NationStates Jolt Archive

"An Israeli child from a far-right settler group in the West Bank city of Hebron hurls a stone up the stairs of a Palestinian family close to their settlement and shouts: "I will exterminate you." Another spits towards the same family.

Another settler woman pushes her face up to a window and snarls: "Whore!"

They are shocking images. There is of footage beatings, their aftermath, and the indifference of Israel's security forces to serious human rights abuses. There is footage too of those same security forces humiliating Palestinians – and most seriously – committing abuses themselves.

They are contained in a growing archive of material assembled by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem in a remarkable project called Shooting Back.

The group has supplied almost 100 video cameras to vulnerable Palestinian communities in Hebron, the northern West Bank and elsewhere, to document and gather evidence of assaults and abusive behaviour – largely by settlers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/israelandthepalestinians

To colonise a people, its nessecary to diminish them in the colonists mind. Once they're seen as less than equal human beings, the kind of thing detailed above is almost inevitable. When some pearly toothed so and so is next on, justifying supporting the 'light of freedom' in the middle East, remember its the above that they're really funding and protecting.

It is encouraging that B'Tselem are an Israeli organisation.

Not only Palestinians who get it from the messianic Hebrew extremists, I believe some years ago a foreign journalist reporting on the situation was mutilated by a broken class bottle by Zionists, who then beat and spat on her.

It's a good thing to remember there are no good guys and bad guys in real life. Both sides of this conflict have people who honestly desire reconciliation and mutual respect - and both sides have people I'd rather not share a planet with.

The Hebron settlers are not representative of the Israeli people in general. Remember that they also commit acts of violence against Israeli police and soldiers who try to restrain their foolishness.

Also, it's becoming a trend for organizations on all sides of the Palestinian issue to distribute free cameras. More moderate settlers do it too, so their people could document police brutality.

This is a good thing.

The Hebron settlers are not representative of the Israeli people in general. Remember that they also commit acts of violence against Israeli police and soldiers who try to restrain their foolishness.

More often than that the police and troops simply ignore it, or join in themselves.

The Hebron settlers are not representative of the Israeli people in general.

You know, there might be a way of solving the mentality of the Hebron settlers, assuming some iron fisted dictator who actually intends well comes to power in Israel and dickers out something with whoever's leading Palestine at the time.

Forced swapping of children. Israeli newborns go to Palestinian parents and vice versa, and stay there until they are of age. All parents are informed that if their charges are mistreated or killed, the same will be done to their children.

It worked in the feudal days for keeping warlords in line, should work today too. Parental rights be damned. They lost it the moment they started indoctrinating hate.

Even better. Parents who actually give a fig about their children will be up in arms over the people on their side who want to stir up trouble.

what a great project!

Though theres always the risk this will get hijacked by the 'Jew-bashers', I think it right to highlight the occupation and its associated evils.

If there's any place that should have full CCTV coverage 24/7, it's the Occupied Territories.

That might actually solve something, especially if the ones with access to the cameras were a neutral third party.

If there's any place that should have full CCTV coverage 24/7, it's the Occupied Territories.

That might actually solve something, especially if the ones with access to the cameras were a neutral third party.

One would presume that both, at one point or another, do something to the other. So it would catch people saying these nasty things, and it would also catch them throwing rocks, and it would also catch Palestinians firing rockets, and Israeli Air Force planes dropping bombs, and catch Palestinians crawling under barbed wire with a pack of explosives to try to get into Israel to make an attack, only to be machinegunned to death under the wire...

It would get rather boring to watch, and ultimately, would prove nothing but the fact that the Palestinians had better get on with accepting their fate, or be gradually ground down into the dust of history.

If there's any place that should have full CCTV coverage 24/7, it's the Occupied Territories.

That might actually solve something, especially if the ones with access to the cameras were a neutral third party.

The cameras would get smashed to shit, but it's a good idea.

The cameras would get smashed to shit, but it's a good idea.

That too.

It's a good thing to remember there are no good guys and bad guys in real life. Both sides of this conflict have people who honestly desire reconciliation and mutual respect - and both sides have people I'd rather not share a planet with.

/threadwin

It would get rather boring to watch, and ultimately, would prove nothing but the fact that the Palestinians had better get on with accepting their fate, or be gradually ground down into the dust of history.

Good thing the Americans never took that attitude back in the 1770's, otherwise they'd still be a colony (x a number of nations and their struggle for independence). But I suppose 'thats different'.

I note you make no reference to the article itself or the content therein either. Does the actual face of colonisation bother you?

Israel was a byproduct of british imperialism and eserves to be treated as such.

Good thing the Americans never took that attitude back in the 1770's, otherwise they'd still be a colony (x a number of nations and their struggle for independence). But I suppose 'thats different'.

I note you make no reference to the article itself or the content therein either. Does the actual face of colonisation bother you?

We had an actual chance at winning in the 1770s. The Palestinians do not, and never will.

We had an actual chance at winning in the 1770s. The Palestinians do not, and never will.

You know, that's exactly what Kind George said to me in 1776....

We had an actual chance at winning in the 1770s. The Palestinians do not, and never will.

Really? I'm somewhat taken aback at that comment. However never let it be said that I was churlish - may I ask you something?

We had an actual chance at winning in the 1770s. The Palestinians do not, and never will.

What about France and Vietnam, Cambodia, and much of North Africa? What about Britain and India?

Where was the IDF to machine gun the child to death for throwing a rock?

Where was the IDF to machine gun the child to death for throwing a rock?

That was the day earlier....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7533858.stm

O...wait.....

Finally.

We had an actual chance at winning in the 1770s. The Palestinians do not, and never will.


Its a shame he's gone. With those psychic powers I was hoping he had news of what would come in the Hurdle tomorrow at 3.40....
http://www.bluesq.com/bet?action=go_events&type_id=1825

We had an actual chance at winning in the 1770s.

Not without the military help of one of the then superpowers of the world in the 1770s, don't try to pretend otherwise. Without it, the American insurgency would have been squashed like a bug.

I wholeheartedly approve of this program.

I may be pro-Israel, but I am quite anti-settler.

I wholeheartedly approve of this program.

I may be pro-Israel, but I am quite anti-settler.

Amen. Comparing the settlers, especially those in Hebron, to the rest of Israel is like comparing Palestinians, especially those in Hamas, to the rest of the Arab world.

Not without the military help of one of the then superpowers of the world in the 1770s, don't try to pretend otherwise. Without it, the American insurgency would have been squashed like a bug.

Kimchi doesn't like to remember that the French actually helped out the colonists with becoming a nation.

It's a good thing to remember there are no good guys and bad guys in real life. Both sides of this conflict have people who honestly desire reconciliation and mutual respect - and both sides have people I'd rather not share a planet with.

Well, there are good and bad people, but definitely not "good" or "bad" sides.

Unless you wanted to really break it down. Then you could ask whether ideologies could be good or bad and etc.

But unless anyone actually wants to split those hairs, I suggest we stay with your example.

It would get rather boring to watch, and ultimately, would prove nothing but the fact that the Palestinians had better get on with accepting their fate, or be gradually ground down into the dust of history.

What is would prove is that Israel could be committing dozens of murders, assaults, etc; at some point these charges are going to come back and haunt these Zionists.

I think the Palestinians should really start escalating their attacks against the Zionist occupiers.

Good, maybe this will finally spur the Israeli government to crack down on the fucking useless settlers.

Good, maybe this will finally spur the Israeli government to crack down on the fucking useless settlers.

I very much doubt that, given how many scandals seem to be associated with the Israeli government, which in more than a few cases, involve construction firms with links to said settlers if I recall correctly.

I very much doubt that, given how many scandals seem to be associated with the Israeli government, which in more than a few cases, involve construction firms with links to said settlers if I recall correctly.

Which will never happen as long as Uncle Sam continues to cover Israel's ass in regards to the rest of the world.

Which will never happen as long as Uncle Sam continues to cover Israel's ass in regards to the rest of the world.

I'm not talking about American support here. I'm talking about Israel's government, you know, politicians. A basic rule of thumb is that politicians are corrupt, and Israel's are no exception. The settler's expansion means increased contracts for construction firms and the like, which in turn are only possible with political links that authorize such expansion, or turn a blind eye to illegal settling.

No zionism, not even hate. Just money doing the talking. At least in the higher ups.

I'm not talking about American support here. I'm talking about Israel's government, you know, politicians. A basic rule of thumb is that politicians are corrupt, and Israel's are no exception. The settler's expansion means increased contracts for construction firms and the like, which in turn are only possible with political links that authorize such expansion, or turn a blind eye to illegal settling.

