Israel - The Land Theft Process at Work

[a_unique_person]

Electrix once asked how the Israeli theft of land process was supposed to work.

Here is one example

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/05/1062549021855.html



Palestinians are being divided from their families, farms and communities by Ariel Sharon's security barrier. Ed O'Loughlin reports from Jerusalem.

Close one eye and there's something darkly comical about the way fate is closing in on Rageh Ayyad.

In 1967, Israel seized his ancestral home of East Jerusalem, leaving him - like hundreds of thousands of Palestinians - a stateless alien in his own land. When the Israeli Government redrew the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, Mr Ayyad's house was one of only four in the Arab village of Abu Dis to remain within the new city borders. This meant that, under Israeli law, he was living there illegally. For many years it didn't matter much - he just had to talk his way past policemen from time to time.

But the concrete wall Israel is now rushing to build around Arab East Jerusalem has changed all that. Within weeks, not only will Mr Ayyad be unable to move legally around Jerusalem, Israel's eight-metre-high wall - right behind his house - will also prevent him from strolling the few metres to Abu Dis.

"Technically, if I go out in this yard I could be arrested," he says in a tired voice, sitting in his garden.

[Clancie]

Terrible. And we're letting Sharon do it..

The "Bush Peace Plan" is a one-sided farce--all PR and nothing more....

[Skeptic]

Palestinians are being divided from their families, farms and communities by Ariel Sharon's security barrier. Ed O'Loughlin reports from Jerusalem.

Boo hoo. Maybe they should have thought of that BEFORE starting a war of annihiliation on israel with their suicide bombers three years ago.

The Palestinian whining that the fence to stop their suicide bombing mission is "stealing their land" is, in reality, merely an attempt to use PR to stop the fence before it (might?) neutralize their trump card, i.e., their ability to send young men to blow themselves up in israeli buses. The idea is to appeal to the "inhumanity" of the fence--but not, of course, to the inhumanity of the suicide bombers attacks which prompted it.

Imagine that: you send a few hundred suicide bombers into israel; you kill almost 1000 and maim thousands more; and the next thing you know... israel actually dares to BUILD A FENCE to defend themselves against these human bombs which you send out!

What disgusting racism!

And what's worse, the fence builders, for some UNIMAGINABLE reason, don't seem to care too much if it "seperates Palestinians from their families", and care more about if it seperates suicide bombers from their intended targets.

How AWFUL! What INHUMANITY!

This whining is the equivalent of a neighbor who throws firebombs at your house daily through his window for three years, and then complains that the fence which you finally build to try and prevent this is blocking his sunlight.

[Malachi151]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/israel.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/images/israel.gif

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Skeptic

This whining is the equivalent of a neighbor who throws firebombs at your house daily through his window for three years, and then complains that the fence which you finally build to try and prevent this is blocking his sunlight.

It's amazing how few people understand this. I have no interest in even considering the Palestinian plight as long as they are blowing up buses full of kids.

Maybe the neighbor was throwing the firebombs because he felt he was entitled to a few square feet of my back yard. Even if he it turns out he was, legally, his reponse is unacceptable. In the eyes of the law he is still a criminal. If he threatened my life I could still defend myself legally with lethal force.

The Palestinians lose twice here, as they don't even have a valid legal claim to the land.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


It's amazing how few people understand this. I have no interest in even considering the Palestinian plight as long as they are blowing up buses full of kids.

Maybe the neighbor was throwing the firebombs because he felt he was entitled to a few square feet of my back yard. Even if he it turns out he was, legally, his reponse is unacceptable. In the eyes of the law he is still a criminal. If he threatened my life I could still defend myself legally with lethal force.

The Palestinians lose twice here, as they don't even have a valid legal claim to the land.

Actually, if you would study just a "little" bit of history, and perhaps look at the map above that I provided to make it "easy" to understadn the issues then you could see that yes in fact they do have legitimate complaints.

Israel covers quite a bit of teritory today that was not origionally alloted to it, and that is the complaint. I agree that that should be the only legitmate complaint. I think it was a horrible idea to create Israel in the first place, but they should be able to stay, but inside the origional boundaries, which they are now well outside of.

The issue is not at all like feeling entitled to a few squre feet in your backyard, the issue is as if someone came to your neighborhood today with bulldozers, plowed your house down, killed people in your nieghborhood and then sent yo uon your way with nothing left in your life, all of your posession destroyed.

Would you feel justified in defending your home from destruction and aquisition some someone who simply took it through military power, and how far would you go to get it back?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Actually, if you would study just a "little" bit of history, and perhaps look at the map above that I provided to make it "easy" to understadn the issues then you could see that yes in fact they do have legitimate complaints.


If you studied a little bit of current events, you would understand that the Palestians don't want a little bit of land. They want all of it, to push the Jews into the sea. Its in their charter!


I think it was a horrible idea to create Israel in the first place, but they should be able to stay, but inside the origional boundaries, which they are now well outside of.


Oh yeah, those greedy Jews, always causing trouble. First they complain about how their race was almost exterminated then dare to found a country. One country in the whole world. How can they be so selfish? If only we let the Nazi's finish what they started.

Thats sarcasm btw.


The issue is not at all like feeling entitled to a few squre feet in your backyard, the issue is as if someone came to your neighborhood today with bulldozers, plowed your house down, killed people in your nieghborhood and then sent yo uon your way with nothing left in your life, all of your posession destroyed.

If they Palestinians stop the terror attacks, the Israeli bulldozers stop. Its as simple as that. The only mistake Israel is making is one of scale. They should raize a hundred homes and kill a thousand Palestinians for each Israeli killed in a terror attack. The problem will resolve itself, one way or the other.

Would you feel justified in defending your home from destruction and aquisition some someone who simply took it through military power, and how far would you go to get it back?

If I was a Palestinian I would move. Leave the country. I wouldn't endorse with my presence a society that condones blowing up buses of children. Of course thats difficult, as the Arabs hate them just as much as the Israelis do; they don't want them as neighbors either.

[espritch]

If I was a Palestinian I would move. Leave the country. I wouldn't endorse with my presence a society that condones blowing up buses of children.

Well, that would certainly make the Israelis happy. The problem it that Palestinians consider Palestine to be their home as they have lived there for many generations. The Zionists didn’t ask the Palestinians how they felt about them taking half there country. They simply declared their new Jewish state and engaged in a deliberate campaign of terrorism against the Palestinians to force them out.

http://www.netanyahu.org/ismorleg.html

The slaughter of 250 Palestinians by Zionist death squads at Deir Yassin mentioned in the article was only the most egregious of the various terrorist actions taken at the time of the founding of Israel for the purpose of driving the Palestinians out the country. Israeli policy regarding the Palestinians hasn’t really changed much since then. The West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements that Israel has subsidized and protected at considerable cost, exist primarily as a way for Israel to establish it’s claims to these regions and thus force the Palestinians out of those territories they have not already been forced out of.

What is currently happening in Israel/Palestine is just the latest flare up in a slow burn war that has been going on since the bloody founding of Israel in 1948. The Israelis conduct the war with tanks and helicopter gun ships. The Palestinians use suicide bombers, mainly because they don’t have tanks and helicopters.

I don’t approve of Palestinian terrorists exploding bombs on buses full of children. But neither do I approve Israeli Helicopter Gunship assassinations on busy public streets.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0306/S00410.htm
Akram Abu Fahran, 33, was killed when the missiles slammed into his taxi as he made his way back from Gaza City, security and medical sources said.
Nevine Abu Rejilah, a 17-year-old student who was in the taxi with three other students, was also killed in the attack, eyewitnesses said.
One of her fellow passengers was in critical injured, and the other two were moderately to seriously hurt, medical sources said.
A similar attack recently resulted in the death of an 11 year old Palestinian girl who way playing near vehicle that was targeted. It isn’t just Israeli children who are being killed. The violence of the last three years has resulted in the deaths of over 1000 Israelis. It has also resulted in the deaths of over 3000 Palestinians. I have no problem condemning attacks on bus loads of Israeli children. But the claim that Israel is an innocent victim of Palestinian malice demonstrates either ignorance of the history (both old and recent) of the conflict and of Israeli policy or else blatant hypocrisy.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by espritch


They simply declared their new Jewish state and engaged in a deliberate campaign of terrorism against the Palestinians to force them out.



Errrr the state was declared after UN's partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs. Palestinians have their rights, we do not need to exaggerate things.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by espritch

I don’t approve of Palestinian terrorists exploding bombs on buses full of children. But neither do I approve Israeli Helicopter Gunship assassinations on busy public streets.


Bullcrap. You condone it and encourage it. You support the Palenstians Liberation Movement you support their methods. You obviously think its worth killing children over a strip of land. I don't.

If the Hamas even gave a crap about their own people they wouldn't hide out among them, like the cowards they are. The reason there is collateral damage is because Hamas makes sure to keeps its staff surrounded by as many civillians as possible at all times. Israel has no choice.

If you can't see the difference between deliberately targeting civillians and collateral damage, or defensive strikes against terrorists vs. offensive strikes against civillian targets, only because the victims are Jews, you are nothing but a self righteous anti-semite.

If you are going to respond, respond to this. If Hamas had access to a bomb that would kill all the Jews in Israel, would they use it?

Israel can wipe the Palestinian infestation off the face of the earth, anytime they wish. The fact that they haven't is a testament to their courage, restraint, resolve and humanity.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Israel can wipe the Palestinian infestation off the face of the earth, anytime they wish. The fact that they haven't is a testament to their courage, restraint, resolve and humanity.

Thats a good quote.

[espritch]

Bullcrap. You condone it and encourage it. You support the Palenstians Liberation Movement you support their methods. You obviously think its worth killing children over a strip of land. I don't.

I think the proper term for this logical fallacy is “The fallacy of the Divided Middle”, i.e. “you are either for us or you are against us”. One can quite reasonably reject both Israeli policy and Palestinian terrorism. It isn’t an either/or proposition.

If you can't see the difference between deliberately targeting civillians and collateral damage, or defensive strikes against terrorists vs. offensive strikes against civillian targets, only because the victims are Jews, you are nothing but a self righteous anti-semite.

I can indeed see a difference between collateral damage and deliberate murder. However, I doubt the dead children, Jewish or Palestinian, would appreciate the distinction. I am also able to distinguish between being opposed to Israeli policies and being anti-semitic, a distinction that seems to entirely elude you.

If you are going to respond, respond to this. If Hamas had access to a bomb that would kill all the Jews in Israel, would they use it?

I suspect that they would. Does Hamas represent the attitudes of every Palestinian? Do the views of Israeli hardliners represent the views of all Israelis? If the thugs who committed the atrocities at Deir Yassin had had a weapon capable of killing every Palestinian, would they have used it? Would one side be more justified than the other? What’s your point?

Israel can wipe the Palestinian infestation off the face of the earth, anytime they wish. The fact that they haven't is a testament to their courage, restraint, resolve and humanity.

Israel depends, to a large extent, on American patronage for it’s very survival. If Israel wiped the Palestinians off the face of the earth, they would loose that patronage and be left all alone to fend for themselves in a sea of enemies. This would be a suicidal act.

The fact that you refer to the Palestinians as an “infestation” says more than I ever could about who the racist is here.

[Malachi151]

Lumping all Palastinians in with Hamas is as logical as lumping all whites in with the KKK.

The issues really trancend Israel and Palestine. The fact of the matter si that traditionally all human problems have been resolved with war and the slaughter of the physically weaker side.

In this case, due to the call of humanity and with a world watching, a conflict is being prevented from taking its natural course of action and this is creating the on going tension.

This is learning about humanity itself and how we as a spoecies exist.

Our history has never been one of cooperation, only death and destruction, survival of the "fittest", which really means survival of the most aggressive and brutal. How would America have fared if America was started in a world similar to our modern one? We would never have been able to totally obliterate the Indians and expand, it would not have been permissable to the global community, but at the time people were more savage, they didn't care, and there was no global community, so we were able to commit genocide.

Only one thing can solve this problem, and that is education, cooperation, acceptance, and peaceful cohabitation, and religion is the biggest obsitcal to all of that. Religion is the biggest problem in the world.

The Israelis just need to give back all the land that they took beyond the origional boundaries and the Palastinians need to be forced to accept that treaty and they need to just learn to get along and the UN needs to start cracking down on either side that does any fighting.

And, once those boundaries are set in stone, and it is made known that they will not change then the healing process will take place, and hopefully education and cooperation can start and eventually hopefully the boundaries of religion and race will disappear, of course in that region it will take hundreds of years for that to happen.

And, lets be serious if it was a totally hands off free for all Israel would be destroyed because if international politics were not a factor then all of the Arab states would band together against Israel.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


It's amazing how few people understand this. I have no interest in even considering the Palestinian plight as long as they are blowing up buses full of kids.

Maybe the neighbor was throwing the firebombs because he felt he was entitled to a few square feet of my back yard. Even if he it turns out he was, legally, his reponse is unacceptable. In the eyes of the law he is still a criminal. If he threatened my life I could still defend myself legally with lethal force.

The Palestinians lose twice here, as they don't even have a valid legal claim to the land.

I agree totally, that's why I also thought that those killed in 9/11 got what they deserved.

[Skeptic]

I also thought that those killed in 9/11 got what they deserved.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by espritch

I think the proper term for this logical fallacy is “The fallacy of the Divided Middle”, i.e. “you are either for us or you are against us”. One can quite reasonably reject both Israeli policy and Palestinian terrorism. It isn’t an either/or proposition.


No, the proper term for this is "misapplication of a logical fallacy". It's unacceptable to blow up children because you feel you're entitled to a little piece of ratty desert.


I am also able to distinguish between being opposed to Israeli policies and being anti-semitic, a distinction that seems to entirely elude you.


Peace is dependant on the Palestinians. No more terror attacks no more rocket attacks.

Why can't you understand this? Israel is not the agressors and Hamas is not going to stop even if Israel gives up all the disputed land.


What’s your point?


My point is the Palestians are the bad guys. They want all Jews dead more then they want peace. I'm getting a little tired of the "kill the jews" rhetoric.


Israel depends, to a large extent, on American patronage for it’s very survival. If Israel wiped the Palestinians off the face of the earth, they would loose that patronage and be left all alone to fend for themselves in a sea of enemies. This would be a suicidal act.


Israel has enough nuclear bombs to blow their Arab enemies back to Allah a dozen times over. Yeah they would probably get overun in the process, but hey think of the fireworks!


The fact that you refer to the Palestinians as an “infestation” says more than I ever could about who the racist is here.

The Palestinians are one of the most racist collectives in the world! They teach anti-semitism in their schools! Their charter is to push the Jews into the ocean!

Why does hating racists make me a racist?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I agree totally, that's why I also thought that those killed in 9/11 got what they deserved.

Can someone explain to me what the hell he's talking about?

I thought Australia had laws against inbreeding?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Lumping all Palastinians in with Hamas is as logical as lumping all whites in with the KKK.


The entire culture, school, media, everything is rife with anti-semitism. Its like the KKK have their own thirdworld fiefdom.


The Israelis just need to give back all the land that they took beyond the origional boundaries and the Palastinians need to be forced to accept that treaty and they need to just learn to get along and the UN needs to start cracking down on either side that does any fighting.


I actually think Israel should do this as well, so folks like yourself will be called to task when the Palestinians start attacking Israel twice as much. They aren't going to stop, ever.

The only difference is the suicide bombers won't have to walk as far.


And, lets be serious if it was a totally hands off free for all Israel would be destroyed because if international politics were not a factor then all of the Arab states would band together against Israel.

More proof the Arabs are the bad guys.

[ssibal]

Funny how everyone always criticizees Israel for "stealing land" yet nobody criticizes Jordan or the other neighbors that did the exact same thing. Why is that? And why is it that Palestinians are not blowing themselves up in Jordan or their other neighbors to get back that land? Could it be that the whole issue of "stealing land" is not the primary issue?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by ssibal
Could it be that the whole issue of "stealing land" is not the primary issue?

Yeah, its that damn "their are Jews still breathing in the Holy Land" issue. And those pesky Jews, they just don't give up, no matter how many get killed.

The Third Reich took care of about six million of them, the Palestinians have got alot of catching up to do!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ssibal
Funny how everyone always criticizees Israel for "stealing land" yet nobody criticizes Jordan or the other neighbors that did the exact same thing. Why is that? And why is it that Palestinians are not blowing themselves up in Jordan or their other neighbors to get back that land? Could it be that the whole issue of "stealing land" is not the primary issue?

Oh yes we have pointed this n-times to Unique and to the other gentelmen that are against Israel but we haven't received any answers yet...

[Mr Manifesto]

I honestly can't find a reference to this anywhere. Can anyone tell me where I can find info on this?

[Earthborn]

I agree totally, that's why I also thought that those killed in 9/11 got what they deserved.Can someone explain to me what the hell he's talking about?Sure.

Apperently he feels that you are arguing that the Palestinians get what they deserve for the acts that very few of them are doing. So he makes the comparison with 9/11 in which many Americans got hurt for something only a few of them did (that is: politically supporting the oppressive Saudi regime).

In short, he was sarcastic.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I also thought that those killed in 9/11 got what they deserved.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

How come I'm not surprised that you're not surprised.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Oh yes we have pointed this n-times to Unique and to the other gentelmen that are against Israel but we haven't received any answers yet...

???

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Errrr the state was declared after UN's partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs. Palestinians have their rights, we do not need to exaggerate things.

We are getting way off the point of the whole thread, but they had every right to reject the UN proposal. And, as you have asked out before, was it just a ruse to kick the remaining Jews out of Europe?

[Ed]

Palistinian Charter 1968 (Excerpts)

Article 9. Armed struggle is the only way of liberating Palestine, and is thus strategic, not tactical. The Palestinian Arab people hereby affirm their unwavering determination to carry on the armed struggle and to press towards popular revolution for the liberation of and return to their homeland. They also affirm their right to a normal life in their homeland, to the exercise of their right of self-determination therein and to sovereignty over it.

Article 10. Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular war of liberation. This requires that commando action must be escalated, expanded and protected and that all the resources of the Palestinian masses and all scientific potentials available to them be should be mobilized and organized to play their part in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires solidarity in national struggle among the different groups within the Palestinian people and between that people and the Arab masses, to ensure the continuity of the escalation and victory of the revolution.

Article 15. The liberation of Palestine is a national obligation for the Arabs. It is their duty to repel the Zionist and imperialist invasion of the greater Arab homeland and to liquidate the Zionist presence in Palestine. (snip)

Article 19. The Partition of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel, are fundamentally invalid, however long they last, for they contravene the will of the people of Palestine and their natural right to their homeland and contradict the principles of the United Nations Charter, foremost among which is the right of self-determination.

Article 20. The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate Instrument, and all their consequences, are hereby declared null and void. The claim of historical or spiritual links between the Jews and Palestine is neither in conformity with historical fact nor does it satisfy the requirements for statehood. Judaism is a revealed religion; it is not a separate nationality, nor are the Jews a single people with a separate identity; they are citizens of their respective countries.

Article 21. The Palestinian Arab people, expressing themselves through the Palestinian armed revolution, reject all alternatives to the total liberation of Palestine. They also reject all proposals for the liquidation or internationalization of the Palestine problem.

So, they disavow discussion and do not see a legal basis for the very existance of the state of Isreal. I thought that the Palistinians own words might be useful in this discussion.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed
Palistinian Charter 1968 (Excerpts)

Article 9. Armed struggle is the only way of liberating Palestine, and is thus strategic, not tactical. The Palestinian Arab people hereby affirm their unwavering determination to carry on the armed struggle and to press towards popular revolution for the liberation of and return to their homeland. They also affirm their right to a normal life in their homeland, to the exercise of their right of self-determination therein and to sovereignty over it.

Article 10. Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular war of liberation. This requires that commando action must be escalated, expanded and protected and that all the resources of the Palestinian masses and all scientific potentials available to them be should be mobilized and organized to play their part in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires solidarity in national struggle among the different groups within the Palestinian people and between that people and the Arab masses, to ensure the continuity of the escalation and victory of the revolution.

Article 15. The liberation of Palestine is a national obligation for the Arabs. It is their duty to repel the Zionist and imperialist invasion of the greater Arab homeland and to liquidate the Zionist presence in Palestine. (snip)

Article 19. The Partition of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel, are fundamentally invalid, however long they last, for they contravene the will of the people of Palestine and their natural right to their homeland and contradict the principles of the United Nations Charter, foremost among which is the right of self-determination.

Article 20. The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate Instrument, and all their consequences, are hereby declared null and void. The claim of historical or spiritual links between the Jews and Palestine is neither in conformity with historical fact nor does it satisfy the requirements for statehood. Judaism is a revealed religion; it is not a separate nationality, nor are the Jews a single people with a separate identity; they are citizens of their respective countries.

Article 21. The Palestinian Arab people, expressing themselves through the Palestinian armed revolution, reject all alternatives to the total liberation of Palestine. They also reject all proposals for the liquidation or internationalization of the Palestine problem.

