PDA

View Full Version : More Propaganda


nicky g
08-01-2003, 05:54 AM
Sorry, but I can't resist:

Elsewhere AC Player has posted a link to a news story about this; here's another one. Who wants to defend these overtly racist laws, then?


Israel imposes "racist" marriage law (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=429490)

Palestinian-Israeli couples will be forced to leave or live apart
By Justin Huggler in Jerusalem
01 August 2003


Israel's Parliament has passed a law preventing Palestinians who marry Israelis from living in Israel. The move was denounced by human rights organisations as racist, undemocratic and discriminatory.

Under the new law, rushed through yesterday, Palestinians alone will be excluded from obtaining citizenship or residency. Anyone else who marries an Israeli will be entitled to Israeli citizenship.

Now Israeli Arabs who marry Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza Strip will either have to move to the occupied territories, or live apart from their husband or wife. Their children will be affected too: from the age of 12 they will be denied citizenship or residency and forced to move out of Israel.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch sent a joint letter to the Knesset, Israel's parliament, urging members to reject the bill. "The draft law barring family reunification for Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens is profoundly discriminatory," Amnesty said in a statement. "A law permitting such blatant racial discrimination, on grounds of ethnicity or nationality, would clearly violate international human rights law and treaties which Israel has ratified and pledged to uphold."

B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, joined in the criticism of the law. Yael Stein, a spokesman, said: "This is a racist law that decides who can live here according to racist criteria."

Some Israelis believe they are sitting on a demographic time bomb, with an Israeli Arab community, already 20 per cent of the population, growing faster than the Jewish population.

The discrimination is not only against Palestinians, according to human rights groups, but against Israel's own 1.2 million citizens of Palestinian origin as well. The overwhelming majority of Israelis who marry Palestinians are the so-called Israeli Arabs - Palestinians who live in Israel and have Israeli citizenship.

"This bill blatantly discriminates against Israelis of Palestinian origin and their Palestinian spouses," said Hanny Megally of Human Rights Watch. "It's scandalous that the Government has presented this bill, and it's shocking that the Knesset is rushing it through."

The government pushed the vote through at speed, even agreeing to consider it a vote of confidence to get it through. It was passed by 53 votes to 25, with one abstention.

Gideon Ezra, a cabinet minister, said: "This law comes to address a security issue. Since September 2000 we have seen a significant connection, in terror attacks, between Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza and Israeli Arabs."

Since 1993, more than 100,000 Palestinians have become Israeli citizens through marriage, Mr Ezra said. But B'Tselem pointed out that only 20 of those 100,000 have been involved in suicide bombings or other militant attacks. Human rights groups said security concerns could not justify the new law, which amounts to collective punishment. Noam Hoffstater, another spokesman for B'Tselem, said: "Those who voted for the bill and those who support it are making a very cynical use of security arguments to justify it, even though they used no data. This in fact was a cover for the real reason, which is the racist reason, the demographic reason."

Many on Israel's right fear that it will be impossible to maintain Israel's identity as an officially Jewish state if the Arab sector becomes too large.

"Today I lost hope," Sa'id abu Muammar, an Israeli Arab, told Reuters news agency. He has been hiding his Palestinian wife from the police since their marriage a year ago. "This is what we've been doing and this is probably what we will have to continue to do."

brad
08-01-2003, 06:34 AM
u realize ok to own non jewish slaves there, although law passed 5 years ago officially outlawing it.

big sex slave stuff.

but theyre gods chosen, those russians, so u r blatantly anti-semetic and in some countries could be imprisoned. here soon.

shame on u

B-Man
08-01-2003, 08:38 AM
Since 1993, more than 100,000 Palestinians have become Israeli citizens through marriage, Mr Ezra said. But B'Tselem pointed out that only 20 of those 100,000 have been involved in suicide bombings or other militant attacks.

I wonder how many were killed or injured by those 20?

It is unfortunate that the effect of this law will be to make life more difficult for many innocent people. However, this law would be completely unnecessary if not for the suicide bombings. Every country has a right to self-defense. Every country has the right to set its own immigration policies.

nicky g
08-01-2003, 09:55 AM
"However, this law would be completely unnecessary if not for the suicide bombings"

How is that the fault of the other 99,980 spouses? You might as well say that the US should ban all Saudi spouses because of 9/11 (I have a suspicion someone is going to take me up on this suggestion /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). Besides, it's perfectly obvious that the suicide bombers are able to cross in from the West Bank and Gaza ayway.

andyfox
08-01-2003, 01:47 PM
I note that President Bush, when Sharon was with him, told the press that he is committed to the preservation of Israel as a Jewish State. Israel defines itself as a Jewish State, and this, to me, is the heart of the problem.

I can move to Israel at any time and have all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. My daughter-in-law cannot. The idea of defining one as a first- or second-class citizen based upon one's religion is problemmatical to say the least. The idea that the Jews are a people, rather than a religious affiliation, is at the heart of the problem.

MMMMMM
08-01-2003, 02:10 PM
Agreed that it is part of the heart of the problem. However it is also rather understandable given that they are surrounded by a sea of Arabs who would love to crush them. So in many ways it is a sort of survival mechanism given their situation.

Now contrast this with nations such as Saudi Arabia where not only is there a state religion, but other religions are essentially taboo (or at least second or third-class), legally speaking. The many Islamic states have no such excuse as the Israelis for insisting on an a Jewish or Islamic state; they are not similarly threatened; they simply believe Islam is right for religion and government and the world. And they believe leaving Islam (the crime of apostasy) merits the death penalty.

So the Israelis have practical reasons for their legal bigotry (survival in a sea of mortal enemies), but the bigotry of the Islamic states is primarily due to backwardness and a totalitarian mindset.

adios
08-01-2003, 02:56 PM
The implication here is that since the USA supports Israel and considers Israel an ally, the USA supports every law and every action that Israel has and undertakes and therefore the USA is guilty of this practice as well. That's BS and is meaningless at best and gross disinformation at worst. As a thought experiment consider if the USA suddenly cut off all aid to Israel and even went so far as to sever diplomatic relations. Would that really improve the situation in Israel and/or the Middle East? Or perhaps you're advocating an invasion of Israel by the USA to set things right. What is your point anyway? That Israel displays an ugly, racist attitude towards the Palestinians? Ok but that's probalby about the 200th time or so you've said it. What should be done to rectify it?

adios
08-01-2003, 03:10 PM
"The idea that the Jews are a people, rather than a religious affiliation, is at the heart of the problem."

Andy I agree with your sentiment and your point but don't you think it's not just Israel that holds this idea? Given the events of this century (let alone throughout history), the overt bigotry and hatred against those practicing the Jewish faith, it's somewhat understandable that some might band together and believe that they're a people. Those that avow the hatred and bigotry treat them as a people and not as being affiliated with a religion. In my mind that's a part of being the "heart of the proble" as well.

ACPlayer
08-01-2003, 04:15 PM
It is the heart of the problem.

I think I mentioned in an earlier thread that, IMO, any state based on a religious foundation (incl arab states, Israel, Pakistan, some trends in India, etc) is problematic. In fact the founding fathers of the US recognized this and codified it into the constitution. Separation of church and state is a good thing for a truly free society. Various attempts in this country to bring down that wall is dangerous for the freedoms in the US.

A possible consequence of the thinking of the founding fathers could and perhaps should be that the use of our US$ in support of any of these religious states should not be permitted. We are in essence supporting a religion with federal monies.

Neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia nor Iran nor... pick a theocracy is a free country. Some are more democratic than others, to wit: Israel and Iran but not free societies as seen by our founding fathers. JMHO.

MMMMMM
08-01-2003, 05:58 PM
Israel is a far freer country than Iraq or Iran, and is much more democratic than Iran as well.

Israel is not nearly the religious theocracy that many Arab states are. In fact Israel is not a theocracy at all.

Boris
08-01-2003, 06:17 PM
This law is probably a good idea. Isreal was created for the larger purpose of creating a homeland for Jews. They should be able to kick out the non-Jews. I also think the creation of Isreal was a good idea given the barbaric tendencies found in Europe.

I disagree with is Isreal's policy of enforcing squalid living conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. I think that as a security policy the Isreali stance is self defeating and inefficient.

Cyrus
08-01-2003, 07:16 PM
It's all the fault of the Palestinians and the terrorists and their anti-semitic supporters on this forum!

..Anything less than the above would not be satisfactory to the unconditional supporters of Israel that post here, so why not give it to them as a gift? For the weekend, say.

HDPM
08-01-2003, 07:24 PM
Andy, both you and Tom bring up good points. Of course, the problem starts with Jewish Law itself. It's not just an "idea" that Jews are seen (and see themselves) as a people not a religion. The definition of who is a Jew has nothing to do with belief. So in that sense it is unavoidable that when the religion is only transferred by birth mother or a quick Orthodox conversion at the Bris of a reform convert's son, or the rare adult Orthodox conversion, it is natural to view Jews as a people and not a religion. And given the increase of intermarriage and the decline of strict observance of the Commandments, more ambiguous situations will arise. I think eventually the world population will be a huge collection of interracial and inter-marriage (religion wise) mutts. It will be a nicer place.

Cyrus
08-01-2003, 08:21 PM
.

Chris Alger
08-02-2003, 02:32 AM
"Every country has the right to set its own immigration policies."

Except, according to Israel, any future Palestinian state.

nicky g
08-04-2003, 06:56 AM
Tom,
Slow down a second there. The question was directed at posters here (eg B-Man, M), not the entire US of A. There's an on-going discussion of how the Israeli state behaves on this forum, about who is at fault and who the onus to shift their position the conflict is on. None of the "implications" you mention are actually inherent in what I wrote, least of all the US invading Israel. You're just making this stuff up.


"What is your point anyway? That Israel displays an ugly, racist attitude towards the Palestinians?"

Yes.

"Ok but that's probalby about the 200th time or so you've said it."

Sorry. Just introducing further evidence that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is as much about racism and ethnic cleansing as it is about countering terrorism.

"What should be done to rectify it? "

Er - they could stop? Certainly the US and the West in general could put more pressure on Israel. By the way, I heard last night at a talk that the US gives more aid to Israel than it does to the entire continent of Africa, not even counting military aid. I've not corroborated this -interesting if true.