No zionism, not even hate. Just money doing the talking. At least in the higher ups.

Whoops, replied to the post you were replying to. But as long as the standing Israeli government is sheltered from the consequences of settler violence they won't be the least bit encouraged or forced to deal with the problems.

Things might clear up after Olmert steps down.

Tzipi Livni for Prime Minister!

Tzipi Livni
Can't stand her, she is absolutely unbearable and when she speaks she sounds so false and so propagandistic that you simply have to clench your teeth and bear it.

Plus she's just another rapid frothing-at-the-mouth Zionist anyways.

"An Israeli child from a far-right settler group in the West Bank city of Hebron hurls a stone up the stairs of a Palestinian family close to their settlement and shouts: "I will exterminate you." Another spits toward the same family.

Another settler woman pushes her face up to a window and snarls: "Whore!"

They are shocking images. There is of footage beatings, their aftermath, and the indifference of Israel's security forces to serious human rights abuses. There is footage too of those same security forces humiliating Palestinians – and most seriously – committing abuses themselves.

They are contained in a growing archive of material assembled by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem in a remarkable project called Shooting Back.

The group has supplied almost 100 video cameras to vulnerable Palestinian communities in Hebron, the northern West Bank and elsewhere, to document and gather evidence of assaults and abusive behaviour – largely by settlers."


I remember seeing a documentary about this group a little while ago on Al Jazeera. It's an excellent idea but the problem is that as long as Israel has an apartheid justice system, where it's very hard for a Palestinian to bring any charges against an Israeli, I fear it will do little benefit on the ground. It has limited use in attract media attention, since western media will never carry footage showing Israeli settlers in such dubious actions. The west and Israel have a huge love-in going on, and nothing will change it.

Good, maybe this will finally spur the Israeli government to crack down on the fucking useless settlers.

I'd like to think so, but see above... Also, the settlers are far from useless. They are a useful tool. They can be dropped on top of sites of strategic importance, "changing the demographic" so that said site can be claimed as par tof Israel in a final status deal, and are better at this than using hard, purely military tactics. More "politically acceptable" to the west.

What is would prove is that Israel could be committing dozens of murders, assaults, etc; at some point these charges are going to come back and haunt these Zionists.

No they won't... Israel will defend it's own cronies and goon squads to the bitter end. And once the bitter end is reached, the Americans will take over. It may be wrong, but it's also the way things are.

Amen. Comparing the settlers, especially those in Hebron, to the rest of Israel is like comparing Palestinians, especially those in Hamas, to the rest of the Arab world.

Yes, because Palestinians are colonial, apartheid worshipping, oppressive, bullying tyrants, right? There are extremest groups amongst the Palestinians (Islamic Jihad, rather than Hamas, which has repeatedly signalled that it is willing accept a two state solution), but to imply that all Palestinians are as bad as the Hebron settlers (in other words, the best Palestinian is as bad as the worst Israeli) - The "especially those in Hamas" sideline there does not disguise real meaning of your words.

The real hope would be of countering the pro-israel lobby in America, and winning over 'waverers' and 'don't knows' on the subject. Much like yourself, I would not be optimistic of justice on the ground.

The Israeli terror state has always treated Palestinians horribly, or anyone whom they didn't agree with or could use.

The real hope would be of countering the pro-israel lobby in America, and winning over 'waverers' and 'don't knows' on the subject. Much like yourself, I would not be optimistic of justice on the ground.

That's not going to stop the Israeli hardliners from deciding that a few more assassinations amongst their detractors could fix that. I mean, these are the sort of people who would rather assassinate their own leaders rather than come to a settlement with the Palestinians, or toss grenades into mosques and gun down the survivors if peace looks to be upcoming.

Seriously, without some serious social engineering like a grand baby swap, or some superpower kicking both populaces out to the opposite ends of the globe before slagging the whole area, there's never going to be any real peace or justice for either side.

The Hebron settlers are not representative of the Israeli people in general. Remember that they also commit acts of violence against Israeli police and soldiers who try to restrain their foolishness.

Are the italian policemen who brutalized protesters at the G8-Genoa representative of the italian people in general? No.
Are the US policemen who kill handcuffed people by tazing them to death representative of the US people in general? No.
Are Hamas bombers who kill israeli civilians by blasting bombs on buses representative of the palestinian people in general? No.
...
etc etc...

Every national/ethnical/religious group contains intelligent people and stupid people, peaceful people and criminal people. That's why reasoning in terms of confrontation between nationally/ethnically/religiously-identified groups is stupid, misleading and useless in the pursuit of peace and justice. Violence, crime and injustice should be prosecuted everywhere, regardless of the nationality/ethnicity/religion of the criminals and of the victims.

The real hope would be of countering the pro-israel lobby in America, and winning over 'waverers' and 'don't knows' on the subject. Much like yourself, I would not be optimistic of justice on the ground.

If the Israelis didn't have America to back it up and they were in a bad position (ie. every nation in the region bearing down on them with the intent to occupy or exterminate), they might do something stupid. You don't screw with nations that have nukes.

Yes, because Palestinians are colonial, apartheid worshipping, oppressive, bullying tyrants, right? There are extremest groups amongst the Palestinians (Islamic Jihad, rather than Hamas, which has repeatedly signalled that it is willing accept a two state solution), but to imply that all Palestinians are as bad as the Hebron settlers (in other words, the best Palestinian is as bad as the worst Israeli) - The "especially those in Hamas" sideline there does not disguise real meaning of your words.


What? I was pointing out that people shouldn't stereotype an entire group base on the actions of a few of its radical members. What did you think I was saying?

I made a point to compare the Palestinian people, not to the settlers in Hebron, but to the settlers as a whole. I have nothing against Palestinians; as a matter of fact, I am friendly with a few of them. I compared the settlers in Hebron, who are without a doubt douchebags, to Hamas, who are also douchebags. Both of those groups (just to clarify, since you apparently need it-the groups are the Settlers in Hebron and Hamas) are the most extreme and violent of their respective peoples. Are you really going to argue that?

So really, I have no idea where you got that misconception from. Next time, read the literal meaning of my words. Funny enough, they say what I actually think.

Palestinians had better get on with accepting their fate, or be gradually ground down into the dust of history.

Their "fate"? Like the Jews' fate in Germany, circa 1930? Yes, you heard me, I brought up Hitler. That's right, I BROUGHT UP GODDAMN HITLER! And before any of you goes "godwin" on me, I'd like to point out that this kind of behavior is precisely the one the NAZI party had before they started gassing people and shoving them in concentration camps. So, no, it's not Godwin if it's justified.

And here you are, claiming they should "accept their fate"? Would you have said so if they weren't Muslims, DK? Would you have said so if they were Americans like yourself? White people? Would you say so about the Israelis whose mothers and parents get blown up in buses every damn week because of the mentality you espouse existing in both sides? I bet my beautiful ass and your sorry one you wouldn't. That's right, I'm betting your ass too. You favor property grabs by Israel, so you're okay with it so long as I tell you my last name is Rosenberg, not that it is.

Being humiliated as a civilization by a group of people that forgot that THEIR civilization got the same treatment in Germany not long ago is not their "fate". That's nobody's "fate". And that you're trying to make this their "fate" speaks volumes about you. YOU want this to be about fate so YOU can feel justified in despising and demonising a group YOU CHOSE TO. And that's all there is to it, nothing more, nothing less. That's YOUR problem. The only detail, DK, is THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU! It's not about your misguided, illogical, asinine prejudice towards brown people, it's not about your belief that some peoples are "born to be humiliated", and yes, you HAVE that belief, otherwise you wouldn't have written that tripe you just wrote, and it's not about your need to feel superior to them somehow and try to appeal to "fate".

IT. IS NOT. ABOUT. YOU!

"An Israeli child from a far-right settler group in the West Bank city of Hebron hurls a stone up the stairs of a Palestinian family close to their settlement and shouts: "I will exterminate you." Another spits towards the same family.

Another settler woman pushes her face up to a window and snarls: "Whore!"

They are shocking images. There is of footage beatings, their aftermath, and the indifference of Israel's security forces to serious human rights abuses. There is footage too of those same security forces humiliating Palestinians – and most seriously – committing abuses themselves.

They are contained in a growing archive of material assembled by the Israeli human rights organisation B'Tselem in a remarkable project called Shooting Back.

