suspect that the tank would run him over than the girl had to think that the bulldozer would, yet he stopped a while column while she was smushed.

Didn't work out that way though, did it? man stopping chinese tanks doesn't mean woman can stop israeli bulldozer. Me stopping a bear with a spork doesn't mean you can stop one or a deer or elk or whatever, with a larger knife. Well okay, an actual knife.

either way you're a nut if you try. Doesn't mean you may not be successful. doesn't change the fact that you're a nut for trying.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Troll


And why are houses destroyed? Because some idiot straped explosives to himself and killed a pregnant lady at a cafe.

tit/tat? You know, I hate to say it but you seem to have a lesser value for the human life than I do. That's rather sickening, but then not surprising coming from you

Houses and farms have been getting bulldozed in Palestine for the past 50 years. Where have you been while that was going on?

You can't tell me that they didn't know she wasn't there. There would have been snipers and support troops all over the place. she was wearing a bright orange day glo vest.

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Houses and farms have been getting bulldozed in Palestine for the past 50 years. Where have you been while that was going on?

You can't tell me that they didn't know she wasn't there. There would have been snipers and support troops all over the place. she was wearing a bright orange day glo vest.

Bright orange panels on the roof of military vehichles didn't stop us from having friendly fire accidents in the Gulf. Tiny little chick? Probably a little harder to see, especially if you're coming down after having gone up over something. did they mention the trajectory of the dozer or are they just whining that some moron stood in front of heavy machinery and was killed?

But let's go back and have you answer the real question here, AUP. How do we stop the violence? I say we stop the suicide bombings that result in retaliation like this.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Palestinians have, it seems, two choices. They can be quiet and the world pays no attention to them, or they can resist and be deemed terrorists.
How about this third choice: apply for Israeli citizenship, run for a seat in the Knesset, and change the system legally.

The problem with this third choice: it requires accepting a secular democracy tolerant of a plurality of religious beliefs, as opposed to an Islamic theocracy which excludes non-Muslims from power.

[crackmonkey]

Frankly, she got what was coming to her. I can't say that I'm glad, but I can't say I'm surprised, either.
I find it hard to believe that the driver ran her over deliberately, though... it would be far less hassle for the IDF troops to just grab her and drag her out of the way than to make that idiot a martyr and give the press a field day.

[rikzilla]

The Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives: by eliminating themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chance of long-term survival. In other words, they are cautionary tales about people who kill themselves in really stupid ways, and in doing so, significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race.

These individuals carry out disastrous plans that any average pre-teen knows are the result of a really bad idea. The single-minded purpose and self-sacrifice of the winners, and the spectacular means by which they snuff themselves, make them candidates for the honor of winning a Darwin Award. The terrorist who mails a letter bomb with insufficient postage deserves to win a Darwin Award when he blows himself up opening the returned package. As does the fisherman who throws a lit stick of dynamite for his faithful golden retriever to fetch and return to him. As do the surfers who celebrate a hurricane by throwing a beachfront party and getting washed out to sea.

Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards represent examples of evolution in action by showing what happens to people who are unable to cope with the basic dangers of the modern world. These ironic tales of fatal misadventure illustrate some of life's most important lessons.

Most of us know instinctively that the words "trust me" and "light this fuse" are a recipe for disaster. We assume that basic common sense eliminates the need for public service announcements such as, "Warning: Coffee is hot!" and "Superman cape does not enable wearer to fly." But the true stories you will read show that common sense is really not so common. No amount of overzealous caution would have helped the man who used household current to electrocute fish in a pond, then waded in to collect his catch without removing the wire. As you'll see, there are even people who need to be told not to peek inside a gas can using a cigarette lighter.

The Darwin Awards are macabre tales that make us laugh while instructing us in the laws of common sense. Consider the man who crawled under the roller coaster guardrail to retrieve his hat. When the next coaster came by, an unfortunate rider broke her leg on his skull. Ouch! From our point of view, the man who lost his head is a Darwin Award winner, and his story is just another episode in the saga of survival of the fittest.

The Darwin Awards can be considered a rusty chromosome award for those who douse the gene pool with chlorine.

Sounds like this idiot fits the bill. Luckily she snuffed herself before pro-creating and passing along the stupid gene. I've submitted her to "Darwin" for consideration. She's likely too political to make the list, but who knows. (I included a note... submitted by A Unique Person!)
;) :p

-zilla

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Sounds like this idiot fits the bill. Luckily she snuffed herself before pro-creating and passing along the stupid gene.

Is it necessary to be this heartless? Weren't you ever young, naive and idealistic once?

[Troll]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Is it necessary to be this heartless? Weren't you ever young, naive and idealistic once?

yeah, I was and I joined the Marines to fight for my cause. They actually gave me anti-tank weapons instead of trying to convince me of stopping one with my body

[Cleopatra]

Thank you Dr.Benway. It's also a matter of respect towards a dead person.It's not noble to mock at dead people.

I have had this discussion before in a quite an anti-Semetic environment, I feel much more comfortable now.

Palestinians have always been pro-violence. Always? Since when? Since 1967 of course, when the Arab World acknowledged them for the first time the right to proclaim themselves as Palestinians ( as you recall, before the 6 days War, the Arab world didn’t recognize a separate Palestinian Nation )of course very few remember such details in our days…

The leadership of PLO especially Yasser Arafat consists a group of common killers. Arafat hasn’t murdered his “enemies” only but he has vanished his political opponents within PLO as well…

These are unquestionable facts but on the other hand…

Do you know how is to be young and live in a refugee camp where the basics, as education and medical care doesn't exist?
Have you ever been to Israel? Have you ever walked in the restricted areas of Jerusalem and find yourselves "examined" ( sorry but it reminded me of a medical procedure when it happened to me) by the Israeli soldiers...
Have you ever felt unable to react when someone mocks at your national identity?
What will you do if you were desperate,uneducated and someone promised you Heavens if you became a suicide bomber...You would have nothing to lose. You have a 50% to go to Heavens after all...

Let's think what makes them killers? Can we do something to stop them?

This is the question, in my opinion.

One more thing of moral nature. Jews have been threw Hell during the past century. Don't you think that they have the ultimate obligation to show the World what Humanity is?

I feel I have this obligation towards my anchestors, those who have died in the camps and those they have survived.

[CapelDodger]

from crackmonkey:
Wasn't the PLO responsible for starting the Lebanese civil war?
No. The Lebanon is a very complicated place, ethnically, religiously and politically and many factors contributed to the crack-up of the state. The creation of the expellee problem in 48-49 certainly didn't help. One factor was the alliance between the Israelis and the Christian Falange (long before the invasion). Israel has always had an interest in the destabilisation of Lebanon, as what is now southern Lebanon is part of the early projected territory of the National Home/Jewish State/Kingdom of God. I suspect we'll be seeing more activity there quite soon - after all, it wasn't Sharon who wanted to pull out.

[Cleopatra]

In fact to be exact it was not Israel's fault at first place.

The problem started with the Constitution of Lebanon, according to which the seats in the Cabinet were divided according the percentages of the population( ratio between Chrstians and Muslims)

For years, Christians were the majority but as years passed, Muslims dominated the area and they started asking for more power in the government...

Things were going very tensed and try to imagine who encouraged the phalangites to start the War? Israelis? No. ...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrBenway


Is it necessary to be this heartless? Weren't you ever young, naive and idealistic once?

1. yes,...this situation cries out for it.
2. yes
a.) not really
b.) nope

This person was not only a traitor to the US and an enemy of Israel...but was a very good candidate as a possible terrorist herself. She killed herself, through her own obstinate stupidity.

She is a Darwin (http://www.darwinawards.com/) candidate if ever I saw one.

People die. Sometimes it's tragic like the 7 brave astronauts aboard Columbia. But mostly it's just natural. I don't expect strangers to mourn me at my death...... I hope I don't die stupid so that they laugh..... but if I died stupid I wouldn't blame the people who laugh....I'd put the blame where it belonged, on myself.

There was a thread on this forum after 9/11 that was full of people saying that the policemen and fire-fighters who died at the WTC were not heroes...just people doing their jobs. What these people failed to understand was that the job description of policeman and fireman is hero. Why should I mourn, or be sensitive to the death of a demented traitor...when so many here can't even stomach the term "hero" in relation to those who gave their lives on 9/11?

-z

[Wile E. Coyote]

Hmm, let's see. Israel kills innocent houses, and Palestine kills innocent people.

Oops, a misinformed idealist forgets that maybe she cannot be seen by the bulldozer operator.

Unfortunate, but where exactly is the gray area?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by tjwojo


Oops, a misinformed idealist forgets that maybe she cannot be seen by the bulldozer operator.



Believe me, she was seen... I don't critize this because If I was wearing my country's uniform and I was operating this machine,I 'd probably do the same but don't fool yourselves. She was seen and killed.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Frankly, she got what was coming to her. I can't say that I'm glad, but I can't say I'm surprised, either.
I find it hard to believe that the driver ran her over deliberately, though... it would be far less hassle for the IDF troops to just grab her and drag her out of the way than to make that idiot a martyr and give the press a field day.

funnily enough, thats what a lot of people said about 9/11....

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by rikzilla

1. yes,...this situation cries out for it.

I must be getting old. I think of people in their early 20's as kids, and I have a visceral sense of sadness when I hear of a young person's death, especially if that death is gruesome.

I don't believe that gallows humor serves the cause of my country well in this instance.

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


funnily enough, thats what a lot of people said about 9/11....

Wow, there goes your credibility.

I don't recall the people in the World Trade Center actively protesting planes being flown into them, and I cannot remember if they were given any warning.

Seriously, if you are going to protest something by bodily throwing yourself in harm's way, then you have to be willing to be harmed. To expect otherwise is hypocritical.

Her idealism killed her, not the operator of the bulldozer.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


funnily enough, thats what a lot of people said about 9/11....

All of that, or some particular bit of it?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sounds like this idiot fits the bill. Luckily she snuffed herself before pro-creating and passing along the stupid gene. I've submitted her to "Darwin" for consideration. She's likely too political to make the list, but who knows. (I included a note... submitted by A Unique Person!)
;) :p

-zilla

Are you taking a correspondence course from the George Bush school of Diplomacy and Political Science, or does this social ineptitude come naturally?

It may not occur to you but if you treat the killing ( don't know if it was murder or not ) of a non violent protester with disdain you provide a perfect justification for violence.

Still the Israelis found out how to provoke violent resistance a long time ago so I don't think they have much to learn from this incident.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway


I must be getting old. I think of people in their early 20's as kids, and I have a visceral sense of sadness when I hear of a young person's death, especially if that death is gruesome.

I don't believe that gallows humor serves the cause of my country well in this instance.

Speaking words of wisdom...

Thanks again, I was so disturbed by those posts....

[Tmy]

Didn't you get the memo? The Israeli government can do no wrong!


Im sure her death was an accident.........the driver thought she was an Arab.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by tjwojo


Wow, there goes your credibility.

I don't recall the people in the World Trade Center actively protesting planes being flown into them, and I cannot remember if they were given any warning.

Seriously, if you are going to protest something by bodily throwing yourself in harm's way, then you have to be willing to be harmed. To expect otherwise is hypocritical.

Her idealism killed her, not the operator of the bulldozer.

Her mistake was in expecting a modest amount of civilised behaviour from the Israeli occupying forces when dealing with non violent protest.

Similar tactics were used by non violent protestors to disrupt rail services in British India. They were cleared from the lines, if necessary with some violence, but were neither shot nor squashed.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk


Her mistake was in expecting a modest amount of civilised behaviour from the Israeli occupying forces when dealing with non violent protest.


Ah no no no please allow me... She made the common mistake, visitors of Israel do. She hadn't realized that in Israel there is a War, they don't play games, it's a War about survival...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tmy
Didn't you get the memo? The Israeli government can do no wrong!


Im sure her death was an accident.........the driver thought she was an Arab.

The driver would have known she was there. If he had any qualms about the situation, he would have been ordered to run her over.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


All of that, or some particular bit of it?

Frankly, she got what was coming to her. I can't say that I'm glad, but I can't say I'm surprised, either.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
I feel I have this obligation towards my anchestors, those who have died in the camps and those they have survived
Combining the issues of the concentration camps and Zionism only serves to muddy the waters. Modern, nationalist Zionism was in place long before Hitler got involved in politics. It was very much a minority interest among European Jews (in which I include the Americans). Israel was a nationalist, colonialist scheme started just as European colonialism entered its dying phase. The borders were drawn up by Europeans in a time when drawing lines on maps of places you didn't live in was regarded as perfectly normal. By the 1920's it was clear to even the most hopeful that immigration would never achieve a Jewish majority in the projected Jewish State and that the Arabs would have to go. Even the most mealy-mouthed Zionists spoke of 'population transfer' by 'arrangement' with the Palestinians, but people like Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky made no bones about what would have to be done. And was done. The project has never changed for people like Sharon, the military establishment and the settlers. Whatever the ins-and-outs of who did what to whom most recently, the current situation was always inevitable. The Palestinians could go quietly or kicking and spitting, but they were always going to go. And for what? The civil war that would follow an Israeli achievement of a 'Jewish' (rather, non-Arab) majority in Israel would be particularly nasty, I suspect. No good ever comes from nationalism.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
from crackmonkey:

No. The Lebanon is a very complicated place, ethnically, religiously and politically and many factors contributed to the crack-up of the state. The creation of the expellee problem in 48-49 certainly didn't help. One factor was the alliance between the Israelis and the Christian Falange (long before the invasion). Israel has always had an interest in the destabilisation of Lebanon, as what is now southern Lebanon is part of the early projected territory of the National Home/Jewish State/Kingdom of God. I suspect we'll be seeing more activity there quite soon - after all, it wasn't Sharon who wanted to pull out.

but it is easier to just be ignorant of history and line up the usual suspects.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

How about this third choice: apply for Israeli citizenship, run for a seat in the Knesset, and change the system legally.

