NationStates Jolt Archive

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "rotten, dried tree" that will be annihilated by "one storm."

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad told a conference for supporting the Palestinians that opened in the Iranian capital on Friday, days after declaring his country had become a nuclear power by enriching uranium.

But the tone of Ahmadinejad's speech was slightly more moderate than fiery rhetoric last year, when Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling a conference: "Israel must be wiped off the map."


Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12316619/)

Posting articles without any sort of comment, or basis for discussion, of your own is spamming.

In response, the Israeli Prime Minister said of Iran, "They smell bad. And I don't mean, bad in an amusing way. I mean, bad in a fresh-turd-somewhere-nearby but-you-can't-tell-exactly-where way. Omglolz."

Yeah, he also did kinda say they will be annhiliated and he said it a couple days after he announced Iran had joined the nuclear club.

Posting articles without any sort of comment, or basis for discussion, of your own is spamming.
You should report me to the mods. :)

World leaders are such babies. x-x

You should report me to the mods. :)

Déjà fait.

Déjà fait.
I can't tell you how funny I think that is. You must be very lonely.

I can't tell you how funny I think that is. You must be very lonely.

Oh, PD. You think I'm going to be that easily baited? *sigh*

look at it from an Iranian perspective.... you gotta love this nut ! He tells everyone to go fuck themselves and that no one can tell your great country of Iran what to do ! WTF ....if he was an American he'd win in a landslide ..:)
He is trying to hold a fractuose country toghether and he is doing it by surrounding it with enemys...a time honored approach that works in the short run ...now we have the internet and supposed free exchange of ideas...well we will see . But you gotta put this looney toon in the proper perspective.

Then bomb the shit outta him before he gets his hand son any NUKES .;)

Anyhoo, back to the discussion. A more detailed article on CNN

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's president, who last October said Israel "must be wiped off the map," stoked tensions with the Jewish state Friday saying, "the Zionist regime is a dying tree, and soon its branches will be broken down."

Despite that, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a speech that Israel remains a threat to Islamic countries.

"The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat," Reuters News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying in Friday's speech.

The Iranian president's remarks came as Western nations pressured Tehran to halt its uranium enrichment program, something the United States, Israel and others say can lead to the production of nuclear weapons.
link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/14/iran.israel/index.html)

Well, at least Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can spell Israel, in his native language at the least. :)

It won't work at all though....its a veyr bad thing....which Bush is even doing!

And they're just developing all these new weapons and the potential for nuclear capabilities for 'peaceful' purposes. :rolleyes:

look at it from an Iranian perspective.... you gotta love this nut ! He tells everyone to go fuck themselves and that no one can tell your great country of Iran what to do ! WTF ....if he was an American he'd win in a landslide ..:)
He is trying to hold a fractuose country toghether and he is doing it by surrounding it with enemys...a time honored approach that works in the short run ...now we have the internet and supposed free exchange of ideas...well we will see . But you gotta put this looney toon in the proper perspective.

Then bomb the shit outta him before he gets his hand son any NUKES .;)
Sure. His rhetoric inflames national pride, there's no question, but I think this guy believes it. I don't think he's just blowing smoke for public consumption. As for bombing the shit out of them, it's not a very good option. I think a better option would be to support internal decent.

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.

Doesn't matter anyway. Nobody likes this President. Not even Iran. Check his popularity numbers. They're lower than Bush's. If his own people aren't listening to him, why should we?

It's a non-issue. Let it go.

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.

Doesn't matter anyway. Nobody likes this President. Not even Iran. Check his popularity numbers. They're lower than Bush's. If his own people aren't listening to him, why should we?

It's a non-issue. Let it go.

You keep saying his "popularity numbers" are low. Why don't you offer some proof of that?

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.

Doesn't matter anyway. Nobody likes this President. Not even Iran. Check his popularity numbers. They're lower than Bush's. If his own people aren't listening to him, why should we?

It's a non-issue. Let it go.
Yeah, that's contrary to everything I've heard. I can't site poll numbers but my impression is that he's very popular in Iran.

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.

Doesn't matter anyway. Nobody likes this President. Not even Iran. Check his popularity numbers. They're lower than Bush's. If his own people aren't listening to him, why should we?

It's a non-issue. Let it go.

Doesn't other leader of Iran(I can't remember what the title is of it) dislike him as well?

Yeah, that's contrary to everything I've heard. I can't site poll numbers but my impression is that he's very popular in Iran.

Hitler was popular in Germany too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.

Doesn't matter anyway. Nobody likes this President. Not even Iran. Check his popularity numbers. They're lower than Bush's. If his own people aren't listening to him, why should we?

It's a non-issue. Let it go.
Seriously, no listens to him anymore. Hes like a cynial old man who rants about nothing and everything. Just ignore him, he needs help

Seriously, no listens to him anymore. Hes like a cynial old man who rants about nothing and everything. Just ignore him, he needs help
Do you mean Keruvila or the president of Iran? If you mean Ahmadinejad can you please refer me to a source? I really am interested in finding out more about his popularity. My impression was that he was very popular but I realize I have no real numbers on that. If someone does I'd really like to see them.

Do you mean Keruvila or the president of Iran? If you mean Ahmadinejad can you please refer me to a source? I really am interested in finding out more about his popularity. My impression was that he was very popular but I realize I have no real numbers on that. If someone does I'd really like to see them.
I meant Ahmadinejad. I dont have numbers but it was Keruvila that brought that up. As far I know he isnt popular and he was only "elected" because he was the "best" of bunch of horrible pre-picked canidates.

My point is that he just wants attention and the media in the west gives it to him. Just ignore what he says

I meant Ahmadinejad. I dont have numbers but it was Keruvila that brought that up. As far I know he isnt popular and he was only "elected" because he was the "best" of bunch of horrible pre-picked canidates.

My point is that he just wants attention and the media in the west gives it to him. Just ignore what he says
:eek: Are you ill? You're making sense.

I meant Ahmadinejad. I dont have numbers but it was Keruvila that brought that up. As far I know he isnt popular and he was only "elected" because he was the "best" of bunch of horrible pre-picked canidates.

My point is that he just wants attention and the media in the west gives it to him. Just ignore what he says
You can't really ignore a guy who is the president of the fourth largest exporter of oil to the world, has the north side of the straight of Hormuz, where 40% of the world's oil flows through, in his country and is running full speed towards nuclear weapons capability.

You can't really ignore a guy who is the president of the fourth largest exporter of oil to the world, has the north side of the straight of Hormuz, where 40% of the world's oil flows through, in his country and is running full speed towards nuclear weapons capability.
You do know he doesnt really have any power or say, right? Hes basically just a figure head to gain Iran attention.

Posting articles without any sort of comment, or basis for discussion, of your own is spamming.

What about starting a thread without some sort of discussion in the opening post (assuming it's not just a poll thread)?

I did that the other day with the East Timor thread, with the goal of wanting to learn something about it... and it got thrown in the trash.

You do know he doesnt really have any power or say, right? Hes basically just a figure head to gain Iran attention.
I understand the Ayatolla's have ultiomate say over everything, but that doesn't mean he's a figure head. The fact is that Iran took a very different turn when he was elected. That has to mean something. In anycase, even if he is, whoever is stearing the boat is stearing into a collision course with the rest of the world and those policies are reflected in his rhetoric.

Seriously, no listens to him anymore. Hes like a cynial old man who rants about nothing and everything. Just ignore him, he needs helpAt the very least, the thousands of people attending his anti-semitic conferences are listening to him. That to me, is reason enough to be concerned. More xenophobia and hatred being espoused by a national leader isn't trivial, just because it is expected.

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.

Doesn't matter anyway. Nobody likes this President. Not even Iran. Check his popularity numbers. They're lower than Bush's. If his own people aren't listening to him, why should we?

It's a non-issue. Let it go.

There were a lot of people who felt Hitler was a "non-issue." :rolleyes:

Do you mean Keruvila or the president of Iran? If you mean Ahmadinejad can you please refer me to a source? I really am interested in finding out more about his popularity. My impression was that he was very popular but I realize I have no real numbers on that. If someone does I'd really like to see them.
The reason you think he's popular is because of the voting numbers. Which were faked. By somewhere close to an order of magnitude. If not more. But of course the media ate them right up.

The reason you think he's popular is because of the voting numbers. Which were faked. By somewhere close to an order of magnitude. If not more. But of course the media ate them right up.
As I said, I'm not sure. I'd just like to get some info on that. My impression was that he's popular, but I know I may be wrong because I've never seen anything that actually talks about it.

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.
They're not worried because thay have quite a few nukes about two stages away from full assembly that they could launch within 12 hours.

I can't wait to see the look on Mr.Ahmadinejad's face when he's being forced out of his palace by american soldiers. Over the bodies of his nation's children. Like next week. One storm of BF-42 bombers commanded by a regime just as militant as Mr.Ahmadinejad's but with force to back it up.

aint happening..either his own people get rid of him or he's overthrown by dudes with more sense...Iranians are NOT stupid . ( Based on individuals from Iran I know )...that and history...morons since WW 2 have generaly been delt with harshly .

... and?

Are you really surprised?

Israel doesn't care. Trust me. They're not worried.

Doesn't matter anyway. Nobody likes this President. Not even Iran. Check his popularity numbers. They're lower than Bush's. If his own people aren't listening to him, why should we?

It's a non-issue. Let it go.

It doesnt matter if every single person in Iran is opposed to this President, he doesnt need to be winning in the popularity polls to off Israel.

Israel does care. Your wrong.

I dont trust you.

They are worried, as is the rest of the western world.

Unogal, wtf are BF-42 bombers? I was always under the impression the people loved him. They definitely seem to share the same views such as Israel should be destroyed and they want to be ruled under sharia law.

Well, only fair, considering how many people have been calling Iran a rotten dead tree (albeit with much less colourful language).

Well, only fair, considering how many people have been calling Iran a rotten dead tree (albeit with much less colourful language).

Oh but come on, Iran totally deserves it...and you know it.

The main difference is Israel is on the defensive...Iran is on the offensive.

As people have learned from our...eh...little incident in Iraq, countries on the offensive are always booed.

Oh but come on, Iran totally deserves it...and you know it.

The main difference is Israel is on the defensive...Iran is on the offensive.

As people have learned from our...eh...little incident in Iraq, countries on the offensive are always booed.
Yeah right. They're just as bad as the palestinian people.

Yeah right. They're just as bad as the palestinian people.

Who are? The Israelis? The Iranians? The Canadians? The Aryans?

I can't wait to see the look on Mr.Ahmadinejad's face when he's being forced out of his palace by american soldiers. Over the bodies of his nation's children. Like next week. One storm of BF-42 bombers commanded by a regime just as militant as Mr.Ahmadinejad's but with force to back it up.wet dreams :D :D :p :D

Who are? The Israelis? The Iranians? The Canadians? The Aryans?
The Israelis. Them being on the defensive? That's crap.

The Israelis. Them being on the defensive? That's crap.

I'm just saying in this scenario.....I know the Israelis are on the offensive concering the 'rab free loaders in their country, but they have to be because the moment they are not, their night clubs get bombed.

But this time concering Iran only, the Israelis are most TOTALLY on the defensive.

Meh, it's just hard-line rhetoric. Nothing to get worked up about.

I'm just saying in this scenario.....I know the Israelis are on the offensive concering the 'rab free loaders in their country, but they have to be because the moment they are not, their night clubs get bombed.

But this time concering Iran only, the Israelis are most TOTALLY on the defensive.

"rab free loaders" the natives that have been there for centuries, the people who are restricted to live in arab ghettos, a quarter of Israels population that is by law restricted to 8% of the land!

"their night clubs bombed" might have something to do with revenge for 5 yr old children and such being killed by Israeli snipers

Let's say you live on a piece of land. Your family has lived on and worked that land for countless generations. Then, one day, some foreigners come and say "This is our land because our ancestors lived here 5,000 years ago." A new nation is formed, where thest foreigners are in power and treat you like the scum of the earth.

If all this applies to you, congratulations. You're an Arab living in the region formerly known as Palestine.

"rab free loaders" the natives that have been there for centuries, the people who are restricted to live in arab ghettos, a quarter of Israels population that is by law restricted to 8% of the land!

"their night clubs bombed" might have something to do with revenge for 5 yr old children and such being killed by Israeli snipers

I've already stated this in the other Moussaoui thread. One that you never responded to. No Arabs are restricted to live in ghettos nor are they restricted to 8% of the land. That is a flat out, anti-Semitic lie. There is not a single bit of Israeli legislation that prevents Arab citizens from owning as much land as they like, nor is there any legislation that prevents Arab citizens from living any place they want. Furthermore, there are as many Jewish settlers in what we would call "ghettos" as there are Arabs in these "ghettos."

I also guarantee I can find more instances of attacks from Arab terrorists on Israeli nightclubs than you can of Israeli soldiers shooting 5 year old girls. Thus, the 'revenge' thing doesn't play out. You're commiting the fallacy of the appeal to emotion. Furthermore, excusing terrorist attacks against Israeli civilizans, or even bringing it up as a retort, due to military mistakes from the IDF commits two more fallacies - the two wrongs make a right fallacy, and the questionable analogy fallacy. Comparing a willing terrorist attack to a military mistake is the latter, while using one wrong to retort to another wrong is the former.

I hate to get all FOX News on you, but you honestly seem like you do support the terrorists. The real ones. Not the "I hate Jews so the Israeli military is a terrorist group" type.

