Zionist Ideology and the Reality of Israel (very long but very worth it) [Archive]

View Full Version : Zionist Ideology and the Reality of Israel (very long but very worth it)

thesubmittedone

December-16th-2006, 02:18 PM

"Zionist Ideology and the Reality of Israel":
The Thoughts of Nahum Goldmann

Former President Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid has created a new stir in the public discourse about Palestine and Israel. His book has already earned on the one hand high accolade from around the world that already knows about the plights of the Palestinians in the "Occupied Territories" and serious ire of Israel's defenders, particularly in Israel and USA, on the other.

Immediately after the publication of the book, there is an orchestrated effort to discredit the message and the messenger. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, an incorrigible defender of Israel, who claimed that he had voted for Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, proclaimed that this is an "indecent book" by a "decent man." Kenneth Stein, director of the Institute for the Study of Modern Israel at Emory University, has been a Carter Center fellow for Middle East Affairs. He resigned as a Carter Center fellow and joined Simon Wiesenthal Center's petition to protest the book. The petition read: "President Carter there is no Israeli Apartheid policy and you know it. I join with the Simon Wiesenthal Center in respectfully reminding you that the only reason there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism."1

So, the bottom line for Kenneth Stein, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Alan Derschowitz and other critics of his book is straight-forward: "there is no peace in the Holy Land is because of Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism." But is that the reality?

To place the book of President Carter in context, one needs to recognize the long reach of the power of Israel as reflected through the powerful pro-Israel and pro-Zionism media. Quite a few notable critics of Israel and the stranglehold of its supporters over the corridors of US power have already exposed the reality. The Zionist connection: What price peace? by Dr. Alfred M. Lillienthal, a Jewish-American historian, journalist, and lecturer, and They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby by former US congressman Paul Findley are among the must readings in this regard. Here and there many notable American leaders, politicians and officials have also expressed there frustrations with the Israeli stranglehold on American foreign policy regarding the Middle East.

Former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff [1970-1974] Admiral Thomas Moorer has candidly shared his experience about the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States2:

I've never seen a President - I don't care who he is - stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on.

Even a well known Jew and a friend of Israel, Henry Kissinger revealed the following in his book White House Years: "Occasionally Nixon was tempted to impose a settlement. On one of my memoranda in late 1969, informing him of King Hussein's pessimism about peace prospects in the face of Israel's tough stand, Nixon wrote in longhand: 'I am beginning to think we have to have to consider taking strong steps unilaterally to save Israel from her own destruction.' "3

President Carter's is a powerful and influential voice to bring to bear on the most important foreign policy issue for the United States. Even the Iraq Study Group, which the Bush administration and its neo-con backers are poised to discredit and bypass, calls for a more comprehensive approach to the Middle East, linking the issue of Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the American quagmire in Iraq and elsewhere. However, in one respect, Jimmy Carter's book deserves a special, even a unique, place in this discourse. No American president before him has written a book on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, let alone highlighting the plight of the Palestinian people in the hands of an entity that came into existence by reminding (rather exploiting) the memory of the horrible Nazi Holocaust.

There are many who have held deep respect for President Carter for his morally-nuanced approach and vision, but they never could understand how such a conscious and conscientious person could be so silent and complacent in regard to the most pivotal of all international conflicts, in which the Palestinian people have continued to bleed under the apartheid-like oppression in the Occupied Territories. This book would go a long way in reassuring a large number of people around the world, who have seen Carter as a distinctively moral voice in American politics. There is no doubt this book will have an enduring place in this discourse. However, Alfred Lillienthal, a Jew, Congressman Findley and President Carter, American Christians - all of them can be dubbed as "anti-Semitic" and dismissed by the friends and patrons of Israel.

In that context, there is a especially relevant voice that many might not know (but they should) and that's a voice the Zionists and the patrons of Israel cannot dismiss the way they dismiss and discredit others. That voice is Nahum Goldmann [1895-1982]. He was one of the pivotal figures in the Zionist Movement leading to the creation of the state of Israel and, who continued to remain influential in global politics, involving Israel, without holding any political office of that country. He was known as a "statesman without a state." His role and influence is not easy to duly appreciate without some knowledge about his powerful position as an independent-minded, conscientious voice in the Zionist movement. He was a Founder President of the World Jewish Congress and served as its President from 1951 to 1977. He is former President of the World Zionist Organization and of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany.

To duly appreciate his role and status one has to be familiar to some extent with the World Zionist Organization. The World Zionist Organization (WZO) was founded as the Zionist Organization in 1897, at the First Zionist Congress held in Basel, Switzerland. Since then, the organization has served as an umbrella organization for the global Zionist movement. By the time the State of Israel came into existence in 1948, many of its new administrative institutions were already in place, through the valuable role of the regular Zionist Congresses of the previous decades. In January 1960 the Zionist Organization changed its name to the World Zionist Organization, with its headquarter in Jerusalem.

Nahum Goldmann was in the thick and thin of the Zionist movement leading to the establishment of Israel and continued to play vital role in the interest of Israel without holding any official position with the Israeli government. Yet, as the president of WZO, he was a veritably powerful voice to reckon with. According to the Jewish Heritage Online (http://www.jhom.com/personalities/nahum_goldmann/index.htm):

"Dr. Nahum Goldmann was one of the most prominent leaders of the Jewish people and the Zionist movement during the twentieth century. ... The story of his life is an integral part of the history of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel."

The readers should consider his book The Jewish Paradox [New York: Fred Jordan Books, 1978] a must reading. It is only a Jewish-Zionist, who could be so enlightening in understanding the State of Israel and the people for which it was established. According to him, " ... the Jewish people is the most paradoxical in the world. It is not better than others, or worse, but unique and different - by virtue of its structure, history, destiny and character - from all other peoples, and paradoxical in its contradictions. The Jews are the most separatist people in the world."4

Drawing upon his own experience as a Jew, he points out an important facet of Jewish psyche. "... the Jews of Visznevo we lived in a rural setting, and most of my grandfather's patients were peasants. Every Jew felt ten or a hundred times the superior of these lowly tillers of the soiled: he was cultured, learned Hebrew, knew Bible, studied the Talmud - in other words he knew that he stood head and shoulders above these illiterates. ... every Jew knew then that he would be going to Paradise. He did not believe: he knew!"5

The above perspective helps one understand the Israeli/Zionist attitude and propaganda that they are the perennial victim in this drama. Israelis even complain against the Jews outside Israel that they don't serve the cause of their Jewish people enough. As Goldmann put it: "The Israelis have the great weakness of thinking that the whole world revolves around them."6 Such a view creates a one-sided, absolute view of right and wrong, which is counter-productive. Goldman explains:

"What the Israeli negotiators have to learn is that no one is ever altogether right. Absolute situations do not exist, because the absolute is impossible to reach. When the Israelis negotiate they are so sure of their own rights that they overlook those of the Arabs, thereby weakening their own positions in the eyes of the world."7

With such absolutist mind, they think that through propaganda anything is possible. It's a sort of propaganda-mania.

[T]he Israelis overestimate the importance of propaganda and 'public relations'. The Israeli press keeps saying: 'Our propaganda is badly handled, we have a poor image', and so forth. I am familiar with the subject, since the World Zionist Organization has spent millions of dollars on propaganda. Well, I regret that, because it is worth very little. The decisive factor to influence world opinion is the character of Israel's policies, and if those policies are criticized by the majority of the states, the best propaganda is helpless. The Israelis have inherited this misjudgment and this infatuation for slogans from the Americans. In the United States, everything is sold by what they call 'Madison Avenue' methods, from the street where their biggest advertising firms are based. This technique may be terrific for launching a brand of soap or toothpaste, or even a new newspaper, but not when it comes to disseminating a political idea by distorting it.8

Goldmann did not harbor a lot of hope with the old generation of Israelis. Instead, he felt that it is the younger generation, liberated from the past baggage, that would take up the revolutionary challenge to recast Israel into an instrument of "peace and justice", away from its current propensities as a superior and overwhelming military machine. One should notice the word "justice": Israel is constantly talking about peace and blaming others for the lack of peace, but the issue of "justice" rarely comes up in the propaganda of Israel. It is no coincidence, but Goldmann pinned his hope on the younger generation for the desired change.

"So the problem consists in finding new challenges for them, and I am very ready to suggest one: to make Israel different from what it is today. To build an Israel which is not content with having the best army in the Near East, spending most of its resources on the acquisition of new armaments, and being proud of winning yet another war which solves nothing and in any case may end in disaster. To build an Israel which concentrates instead on religious, cultural and social creativity. The new Jewish youth must become revolutionary. World Jewry, inspired by an Israel of peace and justice, must become a revolutionary movement. Not with barricades, bombs and terrorists, but as a champion of the war against poverty, illiteracy and inequality, for the abolition of the sovereign state, and for peace.

That is what would give new meaning to the sufferings of the Jewish people. After all, the Jews could have lived quite happily if they had had themselves baptized and renounced their condition."9

In Goldmann's estimation, the monotheistic religion of Judaism that is against idol-worshipping has elevated the new state to an object of worship.

"To speak more precisely of Israel, I believe that the worship of the state does Israel harm. After all, one of the greatest Talmudists of our own day has declared that the worship of the state in modern Israel is the equivalent of the idolatry of ancient times. ... The struggle against the arrogance of the state takes precedence over all the rest. Fulbright has written a good book on the subject, The Arrogance of Power."10

As the Golden Rule is of fundamental importance in the three major monotheistic religions, including Judaism, Goldmann highlights this rule before his own people, a people that is now so accustomed to war that it can't think peace.

"Since emancipation we have been becoming a more and more conformist people. The Jews follow the opinion of the majority; they support dictatorships if they are not anti-Semitic; they made Israel a state like all the rest. But a conformist people has nothing to offer to its young idealists; it must be contented with the sort of prosaic young generation whose only aims are to live well, make love and make money. ...

So it seems to me that the only solution is to create a young generation which is nonconformist, revolutionary and Jewish all at one. The success of that synthesis depends very much on Israel, which is taking the opposite attitude today, but without which nothing can be done in the Diaspora. It is all a function of peace. War is ruinous: it ruins the economy of Israel, its policy and its culture. It is impossible to state whether the people responsible are the Jews or the Arabs. I am simply stating the facts of the disaster."11

One can't but be amazed at the keen understanding of Goldmann of Israel as a nation state. He was strongly opposed to the role of Israel as a colonial outpost of the global powers. He proposed that for its own interest and viability in the midst of Middle East, Israel should be a "neutralized" state.

"If Zionism has an ideological task, it is to create a spiritual centre within the State of Israel, then to proclaim to all the world that Jews must be loyal to the State of Israel unless there is a political conflict, in which case each is free to choose.

It is precisely in order to avoid this kind of wrench that I am in favour of the permanent neutralization of Israel. I wrote as such in an article printed by Foreign Affairs, and I say again: Israel ought to be a country (and if need be the only country) which keeps out of international politics. I was even against its joining the United Nations, because the UN is no longer a neutral institution, above the battle, but a conglomerate of contradictory political interests. In every session of the United Nations, Israel is obliged to adopt a set position - against the USSR, for America, for the Blacks, against South Africa, and so on."12

At every single opportunity for peace, Israeli leaders' intransigence served as the stumbling block.

... throughout her four years as Prime Minister, Israeli policy did not budge; the Yom Kippur War and the complete isolation of Israel were the consequences of this rigidity.

Once again we missed the chance of a solution then. The government kept saying that there must be no concession, Israel must maintain its super-armament and not give the Arabs the impression of being weak and afraid. Everything springs from this theory: ... In politics one can never be sure, but I have a strong impression that on more than one occasion we might have obtained peace."13

A few years before his death, he presented a new vision for Israel and the Zionist Movement in a self-critical manner. What Goldmann wrote in that context articulating how Israel has been a part of the problem and how it can be overcome is quite fascinating. The following is a rather long excerpt, but worth reading.

"To those who dismiss me as a daydreamer when I air this plan, I can only reply that if they do not believe that Arab hostility some day be alleviated then might just as well liquidate Israel at once, so as to save the millions of Jews who live there. On this point I am categorical: there is no hope for a Jewish state which has to face another fifty years of struggle against Arab enemies. How many will there be, fifty years from now?

But I feel sure that we can live as friends within the framework of genuine alliance. Certain it has become a lot harder after thirty years of hidebound, ingrown Israeli policy is largely the fault of Ben Gurion. Yet there is still time to convince the Arabs that the Jews would bring them an immense contribution with their knowledge and technology, their two thousand years' experience throughout Europe. There are no great policies without great designs.

A major section of Israeli public opinion and some influential leaders adhere to a theory according to which the Arab character will never allow them to suffer the presence of the state of Israel willingly. They back up this hypothesis by stressing the intolerance of the Arabs and their negative attitude to all minorities. I reject this theory utterly.

I do so, first, because if it were true there would be no hope of a future for the State of Israel: an Arab world of over a hundred million inhabitants would necessarily end up by annihilating the little Jewish if the Arabs were not prepared to accept it.

Secondly, I repudiate this idea, which is based on a racist concept. The character of a race or people undoubtedly plays an important, but never a decisive role in its history. In the conflict between racism and the environment (see Taine and Gobnineau), nature and nurture, I make no final judgment, but I do think that the two elements carry different weights in different eras. During the 'golden age' of their Spanish domination, for example, the Arabs were more tolerant towards the Jews than the Christian world ever was, and the same spirit characterized them too at other other times - even as regard the Christians. ...

It is the different living conditions in the Diaspora and in an independent state which have produced so striking a change in so short a lapse of time. The same could happen with the Arabs, once liberated from the complexes of colonial domination and restored to a sense of security and human respect.

