Idealistic youth and the Middle-East

A true Middle-East solution would probably result if the Palestinian Authority would adopt non-violent methods of protest similar to what Ghandi used to defeat the British in India.


Clinton gave the PA a true chance in December, 2000.Ghandi had to accept the partition of India.

The Palestinians will also have to accept compromises.


As long as the PA permits Hamas, Al Queda, Iranian, and Iraqi influence in their guerilla campaign, no peace will follow.


The supporters of Islamic terrorism on this board

seem to believe that Israel will give in to violence. They remind me of idiotic rich kids

whose parents sent them to Ivy League schools. They use to parade around shouting that Che Guevara was the messiah. Of course Che Guevara's Marxist-Leninist line would have put them and their parents in concentration camps.


Those same rich kids grew into conservative upper class landowners that whole heartedly support the Republican right wing.


Of course the more serious adults that post here and advocate terrorism should be considered true radicals. The FBI demonstrated to the Symbionese Libertion Army how to deal with them.

"A true Middle-East solution would probably result if the Palestinian Authority would adopt non-violent methods of protest similar to what Ghandi used to defeat the British in India."


Your statement might be tactically sound but it is devoid of principle: Israel is and will remain in the wrong regardless of whatever tactics the Palestinians use, just as if Jim Crow was wrong even if Martin Luther King had been a terrorist. Otherwise, if it weren't for successful nonviolent resistance, it absurdly follows from your statement that the British should still be in India and that the South should remain white-supremacist. Those that facilitate Israel's occupation (e.g., Americans), just like those that facilitated these other evils, have higher duties than to pass judgment on the morality of the victims' response, just as Palestinian terrorists (as opposed to non-terrorists) have little right to complain about disproportionate retalliation.


Statements like yours reflect a typical bias regarding the rights of the competing nations to sovereignty in former Palestine: while Jews have this right automatically, regardless of the tactics their leaders employ (I tend to agree), Palestinians first must suffer occupation for 25 years and then demonstrate Ghandi-like restraint, as if, unique among the peoples of the world, the ticket price for Palestinian self-determination amounts to history's most noble cases of humility and self-sacrifice to achieve political change.


Apart from principles, the notion that Palestinians have tried (and don't continue ot try) peaceful protest is a myth. As noted by Israeli historian Benny Morris, (in Righteous Victims, pp. 340-41), although "the overwhelming majority of West Bank and Gaza Arabs from the first hated the occupation," their initial reaction was often non-violent. The sent petitions; Israeli exiled signatories. The started general strikes; Israel "cracked down with a series of collective punishments," including indefinite curfews, shutting tow public transport, shutting down phone service, sealing businesses, revoking business licenses, limiting travel. "There was a clear lesson for the inhabitants of the territories and the Palestinian diaspora in these events: Israel intended to stay in the West Bank, and its rule would not be overthrown or ended through civili disobendience and civil resistence, which were easily crushed. The only real option was armed struggle." Peaceful demonstrators nowadays meet Israeli stun grenades, truncheons and bullets.


"Clinton gave the PA a true chance in December, 2000. Ghandi had to accept the partition of India.

The Palestinians will also have to accept compromises."


The Palestinians have for more than generation (quite officially by their leadership in 1988) accepted both partition and have made all the compromises in this lopsided game, such as (1) surrender of any claim to 78% of their historic homeland; (2) acceptance of permanent second-class citizen status for over a million Palestinians in Israel; (3) renunciation of armed struggle in exchange for statehood; and (4) unequivocal acceptance of Israel's right to exist within secure borders. Israel refuses to reciprocate, and still has not determined its own borders or recognized the right of any Palestinian state "to exist."


What Clinton and Barak offered at Camp David was this: (1) the additional loss of 10-20% of the occupied territories to Israeli settlements (implying grave permanent loss of water rights); (2) the cutting of the West Bank into northern and southern halves with Israeli sovereignty over the middle; (3) the permanent loss of Jerusalem, the Palestinians' historic cultural center; (4) permanent exile for the families of the 700,000 Palestinians made refugees by force and intimidation in 1947-48 (no "right of return"). Morris: "For the refugee communities, especially in the camps of the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, [no right of return] spelled ideological death. The vision of a return is what had kept them going, the be-all and end-all of their political existence, a major part of their identity, during the previous half century." The hysterical nature of pro-Israeli propaganda in this country is shown by the nearly ubiquitous description of this proposal and its response: Arafat was offered 94% of the occupied territories, and by implication nearly all he claimed to want. His rejection proves that he wants to conquer Israel.


Arafat (apparently speaking only for himself), is now willing to accept even this. But since he has no trustworthy party with whom to negotiate, no such deal remains on the table, if it ever truly was there (note that it is described as "Clinton's," not "Israel's"). Israel continues it's scheme of conquest, colonization and cantonization, with the apparent long-term goal of carving the rest of Palestine into isolated pockets of deprivation and misery. For which we all pay and will continue for many years to pay, in more ways than one.

Israel is and will remain in the wrong regardless of whatever tactics the Palestinians use


At leat you are now being honest about your racist, antisemitic views. One side blows up buses filled with innocent people, including babies, and the other side is in the wrong regardless.