The group has supplied almost 100 video cameras to vulnerable Palestinian communities in Hebron, the northern West Bank and elsewhere, to document and gather evidence of assaults and abusive behaviour – largely by settlers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/30/israelandthepalestinians

To colonise a people, its nessecary to diminish them in the colonists mind. Once they're seen as less than equal human beings, the kind of thing detailed above is almost inevitable. When some pearly toothed so and so is next on, justifying supporting the 'light of freedom' in the middle East, remember its the above that they're really funding and protecting.
I rather like their methods, providing video cameras

I am sure others have done it but it seems like a rather non violent method to me to get the word out

Amen. Comparing the settlers, especially those in Hebron, to the rest of Israel is like comparing Palestinians, especially those in Hamas, to the rest of the Arab world.

QFT.

If the American revolutionaries had "struggled" by planting bombs in British town marketplaces and kidnapping British children to bash them against rocks, etc. we would still be colonies, and deservedly so.

Are Hamas bombers who kill israeli civilians by blasting bombs on buses representative of the palestinian people in general? No.
...
They are representative of an overwhelming majority.

They are representative of an overwhelming majority.

You're wrong and that post deserves no consideration. That's all there is to it.

QFT.

If the American revolutionaries had "struggled" by planting bombs in British town marketplaces and kidnapping British children to bash them against rocks, etc. we would still be colonies, and deservedly so.

Are the Palestinians receiving military support from one of the world's superpowers, like the American revolutionaries did? No? Then your example falls apart.

And I dare you to prove the bolded part of your statement in context of Israel/Palestine.

Are the Palestinians receiving military support from one of the world's superpowers, like the American revolutionaries did?
Of course not-- BECAUSE they plant bombs in marketplaces, kidnap children to bash their heads against rocks, etc. If American revolutionaries had behaved like that, they would not have gotten support, either.
And I dare you to prove the bolded part of your statement in context of Israel/Palestine.
Haven't you been paying any attention to the news? I was of course referring to the Samir Kuntar case, where a child-murderer's release was obtained by extortion, and then he was celebrated as a "hero" in one of the more grotesque exhibitions (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3569043,00.html) we have seen in years.
You're wrong and that post deserves no consideration. That's all there is to it.
What are you talking about? Every poll ever conducted on the subject has shown that killing Israeli civilians is supported by well over 50% of Palestinians. The percentage does fluctuate from time to time, but it has never been less than a majority, and is usually a very large majority. The factions which carry out such killings combined for 98% of the vote in the last elections.

I mean, these are the sort of people who would rather assassinate their own leaders rather than come to a settlement with the Palestinians, or toss grenades into mosques and gun down the survivors if peace looks to be upcoming.
can be fixed by
Violence, crime and injustice should be prosecuted everywhere, regardless of the nationality/ethnicity/religion of the criminals and of the victims.
How likely that is? I dunno. But, hell, the settlers aren't exactly the most popular people. As far as I can tell, no one except the settlers and a few politicians like the settlers. Every Israeli I've ever talked to think they're a bunch of fucking whackjob hick fundies.
I rather like their methods, providing video cameras

I am sure others have done it but it seems like a rather non violent method to me to get the word out

I agree. I realize everyone's a bit cynical towards any progress occurring in the Middle East but I do believe this could make a difference. Information really is a powerful weapon in the right hands.

QFT.

If the American revolutionaries had "struggled" by planting bombs in British town marketplaces and kidnapping British children to bash them against rocks, etc. we would still be colonies, and deservedly so.

Not nessecarily. After all, look at Israel.

How likely that is? I dunno. But, hell, the settlers aren't exactly the most popular people. As far as I can tell, no one except the settlers and a few politicians like the settlers. Every Israeli I've ever talked to think they're a bunch of fucking whackjob hick fundies.

True that. The settlers are, for the most part, crazy. And the settlers dont like most of Israel, either, especially after they were forced out of Gaza.


I agree. I realize everyone's a bit cynical towards any progress occurring in the Middle East but I do believe this could make a difference. Information really is a powerful weapon in the right hands.

Ah, but what are the right hands? No news station has proved that it is unbiased about the middle east. Period.

Give it to any U.S. news outlet, you get claims that it is biased towards the Israelis.
Give it to any Arab or European* news outlet, you get claims that it is biased towards the Palestinians.

Maybe we should hand the footage over to the Chinese?

*this is only from what I have seen-mostly British stuff (Rueters, BBC). I don't claim to be an expert on European news stations. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Not nessecarily. After all, look at Israel.
Until the sinking of the Altadena, the existence of Irgun was an insuperable impediment to any "superpower support" for Israel. Truman did recognize the state of Israel, but imposed an arms embargo against Israel which remained in place until the 1960's. The only side which was arguably supported by a "superpower", if you could still count 1948 Britain at that rank, was the Arab side.

I've seen the video clips before, but watching it again from the link makes me feel sick all over again.

Their "fate"? Like the Jews' fate in Germany, circa 1930? Yes, you heard me, I brought up Hitler. That's right, I BROUGHT UP GODDAMN HITLER! And before any of you goes "godwin" on me, I'd like to point out that this kind of behavior is precisely the one the NAZI party had before they started gassing people and shoving them in concentration camps. So, no, it's not Godwin if it's justified.

And here you are, claiming they should "accept their fate"? Would you have said so if they weren't Muslims, DK? Would you have said so if they were Americans like yourself? White people? Would you say so about the Israelis whose mothers and parents get blown up in buses every damn week because of the mentality you espouse existing in both sides? I bet my beautiful ass and your sorry one you wouldn't. That's right, I'm betting your ass too. You favor property grabs by Israel, so you're okay with it so long as I tell you my last name is Rosenberg, not that it is.

Being humiliated as a civilization by a group of people that forgot that THEIR civilization got the same treatment in Germany not long ago is not their "fate". That's nobody's "fate". And that you're trying to make this their "fate" speaks volumes about you. YOU want this to be about fate so YOU can feel justified in despising and demonising a group YOU CHOSE TO. And that's all there is to it, nothing more, nothing less. That's YOUR problem. The only detail, DK, is THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU! It's not about your misguided, illogical, asinine prejudice towards brown people, it's not about your belief that some peoples are "born to be humiliated", and yes, you HAVE that belief, otherwise you wouldn't have written that tripe you just wrote, and it's not about your need to feel superior to them somehow and try to appeal to "fate".

IT. IS NOT. ABOUT. YOU!

um... Godwin?

*ducks*

Ah, but what are the right hands? No news station has proved that it is unbiased about the middle east. Period.

Give it to any U.S. news outlet, you get claims that it is biased towards the Israelis.
Give it to any Arab or European* news outlet, you get claims that it is biased towards the Palestinians.

Maybe we should hand the footage over to the Chinese?

*this is only from what I have seen-mostly British stuff (Rueters, BBC). I don't claim to be an expert on European news stations. If I am wrong, please correct me.

*shrug* In this case, the right hands are as many hands as possible. Get your local media to run a story on it, get it out there. There is a degree of trickle up in media. If enough people care about it, a big outlet will pick it up and spur its competitors to do the same.

Until the sinking of the Altadena, the existence of Irgun was an insuperable impediment to any "superpower support" for Israel. Truman did recognize the state of Israel, but imposed an arms embargo against Israel which remained in place until the 1960's. The only side which was arguably supported by a "superpower", if you could still count 1948 Britain at that rank, was the Arab side.


Yet they still did what they did. And they still acheived a (very powerful) state. And its not like the brutality is over- every year theres tens of children killed in the OT, many by sniper fire, even without major flare ups. Theres civillians brutalised, land seized, journalists beaten, torture, assasination, intimidation, much of it done a systematic, orderly fashion. While the stench of child killing, brutal shits is unpleasant no matter what side they drop from, you'll find the pile on the Israeli side significantly larger, and America immune to it.

Are the Palestinians receiving military support from one of the world's superpowers, like the American revolutionaries did? No? Then your example falls apart.

And I dare you to prove the bolded part of your statement in context of Israel/Palestine.

Just from the whole of the Arab world, either overtly or clandestinely. The weight of an entire billion-person religion (and its attendant hierarchy and power to mobilize and control people) surely equals one superpower...as we've seen in Afghanistan, perhaps it even equals two, if not more.

The example does not fall apart merely because the support doesn't look like the support Israel gets.

*snip*

Ah, but what are the right hands? No news station has proved that it is unbiased about the middle east. Period.

Give it to any U.S. news outlet, you get claims that it is biased towards the Israelis.
Give it to any Arab or European* news outlet, you get claims that it is biased towards the Palestinians.

Maybe we should hand the footage over to the Chinese?

*this is only from what I have seen-mostly British stuff (Rueters, BBC). I don't claim to be an expert on European news stations. If I am wrong, please correct me.

