Israel gained independence via terrorism.

[RandFan]

I cringe at the thought of feeding the terrorist apologists, however- Tonight on KCET (public TV in Los Angeles) there was a program narrated by Walter Conkrite that detailed how Israel gained independence from Britain by the use of terrorism. That they did so quite effectively proved a model for Algeria and other subsequent groups.

I'm surprised that I did not know this bit of trivia. Sorry if it has been discussed here before and I missed it. It is fallacious of course to justify current terrorism by past deeds. However one cannot escape the irony and perhaps a bit of hypocrisy. Any comments?

Center for Defense and International Security Studies (http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1940s.htm)

1945

October 31

Jewish terrorist offensive against British rule in Palestine begins, with a wave of bomb attacks on police vehicles, railway sites and Haifa oil refinery. One policeman, one soldier and two railway workers killed.

1946

July 22

Ninety people killed and forty five wounded after Jewish terrorists blow up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Palestine, which was home to British government and military offices. The terrorists held workers at pistol point while they planted the explosives in the basement of the hotel.

October 31

British embassy in Rome, Italy, wrecked by two bombs in suit cases left by Jewish Irgun terrorists. No casualties.

1947

July 12

Jewish Irgun terrorists kidnap and then hang two British Army sergeants. The terrorists were trying to secure the release of three Irgun members who had been sentenced to death by the British authorities in Palestine.

September 29

Jewish Irgun terrorists bomb police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing four British and four Arab policemen, as well as two Arab civilians. Forty six people injured.

December 12

Twenty Arabs, five Jews and two British soldiers killed and thirty wounded in Jewish terrorist bomb attacks on buses in Haifa and Ramleh, Palestine. British mandate to rule Palestine ends on 15 May 1948; state of Israel established.

December 29

Jewish Irgun terrorists throw grenades from passing taxi into café near the Damascus gate, Jerusalem, Palestine, killing eleven Arabs and two British policemen.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by RandFan

I'm surprised that I did not know this bit of trivia. Sorry if it has been discussed here before and I missed it. It is fallacious of course to justify current terrorism by past deeds. However one cannot escape the irony and perhaps a bit of hypocrisy. Any comments?


Yeah, attacking government/military targets and infrastructure is not terrorism, attacking civillian targets is.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Yeah, attacking government/military targets and infrastructure is not terrorism, attacking civillian targets is.

So what would you call the attack on government/military targets then? And why exactly would that NOT be considered terrorism in this case?

Edit: would you consider the people who bombed the US embassy in Kenia terrorists or not?

[reprise]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Yeah, attacking government/military targets and infrastructure is not terrorism, attacking civillian targets is.

Weren't some of the acts of terrorism for which Osama bin Laden was wanted prior to September 11, 2001 directed at government and military targets?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Yeah, attacking government/military targets and infrastructure is not terrorism, attacking civillian targets is.

By that logic the USS Cole, the Marine Barraks in Beruit, the Khobar Towers, or the kidnap and murder of Gen. Dozier were not terrorism.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


By that logic the USS Cole, the Marine Barraks in Beruit, the Khobar Towers, or the kidnap and murder of Gen. Dozier were not terrorism.

Good point. Though still "terrorist acts" (acts committed by a terrorist group).

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by RandFan
I cringe at the thought of feeding the terrorist apologists, however- Tonight on KCET (public TV in Los Angeles) there was a program narrated by Walter Conkrite that detailed how Israel gained independence from Britain by the use of terrorism. That they did so quite effectively proved a model for Algeria and other subsequent groups.

I'm surprised that I did not know this bit of trivia. Sorry if it has been discussed here before and I missed it. It is fallacious of course to justify current terrorism by past deeds. However one cannot escape the irony and perhaps a bit of hypocrisy. Any comments?

Center for Defense and International Security Studies (http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1940s.htm)



Which sorta raises the larger issue of whether a people and the state they create are effected by the actions of people who oppress them (sortof a cultural child abuse if you will)?

Look at the concentrating of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, the economic punishment, the ID papers that must be carried at all times. All these things smack of the treatment European Jewry recieved from the Nazis. Now look at part of how Israel achieved independance (Irgun) and is it any wonder that organizations like the PLO pop up?

I was well aware of the bombing of the King David Hotel, but was unfamiliar with the other instances you cited. From my knowledge I thought Irgun were mainly geurilla fighters. I didn't realize they blew up buses.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by corplinx


Good point. Though still "terrorist acts" (acts committed by a terrorist group).

Exactly and as noted previously the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings were against government infrastructure which could raise the vexing question of were the US attacks on the Saddam regime terrorism or not.

I say no. The rules of war are clear about who constitutes a military force and a military target. You basically have to have both for it not to be terrorism.

The IRA might have called itself an "Army," but that didn't make it one.

[Troll]

Originally posted by armageddonman


So what would you call the attack on government/military targets then? And why exactly would that NOT be considered terrorism in this case?

Edit: would you consider the people who bombed the US embassy in Kenia terrorists or not?

Yeah because though the embassies are protected by Marines, they are not part of nor representative of US military. Aside from protection, the embassies themselves have no military, therefore no combatant relationship. No offense, but this is a major "duh"

[Smalso]

RandFan, good to see you back. I've missed your smiling face around here for the past several days. Hope you are well and everything is all right with you and yours.

Interesting post. I've seen some KCET productions on our local PBS outlet and they are very good. Terrorism, especially international terrorism, is hard to figure out. On the one hand, there is a group of people, bound together by whatever they have in common, who feel as if they are invaded or violated in some way and who wish to fight. Since they are not the military or economic superiors, or even equals, of their oppressors, they use the methods available to them. So, they attack easy, unsuspecting targets. The message seems to be, "Keep frigging with us and this is what you're in for." They are then condemned for killing and injuring innocent people; to which they reply that no one who supports or is part of their oppressor is innocent. I am not condoning nor trying to justify terrorist tactics. I'm just trying to understand.

(Badly written and poorly expressed, I know. Hell, it's 5:00 A.M. here.)

[Jon_in_london]

Its not terrorism if Isreal does it you jew-hating lefty commie!

[Cain]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Its not terrorism if Isreal does it you jew-hating lefty commie!

^^^^^^^he's right.

But you gotta love this little tautology:

Though still "terrorist acts" (acts committed by a terrorist group).

I'm sorry, but you cannot argue, "Oh, Israelis are not terrorists, therefore they did not (and currently do not) carry out acts of terrorism."

Instead we should say, "those who commission acts of terrorism are terrorists."

Of course, all successful "terrorists" are the winners of history and write the textbooks. Now they're "Freedom Fighters," regardless of the atrocities committed. It depends who's in power.

Hypotheticals are always nice: If Israeli independence required a greater number of civilian casualties (via agreed upon acts of terrorism (listed in the parent post), do the ends justify the means? Independence at what cost?

[Jon_in_london]

Its absolutely undeniable that terrorism was the decicive factor in persuading the British to abandon Palestine to the UNSC, and one could therefore argue that Isreal came into being through acts of terrorism

However, in the interests of fairness, it should be pointed out that most of these acts were carried out by the Irgun and Stern Gang and not by the Haganagh- which was the 'official' armed wing of the nascent Israeli state led by David Ben-Gurian (Originally he was called David Green, but it doesnt have the same ring to it as 'Lion Cub' does it). In fact the Haganagh often distanced itself from Irgun and Stern Gangs.

[Skeptic]

Yup, it's a real parallel:

1). The palestinians want to push all the jews out of israel and establish on the ruins an Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital(*), just like the jews in 1948 wanted to push all the British out of England and establish on the ruins a jewish state with London as its capital.

2). For this purpose, the palestinians send suicide bombers to bomb Tel Aviv and Netanya to kill as many civilians as they could, just like the jews in 1948 sent terrorists to bomb Oxford and Coventry and kill as many English babies as...

...oh wait.


(*)Proof: the palestinian national charter, Arafat's speeches, palestinian textbooks, the Hamas and Islamic Jihad's leaders claims, the support of suicide bombing, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

[Mel]

Well all these acts are horrible, I wonder what KCET was trying to say?

If some Jews attacked the British via terrorist attacks, the British need to reclaim the country?

Since some Jews used terrorist attacks, the Arabs now have a good enough reason or a right to do the same 50 years later?

People can rationalize ANYTHING if they try hard enough, at the end of the day.... THAT doesn't resolve the probelms, it only attempts to explain the behavior.

If we are EVER to resolve the issue of this endless killing and dying.... it's best to stop looking for examples of past grievances and concentrate on building a future. There is plenty of blame to go around.

[Tricky]

A song written from the point of view of a parent of on of the athletes murdered at the Munich Olympics
At The End Of A Pointed Gun (http://www.mixed-up.com/lyrics/folk/pointed.html)

I've laboured through two world wars
An old war that still fights on
I'll dare any man says I've not worked
This land that I stand upon
A homeland both free and strong
To harbour my only son
I hoped he'd never see as I
The end of a pointed gun

My nation and my son, my nation and my son
One found its birth, one found his death
At the end of a pointed gun

Oh praised be Olympiad
Was echoed the whole world round
Nation to nation unified
On one chosen stretch of ground
Oh proud were the boys as mine
To play for their own country
I wish to God he'd never gone
But stayed with his family

My nation and my son, my nation and my son
One found its birth, one found his death
At the end of a pointed gun

The games scarcely had begun
When out of each winner's joy
Bloodshed rose unexpectedly
Eleven dead and one my boy
How does a father mourn
His murdered hopes and dreams?
How on this earth can he escape
The agonies he has seen?

My nation and my son, my nation and my son
One found its birth, one found his death
At the end of a pointed gun
***
Lyrics by William Laskin
Melody traditional, Erev Shel Shoshanim

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Troll


Yeah because though the embassies are protected by Marines, they are not part of nor representative of US military. Aside from protection, the embassies themselves have no military, therefore no combatant relationship. No offense, but this is a major "duh"

"duh"???

they are protected by marines and have no US military representative????

yeahhh, right
:rolleyes:

[Tmy]

I feel you are particpating in "terrorism" if you are targeting civilians. While car bombing a military post may be a terroristic tactic I dont see it a terrorism per se.

I dont buy the whole legit army or uniform rules either. Its urealistic in certain situtaions for one side to have a distingishable standing army.

Its tough to make a hard fast ruling on what is terrorism. For example if a US bomber targets a civilian building in order to take out Saddam, is that terrorism?

Everyone has there own take. Sometimes "terrorist" is what the big army calls the little army.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mel
Well all these acts are horrible, I wonder what KCET was trying to say?

If some Jews attacked the British via terrorist attacks, the British need to reclaim the country?

Since some Jews used terrorist attacks, the Arabs now have a good enough reason or a right to do the same 50 years later?

People can rationalize ANYTHING if they try hard enough, at the end of the day.... THAT doesn't resolve the probelms, it only attempts to explain the behavior.

If we are EVER to resolve the issue of this endless killing and dying.... it's best to stop looking for examples of past grievances and concentrate on building a future. There is plenty of blame to go around. I agree, however I think the program was an attempt to give some perspective. It was a historical look at terrorism. I think that there is some value to understand that which we are trying to stop. Trust me I have been very much on the side of Israel. I think Israel's use of terrorism was wrong. I think Ghandi's methods were better. But I want to know the truth, the whole truth. I don't just want to move on, I want to understand the past and move on. I stated in my first post that it is fallacious to try and justify the current acts of palestinians based on prior acts of Israelis.

One more point, Menachem Begin was the architect of some of this terror yet went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize when he negotiated peace with Egypt.

[RandFan]

I should note that the show made the point that many Israelis were uncomfortable with the terrorism and a number of leaders deounced its use. The show said that a number of Israeli groups distanced themselves from the Irgun.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
RandFan, good to see you back. I've missed your smiling face around here for the past several days. Hope you are well and everything is all right with you and yours.

Interesting post. I've seen some KCET productions on our local PBS outlet and they are very good. Terrorism, especially international terrorism, is hard to figure out. On the one hand, there is a group of people, bound together by whatever they have in common, who feel as if they are invaded or violated in some way and who wish to fight. Since they are not the military or economic superiors, or even equals, of their oppressors, they use the methods available to them. So, they attack easy, unsuspecting targets. The message seems to be, "Keep frigging with us and this is what you're in for." They are then condemned for killing and injuring innocent people; to which they reply that no one who supports or is part of their oppressor is innocent. I am not condoning nor trying to justify terrorist tactics. I'm just trying to understand. Thanks Smalso,

I think your assesment is accurate. I don't condone either.

[Mel]

Originally posted by RandFan
But I want to know the truth, the whole truth. I don't just want to move on, I want to understand the past and move on. I stated in my first post that it is fallacious to try and justify the current acts of palestinians based on prior acts of Israelis.


I completely agree that it's very important to understand the 'whole truth' (if that is ever possible) so we can learn from history.

I wasn't directing my comments at your post, I was merely venting my personal frustration with the whole 'blame game' that forever swirls around the Jewish/Palestinian issue.

To make any kind of peace in that country, BOTH sides are going to have to make concessions and be willing to move on. Frankly, I don't think it will be possible UNTIL the bordering Arab/Muslim countries stop meddling and fanning the flames of hatred.

IF the war in Iraq will prove to be the catalyst that shakes some sense into surrounding govts., Bush just might have pulled off an amazing feat.

I'm not holding my breath that the Bush administration will have the diplomatic skills necessary for seeing this through.

[Smalso]

To make any kind of peace in that country, BOTH sides are going to have to make concessions and be willing to move on. Frankly, I don't think it will be possible UNTIL the bordering Arab/Muslim countries stop meddling and fanning the flames of hatred.

I believe that therein lies the problem. As to a solution, I don't see one because neither side is willing to make any kind of concession at all. The other Arab/Muslim countries probably won't stop meddling because they don't think the Israelis belong there, either. In fact, they don't think anybody belongs there except themselves. They look upon the U.S. as infidels profaning their sacred lands. They do business with us, but there is even some resentment of us in that. The extremists are willing to kill as many as they can to get us out. It's really a mess.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Smalso


I believe that therein lies the problem. As to a solution, I don't see one because neither side is willing to make any kind of concession at all. The other Arab/Muslim countries probably won't stop meddling because they don't think the Israelis belong there, either. In fact, they don't think anybody belongs there except themselves. They look upon the U.S. as infidels profaning their sacred lands. They do business with us, but there is even some resentment of us in that. The extremists are willing to kill as many as they can to get us out. It's really a mess.

You're a regular ray of sunshine, aren't you? lol ;)

I totally agree. And it IS an awful mess.

Except... I think Israel has tried to make concessions in the past (admittedly not perfect) and Arafat backed out. One has to question whether peace is actually a goal of any of the parties now in power.

Watching Bush try to pull this off is going to be very interesting. And I do think he'll try to avoid the issue for as long as possible.

I think this will cause a lot of hard feelings between Bush & Blair..... there might be some exciting nastiness in the near future. (I'm pulling for Blair)

[RichardR]

The bombing of the King David Hotel was approved by David-Ben-Gurion and carried out by Menachem Begin, both of whom went on to become respected Prime ministers of Israel.

Which goes to show, IMO, that we sometimes have to move beyond past atrocities in the search for peace. We have started to do this in Northern Ireland, and perhaps one day we will continue to do so in Israel/Palestine.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by armageddonman


So what would you call the attack on government/military targets then? And why exactly would that NOT be considered terrorism in this case?

Edit: would you consider the people who bombed the US embassy in Kenia terrorists or not?

Those were acts of war imo. The question is, is the country being attacked a paper-tiger/dove/Clinton-etal, or a real tiger/hawk/Bush-etal? And how is "the enemy" defined? Bush is attempting to answer that question with military force rather the US/world system of "justice". The 9.11 strike provided a better impetus to define the problem militarily than was obvious prior to then I'd agree.


Note also, "terrorist tactics" worked for the Israelis against paper tiger Briton. The real tiger French defeated -- militarily and using exteme terror on their own part -- the Algerian terrorists, but were forced by the outcry by French citizens at home to grant independence anyway.

[Baker]

Originally posted by RandFan
I agree, however I think the program was an attempt to give some perspective. It was a historical look at terrorism. I think that there is some value to understand that which we are trying to stop. Trust me I have been very much on the side of Israel. I think Israel's use of terrorism was wrong. I think Ghandi's methods were better. But I want to know the truth, the whole truth. I don't just want to move on, I want to understand the past and move on. I stated in my first post that it is fallacious to try and justify the current acts of palestinians based on prior acts of Israelis.

One more point, Menachem Begin was the architect of some of this terror yet went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize when he negotiated peace with Egypt.

Thanks for the information Ranfan I wasn’t sure of your motives at first but you have explained it quite well.

[Skeptic]

The bombing of the King David Hotel was approved by David-Ben-Gurion

No, it wasn't.

[renata]

Originally posted by RandFan
I cringe at the thought of feeding the terrorist apologists, however- Tonight on KCET (public TV in Los Angeles) there was a program narrated by Walter Conkrite that detailed how Israel gained independence from Britain by the use of terrorism. That they did so quite effectively proved a model for Algeria and other subsequent groups.

I'm surprised that I did not know this bit of trivia. Sorry if it has been discussed here before and I missed it. It is fallacious of course to justify current terrorism by past deeds. However one cannot escape the irony and perhaps a bit of hypocrisy. Any comments?

Center for Defense and International Security Studies (http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1940s.htm)



This is a great topic, and one that interests me deeply. Really, the role of terrorism in establishing independent countries goes quite far. I would imagine British forces might have called American forces terrorists. Certainly Soviet Union was born out of terrorism and assassination campaigns.

As far as Israel using terrorisn- the best book on this subject I read is "O Jerusalem" by LaPierre and Collins. It is thorough, very readable, and to my eye, quite even handed. It talks of atrocities commited by Israelis, British and Arabs in their quest for Jerusalem. It also talks about history of the land, and about the long standing Jewish and Arabic communities in Jerusalem.

