More Palestinians Lies

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/31/un.jenin.report/index.html


The link above is to an article on a report by the notoriously pro-Palestinian U.N., concluding that Israel did NOT massacre Palestinians at Jenin, as had been alleged by the Palestinians.


Two diplomats who have read the report said it concludes that Palestinian forces deliberately placed themselves in civilian areas, forcing the Israelis to hunt for them among civilians


It's about time the world started to realize this is a conscious strategy of the terrorist groups.

Yes, it is. When an enemy secrets itself amongst an unknowing population, one that also includes children and babies, as in the recent Gaza attack, humane minds must prevail and that should have precluded that specific attack.

You seem to still be attempting to justify or mitigate the horror of that attack that killed 9 children and others. Why would you continue on this path? Israel has admitted it was a terrible miscarriage of judgment and the rest of the world agrees. Move on.

Actually, I was merely pointing out that it is a specific strategy of the terrorists to hide amongst innocent civilians, thereby using them as human shields. This was not exclusive to the Gaza incident, it is an ongoing strategy, and it is disgusting. It is yet further evidence that one side does not care in the least about the loss of innocent civilian life amongst their own people, let alone civilians on the other side.


I didn't say anything about the Gaza bombing, because I think further discussion of that incident at this point is beating a dead horse.

All enemies throughout history have evaded detection and capture by doing just that..disguising their presence in a sea of humanity. Present day terrorists are not the authors of that particular strategy.

Today, on the European sat-tv channels, one could watch the Palestinian Minister of Information who commented on the latest round of terrorist bombings inside Israel.


Remember that this is a man truly without a portfolio. The Israeli Army has completely destroyed all the infrastructure of the nominal Palestinian Authority. Still there are Palestinian leaders like him that stoically go about their days, meeting foreigners, dispensing help and generally pretending that they have some crumbs of independent conduct.


The Minister didn't mince his words about the bombings. His words were to the effect that the bombers are not just killing Israelis, they are killing Palestinians. How can anyone approve of killing innocent young Israelis and others in that University, he asked, and at the same time protest against the killing of Palestinian youth as happened a few nights ago in the night bombing by Israeli airplanes? We must all put a stop to the senseless killing, he stated. He went on to condemn the bombers and their actions in no uncertain terms and to stress his wish that the road to peace be left open.


That guy's statements should have been all over the American news. Surely you all saw the footage...

The Minister didn't mince his words about the bombings. His words were to the effect that the bombers are not just killing Israelis, they are killing Palestinians. How can anyone approve of killing innocent young Israelis and others in that University, he asked, and at the same time protest against the killing of Palestinian youth as happened a few nights ago in the night bombing by Israeli airplanes? We must all put a stop to the senseless killing, he stated. He went on to condemn the bombers and their actions in no uncertain terms and to stress his wish that the road to peace be left open.


It's good to hear that there is at least one Palestinian official who is saying the right things, but unfortunately, he is in the minority. If he can persuade others to look at things this way, maybe some progress can be made.

I think it's great. Of course it would have been even better if the Palestinians would not have started the infatada after they rejected the best offer for peace that an Israeli government ever offered.


The way I see it is that the Palestinians are losing the conflict. Israel hasn't caved in, their governing authority has been shown to be completely corrupt, and many of the freedoms that they had gained since the Oslo Accords have been dismantled as Israel tries to stop the constant attacks on its civilians. My guess is that this minister is waking up to reality and is starting to realize that the policies that they have followed the past couple of years have been completely disasterous for them. Perhaps some more of their leaders will wake up as well.

“U.N. rejects Palestinian claim,” AP (repeated verbatim in several major newspapers)

“U.N.: No evidence of Israeli massacre at Jenin,” CNN

“U.N. Report Rejects Massacre Claim, “ ABC

“UN Report Rejects Jenin Massacre Claim,” New York Times

“UN Report Rejects Massacre Claim,” Los Angeles Times

“UN Report Rejects Claims of Jenin Massacre,” The Guardian


You might find these headlines odd if I told you that they described a report that failed to include the word “massacre,” but then welcome to the crazy world of reporting about Israel and the Palestinians. Although B-Man claims the UN report refutes Palestinian "lies," an fair reading shows that the alleged lie is so much Israel propaganda, and that the report tends to confirm what I and others have been saying about Israeli depredations and war crimes during Operation Defensive Shield, the April offensive launched by Israel against the West Bank.