...who would be biased toward the Palestinians. Larger market, connections to oil-controlling nations.

Yet they still did what they did. And they still acheived a (very powerful) state.
The "they" in your first sentence is not the "they" in your second sentence. Irgun did not "achieve" the state of Israel: they were a hindrance to its creation. If Irgun had ever existed, there would still be an Israel: a better Israel, in my opinion. If nothing but Irgun had existed, there would be no Israel.
I am not saying that the existence of violent nutters prevents the possibility of a state, but the existence of nothing but violent nutters does. In Palestine, the anti-violence parties cannot break out of single digits. As long as this remains the case, nothing can change.
While the stench of child killing, brutal shits is unpleasant no matter what side they drop from, you'll find the pile on the Israeli side significantly larger
Only if you look at the past few years and ignore the previous decades. Israel is catching up, to be sure: they have become quite successful in minimizing their own casualties. If only the Palestian side were interested in minimizing Palestinian casualties, both sides' losses could be reduced to zero, but I do not expect this any time soon.

The "they" in your first sentence is not the "they" in your second sentence. Irgun did not "achieve" the state of Israel: they were a hindrance to its creation. If Irgun had ever existed, there would still be an Israel: a better Israel, in my opinion. If nothing but Irgun had existed, there would be no Israel.
I am not saying that the existence of violent nutters prevents the possibility of a state, but the existence of nothing but violent nutters does. In Palestine, the anti-violence parties cannot break out of single digits. As long as this remains the case, nothing can change..

The state of the Palestinians is irrelevant. The willingness of the US to support Israels colonial policies is.


If only the Palestian side were interested in minimizing Palestinian casualties,..

Yes, they jump in front of sniper scopes on a regular basis.

The state of the Palestinians is irrelevant. The willingness of the US to support Israels colonial policies is.
The state of the Palestinians IS the cause of the willingness of the US to support Israel. It is not just that a Samir Kuntar would kidnap a toddler to bash her skull with rocks: any society will produce a monster like Dahmer or Gacy or [fill in the blank]. But if one of those got out, he would not be hailed as a "hero" and "role model for our youth" by the mainstream: THAT is why the Arabs are despised.

But if one of those got out, he would not be hailed as a "hero" and "role model for our youth" by the mainstream: THAT is why the Arabs are despised.

Prove that these guys are hailed as heroes by the mainstream. Furthermore explain how is it any different from hailing the leaders of the American revolution as heroes when the British saw them as monsters. Have they not killed people? Or the difference between a hero and a monster is who gets killed and whose side the person is on? The Israeli soldiers are also seen as heroes by some, between one sniping of a Palestinian child's head and another. Yet, here am I NOT painting all Jews with the same brush. Because that would be stupid. Apply analogy with Arabs as necessary.

The state of the Palestinians IS the cause of the willingness of the US to support Israel. .

Yes, thats America, so appalled by nasty things it only allies with the 'good and true' and protects. Certainly theres nothing in the last 50 years of US history to contradict that concept.


It is not just that a Samir Kuntar would kidnap a toddler to bash her skull with rocks: .

Your emotive example is one against the dozens yearly created by the IDF. You'll pardon me not considering a 7.62 mm bullet somehow morally superior to a rock.


, he would not be hailed as a "hero" and "role model for our youth" by the mainstream: .

Ariel Sharon? the "man of peace"?


THAT is why the Arabs are despised.

...by those who like to label whole races. If somebody took your phrase and inserted "Jews" for Arabs they'd be ripped out of it, and rightly so. Its a mark of your double standard you deem it acceptable.

Prove that these guys are hailed as heroes by the mainstream.
Didn't I just give you a fistful of links on the other thread showing that posters hailing such murderers as heroes are EVERYWHERE? You demanded those links and did not respond. As for Kuntar being a "hero" and "role model" for bashing a toddler's skull with rocks, haven't you read any news at all lately? It was a very major story:
Kuntar receives a hero's welcome (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330979803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
A Murderer Acclaimed as a Hero (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/a_murderer_acclaimed_as_a_hero.html)
Samir Kuntar is a convicted murderer and not a hero (http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/07/samir_kuntar_is.php)
PROFILE: Samir Kuntar, 'hero' at home, 'ruthless murderer' in Israel (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/219201,profile-samir-kuntar-hero-at-home-ruthless-murderer-in-israel.html)
Furthermore explain how is it any different from hailing the leaders of the American revolution as heroes when the British saw them as monsters.
Goddamn you, my ancestors did nothing REMOTELY like bashing toddlers on rocks or slitting infants' throats or blowing up schoolchildren or pushing old men in wheelchairs into the ocean or any of those other "heroic" deeds of the Palestinians.
The Israeli soldiers are also seen as heroes by some, between one sniping of a Palestinian child's head and another.
Your turn: show me a link of a hero's parade in Tel Aviv for a soldier who shot a child.
Yet, here am I NOT painting all Jews with the same brush. Because that would be stupid. Apply analogy with Arabs as necessary.
Not "all" Arabs support these kinds of murders: but a majority of Palestinians do, and double-digit percentages in most other Arab Muslim countries (and some non-Arab Muslim countries like Pakistan).

Originally Posted by Tmutarakhan
THAT is why the Arabs are despised.
...by those who like to label whole races.
Yep. I am pointing out the FACT that Arabs are widely despised in the United States, and that US support for Israel has everything to do with that.
If somebody took your phrase and inserted "Jews" for Arabs they'd be ripped out of it, and rightly so. Its a mark of your double standard you deem it acceptable.
If you say "Incidents like the one shown in the OP are the reason Jews are despised in the Arab world", that would be a fact. Jews ARE despised in the Arab world, no question about it. If anyone wants to know why that has happened, the video in the OP would be a good place to start.

Whether it is "acceptable" or "right" or whatever is a totally different question. Several people have been pointing out that not all Jews support the settlers' conduct, and likewise that not all Arabs support brutal murders. Some have pointed out that only a small minority of Jews support the settlers: which is true. Others have argued that only a small minority of Arabs support the murders: unfortunately, that's not true.

Didn't I just give you a fistful of links on the other thread showing that posters hailing such murderers as heroes are EVERYWHERE? You demanded those links and did not respond. As for Kuntar being a "hero" and "role model" for bashing a toddler's skull with rocks, haven't you read any news at all lately? It was a very major story:
Kuntar receives a hero's welcome (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330979803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
A Murderer Acclaimed as a Hero (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/a_murderer_acclaimed_as_a_hero.html)
Samir Kuntar is a convicted murderer and not a hero (http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2008/07/samir_kuntar_is.php)
PROFILE: Samir Kuntar, 'hero' at home, 'ruthless murderer' in Israel (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/219201,profile-samir-kuntar-hero-at-home-ruthless-murderer-in-israel.html)

Goddamn you, my ancestors did nothing REMOTELY like bashing toddlers on rocks or slitting infants' throats or blowing up schoolchildren or pushing old men in wheelchairs into the ocean or any of those other "heroic" deeds of the Palestinians.

Your turn: show me a link of a hero's parade in Tel Aviv for a soldier who shot a child.

Not "all" Arabs support these kinds of murders: but a majority of Palestinians do, and double-digit percentages in most other Arab Muslim countries (and some non-Arab Muslim countries like Pakistan).

1- Ariel Sharon, also known as The Uncanny Human Cabbage, ruthless murderer just about everywhere, hero in Israel.
2- Your "ancestors" - well, not really them, which is why I added the quotation marks, but you seem intent on making this about "your people" despite the fact that it's a relatively small subsect of them, so I'll oblige you - use children for target practice.
3- Many of the Jewish community support the kinds of murder perpetrated by the Israeli Army.

In short: BOTH sides are wrong, BOTH sides have morons that support crap, and you're trying to convince me only one side does because of some misguided notion regarding "your ancestors", who were reasonable people if they didn't support this crap when it's done on either side and weren't if they did support it, quite simply.

Both sides are alike in this conflict. Both.

Some have pointed out that only a small minority of Jews support the settlers: which is true. Others have argued that only a small minority of Arabs support the murders: unfortunately, that's not true.

Israel is a democracy, or so I hear. So I have to ask: If only a small minority of Jews supported the settlements, would they not have STOPPED ALREADY?