As far as the difference between the Palestinian terrorism and tactics used by Irgun and Stern's Gang ( a minority among Israeli fighters for independence), I would say the biggest one was that current Palestinian terrorist organizations target civilians. I think even at the darkest hour for Jews, intended targets were British officers.

For some Israeli perspective on the King David bombing, here are some links

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#h

[Mel]

Originally posted by renata


As far as the difference between the Palestinian terrorism and tactics used by Irgun and Stern's Gang ( a minority among Israeli fighters for independence), I would say the biggest one was that current Palestinian terrorist organizations target civilians.


That's a good point. There is something so amoral about Palestinians being encouraged to become suicide martyrs that it's truly sickening.

When a society is brainwashed from an early age to expect to suffer and die and to rejoice at ANY death it's a crime against humanity.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mel


That's a good point. There is something so amoral about Palestinians being encouraged to become suicide martyrs that it's truly sickening.

When a society is brainwashed from an early age to expect to suffer and die and to rejoice at ANY death it's a crime against humanity.

I thnk a lot of them are born that way when they grow up under an army of occupation that can take any land at any time for any reason.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I thnk a lot of them are born that way when they grow up under an army of occupation that can take any land at any time for any reason.
How many people in the world own land?

I'd never blow myself up on a bus over a scrap of land.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by renata
This is a great topic, and one that interests me deeply. Really, the role of terrorism in establishing independent countries goes quite far. I would imagine British forces might have called American forces terrorists. Certainly Soviet Union was born out of terrorism and assassination campaigns.

As far as Israel using terrorisn- the best book on this subject I read is "O Jerusalem" by LaPierre and Collins. It is thorough, very readable, and to my eye, quite even handed. It talks of atrocities commited by Israelis, British and Arabs in their quest for Jerusalem. It also talks about history of the land, and about the long standing Jewish and Arabic communities in Jerusalem.

As far as the difference between the Palestinian terrorism and tactics used by Irgun and Stern's Gang ( a minority among Israeli fighters for independence), I would say the biggest one was that current Palestinian terrorist organizations target civilians. I think even at the darkest hour for Jews, intended targets were British officers.

For some Israeli perspective on the King David bombing, here are some links

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html#h Thank you renata.

Recently I watched a program where the "shot heard 'round the world" was examined with a critical eye. It turns out that the Boston massacre was more than likely NOT as it has been portrayed in American History.

I am only interested in the truth, the whole truth. I don't want revisionist history I just want the real history. I don't think that there is anything to fear from the truth.

I have supported Israel for some time and will continue to do so. While I do believe that there has been atrocities and cause for blame on both sides I believe that Israel has done more in good faith to stop the blood shed than has the Palestinian authority. I think the Israelis voted for Ehud Barak because they truly were willing to compromise. I can't think of a single event that would be mirrored by the Palestinians. The unwillingness of the Palestinian authority to even give a counter offer demonstrated the lack of good faith on their part.

In any event, the facts provide context and help us understand the history of this troubled land.

[peptoabysmal]

How far back do we want to go in the history of the Middle East to try and find blame? The Ottomans, Napoleon, The Roman Empire?

[renata]

Originally posted by RandFan

I am only interested in the truth, the whole truth. I don't want revisionist history I just want the real history. I don't think that there is anything to fear from the truth.

I could not agree more. Skeptic had a great post a few days ago, the gist of which was that the only thing to counteract dictatorships, is openness and democracy. http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=419765#post419765
I believe transparency in history is as extraordinarily important. I believe reexamination of history of the USSR was one of the reasons for its collapse. 1985-89 were extremely exciting, scary years to live there.it was like a veil was being lifted off of everyone's eyes. When I read books about Lincoln, who until then was an unblemished hero in my mind, I learned about a complicated, flawed man- but I had new respect for him. So I have no problems discussing real history, as long as it can be discussed from several viewpoints, and hysteria that sometimes creeps in to these debates be kept to a minimum. I am as much a sinner about injecting emotions into this as anyone, so I know it is difficult.



I have supported Israel for some time and will continue to do so. While I do believe that there has been atrocities and cause for blame on both sides I believe that Israel has done more in good faith to stop the blood shed than has the Palestinian authority. I think the Israelis voted for Ehud Barak because they truly were willing to compromise. I can't think of a single event that would be mirrored by the Palestinians. The unwillingness of the Palestinian authority to even give a counter offer demonstrated the lack of good faith on their part.

In any event, the facts provide context and help us understand the history of this troubled land.

I agree as well. I think Israel made several good willed, if perhaps imperfect attempts for peace. However, through doves like Rabin and Barak, and hawks like Sharon, Shamir and Netanyahu, peace was not achieved. The only constant was Arafat. Israel tried from all different parts of the political spectrum, to no avail. I hope that the new Prime Minister, even with his dark past, will be able to bring the Palestinians to the table again. I know some say Barak's plan was not all Palestinians wanted. However, that is the nature of negotiation, every side has to give up something, and every side has to present cogent proposals. I do this kind of thing for a living, it is a very difficult process. I believe that Arafat facilited the Al Aqsa intifada because he felt violence would get him further concession- he miscalculated. Israeli left has lost all trust in Arafat, they are in shambles.

Perhaps I am feeling Biblical becuse it is Passover (Hag Sameach to all the Jews who mark this holiday on this board- god, I hope I remember some of my Hebrew :)) However, sometimes I feel that like in the legend of Exodus, a generation of slaves had to die in order for free people to enter the promised land, the same is true of Palestinians. Perhaps this generation is doomed, and true peace and acceptance will only come in several decades. I hope it is faster. And, by the way, this was probably the first recorded incidence of terrorism- 10 plagues including murder on first borns in Egypt in order for Jews to gain their independence. :)



Final note, Randfan. I checked the link you provided in your first post. http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1990s.htm I checked to look up a murder of a friend of mine, who died in a suicide terrorist attack in Israel in 1995- it was not listed. 8 people died in that attack, so the list they have is not complete. I do not know the criteria they used, but they missed at least one relatively large one. They listed others in other countries with fewer victims, so they should have listed this as well. They also did not list the February 1997 attack by a Palestinian gunman in Empire State Building, a September 1997 attack in Jerusalem, in which I think at least 5 people were killed, August 95 attack in Jerusalem, 4 dead. I checked 8 attacks I knew about, in which more than 2 victims died- 4 did not show up on the list. However, they do list other attacks in other countries in which one person was killed. I could not find the criteria they use to get the attacks on the list, and I do not have the time to check for others they might have missed, but they do not show a complete picture.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by renata
Perhaps I am feeling Biblical becuse it is Passover (Hag Sameach to all the Jews who mark this holiday on this board- god, I hope I remember some of my Hebrew :)) However, sometimes I feel that like in the legend of Exodus, a generation of slaves had to die in order for free people to enter the promised land, the same is true of Palestinians. Perhaps this generation is doomed, and true peace and acceptance will only come in several decades. I hope it is faster. And, by the way, this was probably the first recorded incidence of terrorism- 10 plagues including murder on first borns in Egypt in order for Jews to gain their independence. :)

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17713

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

How many people in the world own land?

I'd never blow myself up on a bus over a scrap of land.

It was the land that they lived on and/or farmed.

[Smalso]

RandFan:Recently I watched a program where the "shot heard 'round the world" was examined with a critical eye. It turns out that the Boston massacre was more than likely NOT as it has been portrayed in American History.

I saw that one and a couple more in that series. They are reaching some eye-opening conclusions.

I am only interested in the truth, the whole truth. I don't want revisionist history I just want the real history. I don't think that there is anything to fear from the truth.

Unfortunately, you have a long, muddy road to travel. I have read quite a lot about the American Civil War, beginning in the 1960s. I am frustrated when I read accounts of the same event by different writers and each describes it differently. History begins to change as soon as it happens, so to speak. Probably even more so today with so many organizations in competition to report events first. By the time each one puts its particualr spin on a report--plus misreporting in the effort to be first--you can't find the truth with a divining rod.

Neither do I believe there is anything to fear from the truth. The truth might cause me to change my opinion about something, but so be it. I just hope that if that happens, I will have the guts to say, "I was wrong."

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mel


I completely agree that it's very important to understand the 'whole truth' (if that is ever possible) so we can learn from history.

I wasn't directing my comments at your post, I was merely venting my personal frustration with the whole 'blame game' that forever swirls around the Jewish/Palestinian issue.

To make any kind of peace in that country, BOTH sides are going to have to make concessions and be willing to move on. Frankly, I don't think it will be possible UNTIL the bordering Arab/Muslim countries stop meddling and fanning the flames of hatred.



There you go.

The Blame Game.

The Arab/Muslims have to stop meddling and fanning the flames of hatred.

You are blaming the Arabs and Muslims.

You also left out that the USA is a large part of the meddling.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner




The IRA might have called itself an "Army," but that didn't make it one.

So...what were the forces behind the French and American revolutions, then?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It was the land that they lived on and/or farmed.
Israel acquired the Gaza strip and the West Bank in 1967. If a 20 year old blows himself up in Haifa tomorrow, it's not because he, personally, had land taken from him.

[Clancie]

originally posted by DrBenway

Israel acquired the Gaza strip and the West Bank in 1967. If a 20 year old blows himself up in Haifa tomorrow, it's not because he, personally, had land taken from him.

No, it was his grandfather's land that was taken, or his father's. Since then Palestinian families have lived under a U.S-backed Israeli military occupation.

So...how do you think the Palestinians' lifestyle has been with Israel occupying Gaza and the West Bank all these years?

Do you think that the Israeli occupation has had a positive effect on generations of Palestinian families since the '67 war? And, if so, how?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
Neither do I believe there is anything to fear from the truth. The truth might cause me to change my opinion about something, but so be it. I just hope that if that happens, I will have the guts to say, "I was wrong." I couldn't agree more Smalso.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Clancy


No, it was his grandfather's land that was taken, or his father's. Since then Palestinian families have lived under a U.S-backed Israeli military occupation.

So...how do you think the Palestinians' lifestyle has been with Israel occupying Gaza and the West Bank all these years?

Do you think that the Israeli occupation has had a positive effect on generations of Palestinian families since the '67 war? And, if so, how? I think it fair to note the events that led to the '67 war.

The 1967 War (http://www.adl.org/ISRAEL/Record/67War.asp)

In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent. On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957. On May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat. Syria increased border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.

[Clancie]

Randifan,

Yes, fair enough. I know the threats and fears of "being wiped off the face of the earth again" were real then. And, yes, "To the victor goes the spoils".

But let's not forget how that land of Israel was itself carved out of Arab land only 20 years earlier by Western powers.

And nearly 40 years have passed since then. Thanks to the U.S., Israel is now the most heavily militarized country in the region. Thanks to U.S. support (militarily, politically, economically), there's not a chance in the world that Israel will now be "wiped off the face of the earth" (unless we all go with it), no matter how many "terrorist" attacks there are.

And yet, despite the guaranteed security the state of Israel now enjoys, the government's philosophy toward Palestinians remains as oppressive and harsh and uncomprising as ever.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Clancy
And yet, despite the guaranteed security the state of Israel now enjoys, the government's philosophy toward Palestinians remains as oppressive and harsh and uncomprising as ever.
If I were an 18 year-old Palestinian, I wouldn't throw rocks at other people. No matter how poor I was, I wouldn't do it. Poverty, injustice, and hardship suck, but they're part of life. No one is born upon this earth with a guarantee that life will be free from suffering.

Many of my ancestors had it pretty bad. But nothing good would come from trying to extract payback from the grandchildren of those who screwed my grandparents.

If I were an 18 year old Palestinian, I'd apply for Israeli citizenship. Then I'd either work or go to college, probably both. I'd live frugally, save my money, and try to get an apartment in a peaceful neighborhood.

If Palestinian young people gave up the intifada and did the same, they'd be much happier. The Israeli government could give up spending so much money on marshall law. Win-win solution.

[hgc]

peptoabysmal:

How far back do we want to go in the history of the Middle East to try and find blame? The Ottomans, Napoleon, The Roman Empire?
Gilgamesh

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Hazelip


So...what were the forces behind the French and American revolutions, then?

Well, given the differences between the three I'd say that the American revolution involved an army since we had organized forces facing other organized forces on the battlefield, the French revolution was an uprising of the public against their monarch and the IRA bombings and sniper assasinations against civilian as well as military targets as terrorists.

In the most general terms of course...

[Baker]

Originally posted by Clancy
Randifan,

Yes, fair enough. I know the threats and fears of "being wiped off the face of the earth again" were real then. And, yes, "To the victor goes the spoils".

But let's not forget how that land of Israel was itself carved out of Arab land only 20 years earlier by Western powers.

And nearly 40 years have passed since then. Thanks to the U.S., Israel is now the most heavily militarized country in the region. Thanks to U.S. support (militarily, politically, economically), there's not a chance in the world that Israel will now be "wiped off the face of the earth" (unless we all go with it), no matter how many "terrorist" attacks there are.

And yet, despite the guaranteed security the state of Israel now enjoys, the government's philosophy toward Palestinians remains as oppressive and harsh and uncomprising as ever.


I have never understood the notion of the Palestinians being suppressed.
Suppressed by who the only Demarcate nation in the Middle East Israel.
Alternatively, the dictatorship Arab nations that use them as ponds in their fight to wipe out Israel.
You can even argue if Palestine is even a Democracy.

The PA is a one-party system, just like every Islamic and Communist nation. The party is Fatah. Arafat is the founder and chairman. Every PA minister, government official, policeman, judge, and military officer is a member of Fatah. Sure, there are some other parties—Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, to name a few—but they all stay out of politics. They’re full-time terrorists. Arafat ran against a 70 year old woman social worker last election and he still only got 87% of the vote.

[Skeptic]

Randifan,

Yes, fair enough. I know the threats and fears of "being wiped off the face of the earth again" were real then.

And they are real now. You see, the arab plan is known as "the stage plan": first, establish a palestinian state on any area you get; then, militarize it while breaking all the agreements you signed to the contrary; finally, use it as the spearhead in an attack to destroy the "zionist entity". If you want more details, check out the palestinian national charter--the only national constitution in the world whose expressed goal is the destruction of another nation as an "inalianable part of the rights of the palestinian people"--or Arafat's speeches.

You do not seem to understand the genocidal, unending, unyielding hatered arabs have for israel. It was NOT caused by the palestinian refugees or the occupied territories: both the refugees and the territories were caused BY this arab hatered, the outcome of wars of annihilation, in 1948 and 1967, launched against the jews, with the expressed goal of wiping them off the face of the earth.

The moral of this is that "ending the occupation", etc. will NOT bring peace, any more than surrendering to Hitler in Munich did. The arab goal isn't a palestinian state, but wiping out the jewish one. And a palestinian state will make this goal easier--hence will make war far more likely.

All the talk of "peace" and "ending the conflict" needs to be seen for what it is: lies liberally given by the palestinians (who broke every single agreement they ever made with israel the moment they felt it's to their benefit) in order to get land and control from israel as part of making their position in the already-planned future war to destroy israel better.

We know now, for example, due to both open admittance by palestinian leaders and captured documents, that the entire so-called Oslo "peace process" was planned as an act of deception, and that the so-called "intifada" (actually, a war of terror to kill as many jews as possible) was planned long in advance while the palestinians were still engaged in "peace" talks and praised for their "moderation".

Why do you think THIS latest "peace plan" is any better? Why do you think plans for the next war aren't already in motion by the palestinians--as they were from the very beginning of the Oslo "process"? It's essentially asking israel to get in bed with the man who raped her violently a few times once more; this time he promises he'll be gentle and loving.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If I were an 18 year-old Palestinian, I wouldn't throw rocks at other people. No matter how poor I was, I wouldn't do it. Poverty, injustice, and hardship suck, but they're part of life. No one is born upon this earth with a guarantee that life will be free from suffering.

Many of my ancestors had it pretty bad. But nothing good would come from trying to extract payback from the grandchildren of those who screwed my grandparents.



What if the grandchildren are still getting screwed. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they are.



If I were an 18 year old Palestinian, I'd apply for Israeli citizenship. Then I'd either work or go to college, probably both. I'd live frugally, save my money, and try to get an apartment in a peaceful neighborhood.



That is seen as giving in to the military occupation. And there is also plenty of evidence that Arabs in Israel are subject to racial discrimination.



If Palestinian young people gave up the intifada and did the same, they'd be much happier. The Israeli government could give up spending so much money on marshall law. Win-win solution.

I can just imagine the US giving in to an invader.

[Supercharts]

Exodus was and is a great movie.

[Mel]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If I were an 18 year-old Palestinian, I wouldn't throw rocks at other people. No matter how poor I was, I wouldn't do it. Poverty, injustice, and hardship suck, but they're part of life. No one is born upon this earth with a guarantee that life will be free from suffering.

Many of my ancestors had it pretty bad. But nothing good would come from trying to extract payback from the grandchildren of those who screwed my grandparents.

If I were an 18 year old Palestinian, I'd apply for Israeli citizenship. Then I'd either work or go to college, probably both. I'd live frugally, save my money, and try to get an apartment in a peaceful neighborhood.

If Palestinian young people gave up the intifada and did the same, they'd be much happier. The Israeli government could give up spending so much money on marshall law. Win-win solution.

I agree with your sentiments, however these "IFs" are based on being brought up in an educated society and a society where the young are NOT brainwashed from an early age to not expect any improvements as long as the Jews are still around.

Don't we see this same problem to some extent with the 'welfare' segment of our own society? Too many citizens in the inner cities also have the opportunity to an education, a good job and a happy life and for some reason they prefer to blame their circumstances on the past and give up on any future??

And don't we see in both these groups..... the majority of people that make it "OUT" are very quick to disassociate themselves with those left behind?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That is seen as giving in to the military occupation. And there is also plenty of evidence that Arabs in Israel are subject to racial discrimination.
If all young Palestinians became Israeli citizens, Israel would be forced to evolve away from the few government practices which favor Jews over Arabs.

