Hamas Military Wing Vows to Target Homes

[adios]

When this comes to pass I doubt if we'll read any outrage posts by Alger or Cyrus.

Hamas Military Wing Vows to Target Homes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1312&ncid=1312&e=9&u=/ap/20030910/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_militants_1)

[nicky g]

Tom,

Let me explain why, again. Noone writes outrage posts about Hamas's murder of civilians etc because there is virtually noone that needs convincing that these are bad things; everyone thinks the bombings are wrong. The same is true in the world at large; Hamas et al are routinely vilified by the media and governments. On the other hand there are many people here who do not believe the occupation, or the wall, or the way the IDF behaves, are wrong; Sharon is treated as a great dignitary by leaders. Hence people such as Chris, Cyrus and myself will evidence and arguments to try and make people see otherwise; that Israel shares a great deal of responsibility for the conflict (and the collapse of the ceasefire), that Sharon has committed terrible war crimes, that Israel treats the Palestinians shamefully etc. It really is as simple as that.

[adios]

nicky,

I really believe that your posts are intended to raise the conciousness level of people as to what is occurring in the Middle East. I don't get that impression from the other two. The latest post from Alger regarding the 9/11 conspiracy was a complete excercise in disinformation IMO. Perhaps I'm way off on that as well.

Tom

[B-Man]

This latest threat is beyond absurd. So now residences are "legitimate" targets? I guess we can add them to the list of other "legitimate" targets, including women, children, teenagers, discos, markets, buses, etc. Israel must really be skaking in its shoes after this threat!

How can Hamas possibly think that any threat they make would have any deterrent effect whatsoever? Hamas already does everything in its power to murder innocent Israelis... but wait, now they are REALLY going to try to murder innocent Israelis!

Hamas is a despicable organization of lunatics, fanatics and evil people. Everyone in Hamas needs to be arrested or killed, but preferably killed, so they can't be let out of jail in the revolving door of prisoner releases, only to come back and kill again.

I hope Israel steps up their targetted killings of Hamas. Wipe them out, all of them, as quickly as possible.

[Chris Alger]

In the first place, I don't see any difference between blowing up houses and blowing up buses, so I don't see how much as changed.

To respond to your latest swipe, however, I'll point out that I've made quite a few posts condemning Israeli attacks on houses, apartments, schools, markets, mosques, churches, hospitals and even ambulances, killing and maiming innocent people sleeping at home, walking or playing on the street, working in fields, fleeing from violence or tending to the injured.[1]

I don't recall you mentioning that events like these bothered you, at least to the point where you denounced the support provided it by the U.S., which occurs in your name and makes it possible. (You recently ridiculed my suggestion that the U.S. should halt such aid). On the other hand, I presume that if some country gave $3 billion in lethal aid per year to Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Hamas that you would that country supports terrorism, and that the supporters of such aid are loathesome supporters of same.

So let me be clear what I mean by "terrorism:" deliberately targeting civilians to accomplish poltical ends, regardless of whether its done with a suicide belt or a tank. Israel is guilty of terrorism because it targets civilians to accomplish the political end of maintaining its occupation and colonization of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This conquest has been repeatedly denounced and condemned both by the General Assembly and the Security Council, but the international community is unable to do more than complain given the intransigence and blocking efforts by the U.S. (Israel is in violation of more SC resolutions than any country in the world, including Iraq, and these are the ones the U.S. hasn't vetoed).

The only differences between Israeli and Palestinian terrorism that the Palestinian terrorists tend admit that killing is their goal while Israel insists that it's higher body count is the result of a weekly series of unintended "accidents," despite the prevalence of indiscriminate attacks on densely populated areas and sniper shots to the head and the obvious advantages of encouraging the Palestinians, particularly those of ability and means, to leave what's left of their homeland in order to make way for further colonization.

I'm opposed to terrorism and think that Americans shouldn't lend material or political support for it. My country condmens and refuses to support Palestinian terrorism. This is good. But my country continues to support, directly and deliberately, Israeli terrorism. Therefore, the task is clear: Americans have a special obligation to speak out against support for Israeli violence against civilians. Americans who renounce Palestinian terror while supporting Israeli terror are simple hypocrites, no different than others who passionately denounce the crimes of others while remaining wilfully complicit in their own. No person of any sense would take seriously denunciations about terrorism from such hypocrites, and neither do me or Cyrus.

One cannot mask obvious hypocrisy by loudly insisting in the face of all evidence to the contrary that "Palestinians incite and attack, Israel merely retalliates." The Israeli cabinet's conditions to the Roadmap (http://www.likud.nl/ref31.html) underscore the absurdity of this myth by refusing to acknowledge that Israel has or will have any duty to refrain from attacking civilians regardless of what the Palestinian terrorists do or don't do. The conditions insist throughout that Palestinians have a unique obligation, even a precondition, to impose "total quiet" in the occupied territories, to cease not only terror but all forms of resistance to the occupation, and indeed all forms of "incitement" against Israel. Israel, however, will remain free to respond in the usual manner: "As in the other mutual frameworks, the Roadmap will not state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians."

Not against the "terrorists" or even "militants," but "the Palestinians." The words were chosen carefully. It's how the cabinet can authorize the killing of innocents while proclaiming faithful adherence to the "peace process," claims that are typically repeated without ridicule or even skepticism in the U.S. media.

_________________________________
[1] To take one example, this passage is from the Human Rights Watch Report on Jenin (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/israel3/) regarding IDF actions last year:

"Among the civilian deaths were those of Kamal Zgheir, a fifty-seven-year-old wheelchair-bound man who was shot and run over by a tank on a major road outside the camp on April 10, even though he had a white flag attached to his wheelchair; fifty-eight year old Mariam Wishahi, killed by a missile in her home on April 6 just hours after her unarmed son was shot in the street; Jamal Fayid, a thirty-seven-year old paralyzed man who was crushed in the rubble of his home on April 7 despite his family’s pleas to be allowed to remove him; and fourteen-year-old Faris Zaiban, who was killed by fire from an IDF armored car as he went to buy groceries when the IDF-imposed curfew was temporarily lifted on April 11. . . .
Sixty-five-year-old Muhammad Abu Saba‘a had to plead with an IDF bulldozer operator to stop demolishing his home while his family remained inside; when he returned to his half-demolished home, he was shot dead by an Israeli soldier.”

Another example is provided by Israeli reporter Gideon Levy from last December: "A week ago Friday, 10 people were killed, including one woman and two employees of UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, in a failed liquidation operation in Al-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Earlier that week, a 95-year-old woman who was traveling in a taxicab near Ramallah was shot to death by a soldier. And a couple of days before that, soldiers demolished a building, burying under the rubble a 70-year-man who was inside. All told, more than 30 Palestinians were killed in the first 10 days of December, at least half of them innocent civilians. What was once an 'anomaly' has become a daily event, and what the army used to investigate, it no longer even reviews." "Eyeless in Israel," Ha'aretz, 12/15/2

Hundreds of similar accounts leading to thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries can be found on the various websites of human rights groups throughout the world, including Israel.

[ACPlayer]

Not a particularly surprising turn of events - and not because as M and others would say because of the cultural backwardness of the Arab/Palestinian civilization.

I dont think you understand the point made by those who condemn the Israeli tactics (and by inference some of the US tactics). That does not mean they condone the Hamas tactics.

IMO, the Israeli's bring this on themselves with their heavy handed, approach and lack of real desire to make peace and in doing so they do a disservice to their biggest supporters -- the US. There is little difference in the tactics of Hamas and IDF, specially in the feelings of fear and desperation that they raise in each other. Both are travelling down the wrong, immoral path.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that Israel's approach is heavy-handed, but disagree that they bring the suicide bombings on themselves--for if Israel did nothing, she would still be attacked, as always. Israel sometimes exacerbates the situation but the attacks will never truly cease as long as Israel exists.

It really seems like a no-win situation for all concerned.

Maybe the only solution is resettlement for the Palestinians. If they actually would stop attacking if they were granted a state it might be different, but they won't. Hamas et al will see to that. So it looks like there are two alternatives, since these two peoples just won't get along:

1) kill all the principal terrorists, disarm the Palestinians, build a fence, then give them a state, or

2) resettle all the Palestinians

It looks like that is about it and the road map has failed just as Oslo did. These people won't stop killing each other, and as destruction of Israel is not an option, I see only the two options above remaining. As I said, it would be different if they could live as two states in peace next to each other, but at this point I have reached the conclusion they cannot (especially as long as Hamas and al-Aqsa etc. exist). So that leaves what.

[ACPlayer]

I think you've finally got it.

The Israel policy is designed to resettle the palestinians, who rightfully dont want to be resettled. The ideal solution from the Israel perspective is that the Palestinians cross the Jordan and become someone else's problem.

Israel does not want them in Israel as they want a "pure" religious state not a secular state.

Their right wing wants to continue settlements on the West Bank (with or without a wall) as they consider that a part of Israel and the Palestinians to be squatters. Sharon for one was opposed to the wall because it may become a border for a Palestine.

Israel's policy is clearly to ratchet up the level of tension whenever there is progress towards "peace" so that progress is never made.

It is totally unclear what would happen to the militaristic right wing in Palestine if there was a genuine prospect for an independent state. They would certainly loose the support of the general palestinian population which would now be on the side of ending the violence (polls of Palestinians have shown this to be the case).

I believe I posted some numbers before on how many incidents of bombings have been in the years before Sharon vs the number after he became prime minister and increased the level of violence against the Palestinian populations. So, it could be argued that the present hardline policy of violent action has contributed to the almost 100 bombings since Sharon took office.

[Chris Alger]

"if Israel did nothing, she would still be attacked, as always"

Where's your evidence that Israel has "always" been attacked by suicide bombers?

[MMMMMM]

You might be right about the Israeli hardliners, but most of the Palestinians support Hamas, and Hamas will never truly stop attacking or give up on their dream of reclaiming all of Israel through violence. So that leaves about zero chance for peace, really.

And if there is no chance for peace, the stronger side will win and that's Israel. Might as well be sooner rather than later and get it over with, instead of prolonging the suffering any longer than necessary. If that's the way it's going to be, then might as well get the Palestinians resettled ASAP rather than drawing out this long torture and suffering on both sides. Regardless of right or wrong, or blame, (both sides share some, no doubt) the only thing to do is be pragmatic at this point and take the path that will get it over with. It's not like the Palestinians are the only people in history to have been displaced.

[ACPlayer]

You proposed two solutions. Here is one more:

- Resettle all the Israeli's.


It would work just as well.

Personally, religion is the cause of so much violence that Jews should renounce Judaism, Muslims renounce Islam, Christians renounce Christianity and we all become mono-theists. But then, what will the politicians exploit?

[ACPlayer]

Would you be prepared to offer US citizenship to all the Palestinians so that they can start life here after being displaced?

[MMMMMM]

Wars, suicide bombers, you name it...over time they just keep coming...Israel is never truly left in peace and neither the Arabs nor the Palestinians will accept Israel's right to exist.

At this point the question of who has more right to the land is probably largely moot anyway. All that is reasonably left is trying to find a genuinely workable pragmatic solution.

No way will Hamas ever truly stop attacking. No way in hell. They are completely devout fanatics through and through by now.

So what's left? The struggle will be over only when one side wins. Since who that is is essentially predetermined, the Palestinians would be best off to stop attacking and pack their bags and go off to start new lives somewhere. Note I didn't say what's fair or right or anything else; just how they would be best off. If they even care anymore.

[ACPlayer]

Killing Hamas is like taking aspirin against the chest pain of a heart attack. Treating the symptoms and not the cause. It is a dumb, short-sighted uncivilized non-solution to a despicable symptom of a humanitarian problem.

[MMMMMM]

Sure, in theory that could be a solution; but I'm talking about in practice. Israel is there to stay and they are so much stronger they have to win. So that reduces the 3 choices to 2.

[brad]

well in CA just passed a bill so illegal aliens could get drivers licenses. so i dont see where citizenship would be necessary.;

[MMMMMM]

No, not all. I don't see why other countries couldn't take some too.

[ACPlayer]

That's the problem the Palestinians dont agree. Their politicians believe that they can win by continuing their kind of war (which consists of these suicide bombings).

Israel can't win unless they get kill or drive off every palestinian (or agree to giving them a state - but that is not acceptable).

Should the US support a policy of ethnic/religious (or whatever it is called when non-jews are moved out of their homes) cleansing?

[ACPlayer]

Why not? It would solve the problem and is the approach (getting them to leave the WB and Gaza) that you favor.

Which countries should take them? Why? Why should they go there?

[MMMMMM]

If the Palestinians actually think they can win by what they are doing then they are idiots, so to speak. They can fight and inflict misery, but win??? They actually think they can win???????? O-M-G...that is almost the dumbest thing I have ever heard...not that I don't think you may well be right.

I don't know. I see an impasse at present and the only ways I can see to a pragmatic resolution are the two choices mentioned earlier. Sad but true. Sometimes one side just has to lose. And if you think about it, the Palestinians would be 100 times better off themselves if they relocated. Why they can't see that is beyond me. Hatred can be binding emotionally but sometimes you have to just cut your losses and make a new start. If they can't or won't see this, then that is a form of effective stupidity (as opposed to inherent stupidity).

[MMMMMM]

Why should they stay where they are and be miserable?

[brad]

well at the moment M no one will take them

[MMMMMM]

Well then they should sneak out, at least a few of them at a time. I sure as hell would.

[andyfox]

I had once suggested, in despair, that the best thing that could happen in that part of the world would be for both peoples to completely kill each other off and we could start again with people who are more worthy of the land.

The idea seems less bad as times goes on.

[clovenhoof]

[ElyJon]

Yes when one side wins, but neither side will give up until there is no one left to give up. Both sides fight because from thier perspectives there is nothing else to be done.

Iam reading from Beruit To Jersulaem by Thomas Friedman and the events he talks about are like reading todays newspaper. Nothing seems to change over there. Is suspect that Peace in the Middle East is going to be an oxymoron for a few more centuries.

[ElyJon]

[ QUOTE ]
take the path that will get it over with

[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly would this require? How do you get it over with people who would strap a bomb to themselves and board a bus full of people? What would Israel need to do to militarily to finish this problem? What would it take to have the people of Palestinians surrender in such a way as to guarantee peace for Israel? It is not like an ideology like Nazism or military Bushido that were political quirks that could be overcame with military action. Homeless people do not go away simply because they have been kicked off the corner and they are not any less homeless and distraught if they are arrested as vagrants. What would the status quote be when it ended? I am not trying to dispute your thought of something should be done sooner then later, I am just wondering what an effective something is, or even if an effective solution even exists for the problem.

[MMMMMM]

The smart thing for the Palestinians to do would be to give up--really give up. Then the international community would take their side, pressure Israel, and also help any who wanted to relocate get resettled. If they acted like Gandhis instead of like Mansons or McVeighs they would be overwhelmed with sympathy instead of being despised. They could make the Israelis look bad by comparison, but instead they make themselves look worse. Not to mention that fighting a war you cannot possibly win isn't exactly the brightest thing in the world to be doing.