1- Ariel Sharon, ruthless murderer just about eberywhere, hero in Israel.
Hero??? Politician, rather, regarded by most Israelis as distasteful but acceptable in the context of the Intifada.
2- Your "ancestors" - and the quotation marks are here because it's not all of them, or even most - use children for target practice.
Brazilians eat pickled infant for breakfast.
I don't know what grotesque version of the American Revolution is taught in your schools: could you supply a source for this rubbish?
3- Many of the Jewish community support the kinds of murder perpetrated by the Israeli Army.
I did not ask you to REPEAT your baseless assertion, but to provide a source for it.
BOTH sides have morons that support crap
This is true.
and you're trying to convince me only one side does
This is not true. I am pointing out that there is a massive difference in the fraction of the populations which support gruesome crimes.
Both sides are alike in this conflict. Both.
No. There is a massive difference. You are in serious denial.

Hero??? Politician, rather, regarded by most Israelis as distasteful but acceptable in the context of the Intifada.

Brazilians eat pickled infant for breakfast.
I don't know what grotesque version of the American Revolution is taught in your schools: could you supply a source for this rubbish?

I did not ask you to REPEAT your baseless assertion, but to provide a source for it.

This is true.

This is not true. I am pointing out that there is a massive difference in the fraction of the populations which support gruesome crimes.

No. There is a massive difference. You are in serious denial.

1- Oh, so, not a hero, but merely "acceptable"? Bra-vo!
2- Are there not several Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers every year?
3- Israel, being a Democracy, doesn't cut it out. So...
4- Again, Israel is a democracy. If they wanted out, they'd be out.
5- Yes, there's a difference: The Palestinians should own that land, the Israelis shouldn't.

Israel is a democracy, or so I hear. So I have to ask: If only a small minority of Jews supported the settlements, would they not have STOPPED ALREADY?
Israel makes a distinction between the Jerusalem Zone (not assigned to the Palestinians under the 1947 plan) and the rest of the West Bank: other countries regard it all as "occupied territory", but many Israelis see nothing wrong with continuing to build settlements in the Jerusalem Zone (Maaleh Adumim and Har Homa are major projects which have continued throughout various "settlement freezes", since the Israeli government doesn't consider them to count).

Settlements in the West Bank largely have stopped: the settlers try to sneak new trailers in, and sympathizers in the army or bureaucracy stall about acting on orders to remove them, but the general consensus is strong against continuing to build them. The real question is why such settlements aren't being REMOVED already, particularly settlements like Hebron which are magnets for the kind of fanatics most Israelis either despise or at least are embarrassed by. One problem is that forcibly removing these settlers will be a painful process. The main problem though is that removing settlements is viewed as a "victory" by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and most Israelis are convinced that removal would encourage more violence, rather than leading towards a resolution. The Gaza experience was very depressing to those who hope that removing settlements (the Gaza settlers included a lot of fanatics, and some of the more fanatical settlers in the West Bank were removed at the same time, such as at Gush Etzion by Bethlehem, which like Hebron was the site of an old Jewish community wiped out by mass murder, and hence attractive to the vengeance-minded) would be a step toward peace.

Israel makes a distinction between the Jerusalem Zone (not assigned to the Palestinians under the 1947 plan) and the rest of the West Bank: other countries regard it all as "occupied territory", but many Israelis see nothing wrong with continuing to build settlements in the Jerusalem Zone (Maaleh Adumim and Har Homa are major projects which have continued throughout various "settlement freezes", since the Israeli government doesn't consider them to count).

Settlements in the West Bank largely have stopped: the settlers try to sneak new trailers in, and sympathizers in the army or bureaucracy stall about acting on orders to remove them, but the general consensus is strong against continuing to build them. The real question is why such settlements aren't being REMOVED already, particularly settlements like Hebron which are magnets for the kind of fanatics most Israelis either despise or at least are embarrassed by. One problem is that forcibly removing these settlers will be a painful process. The main problem though is that removing settlements is viewed as a "victory" by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and most Israelis are convinced that removal would encourage more violence, rather than leading towards a resolution. The Gaza experience was very depressing to those who hope that removing settlements (the Gaza settlers included a lot of fanatics, and some of the more fanatical settlers in the West Bank were removed at the same time, such as at Gush Etzion by Bethlehem, which like Hebron was the site of an old Jewish community wiped out by mass murder, and hence attractive to the vengeance-minded) would be a step toward peace.

Well, golly gee, whaddaya know. Not a small minority after all, then.

and that US support for Israel has everything to do with that..

....cart before horse....


Goddamn you, my ancestors did nothing REMOTELY like bashing toddlers on rocks or slitting infants' throats or blowing up schoolchildren or pushing old men in wheelchairs into the ocean or any of those other "heroic" deeds of the Palestinians.

I would have thought slavery and the genocide of the native Americans would have combined into a very a big blot on the copy book, if we go for some generic "American" ancestry. Or are we going to get a lecture about the 'savage' lifestyle of the Apache and how their hero-worship of bloodthirsty renegades is justification for their fate......


Your turn: show me a link of a hero's parade in Tel Aviv for a soldier who shot a child.

In theory if they honour Sharon or the IDF......For every visible Kuntar, it would seem there are numerous faceless Israeli counterparts.....


Not "all" Arabs support these kinds of murders: but a majority of Palestinians do, and double-digit percentages in most other Arab Muslim countries (and some non-Arab Muslim countries like Pakistan).

Which, even if true, doesnt really deal with the fact that Israel does the same, kills more, runs an apartheid statelet in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem. One might say that the Israeli population seems happy to let it go on too.


Hero??? Politician, rather, regarded by most Israelis as distasteful but acceptable in the context of the Intifada

The first intifada started in 1987....

The Qibya massacre and other incidents involving his unit were in around 1953or so.....

The Sabra and Shatilla massacres were in 1982......

He was elected to Government too, wasn't he?

1- Oh, so, not a hero, but merely "acceptable"? Bra-vo!
Sharon was not remotely acceptable to me, or to many Israelis, but the majority was willing to overlook his past in a wartime that called for stern leadership. Your claim was that he was worshipped as a "hero", which is not true: some do admire him, to be sure, but except in very few cases that would be in spite of, not because of, the killings for which he fell into public disgrace.
2- Are there not several Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers every year?
Your claim was that such soldiers are worshipped as heros, just like Samir Kuntar is. That is utterly untrue.
3- Israel, being a Democracy, doesn't cut it out. So...
Soldiers have been prosecuted as criminals in such cases. The Sharon regime did give soldiers a great deal of impunity, and although the pendulum has swung back some, it would be fair to say that many cases which should be prosecuted still aren't. You are making a much stronger claim, however, and your repeated failure even to make any attempt to substantiate it indicates to me that you know you are speaking falsely.
4- Again, Israel is a democracy. If they wanted out, they'd be out.
They are not going to get out of the territories only to see them used as bases for attacks against them. Of course not. Israelis may be crazy but they are not stupid.
5- Yes, there's a difference: The Palestinians should own that land, the Israelis shouldn't.
Which land? The land they purchased? Are you saying that immigrants to a country ought to be murdered? If you are talking about land which has been confiscated by the settlers, I agree with you, and think it unfortunate that the political will to forcibly remove the settlers does not yet exist; a lengthy period of truce honored by the Palestinian side would do much to change this, but the partial "truce" now in force continues to be violated weekly, sometimes daily.
If you are talking specifically about Hebron, that is not even a case of 19th or 20th century immigrants purchasing land: the Jews were on that land for centuries and the Palestinians are only there because they murdered the Jewish inhabitants. Is that what you are supporting, or are you just ignorant about why emotions are so high in that place?

....cart before horse....
What do you mean? We did not form a military alliance with Israel until 1968, after decades of Palestinian atrocities. The Bobby Kennedy murder and the plane hijackings reached into this country and solidified the feelings of many like myself.
I would have thought slavery and the genocide of the native Americans would have combined into a very a big blot on the copy book
They do. Heikoku spoke specifically of the heroes of the Revolution, saying they were just like Samir Kuntar, which is a foul slander. If he had said that it would be just as wrong to worship as "heroes" the slave-raiders or the cruellest of the Indian fighters, I would agree: that is why no such hero-worship exists.
The first intifada started in 1987....
We were talking about Sharon's return to political prominence, in the context of the SECOND intifada.
The Qibya massacre and other incidents involving his unit were in around 1953or so.....
Yes, yes, massacre for massacre in a dishonorable tit-for-tat, I know the story.
The Sabra and Shatilla massacres were in 1982......
Sharon was publicly disgraced, and I would have hoped he would never have a comeback. I also demanded Begin's resignation, we have been over this. Your point?
He was elected to Government too, wasn't he?
As I said, in the context of the (second) intifada, a majority of Israelis were willing to overlook his past in a search for stern, indeed ruthless, leadership. I did not approve of that and still do not.