Let's say you live on a piece of land. Your family has lived on and worked that land for countless generations. Then, one day, some foreigners come and say "This is our land because our ancestors lived here 5,000 years ago." A new nation is formed, where thest foreigners are in power and treat you like the scum of the earth.

If all this applies to you, congratulations. You're an Arab living in the region formerly known as Palestine.

That isn't exactly what happened. That is simply how people in the West misunderstand the Israel-Palestenian conflict. The fact of the matter is that Sefardi Jews have owned huge tracts of land in Israel for as long as Arabs have. Then, when Zionism began in the late 19th century, Jews began immigrating and buying more land. By the time Israel declared its independence in 1948, the vast majority of the land that made up the state was owned by Jews who purchased it, or claimed unowned land. Israel didn't begin "taking" any land until it won it in military conquest, after being attacked by Arab countries. Contrary to what some may believe, Jews didn't just run in and start stealing Arab land. For the vast majority of the land, it was either purchased, granted to the State, or taken in defensive military operations.

I think he's just taking the piss at this stage.

The main difference is Israel is on the defensive...Iran is on the offensive.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! *breath* hahahahahahahahaha! your funny :( :headbang:

I've already stated this in the other Moussaoui thread. One that you never responded to. No Arabs are restricted to live in ghettos nor are they restricted to 8% of the land. That is a flat out, anti-Semitic lie. There is not a single bit of Israeli legislation that prevents Arab citizens from owning as much land as they like, nor is there any legislation that prevents Arab citizens from living any place they want. Furthermore, there are as many Jewish settlers in what we would call "ghettos" as there are Arabs in these "ghettos."

I also guarantee I can find more instances of attacks from Arab terrorists on Israeli nightclubs than you can of Israeli soldiers shooting 5 year old girls. Thus, the 'revenge' thing doesn't play out. You're commiting the fallacy of the appeal to emotion. Furthermore, excusing terrorist attacks against Israeli civilizans, or even bringing it up as a retort, due to military mistakes from the IDF commits two more fallacies - the two wrongs make a right fallacy, and the questionable analogy fallacy. Comparing a willing terrorist attack to a military mistake is the latter, while using one wrong to retort to another wrong is the former.

I hate to get all FOX News on you, but you honestly seem like you do support the terrorists. The real ones. Not the "I hate Jews so the Israeli military is a terrorist group" type.
I call bullshit on this whole post. I can far more kids being killed by Israelis than Israelis killed by Palestinians. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ look at the 1st two stats

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! *breath* hahahahahahahahaha! your funny :( :headbang:

Ok, Mr. funny-guy, explain to me, how in THIS situation, Iran is not on the offensive, and Israel is not on the defensive?

For such a die-hard patriotic American...you seem to have a hell of alot of loyalty in Americas enemies....and a hell of alot of animosity towards an American ally.

Did'nt Bush say after 9/11, that Frist Iraq,then Iran, Finally N, Korea.

I call bullshit on this whole post. I can far more kids being killed by Israelis than Israelis killed by Palestinians. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ look at the 1st two stats

This doesn't state that more kids are killed by Israelis than more Israelis being killed by Palestenians. It states that more Palestenian children are killed than Israeli children, something totally different than what was posted. Then, when I went to the complete list of the children, I found that the vast majority of them were 16 and 17 year olds - adults in their culture. Your statistics are distorted by arbitrary, ethnocentric classifications of "children." Teenagers who are acting as terrorists are not on par with the emotional appeal of "5 year old children."

It also fails to draw a distinction between children accidently killed in military operations, or justly killed in military operations, vs. children killed by deliberate acts of terror. If a 17 year old Palestenian terrorist is hiding out in a house, he can expect to get killed when the IDF raids it trying to capture him and he doesn't surrender. That is completely justified.

And for calling "bullshit" on this whole post, you've not addressed half of it. You've failed to address the fact that there is no Israeli legislation as the author of the previous post claimed, such as being restricted to ghettos or restricted from owning land. You've failed to draw a distinction between terror and legitimate military operation.

Ok, Mr. funny-guy, explain to me, how in THIS situation, Iran is not on the offensive, and Israel is not on the defensive?

For such a die-hard patriotic American...you seem to have a hell of alot of loyalty in Americas enemies....and a hell of alot of animosity towards an American ally.

You're right to say that Israel is on the defensive. Every Israeli attack is made as a defensive response, or a pre-emptive form of defense, to attacks on Israelis. For every bulldozing of a house, every raid, every bombing, there is a corresponding terrorist plan, qassam rocket attack, etc. against Israel that happened first.

Thus, even when we see military actions from Israel, they are done for defensive reasons.

They are worried, as is the rest of the western world.

Then the terrorists have won. Congratulations.

Teenagers who are acting as terrorists are not on par with the emotional appeal of "5 year old children."
Hey, hey. Stick to the facts.

Throwing stones is not terrorism. And most of the teeneagers we're talking about were killed in just such a situation, when Israeli troops overreacted.

Did'nt Bush say after 9/11, that Frist Iraq,then Iran, Finally N, Korea, and anyone else who needs a good kicking.
We think that Bush,et al, need a 'First class kicking' The're all Psychotic,alcholics, thieves, liars,cheats.:sniper:

Did'nt Bush say after 9/11, that Frist Iraq,then Iran, Finally N, Korea, and anyone else who needs a good kicking.
Yeah, but that was when he still thought a kicking would just be an attack against the regime, followed by instantaneous liberated democratic joy.

In the real world, he's running out of time. If he's unlucky, he won't even get to start Iran.

You're right to say that Israel is on the defensive. Every Israeli attack is made as a defensive response
BULLSHIT. Maybe you should watch more non-western news, then maybe you would be more educated. that statement couldnt be farther from the truth

or a pre-emptive form of defense, to attacks on Israelis.
your kidding right, offensive defense? the logic of Israel supporters never ceases to amaze

For every bulldozing of a house, every raid, every bombing,
there are dead or displaced inocent Palestinians, leading to more anger towards the occupation and more probability of attack against israel. Thus Israels actions not only violate basic human rights, but make an attack MORE likely.

Ok, Mr. funny-guy, explain to me, how in THIS situation, Iran is not on the offensive, and Israel is not on the defensive?
Actions speak larger than words, so far Iran "offense" has just been words, while Israel take offensive ACTIONS

For such a die-hard patriotic American...you seem to have a hell of alot of loyalty in Americas enemies....and a hell of alot of animosity towards an American ally.
I have no loyalties to anyone or anything but America. It is BECAUSE I love America that I dont support Israel or its policies. Being allied with them, puts America far more at risk for attack. I dont see what we get out of this alliance except a waste of taxpayer dollars and a gaint target on our back for attack.

Hey, hey. Stick to the facts.

Throwing stones is not terrorism. And most of the teeneagers we're talking about were killed in just such a situation, when Israeli troops overreacted.

If a Palestenian throws a rock at an Israeli soldier, its their fault for getting shot. They took a violent, military action against a military unit. It may not be "terrorism" per se, but if they get killed as a result then the IDF has done nothing wrong. No military unit is obligated to get attacked with ANY form of force and not defend themselves with whatever force they see necessary.

Keep in mind that throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers is not peaceful protest or civil disobedience. These are violent actions that could be considered guerilla warfare.

I would also like to add that I looked into that site and its author Alison Weir more closely. It seems that she deliberately distorts her statistics to give an anti-Israel slant, and has been discredited in her claims that Israel used poison gasses against Palestenians, that the accidential attack on the USS Liberty was a deliberate attack against the US, and other conspiracy theories:

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=161&x_article=896

Weir further manipulates the data by treating an attack mentioned more than once as more than one death. So when the Times mentioned the killing of a 3-year-old Israeli in front of his kindergarten both on a front page blurb and in a full story on page six, Weir counts this as the Times reporting on two deaths. And when the killing is mentioned twice in the following days' stories about Israel's reaction to the slaying, Weir then claims that the Times reported on "400 percent" of Israeli children's deaths in this period of time.

Another example of amateurism of Weir's study is its unsubstantiated presumption that any "discrepancy" is "based on the ethnicity of the person killed.

Likewise, even if, as Weir alleges, specific Israeli deaths were repeated more often than Palestinian deaths in news stories, this most likely would not be a function of the "ethnicity" of those killed, but rather because it is more noteworthy when civilians are targeted for death (as is the case with most Israeli fatalities). Israelis murdered in grisly suicide bombings will likely garner more notice than Palestinians killed while attacking a soldier.

I'll look into it further, but after reading the specifications of the statistics (that most involved arent reallly children) and now reading other ways in which Weir has distorted her statistics, it would seem this is not a reputable source to get statistical information from.

Every Israeli attack is made as a defensive response, or a pre-emptive form of defense, to attacks on Israelis.
I found a quote...
We would send a tractor to plough in the demilitarized area. We knew the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until the Syrians would shoot. Then we would use artillery and the air force.

Keep in mind that throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers is not peaceful protest or civil disobedience. These are violent actions that could be considered guerilla warfare.
And shooting unarmed civilians, even if they are throwing stones, is an overreaction that is not tactically necessary, but motivated by ignorance, arrogance and hatred.

And besides, stones don't actually count as a threat. Especially not if tanks are involved. Plus, the whole thing begs the question to be asked: What is the Israeli army doing in those places in the first place?

And you wonder why people are ready to kill anyone and die themselves for all this to end.

BULLSHIT. Maybe you should watch more non-western news, then maybe you would be more educated. that statement couldnt be farther from the truth

You keep shouting "bullshit" over and over, but you've yet to actually support it. Can you demonstrate one Israeli military action that was not done in response to a threat? If not, then I would have to say "bullshit" on you.

your kidding right, offensive defense? the logic of Israel supporters never ceases to amaze

Like I stated, they are pre-emptive attacks made only for Israel's defense. You're the only one being illogical here, by posing a false dichotomy between offense and defense. Many offensive military actions are done with the goal of defense in mind. An offensive action can, and is in the case of Israel, used to defend Israel pre-emptively. You've yet to demonstrate otherwise, btw.

there are dead or displaced inocent Palestinians, leading to more anger towards the occupation and more probability of attack against israel. Thus Israels actions not only violate basic human rights, but make an attack MORE likely.

Israel gets attacked on its boarders every day. Ironic that you would say "watch more non-western news", becuase if you ever read an Israeli newspaper, you would see that Israel gets hit with qassam rockets every day. There is no oncoming attack, because Israel is currently being attacked on a daily basis. These are the very attacks that Israel responds to.

I guess reading Alison Weir's website they leave out that part though, huh?

And for calling "bullshit" on this whole post, you've not addressed half of it. You've failed to address the fact that there is no Israeli legislation as the author of the previous post claimed, such as being restricted to ghettos or restricted from owning land. You've failed to draw a distinction between terror and legitimate military operation.
There are also laws on the books in the US that says business cant have racist policies. Just because there is or isnt a law against something, doesnt mean its that way. For intance it is near impossible for Palestinians to get a permit to build where they'd like. This forces them to build homes without a permit because obviously they need a place live, that home is then bulldozed because it was built without a permit. Therefore, they are forced into what are basically ghettos. The IDF create and cause their terror through your so-called "legitimate military operation."

And shooting unarmed civilians, even if they are throwing stones, is an overreaction that is not tactically necessary, but motivated by ignorance, arrogance and hatred.

And besides, stones don't actually count as a threat. Especially not if tanks are involved. Plus, the whole thing begs the question to be asked: What is the Israeli army doing in those places in the first place?

And you wonder why people are ready to kill anyone and die themselves for all this to end.

Can you prove that its motivated by ignorance, arrogance, or hatred? Or is this just your personal, unfounded opinion?

And yes, stones count as a threat. For example, there are laws concerning the police in most states in the US whereby they are allowed to use force that is one degree above the force they are threatened with. If a police officer in the USA is attacked with a rock, they are allowed to use their pistol.

And what is the Israeli army doing in... Israel? The occupied territories it has held since its Arab neighbors attacked it?

There are also laws on the books in the US that says business cant have racist policies. Just because there is or isnt a law against something, doesnt mean its that way. For intance it is near impossible for Palestinians to get a permit to build where they'd like. This forces them to build homes without a permit because obviously they need a place live, that home is then bulldozed because it was built without a permit. Therefore, they are forced into what are basically ghettos. The IDF create and cause their terror through your so-called "legitimate military operation."

Most Palestinians are not Israeli citizens. Of course its more difficult for a non-citizen to get a permit in Israel than a citizen. Thats how it is in most countries. It is not a "racist" issue, but a nationality issue. A non-citizen doesn't get all of the property rights in the US that a citizen does, either.

And once again, this is not what the author of the post who started all of this actually said. He claimed that Arabs were legally restricted from these things. Like I stated, they arent. There are no legal restrictions for Arab citizens. They are as equal with Jewish situations as ethnic groups in the USA are.

If you keep making arbitrary definitions of "terror", you can classify anything as terror. With your arbitrary criteria for terror, I could make the US military out to be a terrorist group. Unless you can develop some sound and universally applicable criteria for terror, which you havn't, then it doesn't mean much when you say that its "terrorist."

You keep shouting "bullshit" over and over, but you've yet to actually support it. Can you demonstrate one Israeli military action that was not done in response to a threat? If not, then I would have to say "bullshit" on you.
read Neu Leostein's post above, the one about bulldozers and Syria


Like I stated, they are pre-emptive attacks made only for Israel's defense. You're the only one being illogical here, by posing a false dichotomy between offense and defense. Many offensive military actions are done with the goal of defense in mind. An offensive action can, and is in the case of Israel, used to defend Israel pre-emptively. You've yet to demonstrate otherwise, btw.
So even when Israel is on the offense they are really on the defense? wow Israel must live in magically backward land. With that logic, suicide bombers are only acting in defense of a soon to be Israeli attack. Thanks for backing up my claim on that one.