MMMMMM
08-04-2003, 11:00 AM
Let's not forget that Palestinians (and Arabs in general) tend to hold far more racist attitudes than do Israelis.

If the Palestinians were militarily stronger than the Israelis, the Palestinians would long ago have wiped out the Israelis. Yet Israel shows relative restraint while holding the power, even while under perpetual attack.

So yes, Israel could be a lot nicer. But consider also that it's rather hard to be nice when you are perpetually being attacked by people who want to push you into the sea.

Israel represents just slightly over 1/1,000 of the total Arab land mass. But to the Arabs, it's a big, big deal.

If you want to attack bigotry, nicky, why don't you attack the most widespread bigoted beliefs on Earth: those of many Arab Muslims. When the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca refers to the Jews as "sons of pigs and monkeys" it's not a fringe belief. His sentiments are echoed, too, by countless other Islamic religious leaders and lay persons who view the Jews about the way Hitler viewed them. And Rafsanjani or Khameini publicly said that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be able to solve the problem of Israel once and for all.

Israeli bigotry towards Palestinians is unfortunate, and could and should be lessened, though it is part due to self-defense. Arab Muslim bigotry towards Jews is both stronger and more widespread.

adios
08-04-2003, 11:13 AM
"Er - they could stop?"

Specifically what?

"Certainly the US and the West in general could put more pressure on Israel."

You need to be a lot more specific this is vague at best.

"I heard last night at a talk that the US gives more aid to Israel than it does to the entire continent of Africa, not even counting military aid. I've not corroborated this -interesting if true."

Well I'm sure it's true actually. Still what would happen in the Middle East if the USA abandoned Israel? Personally I don't think Israel would feel very restrained to use more force (like possibly nukes) if they were abandoned. Also, is this a call for more humanitarian aid to Africa in the form of food? Last time news of this sort of aid brought about a post accusing the USA of destroying Africa's agricultural export industry. BTW Bush has gone on record as stating that if the ECU will drop it's subsidizing of European agriculture the USA will drop it's subsidies. Methinks the genetically engineered produce concerns are baloney. Chirac is the intransigent one. We'll see what happens in Cancun.

MMMMMM
08-04-2003, 11:48 AM
A crop which is genetically modified so as to be naturally resistant to insects is probably a lot safer to eat than similar crops heavily sprayed with pesticides.

Also I suspect that European opposition to such crops has far more to do with economic concerns than with health reasons.

Dr Wogga
08-04-2003, 12:16 PM
...........Palestinians could stop the suicide bombings and guerilla attacks. And, until there is a peaceful resolution (which probably can't happen as long as the ole dribbler terrorist Ara-scumbag-fat is alive), then I say good for the Israeli gov't. They can always change the law back once peace has been achieved. Exactly what is wrong with self-preservation? And why, Nicky, the constant posting of Israeli items without any balance as to the multitude of arab disgressions? Oh I know why. It's Bush's fault. Plus, cyber-sniper cyrus will kick you out of his club if you dare post anything anti-arab

ACPlayer
08-04-2003, 12:20 PM
The reason why African countries are not keen on getting GM foods is because it kills their local agriculture.

1. The foods are heavily subsidized by the US government.
2. The GM food feed need to be purchased every year from the manufacturers, rather than reuse of seed from the fields.

There is no knowing whether they are good for us. Remember we were told by the pesticide companies that was safe, DDT manufacturers that was safe, by the Thalidomide people that was safe, by the cigarette people, by the... .you get the idea. Hard to trust a salesman of GM foods when he says that this safe.

Bush (as are most presidents) is a salesman doing the bidding of his corporate masters.

Dr Wogga
08-04-2003, 12:28 PM
...well at least you got in some sexual content. Whew!!!! For a minute I thought this was a brad imposter.

Maybe it's the ritalin is kicking in, but I'm having a little disconnect with your thought process - not necessarily a bad thing mind you, but a tad of a head scratcher nonetheless.

nicky g
08-04-2003, 12:33 PM
"Still what would happen in the Middle East if the USA abandoned Israel? "

I'm not suggesting it should, but that a relatively rich, tiny country(population 7 million) should get more aid than the poorest 1 billion people in the world strikes me as repugnant. To answer your question on specifics, the US could make portions of its aid conditional on the dismantling of settlements, phased withdrwal from the territories etc.

"Also, is this a call for more humanitarian aid to Africa in the form of food? Last time news of this sort of aid brought about a post accusing the USA of destroying Africa's agricultural export industry. "

Because they should be sending cash, not food. I made that very clear. Cash would stimulate local economies, food exports destroy them.

"BTW Bush has gone on record as stating that if the ECU will drop it's subsidizing of European agriculture the USA will drop it's subsidies. Methinks the genetically engineered produce concerns are baloney. Chirac is the intransigent one. We'll see what happens in Cancun. "

Both sides are equally intransigient - agreed that the EU has a dreadful record on subsidies - hopefully Bush is being sincere and both sides will phase them out. I can't see either side doing it given the power of the agricultural lobbies on both sides of the Atlantic. I am no fan of Chirac either and agree that he is a major villain in the whole affair. Regarding the GM issue, European public opinion is vastly against it. I remember when that was supposed to count for something. But talking about baloney, what about Bush's cynical inistence that GM could end world hunger. This is complete crap and Bush knows it. Furthermore GM crops would make farmers totally dependent on expensive products from rich agrochemical multinationals. They can't make ends meet at the moment, how having to buy new seeds every year thanks to terminator genes would improve their lot, I really don't know.

nicky g
08-04-2003, 12:36 PM
"Israel represents just slightly over 1/1,000 of the total Arab land mass. But to the Arabs, it's a big, big deal."

It's a big deal to the people whose homes were taken off them. And it's a big deal to people living under 30 years of occupation.

nicky g
08-04-2003, 12:54 PM
Anti-semitic bigotry in the arab world is indeed widespread and repugnant. There is a difference though in that those countries are not oppressing local Jewish populations (because there aren't any; why that's the case is another argument, but that is nevertheless something that happened in the past rather than something that is continuing right now), whereas the Israelis are oppressing millions of Arabs.

You are right though that the Israeli repression of the Palestinians gets a disproportinate amount of condemnation from all quarters, including me. A lot of pro-Israelis suggest it's because of antisemitism; obviously I don't think that's true in general, but it's interesting to ask why. I think it's partly that Israel is supposed to be one of us, a free Western democracy, and indeed is that for its Jewish citizens, but is also a brutal, racist military oppressor for millions of people. Partly it's that it's relatively close (almost in Europe), partly that it's such a close ally of the West, partly it's that the conflict there reverberates world-wide (sometimes threatening to set off WW3), partly it's that it's a continuation of the history of WWII which affected the whole world, partly because Israel is seen as US puppet... etc. Mainly though I suspect it's because for decades there's been so much pro-Israeli bias and coverage in the West, that people feel the need to counter it. I mean, I think that what Russia is doing in Chechnya is even worse than what the Israelis get up to in the occupied territories, but how much does anyone really want to disagree with me on that? M might because of the Islamic connection, but I suspect most other people just aren't interested - whereas in the case of Israel people do care and the official line has always been on the Israeli side.

ACPlayer
08-04-2003, 12:58 PM
Good post.

MMMMMM
08-04-2003, 02:52 PM
The GM foods have been tested. We know that ingesting pesticides is bad for us. There is no evidence whatsoever, as far as I know, that GM foods are bad for us. So it seems those who fear them more than they fear persticide-sprayed foods, are fearing more greatly what is very likely the safer thing.

ACPlayer
08-04-2003, 02:55 PM
All the other "safe" products I mentioned had also been tested. Sorry, I prefer my food with the original genes and preferably organic -- but cant always get the organic kind -- specially with my itinerant life style.

MMMMMM
08-04-2003, 03:02 PM
nickyg: [ QUOTE ]
To answer your question on specifics, the US could make portions of its aid conditional on the dismantling of settlements, phased withdrwal from the territories etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

How's this for an alternate conditional proposal, nicky, and one that I think makes more sense overall: Israel makes incremental withdrawals on the condition that attacks cease for predetermined periods of time, in effect trading some lands for peace. If attacks flare up again, Israel takes back the land.

It is ludicrous for Israel to just withdraw while continuing to face attacks from closer vantage points, and U.S. policy should take this into account. Mere lip service by the Palestinians (as in the past) is not sufficient; attacks must cease.

Your idea of making U.S. aid conditional is OK provided it includes the proviso that Israeli withdrawals are similarly conditional on the cessation of Palestinian attacks for substantial lengths of time.

MMMMMM
08-04-2003, 03:07 PM
Genetics are modified continually through nature anyway. I think most people who fear GM foods more than pesticide-sprayed foods are presuming too much based on way too little information. Organically grown foods may be best of all but good luck feeding the world with them.

Cyrus
08-04-2003, 03:58 PM
"Palestinians (and Arabs in general) tend to hold far more racist attitudes than do Israelis."

For the last decades or so, yes. The roots of their racism (rather of their deep-seated hatred) is Israel coming on to the Middle East and taking away from the Palestinians the land they occupied for quite a large number of centuries. But before the 20th century, I challenge you to show me in the Middle East any anti-semitism remotely approaching the intensity of anti-semitism exhibited by Catholic and Orthodox (Russian) Christians against Jews, for the last two millenia.

"Israel shows relative restraint while holding the power, even while under perpetual attack."

Wiping out militarily all of the Palestinians, armed and civilian alike, is not (shall we say) politically expedient? As things stand?

Not for lack of trying though.

"Israel represents just slightly over 1/1,000 of the total Arab land mass. But to the Arabs, it's a big, big deal."

Again this "argument"... I remember Netanyahu on CNN ten years ago using his thumb to demonstrate on the map "how small" Israel is, compared to "the Arab land".

(What is this supposed to mean, anyway? Is this a schoolyard playing cards trade? A horse trade?? Jeez. Don't worry about the World Trade Center, it was only 1/1000th of New York "land mass"??)