[andyfox]

The two parties seems determined to have a "final solution," if left to their own devices.

[MMMMMM]

Well I posted 2 possible solutions from a pragmatic standpoint. Both are unfair to the Palestinians but they would still be better than what they are enduring now.

1) resettle them, or

2) kill all of Hamas and any other terror leaders, disarm the populace, buid a fence, then get them massive international aid to start actually building a growing productive society.

I think #1 is preferable to #2, and either #1 or #2 is better than the status quo which appears to be perfectly engineered for eternal misery.

Also of course a permanent peace settlement would be best but that is truly impossible with Hamas. Maybe peace is impossible with the Israeli leadership too, but I'm just looking at it all pragmatically for the moment and trying to see what would be best for the Palestinians, in light of what may actually be possible.

[nicky g]

"No way will Hamas ever truly stop attacking. No way in hell. They are completely devout fanatics through and through by now."

Two of Hamas's political leaders said recently that they would be willing to end the violence if a Palestinian state were founded in the occupied territories. Israel killed one (Shanab) and tried to kill the other (Rantissi).

[B-Man]

I thought you knew better than to take anything Hamas or Arafat said at face value. They are all duplicitous scum. How many lies do you have to hear before you stop believing them?

[ACPlayer]

I think yoiu have it backwards. It is the Israeli leadership that does not want peace that includes a Palestinian state. The palestinian public want it, but not in the ghetto conditions they live in presently -- and the idealogues exploit that misery by making the human missiles.

[Gamblor]

Arabs are given full civil, but not national rights in Israel.
1.2 million Arabs are Israeli. 4.5 million Jews are Israeli.

[Gamblor]

Try www.memri.org (http://www.memri.org)

If you want news FROM Israel instead of what the editor in Atlanta or London decides he wants to show everyone, try
www.jpost.com (http://www.jpost.com)
There's news from where its happening.

[Gamblor]

Lebanon is 10% Palestinian.
Jordan is 55% Palestinian - a MAJORITY!!!
Why are they fighting over a 75 km piece of land?
BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO ISRAEL!

[Gamblor]

These organizations are virulently anti-Israel. Not for any specific reason.
Can anyone else explain why their condemnation of suicide bombings got half a page, but 80 pages were written on Jenin, in which there was ZERO evidence outside of testimonial claims of the "victims"?

[Gamblor]

You have yet to explain these issues:
[ QUOTE ]

Another example is provided by Israeli reporter Gideon Levy from last December: "A week ago Friday, 10 people were killed, including one woman and two employees of UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, in a failed liquidation operation in Al-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Earlier that week, a 95-year-old woman who was traveling in a taxicab near Ramallah was shot to death by a soldier. And a couple of days before that, soldiers demolished a building, burying under the rubble a 70-year-man who was inside. All told, more than 30 Palestinians were killed in the first 10 days of December, at least half of them innocent civilians.



[/ QUOTE ]

So you really believe an 18 year old soldier just up and decided to shoot a 80 year old woman? Are you insane?

Maybe it was because the terrorist was using her as a shield while firing at soldiers.
Maybe she set a trap when the soldiers went into a building to arrest her son.
Maybe, because the soldiers can't walk in the street without being fired upon from house windows, they are extra sensitive to an 80 year old who's son accidently ignites a firecracker.
Maybe, the UNRWA actually hides terrorists, not believing that they are terrorists. For given the might of the Israeli army, the only way for a terrorist to exist is to not have anyone outside his organization know that he is a terrorist.

What you dont understand is that news organizations, especially, Haaretz, the Israeli version of the "National Enquirer" purposefully left out certain details to advance a political end.

After all, the Israeli public DID vote ariel sharon into power, while the Palestinian government is made up of arafat's cronies. Any dissenters in the Palestinian media are "mysteriously" murdered.

You want news? read the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com (http://www.jpost.com)
or maybe:
www.debkafile.org (http://www.debkafile.org)
www.memri.org (http://www.memri.org)

This is news. WITH details.

[ACPlayer]

You can also look at the arutz sheva and Haaretz sites:
Arutz sheva (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/)
haaretz (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/)

Both of these are part of my regular news scan. One is more liberal than the other.

[Gamblor]

Ha'aretz is a scandal rag... like the Weekly world news.
It's junk.

Arutz7 is the ultra right wing news organization. It's a little extreme for these people. I like its solutions, but they, alas, are not practical /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ACPlayer]

What is the difference between the two sets of rights.

South Africa used to have three different sets of rights to three separate groups. They found a way to justify that before it was abolished.

US used to have different rights based on color/sex. We found a way to justify those before they were abolished.

[ACPlayer]

You should consider adding:
Arab news (http://www.arabnews.com/)
asia times (http://www.atimes.com)
Jordan Times (http://www.jordantimes.com)

to your bookmarks and reading list.
The best source of news I find is the radio BBC news hour which NPR relays.

[Gamblor]

Those rights are different.
Civil rights = right to demonstrate, right to fair trial, right to assemble, right to education, etc. etc.
National rights = right to declare itself a nation within a nation - i.e. they get education, trial, etc. etc. but in the Israeli court system. They can't set up their own courts and education systems - private schools are, of course, a separate issue.

[ACPlayer]

Voting rights?
Rights to run for office? Actually I think there is one arab legislator in the knesset - i could be wrong about that.

[Gamblor]

Oh I'll go you one further - I read the palestine times.
What you don't understand about these news organizations in arab countries, is that the government controls all information there. The government also, of course has an incentive in keeping the israelis and palestinians in conflict because it
a) keeps citizens from worrying about problems at home
b) doesn't allow israel to legitimize itself and prosper - despite peace treaties, these countries (kingdoms, really) have a vested interest in getting rid of the Jews - that way they can send the Palestinians back home (from Jordan esp.)

[Gamblor]

Full voting and election rights.

[Gamblor]

Perhaps I should explain the way Israeli society and politics functions.

Most Jews in the region have a close religious attachment to the land. The Palestinians have Jerusalem as a religious site, but it is neither to the degree of Jews nor the historical verification. In fact, nowhere in the Koran is the city of Jerusalem even named. On the other hand, Jerusalem was capital of the Hebrew empire for a thousand years, as well as the forefathers of Judaism, (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) as well as Joseph (of technicolour fame) are buried in Hebron, which is in the West Bank.

After being in exile for nearly 1500 years, most Jews returned to the land under the auspices of renewing the nation that had existed before the exile - this is the fundamental aspect of Zionism - literally the return to Zion (the old hebrew name for Jerusalem). Thousands of Jewish prayers mention the day the Messiah comes so all Jews return to Jerusalem (for example... the most famous one - L'shana ha'ba'a, b'yerushalayim: Next year in Jerusalem! This is a song, written shortly after the exile, that is sung on more than one holiday implying a desire that the next time this holiday comes around, it is celebrated at home, in Jerusalem).

Now, in a modern context, most Jews that eventually did come to Israel came to escape anti-semitism that was rampant throughout Europe - it was believed, justifiably given Nazi Europe in the 1930s and 40s, that the only place where Jews were safe was where they were in control and in majority.

The people set up a democratic government that bordered on Socialism - to provide each and every Jew the opportunity to enjoy freedom without oppression. In fact, half of Israel's population are Jews from Arab nations that expelled them after the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. Repeatedly, Arab nations have attacked with the express intent of "driving the Jews into the sea".

So now, given Israel's status as an established, 1st world nation, it would seem this is all a moot point. But it's only 55 years since independence, and most of the voters still remember at least one, if not more, of the 6 wars Israel has been forced into by its Arab neighbours. The fact that Israel has survived and even grown every time notwithstanding, the people are very jaded of any attempts to talk peace with Arabs, including Palestinian Arabs.

So you have a situation, in a democracy, where most feel that the enemy is ready to strike at any moment. This feeling combined with a democracy leads to very distinct separate lines drawn: Jews in Israel are VERY suspicious of their Arab neighbours, and are wary of any attempt to turn Israel into a non-Jewish majority state - whereby they may be plunged back into a situation where they may have to deal with horrors of the past.

Israelis consider themselves the "new Jew" - that is, one who will not go quietly into the gas chambers and will not allow people to claim they drink christian and muslim blood etc. etc, a rumour that runs rampant in the Muslim world - in newspapers etc.

They fight for their land and fight for their safety and freedom - and Arabs living within Israel are often caught in between. That is not to say there aren't Arab-Israelis who aren't plotting against Israel, but it certainly does not bode well for those who are merely trying to make a living.

To Israelis the Palestinians are simply one more opponent for the Jews to fight against for their survival. Simple as that. And they will not go quietly the way 6 million did in Germany.

Perhaps, imagine this scenario.
The Palestinians are given a state, and full rights of statehood. They use their $150 million grant from the UN not to build infrastructure but to purchase weapons - this has already happened (search "Karine A" on google). Now, with a full army, they attack Israel. Israel's policy, by its elected officials, is to stop this before it starts.

And Sharon was just re-elected this past year. What does that say about Israelis?

[Gamblor]

Palestinians blow up buses, with the only criteria being as many Jews on board as possible. They disguise themselves as religious Jews (as is the case in the most recent bombing in which a Palestinian dressed as an Orthodox Jew and blew himself up on a bus containing mostly children with their mothers) in order to avoid attention. This is designed to allow as many people as possible to get close so that they may be either burned to a crisp by the explosion, or have organs punctured by the nails and shards of metal the terrorist will pack into the explosive device so as to make the death extra slow and painful.

Israelis blow up houses that belonged to bombers who blew themselves up in Israeli buses, and give warning beforehand. Or, they blow up houses of terrorist masterminds who plan bombimgs that blow up on Israeli buses. It is too dangerous to simply walk in and arrest the terrorist as he is guarded by many of his supporters. A police officer walking in there to arrest him would simply be shot by the neighbours. In fact, Israeli missiles are so exact they have been detonated up to 4 seconds before impact because the army felt it would not hit the exact target.

This is what CNN and NPR don't tell you.

[Rushmore]

[Chris Alger]

"Can anyone else explain why their condemnation of suicide bombings got half a page...."

HRW's October 2002 report about Palestinian suicide bombings is 170 pages. AI's Nov. 2002 report is 44 pages long. These are just two of many documents generated by these respected human rights organizations that have unflinchingly condemend Palestinian terror attacks on civilians.

"... but 80 pages were written on Jenin, in which there was ZERO evidence outside of testimonial claims of the "victims"?

Another lie. From the Jenin report: "The team interviewed over one hundred residents of Jenin refugee camp, gathering detailed accounts from victims and witnesses and carefully corroborating and cross-checking their accounts with those of others. Human Rights Watch investigators also collected information from other first-hand observers of the events in the Jenin refugee camp, including international aid workers, medical workers, and local officials. The research also included information from public sources, including Israeli governmental sources, about the incursion." A glance at the footnotes suggests dozens of references to sources such as mainstream media, physicians, aid workers and officials from ICRC, Red Crescent and UNRWA.

Further, the eyewitness accounts that HRW cited in its report haven't even been refuted by Israel or its apologists at CAMERA or ADL.

Or you. Your argument, to the extent one can find it, suggests that because HRW and AI don't condemn Palestinian terrorism as loudly or as frequently as you would prefer, that any criticism by these respected groups of Israel, regardless of the facts or evidence, should be presumed false.

Another reason one knows that Israel is desperately wrong is that its supporters constantly resort to the crudest, dumbest lies and arguments imaginable.

[Rushmore]

So, the analogy is that ceasing to give billions and billions of dollars to Israel is tantamount to an extermination?

If we're all expected to be so even-handed, how about this:

Let's just divide up the VAST sum we send to the region, distribute it, and hope that everything goes well for everyone. Since we just don't seem to need it here in the U.S., let's at least maintain the masquerade of fairness that we so love to perpetuate.

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. It's "The Only Democratized Nation In The Middle East."

I will obey. I will obey. Have you ever seen The Manchurian Candidate?

[Gamblor]

Perhaps I should explain the way Israeli society and politics functions.

Most Jews in the region have a close religious attachment to the land. The Palestinians have Jerusalem as a religious site, but it is neither to the degree of Jews nor the historical verification. In fact, nowhere in the Koran is the city of Jerusalem even named. On the other hand, Jerusalem was capital of the Hebrew empire for a thousand years, as well as the forefathers of Judaism, (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) as well as Joseph (of technicolour fame) are buried in Hebron, which is in the West Bank.

After being in exile for nearly 1500 years, most Jews returned to the land under the auspices of renewing the nation that had existed before the exile - this is the fundamental aspect of Zionism - literally the return to Zion (the old hebrew name for Jerusalem). Thousands of Jewish prayers mention the day the Messiah comes so all Jews return to Jerusalem (for example... the most famous one - L'shana ha'ba'a, b'yerushalayim: Next year in Jerusalem! This is a song, written shortly after the exile, that is sung on more than one holiday implying a desire that the next time this holiday comes around, it is celebrated at home, in Jerusalem).

Now, in a modern context, most Jews that eventually did come to Israel came to escape anti-semitism that was rampant throughout Europe - it was believed, justifiably given Nazi Europe in the 1930s and 40s, that the only place where Jews were safe was where they were in control and in majority.

The people set up a democratic government that bordered on Socialism - to provide each and every Jew the opportunity to enjoy freedom without oppression. In fact, half of Israel's population are Jews from Arab nations that expelled them after the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. Repeatedly, Arab nations have attacked with the express intent of "driving the Jews into the sea".

So now, given Israel's status as an established, 1st world nation, it would seem this is all a moot point. But it's only 55 years since independence, and most of the voters still remember at least one, if not more, of the 6 wars Israel has been forced into by its Arab neighbours. The fact that Israel has survived and even grown every time notwithstanding, the people are very jaded of any attempts to talk peace with Arabs, including Palestinian Arabs.

So you have a situation, in a democracy, where most feel that the enemy is ready to strike at any moment. This feeling combined with a democracy leads to very distinct separate lines drawn: Jews in Israel are VERY suspicious of their Arab neighbours, and are wary of any attempt to turn Israel into a non-Jewish majority state - whereby they may be plunged back into a situation where they may have to deal with horrors of the past.

Israelis consider themselves the "new Jew" - that is, one who will not go quietly into the gas chambers and will not allow people to claim they drink christian and muslim blood etc. etc, a rumour that runs rampant in the Muslim world - in newspapers etc.

They fight for their land and fight for their safety and freedom - and Arabs living within Israel are often caught in between. That is not to say there aren't Arab-Israelis who aren't plotting against Israel, but it certainly does not bode well for those who are merely trying to make a living.

To Israelis the Palestinians are simply one more opponent for the Jews to fight against for their survival. Simple as that. And they will not go quietly the way 6 million did in Germany.

