Gaza Baby Killers

[B-Man]

I don't know how anyone can defend/support these people. This kind of action truly shocks the conscience. I'm sure Cyrus, Alger and Nicky will start mentioning assasinations and the like by Israel, but in no way is anything Israel has done comparable to the cold-blooded murders of children. Israel targets terrorists (and sometimes causes collateral damage), but would never intentionally, specifically murder babies like happened in this incident.

This is truly horrific.
======================================

May 3, 2004 -- JERUSALEM - Palestinian fiends mercilessly gunned down a pregnant Jewish settler and her four terrified little girls in their station wagon yesterday as the family headed to protest Israel's planned Gaza Strip pullout.
After riddling the car with gunfire on a road leading to Israel, the two terrorists then ran up to the vehicle and coldbloodedly pumped bullets into each of their victims' heads to make sure they had finished the job, Israeli police said.

One of the gunmen also shot the swollen belly of the eight-months-pregnant mom at point-blank range.

"At first, we thought we could do something to save the mother, but it was too late," one distraught Israeli settler said.

"The children were already dead, with bullets in the head. Little children. I don't know, I really don't know," the man said.

Killed were Tali Hatuel, 34, and her four daughters: Meirav, 2, Roni, 7, Hadar, 9, and Hila, 11.

Rescuers found the dead baby still strapped in her car seat, just above a blood-soaked children's book that had fallen on the floor.



The brutal attack occurred at around 1 p.m., as Hatuel, a social worker who counseled the relatives of terror victims, was driving her daughters from their settlement of Gush Katif to hand out fliers at a nearby protest over the planned dismantlement of their settlement and about 20 others.

A bumper sticker on their car defiantly read, "From here, we will not move."

Hours later, Likud Party voters overwhelmingly rejected a nonbinding referendum on the plan, largely because of emotional backlash stemming from the five murders.

Israeli TV reported that a CNN crew traveling in a van on the same road as the woman and her daughters had spotted the ambush being set up moments earlier and tried to alert the family. But the mom didn't understand what the crew was trying to say before it was too late.

The two gunmen were shot dead by Israeli soldiers as they fled the scene.

Several Palestinian militant groups, including the Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility.

David Hatuel, a teacher, wept uncontrollably over the bodies of his wife and children at their funerals as he begged them to forgive him for spending so much time away from home to lobby against the pullout.

"On Friday, [the girls] drew me a picture and wrote, 'Daddy, we are proud of what you are doing for the home where we were born,' " he told the crowd of thousands of mourners.

"You were my flowers, and I will not forget you," he sobbed.

Several hours after the attack, Israel launched missiles at a Gaza City building that housed Palestinian-run radio stations and two main newspapers. At least two people were wounded. Israel also launched a missile strike on a car in Nablus, killing four militants.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how anyone can defend/support these people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're totally taking this out of context. Is it a terrible travesty? Of course. But I hope you're not suggesting that all Palestinians behave this way, because they obviously do not.

On a side note, you mentioned that Isreal would not do anything this horrendous. However, you must remember that in this whole situation that Isreal has been the aggressor and oppressor and that the Palestinians (justified or not) are retaliating to their injustice. There is also of course a media bias in this Isreal/Palestine situation. The U.S. historically have been pro-Isreal and we always seem to hear in detail of the horrifying acts of Palestian terrorists, but not of the riot control tactics of Isreal, who have gunned down Palestian protestors on numerous occassions. Yes, we hear of them, but for some reason, it does not seem as shocking.

I'm not in any way supporting acts of terrorism by the Palestinians or acts of oppression by Isreal, but before you start to point fingers at who's more wrong or who's more terrible in this conflict, just remember that both sides are victims and hope that peace is resolved.

[Gamblor]

The "oppression" of the Palestinian people is a propaganda tactic used by a totalitarian dictatorship (the PA) as media spin.

The "oppression" amounts to anti-terrorism measures such as arrests/public trials for incitement/violence/conspiracy to murder, demolition of terrorist infrastructure i.e. munitions depotss/factories, and defensive measures such as checkpoints to examine Palestinian vehicles entering Israel and security fences.

The settler issue, amounts to Jews returning to lands they relenquished in the 1948 war when the UN mandated them out of cities like Hevron and Sh'chem (now Nablus). Upon their return, they were met with further violence and indeed lands were appropriated - by the only sovereign state that claimed them (Israel) - in order to defend against the frequent attacks from terrorists that began long before 1967 as well as potential attacks from the neighbouring Arab states that so frequently declared war on the State.

It is indeed individual Palestinian Arabs that commit these crimes and by no means should all Arabs be persecuted because of the actions of others.

