NationStates Jolt Archive

Lousy mood, lousy OP.

As always, I learn that nothing is black and white, and that I'm hardly ever right.

A small minority of "liberals" (leftists and some on the extreme right, to be more accurate) see Israel as guilty by association with us. Israel is a U.S. ally, whereas the palestinians aren't.

I don't consider myself liberal, but I would never go so far as to say that Israel is worse than it's middle-eastern neighbors. They are just as awful. :)

I'd really appreciate it if those of you who picked option 2 would explain your viewpoint, 'cause the rest of us liberals (and non-liberals) would like to see your logic.

I don't have a real issue w/ israel... I have an issue with the US giving them loads of money and support while they pull the middle east into a potential nuclear standoff.

We don't need to support israel anymore. They have the strongest military in the middle east, not just per capita. They have nukes. Stop supporting them.

We don't need to support israel anymore. They have the strongest military in the middle east, not just per capita. They have nukes. Stop supporting them.
They are a liability. In fact, the US should directly oppose Israel’s regime. Would get the terrorists off us right quick.

I don't have a real issue w/ israel... I have an issue with the US giving them loads of money and support while they pull the middle east into a potential nuclear standoff.

We don't need to support israel anymore. They have the strongest military in the middle east, not just per capita. They have nukes. Stop supporting them.

Exactly, so you have no idea what you're talking about. The U.S. is decreasing the amount of monetary support to Israel by $120 mil every year. Right now it's under $500 mil and will be at 0 in the next 4 years. More importantly, you're misdirecting your anger. But most important, you're favoring a region of troglodytes over two democracies.

They are a liability. In fact, the US should directly oppose Israel’s regime. Would get the terrorists off us right quick.

I don't think opposition is necessary, but severing ties with a rogue state like Israel seems appropriate. Let them handle the mess they contributed to creating. *nod*

They are a liability. In fact, the US should directly oppose Israel’s regime. Would get the terrorists off us right quick.

I think it's a bit late for that. They have too much invested in attacking the West by this point to suddenly leave us alone, from what I can tell.

I don't think opposition is necessary, but severing ties with a rogue state like Israel seems appropriate. Let them handle the mess they contributed to creating. *nod*

Exactly. But your dislike of Israel is still misdirected. You have given no reason why Israel is bad, only why supporting them is bad.

I don't think opposition is necessary, but severing ties with a rogue state like Israel seems appropriate. Let them handle the mess they contributed to creating. *nod*
Opposition would be in the best interest of the US, however. If we condemned Israel that would sure shut up those clerics preaching that the US is The Great Satan. How could Satan be on their side?

Opposition would be in the best interest of the US, however. If we condemned Israel that would sure shut up those clerics preaching that the US is The Great Satan. How could Satan be on their side?

Because, he "is" -- if you wish to argue in mythological terms.

They are the epitome of stupidity and backwardness. What kind of country would we be if we allied with a bunch of twisted fundamentalists that are opposed to everything our nation (and common sense) stands for and is based upon?

You're arguing to give up the fight for wisdom and virtue for the sake of an unlikely and unstable peace? That's cowardice and crap. And once again, it's no reason to hate Israel. It also proves that you feel the other countries in the region are worse, so in fact, your vote is just plain wrong.

Exactly, so you have no idea what you're talking about. The U.S. is decreasing the amount of monetary support to Israel by $120 mil every year. Right now it's under $500 mil and will be at 0 in the next 4 years. More importantly, you're misdirecting your anger. But most important, you're favoring a region of troglodytes over two democracies.

Don't ask people to respond to your threads, then attack them when they do. It makes them not want to come back.

I will admit, I was not exactly sure what the policy was toward decreasing aid toward israel. I would like to see a source, however.

You have put words in my mouth. I'm not favoring any middle eastern countries. All I've said is that we should stop supporting israel. They can take care of themselves, and they have their own problems. I don't see why we should support someone who doesn't need it, when the main result from it is making us a much larger target to middle eastern countries, who can much more easily strike at us w/ terrorist attacks, than they can to israel, much less conventional attacks.

Because, he "is" -- if you wish to argue in mythological terms.

They are the epitome of stupidity and backwardness. What kind of country would we be if we allied with a bunch of twisted fundamentalists that are opposed to everything our nation (and common sense) stands for and is based upon?

You're arguing to give up the fight for wisdom and virtue for the sake of an unlikely and unstable peace? That's cowardice and crap. And once again, no reason to hate Israel.

Where exactly is this hatred toward israel? I see you posting about it, I don't actually see it anywhere. I see people calling for the US to drop support for it, and a number of people who want israel to leave palestine alone(although thats a touchy subject that I will not argue, either way).

You have put words in my mouth. I'm not favoring any middle eastern countries. All I've said is that we should stop supporting israel. They can take care of themselves, and they have their own problems. I don't see why we should support someone who doesn't need it, when the main result from it is making us a much larger target to middle eastern countries, who can much more easily strike at us w/ terrorist attacks, than they can to israel, much less conventional attacks.

I absolutely agree.

Where exactly is this hatred toward israel? I see you posting about it, I don't actually see it anywhere. I see people calling for the US to drop support for it, and a number of people who want israel to leave palestine alone(although thats a touchy subject that I will not argue, either way).
Well, I hate Israel. They are a selfish nation which seems perfectly content to drag the US right down with them.

Exactly. But your dislike of Israel is still misdirected. You have given no reason why Israel is bad, only why supporting them is bad.

Isn't that enough? I don't dislike jews. I don't dislike Israel. I dislike their policies. They have done everything in their power to exacerbate their conflits with their neighbors. They ignore other nations' boundaries at their leisure. They ignore the United Nations. Their so-called 'democracy' is questionable at best considering that millions of palestinians living in Israeli occupied territories have a vested interest in the Israeli government and no say at all in it or it's policies. Their military tactics are as cold-blooded as the enemies they fight.

By no means do I sympathize with the Palestinians either. Neither group deserves sympathy nor support.

Well, I hate Israel. They are a selfish nation which seems perfectly content to drag the US right down with them.

Which makes them different than almost every other country in the world... how?

Where exactly is this hatred toward israel? I see you posting about it, I don't actually see it anywhere. I see people calling for the US to drop support for it, and a number of people who want israel to leave palestine alone(although thats a touchy subject that I will not argue, either way).

I'm talking about blogs, articles, and grafitti.
I could try and find some, but the basic premise of it is that Israel is the new "Hitler" and that Palestine and other Arab countries are innocent and the lesser evils.

Which makes them different than almost every other country in the world... how?
I don't see any other country parading around the fact that the US is its ally and making sure that its enemies know to attack both of us.

Just remembered one thing, though.

I have a small prejudice toward israel because of their strikes at iraqi nuclear plants... forget the year, was it the 80's?

I'm sorry, but israel does not have the right to bomb iraqi nuclear facilities, have no international consequences, and then develop their own nuclear program.

I don't see any other country parading around the fact that the US is its ally and making sure that its enemies know to attack both of us.

Err... almost all of our allies, throughout history?

Cold war europe...

World war one and two britain/other allies?

Pakistan to an extent?

South Korea?

Pretty much any nation that we are allies with, will parade that fact around to their full ability, to deter attacks against themselves.

Just remembered one thing, though.

I have a small prejudice toward israel because of their strikes at iraqi nuclear plants... forget the year, was it the 80's?

I'm sorry, but israel does not have the right to bomb iraqi nuclear facilities, have no international consequences, and then develop their own nuclear program.

1981. Osiraq. *nod*

1981. Osiraq. *nod*

I thought so, I just didn't think it was during the iraq-iran war for some reason...

Iran and Israel fighting the same enemy confuses me :P

They have done everything in their power to exacerbate their conflits with their neighbors. They ignore other nations' boundaries at their leisure. They ignore the United Nations. Their so-called 'democracy' is questionable at best considering that millions of palestinians living in Israeli occupied territories have a vested interest in the Israeli government and no say at all in it or it's policies. Their military tactics are as cold-blooded as the enemies they fight.

By no means do I sympathize with the Palestinians either. Neither group deserves sympathy nor support.

So you're equating the two. (Once again, that's a ridiculous thing to do.)

But your feelings are only with respect to the current regime. It's like being a person who hates America because of Bush but forgets about Clinton. You're forgetting the several previous decades in which Israel has been the victim, has abided by boundaries (and aren't they doing so now?), has listened to the UN (a group that now only fights for its ideals when it is politically and fiscally beneficial), and has treated its Palestinian neighbors with respect (albeit a deservedly suspicious one.)

As for both the tactics and the current regime: Well... it gets shit done. While I don't exactly approve, it's better than bending over forward like others would have them do.

Just remembered one thing, though.

I have a small prejudice toward israel because of their strikes at iraqi nuclear plants... forget the year, was it the 80's?

I'm sorry, but israel does not have the right to bomb iraqi nuclear facilities, have no international consequences, and then develop their own nuclear program.

Because one's a liberal democracy and the other is an apeshit theocracy (puppet democracy) that would like nothing more than to see all of the western world obliterated?

But most important, you're favoring a region of troglodytes over two democracies.
And you're wondering as to why the Arab world hates you?

The question I have is whether the OP bases his question on what liberals acvtually say or what conservative pundits tell him/her that liberals say.

Two very different things.

Because one's a liberal democracy and the other is an apeshit theocracy (puppet democracy) that would like nothing more than to see all of the western world obliterated?

I didn't ask a question.

Israel does not have the right to break international law multiple times. Bombing a sovereign country, building a nuclear weapons program(unless they weren't/aren't in the IAEA...), etc.

Two wrongs don't make a right, even if what you said was true.

Saddam's Iraq was a secular nation who was being supported by the US in the 80's.

So why the hell did you just write that?

So you're equating the two. (Once again, that's a ridiculous thing to do.)

But your feelings are only with respect to the current regime. It's like being a person who hates America because of Bush but forgets about Clinton. You're forgetting the several previous decades in which Israel has been the victim, has abided by boundaries (and aren't they doing so now?), has listened to the UN (a group that now only fights for its ideals when it is politically and fiscally beneficial), and has treated its Palestinian neighbors with respect (albeit a deservedly suspicious one.)

As for both the tactics and the current regime: Well... it gets shit done. While I don't exactly approve, it's better than bending over forward like others would have them do.

Equating the Israelis and the Palestinians? Yep. That's exactly what I'm doing. They deserve eachother.

This has been going on since 1967. How current does a regime need to be?

And to be honest, It's been going on longer than that. That miserable crust of land has been fought over by it's occupants for about 3000 years. Let them. They're good at it. Let them do what they know and are good at. The only real tragedy is that they're doing it with American money.

I say screw them all.

I didn't ask a question.

Israel does not have the right to break international law multiple times. Bombing a sovereign country, building a nuclear weapons program(unless they weren't/aren't in the IAEA...), etc.

Two wrongs don't make a right, even if what you said was true.

Saddam's Iraq was a secular nation who was being supported by the US in the 80's.

So why the hell did you just write that?

Ah, because I'm a dumbass. I registered it as "Iranian" not Iraqi.
Me = stupid :D

I have absolutely no excuse for that, other than the counter-claim that nearly every nation breaks international laws at one point or another, the Arab countries of the region being the top of the list (except maybe African warlords.) Of course, we ignore those "mistakes of desperation" because they are the self-proclaimed underdogs. You know... underdogs who kill dissenters?

Ah, because I'm a dumbass. I registered it as "Iranian" not Iraqi.
Me = stupid :D

I have absolutely no excuse for that, other than the counter-claim that nearly every nation breaks international laws at one point or another, the Arab countries of the region being the top of the list (except maybe African warlords.) Of course, we ignore those "mistakes of desperation" because they are the self-proclaimed underdogs. You know... underdogs who kill dissenters?

I'm simply saying, israel cannot champion itself as some victim when it has the most advanced military in the region, capable of beating all of its neighbors pretty much simultaneously, builds nukes, and yet bombs the nuclear facilities of other nations its not at war at.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But I still put it just about the same as the other nations in the ME, not below for sure.

I think it's a bit late for that. They have too much invested in attacking the West by this point to suddenly leave us alone, from what I can tell.

wow,you get the cookie here,how insightfull.

the left support the arabs over the jews,cause if they can kick the usa in the shins,no matter what they will...forget the atrocities committed by both sides,if it is hurtfull to the us...then it is good,forget logic or reality.

must be nice to sit by a keyboard while daddy pays for your college,and you aint got to fight for your survival...fucking college twits..oh the brave and honorable freedom fighters blowing up women and children!
how anyone with half a brain can condone and support ANYONE killing innocents intentionally is unfathonable.

say what you will,but the jews or the us DO NOR INTENTINALLY TARGET INNOCENTS,bitch all you want about collateral deaths,but then again...we aint blowing up discos on purpose,if the mother fuckers did not kill innocent kids going to get a frosty,then maybe there would not be collateral deaths.

i half think,if the jews were not there,they would commit fratricide.

and argue all day..they cant fight us fair(which i agree they cant)but please,you can come up with ways to bomb discos...bomb a military base...your a fucking suicide bomber after all...no it is bull shit!
i have no problem with them if they have grievances and want to fight,but if your gonna kill yourself anyway..why not at a military target...?
why kill innocents,kinda makes for retalition and hatred,maybe that is all they know?

hope they move next to you,and disagree with your lifestyle.

bunch of asshole pussies,with their priorities so askew it is laughable.

but some college kid rebelling agaist daddy..loves them...go hang with them instead of chasing tail and or beer pong...then i might agree.

you will love them till they chop off your head!

But your feelings are only with respect to the current regime. It's like being a person who hates America because of Bush but forgets about Clinton. You're forgetting the several previous decades in which Israel has been the victim, has abided by boundaries (and aren't they doing so now?), has listened to the UN (a group that now only fights for its ideals when it is politically and fiscally beneficial), and has treated its Palestinian neighbors with respect (albeit a deservedly suspicious one.)

As for both the tactics and the current regime: Well... it gets shit done. While I don't exactly approve, it's better than bending over forward like others would have them do.

Then support them when they aren't in the proces of antagonizing their neighbors silly. Politics isn't set in stone. When Sharon misbehaves, punish him instead of patting him over the head and giving him the cookie jar. Whatever happened to the concept of rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad?

The US can hardly play the victim complex... It overthrew the iranian government in 1953, got involved in the suez around that time, supported the creation of israel, supported iraq against iran when its people overthrew the US puppet government, then also supported iran, supported saudi arabia, kuwait, and a few other nations for a while, led the coalition against iraq in '91, supported israel definately pretty much since its creation, bombed iraq through the nineties, invaded iraq a second time and overthrew its government, is threatening iran with war because its barely starting a nuclear program.

The US has hardly been staying out of middle eastern affairs since world war two.

And you're wondering as to why the Arab world hates you?

I never wondered that. They hate me, you, and every other progressive or intelligent country in the world because they are ideologues who, for whatever reason, don't esteem progressive ideals of sexual/religious/ethnic/political/sexuality equality and tolerance, nor the free flow of ideas.

The question I have is whether the OP bases his question on what liberals acvtually say or what conservative pundits tell him/her that liberals say.

Two very different things.

I don't listen to conservative pundits as I'm not conservative and don't like pundits (even though I sometimes act like one.) I'm talking about the crap you see some people waving at anti-war protests, anti-Israel/anti-Jewish graffiti in France, and the political cartoons that some Indy liberals put out.

wow,you get the cookie here,how insightfull.

the left support the arabs over the jews,cause if they can kick the usa in the shins,no matter what they will...forget the atrocities committed by both sides,if it is hurtfull to the us...then it is good,forget logic or reality.

must be nice to sit by a keyboard while daddy pays for your college,and you aint got to fight for your survival...fucking college twits..oh the brave and honorable freedom fighters blowing up women and children!
how anyone with half a brain can condone and support ANYONE killing innocents intentionally is unfathonable.

say what you will,but the jews or the us DO NOR INTENTINALLY TARGET INNOCENTS,bitch all you want about collateral deaths,but then again...we aint blowing up discos on purpose,if the mother fuckers did not kill innocent kids going to get a frosty,then maybe there would not be collateral deaths.

i half think,if the jews were not there,they would commit fratricide.

and argue all day..they cant fight us fair(which i agree they cant)but please,you can come up with ways to bomb discos...bomb a military base...your a fucking suicide bomber after all...no it is bull shit!
i have no problem with them if they have grievances and want to fight,but if your gonna kill yourself anyway..why not at a military target...?
why kill innocents,kinda makes for retalition and hatred,maybe that is all they know?

hope they move next to you,and disagree with your lifestyle.

bunch of asshole pussies,with their priorities so askew it is laughable.

but some college kid rebelling agaist daddy..loves them...go hang with them instead of chasing tail and or beer pong...then i might agree.

you will love them till they chop off your head!

The palestinians are fighting the only way they can, really. Its sad, but they have no better way of fighting.

The palestinians are fighting the only way they can, really. Its sad, but they have no better way of fighting.

Fighting to create a wonderful land where men (well... not all men. Just heterosexual fundamentalist Muslim men) and women (well not unless they are properly covered and obedient) can live in harmony (well, except for all the draconian restraints on civil liberties)?

Equating the Israelis and the Palestinians? Yep. That's exactly what I'm doing. They deserve eachother.

This has been going on since 1967. How current does a regime need to be?

And to be honest, It's been going on longer than that. That miserable crust of land has been fought over by it's occupants for about 3000 years. Let them. They're good at it. Let them do what they know and are good at. The only real tragedy is that they're doing it with American money.

I say screw them all.

I used to think like that.
But then I began to realize and focus on the fact that one group clearly has better ideals than the other. And why on earth wouldn't we (or they) want to stop fighting for them?

The palestinians are fighting the only way they can, really. Its sad, but they have no better way of fighting.

no excuse...if your gonna strap a bomb on yourself,and kill your self for the"cause"
why not blow up an israili base or convoy.

your gonna tell me killing beautiful innocent children is goona enamor me to your point?

opposite will occur,i will forever want to beat you to death with a shovel,your point is not made,all you accomplished is creating an endless cycle of hatred!

but i suspect,some want that..sickenening...but my point stands,the us or jews DO NOT intentionally target innocents..thats the difference to me...i have zero respect for the so called "we have no other option assholes"

bullshit,man up..you want to martyr yourself,i respect your dedication,but killing kids?

shit,mcveigh would have an ounce of my respect if he went after a military target,but no,he was a pussie...so he killed someones innocent child that suffered horribly because of his cowardice,as well as his family.
tell me some religous idiot kills your nephew or child..to make a point..how would you feel..myself,i would scour the earth to kill them.
now if they killed soldiers of their enemy,i may reflect and say to myself,they may have a legit gripe,but killing children is evil and i will not look past that..ever
accidently,i'd be pissed,but intentionally...all i would see is red...kinda counter productive for their cause i think.

Fighting to create a wonderful land where men (well... not all men. Just heterosexual fundamentalist Muslim men) and women (well not unless they are properly covered and obedient) can live in harmony (well, except for all the draconian restraints on civil liberties)?

Im not talking motives, only means. Seeing their situation, the means are justified as their only means.

no excuse...if your gonna strap a bomb on yourself,and kill your self for the"cause"
why not blow up an israili base or convoy.

They try these things.

Soldiers get smart, and it becomes ineffective, the bombers get stopped before they have a chance to hit.

So they have to go for targets they can actually hit. To fight their enemy.

War has been indiscriminate for centuries. Since world war two, people are becoming more and more sensitive to total warfare. But for someone who wants to win at all costs, they fight to all costs. Its sad, but I see the palestinians means no worse than dresden or hiroshima, although a much smaller scale.

wow,you get the cookie here,how insightfull.

the left support the arabs over the jews,cause if they can kick the usa in the shins,no matter what they will...forget the atrocities committed by both sides,if it is hurtfull to the us...then it is good,forget logic or reality.

must be nice to sit by a keyboard while daddy pays for your college,and you aint got to fight for your survival...fucking college twits..oh the brave and honorable freedom fighters blowing up women and children!
how anyone with half a brain can condone and support ANYONE killing innocents intentionally is unfathonable.

say what you will,but the jews or the us DO NOR INTENTINALLY TARGET INNOCENTS,bitch all you want about collateral deaths,but then again...we aint blowing up discos on purpose,if the mother fuckers did not kill innocent kids going to get a frosty,then maybe there would not be collateral deaths.

i half think,if the jews were not there,they would commit fratricide.

and argue all day..they cant fight us fair(which i agree they cant)but please,you can come up with ways to bomb discos...bomb a military base...your a fucking suicide bomber after all...no it is bull shit!
i have no problem with them if they have grievances and want to fight,but if your gonna kill yourself anyway..why not at a military target...?
why kill innocents,kinda makes for retalition and hatred,maybe that is all they know?

hope they move next to you,and disagree with your lifestyle.

bunch of asshole pussies,with their priorities so askew it is laughable.

but some college kid rebelling agaist daddy..loves them...go hang with them instead of chasing tail and or beer pong...then i might agree.

you will love them till they chop off your head!

Look, on the whole "why not bomb military targets?" thing, that would be because military targets have much better security, making it infinitely more difficult to get a bomber in.

And on the condoning killing innocents... I condone it. I'd like to think I have a bit more than half a brain. Of course, I believe humanity is a blight on this world and ought to be wiped out, even at the cost of this world, so that they don't become a blight upon the whole galaxy.


And how, exactly, would you like these people to order their priorities? I mean, I see freeing oneself from what one sees as terrible oppression would be pretty high on the list, wouldn't you?

And as to neither the U.S. nor Israel intentionally targeting civilians...maybe thats because we have these armies and can in fact fight back? Although I might say that cicilians have been targeted in the past, may even be now, but I'm too lazy to do research to prove it.

I voted against Israel.
I like the idea of Israel existing, but think they're not doingit right.

Compared to the majority of it's Arab neighbors (I abhor Syria more. And Iran isn't Arab, or close), let's see.
Egypt and Jordan havn't been demolishing the homes people around them, their Jewish citizens, or the Israeli homes in their borders. Israel has had a wonderful record of demolishing civillian homes of the Palestinians. A practice they have recently "realised" doesn't work, thankfully.

I didn't see Arab planes attack peaceful Israeli power plants. But I remember seeing Israel do that to their neighbors, even when not at war with them.

I don't see or hear of Jordanian soldiers who police the parts of Palestine and the Palestinians under Jordanian control shooting those Palestinian civilians on sight. Yet I hear such things about Israeli soldiers.

And if I remember correctly, the only reason Jordan and Egypt are at peace with Israel now is because they decided to stop dealing with Israel in a barbarian way. Israel did not activly persue peace, instead instigated the neighboring countries.

And finally, in the wars with the Arab countries, Israel went out of it's way to humiliate the Arab countries (Not hard I admit, but it's the way it happened). Humiliation that led to subsequent wars (Ala post WW1 Germany). The Yom Kippur war, for instance, was bon out of the fact that the Arab countries did not take kindly to being humiliated in such a fashion.

Israel has not done much to make it's existance in the area very peaceful. Instead it activly tries to be the bully in the area. It's like elementary school polotics, be the bully and you think you're safe. I'd think they would have learned better from experiances with Hitler. And to be honest, after I read about this recent history in the area I am sorely dissapointed in Israel for taking the simple "Yay we're alive from the Bully, now let's be the Bully!" approach instead of actually growing up and doing things like intelligent people.

I can express this simple with a timeline.
1948 - Israeli War of Independence: A war I think was justified, and a fair victory on the hands of the Israeli's. Good show by them.
1956 - Suez War: Probably a bad idea for the Israeli's to activly participate in an attack on Egypt that didn't actually involve them. Net result ignoring the Europeans, Israel attacks Egypt.
1967 - The Six Day Way: Once again, Israel attacks it's neighbors, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
1968 - Egyptian Sinai campaign: Egypt tries to take back land it lost in the previous war. Land that was taken by an Israeli invasion.
1973 - Yom Kippur War: Egypt and Syria strike Israel in retaliation for previous Israeli attacks on their countries.

I don't know about you, but when I read about these wars, Israel doesn't look so innocent. And I would rather support those nations around it which have moved on, and shal we say "grown up", instead of continue their petty school yard bully image.

I like Syria less then Israel though.
And I like the concept of Israel.
As I said, they're just being idiots about it.

Israel is a grown up nation now, we need to stop treating them like babies, it's insulting to Israel also.

Fighting to create a wonderful land where men (well... not all men. Just heterosexual fundamentalist Muslim men) and women (well not unless they are properly covered and obedient) can live in harmony (well, except for all the draconian restraints on civil liberties)?


To the best of my recolection, and the Palestinians I have had the pleasure to meet, that's about as dumb a generalisation of the Palestinian people as it is to say "All black people in America are like 50cent."
If you want to speak about the Palestinians, speak about them in their entirety. Don't pick one faction and proclaim them all like that. Otherwise it would be just as right for me to say you're a member of the KKK for living in the US.