Cyrus
08-04-2003, 04:26 PM
Sure it's an out-and-out racist law. The kind of law that would have us up in arms if it came from anywhere else in the western world.

And that's the point. The Arab countries are backwards and undemocratic compared to Israel. But Israel pretends to be the bastion of democracy in the Middle East. The embodiment of western ideals.

In reality, it has become a country with racist laws, nationalist politics, and exclusionary objectives. Acountry where ethnic cleansing is considered acceptable policy. A land where race is destiny ! Building a Wall that separates the land and claiming it's for "security reasons"? In the 21st century, building a Wall, only ten years after the Berlin Wall came crushing down?? Yep, a fucking Wall, and we are reduced to hanging on to Dubya's words, waiting to hear whether the President will call it "a problem" (=tough on Israel!) or "an issue" (=soft). What a colossal tragicomedy.

We should be thankful that not all Israelis have descended as low as the criminals (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859845177/qid=1060028153/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-0088231-9927877?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) who now run their country. B'tselem and the mutinous soldiers and officers and all the Peace Now activists and the various dissenters are the true Zionists.

B-Man
08-04-2003, 05:06 PM
Building a Wall that separates the land and claiming it's for "security reasons"? In the 21st century, building a Wall, only ten years after the Berlin Wall came crushing down?? Yep, a [censored] Wall, and we are reduced to hanging on to Dubya's words, waiting to hear whether the President will call it "a problem" (=tough on Israel!) or "an issue" (=soft). What a colossal tragicomedy.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that even the most basic (and non-violent!) measures taken to prevent suicide bombings are condemned by the anti-semites and racists. According to people like you and Alger, there is nothing Israel can do to defend itself against terrorists. In your view, the suicide bombers should have free reign to kill and disfigure as many as they wish.

Why don't you say the real reason this wall is such a problem--that it will reduce suicide bombings and thus the leverage (real or perceived) of the terrorists? If the Palestinians didn't want a wall, they should have thought of that before starting their murderous rampage, which has only paused with the most recent 3-month truce. You know damn well the terrorists will start their dirty work again at what they think is the most opportune moment (a la the Yom Kippur War; imagine if Israel ever started a war against its neighbors on an Arab holiday? You and Alger would still be screaming about it! But terrorists are free to do whatever they want, whenever they want and there is nothing Israel is permitted to do about it, in Cyrus' perfect world).

Also, please do not compare this to the Berlin Wall. That comparison is absurd (unless you can point out to me that there were waves of suicide bombers infiltrating West Germany from East Germany prior to The Wall being built). Israel has a moral right to secure its people against terrorism; the wall isn't hurting anyone, but it is going to help keep innocent people safe from homicide bombers.

Your invoking of the Holocaust would be offensive if it was coming from any sane or unbiased person.

MMMMMM
08-04-2003, 05:31 PM
M: [ QUOTE ]
Palestinians (and Arabs in general) tend to hold far more racist attitudes than do Israelis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus: [ QUOTE ]
For the last decades or so, yes. The roots of their racism (rather of their deep-seated hatred) is Israel coming on to the Middle East and taking away from the Palestinians the land they occupied for quite a large number of centuries. But before the 20th century, I challenge you to show me in the Middle East any anti-semitism remotely approaching the intensity of anti-semitism exhibited by Catholic and Orthodox (Russian) Christians against Jews, for the last two millenia.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to compare Arab prejudice against Jews vs. other groups' prejudice against Jews; I was comparing Israeli prejudice against Arabs vs. Arab prejudice against Jews. And the latter is much greater in depth and scope.

One another note: Cyrus why do you continually take the side of the Arabs, who are blessed with far greater natural resources than the Jews but have managed to do far less with them. Adherence to antiquated ideologies is a curse not a blessing, and the troubles of the Arabs are almost entirely thus self-created.

The Arabs should be perhaps the richest people in the world today due to their oil wealth and vast lands, but their extremely narrow economies and tyrannical political systems actually destroy wealth rather than create it.

Sorry but I have trouble siding with stupidity on the part of either individuals or large groups.

Also, with the huge natural resources and space the Arabs possess, they could easily have resettled the Palestinians and helped them get a good start. However the Arab leaders have long preferred to use the Palestinians as pawns in their campaign of hatred against the Jews, because directing the anger of the Arab masses outward at a convenient target serves to keep this anger from being focused inwardly at the corrupt and backwards regimes.

Those who dislike the Jews for their successes, rather than being envious, should instead attempt to emulate the methods which led them to success: to wit, an emphasis on study, hard work and frugality. Likewise too have many Asian peoples raised themselves out of hard circumstances to become quite successful. But the liberal-thinking of today seems to be to try to achieve equality by dragging everyone down to near-mediocrity, rather than by encouraging excellence in everybody.

By the way every time I have listened to an interview with Netanyahu he has struck me as making perfect sense--quite a contrast to the rantings and delusive ideas typically put forth by many in the Arab world, and quite a contrast too to the ideas espoused by Palestinian militia and Palestinian "spiritual leaders."

Reason is an essential ingedient to long-term peace. The less Reason someone possesses, the more likely they may be to become irrationally violent. It will probably be a long time before the ugly face of irrational violence subsides in the Middle East.

andyfox
08-04-2003, 05:37 PM
I fully understand the sentiments behind the Zionist movement and am well aware of both the events of this century and the course of Jewish history. But the idea of a Jewish state inevitably leads to problems. Jewish history is not all horrors; the view that Jews have always been persecuted and inevitably will be, is not true. After all, the city with the largest Jewish population in the world is not in Israel (it is New York).

The practice of Zionism, as well as it's theory, is what led to the heart of the problem right at the beginning. Allying itself with British imperialism, the Zionists colonized a land with people already living on it; those people objected right from the beginning. Like many people who had been trod upon, the Zionists acted the part of their former oppressors in how they treated the natives. This was a "natural" thing for European people at that time: to treat the natives as people of lesser import.

And since the beginning, both peoples have learned to hate each other.

As I have posted here before, I don't know if a solution exists. Neither people have shown themselves worthy of the land that many consider holy.

Cyrus
08-04-2003, 05:50 PM
I am not surprised that there are people defending monstrosities such as the Israeli Wall. There were people, in and out of the German Democratic Republic that were telling ya, with a straight face, that the Berlin Wall was for the protection of the Easterners!

Yes, I know. The Wall is supposed "to protect Israel from terrorists". Well, if that had actually any substance, there would be perhaps some room for discussing its possible merits. In reality, Walls cannot deter or stop terrorists. What the Wall does actually is to further divide the Palestinians. And grab more of that fertile, yummy land of the West Bank in view of the upcoming creation of an independent "Palestinian State". (Hah.)

"According to people like you and Alger, there is nothing Israel can do to defend itself against terrorists."

Patently absurd. You obviously don't have the slightest idea about my position on this. (Suffice to say that I much prefer Israel's methods of selective and clean assassinations, which are not always so, to the gigantism of American wholesale invasions.)

"Your invoking of the Holocaust would be offensive if it was coming from any sane or unbiased person."

Gee, thanks.

Next time I "invoke" the Holocaust, I'll be sure to ask permission from you and the doctors.

--Cyrus

(By the way, it's not me who "invokes" the Holocaust. I'm not the one offering excuses here. You are! Look up the word's meaning.)

Cyrus
08-04-2003, 06:07 PM
"Why do you continually take the side of the Arabs, who are blessed with far greater natural resources than the Jews but have managed to do far less with them?"

I didn't know I was supposed to automatically take the side of the most efficient and less blessed with matural resources people. Strange. I was under the impression that this discussion was about people and human decency, you know, morality. You are saying this is about economics?

And ...minerals?

"Adherence to antiquated ideologies is a curse not a blessing, and the troubles of the Arabs are almost entirely thus self-created."

The fact that the people of India were centuries behind the British in matters of civilisation does not make the British any less brutal occupiers or imperialists. Why are you even considering the level of civilisation of a people when you think how that people should be treated? You can't really be that kind of person. Are you?

"Every time I have listened to an interview with Netanyahu he has struck me as making perfect sense."

In the latest Israeli elections, Bibi managed the impossible : he came on as the even more extreme Right Wing candidate than Sharon! The butcher of Sabra and Shatila thus managed to appear as some sort of a "centrist", "moderate" figure. And won more handily.

I would call it adding insult to injury, but there were no injuries when Sharon, as a young commando, was attacking Palestinian towns. Only dead.

MMMMMM
08-04-2003, 07:51 PM
I've gotten a bit off-track here but let's remember we were earlier comparing relative levels of prejudice between Jews/Arabs. So anyway... I wasn't saying you should automatically take the side of the Jews--the more civilized and advanced culture--but I was asking why you always seem to take the side of the Arabs over the Jews.

Also, I view the problems in recent years as being more the fault of the Palestinians than the Israelis.




Cyrus: [ QUOTE ]
In the latest Israeli elections, Bibi managed the impossible : he came on as the even more extreme Right Wing candidate than Sharon! The butcher of Sabra and Shatila thus managed to appear as some sort of a "centrist", "moderate" figure. And won more handily.


[/ QUOTE ]

But compared to Palestinian and Arab leaders, Netanyahu would look like a moderate. Compared to the head Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Netanyahu would be a moderate. And compared to any highly placed Palestrinian official, Netanyahu would be a relative moderate as well.

It's sort of like calling Falwell and Robertson extremists because they are more right-wing than...... --until you realize that their Islamic counterparts issued a fatwa sentencing Falwell to death for the crime of blasphemy.

So yes, I do think the level of culture and civilization does have something to do with the entire discussion. And by the way what do you think about Arafat having had suspected Palestinian Israel-sympathizers mutilated and killed with no trial.

So if the Palestinian Authority can't stop Hamas et al from their MORONIC, despicable attacks--and it appears they can't--Israel will eventually be forced to take out all those terrorist leaders. Maybe the USA should just divert some Special Forces teams as soon as we finish with Saddam and Tikrit and help them do it straightway. More good riddance to bad rubbish.

brad
08-04-2003, 11:05 PM
original post -
[ QUOTE ]
Elsewhere AC Player has posted a link to a news story about this; here's another one. Who wants to defend these overtly racist laws, then?


