The New Palestinian PM: a Holocaust Denier

[Skeptic]

Abu Mazen, the new Palestinian PM, is apparently not exactly the dove of peace he claims to be. For starters, he is a holocaust denier and a supporter of terrorism (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ratzlav-katz031903.asp).

What a shock, to find out the new paletinian Prime Minister--the man Arafat appointed under US pressure to show the palestinians want peace--harbors genocidal hatered to the jews and thinks the holocaust is a jewish conspiracy.

I'm SO disappointed. Who could have imagined it? Such peaceful, non-antisemitic people like the palestinians electing a holocaust denying conspiracy theorist as their official leader? I'm beginning to suspect the palestinians don't want peace, but rather the genocide of the jews, for some strange reason...

[Richard G]

Ararat, and all his croanies need a bullet to the head. That will give the Palestinians a chance at a fresh start.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Richard G
Ararat, and all his croanies need a bullet to the head. That will give the Palestinians a chance at a fresh start.

If Arafat were to have an accident of some type--a plane crash, his car blowing up, etc, that would cause the entire PLO terrorist group to fracture. It would be a good thing for the Palestinian people, but the old bastard has too much luck at avoiding such fates.

JK

[Skeptic]

Funny, no reply from those on this forum so eager to justify the palestinians...

Apparently when it comes to holocaust denial--a common theme in palestinian political writing--even they can't find any justification for it.

But I'm sure that for some reason, somehow, mysteriously, it's all israel's fault that the palestinians deny the holocaust.

[Incitatus]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Funny, no reply from those on this forum so eager to justify the palestinians...

Apparently when it comes to holocaust denial--a common theme in palestinian political writing--even they can't find any justification for it.

But I'm sure that for some reason, somehow, mysteriously, it's all israel's fault that the palestinians deny the holocaust.

Either that or the Jews killed themselves. Damn Jews, always making trouble.

[corplinx]

Well, duh. The PLO is the most notorious terrorist group of the last century. Jordan, Lebanon, and now the west bank.

The problem is over time the PLO has somehow become legiitmized. Would an american president inviting them over for photo ops have anything to do with that?

[Clancie]

Funny, no reply from those on this forum so eager to justify the Palestinians
Oh, allow me. I have plenty of comment about this article from the National Review.

First, nowhere do I see any evidence that Abu Mazen denies the Holocaust. Amid all the rhetoric in this opinion piece, the only fact presented against him is simply that, given a translation of his writings, the Simon Weisenthal Center asked for a clarification. But no one credible (like the SW Center) has said Mazen's writings prove he advocates the destruction of Israel, hates Jews, denies the Holocaust, etc. etc.

How can anyone be impressed by the vitriol of this piece? There's no journalism here at all. Take this, for example:

(That he was) selected by arch-terrorist Arafat to take on the mantle of authority should already give pause to those committed to fighting terrorism. In fact, anyone involved with the corrupt, duplicitous terrorist organization called the PLO...should by now be considered unfit to lead anything but a prison-work detail. Beyond his senior position in the PLO, however, Abu Mazen is also a Holocaust revisionist, a conspiracy theorist, and a promoter of terrorism.

Big big claims and lots of attack rhetoric in this op/ed-style thing--even a lot of criticism directed at Israelis who are more moderate than Sharon (actually, Sharon himself seems too moderate for this writer!)

Unfortunately this editorial just doesn't come up with the goods, journalistically speaking. Lots of angry and inflammatory rhetoric but no facts to back it up. (However, the eager way those of you who hate the Palestinians seem to lap it all up so uncritically is fascinating).

[Skeptic]

The reason the author gave no "proof" of Abu Mazen's holocaust denial is that it is well know--in the form of a book he published.

In his Arabic-language book, "The Other Side: the secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism", Abu Mazen attempts to refute the "Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed."

Instead, he suggests a cynical and macabre connection between the Nazis and the Zionists, and that "only" 890,000 Jews were killed by Hitler - these as the victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot whose goal (of course) was to convince the jews to emigrate to palestine and "steal" it.

In sum, according to Abu Mazen in his book, the palestinians are the "real victims" of Hitler while the jews cooperated with him.

Of course, the book is not available in English--it's about as easy to find a translation as it is to find an English copy of the palestinian national charter which contains the embarrasing arabic sections about killing and/or expelling all the jews. But the book is well-known in the arab world.

Anything else I can clarify about Mazen you want to know?


P.S.

Quite apart from the fact that six million jews DID die, it is a bit of a puzzle why, if they were such "victims" of Hitler, did the palestinian leader at the time (Haj Amin El-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem) raise two SS divisions for Hitler, made up of Palestinian volunteers and European Muslims from Yugoslavia.

These divisions (from the SS's racial point of view a dubious affair, but manpower shortage in 1943 forced them to take anybody they could) were known as the "Hanjar" divisions. They proved virtually useless in combat against the Red Army, so they were moved to rearguard duties in Yugoslavia and the Balkans, where they excelled in committing atrocities against the "infidel" Serbs and (of course) jews. For this and other reasons, Husseini became a wanted war criminal after the war. He lived out his days in Syria after 1945.


P.P.S.

By the way, Faisal Husseini, the recently deceased palestinian "minister of Jerusalem", was Haj Amin El-Husseini's nephew, and grew up under the latter's tutolage in the late 30s and early 40s. This gives you an idea of the kind of traditionally peaceful people Arafat chooses as his ministers.

Faisal Husseini was considered (like Abu Mazen is considered) a "moderate"--in fact, he was considered THE "moderate" palestinian leader. This is odd, don't you think? It is not that Faisal Husseini was necessarily the same in all respects as his uncle, but when a nation cannot find anybody more "moderate" than THAT, something is amiss... it's as if post-war Germany searched high and low and claimed it could not find anybody who was more peaceful and anti-Nazi's than Hitler's cousin.

But of course, I am forgetting myself: Husseini and Abu Mazen are "moderates" only in the palestinian sense of the term. That is, they limited themselves to JUSTIFYING the butchery of jews in THEORETICAL works (like Mazen's holocaust-denying book and most of Husseini's writing) instead of getting their hands dirty with ACTUAL killing of jews in practice. But they sure as hell approve.

On this definition of "moderate", of course, Joseph Goebbles was a "moderate" as well, since he limited himself to shouting how all the jews must be killed and didn't actually send too many of them to death himself (except for the Jews of Berlin.) And yet the world is SHOCKED at israel's reluctance to deal with such "moderate" people.


P.P.P.S.

I'm sure it's a SHOCKING surprise that an SS arab divison behaved in such a barbaric fashion, that Arafat would nominate the nephew of the the most notorious palestinian war criminal of WWII as the minister of Jerusalem, in addition to the already shocking discovery that the new "moderate" palestinian PM is a holocaust denier.

Who would have guessed?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
Well, duh. The PLO is the most notorious terrorist group of the last century. Jordan, Lebanon, and now the west bank.

The problem is over time the PLO has somehow become legiitmized. Would an american president inviting them over for photo ops have anything to do with that?

lol

JK

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy

Oh, allow me. I have plenty of comment about this article from the National Review.

First, nowhere do I see any evidence that Abu Mazen denies the Holocaust. Amid all the rhetoric in this opinion piece, the only fact presented against him is simply that, given a translation of his writings, the Simon Weisenthal Center asked for a clarification. But no one credible (like the SW Center) has said Mazen's writings prove he advocates the destruction of Israel, hates Jews, denies the Holocaust, etc. etc.

How can anyone be impressed by the vitriol of this piece? There's no journalism here at all. Take this, for example:



Big big claims and lots of attack rhetoric in this op/ed-style thing--even a lot of criticism directed at Israelis who are more moderate than Sharon (actually, Sharon himself seems too moderate for this writer!)

Unfortunately this editorial just doesn't come up with the goods, journalistically speaking. Lots of angry and inflammatory rhetoric but no facts to back it up. (However, the eager way those of you who hate the Palestinians seem to lap it all up so uncritically is fascinating).

Here are more links on it Clancy if you still don’t believe the story.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2122
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=antisemitism&ID=IA9502
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/press/items/JewishSentinel281099.html



There is also denial in the Arab world. In the pre-Oslo period, Yasser Arafat's second-in-command, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), wrote in his book, The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement, that the Nazis may have killed fewer than one million Jews and that "the Zionist movement was a partner in the slaughter of the Jews."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/press/items/JewishSentinel281099.html

[Clancie]

In his Arabic-language book, "The Other Side: the secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism", Abu Mazen attempts to refute..."

Do you read Arabic and do your own translation or do you have a source for this?

[Clancie]

Baker,

Thanks for the sources, but the first two are hardly objective. The third probably isn't either, but more to the point, it just repeats the one sentence that "Skeptic" quoted above--but doesn't source it either.

Don't you both think that if Abu Mazen is such a bad guy, and a known Holocaust denier, that there'd be more comment about it across the political spectrum, not just in these obviously avidly anti-Palestinian sources?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy


Do you read Arabic and do your own translation or do you have a source for this?

Did you check any of the news links I posted they all say the same thing that it was wrote in his book, The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement.

[Skeptic]

Clancey Wrote:

However, the eager way those of you who hate the Palestinians seem to lap it all up so uncritically is fascinating).


Clancey, I DO find it fascinating that the palestinian PM is a holocaust denier and yet is considered a "moderate"--mainly because he only wrote THEORETICAL works that merely JUSTIFY killing the jews and destroying israel, instead of doing or attempting to do it himself (like Arafat, Hamas, etc.)

But it's hardly "uncritical" fascination. More of a "horrified" fascination, actually.

Think carefully on whose side on you on, Clancey. You are supporting the people whose leader is the biggest killer of jews since Hitler, and whose appointed PM denies Hitler even killed jews in the first place. Yet it is not THEM you consider evil, but their intended (and actual) victims, the jews.

What's wrong with this picture?

P.S.

If you consider Abu Mazen a "moderate", please tell me why. Tell me what the difference is between his views and that of the local neo-nazis.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Clancy


Do you read Arabic and do your own translation or do you have a source for this?

See Baker's post. I don't read German, either, but I know Hitler didn't like jews, by the way.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancy
Baker,

Thanks for the sources, but the first two are hardly objective. The third probably isn't either, but more to the point, it just repeats the one sentence that "Skeptic" quoted above--but doesn't source it either.

Don't you both think that if Abu Mazen is such a bad guy, and a known Holocaust denier, that there'd be more comment about it across the political spectrum, not just in these obviously avidly anti-Palestinian sources?

Is USA Today OK?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20030325/ts_usatoday/4985858


Mazen has written several books, one of which claimed that only 1 million Jews -- not the 6 million historians estimate -- were killed in the Holocaust.

However, same article does go on to say he recanted and opposed the current uprising.


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6340


While European Union officials praised Yasser Arafat's decision to appoint his first-ever prime minister, historians of the Holocaust winced at the news that a leading candidate for the job is the author of a book denying that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews.
The candidate is Mahmoud Abbas (also known as Abu Mazen), Arafat's second in command, and his book, published in Arabic in 1983, translates as "The Other Side: The Secret Relations Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement." It was originally his doctoral dissertation, completed at Moscow Oriental College.

The book repeatedly attempts to cast doubt on the fact that the Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jews, according to a translation provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.

"Following the war," he writes, "word was spread that six million Jews were amongst the victims and that a war of extermination was aimed primarily at the Jews...The truth is that no one can either confirm or deny this figure. In other words, it is possible that the number of Jewish victims reached six million, but at the same time it is possible that the figure is much smaller -- below one million."

Abbas denies that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews, quoting a "scientific study" to that effect by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson.

Abbas' book then asserts: "The historian and author Raoul Hilberg thinks that the figure does not exceed 890,000."

That is, of course, utterly false. Hilberg, a distinguished historian and author of the classic study "The Destruction of the European Jews," has never said or written any such thing.

Abbas believes the 6 million figure is the product of a Zionist conspiracy: "It seems that the interest of the Zionist movement...is to inflate this figure so that their gains will be greater," he writes. "This led them to emphasize this figure in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions -- fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand."

Another falsehood. In fact, no serious scholar proposes such a figure.

After reducing the magnitude of the Nazi slaughter so that it no longer seems to have been a full-scale Holocaust, Abbas seeks to absolve the Nazis by blaming the Zionist leadership for whatever killings did take place. According to Abbas, "A partnership was established between Hitler's Nazis and the leadership of the Zionist movement...[the Zionists gave] permission to every racist in the world, led by Hitler and the Nazis, to treat Jews as they wish, so long as it guarantees immigration to Palestine."

In addition to encouraging the persecution of Jews so they would immigrate to the Holy Land, the Zionist leaders actually wanted Jews to be murdered, because -- in Abbas' words -- "having more victims meant greater rights and stronger privilege to join the negotiation table for dividing the spoils of war once it was over. However, since Zionism was not a fighting partner -- suffering victims in a battle -- it had no escape but to offer up human beings, under any name, to raise the number of victims, which they could then boast of at the moment of accounting."

[Skeptic]

Is USA Today OK?

No. It's part of the jewish media conspiracy.

However, same article does go on to say he recanted and opposed the current uprising.

Of course, Arafat said he accepted peace and israel's right to exist, too.

(In English when the Americans were listening, that is.)

[Skeptic]

Don't you both think that if Abu Mazen is such a bad guy, and a known Holocaust denier, that there'd be more comment about it across the political spectrum,

So now your "reason" for denying the clear fact that he DID write this book and IS a holocaust denier is that the world didn't react exactly as it should, in your opinion?

I suppose Arafat is a peaceful man, too: after all, the world gave him the Nobel peace prize, didn't it? If he REALLY wanted to destroy israel, would they give him this prize?

P.S.

By the way, I wonder what you mean for reaction "across the political spectrum". Surely this doesn't include the left--they support Saddam as well.

[Clancie]

Renata,

Yes, that's a much better article. I would think people who want peace in the Middle East would be quite pleased with this man (if he wrote in error about the Holocaust--as it seems--it's really not the same as saying it never happened at all. More to the point, he has been corrected and publicly accepts the correction. I think that's very positive.

These interested me, too.

Mazen's new position, many hope, may finally dilute the absolute power of longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
By most accounts, Mazen, a moderate favored by U.S. policymakers...
The position was only reluctantly agreed to by Arafat, earlier this year, after immense international political pressure for reform of the Palestinian Authority
Mazen made it clear he would not consider the job without full control over his appointments. His acceptance and parliament's defiance of Arafat were seen as promising victories in reducing Arafat's power -- and in moving forward the prospects for a peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Possibly no Palestinian understands better the process of peace negotiations than Mazen. He played a critical role in formulating the Oslo peace accords, and signed them on behalf of the Palestinians. He also stood alongside former president Bill Clinton at the failed Camp David peace summit in 2000.
Most important to many here, especially Israelis and the international community, has been his criticism of the intifada (or uprising) that has claimed some 2,000 Israeli and Palestinian lives in the past 30 months. The uprising, he says, ''should never have been militarized.''
...both Hamas and Islamic Jihad disagree with Mazen's calls for an end to their suicide bombings and attacks on Jewish settlements
''But he is a man of hard mission. He doesn't need to be prime minister or even want to be, but he has a commitment to peace.''

Mazen sounds like a refreshing change from Arafat politically (as well as being a very well educated, cultured, modest and personable family man.).

I would think people would give him a chance. He sounds like someone who really might be able to make a positive difference.

[Clancie]

Skeptic: Surely this doesn't include the left--they support Saddam as well.

"The left" does not support Saddam.

They opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in order to oust Saddam...or find WMD...or send a message about terrorism...or whatever it was that we finally said was the real reason we were there.

The opposition to invading Iraq from the so-called "left" was not because they said, "Saddam's great and he's our guy."

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancy


I would think people would give him a chance. He sounds like someone who really might be able to make a positive difference.

I agree on this point. I do hope he is the one person who can make a positive difference. I believe people can change, although I will not dismiss his book easily. It was not just a scholarly error about numbers. It discussed a Zionist conspiracy to inflate the numbers. He also claimed Zionists made a pact with Hitler allowing him to kill Jews as long as others could immigrate to Palistine.

However, as much as I am wary of broken promises, and corrupt leadership, and consistent campaigns of terror- I do hope that eventually there will be a resolution to the conflict. A lot of doves, myself included felt seriously betrayed by the Al Aqsa intifada, and veiw Palestinian leadership with great suspicion. Mazen's past does not inspire confidence at this point, but it also does not extinguish hope for peace.

Could he be the one to change it around- maybe. The fact that Arafat is already figithing with his PM over the proposed cabinet makes me think Abu Mazen might be doing something right.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Don't you both think that if Abu Mazen is such a bad guy, and a known Holocaust denier, that there'd be more comment about it across the political spectrum,

So now your "reason" for denying the clear fact that he DID write this book and IS a holocaust denier is that the world didn't react exactly as it should, in your opinion?

I suppose Arafat is a peaceful man, too: after all, the world gave him the Nobel peace prize, didn't it? If he REALLY wanted to destroy israel, would they give him this prize?

P.S.

By the way, I wonder what you mean for reaction "across the political spectrum". Surely this doesn't include the left--they support Saddam as well.

Skeptic...
I wish the world was as simple as you imagine it to be. It would certainly make it a lot simpler to judge issues. Each issue would have an "evil" side and a "moral" side....who is right and who is wrong would be obvious. The Evil side would always be wrong and the moral side would always be right.