The headlines hail one single sentence down in paragraph 57 of the report which reads: “A senior Palestinian Authority official alleged in mid-April that some 500 were killed, a figure that has not been substantiated in the light of the evidence that has emerged.” Para. 56. The report neither confirms nor denies that the incursion amounted to a “massacre.”


In fact, the report concludes that 497 Palestinians were killed “in the course of the IDF reoccupation.” of which an undetermined number were civilians, although the report identifies less than 100 deaths of armed Palestinians. However, “it is impossible to determine with precision how many civilians were among the Palestinian dead.” Para. 57.


In fact, there apparently was no claim by the Palestinian Authority about a massacre of 500, but that initial reports suggested to non-official Saeb Erekat that the casualty figures might be this high, which they eventually proved to be. (Other Palestinians used the word “massacre,” as did Shimon Peres and IDF officials, but the report doesn’t address these claims).


The origin of this comment occurred in the context of an April 10 discussion between Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat about the announced visit of US Secretary of State Colin Powell to the region. Erekat told CNN Anchor Jim Clancy:


"What we're saying, we see an opportunity in the secretary's visit. We want to help in order to insure the success of the secretary's visit, because insuring the success of implementing [UN resolution] 1402 means stopping the killing fields out there, and you know as the numbers I am receiving today is that the numbers of killed could reach 500 since the Israeli offensive began. Thousands of wounded. You know, the Jenin refuge camp is no longer in existence, and now we've heard of executions there."


Note the actual phrase: “up to 500 people,” and the date: before good information about what was happening in Jenin could be obtained. Following this exchange, CNN News Anchor Bill Hemmer stated on air, apparently in reference to Erekat's earlier appearance:


“Also a heavy war of words today, Saeb Erekat the Chief Palestinian negotiator, live on CNN earlier today said, Palestinians have lost now 500 people between the battles in Jenin and Nablus.”


This minor distortion was immediately twisted by the (right-wing) Jerusalem Post the next day, “reporting” that “Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told CNN that Israel had ‘massacred’ 500 people in the Jenin camp.” It was then broadcast around the world as a Palestinian allegation that 500 civilians had been massacred in Jenin.


In fact, the report presents a damning indictment of IDF actions in the West Bank during Operation Defensive Shield, which the major media organs prefer to overlook.


The report is admittedly incomplete (thanks solely to Israel), and consists of a lot of “they say but the other side says” without coming to firm conclusions. It nevertheless provides substantial evidence for my claims that (1) Israel is a rogue state that refuses to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied territories, the only “High Contracting Party” to do so; (2) Israel committed war crimes such as shooting to death medical aid workers and denied civilians – even dialysis patients – from access to vital medical care, killing several in the process;(3) Israel killed more civilians than armed Palestinians; (4) Israel deliberately targeted civilian as well as terrorist infrastructure; (5) Israel effectively prevented the PA from taking actions against terrorists; (6) Israel collectively injured, impoverished, imprisoned and denied food, medicine, employment and education to hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians for the crimes of a handful, and thus terrorized a mass civilian population in order to accomplish it’s political aims, adopting the philosophy and tactics of terrorism; and (7) refused to cooperate with the UN by withholding information and preventing an on-site inspection.


Thus, the report provides a lot of evidence against Israel while refuting a bit of anti-Israeli propaganda that appears to have been manufactured for the benefit of Israel. You would therefore expect that the chauvinist camp would prefer that no one actually read the report, but to still receive the message that “Israel won” the propaganda war. And that’s exactly what we see from the fanatically chauvinist ADL:


“The report's findings that there was no "massacre" of Palestinians by Israel, and that Palestinians deliberately set up terrorist operations in civilian centers should have been accepted as fact long ago. Indeed, the real conclusion of the report is the confirmation of the international community's propensity to question Israeli assertions, while accepting without question wholesale fabrications and exaggerations by Palestinian leaders. This report will be constructive if the international community examines what led them to their embarrassingly flawed rush to judgement, and their reckless haste to condemn Israel based on clear untruths and rumors.”


That’s misleading, of course, but it sure looks good for Israel. Then why the following lead-in? “Secretary General Kofi Annan's report on Jenin was an investigation that shouldn't have been conducted, a report that shouldn't have been written.” And, by implication, a report that shouldn’t be read.


So rather than refuting Palestinian propaganda, the media headlines about the report are good illustrations of the bias I’ve been talking about.


(The headlines came from an internet media search. Other quotes are from the report and from to the article on this subject at electronicintifada.com).

