From wire reports-- "AP, JERUSALEM Saturday, Oct 04, 2003,Page 1 Israel plans to build more than 500 new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, violating a US-backed peace plan and angering Palestinians already seething over plans to build a security barrier deep into the West Bank. Tenders for the new housing units appeared in an Israeli newspaper on Thursday, inviting contractors to bid on the projects, despite the strictures of the peace plan. The "road map" plan requires a complete freeze in all construction in some 150 Jewish settlements throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which Israel seized during the 1967 war. However, an Israeli official said Israel did not have any responsibility to meet its road map obligations until Palestinians crack down on militant groups. "The road map is stalled as long as there is no action taken by the Palestinians to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure," said Zalman Shoval, an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The Israeli government says it needs the new buildings to account for what it calls the "natural growth" of the settlements, but the road map freeze does not make exceptions. The government announcement that it planned to build 565 housing units in three West Bank settlements came a day after the Cabinet approved a portion of a security barrier of fences and walls that runs into the West Bank to shield key settlements -- as well as Israel -- from suicide bombers, who have killed hundreds of Israelis over the past three years." How can anyone look at this latest development and come to any conclusion but that the Sharon administration does not want peace, and doesn't intend to make peace possible. Sharon knows that it is vitally important to the Palestinians, and would have to be a part of any peace plan, to stop construction on the West Bank. The West Bank ISN'T Israel. This is like if the U.s. decided to build new towns, intended for only its citizens, across the border in Mexico. You can't have peace unless you respect the sovreign rights of the other people in the region. This is a blatant attempt to take over the whole West Bank and expand Israel. Sharon must think these are still Colonial days or something. Israel is in dire financial straits and yet Sharon does something that will blatantly prolong the conflict indefinitely, and may well cause a reduction in U.S. aid. This is a U.S. peace plan that they are violating by building these settlements. It is a peace plan that is not open for interpretation. This peace plan flatly says Israel will agree not to build further in the disputed lands. Why SHOULDN'T the U.S. reduce or cut aid to Israel if they are going to act so pompous and arrogant as decide for themselves when they feel like being bound to peace agreements and when they don't feel like being bound. I also don't like this story that Israel is going to build a big security wall deep in the West Bank. It sounds like Berlin during the Cold War. The Soviet Union found out that it didn't work to build walls and keep everyone out and try to have their own world to themselves. Israel seems determined to repeat their mistakes. The Palestinians, and I'm not talking Arafat, but the regular hard working Palestinians who are innocent victims in all of this, have every reason to be really upset over this.197 responses total.
Consider the timelessness of this post. Strip the dateline off of it and ten years from now you'd have no way of guessing its publication date within a year or two, possibly more.
Israeli kill palestinian, palestinian kill Israeli. Arafat accuse Sharon, Sharon accuse Arafat.
Mr. richard appears to be one of perhaps a handful of people on this planet who believe the "roadmap" is still operative. Why are we not surprised? Can he say "suicide bomber?"
Can you say "slaughter of innocent civilians"?
add 19 dead aon 50+ injured as of yesterday .. reatliation on teh way.
They retaliated. "Hours after the bombing, an Israeli Apache helicopter fired at least two rockets at a house in Gaza City, Palestinian security sources said. There was no information about any deaths or injuries in that attack." and "The Israeli Army attacked a Palestinian training camp in Syria following a suicide bombing in Israel that killed 19 people, Israel Defense Forces confirmed Sunday."
(The Berlin Wall was built to keep people *in*, not _out_. The Soviets built it to stop the flow of East Germans (and others?) into the West through Berlin.)
This response has been erased.
As do the retaliatory strikes. So they are "even" (or trying to be) - and getting nowhere, expect more dead.
This "eye for an eye" mentality can't work. Israel thinks if they build walls and kill all the leaders of groups like Hamas, that they can control this war by force. This won't happen. You kill leaders, and other leaders will emerge. And when you kill leaders, you simply harden the resolve of the followers, you make the hatred more intense. When you have people willing to give their lives to be suicide bombers, you are clearly dealing with strongly held feelings and beliefs. This war will go on and on and on, UNTIL both sides negotiate a peace. This war is killing Israel's economy and Sharon has only made things worse and worse the last couple of years. The Palestinians need to find another leader besides Arafat, and the Israelis need to have another election and get power away from Likud and into the hands of more moderate factions. Hard line militancy simply doesn't work, hasn't been working, and will continue to not work. The bloodshed will continue until saner minds on both sides prevail. The U.S. also needs to cut aid to the region. Indirectly, its aid helps subsidize the war, and U.S. money has become lighter fluid to stoke the fire as opposed to water to put the fire out. We must rethink our policies in this region.
I strongly agree with Richard's last response.
The U.S. is reducing its aid dollar-for-dollar for any amount spent on new settlements. That's a good start.
Are we still giving Israel about 3 billion a year?
This response has been erased.
Cut the crap, Rane. You know full well that the vast majority of
Israeli casualties are civilians who were intentionally murdered
by terrorists. Whereas the vast majority of Arabs killed were
militants involved in those murders, with a minority of Arabs
unintentionally killed in the process.
Attempting to whitewash this difference and equate the two is contemptable.
(And the propaganda lie of a "slaughter" or "massacre" has been disproven
so many times that its regurgitation would be laughable if the false
accusation wasn't so serious and prone to be believed by so many. If you
think this willingness of people to believe that Jews poisoned wells, etc.,
has has nothing to do with anti-semitism -- then that's like saying
that the willingness of a white ocmmunity to instantly believe that a
black person is a druggie or the rapist of a white girl has nothing to do
with racism.)
This past weekend is no exception to the rule.
19 innocent Israeli civilians (Arabs and Jews) murdered
by Arab terrorists, 60 more wounded.
1 Arab suicide bomber/murderer killed by her own hand.
0 killed or wounded in Israeli attacks on terrorist targets
in retaliation for the above.
1 Arab militant killed by Israeli forces (the murderer of
5 innocent civilians last year, including the murder of a
mother and her 2 children in their beds).
Is this an "eye for an eye"? (Which is another anti-semitic slur of
sorts, but I'll have to address that another time.)
I think Isreal has shown great restraint. If another country bordering the U.S. started sending in Suicide bombers I would vote to invade that country, forcibly arrest those responsible, and imprison or execute them for as long as it took to cause them to surrender. I know people who feel the Iraqi's have not suffered enough, adn that is why they insist on resisting the U.S. military still. If we had bombed them back to the stone age as we did the Germans, perhaps we could have broken their spirit. Perhaps the Isrealis are begining to think in similar terms.
I don't know why some Iraqis are still resisting. I _don't_ think it's because "[they] have not suffered enough."
This response has been erased.
Why is US such a staunch supporter of Israel? Large local jew population?
no, they are in fact a minority here in the U.S. WE supprt them for several reasons. They are a democracy. We like democracies. they are a stable country. We like stability. They were badly abused in WW II. We did not like what happened to them then. We supported the establishment of a jewish state in palestine. We were the first nation to recognize that state when teh british pulled out. They are our allies. WE support our allies.
Hmmm ..... I was looking for something beyond the regular rhetoric.
This response has been erased.
In the same vein, maybe there is something behind the rhetoric that your politicians don't tell you.
#20, Bru come on, you know those aren't the real reasons we have always supported Israel. The United States is largely a christian country, the government is run mostly by christians. Many christians hold dear the notion of the Second Coming, and the jews returning to Palestine is part of the Biblical prophecy. Our policies towards Israel over the years have been pushed by the religious views of our lawmakers, and also the desire to support a largely white judeo society in the middle of a muslim part of the world. Those factors, religious and racial, were far more important in our support of Israel's establishment than their being a democracy (we have supported plenty of countries that aren't democracies) or our taking pity on them over their plight in World War II. Because of the Judeo-Christian connection to Israel, they are like the U.S.'s favorite child. It is unfair and the rest of the world knows it is unfair, and it is part of what causes a great deal of resentment towards us, particularly in the Muslim world but also in Europe and Asia. I think that so long as we keep treating Israel like a favorite child, we will continue to have credibility problems internationally. Even if we like Israel's society more than muslim societies, it is not the job of the U.S. to dictate morality and beliefs to people in other countries. When we do that, we are saying OUR society and OUR beliefs are better than anyone else's, and that makes us come across as pompous and arrogant. We NEED the rest of the world. We NEED allies. We cannot act like we can take or leave the rest of the world. Isolationism is and has always been a short sighted policy. It is time we cut the umbilical cord to Israel. It is time we showed them tough love and showed the rest of the world that it is not our intention to play favorites. You can't build a true global community unless you stop playing favorites and show everyone mutual respect.
