Atrocities That Pass in Silence

[B-Man]

By ARNOLD AHLERT

May 5, 2004 -- THREE days ago, a pregnant Israeli woman and her four young daughters were shot to death at point-blank range by two Palestinian murderers. Each child - ages 11, 9, 7 and 2 - received another bullet to the head, and the mother was shot again directly in the abdomen.

It is useful to remember this incident and compare the dead silence it has elicited from those same human-rights organizations, media outlets and America-bashers involved in the feeding frenzy accompanying the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The disparity of outrage is quite revealing.

The feeding frenzy demonstrates that even those who hate America - and never miss a chance to express that hatred - expect us to adhere to a certain standard of decency. The dead silence demonstrates that no similar expectations apply to societies that produce baby killers and homicide bombers, or use women and children as "human shields" in combat.

Why? Because behind the "high-mindedness" of "universal" human rights is a hypocritical prejudice which allows certain cultures more "leeway" when it come to murder and mayhem.

The United States has expressed regret over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal - even as several Palestinian militant groups wanted credit for murdering a pregnant women and her four young daughters.

[nicky g]

In what way has this atrocity passed in silence? It has been all over the media and roundly condemend by just about everyone. Meanwhile, several dozen Palestinian civilians have been killed in the past few months. They have received next to no coverage in the Western press, unlike this atrocity. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed in circumstances that only frigne media bothers to report. You wouldn't even know the manin hospital in Falluja was destroyed by US bombarment if you relied on the mainstream press.

The human rights groups this gentleman refers to routinely denounce the targetting of civilians on both sides, despite the fact that their focus is primarily on government abuses, as governments can be held accountable. When they criticise Palestinian attacks on civilians noone hears about it because noone outside of those groups seriously disagrees or takes issue with them. When they criticise Israel for targetting civilians they get jumped on by the Israeli proaganda machine and a million apologists.

Human rights groups are there to speak for the voiceless, for people tortured in jail or abused in closed military zones while the world looks the other way; to bring abuses to light that people would otherwise ignore (as the Pentagon was inent on doing with its own report into Abu Gharib). They aren't there to join the chorus of condemnation for obvious crimes that noone seriously defends. They exist to investigate and publicise abuses that the state condones and covers up. They have no need to firther publicise an atrocity that has been on front pages around the world and which will no doubt be not only investigated but brutally and illegally avenged by Israeli security forces.

The continued use of the "human shields" argument by the pro-Israeli right is really astounding given that the IDF openly admits it has used Palestinian civilian human shields in the occupied territories. You don't have to look to Arab dictatorships for 1984, it's right here.

[Dilbert]

Murder and mayhem happens all the time. Save a word like "atrocity" for the serious stuff like the mass murders of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot.

No one in the Middle East cares about one family getting offed, except for the political public relations value of it.

[nicky g]

Witness Amnesty International's devestating silence:

Israel/Occupied Territories: AI condemns murder of woman and her four daughters by Palestinian gunmen (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150492004)

[Gamblor]

The continued use of the "human shields" argument by the pro-Israeli right is really astounding given that the IDF openly admits it has used Palestinian civilian human shields in the occupied territories.

Labelling both techniques as using "human shields" severely distorts the actual action being taken.

On the Israeli side, the "human shields" are actually referred to as the "friendly neighbour" method of arrest. When arresting a wanted terrorist for trial, in an impartial court of law, the friendly neighbour technique requires the IDF to have the neighbour of the terrorist knock on the door and ask the wanted man to surrender, in the hopes that the terrorist's racist mentality will minimize the chance that he'd open fire on a fellow Arab. The neighbour is given a face shield as well as a bulletproof vest for his safety.

On the Palestinian side, the terrorists hide in civilian areas, hoping the IDF will be forced to engage in a heavily populated area. The civilians used as human shields range from innocent women and children caught in crossfire during an attempted terrorist arrest, to willing martyrs so far brainwashed by Arafat and his propaganda machine that they'd much rather die for Arafat than live. It's simple, really:

Poor, dead people elicit world sympathy for your cause, and for Arafat, nothing is more important than his cause, not his life, not the lives of others. He wants to be King of Palestine, and anything in his way dies.