The problem with this third choice: it requires accepting a secular democracy tolerant of a plurality of religious beliefs, as opposed to an Islamic theocracy which excludes non-Muslims from power.
israel has very strict citizenship laws, IIRC.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Nikk

Similar tactics were used by non violent protestors to disrupt rail services in British India. They were cleared from the lines, if necessary with some violence, but were neither shot nor squashed.
You cannot compare the non-violent protests in India with what is happening in Israel and the west bank/Gaza.

In India, Ghandi's followers were non-violent to the extreme. In the West Bank/Gaza, stone throwing by Palistinian kids is common. People cheer suicide bombers. Ambulances are used by the Palistinians to transport weapons. With that much voilence coming from the Palistinian side, the Israelis can never assume that a protest will be 'peaceful'. Please don't equate the Palistinian actions with what Ghandi and his followers did.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The driver would have known she was there. If he had any qualms about the situation, he would have been ordered to run her over.

Maybe he thought she had enough brains to actually get out of the way.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

israel has very strict citizenship laws, IIRC.

This is wrong too, I am afraid :)

[Tony]

My only regret is that I wasnt there to run the bitch over myself.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Cleopatra:

Combining the issues of the concentration camps and Zionism only serves to muddy the waters. Modern, nationalist Zionism was in place long before Hitler got involved in politics. It was very much a minority interest among European Jews (in which I include the Americans). Israel was a nationalist, colonialist scheme started just as European colonialism entered its dying phase. The borders were drawn up by Europeans in a time when drawing lines on maps of places you didn't live in was regarded as perfectly normal. By the 1920's it was clear to even the most hopeful that immigration would never achieve a Jewish majority in the projected Jewish State and that the Arabs would have to go. Even the most mealy-mouthed Zionists spoke of 'population transfer' by 'arrangement' with the Palestinians, but people like Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky made no bones about what would have to be done. And was done. The project has never changed for people like Sharon, the military establishment and the settlers. Whatever the ins-and-outs of who did what to whom most recently, the current situation was always inevitable. The Palestinians could go quietly or kicking and spitting, but they were always going to go. And for what? The civil war that would follow an Israeli achievement of a 'Jewish' (rather, non-Arab) majority in Israel would be particularly nasty, I suspect. No good ever comes from nationalism.

Ok Let's talk about a period in History that fascinates me!!

Yes you are right, Zionism, is an old story. I use the term Zionism the way Hertzl used it" The right of Jews to have a State of their own" This is Zionism, nothing else!

As you remember, in the first Zionists congresses, The Promised Land wasn't the only land in question for the creation of a the State of Israel.

Places in Africa and even in Greece ( !!!) were proposed as lands for a state to be.

Back in the 30ies, those lands weren't what we currently see. AND most of them they were bought by Jews...

What distinguishes Ben Ghourion form todays' leaders is that he had a clear vision about the Israel he wanted, he was a wise man. He knew that if they had to create a state , this should have been done patiently. Step by step!

As for that: The civil war that would follow an Israeli achievement of a 'Jewish' (rather, non-Arab) majority in Israel would be particularly nasty, I suspect.

I have never read that in a forum before and I am amazed. This is what I believe too....

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tony
My only regret is that I wasnt there to run the bitch over myself.

yes, it has been too long since the last big war, i think we are just about ready for another.

[ssibal]

http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/rachel-corrie-pal-funeral.jpg

In an ironic twist, a mock funeral was held for her. Pretty funny that the same people who regularly burn U.S. flags covered her, someone who burns U.S. flags, with a U.S. flag.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Ok Let's talk about a period in History that fascinates me!!

Yes you are right, Zionism, is an old story. I use the term Zionism the way Hertzl used it" The right of Jews to have a State of their own" This is Zionism, nothing else!

As you remember, in the first Zionists congresses, The Promised Land wasn't the only land in question for the creation of a the State of Israel.

Places in Africa and even in Greece ( !!!) were proposed as lands for a state to be.

Back in the 30ies, those lands weren't what we currently see. AND most of them they were bought by Jews...

What distinguishes Ben Ghourion form todays' leaders is that he had a clear vision about the Israel he wanted, he was a wise man. He knew that if they had to create a state , this should have been done patiently. Step by step!

As for that:

I have never read that in a forum before and I am amazed. This is what I believe too....

this has been the problem all along. the creation of a state involved a place that already had a population. every time this point is raised, it is then justified by saying that israel has made the place better than the original inhabitants. a basic error of logical argument.

ben gurion was a clever and determined man, as for wise, i would not agree. a wise man would have seen that the current situation in the area was the logical outcome.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


1. yes,...this situation cries out for it.
2. yes
a.) not really
b.) nope

This person was not only a traitor to the US and an enemy of Israel...but was a very good candidate as a possible terrorist herself. She killed herself, through her own obstinate stupidity.

She is a Darwin (http://www.darwinawards.com/) candidate if ever I saw one.

People die. Sometimes it's tragic like the 7 brave astronauts aboard Columbia. But mostly it's just natural. I don't expect strangers to mourn me at my death...... I hope I don't die stupid so that they laugh..... but if I died stupid I wouldn't blame the people who laugh....I'd put the blame where it belonged, on myself.

There was a thread on this forum after 9/11 that was full of people saying that the policemen and fire-fighters who died at the WTC were not heroes...just people doing their jobs. What these people failed to understand was that the job description of policeman and fireman is hero. Why should I mourn, or be sensitive to the death of a demented traitor...when so many here can't even stomach the term "hero" in relation to those who gave their lives on 9/11?

-z

a traitor. america, the land of the free, freedom of speech, the individual, the leader of world freedom, but make sure you aren't a traitor. Make sure you conform.

[Cleopatra]

I like simple thoughts, not simplistic though

Do you aknowledge to the Jews the right to have a state of their own?
If yes, you must have expected that some problems would have been caused by the creation of a new State.
If you don't, then I see no problem. You are pro the break up of the State of Israel.

Simple thoughts and let's be Honest to each other.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
ben gurion was a clever and determined man, as for wise, i would not agree. a wise man would have seen that the current situation in the area was the logical outcome.

You see, the real problem for Israel started after the Six Days War...
In my opinion Israel should have returned the West Bank to Jordan IMMEDIATELY after the end of the War.
It didn't do it and now it has to pay the concequencies.

I observe that you see things from a distance. It's normal, of course but don't expect people that they are in War and they wear military Uniforms to behave the way you would.

It's a War and "in War and in Love no rules exist..."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I like simple thoughts, not simplistic though

Do you aknowledge to the Jews the right to have a state of their own?
If yes, you must have expected that some problems would have been caused by the creation of a new State.
If you don't, then I see no problem. You are pro the break up of the State of Israel.



false dichotomy, but thank you for asking, other pro-israelis on this forum have never bothered. I would not have supported the creation of the state of israel, because it ignored the existence of the palestinians.

However, there is not much doubt that israel exists now, so it isn't going away. Does israel have a right to exist. Just as much as any other country formed by conquest. Australia, the US, New Zealand. The list goes on and on.

Unfortunately, the current thinking appears to be that this same process can now be applied to what is left of palestine. The process of conquest is still in train, but once, complete, the issue will be resolved. the problem is that the palestinians don't want to be conquered.



Simple thoughts and let's be Honest to each other.



You see, the real problem for Israel started after the Six Days War...
In my opinion Israel should have returned the West Bank to Jordan IMMEDIATELY after the end of the War.
It didn't do it and now it has to pay the concequencies.

I observe that you see things from a distance. It's normal, of course but don't expect people that they are in War and they wear military Uniforms to behave the way you would.

It's a War and "in War and in Love no rules exist..."

The six days war is part of the process of conquest. Dayan has already admitted Israel was pushing for the war. That is why the land has never been returned. That is why, amongst the noise of the next war in Iraq, Sharon is pushing the US to drop it's stance that palestine should be an autonomous state, and that is should be a territory of limited soveriegnty, with all water rights ceded to Israel, which cannot now exist as a state with the the subterranean water it is using for it's green 'miracle'.

If war has no rules, then Israel can hardly complain about suicide bombers. As far as I can tell, Sharon sees israeli casualties as the price to be paid for the conquest of the rest of palestine. Since he took office, the rate of bombings has never been higher.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

false dichotomy, but thank you for asking, other pro-israelis on this forum have never bothered.

I am rather pro-Cleopatra, Sir. Please, keep this in mind.

I would not have supported the creation of the state of israel, because it ignored the existence of the palestinians.

Oh please! The existence of Palestinians was ignored even by the Arabs... " You are Syrians!" This is what they told them. " Go to Syria"...
It was Nasher the first who talked about Palestinians.And of course, after he lost the War...

Don't ask me to respect the Arab nations. What have they done to support their brothers? Have they stop the production of oil just for one minute in order to push West to deal with the Palestinian issue? Of course not!

Palestinians will get the State they deserve but they will take it because of the Israelis. The Palestinian state will be founded on israeli blood as well.


The six days war is part of the process of conquest. Dayan has already admitted Israel was pushing for the war.

Do you know where can I find this? I happen to have read every single page that has been written on the issue.
The Six Days War , was a defensive war and legally speaking, accoring to the Geneva threaty, Israel doesn't have to give back the occupied territories but Israel actually talks about this...

If war has no rules, then Israel can hardly complain about suicide bombers.

Suicide bombers , do not die for their country but for Allah. Check their site... They die for Allah I would respect them if they were soldiers sacrificing themselves for their country. I don't respect anybody who dies for a religion. I am sorry.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


funnily enough, thats what a lot of people said about 9/11....

I don't recall anyone saying "I find it hard to believe that the pilot crashed into the towers deliberately, though... it would be far less hassle ... than to make that idiot a martyr and give the press a field day." or anything like that. There is no doubt September 11 was deliberate. This incident OTOH was likely an unfortunate mistake. The IDF typically do move people out of the buildings before demolishing them. It is just unfortunate for her that they did not notice her in time.

[Tony]

Here's (http://silflayhraka.blogspot.com/2003_03_16_silflayhraka_archive.html#90829505) a dossier of this fanatic.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I would not have supported the creation of the state of israel, because it ignored the existence of the palestinians.

Would you have supported the existence of a Jewish homeland anywhere in the world? Or are you only opposed because of the location and current inhabitants? And if this group of people does not deserve a homeland, why should any other ethnic group? Personally I think there are still several more ethnic groups that deserve their own homelands.

However, there is not much doubt that israel exists now, so it isn't going away. Does israel have a right to exist. Just as much as any other country formed by conquest. Australia, the US, New Zealand. The list goes on and on.

Yes it does. In fact if you go far enough back, almost every nation was formed via conquest of one sort or another. There are a very few that have been given their land, but even in Europe where the counties are older, most are not owned by their original inhabitants. So the distinction is basically meaningless.

Unfortunately, the current thinking appears to be that this same process can now be applied to what is left of palestine. The process of conquest is still in train, but once, complete, the issue will be resolved. the problem is that the palestinians don't want to be conquered.

OK. I will agree with you there. However, that land was never part of a state of Palestine. It was part of Jordan (West Bank) or Egypt (Gaza Strip). So if Israel did set up an independent Palestinian state (and in all likelihood I think the US and EU will pressure them into it) they well have done something for the Palestinians that their Arab brethren never did. The Arab nations left the Palestinians to suffer just so that they would have more to blame Israel for in the world's eyes. Of course Israel played right into their hands...

The six days war is part of the process of conquest. Dayan has already admitted Israel was pushing for the war. That is why the land has never been returned. That is why, amongst the noise of the next war in Iraq, Sharon is pushing the US to drop it's stance that palestine should be an autonomous state, and that is should be a territory of limited soveriegnty, with all water rights ceded to Israel, which cannot now exist as a state with the the subterranean water it is using for it's green 'miracle'.

I doubt that is going to happen. The US needs to support a Palestinian state now so that we can get more cooperation from the Arab nations. Israel is no longer as important to the US as it once was and if a new Iraqi regime becomes and stays friendly to the US, Israel will be even less important to the US than they are today. As for the water issue, that is exactly what made the proposed Palestinian state non-viable. However, I am not an expert of water resources. Can anyone out there tell me if there is some arrangement that would allow both Israel and Palestine to have enough water for their populations?[/B][/QUOTE]

If war has no rules, then Israel can hardly complain about suicide bombers. As far as I can tell, Sharon sees israeli casualties as the price to be paid for the conquest of the rest of palestine. Since he took office, the rate of bombings has never been higher.

