NationStates Jolt Archive

Gaza militants say fired chemical-tipped warhead (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-06-29T013909Z_01_L29258645_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ROCKET.xml)
GAZA (Reuters) - A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.

The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.

"The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead" at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts?

Hmm. Would like a little more proof.

If true, well, that's scary.

I hope Israel crushes them, then. :)

Zukariaa']I hope Israel crushes them, then. :)

gotta agree with you on this...

i think the sun has baked to many brains over there..or they just like conflict..see other post.

Dude...if this turns out to be true, and the threat is real...then we are looking at a full fledged war between Israel and Palestine....the Palestinians will not see the light of another day.

I'd like to see some proof first.

And also what they deem to be 'chemical weapons.' Household materials could be chemical weapons.

I think Isreal should lead a full scale invasion of Palistine and end the border war crap once and for all. I don't care about proof because even though its chemical weaponery reguardless if its a homemade or manmade this will show that the Isrealis mean buisness. This could also affect how international terrorism is dealt with.

Good. I hope it spreads and every Israeli and Palestinian chokes and dies. A fitting end to the two biggest groups of assholes in history.

The Aksa Martyrs' Brigades group announced on Sunday that it its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons to be used against Israel.
In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, said the weapons were the result of an effort that has lasted for three years.

The statment was a response to an Israeli Security Cabinet decision to give the IDF the green light to prepare all the forces necessary for a military operation against Gaza terror cells.

[...]

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons.

The group said its members would not hesitate to add the new weapons to long-range rockets that are being fired at Israeli communities almost every day. It also threatened to use the weapons against IDF soldiers if Israel carried out its threats to invade the Gaza Strip.

"We want to tell [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz that your threats don't frighten us," the leaflet said. "We will surprise you with our new weapons the moment the first soldier sets his foot in the Gaza Strip."



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885848200&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The corrosive battle for power among Palestinian armed factions has generated new terrorist groups and radicalized existing ones. This week, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades affiliated with Fatah even threatened to meet any Israeli assault on Gaza with 20 varieties of chemical weapons they supposedly have developed over the last three years. It's a claim some weapons experts view skeptically but that Israeli officials are unwilling to dismiss, given the way homemade missiles and rocket-propelled grenades have proliferated in Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal

http://www.cleveland.com/politics/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151483743148220.xml&coll=2

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200606%5CINT20060626e.html

Earlier, witnesses reported heavy shelling around Gaza's long-closed airport, and Israeli missiles hit two empty Hamas training camps, a rocket-building factory and several roads.

The militant Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades said it fired a rocket with a chemical warhead at the Israeli town of Sderot at 10 p.m. Wednesday, the first such claim. The Israeli military said it did not detect a rocket fired then.

Palestinians filled up on basic supplies after warplanes knocked out electricity, raising the specter of a humanitarian crisis. The Hamas-led government's information ministry warned of "epidemics and health disasters" because of damaged water pipes to central Gaza and the lack of power to pump water.


http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/06/28/ap2847989.html

What does it take bodies with chemical burns on TV ?

The Aksa Martyrs' Brigades group announced on Sunday that it its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons to be used against Israel.
In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, said the weapons were the result of an effort that has lasted for three years.

The statment was a response to an Israeli Security Cabinet decision to give the IDF the green light to prepare all the forces necessary for a military operation against Gaza terror cells.

[...]

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons.

The group said its members would not hesitate to add the new weapons to long-range rockets that are being fired at Israeli communities almost every day. It also threatened to use the weapons against IDF soldiers if Israel carried out its threats to invade the Gaza Strip.

"We want to tell [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz that your threats don't frighten us," the leaflet said. "We will surprise you with our new weapons the moment the first soldier sets his foot in the Gaza Strip."



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885848200&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The corrosive battle for power among Palestinian armed factions has generated new terrorist groups and radicalized existing ones. This week, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades affiliated with Fatah even threatened to meet any Israeli assault on Gaza with 20 varieties of chemical weapons they supposedly have developed over the last three years. It's a claim some weapons experts view skeptically but that Israeli officials are unwilling to dismiss, given the way homemade missiles and rocket-propelled grenades have proliferated in Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal

http://www.cleveland.com/politics/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151483743148220.xml&coll=2

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200606%5CINT20060626e.html

Earlier, witnesses reported heavy shelling around Gaza's long-closed airport, and Israeli missiles hit two empty Hamas training camps, a rocket-building factory and several roads.

The militant Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades said it fired a rocket with a chemical warhead at the Israeli town of Sderot at 10 p.m. Wednesday, the first such claim. The Israeli military said it did not detect a rocket fired then.

Palestinians filled up on basic supplies after warplanes knocked out electricity, raising the specter of a humanitarian crisis. The Hamas-led government's information ministry warned of "epidemics and health disasters" because of damaged water pipes to central Gaza and the lack of power to pump water.


http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/06/28/ap2847989.html

What does it take bodies with chemical burns on TV ?

The Aksa Martyrs' Brigades group announced on Sunday that it its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons to be used against Israel.
In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, said the weapons were the result of an effort that has lasted for three years.

The statment was a response to an Israeli Security Cabinet decision to give the IDF the green light to prepare all the forces necessary for a military operation against Gaza terror cells.

[...]

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons.

The group said its members would not hesitate to add the new weapons to long-range rockets that are being fired at Israeli communities almost every day. It also threatened to use the weapons against IDF soldiers if Israel carried out its threats to invade the Gaza Strip.

"We want to tell [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and [Defense Minister Amir] Peretz that your threats don't frighten us," the leaflet said. "We will surprise you with our new weapons the moment the first soldier sets his foot in the Gaza Strip."



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885848200&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The corrosive battle for power among Palestinian armed factions has generated new terrorist groups and radicalized existing ones. This week, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades affiliated with Fatah even threatened to meet any Israeli assault on Gaza with 20 varieties of chemical weapons they supposedly have developed over the last three years. It's a claim some weapons experts view skeptically but that Israeli officials are unwilling to dismiss, given the way homemade missiles and rocket-propelled grenades have proliferated in Gaza since the Israeli withdrawal

http://www.cleveland.com/politics/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1151483743148220.xml&coll=2

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200606%5CINT20060626e.html

Earlier, witnesses reported heavy shelling around Gaza's long-closed airport, and Israeli missiles hit two empty Hamas training camps, a rocket-building factory and several roads.

The militant Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades said it fired a rocket with a chemical warhead at the Israeli town of Sderot at 10 p.m. Wednesday, the first such claim. The Israeli military said it did not detect a rocket fired then.

Palestinians filled up on basic supplies after warplanes knocked out electricity, raising the specter of a humanitarian crisis. The Hamas-led government's information ministry warned of "epidemics and health disasters" because of damaged water pipes to central Gaza and the lack of power to pump water.


http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/06/28/ap2847989.html

What does it take bodies with chemical burns on TV ?

The animals also executed Eliahu Asheri, the kidnapped settler...these people are in for a lot of trouble...

The animals also executed Eliahu Asheri, the kidnapped settler...these people are in for a lot of trouble...

Hear that? *puts hand to ear*

Thats the sound of the arabs digging their own graves.

Israel escalates this at its own peril, in the long-term.

I highly doubt it....If Chemical weapons were definitely used, the media would be all over it as the "Top Live Story of The Evening!"

Sounds like a bluff (and/or a threat)...

Let's hope they find the soldier alive...And if not, let Hamas reap the bloody consequences.

Hear that? *puts hand to ear*

Thats the sound of the arabs digging their own graves.
If they're going down I hope they take as many Israelis down with them as possible. More of these chemical weapons will mostly likely be produced and Israel will feel the pain and cost of its oppression. You can't treat people the way they do and not expect payback.

Good. I hope it spreads and every Israeli and Palestinian chokes and dies. A fitting end to the two biggest groups of assholes in history.

Seconded.

I highly doubt it....If Chemical weapons were definitely used, the media would be all over it as the "Top Live Story of The Evening!"

Sounds like a bluff (and/or a threat)...

Let's hope they find the soldier alive...And if not, let Hamas reap the bloody consequences.

well the innocent palistinians dont deserve the wrath of israel...but then again they elected these asshats into power.

kinda like everyone hates america cause of bush hole...and please dont say europe and the world does not silently snicker when we get fucked...you know,like after 911 and thousands died..from all over the world in nyc,the peaceful palistinians were dancing in the streets!

while i feel sorry for them to some extent...another part of me says...fuck you you fucking dirt farmers...you wanna see violence..we could obliterate them,but we dont..why,cause we are actually decent human beings,we dont dance about the streets after abu ghraib..we call for an investigation...but we are evil..lol

fuckin animals,or uneducated..either way..they keep this shit up...well i can only say,you want to play dirty...nasty..i think we can beat your ass..2 ways from sunday.

this is really pissing me off...if people stopped apologising for them..you know..we had to blow up people at a deli...cause we got no other way.

fuck you,go bomb a military installation,or attack soldiers...like mcveigh should have if he had a grievance..if not..piss off..your a coward...

sorry,what a rant,but this is starting to piss me off!

kill the old guy..watch my syphathy evaporate...like it has with the noble insurgents.

If they're going down I hope they take as many Israelis down with them as possible. More of these chemical weapons will mostly likely be produced and Israel will feel the pain and cost of its oppression. You can't treat people the way they do and not expect payback.
And then the Palestineans will feel the cost of their refusal to make peace, and their attempt to commit genocide on the jewish homeland.

Good. I hope it spreads and every Israeli and Palestinian chokes and dies. A fitting end to the two biggest groups of assholes in history.

Thats...uh...nice.:rolleyes:

If they're going down I hope they take as many Israelis down with them as possible. More of these chemical weapons will mostly likely be produced and Israel will feel the pain and cost of its oppression. You can't treat people the way they do and not expect payback.

Arabs cant take any Israelis down with them...all they know how to do is complain, throw rocks and when all else fails, blow themselves up.

Israel play feel some pain over this conflict, but the thorn in their side, Palestine, will be no more...and the word Palestinian will only be refered to in the past tense.

Arabs cant take any Israelis down with them...all they know how to do is complain, throw rocks and when all else fails, blow themselves up.

Israel play feel some pain over this conflict, but the thorn in their side, Palestine, will be no more...and the word Palestinian will only be refered to in the past tense.
They have themselves and their asshole coward leaders in Syria who are afraid to show themselves and fight like men to thank for the fact NO sane country would ever want morons like these living next to them never mind with them .
They have had EVERY opurtunity to advance the peace process and have had much sympathy and support from all over the world...so what do they do ?

They fucking waste it . These dopes have killed themselves tim and time again..they do not want peace they want to all be martyrs ...so be it .

I hope Israel wipes them off the face of the earth .

Arabs cant take any Israelis down with them...all they know how to do is complain, throw rocks and when all else fails, blow themselves up.

Israel play feel some pain over this conflict, but the thorn in their side, Palestine, will be no more...and the word Palestinian will only be refered to in the past tense.


When you guys tried to get rid of the jews it didnt turn out, why will it work this time on the palestinians?

When you guys tried to get rid of the jews it didnt turn out, why will it work this time on the palestinians?

No one is serious about wiping out the Palestinians, and if they are, then they are no better than the terrorists or the nazis

But indeed, this act is justified. Israel had not attacked the Palestinians, instead we give them land, and they in return shoot quasams back at us (I heard a report that it was 100 quasams a day on average. Is that possible??) and then they kill a settler and kidnap a soldier. And all this commited by the government, the legitimately elected government. Anywhere else this would have been seen as an act of war. Well, if they want war, they got it.

And anyway, they can stop this at any point they want to, simply return the soldier.

No one is serious about wiping out the Palestinians, and if they are, then they are no better than the terrorists or any nazi.

But indeed, this act is justified. Israel had not attacked the Palestinians, instead we give them land, and they in return shoot quasams back at us (I heard a report that it was 100 quasams a day on average. Is that possible??) and then they kill a settler and kidnap a soldier. And all this commited by the government, the legitimately elected government. Anywhere else this would have been seen as an act of war. Well, if they want war, they got it.

And anyway, they can stop this at any point they want to, simply return the soldier.


I was under the impression the 'acts of war' have been going back and forth for decades.

This is far beyond "who started it," both sides are drenched in innocent people's blood.

I was under the impression the 'acts of war' have been going back and forth for decades.

This is far beyond "who started it," both sides are drenched in innocent people's blood.

And Israel ahd tried to stop it by giving back land. The Palestinians simply won't agree. While it is true Israel has killed innocents, it was inorder to defend itself. Whenever it wasn't, it was done as something seperate from the government and the people.

Now lets prepare for the anti-Israel crowd to find a way to blame the terrorist use of chemical missles on Israelis. We've all seen the reasoning - if its Israel's fault, then its Israel's fault. And if its Palestine's fault, then its Israel's fault too.

It should be interesting to see what exactly these chemicals they are using are. They could range from some really serious stuff like anthrax to the same old chemicals they always use, such as putting rat poison in bombs to try and maximize survivor casualty rates.

And Israel ahd tried to stop it by giving back land. The Palestinians simply won't agree. While it is true Israel has killed innocents, it was inorder to defend itself. Whenever it wasn't, it was done as something seperate from the government and the people.



Isnt the idea behind palestinian killings of civilians to deter future israeli military incursion and occupation?

IE, to "defend itself."

Israel should not escalate these things, it isnt in anyone's interests.

I was under the impression the 'acts of war' have been going back and forth for decades.

This is far beyond "who started it," both sides are drenched in innocent people's blood.

This seems to be hinting at the "cycle of violence" belief, which is really a myth. Every Israeli action has been made as a response to force or threat, and thus in defense. To imply that it is a cycle, or that they have been going back and forth, would be to give moral equivalence to terror and military operations, and would give moral equivalence to aggression and defense.

Isnt the idea behind palestinian killings of civilians to deter future israeli military incursion and occupation?

IE, to "defend itself."

And no, it isn't. Nor do the terrorists claim it is. If you read the Hamas charter, it explictly states that the goal is to wipe out every Jew. Not just in Israel, but wherever they are. It endorses the offense, as does virtually every terrorist charter, and does not claim to be working out of pure defense.

Genocide can never be called an action to defend yourself, and genocide is exactly what things like the Hamas charter call for.

This seems to be hinting at the "cycle of violence" belief, which is really a myth. Every Israeli action has been made as a response to force or threat, and thus in defense. To imply that it is a cycle, or that they have been going back and forth, would be to give moral equivalence to terror and military operations, and would give moral equivalence to aggression and defense.


Most people in the developed world already equate palestinians blowing up civilians with israelis blowing up civilians.

Your PR war was lost a long time ago.

I was under the impression the 'acts of war' have been going back and forth for decades.

This is far beyond "who started it," both sides are drenched in innocent people's blood.


Innocents blood is on the hands of the terrorists, who plan attacks, hide out, and launch Qassam rockets from civilian neighorhoods, knowing that civilian casualties may occur WHEN Israel retaliates. Wanna be a dick and launch a missile at Israel? Then do it from an open field where children and families don't live, so when the Israelis fight back they won't get their own people in the way.

And no, it isn't. Nor do the terrorists claim it is. If you read the Hamas charter, it explictly states that the goal is to wipe out every Jew. Not just in Israel, but wherever they are. It endorses the offense, as does virtually every terrorist charter, and does not claim to be working out of pure defense.

Genocide can never be called an action to defend yourself, and genocide is exactly what things like the Hamas charter call for.


Well, i suppose we should be thankful that everyone in palestine doesnt subscribe to the hamas charter, and that hamas is pretty lax in its well-publicized charter's nefarious plans for genocide, blah blah blah.

Isnt the idea behind palestinian killings of civilians to deter future israeli military incursion and occupation?

IE, to "defend itself."

Israel should not escalate these things, it isnt in anyone's interests.

