Biggest threats to world peace.

[ACPlayer]

Is Isreal the demon (http://euobs.com/?aid=13376&rk=1)

A recent poll by the EU commission found that a majority of Eurpeans believed that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. The poll also found that the US was a greater threat to world peace than Iran, Iraq, N. Korea.

Predictably, the Israeli govt, responded with outrage.

The EU has sinced said that they should not have named countries in the Poll -- although I dont see why they should be apologizing for this.

So, whats the source of this anti-Israel sentiment in Europe? Is Israel the biggest threat to world peace? Is the US a close second?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The US is the primary defender of freedom and liberty in the world. Peace at the expense of liberty is worthless.

Israel is the victim of genocidal attacks. To call Israel a threat to peace is morally bankrupt.

IMO, Europe just wants to finish Hitler's work.

[ACPlayer]

OK.

But, still does not answer the question about what is the source of this Anti-Israel sentiment? Is it purely about being against Jews (your Hitler reference may mean that this is what you believe)?

It is also odd, that we see ourselves as defenders of freedom and liberty, but this view is not shared in Europe or the Middle East. We spend money, sacrifice lives and get no gratitude (let alone help) from anyone. Even the populace of Britain our biggest European support distrusts the US policies.

[nicky g]

"A recent poll by the EU commission found that a majority of Eurpeans believed that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. The poll also found that the US was a greater threat to world peace than Iran, Iraq, N. Korea"

This isn't quite right. The respondents weren't asked to rank or rate countries according to how big a threat they are. They were asked "Is this country a threat to world peace?" and given the option of answering yes or no. More people said "Yes" to Israel (around 53%, I think) than any other country, but I doubt that a majority of Europeans would rate Israel as the greatest threat to world peace.

I don't really see the usefulness of the question, or even exactly what it's getting at, but it's absurd to suggest that Israel and the US aren't a threat to peace; both have shown they are prepared to go to war. How the US doctrine of preemption isn't a threat to world peace I can't say. You can argue over the rights and wrongs of their actions but you can't suggest they're particularly peaceable nations. My own opinion is that the three greates threats to world peace (not that there is any, but regardless) are: The Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the neoconservative grip on the White House, and the India/Pakistan confrontation.

[ACPlayer]

I did look around to see if I could find the exact questions used but could not find any reference to that. That would be interesting.

My reading of the article was not quite as benign as yours. Assuming that the author correctly captured the information he says about a seminar being planned:

At the meeting both sides agreed that a seminar should be organised in Brussels in order to find out why European citizens (59% of the around 7,500 surveyed) put Israel ahead of countries such as Iran and North Korea.

The poll conducted by telephone between 8 and 16 October asked 7,515 citizens what country they thought is the biggest threat to world peace. There were 15 countries on the list, including the US and Europe.

I thought that the results were quite shocking. If asked to name the country that is the biggest threat to world peace, I would not have picked Israel (although I do think that they are a big threat). I think that the biggest threat (before we invaded Iraq) was instability of the Pakistan poliitical system and the rivalry with India.

Other related links:
EU Business (http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/031103113803.1toz6eyb)

Indymedia (http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/11/279769.html)

Simon Wisenthal Center (http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1656844.php)

Ananova (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_757110.html) has some specific comments about the perception in Europe of the US w.r.t this question.

[B-Man]

This absurd result is not surprising. In Europe, anti-semitism has been prevalent for hundreds of years, and anti-Israel attitudes prevalent since (and prior to) the founding of Israel. Anti-U.S. attitudes have skyrocketed since the leadup to the Iraq war.

Either that or Alger's anti-U.S., anti-Israel propoganda is working.

[ACPlayer]

I think it would be a mistake to write this off as an absurd result. Surprising yes, odd perhaps.

It is usually a mistake to underestimate the collective wisdom of the common population. The EU population is saying something -- unless of course the survey was faulty.

[Gamblor]

Has anyone considered that Europe, as a self-serving, war-torn, and generally obnoxious continent, might just be looking for someone to blame?

Sound familiar, all you Arab dictators out there?

The eastern half of the place is a dump, Scandinavia is the only nicegood place to live there, and the west is not so bad. Except for those pesky Jews. They should kill 'em off.

[nicky g]

Unless there are two polls, the article is wrong.
This is from a BBC article about the poll:

"Nearly 60% of Europeans said yes when asked in the Eurobarometer survey if Israel presents a threat to peace, putting it ahead of Iran, North Korea and the US, each of which polled 53%. "
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3237277.stm)

The Eurobarmoeter website is here (http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/) . The only poll I could find there that seems to be the poll in question is part of a document called Iraq and Peace in the World, which is here (http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/flash/fl151_iraq_full_report.pdf) . The poll is on page 79 and asks "For each of the following countries, tell me if in your opinion, it presents or not a threat to peace in
the world?" with yes or no the only options; no ratings or rankings were asked for, and noone was asked to name the country they felt to be the greatest threat. The EU business article you link to says much the same thing.

[B-Man]

It is usually a mistake to underestimate the collective wisdom of the common population.

Actually, I would suggest that the common population's collective wisdom is often not very wise. Think about that.

The EU population is saying something

Yes they are. And I already pointed out what they are saying.

I don't think it is a mistake to dismiss the results as absurd. How is a country the size of Rhode Island a threat to world peace? Even though I disagree, I can understand the position that the U.S. is a threat to world peace--the U.S. has more WMD than anyone else, and gets into many conflicts worldwide (though usually for good reasons). But Israel--how could any reasonable person possibly claim that Israel is a threat to world peace?

By the way, I'm not sure I understand the question. There is no "world peace," and I'm not sure there has ever been world peace at any time during my life (I would guess probably not).

[nicky g]

"anti-Israel attitudes prevalent since (and prior to) the founding of Israel"

This is wrong. Europe has traditionally viewed Israel very favourably. France was Israel's major backer and arms supplier until 1967. Popular attitudes towards Israel have slowly changed since then following the on-going occupation, Lebanon and so on. Why? I wonder.

[Gamblor]

Think about your experiences...

There's always something fishy about the guy who always seems to want to do the "right" thing, instead of just ignoring evils.

[nicky g]

"How is a country the size of Rhode Island a threat to world peace?"

If Rhode Island had 200 nuclear warheads (and had actually prepared them for launching during the Gulf War), had been at the centre of 6 regional wars in 50 years, was situated in one of the most unstable areas of the world, inspired anger and hate across the globe, and was headed by an army zealot at the centre of its most aggressive and destructive war, you wouldn't see it as a threat to world peace? I agree with you that the question doesn't make much sense.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Scandinavia is the only nicegood place to live there

I don't know. I'm kinda partial to Spain.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

First, the prime source of anti-US sentiment is France and Germany, two hotbeds of anti-semitism. In addition, both those countries had cozy relationships with Iraq of the past decades. Second, the US garnered pretty solid support from Italy and Spain recently, but neither of those countries carry much weight in the EU scheme of things.

Even the populace of Britain our biggest European support distrusts the US policies.

I disagree. I'd say their balance of public opinion pretty well matches our own.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

If Rhode Island had 200 nuclear warheads

Who says we don't? /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[nicky g]

"Second, the US garnered pretty solid support from Italy and Spain recently, but neither of those countries carry much weight in the EU scheme of things."