And I mean a "Global Community" The Cold War is over, and we don't need a religious war. That means we can't be thinking two dimensionally, labeling countries either "allies" or "enemies" There are conservative religious lawmakers in this country who think, because of their beliefs, that any country that isn't judeo-christian is inherently evil. And the rest of the world knows they think this. This is why the Japanese in World War II and the Koreans in the Korean War made such natural enemies to the U.S. Good vs. Evil. Ask anyone who served in Vietnam or Korea, they'll tell you racism against Asians ran rampant. It became not about enforcing policy down in the trenches, it became good vs. evil, the christians vs. the "gooks" It became a manifestation of many of our lawmakers' largely unstated but actual thinking at the time. This is why it was so easy for us to ignore our own laws after Pearl Harbor, and round up Japanese people living in America-- American citizens many of them-- and throw them into internment camps. Good vs. Evil. It is what has too often caused shortsighted U.S. policies. The Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, we over the years systematically categorized most of Asia at one time or another as evil and our enemies. They aren't christian societies so really they must be evil right? And why it is so natural for us to see muslims, at least the more radical among them, as enemies. good vs. evil. It is short sighted, it is wrong. These people are all human beings. When you react to other countries short sighted policies, with your own short sighted policies, you are reacting to something done that was wrong, by doing more wrong. That never solves anything. When you allow racial views and religious views to dominate your thinking and your actions, you are never going to make the right decisions for the right reasons.
#24 is so wrong on so many points I'd just ignore it. But others won't. Counter examples: Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. None Christian, all Muslim, all getting the same kind of support, at the same time, as Israel. At least two of them were/are dictatorships at the time of our support, which means bru is half-right: we like stability.
You think our politicians think as christians to arrive at their decisions? You are so full of it. Your anti christian paranoia is boiling over. There isn't a single vote I have ever made that hinged ont he religion of the person I voted for. I do not know of any politician who thinks. "Is this waht God wants us to do? Is this going to bring us closer to Armageddon so we can bring in the rule of jesus?"
Re #27: Bush certainly tries to give the impression that many of his decisions are based partly on his faith. But I don't think that has anything to do with our policy on Israel.
There is a difference in using religion to make a decision and basing a decision on religion.
What is it?
This response has been erased.
re: "#22 (cross): . . . They don't place their religion above anyone else's (okay, there's a segment of the population that does, but that's the minority). They support the rights of women. I could go on." Your support is appreciated. Although what is the "segment" to which you refer?? re: "#24 (richard): #20, Bru come on, you know those aren't the real reasons we have always supported Israel. . . ." Mr. richard, your ignorance is showing! Back in the late '40s and early 50's the U.S. was not such a great friend of Israel. The rest of your response, not surprisingly, is pretty much off-base, too. It has been relatively recently that evagelicals have influenced U.S. policy toward Israel. And, wouldn't you say that those evangelicals are "right wing Republicans??" So, what's your excuse for the Democrats??? Finally, doesn't Israel deserve at least one friend in the world?? Note that just about every other country favors the Arabs. (Wonder why?? Can you say "oil?") And, Mr. rcurl, (cut from the same cloth as Mr. richard), Ever wonder why so often the terrorist targets of Israeli actions are so often wounded but not killed?? Perhaps the reason is that Israel intentionally reduces the size of its bombs in order to limit other damage. If the Israelis were to use larger munitions, their success rate would be a lot higher (and the overall amount of Arab suffering would be reduced).
gelinas, the u.s. leveled severe economic sanctions against Pakistan for test detonating a nuclear weapon, but at the same time everybody knows Israel has developed its own nuclear arsenal. But Israel is the favorite son, and more the point we don't fear them, so there is a double standard. The Pakistanis and the Indians both know it. Travel outside this country, go to Asia or Europe or the Middle East, and you'll find a lot of resentment towards the U.S. We do not have a lot of support in other parts of the world. Weare seen as pompous and arrogant and guilty of showing favorotism. Don't try to say that we show the same support, openly or covertly to Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or any other country in that region than we do to Israel. That would be patently false.. We play fav orites.
And Osama don't like us none, either. Oh, my.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the political expediency of having a strong ally in the midst of the Middle East, especially one with a superior intelligence gathering apparatus such as Mossad. We would be seriously blinded as to what's going on in the undercurrents of the Arab world without our strong ties to Israel.
Other we aren't at war with Saudi Arabia or Egypt or any of the big middle east powers, and even if we were, we don't need Israeli intelligence. We have our own spies, the best in the world. The Palestinians think Mossad is a terrorist group, and that Sharon may well use Mossad to assassinate Arafat eventually. I think you might be underestimating the abiility of the CIA to do its own intelligence in the region. And wasn't Mossad blamed for not doing enough to prevent (possibly on purpose) the assassination of Yitzak Rabin?
I am under the impression that Mossad has been widely regarded for years as one of, if not the finest intelligence organization in the world. Since when do we need to be at war with anyone to want to have our own sources for information separate from official channels? I am in no way underestimating the ability of the CIA, but the fact is that Israeli agents are far better at blending in in the Middle East than American agents are. Finally, I think anyone who honestly thinks that a close alliance in the Middle East is dispensable to the United States is engaging in wishful thinking at best.
This response has been erased.
#37...Israeli agents are better at "blending in"? What, don't you think the CIA has arab spies and israeli spies, people who are every bit as authentic to the region as anyone Mossad would use?
As far as allies in the Middle-east is concerned, I think I agree with "other". Due to religious beliefs of the govts, Israel is a natural ally. Though Saudi Arabia and other muslim nations have been supported by the US, I don't think they are fully trusted because the clergy (which has a lot of weight) does not approve of the ties with US. Even as we speak, the Saudis are suspected for funneling funds to terrorist organisation. And arabs definitely do not either like or trust the US. Another fundamental thing is that stability in the region either thru democracy (the purported reason for invading iraq) or a monarchy (Saudi and most other gulf states). I don't think any US politician has forgotten the lessons the gulf crisis taught them. The US definitely wants to be able to influence the middle-east to keep a stability in oil supply, if not the prices. Btw, Richard is definitely right on one fact. Outside the US/Europe, the US is not liked. They are seen as arrogant, greedy and pompous. Sure, as long you are a superpower (and the only one) you can maybe afford this attitude of the rest of the world towards you.
The purported reason for invading Iraq was not democracy. How soon we forget. It was the Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (of mass destruction).
sucha stitch .. #20 PRE-answered #24 quite thoroughly, as well it shouldl ahve. sj2 .. uhh, (#39) the green eyes of envy shine brightly there.
Re #42, I know americans like to think that the world envies them for their power and wealth. But the US is hated outside US/Europe for its arrogance mostly. There are nations that are wealtheir but not so hated.
Re #41, ohh!!! WMDs ... you mean the stuff they never found?? Duh!!
Re #36: We need someone to keep an eye on Saudi Arabia and Egypt. They aren't entirely trustworthy, to say the least. Re #39: I hear the CIA has a shortage of Arab-speaking agents, actually.
(Err, arabic-speaking, I mean, of course.)
Hehehe, you mean you saw some internal memo stating the said shortage?? ;) I think it is Syria and Saudi that need to looked after. As the recent attack on Syria and media reports show, the camp fired upon was either a deserted training camp or an ammunition dump. It certainly wasn't a refugee camp as Syria claims. Syria also seems to have offices of terrorist groups which operate openly. On the other hand, Saudi is known for letting groups that raise funds for terrorist organisations across the world. IMHO, in the war against terror, Syria/Saudi would've been more useful targets than a sanction-crippled Iraq.
This response has been erased.
sj2, you are practicing the well known psychological phenomenon known as "projecting". Go ahead, hate away.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Re #19: The US is a staunch supporter of Israel, in part, because we are trying to make up for our refusal to accept Jews who were fleeing Nazi Germany. (We accepted all Jewish emigres from Soviet bloc countries for that same reason, among others.) Our acknowledgement of the Holocaust and the moral debt we bear distinguishes the USA from the Arab countries, most of which appear to think it was a good idea and want to try again.
I think that the US is a staunch supporter of Isreal primarily because as a culture Jews tend to be highly education, very competent, hold high positions in business and government, and vote to some extent as a bloc. Other minorities would be viewed the same way if they showed the same capabilities and unity.