So, they disavow discussion and do not see a legal basis for the very existance of the state of Isreal. I thought that the Palistinians own words might be useful in this discussion.

And Israel's actions involve the assimilation of the West Bank and Gaza. Actions speaking louder than words. BTW, the use of violence to overthrow Israel has been renounced. The actual creation of Israel was a unilateral act that involved a group imposing a state upone those who lived there. That the Palestinians still have trouble accepting this act is not surprising.

As to the will to remove Zionism, they are rejecting the right of a group of outsiders to come in and establish a state. Sounds reasonable to me.

Anyway, the land theft process, which is what this thread was about, has still not been addressed by hardly anyone.

[Earthborn]

I thought that the Palistinians own words might be useful in this discussion.Sorry, but according to the Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/revoke.html):On December 14, 1998, with President Clinton in attendance, the Palestinian Legislative Council meeting in Gaza voted nearly unanimously to revoke portions of the Palestine National Charter calling for Israel's destruction. Following the vote, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the The Palestinian Authority (PA) had fulfilled its obligation under the peace accords.And in the introduction of their Commentary on the Palestine National Charter (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/PLO_Covenant_commentary.html):The Covenant was never legally amended and the clauses that were supposed to be deleted have not been replaced; nevertheless, President Clinton and Prime Minister (at the time the Covenant was to be annulled) Benjamin Netanyahu said the Covenenat was changed to their satisfaction. Though the Covenenant is still sometimes used today to indicate the Palestinians' true intentions, few Israelis refer to it anymore and it is considered politically irrelevant.Emphasis mine.

(Gee, never thought I would ever use that website to prove someone wrong about Israel. Next thing that will happen is that someone points out the obvious bias of it! :roll: )

[pupdog]

In a radio interview the other day, the interviewer asked someone if it would be satisfatory if his settlement was fenced off separately, rather than the fence snaking across Palestinian territory to include the settlement. The fellow said no, that would be outrageous, it would make me feel like I was in jail.

Do I detect a double standard?

[espritch]

Errrr the state was declared after UN's partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs. Palestinians have their rights, we do not need to exaggerate things.

I decided to do a little research. I found the following site that gives a pretty good synopsis of the events surrounding the founding of Israel:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/israel_at_50/history/78601.stm

Britain handed the problem to the United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab sectors.

There was violent and total Arab opposition, but wild Jewish acclaim. Fighting started almost immediately.


This would seem to support your contention that Israel did not simply declare it's existence so I'll concede that point. However, the same article goes on to say:

Even before the mandate ended, in April and May, Jewish fighters moved to protect, consolidate and widen the territory for the new Jewish state. Often they attacked areas designated for Arabs, and tried to depopulate Arab areas in the planned Jewish sector.

On April 9, Jewish fighters massacred scores of Palestinian villagers, including old people, women and children, in the West Jerusalem village of Deir Yassin, causing widespread panic and greatly augmenting the flight of Palestinians from their homes across the country.


Moreover, earlier in the article we get:

During World War II, Haganah fighters joined the British Army, acquiring military skills and experience. Not so the Arabs.

At the same time, extremist groups such as the Irgun Zwei Leumi and the Lehi, or Stern Group, began a brutal campaign of assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, intimidations, disruptions and sabotage. Their actions were directed against Briton, Arab and even Jews.

During the World War, the Zionist movement clearly defined its objective as a dominant Jewish state in Palestine.

This confirms my contention that the Zionists engaged in a concerted campaign of terrorism both before and after the UN vote with the expressed purpose of driving the Palestinians out of Palestine.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


And Israel's actions involve the assimilation of the West Bank and Gaza. Actions speaking louder than words. BTW, the use of violence to overthrow Israel has been renounced. The actual creation of Israel was a unilateral act that involved a group imposing a state upone those who lived there. That the Palestinians still have trouble accepting this act is not surprising.

As to the will to remove Zionism, they are rejecting the right of a group of outsiders to come in and establish a state. Sounds reasonable to me.

Anyway, the land theft process, which is what this thread was about, has still not been addressed by hardly anyone.

Should the US have waited for UN approval to invade Iraq?

Are you saying that the UN is not relevant?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Ed
Palistinian Charter 1968 (Excerpts)

Article 9. Armed struggle is the only way of liberating Palestine, and is thus strategic, not tactical. The Palestinian Arab people hereby affirm their unwavering determination to carry on the armed struggle and to press towards popular revolution for the liberation of and return to their homeland. They also affirm their right to a normal life in their homeland, to the exercise of their right of self-determination therein and to sovereignty over it.

Article 10. Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular war of liberation. This requires that commando action must be escalated, expanded and protected and that all the resources of the Palestinian masses and all scientific potentials available to them be should be mobilized and organized to play their part in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires solidarity in national struggle among the different groups within the Palestinian people and between that people and the Arab masses, to ensure the continuity of the escalation and victory of the revolution.

Article 15. The liberation of Palestine is a national obligation for the Arabs. It is their duty to repel the Zionist and imperialist invasion of the greater Arab homeland and to liquidate the Zionist presence in Palestine. (snip)

Article 19. The Partition of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel, are fundamentally invalid, however long they last, for they contravene the will of the people of Palestine and their natural right to their homeland and contradict the principles of the United Nations Charter, foremost among which is the right of self-determination.

Article 20. The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate Instrument, and all their consequences, are hereby declared null and void. The claim of historical or spiritual links between the Jews and Palestine is neither in conformity with historical fact nor does it satisfy the requirements for statehood. Judaism is a revealed religion; it is not a separate nationality, nor are the Jews a single people with a separate identity; they are citizens of their respective countries.

Article 21. The Palestinian Arab people, expressing themselves through the Palestinian armed revolution, reject all alternatives to the total liberation of Palestine. They also reject all proposals for the liquidation or internationalization of the Palestine problem.

So, they disavow discussion and do not see a legal basis for the very existance of the state of Isreal. I thought that the Palistinians own words might be useful in this discussion.

The issue is though that they are essentially correct. The Palastinians never did agree to having their homeland taken from them. The Jews are different ethic groups from many different nationalities, the Palastinians are all from that region and have been for a long time. The formation of Israel is a Zionist and Imperialist move.

So, teh Palastinians are not really wrong, its just that many people are on the side of the Jews and dont care about the Palastinians case. Basically the world has said that well, its true that the Palastinians got screwed, but its just like the Native Americans, we don't care. We think that the Jews are better and so we side with them even though the Palastinians have a valid point because we simply like the Jews better and consider them more civilized.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Malachi151


The issue is though that they are essentially correct. The Palastinians never did agree to having their homeland taken from them. The Jews are different ethic groups from many different nationalities, the Palastinians are all from that region and have been for a long time. The formation of Israel is a Zionist and Imperialist move.

So, teh Palastinians are not really wrong, its just that many people are on the side of the Jews and dont care about the Palastinians case. Basically the world has said that well, its true that the Palastinians got screwed, but its just like the Native Americans, we don't care. We think that the Jews are better and so we side with them even though the Palastinians have a valid point because we simply like the Jews better and consider them more civilized.

It seems to me that someone, in any dispute, does get screwed whether in perception or in actuality. Do you really care about the palistinians? Why? Why care about their screwing more than say the Hutus or Tutus or whatever they are? Why care more for them (the palistinians) than say the implicit persecution of women in Islamic countries?

The fact that the jew are, well, jews makes it easy for some to take sides here. But tell me, does the UN have a role? Always? Sometimes? Never? Should the US have waited for UN approval before going into Iraq? When does the UN matter? I am getting a bit of a feeling that the UN is "good" when it is somehow against US interests and "bad" when it is in favor. I am sure that this is not the case so perhaps someone would explain.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


Should the US have waited for UN approval to invade Iraq?

Are you saying that the UN is not relevant?

False dichotomy ahoy. The UN is not irrelevant, but it can be abused. Witness 50 resolutions vetoed by the US since 1978 in favour of Israel, going against the vote of at least 100 countries. Resolutions included return of Palestinian refugees, requests for reports into human rights abuses, condemnation of Israeli human rights abuses, and more. But because the US used her power of veto, all of these resolutions went down the toilet.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


False dichotomy ahoy. The UN is not irrelevant, but it can be abused. Witness 50 resolutions vetoed by the US since 1978 in favour of Israel, going against the vote of at least 100 countries. Resolutions included return of Palestinian refugees, requests for reports into human rights abuses, condemnation of Israeli human rights abuses, and more. But because the US used her power of veto, all of these resolutions went down the toilet.

Were the vetos legal? So it was on the up and up, right? Who defines abuse?

I am asking a question for clarification, no false dicotomy.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


Were the vetos legal? So it was on the up and up, right? Who defines abuse?

I am asking a question for clarification, no false dicotomy.

The vetoes were legal, but in every case it was at least 100 votes vs a maximum of 3. US, Israel, and sometimes one other country. When the Palestinians see again and again and again that their cause is being halted in the UN by the US's power of veto, against the rest of the world, can you begin to understand why they are feeling frustrated?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


The vetoes were legal, but in every case it was at least 100 votes vs a maximum of 3. US, Israel, and sometimes one other country. When the Palestinians see again and again and again that their cause is being halted in the UN by the US's power of veto, against the rest of the world, can you begin to understand why they are feeling frustrated?

Has it occured to you that if the delegates know that the US will veto they can use the vote as theater? Anyhoo, thems the rules.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


Has it occured to you that if the delegates know that the US will veto they can use the vote as theater? Anyhoo, thems the rules.

Yeah, all 100 of them.

[Cleopatra]

espritch

I have some comments to make regarding your post but I will save them for now because we haven't interacted in this forum before and I might be wrong.

From the whole site of BBC you chose to quote a former reporter's views regarding the History of Israel.

But since you you want we use BBC as our source I do not have any problem.

Let's go back to BBC and to " Israel and Palestinians in Depth File"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/israel_and_palestinians/timeline/1936.stm


The Zionist project of the 1920s and 1930s saw hundreds of thousands of Jews emigrating to British Mandate Palestine, provoking unrest in the Arab community.

In 1922, a British census showed the Jewish population had risen to about 11% of Palestine's 750,000 inhabitants. More than 300,000 immigrants arrived in the next 15 years.

Zionist-Arab antagonism boiled over into violent clashes in August 1929 when 133 Jews were killed by Palestinians and 110 Palestinians died at the hands of the British police.

Arab discontent again exploded into widespread civil disobedience during a general strike in 1936. By this time, the militant Zionist group Irgun Zvai Leumi was orchestrating attacks on Palestinian and British targets with the aim of "liberating" Palestine and Transjordan (modern-day Jordan) by force.



Now. I won't have any problem to agree with you and with anybody about the atrocities of Irgun if you give me any example of a country that wasn't created the way Israel was.

Even if you fail to explain to me in what other peaceful ways you expected Israel to be created I won't mind because this is not our problem.

The problem starts by the moment Europeans realized that after WWII they had the opportunity they were looking for centuries to get rid of the Jews once and for good by supporting the Zionist plans.

Once the found the way to do so, the rest matters very little.

Unique, if you didn't insist I wouldn't mention it but Israel is "stealing" the land from Jordan and not from Palestine. The occupied territories belonged to Jordan before 1967.

The brothers of the Palestinians in Jordan and Syrian refused not only to give them the land but to recognized them as a separate nation before 1967... but we have been through this many times in the past...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Can someone explain to me what the hell he's talking about?Sure.

Apperently he feels that you are arguing that the Palestinians get what they deserve for the acts that very few of them are doing. So he makes the comparison with 9/11 in which many Americans got hurt for something only a few of them did (that is: politically supporting the oppressive Saudi regime).

In short, he was sarcastic.

Ok this is just nuts.

I never said the collateral damage victims got what they deserved. To me they are like accident victims, they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. The Hamas members got what they deserved. If the suicide bombings stop, there will be no more collateral damage, no more dead Palestinians.

Why is it so hard for you people to understand that?

I'm critical of the Palestinian culture, as a whole, because they are a racist people. When I hear their children expressing desire to be a martyr and kill Jews I lose sympathy for the people as a whole. THose kids learned to hate from somewhere.

Earthborn, if you think 9/11 was about us supporting the Saudi's, you need to get your pretty little head examined. Most of the highjackers were Saudis!

9/11 happened because the hardline mullahs think our free culture is corrupting the Muslim youth. Its kinda hard to compete with thong bikinis, video games and jello shots when all you have to offer is a prayer mat. Hence their hatred of us, it has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia. If you think Americans deserve to be killed because we are a free people, so be it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Its kinda hard to compete with thong bikinis, video games and jello shots when all you have to offer is a prayer mat.


:roll: :roll: :roll:

[a_unique_person]

I think that Palestine is just as real as Israel. Both are political constructs. Both have real people living in them.

[a_unique_person]

Either way, we have debated at length the various points being made in this thread.

I was just trying to demonstrate the piece by piece theft of land that individual Palestinians are living on. Electrix and others have denied this is happening. There is proof that it is happening.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think that Palestine is just as real as Israel. Both are political constructs. Both have real people living in them.

Then why do you ALWAYS side with the Palestinians? Is it because you are a rabid anti-semite and member of the Nazi party?

Why do Leftists hate the Jews so much anyways? I never understood that.

[Tony]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Why do Leftists hate the Jews so much anyways? I never understood that.

No offense, but I was under the impression that you were a leftist. :confused: :confused:

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Tony

No offense, but I was under the impression that you were a leftist. :confused: :confused:

??? Whatever gave you that idea.

I'm a moderate independant and a patriot. I pick whichever policies I feel make the most sense. True, I rally against the Republicans alot, but they are the current administration. They also lie constantly about everything.

I pick on Libertarians as their core political philosophy has some good ideas and I'm a big fan of personal liberty, but its most vocal adherents are pretty nutty. They also lie and distort facts to suit their politics constantly, like the Republicans.

You could say I'm liberal, but I don't subscribe to the idea that liberals are all "Left" or that liberal is a dirty word. Our country is a liberal democracy, you can't be a patriot without being liberal.

I hate Leftists as they make moderate liberals like me look bad.

While we are on the subject, are you a Republican? You said earlier that you took it as compliment when I called you a bad one.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Then why do you ALWAYS side with the Palestinians? Is it because you are a rabid anti-semite and member of the Nazi party?

Why do Leftists hate the Jews so much anyways? I never understood that.

Don't always side with the Palestinians. I don't hate Jews.

I think it is just that I don't like getting lied to. I used to be a supporter of Israel. Reading further than the front page of the newspaper made me realise that I had been conned.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
I never said the collateral damage victims got what they deserved. To me they are like accident victims, they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Okay, fine. Treat them as victims of very tragic accidents. Let's all mourn their deaths and demand that something needs to be done about it. Like some people need to be a bit more careful, and all those involved should do their share to prevent these accidents from happening, and not shift the blame on someone else. Those with the power to stop it, should stop it, whether they are the ultimate cause of it or not.I'm critical of the Palestinian culture, as a whole, because they are a racist people.You generalize too much.When I hear their children expressing desire to be a martyr and kill Jews I lose sympathy for the people as a whole.
THose kids learned to hate from somewhere.There are also Israeli Jews teaching their children similar things. It is not a one-sided conflict. It is a conflict with despair, anger, hatred, fear and resentment on both sides. I chose no side with the exclusion of the other. I make absolutely no judgement on who is more justified in hurting the other side, partly because I acknowledge the complexity of the conflict. Partly because, as Cleopatra has frequently pointed out, I only know about the conflict from television and Google. What do I know about a country I never even been to?

What do you know?Earthborn, if you think 9/11 was about us supporting the Saudi's, you need to get your pretty little head examined. Most of the highjackers were Saudis!Actually, no. They weren't Saudis. They were Saudi Arabians, meaning they were citizens of a country named Saudi Arabia. Saying that they couldn't be critical of their own government is like saying that Shanek isn't critical of the US government just because he lives in the US.

If you believe that 9/11 didn't take place because these citizens of Saudi Arabia perceived the US presence in their country to be an intrusion, then I guess you didn't pay any attention to any serious news outlet.9/11 happened because the hardline mullahs think our free culture is corrupting the Muslim youth.You are confusing Sunni and Shia Islam. Saudi Arabia is Sunni, and the hijackers were Sunni. Iran is Shia, Mullahs are Shia.
Shia Islam is more hierarchal than Sunni, which is a bit more individualistic. That means the hijackers were motivated by political leaders and political motives, not so much religious ones.Its kinda hard to compete with thong bikinis, video games and jello shots when all you have to offer is a prayer mat.I wish I could have a worldview as simple as yours, as it would make the world seem so much more organized. Alas, I actually look around what is going on.Hence their hatred of us, it has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia.So the fact that most of them, and even Osama Bin Laden are from Saudi Arabia is a coincidence then? It could just as easily have been Switzerland?
If you think Americans deserve to be killed because we are a free people, so be it.I don't think anyone deserves to die: not Americans, not Israeli Jews, not Palestinians, not soldiers, not innocent women and children, not murderers, not murder victims, not healthy people, not the sick, not the young and not the old, not suicide bombers, not peace activists. I am of the rather extreme view that every death is an injustice.

[a_unique_person]

OK, so, since there has been no rebuttal of the main point of the thread, I can assume we all agree that Israel is engaged in a steady process of taking land from Palestinians.

[Cleopatra]

Unique.... :)

No in fact I disagreed. I think that Israel is stealing land from Jordan.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Then why do you ALWAYS side with the Palestinians? Is it because you are a rabid anti-semite and member of the Nazi party?

Why do Leftists hate the Jews so much anyways? I never understood that.

I don't know if leftists hate Jews ( many Europeans do of course) I think that they take always the side of the Palestinians because they confuse their being anti-american with their being anti-israeli.

For example, look what happened with Arafat during the previous months. Only European Socialist leaders were negotiating with him and they were ignoring Abas. They thought that they would fight USA that way and all they managed was to put both nations in despair.

Also, only in Europe you will hear to discussions about the Political Wing of Hamas.

You know, Hamas ignores that has a political wing...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Unique.... :)

No in fact I disagreed. I think that Israel is stealing land from Jordan.


I think you will find the heading is "theft process", that is, individual Palestinians, (former Jordanians if you will), losing their land.

[shuize]

Are those the same former Jordanians that got their asses handed to them the last time they tried to invade Isreal by chance?

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person



I think you will find the heading is "theft process", that is, individual Palestinians, (former Jordanians if you will), losing their land.

Yes, certainly. And that is a true pity because they have less resourses to advance arab culture. You know, enlightened political philosophies, robust industries that provide jobs and tax dollars for infrastructure that benefit their people, the development of high end technologies that will allow them to contribute to and participate in the world economy. And let us not forget the inclusiveness that characterizes all of these folks, they represent the future of the world with their open and intellectually questing societies. All of these things shine like a beacon to the rest of us.

Ha!

They haven't given the rest of the world anything since they invented the zed and domesticated camels. They are a problem now and will be a bigger one in the future. I have little sympathy. This refers to palastinians specifically and arabs generally.

You, AUP, live in a goody two shoes fantasy world with wonderfully idealized notions of rightness. You think that your values and notions of what is "good" are widely shared or at least desired by many others. Get a grip. It ain't so. We live (us, you, me, folks on this board) in a funny local maximum (to use a statistical term) regarding comfort and human respect. It was achieved before and doubtless will again but it is evanescent. You seem to hold a Victorian view of progress. You know the sort of thing where ameoba-->fish--->walking fish--->dinosaurs--->the Negro--->Modern man. It appears everywhere and is fatally flawed as a model. You assume monotonic improvement with slight pertuberations.

You smugly criticize the structures (imperfect as they are) of order that give you your comfortable lifestyle in favor of any (or virtually any) countervaling force. The enemy, AUP, is ignorance. And it is growing and winning and you are it's handmaiden. Islam represents an evil force. It is completely uncompromising. It is diametrically opposed to everything that allows you your smugness. It is beyond redemption. It is beyond reason. And it has not changed in a millenium.

So go ahead, engage in your false hopes; minimize the horrors that occur at Arab hands and maximize those that occur due to agents of the west. You don't recognize that the former is characteristic and the latter an abberation.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


Yes, certainly. And that is a true pity because they have less resourses to advance arab culture. You know, enlightened political philosophies, robust industries that provide jobs and tax dollars for infrastructure that benefit their people, the development of high end technologies that will allow them to contribute to and participate in the world economy. And let us not forget the inclusiveness that characterizes all of these folks, they represent the future of the world with their open and intellectually questing societies. All of these things shine like a beacon to the rest of us.

Ha!

They haven't given the rest of the world anything since they invented the zed and domesticated camels. They are a problem now and will be a bigger one in the future. I have little sympathy. This refers to palastinians specifically and arabs generally.