Though the Spanish government supported the war, 90% of the Spanish public opposed it. A majority of Italians opposed it too.

"Even the populace of Britain our biggest European support distrusts the US policies.

I disagree. I'd say their balance of public opinion pretty well matches our own. "

According to the poll in question, 55% of Brits think the US is a threat to world peace. 2 million Brits demonstrated againt the war on a single day. A large majority opposed it prior to the start of the conflict, at which point many people rallied "behind the troops."

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Though the Spanish government supported the war, 90% of the Spanish public opposed it.

I doubt Aznar is so out of touch than to go against 90% of the electorate. I also seriously doubt that such a majority of *any* free population could support or oppose *any* government action.

[nicky g]

"Around Europe, the most recent polls show 80% disapproval in Spain and 84% opposition in Germany."

I seem to remember a poll that said 90% but I think 80% proves my point nonetheless. The Spanish were overwhelmingly hostile to the war. Obviously such news doesn't penetrate the great American free media.

Attitudes to war (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls/story/0,11030,927035,00.html)

Rhode Island may or may not have 200 nuclear warheads but I don't think it quite meets then rest of the description.

[ACPlayer]

I dont have any refs for you, may try to find them, but from what I have read both Spain and Britian's population does not support the US Iraq policies.

Of our "allies" only the Polish population generally supports the US positions in Iraq.

[ACPlayer]

You lost me totally with this post. What does it mean?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Rhode Island may or may not have 200 nuclear warheads but I don't think it quite meets then rest of the description.

It doesn't. Israel is an honorable nation fighting a defensive war against mindless 11th century fanatics who want to send the world back into the dark ages. Rhode Island, on the other hand is completely ruled by organized crime.

[nicky g]

". Israel is an honorable nation fighting a defensive war against mindless 11th century fanatics who want to send the world back into the dark ages"

Did you get this from the same source as your information on Spanish support for the war?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Listen, you arrogant prick. The Spanish Government *does* support the war. That was my original point.

My comment about Israel is the TRUTH. It only needs intelligence to understand. But all you care about is propagating anti-semitic leftist lies. Is that clear?

There is precisely zero you or anyone else can say to change my position. Call me a Zionist. I'm proud to wear that badge of honor.

[ACPlayer]

It would be better if you called them "anti-semitic, leftist, liberal lies" That way there is one more label that is attached to the lie.

[nicky g]

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Glad I could make you laugh.

[Gamblor]

Everyone is always skeptical of the guy who always upholds morality, who always is fighting for some benevolent cause without a selfish care in the world, who makes it his business when someone is disadvantaged. Or always demands of everyone else to do the "right thing".

It's almost like he has an ulterior motive.

You know a guy like this?

The United States is that guy.

[nicky g]

Me too. It's good to laugh.

[nicky g]

No, I don't regard myself as liberal. All it seems to mean is "not pro-Bush"; I suppose that's true but it's a bit of a useless tag. Leftist, sure. The antisemitic bit's a shame as I'll have to tell me wife and she'll probably divorce me, being Jewish and all. Good job we've not had any kids yet as I'd be in really tricky situation then. Still, it's good to find out these things from rational, intelligent people who know me so well.

[MMMMMM]

I haven't read the other responses yet, but had a similar conversation with my father last summer. I remarked how many Europeans seemed to feel that the U.S. is the greatest threat to world peace. He replied that might be so, but that certain other countries are the greatest threat to humanity.

[MMMMMM]

Peace may be evil, where evil reigns.

[ACPlayer]

I added Liberal to the list as i figured he forgot it.

I believe that most people who label these things have no idea what it means, just that they dont agree with the underlying issue/concept. So, to MMMMM, B-Man, Gamblor, et al, anything that they dont agree with is leftist, liberal, crap the rest is red,white and blue.

[nicky g]

That's why I said you could argue about the rights and wrongs of it.

[Gamblor]

If Rhode Island had 200 nuclear warheads (and had actually prepared them for launching during the Gulf War)

Who struck first, then? Was it Israeli warheads that rained down on Baghdad, or was it Iraqi Scuds that rained down on Tel Aviv?

had been at the centre of 6 regional wars in 50 years

What Arab nations had not been at the centre of those wars?

was situated in one of the most unstable areas of the world

How does this make anything a threat? Simply being there is enough, you bastard?

inspired anger and hate across the globe

Are you another one of those Mossad conspiracists? Could it be that Islamic anger and hate are more due to the fact that Israel took a small slice of land from all those Arab dictators, made it arable, and now they are pissed off so they convince their populations that Israel is the source of all evil? And the rest of the world, far enough removed from the facts of the events, begins to listen to the crap the dictators have been trying to put into their heads for 55 years?

and was headed by an army zealot at the centre of its most aggressive and destructive war

Aggressive, I'll give you. But why do you think he was elected? Democratically, I might add?

Most aggressive and destructive war?
You're an idiot, if you think this is the most destructive war. How about 1973, when 5 Arab armies attacked without warning, on the holiest day of the Jewish Calendar, when all Jews were in synogogue praying for forgiveness? Imagine Israel attacking Mecca on the first day of Ramadan. Inconcievable.

[MMMMMM]

It's also why the question is slanted (in its inherent assumed suggestion that a 'threat' to 'peace' is necessarily a bad thing).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Hey, I know where you stand, you know where I stand. I may think you're an arrogant prick, but I definitely know *I'm* one, too.

[ACPlayer]

Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period.

Even Bush says that one reason we went to war is to avoid threats to peace. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

All it seems to mean is "not pro-Bush"

I don't know. I really don't like Dubya at all, what with his mystical born-again attitude. I can support the war and still vote for somebody else. I don't view it as Bush's war.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period.

I completely disagree with this.

[nicky g]

Lol. I like the title.

"How does this make anything a threat? Simply being there is enough, you bastard?"

I wasn't trying to apportion blame by stating it was in an unstable region. It makes it a threat to world peace because it is quite likely to end up in a situation that will drag several countries into a war that could inflame passions around the world. Just being there isn't a fault, but nevertheless a large part of the instability is Israel's fault. Simply ending the occupation would stabilise the region substantially.

"Are you another one of those Mossad conspiracists? "

How is it a consiracy to say Israel inspires anger and hate? Revgardless of who is to blame, it clearly does.


"What Arab nations had not been at the centre of those wars?

Israel's been involed in all the wars. That isn't true of any Arab nation. That's not to say that no Arab nations are a threat to peace; that wasn't my point. Just that Israel indubitably is, regardless of the morality of its actions.

"You're an idiot, if you think this is the most destructive war. "

I wasn't referring to now, I was referring to the other military adventures Sharon's been involved in.

"But why do you think he was elected? Democratically, I might add? "

I don't care if he was eletcted democratically. You elect leaders to rule over you, not to beat down other people.

[nicky g]

That's why I said I thought it was a silly question.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The labels I used:

"anti-semitic" meaning positions inspired by racism vis-a-vis Jews.

"Leftist" meaning tending towards socialism. I'll concede it's vague.

Since I don't consider myself a "conservative", I would tend to avoid the label "liberal," though I have used it.