I don't think even the Israelis want to go that far. The "no rules" thing is a saying. I don't think either side takes it literally as yet. Certainly Israel does not. They have had more than the necessary military capacity to exterminate the Palestinians had they wanted to. And there was a time when even in that case the US would likely have supported them out of self interest (the need for bases in the region during the Cold War). That time has passed. Israel will eventually have to accept a Palestinian state. Most Israelis already do. It is only the actions of the terrorists themselves that keeps Sharon in power.

[crackmonkey]

I understand what you were getting at with your comment, AUP... but I trust you understand that there's an immense difference between deliberately putting oneself in harm's way and being the victim of a sneak attack.
Similar to the difference between blowing your head off while playing Russian roulette and being shot by a sniper...

As far as your slap at my historical acumen, you're wrong. The PLO set up shop in West Beirut in 1970, greatly increasing the hostility that had been brewing between Christians and Muslims since '48 ( actually, there had been some friction for years, but the influx of Palestinians raised tensions). The civil war started in '75 after the PLO raided into Israel from Lebanon and the Lebanese military tried to stop them. At that point, the PLO threw its might behind the Muslims, and the war was on. Has any nation yet benefited from Arafat's presence? How many nations has his band of cutthroats been kicked out of?
But I digress...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Oh please! The existence of Palestinians was ignored even by the Arabs... " You are Syrians!" This is what they told them. " Go to Syria"...



well, what has that got to do with anything? i would expect the issue to be one of what the palestinians thought about themselves



It was Nasher the first who talked about Palestinians.And of course, after he lost the War...

Don't ask me to respect the Arab nations. What have they done to support their brothers? Have they stop the production of oil just for one minute in order to push West to deal with the Palestinian issue? Of course not!



no one is asking you to respect the arab nations, just the palestinian people.



Palestinians will get the State they deserve but they will take it because of the Israelis. The Palestinian state will be founded on israeli blood as well.



yes, the bloodshed won't be over till everyone is sick of it. that appears to be the course of many wars.





Do you know where can I find this? I happen to have read every single page that has been written on the issue.
The Six Days War , was a defensive war and legally speaking, accoring to the Geneva threaty, Israel doesn't have to give back the occupied territories but Israel actually talks about this...



A very interesting interview with moshe dayan (http://www.hagalil.com/GuShalom/maamarim/dayan.htm)

The legal point is not so simple either.

http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/16/1047749662993.htm



The US would be legally obliged to spend Iraq's oil and gas profits on the welfare of the Iraqi people should the "coalition of the willing" occupy the country without UN sanction, a legal expert says.

Professor Gillian Triggs says The Hague Convention of 1907 clearly stated that it was the legal obligation of a belligerent occupier to take all measures to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order or safety.

"The occupying power can use the oil and gas resources but must do so for the benefit of the people and essentially to meet the cost of the occupying force," she said yesterday. "It's not a difficult area of law."

Until hostilities are over, The Hague Convention says that occupation must be considered temporary, and any structural changes must be made in accordance with the temporary nature of the occupation.

The occupying power cannot treat the territory as its own, nor the inhabitants as its subjects. Annexation would be illegal and the occupier cannot requisition property for its own use, but is the temporary administrator of public buildings, real estate, farms and forests.






Suicide bombers , do not die for their country but for Allah. Check their site... They die for Allah I would respect them if they were soldiers sacrificing themselves for their country. I don't respect anybody who dies for a religion. I am sorry.

I don't know if it is that simple, as you have already pointed out, the despair they feel in their lives means that even if they weren't promised any virgins, many would still do it. there have even been female bombers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Advocate


Would you have supported the existence of a Jewish homeland anywhere in the world? Or are you only opposed because of the location and current inhabitants? And if this group of people does not deserve a homeland, why should any other ethnic group? Personally I think there are still several more ethnic groups that deserve their own homelands.



nothing is ever so simple. all cases have to be judged on their own merits. wars are being fought all around the world over similar problems. The jewish situation was unique in that they had been booted out of their homeland two thousand years ago. that is a lot of water under the bridge. all the other conflicts, AFAIK, are being fought be the inhabititants. Eg, Tamil Tigers, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, etc.

Was there anywhere else in the world that would have done? The zionists also considered this option. It was unfortunate for the palestinians that they just happened to be living in the wrong place.



Yes it does. In fact if you go far enough back, almost every nation was formed via conquest of one sort or another. There are a very few that have been given their land, but even in Europe where the counties are older, most are not owned by their original inhabitants. So the distinction is basically meaningless.



I think the modern idea, though, is that wars of conquest are a thing of the past. All the land on the planet has been claimed, there is nothing left to 'discover'.


OK. I will agree with you there. However, that land was never part of a state of Palestine. It was part of Jordan (West Bank) or Egypt (Gaza Strip). So if Israel did set up an independent Palestinian state (and in all likelihood I think the US and EU will pressure them into it) they well have done something for the Palestinians that their Arab brethren never did. The Arab nations left the Palestinians to suffer just so that they would have more to blame Israel for in the world's eyes. Of course Israel played right into their hands...



once again we have the problem of colonialism leaving behind a mess of conflicts. the 'countries' you have referred to were basically drawn on a map by the British, IIRC. The ability of colonialists to draw lines has led to numerous wars in africa as well. Often, a minority was taken on as the administrators of a majority. This is what has led to the massacre in Rwanda, for example.



I doubt that is going to happen. The US needs to support a Palestinian state now so that we can get more cooperation from the Arab nations. Israel is no longer as important to the US as it once was and if a new Iraqi regime becomes and stays friendly to the US, Israel will be even less important to the US than they are today. As for the water issue, that is exactly what made the proposed Palestinian state non-viable. However, I am not an expert of water resources. Can anyone out there tell me if there is some arrangement that would allow both Israel and Palestine to have enough water for their populations?

Palestine does have subterranean water, which is currently mostly being used by Israel. Water is just as much a cause of conflict as anything else, though.

The US is committed to Israel. Sharon is pushing for the abandonment of an independant state right now.



I don't think even the Israelis want to go that far. The "no rules" thing is a saying. I don't think either side takes it literally as yet. Certainly Israel does not. They have had more than the necessary military capacity to exterminate the Palestinians had they wanted to. And there was a time when even in that case the US would likely have supported them out of self interest (the need for bases in the region during the Cold War). That time has passed. Israel will eventually have to accept a Palestinian state. Most Israelis already do. It is only the actions of the terrorists themselves that keeps Sharon in power.

They could, but the international animosity they would create would take a long time to get over, and they need the rest of the world. My bet is that Israel is slowly but surely, house by bulldozed house, taking over palestine by stealth. Every day claws back a little more territory. More settlers, more water, more houses knocked down, more land cleared for defense, more land taken for roads, more security fences constructed.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Was there anywhere else in the world that would have done? The zionists also considered this option. It was unfortunate for the palestinians that they just happened to be living in the wrong place.

I think the modern idea, though, is that wars of conquest are a thing of the past. All the land on the planet has been claimed, there is nothing left to 'discover'.

I heard they even considered someplace in South America. Don't have any references to it though. But pretty much all the land on Earth (except maybe a few small islands and of course Antarctica) is taken.

once again we have the problem of colonialism leaving behind a mess of conflicts. the 'countries' you have referred to were basically drawn on a map by the British, IIRC. The ability of colonialists to draw lines has led to numerous wars in africa as well. Often, a minority was taken on as the administrators of a majority. This is what has led to the massacre in Rwanda, for example.

Drawing maps to satisfy all the various ethnic groups is difficult. They couldn't even do it in their own backyard - Yugoslavia.

Palestine does have subterranean water, which is currently mostly being used by Israel. Water is just as much a cause of conflict as anything else, though.

But is there enough to support both states? IMHO this was one of the biggest problems with the previous proposal for a Palestinian state - it was left dependent on Israel for water.

The US is committed to Israel. Sharon is pushing for the abandonment of an independant state right now.

I think you overestime the US commitment to Israel. As the US gets closer to Arab nations (assuming this happens) Israel will be seen as more of a liability and support will decline. It has already started. Could you imagine even this level of support for an independent Palestine 25 years ago?

They could, but the international animosity they would create would take a long time to get over, and they need the rest of the world. My bet is that Israel is slowly but surely, house by bulldozed house, taking over palestine by stealth. Every day claws back a little more territory. More settlers, more water, more houses knocked down, more land cleared for defense, more land taken for roads, more security fences constructed.

Personally I think this is a classic case of trying to get a good bargaining position. The more they grab now, the less of what they have now that they have to give up. I don't think even the settlements already built will all remain in Israeli hands in the end. I just feel bad for the people - Jewish and Palestinian - who are shifted around as pawns in this bargaining.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Brown
I heard this story reported on public radio, and according to the account presented there, this is not a correct account of what happened.

It is perhaps too early to know what really took place.

From my sources, I heard she kneeled in front of the bulldozer to show she wasn't moving, but this put her below where the driver could see her. When she saw the bulldozer wasn't stopping, she got up to run away, but got burried under the rubble and then hit by the blade.

When the driver realized what happened, he backed up and she was taken by her friends to the hospital, where she died.

It's a tragedy, but it's noones fault but her own. She put herself into a warzone, and disrupted a foreign military for no good reason.

She died because she put herself in harms way unnecessarily, she didn't "save" any Palestinians, she was egging them on to commit more atrocities and thus invite more responses.

-Ben

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


From my sources, I heard she kneeled in front of the bulldozer to show she wasn't moving, but this put her below where the driver could see her. When she saw the bulldozer wasn't stopping, she got up to run away, but got burried under the rubble and then hit by the blade.

When the driver realized what happened, he backed up and she was taken by her friends to the hospital, where she died.

It's a tragedy, but it's noones fault but her own. She put herself into a warzone, and disrupted a foreign military for no good reason.

She died because she put herself in harms way unnecessarily, she didn't "save" any Palestinians, she was egging them on to commit more atrocities and thus invite more responses.

-Ben

and you accuse me of blaming the victim. they don't need any urging to protest when their houses are being knocked down.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
and you accuse me of blaming the victim. they don't need any urging to protest when their houses are being knocked down.

Or when their schoolbusses are blowing up?

This protester had no right getting involved in a military matter. She would have been shot on sight in many countries, including Palestine, if it were another military carrying out an operation and she got in the way.

If she were, theoretically, protesting terrorism against Israelis by standing in the way, she would have been killed like anyone else.

Thus the moral inequivolance. She got involved in a military matter, and thus she was acting against a foreign military. Unfortunately, that makes her liable for the accident that inevitably happened.

-Ben

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


and you accuse me of blaming the victim. they don't need any urging to protest when their houses are being knocked down.

You seem to blame the victims more often when the victims are Jewish, AUP. Any reason you aren't protesting the half dozen Americans killed by Palestinians?

-Ben

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Or when their schoolbusses are blowing up?

This protester had no right getting involved in a military matter. She would have been shot on sight in many countries, including Palestine, if it were another military carrying out an operation and she got in the way.

If she were, theoretically, protesting terrorism against Israelis by standing in the way, she would have been killed like anyone else.

Thus the moral inequivolance. She got involved in a military matter, and thus she was acting against a foreign military. Unfortunately, that makes her liable for the accident that inevitably happened.

-Ben

it was a bulldozer knocking down a house. she was in plain view. but i guess he was only obeying orders.

[Tmy]

The "arab nations" are not some monolith. So many people see them as one big happy group. As if the other arab nations really care about the Palistineians.


Since we'll be in Iraq anyway, why dont we carve out a piece and give it to the Pali's! PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!

[Wile E. Coyote]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


it was a bulldozer knocking down a house. she was in plain view. but i guess he was only obeying orders.

I suppose if you are not going to look at the facts and just take whatever story justifies your hatred for the established, legitimate parties, then there is no use arguing with you.

It seems that truth does not matter in this situation. You have already determined that the big evil governments are oppressing the unfortunate freedom fighters, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Of course, my opinions are planted in me by the American government's nifty mind control device, so you can disregard those as well.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


and you accuse me of blaming the victim. they don't need any urging to protest when their houses are being knocked down.

HAHAHAHAH

So, tell us how throwing oneself in front of a moving bulldozer makes her a victim....In my view it makes her suicidal. Then the hypocrisy of burying her under the US flag...a flag she was busy burning the day before.

Obviously what the Palestinians need is to be heavily invaded and occupied. Have al it's leaders and terrorists jailed and tried. Have all it's schools re-staffed and re-formed into actual institutions of education instead of idiotic shrines to terrorism, which exhort these youngsters to commit more attrocities. They are lost in a cycle of terrorism...

-zilla

[Tmy]

Originally posted by rikzilla


HAHAHAHAH

So, tell us how throwing oneself in front of a moving bulldozer makes her a victim..-zilla

You make it sound like she was hiding behind some bushs and then leaped out in front of a speeding bulldozer at the last second.

They so knew she was there. She was protesting. The point of which is to be seen. They thought she was some silly disposable arab so they ran her down.

[rikzilla]

One of the most telling examples of leftist illogic is that not one of them has had the intellectual honesty to come out and admit the concrete fact that standing in front of a moving bulldozer is irrational, dangerous, and above all stupid.

-z

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by Tmy
Since we'll be in Iraq anyway, why dont we carve out a piece and give it to the Pali's! PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!