Israel has a developed infrastructure able to provide high quality education to an advanced level and a range of job opportunities. In comparison, the Palestinian Authority is an absolute mess unable to provide the most basic civil services reliably. The Palestinians would be far better off if they dissolved the PA and integrated into the state of Israel.

[Cleopatra]

Doctor I have been reading this suggestion of yours but I have never found the opportunity ( aka time) to ask you something.

Don't you aknowledge to the Palestinians the right of self-determination?

Why do they have to change to something else to improve their lives?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Don't you aknowledge to the Palestinians the right of self-determination?
I view governments as utilities, as enterprises invented to solve practical problems --e.g., building roads, regulating commerce, maintaining a police force, etc. In that context, "self-determination" means only "no taxation without representation." It has nothing to do with anyone's cultural affiliation. Cultural affiliation ought to be irrelevant to governmental projects and concerns.

[Cleopatra]

Yes, that's why it's better for them to have a state of their own, to solve those practical problems of theirs...

But let's take for granted what you say. Why to have separate countries and not one, central government?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Don't you aknowledge to the Palestinians the right of self-determination?



So far as I'm aware any such "right" is taken, not given. The only right so far demonstrated by Palestinians is that they prefer dictatorial rule political as well as religious.

Do you suggest training humans from birth to become homicidal maniacs who destroy civilians as targets should be encouraged -- or even allowed to continue -- as a Palestinian "right"?

[Cleopatra]

To hammegk.

By the way you put the question, seems to me that you have already the answer.

Not interested in this kind of dialogue, please, accept my apologies.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Why to have separate countries and not one, central government?
Well, I'm arguing for the one government solution in Israel, rather than the two-government solution. You've expressed support for the two-government solution, so I'll let you answer your own question.

[Cleopatra]

No I have beem expressing support for the two different countries solution, meaning that I am pro establishing a Palestinian State, instead of any other solution proposed by you and others.

I found yours most intriguing though because this is something Israel doesn't want for the same reason it refuses the return of the refugees. It would change dramatically the synthesis of the population of the country and this is not to Israel's interest.

[Baker]

The PLO was created by the Arab’s and controlled by them they tried invading Israel twice since then to wipe out Israel suggesting that they are anything other then an Arab tool to destroy Israel is ludicrous.
http://www.factsandlogic.org/ad_01.html

[Cleopatra]

Ok! Let me play the devil's advocate...

On the other hand...

PLO is the only Arab movement which is not Islamic and dictatorial ( like Saddam's movement for example)...

That's why I call them stupid. If they were smart....

[Clancie]

If I were an 18 year-old Palestinian, I wouldn't throw rocks at other people. No matter how poor I was, I wouldn't do it.
Well, if I were a 22 year old conscript in the Israeli army, I wouldn't bulldoze civilian homes or shoot at unarmed civilians. (I would consider a 16 year old Palestinian throwing rocks at a tank to be an "unarmed" civilian, not a "terrorist" or "militant", btw--two phrases Israel uses very freely, as if it justifies killing anyone they choose, or anyone nearby the alleged "militant").
If I were an 18 year old Palestinian, I'd apply for Israeli citizenship.
Sure, "separate but equal" worked out fine in the U.S, didn't it?

Israel has killed over 2000 Palestinians in the last 30 months, including unarmed women and children. There is no question that the use of force by the Israeli military occupying the West Bank and Gaza is totally disproportionate to the provocation they receive, real or imagined.

Israel talks of peace and concessions and then, like yesterday, immediately launches another brutal attack in a refugee camp. If I were Palestinian, I would not trust Israel or Israelis at this point, and I would certainly not want to try to "fit in" in a nation that has demonstrated so much hatred toward my people.

Consider this: if the U.S. had sided with Palestinians instead, given them a heavily militarized nation, while the Jewish settlers were relegated to refugee camps, desperately hoping for their own country free from oppression--would you still think that Jews should just "apply for Palestinian citizenship and try to get a good job" in the land of their apparent enemy?

[Denise]

I think Israel has done more to foster peace than the Palestinians. Having said that, I think that the only way real peace could possibly come to the region would be if Palestinians established a nation that was secular in nature and backed off of the revenge. I don't see this actually happening though!

As far as Dr.Benways point about Israeli citizenship. Clearly, many Palestinians feel they have been oppressed(rightfully so) and asking them to join the nation that oppressed them is (in my opinion) like asking the French to take German citizenship during world war II. Yes, I know, don't introduce Nazism into this. Some people value education and stability, some people value their heritage above all else. And to some people, valuing their heritage would not allow them to become citizens of the nation that they feel have oppressed them and their ancestors. Which is the correct position? It's all subjective.

Many Israelis feels that a Palestinian nation with full rights on the world stage would be dangerous to them- rightfully so. Many Israeli's feel that the Arabs in the region have oppressed them- again rightfully so.

Many members of both groups feel that members of the other group would kill them if they could. And they both have a point. There are people in the Southern US today that are still p*ssed off about the civil war. And let's not forget about the Native Americans. I really believe that if the population of Native Americans matched the ratio of Palestinians and Isrealis living in Israel, and the birth of the USA was only 40 some years ago, we would have the same problems that Israelis and Palestinians are having.

[Cleopatra]

She has never imagined that she would play the referee between passionate Americans...

Hey hey hey Clancy... wait a minute, my friend.


Originally posted by Clancy
Well, if I were a 22 year old conscript in the Israeli army, I wouldn't bulldoze civilian homes or shoot at unarmed civilians

The same way all Palestinians are not killers, all the kids who serve the Israeli Army are not murderers as well...

Have in mind also that there are Israelis who refuse to do somethings and they end in jail ( This stands in every country, a soldier who refuses duty, ends -up in jail). They are lucky because the Palestinians who oppose Arafat's regime, end-up assassinated...

. There is no question that the use of force by the Israeli military occupying the West Bank and Gaza is totally disproportionate to the provocation they receive, real or imagined.

What is NOT questioned as well is that Palestinian guerillas don't respect anything. Not even the ambulancies and they hide even there...
The killing of civilians is not Israel's fault. If the armed Palestinians go hide in houses filled with women and children, such things will happen.
They are using their civilians as human shields, this is a fact and I am expecting a skeptic to recognize it.

I would not trust Israel or Israelis at this point, and I would certainly not want to try to "fit in" in a nation that has demonstrated so much hatred toward my people.

Well, if both parts want some progress they must start trusting each other. Otherwise, I don't see light at the end of the tunnel...

[aerocontrols]

There are approx. 1 million Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship, as I understand.

[Skeptic]

Israel has killed over 2000 Palestinians in the last 30 months, including unarmed women and children.

Yes, but when israel fights, unarmed women and children are not the TARGET of the attack. If there are any, it is usually because the "fearless fighter for palestinian freedom" who is the target is deliberately hiding in civilian areas. Compare that to the palestinian attacks, whose goal is to kill as many women and children as possible.

There is no question that the use of force by the Israeli military occupying the West Bank and Gaza is totally disproportionate to the provocation they receive, real or imagined.

Clancey, since Arafat started his war of terror on israel in 2000, over 700 israeli civilians were killed and about 3000 more wounded by terror attacks. Extrapolated to the American population, it would be the equivalent of having over 35,000 American civilians killed and 150,000 wounded by terrorists in two years--the equivalent of eleven 9-11 attacks (so far).

What, exactly, would you consider "proportionate" response in such conditions? What would have been a "proportionate" American response in such a case? Do you really believe it would have been anything less than an all-out war to annihilate the terrorists, regardless of the number of enemy casualties, wherever they are suspected of hiding?

Is a "proportionate" response determined solely by the number killed? Does the fact that they killed about ten or twenty times more Germans than the Germans manage to kill in return mean the American campaign in WWII was a "disporpotionate" replay to Hitler? For that matter, should the Americans in Iraq today have killed a few of their own, or at least stopped fighting Iraqis, once it became clear that Iraqi casualties are completely "disproportionate" to American ones, and sometimes include women and children as well?

Of course not. The problem is not the NUMBER of casualties, but the GOAL: the PLO is fighting to eradicate israel, while israel is fighting for its survival. Looking at "proportionate" vs. "disproportionate" here is like asking a rape victim to not hit back, as it is unfair to the poor rapist who suffered a "disproportionate" amount of blows from her (so far) compared to the number he managed to inflict on her.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
No I have beem expressing support for the two different countries solution, meaning that I am pro establishing a Palestinian State, instead of any other solution proposed by you and others.
Forgive my confusion. Are not "two countries" the same as "two governments"?

I found yours most intriguing though because this is something Israel doesn't want for the same reason it refuses the return of the refugees. It would change dramatically the synthesis of the population of the country and this is not to Israel's interest.
Yes. The Jews might be in danger of becoming a minority in their own country. On the other hand, if the future Palestinian state remains as poor and corrupt and backward as the PA, the war will continue.

A fantasy: one day Israel becomes a federation of seven provinces or authorities: West Bank, Gaza, Judea, Central, Haifa, Northern, and the Golan Heights. Israel develops a federal constitution, similar to the U.S. constitution, which limits federal powers to specific, practical functions, and which keeps religion out of the federal government. The Knessett is expanded to include a senatorial body to represent the seven authorities. Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is established as a federal district not part of any province.

Each province develops a certain local cultural flavor, either more Jewish, Arab, or mixed. Palestinians who don't want to hang out with Jews can avoid them much of the time, and visa versa. People are free to migrate from one province to another.

Each province supports its own militia and police force. A federal army defends national interests and only intervenes internally where interstate commerce is affected.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
To hammegk.

By the way you put the question, seems to me that you have already the answer.

Not interested in this kind of dialogue, please, accept my apologies.

No problem.

Dialogue all you want as you observe black, and white, while discussing shades of grey. :rolleyes:

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Clancy
Sure, "separate but equal" worked out fine in the U.S, didn't it?
Given that Israel is fundamentally a secular state which explicitly favors equality before the law (although not yet fully putting that ideal into practice, I will grant), it would seem that the most efficient means of establishing equality between Jew and Arab in Israel, is through an increase in Arab citizenship.

Curiously, I have read nothing advocating this position in the popular press I happen to read. Most of the world, including Israel, supports the notion of a Palestinian state. This causes me to wonder if I might be a nut.

Yet when I look at a map, I see the Palestinian Authority as two tiny, discontinuous scraps of real estate. This presents several practical problems. A state must be somewhat autonomous economically, and must be capable of regulating its boarders, to realistically exist as a state. The PA simply has too much boarder to regulate, given its size. Further, most of the good jobs and good schools in Israel exist outside the PA. The establishment of a regulated national boundary would only harm the Palestinian people.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Yes, but when israel fights, unarmed women and children are not the TARGET of the attack. If there are any, it is usually because the "fearless fighter for palestinian freedom" who is the target is deliberately hiding in civilian areas. Compare that to the palestinian attacks, whose goal is to kill as many women and children as possible.

You are ruining Clancy’s emotion only ignore the facts plea.
Edit to correct miner spelling

[Baker]

Originally posted by Denise
Many members of both groups feel that members of the other group would kill them if they could. And they both have a point. There are people in the Southern US today that are still p*ssed off about the civil war. And let's not forget about the Native Americans. I really believe that if the population of Native Americans matched the ratio of Palestinians and Isrealis living in Israel, and the birth of the USA was only 40 some years ago, we would have the same problems that Israelis and Palestinians are having.

I have never agreed with the notion that because there are two sides to a story or view that there is no right or wrong.
That would render the JREF useless since the believing in mediums or the afterlife is someone’s view and so does not believe in them therefore there is no wrong or right way to look at it.
Instead, we go over the facts and evidence to decide the truth.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Clancy
Well, if I were a 22 year old conscript in the Israeli army, I wouldn't bulldoze civilian homes
I might do that, under certain circumstances.

or shoot at unarmed civilians.

I also would not intentionally shoot unarmed persons, civilian or otherwise.

(I would consider a 16 year old Palestinian throwing rocks at a tank to be an "unarmed" civilian

Assuming I could not retreat, I would shoot a person throwing rocks at me. Ever been hit by a rock?

[AN@S]

You don’t have to be surprised my friends...
The Israeli terrorism is one of the dirtiest kinds of terrorism the history has ever seen...
From 1948 till this moment Israeli are killing innocent people and stealing their lands..

[Denise]

Originally posted by Baker


I have never agreed with the notion that because there are two sides to a story or view that there is no right or wrong.
That would render the JREF useless since the believing in mediums or the afterlife is someone’s view and so does not believe in them therefore there is no wrong or right way to look at it.
Instead, we go over the facts and evidence to decide the truth.

I was talking about cultural beliefs and that is a bit different then belief in John Edward. In culture, there is no right or wrong. We can do studies on if a particular belief is more harmful than another ie better or worse. But not right and wrong. 6 divided by three is 2. That is either true or false. John Edward can talk to the dead. This is either true or false. I believe that my neighbor is a slob. That is subjective.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Denise


I was talking about cultural beliefs and that is a bit different then belief in John Edward. In culture, there is no right or wrong. We can do studies on if a particular belief is more harmful than another ie better or worse. But not right and wrong. 6 divided by three is 2. That is either true or false. John Edward can talk to the dead. This is either true or false. I believe that my neighbor is a slob. That is subjective.

Ok but cultural beliefs cover a large area of beliefs.
From Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/

3 entries found for cultural.
To select an entry, click on it.
culturalcross-culturalcultural anthropology

Main Entry: cultural anthropology
Function: noun
Date: 1933
: anthropology that deals with human culture especially with respect to social structure, language, law, politics, religion, magic, art, and technology -- compare PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
- cultural anthropologist noun

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Denise
I believe that my neighbor is a slob. That is subjective.
But if you operationally define "slob," it is possible to confirm your statement as true or false, objectively.

[Denise]

Originally posted by DrBenway

But if you operationally define "slob," it is possible to confirm your statement as true or false, objectively. [/B]

But I will not get all people to agree on my definition. So yes, I can say I define a slob as someone who wears the same shirt for 5 days without taking it off. And, if I put my neighbor Bob(who is not a slob btw) under 24 hour video survelience and he does not change his shirt for 5 days. Then yes, everyone would have to agree that by my definition he is a slob. But, someone else might say to be a slob Bob must wear the same shirt for seven days.

But does Bob talk to the dead?:eek:

[Denise]

Originally posted by Baker


Ok but cultural beliefs cover a large area of beliefs.
From Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com/

3 entries found for cultural.
To select an entry, click on it.
culturalcross-culturalcultural anthropology

Main Entry: cultural anthropology
Function: noun
Date: 1933
: anthropology that deals with human culture especially with respect to social structure, language, law, politics, religion, magic, art, and technology -- compare PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
- cultural anthropologist noun

I accidentally hit the wrong button on your post Baker. I apologize. Instead of quote I hit edit.

I did take a Cultural Anthropology class in school. I never finished college btw. But, I don't think that there is a right and wrong in culture. I think it's bad that some cultures value boys over girls. They think it's ok. But is it wrong?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Denise


I accidentally hit the wrong button on your post Baker. I apologize. Instead of quote I hit edit.

I did take a Cultural Anthropology class in school. I never finished college btw. But, I don't think that there is a right and wrong in culture. I think it's bad that some cultures value boys over girls. They think it's ok. But is it wrong?


This topic deserves a thread of its own wrong or right of a nation’s cultural or group of people can get quite philosophical.
I think it would be a good thread to get every one’s perception on the question.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Denise
But is it wrong?
If you operationally define "wrong," the question can be answered objectively.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If you operationally define "wrong," the question can be answered objectively.

So, Israel, in it's actions against the Palestinians, is wrong.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, Israel, in it's actions against the Palestinians, is wrong.
That conclusion depends upon your definition of the terms "Israel," "actions," "Palestinians," and of course, "wrong."

For example, by "Israel," do you mean all Israeli peoples? Or some Israeli peoples? Or do you mean that certain laws within Israel are wrong? Or are the laws correct, but the manner of enforcement is wrong?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So, Israel, in it's actions against the Palestinians, is wrong.

Yeah, the right thing to do would be bundle 'em up & send 'em all to Australia. The Brits did it correctly once; to bad the Israelis haven't followed suit.

[Denise]

Originally posted by DrBenway

If you operationally define "wrong," the question can be answered objectively.

Yet it seems that the Israelis and Palestinians are having a hard time doing that.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Denise
Yet it seems that the Israelis and Palestinians are having a hard time doing that.
And therefore, each side must use force, rather than reason, to persuade the other side to surrender. Armed conflict will continue until one side fully realizes it has no hope of victory.

This is a tragic situation.

I think secularism can provide a common ground of agreement between people with very different religious ideas. I wish secularism were more popular in the Middle East.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by AN@S
You don’t have to be surprised my friends...
The Israeli terrorism is one of the dirtiest kinds of terrorism the history has ever seen...
From 1948 till this moment Israeli are killing innocent people and stealing their lands.. That is an interesting opinion. Do you have any specific responses to the many arguments and points presented in this thread? Do you have an argument or evidence or anything that would support your opinion?

You have two links that say "Arabs want peace." Such a claim raises some questions.

Why do Arabs refuse to acknowledge Israel as a state?

Why do Arab states openly call for the destruction of Israel?

Why do many Arab states give money to support Hesbolah and suicide bombers?

Why do Arabs engage in such fiery rhetoric and evoke Jihad?

Change did not occur in Northern Ireland until enough people on both sides of the conflict spoke out against violence.

Can you site any Arab leaders, clerics or citizens condemning the violence?

Can you site a political Arab group that is based on the idea of peace with Israel?

It should be noted that there are Jewish activists, citizens and religious leaders in Israel and abroad who campaign for peace and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. There are also Jewish political groups and parties that are based upon the idea of peace with the Palestinians. There was a significant offer made by Ehud Barak to Arafat. It was countered with silence. If Arabs want peace then why are they unwilling to compromise in good faith?