That is the most amazingly racist comment I've seen from an otherwise intelligent person on this board yet. Are you trying to sink to the levels of American, or Nie Trink Wasser, or Richard G? You should try to learn a little about other cultures before passing judgements like these upon them. You've lost an awful lot of my respect.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


That is the most amazingly racist comment I've seen from an otherwise intelligent person on this board yet. Are you trying to sink to the levels of American, or Nie Trink Wasser, or Richard G? You should try to learn a little about other cultures before passing judgements like these upon them. You've lost an awful lot of my respect.

We are all racist, the question is what is the race de jour where it is unacceptable.

Currently the American "race" and the Jewish "race" are fair game in progressive circles, that too shall change.

Remember, too, that this is the internet. We are all drag queens here.

Edit to add: Oh yes. Aside from the zed, would you enumerate any arab accomplishments? Use both sides of the paper if you need to. Focus specifically, if you will, on anything that has improved the lot of humankind.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Ed


Yes, certainly. And that is a true pity because they have less resourses to advance arab culture. You know, enlightened political philosophies, robust industries that provide jobs and tax dollars for infrastructure that benefit their people, the development of high end technologies that will allow them to contribute to and participate in the world economy. And let us not forget the inclusiveness that characterizes all of these folks, they represent the future of the world with their open and intellectually questing societies. All of these things shine like a beacon to the rest of us.

Ha!

They haven't given the rest of the world anything since they invented the zed and domesticated camels. They are a problem now and will be a bigger one in the future. I have little sympathy. This refers to palastinians specifically and arabs generally.

You, AUP, live in a goody two shoes fantasy world with wonderfully idealized notions of rightness. You think that your values and notions of what is "good" are widely shared or at least desired by many others. Get a grip. It ain't so. We live (us, you, me, folks on this board) in a funny local maximum (to use a statistical term) regarding comfort and human respect. It was achieved before and doubtless will again but it is evanescent. You seem to hold a Victorian view of progress. You know the sort of thing where ameoba-->fish--->walking fish--->dinosaurs--->the Negro--->Modern man. It appears everywhere and is fatally flawed as a model. You assume monotonic improvement with slight pertuberations.

You smugly criticize the structures (imperfect as they are) of order that give you your comfortable lifestyle in favor of any (or virtually any) countervaling force. The enemy, AUP, is ignorance. And it is growing and winning and you are it's handmaiden. Islam represents an evil force. It is completely uncompromising. It is diametrically opposed to everything that allows you your smugness. It is beyond redemption. It is beyond reason. And it has not changed in a millenium.

So go ahead, engage in your false hopes; minimize the horrors that occur at Arab hands and maximize those that occur due to agents of the west. You don't recognize that the former is characteristic and the latter an abberation.

This deserves a language award nomination.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


We are all racist, the question is what is the race de jour where it is unacceptable.

Currently the American "race" and the Jewish "race" are fair game in progressive circles, that too shall change.

Remember, too, that this is the internet. We are all drag queens here.

Edit to add: Oh yes. Aside from the zed, would you enumerate any arab accomplishments? Use both sides of the paper if you need to. Focus specifically, if you will, on anything that has improved the lot of humankind.

Okay, loudmouth (http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/islam/nbLinks/Islam_Science_Math.html).

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


That is the most amazingly racist comment I've seen from an otherwise intelligent person on this board yet. Are you trying to sink to the levels of American, or Nie Trink Wasser, or Richard G? You should try to learn a little about other cultures before passing judgements like these upon them. You've lost an awful lot of my respect.

It's not racist to state the facts.

[Malachi151]

don't know if leftists hate Jews ( many Europeans do of course) I think that they take always the side of the Palestinians because they confuse their being anti-american with their being anti-israeli.

This is rediculous.

First of all "leftist" do not hate Jews. In general throught global society the Jews have been closely realated to liberlaism and "leftist" society. Liberals in America today don't hate the Jews, and never have, for the most part everyone complains that the liberals and "the Jews" go hand in hand.

The fact is that there is no such thins as "the Jews" in the first place, and this isn't an issue of race, everyone says that the Jews are not a race in the first place, its an issue of the policies of Israel, period.

What you are saying is like if Nigeria got into a war with Egypt and if people were oppsed to the Nigerian policies and actions then you woul dsay that people who speak out against the Nigerians policies hate black people.

That's absurd, and hopefully you know it.

The issue at hand here is policy, not race, not culture, just policy.

The cozyness of Jews and right-wingers in America is only something that has happened since Reagan took office and Israel has become seen as a more important element of American miltary power in the Middle East. Pretty much before that conservatived were largely anti-Semitic in America, and really everywhere in the world. The people who were on the side of the Jew everywhere were the liberals, and many prominate Jews supported liberal ideology, and still do.

Woody Allen, Barbra Streisand, etc, etc, etc.

None of that has anything to do with the goings on in Israel.

Now the issue in Israel is simply that many American conservatives see Israel as a country more like their own and more in line with Americna interests so they support Israel. All of the anti-Semitic hate propagnada come from the right though, and always has, the Nazis, the KKK, the Black Legion, Henry Ford, Richard Nixon, Billy Graham, Christian Fundamentlaists, etc. Now though Christian fundamentalists have an issue though becuase htey always see the world in black and white, good vs evil, they always have to pick sides. So, they now see the Islamic people as the greater threat so they are not on Israel's side, sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend type deal.

Some of Nixon's now infamous statements about Jews in the media were recorded in private conversations in the White House in a conversation that Nixon was having with Reverend Billy Graham after they had just returned from a morning prayer:

Billy Graham: "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain."
Richard Nixon: "You believe that?"
Billy Graham: "Yes, sir."
Richard Nixon: "Oh, boy. So do I. I can't ever say that, but I believe it."
Billy Graham: "No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something."

In other conversations Billy Graham told Nixon that he believed that the Bible says there are satanic Jews and that they are the real root of America's problems.

He went on to say that he believed that satanic Jews are who was putting out pornography.

To this Nixon replied to Bob Haldeman (also part of the conversation), "Well, it's also, the Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards."

For more on Nixon, Graham, and their views on the Jews see:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/02/Graham_Nixon.html

The issue of Israel is not an issue fo left vs right or race or anything, as the simple minded people and fundamentalists try to make it out to be because that is the only way they can think, its an issue of, what is the policy of this country and how have their actions impacted peace in the Middle East and in what way have they taken actions are that unfair to the Palastinains over the last 50 years if any?

Anf the obvious thing here is that the Israelis are the new comers to the region, the Israelis have greatly expanded outside of the origional boarders set for them under the origional agreement, Israel was formed without the consent of any of the Arab countries. Its like someone were to just take a state in America and then turn it over to a militant Native American group without even asking any Americans what they thought of it or without any say, but its even more than that because the Jews had not lived in that region as a group fo people in over 2,000 years, not 100 years like is the case in America.

Winston Churchill laid it all out:

Zionism vs Bolshevism[

http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/zionism.html

There is no such thing as "the Jews", Jews are like al other people, different people with different views. Not all Americans are like Pat Robertson and they are not all like Marylin Mason either. With the Jews you have the ultra conservative, nationalist, purist Zionists, and the ultra liberal, internationalist, people who believe in total human equality and sharing in the Bolsheviks. The Bolshevisk were defeated, killed largely by Stalin, and around the world they have been hated by conservatives and fundamentalsits and people like Henry Ford and Nixon and Reagan and Bush.

And you have most Jews who don't fall into either category they are just normal people living like everyone else.

[Mr Manifesto]

Why bother, Malachi151? It's easier to be ignorant and polarise the debate. Like the man said, you're either with us or against us. There's no such thing as constructive criticism of Israel, only unquestioning support of everything she does, or rabid Jew-hating. All Jews.

[Valley_girl]

This is a complicated issue that goes far beyond the theft of land or racism, in my opinion. I have heard accounts that Israel uses some pretty egregious methods to try and control the Palestinians. They will shut off garbage service to parts of the Strip for several weeks at a time, for example, and allow the streets to fill up with garbage. They also cut off water and electricity at random. I have heard that these (and other similar) tactics have been used for decades to try to run the Palestinians off of the land. If it is true, I am not sure I wouldn't be reacting the same way to that kind of oppression. Feeling like you have no control over your surroundings, being at the mercy of the whims of a government that can control whether or not your children are playing on garbage piles in the streets or have no water, would tend to piss me off just a bit. I am not siding with one side or the other, and I don't even know if this is actually true. I just think that there may be alot more factors to the situation than we tend to recognize.

[Cleopatra]

I couldn't disagree more with Ed.

I do not know how you measure cultures but let me remind you that Jews didn't have much to show before the Second Temple.

In fact, in comparison with the rest of the people of East Mediterranean they had very few cultural achievements to be proud of.

The European Jewish Diaspora is the one that made the difference and it's interesting to see what this Diaspora will achieve now that returned back home. Let's wait to see first what the cultural achievements of modern Israel will be because producing tomatoes in the desert that cost 20$ a kilo with the generous sponsoring of the American people cannot be considered so remarkable an achievement.

Also, a variety of apartheit laws are not something that the Israeli society can be proud of and for sure our legislation doesn't constitute a proof of a high cultural level;I'd say that it shows exactly the contrary.

Our grandfathers were wise to pose the question "What Israel we want" by the moment they stepped their foot on this land. Their sons and we- their grandchildren, locked behind walls, trembling for fear when we are riding a bus, isolated in our houses because we managed to make our fellow citizens our worst enemies , failed to reply to the question our grandfathers posed and now we are bleeding.

After we will have seen what we can do,apart from building walls, then we might have the right to criticize the cultural background of other nations.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think you will find the heading is "theft process", that is,
individual Palestinians, (former Jordanians if you will), losing their land.

The fact that they didn't move after the war is tragic. If, by some means
they had representation in the new government, had been given deeds
to the land, they would not be in such a condition, nor would they need
to resort to violence. Because the world objects to the removal process
they suffer needlessly while it slowly proceeds.

Those are the only options.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
After we will have seen what we can do,apart from building walls, then we might have the right to criticize the cultural background of other nations.
And should any group of people have to justify their existence?

[Cleopatra]

I am sorry I do not understand your question. Could you be more analytical please?

[JamesM]

What I mean to say is, if Palestinians had been responsible for all the innovations from fire, to the wheel, to sliced bread, would they suddenly become more worthy of supporting?
Or if Jews stop producing people of talent, is it ok for them to get blown up? I just don't quite see the point Ed is making.

[DrChinese]

Israel is supposed to be a democratic country. It was formed to provide a place for many of the oppressed of the world to have a safe haven from persecution after WWII and the holocaust. So how come there is a two-tier system at work in which some individuals have rights and privileges that others don't have?

It is obvious that there is something freaky about the building of walls. It reminds me of the Berlin Wall. And all humans deserve basic rights - such as the ability to own property, basic civil rights, etc. that for all practical purposes many Palestinians do not have.

While it is true that there are bad apples (Hamas & other militant groups) in every barrel, why repress innocent Palestinians? Is this similar to original sin, if you are born a Palestinian then you are guilty by birth?

Isn't this pretty much what happened to Jews in Germany? Their rights were infringed upon and reduced until there were none left? I hope others can see that retaliation and revenge are supporting the theory that two wrongs make a right. Israel has to find a way to assimilate the Palestinians or otherwise create an actual homeland - not the frankenstein that is being built today.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Israel is supposed to be a democratic country. It was formed to provide a place for many of the oppressed of the world to have a safe haven from persecution after WWII and the holocaust. So how come there is a two-tier system at work in which some individuals have rights and privileges that others don't have?
Palestinians are not citizens of Israel. Israeli Arabs have (nominally) exactly the same rights as everyone else. Apart from not having to serve in the army (although as discussed elsewhere, this is not always the blessing it seems).


Israel has to find a way to assimilate the Palestinians or otherwise create an actual homeland - not the frankenstein that is being built today.
One of the reasons the West Bank and Gaza have not been annexed is because it would create an Arab majority in Israel*, so they are unlikely to be assimilated into Israel. Currently, it does all seem pretty hopeless.


*on the basis that the Jewish population of Israel is ~4.8 million out of 6.4 million, with the Territories containing 3.5 million Arabs. Sources: here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/803257.stm) and here (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html)

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Ed


We are all racist, the question is what is the race de jour where it is unacceptable.

Currently the American "race" and the Jewish "race" are fair game in progressive circles, that too shall change.

Remember, too, that this is the internet. We are all drag queens here.

Edit to add: Oh yes. Aside from the zed, would you enumerate any arab accomplishments? Use both sides of the paper if you need to. Focus specifically, if you will, on anything that has improved the lot of humankind.

This is what British humanist G.A. Welles has to say about this in his review of Ibn Warraq's "Why I am not a Muslim":

"Warraq begins by showing how often politeness to less-civilized countries has been a whip with which to lash the shortcomings of one's own society. It was on this basis that Tacitus boosted the Germans and that eighteenth-century Europeans looked up to "the noble savage." In the present century, European malaise about colonialism and imperialism has prompted belief in the superior virtue of subject nations. Attitudes to Islam and to its history have been affected by such sentiments, although there have of course been dissenting voices. (Schopenhauer declared, in an essay on man's metaphysical needs, that he could not find a single valuable idea in the whole of the Koran.) The uncompromising monotheism of Islam has been particularly admired. It is true that Christianity is monotheistic only in virtue of an unintelligible fiction (the Trinity), and the Judaism's allegiance to one god was not the same as belief in only one god. But Ibn Warraq reminds us that monotheism can readily join with exclusive intolerance."

There is no doubt that Arab civilizations did accomplish great things in math and science in the middle ages. However, I can't help but think there is a little bit going on of what Welles says in the beginning. .

[espritch]

Cleopatra
From the whole site of BBC you chose to quote a former reporter's views regarding the History of Israel.

I simply linked to the first site I found that seemed to provide the relevant information about the subject and time frame I was interested in. As far as I know, the BBC is generally a pretty reliable and relatively unbiased new organization. If you feel the information given is biased or inaccurate, I certainly have no objections to you providing links to alternative sources.

Now. I won't have any problem to agree with you and with anybody about the atrocities of Irgun if you give me any example of a country that wasn't created the way Israel was.

Nanuvut? Of course I don’t know if that is technically an independent nation or just an autonomous territory of Canada. In any event, it’s beside the point. If the issue is whether Israel could have come into existence without terrorism and bloodshed, I would definitely say that it could not. The Zionists were attempting to create a Jewish homeland. The problem was that the place they wanted to make their new state was already inhabited by a lot of non Jewish people. To create a truly Jewish (majority) state, they had to remove those people. Since the Palestinians had no interest in giving up there homes for the sake of a Jewish state (a not unreasonable position from their point of view), the Zionists really had no other option than violence to achieve their ends.

The question then is not “was violence necessary for the creation of Israel” but rather, “was the creation of Israel sufficient justification for that violence?” Some posters on this thread have presented the Holocaust as justification for this event. And if the Zionists had built their new country by carving out part of Germany, I would probably agree with them. But using the persecution of the Jews as a justification for the persecution of the Palestinians doesn’t really fly with me since the Palestinians didn’t really have anything to do with the Holocaust.

You have mentioned that if the Arabs had just agreed to the partition proposed by the UN in 1947, the Middle East would be a peace. What you haven’t explained is why Arabs would have wanted to approve a partition that essential gave half their land to someone else? Of course, even if they had accepted the partition, it is not clear to me that this would have produced peace. Although some Israelis might have found this solution satisfactory, there has always been a Zionist hard core that wants not just a Jewish state but a Jewish state encompassing the entire area of ancient Israel. The only reason for the Jewish settlements in the West Bank is that the settlers are trying to establish claims to the region the same way the Kibbutzim were used to establish such claims in other areas of Palestine prior to the founding of Israel. The fact that the Israeli government has subsidized these settlements and born the considerable cost of maintaining their security despite previous agreements to cease constructing them as part of the Camp David accord, suggests that the hard core Zionists still have a great deal of influence on Israeli policy. These settlements have served as a constant flash point of contention between the Israelis and Palestinians and serve no useful purpose that I can see aside from the one already stated.

Unique, if you didn't insist I wouldn't mention it but Israel is "stealing" the land from Jordan and not from Palestine. The occupied territories belonged to Jordan before 1967.

I know this question wasn’t directed at me, but I would like to comment on it. The following quote is from the same BBC article I previously linked to:

The Palestinian militias and other Arab irregulars were also easily crushed.
There was one exception: the British-trained and British-officered Arab Legion, under the command of King Abdullah of Jordan. But it was constrained financially and politically by the British-dominated King, who had already colluded with the Jewish leaders on territorial matters and who had ambitions in Palestine.

In 1947, Palestine was controlled by England. According to the above quote, it would appear that Jordan gained control of the west bank by colluding with the Zionist to split the country between them (kind of the way Stalin and Hitler colluded to split Eastern Europe). The Israelis stole it from Jordan after Jordan stole it from the Palestinians. Any way you look at it, the Palestinians still got screwed.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You are confusing Sunni and Shia Islam. Saudi Arabia is Sunni, and the hijackers were Sunni. Iran is Shia, Mullahs are Shia.


Mullah Omar (Leader of the Taliban) is a Sunni.

Mullah Krekar (Speculated to be Leader of Ansar-al Islam) is a Sunni.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Unique.... :)

No in fact I disagreed. I think that Israel is stealing land from Jordan.

Jordan might have had territorial aims, but in this case we have a person who's home has been appropriated via legalistic and political actions. Even when Jordan owned the West Bank, it did not induldge in the wholesale appropriation of people's property, something that Israel has been in from the start, in a never ending, relentless process. Even as the recent 'road map' was under way, tenders were being let for new settlements. A few 'outposts' were dismantled, with front page pictures, and the next week, without the front page pictures, were back again.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I don't know if leftists hate Jews ( many Europeans do of course) I think that they take always the side of the Palestinians because they confuse their being anti-american with their being anti-israeli.

For example, look what happened with Arafat during the previous months. Only European Socialist leaders were negotiating with him and they were ignoring Abas. They thought that they would fight USA that way and all they managed was to put both nations in despair.

Also, only in Europe you will hear to discussions about the Political Wing of Hamas.

You know, Hamas ignores that has a political wing...

One of the points that Finklestein has been trying to make is that the current fanatacism of Zionists is causing problems for Jews in general. We now have articles in our local Australian papers that extremist Muslims may be planning to strike Jewish targets here, something that has never happened before in a terrorist sense.

For all the aims of a war against terrorism, things only seem to be getting worse for Jews in general. And why, so some fanatics can park a rusty trailer on a piece of desert that their ancestors may or may not have temporarily held thousands of years ago. It just doesn't make sense.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
We now have articles in our local Australian papers that extremist Muslims may be planning to strike Jewish targets here, something that has never happened before in a terrorist sense.
Maybe not in Australia, but look at Buenos Aires. And the synagogue in Tunisia. And an Algerian was plotting to bomb a synagogue in Strasbourg. This discounts the general upswing in non-terrorist activity directed against Jews across Europe lately: firebombings, desecrations, arson attacks etc.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM

Maybe not in Australia, but look at Buenos Aires. And the synagogue in Tunisia. And an Algerian was plotting to bomb a synagogue in Strasbourg. This discounts the general upswing in non-terrorist activity directed against Jews across Europe lately: firebombings, desecrations, arson attacks etc.

I am not sure what you mean. That there has been a rise in anti-semitic activity, which until now has not been targetted in a lethal manner. There are now indications that there may be plans for lethal attacks.

The rise in non-violent attacks and the possible to lethal attacks is only a recent trend. I think it is worth asking, why?

[JamesM]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I am not sure what you mean. That there has been a rise in anti-semitic activity, which until now has not been targetted in a lethal manner. There are now indications that there may be plans for lethal attacks.

What I meant was, while there may not have been terrorist activities against Jewish targets in Australia, there certainly have been in other countries. And they were certainly lethal.

As for why, it's obviously connected to Intifada 2.

[Skeptic]

I Don't always side with the Palestinians.

Yes, you do. You have posted, I suppose, about 100 or more threads about "the situation" in israel/palestine. Show me ONE of them--ONE--where you have sided with the israelies and criticized the palestinians.

You can't, can you, liar?

I don't hate Jews.

Yes you do. For example, you automatically believe virtually EVERY insane slander about them, no matter what the source; you support those who blow up jewish babies; you call 11-month old dead jews in those bombings "extremists"; you refuse to agree that israel (horror!) has a right to exist.

"Don't hate jews"? Gimme a break, AUP.

I think it is just that I don't like getting lied to.

...by the eeeeeeeeevil joooooooooos that control the media. You know, those people that you "don't hate".

I used to be a supporter of Israel. Reading further than the front page of the newspaper made me realise that I had been conned.

Of course, the front page of the newspaper is SOOOOO much less reliable than your palestinian "sources", you know, those that claim israel uses "nerve gas" and "nuclear weapons" against the palestinians. Right.

Anyway, AUP, let's have some answers, here: WHY is the "front page of the newspaper" (e.g., the media), so "biased" in favor of israel? WHO is behind this bias? HOW do they make sure it continues?