According to some wild speculation (and dag-nabit, I can not remember or find where I heard or read this) some of the Iraqi oil fields in southern Iraq will be given to Jordan (!) in exchange for a big chunk of land in western Jordan that, along with the occupied territories, will be used to create a Palestinian state. Again, wild RushLimboughesque style speculation.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by rikzilla
One of the most telling examples of leftist illogic is that not one of them has had the intellectual honesty to come out and admit the concrete fact that standing in front of a moving bulldozer is irrational, dangerous, and above all stupid.

-z

Of course its dangerous! The thought process is "they wont run me over". She was wrong.

Theses kind of protests go on all the time. Now ifthis happened in the states do you think she woudve been run over? No. The reaction is to call the police and have protesters carted off. Now in Israel, Im guessing they just bulldoze yer a#se over.

The underline current of the story: "the Isreali government is not the peace loving perpetual victims as they would have you believe." With a tinge of "this is why there are sucide bombers, cause peaceful demonstration would get us nowhere"

Just reading 'tween the lines.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tmy


Of course its dangerous! The thought process is "they wont run me over". She was wrong.

Theses kind of protests go on all the time. Now ifthis happened in the states do you think she woudve been run over? No. The reaction is to call the police and have protesters carted off. Now in Israel, Im guessing they just bulldoze yer a#se over.

The underline current of the story: "the Isreali government is not the peace loving perpetual victims as they would have you believe." With a tinge of "this is why there are sucide bombers, cause peaceful demonstration would get us nowhere"

Just reading 'tween the lines.

Maybe the bulldozer driver was tired...distracted...surprised? Why do you speculate that he did it deliberately? Truth is, he accidentally ran her over...she didn't accidentally move into harm's way.

'Sides...if he did...maybe he had a family member incinerated in a bus on the way to the market? Either way you cut it...terrorism is the cause of all the Palestinians troubles. If they'd had a leader like Ghandi or MLK they'd have had their own state many, many years ago.

[Cleopatra]

Tries to hide her disappointment after discovering that Mr.Unique was quoting Finkelstein to another thread..."Hey Grandma,19781 wasn’t the number on your left arm"?


Originally posted by a_unique_person

well, what has that got to do with anything? i would expect the issue to be one of what the palestinians thought about themselves

Lifts left eyebrow

It has to do with everything! Look what you have said to your previous post, addressing to me:"I would not have supported the creation of the state of israel, because it ignored the existence of the palestinians".

Palestinians were ignored by the Arabs, at first place, so I think it's too much to ask from the Israelis to take into consideration the Palestinians more than the Arabs did... Of course, people choose to forget this, because the next step, is to start thinking that Palestinians are used by the Arab World... Sad... I know.


no one is asking you to respect the arab nations, just the palestinian people.

I respect people, I have reservations towards policies. But until you find me disrespecting anybody, let’s avoid such pedantic suggestions.



A very interesting interview with moshe dayan

Left eyebrow lifted, again... My my my... an interview with a politician??Oh... please...

The legal point is not so simple either.


Let me answer both here. I wasn't talking about this legal matter. But you already know this...

For months before the outbreak of the Six Days War, general Nasser, was threatening Israel, on a daily basis, about a forthcoming Holocaust ( HIS words, not mine).It was a matter of days for the Arabs to attack Israel. Israel took the ultimate risk in its History and took the initiative to prevent the attack.

Strictly legally speaking, from the part of Israel this was a defensive War and according to the Geneva treaty, lands that are occupied in a defensive War are not considered as Occupied Territories...

Let's don't forget that... when we're bubbling about the status of the Gaza Strip...

But I believe that Israel should have returned the Gaza strip, to Jordan for political reasons. It would be fun to see that Hussein would never give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians to establish a state of their own…

I don't know if it is that simple, as you have already pointed out, the despair they feel in their lives means that even if they weren't promised any virgins, many would still do it. there have even been female bombers.

No, murdering civilians in the name of God is never simple but since you are able to quote Finkelstein so eloquently I expected you to grasp my point...

Arabs are using the despair of Palestinians to murder Israelis. They don't make them ask for a better life or a free country but they send them to Death in Allah's sake. This is the ugly truth.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Tries to hide her disappointment after discovering that Mr.Unique was quoting Finkelstein to another thread..."Hey Grandma,19781 wasn’t the number on your left arm"?



don't tell me i don't believe in the holocaust. people seem to get very easily confused around here. what do you actually mean by that statement, it is very unclear?



Lifts left eyebrow

It has to do with everything! Look what you have said to your previous post, addressing to me:"I would not have supported the creation of the state of israel, because it ignored the existence of the palestinians".

Palestinians were ignored by the Arabs, at first place, so I think it's too much to ask from the Israelis to take into consideration the Palestinians more than the Arabs did... Of course, people choose to forget this, because the next step, is to start thinking that Palestinians are used by the Arab World... Sad... I know.



that is a logical fallacy, pure and simple. because he did it, i can do it too.

the situation was, the jews had been getting a hard time for centuries from europeans, and naturally wanted to get away from all that. they europeans, in the end, were kind enough to say, here, you can have this palestinian land, this will solve the problem. In typical fashion, the jewish problem was solved by not solving it, and by using another race that was thought to be not quite civilised enough to be treated as equally human and with equal rights.



I respect people, I have reservations towards policies. But until you find me disrespecting anybody, let’s avoid such pedantic suggestions.



then drop the strawmen and attributing arguments to me that i have never made.



Left eyebrow lifted, again... My my my... an interview with a politician??Oh... please...



that's it? he basically states that isreal was ready and willing for the war to start. it did nothing to prevent it, and everything to provoke it.



Let me answer both here. I wasn't talking about this legal matter. But you already know this...

For months before the outbreak of the Six Days War, general Nasser, was threatening Israel, on a daily basis, about a forthcoming Holocaust ( HIS words, not mine).It was a matter of days for the Arabs to attack Israel. Israel took the ultimate risk in its History and took the initiative to prevent the attack.



risk? if the war went against them, they had the nukes all set to go. make no mistake, if the war didn't go their way, they were all set to be used. the 'risk', as such, was minimal, they couldn't lose.



Strictly legally speaking, from the part of Israel this was a defensive War and according to the Geneva treaty, lands that are occupied in a defensive War are not considered as Occupied Territories...



a defensive war that they made the first attack in. there is nothing clear cut about this war at all.



Let's don't forget that... when we're bubbling about the status of the Gaza Strip...

But I believe that Israel should have returned the Gaza strip, to Jordan for political reasons. It would be fun to see that Hussein would never give the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians to establish a state of their own…



hardly my idea of fun.



No, murdering civilians in the name of God is never simple but since you are able to quote Finkelstein so eloquently I expected you to grasp my point...

Arabs are using the despair of Palestinians to murder Israelis. They don't make them ask for a better life or a free country but they send them to Death in Allah's sake. This is the ugly truth.

extremist religious have never been backward in exploiting human misery. look at the poor isreali sods that were conned into going to settlements in palestine because it was subsidised and cheap. they even managed to import some ethiopians and anyone else they can to get the numbers up.

once again, both sides are exploiting common people's problems for their own woo woo ends.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Maybe the bulldozer driver was tired...distracted...surprised? Why do you speculate that he did it deliberately? Truth is, he accidentally ran her over...she didn't accidentally move into harm's way.



and what are next weeks lottery numbers. maybe you should be taking up the randi challenge



Either way you cut it...terrorism is the cause of all the Palestinians troubles. If they'd had a leader like Ghandi or MLK they'd have had their own state many, many years ago.

So, because they don't have a ghandi or MLK, they get what they deserve? Terrorism is hardly the cause of all their problems. what a stupid remark.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
Places in Africa and even in Greece ( !!!) were proposed as lands for a state to be.
And they were rejected by those who forged the Zionist movement which has carved the colony of Israel out of a hostile coastline. Their romantic nationalism would not have been satisfied by anything else, even for those who were not particularly religious. (The most forceful Jewish opposition to Zionism has been religious; secular sovereignty plays no part in Rabbinic Judaism, and was only ever a disastrous passing phase of the Maccabee period.)
I personally would have been right behind a Jewish State established in Austria in 1948. That's the sort of place I could live myself, and I wouldn't have had the slightest sympathy for the evicted Austrians. The Jews of Europe would have been far more at home there than in the completely alien environment of Palestine. But that wouldn't have achieved the Destiny of the Jewish People - it just would have been much better for Jewish people.
As to the civil war, you clearly know a lot of Israelis, as do I. You can realise then just how far Israel is from being any sort of 'nation'. Without external threat it'll just crack up.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
Do you aknowledge to the Jews the right to have a state of their own?
No.

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopara:
Oh please! The existence of Palestinians was ignored even by the Arabs... " You are Syrians!" This is what they told them. " Go to Syria"...
That's simply rubbish. The geographic, economic and cultural identity of the East Med coastal strip west of the Syrian Desert was recognised by all the empires that ruled it, as reflected in the Ottoman administrative organisation. The people that lived there were Palestinians, as they would recognise themselves now, but you have to realise there was no sense of 'nationalism' in the population until modern times. The nation state is a recent European invention, not the natural condition or aspiration of humanity. For the mass of humanity through time and geography politics have been very local (village/tribe) and very distant (the Imperial centre). And who is this 'they' that told them to go to Syria? Apart from anything else, recognition of a Palestinian identity by Arabs meant nothing when it was Ottoman Turks who ruled the area and they were hardly about to encourage anyone to have nationalist aspirations. Any more than the Austrians in 1914.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


and what are next weeks lottery numbers. maybe you should be taking up the randi challenge



So, because they don't have a ghandi or MLK, they get what they deserve? Terrorism is hardly the cause of all their problems. what a stupid remark.

My speculation is on the self-same level as your speculation...we merely give the benefit of the doubt to different parties. The unvarnished truth is that the protester did what she did on purpose....the bulldozer driver did what he did by accident. These are the facts. The driver did not wake up that morning and say "I'm gonna go crush me a protester!" I'm not so sure the protester didn't wake up thinking "Today I martyr myself!" they tend to do that alot.

Simply....she endangered herself on purpose....the driver did nothing but operate his 'dozer. Nothing anyone can say will change these facts.

-zilla

[CapelDodger]

From Advocate:
OK. I will agree with you there. However, that land was never part of a state of Palestine. It was part of Jordan (West Bank) or Egypt (Gaza Strip). So if Israel did set up an independent Palestinian state (and in all likelihood I think the US and EU will pressure them into it) they well have done something for the Palestinians that their Arab brethren never did. The Arab nations left the Palestinians to suffer just so that they would have more to blame Israel for in the world's eyes. Of course Israel played right into their hands...
I refer you to my reply to Cleopatra. Something that the Israelis have done for the Palestinians that there Arab brethren have never done is drive hundreds of thousands of them from their ancestral lands, bulldozed their houses, grubbed up their olive groves, taken control of their water and shot their children for throwing stones. The Palestinians may not have been a logical part of Jordan but that's pure speculation - they weren't given the opportunity to find out. And you really out to point out that the Arabs " ... left the Palestinians to suffer just so that they would have more to blame Israel for ..." is also pure speculation. The Arabs, as you put it, did try to rescue the Palestinians in the Yom Kippur war. But perhaps you have some uncharitable motivation in mind for that as well.

Originally posted by rikzilla



Simply....she endangered herself on purpose....the driver did nothing but operate his 'dozer. Nothing anyone can say will change these facts.

-zilla

We don't know the facts in the case yet. You are simply choosing which reports you wish to believe. Not very skeptical in my book.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


We don't know the facts in the case yet. You are simply choosing which reports you wish to believe. Not very skeptical in my book.

These are the facts Sundog. Every report agrees that the protester endangered herself. Whether or not the 'dozer guy had an evil urge to crush someone, the protester voluntarily placed herself in this position.

I believe that these are unassailable facts unless all the news outlets are reporting an untruthful account.

-z

Originally posted by rikzilla


These are the facts Sundog. Every report agrees that the protester endangered herself. Whether or not the 'dozer guy had an evil urge to crush someone, the protester voluntarily placed herself in this position.

I believe that these are unassailable facts unless all the news outlets are reporting an untruthful account.

-z

You're moving your goalposts.

Here's what you said before:

"The unvarnished truth is that the protester did what she did on purpose....the bulldozer driver did what he did by accident. These are the facts."

No. Every report agrees that the protester endangered herself. This cannot be said about the actions of the bulldozer driver. We don't know which reports are true. You are simply choosing to believe the report that agrees with your views. That's not what a skeptic does.

If you can acknowledge this, you're off MY "totally unreasonable people" list. :D :p

[Tmy]

Dont you understand......Suicide BOMBERS!!!!!!!! That gives the Israeli government carte blanche to do whatever they want to whomever they want because of the actions of terrorists groups.

[Cleopatra]

CapelDodger

I will reply to you in one post to make things a bit easier.

Let's start from the easy part

YOU:
That's simply rubbish. The geographic, economic and cultural identity of the East Med coastal strip west of the Syrian Desert was recognised by all the empires that ruled it, as reflected in the Ottoman administrative organisation. blablabla

I love simplicity and precision. Let me present you some "rubbish" ( Indeed!!)

In February 1919 , in Jerusalem the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Assosiations was held, in order to choose representatives for the Paris Peace Conference. In this very congress, the following resolution was adopted : " We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds"

Rubbish No2: The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."