[MMMMMM]

"Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period."

Peace is not a good thing if the trade-off is Stalinism, or Nazism, or slavery--is it? Therefore a threat to peace might be either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the situation.

Maybe, if given the choice, you would rather live peacefullly a slave your entire life, than fight to live or die a free man. If so, I pity you.

Think about it. There are much more awful things than war, even though war can be hell. If the status quo is worse than war, then a threat to peace can be a good thing.

[nicky g]

"I don't know. I really don't like Dubya at all, what with his mystical born-again attitude. I can support the war and still vote for somebody else. I don't view it as Bush's war. "

Fair enough. It still doesn't seem to mean anything useful. I guess it means "not conservative" but I don't think conservative's much use either, though i've probably used it.

[Gamblor]

I don't mind liberals.

After all, aren't we all fighting for freedom?

Regardless of political orientation, when it comes to a specific conflict I happen to have spent a good chunk of my life living, I have noticed that those most opposed to my side's participation happen to be left wing, and often liberal as well.

The anti-semitic aspect, in my opinion, should be obvious.
I can't deny that for whatever reason, Jews seem to be more successful in certain industries than others, and the left's demand for "fairness" might certainly take issue with some group holding an inordinate amount of strong positions in whatever field. They of course, ignore the 1/5 of Jews below the poverty line in the US, but I can't blame them. They see what they want to see.

After all, I received an interesting e-mail the other day, outlining the number of Jews who have won Nobel prizes vs. the number of Arabs. 13 million vs. 300 million. I believe it was something like 150 for Jews to 10 for those of Arabic descent, or some ridiculous comparison.

But, again:

After all, aren't we all fighting for freedom to live our lives in happiness, the way we want to live?

[ACPlayer]

As usual, you are having trouble with reading comprehension.

My statement is not inconsistent with a view that says we must try to improve out own lot and try ot live in free societies.

All I said was was "Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period." If there is a threat to my peace I will take action because it is a bad thing.

If the US is being viewed by the Europeans as a threat to world peace (whatever that means) we should listen to that view and decide what it means and, perhaps, adjust our views and actions. They too are sentient, smart people on the other side of the Atlantic.

[ACPlayer]

I dont mind liberals or conservatives.

I mind people who want to put people into boxes called liberal and conservatives.

I mind people who use labels as pejoratives.

I mind people who make comparisons based on race or ethnic origins.

I would prefer to think that we can achieve freedom with more mutual respect and less fighting. Sometimes it is inevitable; of late it seems that fighting is the first choice of conflict resolution.

[MMMMMM]

The problem with Leftism is that it is inherently immoral and doesn't work anyway.

Leftists want to steal money from people by using the force of government to do so, ostensibly for "good purposes." Their philosophy might actually command more respect if they were to keep the stolen money for themselves. Instead they pour these monies into a vastly inefficient system whereby very little of it ever reaches the needs for which it was intended.

Their original sin is delusion; their second sin is theft; and their third sin is prodigal wastefulness.

[Gamblor]

Simply ending the occupation would stabilise the region substantially

That's the core of the whole argument. Most Israelis don't believe this.

How is it a consiracy to say Israel inspires anger and hate? Revgardless of who is to blame, it clearly does.

That's like saying Jews are responsible for all of the anger and hate because everyone hates them.

This is akin, despite your family, and the lack of any real anti-Jewish tone to your posts, of saying:
"I'm not saying I'm anti-semitic, but the Jews cause a lot of problems."
I won't bother with substituting names, because as I've maintained, you cannot apply the same principles from any other situation to this one - it's simply unprecedented.

Israel's been involed in all the wars. That isn't true of any Arab nation.

What did Israel do to involve itself in Iraq? Shoot the Scuds out of the sky that were raining down on Tel Aviv (side note, for all you fans of the Patriot, it was a piece of junk. I was 12 years old at the time, and I think something like 1/5th of the Scuds were actually intercepted.
Still, one less explosion in my backyard.

Or how about the Iraq-Iran war? I'm sure the Mossad started it. Or the "war on terror" in Afghanistan? Mossad, again.

Now, let's examine the more significant Israeli wars, ignoring the Sinai Campaign, which was against only Egypt:
(1948) Independence: Israel vs: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan.
(1967) Six Day War: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt
(1973) Yom Kippur War: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt
(1982) War of Attrition: Lebanon, Syria

I will as well leave out Entebbe, in which it seems the Country of Uganda could also be implicated as a terrorist state for haven of the PLO hijackers.

Note Syria and Lebanon's constant involvedment, as well as their status as havens for Palestinian Arab terrorists - Jordan does not count as Palestinian Arabs there have more or less been repatriated.

I will refrain from cheap insults in the future, unless of course, they are warranted /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

"All I said was was "Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period."

This statement is utterly wrong, in world affairs, and even personally.

[ACPlayer]

Try explaining why it is a good thing if your peace is threatened.

[nicky g]

"That's like saying Jews are responsible for all of the anger and hate because everyone hates them."

No, it isn't remotely like that. For a start not everyone hates Jews, and not everyone hates Israel. I don't hate Jews and I don't hate Israelis. Israel is a state with a government that acts in its name; Jews are members of the Jewish religion. They don't have an army, a foreign policy, anything that acts on the global stage in their name etc and even if I did I wouldn't have anything against them as individuals. Criticising a state on the basis of it's actions is perfectly legitimate; criticising someone on the basis of his religion or ethnicity largely isn't. My argument was that Israel was a threat to peace, and that one of the reasons for this was because it inspired anger in so many people, regardless of who was right or wrong. I already said that being a threat to peace was not necessarily a bad thing or a country's fault - a lot of people hate Jews, and I don't think that's the Jews' fault, a lot of people hate Muslims and I don't think that's the Muslim's fault, and a lot of people hate the Irish and I don't think that's the Irish's fult (though perhaps it's my fault) though in Israel's case I think it largely is the Israeli government's fault.

"This is akin, despite your family, and the lack of any real anti-Jewish tone to your posts, of saying:
"I'm not saying I'm anti-semitic, but the Jews cause a lot of problems.""

No, it isn't, for the reasons outlined above. I don't think the people of Israel are a threat to peace as individuals, and I don't think Jews are a threat to peace. I think the state of Israel is a threat to peace because of its actions vis a vis the Palestinians. I think the state of Israel has caused a lot of problems. So have lots of other states.

"What did Israel do to involve itself in Iraq? Shoot the Scuds out of the sky that were raining down on Tel Aviv (side note, for all you fans of the Patriot, it was a piece of junk. I was 12 years old at the time, and I think something like 1/5th of the Scuds were actually intercepted.
Still, one less explosion in my backyard.

Or how about the Iraq-Iran war? I'm sure the Mossad started it. Or the "war on terror" in Afghanistan? Mossad, again."

What are you talking about? I never said Israel was involved in every Middle Eastern war. I referred to the wars Israel had been in. You said that all Arab countires had been involved in all those wars. They hadn't. Now we're reduced to arguing over whether Israel was involved in all the wars it was involved in. I also mentioned the US, America and India. I suppose that makes me anti-Christian, anti-Muslim and anti-Hindu. I better become a Buddhist.