[/ QUOTE ]

my response -
[ QUOTE ]

u realize ok to own non jewish slaves there, although law passed 5 years ago officially outlawing it.

big sex slave stuff.

but theyre gods chosen, those russians, so u r blatantly anti-semetic and in some countries could be imprisoned. here soon.

shame on u


[/ QUOTE ]

ok fleshed out it is -

you realize that in israel it was totally legal for jews to own non-jewish slaves up until about 5 years ago when a big outcry got a law on the books to officially prohibit it, although it is still tolerated.

mostly it consists of sex slave traffic, (desperate)women from other (poor) countries lured there in search of work, although kidnappings have been reported. (dyncorp (in bosnia) admittedly runs/ran a sex slave ring where 200k women were kidnapped/pimped with some sent to other countries)

sarcasm = ON;

but theyre gods chosen people, the jews are, even though most israelis are really russian emigrants (with their concomitant ideals of freedom) , so u r blatantly anti-semitic and in some countries could be imprisoned. hate speech which is really thought crime is catching on in the US and will undoubtably be here soon.

shame on you for even suggesting any jew could do anything wrong. lets hope we get real freedom here in america so we can imprison you for your offense.

sarcasm = OFF;
// note anti-semitic speech is punishable by imprisonment in many countries today

Wake up CALL
08-04-2003, 11:21 PM
brad if I convert to Judism do I get my choice of sex slaves or must I settle for sloppy 2nds?

brad
08-04-2003, 11:25 PM
unless you pimp out a 9 year old virgin or something im afraid its all sloppy seconds as they are forced to work in brothels and not allowed to leave; oftentimes the reason is that the 'debt' they incurred by being flown in (from their native country) must be 'worked off' before they are allowed any freedom at all or even allowed to leave the brothel. of course the juice is running ...

Cyrus
08-05-2003, 03:59 AM
"Maybe the USA should just divert some Special Forces teams as soon as we finish with Saddam and Tikrit and help them do it straightway."

Men from the American Special Forces and various other branches of the military, including black-bag folks, have been actively participating in Israeli raids in Palestinian civilian areas, and particularly in home raids, for years. It has been both a learning and alliance-consolidating experience, according to both sides.

"More good riddance to bad rubbish."

The current quagmire in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been brought along NOT by any alleged "Palestinian intransigence", but by the Israeli leadership (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859845177/qid%3D1060070210/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-3034271-4671920) being hell-bent on ethnically-cleansing, in steps, the whole of Israel from "rubbish". There is no distinction between "good rubbish" or "bad rubbish" in the minds of the Israeli leadership. They are all "rubbish" and the only problem is how to bring about "good riddance" to all of it.

If you doubt this or cannot see this, there's little hope of you ever understanding what's going down. But adherence to safety blankets (Israelis good/Palestinians rubbish) is understandable.

MMMMMM
08-05-2003, 04:24 AM
Cyrus: [ QUOTE ]
The current quagmire in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has been brought along NOT by any alleged "Palestinian intransigence", but by the Israeli leadership...

[/ QUOTE ]

So Hamas et al vowing to violently scuttle any peace process and following through by sending suicide bombers over the course of the intifada is not, in your view, worthy of being considered "Palestinian intransigence"? Well, maybe it's not intransigence...maybe it's a whole lot worse than mere instransigence.

I'm not saying that Israeli leadership does not have any role or negative impact in this saga, even perhaps somewhat deliberately. But completely discounting Palestinian intransigence is IMO a ridiculous stance.

The problem with eliminating terrorist leaders sporadically is that there is plenty of time for new leaders to emerge and the terrorist infrastrucure remains largely intact. What needs to be done, if the terrorist leaders will not see the light of reason leading to peace, is to go after them wholesale as we've done in Iraq (and are continuing to do). Before too much longer practically all the Baathist diehard leaders in Iraq will be dead or captured, and their operational infrastructure dismantled. This may be how the terror-leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. will have to be dealt with too.

nicky g
08-05-2003, 05:20 AM
M,

I agree with you about organic food (although organic apple juice is so damn good). But re pesticides, my understanding is that one of the main bits of GM tech currently being marketed is a gene that's modified so that the crop can stand to take even more of Monsanto's RoundUp pesticide, not so that it no longer needs to be sprayed. Maybe there are other crops that work the other way round. I think the main risk from GM foods (aside from the economic/political side) isn't directly to human health, but cross-polination with other crops/free-growing vegetation etc. A gene that makes certain crops incredibly resistant isn't necessarily something you want in weeds, for example.

nicky g
08-05-2003, 05:52 AM
Sorry, hadn't read Brad's thread in which he mentions the same issues when I wrote this.

adios
08-05-2003, 07:17 AM
"Because they should be sending cash, not food. I made that very clear. Cash would stimulate local economies, food exports destroy them."

And then the USA gets condemmed for enriching the powers that be in the various governments and not helping the people that need it most /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

Interesting link possibly:

U.S. May Penalize Israel Over Fence (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=5&u=/ap/20030804/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_mideast_5)

A qoute from the article:

[ QUOTE ]
Congress authorized more than a decade ago cuts in U.S. aid to Israel by the amount the Jewish state spent on settling Jews on the West Bank and in Gaza

[/ QUOTE ]

nicky g
08-05-2003, 07:57 AM
I just saw the same story on the BBC website - positive development. I'm not sure that those cuts have ever actually been implemented; but adding the fence to the punishable offences is a good step.

nicky g
08-05-2003, 07:59 AM
surely that happens everywhere (girls tricked into sex slavery), not just Israel. that it was legal previously was probably a loophole, no?

MMMMMM
08-05-2003, 11:55 AM
Roundup is an herbicide not a pesticide, right?

Pest-resistant crops would need less pesticide sprayed on them, which sounds great--but if they then end up spraying them with more herbicide that doesn't sound so great...;-)

I'd bet that pesticides are a lot more toxic to humans than herbicides, though.

MMMMMM
08-05-2003, 12:02 PM
I think Isreael should have every right to put up a fence if the Palestinians keep sending over suicide bombers.

er, why don't they just stop, nicky?

Arafat started an intifada rather than negotiate further.

nicky g
08-05-2003, 12:21 PM
"I think Israel should have every right to put up a fence if the Palestinians keep sending over suicide bombers."

Even if it does, does it have the right to extend it deep into Palestinian teritory, blocking farmers from their fields, isolating villages, cuting off water resources etc? Do the Palestinians have the right to put up a fence keeping out Israelis tanks and settlers? Apparently not.

"er, why don't they just stop, nicky?"

They should; and for the moment, they seem to have, though it's unlikely to last. (Check B-Man's post for a dismissal by the Israeli cabinet of an offer of a perment ceasefire). But the problem at root is the occupation.

"Arafat started an intifada rather than negotiate further. "

Arafat is no good. But a. the deal being offered as a final offer would have been unacceptable to any Palestinian representative, and b. Arafat personally didn't start the intifada. There had been huge anger building up for years at the lack of progress with the peace prcess, a perceived lack of good faith on the Israeli side, and ever-worsening conditions in the territories, which exploded following Sharon;s visit to the Temple Mount and the subsequent killing of 14 unarmed Israeli Arab protestors by the army.

MMMMMM
08-05-2003, 12:49 PM
One cannot fairly say that the root of the problem is the occupation, without saying also that the root of the problem is those Palestinians who are dead-set on taking back ALL of Israel and who are determined to die in the process. They would simply attack Israel from a closer vantage point. Isn't that part of the root of the problem too?

nicky g
08-05-2003, 01:08 PM
We've had this argument a billion times. I say ending the occupation will end popular support for Hamas etc (even they have said that a state in Gaza and the West Bank would do for the moment and that any subsequent struggle would be left in the hands of the next generation), without which they cannot function or recruit a steady stream of suicide bombers. You say it wouldn't. I doubt we'll have a chance to find out who's right any time soon.
Im going home. Hurray!

Cyrus
08-06-2003, 02:32 AM
-- The expansion of the influence of Hamas and other non-secular, Islamic fundamentalist organisations was actively encouraged and supported by Israel in order to neutralize the immense popularity of the genuine resistance organisation, the Palestine Liberation Organisation : PLO was the danger, Islamists were not. Now, many years later, Israeli citizens bear the consequences.

But are these consequences detrimental to Israeli strategy ?

No, they are not, actually. Israel prefers to have as opponents crazy fanatics rather than serious people with specific and realistic objectives, such as the PLO. Having Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad or the al-Aqsa Martyrs as the enemy only facilitates the continuation of the established and openly-declared Zionist policy of militarily subduing the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. Israel encouraged and incited Palestinian terrorism time and again, especially when peace was dangerously near. Simple as that -- and deny it to your heart's content but the evidence is out, as numerous eminent and honorable Jewish scholars ave demonstrated.

Still, beyond the usual propagandists, there are those honest supporters of Israel that are deluded into believing various fallacies such as that Sharon is a man of peace, that Sharon (or Netanyahu) will ever agree to granting true autonomy to a truly independent Palestinian state, that the Israeli leadership is not after completely cleansing & annexing the West Bank, etc etc.

If you need any more book or article pointers about those facts, feel free to ask.

--Cyrus

Cyrus
08-06-2003, 02:53 AM
Israel is a western democracy. (Of course, it's more like a Herrenvolk democracy, as South Africa used to be, where the ruling ethnic or social group enjoy human and democratic rights while the underclass is denied them. But I digress.)

So, like any self-respecting western-style democracy, like Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Germany (you should see German slave "weddings"!), etc, Israel has its share of enonomic refugees that sell off their bodies for money. They mainly come from Eastern Europe, since, as we all know, blonde sells, ..and Eastern Europe has lots of blondes.

Having a large sex underclass is one more sure sign that you have arrived as a country. But this is not an Israeli specialty.

B-Man
08-06-2003, 07:50 AM
Israel prefers to have as opponents crazy fanatics rather than serious people with specific and realistic objectives, such as the PLO.

So the PLO are serious people with realistic objectives, as opposed to fanatics? The destruction of Israel is a realistic goal? The slaughtering of the Israeli Olypmic Team and numerous other terrorist killings are not fanatical?