Ummm, that's a pretty dumb way to deter further actions from Israel. I mean, just look at history, Israel eventually retaliates. And that's not defending when you kill innocent civillians on purpose. Israel is not escalating things. It seems calm because only Israel is getting attacked. But how is it in Israel's interest to simply sit and get attacked without retaliating.

Most people in the developed world already equate palestinians blowing up civilians with israelis blowing up civilians.

Your PR war was lost a long time ago.

No, it wouldn't. Nor is there an ethnical theory today that supports such a rediculous claim. The fact that Palestinians target civilians makes it morally light years apart from the fact that Israelis do not target civilians. You're confusing intended killing of civilians with unintened killing of civilians.

Also, note that more Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians than Israelis have killed of Palestinian civillians. That should be telling, as well. In addition to the fact that Palestinians killing other Palestinian civilians makes up about a fourth of total Palestinian deaths.

Ummm, that's a pretty dumb way to deter further actions from Israel. I mean, just look at history, Israel eventually retaliates. And that's not defending when you kill innocent civillians on purpose. Israel is not escalating things. It seems calm because only Israel is getting attacked. But how is it in Israel's interest to simply sit and get attacked without retaliating.


Israel doesnt do a whole lot better with its "non suicide bombings" of palestinians.

A bomb on a vest, a missle from a helicopter, a bomb from a plane, they all do the same thing in the end: they blow up and they kill innocent people.

All israel can do is punish, destroy, deter. All palestine can do is punish, destroy, deter.

This strategy wont be effective until it becomes outright genocide.

Well, i suppose we should be thankful that everyone in palestine doesnt subscribe to the hamas charter, and that hamas is pretty lax in its well-publicized charter's nefarious plans for genocide, blah blah blah.

Oh, you're making an intelligent response now. "Blah blah blah" and "Hamas is pretty lax" is a great way to respond to the fact that they endorse the genocide of Jews.

And everyone doesn't subscribe to the Hamas charter - Hamas was just elected by a majority vote. Nor is everyone a terrorist. But the fact is, the majority of terror attacks come from select groups, and each of these groups endorses the genocide of Jews within their charters. Hamas, al-Aksa, etc.

To say "well not every Palestinian subscribes" it to create a strawman. The fact is, the ones who are doing the terror acts do subscribe to that theory. And those are the ones in question.

Well, i suppose we should be thankful that everyone in palestine doesnt subscribe to the hamas charter, and that hamas is pretty lax in its well-publicized charter's nefarious plans for genocide, blah blah blah.


Right...come on NG, open your eyes. An overwhelming majority of Palestinians democratically elected this Hamas government with I believe a 75% majority vote. They know what Hamas is about, theres no hiding that. They put them in power. They aren't a new entity; they've been committing acts of terror for years, it's their specialty.

About the charter and them being lax, please. That is their stated goal, it is the main theme throughout their entire charter. The destruction of Israel is their ultimate goal, and they're willing to send their children into market places with bombs strapped to their chests to prove it.

No, it wouldn't. Nor is there an ethnical theory today that supports such a rediculous claim. The fact that Palestinians target civilians makes it morally light years apart from the fact that Israelis do not target civilians. You're confusing intended killing of civilians with unintened killing of civilians.

Also, note that more Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians than Israelis have killed of Palestinian civillians. That should be telling, as well. In addition to the fact that Palestinians killing other Palestinian civilians makes up about a fourth of total Palestinian deaths.


The problem is pretending that "intent" is paramount in the conflict.

Until israel stops blowing up palestinian civilians, whether it claims it "intends to" or not, the palestinians wont stop blowing up israelis.

Until palestinians stop blowing up israelis, israelis wont stop blowing up palestinians.

It's a vicious circle.

double

triple

Israel doesnt do a whole lot better with its "non suicide bombings" of palestinians.

So, do you believe that murder and manslaughter at the same thing? If someone kills a person in cold blood, its identical to someone accidently killing a person?

Following your line of reasoning, you would have to believe that. If not, then it would be evident that you have a double standard in regards to Israel.

Meh. I will wait for the main agencies to mention a chemical attack.

Not even Fox news has anything on this.....

So, do you believe that murder and manslaughter at the same thing? If someone kills a person in cold blood, its identical to someone accidently killing a person?

Following your line of reasoning, you would have to believe that. If not, then it would be evident that you have a double standard in regards to Israel.


Israel is aware that its attacks will probably cause civilian 'collateral damage.'

It isnt manslaughter if you want to kill one guy in a house so you blow the whole thing up.

The problem is pretending that "intent" is paramount in the conflict.

Until israel stops blowing up palestinian civilians, whether it claims it "intends to" or not, the palestinians wont stop blowing up israelis.

Until palestinians stop blowing up israelis, israelis wont stop blowing up palestinians.

It's a vicious circle.

It isn't a circle, nor does anyone even remotely familiar with the conflict know that. You can't show me a single instance of circularity in the conflict. And, again, the terror groups don't even claim such an absurdity. They claim they are attacking, not defending, and attacking to destroy Israel.

In contrast, each Israel response is measured against a previous attack of threat.

When you guys tried to get rid of the jews it didnt turn out, why will it work this time on the palestinians?

Whos 'you guys'?

Do I look like Reinhard Heydrich to you?

Nobody wants to systematically muder the Palestinians...all we are saying is that, if its a war they want, then its a war they'll get....and they wont come out of it.

Israel is aware that its attacks will probably cause civilian 'collateral damage.'

It isnt manslaughter if you want to kill one guy in a house so you blow the whole thing up.

Its actually collateral damage according to international law and the rules of war. But hey, I guess you're ignoring that for your own interpretation.

You've avoided the question, too. Surprise suprirse.

Right...come on NG, open your eyes. An overwhelming majority of Palestinians democratically elected this Hamas government with I believe a 75% majority vote. They know what Hamas is about, theres no hiding that. They put them in power. They aren't a new entity; they've been committing acts of terror for years, it's their specialty.

About the charter and them being lax, please. That is their stated goal, it is the main theme throughout their entire charter. The destruction of Israel is their ultimate goal, and they're willing to send their children into market places with bombs strapped to their chests to prove it.


Hamas has built quite a lot of schools and hospitals to endear itself to the palestinians. It isnt just a terrorist group, its also a charity and its also a political organization.

Fatah was notoriously corrupt, it is dishonest to pretend that everyone who voted for hamas did it because he unconditionally supported hamas' suicide bombings.

The whole 'whose fault is it?' thing is quite complex, but if you do enough thinking you will realize who the real people to blame are... and there are several of them.

The Nazis, yes you heard me right, for making us care enough about the jews to give them the land.

The British and French, for ignoring thousands of years of ethnic hatred to draw arbitrary national borders.

The United States and the Soviet Union, for backing their respective clients when they could have said no to Isreali/Arabic arms requests and therefore let them run out of ammunition.

The Arabs, for using the Palestinians as an excuse to expand their powerbase long enough for the Palestinians to actually begin to think that the Arabs mean it and will actually succeed in doing it one day.

The Palestinians, for killing innocent civilians, directly or indirectly, and therefore inflaming the conflict.

The Isrealis, for killing innocent civilians, directly or indirectly, and therefore inflaming the conflict.

As a matter of fact, we are going to have to blame humanity and civilization as a whole, but then again can you really blame humanity? We are not perfect beings, we hate, we fight, and alot of the time(although not the majority) we actually kill...

Alright, enough philisophical ranting.

Its actually collateral damage according to international law and the rules of war. But hey, I guess you're ignoring that for your own interpretation.

You've avoided the question, too. Surprise suprirse.


Do you propose to evaluate the entire I-P conflict based on established international law and the rules of war?

Is this some sort of cherry-picking where settling occupied territory will be ignored but rocketing people's houses won't?

The problem is pretending that "intent" is paramount in the conflict.

Until israel stops blowing up palestinian civilians, whether it claims it "intends to" or not, the palestinians wont stop blowing up israelis.

Until palestinians stop blowing up israelis, israelis wont stop blowing up palestinians.

It's a vicious circle.


Israel attacks Palestinian terrorists that purposely hide amongst civilian populations. Civilians are killed because terrorists operate from these populated areas on purpose; to maximize their own casualites.

Palestinians go into Israel, and blow themselves up in civilian areas not to kill a soldier here or there, but to explicitly target innocents going about their day.

Are you following the differences here?

Now lets prepare for the anti-Israel crowd to find a way to blame the terrorist use of chemical missles on Israelis. We've all seen the reasoning - if its Israel's fault, then its Israel's fault. And if its Palestine's fault, then its Israel's fault too.

It should be interesting to see what exactly these chemicals they are using are. They could range from some really serious stuff like anthrax to the same old chemicals they always use, such as putting rat poison in bombs to try and maximize survivor casualty rates.

if the palistinians used chemical weapons..or even houshold chemicals..then isreal is justified in obliterating them off the face of the map..as they deserve it....

just like the us with the atomic bomb...it would save lives,and to think contrary..is foolish...i hope isreal destroys them,and then we will see who the real instigators are.

Israel attacks Palestinian terrorists that purposely hide amongst civilian populations. Civilians are killed because terrorists operate from these populated areas on purpose; to maximize their own casualites.

Palestinians go into Israel, and blow themselves up in civilian areas not to kill a soldier here or there, but to explicitly target innocents going about their day.

Are you following the differences here?


Maybe I have blood from dead civilians and bits of kids' bones in my eyes.

You say that the Palestinians won't stop until Israel does, and Israel won't stop until the Palestinians do. Well that's not true.

I love this example:
If the Palestinians put down their weapons, what would happen? No further people will die.

If Israel puts down its weapons, what will happen? All Israelis die.

if the palistinians used chemical weapons..or even houshold chemicals..then isreal is justified in obliterating them off the face of the map..as they deserve it....

just like the us with the atomic bomb...it would save lives,and to think contrary..is foolish...i hope isreal destroys them,and then we will see who the real instigators are.


Do you propose that the israelis put the bodies into mass graves or burn them in ovens?

Advantages and disadvantages both ways: you pick.

Well, i suppose we should be thankful that everyone in palestine doesnt subscribe to the hamas charter, and that hamas is pretty lax in its well-publicized charter's nefarious plans for genocide, blah blah blah.

well they did get elected!

nuff said.....rock the vote if you dont wanr hate...pretty simple....but i suspect the palistinians..thought they would elect thugs...and i think now they will reap what they sowed....aside from the fact they were manipulated and used.

Innocents blood is on the hands of the terrorists, who plan attacks, hide out, and launch Qassam rockets from civilian neighorhoods, knowing that civilian casualties may occur WHEN Israel retaliates. Wanna be a dick and launch a missile at Israel? Then do it from an open field where children and families don't live, so when the Israelis fight back they won't get their own people in the way.

exactly.

Do you propose to evaluate the entire I-P conflict based on established international law and the rules of war?

Is this some sort of cherry-picking where settling occupied territory will be ignored but rocketing people's houses won't?

I never ignore anything regarding international law and the rules of war. Unfortunantly, most people don't understand how international law works. They tend to confuse its methodology with the civil and common law of individual nations.

If you want to talk about settlements and international law, we can. The UN said it was a violation of internatonal law, but the Israeli Supreme Court said no. International law works via treaty, and unless Israel was a signatory and sat in at the ICJ during that ruling, it isn't actually binding international law. Nor do any legal experts claim otherwise.

In the same respect, no one has seriously questioned Israeli military attacks. The fact is that collateral damage as a result of Israeli rocket attacks is perfectly legal. It isn't even disputed, like the settlements.

Of course, bringing up the settlements is a red herring anyway. Lets try to be logical and not use fallacies.

Hamas has built quite a lot of schools and hospitals to endear itself to the palestinians. It isnt just a terrorist group, its also a charity and its also a political organization.

Fatah was notoriously corrupt, it is dishonest to pretend that everyone who voted for hamas did it because he unconditionally supported hamas' suicide bombings.

I can't understand it when people justify electing a terrorist organization to the government because they built a school.

I know that if here in the US, if there was on one side a corrupt, anti-semetic, Israeli hating, asshole, and on the other side someone who explicitly said his goal was to kill all Muslims, or any certain people, and had actually proven to act on his words... Well, I would vote for the anti-semite. I am a Jewish Israeli btw, who lives in the US.

if the palistinians used chemical weapons..or even houshold chemicals..then isreal is justified in obliterating them off the face of the map..as they deserve it....

just like the us with the atomic bomb...it would save lives,and to think contrary..is foolish...i hope isreal destroys them,and then we will see who the real instigators are.

Palestinians have been using household chemicals for a long time.

I'm thinking this reference to chemicals is going to be something a little bit deadlier, because if it were just household chemials it wouldn't make the news, considering that they are included to add extra damage in every other bomb attack.

Israel is aware that its attacks will probably cause civilian 'collateral damage.'

It isnt manslaughter if you want to kill one guy in a house so you blow the whole thing up.
It's not even manslaughter. It's fair play under the rules of war.

If you subscribe to the principles laid out in the Geneva conventions, if Israel at least makes an effort to minimize civilian casualties in the pursuit of a legitimate military objective the innocent blood is not on their hands. That blood is ENTIRELY the burden of those who use non-combatant populations as a defacto shields. In the particular case of of the Israel Palestinian conflict, it is the Palestinian people who want war with the Israeli people. The only peace that there is to be had in such a situation is the peace of the grave. If Israel treated them as peers, that's exactly what the Palestinians would have.

It isn't a circle, nor does anyone even remotely familiar with the conflict know that. You can't show me a single instance of circularity in the conflict. And, again, the terror groups don't even claim such an absurdity. They claim they are attacking, not defending, and attacking to destroy Israel.

In contrast, each Israel response is measured against a previous attack of threat.

what he said,not terribly complex.

what does bart simpson say..dooh

I can't understand it when people justify electing a terrorist organization to the government because they built a school.

I know that if here in the US, if there was on one side a corrupt, anti-semetic, Israeli hating, asshole, and on the other side someone who explicitly said his goal was to kill all Muslims, or any certain people, and had actually proven to act on his words... Well, I would vote for the anti-semite. I am a Jewish Israeli btw, who lives in the US.


Well, you have the antisemite terrorists (al aqsa/fatah) on one side who are corrupt and proven failures, and the antisemite terrorists on the other side who have built a hospital where you children get medicine and built a school for them to learn and put together somewhere for you to live.

All things equal, what won the election wasnt terrorism or antisemitism, which fatah more or less embraced just as much as hamas, but other factors.

Hamas has built quite a lot of schools and hospitals to endear itself to the palestinians. It isnt just a terrorist group, its also a charity and its also a political organization.

Fatah was notoriously corrupt, it is dishonest to pretend that everyone who voted for hamas did it because he unconditionally supported hamas' suicide bombings.

like my dad always told me..follow the money...bet you a bunch is in swiss acounts..just like arafats was...1 of the wealthiest men alive...but he was a man of the people..lol

i got a bridge for sale...

The whole 'whose fault is it?' thing is quite complex, but if you do enough thinking you will realize who the real people to blame are... and there are several of them.

The Nazis, yes you heard me right, for making us care enough about the jews to give them the land.

The British and French, for ignoring thousands of years of ethnic hatred to draw arbitrary national borders.

The United States and the Soviet Union, for backing their respective clients when they could have said no to Isreali/Arabic arms requests and therefore let them run out of ammunition.

The Arabs, for using the Palestinians as an excuse to expand their powerbase long enough for the Palestinians to actually begin to think that the Arabs mean it and will actually succeed in doing it one day.

The Palestinians, for killing innocent civilians, directly or indirectly, and therefore inflaming the conflict.

The Isrealis, for killing innocent civilians, directly or indirectly, and therefore inflaming the conflict.