The first condition of success is, of course, that the Jews should adapt to the Arab world. Take the oil question for example. In my opinion the oil producers were quite right; they behaved brutally, but we must not forget that the capitalist world was exploiting them cynically. Western governments were making far more out of the re-sale of oil than the Arabs were making from the price of crude. It is thanks to the exploitation of the Third World that the Western countries went through an era unprecedented prosperity. Well, on this point in particular Israel should have taken the side of the Arabs and not lined up with America and the exploiters. Its position on this problem has had a disastrous consequence, because the Arabs said to themselves: 'Israel is decidedly a foreign element. It is an agent of imperialism and we've got to eliminate it.'

The clinching proof for the Arabs that the State of Israel was interfering with their international policy and so was not to be tolerated was provided by the Sinai war. They could not accept either the Israeli attack which sparked off the conflict or, still less, the collusion with the French and British, who in retaliation against Nasser for nationalizing the Suez Canal used Israel as a spearhead. I consider that war as one of Ben Gurion's major mistakes.

I have often defended the notion of a confederation uniting all the states in the Near East, Israel included. Each state would be sovereign in its domestic policy, but when it comes to foreign policy the Jews would have to adapt to the main lines laid down by the Arab majority. I have had hours of discussions on this subject, and have drawn the following conclusions: what disturbs the really responsible Arab leaders is not that Israel possesses half of Palestine; actually this is of little interest to them, especially if the Palestinians are granted a state of their own. No, what troubles them is the Jews setting themselves up as an independent minority inside the Arab world.

I had a close friendship with the late Dag Hammarskjold, the secretary general of the United Nations: I was one of ten people, I discovered, who were on a first-name terms with him. 'Go and see Nasser for me,' I once suggested to him, 'and propose this solution to him: let him recognize Israel and make peace, and Israel will become a member of a confederation of Near Eastern states including not only the Arab countries but Turkey as well. In that way the Jews will form a minority, which means that they will not be able to conduct an individual policy determined by the Americans, the British or the French, but will have to bow to the collective decision. Israel will have to adapt, just as the members of the EEC do, like it or not.'

Hammarskjold passed on the message and Nasser replied: 'This actually may be a solution. The Arabs will steel themselves to accept the partition of Palestine, because we have vast amounts of land available which will take centuries to develop. But we will never accept Israel as a wedge inside the Arab world. Our plan is to form a bloc stretching from Morocco to Iraq. Unfortunately at the center of that block there is an Israeli state which does not care a rap for our plans. We want to create a policy of nonalignment and Israel practices a pro-capitalist policy. We cannot tolerate that.' It was a very good answer, and a year later, when I submitted the suggestion to Nehru, he was so impressed by it that he altered his schedule of visits and stopped in Cairo to talk to Nasser. 'I have already discussed it with Hammarskjold,' Nasser told him, 'and I instructed him to let Nahum Goldmann know that it really was a valid idea. Only, this Mr. Goldmann cannot deliver the goods. It is Ben Gurion who makes the decisions, not Goldmann, and we will never sign an accord with Ben Gurion, who is a brutal man, an aggressor and imperialist.'14

The significance of Nahum Goldmann's thoughts and works is that even the Zionists and Israel cannot dismiss him as an anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, un like they can dismiss Alfred Lillienthal, Paul Findley, Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky or Jimmy Carter. Not everyone might have access to Nahum Goldmann's book Jewish Paradox. But his bold and provocative vision for Israel and the Middle East was presented in an article in Foreign Affairs, Fall 1978. It's title is the title of this essay: "Zionist Ideology and the Reality of Israel." I found it more than fascinating. The readers are encouraged to read it from the link provided. I also urge the readers to read that article in Foreign Affairs before sharing any comments on this essay.

In light of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's letter of protest against Carter's book, where Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism are identified as the reason lack of peace in that part of the world, for the sake of the truth, the world needs to know and understand that, contrary to the propaganda of the pro-Israeli establishment, the reality is the other way around. For the sake of peace and justice, the world needs to hold Israel accountable for its role as the stumbling block.

History can't be reversed. For a world with workable peace and justice, the parties to conflict need to have a forward-looking vision, where everyone with a stake in such conflicts need to come forward and see things at the human level, rather than at ethnic or other divisive level. Even though it will require all parties with a stake to move toward peace and justice, it is critically important to know reality of the problems and challenges, and how Israel with its overwhelming "military mentality" and abetted by its unconditional and one-sided patron United States continue to stand in the way of any genuine and lasting resolution. Nahum Goldmann's thoughts and ideas are of great relevance in this context.

References:

1. International Herald Tribune, 12/6/06 (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/06/america/NA_GEN_US_Jimmy_Carter_Criticism.php).

2. Interview with Moorer, Aug. 24, 1983. Quoted in: Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby (Lawrence Hill, 1984 and 1985), p. 161.

3. pp. 372-373.

4. pp. 7-8; all emphases are mine, unless otherwise noted.

5. pp. 12-13.

6. pp. 56-57.

7. p. 63.

8. p. 63.

9. pp. 67-68.

10. p. 108.

11. pp. 70-71.

12. pp. 84-85.

13. pp. 104-105.

14. pp. 202-204.

Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq (http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/) is an associate professor of economics and finance at Upper Iowa University.
Email: farooqm@globalwebpost.com (farooqm@globalwebpost.com)

Fergasun

December-16th-2006, 02:40 PM

Popeman38

December-16th-2006, 03:14 PM

This article is written from the Palestinian POV. So of course it is going to make Israel look bad. Jimmy Carter was a horrible President. He is a great humanitarian, but has been completely blinded to the underhandedness of the Palestinians and continues to support them wholeheartedly. To say that Israel is controlling the US politicians and refuses to allow Palestinians to live in peace is a bit of a stretch.

Thiebear

December-16th-2006, 03:46 PM

Jimmy Carter is a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY NICE guy.
and has no business dealing with people that are not... he keeps getting taken.

iheartskins

December-16th-2006, 04:23 PM

You guys had better be careful. The Jews have powers . . .
Pardon me?

oisn1

December-16th-2006, 04:30 PM

LOL!

Written by a Dr. Mohammad...
Jimmy Carter's foreign policy sure worked well and he was a wise and popular president, wasn't he?

Would it be fair to summarize this article as, "Stop defending yourselves Jews, please accept some more suicide bombings on behalf of Allah, you Zionist pigs!"

Palestinians would have its own state if they could stop people from killing and bombing in Israel...

Maybe you should actually read the article, before bashing it with assinine comments like that. The man who wrote it is arab, but he is analyzing the writings of a Nahum Goldman, the most influential man of the Zionist movement.

iheartskins

December-16th-2006, 04:53 PM

Powers. You know, like powers. Like the nuns have . . .
I don't know. Please educate me.

Burgold

December-16th-2006, 04:53 PM

The Palestinian situation is a very hard one, because at this point both sides are pretty entrenched and have learned to distrust and hate each other quite strongly. I feel badly for both sides. It is my feelings that Palestinians have been used as pawns in a Middle East game of chess. If they truly had the support and sympathy of the Arab world, they would have either been absorbed into various nations or supported much better and their misery and the anger would have been considerably less.

I mentioned this before, but in the 1970's I had relatives working in a nuclear power plant in Israel and many of their co-workers were Palenstinians. I can't really imagine that being the case today which is a great shame. I think, because of fear, mistrust, and anger, Israelis have also used Palestinians to a degree.

There are no clean hands in the Middle East. I do beleive that Israel has tried hard and offered a great deal in the name of peace and asked nothing in return except for peace. The response to this has been numerous betrayals and murders. Regardless, the solution to the Palestinian/Israeli/Middle East problem will never begin with blame. That is probably where Carter and some others misstep.

rincewind

December-16th-2006, 04:55 PM

You guys had better be careful. The Jews have powers . . .

Pardon me?

Powers. You know, like powers. Like the nuns have . . .

I don't know. Please educate me.

:munchout:

Fergasun

December-16th-2006, 04:55 PM

techboy

December-16th-2006, 05:04 PM

I don't know. Please educate me.

Jewish mothers have guilt... :D

iheartskins

December-16th-2006, 05:06 PM

Jewish mothers have guilt... :D
That's more of a control mechanism than a power. :)

Burgold

December-16th-2006, 05:08 PM

That's more of a control mechanism than a power. :)

It can be very powerful though :silly:

G.A.C.O.L.B.

December-16th-2006, 05:37 PM

I think both sides are ****ed up and I find it really hard to care about what happens there anymore. Maybe I'm wrong but that's just how I feel.

PokerPacker

December-16th-2006, 05:47 PM

I don't know. Please educate me.
they have a secret weapon... jewish guilt!

the hebrew hammer was a great movie :laugh:

thesubmittedone

December-18th-2006, 01:40 AM

Maybe you should actually read the article, before bashing it with assinine comments like that. The man who wrote it is arab, but he is analyzing the writings of a Nahum Goldman, the most influential man of the Zionist movement.

That would be too hard for his type. You know, the one that looks at the name/color/religion and then proceeds to ease his mind by accepting previous cognitions instilled within him refusing to even give the content a chance. Sadly, there are way too any like this. Even I do it sometimes and have to catch myself. It's something we all should fight in ourselves.

SoCalSkins

December-18th-2006, 01:48 AM

That would be too hard for his type. You know, the one that looks at the name/color/religion and then proceeds to ease his mind by accepting previous cognitions instilled within him refusing to even give the content a chance. Sadly, there are way too any like this. Even I do it sometimes and have to catch myself. It's something we all should fight in ourselves.

You must be anti-semitic. Have you not seen any of the other threads regarding the subject on this board? Criticizing any of Israel's policies makes you a holocaust supporter. Martin Luther King said so. How would the content of any article or facts overcome that?

thesubmittedone

December-18th-2006, 01:50 AM

I forgot to add the comment that I did read it.... it was confusing as hell and poorly written. I love the 2nd paragraph from the end... it's just a doozy. "The Arab's aren't terrorists, it's the Israeli's that are."

More "Blame the joos" propoganda put out by someone with an agenda.

Like I said, the moment there are no more terrorists at the throats of Israel is the moment there is a Palestinian state. I remember all the bus bombings that were going on in the mid-late 1990s, and I don't remember any Israeli suicide bomber going into Palestine. Sure they are so mad when Israel fights back and does something specifically targeting the terrorist, or trying to dismantle their network.

No country would put up with that along the border, and they've been far too polite.

Don't forget the thousands of transgressions made by the Israeli Defense Forces on a daily basis and the economic chokehold imposed by the Israelis on the Palestinians. They've killed more civilians than any terrorist group can even try to match.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Just because they terrorize people while dressed in uniform and calling themselves a legitimate military doesn't make it better. Your summarizations have been horrible so far and you have yet to even comment on what the whole article was referencing: The writings of Nahum Goldman.

thesubmittedone

December-18th-2006, 01:52 AM

You must be anti-semitic. Have you not seen any of the other threads regarding the subject on this board? Criticizing any of Israel's policies makes you a holocaust supporter. Martin Luther King said so. How would the content of any article or facts overcome that?

I couldn't believe what I was reading for a second there 'till a bat with "sarcasm" written on it whacked me on the side of my head. It was rather sudden, but it worked. :silly:

mboyd784

December-18th-2006, 02:02 AM

I couldn't believe what I was reading for a second there 'till a bat with "sarcasm" written on it whacked me on the side of my head. It was rather sudden, but it worked. :silly:

Easy on the gloating. The knee-jerk/anti-semite crew are silent now, as are the merciless warplanes and vengeful jihadists. This is rare moment wherein facts can be debated. Don't waste it with smugness. A clueless Palestinian recruit could stain the Jewish holiday with a single grenade, and the process will repeat. Stick to the facts and watch the race-baiting warmongers evaporate.

mboyd784

December-18th-2006, 02:04 AM

Delete thread...double post.

dreamingwolf

December-18th-2006, 02:09 AM

Just because they terrorize people while dressed in uniform and calling themselves a legitimate military doesn't make it better.

your honestly saying that you think a uniformed soldier is the same as someone who straps a bomb to themself and detonates arround civillians?

I think there are better ways to oppose Israel than justifying terrorism.

mboyd784

December-18th-2006, 02:18 AM

your honestly saying that you think a uniformed soldier is the same as someone who straps a bomb to themself and detonates arround civillians?

I think there are better ways to oppose Israel than justifying terrorism.

A bomb is a bomb. Whether "dropped" from a IAF F16 or strapped to an Islamic soldier/"terrorist". There is no moral superiority, only killpower.

BTW, you might find this of interest...

In 2003, 27 retired Israeli Air Force Pilots composed a letter of protest to the Air Force Commander, announcing their refusal to continue and perform attacks on targets within Palestinian population centers, and claiming that the occupation of the Palestinians "morally corrupts the fabric of Israeli society". This letter, the first of its kind emanating from the Air Force, evoked a storm of political protest in Israel, with most circles condemning it as dereliction of duty. IDF ethics forbid soldiers from making public political affiliations, and subsequently the IAF commander, Dan Halutz, announced that all signatories were to be suspended from flight duty, after which some of the pilots reconsidered and removed their signatures.

thesubmittedone

December-18th-2006, 02:25 AM

Easy on the gloating. The knee-jerk/anti-semite crew are silent now, as are the merciless warplanes and vengeful jihadists. This is rare moment wherein facts can be debated. Don't waste it with smugness. A clueless Palestinian recruit could stain the Jewish holiday with a single grenade, and the process will repeat. Stick to the facts and watch the race-baiting warmongers evaporate.