I know I won't get a straight answer, since what you really think (as expressed in passim in many of your posts) is that it's all a "zionist" (read: jewish) conspiracy. You are an antisemite, inter alia, because you believe there is a world-wide jewish conspiracy out to fool the innocent, peace-loving gentiles by "hiding the truth" about how AWFUL those jews in "occupied palestine" are.

Like David Irving, you are a master of the innuendo. His modus operandi used to be: "hey, I never SAID there is a jewish conspiracy out to get me, I just ASKED why the lawyers for the defense here are jews". Yours is very similar: "hey, I never SAID that the jews control the media, I'm just ASKING why this and that paper REALLY printed a pro-israeli article."

You're not fooling anybody, AUP. You might as well just go ahead and wear the armband.

P.S.

Of course, this belief in a jewish conspiracy isn't the ONLY reason you are an antisemite. Your claim that the Arabs were right in their desire in 1948 to butcher all the jews, for instance, is also a dead giveaway. So was your excuse: that it isn't really antisemitism because it only involves the genocide of the jews "in a limited geographical area".

I know, I know: how UNFAIRLY you have been treated by me, called an antisemite for supporting the genocide of the jews, when you CLEARLY SAID you ONLY mean a genoicde "in a limited geographical area", and not throughout the world...

[Skeptic]

Israel is supposed to be a democratic country. It was formed to provide a place for many of the oppressed of the world to have a safe haven from persecution after WWII and the holocaust.

No, it was supposed to be a safe haven for the JEWS of the world.

So how come there is a two-tier system at work in which some individuals have rights and privileges that others don't have?

Because those poor, mistreated "others" (the Arabs) are engaged in a war of annihilation against the jews, which tends to put a dent in their moral ground for equal treatment.

Hope that cleared it up.

It is obvious that there is something freaky about the building of walls. It reminds me of the Berlin Wall.

So far as I know, however, the west Berliners were not engaged in daily suicide attacks on the east Berliners. If they were, the DDR would have been perfectly justified in building the wall.

And all humans deserve basic rights - such as the ability to own property, basic civil rights, etc. that for all practical purposes many Palestinians do not have.

Sorry, but that is trumped by the jewish right to live without being blown up by suicide bombers. israel has no moral obligation to take care of the human rights of those sworn to destroy it. I don't see the US making sure, for instance, that nobody in Afghanistan or Iraq is ever killed without due process of law.

While it is true that there are bad apples (Hamas & other militant groups) in every barrel, why repress innocent Palestinians?

Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't a "few" bad apples. The entire palestinian authority, the entire palestinian people, are full of genocidal hate for the jews. If you don't believe me--just read their newspapers, or read their school textbooks. When a nation names its summer camps after the suicide bombers who killed the most jews, and puts on "Seasame Street" a five year old who explains to the other kids his holy goal of dying a shahid (suicide bomber), we are no longer dealing with "a few bad apples". We are dealing with something closer to what Germany was at the height of nazism.

You could, of course, prove that they ARE merely "bad apples" and somehow "not representative". How about finding ONE palestinian intellectual who believes that a compromise is necessary? ONE palestinian leader who agreed that israel has a right to exist as a jewish state? Bet you can't, since they don't exist (and if they ever did, Arafat's "internal security forces" paid them a nice visit, "convicted" them of "assisting israel", and killed them.)

Is this similar to original sin, if you are born a Palestinian then you are guilty by birth?

Oh, no. It takes until the age of five (when you watch "Sesame Street" and learn to be a Shahid), seven (when you go to first grade and learn from your teachers why the evil jews have no right to live), or even eight (after your first summer camp, named after a suicide bomber, teaches you to use rifles to kill jews) to REALLY become completely brainwashed--which, of course, is the idea.

Isn't this pretty much what happened to Jews in Germany?

Did the jews in Germany declare they want to wipe Germany off the face of the earth?

Did the jews in Germany openly deny Germany has a right to exist and that Berlin is actually theirs?

Did the Nazis, in the face of this, tried to negotiate a settlement with the jews, offered them their own state, and even agreed to share Berlin?

Their rights were infringed upon and reduced until there were none left?

It's the other way aroung here. Under the Oslo "peace" process, the MORE was given to the palestinians, the MORE land, rights, and money they got from israel, the MORE terror and violence they created, under the belief that this shows israeli weakenss and fear and that they can demand more.

It is only when, after seven years of increasing concessions to the palestinians which lead only to incrasing terror on their part, culminating in a rejection of a palestinian state and starting a war of annihilation instead, that these rights were destroyed in the war.

I hope others can see that retaliation and revenge are supporting the theory that two wrongs make a right.

No, not any more than Britian's bombing of Nazi Germany in WWII in retaliation for the Blitz shows this, or that hitting back at a mugger who wants to beat you up shows this.

When you are fighting a bloodthirsty enemy hell-bent on wiping you off the face of the earth, hitting him as hard as you can isn't a "wrong"; it's the RIGHT thing to do. israel, like Britian, is morally perfectly justified in fighting its war against such an enemy; it isn't "two wrongs make a right"; it's "self defense".

Israel has to find a way to assimilate the Palestinians or otherwise create an actual homeland

This was tried that in 2000, offering the palestinians about 98% of the west bank, and indeed even land INSIDE israel in compensation for the 2% israel needed for security purposes. The result? A war of annihilation. To repeat, the more they get, the more the palestinians want. What makes you think a palestinian state will "solve" the problem, and not merely be another step in the infamous "stage plan" for israel's destruction?

Your main mistake is the belief that palestinian extremism is the RESULT of israeli mistratment. It's the other way around: israel always agreed to peace plans, from 1948 to 2000; the palestinians rejected them all and repeatedly made clear, by blood and the sword, that they will not be satisfied with anything less than a complete genocide of the jews. It was this that CAUSED their misfortune when they lost such wars. If you want peace, deal with the cause of war, not with its effect: FIRST deal with palestinian extremism, then you might have peace. Dealing with the effect instead of the cause (e.g., denying israel has a right to fight back because "two wrongs don't make a right", or denying israeli babies have a right to live without being blown up since protection against is "denies the palestinians their human rights") will merely encourage the palestinians to try harder, if at all possible, to destroy israel, since there would be no price for it.

Let me give you an hypothetical example: suppose that Arafat really meant peace (instead of the "stage plan") when he signed the Oslo agreement. Suppose he accepted israel's offer in 2000 and did nothing more than follow it: namely, made sure that in fact there is peace with israel, and palestinians aren't blowing themselves up there, and added to that the usual requirements from a nation in peace with another: e.g., diplomatic relations, trade agreements, etc.

Would the palestinians be "opressed" today? No. They would, in all likelihood, be enjoying one of the highest standards of living in the middle east, both due to trade and jobs with israel and due to international help. Would they be faced with a security fence? No, because there would be no need for it. The israelies, until 2000, were in fact quite enthusiastic with the palestinian state, thinking it would finalize their acceptance in the region and would lead to peace; had this come true even partially, there would be much good will on the israeli side to help with joint projects and develop that state.

(Mind you, I am not making this up--well-publicized plans for the "new middle east", involving just such cooperation and development plans, were on the drawing board and taken quite seriously at the time.)

But that was not to be. It was made quite clear that the REAL problem, as far asthe palestinians are concerned, is not israel's opression of the palestinian, but the fact that israel exists at all. It is THIS which is the central "opression" they wish to be "free" of.

[Skeptic]

One of the points that Finklestein has been trying to make is that the current fanatacism of Zionists is causing problems for Jews in general.

And, as we know from history, before zionism the jews were NEVER hated or prosecuted, were they?

The truth is, "zionism" is merely the latest excuse for butchering jews that blood-thirsty antisemites use. A generation before zionism, the same people were out beating up and killing jews because they were "bolsheviks" and "communists"; before THAT, because they were "blood-sucking capitalists"; and before that, because they were Christ-killers and well-poisoners.

No doubt, at the time, the "liberal" antisemites (like you and Finkelstein, AUP) were justifying these attacks as well: "well, the jews need to understand that the fanaticism of the jewish bolshevists is causing problems for jews in general"; "well, the jews need to undestand that it is the ruthlessness of jewish businessmen that is causing problems for jews in general"; "well, the jews need to understand that the rejection of Christ by the Pharishees had doomed them all to perdition".

Finkelstein's excuse is merely a case of blaming the victim: God forbid, you don't want to kill the jew JUST BECAUSE he's a jew, but because other jews are "zionists", so it's OK; God forbid, you don't want to kill the jew JUST BECAUSE he's a jew, but because other jews are "bolshebvists", so it's OK; God forbid, you don't... etc., etc., etc.

Simply put, AUP, had you magically appeared in, say, 1500AD, or 3000 AD, you would still hate jews; all that would change would be the excuse you use to justify it--it wouldn't be "zionism" but "Christ killers" in 1500 AD, and "supporters of the evil 324-09 8fds11 system" in 3000AD.

People like you, after all, never had much trouble finding something--ANYTHING--about those they hate (the jews) which "proves" how it's really all their fault, and how "justified" you are in supporting their genocide "in a limited geographical area".

We now have articles in our local Australian papers that extremist Muslims may be planning to strike Jewish targets here, something that has never happened before in a terrorist sense.

And which, I'm sure, makes you quite happy.

[Malachi151]

The truth is, "zionism" is merely the latest excuse for butchering jews that blood-thirsty antisemites use. A generation before zionism, the same people were out beating up and killing jews because they were "bolsheviks" and "communists"; before THAT, because they were "blood-sucking capitalists"; and before that, because they were Christ-killers and well-poisoners.

No doubt, at the time, the "liberal" antisemites (like you and Finkelstein, AUP) were justifying these attacks as well: "well, the jews need to understand that the fanaticism of the jewish bolshevists is causing problems for jews in general"; "well, the jews need to undestand that it is the ruthlessness of jewish businessmen that is causing problems for jews in general"; "well, the jews need to understand that the rejection of Christ by the Pharishees had doomed them all to perdition".

This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

The "liberals" were the socialists, the socialists were the Bolsheviks! Duh! :p

What an idiot. Its quite obvious, if you pay any attention now or ever have, that traditionally it has always been the cponservatives who were anti-Semitic. Being opposed to Israeli policy is not anti-Semitic.

You want to read anti-Semitic? Here:

Zionism versus Bolshevism by Winston Churchill

http://www.taivaansusi.net/historia/zionism.html

International Jews.

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the Inter-national Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews arc persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus--Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and an the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution: by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there arc many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

The International Jew by Henry Ford

http://www.ety.com/berlin/ford1.htm

The Jew has got hold of the Church in doctrine, in liberalism, so-called, and in the feverish and feeble sociological diversions of many classes. If there is any place where a straight study of the Jewish Question should be made it is in the modern Church which is unconsciously giving allegiance to a mass of Jewish propaganda. It is not reaction that is counselled here; it is progress along constructive paths, the paths of our forefathers, the Anglo-Saxons, who have to this day been the World-Builders, the Makers of cities and commerce and continents; and not the Jews who have never been builders or pioneers, who have never peopled the wilderness, but who move in upon the labors of other men. They are not to be blamed for not being Builders or Pioneers, perhaps; they are to be blamed for claiming all the rights of pioneers; but even then, perhaps, their blame ought not to be so great as the blame that rests upon the sons of the Anglo-Saxons for rejecting the straightforward Building of their fathers, and taking up with the doubtful ideas of Judah.

...

The warning has already gone out through the colleges. The system of Jewish procedure is already fully known. How simple it is ! First, you secularize the public schools -"secularize" is the precise word the Jews use for the process. You prepare the mind of the public school child by enforcing the rule that no mention shall ever be made to indicate that culture or patriotism is in any way connected with the deeper principles of the Anglo-Saxon religion. Keep it out, every sight and sound of it ! Keep out also every word that will aid any child to identify the Jewish race. Then, when you have thus prepared the soil, you can go into the universities and colleges and enter upon the double program of pouring contempt on all the AngloSaxon landmarks, at the same time filling the void with Jewish revolutionary ideas.

The influence of the common people is driven out of the schools, where common people's influence can go; but Jewish influence is allowed to run rampant in the higher institutions where the common people's influence cannot go. Secularize the schools, and you can then Judaize the universities.

This is the "liberalism" which Jewish spokesmen so much applaud. In labor unions, in churches, in universities, it has tainted the principles of work, faith and society. The proof of it is written thickly over all Jewish activities and utterances. It is in exerting these very influences that Jewry convinces itself that it is fulfilling its "mission" to the world.

The capitalism attacked is non-Jewish capitalism; the orthodoxy attacked is Christian orthodoxy; the society attacked is the Anglo-Saxon form of society; all of which bat their destruction would redound to the glory of Judaism.

...

If these words had been written by a non-Jew, the cry of "anti-Semitism" would ring through the land. Yet Sidonia adds: "And every generation they (the Jews) must become more powerful and dangerous to the society that is hostile to them."

"Latitudinarianism" is the doctrine of the Protocols in a word. It is the break-up by means of a welter of so-called "liberal" ideas which construct nothing themselves, but have the power to destroy the established order.

Several generations have passed since Disraeli's words were written. The Jew still regards every form of non-Jewish society as hostile to him. They have become more powerful and more dangerous. Those who would measure the danger-look around !

...

But all through the documents there is left no doubt as to the people against whom the plan is aimed. It is not aimed against aristocracy as such. It is not aimed against capital as such. Very definite provisions are made for the enlistment of aristocracy, capital and government for the execution of the plan. It is aimed against the people of the world who are called "Gentiles." It is the frequent mention of "Gentiles" that really decides the purpose of the documents. Most of the destructive type of "liberal" plans aim at the enlistment of the people as helpers; this plan aims at the degeneration of the people in order that they may be reduced to confusion of mind and thus manipulated. Popular movements of a "liberal" kind are to be encouraged, all the disruptive philosophies in religion, economics, politics and domestic life are to be sown and watered, for the purpose of so disintegrating social solidarity and a definite plan, herein set forth, may be put through without notice, and the people then molded to it when the fallacy of these philosophies is shown.

Communism works in the United States through precisely the same channels as it used in Russia and through the same agents -Revolutionary and Predatory Unionism, as distinct from Business and Uplift Unionism, and Jewish agitators. When Martens, the so-called Soviet Ambassador, "left" the United States after being deported, he appointed as the representative of Communism in the United States one Charles Recht, a Jew, a lawyer by profession, who maintained an office in New York. This office was the rendezvous of all the Jewish labor union leaders in the city, many of the labor leaders throughout the country, and frequently of American government officials and other political leaders known to be the henchmen of Jewish aspirations in the United States and sympathizers with predatory radicalism. The organization has since spread from coast to coast, from north to south. The situation of Communist headquarters in New York was, and is, important because from that center lines of authority and action radiate to all the other cities of the Union. New York is the laboratory in which the emissaries of revolution learn their lesson, and their knowledge is daily increased by the counsel and experience of travelling delegates straight out of Russia.

...

There are more Communists in the United States than there are in Soviet Russia. Their aim is the same and their racial character is the same. If they have not yet been able to do in America what they have done in Eastern Europe, it is because of the greater dissemination of information, the higher degree of intelligence, and particularly the wider diffusion of the agencies of government, than ever obtained in Russia and Eastern Europe. The power house of Communist influence and propaganda in the United States is in the Jewish trade unions which, almost without exception, adhere to a Bolshevik program for the respective industries and for the country as a whole. The fact proves most embarrassing to the Jewish leaders in the recognized political parties very frequently. It is bad enough that Russian Bolshevism, Communism, should be so predominantly Jewish, but to confront the ; same situation in the United States is a problem which Jewish leaders have to use much ingenuity and deception to explain away or avoid. Yet the International Jew of America cannot be absolved from bearing sole responsibility for it. Russian Bolshevism came out of the East Side of New York where it was fostered by the encouragement-the religious, moral and financial encouragement - of Jewish leaders.

Leon Trotsky ( Braunstein) was an East Sider. The forces which fostered what he stood for centered in the Kehillah and the American Jewish Committee. Both were interested in the work he set out to do-the overthrow of an established government, one of the allies of the United States in world war one. Russian Bolshevism was helped to its objective by Jewish gold f rom the United States-and by the ignorance and indolence of the Gentile citizens of the United States whose crimes of omission are almost as grave as those of bolshevik commission.

KKK links:

http://www.whitefuture.com/html/linda/cornerstone.html
http://www.notmuch.com/Speak/BBS/Odds-And-Ends/137x165.html
http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/american_knights_kkk.asp
http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/KKK.asp?xpicked=4&item=18

Now THAT is anti-Semitism!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


One of the points that Finklestein has been trying to make is that the current fanatacism of Zionists is causing problems for Jews in general.

You know very well that when you mention Finkelstein you can't have a serious discussion with me.

So, why are you doing it?

espritch I will reply to you tomorrow, tonight I am very tired. I liked your post, it seems that you have a political sense about the whole issue and I enjoy talking about politics and not about "who stole the 10cm of my borders".

[Skeptic]

This is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

Are you sure? I might not be the clearest writer in the world, but still, Mao's infantile ramblings in his "little red book", or Lenin's and Marx's unreadable, ponderous nonsense, is infinitely worse. Since you probably read and admired these works, I'd say you've actually heard worse nonsense before.

The "liberals" were the socialists, the socialists were the Bolsheviks! Duh!

So? When an antisemite find an excuse to hate the jews, anything will do--just tack on to the jews whatever you hate. In communist countries, such as the USSR, the jews were prosecuted for being "counterrevolutionary capitalists"; in nationalistic countries, such as Nazi Germany, the jews were prosecuted for being "bolshevists" (among just about everything else).

What an idiot. Its quite obvious, if you pay any attention now or ever have, that traditionally it has always been the cponservatives who were anti-Semitic.

Not really. Today, it is the so-called "progressives" like yourself who are all gung-ho for israel's destruction and the butchery of the jews there, of course as part of the "people's struggle against racist imperlialism". Conservatives are, by and large, more pro-israeli. Just look at this board: who hates jews here? The "progressives" like "demon", "Mr. Manifesto", "Jon_in_London" and, above all, "A Unique Person". Who supports israel? Usually (although no exclusively) conservatives. This is, of course, not to say that all liberals in this board are antisemitic--that is by no means the case. But the OPPOSITE is true: virtually all the antisemites, or the rabid israel-haters, are so-called "progressives" and "liberals".

To give a "real world" example, remember the "anti-racism" (HA!) conference in Durban in 2000? It became the most virulent, disgusting, anti-semitic mass hysteria spectacle since the Nuremberg rallies--all carried out, of course, by "progressive" organizations, and led by such paragons of justice and human rights as Sudan and Iran. It was so bad, that the USA walked out--making any decisions reached in the conference completely meaningless. But that didn't matter--hey, SCREW those who suffer from racism; we're busy bashing jews here!

Being opposed to Israeli policy is not anti-Semitic.

It isn't opposition to israeli POLICY. The "progressive" view is an opposition to israel's EXISTENCE and the justification of its destruction by a Arab genocide. This is not only antisemitic, it is the moral equivalent of supporting Hitler's "final solution of the jewish problem".

Of course, Mlalachi, remember: rule #1 of being a "progressive" is that you must NEVER, EVER actually look at what Marxist countries did to their people, or what the Arabs repeatedly say they want to do to the jews. That would make it far too clear that all your support for "the people" and opposition to "imperialism" is, in reality, merely the support of butchers and the justification of genocide.

Simply put, the "progressives" are antisemites--because, like the "progressive" view itself, bashing jews is now a fashion in certain "intellectual" circles, and virtually the only supporters of the so-called "progressive" movement are those who are slaves to the latest intellectual fashion.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Just look at this board: who hates jews here? The "progressives" like "Ssibal", "Mr. Manifesto", "Jon_in_London" and, above all, "A Unique Person".

I hate Jews? That's news to me....

[Skeptic]

You know very well that when you mention Finkelstein you can't have a serious discussion with me.

So, why are you doing it?

Cleo:

You probably noticed that there's nothing AUP enjoys more than looking around for "objective evidence" from some "expert" about how evil the joooooooooooooooos are.

He obviously cannot help himself--just look at the "sources" he quotes (e.g., obvious palestinian propaganda). Even when he KNOWS the source is obviously antisemitic and biased; even when he KNOWS that relying on it exposes his antisemitism as well; even then, sometimes, it's just too good (e.g., makes REALLY horrible claims about the evil jooooooos) to ignore, so he just HAS to post it here as "proof of jewish evil" and the hell with the consequences of people pointing and laughing at him later.

AUP and posting antisemitic literature is like a diabetic who is addicted to chocolate ice cream. Yes, it's bad for him, but he can't help himself: it's just too good to pass on, sometimes, even if he knows he'll feel horrible later.

Then along comes Finkelstein. Finkelstein has two all-important qualities: he not only hates jews, he also IS a jew himself. For AUP, a jewish antisemite is what sugar-free, zero-calories chocolate ice cream would be for the diabetic: suddenly, you can stuff yourself as much as you want with it (whether antisemitic literature or ice cream), without fearing the consequences of being blamed for antisemitism--since, AUP will whine when criticized, "Finkelstein cannot be an antisemite--he's a evil jooooooooo himself!!!".