Well, golly gee, whaddaya know. Not a small minority after all, then.It is not a small minority who doubt the wisdom of forcibly removing the settlers. It is, however, not just a small but a downright tiny minority who would actually approve of things like the OP's video: as opposed to, on the Arab side, mainstream political factions worshipping as a hero one of the foullest murderers their society has produced.

Goddamn you, my ancestors did nothing REMOTELY like bashing toddlers on rocks or slitting infants' throats or blowing up schoolchildren or pushing old men in wheelchairs into the ocean or any of those other "heroic" deeds of the Palestinians.

Hey, misinterpreted you here. Thought you meant your ancestors were Israeli or Jewish.

Regardless, they didn't get the English out by asking nicely.

Sharon was not remotely acceptable to me, or to many Israelis, but the majority was willing to overlook his past in a wartime that called for stern leadership. Your claim was that he was worshipped as a "hero", which is not true: some do admire him, to be sure, but except in very few cases that would be in spite of, not because of, the killings for which he fell into public disgrace.

Would you narrow down what killings those would be?
Seeing as he was unrepentant and ended up in Government, it would seem that quite a few never viewed him as disgraced, merely hard done by.


Your claim was that such soldiers are worshipped as heros, just like Samir Kuntar is. That is utterly untrue..

..because the IDF is an army organised along western lines.....I think 53 children under 18 were killed in 2007, which is fairly low for the area.


Soldiers have been prosecuted as criminals in such cases.


The last trial for a child killing I remember was the man who declared that "Anything that's mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed. Over." He had emptied a clip into a 10 year old while she lay on the ground. He was found not to have acted unethically.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/24/israel

Whats the ratio for child shootings to prosecutions? At a "wild ass guess" as the Americans say, I'd put it at hundreds to one. You seem to know something I don't, however.


the Palestinians are only there because they murdered the Jewish inhabitants.

Really? There was indeed a most vile massacre of the Jewish community , however it was by the majority Palestinian section of the population of Hebron.

Why is it others can acknowledge rights and wrongs on both sides, but you are ruled by venom?

What do you mean? We did not form a military alliance with Israel until 1968, after decades of Palestinian atrocities. The Bobby Kennedy murder and the plane hijackings reached into this country and solidified the feelings of many like myself..

And there were no Israeli atrocities at that time....

And of course the US policy on supporting Pol Pot was based on public feelings on the man as well...


They do. Heikoku spoke specifically of the heroes of the Revolution, saying they were just like Samir Kuntar, which is a foul slander. If he had said that it would be just as wrong to worship as "heroes" the slave-raiders or the cruellest of the Indian fighters, I would agree: that is why no such hero-worship exists...

Washington was a slave owner.....Jefferson slept with his female slaves.....


We were talking about Sharon's return to political prominence, in the context of the SECOND intifada....

O. The one that was preceded by him vistiing the place people asked him not to go near for fear of the consequences?


As I said, in the context of the (second) intifada, a majority of Israelis were willing to overlook his past in a search for stern, indeed ruthless, leadership. I did not approve of that and still do not.

We aren't discussing you as an individual.

So in what the Israeli population perceived as dire circumstances, they were willing to support a man responsible for the deliberate killing of civillian men, women and children...

Hey, misinterpreted you here. Thought you meant your ancestors were Israeli or Jewish.
Father's half is "Ellis Island American" (turn-of-the-20th-century immigrants: one quarter Swedish, one quarter Scotch Irish), mother's half "Mayflower American" (here from the Revolution or before: mostly English, a lick of German through some Hessian deserters, a tiny trace of Lenni Lenape native).
Regardless, they didn't get the English out by asking nicely.
Nor by bashing toddlers on rocks or slitting infants' throats or blowing up schoolchildren or pushing old men in wheelchairs into the ocean, as you claimed. If they had behaved in such a manner, they would never have been supported by anyone, and would be in the position the Palestinians find themselves in (and cannot for some reason understand why).
And there were no Israeli atrocities at that time....Nope, there weren't.
And of course the US policy on supporting Pol Pot was based on public feelings on the man as well...
There was no popular support for that at all. That is why it was not lasting.
Washington was a slave owner.....Jefferson slept with his female slaves.....
They must have bashed toddlers' heads in with rocks, then. How else could we have won our independence?
The one that was preceded by him vistiing the place people asked him not to go near for fear of the consequences?
His position was that EVERYONE has the right to visit the holy places. On that one point, I agree with him.
So in what the Israeli population perceived as dire circumstances, they were willing to support a man responsible for the deliberate killing of civillian men, women and children...
That's the fact, yes. If you are not interested in whether or not I approve of that, what is your point?
the Palestinians are only there because they murdered the Jewish inhabitants.
Really? There was indeed a most vile massacre of the Jewish community , however it was by the majority Palestinian section of the population of Hebron.
The disputed lands about which the fighting in the OP is concerned is land occupied by those Palestinians by virtue of having murdered the inhabitants. I am glad at least that you are willing to call it "most vile".

Sharon was not remotely acceptable to me, or to many Israelis, but the majority was willing to overlook his past in a wartime that called for stern leadership. Your claim was that he was worshipped as a "hero", which is not true: some do admire him, to be sure, but except in very few cases that would be in spite of, not because of, the killings for which he fell into public disgrace.


And you don't find it unsettling that the majority of Israelis will stop at nothing, even murder, to get what they want?

And you don't find it unsettling that the majority of Israelis will stop at nothing, even murder, to get what they want?I don't find it true. It is true about the majority of Palestinians, however.

What the majority of Israelis want is just to live in their homes without getting murdered. That requires killing the people who are trying to kill them. I do find it unsettling that Israelis are not greatly concerned about bystanders getting killed in the process, as long as their targets are taken out, and did find it unsettling (as I keep saying, although nobody seems to accept it) that they would overlook the past of a man like Sharon, who does not just kill killers but believed in revenge attacks (revenge and self-defense are entirely different motives: I will not justify revenge killings). They were not, however, electing him to exterminate Palestinians (if Israelis set out to exterminate Palestinians, there would be a lot fewer of them).

Their "partner for peace" (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/221717,abbas-in-interview-israel-must-free-all-palestinian-prisoners.html) speaks:
Asked by Malta's main newspaper whether it was right for prisoners to be released, irrespective of their crime, Abbas replied: "Everybody, whether he committed a crime or not, should be released. By the way, the Palestinians didn't commit crimes. Maybe they wanted to liberate their country - maybe by weapons, by violence, but whatever they did, this is a liberation act. We consider it this way. When we have peace and we are working for peace with the Israelis I don't think there is any reason to keep these people in prison."

I don't find it true. It is true about the majority of Palestinians, however.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You still don't get this basic point? It is at the core of the problem.
Pew Institute (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257) (quite respectable research over the years, no particular axe to grind) reports "In Lebanon, for example, just 34% of Muslims say suicide bombings in the defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified; in 2002, 74% expressed this view. However, Palestinians stand out for their broad acceptance of suicide bombing. Seven-in-ten-Palestinians say this tactic is at least sometimes justified. "
And (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253): "In Jordan, Pakistan and Indonesia, there have been substantial declines in the percentages saying suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilian targets can be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. The shift has been especially dramatic in Jordan, likely in response to the devastating terrorist attack in Amman last year; 29% of Jordanians view suicide attacks as often or sometimes justified, down from 57% in May 2005.

Confidence in Osama bin Laden also has fallen in most Muslim countries in recent years. This is especially the case in Jordan, where just 24% express at least some confidence in bin Laden now, compared with 60% a year ago. A sizable number of Pakistanis (38%) continue to say they have at least some confidence in the al Qaeda leader to do the right thing regarding world affairs, but significantly fewer do so now than in May 2005 (51%). However, Nigeria's Muslims represent a conspicuous exception to this trend; 61% of Nigeria's Muslims say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, up from 44% in 2003.

The belief that terrorism is justifiable in the defense of Islam, while less extensive than in previous surveys, still has a sizable number of adherents. Among Nigeria's Muslim population, for instance, nearly half (46%) feel that suicide bombings can be justified often or sometimes in the defense of Islam. Even among Europe's Muslim minorities, roughly one-in-seven in France, Spain, and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam against its enemies. "

Asked by Malta's main newspaper whether it was right for prisoners to be released, irrespective of their crime, Abbas replied: "Everybody, whether he committed a crime or not, should be released. By the way, the Palestinians didn't commit crimes. Maybe they wanted to liberate their country - maybe by weapons, by violence, but whatever they did, this is a liberation act. We consider it this way. When we have peace and we are working for peace with the Israelis I don't think there is any reason to keep these people in prison."