...and israel tests our weapons for us! :)
That's true they do! And it is very valuable for the US to have Israel as a ally. But, I dont think Israel is so important as an ally that we shouldnt put some strings on the money we send. After all, they dont have to take it.
re #43 .. envy of wealth and power is far down the list of the real envy - individual liberties, freedoms of speech ans association ... adn religion, to name a few (for now). envy of wealth and power is destructive - soemtimes wealth adn power tehmselves are destructive! history is replete with incontroverable examples of both. (hell, history *is* teh examples of both.)
Re #49, I did not say I hate the US or any other country for that matter. There is no reason for me to hate an entire nation. Do I detest the actions of the US govt? Yes. Am I critical of the actions of the US govt? Yes. But so am I of my own nation's govt. Regarding hatred - I am conveying the impression I gathered having lived in a part of the middle-east. And ofcourse, India. I accept the possibility that I could be wrong totally. But here in Oman, I have to come across a single person who approves of the US govt's actions. Same goes for India. Re #56, I never got the impression that people are envious of the US for any reason. They do deeply detest the ways of the US govt and that causes hatred. Anyways, this is the impression I've gathered.
re: "#52 (russ). . . (We accepted all Jewish emigres from Soviet bloc countries for that same reason, among others.) . . ." Mr. russ, If this is true, then why did we meet several immigrants from the FSU whose relatives wanted to emigrate to the U.S., but wound up in Israel instead? (Perhaps they just had a lousy sense of direction??) klg Also, it is doubtful that a large percentage of Americans believe that the U.S. bears a moral debt for its failure to admit Jewish refugees from Europe before and during the war. It is much more likely that a very most Americans do not even know that history.
This response has been erased.
Why is a wall such a bad idea? I'd be perfectly fine with it, as long as Israel builds it on their side of the border and moves all of the settlers inside of it and lets the Palestinians have their side back.
...which would actually be the one way to prove that it is Palestinians who are relentlessly pursuing a course of violent attacks on Israel and not the other way around.
Of course, that's not the way it's going down. The wall is going to make some substantial incursions into the West Bank.
No Tod. Why not tell us. Moral Debt be damned.
Re #58: Because Israel placed people in the airports in Europe where the emigres had layovers, and tried to convince people to go to Israel rather than other places (like the USA). Some wanted to do that all along, some were convinced on the spot, and some wanted nothing to do with it. And your word-game fools nobody. Anyone with a brain knows that the American public doesn't write its laws, and especially not its immigration policies. Politicians do, and they tend to be both better informed (it's their job) and pressured harder by special-interest groups.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
and now Sharon decides to bomb syria. he is going to cause the entire region to become destabilized. why is sharon assuming the right to bomb other countries? Does Israel now have the right to control the entire middle east?
Whoa, wait just a minute. Why should Sharon be taken to task for bombing Syria when Syria has been bombing Israel for years? The only difference is the choice of delivery system. Israel used planes, Syria uses Palestinians.
Correction: Delivery systems are NOT the only difference. Another difference is that Israel bombed an abandoned refugee camp as a warning, while Syria bombs urban cafes and buses full of innocent civilians.
you are assuming sharon can prove the palestinian suicide bombers were aided/assisted by Syria, which he hasn't proven. to draw syria into this war is to threaten to blow this into a full blown middle east war. at some point the egyptians and the saudis will get involved, no matter how much the u.s. is paying them to stay on the sidelines
I am not. Syria is ALREADY in this war, it is not being DRAWN into it.
This response has been erased.
And Lebanon has been effectively under the thumb of Syria since years before that.
Syria has illegally occupied most of Lebanon since 1976. Following Israel's withdrawal from it's 6-mile wide security strip in southern Lebanon (as verified by the UN) 3.5 years ago, why didn't the Lebanese Army fill the vacuum? Why is this region under the control of a terrorist group which is funded and supported by Syria and Iran?! For years we were told that if only Israel would play nice and withdraw from its security strip (designed to keep Hezbollah gunners out of range of Israel's northern cities), that Hezbollah would stop attacking Israel. Can anyone explain why Hezbollah continues to attack Israel? Seems as if that model was severely flawed and unable to correctly predict future results. No scientist would stick with such a model, and yet some people continue to say that if only Israel would appease the terrorists they would stop attacking it.... The correct working model is that these terrorist groups seek Israel's destruction. This is hardly a secret, they say so themselves. They will continue to attack Israel (or more correctly, innocent Israeli civilians, Jewish and Arab), as long as Israel exists and they can. Outsiders should really stop trying to rationalize these attacks in a futile effort to make them fit their own warped world view.
One thing is sure. Israel's neighbours are harbouring and training terrorists almost openly. While providing conclusive proof of such activities might require physical access or occupation of such training camps, the key question is that whether a country can invade another country based on the suspicion that its neighbour is harbouring terrorists. The answer is based on the neighbour's power to retaliate. In India, we KNOW for sure that Pakistan aids and trains terrorists. We also know that Dubai and Saudi provide shelter and funding to these terrorist outfits. We have ample proof too. Ofcourse, conclusive proof can only be obtained if were to occupy these regions. Anything less and their governments can simply deny any involvement. But if we were to invade Pakistan in a pre-emptive strike, it would lead to full- fledged war in the region and perhaps could lead to a nuclear holocaust. And thats something we definitely do not want. But then the question we ask is how long are we going to tolerate the troublesome neighbour. Its already been almost two decades since they started infesting our borders with terrorists. In case of Israel and its neighbours, Israel knows that limited strikes can be afforded. For all the noise Syria may create in the UN, it cannot strike back by conventional warfare means. Thats almost impossible for any gulf state with the US army breathing down their neck. Ofcourse, there is the Israeli army too. Same goes for US invasion of Iraq. Had Iraq been capable of retaliating in a substantial manner to the US invasion, I am sure the US would've chosen to take the diplomatic route. Btw, I think the camp bombarded by Israel wasn't an empty refugee camp but either an empty training camp or an ammunition dump. Although, I dont see how bombing a training camp or ammunition dump will deter lone suicide bombers. If a person decides to blow him/herself in a public place, there is little anyone can do about it. Detecting such plans is increasingly difficult with the cell like nature of terrorist organisations where one cell does not even know the existence/motives of the other cell. That is not to say that terrorist camps should not be eliminated by pre-emptive strike but that what is effectiveness of such attacks in combating suicide bombers?
whatever teh actual target turns out to be, (occupied, unoccupied) a successfu bombing ~12 miles nortwest of damascus is an explicit warning. the target is irrelevant - teh action is meaningful. as far as pakistan adn india and nuclear shit is concerned, please don't - settle the kashmir problem AS WAS PROMISED - by election.
I've thought for a while now that if there's a nuclear exchange in the next decade, it will probably be between India and Pakistan. The scenerio goes like this: India decides to invade Pakistan, as they've often threatened to do. Pakistan, faced with an overwhelming conventional force, goes for the nuclear option. India could then be expected to retaliate.
re: "#60 (murph): Why is a wall such a bad idea? I'd be perfectly fine with it, as long as Israel builds it on their side of the border . . ." Mr. murph, Would you kindly explain why you believe Jews ought to be forbidden from living in the so-called "West Bank," although, presumably, you feel that Arabs ought to be allowed to live in Israel? Please include in your response (1) reference to the killing and expulsion of the Jews who were there prior to 1949 and (2) the exact nature and legal standing of the "border" to which you refer. Thank you.
This response has been erased.
Re #78: We allow Mexicans to live in the U.S., but we'd be pretty annoyed if they started walling off parts of the U.S. as Mexican-only enclaves...
