Anti Semitism on the Rise?

[a_unique_person]

A journalist goes out and does some investigative journalism.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Middle-East-Crisis/Israelis-stunned-by-TV-indictment-from-within/2005/06/03/1117568372806.html



A new documentary series stunned Israeli television viewers this week, not only by its unprecedented and searing indictment of Jewish settlement in the Palestinian territories, but also because of its unexpected source.

Often described as Israel's Walter Cronkite, 72-year-old Haim Yavin has fronted state television's evening news bulletins since 1968, cultivating a neutral image that put him, for most Israelis, at the symbolic heart of the national consensus.

All that changed on Tuesday with the broadcast of the first of five episodes of Land of the Settlers, the result of two-and-a-half years spent wandering the West Bank and Gaza with a miniature video camera.

Yavin's study of ultra right-wing Jewish settlers, the Israeli soldiers who guard them, the native Palestinians whose lives they dominate and the small number of Israeli rights activists, lawyers and journalists campaigning against them, has caused him to be denounced as representing the far left of Israeli sensibility.

Advertisement
Advertisement"I cannot really do anything to relieve this misery, other than to document it, so that neither I nor those like me will be able to say that we saw nothing, heard nothing, knew nothing," he says in the film. "I did not move left. The country moved right."

The documentary dwells on the machinery of occupation - the roadblocks, fences, walls, settler roads and curfews - set up to support and defend the settlements.

In Hebron, where the army has helped a few hundred fundamentalist settlers seize the heart of a Palestinian city, a soldier tells Yavin that settlers are inciting him to shoot and kill Palestinian children.

A leader of the Hebron settlers tells him that Palestinians should be told to leave the country immediately or be bombed from the air.

He films graffiti on a wall, "Arabs to the crematoriums".

.....

The documentary has been less warmly received by right-wing Israelis and by the fundamentalist settler movement, which this week accused Yavin of anti-Semitism and hate speech.

The religious Zionists of the settler movement believe that God covenanted the Jews with an exclusive right and religious duty to inhabit all the territories between the Nile in Egypt and the Euphrates in Iraq.



The Palestinians won't rest till they wipe out Israel, but what's that obout the Nile to the Euprhates?

[Skeptic]

Interestingly, I read the original article about this in www.haaretzdaily.com.

Among the "interesting" ideas of this "advanced" thinker was that he could not understand how a settler woman stays in Hebron when Palestinian snipers keep aiming at her children; "in any reasonable country her children would be taken away", the article said (although it is not clear if it is Yavin or the reporter interviewing him speaking in that case).

So, if a Palestinian-Arab tried to kill your children, it's a). your fault for being there in the first place, and b). should be punished by having your children taken away from you. As for the sniper... well, what did you expect? He is the poor, helpless victim of evil occupation , and as such simply cannot help himself from shooting at jewish babies. There isn't a word of criticism of him in the same article, only the mention of the "blood-curdling laugh" of the woman when the reporter suggests that her children should be removed from her. Imagine that!

By the way, the original "Haaretz" article was one of those reviews where the reporter reviews a few shows at once. The next review was of the new movie about Hitler's last days. The reporter opens that report by praising Hitler for having the "courage" to shoot himself instead of getting caught like Saddam Hussein, to be later photographed in his underwear. He goes on to praise the movie for giving a sympathetic portrait of Hitler in his last days--so needed, obviously, after him getting all this bad press for 60 years for some reason.

This is what passed for "objective" reporting: if Palestinians shoot at jews the jews must have their children taken away, but it is really disgusting that Hitler was so bad-mouthed all these years. Sorry to be an extremist, but I was laboring under the delusion that jews can live where they want without having their children killed, and that Hitler was a bad guy.

Apparently I was misinformed.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Among the "interesting" ideas of this "advanced" thinker was that he could not understand how a settler woman stays in Hebron when Palestinian snipers keep aiming at her children; "in any reasonable country her children would be taken away", the article said (although it is not clear if it is Yavin or the reporter interviewing him speaking in that case). I would agree. If she deliberately moves to a violent area with her children, subjecting them to danger, when she doesn't have to, she is being an irresponsible mother. If an American mother took her kids with her to live in Iraq so she can get a well-paying job or be close to her soldier husband or anyting like that, it would be obvious that she was being irresponsible with the life of her child. So why is a Jewish mother taking her children to live in a settlement, knowing settlements come under attack, any different? Settlers should be ashamed of sacrificing their children's safety for their ideology. As for the sniper... well, what did you expect? He is the poor, helpless victim of evil occupation , and as such simply cannot help himself from shooting at jewish babies. There isn't a word of criticism of him in the same article, only the mention of the "blood-curdling laugh" of the woman when the reporter suggests that her children should be removed from her. Imagine that! Snipers who prey on civilians are obviously immoral; that's not the issue. People shouldn't have to balance every criticism with a similar one for the "other" side. And it's odd that you bring up "jewish babies" so often; it has a creepy blood libel aspect to it. Sorry to be an extremist, but I was laboring under the delusion that jews can live where they want without having their children killed, and that Hitler was a bad guy. That is the ideal the UN is working towards- that anyone can live anywhere in safety. But ignoring present dangers is irresponsible. Parents who willfully or neglectfully place their children's lives at risk are handled in the child protective services in the US, and can have them removed and placed in the foster care system.

[Skeptic]

I would agree. If she deliberately moves to a violent area with her children, subjecting them to danger, when she doesn't have to, she is being an irresponsible mother.

So all women who live, for example, in the urban "ghettos", are bad mothers? After all, they live in violent neighborhoods.

More to the point, should this also apply to those Palestinians who send their children to fight with the IDF?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I would agree. If she deliberately moves to a violent area with her children, subjecting them to danger, when she doesn't have to, she is being an irresponsible mother.

So all women who live, for example, in the urban "ghettos", are bad mothers? After all, they live in violent neighborhoods.

More to the point, should this also apply to those Palestinians who send their children to fight with the IDF? From my post:...when she doesn't have to... Not all people can afford to escape violent areas, but that's different from deliberately settling in a violent area.

Absolutely it would apply to Palestinian parents who send their children off to fight or deliberately inure them to violence and death.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Interestingly, I read the original article about this in www.haaretzdaily.com.

Among the "interesting" ideas of this "advanced" thinker was that he could not understand how a settler woman stays in Hebron when Palestinian snipers keep aiming at her children; "in any reasonable country her children would be taken away", the article said (although it is not clear if it is Yavin or the reporter interviewing him speaking in that case).

So, if a Palestinian-Arab tried to kill your children, it's a). your fault for being there in the first place, and b). should be punished by having your children taken away from you. As for the sniper... well, what did you expect? He is the poor, helpless victim of evil occupation , and as such simply cannot help himself from shooting at jewish babies. There isn't a word of criticism of him in the same article, only the mention of the "blood-curdling laugh" of the woman when the reporter suggests that her children should be removed from her. Imagine that!

By the way, the original "Haaretz" article was one of those reviews where the reporter reviews a few shows at once. The next review was of the new movie about Hitler's last days. The reporter opens that report by praising Hitler for having the "courage" to shoot himself instead of getting caught like Saddam Hussein, to be later photographed in his underwear. He goes on to praise the movie for giving a sympathetic portrait of Hitler in his last days--so needed, obviously, after him getting all this bad press for 60 years for some reason.

This is what passed for "objective" reporting: if Palestinians shoot at jews the jews must have their children taken away, but it is really disgusting that Hitler was so bad-mouthed all these years. Sorry to be an extremist, but I was laboring under the delusion that jews can live where they want without having their children killed, and that Hitler was a bad guy.

Apparently I was misinformed.

If you read the whole article, he mentions how it is a balanced look at what happens. The Palestinians and Settlers are reported as just what they are. We already have an avalanche of information on the faults of the Palestinians, the Settlers (and I believe he is concentrating on the radical settlers here), are, as the article says not well documented. Which is why this documentary is so unusual.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by kimiko
I would agree. If she deliberately moves to a violent area with her children, subjecting them to danger, when she doesn't have to, she is being an irresponsible mother. Absolutely. Parenthood is less important to such people than their commitment to nationalism and/or religion. Their children are not children as we would see them, but little Israelis. This is what zionism has brought to the world. Is it any wonder I despise it?

[davefoc]

AUP, what does the title of this thread have to do with the subject?

[a_unique_person]

The Israeli documentary maker has been accused of anti-semitism for making the documentary, as quoted in the bolded text in the OP.

[Ed]

Originally posted by kimiko
That is the ideal the UN is working towards- that anyone can live anywhere in safety.

Thank you for my morning chortle. Most refreshing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
Thank you for my morning chortle. Most refreshing.

That post was a complete waste of space.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That post was a complete waste of space.

Dehydration getting to you? Cranky, cranky.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
Dehydration getting to you? Cranky, cranky.

No, that was yesterday.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, that was yesterday.

Ah. So this is just mean spiritedness. Hey, I'm not Jewish, remember? Cut me some slack.:D

Here, this will make you feel better.

http://www.pentawater.com/index.php

No thanks necessary.

[Skeptic]

The Israeli documentary maker has been accused of anti-semitism for making the documentary, as quoted in the bolded text in the OP.

So your logic is, Yavin is unjustly accused of antisemitism, so all accusations of antisemitism are unjust. Well, for starters, Yavin would probably disagree with you that the Arabs were justified in attacking israel in 1948 with the intent of butchering every jew to the last baby. Which means there's a bit of a difference between you two, don't you think?

That is the ideal the UN is working towards- that anyone can live anywhere in safety.

Which is why the great Satan, israel, is denounced in over one third of the UN's security council resolutions, while Sudan is on the human rights commission. The UN worked so wonderfully well in letting Tutsis live safely in Rwanda, or black Africans live safely in Sudan, or Croats live safely in Serbian-controled areas, or anybody who disagreed with Stalin live safely in the Soviety Union, or...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
The Israeli documentary maker has been accused of anti-semitism for making the documentary, as quoted in the bolded text in the OP.

So your logic is, Yavin is unjustly accused of antisemitism, so all accusations of antisemitism are unjust. Well, for starters, Yavin would probably disagree with you that the Arabs were justified in attacking israel in 1948 with the intent of butchering every jew to the last baby. Which means there's a bit of a difference between you two, don't you think?

That is the ideal the UN is working towards- that anyone can live anywhere in safety.

Which is why the great Satan, israel, is denounced in over one third of the UN's security council resolutions, while Sudan is on the human rights commission. The UN worked so wonderfully well in letting Tutsis live safely in Rwanda, or black Africans live safely in Sudan, or Croats live safely in Serbian-controled areas, or anybody who disagreed with Stalin live safely in the Soviety Union, or...

I apologize Ed, Skeptics post was by far a greater waste of space.

Seriously, can a conservative here teach him what a straw man argument is, and what a waste of everyone's time it has to have him committing the same inane error in just about every single his posts.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I apologize Ed, Skeptics post was by far a greater waste of space.

Thank you, I think.

Seriously, can a conservative here teach him what a straw man argument is, and what a waste of everyone's time it has to have him committing the same inane error in just about every single his posts.

You know, I don't consider myself a conservative by any popular definition of the term.[/QUOTE]

[a_unique_person]

FWIW, "Skeptic", I was pointing out how when an Israeli points out some unpalatable truths about Israel to other Israelis, the comeback by some is that he is an anti-semite. Which is pretty much your standard response, as your post demonstrates.

I claimed nothing more, nor less. Your hare brained idea that I was claiming that all anti semitism is not a fact is just loopy thinking. The existence of anti-semitism is a fact. Because an Israeli is accused of anti-semitism when he is not engaged in such an act, does not falsify the fact that anti-semitism is a fact.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Absolutely. Parenthood is less important to such people than their commitment to nationalism and/or religion. Their children are not children as we would see them, but little Israelis. This is what zionism has brought to the world. Is it any wonder I despise it? When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", blew up a Palestinian bus? When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", killed Palestinian athletes at the Olympics? When was the last time a zionist blew up a Palestinian restaurant? When was the last time a zionist sent an Israeli teenager to smuggle explosives? When was the last time a zionist hijacked an airplane? When was the last time a zionist hijacked a cruise ship? When was the last time a zionist killed another zionist in cold blood on the street because he/she was labelled a 'collaborator' with Palestinians? When was the last time a zionist exploited teenagers for terror? When was the last time zionists commemorated suicide bombing with a parade? When was the last time a zionist recieved monetary rewards for terrorism?

....and you hate what zionism had brought the world eh Capel? ....screw those immoral zionists and their illegal criminal desires to live anywhere on earth they want to...the Palestinians should not have to put up with living near one filthy zionist...:rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Seriously, can a conservative here teach him what a straw man argument is

AUP, is it, or is it not, true, that you wrote that the Arabs were justified in starting the 1948 to destroy israel as it was born?

Is it, or is it not, true, that the declared goal of that war was, as the Arab armies made crystal clear, the genocide of the jews in "occupied Palestine"?

Does this, or does this not, mean that you support the genocide of the jews in 1948?

Thank you.

[demon]

ZN:
"When was the last time a zionist blah blah blah..."

I`m sure the Palestinians would be using the same methods as the murderous IDF if they had access to the most up to date weapons systems in the world and were backed up by the world`s only super power.
I`m sure they would prefer to hover in the air in a state of the art helicopter hundreds of feet above their victims and fire off a few missiles at an inhabited block of flats or down a busy street like their brave adversaries, or empty their machine guns into little girls from the safety of a checkpoint with impunity.