And the bombing was, of course, immediately denounced by Arafat and the PA. These denouncements, indistinguishable from those of the rest of the world, are invariably dismissed as meaningless self-serving by the chauvinist camp, while Israeli claims that it's actions are restrained by nature and taken for purely defensive purposes are just as readily accepted as inviolate truth.


You'd have to go to Stalin's Soviet Union, or perhaps China during the cultural revolution, to find similar cases of this state-worshipping totalitarian mindset.


(And by chauvanist I don't mean everyone that disagees with me about this topic).

The organization Hamas, with its recent senseless attack which killed Israelis, Americans and even Arabs, clearly demonstrated once again that their goal is the disruption of any peace process.


Israel should wipe out/imprison the entire military wing of Hamas. Halfway measures aren't getting the job done and neither did 10% measures during the 2-year+ intifada which has seen well over 70 suicide bombings so far.


It's time to clamp down on their areas like never before and conduct house-to-house searches until the entire military wing of Hamas is captured dead or alive.

This is good news. Too bad though that Hamas doesn't share his perspective.


I believe it's time for Israel to get rid of the military wing of Hamas since the Palestinians surely won't or can't. Failure to do so will only result in more and more suicide bombings as Hamas follows through on its avowed aim of disrupting any peace process (as evidenced yet again by their recent bombing which killed even Arabs as well as Israelis and Americans).

It is counter-productive. When responding to the wild and woolly generalities as the one that started this thread, it's best to bear in mind that some mebers of the audience here get confused with facts.


You stated the case for the veracity of Palestinian claims about the Jenin wholesale slaughter and the falsification of those claims by the media and the Zionist admirers much more persuasively than needed. Watch the effect that facts aboiut Middle East have on an otherwise intelligent and educaced person such as M :


"The organization Hamas, with its recent senseless attack .... Israel should wipe out/imprison .... Halfway measures aren't getting the job done .... time to clamp down on their areas like never before ..."


See? Completely irrelevant.

This was discussed months ago and I responded at length to show why certain approximations of damage based on average population density was a very weak argument, and I also took to task other related assumptions and claims.


More sources cited don't necessarily make things more convincing. This isn't a court of law. It's also not hard to look up tidbits to support one's position--no matter which side you are on --(unless one's position is, say, that aliens from the Gamma Quadrant are really responsible for all the bloodshed in the Middle East. And even then you could probably find supporting material). Too many tidbits creates too much work both for the reader, the responder, and the "researcher." So I'd rather cut to the quick whenever possible.


If the Palestinians are talking about "massacre" (referenced in the above post), I suggest that nothing is indisputably more so a massacre than suicide bombings which kill and wound large numbers of innocents. In other words, who are these people to complain about "massacres" (although I don't believe one took place at Jenin) when they send suicide bombers every week? Jeeeez.....if it were MY country getting bombed like all the time that and I were President...there wouldn't be any more of the responsible terrorist group left, and in fairly short order.


Sharon has exhibited incredible restraint. I'm amazed he has put up with this as long as he has.

"If the Palestinians are talking about "massacre" (referenced in the above post), I suggest that nothing is indisputably more so a massacre than suicide bombings which kill and wound large numbers of innocents. In other words, who are these people to complain about "massacres" (although I don't believe one took place at Jenin) when they send suicide bombers every week? Jeeeez


The quoted Palestinain complaint about Israeli killings came fom Hamas foe Saeb Erekat, chief peace negotiator for the Palestinians for the last 10 years. As the post noted, he didn't use the term "massacre." To suggest that he "send[s] suicide bombers every week" is obscene.


To rephrase you: the goverenment of Israel has a greater right to complain about Palestinian terrorism that kills and injures fewer than the right of Palestinians to complain about Israeli human rights abuses that kills and injures more, although few Palestinians engage in terrorism but Israeli human rights abuses are the official acts of a government you support.


It's a logical and moral contradiction that you can't see only because of your groundless assumption that virtually all acts of Israeli military force are reactive and defensive, ignoring the determinative fact of occupation and that Israel is the occupying power.

1. Israel is LEGALLY on those lands and owns them...even the occupied terrrories, which if I'm not mistaken were part and parcel of an offer from the two Arab nations which owned them (one being Jordan) in order to end the war. It seems the Arabs want it both ways...no make that three ways. They massed and declared they would put an end to Israel...Israel beat them...they offered Israel some lands they owned if Israel would then withdraw...Israel accepted...and now they want those lands back.