You truly have a warped perspective.

nicky g
08-06-2003, 08:09 AM
The PLO recognised Israel's right to exist a long time ago.

B-Man
08-06-2003, 08:24 AM
The PLO recognised Israel's right to exist a long time ago.

This is not so:

Although the Palestinian National Council (PNC) has twice taken formal decisions to revise the Palestinian National Covenant (1996 and 1998) calling for Israel's destruction, the PNC Chairman, Salim Za'anoun, stated on February 3, 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Palestinian Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 3 February 2001, as translated by MEMRI].

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said, "Arafat has been like Lucy with the football, treating the rest of the world as Charlie Brown."


What good is agreeing to amend thje charter if you don't follow through? What good is saying something in English to your opponents if you then make the opposite statement in Arabic to your supporters?

Arafat is duplicitous pond-scum. He always has been, and always will be.

nicky g
08-06-2003, 08:40 AM
From the Oslo accords:
"The Government of the State of Israel and the PLO team (in the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace Conference) (the "Palestinian Delegation"), representing the Palestinian people, agree that it is time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement and historic reconciliation through the agreed political process. "

From what you say they haven't ammended other documents accordingly, which is a shame. My opinion of Arafat is not very far removed from yours; how you can support the other side's current government of extremists lead by an infamous war criminal is beyond me though.

B-Man
08-06-2003, 09:14 AM
From what you say they haven't ammended other documents accordingly, which is a shame. My opinion of Arafat is not very far removed from yours; how you can support the other side's current government of extremists lead by an infamous war criminal is beyond me though.

Labor (the more liberal major party in Israel) also has had control of the Israeli government, and they were not able to resolve the conflict, either. You can't make peace with someone that doesn't want peace.

You and the Palestinians say Sharon is a war criminal, but he has never been tried, let alone convicted, for these alleged offenses. Regardless, he is the duly elected leader of that nation, and the Palestinians must deal with him if they want to negotiate. They had their chances with a "softer" government but refused to act reasonably; now they are stuck with Sharon. Perhaps this is something they shoud have thought about before starting the intifidah, or at many other teams since the Oslo accords when they chose to be unreasonable rather than negotiate a fair solution.

nicky g
08-06-2003, 10:46 AM
He has never been tried because countries such as Israel and the US refuse to accept any form of independent international war crimes tribunal. I wonder if I could have hundreds of people killed and then claim innocence because there was no court to try me. I suspect not. There are mountains and mountains of evidence that Sharon was responsible for the mass murder of civilians dutring the Lebanese invasion and earlier in Palestinian villages such as Deir Yassin. If you want to come up with a case to disprove any of this, be my guest.

You are right that Labour did not do much of a better job than Likud. But it still galls me that people can support a man whose own extreme right government found him responsible for the Sabra and Chatila massacres (it's a mark of the political class in Israel that his own punishment was to be sacked). As for starting the intifada, maybe the Israelis should have thought twice before killing 14 unarmed Israeli arab demonstrators.

nicky g
08-06-2003, 11:10 AM
By the way it was Barak that called an end to the talks, not Arafat. The main reason he refused to carry on was that Arafat would not compromise on Arab East Jerusalem coming under PA authority. Given that it's an entirely Arab neighbourhood and not inside Israel's pre-1967 borders, this seems eminently reasonable to me, especially as Arafat offered Israeli control of Jewish Holy sites within the area. Other sticking points were that the proposed state in the West Bank would have been sliced up by dozens of "security corridors" to the larger settlements that the Israelis refused to give up. Such a territory would not have been a viable state at all and there was no chance of any representative ever accepting it.

MMMMMM
08-06-2003, 11:12 AM
The Palestinians have historically said they want to live in peace even while attacking. It's their standard M.O., so to speak: lie to the world by claiming that they recognize Israel's right to exist--all the while privately telling other Arabs that they really don't and continuing to attack.

B-Man
08-06-2003, 11:33 AM
The main reason he refused to carry on was that Arafat would not compromise on Arab East Jerusalem coming under PA authority. Given that it's an entirely Arab neighbourhood and not inside Israel's pre-1967 borders, this seems eminently reasonable to me

Well, it may seem reasonable to you, but it isn't reasonable to most Israelis. A few other points as long as you are throwing things against the wall to see what sticks:

1. What difference does it makes that it is an Arab neighborhood?

2. When this area was under Arab control pre-1967, the Jewish holy sites were repeatedly desecrated. If the Arabs had been better behaved back then, perhaps the Jews wouldn't be so adamant about protecting their holy sites now.

3. There has NEVER been an Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital. This city was founded by Jews, has been the capital of Israel at various times over the last few thousand years, and contains Judaism's holiest site (which was desecrated by Arabs). It does NOT contain Islam's holiest site. Why do the Palestinians insist on claiming this city, as opposed to one of the other cities in the West Bank and Gaza, as their capital? (Real answer: because they like to stir up trouble with the Israelis and want anything they can use as a bargaining chip).

4. East Jerusalem was NOT taken from the Palestinians in 1967. It was taken from Jordan. I repeat: there has never been an Arab state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Palestinians have some legitimate claims and moral rights, but their claim to East Jerusalem is not one of them.

Cyrus
08-06-2003, 11:44 AM
-- There were always numerous factions in the Palestine resistance, ranging from the most moderate to the most extreme. (Precisely like the Zionist resistance factions!) By far the most popular and the most widely supported has been Arafat's Fatah. Arafat, being an intelligent man, knew that in the end and having lost war after war, the Arabs and the Palestinians would have to sit down and negotiate a peace with the Israelis, that, at best, would beget a small, independent Palestinians statelet alongside Israel.

-- Arafat colossally miscalculated; the Israeli leadership never wanted genuine peace with the Arabs, let alone the Palestinians. (You think I haven't read Jabotinsky, B-Man?..)

--Arafat's Fatah was not behind Munich 1972, nor was it any other of the main resistance groups. It was Black September. (A little known fact is that 9 out of the 11 dead Israelis were killed not by the Palestinian terrorists but by the German police when the polizei attemmpted to free them.) But it is expected that ALL the bad things the Palestinians have ever done should be blamed on Arafat : Israel fears a reasonable opponent.

--Fanatical Zionists such as you pretend they are always ready to talk about Palestinian autonomy (not independence). Yet, they don't wanna hear abt Arafat! Not even after an Israeli administration recognized him as "partner in peace" and shook his hand. One wonders : What instead of Arafat would the Zionists want to talk to ? Their Ethiopian housemaid probably.

-- Despite your protestations and your diversions, the truth is out, for quite some time now, thanks to brave and free-thinking Jewish historians, among others. And the truth is

*** Israel was the strongest party by far in the 1948 war. It tricked everybody, including its Soviet sponsors. And it violated ceasefire after UN ceasefire one second after agreeing to them, until it had what it wanted, which was double than what he UN allocated it.

*** Israel was attacking in 1956 to take out its eternal big worry, Egypt. That was the only time it failed to succeed, because, tellingly, the United States ordered Israel to back down. (No chance of that ever happenign again.)

*** Israel was never in danger in 1967. Begin, Dayan, et al, have openly if belatedly admitted as much, in the most clear terms. Israel craved for a war in 1967 and managed to have it.

*** Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982 in order to crush for ever the PLO. Sharon was trying to "relocate" the Palestinians to Jordan, "their natural homeland". (Pity, the blueprints for taking the Jews to Madagascar were still fresh, why waste 'em?)

*** All the provocations that ever happened at the Syrian frontier were the work of Israel and people like Sharon. Israel never wanted quiet or peace at the front, contrary to the official line. Never.

*** Israel has actively supported Hamas and their ilk. (I see you are awfully quiet about this 'un, B-Man. I understand.) Anything that would bring reasonable Palestinians closer to a genuine discussion about peace, and inevitably a free Palestibe, has been anathema to Israel.

-- Israel is and has always been militarily stronger than all the Arab nations combined! Israel was alwayds the regional superpower. Having, in addition, America's unqualified support and assistance, due to the strong Jewish-American PACs, it's understandable that Israel does not want and never wanted peace. Peace was against Israeli objectives because it meant giving up what it was gaining and holding on to, through war.

But what's the use? I'm up against such a Wall of Fanaticism, it brings tears to the eye.

--Cyrus

nicky g
08-06-2003, 11:59 AM
"1. What difference does it makes that it is an Arab neighborhood?"

A lot.

"2. When this area was under Arab control pre-1967, the Jewish holy sites were repeatedly desecrated. If the Arabs had been better behaved back then, perhaps the Jews wouldn't be so adamant about protecting their holy sites now."

Right. Perhaps you missed the bit about Arafat offering Israeli control of Jewish Holy sites?

"3. There has NEVER been an Arab state with Jerusalem as its capital"

This is a ridiculous argument. Prior to independence, there had never been an Irish state with Dublin as its capital. Does this mean it was wrong of the Irish to want to run their own affairs? Did it give a mandate to the English to run the place? All your arguments on about Jeruslaem being the Holy City of Judaism etc ignores the fact that the Palestinians weren't asking for the whole city, just arab East Jerusalem. That's a fair compromise. The Israelis want the lot. That is not even a compromise. It has nothing to do with whether it's the holiest city in Islam at all, it's about the Palestinians who live there not wanting to live under the control of the state that has oppressed them for years and would in all likelihood turf them out of their homes as soon as they got a chance (witness the demolition of Paliestinian homes, the refusal of permits to build new homes there to all but Israelis etc).
The Palestinians ion East Jerusalem want to stay in their homes and rule themselves. That's totally reasonable.

B-Man
08-06-2003, 12:40 PM
Your posts have shown that you are not only a racist and an anti-semite, but you also spread lies.

Cyrus: "Arafat's Fatah was not behind Munich 1972, nor was it any other of the main resistance groups. It was Black September."