If Arabs want peace then where are the Arab activists who condemn the violence on both sides?

Where is the Arab plan that recognizes Israel's right to exist and live in peace?

Propaganda makes for a poor voice for peace. Your links simply have no credibility with me. Graphics and music cannot overcome the disparity of action on the part of Arabs. It's like the guy who says he doesn't want to hurt you but then beats you to a pulp. You have to wonder what else they guy lies about.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Forgive my confusion. Are not "two countries" the same as "two governments"?

In the practice of International Law , not necessarily. For example the Anan Plan that USA wants to impose in Cyprus, suggests two governments in one State.
But in my response I meant the same as you did but I needed to clarify it.

Yes. The Jews might be in danger of becoming a minority in their own country. On the other hand, if the future Palestinian state remains as poor and corrupt and backward as the PA, the war will continue.

We don't know that. History owes them a State, they need to give a try.

A fantasy: one day Israel becomes a federation of seven provinces or authorities: West Bank, Gaza, Judea, Central, Haifa, Northern, and the Golan Heights. Israel develops a federal constitution, similar to the U.S. constitution, which limits federal powers to specific, practical functions, and which keeps religion out of the federal government. The Knessett is expanded to include a senatorial body to represent the seven authorities. Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is established as a federal district not part of any province.

Each province develops a certain local cultural flavor, either more Jewish, Arab, or mixed. Palestinians who don't want to hang out with Jews can avoid them much of the time, and visa versa. People are free to migrate from one province to another.

Each province supports its own militia and police force. A federal army defends national interests and only intervenes internally where interstate commerce is affected.

Ok. If the two of us were implicated in that I would give you my signature on a blank paper.

In order to realize " Dr.Benway's" plan, we need just one thing; USA and the Arab world to decide that they will stop using Israelis and Palestinians.

I don't see this in the near future...

Welcome AN@S, it's nice to have another middle eastern fellow in the forum.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In order to realize " Dr.Benway's" plan, we need just one thing; USA and the Arab world to decide that they will stop using Israelis and Palestinians.
I'm curious to hear more about how the US is "using" Israelis. You know, the Arab world accuses Israel of "controlling" and "using" the US.

I'm aware that the Christian Right in the US has some sort of agenda based upon a crackpot notion that Jesus will come back if the Jews rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. These people have been making friends with right wing groups in Israel. But I've never taken these people very seriously. I think Israel also could ignore them without suffering any dire consequences.

The scraps of land in question are tiny. What is the Gaza strip, about five miles across and 30 miles long? That's not a state; that's a bike ride.

Y'all just need to get along as neighbors. Your kids ought to go to the same schools, play on the same sports teams, and goof off at the same malls. Your governmental set up ought not be so complicated.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

That conclusion depends upon your definition of the terms "Israel," "actions," "Palestinians," and of course, "wrong."

For example, by "Israel," do you mean all Israeli peoples? Or some Israeli peoples? Or do you mean that certain laws within Israel are wrong? Or are the laws correct, but the manner of enforcement is wrong?

Israel as a state. Israelis are the inhabitants, Israel is clearly the name of the State.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Israel as a state. Israelis are the inhabitants, Israel is clearly the name of the State.
In these forums, people are often responding off the top of their heads and are not always precise in their terms. I know I've spoken in shorthand here myself, so I appreciate your clarification.

A state is not a person or a group of persons, but a corporate body. Its structure is not defined by heart, lungs, and limbs, but by written laws.

A corporation has a mission statement. In the case of a state, it has several mission statements for each of its branches and departments. These are usually referred to as policy objectives.

Is there a specific Israeli law or policy that you believe is wrong?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I'm curious to hear more about how the US is "using" Israelis. You know, the Arab world accuses Israel of "controlling" and "using" the US.

Middle East, especially the land of Israel has turned up to be the perfect field for both sides( West and Arab World) to solve problems that date back in centuries; cultural, political, ideological and above all psychological.

All you need to understand my reference to psychological problems is to read several threads, in this very forum...

I personally use a boxing sac... It's easier than bashing other people using the most cheap creterium; something that none of us can control; the place we were born.

But, I ingress...

As I have mentioned before, it's easier for USA to support Israel ( I hope that you are aware of the financial support that Israel takes from the States) patrolling the area...no, no, not so politely... so I rephrase.

It's easier for the West to have Israelis playing the cops of Middle East than having to solve problems like the ones they had to solve with Iraq....

Also it's very sic... When I was living in NY I used to enjoy seing my fellow Israelites , american citizens in the Oak Room of Plaza Hotel, drinking their martinis, asking from the Israelis who live in Israel to be more severe to the bad Arabs...

It gives you status to show concern about those poor Middle Easterns, it ends perfectly a dinner in Craft...with a nice port...

On the other hand, the Arab World uses Palestinian cause a perfect excuse to diverse the attention of their people from the lack of democracy...

You see, I have started to believe that if we didn't have the Middle Eastern conflict, we should have invent it...It's convinient.

Of course there are many more parameters in the issue. If Israel would survive peace without a civil war( of course it wouldn't), if Israelis decided to withdraw from the occupied territories, Syrians would die if Palestinians got their state and so on....

So, things are not that easy.



Y'all just need to get along as neighbors. Your kids ought to go to the same schools, play on the same sports teams, and goof off at the same malls. Your governmental set up ought not be so complicated.

For the time being we are sharing our lives with the neighbours, our food and very often our beds and we really enjoy it.

[AN@S]

Why do Arabs refuse to acknowledge Israel as a state?

The answer is very simple ... because Israel steals the Arabic lands, how can we accept a (state) occupies our lands in Palestine , golan, and south lebanon?

Why do Arab states openly call for the destruction of Israel?
Because Israel call for the destruction of the Arabs, and they're not only call... they're killing innocent palestinians everyday.

Why do many Arab states give money to support Hesbolah and suicide bombers?
Because Hesbollah and suicide bombers are not a terrorists, they are a legally resistance against the occupation...
Do u think that the suicide bombers does that because they like to die?

Why do Arabs engage in such fiery rhetoric and evoke Jihad?
The same answer of the previous question.

Change did not occur in Northern Ireland until enough people on both sides of the conflict spoke out against violence.
That's right but in Northern Ireland BOTH sides wanted to speak , but Israel do not want to speak with Arabs...
who killed Issac Rabin when he and Arafat was about to reach peace?? the zionists did , not the Arabs...

[Tricky]

Welcome to the forum, AN@S,

I must say you are very brave to come into this place where you surely know your opinion will be in the vast minority. Although it may not seem like it, there are many here who are not totally one-sided on the Israeli/Arab issues.

I look forward to seeing more of your posts, but if you keep the rhetoric to a minimum, you will get much better results.

[AN@S]

Thank u Tricky ...
I know that It's difficult for an Arabian to join an American forum and give tha Arabic point of view about the Israeli/Arab issues because the American media is controlled by the jewish lobby and the American usually see the issue from the zionist point of view and its not easy to him to accept my ideas or any idea that doesn't fit with what he watch and read in the zionist-controlled media in the USA like FOX News , abc News, NY Times ...etc

In contrast, I know that there are a lot of Americans that accept the other's point of veiw because most of the Americans are open-minded...

I really like this forum and all the members even those who do not accept me.

[renata]

Originally posted by AN@S
Thank u Tricky ...
I know that It's difficult for an Arabian to join an American forum and give tha Arabic point of view about the Israeli/Arab issues because the American media is controlled by the jewish lobby and the American usually see the issue from the zionist point of view and its not easy to him to accept my ideas or any idea that doesn't fit with what he watch and read in the zionist-controlled media in the USA like FOX News , abc News, NY Times ...etc

In contrast, I know that there are a lot of Americans that accept the other's point of veiw because most of the Americans are open-minded...

I really like this forum and all the members even those who do not accept me.


Jewish lobby controlling US media, eh? Had to save this for posterity, also for my Kabbal meeting this Thursday.

Do you have a list of Jewish Lobby controlled media? Would it surprise you to learn that NY Times is one of the most liberal of the major papers in USA, and that is probably most critical of Israel?


Edited to add- My first response is flip, but I will keep it. Welcome to the forum. I doubt you and I will ever agree on anything- I am a Jew and a Zionist. I have family in Israel. However, I look forward to examining other's points of view- as long as they are supported with evidence and not ideology. Hopefully the exchange of ideas will be mutual.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by AN@S
The answer is very simple ... because Israel steals the Arabic lands, how can we accept a (state) occupies our lands in Palestine , golan, and south lebanon? Israel was about to be attacked by Arabs when they launched a pre-emptive strike.

Because Israel call for the destruction of the Arabs,... Do you have any proof of that?


...and they're not only call... they're killing innocent palestinians everyday.

Because Hesbollah and suicide bombers are not a terrorists, they are a legally resistance against the occupation...
Do u think that the suicide bombers does that because they like to die? So let me see if I understand, it is legal for Palastenians to kill Israelis but not for Israelis to kill "inocent" palestinians, is that right?

Do you consider Israeli children NOT innocent?

That's right but in Northern Ireland BOTH sides wanted to speak , but Israel do not want to speak with Arabs... NO, of course not. That is why they elected Rabbin and Barak, because they don't want peace. Why did Arafat not make a counter offer to Barak?

who killed Issac Rabin...? Who assasinated Anwar Sadat after he signed a treaty with Israel? The group "Egyptian Islamic Jihad"

...when he and Arafat was about to reach peace?? the zionists did , not the Arabs... Do you have any evidence that Arafat had any interest in peace?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by AN@S
Thank u Tricky ...
I know that It's difficult for an Arabian to join an American forum and give tha Arabic point of view about the Israeli/Arab issues because the American media is controlled by the jewish lobby and the American usually see the issue from the zionist point of view and its not easy to him to accept my ideas or any idea that doesn't fit with what he watch and read in the zionist-controlled media in the USA like FOX News , abc News, NY Times ...etc AN@S,

I should point out that I started this thread. While I am a firm supporter of Israel I condemn all of the violence on both sides. I want the Palestinians to have their own state.

There is no justification for targeting children whether it is from Israel or the Palestinians.

I invite you to condemn ALL violence. Are you willing to do that?

In contrast, I know that there are a lot of Americans that accept the other's point of view because most of the Americans are open-minded... That is good. Are you open minded?

I really like this forum and all the members even those who do not accept me. I make no judgments based solely upon a person’s ideology, ethnicity or point of origin. I welcome you here. You will get the most mileage in my opinion if you avoid fallacious and emotional arguments and if you are logically consistent. That is not always easy trust me.

Good luck.

[Baker]

Originally posted by AN@S


The answer is very simple ... because Israel steals the Arabic lands, how can we accept a (state) occupies our lands in Palestine , golan, and south lebanon?

Could you elaborate on this are you saying The State of Israel has no right to exist?


Because Israel call for the destruction of the Arabs, and they're not only call... they're killing innocent palestinians everyday.


I'm also going to need some proof of this.

Because Hesbollah and suicide bombers are not a terrorists, they are a legally resistance against the occupation...
Do u think that the suicide bombers does that because they like to die?


When the Palestine's realized that they could no longer blame the violence on the Temple Mount visit they decided to blame it on response to Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza.
This claim ignores events both before and after 1967 - when Israel came into control of the territories in a war of self-defense - that prove that it is not the "occupation" that has been the true cause of Palestinian terrorism. Not only did Palestinian terrorism precede Israel's presence in the territories; it has often been at its most brutal, as in 1996, at those moments at which the peace process was most active and the end to the "occupation" closest at hand. Such acts of terrorism make it abundantly clear that the Palestinian terrorists are not opposing "occupation" - they are opposing peace through compromise.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by AN@S
Thank u Tricky ...
I know that It's difficult for an Arabian to join an American forum and give tha Arabic point of view about the Israeli/Arab issues because the American media is controlled by the jewish lobby and the American usually see the issue from the zionist point of view and its not easy to him to accept my ideas or any idea that doesn't fit with what he watch and read in the zionist-controlled media in the USA like FOX News , abc News, NY Times ...etc

In contrast, I know that there are a lot of Americans that accept the other's point of veiw because most of the Americans are open-minded...

I really like this forum and all the members even those who do not accept me.
It is a kind of odd thing about America. Many (not the majority) are just as distrustful against Jews as any Arab. For a long time, Jews did not have access to many places in the US. Some Christians still call them "Christ Killers".

But this comes up to direct conflict with the "America is never wrong" supporters (which may in fact be a majority) who think that if the US is supporting Israel, then by golly Israel is right. Once in a lighthearted mood I suggested that the US give up one of our states that is underutilized (like Montana) to Israel and let them build their homeland here. No one took this excellent suggestion seriously.

I do wonder, though, why both Israel and Palestine insist that it must be THIS little patch of land, which doesn't even have any oil. Why couldn't the Palestines settle in a part of Syria, or Israel in the US? The claim to historical heritage carries no water whatsoever in my book, or else the US would be obligated to surrender the country to the Native Americans. Many changes of geography have occurred in history. We can't go back and try to "right" them all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Tricky


I do wonder, though, why both Israel and Palestine insist that it must be THIS little patch of land, which doesn't even have any oil. Why couldn't the Palestines settle in a part of Syria, or Israel in the US? The claim to historical heritage carries no water whatsoever in my book, or else the US would be obligated to surrender the country to the Native Americans. Many changes of geography have occurred in history. We can't go back and try to "right" them all.



They are both determined not to be the one that blinks. For this I blame both sides.

You would think, however, that the West Bank and Gaza and no settlements would be the only long term, viable compromise. Most Israeli's would be happy to trade the West Bank for peace, since it isn't really something they view as being theirs to keep anyway. There would have to be some sort of UN monitoring of the peace. However, Israel has not been too keen on this either.

[Cleopatra]

Sabah alkhair AN@S

Maa leesh Ingleezi! Kalam tet Kowaies Kateer ;)


So, I was born in the eastern section of the City my ancestors were praying to. My beloved Jerusalem.

I am glad you joined the forum. Have in mind that this is an American forum that means that there is a lot of tolerance here,for USA is a very tolerant country. So, I wouldn't worry if I were you.

I doubt if we are going to cross our swords though...

Enjoy your staying here :)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
I do wonder, though, why both Israel and Palestine insist that it must be THIS little patch of land, which doesn't even have any oil. Why couldn't the Palestines settle in a part of Syria, or Israel in the US? The claim to historical heritage carries no water whatsoever in my book, or else the US would be obligated to surrender the country to the Native Americans. Many changes of geography have occurred in history. We can't go back and try to "right" them all. Agreed. The problems in Israel and Palestine will end when there is sufficient will on both sides to solve the problems.

[AN@S]

Do you have a list of Jewish Lobby controlled media?
Soon I’ll give such a list

I look forward to examining other's points of view- as long as they are supported with evidence and not ideology. Hopefully the exchange of ideas will be mutual.
Ok... there will be a lot of evidences, do not worry

Israel was about to be attacked by Arabs when they launched a pre-emptive strike
At this time Israel not endanger to be attacked from any Arab country...
Hesbollah attacks are just a reaction of Israeli’s, and Syria will not attack Israel because we in Syria know that we’ll lose a war against Israel because the US will attack Syria if Syria attacked Israel.

Do you have any proof of that?
You want me to proof that Israel call for the destruction of the Arabs?
Do you want proofs more than the well known Israeli massacres in Palestine and Lebanon?
If you didn’t hear about these massacres in the American media please tell me to give you tons of proofs and pictures.

Do you consider Israeli children NOT innocent?
Every one (a man, a woman, a child) who occupies the other’s lands by force, he is not innocent,
If Arabs attacked US and occupied NY and kicked the Americans out of their homes, the Arabs will be a terrorists, and their children are not innocent, and every American have the right to resist the occupation.

I invite you to condemn ALL violence. Are you willing to do that?
Yes, I condemn ALL violence, considering that violence do not include the legal resistance...
If someone raised his gun to shoot me I’ll try to shoot him first, this is not a violence,
The violence is to shoot someone without any reason...

That is good. Are you open minded?
I hope so ... but I –like all the people- have some principles that unchangeable and these principles has nothing to do with open minded or non- open minded...

Could you elaborate on this are you saying The State of Israel has no right to exist?
Of course ,,, Israel has no right to exist , and soon I’ll give u evidences from the Jews holy book (I do not know its name in English in Arabic we call it Twrat) that jews do not have the right to make a state.

It is a kind of odd thing about America. Many (not the majority) are just as distrustful against Jews as any Arab. For a long time, Jews did not have access to many places in the US. Some Christians still call them "Christ Killers".
That’s right ... once I read that for a long time in the US there was written on some stores and restaurants:” NO DOGS, NO JEWS”
But I don’t like that , because I am a Moslem and Islam tell us that Moslems have to respect other religions and if a Moslem hated a Jew because of his religion so he is not a Moslem anymore.
I think that some of you are surprised reading this but it is the truth:
We hate Zionists not Jews,
As you know, not every Jew is a Zionist but every Zionist is a Jew. So Arabs hate Zionists not Jews.

Maa leesh Ingleezi! Kalam tet Kowaies Kateer
Shokran Cleopatra Inti Tehki Arabi Kowaies Kaman...

So, I was born in the eastern section of the City my ancestors were praying to. My beloved Jerusalem
Good... if your ancestors were praying in the holy city of Jerusalem (alquds) so you are lucky because the Jewish being in Jerusalem was for a very short period of time and most of them was Arabs ....
Do u have Arabic origins??

[RandFan]

Thanks AN@S,

Originally posted by AN@S

Soon I'll give such a list, Ok... there will be a lot of evidences, do not worry

I'll worry, and I'll wait to see the evidence. Until then I don't accept it, ok? This is a skeptics forum and we reserve the right to reserve judgment until evidence is given. But thanks in advance for providing the evidence

You want me to proof that Israel call for the destruction of the Arabs?