They are a liability. In fact, the US should directly oppose Israel’s regime. Would get the terrorists off us right quick.

Yeah, and whilst we're at it perhaps if we should cut all our ties to the Islamic world: economic, diplomatic and social, perhaps if we never talked about human rights, secularism or democracy, perhaps if we never breathed a word of criticism of Islam or talked about the threat posed by states like Iran, perhaps if we withdrew all our security forces (there at the request of their respective governments) from the Middle East, and perhaps if we wept uncontrollably and begged forgiveness for our crimes against humanity and our crimes against God, perhaps that might do the trick as well.

Of course that would just be a start, we'd have to reform our decadent and sinful regimes, ban music, ban alcohol and ban dancing, acknowledge that the concept of human rights are anathema to Sharia law and that democracy impedes attempts to impose a global caliphate. We must accept that Judaism, atheism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and all other non-Islamic religion are forms of heresy and that Islam is the one true path that must be embraced by all. It's time we realised that women ought to be abused, harangued, degraded and otherwise treated as second class citizens. But most importantly of all, it's time that we sacrificed the principles of liberty, equality, secularity, modernity and justice that millions have fought and died for in exchange for corrupt, theocratic tyrannical apartheid's that these nihilistic butcherers would impose on us.

And then we'd never have to worry about terrorism ever again.

And if I remember correctly, the only reason Jordan and Egypt are at peace with Israel now is because they decided to stop dealing with Israel in a barbarian way. Israel did not activly persue peace, instead instigated the neighboring countries.

And finally, in the wars with the Arab countries, Israel went out of it's way to humiliate the Arab countries (Not hard I admit, but it's the way it happened). Humiliation that led to subsequent wars (Ala post WW1 Germany). The Yom Kippur war, for instance, was bon out of the fact that the Arab countries did not take kindly to being humiliated in such a fashion.

I agree with you to a certain extent... Except:

1. How else would you suggest stopping guerilla attacks on your country besides blockading and blowing up regions where the most accurate intelligence in the world indicates your enemy is? Unless of course you think that backing down from your ideals of social progressiveness and intellectual openness in favor of blind religious hatred of social liberties and differing viewpoints is preferable?

2. The selected paragraphs help my argument.
Point 1: Jordan (which I have no problem with*) and Egypt (which I'm ambivalent about*) aren't attacked by Israel because they aren't [openly] trying to attack Israel. *Though they are openly anti-Israel/anti-Jewish, not to mention just as homophobic, misogynistic, etc. as they were seven centuries ago.
Point 2: Israel doesn't make it an effort to instigate violence, unless you consider preemptive strikes grounded on highly accurate evidence to be instigation... Nor does it try to "humiliate" anyone (does any country do that?), it just routinely defeats its enemies.
Point 3: Comparing Arab countries to pre-Hitler Germany doesn't exactly help show how Israel is bad.

To the best of my recolection, and the Palestinians I have had the pleasure to meet, that's about as dumb a generalisation of the Palestinian people as it is to say "All black people in America are like 50cent."
If you want to speak about the Palestinians, speak about them in their entirety. Don't pick one faction and proclaim them all like that. Otherwise it would be just as right for me to say you're a member of the KKK for living in the US.

Let's count burqas! Let's go to a Syrian bar (if they have them) and declare that you're gay! Let's go to Iran and criticize the religious leaders!

You're right, those are generalizations. But unlike the strawmen examples you've given, they're stereotypes based on fact.

Well, for my part Isreal gets my support. In a fight I would rather have them on my team than any of the Arab nations.

1981. Osiraq. *nod*
Excuse me, but when Israel took out the nuclear facilities, the whole world turned around and condemned it, while breathing a heaving sigh of relief that *someone* had done the dirty work for them. What if Iran had had nukes during the gulf war? Lucky for the rest of the world, the stakes for Israel are high enough to do the right thing once in a while as a matter of survival, not politics.

I don't see any other country parading around the fact that the US is its ally and making sure that its enemies know to attack both of us.

Because God forbid we should stand in opposition to people willing to murder Israeli children. You may not have noticed that America's policy of hiding from the world throughout the 1920s and 30s didn't end so well.

They try these things.

Soldiers get smart, and it becomes ineffective, the bombers get stopped before they have a chance to hit.

So they have to go for targets they can actually hit. To fight their enemy.

War has been indiscriminate for centuries. Since world war two, people are becoming more and more sensitive to total warfare. But for someone who wants to win at all costs, they fight to all costs. Its sad, but I see the palestinians means no worse than dresden or hiroshima, although a much smaller scale.


read your last line...

"So they have to go for targets they can actually hit. To fight their enemy."

does that not make you ill...the targets they can go for....BULLSHIT...an innocent child is NOT a "target"

some little kid that is so fucking clueless to the issue is not a "target"

i hate to say it,but it sounds like you are justifying the shit that goes on.

if i am inclined to martyr myself..trust me..kids wont be the target!

if i am going out with a bang(no pun)it aint gonna be killing some precious little child.

i think the hatred has blinded them so much they can just about justify any bullshit excuse to commit violence...so they have no respect from me..only contempt!

hell,i would beat any fuck to death that intentionally targeted a kid(from either side) with a spoon,just cause it would hurt more.

your justifacation is baseless,there is no excuse...period!

I agree with you to a certain extent... Except:

1. How else would you suggest stopping guerilla attacks on your country besides blockading and blowing up regions where the most accurate intelligence in the world indicates your enemy is? Unless of course you think that backing down from your ideals of social progressiveness and intellectual openness in favor of blind religious hatred of social liberties and differing viewpoints is preferable?

Well, considering Israel wouldn't be dealing with this problem if they didn;t force the Palestinians into poverty, I'm happy to place the blame for the whole thing on Israel. They started it, they should either try to solve it like humans... or go the "Final Solution" route. So far it looks like they're trying both to minute extents. But that doesn't mean they won't go either way fully.

2. The selected paragraphs help my argument.
Point 1: Jordan (which I have no problem with*) and Egypt (which I'm ambivalent about*) aren't attacked by Israel because they aren't [openly] trying to attack Israel. *Though they are openly anti-Israel/anti-Jewish, not to mention just as homophobic, misogynistic, etc. as they were seven centuries ago.
Jordan, to the best of my knowledge, and again from Jordanians I know, is about as anti-semetic as say, Canada. Jordan seems to be the only nation in the area pushing for peace, the only one trying to keep the Palestinians and their fring groups talking with the Israelis.
Egypt was the first of the countries in the area to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and although their more conservative beliefs arn't the best, they're certianly not as bad as the more conservative Americans, who are substantially more vocal about it.
I take from your comments that you've never been to either country, talked to their people, or actually read anything about them.

Point 2: Israel doesn't make it an effort to instigate violence, unless you consider preemptive strikes grounded on highly accurate evidence to be instigation... Nor does it try to "humiliate" anyone (does any country do that?), it just routinely defeats its enemies.

I see attacking your neighbors and taking their land, then refusing to negoriate the return of that land, instead stubbornly building up your forces around it, to be not just humiliation, but instiugation of future conflicts. It's been the way it's been done in the past, but that doesn't make it the smartest way of doing things.
About the same as me entering yur house, claiming your living room as mine, and stationing soldiers at the door to shoot you if you so much as move in their direction. Hardly seems like the actions of someone who wants to exist in the area with their neighbors, more like someone who wants to control their neighbors like they're a lower species... remindes me of other times.


Point 3: Comparing Arab countries to pre-Hitler Germany doesn't exactly help show how Israel is bad.

Probably because I didn't do that.
If you would reread the paragraph, you would notice that the inclusion of post WW1 Germany was to point out that nations can and do humiliate their opponants if they win, and what has happened as a result. If you want to drag that into it further, you could surely make a point that the German people backed Hitler not because they felt humiliated by the treaty of Versailles, but because they had a deep seated hatred of all things Jewish. Yes, the argument could be made, but has time and time again been defeated.

Let's count burqas! Let's go to a Syrian bar (if they have them) and declare that you're gay! Let's go to Iran and criticize the religious leaders!

You're right, those are generalizations. But unlike the strawmen examples you've given, they're stereotypes based on fact.

1: Burqas are Afgan. Wrong part of the world.
2: I hate Syria, I've mentioned I hate Syria, they're probably the country I hate the most except...
3: Iran, I hate Iran too.

So, whatever you're trying to say here, is about as relevant as... well I can't think of an analogy of something so irrelivant.

Israel is a grown up nation now, we need to stop treating them like babies, it's insulting to Israel also.thank you. the paternalistic view of Israel as an imperialist creation (totally wrong) maintained by european interest in the past (wrong) and a current US puppet (wrong) are as underhandedly insulting as they are misguided. The Israeli people and the Israeli people only have brought the nation to where it now is - good and bad.

Mommy wow! I'm a big kid now!

thank you. the paternalistic view of Israel as an imperialist creation (totally wrong) maintained by european interest in the past (wrong) and a current US puppet (wrong) are as underhandedly insulting as they are misguided. The Israeli people and the Israeli people only have brought the nation to where it now is - good and bad.

Mommy wow! I'm a big kid now!

good points!

1: Burqas are Afgan. Wrong part of the world.
2: I hate Syria, I've mentioned I hate Syria, they're probably the country I hate the most except...
3: Iran, I hate Iran too.

So, whatever you're trying to say here, is about as relevant as... well I can't think of an analogy of something so irrelivant.

I'm remarking on fundamentalist Muslims as a whole... you know, the religious group that makes fundamentalist Christians who blow up abortion clinics and beat up homosexuals look like rational and empathetic creatures?

And for the record, burqas and hijab aren't solely Afghani.

I'm remarking on fundamentalist Muslims as a whole... you know, the religious group that makes fundamentalist Christians who blow up abortion clinics and beat up homosexuals look like rational and empathetic creatures?
I wouldn't say they make them look nice. More like.. make them look like they're not as smart.
Of course your comment makes it seem like you believe these fundamentalist Muslims run the world and the entire region... just like these dumb fundamentalist Christians run the US I presume.

And for the record, burqas and hijab aren't solely Afghani.

Now... rather then get into a debate about the Arabic language and Islamic beliefs, I'll make this simple.
Hijab, the code of dressing modestly for both men and women in Islam. Includes, but does not require, the headscarf, beard, "turban", and long sleeved shirts and pants.
Burqa, the Afgani garment which covers the entire body of a woman. Often worn to comply with the hijab requierments as is a form of modest clothing, but is not hijab.
Understand the difference yet? Because they are different.

Its not truly a problem with isreal, its like were the crazy mother of a 44 year old doctor, we send money and etc. while they dont deserve/need it, i dont want to offend anyone here, but again, as with almost every (every?) war, religion was the factor that starts wars, people MUST show you the right way, even if you believe diffrent, its not that religon in concept is bad, but because all major "christan" religons say that little phrase, "have you heard about(insert gods name here) and people get pissed, its like me telling you gravity isnt real, and then be a dick about it. thats what i feel.




"hey! purple haze are in my brain......."

I have two faces on this issue:

1] I'm Native American (Caddo), so I feel genuinely with people who have had their land stolen by military might.

2] I'm Jewish. So ... you know ..

In short, I ride the fence. I will not come down from that fence.

I have two faces on this issue:

1] I'm Native American (Caddo), so I feel genuinely with people who have had their land stolen by military might.

2] I'm Jewish. So ... you know ..

In short, I ride the fence. I will not come down from that fence.

So what you're saying is that you're a Caddo Jewish fencer? :p

So what you're saying is that you're a Caddo Jewish fencer? :p

:D

Have at thee!

*swings a rapier about*

Well, considering Israel wouldn't be dealing with this problem if they didn;t force the Palestinians into poverty, I'm happy to place the blame for the whole thing on Israel. They started it, they should either try to solve it like humans... or go the "Final Solution" route. So far it looks like they're trying both to minute extents. But that doesn't mean they won't go either way fully.

I'm going to ignore your allusion to Nazism (though it is indicative of the sort of ridiculous attacks and insults people throw at Israel) and simply ask you how a well-intentioned person deals with ideologues who would gladly see the brains of you and your children splattered on the wall before you could say a "how-do-you-do." I don't know how to address the 90% who aren't like that besides pointing out that they could have tried a lot harder to discourage that sort of behavior for the past, oh, I don't know, century. The U.S. was willing to have a civil war to stop social injustice and as a preventative against negative political-economic effects; so could have the Palestinians if they truly were/are non-complicit.

Jordan, to the best of my knowledge, and again from Jordanians I know, is about as anti-semetic as say, Canada. Jordan seems to be the only nation in the area pushing for peace, the only one trying to keep the Palestinians and their fring groups talking with the Israelis.
Egypt was the first of the countries in the area to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and although their more conservative beliefs arn't the best, they're certianly not as bad as the more conservative Americans, who are substantially more vocal about it.
I take from your comments that you've never been to either country, talked to their people, or actually read anything about them.

I'm well aware of these facts, and thanks for the ad hominem. Jordan has been relatively rational about the situation, though it might be that they're too busy with infighting with Syria to focus so much on the issue. As for Egypt, the signing didn't mean tolerance, they just realized they were out-muscled. And I don't think there are any mainstream American newspapers still claiming that Jews have blood libels. Nor are there top officials with beliefs that harsh either.

I see attacking your neighbors and taking their land, then refusing to negoriate the return of that land, instead stubbornly building up your forces around it, to be not just humiliation, but instiugation of future conflicts. It's been the way it's been done in the past, but that doesn't make it the smartest way of doing things.
About the same as me entering yur house, claiming your living room as mine, and stationing soldiers at the door to shoot you if you so much as move in their direction. Hardly seems like the actions of someone who wants to exist in the area with their neighbors, more like someone who wants to control their neighbors like they're a lower species... remindes me of other times.


I see it as a black family being asked by an apartment landlord to take the room of a recently evicted unruly and unproductive white family. Unfortunately, the rest of the apartment is comprised of racist white families, and the new family constantly finds themselves under siege from the first day. As punishment for one attack, the landlord and black family decides it would be a good lesson if the garden was given fully to the black family. The racist family continues to harass them, unwilling to mend their ways or change their backward mindsets. Some of the racist families have normal and nice kids, though. Unfortunately, while the kids would like to play in the garden with the black family, the black family (as well as the racist members of the white families) can't let that happen, the former for their own safety and the preservation of the garden, the latter due to their intolerance and blindness.
I guess I prefer the black family to the other unruly tenants.

Probably because I didn't do that.
If you would reread the paragraph, you would notice that the inclusion of post WW1 Germany was to point out that nations can and do humiliate their opponants if they win, and what has happened as a result. If you want to drag that into it further, you could surely make a point that the German people backed Hitler not because they felt humiliated by the treaty of Versailles, but because they had a deep seated hatred of all things Jewish. Yes, the argument could be made, but has time and time again been defeated.

No, it's because the Germans perceived that the Treaty of Versailles was a means of humiliation and also saw the Jews as a means of scapegoating for a natural depression in the economy. There was nothing remotely "humiliating" or oppressive about the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans fucked up and they needed a time-out. Simple as that. But maybe you'd call all punitive treaties "humiliating" and "instigating" instead of amelioratory.

Israel has a large stockpile of atomic weapons :gundge: that they do not take responsibility for:upyours:
Israel kills plenty more palestinians than palestinians kill israelis', both are wrong, but Israel uses the fact that their attacks are through their army to discriminate between themselves and terrorism:headbang:
Israel was non existant not all that long ago, instead of being grateful that they had a homeland, and working towards peace, they decided to take more land, and force/coerce their own people into living on illegal land.
And don't tell me they r the chosen people or it was their land at some stage in the very distant past, because I would be forced to pull you up on relevance.

I could go on, and not just about Israel, but it seems that this post was created to attract blind arguments and to convince the world of Israels innocence.

Israel & Palestine both need to get their act together to create a better life for their own people, regardless of past greivances.

I wouldn't say they make them look nice. More like.. make them look like they're not as smart.
Of course your comment makes it seem like you believe these fundamentalist Muslims run the world and the entire region... just like these dumb fundamentalist Christians run the US I presume.


Now... rather then get into a debate about the Arabic language and Islamic beliefs, I'll make this simple.
Hijab, the code of dressing modestly for both men and women in Islam. Includes, but does not require, the headscarf, beard, "turban", and long sleeved shirts and pants.
Burqa, the Afgani garment which covers the entire body of a woman. Often worn to comply with the hijab requierments as is a form of modest clothing, but is not hijab.
Understand the difference yet? Because they are different.

I won't bother with a rebuttal because you've already acknowledged my point: their beliefs are off the scale in terms of social-political conservatism.

i say force isrial to give up on jeruselim just like they were supposed to according to the 1948 un treaty that established isrial. then if palistine continues to attack just obleterate them all problems solved

I have two faces on this issue:

1] I'm Native American (Caddo), so I feel genuinely with people who have had their land stolen by military might.

2] I'm Jewish. So ... you know ..

In short, I ride the fence. I will not come down from that fence.Er, my first encounter with you on this forum involved your accolades of a terorist's promo video. So, I'd say you've come down form the fence plenty often. But with your record of "oh - I just changed my mind again" fame, I guess I'm not surprised at this oh-so diplomatic tack you've adopted.

Poll options extended
1. Israel, like all democracies, occasionally makes mistakes... At least it's a democracy.
2. Israel are fascist Nazi pigs!!! Free the Palestinians!!1

---
I can't fathom it:

I'd just like someone to explain to me why they think a bunch of 3rd world countries with theocratic, oligarchic, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-environmental, fundamentalist, and highly-conservative policies are better than a 1st world country that is socially and fiscally progressive, not to mention fairly friendly and unthreatening (to people who aren’t trying to kill their citizens on a daily basis.)

Yes, the Israeli government is being a bit unfair toward the 40+% of Arabs that aren't praying daily for the extermination of Israel and the modern western world. Yes, the Israeli government is a bit uncouth with the various countries that surround them that are consistently threatening and condoning suicide bombings of the relatively tolerant public that inhabits a country the size of New Jersey. And yes, the Israeli government did seem to be a bit overzealous when, after various previous wars (one of which was underhandedly sprung during a Jewish holy day,) they preemptively kicked all the butts of their not-so-friendly neighbors who were planning on trying to decimate the entire Israeli population for the umpteenth time in a row.

But really…after much thought… I can't see why any liberal -- nay, any empathetic human being -- should feel that the Israelis are worse than the surrounding countries, and that the former should be punished for all of it's success and progress despite it's hostile environment (note that they only receive about $500 mil a year from the U.S.) and that the latter should be praised, despite the many centuries they've had to actually do something with the land they've had besides exploiting fossil fuels and declaring fatwahs on social progressiveness, intellectual progress, and anyone doesn’t think the way they do.


I don't think anybody has ever said, at least that I've seen, that the other nations are "better". Phrases I've used to describe their various government have included "scum","shower of shites" and "pack of bastards". However they don't have the support of the worlds last superpower, or a cetain number of english speakers telling us how their crap really isnt as foul as everybody elses.

Have you any examples of any western "liberal" saying that Jordan is "better" than Israel, for example, or are you just unable to grasp how being against one thing does not mean being for another?

I guess I'm not surprised at this oh-so diplomatic tack you've adopted.

Ain't life grand?

Er, my first encounter with you on this forum involved your accolades of a terorist's promo video.

You'll find my accolades only involved the propoganda value. I have a deep respect for ephemera ... I even collect it.

You must admit ... it was a well done video if you look at it objectively.

I never said I agreed with its message.

You'll find my accolades only involved the propoganda value. I have a deep respect for ephemera ... I even collect it.

You must admit ... it was a well done video if you look at it objectively.

I never said I agreed with its message.Nice spin. You said it wasn't so bad, that they offered mercy, etc etc. the post was totally un-ironic and actually quite shocking. You did not mention the propaganda value in the OP IIRC. I suppose i'll have to dig it up.

[QUOTE=Saipea]Poll options extended

theocratic, oligarchic, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-environmental, fundamentalist, and highly-conservative policies




Sounds familiar - are you describing the US of A?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

. More importantly, you're misdirecting your anger. But most important, you're favoring a region of troglodytes over two democracies.

I'm sorry but whatever you might think of the regions Governments, describing the people who live there outside of Israel as "troglodytes" is a bit much. There are those on the right within Israel every bit as conservative and sanctomonious as some within Islam

.
You have given no reason why Israel is bad,

Israels occupation is "bad".
.
You're arguing to give up the fight for wisdom and virtue for the sake of an unlikely and unstable peace?

Given the hundreds of thousands dead attributable to the US in latin America alone, you'll pardon me pointing out that you might be better off finding widom and virtue before presuming to fight for it.

Where's the "Neutral/I don't care" option?

Given the hundreds of thousands dead attributable to the US in latin America alone, you'll pardon me pointing out that you might be better off finding widom and virtue before presuming to fight for it.

I wasn't talking about fighting (or rather, invading) for misguided political-economic ideologies, nor was I talking about or lauding fighting with the risk of innocent casualties of that magnitude. I was talking about fighting for basic human rights and liberties with minimal casualties. On the other hand, there are never "minimal casualties" in battles, whether the reason is "valid" or not, so the point isn't of much import.

Have you any examples of any western "liberal" saying that Jordan is "better" than Israel, for example, or are you just unable to grasp how being against one thing does not mean being for another?

Since no rational person could call those countries "better", no. But they do portray them with less "blood" on their hands than Israel (or the U.S.) for that matter.

In any event, it just bothered me that people can overlook all the human rights/liberties failings of the regions just to make a hyperbolic complaint about Israel (and the U.S.'s) semi-vigilante foreign policy attitudes… I suppose it was one of those ridiculous irrational comments that were the catalyst for the thread.

In any event, you guys can keep arguing over the issue if you want. It's not my concern, and it really doesn't bother me much beyond the point that people are being hypocrites by solely decrying the human rights crimes of Israel (or claiming that their actions are worse.)
Simply put, I'm bored and I'm off to bed and/or a less serious topic. You can see that as resignation if you want.

Your poll is a shame, it only gives two radical chances with little space for reasoning. You want only to make clear that you any who does'nt support Israel is a crazy leftist. I you want ideological masturbation, please, use a mirror. I've not voted but I'll give some arguments about.

1. I don't like Israel 'cause was made by the imperialist superpower of the moment for the jews on arab lands. To support this state, has made many crimes and it's still doing it daily. So I defend palestinian people.

2. That doesn't mean I support the arab dictatorships of the Middle East, also good allies for the US during the Cold war. Like in South and Central America, "good bastards" were allowed as long as they were anticommunist. So US is partially guilty of the lack of democracy in the area. It's just after 9/11 than it became a problem to Washington.

3. The existence of Israel is also one useful tool to those govs to keeps their heavy hand on their people, as happen today with Iran and the nuclear affair. Anyway, look at the Hamas victory, people thinking like you doesn't admit democracy if leads to an antiisraeli or antiamerican gov.

4 You, and many like you, always use the democratic way of gov from Israel to defend Israel policies. Milosevic, although not democratic surely had the support from most serbian to his criminal wars and is not a reason to accept it. Occupation is ilegal and must end, with no borders change, with no control on Jordan Valley or things like that. And Israel had to recognise that refugees had the right to come, although the entire world sholud manage a way to become this right in a not menacing reality for Israel survivance.

5. At the end, force cannnot keep such situation so the only hope for Israel to survive and stop becoming an ill nation is to make peace, not to force peace. So it has to talk with their worse enemies and make peace with them. Or at the end, sooner or later, demography would destroy Israel, always with a bloodbath on both sides.

6. Israel gets what had planted. It didn't understand that making a balance peace with Arafat was their best opportunity, with 1967 borders and giving palestina a complete independence, not becoming it into a protectorat. Now, Israel have Hamas in front and they are not so easy to talk with.

Certain Lib fiddlestickers bash anything that is pro-US.
And extol anything that is anti-US.

They need to get focussed on ridding themselves of any stain of subversion.

*snip*

So basically I'm ignorant and Israel has always been evil and money grabbing.
Let's just forget all of the peace accords that they've tried to make.

You're accuse me of being guilty of "ideological masturbation." Your post lacked any acceptance of the possibility or fact that Israel has attempted to make peace on many occasions and that its motivation is not antagonistic, despite its current situation.

And for the record, I don't need a mirror to masturbate. My mind and imagination allow for no limits in masturbation, ideological or otherwise.

They need to get focussed on ridding themselves of any stain of subversion.

Thinking against what the government tells you isn't subversive; it's your duty as a sentient creature that is responsible to and for the government itself.

I'm simply stating that some people lack perspective when they lambaste Israel despite the greater guilt (both politically and socially) of its neighbors.

Thinking against what the government tells you isn't subversive; it's your duty as a sentient creature that is responsible to and for the government itself.

I'm simply stating that some people lack perspective when they lambaste Israel despite the greater guilt (both politically and socially) of its neighbors.

It's been random shouts.

The revolutionary left throughout the 20th century has been focussed on criticising what they oppose - while remaining uebervague about what they would do instead.