Perhaps, imagine this scenario.
The Palestinians are given a state, and full rights of statehood. They use their $150 million grant from the UN not to build infrastructure but to purchase weapons - this has already happened (search "Karine A" on google). Now, with a full army, they attack Israel. Israel's policy, by its elected officials, is to stop this before it starts.

And Sharon was just re-elected this past year.

[Rushmore]

You proposed two solutions. Here is one more: - Resettle all the Israeli's.

Funny how we are programmed not even to consider this possibility. MMMMMMMMMMM's post, while reasonable and certainly relatively-informed, clearly outlines the thought-process that so many of us have "adopted:"

The Israelis are good and legitimate.
The Palestinians are bad and should accept their marginalization.

Now, what makes this so?

[Chris Alger]

"So you really believe an 18 year old soldier just up and decided to shoot a 80 year old woman? Are you insane?"

No, I think that the thousands of old women and little children that have fallen victim over the years to IDF bullets and shells resulted from a series of unforseeable accidents that result from the IDF's bad luck in recruiting poor marksmen.

She was probably killed for failing to "follow orders."

"After all, the Israeli public DID vote ariel sharon into power"

And the Palestinian public voted Arafat in power.

"while the Palestinian government is made up of arafat's cronies."

While the Israeli cabinet is made up of Sharon's cronies.

etc.etc.

The Jerusalem Post is a Likud propaganda tabloid, a point that was most dramtically revealed when French reporters filmed the point-blank execution of what the Post called a "suicide bomber" while he lay face down on pavement, unarmed and naked but for his underwear. Imagine the reaction if a leading Palestinian paper called for Sharon's murder, as the Post called for Arafat's yesterday.

Debka is a Mossad disinformation conduit and Memri is little more than the usual Daniel Pipes racist raving.

[Gamblor]

I hate pinkos, commies, language police, liberals, and political correctness. I hate "person-hole covers", "spokespeople" and "womyn". I hate "Native Americans" but I like Indians. I hate "African-Americans" but I like black people.

THAT offended me. You are disgusting.
6 million people die. A million families just like yours.
And you joke.

[Gamblor]

The Palestinian public had no alternative.
You don't vote for Arafat, you die.
Arafat merely murdered every possible adversary with any public support.

The Israeli cabinet is made up of publicly elected officials.

As far as your newspaper claims go, you must get a lot of razzing from the bleacher bums out there in left.

[Chris Alger]

And when the Israelis aren't blowing up houses they're planting bombs where they know kids will be walking to school train their guns on children sleeping and playing, in order to maintain their record killing seven times as many children as the Palestinian terrorists.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying that the Palestinians are bad and their marginalization if fine. But the Israelis just aren't going to leave Israel. I'm really just trying to look at it as pragmatically as possible for the moment.

[Gamblor]

Further proof that logic just does not work with some people.

Are you just looking for attention?

What are you trying to accomplish with all this?

Are you just making it up as you go along?

What do you see as the solution to all of this?

Should all governments be dissolved? Maybe would you like to run the whole world? I don't even know what you're doing other than trying to cause trouble.

[MMMMMM]

Well, have you read the Hamas Charter?

It basically calls for pushing the Jews into the sea, and even contains an extremely racist passage quoted from the Hadiths which enjoins Muslims to kill Jews (even the trees and rocks call out to the Muslims in this vein: "There is a Jew hiding behind me! Come, quick, kill him please!" Not exact words but damn near exact meaning, as well as I can recall. You can look it up if you care to).

[Rushmore]

I can see that, and I appreciate your effort.

As reasonable as you seem (I'm not being sarcastic), I imagine you can also see my point.

[Chris Alger]

"the 6 wars Israel has been forced into by its Arab neighbours."

In 1948, Israel's terror operations and ethnic cleansing were well underway prior to the invasion by any Arab "neighbor."

In 1956, Israel unilaterally initiated hostilities by invading Egypt at the behest of France and the U.K.

In 1967, Isreal vehemnetly denounced efforts to resolve the blockade crisis peacefully and unilaterally initiated hostilites by attacking Egypt.

From 1967 to 1970, Israel's "war of attrition" was fought to preserve war spoils in the form of the occupation of the Egyptian Sinai, rather than for any defensive purpose.

In 1973, Israel forced Egypt to go to war to recapture the Sinai after refusing Egypt's offer full peace in return for withdrawing from the occupied territories.

In 1982, Isreal unilaterally invaded Lebanon in order to crush the PLO, at the time scrupulously adhering to a cease-fire despite numerous Israeli provocations, in order to facilitate Israel's planned expansion into the West Bank and Gaza.

Perhaps you should get a clue.

[Gamblor]

This is so out to lunch I have no response.

As far as I see it, you had to find one point to argue with, and weakly at best. There is nobody on the planet who would agree with you. Not even the Arab leaders of the day.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, I do, although I think that from a pragmatic standpoint the idea of resettling the Israelis is just a lot more complicated and less tenable.

[Rushmore]

Although what you say might be true (I don't know if it is), have you ever read the Talmud? Nobody can say there's not a fair amount of, well, debatable material there.

I'm sure it's just a translation problem, etc.

[B-Man]

If you actually believe Israel was responsible for starting those wars, then you aren't just a racist, you are also ignorant.

This one is my favorite:

In 1967, Isreal vehemnetly denounced efforts to resolve the blockade crisis peacefully and unilaterally initiated hostilites by attacking Egypt.

I see... the blockade was a completely innocent and peaceful act on the part of the Egyptians, who followed it up by massing their troops along Israel's border (simultaneously with Israel's other peace-loving neighbors!), but it was Israel that was responsible for the war!

As usual, according to Alger, Israel is supposed to just sit there and take it when it is harmed, threatened or attacked by neighbors, and any response is completely unjustified.

You are sick and twisted.

[MMMMMM]

The Hamas Charter is a modern political document expressing the faith, goals and binding duty of Hamas. Hamas enjoys widespread popular support amongst Palestinians.

Here are some excerpts I just now selected, followed by a link to the entire Hamas Charter.

START SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM HAMAS CHARTER

"But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)."

"Article Eight

Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief."

...
Motives and Objectives

Article Nine

Hamas finds itself at a period of time when Islam has waned away from the reality of life. For this reason, the checks and balances have been upset, concepts have become confused, and values have been transformed; evil has prevailed, oppression and obscurity have reigned; cowards have turned tigers, homelands have been usurped, people have been uprooted and are wandering all over the globe. The state of truth has disappeared and was replaced by the state of evil. Nothing has remained in its right place, for when Islam is removed from the scene, everything changes. These are the motives.

As to the objectives: discarding the evil, crushing it and defeating it, so that truth may prevail, homelands revert [to their owners], calls for prayer be heard from their mosques, announcing the reinstitution of the Muslim state. Thus, people and things will revert to their true place.

Article Ten

The Islamic Resistance Movement, while breaking its own path, will do its utmost to constitute at the same time a support to the weak, a defense to all the oppressed. It will spare no effort to implement the truth and abolish evil, in speech and in fact, both here and in any other location where it can reach out and exert influence.

PART III - STRATEGIES AND METHODS

The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
"The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

Article Eleven

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it."

...

"Hamas in Palestine: Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism

Article Twelve

Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims. And this becomes an individual duty binding on every Muslim man and woman; a woman must go out and fight the enemy even without her husband's authorization, and a slave without his masters' permission."

...


"Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences

Article Thirteen

[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

...

There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it:

The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow. (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)"

...

END SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM HAMAS CHARTER

complete text of Hamas Charter:

http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Israel%20Palestine/Hamas%20Charter.htm

[Gamblor]

I HAVE read the talmud, in fact own a copy of it, and have studied it since I was 10. If you can quote me anything you find debatable i'd be glad to explain you the history, and rationale behind anything therein.

[Cyrus]

"Lebanon is 10% Palestinian.
Jordan is 55% Palestinian - a MAJORITY!!!
Why are they fighting over a 75 km piece of land?
BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO ISRAEL!"

Wow. That surely puts a lid on things. I mean, it's quite obvious : Palestine was an empty place for two thousand years, inhabited maybe by a dozen British guards, and then when its rightful owners returned to claim it, some three million strange-looking towelheads appeared out of nowhere and started whining that they lived there for centuries. The nerve of these people!

Hey, when you're right, you're right. Let's send ALL those Palestinians back where they came from! (Where was that, again?)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"Lebanon is 10% Palestinian.
Jordan is 55% Palestinian - a MAJORITY!!!
Why are they fighting over a 75 km piece of land?
BECAUSE IT BELONGS TO ISRAEL!"

Wow. That surely puts a lid on things. I mean, it's quite obvious : Palestine was an empty place for two thousand years, inhabited maybe by a dozen British guards, and then when its rightful owners returned to claim it, some three million strange-looking towelheads appeared out of nowhere and started whining that they lived there for centuries. The nerve of these people!

Hey, when you're right, you're right. Let's send ALL those Palestinians back where they came from! (Where was that, again?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Finally Cyrus understands! Please tell me you were serious and not posting tongue in cheek. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Rushmore]

I should have worded my post differently. I am not worthy to properly debate the myriad Talmudic interpretations, and did not intend to imply that I am.

OK. I'll ask for three interpretations, two from the Talmud, and one from the language:

1.) "The best of the Gentiles--kill him; the best
of snakes--dash out its brains."

2.)"If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether
married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day--because he had willful coitus
with her she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble."

3.) Shiksa

Maybe I'm just hearing all the wrong things. Contextual problems? What?

[Gamblor]

I was 100% serious.
It shows Cyrus' lack of knowledge concerning the people he supports.

1) Can you tell me about the Palestinian language? How about the Palestinian culture? How about the Palestinian government before 1993? How about the Palestinian ethnicity?
A: You can't because none of those exist! The Palestinians are simply Arabs. There is no difference. They speak Arabic, they have Arab culture.

2) Can you tell me where the name Palestine came from?
A: From the Romans, who named the region Palestine upon exiling the Jews from the area.

3) What is the difference between Palestinians and other Arabs?
A: Nothing. They simply came and squatted on the land when the Romans evicted the Jews.

That's why the Palestinians should live with Arabs in an Arab nation. They are bretheren. Limit the strength of a Jewish nation, and they will die at the hands of the Arabs.

"If the Arabs put down their guns, there would be no war. If the Israelis put down their guns, there would be no Israel."
Debate the truth of that all you want, but it's what Israelis believe, and it might help explain their actions.

[Gamblor]

1) This is the classic anti-semite line quoted. As with all racists, they take it out of context. I have seen that line on more "White Power" and "Aryan" newsletters than I care to admit. If you are one of these people, may god have mercy on you. Anyway, the point is made after describing the life of a Jew in the middle ages, when the talmud was written. It describes the various examples of Jew-hatred at the time i.e. blood libel, torture, theft of possessions. It was a commandment by the rabbis to stand up to oppression.

2) I will look this one up.

Shiksa is the opposite of Kike. Period. Or did the Jews make that one up as well?

[Rushmore]

Slow down there, guy.

I am asking in good faith, so to speak. If your response will be to call me a racist for inquiring, I would just as soon not partake of the discussion.

I suppose I can understand the, uh, leeriness.

Shiksa doesn't have any sort of negative connotation when it is applied to Gentile women? Well, good; I learned that today then.

[John Cole]

[Gamblor]

Never meant to imply you were a racist.
Just that passage is often quoted by white supremacists...
Sorry for the misunderstanding. You're entitled to an opinion, i'll just help make it more informed with whatever knowledge i have thats all.

And as far as shiksa goes, it certainly does have negative connotations. same as nigger, wop, dago, kike, etc. etc.

[Rushmore]

Great. Civility. I appreciate that.

Anyway, let me ask you: Do you consider Maimonides to be a "scholar," worthy of reference?

Secondly: Do you believe there is anything in the legitimate teachings of the Torah and/or Talmud that could reasonably be seen as seeking to distance the race from Gentiles explicitly?

[Chris Alger]

I didn't say Israel "was responsible for" all of those wars. I gave facts tending to refute the absurdly chauvanist statement that Israel has never gone to war unless an Arab country "forced" it to. Israel's responsibility for initiating the 1956 and 1982 wars, however, is beyond all serious doubt, something that you would agree with had you ever read anything objective on the topic.

[Gamblor]

Maimonides (RAMBAM) is absolutely a scholar despite his "lifestyle choices" (not gay... other choices)

There are absolutely teachings that distance jews from gentiles. The Jewish faith is based on the presumption that Jews are the "Chosen People". Laws, i.e. Kosher laws, are explicitly written simply because Jews are "special".

What this does not include is violence in any form against any human. It is written in the Torah (the Old Test.) that god created adam in his own image. Therefore, hurting any human being is equivalent to hurting a creation of God. Period. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, but in general that is the law Jews must follow.

[Cyrus]

Welcome abroad, Gamblor.

Your display of sorry ignorance about the History of the Middle East is nothing out of the ordinary. I have seen worse. There are a lot of people, like you, who believe that Palestine was unoccupied, an empty space roamed by camels and snakes, for two millenia -- and awaiting for the Jews to come back and populate it! ("A people without a land for a land without a people", per Ben Gurion). This is the typical smokescreen set up by fanatics keen on ethnic cleansing.

When you want to get rid of three million people, without killing them (well, not all at once, anyway), you claim that they actually came from "elsewhere". The natural thing to do, then, is to send them back to that "elsewhere" they came from.

Which, of course, is nowhere : the Palestinians were in Palestine for many centuries. Israel is their home, too. Sending them off to an "Arab country" is precisely like Milosevich sending off Kosovars to Albania.

--Cyrus

[Vehn]

[ QUOTE ]
1) This is the classic anti-semite line quoted. As with all racists, they take it out of context. I have seen that line on more "White Power" and "Aryan" newsletters than I care to admit. If you are one of these people, may god have mercy on you. Anyway, the point is made after describing the life of a Jew in the middle ages, when the talmud was written. It describes the various examples of Jew-hatred at the time i.e. blood libel, torture, theft of possessions. It was a commandment by the rabbis to stand up to oppression.

2) I will look this one up.

Shiksa is the opposite of Kike. Period. Or did the Jews make that one up as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

When people look up "strawman argument" in the dictionary there will be a link to this post.

[brad]

'Arabs are given full civil, but not national rights in Israel.'


not allowed to intermarry.

[clovenhoof]

I'm torn. There's obviously no percentage in responding to your post -- you've missed something, somewhere, and you just don't get it. Nothing I say is going to change that. It's a shame, because if what you have said in other posts is true, you have a unique set of experiences and a perspective that could, and should, be invaluable to people with an interest in this subject. Unfortunately, your perspective comes through a filter of self-importance and narcissism that is so thick that what comes out the other side is virtually worthless.

The "final solution" suggestion was not a joke, and I don't believe any rational person would think it was so intended. Andy's post suggested, ironically, that we allow "both peoples to completely kill eachother off". My response speaks for itself.