[davefoc]

AUP wrote:The Israeli documentary maker has been accused of anti-semitism for making the documentary, as quoted in the bolded text in the OP.

I think you make a reasonable point and I am sorry that I was slow to pick up on what you meant by the title. One of the reasons why I didn't pick up on it right away was that I think your point is obvious. People that criticize Israeli policies with respect to the Palestinians are routinely accused of anti-semitism by somebody. I think there would be an almost universal consensus that this observation is correct. Maybe, a few people might find it surprising that Jews are routinely accused of anti-semitism with respect to this conflict, but anybody that has followed the discussion of this issure very much has seen that happen many times.

I have thought about this phenomena quite a bit, more so because Skeptic, who strikes me as a reasonable fellow, has engaged in the practice. I don't have any new insight as a result of my thoughts on this. I have tried to put myself in the place of a particular group that was uniquely targeted for destruction and how I might view a world that is often critical of a country that I identify with. But the fact is I can't successfully do the thought experiment, I just can not realistically imagine what it is like and how it would affect my thinking.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Seriously, can a conservative here teach him what a straw man argument is

AUP, is it, or is it not, true, that you wrote that the Arabs were justified in starting the 1948 to destroy israel as it was born?

Is it, or is it not, true, that the declared goal of that war was, as the Arab armies made crystal clear, the genocide of the jews in "occupied Palestine"?

Does this, or does this not, mean that you support the genocide of the jews in 1948?

Thank you.

I must seriously congratulate here, Skeptic. You have actually tried to debate a point, although you have ignored the point that I was making, and gone off in a tangent of your own.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", blew up a Palestinian bus? Who was the first to put a bomb in a crowded market in Palestine - not a suicide bomb, a planted bomb - with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible to instill terror? Who invaded Palestine to drive out the population and make their own country in it, the local population or the invaders? Palestinians can't take their kids away from the violence unless they've got the money, in which case they generally do. Zionists take their children into war zones for ... what reason? Are they still fleeing Hitler, as Mycroft and Skeptic seem to think? Or the pogroms of New York? Or are they putting their childern in harm's way for the sake of something "greater" - nation and/or religion?

If you check out their web sites, you'll get the answer soon enough.

[demon]

For Palestinian children, where exactly in the Occupied Territories is out of harm's way? The IDF bomb and shoot their way through most of it, send tanks down streets, US jets through the air, crush foreign civilian aid workers beneath bull-dozers, strap children to army vehicles to discourage attacks, and drop 1500lb bombs on apartment blocks in order to kill a single man. Then there's the indirect effects of 35 years of colonial oppression: malnutrition, lack of water, ill health, poor education, and mental stress.
The British journalist Yasmin Alibhai Brown reported in the run up to the invasion of Iraq that "Many Iraqi children and teenagers in particular are so terrorised by our merciless threats over so many months that they have turned to valium smuggled in from neighbouring countries." (Independent, February 10th 2003) -well, just imagine the effect on the children of the Israeli Occupation that`s been going on for decades.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by davefoc
I have tried to put myself in the place of a particular group that was uniquely targeted for destruction and how I might view a world that is often critical of a country that I identify with. But the fact is I can't successfully do the thought experiment, I just can not realistically imagine what it is like and how it would affect my thinking. This is not the majority way of thinking in Israel. Israel was created by established Israelis, not refugees, and they weren't inspired by the weakness of Jews but by their strength in a national setting. Israel's keel was laid down in 1897, it was launched in 1948, it's still in the process of fitting-out. Hitler ruled from 1933-45. Israel is not about the Holocaust, and the low opinion many established Israelis have of its victims would probably surprise a lot of people. Just consider how wildly the Holocaust is flung around by zionists whenever Israel is criticised, and how it's even been applied by zionists to the Gaza evacuation. It offends the crap out of me, and my family lost more to U-boats than the Holocaust. (I 'ates submariners, I do.)

One of the more invidious effects of zionist hegemony over Jewishness (that's gonna sting in the morning ...) is the reduction of Jewish history to suffering Jews and triumphant Israelis. That's not what it's been like. Zionists have cynically hi-jacked the Holocaust, and the apparent connection between 1945 and '48, to get everybody thinking in those terms.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by demon
For Palestinian children, where exactly in the Occupied Territories is out of harm's way? To paraphrase Golda Meir, "We won't have peace with the Arabs until they come to love their children as much as we love ours". The racist implications aside, that's kind of ironic. It wasn't taken as "We will kill their children until they give in", it was more "Aaahh, they love their children, and that other lot don't". The American accent helped. (Not fleeing the Holocaust, but following a dream that was a nightmare for others.)

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Is it, or is it not, true, that the declared goal of that war was, as the Arab armies made crystal clear, the genocide of the jews in "occupied Palestine"? It is not true. It was made crystal clear that the problem was with the Jewish State, not Jews. The problem for Palestinians driven from their homes, robbed, humiliated and consigned to the care of impoverished strangers was, well, all that. That happened to at least 350,000 Palestinians before Israeli nationhood was even declared. The distinction between the Jewish State and Jews has always been made clear by the Arabs, and the claim that the end of the Jewish State will mean the end of the Jews in it is a fabrication. Jews lived amongst Arabs before zionism, and lived amongst them afterward. The difference was always explicitly with zionists, not Jews.

[Skeptic]

It is not true.

Wanna bet?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Which is why the great Satan, israel, is denounced in over one third of the UN's security council resolutions... Israel receives so much attention from the UN because the responsibility for the British Mandate was written into it's charter. ... while Sudan is on the human rights commission. The UN worked so wonderfully well in letting Tutsis live safely in Rwanda, or black Africans live safely in Sudan, or Croats live safely in Serbian-controled areas, or anybody who disagreed with Stalin live safely in the Soviety Union, or... It's an ideal, not yet a reality. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 13.
1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Kofi Annan is trying to address the ridiculousness of human rights abusing nations being on the commission. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4419333.stmAs part of his programme of UN reforms, Mr Annan wants to create a smaller Human Rights Council, whose members must uphold the highest human rights standards. ... He said the council must be more accountable and more representative.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
AUP wrote:

I think you make a reasonable point and I am sorry that I was slow to pick up on what you meant by the title. One of the reasons why I didn't pick up on it right away was that I think your point is obvious. People that criticize Israeli policies with respect to the Palestinians are routinely accused of anti-semitism by somebody. I think there would be an almost universal consensus that this observation is correct. Maybe, a few people might find it surprising that Jews are routinely accused of anti-semitism with respect to this conflict, but anybody that has followed the discussion of this issure very much has seen that happen many times.


The article I read on this documentary actually raised a few interesting points. The accusation of anti-semitism was just one, but also of interest is just the simple fact that the settler movement is so poorly documented, as evidenced by this novelty of this documentary. There are numerous web sites that exist just to praise the settler movement, but this is a documentary that takes a critical (in the 'skeptical'), sense.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Which is why the great Satan, israel, is denounced in over one third of the UN's security council resolutions,


Where do you get this stuff? A complete list of Security Council resolutions can be found here (http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm). In 2005, out of 22 resolutions, only one deals with Israel (1/22). Six resolutions in 2004 (out of 59). Unless this is some new mathematics technique I'm not currently familiar with, this is substantially less than one third. (I'm also assuming every time it says "the situation in the Middle East," it means Israel. I could be wrong, in which case the number would be lower.)

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Who was the first to put a bomb in a crowded market in Palestine - not a suicide bomb, a planted bomb - with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible to instill terror? I bet you'll say zionists, then I will conclude that you are refering to an event that took place over 50 years ago because zionists haven't put bombs in market places in the last 50 years. But since that is the best you got you'll use it anyways.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Who invaded Palestine to drive out the population and make their own country in it, the local population or the invaders?"Invaded Palestine". If that doesn't tell people where Capel is coming from nothing will. The only 20th century invasion of Palestine on record Capel happened on May 15th 1948 when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded. It's in every history book. 'Zionists' buying land is not an invasion unless you hate zionists then you'd call buying land an invasion.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Palestinians can't take their kids away from the violence unless they've got the money, in which case they generally do.Ya, the violence that began with Palestinian leader Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/mufti.html) in the 20s, 30s and 40s, then the violence that continued when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded, then the violence, terrorism and wars that continued with Nasser, Assad and then Arafat in the 50s, 60s 70s and 80s,... need I go on?

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Zionists take their children into war zones for ... what reason? Are they still fleeing Hitler, as Mycroft and Skeptic seem to think? Or the pogroms of New York? Or are they putting their childern in harm's way for the sake of something "greater" - nation and/or religion?The only reason it is a war zone Capel is because most of the Arab dictatorships that are still technically at war with Israel and because Arab countries still finance and support such "famous peace negotiators" as the PLO, Fatah, AL Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas, Hizbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Abu Nidal Organization, Tanzim....

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It is not true. It was made crystal clear that the problem was with the Jewish State, not Jews. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_terrorism)

The attacks on Palestinian Jews by Palestinian Arabs predating the establishment of the state of Israel have culminated in the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, the riots in Palestine of May, 1921, the 1929 Hebron massacre and the Great Uprising of 1936-1939. Prominent leaders of Palestinian terror groups were Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (later shot dead by the British) and the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini (deported). Oh....uhmmmm....that was decades before the "crystal clear" problem of the Jewish state. But don't let that stop you from rejecting reality and replacing it with your own.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The problem for Palestinians driven from their homes, robbed, humiliated and consigned to the care of impoverished strangers was, well, all that. That happened to at least 350,000 Palestinians before Israeli nationhood was even declared. Was that before or after the part you always leave out? Specifically the Palestinian-led anti-jewish riots and pogroms in Palestine during the 20s and 30s I just documented.

Gosh, I never realized zionists are to blame for everything - the wars, the anti-jewish riots and pogroms, the international Palestinian terrorism - those zionists must be terrible people. No wonder Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Assad, Nasser, Arafat, Yassin and many others feel the need to send children wearing bomb vests to commit suicide in zionist restaurants and buses...

[webfusion]

CapelDodger:It is not true. (e.g: That the aim of the Islamists/Arabs/Palestinians is the killing of jews, per-se). It was made crystal clear that the problem was with the Jewish State, not Jews...The difference was always explicitly with zionists, not Jews.

What a crock. Just today, more evidence of the true intentions of the Palestinians against Jews:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584941.html
Israeli police rushed into the Temple Mount compound and faced down hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday as Jews visited the site on the anniversary of the capture of the Old City and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by webfusion
What a crock. Just today, more evidence of the true intentions of the Palestinians against Jews:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584941.html
Israeli police rushed into the Temple Mount compound and faced down hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday as Jews visited the site on the anniversary of the capture of the Old City and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

Erm, that seems to back up CapelDodger's point, actually, considering this was a direct connection to "Jerusalem Day" (the anniversary of Israel's conquest and annexation of East Jerusalem).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by webfusion
What a crock. Just today, more evidence of the true intentions of the Palestinians against Jews:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584941.html
Israeli police rushed into the Temple Mount compound and faced down hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday as Jews visited the site on the anniversary of the capture of the Old City and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

Have you heard of the "Marching Season" in Northern Ireland?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", blew up a Palestinian bus? When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", killed Palestinian athletes at the Olympics? When was the last time a zionist blew up a Palestinian restaurant? When was the last time a zionist sent an Israeli teenager to smuggle explosives? When was the last time a zionist hijacked an airplane? When was the last time a zionist hijacked a cruise ship? When was the last time a zionist killed another zionist in cold blood on the street because he/she was labelled a 'collaborator' with Palestinians? When was the last time a zionist exploited teenagers for terror? When was the last time zionists commemorated suicide bombing with a parade? When was the last time a zionist recieved monetary rewards for terrorism?

I don't know if it's the last time, but: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3151930.stm

[Giz]

Originally posted by demon
ZN:
"When was the last time a zionist blah blah blah..."

I`m sure the Palestinians would be using the same methods as the murderous IDF if they had access to the most up to date weapons systems in the world and were backed up by the world`s only super power.
I`m sure they would prefer to hover in the air in a state of the art helicopter hundreds of feet above their victims and fire off a few missiles at an inhabited block of flats or down a busy street like their brave adversaries, or empty their machine guns into little girls from the safety of a checkpoint with impunity.

You mean like the IDF targets militants, not random civilians?

Why don't the palestinians target the IDF occupation forces exclusively? (i.e. stop with the bombing school buses etc) - restricting themselves to suicide bombing military (and maybe political?) targets would seem to be a way to, if not grab the moral high ground, at least climb up to an equivalent position in the eyes of the world...

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Giz

Why don't the palestinians target the IDF occupation forces exclusively? (i.e. stop with the bombing school buses etc) - restricting themselves to suicide bombing military (and maybe political?) targets would seem to be a way to, if not grab the moral high ground, at least climb up to an equivalent position in the eyes of the world...

Hardly. Even when they target the IDF, they're still labeled as terrorists. At this point, "terrorist" is merely used as a handy synonym for "Palestinian" to avoid any uncomfortable facts.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Hardly. Even when they target the IDF, they're still labeled as terrorists. At this point, "terrorist" is merely used as a handy synonym for "Palestinian" to avoid any uncomfortable facts.

Of course they are. It's because the occasional time when they target an IDF soldier doesn't change the fact that most of their time is spent targeting children.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Of course they are. It's because the occasional time when they target an IDF soldier doesn't change the fact that most of their time is spent targeting children.

Most of their time, eh?