2. Even if the occupation were illegal (which it isn't), sending frequent suicide bombers to target the innocent is the equivalent of committing many massacres.


3. A people who cheer by the thousands at the intentional and senseless slaughter of innocents have no moral high ground whatsoever.


4. I argued months ago (and at length I believe) about Jenin. I didn't think it was a massacre then and showed why. Now that it has officially been declared NOT a massacre, I don't see any point in arguing it all over again.


5. Israel's occupation is not a massacre, regardless of how wrong you think the occupation is.


6. Your view that the Palestinians are not attacking is absurd. They're not only attacking, they're especially targeting innocents which is far, far worse.


7. Your view that the Palestinians are not attacking explains your whole position on these subjects. The problem with this view is that any terrorist act by any group could be stretched to be verbally justified similarly (and wrongly). It is akin to (but also different from and less nutty than) the same type of view that would let the perpetrators of 9/11 say they weren't attacking, they were defending against those who are attacking Islam.


8. I don't think you'll ever get it because you seem so deeply entrenched in the idea that Israel is wrong from the outset and has committed many transgressions and injustices. But even if that were so, it would not justify pure terrorism, which is what those suicide bombings are. Humiliation, oppression and such things are NOT terrorism like those bombings are.

1. "Israel is LEGALLY on those lands and owns them...even the occupied terrrories,"


That Israel's occupation is illegal by itself and further attended by violations of international law is widely recognized throughout the world. With the notable exception of the U.S. (after 1971) and Israel, virtually every country in the world interprets UN SC Res. 242 as an internationally binding requirement that Israel withdraw (if you want to debate Israel's interpretation of 242, I think I can handle that softball).


I have no idea where you received the notion that Arab countries "offered" the territories to Israel or that these unnamed countries "want those lands back." Almost all Arab countries long ago accepted the international consensus regarding a 2-state solution.


2. "Even if the occupation were illegal (which it isn't), sending frequent suicide bombers to target the innocent is the equivalent of committing many massacres."


If it's the "many" that determines it, Israel loses the moral battle, as it has killed far more civilians than the Palestinians. But how does terrorism excuse occupation? If the U.S. is invaded and occupied, and some U.S. citizens commit terrorism against the civilians in the occupying country, then the U.S. has no right to complain about being occupied? Ridiculous.


3. "A people who cheer by the thousands at the intentional and senseless slaughter of innocents have no moral high ground whatsoever."


Your persistent deliberate confusion of "some people" ("by the thousands") with "a people" (by the millions) is wearisome. By this standard, almost no country, including Israel or the U.S., has any "moral high ground" whatsoever. Two former and much-celebrated Israeli Prime Ministers, Shamir and Begin, were members of terorist organizations themselves (Lehi and Irgun, respectively) that murdered many civilians with cold-blodded shootings, planting bombs in market places and bus stops, just like Hamas. Does it follow that Israel has "no moral high ground" or that it's people don't have the same rights to live in peace that the rest of the world does? I think not.


4. "I argued months ago (and at length I believe) about Jenin. I didn't think it was a massacre then and showed why. Now that it has officially been declared NOT a massacre, I don't see any point in arguing it all over again."


You didn't bother to actually read the (short) UN report, did you? There was no determination of "no massacre" in Jenin, only that a falsely-attributed of 500 killed in Jenin was probably untrue. The report concluded that at least 497 Palestinians were killed by the IDF, including an undetermined number of civilians, including many children and elderly, even chronically ill people who were refused access to medical care.


5. "Israel's occupation is not a massacre, regardless of how wrong you think the occupation is."


Killing large number of people at once is a "massacre," and that's what Israel did in Defensive Shield. But who cares about the word massacre? Israel murdered innocent people with no more connection to terrorism that you or I. You think this should be rewarded with further aid to Israel just because it's not as bad as suicide bombing. One could argue with as much force that if Country A and Country B attack each other with suicide bombers, we would be justified in arming whichever country uses fewer of them instead of taking a principled stand against terrorism.


6. Your view that the Palestinians are not attacking is absurd. They're not only attacking, they're especially targeting innocents which is far, far worse.


What "view that the Palestinians are not attacking?" Of course Palestinian terrorist are "attacking" and committing offensive actions. What are you talking about?


7. Your view that the Palestinians are not attacking explains your whole position on these subjects. The problem with this view is that any terrorist act by any group could be stretched to be verbally justified similarly (and wrongly). It is akin to (but also different from and less nutty than) the same type of view that would let the perpetrators of 9/11 say they weren't attacking, they were defending against those who are attacking Islam.