[nicky g]

Don't you feel embarrassed that your compulsion to defend Israel no matter what forces you to write such utter garbage and defend such abhorrent abuses? I suspect you actually do.

I asked you before, why is it racist to prefer to fire on an enemy solider come to arrest or kill you than on a neighbour? The answer it, it isn't. Such practices are completely illegal and depraved and giving someone a face mask doesn't make them less so.

You are right that the practices are different. On the one side you have resistance fighters who live in overcrowded refugee camps that the ISraelis forced them into when they stole their homes, defending them from attack when the IDF decides to invade, which is construed as "deliberately placing themselves among civilians". Where the hell else are they going to go? On the other you have invading IDF soldiers kidnapping civilians and forcing them at gunpoint to act as their human shields, forcing them to enter possibly booby trapped houses and using them as firing positions. So yes, there is a huge difference.

[Gamblor]

Because these terrorists, sent by Fatah (which is run by Arafat), apologize for killing innocent Israeli Arabs, but cheer when they kill innocent Israeli Jews.

Fatah's Apology - Drenched in Blood (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12674)

[nicky g]

From B'Tselem:

During the al-Aqsa intifada, IDF soldiers have used Palestinian civilians as human shields. This practice has been most common during IDF operations in Palestinian population centers, such as Operation Defensive Shield.

The method is the same each time: soldiers pick a civilian at random and force him to protect them by doing dangerous tasks that put his life at risk. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:


enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped, or to remove the occupants


remove suspicious objects from roads used by the army


stand inside houses where soldiers have set up military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at the soldiers


walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders.

The soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the order to use civilians as a means of protection was made by senior army officials
Background info on human shileds (http://www.btselem.org/English/Human_Shield/index.asp)

[MMMMMM]

Still a very different use of "human shields" and one that typically has a very different result.

It is essential to differentiate. Lumping such things into the same category is obfuscating (I don't think you are doing it intentionally, though). Also the results of both techniques are markedly different. One tactic is intended to save lives; the other to cost lives. Huge difference.

[nicky g]

That has got absolutely nothing to do with the question. "Uh, it's racist to prefer to fire on an enemy soldier rather than your next door neighbour because someone else did something else that was racist."

[nicky g]

"Also the results of both techniques are markedly different. One tactic is intended to save lives; the other to cost lives."

Are you serious? The intent is to save IDF lives at the expense of Palestinian civilian lives. That is completely immoral and illegal. You also betray an obvious truth about the IDF. Your argument supposes that Palestinian "terrorists" would hold their fire if a Palestinian civilian were being used as a shield (oh but I thought these terrible terrorists didn't care about harming civilians) - but that the IDF would not do the same. Too right. They also can't both be true. If the Palestinian "terrorists" cared so little about ther fellow civilians that they would deliberately hide amongst them in order to get as many as possible of them killed, the why would they hesitate to fire on a compatriot if it mean bagging a few soldiers too?

[Gamblor]

They're part of the same team - Fatah - and share the same ideology.

[nicky g]

That may or may not make some or all the fighters resisting Israeli incursions racist, but it does not make the obvious preference to fire on an enemy soldier rather than the bloke next door a racist impulse.

[MMMMMM]

Well, how often do the terrorists fire on the doorbell-ringer when he is a Palestinian?

[nicky g]

Presumably not very often or the IDF wouldn't bother with the practice.

[MMMMMM]

Nor do I see why it would make it a racst impulse. Exploitation of the "us vs. them" mentality for safety purposes is what I think it is.

Also, the terrorists are happy to see Palestinians die when killed by Israelis because that gives them political/propaganda material--so they hide in densely populated areas (it also gives them better cover). When compared to killing a doorbell-ringer, though, the propaganda value goes out the window if the terrorists themselves shoot him.

[nicky g]

And that would outweigh the impulse to kill the soldiers coming to arrest or kill them? These hatefilled antisemitic lunactics, as you would no doubt characterise them, would pass up the chance to kill Israelis merely because it would involve doing something that has no proaganda value? I see.

Meanwhile, all of this discussion ignres the fact that such acts are blatant war crimes, regardless of motivation.

[daryn]

whoa, how are they racist? didn't we conclude that it's not a race, but a religion? here we go again!

[Gamblor]

Wave-particle duality man

de-Broglie was not Jewish.