Yet, it is the systematic encouragement of terrorism by the Palestinians in power (be they Hamas or the PA), as well as the vulnerability of the Jews in Israel that prevents the formation of a legitimate Palestinian state.

No Palestinian terrorists come from small towns. Most small-town Palestinians get along with Israelis from nearby towns, even settlers! They share commerce and visit and trade with each other. This is because most small town Palestinians, without TVs, are untainted by the relentless stream of propaganda (http://www.pmw.org.il) urging them to destroy Jews/Zionists, as Palestinians in cities like Kalkilya, Tulkarm, Beit Lechem, Nablus, Jenin, Gaza, Rafach, and other Terrorist factories are, and that is why there is still a conflict. The PA simply does not control anything outside the reach of its armed thugs, and as such can not operate as a government. It's a matter of finding a government who will guarantee the safety of Israelis and quell the blind unadulterated hatred - not of Israeli policy, but of Jews.

Who else is there?

The Hamas?

[ACPlayer]

Out of curiousity I must ask:

[ QUOTE ]
The PA simply does not control anything outside the reach of its armed thugs, and as such can not operate as a government.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the PA agreed to turn over all of its weapons, Arafat and his top henchmen go into exile somewhere, Hamas and its top henchmen also go into exile somewhere and the Palestinian agreed by referendum to be governed by the Israeli laws:

then a one-state solution with full Israeli citizenship rights to the Palestinians presently in Gaza and WB, with Israel's border upto the Jordan river be acceptable to a) youself b) the other fascists (i could not resist it /images/graemlins/grin.gif) Sharon et al?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The U.S. historically have been pro-Isreal and we always seem to hear in detail of the horrifying acts of Palestian terrorists, but not of the riot control tactics of Isreal, who have gunned down Palestian protestors on numerous occassions. Yes, we hear of them, but for some reason, it does not seem as shocking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's NOT as shocking as armed men running up to small children in a car and putting a bullet into each of their heads at point blank range. And that kind of atrocity happens only on the Palestinian side. Not all Palestinians are like that, of course, as you rightly point out, but apparently some Palestinians are less human than any Israeli. So mull that over.

[Gamblor]

Yes.

If somehow there would be a guarantee that anti-semitism among Arab nations would be eradicated forever.

[Cptkernow]

Are there realy people alive that are naive and uninformed enough to think that Israeli forces or Israeli sponsored groups havnt been resposible for the deaths of palestinian children.

One of the most famous photographs of 2003 captured the death of a palenstinian child via Irsaeli Security force gunfire, surely you must have seen it.

I assume you now what the word Massacre means. Use it in a google search with the words Palestinian refuge camp and Areil Sharon.

I abhore all such actions, anyone who thinks the Israelis havnt got blood on there hands and are not in some way responsible of turning the wheel of perpetual violence that charachterises that relationship beteen the Israilies and Palastinians needs to re explore there understanding of the region.

[MMMMMM]

Are there really people who think executing 4 children at point blank range does not fall into its own special category for depravity and deliberate terror?

[Gamblor]

One of the most famous photographs of 2003 captured the death of a palenstinian child via Irsaeli Security force gunfire, surely you must have seen it.

If you're referring to Mohammed al-Dura, it has been conclusively proven that he was indeed killed by Palestinian gunmen, not Israeli soldiers.

I assume you now what the word Massacre means. Use it in a google search with the words Palestinian refuge camp and Areil Sharon.

Of course, the old Sabra and Shatila canard.

Sharon and Israeli troops did not kill one person in those camps. Not one. You can thank the Christian Lebanese Army for that one. And Israel, in its infinite fairness, even indicted Sharon for indirect responsibility, implying that he could have somehow walked up to the rabid Lebanese and asked them politely to stop.

Are we going to keep ressurecting Arab myths designed to keep their citizenry enraged at Israel, rather than at their own government, for the economic failings of the Arab states?

[trippin bily]

no one is taking this out of context. how can you take murdering innocent woman and children out of context? they are not both victims. the palestinians want to kill all israelis and drive them into the sea. end of discussion. there is no debate.israel has offered numerous plans to give up all kinds of land. all met with murder of innocent woman and children...thanks to the palestinans...now with woman and children. israel is not going anywhere. stop killing their people and things will change. keep using woman and children to kill woman and children and the ONLY thing israel can do is kill those trying to kill them. stop apologizing for the murderers. if you want peace you cant keep killing israelis. hasnt worked yet has it?