[Gamblor]

You didn't address my post, but whatever.

I dont mind liberals or conservatives.
Who do you mind then?

I mind people who want to put people into boxes called liberal and conservatives.

Agreed. But its still a basic description of one's political attitudes.

I mind people who use labels as pejoratives.

You commie.

I mind people who make comparisons based on race or ethnic origins.

Agreed.

I would prefer to think that we can achieve freedom with more mutual respect and less fighting. Sometimes it is inevitable; of late it seems that fighting is the first choice of conflict resolution.

Respect has to be earned.

[ACPlayer]

Sorry, I did not think your post said anything, hence I did not address it.

Lets see, in this post:

Who do i mind? I answered that in the next couple of lines of my post.

I agree with everything else you say in your post.

[Gamblor]

"Jews are members of the Jewish religion"

Jewish nation, Nicky. The nation has a common religion.

When I say "That is like saying...", its an analogy - the parable statement does not have to be true in any way, its just that- a parable.

Why aren't the Palestinians a threat to world peace?
They murder Israelis, and when Israel retaliates, the world goes nuts. "Look at dem 'ornery uppity Jews again"

I misread "at the centre of 6 regional wars...", when juxtaposed with "unstable region", as Israel's having given rise to all that instability.

I haven't really seen you as anti-anything, frankly. You're just misinformed about the Arab Israeli conflict, that's all. I don't doubt you've done homework, I just think you're too quick to accept an Arab version of events despite their governments' propensity to, flatly, lie. Arab governments control all information, media, television, etc. etc. and what you get from the Arab people in interviews etc. is the result of that. Israelis, on the other hand, are more or less exposed to all Western Media outlets - Fox, CNN, BBC, Sky, etc. etc.

[nicky g]

"Why aren't the Palestinians a threat to world peace?"

In some senses they are. The conflict is a threat to world peace,a dn both sides could escalate the conflict. But the Palestinians are incredibly weak and probably don't have the power to do an awful lot to endanger world peace. Israel on the other hand has nuclear weapons and seems ready to use them. SO do the US, India and Pakistan. I'msure other nuclear powers would do in certain situations, but Israel, the US, India and Pakistan are in situations where they could possibly use them.

To be honest I wish I'd not got into this discussion. I've already said I think the whole question as to who's a threat to world peace is vague and pointless, as it makes it seem that that nation is at fault when that's not necessarily so. I should have left it that.

[nicky g]

"They murder Israelis, and when Israel retaliates, the world goes nuts. "Look at dem 'ornery uppity Jews again""

No, they say "that damn lunatic Sharon again" or something along those lines. People such as myself don't see it as responding to the murder of Israelis. Thye see a government that won't do what it should - end the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and that is not interested in a paceful settlement. That's what we saee as the problem. It has nothing to do with uppity Jews. Stop trying to bring it back to that.

[Gamblor]

Because if my peace is threatened by way of change to my way of life, I would fight.

Some people can't be negotiated with.

On a side note, this begs the question

If:
- the PA recognize Israel's right to exist
- the PA is unable to crack down on terrorists
- the PA is not controlling or aiding terrorist organizations.

Why is Israel negotiating with the PA in the first place?
How exactly is the PA in conflict with Israel, if they have no control of the terrorists?

Shouldn't the negotiations be between Israel and Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs (ignore the blatant connections between Arafat's Fate and the Martyrs), Hizballa, etc?

If we accept that: You can't negotiate with terrorists. You can't negotiate under fire, lest they get the impression that terrorism led to gains.

Why is anyone negotiating in the first place?

Unless, the PA is more involved that Chris, Cyrus, etc. would have us believe.

[nicky g]

"Israelis, on the other hand, are more or less exposed to all Western Media outlets - Fox, CNN, BBC, Sky, etc. etc."

But I get nearly all my news from Western media outlets too. Much of my knowledge of the conflict comes from Israeli scholars. I don't get any news from Arab government outlets.

[MMMMMM]

"Try explaining why it is a good thing if your peace is threatened."

Not that is is a good thing, but that it can be. Your position on the other hand is that it never is.

[elwoodblues]

Stalinism, Nazism, and slavery were/are themselves threats to peace and therefore bad.

[MMMMMM]

"Stalinism, Nazism, and slavery were/are themselves threats to peace and therefore bad."

Do any other reasons occur to you why these might have been bad? And if these systems did not involve threats to other countries, might they still have been bad?

[nicky g]

"Why is Israel negotiating with the PA in the first place?"

Er, to come to a settlement on borders etc between Israel and Palestine? Because the PA is the representative of the Palestinians?

"How exactly is the PA in conflict with Israel, if they have no control of the terrorists?"

Israel is very much in conflict with the PA, given the way it has a military presence in PA areas, blows up PA security infrastructure, kills Palestinian civilians etc. But regardless, the negotations are to resolve an unsatisfactory situation. Why is conflict a necessary precursor to negotiations? The status quo is clearly untenable. The UK negotiated with Ireland over the Troubles even though the Irish government did not represent the IRA, and the British goverment did not (in theory) represent the UVF/UDA. It was not because they represented those groups but because the conflict clearly stemmed from a situation that needed to be resolved, and those two bodies were deemed to represent the people in the ground, if not all the parties to the conflict.

[ACPlayer]

You are right. My position is that it never is. I stand by that. You have yet to show how my peace being threatened is ever a good thing.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Do any other reasons occur to you why they might have been bad, elwoodblues? And if these systems did not involve threats to other countries, might they still have been bad?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are lots of reasons why these systems were/are bad and almost all of them that I can think of go back to the larger position that they threatened peace.

[ QUOTE ]
And if these systems did not involve threats to other countries...

[/ QUOTE ]

You see how you changed the question here? The quote had to do with threats to peace, not threats to other countries. My definition of peace would include both intra and international peace.

[MMMMMM]

Fine, here's an example of how your peace being threatened could be a good thing: You are a slave under horrible conditions, but there is no war. The neighboring country makes war on your country, and will liberate the slaves if it wins.

Here's another: You and your family are living in a gulag prison in North Korea. Your daughter has already starved to death in prison; you get beaten weekly; you desperately need medical care but cannot receive it; your son has tuberrculosis in that same prison. You see executions weekly. On the outside, two of your cousin's family have starved to death--one lived in the countryside, one lived in the city. Maybe you would favor a war if it could mean liberation?

Here's another: You live with no civil rights, but there is no war. The Iraqi secret police have already taken and tortured your uncle and father. Your cousin has been missing for 15 years. If the USA wins the war and truly gets rid of the Baathist regime you won't have to live in fear every night when you go to sleep that you will be wakened with a knock on the door at 3:00 A.M.

Here's another: You are an American Negro living as a slave in the 1800's. Thee is no war yet, but if the North and South go to war and the North wins, you will be liberated.

Here's another: You are living under Stalin's rule. Life is full of fear and everything that is not terrrible is grey and drab.

Hee's another: You are a successful and complacent businessman. You eat too much and enjoy drinking a bit too often and never exercise. One day your doctor disturbs your peace by telling you, at 50 years old, that if you don't make major lifestyle changes there is a good chance you won't see 55.