Your simplistic black and white view of middle east troubles is a major reason this trouble is doomed to continue.

Congratulations on discovering that some palestnians are terrorists, Holocaust revisionists and all around badguys. This is a fact of life, there are plenty of similar people on the Israeli side. But thats the problem isn't it? None of this is the fault of the Israelis is it?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
More to the point, he has been corrected and publicly accepts the correction.

And when did he publicly accept the correction?
And just what did he accept you where just denying he even wrote the book now after facing over whelming evidence you are trying to claim he took it all back and changed his mind.

[Baker]

Originally posted by The Fool


Skeptic...
I wish the world was as simple as you imagine it to be. It would certainly make it a lot simpler to judge issues. Each issue would have an "evil" side and a "moral" side....who is right and who is wrong would be obvious. The Evil side would always be wrong and the moral side would always be right.

Your simplistic black and white view of middle east troubles is a major reason this trouble is doomed to continue.

Congratulations on discovering that some palestnians are terrorists, Holocaust revisionists and all around badguys. This is a fact of life, there are plenty of similar people on the Israeli side. But thats the problem isn't it? None of this is the fault of the Israelis is it?

I wish the world was as simple as you put it Fool however it’s not Israel is losing innocent civilians almost daily do to suicide bombers and any attempt to defend them self’s is called Israel aggression.
Do you know most Palestinians support suicide bombers?
I’m sick of people trying to twist the facts to justify terrorist attacks.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


I wish the world was as simple as you put it Fool however it’s not Israel is losing innocent civilians almost daily do to suicide bombers and any attempt to defend them self’s is called Israel aggression.
Do you know most Palestinians support suicide bombers?
I’m sick of people trying to twist the facts to justify terrorist attacks.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/14/1050172532702.html

This is what happens when you use non-violent protest, and mark yourself clearly as a non-combatant. You get killed.

Back to 'terrorism' I guess.

[Clancie]

Skeptic: you were just denying he even wrote the book

Please show where I denied that he wrote the book. Provide the quote.

I recommend you learn the difference between questioning a source (which, given the inflammatory slant of most of those given, was quite reasonable) and saying it's totally false.

I really don't know much about this man, but I do feel confident that if he was as despicable as the National Review article says, we'd be reading and hearing a lot of critical things about him from a lot more sources. That's why I questioned it--the lack of widespread criticism.

And when did he publicly accept the correction?

Did you read the (far more balanced) USA Today article that Renata linked to? It seems Mazen accepts the correction, is not still claiming that 1 million is the correct figure. I feel okay with that--as apparently do many Jewish organizations in America.

His appointment as PM is not being widely condemned by American Jews, by Democrats or Republicans--or by moderate Israelis. Or didn't you notice?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Baker


I wish the world was as simple as you put it Fool however it’s not Israel is losing innocent civilians almost daily do to suicide bombers and any attempt to defend them self’s is called Israel aggression.
Do you know most Palestinians support suicide bombers?
I’m sick of people trying to twist the facts to justify terrorist attacks.
So do you disagree that there is fault on both sides? That there are acts of terrorism, murder and warcrimes on both sides? This is the point I was making....as long as there are large groups of people who can only see one side of a problem, the problem will persist.

[Skeptic]

If he wrote in error about the Holocaust--as it seems--it's really not the same as saying it never happened at all.

Saying that five of the six million jewish victims never happened and that the other million died due to a conspiracy between Hitler and the "zionists" is NOT an "error". It's an insane, vicious, gigantic, antisemitic lie invented out of whole cloth to justify killing jews.

You might as well say that someone who writes that the jews kill christian babies to use in passover matzos is "writing in error about jewish cuisine".

More to the point, he has been corrected and publicly accepts the correction. I think that's very positive.

What an amazingly moderate man! He USED to blame the "zionists" for the part of the holocaust he grudgingly admitted did occur, he just isn't doing it any more!

It is amazing that you even consider the "public apology" seriously. He had already proven that he thinks nothing of inventing enormous lies to slander the jews and justify their killing. For someone like that, lying and saying that he NOW harbors no hate for the jews and that he is truly sorry about his slander is the easiest thing in the world. Even more so, when he has quite a bit to gain by convincing his listeners of his "honest repentance".

I suggest we use this example of "moderation" in other cases. How about appointing a "reformed" serial rapist to head NOW? Or an ex-klansman to head the NAACP? They SAID they're sorry; what's not to believe?

[Clancie]

Skeptic, I'm still waiting for you to show where I denied that Mazen ever wrote the book. (Alternatively, an apology will do).

As for the rest of it, you're obviously quite set in your ways. I doubt any Palestinian agreement could satisfy you. Even if they were willing to completely disarm (put down the rocks), and live quietly for eternity in miserable settlements occupied and policed by the Israeli military, I doubt that it would satisfy you.

I get no feeling that you see any other side than that of the right-wingers in Israel.

Sad.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy




I recommend you learn the difference between questioning a source (which, given the inflammatory slant of most of those given, was quite reasonable) and saying it's totally false.

Maybe but you have admitted that the slanted of those given where correct.


I really don't know much about this man, but I do feel confident that if he was as despicable as the National Review article says, we'd be reading and hearing a lot of critical things about him from a lot more sources. That's why I questioned it--the lack of widespread criticism.

Arafat is a well-known terrorist and still won the Nobel peace prize.
How many people criticize him is no indication of what kind of man he is.



Did you read the (far more balanced) USA Today article that Renata linked to? It seems Mazen accepts the correction, is not still claiming that 1 million is the correct figure. I feel okay with that--as apparently do many Jewish organizations in America.

They didn't say how much of it he accepts.
Because you haven't heard from these organizations doesn't mean they agree that he is ok.


His appointment as PM is not being widely condemned by American Jews, by Democrats or Republicans--or by moderate Israelis. Or didn't you notice?

This not enough press excuse can only go so far.

You don't always hear about Arafat being condemned but he is by many people.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
If he wrote in error about the Holocaust--as it seems--it's really not the same as saying it never happened at all.

Saying that five of the six million jewish victims never happened and that the other million died due to a conspiracy between Hitler and the "zionists" is NOT an "error". It's an insane, vicious, gigantic, antisemitic lie invented out of whole cloth to justify killing jews.

You might as well say that someone who writes that the jews kill christian babies to use in passover matzos is "writing in error about jewish cuisine".

More to the point, he has been corrected and publicly accepts the correction. I think that's very positive.

What an amazingly moderate man! He USED to blame the "zionists" for the part of the holocaust he grudgingly admitted did occur, he just isn't doing it any more!

It is amazing that you even consider the "public apology" seriously. He had already proven that he thinks nothing of inventing enormous lies to slander the jews and justify their killing. For someone like that, lying and saying that he NOW harbors no hate for the jews and that he is truly sorry about his slander is the easiest thing in the world. Even more so, when he has quite a bit to gain by convincing his listeners of his "honest repentance".

I suggest we use this example of "moderation" in other cases. How about appointing a "reformed" serial rapist to head NOW? Or an ex-klansman to head the NAACP? They SAID they're sorry; what's not to believe?

Nelson Mandela was once a terrorist. The US was founded with a violent revolution. This guy wrote his thesis in the USSR, (Nice of them to give him an education, even if it appears to have not been of the best quality). He has since revised his position.

Sharon has never stopped creating settlements, this guy appears to have tried to stick to peaceful methods.

[Cleopatra]

I will be brief .

1.National Review is not a good source.

2.Abu Mazen has some Holocaust-trivializing remarks - indeed

but from their point of view the real way of thinking goes as follows : The Holocaust is a way of legitimizing Israel in the eyes of the West - so whatever happened to the jews, we fight against that specific aspect.

3. It's to our interest ( Israelis) to judge people on what they do today not on what they wrote in their thesis or what they did when they were in War...

[blackpriester]

Wow Cleo - you are Israeli, aren't you?

That was a very balanced and intelligent statement and gives me hope that the conflict can be resolved some not-too-far-in-the-future-day. I wonder what people like Baker and Skeptic propose to DO about the 99%-evil-palestinians... drive them into the sea?

Somethimes I wonder how it can be (like Fool says so eloquently) that relatively few fringe-nuts can negatively affect the fates of the (probable) majority of peace-loving and war-tired people on both sides...

- m.

[ceo_esq]

I located the following old wire service report on LEXIS:The Wiesenthal Nazi-hunting centre in Israel has demanded that a top PLO official explain allegations which minimize the number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust.

…

Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, wrote "The Other Side" in 1984, questioning the truth about the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. "No one can confirm or deny the figure peddled about by the rumour that six million Jews were among the victims.

"The Jewish victims may number six million or be far fewer, even fewer than one million."

However Abu Mazen added: "The controversy over the figure cannot minimise in any way the atrocious crime committed against the Jews."

…

Abu Mazen's book also charges that the Zionist movement supported Nazism, prevented help being given to its victims and suppressed information about life in concentration camps.

"The Zionist movement campaigned against the Jews who were under Nazi occupation to increase the animosity of Hitler's regime and widen the circle of collective extermination."
Source: PLO Official Asked to Explain Doubts About Holocaust, Agence France Presse, Jan. 26, 1995.

[Clancie]

...Jan. 26, 1995...

8 years ago.
Are they still saying it now?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Wow Cleo - you are Israeli, aren't you?

That was a very balanced and intelligent statement and gives me hope that the conflict can be resolved some not-too-far-in-the-future-day. I wonder what people like Baker and Skeptic propose to DO about the 99%-evil-palestinians... drive them into the sea?

Somethimes I wonder how it can be (like Fool says so eloquently) that relatively few fringe-nuts can negatively affect the fates of the (probable) majority of peace-loving and war-tired people on both sides...

- m.

Ok. Let's get some things straight here. I am half Israeli, born in Israel. My mother is Israeli , my dad is Greek so according to the Talmudic tradition I am an Israelite.

I love both of my countries,they are different but similar in their uniqueness.

My grand mother was a Holocaust survivor and her attitude towards War, Violence, Justice and Hatred, has sealed me.She didn't hate anybody, not even Marx Mertens, the man who executed SHOA in Greece...

The most difficult thing when you come from such areas of the planet, is to balance when to behave as a patriot and when as a citizen. To me both are essential.

I have observed here that people that live very far away from Middle East are very opinionated whether they belong to the Right or to the Left...

Why?

I must confess that I am not feeling comfortable when I see that you have such a bad idea about the people of Palestine ( I don't care of what the Left thinks about us...).

They are humans and they have the misfortune to be ruled by a bloodthirsty dictator who is called Yasser Arafat.

Now, since the Left, especially in Europe, is doing nothing to help the people of Palestine to get rid of Arafat without a civil war, we must do all the dirty job ourselves but we won't do it by accusing them for everything.

I think that we need to show them some trust and to invest to their future in order to secure ours...

Clancy:
8 years ago.
Are they still saying it now?

What do you mean? Denying Holocaust in not a joke...

[Clancie]

Cleopatra, quoting: 8 years ago.
Are they still saying it now?
What do you mean? Denying Holocaust in not a joke...

????
I wasn't (wouldn't) make a joke about the Holocaust. The post I was asking about quoted the Weisenthal Center's comment from eight years ago as if its still relevant. I question that the quote still reflects their position.

I have, naturally, great respect for Weisenthal, the Center, etc. I know that Jewish organizations are rightly very quick to point out when political leaders have suspect beliefs about the Holocaust.

My point is that they said this 8 years ago and my understanding is that Mazen has since retracted the claim. (And if he did his research in the USSR, that could help account for the faulty data). Often an apology and correction is sufficient for places like the SWC, who tend to be appreciative when people admit they've made a mistake about the Holocaust and publicly correct it.

My point is: Where's the criticism now? Why put up an eight year old reference? I have a feeling the SWC is satisfied with Mazen's explanation, perhaps even feel he's a welcome change for the better and don't want to rock the boat (this is just a guess, don't quote me:).

[Dancing David]

Sigh, are we suprised?
The sad thing about holocaust denial is that it is hard to talk about the seven million non-jews who died.
Fie on you Mr. Arafat, maybe we should start a mail dog poop to Arafat campaign.

Peace
dancing David

[Baker]

Originally posted by The Fool

So do you disagree that there is fault on both sides? That there are acts of terrorism, murder and warcrimes on both sides? This is the point I was making....as long as there are large groups of people who can only see one side of a problem, the problem will persist.


Can you explain what the acts of terrorism, murder and war crimes from Israel are?
If fact when have Israel purposely gone out killed innocent civilians.
Why are you not complaining about AUP post who is always trying to tell us that Israel is the only evil side and acts of terror from Palestinian is there only option?

[Clancie]

Baker,

Are you saying that you think Israel has committed no acts of terror, murder or war crimes?

Are you saying that you don't know of the numerous instances of Israel killing innocent civilians?

Or is it rhetorical?

[Skeptic]

Are you saying that you don't know of the numerous instances of Israel killing innocent civilians?

Only when the innocent civilians are in proximity to know terrorists, etc. And israeli actions attempt to MINIMIZE civilian casualties, not kill as many of them as possible, like palestinian actions.

At any rate, the real asymmetry is very simple: the israelies wish to live in peace and are willing to share with the palestinians. The palestinians want the jews dead and gone.

Now, THAT was simple, wasn't it?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Are you saying that you don't know of the numerous instances of Israel killing innocent civilians?

Only when the innocent civilians are in proximity to know terrorists, etc. And israeli actions attempt to MINIMIZE civilian casualties, not kill as many of them as possible, like palestinian actions.

At any rate, the real asymmetry is very simple: the israelies wish to live in peace and are willing to share with the palestinians. The palestinians want the jews dead and gone.

Now, THAT was simple, wasn't it?

I have no doubt that the Israelis wish to live in peace, the question is, on what terms. Ditto, the Palestinians.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
Baker,

Are you saying that you think Israel has committed no acts of terror, murder or war crimes?

Are you saying that you don't know of the numerous instances of Israel killing innocent civilians?

Or is it rhetorical?

I am asking when have they purposely gone out killed innocent civilians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


I am asking when have they purposely gone out killed innocent civilians.

Some of them have indeed, as have Israelis. Not all of them do this, as do not all Israelis.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Some of them have indeed, as have Israelis. Not all of them do this, as do not all Israelis.

Perhaps you can provide an example of Israel purposely going out and killing innocent civilians for me?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Perhaps you can provide an example of Israel purposely going out and killing innocent civilians for me?

heres one

THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE
- THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE: 25 February 1994, A Jewish terrorist, from Keryat Arba' settlement massacred 60 worshipers in the Ibrahimi Mosque in al-Khalil (Hebron) and wounded about 200. Later massive demostrations took to the streets of Palestine and the Zionist army responded by life amunitions killing 23 and wounding hundreds more. Reports indicate there were 3 Jewish settler gunners, not only one.

there are more. this page appears to have a list.

http://www.angelfire.com/al/quwaizani/israel.html

[Denise]

To be honest, I don't get the whole Israeli love fest thing. They are commiting crimes as well but hardly any seem to care. I am not against the Jews, but let's use a little critical thinking here.

[Clancie]

That's a good example. Here's one as well:

Activist Shot in Gaza Said Brain Dead
Fri Apr 11, 3:54 PM ET

IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A 21-year-old British peace activist was shot Friday during fighting in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), the second member of the Palestinian-backed International Solidarity Movement shot this month. Doctors declared him brain dead.

The other, an American, was seriously injured.

The Briton, Thomas Hurndall, from Manchester, was shot by a tank-mounted machine gun, suffering a head injury that left him comatose and hooked up to a respirator, doctors said.

The incident occurred on a road outside the Rafah refugee camp, near the border with Egypt, as activists tried to set up a tent to block army incursions into the camp, witnesses said.

Hurndall was standing between troops and Palestinian children at the time, said Khalil Abdullah, a Palestinian who witnessed the shooting.

Hurndall was declared brain dead after arriving at Rafah Hospital, said Dr. Ali Musa. He later was transferred to Sorokka Hospital in Israel.

The Israeli army had no comment about Friday's shooting but said it would investigate.

...Another American member of International Solidarity Movement — Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Wash. — was killed in Rafah last month when she fell in front of an Israeli bulldozer (that was bulldozing Palestinian homes). The group claimed the bulldozer ran over her and then backed up.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


heres one

THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE
- THE IBRAHIMI MOSQUE MASSACRE: 25 February 1994, A Jewish terrorist, from Keryat Arba' settlement massacred 60 worshipers in the Ibrahimi Mosque in al-Khalil (Hebron) and wounded about 200. Later massive demostrations took to the streets of Palestine and the Zionist army responded by life amunitions killing 23 and wounding hundreds more. Reports indicate there were 3 Jewish settler gunners, not only one.

there are more. this page appears to have a list.

http://www.angelfire.com/al/quwaizani/israel.html


Do you have a better source besides someone's personal Angelfire home page?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
That's a good example. Here's one as well:

Activist Shot in Gaza Said Brain Dead
Fri Apr 11, 3:54 PM ET

IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A 21-year-old British peace activist was shot Friday during fighting in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), the second member of the Palestinian-backed International Solidarity Movement shot this month. Doctors declared him brain dead.

The other, an American, was seriously injured.

The Briton, Thomas Hurndall, from Manchester, was shot by a tank-mounted machine gun, suffering a head injury that left him comatose and hooked up to a respirator, doctors said.

The incident occurred on a road outside the Rafah refugee camp, near the border with Egypt, as activists tried to set up a tent to block army incursions into the camp, witnesses said.