Israel gets attacked on its boarders every day. Ironic that you would say "watch more non-western news", becuase if you ever read an Israeli newspaper, you would see that Israel gets hit with qassam rockets every day. There is no oncoming attack, because Israel is currently being attacked on a daily basis. These are the very attacks that Israel responds to.
you mean those wildly inaccurate bottle rockets that 95% of the time land in unpopulated areas and pose no real threat to Israel? btw, innocent Palestinians die at the hands of Israelis EVERYDAY.
[/QUOTE]

I found a quote...

Your quote from Moshe Dayan is a good example of my point. Israelis sent a tractor through, they were attacked first, and then responded accordingly. There is nothing unjustified about that.

If a Palestenian throws a rock at an Israeli soldier, its their fault for getting shot. They took a violent, military action against a military unit. It may not be "terrorism" per se, but if they get killed as a result then the IDF has done nothing wrong. No military unit is obligated to get attacked with ANY form of force and not defend themselves with whatever force they see necessary.
since when is kids throwing a few rocks at heavily armed, heavily defended men a "violent military action"? Shooting kids for that a gross overuse of force and violates human rights. I mean goddamnit, all they have to is use a roit shield and problem sloved, they dont have to blow their fucking brains out.

Keep in mind that throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers is not peaceful protest or civil disobedience. These are violent actions that could be considered guerilla warfare.

who fuck would consider that guerilla warfare?

read Neu Leostein's post above, the one about bulldozers and Syria

Sending a tractor through a demilitarized zone is not a military action, I'm afraid. I don't know where you ever got the idea it was.

So even when Israel is on the offense they are really on the defense? wow Israel must live in magically backward land. With that logic, suicide bombers are only acting in defense of a soon to be Israeli attack. Thanks for backing up my claim on that one.

I'm not sure what part was unclear. An aggressive act, in response to a former aggressive act, is done in defense. This is a pretty common concept, so much so that most aggressive actions in the USA taken in response to a former aggressive action are said to be done in self defense. And your analogy is fallacious as well. Israeli attacks are military operations against military targets. Suicide bombings are non-military operations against civilian targets. You keep digging yourself in a hole every time you compare suicide bombings against civilians with the military.

you mean those wildly inaccurate bottle rockets that 95% of the time land in unpopulated areas and pose no real threat to Israel? btw, innocent Palestinians die at the hands of Israelis EVERYDAY.

You've yet to demonstrate that innocent Palestinians die at the hands of Israelis every day. You've shown statistics that show they die, that are most likely inaccurate, but you've yet to show that those people were innocent and not terrorists or guerillas who attacked Israel first. Of course, some are innocent. Israel does not, however, target innocent people. They are accidential civilian caualites. The suicide bombers that you glorify on the other hand target only innocent people.

I read about four or five Israeli newspapers daily, and Israel has a remarkably free and liberal press that is often quite critical of the government. From my experience, I don't see the vast majority of Palestenians being killed by the IDF as being innocent. Virtually all are wrapped up in some sort of crime, and thus get what is coming to them. And when innocent Palestinians are killed, it is all over the news (Israeli). I've read about soldiers being tried and convicted for killing Palestinians unjustly in the very recent news. The fact is, accidents happen, and the IDF imposes justice when it does. It isn't a renegade, terrorist force that indiscriminatly or illegally takes actions against civilian targets like the Palestenians do.

Can you prove that its motivated by ignorance, arrogance, or hatred? Or is this just your personal, unfounded opinion?
Well, they're sitting in their Merkava, get a stone thrown at them, and start firing machine guns at a bunch of youths down the road.

Either they were threatened, in which case they defended themselves, or not, in which case their decision to do so obviously had another aspect to it.

Ignorance:
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/IDF_strives_to_avoid_harming_civilians_in_Nablus.html
Difficulties faced by IDF soldiers are illustrated by an incident which transpired Tuesday night. A group of Paratroopers went to arrest a terror suspect in a Nablus houses. As they approached the building, they heard a metal noise, that they believed it was a cocked rifle. Then three figures were seen escaping from the house. Complying with IDF procedures for stopping terrorists, the soldiers fired warning shots into the air. The three continued to flee. Another IDF group noticed that one of the three was carrying either a firearm or a club. The soldiers fired some more shots. One of the three Palestinians was killed; another was detained, the third continued to flee. It turned out that none of the three were connected to the terror suspects. The sticks were used to beat pots and pans for Ramadan prayers (the scuffling of the pots was apparently the cause of the suspicious, rifle-cocking noise). Hence, lack of knowledge about local custom and observances caused an unnecessary death. This incident, and others, reinforces the need to reinstitute the old rules of engagement guiding principle: Soldiers should open fire only when they face mortal threats.

Arrogance:
http://www.teachkidspeace.org/doc213.php

Hatred:
Well, that should be obvious, but still...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/24/1088046220343.html?from=storylhs
http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/how_we_are_en.asp

And what is the Israeli army doing in... Israel? The occupied territories it has held since its Arab neighbors attacked it?
No, the refugee camps and towns that currently house the Palestinians, which are accepted by the Israeli government as being governed by the PA in the Oslo Accords.

And yes, stones count as a threat. For example, there are laws concerning the police in most states in the US whereby they are allowed to use force that is one degree above the force they are threatened with. If a police officer in the USA is attacked with a rock, they are allowed to use their pistol.


So the NYPD should have shot these people?

Riot in NYC (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/406144p-343905c.html)

I'm honestly no supporter of the palastinians, but god knows, there is such a thing as responding with an appropriate level of force. Imagine if the UK had taken your attitude in Northern Ireland.

since when is kids throwing a few rocks at heavily armed, heavily defended men a "violent military action"? Shooting kids for that a gross overuse of force and violates human rights. I mean goddamnit, all they have to is use a roit shield and problem sloved, they dont have to blow their fucking brains out.

who fuck would consider that guerilla warfare?

Like I stated before, police in the USA. A police officer is allowed to use lethal force against someone with a rock in most states. They can shoot and kill them. You can't be critical of Israeli actions and policies unless you apply that to all military forces that have identical ones - like those in the USA.

And no, it isn't a violation of human rights. Once again, you seem to be using your own arbitrary and unqualified definitions. Simply claiming it is a human rights violation does not make it so. There are specific criteria to be met for such a thing, and using lethal force against someone with a weapon doesn't meet those criteria.

Like I stated before, police in the USA. A police officer is allowed to use lethal force against someone with a rock in most states. They can shoot and kill them. You can't be critical of Israeli actions and policies unless you apply that to all military forces that have identical ones - like those in the USA.


Bullshit. NYPD use of force guidelines (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2004/everymothersson/special_NYPD_force.html)

Lethal force is only appropriate to protect the life of the officer or others.

Your quote from Moshe Dayan is a good example of my point. Israelis sent a tractor through, they were attacked first, and then responded accordingly. There is nothing unjustified about that.
Don't pretend you're dumber than you actually are.

I don't think you're one of those who think there always has to be one universally good and one universally bad side to everything. The world is full of grey-tones.

Sending a tractor through a demilitarized zone is not a military action, I'm afraid. I don't know where you ever got the idea it was.
provoking action, so they can take unnecessary, unjustified military action, is an example of unwarranted military force, something you wanted me to show.


I'm not sure what part was unclear. An aggressive act, in response to a former aggressive act, is done in defense. This is a pretty common concept, so much so that most aggressive actions in the USA taken in response to a former aggressive action are said to be done in self defense. And your analogy is fallacious as well. Israeli attacks are military operations against military targets. Suicide bombings are non-military operations against civilian targets. You keep digging yourself in a hole every time you compare suicide bombings against civilians with the military.
It doesnt matter who the attack target is, the fact is that they are done in self defense, its the only option Palestinians have.


You've yet to demonstrate that innocent Palestinians die at the hands of Israelis every day. You've shown statistics that show they die, that are most likely inaccurate, but you've yet to show that those people were innocent and not terrorists or guerillas who attacked Israel first. Of course, some are innocent. Israel does not, however, target innocent people. They are accidential civilian caualites. The suicide bombers that you glorify on the other hand target only innocent people.

I read about four or five Israeli newspapers daily, and Israel has a remarkably free and liberal press that is often quite critical of the government. From my experience, I don't see the vast majority of Palestenians being killed by the IDF as being innocent. Virtually all are wrapped up in some sort of crime, and thus get what is coming to them. And when innocent Palestinians are killed, it is all over the news (Israeli). I've read about soldiers being tried and convicted for killing Palestinians unjustly in the very recent news. The fact is, accidents happen, and the IDF imposes justice when it does. It isn't a renegade, terrorist force that indiscriminatly or illegally takes actions against civilian targets like the Palestenians do.
wait Israeli newspapers dont show all the wrong that they do:eek: shocking, really:rolleyes: You read should more than Israeli newspapers to give a true view of everything that happens. I guarentee you will find Israeli attacks civilians nearly daily.

Well, they're sitting in their Merkava, get a stone thrown at them, and start firing machine guns at a bunch of youths down the road.

Either they were threatened, in which case they defended themselves, or not, in which case their decision to do so obviously had another aspect to it.

Ignorance:
http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/IDF_strives_to_avoid_harming_civilians_in_Nablus.html
Difficulties faced by IDF soldiers are illustrated by an incident which transpired Tuesday night. A group of Paratroopers went to arrest a terror suspect in a Nablus houses. As they approached the building, they heard a metal noise, that they believed it was a cocked rifle. Then three figures were seen escaping from the house. Complying with IDF procedures for stopping terrorists, the soldiers fired warning shots into the air. The three continued to flee. Another IDF group noticed that one of the three was carrying either a firearm or a club. The soldiers fired some more shots. One of the three Palestinians was killed; another was detained, the third continued to flee. It turned out that none of the three were connected to the terror suspects. The sticks were used to beat pots and pans for Ramadan prayers (the scuffling of the pots was apparently the cause of the suspicious, rifle-cocking noise). Hence, lack of knowledge about local custom and observances caused an unnecessary death. This incident, and others, reinforces the need to reinstitute the old rules of engagement guiding principle: Soldiers should open fire only when they face mortal threats.

There is nothing ignorant about this at all. The IDF followed military procedure perfectly. It wasn't a lack of knowledge about a local custom that caused an unncessary death - it was the fact that the Palestenians didn't stop when they were chased and warned by the IDF troops. Once again, I can demonstrate a parallel in the US police system, where a police officer is allowed to shoot after firing warning shots. The IDF soldiers here acted appropriately. Rudy Giuliani gave a police officer a medal for shooting a man who had what appeared to be a weapon but turned out not to be, simply because the police officer followed proper procedure. There is nothing ignorant about following proper IDF procedure.

The article also assumes that the IDF soldiers didn't have knowledge of the local custom. It fails to demonstrate that premise to be true. They could have had knowledge, and still assumed the club and noises to be weapons rather than the current celebration.

Now, if they had gone in shooting, didn't follow procedure, etc. then it could be called ignorance. However, this seems like a prime example of an IDF soldier doing his job.

I'll read the other articles later.

And no, it isn't a violation of human rights. Once again, you seem to be using your own arbitrary and unqualified definitions. Simply claiming it is a human rights violation does not make it so. There are specific criteria to be met for such a thing, and using lethal force against someone with a weapon doesn't meet those criteria.
I dont see how killing a child for no other reason than throwing rocks is NOT a human rights violation.

provoking action, so they can take unnecessary, unjustified military action, is an example of unwarranted military force, something you wanted me to show.

How is driving a tractor through a demilitarized zone provoking action? They drove a tractor, they were shot at. Thus, any military actions they take in response are justified. There is nothing unwarrented about that.


It doesnt matter who the attack target is, the fact is that they are done in self defense, its the only option Palestinians have.

Suicide bombings aren't done in self-defense, because they are not directed against any target that gives a defense to Palestine. And yes, it does matter who the attack target is. There is a big difference between civilians and military targets. When Israeli's bomb a house that is being used to store explosives or weapons, it is obviously defensive. When a suicide bomber blows up a school bus, it is not.

wait Israeli newspapers dont show the wrong that they do:eek: shocking, really:rolleyes: You read should more than Israeli newspapers to give a true view of everything that happens. I guarentee you will find Israeli attacks civilians nearly daily.

Like I stated, but you must not have read it, Israeli newspapers do show the wrong that they do. They are often extremely critical of the IDF and Israeli government. They are far more open and free than the US media. And, like I stated, which you must not have read, when the IDF screws up it makes the front page, and they are disciplined accordingly. Its obvious you've never actually read an Israeli newspaper.

I dont see how killing a child for no other reason than throwing rocks is NOT a human rights violation.

To begin with, police and military in any country are not trained to evaluate the age of the victim in a hostile situation. It isn't "oh, thats a child" throwing a rock. It's, "that person is threatening me with a weapon." Like I've stated before, the military in Israel, just like the police in the USA, are authorized and trained to use necessary force when in a situation that is defined as appropriate and when they correspondingly feel it is appropriate.

If you don't see how it is not a human rights violation, it is due to your own misunderstanding of what a human rights violation is. The right to attack military units with rocks is not deemed an inherent human right.

To begin with, police and military in any country are not trained to evaluate the age of the victim in a hostile situation. It isn't "oh, thats a child" throwing a rock. It's, "that person is threatening me with a weapon." Like I've stated before, the military in Israel, just like the police in the USA, are authorized and trained to use necessary force when in a situation that is defined as appropriate and when they correspondingly feel it is appropriate.