[ACPlayer]

So, what you are saying is that I should be hopeful that Mexico will invade the US and liberate me from the tyranny of Bush/Ashcroft while killing all my poker pals.

Hmmmm, seens to me that you want the people who are living in under these awful conditions to sit helplessly until a knight in shining armor comes to the rescue. I say they should take the responsibility in their own hands, as will I in getting rid of the dastardly regime I am living under.

It is not my responsibility to make the world better for others, that is a leftist socialist viewpoint. All I can do is make things better for me.

War is never a good thing.

[MMMMMM]

So you are just going to expand your definition of peace as far as necessary to fit? So oppression and things like that are bad because they are "not peace?" Is that what you're saying, elwood? LMFAO, nice argument.

[MMMMMM]

"Hmmmm, seens to me that you want the people who are living in under these awful conditions to sit helplessly until a knight in shining armor comes to the rescue. I say they should take the responsibility in their own hands, as will I in getting rid of the dastardly regime I am living under."

Yeah, sure, the American slaves could have revolted and triumphed, the North Korean gulag prisoners can rise up and kill their jailors, and the poor Iraqi people certainly could have defeated the evil Baathists all on their own.

Dream on.

If you were one of these poor souls, you would have been PRAYING for outside intervention.

"It is not my responsibility to make the world better for others, that is a leftist socialist viewpoint. All I can do is make things better for me.

War is never a good thing."

So I guess you feel the American Revolution for independence from Britian was not a good thing? And if you were to ever try to "make things better for you," that couldn't include war against those oppressing you, should you ever be in that unfortunate situation?

Opp[ression is never a good thing, either--MANY things are not good things. Sometimes it is a choice between the evils of war or the evils of oppression, or worse. You are in effect arguing that war is always a greater evil than anything else.

[Gamblor]

The difference here I think, is that even if the conflict between the PA and Israel were to be resolved, the facts on the ground would not change.

The "militant" groups would not stop attacks, and Israel would still go into PA towns to arrest terrorists.

[Cyrus]

You were extremely rude and dismissive when an American taxpayer dared question where his money goes. And whether American tax money going to Israel, without any strings attached, contributes to peace.

No wonder you are equally dismissive of almost all other western nations too.

Gamblor To Taxpayer : Drop Dead (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=382231&page=&view=&sb =5&o=&vc=1)

[Cyrus]

When an arrogant nationalist like Gamblor says this, it is merely childish. When someone who is not even a Jew says this, do you realize how silly he comes across? At all?

No wonder Nicky G is busting his sides laughing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I would assume it sounds silly to you. In fact, your reply underscores your bigotry.

[Gamblor]

And when an obnoxious cynic like the Virus even bothers to respond with nothing more than another "pithy" comment, it is plain sad.

[Gamblor]

Attaway there, Goebbels

Your ability to spin is admirable, but where I come from, spinning is called lying.

I challenge you to find, anywhere in anything I've posted, that shows disdain in anyway for America or Americans. Much less use anything remotely close to the words "Drop Dead"

I'd have to be an idiot (or you, or Chris Alger) to bite the hand that feeds me.

Why is being a nationalist so evil for Jews, but so righteous for Arabs?

And finally, if indeed all this bull is in reference to the title of that post, "Nobody's asking you to care", then you have obviously read a little more than it seems necessary. Nobody's asking you to care about the war itself. Care about where your money goes, but not about the people dying. If you believe American money goes to murdering people, well, you're simply deluded. It goes to protecting people.

But when you pretend to know more than a government with access to all classified intelligence that you, or any of the radical swine you read, do not have access to, it's hilarious.

[andyfox]

"You are a successful and complacent businessman. You eat too much and enjoy drinking a bit too often and never exercise. One day your doctor disturbs your peace by telling you, at 50 years old, that if you don't make major lifestyle changes there is a good chance you won't see 55."

Here I was minding my own business on this one and you had to drag me into it. . . /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, if it were not for the masses of crude, stupid, ignorant, backwards Europeans and Arabs who oppressed and persecuted the Jews over many centuries, Israel would not be necessary. But until they stop wishing Jews dead, Israel is necessary. Put the blame where it deserves to lie--on the masses of backwards, stupid swine who have historically made up a large portion of the population of both Europe and the Muslim/Arab world. And I'm as Aryan as they come.

[elwoodblues]

I didn't realize this was a pissing match...

I never expanded my definition of peace, that's always been my definition of peace. The term was thrown about without definition in this thread. Look up the definition of the term peace...I'm sure you'll find some definitions talking about the absence of war (the definition that you assumed I meant) and some talking about harmonious relations, freedom from quarrel, public security and order, etc. I was acting under the broader definition.

[MMMMMM]

Apologies for the tone, elwood.

I suggest that things like oppression and wanton cruelty are bad for many reasons...but if one of those reasons is that they are 'not peace,' I'd have to put that reason waaaay down on the list somewhere.

[elwoodblues]

and I would suggest that "at peace" is the larger umbrella under which most of the items in your list would fall.

[MMMMMM]

But there are many such larger umbrellas which could apply, aren't there?

Love or 'not love'

Peace or 'not peace'

Fair or 'unfair'

Kind or 'unkind'

etc.etc.etc

So the larger umbrella argument may have its place, but I don't see that it's especially relevant to the discussion.

[ACPlayer]

Look you leftist do-gooding pig, it is not your responsibility to save the world, worry about yourself.


American revolution was done by the people who were suffering. As I have said in an earlier response that is an acceptable response to your peace being threatened.

Any threat to peace is a bad thing period If a bad thing is done to me I will respond. I dont want a socialist Teddy Kennedy type like you doing the responding.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, you wrote:

"Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period."

Now you are saying:

"American revolution was done by the people who were suffering. As I have said in an earlier response that is an acceptable response to your peace being threatened."

There would have continued to be peace had the colonists not risen up and revolted. Now you are saying that war against oppression is an acceptable thing if you are the one who is oppressed. But this is inconsistent with your position that "Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period." If those who are oppressed rise up and wage war to gain freedom, they have at first first threatened, and then actually broken, the peace.

So, ACPlayer, some threats to peace, and even some wars, are a good thing in balance...eh, ACPlayer? Like the American Revolution, for instance?;-)

[Chris Alger]

In the first place, as Nicky points out, the poll hardly indicated that Europeans believe that Israel is the greatest threat to world peace. This story has less to do with threats to world peace than the propaganda campaign to paint critics of Israeli foreign policy as anti-Semitic due to Israel's defenders having exhausted all the old lies. The deliberate misread of the poll is merely a harbringer for what follows.

But as long as you're asking the question, how about a few objective criteria? How about the country (1) that claims more vital interests worthy of using lethal force in more places than any other; (2) that has the larget military and greatest ability to project force in any part of the world; (3) with the largest and most "flexible" nuclear arsenal; (4) initiates or intervenes in more violent international conflicts than any other; (5) that exports more arms and lethal aid than any other; (6) that exports lethal aid to more countries than any other; (7) that most vigorously opposes international legal limits on such activities; (8) that expressly rejects the notion of war only necessary to combat imminent threats and instead embraces a vague doctrine of "preventative war;" and (8) who's government can most reliably count on popular ignorance, support or quiescence regarding these benchmarks?