As a matter of fact, we are going to have to blame humanity and civilization as a whole, but then again can you really blame humanity? We are not perfect beings, we hate, we fight, and alot of the time(although not the majority) we actually kill...

Alright, enough philisophical ranting.

wow...great points!

well lets think new grendada... if some mass murderers built a school and some hospitals would you help to further their cause?

Well, you have the antisemite terrorists (al aqsa/fatah) on one side who are corrupt and proven failures, and the antisemite terrorists on the other side who have built a hospital where you children get medicine and built a school for them to learn and put together somewhere for you to live.

All things equal, what won the election wasnt terrorism or antisemitism, which fatah more or less embraced just as much as hamas, but other factors.


Why haven't the peace loving Palestinians you think exist created a new Palestinian political party that isn't hell bent on Israels destruction and based on terrorism. That maybe the people wouldn't be forced to choose between murderers who don't build hospitals for them and murderers that do. wouldn't that be nice?

Why haven't the peace loving Palestinians you think exist created a new Palestinian political party that isn't hell bent on Israels destruction and based on terrorism. That maybe the people wouldn't be forced to choose between murderers who don't build hospitals for them and murderers that do. wouldn't that be nice?

lol....the logic is..logic

Well, you have the antisemite terrorists (al aqsa/fatah) on one side who are corrupt and proven failures, and the antisemite terrorists on the other side who have built a hospital where you children get medicine and built a school for them to learn and put together somewhere for you to live.

All things equal, what won the election wasnt terrorism or antisemitism, which fatah more or less embraced just as much as hamas, but other factors.

Ok, how about this, I would take any horrible president, anything you throw at me, over a murderer.

I was under the impression the 'acts of war' have been going back and forth for decades.

This is far beyond "who started it," both sides are drenched in innocent people's blood.


Greetings


Perhaps this conflict needs to be settled once and for all then, would that be fair?

Frankly i´m amazed that they dared kidnap the soldier, everyone knows Isreal DOES NOT negociate with anyone.

The whole 'whose fault is it?' thing is quite complex, but if you do enough thinking you will realize who the real people to blame are... and there are several of them.

The Nazis, yes you heard me right, for making us care enough about the jews to give them the land.

The British and French, for ignoring thousands of years of ethnic hatred to draw arbitrary national borders.

The United States and the Soviet Union, for backing their respective clients when they could have said no to Isreali/Arabic arms requests and therefore let them run out of ammunition.

The Arabs, for using the Palestinians as an excuse to expand their powerbase long enough for the Palestinians to actually begin to think that the Arabs mean it and will actually succeed in doing it one day.

The Palestinians, for killing innocent civilians, directly or indirectly, and therefore inflaming the conflict.

The Isrealis, for killing innocent civilians, directly or indirectly, and therefore inflaming the conflict.

As a matter of fact, we are going to have to blame humanity and civilization as a whole, but then again can you really blame humanity? We are not perfect beings, we hate, we fight, and alot of the time(although not the majority) we actually kill...

Alright, enough philisophical ranting.


Greetings

Would they, hypotheticly speaking, be able to live in peace with each other?

I don´t think so, there are too many people with who needs this conflict to ensure their own needs and power

Thats...uh...nice.:rolleyes:

What can I say? I'm a nice guy. I want to see an end to their suffering. :)

What can I say? I'm a nice guy. I want to see an end to their suffering. :)

You need to get to work on a thesis...

...I'm sure the only reason the conflict exists in the first place is the general scarcity of mud in the region. :)

like my dad always told me..follow the money...bet you a bunch is in swiss acounts..just like arafats was...1 of the wealthiest men alive...but he was a man of the people..lol

i got a bridge for sale...

Ever heard of operation wrath of god? This operation used the Munich massacre as a pretext to knock out the leadership of the Black September group, killing between 20-35 people. However, of these people, many were not even Palestinian, there was in fact only one person with a link to terrorism in their hitlist. Others were simply educated, influential people, the kind of leadership that is required to pull the Palestinians up by their bootstraps. This is why, after all of those killings, corrupt Arafat was the best leader left, all of the other ones had been wiped out by Israel, which I believe was an attempt to destroy the Palestinian value for good.

Also, you should understand that Israel, which prides itself as the only democracy in the middle east, and the US, which tries to spread democracy in the middle east, are condemning a true democracy in Palestine. You should understand why they voted in Hamas. Fatah was corrupt, and for decades, had done nothing, while Hamas was supporting the Palestinian infrastructure and stuff. People support Fatahs position as moderate and attempting peace, however they actually want to get somewhere and want more than talk, which is what Hamas offers.

You need to get to work on a thesis...

...I'm sure the only reason the conflict exists in the first place is the general scarcity of mud in the region. :)

On the contrary. Dead Sea mud is famous and I hope to play in it someday. :)

Ever heard of operation wrath of god? This operation used the Munich massacre as a pretext to knock out the leadership of the Black September group, killing between 20-35 people. However, of these people, many were not even Palestinian, there was in fact only one person with a link to terrorism in their hitlist. Others were simply educated, influential people, the kind of leadership that is required to pull the Palestinians up by their bootstraps. This is why, after all of those killings, corrupt Arafat was the best leader left, all of the other ones had been wiped out by Israel, which I believe was an attempt to destroy the Palestinian value for good.

Pffft, there you go with your alternate, revisionist history again. Next you'll try to tell us that Arafat had no links with terror, too.

You've also slipped into the fallacy of an internal contradiction. You claim that many were not Palestinian (which is true), then you claim that the reason Palestinians had no good leadership was because these people were killed. Which is it? The fact is, most weren't Palestinian, most funded and planned the terror attacks. They would never have been Palestinian leadership.

Also, you should understand that Israel, which prides itself as the only democracy in the middle east, and the US, which tries to spread democracy in the middle east, are condemning a true democracy in Palestine. You should understand why they voted in Hamas. Fatah was corrupt, and for decades, had done nothing, while Hamas was supporting the Palestinian infrastructure and stuff. People support Fatahs position as moderate and attempting peace, however they actually want to get somewhere and want more than talk, which is what Hamas offers.

Palestine doesn't have a "true democracy." I would suggest reading Plato's Republic and familiarizing yourself with how a democracy works. First, people have to be educated. The Palestinian people are not. Second, the people must be protected from "mob rule." This means that criminal groups are not eligable to be a part of democracy. Electing a terror group is not democracy, its mob rule. There has been no "true democracy" in Palestine, ever.

Fatah was corrupt, Hamas is less corrupt. Both advocate the genocide of Jews. Now, perhaps someone who makes the argument that Hamas won because Fatah was corrupt could tell me why the Palestinians did not vote in a group that doesn't advocate genocide? There were other, non-corrupt groups in Palestine that ran for election. There were groups that did not advocate the genocide of Jews, and groups that wanted to recognize Israel. Yet, the Palestinian people voted for the two groups that advocated a second Holocaust.

Ever heard of operation wrath of god? This operation used the Munich massacre as a pretext to knock out the leadership of the Black September group, killing between 20-35 people. However, of these people, many were not even Palestinian, there was in fact only one person with a link to terrorism in their hitlist. Others were simply educated, influential people, the kind of leadership that is required to pull the Palestinians up by their bootstraps. This is why, after all of those killings, corrupt Arafat was the best leader left, all of the other ones had been wiped out by Israel, which I believe was an attempt to destroy the Palestinian value for good.

Also, you should understand that Israel, which prides itself as the only democracy in the middle east, and the US, which tries to spread democracy in the middle east, are condemning a true democracy in Palestine. You should understand why they voted in Hamas. Fatah was corrupt, and for decades, had done nothing, while Hamas was supporting the Palestinian infrastructure and stuff. People support Fatahs position as moderate and attempting peace, however they actually want to get somewhere and want more than talk, which is what Hamas offers.

Ya, good conspiracy theories. Its almost as good as the "Israel controls the US government" one.

Anyway, as I said before, I would rather vote for a corrupt anti-semetic dictator (I am Jewish) than someone who would try and commit a genocide against any group of people. Obviously the Palestinians don't. They either want that genocide, or don't really care if it happens.

wow...great points!


Yes, god bless that guy for pointing out that this problem defies solution because it is extremely complicated.

It isnt "the palestinians are all crazy evil killers" and it isnt "the israelis are all crazy evil killers"

Painting this complex issue in dishonestly oversimplified terms like some of the posters in this thread do is a shame both to reason and decency.

Both the israelis and the palestinians should fly blood-red flags, and so should the countries which buy them their guns and bombs.

A plague on both houses, thank god I do not live there.

Gaza militants say fired chemical-tipped warhead (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-06-29T013909Z_01_L29258645_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ROCKET.xml)
GAZA (Reuters) - A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.

The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.

"The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead" at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts?
Are they chemical or Biological?
It says...possess about 20 biological warheads yet they managed to fire...fired one rocket with a chemical warhead
Complete and utter BS.

BS perhaps...but let's nuke the site from orbit...

...it's the only way to be sure.

:p

Hmm. Would like a little more proof.

If true, well, that's scary.



Scary? Don't see why.

If it does turn out to be true.... i wonder where they could have gotten chemical weapons from *cough* Iraq :gundge:*cough*

Gaza militants say fired chemical-tipped warhead (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-06-29T013909Z_01_L29258645_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ROCKET.xml)
GAZA (Reuters) - A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early on Thursday.

The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns. This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.

"The al-Aqsa Brigades have fired one rocket with a chemical warhead" at southern Israel, Abu Qusai, a spokesman for the group, said in Gaza.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Thoughts?


If true, then Israel has all the necessary excuse to crush those Arab vipers for once and for all. ( As if more excuse were needed. )

Also, note that more Palestinians have killed Israeli civilians than Israelis have killed of Palestinian civillians. That should be telling, as well. In addition to the fact that Palestinians killing other Palestinian civilians makes up about a fourth of total Palestinian deaths.

No-one should ever take you seriously. Your arguments are skewed, and your 'facts' are egregious, to say the least.

Palestinian vs Israeli deaths (http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/arccrisis/ispal-casualty.html)

Palestine doesn't have a "true democracy." I would suggest reading Plato's Republic and familiarizing yourself with how a democracy works. First, people have to be educated. The Palestinian people are not. Second, the people must be protected from "mob rule." This means that criminal groups are not eligable to be a part of democracy. Electing a terror group is not democracy, its mob rule. There has been no "true democracy" in Palestine, ever.


I mean, just how blinkered do you have to be before you fall into your own ass? Plato's republic as the ideal of democracy? When were you at school? 1412? The Republic, as any fule no, is fairly far from the idea of true (Rousseauvian for instance) democracy. It advocates a ruling elite of philosophers, for Christ's sake. Read it before posting. It's writing things like this that make you out to be far less informed than you claim to be. It's as though each time an argument is presented that you instinctively know you must disagree with, you hop on your little info-skateboard, hit Google & Wikipedia and bile out some more invective.

In fact, speaking of Plato's Republic, the analogy of the man in the cave pertains more to you than just about anybody I've come across in the past year.

You're unreal.

edit: And how is electing a 'terror group' not democratic? How exactly is that mob rule when an election is involved? Care to define Democracy again? Could you? Care to define a 'terror group' and contrast with 'political wing'? Can you? I doubt it.

BS perhaps...but let's nuke the site from orbit...

...it's the only way to be sure.

:p
If the Arabs and the Jews can't play nice it should go back to The Catholic Church.

Scary? Don't see why.
Because angry Israel=not good/scary.

I mean, just how blinkered do you have to be before you fall into your own ass? Plato's republic as the ideal of democracy? When were you at school? 1412? The Republic, as any fule no, is fairly far from the idea of true (Rousseauvian for instance) democracy. It advocates a ruling elite of philosophers, for Christ's sake. Read it before posting. It's writing things like this that make you out to be far less informed than you claim to be. It's as though each time an argument is presented that you instinctively know you must disagree with, you hop on your little info-skateboard, hit Google & Wikipedia and bile out some more invective.

I never said the republic was the ideal of democracy. I was referring to Plato's discourse on democracy in The Republic. Plato explained why democracy would not work (the things I outlined) in The Republic, and then went on to explain the republic as his favored system of government. Seems like you've slipped into the fallacy of equivocation here.

edit: And how is electing a 'terror group' not democratic? How exactly is that mob rule when an election is involved? Care to define Democracy again? Could you? Care to define a 'terror group' and contrast with 'political wing'? Can you? I doubt it.

Oh, I thought I explained why it didn't fit Plato's criteria for a democracy. Lets try not to confuse it with what Plato said about a republic, even though it was contained within the same book. I'd hate to see you slip into the equivocational fallacy again.

Electing a group by the mass of the people isn't democratic, according to Plato, if the people are not educated and informed. In addition, they must be interested enough in politics that they all vote, so there is a true turnout. Those are the barriers to a true democracy that Plato outlined in The Republic. The voters in Palestine fit neither criteria - they are some of the least educated in the Middle East, and did not have a full voter turnout.

Define a terror group? Sure - a group that uses terror as policy. Hamas does, as they flatly declare in their charter. These terror groups don't pretend as if they aren't terrorist, or that terror isn't a tactic. They admit that it is policy, but justified. As oppossed to the terror supporters, who try to claim that they aren't actually terrorist.

I never said the republic was the ideal of democracy. I was referring to Plato's discourse on democracy in The Republic. Plato explained why democracy would not work (the things I outlined) in The Republic, and then went on to explain the republic as his favored system of government. Seems like you've slipped into the fallacy of equivocation here.

Oh right. So this:

I would suggest reading Plato's Republic and familiarizing yourself with how a democracy works.

Was actually a smear-job by someone representing you? An inside agent, if you will?

By the first statement I quoted, it seems that you favour a Philocracy. Is this correct?

What do you believe the best system of government is, TS? Can you refer to Plato again?

Oh, and please please please respond to your erroneous palestinian vs israeli deaths statement.

Thanks!! :p

Electing a group by the mass of the people isn't democratic, according to Plato, if the people are not educated and informed. In addition, they must be interested enough in politics that they all vote, so there is a true turnout. Those are the barriers to a true democracy that Plato outlined in The Republic. The voters in Palestine fit neither criteria - they are some of the least educated in the Middle East, and did not have a full voter turnout.



You can apply the same argument to America, you Clown.

Interestingly, it turns out that you're the one having a problem with equivocation.

You can apply the same argument to America, you Clown.

Interestingly, it turns out that you're the one having a problem with equivocation.

America isn't a true democracy. Anyone with a rudimentary background in US politics knows that its a republic - including Americna politicans and the average high school student. Nor is it a democracy via Plato's criteria.

Nor is that equivocation. You could do to look the word up. Try looking up ad hominem while you're at it too, you clown. :rolleyes:

Oh right. So this:

Was actually a smear-job by someone representing you? An inside agent, if you will?

By the first statement I quoted, it seems that you favour a Philocracy. Is this correct?

What do you believe the best system of government is, TS? Can you refer to Plato again?

Oh, and please please please respond to your erroneous palestinian vs israeli deaths statement.

Thanks!! :p

Yes, thats equivocation. I said to read the Republic and see how a democracy works. From that, you equivocate when you draw the conclusion I was saying that what Plato wrote about a Republic is a democracy.

The fact is, Plato wrote, in The Republic, how an ideal democracy works, and why true democracy is virtually impossible to attain.

And I'm not sure what the best form of government is. Nor did I claim such. I only pointed out the fact that Palestinians do not have a true democracy, but mob rule.

No-one should ever take you seriously.

dont worry, no1 does

America isn't a true democracy. Anyone with a rudimentary background in US politics knows that its a republic - including Americna politicans and the average high school student. Nor is it a democracy via Plato's criteria.

Nor is that equivocation. You could do to look the word up. Try looking up ad hominem while you're at it too, you clown. :rolleyes:

Ok. So is America a democratic republic or not? Is Palestine? Is Israel? Is the Uk?