Hurndall was standing between troops and Palestinian children at the time, said Khalil Abdullah, a Palestinian who witnessed the shooting.

Hurndall was declared brain dead after arriving at Rafah Hospital, said Dr. Ali Musa. He later was transferred to Sorokka Hospital in Israel.

The Israeli army had no comment about Friday's shooting but said it would investigate.

...Another American member of International Solidarity Movement — Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Wash. — was killed in Rafah last month when she fell in front of an Israeli bulldozer (that was bulldozing Palestinian homes). The group claimed the bulldozer ran over her and then backed up.


Would you please post a link to the article in question here.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Denise
To be honest, I don't get the whole Israeli love fest thing. They are commiting crimes as well but hardly any seem to care. I am not against the Jews, but let's use a little critical thinking here.

You have to understand what I'm getting at I'm not saying Israel never makes mistakes but they don't send out suicide bomber's to blow up women and children I know you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in awhile but had the same point the Palestinian leadership has a long history of terror.

If you are not aware of the situwation over there how could know who is using critical thinking.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Baker


You have to understand what I'm getting at I'm not saying Israel never makes mistakes but they don't send out suicide bomber's to blow up women and children I know you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in awhile but had the same point the Palestinian leadership has a long history of terror.

If you are not aware of the situwation over there how could know who is using critical thinking.

LOL! Serious now, would the Israeli's send out suicide bombers if they were in the situation that the Palestinians are in? I think probably yes. The Palestinians are being treated in a very bad way by Israel. In that I have no doubt. What is the solution? No idea, but to say that Israel is in the right and Palestine is always wrong smacks of uncritical thinking to me.

[Clancie]

I'll try to find the first article again for the link. Meanwhile, how about Shabra and Chatilla?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/lebanon020304_case.html

B E I R U T, Lebanon — In her tiny home in the Palestinian refugee camp of Sabra in Beirut, Nadima Nasser dabs her eyes as she recalls the horrific events of September 1982, when virtually every male in her family was slaughtered or disappeared in one of the worst atrocities of the Middle East conflict.

Naseer is one of 23 plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in a Belgian court against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for his alleged involvement in the September 1982 massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Chatilla.

More than 800 people were killed or went missing in a three-day killing spree by Lebanese Christian militiamen allowed into the camps by Israeli soldiers.

Some estimates, however, put the death toll at 1,800. Israel had invaded Lebanon in June 1982 and as occupiers responsible for the security of civilians in Lebanon, Israeli troops were stationed around the camps during the time the massacres occurred.

On Wednesday, a legal panel is expected to rule on whether Sharon can be tried in a Brussels court under a 1993 Belgian law, which allows crimes against humanity and genocide to be tried in Belgian courts, regardless of where the crimes were committed.

Sharon's lawyers have argued that the Israeli prime minister — who was defense minister during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon when the massacres occurred — enjoys diplomatic immunity. They have also questioned the competence of the court to try a crime not committed on Belgian soil.

...Although Sharon has pleaded innocence in the case, saying he could not have predicted and did not know what was going on in the camps those three days, an official Israeli investigation in 1983 found him indirectly but "personally" responsible for the deaths.

Following the recommendations of the Kahan Commission, Sharon resigned as defense minister, but stayed on in the government as a minister without portfolio until he was elected prime minister in February 2001....

[Clancie]

U.N. Human Rights Body Criticizes Israel
Tue Apr 15,11:45 AM ET

By CLARE NULLIS, Associated Press Writer

GENEVA - The United Nations' top human rights body overwhelmingly condemned Israel's human rights record on Tuesday, accusing the country of "mass killings of Palestinians" and a host of other violations.

...By a 50-1 vote, the commission passed a resolution put forward by European countries voicing "grave concern" because Israel has not halted settlements of Palestinian territory. It criticized restrictions on the movements of Palestinians and a barrier Israel is building to separate it from the Palestinian territories.

[Clancie]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=282040&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

One more, from today's news, at Ha'aretz.com:

IAF kills five, wounds 50 in Gaza attack

By Arnon Regular

Israel Air Force helicopter gunships fired missiles at a car in Gaza City after sundown yesterday, killing five people and wounding around 50. The attack took place in Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood, known as a Hamas stronghold, and targeted Sa'id Arabid, one of the leaders of the organization's military wing. Arabid and one of his aides, Ashraf Halabi, were killed.

Palestinian sources reported that at least one child was killed in the attack.

The incident was Israel's first air strike in Gaza since the beginning of the war in Iraq. Till now, Israel had scaled back its military operations during the fighting in the Gulf, apparently to avoid drawing attention to its struggle with the Palestinians.

The dead were not immediately identified.

The mangled bodies were taken to Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, where pandemonium reigned as ambulances ferried casualties from the scene of the strike.

Gaza residents reported seeing two Israeli F-16 fighter planes circling low over Gaza City, breaking the sound barrier, in the minutes before the air strike.

A witness, Yussuf Touth, 24, said he had seen a white car approaching an intersection when he noticed the two planes. "And then suddenly I saw a big flame in the sky" and the missile hit the car.

Touth was wounded in both legs and lay covered in blood in the hospital. "I saw bodies torn to pieces," he said.

The Israel Defense Forces confirmed that Arabid had been the target. Israel has carried out many similar attacks during the intifada, targeting suspected Palestinian militants. Palestinians and human rights groups have condemned the practice.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
I'll try to find the first article again for the link. Meanwhile, how about Shabra and Chatilla?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/lebanon020304_case.html



They where killed by Lebanese Christian militiamen it was a terrible tragedy but there is no proof that Sharon's or Israeli was involved in it.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=282040&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

One more, from today's news, at Ha'aretz.com:

IAF kills five, wounds 50 in Gaza attack

By Arnon Regular

Israel Air Force helicopter gunships fired missiles at a car in Gaza City after sundown yesterday, killing five people and wounding around 50. The attack took place in Gaza City's Zeitoun neighborhood, known as a Hamas stronghold, and targeted Sa'id Arabid, one of the leaders of the organization's military wing. Arabid and one of his aides, Ashraf Halabi, were killed.

Palestinian sources reported that at least one child was killed in the attack.

The incident was Israel's first air strike in Gaza since the beginning of the war in Iraq. Till now, Israel had scaled back its military operations during the fighting in the Gulf, apparently to avoid drawing attention to its struggle with the Palestinians.

The dead were not immediately identified.

The mangled bodies were taken to Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, where pandemonium reigned as ambulances ferried casualties from the scene of the strike.

Gaza residents reported seeing two Israeli F-16 fighter planes circling low over Gaza City, breaking the sound barrier, in the minutes before the air strike.

A witness, Yussuf Touth, 24, said he had seen a white car approaching an intersection when he noticed the two planes. "And then suddenly I saw a big flame in the sky" and the missile hit the car.

Touth was wounded in both legs and lay covered in blood in the hospital. "I saw bodies torn to pieces," he said.

The Israel Defense Forces confirmed that Arabid had been the target. Israel has carried out many similar attacks during the intifada, targeting suspected Palestinian militants. Palestinians and human rights groups have condemned the practice.

Ok so they killed a Hamas terrorist there was some civilians harmed but Israel was not targeting them I do agree Israel should try to be more careful in their attempts to stop terrorist.

As I have said when have they purposely gone to kill innocent civilians!

[Clancie]

Baker: ...There is no proof that Sharon's or Israeli was involved in it

From the above article (ABC):

...More than 800 people were killed or went missing in a three-day killing spree by Lebanese Christian militiamen allowed into the camps by Israeli soldiers.

...Some estimates, however, put the death toll at 1,800. Israel had invaded Lebanon in June 1982 and as occupiers responsible for the security of civilians in Lebanon, Israeli troops were stationed around the camps during the time the massacres occurred.

"...an official Israeli investigation in 1983 found him (Sharon) indirectly but "personally" responsible for the deaths."

Following the recommendations of the Kahan Commission, Sharon resigned as defense minister....

[Baker]

Originally posted by Denise


LOL! Serious now, would the Israeli's send out suicide bombers if they were in the situation that the Palestinians are in? I think probably yes. The Palestinians are being treated in a very bad way by Israel. In that I have no doubt. What is the solution? No idea, but to say that Israel is in the right and Palestine is always wrong smacks of uncritical thinking to me.


So you are saying there is nothing wrong with using suicide bombers killing innocent women and children?
Now who needs critical thinking here.
Just how are the Palestinians being treated in a very bad way by Israel?
And I never Israel is always right and Palestine is always wrong.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy


From the above article (ABC):

...More than 800 people were killed or went missing in a three-day killing spree by Lebanese Christian militiamen allowed into the camps by Israeli soldiers.

...Some estimates, however, put the death toll at 1,800. Israel had invaded Lebanon in June 1982 and as occupiers responsible for the security of civilians in Lebanon, Israeli troops were stationed around the camps during the time the massacres occurred.

"...an official Israeli investigation in 1983 found him (Sharon) indirectly but "personally" responsible for the deaths."

Following the recommendations of the Kahan Commission, Sharon resigned as defense minister....

Sharon let them in there but did he know that they would kill innocent civilians?
Yes he indirectly responsible he shouldn’t have let them in there I agree he made a mistake but is there any proof that he had it planed that way?
No there isn’t now can you please show me something that can be proved.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker



Do you have a better source besides someone's personal Angelfire home page?

I knew it happened, you could look it up yourself pretty easily with the name and date.:) I wouldn't expect you to accept the link as a reference, but in this case, the basic facts are pretty well acknowledged by everyone.

[Supercharts]

It's a Jew thing. Jew suicide bombers.
LOL.
Isn't it always the Jews?
Jew, Jew, Jew...

Jew [i]suicide bombers?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Denise
To be honest, I don't get the whole Israeli love fest thing. They are commiting crimes as well but hardly any seem to care. I am not against the Jews, but let's use a little critical thinking here.

Which is all I trying to do. As I have said before, there aren't jews and palestinians, or indeed, any other nationality in Ausralia going around committing acts of terror, out of proportion to any other race or nationality. Terrorism is pretty well non-existant.

So why is it that people who can be well behaved and sane over here are lunatics over there?

The only major bombing here was committed by some criminals out to get revenge on the cops. An afghan refugee, who appears to have been mentally ill due to his experiences in his old country stabbed and killed someone with a knife, but not for religious or political reasons. The refugees have been welcomed in the country town they are living in because no one from the cities wants to go there to live. Some jews have been convicted of tax fraud associated with donations to right wing Isreali organisations. There is crime here and there, but nothing like suicide bombings and martial law.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


you could look it up yourself pretty easily with the name and date.

Well then, you should have no problems finding a creditable source then.

[Clancie]

Baker: Where have they gone to intentionally kill innocent civilians?

Baker,

I think you're pretty impervious to the fact that Israeli policy often involves killing civilians. Nevertheless, here's another example of it. (I linked the article, particularly as I've edited out the usual "spin", i.e. mentioning that it was targeting "militants" (not that they specifically targeted all the Palestinians they killed, including children). Or that it happened after a suicide bomber killed 15 people on an Israeli bus.

After all, what difference does that make? The Israeli army is not claiming that these Palestinians killed any Israelis on the bus. (It was a suicide bomber who did it, after all. It gets tiring to see the press always repeating the same old spin.)

Israel kills 11 Palestinians after bus blast By Nidal al-Mughrabi

JABALYA, Gaza Strip (Reuters) - Israeli forces have killed 11 Palestinians, including some torn apart by a tank shell, in a major raid in a Gaza Strip refugee camp..

More than 140 Palestinians were wounded during the nine-hour Israeli raid....

...A 14-year-old American girl was among the dead.

...Palestinians said the blast killed eight unarmed civilians.

Amid the chaos, two headless bodies lay on the ground. Bloodied survivors crawled or were dragged through dirt streets. Gaza hospitals were overwhelmed with wounded, many of them children pleading for help.

...Palestinian medical officials said five of the fatalities ranged in age from 13 to 16 and a 60-year-old man was also shot dead.

...Those raids, reflecting the tough line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's new rightist government has been taking...have drawn rare U.S. condemnation of Israel over the killing of Palestinian civilians.

At least 1,903 Palestinians and 706 Israelis have been killed since the uprising began.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030306/80/dutc2.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts
It's a Jew thing. Jew suicide bombers.
LOL.
Isn't it always the Jews?
Jew, Jew, Jew...

Jew [i]suicide bombers?


Haw, haw, the king of the strawmen. And of course, being a democracy gives a state the magical power of always doing the right thing.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Well then, you should have no problems finding a creditable source then.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/test.htm!OpenPage

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/d59db69717077d2c8525607d004dd99f!OpenDocument

[Clancie]

Baker,

Just so you don't miss this from the above article:

Those raids, reflecting the tough line Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's new rightist government has been taking...have drawn rare U.S. condemnation of Israel over the killing of Palestinian civilians.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/test.htm!OpenPage

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb8525607d00581829/d59db69717077d2c8525607d004dd99f!OpenDocument

I don’t see any where on these links where Israel purposely went out killing innocent civilians.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


I don’t see any where on these links where Israel purposely went out killing innocent civilians.



25 February A Jewish settler from Kiryat Arba fired an automatic machine gun on Palestinian worshippers during their morning prayer in the Hebron Ibrahimi Mosque on Friday, 25 February. The number of casualties was put by the Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC) at 48 dead and 250 injured. Other sources reported 43 dead and yet others indicated that more than 50 people were killed in the mosque. The settler, born in the United States, was himself killed by survivors.

Following the massacre in Hebron, Israeli troops shot dead at least 12 Palestinians and injured more than 100 others during protests all over the occupied territories. (Reuters)

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy


Baker,

I think you're pretty impervious to the fact that Israeli policy often involves killing civilians. Nevertheless, here's another example of it. (I linked the article, particularly as I've edited out the usual "spin", i.e. mentioning that it was targeting "militants" (not that they specifically targeted all the Palestinians they killed, including children). Or that it happened after a suicide bomber killed 15 people on an Israeli bus.


Yes they where targeting "militants" you can
Argue that they should be more careful in their response to terrorist attacks but there not trying to kill innocent civilians.

As I have said when have they purposely gone out to kill innocent civilians!!!

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

25 February A Jewish settler from Kiryat Arba fired an automatic machine gun on Palestinian worshippers during their morning prayer in the Hebron Ibrahimi Mosque on Friday, 25 February. The number of casualties was put by the Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC) at 48 dead and 250 injured. Other sources reported 43 dead and yet others indicated that more than 50 people were killed in the mosque. The settler, born in the United States, was himself killed by survivors.

Following the massacre in Hebron, Israeli troops shot dead at least 12 Palestinians and injured more than 100 others during protests all over the occupied territories. (Reuters)


Thank you do you have the link to the full story?
All have to finish this tomorrow I have already been up to late.

[Clancie]

Baker: but they're not trying to kill innocent civilians

The point is, over and over and over, Israel does kill innocent civilians. You do agree with that, don't you?

Here's a thought. Suppose, Baker, you head the Israeli army. You come to a town and you say, "I think there might be a 'militant' (meaning: someone who feels Palestinians are at war with Israel and who might attack Israelis in order to make a political statement) in this town. Therefore, I will indiscriminately

(a) bomb it
(b) shell it
(c) send armed soldiers in to fire some rounds into a crowd."

You know that the chances of your troops hitting a specific "militant" with the above tactics are very slim. You also know that the chances of hitting innocent civilians with these tactics are very great.

You do it anyway, over and over, killing many innocent men, women and children yet always claiming these deaths are all okay because maybe one or two of them is a "militant". (In fact, sometimes you do get one or two militants, while killing or injuring dozens of innocent civilians).

Does this policy really seem like not "targeting innocent civilians" to you? More to the point, does it seem like a policy that values human life?

Looking at the Israeli armed forces' actions in the West Bank and Gaza, the only consistent target seems to be innocent civilians.

Is that not state-supported terrorism?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Denise
[B]

LOL! Serious now, would the Israeli's send out suicide bombers if they were in the situation that the Palestinians are in? I think probably yes. The Palestinians are being treated in a very bad way by Israel. In that I have no doubt.

You are wrong and you 'd better have some reservations since you encourage others to use some critical thinking...

Many nations have fought for their liberty in the mediterannean and in the Balkans ( one of the most heated places on planet) none has ever used civilians the way Palestinians do.

Hijacking planes and using suicide bombers are methods introduced by the Palestinians.

It must be a cultural thing.

, but to say that Israel is in the right and Palestine is always wrong smacks of uncritical thinking to me.

True but those who support the Palestinians lack exactly this:critical thinking, they don't help them at all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You are wrong and you 'd better have some reservations since you encourage others to use some critical thinking...

Many nations have fought for their liberty in the mediterannean and in the Balkans ( one of the most heated places on planet) none has ever used civilians the way Palestinians do.

Hijacking planes and using suicide bombers are methods introduced by the Palestinians.

It must be a cultural thing.



Not quite true. The history of war is full of 'atrocities'. Our moral west has used civilians for war strategy. The bombing of Dresden was a perfect example. A city of no military value was firebombed and in one night about 100,000 civilians died.

The Japanese were notorious for their inhuman treatment of civilians during WWII. Eg, rape of Nanking.

The Nazis were the instigators of the Holocaust. Once again, an attack directly upon civilians. Part of the reason for the creation of the death camps was because the troops assigned to the death squads to shoot them all were suffering psychologically and cracking up.

The Americans dropped the nuke on civilian cities.