Find a country that fits this bill and you've got a good definition of the greatest threat to world peace.

[Zeno]

I think a simple formula should have less than eight criteria, but that may be a self-induced bias by one so influence by popular ignorance. This is the best post I have read by you. Admittedly, I have not read all of your posts but this one must be near one of your best efforts.

You may have over extended yourself into an almost self-parody. You remind me of a Senator that has the power to write Tax Laws to fit his own needs.

Some advice: Change the title to: A modest propaganda formula, the hint of truth in the title will add to its allure. In addition, also increase the criteria to 50 - a symbolic change, one for each state - something I am sure you could accomplish quite easily. This will help induce the numerologists into your fold.

Shalom,

-Zeno

[Cyrus]

You continue to operate under the delusion that this is one of those audiences that suck up to your nationalist, supremacist ideology. Well, even if a large number of posters are, in fact, supportive of your views, possibly a majority of them, this is not unanimous, baby. So walk softly ...

I don't see what you're on about. You have already come clean. You have already shown your disdain, not just for the American sucker aka tax payer, who foots the bill for Israel, but for any person who is not on the side of the Strong and the Ruthless. You have already posted, in as clear a language as you will ever manage as a lawyer, that

"Human rights do not exist. They were made up by the weak in order to avoid the effects of Darwinism."

I feel rather proud of extracting this little gem from your "Gamblor claws", baby. No matter what you post and how much you try to spin that away, it's all I need to know!

Take care.

[Cyrus]

You still don't get it. Chalk it up to the happy hours of childhood spent watching Captain Kirk fumbling with what I now know to have been a mobile phone, that I am prepared to even further elaborate, strictly for your education.

1. Zionism is a nationalist ideology. Without, in this instance, passing judgement on nationalist ideologies as such, this fact is not disputed.

2. Each nationality has its own set of nationalist iedologies. Again, this is not to be disputed : French nationalism is different than German nationalism at any time in History, even today. They may coincide in many respects but, in total, they differ by definition. This premise will be valid as long as we have nation-states with us. (Please try to understand this.)

3. A person that belongs to nation X can, in fact, be supportive of the nationalism of nation Y. For reasons of personal/ational interest, out of sympathy, whatever. But he/she cannot, under any circumstances except one, be a nationalist Y. The only exception is when, in reality, he/she belongs to nation Y rather than X, in actuality. (This occurs with people of dual nationalities. For example : A German citizen who is a Turk immigrant can, in fact, be a Turkish nationalist, if he so chooses. Or, if you want something closer to home, I give you Jonathan Pollard (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/234383.stm) as an example of primary loyalties. Would you betray your country to serve the interests of Israel?)

Ergo, my dear galactic friend, you, being a non-Jew, non-Israeli, cannot be a Zionist. It is downright silly to even say it. No matter how you may long to belong, no matter how you admire them, you can be supportive of them, you may even help them materially, morally or otherwise, but you canot claim that you are a Zionist unless you are a Jew or an Israeli.

And this is what I told you the first time, no more and no less.

--Cyrus

PS : Are you even circumsized ? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You do have the supreme ability to pick nits, I will give you that. Not a single one of my Jewish friends has ever told me that I wasn't allowed to call myself a Zionist because I'm neither Jewish nor Israeli.

I'll apologize to them forthwith.

And to answer your final, most personal question, were I to choose to become a Jew, that is one pain I would not have to suffer.

[MMMMMM]

Obviously, Cyrus, he's a Klingon first and a Zionist second.

[Gamblor]

Hyperbole, Virus.

Personal attacks are always an important part of logical debate.

Perhaps your smear campaign would like a picture of me, say, with a hooker? Or check out my criminal record?

[Gamblor]

"Human rights do not exist. They were made up by the weak in order to avoid the effects of Darwinism."

Hyperbole, Virus.

Personal attacks are always an important part of logical debate.

Perhaps your smear campaign would like a picture of me, say, with a hooker? Or check out my criminal record?

[Gamblor]

Main Entry: Zi·on·ism
Pronunciation: 'zI-&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1896
: an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriamwebster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)

The scope is not limited to Jews.

It must be nice to believe you know everything. I admire confidence, even if its misguided.

[Gamblor]

This story has less to do with threats to world peace than the propaganda campaign to paint critics of Israeli foreign policy as anti-Semitic due to Israel's defenders having exhausted all the old lies.

What is your opinion on Area 51 at Roswell?
Kennedy Conspiracy theories?
Jimmy Hoffa's wherabouts?
Ghosts in the White House?
The unsolved mystery of "Unsolved Mysteries"' sudden cancellation?

[Chris Alger]

Silly stories for dumb guys who say things like Alan Dershowitz "co-wrote the Oslo Accords, if I'm not mistaken."

[ACPlayer]

You are still having comprehension troubles.

Any threat to peace is a bad thing. Period.

Bad things may be confronted and dealt with in a variety of ways, including war.

There is absolutely no contradiction. You are simply opposed to peace and any notion that peace is good is anathema to you.

[Gamblor]

"If I'm not mistaken"

Two different and distinct arguments in one sentence.

If those are such silly stories, how can you accept anything the Arab dictators tell you?

[MMMMMM]

So according to ACPlayer, war at times can be an OK response to bad things, but...any threat to peace is bad /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

"You are simply opposed to peace and any notion that peace is good is anathema to you."

ACPlayer, there is nothing in what I wrote to indicate that that is my position--and it certainly is not my position. Also if you cannot think and argue more logically there will be little point in continuing this discussion.

[Cyrus]

"Not a single one of my Jewish friends has ever told me that I wasn't allowed to call myself a Zionist because I'm neither Jewish nor Israeli."

You can call yourself whatever you like. You can even dismiss as "nitpicking" any argument that you don't agree with. And you can circumsize yourself once again, if you like.

What you cannot do is change the fact that calling yourself an Indonesian nationalist or a Nepalese nationalist is anything but downright silly, no matter what your Indonesian or Nepalese friends might tell you about it.

No, I do not expect that you will "get it" this time, either. I am merely using your silliness as a blackboard to make a point. Thanks for the help.

[ACPlayer]

If you can understand the first sentence in your response, it will go a long way towards your education.

[MMMMMM]

ACPLayer: "If you can understand the first sentence in your response, it will go a long way towards your education"

OK, this is the first sentence:

So according to ACPlayer, war at times can be an OK response to bad things, but...any threat to peace is bad /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Yes, ACPlayer, I do understand it. Do you understand that if, as you say, war is sometimes a necessary response, the threat to have that war can sometimes be a good thing rather than a bad thing? And can you further see that a "threat to peace" is not always bad, if it is comprised of a threat to commence a just and necessary war? Can you realize that certain wars can be less bad than a peaceful status quo? If an oppressed people rise up in war, as you suggest they justifiably might, do you see how their threatening the peace can be a good thing [in balance? Can you realize that a threat to a terrible, unjust, peace might be a good thing (if a war to rectify a truly terrible status quo can be a good thing, then the threat to such war can be also a good thing).

Do you understand that getting your appendix removed may be a bad thing if considered by itself, but overall it may be a good thing if your appendix is about to rupture?

You have to be trolling. NOBODY can be this dense.