Did I just get pwned?:laugh:

You're absolutely right though.

Winslowalrob

December-18th-2006, 02:27 AM

thesubmittedone

December-18th-2006, 02:28 AM

your honestly saying that you think a uniformed soldier is the same as someone who straps a bomb to themself and detonates arround civillians?

I think there are better ways to oppose Israel than justifying terrorism.

No, I'm saying a uniformed soldier who knowingly terrorizes civilian population as he is ordered to is the same as someone who straps a bomb to themself and detonates near by civilians.

I'd never justify terrorism, ESPECIALLY when opposing Israel. That's like arguing for and against something at the same time. Completely hypocritical.

mboyd784

December-18th-2006, 02:36 AM

Did I just get pwned?:laugh:

You're absolutely right though.

For one to effectively argue this topic, tact is essential. Particularly if one takes issue with conventional wisdom. For the majority, blindsided implications of anti-semitism are part of the strategy and far more acceptable. You do not enjoy that exception. Nor do I.

dreamingwolf

December-18th-2006, 02:45 AM

No, I'm saying a uniformed soldier who knowingly terrorizes civilian population as he is ordered to is the same as someone who straps a bomb to themself and detonates near by civilians.

I'd never justify terrorism, ESPECIALLY when opposing Israel. That's like arguing for and against something at the same time. Completely hypocritical.

do you understand that you just said what you are claiming to have not said. I understand that you have a strong wish for the world to be perfect, but you are saying that a force that is flagged and indentified is the same as one that is not. In other words soldiers are just as much terrorists as people who kill civilians dressed as civilians.

Im sure you have a political agenda, but I want no part of it.

Thiebear

December-18th-2006, 06:28 AM

Abbas spoke after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was on a peace mission to the region, in the West Bank.

In other violence Monday morning, about two dozen masked gunmen from the rival groups, armed with rifles, grenades and rocket launchers, faced off in a gun battle in the middle of Gaza City in a battle that wounded a 16-year-old bystander, who was shot in the neck.

Tensions between Hamas, which won January parliamentary elections, and Fatah, which controls the presidency, have repeatedly broken out in recent months, but the latest round of violence was the most ferocious.

The fighting spiraled out of control after unknown gunmen killed the three young sons of a Fatah-allied security chief last week. Since then, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas was shot at by unknown gunmen, the foreign minister's convoy was also targeted and mortar shells were launched at Abbas' Gaza office.

Late Sunday, the bullet-riddled body of a top security officer affiliated with Fatah, Col. Adnan Rahmi, was discovered in northern Gaza hours after he disappeared, Palestinian medical officials and his family said. No group took responsibility, but Rahmi's family blamed Hamas for the killing.

Two other people were killed in the widespread fighting Sunday that paralyzed downtown Gaza City.

Egyptian mediators and small Palestinian factions worked all day to broker an agreement to end the violence, and a truce was announced at a press conference in Gaza City after midnight.

But representatives of Fatah and Hamas did not appear at the press conference, leaving the announcement to an official of the small Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine faction.

So in the above post from 55 mins ago.. innocent Palestinians are being killed by people dressed as civilians and BOTH sides are Palestinians.. they do a Truce but neither side abides by it... seem familiar?

Israels and the US's fault right?

Burgold

December-18th-2006, 06:38 AM

So in the above post from 55 mins ago.. innocent Palestinians are being killed by people dressed as civilians and BOTH sides are Palestinians.. they do a Truce but neither side abides by it... seem familiar?

Israels and the US's fault right?

Totally Israel's fault. After I saw Borat I was talking to my Mom about the movie and she told me that the Jews have horns things was 100% true. That people in Poland used to say and believe that about Jews. I've heard arguments from Palestinians supporters that Israel should never retaliate for a homicide bombing because the person who did the bombing has already met justice and everyone else in Palestine is innocent. There is a lot of that sentiment. Israel should just quietly take all the acts of war against them.

There are many loving families who want peace who are Palestinian. The problem is that they look identical to the ones strapping bombs and planning murder. That is the problem with an un-uniformed soldier. To strike back, you have to strike back within the citizenry. And the truth is that the terrorists secretly even want their innocents, women and children to be killed, because it's great PR for their cause.

Fergasun

December-18th-2006, 08:03 AM

I read it again, and I tried searching for the quote, but I could not find it. Methinks there is a little "he doth make @#$% up afoot." Straight from the Ann Coulter and Michael Moore playbook my friend.

In light of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's letter of protest against Carter's book, where Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism are identified as the reason lack of peace in that part of the world, for the sake of the truth, the world needs to know and understand that, contrary to the propaganda of the pro-Israeli establishment, the reality is the other way around.

"The reality is the other way around." So this would mean that Israeli terrorism and fanaticism are the reason for lack of peace in that world.

Again, I'll repeat what I said. If Palestinians can stop the terrorist attacks on Israel, they would have their own state by now.

Burgold

December-18th-2006, 08:08 AM

[/font][/b]"The reality is the other way around."
[/size]

No, you got it wrong. The other way around indicates that the Palestinian terror efforts are the only true effort at peacemaking and that the efforts of Israeli negotiating and diplomacy are inciteful acts of war.

skinz4evr

December-18th-2006, 08:19 AM

Of course the Arabs don't want an "independent minority" in the midst of all the Arab nations. They want slave nations who bow to their kings and blame the rest of the world for their problems. Without the slave nations the Arab leaders could not manufacture terrorists. Why should I be surprised that greedy(Dubai), under-handed(Syria), lying(Lebanon), back-stabbing(Saudi) Arab nations don't like Israel after they've been preaching that it needs to be removed? All of these Arab leaders shake your hand while holding a dagger with your name on it behind their back.

Zguy28

December-18th-2006, 08:33 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8WPYpbVzVoQ

This guy apparently supports a similar position.

Winslowalrob

December-18th-2006, 09:08 AM

In light of the Simon Wiesenthal Center's letter of protest against Carter's book, where Palestinian terrorism and fanaticism are identified as the reason lack of peace in that part of the world, for the sake of the truth, the world needs to know and understand that, contrary to the propaganda of the pro-Israeli establishment, the reality is the other way around.

"The reality is the other way around." So this would mean that Israeli terrorism and fanaticism are the reason for lack of peace in that world.

Again, I'll repeat what I said. If Palestinians can stop the terrorist attacks on Israel, they would have their own state by now.

And you said: "I love the 2nd paragraph from the end... it's just a doozy. "The Arab's aren't terrorists, it's the Israeli's that are."" So basically you are quoting a line that never existed, or you misread the statement, or perhaps your grasp of English is so poor that you cannot use an apostrophe (thats one of these things: ' ) correctly, and subsequently lost all ability for coherent argument. The author does not say anything about Arabs in that line, though he does mention Palestinians (maybe you think all Arabs are Palestinians, and that all Palestinians are Arabs, but umm that is not exactly true). He does not say that there are no Palestinian terrorists his statement, he is simply stating that Israeli terrorists exist (do any Israeli terrorists exist, using most any definition of "terrorist?" That is for you to decide) and are to blame for the violence in the region (an arguable point to be sure, but he does NOT say that Palestinian terrorists or fanatics do not exist (or did I miss his "Palestinian terrorists and fanatics do not exist, blame the joo''''''s line?).

Air Force Cane

December-18th-2006, 10:33 AM

JMS

December-18th-2006, 11:26 AM

First off, where is the link to the article?!!

Secondly, what a shock that anti-semites latch on to the writings of Arab professors and Jimmy Carter.

I would suggest simply giving links to the Al-Queda, Hizbullah, Hamas and Iranian government web sites. It would save us all time.

Anti-Semitism

discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.
[Origin: 1880–85http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png]

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.WordNet (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/wn.html) - Cite This Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=antisemitism&ia=wn) antisemitism
nounthe intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people [syn: anti-Semitism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-Semitism)]

So a good example of antisemitism would be "jews run the world", or Mel Gibson's drunken tirade... "Jews cause all the wars in the world", which he appologized for when he sobered up...

Anyway... nothing antisemitism about being critical of Israeli policies which are highly controversial globally. Fact is even Israelis have great internal debates about their policies. Carter points out continously that the majority of Israelis have continously shown they favor a negotiated peace involveing land.

If America which has enabled Israel with unpresidented financial, military and political support over decades can't have a debate without hearing people mislabel one side antisemite; then we really are in trouble.

Debate and political discussion are central to our form of government. Don't stiffle it by calling folks who disagree with you racists.. ( antisemites ).

RunClintonRun26

December-18th-2006, 02:07 PM

Fergasun, I think your over-simplified and uninformed statement that if the Palestinians "stopped their terrorist attacks, they would have their own state" fails to acknowledge the reality of the situation - Israel has historically NOT wanted peace. I think it is a shame that as soon as anyone mentions anything negative about Israel, they are blacklisted as anti-semitic. To think, even former aides in the Carter administration can so quickly turn against him, just because he expressed his beliefs that the Palestinians have been and continue to be threated horribly. You cannot ignore FACTS. Facts such as the bombing of a Palestinian shelter of WOMEN AND CHILDREN by Israel. Facts such as the absolute crap land that Israel has "given" Palestine, where it is a pittance to what is rightfully theirs. Facts such as Israel continues to expand their borders by contstrucing more and more walls during the nights. How can we ignore this? The reality is that Jews do have an incredible amount of power. So, we can ignore this because if we do talk about it, we are labeled as anti-semitic, and essentially ruined.

Burgold

December-18th-2006, 02:11 PM

I think it is an incredibly false statement to say that in recent history (the last thirty years) Israelis have not wanted peace. I think it is more to the point that every time they attempted to make peace they've been betrayed and at this point they are gunshy and sometimes over-reactive.

After al, what advantage is there for Israel to be in a state of constant war or terrorist attack?

RunClintonRun26

December-18th-2006, 02:16 PM

I think it is an incredibly false statement to say that in recent history (the last thirty years) Israelis have not wanted peace. I think it is more to the point that every time they attempted to make peace they've been betrayed and at this point they are gunshy and sometimes over-reactive.

How is it incredibly false? Prior to their current Prime Minister, no one made any substantial efforts to create peace. The last thirty years have displayed an extremely poor effort made by the Israelis. You mean to tell me that Sharon wanted peace? Hardly.

Zguy28

December-18th-2006, 02:16 PM

Fergasun, I think your over-simplified and uninformed statement that if the Palestinians "stopped their terrorist attacks, they would have their own state" fails to acknowledge the reality of the situation - Israel has historically NOT wanted peace. ?? Are you kidding? I hope so. Ask Bill Clinton who wanted peace and who didn't.

I think it is a shame that as soon as anyone mentions anything negative about Israel, they are blacklisted as anti-semitic.I absolutely agree.
To think, even former aides in the Carter administration can so quickly turn against him, just because he expressed his beliefs that the Palestinians have been and continue to be threated horribly. You cannot ignore FACTS. Facts such as the bombing of a Palestinian shelter of WOMEN AND CHILDREN by Israel. Facts such as the absolute crap land that Israel has "given" Palestine, where it is a pittance to what is rightfully theirs. You lost any credibility with me at the bolded words. Really, who's land is it rightfully? Hey while were at it, lets give the whole continental US back to Native Americans and move back to Europe, Africa, and Asia?

Facts such as Israel continues to expand their borders by contstrucing more and more walls during the nights. How can we ignore this? The reality is that Jews do have an incredible amount of power. So, we can ignore this because if we do talk about it, we are labeled as anti-semitic, and essentially ruined.Wow. Didn't know that. Here I was just naively believing the news reports of Jewish families being evicted forcibly from their homes by the IDF in order to give "good" land and villages back to the Palestinians.

Burgold

December-18th-2006, 02:21 PM

How is it incredibly false?

We could count the number of cease fires and treaties broken by the Palestinians, but we'd need the hands and feet of every member of Extremeskins. There have been so many negotiations that were broken off due to an attack, so many reasons for distrust. Probably, the Palestinians feel similarly, or feel that these extremists who launched the peace disrupting attacks have been used to short-circuit peace talks, but regardless, it seems every time from the eighties onward some progress was made towards agreement or peace... a massive onslaught against Israel would begin to negate it.

RunClintonRun26

December-18th-2006, 02:23 PM

?? Are you kidding? I hope so. Ask Bill Clinton who wanted peace and who didn't.

I absolutely agree. You lost any credibility with me at the bolded words. Really, who's land is it rightfully? Hey while were at it, lets give the whole continental US back to Native Americans and move back to Europe, Africa, and Asia?

Wow. Didn't know that. Here I was just naively believing the news reports of Jewish families being evicted forcibly from their homes by the IDF in order to give "good" land and villages back to the Palestinians.

Before the British outlined the map of the area, who do you think occupied the area?
And as far as your closing comment, there is the typical pro-Israel mentality - fail to acknowledge the atrocities they have committed, because the Jews have had to go through so much and that they are God's chosen people. I am not anti- Isreal, nor am I anti-semitic. I have no problem saying that Palestine definitely does not help their cause by participating in terrorism. But come on, at least acknowledge where Israel has been wrong.
I think it is funny that the original Jews from the bible were from North and East Africa . . . and that it is European Jews who make have become the spokesperson for the entire culture.

RunClintonRun26

December-18th-2006, 02:28 PM

We could count the number of cease fires and treaties broken by the Palestinians, but we'd need the hands and feet of every member of Extremeskins. There have been so many negotiations that were broken off due to an attack, so many reasons for distrust. Probably, the Palestinians feel similarly, or feel that these extremists who launched the peace disrupting attacks have been used to short-circuit peace talks, but regardless, it seems every time from the eighties onward some progress was made towards agreement or peace... a massive onslaught against Israel would begin to negate it.