The truth:

The Munich operation was ordered by Yasser Arafat and carried out by Fatah, Arafat's faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

The Fatah terrorists called themselves Black September in order to safeguard Fatah’s international image and the PLO’s political interests. Although Salah Khalaf (aka Abu Iyad) officially headed the organization, Black September refrained from publishing official statements, and its leaders kept their identity hidden. Abu Iyad’s book, Stateless, explains that Black September was closely tied to Fatah. Abu Iyad frequently refers to his personal involvement in the organization and drops transparent hints to this effect:

Black September was not a terrorist organization, but was rather an auxiliary unit of the resistance movement, at a time when the latter was unable to fully realize its military and political potential. The members of the organization always denied any ties between their organization and Fatah or the PLO. I myself am personally acquainted with many of them, and can state with conviction that most of them belong to various Fedayeen organizations.

The mastermind of the massacre, Abu Daoud, admitted his role in his autobiography, Memoirs of a Palestinian Terrorist, published in 1999. Although this was said to be the first public acknowledgment that the PLO was behind Munich, Daoud himself essentially admitted this when under interrogation by Jordanian police in 1972. The Al-Dustur newspaper quoted him at the time as telling them:

There is no such organization called Black September. Fatah announces its own operations under this name so that Fatah will not appear as the direct executor of the operation.

Cyrus: "(A little known fact is that 9 out of the 11 dead Israelis were killed not by the Palestinian terrorists but by the German police when the polizei attemmpted to free them.)"

The truth:

...The rescue plan failed and a bloody firefight between the Germans and Palestinians followed, ending at 3:00AM when the Palestinians set off a grenade in one helicopter, killing all aboard, and terrorists in the second helicopter shot to death the remaining, blindfolded Israeli hostages. Three of the Palestinian Arabs terrorists were captured alive and held in Germany.

Futhermore, even if 9 of the 11 hostages actually had been killed by the German police during the rescue attempt, are you somehow suggesting this would have absolved the Palestinians from responsibility for their deaths? That is absurd.

Cyrus: "Israel has actively supported Hamas and their ilk. (I see you are awfully quiet about this 'un, B-Man. I understand.)"

You and your cohorts bring this up periodically, as if it has some relevance today. It is well known Israel supported Hamas many years ago as a counterbalance to the PLO; at the time, they must have thought this was a good idea. Obviously, they were wrong. But somehow you are trying to suggest that Israel is morally responsible for Hamas' actions today because it supported them years ago. Get a clue, Cyrus: times change, people change, allegiances change. Hell, the U.S. fought against Germany and Japan in WWII, and now they are our allies. Should we be morally estopped from being their friends because we fought them 60 years ago? Apparently Israel shouldn't be allowed to fight Hamas because it used to support them, under your twisted logic.

Cyrus: "the Israeli leadership never wanted genuine peace with the Arabs, let alone the Palestinians. (You think I haven't read Jabotinsky, B-Man?..)"

I don't care what Jabotinsky says, if you think the people of Israel would prefer continued conflict and terrorism to genuine peace and security, you are truly deranged. Just because some factions and politicians are hard-liners, that doesn't mean the majority of the people hold the same view.

You truly have a twisted view of the world.

Cyrus
08-06-2003, 12:47 PM
B-Man's post is a concentrated dose of the standard Zionist myths abt Jerusalem. If anyone reading this thread is interested in something a bit closer to the truth, I would recommend Dr Bernard Wasserstein's examplary work, Divided Jerusalem: The Struggle for the Holy City (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0300097301/qid=1060187870/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/103-0088231-9927877?v=glance&s=books).

From the introduction: " At various times, Egyptians, Turks, French, British, Israelis and Jordanians have controlled parts of Jerusalem. Moreover, while it has always been considered a "holy city," its holiness "is neither a constant nor an absolute" but rather a human construct that has "waxed and waned" over the centuries for Muslims, Jews and Christians alike."

nicky g
08-06-2003, 12:48 PM
"if you think the people of Israel would prefer continued conflict and terrorism to genuine peace and security, you are truly deranged"

I doubt Cyrus (quote: "the Israeli leadership ) or many others think this. But the hardliners are in control, in case you hadn't noticed. The Israeli political class clearly does prefer a continued conflict that lets them expand further and further into Palestinian terrotory, even though the people by and large don't.

Cyrus
08-06-2003, 01:27 PM
"The truth: The Munich operation was ordered by Yasser Arafat and carried out by Fatah, Arafat's faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)."

How careless fanatics are ! So Fatah = Black September, right? Well, you go on to write, further on down, that "Black September was closely tied to Fatah." So, just as MMMM's "much" is greater than "much", we now have "closely tied" being equal to "is".

Let me call my pal Bill abt the meaning of "is", and get back to ya.

"Even if 9 of the 11 [Munich] hostages actually had been killed by the German police during the rescue attempt, are you somehow suggesting this would have absolved the Palestinians from responsibility for their deaths? That is absurd."

The terrorist attack against the Olympic athletes was a terrorist and totally condemnable act. But all the athletes shouldn't have to die. Two of them were murdered when the Palestinian terrorists threw a grenade. The other nine wouldn't have to die, if it weren't for the polizei's clumsiness.

That's all I wrote. But you knew that.

"It is well known Israel supported Hamas many years ago as a counterbalance to the PLO; at the time, they must have thought this was a good idea."

LOL! ...A bitter laugh, actually.

"Times change, people change, allegiances change. Hell, the U.S. fought against Germany and Japan in WWII, and now they are our allies. Should we be morally estopped from being their friends because we fought them 60 years ago?"

Hamas has not changed, since its inception. Your example is misleading because we are not talking about an organisation that has changed as have the Germans and the Japanese. Your "example" is like saying, We fought Nazis 50 years ago. Should we be morally estopped from being friends to Nazis now?? Hell, yes, we should.

Israel knew fully well what it was helping when it was helping Hamas. You are supposedly examining this as if Israel craves peace (and somehow "regrets" having supported Hamas) but this isn't so; Israel never wanted peace. Israeli people want peace; but Israeli leadership, never.

It will never come out and say so, of course. Even old Arik is a Man For Peace, now...

"Apparently Israel shouldn't be allowed to fight Hamas because it used to support them, under your twisted logic."

I never said that. But this is not the 2+2 website for KENO PLAYERS, ya know. The audience can't be fooled so easily. <font color="blue">Israel fights against Hamas with sporadic, tragic losses of Israeli civilian lives, yes, -- but Israel is in absolutely no danger from Hamas! On the other hand, although it suffers no human losses from Arafat and his party at all, Arafat's Palestinians represent a mortal danger for the Israeli leadership : the prospect of Palestinian independence. </font>

"I don't care what Jabotinsky says."

Oh, but you should. Jabotinsky's is the blueprint of Israeli policy for the last 50 years. Stop feigning indifference.

"You a racist and an anti-semite."

Well, thanks for the kind words but you know how it is : Used to be that an anti-semite was someone that hates Jews. Now, an anti-semite is someone that Jews hate.

--Cyrus

Cyrus
08-06-2003, 01:35 PM

B-Man
08-06-2003, 01:41 PM
Well, thanks for the kind words but you know how it is : Used to be that an anti-semite was someone that hates Jews. Now, an anti-semite is someone that Jews hate.

I don't hate you, Cyrus, I don't even know you. But your posts show a consistent bias against Israel and Jews. The way you distort the facts is shameful. I don't know what you, Alger and Nicky do for a living, but the amount of time you spend on this website railing against Israel and its policies is shameful.

B-Man
08-06-2003, 01:43 PM

Cyrus
08-06-2003, 02:01 PM
"Your posts show a consistent bias against Israel and Jews."

You can't know how funny that last one is. But it's not your fault.

"The way you distort the facts is shameful."

Everything I have ever claimed abt the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, I backed up with evidence. I took particular care to proffer evidence provided by Jewish scholars, scientists and historians. At some point, I even put up here a whole post pointing to sources, with links on the web. But, obviously, this is not enough, since I don't toe the official Zionist line.

"I don't know what you, Alger and Nicky do for a living, but the amount of time you spend on this website railing against Israel and its policies is shameful."

I don't consider the amount of time you spend on this website supporting Israel and its policies to be shameful. This is simply indicative of your frame of mind. If I was spending my time defending Sharon and his ilk, you wouldn't say the same thing.

But if you wanna know, I'm being paid by Arafat to post here. Chris Alger is after my gig but he's too lazy to worry me.

brad
08-07-2003, 03:04 AM
well i like to fan the flames of all debates ...

lets not forget USS liberty sunk by israel. a US warship sunk by israel, admittedly to blame the egyptians (false flags) so that the US would turn against egypt and allow israel free reign in the region.

MMMMMM
08-07-2003, 05:15 AM
I read it was an accident--you are the ultimate conspiracy theorist I think;-)

brad
08-07-2003, 10:22 AM
the same place u read gm crops are pesticide free? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 11:50 AM
You and the Palestinians say Sharon is a war criminal, but he has never been tried, let alone convicted, for these alleged offenses. Regardless, he is the duly elected leader of that nation, and the Palestinians must deal with him if they want to negotiate. They had their chances with a "softer" government but refused to act reasonably; now they are stuck with Sharon. Perhaps this is something they shoud have thought about before starting the intifidah, or at many other teams since the Oslo accords when they chose to be unreasonable rather than negotiate a fair solution.

Is Arafat the duly elected president of the Palestinians, should one negotiate with him?

MMMMMM
08-07-2003, 11:51 AM
brad I know u r trying to kid here mostly but please try to be more precise when quoting or paraphrasing. I never read that they are "pesticide-free", nor did I say that they are. However large-scale -commercially-grown crops which are GM-modified specifically for the purpose of being insect-resistant require less spraying with pesticides. If certain GM crops undergo spraying with herbicides that's a different matter.

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 11:58 AM
I know many jews (including Israelis BTW) who are against a lot of what you have said in this and other thread. Should I be considering them as Anti-Semites? Is voicing an opinion that is against that of the right wing Israel government the same thing as being racist and/or anti-semite? In fact there are very orthodox jews who believe that the entire Zionist movement is against the principles of Judaism and that a Jewish state is not good for the jewish peoples.

Your characterization of peoplle who differ in opinion from you is akin to the claptrap we heard during the war argument: If you are against war you are for Saddam or If you are against war you are anti-american.