[ACPlayer]

If you really understand it, congratulations, you are on your way to a better mind.

[Gamblor]

if I believe Virus should have his own state, preferably somewhere in the Marianas Trench, and I act for and advocate the development of that state, I cannot be a Viran nationalist?

And nitpicking is avoiding the main idea and scope of the argument to argue details to bait someone into discussing a mildly related topic you have a stronger argument in; for example, avoiding the issue of terrorist Palestinians and their corrupt violent leadership yada yada yada by providing information on, at best, disputable freedom fighting/terrorism by Stern, Shamir, Begin et al.

You are a baiter.

You are a master baiter.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No, I do not expect that you will "get it" this time, either. I am merely using your silliness as a blackboard to make a point. Thanks for the help.

I *do* get it. I can't technically be a jewish nationalist because I'm not jewish. Duh. But I am free to use hyperbole to emphasize the strength of my support.

You know, you constantly use insulting language when you reply to me, which is not my idea of civilized debate. But, of course, you have the anonymity of the internet to hide your snide little ass behind. And that, Cyrus, is your good fortune.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Trust me Gamblor. If he were in the same room with me, he'd adopt a much more polite attitude.

[Cyrus]

"You constantly use insulting language when you reply to me, which is not my idea of civilized debate."

Most of your views about the Middle East conflict are naive, silly and wrong. This is my take and have tried to justify it as best as I can (when not feeling too lazy). There's nothing "personal" there. If you get insulted when I make jokes about your Klingon handle, I can't help it. If I posted something that you found personally offensive, I can't think what it might be but I apologize.

"Of course, you have the anonymity of the internet to hide your snide little ass behind. And that, Cyrus, is your good fortune."

This is the second time that you have posted something alluding to your physical prowess. On what basis do you believe so strongly that you would kick my ass, if we were to come face to face? I'm just curious.

By the way, I'm glad that you finally "got it" about that Zionist silliness.

[Cyrus]

(Where's Mason when duty calls?) The meaning of the term is two-fold. There's world peace in the sense that a threat to it could cause a world war. And there's world peace in the sense of stability everywhere, in that a threat to world peace is the most likely candidate to break the peace anywhere.

During the Cold War, Israel was threat number one of world peace, in both meanings of the term.

Now that the Cold War has ended, Israel is "only" a threat to world peace in the 2nd meaning: If hostilities are likely to break out anywhere in the world, this would most likely happen in the Middle East, and because of Israel -- this is what the poll probably says.

But, the wording is not clear, I admit.

[Cyrus]

Thanks, Gamblor, I couldn't have asked for a better start for the weekend.

"What Arab nations had not been at the centre of those [Middle East] wars?"

Morocco; Tunisia; Libya; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; Oman; Yemen; Kuwait. Want more? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Are you another one of those Mossad conspiracists?"

So you admit that you have conspiracists in Mossad??

"Israel took a small slice of land from all those Arab dictators, [and] made it arable."

An astounding revelation! The area of Palestine was a desert before the Israelis arrived. (So where did all the sand go?) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"Imagine Israel attacking Mecca on the first day of Ramadan. Inconceivable."

LOL.

Like I said : Thanks for starting my weekend off with such hilarity.

[Gamblor]

You have yet to address my Viran nationalist post.

Furthermore, your claim that his opinions are silly, wrong, etc. is nothing more than conjecture on your part, based on the writings of brilliant minds like Benny Morris, Chomsky, etc.

You're a joke.

[Cyrus]

"Your claim that [the Klingon's] opinions are silly, wrong, etc. is nothing more than conjecture on your part, based on the writings of brilliant minds like Benny Morris, Chomsky, etc."

My claim is my personal opinion, exactly. As your claims to the opposite are also your personal opinions. And so are the Klingon's.

The only difference between your claims and mine is that I post historical facts and data, all sourced to Jewish writers (which, because you cannot dispute nor disprove, are subjected to your ad hominem attacks), I try to construct logical arguments (while you resort to "brilliancies" such as "There are no human rights!") and I try to base those arguments on morality, e.g. something can't be wrong for Israelis and right for Palestinians & vice versa (while your position is "My country, right or wrong"). We are different in the way we think, baby, and vive la difference!

And try to get your insults straight : I have never referenced Noam Chomsky. It just so happened I haven't. Who knows in what delusionary state you must be, at the moment.

As to the Klingon, well, he's a Zionist Klingon, which is truly admirable.

[Gamblor]

My claim is my personal opinion, exactly. As your claims to the opposite are also your personal opinions. And so are the Klingon's.

How exactly is your personal opinion formed?
Out of thin air? Or based on what you have read, and who you have decided to allow to influence you?

The only difference between your claims and mine is that I post historical facts and data, all sourced to Jewish writers (which, because you cannot dispute nor disprove, are subjected to your ad hominem attacks)

So because they're Jewish, they're somehow allowed to distor the data and facts to suit their agenda? I post Dershowitz, Pipes, McCain, and a host of journalists and authors showing the fallacies of Finkelstein et al and your response is?

But one example: "plagiarist"

He has shown and defended himself many times against these charges, but once your mind is made up, there's no going back, is there.

I try to construct logical arguments (while you resort to "brilliancies" such as "There are no human rights!") and I try to base those arguments on morality, e.g. something can't be wrong for Israelis and right for Palestinians & vice versa (while your position is "My country, right or wrong").

Logical arguments you base on false assumptions about the false facts and data you present. What is your grounds for the oversimplification of my argument? There cannot be a moral "right and wrong", in the black and white sense. You ought to know that by now, and your moral structure is just that - your moral structure. Not mine. But I will argue the political "right"ness of the Israeli position. I will argue the motives and moral structure of the Israeli government and army having been governed by them, having studied the Basic Laws that form Israel's "constitution", and having served as a soldier in the territories.

What you call "historical facts and data" are nothing more than a few people looking to shock a few other people. Jewish does not equal Israeli (although it ought to).

And try to get your insults straight : I have never referenced Noam Chomsky. It just so happened I haven't. Who knows in what delusionary state you must be, at the moment.

I never said you referenced him. I said you use him to form your worldview. Which is a shame because he's far more deluded than I could hope to be.

Let's try a little exercise for you, my child.

Ignore your judgemental God-complex persona for now, and put yourself in an Israeli's shoes. Perhaps a common Israeli, doesn't have anyone close he's lost in a terrorist attack. His grandfather was killed in the Six Day war. He's grown up celebrating holidays that signify just another attempt to kill him and his people. He doesn't identify much as a Jew, because the laws of the land do that for him - i.e. he doesn't think about resting on Shabbat, because almost all businesses are closed anyway. But what he does know, is that if he were alive at any of a hundred points in history, his life would be in danger simply because he was a Jew, whether he thinks so or not. And he knows it can happen again (and is happening now). The Arabs don't shout "Kill the Israeli." They shout "Kill the Jew."

Before you start kicking and screaming, pooh-bear, before we were even given a gun in service, we were taught to always put yourself in the head of your enemy - imagine why he has decided to be your enemy, and imagine what he wants at the end of the day.

[Gamblor]

Cyrus is speechless.