The statements above can easily be traced in UN's archives...at least this is where I found them

Needless to say, that I can easily quote testimonies of local Arab Leaders to the Anglo-american Commitee (1946) regarding Palestinians but I don't think that it will be necessary...
I hope you won't reply with the myth of the ancient Philistines but if you wish you can always be my guest...

Let's go to the most interesting part of your posts.

Yes. I see a problem too when a nation is founded only on a common religion, Judaism, in our case. A common religion may help a lot but , in my opinion, is not enough to bring together people who have grown up in different environments.

It takes more than that to become a nation.

I find a bit severe though this comment of yours : "Their romantic nationalism would not have been satisfied by anything else, even for those who were not particularly religious".

Since you know so many Jews, you might have heard the common wish between Jewish people " Next year, to Jerusalem"

This is a phrase that was repeated by millions of Jews all over the world. The were saluting pointing at the Hills of Zion. Zion was their common dream.Zion, was the ideal but Zion is situated in Israel I am afraid.

So, if you please, why you don't aknowledge to the Jews to have a state of their own. For religious or political reasons?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

don't tell me i don't believe in the holocaust. people seem to get very easily confused around here. what do you actually mean by that statement, it is very unclear?

No, I won't tell you what to believe and I try not to engage myself in useless tasks, as trying to guess what someone is hiding in his mind... If you say so, I believe you but this is not what I meant.
I actually replied to you in the thread about the Wall.
Spending time, in useless debates of subtle antisemitism, opens the way to the extremists. I am very much interested in putting the extremists to the margin.

that is a logical fallacy, pure and simple. because he did it, i can do it too.

I don't get it. This is what Father-Constantine used to tell us, in the lesson of Religion at school.I thought that we are talking about the Art of Possible here, Politics!

the situation was, the jews had been getting a hard time for centuries from europeans, and naturally wanted to get away from all that. they europeans, in the end, were kind enough to say, here, you can have this palestinian land, this will solve the problem.

Some time ago, in my free time, while I was studying History, I made a table trying to see any possible relation between economical depression and outbreak of antisemitic violence...
Since Roman Times , long before "Europeans" ( I think you mean after Charlomagne....) Jews were the easy target.
Jews from their part, just after the Second Temple, they were dreaming to see again the Hills of Zion... so it's more complicated than a game of monopoly, I am afraid.




Oh no no no no! Thucidetes was the first one who saw the fallacy here... Never use the tiny word IF when it comes to events that took place in the past...


[quote]a defensive war that they made the first attack in. there is nothing clear cut about this war at all.

Lawyers, apart from being used in the lab of a friend of mine as guinea pigs, instead of rats,( he gets attached to rats that's why he uses lawyers) exist to interpret situations. What I offered in my post was just this. This is a legal approach I have read once and persuaded me that's all.

extremist religious have never been backward in exploiting human misery. look at the poor isreali sods that were conned into going to settlements in palestine because it was subsidised and cheap. they even managed to import some ethiopians and anyone else they can to get the numbers up

True but they don't wear jackets with explosives to kill civilians.They don't hijack airplanes, they don't plug bombs... Big difference.

I just wonder... What do you know about Israeli Peace Activists?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


You're moving your goalposts.

Here's what you said before:

"The unvarnished truth is that the protester did what she did on purpose....the bulldozer driver did what he did by accident. These are the facts."

No. Every report agrees that the protester endangered herself. This cannot be said about the actions of the bulldozer driver. We don't know which reports are true. You are simply choosing to believe the report that agrees with your views. That's not what a skeptic does.

If you can acknowledge this, you're off MY "totally unreasonable people" list. :D :p

You may have a teensy weensy point...but since I love being on your "list" so dang much I'll never admit it!!! :D

[CapelDodger]

Cleopatra:
I didn't intend to be rude, I was simply pointing out that what you were quoting was rubbish. What Arabs were saying to whom "Go to Syria?" There's a traditional 'they' that gets trotted out regularly and should give pause when seen. If the intent was that Palestine should be considered a part of Syria that doesn't deny the existence of the people of Palestine. The people weren't demanding a Palestinian state. They weren't really demanding anything, since political activism was entirely new to the vast bulk of the population.

In February 1919 , in Jerusalem the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations was held, in order to choose representatives for the Paris Peace Conference. In this very congress, the following resolution was adopted : " We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds"
Note the date: 1919, a few months after the end of the Ottomans who ruled the area for, what, 500 years? A statement made by this First Congress at this point surely carries little significance. I'm no great expert on the Ottoman provincial system, but the territory that subsequently became the Mandate was divided into a shifting variety of villayets over the centuries. Whether it was, overall, included in the Syrian province (that certainly doesn't include Gaza, which was attached to Egypt) for the entire time I couldn't say. It was certainly culturally associated with Syria more than with, say Iraq - and vastly more so than with the European and American Zionists who came along and conquered it.
Consider, aslo, the context in which this statement was made. In 1917 the British government issued what is known as the Balfour Declaration, often quoted by Zionists as the green light for them to take their vision of Israel for themselves. You can imagine the reaction of the Arab population (shared by a lot of the Jews, who could see the trouble these incomers were likely to cause). Making this firm statement to attach Palestine with the larger territory of Syria - unaffected by the Balfour Declaration - was most likely, in my opinion, connected with that. Remember, the British were already occupying the area and weren't well-known for going home after conquering territory. The Arabs were concerned that a puppet Zionist state was to be set up to keep them down.

As far as 'Next year in Jerusalem', I was taught that this was a spiritual aspiration. It's not as if there weren't always Jews in Jerusalem (apart from a gap after 70CE and following Crusader massacres), and many American and European Jews retired there before the advent of Zionism. Jewish tourism was also common. Zionism is a nationalist movement, and the conflict in Palestine has only taken on this religious aspect relatively recently.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Cleopatra:
I didn't intend to be rude, .

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify a couple of things regarding my writting style.

I come here, as everybody else, to relax and enjoy myself discussing about things I am interested in. That's why next to me is usually a big bottle of water, or a glass of wine and a dictionnary, because English is not my native language.

Many times, I sound blunt myself but I rarely get really upset. The topics we have the courage to discuss, using such a difficult medium, are upseting enough, we don't need further tension.At least I try not to create any,many times I fail of course.

Having said that, I proceed.

Note the date: 1919, a few months after the end of the Ottomans who ruled the area for, what, 500 years? A statement made by this First Congress at this point surely carries little significance. I'm no great expert on the Ottoman provincial system, but the territory that subsequently became the Mandate was divided into a shifting variety of villayets over the centuries.

Many countries of the Mediterranean have been under Ottoman occupation for centuries. Greece has been under Ottoman rule for 400 years.
The idea of a national state, in other countries, was alive , very early though.

It's true that Arabs were organised in tribes and large families. Such models of social organization with such a religion don't leave much room for nationalism.

I agree with your description of the social context, seems pretty accurate to me but my prime argument remains the same:

The Palestinian issue, came "on stage" when Nasser lost the War.
Had he won the war and we would never have heard about Palestinians.

Ooooops I have just made a mistake here, I used the world IF reffering to the Past...

What so ever... this was my argument against the idea that the bad Jews went to Middle East in late 40ies and demolished the palestinian state. Such a thing as a palestinian state, never existed.

Whether it was, overall, included in the Syrian province (that certainly doesn't include Gaza, which was attached to Egypt) for the entire time I couldn't say. It was certainly culturally associated with Syria more than with, say Iraq - and vastly more so than with the European and American Zionists who came along and conquered it.

That's why if ( I will refer to the future) let's say, Israelis decided to leave the area, Palestinians would NEVER, EVER get a State of their Own, their land would be annexed to Syria. This is MY hypothesis of course and It reflects mostly my idea that palestinians have been betrayed, even by the Arabs.


Consider, aslo, the context in which this statement was made. In 1917 the British government issued what is known as the Balfour Declaration, often quoted by Zionists as the green light for them to take their vision of Israel for themselves. You can imagine the reaction of the Arab population (shared by a lot of the Jews, who could see the trouble these incomers were likely to cause). Making this firm statement to attach Palestine with the larger territory of Syria - unaffected by the Balfour Declaration - was most likely, in my opinion, connected with that. Remember, the British were already occupying the area and weren't well-known for going home after conquering territory. The Arabs were concerned that a puppet Zionist state was to be set up to keep them down.

Fair analysis. I can see your point and I can be persuaded by this but it strengthens my argument that Palestenians had a quite peripheral role for decades.

As far as 'Next year in Jerusalem', I was taught that this was a spiritual aspiration. It's not as if there weren't always Jews in Jerusalem (apart from a gap after 70CE and following Crusader massacres),

Oh yes of course! I respect myself enough so as not to repeat the rubbish of the Israeli propaganda ( these are rubbish indeed) for an undisturbed Jewish presence in the area for 2000 years...

Spiritual aspirations are very strong and they are NOT innocent at all...usually underneath hides nationalism.

Greeks were leaving with the dream to take back Constantinople ( Instabul) for centuries... this is what have kept their national identity alive during the Ottoman occupation and it's the same vision that almost ruined them in 1922 but I ingress...

You must admit that the vision of Israel could be fulfilled only in the promised Land. And this vision leaded to the present situation, a situation that actually started the next day after the Six Days War. An Israeli state in Austria, would be meaningless and this is where the big issue is, in my opinion, something I mentioned in a previous post.

I see a problem too in founding a Nation on common religion only

[CapelDodger]

From Cleopatra:
So, if you please, why you don't aknowledge to the Jews to have a state of their own. For religious or political reasons?
I'm not a supporter of nationalism at all. As a student of history I see it causing untold harm, never any good. Where nations have formed in a sort of organic way - say Britain - the natural circumstances have obviously had to be in place. But even Britain - even England, for that matter - can be looked on a small-scale empire if you aren't deliberately looking for a 'nation'. What might be called 'philosophic' or 'theoretical nationalism' grew up in 19th century Europe, principally Germany, as an anti-empire, progressive political idea. It came to define a nation by an ethnic identity, a cultural identity and a territorial identity. This worked for Germany but had to be mangled into shape in, say, the Balkans. The idea clearly didn't work for Jews who responded by becoming German Jews, French Jews, British Jews. This idea gets blown away when people can refer to a far-away place as the nation that has first claim on your loyalty. But the Zionists actually didn't care much about damage done to Jews who didn't want to follow their romantic dream. Their interest lay with the Destiny Of The Jewish People (and their own role in it), not Jewish people themselves. Look at the result.

[Cleopatra]

Yes I know all the theory too but I have this wild drive to make ideas real, otherwise I am not interested at all...

You draw the lines of the context, I have no problem( some minus ones maybe but Cleopatra shut up and see the point!) to accept it but it's not enough to describe the problem and its context, you must give a solution.

Your example with the Balkans was excellent. If a group of people see itself, somehow and somewhere, you can't really deny to them a National State, can you?

And I am persuaded that Nationalism, is not a pcychological trick, I am not a marxist you see and when it exists, it demands for solutions, viable solutions though.

[Skeptic]

You mean the palestinians actually TRIED non-violence?

I missed that; must have been in the bathroom.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CapelDodger

I'm not a supporter of nationalism at all. As a student of history I see it causing untold harm, never any good.Fair enough; but there is one problem. You see, jews had this little issue they weren't allowed to integrate, their identity was forced upon them by the anti-semitic environments. Jews basically had no choice but to be nationalistic.

But the Zionists actually didn't care much about damage done to Jews who didn't want to follow their romantic dream.What damage? And what about damage done to jews, regardless of whether they followed zionist dream or not, by the hatred seeping out of every pore of the societies they lived in?!. :mad:

Their interest lay with the Destiny Of The Jewish People (and their own role in it), not Jewish people themselves. Look at the result.Yes, let's look at the result. if there is another hitler that comes along, he will have to contend not with passive and disorganized jews, but with active and organized and strong jews. Jews now have somewhere in the world to go where they are guaranteed to not be rejected due to their ethnic identity.

And the fact that I am even answering a message like yours is an example of the only reason i can think of for so many liberals to be so anti-israel: by its very existence, Israel shows false the liberal dreams of integration and equality, and of bigotry being a largely solved problem. Because so many jews felt the need to go to israel, the said liberal dreams are shattered -- and too many respond to this disillusionment by lashing out and projecting the guilt onto jews, blaming them instead of the fallacious beliefs. Just IMO, of course.

[HarryKeogh]

with some of the most advanced military equipment available why are they using bulldozers? that's the best way to deal with militants? would think a sniper would do the job much more neatly. oh well, either way the circle of violence goes on and on and on. as long as sharon and arafat are in power we'll get plenty more chances to debate this issue.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
with some of the most advanced military equipment available why are they using bulldozers? that's the best way to deal with militants? would think a sniper would do the job much more neatly. oh well, either way the circle of violence goes on and on and on. as long as sharon and arafat are in power we'll get plenty more chances to debate this issue.

as cleopatra has pointed out, the achievement of the state is done step by step. These are not the first houses to be bulldozed. It would not surprise me if the most used piece of equipment by the IDF is the bulldozer. It is used every time another piece of palestinian land is taken from them.

[Cleopatra]

The bulldozer is a nasty psychological game, I have even come across a bibliographic reference once, but let's skip it here because it's really nasty...

Every educated person must condemn such methods. This is not the way things should be done.