You quite properly take issue with the idea of the extermination of the Israeli people. The rest of us, Andy included I'm sure, take issue with the idea of the extermination of any people.

You can trumpet the Holocaust all you want, but it does not give the Jewish people a monopoly on outrage. 6 million deaths do not disentitle other people from condemning Hitler for the other 14 million deaths he's responsible for, or Stalin for the 20 million he killed, or Pol Pot for the million or so people he killed. It does not justify atrocities committed by Israel, and it gives them no shield of immunity from criticism from those who disagree with their current policies.

'hoof

[Cyrus]

Congratulations.

I'm speechless by the amount of ignorance so cavalierly displayed in your post. Can you be saved? Doubtfully. Can MMMMM be saved? Maybe.

Here, a few standard book recommendations for you, Gamblor, to curse and dismiss as obvious propaganda by rampant anti-semites:

This is not a debate (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=249242&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

--Cyrus

[clovenhoof]

Uh... okay.

Here's the post I responded to:

[ QUOTE ]
I had once suggested, in despair, that the best thing that could happen in that part of the world would be for both peoples to completely kill each other off and we could start again with people who are more worthy of the land.

The idea seems less bad as times goes on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's my response:

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we could call it "the Final Solution" (N/M)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you're coming from. I don't take anything that Andy said, or my response, as being anything other than a criticism of the idea that we should just give up and just let the Arabs and Israelis completely exterminate eachother.

And yes, I have seen the Manchurian Candidate. Great flick. (???????????????????????)

'hoof

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a lot of people, like you, who believe that Palestine was unoccupied, an empty space roamed by camels and snakes, for two millenia -- and awaiting for the Jews to come back and populate it! ("A people without a land for a land without a people", per Ben Gurion). This is the typical smokescreen set up by fanatics keen on ethnic cleansing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I said nothing of the sort. However, I maintain that if a particular ethnic group has vowed to eliminate a state, as have the Palestinians implicity (by supporting a government that has made this vow) and explicitly (by participating and supporting acts of terror), then if only one group must have the land, the original group stays.
The Jews have nowhere else to go as evidenced by their expulsion from every Arab nation in 1948. The Jews are the only people the other Arabs hate more than the Palestinians.

We are not talking centuries. Jews are talking millenia.

[Gamblor]

Naturally, you quote the obvious sources of anti-Israel sentiment
Norman Finkelstein is a fraud and a troublemaker.
That is common knowledge even among the uneducated.
What's next, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
You cite the same authors who are given no respect from anyone with any authority on the subject - including politicians, academics, and even participants.
He is a classic conspiracy theorist.

[Gamblor]

I am doing nothing of the sort.

My preamble was merely a preamble. I point out that the line presented HAPPENS to be a line oft-cited by those groups.

Then, I go on to explain the context of the line. It is a line meant to describe war and defence. Nothing else.

A strawman argument is one in which the rebuttal completely ignores the arguer's point and takes his response to an extreme case. This, is not what happened.

Good day.

[Cyrus]

"The Jews have nowhere else to go as evidenced by their expulsion from every Arab nation in 1948."

This is a myth. There are Jews everywhere in the world. And there are no longer persecutions of Jews anywhere. (Are you aware of the arguments of non-reform Zionists that were against the notion of a Jews-only state?).

If there's one thing, currently, that fuels anti-semitism among some people, is the treatment of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis.

"The Jews are the only people the other Arabs hate more than the Palestinians."

True. Palestinians have suffered at the hands of their Arab "brothers" as much brutality as visited upon them by the Israelis.

...Now, tell me again, where do you want to send the Palestinians back, exactly??

"We are not talking centuries. Jews are talking millenia."

Another myth. But I'm too bored to respond at length. I'll let Mason elaborate.

[Rushmore]

I mistakenly took your post to mean that the U.S. diminishing its' role in the defense of Israel would be the same as an extermination, which was not such a leap, given the "flash phrase" you used.

As for The Manchurian Candidate, I only meant that we hear the same damned tag lines ("our friends," "only democratized....," etc.) over and over again and again until it's similar to...yes--hypnosis.

No offense.

[Gamblor]

Jews were nearly completely assimilated in 1930s Germany too and look where it got them. Shall I quote Franz Grillparzer, the Austrian author?

"Finally and long overdue, your people, oppressed and disgraced by hatred and maliciousness, have achieved justice: now you enjoy full citizen's rights, but you'll remain Jews nonetheless."

[Gamblor]

Would you care to point out the exact phrases you disagree with me, of Israeli descent?
Are you purporting to tell me that the peaceniks, a clear minority in the country, are the only sources of Israeli sentiment, and Mr Finkelstein is the only source of truth regarding Israeli and Jewish history, then we may as well consult the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for further reading.

In fact, if the Protocols are so accurate, perhaps we should continue with them. Are you aware of how easy my life would be if they were true?

[brad]

'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'

why dont u post a debunking of this i bet it generates most views/replies ever! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(reason i say is because someone supposedly posted this or something on internet but replaced all 'jew' or whatever with 'globalist' or maybe 'neocon', somthing like that, and it supposedly read pretty accurately what is going on today. supposedly anyway. )

[andyfox]

I think you've misunderstood Clovenhoof's post. He was not so subtly criticizing my post. The end result of the "policy" I talked about would indeed be a final solution.

The point of my post is that the endless violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis perpetuates a hundred years of violence. The end result can only be that the two people wish a final solution on one another. Each day brings more killings and threats of killings from both sides.

"Indians," of course, is a misnomer, gien to the people found by Columbus on his first voyage when he mistook his geographic postion on the globe. The "Indians" themselves neither called themselves by a single term nor understood temselves as a collectivity. Thus the idea of the "Indian" must be a White conception. Native Americans are real; Indian was a white invention.

[clovenhoof]

Actually, I didn't think I was criticizing it -- I thought we were on the same page. I took your post as saying, "what's going on right now really isn't a whole lot better than just letting them exterminate eachother."

By naming it "the Final Solution", I intended to be saying that while letting them just kill eachother off has its attractions, it's just not an option.

'hoof

[andyfox]

Almost 100 posts. The Palestinians are killers. The Israelis are killer.

Both statements are correct.

I don't see now anyone who has dispassionately studied the history of Palestine/Israel can feel anything but sorrow over how the two peoples have treated each other.

Look at the posts here: the Palestinians did this, the Israelis did that.

ENOUGH.

Someone has finally got to say: ENOUGH. Time to stop blaming. Time to think about the present and the future and admit the past was a long series of tragic policies, both mistaken and miscalculated, and deliberately venal, by two people who could not accept the existence of the other on their land.

Arafat and Sharon? Please. What can they possibly bring us but never-ending bloodshed?

Without statemanship and courage, the course of events will continue ad infinitum. The tit for tat bickering and bombing is the road to hell. If we're not already there.

[MMMMMM]

True enough. Yet somehow I doubt that any form of "statesmanship" will ever cause Hamas to renounce its bloodthirtsy, genocidal, fanatical, lunatic charter though.

[Chris Alger]

There are huge differences between the two. Arafat has spent most of the last two years surrounded by tanks and under house arrest. There's a lot of media innuendo implicating Arafat in "terror," but informed observers don't take it seriously. For example, not even the U.S. State Department actually makes such claims. It is, after all, absurd to think that someone so incarcerted and monitored could conduct hundreds of attacks by several terror groups without Israel being able to come up with any evidence stronger than vague documents showing small payments to Al Aqsa Martyrs for unknown purposes.

Nevertheless, Arafat has agreed to renounce all violence in exchange for a comprehensive settlement, denounced all terrorism against Israeli civilians, agreed to stop all armed resistance to the occupation, offered to work with Israel's security forces to combat terror, and agreed that Israel can keep most of its settlements and access and control over most the West Bank and Gaza, including full control over occupied East Jerusalem.

The only reason the US and Israel refuse to deal with Arafat is that he refuses to use PA and Fatah security forces to conduct a civil war against militant Palestinians of every stripe.

Sharon, on the other hand, remains in command of the region's most powerful military and constantly uses it to expropriate land, raid neighborhoods, maintain checkpoints and roadblocks, impose curfews, conduct assasinations and so forth, injuring or killing several people, on average, every day for the last three years. He refuses to make even the slightest accomodation for the political or national rights of Palestinians, and has never undertaken even the preliminary steps required by the roadmap.

Sharon is all-powerful but refuses to compromise, Arafat is utter weak and willing to surrender quite a bit, yet we see Arafat as an equal or even greater part of the overall impasse because he refuses to plunge his country into civil war for the entertainment of Ariel Sharon.

[Cyrus]

"Would you care to point out the exact phrases you disagree with me, of Israeli descent?"

I pointed out whole books, as a start.

Do you think you're debating this with someone who is as ill-prepared and ill-read as others, here? There are folks here that are impressed by your verbiage, mistaking it for "information", see. But I have a feeling that you are going to make my day -- day in and day out. Carry on.

"Are you purporting to tell me that the peaceniks, a clear minority in [Israel], are the only sources of Israeli sentiment?"

No, those you deride as "peaceniks", the term also used for anti-Vietnam protesters, are not the majority in Israel. They are, by far, in the minority. This doesn't stop me, however, from honoring them and accepting them as the true conscience of Israel. You, of course, are free to feel different, as do all those who vote, feet first, for Ariel Sharon, Our Man For Peace.

"Mr Finkelstein ....we may as well consult the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Of course. How convenient. Any Jew who opposes official Israeli policy, or who disputes the official Israeli version of History, is an obvious anti-semite, on a par with the anti-semites behind the Protocols hoax. Special venom is reserved for Jewish scholars who meticulously debunk lies and half-truths. Such as Finkelstein.

And ad hominem attacks are the only debating weapon fanatics can use against the work of scholars that puts the lie on Zionist mythology. There's no other retort available. I do understand. Carry on.

"If the Protocols [of Zion] are so accurate, perhaps we should continue with them. Are you aware of how easy my life would be if they were true?"

Of course I am. You told us! You wrote that you read what you characterized as "extremely right-wing Israeli newspapers", with whose content you agree, but also that you find their proposals as "impractical".

"Impractical"! I cannot have a clearer picture of where you stand, than that statement.

[Cyrus]

I also buy the Volkische Beobachter and tune in to the Aryan Supremacist Network, otherwise known as BBC. Timid, pussy-whipped, left-wing rags such as Washington Times don't make it to my desk. I don't listen to radio. And TV has gone to the dogs now that Gordon Liddy's off the air. When the mood strikes, I may put on some Wagner and strut around the house in full regalia. I am not averse to singing out loud key passages; my neighbor says I'm a soprano but my husband says I'm a pain in the neck.

... That's two good deeds done for the day, if you can spot 'em, above! Off to the games. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Gamblor]

Indians has nothing to do with India, as at the time of Columbus' voyage, it was called Hindustan.

Are we unaware of "The Final Solution" as Hitler's nickname for the solution to "The Jewish Problem"?


As far as what Indians call themselves, I'll call them, as a collective, whatever I want.

If an individual, on the other hand, wishes to be called Iroquois, Chippewa, Cree, Algonquin, Oneida, Blackfoot etc. etc. that is what I will call him.

As far as Native Americans, they are neither native, nor American. They migrated here across the Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska, long before this place was called America. So not only have you insulted their heritage, you have deligitimized their history pre-Columbus.

[Gamblor]

Arafat has himself admitted involvement in, at the very least, the 1972 Munich Olympic massacre.

He is a terrorist who only stopped because he is too old. He still signs off on financing for terrorism.

Have you considered, in any way, WHY Israel has decided to isolate him? Why are they paying so much attention to a man who supposedly has not incited any violence? Because he is a trouble-maker, and a terrorist. He murders dissenters, he uses his own people as pawns for personal gain. Half his $1.3 BILLION personal wealth would support the society for a year.

Informed? Informed by who? If you continue to cite names like chomsky and finkelstein, this conversation is impossible to continue.

[nicky g]

Gamblor,

I'd be interested to hear your views on the Sabra and Chatila massacre, and earlier massacres such as Qibya and Deir Yassin.

[Gamblor]

Sharon was never proven involved in the Sabra and Chatila massacres.

The facts are as follows:
The Christian Lebanese Army (aka Phalangelists) had a mutual protection agreement with the Israelis - notably Defence Minister Sharon and General Eitan's doing. Do not for one second doubt the hatred the Lebanese Christians have for the Palestinians, after Arafat's seige of Beirut with 15,000 PLO guerillas and the murder of Lebanese President Gemayel by the PLO. The PLO embarassed the CLA and made the army of Lebanon a loser on its home turf - this was the reason the PLO was booted from Lebanon later on.

What happened there, was the Christian Lebanese Army was sent by the Israeli army to root out the remaining terrorists from the refugee camp, and unfortunately, once they realized they had control, went overboard and murdered another 1000-odd innocents among the terrorists.

There were no direct orders from Sharon or Eitan to simply murder children. They enlisted the CLA to "give them orders whereas it was impossible to give the Lebanese army orders". In fact, the Israeli army never entered Sabra or Shatila. The CLA was NOT part of the Israeli army, there was simply a mutual defence agreement, and the CLA acted of its own free will, spontaneously, without Sharon's prior knowledge. The same way there are direct orders now to avoid targeting civilians, (again, having served in the army, I know this to be fact) Israeli soldiers sometimes are so pent up with rage having lost a brother, or friend to a suicide bombing that they can be a little trigger-happy - but I have never met an Israeli who boasted of killing an unarmed Palestinian.

As far as Sharon and Eitan's implications, read the link below - they admitted they should have forseen the violence that would take place, and were summarily dismissed from their posts. But they did not order, nor did they participate in any of the violence.

I can assure you that Israeli public opinion as well as Sharon's re-election and popular support is the result of 50 years of near-death, and thousands of years of fighting by a hair for survival. Rhetoric yes, but ultimately the truth, as the Israelis see it. And you can't deny opinion.

Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of the condemnations for it.

But ultimately, it is this sort of condemnation that is typical of those looking to vilify Israel.

They cite numerous borderline examples of massacres whose Israeli involvement is sketchy at best, human rights violations where houses are demolished, etc. They ignore the massacres of/by Chechens in Russia, the massacres of/by the Chinese and buddhists in Tibet, and the outright hell of any Jew living in any Middle Eastern country that is not Israel. Many Israelis, including most of my friends, are from Middle Eastern countries who fled to Israel. Jews are not permitted to pray in public, to carry a bible, or to even display the Star of David in any country in the Middle East under penalty of imprisonment and death. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc.

What about those human rights violations? But you'll likely find points of conflict within my argument as opposed to address that question...

It's just that names like Chomsky and Finkelstein ignore things like this in their indictments of Israel. The fact that, as Jews, they are permitted those opinions without fear of reprisal via assassinations as are dissenters under Arafat and in most of the Arab world, is a testament to the Jewish nation. Chomsky and Finkelstein do not fear for their lives. But a Jew, or a dissenter in any Arab nation does.