The Palestinians have... made all the compromises in this lopsided game, such as (1) surrender of any claim to 78% of their historic homeland; (2) acceptance of permanent second-class citizen status for over a million Palestinians in Israel; (3) renunciation of armed struggle in exchange for statehood; and (4) unequivocal acceptance of Israel's right to exist within secure borders.


Do you expect anyone to believe these lies? I guess you do, since you continue to post this kind of crap. I've got news for you Chris, renouncing violence doesn't mean anything if you continue to commit and support terrorism. I would also love to see where Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other terrorists recognized Israel's right to exist within secure borders. The goal of these groups is the destruction of Israel, not to see that it has secure borders.

I won't attempt to answer the entirety of your lengthy post and myriad points (as usual, too many for me to attempt to address all at once) but I will now question one of your statements.


Point 3) in which you claim Palestinians renounced armed struggle in exchange for statehood. If they allow organizations such as Hamas to flourish within them, your statement appears to be contradictory with the facts. A government or people which allows major organized groups from within to continue waging real war, has not renounced armed struggle, but rather condones and may even support it. Hamas' long and loudly proclaimed aim is nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel, and the sabotage of any peace process. If Palestinians have indeed renounced armed struggle, they must prevent factions from within from waging war (especially on innocent civilians). And there are more than merely Hamas doing this. Lip service to a desire for peace doesn't cut it when attacks routinely occur. No, the Palestinians have certainly not renounced armed struggle--their attacks have been going on for years. This statement of your simply appears to not hold any water.

He's an obvious radical. He's committed to violence.


Ghandi was imprisoned, beaten, and watched his people exploited and massacred at times. Ghandi's commitment to non-violence never flinched. Ghandi, therefore, triumphed.


The Palestinians have legitimate complaints.They will never triumph, however, while they fund murder through outside radical Islamic fundamentalists that do not accept the existence of Israel.

Chris seems to have an incredible knack for distorting the facts-: watch him now argue how legally speaking, the Palestinians have done all he said above, and they can't stop Hamas, etc. Well if they can't stop Hamas and if they really want them stopped, they could request outside assistance for that purpose.


These organizations should be W-I-P-E-D OUT if they can't otherwise be stopped.


If I were President of a country which was being subjected to such attacks regularly, the attackers would pretty much all be dead by now--even if it meant taking them out along with many of their human shields. I think perhaps Israel should serve notice that further attacks will be met by severe bombing or shelling of the area which originated the attacks. In other words tell the Palestinians they'd better stop Hamas themselves somehow, because if the attacks continue it will just get a lot uglier as Hamas and the other terrorist groups get wiped out en masse.


Go ahead, call ME a Fascist or whatever, but if I were President of a country enduring such attacks regularly, there would have been much quicker escalation and a lot more dead terrorists a lot faster. In other words such attacks, if regular and repeated, would have been deemed intolerable and would have been dealt with as such, and while collateral damage would certainly not have been preferred, neither would it have stood too much in the way of wiping out the terrorist enclaves either.

I agree with you M, but unfortunately, there are too many people in power in Europe and the U.N. that are biased against Israel and will never allow it, politically, to take the self-defensive actions it is entitled to (and which the U.S. would most certainly take if we were in Israel's shoes; See Afghanistan, 2001...). We've seen the double standard time and again, silence or muted criticism of homicide bombings which slaughter innocents, and outrage at Israel's responses (aimed of course at terrorists, not civilians, in contract to the Palestinians, who specifically target women and babies).

"If they allow organizations such as Hamas to flourish within them, your statement appears to be contradictory with the facts. A government or people which allows major organized groups from within to continue waging real war,"


Hamas doesn't "wage war," the Qassam brigades does. So where's your evidence that the PA "allows" the Qassam brigades to "flourish?" If the PA allows it, then doesn't Israel also allow it, given that Israel has at least as good intelligence as you do, and much greater ability to destroy it? Aren't you altogether eliminating by assumption the obvious possibility that there are underground terrorist units in the occupied territories?


"Hamas' long and loudly proclaimed aim is nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel"


In other words, Hamas is the equivalent, in this regard, of the Israeli government, which is loudly not only proclaimed but absolutely prevented the creation of any Palestinian government.


If the PA has to eliminate every political group that refuses to recognize Israel, then the counterpart for Israel would be to eliminate virtually the entire right-wing spectrum of it's political parties, who are no less committed to the destruction of Palestinian nationalism.

If the PA has to eliminate every political group that refuses to recognize Israel, then the counterpart for Israel would be to eliminate virtually the entire right-wing spectrum of it's political parties, who are no less committed to the destruction of Palestinian nationalism.


That might be true if the right-wing groups in Israel were killing babies, blowing up buses and marketplaces, and slaughtering civilians on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, they aren't. But the Palestinians commit such acts and then celebrate in the street by handing out candy.


I can not even believe that you are questioning that the P.A. has a responsibility to crack down on the terrorist groups. Are you serious? How many times has Arafat agreed to do that? I guess his promises are as empty to you as they are to the rest of the world.

i would agree with you from a strategical standpoint if i had a strong enough military to withstand the retaliation, which could come from more than just palestine. it is not clear to me if israel does have a strong enough army, they might or they might not i just dont know enough about it. obviously if you dont have a strong enough army then you cant pursue a strategy based on war.


but philosophically i agree with you 100%.


pat

I'm not a military expert, but my guess is that Israel's army is strong enough to take on and defeat all of their neighbors. They've been attacked by all their neighbors in the past, simultaneously, and prevailed, and Israel is much stronger militarily today than it was during the previous wars.