Ok well again, I doubt that Sharon has ever wanted peace with Palestine. And, what news do you read to get your information? When has Palestine conducted a massive onslaught against Israel? Sure, they have participated in numerous acts of terrorism. I am not disputing that. But damn, Israel is not innocent in this matter. Not one bit. THEY have the resources to create a massive onslaught . . . Not Palestine. Comparatively, it is safe to say that what Israel has done to the Palestinians is much worse than what Palestinians have done to Israel.

Burgold

December-18th-2006, 02:30 PM

One of the biggest issues in the Palestinian/Israeli issue is how to deal with the mutual distrust. How do you negotiate in good faith, when no one believes a word the other side says? The Palestinians, the good Palestinians have been held hostage by all the powers of the Middle East. I think their anger at Israel is reasonable, but their anger should also be aimed outwards at all the countries who use them and abuse their cause, by not aiding, supporting them, by not absorbing them, by not helping them to build an infrastructure, etc. The chicken and the egg dance of whose land it is and who started what, when is also that looks to have no resolution. As long as they (All the players) reside in mutual hatred and distrust, peace is going to be a very long shot.

RunClintonRun26

December-18th-2006, 02:36 PM

As long as they (All the players) reside in mutual hatred and distrust, peace is going to be a very long shot.

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Very well said.

Burgold

December-18th-2006, 02:39 PM

This I wholeheartedly agree with. Very well said.

The more often you agree with me, the more often you will find yourself being correct ;) :D

JMS

December-18th-2006, 02:39 PM

I absolutely agree. You lost any credibility with me at the bolded words. Really, who's land is it rightfully? Hey while were at it, lets give the whole continental US back to Native Americans and move back to Europe, Africa, and Asia?

Well the conquest of north America took about 300 years and was pretty much over more than 150 years ago with the trans continental rail road. The last "meaningful resistance" was in the 1880's when Custer got his at little big horn. Israel was conquered some 60 years ago and hasn't yet experienced the "last resistence".

Don't really think your analogy is realistic. The Europeans in north America outnumbered the natives 100 years after being introduced here.
The 5 million Israeli's are almost equivelent to the Palistinians in the occupied teritories and Israel proper. The only reason the Israeli Jews aren't outnumbered is due to massive immagration from the former soviet union over the last decade... ( 1 million or 20% of Israeli Jews immigrated from Russia since the late 1980's )... Also Israel is only in the total dominant position due to American support and influence. ( Billions and Billions of aid per year and double and tripple aid after every Israeli war )...

If you add in the some 200 million Arabs and Persians who have at one time or another fought the tiny Israeli state your analogy falls further from a meaningful reasonable argument.

( about Israeli expansion... )
Wow. Didn't know that. Here I was just naively believing the news reports of Jewish families being evicted forcibly from their homes by the IDF in order to give "good" land and villages back to the Palestinians.

It is true that some 8 thousand Israeli settlers were removed from Gaza where they lived with 1.3 million Palistinians and the 30,000 Israeli soldiers it took to ensure their safety. These settlers were transplanted in the occupied territories in the West Bank where the settlements have been consistently expanded. In Jimmy Carter's new book he details the expansion of these settlements in the occupied territories and their growth over the last 30 years.

These settlements are in opposition to international law, in oposition to the Camp David peace plan Israel signed with Egypt, and in opposition to the United States formal policy conducted by Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush..

I think that's the expansion that RunClintonRun26 was speaking of..

Air Force Cane

December-18th-2006, 02:47 PM

shouldn't you terror apologists be setting up a Hudna between the Hamas and the Fatah- seeing as how your buddies the Palestinians are in a CIVIL WAR right now?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/01/ap/world/mainD8KG1E700.shtml

Fighting Between Hamas and Fatah Kills 7

Gaza fighting between Hamas and Fatah, sparked by Hamas efforts to quell protests, kills 7

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip, Oct. 1, 2006
By IBRAHIM BARZAK Associated Press Writer
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/10/01/image17df8a79-c0dd-4049-8949-693f7d88f0f8.jpg(AP)

(AP) Heavily armed Hamas militiamen's efforts to break up anti-government protests on Sunday sparked gunbattles across the Gaza Strip that killed seven people in the worst internal Palestinian violence since Hamas took power.

Militants from the opposition Fatah group retaliated by torching the Palestinian Cabinet building in the West Bank. The violence comes amid growing frustration over forming a national unity government that could end crippling economic sanctions.

The fighting continued throughout the day and sent schoolchildren and other civilians in downtown Gaza City fleeing for cover.

"This is forbidden in Islam, we are in the holy month of Ramadan," said Majed Badawi, 33, who managed to escape after his car was caught in the crossfire. "It's a shame on Hamas, who call themselves real Muslims, and a shame of Fatah as well. Why are they fighting and over what? We are victims because of both of them."Violence between Fatah and Hamas loyalists plagued Gaza throughout the spring, but largely disappeared when Israel launched an offensive here in late June after Hamas-linked militants captured an Israeli soldier.Israel's army chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, said Sunday that the military was considering another ground offensive.Hours later, Israeli tanks, bulldozers and troops moved into northern Gaza. The army said the operation was aimed at preventing rocket fire from militants.

Looking to a possible new Israeli offensive, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, of Hamas, urged Palestinians to end the internal violence "in the face of a serious escalation from the occupation forces."Haniyeh spoke with President Mahmoud Abbas, of Fatah, by telephone and called for joint action to end the fighting, Haniyeh's office said.But in a televised speech, Haniyeh also defended the Hamas militiamen, saying they acted lawfully in trying to break up the protests.Fatah officials blamed Hamas for the chaos.
"Nothing can justify this violence," Fatah spokesman Tawfik Abu Khoussa said.Hamas has been under pressure since it took over the Palestinian Authority after its January election victory over the long-ruling Fatah.

Israel and the West, which view Hamas as a terror group, cut off hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and tax transfers to the Palestinian Authority, making it nearly impossible for the new government to pay its 165,000 workers.
Abbas, who was in Jordan on Sunday, has tried to end the crisis by persuading Hamas to form a coalition government and to accept international demands to renounce violence and recognize Israel. Hamas has resisted compromising its radical ideology.

In recent weeks, civil servants _ including members of the security forces, many of them Fatah loyalists _ held expanding protests against the Hamas-led government to demand back wages.On Saturday, the Hamas government sent its 3,500-member militia into Gaza's streets to quash the protests.
Hamas set up its militia _ which answers to the interior minister _ after losing a power struggle with Abbas for control of Palestinian security forces. Since then, violence has sporadically broken out between Hamas' militia and the official police force, but it has never been as widespread as it was Sunday.
The fighting started in the southern Gaza town of Khan Younis, where dozens of police gathered to demand back wages, protesters said. The Hamas militiamen ordered them to disperse, then opened fire at the protesters, who responded by shooting in the air, protesters said.

Fighting then broke out between militia members and security officials in northern Gaza and violence spread to the parliament building in Gaza City, where security officers and civil servants were protesting. The protesters threw stones at nearby Hamas militiamen, who eventually responded by firing on the protesters, according to an Associated Press journalist at the scene.
Militiamen and security personnel _ including bodyguards for Abbas _ began trading fire nearby.People scattered, and children covered their heads with their schoolbags for protection.The clashes later spilled over to an area near the president's residence.

"We are going to beat with iron fists all those elements who are trying to sabotage the election process of our people, those who are trying to destroy our public properties and close the streets," said Islam Shahwan, a militia spokesman.The street battles killed four people, including a presidential bodyguard and a 15-year-old boy, said Dr. Baker Abu Safia, director of Gaza's Shifa Hospital. Two others were killed in related violence, and at least 75 were injured, hospital officials said.A seventh person, a member of the Preventive Security force, was killed Saturday night when the car he was in was shot by unknown gunmen, security officials said.In response to the violence, Fatah protesters in the West Bank city of Ramallah broke into the Cabinet building and lit the second floor on fire. A second building in the compound also was set ablaze.Forced out by the fire, the militants moved to the Education Ministry and torched a car on the way. They then trashed the offices of a Hamas newspaper.

In the West Bank city of Hebron, Fatah-allied militants ransacked the offices of local Hamas lawmakers and set the furniture on fire.

JMS

December-18th-2006, 02:54 PM

As long as they (All the players) reside in mutual hatred and distrust, peace is going to be a very long shot.

1999 was the last year when no Israeli died due to terrorism. The mistrust can be overcome when there is hope for a resolution.

Air Force Cane

December-18th-2006, 02:55 PM

Ah, those peaceful Islamic terrorists. If only the Jews would surrender, the Islamofascists in Gaza would build palaces to peace and the rivers would run with chocolate..

http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=6638771

Fighting in Gaza Sparks Fears of Palestinian Civil War
All Things Considered: December 17, 2006

This is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED from NPR News. I'm Debbie Elliott.

Fierce fighting erupted this weekend between Palestinian factions in Gaza. The battles between rival forces of the president and prime minister have some Palestinians fearing they may be on the brink of a civil war. But late Sunday evening, there were wire service reports the two sides had agreed to a truce. The reports quoted an unnamed official of the president's Fatah faction. I asked NPR's Eric Westervelt, who has been covering the Gaza clashes, about the reports of a truce.

ERIC WESTERVELT: Well, Debbie, the ceasefire is not confirmed, and even if it is real, we'll have to see. We've had Palestinian ceasefires and so-called unity agreements announced before, only to see them quickly disintegrate. And ongoing gunfire, we have to say, was heard late into the night in Gaza City, and a key question remains whether the gunman on the street will actually listen to their factional leaders and pull back from further violence. But this weekend, Debbie, we saw no signs of that happening. Why is it that the violence has escalated? We've been hearing about skirmishes between Palestinian factions for weeks, if not more, but things seemed to really heat up over the past few days.

WESTERVELT: That's right. The two sides have been clashing for months, Debbie, but in the last few days, Debbie, we really saw this perfect storm of violent acts and political rhetoric. There was an assassination attempt alleged on a Hamas leader and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh late Friday.

Hamas then accused a senior Fatah leader, a powerful official named Mohammed Dahlan, of orchestrating that attack. That set off a series of tit-for-tat battles, and yesterday Fatah leader and president Mahmoud Abbas called for early elections to try to end the political stalemate with Hamas and the crippling international sanctions the Hamas-led government, their election has prompted. Hamas called that an attempted coup d'etat. That just set off even more clashes.

ELLIOTT: Now, is this violence different from what we've seen in the past in this region?

WESTERVELT: I think in the factional fighting in Gaza Strip, Debbie, it's different. We saw the use of heavier weaponry this weekend not seen in clashes so far. Today began with an attack on a Mahmoud Abbas presidential guard compound. It killed one member of his elite force and wounded four others. That attack was with rocket-propelled grenades. We're told that Hamas gunmen, suspected Hamas gunmen fired some 25 rocket-propelled grenades. We hadn't seen that kind of coordinated attack with that kind of firepower before. Later, suspected Hamas gunmen fired mortar rounds at Mahmoud Abbas's compound in Gaza. Again, we hadn't seen that kind of firepower. There were other incidents of violence. In today's fighting at least three people were killed. Two civilians caught in the crossfire. So this weekend we did see an escalation.

Burgold

December-18th-2006, 03:02 PM

1999 was the last year when no Israeli died due to terrorism. The mistrust can be overcome when there is hope for a resolution.

If I'm understanding you, this is exactly what I meant by the chicken and the egg dance.

Air Force Cane

December-18th-2006, 03:23 PM

NOVA2Tampa

December-18th-2006, 03:37 PM

Ahh, the old "mistrust" excuse.

Perhaps you could explain how come Yasser Arafat rejected Bill Clinton at Camp David II in the year 2000 then?

Why is it that Muslims and Arabs butcher literally THOUSANDS of innocent civilians in:

Russia, Nigeria, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Britain, the United States, Phillipines, Bali/Indonesia, Malaysia, Spain, Turkey, etc.

yet people like you claim it is "mistrust" that causes head choppings and suicide car bombings? Do you realize how detached from reality that is?

+1...thanks for saving me all that typing!

If the Palestinian terrorists laid down their arms tomorrow, there would be peace.

If the Israelis laid down their arms tomorrow, there would be no more Israel.

'nuff said...

oisn1

December-18th-2006, 03:44 PM

Ah, those peaceful Islamic terrorists. If only the Jews would surrender, the Islamofascists in Gaza would build palaces to peace and the rivers would run with chocolate..

Fatah, the moderate section of the Palestinians are fighting Hamas, the militant, terrorist section. If anything, this is a good thing for Israel, as the moderates are fighting to take back power.

Oh wait, according to you, all Arabs are terrorists. Forget what I said.

Henry

December-18th-2006, 04:08 PM

The reality is that Jews do have an incredible amount of power.

Really? I have an incredible amount of power? I guess I didn't get the memo.

There's a difference between being ciritical of Israeli policy and blaming 'the Jews' for that policy. One is not anti-semetic. The other is.

I've seen that particular line crossed several times in this thread.

Winslowalrob

December-18th-2006, 06:25 PM

Ahh, the old "mistrust" excuse.

Perhaps you could explain how come Yasser Arafat rejected Bill Clinton at Camp David II in the year 2000 then?

Why is it that Muslims and Arabs butcher literally THOUSANDS of innocent civilians in:

Russia, Nigeria, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Britain, the United States, Phillipines, Bali/Indonesia, Malaysia, Spain, Turkey, etc.

yet people like you claim it is "mistrust" that causes head choppings and suicide car bombings? Do you realize how detached from reality that is?