Mr. gull, That may be true; however, so what? Both the U.S. and Mexico are sovereign countries with a legal, recognized border between them. The same cannot be said of the situation with Israel and the so- called "West Bank." klg
True. Recall that this is the "West Bank" of Jordan (Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordanian Palestine. Palestine across and to the east of the Jordan river. So this is the part of Palestine east of the Jordan river that is west of the river?!) The legal international border between Israel and Jordan runs (roughly) along the river, through the Dead Sea and a line from there to the Red Sea. (This was re-established in a peace traty signed in 1994.) The "Green line", where the invading (Jordanian) Arab Legion was stopped in the 1948 cease-fire (and the Egyptians in Gaza) is recognized in the 1949 Armistice agreement as a cease fire line, not an international border. As per UN Security 242, any future border must be negotiated and Israel is not expected to withdraw from "all" of Trans-Jordan's former "West Bank". In order to do so, Israel must have a negotiating partner. For decades the Arabs refused to enter into peace talks. When Sadat did in the mid-to-late 1970s, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League as punishment. In 1993 Israel thought the moment had arrived, only to find out that the Oslo peace process was being used by Arafat as a "Wooden [Trojan] Horse" designed to get Arab fighters into the territories, Arafat's dream for decades (see the authorized biography by Alan Hart). In 2000, Arafat walked out on the Clinton compromise without as much as a counter-offer. The sticking point? He refused to end the conflict. He wanted all of the disputed territories and all of Jerusalem. And he wanted to reserve the right to then continue attacking Israel. (Which is why he sought a unilateral declaration of independence after walking out of Camp David, seeking to establish a state without making peace. The world rebuffed him for obvious reasons, refusing to recognize such a state were he to declare one. It's my theory that this is why he ordered the intifada. He had painted himself into a corner and could not crawl back to the negotiating table in such a weak position.) Israel's security fence, for the most part, encompasses Jewish areas that would not be ceded to a Palestinian Arab state-to-be. The violence of the last 3 years has further necessitated a re-evaluation of the security fence. Obviously it would be better for everyone in the region if such a fence were not necessary. Unfortunately, due to the rejectionist Arab extremists who hold their power by might, it is.
castro and arafat will die soon - then peace can ensue. one would hope. sj2 - you haven';t responded to india's failure to *allow* kasmir elections - howse come?
Wow, my #60 got it from both sides. To other's #61: Notice that I was requiring that the Israelis remove all of their settlers, all of their troops, all of their bulldozers and checkpoints to within Israel before building the wall. I was most definitely not tryin gto pin all the blame on the Palestinians. To klg's #78: I think that Israeli's should be able to live in the West Bank, and Arabs in Israel, as long as they're capable of living there without trampling on anybody else's property rights or human rights in the process. As far as I can tell, the Arabs and Jews living in Israel tend to be capable of getting along. The Israelis and Palestinians lving in the West Bank don't seem capable of getting along at all.
My point in #61 was that even if Israel did withdraw everything behind the wall, Palestinian attacks inside Israel would likely continue, and thus prove the identity of the true aggressors.
(For those inclined to argue #85, keep in mind it is merely a hypothetical, and arguing it would be a real waste of effort.)
Re #85: yes, attacks would likely continue initially, but someone has to break the vicious cycle, and Isreal has greater control of its actions so is the better candidate to do so.
#87: The point you're missing however, is that on the occasions when Israel HAS done it's part to break the cycle of violence, the Palestinians (with the help and encouragement of such as Syria) start it right up again.
Re #83, Sorry Mr.Taylor, I was away to a part of the world that does not have internet access. First Kashmir needs a return to normalcy. End of violence. Then the millions of Kashmiri pundits displaced from Kashmir need to be returned there. Then, ofcourse, elections can be conducted. Unfortunately, I don't run the nation, so it doesn't matter much what I want. When I get to power, I will definitely carry out your orders. Meanwhile STOP selling arms to Pakistan. Besides, for India to fulfill its commitment, Pakistan also needs to fulfill certain promises it made. The UN Security council also made a promise in the form UN resolution 181. Whats the status today?? To fulfill a promise you need commitment from all sides.
Re 88: My real question is whether Israel has genuinely tried to "play nice" or whatever term you choose. They've made a big show of destroying a few abandoned outposts, while continuing to allow other settlements to expand.
re: "#84 (murph): . . . I think that Israeli's should be able to live in the West Bank, and Arabs in Israel, as long as they're capable of living there without trampling on anybody else's property rights or human rights in the process. As far as I can tell, the Arabs and Jews living in Israel tend to be capable of getting along. The Israelis and Palestinians lving in the West Bank don't seem capable of getting along at all." Mr. murph, Are you suggesting that if the Jews are willing to live peacefully among the Arabs, but the Arabs are unwilling to "get along," then the Jews must be the ones to be punished & forcibly evicted???? That would be an odd form of justice. klg And Mr. scott continues to play ignorant of all that Israel has already done - in particular, the peace offer tendered by Mr. Barak that Arafat chose to flatly turn down shortly before unleashing his terrorists on the civilians of Israel.
klg, thank you for interpreting my post in almost exaclty the opposite of the direction I meant it. As I said, terrorism by the Palestinians is unacceptable and detestable, but 100% of the blame cannot be laid at their feet.
Hey, if you like how klg deliberately misreads your stance, you should see what Leeron will do with it.
(Transplanted and expanded after mis-post)
Only someone as ideologically rigid as Richard could watch
a murder kill a bunch of innocents, then say that Ariel Sharon
doesn't want peace because he goes after the murderer.
Or maybe he's just an anti-semite.
The land issue is bogus too. The 1948 "border" isn't a national
border, it's an armistice line, since rendered irrelevant by
Arab intransigence and loss of subsequent wars of attempted
genocide. Lots of Jews owned land on the "Palestinian" side
of the green line before 1948, and were forced out without any
compensation during and after; for instance, there were some
130,000 Jews living in Baghdad in 1948, and less than 40 today.
I'll bet that lots of them fled with little or nothing.
Israel:
- Has the right to secure borders.
- Has the right to use the power of eminent domain.
- Has the right to expect its citizens who abandoned
property under the threat of death to receive
equivalent property in compensation.
Israel acts to secure their borders against murderers. Let
those Palestinians who feel wronged go to Iraq and take up
residence in equivalent property previously owned by Jews who
had to flee to save their lives. And when the property in Iraq
is full, start on Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and all the other
nations where Muslims practice anti-semitism more outrageous
than David Duke. I'll bet that the whole West Bank could be
depopulated by a proper exchange, and the problem would be moot.
Re #84: Define "within Israel". Do you mean the Israel which
was defined by the terms of the British Mandate, or only the areas
which were not ethnically cleansed by genocidal armies in 1948?
Intransigence and genocide should have a price, payable in land.
Refusal to commit suicide is not intransigence. Neither is
self-defense.
This response has been erased.
russ your problem is you classify all palestinians as murderers, when only comparatively few have committed such acts. And what do you call using air missiles to take out the houses where israeli soldiers THINK, just think don't know for sure, that Hamas leaders might be. Killing innocent bystanders in the process. That is murder too. Both sides have committed murders. Also why do you feel Israel has more rights than any other country in that region? do you think israel has the right of eminent domain over the entire middle east to take any lands they please? I am not anti-semitic but I think you are anti-arab, you have consistently refused to see things objectively, you approach this as israel is 100% right all of the time, and any arab country in a conflict with them is automatically wrong. That is racially motivated thinking. people like you and leeron are incapable of seeing this situation objectively, and thus even though both sides commit murders, both sides kill innocent civilians (and you know israeli forces have killed many innocent palestinians who happened to have the bad luck to be in the near vicinity of where they thought Hamas leaders were) There IS such a thing as being too righteous, there IS such a thing as being too full of it. Both Sharon and Arafat are egomaniacs who are doing a disservice to their people. By acting so militant and staging military actions and bombings, and firebombing houses where he can't even be positive hamas leaders are, Sharon is NOT working towards peace. Sharon doesn't want peace, he wants to win. Arafat is the same way. Both need to resign.
I VOTE 100% for Richard.
Arabs are Semites. The phrase "anti-semitic" applies to both Arabs and Jews.
Re#95 - Yes, they gave back the Sinai to Egypt and that was an example of Israel playing nice. Has Israel had major problems with Egypt since they gave back the Sinai?
This response has been erased.
This is an official government policy or some sympathetic or profiteering Egyptian citizens? Is it even really happening. I dont know.