The Hutus were involved in one of the greatest massacres of civilians in history, using machetes.

There have been numerous abuses of natives by conquering civilisations.

The bible itself is full of stories of the ancient battles where atrocities are commited.

The americans in Vietnam committed atrocities against Vietnamese civilians, the most famous incident being the Mai Lai massacre.

So I would say this is not a peculiarly Palestinian phenomenon. Perhaps if they had tanks and attack helicopters, they would be using these instead. As it is, there are also attacks by men using guns. However, these usually turn out to be suicide attacks in effect anyway, as the settlements are so well armed, that once they get in, they won't get out again.

As has been shown in the recent war, a direct attack on tanks and aircraft using guns is an exercise in futility.

The use of suicide bombers was introduced to them by Islamic extremists from other countries.

I would guess in the other factor is that we may be witnessing what happens when a culture is subjected to 30 years of military occupation.



True but those who support the Palestinians lack exactly this:critical thinking, they don't help them at all.

Critical thinking indeed.

[Clancie]

Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem
Thursday April 10, 2003
The Guardian

A bomb, which may have been planted by Jewish extremists (they claim it), exploded in a West Bank school playground yesterday, injuring 20 Palestinian children.

A shadowy Jewish group called Revenge of the Infants claimed responsibility for the attack at the secondary school in the village of Jaba'a, south of Jenin.

Lutfi Abu Oun, mayor of Jaba'a, said two of the teenagers were seriously injured. All the wounded were taken to hospitals in Jenin and Nablus.
Ismail Salah, the school's headmaster, said the explosion tore through a classroom for 16-year-old boys as they returned from a midday recess.
Witnesses said desks and chairs were hurled about by the blast. Pools of blood and glass shards littered the floor.

...Last year, a bomb planted by the group in an east Jerusalem school playground injured eight children.

Jewish militants were active in the West Bank until the early 1980s when the government clamped down on their activities.

...In 2001, three members of a Palestinian family, including a two-month-old boy, were killed when Jewish militants sprayed a van with bullets in the West Bank. Witnesses said the killers escaped through an Israeli army checkpoint.

...The Israeli government yesterday defended its assassination of Said Arbid, a senior Hamas activist in Gaza City on Tuesday.

Two of Arbid's associates and four onlookers were killed when an F-16 fighter jet fired a missile at his car and a helicopter fired a missile at the onlookers gathered near the wreckage

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I must confess that I am not feeling comfortable when I see that you have such a bad idea about the people of Palestine ( I don't care of what the Left thinks about us...).

They are humans and they have the misfortune to be ruled by a bloodthirsty dictator who is called Yasser Arafat.




Hi Cleo,

How did you get the impression that I hate palestinians?

Quite the contrary... I do support their cause, unless it is to "drive the Jews into the sea". I can see both people's rights to live on that land - the Palestinians' because it is really theirs, the Israelis' because you can't negate the last 60 years, even if Zionism (in my opinion) was a bad idea to begin with.

best ones,
- m.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Baker



So you are saying there is nothing wrong with using suicide bombers killing innocent women and children?
Now who needs critical thinking here.
Just how are the Palestinians being treated in a very bad way by Israel?
And I never Israel is always right and Palestine is always wrong.

Baker, let me make this clear, I am not specifically talking about you. I'm talking about the general attitude I have observed in the USA. The Palestinians do not have the same rights as Israeli citizens. They are often put under curfew etc. I am not saying that I agree with the Palestinian cause, I'm trying to find out why some people believe that everything Israel does is good, and everything Palestine does is bad.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You are wrong and you 'd better have some reservations since you encourage others to use some critical thinking...

Many nations have fought for their liberty in the mediterannean and in the Balkans ( one of the most heated places on planet) none has ever used civilians the way Palestinians do.

Hijacking planes and using suicide bombers are methods introduced by the Palestinians.

It must be a cultural thing.



True but those who support the Palestinians lack exactly this:critical thinking, they don't help them at all.

Let's see. Kamikaze pilots anyone? How about the kids that strapped bombs to themselves during the Vietnam War?

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by Denise


Let's see. Kamikaze pilots anyone? How about the kids that strapped bombs to themselves during the Vietnam War?

Thank you Denise, you beat me to it.
Although one cold argue that those attacks were directed against forces on the battle field, not against civilians. But then again, one could at least see a settler who WILLINGLY settles on occupied land as a form of combatant...

[DanishDynamite]

And as far as going after civilians, let's not forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the carpet bombing of German cities during WWII.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And as far as going after civilians, let's not forget Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the carpet bombing of German cities during WWII.

Ahh - but those were done after previous aggression from the goverments of Germany and Japan, which make them okay, no ;)?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Thank you Denise, you beat me to it.
Although one cold argue that those attacks were directed against forces on the battle field, not against civilians. But then again, one could at least see a settler who WILLINGLY settles on occupied land as a form of combatant...
The fact that kamikaze attacks were directed against combatants makes a world of difference. And no, you can't legitimately deem a settler who willingly settles on "occupied" (technically "disputed") land to be a combatant by virtue of that alone.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

The fact that kamikaze attacks were directed against combatants makes a world of difference. And no, you can't legitimately deem a settler who willingly settles on "occupied" (technically "disputed") land to be a combatant by virtue of that alone.

but you do agree with me that this kind of "settlign behaviour" is highly questionable and sure to be seen as an offensive act?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by blackpriester


but you do agree with me that this kind of "settlign behaviour" is highly questionable and sure to be seen as an offensive act?
I agree that it's questionable (though no more so than the notion that the West Bank is an occupied territory) from a political standpoint, and offensive in the sense of "causing resentment" rather than in the sense of "constituting an attack". On the other hand, it doesn't shift the culpability for terrorist violence even one centimeter away from the perpetrators.

[blackpriester]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

I agree that it's questionable (though no more so than the notion that the West Bank is an occupied territory) from a political standpoint, and offensive in the sense of "causing resentment" rather than in the sense of "constituting an attack". On the other hand, it doesn't shift the culpability for terrorist violence even one centimeter away from the perpetrators.

...which is not what I proposed anyway. Terrorists are Terrorists. Still, I see those settlers ALSO as terrorists... and many of them cases (one may think of the assasination of premier Rabin) actually are...

[Skeptic]

Ahh - but those were done after previous aggression from the goverments of Germany and Japan, which make them okay, no ;)?

I feel no shame at all for Hiroshima or for Dresden. It was a war to the death with the Nazis and their allies. The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth. They made Dante's inferno look like child's play in comparison. In this context, Dresden and Hiroshima pale to insignificance, and are little more than a small taste of what they had deserved.

[Skeptic]

Terrorists are Terrorists. Still, I see those settlers ALSO as terrorists and many of them cases (one may think of the assasination of premier Rabin) actually are...

You DO realize, of course, that when you said "I consider settlers terrorists, and some of them actually are", you actually admitted most of them (at least) are NOT terrorists, but that you decided to "consider" them terrorists nevertheless? Just compare what you said to: "I consider all black thieves, and some of them actually do steal", or to "I consider all women stupid, and some of them really don't have a high intelligence".

What a comparison:

On the one hand we have the palestinian terrorist organizations, whose explicit goal is to kill as many jews as possible and their entire existence is dedicated to this. On the other, we have the jewish settlers, who--by the mere fact of living where the arabs don't want them--are "considered" terrorists (and thus "legitimate" targets, even if they are babies) despite the fact that the vast majority of them never, of course, was involved in any terrorism except as victims.

Yes, absolute equality between the "terrorists" of both side. Nothing to choose between them. Except for the fact that the arab terrorists are engaged in butchering jews, while 99% of the jews you "consider terrorists" never did anything wrong, of course.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:I feel no shame at all for Hiroshima or for Dresden. Nor should you. It's history and you weren't involved.
It was a war to the death with the Nazis and their allies. Not sure what a "war to the death" means exactly or how it is differentiated from other wars.
The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth. Get real. The Jews were generally gassed or shot. They weren't broken on the rack, made to drink boiling lead, burned at the stake, crucified or similar.
In this context, Dresden and Hiroshima pale to insignificance, and are little more than a small taste of what they had deserved.So, the civilians deserved to die. Isn't that what the terrorists are doing?

[Skeptic]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get real. The Jews were generally gassed or shot. They weren't broken on the rack, made to drink boiling lead, burned at the stake, crucified or similar.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

True. No jew was put on the rack or crucified by the nazis. Such methods, after all, are inefficient, and might take much more than the minimum time necessary to liquidate the jew in question.

On the other hand, the jews WERE--before being "humanely" shot or gassed--"relieved" of all their property and legal rights, pushed into tiny ghettos to die of typhus or starve, shot at will when they passed a German who felt like killing them, overworked until the died building tank trenches for the SS, frozen to death in the Polish winter since they were supplied with no warm clothes, used as guinea pigs in medical experiments, starved by getting two slices of bread a day to eat, and all this of course presuming that they survived a three day "evacuation", in jam-packed cattle cars, to the death camps, where their children and parents, too old or young to be gradually worked to death, were usually simply murdered upon arrival.

Except for THAT--and this is a very, VERY partial list of the horrors they suffered--the jews were treated very well by the nazis as they were exterminated. I'm sure every holocaust survivor would agree. Why don't you ask a couple?

The idea that it wasn't THAT bad because the jews were butchered "humanely" is merely a rehash of Himmler's wartime 1943 Posen speech, where he bragged to his cronies on how he always made sure the jews are killed off without undue suffering, and how lucky they were for the SS not using "unnecessary" cruelty as it exterminated them. This would have been an insane "justification" even if it WERE true--as if the main crime is not the killing itself, not the humaness--but even this was of course a lie, a horrible lie.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Skeptic
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get real. The Jews were generally gassed or shot. They weren't broken on the rack, made to drink boiling lead, burned at the stake, crucified or similar.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

True. No jew was put on the rack or crucified by the nazis. Such methods, after all, are inefficient, and might take much more than the minimum time necessary to liquidate the jew in question.

On the other hand, the jews WERE--before being "humanely" shot or gassed--"relieved" of all their property and legal rights, pushed into tiny ghettos to die of typhus or starve, shot at will when they passed a German who felt like killing them, overworked until the died building tank trenches for the SS, frozen to death in the Polish winter since they were supplied with no warm clothes, used as guinea pigs in medical experiments, starved by getting two slices of bread a day to eat, and all this of course presuming that they survived a three day "evacuation", in jam-packed cattle cars, to the death camps, where their children and parents, too old or young to be gradually worked to death, were usually simply murdered upon arrival.

Except for THAT--and this is a very, VERY partial list of the horrors they suffered--the jews were treated very well by the nazis as they were exterminated. I'm sure every holocaust survivor would agree. Why don't you ask a couple?

The idea that it wasn't THAT bad because the jews were butchered "humanely" is merely a rehash of Himmler's wartime 1943 Posen speech, where he bragged to his cronies on how he always made sure the jews are killed off without undue suffering, and how lucky they were for the SS not using "unnecessary" cruelty as it exterminated them. This would have been an insane "justification" even if it WERE true--as if the main crime is not the killing itself, not the humaness--but even this was of course a lie, a horrible lie. We are in agreement then, that you overstated your case.

BTW, you didn't reply regarding whether you really felt that the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were obliterated by atomic bombs and carpet bombings only got a small taste of what they deserved.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Get real. The Jews were generally gassed or shot. They weren't broken on the rack, made to drink boiling lead, burned at the stake, crucified or similar.

Get real yourself, what planet are you from? ( As an aside I do have to say that unlike the French the Danes did resist the Nazis, WAY TO GO!)

The Nazis inflicted great terror upon all those who were in the death camps and as a matter of fact they did practise torture as a regular part of the routine there.

Whar on earth could prompt you to make a statement like that? Is being starved to death humane, freezing to death, please read a little before you make rash statements. Most prisoners were sent to the death camps in cattle cars, not passenger trains.

Also seven million lives were extinguished in the death camps who were not of the jewish faith.

Peace
dancing david

PS I think that Isreal is not justified in it's fascist behaviors because of the Holocaust, and that the USA could have prevented much suffering by accepting Jews wishing to emigrate from Europe prior to the war.

[DanishDynamite]

Dancing David:
Get real yourself, what planet are you from? ( As an aside I do have to say that unlike the French the Danes did resist the Nazis, WAY TO GO!)Uh...thanks. I think.
The Nazis inflicted great terror upon all those who were in the death camps and as a matter of fact they did practise torture as a regular part of the routine there.I wasn't aware. Are you saying that most Jews were tortured to death?
Whar on earth could prompt you to make a statement like that? Is being starved to death humane, freezing to death, please read a little before you make rash statements. Most prisoners were sent to the death camps in cattle cars, not passenger trains. I am well aware that the Jews weren't treated lightly before they were killed. I just wasn't aware that they were generally tortured to death. Do you have any links for this?
Also seven million lives were extinguished in the death camps who were not of the jewish faith. A heinous crime, certainly. However, my objection regarded Skeptic's claim that " The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth." Given the many imaginative ways which humans have devised down through history to slowly and painfully kill other humans, I found his statement quite over the top.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Skeptic's claim that " The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth." Given the many imaginative ways which humans have devised down through history to slowly and painfully kill other humans, I found his statement quite over the top.
I think that the industrialization of death and torture was something mind boggling, you are right humans have been inhumane to each other for a very long time.
The mass production of suffering and the active attempts to lie about it and cover it up are something new. generaly those who commit such crimes want it to be known. Especialy coming from one of the most enlightened nations on earth.

Peace dancing D

[CapelDodger]

From Skeptic:
The reason the author gave no "proof" of Abu Mazen's holocaust denial is that it is well know--in the form of a book he published ... Of course, the book is not available in English--it's about as easy to find a translation as it is to find an English copy of the palestinian national charter which contains the embarrasing arabic sections about killing and/or expelling all the jews. But the book is well-known in the arab world.
No proof is needed because something is well known ... This may have been touched on preciously, but given the value an English translation would have to 'Sharonists' one wonders why such a translation hasn't been made. The book is, after all, said to be well-known and presumably easily available in the Arab world. Might the message sound better (for them) when filtered through Zionist sources and the kind of polemicists referenced at the start of this thread?
The references to 'killing and/or expelling' in the Charter - is it 'and' or 'or'? Is th reference so ambiguous? Of course, if there is no reference to killing but there is a reference to expelling, the phrase 'killing or expelling' would be (sophistically) accurate, but 'killing and expelling' wouldn't. And again, if an English translation isn't easily availably, why not? Is it perhaps preferrable for some people that they interpret it for the general readership?
In all this, remain aware that the primary source for the West about Arabic sources is, of course, Israel.

[CapelDodger]

From ceo_esq:
And no, you can't legitimately deem a settler who willingly settles on "occupied" (technically "disputed") land to be a combatant by virtue of that alone.
Yes you can. It's not as if the settlers don't know what they're getting involved in. People don't establish or move into settlements because they like the view, they do it to be part of the furtherance of the Zionist project. Which is equivalent to signing up. (This doesn't apply to children dragged into a war-zone by their parents, of course, since they can hardly be described as 'willing'.)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Skeptic:
True. No jew was put on the rack or crucified by the nazis. Such methods, after all, are inefficient, and might take much more than the minimum time necessary to liquidate the jew in question.

Many were used as guinea pigs in medical experiments by individuals such as Dr. Josef Mengele.


I feel no shame at all for Hiroshima or for Dresden.

Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved lives. A conventional invasion of Japan would have been a very bloody affair, and the numbers of civilians killed would have been far, far greater than the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[DanishDynamite]

Shane Costello:Many were used as guinea pigs in medical experiments by individuals such as Dr. Josef Mengele. I doubt Dr. Mengele used even a tenth of one percent of those killed.
Dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved lives. A conventional invasion of Japan would have been a very bloody affair, and the numbers of civilians killed would have been far, far greater than the death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was a possible future. It has, however, nothing to do with Skeptic's view that the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were obliterated by atomic bombs and carpet bombings only got a small taste of what they deserved.

[Clancie]

I doubt Dr. Mengele used even a tenth of one percent of those killed.

Do you really want to argue "relative evil"?

The Nazis qualify. By any criteria.

[davefoc]

The people who have posted to this have such a wide ranging knowledge of these issues that I am a little reticent to add my own two bits and respectfully reserve the right to admit to being wrong on what I say below:

I am always disapointed to read the knee jerk support of Israel that seems to mark the tone of so many posts. It is very fortunate that this forum has such knowledgeable and well spoken folks as Clancy, AUP and even Cleopatra to counteract some of this.

It seems like the knee jerk Israeli defenders never seem to notice that a bunch of Europeans landed in Israel about 50 years ago, set up a government and not only continued to hold the land that the UN conceded to them but continue to attempt to expand those holdings with illegal settlements. To hold these settlements and prevent resistance by the indigeous population they engage in a policy of state sponsored terrorism that involves the razing of orchards, homes, industrial facilities and the massacre of civilians in peripheral damage. The justification put forth is always that they're different than the Palestinians because they only kill civilians when the civilians accidentally get in the way of their targets. Reasonably, this distinction is not always noticed by the Palestinians.

A great deal of the argument by the knee-jerk Israel defenders is based on painting Palestinians and/or their leaders as unrelentingly evil folks. There is never an acknowledgement that Jews have survived in the area for over 2400 years with the ancestors of these evil people in power. The evil ancestors of those Palestinians actually thwarted some of the crusaders' efforts to massacre Jews.