However, the political fallout from this strategy would be enormous, as the anti-Israel factions in Europe and the U.N. would have a field day, impose economic sanctions, etc. After all, in their eyes, the Palestinians have a right to commit homicide bombings, but Israel does not have any right to fight back. It is the political reasons that would probably prevent such a strategy from being implemented.

I was responding to M's claim that Hamas had to be eliminated because of it's ideology, rather than it's actions.


"That might be true if the right-wing groups in Israel were killing babies, blowing up buses and marketplaces, and slaughtering civilians on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza."


Some settlers do commit occasional murder for which they receive wrist-slaps, if that. Hebron settlers just last week rampaged in what Ha'aretz called a "pogrom" against Palestinian civlians, murdering at least one youngster. But of course you wouldn't know anything about this because you're only interested in reading about and condemning Palestinian terror. Again with the double standard.


But for the most part, they don't need to resort to terrorism because the IDF that you support does it for them. The IDF is "slaughtering civilians on a daily basis in the West Bank and Gaza," but you think that's no grounds for refusing to pass them ammo as long as they mouth usual excuse about "fighting terror."

, then it is my humble opinion that, contrary to what you wish to see, Chris Alger's posts would be left intact.


Unless we redefine anew the meaning of the categories "insulting", "racist", "anti-semitic", "flaming", etc, I fail to see how one would go about erasing Alger's posts on the charge that they belong to any such. I'm curious as to whether you know the difference between debating and simply stating opinions : in the former, we build logical arguments and back them with evidence, while in the latter we monotonously repeat our beliefs.


"Do you expect anyone to believe these lies? I guess you do, since you continue to post this kind of crap."


This "crap" and these "lies" have been substantiated time and again by Chris Alger and others (and on occasion by me as well) time and again. Moreover, a list of books, almost all written by Jewish writers, was provided by yours truly that provides the robust backing of academic research. You, on the other hand, and most other apologists of Israeli actions posting here, have failed to produce supporting evidence for your claims. The best that I recall you, dear B-Man, came up with was the classic "I am not relying on The Economist or anyone else, I can see for myself what the pattern is" ...


Way to go.

If you would bother responding to the points I raised in the post rather than trying to deflect this into a different argument, we could have a discussion.


I pointed out 2 things in my post. One, Alger's self-proclaimed position is that Israel is always wrong no matter what the Palestinians do (which of course includes murdering babies by blowing up buses and marketplaces). The viewpoint that one side is always wrong, no matter what, I believe makes him prejudiced against that side. Do you disagree?


Secondly, I pointed out factual errors in his post, which I believe were intentional, therefore making them lies. Chris is well-informed on affairs in the middle east, he shouldn't be making these kind of mistakes. Particularly, points #3 and #4 were absurd. I suggest you re-review them.

"At leat you are now being honest about your racist, antisemitic views. One side blows up buses filled with innocent people, including babies, and the other side is in the wrong regardless."


And common sense tells us this is so because it's the nature of the most extreme response to aggression, not the nature of the aggression itself, that determines whether aggression is wrong. Thus, if some Poles had responded to the Russian occupation of their country by murdering Russian civilians, then characterizing Russia's occupation as "wrong" would amount to so much anti-Russian racism and bigotry.


You're thinking: but Israel invaded the West Bank in response to a military threat.


[sigh]

You once again fail to see the difference between intentionally targetting innocent civilians, including women and babies, for which there is absolutely no legitimate justification or rationale, and targetting terrorists, their supporters and infrastructure, for which there is a great deal of justification.


Fighting terror is not an excuse, its a fact. If the Palestinians would stop blowing up babies, as I've pointed out before, there would be no justification for any response from Israel.

"If you would bother responding to the points I raised in the post rather than trying to deflect this into a different argument, we could have a discussion."


Who's changing the subject?? Not me, that's for sure.


The subject is clearly laid out, in bold letters, on your post's title: you invite the Webmaster to start deleting "insulting posts" such as Chris Alger's. The damn post is still up, Your Honor. And it is precisely to this that I respond to. (The detracting issues you try to interject leave me understandably cold, as far as this discussion is concerned.)


Try explaining to us how exactly Alger's posts, all moderate in expression and sound in logic, when not full of substantaiting evidence, should be termed "insulting, racist lies" --- if you truly want to stay on subject, my good B-Man.

to the lies I pointed out above, specifically, numbers 3 and 4.


The truth hurts, doesn't it?

First of all, get your facts straight. I said the post contained "racist lies." You were the one that called it insulting, not me.


Second, I already pointed out the lies (specifically #3 and #4).


Third, Alger's statement that Israel is always wrong, regardless of what the Palestinians do (which of course includes blowing up babies), is further evidence of his prejudice. What more do you want?

I stand corrected. You did not accuse Alger of writing "insulting lies", but merely "racist lies" (and "crap"). Which are obviously a lesser charge in your book - but so be it: you still gotta produce evidence on those.