Richard once again shows his utter cluelessness: >russ your problem is you classify all palestinians as murderers, Wrong. Read it again until you get it right. >when only comparatively few have committed such acts. It only took one crooked cop, one slimy district attorney and a few credulous juries to send 10% of the black population of Tulia to prison for crimes they did not commit. I think we all agree that this was an outrage and besmirches the whole state of Texas. On the other hand, Israel has been attacked by the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria (all at once). These are not a comparative few people, the armies represented the entire nations... yet you are silent, which implies assent. Your extreme prejudice is noted. Finally, only a comparative few Palestinians are being displaced by Israel's measures to recover stolen land and buildings (owned pre-1948) and ensure secure borders. They can be compensated. >And what do you call using air missiles to take out the houses >where israeli soldiers THINK, just think don't know for sure, >that Hamas leaders might be. That's ungrammatical, but I'll take it as a question. I call it legitimate defense against those who commit acts of war and crimes against humanity; in war, collateral damage is inevitable. If the Palestinians want the Israelis to stop, they can arrest, imprison and prosecute the various violent militants themselves. Israel outlawed the Kach party and arrests any members who are caught planning attacks. Tell me, Richard, what has the PA done to the Al Aqsa Brigades, which are part of Arafat's Fatah faction? (As I recall, their modus operandi before "crackdowns" is to warn the militants to go into hiding; when they caught some, they used to release them within a few days. That's why Israel started attacking jails while the militants were there. Dead militants won't fit through revolving doors.) The response of the PA to requests for action is to say "it would cause a civil war". If the bulk of the Palestinian population would fight for the murderers of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then your claim that "only a comparative few" are responsible is a lie; the majority share the moral guilt.
Russ writes: "Finally, only a comparative few Palestinians are being displaced by Israel's measures to recover stolen land and buildings (owned pre-1948) and ensure secure borders. They can be compensated." Say, that's a great way to improve Detroit: annex Windsor so we can get their casino income. We really owned it anyway when Detroit was founded. Only a few Canadians will be displaced: they can be compensated.
Murph, re#84: > as long as [Jews] [a]re capable of living [in the West Bank] without > trampling on anybody else's property rights or human rights in the process. They are and do. Let's don't forget that ALL the Jews living in the disputed territories were ethnically cleansed in the Arab attack of 1948. > As far as I can tell, the Arabs and Jews living in Israel tend to be capable > of getting along. The Israelis and Palestinians lving in the West Bank don't Interesting, isn't it, that Arabs & Jews can get a long where Jews are a majority but not where they are a minority, eh? And, with a few retaliatory exceptions, it's not the Jewish "settlers" who are attacking the Arab population. (There have been a dozen or two Jewish terrorist attacks on Arabs in the past 3 years. An Israeli court recently sentenced 3 Jews to 15 years in prison for attempted murder. In the same time period, there have been about 10,000 Arab terrorist attacks on Jews. Even those found guilty of murder by Palestinian Arab courts continue to run free....)
sj2, re#89: > The UN Security council also made a promise in the form UN resolution > 181. Whats the status today?? GENERAL ASSEMBLY Resolution 181 was DOA due to Arab rejection. Following Arab violence, it was abandoned even by the GA which sought other solutions. The resolution of record today is UN Security Council Resolution 242. It established the "land for peace" formula and serves as the basis of the original 1970s Camp David Agreement and of the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Scott, re#90 > My real question is whether Israel has genuinely tried to "play nice" Each and every time that Israel has lowered security levels -- allowed Palestinian Arab workers into Israel, lifted curfews, removed checkpoints, etc. -- Arab terrorists have used this to their advantage and renewed their murderous attacks. This is no different than what was said about Israel's 6-mile wide security strip in Lebanon. If only Israel would play nice and withdraw, attacks on Israel would cease. This argument was ignorant of history and ignored why Israel entered Lebanon in the first place (because, even before it had any presence there, it was being attacked by terrorists based there). Sure enough, 3.5 years after unilaterally and completely withdrawing from Lebanon, Israel continues to come under attack from Hezbollah. Tell me, why hasn't the Lebanese Army moved into the area vacated by Israel? Why is Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, allowed to roam free here? (I doubt this is the wishes of Lebanon but then it's not a free country, the other 99% of it being illegally occupied by Syria which controls its government. Hmmm. Syria supports Hezbollah materially and financially. Does that explain it?)
Dan, Re#95: > [Israel] gave back the whole Sinai peninsula; that's a pretty good > show of `playing nice'. Not once, but twice. And with the oil fields that Israel developed in the Sinai, it could have been energy self-sufficient. In 1956, after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and closed this international waterway to Israeli shipping, Israel (along with Britain and France) seized the canal. In the process, Israel conquered the Sinai peninsula. In a show of good faith and in an effort to encourage a peace treaty, Israel unconditionally withdrew from these territories. The result? Another Arab League "3 NOs" proclamation: No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel, No peace with Israel. This ultimately set the stage for the 1967 war. In 1973, after the Arab attack on Yom Kippur, Israel advanced deep within Syria and Egypt, almost to Damascus and Cairo. It was then that the UN called for a cease-fire (which it didn't bother to do when Arab armies were operating within Israel, the beneficiaries of the surprise attack). Israel unilaterally withdrew from all those territories. In this instance, this may have helped set the stage for Sadat's peace mission to Jerusalem, though 30 years later there is still no "play nice" reciprocation from Syria. (So much for the theory that Israel is "expansionist" and wants to reclaim "greater Israel".)
Slynne, re#101: > Has Israel had major problems with Egypt since they gave back the Sinai? No, but this is the exception that proves the rule. (: The sad reality, however, is that even after 25 years, the "peace" is more like a "cease-fire", held in place via a $3 Billion annual ransom which the US pays to Egypt. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020218&s=hammer021802 | "Our aim is to maintain the same hostile feelings toward the enemy." | Egyptian hostility toward the Jewish state has never really dissipated | Mubarak is increasingly concerned, Western and Egyptian officials told me, | that the escalating violence could spill over into Egypt, destabilizing his | regime. Hmmm. Perhaps Mubarak should have considered this before warning Arafat, prior to Camp David 2000, that Jerusalem wasn't his to give away. (Remeniscent of the Saudi Peace non-plan, Mubarak is like the Saudis. Absent during peace talks, but worries about non-peace after-the-fact.) | The Egyptian military keeps the country on a martial footing in order to | justify its soaring budget, say political analysts. And, as in other Arab | nations, the regime uses the intifada to divert popular anger over the | imploding economy, corruption, and post-9/11 roundups of Islamic | fundamentalists. "It keeps the people focused on an external enemy," says | Negad Borai, a lawyer and human rights advocate in Cairo. | Meeting me at the Cairo airport, an Egyptian TV journalist suggested I hide | my Israeli press credentials and anything else that would identify me as | living in Israel. "If you're coming from Israel, people assume you're a | Mossad spy," she said. | The Egyptian media have fueled this paranoia. Newspapers--both | government-run and independent--claim that the Mossad is injecting the aids | virus into the Jaffa oranges it exports. And during the recent Cairo trial | of 52 homosexuals on charges of "defiling Islam," prominent papers doctored | photographs to make it look as if several of the accused men were wearing | Israeli military uniforms. | Indeed, it's hard to find a public figure or organization that supports | constructive dialogue with Israel. After some looking, however, I did come | across one. The Cairo Peace Society bills itself as a foundation committed | to improving relations with its neighbor across the Sinai. Headed by Egypt's | former ambassador to the Soviet Union, it boasts a total membership of five | people. Be sure to read the rest of the article for yourself. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020218&s=hammer021802
Rane, re#103: > annex Windsor... If Canada had taken over Windsor during an illegal attack on the US, in violent contravention to a UN compromise resolution (UNGAR 181), and if Canada had continued to reject all peace efforts and attack Detroit/AA (bombing Zingerman's, the Necto, Stucci's, Cottage Inn, AATA buses, firing mortars and rockets at Detroit -- even whilst the government of Canada funded Windsor... Once again we see Rane making absurd analogies to fit his warped model rather than making his model fit the facts.
Richard, re#96:
> you classify all palestinians as murderers, when only comparatively
> few have committed such acts.
That may be true, but this "minority" is supported by the MAJORITY.
And this minority is supported by the Palestinian Authority government.
> Killing innocent bystanders in the process. That is murder too.
No, it's not. Israel TARGETS terrorist militants. That these terrorists
hide behind their own civilian population is not Israel's responsibility.
Israel's actions are within the confines of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.
Murder is intentional. Israel does not intentionally kill bystanders.
It takes great efforts to avoid this, at times endangering its own troops
to achieve this, as in Jenin last year.
> Israeli forces have killed many innocent palestinians who happened to have
> the bad luck to be in the near vicinity of where they thought Hamas leaders
> were)
Luck has nothing to do with it. If the people were against the terrorists
(especially if they were a "minority"), they'd run them out of town. They
willingly shield the terrorists. As these civilians say, they are willing
to sacrifice themselves to do so. A minority disagrees, but speaking out
risks being labeled an Israeli "collaborator" and being strung up dead in
the town center.