So where does this leave us? It would be nice if Arab leaders would stop making Israel and the Jews a scapegoat for their problems. It would be nice if the Palestinians would stop the suicide bombings. But until Israel gets the hell out of the illegal settlements the moderates in the Arab world that can make that happen will not have the power to do anything.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Clancy


Do you really want to argue "relative evil"?

The Nazis qualify. By any criteria. Skeptic started the show, by classifying Nazi treatment of Jews as the ultimate horror since the beginning of mankind. I disagree.

Anyway, the question of what constitutes "evil" is a philosophical one, better suited for the R&P forum.

[DanishDynamite]

davefoc,

Nice, rational, fairly even-handed post.

What are you doing in this forum? ;)

[renata]

Originally posted by davefoc
The people who have posted to this have such a wide ranging knowledge of these issues that I am a little reticent to add my own two bits and respectfully reserve the right to admit to being wrong on what I say below:

It is always good to see new people enter the discussion. I do recall you commented on the presence of Israeli astronaut at Columbia, so this is not your first foray into the world of Palestinian/Israel conflict.

I am always disapointed to read the knee jerk support of Israel that seems to mark the tone of so many posts. It is very fortunate that this forum has such knowledgeable and well spoken folks as Clancy, AUP and even Cleopatra to counteract some of this.

There are some knee jerk pro Israel supporters here. There are also some knee jerk anti Israel supporters here. Are you sure your evaluation of the posters is not colored by your own opinions?

It seems like the knee jerk Israeli defenders never seem to notice that a bunch of Europeans landed in Israel about 50 years ago, set up a government and not only continued to hold the land that the UN conceded to them but continue to attempt to expand those holdings with illegal settlements. To hold these settlements and prevent resistance by the indigeous population they engage in a policy of state sponsored terrorism that involves the razing of orchards, homes, industrial facilities and the massacre of civilians in peripheral damage. The justification put forth is always that they're different than the Palestinians because they only kill civilians when the civilians accidentally get in the way of their targets. Reasonably, this distinction is not always noticed by the Palestinians.

We hear this version of history frequently. However, we happen to disagree with it, and with good reason. There are so many presumptions in your post, I do not know where to begin. Here is a pro-Israeli website that addresses a lot of these issues. I think you might find it an interesting and useful source, its obvious slant notwithstanding. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html



A great deal of the argument by the knee-jerk Israel defenders is based on painting Palestinians and/or their leaders as unrelentingly evil folks. There is never an acknowledgement that Jews have survived in the area for over 2400 years with the ancestors of these evil people in power. The evil ancestors of those Palestinians actually thwarted some of the crusaders' efforts to massacre Jews.

I do not think people thing all Palestinians are evil. However, if we are giving ancestral credit for protecting the Jews against the crusaders (where is the link for that), then don't we also get to blame all Arabs in Palestine for say, the Hebron massacre? We can line up historical atrocities, but we we need to discuss is the current situation. We do not call Palestinian leadership corrupt and morally bankrupt because of events that happened 1000, or 100 years ago. We call them that because of things they are doing today, and in their lifetime. Here is another interesting link for you. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/

Excerpts from the report. Emphasis mine

:


This is not the first time that Palestinian armed groups have used suicide bombings to target Israeli civilians, although the scale and intensity of the current wave of attacks is unprecedented. Between September 1993 and the outbreak of the latest clashes between Palestinians and Israelis in late September 2000, Palestinian groups carried out fourteen suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians, mostly in 1996-97, killing more than 120 and wounding over 550. 12 Hamas said it committed most of the attacks; Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the others.

The PA responded by detaining hundreds of Hamas and Islamic Jihad members and supporters, but they were not charged or brought to trial in connection with the bombings. Following these detentions, the bombings ceased. Many of the detainees, however, were released from PA custody once the clashes between Palestinians and Israelis resumed in September 2000. Coincidentally or not, the new round of suicide bombings began within a few months, again under the auspices of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

....

For Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the stated goal is the creation of a Palestinian Islamist state comprising not only the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also the entire territory over which Israel has held sovereignty since 1948. The PFLP also calls for a Palestinian state encompassing Israel, though not an Islamist one. By contrast, the nationalist agenda of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades calls for establishing Palestinian rule over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and for freeing those territories from Israeli military occupation.
...


Palestinian officials, while denouncing the attacks on Israeli civilians, implicitly sought to justify them by pointing to the provocative impact of incidents such as an alleged Israeli booby-trap bomb that killed five young boys in Khan Yunis on November 22, 2001. "Everyone should realize that atrocities lead to atrocities," said Nabil Sha'ath, the PA minister of planning and international cooperation. "This is the inevitable outcome of the accumulation of atrocities committed by the Israeli army against our civilians, the humiliation, the torment, the unmitigated persecution," Sha'ath said.51

...

Public officials, because of the political authority they embody, should never legitimize attacks on civilians. Yet political leaders have made statements that appear to endorse attacks against civilians, both within the Occupied Territories and externally. These span the range from ambiguity to outright support, and undermine other statements condemning attacks against civilians.85 Political leaders such as President Arafat have repeatedly praised "martyrs," without distinguishing between those who die as victims of attacks or while attacking military targets and those who intentionally die in the course of a deliberate attack against civilians.86Yasir Abed Rabbo, the PA minister of culture and information, reportedly defended the use of the term "martyr" with reference to suicide bombers. "You can call him a shahid and denounce what he does politically," he said.87

Other officials have expressed more unequivocal support for attacks on civilians. On April 10, 2002, PA Cabinet Secretary-General Ahmad `Abd al-Rahman described that day's attack on a Haifa bus as a "natural response to what is taking place in Palestinian camps."88 Six weeks later, `Abd al-Rahman described suicide bombings in an interview with the Qatar-based satellite television station al-Jazeera as "the highest form of national struggle. There is no argument about that."89

....

Apologetic statements by public officials have also been accompanied by the broadcast of incendiary statements on publicly funded television. There were several recorded instances of such broadcasts on the official PA television channel in 2001, particularly in the broadcasts of weekly Friday prayer sermons. Among these were the live broadcasts of Shaikh Ibrahim Ma`adi delivering sermons from a Gaza mosque on June 8, 2001, and again on August 3, 2001. "Blessed are the people who strap bombs onto their bodies or those of their sons," Ma'adi said on the first of these occasions. On the second, he explicitly called for bombings in Tel Aviv, Hadera, Ashkelon, and other Israeli cities, adding:

The Jews have bared their teeth. They have said what they have said and done what they have done. And they will not be deterred except by the color of the blood of their filthy people. They will not be deterred unless we willingly and voluntarily blow ourselves up among them.93

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, such statements constitute incitement to crimes against humanity. Under international criminal law, the PA has a responsibility to ensure they are neither broadcast nor published, and should bring to justice those who make them.
.....

Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes.124 Persons who commit, order, or condone war crimes are individually liable under international humanitarian law for their crimes.
.....


Many Palestinians interviewed by Human Rights Watch said attacks on civilians were their only weapon with which to respond to repeated IDF use of tanks, attack helicopters, missiles, and warplanes.

Many conflicts, whether internal or international, take place between parties with radically differing means at their disposal. This is true of almost all wars that could potentially qualify under Additional Protocol I, article 4(1) as wars of national liberation, where one party frequently has vastly more sophisticated technical and military means than the other. Yet Protocol I reaffirms that all the basic rules of international humanitarian law still apply in those circumstances. Indeed, such a practice would be an exception that would virtually swallow the rules of international humanitarian law, since most wars are between forces of unequal means. The prohibition against intentional attacks against civilians is absolute. It cannot be justified by reference to a disparity of power between opposing forces.

....

Most perpetrators of suicide bombing attacks have been young men aged eighteen to twenty-four. At least three bombings, however, have been carried out by children-persons under the age of eighteen.

...

On June 28, 2002, an Israeli military court sentenced a sixteen-year-old boy to life imprisonment after he was apprehended in an attempt to blow himself up on or near a bus. At his sentencing, the boy said he had been "deceived" by Hamas into participating in the unsuccessful attack.249 Islamic Jihad acknowledged that to perpetrate a bombing on June 9, 2002 at Megiddo Junction, its members taught Hamza Samudi to drive; his age has been given variously as sixteen, seventeen, and nineteen.250

The participation, acknowledgment, and acceptance of the use of children to perpetrate suicide bombings have continued despite widespread Palestinian unease with such tactics. This unease intensified in April 2002 following three separate incidents in the Gaza Strip in which several Palestinian boys between the ages of fourteen and sixteen were killed as they charged the perimeter of an Israeli settlement armed with knives and crude pipe bombs.

...

There have been several reports of segments on PA television that explicitly encourage children to take part in clashes with Israeli forces and extol the virtues of martyrdom.

...

On August 26, 2002, the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate called on Palestinian armed factions to stop using children, and declared that it was "absolutely forbidden" for photojournalists to take pictures of children carrying weapons or taking part in militant activities. The statement said that footage of armed children served "the interests of Israel and its propaganda against the Palestinian people." Tawfiq Abu Khousa, deputy chair of the syndicate, said, "We have decided to forbid taking any footage of armed children, because we consider that as a clear violation of the rights of children and for negative effects these pictures have on the Palestinian people."3

It is the encouragement of children to carry weapons and take part in armed activity that is wrong, not media coverage of these activities.

...

Syria has consistently refused to take steps to limits its assistance to armed Palestinian groups that perpetrate suicide attacks. It claims that such groups are engaged in legitimate resistance against occupation but makes no effort to disassociate itself from attacks on civilians, in clear violation of international humanitarian law.32

....
The government of Iraq has expressly endorsed and encouraged suicide bombing attacks against civilians. Iraq, in its provision of funds to families of "martyrs" and others, has established a differential in which families of suicide bombing operatives are said to receive a considerably larger sum of $25,000, while other families that have suffered a death receive $10,000.33 In promoting suicide attacks, Iraqi leaders have made no distinction between attacks against civilians and attacks against military targets.
....


Among the PA documents captured by the IDF in April-May 2002 are records relating to payments from the Saudi Arabian Committee for Support of the Intifada al-Quds, headed by the Saudi Arabian Interior Minister, to the Tulkarem Charity Committee.53 Under the arrangement, all payments or distributions were made on the basis of information supplied by "Palestinian elements," and were arranged through some fourteen local charity committees, many of which had links to Hamas.54 Each charity committee made payments or distributed food to the needy, and also gave both lump-sum and ongoing payments to families of individuals killed, injured, or imprisoned in the intifada, including the families of individuals from Hamas or other armed groups who had carried out suicide attacks against civilians.55 The PA strenuously objected on the grounds that it was designed to undercut its authority, but not because the payments were rewarding attacks on civilians.

....

One of the most contested questions in the debate about Palestinian suicide attacks on Israeli civilians is what, if any, role has been played by the Palestinian Authority and specifically, President Arafat. Israel charges that the PA has ordered and systematically participated in "terror," a term it applies to all armed activity against Israeli targets, whether military or civilian. It holds the PA responsible every time an attack occurs. The PA denies having any role in attacks against civilians.

The PA, under the terms of the Oslo Accords, assumed law enforcement responsibilities for those areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip under its control-namely, the major cities and Palestinian population clusters, amounting at the time of the outbreak of clashes in September 2000 to approximately 26 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of the Gaza Strip.62 The PA thus has had an obligation to take all available and effective measures consistent with international human rights and humanitarian law to prevent suicide or other attacks against civilians by the armed groups operating from these areas.

Human Rights Watch found that there were steps that the PA could have taken to prevent or deter such attacks, but that it remained unwilling to risk the political cost of acting decisively. The PA routinely failed to investigate, arrest and prosecute persons believed to be responsible for these attacks, and did not take credible steps to reprimand, discipline, or bring to justice those members of its own security services who, in violation of declared PA policy, participated in such attacks. In addition, although President Arafat repeatedly condemned suicide attacks against civilians, he consistently failed to insist that terms of honor and respect such as "martyr"-which Palestinians use to designate persons who have died or suffered grave loss in clashes with Israeli forces or settlers-should not apply to people who die in the course of carrying out indiscriminate attacks against civilians.

....
The PA's failure to act in an effective and consistent manner against Palestinian attacks on civilians contributed to an atmosphere of impunity, allowing the armed groups to conclude that there would be no serious consequence for those who planned or carried out attacks that amounted to war crimes, and in the cases of suicide bombings, crimes against humanity. This failure reflects a high degree of political responsibility on the part of President Arafat and the PA leadership for the many civilian deaths that have resulted.

...

As the spiral of violence wound tighter, the Palestinian Authority continued to condemn publicly armed attacks that deliberately targeted civilians but, except for a brief period from mid-December 2001 to mid-January 2002, took no clear or credible actions to prevent such attacks or to punish those responsible.

...

Although the PA's legal governing authority derives from the Oslo Accords signed with Israel, the duty to prevent systematic indiscriminate attacks against civilians is not contingent on Israeli compliance with those accords or rendered null by what the PA regards as Israeli violations of the accords. That duty should not be a bargaining chip whose implementation is subject to political negotiations. As the political authority in place, the PA has a responsibility to bring to justice individuals who order, plan, or carry out attacks against civilians. The PA has failed to meet this obligation.

When the PA made arrests, they were often indiscriminate, picking up supporters of one or another militant group without regard to any alleged responsibility for the serious crimes being committed in the name of that group. Instead of being investigated, detained suspects were typically held without charge and later released. The PA has explained these releases as a response to the danger posed by Israeli bombings of places of detention, but it has not tried to explain why suspects were not investigated, charged, or brought to trial.

PA officials also claim that Israeli actions, such as the destruction of PA police and security installations, have undermined the PA's capacity to act. However, the record indicates that the PA for the most part did not attempt to exercise its capacity to prevent or punish such crimes even when it had the ability to do so.
...


In the first weeks of the clashes, the PA released numerous detainees, most of them members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, some of whom had been in PA detention without charge or trial for several years.78 According to press reports, the first releases took place on October 4, 2000, when twelve Hamas detainees were released from Gaza Central Prison. Subsequent releases occurred over the following week. A PA security official in Gaza claimed that by mid-October the PA had "begun to re-arrest them."79 In Nablus, fourteen of the thirty-five who had been released reportedly responded to a summons to turn themselves back in.80 Hamas political leader `Abd al-`Aziz al-Rantisi was rearrested on October 18 and released again on December 26, 2000, at the end of Ramadan.81

The Islamic Jihad organization has cited these releases as a factor contributing to the group's ability to carry out attacks against Israeli targets.
...

Some of the detainees released at the beginning of the uprising, as well as other armed militants and political critics of the PA, were re-detained and re-released periodically during 2001. Some were formally arrested and, beginning in late October 2001, the PA started using administrative detention orders to detain suspects. Individuals known to be leaders of groups responsible for attacks against civilians nevertheless continued to operate openly in the West Bank and Gaza Strip-in the case of Bethlehem-area al-Aqsa Brigades leader Atef Abayat, even when technically under "house arrest."

...

In mid-April 2001, the PA confirmed that it had released Muhammad Deyf, imprisoned since 1996 for his role in the Hamas suicide bomb attacks in February of that year, although officials insisted he remained under their control in "a safe place where he cannot be reached by the Israeli authorities."86 No such pretenses were made when Deyf narrowly escaped death in an Israeli rocket attack targeting him as he traveled by car in Gaza city on September 26, 2002.87

...

Those measures taken by the PA to limit armed activities failed to include meaningful efforts to bring perpetrators of suicide attacks on civilians to justice.
...

Fatah officials authorized these six requested payments despite widely available evidence that, in at least the cases of two individuals, the named recipients had participated in attacks on civilians in the Occupied Territories. Fourteen of the forty-one individuals for whom payment was authorized were at the time "wanted" by Israel. Twelve of these individuals, in seeking financial assistance, identified themselves as "wanted."
...

The clearest case in which President Arafat authorized payment despite the recipient's widely reported links to attacks on civilians was that of Ra�Œid al-Karmi, the al-Aqsa Brigades leader in Tulkarem. 119 An undated request from Ramallah-based Fatah leader Hussein al-Sheikh asked Arafat to provide al-Karmi and two others with $2,500 each; Arafat apparently authorized payments of $600 each on September 19, 2001.120 The IDF had placed al-Karmi on its "most wanted" list in August 2001, accusing him of involvement in "numerous" shooting attacks and responsibility for the deaths of seven civilians and two soldiers. Al-Karmi himself openly boasted of his involvement in the execution-style killing of two Israeli restaurateurs visiting Tulkarem on January 23, 2001-in retaliation, he said, for Israel's assassination several seeks earlier of local Fatah leader Thabet Thabet.121 The PA had arrested al-Karmi and three others later in January 2001 in connection with the killing of the two restaurateurs, but he fled prison several months later. Al-Karmi had survived a well-publicized Israeli assassination attempt on September 6, 2001, shortly before President Arafat authorized the payment in question, and had spoken openly of his intention to continue attacks against Israelis.122

In another captured document, al-Karmi approached Arafat via Marwan Barghouti, requesting payments to twelve "fighter brethren," not including himself.123 Despite al-Karmi's own self-proclaimed responsibility for attacks on civilians, Arafat granted a payment of $350 to each individual on al-Karmi's list, again without making any apparent effort to ensure that these fighters were not responsible for attacks on civilians. The payments were made on January 7, 2002, a week before al-Karmi was assassinated. At the time of his assassination, according to media reports, the PA had assured European Union officials that al-Karmi was under arrest.124 According to one report, he was assassinated "while visiting his wife and daughter during a furlough from the `protective custody' of a PA jail."125

....