Which of the above is a trick question?

And please, can you answer your statement about Israeli vs Palestinian deaths?

And while we're here - can you give an example of equivocation using my quotes?

Edit: Stating that Plato's definition of Democracy is removed from his definition of Republic is hardly equivocation, is it?

Since it appears necessary, here's an example of equivocation:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

So - where is this construct in my posts?

The ignorance that is evident in this forum is disgusting.
Lets put things in perspective. Put your self in this position. You are kicked out of your home, and lose everything you've worked for for your whole life. Then, to make matters worse your shipped off to a refugee camp, and for the next 4 decades, your and your descendanst suffer extreme genocide, oppression, and are given no chance to develop socially and economically. And then your blamed because a minority is commiting crimes.

Minkonio
Member

the cost of their refusal to make peace, and their attempt to commit genocide on the jewish homeland.

Minkonia, are the palestinians truly commiting genocide, they have in fact suffered many massacres. Up to 500 palestinian CIVILIANS die every year, and the Israeli government has many times commitited tru massacres, in one case up to 3000 civilians were killed in a refugee camp in lebanon.

If israel takes this situation any further, they will face the consequences, the palestinians, like any nation deserve the right to respond to attacks on their homeland. I bet many would simple argue that Palestinians have been firing rockets, these have only occured after Israel had attacked.

Israel is the most appaling terrorist nation in the world, and one day they will be punished for their actions.

Long Live Palestine!

Ok. So is America a democratic republic or not? Is Palestine? Is Israel? Is the Uk?

Which of the above is a trick question?

And please, can you answer your statement about Israeli vs Palestinian deaths?

And while we're here - can you give an example of equivocation using my quotes?


The UK is a Constitutional Democracy.
Palestine is not even a State - and that is the way it must stay.

Their firing Ant killer at the Israels?

Zukariaa']I hope Israel crushes them, then. :)
Yeah, I'm at the point of being fed up with these Palestinian terrorists. Lets show them how fun it is to be a Martyr.

edit: And how is electing a 'terror group' not democratic? How exactly is that mob rule when an election is involved? Care to define Democracy again? Could you? Care to define a 'terror group' and contrast with 'political wing'? Can you? I doubt it.


Greetings

Do you think the election was carried out freely and without pressure from Hamas nor Fatah?

I dont think so, but does that make the elections unlawfull?

The UK is a Constitutional Democracy.
Palestine is not even a State - and that is the way it must stay.

Zing!

Nice stuff. The UK is a constitutional democracy (sans constitution) that has Sinn fein as elected representatives.

So we see where we're going here, eh?

No-one should ever take you seriously. Your arguments are skewed, and your 'facts' are egregious, to say the least.

Palestinian vs Israeli deaths (http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/arccrisis/ispal-casualty.html)

This link doesn't contradict anything I've said. In fact, I think you posted a link and said "your arguments are skewed" without even reading it, or in an attempt to fool people into believing that your link disputes what I've wrote. It doesn't, in fact, it confirms it.

It also only gives stats from 2000 to 2002, when the ones from the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, also provided to them by B'Tselem (the same source these stats come from, is from 2000 to 2005. How you can respond to my statement over a five year course with limited stats over a 2 year course is beyond all logic.

Here are the statistics from the ICT, also provided by B'Tselem (the same group your source quotes), for a five year period:

Stats (http://www.ict.org.il/casualties_project/stats_page.cfm)

Palestinian Deaths - 3179
Palestinians killed by own side - 406
Palestinian civilians killed by opposite side (Israel) - 1099
Palestinian terrorists killed by opposite side (Israel) - 1542

So, almost half of civilian casualties in Palestine are caused by other Palestinians. The link you posted does not dispute this. In fact, it doesnt even talk about the same range of dates.

Zing!

Nice stuff. The UK is a constitutional democracy (sans constitution) that has Sinn fein as elected representatives.

So we see where we're going here, eh?

No. We'll tell you where we go.
And if you don't like it, you can drop dead, all on your own.

Palestinian Deaths - 3179
Palestinians killed by own side - 406
Palestinian civilians killed by opposite side (Israel) - 1099
Palestinian terrorists killed by opposite side (Israel) - 1542

So, almost half of civilian casualties in Palestine are caused by other Palestinians. The link you posted does not dispute this. In fact, it doesnt even talk about the same range of dates.

Mind blowing.

1/2 of 3179 = 1589

1589 =/= 406

What planet are you on?

No. We'll tell you where we go.
And if you don't like it, you can drop dead, all on your own.

Had a few coffees this morning?

Ok. So is America a democratic republic or not? Is Palestine? Is Israel? Is the Uk?

Which of the above is a trick question?

None are true democracies in the sense that Plato outlined. Israel, the UK, and the United States are about equal on that scale. Palestine falls far short, due to having criminal leadership among other things.

And please, can you answer your statement about Israeli vs Palestinian deaths?

I did. See the above post.

And while we're here - can you give an example of equivocation using my quotes?

I did as well. Here is your quote that amounted to equivocation "I mean, just how blinkered do you have to be before you fall into your own ass? Plato's republic as the ideal of democracy? When were you at school? 1412? The Republic, as any fule no, is fairly far from the idea of true (Rousseauvian for instance) democracy."

You're using a reference to Plato's republic, the system of government he outlined, when I was making a reference to The Republic, the title of the book, in which he also outlined a democratic system. A textbook example of equivocation.

Since it appears necessary, here's an example of equivocation:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

Wrong type of equivocation. "Equivocation" is an umbrella term for a number of fallacies. The specific type you used is amphiboly.

Mind blowing.

1/2 of 3179 = 1589

1589 =/= 406

What planet are you on?

You must be being deliberately dishonest. I said half of civilian casualties. 3179 is total casualties.

The total number of CIVILIAN casualties is 1099, and 406 is almost half of that.

Since we're counting the number of deaths, why don't we look at civilians killed in Palestine vs those in Israel.

The total number of civilians killed in Palestine by Israel is 1099.

The total number of civilians killed in Israel by Palestine is 764.

Yet, only 1010 people have been killed in Israel during the conflict.
While 3179 people have been killed in Palestine during the conflict.

A much, much higher percentage of civilians are killed by Palestinians than by Israelis. It reflects the fact that Palestinians deliberately target civilians, while Israeli only commits collateral damage.

Had a few coffees this morning?

Actually, I drank the blood of some poor innocent Arabs.
Gotta love dat taste!

None are true democracies in the sense that Plato outlined. Israel, the UK, and the United States are about equal on that scale. Palestine falls far short, due to having criminal leadership among other things.


By your definition, clearly. Ref. the SinnFein example above.

You're using a reference to Plato's republic, the system of government he outlined, when I was making a reference to The Republic, the title of the book, in which he also outlined a democratic system. A textbook example of equivocation.


Oh, I see. So it's only equivocation when you don't Italicize something. Nice.


Wrong type of equivocation. "Equivocation" is an umbrella term for a number of fallacies. The specific type you used is amphiboly.

Ok. Can you name a few more fallacies that fall under the 'umbrella' of equivocation? Because I can only find that one.

By your definition, clearly. Ref. the SinnFein example above.

Actually, by the definition in "A Concise Introduction to Logic" Hurley, 9th Edition and "With Good Reason: An introduction to informal fallacies", Engel 6th edition.

Oh, I see. So it's only equivocation when you don't Italicize something. Nice.

No, its equivocation when you have one term with two different meanings, and you distort the context of the term by selecting the wrong meaning. Such as when we're talking about Plato's Republic, and then you start talking about the republic as a form of government.

Ok. Can you name a few more fallacies that fall under the 'umbrella' of equivocation? Because I can only find that one.

Sure, accent. When the meaning of a word is distorted due to the tone of voice or usage. Of virtually any form of out of context referencing.

Since we're counting the number of deaths, why don't we look at civilians killed in Palestine vs those in Israel.

The total number of civilians killed in Palestine by Israel is 1099.

The total number of civilians killed in Israel by Palestine is 764.

Yet, only 1010 people have been killed in Israel during the conflict.
While 3179 people have been killed in Palestine during the conflict.

A much, much higher percentage of civilians are killed by Palestinians than by Israelis. It reflects the fact that Palestinians deliberately target civilians, while Israeli only commits collateral damage.

OK. I see the problem here. Let's look at your original statement:



Palestinian Deaths - 3179
Palestinians killed by own side - 406
Palestinian civilians killed by opposite side (Israel) - 1099
Palestinian terrorists killed by opposite side (Israel) - 1542

Three points.
a) There is no distinction between 'terrorist' and 'civilian' in the 'Palestinians killed by own side' line.
b) By Israeli definition, a boy throwing stones at a tank may well be considered a 'terrorist'.
c) Where is the murder rate for Israeli vs Israeli?

Point being - who is defining this? And whoever's doing it, why didn't they delineate between sides in point [a]?

Want to know another fallacy? Its called appeal to emotion. I only bring it up because the website with the limited stats you listed use this fallacy. Posting three pictures of wounded Palestinians, when almost as many Israeli civilians have been killed as Palestinian civilians, demonstrates that the website is attempting to sway the argument toward the Palestinian side by saying "isn't that awful, look at these gory pictures of injured Palestinians."

Any source that is serious about accurately portraying information, especially statistics (which should be objective and unbiased) has no place making such an appeal to emotion by posting pictures used to garnish sympathy.

Put your self in this position.

I'd move. Just like I'd move if I found myself in any other bad neighborhood. Except for some reason no one wants to take the Palestinians...:headbang:

in one case up to 3000 civilians were killed in a refugee camp in Lebanon.

it is a bit disingenuous to use the phrase "up to". It sounds like a cop-out just in case the number is something like "2" since "2" is "up to 3000".

If Israel takes this situation any further, they will face the consequences

this is an practical question rather than a moral one. lets say the Palestinians with the help of some allies defeat Israel (the evil empire that it is) and start bulldozing Jewish communities and whatever else one does when one has just overthrown the oppressor. Any chance that there might be a nuke or two involved in this end game? If so for regarldess of anythign else for the next millennium 500 a year will sound like the good old days.

One has to wonder what end game either side is loking for, in particular the Hamas side.:headbang:

I bet many would simple argue that Palestinians have been firing rockets, these have only occurred after Israel had attacked.

yeah Israel attacks hamas attacks Israel attacks hamas attacks Israel attacks hamas attacks Israel attacks hamas attacks Israel attacks hamas attacks:headbang:

- Yes every attack is preceded by an attack by the other side.

No, its equivocation when you have one term with two different meanings, and you distort the context of the term by selecting the wrong meaning. Such as when we're talking about Plato's Republic, and then you start talking about the republic as a form of government.


Sure, accent. When the meaning of a word is distorted due to the tone of voice or usage. Of virtually any form of out of context referencing.

No, you're confusing yourself. Accent and amphiboly are all sections of Aristotle's 13 fallacies of which (ta-da!) equivocation is one.

Want to know another fallacy? Its called appeal to emotion. I only bring it up because the website with the limited stats you listed use this fallacy. Posting three pictures of wounded Palestinians, when almost as many Israeli civilians have been killed as Palestinian civilians, demonstrates that the website is attempting to sway the argument toward the Palestinian side by saying "isn't that awful, look at these gory pictures of injured Palestinians."

Any source that is serious about accurately portraying information, especially statistics (which should be objective and unbiased) has no place making such an appeal to emotion by posting pictures used to garnish sympathy.

I agree. I don't like such attempts to form other's opinion - I was only there for the sources..

As an adjunct - don't get me wrong. I'm not wholesale in support of suicide bombs on buses/nightclubs/marketplaces etc. But I understand why they're doing it. In the same vein, the thought of 60% of Gaza being without electricity and water pumping systems makes me feel sick - but I understand why the Israelis did it. It's a remarkably fucked up situation.

[QUOTE]Three points.
a) There is no distinction between 'terrorist' and 'civilian' in the 'Palestinians killed by own side' line.
b) By Israeli definition, a boy throwing stones at a tank may well be considered a 'terrorist'.
c) Where is the murder rate for Israeli vs Israeli?

Point being - who is defining this? And whoever's doing it, why didn't they delineate between sides in point [a]?

a) True, although each and every case is documented by the ICT. If you were interested in the facts, instead of jumping to make an anti-Israeli conclusion, you would have followed the link given and found that you can look at the documentation for every single one of those deaths. You'll find that the majority of that 406 is civilian, or not involved in direct combat. Things like being blown up in a house where explosives are made.
b) It doesn't talk about 'terrorist.' It refers to combatants and non-combatants. And throwing stones at the military, by all legal definitions, is combat. In addition, Israelis have been killed by stones, and many are hurled from slings, which we all know were frontline weapons throughout history. If they were attacking with spears, would it be better? How about bronze swords?
c) These aren't references to murder rates but to people killed in the conflict. Israelis killed by their own side - 22.

Now, if you weren't foaming at the mouth and trying to jump to a conclusion, you would have read who is defining it. Its the exact same group that did the statistics on the website you listed - B'Tselem. So, since you're citing stats given by that group, you should have no problem with these statistics, right? Or just when you think it helps demonize Israel?

I think Isreal should lead a full scale invasion of Palistine and end the border war crap once and for all. I don't care about proof because even though its chemical weaponery reguardless if its a homemade or manmade this will show that the Isrealis mean buisness. This could also affect how international terrorism is dealt with.

I always like it when people who can't even spell Israel or Palestine take sides. I mean, your opinion must count for a lot if you can't even spell the names of the countries involved :rolleyes:

No, you're confusing yourself. Accent and amphiboly are all sections of Aristotle's 13 fallacies of which (ta-da!) equivocation is one.

Accent and amphiboly are fallacies of ambiguity or equivocation as we classify them today. Aristotle didn't classify it as such, but it seems to be popular to make equivocation an umbrella term today and lump other linguistic fallacies into it.

it is a bit disingenuous to use the phrase "up to". It sounds like a cop-out just in case the number is something like "2" since "2" is "up to 3000".

Usually when people use the term 'up to' they are referring to something close to that number. To clarify, during Black September, estimates range from 3000 (at the lowest) to 5000 (at the highest) killed in the refugee camps by Jordanians.

I think that if Israel moves into the Gaza Strip and annexes it again we will properly see another “interfader”, but with all the weapons that came into Gaza during their brief independence Israeli forces may take more losses than in the last uprising.

I still see nothing in the international media about this. Considering everyone is watching this unfold like a hawk, such a story would be splashed all over the tabloid t.v.

As for the situation, I cannot agree more with this statment:
Good. I hope it spreads and every Israeli and Palestinian chokes and dies. A fitting end to the two biggest groups of assholes in history.

And that is saying something as I cared deeply about that area and people on both sides.

It was a huge mistake to give the jews Israel. Constructing countries never works, just look at many of those in Europe...they've split again. Some peacefully and some not so peacefully. Besides, Israel doesn't exist because it has such a good defense, it exists because the arabs are poor at organizing. When that latter fact changes it won't be pretty. A two state solution is the only way and I'd tell you all how to get there but I have to go and take a dump, sorry.

I still see nothing in the international media about this. Considering everyone is watching this unfold like a hawk, such a story would be splashed all over the tabloid t.v.

As for the situation, I cannot agree more with this statment:

And that is saying something as I cared deeply about that area and people on both sides.

Here you go. Is Reuters good enough for you?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-29T013909Z_01_L29258645_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ROCKET.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Scum.

Good. I hope it spreads and every Israeli and Palestinian chokes and dies. A fitting end to the two biggest groups of assholes in history.

I couldn't agree more. After all, it is just the fulfilling of the desires of most people there, it seems.

At least it would be solved fast

I still see nothing in the international media about this. Considering everyone is watching this unfold like a hawk, such a story would be splashed all over the tabloid t.v.

That Gaza militants said they fired chemical weapons? The OP article was from Reuters, thats a pretty big international news source.