Ditto.


8. I don't think you'll ever get it because you seem so deeply entrenched in the idea that Israel is wrong from the outset and has committed many transgressions and injustices.


I'm only deeply entrenched with this notion because it's so obvious. But understand that I don't hate Isreal like many posters here hate the PA and the Palestinians, and don't see much point in playing a "blame game" for it's own sake. I highlight Isreal's depredations to contrast them with the constant demonization of the Palestinians.


The more important question for me is what should be done that's right. As far as I can tell, you support some vague notion of a Palestinian state, probably according to Israeli terms, but mostly just want to kill Palestinian terrorists and support Israeli ones.


"But even if that were so, it would not justify pure terrorism, which is what those suicide bombings are. Humiliation, oppression and such things are NOT terrorism like those bombings are."


I have never tried to justify terrorism, but you have constantly sought to do so if the terrorism if it's undertaken in "self-defense," or, more accurately, if it's undertaken for purposes of colonization and conquest but the perpetrators claim self-defense.


I never said humilitation and oppression were terrorism. Indiscriminate shooting and shelling, random murder, mining civilian areas, and shoot-to-kill curfews are terrorism, the worst offenses in a broader pattern of human rights violations.

because the suicide bombings intentionally target primarily innocents, instead of primarily military/political figures. Israel does not do this. Palestinians do, and it's a much more evil act, constantly repeated.


REGARDLESS of who is historically right, whose land it is, etc. etc. etc,...the point is that if the Palestinians were waging a guerilla war against the Israeli military and Israeli politicians, by using suicide bombers against THEM, I would not be saying this. I might not agree with the Palestinian rationale for the war but I would not say that the Palestinians were routinely committing far more wicked acts. However the notion that targeting PRIMARILY innocents in order to further political causes is just another facet of the war is wrong. It's pure evil, both in effect and in its inherent philosophy.

well, where are our politicians supposed to make up all that lost campaign (and other) revenue if they stop supporting israel?


answer me that tough guy.


brad

Let me address a few points only, because I'll be off to catch a flight and Chris Alger responded strongly already :


"..even the occupied territories were part and parcel of an offer from the two Arab nations which owned them (one being Jordan) in order to end the war."


Which war? Which offers?? Jordan never offered to Israel the West Bank. Egypt never offered anything either. You are kindly invited once more to peruse the titles I respectfully recommended, written by eminent Jews.


"A people who cheer by the thousands at the intentional and senseless slaughter of innocents have no moral high ground whatsoever."


I sincerely doubt the counting done by the news agencies ("thousands"). But were it true, it would only show the level of desperation that these people find themselves in, not their thirst for blood. It would be useful to learn and understand the daily life of Palestinians inside Israel, under continuous and demoralising humiliations.


"I argued months ago (and at length I believe) about Jenin. I didn't think it was a massacre then and showed why."


How did you know, if you weren't there? People from all over the world, even supporters of Israel, pointed out that massacres of civilians are inevitable whenever an Army is called to perform police duties. The Israeli Army, like every Army, is trained to kill. The police are trained to do other things.


That massacres of civilians happened is not surprising nor can it be seriously contested. We can quibble about numbers for ever. And most of them were not the result of specifically targeting civilians -- the Army could have been trying to get at someone who was shooting back at them. That they didn't extent to wholesale slaughter is the only good thing that came out of this.


As to what were the specific objectives of the Israeli Army's operations, I had quite a laugh (hollow, really) hearing people trying to put that into shape.


--Cyrus

OK here is an excerpt from www.encyclopedia.com (http://www.encyclopedia.com)


Note the agreements described under the section 'Attempts At Peace'


"RENEWED HOSTILITIES


In May, 1967, Nasser mobilized the Egyptian army in Sinai. The

UN then acceded to his demand to withdraw from the

Israeli-Egyptian border, where it had been stationed since 1956.

Egypt next blockaded the Israeli port of Elat (on the Gulf of

Aqaba) by closing the Strait of Tiran.On June 5, 1967, Israel

struck against Egypt and Syria; Jordan subsequently attacked

Israel. In six days, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the

Sinai peninsula of Egypt, the Golan Heights of Syria, and the

West Bank and Arab sector of E Jerusalem (both under Jordanian

rule), thereby giving the conflict the name of the Six-Day War.