Sabra and Shatila (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Sabra_&_Shatila.html)

[MMMMMM]

How could you choose Wagner over Mozart or Handel. I'm really very disappointed, Cyrus.

[nicky g]

Thanks for replying. I'll leave it to others to respond to this until I have more time. And the other cases I mentioned?
By the way I like your signature - one of the best Simpsons episodes.

[Rushmore]

The CLA was NOT part of the Israeli army, there was simply a mutual defence agreement, and the CLA acted of its own free will, spontaneously, without Sharon's prior knowledge.

"Without Sharon's prior knowledge" that it certainly would WANT to, and very well MIGHT "act of its own free will?"

Not to constantly call into question everything you say, but am I wrong in stating that it is disengenuous to fail to even mention this possibility, even as a disclaimer? Am I the first to posit it?

[Gamblor]

Sharon was never proven involved in the Sabra and Chatila massacres.

The facts are as follows:
The Christian Lebanese Army (aka Phalangelists) had a mutual protection agreement with the Israelis - notably Defence Minister Sharon and General Eitan's doing. Do not for one second doubt the hatred the Lebanese Christians have for the Palestinians, after Arafat's seige of Beirut with 15,000 PLO guerillas and the murder of Lebanese President Gemayel by the PLO. The PLO embarassed the CLA and made the army of Lebanon a loser on its home turf - this was the reason the PLO was booted from Lebanon later on.

What happened there, was the Christian Lebanese Army was sent by the Israeli army to root out the remaining terrorists from the refugee camp, and unfortunately, once they realized they had control, went overboard and murdered another 1000-odd innocents among the terrorists.

There were no direct orders from Sharon or Eitan to simply murder children. They enlisted the CLA to "give them orders whereas it was impossible to give the Lebanese army orders". In fact, the Israeli army never entered Sabra or Shatila. The CLA was NOT part of the Israeli army, there was simply a mutual defence agreement, and the CLA acted of its own free will, spontaneously, without Sharon's prior knowledge. The same way there are direct orders now to avoid targeting civilians, (again, having served in the army, I know this to be fact) Israeli soldiers sometimes are so pent up with rage having lost a brother, or friend to a suicide bombing that they can be a little trigger-happy - but I have never met an Israeli who boasted of killing an unarmed Palestinian.

As far as Sharon and Eitan's implications, read the link below - they admitted they should have forseen the violence that would take place, and were summarily dismissed from their posts. But they did not order, nor did they participate in any of the violence.

I can assure you that Israeli public opinion as well as Sharon's re-election and popular support is the result of 50 years of near-death, and thousands of years of fighting by a hair for survival. Rhetoric yes, but ultimately the truth, as the Israelis see it. And you can't deny opinion.

Ironically, while 300,000 Israelis demonstrated in Israel to protest the killings, little or no reaction occurred in the Arab world. Outside the Middle East, a major international outcry against Israel erupted over the massacres. The Phalangists, who perpetrated the crime, were spared the brunt of the condemnations for it.

But ultimately, it is this sort of condemnation that is typical of those looking to vilify Israel.

They cite numerous borderline examples of massacres whose Israeli involvement is sketchy at best, human rights violations where houses are demolished, etc. They ignore the massacres of/by Chechens in Russia, the massacres of/by the Chinese and buddhists in Tibet, and the outright hell of any Jew living in any Middle Eastern country that is not Israel. Many Israelis, including most of my friends, are from Middle Eastern countries who fled to Israel. Jews are not permitted to pray in public, to carry a bible, or to even display the Star of David in any country in the Middle East under penalty of imprisonment and death. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc.

What about those human rights violations? But you'll likely find points of conflict within my argument as opposed to address that question...

It's just that names like Chomsky and Finkelstein ignore things like this in their indictments of Israel. The fact that, as Jews, they are permitted those opinions without fear of reprisal via assassinations as are dissenters under Arafat and in most of the Arab world, is a testament to the Jewish nation. Chomsky and Finkelstein do not fear for their lives. But a Jew, or a dissenter in any Arab nation does.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Sabra_&_Shatila.html

Obviously pro-Israel, but there's 3 sides to every story - my side, your side, and the truth.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

... That's two good deeds done for the day, if you can spot 'em, above! Off to the games. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of us suspected you were a female due to your illogical and circular arguments. Personally I was pretty sure you were a Brit as well.

[Gamblor]

You are correct in the possibility.
The Israeli Kahan commission agreed with you and Sharon and Eitan were summarily dismissed as Defence Minister and General Chief of Staff.

The difference, is that the mere possibility that Sharon would have even known about it is enough to require a commission.

But merely failing to consider the possibility is nothing compared to Arafat, who willfully murdered the President of Lebanon Gemayal. Or perhaps the murder of the Olympic Athletes in Munich? If you dissent with Arafat, you die. If you dissent in Israel, you are heard.

Could Bush have reasonable considered the possibility of the 9/11 attacks? Could Arafat have reasonably considered the possibility that his actions re: support of terrorism would bring more harm to the Palestinians than help?

[Rushmore]

I'm assuming the mention of Wagner was intended to simply extend the motif.

But I really would have like to hear reference made to Mahler as well, just to really complete the picture.

[MMMMMM]

No, I think Cyrus was serious. But if she(?)'s going to strut about the house in full regalia she(?) could at least choose the finest accompaniment.

[Rushmore]

This is a legitimate distinction.

The rationale that Arafat utilizes in many of these instances (and there ARE so many) is the fact that it is he and his people being attacked, and his land being occupied, and that therefore, many of the generally-accepted rules of war do not apply.

[MMMMMM]

Even should guerilla war be justified, the pure targeting of innocent civilians for terror attacks is not.

I hold to my formerly stated view that terrorists are, spiritually speaking, sub-animal.

[Rushmore]

I agree. I was referring more to assassination.

[Gamblor]

And the Israeli position is not to murder Palestinians in general.
Perhaps a syllogism would best describe their POV.

Terrorists are sub-human.
Arafat is a terrorist.
Therefore, Arafat is sub-human.

Is Arafat a terrorist?
Today, he has not acted in a manner that directly murders civilians for a political cause.
30 years ago, he did. Admittedly.
Today, he funds terrorist organizations.
He supports textbooks, TV stations, newspapers, that cry out for the murder of Jews. Not Israelis, Jews.

Shall we continue?
Arafat is a terrorist.
The Palestinian people support Arafat.
Therefore, the Palestinian people support a terrorist.

The only way to defeat a terrorist is by force.
Arafat is a terrorist.
The only way to defeat Arafat is by force.

The rest is nitpicking.
Was Abbas (Abu Mazen) threatened by the Israelis?

[Gamblor]

This doesn't stop me, however, from honoring them and accepting them as the true conscience of Israel.

They are absolutely the true conscience of Israel. But they live in a dream world where terrorists will suddenly say, "okay, we have a state, we'll stop pushing for your destruction".

Special venom is reserved for Jewish scholars who meticulously debunk lies and half-truths. Such as Finkelstein.

He meticulously INTERPRETS facts to suit his agenda. That agenda being, of course, a world in which religion doesn't matter, in which we are all equals and happy and all making the same income and all have the same lives. Or to sell as many books and get as much attention and make as much $ as possible.

Unfortunately, this is not a world in which we live.

My reference to the Protocols was in that both the Protocols, and Finkelstein, wrote the same idea - that Jews are banding together to take over the world. Obviously Finkelstein doesn't make such an exaggerated claim, but his view is nonetheless that Jews group together to build and maintain power and wealth for themselves.

Again, if this were the case, then why do I know Jews looking for work, who have trouble securing loans, etc. etc?

[andyfox]

/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[nicky g]

"Jews are not permitted to pray in public, to carry a bible, or to even display the Star of David in any country in the Middle East under penalty of imprisonment and death. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc. "

It's Friday afternoon, so I've decided I can devote a bit of time to the forum after all.
There is no doubt that there is an enormous amount of dreadful anti-semitism in the Middle East. However, what you write is an exaggeration, at least as far as Iran goes, whcih has a population around 30,000 Jews. Jewish religious rights are enshrined in the Iranian constitution and Jews are free to worship. I've provided two links, one from the Christian Science Monitor which I understand is a reasonably well respected organisiation, the other from an Iranian website but by a former LA Times Middle East correspondent. They describe some discrimination and the outlawing of support for Israel, but not as bad a picture as you paint. It's also worth pointing out that the Middle Eastern governements you talk about do not simply discriminate against Judaism alone - Egypt also locks up Islamists, for example, while Saudi Arabia outlaws all religions other than its officially sanctioned version of Islam (unlike Iran). They are dictatorships that outlaw everything thy regard as dissent.


Jews in Iran Describe a Life of Freedom Despite Anti-Israel Actions by Tehran (http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.html)

The Life of Jews in Iran (http://www.khomeini.com/gatewaytoheaven/Articles/LiveOfJewsL)

[nicky g]

For the sake of balance, and because I can't be sure how objective any of these reports are, here's a much more critical report from the US government (I think). It paints a worse picture than the other reports I posted, but still not as bad as yours, and will admit that "In principle with some exceptions, there appears to be little restriction or interference with the religious practice of Judaism. " It says that the main victims of religious discrimination in Iran are adherents of the Bahai faith, about which I know nothing.

From: Religious Freedom in Iran (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13995.htm)

From
"While Jews are a recognized religious minority, allegations of official discrimination are frequent. The Government’s anti-Israel policies, along with a perception among radical Muslim elements that Jewish citizens support Zionism and the State of Israel, create a threatening atmosphere for the small Jewish community. Jewish leaders reportedly are reluctant to draw attention to official mistreatment of their community due to fear of government reprisal.

In principle with some exceptions, there appears to be little restriction or interference with the religious practice of Judaism. However, education of Jewish children has become more difficult in recent years. The Government reportedly allows the teaching of Hebrew, recognizing that it is necessary for Jewish religious practice. However, it strongly discourages teachers from distributing Hebrew texts to students, in practice making it difficult to teach the language. Moreover, the Government has required that several Jewish schools remain open on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath, in conformity with the schedule of other schools in the school system. Because working or attending school on the Sabbath violates Jewish religious law, this requirement has made it difficult for observant Jews to both attend school and adhere to important tenets of their religion.

Jews are permitted to obtain passports and to travel outside the country, but often are denied the multiple-exit permits that normally are issued to citizens. With the exception of certain business travelers, Jews are required by the authorities to obtain clearance (and pay additional fees) before each trip abroad. The Government appears concerned about the emigration of Jews and permission generally is not granted for all members of a Jewish family to travel outside the country at the same time. Jews were removed progressively from government positions after the 1979 revolution"

[nicky g]

To summarise, I think it's clear that Jews are free to worship in Iran, and are officially protected by the law, but are also the victims of various forms of underhand discriminiation.

[Wake up CALL]

It appears the truth (as usual) lies somewhere in between the two viewpoints portrayed by Gamblor and nicky g.

From the International NY Times Jewish Persecution in Iran or not? (http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/aip/press99/101799iran-jews.html)

[Gamblor]

I should have been more specific.

The laws I list are a mixing and matching of laws that are strictly enforced in those nations.

Iran was an oversight on my part and certainly weakens my argument.

However, the point was not anti-semitism. It's the relative treatment of minorities and dissenters. For a list of the differences between Arab and Jewish rights in Israel, click on the thread titled "20% of Israel is currently Arab" (still can't figure out how to make a link to it... sorry) In fact, the Iranian people are among the most tolerant in the region. It's the government that's the problem there, despite the official laws.

As far as the other countries go, there are enough newspaper cartoons and editorials to show exactly where they stand. www.memri.org (http://www.memri.org)

[andyfox]

"Indians has nothing to do with India, as at the time of Columbus' voyage, it was called Hindustan."

So where did Columbus's los indios come from? He thought he was in the Indies, a sort of generic term for the islands thought to exist off the coast of Asia.

"Are we unaware of "The Final Solution" as Hitler's nickname for the solution to "The Jewish Problem"?"

Not sure who you mean by "we," but I am and it appears that Clovenhoof is too. Otherwise his post makes no sense.

"As far as what Indians call themselves, I'll call them, as a collective, whatever I want."

You can call anyone whatever you want. You were the one who said you liked certain names and disliked others. I was trying to explain to you why one name is more accurate than the other.

"As far as Native Americans, they are neither native, nor American. They migrated here across the Bering Strait between Siberia and Alaska, long before this place was called America. So not only have you insulted their heritage, you have deligitimized their history pre-Columbus."

They were the first peoples to live here. So they are the natives. They were the people who were native to the hemisphere when the Europeans came here and found them. Indian historians were the first to use the term instead of Indian. They were native to the Americas for a long time before Columbus came. Columbus felt no qualms about kidnapping and enslaving them. He was a bad administrator but those that followed did a better job.

[Gamblor]

You point out books by fringe authors with no real respect outside the communist/far left community.

Try reading some of Alan Dershowitz's work. THAT is writing. Chomsky can have his (columbia, is it?) psychology or philosophy degree. I'm reading a 25 year old Harvard law professor.

That is the way Chomsky and Finkelstein make their money - by preying on the minds of those looking to lay blame for the unmet expectations of their lives.

[Gamblor]

Re: Columbus:
Upon further research, you are correct.

My explanation for the term indios was erroneous and in fact a myth to make Columbus seem less incompetent.

[nicky g]

Good article. I was aware of the case, which was an ugly incident - the ban on contact with Israel etc is absurd. The outcome of the trial was that three were absolved, and ten convicted and sentenced to various terms in jail. All have now been released, though some are apparently under some form of relase that allows for their rearrest at any time.

[ACPlayer]

Was Begin a terrorist? Were the Indian fighting for freedom from the Brits terrorist? Were the American rebelling against the Brits terrorists? Was the ANC a terrorist group in South Africa?

One man's terrorist is another mans soldier. The tactics are abhorrent to the bystanders with little to lose and to those presently in power trying to hang on by any means..

[MMMMMM]

But the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's soldier" is a vast oversimplification.

There is some crossover in the real world, but terrorists specifically seek to attack and kill innocent civilians in order to draw attention to a political, national, or religious cause.

Guerilla warriors don't have to also be terrorists if their attacks are directed at military targets or personnel.

Also, response to terrorism--taking the necessary steps to deal with the terrorists--is not itself terrorism either.

Think about it. I'm sure you can discern the underlying differences between terrorism and legitimate resistance if you look closely enough at the ideas and practices involved.

To use a contrived and not very well placed example, I submit the following for purposes of illumination of one specific point only. Say you have a grievance with your neighbor, unresolvable through courts or any other legal meanbs. Say this grievance is very serious, and you have determined that you and he are simply going to have to fight to solve it. So you go over to his house one afternoon to invite him outside.

Upon finding him not at home, do you:

A) Decide to return after dinner to settle your score with him, or

B) Punch his 5-year-old daughter in the face

[Cyrus]

This was one short-lived good deed. I was only trying to boost Bruce's morale.