[daryn]

let's just sum all these types of posts up in one blurb, this way we won't have to keep talking about it.


israel is good, blah blah blah, palestine is bad, blah blah blah.

then the other side...

but whoa, palestine are the innocents, israel is the real bad guy, blah blah blah.

rinse, and repeat.


when will people realize that no one side is right, they're BOTH WRONG.

[MMMMMM]

Fine, they're both wrong, but the Palestinians have adopted more evil tactics. Further they have embraced a delusional death-cult by which the religious leaders, and PA school system and PA TV, indoctrinate the youth to aspire towards jihad and martyrdom. I previously posted links to actual video footage of some of these TV ads and there can be no doubt that they are encouraging children to become suicide bombers and martyrs.

The Palestinian response to occupation, oppression, or whatever one wishes to call it, is the sickest response I can recall, historically speaking. Instead of trying to make lemonade from a lemon they are making a much bigger lemon. Also, deliberately targeting for death the most innocent members of society, instead of targeting military or political leaders, isn't just rebellion: it's pure evil. What those terrorists did in executing 4 small children at point blank range was pure evil. Shooting demonstrators throwing rocks may be overuse of force but it isn't the same thing.

So this post points up the troubling difference in mentality between some Palestinians and the Israelis. Total depravity is inexcusable. Moreover Arafat has executed suspected Israeli collaborators, but what is he going to do about things like this? (secretly cheer, and encourage more of the same, that's what he is going to do). He could arrest some of these baddest of the bad guys but instead he arrests suspected Israeli collaborators. Someone should drop a 500-pounder right on his head.

[daryn]

desparate times call for desparate measures.

do what you gotta do.

you say the palestinians have adopted more evil tactics, but is there really a difference between a palestinian blowing himself up on a bus and israeli soldiers bulldozing houses?

just seems like both groups hate each other and do horrible things to each other, but you always see someone trying to come to the defense of one side or the other.

[Gamblor]

do what you gotta do.

Give me a fuckin break man. You never need to do that.

[daryn]

like i said before, both sides do equally horrible things, but always some guy wants to appear and denounce one side and not the other.

thank you for illustrating my point so swiftly!

[Chris Alger]

The thing you have to understand about B-man is that he could care less about "baby-killers" per se, he only cares about killing children of the proper bloodstock. His essentially neo-Nazi outlook is that Israel can and should kill as many children as it can in order to terrorize Palestinians into accepting Israeli rule over the occupied territories. For example, if you go to the website of the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, you'll see that Israel has killed some seven times as many children as Palestinian terrorists, both since the beginning of the current intifada and since 1987. The multiple is undoubtedly higher if we go back to 1947 or even 1895, especially given the Zionist terror campaigns and ethnic cleansing of 1936-1949 and the indiscriminate shelling of defenseless refugees in Lebanon during the 1980's, when Sharon massacred thousands of civilians, Sabra and Shatila amounting to a small portion of such murders.

This has been pointed out to B-Man in detail many times before but you won't find a peep of protest or concern from him about these atrocities. To him, the slaughter of Palestinian children is not only tolerable but something we should support by supplying Israel with the arms necessary to continue it.

As for Gamblor, whose pathological lying about virtually continues unabated, he's actually admitted to supporting terrorism (specifically, planting bombs in marketplaces), including murdering children, provided that the victims are Arabs.

[Chris Alger]

"israel has offered numerous plans to give up all kinds of land"

Really? When?

[Gamblor]

both sides do equally horrible things,

That's a pretty general statement.

Would you care to give me a specific example of a "thing" done by an Israeli, with the blessing of the government that is anything close to what happened in Neve Dekalim?

[daryn]

last i heard israel was in the business of murdering palestinians, just like last i heard palestinians are in the jew-killing business.

[B-Man]

Enough with your lies. You don't have a clue how I feel, and I've never said any of the things you suggest. I think the intentional killing of children by anyone is a horrendous crime.

One of the many differences between you and I is that I can see the difference between (a) intentionally, specifically murdering a woman and her children, and (b) killing a terrorist leader (who is responible for the killing of many innocents), and in the process harming innocent people (including children).

In both cases, the killing of children is wrong, but Alger thinks (a) and (b) are equivalent. They are not. There is no moral equivalence between assasinating a terrorist and murdering a child. None.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
you say the palestinians have adopted more evil tactics, but is there really a difference between a palestinian blowing himself up on a bus and israeli soldiers bulldozing houses?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe there's a huge difference.

[Gamblor]

last i heard israel was in the business of murdering palestinians

Give me a god-damn break.

Murder by definition requires intent. Israel doesn't murder Palestinians - they murder terrorists. Normal Palestinians don't have much to worry about if they'd stop aiding and abetting terrorists.