But the overarching question is this: Why hasn't the PA arrested these
terrorists as it committed to doing (the Sharem Agreement of 2000, the
Tenet Agreement of 2001, the Road Map of 2003....). Why does the PA
continue to not just harbor but fund these terrorist murderers?
> Both sides have committed murders.
What a disgusting and false moral equivalence. Does Richard truly not
see a difference between blowing up an ice cream parlor filled with
young families (or a pizzeria, or a school bus, or a disco) and with
inadvertant casualties while attempting to kill the people who organize
these terrorist murders?!
> why do you feel Israel has more rights than any other country in that region?
Because Jews have been living in this land, continuously, for 3300-4000 years
or more. Because Jews are the only people in history to ever establish a
nation on this land. Why do you think that invading Arab colonizers, many in
the last century and others over the last few -- more recently than the white
man's arrival in the new world -- have more national rights?
Why do you think that France has more rights to France than any other country?
Why do you think that Thailand has more rights to Thailand?
> Both Sharon and Arafat are egomaniacs who are doing a disservice to their
> people. By acting so militant and staging military actions....
The difference, of course, is that Sharon wasn't in the Israeli government
when Arafat walked out of peace talks and resumed his violent "military"
ways (terrorism, the targeting and intentional murder of innocents).
Sharon was elected (and re-elected) by the Israeli people to combat this.
(Arafat, on the other hand, has postponed elections indefinitely.)
> Sharon is NOT working towards peace. Sharon doesn't want peace, he wants
> to win. Arafat is the same way. Both need to resign.
Another false comparison.
Arafat refused the Clinton compromise at Camp David because he wants to win
and because in the Arab world "compromise = surrender". Arafat was unable to
make peace and give up on his life long ambition to throw the Jews into the
sea. Contrary to his caricatures (which is really as deep as Richard can
think), Sharon has expressed a willingness to compromise and make peace, a
willingness to dismantle Jewish villages ("settlements").
Think about it. Arafat has headed Fatah since ~1958 and the PLO since 1968.
Sharon was a military man (not a political figure) throughout most of this
time and was first elected Prime Minister in 2001. Yet Richard seems to
think that Sharon is responsible for the failure of peace throughout this
time period. I bet Richard can't even name all the Israeli PMs that have
been in government during the last half century (most of them were left
wing Labor party members, only 4 were right wing Likud members.)
Re #110: >> why do you feel Israel has more rights than any other country in >> that region? > Because Jews have been living in this land, continuously, for > 3300-4000 years or more. We'd better get ready to return the U.S. to the Native Americans...
richard, richard, richard. We are so distraught. You really know how to hurt people. Please, tell us. What have we done to have been excluded from your anti-Arab axis of evil??
To sum-up, in a conflict like Israel-Palestine or India-Kashmir- Pakistan, you can't unilaterally blame one side and paint the other side as saintly.
This response has been erased.
When people other than him provide primary sources, lk simply dismisses them as biased. The AP, the BBC, and NPR are apparently tools of the Palastinian terrorists in his view. I decided I was tired of playing that game.
Eh?? I too posted several pieces directly from sources. And no one bothered to reply to them.
Re 115: Yeah. Back when I tried "playing the game" Leeron would either diss my sources, or just ignore my evidence and try to smother me in sheer bulk of details and objections.
You were wrong, Dan. They're queueing up excuses. gull: straw man argument. I've used those sources myself before. What I did was show that NPR has exhibited bias in their reporting. But no "AP... BBC... [or] NPR" article contradicted something I said. (I think this all came up after Jenin, when someone seemed to think that NPR reporting a "massacre" made it true.) (If gull feels differently, at least he can tell us what the "point" was, eh?) sj2: I recall entering a lengthy post in response to something you said. I don't recall you ever responding. It is possible that you missed it. (Or that I missed it.) But as you can see from Scott's excuse, no one faults me for not responding but, oddly enough, for providing too much evidence to support what I say.... Scott: Your source, which you originally hid, was electronicintifada. Sorry if I was so thorough at refuting those lies that it was too much information for you to handle. But you've been whining about that for nearly 2 years now. Is that (and cut&pasting propaganda) all you can do? Dan, I think you're seeing the tip of the iceberg. It's not just the Jenin lies that various parties swallowed, hook, line & sinker. As I've previously remarked, gull hasn't yet heard an anti-Israel rumor he wasn't willing to believe (though when presented with evidence to the contrary, he has to mull it over, research it, look into it, etc.) Then, without having researched it, he'll regurgitate the same issue. mdw has made similar statements, but thinks that because he grew up in a Jewish neighborhood of NY he's immune to anti-semitism. rcurl still refuses to accept that the majority of Israeli casualties in the past 3 years were innocent civilians who were intentionally murdered by terrorists (opposed to peaceful negotiation and compromise) whereas the majority of Arab casualties were themselves combatants. (In fact, despite the overall 3:1 Arab-to-Israeli casualty ratio, more Israeli women, girls and elderly have been killed. Indeed, 50% of the Arab population of the territories is female and 50% is 14 and under. Yet these only account for about 5% of the Arab casualties, about 1/10th of what one would expect if Israel was truly randomly bombing Arab population centers.) But this doesn't suit his model so he'd rather ignore it. (See responses #4 and #9 in this very item!) Is this really any different than a town which is willing to believe that any black boy would rape the white girl (and try & convict, if not lynch, the nearest scapegoat) on the flimsiest of evidence yet demand tons of proof to determine -- not guilt -- but innocence? Indeed, no one questioned that Mohammed Ata (the 12-year old Arab killed early in the intifada) was killed by Israel. The question was only if it was intentional. Now the evidence shows he was killed by Arab fire, and under very suspicious circumstances that suggest that he may have been intentionally murdered to frame Israel. The very people who were outraged over the death allegedly by Israel don't seem to care anymore. The underlying assumption of the models we see is that the Jews are guilty. Of what (not if) and if it can be made to stick is all that remains. Jews cheat & steal in business transactions. So why not believe that they "stole land" and "cheated" the Arabs? Then there are the comments that Jews are arrogant, believe themselves to be a superior "chosen" race who can do no wrong... ...And if this is what educated Ann Arborites believe, how much more prevalent is this problem in the real world? Oh, yeah. 9/11 was a conspiracy. Organized by Mossad. It was the Jews. Isn't that right, oval?
lk sounds pretty paranoid. It is weird for someone to draw biased conclusions from the different sex and age ratios between the deaths of Israeli and Palestinian civilians (if true). There are other possible explanations for this. For one thing, the Israeli civilian deaths come from indiscriminate bombings among a populations among whom men and women pursue similar activities, but Palestinian women are by convention more sheltered. Then also, the Israeli attacks are directed at opposition activities and again, as women are by custom more sequestered in Palestine, more males constitute the collateral civilian deaths. I don't think that lk has any direct evidence that most of the Palestinian civilians killeed by Israel are "combatants" - although I'm pretty confident they are political opponents.
An entry for the annual loony-left convoluted reasoning award?? Sounds like a sure winner to us!
Don't you ever *think* before you respond?
(Sometimes it's just not worth the effort.)
(I can tell.)
I think lk is paranoid about beig hated. In Asia, except for the middle- east (which is very small population-wise), people do not even notice that jews exist on this earth. Much less hate them. Although, I never see any reason to hate a particular community but hating jews?? Why?? I think lk goes to great lenghts towards giving evidence in support of his arguements and tries to argue very honestly but it would help a lot if he stopped assuming that the world is full of Israel/Jew haters. Or that there is some huge conspiracy to get rid of all jews in the world.
Even in the middle-east, I doubt that arabs hate jews. I feel the media blows over the sentiments expressed by a few extremists too much and paints the whole of arabia as jew haters.
re #125: > I feel the media blows over the sentiments expressed by a few > extremists too much and paints the whole of arabia as jew haters. it would be nice if that were true but I'm really not convinced that the problem is limited to "a few extremists."
This response has been erased.
Leeron makes stuff up. His sources, when he can be forced to present them, are usually absurd propaganda. We're still waiting for him to document his lie about a ten-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber. (Don't hold your breath.)
This response has been erased.
So do you then believe that everybody who might criticize some part of how Israel deal with Palestine is somebody who despises Jews and desires the destruction of Israel?
This response has been erased.