The need to take the ultra-left in any way serious has ended with the fall of the Sov Empire.

Let's see... The creation of the State of Israel was the biggest piece of idiocy of the last century. Politicians who learnt nothing from the Balkans and Ireland decided it was a good idea to take one dispossessed group of people and put them in a "homeland" that they had lost more than a thousand years before (and had only a tenuous hold on in the first place) surrounded by their ancient enemies, by dispossessing more people. Hey, that's going to work!

Then the Israeli's go and compound it by invading their neighbours and continually ignoring international law. When Israel moves out of the illegally occupied territories (funny how the word "illegally" nearly always gets dropped when people refer to the "occupied territories") then I might have some sympathy for the Israelis.

Top this with the fact that they get 1/8 of all US overseas aid while a child dies every 3 seconds in countries that actually need the aid for food and water, I won't be crying over Israeli problems any time soon.

SNIP.

So, instead, you support the arabic-speaking Sharia-freaks.

So, instead, you support the arabic-speaking Sharia-freaks.

And you jump to ridiculous conclusions based on thin air? Show me one post where I support arabic-speaking Sharia-freaks, or apologise for your idiocy.

And you jump to ridiculous conclusions based on thin air? Show me one post where I support arabic-speaking Sharia-freaks, or apologise for your idiocy.

So you denounce any and all attempts to put even one square inch of the former Mandate under arab control?

From www.themodernreligion.com (http://www.themodernreligion.com/jihad/jeru-tax.html).

U.S. Aid to Israel: What U.S. Taxpayer Should Know
by Tom Malthaner, October 7 1997
This morning as I was walking down Shuhada Street in Hebron, I saw graffiti marking the newly painted storefronts and awnings. Although three months past schedule and 100 percent over budget, the renovation of Shuhada Street was finally completed this week. The project manager said the reason for the delay and cost overruns was the sabotage of the project by the Israeli settlers of the Beit Hadassah settlement complex in Hebron. They broke the street lights, stoned project workers, shot out the windows of bulldozers and other heavy equipment with pellet guns, broke paving stones before they were laid and now have defaced again the homes and shops of Palestinians with graffiti. The settlers did not want Shuhada St. opened to Palestinian traffic as was agreed to under Oslo 2. This renovation project is paid for by USAID funds and it makes me angry that my tax dollars have paid for improvements that have been destroyed by the settlers.
Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)

When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.

Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are $49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year than it has given to the average American citizen.

I am angry when I see Israeli settlers from Hebron destroy improvements made to Shuhada Street with my tax money. Also, it angers me that my government is giving over $10 billion to a country that is more prosperous than most of the other countries in the world and uses much of its money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people.

October 7, 1997. CPT Hebron has maintained a violence reduction presence in Hebron since June of 1995 at the invitation of the Hebron Municipality. The figures given in this piece come from Richard Curtiss' "U.S. Aid to Israel: The Subject No One Mentions," The Link, Sept-Oct, 1997


I'm not aware that the site is biased/right-wing, and the article is available on other sites.

So you denounce any and all attempts to put even one square inch of the former Mandate under arab control?

Sorry, I don't recall mentioning anything about that. But then you wouldn't let what I actually said cloud your limited judgement, would you?

Sorry, I don't recall mentioning anything about that. But then you wouldn't let what I actually said cloud your limited judgement, would you?


Pro-Israel - or Pro-Arab.
Either/or.

Say you're an idiot or say you're sorry.
either/or.

Say you're an idiot or say you're sorry.
either/or.

I say I'm sorry that you were born.

Let's see... The creation of the State of Israel was the biggest piece of idiocy of the last century. Politicians who learnt nothing from the Balkans and Ireland decided it was a good idea to take one dispossessed group of people and put them in a "homeland" that they had lost more than a thousand years before (and had only a tenuous hold on in the first place) surrounded by their ancient enemies, by dispossessing more people. Hey, that's going to work!

Then the Israeli's go and compound it by invading their neighbours and continually ignoring international law. When Israel moves out of the illegally occupied territories (funny how the word "illegally" nearly always gets dropped when people refer to the "occupied territories") then I might have some sympathy for the Israelis.

Top this with the fact that they get 1/8 of all US overseas aid while a child dies every 3 seconds in countries that actually need the aid for food and water, I won't be crying over Israeli problems any time soon.

Your post, along with many of the other anti-Israel posts, are so inaccurate, I don't know where to begin.

1. Israel gets less than $500 mil in aid. It will get nothing in foreign aid by 2010. That's far less than 1/8 of foreign aid. I personally feel that foreign aid should be distributed evenly throughout the Middle East (although I certainly wouldn't want anyone besides Israel to have nuclear power.)

2. The fact that Israel shouldn't have been given to the Israelis is not Israel's fault. It could also be argued that the people who previously owned the land weren't doing anything productive, nor would have if they were given the next 3 centuries to mess around on it (without further involvement from the West which they so abhor.)

3. Israel hasn't routinely invaded its neighbors; quite the opposite, they routinely invade them, all at once, lose miserably, and pay the consequences. I suppose that land procured during a battle must be returned under international law, but I personally disagree with that rule: if someone fucks with you and tries to attack you, you should be able to take any land that you win from an ensuing war (as was general practice from the 19th century back to the beginning of time.)

4. Israel shouldn't have to risk having its civilians routinely being killed by people who blindly hate for the sake of the complicit (in their inaction) fellow countrymen of extremists. You can't just spout random crap about how the Israelis should open their gates and embrace the various countries that have tried to destroy them from day one and will continue to attempt to do so until they (the neighbors) intellectually develop past the 16th century.

I wish I lived in that pre-pubescent black-and-white world where everything was either/or. Sorry I don't fit your microcephalic world view, but I'm against Israeli and Arab aggression.

I wish I lived in that pre-pubescent black-and-white world where everything was either/or. Sorry I don't fit your microcephalic world view, but I'm against Israeli and Arab aggression.


*smirk*

Welcome to Lockstep-world.

Too bad you havn't intellectually developed past the 1700s.

Too bad you havn't intellectually developed past the 1700s.

Too bad you've learned to swear, I suppose.

Mais, en effet, je regarde tout-cela avec la derniere indifference.

I say I'm sorry that you were born.

Don't flame each other in my thread. If either of you are unwilling to make an argument, try and think about the other's point.

3. Israel hasn't routinely invaded its neighbors; quite the opposite, they routinely invade them, all at once, lose miserably, and pay the consequences. I suppose that land procured during a battle must be returned under international law, but I personally disagree with that rule: if someone fucks with you and tries to attack you, you should be able to take any land that you win from an ensuing war (as was general practice from the 19th century back to the beginning of time.)

We'd better give Israel back to the Romans then, or any of the other races/religions that have run the place since the Israelis rolled over some 2,000 years ago.

You "personally disagree" with International law? Cool, we'll let Israel off the various UN resolutions that it has failed to comply with, on your say so. I mean, Iraq may or may not have broken a UN resolution (seems not as no-one can find those elusive WMD) and they get sanctions followed by an invasion, meanwhile Israel definitely has broken numerous UN resolutions and gets billions in aid.... And then whines about how they're getting picked on.

Too bad you havn't intellectually developed past the 1700s.

I'm sorry, I'm not for decapitating gays, amputating women for painting their nails, burning rape victims, and stoning dissenters.
Oh wait, not even Christians did that back then.

Don't flame each other in my thread. If either of you are unwilling to make an argument, try and think about the other's point.


*shrug*

My point is that any and all attempts to make the slightest argument whatsoever against Israel is making an argument in favour of our beloved Arabic-speaking enemies.

What a stupid thread. Out of all the Is/Pal threads that have appeared, this one just...ugh.

Even the title. I mean... *sigh* why bother.....

You "personally disagree" with International law? Cool, we'll let Israel off the various UN resolutions that it has failed to comply with, on your say so. I mean, Iraq may or may not have broken a UN resolution (seems not as no-one can find those elusive WMD) and they get sanctions followed by an invasion, meanwhile Israel definitely has broken numerous UN resolutions and gets billions in aid.... And then whines about how they're getting picked on.

They've both broken human rights violations: one for gassing millions of people; the other for dislocation millions of people. On the other hand, one of the two countries doesn't have a history of engaging in any of the practices listed in my previous post.

Most people in the west fail to see israel for what it really is a racist state. The actions of a few extremist palestineans is despicable but what would you do if you had been living in a big crowded prison for 50 years with no way out.

I bet most of you never heard of the Qana Massacre in lebanon when Israel bombed a UN base in souther lebanon killing almost a hundred women and children and the US vetoed a security council resolution to condemn Israel.

Nowadays the US officially wants to spread democracy in the middle east and when the palestineans make their free choice and elect hamas (wether you agree with their policies or not that's not the issue) the US and Israel impose sanctions on the palestineans and the result is more than half of them are starving to death.

Before the US changes its policy in the middle east don't wonder why so many arabs hate the US!

*shrug*

My point is that any and all attempts to make the slightest argument whatsoever against Israel is making an argument in favour of our beloved Arabic-speaking enemies.

And our point is that you are wrong and it is quite easy to argue against Israel without arguing for Arabs.

And who exactly is this "we" who says Arab-speaking people are our enemies? Smacks of racism to me.

*shrug*

My point is that any and all attempts to make the slightest argument whatsoever against Israel is making an argument in favour of our beloved Arabic-speaking enemies.

That completely wrong, and that certainly wasn't my point to begin with (if you're attempting to lampoon it.) They both have mucked things up, but my argument is that Israel is less guilty, not only in terms of human rights issues (e.g. treating your citizens properly) but foreign policy issues as well.

And our point is that you are wrong and it is quite easy to argue against Israel without arguing for Arabs.

And who exactly is this "we" who says Arab-speaking people are our enemies? Smacks of racism to me.


See the post above yours.

See the post above yours.

Why? Are you incapable of making your own point? (It is rapidly appearing that way. You are incapable of responding to any post with anything that resembles logic.)

Nowadays the US officially wants to spread democracy in the middle east and when the palestineans make their free choice and elect hamas (wether you agree with their policies or not that's not the issue) the US and Israel impose sanctions on the palestineans and the result is more than half of them are starving to death.

Hamas is recognized world-wide as a terrorist organization. They're very open about the fact that they would like nothing more than to decimate the entire Israeli and Jewish population. I wonder why most of the world doesn't support that, nor sees that as evidence that the Palestinians have remotely matured.

That completely wrong, and that certainly wasn't my point to begin with (if you're attempting to lampoon it.) They both have mucked things up, but my argument is that Israel is less guilty, not only in terms of human rights issues (e.g. treating your citizens properly) but foreign policy issues as well.

what foreign policy issues last time i checked it was israel that was occupying at some point lands in every single neighbouring country and not the other way round.

Hamas is recognized world-wide as a terrorist organization. They're very open about the fact that they would like nothing more than to decimate the entire Israeli and Jewish population. I wonder why most of the world doesn't support that, nor sees that as evidence that the Palestinians have remotely matured.

Again Hamas ideology is really bad but is that an excuse to punish the whole palestinean population?! you want to impose sanctions on the government fine with me but why impose sanctions on the people?!

What a stupid thread. Out of all the Is/Pal threads that have appeared, this one just...ugh.

Even the title. I mean... *sigh* why bother.....

Well, I didn't mean for it to become the flame-fest it seems to have become, but I did mean for it to be direct about its issue. I don't like tiptoeing around issues that are bothering me, nor do I see anything admirable or mature about threads that are ambiguous despite a latent intention for the direction of the thread by the OP.

Again Hamas ideology is really bad but is that an excuse to punish the whole palestinean population?! you want to impose sanctions on the government fine with me but why impose sanctions on the people?!

They had an opportunity to show that they were mature and rational people. Instead they've only proven what their social environment proves: they're still as backward and distrustful of progressive ideals as always.

And if there were Palestinians who supported altruistic and liberal social ideals, maybe they should do something about their fellow countrymen before expecting another country, whose primary responsibility is its own protection, to give them their umpteenth chance for being peaceful neighbors.

So while I absolutely empathize with the unfortunate situation of the Palestinians, I'm disgusted by the culture they've created for themselves and the way they themselves have set about to deal with the situation.

...I suppose I should say that their foreign policies both suck, and ignore the fact that for decades one has had a death wish for the other. That doesn't detract from the deplorable social standards one of the two groups has.

Poll options extended
1. Israel, like all democracies, occasionally makes mistakes... At least it's a democracy.
2. Israel are fascist Nazi pigs!!! Free the Palestinians!!1

---
I can't fathom it:

I'd just like someone to explain to me why they think a bunch of 3rd world countries with theocratic, oligarchic, misogynistic, homophobic, anti-environmental, fundamentalist, and highly-conservative policies are better than a 1st world country that is socially and fiscally progressive, not to mention fairly friendly and unthreatening (to people who aren’t trying to kill their citizens on a daily basis.)

Yes, the Israeli government is being a bit unfair toward the 40+% of Arabs that aren't praying daily for the extermination of Israel and the modern western world. Yes, the Israeli government is a bit uncouth with the various countries that surround them that are consistently threatening and condoning suicide bombings of the relatively tolerant public that inhabits a country the size of New Jersey. And yes, the Israeli government did seem to be a bit overzealous when, after various previous wars (one of which was underhandedly sprung during a Jewish holy day,) they preemptively kicked all the butts of their not-so-friendly neighbors who were planning on trying to decimate the entire Israeli population for the umpteenth time in a row.

But really…after much thought… I can't see why any liberal -- nay, any empathetic human being -- should feel that the Israelis are worse than the surrounding countries, and that the former should be punished for all of it's success and progress despite it's hostile environment (note that they only receive about $500 mil a year from the U.S.) and that the latter should be praised, despite the many centuries they've had to actually do something with the land they've had besides exploiting fossil fuels and declaring fatwahs on social progressiveness, intellectual progress, and anyone doesn’t think the way they do.

I think your mistake is assuming that we condone the Theocratic governments because we oppose the wholesale slaughter, abuse, terrorism and exploitation carried out against the palestinian's by Israel.

I have no problems with democracy, that is why I oppose Israel through democratic means and peaceful protest.
The point is that Israel is only democratic when it suits them, when it doesn't, they simply use force to get their way. If i where to resort to force when democracy fails me, I would be called a terrorist (and rightly so).

I'm not specifically choosing Palistinians over Israelis, I'm backing the Palestinian's in a specific issue, and condemning specific actions of the Israelis.
The fact is, that we cannot approach international relalations with a "lesser of two evils" attitude.
The things Israel is doing and has done are wrong, and you cannot say that they should be exempt because there are other people that are worse.

This is like letting murderers roam free "'cause at least they ain't as bad as the rapists". It doesn't make sense.

I think the thread raises the more interesting question of why people have to take an "either-or" approach to politics.

If people condemn one country, then they refuse to criticise their own "side", even when it does wrong.

Politically mature people should be able to critique both Israel and Palestine

Since you put it that way. I don't think they're worse than arabs. I think they're just as bad. Palestinian terrorists might hide among other palestinian civilians, which is low. But you'd have to really stupid to keep firing helicopter missiles and machine guns into these crowds. One terrorist isn't worth the life of even half a civilian. And if you can't see that you're practically asking these some civilians "since we're going to shoot at you anyway whenever some bad person hides among you, you might as well grab rocket launchers and shoot our helicopters before they shoot you". Also, I hate it when they bulldoze villages because, again, terrorists hide there. Just evict and scare off the little shit and give his property to a homeless arab family. It's such a waste! Not even mentioning that they cut off places from water or electricity, affecting mostly civilians again. Or freeze the accounts of any organization they view as suspicious, even the Palistinian Authorities' funds meant to maintain police forces which could have helped prevent terrorist organizations' growing influence.

I don't blame them for kicking out invaders, as long as Israel keeps to itself afterwards like the have done in the past. This way it only becomes obvious the blame lies with countries like Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Two of them are now on friendlier terms despite their past. And I still don't like Syria anyway.

But what really scares me is the ambigious nuclear arsenal, their arresting of Vanunu and the occasional secrecy and conspiracies surrounding Israel. It reflects very poorly on Israel, and all in all it sometimes actually resembles a democratic Jewish national-socialist country, irony in its toughest form. That's a pretty hard accusation to make, but doesn't it indicate something? I don't like to see Israel that way anymore than Germany, but sometimes Israelis scare me. Like the colonists claiming Palestinian land as their own, essentially searching for 'lebensraum'. Israel's intention to gradually annex Palestinian land through fence building or conditional unilateral withdrawal, slightly reminiscent of the Sudeten crisis. It's intervention in Lebanon, just like the Spanish Civil War. And the bad treatment often in regard to Palestinians makes me wonder if Israel forgot how Jews got treated in Germany, even inside their own ghettos.

That's not to say Israel is irredeemable evil. Lately I've seen some encouraging developments. Like the withdrawal from Gaza and the possible withdrawals promised elsewhere. To see the weary population vote a less hawkish government in power. The relative peace that has lasted, which I fear will be interupted now that Israel killed another Hamas figurehead and PLO security minister. But overal things seem more balanced right now, which I hope is not going to tilt back again. I'm actually losing sympathy for Palestinians, mostly because of the Hamas government. I believe right now the Palestinians don't have as much of a say in the peace process since they voted a hard-line government of their own in place. But if things don't swing out of control again they should eventually agree neither of them can win by the sword.

wholesale slaughter, abuse, terrorism and exploitation carried out against the palestinian's by Israel.

You've accused Israel of purposely slaughtering, abusing, terrorizing, and exploiting innocent Palestinians.
Those are all fairly loaded words, and I don't think it's too much to accuse you of using obnoxious hyperbole. Unless building a wall, increasing security, and selectively bombing targets (that have been warned several hours ahead of time if they contain civilians) to protect your own citizens is now comparable to war crimes and “murdering.”

Since you put it that way. I don't think they're worse than arabs. I think they're just as bad. Palestinian terrorists might hide among other palestinian civilians, which is low. But you'd have to really stupid to keep firing helicopter missiles and machine guns into these crowds. One terrorist isn't worth the life of even half a civilian. And if you can't see that you're practically asking these some civilians "since we're going to shoot at you anyway whenever some bad person hides among you, you might as well grab rocket launchers and shoot our helicopters before they shoot you". Also, I hate it when they bulldoze villages because, again, terrorists hide there. Just evict and scare off the little shit and give his property to a homeless arab family. It's such a waste! Not even mentioning that they cut off places from water or electricity, affecting mostly civilians again. Or freeze the accounts of any organization they view as suspicious, even the Palistinian Authorities' funds meant to maintain police forces which could have helped prevent terrorist organizations' growing influence.

I don't blame them for kicking out invaders, as long as Israel keeps to itself afterwards like the have done in the past. This way it only becomes obvious the blame lies with countries like Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Two of them are now on friendlier terms despite their past. And I still don't like Syria anyway.

But what really scares me is the ambigious nuclear arsenal, their arresting of Vanunu and the occasional secrecy and conspiracies surrounding Israel. It reflects very poorly on Israel, and all in all it sometimes actually resembles a democratic Jewish national-socialist country, irony in its toughest form. That's a pretty hard accusation to make, but doesn't it indicate something? I don't like to see Israel that way anymore than Germany, but sometimes Israelis scare me. Like the colonists claiming Palestinian land as their own, essentially searching for 'lebensraum'. Israel's intention to gradually annex Palestinian land through fence building or conditional unilateral withdrawal, slightly reminiscent of the Sudeten crisis. It's intervention in Lebanon, just like the Spanish Civil War. And the bad treatment often in regard to Palestinians makes me wonder if Israel forgot how Jews got treated in Germany, even inside their own ghettos.

That's not to say Israel is irredeemable evil. Lately I've seen some encouraging developments. Like the withdrawal from Gaza and the possible withdrawals promised elsewhere. To see the weary population vote a less hawkish government in power. The relative peace that has lasted, which I fear will be interupted now that Israel killed another Hamas figurehead and PLO security minister. But overal things seem more balanced right now, which I hope is not going to tilt back again. I'm actually losing sympathy for Palestinians, mostly because of the Hamas government. I believe right now the Palestinians don't have as much of a say in the peace process since they voted a hard-line government of their own in place. But if things don't swing out of control again they should eventually agree neither of them can win by the sword.

And while this was an extremely well writen post, I knew if I looked hard enough I'd find rants about Jewish Nazis and 'lebensraum.' You people seriously lack perspective and seem perfectly willing to ignore all the times Israelis have been perfectly silent and simply taken the terrorism despite attempts for peace.

You've accused Israel of purposely slaughtering, abusing, terrorizing, and exploiting innocent Palestinians.
Those are all fairly loaded words, and I don't think it's too much to accuse you of using obnoxious hyperbole. Unless building a wall, increasing security, and selectively bombing targets (that have been warned several hours ahead of time if they contain civilians) to protect your own citizens is now comparable to war crimes and “murdering.”

Alrightly then.

"Selectively bombing targets" cause civilian damage. They get no warning. Even the "targeted assassinations" result in bystanders or neighbours being killed.

Terrorising is a term that can be applied to both sides. As both sides live in fear of the other.

Building a wall that splits farms off from their owners with no compensation, and extends beyond the recognised borders (and deemed illegal by international law), would also be considered a negative. It has not yet been proven that the wall has increased security.

Stop exaggerating and cherry picking your points as you have done throughout this thread.

Alrightly then.

"Selectively bombing targets" cause civilian damage. They get no warning. Even the "targeted assassinations" result in bystanders or neighbours being killed.

Terrorising is a term that can be applied to both sides. As both sides live in fear of the other.

Building a wall that splits farms off from their owners with no compensation, and extends beyond the recognised borders (and deemed illegal by international law), would also be considered a negative. It has not yet been proven that the wall has increased security.

Stop exaggerating and cherry picking your points as you have done throughout this thread.

You're right; my apologies.

I still stand by the fact that the Israelis are better as a people due to their progressive beliefs. The very fact that Muslim extremist ideals are diametrically opposed to those of liberal-libertarian is what so irks me about the latter's defense of the former and blind criticism of Israel.

You're right; my apologies.

I still stand by the fact that the Israelis are better as a people due to their progressive beliefs. The very fact that Muslim extremist ideals are diametrically opposed to those of liberal-libertarian is what so irks me about the latter's defense of the former and blind criticism of Israel.

Maybe so, but you hark on about the impact and influence of the Muslim extremists too much.

You seem to miss completely the fact that some of the most important Palestinian terrorist groups, the PFLP and later the split into the DFLP were founded by Christian Palestinians/Arabs (Dr. George Habash with Dr. Wadi Haddad) and were decidely not Muslim groups. Most Palestinians groups (Hamas being the main exception) have been in fact Marxist orientated- not driven by religion.

Hamas is the exception, yet they have support not because of their religious stance, but because of their grass roots social work they have done for the poor.

[QUOTE=Saipea]So basically I'm ignorant and Israel has always been evil and money grabbing.
Let's just forget all of the peace accords that they've tried to make.

QUOTE]

I've never said Israel has always been bad, but that the creation of Israel in Palestine was a mistake, made by an anglosaxon empire who thought that could create a country to be their keeper in the area, already strategical. By the way it reminds me something, doesn't it?

And, Israel has never sincerely tried to make peace, they want to force peace, taking main parts of Palestine as the subterranean water supplies and Jerusalem, what is not a minor part of an agreement for both fields.

And while this was an extremely well writen post, I knew if I looked hard enough I'd find rants about Jewish Nazis and 'lebensraum.' You people seriously lack perspective and seem perfectly willing to ignore all the times Israelis have been perfectly silent and simply taken the terrorism despite attempts for peace.

I'm not saying that because I like it. But because it's my opinion and what I percieve. Israeli rightists draw particular attention towards themselves and are incredibly vicious. They accuse anyone with a different opinion of being nazis, excuse all their mistakes by pointing at others and think they can't do anything wrong because 'god is with them'. Such people are always dangerous in any form whether they are Israelis, Arabs or Germans. At their worst they fortunately never survive very long in politics since they tend to accuse and throw around the term 'anti-semitic' a lot. What is unfair, demeaning, and says more about their own maturity than their opponent's ideals. These people exist in Israel and I worry about that. They're nothing better than the Nazis or terrorist organizations.

I don't feel you can say I lack perspective. This is what I see, and what I think about it. If it's not what all Israelis are like, fine. I don't say such excessive nationalists are the norm. The fact they voted for a more moderate party proves not all Israelis are like that. And their approach to conflicts isn't always heavy handed. I could open up a whole book on what Arabs did wrong, and are doing today, but right now I don't need to discuss their problem. What troubles me about Israelis is that they have also comitted their share of aggression in the conflict. My sympathies might be with one side or the other in the short term but I'd rather see them both come to their senses. The presence of extremists on the Israeli side and their influence bothers me as much as the Palestinian's side.

And if somebody goes off the handle saying my points can't be correct and that I'm some secretive anti-semitist, spare me! That trick is old, and I hate such low unproven accusations.