To ask AUP to give up Finkelstein's books is like asking the diabetic to give up the sugar-free ice cream. He finally found his heaven, "antisemitic literature light": all of the hate, none of the guilt! You REALLY expect him to give that up just because Finkelstein is a crank? You don't know much about human nature if you do...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by ssibal


I hate Jews? That's news to me....

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

My apologies, ssibal. I meant "demon", the guy who claimed that the NSA is somehow controlled by the jews when they released the trascripts that showed the attack on the "Liberty" wasn't intentional. You started that thread about the Liberty, and somehow I got you and him mixed up. I will edit my post accordingly.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


I hate Jews? That's news to me....

All I want to know is, why can JamesM and Cleopatra, who are both Jewish, be able to debate the issue and try to think the issue out for themselves? Skeptic is just like Jedi Knight or Hammegk, not able to look past his blind allegiance to what he believes.

Neither of these people feels inclined to go onto a Skeptic type rant, where all you have to do to defend your position is accuse the person you disagree with of hating Jews.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


You know very well that when you mention Finkelstein you can't have a serious discussion with me.

So, why are you doing it?

espritch I will reply to you tomorrow, tonight I am very tired. I liked your post, it seems that you have a political sense about the whole issue and I enjoy talking about politics and not about "who stole the 10cm of my borders".

Why not? Even if you do not accept the basic premise of the book, there are many points in it that are worth considering.

As I said in another post, there are now reports of Jews being set up for a terrorist attack in Australia. This is unprecedented. What is the driving this change in Australia?

[Malachi151]

Skeptic

You are going off the deep end into absurdity. Your now trying to create some mythological world view wherein "liberals" have always been evil Jew hating monseters, when the historical facts are so totally opposite from this that its laughable.

Go back prior to World War II and you see the "liberalism" was considered a "Jewish conspiracy". Prior to WWII Liberalism was called "Jewishness". The ideas of secularism, internationalism, equality, workers rights, etc, were all associeted with "Jewishness" and "liberalism" and Communism.

Unions were said to be part of a Jewish plot to destroy Western Civilization, I mean this is rediculous and absurd, but you know that is why the KKK and Hitler and people like that were able to do what they did in the 1920s and 1930s, because there was a wide spread anti-Semitic feeling among conservative Protestants and Catholics in America and Europe.

Many Jews, including Albert Einstein and other "liberal" Jews opposed the formation of Israel. because they saw it as nationalistic and something that would cause conflict in the world. Guess what, they were right. It has caused conflict.

"The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-mindedness and economic obstacles. I believe that it is bad. I have always been against it. He went further to deride the concept of a Jewish commonwealth as an "imitation of Europe, the end of which was brought about by nationalism."

- Albert Einstein

“My awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish state.”

- Albert Einstein

Trotsky and other Socialist Jews spoke out against the formation of Israel as well.

Now that is has been created, which I think was a mistake, I support letting them keep their origionally alloted land. Beyond that its just letting them get away with stealing land from others.

The origional land distribution is shown in my first post in this thread. There is nothing unfair about that. To the Israelis. And I don't like the idea of a country formed specificially for one group of people by religion and ethnicity. That's exactly the OPPOSITE of what we should be doing. The formation of Israel was an exclusionary thing. Would you support the formation of a White Protestant country? I would not, nore would I support the formation of a country for any specific group of people.

"The Jews" are not one single people any more than whites or black or anyone else it. Not all Jewish people wanted Israel, not all of them support it, not all of them thought it was a good idea, and some simply don't care one way or the other.

I don't care about race at all, I'm opposed to all religion, and I support the mixing of all cultures. None of that is represented in the ideals embodied by Israel. That's fine, they can do what they want to do, but don't come crying then people attack you because you invade their land, I mean what do you expect? It would not matter if Israel was the land of Jews, Irish, Cossaks, Native Americans, or anyone else, the policy of militance and conquest of land is what is at issue and the creation of an exclusive state. Is much of what they do in self defense? Yes it is, but they have intentionally put themselves into harms way. Its like walking through a ghetto of starving people carrying a Big Mac and them getting pissed off then people try to take it from you. I mean duh!

Anyone should have known this would happen, and a reasonable person would have said, no, the risk is too great, this is going to cause trouble for generations to come, let's just go to America instead. I would have been happy for all the Jews to come here, and guess what, if they would have we would be much closer to peace in this world today.

I can make a bet here. I bet that if the Israelis decided to attempt to conquer all of the Middle East that you wouldn't have a problem with that would you?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic


AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

My apologies, ssibal. I meant "demon", the guy who claimed that the NSA is somehow controlled by the jews when they released the trascripts that showed the attack on the "Liberty" wasn't intentional. You started that thread about the Liberty, and somehow I got you and him mixed up. I will edit my post accordingly.

Another effort up to your usual standards of checking the basic facts.

[demon]

Skeptic:
"...I meant "demon", the guy who claimed that the NSA is somehow controlled by the jews when they released the trascripts that showed the attack on the "Liberty" wasn't intentional..."

I didn`t claim that the NSA was controlled by Jews but as you misrepresent the position of anybody that disagrees with your increasingly madcap rants then ce la vie.

However, stating that the attack on the USS Liberty was unintentional is infact a claim, and only a claim that you can`t prove. Is this distinction too sublte for you to grasp? It would seem so after your latest jaunt through the looking glass.

I guess it is very apt for an ex IDF Bulldozer driver to turn up on a thread about stealing land but this forum isn`t the occupied territories so luckily we don`t have to take anything you say serioulsy.

"What did you do in the war, daddy?" :confused:

[espritch]

I did a little searching on the subject of the Camp David Accord. In my last post I indicated my thinking that the Accord included specific restrictions against further construction of settlements on the West Bank. However, I have not been able to confirm any specific language to this effect, so I may be wrong on that point. It did call for establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza within 5 years. This part of the agreement was, of course, never implemented.

While looking into the subject, I came across an interesting site from a group called B’Tselem, a Jewish human rights organization in Israel. The site discusses in some detail the West Bank settlement policies of Israel and how they affect the Palestinians:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_2002.asp

Israel has used a complex legal and bureaucratic mechanism to take control of more than fifty percent of the land in the West Bank. This land was used mainly to establish settlements and create reserves of land for the future expansion of the settlements.

That “more than fifty percent” surprised me. I knew what the settlements were about, but I didn’t know it was that extensive. The article discusses the various means used by Israel to claim Palestinian land, to subsidize the settlements, and to prevent Palestinians from building homes on their own property. Definitely worth a read.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by espritch
I did a little searching on the subject of the Camp David Accord. In my last post I indicated my thinking that the Accord included specific restrictions against further construction of settlements on the West Bank. However, I have not been able to confirm any specific language to this effect, so I may be wrong on that point. It did call for establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza within 5 years. This part of the agreement was, of course, never implemented.

While looking into the subject, I came across an interesting site from a group called B’Tselem, a Jewish human rights organization in Israel. The site discusses in some detail the West Bank settlement policies of Israel and how they affect the Palestinians:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/Land_Grab_2002.asp



That “more than fifty percent” surprised me. I knew what the settlements were about, but I didn’t know it was that extensive. The article discusses the various means used by Israel to claim Palestinian land, to subsidize the settlements, and to prevent Palestinians from building homes on their own property. Definitely worth a read.

Skeptic, where are you? I have referred to this Israeli peace group before, and have a lot of respect for their work.

People have laughed at my description of the IDF bulldozer as a WMD, but the results are pretty clear.

[Skeptic]

However, stating that the attack on the USS Liberty was unintentional is infact a claim, and only a claim that you can`t prove. Is this distinction too sublte for you to grasp?

It isn't for me to prove. You accuse israel of a crime-you prove that a crime WAS committed. Since you hate jews, however, you "demand" that israel DISprove all the absurd accusations anybody bothers to make about it.

Why? Beause when it comes to blaming the jews, your attitude is "guilty until proven innocent"--and they are never proven innocent to your satisfaction anyway.

It is PRECISELY this attitude, which of course you apply ONLY to israeli "crimes" and not to that of any other nation, which is why you're an antisemite.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
However, stating that the attack on the USS Liberty was unintentional is infact a claim, and only a claim that you can`t prove. Is this distinction too sublte for you to grasp?

It isn't for me to prove. You accuse israel of a crime-you prove that a crime WAS committed. Since you hate jews, however, you "demand" that israel DISprove all the absurd accusations anybody bothers to make about it.

Why? Beause when it comes to blaming the jews, your attitude is "guilty until proven innocent"--and they are never proven innocent to your satisfaction anyway.

It is PRECISELY this attitude, which of course you apply ONLY to israeli "crimes" and not to that of any other nation, which is why you're an antisemite.

I think a pretty good case has been made that it was deliberate, you disagree. Now, can you come up with anything that is obviously wrong. No one has made any claims of blood libels, world wide conspiracies or anything like that. If anything, it is some Jews making those accusations. Like the ones I referred to in Sydney, who are Luboviches. (sp). When one of them foreclosed on the mortgage for their school, because in their pursuit of the spiritual they forgot that they may have to pay for something one day, they ran up the line of ' the Jews are used to this'. Used to what, causing trouble for each other?

As for the other crimes, their is plenty of documentation of them. I think you would be hard pressed to find a bombing that is not given wide coverage. In contrast, the daily process of reducing Palesinians to a ghetto is mostly forgotten.

I asked you to come up with a list of my lies once. It was a pretty pathetic effort at a list. It reminded me of the 'Great Jewish Sportsmen' from 'Flying High'.

[demon]

"It is PRECISELY this attitude, which of course you apply ONLY to israeli "crimes" and not to that of any other nation, which is why you're an antisemite."

Hmm, Skeptic in "Wonderland" again.
You do more harm to Israel`s "cause" with cliches like that than anything your so called "antisemites" do.

Looks like you have been formally welcomed into "the land that common sense forgot".

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


All I want to know is, why can JamesM and Cleopatra, who are both Jewish, be able to debate the issue and try to think the issue out for themselves? .

I have the same question when it comes to you Unique.

How can I --who switches the TV on every morning just to hear to another death call from the town I was born and I have friends and relatives that live in it-- can discuss things more impartially than you do.

You shout louder than me. Why? I am the one who is checking the e-mail every morning fearing that I will have bad news for somebody I know Palestinian or Israeli.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Why not? Even if you do not accept the basic premise of the book, there are many points in it that are worth considering.


Finkelstein's book is considered by the Israelites worldwide as the "Modern Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I have told you that before in case you have missed it.

If you want to discuss about the Middle East with me seriously you might want to consider to avoid using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as reference either in their old or in their modern version.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I have the same question when it comes to you Unique.

How can I --who switches the TV on every morning just to hear to another death call from the town I was born and I have friends and relatives that live in it-- can discuss things more impartially than you do.

You shout louder than me. Why? I am the one who is checking the e-mail every morning fearing that I will have bad news for somebody I know Palestinian or Israeli.

I did not realise I was shouting. However, my newspaper constantly has stories about the political upheavels and violence in the Middle East. Now the tremors are spreading to Australia, with many Australians killed by the Bali bombing.

I could just pretend this isn't happening and that it does not have any influence on me, but every day, it has a little more impact on my own life.

Try this thread for an example.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6459

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Finkelstein's book is considered by the Israelites worldwide as the "Modern Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I have told you that before in case you have missed it.

If you want to discuss about the Middle East with me seriously you might want to consider to avoid using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as reference either in their old or in their modern version.

Except that is has nothing whatsoever to do with the protocols, in substance or in history. As I said, even if you do not agree with the basic premise, there are points in it to consider. And I don't recall ever bringing up the Protocls myself. Maybe that is because the two books have nothing to do with each other.

[Cleopatra]

Now the tremors are spreading to Australia, with many Australians killed by the Bali bombing.

Are you blaming Israel for the Bali bombing?

I could just pretend this isn't happening and that it does not have any influence on me

Who asked you not to care?

but every day, it has a little more impact on my own life.

Obviously it was time for you to recite a joke to lighten up the atmosphere.


Except that is has nothing whatsoever to do with the protocols, in substance or in history

Common misconception regarding the nature of the science of History. Finkelstein's book is a libel, not History exactly like the Protocols.


As I said, even if you do not agree with the basic premise, there are points in it to consider.

Sophistry. Try again you can do better.

And I don't recall ever bringing up the Protocls myself

Fallacy: I never implied that you did, I said that you might want to consider not to do it.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Are you blaming Israel for the Bali bombing?



I am saying that the flames are spreading from the Middle East to the rest of the world. And Israel has played it's part in fanning those flames.



Who asked you not to care?



You were implying that because you are impacted more directly by the events over there, that we over here do not have the right to be so involved.



Obviously it was time for you to recite a joke to lighten up the atmosphere.



Two peanuts were walking through the park. One was a salted.



Common misconception regarding the nature of the science of History. Finkelstein's book is a libel, not History exactly like the Protocols.



It is rich in polemic, for sure. But then, much of what comes out of Israel about this conflict is too. His point, that by doing exactly what Skeptic does, and continually referring to the Holocaust as justification for Israel's misdeeds now will breed contempt for Jews in general, is quite true. In fact, it is about the only method of argument that Skeptic seems to employ. By stating that the Palestinians have a case leads him to conclude that I will not be happy until all Jews dead, all around the world.

As distinct from debating someone like you, who builds respect and trust, debating someone like Skeptic only develops contempt.



Sophistry. Try again you can do better.



Sophistry?



Fallacy: I never implied that you did, I said that you might want to consider not to do it.

Rest assured, I do not harbour any secret thoughts of trying to refer to the Protocols.

[a_unique_person]

Anyway, as per the basic premise of this thread, has this unfortunate person had his property stolen from him?

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


As I said in another post, there are now reports of Jews being set up for a terrorist attack in Australia. This is unprecedented. What is the driving this change in Australia?

Well, I suppose it is the Jews, as always. But read this quote from one of those loony, downtrodden, Jew victimized, moslems in Bali.

"I tell Australians we're not afraid," Samudra was quoted as saying by a translator. "Before 10 years, Australia and America will be destroyed. Please help me God, I'm not afraid."



Samudra, who has said a death sentence will bring him closer to Allah, displayed a chilling indifference throughout his trial to his own fate and that of his victims.



"This war is against America and the world understands that America is conceited, arrogant, savage and brutal," he has said.



"The war against America and its allies is a war against evil, against tyranny and a war against terrorism and this is jihad (holy war) in the path of Allah."

(From al Jazeera, today)

Not a mention of a Jew, oddly enough. You see, they just plain hate us. You too AUP. They believe that they are doing gods work. Tell me, AUP, if it gets bad in Oz, what do you think should happen? Their demand is that you die. How do you negotiate from that position? And, what did you guys do to them? Be specific, please. Any fences we don't know about? You take some desert? Bulldoze any homes? What? This is the face of the Islam and your palistinian buddies too.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ed


Well, I suppose it is the Jews, as always. But read this quote from one of those loony, downtrodden, Jew victimized, moslems in Bali.

"I tell Australians we're not afraid," Samudra was quoted as saying by a translator. "Before 10 years, Australia and America will be destroyed. Please help me God, I'm not afraid."



Samudra, who has said a death sentence will bring him closer to Allah, displayed a chilling indifference throughout his trial to his own fate and that of his victims.



"This war is against America and the world understands that America is conceited, arrogant, savage and brutal," he has said.



"The war against America and its allies is a war against evil, against tyranny and a war against terrorism and this is jihad (holy war) in the path of Allah."

(From al Jazeera, today)

Not a mention of a Jew, oddly enough. You see, they just plain hate us. You too AUP. They believe that they are doing gods work. Tell me, AUP, if it gets bad in Oz, what do you think should happen? Their demand is that you die. How do you negotiate from that position? And, what did you guys do to them? Be specific, please. Any fences we don't know about? You take some desert? Bulldoze any homes? What? This is the face of the Islam and your palistinian buddies too.



Bali has been a cause for concern for many years for the PC people. Australians have used it as a good, cheap place to go and get drunk and ***, with each other and the natives. Bali has been transformed, apparently, from a tropical paradise to a tropical tourist dump.

Not enough of a reason to kill people, but it does make them a target for those like Samudra. More Balinese were actually killed in the bomb than Australians, IIRC, including some muslims.

Indonesia itself is a large part of the problem. It has been battling the usual problems of a despotic leader. A military that won't take orders, widespread corruption and crime, which in turn facilitate the rise of extremism.

Steps are being taken to remedy the situation. As is the case with the Philipines, though, this will probably take many years.

Going back a few years, to the source of the power of the despot, what do we find, but the US backing a country that was proudly anti-communist. Perhaps that is a part of the problem, especially since Australia has, under the current conservative government, aligned itself so closely with the US.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Bali has been a cause for concern for many years for the PC people. Australians have used it as a good, cheap place to go and get drunk and ***, with each other and the natives. Bali has been transformed, apparently, from a tropical paradise to a tropical tourist dump.

Not enough of a reason to kill people, but it does make them a target for those like Samudra. More Balinese were actually killed in the bomb than Australians, IIRC, including some muslims.

Indonesia itself is a large part of the problem. It has been battling the usual problems of a despotic leader. A military that won't take orders, widespread corruption and crime, which in turn facilitate the rise of extremism.

Steps are being taken to remedy the situation. As is the case with the Philipines, though, this will probably take many years.

Going back a few years, to the source of the power of the despot, what do we find, but the US backing a country that was proudly anti-communist. Perhaps that is a part of the problem, especially since Australia has, under the current conservative government, aligned itself so closely with the US.

Not enough reason to kill people? How about working up some moral indignation?

So, this somehow, was ultimately the fault of the US. Got it. Not Jews, the US. Of course US policy is made by Jews so it really is them. You are so quick to blame. How about expressing disgust for a religious position that justifies death? Bet you can't.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ed


Not enough reason to kill people? How about working up some moral indignation?

So, this somehow, was ultimately the fault of the US. Got it. Not Jews, the US. Of course US policy is made by Jews so it really is them. You are so quick to blame. How about expressing disgust for a religious position that justifies death? Bet you can't.

Just a reminder, Ed... You haven't commented on the link I provided regarding Arabic inventions. You haven't forgotten, have you?

[Skeptic]

I am saying that the flames are spreading from the Middle East to the rest of the world. And Israel has played it's part in fanning those flames.

Yes, it refused to lie down and die despite REPEATED demands, so the frustrated fascists try to take out their agression on some other "heretics" as well.

I'm sure you're deeply disappointed, AUP: don't these islamists KNOW they are supposed to confine themselves to killing JEWS? How dare they attack Australia, when you were so supportive of their just cause?

Of course, if you REALLY want the flames not to spread, you should support israel in everything it does. You see, history shows that giving in to the demands of fanatical thugs who want you dead will not stop them, but will mertely encourage them. Remember the Munich agreement?

If you think the "flames" are bad now, when the excuse for muslims trying to destroy Australia is the "injustice" in israel's existence, you can well imagine what horrors would await Australia if israel is destroyed, and the victory-drunk mulsims will see it as a heavenly sign that Allah supports their fight to make the whole world muslim--Australia included, complete with you and your family, regardless of how much you supported them on the JREF forum.

To paraphrase Churchill, you are such a cowardly man enamored with his own momentary comfort, that you are quite willing to feed other people to an alligator with the hope that it will eat you last: you are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of jews to arab butchery as long as you think that will satisfy the muslim fanatics so that they'll leave YOU alone.

They will... for about a year... and then will continue the war to eject you from the "holy muslim land" of Australia with renewed, and much improved, morale and vigor.

[Ed]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I am not sure what you mean. That there has been a rise in anti-semitic activity, which until now has not been targetted in a lethal manner. There are now indications that there may be plans for lethal attacks.

The rise in non-violent attacks and the possible to lethal attacks is only a recent trend. I think it is worth asking, why?

Because the language of Islamic debate is violence.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Are you blaming Israel for the Bali bombing?

AUP

I am saying that the flames are spreading from the Middle East to the rest of the world. And Israel has played it's part in fanning those flames.For the record: he blames Israel for the Bali bombing.

[Cleopatra]

To espritch and to the posters of this thread.

My answer to your interesting post will have to wait because I am out of this thread.

Since Unique insists on quoting Finkelstein and famous nazis I cannot continue the discussion in a civilized manner, therefore is better for me to leave it here.

AUP has told me that Finkelstein's libel is the only book he has read about The Holocaust and since he has bills to pay he can't afford reading other books....

I leave this to your judgement...

I am having in mind to start another thread about Middle East on a political level, discussing delicate things like the way Israel was established, the right of Jews to have a country ( Malachi said that we must leave ME, I agree), the refugee problem, addressing moreover topics like the ones espritch touched.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by hgc
For the record: he blames Israel for the Bali bombing.
Let's be fair, it's pretty clear what his opinion is: the situation in Israel is one of the motivations of Islamic militants to strike targets in the West, and is a source of the support amongst a wider Islamic population, that they might not have otherwise. And without that support, they may not be able to carry out their atrocities.