If you don't see how it is not a human rights violation, it is due to your own misunderstanding of what a human rights violation is. The right to attack military units with rocks is not deemed an inherent human right.
Bullshit!
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10762075&postcount=77

Bullshit. NYPD use of force guidelines (http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2004/everymothersson/special_NYPD_force.html)

Lethal force is only appropriate to protect the life of the officer or others.

Yes, and when someone is approaching with a weapon of any type, then the officer has reason to assume that their life or the life of others is in danger. It is at their discression. There is nothing in this article that contradicts anything I've stated. See below:

All members of the service at the scene of a police incident must:
(a) Immediately establish firearms control
(b) Use minimum necessary force
(c) Employ non-lethal alternatives, as appropriate.

Minimum necessary force is defined as force that is one degree higher than the force you are confronted with. This is what I stated before. If a person attacks with fists, officers can use a taser, mace, or a club. If a person attacks with a weapon of any kind - rock, screwdriver, knife, machete, chainsaw, officers can use the pistol.

How is driving a tractor through a demilitarized zone provoking action? They drove a tractor, they were shot at. Thus, any military actions they take in response are justified. There is nothing unwarrented about that.
They provoke it when they dont stop driving the tractor until they are attacked so that they can take unjustified military action.


Suicide bombings aren't done in self-defense, because they are not directed against any target that gives a defense to Palestine. And yes, it does matter who the attack target is. There is a big difference between civilians and military targets. When Israeli's bomb a house that is being used to store explosives or weapons, it is obviously defensive. When a suicide bomber blows up a school bus, it is not.

Suiciding bombings attack military posts and troops as well.

Like I stated, but you must not have read it, Israeli newspapers do show the wrong that they do. They are often extremely critical of the IDF and Israeli government. They are far more open and free than the US media. And, like I stated, which you must not have read, when the IDF screws up it makes the front page, and they are disciplined accordingly. Its obvious you've never actually read an Israeli newspaper.
My point is that they are going to show everything bad they do and getting your news solely from those papers and claiming you have a complete view.

I understand the Ayatolla's have ultiomate say over everything, but that doesn't mean he's a figure head.

In Iran, the power lies in Qom, not Teheran.

They provoke it when they dont stop driving the tractor until they are attacked so that they can take unjustified military action.

This seems to be along the lines of "they made me shoot them!" If Syrians shot at Israeli tractors driving through a demilitarized zone, they are not justified under the guise of "they provoked it." The Israeli government is justified to take military actions against Syria in response to the military actions taken against Israel. "But Israelis drove their tractors throug a demilitarized zone first..." just isn't cutting it.

Suiciding bombings attack military posts and troops as well.

My point is that they are going to show everything bad they do and getting your news solely from those papers and claiming you have a complete view.

I don't get my news solely from those sources. I was just pointing out that you really don't know what the Israeli news is like. Of course, you will get a more accurate picture of Israeli affairs reading Israeli newspapers than you will if you read the spurious articles about Israel in the Post, BBC, or Times, or if you watch the little snippts on FOX News.

Actually, it seems like you've slipped into the whole poisoning the well fallacy. You've essentially proposed that Israeli newspapers are unreliable about Israeli news because they are Israeli.

Yes, and when someone is approaching with a weapon of any type, then the officer has reason to assume that their life or the life of others is in danger. It is at their discression. There is nothing in this article that contradicts anything I've stated. See below:



Minimum necessary force is defined as force that is one degree higher than the force you are confronted with. This is what I stated before. If a person attacks with fists, officers can use a taser, mace, or a club. If a person attacks with a weapon of any kind - rock, screwdriver, knife, machete, chainsaw, officers can use the pistol.
Hhahahahahahah!
Try using that in court. Killing a kid for throwing rocks. I would be amazed if the police-officer didn't have to serve a long prison sentence for that.

Yes, and when someone is approaching with a weapon of any type, then the officer has reason to assume that their life or the life of others is in danger. It is at their discression. There is nothing in this article that contradicts anything I've stated.

He's right, though. A well-aimed rock can cause incredible amounts of damage.

Hhahahahahahah!
Try using that in court. Killing a kid for throwing rocks. I would be amazed if the police-officer didn't have to serve a long prison sentence for that.

Individual situations are at the whim of the department. If some kid was throwing rocks and a police officer shot them, then he would probably wind up in some trouble. However, if a 17 year old was throwing stones at a police force stationed someplace, and they shot him, they might be justified. Let me show you what Wikipedia refers to on deadly force:

In the United States this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

This is consistent with what I stated before. A police officer can shoot a man in a few states after firing warning shots, if they attempt to flee. An officer can use deadly force if they believe there is a threat of serious physical injury. So, if there was a huge mob of people attacking an officer with stones, they would be within the law to use deadly force.

This is exactly the situation that occurs in Israel. While the terrorist sympathizers always refer to the poor Palestenians throwing rocks, most often it is huge mobs of Palestenians against small units of IDF. If you've ever been in a situation like that, you would feel like your body was in danger of serious physical injury too.

He's right, though. A well-aimed rock can cause incredible amounts of damage.

Yes, we're not talking five year old girls throwing rocks here. The vast majority of these "Palestenian children" in fact are teens. And they don't just throw rocks, they use slings and slingshots. And often these are huge stones hurled down from walls and houses at soldiers below. I think people who downplay it by saying its "kids throwing rocks" don't realize how dangerous a mob stoning really is.

ah the media and the truth read this link to how truthful the media is. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/erasevideo.html

124 Israeli children killed since sept 2000-720 Palestinian children killed

The truth about Israeli terror against children
http://fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=1555

The fact is no Israeli has spent more than 20 months in prison for deliberately murdering a palestinian child, how does a sniper who can count the hairs on your face not know he is killing a five year old? and is never punished for the crime

if a palestinian kills a Israeli his home is bulldozed
since sept 2000, Israeli homes bulldozed zero, Palestinian 4,170

Yes, and when someone is approaching with a weapon of any type, then the officer has reason to assume that their life or the life of others is in danger. It is at their discression. There is nothing in this article that contradicts anything I've stated. See below:


The primary duty of all members of the service is to preserve human life. Only that amount of force necessary to overcome resistance will be used to effect an arrest or take a mentally ill or emotionally disturbed person into custody. Deadly physical force will be used ONLY as a last resort and consistent with Department policy and the law.

Simply because someone is carrying a rock or a screwdriver does not give the police the immediate right to open fire. As the guidelines state, it is the last resort, not the first option of choice.

As Robert Morgenthau put it:


In all cases, only the minimum amount of force will be used which is consistent with the accomplishment of a mission.

The firearm shall be viewed as a defensive weapon, not a tool of apprehension.

Every other reasonable alternative means will be utilized before a police officer resorts to the use of his firearm.

Where feasible, and consistent with personal safety, some warning must be given. DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE SHOULD ONLY BE USED AS A LAST RESORT.

Clearly, this is why there are not a lot of dead people in Borough Park right now, even though they torched a police car. I doubt the IDF would be so forgiving, so your parallel does not hold.

Minimum necessary force is defined as force that is one degree higher than the force you are confronted with. This is what I stated before. If a person attacks with fists, officers can use a taser, mace, or a club. If a person attacks with a weapon of any kind - rock, screwdriver, knife, machete, chainsaw, officers can use the pistol.

Actually, no.

Reasonable or Necessary Force is the minimum amount of lawful aggression sufficient to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective.

I don't know where you get this 'one degree higher' definition, or even what that means. Further, force can be deemed unreasonable - i.e. use of chokeholds - even if the officers life is threatened and he elects not to use deadly force in response anyway.

Didn't you get the Rodney King, or the Amadou Diallo memo?

Yes, we're not talking five year old girls throwing rocks here. The vast majority of these "Palestenian children" in fact are teens. And they don't just throw rocks, they use slings and slingshots. And often these are huge stones hurled down from walls and houses at soldiers below. I think people who downplay it by saying its "kids throwing rocks" don't realize how dangerous a mob stoning really is.

police forces all over the world deal with rock throwers and worse without bringing in snipers, if you don't want to get hit by rocks you can walk out of their range, use a shield, armoured vehicles......Just a thought but maybe if you didn't use snipers and bulldoze their homes or steal their land they wouldn't feel the need to throw rocks.

He's right, though. A well-aimed rock can cause incredible amounts of damage.

Nah. He's pissed about Gideone Busch. That's why there is this constant sniping at american police.

police forces all over the world deal with rock throwers and worse without bringing in snipers, if you don't want to get hit by rocks you can walk out of their range, use a shield, armoured vehicles......Just a thought but maybe if you didn't use snipers and bulldoze their homes or steal their land they wouldn't feel the need to throw rocks.

The IDF is not a police force. Kids throwing rocks might be a decoy or lure towards an ambush. It's a war zone, not an urban protest.

The IDF is not a police force. Kids throwing rocks might be a decoy or lure towards an ambush. It's a war zone, not an urban protest.

a "war zone" how sad is that when was there last a war on the west bank... 1967!..... only side has tanks and attack helicopters the other side rocks, yea Israelis are in tough there, better shoot some more five year olds in case they throw a pebble......

ah the media and the truth read this link to how truthful the media is. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/erasevideo.html

124 Israeli children killed since sept 2000-720 Palestinian children killed

The truth about Israeli terror against children
http://fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=1555

The fact is no Israeli has spent more than 20 months in prison for deliberately murdering a palestinian child, how does a sniper who can count the hairs on your face not know he is killing a five year old? and is never punished for the crime

if a palestinian kills a Israeli his home is bulldozed
since sept 2000, Israeli homes bulldozed zero, Palestinian 4,170

Perhaps you havn't been keeping up with the thread. The first link you posted was discredited by the NY Times on a number of issues. We've already verified that she falsifies her statistics and engages in conspiracy theories.

The second link doesn't look much better - have you actually demonstrated that an Israeli has deliberately murdered a Palestenian child? An IDF soldier killing a Palestenian youth who is throwing rocks is not "murder" by definition. Neither is the accidential killing of a child, which is manslaughter.

These propaganda machines just can't stop using these sensationalist terms, it seems.

Its also inaccurate to say that if a Palestenian kills an Israeli, his house is bulldozed. Only the houses of suicide bombers are bulldozed. And they aren't even bulldozed anymore, Israel stopped doing it.

But hey, leave it up to the terrorist propaganda machines to present distorted and inaccurate claims.

Simply because someone is carrying a rock or a screwdriver does not give the police the immediate right to open fire. As the guidelines state, it is the last resort, not the first option of choice.

No, they simply have to feel that there is "probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" as defined by Tenesse v Garner. Carrying a rock or screwdriver doesn't give them the immediate right to open fire, and I never stated that it did.

I stated that they were able to use their pistol, because that is considered a degree of force higher than a non-firearm type weapon. And they are. And nothing in the article you listed mentions the degrees of force used, and nothing in it contradicts what I've stated about this so far.

Clearly, this is why there are not a lot of dead people in Borough Park right now, even though they torched a police car. I doubt the IDF would be so forgiving, so your parallel does not hold.

Torching a police car isn't analogous to throwing rocks at soldiers. Since one is an attack on a person, and another an attack on a vehicle, it would seem that your parallel doesn't hold.

Actually, no.

Reasonable or Necessary Force is the minimum amount of lawful aggression sufficient to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective.

I don't know where you get this 'one degree higher' definition, or even what that means. Further, force can be deemed unreasonable - i.e. use of chokeholds - even if the officers life is threatened and he elects not to use deadly force in response anyway.

Didn't you get the Rodney King, or the Amadou Diallo memo?

Yes, that defines the term "minimum force." It does not state which weapon is considered to be the appropriate minimum force for a situation. Since you don't know what one degree higher means, perhaps you should let me explain instead of the definat argument of "I don't know, and thus I know you're incorrect."

One degree higher was taught to me when I took a criminal justice course in college. So yeah, I know a little bit about it. To simpify, there are three types of force. You have your bare hands, your non-lethal implements, and your firearm. Officers are allowed to respond with force that is one degree higher than your are attack with. Thus, if a person attacks an officer with their bare hands, the officer can use mace but not the pistol. If someone attacks an officer with a knife, rock, screwdriver, or anything that can be classified as a weapon, the officer can use a firearm. This is what I was taught, by a police officer, in a criminal justice course.

Now, what you're reading is a statement from the department to PBS. Its glossed over a bit and presented for the lay public. It doesn't actually state which laws are on the books, like I did. Nor does it say anything about what situations are appropriate to use what degree of force, like I did. Nor does it state how officers are allowed to interpret threats, as I did. In essence, it really doesn't support the point you're trying to make against me. You're simply interpreting an unofficial document used for public relations in a way that you think will support your point. Reading it carefully, it really doesn't contradict anything I've stated.

And when you have a law on the books that states you can shoot a fleeing suspect (Tenn vs Garner) vs a public relations statement the department gives to PBS, which are you going to pay more attention to?

Oh but come on, Iran totally deserves it...and you know it.

The main difference is Israel is on the defensive...Iran is on the offensive.

As people have learned from our...eh...little incident in Iraq, countries on the offensive are always booed.

Sorry to report but the continued occupation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, and sundry smaller areas renders Israel an aggressor. Were the IDF and the settlers to retreat within the internationally recognised borders and then be attacked, it would be different.


the 'rab free loaders in their country, .

While I respect your right to be a semi-racist bigot, I would appreciate it if you referred to them as either Arabs, Palestinians, or Israeli Arabs. We don't have various abbreviations hopping up for members of the Jewish faith, or those that consider themselves Jewish, or Africans, Japanese etc in an offensive tone, and I see no reason why they should be treated differently.