Israel attacks a neighbourhood and claims to kill militants. While it might be true that the people killed were really militants but people outside Israel have the right to question the unilateral judgement passed by Israel in attacking people they think to be militants. What I mean is, Israelis/Jews shouldn't expect others to believe when they say they killed militants. And people who question such actions by Israel need not necessarily be jew haters. Re #127, thats really surprising that there is hatred for jews in the west.
re: "#124 (sj2): I think lk is paranoid about beig hated. In Asia, except for the middle-east (which is very small population-wise), people do not even notice that jews exist on this earth. Much less hate them. . . ." Don't be so sure, Mr. sj2: From Tel Aviv U website: Anti-Semitism Worldwide 1997/8 ASIA PACIFIC - GENERAL ANALYSIS Anti-Semitism today is expanding into areas where it never existed before. The most prominent example is the Asia Pacific region, most notably, Japan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Asian Pacific anti-Semitism, unlike its Western and Middle Eastern counterparts, is Jew-hatred without Jews. It is thus rhetorical in nature, expressed mainly in books, magazines, articles, radio and TV broadcasts and speeches; "real time" and anonymity are rapidly transforming the Internet into another powerful vehicle for the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas." re: "#125 (sj2): Even in the middle-east, I doubt that arabs hate jews." You mean it only seems that way?? What a relief!
I agree I haven't conducted any scientific surveys or research. I am basing my impressions on the people I meet here. Or the people I've met in India in the last 25 years.
Re #129: See, this is why it's impossible to discuss this issue. If you express anything but complete agreement with Israel's policies, you're pigeonholed as a Jew-hater and all kinds of other bizarre beliefs are assigned to you. It'd be like if I said, "You know, I think O.J. might have been guilty" and someone responded with, "So you hate all black people and believe they should be sent back to Africa, then?" Re #133: The Japanese are notoriously racist towards blacks and Koreans. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that there's a lot of anti-semitism in Japan, but I suspect it wouldn't be anything specific about Jews, but simply the fact that they're yet another group that is Not Japanese.
This response has been erased.
I also find it interesting that the conflict in the middle east seems to have bridged the ideological disputes within Israel. I mean, do not many of the more right wing orthodox jews oppose Israel's secular government, believing that Israel is not to re-form technically until the messiah returns? Maybe such internal disputes, which used to be commonplace in israel, have become irrelevant now. But in theory, wouldn't the most orthodox of jews be as opposed to an "Israel" government as many Arabs are?
Mr. richard, They do not, we believe, "oppose" it so much as they choose to ignore it (albeit, they are probably not averse to accepting benefits it offers them). However, it is unlikely that your final theoretical statement is correct, insofar as the term orthodox is generally defined. klg
Personally, I have found that I am often in agreement with the positions of Israel's left wing. This doesnt surprise me since I also tend to be in agreement with the policies of the left wing here in the United States. However, I have found that I feel more free to be critical of the current administration in Washington without being called a Texan hater than I feel free to be critical of the Likud party's policies without being called a Jew hater. At least in this item anyway.
So that would be like saying a quarterback is getting too much press because he is black and people attacking you as a racist for that statement?
No, Bruce, that is a totally different issue. It would be more like if Rush had simply said that a particular quarterback is getting too much press and *then* someone accused him of being racist because the quarterback happens to be black.
This response has been erased.
Re #140: I could comment, but it's probably best left for a different item. :> I will say I don't think Rush was being racist, I think he was just trying to get people worked up like he usually does. Like his fellow right-wing talk show host Michael Savage, he forgot tht there's a difference between what you can get away with on network TV and what you can get away with on AM radio. He was being stupid and offensive but not racist.
This response has been erased.
Drug addict, too.
This response has been erased.
RCURL, Re# 119:
Let's ask MYNXCAT and SJ2 if rcurl's unsubstantiated premise has merit.
In your experience, are Arab women "more sheltered" or would you say that
roughly half the people on the street (let alone at markets) are women?
See? Another biased assumption to make the facts fit his model.
Yet oddly, Rane states a truth but fails to see its ramifications:
> There are other possible explanations for this. For one thing, the
> Israeli civilian deaths come from indiscriminate bombings
Bingo!! The majority of Israeli deaths are innocent civilians, randomly and
indiscriminately targeted and murdered. Thus they represent a cross-section
of the population.
Yet despite propaganda campaigns about Israel shelling civilians, the same
cannot be said about the Arab deaths. In reality, if Rane's assumptions were
valid, they would argue against him. If the women (and children) are
"sheltered" and at home while the men are out, then if Israel were randomly
bombing neighborhoods then we'd expect that more than half the casualties
would be women (and children 14 and under).
Yet those groups only amount to about 5% of the Arab casualties.
Perhaps Rane can give us a legitimate "other explanation" and show why we
should reject the explanation consistent with Occam's Razor that Israel
targets combatants, not civilians?
(Not to mention that many of the Arab deaths have been self-induced in
suicide attacks or because they were Arab "collaborators" murdered by
their own brethren.)
SJ2, re#124:
> In Asia, except for the middle-east (which is very small population-wise),
> people do not even notice that jews exist on this earth. Much less hate them.
There's some truth to that, but not entirely. For example, I (officially)
cannot travel to Malaysia because I'm Jewish. Iran? Forget it. (OK, I suppose
Iran may be included in the nebulous "mid-east"). What may hold true is that
in non-Islamic Asia, there is little anti-semitism. But as klg showed, even
that isn't entirely true.
But what's your point, that the relative rarity of anti-semitism there makes
it ok elsewhere? Of course not. That doesn't mean that there isn't a serious
problem in much of the rest of the world and that this ethnic hatred
influences politics. (Which may explain why in the first 45 years of the UN,
a majority of its resolutions were condemnations of Israel. Thus, for example,
the Arab world seeks "justice" not through the rule of law at the World Court
but via politics at the UN, where the "jury" is not of one's peers, and where
the non-aligned votes were "bought" by threat of an oil embargo.)
> Even in the middle-east, I doubt that arabs hate jews. I feel the media
> blows over the sentiments expressed by a few extremists too much and
> paints the whole of arabia as jew haters.
See:
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/khawaja3.htm
Jews under Arab rule:
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/40079.php
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030421&s=morris042103
"Palestinian leaders and preachers, guided by history and religion, have
traditionally seen the Jews as an inferior race whose proper place was as an
abased minority in a Muslim polity; and the present situation, with an Arab
minority under Jewish rule, is regarded as a perversion of nature and divine
will."
- "Revisionist" historian prof. Benny Morris.
> thats really surprising that there is hatred for jews in the west.
Wow. You've never heard of "pogroms", "blood libels" or the "Holocaust"?
Do you believe that the sentiments that led to these just disappeared? Nor
was it just the Germans. When hitler wanted to expel the Jews, where was the
rest of the world? No one would take them (thus hitler's "solution" became
genocide). Not even countries where Jewish immigration quotas were not filled
and which sent back boatloads of refugees to their murder in Europe (e.g.
USA). In countries taken over by the nazis, it was often the locals who
took over the murder of the Jews.
Have you not been reading in the news about the new wave of anti-semitism
sweeping through Europe?
GULL, re #135:
You just don't get it. No one has ever demanded "complete agreement with
Israel's policies". Heck, in Israel half the people don't agree (2 Jews, 3
opinions). But you've distinguished yourself in constantly making assumptions
that demonstrate a decided bias. As I said (to which you responded with the
above straw-man non-argument), you are always willing to assume that Israel
is guilty and wrong, regardless of the weakness of the evidence. Then you
demand thorough proof of innocence, say you'll consider it, and without doing
so you (weeks or months) later regurgitate the original false assumption of
guilt (e.g. Israel's immigration laws are uniquely racist and unlike that of
any other country).
DAN, if mdw were present, he'd address Jenin -- and tell you that we can't
know for sure (despite the lack of bodies or missing people) that there
wasn't a massacre, regardless of HRW and Amnesty International's
investigations and the (belated) UN report on the matter. (My retort was
that we can't prove that Grexers didn't massacre space aliens....)
RICHARD, re#137:
> But in theory, wouldn't the most orthodox of jews be as opposed to an
> "Israel" government as many Arabs are?
(So much theory, so little fact, eh?)
No, most orthodox Jews support the state of Israel as a Jewish state.
It is true that there is a small sect (in NY) that believes that there
shouldn't be a Jewish state until the arrival of the messiah. Yet they are
opposed to an "'Israel' government" for very different reasons that "Arabs
are".