Israel unified the Arab and Israeli sectors of Jerusalem, and

Arab guerrillas stepped up their incursions, operating largely

from Jordan. After Eshkol's death in 1969, Golda Meir became

prime minister. There followed an inconclusive period when there

was neither peace nor war in the area.On Oct. 6, 1973, on the

Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli

positions in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. Other Arab states

sent contingents of soldiers to aid in the attack on Israel.

Egypt succeeded in sending troops in force across the Suez Canal

to the east bank before being halted by Israeli troops. Toward

the end of the fighting, the Israelis managed to send their own

troops across the Suez Canal to the west bank, encircling Egypt's

Third Army on the east bank and clearing a path to Cairo. They

also drove the Syrians even further back toward Damascus. A

cease-fire called for by the UN Security Council on Oct. 22 and

23 went into effect shortly thereafter.


ATTEMPTS AT PEACE


In Dec., 1973, the first Arab-Israeli peace conference opened in

Geneva, Switzerland, under UN auspices. An agreement to

disengage Israeli and Egyptian forces was reached in Jan., 1974,

largely through the shuttle diplomacy mediation of U.S. Secretary

of State Henry Kissinger . Israeli troops withdrew several miles

into the Sinai, a UN buffer zone was established, and Egyptian

forces reoccupied the east bank of the Suez Canal and a small,

adjoining strip of land in the Sinai. A similar agreement

between Israel and Syria was achieved in May, 1974, again

through the efforts of Kissinger. **Under its terms, Israeli

forces evacuated the Syrian lands captured in the 1973 war (while

continuing to hold most of the territory conquered in 1967, such

as the Golan Heights) and a UN buffer zone was created."


Chris, from this isn't it clear which lands Israel was to hold and which were to be returned to the Arabs? Now the Arabs want it all back, and incredibly, the Arabs want it all back without returning the lands they themselves stole from the partition of Palestine.

Your statement below is correct in my book:


REGARDLESS of who is historically right, whose land it is, etc. etc. etc,...the point is that if the Palestinians were waging a guerilla war against the Israeli military and Israeli politicians, by using suicide bombers against THEM, I would not be saying this. I might not agree with the Palestinian rationale for the war but I would not say that the Palestinians were routinely committing far more wicked acts. However the notion that targeting PRIMARILY innocents in order to further political causes is just another facet of the war is wrong. It's pure evil, both in effect and in its inherent philosophy.


That's right. As that old bear, Krutchev, said of a snafu, "It's more than a crime, it's the wrong thing to do"!..


I have argued elsewhere that, were the Palestinians more savvy in handling western media, they would have been immolating instead one young person every day, at the footsteps of Capitol Hill. That would have gotten the world's attention (and sympathy) more quickly than you can say Chinese monk.


--Cyrus

The cheering of thousands at the murders of innocents DOES NOT show desperation as you claim, because many desperate peoples throughout history have not resorted to pure terrorism as a routine practice (even those oppressed peoples who took up arms). Rather, it shows a despicable sense of morals and a complete disregard for innocent lives.

M,


For the record, I agree with at least 90% of the posts you have made in the last couple of weeks.


I applaud your efforts to enlighten everyone. However, it's become clear to me that some people can never be convinced to look at these issues with any degree of sanity. That, and the fact that I would rather discuss such important issues as Pedro vs. Sandy Koufax (I bet Chris Alger is a big fan of Koufax!), is the reason I am taking a hiatus from posting on this topic in this forum.


Keep up the good work.

"it's become clear to me that some people can never be convinced to look at these issues with any degree of sanity."


I would agree with the above statement (if only to agree with both M and B-Man in one day!), but only if I could substitute the last word with "objectivity".

I'm getting tired of this too now. However team sports bore the daylights out of me so I vote we change the topic to...mud wrestling. How popular is it today anyway? Is there a high degree of skill involved? Do mud wrestlers make more money than the average stripper? Do they make more money than the average poker player? How easy is it to set up as a business and is it easier to obtain licensing for than a strip club.


My guess is that they make less than the average stripper (harder to get tips?)

No, you can't lump all "Arabs" and their respective states together. The Palestinians weren't parties to the 1973 accords (or involved the negotiations), the accords didn't deal with the bulk of occupied Palestinian land (primarily the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem), and neither Egypt nor Syria purported to speak for the Palestinians or "give" Israel any right of occupation in Jerusalem, the West Bank or Gaza.

I expect nothing less than 8 documented references on Mud Wrestling in support of your beliefs on the issue.