Secondly the "free loaders" are the natives of the area not expelled in the ethnic cleansing of 1948, and are now second class citizens in their own country.


but they have to be because the moment they are not, their night clubs get bombed..

You'd find, had you a mind to, that these attacks have their roots in the occupation. There were no suicide bombings pre-1967.


There is not a single bit of Israeli legislation that prevents Arab citizens from owning as much land as they like, nor is there any legislation that prevents Arab citizens from living any place they want...

Yet should an Israeli-Arab be shot by an Israeli Jew, they arent entitled to compensation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1560147,00.html

Even the US state department thinks Israels treatment of Arabs and its Sepharadic Jewish population is "shoddy" to say the least.

"The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm


I also guarantee I can find more instances of attacks from Arab terrorists on Israeli nightclubs than you can of Israeli soldiers shooting 5 year old girls...

5 year olds specifically yes. Girls under 17? Not likely. 750 plus Arab Children have been killed by Israel, as oppossed to 123 Israeli. The adult casualty numbers are about 3 Arab to one Israeli, and wounded 5 to 1. If we go to destruction of housing I believe its 15,000 Arab homes vs no Israeli.


but you honestly seem like you do support the terrorists. The real ones. Not the "I hate Jews so the Israeli military is a terrorist group" type....

The only remark I've seen thats remotely anti-semitic (in the broad sense) is the contraction of Arab to "rab". I suggest that you refrain from false and ungrounded accusations.


Then, when Zionism began in the late 19th century, Jews began immigrating and buying more land. By the time Israel declared its independence in 1948, the vast majority of the land that made up the state was owned by Jews who purchased it, or claimed unowned land.....

In 1946 an extensive survey was carried out by the British, with some American assistance, for the UN. Its purpose was to find out basically who owned what land, its use, the out put of agriculture etc. Though absolutely boring, it contains the following fact - only 6% of the land was owned by those classed as "Jews". It does not, as far as I remember, distinguish between the native Jewish population, and the Europeans.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/103-3033757-0335008?n=283155


If a 17 year old Palestenian terrorist is hiding out in a house, he can expect to get killed when the IDF raids it trying to capture him and he doesn't surrender. That is completely justified......

Or, heaven forbid, that two of them are hanging out the washing....

http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/two_Jabaliya_girls_headshots.htm

Or going to school, the evil creatures.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html

Or worse still....standing in front of kids they're shooting at.
http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html

..presumably he couldnt tell the difference between a six foot red head and an "arab gunman" in broad daylight at close range...

And of course all of this is recent. I can think of one incident in the late 80s where they beat an Arab school child to death and left his head looking "like a steak".

Thus, even when we see military actions from Israel, they are done for defensive reasons.......

But as Israel is the occupier, that cannot be the case.


Keep in mind that throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers is not peaceful protest or civil disobedience. These are violent actions that could be considered guerilla warfare. .......


Yes, it seems that peaceful protest engenders even more fear than a 12 year old with a rock, as this march required the use of gunships.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm

Virtually all are wrapped up in some sort of crime, and thus get what is coming to them........

I just had to scroll back up there to see that you were indeed the one who was throwing about the charge of "anti-semitism".

So "they" are all guilty and worthy of death then?

Minimum necessary force is defined as force that is one degree higher than the force you are confronted with. ........

So firing tank shells into tents for no apparent reason is one degree higher than the tent, flapping in the wind....groovy.

police forces all over the world deal with rock throwers and worse without bringing in snipers, if you don't want to get hit by rocks you can walk out of their range, use a shield, armoured vehicles......Just a thought but maybe if you didn't use snipers and bulldoze their homes or steal their land they wouldn't feel the need to throw rocks.

There you go, making up more stuff again. Israel has never brought in snipers to deal with people throwing rocks. Nor has Israel "stolen" any land. You sound like the typical, radical, Palestenian supporter. The only houses Israel bulldozed were the terrorist bases of suicide bombers.

And no, being a victim of a stoning does not entitle you to carry a shield or walk out of their range. According to the rule of law, in most civilized countries, stoning a military or police officer allows them to respond with the force at their disposal.

a "war zone" how sad is that when was there last a war on the west bank... 1967!..... only side has tanks and attack helicopters the other side rocks, yea Israelis are in tough there, better shoot some more five year olds in case they throw a pebble......

That is just bad, but it doesn't mean they should be throwing rocks in the first place.

Perhaps you havn't been keeping up with the thread. The first link you posted was discredited by the NY Times on a number of issues. We've already verified that she falsifies her statistics and engages in conspiracy theories.

The second link doesn't look much better - have you actually demonstrated that an Israeli has deliberately murdered a Palestenian child? An IDF soldier killing a Palestenian youth who is throwing rocks is not "murder" by definition. Neither is the accidential killing of a child, which is manslaughter.

These propaganda machines just can't stop using these sensationalist terms, it seems.

Its also inaccurate to say that if a Palestenian kills an Israeli, his house is bulldozed. Only the houses of suicide bombers are bulldozed. And they aren't even bulldozed anymore, Israel stopped doing it.

But hey, leave it up to the terrorist propaganda machines to present distorted and inaccurate claims.


"accidental killing of a child"? now you avoiding the truth, snipers do not accidentally kill anyone....should I even bring up the murder of a 13 yr old girl by an officer who emptied his machine gun into her at point blank range after she was injured by a sniper,the killer later said I would have killed if she was 3, what was his punishment? none......

"Only the houses of suicide bombers are bulldozed" bullshitte 4,000 suicide bombers since 2000 what a lie.

The reality is Israelis can murder Palestinians without fear of any severe punishment........

if a palestinian kills a Israeli his home is bulldozed
since sept 2000, Israeli homes bulldozed zero, Palestinian 4,170

Wow. Isreal, stop bulldozing the homes! Think about what you are doing here!

You're giving them more rocks to throw at you!

Because I don't feel like quoting;

Ever had yourself hit by a river rock? I have. Someone threw one hard at me once, and actually left a cut on my shin under my jeans. This rock was, at smallest, at least 2x4 inches, with a 1 inch depth. My leg felt darn near paralyzed after that and it hurt to walk.

Now, imagine one of those suckers hitting you in the face. Imagine even bigger ones dropping on your head or crushing any other part of your body. Crushing blows transfer through armor; it's why, in the middle ages, soldiers would take maces and morning stars to knights when they could, or use the blunt sides of axes on the helmets. You don't need an edge to hurt, maim or kill.

You have huge mobs of teens and adult instigators throwing rocks at least as big as the one I got hit with. You got, as mentioned before, guys attacking from all sides. You'll get people on walls dropping bricks.

Rocks WILL dent armoured vehicles. Rocks WILL break cages and shields. Rocks WILL bruise, cut, and kill.

Take a rock to the face. Take several. Tell me that doesn't hurt. There's a reason why rocks were one of the first weapons used by mankind in hunting and warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon#Ancient_weapons), and why several weapons are based on the ancient principal of a rock tied to a stick. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_weapons#M.C3.AAl.C3.A9e)

That's all for the "ZOMG BUT ROKKS ARNT' DEDLY!!1" argument.

From my understanding, what was explained earlier with Jews buying land in Palestine and eventually claiming independence is what happened. Arabs were not forced off by jews, but rather made their own refugee camps out of a fierce pride and bullheadedness. Rather than take in their "brethren" the surrounding Arab nations proceeded to attack Israel as a combined force, and then proceeded to be used by Israel to wipe its own ass in the seven days following.

Nowadays, it's simply reverted to Israel and the Arab world screaming to the Western World, "MOM, HE KEEPS TOUCHING ME!" The ghettos and poverty? I honesty refuse to believe that this is really what's happening, at least not entirely as the Israeli's fault. I honestly believe that a degree of this is due to the Palestinian government and the surrounding arab nations; they WANT a reason to attack and hate israel. Why give these people any moment of rest and let them live in Israel? Why not send them on suicide missions with their 16 year olds strapped to a pound of C4? The more kids that die and the more that live in poverty, the more reason they have to retaliate against the Israelis and the "western devils" who support them.

This is the take our attention away from the rest of the nations surround Israel. Apart from oil, is there any reason for their economies to still be off the ground? Are they really any better off than most other undeveloped nations?

We're going by the CIA factbook (http://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html) here.

Iran: Population 68,688,433 (July 2006 est.)
GDP $552.8 billion (2005 est.)
GDP per Capita $8,100 (2005 est.)
Population below Poverty Line 40% (2002 est.)
Inflation rate 16% (2005 est.)
Unemployment Rate 11.2% (2004 est.)

Industries: petroleum, petrochemicals, textiles, cement and other construction materials, food processing (particularly sugar refining and vegetable oil production), metal fabrication, armaments
Industrial production growth rate: 3% excluding oil (2005 est.)

There's apparently a shortage of skilled labor, too.

Israel: Population 6,352,117
GDP $140.1 billion (2005 est.)
GDP per Capita $22,300 (2005 est.)
Population below Poverty Line 21% (2005)
Inflation rate 1.3% (2005 est.)
Une,ployment Rate 8.9% (2005 est.)

Industries: high-technology projects (including aviation, communications, computer-aided design and manufactures, medical electronics, fiber optics), wood and paper products, potash and phosphates, food, beverages, and tobacco, caustic soda, cement, construction, metals products, chemical products, plastics, diamond cutting, textiles, footwear
Industry Production Growth Rate: 4.8% (2005 est.)

Yeah, a rotting tree.

If not for oil, Iran'd be a wasteland. Heck, if I were Iranian, I'd be pissed too. They're a tenth our size, and their people are almost 3 times as rich as we are!

Blasting anti-Israeli rhetoric while sponsoring terrorist actions against both Israel and its supporters, perverting Islam into a religion of vengeance against the western devils (Moqtada al Sadr), and pleading innocence and victimism while killing their own children in the name of Allah and their own insatiable need for a scapegoat (http://www.seconddraft.org/aldurah.php). BAD

I don't much like Israel or Iran. The whole muddling in the middle east is just too much strain for too little gain for the US.

But through a combination of cynicism, al Jazeera, western media, and wikipedia, I've come to the conclusion that the whole deal is about the need of a scapegoat to keep decaying regimes and failing public support alive.

Oh, and for Allah, of course.

That is just bad, but it doesn't mean they should be throwing rocks in the first place.

what else would you have them do? talking hasn't helped, 40 years of occupation by a hostile army I think I'd be throwing rocks too....

Sorry to report but the continued occupation of the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem, and sundry smaller areas renders Israel an aggressor. Were the IDF and the settlers to retreat within the internationally recognised borders and then be attacked, it would be different.

Where have you been? The Hamas charter distinctly states that all of Israel must be disbanded and turned into a Palestenian state. The Palestenians themselves have admitted that what you are claiming is not the case.

Current events and history also support this. Disengagements and unilateral withdrawels have INCREASED the number of attacks.

Secondly the "free loaders" are the natives of the area not expelled in the ethnic cleansing of 1948, and are now second class citizens in their own country.

There we go with more sensationalist talk. You commit the fallacy of the appeal to emotion, with sensationalist talk like this. There was no "ethnic cleansing" nor were natives "expelled." Like I stated in a previous post, the vast majority of the land was rightfully owned by Jews when Israel declared its independence, and as a result the owners could do what they choose with it.

You'd find, had you a mind to, that these attacks have their roots in the occupation. There were no suicide bombings pre-1967.

This is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Suicide bombings in Israel are about 20 years old. They were a relatively new tactic, and discovered almsot on accident. However, before 1967, there were still terrorist attacks on Israel. Suicide bombings didn't happen because they didn't exist yet, and they didn't develop as a result of 1967.

Yet should an Israeli-Arab be shot by an Israeli Jew, they arent entitled to compensation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1560147,00.html

I can't say I'm surprised that the Guardian would render it such. It isn't because an Israeli-Arab was shot by an Israeli Jew, it is because the Israeli Jew was not affiliated with any form of terrorist group. He was a lone nut, but didn't fit the criteria for compensation. The same would be true if a lone nut Arab-Israeli killed a Jew, with no terrorist affiliation.

5 year olds specifically yes. Girls under 17? Not likely. 750 plus Arab Children have been killed by Israel, as oppossed to 123 Israeli. The adult casualty numbers are about 3 Arab to one Israeli, and wounded 5 to 1. If we go to destruction of housing I believe its 15,000 Arab homes vs no Israeli.

You're still quoting the same statistics put out by a conspiracy theorist website. Ones that, as I've already listed, were demonstrated to be incorrect and falsified by the NY Times. I'm sure more Palestenians have been killed, however, it might be nice to see some accurate statistics instead of falsified ones from anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nuts.

The only remark I've seen thats remotely anti-semitic (in the broad sense) is the contraction of Arab to "rab". I suggest that you refrain from false and ungrounded accusations.

This may shock you, but anti-Semitism refers only to Jews. Yes, I realize that Arabs are in fact a Semitic group. However, the use of the term is not applied to Arabs in the modern lexicon. Part of this has to do with the vast opposition against Jews throughout history, and things like the Holocaust, whereas Arabs have had to endure no similiar hatred and oppression.

In 1946 an extensive survey was carried out by the British, with some American assistance, for the UN. Its purpose was to find out basically who owned what land, its use, the out put of agriculture etc. Though absolutely boring, it contains the following fact - only 6% of the land was owned by those classed as "Jews". It does not, as far as I remember, distinguish between the native Jewish population, and the Europeans.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887282113/103-3033757-0335008?n=283155

Keep in mind that the British mandate gave that land it to Israel. This is why I stated that it was rightfully owned by Jews when Israel declared its independence. I must have been unclear, but I wasn't referring to private land owned by Jews.