Why? Are you incapable of making your own point? (It is rapidly appearing that way. You are incapable of responding to any post with anything that resembles logic.)


Why is it needed?
It said it all, didn't it?

I think it sucks. Call me a critic, but what's with all the sand? Get some grass, seriously...

Why is it needed?
It said it all, didn't it?

You do realise that if somebody criticises Israel, they do not automatically support the Arab countrys, right?

You do realise that if somebody criticises Israel, they do not automatically support the Arab countrys, right?

Sure. :)
But people who do so in that way tend to make it very very clear what side they are on.

Sure. :)
But people who do so in that way tend to make it very very clear what side they are on.

Or, possibly, they haven't taken a side. Like myself, who regards both countries as as bad as each other.

Saipea, everything you write so far has smacked of racisim and blind hate for "The Arabs". You havn't actually disproven anything brought forth, or proven any of your points. Furthermore, you go directly against known facts and claim that Israel was attacked by its neighbors repeatedly, ignoring the fact that after the 1948 War of Independence, where Israel and those it fought with signed a treaty to seal the end of hostilities, all further wars were direct results of Israeli action, including being started by Israel.You seem to equate Aram with Muslim, you seem to automatically believe the most extreem minded person is the representation of all people (Blatant stereotyping), and you make generalised comments that have no basis in any fact.
You're either incredibly racist, or your TV is broken and the only channel you get is Fox news. Either option I feel sorry for you.

I'm going to ignore your allusion to Nazism (though it is indicative of the sort of ridiculous attacks and insults people throw at Israel) and simply ask you how a well-intentioned person deals with ideologues who would gladly see the brains of you and your children splattered on the wall before you could say a "how-do-you-do." I don't know how to address the 90% who aren't like that besides pointing out that they could have tried a lot harder to discourage that sort of behavior for the past, oh, I don't know, century. The U.S. was willing to have a civil war to stop social injustice and as a preventative against negative political-economic effects; so could have the Palestinians if they truly were/are non-complicit.

You could have tried alot harder to stop Columbine.
You could have tried alot harder to stop Vietnam.
You could have tried alot harder to stop th Oklahoma City bombing.
You could have tried alot harder to stop "manifest destiny".
You could have tried alot harder to stop the rape and slaughter of native Americans.
You could have tried alot harder to stop the internment of American citizens.
You could have tried alot harder to stop the implacement of numerous dictators installed by the US government simply because they were "freindly" with the US, but who in the end have gained more human rights violations individually then Israel.
Shal I go on?
The argument "They could have done..." is flawed, about as flawed as you can get. Allit takes is one moron with a bomb to make anyone who doesn't care for facts to jump to and blame everyone. It only takes one soldier with an itchy trigger finger to start a war.

I'm well aware of these facts, and thanks for the ad hominem. Jordan has been relatively rational about the situation, though it might be that they're too busy with infighting with Syria to focus so much on the issue. As for Egypt, the signing didn't mean tolerance, they just realized they were out-muscled. And I don't think there are any mainstream American newspapers still claiming that Jews have blood libels. Nor are there top officials with beliefs that harsh either.

Funny, imediatly after the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, they began cooperating in buisness and had quite a bit of Trade.
In fact, Egypt and Israel have joint military exercises with the US quite often. Hardly sounds like they hate eachother.

I see it as a black family being asked by an apartment landlord to take the room of a recently evicted unruly and unproductive white family. Unfortunately, the rest of the apartment is comprised of racist white families, and the new family constantly finds themselves under siege from the first day. As punishment for one attack, the landlord and black family decides it would be a good lesson if the garden was given fully to the black family. The racist family continues to harass them, unwilling to mend their ways or change their backward mindsets. Some of the racist families have normal and nice kids, though. Unfortunately, while the kids would like to play in the garden with the black family, the black family (as well as the racist members of the white families) can't let that happen, the former for their own safety and the preservation of the garden, the latter due to their intolerance and blindness.
I guess I prefer the black family to the other unruly tenants.

Would make an ammusing reality TV show for sure. Unfortunatly you miss the part about this black family attacking their neighbors outright on several ocasions, despite a peace agreement. You miss that the black parents abuse their children. And you happily miss that the cops routinely take the side of the black family even if they are the ones who are doing the crimes.
But of course that's your Black-White, racist, analogy.

No, it's because the Germans perceived that the Treaty of Versailles was a means of humiliation and also saw the Jews as a means of scapegoating for a natural depression in the economy. There was nothing remotely "humiliating" or oppressive about the Treaty of Versailles. The Germans fucked up and they needed a time-out. Simple as that. But maybe you'd call all punitive treaties "humiliating" and "instigating" instead of amelioratory.

Newsflah, if you percieve you are being humiliated, you are being humiliated. That's how it works.
Thus, the Germans felt humiliated by Versailles, they were humiliated by it.
You don;t seem as well versed in history as you should be. Especially considering that in the treaty of Versailles the US, who didn;t do that much in the war yet insisted on the major part of the treaty, pushed for the treaty to, in words, blame Germany for the entire war, and force Germany to pay repairations to all people possibly effected by the war for as long as they live. Let's bring in another of my personal analogies for you to understand.
My little brother beats up your little brother, you jump in to defend him, and while you do me and my buddies jump in and beat you up. The cops come by, my freinds and I press charges, and you're left with a jail sentence and paying an absurd fine. That would be the treaty of Versailles in a nut shell.

I won't bother with a rebuttal because you've already acknowledged my point: their beliefs are off the scale in terms of social-political conservatism.
You're doing it again. Presuming the small number of idiots are the majority, and lumping all things you don;t know anything about into one basket and calling it something you don't like.

I wasn't talking about fighting (or rather, invading) for misguided political-economic ideologies, nor was I talking about or lauding fighting with the risk of innocent casualties of that magnitude. I was talking about fighting for basic human rights and liberties with minimal casualties. On the other hand, there are never "minimal casualties" in battles, whether the reason is "valid" or not, so the point isn't of much import.
You sort of contradict yourself there.
You're not talking about fightng, yet the entire history this topic revolves around is fighting. You're not talking about the loss of human life of any magnitude... yet you're talking about the fighting for basic human rights with minimum civillian loss of life.

Since no rational person could call those countries "better", no. But they do portray them with less "blood" on their hands than Israel (or the U.S.) for that matter.
You imediatly assume to be the expert on rationality?
Where' your PHD, where's the criteria you use to measure rationality?
Or do you just use that as a statement to make your argument look better because anyone who argues with you just has to me irrational.

In any event, it just bothered me that people can overlook all the human rights/liberties failings of the regions just to make a hyperbolic complaint about Israel (and the U.S.'s) semi-vigilante foreign policy attitudes… I suppose it was one of those ridiculous irrational comments that were the catalyst for the thread.
You're overlooking Israel's many, many human rights violations simply to make your Arab-Bash.
And, with further research, I have yet to find anywhere near the human rights violations of Israel's neighbors that Israel has. Barring of course the beloved Syria, which I believe we've come to an agreement sucks.

So basically I'm ignorant and Israel has always been evil and money grabbing.
Let's just forget all of the peace accords that they've tried to make.
Start listing those peace accords. Because I'm reading things that are saying the only reason Israel is ever at peace is because their neighbors decided to push for it.

1. Israel gets less than $500 mil in aid. It will get nothing in foreign aid by 2010. That's far less than 1/8 of foreign aid. I personally feel that foreign aid should be distributed evenly throughout the Middle East (although I certainly wouldn't want anyone besides Israel to have nuclear power.)
According to a Jewish-American, Pro-Israeli independence, website. Israel right now gets roughly %2.5 billion US, this year. Look it up. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) Or provide a link proving that they're only getting half a billion.

2. The fact that Israel shouldn't have been given to the Israelis is not Israel's fault. It could also be argued that the people who previously owned the land weren't doing anything productive, nor would have if they were given the next 3 centuries to mess around on it (without further involvement from the West which they so abhor.)
Nope, it's not their fault. It's the Brit's fault.
The bolded part is the ignorant part of your paragraph. You A) forget that the people living there were using it very well to the abilities they could with their economy controlled by European colonists. You know, the same way most African countries did so well despite being forced into poverty by their colonial masters. Same with India/Pakistan... and same with the Israel-Palestine thing now.
You also forget that the only productivity in terms of say, food, to come from Israel comes from land illegally taken (As in against international law), and then irrgated to the point of an ecological disaster with help from billions of dollars of aid. Someone with a backhoe can definatly dig a hole faster then someone with a plastic shovel, especially if he's not paying for the backhoe.

3. Israel hasn't routinely invaded its neighbors; quite the opposite, they routinely invade them, all at once, lose miserably, and pay the consequences. I suppose that land procured during a battle must be returned under international law, but I personally disagree with that rule: if someone fucks with you and tries to attack you, you should be able to take any land that you win from an ensuing war (as was general practice from the 19th century back to the beginning of time.)
Actually the seizure of land from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt in the War of Independence was perfectly legal, except that in the ending treaty Israel agreed to return that land, then went back on that treaty, which is illegal. What was also illegal was the seizure of land through several illegal wars started by Israel invading it's neighbors. You blatantly ignore the fact that Israel started several of the wars. Started, not defended, they attacked.

4. Israel shouldn't have to risk having its civilians routinely being killed by people who blindly hate for the sake of the complicit (in their inaction) fellow countrymen of extremists. You can't just spout random crap about how the Israelis should open their gates and embrace the various countries that have tried to destroy them from day one and will continue to attempt to do so until they (the neighbors) intellectually develop past the 16th century.
Ignoring the obvious racisim in this comment.
Israel didn't have to worry about it's people getting killed until after it began moving its people into the lands legally owned by the Palestinians. Think of it this way, someone comes on your lan and begins to build a house, so you say, shoot them but not fatally. They turn around and bomb your house. You've just experianced what the Palestinians experianced when Israel started expanding.
And another newsflash, many Palestinians like Israel and the Israelies, and vice versa. What they don;t like is being shot at for walking to markets, haveing their houses demolished for nothing, and having artillery and rockets fired at their towns every other week just for being there.

I'm sorry, I'm not for decapitating gays, amputating women for painting their nails, burning rape victims, and stoning dissenters.
Oh wait, not even Christians did that back then.
Yea, the Christians just drew and quarterd them, or burned the women at the stake, alive.
Of course, I'd love to see sources on the "decapitating gays, amputating women for painting their nails, burning rape victims, and stoning dissenters" part. As I'm aware it happens in Africa, and I hear stories from Iran and Syria. Or have you mixed Afganistan in to the area as well completely forgetting that it's not there, or Arab?

They've both broken human rights violations: one for gassing millions of people; the other for dislocation millions of people. On the other hand, one of the two countries doesn't have a history of engaging in any of the practices listed in my previous post.
Actually, Iraq gassed at best, thousands of people. The only groups to gas "millions" of people so far are the Germans, British, and Nazis.
And of course, if you knew anything about Iraq, you would have noticed that it's a rather secular state, not run on any interpretation of Sharia law. Women are free to wear what they lke, and work. Gays wern't beheded, simply thrown in jail if anything at all. Well, that was before the US invaded, nopw who knows what will happen.

That completely wrong, and that certainly wasn't my point to begin with (if you're attempting to lampoon it.) They both have mucked things up, but my argument is that Israel is less guilty, not only in terms of human rights issues (e.g. treating your citizens properly) but foreign policy issues as well.
So the man who beats his wife for 20 years is less guilty then the wife who murders her husband for beating her for 20 years?
You can;t be more or less guilty. You are guilty or you are innocent.

Hamas is recognized world-wide as a terrorist organization. They're very open about the fact that they would like nothing more than to decimate the entire Israeli and Jewish population. I wonder why most of the world doesn't support that, nor sees that as evidence that the Palestinians have remotely matured.
Which is why Hamass has decided to go to the peace table and talk it out with Israel now?
Yep, kill them with a bomb at the peace table. How Romel-esque.

They had an opportunity to show that they were mature and rational people. Instead they've only proven what their social environment proves: they're still as backward and distrustful of progressive ideals as always.
And if there were Palestinians who supported altruistic and liberal social ideals, maybe they should do something about their fellow countrymen before expecting another country, whose primary responsibility is its own protection, to give them their umpteenth chance for being peaceful neighbors.
So while I absolutely empathize with the unfortunate situation of the Palestinians, I'm disgusted by the culture they've created for themselves and the way they themselves have set about to deal with the situation.
...I suppose I should say that their foreign policies both suck, and ignore the fact that for decades one has had a death wish for the other. That doesn't detract from the deplorable social standards one of the two groups has.
You ignore the fact that the Israelis forced the Palestinians into poverty, then refused to let them try and come out of it. You ignore the fact that the Palestinians have very few options any more, and they chose the one they thought ould get stuff done, the one that actually does things.
You ignore the fact that these decadeds of Palestinian strife were directly caused by illegal Israeli expansion.
And then you go on to presume you know anything of Palestinian culture. The culture rich in rt, science, music, and food, which was nearly destroyed by Israeli expansion into the legal Palestinian land.

You've accused Israel of purposely slaughtering, abusing, terrorizing, and exploiting innocent Palestinians.
Those are all fairly loaded words, and I don't think it's too much to accuse you of using obnoxious hyperbole. Unless building a wall, increasing security, and selectively bombing targets (that have been warned several hours ahead of time if they contain civilians) to protect your own citizens is now comparable to war crimes and “murdering.”
Except several things.
A) That wall, cuts the Palestinian economy off from the only thing Israel (through military threats) will allow them to trade with, that being Israel.
B) Israel sends artillerty rounds and mortar rounds, rockets, missiles, and soldiers and tanks into the Palestinian territories and has been known to open fire on Palestinians who try to get together for anything, including weddings, markets, and social events.
C) If those citizens hadn;t moved into Palestinian land, and forced the Palestinians out at gun point in the first place, they wouldn't have to be protected from attacks because those Palestinians would have no reason to attack them.

And while this was an extremely well writen post, I knew if I looked hard enough I'd find rants about Jewish Nazis and 'lebensraum.' You people seriously lack perspective and seem perfectly willing to ignore all the times Israelis have been perfectly silent and simply taken the terrorism despite attempts for peace.
You continue to jump with "you people lack perspective", without any reasoning behind it. I suggest that it is you who lack perspective, since you don't seem to understand anything about the Palestinians, anything about the Arab world, or are able to seperate the Arab people with the Muslim religion.
But let's move on to the topic. Since what Israel is doing is exactly like the "living space" policy of the Nazis. Push the legal owners out and settle the area. It's not even surprising, learn from those who hurt you the most. The Nazis nearly wiped them off the planet, you'd think that those European Zionistic Jews (The really racist ones, not like the average Israeli, who are actually decent people) who escaped the Nazis might be a little pissed, and might turn their anger onto their new home, adopting some of the policies of their former enemies.

[quote=Saipea]I still stand by the fact that the Israelis are better as a people due to their progressive beliefs. The very fact that Muslim extremist ideals are diametrically opposed to those of liberal-libertarian is what so irks me about the latter's defense of the former and blind criticism of Israel.[/quoe]
I'd like to see your proof that:
A) Israel has "progressive, liberal beliefs". Despite it's rather conservative government.
B) That it's neighbors are not progressive, liberal, or sane, but rather all Arabs are Muslim extreemists like you keep claiming.

Saipea, I have a suggestion for you.
Go to the area. Visit Palestine, Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Visit Syria too if you like. You might learn how ignorant some of the things you've said here are, and how racist you've been so far. You might notice that women can dress how they like in those countries, you might notice that these people are very pro western, especially since their governments (Even Syria) have very well designed tourist industries that are packed full of western tourists.
You might actually learn something from the people there.

Or, possibly, they haven't taken a side. Like myself, who regards both countries as as bad as each other.


That possibility does indeed exist.

But folks like that ( including yourself ) won't be saying a lot in a poll with only 2 options.

That possibility does indeed exist.

But folks like that ( including yourself ) won't be saying a lot in a poll with only 2 options.

Yeah. That poll isn't exactly useful...

Yeah. That poll isn't exactly useful...


They could have included myrth.

I've never seen a poll with a myrth option without me voting for myrth.

Myrth's good - plain and simple.

in all actuality many liberals from what ive seen in politics do dislike Isreal over the Arabs. But those that want Isreal destroyed are those on the insanely far right that come up with the craziest Theories and Conspiracies like the jews own the world (ZOG-zionist occupational government) or that the jews were made from sand and water by the devil (these are the same racialist christians that say the blacks were made from the devil by mud and that the twelve tribes saved in Revelations are the White Germanic Tribes). So The mainstream people that dont like Israel are liberals from my observation of people i have meet.

Here is another theory that i found on Wikipedia under Christian Identity....

Interpreting the Book of Genesis, some Pre-Adamite Christian Identity followers assert that Adam and Eve were preceded by other, lesser races, identified as "the beasts of the field" (Gen. 1:25). Eve was seduced by the snake (Satan) and gave birth to two seed lines: Cain, the direct descendant of Satan and Eve, and Abel, who was of good Aryan stock through Adam. Cain then became the progenitor of the Jews in his subsequent matings with the non-Adamic races.

I'd really appreciate it if those of you who picked option 2 would explain your viewpoint, 'cause the rest of us liberals (and non-liberals) would like to see your logic.

Israel manages to terrorize its muslim neighbors, throw rocks, at them, starve them, kill them...They commit just as many atrocities as the Palestinians who retalliate. If you ask me, the reason the middle east is so pissed is because of Israel. Israel also refuses to sign the NPT, and has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the middle east combined. Why they are our ally I do not know.

Israel manages to terrorize its muslim neighbors, throw rocks, at them, starve them, kill them...They commit just as many atrocities as the Palestinians who retalliate. If you ask me, the reason the middle east is so pissed is because of Israel. Israel also refuses to sign the NPT, and has more weapons of mass destruction than the rest of the middle east combined. Why they are our ally I do not know.

Throw rocks? Eh?

No, the reason the Middle East is pissed is because Britain drew a bunch of arbitrary lines delineating "countries". They didn't just draw Israel on the map - they drew everything else.

Then they said, "your family is in charge of this place and not another".

And then the West got the oil.

The people who benefited from the oil wealth in those nations were the high and mighty, not the common people. So there's some resentment there.

Additionally, most of those nations are dictatorships (except Israel), and spend a lot of money on weapons, which further impoverishes people. A lot of their men are in the military, which hurts productivity. Their education systems are dominated by Islamic clerical policies, which stifles any ability to learn modern technology.

Is it any surprise that all the Arab nations combined publish fewer scientific papers than Greece? That if you exclude their oil wealth, they are incredibly impoverished? Is their impoverishment Israel's fault?

Or do they need a scapegoat to blame for their own backwardness and intentional ignorance?

And of course, saying it's one nation's fault is a lot easier for you to swallow than saying it's a lot of Arab nations' fault for screwing themselves.

"Children are dying, but no one makes a move. Houses are demolished, but no one makes a move. Holy places are desecrated, but no one makes a move.... I am fed up with life in the world of mortals. Find me a hole near you. For a life of dignity is in those holes." Poem written by the Saudi Arabian ambassador to London, addressed to a dead Syrian poet, and published by Al-Hayat, a leading Arabic newspaper.

"Even small children know that Israel is nothing without America. And here America means F-16, M-16, Apache helicopters, the tools Israelis use to kill us and destroy our homes." Sheikh Abdul Majeed Atta. Hamas member.

"When you deny justice to people, which you have been doing for several decades in Palestine, and they are intelligent, sensitive people, they are going to find something to do. They might take shelter in Islam, in fatalism, and some will come to despise you." Air Commodore Haider, Pakistani Air Force.

"If violence escalates, you bring seeds and water for terrorism. You kill someone's brother or mother, and you will just get more crazy people." Jamal al-Adimi, a Yemeni lawyer.

In the Middle East, the Israeli - PLO conflict is fueling much of the anger, instability, unrest, distrust, hostility, and feelings of victimization in the region. The U.S. is seen as favoring and supporting Israel. They have given over three billion dollars a year in military and economic aid to Israel. The lack of a peace settlement, the continuing expansion of Jewish settlements in occupied lands, the status of the Dome of the Rock at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem -- the third most sacred spot in Islam -- and the status of the Muslim section in East Jerusalem are major flash points. 5 On 2001-SEP-28, the Infatada (uprising) by the Palestinians against Israel passed its first yearly anniversary. It has resulted in the deaths "of 647 people on the Palestinian side, 177 on the Israeli side," and the wounding of many thousands. 8 "Over the past year, Arab TV stations have broadcast countless pictures of Israeli soldiers shooting at Palestinian youths, Israeli tanks plowing into Palestinian homes, Israeli helicopters rocketing Palestinian streets." 7 Rafiq Hariri, the prime minister of Lebanon commented: "You see this every day, and what do you feel? It hurts me a lot. But for hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims, it drives them crazy. They feel humiliated." The ratio of Palestinian to Israeli deaths has been relatively constant at 3 to 1 ever since.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself "its not Israel's fault"

Yeah, you keep telling yourself "its not Israel's fault"
It's not Israel's fault the Arab nations are ignorant.
It's not Israel's fault the Arab nations are screwed out of their oil by the West (and that includes Europe).
It's not Israel's fault the Arab nations are all dictatorships (except Iraq).
It's not Israel's fault the leaders of the Arab nations loot their own people (including the leaders of the Palestinians).
It's not Israel's fault the Arab nations, with the exception of the oil wealth, are incredibly impoverished economically and technologically.

The poll is a farily crude way of allowing people to show their opinions with only two basic choices. Especially since the second option is made out to be "stupid".

Its far too complicated a situation to simply describe as either of the two above choices, but i voted against Israel because i think in general they are the ones with more to blame and are the agressors. The crimes they have commited against the Palestians are more than the ones the Palestinians have inflcited back.

The Israelis are the ones that have occupied another soverign nation's lands and forced large sections of Arab populations from their homes.

And have any of you actually lived in the Middle East? Its not ignorant and backward EVERYWHERE.

It's not Israel's fault the Arab nations, with the exception of the oil wealth, are incredibly impoverished economically and technologically.

The West owes a great debt to Islam, because learning flourished in Muslim countries at a time when the Church in the west severely limited scientific and other research. The Arab world used to be the most literate part of the planet. So youre right, THATS not Israels fault.

The West owes a great debt to Islam, because learning flourished in Muslim countries at a time when the Church in the west severely limited scientific and other research. The Arab world used to be the most literate part of the planet. So youre right, THATS not Israels fault.
And then they started, intentionally, a long slide into incredible ignorance. That's not Israel's fault, either.

The West owes a great debt to Islam, because learning flourished in Muslim countries at a time when the Church in the west severely limited scientific and other research. The Arab world used to be the most literate part of the planet. So youre right, THATS not Israels fault.


Yup, it ain't Israel's fault that the Nations of Islam have gone from Top Dog to pathetic oblivion.

See this is kinda the stuff that makes it hard for me to sympathise with the actions of the IDF.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5065008.stm

Palestinians killed on Gaza beach

Six people, including children, have been killed by Israeli shells which hit a beach in the northern Gaza Strip, Palestinian hospital officials say.
They say at least 25 people were wounded in the shelling.

The Israeli military says it is looking into the reports but has confirmed that the navy had been launching shells from the sea into northern Gaza....

The first television pictures from the beach in the northern Gaza revealed a terrible scene, the BBC's Alan Johnston says.

At least four figures lay unconscious on the ground, possibly dead, our correspondent says. One of victims is a middle-aged woman, another is a child......


It is not yet clear exactly what happened.

I wasn't talking about fighting (or rather, invading) for misguided political-economic ideologies, nor was I talking about or lauding fighting with the risk of innocent casualties of that magnitude. I was talking about fighting for basic human rights and liberties with minimal casualties. On the other hand, there are never "minimal casualties" in battles, whether the reason is "valid" or not, so the point isn't of much import.

For the removal of the reforming government in Guetamala in the 1950's to support of the Shah, its never ever been about "basic human rights and liberties" nor have they given a flying fuck about casualties. These are the same people that for a long time supported Pol Pot, remember.


Since no rational person could call those countries "better", no. But they do portray them with less "blood" on their hands than Israel (or the U.S.) for that matter..

Again, not to my knowledge. I wouldnt say it doesnt happen but I can't recall anyone from the West making such a comment.


if you want. It's not my concern, and it really doesn't bother me much beyond the point that people are being hypocrites by solely decrying the human rights crimes of Israel (or claiming that their actions are worse.)..

The problem is that the US and Israel are held up as paragons of virtue, which they arent. And what Israel has done on occassion is every bit as brutal as the actvities of the Syrians etc. Yet where do we have some one telling us that we should respect Syria for being (insert your own reason here)?


It could also be argued that the people who previously owned the land weren't doing anything productive, nor would have if they were given the next 3 centuries to mess around on it (without further involvement from the West which they so abhor.).)..

It could be argued but it would be dead before it hit the ground.


suppose that land procured during a battle must be returned under international law, but I personally disagree with that rule:.).)..