There are plenty of assumptions to disagree with in that argument, but it is not particularly unreasonable or outlandish. Let's face it, anyone's point of view can be caricatured and exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by JamesM

. Let's face it, anyone's point of view can be caricatured and exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness.

But when it comes to AUP this is not necessary. He ridicules his posts and his views by himself with the sources he brings here and the sophistries he posts as answers to reasonable arguments.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Since Unique insists on quotting Finkelstein and famous nazis I cannot continue the discussion in a civilized manner, therefore is better for me to leave it here.
I think it's a pity that you refuse to discuss Finkelstein, but do you (or anyone else) have any links to sensible material discussing his book?

I know, I know, I could go and look on google for myself, but my capacity for wading through rabid pro- and anti-Zionist hate speech is a bit low at the moment.

[Cleopatra]

You are wrong James.

I have invited many times Unique to start a thread about Finkelstein and the "Holocaust Industry" and he doesn't respond. Instead, he posts poisonous remarks even to irrelevant threads. Did you see what he said in the thread about the n-word? Go check please.

I know that it's a pity that AUP refuses to discuss this in a separate thread. It's my favorite topic.

[renata]

Originally posted by JamesM

I think it's a pity that you refuse to discuss Finkelstein, but do you (or anyone else) have any links to sensible material discussing his book?

I know, I know, I could go and look on google for myself, but my capacity for wading through rabid pro- and anti-Zionist hate speech is a bit low at the moment.

JamesM, I and Skeptic tried having a discussion with AUP about Finkelstein's book. I am afraid my patience ran low very quickly.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464

Starts about 1/3 way down the first page.

Demon and AUP has brought the book up on several occasions, when it suits their purpose. I believe Cleopatra asked AUP to discuss the book herself. I know Cleopatra and I asked demon to discuss it, but he refused.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870029031&highlight=finkelstein#post1870029031


It appears AUP and demon prefer to use it in drive by mentions, like here, instead of in depth discussion offered to them by Cleopatra.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870064059&highlight=finkelstein#post1870064059


I frankly, discovered I really do not have the stomach for it.

[hgc]

Originally posted by JamesM

Let's be fair, it's pretty clear what his opinion is: the situation in Israel is one of the motivations of Islamic militants to strike targets in the West, and is a source of the support amongst a wider Islamic population, that they might not have otherwise. And without that support, they may not be able to carry out their atrocities.

There are plenty of assumptions to disagree with in that argument, but it is not particularly unreasonable or outlandish. Let's face it, anyone's point of view can be caricatured and exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness. I can agree in theory that these things are all very interconnected and there's a complex web of cause and effect, and so on. But there comes a point when the connection you draw is so tenuous and outrageous that its only purpose is to shift the responsibility to your enemy, regardless of all evidence and common sense. This is what AUP is doing here.

By the way, even if murderous religious lunatics state specifically that Israel is the proximate or root cause of their actions, you still have to evaluate for yourself if it is (a) sincere and/or (b) relevant. It's the old devil-made-me-do-it excuse.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by renata

JamesM, I and Skeptic tried having a discussion with AUP about Finkelstein's book. I am afraid my patience ran low very quickly.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464

Thanks for that. Perhaps it would be worth a bit of googling, after all...


I know Cleopatra and I asked demon to discuss it, but he refused.
I've noticed that. A shame.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are wrong James.
Ok, I sit corrected. But on this thread you did say that "when you mention Finkelstein you can't have a serious discussion with me" and referred to it as the modern edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which he should avoid mentioning to you, which gave me that impression.


Did you see what he said in the thread about the n-word? Go check please.
I did see that. Rather odd. I assumed he was trying to wind you up.

[demon]

Cleopatra;
"Finkelstein's book is considered by the Israelites worldwide as the "Modern Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I have told you that before in case you have missed it.

"If you want to discuss about the Middle East with me seriously you might want to consider to avoid using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as reference either in their old or in their modern version."

"I have invited many times Unique to start a thread about Finkelstein and the "Holocaust Industry" and he doesn't respond."

"You know very well that when you mention Finkelstein you can't have a serious discussion with me."

Renata;
"Demon and AUP has brought the book up on several occasions, when it suits their purpose. I believe Cleopatra asked AUP to discuss the book herself. I know Cleopatra and I asked demon to discuss it, but he refused."

Hmmm, to discuss or not to discuss, that is the question.

LOL.... Yet another case of multiple personality disorder.

The older I get the more convinced I become that the genes for big mouths and thin skins are somehow inextricably linked together, Bill O'Reilly comes instantly to mind as another example.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Ed


Because the language of Islamic debate is violence.

Nah, that can't be it. It must all be the jews' fault.

Of course, AUP is too much of a coward to openly admit it. Like David Irving, he resorts to insinuations: "asking" rhetorical questions with an obvious answer ("it's all the jews' fault") without actuall saying it.

[renata]

Originally posted by demon
Cleopatra;
"Finkelstein's book is considered by the Israelites worldwide as the "Modern Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I have told you that before in case you have missed it.

"If you want to discuss about the Middle East with me seriously you might want to consider to avoid using the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as reference either in their old or in their modern version."

"I have invited many times Unique to start a thread about Finkelstein and the "Holocaust Industry" and he doesn't respond."

"You know very well that when you mention Finkelstein you can't have a serious discussion with me."

Renata;
"Demon and AUP has brought the book up on several occasions, when it suits their purpose. I believe Cleopatra asked AUP to discuss the book herself. I know Cleopatra and I asked demon to discuss it, but he refused."

Hmmm, to discuss or not to discuss, that is the question.

LOL.... Yet another case of multiple personality disorder.

The older I get the more convinced I become that the genes for big mouths and thin skins are somehow inextricably linked together, Bill O'Reilly comes instantly to mind as another example.


Demon,

I linked to the thread where Cleopatra and I requested you discuss the book in depth instead of the constant drive by mentions you seem fond of. You refused. Your attempt to link me to O'Reilly who is known for making unsupported drive by assertions instead of discussing issues in depth is not only an ad hominem but also quite comical considering your own consistent refusal to discuss this topic.

[demon]

"Your attempt to link me to O'Reilly who is known for making unsupported drive by assertions instead of discussing issues in depth is not only an ad hominem but also quite comical..."

Even more comical considering you have just apologised to me for doing exactly that in the USS Liberty thread..

[renata]

Originally posted by demon
"Your attempt to link me to O'Reilly who is known for making unsupported drive by assertions instead of discussing issues in depth is not only an ad hominem but also quite comical..."

Even more comical considering you have just apologised to me for doing exactly that in the USS Liberty thread..

No, I made an attribution error. You used two sources in a thread on USS Liberty. One of them was on how attack on USS Liberty was not an accident, and the other was on Jewish Lobby. One of them was IHR. I mistakenly attributed IHR as your source for the Liberty information, whereas it was the information for your claims on the Jewish lobby. I mixed up the sources, and once my mistake was pointed out, I immediately apologized. I do not consider making honest errors and apologizing for them a fault. I consider making drive by assertions, ad hominem attacks, refusing discussion a sign of intellectual lazyness and/or dishonesty.

Of course that does not even begin to cover the whole issue of using IHR as a source for anything in the first place. But I am glad my admission of an error and my apology for it makes you think ad hominem attacks are a justified debating tactic.

[demon]

"Of course that does not even begin to cover the whole issue of using IHR as a source for anything in the first place."

The quotes that I used from the IHR site are independent of that site and stand on their own merits. I went to their original sources and they are all legitimate I`m afraid...not made up by those evil anti-semites you see lurking around every corner.
Muddying the waters by ignoring their independent legitimacy and instead focusing on where they are found is the ultimate diversionary tactic and is a sign of intellectual lazyness and dishonesty. No "or" about it.

When will it dawn on some people that the halcyon days of squawking anti-semite every two minutes to successfully obfuscate the real issues are long gone.
We have the "self-hating" Jews, among others, to thank for that step out of the dark ages and we aren`t going back no matter how much that upsets the Zionist applecart.

[Skeptic]

The quotes that I used from the IHR site are independent of that site and stand on their own merits.

Sure. Just like quotes from the KKK site about blacks are "independent and stand on their own merit".

Forget it, demon. If you have to go to a holocaust-denying, neo-nazi, rabidly antisemitic web site like the IHR's to find so-called "independent" support for your favorite conspiracy theory, you might as well give it up and admit you're wrong.

(Of course, one must also remember that for you, "independent and stand on their own merit" really means "blames the jews", while "biased" and "by the controlled media" really means "doesn't blame the jews".)

[renata]

Originally posted by demon
"Of course that does not even begin to cover the whole issue of using IHR as a source for anything in the first place."

The quotes that I used from the IHR site are independent of that site and stand on their own merits. I went to their original sources and they are all legitimate I`m afraid...not made up by those evil anti-semites you see lurking around every corner.
Muddying the waters by ignoring their independent legitimacy and instead focusing on where they are found is the ultimate diversionary tactic and is a sign of intellectual lazyness and dishonesty. No "or" about it.

When will it dawn on some people that the halcyon days of squawking anti-semite every two minutes to successfully obfuscate the real issues are long gone.
We have the "self-hating" Jews, among others, to thank for that step out of the dark ages and we aren`t going back no matter how much that upsets the Zionist applecart.

Really?? You went to their original sources and they are all legitimate? Terrific! Can you show you work here, for all the quotes. I admit I had not anticipated such deep research from you, demon, considering your past reluctance to discuss Finkelstein. Perhaps I had been wrong about you after all.


And I want to repost some wonderful posts from Nova land on this topic, a poster I miss very much. I know this is quote a bit of thread drift, but I think he explained things better than I could.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9644&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Once again I'm reading through a thread a couple days late; and even though you folks have already argued out the IHR matter quite a bit, I feel the need to chime in.

I agree very strongly with Skeptic that IHR is not an acceptable source as far as credible evidence.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Institute of Historical Review" the holocaust-denying, blatantly anti-semitic, "research institute" started and headed until recently by the nototious neo-nazi and Hitler-worshipper Willis Carto...

To say that... the IHR is an organization of notorious liars, rabid anti-semites, holocaust deniers and hate propagandists is not irrelevant...

It is an excellent reason to think that, given their record, any argument whatsoever coming from them concerning jews in any way does not really deserve a rebuttal...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And in reply to a comment: "Where this material appears is not the point."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it's precisely the point. The IHR's articles about jews are as likely to be accurate as the KKK's articles about blacks, or the Institute for Creation Research's articles about evolution...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I like to collect odd materials. Some years back I was able to obtain free subscription copies of the newsletter that Carto's front group Liberty Lobby published. (The title escapes me at the moment.) While the group sometimes tries to put a respectable face on their views, it is offensive garbage.

The problem with using material from people such as this, even if the particular piece may on the surface appear to be free of racial slurs or other blatant red flags, is that, just as Skeptic says, these people are liars. They are not above taking quotes out of context, or doctoring them, or even occasionally inventing one, when it suits their purposes.

When offering up sources to others on these boards to back up our claims, I think it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to look for evidence they feel is good and, if need be, to verify what they are offering. For instance, when I write from my own experience I try to indicate what I know directly and what I know only from hearsay. If I offer a source that I am not reasonably confident is an honest source, I will include a note that it comes from a biased source and should be taken with salt, or that I have not personally verified the information.

Here, we have an extremely dubious source.

The IHR article is heavily footnoted. But I've seen too many smear materials which were similarly footnoted to be willing to accept that the person who wrote the article (a) actually read the items quoted, and (b) is quoting them honestly and in context.

I have on occasion taken the time to track down sources cited in propaganda materials to compare them to what's being claimed; but at present I am not near enough a good library to be able to do that easily. Many people just don't have the time and energy to devote to a project like that, especially those with regular jobs. (Which is a shame; I think it's a fun thing to do because one often finds gems of deception.)

The reasonable thing is for the person making the claim to take the time to verify what they're submitting as evidence. If a quote about a Jewish lobby (or whatever) is important enough to someone to pass along to others, then it should be important enough for that person to take the time to look up a primary source for the quote and make sure what they are passing along is accurate.

I am not willing to accept IHR's word their quotes are honest. But if AUP or someone else is willing to look up these quotes and then post the ones they have personally read in a primary source and can vouch for as being accurate and in context, I would take AUP's word for that and be willing to examine and discuss the quotes then.

I am surprised anyone would offer up IHR as a source, except as an example of what's out there on the internet.


Please post these quotes the context they are in, since you verified all of them, and we can discuss them all one by one.



Next comment by Nova Land on the issue


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jedi Knight

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is fake. It was thoroughly researched by scholars and carries as much credibility as the Sunday funny papers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Very true!

Unfortunately, fakes such as the protocols continue to be passed along. Often the person passing it along will use a line such as, "Hey, I don't know if this is true or not, but it certainly is interesting. And don't you think it's possible...?"

That was the line famed radio priest Charles Coughlin used when he reprinted the protocols (and other smear materials) in his widely-read newsletter Social Justice back in the 1930s and early 1940s. It may also have been the line taken by Henry Ford when he was promoting the protocols earlier in the century. And if you hang around in the wrong circles you can still hear it.

(Likewise, there are a large number of people who bought into many "quotations" supposedly made by the Communists, such as the one about their secret plot to take over the USA by corrupting the morals of young people with sex education, getting prayer taken out of the schools, lowering the moral standards of tv and movies, etc., until the USA would "fall into our hands like over-ripe fruit.")

Morris Kominsky wrote an excellent book about 35 years ago, The Hoaxers, which listed a lot of the phony quotations that were passed along unquestioningly, even by some respectable newspapers and magazines. If memory serves, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is covered thoroughly, and I believe a number of other anti-Jewish fabricated quotations were also covered.

The funny/sad thing is that, even though Kominsky thoroughly debunked many of these phony quotations, long after his book had appeared (and long after he had conducted correspondences with various media outlets challenging them to provide a genuine source for these phony quotations when they appeared in print), the same phony quotations continued to appear over and over. People would pick up some source that had printed it, feel an urge to pass it along, and use it themselves without bothering to verify it... as would the people they passed it along to.

One of the valuable contributions skeptics can make to the world is to set an example by not passing along material that way. The standard for whether one passes along something should not be "It agrees with what I think, therefore it must be true." We should apply the same standards to things we tend to agree with as we do to things we tend to disagree with.

[Which reminds me: Hi, Jedi! It's good to be back and able to talk with you on these boards again.][Setting myself up for you to respond: "Oh, were you away?" ... ]

His next to last paragraph is worth reading several times, for people on all sides of any debate. I think it is obvious why his reasoned voice is missed.




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by a_unique_person


It wasn't my source, so I apologize if the references it gives are not correct, I have not checked them out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I see now that it was Demon who posted the link. My apologies for indicating it was you; people were attacking you so heavily over it that I didn't look carefully at where it first appeared.

Regardless of who posted it, my point is still that until I have reason to believe the people quoted actually said the things attributed to them in the way IHR claims, without significant omissions or distortions, there isn't much to discuss. The only facts I know so far are that IHR alleges that certain people made certain statements and intended them in the way IHR interprets. I've seen too many out-of-context, altered, or fabricated quotations from people like this to be willing to start basing conclusions on the possibility these are accurate as presented.

It's called good faith. We usually extend it to others, but it's not guaranteed. With most people, if they say: "I got up at 10 yesterday morning," we're inclined to take them at their word. But if someone has a record of lying about when they get up, then I am under no obligation to accept their word, and may need supporting evidence before I can believe it.

I'm willing to put faith in you. If you look up the material that piques your interest on the IHR site and come back able to say, "Here is the quotation; I have read it and am presenting it in a fair way that accurately reflects what the person saying it meant," I'll accept that and be willing to discuss the quotation. I am not willing to extend that to IHR.

Or, if you don't have time to do that, you can (as you have) say that there may be something of interest in what IHR has posted, and wait until others have time to get to good libraries to look up the sources themselves. If I look up the quotation and read it in context, then likewise I can discuss it with you. The drawback to this is that you have to wait until we can go out and read the quotation, which may take quite some time.

But otherwise, what is there to discuss? The only fact I know so far is that IHR alleges people made these quotations. I'm willing to agree IHR alleges this. That's as far as I can reasonably go.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also the logical principle that you do not discount a fact just because it comes from a suspect source. You need to question it more carefully, but you cannot dismiss it outright.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I agree. Even something from a dubious source may have some foundation in truth. If something piques our interest, then we can try to find information on it from some more reliable source. Once we have found that, then we are ready to present it to others for consideration, and to start drawing conclusions.

So, by all means, search for truth in many places. We should not discount possibilities just because we dislike the people raising them.

But similarly, we should not believe things without credible evidence. IHR's statements are not credible, because they have too long a history of lies and distortions. I'm not dismissing the possibility that something they say has truth to it, I'm waiting for someone to find something true in what they've said. If something they say has merit, it should be possible to find this at a reliable source.

If no reliable source can be found for the claims made at a dubious source, that in itself is a strong indication the dubious source is wrong.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, on a similar site, I found information on the water crises that is affecting the whole area. If you refer to another post, one of the very few forests has been turned into a housing estate on the west bank. Why there? How were the trees surviving there when all around is barren desert?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, I saw that post and thought that was a good thing to look into and discuss. It was a very disturbing before/after picture, to see what had been lush and green turn into what looked like concrete. I'd like to learn more about that. If you have more information, it might be interesting to start a thread about that and explore it more deeply. At present I do not have enough information to have a meaningful opinion about it.

demon's answer

demon
Muse

Registered: Aug 2002
Location: England/USA
Posts: 502
"I am surprised anyone would offer up IHR as a source, except as an example of what's out there on the internet."

I offered this particular article as it contained contributions by Jewish writers and others who do not agree with Skeptic and Shniper.

I removed the quotes from from their source so they stand or fall on their own merit independent of that source.

As I expected none of them were addressed. Instead there is a lot of loud claptrap which I suppose is designed to drown out the chirping crickets.

Another point ignored was the attack on academic freedom:

http://www.campus-watch.org/

At least some speak out:

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article714.shtml
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article732.shtml
http://www.counterpunch.org/youmans0922.html


And the final post in Nova's series, answer to demon on the very issue of quotes standing on their own merits and being independent of their site.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demon
I removed the quotes from from their source so they stand or fall on their own merit independent of that source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think we have different standards / definitions for what it means to quote someone.

That's not surprising to me; most people I know do not share my feelings on this matter. I'm inclined to believe standards on this have declined in our socieity; many of my friends are inclined to believe I'm just weird. If after hearing my explanation you are inclined to believe I'm just weird, I'll understand and won't be offended.

My feeling is that, in order to quote someone, one is obliged to first read that person's work for oneself. For instance, if I want to make a point by quoting from Thomas Jefferson, I need to read enough Jefferson to be sure I am conveying correctly what Jefferson meant. To me, quoting Jefferswon is in effect saying, "Here is a small part of what Jefferson said; I have read the actual passage it came from, and give you my word that by choosing this portion of it to pass along I am trying my best to convey a correct impression of Jefferson's thoughts."

If, on the other hand, I have read David Barton's The Myth of Separation (a book on what separation of church and state [i]really means, with a -creative- interpretation of Jefferson's views), and I am impressed by the Barton's claims (carefully documented, of course, with selections from Jefferson's writings) about what Jefferson really believed about separation of church and state, and I decide to share this knowledge with my friends, I am not entitled to copy Barton's quoting of Jefferson and say that I am quoting Jefferson. If I do that, I am actually quoting from Barton, and in order to be honest about this I need to say something such as, "Here is a passage from Jefferson, as quoted by David Barton." [NOTE: italics used to indicate I don't actually agree with Barton. It's a hypothetical me saying this.]

When people begin copying what other people have quoted, and passing it along as if they personally knew what they were quoting, problems arise and distortions often creep in. To my mind, it's dishonest.

If you cite something, I want to know the actual source you are citing. If you found something by reading Jefferson's works, you may cite those works of Jefferson. If you found something attributed to Jefferson by reading Barton's work, you should cite Barton as the source.

It looks a lot less authoritative -- which is why, I believe, many people prefer not to do it. What they may not understand -- or may be reluctant to understand -- is that it should look less authoritative, because it is less authoritative. A person who is just passing along something that's been fed to them carries less weight than a person who is actually familiar with the material they are passing along.

I can't speak for others, but in order for me to respond to these "quotes" as being from the genuine quotes, in context, from the people they are attributed to I need to have someone reliable say so. If all you are able to say is that you clipped them from the IHR site, then that's not sufficient, at least not for me. If you will take the time to look these up in the original sources, read them, and then post them, I will be willing to take your word that these are accurate representations of what these people were trying to say and will be glad to discuss them from there.