Yes, as a mater of fact we do. Again, thanks in advance for the evidence but we won't accept it as proof until you provide it.

Do you want proofs more than the well known Israeli massacres in Palestine and Lebanon?

That doesn't prove your claim. So yes.

If you didn't hear about these massacres in the American media please tell me to give you tons of proofs and pictures.

We have heard about atrocities on BOTH sides. Two wrongs don't make a right

Every one (a man, a woman, a child) who occupies the other’s lands by force, he is not innocent,

...and is subject to death. Thank you for your honest opinion but I refuse to accept this.

If Arabs attacked US and occupied NY and kicked the Americans out of their homes, the Arabs will be a terrorists, and their children are not innocent, and every American have the right to resist the occupation.

...and kill the children? Sorry but I don't accept this.

Yes, I condemn ALL violence, considering that violence do not include the legal resistance...

By such logic any violence is justified. One only need change the rules as to what is and isn't legal resitance

If someone raised his gun to shoot me I'll try to shoot him first, this is not a violence,

Israeli children walking to school are hardly equivelant

The violence is to shoot someone without any reason...

Everyone has reasons, pedophiles and mass murders have reasons. Hitler had reasons.

Of course ,,, Israel has no right to exist , and soon I'll give u evidences from the Jews holy book (I do not know its name in English in Arabic we call it Twrat) that jews do not have the right to make a state.

Your statement speaks for itself

That’s right ... once I read that for a long time in the US there was written on some stores and restaurants:” NO DOGS, NO JEWS”

But I don't like that , because I am a Moslem and Islam tell us that Moslems have to respect other religions and if a Moslem hated a Jew because of his religion so he is not a Moslem anymore.

But intentionally killing and dismembering children is ok?

I think that some of you are surprised reading this but it is the truth:

Trust me, I'm not surprised at all

We hate Zionists not Jews,

Yeah, the Ku Klux Klan only hate blacks who are living in America and taking jobs from whites. They don't hate ALL blacks.

As you know, not every Jew is a Zionist but every Zionist is a Jew. So Arabs hate Zionists not Jews.

Hate, at the right time and in the right circumstance it can be a good thing. So can intentionally killing women and children.

Again I thank you AN@S. Your honesty is refreshing.

[RandFan]

We hate Zionists not Jews,

There is a poster on this form, Renata, she is a Zionist.

Do you hate her?

Given the oportunity would you kill her?

[Skeptic]

The answer is very simple ... because Israel steals the Arabic lands, how can we accept a (state) occupies our lands in Palestine , golan, and south lebanon?

So, what part of the area from the river to the sea IS actually jewish land? NONE, according to you; it's all "stolen", right?

So, for israel to stop "stealing arab land", it must disappear completely.

Which is what the Arabs REALLY mean when they talk about a "just peace" where israel "stops the occupation of arab land".

It's like someone who says that he would like peace with the United States--but first the US must stop "stealing the Indian land" that lies between Canada and Mexico.

There you have it folks, from the horses' mouth--for the Arabs to be satisfied and "just peace" to exist, israel (er, the "zionist entity") must disappear.

Now, THAT was simple, wasn't it? The rest is really just talk that tries to make this goal of destroying israel seem a "legitimate right of the palestinian people".

That's right but in Northern Ireland BOTH sides wanted to speak , but Israel do not want to speak with Arabs...
who killed Issac Rabin when he and Arafat was about to reach peace??

WHAT peace?

Arafat and his cronies admitted, and captured documents show, that the whole Oslo "peace" process was merely an excuse to set up a terrorist network to re-start the war against israel at a later date.

This, of course, is what Arafat did in 2000, AFTER being offered a palestinian state by Ehud Barak.

[renata]

Bumping up the thread, so AN@S can post the evidence he promised here.

[AN@S]

Renata
see this pleas
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18213

[renata]

Originally posted by AN@S
Renata
see this pleas
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18213

I saw that thread. Nothing in it about your earlier claim of Jewish control of the US media. Plus, as I posted in that thread already, a questionable website of a radical group is not evidence.

You can start by answering RandFan's questions about your post.

[AN@S]

Originally posted by RandFan

...and is subject to death. Thank you for your honest opinion but I refuse to accept this.

...and kill the children? Sorry but I don't accept this.

But intentionally killing and dismembering children is ok?



Ok my friend ... I'll tell you something...
Arabs are not monsters they don't like killing children,
no one accept killing children, Islam don't accept that, all relegions don't accept that, hezbollah and Islamic Jihad don't accept that and they aimed military targets ...
rarely they aimed civilians , this is the war...
I think you had took a look at the first link in my signature which is (Anglo-American war crimes in Iraq) ....if you asked bush why did he killed childrens and old women he'll say:this is the war.
I say this is the war ...
My friend, you have to see WHO HAS STARTED THE WAR??
WHO HAS STARTED KILLING THE OTHER'S CHILDREN??


There is a poster on this form, Renata, she is a Zionist.

Do you hate her?

Given the oportunity would you kill her?

Good question ...

I think that Renata lives in the USA not in palestine so I don't hate her ...
but if she lives in palestine thats mean that she occupies a land that doesn't belong to her, this land has an original owners (palestinians) , the (Israeli) government took this land by force from it's owners to give it to renata .... then I hate renata because I hate stealers ..(sorry renata but I have to answer his question... it's an example)

Given the oportunity I'll not kill her because I am not a killer, I may kill a thousand (Israeli) soldiers but I'll not kill civilians even if they were Zionists ...
But if she has killed by an explosion by Hamas or Islamic Jihad I'll not be sorry for her death becuase sha accept to live in a (state) that based on crimes and killing innocent people to steal their lands...

[Tricky]

I don't think that the Jews deserve or don't deserve a homeland because of anything written in any ancient books. We simply cannot go back and redraw the borders of all the countries of the world because someone claims it is their "God-given land". (This applies to Palestinians too). The borders, and even the existence of a country depends on wars, politics, geography and other factors, but ancient, probably fictional writings are not one of them.

Israel exists because it was able to convince enough countries to agree to let them take the land, and they were able to forge the right kinds of alliances to develop the land and they are now strong enough to be able to hold the land. From what I hear, they have done an excellent job too, literally "making the desert bloom".

Many countries (my own, for example) have come to exist as a result of far more violent and unfair acts against the previous inhabitants. That is history now. We must go forward instead of dwelling in the past. I think that those who live their whole lives for revenge will wind up hollow and miserable. I don't subscribe to the policy of "an eye for an eye until everyone is blind."

This being said, I believe that Israel should not try to take (by force) any more land than they already have, and that the US should withdraw their support for Israel if they do. If they try to do so anway, the people being shoved out have every right to resist by legitimate means, which, in my opinion, does not include terrorism.

[Cleopatra]

AN@S I must admit that you have courage my friend. I appreciate courage :)

Well, while I was reading your last post I was thinking. " Look at him, instead of wearing a jacket with explosives and go kill civilians, he comes here and he fights for his beliefs"

If ALL the Arabs were doing what you do, we , Israelis,would be in serious trouble.

I mean violence makes a lot of noise but it's not really important. You can't achieve anything with violence but with ratio ( your mind) and with arguments... you can demolish walls...you can destroy armies...

The previous month my business association had invited a young Palestinian to talk about the situation. We was harsh on Israel, of course but he impressed me with the determination in his eyes. He was asking for education and he was dreaming for a better life and he was persuaded that this was the only way to help his country.

I must confess that I was among those who lifted by their chair to applaud him when he finished his speech!

[RandFan]

Originally posted by AN@S
My friend, you have to see WHO HAS STARTED THE WAR??
WHO HAS STARTED KILLING THE OTHER'S CHILDREN??

Given the oportunity I'll not kill her because I am not a killer, I may kill a thousand (Israeli) soldiers but I'll not kill civilians even if they were Zionists ...

But if she has killed by an explosion by Hamas or Islamic Jihad I'll not be sorry for her death becuase sha accept to live in a (state) that based on crimes and killing innocent people to steal their lands... AN@S,

Thank you for the response. I am glad that you personally would not kill. I supported a war in Iraq that killed and maimed innocent humans including children. That fact has haunted me some. Though I still believe the course was correct.

As to who started it. Wayne Grabert has made some passioned arguments in your favor. I think he makes some good points and has been able to provide some historical data that would support your idea.

AN@S, I believe that it is wrong for Hezbolah to target innocent people as it is wrong for Israel to kill innocent people. A child living in the mid east can't decide to be there. Your argument simply can't excuse the murder of children.

More importantly, hate regardless of the reason will not solve your problem. I have seen NO objective evidence that suicide bombings are serving their purpose. And that is not for lack of asking others to provide such evidence.

It will take both sides to stop the killing. Israel is not going away and neither are the Palestinians. Even if you are justified in your efforts what is the purpose if it only escalates the cycle of violence.

I wish Israelis and Palestinians hope and peace. It won't come from the end of a gun or from a bomb.

I have always had contempt for John Lennon's naive "give peace a chance" song. But I think in this instance it might have meaning.

RandFan.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by AN@S

Soon I’ll give such a list


Ok... there will be a lot of evidences, do not worry


At this time Israel not endanger to be attacked from any Arab country...
Hesbollah attacks are just a reaction of Israeli’s, and Syria will not attack Israel because we in Syria know that we’ll lose a war against Israel because the US will attack Syria if Syria attacked Israel.


You want me to proof that Israel call for the destruction of the Arabs?
Do you want proofs more than the well known Israeli massacres in Palestine and Lebanon?
If you didn’t hear about these massacres in the American media please tell me to give you tons of proofs and pictures.


Every one (a man, a woman, a child) who occupies the other’s lands by force, he is not innocent,
If Arabs attacked US and occupied NY and kicked the Americans out of their homes, the Arabs will be a terrorists, and their children are not innocent, and every American have the right to resist the occupation.


Yes, I condemn ALL violence, considering that violence do not include the legal resistance...
If someone raised his gun to shoot me I’ll try to shoot him first, this is not a violence,
The violence is to shoot someone without any reason...


I hope so ... but I –like all the people- have some principles that unchangeable and these principles has nothing to do with open minded or non- open minded...


Of course ,,, Israel has no right to exist , and soon I’ll give u evidences from the Jews holy book (I do not know its name in English in Arabic we call it Twrat) that jews do not have the right to make a state.


That’s right ... once I read that for a long time in the US there was written on some stores and restaurants:” NO DOGS, NO JEWS”
But I don’t like that , because I am a Moslem and Islam tell us that Moslems have to respect other religions and if a Moslem hated a Jew because of his religion so he is not a Moslem anymore.
I think that some of you are surprised reading this but it is the truth:
We hate Zionists not Jews,
As you know, not every Jew is a Zionist but every Zionist is a Jew. So Arabs hate Zionists not Jews.


Shokran Cleopatra Inti Tehki Arabi Kowaies Kaman...


Good... if your ancestors were praying in the holy city of Jerusalem (alquds) so you are lucky because the Jewish being in Jerusalem was for a very short period of time and most of them was Arabs ....
Do u have Arabic origins??

Interesting.

How would everyone like to be a Jew in Tel Aviv for instance and have this coming from your neighbor to the north on a regular basis? I mean there are 4-5 million of you and 300 million Arabs around you.

And you are told by people like AUP safe and snug in Australia that nobody really wants to hurt you or drive you into the sea. It is just rhetorical devices.

This gentleman is not far off mainstream Arab English language dailys one can read.

(I hope the road map to peace comes to something, but it appears many would not be satisfied if all settlements were pulled up and the territories were given full soverignty to the Palistinians because darnit, those Jews have no right to a state...For gosh sakes the Torah says so!!!)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by hammegk


Yeah, the right thing to do would be bundle 'em up & send 'em all to Australia. The Brits did it correctly once; to bad the Israelis haven't followed suit.

This was an interesting social experiment. Take all the 'Criminals' and move them to another country. Funnily enough, the crime rates of both countries today are just about the same. In fact, I think it didn't take too long for them to settle down to the same rate again. Say decades.

[davefoc]

AN@S,
First let me say that, what seems to be your thinking, scares and disheartens me because it seems to offer no hope of a peaceful settlement.

Many of us in this forum are with you on many of your thoughts, we feel that the Israeli's must leave the land designated as occupied by the UN, we understand that the non-Jewish native population of Israel would be expected to resent and resist the Europeans that immigrated to Palestine and founded a state, we understand the terrible resentment that the Palestinians feel when their orchards, homes and factories are razed by the Israelis in their effort to stop the suicide bombers.

But we also understand that the Israelis bought much of the land that you claim they stole from the Palestinian owners, that Arab dictators attempt to demonize the Jews and use them as scapegoats for their own incompetence and corruption, and that many of the Israelis that you want to demonize have worked very hard to help and get along with their Palestinian neighbors.

So far in your posts, you have shown only that you can repeat the anti-Israeli propaganda that is common in parts of the middle east. I would respectfully challenge you to think about this a bit.

[AN@S]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
AN@S I must admit that you have courage my friend. I appreciate courage :)

Well, while I was reading your last post I was thinking. " Look at him, instead of wearing a jacket with explosives and go kill civilians, he comes here and he fights for his beliefs"

Alsalam Alaykom (Peace on you) Cleopatra:
Thank u for your appreciation but I think you have a wrong idea about Arabs ...
Arabs don't like wearing jackets full of explosives, very little of them do that under a specific circumstances when they feel that they don't have another solutions..

If ALL the Arabs were doing what you do, we , Israelis,would be in serious trouble.
I know that ....
I like to tell you that the new Arab generation are different than their fathers, they have more education, more understanding to what is happening in the world, they believe that they can defeat their enemies by education.

[Baker]

Originally posted by davefoc
AN@S,
First let me say that, what seems to be your thinking, scares and disheartens me because it seems to offer no hope of a peaceful settlement.

Many of us in this forum are with you on many of your thoughts, we feel that the Israeli's must leave the land designated as occupied by the UN, we understand that the non-Jewish native population of Israel would be expected to resent and resist the Europeans that immigrated to Palestine and founded a state, we understand the terrible resentment that the Palestinians feel when their orchards, homes and factories are razed by the Israelis in their effort to stop the suicide bombers.

But we also understand that the Israelis bought much of the land that you claim they stole from the Palestinian owners, that Arab dictators attempt to demonize the Jews and use them as scapegoats for their own incompetence and corruption, and that many of the Israelis that you want to demonize have worked very hard to help and get along with their Palestinian neighbors.

So far in your posts, you have shown only that you can repeat the anti-Israeli propaganda that is common in parts of the middle east. I would respectfully challenge you to think about this a bit.

I think this is one of the benefits of having AN@S on the forum we can witness firsthand the view of Arabs.
It might not be the view of all Arabs but if you go through their media sites you can see most do fill the same way as AN@S.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by AN@S
I like to tell you that the new Arab generation are different than their fathers, they have more education, more understanding to what is happening in the world, they believe that they can defeat their enemies by education.
I've seen evidence that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," is referenced in classrooms in the Arab world as a factual document. It was debunked as a forgery long ago.

Do you know the current status of "The Protocols"? Is there now an effort to inform people that it's a fake document?

[AN@S]

Originally posted by RandFan

AN@S, I believe that it is wrong for Hezbolah to target innocent people as it is wrong for Israel to kill innocent people. A child living in the mid east can't decide to be there. Your argument simply can't excuse the murder of children.

Peace on you RandFan..
I know that a child living in (Israel) can't decide to be there, but I have told u that this is the war..
The number of Palestinians victims of war are much more that (Israelis)
Another important thing ...
Hezbollah never target civilians, Hezbollah is not a Palestinian resistance, Hezbollah is the Lebanease resistance against (Israeli) occupation in southern Lebanon, Hezbollah has inforced the (israelis) to withdraw from southern Lebanon without killing any civilian, they are only fighting the (Israelian) army.


Originally posted by davefoc

So far in your posts, you have shown only that you can repeat the anti-Israeli propaganda that is common in parts of the middle east. I would respectfully challenge you to think about this a bit.
I am not repeating any propaganda , this is my thoughts and believes, and the thougts of all Arabs.You are free to call it probaganda but it's not just a probaganda

[AN@S]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I've seen evidence that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," is referenced in classrooms in the Arab world as a factual document. It was debunked as a forgery long ago.

Do you know the current status of "The Protocols"? Is there now an effort to inform people that it's a fake document?
I don't have a lot of historical experiences to talk and discuss about that book , but I wanna tell u something ...
Regardless of the book if it is faked or not, most of Arabs will not believe that the book is faked becuase they see the (Israelis) executing alot of what is written in the book ...
I say: the book MAY be faked ,but alot of the protocols in the book are welcomed by Israelis .
One of these Protocols talking about a state of the jews...
Another is talking about controlling the world by controlling the greatest powers (USA now and UK in the past)...

[E.J.Armstrong]

Israel indeed gained independence via terrorism but then terrorism is a slippery subject to pin down. Many people who engaged in terrorist activities went on to become leaders and major players in some states such as Iraq, Israel, Ireland and the UK. Does that make terrorism right? Well, from the point of the victor it might. If only for a limited period until they find it convenient to stop others doing what they did themselves.

In general systems founded on oppressing people fail at some stage, even though the oppressive apartheid regime in South Africa abused the majority of the population for a very long periods with the support of others countries at various times such as the US and the UK which now proclaim their intention to free people from oppressors and with support from many companies who broke sanctions to help the mainly white regimes oppress their people. The peple within the lands of the victor also often have difficulty seeing the true picture or are denied the true picture by hagiographic media.

For example the media in Iraq were hugely biased in favour of the murderer Saddam Hussein because he had them by painful parts of their biological anatomy. In what some would say was a similar way the press within the US are also held by the painful parts of their economic anatomy by the Bush administration and from the perspective of the UK are not seen to be able to give a truly unbiased view of what Bush is doing around the world. But then that is what they would be expected to do.