Luckily that view isnt very popular, otherwise somebody would have said "Fuck the Poles" in 1939 and that would have been that.


I'm sorry, I'm not for decapitating gays, amputating women for painting their nails, burning rape victims, and stoning dissenters.
Oh wait, not even Christians did that back then.:.).)..

In around the 1700's....I'd imagine you'd get enough mutilation and killing to keep you reasonably appalled.


They both have mucked things up, but my argument is that Israel is less guilty, not only in terms of human rights issues (e.g. treating your citizens properly) but foreign policy issues as well..:.).)..

Its forigen policy since 1967 has been a counter-productive disaster.


You've accused Israel of purposely slaughtering, abusing, terrorizing, and exploiting innocent Palestinians.
Those are all fairly loaded words,....

So was "troglodytes" and the tirade about stonings, burnings and so on.

I still stand by the fact that the Israelis are better as a people due to their progressive beliefs.,....

Which are undermined by the occupation. It brutalises both parties.

Jewish groups killed British servicemen and civilians, Arabs, thier own people and a UN envoy all in thier struggle for a homeland. Fact.

Palestinian groups kill Israeli servicemen and civilians and thier own people all in the struggle for a homeland. Fact.

A pox on both thier houses till they put the guns down and start PROPER talks aimed at solving a problem that has spilled over to affect the whole world.

I didn´t vote in your poll because neither choice was viable.

Hey, I'm a liberal and I love Israel. It is the only middle-eastern nation which doesn't kill homosexuals and actually allows same-sex marriage. They even have Palestinians and Bedouin trackers of the Israeli Army, part of the Israeli Defense Forces. Frankly, there are quite alot of liberals who love Israel and quite alot of conservative who hate Israel.

Rock on Israel!:)

Throw rocks? Eh?

No, the reason the Middle East is pissed is because Britain drew a bunch of arbitrary lines delineating "countries". They didn't just draw Israel on the map - they drew everything else.

Then they said, "your family is in charge of this place and not another".

And then the West got the oil.

The people who benefited from the oil wealth in those nations were the high and mighty, not the common people. So there's some resentment there.

Additionally, most of those nations are dictatorships (except Israel), and spend a lot of money on weapons, which further impoverishes people. A lot of their men are in the military, which hurts productivity. Their education systems are dominated by Islamic clerical policies, which stifles any ability to learn modern technology.

Is it any surprise that all the Arab nations combined publish fewer scientific papers than Greece? That if you exclude their oil wealth, they are incredibly impoverished? Is their impoverishment Israel's fault?

Or do they need a scapegoat to blame for their own backwardness and intentional ignorance?

And of course, saying it's one nation's fault is a lot easier for you to swallow than saying it's a lot of Arab nations' fault for screwing themselves.


Psst, wanna know some facts?

Jordan - Constitutional Monarchy (Like the UK, Canada, Australia, and so on, not Dictatorship). Very secular education system that is open to all.

Egypt - Secular Republic (Like the US). Again fairly secular education system that is open to all.

Lebanon - Secular Republic, again. A fair ammount of Lebonese Christians in the area too. What it's government is suffering as a direct result of Israeli invasion though, although Israel is for once trying to help rebuild.

Syria - One Party Republic. Wow, the only one you can claim as a dictatorship.

Want me to bring up the military budgets of these nations? Israel will beat them all hands down, total numbers and percentage of GDP.

As for the Islamic clerics making them technologically backwards. Consider this, Iran in the past decade has imported large ammounts of computers and databases and built a strong internet presence primaily on the instance of these fundamentalist Islamic clerics who worked quite hard to get Iran on the web.

Well... it doesn't matter what type of countries Arab nations are or what kind of country Israeli is, the fact of the matter is that Israel has done far worse damage to Palestinian peoples than Palestinians harming Israel. Do some research, the statistics are true. Israel has broken way more UN treaties and protocols than Iraq, and unlike Iraq... Israel actually has weapons of mass destruction. The media just tends not to show the Palestinian side of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1) Israel is neither evil nor a saint.
2) if there is a fight it is on both sides to try to resolve it in a sensible manner - neither Israel not the Palestinians are doing a good job of this - but I can also understand why..
A) The extremists on both sides undercut the trust of the moderates on the other side and deny the moderates on their side the ability to offer peace.
B) Foreign "interested parties" keep paying large amounts of money to each side.

I am getting a little frustrated by israel and the US using such inferior strategies despite the fact I think in a sense they have a higher moral ground in terms of generally having more progressive social structures than the arab states.

This thread took off extremely fast!

Psst, wanna know some facts?

Jordan - Constitutional Monarchy (Like the US, Canada, Australia, and so on, not Dictatorship). Very secular education system that is open to all.

We have a Monarchy? All hail King President Bush!

We have a Monarchy? All hail King President Bush!

I meant the UK, I type too fast for my own good sometimes.

The West owes a great debt to Islam, because learning flourished in Muslim countries at a time when the Church in the west severely limited scientific and other research. The Arab world used to be the most literate part of the planet. So youre right, THATS not Israels fault.

You're right, and I have great respect for that time. But the key phrase is "used to be."

Meanwhile, between the time you read this post and my next post, I'll be trying to recant some of my previous arguments and back-pedal to a more central point of view. Nonetheless, my utter disgust and contempt for the seemingly complete reversal of what was once a great culture will be apparent in my posts and until I'm fully convinced otherwise.

They are a liability. In fact, the US should directly oppose Israel’s regime. Would get the terrorists off us right quick.


Right, more or less you are saying we should betray a friend to save our own ass? Whatever happened to standing up against those that want to destroy us or our allies?

A small minority of "liberals" (leftists and some on the extreme right, to be more accurate) see Israel as guilty by association with us. Israel is a U.S. ally, whereas the palestinians aren't.

I dont see Israel as guilty by association. they are guilty all by themselves. They stole half of palestine to start their country, murdered the security forces we sent to help them, and then invaded what remained of palestine and occupy it still, killing women and children and settling land they know damn well isnt theirs, and calling the palestinians who try to defend their country terrorists.

Why should Israel even exist? It has no right to that land.

Fine, if they want the Zionists can have a small strip of land, but Jerusalem belongs to the Palestinians.

This is my third time attempting to rebut this without NS Forums or a word document fucking things up. It's now been about 5 hours I've wasted trying to respond to something that will probably get thrown back in my face. So please be content with some simple responses.

Saipea, everything you write so far has smacked of racisim and blind hate for "The Arabs". You havn't actually disproven anything brought forth, or proven any of your points. Furthermore, you go directly against known facts and claim that Israel was attacked by its neighbors repeatedly, ignoring the fact that after the 1948 War of Independence, where Israel and those it fought with signed a treaty to seal the end of hostilities, all further wars were direct results of Israeli action, including being started by Israel.You seem to equate Aram with Muslim, you seem to automatically believe the most extreem minded person is the representation of all people (Blatant stereotyping), and you make generalised comments that have no basis in any fact.
You're either incredibly racist, or your TV is broken and the only channel you get is Fox news. Either option I feel sorry for you.

First and for most, I am neither racist nor discriminatory about my sources. I might oversimplify things at times, I might generalize, I might be myopic when taking in all of my information, but I’m not a bigot (at least about ethnicity.) I will not address the multitude of accusation of racism or bigotry in any of your remaining comments.

Also, to say that I haven’t proven any of my points or rebutted any of yours isn’t exactly fair. I might not have convinced you of anything, but I’d like to think that I have said something in all these pages with substantive value.


You could have tried alot harder to stop Columbine.
You could have tried alot harder to stop Vietnam.
You could have tried alot harder to stop th Oklahoma City bombing.
You could have tried alot harder to stop "manifest destiny".
You could have tried alot harder to stop the rape and slaughter of native Americans.
You could have tried alot harder to stop the internment of American citizens.
You could have tried alot harder to stop the implacement of numerous dictators installed by the US government simply because they were "freindly" with the US, but who in the end have gained more human rights violations individually then Israel.
Shal I go on?
The argument "They could have done..." is flawed, about as flawed as you can get. Allit takes is one moron with a bomb to make anyone who doesn't care for facts to jump to and blame everyone. It only takes one soldier with an itchy trigger finger to start a war.

This isn’t as straightforward as you allege; it’s a philosophical can of worms. Not to invoke Godwin’s Law (as if we haven’t already), but if people hold no responsibility for the actions of those around them, why do we critique the Germans who were around during the Nazi era? Also, don’t think I haven’t considered protesting or even militaristically subverting the Bush administration.



Funny, imediatly after the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, they began cooperating in buisness and had quite a bit of Trade.
In fact, Egypt and Israel have joint military exercises with the US quite often. Hardly sounds like they hate eachother.

Just because they pretend to be nice to each other doesn’t mean that’s how they feel. The Egyptian media is extremely open about its dislike of Western countries, Israel, and Jews.


Would make an ammusing reality TV show for sure. Unfortunatly you miss the part about this black family attacking their neighbors outright on several ocasions, despite a peace agreement. You miss that the black parents abuse their children. And you happily miss that the cops routinely take the side of the black family even if they are the ones who are doing the crimes.
But of course that's your Black-White, racist, analogy.

The elements you’ve injected are the elements which we disagree on – not on their validity, but on their spin and justification. Pun or not, I think it’s ironic that you feel I’m the only one who’s guilty of treating the issue “black and white.”


Newsflah, if you percieve you are being humiliated, you are being humiliated. That's how it works.
Thus, the Germans felt humiliated by Versailles, they were humiliated by it.
You don;t seem as well versed in history as you should be. Especially considering that in the treaty of Versailles the US, who didn;t do that much in the war yet insisted on the major part of the treaty, pushed for the treaty to, in words, blame Germany for the entire war, and force Germany to pay repairations to all people possibly effected by the war for as long as they live. Let's bring in another of my personal analogies for you to understand.
My little brother beats up your little brother, you jump in to defend him, and while you do me and my buddies jump in and beat you up. The cops come by, my freinds and I press charges, and you're left with a jail sentence and paying an absurd fine. That would be the treaty of Versailles in a nut shell.

Your initial assertion is preposterous. Perceived humiliation doesn’t not entail actual transitive humiliation. Also, I don’t really understand your analogy, are you saying that Germany and Hungary weren’t responsible for starting WWI?


You're doing it again. Presuming the small number of idiots are the majority, and lumping all things you don;t know anything about into one basket and calling it something you don't like.

You’re right, like most people (hehe), I tend to generalize.

You sort of contradict yourself there.
You're not talking about fightng, yet the entire history this topic revolves around is fighting. You're not talking about the loss of human life of any magnitude... yet you're talking about the fighting for basic human rights with minimum civillian loss of life.

Contradiction is always apparent in these arguments. I might have contradicted myself.


You imediatly assume to be the expert on rationality?
Where' your PHD, where's the criteria you use to measure rationality?
Or do you just use that as a statement to make your argument look better because anyone who argues with you just has to me irrational.

You’re right. I’d add, however, that PhD’s are meaningless in something an area as unlearnable by teaching as judgment of character.


You're overlooking Israel's many, many human rights violations simply to make your Arab-Bash.
And, with further research, I have yet to find anywhere near the human rights violations of Israel's neighbors that Israel has. Barring of course the beloved Syria, which I believe we've come to an agreement sucks.

You got the “Monster Mash” stuck in my head.
This is a key point that we disagree on, which I’ll get to later.


Start listing those peace accords. Because I'm reading things that are saying the only reason Israel is ever at peace is because their neighbors decided to push for it.

People are more likely to push for peace if it is beneficial to their interests, hence Camp David. What about the Oslo accords?


According to a Jewish-American, Pro-Israeli independence, website. Israel right now gets roughly %2.5 billion US, this year. Look it up. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html) Or provide a link proving that they're only getting half a billion.

US$ 1.8 billion goes to military, US$ 500 million – US$ 120 million annually goes to general spending. While I agree that all funding to Israel should be cut, I’d certainly prefer Israel have the military might in the region than any of the other nations that are more susceptible to anti-West, anti-Israel, or anti-Judeo-Christian sentiment.


Nope, it's not their fault. It's the Brit's fault.
The bolded part is the ignorant part of your paragraph. You A) forget that the people living there were using it very well to the abilities they could with their economy controlled by European colonists. You know, the same way most African countries did so well despite being forced into poverty by their colonial masters. Same with India/Pakistan... and same with the Israel-Palestine thing now.
You also forget that the only productivity in terms of say, food, to come from Israel comes from land illegally taken (As in against international law), and then irrgated to the point of an ecological disaster with help from billions of dollars of aid. Someone with a backhoe can definatly dig a hole faster then someone with a plastic shovel, especially if he's not paying for the backhoe.

You’re right, my apologies.


Actually the seizure of land from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt in the War of Independence was perfectly legal, except that in the ending treaty Israel agreed to return that land, then went back on that treaty, which is illegal. What was also illegal was the seizure of land through several illegal wars started by Israel invading it's neighbors. You blatantly ignore the fact that Israel started several of the wars. Started, not defended, they attacked.

Much like treaties, there are many reasons for wars to be started. What about the Yom Kippur war or War of Attrition?


Ignoring the obvious racisim in this comment.
Israel didn't have to worry about it's people getting killed until after it began moving its people into the lands legally owned by the Palestinians. Think of it this way, someone comes on your lan and begins to build a house, so you say, shoot them but not fatally. They turn around and bomb your house. You've just experianced what the Palestinians experianced when Israel started expanding.
And another newsflash, many Palestinians like Israel and the Israelies, and vice versa. What they don;t like is being shot at for walking to markets, haveing their houses demolished for nothing, and having artillery and rockets fired at their towns every other week just for being there.

You’re right, the comment was tripe and a cheap shot. But there are some differences in the way the two countries treat social issues.
Also, aren’t you basically saying that Israel “didn’t have to worry until Israel became a country?” And Israel doesn’t attack “for nothing.” No one attacks “for nothing.” You need to acknowledge that Israel does what it does to protect itself, however wrongly it goes about doing it.

Yea, the Christians just drew and quarterd them, or burned the women at the stake, alive.
Of course, I'd love to see sources on the "decapitating gays, amputating women for painting their nails, burning rape victims, and stoning dissenters" part. As I'm aware it happens in Africa, and I hear stories from Iran and Syria. Or have you mixed Afganistan in to the area as well completely forgetting that it's not there, or Arab?

So ignoring the Muslim and Arab countries of North Africa, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan et al, where else might this happen? I talking mostly about Saudi Arabia. But in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, political dissent still is often punished with imprisonment and abuse.

Since this the third time I’ve tried to post this, you’ll have to be content with only four links and www.google.com
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=mideast
http://www.gaymiddleeast.com/
http://www.hrw.org/women/overview-mena.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

Actually, Iraq gassed at best, thousands of people. The only groups to gas "millions" of people so far are the Germans, British, and Nazis.
And of course, if you knew anything about Iraq, you would have noticed that it's a rather secular state, not run on any interpretation of Sharia law. Women are free to wear what they lke, and work. Gays wern't beheded, simply thrown in jail if anything at all. Well, that was before the US invaded, nopw who knows what will happen.

Right, because being thrown in jail for who you are is perfectly normal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq


So the man who beats his wife for 20 years is less guilty then the wife who murders her husband for beating her for 20 years?
You can;t be more or less guilty. You are guilty or you are innocent.

No one is “innocent.” Guilt is certainly not one dimensional and is, to an extent, quantifiable. Most Western countries would say that the women is far less guilty than her husband. Most Middle Eastern countries…? Of course, you’d argue that Israel is the abusive husband, so I don’t want to go down this road.


Which is why Hamass has decided to go to the peace table and talk it out with Israel now?
Yep, kill them with a bomb at the peace table. How Romel-esque.

I think you might be the only one who believes that Hamas, renowned terrorist organization, is pure in its intentions. Heck, they can’t even keep it to themselves how they feel:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4F0132NPV2E1JQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/01/31/wmid131.xml

You ignore the fact that the Israelis forced the Palestinians into poverty, then refused to let them try and come out of it. You ignore the fact that the Palestinians have very few options any more, and they chose the one they thought ould get stuff done, the one that actually does things.
You ignore the fact that these decadeds of Palestinian strife were directly caused by illegal Israeli expansion.
And then you go on to presume you know anything of Palestinian culture. The culture rich in rt, science, music, and food, which was nearly destroyed by Israeli expansion into the legal Palestinian land.

Hurting the Palestinians as a people is certainly not Israel’s intention. On the other hand, I don’t deny that that is a consequence. Also, I’m well aware of Palestinian culture (well, at least the “music” and “food” element of it), nor do I feel that it is negligible. My only complaint rests on the civil rights/liberties climate.


Except several things.
A) That wall, cuts the Palestinian economy off from the only thing Israel (through military threats) will allow them to trade with, that being Israel.
B) Israel sends artillerty rounds and mortar rounds, rockets, missiles, and soldiers and tanks into the Palestinian territories and has been known to open fire on Palestinians who try to get together for anything, including weddings, markets, and social events.
C) If those citizens hadn;t moved into Palestinian land, and forced the Palestinians out at gun point in the first place, they wouldn't have to be protected from attacks because those Palestinians would have no reason to attack them.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I say that the first move was when all of Israel’s neighbors came to attack it upon its inception as a state. You say that the first move was Israel’s actions after that point. I say that those actions were in response to their realization that they had to stand up for themselves lest they be consumed by surrounding nations that only wished for their total destruction.
This is the key to the argument and I accept that you disagree on it, as I can be ambivalent about it myself at times.


You continue to jump with "you people lack perspective", without any reasoning behind it. I suggest that it is you who lack perspective, since you don't seem to understand anything about the Palestinians, anything about the Arab world, or are able to seperate the Arab people with the Muslim religion.
But let's move on to the topic. Since what Israel is doing is exactly like the "living space" policy of the Nazis. Push the legal owners out and settle the area. It's not even surprising, learn from those who hurt you the most. The Nazis nearly wiped them off the planet, you'd think that those European Zionistic Jews (The really racist ones, not like the average Israeli, who are actually decent people) who escaped the Nazis might be a little pissed, and might turn their anger onto their new home, adopting some of the policies of their former enemies.

There’s slight difference between trying to get a foothold in a region where everyone wants to kill you and taking over entire nations in an attempt for revenge for past grievances and world domination in the name of racial purity. Just a slight difference.

Saipea, I have a suggestion for you.
Go to the area. Visit Palestine, Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Visit Syria too if you like. You might learn how ignorant some of the things you've said here are, and how racist you've been so far. You might notice that women can dress how they like in those countries, you might notice that these people are very pro western, especially since their governments (Even Syria) have very well designed tourist industries that are packed full of western tourists.
You might actually learn something from the people there.

You’re right. I have been overly simplistic. And I have allowed my opinions of other Muslim and Arab nations to color the nature of some of Israel’s more rational neighbors. On the other hand, I think I’ll wait to live in any of the countries in that region besides Israel until I don't have to worry about my well-being for, say, drawing a political cartoon.

I dont see Israel as guilty by association. they are guilty all by themselves. They stole half of palestine to start their country, murdered the security forces we sent to help them, and then invaded what remained of palestine and occupy it still, killing women and children and settling land they know damn well isnt theirs, and calling the palestinians who try to defend their country terrorists.

Britain took the land.
I don't know what your next point is.
They haven't occupied all of Palestine.
They don't purposely kill women and children.
They don't call all Palestinians terrorists.

This is my third time attempting to rebut this without NS Forums or a word document fucking things up. It's now been about 5 hours I've wasted trying to respond to something that will probably get thrown back in my face. So please be content with some simple responses.
Notepad works better then MSWord in my oppnion.
Never crashes either.



First and for most, I am neither racist nor discriminatory about my sources. I might oversimplify things at times, I might generalize, I might be myopic when taking in all of my information, but I’m not a bigot (at least about ethnicity.) I will not address the multitude of accusation of racism or bigotry in any of your remaining comments.
Being overgeneralised to the point of appearing racist to those you deal with is as good as being racist. The image you put forth is what the world sees you as, and what you are as far as they are concerned.


Also, to say that I haven’t proven any of my points or rebutted any of yours isn’t exactly fair. I might not have convinced you of anything, but I’d like to think that I have said something in all these pages with substantive value.
No, you havn't proven your points. You've argued them, you've pushed them further, or conceeded where appropriate, but you havn't actually proven anything. To be proven is when it can't be countered by anyting that can be sourced.



This isn’t as straightforward as you allege; it’s a philosophical can of worms. Not to invoke Godwin’s Law (as if we haven’t already), but if people hold no responsibility for the actions of those around them, why do we critique the Germans who were around during the Nazi era? Also, don’t think I haven’t considered protesting or even militaristically subverting the Bush administration.
Actually, you alleged the straightforwardness with your origonal comment I based that on. I simply turned your own form against you.
And no, we don't critique the Germans for the Nazi's, we critique the Nazis. There is a difference, a major difference, and a dfference that was recognised durring international trials of alleged and convicted Nazis.





Just because they pretend to be nice to each other doesn’t mean that’s how they feel. The Egyptian media is extremely open about its dislike of Western countries, Israel, and Jews.
I can find American media that says there are Ekimo Marshans living on Pluto. Does that make it true? Does that make it the view of the US government or it's people?
As I said, if they hated eachother like you claim, they wouldn't be cooperating on economic, social, and even military levels.




The elements you’ve injected are the elements which we disagree on – not on their validity, but on their spin and justification. Pun or not, I think it’s ironic that you feel I’m the only one who’s guilty of treating the issue “black and white.”
First, never said only you. I just directed the comment at you as you were the one I was dealing with.
And you can disagree all you like, but these things happen. Wether or not you believe they were justified, blown out of proportion, or simply getting too much attention, is upto you.




Your initial assertion is preposterous. Perceived humiliation doesn’t not entail actual transitive humiliation. Also, I don’t really understand your analogy, are you saying that Germany and Hungary weren’t responsible for starting WWI?
Actually, the Austro-Hungarian Empire (One country if you remember) and Serbia are to blame.
And to add to that, Austria-Hungary got off really easy, and Serbia didn't even get anything.



You’re right. I’d add, however, that PhD’s are meaningless in something an area as unlearnable by teaching as judgment of character.
Unfortunately judgement of personal character is cultural and oppnionated in nature. Judgement of national character is measured against other nations. It's still a little oppnionated, but more easily an exact science.




You got the “Monster Mash” stuck in my head.
This is a key point that we disagree on, which I’ll get to later.
Now you got it stuck in my head too. Damn you!




People are more likely to push for peace if it is beneficial to their interests, hence Camp David. What about the Oslo accords?
Technically, Oslo can be put to either Norway, the host, or Spain, who instigated the whole process to begin with. Israel did not start, or put forth the Oslo accord, nor the preceeding Madrid counsel. It merely went along because of international pressure (Ie US and USSR).




US$ 1.8 billion goes to military, US$ 500 million – US$ 120 million annually goes to general spending. While I agree that all funding to Israel should be cut, I’d certainly prefer Israel have the military might in the region than any of the other nations that are more susceptible to anti-West, anti-Israel, or anti-Judeo-Christian sentiment.
Israel does have more military might, without US funding it's still double it's neighbors combined.
And, to note, you said aid. Aid includes military aid.



Much like treaties, there are many reasons for wars to be started. What about the Yom Kippur war or War of Attrition?
The war of attrition ended in a stalemate where both sides claimed victory. Not alot there to violate afterwards, a simple cease fire.
The yom kippur war however, was to take back land illegally invaded in the previous Six Day war, as those are the only places attacked.




Also, aren’t you basically saying that Israel “didn’t have to worry until Israel became a country?” And Israel doesn’t attack “for nothing.” No one attacks “for nothing.” You need to acknowledge that Israel does what it does to protect itself, however wrongly it goes about doing it.
But not everything it does can be justified as for it's own protection. The invasion of foreign land and the expansion of settelers illegally into foreign land, as well as the murder of civillians by a governments military, all things Israel has done or continues to do, can not be justified by anything short of greed.
Israel didn't have to worry until Israel began forcing, at gunpoint, people from their rightful and legal homes and land.


So ignoring the Muslim and Arab countries of North Africa, Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan et al, where else might this happen? I talking mostly about Saudi Arabia. But in Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon, political dissent still is often punished with imprisonment and abuse.
You forget, we're speaking of Israel and it's Arab neighbors. To that extent, this includes only (Technically) Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, and Palestine if you wish to include it. It can be expanded to include Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq. However, it can not include Iran, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and so on, because these countries are not genetically Arab, not even ethnically Arab.
Personally, I tend to forget Saudi Arabia even exists, I don't recognise their government, so appologies for ignoring that. But, my point still stands that such things can not be proven in the major players, except for Syria.
As for political dissent, well we do that too, and just as harsh. We however, have different standards of pollitical dissent, as do most regions.



Right, because being thrown in jail for who you are is perfectly normal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam%27s_Iraq
Once again, we, the west, do it to, ad have done it as part of our laws, at least the US have, for a fairly long time. We still imprison people for being who they are, be it mental defects or disease, be it personal choice, we still do it.