Who told you this? Alger? Who thinks the government is secretly controlling our minds?

[MMMMMM]

but daryn---the Israelis are targeting militants and political leaders, while the Palestinians are killing kids on purpose. I mean come on, it isn't even close to the same thing. And bulldozing homes isn't even in the same arena.

Hypothetically speaking, which would be more abhorrent to you: to have your home bulldozed, or to have your kids murdered?

[daryn]

what is the difference? let's try leaving words like "palestinian" and "israeli" out of the conversation.



there are two towns, X and Y. X'ers hate Y'ers, and vice versa.

occasionally X'ers will strap bombs to themselves and go into crowded Y-populated shops and busses and blow themselves up, killing innocent Y'ers.

occasionally Y'ers bulldoze the houses of innocent X'ers, killing the innocents that live within.


difference?

[Gamblor]

When Y takes this action as a response and deterrent to X's action, the moral implications are clear.

[daryn]

so basically you're saying Y is justified. in other words, if X hits me first, then i, as a Y'er, will hit back, and hard!


funny how you take Y's side immediately.

[MMMMMM]

Chris you are using faulty reasoning here. If Israelis prevent, say, 95% of intended Palestinian suicide bombing attacks, it means the Palestinians were really trying to kill 20 times as many Israelis as actually were killed. Now figure that in with your stats and see that the Palestinians have really attempted to murder many times the number of Israeli children as those figures would indicate. The fact that more Palestinian kids have been killed is due to myriad factors, not the least of which is that the Israelis are rather good at stopping most attacks.

Your perspective and duplicity are disgusting. You know as well as anybody that the Palestinians have tried to murder FAR MORE Israelis than the reverse, yet you cite figures in a misleading manner for deceit and propaganda purposes. Shame on you. Furthermore you know or can pretty well guess that B-Man has no "neo-Nazi" outlook: nothing he has ever posted that I have read would indicate that he has.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
occasionally Y'ers bulldoze the houses of innocent X'ers, killing the innocents that live within.

difference?

[/ QUOTE ]


Don't the Israelis give warning of a bulldozing about to take place? It's not like it comes out of nowhere like a missile or a suicide bombing explosion. They see it coming and have time to vacate don't they? I suspect very few Palestinians die in bulldozings.

[daryn]

how nice of them /images/graemlins/grin.gif


it just seems like all of these arguments for one side or the other suck. all you guys are trying to say, "this group did this, that group did that"... "this group did this to so many people, but my group has only done that to half as many people so it's better" ... etc.



this is why i never take sides either. i just try to think about the situation, and make a comment. we all know that you and gamblor are on the same team, and then there's alger and whoever on another team, and then adios and this one and that one.. you know what i'm saying.

i bounce around from team to team because i try to make sense when i talk, and i'd hate to be in a spot where my team is saying something i think it stupid.

same deal with democrat/republican.

[MMMMMM]

I'm really not on any "team" and I favor and appreciate the independent point of view.

I'm not so much pro-Israel as I am against the terror and stupidity of the Palestinians. Their targeting of innocents actions so revolts me--and so does terrorism in general--and so does tyranny. Also, I have very low tolerance for unbearably stupid ideas that are also very harmful, like this international jihadist crap, or aspirations to martyrdom.

Show me anyone who is both stupid and violent, and chances are I will look down on them. Can't help it.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have a clue how I feel

[/ QUOTE ]
This can be true only if you've dishonestly expressed your feelings in your many, many posts on this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
, and I've never said any of the things you suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you don't think the U.S. should continue to support Israel's occupation of the territories through violent means, including the provisioning of arms? So you agree with me that the U.S. should enact an aid embargo to Israel until it stops terrorizing people and stealing their land? Why didn't you say so?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the intentional killing of children by anyone is a horrendous crime

[/ QUOTE ]
So when have you ever criticized, much less condemned, Israel for the intentional killing of children, as documented by countelss journalists and human rights groups?

[ QUOTE ]
One of the many differences between you and I is that I can see the difference between (a) intentionally, specifically murdering a woman and her children, and (b) killing a terrorist leader (who is responible for the killing of many innocents), and in the process harming innocent people (including children).

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did you get the impression that Israel manages to kill a "terrorist leader" every time its tanks and troops intentionally fire upon and kill children? You're just making this up, aren't you?

[Gamblor]

The documentary film, Jenin: Massacring Truth, debuted on Global TV in Canada last night. The film addresses the grossly irresponsible world media coverage of the IDF's 2002 Jenin incursion, which left an indelible stain on world opinion of Israel.