Based on its own investigation as well as media accounts and publicly available, captured PA documents, Human Rights Watch identified instances in which individuals employed in one or another Palestinian security force were involved in shooting or suicide bomb attacks targeting civilians. Human Rights Watch also found that individual members of the PA security forces have had ongoing associations with armed groups that have carried out suicide bombing attacks on civilians. On at least two occasions, individual members of PA intelligence services assisted perpetrators in carrying out such attacks.139
...

The PA should have made credible efforts to reprimand, discipline, or, where appropriate, bring to justice members of its own security services who, in apparent disregard for declared PA policies, participated in or lent support to those responsible for attacks against civilians. Insofar as Human Rights Watch could determine, it did not do so.
...


High-ranking PA officials, including President Arafat, failed in their duty to administer justice and enforce the rule of law in compliance with international standards. Through their repeated failure to arrest or prosecute individuals alleged to have planned or carried out suicide attacks against civilians, they contributed a climate of impunity-and failed to prevent the bloody consequences. Their payments to, and recruitment of, individuals responsible for attacks against civilians likewise demonstrate, at least, a serious failure to meet their political responsibilities as the governing authorities, if not a willingness to support them. However, there is no publicly available evidence that Arafat or other senior PA officials ordered, planned, or carried out such attacks.






I look forward to your comments.

[Baker]

I admit you do have some truth in your post Dave but you are playing on emotion’s as the Palestinians have been doing for years instead of logic if you noticed when I pressed for evidence supporting the Palestinians side of the argument. I got a lot of fumbling then a few unsupported links you clearing don’t seem to know the history behind the conflict all go into that later.
Knee jerk Israeli defenders you are obviously showing you are bias in the argument plus you never explained your reasoning for the remark.
I’m glad you agree that Palestinians would stop the suicide bombings.
But you should know that is the main point of the argument.

[renata]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Skeptic started the show, by classifying Nazi treatment of Jews as the ultimate horror since the beginning of mankind. I disagree.



What would you call the ultimate horror? Perhaps individual deaths during the inquisition, say ( lots of Jews killed then, too) were more horrific than individual deaths of Jews in the Holocaust. However, there are individual deaths by serial killers that are more horrific than deaths in the inquisition. It is not just the manner in which a person dies, it is the scale of the endeavor. Furthermore, many Jews ( I do not know the number now) where indeed tortured to death by the Nazis.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by renata


What would you call the ultimate horror? Perhaps individual deaths during the inquisition, say ( lots of Jews killed then, too) were more horrific than individual deaths of Jews in the Holocaust. However, there are individual deaths by serial killers that are more horrific than deaths in the inquisition. It is not just the manner in which a person dies, it is the scale of the endeavor. Furthermore, many Jews ( I do not know the number now) where indeed tortured to death by the Nazis. I have yet to see any evidence (links) that many of the 6 million Jews killed, were tortured to death. As I've said many times now, my objection regards the following quote from Skeptic:

"The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth."

For some reason, most posters, including Skeptic, have latched on to my opinion that the above quote is clearly overstated. I'm more intersted in Skeptic's answer to why he feels that the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were obliterated by atomic bombs and carpet bombings only got a small taste of what they deserved.

[Baker]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I have yet to see any evidence (links) that many of the 6 million Jews killed, were tortured to death. As I've said many times now, my objection regards the following quote from Skeptic:

"The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth."

For some reason, most posters, including Skeptic, have latched on to my opinion that the above quote is clearly overstated. I'm more intersted in Skeptic's answer to why he feels that the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were obliterated by atomic bombs and carpet bombings only got a small taste of what they deserved.

I don’t know how many where tortured to death but it is still the murder of 6 million Jews killed was it something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth.
As skeptic put it, has there ever been that large of a group of people murdered before?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I have yet to see any evidence (links) that many of the 6 million Jews killed, were tortured to death. As I've said many times now, my objection regards the following quote from Skeptic:

"The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth."

For some reason, most posters, including Skeptic, have latched on to my opinion that the above quote is clearly overstated. I'm more intersted in Skeptic's answer to why he feels that the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were obliterated by atomic bombs and carpet bombings only got a small taste of what they deserved.

You can look up "The Holocaust Industry" for some insight into this point of view.

The Holocaust serves a political purpose now. There are many atrocities in history that are terrible, to say the Holocaust is the worst is to participate in a sick game.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Baker


I don’t know how many where tortured to death but it is still the murder of 6 million Jews killed was it something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth.
As skeptic put it, has there ever been that large of a group of people murdered before? Certainly, there has. Stalin erradicated something like 10-15 million in his own country.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


I don’t know how many where tortured to death but it is still the murder of 6 million Jews killed was it something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth.
As skeptic put it, has there ever been that large of a group of people murdered before?

And as someone else has pointed out, it wasn't just jews. I think if we are going to make it a race, stalin was up there with the best of them. WWI, as an exercise in total futility, killed millions for the sake of empires.

The Japanese invasion of China and Asian resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians.

The american war in vietnam resulted in the deaths of over a million.

Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of millions.

The Holocaust was a terrible event in history, it was unique in the sense that all such tragedies have their own awful history, but to stake a claim for it being uniquely the worst in history is to turn history into some sort of competition.

[renata]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You can look up "The Holocaust Industry" for some insight into this point of view.

The Holocaust serves a political purpose now. There are many atrocities in history that are terrible, to say the Holocaust is the worst is to participate in a sick game.

That is correct, let's rely on a book promoted by Holocaust deniers and Neo Nazis for historical accuracy. Did you save up enough money to buy books about Holocaust NOT praised by Nazis yet, AUP?

Davefoc- you quoted AUP as a paragon of knowledge. He is the same person who stated Holocaust was "overdone". Or, precisely, he said "I will buy a book I was reading in the bookshop the other day, written by a jew, about how the holocaust has become an industry. I am not saying it never happened. I am saying it has been overdone. " http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And as someone else has pointed out, it wasn't just jews. I think if we are going to make it a race, stalin was up there with the best of them. WWI, as an exercise in total futility, killed millions for the sake of empires.

The Japanese invasion of China and Asian resulted in the deaths of millions of civilians.

The american war in vietnam resulted in the deaths of over a million.

Pol Pot was responsible for the deaths of millions.

The Holocaust was a terrible event in history, it was unique in the sense that all such tragedies have their own awful history, but to stake a claim for it being uniquely the worst in history is to turn history into some sort of competition.


Just how does this answer my question?
Do you have the exact numbers for these events?
Its not a competition it’s a statement.

[renata]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I have yet to see any evidence (links) that many of the 6 million Jews killed, were tortured to death. As I've said many times now, my objection regards the following quote from Skeptic:

"The horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth."

For some reason, most posters, including Skeptic, have latched on to my opinion that the above quote is clearly overstated. I'm more intersted in Skeptic's answer to why he feels that the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were obliterated by atomic bombs and carpet bombings only got a small taste of what they deserved.

How many tortured to death will satisfy you? 100? 10000? 1000000? What is worse, crucifiction of 100, or death in a gas chamber of 10000? As to links- you do not have to go far. Check the Nuremberg trial information, check any Holocaust Museum links.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata


That is correct, let's rely on a book promoted by Holocaust deniers and Neo Nazis for historical accuracy. Did you save up enough money to buy books about Holocaust NOT praised by Nazis yet, AUP?

Davefoc- you quoted AUP as a paragon of knowledge. He is the same person who stated Holocaust was "overdone". Or, precisely, he said "I will buy a book I was reading in the bookshop the other day, written by a jew, about how the holocaust has become an industry. I am not saying it never happened. I am saying it has been overdone. " http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464

The holocaust is being used as a political tool right now, when it is claimed it is unique in history as the worst act of inhumanity.

And I have already apologised for the use of the word 'overdone', in the sense that a better choice of words would be 'used and exploited'.

All the tragedies I have referred to are terrible. To make it a competition is immoral.

[Clancie]

Originally posted by Danish Dynamite:
davefoc,
Nice, rational, fairly even-handed post

I agree.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by renata


How many tortured to death will satisfy you? 100? 10000? 1000000? What is worse, crucifiction of 100, or death in a gas chamber of 10000? As to links- you do not have to go far. Check the Nuremberg trial information, check any Holocaust Museum links. Calm down. If you wish to defend Skeptic's remark, then please present evidence that it is true. And remember, you must show that "the horrors the Nazis visited upon those in their clutches were something the like of which were never seen since man was put on earth." No, forget that, it would be impossible. I'll be satisfied if you could just show that the horrors were worse than anything inflicted on humans since recorded history.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Denise


Baker, let me make this clear, I am not specifically talking about you. I'm talking about the general attitude I have observed in the USA.

You are going by the general attitude of one side of the argument while ignoring the other one.


The Palestinians do not have the same rights as Israeli citizens. They are often put under curfew etc. I am not saying that I agree with the Palestinian cause,

Have you studied this issue at all you seem to be going by the same myths as the pro- Palestinians go by look at the links and comments that renata put out it explains it quite well.


I'm trying to find out why some people believe that everything Israel does is good, and everything Palestine does is bad.

And what about the many posters on here who think that everything Palestine does is good, and everything Israel does is bad?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker



Just how does this answer my question?
Do you have the exact numbers for these events?
Its not a competition it’s a statement.

http://www.houseofice.com/history/japaneseholocaust.shtml



* Civilian casualties are not included. Estimated total Chinese casualties during the period is 35,000,000.






little known historical facts:

The Soviets under Stalin and the Red Chinese under Mao killed far more people than the Nazis.



http://www.phact.org/e/z/wwii.htm

http://www.phact.org/e/holocost.html



Eric Krieg's Holocaust Remembrance page last updated 11/98 available at: http://www.phact.org/e/holocost.html
High among my personal ethics is being anti-human suffering, especially that which is intentional caused - and especially involving high quantities of human life. Most people link of the word holocaust with the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Nazis. However, it's important to be aware and open about all major violations of human rights. When Hitler was asked about the problems of early persecution of Jews, he replied, "no one remembers the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians". As a cyber-memorial to the uncountable souls vanquished by evil ignorant people, I offer the following summary of the largest recent mass slaughters of people:
1901 - 1919 1 million Armenians as part of ethnic cleansing by Ottoman Turks
1950 - 1974 30 million chinese by communists (the same people who recently slaughtered their own students)
1925 - 1940 25 million members of the former soviet union by Stalin's communists
1940 - 1945 20 million citizens and soldiers of the former soviet union by Nazis
1941 - 1955 5 million Germans as a result of W.W.II Many of these were solders who had to be killed, but many were POWs slaughtered by the Soviets and Citizens intentionally bombed by the Allies as part of a campaign that included more than Military targets.
1939 - 1945 6 million Jews by Nazis across most of Eastern Europe. This is considered the most offensive act in History since it targeted one group so "efficiently". There are people who deny that this occurred, but if you check out this response by the Skeptics Society you'll see that the holocaust did occur. (unfortunately, hate groups posing as non-PC researchers are spreading the lie of denial to a growing percentage of Americans)
1939 - 1945 6 million other peoples (gays, resisters, catholics, etc.) by Nazis in death camps
1952 - 1960 .5 million Hindus and Moslems by each other during separation of India and Pakistan (tensions still remain)
1968 - 1976 2 million Cambodians by communists
1969 - 1984 2 million Ugandans by a series of tribal wars
1960 - 1996 2 million Hutu and Tutsi tribe members by each other.
1989 - present 1.5 Sudanese Christians and animists by northern Moslems (this area is also afflicted by slavery)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


And what about the many posters on here who think that everything Palestine does is good, and everything Israel does is bad?

Now that is exactly where you are totally wrong. To try to put a point of view that does not support Israel in this conflict is then, in your words to " think that everything Palestine does is good, and everything Israel does is bad".

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy


The point is, over and over and over, Israel does kill innocent civilians. You do agree with that, don't you?

Here's a thought. Suppose, Baker, you head the Israeli army. You come to a town and you say, "I think there might be a 'militant' (meaning: someone who feels Palestinians are at war with Israel and who might attack Israelis in order to make a political statement) in this town. Therefore, I will indiscriminately


You haven’t provided any evidence to back your statement do you agree that Israel doesn’t porously target innocent civilians.
You have given some examples of accidental deaths the amount is disputed.
The point is Palestinian is purposely going out and killing innocent civilians and Israel is not.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://www.houseofice.com/history/japaneseholocaust.shtml






http://www.phact.org/e/z/wwii.htm

http://www.phact.org/e/holocost.html



This is from the link you provided and the point we are trying to make.

1939 - 1945 6 million Jews by Nazis across most of Eastern Europe. This is considered the most offensive act in History since it targeted one group so "efficiently". There are people who deny that this occurred, but if you check out this response by the Skeptics Society you'll see that the holocaust did occur.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Now that is exactly where you are totally wrong. To try to put a point of view that does not support Israel in this conflict is then, in your words to " think that everything Palestine does is good, and everything Israel does is bad".

That is the expression they you and the others seem to be saying even if you don’t mean it.
Well Denise was trying to make the same claim about the ones arguing the Israel side of the argument is saying that everything Israel does is good, and everything Palestine does is bad.
Which isn’t true also?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


This is from the link you provided and the point we are trying to make.

1939 - 1945 6 million Jews by Nazis across most of Eastern Europe. This is considered the most offensive act in History since it targeted one group so "efficiently". There are people who deny that this occurred, but if you check out this response by the Skeptics Society you'll see that the holocaust did occur.

The point is, that there have been massacres in history that have killed millions. To then take one of these massacres and use it for political purposes, that is, "this is the worst", is not moral. All these massacres are terrible events. All involved millions of innocent people dying. None will ever see justice served. All should be learned from so that they do not happen again.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


That is the expression they you and the others seem to be saying even if you don’t mean it.
Well Denise was trying to make the same claim about the ones arguing the Israel side of the argument is saying that everything Israel does is good, and everything Palestine does is bad.
Which isn’t true also?

The other way, certainly. I am always careful to try to point out the difference between the actions of Israel, the state, and Israeli's, the citizens. Many Israelis do not support, for example, the 'settlements', and would be happy to trade the settlements for peace. 'Settlements' is really a euphemism for low scale invasion.

However, there are numerous references to the murderous palestinians. Not all Palestinans are terrorists, or support terrorism. Many innocents die in the conflict. Non violent resistance has been proven to be futile.

[davefoc]

Hi Renata, thank you for your kind and thoughtful response. I was honored that you remembered my thread on the Israeli astronaut. I came to change my view on that after reading the responses if you recall.

As to the massacre of the Jews being thwarted here's a link:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Crusader.html

It's not exactly on target in that I remember reading of an incident where the Saladin's successful invasion of Jerusalem thwarted the massacre of Jews that were holed up in a temple. But I'm a little hazy on the details and didn't find an exact link right away.

As to:
Are you sure your evaluation of the posters is not colored by your own opinions?

You seem to be tactfully accusing me of being hypocritical there. The tact was not necessary, but thank you for it. Of course I was being a little hypocritical, I don't have a problem with my own hypocrisy it's only other peoples' that bother me.

As to your links, I did read through quite a bit of them. The first one seems to contain a lot of detail on the biblical justification for the Jews right to Israel. Unfortunately I think people confuse biblical justification with historical justification, which are not the same thing. The notion that one has a right to somebody else's land because a book that is largely mythical suggests that one's ancestors lived there thousands of years ago is not a very compelling argument to me. It is of course the heart of the argument that a lot of Israeli's cling to, either conciously or subconsciously. As an aside, I am interested in old testament history and recently read the book, "The Bible Unearthed", a fascinating look at what modern archeology has to say about some of the history covered in your link.

The first link also contains the standard argument that because there wasn't an independent Palestinian state there in 1947 that the European immigrants to Israel could found there own state. How does that follow? Why did the Jewish immigrants have more of a right to found a state than the indigenous population.

OK let's get past this. Let's say that for whatever reason, the Israeli's have a right to the land they are on except for the contested settlements. Let's also understand that that, exclusive of the settlements, the Israeli's will end up controlling most of what would be considered the best land including most of the sea coast in the vicinity of Israel.

Great, now let's agree that for whatever reason the indigenous population has suffered greatly. They have lost any chance for control of much of the best areas of Israel. Those that remain in Israel proper will be in a religious minority that is precluded from full rights by the religious nature of the state of Israel. So now let's understand that the Palestinians are never going to be happy about this and only with great diplomacy, understanding, friendship and assistance will these people ever accept the state of Israel.

So how does Israel go about this? Well, it puts up settlements specifically in the lands which the UN says is somebody else's. When people resist this, it terrorizes the population in general for the sins of a few. My view (and I'm sure you disagree) is that Sharon, more than any other past Israeli leader, intentionally provokes violent responses from the Palestinians as a means of forming and controlling Israeli and American public opinion so he can continue his precious settlements.

I noticed that you mentioned the incident where the Palestinian school children were killed by the Israeli booby trap bomb. It was hot on the heels of this sad event that Sharon chose to attack a Hamas leader and "accidentally" killed a few Palestinians who happened to be in the way. What did he think was going to happen with that act? The Palestinians were grieving the brutal death of their school children and he mounts a military attack at a time of relative peace. Nice going from his perspective. George Bush was pushing for an independent Palestinian state and the majority of Israelis that wanted the settlements dismantled had their voices silenced. He managed to put a stop to that talk. Nothing like a good terrorist attact to rally public opinion in your direction.