From the perspective of the losers terrorist tactics are wrong because they were deprived power/land/family/businesses/ respect etc. If the feelings of bitterness and exclusion are not handled properly then resentment can fester until it explodes in riots such as those seen within the US and South Africa where the black populations were systematically deprived of their rights. In Northern Ireland there was a systematic attempt to deprive Catholics of jobs. Wherever people are maltreated the come uppance always eventually arrives, whether in the USSR or the US or the UK.

The true lesson therefore appears to be to treat everyone with fairness under the law. As an integral part of that analysis, if the law wielders do not obey the law themselves then they can kiss their own asses goodbye eventually because they have no right to demand that anyone else should obey the law when they do not obey it as well. Without the law we all eventually have nothing.

If there is anyone in power today who believes that they can impose an unwanted political system on anyone or invade a country without justificaion and have that accepted without trouble then they have not read their history books and do not understand that a seed can break the toughest rock and an oppressed people always rise up. One only has to look at what is happened in Iran when America subverted democracy for the benefit of American oil companies.

Terrorism was successful for the founders of Israel. It was and is wrong but when you show others how to win through terrorism, is it any surprise when they follow your example whether that example happened sixty years or two weeks ago?

[davefoc]

AN@S said:
I am not repeating any propaganda , this is my thoughts and believes, and the thougts of all Arabs.You are free to call it probaganda but it's not just a probaganda
AN@S,
Thank you for responding.

When you say that you are "not repeating any propaganda" I think we have a mild semantic disagreement (disagreement based on the meaning of the words and not the substance) there. Propaganda can be true, so what I meant when I said that you were repeating the anti-Israeli propaganda that is common in parts of the middle east I thought I was saying something that we would both agree on. We might disagree as to truthfulness of it, but if it is representative of the officially promoted views of some middle eastern governments then it is, I think, propaganda. Would you agree with this?

I was also troubled a bit by your notion that "all Arabs" would believe anything. Perhaps I am quibbling here, but I would have found "most Arabs" or some such phrase more credible, "all Arabs" seems a little like the reports of Saddam Hussein's elections where he got 100% of the vote, not very likely I think.

I was disapointed that you didn't respond to my comment about how middle east leaders use their anti-Israeli propaganda as a means of covering up their own incompetence and corruption. Do you think the main problem facing the Iraqi's was Israel or do you think that the fact that Hussein was torturing them, looting their national treasury to build his palaces and fortune, suppressing their free speech and leading them into disastrous wars were more important problems for the average Iraqi? Do you see why Hussein would, like all dictators, attempt to distract the people from the true source of their problems, his incompetence and his corruption, by spreading propaganda about a foreign threat?

You have made several statements here about how Americans are controlled by the Jewish dominated media. This suggests that you believe that popular opinion can be manipulated by control of the media. Why do you think this process is so effective in America, where there is a long standing tradition of a free press that makes the domination of the national media by any single view point very difficult and yet this same process does not affect you at all when you live in a country where all media is tightly controlled by a central government?

[AN@S]

Originally posted by davefoc
AN@S said:

AN@S,
Thank you for responding.

When you say that you are "not repeating any propaganda" I think we have a mild semantic disagreement (disagreement based on the meaning of the words and not the substance) there. Propaganda can be true, so what I meant when I said that you were repeating the anti-Israeli propaganda that is common in parts of the middle east I thought I was saying something that we would both agree on. We might disagree as to truthfulness of it, but if it is representative of the officially promoted views of some middle eastern governments then it is, I think, propaganda. Would you agree with this?

Yse I agree with this, I thought that the word (propaganda) means (the not true speech)


I was also troubled a bit by your notion that "all Arabs" would believe anything. Perhaps I am quibbling here, but I would have found "most Arabs" or some such phrase more credible, "all Arabs" seems a little like the reports of Saddam Hussein's elections where he got 100% of the vote, not very likely I think.
If we are talking about the palestinian issue, I believe that all Arabs or most of the Arabs have the same openion,
Saddam Hussein is another issue, he is a dictator and his people voted 100% not because they are all want him but because they are afraid of him.

I was disapointed that you didn't respond to my comment about how middle east leaders use their anti-Israeli propaganda as a means of covering up their own incompetence and corruption. Do you think the main problem facing the Iraqi's was Israel or do you think that the fact that Hussein was torturing them, looting their national treasury to build his palaces and fortune, suppressing their free speech and leading them into disastrous wars were more important problems for the average Iraqi? Do you see why Hussein would, like all dictators, attempt to distract the people from the true source of their problems, his incompetence and his corruption, by spreading propaganda about a foreign threat?.
I agree with you my friend ...
Israel is a problem that facing Iraqi's and all the Arabs and I believe the whole world...
But I agree with you that Arabic dictators use Israel to distract Arabic people from another important issues like the lack of democracy in the middle east..

You have made several statements here about how Americans are controlled by the Jewish dominated media. This suggests that you believe that popular opinion can be manipulated by control of the media. Why do you think this process is so effective in America, where there is a long standing tradition of a free press that makes the domination of the national media by any single view point very difficult and yet this same process does not affect you at all when you live in a country where all media is tightly controlled by a central government?
Very good question...I like your questions my friend ...
I know that we have a media that controlled by governments in the middle east , that's right , but there is a difference between USA and the Arab world ...
In the Arab world everyone knows that he is watching a media that controlled by non-democratic goverments but in the USA you're watchin a media that you think it is free but in most cases it's not ...
The american media is free, I know that and I appreciate the american media but when talking about palestinian issue , they show the (Israelis) as angels and the palestinians as devils ..
The American media talking alot about suicide bombers but talking verry little about the (Israelis) crimes in palestine ..
I like to tell you that the Arabic media is going to change, now we can see a real free TVs and newspapers that not controlled by governments like Aljazeera TV, Abu Dhabi TV and others

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by AN@S
Regardless of the book if it is faked or not, most of Arabs will not believe that the book is faked becuase they see the (Israelis) executing alot of what is written in the book ...
The "Skeptic's Dictionary" has an entry on the Protocols:
http://skepdic.com/protocols.html

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery made in Russia for the Okhrana (secret police), which blames the Jews for the country's ills. It was first privately printed in 1897 and was made public in 1905. It is copied from a nineteenth century novel by Hermann Goedsche (Biarritz, 1868) and claims that a secret Jewish cabal is plotting to take over the world.

The Skeptic's Dictionary is a great site with a lot of other information about popularly believed hoaxes. Most of it is pretty entertaining reading.

The Jews don't control the US. If Palestinians blew themselves up in shopping malls here in the US a fraction of the times as they've done in Israel, we'd be seeing Operaton Palestinian Liberation on the 6:00 news, with Arafat at the bottom of a deep crater and Hamas in custody. Instead, we see the US supporting the formation of a Palestinian state.

I don't think a Palestinian state will solve the problem. The Middle East situation reminds me of couples who argue all the time who decide to get married, thinking that marriage will give them the sense of security they're looking for.

So long as schools in Palestine teach children the Protocols as fact, so long as precious classroom time is devoted to the Qu'ran rather than the humanities, math, and science, so long as Palestinian high schools graduate students poorly equipped for college admission or a competitive workplace, there will be no peace.

I wish some form of integration were possible. Israel's government has shown itself capable of providing good education and good public services. In contrast, the Palestinian Authority is a mess. If I were a mother of Palestinian children, I wouldn't want to wait for the PA to get its act together. I'd rather put my kids into Israeli schools.

Arabs are people. Jews are people. People are more alike than they are different.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DrBenway
The Jews don't control the US. If Palestinians blew themselves up in shopping malls here in the US a fraction of the times as they've done in Israel, we'd be seeing Operaton Palestinian Liberation on the 6:00 news, with Arafat at the bottom of a deep crater and Hamas in custody. Instead, we see the US supporting the formation of a Palestinian state...

So long as schools in Palestine teach children the Protocols as fact, so long as precious classroom time is devoted to the Qu'ran rather than the humanities, math, and science, so long as Palestinian high schools graduate students poorly equipped for college admission or a competitive workplace, there will be no peace. Well done. I agree.

[davefoc]

AN@S,
Thank you for your very thoughtful responses to my post.

you said
The american media is free, I know that and I appreciate the american media but when talking about palestinian issue , they show the (Israelis) as angels and the palestinians as devils ..
The American media talking alot about suicide bombers but talking verry little about the (Israelis) crimes in palestine ..
...

This thought touches on what I think are very complicated issues. Too complicated to really talk much about here except to say that I think there is something to what you say. The issue includes media biases in general, and specifically media biases concerning the Israeli/Palestinian issue. The issue also might include why people adopt certain views and in particular why people have the opinion they do on the Israeli/Palestinian issues. I have thought about this considerably and could bore people half to death on this with my musings, but I can not summarize my thinking on it in any short way.

Anyway, I would like to ask you this question before I go:

If the majority of the Palestinians come to accept the state of Israel as part of a general peace agreement, do you think you personally could come to accept the state of Israel ? I believe that some Saudi Arabian leadership has made such an offer already.

[Wasim]

Originally posted by AN@S
You don’t have to be surprised my friends...
The Israeli terrorism is one of the dirtiest kinds of terrorism the history has ever seen...
From 1948 till this moment Israeli are killing innocent people and stealing their lands..


A deliberate, and successful, effort had been made by the Zionist propaganda to cover up the truth about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Simha Flappan gave a detailed account of the realities in respect to seven myths related with the 1948 war in his book: The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities. Norman G. Finkelstein devoted the major part of his book: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict to the hypocrisy, falsification of history, double talk, and deceit in Zionist declarations, writings and actions in a systematic and organized method in order to cover their real intentions.

The Zionist forefathers advocated the creation of an "Exclusive Jewish State" in Palestine as a solution to the "Jewish problem" with anti-Semitic Europe. Palestine, however, was not empty. By dispossessing and displacing the Fellahin in an economy based mainly on agriculture was tantamount to a declaration of war against the indigenous people of Palestine. It was very clear from the beginning that Zionist plans in Palestine were confrontational and had to be resisted in any way possible by a people attached to their lands.

Instead of admitting the injustice committed against the Arabs and righting the wrong done, the Zionists continued to depend on superior militarism as well as the support of the Western Great powers especially "Great Britain" between the two world wars and the U.S. since W.W.II. Moreover, deceit, playing and twisting of words, manipulation of semantics and rhetoric continue to be used to fool the whole world that they are really working for a "lasting peace" while they continue their occupation, oppression, killing of innocent civilians, and stealing of Palestinian lands. They use "security" and "terrorism" as a pretext to perpetuate their occupation.

The continued confiscation of Palestinian lands to build new Jewish settlements in the OPT make it clear that the Zionists are continuing their original strategic plans to achieve the original Zionist goal of building an "Exclusive Jewish State" in an unspecified area in and around Palestine. This is done through a tri-partite formula: "redeeming" more lands, more Jewish colonization settlers, and less Palestinian Arabs.

New waves of mass expulsions have not been overruled as an integral part of the Zionist strategy and ideology waiting for a convenient time.

In a speech to Bar-Ilan University students on 16 November 1989, Benjamin Netanyahu stated, "The government had failed to exploit internationally favorable situations, such as the Tianamen Square massacre in June 1989 when world attention and the media were focused on China, to carry out "large-scale" expulsions. I still believe that there are opportunities to expel many people". Netanyahu later denied making the remarks but the Jerusalem Post presented a tape recording of his speech. (Nur Masalha, A Land Without a People, p. 190, citing The Jerusalem Post, 19 November, 1989; Michael Palumbo, Imperial Israel, pp. 302 - 303).

Instead of implementing the agreements signed by the different Israeli governments since the notorious Oslo accords in 1993, Ehud Barak resorted to deceitful and procrastination tactics to buy time. When all these tactics failed to dictate humiliating surrender agreements on the Arabs, he resorted to the use of Israel's military edge and sent U.S.-supplied weapons against civil targets in Lebanon and supported his Foreign Minister's threats to burn Lebanon and kill children and was surprised with Arab anger in reaction to the war crimes committed in Lebanon.

Such a path could lead to a catastrophe !!!

Nizar Sakhnini
http://www.al-bushra.org/palestine/myth.htm

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Wasim
The Zionist forefathers advocated the creation of an "Exclusive Jewish State" in Palestine as a solution to the "Jewish problem" with anti-Semitic Europe.
I'm not sure I follow the "theft" argument.

It was my understanding that the early Jewish settlers (pre-1948) purchased their land. The occupied territories came under Israeli control after the '67 war.

Israel's military presence in the occupied territories at this time is a logical response to ongoing terrorist activities against Israeli citizens. The Palestinian Authority has not been effective in stopping the attacks. Were it capable of controlling the violence, the Israeli forces would be unnecessary.

The continued confiscation of Palestinian lands to build new Jewish settlements in the OPT make it clear that the Zionists are continuing their original strategic plans to achieve the original Zionist goal of building an "Exclusive Jewish State" in an unspecified area in and around Palestine.

Although I do not doubt that some Israeli religious fanatics are in support of the notion of an exclusively Jewish state, these extremists are a minority. Over a million Arabs hold Israeli citizenship. Many Jews are not strongly religious. There is a trend toward a more consistently secular government in Israel, as there has been in the US and much of the rest of the world.

My advice: forget about supporting or fighting the Jews, the Arabs, the Christians, the Ba'hais, etc. Focus upon solving the practical problems of a civil society. What's the most efficient way to help a class of poor and poorly educated people to better themselves?

Arming the poor hasn't worked. I'm in favor of the alternative: disarming them, making the kids go to school, making sure the schools teach a few useful skills, and providing entry level jobs with some hope of advancement.

I'd like to see Arafat, with all his millions, making an investment in broadband Internet access for the children of Palestine. On-line courses might help bring the educational system over there up to speed.

With a personal fortune of at least $300 million stashed away in Swiss banks, Arafat is featured in Forbes's special annual issue on the world's top 500 billionaires. Arafat placed No. 6 on a list of world leaders in the ''kings, queens, and despots'' category. Saudi Arabia's King Fahd topped the list at $20 billion, and Saddam Hussein was fourth with $2b.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1748

[Smalso]

I have a problem with any government that is based upon or favors any religion. I'm a freedom-of-religion man. Of course, I don't have to live there, either.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Wasim


A deliberate, and successful, effort had been made by the Zionist propaganda to cover up the truth about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Simha Flappan gave a detailed account of the realities in respect to seven myths related with the 1948 war in his book: The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities. Norman G. Finkelstein devoted the major part of his book: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict to the hypocrisy, falsification of history, double talk, and deceit in Zionist declarations, writings and actions in a systematic and organized method in order to cover their real intentions.

The Zionist forefathers advocated the creation of an "Exclusive Jewish State" in Palestine as a solution to the "Jewish problem" with anti-Semitic Europe. Palestine, however, was not empty. By dispossessing and displacing the Fellahin in an economy based mainly on agriculture was tantamount to a declaration of war against the indigenous people of Palestine. It was very clear from the beginning that Zionist plans in Palestine were confrontational and had to be resisted in any way possible by a people attached to their lands.

Instead of admitting the injustice committed against the Arabs and righting the wrong done, the Zionists continued to depend on superior militarism as well as the support of the Western Great powers especially "Great Britain" between the two world wars and the U.S. since W.W.II. Moreover, deceit, playing and twisting of words, manipulation of semantics and rhetoric continue to be used to fool the whole world that they are really working for a "lasting peace" while they continue their occupation, oppression, killing of innocent civilians, and stealing of Palestinian lands. They use "security" and "terrorism" as a pretext to perpetuate their occupation.

The continued confiscation of Palestinian lands to build new Jewish settlements in the OPT make it clear that the Zionists are continuing their original strategic plans to achieve the original Zionist goal of building an "Exclusive Jewish State" in an unspecified area in and around Palestine. This is done through a tri-partite formula: "redeeming" more lands, more Jewish colonization settlers, and less Palestinian Arabs.

New waves of mass expulsions have not been overruled as an integral part of the Zionist strategy and ideology waiting for a convenient time.

In a speech to Bar-Ilan University students on 16 November 1989, Benjamin Netanyahu stated, "The government had failed to exploit internationally favorable situations, such as the Tianamen Square massacre in June 1989 when world attention and the media were focused on China, to carry out "large-scale" expulsions. I still believe that there are opportunities to expel many people". Netanyahu later denied making the remarks but the Jerusalem Post presented a tape recording of his speech. (Nur Masalha, A Land Without a People, p. 190, citing The Jerusalem Post, 19 November, 1989; Michael Palumbo, Imperial Israel, pp. 302 - 303).

Instead of implementing the agreements signed by the different Israeli governments since the notorious Oslo accords in 1993, Ehud Barak resorted to deceitful and procrastination tactics to buy time. When all these tactics failed to dictate humiliating surrender agreements on the Arabs, he resorted to the use of Israel's military edge and sent U.S.-supplied weapons against civil targets in Lebanon and supported his Foreign Minister's threats to burn Lebanon and kill children and was surprised with Arab anger in reaction to the war crimes committed in Lebanon.

Such a path could lead to a catastrophe !!!

Is your real name Nizar Sakhnini? If not, why did you plagarize his essay?

http://www.al-bushra.org/palestine/myth.htm

[Girl 6]

Wasim,

Your post is in violation of the forum rules. Please provide the link and credit within 24 hours.

thanks!
G6

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I'm not sure I follow the "theft" argument.

It was my understanding that the early Jewish settlers (pre-1948) purchased their land. The occupied territories came under Israeli control after the '67 war.



The land was bought, as part of a long term campaign to create a Zionist state. It was only ever to be sold to Jews.

The creation of Israel and the expulsion/exclusion of Palestinians was the theft part.



Israel's military presence in the occupied territories at this time is a logical response to ongoing terrorist activities against Israeli citizens. The Palestinian Authority has not been effective in stopping the attacks. Were it capable of controlling the violence, the Israeli forces would be unnecessary.



The armed forces have never left the West Bank, terrorism or not. An armed occupation counts as an act of terrorism to me.