In other words, he repeated the standard procedure regarding prisoners of war.

Out of curiosity, what do you think would be the Israeli reaction to Palestinians capturing and trying Israeli soldiers for alleged crimes?

Out of curiosity, what do you think would be the Israeli reaction to Palestinians capturing and trying Israeli soldiers for alleged crimes?

A third shot at invading Lebanon?

Pew Institute (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257) (quite respectable research over the years, no particular axe to grind) reports "In Lebanon, for example, just 34% of Muslims say suicide bombings in the defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified; in 2002, 74% expressed this view. However, Palestinians stand out for their broad acceptance of suicide bombing. Seven-in-ten-Palestinians say this tactic is at least sometimes justified. "

So?

Look, face it, ultimately Israel has to live with the Palestinians, just as the Palestinians have to live with Israel (and all the injustices it has wrought and will never reverse.)

If these people Israel has to live with are still 70% in favor of terrorist tactics against civilians, don't you think Israel should be asking some serious questions about the wisdom of its policies?

...who would be biased toward the Palestinians. Larger market, connections to oil-controlling nations.

Sometimes, I forget that people can't understand my tone on forums. *sigh*
I was kidding.

Israel is a democracy, or so I hear. So I have to ask: If only a small minority of Jews supported the settlements, would they not have STOPPED ALREADY?

Come now, Heikoku. Don't throw out the "if it is a democracy, the government would accede to its peoples wishes". That is blatantly untrue. Look at the U.S. Look at England. That was a silly comment to make. Just because a nation is a democracy does not mean that it does what its people want.
As a Jew, and as someone who travels in Jewish circles, I can tell you from my experiences that no, most Jews I have met (myself included) do NOT support the Settlements. And that includes Israelis.

This thread is proof positive why it is pointless debating about Israel on forums. On the one hand, you have those who refuse to accept that the IDF can do anything wrong; they believe that Israel is pure, perfect, and without reproach, while all Palestinians are dirty grubby terrorists. On the other hand, you have those who believe that everything that has happened in that region is the Zionists fault; the state of the Palestinian refugees, the suicide attacks, all the blame lies at Israels doorstep.

And the few people who try to find the middle ground get trampled in the resulting clusterfuck. No matter what people say, nothing is going to sway the other side. All that happens is everybody gets pissed at everyone else.

Has the IDF acted horribly? Yes. On far too many occasions, innocent Palestinians have died for no good purpose, and nobody says anything.
Have the Palestinians acted horribly? Yes. On just as many occasions, innocent Israelis have been killed for no good purpose, and nobody does anything.

Of course not-- BECAUSE they plant bombs in marketplaces, kidnap children to bash their heads against rocks, etc. If American revolutionaries had behaved like that, they would not have gotten support, either.

Were the British displacing American families with fresh imports, burning down entire villages because revolutionaries families were there, take American civilians hostage in firefights? Did the British have the ability to strike from the air while the Americans didn't?

Apples and oranges.

And if you want to complain about that, I don't see you making noise about Tibetan insurgency acts, or even Chechen atrocities.

Both sides of the conflict have got people with bloody hands, and worse, they celebrate it. The OP clearly proves it beyond a shred of doubt by anyone without rocks for brains.


Haven't you been paying any attention to the news? I was of course referring to the Samir Kuntar case, where a child-murderer's release was obtained by extortion, and then he was celebrated as a "hero" in one of the more grotesque exhibitions (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3569043,00.html) we have seen in years.

Your news article has so much rhetoric in it, it's impossible to read for facts.


What are you talking about? Every poll ever conducted on the subject has shown that killing Israeli civilians is supported by well over 50% of Palestinians. The percentage does fluctuate from time to time, but it has never been less than a majority, and is usually a very large majority. The factions which carry out such killings combined for 98% of the vote in the last elections.

So by this example, we can infer that the majority of Americans support warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, warrantless arrests of American citizens, suspension of civil rights of American citizens, and indefinite internment of American citizens without charge?

Has the IDF acted horribly? Yes. On far too many occasions, innocent Palestinians have died for no good purpose, and nobody says anything.
Have the Palestinians acted horribly? Yes. On just as many occasions, innocent Israelis have been killed for no good purpose, and nobody does anything.

It's what I'm trying to say as well, that and the fact that, no, most Palestinians do NOT support terrorism the same way most Israelis do not support THEIR terrorism...

It's what I'm trying to say as well, that and the fact that, no, most Palestinians do NOT support terrorism the same way most Israelis do not support THEIR terrorism...

Polls consistently show that most Palestinians support suicide bombings. That's simply the fact of the matter.

Polls consistently show that most Palestinians support suicide bombings. That's simply the fact of the matter.

Elections consistently show more or less the same about most Israelis regarding the settlements. That's simply the fact of the matter.

Elections consistently show more or less the same about most Israelis. That's simply the fact of the matter.

Actually, some statistics on Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians would be interesting. All I could find were the Pew data and analysis that showed 70% of Palestinians believe suicide bombing can be or is justified. Keep in mind, this is different than "supporting" suicide bombing.

Actually, some statistics on Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians would be interesting. All I could find were the Pew data and analysis that showed 70% of Palestinians believe suicide bombing can be or is justified. Keep in mind, this is different than "supporting" suicide bombing.

Heck, a goodly percentage of JAPANESE might believe so ("can be" when defending the country, and so on), and did, in the 1940's...

Nope, there weren't.".

Between 1950 and 1968 there were no Israeli atrocities?

There was no popular support for that at all. That is why it was not lasting.
.".

It lasted as long as was deemed expedient, much like support for Pinochet, Apartheid South Africa, various Junta, Saddam....Its realpolitik.


They must have bashed toddlers' heads in with rocks, then. How else could we have won our independence?

They were racist slave owners, were they not?

His position was that EVERYONE has the right to visit the holy places. On that one point, I agree with him.

He didn't visit in a private capacity though, did he?


That's the fact, yes. If you are not interested in whether or not I approve of that, what is your point?.

That a large number of Israelis voted for a killer of women and children to lead their country. That a goodly number regard him as a hero. That doesnt seem to get you on your high horse as quickly as Kuntar.


The disputed lands

Occupied.


. However, Palestinians stand out for their broad acceptance of suicide bombing. Seven-in-ten-Palestinians say this tactic is at least sometimes justified. "

So.....?

Wheres the figures re prosectutions and killings of children, btw?

Elections consistently show more or less the same about most Israelis regarding the settlements.

So?

Even if the murder of innocent people were actually comparable to settlement expansion, it would still be the case that the misdeeds of others do not in the slightest excuse Palestinian terrorism, or Palestinian support for terrorism.

This argument comes from the same rhetorical territory of the people who argue that Israel's gay rights record somehow means we shouldn't be talking about the brutality and racism of the occupation.

Just from the whole of the Arab world, either overtly or clandestinely.

The Arab world has no real interest in the welfare of the Palestinian people, else they would have accepted the initial refugees.


The weight of an entire billion-person religion (and its attendant hierarchy and power to mobilize and control people) surely equals one superpower...as we've seen in Afghanistan, perhaps it even equals two, if not more.

And here I was, thinking that only the likes of DK/Hotwife/Whispering Legs/etc, believed in the Muslim hive mind tripe. Apparently, I was mistaken.


The example does not fall apart merely because the support doesn't look like the support Israel gets.

French assistance to American combatants included about 90% of the gunpowder, the De Facto best weapon fuel available of the time, and was actively engaged in open war with Britain as of 1777 due to their treaty with them.

Are the Palestinians being supplied with high grade rocket fuel and cruise missiles? No.

I do not see any invasion force being assembled that threatens to seize Tel Aviv, much like how the French and Spanish were assembling their armadas to seize London.

I do not see any nation engaging Israel in aerial combat and suppression of its air force, much like how France contested Britain's naval superiority when all the Americans had were privateers.

I do not see any Israeli cities or fortified bases being besieged by an outside army for a number of seconds, much less years as was the Spanish involvement on America's side when they besieged Gibraltar.

I do not see a foreign power effectively neutralizing the most powerful assets of Israel's offensive capability, such as when France won the battle of Chesapeake bay, forcing Britain to consider the Americas lost.

This, and many more instances show just how much assistance the American revolution had from foreign superpowers before they had even a chance of winning. Saying that sums of money and small arms smuggling equals the strategic weapons and armies that France and Spain brought to the fight only belittles their contributions and displays your ignorance.

So?