Umm, take Nigeria out of the list, or at least put Christians on it. Nigerian Christians are just as prone to mob violence as Nigerian Muslims, and they have killed the lions share of civilians. Its ok, you either got your information on Nigerian violence from the "liberal" media or right wing news sources, neither of which know Jack @#$% about Africa. And Jack left town.

JMS

December-18th-2006, 07:26 PM

( 1999 last year Israel was without an Israeli death due to terrorism, I suggested due to the hope of a negotiated settlement)...If I'm understanding you, this is exactly what I meant by the chicken and the egg dance.

If I'm understanding you correctly you're suggesting that Israel will leave the occupation of Palestinian land once the Palestinians stop protesting the violent and ongoing appropriation of that land?

Who does that make sense too?

JMS

December-18th-2006, 07:56 PM

Ahh, the old "mistrust" excuse.

Perhaps you could explain how come Yasser Arafat rejected Bill Clinton at Camp David II in the year 2000 then?

Well if you read Jimmy Carter's book you would know that the land offered To Yasser wasn't what was advertised.... Israel didn't offer 95%, 98% or 99.5%... Israel offered all the West bank less the settlements ( 90% of the occupied territories.. pretty good right? )... Less Jerusalem, Less the 400 meter security zone around each settlement, Less the roads which connect the settlements.. Less the land containing the infrastructure of the settlements.. (Electricity, water, sewage, and phones).... What's left? The Palestinians wouldn't even be able to travel to neighboring towns in their own country if they accepted that... Doesn't sound to me like Israel was offering a viable Palestinian state as noted by America's stated foreign policy goal...

Why is it that Muslims and Arabs butcher literally THOUSANDS of innocent civilians in:

Russia, Nigeria, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Israel, Britain, the United States, Phillipines, Bali/Indonesia, Malaysia, Spain, Turkey, etc.

Well you'd have to go global to dilute the issue... Fact is that of all the innocent lives lost in Israeli and her neighbors due to bombs and the such.... It's Israel doing the killing... by 10 to 1.. This isn't to suggest that innocent Israeli's aren't dieing, rather it's to inform you that for every innocent Israeli killed by a suicide bomber, or rocket from southern Lebanon... 10 innocent Lebanese, Palestinians, or Syrians are killed by Israeli fired American made bombs and missiles. Israel kills the vast majority of innocents in this conflict because American weapons are much more lethal than what the Palestinians, Lebanese and Arabs have access too. Children throwing rocks conducted the last two major Palestinian uprisings!!

yet people like you claim it is "mistrust" that causes head chopping and suicide car bombings? Do you realize how detached from reality that is?

I'm not equating innocent folks getting killed on either side of this mess with terrorists. I'm not suggesting that all Israeli's are Ariel Sharon types with two atrocities hanging around his neck ( Sabra and Chatila , Qibya on the night of 14 October, 1953)... Nor are they Yitzhak Shamir's who planned and carried out the assassination of a United Nations Mediator.. ( 1948 Count Folke Bernadotte ) Don't equate all Palestinians with Al Quada types or Suicide bombers.

Winslowalrob

December-18th-2006, 10:56 PM

Well if you read Jimmy Carter's book you would know that the land offered To Yasser wasn't what was advertised.... Israel didn't offer 95%, 98% or 99.5%... Israel offered all the West bank less the settlements ( 90% of the occupied territories.. pretty good right? )... Less Jerusalem, Less the 400 meter security zone around each settlement, Less the roads which connect the settlements.. Less the land containing the infrastructure of the settlements.. (Electricity, water, sewage, and phones).... What's left? The Palestinians wouldn't even be able to travel to neighboring towns in their own country if they accepted that... Doesn't sound to me like Israel was offering a viable Palestinian state as noted by America's stated foreign policy goal...

Well you'd have to go global to dilute the issue... Fact is that of all the innocent lives lost in Israeli and her neighbors due to bombs and the such.... It's Israel doing the killing... by 10 to 1.. This isn't to suggest that innocent Israeli's aren't dieing, rather it's to inform you that for every innocent Israeli killed by a suicide bomber, or rocket from southern Lebanon... 10 innocent Lebanese, Palestinians, or Syrians are killed by Israeli fired American made bombs and missiles. Israel kills the vast majority of innocents in this conflict because American weapons are much more lethal than what the Palestinians, Lebanese and Arabs have access too. Children throwing rocks conducted the last two major Palestinian uprisings!!

I'm not equating innocent folks getting killed on either side of this mess with terrorists. I'm not suggesting that all Israeli's are Ariel Sharon types with two atrocities hanging around his neck ( Sabra and Chatila , Qibya on the night of 14 October, 1953)... Nor are they Yitzhak Shamir's who planned and carried out the assassination of a United Nations Mediator.. ( 1948 Count Folke Bernadotte ) Don't equate all Palestinians with Al Quada types or Suicide bombers.

Well said.

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 06:15 AM

Zguy28

December-19th-2006, 07:03 AM

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 09:02 AM

.....crickets.....

crickets indeed.

RunClintonRun26

December-19th-2006, 10:31 AM

JMS

December-19th-2006, 10:41 AM

On the issue of Israel killing innocents, how would you handle it? Seriously, what would you do?

Let's start with a typical scenario. A man dressed in slacks and a shirt ambles into town. He sits down in a crowded restaurant. Orders something. It's the lunch rush. He begins to eat. At the height of the rush hour he presses the detonator, killing himself and killing and hurting as many as possible.

Okay, there's the scenario. You know this is a planned attack, coordinated, supplied, and paid for and that Hamas has taken credit for it. What do you do? How do you do it without hurting a single "innocent?"

So what are you justifying with this line of logic? The hellfire missle attacks on crowded appartment buildings? Using military snipers against children throwing rocks executing a couple every day for more than a year in the hopes they will wise up and lay down for you? ( by children I mean eleven years olds some as young as eight? ) How about hellfire missle attacks on automobiles on crowded city streets where you get your man; only you also kill his two sisters and half a dozen folks doing the weekly shopping?

Or are you justifying the Sabra and Chatila in 1982 where Israeli courts found Ariel Sharon responsible for the mass murder of more than 600 women and children? Perhaps its the Qibya massacres where Ariel Sharon lead a military assault on an unarmed village killing 70 civilians mostly women and children hiding in the basements of their homes... This Resulting in the United States suspending aid.

That's what you're attempting to justify, the wanton and ongoing killing of innocent civilians on a 10 to one scale because.... "Hey what else are we supposed to do?"

I tell you what I would do If I was a guy from a country which was supplying the means for most of the innocent deaths over there... I would look for a better way. I would be open to a better way. I would take chances to find a better way. I would read books by folks who have worked for a better way for going on four decades.

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 10:52 AM

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 10:59 AM

A secondary question, in your worldview, do Palestinian bystanders or innocents bare any guilt for not attempting to police themselves or attempting to curtail terror attacks? Is a lack to curb terror attacks from within viewed as approval for the attacks against Israel in Palestine? How do you define innocent? Is an innocent someone who has no relation, knowledge, or has never aided in anyway anyone involved directly or indirectly with terrorism?

JMS

December-19th-2006, 11:10 AM

JMS,

You didn't answer the scenario. The question is what would YOU do. If I wanted to stretch it, I could guess your answer is what they did after that scenario times 3,000, but I asked you what would you do? How would you do better? How would you react to the scenario? Your answer was plain avoidance.

I'm not avoiding anything.. I'm trying to tell you that your emotional argument is just as valid coming from the other side. The rightious outrage I would feel if someone killed my innocent wife and children would be just as valid were I a Moslem or a Jew. Were I American, European, or Middle Eastern. The fact that it happens 10 times more often to a Palistinian/Arab families destroys your entire emotional justification argument.

What would I do.. I don't think I would look for 10 innocent wives and children on the other side of the conflict to appease my lose. I hope, I would look for a better way. I hope, I would be open to a better way.

JMS

December-19th-2006, 11:18 AM

JMS, thank you for offering some clarity on the issue and not leaving me out here on this island all by myself. . .lol
I still get the feeling that there is little self-blame by the Israelis . . . or blame by the U.S. towards Israel for that matter, as there is still hardly anyone on this board who will say that Israel plays an even larger role in this matter . . . And like I said earlier, the simplistic mentality that many of you have is very offensive and uninformed. Like JMS said, you cannot equate all Palestinians with Al Qaeda and suicide bombers. And to say that if they were to stop reacting to the subjugation at the hand of Israel, then there will be peace, is to ignore what Israel has done.

As I said before, There is great public debate within Israel. Much more infact than in the United States where good people have no clue to our own influence and culpability in this ongoing tragedy.

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 11:24 AM

Okay, you would look for a better way. I'm trying to ignore the inciteful statements for the time being.

Would that be to find people in charge and arrange a cease fire? No, you wouldn't do that, because in hindsight you know that every ceasefire has only led to an increase in terror attacks. You would be too wise to try that.

Would you remove your own people and offer them land? No, because that too would be only an incitement to violence? Would you go through a second party? You might try that again, but you know that over and over again, they have smiled and nodded to the third party, then commenced with more attacks, proclaiming that every third party is biased and no agreement is sufficient even to the extent that it would be worthwhile to continue talking.

Would you do absolutely nothing and try to let them wear themselves out. Israel even tried that for a time except that nonretaliation encouraged more attacks also.

It's the easiest thing in the world to say you would look for a better way and then blame the other guy. In my scenario, the only solution you offered so far is "I would read books" and look for a better way. That, in itself, is telling.

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 11:30 AM

As I said before, There is great public debate within Israel. Much more infact than in the United States where good people have no clue to our own influence and culpability in this ongoing tragedy.

JMS,

Your stuck on the blame game. I said at the very beginning of this thread that Israel shares some of the blame and has blood on its hands. (I think it was this thread. THere have been quite a few like this one around recently :))Others agreed with me. Now, I ask you to move beyond assigning blame. Part of the reason, why they haven't resolved the Palestinian/Israel conflict is the chicken/egg dance, this you started it, it's your fault tug-of-war.

Zguy28

December-19th-2006, 11:43 AM

JMS

December-19th-2006, 11:50 AM

A secondary question, in your worldview, do Palestinian bystanders or innocents bare any guilt for not attempting to police themselves or attempting to curtail terror attacks?

Doesn't innocent mean they are free from guilt? As for not "attempting" to police themselves; wasn't it Israel which destroyed the infrastructure of governence in the occupied territories by invading solely to destroy the ability to govern. A "punitive" expedition they called it..Didn't they plant four tanks on Yasser's front yard and keep him from even leaving his office for the last years of his life? Didn't Israel specifically target the civil police force that Yasser had built? 1999 was the last year no Israeli died due to terrorism. That police force in cooperation with the Israeli IDF accomplished that. 1999 was when the Palistinians had the means to police themselves before Israel shattered their government.

Currently Israel withholds the taxes which are collect from the Palistinians on behalf of the Palistinian government. Currently Israel also withholds the American aid which our Congress mandated should go to the Palistinian government. So the police and civil authorities haven't been paid in many months; Hard to hold Palistinians accountable for not governing themselves when the means are actively being denied to them.

Is a lack to curb terror attacks from within viewed as approval for the attacks against Israel in Palestine?

I failed to stop the Oklahoma federal building attack. Is that what you mean by my failure equating to my approval? Come to think of it, you failed to stop that attack yourself didn't you?

How do you define innocent?

My world view uses websters...

in·no·cent
1.free from moral wrong; without sin; pure: innocent children.
2.free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless: innocent of the crime.
3.not involving evil intent or motive: an innocent misrepresentation.
4.not causing physical or moral injury; harmless: innocent fun.

Is an innocent someone who has no relation, knowledge, or has never aided in anyway anyone involved directly or indirectly with terrorism?

You can narrow the definition of innocent to exclude the entire population of the middle east on both sides. Luckly we have definitions for words which protect us from such intelectual masterbation.

Lloyds' Mongolian Beef

December-19th-2006, 12:02 PM

I was expecting this thread to be about astro-turf. :D

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 12:06 PM

JMS

December-19th-2006, 12:11 PM

Let us look at what both sides are trying to accomplish in this 'conflict'.

Palestinians - independent state or wholesale destruction of state of Israel. Which is it?

Israel - protect citizens and land currently occupied (no pun intended) by them.

You see I don't think you would get much agreement on the two sides as to what each is trying to accomplish....

An Israeli might subscribe your your stated goals of both sides. A Palistinian Arab might define them significantly different.

A Palistinian fighter who is guilty killings many innnocent Israelis might claim that he is fighting to reclaim the home where his family lived for a thousand years prior to being forcible evicted. A home perhaps he was born in. Perhaps his father and mother lived. A Palistinian likewise might claim Israel is fighting because they profit from the fight. So Israel can continue their ongoing confiscation of Arab homes and their expansion of settlements every country in the world including America; excluding Israel has labeled illegal... Take ancient Arab homes and turn them over to newly minted Israeli Russian Jews with a few months in country.

( 1 million russian jews have immagrated since the late 1980's.. that 20% of the jewish population of Israel... )

Definition of what both sides are trying to accomplish is definitely part of the disagreement and needs to be part of the discussion.

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 12:21 PM

How many times has Israel expanded its borders without having been attacked first and engaged an enemy in war? Not many Palestinian fighters are old enough to be born and remember Israel as their homeland. How many active fighters were born fifty years ago? There may be some born in the late 60's or early 70's, but they would have been very young and have few memories of "home" What they have had were a lifetime worth of lessons of hate.