[Gamblor]

to demand change in Israeli foreign/army/diplomatic policy because you do not bear the consequences of that policy.

Only the citizens of the state are entitled to such demands.

It is quite the opposite from what you suggest. They kill Israelis because they believe the Jews are weak animals and if they keep pressing, the Jews finally roll over and die, allowing a full Islamic/Arab takeover of the area.

The killing is quite-anti-propagandic in its purpose - the terrorists themselves prefer to kill Jews. But the leaders of the society, specifically the PA, have a different agenda: convince as many Palestinian baby-faces to get killed by Israelis as possible to ensure Arafat's grip on power does not wane.

[MMMMMM]

Well you yourself said presumably not too many doorbell-ringers are shot, or the IDF wouldn't use the tactic. So instead of guessing (or second-guessing) motives, why not just acknowledge it as a tactic that seems to be saving lives.

War crimes are what the terrorists do in the first place to necessitate Israelis going in to arrest or kill them. And the tactic doesn't seem to be costing lives--as opposed to Palestinian tactics which frequently do cost lives--so again you are criticizing the less evil side, the side that employs the less evil tactics.

[elwoodblues]

Part of the reason that I am more prone to criticize Israel than the Palestinians is that Israel is one of our allies. I think we should hold ourselves and our allies to a higher standard - after all, part of the reason that they are our allies is that they don't (or shouldn't) behave like terrorists.

[MMMMMM]

True, but especially when the two sides are in direct conflict, I think criticism should be apportioned in accordance with deservedness. During times of non-conflict I would move somewhat more towards your position.

[elwoodblues]

I understand that position. Part of the strength of our position should come from the fact that even when faced with difficult situations we still hold true to our ideals. This mindset flows through our bill of rights. It is very easy, for example, to allow free speech when we agree with the speech; easy to give Due Process to non-criminals (and even minor criminals), it is hard to do so when holding up to your ideals might result in allowing some sick f*ck criminal to go free.

Ultimately, I think it is largely and ends/means discussion (though the "ends" are highly debatable as well). Personally, I usually require the means to trump. Many hold the belief that where the ends are great enough then the ends should trump the means (e.g. encroach on a small amount of everyone's civil rights to fight the great end of eradicating terrorism).

[MMMMMM]

I agree insofar as it can be done without accruing serious disadvantage to us or our allies. The other side, however, has no such compunctions and I would be loath to allow them to benefit from a double-standard which they introduced and to which we acceded due to our higher moral compass. They already have an advantage due to their lesser respect for human life and human rights; I don't think we should magnify their advantage in that respect by allowing them greater leeway in those arenas. I'm not saying we should lower our own standards; rather, we should call them on the carpet for their violation of standards. Unfortunately, the perfidious U.N. General Assembly is composed primarily of rogue states, tyrannies and theocracies, and as such it usually takes an immoral stance anyway in keeping with the goals of these deplorable regimes...

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
It is useful to remember this incident and compare the dead silence it has elicited from those same human-rights organizations

[/ QUOTE ]
“Amnesty International condemns these murders in the strongest terms.” From the AI press release (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150492004) on the murders issued the day before Ahlert's claim of "dead silence."

Israeli children are murdered after being sent to live in illegal settlements in a violent land -- blame the Palestinians for their despicable depravity.

Many more Palestinian children are murdered in their own land -- blame the Palestinians for putting them in harm's way.

If the PA "expresses regret," scoff at the hypocrisy. If the U.S. does the same, consider the matter closed and unworthy of further "American-bashing" criticism.

If human rights organizations condmen Isreali killings, accuse them of "Israel-bashing." If they condmen Palestinian terror, lie and accuse them of silence.

If Israelis kill civilians randomly, say nothing or reiterate the official excuse. If every major media outlet puts an act of Palestinian terror on the front page, accuse them of "silence."

This is the sort of stuff that B-Man swallows whole, or thinks others are dumb enough to believe.

[Gamblor]

Israeli children are murdered after being sent to live in illegal settlements in a violent land -- blame the Palestinians for their despicable depravity.

Religious Israelis live in towns in Gaza/Aza of their own free will and accord. They see the land of Israel as theirs as equally as anyone else's.