The film includes this revealing exchange between filmmaker Martin Himel and Dr. Tim Benson, founder of the British editorial cartoonists' society that honored the Sharon-eating-babies cartoon with its 2003 'Cartoon of the Year':

Sharon Cartoon (http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html)

Himel: My question to you is, why, in all these (cartoons) don't we see Sharon and Arafat eating babies?

Benson: Maybe because Jews don't issue fatwas.

Himel: What do you mean by that?

Benson: Well, if you upset an Islamic or Muslim group, as you know, fatwas can be issued by Ayatollahs and such, and maybe it's at the back of each cartoonist's mind, that they could be in trouble if they do so.

Himel: If they do what?

Benson: If they depict, uh, say, an Arab leader in the same manner.

Himel: Then they could suffer?

Benson: Then they could suffer death, couldn't they?

Benson's statement is an open admission that Arab/Palestinian intimidation produces an anti-Israel bias among western journalists.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
If Israelis prevent, say, 95% of intended Palestinian suicide bombing attacks, it means the Palestinians were really trying to kill 20 times as many Israelis as actually were killed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. If true, Israel is guilty of attempted genocide based on the number of shells and rounds fired (3 million during the first weeks of the intifada), including all the "misses." You're ignoring the likelihood that the terrorists on both sides realize that some of their attacks will fail and "intend" a certain number of deaths in light of this inevitability.

[Gamblor]

ou're ignoring the likelihood that the terrorists on both sides realize that some of their attacks will fail and "intend" a certain number of deaths in light of this inevitability.

That's the weakest argument you've ever come up with.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.

If somehow there would be a guarantee that anti-semitism among Arab nations would be eradicated forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in other words, No.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Murder by definition requires intent. Israel doesn't murder Palestinians - they murder terrorists. Normal Palestinians don't have much to worry about if they'd stop aiding and abetting terrorists.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's beyond silly. Intent, by legal definition, can be transferred. In other words, if Gilbert Godfried is standing in a crowded room and I intend to shoot him (perfectly justified by anyone's standards), but miss and kill someone else that would still be murder. Your argument is that essentially I could mow down the whole room because I only "intended" to kill the one person.

[Gamblor]

If somehow there would be a guarantee that anti-semitism among Arab nations would be eradicated forever.

So, in other words, No.

Of course my demand that Jews not be persecuted because of their religions was obnoxiously out of line and unreasonable.

[MMMMMM]

No, because Israelis are trying to kill militants while Palestinians are trying to kill any Israeli they can. Therefore the Palestinian position is the less moral. If Palestinians targeted Israeli soldiers and politial leaders instead of civilians I would not be saying this. Who is being targeted makes immense difference, morally speaking.

[elwoodblues]

I didn't say it was unreasonable to expect no discrimination. But you want:
a "guarantee" - how to enforce that one

that "anti-semitism" - not discrimination --- there's an important difference between anti-semitism (the belief) and discrimination (the action)

"among Arab nations" - how can Palestinians speak on behalf of Arab nations and be responsible for the actions of other nations?

"eradicated forever" - in theory that one's great, but forever is an awfully long time


You are asking that they guarantee(on behalf of themselves and other nations) not to be anti-semitic forever. I stand by my statement: In other words, No.

[Chris Alger]

Now you're shifting to the tired argument that the U.S. should support Israel because its terrorism, while deadlier, is grounded in less evil intentiontions, or so Israel says. So you've dropped the silly argument that failed attempted terrorism by Palestinian killings should count as "kills" while Israel's failed attempts should not be.

[ QUOTE ]
No, because Israelis are trying to kill militants

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, "No" because all the children that Israel shoots deliberately, intentionally at point blank range or by snipers with telescpic sights must be presumed accidental and collateral because Israel says they are. "Don't bother me with facts, I've read the propaganda."

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore the Palestinian position is the less moral.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's you making your incredible dumb argument for the thousandth time without even a clue as to how dumb it is: even if Israeli killing of innocents is indefinslby immoral, I'll support it because it's not as bad as Palestinian killing of innocents. In other words, what is immoral becomes moral if something else is even worse, regardless of the lack of any connection between the two. If you were on the Charles Manson jury youd say: sure, he's bad, but Stalin was so much worse that we must acquit and send him back on the streets with a full clip of ammo, which we should pay for. Otherwise, we'll be guilty of "moral relativism." But Manson and Stalin had no connection, you say. Just so. And of the 3,000 or so Palestinians killed by Israel since Sept. 2000 only a small fraction of those were even armed and less than a handful of those were "terrorists" or "suicide bombers." The rest were unarmed civilians and "militants," meaning anyone willing to pick up a rifle and defend his home from external aggression, murdered along with their familes by outside invaders, terrorists, bent on stealing their land and lives, on subjugating and crushing them for being members of the "wrong" nation.