Zguy28

December-19th-2006, 12:26 PM

You see I don't think you would get much agreement on the two sides as to what each is trying to accomplish....

An Israeli might subscribe your your stated goals of both sides. A Palistinian Arab might define them significantly different.

A Palistinian fighter who is guilty killings many innnocent Israelis might claim that he is fighting to reclaim the home where his family lived for a thousand years prior to being forcible evicted. A home perhaps he was born in. Perhaps his father and mother lived. A Palistinian likewise might claim Israel is fighting because they profit from the fight. So Israel can continue their ongoing confiscation of Arab homes and their expansion of settlements every country in the world including America; excluding Israel has labeled illegal... Take ancient Arab homes and turn them over to newly minted Israeli Russian Jews with a few months in country.

( 1 million russian jews have immagrated since the late 1980's.. that 20% of the jewish population of Israel... )

Definition of what both sides are trying to accomplish is definitely part of the disagreement and needs to be part of the discussion.To quite honest, its obvious to me what both sides want.

Palestine/Muslims want the land back that belonged to them 1000 years, but has been taken from them by 'infidels' in the 20th century. I believe it involves something called Sharia [sic] law?

Israeli/Jews want a homeland back that was taken from them 2000 years ago by Rome. I believe this involves something called a covenant between God and Jacob/Israel?

I think some here have gotten the impression I'm just another "Israel-supporting Christian."
Personally, I really don't care if "national Israel" is restored or whatever. Some Christians are big on it because of eschatological views, I am not.

What I do know is what I see and read about. That's all I can form an opinion on. And what I see is Israel almost always responds to something while the Palestinians 99% of the time appear to instigate something. If Israel does wrong, it should be held accountable.

By the way, try being the representative for Israel in a mock UN convention one time...the outright hate towards Israel from the other students was intense.

JMS

December-19th-2006, 12:32 PM

Cool. Innocent means free from guilt.
So, are the people who hide and succor terrorists free from guilt or are they guilty?

Are the people that rally and dance in the streets when Israelis are murdered free from guilt or are they inspiring and encouraging more violence?

Funny you should use the term "dance in the streets"...
Where these Israeli's innocent for dancing in the streets, filming themselves in front of the burning world trade center? We eventually decided they were..
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm

How about BeBe Netanyahoo, When he said the Word Trade Center bombing on 911 was "very good for us" smiling in a press conference.. Was he guilty of enciting more violence... We eventually decided he wasn't.

Are the people who give money to buy bombs free of guilt? Are the people who know who the terrorists are, but don't say a word, are they free of guilt? Are the people who know where the terrorist plans to attack, but don't say a word, free of guilt?

I would say all of those folks are guilty

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 12:40 PM

Air Force Cane

December-19th-2006, 12:45 PM

When one side (HAMAS) refuses to acknowledge your existence, calls for genocide of your people and wiping out a member of the United Nations:

all of your western oriented international relations 101 freshmen year courses will not make a whit of difference.

Here is a suggestion: go to Osama Bin-Laden's cave and come back with a peace treaty. After that I will take your facile and naive comments seriously.

http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=396417&lng=1

Palestinian civil war fears mount ahead of Abbas speech

Amid fears that internal fighting among Palestinians could erupt into outright civil war Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has held an urgent cabinet meeting to discuss the crisis. After the meeting the Hamas leader called for an end to the bloodshed of recent days. The ruling militant group is locked in a deadly power struggle with the Fatah movement of President Mahmoud Abbas. There were further clashes on Friday at rallies in the West Bank and Gaza. They were called in protest against what Hamas believes was an attempt by Fatah gunmen to assassinate Haniyeh at the border between Gaza and Egypt.

Tensions could escalate today in response to a speech by Abbas in which he may call for an early general election. That would signal the end of any remaining hopes for a unity government between the two sides. Hamas has already said it would not accept holding early elections and that they would be illegal. Fatah officials say Abbas could do it by issuing a presidential decree. But some analysts doubt that under the present climate Abbas would go that far.

JMS

December-19th-2006, 01:37 PM

Good. We're finally in agreement. I think (You didn't comment on item one). I have very mixed feelings about the dancers and their "role," but I don't believe that they can be held as accomplices even though their actions are encouraging to those that do evil.

Good we agree that dancing isn't terrorism. That is a rather discouraging intersection of our beliefs.. But maybe it's something we can build on. Frankly small steps are all anyone can hope for in this mess.

I'm sure the Palestinians say the same since the act of a Jew breathing is a provocation in itself.

Just when we were starting to make progress agreeing on the whole dancing amnesty; you go and attribute this bit of nastyness to the opposition. Yasser did shake hands with the Israeli PM at the white house.. Yasser did back away from calling for the destruction of Israel. Likewise Yasser publically renounced violence and committed himself to a negotiated settlement based upon the premise of land for peace.

In any case, both sides have learned to hate so well and distrust so strongly that it will take something phenomenal to shake them from their stances.

1999, last year no Israeli died due to terrorism. That wasn't that long ago. That could be built upon.

I actually thought that the massive land give-back might have been that, but it wasn't.

Well the 8000 settlers who Israel removed from Gaza where 1.3 million Palistinians live wasn't much of a "massive land give-back"... It was more of a realization by Ariel Sharon that it was economically unrealistic to keep the 30,000 soldiers there to protect the 8 thousand settlers from the Palistinians.

Likewise the "massive land give-back" has been more than offset by the continuous building of the settlements in the west bank. Or the Wall which Israel chose to build almost exclusively in Palistinian land rather than in greater Israel...

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 01:45 PM

Good we agree that dancing isn't terrorism. That is a rather discouraging intersection of our beliefs.. But maybe it's something we can build on. Frankly small steps are all anyone can hope for in this mess.

Just when we were starting to make progress agreeing on the whole dancing amnesty; you go and attribute this bit of nastyness to the opposition.

I was exaggerating a bit with the breathing comment. I appologize. Although sadly, I do believe there is a segment where that it is a very true statement.

1999, last year no Israeli died due to terrorism. That wasn't that long ago. That could be built upon.

7 years ago is a short time in human history, but a long time in family history. For some 2001 was forever ago, and for some it was yesterday. To ask someone to remember that 7 nearly 8 years ago there managed to be a year without hostility may indicate that it can happen, but it simultaneously reminds them that it's been a long, long time since there was an oasis in this march in the desert.

Well the 8000 settlers who Israel removed from Gaza where 1.3 million Palistinians live wasn't much of a "massive land give-back"... It was more of a realization by Ariel Sharon that it was economically unrealistic to keep the 30,000 soldiers there to protect the 8 thousand settlers from the Palistinians.

You say potato. I say potatah. The rationale that there may have been secondary reasons for the land give back is unimportant. Land was given back to wine that there was no bow on top is petty.

Likewise the "massive land give-back" has been more than offset by the continuous building of the settlements in the west bank. Or the Wall which Israel chose to build almost exclusively in Palistinian land rather than in greater Israel...

I appreciate this comment, but instead of viewing it as a step forward, you dismiss it. If you dismiss every gesture how can there be any movement towards peace. Can you point to any gesture made by the Palestinians?

JMS

December-19th-2006, 02:09 PM

To quite honest, its obvious to me what both sides want.

Palestine/Muslims want the land back that belonged to them 1000 years, but has been taken from them by 'infidels' in the 20th century. I believe it involves something called Sharia [sic] law?

Israeli/Jews want a homeland back that was taken from them 2000 years ago by Rome. I believe this involves something called a covenant between God and Jacob/Israel?

Well actually Rome didn't destroy Israel. The Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 BC... That was the end of historic Israel until 1948. So what's that..2670 years? It's true that Judea continued to exist until the Babylonian invasion of 597 BC or for 25 years longer than Israel... when Nebuchadnezzar deported the Judaeans in the first Diaspora.. Thus the Romans didn't conquer Israel, rather they invaded Palistine. The Jews liberated by the Persian Cyrus the great from Babylon did not return to Israel, rather they returned to Palistine.

I think some here have gotten the impression I'm just another "Israel-supporting Christian."
Personally, I really don't care if "national Israel" is restored or whatever. Some Christians are big on it because of eschatological views, I am not.

What I do know is what I see and read about. That's all I can form an opinion on. And what I see is Israel almost always responds to something while the Palestinians 99% of the time appear to instigate something. If Israel does wrong, it should be held accountable.

No side is all correct here. No side is all wrong here. Israel has definitely done messed up stuff. Early on because they had too. Lately mostly because they can. Palistinians too have had many opprotunities for a negotiated settlement early on. They continously ask for what was on the table only a few years earlier. Currently what is asked for is a return to the 1967 boarders. Israel was offering that in the 1970's.

Problem now is that Israel is so strong, the incentive for peace is less attractive from a security stand point than the increased population that the expansion of the settlements give them. They've lost a lot of incentive for peaceful settlement because they aren't threatened militarily by their neighbors ( Syria, and Lebonon ).. Don't get me wrong, the Terrorism kills Israeli's but it doesn't threaten their national existance like the wars in 1948, 1953, 1968 or 1973...

By the way, try being the representative for Israel in a mock UN convention one time...the outright hate towards Israel from the other students was intense.

The world is pretty pissed off at Israel because they see them as the agressors in this conflict. Where was this mock UN convention heald? Not in the US I'm guessing... Jimmy Carter in his recent book claimed the Europeans actually believe Israel is a greater threat to world peace than North Korea or Iran... There is a huge reality gap between the world, America, and Israel.

alexey

December-19th-2006, 02:34 PM

JMS

December-19th-2006, 03:34 PM

If complete destruction of Israel is not a viable option, then Israel's right to exist has to be acknowldged by those with whom a peaceful solution is to be found.

Otherwise a peaceful solution is not possible as long as Israel exists.

This may be hard to swallow for some any way you twist it. That is why many people choose to focus on Israel's militaristic approach to the problem and criticize it, instead of looking at a very simple question that makes a peaceful solution impossible at this time.

Yasser Arafat acknowledged Israel's right to exist almost a decade ago. Likewise the Arab League endorsed the Saudi plan which called for the full normalized relations with Israel in exchange for a return to the 1967 boarders...

It's no longer a question of the Arabs calling for the destruction of Israel as has historically been the case. Currently and for the last decade; it's only been a question of terms.

JMS

December-19th-2006, 03:47 PM

I appreciate this comment, but instead of viewing it as a step forward, you dismiss it. If you dismiss every gesture how can there be any movement towards peace. Can you point to any gesture made by the Palestinians?

I don't dismiss it. I just don't think it was a step forward. It could have been. If Ariel Sharon had negotiated the pull out, then the negotiation could have been something to build on. But He didn't do that; rather he unilaterally pulled out. He bombed Gaza a few weeks before he pulled out. He bombed Gaza a few weeks after he pulled out. He blockades Gaza from the land, sea, and air. The pull out did not change any Israeli policy; rather Sharon just moved to more defensable lines.

Also as I said, the 8 thousand settlers removed from Gaza are more than offset by those settled in the occupied West bank at the same time. Believe me, I'm looking for hope.

Burgold

December-19th-2006, 04:08 PM

oisn1

December-19th-2006, 04:39 PM

I think we're all looking for hope and we're all incredibly wary and weary. Sharon is probably the wrong man to establish peace. Palestinians don't like him and don't trust him. Hamas is probably the wrong group to try to speak for peace. Israelis don't like them and don't trust them. Arafat was a terrorist too. It was hard to like and trust him. He made agreements while executing attacks simultaneously.

That's the problem. Both sides claim to want peace, while, in my opinion, backstabbing the others. People like Rabin and Abbas were/are being undermined by people like Hamas and Sharon. While the leaders try to move forward, they are forced to cover for fringe organizations that ruin things. Do you think it is easy for Israelis to trust Abbas when Hamas is bombing them? Do you think it is easy for Palestinians to trust Israel when its military decides to bulldoze entire neighborhoods in the name of "security" or when a rogue military officer unloads a clip on a 13-year-old girl because she "looked" like a terrorist?

That's the problem, there is no trust. But more importantly, the people want to trust one another, it's just impossible to do so when fringe groups undermine it.

As for the blockade, it's only logical. Giving the land back was a gesture. You have to blockade it because you have to control or try to control the flow of terror, you have to control the new border. Bombing it, while not quite the modern version of salting the earth was kind of a rotten thing to do. However, the land is now theirs to work with and rebuild in their own image. That should count for something.

Honestly, no it shouldn't. I live in your house, but decide to give it back. But before I do so, I destroy it. Then I say, "Here's your land back, now stop being so angry." It's not legitimate to do that and expect the person to happy. What makes it worse is that it's not like Palestinians are sitting on loads of money to rebuild those areas. Over 40% of palestinians are unemployed, and the majority of people don't make enough money to survive. The land can't be rebuilt, and that's why fringe guys like Sharon do things like that. They can say that they are dedicated to peace by giving the land back while still hurting the people.

I understand your idea that giving the land back should be considered a gesture of peace, but in all reality, it is nothing but a slap in the face when you come back to you land to see it in ruins (while Sharon is being praised by Bush for dedicating himself to the peace process).

When you say, yes they gave us the land, but but but but, and they didn't give us everything we deserve immediately and without caveats, it is not looking for hope. It is looking for a reason to dismiss it. Dismissing it allows the anger and the hate to continue. Trust me, to those displaced Israelis who had lived their entire lives there and built their life there. Being forced off their land was anything, but nothing.

As shown above, the land isn't "just" given back. I do agree that Palestinians should at least understand the land was given back because large portions of Israel were clamoring for the government to do so (and that's very important). But it's a hollow "victory" to get back your land in ruins.