Oh...who am I kidding. I know better than to ask you to substantiate that, you just won't bother and will blame me for asking.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Giz
You mean like the IDF targets militants, not random civilians?

Why don't the palestinians target the IDF occupation forces exclusively? (i.e. stop with the bombing school buses etc) - restricting themselves to suicide bombing military (and maybe political?) targets would seem to be a way to, if not grab the moral high ground, at least climb up to an equivalent position in the eyes of the world...

Yes, that and if, perhaps some "believers" in the cause who were north of, say, 40 blew themselves up. Among many reprehensible aspects to suicide bombing, way up there is the fact that children's (or young people) are somehow expendable while the "planners" are not. Yeah, I know (a prediction) Bush, Rumsfeld blah blah. The fat is that "planning" these atrocities is hardly brain surgery and putting these manics ion the same moral plane as the american president is specious.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Cleon
Hardly. Even when they target the IDF, they're still labeled as terrorists. At this point, "terrorist" is merely used as a handy synonym for "Palestinian" to avoid any uncomfortable facts.

But that might be because simultaneously they're burning down the orphanages!

The French resistance got a lot of good press because they made life difficult for the Wehrmacht's occupying forces, rather than sneaking into Germany to incinerate kids...

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Giz
But that might be because simultaneously they're burning down the orphanages!

Case in point (http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=82917) - and oddly enough, no mention of orphanages or any attacks on civilians.


The French resistance got a lot of good press because they made life difficult for the Wehrmacht's occupying forces, rather than sneaking into Germany to incinerate kids...

The French resistance got good press because they were the Good Guys™. Partisan groups in Eastern Europe got reasonably good press, too, and they weren't particularly picky about the military/civilian distinctions, especially when it came to German settlers.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Most of their time, eh?

Oh...who am I kidding. I know better than to ask you to substantiate that, you just won't bother and will blame me for asking.

Yep, most of the time. You can find statistics on civilian versus military casualties on the Israeli side as easily as I can. If you doubt me, you can have an easy victory just by looking them up and proving me wrong.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Yep, most of the time. You can find statistics on civilian versus military casualties on the Israeli side as easily as I can. If you doubt me, you can have an easy victory just by looking them up and proving me wrong.

Ah, the patented Mycroft "claim, and demand other people look it up for me" method. Gotta love it.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
I bet you'll say zionists, then I will conclude that you are refering to an event that took place over 50 years ago because zionists haven't put bombs in market places in the last 50 years. Now they have tanks, artillery, fighter-bombers, helicopter gunships and overwhelming military superiority over the Palestinians. Israel was founded on terrorism against the local population. How can that not be an issue when terrorism is brought up today?.

"Invaded Palestine". If that doesn't tell people where Capel is coming from nothing will. The only 20th century invasion of Palestine on record Capel happened on May 15th 1948 when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded. It's in every history book..So much for Gen. Allenby's place in history, not to mention the Brits, Indians and ANZACS that fought with him. They're mentioned in all the relevant history books. (Allenby does have a bridge named after him, of course, which is nice.) Does his role not fit Israeli foundation myth?

Zionists went deliberately to Palestine to create their own state against the wishes of the people who lived there - Moslems, Christians, Jews, Druze, the lot. How is that not an invasion? The Arab states that intervened did so as allies of the indigenous population, or what remained of it by the time they did intervene. Jordan was acting in accordance with an agreement Abdullah had with the Israelis - neither wanted a Palestinian state, and nor did many Palestinians at the time. He wasn't yet clued-up to the fact that an agreement with Israel is worth nothing. He still thought he could do a deal with the Israelis after the war, which is rather sad.

'Zionists' buying land is not an invasion unless you hate zionists then you'd call buying land an invasion.That would refer to the ~5% of Israel that was actually purchased, rather than expropriated by violence. If the intent of the purchase was to create a state against the wishes of the local population, it would constitute an invasion in my opinion. The legality of many of the purchases is dubious anyway, as is made clear in many relevant history books - about the late Ottoman Empire, about the history of Palestine, about 19thCE European foreign policy, relevant issues like that. The legal ownership of property was not defined in Ottoman lands in the way it was (and is) in the West, but the latter model is the one that has prevailed in the world. (cf Nation-state.) A similar process is seen in the "purchase" of large swathes of North America as early as the 17thCE, when the sellers clearly had no conception of what the purchasers meant by it. Was the European colonisation of North America an invasion despite that? Yes, in my book. Soldiers, bankers or lawyers, whatever suits the case, it's the intent that counts. The locals were going to be history one way or another.

In the later 19thCE the Ottomans were required by the European Powers to introduce property laws more in line with their own. Given the structure of the Ottoman Empire at the time, where power was highly delegated pretty much by necessity and local customary laws defined property rights, the probability of corruption in the interim approached 1. Since relative purchasing power between East and West was then as it is today - an advantage that Western Jews enjoyed as much as anyone else - guess who got hold of a bunch of previously communal land? Israel still uses the Ottoman laws from that time where it suits them - where it doesn't it uses laws from the Mandatory period, or just takes what it wants anyway because nobody can actually stop them.

The subject of the Enclosures in Britain is similar in many ways. It's also relevant to US and Australian history - the dispossessed were quite often transported to the colonies, where they dispossessed the locals. Dispossessed East Coast Amerinds went West and ... Aborigines probably did much the same. And who's going to claim they wouldn't themselves?

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by Cleon
Ah, the patented Mycroft "claim, and demand other people look it up for me" method. Gotta love it. It's reached the state of self-parody. The knowing look, the tap on the side of the nose that speaks of special knowledge, and ... nothing.

On Mycroft's particular point about civilian casualties : Israeli mythology makes a big thing about its citizen army. When citizen soldiers climb on a civilian bus and a Palestinian climbs on and blows everybody up, that's presented as targeting civilians. When the Israelis drop a bomb on an apartment block, killing children in their beds, ostensibly to get one man, that's because Hamas "hides amongst civilians".

A kibbutz under attack was a civilian target, but the kibbutzim are damn' proud of their military role in the creation of Israel 1948-49. They used to have museums dedicated to it, but that might not be the case today. Museums cost money and funds are tight - right-wingers get all the help these days. The irony just keeps on coming.

Thanks to Leif Roar for actually looking something up and saving me the trouble.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", blew up a Palestinian bus? When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", killed Palestinian athletes at the Olympics? When was the last time a zionist blew up a Palestinian restaurant? When was the last time a zionist sent an Israeli teenager to smuggle explosives? When was the last time a zionist hijacked an airplane? When was the last time a zionist hijacked a cruise ship? When was the last time a zionist killed another zionist in cold blood on the street because he/she was labelled a 'collaborator' with Palestinians? When was the last time a zionist exploited teenagers for terror? When was the last time zionists commemorated suicide bombing with a parade? When was the last time a zionist recieved monetary rewards for terrorism?

....and you hate what zionism had brought the world eh Capel? ....screw those immoral zionists and their illegal criminal desires to live anywhere on earth they want to...the Palestinians should not have to put up with living near one filthy zionist...:rolleyes:

Note how ZN has subtly changed the topic of the thread?

Now, can we just discuss the topic for a change. There are a few, one the settlers and what they are up to, the fact that information on them is so scarce, as a documentary such as this is very rare, and the simplistic rebuttal of 'anti-semitism' to a critical look at what they are doing.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleon
Ah, the patented Mycroft "claim, and demand other people look it up for me" method. Gotta love it.

I take it you decline the easy victory? I think we all understand why.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
On Mycroft's particular point about civilian casualties : Israeli mythology makes a big thing about its citizen army. When citizen soldiers climb on a civilian bus and a Palestinian climbs on and blows everybody up, that's presented as targeting civilians. When the Israelis drop a bomb on an apartment block, killing children in their beds, ostensibly to get one man, that's because Hamas "hides amongst civilians".

That's right. When the United States bombed Saddam's sons, they took out a restraunt where they were eating. The cooks and waiters were not the targets.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Now they have tanks, artillery, fighter-bombers, helicopter gunships and overwhelming military superiority over the Palestinians.True. Israel has assets to show for it's billions in aid. It has highly-trained soldiers, engineers and pilots. Some would say the best in the world. The reason for that is Israel didn't give the billions in aid to Arafat and therefore has something to show for it.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Israel was founded on terrorism against the local population. How can that not be an issue when terrorism is brought up today?.Every country on earth was 'founded on terrorism'. When Europeans colonized Europe there weren't wars and terrorism? When Europeans colonized America there weren't wars and terrorism? When Europeans colonized South America there weren't wars and terrorism? When Europeans colonized the Middle East, Africa or India there weren't wars and terrorism? So please... spare me the "Israel was founded on terrorism against the local population" sob story Capel. Especially considering that the hostilities against 'zionists' and jews began 28 years prior to Israel's foundation. The gentleman who led these riots and pogroms was the leader of the Supreme Muslim Council and Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.


Originally posted by CapelDodger
So much for Gen. Allenby's place in history, not to mention the Brits, Indians and ANZACS that fought with him. They're mentioned in all the relevant history books. (Allenby does have a bridge named after him, of course, which is nice.) Does his role not fit Israeli foundation myth?Well since Allenby fought with the Arabs against the Turkish Army in Palestine I'm not quite sure how that really ties into the "Israeli foundation myth". He was fighting for Britain in 1917, not Israel.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Zionists went deliberately to Palestine to create their own state against the wishes of the people who lived there - Moslems, Christians, Jews, Druze, the lot.Blacks just moved into my neighborhood against the wishes of the people who lived here - Moslems, Christians, Jews, Druze, the lot.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
How is that not an invasion? The Arab states that intervened did so as allies of the indigenous population, or what remained of it by the time they did intervene. So zionists buying land is an "invasion" and the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invading on May 15th 1948 is "intervening". Ok, I shall ponder that one.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Jordan was acting in accordance with an agreement Abdullah had with the Israelis - neither wanted a Palestinian state, and nor did many Palestinians at the time. He wasn't yet clued-up to the fact that an agreement with Israel is worth nothing. He still thought he could do a deal with the Israelis after the war, which is rather sad.That would refer to the ~5% of Israel that was actually purchased, rather than expropriated by violence. If the intent of the purchase was to create a state against the wishes of the local population, it would constitute an invasion in my opinion. The legality of many of the purchases is dubious anyway, as is made clear in many relevant history books - about the late Ottoman Empire, about the history of Palestine, about 19thCE European foreign policy, relevant issues like that. The legal ownership of property was not defined in Ottoman lands in the way it was (and is) in the West, but the latter model is the one that has prevailed in the world. (cf Nation-state.) A similar process is seen in the "purchase" of large swathes of North America as early as the 17thCE, when the sellers clearly had no conception of what the purchasers meant by it. Was the European colonisation of North America an invasion despite that? Yes, in my book. Soldiers, bankers or lawyers, whatever suits the case, it's the intent that counts. The locals were going to be history one way or another.In the later 19thCE the Ottomans were required by the European Powers to introduce property laws more in line with their own. Given the structure of the Ottoman Empire at the time, where power was highly delegated pretty much by necessity and local customary laws defined property rights, the probability of corruption in the interim approached 1. Since relative purchasing power between East and West was then as it is today - an advantage that Western Jews enjoyed as much as anyone else - guess who got hold of a bunch of previously communal land? Israel still uses the Ottoman laws from that time where it suits them - where it doesn't it uses laws from the Mandatory period, or just takes what it wants anyway because nobody can actually stop them.The subject of the Enclosures in Britain is similar in many ways. It's also relevant to US and Australian history - the dispossessed were quite often transported to the colonies, where they dispossessed the locals. Dispossessed East Coast Amerinds went West and ... Aborigines probably did much the same. And who's going to claim they wouldn't themselves? Ya..ok...whatever Capel....The problem here and now is you have there are extremist jews. Some of them do terrible things like terrorize Palestinians and they are an embarassment to Israel. It may surprise you but if I had my way I would show this documentary on every Israeli channel in prime time. I have nothing to hide.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
On Mycroft's particular point about civilian casualties : Israeli mythology makes a big thing about its citizen army. When citizen soldiers climb on a civilian bus and a Palestinian climbs on and blows everybody up, that's presented as targeting civilians.It is targeting civilians Capel. Unless you are now prepared to debate that pregnant Israeli women, elderly Israelis and under-18-year-old Israelis riding buses are all classified as Israeli soldiers.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
When the Israelis drop a bomb on an apartment block, killing children in their beds, ostensibly to get one man, that's because Hamas "hides amongst civilians".And that is exactly what they do. They use the "children in their beds" to shield themselves. Otherwise they would be SOLDIERS and follow the RULES OF COMBAT by wearing UNIFORMS and having BASES for Israel to attack after they send yet-another suicide bomber.

[Skeptic]

So zionists buying land is an "invasion" and the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invading on May 15th 1948 is "intervening".

Hey, Z-N, I've heard some black-skinned people have invaded your neighborhood by buying houses.

Luckily the local neo-nazi party intervened. The uppity invader are dead now.

Tell me, CD: imagine you are a jewish baby in 1948 in Tel Aviv. What would happen to you once the Arab armies finish their "intervention" if they win?

No euphemisms please.

But, generally speaking, aren't euphemisms grand?

I can give you a few more:

Israel's destruction: "The legitimate rights of the palestinian people".

Killing jewish babies in their bed: "legitimate resistance to occupation" (just ask the UN!)