And it is actually all over the news:

Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/martyrs-brigades-claim-to-fire-chemical-warhead/2006/06/29/1151174307792.html)

WorldNetDaily (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50841)

Arutz Sheva (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=106290)

New Straits Times (http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/nst/AfpNews/200606291936071151580967.08/afp)

All Headline News (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7004032244)

Turkish Press (http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=130964)

Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/06/29/ap2848572.html)

Here you go. Is Reuters good enough for you?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-29T013909Z_01_L29258645_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-ROCKET.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Scum.

No no no. I mean confirmation. Even the IDF are going "Huh? Where? When?"

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the army had not detected that any such rocket was fired, nor was there any report of such a weapon hitting Israel.

They (and everyone else) would be all over it if it was confirmed.

Scum? I assume you mean them and not me.....

snip

Yes yes yes. "Militants claim they fired rocket." Great.
I'm looking for confirmation- like I said even the IDF says they know nothing about this.

I'll wait to see if it is confirmed.

No no no. I mean confirmation. Even the IDF are going "Huh? Where? When?"


They (and everyone else) would be all over it if it was confirmed.

Scum? I assume you mean them and not me.....

Them yes. I find it interesting that if an unidentified shell lands on some Palestinians, everyone on this forum is quick to say, "The IDF did it!" with even less proof than we have here.

But even when Palestinians INSIST that they did something, you don't want to believe it.

I see.

I find it interesting that if an unidentified shell lands on some Palestinians, everyone on this forum is quick to say, "The IDF did it!" with even less proof than we have here.
Conformed by independent third party.


But even when Palestinians INSIST that they did something, you don't want to believe it.

I see.

Confrimed by no one.

Yes yes yes. "Militants claim they fired rocket." Great.
I'm looking for confirmation- like I said even the IDF says they know nothing about this.

I'll wait to see if it is confirmed.

Well, the Palestinians are notorious for lying in situations like this. It wouldn't be shocking if there are no chemical weapons.

On the same note, qassam rockets are about as accurate as bottle rockets. Israelis find ones in empty fields all the time, because they land so far away from population centers. Its a rare qassam that does major damage. Not that it makes them any less malicious, vile, or illegal. A Jewish farmer may find a chemical-laden qassam at some point.

Conformed by independent third party.

Nope. It was identified as a 155mm shell, which they claim was fired from an Israeli warship.

That is impossible, as no weapon on any Israeli warship is larger in caliber than 30mm.

Try again.

I mean, seriously. I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians, but the buck stops here.

This time I'm quite okay with the IDF taking Gaza apart to get these people. I seriously thought Hamas might be reasonable now, but they're not. They don't give a shit about the Palestinians. They don't have a place in government.

Conformed by independent third party.

It actually wasn't confirmed by an independent third party. The HRW investigator didn't have access to any of the evidence. So far, the investigation hasn't been accepted by anyone except HRW. This is why the UN called for "international investigation", you know, one where the evidence would actually be examined.

And, on the other hand, we do have an official report from the Israeli government that includes the physical evidence. I'd trust the physical evidence, that anyone can view in the report, vs the HRW investigator who viewed no physical evidence claiming "oh no, it can't be."

I mean, seriously. I sympathise with the plight of the Palestinians, but the buck stops here.

This time I'm quite okay with the IDF taking Gaza apart to get these people. I seriously thought Hamas might be reasonable now, but they're not. They don't give a shit about the Palestinians. They don't have a place in government.

I find it interesting - when I posit the idea of using WMD on populations, everyone says, "oh, the horror - you nazi fuck".

But when an actual GOVERNMENT does this and INSISTS that they used WMD - "oh, I don't believe it - it's just those poor oppressed Palestinians".

Nope. It was identified as a 155mm shell, which they claim was fired from an Israeli warship.

That is impossible, as no weapon on any Israeli warship is larger in caliber than 30mm.

Try again.

Guess you didn't keep up to speed on that.

The Palestinians claimed it was the navy because they saw a great big whoop ass ship off shore lobbing shells somewhere else.

HWR's Mark Garlasco a former Pentagon intelligence analyst and now a military analyst for HRW said:

"My assessment [is] that it's likely that this was incoming artillery fire that landed on the beach and was fired by the Israelis from the north of Gaza."

Nothing about navy there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5079464.stm June 14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5104010.stm June 21

I find it interesting - when I posit the idea of using WMD on populations, everyone says, "oh, the horror - you nazi fuck".

But when an actual GOVERNMENT does this and INSISTS that they used WMD - "oh, I don't believe it - it's just those poor oppressed Palestinians".

Absolutely correct. Israel is the only country in the world that would be treated like this. If al-Qaeda claimed it launched a qassam into NYC, but the US military said it hadn't confirmed it, I doubt anyone would question if it really happened.

It just goes to show the double standard by which people evaluate Israel and show sympathy to Palestinian terror groups.

I find it interesting - when I posit the idea of using WMD on populations, everyone says, "oh, the horror - you nazi fuck".
That's because it's not on.

But when an actual GOVERNMENT does this and INSISTS that they used WMD - "oh, I don't believe it - it's just those poor oppressed Palestinians".
Al-Aqsa is not part of the government. Fatah has lost control of them long ago (if they ever even had it, that is)...in fact Abbas has lost control of pretty much everyone and everything in the territories.

But my comment was regarding the lot of this. Hamas hasn't behaved in a reasonable way. Now they kidnapped that kid, which although not terrorism, was nothing but a blatant declaration of war. They're playing their little games with their own people, putting them forward as human shields. It's enough already.

Guess you didn't keep up to speed on that.

The Palestinians claimed it was the navy because they saw a great big whoop ass ship off shore lobbing shells somewhere else.

HWR's Mark Garlasco a former Pentagon intelligence analyst and now a military analyst for HRW said:


Nothing about navy there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5079464.stm June 14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5104010.stm June 21


And HRW has no physical evidence, no photos, nothing. And yet you take that as "evidence".

I see.

Sheez...Palestinian militias are mostly scumbags. Israeli leaders seem to be in the same place, although. No double standard, but exactly the same standard, and the same scale.

The problem with that is that palestinians are also liars, mostly when they try to intimidate by showing off and brag about some unexistent power, like "chemical warheads". That's why we are expecting the IDF, by the way, a most trustworthy source, to confirm it.

It actually wasn't confirmed by an independent third party. The HRW investigator didn't have access to any of the evidence. So far, the investigation hasn't been accepted by anyone except HRW. This is why the UN called for "international investigation", you know, one where the evidence would actually be examined.

And, on the other hand, we do have an official report from the Israeli government that includes the physical evidence. I'd trust the physical evidence, that anyone can view in the report, vs the HRW investigator who viewed no physical evidence claiming "oh no, it can't be."

Official report about eveidence only collected from themselves.
Israeli investigators declined to inspect evidence gathered by other sources, saying it may have been faked.
"If the Israeli allegations of tampered evidence are to be believed, many Palestinians would have to have engaged in a massive and immediate conspiracy to falsify the data," said Mr Garlasco - a former Pentagon intelligence analyst.

"The conspirators - witnesses, victims, medical personnel and bomb disposal staff - would have had to falsify their testimony, amend digital and hand-written records, and dip shrapnel into a victim's blood," he said in a Human Rights Watch statement.

HRW are also calling for a independent investigation.

"The [Israeli army's] partisan approach highlights the need for an independent, international investigation," said Marc Garlasco, senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch (HRW).

Even the IDF has said it was a possibility it was one of their older artillery shells.

During a meeting with the military investigator, Meir Klifi, Mr Garlasco says he put forward the possibility the blast was caused by the delayed explosion of an Israeli shell fired earlier that day.

I'm am tending to believe HRW, not the Palestinians, nor the IDF.

Guess you didn't keep up to speed on that.

The Palestinians claimed it was the navy because they saw a great big whoop ass ship off shore lobbing shells somewhere else.

HWR's Mark Garlasco a former Pentagon intelligence analyst and now a military analyst for HRW said:

Nothing about navy there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5079464.stm June 14
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5104010.stm June 21

Garlasco actually recanted from his original findings and admitted that he could not contradict the IDF. You're reading old news as if it is current. Even Counterpunch, a website that has run articles talking about why Jews are dishonest due to the Kol Nidre, has admitted this:

Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/cook06202006.html)

This week, according to reports in the Israeli media, even Marc Garlasco, a Pentagon expert on the effects of battlefield weapons hired by Human Rights Watch to investigate the deaths, "conceded" that he could not contradict the findings of the Israeli army’s own inquiry.


Though, it doesn't stop their conspiracy theories. And, Annan conceded to IDF findings as well. Honest Reporting covers this from various media angles:

Honest Reporting (http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/06/garlasco_conced.html)

Tuesday, June 20 2006
Garlasco, Annan Concede to IDF Inquiry

HrwHuman Rights Watch and Mark Galasco came away from a meeting with IDF officials conceding that Israeli artillery could not be responsible for the Gaza beach tragedy. The Jerusalem Post writes:

On Monday, Maj.-Gen. Meir Klifi - head of the IDF inquiry commission that cleared the IDF of responsibility for the blast - met with Marc Garlasco, a military expert from the HRW who had last week claimed that the blast was caused by an IDF artillery shell. Following the three-hour meeting, described by both sides as cordial and pleasant, Garlasco praised the IDF's professional investigation into the blast, which he said was most likely caused by unexploded Israeli ordnance left laying on the beach, a possibility also raised by Klifi and his team….

Garlasco told Klifi during the meeting that he was impressed with the IDF's system of checks and balances concerning its artillery fire in the Gaza Strip and unlike Hamas which specifically targeted civilians in its rocket attacks, the Israelis, he said, invested a great amount of resources and efforts not to harm innocent civilians.

And according to YNet News, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan retracted previous comments, saying he was duped by press coverage:

Following a meeting Thursday with Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Gillerman, he told reporters that he had responded to "media speculations."

We hope the media outlets that quoted Garlasco's initial charges will give equal prominence to these developments.

Official report about eveidence only collected from themselves.


HRW are also calling for a independent investigation.


Even the IDF has said it was a possibility it was one of their older artillery shells.


I'm am tending to believe HRW, not the Palestinians, nor the IDF.

Then I'd go back and reread - Garlasco (the HRW investigator) and Kofi Annan both conceded to the IDF investigation. Garlasco said he couldn't contradict it, and Annan said he was duped by the media.

If it turns out that the Palestinians end up firing more, and enough to kill a lot of people and convince PsyMong that they are real chemical weapons, I won't have any qualms about the IDF rolling in to every Palestinian area, bulldozing every building, dynamiting every road, tearing down every power pole, bursting every water and sewer pipe, and then leaving the Palestinians in the shambles, surrounded by barbed wire and a permanent blockade by air, land, and sea.

Absolutely correct. Israel is the only country in the world that would be treated like this. If al-Qaeda claimed it launched a qassam into NYC, but the US military said it hadn't confirmed it, I doubt anyone would question if it really happened.

Umm, I would.


AQ: HAHA! We launched a bio/chem rocket at you and it hit.

US: *Checks* No, no you really didn't.

I'd question if it actually happened, yeah.

Edit: Must read TS links before I post something else.

Umm, I would.


AQ: HAHA! We launched a bio/chem rocket at you and it hit.

US: *Checks* No, no you really didn't.

I'd question if it happened, yeah.



They must not train them in the Pentagon like they used to.


Just a big ol' conspiracy alright. Shockingly,[/QUOTE]



I guess that's why Garlasco now can't contradict the IDF - by his own admission he says they have evidence and he does not.

Garlasco actually recanted from his original findings and admitted that he could not contradict the IDF. You're reading old news as if it is current. Even Counterpunch, a website that has run articles talking about why Jews are dishonest due to the Kol Nidre, has admitted this:

Counterpunch (http://www.counterpunch.org/cook06202006.html)



Though, it doesn't stop their conspiracy theories. And, Annan conceded to IDF findings as well. Honest Reporting covers this from various media angles:

Honest Reporting (http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/06/garlasco_conced.html)

Ok, thats really weird. I would have no problem in putting my hands up and saying 'Got it wrong on this'.

But both of your articles are dated June 20. Israeli beach probe 'not credible' is dated June 21.

I'm thoroughly confused now. *sigh*

Ok, thats really weird. I would have no problem in putting my hands up and saying 'Got it wrong on this'.

But both of your articles are dated June 20. Israeli beach probe 'not credible' is dated June 21.

I'm thoroughly confused now. *sigh*

I think the BBC actually developed its story from the previous HRW statement that Garalsco made. Washington Jewish Week (http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=5449&TM=46864.26) ran the same story June 22, and a few Arab papers have run John Cook's (from Counterpunch) story since then as well. Since then, Garalsco has actually asked for an international investigation and I think Annan has mostly shut up on the issue.

Ok, thats really weird. I would have no problem in putting my hands up and saying 'Got it wrong on this'.

But both of your articles are dated June 20. Israeli beach probe 'not credible' is dated June 21.

I'm thoroughly confused now. *sigh*

I am of the distinct impression that it's not possible to say that "it's the IDF's fault" on that one.

Shells get fired - and not necessarily from that tube on that day. Some shells don't go off. The VietCong commonly used old shells that hadn't gone off as mines - and the current Iraqi insurgency uses artillery shells as IEDs.

The witnesses on the scene (Palestinians) saw a ship doing the firing. And, no Israeli ship has anything more than small automatic cannon as armament (aside from large anti-ship missiles). 30mm anti-aircraft defensive guns that are not operated by men (for aiming), but by computers and radar designed to shoot at missiles in flight.

No 155mm shells or cannon on board.

It's possible that the shell was fired some time ago, and sat on the beach waiting to be stepped on. Or, it's also possible that Palestinians had recovered it earlier and placed it there.

Saying that without a doubt, the IDF fired it at that moment is unsupportable.

And HRW has no physical evidence, no photos, nothing. And yet you take that as "evidence".

I see.

I'm only using there own report.
HRW Report on Gaza Beach Deaths (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595.htm)
When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it.
....
However, evidence collected by Human Rights Watch researchers and many independent journalists on the ground in Gaza indicates that the civilians were killed within the time period of the shelling. That evidence includes computerized hospital records that show children injured at the beach were treated by 5:12 p.m., and hand-written hospital records that show they were admitted at 5:05 p.m. In light of the 20-minute round trip drive between the hospital and the beach, this evidence suggests that the blast that caused the family’s death occurred during the time of the IDF shelling.
....
Kalifi also dismissed artillery fuse shrapnel removed by Palestinian doctors from a 19-year-old man injured in the blast, and examined by Human Rights Watch. He questioned the chain of custody, stating that anyone could take shrapnel and dip it into the blood of the injured. He also questioned the decision of Palestinian doctors to remove shrapnel from the injured that were later sent to Israel, saying he assumed it was to “cover evidence” that might help the IDF.

Photos of survivors: http://hrw.org/photos/2006/israel_ot0606/index.htm

There DK.

I'm only using there own report.
HRW Report on Gaza Beach Deaths (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/20/israb13595.htm)
When offered evidence collected first-hand by Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza, the general either called it into question or declined to accept it.
....
However, evidence collected by Human Rights Watch researchers and many independent journalists on the ground in Gaza indicates that the civilians were killed within the time period of the shelling. That evidence includes computerized hospital records that show children injured at the beach were treated by 5:12 p.m., and hand-written hospital records that show they were admitted at 5:05 p.m. In light of the 20-minute round trip drive between the hospital and the beach, this evidence suggests that the blast that caused the family’s death occurred during the time of the IDF shelling.
....
Kalifi also dismissed artillery fuse shrapnel removed by Palestinian doctors from a 19-year-old man injured in the blast, and examined by Human Rights Watch. He questioned the chain of custody, stating that anyone could take shrapnel and dip it into the blood of the injured. He also questioned the decision of Palestinian doctors to remove shrapnel from the injured that were later sent to Israel, saying he assumed it was to “cover evidence” that might help the IDF.