I'm a young kid, and to see this sort of thing makes no sense to me. All this hatred and killing, I hope it one day stops. But looking at it realistically, it won't stop until these fringe groups are finally condemned. The problem is, both of these fringe groups use the other group as justification for their own heinous crimes.

Ryman of the North

December-21st-2006, 02:31 AM

Well the conquest of north America took about 300 years and was pretty much over more than 150 years ago with the trans continental rail road. The last "meaningful resistance" was in the 1880's when Custer got his at little big horn. Israel was conquered some 60 years ago and hasn't yet experienced the "last resistence".

Don't really think your analogy is realistic. The Europeans in north America outnumbered the natives 100 years after being introduced here.
The 5 million Israeli's are almost equivelent to the Palistinians in the occupied teritories and Israel proper. The only reason the Israeli Jews aren't outnumbered is due to massive immagration from the former soviet union over the last decade... ( 1 million or 20% of Israeli Jews immigrated from Russia since the late 1980's )... Also Israel is only in the total dominant position due to American support and influence. ( Billions and Billions of aid per year and double and tripple aid after every Israeli war )...

If you add in the some 200 million Arabs and Persians who have at one time or another fought the tiny Israeli state your analogy falls further from a meaningful reasonable argument.

It is true that some 8 thousand Israeli settlers were removed from Gaza where they lived with 1.3 million Palistinians and the 30,000 Israeli soldiers it took to ensure their safety. These settlers were transplanted in the occupied territories in the West Bank where the settlements have been consistently expanded. In Jimmy Carter's new book he details the expansion of these settlements in the occupied territories and their growth over the last 30 years.

These settlements are in opposition to international law, in oposition to the Camp David peace plan Israel signed with Egypt, and in opposition to the United States formal policy conducted by Carter, Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush..

I think that's the expansion that RunClintonRun26 was speaking of..

The reason that this conflict has gone on then according to your logic is that The Israelis failed to use genocide as a tool the same way that America did and therefore are fighting an ongoing war rather than simply massacring the native population, so how does that make them less "right"? Americans need to study their history before beaking off about Israel.

Israel is a bastion of democracy in a region ruled by religious fanaticism, if there were not such anti semitic feeling in America they would be overwhelmed by support as they weer the ultimate underdog until they grew stong enough to enforce their poicies with force.

Ryman of the North

December-21st-2006, 02:54 AM

Yasser Arafat acknowledged Israel's right to exist almost a decade ago. Likewise the Arab League endorsed the Saudi plan which called for the full normalized relations with Israel in exchange for a return to the 1967 boarders...

It's no longer a question of the Arabs calling for the destruction of Israel as has historically been the case. Currently and for the last decade; it's only been a question of terms.

do you mean the borders that existed before the war that was fought to "push the jews into the ocean" or the war that was fought to "remove the jewish stain from the middle east"? because the only real reason we are even having this conversation is that when Israel was in a position to win the war permanently AMERICA stepped in and threatened economic sanctions if Israel followed through and subdued the arab nations and egypt ,(they had a clear path right to cairo after routing the pan arab army ) but they lisetened to America, so they withdrew instead of finishing the fight. The real reason that the Arabs hate israel is that they had their asses handed to them in an unfair fight in which they had all the advantages. Arab pride refuses to accept that. I studied anthropology as well as military science in university and the simple fact is that the Arab psyche is far different from ours.

if the Arabs refuse to acknowledge Israels rights by conquest (the same rights that give you your country btw) and continue to dispute it then there will be no peace. the Arabs had their chnace twice, and through their own collective cowardice and military ineptitude they failed, so telling Israel to give back anything is lame.

Winslowalrob

December-21st-2006, 05:45 AM

The reason that this conflict has gone on then according to your logic is that The Israelis failed to use genocide as a tool the same way that America did and therefore are fighting an ongoing war rather than simply massacring the native population, so how does that make them less "right"? Americans need to study their history before beaking off about Israel.

Israel is a bastion of democracy in a region ruled by religious fanaticism, if there were not such anti semitic feeling in America they would be overwhelmed by support as they weer the ultimate underdog until they grew stong enough to enforce their poicies with force.

Well, the biggest killer of Native Americans was disease, so the Israelis got unlucky in not having anything to wipe out their neighbors with en masse. So you consider Americans genocidal? If you were not firmly in support of Israel, there are many right wingers and conservatives that would not agree with that statement.

Israel is a bastion of democracy in a region ruled by religious fanaticism you say? So, you imply that democracy is good and that religious fanaticism and democracy are mutually exclusive, I suppose. So a rightfully elected Hamas is what, not democracy, or are they not religious fanatics? Furthermore, do you claim that Israel does not have any religious fanatics, or many fanatics, or what? How would you define a religious fanatic? Someone that acts as though god gave them that land and screw anyone that tries to mess with them, because last time I checked, Israel has plenty of settlers that believe just as fervently (I contend fanatically) in the infallibility of their beliefs and religion as any religious fanatic in Palestine.

Anti-semitic feeling in America you say? So if you do not support Israel 100% you are anti-semitic, and this is what is keeping them from being "overwhelmed by support," whatever that means.

Ryman of the North

December-21st-2006, 12:17 PM

Johnny Punani

December-21st-2006, 12:21 PM

:munchout:

You drink soda and eat popcorn on here a lot.

JMS

December-21st-2006, 01:27 PM

do you mean the borders that existed before the war that was fought to "push the jews into the ocean" or the war that was fought to "remove the jewish stain from the middle east"?

Well actually Israel started the 1967 war. They were the first ones to use military force and pre-emptively attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan after Egypt refused to allow Israeli shipping threw their Suez canal. Were they provoked? Perhaps, but they were the ones who resorted to military action first not the Arabs.

Israel started the 1956 war also. Once again Egypt and Nasser tried to blockade Israeli shipping from using the newly confiscated Suez Canal. Confiscated from Britain not Israel. So Israel conspired with Britain and France to give control of the canal back to the European powers. Israel invaded. Britain and France moved troops in to "secure" the canal. The entire fiasco fell apart when the agreement between Israel, Britain and France which predated the military action was exposed.

I think you're speaking of the 1973 war. When Egypt attacked first and routed the unsuspecting Israeli's... ( initially )... This time Sadat was in power and not Nasser. Sadat's goal for the war was to take back the Sinia, the land Israel took from Egypt in the 1967 six day war. Sadat's mistake here was not pressing his advantage once he had recovered the lost land. Sadat moved his ground forces under an unbrulla of Russian SAMs. This nutralized the superior Israeli airforce. Wasn't until Sharon's tanks were brought up that the tide was turned.

Sadat's failure to invade greater Israel and press his initial advantage gave Israel time to regroup and counter... Israel devistated the previously successful Egyptians...

In this war, truely the path to Cairo was indeed open. However your assertion that America "stopped" Israel is popular fiction. Fact is Israel's then less than 4 million jews had no hope of occupying Egyption a country with a population of 50 million at the time. That's basically Israel's history. Sure with massive American aid, they can win miracoulous tactical victories, but with their small population they can not occupy; thus ensuring the strategic stalemate.

( currently Israel has a population of 6 million... 5 million jews... Egypt's population is 80 million )

because the only real reason we are even having this conversation is that when Israel was in a position to win the war permanently AMERICA stepped in and threatened economic sanctions if Israel followed through and subdued the arab nations and egypt ,(they had a clear path right to cairo after routing the pan arab army ) but they lisetened to America, so they withdrew instead of finishing the fight.

Once again, this is popular fiction. One big reason why Israel was able to counter attack so successfuly in 1973 Yom Kipper war was that we conducted almost continous flights to give weapons and resupply to Israel. As we do in all their wars. As we did in this last fiasco in Lebonon. Israel uses American weapons. Weapons designed to be used by a super power. Weapons that America can barely afford to opperate. Sure their first rate, problem is they're also very expensive. To expensive to little Israel to afford. That's why we give them billion of aid a year. That's why after each and every Israeli war, our aid doubles or tripples.

Far from holding little Israel back, we pump them up. Far from mandating they not occupy Egypt; They come running to us to negotiation treaties after their wars. No way the IDF can occupy Egypt. No way they can even make a reasonable effort of occupying Egypt and still guard against Jordan, and Syrai on their other boarder back in 1973. Hell Israel couldn't even occupy a demiliterized zone in Lebonon ( 10 miles deep ) successfully; how do you think they would do with an entire country more than ten times as large?

The real reason that the Arabs hate israel is that they had their asses handed to them in an unfair fight in which they had all the advantages. Arab pride refuses to accept that. I studied anthropology as well as military science in university and the simple fact is that the Arab psyche is far different from ours.

Well, Arabs have fought 5 major wars with Israel over the last 50 years. Some wars they started, Some were started by Israel. The basis of the conflict has to do with Land. Land promised to Israel by God. Land where the Palistinians, Jordainians, Leboneese, Palistinians and Egyptians have lived and ruled for the better part of the last 3000 years.

if the Arabs refuse to acknowledge Israels rights by conquest (the same rights that give you your country btw) and continue to dispute it then there will be no peace. the Arabs had their chnace twice, and through their own collective cowardice and military ineptitude they failed, so telling Israel to give back anything is lame.

Well that's not exactly accurate. America traded beeds and whompum for most of the land we got off the Indians. Subtle difference I grant you, but America wasn't even in existance when the majority of the land was "procured" from the indians. We started out with the original 13 colonies, we purchased the land west of the Ohio from France ( Louisiana purchase ). We purchased California, New Mexico, Arazona... etc.. from Mexico ( after the Mexican American war ). We purchased Alaska from the Russian Czar. We allowed the independent countries of Hawaii and Texas to join us..

Likewise America did not settle parts of Germany, Italy, Panama, Korea, or Japan. Nor have we annexed Iraq. That's because settling or transfering land of conquered enemies is against international law. That is America's stated position on Israel's resettlement of the occupied territories.

skins4eva

December-21st-2006, 01:39 PM

Well, the biggest killer of Native Americans was disease, so the Israelis got unlucky in not having anything to wipe out their neighbors with en masse. So you consider Americans genocidal? If you were not firmly in support of Israel, there are many right wingers and conservatives that would not agree with that statement.

Israel is a bastion of democracy in a region ruled by religious fanaticism you say? So, you imply that democracy is good and that religious fanaticism and democracy are mutually exclusive, I suppose. So a rightfully elected Hamas is what, not democracy, or are they not religious fanatics? Furthermore, do you claim that Israel does not have any religious fanatics, or many fanatics, or what? How would you define a religious fanatic? Someone that acts as though god gave them that land and screw anyone that tries to mess with them, because last time I checked, Israel has plenty of settlers that believe just as fervently (I contend fanatically) in the infallibility of their beliefs and religion as any religious fanatic in Palestine.

Anti-semitic feeling in America you say? So if you do not support Israel 100% you are anti-semitic, and this is what is keeping them from being "overwhelmed by support," whatever that means.

I think it's interesting that you pose the question of a democratically elected Hamas--right now in Gaza, they are about an inch away from a full-fledged civil war, which Hamas instigated by knocking off a senior Fatah member. This is what Arafat's presence actually prevented from occurring. Now, you have moderate hardliners and extremists fighting for power, when back during the Clinton years, Arafat could have accepted Rabin's offer for a 2-state solution. Instead, he started the second intifada, which is now taking place internally.

And yes, there is plenty of anti-semitisim in this country, but to claim that not supporting Israel is the same as being anti-semetic is a completely vacuous argument.

There are fanatics on both sides, but you don't read much about Jewish Settlers blowing up buses in Ramallah.

JMS

December-21st-2006, 02:00 PM

1- the disease you speak of was actively spread by YOUR governement who actively pursued a policy of genocide(ever hear about the smallpox infected blankets) Your government also destroyed the buffalo herds because in the words of an American general whose name escapes me"destroy the buffalo and you destroy the red man". Tell me that there is not clear evidence that a policy of genocide was pursued against the Native americans and I'll tell you to go read some history books.

Actually the desease which whiped out most of the Indians on the east coast was introduced by European fisherman who predated the first settlements of Jamestown and Plimouth.

The buffolo were not killed by the government, but rather we killed by private industry supporting the railroads and people as they expanded into the west.

2-Israel has been on the defensive since her inception, from the start they were told that they had no right to exist and that if the Arabs won they would"pucs every israeli into the sea". every time a moderate Arab leader would pursue peace (like the king of Jordan) he would be assassinated because the arabs do not wnat peace.

Israel has done their fair share of killing of peace makers too. Remember
Count Folke Bernadotte
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Folke-Bernadotte.jpg/200px-Folke-Bernadotte.jpg

Yitzhak Shamir organized and sanctioned his murder when it looked like he was going to negotiate a settlement to the 1948 Israeli war of independence.
Dude saved 15000 jews from the concentration camps or 15 times as many as Oscer Schindler and Shamir still had him killed when he thought it was to his short term benifit.. Shamire became PM of Israel in what 83? Count Bernadotte was a United Nations Peace Mediator!!!

Let's also not forget Israel Attacked the United States Navy's vessel Liberty that wasn't defensive....

Israel does not actively target civilians but hamas, and hezbollah use civilians to hide terrorists (why do you think so many Lebs got fed up and spoke up about Hezbollah causing the recent war?)thus you have collateral damage, but israel does not target civilian populations as a rule (BTW you may wnat to look at your own history again in regards to attacking civilian populations ie hiroshima, dresden etc etc) you bash Israel but in all honesty they are simply trying to defend themselves.

Well you say Israel doesn't target civilians. Which is debateable. They certainly don't refrain from targets because of civilians... They certainly kill the majority of civilians in the middle east by a 10 to one margin. That's not including their recent fiasco in Lebonon.