The simple concept of condemning all terrorism and refusing to support or apologize for either is beyond your intellectual ken. You find the "lesser" terrorism, support it, and think you're moral superior for doing so.

[MMMMMM]

Ridiculous.

First you're trying to equate Israeli collateral damage when trying to kill militants, with Palestinian suicide bombing expressly intended to kill non-combatants. Then you claim each shell or whatever fired by Israel is an attempt to kill, so the Israelis are actually trying to kill far more Palestinians. Look, when the SWAT team surrounds some real bad guys in the USA--say some hostage-takers--and a shootout ensues, the police probably fire more rounds and they probably kill more bad guys, than the bad guys fire rounds or kill good guys. That's just the way these things work. The police aren't more immoral because they fire more rounds or have a higher kill ratio.

The principle of condemning the worst evil is far better than equating all evil, because no side is perfect. And when the two sides are opposed, choosing the lesser of two evils gains much additional merit. In other words, to use your example, if Manson was going to pistol-duel Stalin, it might be a good thing to provide him a very modern pistol. Israel however is not Manson. The Palestinian terrorists are pretty close to Manson in degree of depravity, however. Amazing that you somehow can't see that. Further, the Palestinian terrorists themselves put the Palestinian people at risk by mingling with them, using them as human shields, etc. As far as overall moral comparisons, there really is no comparison.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
First you're trying to equate Israeli collateral damage when trying to kill militants

[/ QUOTE ]
The only similarity at all that I am drawing is that they are both wrong. If I say stealing is wrong and murder is wrong, it does not follow that I beleive stealing is "equal" to murder.

You, on the other hand, need to find a distinction between random targeting of civilians and random shooting at civilians while claiming to be shooting at real "bad guys." Since I'm against both, I don't have to contend and do not contend that these things are the same. It is you that must find a distinction so huge that you can justify supporting the latter while condemning the former.

Your usual means of doing this is to assume away the premises of the first, which you do by repeating the propaganda mantras that victims of Israel fire are, by definition, merely "collateral" because Israel says it doesn't commit terrorism and Bush and the media agree.

[MMMMMM]

Well, I do doubt that Israeli soldiers are nearly the deliberate murderers of innocent civilians you make them out to be, although I don't doubt there are a handful of bad apples, as in any huge organization. I'm not counting rock-throwers, because rocks can maim or kill; not counting civilians used by terrorists as human shields, not counting collateral damage via misile strikes on terror leaders, etc...just counting cold-blooded premeditated murder of non-threatening civilians. Yes, I do doubt that goes on to a large extent in the Israeli military, and I doubt the Israeli military targets anywhere near the number of civilians for murder which do the Palestinian terror orgs. If you can show me differently, that more than a few Israeli soldiers are regularly and deliberately shooting non-threatening Palestinian civilians, maybe I'll change my mind (I'm not saying even a few is OK, but in any large org there are probably going to be a few bad apples--which is much different than an organized policy or tactic. The Palestinian terror orgs however do have such very organized policies and tactics).

[Gamblor]

That's pretty weak.

If it weren't for anti-Jew and anti-Jew behaviour/propaganda, there wouldn't need to BE an Israel.

Israel is a refuge, not a colony or imperialist entity. Even the Jabotinsky camp, hailed by the uneducated here as a fascist racist faction, wrote that his opinion was based entirely on the fact that no government has ever successfully protected its Jewish population in perpetuity.

When Jewish children's schools in cities like Montreal (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1081297725532_76706925/?hub=Canada) stop getting firebombed, when Jewish gravestones stop getting toppled in France (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040502-080128-2862r.htm), when rabbis stop getting attacked simply for walking on the street, I'll have no problem dissolving the state as a Jewish entity.

Call me paranoid if you want, this shit is real life.

As far as the Palestinians go, this (http://www.pmw.org.il) should quench your thirst for knowledge. Or perhaps this (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php)

[elwoodblues]

No response to the substance of my position?

Why would you put the onus on Palestinians to require that all there be no anti-semitism in all arab nations forever?

[nicky g]

"One of the many differences between you and I is that I can see the difference between (a) intentionally, specifically murdering a woman and her children, and (b) killing a terrorist leader (who is responible for the killing of many innocents), and in the process harming innocent people (including children)"

This is where your argument falls down. The vast, vast majority of Palestinian civilians who have died at the hands of Israel were not killed as bystanders to the assassination of a terrorist leader.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
This is where your argument falls down. The vast, vast majority of Palestinian civilians who have died at the hands of Israel were not killed as bystanders to the assassination of a terrorist leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor did they die because they were intentionally murdered.