No one is “innocent.” Guilt is certainly not one dimensional and is, to an extent, quantifiable. Most Western countries would say that the women is far less guilty than her husband. Most Middle Eastern countries…? Of course, you’d argue that Israel is the abusive husband, so I don’t want to go down this road.
When contemplating the guilt of a party for a specific action, indeed that party can be either guilty or innocent. They either did it or did not.
In regards to the abusive husband, if a wife murders her abusive husband of 20 years, she gets thrown in jail and possibly executed (In some states), just like if you grabbed some random guy off the street and murdered him. Wether he beat her or not does not come into play, all that is considered is that she did it, that she did or did not plan to do it, and how she went about it. The woman who burns her husband alive in the front lawn will get a harsher treatment then one who simply stabs him. But a woman who murders her loving husband will get the same sentenceing and treatment as one who murders her abusive husband.
Wether or not the media treats them the same is different though. But the media is not the law, nor is it the legal system.


I think you might be the only one who believes that Hamas, renowned terrorist organization, is pure in its intentions. Heck, they can’t even keep it to themselves how they feel:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=4F0132NPV2E1JQFIQMGCFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/01/31/wmid131.xml
It's easier to believe that Hamass wants to strike a a deal with Israel then it is to believe that Israel is defending itself most of the time. Especially considering Israel's history with its treaties, and it's history with the Palestinians. Take for example the past year of cease fire between the two, then the Israelis drop some artillery on a public beach in mid day, what does Hamass do? They decide to follow suit of Israel and resume their attacks, because Israel resumed their attacks without warning and without reason. At least Hamass has told the world, and Israel, that they are resuming their attacks in response to Israeli agression.


Hurting the Palestinians as a people is certainly not Israel’s intention. On the other hand, I don’t deny that that is a consequence. Also, I’m well aware of Palestinian culture (well, at least the “music” and “food” element of it), nor do I feel that it is negligible. My only complaint rests on the civil rights/liberties climate.
Culture encompases all aspects. You said it lacks culture, thus you attacked all aspects. Be more specific or you risk the same crap that has happened earlier. Generalisations are not only bad for a discussion, they're bad for your own image and intentions.





Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I say that the first move was when all of Israel’s neighbors came to attack it upon its inception as a state. You say that the first move was Israel’s actions after that point. I say that those actions were in response to their realization that they had to stand up for themselves lest they be consumed by surrounding nations that only wished for their total destruction.
This is the key to the argument and I accept that you disagree on it, as I can be ambivalent about it myself at times.
I accecpt equally that you disagree with me. And until one of us grows tired of this, or we come to some form of agreement, it will continue. Not die to lack of accecptance, but due to differing sides.
Anyway, you say that the War of Independance was wher it began. But I can take that further, it began when Israel as a society and at it's conception as a nation, forced the rightful inhabitants of a land out of their homes and took their land. Granted this is also the fault of the UK and UN, but I would think that a group of people actually wanting to exist with these people, and not over them, would have simply moved in a more, legal way. Buy the land, not steal it, be nice to your neighbors, not force them away, and respect property rights which were established within the British mandate of Palestine. But they didn't.
And, in terms of Israel's human rights history and it's wrongdoings in relation to its neighbors, the War of Independence shouldn't be considered. It was a legal war, conducted between actual militaries, and both started and ended legally, with only one infraction on it's end terms, that infraction by Israel.




There’s slight difference between trying to get a foothold in a region where everyone wants to kill you and taking over entire nations in an attempt for revenge for past grievances and world domination in the name of racial purity. Just a slight difference.
You catch more flies with honey then vinigar. Trying to get a foothold does not mean you are free to oppress, steal, and murder.
Plus, the two, the foothold and revenge/racisim, are not mutually exclusive.



You’re right. I have been overly simplistic. And I have allowed my opinions of other Muslim and Arab nations to color the nature of some of Israel’s more rational neighbors. On the other hand, I think I’ll wait to live in any of the countries in that region besides Israel until I don't have to worry about my well-being for, say, drawing a political cartoon.
In Palestine you can be shot, by Israeli soldiers no less, just for standing somewhere. Not standing in a place you shouldn't be, but for going to the grocery store, or for talking to a freind, or hell for even just taking a walk. That doesn;t happen anywhere else. Not anywhere else but Israel are you pumped so full of fear propaghanda.
You do confuse Muslim and Arab too much, it's a bad idea. It's like confusing Israeli and Jew, they're not the same.

You do confuse Muslim and Arab too much, it's a bad idea. It's like confusing Israeli and Jew, they're not the same.
Your post was an excellent one - here's the clincher.

I am personally against the state of Isreal. I am not anti-Semitic, and I do have Jewish friends.

I just disagree with the fact that they get it "because it's their holy land and they were mistreated".

Yes, the Holocaust was a horrible thing, but taking land away from the Middle Eastern states to give to another mistreated group is amazingly hypocritical, as is Isreali policy, in which pretty much every Palestinian is a "potential terrorist".

Eugh...

And no, we don't critique the Germans for the Nazi's, we critique the Nazis. There is a difference, a major difference, and a dfference that was recognised durring international trials of alleged and convicted Nazis.

I do. And the show trials would have had they not had convict 90% of Germany and Poland at the time. People are responsible for the actions of their government and people close to them. When either of them goes bad, it is incumbant of a person to set things right, either by democratic means, or if necessary, militarististic means.

I can find American media that says there are Ekimo Marshans living on Pluto. Does that make it true? Does that make it the view of the US government or it's people?
As I said, if they hated eachother like you claim, they wouldn't be cooperating on economic, social, and even military levels.

Yes, but not mainstream, state-owned, and leading newspapers. What I'm saying is that there are still many Egyptians who hate the Israel and Jews, that their treaty is for gain and not for principle, and that this is evident by the fact that the government happily allows crap like this to be routinely printed.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39788
(Article by AP, found on Jewish site)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1143498872613
http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm#egypt

Specific ADL articles:
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/stereotypes.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/holocaust_denial.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/comparison.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/hitler.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/blood.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/conspiracy.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/justification.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/sept11.asp

Actually, the Austro-Hungarian Empire (One country if you remember) and Serbia are to blame.
And to add to that, Austria-Hungary got off really easy, and Serbia didn't even get anything.

Germany was the larger power, hence, greater responsibility. They could have stood strong and remonstrated their allies, instead they decided to get in on the action. It might not be fair, but that's how it's always been with responsibility, from a national scale to a personal scale.


Unfortunately judgement of personal character is cultural and oppnionated in nature. Judgement of national character is measured against other nations. It's still a little oppnionated, but more easily an exact science.

Good point, that reminds me, let's look at the HDI of some countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI
Israel - 23rd

Lebanon - 81st
Jordan - 90th
Palestine - 102nd
Syria - 106th
Egypt - 119th

Why yes, I think that's some evidence in the discrepancy in the quality of life. Given by people with PhDs, no less.


Technically, Oslo can be put to either Norway, the host, or Spain, who instigated the whole process to begin with. Israel did not start, or put forth the Oslo accord, nor the preceeding Madrid counsel. It merely went along because of international pressure (Ie US and USSR).

So Rabin was a crock, eh? Coulda fooled me.


Israel does have more military might, without US funding it's still double it's neighbors combined.
And, to note, you said aid. Aid includes military aid.

Hence why aid aid should be cut off.


The war of attrition ended in a stalemate where both sides claimed victory. Not alot there to violate afterwards, a simple cease fire.
The yom kippur war however, was to take back land illegally invaded in the previous Six Day war, as those are the only places attacked.

Your definition of legal and illegal wars confuses me. But it would seem that you're saying an illegal war in response to an illegal war is acceptible.


But not everything it does can be justified as for it's own protection. The invasion of foreign land and the expansion of settelers illegally into foreign land, as well as the murder of civillians by a governments military, all things Israel has done or continues to do, can not be justified by anything short of greed.
Israel didn't have to worry until Israel began forcing, at gunpoint, people from their rightful and legal homes and land.

We keep coming back to this point, and you keep talking about "gunpoint" and murder of civilians. And I'm saying that, yes, it's overreacting, but it's based on action for defense of the land.
You brush aside the War of 1948 and look only at wars that prove your point. I'm saying, how should a country feel when, on the very day it becomes sovereign, it's attacked by all of its neighbors? How should it feel when it's repeatedly attacked and bombed by insurgents who have no culpability nor readily proven connection to a country, despite the obvious notion that the country is one of its neighbors.
So no, I disagree. It's not greed, it's proactive protection.

You forget, we're speaking of Israel and it's Arab neighbors. To that extent, this includes only (Technically) Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan, and Palestine if you wish to include it. It can be expanded to include Yemen, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Kuwait, and Iraq. However, it can not include Iran, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and so on, because these countries are not genetically Arab, not even ethnically Arab.
Personally, I tend to forget Saudi Arabia even exists, I don't recognise their government, so appologies for ignoring that. But, my point still stands that such things can not be proven in the major players, except for Syria.
As for political dissent, well we do that too, and just as harsh. We however, have different standards of pollitical dissent, as do most regions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world

The sites I gave you link greivances with the "major players as well." So while they aren't as blatant with violations of civil rights as say, Saudi Arabia, they are still more guilty and worse than Israel in terms of these issus.
They are also more guilty than the U.S. in terms of these issues. We don't have "different standards" of political dissent; we don't punish it at all. And you're also overlooking the issues of the treatment of women and homosexuals. Even when the U.S. did improperly treat political dissent and homosexual behavior, we still were nowhere as near as punitive or cruel as some of the countries we've been talking about.



Once again, we, the west, do it to, ad have done it as part of our laws, at least the US have, for a fairly long time. We still imprison people for being who they are, be it mental defects or disease, be it personal choice, we still do it.

I have no idea what this is a reference to. Are you talking about the imprisonment of crazy people without their permission, which the Reagan administration passed laws against doing? Personally, I think it was a good idea and that we should still do it. There's a substantial difference between being a danger to yourself and others because you're crazy and being upsetting to religious extremists because you're gay.


When contemplating the guilt of a party for a specific action, indeed that party can be either guilty or innocent. They either did it or did not.
In regards to the abusive husband, if a wife murders her abusive husband of 20 years, she gets thrown in jail and possibly executed (In some states), just like if you grabbed some random guy off the street and murdered him. Wether he beat her or not does not come into play, all that is considered is that she did it, that she did or did not plan to do it, and how she went about it. The woman who burns her husband alive in the front lawn will get a harsher treatment then one who simply stabs him. But a woman who murders her loving husband will get the same sentenceing and treatment as one who murders her abusive husband.
Wether or not the media treats them the same is different though. But the media is not the law, nor is it the legal system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_wife_syndrome


It's easier to believe that Hamass wants to strike a a deal with Israel then it is to believe that Israel is defending itself most of the time. Especially considering Israel's history with its treaties, and it's history with the Palestinians. Take for example the past year of cease fire between the two, then the Israelis drop some artillery on a public beach in mid day, what does Hamass do? They decide to follow suit of Israel and resume their attacks, because Israel resumed their attacks without warning and without reason. At least Hamass has told the world, and Israel, that they are resuming their attacks in response to Israeli agression.

Right now you're defending a known terrorist organization over a sovereign nation. I don't know about anyone else, but that certainly sounds a bit off to me. Either way, I think you’ve just conceded that Hamas feels that same way as it always has about Israel, treaty and “government”, or not.

Culture encompases all aspects. You said it lacks culture, thus you attacked all aspects. Be more specific or you risk the same crap that has happened earlier. Generalisations are not only bad for a discussion, they're bad for your own image and intentions.

Point taken. You're right.


Anyway, you say that the War of Independance was wher it began. But I can take that further, it began when Israel as a society and at it's conception as a nation, forced the rightful inhabitants of a land out of their homes and took their land. Granted this is also the fault of the UK and UN, but I would think that a group of people actually wanting to exist with these people, and not over them, would have simply moved in a more, legal way. Buy the land, not steal it, be nice to your neighbors, not force them away, and respect property rights which were established within the British mandate of Palestine. But they didn't.
And, in terms of Israel's human rights history and it's wrongdoings in relation to its neighbors, the War of Independence shouldn't be considered. It was a legal war, conducted between actual militaries, and both started and ended legally, with only one infraction on it's end terms, that infraction by Israel.

So you're saying that Israel should have been the better man, and declined the land offered them by Britain? Exactly how would a people whose entire wealth, heritage, and population was recently depleted come up with the money or energy to make that happen? The offer for land was an unbelievable opportunity, and no sane group of people would have turned it down. And they were quite content to coexist until the 1948 War, which, however it "legal" it may have been was certainly unchivalrous. Furthermore, please explain what this "infraction" made by Israel was.


You catch more flies with honey then vinigar. Trying to get a foothold does not mean you are free to oppress, steal, and murder.
Plus, the two, the foothold and revenge/racisim, are not mutually exclusive.

I couldn't find an argument in that other than "Na-ah, you're wrong." So allow me to return it by saying, "No really, getting a foothold in a region where all your neighbors want to kill you is entirely different and mutually exclusive from seeking revenge on alleged oppressors (nor is it projection of hatred of Nazis onto Palestine, as you mentioned in one comment) or action taken for world domination in the name of ethnic purity. Completely different, "lebensraum" is not what Israel is doing, end of story, admit it was a hyperbolic claim."


In Palestine you can be shot, by Israeli soldiers no less, just for standing somewhere. Not standing in a place you shouldn't be, but for going to the grocery store, or for talking to a freind, or hell for even just taking a walk. That doesn;t happen anywhere else. Not anywhere else but Israel are you pumped so full of fear propaghanda.
You do confuse Muslim and Arab too much, it's a bad idea. It's like confusing Israeli and Jew, they're not the same.

In Israel you and your family could be bombed, by a non-Israeli terrorist no less, just for eating at a pizzaria or an ice cream parlor. The difference between your example and mine is that the soldiers are actually targeting terrorists (or "freedom fighters") with people as innocent civilian casualties, whereas with the terrorist, his targets are the innocent civilians.
Every nation has fear propaganda. In Arab and Muslim nations, there is also plenty of hate propaganda (e.g. Egypt, as I've shown you above.)
To some extent there should be no problem with confusing "Muslim" with "Arab" or "Israeli" with "Jew" or "American" with "white". A majority is used to identify the whole. Especially in issues where the two opposing forces are polarized by ethnicity and religion. But then again, the distinction should always be remembered, which I'm afraid I haven't been to good about doing.

I'm not saying that because I like it. But because it's my opinion and what I percieve. Israeli rightists draw particular attention towards themselves and are incredibly vicious. They accuse anyone with a different opinion of being nazis, excuse all their mistakes by pointing at others and think they can't do anything wrong because 'god is with them'. Such people are always dangerous in any form whether they are Israelis, Arabs or Germans. At their worst they fortunately never survive very long in politics since they tend to accuse and throw around the term 'anti-semitic' a lot. What is unfair, demeaning, and says more about their own maturity than their opponent's ideals. These people exist in Israel and I worry about that. They're nothing better than the Nazis or terrorist organizations.

I don't feel you can say I lack perspective. This is what I see, and what I think about it. If it's not what all Israelis are like, fine. I don't say such excessive nationalists are the norm. The fact they voted for a more moderate party proves not all Israelis are like that. And their approach to conflicts isn't always heavy handed. I could open up a whole book on what Arabs did wrong, and are doing today, but right now I don't need to discuss their problem. What troubles me about Israelis is that they have also comitted their share of aggression in the conflict. My sympathies might be with one side or the other in the short term but I'd rather see them both come to their senses. The presence of extremists on the Israeli side and their influence bothers me as much as the Palestinian's side.

And if somebody goes off the handle saying my points can't be correct and that I'm some secretive anti-semitist, spare me! That trick is old, and I hate such low unproven accusations.

I share your dislike of staunch right-wing Zionists. I didn't accuse you of being anti-Jewish (I use this term because it is more accurate than "anti-semetic"), and if you feel I did, I'm truly sorry. I did, however, say that your claim of Israel's actions being comparable to Nazi lebensraum was patent hyperbole.

Lets see..

Yesterdays paper announces that Isrealis killed a family of five who were enjoying themselves at a beach, when an "errant shell" artillery landed near the family, killing all but a 7-year old girl.

Hamas, who had more or less been keeping to the agreed truce (which the Isrealis have NOT been) signed months ago.

Hamas has vowed retribution for this outrage.

So...whos being the asshole, here?

Lets see..

Yesterdays paper announces that Isrealis killed a family of five who were enjoying themselves at a beach, when an "errant shell" artillery landed near the family, killing all but a 7-year old girl.

Hamas, who had more or less been keeping to the agreed truce (which the Isrealis have NOT been) signed months ago.

Hamas has vowed retribution for this outrage.

So...whos being the asshole, here?

You're right, they have been relatively quite. Usually Hamas is orchestrating bombings in Israel every other week.

Lets see..

Yesterdays paper announces that Isrealis killed a family of five who were enjoying themselves at a beach, when an "errant shell" artillery landed near the family, killing all but a 7-year old girl.

Hamas, who had more or less been keeping to the agreed truce (which the Isrealis have NOT been) signed months ago.

Hamas has vowed retribution for this outrage.

So...whos being the asshole, here?

Israel for not keeping any of the agreements thay've made, and Hamas for forgetting two wrongs don't make a right.

You're right, they have been relatively quite. Usually Hamas is orchestrating bombings in Israel every other week.
They key bit is that they kept up a truce.

Disregarding that and saying "HAMAS are crap most of the time" is pretty weak.

Personally I hate the word Anti-Semite.. I do not believe the nation of Israel should exist. Its only justification for existing is that of Zionism, which I do not believe is valid. People try to counter this by talking about the persecution of the Jews during WWII.. but that is actually quite irrelevant and although it was horrible, it is not a reason for creating a new nation just for the Jews especially since it was created in Palestine, already in use obviously by the Palestinians.. why couldn't they just merge into Palestine and keep the nation?

Israel for not keeping any of the agreements thay've made, and Hamas for forgetting two wrongs don't make a right.


Oh, I agree that Hamas isnt completely on the moral High Ground, but THEY alt least, were willing to adhere to a truce.
Isreal wouldnt.

This means, obviously, that Isreal has no intentions of peace.

What does this tell us if Hamas is willing to try to have peace, and Isreal isnt?

HAMAS FFS!

Personally I hate the word Anti-Semite.. I do not believe the nation of Israel should exist. Its only justification for existing is that of Zionism, which I do not believe is valid. People try to counter this by talking about the persecution of the Jews during WWII.. but that is actually quite irrelevant and although it was horrible, it is not a reason for creating a new nation just for the Jews especially since it was created in Palestine, already in use obviously by the Palestinians.. why couldn't they just merge into Palestine and keep the nation?
Exactly!

That's my opinion as well, but I get branded as an anti-Semite, which is a ridiculous thing to say.

Oh, I agree that Hamas isnt completely on the moral High Ground, but THEY alt least, were willing to adhere to a truce.
Isreal wouldnt.

This means, obviously, that Isreal has no intentions of peace.

What does this tell us if Hamas is willing to try to have peace, and Isreal isnt?

HAMAS FFS!

The PLO recognised Israel, but they wouldnt deal honestly with them. Now theres Hamas. Presumably in a few years we'll have the party animals of "Islamic Jihad" in there instead. You could see a pattern there.

Anyway Israel is in a stronger position when its in open conflict. It back dates justification of its previous assasinations and aggression, allows more open military moves and unilateral measures re future borders, and allows them to throw "terrorist sympathiser" about more freely. Peace on the other hand, means back to drip-drip killing but increased settlement building. Its win-win really, just a question of method.

Oh, I agree that Hamas isnt completely on the moral High Ground, but THEY alt least, were willing to adhere to a truce.
Isreal wouldnt.

This means, obviously, that Isreal has no intentions of peace.

What does this tell us if Hamas is willing to try to have peace, and Isreal isnt?

HAMAS FFS!

What exactly were the terms of the treaty?

What exactly were the terms of the treaty?


Admittedly, Im not entirely sure.
However, Im willing to bet it was somwhere along the lines of "Hey, lets quit blowing the crap outta each other."

Seems to me, that the Palestinians came closer to keeping thier end of the bargain, than Isreal did.
As a result, some beach-goers, are now smithereens.

Im not saying either side are innocent, but it seems as though the radical nut-case Palestinian groups like Hamas or Islamic Jyhad have at least attempted to work within saner avenues that Isreal has recently.

This concerns me.
It would be nice to see Isreal make every effort to stop the killing and bombing, and misery, and warfare that has been the way of life for people in the region for decades now.

Call me silly, I suppose.

Admittedly, Im not entirely sure.
However, Im willing to bet it was somwhere along the lines of "Hey, lets quit blowing the crap outta each other."

Seems to me, that the Palestinians came closer to keeping thier end of the bargain, than Isreal did.
As a result, some beach-goers, are now smithereens.

Im not saying either side are innocent, but it seems as though the radical nut-case Palestinian groups like Hamas or Islamic Jyhad have at least attempted to work within saner avenues that Isreal has recently.

This concerns me.
It would be nice to see Isreal make every effort to stop the killing and bombing, and misery, and warfare that has been the way of life for people in the region for decades now.

Call me silly, I suppose.

Like you said, at least Hamas kept to a truce. During that truce, did Israel stop its illegal colomies in the West Bank/East Jerusalem, dismantle any of the checkpoints and allow Palestinians to use major roads? Thought not.

Aand It's Israel that has to make the first move, the terror won't stop until Palestine is independant, not the other way round. Right or wrong, thats the crux of the problem.

Like you said, at least Hamas kept to a truce. During that truce, did Israel stop its illegal colomies in the West Bank/East Jerusalem, dismantle any of the checkpoints and allow Palestinians to use major roads? Thought not.

Aand It's Israel that has to make the first move, the terror won't stop until Palestine is independant, not the other way round. Right or wrong, thats the crux of the problem.


Yah, maybe my depth of international politics isnt the greatest, but I just cant see the big deal about letting them declare themselves a country.

Give em the Gaza strip, and some bit to the north, and let them all take the bus...Viola! and end to bloodshed, and we can separate two naughty children who have been fighting for years!

Its nothing but pride, at this point.

Personally I hate the word Anti-Semite.. I do not believe the nation of Israel should exist. Its only justification for existing is that of Zionism, which I do not believe is valid. People try to counter this by talking about the persecution of the Jews during WWII.. but that is actually quite irrelevant and although it was horrible, it is not a reason for creating a new nation just for the Jews especially since it was created in Palestine, already in use obviously by the Palestinians.. why couldn't they just merge into Palestine and keep the nation?

What do you imagine the consequences of merging an Israeli Jewish minority with an Arab Islamic majority would be, especially given the 50 years of violence between the two sides, do you really believe that these people would now be capable of living peaceably together or that an Islamic government would respect the rights of the Jewish minority?

People try to counter this by talking about the persecution of the Jews during WWII.
The Jews were persecuted everywhere, before the Holocaust methinks, and still are by some people. Havin The Isrealites and Palestinians live in one place is like a little timebomb. That and Irsreal was originally Jewish.

What do you imagine the consequences of merging an Israeli Jewish minority with an Arab Islamic majority would be, especially given the 50 years of violence between the two sides, do you really believe that these people would now be capable of living peaceably together or that an Islamic government would respect the rights of the Jewish minority?

And in fairness one couldnt expect the extremes of other bunch to be too kind either. It cuts both ways. The two state solution is the only way forward, whatever way you look at it.

Lets see..

Yesterdays paper announces that Isrealis killed a family of five who were enjoying themselves at a beach, when an "errant shell" artillery landed near the family, killing all but a 7-year old girl.

Hamas, who had more or less been keeping to the agreed truce (which the Isrealis have NOT been) signed months ago.

Hamas has vowed retribution for this outrage.

So...whos being the asshole, here?


Perhaps the 'heroic freedom fighters' in Gaza who've been firing rockets into Israel proper for the past few months...... that sounds like a cause for a proper war to me.

And in fairness one couldnt expect the extremes of other bunch to be too kind either. It cuts both ways. The two state solution is the only way forward, whatever way you look at it.

There probably will be a two state solution, but Israel will annex huge amounts of land around Gush Etzion, East Jerusalem and Ariel, and will be showered with praise from the UN/US/EU for doing so. It's like a mugger being allowed to keep his victim's mobile for stopping to punch him/her in the face.

There probably will be a two state solution, but Israel will annex huge amounts of land around Gush Etzion, East Jerusalem and Ariel, and will be showered with praise from the UN/US/EU for doing so. It's like a mugger being allowed to keep his victim's mobile for stopping to punch him/her in the face.

Were that the case, it'll be two states with no solution. It'll just further infect the wound. And yes, its a mugging.