Pogroms against jews: "uprising" (the Palestinians are not the first to use the term, incidentally--the porgorms in, say, Germany in the 1930s and Russia in the early days of the century were also portrayed by the perpetrators as an "spontaneous uprising" of the people againt the jewish menace).

Oriental jewish refugees from porgroms in Arab lands: "colonialists"

etc., etc., etc.

Admit it, CD: you are supporting a bunch of murderers in their desire for a second holocaust. Don't like it? Tough.

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
A journalist goes out and does some investigative journalism.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Middle-East-Crisis/Israelis-stunned-by-TV-indictment-from-within/2005/06/03/1117568372806.html



The Palestinians won't rest till they wipe out Israel, but what's that obout the Nile to the Euprhates?

Perhaps one of the areas where we both agree is the settlement issues, which I remember having misgivings about back in the 70's, even though then it was easier to support IIsrael given the wars recently over, and the Palestinian iinvention of modern terrorism which was still somewhat new then.

I am however somewhat puzzled by your choice of Subject heading. I don't know what this has to do with "more" anti semitism than the world, Arab in particular, has been infected with for a long time.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elind
Perhaps one of the areas where we both agree is the settlement issues, which I remember having misgivings about back in the 70's, even though then it was easier to support IIsrael given the wars recently over, and the Palestinian iinvention of modern terrorism which was still somewhat new then.

I am however somewhat puzzled by your choice of Subject heading. I don't know what this has to do with "more" anti semitism than the world, Arab in particular, has been infected with for a long time.

Hence the question mark. I was surprised that the documentary maker was accused of 'anti-semitism'. Anti-semitism is a real problem in the world, but the reflexive accusation in this case is absurd. The real issue is what the journalist has documented.

[Earthborn]

I take it you decline the easy victory?I'll take it. It's too easy to let it pass.

Israeli source (http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm)

Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 1 May 2004<table border><tr><td>Palestinians </td> <td>2806</td> <td>Israelis</td> <td>921</td></tr>

<tr><td>Non-Combatants below age 12 </td> <td>80</td> <td>Non-Combatants below age 12</td> <td>36</td></tr>


<tr><td>Non-Combatant Males between ages 12-29 </td> <td>535</td> <td>Non-Combatant Males between ages 12-29 </td> <td>176</td></tr></table>

Other pro-Israel source (http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/mostly.html) (unfortunately the graphs seem all missing, otherwise would have been an interesting site)
Among both Palestinians and Israelis, the number of young children (under the age of 10-11 years old) is comparatively smallIf Palestinian terrorists target children most of the time, those Israeli kids must be incredibly tough. Almost indestructible.

[Skeptic]

If Palestinian terrorists target children most of the time, those Israeli kids must be incredibly tough. Almost indestructible.

This must be the single most offensive statement I've ever read on this forum.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Skeptic

This must be the single most offensive statement I've ever read on this forum.

You have no business taking offense to squat.

[Earthborn]

It is not my intention to offend anyone, so I apologize.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Earthborn
It is not my intention to offend anyone, so I apologize.

Yes, I DO understand you meant it sarcastically. What you really meant to say was, "Palestinians do not target israeli children especially".

But think about it: how does your statement seem to, for instance, the mother of the two children who were recently shot in the head at point-blank range (aged 5 and 3, I believe) by a Palestinian terrorist?

Isn't the word "indestructible" somewhat inappropriate here?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I'll take it. It's too easy to let it pass.

I'm busted. You caught me committing the crime of hyperbole. Of course what I meant to illustrate was the difference between civilizian and combatant deaths, not literally the number of children targeted. I believe Cleon declined to answer because it would lead to revelation of statistics such as this:

Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 1 May 2004<table border><tr><td>Palestinians </td> <td>2806</td> <td>Israelis</td> <td>921</td></tr>

<tr><td>Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td> <td>1326</td> <td>Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td> <td>187</td></tr>


<tr><td>People killed by actions of own side </td> <td>365</td> <td>People killed by actions of own side</td> <td>22</td></tr></table>

Naturally you don't shirk from linking sources because you're not as committed to defending one side or the other of the argument.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Yes, I DO understand you meant it sarcastically. What you really meant to say was, "Palestinians do not target israeli children especially".

But think about it: how does your statement seem to, for instance, the mother of the two children who were recently shot in the head at point-blank range (aged 5 and 3, I believe) by a Palestinian terrorist?

Isn't the word "indestructible" somewhat inappropriate here?

As indestructable as a schoolgirl who has a whole magazine empitied into her from an assault rifle.

You take the cake Skeptic. Earthborn is one person who tries to play it cool, she gets caught with a sucker punch from Mycroft and it makes your day.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I'm busted. You caught me committing the crime of hyperbole. Of course what I meant to illustrate was the difference between civilizian and combatant deaths, not literally the number of children targeted. I believe Cleon declined to answer because it would lead to revelation of statistics such as this:

Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 1 May 2004<table border><tr><td>Palestinians </td> <td>2806</td> <td>Israelis</td> <td>921</td></tr>

<tr><td>Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td> <td>1326</td> <td>Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td> <td>187</td></tr>


<tr><td>People killed by actions of own side </td> <td>365</td> <td>People killed by actions of own side</td> <td>22</td></tr></table>

Naturally you don't shirk from linking sources because you're not as committed to defending one side or the other of the argument.

No, you were the one being deceptive and manipulative. You knew all along what you wanted to say, but wouldn't, just because you wanted a cheap shot at Cleon.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As indestructable as a schoolgirl who has a whole magazine empitied into her from an assault rifle.

You take the cake Skeptic. Earthborn is one person who tries to play it cool, she gets caught with a sucker punch from Mycroft and it makes your day.

The difference, of course, is nobody described that child as indestructable.

I don't believe Eathborn meant offense, but I can see how the comment could be offensive.

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Hence the question mark. I was surprised that the documentary maker was accused of 'anti-semitism'. Anti-semitism is a real problem in the world, but the reflexive accusation in this case is absurd. The real issue is what the journalist has documented.

Oh, I see. However no surprise there. The word "racism" gets bandied about here sometimes under similar situations. As you say, reflexive reactions are a common mode of argument, but not one we do; right?;)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, you were the one being deceptive and manipulative. You knew all along what you wanted to say, but wouldn't, just because you wanted a cheap shot at Cleon.

I knew the statistics but was too lazy to look them up. I don't believe one needs to verify every inconsequential thing, especially when it's been verified before. Cleon started the issue by talking about substantiation

Cleon: Oh...who am I kidding. I know better than to ask you to substantiate that, you just won't bother and will blame me for asking.

Mycroft: Yep, most of the time. You can find statistics on civilian versus military casualties on the Israeli side as easily as I can. If you doubt me, you can have an easy victory just by looking them up and proving me wrong.

Cleon: Ah, the patented Mycroft "claim, and demand other people look it up for me" method. Gotta love it.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Naturally you don't shirk from linking sources because you're not as committed to defending one side or the other of the argument. Is that why you refused to link a source for "the fact that most of their time is spent targeting children" yourself?

[Elind]

Originally posted by Cleon
Most of their time, eh?

Oh...who am I kidding. I know better than to ask you to substantiate that, you just won't bother and will blame me for asking.

I don't have to look up "most of the time" numbers. Any fool knows that random primitive rockets launched at settlements (which I think should not be there, in case you go tangential again) is perfectly tantamount to randomly targeting children since they are most likely to be out in exposed areas at any given time. I won't bother about the bombing buses aspects or breaking into homes to kill all who live there.

Why can't you try to put your kidding hat aside for once and try to maintain a rational debate? You could for example suggest that since the Palestinians don't have smart remote drones and F16s, they have no choice but to fight with children targeting weapons? I have more suggestions in case you are stuck for words; and if I'm suitably bored.

(Applicable to Kimiko too; who also like to be led by the nose to the obvious)

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Isn't the word "indestructible" somewhat inappropriate here?I admit it. Totally inappropriate.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elind
I don't have to look up "most of the time" numbers. Any fool knows that random primitive rockets launched at settlements (which I think should not be there, in case you go tangential again) is perfectly tantamount to randomly targeting children since they are most likely to be out in exposed areas at any given time. I won't bother about the bombing buses aspects or breaking into homes to kill all who live there.

Why can't you try to put your kidding hat aside for once and try to maintain a rational debate? You could for example suggest that since the Palestinians don't have smart remote drones and F16s, they have no choice but to fight with children targeting weapons? I have more suggestions in case you are stuck for words; and if I'm suitably bored.

(Applicable to Kimiko too; who also like to be led by the nose to the obvious)

They aren't 'targetting' children, as such, when they fire a rocket. The issue of what is targetting is a flexible one in itself. When Israel has a military occupation of the Palestinians territories, and children grow up with tanks and bulldozers and checkpoints, are they being targetted? When an assasination is performed on a Palestinian, are the children who die around him being targetted.

Also, there is this



It is still. The camp waits, as if holding its breath. And then, out of the dry furnace air, a disembodied voice crackles over a loudspeaker.

'Come on, dogs,' the voice booms in Arabic. 'Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Come! Come!'

I stand up. I walk outside the hut. The invective continues to spew: 'Son of a bitch!' 'Son of a Whore!…'

The boys dart in small packs up the sloping dunes to the electric fence that separates the camp from the Jewish settlement. They lob rocks toward two armored jeeps parked on top of the dune and mounted with loudspeakers. Three ambulances line the road below the dunes in anticipation of what is to come.

A percussion grenade explodes. The boys, most no more than ten or eleven years old, scatter, running clumsily across the heavy sand. They descend out of sight behind a sandbank in front of me. There are no sounds of gunfire. The soldiers shoot with silencers. The bullets from the M-16 rifles tumble end over end through the children's slight bodies. Later, in the hospital, I will see the destruction: the stomachs ripped out, the gaping holes in limbs and torsos.

Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered - death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo - but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.



http://home.mindspring.com/~fontenelles/hedges/hedges1.htm

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
They aren't 'targetting' children, as such, when they fire a rocket. The issue of what is targetting is a flexible one in itself. When Israel has a military occupation of the Palestinians territories, and children grow up with tanks and bulldozers and checkpoints, are they being targetted? When an assasination is performed on a Palestinian, are the children who die around him being targetted.

Also, there is this



http://home.mindspring.com/~fontenelles/hedges/hedges1.htm

:( Sorry; I expected better rationales.

Let's put it this way, I do believe there is a difference between choices of targets as a matter of policy. You try to hide behind examples of the results of warfare to say there is no difference. I think there is a difference in that regard. You want equality in the response? I hold both sides in contempt, but for differing reasons.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
I don't have to look up "most of the time" numbers. Any fool knows... Actually, yeah you do have to look them up. If you want to argue that children are more likely to be out in exposed areas, then you'd have to say why. I don't think that is true. The website for a number of settlements that Skeptic posted in another thread had pictures. There were separate playground areas, and many of the pictures showed teachers out with the children when they were playing. Also shown were adults going about daily life- driving, walking, sitting in their yards, pictures of flowers and gardens that would require adults out gardening to plant or maintain them, people working on houses, etc. There is no reason to think settlement children are outside playing all the time, or that their time outdoors is greater than the adults responsible for maintaining the community. Why can't you try to put your kidding hat aside for once and try to maintain a rational debate? ... (Applicable to Kimiko too; who also like to be led by the nose to the obvious) You mean like not making empty assertions like "any fool knows..."? Or perhaps like not making a ridiculous false statement, taunting another poster to prove it, then playing it down when he is proven wrong ? Maintaining rational debate like that? I think if someone is going to deride another for behavior they engage in themselves, that should be pointed out in the course of "rational debate" rather than letting hypocritical insults stand.

The hope is that pointing it out will mean posters will stop engaging in it, but as I made a point about the blood libel aspect in framing attacks in terms of baby killing, it multiplied in the thread instead of diminished.

[Skeptic]

Just to clarify, Earthborn--I appreciate your apology.

[Skeptic]

The difference, of course, is nobody described that child as indestructable.

Stop bothering AUP with facts. You know it's not nice.

I don't believe Eathborn meant offense,

I agree.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elind
:( Sorry; I expected better rationales.

Let's put it this way, I do believe there is a difference between choices of targets as a matter of policy. You try to hide behind examples of the results of warfare to say there is no difference. I think there is a difference in that regard. You want equality in the response? I hold both sides in contempt, but for differing reasons.

Both sides are not directly comparable. It appears to be enough for some to say, IMHO, "They target children", and it's end of story, case closed. It's not that simple. Children on both sides are harmed, and killed. They are harmed and killed as the result of attacks aimed at civilians, by both sides. I don't believe that there would be many times when children were directly targetted because they were children, by either side. I don't believe either side would have a policy of specifically targetting children.

"Gaza Diary" does, however, illustrate such an act.

[Elind]

Originally posted by kimiko
Actually, yeah you do have to look them up. If you want to argue that children are more likely to be out in exposed areas, then you'd have to say why. I don't think that is true. The website for a number of settlements that Skeptic posted in another thread had pictures. There were separate playground areas, and many of the pictures showed teachers out with the children when they were playing. Also shown were adults going about daily life- driving, walking, sitting in their yards, pictures of flowers and gardens that would require adults out gardening to plant or maintain them, people working on houses, etc. There is no reason to think settlement children are outside playing all the time, or that their time outdoors is greater than the adults responsible for maintaining the community. You mean like not making empty assertions like "any fool knows..."? Or perhaps like not making a ridiculous false statement, taunting another poster to prove it, then playing it down when he is proven wrong ? Maintaining rational debate like that? I think if someone is going to deride another for behavior they engage in themselves, that should be pointed out in the course of "rational debate" rather than letting hypocritical insults stand.