Israel does not target civilians for death. It bulldozes the houses of terrorists, assasinates terrorists, and most certainly defends itself from aggression and seeks to prevent future acts of terrorism.

Have civilians died as a result of Israel's actions? Yes. Is that unfortunate? Yes. But nothing Israel has done is in any way comparable to intentionally slaughtering a pregnant woman and 4 children. There was no terrorist, or even a soldier, in the woman's car. It was cold-blooded murder for the sole purpose of removing 5 Jews from the Earth.

[nicky g]

"Nor did they die because they were intentionally murdered."

Many did.

"Israel does not target civilians for death. "

Officially, openly, no? But even a cursory browsing of the circumstances in which hundreds of Palestinian civilians have died makes it clear that they were intentionally murdered by Israeli soldiers who have then been allowed to return to duty, never mind punished. To my mind that is no better than an open policy of occasionally deliberately targetting civilians. Soliders have carte blanch to kill whomsoever they choose, and they frequently choose civilians and children.

"It bulldozes the houses of terrorists, assasinates terrorists, and most certainly defends itself from aggression and seeks to prevent future acts of terrorism."

It also shoots children through the eyes with high-powered highly accurate sniper rifles.

"But nothing Israel has done is in any way comparable to intentionally slaughtering a pregnant woman and 4 children"

Ever? Are you serious?

" It was cold-blooded murder"

Absolutely. Noone here is defending it.

[Gamblor]

Why would you put the onus on Palestinians to require that all there be no anti-semitism in all arab nations forever?

Because there are 50x as many Arabs in the Middle East, and 22x as many Arab states that serve as refuge from racist behaviour.

But more importantly, because Israelis don't hate Arabs.

They're scared of them, because they know what Arab kids learn in school (http://www.pmw.org.il).

Why can't you get it?

The Arab world is 1984. When you grow up in a totalitarian regime, where the government controls all of the media and information, and there is widespread poverty, the easiest thing to blame it on is the same thing governments have been blaming all their problems on for millenia.

Outsiders. Jews (http://www.memri.org).

Israel, on the other hand, is democratic (at least for its citizens). For all the lying and conniving that politicians do, it's still relatively transparent, and the same freedom of information as exists in the United States exists in Israel.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
To my mind that is no better than an open policy of occasionally deliberately targetting civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are describing the Palestinians, the word "occasionally" has no basis in reality. Even you must admit that; change occassionally to "frequently" or "constantly" and your description would be a lot more accurate.

Nicky, you have to consider intent. While there may be isolated instances of individual soldiers committing depraved acts, Israel does not have a policy of intentionally killing civilians.

The Palestinian terror groups make it their purpose to slaughter civilians, including babies.

There is no moral equivalence.

P.S. If the Palestinians were the greater military power, they would have murdered all the Jews in the region long ago.

[nicky g]

"there may be isolated instances of individual soldiers committing depraved acts, Israel does not have a policy of intentionally killing civilians."

I'm sorry but these acts are not infrequent; hundreds of people have died as a result of them and the IDF has made no attempt to do anything to the vast majority of these soldiers; indeed it has returned them to the field, where they can kill more civilians with impunity. If there is no intent to make any attempt to prevent such killings, inded attempts to facilitate them, then the intent is to allow such killings.

Furthermore while there is no declared policy of targetting civilians, I would not be remotely surprised if there were an unofficial one. Israel proudly resorts to illegal collective punishments in terms of destroying homes, closures and so on. It is not a big step to extending that punishment to collectively punitive killing. The man in charge of the IDF sent anti-Palestinian lunatics named after a fascist organisation into a refugee camp, lit it up with flares and ordered his soldiers not to let anyone, including women and children, leave for three days, despite an obvious mass slaughter going on inside. He had phosphorous shells fired at hospitals. His unit wiped out an entire village. Why would anyone believe that an army headed by such a man had any qualms about deliberately murdering more civilans.

"If the Palestinians were the greater military power, they would have murdered all the Jews in the region long ago. "

If that is the case, why didn;t they murder all the Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron etc prior to the founding of Israel? They had plenty of opportunity.

[elwoodblues]

Assuming everything you said is true, that still doesn't answer the question of why you place the burden on PALESTINIANS to require no anti-semitism for ALL arab nations.

It looks like the more you're talking the less you're saying on this topic.

[Gamblor]

Assuming everything you said is true, that still doesn't answer the question of why you place the burden on PALESTINIANS to require no anti-semitism for ALL arab nations.