Photos of survivors: http://hrw.org/photos/2006/israel_ot0606/index.htm

There DK.

Still doesn't prove that the IDF fired the shell that day.

If I'm firing at most, 30mm shells, tell me how a 155mm shell magically appears in the mix.

Saying that without a doubt, the IDF fired it at that moment is unsupportable.

Of course, and that was my point.. HRW came to that conclusion.

The Palestinians (Hamas really, looking for a fight) claimed otherwise.

I was taking that report from HRW, not the Palestinians. I don't believe it was a 'mine' either.

TS, I think that was the point. It was neither a naval shell nor a Palestinian mine. I was only agreeing. I was refuting the 'Palestinians killed their own people with a mine, lets blame Israel' line.

Still doesn't prove that the IDF fired the shell that day.

If I'm firing at most, 30mm shells, tell me how a 155mm shell magically appears in the mix.

What do the artillery batteries North of Gaza use?

*I'm getting hungry, will be leaving in a while- just don't take it that I'm quitting ;)

*snip*

The HRW report also admits that the IDF did examine shrapnel and that it did not find it to be from an IDF shell. Yet, it only devotes one sentence out of the entire report to that fact - "During yesterday’s meeting, Kalifi confirmed that the IDF had removed and tested one piece of shrapnel from one of three injured Palestinians moved to Israel and that the test results revealed that it was weapons-grade alloy, but not from a 155mm shell." Then it goes on for about two paragraphs discussing how Israel failed to test more shrapnel.

Do you really think that HRW is an unbiased third party in this case?

What do the artillery batteries North of Gaza use?

*I'm getting hungry, will be leaving in a while- just don't take it that I'm quitting ;)

Go eat and come back!

I was taking that report from HRW, not the Palestinians. I don't believe it was a 'mine' either.

TS, I think that was the point. It was neither a naval shell nor a Palestinian mine. I was only agreeing. I was refuting the 'Palestinians killed their own people with a mine, lets blame Israel' line.

Well, it may not have been a mine. IED's are made from all sorts of stuff. It could have been a shell from Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, etc. that was made into an IED. Or it could have been some other type of homemade explosive device.

In any case, I don't think that HRW is a more credible source than the Israeli government. Its come under scrutiny from other NGOs for being biased against Israel and anti-Semitic. And, as an NGO, HRW has to answer to no one at all. Whereas the IDF investigators have to answer to a Knesset made up of Jews And Arabs from all walks of life - including Arab Knesset members who support Hamas and Fatah.

The HRW report also admits that the IDF did examine shrapnel and that it did not find it to be from an IDF shell. Yet, it only devotes one sentence out of the entire report to that fact - "During yesterday’s meeting, Kalifi confirmed that the IDF had removed and tested one piece of shrapnel from one of three injured Palestinians moved to Israel and that the test results revealed that it was weapons-grade alloy, but not from a 155mm shell." Then it goes on for about two paragraphs discussing how Israel failed to test more shrapnel.

Do you really think that HRW is an unbiased third party in this case?

Considering some of the injured were in cars (The third/fourth picture in the series) or nearby vehicles, it would not be unsurprising to have other types of shrapnel, non-military, embedded in people TS.

Yes, I do think HRW is an unbiased third party. I haven't seen evidence to the contrary.

Considering some of the injured were in cars (The third/fourth picture in the series) or nearby vehicles, it would not be unsurprising to have other types of shrapnel, non-military, embedded in people TS.

Yes, I do think HRW is an unbiased third party. I haven't seen evidence to the contrary.

It said it was weapons-grade alloy. Nothing you'd find a car or anything else made out of. Sounds like an IED to me.

And, you have seen evidence to the contrary. I've presented it beforehand. You've just chosen not to accept it. The fact that NGO Watch, the ADL, Honest Reporting, and others have all commented extensively on HRW says plenty. You can reject the evidence that they present, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence they present makes HRW quite a questionable NGO.

It said it was weapons-grade alloy. Nothing you'd find a car or anything else made out of. Sounds like an IED to me.

Which is countered by Israeli news agencies later themselves:

"However, last night an Israeli news report contradicted this information, stating that the IDF had removed two additional pieces of shrapnel from one of the other injured and found them likely to have come from a 155mm shell."

Who do you believe? Neither? I dunno. *shrug*


And, you have seen evidence to the contrary. I've presented it beforehand. You've just chosen not to accept it. The fact that NGO Watch, the ADL, Honest Reporting, and others have all commented extensively on HRW says plenty. You can reject the evidence that they present, but it doesn't change the fact that the evidence they present makes HRW quite a questionable NGO.

Meh. All NGO's are questionable on some level. Depends on your perspective if you find them tainted. I don't like ADL, but you use them to back up your points, I don't seize on that. Agree to disagree on that one.

Might be interesting to read what Anne Bayefsky wrote about HRW as well. She's a noted scholar on human rights and has been summoned to the UN for her expert advice on a number of occassions. Anne Bayfesky (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bayefsky)

Archive on NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/op-eds/041304-1.htm)

Jerusalem Post
April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky

When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth's umbrage at criticism.

Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization's reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch's behavior at the UN's infamous "anti-racism" conference held in Durban, South Africa shortly before 9/11. If the organization's actions were assailable there, he says, it would make "it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct."

It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.

Just prior to the conference Roth telegraphed his convictions in an interview on US National Public Radio, August 14, 2001, when he said about the pending controversy and the effort to focus attention on Israel: "Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic."

So in the lead-up to Durban, Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance * notwithstanding that Israel's citizens are one-quarter Arab and enjoy democratic rights they have nowhere else in the Arab world, while neighboring Arab states are Judenrein.

At Durban one role of Human Rights Watch was to exclude the representative of Jewish lawyers and jurists from over 40 countries. Here's what happened:

As a representative of the IAJLJ, I was a member of the caucus of international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Human Rights Watch, along with others such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (renamed Human Rights First), was also a member of this caucus. Together we had a right to vote on the final NGO document, and hours before the last session gathered together to discuss our position.

The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism, and alleging that Israel is an "apartheid" state guilty of "genocide and ethnic cleansing designed to ensure a Jewish state."

As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.

THE HUMAN Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended.

Later that afternoon, my colleague Daniel Lack and I insisted on entering the meeting, but their minds were made up. In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote.

Instead the international NGOs, including HRW planned to introduce an introductory paragraph that would cast the document as a legitimate collection of the "voices of the victims."

In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of Israel and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for Israel was a form of anti-Semitism.

The vote to delete the Jewish caucus's proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.

What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the "voices of the victims" had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: "The document gives expression to all voices."

What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.

AFTER THE fact, Human Rights Watch got nervous about the possible reaction of its many Jewish funders. So the cover-up began.

On September 6, 2001 Human Rights Watch spokespersons Reed Brody and Joel Motley wrote in the Conference News Daily that the NGO declaration "marks a major success... and recognizes the scourge of anti-Semitism."

They neglected to mention that the declaration had redefined anti-Semitism, changing its meaning from the hatred of Jews to something which included "anti-Arab racism."

Six months later, in February 2002, Human Rights Watch published an update stating: "What really happened at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban? The conference we participated in was completely different from the one covered in American newspapers."

What else did Human Rights Watch do after Durban? It denied what happened there.

As for Roth's claim of the organization's objectivity in reporting on governments throughout the region, one need look no further than its inability * despite an annual budget of $22 million * to produce a specific report on human rights abuses in a country like Libya, or the relative paucity of attention over the years given to states with appalling human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Syria, as compared to Israel.

So there should be no surprise when HRW wrongly describes Israel as violating international legal norms, for example, by labeling the killing of someone like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Ismail Abu Shanab an "assassination" or "liquidation."

International law does not protect all combatants from being targeted before judicial process, or grant them immunity from military operations when they use civilians as human shields.

Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at Israel and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch.

When will this leading international human rights NGO stop believing it has to earn its stripes by demonizing Israel, or that to stay in business it must avoid criticizing Israel's enemies?

Bayefsky is more qualified to comment on human rights than any single staff member at HRW. If you reject the ADL, Honest Reporting, NGO Watch, etc. it would be wise to listen to Bayefsky, if you're interested in the analysis of probably the most eminent human rights scholar alive today.

Tropical Sands -

I'm just wondering - and by no means should you have to answer this - what you do for a living & what your connection with Israel is.

You seem to have an awful lot of information/research at your disposal, and I'm just curious.

No offence intended by this.

Tropical Sands -

I'm just wondering - and by no means should you have to answer this - what you do for a living & what your connection with Israel is.

You seem to have an awful lot of information/research at your disposal, and I'm just curious.

No offence intended by this.

There are some here who spend a lot of time Googling topics of interest.

Might be interesting to read what Anne Bayefsky wrote about HRW as well. She's a noted scholar on human rights and has been summoned to the UN for her expert advice on a number of occassions. Anne Bayfesky (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bayefsky)

Archive on NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/archives/op-eds/041304-1.htm)



Bayefsky is more qualified to comment on human rights than any single staff member at HRW. If you reject the ADL, Honest Reporting, NGO Watch, etc. it would be wise to listen to Bayefsky, if you're interested in the analysis of probably the most eminent human rights scholar alive today.

Hey there's a lot of things I dislike about a lot of NGO's (Amnesty's stance on free speech is... un-nerving sometimes), doesn't mean I discount them all wholesale.

I don't discount the ADL for the work its done in the past, even though I have become increasingly disillusioned with them in the past several years.

You'll still use ADL to back up your points despite their criticism- don't be surprised if people use NGO's you don't agree with to back up theirs.

I don't believe the average on-the-ground worker for any NGO necessarily reflects the offical on-high policy of the organisation either.

There are some here who spend a lot of time Googling topics of interest.
And there are others who spend waaay to much time on the internet in general.... ahem.

I depart for now.

Tropical Sands -

I'm just wondering - and by no means should you have to answer this - what you do for a living & what your connection with Israel is.

You seem to have an awful lot of information/research at your disposal, and I'm just curious.

No offence intended by this.

Well, I work at a university. I don't have any connection to Israel aside from being Jewish. I just spend a lot of time reading like DK said.

In any case, I don't think that HRW is a more credible source than the Israeli government. Its come under scrutiny from other NGOs for being biased against Israel and anti-Semitic. And, as an NGO, HRW has to answer to no one at all. Whereas the IDF investigators have to answer to a Knesset made up of Jews And Arabs from all walks of life - including Arab Knesset members who support Hamas and Fatah.

What international NGO has HRW "come under scrutiny" from? Amnesty? The red cross? Please explain.


that NGO Watch, the ADL, Honest Reporting, and others have all commented extensively on HRW says plenty

"Honest reporting" is essentially an Israeli funded pressure group, originally founded by a right wing Israeli organisation, whose name currently escapes me. However you can "google" yourself I'm sure.

NGO watch bashes Amnesty, Christian Aid, Medicene Sans frontiers and anybody else operating within the occupied territories. It does not concern itself with other parts of the world, as far as I'm aware. It was founded by the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, part of whose mission statement is to "present Israels case to the world". Thats hardly a disinterested party noticing bias. Thats a biased party trying to undermine the "opposition". Once again, I am unsure as to what precisely the ADL is trying to achieve by using the cry of "anti-semite" in such cases.

These are not NGOs in any conventional sense, but parties acting on behalf of the state of Israel. To present them as disinterested monitors is rather disengenous on your part.

Tropical Sands -

I'm just wondering - and by no means should you have to answer this - what you do for a living & what your connection with Israel is.

You seem to have an awful lot of information/research at your disposal, and I'm just curious.

No offence intended by this.

Actually, much of it is misinformation dredged from various websites. Also You'll find that it often follows common myths trumped up by others in one form or another.

What international NGO has HRW "come under scrutiny" from? Amnesty? The red cross? Please explain.

"Honest reporting" is essentially an Israeli funded pressure group, originally founded by a right wing Israeli organisation, whose name currently escapes me. However you can "google" yourself I'm sure.

NGO watch bashes Amnesty, Christian Aid, Medicene Sans frontiers and anybody else operating within the occupied territories. It does not concern itself with other parts of the world, as far as I'm aware. It was founded by the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, part of whose mission statement is to "present Israels case to the world". Thats hardly a disinterested party noticing bias. Thats a biased party trying to undermine the "opposition". Once again, I am unsure as to what precisely the ADL is trying to achieve by using the cry of "anti-semite" in such cases.

These are not NGOs in any conventional sense, but parties acting on behalf of the state of Israel. To present them as disinterested monitors is rather disengenous on your part.

I've found that since NGOs don't answer to anyone, I have found that most of them have some sort of bias, no matter which one you pick.

What international NGO has HRW "come under scrutiny" from? Amnesty? The red cross? Please explain.

I think I have. ADL, Anne Bayefsky's UN Watch, Honest Reporting, etc.

"Honest reporting" is essentially an Israeli funded pressure group, originally founded by a right wing Israeli organisation, whose name currently escapes me. However you can "google" yourself I'm sure.

Its funded by Aish haTorah. A Jewish group, but not an "Israeli pressure group." Then again, you've rejected scholars like Mitchell Bard when cited due to his involvement with the Jewish Virtual Library. :rolleyes:

NGO watch bashes Amnesty, Christian Aid, Medicene Sans frontiers and anybody else operating within the occupied territories. It does not concern itself with other parts of the world, as far as I'm aware. It was founded by the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, part of whose mission statement is to "present Israels case to the world". Thats hardly a disinterested party noticing bias. Thats a biased party trying to undermine the "opposition". Once again, I am unsure as to what precisely the ADL is trying to achieve by using the cry of "anti-semite" in such cases.

What does the fact that NGO Monitor doesn't have to do with other parts of the world have to do with anything? The fact that an NGO group functions within a specific region doesn't discredit it in any way. The fact that it has criticism of Israel undermines your claim of "bias" as well.

Similiar to the ADL, which has also criticzed Israeli policy. Nor does the ADL arbitrarily label groups as 'anti-Semitic' for not supporting Israel. The ADL simply recognizes the fact that there is a New Anti-Semitism whereby people express anti-Semitic sentiment in the guise of anti-Israeli criticism or anti-Zionism. As does the US State Department, the EUMC, Bayefsky, and the hundreds of academic signatories to the Euston Document.

These are not NGOs in any conventional sense, but parties acting on behalf of the state of Israel. To present them as disinterested monitors is rather disengenous on your part.

I'm afraid not. You attempt to posion the well due to the fact that some are Jewish groups. Such as the fact that Honest Reporting is funded by a Jewish group, or that the ADL is a Jewish group. Again, your double standard becomes evident when you single them out for their goals, when you fail to point out the fact that every NGO has a specific goal. HRW claims its goal to be human rights (even though this is disputed by the preeminent scholars on human rights today); it doesn't discuss other issues. In the same respect, Honest Reporting focuses on monitoring bias in the media (and does not limit itself exlusively to Israel). NGO Monitor is pretty self explanatory. And again, doesn't limit itself strictly to Israel (as you would claim). UN Watch, again, pretty self-explanatory, etc.

They are all NGOs in a conventional sense. Perhaps you should look the term up. You're just attempting to poison the well due to the fact that they are Jewish, as you do with scholars like Mitchell Bard due to their involvement with Jewish groups. You also slip into the fallacy of "bad company" when you point out that NGO Monitor is funded in part by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and claim that because their goal is to support Israel, that NGo Monitor's goal is.

By your fallacious reasoning, HRW must be anti-Semitic, as it is funded in large part by Time Warner, who has endorsed and produced Arabic songs that promote suicide bombing in the West Bank.

Actually, much of it is misinformation dredged from various websites. Also You'll find that it often follows common myths trumped up by others in one form or another.