"I already pointed out the lies (specifically #3 and #4)."


Nope. You didn't. The points Chris Alger made are totally valid. They are not to be contested, merely to be analyzed. They are, after all, historical facts. Here's Alger's statement:


"The Palestinians have... made all the compromises in this lopsided game, such as (1) surrender of any claim to 78% of their historic homeland; (2) acceptance of permanent second-class citizen status for over a million Palestinians in Israel; (3) renunciation of armed struggle in exchange for statehood; and (4) unequivocal acceptance of Israel's right to exist within secure borders.""


Which is simply the truth. Kindly read up some, my B-Man, before getting your foot deeper into this. (Start by the book in the link I provide, a kosher link, moreover.)


"Alger's statement that Israel is always wrong, regardless of what the Palestinians do (which of course includes blowing up babies), is further evidence of his prejudice. What more do you want?"


I want accuracy, first and foremost, since Chris Alger didn't phrase it exactly like that. Let me paraphrase: Alger believes that, even if the current tactics employed by some Palestinians are wrong (and they most certainly are), this cannot possibly change the fact that, in the whole conflict, the Israelis have been consistently in the wrong. Not unless we always re-write History according to which side is doing what right now.


Chris elaborated quite strongly, in his response to you. I trust that you do read his posts...

"Israel's army is strong enough to take on and defeat all of their neighbors. They've been attacked by all their neighbors in the past, simultaneously, and prevailed, and Israel is much stronger militarily today than it was during the previous wars."


Israel's armed forces are truly stronger that all the Arab countries combined. On top of that, the Arabs have lost the benign support in this affair that the other, now defunct superpower, the USSR, was offering, even if reluctantly.


The only thing that stops the Israelis from annihilating completely the Arabs is not a moral consideration at all, just pragmatism. (1) They do not need the casualties they will inevitable incur themselves ; all their objectives are been achieved one by one, since 1948, through the "hot peace" they have imposed. (2) Then there's the damn oil and world economic stability to consider. And (3) The Israelis would lose the moral high ground, aka the "free ride", they have been enjoying in the western media since the beginning. AIPAC would have a hard time selling to the American public the necessity to bomb Marrakesh or send troops to Cairo.


Of cource, I'm just guessing! AIPAC I would not put much beyond.


--Cyrus

(3) renunciation of armed struggle in exchange for statehood; and (4) unequivocal acceptance of Israel's right to exist within secure borders."


See responses above by me, and also by M. I am not going to keep repeating myself. These are outright lies coming from Alger. Hamas, Jihad and other groups have a stated goal of the destruction of Israel. I don't consider that an unequivocal acceptable of Israel.

"The viewpoint that one side is always wrong, no matter what..."


I didn't say or imply that. I said the aggression is wrong regardless of the response it invites. If A invades B in violation of international law, A is wrong no matter how B responds. If B commits indefensible evil through terrorism, then A's invasion remains unvindicated and unjustified. Your argument is that criticizing A as wrong if B commits crimes proves irrational prejudice against A. It doesn't follow. Surely even you grasp this.


You now claim that my points 3 and 4 concerning what the Palestinians agreed to in 1988 are “lies.”


Point 3 is “renunciation of armed struggle in exchange for statehood.”


From the Palestinian National counsel (parliamentary arm of the PLO) Declaration of Independence, Nov. 14, 1988 (link to full text at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/pncdec.html):


“The State of Palestine declares its belief in the settlement of international and regional disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the charter and resolutions of the United Nations; and its rejection of threats of force or violence or terrorism and the use of these against its territorial integrity and political independence or the territorial integrity of any other state, without prejudice to its natural right to defend its territory and independence.”


Point 4 is “unequivocal acceptance of Israel's right to exist within secure borders.”


From the Declaration above: “the Palestine National Council . . . affirms the determination of the Palestine Liberation Organization to arrive at a political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its core, the Palestinian issue, in the framework of the UN charter, the principles and rules of international legitimacy, the edicts of international law, the resolutions of the United Nations, the latest of which are Security Council Resolutions 605, 607 and 608, and the resolutions of the Arab Summits, in a manner that ensures the Palestinian Arab people's right to repatriation, self-determination and the establishment of their independent state on their national soil, and that institutes arrangements for the security and peace of all states in the region. Toward the achievement of this, the Palestine National Council affirms: 1. The necessity of convening an effective international conference on the issue of the Middle East and its core, the Palestinian issue, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of the permanent members of the Security Council and all parties to the conflict in the region, including, on an equal footing, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people; on the understanding that the international conference will be held on the basis of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. . . .


Resolution 242 in turn requires “respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.”


Arafat clarified the import of these resolutions at a press conference on December 14, 1988: “it was clear that we mean our people’s right to freedom and national independence, according to Resolution 181 [partition], and the right of all parties concerned in the Middle East conflict to exist in peace and security, and, as I have mentioned, including the state of Palestine, Israel and other neighbors, according to Resolution 242 and 338. As for terrorism, I renounced it yesterday in no uncertain terms, and yet, I repeat for the record. I repeat for the record that we totally and absolutely renounce all forms of terrorism, including individual, group and state terrorism.” I. Bickerton and C. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th Ed., 2002, at 241.