The government does not place new immigrants into the Territories, but does offer incentives - low mortgage rates, for example - to populate the lands in Aza and Yehuda/Shomron. This is quite different from "being sent", as Alger's ridiculous post claims.

It is the Arab refusal to accept a Jew in their homeland that requires a military presence there. That refusal lead to minor attacks on Jews in the areas, which led to more strident defense measures, which lead to more vicious (and depraved) attacks, and so the cycle continues. But it is still the Palestinians that force the Israeli government to enlist military installations to protect the Jews of Aza.

[Gamblor]

One attack, and the US institutes the Patriot Act.

Imagine what it will be like after a 30 year barrage of 9/11s.

[Gamblor]

By all means, discuss the merits and shortfalls of various Israeli policies for dealing with the land issue, peace negotiations, and anti-terror.

But understand a couple things:

1) The Arabs are members of Israeli society, as much as Alger and Cyrus would paint a different picture. Most Israelis have day-to-day interactions with Arab people, just as most Americans have day-to-day interactions with Black people. It's no different. They're just people. It is the outside international community (especially Arab countries) that racializes this conflict. Arabs are members of the Supreme Court, the Parliament, and soccer teams. They're citizens of the state. But it's still a Jewish majority state, and must remain that way to protect the people it was created for.

3) The general Israeli public is less concerned with the politics of the issues, and pretty much only concerned with safety and security. It's all a matter of what it takes to gain this - some believe that the only guarantee of the safety of Jews will be a Jewish-majority state, as a result of a few millenia of being pushed around the globe. Others think that if we give them everything they want, they'll suddenly like us and we'll all be happy. But ultimately, Israeli policy is dictated by the people. And as such, the government must accept the will of the people in order to get re-elected, which is all any government really wants in a democratic state.

4) The most important point: Nobody here has any right to make demands of the Israeli government, and nobody here has the right to demand that the Israeli government take certain actions, as nobody here faces the consquences of those actions. Only the Israelis do, and as such, only the Israelis may take action. If a million Jews in the United States moved to Israel, Israel wouldn't need your tax dollars, and you could complain about something else.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
4) The most important point: Nobody here has any right to make demands of the Israeli government, and nobody here has the right to demand that the Israeli government take certain actions, as nobody here faces the consquences of those actions. Only the Israelis do, and as such, only the Israelis may take action. If a million Jews in the United States moved to Israel, Israel wouldn't need your tax dollars, and you could complain about something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

When my tax dollars are heading Israel's way, I sure as hell want a right to voice my opinion or, as a consequence of not being listened to, tighten up the purse strings.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
The government does not place new immigrants into the Territories, but does offer incentives - low mortgage rates, for example - to populate the lands in Aza and Yehuda/Shomron. This is quite different from "being sent", as Alger's ridiculous post claims.

[/ QUOTE ]
The government doesn't "send" anyone, it just pays enough people enough money to populate it to the extent it desires. So it's not as if the government bears responsibility for their presence or anything. Another brilliant rebutal from the guy who thinks that reading books is a waste of time.

[ QUOTE ]
It is the Arab refusal to accept a Jew in their homeland

[/ QUOTE ]
Jews have had a continous presence in Palestine for more than a millenia of Arab predominance, so this "refusal to accept" jazz is just another of your weird delusions. Further, not even the most militant Palestinian entities (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc) have ever "refused to accept" their presence, nor is mere "presence" and peace and security what Israel desires.

Remember, the conflict began with the political threat of Zionism, Zionists plans to ethnically cleanse and dominate all Palestine, and the ethnic cleansing and domination the Zionists wrought. Blaming the Palestinians is just another case of blaming the victim.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
When my tax dollars are heading Israel's way, I sure as hell want a right to voice my opinion or, as a consequence of not being listened to, tighten up the purse strings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a valid point, and elwood's sentiments are probably shared by many Americans. Gamblor, maybe you should work on getting those 1 million Americam Jews to move to Israel posthaste.

[Gamblor]

Another brilliant rebutal from the guy who thinks that reading books is a waste of time.

Great one! You really got me there.

Too bad you didn't actually address the point - funny you think people are total sheep who will simply follow the money; maybe it's a Jewish thing.

have had a continous presence in Palestine for more than a millenia of Arab predominance, so this "refusal to accept" jazz is just another of your weird delusions.