[CapelDodger]

Cleopatra: I'll get back to you, but I should answer this other post first.

From Victor Danilchelko:
You see, jews had this little issue they weren't allowed to integrate, their identity was forced upon them by the anti-semitic environments. Jews basically had no choice but to be nationalistic.
Some study of the emancipation of European Jews during the 19th Century will put you right. A majority of Jews chose not to be Jewish nationalists, which refutes your claim of "no choice".

What damage? And what about damage done to jews, regardless of whether they followed zionist dream or not, by the hatred seeping out of every pore of the societies they lived in?!.

One Edwin Montagu said of the Balfour Declaration that every anti-semitic organisation and newspaper would ask why a Jewish minister was entitled to serve in a British cabinet. "The country for which I have worked ever since I left the University - England - the country for which my family have fought tells me that my national home ... is Palestine." Of course, he was right. Edwin Montagu was a British Minister of Munitions in WW I. Does that count as integration? Or Disraeli?
"Hatred seeping out of every pore ..." I can only assume this derives from the theory that anti-semitism is genetic, and carried by all gentiles. The world is real, not some cartoon parody. European Jews were represented in all the professions, in politics, philosophy, at the major Universities of Europe. Anti-semitism derives from Christianity, which is fundamentally anti-semitic. European progressive politics, which has made headway for centuries, is anti-clerical and thus anti-anti-semitic. The forces of reaction were Christian, clericalist and anti-semitic. Why do you think there was such an uproar over the Dreyfus case?

if there is another hitler that comes along, he will have to contend not with passive and disorganized jews, but with active and organized and strong jews
He'll also find them surrounded by enemies, and already at war. What if this "Hitler" is American? Israel depends for its economy and armed forces on American subsidy, so if the next president is elected on a "kill the Jews" ticket - do you really see that as possible? - they're screwed. If this imaginary character isn't American, then Jews would be safer in America, and America wouldn't close its doors to them, would it?
Israel doesn't make the world safer for Jews; absolutely the opposite. The Islamic world has been turned against them and even anti-Zionist Jews in the West are blamed for the behaviour of dirtbags like Sharon. Meanwhile Israelis are raised on lies and brutalised by what they do and experience.
If you have anything to say that you've put some thought into I'll try to respond. You got this one for free because it encompasses some of the most common cliches and myths.

Cleopatra: the weather here is stunning and the garden beckons. More later perhaps, but with added whisky, I'm afraid.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Cleopatra: the weather here is stunning and the garden beckons. More later perhaps, but with added whisky, I'm afraid.

Oh! Answers with added whiskey are those I can handle best ;)

Although I don't totally agree, I wish I could read more often such clear ideas, as those expressed by you, in your last paragraph.

I prefer severe but clever opponents than any people that parrot obscure and barbaric anti-semitism.

Maybe we can come to the same conclusion some day but after following different paths. And as Dr.X said yesterday, it's the process that matters...

and yet, she is not a marxist...

[Victor Danilchenko]

CapelDodger


Some study of the emancipation of European Jews during the 19th Century will put you right. A majority of Jews chose not to be Jewish nationalists, which refutes your claim of "no choice".You are missing my point. Yes, many jews tried to integrate. This is a perfectly fine goal in and of itself, but the world didn't let them forget that they are jews.

One Edwin Montagu said of the Balfour Declaration that every anti-semitic organisation and newspaper would ask why a Jewish minister was entitled to serve in a British cabinet. "The country for which I have worked ever since I left the University - England - the country for which my family have fought tells me that my national home ... is Palestine." Of course, he was right. Edwin Montagu was a British Minister of Munitions in WW I. Does that count as integration? Or Disraeli?Other peoples gain positions of power without simultaneously having their poorer neighbors be hounded for their ethnic identity.

I am jewish. I have many jewish friends. I spend over half of my life in Europe. Both my and my friends' experience is that anti-semitism is alive and well, just unfashionable and thus under the surface.

"Hatred seeping out of every pore ..." I can only assume this derives from the theory that anti-semitism is genetic, and carried by all gentiles.Why would you ascribe such a stupid belief to me? it's a blatant strawman. No, my position derives from the theory that most european cultures are steeped in anti-semitism, and that many folks harbor such attitudes on a deeper level; they may not think of themselves as anti-semitites, but the sinagogues still burn.

The world is real, not some cartoon parody. European Jews were represented in all the professions, in politics, philosophy, at the major Universities of Europe.Yes, they were -- in Germany before WWII, too. The fact that many achieved great things and positions of power, does not negate the presence of anti-semitism in the culture.

Anti-semitism derives from Christianity, which is fundamentally anti-semitic. European progressive politics, which has made headway for centuries, is anti-clerical and thus anti-anti-semitic.In theory, yes. Too bad that a number of prominent anti-israel figures let drop anti-semitic-flavored remarks when they think nobody will notice.

He'll also find them surrounded by enemies, and already at war.better than helpless lambs let to slaughter.

What if this "Hitler" is American? Israel depends for its economy and armed forces on American subsidy, so if the next president is elected on a "kill the Jews" ticket - do you really see that as possible? - they're screwed.Israel does not require American assistance. It certainly helps, but it's not a necessity. They won the war of 1948 when IDF was virtually embargoed, smuggling weapons in by leaky boats -- what won the war was not the foreign weapons, but the will of the people fighting for the life of their nation.

Have you been to Israel? Do you know what the morale in IDF is like? Wars are won by morale and training more than by technology and numbers.

Israel doesn't make the world safer for Jews; absolutely the opposite.Bulls**t. Israel had already made the world safer for countless jews. Do you want me to enumerate the cases?

If you have anything to say that you've put some thought into I'll try to respond. You got this one for free because it encompasses some of the most common cliches and myths.:rolleyes: F**k off, a**hole. I don't need your condescension -- I just need to know that somewhere, there is a place where I will always be welcome if some moron decides to blame me for his sucky life again.

[CapelDodger]

Well, I am shocked and I am awed. Was there ever life before CNN?

From Cleopatra:
What so ever... this was my argument against the idea that the bad Jews went to Middle East in late 40ies and demolished the palestinian state. Such a thing as a palestinian state, never existed.
My whole point is that the non-existence of a Palestinian state is of no importance. The Palestinians didn't want nationhood, they wanted to be left alone. What they most certainly didn't want was a bunch of immigrants driving them off their ancestral lands.

The fact that nationalism was logical for the Greeks in 1830 has no bearing. They looked to Europe for their cultural background, where the sovereign national state was the natural alternative to an empire. The Arabs of Palestine - that may be a better phrase, but it's inefficient - had, in general, no such model.

The 1940's are hardly the point. Zionism predates the 20th Century. By the 1920's the expulsion of the Arab population was part of the plan, quite cold-bloodedly. Rather than real individuals and families being driven from their homes by violence and terror, the perpetrators of this evil enterprise referred to The Arabs who were to be shifted about like pieces on a game-board. And this so that their persecutors would have the 'spiritual satisfaction' of nationhood? Who could call that a decent price? But then as someone once said, "All great enterprises require the sacrifice of others".

(When I used the term 'spiritual' I was referring to the Kingdom of God, at the time of which the Jews would return to the Holy Land. That's why so many religious Jews in Israel refuse to recognise the state, since for them it cannot exist until all Jews become righteous. That has not happened yet, believe me.)

And I am persuaded that Nationalism, is not a pcychological trick, I am not a marxist you see and when it exists, it demands for solutions, viable solutions though.

Nationalism may not always be a trick, but it almost always is. A people is persuaded to act for the 'national' interest when the real gain is by the new rulers. Who'd ever have heard of Herzl without Zionism? I'm not a Marxist, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with them on some things. And sometimes the only viable solution to nationalism is to get over it.

[CapelDodger]

Other peoples gain positions of power without simultaneously having their poorer neighbors be hounded for their ethnic identity.
Emancipation took place at all levels of society. Even most priests changed their tune as their beliefs became unacceptable to society in general. You seem to assuming such 'hounding' took palce, but many of the Jewish communities in Euope have been established for centuries. How could they have survived? And why were they not attracted to Zionism?

I am jewish. I have many jewish friends. I spend over half of my life in Europe. Both my and my friends' experience is that anti-semitism is alive and well, just unfashionable and thus under the surface.
This experience runs entirely counter to my own experience ad that of my friends. The way that so many Americans refer to 'anti-semitic Europe' these days is regarded as deeply strange. The truth is nobody cares if you're Jewish. Perhaps you're finding what you're looking for?

Why would you ascribe such a stupid belief to me? it's a blatant strawman.
I wouldn't use anything so cheap as strawman. I was illustrating the absurdity of your position. "Hatred seeping out of every pore " - how is that supposed to be interpreted? What, in your opinion, is the cause of this automatic anti-semitism? Even most Christians would reject the idea of racial guilt these days, and even Catholicism has expunged it from orthodoxy. And Europe is less Christian than America anyway.

... but the sinagogues still burn
Overstatement or what? It's mosques that burn regularly these days. The very occasional activities of tiny groups of mostly-young Hitler groupies is blown entirely out of proportion.

Israel does not require American assistance. It certainly helps, but it's not a necessity. They won the war of 1948 when IDF was virtually embargoed, smuggling weapons in by leaky boats -- what won the war was not the foreign weapons, but the will of the people fighting for the life of their nation.
The Haganah had been arming itself for decades before the UN resolution. The moment the it passed the embargo came off and a stream of weaponry flowed in, mostly from Czechoslovakia. The Haganah and Irgun already had the weapons they needed most - mortars, machine-guns and rifles. The money for the weapons came overwhelmingly from American charities, but since then the US has provided direct military assistance. They also provide general subsidies to the tune of 4 to 5% of GDP, and the Israelis just announced a further $10 billion dollar of aid because their economy's shot. (The US denied that they'd agreed yet; it seems Sharon was trying to bounce them.) The Israeli economy is centralised and subsidy-dependant after decades of pork-barrel politics, and a significant proportion of the population is unproductive. It is completely unviable without US grants and capital investment

Wars are won by morale and training more than by technology and numbers.
Marshal Foch's philosophy. Wars are won by the side that has a clear war aim, a viable strategy to achieve it, a centralised command and sufficient technology and troops. This the Israelis had in 1948 when the Arabs didn't; they had no tradition of political activism. Resistance was sporadic and localised and only occasionally effective, although some Arabs did hold on until the cease-fire.

Israel had already made the world safer for countless jews. Do you want me to enumerate the cases?
Pray do.

I just need to know that somewhere, there is a place where I will always be welcome if some moron decides to blame me for his sucky life again.
Again, I have never in my entire life heard anybody blame their troubles on 'The Jews'. Immigrants, the government, the English, Europe, the Americans, but never The Jews.
I have heard one report of anti-semtism; the sister of an acquaintance claims to have been called a 'f**king Jew' by a Russian recently. You can guess which country that was in.

F**k off, a**hole
You clearly put some thought into that riposte, which is why I condescended to reply.
(I know, sarcasm is cheap too, but when a line write itself like that ...)

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Wars are won by the side that has a clear war aim, a viable strategy to achieve it, a centralised command and sufficient technology and troops.

The "war on terror" is in trouble, then. The first problem: what is terror? How do we distinguish the "freedom fighter" from the "terrorist"?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

How could they have survived? And why were they not attracted to Zionism?

CapelDodger, although I will come back to your previous posts later , it seems to me that you are oversimplifing things.

All the Jewish Communities weren't the same. Some integrated better than other. I think my family is the best example. When they were expelled from Spain, they went to Amsterdam, where the arrival of the Sefardic Jews brought a remarkable revival to the Jewish community of this city.

The Community of Amsterdam was one of the most eminent jewish communities ever. But they never integrated! Why? For many reasons. First of all the nature of Judaism is such that does not encourage its followers to integrate, we have to admit that.

Judaism is introvert and when Jews found themselves in the not-so friendly environments of Germany, England and Eastern Europe, they did what they knew best.

Some members of my family , found themselves at the beginning of the 20th century in Salonika -Greece. Salonika was one of the most multi-culti mediterannean cities that ever existed.

Suddenly the ghettoed eminent scholars, turned into merchants, they got married to Greeks and not only that, in the Jewish Congresses were those who proposed Salonika as the future State of Israel.

Why? But they had a prosperous life there! They were accepted in the society, the didn't live in separate neighborhoods, in Greece such thing as jewish neighborhood never existed!

Maybe you wll find interesting the fact that the only Greek area that Jews had to face Blood Libels ,was the area of Eptanisa ( 7 islands ) that they were under British occuptation!!!!

Salonikli ( these is how they are called)weren't fond of Zionism, indeed.

After the Camps, when they returned home, they found nothing so they thought to give it a try in the Promised Land.

Funny. They still had as a heirloom , the key from the house in Seville but none thought to go back to Spain...

The went to a place that nobody lived , because it was so deserted and unfriendly that none could live and they turned it into a paradise.

All I am suggesting here is that you have to see every Jewish community separetly and in the context of its society. Jews of England had nothing in common with the Jews of Greece or Poland wso you are kind "unfair" to Jews and above all to Zionists.

I will be back....and nope! This is not a threat!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway


The "war on terror" is in trouble, then. The first problem: what is terror? How do we distinguish the "freedom fighter" from the "terrorist"?