Morris at 608: “At a press conference later that day, [Sec. State George] Schultz declared himself satisfied. The PLO had accepted 242 and 338, recognized Israel, and renounced terrorism . . . .”


Your argument that Hamas and Islamic Jihad reject these concessions is right but irrelevant to the question of whether the Palestinian mainstream has offered more than the government of Israel, who’s position remains essentially a mirror image of the Palestinian rejectionist/terrorist minority: no accommodation for the national rights of others.

Your original reference to "these lies" included all of 1 through 4. Backtracking even before I respond?


My response to 3 and 4 being "lies" is above beneath your response to Cyrus.


And just where is your response to my Russia analogy?

Renouncing armed combat is meaningless if you continue to engage in it. It's double-speak and its transparent. If the Palestinians were not engaging in terrorism and violence, then it might mean something. But the facts being what they are, it is meaningless.


Would you give Hitler credit for renouncing persecution against the Jews had he spoken out against persecution against the Jews in 1939? Well, maybe you would Chris, but any reasonable person wouuld judge him on his actions, not his words. You are enaging in the same double-speak Arafat is famous for.


The PA has been actively involved in terrorism, and has done nothing to stop groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others that do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Furthermore, when thousands of Palestinians celebrate the slaughter of college students by dancing and handing out candy in the streets, and polls show a large percentage of Palestinians support the homicide bombings carried out by these groups, then the claim that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist carries no weight.


It's time for you to start judging the Palestinians by their actions, not their propoganda.

"You once again fail to see the difference between intentionally targetting innocent civilians, including women and babies, for which there is absolutely no legitimate justification or rationale, and targetting terrorists, their supporters and infrastructure, for which there is a great deal of justification."


I have never uttered a word in contradiction of this principle, which I fully accept (although Isreal's justified defense against terrorism resulting from it's occupation hardly justifies the occupation in the first place). My continued and constantly reiterated point is that much Israeli violence falls outside the principle. Although Israel also kills terrorists, I've given very specific instances where Israel has committed indicriminate killing and destruction and outright murdered civilians. These are not acts of "fighting terror," they are terrorism that you support.


You haven't challenged any of them. Instead, you keep on assuming without facts that Israel's actions are in accordance with it's stated principles while pretending that I don't accept the principle. Its wearing thin.

Chris Alger says Israel is in the wrong.


How does this constitute a racist or antisemitic view?

"But the facts being what they are"


Which are what? When has the PA ever engaged in "armed combat" in Israel?

How do a few hundred Palestinians engaging in terrorism prove that most Palestinians haven't made or don't support the specifically documented concessions I identified, that you claimed were "lies?"


"The PA has been actively involved in terrorism..."


Prove it, and not with some factless screed Mona Charen wrote on her way to work.


"and has done nothing to stop groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad"


And precisely what has the PA had the ability to do that Israel in all its might cannot? Facts please.


"the claim that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist carries no weight"


It has to carry more weight than the Israeli counterpart declaration, because no such declaration by Israel exists.


I note that you're shifting your stance from saying that Palestinian political concessions have not been made, to admitting they were made but should be discounted. Where do you get off calling me a liar when you can't you get your story straight?


"Would you give Hitler credit for renouncing persecution against the Jews had he spoken out against persecution against the Jews in 1939?"


No, I'd judge him by his acts. Now where are the acts of the PA that are analogous to those of Hitler? Where's the evidence that Arafat intends to take on the regional superpower with his 35,000-man militias and no armor or air force (Israel has 10 times as many on active duty and in reserves)? What is it about Israel's occupation that makes its apologists long on insults and assumptions but consistently short on evidence? Answer: its existence depends entirely on brute force and the gullibility of the ignorant.

"Israel is and will remain in the wrong regardless of whatever tactics the Palestinians use"


A prejudicial statement if I've ever heard one.


See the first numbered list. He has miscontrued the facts throughout, and 3 and 4 are blatant lies (based on the ACTIONS of the Palestinians, not the double-speak of Arafat which Alger so crafitly relies upon). I would normally give someone the benefit of the doubt, but Alger knows better than to make such obvious mistakes. This was intentionally deceitful, a/k/a a lie.

B-Man, if A rapes B's wife and B responds by murdering A's parents, does that mean A's actions are less amoral? I don't see what's wrong with Chris Alger's statement.

1. It's not merely the ideology of Hamas which I object to, but its ideology COMBINED with its repeated violent attacks upon innocents. If Hamas proper does not carry out thee attacks but its military wing does, then I suggest it is still Hamas carrying out these attacks. If Hamas proper does not want responsibility for this they should disown their own military wing.


2. Whether the Palestinians as a group have agreed on paper to the resolutions you state is essentially irrelevant if the Palestinians continue to attack as they have been doing. It is still the Palestinians who are attacking, is it not? The Palestinian terrorist organizations aren't Chinese, are they? They're PALESTINIAN. And further, as I mentioned elsewhere, if the PA and other Palestinians are really opposed to thiese attacks (and they should be, according to you, since they unequivocally respect Israel's right to exist and have renounced armed struggle against Israel), they cold simply call for outside help to rein in the militant groups you say they cannot control. But, of course, they don't do this.