I should clarify - it's not the presence of a Jew - it's the presence of Jewish self-determination that gets 'em all riled up.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the conflict began with the political threat of Zionism, Zionists plans to ethnically cleanse and dominate all Palestine, and the ethnic cleansing and domination the Zionists wrought. Blaming the Palestinians is just another case of blaming the victim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering that the Arabs have dominated (and have implemented discriminatory laws and customs in) an area over 900 times the size as Israel, and that the Jews have dominated no area except for tiny Israel, it might be supposed that the Arabs could realize this and offer their Palestinian cousins some land, patriation and assistance. But NOOOOO...can't have that, despite the fact that it was the Arabs who drove the Jews out of other Arab lands to begin with.

The Arabs got 99%+ of the Middle East lands (not to mention its bountiful oil) and have implemented severe discrimination and an intolerant religion in those lands to boot. Isn't that enough? Do they have to have the whole 100%? And where is the talk of compensation for the 800,000+ Jews who were driven from other parts of the Middle East by Arab mobs at about the time 600,000 Palestinians were driven from Israel? It's just about all one-sided, isn't it?--drive the Jews out, compensate them nothing, then when they form a tiny tiny homeland and drive out some Arabs, all hell breaks loose and stays that way for over half a century. To this day most Arab states don't accept the right of Israel to exist. If they're so damn upset about the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs, why don't they show that they aren't employing a double-standard by offering the Jews some compensation (or maybe some land) for being driven out of Arab lands en masse? More double-standard---of course. Anyone starting to get an idea of just how much double-standard there is in the Arab/Muslim world? And it is always directed outwards against non-Arabs, non-Muslims in a negative fashion--and against women.

[craig r]

They're citizens of the state. But it's still a Jewish majority state, and must remain that way to protect the people it was created for.

that is a very scary idea. thank you for making me very proud to tell people about my jewish background.

[Gamblor]

http://www.iris.org.il/images/arabwld3.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
They're citizens of the state. But it's still a Jewish majority state, and must remain that way to protect the people it was created for.

that is a very scary idea. thank you for making me very proud to tell people about my jewish background.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well I'm not Jewish, but it is true that the existence of Israel is necessary to protect the Jews from the PIGS who have comprised much of the rest of the world for aeons. No discrimination here: these PIGS have lived on several continents and have hailed from diverse backgrounds. In fact in the USA there were a good number of PIGS who held slaves and treated them cruelly to boot (although slave-holding has been an ageless world-wide custom). In other words what I'm saying is that a significant percentage of humanity have typically been more animal than human. Unfortunately the Jews have been a prototypical scapegoat group, a whipping boy, etc.

Maybe when 500 more years have passed the bulk of humanity won't be so ignorant, brutish, childish, pig-like, cruel, insensitive, and egomaniacal. Where's Zeno when you need him.

[jdl22]

Not surprisingly, I disagree with your most important point. If Israel decided on the spur of the moment to drop nuclear bombs on Syria I think we would indeed have the right to criticize this policy and demand that they take a different course of action. When Hitler was gassing millions of people - both German and foreigners, I think that not only could citizens of other countries criticize this policy but they should have. I don't think people getting gassed in Germany affected the average non-European much. If you would argue that only Europeans had the right to criticize the policies of the Nazis then you really are mad.

Based on your (non)thinking here you would also not call the police when you watch someone beating his wife even if he seems likely to kill her. After all, you "don't face the consequences" of the beating he's dishing out, and as such only the victim may take action.

I could go on with several more examples but I will stop here.

[Gamblor]

Criticize is one thing, and I in fact welcomed criticism.

It's making demands on a sovereign state at war with a maniacal suicidal enemy that I have a problem with.

Look, you want to open the eyes of some politicians, by all means, go ahead.

But it is up to Israel to ultimately decide how she defends herself.

[Gamblor]

Maybe when 500 more years have passed the bulk of humanity won't be so ignorant, brutish, childish, pig-like, cruel, insensitive, and egomaniacal. Where's Zeno when you need him.

Thanks for putting this into context.

Hopefully, we won't need so many years. From what I hear, civilization advances on a hyperbolic curve, and god it's been slow. But the US so far is about the only place outside Israel that goes trouble free.

