Anti Semitism on the Rise?

[a_unique_person]

A journalist goes out and does some investigative journalism.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Middle...568372806.html

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.....

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

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

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

[Skeptic]

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently I was misinformed.

[kimiko]

Quote:

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

I would agree. If she deliberately moves to a violent area with her children, subjecting them to danger, when she doesn't have to, she is being an irresponsible mother. If an American mother took her kids with her to live in Iraq so she can get a well-paying job or be close to her soldier husband or anyting like that, it would be obvious that she was being irresponsible with the life of her child. So why is a Jewish mother taking her children to live in a settlement, knowing settlements come under attack, any different? Settlers should be ashamed of sacrificing their children's safety for their ideology.

Quote:

As for the sniper... well, what did you expect? He is the poor, helpless victim of evil occupation , and as such simply cannot help himself from shooting at jewish babies. There isn't a word of criticism of him in the same article, only the mention of the "blood-curdling laugh" of the woman when the reporter suggests that her children should be removed from her. Imagine that!

Snipers who prey on civilians are obviously immoral; that's not the issue. People shouldn't have to balance every criticism with a similar one for the "other" side. And it's odd that you bring up "jewish babies" so often; it has a creepy blood libel aspect to it.

Quote:

Sorry to be an extremist, but I was laboring under the delusion that jews can live where they want without having their children killed, and that Hitler was a bad guy.

That is the ideal the UN is working towards- that anyone can live anywhere in safety. But ignoring present dangers is irresponsible. Parents who willfully or neglectfully place their children's lives at risk are handled in the child protective services in the US, and can have them removed and placed in the foster care system.

[Skeptic]

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

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

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

[kimiko]

Quote:

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

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

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

From my post:

Quote:

...when she doesn't have to...

Not all people can afford to escape violent areas, but that's different from deliberately settling in a violent area.

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

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently I was misinformed.

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

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

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

Absolutely. Parenthood is less important to such people than their commitment to nationalism and/or religion. Their children are not children as we would see them, but little Israelis. This is what zionism has brought to the world. Is it any wonder I despise it?

[davefoc]

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

[a_unique_person]

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

[Ed]

Quote:

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

Thank you for my morning chortle. Most refreshing.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

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

That post was a complete waste of space.

[Ed]

Quote:

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

Dehydration getting to you? Cranky, cranky.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

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

No, that was yesterday.

[Ed]

Quote:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, that was yesterday.

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

Here, this will make you feel better.

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

No thanks necessary.

[Skeptic]

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

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

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

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

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed]

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

Thank you, I think.

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

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

[a_unique_person]

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

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

[zenith-nadir]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Absolutely. Parenthood is less important to such people than their commitment to nationalism and/or religion. Their children are not children as we would see them, but little Israelis. This is what zionism has brought to the world. Is it any wonder I despise it?

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

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

[Skeptic]

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[demon]

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

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

[davefoc]

AUP wrote:

Quote:

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

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

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

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
When was the last time a zionist, AKA "little Israeli", blew up a Palestinian bus?

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

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

[demon]

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

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
I have tried to put myself in the place of a particular group that was uniquely targeted for destruction and how I might view a world that is often critical of a country that I identify with. But the fact is I can't successfully do the thought experiment, I just can not realistically imagine what it is like and how it would affect my thinking.

This is not the majority way of thinking in Israel. Israel was created by established Israelis, not refugees, and they weren't inspired by the weakness of Jews but by their strength in a national setting. Israel's keel was laid down in 1897, it was launched in 1948, it's still in the process of fitting-out. Hitler ruled from 1933-45. Israel is not about the Holocaust, and the low opinion many established Israelis have of its victims would probably surprise a lot of people. Just consider how wildly the Holocaust is flung around by zionists whenever Israel is criticised, and how it's even been applied by zionists to the Gaza evacuation. It offends the crap out of me, and my family lost more to U-boats than the Holocaust. (I 'ates submariners, I do.)

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

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

Originally posted by demon
For Palestinian children, where exactly in the Occupied Territories is out of harm's way?

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

[CapelDodger]

Quote:

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

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

[Skeptic]

It is not true.

Wanna bet?