The hope is that pointing it out will mean posters will stop engaging in it, but as I made a point about the blood libel aspect in framing attacks in terms of baby killing, it multiplied in the thread instead of diminished.

Good Grief, as Charlie Brown would say. You are definitely going to harm your health if you keep getting worked up like this about simple statements, like random rocket, or mortar, attacks deliberately targeted against civilian homes are deliberate targeting of children; and obviously adults too if your nitpicking little mind needs the clarification.

Get a life.

[Elind]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Both sides are not directly comparable. It appears to be enough for some to say, IMHO, "They target children", and it's end of story, case closed. It's not that simple. Children on both sides are harmed, and killed. They are harmed and killed as the result of attacks aimed at civilians, by both sides. I don't believe that there would be many times when children were directly targetted because they were children, by either side. I don't believe either side would have a policy of specifically targetting children.

"Gaza Diary" does, however, illustrate such an act.

No doubt you can find "such acts" to fit any situation in any war and I don't disagree with, at least, that it's "not that simple", but that is what this part of the thread was about.

Targeting civilian settlements with random bombardments (including random buses and restaurants) is a matter of policy for some of the Palestinian's glorious freedom fighters and there have been plenty of examples of that almost every day. That is a fact. It is irrefutable. It happens all the time and I don't give a **** how oppressed they think they are (or you do). As far as I'm concerned those who do that have no place in any civilization.

If Kimiko and friends repost any other examples of the other side's excesses, true or not, I think I'll throw up on them.

Gnite

[username]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The religious Zionists of the settler movement believe that God covenanted the Jews with an exclusive right and religious duty to inhabit all the territories between the Nile in Egypt and the Euphrates in Iraq.

The Palestinians won't rest till they wipe out Israel, but what's that obout the Nile to the Euprhates?



To the extent that either side is motivated by childish superstition that is easily proven false I can only hope they wipe each other out quickly with a minimum of collateral damage.

I do not mean to sound insensitive, but how much longer must rational people put up with childish school yard bullying where each bully has a nuke before the sane people of the world say to hell with multiculturalism and all that crap, these people are flippin insane?

The central problem with the conflict is religious nonsense. Since religion does not yield to reason neither side can be reasoned with. I say let them duke it out before they develop even more damaging technology. I really don't care who wins as long as the rest of us don't have to suffer the fallout generated by lunatics.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
Good Grief, as Charlie Brown would say. You are definitely going to harm your health if you keep getting worked up like this about simple statements, like random rocket, or mortar, attacks deliberately targeted against civilian homes are deliberate targeting of children I like accuracy. I don't think that's a bad thing. ... if your nitpicking little mind needs the clarification.

Get a life. You have no right to ask people to maintain a rational debate if you resort to ad homs so easily.

Back to the argument.

edited to add: ...Kimiko and friends... :rolleyes:

Now, back to the argument.

[davefoc]

I wonder if the people implementing Israel's colonization projects that are religiously driven have ever thought about the fact that the Palestinians are more closely descended from the Jews of 3200 years ago than the European Jews are that are behind the colonization efforts today. Did God cede the land in perpetuity to the Jews based on their DNA or their religion?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by username
To the extent that either side is motivated by childish superstition that is easily proven false I can only hope they wipe each other out quickly with a minimum of collateral damage.

I do not mean to sound insensitive, but how much longer must rational people put up with childish school yard bullying where each bully has a nuke before the sane people of the world say to hell with multiculturalism and all that crap, these people are flippin insane?

The central problem with the conflict is religious nonsense. Since religion does not yield to reason neither side can be reasoned with. I say let them duke it out before they develop even more damaging technology. I really don't care who wins as long as the rest of us don't have to suffer the fallout generated by lunatics.

I keep hoping this stuck in the middle will reject the extremists at either end, but wedge politics is being practised quite well.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I keep hoping this stuck in the middle will reject the extremists at either end, but wedge politics is being practised quite well.

You realize you represent one of the extremes, don't you?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft
You realize you represent one of the extremes, don't you?
Would that be the extreme position that there is fault on both sides or would that be more like your more moderate middle of the road position that one side is completely blameless?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
Would that be the extreme position that there is fault on both sides or would that be more like your more moderate middle of the road position that one side is completely blameless?

Normally I'd just say "baiting ignored", but I'll respond to this.

I've said several times I debate the Israeli/Palestine issue to give the other side to AUP's anti-Israel propaganda campaign. I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself clear on that. He's the reason I'm here.

Maybe that seems odd to you, but I used to make a hobby of debating with white supremicists in the same way. That was back in the mid 1990's. Since then I've realized the racists will always lurk in their dark corners at the fringes of cyber-space, but in this forum dedicated to skepticism, I found it expecially offensive and took up my hobby again.

There are occasions where I'm happy to give my criticisms of how Israel handles things. It's a strange little country with strange ways of doing things that I don't always understand. It's just that here, with polemics like you and AUP, it's just not the apropriate forum.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"...but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport."

I did a search and found you pulled this article out in April of 2003, again in April of 2004 and now in June of 2005. I'm impressed, you must have a good indexing system to be able to keep tabs on all this yet not overuse it. A piece this incindiary is too good to be used just once, yet shouldn't be overused either.

The problem is the story doesn't hold up to close scruitiny. Why would a soldier with an M-16 want a silencer? If they're really luring children into a trap like mice, how come only one is killed? That makes no sense, professional soldiers laying traps to murder children yet only killing one?

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=4&x_context=2

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1064470656874&p=1006953079865

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Eyeless_in_Gaza_-_Part_2.asp

These sources critique the article, and some are better than others, but it seems in this case Chris Hedges wrote an inflammatory piece of propaganda and passed it off as journalism.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft
There are occasions where I'm happy to give my criticisms of how Israel handles things.

Just not here or anywhere else you can point to......Unless you are critisizing them for not being harsh enough on Palestinians.

Just curious but does your desire to confront racists ever manifest itself at little green footballs? How were you able to control your desire to confront racism during skeptics latest efforts about racial purity in relationships between Jews and non jews? You hung on to your outrage quite effectively throughout that grubby little episode.

Anyway...are you trying to say that you are not really a rank apologist for Israel but just act like one here?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I did a search and found you pulled this article out in April of 2003, again in April of 2004 and now in June of 2005. I'm impressed, you must have a good indexing system to be able to keep tabs on all this yet not overuse it. A piece this incindiary is too good to be used just once, yet shouldn't be overused either.

The problem is the story doesn't hold up to close scruitiny. Why would a soldier with an M-16 want a silencer? If they're really luring children into a trap like mice, how come only one is killed? That makes no sense, professional soldiers laying traps to murder children yet only killing one?

It is interesting that I have used this article more than once, as you note, yet it is only now that you have even bothered to read it and offer any criticism.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_article=4&x_context=2

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1064470656874&p=1006953079865



"Indexing System"? You have excelled yourself, Mycroft.

If you want to rebut the article, please do, but leave out the "Indexing System" and other slanders, which are so typical of your style of argument.

The fact is, it is very hard to get anything on what happens in Palestine, without it being derided as a proganada piece by the Palestinians.

If you are claiming a journalist does not know his military weapons too well, that hardly surprises me, but it is hardly a debunking of the whole article.



http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Eyeless_in_Gaza_-_Part_2.asp

These sources critique the article, and some are better than others, but it seems in this case Chris Hedges wrote an inflammatory piece of propaganda and passed it off as journalism.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Normally I'd just say "baiting ignored", but I'll respond to this.

I've said several times I debate the Israeli/Palestine issue to give the other side to AUP's anti-Israel propaganda campaign. I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself clear on that. He's the reason I'm here.

Maybe that seems odd to you, but I used to make a hobby of debating with white supremicists in the same way. That was back in the mid 1990's. Since then I've realized the racists will always lurk in their dark corners at the fringes of cyber-space, but in this forum dedicated to skepticism, I found it expecially offensive and took up my hobby again.

There are occasions where I'm happy to give my criticisms of how Israel handles things. It's a strange little country with strange ways of doing things that I don't always understand. It's just that here, with polemics like you and AUP, it's just not the apropriate forum.

Do you mean you might give away some secrets that only a select few know? It's an open forum here, Mycroft. There's people from all sides of politics, as long as they don't abuse some general rules of behaviour. You lose nothing by just saying what you think.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Do you mean you might give away some secrets that only a select few know?

The sad thing is you probably don't think of that as a joke.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The sad thing is you probably don't think of that as a joke. No, the sad thing is I make an obviously sarcastic comment like that and you say I am probably serious.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
"Indexing System"? You have excelled yourself, Mycroft.

If you want to rebut the article, please do, but leave out the "Indexing System" and other slanders, which are so typical of your style of argument.

Calling you well organized is a slander?


Originally posted by a_unique_person
The fact is, it is very hard to get anything on what happens in Palestine, without it being derided as a proganada piece by the Palestinians.

That's because a lot of it is propaganda produced by the Palestinian-Arabs.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If you are claiming a journalist does not know his military weapons too well, that hardly surprises me, but it is hardly a debunking of the whole article.

I'm claiming the story doesn't hold to close scruitiny. There is no rational reason for a soldier to have a silencer for an M-16, and it's absurd to claim they were luring children into a trap like mice yet only killed one.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, the sad thing is I make an obviously sarcastic comment like that and you say I am probably serious.

Did you ever stop and wonder why that "mistake" gets made around you a lot?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Did you ever stop and wonder why that "mistake" gets made around you a lot?

Have you ever wondered what people will think if you can't say things you think because myself or Fool might read them?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Have you ever wondered what people will think if you can't say things you think because myself or Fool might read them?

It's not that I can't, it's that I don't. It would be like talking about problems within the black community with David Duke. There are real issues to talk about, it's just pointless to hear David Duke's spin on them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
It's not that I can't, it's that I don't. It would be like talking about problems within the black community with David Duke. There are real issues to talk about, it's just pointless to hear David Duke's spin on them.

Weird.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Weird.

It seems we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

Have you given any thought as to why that particular "mistake" gets made about you a lot?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, the sad thing is I make an obviously sarcastic comment like that and you say I am probably serious.


The Zionists hope that by doing so in a low key way that avoids the front page of the newspaper, they will get away with a plan that is nowhere near finished. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=133433#post133433)

Those evil Zionists are always plotting sneaky things! Shhh! Just avoid the front page...

[zenith-nadir]

In the 20s and 30s there was no Israel yet the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini engineered bloody riots against Jews.

In the 40s there was no Israel and the Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini conspired with Hitler to wipe Palestine clean of Jews.

In 1948 after a democratic vote at the UN to split Palestine into two states, one for jews and one for Arabs, the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded day-old Israel without negotiation - and lost.

In the 50s before any settlements the arab world tried and tried again to destroy Israel with war and wave after wave of fedayeen.

In the 60s before any settlements Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily, Syria used the Golan Heights to shell Israeli farms and villages and Arab terrorist attacks grew more frequent. In 1965, 35 raids were conducted against Israel. In 1966, the number increased to 41. In just the first four months of 1967, 37 attacks were launched.

In the 70s, 80s and early 90s the PLO waged a massive campaign of international terror against Israelis. They hit Munich, Rome, Israel, Jordan, aircraft, cruise ships, airports, etc. They made Al Queda look like the Boy Scouts.

In the 80s and 90s Israeli civilians of all ages and all political/ethnic associations were killed by Palestinian terrorists. Polls showned widespread Palestinian public support for acts of violence against Israeli civillians. The Palestinian Authority and its head Arafat sponsored this terrorism.

Yet after all that foundation I just layed for the reasons why there is a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in 2005 somehow some JREFers still attribute the conflict to a) settlements and b) zionists. I feel if they spent as much time hating 'zionists' as they did hating the Palestinian leaders who stole all the international aid and made the word Palestinian synonymous with suicide bomber then we would be getting somewhere.

I have never seen a thread at JREF in the entire time I have been here that official PA television, radio, press and education system encourage suicide bombing. Nor have I ever seen anyone openly admit that over the course of the past 80+ years of trying to destroy Israel/jews/zionists/whatever that Islamic terrorism, Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism have merged into one policy under the Palestinian Authority.

That is the heart of the issue, that is why Palestinians suffer in poverty...not because of some frikkin jewish housing developments on grand daddys subsistence farm from the 1940s.... or a documentary exposing some lunatic settlers and their deathwish to live beside Palestinian fundamentalist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Palestinians live like they do today because their leaders merged Islamic terrorism, Arab nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism into one over the course of the past 80 years and I just layed the foundation for that fact clearly in bullet points above.

[Skeptic]

Tell me : imagine you are a jewish baby in 1948 in Tel Aviv. What would happen to you once the Arab armies finish their "intervention" if they win?

No euphemisms please.

This question remains disturbingly unanswered and ignored by the host of "Arabs armies were justified in intervening" group.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Tell me : imagine you are a jewish baby in 1948 in Tel Aviv. What would happen to you once the Arab armies finish their "intervention" if they win?

No euphemisms please.

This question remains disturbingly unanswered and ignored by the host of "Arabs armies were justified in intervening" group.

You ask why no one is taking up your demand that the thread be derailed?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You ask why no one is taking up your demand that the thread be derailed? The title of this thread derailed this thread a_u_p... ;)

I believe the point Skeptic is trying to make is that Capel's euphemism for the invasion of Israel by the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon on May 15th 1948 was not quote, "an intervention" unquote, but an out and out invasion to destroy one-day-old Israel.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You ask why no one is taking up your demand that the thread be derailed?