These are all symptoms of minds that are made up and unwilling to listen.

nicky g
08-07-2003, 12:00 PM
What I find interesting is that a good deal of the pro-Israeli religious right are quite obviously anti-semites at heart - they just hate arabs even more.

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 12:02 PM
THought experiment:

What would the Israeli reaction be if the Palestinians were to suddenly embrace the wall, enclose all existing settlements in the westbank, and also plant guard posts along the wall with armed "security forces" who would keep out forcibly any settlers who want to build new settlements in the occupied areas?

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 12:06 PM
Actually, I have read somewhere, sorry cant cite it, that there is presently a "marriage of convenience" between christian fundamentalists (who have a long history of hating the christ killers) and the Jews. It has to do with keeping access to holy land available.

B-Man
08-07-2003, 12:30 PM
I know many jews (including Israelis BTW) who are against a lot of what you have said in this and other thread. Should I be considering them as Anti-Semites? Is voicing an opinion that is against that of the right wing Israel government the same thing as being racist and/or anti-semite?

I never said or implied and of the foregoing. But there are several posters on this site that have shown a strong and consistent bias against Israel. Whether or not they are anti-semetic is a different question and impossible to prove one way or the other, but whether they are biased against Israel is clear.

Cyrus, Alger and Nicky consistently twist the facts and tell only one side of the story to make Israel appear to be the party in the wrong. They also feel it is wrong for Israel to retaliate against terrorists or take preventative measures against terrorism. Basically, in their minds, the Palestinians can do no wrong and Israel can do no right.

That is bias.

B-Man
08-07-2003, 12:34 PM
That's not working "both ways." That is a very different scenario, for reasons that should be obvious, and a poor analogy.

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that actions which will reduce terrorism draw criticism from the pro-Palestinian factions.

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 12:45 PM
OK. Perhaps you have a point.

Do you think that if Nicky, Alger and Cyrus had been around when the Jews of Warsaw were being put into the Ghetto's they would have said -- "go for it -- get em" ??

If Nicky, Alger and Cyrus were to have opposed an armed, forceful crackdown of the general Jewish population in the holy land, following the bombing of the King David Hotel they would be anti-british?

Do you believe the Nicky, Cyrus and Alger condone Palestinian terrorism by anything they have said in these posts?

Is supporting the rights of the general Palestinian population to live without having the barrel of a tank pointed at them so wrong? Or supporing the rights of the farmers having their property confiscated for a wall a sign of Anti-Jewish bias.

BTW for those interested the word Semite includes Arabs - so being anti-semite is being anti-arab.

nicky g
08-07-2003, 12:46 PM
"Basically, in their minds, the Palestinians can do no wrong and Israel can do no right."

Crap. I've repeatedly said that the suicide bombings are wrong, both morally and strategically, and that Arafat is a corrupt old fool - and so have the others. The Palestinians can and do do plenty of wrong - my point in my posts is that at heart, Israeli occupation, racism and theft of land is the main cause of the situation.

On the other hand I don't think you've ever admitted that Israel has been guily of any bad behaviour towards the Palestinians - every shooting, bulldozing, locking out and act of oppression is a defence against terrorism or the Palestinians' fault. I understand that you see the Palestinain attitude as the root of the problem, and we can debate that, but why can't you admit that what Sharon did in the Lebanon was wrong, that shooting unarmed protestors is wrong, that building a wall that cuts deep into Palestinian's territory and isolates farmers from their crops, villages from their water supplies etc etc etc is wrong? Go on, admit that Israel has done some bad things too. You'll feel better about it in the long run.

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 12:52 PM
Why is it a poor analogy?

The Palestinians have long complained about the settlers. To right wing Israeli the Settlers are fighters on the front line, just as to the right wing Palestinians the suicide bombers are fighters on the front line.

Realize that initially Sharon was opposed to the wall but only gave in recently. The reason he was opposed is so that there was no well defined line. The wall is a defeat for certain right wing groups as they dont want any sort of line before the Jordan river (and some want it beyond the Jordan river!). As their goal is to settle and claim for the Jews all the lands that are mentioned in the Torah as part of the holy lands(and of course subject to interpretation - where exactly is the point where Moses received word from god for example).

B-Man
08-07-2003, 01:59 PM
On the other hand I don't think you've ever admitted that Israel has been guily of any bad behaviour towards the Palestinians - every shooting, bulldozing, locking out and act of oppression is a defence against terrorism or the Palestinians' fault. I understand that you see the Palestinain attitude as the root of the problem, and we can debate that, but why can't you admit that what Sharon did in the Lebanon was wrong, that shooting unarmed protestors is wrong, that building a wall that cuts deep into Palestinian's territory and isolates farmers from their crops, villages from their water supplies etc etc etc is wrong? Go on, admit that Israel has done some bad things too. You'll feel better about it in the long run.

I've said plenty of times (though not lately) that actions taken by Israel have been wrong. Some of their responses to terrorist acts, even though some response was justified, have been excessive. At times, the collateral damage from some of their actions has been so great that the action prob. shouldn't have been undertaken.

As for what Sharon did in Lebanon, I don't think either of us know enough of the facts to say with certainty what exactly he was responsible for. I also don't think Sharon is the world's greatest politician, a great leader, or even close. But I do think he has his country's best interests at heart, and for the moment we are stuck with him, so we better get used to him.

The wall is a response to three years of suicide bombings. What is worse, separating some farmers from crops and cutting off territory, or murdering innocent people? Is it wrong to do the former if it will prevent the latter? I can't imagine how you could actually believe that is so.

B-Man
08-07-2003, 02:07 PM
Do you think that if Nicky, Alger and Cyrus had been around when the Jews of Warsaw were being put into the Ghetto's they would have said -- "go for it -- get em" ??

No, I don't think so and have no reason to think so.

If Nicky, Alger and Cyrus were to have opposed an armed, forceful crackdown of the general Jewish population in the holy land, following the bombing of the King David Hotel they would be anti-british?

Not neccessarily. I never said that because you supported one side in a particular instance, that you were conclusively biased again the other side in all instances. However, if you are consistently biased for one side in many instances... I think that shows something.

Do you believe the Nicky, Cyrus and Alger condone Palestinian terrorism by anything they have said in these posts?

Nicky and Cyrus, no. Alger, not really, though some things he has said are pretty imflamatory and could be read that way. However, all three have consistently opposed Israeili responses to terrorism, including preventative measures such as border closings, targetted assasinations, and of course the wall being built. If you are against measures which prevent terrorism, does that mean you indirectly support it? Do they actually think these preventative measures are worse than the terrorist acts they are designed to prevent?

Is supporting the rights of the general Palestinian population to live without having the barrel of a tank pointed at them so wrong? Or supporing the rights of the farmers having their property confiscated for a wall a sign of Anti-Jewish bias.

I support those rights, too. I also support the right of Israel to live in peace and security. One can not happen without the other. Israel is not going to lay down their weapons until the terrorism stops. They are not going to stop taking preventative measures against it until the terrorism stops.

B-Man
08-07-2003, 02:10 PM
To right wing Israeli the Settlers are fighters on the front line, just as to the right wing Palestinians the suicide bombers are fighters on the front line.

You see, that kind of thinking is a major part of the problem. What the settlers are doing may or may not be morally correct or legal, depending on your point of view, but it is not even in the same universe as suicide bombing. There is no moral equivalence between the suicide bombers and the settlers.

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 02:29 PM
Israel is not going to lay down their weapons until the terrorism stops.

Perhaps that contributes to the problem. No?

ACPlayer
08-07-2003, 02:33 PM
Well, you cant deny that my statement is correct.

.. And I am not establishing a moral equivalence.

With the wall as I described it both parties win. The Palestinians keep the settlers out, the israelis keep the suicide bombers out. It is the start of a country for the Palestinians something that they are certainly entitled to have and defend.

B-Man
08-07-2003, 02:44 PM
Well, you cant deny that my statement is correct.

I do not deny that in the Palestinians point of view, the suicide bombers are the front-line soldiers. That, however, doesn't justify their actions or mean that their point of view is reasonable.

For the record, I have stated on this site on several occassions that if a negotiated settlement can not be reached, Israel should unilaterally withdraw, secure its borders, and separate from the West Bank/Gaza. If the settlers refuse to leave, they would be on their own.

I don't think that's the best solution, but it is better than the cycle of violence of the last 3 years.

MMMMMM
08-07-2003, 03:07 PM
Exercising the natural right to self-defense cannot be construed as contributing to any problem. Exceeding it may at times. However, determining what is the proper balance for exercising sufficient force for self-defense and not going overboard with it can be very difficult at times.

Also, if Israel actually were to disarm they would simply be annihilated by the Palestinians and Arabs. Not that the Arabs haven't tried it before.

Cyrus
08-07-2003, 04:15 PM
"I read [that the sinking of the USS Liberty] was an accident--you are the ultimate conspiracy theorist."

Brad can be wild /images/graemlins/cool.gif but he's quite correct on this one. Let a Jew, and a religious Jew with rabbinical ordination at that, tell it like it was : The sinking of the USS Liberty was deliberate (http://hnn.us/comments/292.html). It is a devastating and revealing article.

More web sources :

The official Israeli position on the sinking of USS Liberty (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/liberty.html)

BBC broadcasts USS Liberty documentary "Dead In The Water" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/06_june/08/uss_liberty.shtml)

Book on Nat'l Security Agency reveals the truth about USS LIberty (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385499086/qid=1060286204/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-0088231-9927877)

The USS Liberty survivors speak (http://ussliberty.org/voices.htm)

B-Man
08-07-2003, 04:33 PM
I can't believe I am going to agree with both Brad and Cyrus in the same thread, but I have also read that Israel deliberately attacked the Liberty, and that there was a joint coverup between Israel and the U.S.!

Why? Here is the very short version:

1. The Liberty was spying on Israel. Not only was it spying, it was giving away Israeli troop movements and other vital information to the Arabs. Perhaps the U.S. motivation here was to maintain the balance of power in the region, perhaps there was another motive.

2. Israel wouldn't tolerate the above actions, and decided to do something about it. Hence, the bombing of the Liberty.

3. The U.S. took part in the coverup because that story (that it was an accident) was far less embarrassing than the truth--that we (the U.S.) had been spying on an ally and giving crucial information to her enemies, leading to the ally bombing our spy ship.