Even if the murder of innocent people were actually comparable to settlement expansion, it would still be the case that the misdeeds of others do not in the slightest excuse Palestinian terrorism, or Palestinian support for terrorism.

My point being that both sides are acting in roughly the same way. Especially because the settlements DO murder innocent people.

My point being that both sides are acting in roughly the same way.

But why does it matter?

Conflicts aren't about who is or isn't worse. That's a stupid point-scoring game that mainly has the effect of neglecting the ethical and pragmatic considerations that should actually be guiding policymaking.

Especially because the settlements DO murder innocent people.

Well, (some of) the settlers do, but whether Israelis support continuing settlement expansion at the moment and whether they support settler murder are not equivalent questions.

More to the point, there's little doubt that most Israelis would be content with a final arrangement that removed most of the settlements in return for a secure Israeli state around the 1967 borders.

More to the point, there's little doubt that most Israelis would be content with a final arrangement that removed most of the settlements in return for a secure Israeli state around the 1967 borders.

Then they have to pressure their government to stop the ego-driven dickwaving and accept such an agreement, as with the Palestinians.

Ok, hold on a second. Why is it that everybody, when talking about the Palestinians not being backed by a superpower, forgets everything that happened in the middle east prior to the intifada?

I'm sure you all remember 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973. Never mind the War of Attrition. Are you honestly going to tell me that Israel's enemies have not been backed by a superpower? Cus that is crap, and you all know it. The USSR supplied weapons to Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq...everybody who fought Israel in the above conflicts.

So while no, the Palestinians have not recieved backing by a superpower, Israels enemies most assuredly have. And up until the 60's, Israel didn't get shit from the U.S. (in regards to military supplies-they did recieve money, which they used to purchase weapons from Britain and France, among other, less reputable, sources).

Non Aligned States, that post you made was not really logical in context with Israel. Look at the majority of Israels history, and all the things you have mentioned were attempted on Israel. (Though with obvious differences in the location).
Not arguing that the U.S. would have had no chance without France and Spain, though. It always amuses me when people in my history classes go "nu uh, we did it by ourselves!" I just laugh.

Non Aligned States, that post you made was not really logical in context with Israel. Look at the majority of Israels history, and all the things you have mentioned were attempted on Israel. (Though with obvious differences in the location).

I'm saying the Palestinians aren't backed by a superpower in achieving independance. When Syria, Egypt and the whole kaboodle got Soviet weapons, they weren't in the business of helping the Palestinians achieve independence while snatching bits and bobs that they wanted. They just wanted to conquer Israel. As I remember it, they told the Palestinians "If you want to live, scram. You can pick up the pieces when we're done."

The Palestinians were on the losing end of that conflict. Mind you, they weren't in the business of fighting for independence or anything like that when the war broke out.

And in either case, Hamas and the splinter groups in Palestine aren't getting any help from the Arab nations just so that they can achieve independence. They're useful tools to keep a thorn in Israel's side. Not to say that they don't have their share of blood lust driven nuts, but there's not one country in that neighborhood who is helping the Palestinians out of consideration for them.

Until that happens, the Palestinians will be a convenient thorn in Israel's side, and a rallying point amongst the Arab nations as to how "evil the Jews are".

It is politically preferable to both Israel's upper level government, who can exploit the fear the Intifada brings, as well as the Arab nations, who can use the Palestinians as convenient outrage provoking victims, that the current status quo be maintained.

I'm saying the Palestinians aren't backed by a superpower in achieving independance. When Syria, Egypt and the whole kaboodle got Soviet weapons, they weren't in the business of helping the Palestinians achieve independence while snatching bits and bobs that they wanted. They just wanted to conquer Israel. As I remember it, they told the Palestinians "If you want to live, scram. You can pick up the pieces when we're done."

The Palestinians were on the losing end of that conflict. Mind you, they weren't in the business of fighting for independence or anything like that when the war broke out.

And in either case, Hamas and the splinter groups in Palestine aren't getting any help from the Arab nations just so that they can achieve independence. They're useful tools to keep a thorn in Israel's side. Not to say that they don't have their share of blood lust driven nuts, but there's not one country in that neighborhood who is helping the Palestinians out of consideration for them.

Until that happens, the Palestinians will be a convenient thorn in Israel's side, and a rallying point amongst the Arab nations as to how "evil the Jews are".

It is politically preferable to both Israel's upper level government, who can exploit the fear the Intifada brings, as well as the Arab nations, who can use the Palestinians as convenient outrage provoking victims, that the current status quo be maintained.

Agreed on everything you just said except the part about Hamas and the like not getting support.

Syria and Iran are both known suppliers of arms to Hamas and Hezbollah (I know, I know. Iran isn't an Arab nation. But you know what I am saying.)

Unfortunately, the refugess have been shit on by pretty much everybody. =/

Agreed on everything you just said except the part about Hamas and the like not getting support.

Syria and Iran are both known suppliers of arms to Hamas and Hezbollah (I know, I know. Iran isn't an Arab nation. But you know what I am saying.)

Unfortunately, the refugess have been shit on by pretty much everybody. =/

No, no, no. I'm not saying Hamas and the splinter groups are not getting support at all. I'm saying they're only getting enough support for the express purpose of being a thorn in Israel's side. That means limited amounts of weapons and cash.

If we were to draw a comparison, it would have been like France supplying muskets and gunpowder to the American revolutionaries, but no cannons, ships, or military involvement on their side.

If Syria makes a deal over the Golan, it will be interesting to see if they maintain support for their Palestinian 'brothers' or hang them out to dry...

If these people Israel has to live with are still 70% in favor of terrorist tactics against civilians, don't you think Israel should be asking some serious questions about the wisdom of its policies?
Strong majorities of Palestinians have supported murdering civilians in every election and poll for 90 years, and there were some murders of immigrant Jews from the 19th century as well (for offenses such as not taking off the skullcap when ordered by a Muslim, not getting off the sidewalk when a Muslim was walking on it, etc.) although it did not become policy of the communal leadership until after the Balfour Declaration. It is the existence of non-Muslims on the land who do not acknowledge Muslims as superiors which "justifies" killing them within this mindset; no policy change by Israel except deciding not to exist any more will suffice. The mindset may eventually lose some of its support: another Pew survey (somebody mentioned on a thread a few months back, but did not give a link and I never did find it) said that the majority of Palestinians now do support a two-state solution, which is a hopeful development (it does not mean the Palestinians will concede that the murders of the past were wrongful, but getting either one side or the other to say "you were right and we were wrong!" is of course totally unrealistic and not to the point anyway).
Were the British displacing American families with fresh imports, burning down entire villages because revolutionaries families were there, take American civilians hostage in firefights? Did the British have the ability to strike from the air while the Americans didn't?
Yes, yes, yes, and no.
Leaving aside from the moment that the colonists themselves were fresh imports displacing the natives, from 1774 the colonists themselves routinely had their homes confiscated for imported Germans hired to be an occupying force. Burning down entire villages was routine: it hardly counted as an atrocity back then, it was taken for granted in war in that period. And one British commander in particular (forget the name right now) was infamous for taking lots of hostages, and shooting them for any excuse. Airplanes, I will grant, the British did not have.
But even more disturbing than this misguided belief that the Palestinians have somehow suffered worse than any other people in the history of the world who have ever been on the short side of a war before, is the implication that slaughtering British babies would have been a perfectly justified thing for Americans to do.

And if you want to complain about that, I don't see you making noise about Tibetan insurgency acts, or even Chechen atrocities.
Only because those hadn't come up on this thread. On a thread about Tibet I agreed with Andaras, of all people, that attacks on Chinese shopkeepers was a dreadful setback to any cause they had. And I have many times expressed the opinion that, after Beslan, an independent Chechnya is absolutely out of the question, regardless how beastly the Russians have been. Neither of these groups, of course, has the record of decades of atrocities nor the cottage industry of apologists that the Palestinians have.

Your news article has so much rhetoric in it, it's impossible to read for facts.

Google "Samir Kuntar" or just read the Wiki, then. It was all over the news and you can read the story whatever is your favorite media outlet. I wanted to show viewpoints from the area, and was careful to include one from Lebanon of the "Most of us want nothing to do with this kind of killer and it's past time to say so!" line.

No, no, no. I'm not saying Hamas and the splinter groups are not getting support at all. I'm saying they're only getting enough support for the express purpose of being a thorn in Israel's side. That means limited amounts of weapons and cash.

If we were to draw a comparison, it would have been like France supplying muskets and gunpowder to the American revolutionaries, but no cannons, ships, or military involvement on their side.

Aha! In that case, sir or madam, I agree with your previous post 100% :D