Although I do not doubt that some Israeli religious fanatics are in support of the notion of an exclusively Jewish state, these extremists are a minority. Over a million Arabs hold Israeli citizenship. Many Jews are not strongly religious. There is a trend toward a more consistently secular government in Israel, as there has been in the US and much of the rest of the world.

My advice: forget about supporting or fighting the Jews, the Arabs, the Christians, the Ba'hais, etc. Focus upon solving the practical problems of a civil society. What's the most efficient way to help a class of poor and poorly educated people to better themselves?



As someone else's signature as quoted Winston Churchill, the funny think about the Irish is that they don't want to be English. Your ethnic and cultural identity is an important part of everyones self meaning.

I agree that in some future Utopia, we will be past the notions of Nationalism and Religion. Expecting the Palestinians to be the first Nation on earth the achieve that state is maybe expecting a bit much.



Arming the poor hasn't worked. I'm in favor of the alternative: disarming them, making the kids go to school, making sure the schools teach a few useful skills, and providing entry level jobs with some hope of advancement.

I'd like to see Arafat, with all his millions, making an investment in broadband Internet access for the children of Palestine. On-line courses might help bring the educational system over there up to speed.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1748

Arafat has been a long term problem for the Palestinians, that does not justify punishing them for him.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The land was bought, as part of a long term campaign to create a Zionist state. It was only ever to be sold to Jews.

The creation of Israel and the expulsion/exclusion of Palestinians was the theft part.

You mean apart of the world that hasn’t had their own state since well since ancient Israel ruled the area.
Why didn’t they demand their own state when the Turks controlled the area?


Arafat has been a long term problem for the Palestinians, that does not justify punishing them for him.

Where in his comment do you see that he is saying that they should blame them for Arafat?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker
[B]

You mean apart of the world that hasn’t had their own state since well since ancient Israel ruled the area.
Why didn’t they demand their own state when the Turks controlled the area?



How do you know they didn't? The Arabs fought with the British to kick out the Turks. Arabs were voicing national sentiments before WWI.

In 1920-21, the English were considering creating representational government for the inhabitants of Palestine. This was opposed, as the Zionists knew that with their numbers, about 10% of the population, they would lose.

An Arab delegation went to the British, who ruled the area at that time, to push for their own state. They rejected the British terms, as these would have included some implementation of the Balfour declaration.



DAJANI, AREF (PASHA) (1856-1930)
Born in Jerusalem in 1856; mayor of Jerusalem during World War I; in 1918 representative to the Administrative Committee of the Muslim-Christian Association (MCA); became (January 1919) president of the MCA in Jerusalem and through the senior status of the association's Jerusalem branch, the MCA's overall president; under this presidency he initiated the First Palestinian National Congress in Jerusalem (1919), demanding an independent Palestinian government in federation with Syria and rejecting Zionist political claims; elected vice president of the congress' Executive Committee; one of the leaders of the movement `Palestine for the Palestinians' which emerged in 1919; elected representative to the 3rd (December 1920, Haifa) and 4th (May 1921, Jerusalem) Congress of the Arab Executive Committee for Jerusalem; elected vice-president at the 4th Congress; member of the Arab Executive until 1922; he and Ragheb Nashashibi in the early 1920s led the opposition before splitting in 1926/27. One of only three men on whom the Othoman State betowed the title of Pasha.



http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/personalities/alpha_d.htm

So, there were quite clear moves for a Palestinian state back in the 1920's.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The creation of Israel and the expulsion/exclusion of Palestinians was the theft part.

The early part of the 20th century was eventful. A fair number of Middle Eastern states were born during those times. For that matter, a fair number of European states were born then as well. The US also changed shape, receiving Hawaii and Alaska as states.

Everywhere a state was formed, certain groups got kinda screwed. From a 21st century vantage point, it's not easy sorting out who grabbed land fairly and who grabbed land unfairly. Standards of fairness have changed over the past 100 years. It doesn't seem proper, applying the mores of today to people long dead.

I have a problem with the notion of "our land," generally. Right now I, personally, don't own any land. Whether some government called "New Hampshire" happens to preside over the bit of space I rent, or another government called "Maine," or even "Canada," means very little to me. What does have meaning: which government is most efficient? Which charges the least taxes, while providing the best services?

If a government called "Palestine" were to preside over a bit of desert rather than a government called "Israel," that may or may not improve the material wealth of many Palestinians in the occupied territories. Individual Palestinians aren't necessarily going to get plots of land handed to them, if "given" their own state.

The armed forces have never left the West Bank, terrorism or not. An armed occupation counts as an act of terrorism to me.

When there is a break down in law and order, the military step in to do police work. This happens everywhere in the world. It's never pleasant, but it's better than the alternative, which is anarchy.

As someone else's signature as quoted Winston Churchill, the funny think about the Irish is that they don't want to be English. Your ethnic and cultural identity is an important part of everyones self meaning.

It's possible to be who you are in lots of places. For example, you can be Irish in County Cork, and you can be Irish in Boston.

We need to change our thinking about governments. They ought to be regarded as something like public utility companies. Does anyone worry about the nationality, race, or religion, of the guy who runs the local phone company?

I agree that in some future Utopia, we will be past the notions of Nationalism and Religion. Expecting the Palestinians to be the first Nation on earth the achieve that state is maybe expecting a bit much.

The Palestinians won't be the first. Lots of countries have grappled with secularism and have made great progress.

Secularists have religious and cultural affiliations just the same as non-secularists. They just celebrate these things outside of government structures and functions.

Arafat has been a long term problem for the Palestinians, that does not justify punishing them for him.
Arafat made his millions through handling monies donated to the PLO cause. I think the poorer Palestinians ought to ask for a better education for their children, using some of that stash of his.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

The early part of the 20th century was eventful. A fair number of Middle Eastern states were born during those times. For that matter, a fair number of European states were born then as well. The US also changed shape, receiving Hawaii and Alaska as states.



'Receiving' is one way of putting the process of imperialism. It also received the Philipines, for example.



Everywhere a state was formed, certain groups got kinda screwed. From a 21st century vantage point, it's not easy sorting out who grabbed land fairly and who grabbed land unfairly. Standards of fairness have changed over the past 100 years. It doesn't seem proper, applying the mores of today to people long dead.



Israel was created after the end of WWII, not that long ago. Irrespective of that, the Palestinians did not necessarily go along with the idea when it happened.



I have a problem with the notion of "our land," generally. Right now I, personally, don't own any land. Whether some government called "New Hampshire" happens to preside over the bit of space I rent, or another government called "Maine," or even "Canada," means very little to me. What does have meaning: which government is most efficient? Which charges the least taxes, while providing the best services?



That is easy for you to say. You have an presumably, then, have an income that pretty well guarantees you a place to rent, with a contract that means you won't get kicked out for any illegal reasons.

You are saying there that you assume you have a choice of government. Having one forced on you is not a choice, especially one that threatens you with tanks and jet fighters.



If a government called "Palestine" were to preside over a bit of desert rather than a government called "Israel," that may or may not improve the material wealth of many Palestinians in the occupied territories. Individual Palestinians aren't necessarily going to get plots of land handed to them, if "given" their own state.



Still, the notion of ownership of property is pretty well still recognised. Land is still being stolen from Palestinians, and given to Isrealis.



When there is a break down in law and order, the military step in to do police work. This happens everywhere in the world. It's never pleasant, but it's better than the alternative, which is anarchy.



What if the imposition of 35 years of military occupation creates a breakdown of law and order?



It's possible to be who you are in lots of places. For example, you can be Irish in County Cork, and you can be Irish in Boston.



They chose it emigrate.



We need to change our thinking about governments. They ought to be regarded as something like public utility companies. Does anyone worry about the nationality, race, or religion, of the guy who runs the local phone company?

The Palestinians won't be the first. Lots of countries have grappled with secularism and have made great progress.

Secularists have religious and cultural affiliations just the same as non-secularists. They just celebrate these things outside of government structures and functions.



You are also calling for the rejection of nationalism. No country has done that.



Arafat made his millions through handling monies donated to the PLO cause. I think the poorer Palestinians ought to ask for a better education for their children, using some of that stash of his.

I think many are doing exactly that. He does not have appeared to have spent that much on himself, apart from some indulgences in the appearance of state, such as helicopters, he does not appear to have done much with the money himself. I would guess that the money was to be used for his own misguided belief that he knew best how to spend it to help Palestine. Don't forget, that this is the guy who didn't even get married due to his dedication to his cause.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Don't forget, that this is the guy who didn't even get married due to his dedication to his cause.
His wife is a high-maintenance blonde with a blue Mercedes. They've been married a number of years now.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

His wife is a high-maintenance blonde with a blue Mercedes. They've been married a number of years now.

He was in his early 60's when he finally married, if my rough maths is correct. He is about 72 now.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
'Receiving' is one way of putting the process of imperialism. It also received the Philipines, for example.

I'm afraid Alaska and Hawaii are screwed. No one's bothering to liberate either of them.

Israel was created after the end of WWII, not that long ago. Irrespective of that, the Palestinians did not necessarily go along with the idea when it happened.

Israel was created about the same time as Jordan, as Egypt, and as Syria. In each case, some people were happy with the carve-up. Some people weren't.

You are saying there that you assume you have a choice of government. Having one forced on you is not a choice, especially one that threatens you with tanks and jet fighters.

Israel isn't heavily policing the entire country. It's specifically policing the areas where an uprising is in progress. This struggle is expensive. If the uprising stopped, there would be no need for the military presence. It also would stop, after a period of cooperation lasting long enough to develop an effective local police presence.

What if the imposition of 35 years of military occupation creates a breakdown of law and order?

I just don't buy that as a primary cause.

Although many Palestinians would settle for a state along the 1967 boundaries, too many among the Palestinians, and among the Arab world generally, support a fight to eliminate the state of Israel entirely. It's that position that keeps the war going.

You are also calling for the rejection of nationalism. No country has done that.

Some degree of groupism is fine. I don't mind people who root for their favorite teams. I don't mind people feeling proud of the accomplishments of their team (or nation). I merely wish everyone would also feel a part of a bigger team, the team of human beings.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DrBenway

I'm afraid Alaska and Hawaii are screwed. No one's bothering to liberate either of them.

[/b]

Your sarcasm has been noted. I was referring to the other acts of imperialism. In case you haven't noticed, US bases dot the world. The fact that they are there, and they aren't going, and they are staffed by soldiers, must indicate something.



Israel was created about the same time as Jordan, as Egypt, and as Syria. In each case, some people were happy with the carve-up. Some people weren't.



Some people were happy about 9/11 some weren't



Israel isn't heavily policing the entire country. It's specifically policing the areas where an uprising is in progress. This struggle is expensive. If the uprising stopped, there would be no need for the military presence. It also would stop, after a period of cooperation lasting long enough to develop an effective local police presence.



The entire West Bank and Gaza have been under military control. Whenever land is seized for settlements, the military is there. The settlements all have military protection. Informers are used throughout. Israel has maintained effective control of the Palestinian areas for over 35 years.

If the uprising stopped, if they did what they were told, the creation of settlements and theft of land and water would accelerate. This has always been the case. The whole point of the occupation all along has been the eventual incorporation of the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper.



I just don't buy that as a primary cause.



You haven't had to live under a military occupation.

http://www.harpers.org/online/gaza_diary/?pg=1



The Israeli positions on the dunes virtually surround the Jewish settlements, whose whitewashed villas and manicured lawns and gardens look as if they have been lifted out of a southern California suburb. Inside the fence are warehouses where cheap Palestinian labor once stitched together clothes for export or tended rows of vegetables in huge greenhouses.

We set off to find Fuad Faqawi, who runs the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian Refugees office in Khan Younis. Azmi leads us down one narrow passage and up another. We finally find the dwelling, a low concrete house surrounded by a cement wall, and bang on the metal door.

Faqawi greets us in a short-sleeved shirt and black loafers covered with a thin film of dust. A packet of Parliament cigarettes pokes out of his shirt pocket. He leads us under a corrugated roof that shades worn chairs and stools, their legs thrust into the sand. He clutches a walkie-talkie.

Faqawi was born in Khan Younis, which was established in late 1949 to provide aid to the some 200,000 Palestinian refugees who had fled the advancing Israeli army in 1948, an army that pushed displaced villagers toward Gaza. Like most refugee camps, Khan Younis was at first a vast tent city, a temporary encampment, set up for 35,000 refugees until people could return to their homes. The tents were replaced in 1953 by boxy concrete structures. The Egyptians, who first controlled Gaza, would not allow the camp to expand, nor would the Israelis, who gained control of Gaza after the war in 1967. Although roughly the same size as it was in 1949, Khan Younis now houses almost twice the number of registered refugees—58,891—that it did five decades ago. The population growth rate for the Palestinians is one of the highest in the world—3.7 percent compared with 1.7 percent in Israel. This is, simply, one of the most heavily populated spots on the planet.

The Palestinians in Gaza, 1.1 million of them, most of whom lack the means to leave, live in a 147-square-mile area. Twenty percent of that territory belongs to the sixteen Jewish settlements, home to about 6,000 Jewish settlers. In other words, one fifth of Gaza is in the hands of .5 percent of the people who live there.

Faqawi says that there was a point two decades ago when UNRWA, which runs schools and health clinics and distributes monthly sacks of flour and food, seemed as if it might have outlived its purpose. By the late 1980s some 40 percent of the men in the camp had jobs in Israel as menial laborers, and unemployment in Gaza was relatively low. The pay was not great, but it allowed them to buy food, televisions, and refrigerators. Israel's decision to impose restrictions on tens of thousands of workers during the first uprising, and a further curtailment when Arafat supported Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War, reversed the gains. Unemployment is now 40 percent, up 11 percent from last year. The U.N. estimates that one in three Palestinians lives on less than $2.10 a day. Palestinian economist Samir Hulaileh estimates that more than two thirds of the Palestinians in Gaza will be living below the poverty line by the end of this year.

The average family in the camp receives five kilos of lentils, five kilos of rice, five kilos of sugar, two liters of cooking oil, and fifty kilos of flour a month from UNRWA. There are 837,750 registered refugees in the Gaza Strip, 54.6 percent of whom (457,426) live in camps.

"Oslo meant almost nothing in practical terms to the people in Khan Younis," Faqawi says. His small yard is filled with children, as ubiquitous in Khan Younis as grains of sand. They stand barefoot, their faces dirty, as they watch us sip demitasse cups of coffee. The smaller ones wear only ragged shirts. The children move in aimless bands throughout the camp, stealing, scavenging, cursing, smoking cigarette butts, and falling into rock-throwing wars. Wealthier Palestinians tend to keep their children indoors.

Faqawi darts into his house and brings out a worn pouch. He tenderly unfolds sepia documents. The papers, from the Government of Palestine, then a British mandate, permitted Faqawi's father to sell tobacco and food in his grocery in Jaffa. He holds out the Register of Lands document, issued under the land settlement ordinance of 1928, that proves title to his father's house.

"Our house in Jaffa exists," he says, offering me the paper. "I have all the documents. Two Iraqi Jewish families live there. I visited them in 1975. We had coffee. They told me they knew it was my house. They said they had left four houses in Iraq. They told me to go to Iraq and take one."

As a boy growing up in the camp Faqawi lived with his eight brothers in a tiny concrete shack. His family built a new structure on the foundations of the old one about fifteen years ago. The boys shared one bedroom. He had no shoes, no schoolbooks, and was plagued by disease and insects.

"U.N. officials would come to my elementary school and tell us to open up our shirts," he says. "They would douse us with DDT. . . . When I saw pictures in magazines of the way other people lived I was jealous. I was especially jealous of children who could have long hair. We could not let our hair grow because of the lice."

As we speak, a homemade mortar, launched a few blocks away, rips through the air. It, or one fired later, is sure to bring an Israeli response. Groups of Palestinian men and boys are already at the dunes throwing rocks at the Israeli jeeps patrolling the Gani Tal Jewish settlement. The soldiers will open fire and wound eight Palestinians, five under the age of eighteen. At about the same time in Halhoul, a town north of Hebron in the West Bank, Israeli soldiers will wound seven Palestinians, including two medics. The shooting will take place as Palestinians try to dismantle a barricade, built by Israeli soldiers, across the main road leading into the town.





Although many Palestinians would settle for a state along the 1967 boundaries, too many among the Palestinians, and among the Arab world generally, support a fight to eliminate the state of Israel entirely. It's that position that keeps the war going.



Well, the Israelis arent' too keen for the 1967 boundaries either, just quietly.



Some degree of groupism is fine. I don't mind people who root for their favorite teams. I don't mind people feeling proud of the accomplishments of their team (or nation). I merely wish everyone would also feel a part of a bigger team, the team of human beings.

Well, don't expect the Palestinians won't be the first to achieve that state.

If you read this board at all, for example, you will notice their are some fine patriots of from USA contibuting, for example.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Some people were happy about 9/11 some weren't

What does this have to do with DrBenway comment?
Besides it’s shows how sick you are to use the US’s greatest tragedy as a debating tool.



The entire West Bank and Gaza have been under military control. Whenever land is seized for settlements, the military is there. The settlements all have military protection. Informers are used throughout. Israel has maintained effective control of the Palestinian areas for over 35 years.

If the uprising stopped, if they did what they were told, the creation of settlements and theft of land and water would accelerate. This has always been the case. The whole point of the occupation all along has been the eventual incorporation of the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper.


Using the same recycled arguments again AUP.
How is protecting their settlements a sign of terrorism?



You haven't had to live under a military occupation.

http://www.harpers.org/online/gaza_diary/?pg=1


Shouldn’t this be posted in the Literature and the Arts forum?
Its a nice little work of propaganda.



Well, the Israelis arent' too keen for the 1967 boundaries either, just quietly.


You mean the land they required from successfully defending an Arab invasion.

[Girl 6]

Thank you, Wasim, for providing the source of your quote. :)

G6

[Mike B.]