So Brad and Cyrus may be right. Of course, as is often the case, they (well, some of Cyrus' links may discuss them, I haven't read them) omitted some highly relevant facts, i.e. the context in which the bombing took place and the events preceding it. Was the bombing justified? Some would say yes. I certainly would say this--if we are going to spy on a country and, even worse, give the information we gain to its enemies, we should be prepared to face the consequences.

brad
08-07-2003, 04:41 PM
'However large-scale -commercially-grown crops which are GM-modified specifically for the purpose of being insect-resistant require less spraying with pesticides.'

u have no facts to back this up.

thec whole point of roundup-ready (rapeseed i think) is you can dump roundup (pesticide) on crop with no deleterious effect on crop, something that cant be done with non gm.

MMMMMM
08-07-2003, 04:49 PM
damn, brad, Roundup is an HERBICIDE not a PESTICIDE...right????

Cyrus
08-07-2003, 04:57 PM
"The Liberty was spying on Israel. Not only was it spying, it was giving away Israeli troop movements and other vital information to the Arabs. Perhaps the U.S. motivation here was to maintain the balance of power in the region, perhaps there was another motive."

The American ship was monitoring the activity of both sides in the 1967 war. This, for B-Man, is akin to "spying". If anything, the United States actively assisted through materiel and vital intelligence the Israelis in the 1967 war, as, among other sources, the BBC documentary I linked to, amply demonstrated. B-Man's claim that "the Americans might've been helping the Arab side" is adding insult to injury; the fiercely anti-communist Arab countries found themselves being supplied with arms by their worst ideological enemy, the Soviet Union, for the simple reason that America, the other superpower, was firmly on the side of Israel. There was no "balance" to redress, as B-Man claims.

The truth is that Israel was extremely keen on violating the US-sponsored cease-fire in that phase of the 1967 war and capturing the Golan Heights. The USS Liberty was able to detect the relevant troop movements and was thus made a target by the unscrupulous Israeli military command. The day after the ship was hit, Israel attacked and captured the Golan Heights.

B-Man cannot but acknowledge that the ship was deliberately attacked by Israel. The evidence is simply overwhelming to pretend otherwise. (MMMMMMM has some catching up to do!) But B-Man will always find an excuse for Israeli actions. When it's not "the terrorists", it's "Americans helping the Arabs". For pete's sakes.

MMMMMM
08-07-2003, 05:14 PM
Well it's news to me but I had never read much of anything about this particular issue. Anyway what's one attack by a friendly compared to the many attacks on us by Arab states and/or their state-sponsored terrorist goons.

B-Man
08-07-2003, 05:18 PM
There are many versions of what happened that day, Cyrus. Personally, the version you posted doesn't make sense to me for a very important reason--why would the U.S. assist in the coverup? The (very short) version of events I posted makes more sense if you believe (as you must) the U.S. was complicit in the coverup. Below is a more detailed article. I think the most-detailed version can be found in, "The Secret War Against the Jews," which has an entire chapter devoted to the incident. I have this book at home and would re-read that chapter tonite... but the Patriots play the Giants tonite, so my re-read will have to wait until the weekend.

Here is the article:

=======
Have the United States and Britain Willfully Betrayed Israel?

November 27 , 1998 - D. Maimon

A remarkable book published a few years ago by a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney has been attracting growing attention in some circles. Author John Loftus uses thousands of previously top secret documents and interviews with hundreds of current and former spies, to argue that many Western countries, particularly the United States and Great Britain have willfully spied on Israel over many decades in order to promote favorable relations with the oil-rich Arabs.

Loftus contends that while on the surface the United States and Britain profess to be allies of Israel, they have used their intelligence services to betray Israel's secrets to the Arabs since the earliest years of Israel's statehood.

Western espionage has waged what is tantamount to a secret war against the Jews and Israel, says the Irish-American attorney author.

According to Loftus, "State Department disease"greed and self-interest have since the beginning of Mideast conflict between Jews and Arabs, infected powerful bureaucrats, perverting their sense of right and wrong. The ever present temptation to enrich oneself and one's family through Arab oil-related favors and industry, has turned the political sympathies of countless officials in the state department and CIA away from Israel.

Although the official policy of the U.S; government has always been pro-Israel, senior chiefs of these departments have long promoted a very different policy that has led to covert acts of treachery and betrayal of Israel.

One of the most disturbing examples in Loftus's litany of U.S. betrayals in an incident that took place during the 1967 war, involving an American vessel known as the L15S Liberty.

THE U.S.S. LIBERTY SCANDAL

According to Loftus, in 1967 before hostilities began, Israel notified America of its war plans. The Americans in turn tried to warn Egypt and Syria. As the battles progressed the Americans did everything possible to spy on Israel and provide that information to Israel's enemies. The USS Liberty, a sophisticated CIA surveillance ship, was operating near Egypt when she was suddenly removed from Navy control, placed under the direct control of the NSA (National Security Agency), and told to "ignore all orders from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in order to support the Arab war effort against Israel.

The ship sailed close the southern Israeli shore and close to northern Sinai, and began monitoring the transmissions of Israeli tanks and small infantry units in the desert. Those transmissions were then relayed by satellite to British intelligence teams in Cyprus who, using sophisticated voice print matching equipment, could identify and locate every Israeli unit in the war. British intelligence then relayed this vital information to the Egyptian government. (emphasis added)

When the Israelis learned of this treachery, Loftus recounts, they asked the United stares to explain the presence of an American vessel in the area. But the Americans lied, denying that the ship was American.

To save itself, Israel felt it had no choice but to eliminate the ship. They conducted a pinpoint attack by torpedo on the precise compartment housing the intelligence team. An hour later the whole thing was over. Thirty four American soldiers lay dead, with 171 wounded.

Loftus's account is at serious odds with the Israeli version which claims that Israeli intelligence failed to properly identify the ship, mistaking it for an Egyptian vessel, which of course it attacked. Profuse apologies were offered by the Israeli government as well as $13 million in damages to the Liberty's survivors. The American government immediately accepted these terms and despite a furious outcry from the survivors who unanimously insisted the attack was deliberate, the case was officially closed.

Loftus sees in the obvious haste on the American side to close the file on the Liberty, this despite calls for an investigation from dozens of senators and congressmen covert admission that the ship was indeed carrying out operations destructive to Israel, a fact which was to be kept secret at all costs.

(Loftus's contentions are disputed by survivors of the Israeli attack, notably James Ennes, an officer on the USS Liberty. Ennes wrote a book "Attack on the Liberty", where he maintains that the reason the Liberty was stationed so close to Israel's shores in 1967 was for the purpose of monitoring suspicious aircraft sent by the Soviets to Egypt. The planes were supposed to be flown by Arab pilots but the U.S. suspected that these were actually Soviet bombers under Soviet control using Soviet pilots. According to Ennes, the USS Liberty's job had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict but was solely to determine who controlled those aircraft.)

brad
08-07-2003, 05:22 PM
well im glad to see b-man admitting hes anti american. whats the difference between his statement and a islamist saying they will attack american troops because america is anti islamist (like in yemen or something?)

but 3 points.

a) ship under direct command of JCS

b) fighters from nearby carrier(s) launched, but ordered to stand down by JCS

c) and then the coverup

from what ive heard, if the ship had been sunk with no survivors ( &gt; 95% certainty except for heroic medal of honor winnings of captain and crew), massive backlack *against arabs*. (who wouldve been blamed). so yes its not 100% but the evidence is there.

B-Man
08-07-2003, 05:28 PM
well im glad to see b-man admitting hes anti american. whats the difference between his statement and a islamist saying they will attack american troops because america is anti islamist (like in yemen or something?)

Brad, you must be from a different planet. Where did you come up with me admitting that I am anti-American? I am about as pro-U.S. as one can be. I merely said that if we were spying on Israel (especially considering that it was during a time of war) and giving the information we gained to its enemies, that an attack on the spy ship was probably justified. I wish it never happened (this is probably how I would feel if Pedro and Nomar got into a fistfight in the dugout!), but what was Israel supposed to do, sit there and do nothing? Oh wait, I forgot, that is what the pro-terrorist crowd always wants, Israel to sit there and take it without any response...

brad
08-07-2003, 05:30 PM
whatever. you should teach a postgrad class on rhetoric.

MMMMMM
08-07-2003, 06:37 PM
brad, it's NOT RHETORIC, there are HUGE DIFFERENCES between PESTICIDES and HERBICIDES.

When I looked up "Roundup" on Google as per your suggestion, I saw that it was an HERBICIDE--it is sprayed on crops to kill the weeds around them. The GM Soy discussed was resistant to this: in other words, engineered so they could spray more Roundup around it to kill the weeds nearby. Fine. I wasn't arguing that point, and it was in fact news to me. Thanks for the heads-up.

Another thing however is GM crops which are designed to be insect-resistant. They are designed specifically to need less pesticides sprayed on them: they aren't as vulnerable to being eaten by insects in the first place. Whether they spray Roundup on them too is another question to which I don't know the answer.

But PESTICIDES vs. HERBICIDEs isn't RHETORIC: if you think they are why don't you try killing insects with Miracle-Gro or making your garden grow with pesticides...it just doesn't work that way;-)

I'm just trying to help clarify. The Google article talked about Roundup being an herbicide, and that doesn't in any way controvert my statement that some GM crops are designed to be insect-resistant. And the less vulnerable certain crops are to insects, the less need there is to spray them with pesticides. That's why they are designing iinsect-resistant crops: more of the crop will survive the depredations of insects, with less cost of pesticides along the way, resulting in a higher final yield at harvest time at a lower total cost. Killing weeds in the crop fields and dealing with insect attacks on the crops are two entirely different subjects.

brad
08-07-2003, 09:21 PM
'Another thing however is GM crops which are designed to be insect-resistant. '

u realize these crops produce pesticdes themselves (gm'd to do so).

MMMMMM
08-07-2003, 09:29 PM
Yes. Even in nature, chemical defenses are not all that uncommon. It sounds, at least at first reading, like it is probably a lot safer than eating straight commercial insecticides.