I do. And the show trials would have had they not had convict 90% of Germany and Poland at the time. People are responsible for the actions of their government and people close to them. When either of them goes bad, it is incumbant of a person to set things right, either by democratic means, or if necessary, militarististic means.
Except that they didn't try 90% of Germany, and they didn't find guilty and execute most of Germany which they didn't try. They tried to government, Nazi officials, they tried the Nazis, not the Germans.
If you can't descriminate between the Nazis and the Germans, then it is a sad sand thing for you.



Yes, but not mainstream, state-owned, and leading newspapers. What I'm saying is that there are still many Egyptians who hate the Israel and Jews, that their treaty is for gain and not for principle, and that this is evident by the fact that the government happily allows crap like this to be routinely printed.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39788
(Article by AP, found on Jewish site)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1143498872613
http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/default.htm#egypt

Specific ADL articles:
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/stereotypes.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/holocaust_denial.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/comparison.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/hitler.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/blood.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/conspiracy.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/justification.asp
http://www.adl.org/egyptian_media/media_2002/sept11.asp
So? There are many Americans who hate Canada or France, many Chinese who hate Japan. These countries work together, and like eachother as a whole though.
And I count, three Egyptian state owned newspapers, two tv channels (One of which has programming in Hebrew of all languages), and one state owned radio station. With four, one, and two being the respective numbers of private owned counterparts. And that's just the major media within Egypt, not including the minor regional stuff.
Furthermore, those sources you cite, especially the ADL ones, cite columist pieces as their material. Columists are paid to write crap, especially controversial crap, columusts in the US write just as bad, if not worse stuff.
In regards to the denial of the holocaust, I understand that it, most of the time (There are some wackos who completely deny it, but they're not the ones making the noise here) is said to have been exagerated. And indeed it very well could have. From what I remember of my time researching the second world war and it's aftermath, the claim that the Jews were thrown into the ovens alive could not be confirmed (Or proven wrong), only that they were thrown in, which was the point of the ovens to dispose of the dead. That, and the claim that six million Jews were murdered and it's vast overimportance (As opposed to the Gypsies, and countless others who were murdered, and outnumber the Jews). And tons of other stuff, but I'm digressing into an area I choose not to take this discussion.
My point here was, they're citing columists. I could take that same approach and claim that Ann Coutler is representant of the entire US.


Germany was the larger power, hence, greater responsibility. They could have stood strong and remonstrated their allies, instead they decided to get in on the action. It might not be fair, but that's how it's always been with responsibility, from a national scale to a personal scale.
Actually, Austria-Hungary was the larger power, and that's if you ignore late-war involvement of the US, and the Anglo-Franco-Russo alliance.
Germany's alliance with it's allies would have had no point if it were not supporting them. The same way Poland and Denmark supported their ally, France, when it was off invading everything in sight.
And no, blame the larger one has not always been the way. The one who starts the conflict initially has, in some 80% of all the wars I've seen, been the one blamed. And this includes modern examples such as the entire Vietnam conflict, where blame can equally rest on the shoulders of the French and Vietnamese, despite the involvement of the much larger China.



Good point, that reminds me, let's look at the HDI of some countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI
Israel - 23rd

Lebanon - 81st
Jordan - 90th
Palestine - 102nd
Syria - 106th
Egypt - 119th

Why yes, I think that's some evidence in the discrepancy in the quality of life. Given by people with PhDs, no less.
Except Israel had a wonderful jump in some of the major HDI componants (Namely adult literacy and GDP) from it's majority populace being immigrants from Europe, and already being able to read and write, as well as the multitudes of foreign aid that go into their GDP. The neighboring countries, on the otherhand, have essentially had to come out of British/French rule and start from scratch (Alongside the Israelies), but without the added benifiets of so much aid, or the majority of your population having learned to read in other countries.
You'll also notice that with the deaths of those initial immigrants and the removal of foreign aid from Israel, it has begun to slip down the HDI gradually but consistanly, over the recent years, while the Arab neighbors continue to clmb (Except Yemen, poor Yemen).




Your definition of legal and illegal wars confuses me. But it would seem that you're saying an illegal war in response to an illegal war is acceptible.
Think of it this way. A legal war begins with either an existing recognised conflict or an official declaration of war (Which happens all the time, they just now tend to do it only minutes before they start shooting). And is ended with a recognised treaty which is upheld thereafter. An illegal war contains no such documentation, and normally the treaties are at best barely followed.




We keep coming back to this point, and you keep talking about "gunpoint" and murder of civilians. And I'm saying that, yes, it's overreacting, but it's based on action for defense of the land.
You brush aside the War of 1948 and look only at wars that prove your point. I'm saying, how should a country feel when, on the very day it becomes sovereign, it's attacked by all of its neighbors? How should it feel when it's repeatedly attacked and bombed by insurgents who have no culpability nor readily proven connection to a country, despite the obvious notion that the country is one of its neighbors.
So no, I disagree. It's not greed, it's proactive protection.
Actually, Israel became a sovierign nation by quick UN mandate six months after the "War of independence", aka 1948 war, started. And that war started on the basis of Jewish settelers swarming to the land in the years imediatly following WW2 and pushing those who lived there out at gunpoint. The UN agreed to creating that area as their country because they were already there and taking it anyway, and because if they argued they would have imediatly been associated with the Nazis and their oppnions on the Jews, especially considering the ongoing trials of the Nazis at that time. The War of Independence actually proves my point more, I am only leaving it out because I think that following the actions of the Nazis, the Jews were justified for taking the small ammount of land they did take in that war, not for what they took later. Despite that the Jews were breaking the laws of the and (British law) by what they were doing, and they were stealing military equipment fromtheir neighbors, the British, and their former countries to do it.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world

The sites I gave you link greivances with the "major players as well." So while they aren't as blatant with violations of civil rights as say, Saudi Arabia, they are still more guilty and worse than Israel in terms of these issus.
They are also more guilty than the U.S. in terms of these issues. We don't have "different standards" of political dissent; we don't punish it at all. And you're also overlooking the issues of the treatment of women and homosexuals. Even when the U.S. did improperly treat political dissent and homosexual behavior, we still were nowhere as near as punitive or cruel as some of the countries we've been talking about.
Your links fail to make any point here. We are speaking the Arab countries (Not muslim countries) that have had direct involvement with Israel in the past, correct? The ones that are most often referred to.
Because comparing Morocco and Israel to eachother as "neighbors" doesn't make alot of sense. I also don't see any mention of civil rights violations in the above links.
In terms of dissent, yes we do have different standards. Standards set in place by the fact that we have not had to endure recent revolution, nor have we recently been a colony. You need to remember that alot of laws, at least in Egypt and Jordan, are hold-overs from the UK, which are not easily removed from state law (Canada has simmilar hold-overs but ours are older and applied to an area that did not revolt every few years like the Arabs did following their colonisation after the first world war). Law and punishment reflects this.
The US, I shal use the example, did indeed implement simmilar punishments. The most recent one I can think of off the top of my head would be the great Communist witch hunt of the 1950's, which led to the executions/suicides of some people, and serious prison charges for others, based solely on hearsay.


I have no idea what this is a reference to. Are you talking about the imprisonment of crazy people without their permission, which the Reagan administration passed laws against doing? Personally, I think it was a good idea and that we should still do it. There's a substantial difference between being a danger to yourself and others because you're crazy and being upsetting to religious extremists because you're gay.
Gays in the US still upset the religious extreemists, and some have died or been essentially tortured because they're gay (And a number of the extreemists have gotten away with it for a number of reasons). And once again being a danger to yourself and others applies to dissent, as refrenced above, to an area which has a very very recent history of viloent revolt. Simmilar laws applied within the US after it's creation, as well as other countries who had simmilar situations. Dissent to the wrong extreem can cause armed uprising, which is an imediate danger to the lives and safety of the populace. In 20 years if they're still doing it, bitch about it all you like (I'll join you for that), but for now they're well within the same limits of, say the US, at the same point in it's national history.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_wife_syndrome
You'll note it's used as possible evidence for the "Self Defence" argument. It in and of itself hasn't done anything but help push another defence, it is not a defence. Things like the Self Defence claim can be used by anyone, and is often used by anyone.



Right now you're defending a known terrorist organization over a sovereign nation. I don't know about anyone else, but that certainly sounds a bit off to me. Either way, I think you’ve just conceded that Hamas feels that same way as it always has about Israel, treaty and “government”, or not.
And here I thought I was defending a democratically elected government against another democratically elected government.
And no, I conceded nothing, since the Palestinian government did nothing but retaliate against an illegal and unprovoked attack. And from what I've read so far, these retaliations have been limited to rocket and mortar attacks on limited civillian targets as well as military targets, and have not included suicide bombers (Not sure about the attacks that have happened that the Palestinian government does not claim credit for).
Remember, they signed a treaty and Palestine kept their deal, Israel did not.


So you're saying that Israel should have been the better man, and declined the land offered them by Britain? Exactly how would a people whose entire wealth, heritage, and population was recently depleted come up with the money or energy to make that happen? The offer for land was an unbelievable opportunity, and no sane group of people would have turned it down. And they were quite content to coexist until the 1948 War, which, however it "legal" it may have been was certainly unchivalrous. Furthermore, please explain what this "infraction" made by Israel was.
They should have been the better man and not expanded so aggressivly without warrant. They should have been the better man and not disposed the people who lived there first, rather they should have lived with them.
And no, they did not live together in peace. Since the 1920's, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire with the influx of foreign Jews, they have been fighting, and usually at the instigation of the Jews who were comming in. Durring the Ottoman rule, they lived in peace, because they were provided with very good freedom, especially religious freedom (Greater then those of Europe at the time).
The infraction made by Israel was the attack of it's neighbors after a signed agreement not to. You could, if you want, include the massive Israeli military buildup that kept going on, well past what would be considered adequate for defense, as an infraction as well.



I couldn't find an argument in that other than "Na-ah, you're wrong." So allow me to return it by saying, "No really, getting a foothold in a region where all your neighbors want to kill you is entirely different and mutually exclusive from seeking revenge on alleged oppressors (nor is it projection of hatred of Nazis onto Palestine, as you mentioned in one comment) or action taken for world domination in the name of ethnic purity. Completely different, "lebensraum" is not what Israel is doing, end of story, admit it was a hyperbolic claim."
So basicly ou're making an argument out of nothing. Right, not worth my time for that then.
Lebensraum, however, is exactly what Israel is doing, down to the letter. Or rather what it was doing (They have recently stopped and pulled out, a good move). Lebensraum involved the military conquest of an area (Eastern Europe) followed by the influx of settelers to take the land from the people who were being disposed from the land (Or disposed of permenantly as the war wore on) and their homes destroyed. Exactly what Israel was doing with it's settler programs.



In Israel you and your family could be bombed, by a non-Israeli terrorist no less, just for eating at a pizzaria or an ice cream parlor. The difference between your example and mine is that the soldiers are actually targeting terrorists (or "freedom fighters") with people as innocent civilian casualties, whereas with the terrorist, his targets are the innocent civilians.
No, in Palestine Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian civilians simply because they can. They do not check for weapon, they do not check ID cards, they do not act out planned raids with international support, they just kill (Actually they do all of those things in regards to specific areas, I am speaking in regards to Palestinian population centres without such things as checkpoints.)
These terrorists as well, often target military targets, which are often surounded by civillians. The Israelis simply fire at civillians hoping to bag a terrorist.
Granted this has also begun to get curbed because of international pressure (And the death of some foreign citizens in Palestine by Israeli snipers), but it has still happened, and still happenes to much more limited degrees as time progresses.

Every nation has fear propaganda. In Arab and Muslim nations, there is also plenty of hate propaganda (e.g. Egypt, as I've shown you above.)
There's a ton of hate propganda in the US to. See if you can find it.

To some extent there should be no problem with confusing "Muslim" with "Arab" or "Israeli" with "Jew" or "American" with "white". A majority is used to identify the whole. Especially in issues where the two opposing forces are polarized by ethnicity and religion. But then again, the distinction should always be remembered, which I'm afraid I haven't been to good about doing.
Except that it's enough of a generalisation to have yourself automatically branded a racist. Especially since it would offend greatly those people who are Muslim Israeli's, Jewish Arabs, Non-white Americans, Arab Israelis, whatever.

I was talking with a friend of mine. We are both pretty much communists, though he's a bit more Josef Stalin and I am totally Woody Guthrie. He's telling me that we need to tell everyone that we stand by Palestine.

I told him "I don't stand by Palestine."

He stated "Well, how can you support the Israelis."

I then responded, "I never said I did.I will stand by the first one that proves they have some sort of moral supremacy."

Alot of groups try to make one side a hero figure and one side the enemy, but I think we are losing site of something. Both sides have commited and will continue to commit horrible atrocities and we are being asked to choose between one group of whackos or another, and frankly, I won't do it.

I was talking with a friend of mine. We are both pretty much communists, though he's a bit more Josef Stalin and I am totally Woody Guthrie. He's telling me that we need to tell everyone that we stand by Palestine.

I told him "I don't stand by Palestine."

He stated "Well, how can you support the Israelis."

I then responded, "I never said I did.I will stand by the first one that proves they have some sort of moral supremacy."

Alot of groups try to make one side a hero figure and one side the enemy, but I think we are losing site of something. Both sides have commited and will continue to commit horrible atrocities and we are being asked to choose between one group of whackos or another, and frankly, I won't do it.

Although, if you're a communist and you had to pick, Israel would make more sense. It was founded on communist and socialist principles, and continues to have large political parties that represent this today.

Palestine, on the other hand, will become and Islamic theocracy. And, as we know, a theocracy is probably as far on the opposite end of the spectrum from communism as we can get. No worker equality, no social justice, etc.

Although, if you're a communist and you had to pick, Israel would make more sense. It was founded on communist and socialist principles, and continues to have large political parties that represent this today.

Palestine, on the other hand, will become and Islamic theocracy. And, as we know, a theocracy is probably as far on the opposite end of the spectrum from communism as we can get. No worker equality, no social justice, etc.


True.

However, my belief on the situation is that both have commited atrocities instead of trying to strike a deal where both sides are satisfied, and neither group is willing to live in peace. I have yet to hear one good reason why the land cannot be shared.

True.

However, my belief on the situation is that both have commited atrocities instead of trying to strike a deal where both sides are satisfied, and neither group is willing to live in peace. I have yet to hear one good reason why the land cannot be shared.

It's the hats.

"Whenever you see two large groups of people that hate eachother, chances are good that they're wearing different kinds of hats. Pay attention to that, It might be important." -George Carlin

True.

However, my belief on the situation is that both have commited atrocities instead of trying to strike a deal where both sides are satisfied, and neither group is willing to live in peace. I have yet to hear one good reason why the land cannot be shared.

I think the vast majority of Israelis today believe that the land can be shared. The exceptions are some of the far right settlers and the Ultra Orthodox. Israel offered to share the land three times - the Peel commission, 1948, and in 2000. Even today, I think most of us support a two-state solution.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have rejected all Israeli offers. Hamas also refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, the establishment of a Palestinian state in place of Israel, and the forceful deportation of all Jews out of Palestine.

If anyone has a hard time sharing, its the Palestinians. Israelis have done everything they can to share.

I'm a liberal and I'd rather be living in Israel than in any muslim theocracy. At least Israel is a liberal democracy.

The only liberals who hate Israel are the same liberals who hate liberalism. As a true liberal, I share none of their anti-semitic, anti-globalization, pro-islamist, anti-western pseudo-lefty nonsensical values.

This pseudo-left makes me very sad. It is far more conservative than liberal. And the Left should always be liberal and supportive of democracy.

So that's why I support Israel.

I'm a liberal and I'd rather be living in Israel than in any muslim theocracy. At least Israel is a liberal democracy.

The only liberals who hate Israel are the same liberals who hate liberalism. As a true liberal, I share none of their anti-semitic, anti-globalization, pro-islamist, anti-western pseudo-lefty nonsensical values.

This pseudo-left makes me very sad. It is far more conservative than liberal. And the Left should always be liberal and supportive of democracy.

So that's why I support Israel.

I've been thinking the same thing about liberals today; they don't represent the liberal beliefs of 10 or 20 years ago, and certainly not before that. Whereas it used to be an informed, center-left liberalism, today it seems to have swung to a far-left, extremist version.

I'm a liberal and I'd rather be living in Israel than in any muslim theocracy. At least Israel is a liberal democracy.

The only liberals who hate Israel are the same liberals who hate liberalism. As a true liberal, I share none of their anti-semitic, anti-globalization, pro-islamist, anti-western pseudo-lefty nonsensical values.

This pseudo-left makes me very sad. It is far more conservative than liberal. And the Left should always be liberal and supportive of democracy.

So that's why I support Israel.
Amen (in a non-religious sense, of course;) )

I've been thinking the same thing about liberals today; they don't represent the liberal beliefs of 10 or 20 years ago, and certainly not before that. Whereas it used to be an informed, center-left liberalism, today it seems to have swung to a far-left, extremist version.
Exactly! Somehow the liberal left seems to be losing ground to the extremist pseudo-left. What the hell is happening? Are people losing their mind? Because all the israel-haters and west-haters i've talked to didn't seem to have the tiniest bit of rationality in their speech.

Exactly! Somehow the liberal left seems to be losing ground to the extremist pseudo-left. What the hell is happening? Are people losing their mind? Because all the israel-haters and west-haters i've talked to didn't seem to have the tiniest bit of rationality in their speech.

Try listening to Air America sometime. Of course, for balance, you can listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Once people get that "extremist" audience, they stop making sense.

They are a liability. In fact, the US should directly oppose Israel’s regime. Would get the terrorists off us right quick.

So we should reward the bad guys by stopping support of the good guys? wtf?
I very much agree with the US's "no negiations with terrorists" policy. All terrorists live for is violence and terror, and that should never be rewarded.
Besides, if I heard right about Israel, if WW3 broke out you'd be insane not to want them on your side, especially as a opposed to the terrorists who are a group of people who are so pathetic they have to resort to stealing their enemies planes and are incapable of concieving a strategy that does not involve killing themselves.

I think the vast majority of Israelis today believe that the land can be shared. The exceptions are some of the far right settlers and the Ultra Orthodox. Israel offered to share the land three times - the Peel commission, 1948, and in 2000. Even today, I think most of us support a two-state solution.

All the "Generous" Israeli offers have done nothing to solve the problem of East Jerusalem, or right of return, which is why they were rejected. Israel has also rejected offers by the Arab League to deal with the problem, so don't spread around that "Israel Generously makes Peace Offers, and only Palestine rejects them" BS.

Secondly, There's no 'sharing' to be done. East of the Green Line is Israeli, West is Palestinian, period. However, Israel has sought to annex large quantities of land west of the Green Line, especially around East Jerusalem. Im sure you wouldn't be happy if, say, Iran occupied Washington, or perhaps another city/town where you might live, (I'm assuming you're an American.) and would want it back.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have rejected all Israeli offers. Hamas also refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist, and its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, the establishment of a Palestinian state in place of Israel, and the forceful deportation of all Jews out of Palestine.

If anyone has a hard time sharing, its the Palestinians. Israelis have done everything they can to share.

Hamas doesn't recognise the Right of Israel to exist, and guess what? Some Members of the Israeli Knesset don't recognise the right the right of Palestine to exist, either, and support their removal to Jordan. In any case, if Palestine were granted it's own state on the '67 Borders Hamas would disappear in a few years at the maximum, and Israel would be able to (legally) build itself a proper security fence, at their Border, to prevent suicide attacks.

It's not just a black-and-white "I love Palestine" or "I love Israel" issue, both sides are in the wrong, like two squabbling childeren. However, a two state solution, and no less, will bring about peace, and not continued occupation.

All the "Generous" Israeli offers have done nothing to solve the problem of East Jerusalem, or right of return, which is why they were rejected. Israel has also rejected offers by the Arab League to deal with the problem, so don't spread around that "Israel Generously makes Peace Offers, and only Palestine rejects them" BS.

According to the major Arab leaders involved, there was no problem of East Jerusalem or right of return. Arafat was condemned as a criminal against the entire Arab region by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah II of Jordan, the King of Morocco Muhammad IV, and president Zine of Tunisia. The Arab League endorsed the Camp David accords, while Arafat rejected them and was condemned as a criminal.

It seems like you're involved in a case of being more Palestinian than the Palestinians. The Arab world accepted Israel's offers, but only the Palestinian terror leadership rejected them.

Secondly, There's no 'sharing' to be done. East of the Green Line is Israeli, West is Palestinian, period. However, Israel has sought to annex large quantities of land west of the Green Line, especially around East Jerusalem. Im sure you wouldn't be happy if, say, Iran occupied Washington, or perhaps another city/town where you might live, (I'm assuming you're an American.) and would want it back.

Period, according to who? Israel could have annexed the entire thing any time it wanted. In addition, there was no "Palestine." The land that is occupied now was Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian. Never has a political group called Palestinians, nor a political entity called Palestine, had any legal claim to any of that land.

Jordan and Egypt have since renounced their claim to the land that they stole, and annexed, in 1948. Israel would be within its full legal rights to annex it if it so chose. The only questionable practice regarding legality is the building of settlements.

But, since Israel supports a two-state solution, it hasn't seriously considered annexing it.

Hamas doesn't recognise the Right of Israel to exist, and guess what? Some Members of the Israeli Knesset don't recognise the right the right of Palestine to exist, either, and support their removal to Jordan. In any case, if Palestine were granted it's own state on the '67 Borders Hamas would disappear in a few years at the maximum, and Israel would be able to (legally) build itself a proper security fence, at their Border, to prevent suicide attacks.

Lets see, the official stance of the Palestinian government is that Israel must be wiped off the map, whereas the official stance of the current Israeli government coalition is a two-state solution. Bringing up what spurious MK's believe is a red herring, since that isn't a stance held by the current coalition government in Israel. Nice try, though.

It's not just a black-and-white "I love Palestine" or "I love Israel" issue, both sides are in the wrong, like two squabbling childeren. However, a two state solution, and no less, will bring about peace, and not continued occupation.

Only Israel accepts a two-state solution currently. As has been the official stance of virtually every Israeli coalition government. The fact that the Palestinian terrorist leadership does not accept a two-state solution makes compromise impossible, and that is why Israel is set to unilaterally declare its borders and annex the very small portions of the West Bank necessary to not displace hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens, Jewish and Arab.

Lousy mood, lousy OP.

The complaint was (and is) with liberals who seem to hate Israel's "mistreatment" of Palestine so much that they overlook the numerous human rights violations the rest of the Muslim and Arab nations of the region are guilty of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_anti-Semitism

Basically, while I understand that Israel is being overly aggresive in protecting itself, I still feel that it is better than its neighbors due to the way it treats its citizens.

While many of my posts in this thread have ignorantly grouped the actions of various Arab and Muslim nations into one collective list of human rights violations, I still feel that they share a common trait in being easily directed by overly-extreme religious views.

We "liberals", (I see myself as a conservative), do not "prefer" arab nations over Israel, nor we overlook the numerous human righs violations of the rest of muslim and arab nations of the region. For the same thing, we cannot accept YOUR violations of human rights to the palestinian people. You turn into the same thing as them, therefore not better than them.

For example, your people should know about keeping other people in camps. Or that the best way to deal with terrorists is not attacking entire towns with assault choppers. That just generates more terrorists.

If I would a palestinian young, (not associated with any terrorist association)and the israeli army bombards my town, destroying my home and killing my mother, of course I would join a terrorist band, I would hate them for the rest of my life. Stop answering to violence with more violence.

For example, your people should know about keeping other people in camps. Or that the best way to deal with terrorists is not attacking entire towns with assault choppers. That just generates more terrorists.

Israel isn't keeping anyone in camps, nor does it attack entire towns with assault choppers. In fact, the majority of Palestinians ever kept in camps were kept in camps by Egypt, by Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. Arabs kept far, far more Palestinians in camps (and for longer periods of time) than Israelis. When Israel pushed Jordan and Egypt out of the land that it stole from the woud-be Palestinian state, it opened most of the refugee camps.

Assault chopppers are used on terrorists. The civilian casualties as a result of this as are far, far less than any other comparable military in the world. Take Iraq, for example, where over 30,000 civilians have died. In Israel over the last 6 years less than 4,000 Palestinian civilians have died as a result of Israeli military action.

If I would a palestinian young, (not associated with any terrorist association)and the israeli army bombards my town, destroying my home and killing my mother, of course I would join a terrorist band, I would hate them for the rest of my life. Stop answering to violence with more violence.

I wouldn't join a terrorist band if that happened. It would be awful, but it isn't a natural response to join a terror group. Palestinians join terror groups for a number of social and cultural factors; many have never experienced any tragedy like that. In addition, a large portion of suicide terrorists are educated (college level) and financially well off. The whole "violence breeds terrorism" argument has no demographical basis.

The whole "violence breeds terrorism" argument has no demographical basis.
Northern Ireland?

The attacks with choppers have been even broadcasted by CNN, do not so easily deny it.

Nicaragua, Colombia, and specially you, Israel-Palestine, are the demographical base of that theory.