I like AUP's definition of impearilism.

I suppose the fact that the US has military bases in Germany makes it a colony of the US.

Strange thing...The US with its military bases was not able to prevent the election of the Schroeder with his anti-Bush foreign policy.



:p


This is typical inane argument that AUP throws out whenever he is cornered by the facts. It doesn't matter if it is refuted, he will use it again no doubt when someone calls him on his nonsense.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I suppose the fact that the US has military bases in Germany makes it a colony of the US.

Strange thing...The US with its military bases was not able to prevent the election of the Schroeder with his anti-Bush foreign policy. That is a good point. And the fact that our base was in the Philipines didn't prevent them from telling us to pack it in and leave.

[hisham]

I suggest you to read this book: ISRAEL'S SACRED TERRORISM by Livia Rokach, Third Edition, A study based on Moshe Sharett's Personal Diary, and other documents. Foreword by Noam Chomsky published in Montclair State University, College of Humanities and Social Sciences website, Read (http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/rokach.html)

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by a unique person.
As someone else's signature as quoted Winston Churchill, the funny think about the Irish is that they don't want to be English. Your ethnic and cultural identity is an important part of everyones self meaning.

I agree that in some future Utopia, we will be past the notions of Nationalism and Religion. Expecting the Palestinians to be the first Nation on earth the achieve that state is maybe expecting a bit much.
.
Well done. I agree.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


What does this have to do with DrBenway comment?
Besides it’s shows how sick you are to use the US’s greatest tragedy as a debating tool.



She was using the following logic.

Bad things happen to some people.
Good things happen to others.
Accept it.

I was just pointing out one of the flaws of this logic.



Using the same recycled arguments again AUP.
How is protecting their settlements a sign of terrorism?



Did you read that quote I attached. I could just as easily ask, how is protecting themselves from violent settlers terrorism.

or this

http://www.partnersforpeace.org/pressreleases/db200302020/



IDF Admits Use of Flechettes in Gaza Incident
February 2, 2003 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A number of Palestinian children playing soccer were
apparently hurt by IDF-fired flechettes Friday. What
the IDF took to be rocket launchers may have actually
been moveable soccer goals. This is a ghastly weapon
and its use in Gaza seems invariably to end in
civilian deaths or injuries.

Helpful links about Israel's use of flechettes in
recent months are available at our website:

Go to flechette links at Partners for Peace

The most recent article on flechettes is at Ha'aretz

Partners for Peace condemns the IDF's use of this
grisly weapon and calls on the Bush administration and
the State Department to demand that this weapon not be
used in the occupied territories. Partners for Peace
also notes that Israel's flechettes appear to be a
modified version of an American export. Israel's
ongoing use of American weaponry (including F-16s and
Apaches) against Palestinian civilians should be
considered a violation of the Arms Export Control Act.

Partners for Peace is increasingly alarmed by the
State Department's failure to alert Congress and the
White House that Israel's use of American weaponry
against Palestinian civilians may constitute a
violation of the Arms Export Control Act.





Shouldn’t this be posted in the Literature and the Arts forum?
Its a nice little work of propaganda.



It is a report of life inside a refugee camp and under occupation. What part of it exactly do you disagree with? You can find many similar reports on the web.



You mean the land they required from successfully defending an Arab invasion.

They attacked first. Both sides were spoiling for a fight. The Palestinian people now have to pay for this with a life of deprivation.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mike B.
I like AUP's definition of impearilism.

I suppose the fact that the US has military bases in Germany makes it a colony of the US.

Strange thing...The US with its military bases was not able to prevent the election of the Schroeder with his anti-Bush foreign policy.



:p


This is typical inane argument that AUP throws out whenever he is cornered by the facts. It doesn't matter if it is refuted, he will use it again no doubt when someone calls him on his nonsense.

So who are the troops defending Germany from? In Italy, the same. If they are there for no purpose, they should be withdrawn. It is only polite, isn't it? How many foreign bases are on US soil. Do you see Italian troops walking down Hollywood Boulevard in their spare time from their base there?

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


She was using the following logic.

Bad things happen to some people.
Good things happen to others.
Accept it.

I was just pointing out one of the flaws of this logic.


What she siad was-
Israel was created about the same time as Jordan, as Egypt, and as Syria. In each case, some people were happy with the carve-up. Some people weren't.
Meaning you can’t please everyone.


Did you read that quote I attached. I could just as easily ask, how is protecting themselves from violent settlers terrorism.

or this

http://www.partnersforpeace.org/pressreleases/db200302020/


You have already admitted the POL was made for the sole purpose of destroying Israel and still keep posting as much anti-Israel propaganda as you can find.



They attacked first. Both sides were spoiling for a fight. The Palestinian people now have to pay for this with a life of deprivation.

You have already been corrected on this many times are ready the Arabs where preparing an attack had Israel not attacked first Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


What she siad was-
Israel was created about the same time as Jordan, as Egypt, and as Syria. In each case, some people were happy with the carve-up. Some people weren't.
Meaning you can’t please everyone.

[/b]

I don't know that what has happened to the people of Palestine is a matter of 'pleasing' them.




You have already admitted the POL was made for the sole purpose of destroying Israel and still keep posting as much anti-Israel propaganda as you can find.



And Israel was created to remove the existence of Palestine.




You have already been corrected on this many times are ready the Arabs where preparing an attack had Israel not attacked first Israel would have been at a potentially catastrophic disadvantage.

I said both sides were spoiling for a fight, and that is very clear. Israel wanted Jerusalem, and it got it. There was plenty of provocation from Israel for the war.



Dayan admits Israel attacked Syria in land grab
By Prof. Tanya Reinhart, translated from Yediot Aharonot, 6 May 1997
In June, it would be 30 years to the war of 1967 - the war that brought about the occupation. Governments have changed from Labor to Likud and back several times since then, and what has changed?

Yediot Aharonot of April 27 has published an 1976 interview with Moshe Dayan (which was not previously published). Dayan, who was the defense minister in 1967, explains there what led, then, to the decision to attack Syria. In the collective consciousness of the period, Syria was conceived as a serious threat to the security of Israel, and a constant initiator of aggression towards the residents of northern Israel. But according to Dayan, this is 'bull-****' - Syria was not a threat to Israel before 67. Just drop it - he says as an answer to a question about the northern residences - I know how at least 80% of all the incidents with Syria started. We were sending a tractor to the demilitarized zone and we knew that the Syrians will shoot. If they did not shoot, we would instruct the tractor to go deeper, till the Syrians finally got upset and start shooting. Then we employed artillery, and later also the air-force... I did that... and Itzhak Rabin did that, when he was there (as commander of the Northern front, in the early sixties).

And what has led Israel to provoke Syria? According to Dayan, this was the greediness for the land - the idea that it is possible to grab a piece of land and keep it, until the enemy will get tired and give it to us. The Syrian land was, as he says, particularly tempting, since, unlike Gaza and the West bank it was not heavily populated.



http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/022.html

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


So who are the troops defending Germany from? In Italy, the same. If they are there for no purpose, they should be withdrawn. It is only polite, isn't it? How many foreign bases are on US soil. Do you see Italian troops walking down Hollywood Boulevard in their spare time from their base there?

Your usual failure to address the points raised is noted. Both Randfan and I have shown the US military overseas does not seem to have much power over the coutries in question.

Just like the Phillipines as when France asked all US and NATO troops to leave they did without having tanks roll into Paris and overthrowing the govermnet, they just left. (This is an odd thing to do if one is an "impearlist" power.)

The bases are there from the cold war when there was significant threat. They are still used for staging grounds (i.e. Kosovo). However, if the Germans wanted them out, they could simply pass a resolution asking them to leave. My guess is that the Germans want them there since it takes some slack off of them as far as $ they would have to spend to maintain fast aircraft for supplies going to peacekeeping and other forces around the world.

BTW, I don't know if you have noticed but the amount of US troops in Europe has dropped significantly since the Cold War. Again odd for an "impearlist" power.

Are you going to retract your simplistic charge or as I suspect pull it again and again when cornered, even though it is bullsh-t?

[AN@S]

Hi all....
renata want evidences about how zionists controlling the american media??
See this link and sorry for late ....

http://home.earthlink.net/~hhlindner/Writings/mediagov.htm

:cool:

[Wasim]

Originally posted by AN@S
Hi all....
renata want evidences about how zionists controlling the american media??
See this link and sorry for late ....

http://home.earthlink.net/~hhlindner/Writings/mediagov.htm

:cool:


My point is not to promote hatred for the Jewish and Christian Zionists who control our banks, our government, and our media. My point is to show the American people that their government and their media cannot be morally objective in this conflict. Americans must expect to receive pro-Israeli propaganda. The Jews and Christians who control most of our media must be expected to be sympathetic to Israel and the USA’s involvement in war against Israel’s enemies until proven otherwise.

Thanks AN@S ..
I have no comment :rolleyes:

[davefoc]

It seems this thread is going down the path of discussing the degree and effect of Jewish control of American media and how it effects the American governments actions concerning the Israeli/Palestinian position.

I would like to see a thread started on this topic. I would start one but I would prefer to see it started by someone who knows something about the issue.

I have read through the link provided by AN@S and it seems to be well written and credible and deserving of a response.

Of course, one response might be that even if the American media were 100% dominated by Jews, this in itself has nothing to do with the rigtheousness or lack thereof of the American position. My response to that would be that the views of all of us including skeptics are shaped by biases that we don't completely understand and that if the American media is dominated to the degree that this link suggests the American positions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would be strongly influenced by it.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I don't know that what has happened to the people of Palestine is a matter of 'pleasing' them.

Why became the country of Jordan the people of Palestine came along to get the land back to the Arab's because they couldn't do it through war.

And Israel was created to remove the existence of Palestine.

Oh really, that was there sole purpose they didn't want their own state it was just to remove one that has never had their own country?

I said both sides were spoiling for a fight, and that is very clear. Israel wanted Jerusalem, and it got it. There was plenty of provocation from Israel for the war.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/022.html

Syria? They captured Jerusalem from Jordan.

[TL-S P]

OBSERVE: only 1 in 36 US citizerns is a Jew.
(yet another myth is that Jews are some kind of numerically small or insignificant group)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following first half is a list of media magnates, the second half is a list of Wall Street magnates. Naturally this list is purely jewish "Kosher".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is a list of Jewish CEO's in the USA. It is proof that Jews really does control the US media.

NAME COMPANY



RICHARD BERNSTEIN jew Western Publishing. childrens books


STUART BLOOMBERG jew ABC Head of Entertainment Division.


PETER CHERNIN jew 20th Century Fox. dec. 1992 new CEO


MARTIN S. DAVIS jew Paramount Comm. CEO


BARRY DILLER jew 20th Century Fox. CEO


MICHAEL D. EISNER jew WALT DISNEY Co.


STEVEN FRIEDMAN jew NBC Executive Producer Nightly News. Hired may 1990 under G.E. (gentile) owned NBC.


LEONARD HARRY GOLDENSON jew ABC (Capital Cities ABC TV) (upto 1985. Thomas Murphy now CEO but with same Jewish management)


KATHERINE MEYER GRAHAM jew Newsweek, Washington Post. Daughter of Eugene Meyer.


PETER GUBER jew Columbia Pictures. 1989. Bought by SONY, Guber replaced Kaufman as CEO.


PETER KALIKOW jew New York Post. Real estate devloper.


PETER R. KANN jew Dow Jones, Wall St Journal, Barrons


VICTOR A. KAUFMAN jew Columbia Pictures. CEO


CHARLES KOPPELMAN jew EMI Records CEO


GARY HERSH jew Capitol Records CEO


GERALD LEVIN jew TIME/WARNER Comm. CO-CEO
.

ROBERT MAXWELL aka Ludvik Hoch jew. Daily News.


RONNESSEN jew MBS. Mutual Broadcasting SYS.


SAMUEL NEWHOUSE russian jew Random House, Advanced Publications, Newhouse Broadcasting, (CTV), New Yorker Vogue, Mademoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, HQ, Bride's, Gentleman's Quarterly, Self, House & Garden. Newspapers & mags.


MICHAEL OVITZ jew Media magnate.


WILLIAM S. PALEY russian jew CBS CEO & founder of CBS. 1927. 1983 Partially retired.


SUMNER M. REDSTONE jew Viacom MTV Nickelodeon QVC. CEO.


STEVEN J. ROSS jew TIME/WARNER Comm. CEO.


JEFF SAGANSKY russian jew CBS Head Entertainment Division.


DAVID SARNOFF russian jew RCA NBC head entertainment div.


ROBERT SARNOFF russian jew RCA NBC CEO (son of D. Sarnoff). RCA and NBC were bought by G.E. in 1986 but Jewish management still exists.


MICHAEL P. SCHULHOF jew SONY. Vice chairman.


RICHARD SNYDER jew Simon & Schuster.


LEONARD STERN jew VILLAGE VOICE. HARTZ pets supply.


ROBERT STRAUSS jew Large investor, President Bush's Moscow ambassador.


ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER jew New York Times, family circle. McCall's, M. Frankel, J. Lelyveld, J. Rosenthal - all Jews.


BRANDON TARTIKOFF russian jew Paramount pictures. Chairman.


LAWRENCE A. TISCH russian jew CBS CEO TV, theaters, hotels, insurance. (Before him was 1928 William S. Paley son of russian jews. Retired 1983.)


LEW WASSERMAN jew MCA Inc. CEO. 1991. Bought by SONY. but Wasserman still is CEO.


MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN jew US News and World Report, DAILY NEWS. New ceo.



The following is a list of Jews or Jewish families who control the financial markets.
Despite all their money these people - on the whole where essentially 'mafioso' types and thugs (which can be divined from their distinct manner of speaking which sounds like a New York City Jewish gangster). Note that the Jewish book "The Jewish Almanac", Bantam Books, 1980, p.58, under the title "The Jewish Underworld: American Jewish Gangsters", wrote:

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that their influence on organized crime in the United States during the 1920´s and 1930´s rivaled, if not exceeded, that of their Italian counterparts."
The following list was primarily compiled from the book "The New Crowd: The changing of the Jewish Guard on Wall Street" by the Jews Ehrlich and Rehfeld.
The older Jewish generation of "german" Jews called 'Our Crowd' (some of these 'german' Jews were already firmly established before the American Civil War! But many became prominent just after the Civil War - many of these Jews profitted heavily from the slave trade in the Americas).



Alfred Ochs (NY Times 1848 etc.)


Seligman - Hellman (Wells Fargo & Lehman)


Goldman


Sachs


Warburg


Schiff


Loeb


Ochs (of Tennessee)


Alfred Huger Moses (southerner jew)


Adolph Lewisohn


John Loeb


Stone


Hamill


Hentz


Sidney James Weinberg


Frank Atschul


Arthur Levitt Sr.


I.W. Harper (bourbon)


Jesselman


Ullman


Robert


Berhard


Phillips


Englehard


Margarate Ryan (daughter of Otto Kahn)


Lee Radziwill





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'newer' Jewish generation of "Eastern European" Jews called 'The New Crowd'. They migrated to the US in 2 major exoduses 1) in the early 1900's 2) just after WWII 3) after the collapse of the Soviet Bloc (these particular Eastern Jews are not mentioned in the book and are not officially 'new crowd' Jews although they come from the same origins).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Charles Bluhdorn (Gulf & Western)


Sanford I. Weill (American Express, Travellers Group, Shearson-Lehman)


Peter Cohen


Armand Hammer (baking soda tycoon)


Felix Rohaytn (pimp, panderer and political/economic deal maker)


Alan Greenburg


Ira Harris (Wall Street thug)


Andre Meyer ('french' jew)


Bruce Wasserstein


Jerome Kohlberg


Joseph Flom


Martin Lipton


T. Boone Pickens


Carl Icahn


Henry Kravis


Saul Steinberg


Lewis Glucksman


Ivan Boesky


Martin Siegal


Michael Milken


Belzbergs ('canadian' jews)


James Wolfensohn ('australian' jews)


Schroder (London merchant bankers)


Carl Mueller


Jon Rotensreich


Lewis Ranieri


Edmond Safra (International banker and 'lebanese' jew)


Pritzker


Crown


Martin Siegel


Jerome Kohlberg


Henry Kravis


George Roberts


Fred Joseph


Michael Milken


I.W. 'Tubby' Burnham


Robert Maxwell (aka Ludwig Hoch 'czech' jew - later masqueraded as 'english' jew)


Marty Lipton ('poison pill')


Donald Drapkin


Lord Weidenfeld (an 'english nobleman' jew)


Alfred Kingsley


Ronald Perelman


Sir James Goldsmith (another 'english nobleman' jew)


Erwin Jacobs


Bernard Baruch (a lone wolf Wall Street thug)


Samuel Bronfman (Seagrams empire)


David Sarnoff (RCA records)


Marshall Cogan


Arthur Carter


I.W. Burnham


Roger Berlind


Muriel Siebert (the first established jew female Wall Street thug)


Meshulam Riklis (israeli jew)


Martin Davis


Merv Adelson (Lorimar)


Eli Broad


Oscar Wyatt Sr.


Sol Linowitz


Rabbi David Gordis (yes rabbis are thugs with kosher seals of approval)


Robert Freeman


Tim Tabor


Martin Siegal


Richard Wigton


Victor & Steve Posner (russian jews)


Jacques Bemberg (another doppleganging jew)


Baron Harry Openheimer (South African diamonds)


Alvin Einbender


Jerome Kohlberg (LBO leveraged buy outs - a Jewish corp raider thug)


Lewis Rudin


Irving Shapiro (former DuPont & 'Industrial Policy Group' thug)


Roone Arledge


Clay Felker


Shulman



Max Frankel (NY Times Editor) Joyce Purnick & Paul Marks - (jewish Eugenic Schemers)

http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/toread/whorules.htm

[max]

TL-SP
Smart race eh? Didn't they do well?