Got any websites that I've taken misinformation off of? How about any myths that aren't supported by modern scholarship? Or is this like when you accused me of being a puppet account of someone? :eek:

I've found that since NGOs don't answer to anyone, I have found that most of them have some sort of bias, no matter which one you pick.

They do tend towards "tree-huggery". And one could argue that with HRW and Amnesty that its easier from them to criticise methods than to actually deal with certain situations. However it is patenty ridiclous to accuse them of some anti-semitic agenda.

They do tend towards "tree-huggery". And one could argue that with HRW and Amnesty that its easier from them to criticise methods than to actually deal with certain situations. However it is patenty ridiclous to accuse them of some anti-semitic agenda.

I'd say that voting all the Jews out of the room is an anti-semitic act.

Since any NGO is capable of any bias, why are they not capable of anti-semitic bias?

They do tend towards "tree-huggery". And one could argue that with HRW and Amnesty that its easier from them to criticise methods than to actually deal with certain situations. However it is patenty ridiclous to accuse them of some anti-semitic agenda.

And yet, the leading scholar on human rights alive today, Anne Bayefsky, has pointed out an anti-Semitic agenda in HRW. I wonder why? Is she part of the vast Jewish conspiracy too?

I'd say that voting all the Jews out of the room is an anti-semitic act.

I know, its amazing that Nodinia could gloss over the fact that Jews were excluded from the HRW conference. Perhaps she missed that in Bayesky's account:

As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.

This is classical anti-Semitism by all definitions of the term.

I think I have. ADL, Anne Bayefsky's UN Watch, Honest Reporting, etc.

I'm unfamiliar with UN watch.



Its funded by Aish haTorah. A Jewish group, but not an "Israeli pressure group." Then again, you've rejected scholars like Mitchell Bard when cited due to his involvement with the Jewish Virtual Library. :rolleyes:
.

I can safely say that I've never rejected anybody due to their involvment with the Jewish Virtual Library. As I witnessed you falsely accusing somebody else of rejecting a source on the basis of their jewishness myself, I now know better than to take your dishonesty personally. But that doesnt make you less any dishonest......


What does the fact that NGO Monitor doesn't have to do with other parts of the world have to do with anything? The fact that an NGO group functions within a specific region doesn't discredit it in any way. The fact that it has criticism of Israel undermines your claim of "bias" as well..

Its raison d'etre is to criticise and undermine respected and well known International groups who would lend any credence or sympathy to the Palestinians or their case, both within and outside Israel.


Similiar to the ADL, which has also criticzed Israeli policy. Nor does the ADL arbitrarily label groups as 'anti-Semitic' for not supporting Israel. The ADL simply recognizes the fact that there is a New Anti-Semitism whereby people express anti-Semitic sentiment in the guise of anti-Israeli criticism or anti-Zionism. As does the US State Department, the EUMC, Bayefsky, and the hundreds of academic signatories to the Euston Document.
..

Yes, and isn't strange that that is a conveniently effective weapon is stemming legitimate criticism of Israel.....

Its nonsense. No state should be immune from criticism.


I'm afraid not. You attempt to posion the well due to the fact that some are Jewish groups. Such as the fact that Honest Reporting is funded by a Jewish group, or that the ADL is a Jewish group. Again, your double standard becomes evident when you single them out for their goals, when you fail to point out the fact that every NGO has a specific goal. HRW claims its goal to be human rights (even though this is disputed by the preeminent scholars on human rights today); it doesn't discuss other issues. In the same respect, Honest Reporting focuses on monitoring bias in the media (and does not limit itself exlusively to Israel). NGO Monitor is pretty self explanatory. And again, doesn't limit itself strictly to Israel (as you would claim). UN Watch, again, pretty self-explanatory, etc...

No, they are Israeli groups. You may be obsessed with whether they are jewish or not, but again, thats your problem.



They are all NGOs in a conventional sense. Perhaps you should look the term up. You're just attempting to poison the well due to the fact that they are Jewish, as you do with scholars like Mitchell Bard due to their involvement with Jewish groups. You also slip into the fallacy of "bad company" when you point out that NGO Monitor is funded in part by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and claim that because their goal is to support Israel, that NGo Monitor's goal is...

Again...You are obsessed with whether they are Jewish. I don't bring up their religon. You do.

And I again do not remember any "Michael Bard". I certainly do not reject sources purely on grounds of their religon. Either copy the post, link to it, or stop doing what I suispect you are doing.


By your fallacious reasoning, HRW must be anti-Semitic, as it is funded in large part by Time Warner, who has endorsed and produced Arabic songs that promote suicide bombing in the West Bank.

Its not my supposed "fallacious reasoning" that should concern you.

I can safely say that I've never rejected anybody due to their involvment with the Jewish Virtual Library. As I witnessed you falsely accusing somebody else of rejecting a source on the basis of their jewishness myself, I now know better than to take your dishonesty personally. But that doesnt make you less any dishonest......

You did. You rejected Mitchell Bard when I cited from his work after you googled his name and posted a link to the fact that he runs the Jewish Virtual Library. You can go on about "falsely accusing" all you like. I can't prove you did it, but everyone on the thread saw it.

Its raison d'etre is to criticise and undermine respected and well known International groups who would lend any credence or sympathy to the Palestinians or their case, both within and outside Israel.

No, thats just your paranoid view of it.

Yes, and isn't strange that that is a conveniently effective weapon is stemming legitimate criticism of Israel.....

Its nonsense. No state should be immune from criticism.

You're confusing legitimate criticism with veiled anti-Semitism. Honest Reporting, NGO Watch, and the ADL have all criticized Israeli policy and Israel. However, you consistently spout anti-Semitic nonsense and then try to hide it as anti-Semitism. This form of anti-Semitism is easily noted and has been recognized by the academic world.

No, they are Israeli groups. You may be obsessed with whether they are jewish or not, but again, thats your problem.

Again...You are obsessed with whether they are Jewish. I don't bring up their religon. You do.

No, you implctly did. You called Aish haTorah, a religious organization in Jerusalem, an "extremist Israeli group." The fact is, it is 100% religious and 0% political in nature. This is a perfect example of how you try to disguise your anti-Semitism as criticism of Israel. You think you can single out a religious Jewish group, then call it "Israeli" and be free of the stain of anti-Semitism. It doesn't work.

And I again do not remember any "Michael Bard". I certainly do not reject sources purely on grounds of their religon. Either copy the post, link to it, or stop doing what I suispect you are doing.

As far as I know, I can't go back more than 100 posts. Nor do I have to cut and paste a link to "prove" that you said it. You can spout anti-Semitic nonsense as long as you like, but being 100 posts down isn't going to free you of being accountable for it.

I'd say that voting all the Jews out of the room is an anti-semitic act.

Since any NGO is capable of any bias, why are they not capable of anti-semitic bias?

In theory, they could be. In practice, and in relation to the events in the occupied territories, I fail to see how they could treat of the IDF actions in any other way, regardless of the religon of the Israelis. Its also remarkable that so ,many groups seem to concur with those views. Groups from various backgrounds diverse in location and motivation. As regards that particular incident, it might be described as insenstive, or stupid, but again I see nothing that would lead me to believe such an agenda exists with regards to the occupied territories etc.

I am against Mitchell Bard because he is Jewish and you are using him as a reference as he was the author of the Complete Idiots Guide to the Middle East Conflict, a book which should be non-partisian. I would also have a problem with the writer being an Arab, as that would swing the bias in the opposite direction. However if it was a group which has only a minor interest or weighting, then I would be ok. Such groups are any nation outside of the middle east, or their associated religions and races, as this conflict is on the racial, religious, and political levels, so all those variables must be kept fair.

Rule Number 379 of the Twentyfirst Century:

You don't gas Jews. You might try, but after you try, you won't be the one burning bodies, they'll be burning you.

Fightin' talk from Syria (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201498,00.html).

Via Fox, unfortunately.

I am against Mitchell Bard because he is Jewish and you are using him as a reference as he was the author of the Complete Idiots Guide to the Middle East Conflict, a book which should be non-partisian. I would also have a problem with the writer being an Arab, as that would swing the bias in the opposite direction. However if it was a group which has only a minor interest or weighting, then I would be ok. Such groups are any nation outside of the middle east, or their associated religions and races, as this conflict is on the racial, religious, and political levels, so all those variables must be kept fair.

Thats classic anti-Semitism. But at least you admit it. Though I wouldn't be shocked if someone on NSG said "oh no, Iraqiya saying I am against Mitchell Bard because he is Jewish isn't anti-Semitic." When it comes down to it, people can be extremely anti-Semitic, but they don't want to wear the title of anti-Semite.

I wouldn't have a problem with an author being an Arab or a Jew. Their arguments and scholarship must stand their merits alone, not on the ethnicity of the author. Any other academic works you'd like to discredit due to the person being a Jew? How about Einstein? I wouldn't use penicillin either, since a Jew (Ernst Chain) developed virtually all of its modern uses.

As regards that particular incident, it might be described as insenstive, or stupid, but again I see nothing that would lead me to believe such an agenda exists with regards to the occupied territories etc.

So, all of the Jews are voted out of the room during a HRW meeting. You can call it insensitive, or stupid, but you don't want to admit that its patently anti-Semitic? And it wouldn't lead you to believe that such an agenda exists?

You did. You rejected Mitchell Bard when I cited from his work after you googled his name and posted a link to the fact that he runs the Jewish Virtual Library. You can go on about "falsely accusing" all you like. I can't prove you did it, but everyone on the thread saw it..

I don't remember doing so. Nor can I now think of a reason why I would reject the Jewish virual library specifically.



No, thats just your paranoid view of it...

As thats precisely what they do, its impossible to have another view of it. Why do they ignore the (negative) attention and crticism given to the Palestinian groups by HRW? Or the criticism of the PA by Amnesty?



However, you consistently spout anti-Semitic nonsense and then try to hide it as anti-Semitism. This form of anti-Semitism is easily noted and has been recognized by the academic world....

Nay, nay and thrice nay.


No, you implctly did. You called Aish haTorah, a religious organization in Jerusalem, an "extremist Israeli group." The fact is, it is 100% religious and 0% political in nature. This is a perfect example of how you try to disguise your anti-Semitism as criticism of Israel. You think you can single out a religious Jewish group, then call it "Israeli" and be free of the stain of anti-Semitism. It doesn't work.....

O its "implicit" now....and of course thats rather convenient for branding everything and everyone according to your liking and not according to what they say or do. The ultimate in portable Goalposts.


As far as I know, I can't go back more than 100 posts. Nor do I have to cut and paste a link to "prove" that you said it. You can spout anti-Semitic nonsense as long as you like, but being 100 posts down isn't going to free you of being accountable for it.

I asked you at the time you first mentioned. You couldn't produce it. And I've nothing to accountable for. Your constant fabrications, on the other hand, may mean you not have so clean a conscience.

Maybe they fired Chicken Pox and no one has broke out scratching yet.

You don't gas Jews. You might try, but after you try, you won't be the one burning bodies, they'll be burning you.
For every Jew you gas, a biased coalition of countries will award the Jewish nation 1 square foot of some one else's property.

I don't remember doing so. Nor can I now think of a reason why I would reject the Jewish virual library specifically.




As thats precisely what they do, its impossible to have another view of it. Why do they ignore the (negative) attention and crticism given to the Palestinian groups by HRW? Or the criticism of the PA by Amnesty?




Nay, nay and thrice nay.



O its "implicit" now....and of course thats rather convenient for branding everything and everyone according to your liking and not according to what they say or do. The ultimate in portable Goalposts.



I asked you at the time you first mentioned. You couldn't produce it. And I've nothing to accountable for. Your constant fabrications, on the other hand, may mean you not have so clean a conscience.



Whats all this have to do with the rockets with chemical weapons on them being launched into Israel ?


Reply to: see below
Date: 2006-06-26, 12:47PM EDT


PALESTINIANS CLAIM WMD CAPABILITY

The Fatah terrorist faction has claimed the capability of chemical and biological weapons and has threatened Israel with a WMD attack, according to the Jerusalem Post. Leaflets distributed in the Gaza Strip state that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade has spent the last three years developing the capabilty, the start of which seems oddly coincidental to the fall of Saddam Hussein (via Reliapundit):

The Aksa Martyrs' Brigades group announced on Sunday that it its members have succeeded in manufacturing chemical and biological weapons to be used against Israel.

In a leaflet distributed in the Gaza Strip, the group, which belongs to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah party, said the weapons were the result of an effort that has lasted for three years.

The statment was a response to an Israeli Security Cabinet decision to give the IDF the green light to prepare all the forces necessary for a military operation against Gaza terror cells. As of 9:00 p.m. large amounts of Golani and Givati Brigade infantry troops were amassing on the Israeli side of the Gaza security fence.

According to the statement, the first of its kind, the group managed to manufacture and develop at least 20 different types of biological and chemical weapons.

The group said its members would not hesitate to add the new weapons to long-range rockets that are being fired at Israeli communities almost every day. It also threatened to use the weapons against IDF soldiers if Israel carried out its threats to invade the Gaza Strip.

If they're bluffing, they're making a very big mistake. And if they're not bluffing, then they have just signed the death warrants of both Hamas and Fatah and quite possibly the Palestinian Authority.

If these terrorists have acquired chemical and biological weapons, the IDF will rightly assume that they know have a choice only between which genocide will succeed. Given their history and strong sense of survival, they will certainly make the right choice -- and that will mean the end of the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The only reason the Israelis don't push them into the Jordan and Egypt is because of their identification with Western values that rejects ethnic cleansing as any solution.

http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/175594989.html

Thats classic anti-Semitism. But at least you admit it. Though I wouldn't be shocked if someone on NSG said "oh no, Iraqiya saying I am against Mitchell Bard because he is Jewish isn't anti-Semitic." When it comes down to it, people can be extremely anti-Semitic, but they don't want to wear the title of anti-Semite.

I wouldn't have a problem with an author being an Arab or a Jew. Their arguments and scholarship must stand their merits alone, not on the ethnicity of the author. Any other academic works you'd like to discredit due to the person being a Jew? How about Einstein? I wouldn't use penicillin either, since a Jew (Ernst Chain) developed virtually all of its modern uses.

This is your problem, its as if you want people to be anti-semetic. I have no problem with Jews, however I am saying that Mitchell Bard would OBVIOUSLY have a bias towards Israel, just as I would have a bias towards Arabs. If Israel says that it has never done anything wrong, it is different to if a nation such as the US says its never done anything wrong, because obviously Israel would want to look like the "good guys." I am simply stating that a non-partisan author should be selected for the Complete Idiots Guide to the Middle East Conflict.

Whats all this have to do with the rockets with chemical weapons on them being launched into Israel ?




http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/pol/175594989.html

After 14 pages, you're lucky we're still in the same dimension as the OP.

A spokesman for gunmen in the Gaza Strip said they had fired a rocket tipped with a chemical warhead at Israel early today.

The Israeli army had no immediate comment on the claim by the spokesman from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed wing of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement.

The group had recently claimed to possess about 20 biological warheads for the makeshift rockets commonly fired from Gaza at Israeli towns.

This was the first time the group had claimed firing such a rocket.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/martyrs-brigades-claim-to-fire-chemical-warhead/2006/06/29/1151174307792.html



So what happens to the Palestinians when a Jew dies from a chemical weapons attack ?

Who will have the balls to stop them from wiping these idiots off the map and sending them to hell ?

They are commiting forced suicide for their people by doing this...they are insane .

As thats precisely what they do, its impossible to have another view of it. Why do they ignore the (negative) attention and crticism given to the Palestinian groups by HRW? Or the criticism of the PA by Amnesty?