Actions speak far louder than words. The Palestinians, based on their actions, have clearly NOT accepted the right of Israel to exist with secure borders, nor have they renounced armed struggle against Israel--unless maybe you want to claim that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades are really Irish.

No, it doesn't mean that A's actions are less immoral...but it does mean that B is not fit to be a human being.


If B had instead murdered A this would not be my view, but if he murdered A's parents INSTEAD of murdering A, then he is unfit to inhabit human form.

"If Hamas proper does not want responsibility for this they should disown their own military wing."


But... a disowining is done by words! You would still not be satisfied.


"Whether the Palestinians as a group have agreed on paper to the resolutions you state is essentially irrelevant if the Palestinians continue to attack as they have been doing. It is still the Palestinians who are attacking, is it not?"


The suicide bombers are Palestinians. But what if we were to wait until every single Palestinian is rendered harmless and then talk peace, would that satisfy you?


You realize of course that this is just not the way international affairs are conducted. (Another Zionist first, there.)


"If the PA and other Palestinians are really opposed to thiese attacks, they cold simply call for outside help to rein in the militant groups you say they cannot control. But, of course, they don't do this."


The Palestinians have been begging the United Nations, the European Union and the United States to send in troops and impose peace in the region. Begging is maybe not a word strong enough to descibe the utter desperation of their plea.


The first thing that the Israeli Army did when it invaded the Palestinian-inhabited areas was not to hunt down terrorists but to destroy the whole infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority, until the latter became a totally empty name. (It was tragi-comic watching on TV American reporters cornholing Arafat in his isolated HQ to impose peace when his "authority" had beenlimited to the room he was in. Talk about adding insult to injury!)


After destroying all the nominal ways & means the Palestinian had for imposing order, the Israelis then demanded that the Palestinians immediately impose order! Or else. And then the Israelis went on record as wanting peace and nothing but peace, using every combination of words to say it.


"Actions speak far louder than words."


Indeed they do.

Alger believes that Israel's occupation of the occupied territories is "wrong and will remain wrong regardless of whatever tactics the Palestinians use." This is not an anti-semitic or racist statement. Many Jews in Israel believe the same thing.


If one believes that an occupation policy is wrong and immoral, it would still remain wrong and immoral regardless of tactics used by those being occupied. The tactics of those being occupied can also be wrong and immoral.


Suppose, during the Cold War II, someone had said, "The Soviet Union is and will remain in the wrong regardless of whatever tactics the United States uses." Would this have been a prejudicial statement against Russians? Wouldn't this just reflect the opinion of the speaker, based on his study of the facts, that while it may be true that some tactics employed by the U.S. do not meet his approval, the Soviets will still always be in the wrong?


Alger might be wrong about Israel, but being wrong is not the same thing as being racist.

It isn't really a matter of waiting until every single Palestinian attacker is neutralized. The volume of attacks is simply too heavy, and not close to being at a low enough level to still work around. It has to be stopped.

Directly financing suicide bombers , importing rocket launchers and tank busters (which Arafat's Al Fatah has been directly tied to in the last 6 months) is not renouncing violence. It is double speak.


Arafat's treaties are kept less than the USA history with Native-Americans. Arafat has nothing to stop Hamas. Alger claims that the Mossad created Hamas, which is also ridiculous. He also claims that the press falsifies stories to make Isarael look good.


The truth is if the terrorism stopped, then the press would focus on Israeli abuses (if they actually occur). This is how the British were driven from India.


People like Alger use double speak to justify murder. The ultimate goal of which is the elimination of Israel.

Israel has supplied plenty of proof to the Bush administration in the last 2 months that Al Fatah imports Iranian weapons. They confiscated a boat load of supplies. High ranking Al Fatah members tok responsibilty. Al Fatah (as well as Hamas) daily take crdit for suicide attacks. Historically Arafat has allied himself with Nasser (committed to Israels destruction, The USSR, and Saddam Hussein) The PLO was thrown out of Jordan for trying to topple the monarchy. The proof is overwhelming.


You are the individual with Nazi tendencies.

The Palestinians target Israeli women and children in order to increase the growing disparity of children raised in Israel of the different groups. If they kill and murder women and children, 10 years from now they may have a majority in Israel itself. It's planned generational suicide, and you know it.

It should read generational genocide.

The fact that hamas has not disowned or officially disassociated themselves from their military wing amply shows that Hamas has not renounced terrorism or the practices of its military wing.


It's irrelevant that "disowning" is verabal and it's irrelevant as to whether that would satisfy me. The fact that the military wing of Hamas is still a part of Hamas, shows the intent of Hamas quite plainly.

Alger: Israel is and will remain in the wrong regardless of whatever tactics the Palestinians use


prejudice

SYLLABICATION: prej·u·dice


NOUN: 1a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. b. A preconceived preference or idea.

2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See synonyms at predilection.

3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.


Alger's statement fits definitions 1a, 1b and 2. Furthermore, while this particular statement, taken by itself, may not fit definition 3, the totality of his posts, taken in the aggregate, clearly fit definition #3.


Andy, criticizing Israel is not anti-semetic. But criticizing Israel while simultanetously rationalizing/justifying the actions of the murdering terrorists and their supporters is anti-semetic. This has been Alger's pattern and practice for some time. I don't call someone prejudiced or a racist lightly, but Alger has earned the label.