No, I'm asking a simple question--which you, too, refuse to answer, not only on this thread, but anywhere.

What would happen to a jewish baby in Tel Aviv in 1948 if the "justified Arab intervention" had succeeded?

No euphemisms please.

[Elind]

Originally posted by kimiko
I like accuracy. I don't think that's a bad thing. You have no right to ask people to maintain a rational debate if you resort to ad homs so easily.


All right. Sorry to get worked up myself, but what you call accuracy amounts to avoiding the main issue. We were debating if Palestinians "target" children. That's obviously not all they target, but they sure as hell don't give a damn if they do, and in many cases, like attacks on schools, they do. Random attacks on civilians are just that, and why you would try to defend it with "accuracy" is beyond me.

[Skeptic]

Those evil Zionists are always plotting sneaky things! Shhh! Just avoid the front page...

That's why israel and the israeli/Arab conflict are NEVER in the news anymore.

Every time AUP gets caught in comments like this (israel should/will be destroyed, zionist control the USA/world, there is an evil zionist plan to do -whatever- in the works, etc.), he claims that it was "sarcasm", a "moment of anger", a "joke", a "poorly-chosen" expression, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, other people seem the able to use sarcasm, jokes, and even express anger with poorly-chosen expressions without spitting out "zionist control the world" nonsense.

It is only AUP which seems to have this odd predeliction to cry "zionist conspiracy" every time he's pissed off (in both the American and English sense of the word).

Strange.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, I'm asking a simple question--which you, too, refuse to answer, not only on this thread, but anywhere.

What would happen to a jewish baby in Tel Aviv in 1948 if the "justified Arab intervention" had succeeded?

No euphemisms please.

IIRC, you have asked that question three times, in this thread, which is about the settlers, and another, which is on whether or not the land the settlers are on consists of stolen land.

Both derailments. Start a thread if you want to debate the issues of 1948.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Those evil Zionists are always plotting sneaky things! Shhh! Just avoid the front page...

That's why israel and the israeli/Arab conflict are NEVER in the news anymore.

Every time AUP gets caught in comments like this (israel should/will be destroyed, zionist control the USA/world, there is an evil zionist plan to do -whatever- in the works, etc.), he claims that it was "sarcasm", a "moment of anger", a "joke", a "poorly-chosen" expression, etc. etc. etc.

Yet, other people seem the able to use sarcasm, jokes, and even express anger with poorly-chosen expressions without spitting out "zionist control the world" nonsense.

It is only AUP which seems to have this odd predeliction to cry "zionist conspiracy" every time he's pissed off (in both the American and English sense of the word).

Strange.

Sarcasm, pure and simple, because Mycroft was being such a twit about it all.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
All right. Sorry to get worked up myself, but what you call accuracy amounts to avoiding the main issue. We were debating if Palestinians "target" children. That's obviously not all they target, but they sure as hell don't give a damn if they do, and in many cases, like attacks on schools, they do. Random attacks on civilians are just that, and why you would try to defend it with "accuracy" is beyond me. Attacks on civilians are attacks on civilians. Targetting civilians does not imply the same thing as targetting children. The latter is one of the oldest slanders used to fuel racism, and as it has been leveled at Jewish communities for centuries, charging Palestinians with it in the context of a Jewish-Arab disagreement is disturbing. In this case, accuracy is particularly important to avoid the racist overtones of ritual murder/blood libel.

There is plenty to abhor in the behavior of terror groups without resorting to a loaded accusation.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
Attacks on civilians are attacks on civilians. Targetting civilians does not imply the same thing as targetting children. The latter is one of the oldest slanders used to fuel racism, and as it has been leveled at Jewish communities for centuries, charging Palestinians with it in the context of a Jewish-Arab disagreement is disturbing. In this case, accuracy is particularly important to avoid the racist overtones of ritual murder/blood libel.

There is plenty to abhor in the behavior of terror groups without resorting to a loaded accusation.

No, it's more like calling Tim McVey a "baby killer" even though he probably didn't know there was a day care center inside that building. He still killed the children, and had he known about it he probably would not have changed his plans.

Further, recently there was a rocket attack by Hamas on a bus full of children. That's what was in my mind when I chose the more inflammatory "targeting children" over "targeting civilians."

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sarcasm, pure and simple, because Mycroft was being such a twit about it all.

I've looked it over, and when you say, "The Zionists hope that by doing so in a low key way that avoids the front page of the newspaper, they will get away with a plan that is nowhere near finished. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=133548&#post133548)" it really doesn't look like sarcasm. It looks more like a paranoid rant on a sneaky Zionist conspiracy.

[davefoc]

kimiko, thanks for your reasoned response to Elind. I took Elind's post in a very negative way and wrote a response that I am glad I didn't send.

After thinking about it a bit, I think what Elind meant was the subset of Palestinians that are committing the suicide bombings don't care whether they are targetting children or not. Even this statement strikes me as racist though, and without evidence. How do we know what a particular suicide bomber cares about. My assumption would be is that he does have some empathy for the people he is killing including the children, it is just that his hatred and/or the love of his cause and/or his sense of hopelessness have driven him to take an extreme action in which the killing of innocent people is justified.

With discomfort, I think we must admit to ourselves this is the same kind of calculation that is routinely made by people during conflicts. It was made by Truman when thousands of Japanese were killed by the dropping of the atomic bombs, it was made by many Israelis prior to and during the founding of Israel when terrorist acts like the bombing of the King David Hotel and the mass killing of the inhabitants of an entire town and it is made by soldiers every day.

Many of the people who support Israel's expansion efforts here see the decision by Israeli leaders to do things that result in the death of civilians as fundamentally different than the Palestinian terrorist attacks because of the underlying intent. I believe their view is that the Palestinian civilians are killed only as collateral damage during the targetted attacks of Palestinian terrorist leaders. I think they are right in that idea as far as it goes. However, as has been pointed out many times, some Israelis showed themselves to be perfectly capable of direct attacks on civilians when Israeli did not have an overwhelming military advantage. And at least some Israelis have been willing to target civilians directly even after Israel had established overwhelming military superiority.

I think it would be wrong to infer something about all Israelis based on the actions of some Israelis and it would be wrong to decide that the Israelis who committed the terrorist actions were without empathy for their victims. Just as I think it is wrong and unsupported by evidence to conclude that Palestinian terrorists are without empathy for their victims.

[Elind]

Originally posted by kimiko
Attacks on civilians are attacks on civilians. Targetting civilians does not imply the same thing as targetting children. The latter is one of the oldest slanders used to fuel racism, and as it has been leveled at Jewish communities for centuries, charging Palestinians with it in the context of a Jewish-Arab disagreement is disturbing. In this case, accuracy is particularly important to avoid the racist overtones of ritual murder/blood libel.

There is plenty to abhor in the behavior of terror groups without resorting to a loaded accusation.

Correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps I jumped into the middle, but I seem to recall it was the Israelis being accused of targeting children.

My point, which you still can't seem to get, is that any random UN targeted bombardment of civilian areas IS targeting children. Just because they'll accept any deaths as success doesn't change that. Today I read

Second Palestinian dies from injuries sustained in Qassem attack on Ganei Tal greenhouse in Gaza Strip Tuesday. He was one of six injured. Two of his fellow workers, a Palestinian and a Chinese, were killed instantly. Hamas and Jihad Islami separately claimed attack.

You know what you can do with your accuracy crap, and and the inevitable race card that your arguments have to bring up? Tell that to the Palestinians and Chinese they killed today, and claimed credit for.

I retract my earlier apology for being insulting. I meant it then and still do.

[Elind]

Originally posted by davefoc


After thinking about it a bit, I think what Elind meant was the subset of Palestinians that are committing the suicide bombings don't care whether they are targetting children or not. Even this statement strikes me as racist though, and without evidence. How do we know what a particular suicide bomber cares about. My assumption would be is that he does have some empathy for the people he is killing including the children, it is just that his hatred and/or the love of his cause and/or his sense of hopelessness have driven him to take an extreme action in which the killing of innocent people is justified.


Boy; talk about bending over to please. What a crock of....


You should think about it a little more, since you obviously haven't paid much attention so far. Cute little bit about the racism thing. Seems to be a reliable fallback for all apologists.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Mycroft
No, it's more like calling Tim McVey a "baby killer" even though he probably didn't know there was a day care center inside that building. He still killed the children, and had he known about it he probably would not have changed his plans. Are you implying that is a fair characterization? He was acting against the government and had chosen the building because it contained federal agents. I have doubts that he would have gone ahead knowing children would be present. Further, recently there was a rocket attack by Hamas on a bus full of children. That's what was in my mind when I chose the more inflammatory "targeting children" over "targeting civilians." That kind of specific attack is perfectly justified in being labeled "targetting children".

Even for people who routinely target civilians, I think there would have to be some kind of recognition that children have no control over their situation and play no role in the greater conflict. I know of at least one type of mental gymnastics they engage in to convince themselves that kids are somehow fair targets, by labeling them "future IDF". Equivocating innocent children to military personnel demonstrates that even terrorists are aware of the egregiousness of targetting the young.

[davefoc]

davefoc wrote:My assumption would be is that he does have some empathy for the people he is killing including the children, it is just that his hatred and/or the love of his cause and/or his sense of hopelessness have driven him to take an extreme action in which the killing of innocent people is justified.

The words "in his mind" should have been added to the last sentence.

This may not satisfy Elind's objections to what I wrote, but without those words the meaning of the sentence is not remotely what I meant.

I am sorry that I offended Elind. It was not my intention to do so. I would respond in more detail to his criticism but I am not quite sure what Elind objected to in what I wrote.

[kimiko]

Originally posted by davefoc
After thinking about it a bit, I think what Elind meant was the subset of Palestinians that are committing the suicide bombings don't care whether they are targetting children or not. ... My assumption would be is that he does have some empathy for the people he is killing including the children, it is just that his hatred and/or the love of his cause and/or his sense of hopelessness have driven him to take an extreme action in which the killing of innocent people is justified. I agree mostly, but it's not just that something else outweighs the prohibition against the killing. Terrorist organizations groom the teens that approach them specifically for different types of attack. The organizations facilitate mental doubling in their members to avoid confronting the cognitive dissonance of murdering innocents against their moral code. If they dehumanize their victims, and construct artificial justifications for cruelty, they are more easily able to do things they know are wrong. With discomfort, I think we must admit to ourselves this is the same kind of calculation that is routinely made by people during conflicts. I agree. Sadly, human beings are very susceptible to social pressures, and a number of classic social science experiments like the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram obedience experiments show how vulnerable the vast majority of populations are. I think it's important to remember that everyone is capable of the most inhuman acts, and to avoid demonizing the people who do those things, because it's untrue for most people and does nothing to help us solve the situation. However, as has been pointed out many times, some Israelis showed themselves to be perfectly capable of direct attacks on civilians when Israeli did not have an overwhelming military advantage. And at least some Israelis have been willing to target civilians directly even after Israel had established overwhelming military superiority. Fanaticism isn't confined to one side of the conflict. The Israeli settlers are also part of fanatical organizations, and that is why there are things like these in the film:A leader of the Hebron settlers tells him that Palestinians should be told to leave the country immediately or be bombed from the air. He films graffiti on a wall, "Arabs to the crematoriums". ...a soldier tells Yavin that settlers are inciting him to shoot and kill Palestinian children.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I've looked it over, and when you say, "The Zionists hope that by doing so in a low key way that avoids the front page of the newspaper, they will get away with a plan that is nowhere near finished. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=133548&#post133548)" it really doesn't look like sarcasm. It looks more like a paranoid rant on a sneaky Zionist conspiracy.
Maybe you should put it in your sig where you put all the other things you don't understand?

[Skeptic]

Even this statement strikes me as racist though, and without evidence. How do we know what a particular suicide bomber cares about.

Yes, we really should stop being so RACIST and JUDGEMENTAL about suicide bombers.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Fool
Maybe you should put it in your sig where you put all the other things you don't understand?

You mean, all those quotes from you and AUP about the evil zionist control of the universe?

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Elind
Correct me if I'm wrong, and perhaps I jumped into the middle, but I seem to recall it was the Israelis being accused of targeting children. I think it was first brought up by zenith-nadir when he said: When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", blew up a Palestinian bus? The point about terrorists targetting civilians was then replaced with the inflammatory statement of targetting children. But Mycroft already explained the reason for the mistake- that he had a particular event in mind, one where children really were deliberately targetted, so I'm not sure why you persist in your point. My point, which you still can't seem to get, is that any random UN targeted bombardment of civilian areas IS targeting children. Just because they'll accept any deaths as success doesn't change that. Today I read I fully understand your point, but disagree. I've already explained why. You know what you can do with your accuracy crap, and and the inevitable race card that your arguments have to bring up? I wasn't calling you a racist, I was trying to explain why that particular accusation is loaded, carrying a connotation we should take pains to avoid.

The funny thing is how it is assumed that if a person tries to understand terrorism with precision, that they are somehow an apologist for terrorists. I think that is an error. Any creative encounter with evil requires that we not distance ourselves from it by simply demonizing those who commit evil acts. In order to write about evil, a writer has to try to comprehend it, from the inside out; to understand the perpetrators and not necessarily sympathize with them. But Americans seem to have a very difficult time recognizing that there is a distinction between understanding and sympathizing. Somehow we believe that an attempt to inform ourselves about what leads to evil is an attempt to explain it away. I believe that just the opposite is true, and that when it comes to coping with evil, ignorance is our worst enemy. -Kathleen Norris, "Native Evil"I retract my earlier apology for being insulting. I meant it then and still do. Delightful; I'll keep that in mind.