"Many of us suspected you were a female due to your illogical and circular arguments."

The fact that Bruce intensely dislikes me is not big deal. The fact that he speculates, on the basis of my writings which give him grief, that I'm female, says a lot more about Bruce than about my writings. A bit sad, that.

But while Bruce coyly declined to elaborate when asked by MMMMM, you specify that I gotta be female because, hey, females have mostly "illogical and circular arguments".

Tsk tsk tsk. Did the ex take everything, man?

"I was pretty sure you were a Brit as well."

Good call -- but not the way you think. I congratulate you for seeing through the Blairite obedience. Yes, the British public at large does no trust Bush and the arguments for war, one bit. You are correct in pre-emptively disliking the British. They will be on your case real soon. So, kudos, of sorts.

(As to me being Brit, well, I am a Chelsea man, yes. Another half-decent call, Callie.)

[Cyrus]

Gamblor has set as his life's goal to educate poker players about Israeli righteousness. I'm fully supportive because I find his efforts to be life-extending. Really.

I mean, there's this post purporting to set us straight about what really happened in the Sabra massacres and the author can't even get the name of the Phalangists right! (It's not Phalangelists, Gamblor. They are not collectors of fascist stamps.)

OK, enough with the comedy. For those who would like some sober analysis about what happened, they should try a Jewish point of view, namely the concise but penetrating analysis "Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859845177/qid=1063391808/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-0120633-7079804?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), written by Baruch Kimmerling, pp. 94-97, 99-101, particularly. The author, who is surely in for a round of torrential abuse by Gamblor, happens to be Professor of Sociology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

--Cyrus

[ACPlayer]

OK. Lets take a specific example.

For years the ANC (African National Congress) was the major resistance to the Apartheid regimes of Smuts, Malan et al. If they were still at it today, the white politicians in Jo'Burg would use the "war on terrorism" to justify taking extreme measures (even more than before). Sure the ANC killed innocents with their bombings which included among other targets night clubs. Are they terrorists or freedom fighters?

Just because you think something is a duck doesn't mean every one else does.

[Gamblor]

You are implying Kimmerling is sober?
He is a left-wing academic. That is the farthest thing from sober there is.

And your arguments, typical of a leftist, do not attack my account, but rather my character and typing ability. You ignore that I typed it correctly further down in the post. You even go as far as to make predictions as to my next round of action.

You ignore the point and account and instead point me towards an academic (who I have studied) who purports to predict the inner workings of Ariel Sharon's mind. Academics do not have the one thing required: experience. In the real world, real people are involved, whse actions cannot be broken down into perfect and simple academic analysis. You cite the same 5-6 authors, all admitted leftists, over and over. I am citing experience.

Remember: those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

[Gamblor]

The fact that the South African government under apartheid oppressed people is not justification for bombing nightclubs, and freedom fighter or otherwise, I will say it again.
You want to shoot, shoot soldiers. You intentionally kill an unarmed person, you are scum. No excuses about military strength or desperation. End of story.

[ACPlayer]

those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who cant teach consult. Those who cant consult play poker. Those who cant play poker are involved in this forum.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Gamblor]

[ACPlayer]

When speaking from military rather than moral strength. Even though it sounds moralistic - it does not change that fact that one person's terrorist is another persons freedom fighter.

[Gamblor]

I disagree - Did Gandhi not fight peacefully?
Freedom fighter or otherwise, you don't intentionally kill civilians.
You don't support people who intentionally kill civilians.
You don't elect people who intentionally kill civilians.
You don't cheer for people who intentionally kill civilians.

If the Palestinians want any hope of peace, they will stop their support of Arafat, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah(Arafat's Group), who all, explicitly or implicitly, INTENTIONALLY KILL CIVILIANS.

[BruceZ]

those who can, do. Those who can't do, teach. Those who cant teach consult.

I take issue with the last statement. That may be true of business consultants. As a technical consultant, I can tell you that there is a bimodal distribution of us. Some are technical consultants because they can't do, while others are technical consultants because they do very well, and they would like to be paid in accordance with the very well that they do, rather than being held back by those who don't do so well.

I've always said that those who can't do or teach administrate.

I can consult, but I choose to play poker anyway.

[Gamblor]

The first Aliyah did not pack up the Palestinians and say "get out".

The Palestinian Arabs said that. And when the Arabs overtly claimed they weren't interested in co-existing, this steaming pile of S*** began.

And Israelis believe that the most recent violence is simply the latest incarnation of the "Kill the Jews, drive them into the sea" game. But now, the Arab countries are doing it diplomatically while their Palestinian brothers do all the dirty work (cause that's all the other Arabs think they're good for).

The Arabs are far more into ethnic cleansing than Mr Sharon.

[MMMMMM]

I know next to nothing about ghe ANC etc. soo I won't be able to relate to this example other than to say that bombing nightclubs is terrorism.

If they want to be resistance fighters, they should target military or political figures or military installations. If they want to be terrorists they preferentially target the general population.

And one man's freedom fighter is NOT simply one another man's terrorist--some are, but some aren't--that phrase is a myth.

Can't you see where it is sometimes not merely a matter of perspective? True, sometimes it is merely a matter of perspective, but the times it isn't makes the entire platitudinous statement false overall, and diminishes the key moral and actual difference.

[Cyrus]

"You are implying Kimmerling is sober? He is a left-wing academic. That is the farthest thing from sober there is."

For the record, I clearly stated (and not "implied") that Kimmerling's analysis is a sober one.

Are you implying that Kimmerling himself is not sober? Well, then, what's his brand? I will send a case over to you.

"Your arguments, typical of a leftist, do not attack my account, but rather my character and typing ability."

I didn't attack your character. (And I don't have the number of your account.) Once more you engage in misdirection. Wha i did is I pointed out your obviously flippant ignorance of the events at the Sabra refugee camp and of modern Lebanese History. Rushing off a post hastily will not do here, Gamblor, my man,. This is one tough audience.

.."Philangelists", for crying out loud! (Imagine writing "the Nazines".) This is no typo, it's blatant inexperience with the topic, showing through.

"You point me towards an academic who purports to predict the inner workings of Ariel Sharon's mind."

Nonsense. Baruch Kimmerling, the author of "Politicide" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859845177/qid=1063391808/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-0120633-7079804?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) does not speculate and he does not "predict" anything. He states facts and makes as few interpretations as possible, like a good historian. That you have "studied" him, as you claim, allow me to doubt. You would have known, in such a case, the richly sourced and careful work put in his work.

But, perhaps, you do not accept "leftists" as capable of doing a decent job in anything.

"Academics do not have the one thing required: experience and [blah blah blah] ..."

Well, surprise. I'm firmly on the side of BruceZ on this one. And against ACPlayer! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Those who "can", yes, they "do" (but not always). Those who "can't do", they teach. But those who "can do", they usually cannot teach! Take sports and you will get it. What has Larry Bird done for the game as a player? As a coach? ...Now in what team did Phil Jackson set the world on fire playing hoops, I forget? Exactly.

As to consultants, they are the most derided discipline in the business world outside lawyers! But it all depends on the person(s). I have benefitted greatly from some consultants and I have been screwed by others.

"You cite the same 5-6 authors, over and over. I am citing experience."

Studs Terkel you're not.

[Wake up CALL]

"As to consultants, they are the most derided discipline in the business world outside lawyers! But it all depends on the person(s). I have benefitted greatly from some consultants and I have been screwed by others. "

Cyrus, in which category would BruceZ fall? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

"Did Gandhi not fight peacefully?"
Only to a certain extent.

"Freedom fighter or otherwise, you don't intentionally kill civilians."
You do if you're a young Menahem Begin or a young Ariel Sharon. You most certainly do.

"You don't support people who intentionally kill civilians."
Oh yes, you do! You allow them to be heads of important political parties, no less.

"You don't elect people who intentionally kill civilians."
As a matter of fact, you elect them to be Prime Ministers.

...As AC Player said, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. People who planted bombs and killed innocent women and children in Northern Ireland are soon going to be part of the government. Only those unfamiliar with human history would act surprised at such denouements.

--Cyrus

[B-Man]

Those who "can", yes, they "do" (but not always). Those who "can't do", they teach. But those who "can do", they usually cannot teach! Take sports and you will get it. What has Larry Bird done for the game as a player? As a coach? ...Now in what team did Phil Jackson set the world on fire playing hoops, I forget? Exactly.

As a general matter when it comes to sports, you may be right, but you picked a poor example in Larry Bird. Not only is he the greatest forward to ever play the game, but he did a hell of a job the three years he coached the Pacers--he turned a perenially under-achieving team into a winner, nearly brought them a championship, and came closer to defeating the Michael Jordan-era Bulls than anyone else in the 90s (excluding the year Jordan returned from his first retirement to play the last third of the season; that season gets an asterisk). Bird was so good as a coach (best winning percentage in team history) that they re-hired him this summer as the GM.

In support of your argument, Bird is the only star player from the 80s/90s that has had success coaching or as a GM. Look at the others that have failed--Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Isiah Thomas, Kevin McHale (the jury is still out on McHale, but he's not off to a great start). Several that have had some success include Mo Cheeks, Byron Scott and Danny Ainge--all good players, but not superstars.

Phil Jackson, by the way, played in the NBA for the Knicks. He was no Larry Bird, but he could play some basketball.

Some people are good at everything they do because they work hard. Bird is one of them. It was said that Ted Williams was the best in the world in three different fields--hitting a baseball, fly-fishing, and piloting WWII/Korean War era figher planes.

[Gamblor]

For the record, I clearly stated (and not "implied") that Kimmerling's analysis is a sober one.

And by stating his analysis is a sober one, you are implying Kimmerling himself is sober, no? For it is quite difficult to write a sober analysis if one is not sober.

I didn't attack your character.

What does this passage say?

[ QUOTE ]
Gamblor has set as his life's goal to educate poker players about Israeli righteousness. I'm fully supportive because I find his efforts to be life-extending. Really.
I mean, there's this post purporting to set us straight about what really happened in the Sabra massacres and the author can't even get the name of the Phalangists right! (It's not Phalangelists, Gamblor. They are not collectors of fascist stamps.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You mock the effort and urgency with which I respond to these posts and turn it into a sarcastic quip. Furthermore, the mistyping of Phalangists should be obvious to anyone who read another 15 lines or so down the post and noticed the proper spelling right there.

Once more you engage in misdirection. Wha i did is I pointed out your obviously flippant ignorance of the events at the Sabra refugee camp and of modern Lebanese History.

And of course, your misdirection involving latent sarcasm and cheap punnery by mentioning Phalangists similarity to Philatelists as a joke.

I have very little knowledge of modern Lebanese History. But I know a ****load about Israeli history and society. I lived there. You read it secondhand, from academics, from only the left side of the political spectrum. I, on the other hand have both lived Israeli history and read BOTH sides of the spectrum. From Dershowitz to Michael Barnett, to Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, I know my S***.

But, perhaps, you do not accept "leftists" as capable of doing a decent job in anything.

The first correct thing you have said about my post!

[Cyrus]

C > "I have benefitted greatly from some consultants and I have been screwed by others."

WUC > "Cyrus, in which category would BruceZ fall?"

Seriously, I have no idea how Bruce fares in his work. I have no reason to doubt his boast about his performance.

But from the aspect of his participation in these forums, I must say that I have benefitted greatly from Bruce's screwings. /images/graemlins/grin.gif (Only kidding, BZ!)

[ACPlayer]

It was a intended as humor. You dont have to get huffy on this too!!

I have been a technology consultant for the past 12 years. Enjoy it and get paid well for it.

[ACPlayer]

He did not win by himself or was the main cause of liberation.

The main cause of that liberation, atleast the timing of it was, becuase the Brits were exhausted by WW II so they left two messes behind that are still a mess - Israel and Kashmir.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus: "..As AC Player said, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

This is a very pernicious and misleading statement if it is not qualified by the word "Sometimes."

The true statement is: "Sometimes one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."

No matter what your views are, Cyrus, I should think you would acknowledge the validity and inportance of this distinction.

[Cyrus]

Thanks for the post. I agree with you. (It's a welcome respite, me and you agreeing on something, in the middle of a Middle East thread, no less!)

I hear what you're saying about Bird's coaching. Whom I greatly admire as player, by the way, because his body was not meant to play hoops! His achievements were mostly due to hard work.

The point still stands : Usually mediocre players make great coaches. Bad players have much fewer chances. Great players, however, are handicapped as coaches.

That's because talent cannot be explained and cannot be taught. Which is possibly why Bird was also a good (or great, as you say) coach : Because he did not have to explain "talent". He had worked his way to get to "talent", and he knew the inner workings of that road -- and so, he could teach it. (I'm referring to strategy as well as teaching the elementary, technical stuff.)

--Cyrus

[Cyrus]

That passage of mine which you cited did not "attack character". Read it again. It attacks your ignorance about modern Lebanese history, in the context of you trying to sell us a fictional version of modern Lebanese history as fact. The ignorance shows through and I'm calling you on it.

Character has got nothing to do with this.

"You are implying Kimmerling himself is sober, no? For it is quite difficult to write a sober analysis if one is not sober."

OK, now you are calling the author of a book you don't like, a drunkard. But I already gave you the Ulysses Grant response. What more do you want from me?

"I have very little knowledge of modern Lebanese History."

Thanks. Just what I was saying. Let's close the books on that one then, and move on.

[Cyrus]

. . . but this is not one of those times!

As a matter of fact, always is the operative word here: One man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter.

And this is not meant to imply crass relativism, either! It would be such a thing if a moral equivalence between any two actions was implied. It wasn't. But there's always "another man", baby.

I will let you elaborate until you see the point.

[ACPlayer]

I did not intend to, or do, qualify it as you suggest.

It simply IS.

[BruceZ]

I have very little knowledge of modern Lebanese History. But I know a ****load about Israeli history and society. I lived there. You read it secondhand, from academics, from only the left side of the political spectrum. I, on the other hand have both lived Israeli history and read BOTH sides of the spectrum. From Dershowitz to Michael Barnett, to Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal, I know my S***.

Careful, or he'll accuse you of being arrogant and of boasting. It wouldn't make any difference if you were Max Plank. He'll still argue with you about the meaning of quantum mechanics, and then when you tell him that you invented it, he'll accuse *you* of being arrogant. That word, and boasting too, imply an *overstatement* of one's accomplishments. To him, they apply whenever one expresses *any* statement of one's accomplishments, knowledge, and competence, even if that statement is a completely accurate representation of facts, and even when he is in no position whatsoever to judge such statements. I have to assume that for *him*, any statement of accomplishment or knowledge or competence would necessarily *equate* to an arrogant boast.

It's funny, where I went to grad school, the professors in my department were known as "arrogant MIT clones". They even had signs on their doors stating "caution, arrogant MIT clone lives here". One guy was the picture of arrogance. When he spoke he kind of looked over you and drawled in a Boston accent. No statement or pride in their accomplishments was ever likely to be overstated, however, so I suppose I am in good company by sharing their alleged trait.