[Gamblor]

US Foreign aid (SPIGOT Report (http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/aid/fy2002part17.pdf))

Israel: $2.8B
What this gets you:
<ul type="square">
A democratic partner in the Middle East
a military research and development partner
a Middle East intelligence outpost
an anti-terrorist intelligence partner
[/list]

Egypt: $1.9B
<ul type="square">
an autocratic government perpetuated on patrimony, not democracy
a state-sponsored media that continuously spews invective and incites Arabs to hate America
a tacit supporter of Islamic fundamentalism (while the government and fundamentalists clash over power, that these fundamentalists still exist is support enough)
[/list]

Rethink your priorities in terms of your battle against foreign aid destinations.

[Chris Alger]

You contend that "white people" or even "white Americans" as a group have no collective obligation to rectify the sins of their forebearers. You contend that "the Arabs," however, regardless of country or degree of responsibility, but solely as a result of ethnicity, should rectify the refugeee problem created by Israel and allow Israel to steal as much land as it wants, provided the total remains a small percentage.

Is that because Arabs aren't white or because their "savage and barabaric culture" creates responsibilities on them that you wouldn't tolerate if applied to yourself?

[ QUOTE ]
"And where is the talk of compensation for the 800,000+ Jews who were driven from other parts of the Middle East by Arab mobs"

[/ QUOTE ]
Good question: why has neither Israel nor the U.S. ever proposed a mutual compensation scheme whereby all people, Arabs and Jews alike, who were forcibly displaced from their homes in the 1940's should be allowed to return or receive full compensation? It would be a slam-dunk in the UN. Why do you suppose that Zionists remained silent on the issue of Jewish expulsions for nearly 50 years (actually, more like "encouraged immigration," some of it instigated by Israeli terror, as in Iraq, rarely along the lines of the forced "cleansing" [Yigal Allon's term] and wholesale village emptying of the Haganah)? Answer: because in common with the Arab governments both prefer to use the plight of refugees to advance unrelated politics at the refugees' expense.

[MMMMMM]

White Americans HAVE rectified things. Blacks are now even advantaged legally rather than disadvantaged. When the Arab world makes discrimination against Jews (and against Christians and infidels and women) illegal, then talk to me about it. How soon do you think they will do THAT?

Regarding motives on both Israel's and Arab sides to use trhe Palestinians as pawns, I am sure there are some. All the more reason the Palestinians should flee and build new lives elsewhere as so many other displaced or oppressed peoples have done. If you were a Palestinian--or in Vietnam, say, during the terrible times--wouldn't you become a "boat person" so to speak? Why stay there and bang your head against a wall? I'd be out of there like a shot. What about you in...Palestine...Laos...Cambodia...North Korea (if you could escape)...Cuba (ditto)...any terrible place. They really need to focus on making things better instead of on revenge: it is that aspect of their culture that is the most sick, along with the death-cultism. At this point any Palestinian who thinks the smart or good thing to do is to sacrifice himself to fight the Jews is deluded. Make it better there or if you can't get the hell out and start a new life in another better place. Why is that so complicated.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not against aid to Israel, but many Americans are. Hence my suggestion.

I do think we should aid most of the world less, though--and especially less or none to those with ideologies or interests opposed to our own.

[Gamblor]

why has neither Israel nor the U.S. ever proposed a mutual compensation scheme whereby all people, Arabs and Jews alike, who were forcibly displaced from their homes in the 1940's should be allowed to return or receive full compensation?

You're right on the ball with your comments on the Arab governments, but given the recent de-facto refusal of Libya's offer to Libyan Jews, the obvious reason is the fear that should they return, they will be subject to the same discrimination they faced before their flight.

There's an Israeli t-shirt company selling shirts in Arabic and Hebrew that say "Dhimmis? Not anymore!"

[Gamblor]

I'm not against aid to Israel, but many Americans are. Hence my suggestion.

I believe 10 million Jews in Israel would virtually eliminate its problems, specifically, its reliance on the United States and its (justified) paranoia.

I do think we should aid most of the world less, though--and especially less or none to those with ideologies or interests opposed to our own.

I don't blame you for that one bit.

[Cyrus]

There is absolutely no excuse for the murders of those children and their mother. Absolutely none, whatsoever, no matter how otherwise "noble" or "legitimate" the purported "cause". Even in revenge, this is absolutely barbaric and is to be condemned in no uncertain terms.