[Cyrus]

...in shorthand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=402795&page=12&view=e xpanded&sb=6&o=14&vc=1)

[Gamblor]

Virus, via Alger:
[ QUOTE ]

You need to do some serious growing up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Virus:
[ QUOTE ]
...subjected to your ad hominem attacks...

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

[Cyrus]

You can take that as friendly diagnosis or you can continue to be your usual immature self.

You know where my money is.

[Gamblor]

LOL okay Virus...

Strictly for my own curiosity's sake, of course, could you please explain:

How, calling me immature, calling my sources plagiarists and radicals etc. etc. is not an ad hominem attack?

How, calling your sources basically liars because they present inferences as facts, both of which are invalid and false, and assuming that the definition of "liar" is one who presents false facts as truth, my attacks are ad hominem?

How are things out there in left?

[Cyrus]

"Strictly for my own curiosity's sake..."

Yes, I will indulge you -- because I like the colors of the flag you hoisted up. I'm buying coupla ties just that shade o' blue.

"How, calling me immature, calling my sources plagiarists and radicals etc. etc. is not an ad hominem attack?"

I have called you immature because you display a childish disregard for elementary logic (eg you contradict yourself repeatedly) and for basic human decency (eg you post one set of moral rules for one race and a different set for another race). The second attitude along with the venom in your posts qualifies you also as a bigot, which I have also called you.

That's about it and if you consider it to be a personal attack, so be it. (Ad hominem doesn't mean that exactly but I will not digress.)

As to your sources, first of all I have not called your sources "radical" (why should that be a curse?? you're projecting!) or "plagiarists"... "Plagiarists" ??! I have not accused your sources of plagiarizing someone else's work! What I did is claim that the credibility of Coulter's, Horowitz's et alii own work is dubious, at best. (You are studying to be a lawyer, and yet can't make such clear distinctions in your terminology?)

"...[I'm] calling your sources basically liars because they present inferences as facts ..."

It's funny (and downright patheric) but not a single convincing or at least decent rebuttal has been produced against the arguments and the historical facts put foward by the numerous Jewish scholars whom I have referenced. It's to be expected that you would resort, like most of your bigoted ilk, to name-calling and ad hominem attacks ("liars", "self-hating Jews", "leftists") since you cannot address not a single point those honorable Jews make.

Take care.

--Cyrus

PS : You're asking me "How are things out there in left?" I might tell you when I get there.

[Gamblor]

I have called you immature because you display a childish disregard for elementary logic (eg you contradict yourself repeatedly) and for basic human decency (eg you post one set of moral rules for one race and a different set for another race). The second attitude along with the venom in your posts qualifies you also as a bigot, which I have also called you.

My logical reasoning skills are "Exceptional" according to the LSAT. Explain contradictions I have made, and how you interpret them as such.

Basic human decency: Moral rules apply to all people. But I don't take exception to the right of Arabs to form an Arab-majority state, and applaud Israel in establishing a Jewish-majority state, if that's what you're referring to.

I have not rejected the existence of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. I don't like them, I don't like the threat they pose, but they certainly have the right to exist. Only the Palestinian state, and only under the circumstances surrounding Palestinian leadership (not just the PA - the organizations as well).

(Ad hominem doesn't mean that exactly but I will not digress.)

Ad hominem - attacking the person rather than the argument he makes... Like a glove...

I have not accused your sources of plagiarizing someone else's work!

What did you have to say about Dershowitz's the Case for Israel? Perhaps I am confusing you with Chris.

What I did is claim that the credibility of Coulter's, Horowitz's et alii own work is dubious, at best. (You are studying to be a lawyer, and yet can't make such clear distinctions in your terminology?)

What makes it so dubious? It's certainly to be expected that you would tend to agree with what you already believe, and to out-of-hand reject what you do not. But why do you believe what you believe? What were your influences in forming your opinion on the matter? Your evidence is all second hand - it comes from books and opinions, and I suspect whoever got to you first (which is understandable from any perspective), likely Chomsky, formed the lens through which you view this specific conflict. I, on the other hand, have first-hand, empirical experience with the people you defend. Many are normal, moral, every day human beings just looking to live their lives. Too many are not, and it is a shame those are the ones in power. My problem with the two-state solution, is any Jew visiting Ma'arat HaMachpelah, or Jericho, no matter how much "peace" there is, requires an IDF convoy. Not so of Arabs visiting the Temple Mount. I will say it again: The Arabs don't shout "Kill the Israeli!" They shout "Kill the Jew!"

It's funny (and downright patheric) but not a single convincing or at least decent rebuttal has been produced against the arguments and the historical facts put foward by the numerous Jewish scholars whom I have referenced. It's to be expected that you would resort, like most of your bigoted ilk, to name-calling and ad hominem attacks ("liars", "self-hating Jews", "leftists") since you cannot address not a single point those honorable Jews make.

Issues:
1) What difference does it make if they are Jews or not? And honorable Jews? What, that's such a rare thing?

2) They do lie, because the events in question are spun to shed negative light on a just cause, because once the cause is acheived, it is easy to question the methods. Do the means justify the end? It is Jewish law that if one must break a law in order to save his life, he must, because a dead man does no good deeds.

Allow me to describe what I believe to be the formation of a Self-hating Jew: Most Jews grow up in a system of Jewish education and Jewish homes, meaning they are exposed to Jewish thought and religion. Most of the anti-Jews are children of Holocaust survivors, and Jews are educated, incessantly about the anti-semitism. How it happened, what was done, Kristallnacht (the anniversary of which was last night), Nazi propaganda, and more as far back as the Middle Ages (and further, actually). Blood libel, for example, is one of my favourites. Did you know I need the blood of Christian babies to make Matzah for Passover?

Regardless, this incessant education breeds a curiosity about what makes people say these things. You are taught to read what you are up against. But for some, the more they read, the more they begin to believe it.

"You know, I've noticed that Jews really stick together and think they're too good for everyone else"
Never mind the fact that they've been ostracized since day one, so sticking together is more a defence mechanism than anything, IMO.

"Yeah, I noticed my dad was really tight with money"
Never mind the fact that his income growing up was $2,000 a year.

"Those people are right, Israel is commiting war crimes with no regard for Arab life."
Never mind the Arab support, financially and politically, for a group of people who are really not interested in allowing any sort of Jewish law to govern any of the Middle East.

Allow me to present my side: Israeli rules of engagement specifically state a soldier may not fire unless fired upon. I don't think any more needs to be said.

Leftist on its own is not bad. It's the propensity of Leftists to impose their values on others (a topic covered at length in the past here) that I despise. Live and let live.

Now, here we go. Don't bother responding to the above, they are merely my opinions and it's obvious you disagree.

Why have you chosen to accept the positions of Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Kimmerling as truth?

To what extent does your reading of these authors, especially Chomsky affect your opinion of the conflict?

Would you say the international community is impartial to the outcome of this conflict? i.e. they are more interested in peace than seeing a specific side appeased?
My opinion : They are more interested in appeasing the Arabs, and getting their hands on that market - oil for arms. I don't blame them, but at least I recognize it. It is no longer taboo to hate Jews in Europe.

Do the Jews have right to self-determination? If so, the state they have chosen for themselves is a democratic socialist country. What would any democratic nation do when surrounded by enemies?