Or, heaven forbid, that two of them are hanging out the washing....

http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/two_Jabaliya_girls_headshots.htm

Or going to school, the evil creatures.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html

Or worse still....standing in front of kids they're shooting at.
http://www.counterpunch.org/butterfly1123.html

..presumably he couldnt tell the difference between a six foot red head and an "arab gunman" in broad daylight at close range...


This is the fallacy of the appeal to emotion. You, and these articles, may want to make it seem like the IDF is indiscriminately shooting children, but this isn't the case. Each instance was justified, as the children appeared to be military threats. In each instance, the IDF followed procedure and acted on what was a perceived terrorist threat.

Of course, the articles don't really give the fair and balanced of it. They don't even acknowledge that these were mistakes, or accidents. Instead, its the appeal to pity and horror.

But as Israel is the occupier, that cannot be the case.


I don't know how you come to that conclusion. There is no reason there can't be a peaceful occupation. Israel occuping territories does not make it the aggressor in every situation. If Israel takes pre-emptive action to prevent an attack, thats defense.

Yes, it seems that peaceful protest engenders even more fear than a 12 year old with a rock, as this march required the use of gunships.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3728681.stm

My, what selective reading. Do you just read the parts where the Palestenian supporters claim its "peaceful protest" and ignore the parts where the IDF stated that men in the crowd had weapons and a bomb?

If Israel takes pre-emptive action to prevent an attack, thats defense.

Question: if the Iranian government honstly believes Israel is planning to attack Iran, would pre-emptively attacking Israel also be ok in your book - or are only "western" countries allowed to do such things ?

Question: if the Iranian government honstly believes Israel is planning to attack Iran, would pre-emptively attacking Israel also be ok in your book - or are only "western" countries allowed to do such things ?

I actually never said a pre-emptive attack was "okay." I simply said it was in defense, or a defensive move. Some defensive tactics may very well be unethical, while some may be ethical. Same with offensive tactics. I'm sure we could find scenarios for each. And I think each would need to be evaluated on an individual basis.

Of course, I'm not going to believe an attack against Israel from Iran is okay. Thats one of those situations where each side believes they are right subjectively, and of course I'm biased toward my side on that respect. However, and depending on the circumstances, I will still defend that it was a defensive move.

There we go with more sensationalist talk. You commit the fallacy of the appeal to emotion, with sensationalist talk like this. There was no "ethnic cleansing" nor were natives "expelled." Like I stated in a previous post, the vast majority of the land was rightfully owned by Jews when Israel declared its independence, and as a result the owners could do what they choose with it.

Keep in mind that the British mandate gave that land it to Israel. This is why I stated that it was rightfully owned by Jews when Israel declared its independence. I must have been unclear, but I wasn't referring to private land owned by Jews.

This is the fallacy of the appeal to emotion. You, and these articles, may want to make it seem like the IDF is indiscriminately shooting children, but this isn't the case. Each instance was justified, as the children appeared to be military threats. In each instance, the IDF followed procedure and acted on what was a perceived terrorist threat.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion. There is no reason there can't be a peaceful occupation. Israel occuping territories does not make it the aggressor in every situation. If Israel takes pre-emptive action to prevent an attack, thats defense.



No Ethnic cleansing, have a look at Sharons military record.

In August of 1953 Sharon, commanded the notorious 101 unit of IDF terrorists, in an attack on the refugee camp of El-Bureig, south of Gaza, where (according to an Israeli history of the 101 unit) 50 refugees were massacred. Other sources allege about 20.

In October of 1953, Sharon commanded the notorious 101 unit of IDF terrorists, in an attack on the Jordanian village of Qibya. Israeli historian Avi Shlaim describes the massacre thus: "Sharon's orders were to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. The village had been reduced to rubble: forty-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civilians, two thirds of them women and children, had been killed".

Israel's foreign minister at the time, Moshe Sharett said "this stain (Qibya) will stick to us and will not be washed away for many years to come".

Between Feb. 28, 1955 and Oct. 10, 1956, Sharon led a paratrooper brigade in similar cross-border invasions of Gaza, Egypt, and the West Bank, Jordan. In the West Bank village of Qalqilya, Sharon's death squad killed 83 people.

In the Gaza Strip, 1967. Sharon brought in bulldozers and flattening whole streets. He did the whole lot, almost in one day. And the soldiers would beat people, can you imagine? Soldiers with guns, beating little kids (these days they just shoot them for throwing rocks)!

In August 1971 troops under Mr Sharon's command destroyed some 2,000 homes in the Gaza Strip, uprooting 16,000 people for the second time in their lives. Hundreds of young Palestinian men were arrested and deported to Jordan and Lebanon. 104 Palestinians were killed.


The British Mandate "gave the land" when did Britain have the right to give a peoples land away, a land the Palestinians help liberate from the turks.

IDF is indiscriminately shooting children, yes they have the evidence is there but you refuse to accept it.

the most laughable comment of the day "There is no reason there can't be a peaceful occupation. Israel occuping territories does not make it the aggressor in every situation." That's like friendly rape or gentle murder, the very act of occupation is agression and like occupied europe of WW2 resistance to occupation is acceptable and expected.

*snip*

pfft, thats a nice cut and paste job from a violently anti-Semitic website. Needless to say, if you can support your point from a valid source, I'd like to hear it. Posting conspiracy theories from nutjob white supremacist websites doesn't help much, though. Here are a few other gems from that site:

God came to me in a dream last night and let me know that it is actually the state of New York that was promised to the Jews.

Conspiracy theories on the Twin Tower attacks:

You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest). Unless, of course, this section had been laced with explosives and was undergoing a controlled demolition of its own, just a few moments before the lower part of the building was demolished.

The evidence is such that the only people we can be sure DID NOT carry out the WTC bombing are the Arabs.

Needless to say, they go on to say that Jews were the real Twin Tower attackers.

But what really tops of the typical anti-Semitic website? Holocaust denial!

Germans were/are well known for their industrious nature and their construction abilities. If they really wanted to kill lots of people they would have built sufficient cremation ovens to do the job. Somehow it is assumed that this was beyond their organizational capabilities. An assumption that is incredibly hard to swallow.

Oh lookie, contrasting Hitler with the US, and demonizing the US out of this dichotomy. WTG.

It is well known that Hitler's experiences in the trenches during the first world war lead him to loathe the use of poisonous gases. His loathing of the use of deadly gases was so strong, that he refused to use the nerve gases Sarin and Tabun against the Soviets, even though this could have won Germany the war.

One has to contrast this against the action of the United States, which developed nuclear weapons and used them immediately on civilian targets.


So look, if you have some reputable sources about Israel, feel free to post them. Maybe even research the facts, cite the sources, and build your own argument. But please, pretty please, don't cut and past your argument off insane conspiracy theorist websites. Like most reasonable people, I believe the Holocaust happened, that there was not a vast Twin Tower conspiracy, that Bin Laden did it and Jews didn't, that God doesn't communicate with people through dreams to talk about how Jews are taking over NYC, and that Sharon's "history" as presented on this website is skewed beyond belief.

Where have you been? The Hamas charter distinctly states that all of Israel must be disbanded and turned into a Palestenian state. The Palestenians themselves have admitted that what you are claiming is not the case.?

And if it said that the chicken was the spawn of satan and launched a Jihad against it, that wouldn't justify 40 years of occupation. The fact is that they've nothing to gain by being moderate.


Current events and history also support this. Disengagements and unilateral withdrawels have INCREASED the number of attacks...?

Bit of double think there. Theres a peace agreement. Settlement building (one of the core causes of the conflict) increases (Oslo being a good example) along with the continued occupation, and thus resentment grows, leading to attacks, to which Israel retaliates, to which Arabs relatiate and so on.

There we go with more sensationalist talk. You commit the fallacy of the appeal to emotion, with sensationalist talk like this. There was no "ethnic cleansing" nor were natives "expelled." Like I stated in a previous post, the vast majority of the land was rightfully owned by Jews when Israel declared its independence, and as a result the owners could do what they choose with it....?

Well, 700,000 Arabs were "removed" from Israel. They were removed whether they were christian or muslim, so the defining criteria seems to be "Arab". What would you call it? A mass picnic outing? And as I've said, because its true, the land majority of land was not owned by recently arrived Jews, sephradic Jews, or similar. The numbers are there in the survey. 6%. Thats why those acts such as the "Absentee property law" were enacted enable Israel to lawfully take the land belonging to those expelled, if you might remember.



This is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Suicide bombings in Israel are about 20 years old. They were a relatively new tactic, and discovered almsot on accident. However, before 1967, there were still terrorist attacks on Israel. Suicide bombings didn't happen because they didn't exist yet, and they didn't develop as a result of 1967.....?

Not 1967 but the occupation resulting from it. A desperation engendered by nearly 4 decades of being denied justice by a US veto.


I can't say I'm surprised that the Guardian would render it such. It isn't because an Israeli-Arab was shot by an Israeli Jew, it is because the Israeli Jew was not affiliated with any form of terrorist group. He was a lone nut, but didn't fit the criteria for compensation. The same would be true if a lone nut Arab-Israeli killed a Jew, with no terrorist affiliation......?

"Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says.
Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4198754.stm

Which is the kind of thing they referred to in the US state Department report I linked, I suppose. You seem to have missed that one, for some reason....


You're still quoting the same statistics put out by a conspiracy theorist website. Ones that, as I've already listed, were demonstrated to be incorrect and falsified by the NY Times. I'm sure more Palestenians have been killed, however, it might be nice to see some accurate statistics instead of falsified ones from anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nuts.......?

Human rights watch are "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nuts"? I was going from memory, but thats where the figures come from.


Keep in mind that the British mandate gave that land it to Israel. This is why I stated that it was rightfully owned by Jews when Israel declared its independence. I must have been unclear, but I wasn't referring to private land owned by Jews........?

Below in bold is precisely what you said.

Then, when Zionism began in the late 19th century, Jews began immigrating and buying more land. By the time Israel declared its independence in 1948, the vast majority of the land that made up the state was owned by Jews who purchased it, or claimed unowned land. Israel didn't begin "taking" any land until it won it in military conquest, after being attacked by Arab countries.

Pissing on my head and telling me its raining is bad, but doing it in broad daylight is acting the prick.



This is the fallacy of the appeal to emotion. You, and these articles, may want to make it seem like the IDF is indiscriminately shooting children, but this isn't the case. Each instance was justified, as the children appeared to be military threats. In each instance, the IDF followed procedure and acted on what was a perceived terrorist threat.........?

I merely list examples.


Of course, the articles don't really give the fair and balanced of it. They don't even acknowledge that these were mistakes, or accidents. Instead, its the appeal to pity and horror. .........

See above. Secondly the incidents are only from the last six years. The first "intifada" was handled far more brutally. After a while, the question begins to surface - "if this is the most capable Army in the middle east, why are there so many 'mistakes'? "Because 750 plus children, a few thousand adults and over 13 UN workers, not to mention journalists and NGO members...thats really a lot...


I don't know how you come to that conclusion. There is no reason there can't be a peaceful occupation. .........

And why precisely should the Palestinians lie down and die for their occupiers? In addition, all peoples have the right to self determination. I don't recall exceptions.


My, what selective reading. Do you just read the parts where the Palestenian supporters claim its "peaceful protest" and ignore the parts where the IDF stated that men in the crowd had weapons and a bomb?

Yes. I also remember journalists not 50 yards away when it happened saying they heard no gunfire, saw no gunmen. And of course no guns or dead "gunmen" were found afterwards.

The Iranian president uses these fiery speeches to rally support from his superiors in government. They are nothing more than rhetoric.

The leaders of Iran want one thing more than anything else: control over their people. They realise a war in the middle east will result in them losing this power. So as for Iran starting a war? Inconcievable.

Sure they're supporting the resistance in Iraq, but America shouldn't be there in the first place. And just as Iran uses Iraq and Hezbollah as a proxy, Israel use America as one too.

I credit the guy for standing up to Zionism. America is run by Jewish Zionists (AIPAC) who are bleeding America dry to suit the aspirations of Israel.

Israel is still an illegitimate state. It is founded on a biblicle claim to the land. Well we live in the modern world, and until the existence of God can be proven, the Bible is nothing more than fancy literature and any claims to lands within it are totally invalid. You cant say "My beleif is that I am Gods chosen, so give me that land...my bible says its my land". That argument just doesnt work.

You want peace in the MidEast? Get the Americans to regain control over their government and kick out rascist zionist thugs.

Israel is still an illegitimate state. It is founded on a biblicle claim to the land. Well we live in the modern world, and until the existence of God can be proven, the Bible is nothing more than fancy literature and any claims to lands within it are totally invalid. You cant say "My beleif is that I am Gods chosen, so give me that land...my bible says its my land". That argument just doesnt work.

You want peace in the MidEast? Get the Americans to regain control over their government and kick out rascist zionist thugs.

Destroying the state of Israel is just another injustice against the Jewish people. They aren't all rabid settlers anymore than all muslims are members of Al Qaeda. A two state solution offers self determination for both nations.

And if it said that the chicken was the spawn of satan and launched a Jihad against it, that wouldn't justify 40 years of occupation. The fact is that they've nothing to gain by being moderate.

A neighboring nation whose charter is the destruction of its neighbor certainly does justify 40 years of occupation. It justifies occupation until it reforms itself. It doesn't have an inherent right to anything. If it wants the occupation to end, then it needs to change its attitude. Thats simply the way its working.