[webfusion]

While I have (by-and-large) refrained from participating in this thread, there was a posting made here (Gaza Diaries) which requires a serious rebuttal in the true spirit of skepticism.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1064470656874&p=1006953079865

1. The "silencers" referred to are likely actually the rubber-bullet cannisters used for riot-dispersal by IDF troops.
http://www.olive-drab.com/images/firearms_rifle_m16_03.jpg

2. "in his (other) published accounts Hedges claims he did not see the boys shot. And only very close readers of Hedges' book would notice his three-word retraction concerning his seeing silencers. The web sites that have long posted his Harper's account have not notified their readers of this fact."

3. Khan Yunis was not calm. It was essentially a war zone.
Yet, according to Hedgers, 'All is calm' at Khan Yunis on the day of the incident. There is no mention of the violence-punctuated tension of the previous days.
(During this specific period of unrest in the Gaza Strip, Palestinians were using petrol bombs, mortar attacks, anti-tank grenades, and sniper fire against IDF troops.)

============================
Elind is absolutely correct:
The accusation is being made here quite openly that the IDF is routinely targeting to kill children.

I have decided to make this posting, to let everyone know, in no uncertain terms:

IDF soldiers, either as a matter of policy or in dangerous combat situations, are NOT targeting children.

Children are being killed, yes, tragically, in war.
A war that the Palestinians started and now have ostensibly agreed to halt, and agreed to observe a cease-fire.

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz characterized Tuesday's escalation in Gaza as part of the "internal Palestinian dialogue," telling reporters in Sderot that the IDF does not yet plan to undertake (retaliatory) operations.
"At a certain point, our patience will wear thin, but I would suggest that we decide when."
---- from Reuter's News Services, June 7th

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Many of the people who support Israel's expansion efforts here...

I don't know anyone who fits this description, Dave. Who are you referring to?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by kimiko
That kind of specific attack is perfectly justified in being labeled "targetting children".



Then you were simply unaware of the larger context in which these debates play out. Understandable. Cleon probably wasnt' aware of it either which is why he drew us into a statistical comparison rather than just saying, "Oh yeah, Hamas shot a rocket at some kids last week."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
I've looked it over, and when you say, "The Zionists hope that by doing so in a low key way that avoids the front page of the newspaper, they will get away with a plan that is nowhere near finished. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=133548&#post133548)" it really doesn't look like sarcasm. It looks more like a paranoid rant on a sneaky Zionist conspiracy.

How low can you go, Mycroft? Such dishonest debating tactics are only going to reflect on you as duplicitious sneak.

We debate a statement you made today on why you can't say openly what you believe here, because Fool and myself would read it, to trawling through three years of JREF history to find a quote that is made in a completely different context.

That quote I made was in reference to the whole issue raised by the documentary that was made. What is the 'settler' movement about. It turns out, I was right. It has been about the theft of land, backed by the state, and it has taken this long to even get something honest said about the whole issue. The person who makes the documentary is then labelled an 'anti-semite'. Haaretz reports that legally owned Palestinian land has been stolen, with no peaceful recourse available to the owners, as it was the State of Israel itself that was backing the theft.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
How low can you go, Mycroft? Such dishonest debating tactics are only going to reflect on you as duplicitious sneak.

What's dishonest about it? What you said "sarcastically" today just happens to be very similar to something you said in ernest several years ago.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That quote I made was in reference to the whole issue raised by the documentary that was made...

No it wasn't. You were aparantly defending a paranoid rant by that Syrian guy, An@s. Refresh your memory (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6087&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) if you've forgotten.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
What's dishonest about it? What you said "sarcastically" today just happens to be very similar to something you said in ernest several years ago.



No it wasn't. You were aparantly defending a paranoid rant by that Syrian guy, An@s. Refresh your memory (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6087&perpage=40&pagenumber=1) if you've forgotten.

You are completely dishonest. My sarcastic statement was in response to your inability to state something because Fool and myself might read it.

The other statement was about the issue of Israel creating settlements continually, while pretending nothing was happening. This issue is made quite clear in the OP link for this thread, and the other thread on theft of land.

Once again, your dishonesty and spin is breathtaking, worthy additions to 'dishonest debating' thread.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You are completely dishonest. My sarcastic statement was in response to your <strike>inability</strike> unwillingness to state something because Fool and myself might read it.

The other statement was <strike>about the issue of Israel creating settlements continually, while pretending nothing was happening. This issue is made quite clear in the OP link for this thread, and the other thread on theft of land.</strike> (no correction can fix this.)

Once again, your dishonesty and spin is breathtaking, worthy additions to 'dishonest debating' thread.

Right. They just happened to share a theme of secretive Zionists enacting some "master plan" that's hidden from the rest of us.

BTW, the issue of "the other statement" was your defending An@s's rant by agreeing with his assertion that having different license plates in the territories and Israel was the same as Nazis making Jews wear yellow stars. The sudden shift to paranoid rant was one of your bizare topic changes.

An@s: 2.Did you know that instead of sewing an insignia on clothing to distinguish race (like the Germans did to the Jews before WW2), Palestinian license plates in Israel are color coded to distinguish Jews from non-Jews?


BTW, it seems we're arguing just to argue. How long do you want to keep this up?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by davefoc
My assumption would be is that he does have some empathy for the people he is killing including the children, it is just that his hatred and/or the love of his cause and/or his sense of hopelessness have driven him to take an extreme action in which the killing of innocent people is justified.Please. Suicide bombers having "empathy" for their victims is a load of snake oil the size of Texas. They don't even have empathy for themselves otherwise they would not commit suicide by blowing themselves up on a crowded bus.

Originally posted by davefoc
With discomfort, I think we must admit to ourselves this is the same kind of calculation that is routinely made by people during conflicts. It was made by Truman when thousands of Japanese were killed by the dropping of the atomic bombs, it was made by many Israelis prior to and during the founding of Israel when terrorist acts like the bombing of the King David Hotel and the mass killing of the inhabitants of an entire town and it is made by soldiers every day.The King David Hotel happened in 1946 and was a terror attack, Deir Yassin happened in 1948 during a war after several car and truck bombs killed hundreds of jews in Jerusalem - feel free to google it. Funny how people never reference the hundreds of jewish civilians killed by car and truck bombs in Jerusalem prior to Deir Yassin but they always love to reference Deir Yassin. Skeptics indeed. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by davefoc
Many of the people who support Israel's expansion efforts here see the decision by Israeli leaders to do things that result in the death of civilians as fundamentally different than the Palestinian terrorist attacks because of the underlying intent.No one supports Israel's expansion at JREF. I have never seen it said or written. Adittionally, the Sinai was given up for peace, Gaza is about to be abandoned for some sort of peace that unfortunately still involves daily mortar and rocket attacks, so the "Israeli expansion" line is wearing a little thin these days Dave.

Originally posted by davefoc
Just as I think it is wrong and unsupported by evidence to conclude that Palestinian terrorists are without empathy for their victims.The terrorists who blindly launched rockets and mortars yesterday - June 7th - at an Israeli civilian target - Ganei Tal - which KILLED three workers - 2 Palestinians and an Asian - had empathy for the victims. See how ridiculous that statement is Dave?

[Skeptic]

Just as I think it is wrong and unsupported by evidence to conclude that Palestinian terrorists are without empathy for their victims.

Incredible.

I hate to point out the obvious, but, perhaps the fact that they SET OUT TO KILL THEM DELIBERATELY might be a bit of a dead giveaway.

[bigred]

It's all Mel Gibson's fault :rolleyes:

;)

[davefoc]

I don't know what is in the mind of a suicide bomber. Skeptic and others seem to. I think it is possible that they are right.

Although, I think it is at least plausible that the suicide bombers are not psycopathic killers in the normal sense of people who kill without empathy. I think it is possible that their motivation is similar to other people's that have made decisions to kill civilians to win wars such as Truman's motivations when he ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb.

[Giz]

Originally posted by davefoc
I don't know what is in the mind of a suicide bomber. Skeptic and others seem to. I think it is possible that they are right.

Although, I think it is at least plausible that the suicide bombers are not psycopathic killers in the normal sense of people who kill without empathy. I think it is possible that their motivation is similar to other people's that have made decisions to kill civilians to win wars such as Truman's motivations when he ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb.

I don't know... Truman probably tried to view the Japanese casulaties as statistics rather than people (the luxury of distance) but to actually walk up to a group of laughing diners before detonating yourself or to put a school bus in your cross hairs and pull the trigger...

[davefoc]

ZN and others have said:No one supports Israel's expansion at JREF.

OK, does that mean there are some specific actions by the government of Israel with respect to the establishment of Israeli colonies that ZN, Skeptic, Mycroft, Elind, et. al. don't agree with?

Does anybody in that group think that the Israeli government should stop subsidizing the settlers? Does anybody in that group think that putting colonies into the Gaza strip was a bad idea? Does anybody in that group think that the expansion of the Maale settlements is a bad idea? Does anybody in that group think that razing houses in Silwa to make way for a Jewish history park is a bad idea?

Is it possible that there is a general consensus here that I was unaware of that Israel should stop expanding into what most of the world sees as Palestinian territory?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by davefoc
OK, does that mean there are some specific actions by the government of Israel with respect to the establishment of Israeli colonies that ZN, Skeptic, Mycroft, Elind, et. al. don't agree with? I think that well-established settlements, (ones over 10 years old), should be allowed to remain. I believe that such settlements could become part of the new Palestinian state eventually. In my scenario it's a win win situation; the settlers get to live where they want, the Palestinian Authority can collect taxes from them and the settlements represent much-needed employment opportunities for Palestinians. The settlers who do not like this idea can move. Anyhow, this scenario can only be realized if the Palestinian Authority can assure the safety of any non-muslims within the borders of their future state.

Originally posted by davefoc
Does anybody in that group think that the Israeli government should stop subsidizing the settlers? Yes.

Originally posted by davefoc
Does anybody in that group think that putting colonies into the Gaza strip was a bad idea?No. There was a time Gazans worked beside settlers and inside Israel. This status quo worked because the Gaza Strip is totally dependent on Israel. Not only is Israel the primary trading partner with Gaza it is supplies it's water and power too. So from 1967 until 1993 Gazans profitted from said status quo. Then the "Tunisians" arrived in 1993 and everything changed from this semi-tolerance between Israelis and Gazans to bombers, terrorism, war and fences.

Originally posted by davefoc
Does anybody in that group think that the expansion of the Maale settlements is a bad idea? Here is the Maale settlement Dave:

http://www.just-international.org/pictures/Maale_Adumim_Neighborhood3.jpg

Just look around, who exactly is losing out if it expands Dave? Some scrub brushes? Some bolders? And therein lies thesad truth, nothing is around Maale Adumim except arid land.

Originally posted by davefoc
Does anybody in that group think that razing houses in Silwa to make way for a Jewish history park is a bad idea? I dunno, they've destroyed many neigborhoods/houses in my city for new parks, parking lots and Walmarts. No one blows themselves up about that here.

Originally posted by davefoc
Is it possible that there is a general consensus here that I was unaware of that Israel should stop expanding into what most of the world sees as Palestinian territory? With me there is.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by davefoc
I think you make a reasonable point and I am sorry that I was slow to pick up on what you meant by the title. One of the reasons why I didn't pick up on it right away was that I think your point is obvious. People that criticize Israeli policies with respect to the Palestinians are routinely accused of anti-semitism by somebody.In my experience there has been a rise in accusations of anti-semitism over the last 1-20 years. This is partly to do with more Jews being critical of Israel, which has brought us the deeply unlovely phrase "self-hating Jew" as a response. I've only come across it in the last 10 years or so. There have always been anti-zionist Jews but they weren't called anti-semitic, just misguided or commies.

Israel isn't getting away with the "Jews are victims" line anymore. Israeli had a chance of peace, or at least progress towards peace, with Oslo. Rabin was killed and Netenyahu - vociferously rejectionist - was elected. To many younger Jews, inside and even more so outside Israel, that was an eye-opener. Accelarated expansion of settlements and refusal to negotiate towards a final settlement, culminating in Fat Arik's waddle on the Temple Mount didn't improve matters, and Israeli behaviour since has been even more damaging.

The emergence of the "New Historians" examing the real history of Israel (not the one taught in Israeli schools) has been another contributory factor. Their work is meticulous, so they have to be attacked personally as race-traitors. But their work is still being read. Anecdotally, when I first started looking at Israeli history after the Six Day War - prior to that my understanding was vague and based on Exodus (the one with Paul Newman, not Moses) - was how little material there was about it. The library couldn't help much, and I quickly learnt that this was one of those subjects you weren't supposed to ask awkward questions about. And it was one that Israeli historians seemed to be avoiding. When you read the New Historians' work you realise why.

Edited to add :

Not just Israeli historians were avoiding it, as I seemed to imply. You don't even find much about it in military history.