I believe Alger tends to relate everything back to what he believes to be who was originally in the right or wrong. His tendency to weight this so heavily appears to perhaps color his judgment when it comes to comparing the current tactics used by both sides.


I will say that I believe terrorism is worse even than oppression, and that this most evil of doctrines seems to be gaining momentum worldwide.


As the capacity of humans to inflict damage on one another continues to increase, the philosophy of targeting primarily innocents becomes more dangerous to the whole world and will ultimately become dangerous to the survival of the human species. So, Chris, regardless of whom you think was initially in the right or wrong, I hope you can see that the world cannot afford to have the widespread practice of targeting innocents, and that this therefore must be stopped before weapons of mass destruction become commonplace (which is inevitable at some point).


Dissatisfied or disenfranchised people, or those who merely feel that way (and perhaps the oddball like McVeigh) cannot be allowed the luxury of targeting innocents. The world cannot allow this philosophy and practice to spread and flourish, or I guarantee you that we will all be done for at some future date, as our capacities to wreak death and destruction will only increase over time. So the world has simply got to draw the line somewhere, and I think that the critical point is the doctrine of targeting innocents.

Chris Alger offers a direct citation from the Palestinians' Declaration of Independence -- and you respond by invoking Hitler, reminding us of the Holocaust and accusing one and all of "double-speak". That's just great.


..That Alger et al persist in their attempts to open the minds of some people in this forum is so extraordinary an effort that it verges indeed on the ridiculous.

...don't you think the Palestinians' actions belies their words? And not by only a little bit?

I trust that you are still keen, or at least as keen as me, on getting educated on any matter, if the occasion arises. Which means that you must have read by now the text that was provided by someone else here, detailing the solid support that Israel has offered to Hamas for at least ten years as a counter-weight against Arafat's authority! Those were the words of ex-Israeli officials and not my interpetation. Israel vigorously helped Hamas to grow, Hamas who were always a militant Islamic party, that started out as a relief and humanitarian agency, in order to weaken the moderate majority of Palestinians grouped around Arafat. Hah.


Talk about eating the grapes of wrath...


(And talk about Israel's wish for peace. How can you, after all the evidence to the contrary?)

A philosopher once said of the Soviet Union, "U.S.S.R.; four words, four lies" and went on to explain. Well, Harold Katz is trying his damnedest to surpass the Soviets! Watch.


"Israel has supplied plenty of proof to the Bush administration in the last 2 months that Al Fatah imports Iranian weapons. They confiscated a boat load of supplies. High ranking Al Fatah members tok responsibilty."


The weapons confiscated were all carabins and weapons for street fighting. Exactly the same as those that were used by Palestinians when they were defending their homes and their neighborhoods against the Israeli tanks that were shooting at them, "to kill terrorrists". It's up to fanatical supporters of Israel such as Harold Katz to provide evidence that the weapons confiscated could ever be used in suicide attacks instead of self-defence --- but I'm not holding my breath.


"Al Fatah, as well as Hamas, daily take credit for suicide attacks."


A pure, unadulterated lie. Again, don't hold your breath waiting for any shred of evidence.


"Historically Arafat has allied himself with Nasser (committed to Israels destruction, The USSR, and Saddam Hussein)."


Historically, the Palestinians have suffered heavy casualties at the hands of their Arab 'brothers'. Historically, Arafat tried to get support from every Arab leader he could get and at the same time to avoid the attached offer for patronage of the Palestinian struggle, including Egypt's Nasser. Historically, Nasser tried to make peace with Israel -- read the book I recommended by the eminent Jewish historian that condemns Israel for responding to Nasser's peace feelers with outright hostility. (Yes, it's all out now, folks.)


Oh, and, historically? Saddam didn't exist in Nasser's time. But that's not a lie by Harold, just a tell.


"The PLO was thrown out of Jordan for trying to topple the monarchy. The proof is overwhelming."


The proof actually underwhelming. They were not trying to overthrow Hussein! The Jordan monarch simply decided that having the Palestinians there was too much a provocation for Israel. They were also turning to be a force to be reckoned with -- hence, Black September. The massacre of 1970.


..But what I ask does that have to do with the issue at hand, peace in Palestine?? Nothing, of course. Harold just brings it up because, deep down, the Jordanian 'solution' to the 'problem' is his preferred one for the current situation as well!


"You are the individual with Nazi tendencies."


Not just another lie, but the point where one can safely say : I rest my case.

Don't know anything about this.

"So the world has simply got to draw the line somewhere, and I think that the critical point is the doctrine of targeting innocents."


But I'm the one that's drawing that line, not you. The only terrorism you condemn are those of official bad guys, but you whole-heartedly support targeting of innocents by official good guys. The line you are drawing is when Muslims or Palestinians or officially-recognized terrorist groups target innocents, and I want to condemn all targeting of innocents. You're the one with the "colored" judgment, not me.