Once more you engage in misdirection.

I could fill the pentagon with examples of him *projecting* his own attitudes and faults onto others. No doubt these are the very things he despises about himself, and rightly so. In case you are new and missed it, you may want to read my post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=327685&page=7&view=ex panded&sb=5&o=14&fpart=) and the links it contains documenting my experiences arguing with this clown. I'm handing this out at the door to anyone who starts to get involved with him. Then if you still want to try to find the bottom of this sinkhole, at least you will know what to expect. I've long since retired from this sport with a record of 3-0, all by knockouts.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
. . . but this is not one of those times!

As a matter of fact, always is the operative word here: One man's terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter.

And this is not meant to imply crass relativism, either! It would be such a thing if a moral equivalence between any two actions was implied. It wasn't. But there's always "another man", baby.

I will let you elaborate until you see the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALWAYS Cyrus??? What a trap you are setting for yourself. You'd think a person would learn after a while. I don't suppose you need an example to show where you are mistaken.

[MMMMMM]

LOL, Cyrus, I saw your point even before I wrote my post! You are usually one step behind me (like on those Yogi Berra-isms;-))

What you failed to take into account is that some (a few) terrorists are not even freedom fighters in their own minds; they just want to kill others before they commit suicide. These are usually nihilists who are "acting out."

So:

1) there isn't always have moral relativism between terrorists and freedom fighters, and

2) some terrorists do not even consider themselves to be freedom fighter

hence the original statement is untrue unless qualified.

[MMMMMM]

Well if it IS, then I shouldn't be able to provide a concrete example of where it ISN'T, right?

Allow me to try.

Let's say I lived in wartime Germany and decided that, on strictly moral grounds and at any cost to myself, I had to become a freedom fighter against the Nazi war machine.

If I carried a briefcase bomb into Hitler's office and detonated it, I would be a freedom fighter.

If I carried that briefcase bomb into a small German township and entered a kindergarten class and detonated it, I would be a terrorist.

Agree? Or disagree?

Please note that this argument has no need to take account of which sideof the conflict is more moral; it is only concerned with which technique of resistance is more moral.

[ElyJon]

Well that view is actually not very pragmatic at all. 2 would solve the problem for Israel of course but does not nothing to solve the Palestinian problem. Resettlement does not address the fact that the terrorists consider themselves partisans and will not stop fighting because the west says there you have nothing to fight for.
You might also want to do a casual read of history to see who the first terrorists were in the Middle East. You will not find Palestine at the top of that list.
Personally, I think the solution is to seal off the area, disarm both side entirely and let them go at it with sticks until they come to a solution. Not very pragmatic, but it would be a lot better TV then survivor.
To me it is absurd that in the west we do so little for Palestine and that in the Middle East they have no compromise as long as Israel exists. It is time to give Palestine a fully sovereign country, protect the border with UN troops and dictate to both Israel and Palestine that they stay away from each other with sharp objects. They both should have their space and both should be treated like the bickering school children that they are until they get over it. The political climate over there is such that nobody on either side can lead their people to a lasting settlement and expect to survive, or at best expect to stay in office. It has been that way for decades and will likely stay that way for centuries. A settlement of the primary issues needs to be forced on them and needs to as equitable as possible. They don’t need a road map over there, they both need to be arrested and taken where they need to go and then told in no uncertain terms that unless they want another ride that is where they are staying.

You might also want to to a casual read of history to see who the first terriosts were in the middle east. You will not find Palestien at the top of that list.
Personally I think the solution is to seal off the area, disarm both side entirely and let them go at with sticks until they come to a solution. Not very pragmatic, but it would be a lot better TV then survivor.

[MMMMMM]

UN troops there would be a joke (as they pretty much are everywhere, but would be especially there). If the IDF can't stop all the suicide bombers no way can the U.N. do it.

The Palestinians have to accept Israel, or suffer forever, it seems. Their actions seem both irrational and masochistic.

[Gamblor]

It occurred to me today why academics purport that Israel commits "ethnic cleansing" and "state terrorism".

Academics love classification. They love to find patterns and make generalizations based on past situations.

In terms of politics, they examine cases, make sweeping generalizations regarding those cases, to invent the "model". This model is then applied to future cases by examining the variables the model predicts and the model is either rejected or accepted.

This is the way academics work, in all fields, from political science to chemistry.

However, in the real world, situations are not so clear cut. The models generally have to be reworked, changed, updated, until someone comes along and presents a simpler, more "neat" model. Think Newton followed by Einstein.

Given the necessity of models to academics, the need to simply classify a situation as "ethnic cleansing" or state-terrorism, it should be obvious why academics barely consider the situation on the ground in making their assessments, and instead rely on previous writings that fit their view. They compare the variables with Kosovo, South Africa etc etc.

Try going and living in Israel.
Try getting a phone call saying your friend's parents were killed in a suicide bombing while eating at a Sbarro.
Try driving on the highway and having gunshots whizz by your car.
Try waking up at 4 am to sirens shrieking that Scud missiles are falling in the area.
Then tell me about Arabs.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, then, what's his brand? I will send a case over to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Cyrus:

Are you getting your conflicts confused since this is similar to what Linclon said when he was told that Grant was a drunkard. His comment was something like "Find out his brand and send a barrel of it to the other generals. This man fights."

MM

[clovenhoof]

Whatever your beef with Cyrus, Gamblor has made his position clear: I was there, therefore I know what I'm talking about and anyone who has a different view is wrong. It's a little like arguing that Forrest Gump is an expert on American foreign policy in the 60's because he fought in Vietnam.

Whatever. The Arabs and Israelis have been blaming eachother for their respective troubles for decades. The Catholics and Protestants for more than that. If a solution requires one side to "win" the blame game, then there will never be a solution. This thread serves as a nice microcosm of that.

'hoof

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever your beef with Cyrus, Gamblor has made his position clear: I was there, therefore I know what I'm talking about and anyone who has a different view is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post should read:
I was there and I experienced it, therefore I know more about the interactions between the two sides than you do. Your opinion is based on political theory and Reuters news articles. It is all second hand.

I would argue that Forrest Gump knows a lot more about the treatment of Vietnamese by American soldiers, the tactics used by VietCong, and whether American foreign policy was properly carried out, regardless of what it was.

Forrest Gump came back from the war in support of it, despite the misunderstandings in front Washington Monument.

[BruceZ]

And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

That was exactly the reference. If Kimmerling is a drunkard, as Gamblor amusingly lets fly, Gamblor should imbibe the very brand.

Grant went on to become President. Kimmerling will continue to be soundly abused for throwing the light on Sharon's crimes.

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll let Mason elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't draw me in on this. By the way Cyrus, since we both mentioned US Grant in this thread, are you aware of his "All Jews Out" order?

MM

[Cyrus]

"I would argue that Forrest Gump knows a lot more about the treatment of Vietnamese by American soldiers, the tactics used by VietCong, and whether American foreign policy was properly carried out, regardless of what it was.

Forrest Gump came back from the war in support of it, despite the misunderstandings in front Washington Monument."

This is hilarious -- and inevitable. We arrived at the point where we are supposed to have a discussion about a fictional character as if he were a true person. My my my. We are truly in Forrest Gump territory.

Let me guess, you were a Reagan man through and through, right?

[Cyrus]

Maybe the arrival of my friend Bruce in the thread has caused a deterioration in communication, by osmosis. In any case, you're not making much sense, I'm afraid. Case in point :

"There isn't always have moral relativism between terrorists and freedom fighters."

Now if you would explain to us what the hell that's supposed to mean, even without the "have" typo, perhaps we could continue this conversation. (Do we have to?? You seem to believe that when one's morally right, the whole world sides with one. With no exceptions! You're getting preposterous.)

"Some (a few) terrorists are not even freedom fighters in their own minds; they just want to kill others before they commit suicide. These are usually nihilists who are acting out."

"Nihilists", Donny ?!? /images/graemlins/smile.gif Hey, where were you, I didn't see you in the Big Lebowski thread!

Seriously, this one is the poorest argument of all in your arsenal. We are not discussing psychology here. (If anything, Bruce would have a fit.) A terrorist might have various reasons and his background may be a million different ways, but his actions and his stated motives are what they are. Me and you might judge them (not explain them) to be terrorist(-ic /images/graemlins/smirk.gif) but there's always another man who lauds and applauds.

--Cyrus

PS : You didn't understand at all the point abt moral relativism, yet you rushed to dispute it.

[Gamblor]

I have never lived in the US and know nothing of Reagan's administration.

If you failed to see the humour in that Forrest Gump reference, which mr clovenhoof brought up, you are thicker than I originally anticipated.

[Gamblor]

Do you ever shut up?

[Cyrus]

C > "You're a Reagan man, right?"

Gamblor > "I know nothing of Reagan's administration."

This is great stuff, man! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

"If you failed to see the humour in that Forrest Gump reference, which mr clovenhoof brought up, you are thicker than I originally anticipated."

First of all, don't call the Devil a mister. It's bad manners.

Second, no, I didn't get the "humour". You were deadly serious when you claimed that Forrest Gump had more experience than all those "academics" that don't know "sh*t" about things. There was no "humour" there.

A collateral and equally funny benefit is seeing people here with academic credentials, such as Mason Malmuth, or consultants, such as BruceZ, gladly taking in the abuse meted out to their ilk, only because the person meting out that abuse is a supporter of Israel! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(Or their enemy's enemy. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

...Welcome to the forum, Gamblor. I expect to see you here at least once every Saturday night.

[Cyrus]

"What a trap you are setting for yourself. You'd think a person would learn after a while."

This implies that I have "set a trap for myself" many times in the past. Which is not my recollection of things. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me.

"I don't suppose you need an example to show where you are mistaken."

Correct supposition. "Always" only needs one exception to crumble down in ruins. But my claim holds. Here's why:

We are talking about political terrorism, first of all, not common crimes, such as insurance-scam arsons, etc. Now, political terorrism involves political ideology. And there's always more than one side in political ideology, almost by definition. Extremism does not mean an empty set, just a set with very few members. The perpetrators of extremist acts, aka terrorists/freedom fighters, are labeled according to where one stands, inside or outside the small set of political extremism.

This is what we can do : Throw me 5 references of political terror (names of groups, historical periods, or whatever) and I will have to pinpoint the group of people to whom that terror was/is accepted as a struggle for freedom (or of morally equivalent political motives).

--Cyrus

[Gamblor]

Smart guy:

The humour was not in reference to the allusion to Forrest Gump. The humour was in the implication that a fictional character was used to illustrate the point that the experienced are more knowledgeable than those who would sit on the sidelines and judge from afar rather than live the situation first hand. I did not bring it up. "The devil made me do it."

Although I wonder if the intended forthcoming explanation of what a sense of humour is would be lost on you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I have no qualms about sparring with you all day and night. I'll say it again, there is no substitute for experience.

As far as Mason and Bruce go, perhaps you should allow them to explain their (somewhat limited) support of my postings rather than leap to conclusions.

Saturday nights are reserved for other activities. I will be on here until my LSAT, on Monday October 8th - for Saturday Sabbath observers.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Cyrus:

You know Grant is an interesting person in that he was essentially incompetent at most of the things that he did in his life. He was perhaps our most confused president, and his time on Wall Street after his presidency was also a disaster.

He is given credit for doing two things extremely well. He was a great general in the Civil War, and his memoirs are a wonderful and fascinating work.

By the way, Grant strongly denied that he did any drinking during this phase of the Civil War when General Halleck became concerned that perhaps this unknown General Grant was beginning to win too many battles and outshine him.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Cyrus]

But can you bluff your way through Probability? It would raise your value and I wanna get Wake up into the bargain.

[Cyrus]

Greetings, Mason.

I find Grant's life and personality fascinating, too. You ask someone whose life is "chess" or "tennis" or "work" and, no, they cannot imagine themselves doing anything else. I believe that similarly Grant, as was Chrurchill, came alive during the war, as he wouldn't have under most other circumstances. They would both probably have been embarassing mediocrities without their wars. (My post's title refers to how Churchill was nicknamed in Parliament, by some, in the years before the war.)

I first came across a good study of Grant when Mask of Command fell on my lap. It examines the various stages of war leadership, going from the the leader being at the very forefron of every attack, to bunkered and distanced leadership : Alexander the Great; Wellington; Grant; Hitler; the nuclear era.

It's funny about that infamous General Order #11. General Grant's father had come and was staying at his son's military HQ, along with some business partners of his, in the midst of Grant's campaign in Mississippi. The business was all about taking some South cotton to the North and sell it at great profit. A practice that Grant was trying to eliminate, without success. Those partners of his father's happened to be Jews.

It is convenient to divorce the personal from the historical; proponents of historical determinism are very keen on distancing the two. I don't think things work as impersonally or as dispassionately as that. Imagine the picture : Father coming to see "if the son is an adult"; Father sleeping next door to son's bed; Father's friends closer to Dad than Son; Father's friends personify according to the times' anti-semitism Greed, etc, in other words, Evil (Grant was wont to look upon any money-making venture as morally suspect); Father threatening to destroy (castrate) the Son's work; etc. A psychiatrist would have a field day.

Take care.

--Cyrus

[clovenhoof]

You have no idea what my opinion is based on. You have no idea what anyone's opinion is based on, because you haven't asked -- not anyone.

'hoof

[Cyrus]

"Academics love classification. They love to find patterns and make generalizations based on past situations."

Tell 'em, Gamblor!

"In terms of politics, they examine cases, make sweeping generalizations regarding those cases, to invent the "model". This model is then applied to future cases by examining the variables the model predicts and the model is either rejected or accepted."

You're absolutely goddamn right. How silly can those academics get?? Imagine that! Building "models" to interpret real life! Hey, you know what I'm saying to those acacademics! (D'ja get the joke? Acacademics, ha ha) I'm saying, Get A Life, Mason!

"This is the way academics work, in all fields, from political science to chemistry."

And poker. Don't forget poker. God knows, we have so many great players who go on to win money and championships and the love of hundreds of women (OK, maybe not so many), in other words players with experience --- and then we have all those silly "academic" types who (get this!) publish books, with models in them and predictions about poker play. The nerve of those no-life guys. (If only instead of models, they had Pin-ups.)

"The models generally have to be reworked, changed, updated, until someone comes along and presents a simpler, more "neat" model. Think Newton followed by Einstein."

Well said. I think you're wasting yourself posting on this forum. Try the scientifical pages, like General Theory or Probability or the Order Form, and set the dumbasses straight. See you there.

--Cyrus

[clovenhoof]

Regardless of what I think of your views, I wouldn't wish a career in law on anyone. Your experience and outlook (however wrong) gives you a great deal to offer -- but not in the legal profession. It is inherently regressive; the luddite gets equal time with those who strive for progress, but the luddite is inevitably better financed.

Good luck on the LSAT, but I strongly recommend that you get some career advice from somebody you trust.