I take every single life as valuable as the next. This is my math.

I wish Israelis and Palestinians would follow that same math. But they don't. Some Palestinians value now their own lives as inferior to the killing of "enemies". Some Israelis officially value the life of one Jew as equal to a hundred Palestinians. The whole thing is going down the drain faster than you can say "Roadmap, What Roadmap?"

[Stu Pidasso]

Chris,

Ahlert may have gotten some of his facts wrong, but his point was that the outrage directed against the Palistinians to the murder of the Isreali family should be greater than or equal to the outrage that is being directed at Americans for its mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.

I'm inclined to agree with Alhert on that point.

Stu

[Cyrus]

This kind of extreme obnoxiousness and arrogance must pass for chutzpah in your mind.

[ACPlayer]

I strongly urge congress and urge every reader here to write to his congressman to remove all aid to Israel and Egypt forthwith.

America would instantly become safer for one thing.

[nicky g]

Door bell ringers aren't the only case in which the IDF uses human shields, and sometimes they are killed. If a firefight starts up, who gets caught in the crossfire, whether the militants shoot them or not? Did you even read what I copied from the B'Tselem site? The IDF has used them as cover for firing postions as well, to enter booby-trapped houses first etc etc..

At least Gamblor has some kind of link to Israel that he seems to think necessitates him to back up whatever Israel does. Why you think it constantly necessary to contort your arguments and do whatever it takes to defend the indefensible, such as kidnpapping bystanders and risking their lives to protect those of occupyiong soldiers just after you've denounced the use of human shields, is beyond me.

[nicky g]

There are maybe 250 million arabs in the region, compared to maybe 7 million Jews - many of whom weren't there before 1948. Maybe that will help you explain why Arabs have the bulk of the land - because it's Arab land. It's like why Americans have the bulk of America and Russians have the bulk of Russia. Why should it be Arabs that have to be displaced so some ideologues can fulfill their dream of setting up a state where other people already live? If anyone tried to do such a thing in the states you'd be screaming blue murder.

[elwoodblues]

I guess it depends on how you define "making demands." Would the following be a demand:

US to Israel - Stop doing xyz or risk forfeiting the foreign aid we send your way.

If it is a demand, then for what reason should the US be able to withdraw its support?

[Gamblor]

Some Israelis officially value the life of one Jew as equal to a hundred Palestinians.

Come now.

replace Jew with Israeli and you have a deal.

The army and government have worked just as hard to bring George Khoury's killers to justice as any Jew.

Life is life man, Jewish or otherwise. Just because some think a secure state with a Jewish majority is necessary does NOT mean Jews are more entitled to life any more than anyone else.

Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir deserve just as much punishment as any Arab terrorist, and he got it - there are proper ways of doing things. Ultimately, it is the terrorism that has cheapened the opposition's life for both sides.

[Gamblor]

US to Israel - Stop doing xyz or risk forfeiting the foreign aid we send your way.

Foreign aid is quite different from loan guarantees.

Nonetheless, that ship has sailed my friend.

There'd be about 3x as many Jewish towns in the Territories if it hadn't.

[Gamblor]

Nice distortion.

[MMMMMM]

But Nicky, it was also Jewish land.

If the American Indians in the States wanted Rhode Island instead of a bunch of scattered reservations, I'd be inclined to let them have it.

[MMMMMM]

I'm not saying kidnapping bystanders and using them as human shields is right--it isn't. But why is it that everything bad the Israelis do, the Palestinians do worse? In other words it involves matter of degree and the terrorists are 10 times more immoral overall than the IDF.

[nicky g]

" In other words it involves matter of degree and the terrorists are 10 times more immoral overall than the IDF. "

As far as using human shields goes, they clearly are not.

[MMMMMM]

Maybe not. But as far as deliberately targeting innocents for death, they clearly are. And I would say that is the greater evil.

[nicky g]

"And I would say that is the greater evil."

Of course, but that doesn't mean other abuses should be ignored.


" But as far as deliberately targeting innocents for death, they clearly are. "

That's another argument, that we've had many times and will no doubt contiue to have in the future.

"Maybe not."

Huzzah /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.