Here's an example of terrorism that you support but that I condemn, from The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, concerning Israel's practice of demolishing homes (http://www.lawsociety.org):


"D9 bulldozers were employed to destroy homes in Nablus' old city in order to make way for Israeli tanks. When the military left the neighborhood six days later, Mahmud al-Shubi discovered the demolished home of his family. Late at night they found a small opening to the ground floor of the home and discovered, alive, Mahmud al-Shubi's uncle, 'Abdallah al-Shubi (68), who later died, and Shamsa al-Shubi (67) his wife, who was crippled before the intifada. At 1.30 am eight other members of the family were discovered, all dead, huddled in a circle in a small room: Mahmud al-Shubi's father, 'Umar (85), his sister Fatima (57) his cousin Abir (38) his cousin Samir (48) Samir's 7-months pregnant wife, Nabila (40) and their three children, Abdullah (9), 'Azzam (7) and four-year old Anas." Also recall the story of Jamal Fayid, the 37-year-old paraplegic who was killed when a bulldozer crushed his house in Jenin because the IDF refused to let his family get him out, as documented by HRW's report on Jenin (which I cited in an earlier post) and contemporaneously by the NY Times.


And your response will no doubt be "but it's only collateral damage," the occasional inevitable slaughter of entire innocent families because of the necessary "war against terror." These people weren't deliberately targeted, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time, the IDF had no intention of hurting them, they must not have known they were there. And the Palestinian reports that families were often given too little time to flee their homes and were buried as a result? Probably a lot of racist propaganda and lies, unworthy of being taken at face value like the official pronouncements of "our" side.


So let's ask one of the bulldozer drivers for his version. Moshe Nissim was a D-9 driver in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield whose interview was published on May 31, 2002 by the Israeli paper Yediot Aharonot. "I had no mercy for anybody. I would erase anyone with the D-9 .... I wanted to destroy everything. ... For three days, I just destroyed and destroyed. They were warned by loudspeaker to get out of the house before I come, but I gave no one a chance. I didn't wait. I didn't give one blow, and wait for them to come out. I would just ram the house with full power, to bring it down as fast as possible ... I didn't give a damn about the Palestinains ... It was all under orders. Many people were inside houses we started to demolish. ... I am sure people died inside these houses, but it was difficult to see ... I found joy with every house that came down, because I knew they didn't mind dying, but they cared for their homes. If you knocked down a house, you buried 40 or 50 people for generations." (From translation excerpt reprinted in Covert Action Quarterly, No. 73, Summer 2002 at 4.)


What does this sound like to you? Giving "no one a chance," finding "joy" at destroying houses with people still in them, rationalizing the killing of innocents because "they didn't mind dying."


If words like these came from a Palestinian suicide bomber on his farewill tape you'd cite them as evidence that "Palestinians" have no respect for life and no remorse for it's taking, and then gladly fund bulldozers driven by men like Nissim to slaughter innocents as part of your unprincipled support of terrorism that you fatuously rationalize as "defense," with the same persuasive force that you characterize deliberate targeting of innocents as "murder" while calling reckless targeting of innocents that kills far more as mere "collateral damage," a regretable but inevitable byproduct of a crucial enterprise.


Why don't you take this issue seriously enough to bother with the human rights reports from AI or Human Rights Watch, or the reports of dissident Israeli soldiers who refuse to participate in what they term "war crimes?"

Only a fool would take an individual's (or group's) words at face value when their actions consistently are opposite to those words.

Cyrus: "The weapons confiscated were all carabins and weapons for street fighting. "


The Iranian and Russian-made weapons on board included long-range Katyusha rockets with a 20-kilometer (12-mile) range, LAW anti-tank missiles, Sagger anti-tank missiles, long range mortar bombs, mines, sniper rifles, ammunition and more than two tons of high explosives.


I suppose you need Katyusha rockets and long range mortar bombs for street fighting, eh Cyrus?

Cyrus and Alger don't answer good points, they change the subject, start unrelated arguments, or copy and paste accounts of Israeli reactions to terrorism and cite that as the cause of all violence, rather than a reaction to homicide bombings.

Some incidents may indeed be wrong, and the incident you describe might be one of those. And some individual soldiers may sometimes do very bad things.


Sharon didn't send those soldiers to Nablus with the express directive of slaughtering as many innocents as possible. Suicide bombers however do just that.

If you're not blinded by zealotry, as B-Man seems to be, then you should be able to recognize that Israel's crucial support of Hamas is part of the problem. The point is that Israel has always undermined any moderate Palestinian leadership and any moves by Palestinians or Arabs in general for genuine peace, however open or covert these moves were. That means that Israel has supported (clandestinely of course) even wild and crazy lunatics, such as Abu Nidal and the sheikh ruler of Hamas, knwoing full well that their murderous antics would play into their war-thirsty plans. Precidely as it happened!


I have provided time and again evidence that Israel does not want and never did want genuine peace with the Palestinians or with its Arab neighbors. Never since 1947, if not before (pace Zabotinsky). I have even provided specific sources for extensive, as opposed to episodic, evidence about Israel's steadfast belligerence and intolerance. My post with a short list of books written by Jews is still up, if barely. (Have you ordered any?)


I have tried to be calm and academic in my reasoning. You on the other hand, as well as most supporters of Israeli actions, have not provided evidence anywhere that Israel truly desires peace. Nothing besides Sharon's laughably transparent proclamations and the empty rhetoric emanating from Jersualem and parroted by the media. The facts, however, throughout the last decades, and even more so now, point towards the other direction.


That is all.


--Cyrus

You are simply wrong. That is the point.