Impossible to have another view of it? Even the UN endorses Bayefsky's UN Watch - the same group that pointed out that HRW has an anti-Semitic agenda:

"I deeply appreciate the valuable work performed by UN Watch. I believe that informed and independent evaluation of the United Nations' activities will prove a vital source as we seek to adapt the Organization to the needs of a changing world. I can promise you that I will pay close attention to your observations and view in the years ahead." —Letter to Ambassador Morris B. Abram, Chairman of UN Watch, Jan. 30, 1997. Kofi Annan.

O its "implicit" now....and of course thats rather convenient for branding everything and everyone according to your liking and not according to what they say or do. The ultimate in portable Goalposts.

Well lets see. You attempted to poison the well with Honest Reporting because it is funded by a non-partisan Jewish group. A Jewish religious group that is not involved in politics in any way. Yet, you refer to it as an "Israeli" group. This is a clear case of the New Anti-Semitism, as defined in the US State Dept Report on Global Anti-Semitism, the Euston Document, the EUMC Report on Anti-Semitism, etc.

This is a clear case of the New Anti-Semitism, as defined in the US State Dept Report on Global Anti-Semitism, the Euston Document, the EUMC Report on Anti-Semitism, etc.

o crap...:rolleyes:

This is your problem, its as if you want people to be anti-semetic. I have no problem with Jews, however I am saying that Mitchell Bard would OBVIOUSLY have a bias towards Israel, just as I would have a bias towards Arabs. If Israel says that it has never done anything wrong, it is different to if a nation such as the US says its never done anything wrong, because obviously Israel would want to look like the "good guys." I am simply stating that a non-partisan author should be selected for the Complete Idiots Guide to the Middle East Conflict.

No, Jews do not have an obvious bias toward Israel. The fact that Jews like Noam Chomsky exist proves that much. Just because you're admitting that you're a bigoted Arab anti-Semite does not mean that everyone else shares your sentiments.

The fact is, Mitchell Bard is non-partisan. He's one of the most respected scholars on the Middle East in the world. Being a Jew doesn't change that.

No, Jews do not have an obvious bias toward Israel. The fact that Jews like Noam Chomsky exist proves that much. Just because you're admitting that you're a bigoted Arab anti-Semite does not mean that everyone else shares your sentiments.

The fact is, Mitchell Bard is non-partisan. He's one of the most respected scholars on the Middle East in the world. Being a Jew doesn't change that.

Ah, of course he is non-partisan, thats why his book is full of pro-israeli opinions such as how the jews turned Palestine from a poor desert into the best part of the middle east.

Of course he is non-partisan

Ah, of course he is non-partisan, thats why his book is full of pro-israeli opinions such as how the jews turned Palestine from a poor desert into the best part of the middle east.

Of course he is non-partisan

That much is a historical fact. Even Mark Twain noted it on his visit. You're confusing the anti-Israeli propaganda they have taught you in Iraq with what is accepted history in the world today. In Arab countries, like the one you're from, textbooks often cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and discuss how Jews are interested in taking over the world. I can't expect you to be familiar with Western scholarship.

That much is a historical fact. Even Mark Twain noted it on his visit. You're confusing the anti-Israeli propaganda they have taught you in Iraq with what is accepted history in the world today. In Arab countries, like the one you're from, textbooks often cite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and discuss how Jews are interested in taking over the world. I can't expect you to be familiar with Western scholarship.

I left Iraq when I was 3, i was not educated at all in Iraq, except in preschool, where they taught us that peeing our pants was bad.

Also, nice of you to try to belittle my intelligence and education. To clear any future things up, I have had 11 and a half years of education in New Zealand, and in 4 weeks will finish my final 1 and a half years in Australia. I am an honours student who has excelled in all subjects, however especially in maths, english, and history. Under extrodinary circumstances, I was accepted an enrolled in Canberra Grammar School, a prestigious school with very high academic performance, where I was put in the accelerated classes, despite enterring class 6 months into the year, and with end of year exams 3 months away. Do not ever try to expose me as an uneducated Arab, because you will be proven wrong.

did you really think that with my level of writing english is my second language?


Also, saying that any part of the world is the best is an opinion. I myself believe that, until the recent sanctions and war, Baghdad, with its nightlife, history, and livelyness is the best part of the Middle East. Many people believe that Dubai is the best part, or Qatar, or Bahrain. The best part does not correspond to a nations GDP, where Israel still falls short, it belies in ones opinion as to which factors make a nation the "best," and if he says that Israel was, that is a pro-Israeli opinion, and exposes his bias.

I left Iraq when I was 3, i was not educated at all in Iraq, except in preschool, where they taught us that peeing our pants was bad.

Also, nice of you to try to belittle my intelligence and education. To clear any future things up, I have had 11 and a half years of education in New Zealand, and in 4 weeks will finish my final 1 and a half years in Australia. I am an honours student who has excelled in all subjects, however especially in maths, english, and history. Under extrodinary circumstances, I was accepted an enrolled in Canberra Grammar School, a prestigious school with very high academic performance, where I was put in the accelerated classes, despite enterring class 6 months into the year, and with end of year exams 3 months away. Do not ever try to expose me as an uneducated Arab, because you will be proven wrong.

did you really think that with my level of writing english is my second language?


Also, saying that any part of the world is the best is an opinion. I myself believe that, until the recent sanctions and war, Baghdad, with its nightlife, history, and livelyness is the best part of the Middle East. Many people believe that Dubai is the best part, or Qatar, or Bahrain. The best part does not correspond to a nations GDP, where Israel still falls short, it belies in ones opinion as to which factors make a nation the "best," and if he says that Israel was, that is a pro-Israeli opinion, and exposes his bias.


Mitchell bard presents facts in his arguments that you deem Pro-Israel. If the facts are pro-Israel, then Israel is not at fault. This argument is about the facts of the conflicts, not your opinions. Each war Israel was invovled in was a War of Aggression against Israel. Every piece of land taken besides what was given in the original partition was taken in defense of Israel. Israel doesn't want to be the Palestinians babysitters anymore, but they have to be to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens.

did you really think that with my level of writing english is my second language?

Well yes. Frankly you write English poorly. An example would be this sentence, "I am against Mitchell Bard because he is Jewish and you are using him as a reference as he was the author of the Complete Idiots Guide to the Middle East Conflict, a book which should be non-partisian." I'm not talking about the anti-Semitic thing. I'm talking about how its a run-on sentence. Its been little things like that made me think English was your second language.

Also, saying that any part of the world is the best is an opinion. I myself believe that, until the recent sanctions and war, Baghdad, with its nightlife, history, and livelyness is the best part of the Middle East. Many people believe that Dubai is the best part, or Qatar, or Bahrain. The best part does not correspond to a nations GDP, where Israel still falls short, it belies in ones opinion as to which factors make a nation the "best," and if he says that Israel was, that is a pro-Israeli opinion, and exposes his bias.

Not once in his work does Mitchell Bard claim that Israel was the "best" at anything. The fact is, Palestine was mostly undevelope desert land before Zionists came and formed Kibbutzim. It looked just like most of Jordan does today, because Arabs still havn't developed Jordan to the extent that Jews developed Israel. The fact that there was no agricultural exportation out of Palestine during the Ottoman Empire, or during the British Mandate, until Zionists came proves the fact that they developed the land. The fact that Israel is the largest agricultural exporter today proves that as well.

Not once in his work does Mitchell Bard claim that Israel was the "best" at anything. The fact is, Palestine was mostly undevelope desert land before Zionists came and formed Kibbutzim. It looked just like most of Jordan does today, because Arabs still havn't developed Jordan to the extent that Jews developed Israel. The fact that there was no agricultural exportation out of Palestine during the Ottoman Empire, or during the British Mandate, until Zionists came proves the fact that they developed the land. The fact that Israel is the largest agricultural exporter today proves that as well.


Jewish owned/produced goods only accounted for 21.6% of the total value of crops produced in the 1945/6 season accordint to British figures. In tonnage it represented 28.75%.

And how can Israels status today prove what the situation was in 1945/6/7?

I find it interesting that the Palestinians claim to have 20 biological weapons.

Not the sort of thing any rational person would fire if it could be blown by wind or carried back in any way to their own people.

Sort of the ultimate suicide bomb.

If they actually have one, and it works, the whole Middle East problem may be settled, because everyone there will die, and no one will be able to go back there for thousands of years.

Man.

It just goes from bad (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L29471103.htm) to worse. (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-29T154828Z_01_L27594321_RTRUKOC_0_UK-MIDEAST.xml)

I find it interesting that the Palestinians claim to have 20 biological weapons.

Not the sort of thing any rational person would fire if it could be blown by wind or carried back in any way to their own people.

Sort of the ultimate suicide bomb.

If they actually have one, and it works, the whole Middle East problem may be settled, because everyone there will die, and no one will be able to go back there for thousands of years.

Except for "Mad Murray", the road Rabbi, and his dog, in his super charged Car.

And then the Palestineans will feel the cost of their refusal to make peace, and their attempt to commit genocide on the jewish homeland.

What you meant to say was "the cost of their refusal to be Israeli dhimmis."

Except for "Mad Murray", the road Rabbi, and his dog, in his super charged Car.
don't forget the humoungous!

Well yes. Frankly you write English poorly. An example would be this sentence, "I am against Mitchell Bard because he is Jewish and you are using him as a reference as he was the author of the Complete Idiots Guide to the Middle East Conflict, a book which should be non-partisian." I'm not talking about the anti-Semitic thing. I'm talking about how its a run-on sentence. Its been little things like that made me think English was your second language.



Not once in his work does Mitchell Bard claim that Israel was the "best" at anything. The fact is, Palestine was mostly undevelope desert land before Zionists came and formed Kibbutzim. It looked just like most of Jordan does today, because Arabs still havn't developed Jordan to the extent that Jews developed Israel. The fact that there was no agricultural exportation out of Palestine during the Ottoman Empire, or during the British Mandate, until Zionists came proves the fact that they developed the land. The fact that Israel is the largest agricultural exporter today proves that as well.

That run-on sentence was because it was roughly 1am where i live (Canberra, Australia) Also, nobody can write english perfectly, especially if you're like me and you dont proofread. I am in fact an honours student in writing.

I cannot remember the exact quote, my version is a paraphrase, however I remember in one of your posts in an earlier thread you showed a quote from the compelete idiots guide to the middle east that stated something along that line.

Good. I hope it spreads and every Israeli and Palestinian chokes and dies. A fitting end to the two biggest groups of assholes in history.

:confused: :eek: :confused:

Jewish owned/produced goods only accounted for 21.6% of the total value of crops produced in the 1945/6 season accordint to British figures. In tonnage it represented 28.75%.

And how can Israels status today prove what the situation was in 1945/6/7?

In 1945/6, over 90% of the land was "Crown Lands." Virtually all of the remaining 70% of the agriculture in the area came off of these British-owned lands. But alas, you seem to have left that out. These telling of half-truths to further your anti-Semitic agenda aren't getting you very far. An honest person would include that fact, as the statistic you've presented alone is out of context and without meaning unless it has the other facts to weight it against.

In the British census, produce off of Crown Lands is attributed to the British. Even if Jews were the ones who developed the land. 30% of all agricultural import from Jewish owned land - about 10% of the total during that time period - is huge for such a small portion. Arab owned land produced less per acre, and so did British owned land. Keeping in mind, of course, that the Crown Lands were still being developed and worked almost exclusively by Jews and felaheen Arabs who worked for Jews.

Mitchell Bard notes this in the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict under the section titled, "Jews are good for Arab health" when he writes, "This standard was reflected by the per capita income of the Palestinian Arabs, which was more than doubled between 1920 and 1937 and was considerably higher than the averages in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. The Arab's income, however, was still only a little more than half that of the Jews in Palestine."

In addition, and this is important, Bard explains, "More than 90 of the land Jews had purchased by 1936 had been bought from landowners, nearly 40 percent of whom lived in Egypt and Syria. less than 8.7 percent of the Jews' land was purchased from the fellaheen [which is consistent with Benny Morris, who stated that before Israeli independence less than 2,000 Arab families had been displaced by Jews, all of whom were felaheen]. In addition, of the 370,000 acres in Jewish hands, 87,500 acres were swampland and 125,000 acres were lands never before cultivated. Jews, who comprised 29 percent of the population, held only 5.5 percent of the land area west of the Jordan and only 11 percent of the land defined as "arable.""

Bard continues, "The Jews were paying outrageous prices to wealthy Arab landowners for small tracts of arid land. The largest tracts were purchased from a handful of prominent families. The Arabs who became "disposessed" were those who had willingly sold their land at exorbitant prices to Jewish buyers. The Arabs who were hurt by Jewish settlement were the relatively small propertied class who saw the high standard of living of Jewish workers and their communal lifestyle as a threat to their dominance over the fellaheen. Many historains believe that the intellectual class of Arabs feared and resented the superior education and living standard of the Jews."

Now, this is important too, Bard writes, "Despite the weakness of the Arab claims, the British gave them the usual airing through an investigation. In 1931, Lewish French conduccted a survey of Arab "landlessness" and eventually offered new lands to any Arabs who had been "dispossed." British officials received approximately 3,200 applications, of which more than 2,600 were ruled invalid by the government's legal adviser because they came from Arabs who were not landless. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the government land offer. The masses of dispossed Arabs apparently did not exist or simply were not interested in reacquiring land."

Even Sherif Hussein stated, "The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction."

Another interesting fact that Bard notes is that as a result of Jewish land development since the beginning of the Kibbutz movement, "agricultural output grew from an insignificant half a million pounds to 10 million pounds annually by the end of the 1930s." A huge amount of money during that time, and a huge amount of money for agricultural resources in comparison to that of neighboring Arab countries. All a result of the Zionist Kibbutz movement.

Under the section titled, "Jewish Pioneers", Bard writes regarding Jewish immigration and Zionism, "Although for the next half-century the Arabs would claim that Jews were forcing them out of their land because, they argued, there was not enough room for both peoples, the truth was quite the contrary. In fact, for many centuries, Palestine was a sparesely populated, poorly cultivated, and widely neglected expanse of eroded hills, sandy deserts, and malarial marshes."

Finally, the American counsil in Jerusalem during the time stated in reference to pre-settlement Palestine (i.e., no Jewish immigrants), "The population and wealth of Palestine has not increased during the last fourty years."

In short, the land was developed by Jews. Even the Arab population explosion and lowering of mortality rates among Arabs, in addition to the improving quality of life of Arabs, was a result of Jewish settlement.

That run-on sentence was because it was roughly 1am where i live (Canberra, Australia) Also, nobody can write english perfectly, especially if you're like me and you dont proofread. I am in fact an honours student in writing.

I cannot remember the exact quote, my version is a paraphrase, however I remember in one of your posts in an earlier thread you showed a quote from the compelete idiots guide to the middle east that stated something along that line.

Alright, I don't mean to pick on your writing. Its really a non issue. And people can make writing mistakes and excell in writing, it happens.

And yes, I've used Mitchell Bard's writings in the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East. He's one of the foremost scholars in Middle East history today, and his silly Idiot's Guide is actually required reading for a number of intro level university courses in the United States and around the world. Its absurd to dismiss his scholarship and the facts simply because he is Jewish. I don't dismiss Arab scholars on the basis of them being Arab. Nor do all Jews promote Israel. There are many Jews that hate Israel with a passion and do everything in their power to tear it down (Finkelstein), just like there are Jews who are biased toward Israel and Jews who give a fair picture.

I think you'd like Mitchell Bard's work if you read it. He's very critical of Israeli policy and Israeli groups. In the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East, he has an entire sections with titles such as - Jews Turn to Terror. Would a Jew biased in favor of Israel admit that Israel has used terror tactics? It seems to go against your "OMG he's a Jew, so he's biased" argument.

And don't forget, not only is it anti-Semitic to single him out for being Jewish, but it is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.