Also you might note that Japan attacked the United States first in WWII. You might also note that when America invaded Okinawa, and The Marianas the Japaneese suffered better than 95% casualties. If those same casualties rates were incured in a Japaneese invations, the Nukes dropped on Japan saved American and Japaneese lives...

Dresden was a British operation not an American one.

NOTE THEY DO NOT ATTACK UNLESS PROVOKED WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU HEARD ABOUT AN ISRAELI OFFENSIVE OUT OF NOWHERE?

Couple of months ago Israel just pounded Lebonon ( peaceful pro western democracy) back to the stone ages. That was unprovoked. In an uncharacteriscally moronic move Israel handed the entire country of Lebonon to Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran; as they showed even a pro western peaceful democracy won't stay Israel's hand when two of their soldiers have been abducted. Brilliant..

3-the palestinians did the exact thing that many arab nations feared they would do, they skewed the vote in a country that allowed them to stay (why do you think that no arab muslim countries allow a significant percentage of palestinian refugees?) the problem with the religious fanatics is that they don't differentiate between church and state, Israel does.

Actually the Palistinian elections were observed and given a clean bill of health from several respected international organizations including the United Nations and the Jimmy Carter Institute. Also the term Palistinian is a secular one. There are Palistinian arabs, christians, and druize. Israel is the country founded and maintained along religous lines.

Lastly the reason why Egypt, Syria and Lebonon doesn't absorb the Palistinians is because they are Palistinians and not Egyptians Syrians and Leboneese. Israel displaced them, It's Israel's mess to clean up not the Arab neighbors.

there are many reasons why Israel is in the right in this conflict and no i dont agree with everyting they do but I understand their frustration.its easy to criticise from here.

It's not easy to critisize from here. It's actually much tougher to critisize from here than it is from Israel proper itself. I just think Americans should be entitled to voice an opinion about what is going on over there because we pay for and enable the entire mess to continue.

Air Force Cane

December-21st-2006, 02:19 PM

Ahh, the joys of a world without Zionism!

Just think, then the Arabs would stop chopping off the heads of Americans.

They would stop crashing our planes into our buildings. Maybe even stop butchering OTHER Muslims around the world!

How great!

Of course, here is what a world without Zionism looks like for the Palestinians:

Muslim Fatah agents beating Muslim Hamas members
http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/wwz4.jpg

Air Force Cane

December-21st-2006, 02:21 PM

JMS

December-21st-2006, 02:26 PM

I think it's interesting that you pose the question of a democratically elected Hamas--right now in Gaza, they are about an inch away from a full-fledged civil war, which Hamas instigated by knocking off a senior Fatah member.

Actually two children of a Fatah security officer were killed. Hamas has denied any connection to the murders.

This is what Arafat's presence actually prevented from occurring. Now, you have moderate hardliners and extremists fighting for power,

I agree with that.

when back during the Clinton years, Arafat could have accepted Rabin's offer for a 2-state solution. Instead, he started the second intifada, which is now taking place internally.

Not even Israeli's think Yasser started the Intifada, They blame Yasser for not controlling them. The second Intifada like the first one began spontaniously and grew to critical mass in the absent of PLO leadership.

And yes, there is plenty of anti-semitisim in this country, but to claim that not supporting Israel is the same as being anti-semetic is a completely vacuous argument.

I agree with that.

There are fanatics on both sides, but you don't read much about Jewish Settlers blowing up buses in Ramallah.

Israeli Jewish settlers do in fact walk into mosques every now and then with machine guns laying waste to folks at prayer. Likewise it was Jewish settlers who killed the Israeli Prime Minister Rabin. Israeli radicals are definitely not innocent bistanders but active participants in this mess.

Burgold

December-21st-2006, 02:42 PM

oisn1

December-21st-2006, 04:09 PM

"People like Rabin and Abbas were/are being undermined by people like Hamas and Sharon"

Rabin has been dead for TEN years now, and Sharon has been out of office for more than a year. What are you talking about?!!

I picked the best example of good, moderate people being undermined by radical, fringe groups, hence the "were" part.

oisn1

December-21st-2006, 04:27 PM

Just for the sake of curiousity, what does every one think the Israelis would do if the Palestinian extremists put down their guns and bombs and lived peacefully? Let's say there was no terrorist attack in Israel for five years. What do you think Israel would do?

Would they provoke a war and attack the Palestinians? Would the Israelis get itchy and launch unjustified pre-emptive strikes? Would they begin trading or giving monetary support with the Palestinians? Would they breathe a sigh of relief and ignore them and their condition? What would happen?

That's very tough to say. Why? The hardline elements of both parties will not let that happen. Do you think Sharon had a plan when he walked into the most holy Muslim mosque with armed gunmen? Do you think Hamas has a plan when they suicide bomb during a cease-fire? Do you think the military has a plan when they bulldoze whole neighborhoods "looking" for terrorists? I mean, hardline factions are preventing peace. They both want to keep power. Hamas is keeping power by playing on Palestinian emotions. Israeli Generals get to get more funding and hardline Israeli sects get to keep power through their need of "security".

I suggest you watch a movie called "Gaza Strip".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329112/

It's a story of the conflict from a Palestinian perspective. It might be hard to find considering that it is biased to the Palestinian side. I ask everyone to check it out, not because of some ill-informed attempt at swaying your opinions, but rather to just watch it and get an idea of how both sides feel. To see how Palestinians really live, to see their lives, to see their pain, it changes your opinion. It's not just about Israelis anymore, it's about both people. It's about finding a solution for people that is REASONABLE.

It's hard to understand why some Palestinians won't give up terrorism, but after watching the movie, you can see why. It still DOESN'T change the fact that terrorism is wrong, but when you see what some people have (or lack thereof), you will understand why some people resort to terrorism.

Burgold

December-21st-2006, 04:44 PM

I appreciate your answer. You can't envision five years without an attack, so I think you believe that Palestinian extremists and/or Israel's generals might try to instigate violence to rebegin the cycle. I think that if that cease fire could prove lasting then there would be peace, where it might falll apart is that the Palestinians might still be suffering and the blame would need to get vented somewhere.

JMS

December-21st-2006, 09:42 PM

Just for the sake of curiousity, what does every one think the Israelis would do if the Palestinian extremists put down their guns and bombs and lived peacefully? Let's say there was no terrorist attack in Israel for five years. What do you think Israel would do?

Would they provoke a war and attack the Palestinians? Would the Israelis get itchy and launch unjustified pre-emptive strikes? Would they begin trading or giving monetary support with the Palestinians? Would they breathe a sigh of relief and ignore them and their condition? What would happen?

They would do the same thing they are doing now... Only cheaper and more efficiently. They would continue to grow their illegal settlements in the west bank. They would continue to seek massive immigration from eastern Europe to compensate for the superior Arab birth rate in the occupied territories and Israel proper. They would continue to use the bulk of the natural resources to the detriment of the Arabs who's lands those resources exist on. They would continue to live in the homes of the folks they displaced are are warehousing in the occupied territories.

The Palistinian "resistance" is irrelivent. Terrorism is irrelivent. It's a terrible thing when a bomb goes off in a disco and kills half a dozen innocent Israelis. It's also militaryly insignificant. Terrorism doesn't threaten Israels existance, It doesn't effect their policies other than cracking down on the Palistinians. It hasn't made one bit of difference in the expansion of the settlements which is the Palistinians #1 issue short of a negotiated peace.

skins4eva

December-22nd-2006, 10:43 AM

[QUOTE=JMS]Actually two children of a Fatah security officer were killed. Hamas has denied any connection to the murders.

[QUOTE=JMS]

You'll excuse me if I don't take Hamas' word for it.

[QUOTE=JMS]Not even Israeli's think Yasser started the Intifada, They blame Yasser for not controlling them. The second Intifada like the first one began spontaniously and grew to critical mass in the absent of PLO leadership.[QUOTE=JMS]

He may not have "started it" but he certainly did not try to stop it, which he could have done.

[QUOTE=JMS]Israeli Jewish settlers do in fact walk into mosques every now and then with machine guns laying waste to folks at prayer. Likewise it was Jewish settlers who killed the Israeli Prime Minister Rabin.[QUOTE=JMS]

Your first assertion here--if you are going to throw it out there, back it up with some evidence. The second assertion--Rabin indeed was killed by an Israeli, it's called an assassination. It's happened in this country before as well, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

You also seem to ignore the fact that Israel often completely ignores the actions of the Palestinians, who are consistently trying to destroy them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/22/AR2006122200267.html

If it were the other way around, there would a front page article on CNN about Israeli aggression.

"The Palestinian infighting has coincided with stepped-up rocket attacks on Israeli territory that have destabilized a shaky cease-fire between militant factions and Israel, including one fired at Israel on Friday and six on Thursday. The attacks Thursday wounded three Palestinian children when a rocket veered off course.

Israeli officials say Palestinian militants have fired nearly 50 rockets since the Nov. 26 truce took effect. Israel has not retaliated, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned this week that his patience was wearing thin."

Can you imagine if the US were receiving indiscriminate rocket attacks? I find it interesting that people such as you argue in support of a group who use religion to mask their fascist agenda. Their interpretation of Islam has no logic, has no boundary and therefore cannot be debated rationally. The constant blame torward Israel seems entirely disingenuous to me--if any of us were in Israel's position, we would act the same way. The difference is that Israel would be content to coexist peacefully (see Jordan, see Egypt)--but the Palestinians are led by leaders who do nothing but line their own pockets while exploiting their peoples' hatred for Israel and deflecting their citizens miserable living conditions onto the "zionist" enemy.

JMS

December-23rd-2006, 04:05 AM

You'll excuse me if I don't take Hamas' word for it.
( about Hamas not being responsible for the attack and murder of the two young children of a Fatah security officer )

You don't need to ask me for a pardon. Fatah obviously doesn't believe Hamas either. I was just saying, Hamas has denied any responsibility several times, including at the childrens funeral.

He may not have "started it" but he certainly did not try to stop it, which he could have done.

That's Israel's position. Not that Yasser organized them or had anything to do with running them as you asserted.

Your first assertion here ( about Israeli settlers killing Moslems in mosques with machine guns and generally doing some f'ed up Sh&t)--if you are going to throw it out there, back it up with some evidence.

Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who on Feb. 25, 1994 shot to death 29 Palestinian men and boys as they prayed at the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron.

Jan 1 1997, when Israeli settler and soldier Noam Friedman walked into the Hebron market and opened fire on Palestinian shoppers, wounding eight.

Rabbi Yousef Falay living in the West Bank has called on the Israeli government to use their troops to kill all Palestinian males more than 13 years old in a bid to end Palestinian presence on this earth. Monday, 18 September 2006
http://rhodonpublicaffairs.blogspot.com/2006/09/another-rabbi-advocates-mass-murder.html

The second assertion--Rabin indeed was killed by an Israeli, it's called an assassination. It's happened in this country before as well, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

The point is that Rabin wasn't killed by a lone gunman like Lincoln or Kennedy. Rabin was killed by a radical Israeli settler group who took responsibility for the killing. The point is that the Israeli settlers hold some fairly f'ed up ideas and they aren't just punching bags for the Palistinians... They are definitely part of this mess, as I said.

You also seem to ignore the fact that Israel often completely ignores the actions of the Palestinians, who are consistently trying to destroy them.

I don't ignore it. I don't condone it.

If it were the other way around, there would a front page article on CNN about Israeli aggression.

What Israel has ignored since their campagn against Lebonon is in no way comparable to what Lebonon suffered as Israel's hand. Israel bombed Lebonon back to the stone ages and very likely pushed a peaceful pro western democracy into Iran and Syria's hands for good.... Way to go!!

I find it interesting that people such as you argue in support of a group (Hezbollah) who use religion to mask their fascist agenda.

I'm not argueing for either group using religous for a fascist agenda. Quite the opposite. I'm arguing that neither group is blameless. Neither group is even trying to be better than the other group. Both sides have their extremists. Both sides have their moderates. I am not arguing that Hezbollah is better than Israel.

If any of us were in Israel's position, we would act the same way.

Israel put themselves into this position. And chooses every day to continue to expand their settlements and to provoke. Israel chooses to live by the sword. I'm not saying the Palistinians and other Arabs haven't killed innocent Israelis. What I'm saying is that for every innocent Israeli killed Israel kills 10 innocent Palistinians/Arabs and has for more than a decade.

The difference is that Israel would be content to coexist peacefully (see Jordan, see Egypt)--

I don't believe Israel is content to coexist peacefully with the Palistinians except on their terms, which are draconian. We take the land, We take you homes, We use most of the water, You can't drill wells, We have all the rights, You have no rights. If that's what you mean by "content to coexist".. Would Israel agree to "coexist" with the Palistinians in a secular state where both Jews and Arabs were equal? I don't think so... Israel is a country established and maintained on religous lines. The vast majority of the Palistinians are not alloud to coexist except outside of Israel. And unfortunately for them, Israel is actively expanding into even the lands Israel pushed to.

but the Palestinians are led by leaders who do nothing but line their own pockets while exploiting their peoples' hatred for Israel and deflecting their citizens miserable living conditions onto the "zionist" enemy.

Who elected a convicted War criminal for the PM? Arial Sharon has been convicted in Israeli courts for two attrocities ( responsible for killing hundreds of unarmed women and chindren.. ), and the people of Israel picked him as leader. I don't disagree with you about the Palistinian choice of electing Hamas, but clearly that's the mirror image of Israel electing Sharon. Netanyahoo isn't any better than Sharon, he just doesn't have the convictions.