I realize that is a lot of work, more than you may care to undertake. I don't live near a good library at present, so I can't easily do the work for you. However, I'll be passing through Knoxville around Thanksgiving time, and if the university library is open late hours then I'll be glad to stop over on my bus trip, look up as many of the IHR quotations as I have time (and as they have the books) for, and then catch an early-morning bus on to Atlanta. I'm not trying to evade discussion of this material. But I am unwilling to spend time discussing "quotations" until I have a sense of what the person quoted really said and meant.



I believe Nova will be posting again in a few months. I hope so, as you can tell he adds quite a bit of reason and depth to a discussion. And I think you see why I posted this lengthy exchange and analysis of his, not much to improve on, really.

But let's see those original sources, and the context, shall we?

[demon]

"Really?? You went to their original sources and they are all legitimate? Terrific! Can you show you work here, for all the quotes. I admit I had not anticipated such deep research from you, demon, considering your past reluctance to discuss Finkelstein. Perhaps I had been wrong about you after all. "


You seem suprised that someone actually bothers to check up on their sources...why is that?

The quotes are sourced in the original posting, go check them yourself if you are so inclined, they are all there, where they should be and it didn`t take "deep research" to confirm them.
It`s telling that you think checking up on a few quotes is "deep research". Maybe for you it is, not for me but I`ll concede that owning some of the books in question helps.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by JamesM

Let's be fair, it's pretty clear what his opinion is: the situation in Israel is one of the motivations of Islamic militants to strike targets in the West, and is a source of the support amongst a wider Islamic population, that they might not have otherwise. And without that support, they may not be able to carry out their atrocities.

There are plenty of assumptions to disagree with in that argument, but it is not particularly unreasonable or outlandish. Let's face it, anyone's point of view can be caricatured and exaggerated to the point of ludicrousness.

How come you can understand a pretty simple concept, but the others can't. It is not that hard, is it? You are also Jewish, so it is not as if you do not have an emotional involvement in this issue outside of an intellectual one.

'Fanning the Flames' is an expression that means to take a problem and make it worse. The whole Israel/Palestine problem is difficult enough to deal with, without Israel relentlessly stealing land from people. This is just what people like the Bali bombers want, an excuse to motivate others to kill.

I have said it before and I will have to say it again, what does Israel gain from occupying the West Bank? Not security, not peace, not prosperity.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by renata


JamesM, I and Skeptic tried having a discussion with AUP about Finkelstein's book. I am afraid my patience ran low very quickly.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15464

Starts about 1/3 way down the first page.

Demon and AUP has brought the book up on several occasions, when it suits their purpose. I believe Cleopatra asked AUP to discuss the book herself. I know Cleopatra and I asked demon to discuss it, but he refused.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870029031&highlight=finkelstein#post1870029031
It appears AUP and demon prefer to use it in drive by mentions, like here, instead of in depth discussion offered to them by Cleopatra.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870064059&highlight=finkelstein#post1870064059


I frankly, discovered I really do not have the stomach for it.


When it suits my purpose, or when it appears to be relevent to the argument?

[renata]

Originally posted by demon
"Really?? You went to their original sources and they are all legitimate? Terrific! Can you show you work here, for all the quotes. I admit I had not anticipated such deep research from you, demon, considering your past reluctance to discuss Finkelstein. Perhaps I had been wrong about you after all. "


You seem suprised that someone actually bothers to check up on their sources...why is that?

The quotes are sourced in the original posting, go check them yourself if you are so inclined, they are all there, where they should be and it didn`t take "deep research" to confirm them.
It`s telling that you think checking up on a few quotes is "deep research". Maybe for you it is, not for me but I`ll concede that owning some of the books in question helps.

Did you merely separate the quotes from the site, or did you go to the original, primary sources? If you went to the primary sources like you seem to claim, please list them here, along with full context the quotes were made in. Then we can discuss them. Deep research is looking up the intent of the author, the writings of that author, reading speech or article in total, instead of ripping a sentence so much that the scars show. Did you read Nova Land's excellent response to you of 10 months back? I ascribe to his views on this.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by hgc
I can agree in theory that these things are all very interconnected and there's a complex web of cause and effect, and so on. But there comes a point when the connection you draw is so tenuous and outrageous that its only purpose is to shift the responsibility to your enemy, regardless of all evidence and common sense. This is what AUP is doing here.

By the way, even if murderous religious lunatics state specifically that Israel is the proximate or root cause of their actions, you still have to evaluate for yourself if it is (a) sincere and/or (b) relevant. It's the old devil-made-me-do-it excuse.

I am not talking about whether or not it is a valid excuse, I am talk about if it is a process in train.

[demon]

"Did you merely separate the quotes from the site, or did you go to the original, primary sources? If you went to the primary sources like you seem to claim, please list them here, along with full context the quotes were made in. Then we can discuss them. Deep research is looking up the intent of the author, the writings of that author, reading speech or article in total, instead of ripping a sentence so much that the scars show. Did you read Nova Land's excellent response to you of 10 months back? I ascribe to his views on this."

The quotes and sources are already listed.
Listing something once is enough for most people.

You`d do well to read the source material yourself, I`m not going to babysit you through it...what do you expect me to do, quote the whole damn books to give you the "context"?
This isn`t rocket science, any half intelligent 12 year old could do it. Try it, you just might learn something.

As for Nova Land, I read his response when he wrote it, 10 months ago. The same applies to him.

[renata]

Originally posted by demon
"Did you merely separate the quotes from the site, or did you go to the original, primary sources? If you went to the primary sources like you seem to claim, please list them here, along with full context the quotes were made in. Then we can discuss them. Deep research is looking up the intent of the author, the writings of that author, reading speech or article in total, instead of ripping a sentence so much that the scars show. Did you read Nova Land's excellent response to you of 10 months back? I ascribe to his views on this."

The quotes and sources are already listed.
Listing something once is enough for most people.

You`d do well to read the source material yourself, I`m not going to babysit you through it...what do you expect me to do, quote the whole damn books to give you the "context"?
This isn`t rocket science, any half intelligent 12 year old could do it. Try it, you just might learn something.

As for Nova Land, I read his response when he wrote it, 10 months ago. The same applies to him.

So you claim to have read the primary sources and confirmed the veracity, cotext, accuracy and intent of all quotes on IHR, the rabidly antisemitic Holocaust denying site, but you choose not to submit proof of that. Riiiight. Look at the invisible pink polka dotted unicorn in my garage!!!!

Okey dokey.... I think I am done here.

[demon]

"Look at the invisible pink polka dotted unicorn in my garage!!!!"

It probably comes from that through the looking glass, mythical Israel you can`t stop beating us around the head with.

[a_unique_person]

And, so, we all agree that this man has had his land stolen, as part of a process that has been going on for many years. He has no legal redress or recourse.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
And, so, we all agree that this man has had his land stolen, as part of a process that has been going on for many years. He has no legal redress or recourse.

And what process would that be? His land was 'stolen' in 1967.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


And what process would that be? His land was 'stolen' in 1967.

The country was invaded then, the land has been his own property till now.

[Skeptic]

And what process would that be?

jews trying to stop suicide bombers from blowing up their babies by setting up a barrier between themselves and the suicide bombers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
And what process would that be?

jews trying to stop suicide bombers from blowing up their babies by setting up a barrier between themselves and the suicide bombers.

This person is not a suicide bomber.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The country was invaded then, the land has been his own property till now.

What do you mean till now? I wonder if he felt the same way when Jordan invaded his land in 1948.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


What do you mean till now? I wonder if he felt the same way when Jordan invaded his land in 1948.

Jordan didn't actually deprive him of his property.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Jordan didn't actually deprive him of his property.

Accidentaly quoted instead of editing, see next post:

[ssibal]

He has admittedly been living there illegally for years and now when Israel is actually doing something about it he complains? That is like me stealing electricity for 20 years and then complaining when the electric company sues me. He had the ability to make himself legal and due to his unwillingness or procrastination he did not. His parents and sister were able to.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal
He has admittedly been living there illegally for years and now when Israel is actually doing something about it he complains? That is like me stealing electricity for 20 years and then complaining when the electric company sues me. He had the ability to make himself legal and due to his unwillingness or procrastination he did not. His parents and sister were able to.

He was made a criminal by doing nothing more than living in his house.

[crocodile deathroll]

If Bush was truly sincere he would give the Jews generous incentives to abandon their settlements and resettle them back in the US (or back in Israel if Sheron has room for them) where he would guarantee them jobs and security.
Then do not veto to UN to set up a demilitarized zone in the West Bank, Israel and Gaza to win the peace there.
Pure and simple, the war would be over; peace will win.

If the Israelis to not take up his offer, too bad it will be imposed on them anyway and be forcefully removed from the settlements to settlements in the US, if they do not wish to resettle back in Israel.

CDR

[DialecticMaterialist]

With some important exceptions, stereotypes are in fact not inaccurate when assesses against objective benchmarks such as census figures or the reports of the stereotypes people themselves. People who believe that African-Americans are more likely to be on welfare than whites, that Jews have higher average incomes than WASPs, that business students are more conservative than students in the arts, and that women are more likely than men to want to lose weight, are not being irrational or bigoted. Those beliefs are correct.
-Steven Pinker, professor of neuroscience, MIT


Discrimination - in the sense of using a statistically predictive trait of an individual's group to make a decision about the individual - is not always immoral, or at least we don't always treat it as immoral. Decisions that have to made with finite time and resources, and which have high costs for certain kinds of errors, must use some trait as a basis for judging a person. And that necessarily judges person according to a stereotype.
We have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the discrimination is justifiable. Denying driving and voting rights to young teenagers is a form of age discrimination that is unfair to responsible teens. But we are not willing to pay either the financial costs of developing a test for psychological maturity or the moral costs of classification errors, such as teens wrapping their cars around trees.
- Steven Pinker, again


http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Blank_Slate.html


I have no doubt in my mind that there are good Palestinians. That there are some progressive Palestinians that want peace. That there are some Palestinians more sound of mind then a great deal of Israelis.

But the key word here is some.


Some does not always mean enough.

Sometimes, when enough of a population is hateful or bigoted or fanatical, one nation must act against the population as a whole to preserve its own freedom, security and prosperity. In Israel's case: perhaps its very existence and the lives of its 6 million citizens.


Now many say the Israeli's stole Palestinian land, that has a grain of truth but such a claim is so simplistic and slanted it is ultimately false.

Truth is the Palestinians of the region never owned the land, first it was owned by the Ottoman Empire, then when that fell to Britain, for attacking Britain and France, ownership went to the Brits.


It was under the Brits that the Jews migrated into the area, and then when their numbers were high enough: demanded their own nation.

This was not something down out of greed, but out of desperation. The desperation of escaping and creating a bastion from anti-semitism that had engulfed the world. In fact the a great amount of this migration occured in the time of Nazis being in power.

It stands to reason then that when Britain left, and saw that the region had two populations, both of which hated eachother: that they (with the UN) would split it in half. Such was most prudent after the horrors of the genocide and nazi anti-semitism had already done far too much harm to the Jewish people.

However this was not good enough for the Muslims who saw the entire thing as a zero-sum game and wanted Israel off their land. For this reason they attacked Israel constantly and for this reason Israel eventually, and wisely, took their land.


Such a move makes sense. If your enemy attacks you. Then attacks you again. Then attacks you again. After a while, you may be tempted to remove their means of attack for some bizzarre reason.


So the Israelis did not just go in and steal land as many maintain. That is a falsehood.


Israel is merely a peaceful, secular, democracy. A socialist/capitalist mixed one, in which its people enjoy freedom and prosperity. An open society.

I side with Israel for this reason over the tyrannies that surround it. Tyrant states that not even the most ardent pro-palestinian here would ever want to live in, but which at the same time wish to help increase in their power and their land. And of all things, help these opressive monarchies and theocracies under the banner of human rights.

Shouldn't we be applauding the Israelis for their restraint? For their adherence to humanistic principles? For maintaining a true democracy and not regressing into a poilice state under such hardship?

"No!" cry the radicals, "we should instead condenm Israel for picking on neighboring dictatorships."

The absurdity of this is most apparent. And I have more then enough evidence to side with Israel and think the Israelis are as of now more in-line with my values then the Palestinians and rest of the Middle East will be for decades.

The idea that the Palestinians are reacting to the Israeli recent "take over" of their land is reverse causation. Of course not all of it is reverse causation. Many Palestinians who were probably more moderate or apathetic on the issue probably did swing over to the anti-semetic cause by Israel's reaction.

And I suspect that before Israel was attacked by Muslim neighbors and before Israel was attacked by Muslim terrorists; there were some anti-arab bigots in Israel.


But generally, I think the Palestinians Muslims have been the aggressors on the issue. Generally I think there are far more fanatics in the Muslim world, with great power, then in the Israeli. And generally I think it's obvious that the Israelis are the ones who are defending themselves with great restraint.

I wonder if London was being assaulted by Ireland almost daily, and the whole Irish state had basically declared that they wish for Britain to "cease to exist", not only that had gotten allied nations to actually attack Britain, and then had gathered armed ships and men along the British coastline, what would the Brits reaction be? Or any nations?

You certainly wouldn't see Britain, or America, or even France offering them their own nations. You would see bombing campaigns.

I think that fact alone, along with the fact that Israel does not wipe out Palestine (though it can) while even the strongest pro-Palestinian supporters admit that the Muslims would be willing to wipe out Israel IF they could, is a great testament to Israeli resolve.

[a_unique_person]

Cleopatra? This sounds a more racist than anything I have been accused of.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist






http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Life/Science/Blank_Slate.html


I have no doubt in my mind that there are good Palestinians. That there are some progressive Palestinians that want peace. That there are some Palestinians more sound of mind then a great deal of Israelis.

But the key word here is some.


Some does not always mean enough.



Australia was the subject of a very interesting social experiment, when Great Britain settled it. The prisons were literally full, there was nowhere to put all the criminals. So they founded Australia as a penal colony. You would think, since it was founded by criminals, people with a natural tendency to crime, (according to this theory), that Australia, as a whole, would have a higher rate of crime. Non criminals did settle there later, but the criminal basis is still there and many people can trace their descendency to the convicts.

Of course, the Australian crime rate is not that high, and is comparable to that of GB. You can see magnificent buildings in Sydney that were designed by convicts.

There was a special penal colony formed for the 'hardest' cases, on Norfolk Island. The authorities tried harsher and harsher penalties, but the convicts only fought back harder. It was only when they tried to ease off on the punishment, and offer incentives for good behaviour, (this is where parole was invented), that behaviour in the prison started to improve.

Today, crime is virtually unknown on the Island. Most people never bother to lock their homes. There was a major uproar when someone was actually murdered a few years ago.



Sometimes, when enough of a population is hateful or bigoted or fanatical, one nation must act against the population as a whole to preserve its own freedom, security and prosperity. In Israel's case: perhaps its very existence and the lives of its 6 million citizens.



Extremists perhaps, but the Oslo accords showed that the majority of Palestinians were prepared to get along with living with Israel.



Now many say the Israeli's stole Palestinian land, that has a grain of truth but such a claim is so simplistic and slanted it is ultimately false.



Now that's a novel argument.



Truth is the Palestinians of the region never owned the land, first it was owned by the Ottoman Empire, then when that fell to Britain, for attacking Britain and France, ownership went to the Brits.



Now that is being simplistic and slanted. Palestinians did not have their own country, as such. But they certainly lived on their and owned their own land.



It was under the Brits that the Jews migrated into the area, and then when their numbers were high enough: demanded their own nation.

This was not something down out of greed, but out of desperation. The desperation of escaping and creating a bastion from anti-semitism that had engulfed the world. In fact the a great amount of this migration occured in the time of Nazis being in power.



No one is denying that. However, the presumption is that the Palestinians should be the ones to take on the responsibilty of paying for the crimes of Europe. Until the Zionist movement, Jews and Arabs lived in harmony.



It stands to reason then that when Britain left, and saw that the region had two populations, both of which hated eachother: that they (with the UN) would split it in half. Such was most prudent after the horrors of the genocide and nazi anti-semitism had already done far too much harm to the Jewish people.



You are saying the Jews hated the Arabs. Interesting.

The Arabs were resisting an invasion. They were the patsies chosen to atone for the sins of Europe and the US. Certainly, Jews tried to escape to the Sates as well, but the US was succsessful in turning them away, as it had a navy and armed forces.



However this was not good enough for the Muslims who saw the entire thing as a zero-sum game and wanted Israel off their land. For this reason they attacked Israel constantly and for this reason Israel eventually, and wisely, took their land.



Can you think of one nation that would have had the Jewish settlers welcomed with open arms? I can't.



Such a move makes sense. If your enemy attacks you. Then attacks you again. Then attacks you again. After a while, you may be tempted to remove their means of attack for some bizzarre reason.



When an invasion occurs, how long does it take you to give up?



So the Israelis did not just go in and steal land as many maintain. That is a falsehood.

Israel is merely a peaceful, secular, democracy. A socialist/capitalist mixed one, in which its people enjoy freedom and prosperity. An open society.



It is not merely that. Now who is being simplistic and slanted. The rule of law is not observed in Israel. Arabs with legal warrants for their land are ignored. When the legal system fails, what other recourse is there?

Palestinians do not enjoy the freedom of Israelis. They are often subjected to curfews, searches, humilitation, group punishment, discrimination, and, as in this case, the theft of land.



I side with Israel for this reason over the tyrannies that surround it. Tyrant states that not even the most ardent pro-palestinian here would ever want to live in, but which at the same time wish to help increase in their power and their land. And of all things, help these opressive monarchies and theocracies under the banner of human rights.

Shouldn't we be applauding the Israelis for their restraint? For their adherence to humanistic principles? For maintaining a true democracy and not regressing into a poilice state under such hardship?



except that Israel is not bringing these wonderful virtues of democracy, freedom and humanitarianism to the Palestinians. Their application of the law is very selective. The abuse of law for the appropriation of land is relentless. Israel knows it cannot just murder the Palestinians. So they take the land, acre by acre.

As has been pointed out, if they just absorbed all the Palestinians into their country and gave them the vote, they would be in a minority. Democracy when it suits.



"No!" cry the radicals, "we should instead condenm Israel for picking on neighboring dictatorships."

The absurdity of this is most apparent. And I have more then enough evidence to side with Israel and think the Israelis are as of now more in-line with my values then the Palestinians and rest of the Middle East will be for decades.



The absurdities in this area are numerous. And you don't have to be a radical to want a state for Palestine. Where did you get the idea that it is only radicals who do?



The idea that the Palestinians are reacting to the Israeli recent "take over" of their land is reverse causation. Of course not all of it is reverse causation. Many Palestinians who were probably more moderate or apathetic on the issue probably did swing over to the anti-semetic cause by Israel's reaction.

And I suspect that before Israel was attacked by Muslim neighbors and before Israel was attacked by Muslim terrorists; there were some anti-arab bigots in Israel.


But generally, I think the Palestinians Muslims have been the aggressors on the issue. Generally I think there are far more fanatics in the Muslim world, with great power, then in the Israeli. And generally I think it's obvious that the Israelis are the ones who are defending themselves with great restraint.



Hang on, I can't recall Arabs hunting down Jews around the world because they hated them. That was the Europeans and xians wasn't it? They have only attacked them after they forced themselves on the Arabs land.



I wonder if London was being assaulted by Ireland almost daily, and the whole Irish state had basically declared that they wish for Britain to "cease to exist", not only that had gotten allied nations to actually attack Britain, and then had gathered armed ships and men along the British coastline, what would the Brits reaction be? Or any nations?



Well, this is a good case. How about the British attacking Ireland, and forming Northern Ireland? For hundreds of years, there has been strife there. And perhaps for hundreds more.



You certainly wouldn't see Britain, or America, or even France offering them their own nations. You would see bombing campaigns.



Funny, I thought that was what the Arabs were doing to the Zionists.



I think that fact alone, along with the fact that Israel does not wipe out Palestine (though it can) while even the strongest pro-Palestinian supporters admit that the Muslims would be willing to wipe out Israel IF they could, is a great testament to Israeli resolve.

Because it wants acceptance. It knows if it just murders millions, it will not gain acceptance for decades or even a hundred years. Also, when it was founded by Ben Gurion, he had aspirations for Israel being a modern, tolerant and humane country. Such an act would be the final nail in the coffin of that dream.

I also know you will find there are many Jews who are not Zionists who think the founding of Israel was a mistake. Einstein, for example.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


He was made a criminal by doing nothing more than living in his house.

So were his parents and sister.....they chose to stop being criminals 25 years ago, the guy for whatever reason did not make that decision.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


So were his parents and sister.....they chose to stop being criminals 25 years ago, the guy for whatever reason did not make that decision.

How can you be made a criminal for living in your own house?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


How can you be made a criminal for living in your own house?