Because, as the Palestinians themselves claim (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=649964&page=&view=&sb =5&o=) they are part of a team, and work in conjunction with, all Arabs, Muslims, and Arab nations, to defeat "the Jews". After all, as the post above claims, an act of aggression on a Palestinian Arab is the same as an act of aggression on the entire Arab/Muslim world.

Therefore, it would be futile to consider that 6 million Jews, in an area the size of New Jersey can realistically threaten 300 million Arabs, no matter how much money the US loans them. The 6 million "Jews" in the Middle East are clearly on the defensive in this kind of war, and the 300 million Arabs can only be the aggressors.

[Gamblor]

If that is the case, why didn't they murder all the Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron etc prior to the founding of Israel? They had plenty of opportunity.

They tried their damndest in Hevron and in Jerusalem, but never had the military superiority. The hatred was only simmering in the early 20th century. It took Haj Amin el-Husseini and his nephew Arafat to really get the blood boiling.

[nicky g]

"Jerusalem, but never had the military superiority"

What, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians never had the military superiority at any point prior to the foundation of Israel to kill a ccouple of thousand undefended religious Jews? Rubbish.

[Gamblor]

They never had a problem with Jews until there were more than a few thousand of them.

Then the riots began.

[daryn]

black people had crosses burned on their lawns, got beat up walking down city streets, had to go to separate schools, etc...

we should have made a new country, blackatoria, where all blacks can go and feel safe, right?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
black people had crosses burned on their lawns, got beat up walking down city streets, had to go to separate schools, etc...

we should have made a new country, blackatoria, where all blacks can go and feel safe, right?

[/ QUOTE ]


If legislation had not emerged to criminalize such behavior, and public perceptions had not changed, and if the government still sanctioned such practices...yes. The USA changed and changed its laws. The Palestinians show no intention or ability to do either in any meaningful manner, and the Middle Eastern Arab states still have many grossly discriminatory laws on the books. Matter of fact not only Jews and Christians are discriminated against in other Arab countries: Palestinians in Israel even have more rights than Palestinians in all Arab states except Jordan. Palestinians can't even own land or become citizens of more than a few Arab states. Overall, we're talking Backwards with a capital "B". If the USA had remained in its previously backwards state I would have said the blacks had every right to demand or take a portion of the country as their own country. But it didn't, and now blacks have even more rights than whites in this country and no longer suffer substantially from discrimination. Think the equivalent could happen anytime soon in Palestine, or even in the greater Middle East? I sincerely doubt it. Their societies are far less tractable to reforms.

[Gamblor]

That's my point.

If black people are persecuted because of their "blackness" in the United States, they are among their people in Africa, who can discriminate based on the proper criteria - i.e. wealth /images/graemlins/crazy.gif.

In all seriousness, my point was as follows: This kind of situation shouldn't exist in the first place. It is the persecutors' fault, not the persecuted. And the Jews throughout history are far more of the latter than the former, and it is the Arab nations who persecuted Jews, leading to the mass exodus of almost a million Jewish refugees from Arab states to Israel in 1948. Israel accepted those Jews and it's over.

But the Palestinians fester in camps because the exchange was not accepted by the Arabs who only would expel Jews and not accept Arabs - in other words, they hate Jews more than they love themselves.

[Gamblor]

What he said.

[ACPlayer]

So, your 'yes' is that of a politician (liar).

As long as Israel perceives that there is a need for a Jewish state -- which given Zionist paranoia is likely to be forever -- the answer is No, despite your beautiful answer of Yes (... but...). The goal is a pure Jewish state. Of course if there was to be a one state solution, you know that in a few years the Knesset would be primarily Arab as those pigs multiply like rats.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
just counting cold-blooded premeditated murder of non-threatening civilians

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you think it's okay for Israel to murder civilians -- as traditionally and currently defined by law -- as long as it's not "premeditated."

That's about as flagrant an example of the double standard as I've seen.

As for your assumptions that rock-throwers are shot from distances where they can "maim and kill" the shooters or others, or the Palestinian use of human shields, why is it that you can never find any examples of this?

[Gamblor]

[MMMMMM]

I'm not sayin those things are "OK" per se--just that they aren't in the same category as suicide bombings targeting innocents.

Collateral damage is not considered "murder" in war.

Shooting dangerous aggressors is either: murder, overuse of force, or justified--depending on the situation.

Suicide bombing however has only one purpose, and when the targets are not military or leadership targets, it clearly is murder 100%.

So you're admitting your figures rely overly heavily on collateral damage figures and rock-throwing incidents, or what? (whereas suicide bombing figures are "pure murder" figures)