[kimiko]

Quote:

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

Israel receives so much attention from the UN because the responsibility for the British Mandate was written into it's charter.

Quote:

... while Sudan is on the human rights commission. The UN worked so wonderfully well in letting Tutsis live safely in Rwanda, or black Africans live safely in Sudan, or Croats live safely in Serbian-controled areas, or anybody who disagreed with Stalin live safely in the Soviety Union, or...

It's an ideal, not yet a reality. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Quote:

Article 13.
1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Kofi Annan is trying to address the ridiculousness of human rights abusing nations being on the commission. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4419333.stm

Quote:

As part of his programme of UN reforms, Mr Annan wants to create a smaller Human Rights Council, whose members must uphold the highest human rights standards. ... He said the council must be more accountable and more representative.

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
AUP wrote:

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

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

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Skeptic

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

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

[zenith-nadir]

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Who was the first to put a bomb in a crowded market in Palestine - not a suicide bomb, a planted bomb - with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible to instill terror?

I bet you'll say zionists, then I will conclude that you are refering to an event that took place over 50 years ago because zionists haven't put bombs in market places in the last 50 years. But since that is the best you got you'll use it anyways.

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Who invaded Palestine to drive out the population and make their own country in it, the local population or the invaders?

"Invaded Palestine". If that doesn't tell people where Capel is coming from nothing will. The only 20th century invasion of Palestine on record Capel happened on May 15th 1948 when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded. It's in every history book. 'Zionists' buying land is not an invasion unless you hate zionists then you'd call buying land an invasion.

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Palestinians can't take their kids away from the violence unless they've got the money, in which case they generally do.

Ya, the violence that began with Palestinian leader Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini in the 20s, 30s and 40s, then the violence that continued when the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon invaded, then the violence, terrorism and wars that continued with Nasser, Assad and then Arafat in the 50s, 60s 70s and 80s,... need I go on?

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Zionists take their children into war zones for ... what reason? Are they still fleeing Hitler, as Mycroft and Skeptic seem to think? Or the pogroms of New York? Or are they putting their childern in harm's way for the sake of something "greater" - nation and/or religion?

The only reason it is a war zone Capel is because most of the Arab dictatorships that are still technically at war with Israel and because Arab countries still finance and support such "famous peace negotiators" as the PLO, Fatah, AL Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Hamas, Hizbollah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Abu Nidal Organization, Tanzim....

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It is not true. It was made crystal clear that the problem was with the Jewish State, not Jews.

Quote:

Wikipedia

The attacks on Palestinian Jews by Palestinian Arabs predating the establishment of the state of Israel have culminated in the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, the riots in Palestine of May, 1921, the 1929 Hebron massacre and the Great Uprising of 1936-1939. Prominent leaders of Palestinian terror groups were Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (later shot dead by the British) and the pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini (deported).

Oh....uhmmmm....that was decades before the "crystal clear" problem of the Jewish state. But don't let that stop you from rejecting reality and replacing it with your own.

Quote:

Originally posted by CapelDodger
The problem for Palestinians driven from their homes, robbed, humiliated and consigned to the care of impoverished strangers was, well, all that. That happened to at least 350,000 Palestinians before Israeli nationhood was even declared.

Was that before or after the part you always leave out? Specifically the Palestinian-led anti-jewish riots and pogroms in Palestine during the 20s and 30s I just documented.

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

[webfusion]

Quote:

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

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

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584941.html

• Israeli police rushed into the Temple Mount compound and faced down hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday as Jews visited the site on the anniversary of the capture of the Old City and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

[Cleon]

Quote:

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

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584941.html

• Israeli police rushed into the Temple Mount compound and faced down hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday as Jews visited the site on the anniversary of the capture of the Old City and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

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

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

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

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/584941.html

• Israeli police rushed into the Temple Mount compound and faced down hundreds of stone-throwing Palestinians outside the Al Aqsa mosque on Monday as Jews visited the site on the anniversary of the capture of the Old City and East Jerusalem during the 1967 war.

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

[Leif Roar]

Quote:

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

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

[Giz]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[Cleon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Giz

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

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

[Mycroft]

Quote:

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

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