Well, 700,000 Arabs were "removed" from Israel. They were removed whether they were christian or muslim, so the defining criteria seems to be "Arab". What would you call it? A mass picnic outing? And as I've said, because its true, the land majority of land was not owned by recently arrived Jews, sephradic Jews, or similar. The numbers are there in the survey. 6%. Thats why those acts such as the "Absentee property law" were enacted enable Israel to lawfully take the land belonging to those expelled, if you might remember.

6% of private property being owned by Jews doesn't change the fact that the land was granted to the Jews to form a Jewish state. Further property rights iin a state are granted by the state. And as someone else posted, they weren't "removed." Rather, they were given the opportunity to share the Jewish State. They left by choice.


Not 1967 but the occupation resulting from it. A desperation engendered by nearly 4 decades of being denied justice by a US veto.

Like I said before, this is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. You havn't really outlined a link between the 1967 occupation and suicide bombings, except that they came at some point after the fact.

"Families of Israeli Arabs shot dead on a bus in Galilee are not considered terrorism victims because their killer was Jewish, the defence ministry says.
Under Israeli law, only attacks by "enemies of Israel" are considered terrorism, the ministry said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4198754.stm

Which is the kind of thing they referred to in the US state Department report I linked, I suppose. You seem to have missed that one, for some reason....

Someone else posted the same article earlier actually. The thing is, they werent denied compensation strictly because the offender was a Jew, or because the victim was an Arab. The family was denied compensation because the person was not a terrorist, and compensation only applies to the actions of terrorists. A random nut, even working out of extremist ideals, doesn't fit the definition here. Once again, you seem to have practiced selective reading by singling out the "because the killer was Jewish" part and ignoring the rest of the criteria.

Human rights watch are "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nuts"? I was going from memory, but thats where the figures come from.

The statistics you posted from were developed by nonprofit "If Americans Knew", run by Alison Weir. I've covered all of this in a previous post, too. Weir fabricated statistics by counting the same ones repeatedly. For example, if the same event occured multiple times in a source (Like the NY Times, in this instance) she would count it each time. Thus, one Palestenian death ended up counting as three or four.

She also didn't make distinctions regarding Palestenian deaths and types of casualites. For example, an Israeli Jew murdered by a non-militant Palestenian won't be counted, whereas a Palestenian murdered by a private Israeli citizen does get counted. That kind of thing tends to distort your sample with a Palestenian bias, as well.

She failed to distinguish between Palestenians killed during the conflicts by Israeli Jews and Palestenians being killed in the conflict by other Palestenians or non-Jewish Israelis.

She also developed conspiracy theories about the USS Liberty incident, which we see are quite common among the extreme Palestenian supporting anti-Semites.

Below in bold is precisely what you said.

Then, when Zionism began in the late 19th century, Jews began immigrating and buying more land. By the time Israel declared its independence in 1948, the vast majority of the land that made up the state was owned by Jews who purchased it, or claimed unowned land. Israel didn't begin "taking" any land until it won it in military conquest, after being attacked by Arab countries.

Pissing on my head and telling me its raining is bad, but doing it in broad daylight is acting the prick.

I don't know what part of this was clear. The vast majority of the land was either owned by Jews who purchased it, or was unclaimed and unowned land. Keep in mind, this land belonged to the new Jewish State at this point, and many Arabs had willingly evacuated previously.

See above. Secondly the incidents are only from the last six years. The first "intifada" was handled far more brutally. After a while, the question begins to surface - "if this is the most capable Army in the middle east, why are there so many 'mistakes'? "Because 750 plus children, a few thousand adults and over 13 UN workers, not to mention journalists and NGO members...thats really a lot...

I don't know why you assume there are more mistakes from the IDF than other nations. There have been far more civilian casualites from the US operation in Iraq, and its been going on for a much, much shorter period of time. It would seem like there are far less mistakes than is expected from a civilized, Western nation.

And like I said, the "750" plus children thing is an inaccurate statistic. See above. Classifying adults as "children" is also a form of distorting statistics for an emotional appeal.

And why precisely should the Palestinians lie down and die for their occupiers? In addition, all peoples have the right to self determination. I don't recall exceptions.

There actually was no Palestenian "people" before the state of Israel. The Arabs that made up that land did not identify as Palestenians; they identified as Arabs, many of whom wanted to return to the nearest Arab country. The entire Palestenian identity was built solely on a hatred of Jews and a desire to steal what did not belong to them, but what belonged to the only non-Arab people of the region.

Yes. I also remember journalists not 50 yards away when it happened saying they heard no gunfire, saw no gunmen. And of course no guns or dead "gunmen" were found afterwards.

Right, so you listened to that part, and ignored the other part. Selective reading, as I've been stating.

Israel is powerful enough to look after itself. It has a well trained army, one of the best secret services in the world and a nuclear arsenal of 200+ warheads.

This in mind, there is no need for America to support them. What does America gain? Nothing.

America has been branded a villain the world over and its partly because of their unquestioning support of Israel.
Sure NeoCons are just as dangerous as zionist elements in washington - project for the new american century... just plain crazy and selfish.

some people claim "zionists in the whitehous" is just a conspiracy. Read the Walt and Meirsheimer report "Israel Lobby and US foreign policy" and you'll see how far this influence extends and how Americas close relationship with Israel will bring nothing but conflict for America.

There cant be a two state solution when America is the middleman...its like Palestine is dealing with two israels.

A two state solution can be achieved if America is returned to the hands of Americans.

Sure they're supporting the resistance in Iraq, but America shouldn't be there in the first place. And just as Iran uses Iraq and Hezbollah as a proxy, Israel use America as one too.

I credit the guy for standing up to Zionism. America is run by Jewish Zionists (AIPAC) who are bleeding America dry to suit the aspirations of Israel.

Israel is still an illegitimate state. It is founded on a biblicle claim to the land. Well we live in the modern world, and until the existence of God can be proven, the Bible is nothing more than fancy literature and any claims to lands within it are totally invalid. You cant say "My beleif is that I am Gods chosen, so give me that land...my bible says its my land". That argument just doesnt work.

You want peace in the MidEast? Get the Americans to regain control over their government and kick out rascist zionist thugs.

Oh no, its the vast Jewish Zionist conspiracy again. The secret Jewish cabal, with their blood libels and that Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They're all secretly running America, along with the Freemasons and Illuminati. :rolleyes:

And no, Israel isn't founded on a Biblical claim to the land. The vast majority of Zionists are secular, and the largest Zionist parties have always been Socialist and secular in nature. Religious Zionists make up the minority.

The State of Israel is founded on legal documents that prove ownership. They didn't pop in and say "we get it because the Bible says so." They came in and said, "we get it, because this was a British territory and Britian gave it to us." The transfer of the land that makes up the State of Israel is binding and legal. It was not owned by "Palestenians" - it was owned by Europeans, who gave it to Jews.

So we don't base it on an old religious text. We base it on new, secular, legal texts, like the Balfour Declaration.

Imagine if you had a friend who owned land (Britian), and then signed it over to you (Israel). And then you found that there were squatters on it (various Arabs). It would be your land. The squatters couldn't say "its our land, because we've always lived here." That isn't how ownership works.

When this happened, Israel made a leap of faith and a show of good nature. The offer was for all Arabs to stay where they were and to help build the Jewish State. However, they hated the Jews and the idea of this, so they began to willingly pack up, move, and start wars and conflicts.

"Down with Iran"

"Oh no, its the vast Jewish Zionist conspiracy again. The secret Jewish cabal, with their blood libels and that Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They're all secretly running America, along with the Freemasons and Illuminati. :rolleyes: "

Do you even know who AIPAC are? Do you know anything about the leaders of America?

Read the report from Jan. 2006 by John Meirsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Its all too easy for things like this to be labelled a fantasy or conspiracy because many Americans, being the proud nation they are, do not want to beleive that their country is being run by Jews.

AIPACS control over American foreign policy should never be underestimated. You really need to open your eyes. Read about AIPAC and their control - use the internet and definately use the Walt Meirhseimer report. Its shocking.

Have you never even stopped to question Americas support for Israel? Ever thought about what your getting out of it?

Oh no, its the vast Jewish Zionist conspiracy again. The secret Jewish cabal, with their blood libels and that Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They're all secretly running America, along with the Freemasons and Illuminati. :rolleyes:

Do you even know who AIPAC are? Do you know anything about the leaders of America?

Read the report from Jan. 2006 by John Meirsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Its all too easy for things like this to be labelled a fantasy or conspiracy because many Americans, being the proud nation they are, do not want to beleive that their country is being run by Jews.

I've noticed that conspiracy theorists have a MO exactly like this. State conspiracy theory, then say "read such and such." If you have evidence to support your point, just go ahead and put it out there. I'm willing to listen, but I don't have time to get directed to every article and document that conspiracy theorists think support their points.

Have you never even stopped to question Americas support for Israel? Ever thought about what your getting out of it?

Oh, I know exactly why Americans support Israel and why American legislators do. And it isn't because of a Jewish Zionist Illuminati Protocol of the Eldesrs of Zion blood drinking conspiracy.

To begin, the majority of Americans identify as Christians. A large portion of these Christians are Evangelicals. And as such, they believe that the formation of the modern state of Israel is a fulfilled prophecy. Massive American support for Israel stems from religious belief.

Legislators like Israel because it serves as an outpost of the West in the Middle East. It serves to check terror and provide deep information on hostile Muslim countries. Proximity has a lot to do with intelligence and influence in the world, and allied states like this are the new colonialism.

Although you seem to be arguing that Israel is a danger to the US, because it makes Arab countries hate the US, this isn't the case. Arab countries hate the US on morality principles, support for Israel is just a tiny slice of the pie. The US could abandon Israel, and Arab nations would hate the US just the same.

The reality of it is that Israel has removed more terrorists, and more terror threats, than any other nation in the world. It is a security asset to every nation that has it bad in the eyes of terror, like the US. While Bush flounderd around in Iraq and failed to get any WMD's, Israel removed the real WMD threat in 1981 when it destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor. While Bush has failed to catch terrorists like Bin Laden, Israel has been catching and killing major terrorists since Bush was just a baby sucking his mother's teat.

There is no greater asset for security and this "war on terror" that the US could have than Israel. Without Israel, the Middle East would be a far more dangerous place, and a far more deadly liability to the US, the EU, and other Western bodies.

A neighboring nation whose charter is the destruction of its neighbor certainly does justify 40 years of occupation. It justifies occupation until it reforms itself. It doesn't have an inherent right to anything. If it wants the occupation to end, then it needs to change its attitude. Thats simply the way its working..

O...."change its attitude". If that was the purpose of the occupation, they why build settlements? The Americans didnt build suburbs in Germany or Japan and ship in their citizens en masse to settle there and send the natives off to refugee camps.



6% of private property being owned by Jews doesn't change the fact that the land was granted to the Jews to form a Jewish state. Further property rights iin a state are granted by the state. And as someone else posted, they weren't "removed." Rather, they were given the opportunity to share the Jewish State. They left by choice...

"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (David Ben Gurion in 1937).

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion" (Ben Gurion -from "Eretz Yisrael")

"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Ben Gurion, after the UN partition, before the Arab attack)

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Ben Gurion, December 1947)

Looked like expulsion to him. And he'd know.


Like I said before, this is the fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. You havn't really outlined a link between the 1967 occupation and suicide bombings, except that they came at some point after the fact....

The "1967 occupation" implies a single year. Its nearing 40. If you can't see why a harsh 40 year occupation would drive people to extremes, then nothing I say will change you on the subject.


The statistics you posted from were developed by nonprofit "If Americans Knew", run by Alison Weir. I've covered all of this in a previous post, too. Weir fabricated statistics by counting the same ones repeatedly. For example, if the same event occured multiple times in a source (Like the NY Times, in this instance) she would count it each time. Thus, one Palestenian death ended up counting as three or four.....

"Since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, Israel has killed nearly three thousand Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, including more than six hundred children."
http://hrw.org/wr2k6/pdf/israelopt.pdf

"Over the same period, Israeli forces have killed more than 3,300 Palestinians, including more than 600 children"

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150022006?open&of=ENG-ISR



I don't know what part of this was clear. The vast majority of the land was either owned by Jews who purchased it, or was unclaimed and unowned land. Keep in mind, this land belonged to the new Jewish State at this point, and many Arabs had willingly evacuated previously......

So its back to owned land, whereas before it was given to them by the UN. "willingly" meaning rather go than be shot through the head "willingly" as has been shown above.


I don't know why you assume there are more mistakes from the IDF than other nations. There have been far more civilian casualites from the US operation in Iraq, and its been going on for a much, much shorter period of time. ......

I know the Americans have slaughtered thousands. However, due to the various fundamentalists running hither and thither the vast majority will go unreported. However it doesnt really explain the propensity for single Israeli rounds to go through Journatlists, Un workers, and school childrens heads. At least the American disaster was from air strikes where they were thousands of feet up. No such excuse here.



There actually was no Palestenian "people" before the state of Israel. The Arabs that made up that land did not identify as Palestenians; they identified as Arabs, many of whom wanted to return to the nearest Arab country. ......

And just leave behind the homes, farms and businesses they built over hundreds of years....yes. That really makes sense. These are settled agricultural people my lad. And look at the joyful life of the ones who were left behind. You still havent addressed that state department report.


The entire Palestenian identity was built solely on a hatred of Jews and a desire to steal what did not belong to them, but what belonged to the only non-Arab people of the region.......

Crap.