The same way you can be made a criminal for anything else. The government thinks up of a law and passes it. Was this law fair? I do not know, I do not even know what law it is since the article does not go into detail on the legal issues. It merely states that some man has admittedly been living illegally, he had the opportunity to change his situation (i.e. make himself legal) just like his parents and sister and he did not. Whether or not whatever law in place was fair or not is besides the point (I suspect you are trying to imply that Israel is oppressive or unjust or whatever). The man knowingly had an opportunity to change his situation and he did not take advantage and now he complains when it comes back to bite him. I am sorry but I have no sympathy for that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


The same way you can be made a criminal for anything else. The government thinks up of a law and passes it. Was this law fair? I do not know, I do not even know what law it is since the article does not go into detail on the legal issues. It merely states that some man has admittedly been living illegally, he had the opportunity to change his situation (i.e. make himself legal) just like his parents and sister and he did not. Whether or not whatever law in place was fair or not is besides the point (I suspect you are trying to imply that Israel is oppressive or unjust or whatever). The man knowingly had an opportunity to change his situation and he did not take advantage and now he complains when it comes back to bite him. I am sorry but I have no sympathy for that.

OK, so you agree with the premise of this thread, that this is how the process of taking land works.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


OK, so you agree with the premise of this thread, that this is how the process of taking land works.

No, because the government 'had' the land since 1967.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by ssibal


No, because the government 'had' the land since 1967.

Even if you accept that Israel rules the West Bank, the goverment doesn't own private land in any country.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Even if you accept that Israel rules the West Bank, the goverment doesn't own private land in any country.

Except almost every country has a law that grants it rights to take any land they want.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Except almost every country has a law that grants it rights to take any land they want.

But I can get you links of Palestinians, with legally validated titles, with their land being confiscated and houses bulldozed. Israel does not currently uphold the rule of law.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


But I can get you links of Palestinians, with legally validated titles, with their land being confiscated and houses bulldozed. Israel does not currently uphold the rule of law.

What is the current Israeli law about confiscating land?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Even if you accept that Israel rules the West Bank, the goverment doesn't own private land in any country.

I do not know which category this man falls under, but the Israeli government owns over 90% of the land. Maybe they own his as well?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

I have no doubt in my mind that there are good Palestinians. That there are some progressive Palestinians that want peace. That there are some Palestinians more sound of mind then a great deal of Israelis.

But the key word here is some.


Some does not always mean enough.

Sometimes, when enough of a population is hateful or bigoted or fanatical, one nation must act against the population as a whole to preserve its own freedom, security and prosperity. In Israel's case: perhaps its very existence and the lives of its 6 million citizens.

You are aware, of course, that you can just turn this argument around and use it to justify suicide bombings?

A Palestinian could say:

"Sure, there are some nice Israelis. But some does not always mean enough. When enough of them are hateful, bigoted and fanatical then we have to act against the population as a whole to preserve our own freedom, security and prosperity. In Palestine's case, perhaps our very existence and the lives of all our people".

This is why this is not a very good argument.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Australia was the subject of a very interesting social experiment, when Great Britain settled it. The prisons were literally full, there was nowhere to put all the criminals. So they founded Australia as a penal colony. You would think, since it was founded by criminals, people with a natural tendency to crime, (according to this theory), that Australia, as a whole, would have a higher rate of crime. Non criminals did settle there later, but the criminal basis is still there and many people can trace their descendency to the convicts.

Of course, the Australian crime rate is not that high, and is comparable to that of GB. You can see magnificent buildings in Sydney that were designed by convicts.

There was a special penal colony formed for the 'hardest' cases, on Norfolk Island. The authorities tried harsher and harsher penalties, but the convicts only fought back harder. It was only when they tried to ease off on the punishment, and offer incentives for good behaviour, (this is where parole was invented), that behaviour in the prison started to improve.

Today, crime is virtually unknown on the Island. Most people never bother to lock their homes. There was a major uproar when someone was actually murdered a few years ago.

And your proof for this extraordinary, Utopian tale is?

[a_unique_person]

Here is one part.



Beyond the Seas": The Transportation
of Criminals to Australia

Thieves, robbers and villains, they’ll send ‘em away,To become a new people at Botany Bay.
—from "Botany Bay: A New Song" (1790)

From 1750 to 1850, Britain rose as the first industrial society. With the invention of steam-driven machines, factories sprouted in Britain’s cities. People in the countryside flocked to work in the factories, which mass-produced goods. This rapid transformation from a farming society to an industrial one is known as the Industrial Revolution. It brought great wealth to Britain.

It also brought the problems of industrial society. Workers labored long hours for wages that barely kept them and their families alive. Their children typically went to work in factories and mines shortly after reaching age 6. Many children were orphaned or abandoned and lived in the streets. To survive, many people in London’s crowded slums stole and robbed.

The Industrial Revolution, which brought tremendous wealth to Britain, had spawned a major crime wave. Beggars, pickpockets, and thieves swarmed London’s streets. Honest citizens feared this "criminal class" from the slums. They demanded action to stop the crime wave.

British authorities already punished criminals severely—often by hanging. There were over 200 death penalty offenses, most of them for stealing and other property crimes. Since no prisons existed as we know them today, hanging criminals was one of the few options available.

Another option was to banish, or deport, criminals to some faraway place. Called "transportation," this penalty had been used by the British since the time of Queen Elizabeth I (1533–1603). In fact, about 40,000 convicts were transported to the British colonies in America where they worked off their sentences. But the transportation of lawbreakers to America ended abruptly in 1776 when the Revolutionary War began.

To Botany Bay

With crime rising and the American colonies rebelling, Britain had to find another place to send its convicted felons. As a temporary solution, prisoners were crammed aboard old rotting warships, called "hulks." The hulks stayed anchored on the Thames River, which links London to the sea. By day, the convicts labored on London’s docks and other public works.

The government considered several places to dump its glut of convicts. Finally, in 1786, Prime Minister William Pitt (the Younger) decided to establish a convict colony at Botany Bay, halfway around the world in Australia.

Australia, which the British called New South Wales, had been explored by the Dutch in the early 1600s. But in 1770, Captain James Cook had landed at Botany Bay, establishing British claims to the huge, uncharted continent. Prime Minister Pitt believed that a convict colony along with a military presence at Botany Bay would assure British naval and commercial supremacy in the South Pacific.

Sending prisoners to far-off Australia would also make transportation a much harsher punishment. Most slum dwellers in their life never traveled more than 30 miles from where they were born. Sending them to what was then considered the remotest place on Earth, with little likelihood of return, would be a horrific punishment. The government hoped this punishment would strike terror in the hearts of would-be criminals.

Pitt’s government decided to transport the prisoners aboard the hulks to Botany Bay without any on-site preparation and only Captain Cook’s nearly 20-year-old reports as a guide. Thus the British launched a bold experiment in penology (the treatment of criminals). If successful, the experiment would empty the hulks along the Thames, solve the riddle of what to do with criminals, and even deter people from committing crimes.

The first British fleet to transport convicts to Australia consisted of 11 ships, including two navy warships. The commander of the fleet was Captain Arthur Phillip. Captain Phillip had been appointed governor of Australia by King George III.

In May of 1787, using Captain Cook’s 20-year-old reports as their only guide, about 200 sailors and 700 convicts sailed into the unknown. The youngest criminal was a 9-year-old boy who had stolen some clothes and a pistol. The oldest was an 82-year-old woman convicted of perjury, or lying under oath.

After a 252-day voyage across 15,000 miles, the ships reached Botany Bay. But Captain Phillip soon determined that Botany Bay was a poor harbor and the surrounding land was not suited for growing crops. He ordered the fleet northward to another location, which Captain Phillip named Sydney (after Lord Sydney, William Pitt’s minister of colonial affairs).

The First Years

Governor Phillip had been given near absolute power to rule his convict colony. This included the authority to establish courts, proclaim martial law, and award grants of land in the new colony. He also had the authority to emancipate (set free) deserving convicts. Upon landing at Sydney, Governor Phillip announced to the convicts that—if they wanted to eat—they would have to work.

More than two years passed before any relief ships arrived from Britain. During this time, the colonists nearly starved. But somehow over the next few years, Governor Phillip used convict labor to plant crops, establish herds of livestock (mainly sheep), and construct buildings and roads necessary for the colony. In the meantime, the British government continued to empty out the Thames River hulks by transporting more than a thousand convicts to Sydney each year. By 1792, when Governor Phillip returned to Britain, New South Wales had survived five harsh years to become largely self-sufficient.

Who were these convicts transported to Australia? About three-quarters were young, single men and women. Most were common thieves (called "sneaksmen") from London and other British cities. Fewer than 5 percent were transported for violent crimes. Some were political offenders, mainly from rebellious Ireland and Scotland. Male convicts outnumbered females 6 to 1. Although none of the women were transported for prostitution, many were forced to become prostitutes after landing in Australia. Frequently, female convicts ended up as "prisoners of the prisoners" and were sold like slaves.

The "Assignment System"

"The sentence of the court upon you is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life." More commonly, criminals were sentenced to Australia for a specific term like 7 or 14 years.

After 1800, about 10 percent of the convicts arriving in Australia worked on government farms and public-works projects, such as roads and harbors. The other 90 percent were assigned to work for settlers who had received grants of land. The assigned convicts were dispersed throughout the colony to provide free labor until they had served their sentences.

How they were treated depended on who they worked for. In general, however, they lived in brutal conditions on meager rations.

Even so, the convicts were not considered slaves or "property." They possessed rights under British law. For example, neither the government nor private masters could physically punish a convict without first getting the approval of a judge at a hearing. But approval was routine.

The most common court-authorized punishment was flogging by the "cat-o’-nine-tails," a whip with nine leather cords. Convicts found guilty of minor offenses typically got 25 lashes on the back. More serious offenders drew up to 300 lashes, which would leave them gravely wounded.

While flogging kept convicts in line, a reward system also existed. "Gentlemen convicts" and those who exhibited good behavior were sometimes granted a "ticket-of-leave." This allowed the convict to work for wages and live virtually free. The only restriction was that such a person could not leave Australia until his or her sentence had expired. Deserving convicts also hoped to be emancipated by the governor.

To hold on to such a vast territory as Australia, the British government needed colonists to settle the land. Although it encouraged immigrants from Britain, few came. So the government called upon released convicts, who had served their sentences, to settle the land. It offered former convicts free land, tools, seed, livestock, and even food for one year. In addition, the government assigned newly arrived convicts to them to help work the land. As it turned out, most ex-convicts never returned to Britain but stayed in Australia to become landowners or wage workers.

More Penal Experiments

The number of convicts transported to Australia increased dramatically when more ships became available following the Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815). The peak year was 1833 when 36 ships transported nearly 7,000 convicts. By this time, areas outside Sydney had been opened up for settlement under the convict assignment system. One of these was the large island south of the mainland, now called Tasmania.

Beginning in 1834, Tasmania became the site of perhaps the world’s first juvenile prison. Convicted boys aged 9–18 were isolated from adult convicts at Point Puer (Latin for "boy"). Considered too young or ignorant for assignment, they were given a basic education, taught a trade, instructed in religion, and punished for misbehavior. Although they were subjected to flogging and solitary confinement, the training they received probably provided them with more opportunities than they would have had growing up in London’s slums.

By contrast, the place of ultimate terror was Norfolk Island, 1,000 miles east of Sydney. Set aside for the worst adult criminals, this island prison kept convicts working in chains. Guards unmercifully flogged prisoners for the slightest rule violation. Desperate to get off the island, convicts sometimes would draw lots to kill each other so that the murderer would be taken to Sydney for trial.

But even Norfolk Island had its moment of enlightenment. Scotsman Alexander Maconochie came to Australia as a government official in favor of reforming convicts rather than brutalizing them. He proposed a system of rewarding convicts with "marks" for hard work and good behavior. After earning a certain number of these marks, the convict would be set free. Thus the actual length of time a convict served depended on how fast or slowly he earned his marks.

In 1840, Maconochie got a chance to try out his mark system when he was made commandant of Norfolk Island. He immediately ended flogging and gave each convict a plot of land to grow vegetables and tobacco.

Much to the surprise of everyone but Maconochie, his system worked. During his five years as commandant, he discharged almost a thousand convicts. Only 2 percent of them were ever convicted again of a serious crime. But Maconochie had many enemies who wanted to keep the old system. They didn’t care whether Maconochie’s system worked on Norfolk. They wanted Norfolk to stand as a place of terror where any unruly convict could be sent. They finally convinced the government back in London to recall him in 1845.



http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria11_2.html

[demon]

Kevin_Lowe wrote:
A Palestinian could say:

"Sure, there are some nice Israelis. But some does not always mean enough. When enough of them are hateful, bigoted and fanatical then we have to act against the population as a whole to preserve our own freedom, security and prosperity. In Palestine's case, perhaps our very existence and the lives of all our people".

That`s one very good point isn`t it but of course, the Palestinians aren`t allowed to say any such thing because we have the ever present voice of Israel ringing in our ears.

Finkelstein, Beit-Hallahmi, Shamir and Atzmon to name a few Israelis are much clearer on what is actually going on in Palestine/Israel and within Israeli society than the present Holocaust Industry talking shop here is.
Those apologists who ignore the central unnavoidable issue of the appalling crime of Israel`s establishment and the suffering that has been inflicted on the whole region are unlikely to produce any solutions to the on going catastrophe and anyway the specious arguments used to justify conquest, colonization and diposession have been rebutted. One either believes in the rights of others or one does not. Rights for most is hardly a worthwhile slogan unless you an an apologist for Zionism.

I have watched over the years as one after the other the hasbara triumphs of Israel have disintegrated. The broadcasts which were trumpeted for 20 years and now forgotten. The Arab attack of 67 became a pre-emptive war, and the Lebanon debacle as Begin said "It's not a military threat but rather the illusory moderation of the PLO", illusory maybe, certainly untested.

It is funny to watch arrogant Westerners who expect every right, privilege, and protection available to be extended to themselves and their communities but who cannot grasp the simple idea that to extend the same rights to all others is the only way to ensure ones own rights and safety.

The Palestinians have shown that you can fight with nothing. They are not interested in which of our rights we or others feel are ripe for suspension, they insist that they have all the rights that others enjoy in terms of their property, liberty, self expression and security.

And tell me what do Palestinians get from Zionism, what benefit, or is it just that they lose?

Do you see what they mean? They give up the country and get what in return? Nothing. Have Europeans gone mad? What is the quid pro quo that makes Europeans so sure that it is some how inherently right to colonize and expel? What do the Palestinians get for their country, their history, their land and their security? They get Bush, Blair, Cheney, Wolfowitz et al.

The deal is off. If there is no law that protects them from us, no compunction or justice or honesty and we expect the victims whose suffering is concealled in cold euphemisms like crossfire, targeted assassinations, fence, settlement, prisoners, nifkadim, to shut up and take it then you know what to expect.

Whining about their cruelty is pitiful and it`s always there, in the throat of apologists for the nakba and the fellow travellers in colonialism, which only ever manifests in brutality against civilians.
Fascists and fools post that Arabs in Israel have full "Jewish rights"! Why are arguments in support of Israel so often lies, distortions, or rely on crucial ommissions? Because Zionism cannot be justified, it can only be defended. Dissimulation is noticeable in almost every utterance of pro-Zionism, pro-colonialism, pro-Americanism.

The Palestinians and others are not attacking Euro-America, Euro-America is assaulting them. They cannot enforce the law or their rights and they do not accept this situation and will resist whatever the consequences. This is a human right recognized by all and since they have, as do we, in fact, a diminishing supply of rights, resistance is their gift to the future.

The minimum requirement for entry into moral dialogue is that one accept for oneself the standards one applies to others. That`s the minimum or all your words are worthless. But what happens? They get their country taken over and they get camps and bombs, curfews, water plundered and in Galillee where 500,000 Palestinians live with 76% of their land expropriated, an eight fold population increase and yet not one new Arab village or neighbourhood in more than 50 years.,

Haven`t we done enough to these people? Don`t you think we can maybe stumble the last few steps to granting equality to all? We demand those rights for oursleves,and what rights we grant ourselves they want too.
Any objections?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by ssibal


I do not know which category this man falls under, but the Israeli government owns over 90% of the land. Maybe they own his as well?

The Israeli government, through the Jewish National Fund, owns 90% of the land *in Israel*. The WB and Gaza are NOT considered Israel--they are land under military occupation. The only territory Israel actually annexed in 1967 was East Jerusalem. The difference might seem subtle, but it makes a world of difference.

This is the heart of the "settler" movement. These guys (PS, Skeptic--if you think the Palestinians are racist religious fanatics, chat with some of these settler types sometime), with government approval, go out into the occupied territories and set up shop so the government can claim the land. It's a slow-but-sure annexation policy.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Cleon


The Israeli government, through the Jewish National Fund, owns 90% of the land *in Israel*. The WB and Gaza are NOT considered Israel--they are land under military occupation. The only territory Israel actually annexed in 1967 was East Jerusalem. The difference might seem subtle, but it makes a world of difference.


The man in the article lives in East Jerusalem, so he lives on the annexed territory. But like I said, I do not know who owns the the land he lives on or the specific legal issues concerning his situation.

[Cleopatra]

Although I hate the demon haunted threads and I do not approve of inflamatory thread titles, I think that this article from NYT goes to this thread:

I removed a short paragraph with a testimony of a Palestinian in order not to violate the copy-right rules.

For the full article look here (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/opinion/14FRIE.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Fried man)

OP-ED COLUMNIST
One Wall, One Man, One Vote
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


ALQILYA, West Bank

If there is one iron law that has shaped the history of Arab-Israeli relations, it's the law of unintended consequences. For instance, Israel is still wrestling with all the unintended consequences of its victory in 1967. Today, Israel is building a fence and walls around the West Bank to deter suicide bombers. But, having looked at this wall extensively from both sides, I am ready to make a prediction: It will be the mother of all unintended consequences.

Rather than create the outlines of a two-state solution, this wall will kill that idea for Palestinians, and drive them, over time, to demand instead a one-state solution — where they and the Jews would have equal rights in one state. And since by 2010 there will be more Palestinian Arabs than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined, this transformation of the Palestinian cause will be very problematic for Israel. If American Jews think it's hard to defend Israel today on college campuses, imagine what it will be like when their kids have to argue against the principle of one man, one vote.

Why is this happening? First, because the fence is not being built on the 1967 border. It is being built on Palestinian land across the border, inside the West Bank. And since the fence is really a strip — up to 100 yards wide — of razor wire, trenches, sensors and cameras, more slices of Palestinian land are being confiscated to build it and farmers are being separated from their fields.

"If the Israelis want to build the wall on the 1967 Green Line — no problem, they could build it 100 meters high," said Nidal Jaloud, spokesman for the West Bank Palestinian border town of Qalqilya, where Israel put a 24-foot-high wall after five suicide bombers came out of there. "But it is not being built on the Green Line — it is built on our lands."

More important, Israelis just see a fence from their side. But for the Palestinians, the fence is part of a web of Israeli checkpoints and fences inside the West Bank, and the sealing of all exits but one from many Palestinian villages. This has transformed the West Bank into a series of cages. Qalqilya is surrounded by fences on three sides — to shut it off not only from Israel proper to the west, but also from West Bank Jewish settlements to the north and south. You can get out of Qalqilya only by going through a single Israeli checkpoint, where Palestinians often wait in line for hours. [...]

If the Israelis were building a fence around the West Bank, and then removing all the checkpoints inside, it would make great sense. But they can't, because the West Bank Jewish settlements also have to be protected — hence the fences and checkpoints all over the place, which are choking commerce and creating cages that will become factories of despair. As Palestinians find themselves isolated in pockets next to Jewish settlers — who have the rule of law, the right to vote, welfare, jobs, etc. — and as hope for a contiguous Palestinian state fades, it's inevitable that many of them will throw in the towel and ask for the right to vote in Israel.

Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster, has already found 25 to 30 percent of Palestinians now supporting this idea — a stunning figure, considering it's never been proposed by any Palestinian or Israeli party.

Mohammed Dahleh, the first Israeli Arab to clerk on the Israeli Supreme Court, said to me: "If Palestinians lose their dream to have an independent state, then the only thing that might guarantee for them a dignified life will be asking for the right to live in one state with the Israelis. When this struggle starts, it will find allies among the one million Palestinian Arabs inside Israel. . . . We will say, `Don't evacuate even a single West Bank settlement. Just give us the vote and let us be part of one community,' " since Israel has made it into one space anyway. "This call will find great resonance within the international community."

I have enormous sympathy for Israelis trying to deter suicide bombers. But to build a fence without a border, and without facing up to the contradiction of having Jews on both sides of it, will only bring more troubles.

[LuxFerum]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
And since by 2010 there will be more Palestinian Arabs than Jews living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza combined, this transformation of the Palestinian cause will be very problematic for Israel. If American Jews think it's hard to defend Israel today on college campuses, imagine what it will be like when their kids have to argue against the principle of one man, one vote.

Darwin Rulez!:D

[a_unique_person]

If the Israelis were building a fence around the West Bank, and then removing all the checkpoints inside, it would make great sense. But they can't, because the West Bank Jewish settlements also have to be protected



Strange how Israel cannot remove the settlements. It is just assumed it is not an option.