Anyway, I truly hope my views have not offended you. My bet is that we agree on far more than we disagree about and that we'd be buds if we new each other. Well maybe not exactly buds, I'm in the camp that believes that men and women can never exactly be friends but I'm pretty sure we'd like each other.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
As to your links, I did read through quite a bit of them. The first one seems to contain a lot of detail on the biblical justification for the Jews right to Israel. Unfortunately I think people confuse biblical justification with historical justification, which are not the same thing. The notion that one has a right to somebody else's land because a book that is largely mythical suggests that one's ancestors lived there thousands of years ago is not a very compelling argument to me. It is of course the heart of the argument that a lot of Israeli's cling to, either conciously or subconsciously. As an aside, I am interested in old testament history and recently read the book, "The Bible Unearthed", a fascinating look at what modern archeology has to say about some of the history covered in your link.



If the bible is even considered reasonably factual, the Jewish state was in a constant state of upheaval and conquest anyway. The idea of the Jews having an uncontested claim to the land over the biblical time is pretty insubstantial.

If the Bible is taken as largely mythical extraplotian of events that occurred, then the Jews can largely be seen as one more group of people who lived in the area, at various times.

The use of history to justify a 'right of return' is pretty rich, when palestinians who are still alive today are not permitted to return to their homes.

All in all a total mess, that will only start to be resolved when both sides forget ambit claims, and settle down to realistic negotiations that give each side a concrete position for a sustainable state.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by blackpriester
Wow Cleo - you are Israeli, aren't you?

Somethimes I wonder how it can be (like Fool says so eloquently) that relatively few fringe-nuts can negatively affect the fates of the (probable) majority of peace-loving and war-tired people on both sides...

- m.

What I wonder myself. DrBenway is very keen on demonising the Muslims, but I see religion playing a big role in the trouble on both sides.

I do believe that most people, when you get to know them, are decent and want peace.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


What I wonder myself. DrBenway is very keen on demonising the Muslims, but I see religion playing a big role in the trouble on both sides.

I do believe that most people, when you get to know them, are decent and want peace.
AUP never met a psychopath he didn't like. Talk about multiculturalism!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts

AUP never met a psychopath he didn't like. Talk about multiculturalism!

Not true, I don't like you.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The point is, that there have been massacres in history that have killed millions. To then take one of these massacres and use it for political purposes, that is, "this is the worst", is not moral. All these massacres are terrible events. All involved millions of innocent people dying. None will ever see justice served. All should be learned from so that they do not happen again.

It is happening again, and AUP helps it happen. Should Israel fall, millions of Jews will be in peril of dying. AUP pushes inch by inch by inch to help this happen.

Oh! Racheal Corrie, such a victim (she was clearly breaking Israeli and international law at the time.... interfering with a foreign military.)

Oh! Those poor Palestinian children who got in the crossfire between terrorists and soldiers. (No proof has been offerred that Palestinian terrorists make any effort to protect "their own".)

Oh! Those horrible human rights violations. (Like any other country has a spotless record, or can. Israel's record is no worse than most.)

Oh! That spy ship that was (both sides admit, accidentally) sunk in the 1967.

These are made up, trumped up charges, and you all know it.

How do we know AUP doesn't WANT the next holocaust to happen? Why single out Israel, out of all the 212 countries of Earth (about half of which are now younger than Israel) and call for its destruction?

How many Jews will this kill? How many other people as well?

What do you thing "a million martyrs marching on Jerusalem means"? What do you think "Push them into the sea" means? What do you think the rampant anti-semitism in the Arab press means?

Open your eyes, to AUP's real agenda.

http://www.adl.org/

-Ben

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


It is happening again, and AUP helps it happen. Should Israel fall, millions of Jews will be in peril of dying. AUP pushes inch by inch by inch to help this happen.

Oh! Racheal Corrie, such a victim (she was clearly breaking Israeli and international law at the time.... interfering with a foreign military.)

Oh! Those poor Palestinian children who got in the crossfire between terrorists and soldiers. (No proof has been offerred that Palestinian terrorists make any effort to protect "their own".)

Oh! Those horrible human rights violations. (Like any other country has a spotless record, or can. Israel's record is no worse than most.)

Oh! That spy ship that was (both sides admit, accidentally) sunk in the 1967.

These are made up, trumped up charges, and you all know it.

How do we know AUP doesn't WANT the next holocaust to happen? Why single out Israel, out of all the 212 countries of Earth (about half of which are now younger than Israel) and call for its destruction?

How many Jews will this kill? How many other people as well?

What do you thing "a million martyrs marching on Jerusalem means"? What do you think "Push them into the sea" means? What do you think the rampant anti-semitism in the Arab press means?

Open your eyes, to AUP's real agenda.

http://www.adl.org/

-Ben

OK, I admit it, you got me there Ben, it's a fair cop. Not only do I want all jews in Israel to die, but all their cats and dogs, and the Jews living around the corner from me, and the guy who ran the Aquarium. And to think I covered all my tracks, said all the right things, but saw right through it Ben, I have to hand it to you. You Jews really are as cunning as I thought you were all along. Talk about being hoist on my own petard!

[Baker]

I do believe you have an agenda out of all of the terror supporters oops pardon me Pro- Palestinan no one is more obsess with this issue then your self.
The P&C forum is full of your anti-Israel threads you post in every ones thread that has any thing to do with this issue.
Not to mention using some personal homepage links as evidence.

[davefoc]

Well, I am sorry that AUP's response was a little over the top but I can understand it. He has until that post been relentlessly patient, logical and informative.

What he gets in return is a yahoo that, rather than discuss the facts of the situation generates some bogus super strawman, you're-a-Nazi-because-you-disagree-with-me argument.

Reasonable people might take a look at AUP's ideas and think that the security of Israel and its citizens is threatened by them, but reasonable people might also take a look at those ideas and think that they represent the only way that Israel is ever going to live in peace with its neighbors. So far after 50 or so years Israel has yet to win any converts in the region. Is that because only evil people bent on mass murder live in the region or is it because Israel has relentlessly pursued policies that makes it impossible for the moderates in the region to gain a following?

I truly don't know the answer, but tirades like Ben Shniper's sure don't provide much evidence that the latter isn't the case.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker
I do believe you have an agenda out of all of the terror supporters oops pardon me Pro- Palestinan no one is more obsess with this issue then your self.



Obsessed or interested. As we have just seen, wars are being fought that are related to this very topic. While the war was being fought, the President was meeting to draw up the 'roadmap' to peace. It is an obsession with a lot more people than just me. This one issue is near the centre of many of the political issues of today.

When I first started posting here, IIRC I was about the only one who tried to say that Israel was not representative all that is good and right in the world.

Ben is a good example of someone who takes what I say, and then totally twists it around. Defending the right of Palestinians to have their own state means that I have a desire to kill all Jews.



The P&C forum is full of your anti-Israel threads you post in every ones thread that has any thing to do with this issue.



I would hardly say full. Because it is controversial, and there has been a big pro-israeli group here.


Not to mention using some personal homepage links as evidence.

That was for events that are common knowledge. If you want me to spend all day finding reputable links, I don't doubt I could find them. No one, I think, disputes the massacre in the Mosque by the settler. Or the other mass massacres in history, such as the millions who died under Mao or Stalin.

If you want more reputable links, you have enough information there to do your own research.

For more controversial facts, I try to get better sources. However, this does take more time.

Some events, such as the sinking of the Liberty, ultimately cannot be proven either way. So be it, I just found that topic interesting, as did many others.

Other aspects, such as the persistent building of new 'settlements', points to a clear strategy for the takeover of Palestine. The proof is readily apparent in the deed.

Perhaps you can point out factual errors I have made.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
Well, I am sorry that AUP's response was a little over the top but I can understand it. He has until that post been relentlessly patient, logical and informative.


A pointless rant gets a pointless rant, I'm afraid. If anyone believes one word I put there, they have rocks in their heads.

I really don't mind debating this topic. But a post like this accusing me of wanting to kill all the Jews is crazy.

[Denise]

Originally posted by Baker


You haven’t provided any evidence to back your statement do you agree that Israel doesn’t porously target innocent civilians.
You have given some examples of accidental deaths the amount is disputed.
The point is Palestinian is purposely going out and killing innocent civilians and Israel is not.

No, some Palestinians are targetting innocent civilians. And some Israeli's are killing civilians and in their opinion it is accidental. Some Palestinians do not feel that way. I don't think it's a pure black/white good/evil situation. There are atrocities occuring on both sides.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Not true, I don't like you.
:( It's like an arrow through my heart. :(

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


A pointless rant gets a pointless rant, I'm afraid. If anyone believes one word I put there, they have rocks in their heads.

I really don't mind debating this topic. But a post like this accusing me of wanting to kill all the Jews is crazy.
Again the Jews. You seem to be obsessive about them. What is your problem?
[Sorry - about the rocks in ones head - when can we believe you? Just wondering]
:confused:

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts

Again the Jews. You seem to be obsessive about them. What is your problem?
[Sorry - about the rocks in ones head - when can we believe you? Just wondering]
:confused:

I don't have the problem. They do, they run the world, they take my money, they wear bad hairdoes. They make woody allen films. You expect me to ignore all that? You must be a jew too.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't have the problem. They do, they run the world, they take my money, they wear bad hairdoes. They make woody allen films. You expect me to ignore all that? You must be a jew too.

All right, let's talk about you...

You minimize the holocaust, claiming it is over-emphasized. By itself, a very fair point.

Then you say Israel murderred Rachel Corrie, a lie, but a well-accepted lie.

Then you say I accuse you of being a Nazi.

You accuse me of wanting to kill Palestinians. Of not wanting them to have their own state. Of calling all Palestinians terrorists.

None of that is very fair, is it? I called for the peaceful creation of Palestine many times. But you accuse me of twisting another's words. In a war, I support my own (the democratic, western state over the thugs and terrorists). Don't you?

Next you say that Israel is a horrible country that doesn't deserve to exist at all. Isn't that so?

And I ask why out of 212 countries, you spend your time obsessing about this one.

So I get this picture of you:

1. You are obsessed with Israel.
2. You are willing to see it destroyed, you don't think it has a right to exist.
3. You say the holocaust was overblown.
4. You post pictures of suffering Palestinians, protest if I show similar suffering Israelis or Palestinians doing things like celebrating September 11th.
5. You shout that you are not anti-semitic, and that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.
6. Yet you offer no explanation to the contrary of why the Israelis have your panties in such a bunch.

So, why, if it is so illegitimate to return to land you used to live in and form a country in it, do you accept the Palestinians right to do this and not the "Zionists"?

I really want to know. I think your hundreds of anti-Israeli posts speak for themselves though, you are anti-logical when it comes to explaining your hate for Israel.

-Ben

[Skeptic]

I really want to know. I think your hundreds of anti-Israeli posts speak for themselves though,

They sure do. Especially when--like in the "Israel kills journalists" or "'The holocaust industry' by Finkelstein is an objective book" threads--the truth turns out to be the exact opposite of what AUP claims it is, even according to his own links. The hell with the facts, as long as the headline makes the jews look bad...

you are anti-logical when it comes to explaining your hate for Israel.

The simplest explanation usually is best, and in this case, the simplest explanation for AUP's "anti-logical" attitude about israel is that so-called "anti-zionism" IS, for all intents and purposes, simply thinly-veiled antisemitism. And antisemitism was never too logical.

Of course it isn't necessarily antisemitic to criticize israel's actions. But the point is that "anti-zionism" like AUP's ISN'T criticism of israel's actions: it's criticism (or, more accurately, a rejection) of israel's very existence. Nothing israel can do, short of disappearing, will satisfy the "anti-zionist".

And this is the essence of AUP's antisemitism: every other nation on earth, anywhere, has a natural right to exist, and its citizens have a right to live without fear of annihilation (or, as it is euphemistically called, the "legitimate rights of the palestinian people"l.) Every nation, that is, EXCEPT for the jewish state and the jews who live there. It alone is "illegitimate"; their lives alone are worthless due to the "legitimate right" of their enemies to butcher them.

If this is not antisemitism, what is?

Of course, some people say that one can even oppose israel's existence without being an antisemite--because you don't hate the jews that live elsewhere. That is nonsense; it's like saying that one can oppose the USA's existence without hating Americans, because one has got nothing against the Americans who live in Paris or London (it's "just" those "extremists" Americans who live in "occupied North America" that are the problem, you see.)

Doesn't make much sense, does it? But, then again, hating jews never did.

[Clancie]

originally posted by skeptic

And this is the essence of AUP's antisemitism: every other nation on earth, anywhere, has a natural right to exist, and its citizens have a right to live without fear of annihilation (or, as it is euphemistically called, the "legitimate rights of the palestinian people".)

Every nation, that is, EXCEPT for the Jewish state and the Jews who live there. It alone is "illegitimate"; their lives alone are worthless due to the "legitimate right" of their enemies to butcher them.

Skeptic, I'm fairly new to this forum. Could you give an example of where AUP has made this argument? I haven't seen it in any of his recent posts.

Of course, some people say that one can even oppose Israel's existence without being an antisemite--because you don't hate the Jews that live elsewhere. That is nonsense...

No, not only is it not nonsense, such a position seems perfectly consistent, considering the history of the creation of Israel by foreign powers forcibly carving it out of Arab land.

But, more to the point (since, love it or hate it, at this point, the state of Israel is here to stay), is that hating the actions and policies of the current right-wing Israeli government toward the Palestinians can be perfectly consistent with not being biased against Jews in general.

In fact, it is a position that is even perfectly consistent with being Jewish yourself (but politically far to the left of Sharon).

[Skeptic]

No, not only is it not nonsense, such a position seems perfectly consistent,

Is it?

Here is the part of my post you left left out, Clancey:

it's like saying that one can oppose the USA's existence without hating Americans, because one has got nothing against the Americans who live in Paris or London (it's "just" those "extremists" Americans who live in "occupied North America" that are the problem, you see.)

Gee, I wonder why?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Supercharts

:( It's like an arrow through my heart. :(

that was why i said it.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Clancy


Skeptic, I'm fairly new to this forum. Could you give an example of where AUP has made this argument? I haven't seen it in any of his recent posts.


Here are his recent threads:

Rumsfeld running the war? a_unique_person 21 268 04-02-2003 02:49 PM
by Barkhorn1x

One for you JK, Israel and Russian trying to sell helicopter to Turkey a_unique_person 20 142 03-25-2003 09:13 AM
by a_unique_person

War planned before 9/11 a_unique_person 20 313 03-21-2003 02:23 PM
by shanek

IMF admits it was wrong - free markets need a_unique_person 2 97 03-30-2003 08:02 PM
by Questioninggeller

America and the Next Vietnam ( 1 2 ) a_unique_person 45 528 04-17-2003 06:10 AM
by Supercharts

Israel Setting up worlds largest prison? ( 1 2 ) a_unique_person 76 651 03-20-2003 10:25 PM
by a_unique_person

"Now the Shi'ites have hit the Fan", Great Moments in Fox Broadcasting a_unique_person 6 126 04-08-2003 09:44 AM
by a_unique_person

Israel Human Rights Abuses Get Worse a_unique_person 4 94 04-02-2003 02:57 PM
by Supercharts

Gay rights appeal against Texas in US Supreme Court a_unique_person 11 182 03-27-2003 02:49 PM
by Saturn

The humanitarian arguments for this war are spurious a_unique_person 0 31 03-23-2003 08:29 AM
by a_unique_person

Why Palestinians have given up on non-violence ( 1 2 3 4 ) a_unique_person 142 1592 03-29-2003 06:37 AM
by Cleopatra

Where does Al Jazeera make it's money? a_unique_person 5 82 04-08-2003 03:11 AM
by crackmonkey

Poll: Is a soldiers life more important than a civilians? ( 1 2 ) a_unique_person 59 547 04-03-2003 01:13 AM
by latinijral

The first of many wars.... a_unique_person 25 378 03-26-2003 03:41 AM
by a_unique_person

Justice Texas Style a_unique_person 37 627 04-04-2003 08:39 AM
by Smalso

The 'Cowboys' killing allies, is this why Canada didn't turn up for the war? ( 1 2 ) a_unique_person 41 591 04-01-2003 04:44 AM
by a_unique_person

The most viewed online topic for the Melbourne Age is......... a_unique_person


4 of 17 of his posts were to plug away at Israel. True, he's been more anti-American lately, because America is more actively at war. But then these self-hating liberals always cry about their own injustices against others quite a lot.

-Ben

[Clancie]

originally posted by skeptic

Here is the part of my post you left left out, Clancy:

it's like saying that one can oppose the USA's existence without hating Americans, because one has got nothing against the Americans who live in Paris or London (it's "just" those "extremists" Americans who live in "occupied North America" that are the problem, you see.)

Sorry, perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I left it out because I didn't think it worked as an analogy in support of your point.

I think the analogy is more like "Someone could be against Bush's policy toward Iraq, but still believe the U.S. should exist as a country, and still feel supportive of Americans, whether they live in the U.S. or elsewhere."

AUP argues against Israel's policy toward the Palestinians, not against Jews themselves. There is a huge difference. Many Jews don't agree with Sharon either.

I think the vast majority of Jews in the world do believe in the necessity of a Jewish state of Israel, but that doesn't mean they have to agree with Sharon's policies and rationales for them.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Here are his recent threads:


4 of 17 of his posts were to plug away at Israel. True, he's been more anti-American lately, because America is more actively at war. But then these self-hating liberals always cry about their own injustices against others quite a lot.