[CapelDodger]

quoted by a_unique_person :
Yavin's study of ultra right-wing Jewish settlers, the Israeli soldiers who guard them, the native Palestinians whose lives they dominate and the small number of Israeli rights activists, lawyers and journalists campaigning against them, has caused him to be denounced as representing the far left of Israeli sensibility.
You have to wonder where that puts the middle ground. I read that public support for evacuation of Gaza is falling, something that is likely to be reinforced by these programs. The prospect for normal Israelis of living with such people has got to be alarming. (It was the prospect of having all those white South Africans actually coming over here that persuaded Thatcher et al to negotiate a solution. IMO. :) )

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
I don't know what is in the mind of a suicide bomber. Skeptic and others seem to. I think it is possible that they are right.

Although, I think it is at least plausible that the suicide bombers are not psycopathic killers in the normal sense of people who kill without empathy. I think it is possible that their motivation is similar to other people's that have made decisions to kill civilians to win wars such as Truman's motivations when he ordered the dropping of the atomic bomb.

Or more likely, they kill for the same reasons gangsters (old and new) kill. They're taught to accept it as a part of their culture and it's how they seek power.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Gosh, I never realized zionists are to blame for everything - the wars, the anti-jewish riots and pogroms, the international Palestinian terrorism - those zionists must be terrible people. No wonder Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Assad, Nasser, Arafat, Yassin and many others feel the need to send children wearing bomb vests to commit suicide in zionist restaurants and buses... Zionists are responsible for all that has happened to oppose zionism. Were there no zionism, there would have been none of these consequences. Palestine would probably have become an independent state like the other mandatory states, Middle Eastern Jewish communities would have continued to exist as they always had, the Holocaust probably still wouldn't have been stopped. Palestine would probably have been as much a refuge for Jewish refugees and survivors as it was, and very likely a better one without the antagonism that had been created by zionism. Middle Estern Jews today would probably be as anti-American as Middle Eastern Muslims and Christians. The identification of Jewry with Western Imperialism that zionism claimed and promoted has done Jewry immense harm.

European Jewish history has a huge amount to teach us, prominently the advantage of trans-nationalism. The US - the first trans-national nation - is the place to see what Jewishness has to offer, not Israel. London's another good place. Paris. The great social movements of Germany in the 19thCE were Reform Judaism and Social Democracy, but all we hear from you about Germany is 1933-45. In fact, all we hear about Christendom is 1933-45 in one guise or another. And all we hear about the Middle East is post-zionist, not the long centuries of its Jewish communities.

Jewish history has been hi-jacked by zionists, and is restricted to two themes : suffering Jews and triumphant Israelis. That, I get the impression, is the only Jewish history you've ever been exposed to. Something else that zionism is responsible for.

The "pro-Nazi" Haj Amin was "pro-German" because Germany was the enemy of Britain, which was the ruling power in Palestine which the Arab Revolt had been launched against. My enemy's enemy is my friend. To describe him as "pro-Nazi" is simply propagandist.

Everything to do with zionism is the fault of zionism. No zionism, no results of zionism. Everything to do with Israel is to do with zionism. And the good stuff could have happened elsewhere.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Giz
I don't know... Truman probably tried to view the Japanese casulaties as statistics rather than people (the luxury of distance) but to actually walk up to a group of laughing diners before detonating yourself or to put a school bus in your cross hairs and pull the trigger...

If you are referring to the woman who attacked the diner, she had been sitting at home, while her brother was outside drinking coffee, with a cousin. An assasination squad came up, aimed the cross hairs, pulled the trigger....., you get the idea. They were apparently after the cousin, but took at her brother for good measure.

It's a war, and in all wars, civilians are the biggest losers. Better off to end wars and not start them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Here is the Maale settlement Dave:

http://www.just-international.org/pictures/Maale_Adumim_Neighborhood3.jpg

Just look around, who exactly is losing out if it expands Dave? Some scrub brushes? Some bolders? And therein lies thesad truth, nothing is around Maale Adumim except arid land.



You are just an out and out liar, ZN. The issues involved in Maale have been stated before, and are well known. To reduce it to that statement is just outright misrepresentation.



Likud's death rattle
By Graham Usher
Standing beside the reinforced steel fence and bulldozers that ring the site of the new 132 unit Jewish settlement at Ras Al-Amud, Palestinian Legislative Council member for Jerusalem, Hanan Ashrawi, last week described what for her is the most "dangerous phenomena" currently assailing the Oslo "peace" process. It is that "the settlers will exploit the transition between [Israel's] old and new governments to create a whole new set of volatile facts on the ground".

But Ashrawi's prognosis has turned out to be only partially true. The most "dangerous phenomena" is less the actions of ever diminishing bands of settlers than the death rattle of the outgoing Likud-led coalition. This is evidenced not only in the recent approval granted by Jerusalem's Likud-led municipality to commence construction at Ras Al-Amud and for the new Har Homa settlement at Jebel Abu Ghneim; nor in the quiet governmental support provided to settlers in "grabbing" 23 hilltop settlements since the Wye agreement was signed in October 1998.

Likud's final (and potentially most lethal) sting in the tail came on 28 May when the Israeli press reported that outgoing Defence Minister, Moshe Arens, had approved a master plan that would extend the "judicial boundaries" of the Maale Adumin settlement by some 12,000 dunums (or 2,500 acres), making the settlement's overall "municipal area" a colossal 53,000 dunums. By way of comparison, the municipal area for Tel Aviv is 51,000 dunums.

Maale Adumin lies mid-way between Jerusalem and Jericho and, with 24,000 settlers, is the largest settlement in the occupied territories. The master plan not only absorbs the last remaining land reserves belonging to East Jerusalem's Palestinian villages of Al-Zaim, Al-Izzariya, Issawiya, Abu Dis and Anata (which have a combined population of over 50,000 but a "master plan" of just 4,600 dunums). If realised, it would territorially connect Maale Adumin to "annexed" East Jerusalem and pull the latter's borders so far eastwards as to divide the West Bank into two separate "northern" and "southern" cantons. Or -- as Arens put it in an interview with Israel's Maariv newspaper in February -- the present goal of Israel's settlement policies is to "determine the final status borders" ahead of the final status negotiations.

The Palestinian Authority responded with predictable fury, denouncing the decision as the work of a "crazed government" whose intent is "not only to destroy the peace process but to lay mines complicating [the policies] of the next government". It has also called on the US and European Union to intercede with Israel to have the decision rescinded, a plea that has been received with some sympathy by the Americans.



I make no claims for the site this article is on, but the date (1999), explains it all, and the subsequent events prove it to be accurate. Settlements, created for this mentality.

Not all settlers are fundies like this, those who just want a house they can afford will pull out any time the Israeli government gives them somewhere else to live, but the fundies are going to fight it out to the bitter end.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584983.html



Neveh Dekalim / 'Until Messiah comes'

By Yair Ettinger

He doesn't know whether the Evacuation Compensation Law will entitle him to even one shekel, nor is he worried about whether his new home will remain standing or will be razed. Shalom Me'oded, who last week dedicated his new house at Neveh Dekalim, says these are unimportant issues.

So what is important to someone who took his life savings and loans to raise half-a-million shekels to build a home in a settlement that is about to be evacuated? "I built because we are settling the land of our birthright, not for economic or external reasons," he says. "It is God's will that we settle the land."

Last week, Me'oded and his family celebrated, sang and danced until the wee hours of the morning with their neighbors and friends. They put a mezuzah on the door and planted a tree. This was no gimmick in orange, no well-choreographed demonstration - but "pure, practical faith," said the rabbis and communal leaders who spoke emotionally at the ceremony.

[demon]

CapelDodger:
"Jewish history has been hi-jacked by zionists, and is restricted to two themes : suffering Jews and triumphant Israelis. That, I get the impression, is the only Jewish history you've ever been exposed to. Something else that zionism is responsible for."

Dead right and that Zionist narrative should be put where it belongs, in the trashcan.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The Zionists hope that by doing so in a low key way that avoids the front page of the newspaper, they will get away with a plan that is nowhere near finished. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=133433#post133433)

Those evil Zionists are always plotting sneaky things! Shhh! Just avoid the front page...


Like this?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584293.html



Nawi tries to get the army and police to stop the violence, mostly in vain. "The root of the problem is not the settlers, it's the failure to deal with them," he says. "The police have no inclination to do so."

"He has created a new status quo vis-a-vis the settlers," says Aviad Albert, a fellow Ta'ayosh activist. "He understands how all the systems work to contrive to disrupt the Palestinians' life and prevent its development. He does not wait for permits, he simply acts."

Nawi frequently encounters settlers, with whom he is less than popular. In the last few weeks, police intelligence agents have warned him on several occasions that the settlers intend to take him out. "Whoever brings his head will be very highly regarded in the settlements," says attorney Yael Barda, who helps the Palestinians in the region.

But Nawi is not afraid. Over the years, he has clashed with the settlers dozens of times and does not shy away from confrontation. Some say he is even looking for it. "The settlers have become used to seeing Israelis caving in and crumpling when they get beaten," he says. "I don't cave in. If anyone beats me, I strike him back. And I'm not exactly a pip-squeak."

Zvi Bar Hai, the head of the South Hebron Hills regional council, blames Nawi for the tension in the area. "He causes unrest and rumbling. He tries to disrupt the quiet ... in unacceptable ways, and I hear this from sources in the police and the army."

However, Bar Hai denounces those who wish to harm Nawi. "He must not be touched, we are not in Texas," he says.

Commenting on the settlers' attacks on the Palestinians, Bar Hai says: "Things have happened in the past months that are unacceptable. I have asked the police and Shin Bet to find the culprits."

"I am no less of a patriot than Bar Hai," replies Nawi. "I love this country no less than he does, but, unlike the settlers, I build rather than destroy."

Trying to explain his love for the region and its people, he says: "This is a nonviolent area, there is no active objection to the occupation here. The residents are weak from every respect, but courageous. They are trying to hang on by their fingernails."

Nawi's colleagues agree that the plumber from Jerusalem does not fit the familiar image of a left-wing activist who goes out to fight for Palestinian rights. "I've had clients who have fired me for my activities, while others gave me donations for the residents," he says.

Nawi's involvement in the Hebron Hills started on the basis of his friendship with a Palestinian. "Thanks to him, I got to know the occupation from up close, I've been to the roadblocks, I have seen the evil," he says.

Despite his tireless activity, Nawi is far from optimistic. "Since I've arrived on the scene, the settlements have increased and so has the poverty. Children of 14 look like they're 10. The attacks on them are becoming meaner and crueler," he says.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Were there no zionism, there would have been none of these consequences. Had Emir Faisal won out the middle east would be 100% different today. He saw ancient bonds existing between arabs and the jews. Instead arabs found themselves in a position of conflict with Zionism because of Haj Amin al-Husseini. You call it "consequences", I call it "extremism and fundamentalism".

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The "pro-Nazi" Haj Amin was "pro-German" because Germany was the enemy of Britain, which was the ruling power in Palestine which the Arab Revolt had been launched against. My enemy's enemy is my friend. To describe him as "pro-Nazi" is simply propagandist.

(courtesy of aijac.org.au)

http://www.aijac.org.au/review/2001/images/mufti_in_berlin.jpg

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/4-Husseini-nazi_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg

(courtesy of wikipedia)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f6/Himmler_to_Mufti_telegram_1943.pngNovember 2, 1943 Himmler's telegram to Mufti:

"To the Grand Mufti: The National Socialist movement of Greater Germany has, since its inception, inscribed upon its flag the fight against the world Jewry. It has therefore followed with particular sympathy the struggle of freedom-loving Arabs, especially in Palestine, against Jewish interlopers. In the recognition of this enemy and of the common struggle against it lies the firm foundation of the natural alliance that exists between the National Socialist Greater Germany and the freedom-loving Muslims of the whole world. In this spirit I am sending you on the anniversary of the infamous Balfour declaration my hearty greetings and wishes for the successful pursuit of your struggle until the final victory.

Signed: Reichsfuehrer S.S. Heinrich Himmler"

nationmaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Image:Himmler-to-Mufti-telegram-1943.png)
Upon Haj Amin el Husseini arrival to Europe, he met the German Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop on November 20, 1941 and was officially received by Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941 in Berlin. He presented Hitler with fifteen drafts of declarations that he wanted the Axis Powers to adopt. These declarations sought Nazi support for the wiping out of Jews in Palestine. Hitler refused to issue an official proclamation in support of the Palestinians but gave the Mufti his word that Germany shared the Palestinian desire of wiping out the Jews from the Middle East and promised that when Germany conquered the Caucasus they would wipe out Palestinian Jewry. After meeting Hitler and Ribbentrop in Berlin, the Mufti was made an SS Gruppenführer by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler.
courtesy of wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni#Nazi_ties_and_WWII) Slobodan Milosevic's Opening Statement - Tuesday, 31 August 2004 (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/pbrooke/p&t/Balkans/milosevic/Defence/statement/part%206)

I'm going to omit some things. Anyway, Zulfikarpasic left the party because he didn't want any part of that. It is a well-known thing that Izetbegovic, as far back as the spring of 1943, led the Muslim youth of Sarajevo, and in that capacity he was the host of Amin al Huseini, the great mufti from Jerusalem, Hitler's friend who had fled to Germany. And in his book he advocates jihad, a holy war against Christians and Jews. All of this within the Independent State of Croatia of Pavelic. And at Himmler's initiative, and through the mediation of this same Huseini, a Muslim Wafe SS division was established. Not one, as a matter of fact; a Handzar Division, a Kama division, and also a Skenderbeg division consisting of Muslims from Kosovo and Metohija. Unfortunately I have to be very quick and move through this very quickly....simply propagandist heh Capel? Pla-eeeeze. :rolleyes::D