:) Wow! This is a tough question. All of us know something about independance Wars. A war is always a nasty thing. But when you kill unarmed civilians to accomplish a cause, even a sacred one, then you have a problem.

[Baker]

I don’t have time to read all of the responses so I apologize if I’m repeating someone else’s response.
The Palestinians have never been non-violence there only goal is and always was the destruction of Israeli.

I’m willing to go through the complete history of the area with and lay down all of the facts!

[Victor Danilchenko]

CapelDodger

Emancipation took place at all levels of society. Even most priests changed their tune as their beliefs became unacceptable to society in general.Too bad such beliefs seem to be slooowly floating back into respectability once again.

You seem to assuming such 'hounding' took palce, but many of the Jewish communities in Euope have been established for centuries. How could they have survived? And why were they not attracted to Zionism?perhaps because the ones that actually existed for centuries, were the ones that existed in the few areas which had a low anti-semitic factor -- such as Netherlands or England or Scandinavia?..

This experience runs entirely counter to my own experience ad that of my friends.Could this be because you live in one of the few places in Europe not known for a history of anti-semitism -- England?.. (note BTW that the prominent jewish politicians you listed earlier were English).

The way that so many Americans refer to 'anti-semitic Europe' these days is regarded as deeply strange. The truth is nobody cares if you're Jewish.Not in Wales, maybe...

Perhaps you're finding what you're looking for?perhaps; or perhaps you refuse to see the trouble outside the comfortable confines of your immediate surroundings.

I wouldn't use anything so cheap as strawman. I was illustrating the absurdity of your position. "Hatred seeping out of every pore " - how is that supposed to be interpreted?That anti-semitism is an ingrained aspect of a given culture, I imagine -- your "genetic" interpretation was certainly totally off-the-wall.

What, in your opinion, is the cause of this automatic anti-semitism?Cultural heritage, I imagine; certainly not genetics.

Pray do.Pre-WWII Europe (when Israel didn't exist as a country, but was giving haven to fleeing jews); post-WWII Europe (when so many countries around the world refused the survivors). USSR. Ethiopia. that's a couple of millions right there, no?.. The world has surely been made safer for those jews by Israel's welcome of them.

Again, I have never in my entire life heard anybody blame their troubles on 'The Jews'.I have, and in more than one country. I lived in 5 countries, in fact -- Austria, Israel, Switzerland, USa, and USSR; the only country where I saw no anti-semitism was Israel. Even in Switzerland, the eternally neutral country with negligible jewish population, i heard highschool students mutter about those damn jews messing up the world (it was during Gulf War, missiles were falling on Tel Aviv, and they were blaming jews).

Immigrants, the government, the English, Europe, the Americans, but never The Jews.
I have heard one report of anti-semtism; the sister of an acquaintance claims to have been called a 'f**king Jew' by a Russian recently. You can guess which country that was in.USA, right?.. Russian anti-semites have simply not yet learned the "rules of the game" in polite western societies -- never let is seem as if you are an anti-semite.

You clearly put some thought into that riposte, which is why I condescended to reply.I am glad you recognize the profound depth of justification for such a reaction to your ostrich-like arguments.

[CapelDodger]

Briefly:

Dr Benway :
The "war on terror" is in trouble, then.
It always was a damn silly choice of words. Fortunately it isn't a war, so different criteria apply. Few threats to human security are ever completely defeated - sabre-tooth tigers and smallpox are amongst the few examples - but they can be minimized and kept at bay.

Victor Danilchenko:

USA, right?.. Russian anti-semites have simply not yet learned the "rules of the game" in polite western societies -- never let is seem as if you are an anti-semite.
Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a trick question. I thought the answer was obvious - Israel.
I can see I'm onto a complete loser here. If people are openly anti-semitic they're, well, just that. If they aren't openly anti-semitic they're closet anti-semites. Go figure.

Cleopatra:
With your distant family background you'll know, of course, of the great Spinoza (OK, Portugal not Spain but what the hey). No natural Zionist he. Your history seems to encompass all the great historic centres - Spain, Amsterdam, Salonika ... really Alexandria now? Better the Ptolemies than the Seleucids.

[Victor Danilchenko]

CapelDodger

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a trick question. I thought the answer was obvious - Israel.then she met a really, really dumb russian.

I can see I'm onto a complete loser here. If people are openly anti-semitic they're, well, just that. If they aren't openly anti-semitic they're closet anti-semites.Those strawmen don't fight back, do they?..

I thought i made it obvious that hidden anti-semtiism can be known not by lack of overt anti-semitism (caveman had wireless network 'cuz we found no CAT-5 wires in their caves!) but by occasional unintentional slips; no mask is perfect. of course, you are free to bury your head in the sand and ignore the continued existence of anti-senmitism.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Briefly:

Cleopatra:
With your distant family background you'll know, of course, of the great Spinoza

Baruch Spinoza , is exactly the person I had in my mind when I was composing this post, CapelDodger.

Better the Ptolemies than the Seleucids.

You take history personally, don't you? :)

[CapelDodger]

Cleopatra:
You take history personally, don't you?
Very appropriate. I do try to empathise, to see these times and places full of people like those I know. That's why I could never entertain a project like Zionism, which utterly lacks empathy. And why I distinguish between The Jewish People as a symbol and people who are Jewish. It's the great divide between me and nationalists.
Empathy helps to understand the significance of the house-key. As you leave the family home - a Jewish family home in Spain might have centuries of history - you lock the door, just as if you were going out on any other day. The last real and symbolic contact is between you, the key and home. Then you turn and walk away.
I would imagine there are lots of Palestinian families who still have such keys. Your family's has been with it for many generations, hasn't it? There's no reason the Palestinian ones will be any different. People are like that.
Maybe you wll find interesting the fact that the only Greek area that Jews had to face Blood Libels ,was the area of Eptanisa ( 7 islands ) that they were under British occuptation!!!!
I haven't looked that up, but I assume it was during WW I. It just goes to show what those Orthodox Christian Priests had to bottle up during the long Muslim reign - I doubt the British had much to do with it.

... but none thought to go back to Spain
Neither would I; Franco's Spain was deeply unappealing. Catholic fascism is just as nasty as nationalist fascism, as seen in war-time Croatia (WW 2 and more recently). Naturally, anti-semitism survived longer and stronger in Catholic countries - Spain, Italy, Austria, Croatia. But there was the same effect of progressive, more secular forces being anti-anti-semitic as a consequence.

The went to a place that nobody lived , because it was so deserted and unfriendly that none could live and they turned it into a paradise.
Well that's fine, and was going on in the 19th century before nationalist Zionism came along. It doesn't involve dispossessing people or establishing a national state over the heads of people who don't want it. Nationalist Zionism was opposed by many of them, but the nationalists were more politically active, of course, and came to dominate. The nicest Israeli I ever met was from a Russian community that built up there from the 1880's, and she said her great-grandfather would weep to see what had become of the place. It was not what he wanted.

All I am suggesting here is that you have to see every Jewish community separetly and in the context of its society. Jews of England had nothing in common with the Jews of Greece or Poland wso you are kind "unfair" to Jews and above all to Zionists
It's fair enough to see each community separately and in its own light, but the differences make the idea of putting them all together in one place and designing a 'nation' for them hopeless. Which leads on to ...

Victor:
then she met a really, really dumb russian.
This is a classic 'sister of a friend of a friend' story, which is why I said she claims this, or is reported as doing so. There's a lot of anti-Russian prejudice in Israel, and the automatic accusation from Israelis is 'anti-semite'. On the other hand, a lot of the recent Russian immigrants aren't Jewish by the wildest stretch of the imagination, and were economic migrants. With the economy on the ropes they find they're the first to be unemployed (well, after the Arabs). They blame this on ... the Jews. Which, when you think about it, is a tricky one. There have been very credible reports of swastikas being scrawled up in Russian neighbourhoods. What a place. You couldn't make it up.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


The went to a place that nobody lived , because it was so deserted and unfriendly that none could live and they turned it into a paradise.


and people accuse me of being anti-semitic. This is a very racist statement.

and the 'paradise' is hardly that. you can't divorce the political from the environment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/778375.stm



Four jailed over tournament deaths

An Israeli court has sentenced four officials to prison sentences for their part in the collapse of a bridge during the 1997 Maccabiah Games, known as the Jewish Olympics.
Four Australian athletes were killed, and more than 70 people injured, when the footbridge to the stadium near Tel Aviv buckled during the opening ceremony, spilling the Australian delegation into the polluted Yarkon River.

Two athletes died immediately, and two later from infections caused by toxins.



yarkon river is a total misnomer. more like yarkon toxic sludge drain.

The 'green paradise' can exist only because of theft of water from the west bank. Israelis are allocated about 10 times the water palestinians recieve, IIRC. The Israeli government is currently drawing up the palestinian 'state' settlement such that water rights are controlled by Israel.

[a_unique_person]

Arab ban proposed in Jewish areas


Israel has more than a million Arab citizens

Human rights groups in Israel are vowing to fight a government decision that would prevent Israeli Arabs from moving into Jewish communities built on state land within Israel.
Seventeen cabinet ministers voted on Sunday to support a bill brought by a right-wing MP in response to a Supreme Court ruling that would have allowed an Arab nurse to move into a Jewish village in the north of the country.



No other government in the democratic world would have adopted such a law

Yossi Sarid, Israel opposition leader
The proposed law aims to preserve the character of certain Jewish communities inside Israel by making it harder for non-Jews


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2115857.stm

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CapelDodger

My whole point is that the non-existence of a Palestinian state is of no importance. The Palestinians didn't want nationhood, they wanted to be left alone. What they most certainly didn't want was a bunch of immigrants driving them off their ancestral lands.

It is important, CapelDodger ( may I use the initials of your nickname when reffering to you?CD instead of Caple Dodger? Please let me know ).

It is important, because the whole edifice of the argumentation of the Arabic part is based on this very myth; Jews demolished an existing Palestinian state.

By making palestinian people believe in such myths, it saves the Arab world from answering to painful questions.And as long as the Arab world deosn't take its responsibilities towards Palestianians the miseries of those people, will ever end.

I am sure that Palestinians " most certainly didn't want was a bunch of immigrants driving them off their ancestral lands"

Indeed. This is where the next question is posed. If you aknowledge the Jews the right, to have a country of their own.

You had the decency to say, no. I dissagree, although, I have said a couple of times so far that a common religion is not enough a reason to bring people that have grown in different environments, together.

History owned Jews this opportunity. History, owned Jews the opportunity to give it a try , I am sorry that this happened on the expense of other people but I am not a hypocrit to show devastation about that.

In all Honesty,if Arabs ignored their own people, I am not the one that will care about the events of 1948.

The state of Israel didn't turn out to be such a good idea for the Jews. This is my personal opinion of course.

It's the end of a circle, something that we needed to experience in order to realize some things.

Since you show empathy about History you will understand the following. The key of Seville is not the only heirloom of my jewish ancestors. I have a bunch of keys! A key of Seville, of Amsterdam, of Salonika ( this one hurts very much, even now) and the last will be the key from our house in Jerusalem, since I am the last that it's connected with this branch of the family.

The key of Seville symbolizes that some people were destined to play the scape-goats of this bloody world for ever, the one of Amsterdam that the world was not enough for us, thank God, the one of Salonika, that hurts most,that the world in the 20th century has't progressed much since 1492 and the last one, I don't know.

In your posts, you underestimate the fact that anti-semitism exists even in our days. It was a practice ( not an idea!) in force during endless centuries. A practice perfomed by priests, armies and politicans.Antisemitism hides in expressions in languages, in proverbs, in mythology of every ethnic group. A couple of eminent Jews inkey positions in governments, were just as we say in Mathematics, the exception that justifies the rule.

If you haven't met antisemitism so far, you are very lucky my friend because it stinks and it makes you feel like animal,it deprives you of your humanity.

Personally I am not afraid of up front antisemitism. I am afraid of thei subtle comments regarding Israelis.

And to return to Politics and to the original question of this thread.

Why Palestianians have given up the non-violence. Of course they never given-up anything because this is how they always have been.

I think that the climax of violence shows that Arafat has lost control of his group. The original cause of liberating Palestinine is now twisted to blinde religious hatred. The whole issue for the Arabs now is religious. They die for Allah's sake because the lack of consistent policy from the part of Arafat and CO, made room to the extremists.

Now they pay the betrayal of the Arab world and the inconsistency of their policy.Sad but true.

PS As for nationalism you have some points but you have to admit ( or prove) that nationalism turned out to be the most efficient "vehicle" that people have ever driven during their travel towards progress.

Si, non e vero, e ben trovato, I am afraid.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


It is important, because the whole edifice of the argumentation of the Arabic part is based on this very myth; Jews demolished an existing Palestinian state.

By making palestinian people believe in such myths, it saves the Arab world from answering to painful questions.And as long as the Arab world deosn't take its responsibilities towards Palestianians the miseries of those people, will ever end.



once again, how racist. evil people making those poor, dumb palestinians believe something as ridiculous as their right to a state.



I am sure that Palestinians " most certainly didn't want was a bunch of immigrants driving them off their ancestral lands"

Indeed. This is where the next question is posed. If you aknowledge the Jews the right, to have a country of their own.

You had the decency to say, no. I dissagree, although, I have said a couple of times so far that a common religion is not enough a reason to bring people that have grown in different environments, together.