-Ben

Ben, can't you even answer a simple question right? The question was, where have I ever said Israel has no right to exist, not what threads I have posted on lately.

And you couldn't find one where I had, could you, so you put up threads where I criticise Israel for it's actions, or the US.

Now, the simple answer is, as I have already stated, that Israel is here and it is not going away. I don't think it was a smart move to create Israel in the way it was created, and I think that history has shown there is a lot say for this idea.

However, now that it is here, it is imperative that all sides can negotiate some long term settlement.

Now, as you have noted, I have been critical of actions of Israel, particularly in relation to Palestine.

[Clancie]

Thanks for the thread references, Ben, but I doubt I'll go through them to hunt for something to back up this statement of skeptic's.

And this is the essence of AUP's antisemitism: every other nation on earth, anywhere, has a natural right to exist, and its citizens have a right to live without fear of annihilation...every nation, that is, EXCEPT for the Jewish state and the Jews who live there.

It alone is "illegitimate"; their lives alone are worthless due to the "legitimate right" of their enemies to butcher them.

I've read quite a few of AUP's comments on the Israel and Iraq-related threads and I just haven't seen anything that fits this at all. If its there, I've missed it.

True, he's been more anti-American lately...

But, then again, Ben, I don't consider it "anti-American" to be against the current administration's policies. Many Americans (obviously myself included) feel exactly the same way AUP does--and would be appalled to think that Bush's policies would represent "all Americans" to the world.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
Thanks for the thread references, Ben, but I doubt I'll go through them to hunt for something to back up this statement of skeptic's.

Of course, you won’t what a shame it would be if it proved you wrong.


I've read quite a few of AUP's comments on the Israel and Iraq-related threads and I just haven't seen anything that fits this at all. If its there, I've missed it.

See you’re above response to this
“I doubt I'll go through them to hunt for something to back up this statement”

[Clancie]

Of course, you won’t what a shame it would be if it proved you wrong.

Do you actually think that's a fair accusation?

Skeptic made a very specific claim attributing beliefs to AUP that I've seen no evidence of here.

Responding to my question, Ben listed 16 recent threads AUP had contributed to so I could look through them (a time-consuming task in itself), but gave no indication that after doing so I would have found support for Skeptic's statement anyway.

I asked if there was any evidence to support it because I haven't seen any. I think its fair to expect that if Skeptic attributes a position to someone he would be able to produce some sort of evidence in support of it.

Saying AUP opposes the Israeli position toward the Palestinians is not the same as saying he believes "their lives alone are worthless due to the 'legitimate right' of their enemies to butcher them".

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Clancy


Do you actually think that's a fair accusation?

Skeptic made a very specific claim attributing beliefs to AUP that I've seen no evidence of here.

Responding to my question, Ben listed 16 recent threads AUP had contributed to so I could look through them (a time-consuming task in itself), but gave no indication that after doing so I would have found support for Skeptic's statement anyway.

I asked if there was any evidence to support it because I haven't seen any. I think its fair to expect that if Skeptic attributes a position to someone he would produce some sort of evidence in support of it.

Saying AUP opposes the Israeli position toward the Palestinians is not the same as saying he believes "their lives alone are worthless due to the 'legitimate right' of their enemies to butcher them" [/QUOTE]

Since they have made the claim, they have to prove it. They won't be able to. You don't have to disprove it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Of course, you won’t what a shame it would be if it proved you wrong.

[B]

See you’re above response to this
“I doubt I'll go through them to hunt for something to back up this statement”

And you indulge in bestiality with invisible, pink Unicorns. Please disprove it.

[reprise]

The IPU is innocent!

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Since they have made the claim, they have to prove it. They won't be able to. You don't have to disprove it.

You have made many suggestions to the death of Israel because you haven't came out and said you wish all of Israel wiped out doesn't mean you don't wish for it to happen.


Originally posted by a_unique_person


Once again, why should Israel have been given any. The arabs weren't the ones who built the gas ovens, or built the ghettos. Yet they were expected to give up their land to appease the consciences of the west.
04-13-2003 07:35 PM
From Why do leftist support "palestinians"? thread

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


You have made many suggestions to the death of Israel because you haven't came out and said you wish all of Israel wiped out doesn't mean you don't wish for it to happen.




I have made none. You are creating implications I have not made.

And as I have just stated before, the creation of Israel was not something that I think was a good idea. That does not mean I think Israel should be wiped out now. Two completely separate issues.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I have made none. You are creating implications I have not made.

And as I have just stated before, the creation of Israel was not something that I think was a good idea. That does not mean I think Israel should be wiped out now. Two completely separate issues.

Every Arab nation is run by Dictators and suppressed people yet you can only find fault in Israel your obsession on the topic has always been under suspicion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Every Arab nation is run by Dictators and suppressed people yet you can only find fault in Israel your obsession on the topic has always been under suspicion.

Other Arab nations is, once again, another issue. I have been discussing Israel and Palestine.

I did not realise I was under suspicion. Will I be charged?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by reprise
The IPU is innocent!

The IPU are back, and they are badder than ever.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Other Arab nations is, once again, another issue. I have been discussing Israel and Palestine.

I did not realise I was under suspicion. Will I be charged?

Unfortunately, The Arab Nations have a big role to play in the conflict.
Arab’s control all of the Middle East
http://www.arabnews.com/Static/apactforreforming.asp

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


Unfortunately, The Arab Nations have a big role to play in the conflict.
Arab’s control all of the Middle East
http://www.arabnews.com/Static/apactforreforming.asp

I thought it was the invisible pink unicorns. But apart from them, the US seems to have it's hand in the pie too. Lets see now, around Iraq, we have Iraq, now US, Turkey, US aligned, Iran, under threat of US action, Syria, under threat of US action. Other Arab nations, Jordan, happy to play it safe with the US, Egypt, playing it safe with the US. All in all, I can't see what the threat is.

[Skeptic]

Sorry, perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but I left it out because I didn't think it worked as an analogy in support of your point.

I think the analogy is more like "Someone could be against Bush's policy toward Iraq, but still believe the U.S. should exist as a country, and still feel supportive of Americans, whether they live in the U.S. or elsewhere."

But that's not we're talking about, is it, Clancey? The "criticism" we're talking about is not about israeli policy or israel's PM. I SPECIFICALLY said that we're talking about denying israel's right to exist, or so-called "anti-zionism". You replied that THAT is "perfectly consistent" with not being antisemitic.

Perhaps you misread me and didn't mean it that way, or I misread you, but that is what you wrote...

[Clancie]

Skeptic,

I'll try to be a little clearer. Since I seem to share AUP's views on this (as I've read them anyway), I disagree with you that "criticizing Israel's policy toward Palestinians" is not only being "anti-Israel" government, but "anti-Jewish" (i.e. "anti-Semitic") as well. If I read your post correctly, that seemed to be the implication of your "Americans in Paris and London" analogy.

"Anti-semitism" is a big stick to hit someone with when they criticize Israel, and it requires more proof, imo, than simply showing that one opposes the terrible treatment of Palestinians.

So, since I see AUP having similar ideas with my own, I am compelled to question your statement that he feels Israeli lives "are worthless due to the 'legitimate right' of their enemies to butcher them."

And, specifically, I am asking you: where has he said this? Has AUP actually written that Israeli lives are "worthless"? That it is others' "right" to butcher them? In that case, I would distance myself from his arguments.

So...do you have a specific reference to back that serious accusation up?

Or is that just the way you see all of us who are critical of Israel?

[davefoc]

Skeptic,

I'd like to second Clancy's thoughts skeptic.

It seems your logic goes something like:
Criticize Israel = Want to destroy Israel = Anti Semitism = Want to kill all Jews

I think most of us that have criticized Israeli policies, especially those of late, don't think that we are even remotely doing anything more than criticizing Israel's actions.

Perhaps, there is some confusion that arises when we question some of the assumptions concerning the founding of the state of Israel. Because we question those assumptions it does not necessary follow that we believe today that the state of Israel should be disbanded and even if some of us believed that it certainly doesn't mean that those persons want to see the mass murder of Jews.

I actually think that most of us favor the continued existence of the state of Israel. I think AUP and Clancy do, and I certainly do.

One thing to consider about your apparent definitions and use of the word antisemitism is that you, yourself would become an antisemite as soon as Israel did something you didn't agree with and you openly criticized it.

Lastly, I'd like to say that I may understand a bit of the intensity that you feel about this issue. I have read through some of the fundamentalist Islamic literature and its inflammatory anti-Jewish nature is very disturbing. But none of the posts that I have seen come from this perspective and it seems illogical and counterproductive to group them with that.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I thought it was the invisible pink unicorns.

Based on your past evidence you would have more luck proving invisible pink unicorns then your current claims.


But apart from them, the US seems to have it's hand in the pie too. Lets see now, around Iraq, we have Iraq, now US, Turkey, US aligned, Iran, under threat of US action, Syria, under threat of US action. Other Arab nations, Jordan, happy to play it safe with the US, Egypt, playing it safe with the US. All in all, I can't see what the threat is.

Well that’s funny it has never stopped them from condemning Israel in the past.
Plus I don’t see how this contradicts the news link I posted.


Edit to add This is an interesting interview to help you understand what I am getting at.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/interviews/ahmed.html

[CapelDodger]

From Skeptic:
... the palestinian national charter which contains the embarrasing arabic sections about killing and/or expelling all the jews
Which part of the Charter do you interpret this way?
Presumably not
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians
or

... safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion.

[Baker]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Skeptic:

Which part of the Charter do you interpret this way?
Presumably not

or


The Arab League created the PLO in 1964 for the sole purpose of destroying Israel.

[Skeptic]

Which part of the Charter do you interpret this way?
Presumably not

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians

Of course. Note the implication--which is elsewhere stated explicitly--that all "zionists" must leave. Who is a "zionist"? A jews who came to the area after "the start of the zionist invasion"--which the palestinians commonly identify as the Balfour declaration of 1917, if not the Biluyim immigration of 1882. Meaning? All jews except a few ninety-yer-olds (if that) must leave or be killed.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker

The Arab League created the PLO in 1964 for the sole purpose of destroying Israel.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_hamas2.html

And Israel has funded Hamas in the past.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


http://www.prisonplanet.com/news_alert_hamas2.html

And Israel has funded Hamas in the past.

And the US funded the Taliban in the past. I guess they are just as "guilty" of Bin Laden's terrorism as the Saudis who fund him now...

The difference, of course, is while israel and the US were trying to choose the lesser of two evils, the Arab world (in creating the PLO) and the Taliban (in supporting Bin Laden) were deliberately creating the GREATEST evil to israel or the west they could, with the express goal of destroying them.

It's a bit like comparing a hostage negotiator to Bin Laden: both "deal with terrorists" and sometimes even "support them" (giving the hijacked plane fuel, for instance)--so it's just the same thing, right, AUP?

[CapelDodger]

From Baker:
The Arab League created the PLO in 1964 for the sole purpose of destroying Israel.
Destroying Israel as a specifically Jewish State for Jews and nobody else. Where is the stuff about killing Jews? Or expelling them for that matter - they might have to leave homes or land previously stolen from people who were expelled as a deliberate Zionist policy, but they could stay if they accepted that they have no special status as Jews. The usual claim is that the Charter advocates killing Jews - after all, if expulsion of Jews is to be condemned then why not the expulsion of Arabs?

From Skeptic:
Of course. Note the implication--which is elsewhere stated explicitly--that all "zionists" must leave. Who is a "zionist"? A jews who came to the area after "the start of the zionist invasion"--which the palestinians commonly identify as the Balfour declaration of 1917, if not the Biluyim immigration of 1882. Meaning? All jews except a few ninety-yer-olds (if that) must leave or be killed.

The 'zionists' concerned are obviously, from context here and elsewhere, those who advocated a Jewish State in Palestine rather than the original zionism which did not include this bizarre Jewish nationalism. Article 6 clearly refers to non-nationalist zionists, who were going to Palestine (and opposing the nationalists) since at least the 19th century.
And where is the reference to the 'killing' - as a deliberate policy rather than as a result of conflict - that you previously mentioned?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


And the US funded the Taliban in the past. I guess they are just as "guilty" of Bin Laden's terrorism as the Saudis who fund him now...

The difference, of course, is while israel and the US were trying to choose the lesser of two evils, the Arab world (in creating the PLO) and the Taliban (in supporting Bin Laden) were deliberately creating the GREATEST evil to israel or the west they could, with the express goal of destroying them.

It's a bit like comparing a hostage negotiator to Bin Laden: both "deal with terrorists" and sometimes even "support them" (giving the hijacked plane fuel, for instance)--so it's just the same thing, right, AUP?

I really don't know what else you would have expected the Arabs to do. They had been living under the Ottoman empire for hundreds of years, been promised their freedom by the British for helping overthrow the Turks, and then find that the British just happened to give away part of their land to someone else for reasons that had nothing at all to do with them. These people had the avowed aim of creating a separate state, and practised such acts as buying land that was never to be sold to anyone else again.

What else would you have expected the Arabs to do?

[Skeptic]

I really don't know what else you would have expected the Arabs to do.

What I would have expected the arabs to do?

Er....how about not blowing up babies in buses?

Or not to devote most of their resources to try and kick the jews out of 0.3% of the middle east, and instead use it to develop democracy in their countries?

Or not start a war of annihilation on a country that was fifteen minutes old, in 1948?

Or another war in 1967?

Or another in 1973?

Or not to lob katyusha rockets daily over the border from Lebanon, which lead to the invasion of 1982?

Or to resettle the 700,000 refugees of the 1948 war in the 150,000,000 strong (at the time) arab world--just like Germany and Russia, India and Pakistan, and israel itself--resettled millions that were expelled from their previous homes in new ones at the same time? You know, doing what all civilized countries did with THEIR refugees, instead of barbarically keeping them AS refugees for three generations, solely for the purpose of keeping the hatered of the jews burning on "high"?

Or embrace democracy?

Or not deny the holocaust?

Or not claim the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is true history (as in Egypt) or that jews use muslim blood in their passover bread (as in Syria)?

Or give non-muslims and/or women and/or minorities basic human rights?

Or not engage in massacre or expulsion of non-Muslims wherever they can, such as the christians in Lebanon, the Copts in Egypt, the animists and christians in Sudan?

Or not drive out the Christians of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christianity, which was re-zoned to make sure it will have muslim majority control by Arafat, after he declared that Jesus Christ was a "palestinian"?

Or actually get rid of a few of the corrupt, insane kleptocrats that rule most of that world?

Or end the apartheid in Saudi Arabia, where everything is divided into "muslim" and "non-muslim" sections?

Or stop supporting terrorism in general?

Or hijacking planes?

Or flying them into the World Trade Center because Americans are "infidels"?

Just a few suggestions. I can think of a few more things one could reasonably have "expected the Arabs to do" instead of engaging in an unedning war whose purpose is a second holocaust, aside from these.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I really don't know what else you would have expected the Arabs to do.

What I would have expected the arabs to do?

Er....how about not blowing up babies in buses?

Or not to devote most of their resources to try and kick the jews out of 0.3% of the middle east, and instead use it to develop democracy in their countries?

Or not start a war of annihilation on a country that was fifteen minutes old, in 1948?

Or another war in 1967?

Or another in 1973?

Or not to lob katyusha rockets daily over the border from Lebanon, which lead to the invasion of 1982?

Or to resettle the 700,000 refugees of the 1948 war in the 150,000,000 strong (at the time) arab world--just like Germany and Russia, India and Pakistan, and israel itself--resettled millions that were expelled from their previous homes in new ones at the same time? You know, doing what all civilized countries did with THEIR refugees, instead of barbarically keeping them AS refugees for three generations, solely for the purpose of keeping the hatered of the jews burning on "high"?

Or embrace democracy?

Or not deny the holocaust?

Or not claim the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is true history (as in Egypt) or that jews use muslim blood in their passover bread (as in Syria)?

Or give non-muslims and/or women and/or minorities basic human rights?

Or not engage in massacre or expulsion of non-Muslims wherever they can, such as the christians in Lebanon, the Copts in Egypt, the animists and christians in Sudan?

Or not drive out the Christians of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christianity, which was re-zoned to make sure it will have muslim majority control by Arafat, after he declared that Jesus Christ was a "palestinian"?

Or actually get rid of a few of the corrupt, insane kleptocrats that rule most of that world?

Or end the apartheid in Saudi Arabia, where everything is divided into "muslim" and "non-muslim" sections?

Or stop supporting terrorism in general?

Or hijacking planes?

Or flying them into the World Trade Center because Americans are "infidels"?

Just a few suggestions. I can think of a few more things one could reasonably have "expected the Arabs to do" instead of engaging in an unedning war whose purpose is a second holocaust, aside from these.

Can we just stick to the question I asked.

If you want to raise these as separate issues, please do. Saudi is an interesting case in itself. As are all the other Arab nations. As are all the nations in the world.

PS. Killing innocent people is also a pasttime for the IDF and settlers.

[Skeptic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person


Can we just stick to the question I asked.

I thought that was what I did. You just didn't like the answer.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[QUOTE]Originally posted by a_unique_person


Can we just stick to the question I asked.

I thought that was what I did. You just didn't like the answer.

To keep things on track, I have started a thread on this topic. Please feel free to start any other threads you are interested in. The answer, btw, was not in response to my question.