'hoof (And there's no "Mr." in "Clovenhoof". /images/graemlins/cool.gif)

[Cyrus]

there's no "Mr." in "Clovenhoof".

Careful. That may raise the chances of you being a female by about 20%.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BruceZ]

The models generally have to be reworked, changed, updated, until someone comes along and presents a simpler, more "neat" model. Think Newton followed by Einstein.

Not that it is essential to your post, but this particular example doesn't support your argument, and it actually provides strong counter-examples. I'll explain why since I have academic credentials, /images/graemlins/laugh.gif and I also like to hear myself type.

Einstein's relativity was not postulated in order to explain any observed phenomena which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. An experiment which attempted to measure the speed of light in the "ether" showed a contradiction with the results predicted by Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism under a Galilean transformation of coordinates, not a contradiction with Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics modeled perfectly all physical phenomena which were observed prior to the invention of relativity from the collision of marbles to the movement of planets. It is still the model of choice for almost all real world problems, and it was not subjected to the kinds of reworking, change, and updating that you speak of. Neither were Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. They too remained unchanged from their inception to this day. In fact, they already included a term which accounted for an observation made years later! I speak of the displacement current.

To establish a model that explained the speed of light experiment, Einstein had a choice to either change Maxwell's equations, or to change the Galilean transformation equations. He decided it was much more elegant to leave Maxwell's equations alone, and modify the Galilean transformation, something which had been assumed without question even more strongly than a flush beating a straight. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Since the equations of Newtonian mechanics were based on the Galilean transformation, the equations of Newtonian mechanics necessarily changed as well under Einstein's theory of relativity. Physical observations which were unexplainable under Newtonian mechanics but explainable under relativity were found only after people went looking for physical observations that would disprove Einstein.

The only possible exception I can think of was the fact that a perturbation in the orbit of mercury had been observed earlier, and it was now explained by relativity, but this did not prompt the theory. It had earlier been explained by postulating either a small planet near mercury, or a double star of which our sun was one member. People still argue about this. You can find many examples to support your argument in the field of astronomy or astrophysics. Those people really don't know what they are talking about. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[MMMMMM]

Not all suicide bombers are freedom fighters, even to anyone's perspective. Some just want to kill, as in a guy shooting up a McDonald's (or workplace) before turning the gun on himself. He doesn't have to be a "freedom fighter" from anyone's perspective, not even his own. Similarly someone can be a fanatic of some sort who isn't fighting to free anything or anyone at all; they are just blowing everyone up out of hatred or frustration.

Hence, your argument that a terrorist is always another man's freedom fighter is wrong. That argument is wrong due to the word "always." Hence the popular initial statement "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is wrong due to the lack of the qualifying word "sometimes."

This should be obvious to you. If you don't admit it, I will begin to think that BruceZ is correct in that you can never admit when you're wrong.

[John Cole]

Bruce,

My sign in grad school read "Inside: Poor White Trash! See How They Live!"

It survived the year.

[John Cole]

"I like to hear myself type."

Bruce, you really are funny. And I love hearing how Mercury gets perturbed.

John

[MMMMMM]

Also, the politically motivated terrorist may not be striving for freedom, but rather for control, which blows a huge hole in your tangential argument.

Anyway, this does not address the essential points (before we got off on this tangent):

1) that there are some freedom fighters who are not also terrorists (they strike only military targets)

2) whether something is terrorism or freedom fighting is not merely dependent on which side you happen to sympathize with

[ACPlayer]

A freedom fighter is someone fighting for freedom from something. The method is irrelevant. He is still a freedom fighter.

Gandhi was a freedom fighter in India. Subhash Chandra Bose, who went off to fight the brits on the side of the Japanese was a freedome fighter. The ANC members who blew up a nightclub in Durban were freedom fighters.

They viewed themselves as such and some others viewed them as such. Yet others viewed them as terrorists and rogues. Morality has nothing to do with it.

[ACPlayer]

ter·ror·ism (tĕr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2003 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The example of mcDonalds while it may have caused some people to be terrorized does not fit the definition of terrorism as we are using it in this thread -- and as defined in the dictionary.

[MMMMMM]

Points taken, but let's look at this in terms of set theory.

In the WWII example of one man detonating a briefcase bomb in Hitler's office, and another man detonating a briefcase bomb in a German kindergarten, you might call them both freedom fighters--but only one is also a terrorist.

[ACPlayer]

[MMMMMM]

But if the terrorist is attempting to coerce towards CONTROL rather than FREEDOM he is not a "freedom fighter." For instance, a Neo-Nazi who wants a return to Nazism engaging in a terrorist act for this purpose. He is not fighting for freedom from anything but rather fighting towards increased control and stratification of society. So he is a terrorist but not a freedom fighter.

[Cyrus]

"But if the terrorist is attempting to coerce towards CONTROL rather than FREEDOM he is not a "freedom fighter." For instance, a Neo-Nazi who wants a return to Nazism engaging in a terrorist act for this purpose. He is not fighting for freedom from anything but rather fighting towards increased control and stratification of society. So he is a terrorist but not a freedom fighter."

Political or religious motives are also often behind violent acts. (And by the way, the above is your interpretation of the neo-Nazi's action. He would probably say that he wants "the liberation of the oppressed Aryan race"!)

Communist urban guerillas were making front-page news in the 70s and 80s. They were very active in Latin America and Western Europe. There were degrees of violence (and ruthlessness) in their actions; there was also a wide spectrum of (Leftist) ideology behind them. If you were to peruse their literature, you would find that they all considered themeselves to be fighters for freedom -- even in cases when their stated objective was dictatorship of the proletariat.

By the way, most, if not all, groups descended into unchecked violence, autocratic leadership and sectarianism. Even the groups with the most noble beginnings, such as the Montoneros, or the ones with the widest popular support, such as the Shining Path. It's the inevitable end result of lack of democracy, internally in the organisation, and of democratic objectives. What we, the ex-"communist agitators" (as the authorities called us) mocked and ridiculed as bourgeois democracy is, in fact, the most fragile and the most strong bastion of liberty. Always was. Those who were attacking it in the name of freedom were seriously deluded.

--Cyrus

PS : There was a time when the Red Brigades in Italy could summon 50,000 people in street demonstrations supporting them. The Brigades themselves had something like 5,000 active members throughout Italy. I remember the pro-Brigatisti blocs in Bologna demonstrations passing en masse in front of the Socialist offices (also an "enemy"!) and making the sign of the pistol towards the shut windows -- fist closed, thumb up, forefinger extended. Everybody was expecting an overthrow of the democratic regime and a communist take-over or a military coup. Tens of thousands of people marching against freedom -- in the name of freedom. And showing support for murder to get there.

PPS : The names are significant : Red Army Faction; Red Brigades; etc. Western middle class youth declaring its love for an imaginary East, their utopia of revolutionary justice and freedom. In reality, a gulag. The political refugees who were coming over from the East could not believe how young people would fall for that fantasy.

[MMMMMM]

Allow me to take time out for an important tangent, if you will.

The fact that so many people easily fall prey to delusive thinking supports my past contention that all children should be rigorously educated in Logic right along with their ABC's and Arithmetic.

The only hope for the human race may be for children to be educated nearly like Vulcans in Star Trek. I'm not kidding. The technologies of destruction will only grow with time, and irrationality may well cause the end of the human race instead of merely being a source of great misery, as it is now.

Look at all the jihad warriors believing they will get 72 virgins as soon as they blow everyone up. The human race, overall, is immensely deficient in straight thinking and needs to be improved by strict education in Logic. The kids need to be forced to learn Logic or go to bed without their suppers and I'm not kidding;-) And countries that teach idiotic, pernicious belief systems that are anything but logical (such as in Saudi Arabia) need to be overhauled entirely. Our national education system needs for kids to be required to learn Logic right along with their Arithmetic. Many adults desperately need remedial Logic classes.

This is so important given the trend to increased technological powers to destroy that I feel there is a great sense of urgency about it. People might need to be forced to learn how to think straight ( to think logically, that is). Otherwise the coming dangers are so great as to be nearly incomprehensible.

[Gamblor]

An experiment which attempted to measure the speed of light in the "ether" showed a contradiction with the results predicted by Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism under a Galilean transformation of coordinates, not a contradiction with Newtonian mechanics

If you're referring to the Michelson-Morley experiment that proved the non-existence of the "ether", I'm well aware of it and it's implications. Not that an interferometer is such a useful tool when examining international politics. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Certainly, Fg = Gm1m2/d^2 works often enough that it makes my analogy relatively useless.

[John Cole]

M,

In How the Mind Works, Steven Pinker shows that most people, whether or not they are capapble of doing formal logic or even recognizing a basic syllogism, do quite nicely when confronted with real life logical problems. I'm not sure the situation is as dire as you believe. But, then again, I'm using my intuition here.

John

[MMMMMM]

I don't think the situation is that dire yet, but if trends toward greater personal destructive powers continue it could be at some point. I intuitively feel most people are somewhat rational, as you mention, when confronted with real life problems. However it only takes a few crazies with bombs to blow a lot of people up. What if 50 years from now there are little portable bombs with 100 or 1,000 times the destructive power of today's suicide bombs of choice?

I don't know. How can so many of the world's population truly, wholeheartedly, believe in so many grossly irrational things? Like that blowing up everyone around you will transport you to a land of grapes, fountains and virgins??? If on1y 1/100,000 of the world's population believes that, that's 60,000 suicidal lunatics, more than enough to destroy the world if they manage to get their hands on the right devices. As technology accelerates, such a potential scenario becomes progressively more dangerous. So yes I'm a bit worried for the future, because in the future, irrationally destructive people will probably be able to cause more harm.

[BruceZ]

If you're referring to the Michelson-Morley experiment that proved the non-existence of the "ether"

That's the one, I should have just named it. My point was that both Newton's equations and Maxwell's equations were designed to explain all known phenomena, and neither was challenged by any observations which forced it to change. Maxwell's equations are still universally applicable to this day (quantum electrodynamics notwithstanding), and while exceptions to Newton exist, they were only discovered after relativity predicted them.

For John Cole: When we examine the orbit of mercury closely, we are actually seeing the effect of a curvature of space-time caused by the sun's gravity. This is a warpage of a 4-dimensional space. Think of it as analogous to people discovering the earth is round, and now we discover that space too is curved in a strange way involving the 4th dimension of time. This makes it appear as though a tiny portion of the orbit predicted by Newtonian mechanics is missing. This is an effect of general relativity, which is a generalization of the special relativity prompted by the MM experiment, the generalization extending to accelerated reference frames.

[ACPlayer]

I hope you dont really think that was the principle motivation for the 19 to drive a plane into a brick wall.

[ACPlayer]

It is also correct that people solve real world problems by building models in the paradigm that is most comfortable to them. Mathematicians solve problems based on math, psychologist by examining the psychology of the people involved, economist based on money flows or other economic principles. No one way is perfect. The closest to perfection is possibly philosophy but that is perhaps a separate debate.

I know BZ would argue that every thing should be modelled mathematically, but that is clearly where he is the most comfortable - and so on with experts in their own fields. The world would be pretty boring if we all solved problems in the same way.

[John Cole]

M,

I've been to a few Catholic funeral masses in the last couple years, and many people seem to find great solace in the priest's words, beleiving completely that a better world awaits the dead. And it is rather touching, in a way.

I think maybe I'll go for the 72 virgins. Hell, they don't even need to all be virgins. Okay with me if a few have been around the block a few times.

[MMMMMM]

The way I look at things like that is: well it just might be, but you can only stretch it so far if it is to retain any credibility.

Put it this way: there might be a heaven, but it doesn't have exactly 52,326 elephants dancing on the head of a pin every day to harmonica music under the same purple sky with Elton John playing a piano and wearing a hat ten miles high while BruceZ throws popcorn to a zebra with 17 ears. It just doesn't.

[MMMMMM]

The principal motivation of many suicide bombers is precisely to attain Paradise with exactly 72 virgins, grapes, honey and fountains, just as the sacred writings and their imams tell them they will. So yes, I'll bet that was a motivation of at least some of the 19, if not the principal motivation. And I'll bet they believed as soon as they died that that would be the Paradise they would be instantly transported to.

There was an interview I saw on TV...a suicide bomber in jail, who had been was caught before he could detonate. The Western journalist was asking him these sort of questions. He fully believed he had missed his chance for instant transport to the virgins in Paradise. The journalist asked him how could that be a religious thing because that sounds, well, worldy somehow. The would-be suicide bomber said he didn't think of it that way.

Never underestimate the power of delusive fanatical belief in some people.

[ACPlayer]

I think you may finally be wrong about something /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I would tend to classify the virgins as a benefit. Sort of like health insurance /images/graemlins/tongue.gif and not the salary.

[ACPlayer]

Paul Hill believed that after his execution he would be going to heaven, but the principle reason he killed the doctors was to prevent abortions.

[John Cole]

M,

I'm more inclined to believe in Bruce Z throwing popcorn--at what?--well, we'll leave that matter open for thought.

George Bernard Shaw once said that modern man quite readily believes that millions of microbes inhabit a drop of water but can't believe that one thousand angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As far as heaven goes, I take the side of sociologist Peter Berger who says that he doesn't believe in heaven but sure hopes there's a hell. Some people just belong there.

[Cyrus]

MMMMM wrote

"Paradise is ... while BruceZ throws popcorn to a zebra with 17 ears."

John,

I think that with only one small change in the above definition, that would be indeed paradise for Bruce.

--Cyrus

[nicky g]

"I take the side of sociologist Peter Berger who says that he doesn't believe in heaven but sure hopes there's a hell. Some people just belong there."

Wow. That's pretty grim.

[ElyJon]

I do not disagree with the truth of your staetment at all, but it also can be said that Isereal must accept a Palestinian state if they want peace. (Extermists?) from both side from what I see are willing to just keep fighting this low level war of misery under some grand illussion that one side or the other will give up.
They look like two idots sitting on kegs of dynamite flicking matches at each other. We, meaning everyone besides Isreal and Palestine should demand an end to the current situation, and force an end, before one of those matches lands in the wrong place.
I really think all the arguments about the "just causes and injustices" from both sides are simply exercises in futility. The original charter from 1948? is what should be done. It is not really fair to anyone but is the fairest thing all things considered that can be done. Niether side in this conflict will accept that compromise unless it is forced on them and that we need to do before they start throwing big bombs at each other.

BTW? Where would they relocate too, as I understand things nobody really wants them.

[Gamblor]

BTW? Where would they relocate too, as I understand things nobody really wants them.

1) Why do you think that is the case?

2) Why is it Israel's responsibility to keep them happy?

[Gamblor]

BTW? Where would they relocate too, as I understand things nobody really wants them.

1) Why do you think that is the case?

2) Why is it Israel's responsibility to keep them happy as opposed to their Arab brothers, who have booted them from every state they have tried to take over? The only thing Arabs hate more than Palestinians are Israelis