History owned Jews this opportunity. History, owned Jews the opportunity to give it a try , I am sorry that this happened on the expense of other people but I am not a hypocrit to show devastation about that.



history may have owed the jews something, but why were the palestinians singled out as the ones who made the payment?

having made the palestinians pay, the guilt that was felt was repressed by

1. arguing that the palestinians are less than human, 'cockroaches' is one of the terms used, i believe
2. argued that israel has created paradise where there was nothing.
3. having grabbed the west bank, then not giving it back.
4. building a prison around them
5 arguing they are all mere terrorists
6. using racist practices against them
7. destroying farms, buildings, housing
8 ignoring their own israeli legal system to build settlements.



In all Honesty,if Arabs ignored their own people, I am not the one that will care about the events of 1948.



there is no logic to that statement. it is like saying if the french do not care for the germans, it is of no concern to me.



The state of Israel didn't turn out to be such a good idea for the Jews. This is my personal opinion of course.

It's the end of a circle, something that we needed to experience in order to realize some things.

Since you show empathy about History you will understand the following. The key of Seville is not the only heirloom of my jewish ancestors. I have a bunch of keys! A key of Seville, of Amsterdam, of Salonika ( this one hurts very much, even now) and the last will be the key from our house in Jerusalem, since I am the last that it's connected with this branch of the family.

The key of Seville symbolizes that some people were destined to play the scape-goats of this bloody world for ever, the one of Amsterdam that the world was not enough for us, thank God, the one of Salonika, that hurts most,that the world in the 20th century has't progressed much since 1492 and the last one, I don't know.

In your posts, you underestimate the fact that anti-semitism exists even in our days. It was a practice ( not an idea!) in force during endless centuries. A practice perfomed by priests, armies and politicans.Antisemitism hides in expressions in languages, in proverbs, in mythology of every ethnic group. A couple of eminent Jews inkey positions in governments, were just as we say in Mathematics, the exception that justifies the rule.

If you haven't met antisemitism so far, you are very lucky my friend because it stinks and it makes you feel like animal,it deprives you of your humanity.



which makes me wonder why the use of terms such as 'cockroaches'. antisemitism is racism, and israel is uses racism and humiliation routinely.




Personally I am not afraid of up front antisemitism. I am afraid of thei subtle comments regarding Israelis.

And to return to Politics and to the original question of this thread.

Why Palestianians have given up the non-violence. Of course they never given-up anything because this is how they always have been.



once again, a nice put down. and quite subtle. did they never have anything because they are like insects?



I think that the climax of violence shows that Arafat has lost control of his group. The original cause of liberating Palestinine is now twisted to blinde religious hatred. The whole issue for the Arabs now is religious. They die for Allah's sake because the lack of consistent policy from the part of Arafat and CO, made room to the extremists.



the original cause of liberation has been denied for so long, perhaps. forty years of military occupation means there is a whole generation that has grown up knowing only the rule of the military. checkpoints, passes, permits, rules, arms, tanks...



Now they pay the betrayal of the Arab world and the inconsistency of their policy.Sad but true.



once again, what has that got to do with it. if you wish to talk about how the arabs are not a unified force but a collection of tribes, then that may be a worthy topic for contemplation. in this context, it means nothing.



PS As for nationalism you have some points but you have to admit ( or prove) that nationalism turned out to be the most efficient "vehicle" that people have ever driven during their travel towards progress.

Si, non e vero, e ben trovato, I am afraid.

[Cleopatra]

I needed some time to think about this post of yours Unique.
I tried to understand where are you getting at. I also tried to understand from which point you start.
I failed to trace a sequence. My question to you remains unanswered. Do you aknowledge the Jews the right to have a state of their own?

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Once again, how racist. evil people making those poor, dumb palestinians believe something as ridiculous as their right to a state.

Once again, how funny. As I shown to my previous posts, bringing several examples, it's the Arab World that owes an apology to the Palestinians.

may have owed the jews something, but why were the palestinians singled out as the ones who made the payment?

Because life can be cruel.


made the palestinians pay, the guilt that was felt was repressed by

1. arguing that the palestinians are less than human, 'cockroaches' is one of the terms used, i believe
2. argued that israel has created paradise where there was nothing.
3. having grabbed the west bank, then not giving it back.
4. building a prison around them
5 arguing they are all mere terrorists
6. using racist practices against them
7. destroying farms, buildings, housing
8 ignoring their own israeli legal system to build settlements.

I got news for you. None in Israel feels guilty. I have never heard someone calling a palestinian fellow-citizen a cokroache. Maybe because I don't allow to anybody talking like this about my fellow-citizens.

I don't have any doubts that you might have heard an Israeli calling a Palestinian like this. I don't doubt it because I have seen worse than that. I have seen people ridiculing arabs, women, gays etc etc etc.

Israel has created a paradise where there was nothing indeed. My grandma's purchased a piece of land in the desert and within 10 years she created a big vinyard. A real paradise in the middle of the desert.And she wasn't the only one.

once again, a nice put down. and quite subtle. did they never have anything because they are like insects?

Will you ever stop calling my fellow citizens insects?

the original cause of liberation has been denied for so long, perhaps. forty years of military occupation means there is a whole generation that has grown up knowing only the rule of the military. checkpoints, passes, permits, rules, arms, tanks...

They are two ways to be liberated. Either succumb to religious fanatism and become a terrorist, or demand education and a better life. The Arab world must apologize for not inspiring to Palestinians higher ideals and for sending them to death instead.

They don't care about Palestinians. All that matters for their leadership is the number of dead Israelis.

[quoteonce again, what has that got to do with it. if you wish to talk about how the arabs are not a unified force but a collection of tribes, then that may be a worthy topic for contemplation. in this context, it means nothing.[/quote]

Mr.Unique, I was talking about the inconsistency of the palestinian policy and you reply about tribes... Have you ever read the History of PLO?

[CapelDodger]

Cleopatra:
It is important, because the whole edifice of the argumentation of the Arabic part is based on this very myth; Jews demolished an existing Palestinian state.
Well, no it isn't. The point of conflict was the establishment of a Zionist state where there was previously no state at all (merely a part of an empire followed by a 'Mandate', whatever that ever was) and the removal of many of its inhabitants. What other form the region could have taken - a non-denominational state, division between Egypt, Syria and Jordan, part of a unified Arab entity or whatever - is not the issue. The state of Israel was formed with the express intention of establishing a Jewish majority by the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of ordinary people. I find that indefensible.

History owned Jews this opportunity. History, owned Jews the opportunity to give it a try
History is merely what has gone before us. It is not an entity, and cannot 'owe' anything to anyone. You use 'History' as a symbol, just as others use The Destiny Of The Jewish / Irish / American / Aryan / Whatever people as something which is greater - and more important - than the individual humans who must often be sacrificed to it. I don't accept that. It's that sort of dehumanising Great Idea that can allow perfectly ordinary, decent people to do terrible things in pursuit of a cause. This, perhaps, is where we differ the most.


It's the end of a circle, something that we needed to experience in order to realize some things.
Again with the National Destiny. I try to empathise with all people, historic and present, even though that empathy might simply reveal how worthless and nasty and suitable for bombing they are. (The human species is not very nice at all.) I don't see myself as some point on a particular chain of ancestors (I love my family, obviously, but very personally, not symbolically). I'm me, living now and trying to be a decent person.

[CapelDodger]

Cleopatra:
Please call me CD.
If you haven't met antisemitism so far, you are very lucky my friend because it stinks and it makes you feel like animal,it deprives you of your humanity.
I've experienced racism at second-hand, of course, when with friends, and I've nearly been glassed by a skinhead (we won!) in London, but I've only personally been a target for being long-haired. I don't deny anti-semitism exists, but I do find the 'synagogues burning' and 'hatred seeping from every pore' exaggerated.

The key of Seville symbolizes that some people were destined to play the scape-goats of this bloody world for ever
Very pessimistic, I feel. And lets always remember it's not the whole world we're talking about really, it's Christendom. The current raving anti-semitism of the Islamic world post-dates nationalist Zionism.

Why Palestianians have given up the non-violence. Of course they never given-up anything because this is how they always have been.
Palestine was no more violent than any other part of the Ottoman empire, as far I know. The Arabs that found themselves in Israel in 1949 have been remarkably peaceful and have attempted (at times successfully) to integrate. It was Israeli Arabs who petitioned repeatedy to be able to fight in the Israeli army, and have done so as honourably as anyone. Now the Bedouins are to be removed from the Negev and 'civilised'. They are told they can only get rights to their land if they agree to sell it to the government. Between the Oslo Accords and Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, Hamas and other rejectionists had only minority support, and there was little Palestinian violence. During that time the land-grabs, settlements, expulsions and demolitions continued unabated and the Israeli establishment was clearly not intending to stop. Meanwhile the Prime Minister who signed the accord was murdered by a lone gunman in one of the most security conscious countries in the world, and a rejectionist was elected in his place by a, presumably, relieved populaton. 'They' are a bit more complicated than some would have us believe.

The state of Israel didn't turn out to be such a good idea for the Jews. This is my personal opinion of course.
I find this disturbing. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,921241,00.html) It's from The Guardian, and points out how the anti-war movement has become linked, for many, with the Israel issue. Given that, at least in the UK, the war has seen a remarkable amount of engagement from the young the possible mixing of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism is a worry. The Israel that uses tanks and bulldozers and gunships and fighter-bombers on Palestinians can't sell itself as constantly under threat any more, suicide bombers or not. Especially when they're seen as having America at their service. But then, the immediate future of the world is a big worry at the moment.

I can't promise to make any more contributions here (as if anyone cared) as the garden demands a lot of time in this season, which eats into reading and writing time. Here's wishing the world good luck. Hope for the best and keep your head down.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I needed some time to think about this post of yours Unique.
I tried to understand where are you getting at. I also tried to understand from which point you start.
I failed to trace a sequence. My question to you remains unanswered. Do you aknowledge the Jews the right to have a state of their own?



i have already answered this question. i do not believe palestine was a 'right' to be given to the zionists. however, israel now exists, and is not going away.

however, not content with gaining most of ancient israel, a state that was in a constant state of flux and never had a hard defined boundary, they are insisting on taking the west bank and gaza from the palestinians as well.



Once again, how funny. As I shown to my previous posts, bringing several examples, it's the Arab World that owes an apology to the Palestinians.



maybe they do, that is not the question. the question is, are the palestinians subject to a process of conquer at present. this is their immediate threat. most clearly, they are.




Because life can be cruel.



well, stop complaining about suicide bombers.




I got news for you. None in Israel feels guilty. I have never heard someone calling a palestinian fellow-citizen a cokroache. Maybe because I don't allow to anybody talking like this about my fellow-citizens.

I don't have any doubts that you might have heard an Israeli calling a Palestinian like this. I don't doubt it because I have seen worse than that. I have seen people ridiculing arabs, women, gays etc etc etc.



the humiliation the palestinians suffer is worse than just racism, it is designed to be part of a process of conquering. the policy of israel is to conquer without bodies. bodies get in the news. bulldozers almost never.



Israel has created a paradise where there was nothing indeed. My grandma's purchased a piece of land in the desert and within 10 years she created a big vinyard. A real paradise in the middle of the desert.And she wasn't the only one.




once again, an attemp to legitimise theft. I steal your car, which is looking a little tatty. I clean and polish it. I get it serviced. I buy some nice new seat covers. does that give me the right to take it from you.

apart from that, the 'paradise', as i have already shown, has a lot of skeletons hidden in the cupboard. pollution, theft of the best land, theft of water. as we all know, miracles are fantasy. this miracle is being done at the expense of clean water for the palestinians and their farms. for each miracle that is created, another farm or well is closed down. once again, bodies get the newspapers attention, closing a well does not.




Will you ever stop calling my fellow citizens insects?



i am not calling them insects, that is what many israeli politicians refer to palestinians as.



They are two ways to be liberated. Either succumb to religious fanatism and become a terrorist, or demand education and a better life. The Arab world must apologize for not inspiring to Palestinians higher ideals and for sending them to death instead.



false dichotomy. any use of the israeli state apparatus is seen as capitulation to an occupying army.



They don't care about Palestinians. All that matters for their leadership is the number of dead Israelis.



so what, this is not about the arabs, it is about the palestinians.



once again, what has that got to do with it. if you wish to talk about how the arabs are not a unified force but a collection of tribes, then that may be a worthy topic for contemplation. in this context, it means nothing.

Mr.Unique, I was talking about the inconsistency of the palestinian policy and you reply about tribes... Have you ever read the History of PLO? [/QUOTE]

palestinian policy will be as inconsistent as the number of points of view there are, and how they change over time. Israel itself is 'inconsistent'. some want a straight takeover, others want to give the land back.

[Cleopatra]

CapelDodger, I have been busy, not in my garden unfortunately, so I couldn't respond.

I won't reply to you since you won't be here to answer. It doesn't really matter.

I can't help thinking though, what would happen if , let's say, UN thought that the two of us were the only appropriate people on the globe, to solve the problem... :)

We have different filosophical approach to politics. I approach them threw History always! You don't aknowledge that History has anything to do with that! Without wanting to be rude, what is the use of studying History then...

Anyway

Enjoy your garden! :)

Mr.Unique, I will back to you...