O...."change its attitude". If that was the purpose of the occupation, they why build settlements? The Americans didnt build suburbs in Germany or Japan and ship in their citizens en masse to settle there and send the natives off to refugee camps.

Israel offered to form a Palestenian state twice - 1948 and 2000. If Palestenians really wanted a state, and not the destruction of Israel and terror, they would have accepted and formed a state. It was nothing but their own stubborn attitudes that has kept the conflict going, and kept them from having a state today.


"We must EXPEL ARABS and take their places .... and, if we have to use force-not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places-then we have force at our disposal." (David Ben Gurion in 1937).

"We have to examine, first, if this transfer is practical, and secondly, if it is necessary. It is impossible to imagine general evacuation without compulsion, and brutal compulsion" (Ben Gurion -from "Eretz Yisrael")

"In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and sadness that we lost half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 [Palestinian] Arabs." (Ben Gurion, after the UN partition, before the Arab attack)

"we adopt the system of aggressive defense; with every Arab attack we must respond with a decisive blow: the destruction of the place or the expulsion of the residents along with the seizure of the place." (Ben Gurion, December 1947)

Looked like expulsion to him. And he'd know.

While its true that David Ben-Gurion did consider the possibility of expelling Arabs, he was oppossed to it, and analyzed it in depth. All of the quotes you've given are examples of Ben-Gurion analyzing the problems and methods iin hypothetical situations. He also stated, "We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs." In the end, Ben-Gurion never advocated the forceful explusion. Unfortunantly its easy to take his analysis, the good and the bad, out of context and claim that it was his intention or political theory. Explusion of Arabs simply never was.

Explusion of Arabs is also not what happened. The vast majority of Arabs left willingly, and transferred to the area that the British Mandate had sectioned for a Palestenian state. However, instead of forming their state, they decided to make a war with Israel. To be fair, some (there are few, spurious recorded iinstances) Arabs were expelled during the War of Independence. The vast majority left willingly.

The "1967 occupation" implies a single year. Its nearing 40. If you can't see why a harsh 40 year occupation would drive people to extremes, then nothing I say will change you on the subject.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. Palestenians have not acted in any different way since then than before. They have always been hostile and warlike toward Israel and Jews. Its escalation is not due to occupation, but to the second and third generations of anti-Semitic Arabs.

"Since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, Israel has killed nearly three thousand Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, including more than six hundred children."
http://hrw.org/wr2k6/pdf/israelopt.pdf

"Over the same period, Israeli forces have killed more than 3,300 Palestinians, including more than 600 children"

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150022006?open&of=ENG-ISR


Those statistics are different than those given by Weir, who cites some 700 children killed since 2003.

However, there is still a problem. The definition of "children" here is an ethnocentric and arbitrary one. Since when are teenagers "children?" Only in certain cultures are they classified as such (like the cultures that these groups make their edic analysis from). The use of the term "children" also does not evoke an image of a 17 year old, gun-wielding Palestenian terrorist. It evokes the image of an innocent little 4 year old on the way to school. These organizations use emotional terms in deceptive ways like this to mislead.

These also don't draw a distinction between just and unjust killing. So more Palestenians have been killed in the conflict than Israelis. What does this demonstrate? If Israelis are cleaning up Palestine of terrorists, then it is an asset and benefit to the Middle East.

And like I stated before, if we view the course over which the occupation of the Palestenian territories has gone on, the civilian casualties are far less than what we see from the US operation in Iraq. Israel seems to be doing a superb job of keeping casualties down.

So its back to owned land, whereas before it was given to them by the UN. "willingly" meaning rather go than be shot through the head "willingly" as has been shown above.

Some was given to the Palestenians, too. But they rejected it and decided to fight a war instead. There could have been two states in 1948, and there still possibly can be, if they clean up their act. And no, you didn't show anything about about being shot through the head. You gave examples from Ben-Gurion about a course of action that he chose not to follow, and ultimately decided against.

I know the Americans have slaughtered thousands. However, due to the various fundamentalists running hither and thither the vast majority will go unreported. However it doesnt really explain the propensity for single Israeli rounds to go through Journatlists, Un workers, and school childrens heads. At least the American disaster was from air strikes where they were thousands of feet up. No such excuse here.

I would venture to say that the majority of Palestenian civilian casualties are from IDF air strikes as well. And, as stated before, citing a few examples of mistakes in the IDF does not really support your point. Its simply an appeal to emotion. Every mistake you listed was exactly that, a mistake, and thus justified. There hasn't been any evidence presented so far that would incriminate IDF soldiers en masse of indiscriminate killing.


And just leave behind the homes, farms and businesses they built over hundreds of years....yes. That really makes sense. These are settled agricultural people my lad. And look at the joyful life of the ones who were left behind. You still havent addressed that state department report.

Leaving behind a home for the chance to form your own state to live in isn't unreasonable at all. In fact, that is exactly what all of the Jewish immigrants did. They were settled people from all over the world, as well.

And I think I addressed whatever you said about the state department report in the previous post. If you pull something specific out that you would like me to comment on or explain, let me know. I can't do a full analysis of every link you post.

Crap.

I don't know if you're familiar with how the term "nation" is used in anthropology or not, but before Israel formed as a state there was no such Palestenian people that could fit that criteria. Only after Israel was formed did they come together as a single body of people, within a single condensed region, that shared the same ideologies. And the cement of that was an opposition and hatred of Jews, and a violent anti-Semitism. So violent, in fact, that they have been rejecting the chances they have been given to form a state until this very day.

Israel offered to form a Palestenian state twice - 1948 and 2000.
In 1948, Ben Gurion declared Israel upon them. He did not stick to the UN plan, indeed, he didn't even want to tell anyone the borders he had imagined for his new state.
Not a reason for war, IMHO, but at least a reason to reject alms.

As for 2000...the right of return matters. These people want to go back to their home, and that is their right. Whether or not that home is called Israel or Palestine, at least the old people should get their homes back.

Israel
GDP $140.1 billion (2005 est.)
GDP per Capita $22,300 (2005 est.)
Une,ployment Rate 8.9% (2005 est.)So.. can my Fucking Gov stop giving them billions in Welfare?

Israel offered to form a Palestenian state twice - 1948 and 2000. If Palestenians really wanted a state, and not the destruction of Israel and terror, they would have accepted and formed a state. It was nothing but their own stubborn attitudes that has kept the conflict going, and kept them from having a state today..

Emm..it was the UN that offered the State in 1948. The offer in 2000 did not contain an acceptable proposal vis a vis Arab East Jerusalem. Arafats insistence on saying "no" without counter proposal has allowed the Israeli side to claim that he refused a reasonable offer, when in fact it was just an opening position, from which he rather stupidly refused to work off.


While its true that David Ben-Gurion did consider the possibility of expelling Arabs, he was oppossed to it, and analyzed it in depth. All of the quotes you've given are examples of Ben-Gurion analyzing the problems and methods iin hypothetical situations. He also stated, "We do not want and do not need to expel Arabs." In the end, Ben-Gurion never advocated the forceful explusion. Unfortunantly its easy to take his analysis, the good and the bad, out of context and claim that it was his intention or political theory. Explusion of Arabs simply never was...

Due to either the Holocaust, or pragmatic opportunism, Ben Gurions attitude had hardened by 1947. Thus we see

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Feb 8th 1948)

"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area, even if only in an artificial way, in a military way. . . . I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population."(April 6th 1948)

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish." If the [Palestinian] Arabs were allowed to return, to Jaffa and elsewhere, " and the war is renewed, our chances of ending the war as we wish to end it will be reduced. . . . Meanwhile, we must prevent at all costs their return," he said, and, leaving no doubt in the ministers' minds about his views on the ultimate fate of the [Palestinian] refugees, he added: "I will be for them not returning after the war." (Ben Gurion, June 16th 1948 - Benny Morris, p. 141 & 1949, The First Israelis, p. 75)


Explusion of Arabs is also not what happened. The vast majority of Arabs left willingly, and transferred to the area that the British Mandate had sectioned for a Palestenian state. However, instead of forming their state, they decided to make a war with Israel. To be fair, some (there are few, spurious recorded iinstances) Arabs were expelled during the War of Independence. The vast majority left willingly....

From the Haggannah

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.' Meanwhile, 'Palestinian residents of the urban quarters which dominate access to or egress from towns should be expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state in the event of their resistance. (from "Sefer Toldot Ha-Haganah") "

And thats the "moderate" outlook. What then of the Irgun, the "stern gang" et al? They drove them out at gunpoint.

Considering that this was three years after the holocaust, I am not without some sympathy for the Israeli/Jewish side in this, nor, in their position, would I imagine that I would have done much differently. That doesnt make it either right or untrue, however.


I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree. Palestenians have not acted in any different way since then than before. They have always been hostile and warlike toward Israel and Jews. Its escalation is not due to occupation, but to the second and third generations of anti-Semitic Arabs.....

Yet until the influx of European settlers under the zionist project their had been Jews living there. Under Ottoman rule. Some 20,000 plus in 1860-odd if memory serves.


However, there is still a problem. The definition of "children" here is an ethnocentric and arbitrary one. Since when are teenagers "children?" Only in certain cultures are they classified as such (like the cultures that these groups make their edic analysis from). The use of the term "children" also does not evoke an image of a 17 year old, gun-wielding Palestenian terrorist. It evokes the image of an innocent little 4 year old on the way to school. These organizations use emotional terms in deceptive ways like this to mislead......

Most, if not all, werent "gun wielding". And I am aware of an innocent 4 year old being shot (sniper). I'm not sure what you're getting at by saying "these organisations use emotional terms in deceptive ways like this to mislead". Please clarify


These also don't draw a distinction between just and unjust killing. So more Palestenians have been killed in the conflict than Israelis. What does this demonstrate? If Israelis are cleaning up Palestine of terrorists, then it is an asset and benefit to the Middle East.......

As most are of civillians, and in support of an occuppation that is only made possible by the US veto, its a cause of terrorism, anti-semitism, anti-westernism and worst of all Islamic fundamentalism.


And like I stated before, if we view the course over which the occupation of the Palestenian territories has gone on, the civilian casualties are far less than what we see from the US operation in Iraq. Israel seems to be doing a superb job of keeping casualties down........

More like picking off targets one at at time now the herd has been coralled. And again, if we include pre-2000 and the "incursion" into Lebanon, it all starts to get a lot bigger.


Some was given to the Palestenians, too. But they rejected it and decided to fight a war instead. There could have been two states in 1948, and there still possibly can be, if they clean up their act. ........


Firstly it was the neighbouring states that attacked, not the refugees. Secondly Its Israel thats colonising their land, again, as it so happens. And according to Internatiional law, its the Israeli act that needs cleaning. Hence 33 vetoes by the US, bringing freedom to colonialism in the middle east.


And no, you didn't show anything about about being shot through the head.........

Fairly sure I did. Still......

http://www.pcdc.edu.ps/two_Jabaliya_girls_headshots.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/15/whurn115.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/01/15/ixhome.html

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=58409&d=2&m=2&y=2005&pix=world.jpg&category=World




And I think I addressed whatever you said about the state department report in the previous post. If you pull something specific out that you would like me to comment on or explain, let me know. I can't do a full analysis of every link you post..

You stated that there was no discrimination against Israeli arabs. That report, amongst others, suggests otherwise.
"The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens, who constituted approximately 20 percent of the population but did not share fully the rights and benefits provided to, and obligations imposed on, the country's Jewish citizens"
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27929.htm



And the cement of that was an opposition and hatred of Jews, and a violent anti-Semitism. So violent, in fact, that they have been rejecting the chances they have been given to form a state until this very day.

If somebody said to me that the "glue" of Israeli society was hatred of Arabs, I'd tell them to fuck off with themselves and stop talking shite.....

I call bullshit on this whole post. I can far more kids being killed by Israelis than Israelis killed by Palestinians. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ look at the 1st two stats
Ah, but if you were to break that first statistic down by age and gender, how much money do you want to bet that most of the palestinian children are males 13 and older? For that matter, they have a history of killing their own, or didn't you follow up on the Jenin fiasco? As for the second, note it doesn't mention civilians. I wonder why? And then, of course, their stats come from a palestinian propaganda machine. The really funny stat is the unemployment one. I guess they shouldn't have trashed those greenhouses.

The really funny stat is the unemployment one. I guess they shouldn't have trashed those greenhouses.

I seem to remember Israel using bulldozers to demolish the palestinian ones, aaround the same time they ran over the petting zoo in Rafah. What brave men in the IDF....no petting zoo will attack them again....Israel can sleep soundly. Apart from its conscience.

So.. can my Fucking Gov stop given them billions in Welfare?
amen

amen

UNA, i think reality is failing.

I agree.

If they're going to do crap like that, they don't deserve money.

Nobody can take on Isreal. Remember the 6 day war? 3 arab nations vs isreal. Isreal kicks their ass.

Nobody can take on Isreal. () Isreal kicks their ass.then why are they whinnying -like little girls- every time the Iranian president talks shiite?

Nobody can take on Isreal. Remember the 6 day war? 3 arab nations vs isreal. Isreal kicks their ass.
Remember Yom-Kippur? Now there was some fun.

It's not that clear cut. 1967 didn't count because it was a surprise attack on an unsuspecting enemy (and with many high-ranking Israelis admitting that it was not out of defence, but because they wanted Jerusalem).
1948/49 doesn't count because it was only militias slaughtering each other.

And Yom-Kippur was not a clear-cut victory. For some time, it looked very likely that Israel was going to lose, and Moshe Dayan's political and military career was ended by that war.