Please do not defend the israeli situation saying that the arabs are worst than you. You're right, they are perhaps worst, but that doesn't make automatically the good guys.

Again, I do not condone the arab nations acts. I condemn them, but that is not a proof that all of your actions are righteous and well intended.

The attacks with choppers have been even broadcasted by CNN, do not so easily deny it.

CNN hasn't broadcasted attack choppers bombarding cities, as you claim. These are controlled strikes against military targets, with a minimum of civilian casualties. I'm sorry you don't know the difference. I'm also sorry the sum total of your knowledge about Israel comes from CNN.

Nicaragua, Colombia, and specially you, Israel-Palestine, are the demographical base of that theory.

No, I'm afraid they aren't. You're confusing your unqualified opinion of the situations in these areas with their demographics. As I wrote before, the vast majority of terrorists and suicide bombers are not involved in direct tragedy, but come from the middle to upper class.

Please do not defend the israeli situation saying that the arabs are worst than you. You're right, they are perhaps worst, but that doesn't make automatically the good guys.

Again, I do not condone the arab nations acts. I condemn them, but that is not a proof that all of your actions are righteous and well intended.


No, there are lots of bad things Israel has done. Nor do the worse actions of Arab states fix that. However, Israel really is the 'good guy' when compared with other nations. European states have been involved in far more colonialism and genocide than Israel. Europe essentially ruined all of Africa. The United States has done far worse to the Native Americans than what Israel has done to Palestinians. Don't make me get started with China, Japan, etc.

When compared to the history of other nations, Israel is quite clean.

According to the major Arab leaders involved, there was no problem of East Jerusalem or right of return. Arafat was condemned as a criminal against the entire Arab region by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Abdullah II of Jordan, the King of Morocco Muhammad IV, and president Zine of Tunisia. The Arab League endorsed the Camp David accords, while Arafat rejected them and was condemned as a criminal.

It seems like you're involved in a case of being more Palestinian than the Palestinians. The Arab world accepted Israel's offers, but only the Palestinian terror leadership rejected them.

It seems the circumstances have changed. The recent Arab Peace Initative (what I was talking about) says:

* Full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967
* Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
* The establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital
* A just solution to the Palestinian Refugee problem, to be agreed upon in accordance with section 11 of UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
* The normalization of relations in the context of a comprehensive peace


Period, according to who? Israel could have annexed the entire thing any time it wanted. In addition, there was no "Palestine." The land that is occupied now was Syrian, Egyptian, and Jordanian. Never has a political group called Palestinians, nor a political entity called Palestine, had any legal claim to any of that land.

Jordan and Egypt have since renounced their claim to the land that they stole, and annexed, in 1948. Israel would be within its full legal rights to annex it if it so chose. The only questionable practice regarding legality is the building of settlements.

Nevertheless, there is a location known as Palestine, made up of the West Bank and Gaza, and it is quite obvious that these people are not Israelis, and neither do they want to be.

So, how can it be illegal for Jordan and Egypt to annex land, and sunddenly legal and rosy when Israel decides to annex it? Either it is right to annex land, or not, considering these people neither want to be a part of Jordan, Egypt or Israel.

But, since Israel supports a two-state solution, it hasn't seriously considered annexing it.

A two state solution, maybe, but till not one with a capital in East Jerusalem. It is unfortunate, but neither Palestinians or Israelis will live in peace ubnless this happens.

Lets see, the official stance of the Palestinian government is that Israel must be wiped off the map, whereas the official stance of the current Israeli government coalition is a two-state solution. Bringing up what spurious MK's believe is a red herring, since that isn't a stance held by the current coalition government in Israel. Nice try, though.

Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians, however, since they only got 44% percent of the proportional vote, while the rest went to two-state parties. However, almost all of this was a protest vote, and the planned vote on a two state solution will show this. However, like I said, the Idea of a two-state solution held by the Israeli government is still a land-grab, and won't bring about peace.

And, by the way, the plan to expel all Palestinians from Palestine was put forward by Binyamin Elon while he was in government in 2002.

Only Israel accepts a two-state solution currently. As has been the official stance of virtually every Israeli coalition government. The fact that the Palestinian terrorist leadership does not accept a two-state solution makes compromise impossible, and that is why Israel is set to unilaterally declare its borders and annex the very small portions of the West Bank necessary to not displace hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens, Jewish and Arab.

The Palestinian Terrorship doesn't accept a two-state solution, but honestly why should that be an obstacle? The terrorists would fail under an independent state, assuming it was based on the Green Line.

Secondly, why is it right to displace Israelis into the West Bank, but not out. And if this isa "very small portion", get your eyes checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierMay2005.png

To Palestinians living there, it's probably worth a lot more than that.

My mention of CNN was regarding the fact that it is a media with a agenda lightly in favor of Israel and USA's policies in the Middle East. I am a journalist and check every information service available everyday. I watched such attacks, and that's it. Not only in CNN, I was just highlighting that fact.

Unqualified? Perhaps, if that means I'm not an specialized expert on the Middle East situation. I have postgrade studies on international affairs, and that counts for something, I guess. Maybe your opinion is as unqualified as mine, maybe it is not. The thread was a question and I gave an answer, my answer, that's all.

However, I can tell you that my knowledge of the South American situation is fairly qualified, as I am an analist of the issues in the continent I do live.

The vast majority of the FARC activists aren't middle or upper class people, nor are the sandinists. Check backgrounds for that, please.

And about your final statement, again you are right in all your phrases, and yet again that doesn't makes Israel clean.

My mention of CNN was regarding the fact that it is a media with a agenda lightly in favor of Israel and USA's policies in the Middle East. I am a journalist and check every information service available everyday. I watched such attacks, and that's it. Not only in CNN, I was just highlighting that fact.

Unqualified? Perhaps, if that means I'm not an specialized expert on the Middle East situation. I have postgrade studies on international affairs, and that counts for something, I guess. Maybe your opinion is as unqualified as mine, maybe it is not. The thread was a question and I gave an answer, my answer, that's all.

However, I can tell you that my knowledge of the South American situation is fairly qualified, as I am an analist of the issues in the continent I do live.

The vast majority of the FARC activists aren't middle or upper class people, nor are the sandinists. Check backgrounds for that, please.

And about your final statement, again you are right in all your phrases, and yet again that doesn't makes Israel clean.


Doesn't make Israel "dirty" by default, either.

As for journalists knowing their ass from a hole in the ground, I met quite a few just before the US forces did their big sweep around in the 1991 Gulf War - none of the clueless reporters PRESENT where the 1st ID was offloading tanks from transporters by day and picking them up by night and driving north could figure out what was going on.

Even the lowest ranking private could figure out, without being told, that we were doing an end run.

But reporters kept thinking that there would be a terrible cost to be paid in frontal assaults against flame and mine-infested trenches.

I talked to a few of the CNN reporters who were RIGHT THERE, and they were the most clueless people I've ever talked to, bar none.

It seems the circumstances have changed. The recent Arab Peace Initative (what I was talking about) says:

The Arab Peace Initative was accepted by Israel, Peres endorsed it. Then Hamas carried out the suicide attack in Netanya and rejected the initiative, and it broke down. Again, this was the result of Palestinian terrorists derailing the process, not Israel.

Nevertheless, there is a location known as Palestine, made up of the West Bank and Gaza, and it is quite obvious that these people are not Israelis, and neither do they want to be.

If they don't want to be Israelis, what is the deal with this right to return? You can't have it both ways. A large portion of Palestinians may want to be Israelis for the same reason hundreds of thousands of Arabs immigrated to Palestine as soon as Jews began to settle and develop the land - a better standard of living with the Jews.

So, how can it be illegal for Jordan and Egypt to annex land, and sunddenly legal and rosy when Israel decides to annex it? Either it is right to annex land, or not, considering these people neither want to be a part of Jordan, Egypt or Israel.

If the annexation is necessary to preserve security and soverignity, that is one reason it would be legal. Thus, the Israeli plans on the board to annex small portions of the West Bank for its security and soverignity would be legal. This is quite different than when Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel and annexed the entire area that was set aside for a Palestinian state.

A two state solution, maybe, but till not one with a capital in East Jerusalem. It is unfortunate, but neither Palestinians or Israelis will live in peace ubnless this happens.

The Camp David accords gave them a capital in East Jerusalem. The current unilateral border plans also deign to give Palestine a capital in East Jerusalem.

Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians, however, since they only got 44% percent of the proportional vote, while the rest went to two-state parties. However, almost all of this was a protest vote, and the planned vote on a two state solution will show this. However, like I said, the Idea of a two-state solution held by the Israeli government is still a land-grab, and won't bring about peace.

The only land being grabbed is that currently owned and settled by Israeli citizens. I wonder why Palestinians think they are entitled to land that was originally granted to Israel under the San Remo Resolution, then stolen by Jordan, and now settled, developed, and owned by Israeli citizens.

The Palestinian Terrorship doesn't accept a two-state solution, but honestly why should that be an obstacle? The terrorists would fail under an independent state, assuming it was based on the Green Line.

What makes you think they would fail? History demonstrates otherwise, with its numerous terrorist groups who have been far, far more extreme than Hamas. The Taliban in Afghanistan is a good example.

Secondly, why is it right to displace Israelis into the West Bank, but not out. And if this isa "very small portion", get your eyes checked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BarrierMay2005.png

To Palestinians living there, it's probably worth a lot more than that.

Its less than 10%. And no Israeli's are being "displaced" into the West Bank. They have the freedom to move wherever they like; the Israeli government has just made it easier for them to relocate to settlements similiar to the ones they lived on previously. In addition, there are no significant Palestinian populations living in those areas. Its land owned, developed, and lived on by Jews.

As for journalists knowing their ass from a hole in the ground

The only thing that makes Israel dirty are their own policies, nor the policies of other states.

I guess that makes you, or anyone that agrees with you, the only ones that know their ass out of a hole in the ground.

I won't discuss any further with you, as you tend to discard everyone's assumptions with outstanding facilty. If you are so pretty sure of your statements, then do not discuss, and then do not start or enter discussions in the forums.

Your posts are filled with falacies, and are hardly logic statements. I think I was having a nicer discussion with Tropical Sands.

You always argue for anything with anyone. And by saying "argue" I think I am aiming too high.

As I imply you are, or were, military personnel, I could say that military personnel are totally biased about life outside their quearters, for example, because I have known several, (in fact, a lot) that are. Yet it would be a falacy, and a wrong argument, but after watching your posts in several threads, I do know that you are not able to go further than that.

My last post in this thread, again by Deep Kimchi's intervention.

(Do not brag about saying that I left because I wasn't able to discuss your perfect arguments. I am leaving this discussion because your arguments work over a different logic than the common one, as usual. I am quitting a fight that would never end if we start it, so no point in writing more about it)

The Arab Peace Initative was accepted by Israel, Peres endorsed it. Then Hamas carried out the suicide attack in Netanya and rejected the initiative, and it broke down. Again, this was the result of Palestinian terrorists derailing the process, not Israel.

The terrorsists don't help the process, but shouldn't halt it, that is what the terrorists want. When the peace process gets derailed by these attacks, it just encourages more attacks - that's why the peace process must continue.

If they don't want to be Israelis, what is the deal with this right to return? You can't have it both ways. A large portion of Palestinians may want to be Israelis for the same reason hundreds of thousands of Arabs immigrated to Palestine as soon as Jews began to settle and develop the land - a better standard of living with the Jews.

Nevertheless, many Palestinians have had enough of living under an opressive regime (In the West Bank), and would want to have good relations with Israel. The West Bank, however, is only a small and fairly densely populated area; and Israel is much more capable of coping with a million (I think it is, don't quote this statistsic) refugees.

If the annexation is necessary to preserve security and soverignity, that is one reason it would be legal. Thus, the Israeli plans on the board to annex small portions of the West Bank for its security and soverignity would be legal. This is quite different than when Egypt and Jordan attacked Israel and annexed the entire area that was set aside for a Palestinian state.

So, if I were to blast, say a burgular, with a shotgun in the name of "security" it would be, by that logic, legal? Egyptian/Jordanian annexion was indeed wrong and illegal, but that does not give israel a madate to do it also.

The Camp David accords gave them a capital in East Jerusalem. The current unilateral border plans also deign to give Palestine a capital in East Jerusalem.

Hint: East Jerusalem is at the grey bit marked "Jerusalem" and is on the other side of the barrier.(link) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/BarrierMay2005.png)

However, if you have an Israeli Government source that says otherwise, please give me a source.

The only land being grabbed is that currently owned and settled by Israeli citizens. I wonder why Palestinians think they are entitled to land that was originally granted to Israel under the San Remo Resolution, then stolen by Jordan, and now settled, developed, and owned by Israeli citizens.

Because it'll help create peace, creating a border on the '67 lines. Even Israel recognises that as the de facto boundary between Israel and the Palestiniqan Territories. In any case, the origional borders drawn by the UN were much larger than the West Bank and Gaza, and any San Remo Treaty. If we dig up "his great grandma's cousins' wife's grandad lived there" route, we'll be digging up all the way back to the fossil record, and hand it back to the Nethanderal man.

What makes you think they would fail? History demonstrates otherwise, with its numerous terrorist groups who have been far, far more extreme than Hamas. The Taliban in Afghanistan is a good example.

I'm assuming Russia won't invade the Palestinian Territories and leave them in turmoil, creating a situation whereby these people could take power. In fact, I'm assuming that there would be an interim period where the country would be occupiedby the UN and given limited self government first, that would get the people used to democracy and the process, and continue rooting out the terrorists.

In short, done correctly, that would not pose a problem. They haven't taken over in iraq, for example, so that proves it can be done.



Its less than 10%. And no Israeli's are being "displaced" into the West Bank. They have the freedom to move wherever they like; the Israeli government has just made it easier for them to relocate to settlements similiar to the ones they lived on previously. In addition, there are no significant Palestinian populations living in those areas. Its land owned, developed, and lived on by Jews.[/QUOTE]

I think the vast majority of Israelis today believe that the land can be shared. The exceptions are some of the far right settlers and the Ultra Orthodox. Israel offered to share the land three times - the Peel commission, 1948, and in 2000. Even today, I think most of us support a two-state solution..

The peel commission was a British exericise and 1948 was a proposal by the UN. In 2000, Israels offers were opening moves to which Yasser foolisily refused to make a counter offer to.


If anyone has a hard time sharing, its the Palestinians. Israelis have done everything they can to share.

O dear me.


Jordan and Egypt have since renounced their claim to the land that they stole, and annexed, in 1948...

Seceding all rights to the Palestinians, IMO.


Israel would be within its full legal rights to annex it if it so chose. The only questionable practice regarding legality is the building of settlements..

Why would the building of settlements be a problem if Israel had the right to annex the land? Why in fact has it not been awarded the land that it has the rights to? Why has it not just annexed the land if it had a right to do so?


When Israel pushed Jordan and Egypt out of the land that it stole from the woud-be Palestinian state, it opened most of the refugee camps...

Why did the UN disagree that this land was taken from Israel?


Palestinians join terror groups for a number of social and cultural factors; many have never experienced any tragedy like that. ...

The occupation has lasted since 1967. Everybody has a relation that was killed or injured, and given the mass arrests, virtually everybody has a relation in prison. Please spare us your untruths


A large portion of Palestinians may want to be Israelis for the same reason hundreds of thousands of Arabs immigrated to Palestine as soon as Jews began to settle and develop the land - a better standard of living with the Jews....

Absolute racist nonsense. The overwhelming majority of agricultural land and produce came from Arab owned farms, and did so long before some Europeans hopped off the boat. The zionist immigrants specialised in citrus because they went for an undevolped market, the rest being well catered for. That crap about "mass immigration" went out with the rest of peters book in the trash.

Why is it every bunch of colonists claim "there was nothing here before us"? Does it make them sleep better at night?


The only land being grabbed is that currently owned and settled by Israeli citizens ....

Stolen land outside Israels borders.

Why would the building of settlements be a problem if Israel had the right to annex the land? Why in fact has it not been awarded the land that it has the rights to? Why has it not just annexed the land if it had a right to do so?

The Geneva Convention only states that people may not be forcefully transferred in and out of occupied territories. Israel has never done this, and this is why the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the settlements weren't a problem. Only the pro-Arab states made a move to twist the original intent of the Conventions.

Why did the UN disagree that this land was taken from Israel?

The UN didn't exist yet. :rolleyes:

The Geneva Convention only states that people may not be forcefully transferred in and out of occupied territories. Israel has never done this, and this is why the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the settlements weren't a problem. Only the pro-Arab states made a move to twist the original intent of the Conventions.:

It says "transfer its own population" my dishonest little friend. And why is it that nearly every soverign nation on the Planet takes the same view as me when it comes to votes on this?


The UN didn't exist yet. :rolleyes:

But they did in 1967 when it dismissed in that rather famous resolution "the aqqusition of territory by force" referring specifically to the Israeli occupation.

It says "transfer its own population" my dishonest little friend. And why is it that nearly every soverign nation on the Planet takes the same view as me when it comes to votes on this?

Israel has never transferred its own population. All Israeli settlers have the freedom of choice to move wherever they want. And every soverign nation doesn't have jurisdiction to make any decision according to international law. Only the Israeli Supreme Court does.

But they did in 1967 when it dismissed in that rather famous resolution "the aqqusition of territory by force" referring specifically to the Israeli occupation.

Lets see, I mentioned the San Remo Resolution (1920).

You brought up the UN.

I pointed out that the UN didn't exist yet.

You respond by saying the UN existed in 1967 and dismissed the acqusition of territory by force, something totally unrelated to the original topic.

Can we say red herring? Why must I always correct your fallacies?

Palestinians join terror groups for a number of social and cultural factors; many have never experienced any tragedy like that. In addition, a large portion of suicide terrorists are educated (college level) and financially well off. The whole "violence breeds terrorism" argument has no demographical basis.

"Ghalia family lost six members in shelling, in 2005 they lost four

By The Associated Press

The hardest hit in the Israel Defense Forces artillery strike on a Gaza beach Friday was the Ghalia family, which lost six members, among them the father, one of his two wives, an infant boy and an 18-month-old girl.

Less than two years ago, four members of the family were killed when IDF shell hit the family farm in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia. The military had been targeting the area in response to Palestinian mortar fire."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/725139.html

Comments?

"Ghalia family lost six members in shelling, in 2005 they lost four

By The Associated Press

The hardest hit in the Israel Defense Forces artillery strike on a Gaza beach Friday was the Ghalia family, which lost six members, among them the father, one of his two wives, an infant boy and an 18-month-old girl.

Less than two years ago, four members of the family were killed when IDF shell hit the family farm in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia. The military had been targeting the area in response to Palestinian mortar fire."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/725139.html

Comments?

Havn't you been keeping up with the news? Thats from yesterday.

Olmert, Peretz, the IDF general involved as well as the senior IDF witnesses have all confirmed that there was no shelling, and that it was the result of an internal Palestinain bomb. In short, the Palestinians killed themselves... again.

All of the reports are on the other thread.

Israel has never transferred its own population. All Israeli settlers have the freedom of choice to move wherever they want. And every soverign nation doesn't have jurisdiction to make any decision according to international law. Only the Israeli Supreme Court does.

So Saddams in the clear then. By the way, who mentioned "forcible"?



Lets see, I mentioned the San Remo Resolution (1920).
You brought up the UN.
I pointed out that the UN didn't exist yet.
You respond by saying the UN existed in 1967 and dismissed the acqusition of territory by force, something totally unrelated to the original topic.


San remo = straw man nonsense. The 1967 reolution refers to the occupied territories which Egypt and Jordan have ceded rights to the Palestinians for.

San remo = straw man nonsense. The 1967 reolution refers to the occupied territories which Egypt and Jordan have ceded rights to the Palestinians for.

You don't seem to know your logical principles very well. A straw man fallacy can only be in response to something. I brought up San Remo first, it was an introductory statement.

Then, you responded with the 1967 resolution.

"Ghalia family lost six members in shelling, in 2005 they lost four

By The Associated Press

The hardest hit in the Israel Defense Forces artillery strike on a Gaza beach Friday was the Ghalia family, which lost six members, among them the father, one of his two wives, an infant boy and an 18-month-old girl.

Less than two years ago, four members of the family were killed when IDF shell hit the family farm in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia. The military had been targeting the area in response to Palestinian mortar fire."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/725139.html

Comments?


Hmm. The two entities are essentially in a war zone, and have been for decades. They both use artillery and mortars to shell each other in "reprisal".

Both have done it so many times, it's not even news anymore as far as I'm concerned.

What I want to know is why the ones that land on Palestinians (fired by whoever fired one that day) are news, and the deaths/wounding, etc., of Israelis is not news by comparison.

Havn't you been keeping up with the news? Thats from yesterday.

Olmert, Peretz, the IDF general involved as well as the senior IDF witnesses have all confirmed that there was no shelling, and that it was the result of an internal Palestinain bomb. In short, the Palestinians killed themselves... again.

All of the reports are on the other thread.


What quote of yours preceded that article?

ps. YES I BELIEVE THE IDF. THOSE STONE THROWERS POSED A DANGER TO THAT TANK.

What I want to know is why the ones that land on Palestinians (fired by whoever fired one that day) are news, and the deaths/wounding, etc., of Israelis is not news by comparison.

I wasn't aware any Israelis were injured or attacked on the day of the Beach Shelling, apart from the Hamas rocket attack thing...

I wasn't aware any Israelis were injured or attacked on the day of the Beach Shelling, apart from the Hamas rocket attack thing...
Hezbollah shells Israel on a regular basis.
Hamas launches rockets into Israel on a regular basis.

Every once in a while, some Israelis get killed.

Are you saying it only counts if it happens on the same day?

Or are you completely ignorant of how much this goes on?

Hezbollah shells Israel on a regular basis.
Hamas launches rockets into Israel on a regular basis.

Every once in a while, some Israelis get killed.

Are you saying it only counts if it happens on the same day?

Or are you completely ignorant of how much this goes on?

Well, I thought you were referring to the exact same day, and why no one reported the Israeli casualties. Don't be so quick on the defensive. ;)

Yes, I am aware of the sporadic Hamas rocket attacks.

Yes, I am aware of the rare Hezb'allah attacks over the disputed lands in the North.

Well, I thought you were referring to the exact same day, and why no one reported the Israeli casualties. Don't be so quick on the defensive. ;)

Yes, I am aware of the sporadic Hamas rocket attacks.

Yes, I am aware of the rare Hezb'allah attacks over the disputed lands in the North.
No, I'm saying "over decades". They've been more furious and continuous at other times.

And both sides have done it so much.

So why is it news when Palestinians die, and back page news when Israelis die?

So why is it news when Palestinians die, and back page news when Israelis die?
It certainly isn't in the UK. It's "HAMAS must die" and "Those poor Isrealis!" at the front and "3 less scum infesting the world" on the back page.

It certainly isn't in the UK. It's "HAMAS must die" and "Those poor Isrealis!" at the front and "3 less scum infesting the world" on the back page.
Ah, you read the Sun don't you.

No, I'm saying "over decades". They've been more furious and continuous at other times.

Fair enough.

And both sides have done it so much.

True.

So why is it news when Palestinians die, and back page news when Israelis die?
Maybe you are just reading the wrong newspapers?

I avoid televised news. I go for the bare text of the internet- suprising how BBC.co.uk, Reuters, AP, AFP et al report it fairly even handedly.

I avoid televised news. I go for the bare text of the internet- suprising how BBC.co.uk, Reuters, AP, AFP et al report it fairly even handedly.

So do I.

I find that Reuters and AFP have a distinct anti-Israeli bias.

The BBC used to be a bit more pro-Palestinian, but after the recent investigation by the Blair government into the Iraq War stories/intel, they seem to have actually become fairly even-handed as compared to the past.

US News by and large isn't worth watching, and the prominent newspapers are now worthless crap (The NYT has lost all credibility, and the WaPost has always been dog kibble).

Ah, you read the Sun don't you.
Nope, I read the Guardian. Which is fairly left-wing and is sympathetic to both sides.

On the other hand, The Independent, The Sun, The Daily Mail and The Express (which are the other main newspapers) are all very pro-Isreal.

So do I.

I find that Reuters and AFP have a distinct anti-Israeli bias.

The BBC used to be a bit more pro-Palestinian, but after the recent investigation by the Blair government into the Iraq War stories/intel, they seem to have actually become fairly even-handed as compared to the past.

US News by and large isn't worth watching, and the prominent newspapers are now worthless crap (The NYT has lost all credibility, and the WaPost has always been dog kibble).

Yet research into the BBC has criticised their bias as being the other way round, in failing to explain palestinian actions in context. In particular one issue in which the vast majority of coverage sadly fails to bring up enough...

" One important feature of this is the failure to convey adequately the disparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation. Although this asymmetry does not necessarily bear on the relative merits of the two sides, it is so marked and important that coverage should succeed in this if in nothing else."

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/docs/reviews/panel_report_final.pdf