LYNNE, re #139:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't agree with you on many of
these issues, but I respect your position. You're willing to question your
assumptions and attempt to look at the issue from both sides. We just see some
things differently and arrive at different conclusions (strangely, I hope you
prove to be right, but I fear otherwise).
BRUCE, re#140: I hate McNabb. Not because he's black, but because he was an
outstanding athlete and great QB in the one game I saw him play. I'm almost
willing to believe that he didn't need 10 team mates on offense to beat
Michigan that day. Seems like he managed to avoid the Rush all day long....
lk, I did not understand what you meant by sheltered. Here in Oman, women are free to pursue a profession of their choosing and lots of offices here are staffed by women. The bank I work for would've probably 50% women. And you see lots of them on the roads too. Yes, they have to wear clothing that covers them from head to toe except the face but thats more of a social restriction rather than some religious police thing (like Saudi). Muslim women from other liberal countries like Lebanon, Turkey, India etc move about freely wearing any clothing except very revealing clothing. So jeans and t-shirts are fine for women. So yes, half the streets are filled with women, markets or anywhere. And in recent elections, the entire population voted too. About anti-semitism. Where did I say that anti-semitism is ok?? What I am saying is that based on my impressions after meeting people in Oman for a year and almost 25 years in India, I said that anti-semitism does not exist do the extent as portrayed by the media. Now, India is a billion people. Most people in India don't even know what a jew is, much less hate them. China?? Do chinese have a clue of anti-semitism? I doubt. So if thats true, you can say 2 billion people do not hate jews (I would say do not take notice of jews). Now I am not trying to make fun of jews, but I am telling it to you as I see it. Regarding Prof.Benny Morris's quote and the three links you posted. I cannot argue against them and do not wish to. As I said earlier, I am stating my beliefs based on my experiences - having met people in this region. I agree I haven't even met 0.1% of them even, but then the people who work with me here just wish to see Palestinians and Israelis live in peace. I haven't heard from them anything about arabs not to be ruled by Jews or anything like that. I know about the holocaust. For one, lots of what you posted is history. And ethnic/religious cleansing has been done against followers of other religions too. For centuries, Muslim raiders attacked India, looted the temples and massacred Hindus. Stalin marched off 1/3rd of Chechnya to Siberia for punishing them. "When hitler wanted to expel the Jews, where was the rest of the world?" I have no sympathy for Nazis and I detest what they did as much as you do. But stop whining. There are other people too who were wronged by criminal rulers/dictators. If you are getting attacked, don't expect the world to come to your rescue. No one wants to sacrifice their loved ones to save your loved ones. It does not mean that they hate you but that they dont care. Its plain and simple. If they do come to your rescue be thankful, if they don't, don't whine. "Do you believe that the sentiments that led to these just disappeared?" Yes, A lots changed since WW-II. I am not saying all the hatred has vanished and all ethnic problems have been resolved. Maybe I am optimist, but I think the world's a more tolerant place than it was before WW-II. I did read about the heat-wave sweeping across Europe but anti- semitism? No. Since I do not live in that part of the world, I might've missed that. "Not even countries where Jewish immigration quotas were not filled and which sent back boatloads of refugees to their murder in Europe (e.g.USA)." No nation wants boatloads of immigrants, jewish or otherwise. That might be a better explaination for why immigrants were turned down. We went to war with Pakistan bcoz we had millions of Bangladeshis entering India and taking refuge.
lk, from the link you posted http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/40079.php Seems like you didn't scroll down Read this part - ------------------------------------------------------------------ The subject of how Jews have been treated by other cultures and political constructs throughout history could probably be the subject of a sizeable encyclopedia. But giving so much attention to the historical injustices against a particular group which numbers probably less than one percent of the human population only serves to diminish the horrendous injustices that virtually every definable group of humans have suffered throughout history. Not only that, but the injustices and tragedies which the Jews are subject to today pale in comparison to the injustices and tragedies which a vast number of definable groups are subject to at this very moment. Groups such as slaves, sex slaves, prostitutes, the captives being tortured and abused in prisons all over the world, child soldiers, refugees, homeless people, hungry people, sick people deprived of medical care, involuntary military conscripts, victims of child and spousal abuse, the victims of war and its aftermath, indentured laborers, the poor, the oppressed in every land, the hunted and slaughtered because of their race, culture or political beliefs, trade union activists in South America, Falun Gung practitioners in China, the Tibetan people, the people of Burma, Aceh, certain parts of the Philippines and West Papua, the victims of war and famine in Africa, AIDS victims all over the world, all the citizens of brutal totalitarian regimes all over the planet, etc, etc. And furthermore, the suffering which any group have endured should hopefully sensitize them to the horrors of racial injustice and social discrimination, and harden their resolve to create a free and just society which confers all rights and privileges to all its members irregardless of race, religion, age, sex, financial status, political belief, etc. The fact the the Jews generally obsess over their own wellbeing and in many cases feel justified to deprive other people of their fundamental human rights in order to assert their own self-granted privileges is a mystery of this complex cultural phenomena called Jewry which deserves some kind of global investigative commission to explore and finally get to the bottom of. The only reason that I say this is because the press is filled to overflowing with Jew obsessed propaganda, Hollywood incessantly bemoans the tragedies of this group, thereby ignoring the equally and sometimes even more horrendous past and current suffering of hundreds of other equally numerous groups, and Israel is actively scheming with the US administration to totally destabilize and restructure the power interests of the entire planet, starting with the Middle East. This machiavellian scheme puts the entire planet under immediate threat of induced terrorist assault, American and other sources of national invasion, and nuclear war between nations. This is not a fitting legacy to the victims of discrimation against Jews in various times and places throughout history. A more fitting legacy would be a campaign to rid the world of racial injustice and instead promote a vision of a world where everyone can live as one people, blind to race as a factor of depriving certain people of rights and confering special privileges on a select group, but instead cognisant of the essential dignity of every human being. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Not my views but interesting.
sj2 has a point about hollywood outsizing some tragedies compared to others. the holocaust was horrible and by some accounts six million people died, maybe more. You see plenty of movies and documentaries about that. But it is also true that Stalin killed 20 million people in Russia during the great Purge in the thirties. In fact even by conservative estimates, Stalin and Mao both killed at least twice as many people as Hitler. Also, Pol Pot, the ruthless and barbaric leader of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia killed millions of his own people. I have been to the "killing fields" in Cambodia and seen stacks of skulls, and pictures of fields littered with human bones for miles and miles. It happened. And how many millions did Pinochet torture or kill in Chile? The fact is that what Hitler did was horrifying, but it always gets singled out in the media as this "ultimate evil", when there was clearly a lot of barbarism in different places in the twentieth century that was just as despicable, just as horrifying. There is no museum in D.C. to memorialize the Purge, or the Killing Fields, or the 19th century massacre of the american indians for that matter, but there is for the holocaust. And that isn't because those tragedies weren't just as bad, but because the u.s. media focuses on the holocaust-- it happened in europe and affected a lot more people in this country than what happened in Russia or China. And who in the U.S. really cares that millions of cambodians or chileans got massacred? What you can ask those who say Hitler was Satan, is if he was, who were Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, Satan's older brothers?
I'm not too interested in opening the debate about Israel's immigration laws again. I still contend that by comparison to U.S. immigration laws, they unduly favor one race over others. The fact that other countries may be just as bad isn't really the point. But I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about that one.
The point, David, is that you repeatedly stated that Israel was evil due
to its UNIQUE immigration laws when the fact of the matter is that Israel's
laws are similar to most countries; it is US laws which are different.
(I'm glad to see that after literally 4 or 5 iterations of this you've
finally modified your position, but why were you so willing to accept
the falsehood in the first place and yet so reluctant to abandon it?).
The point in general is that no one is "shocked" that Germany has
immigration policies which favor ethnic Germans or that France gives
preferred citizenship to those of French ancestry (blood). Yet mention
that Israel, the Jewish state, provides preferrential immigration to Jews
and we have certain people screaming about "races", racism and apartheid.
sj2: we're getting off topic, but you can read on in that thread about
the specific points raised by Joe. You might be interested in other
statements that this Joe has made about Jews:
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/62341_comment.php#63060
prehistoric tribespeople who haven't progressed beyond militaristic
plunder, rape, and enslavement of anyone who isn't a member of their
blood sacrifice tribal cult.
...
From my reading of the literature of the Jews, they make the killing
of animals and the burning of the corpses a central ritual of their
social life. ...attacking and exterminating all living beings in the
cities of other tribes seems to be another major focus.
...
The common thread is that underlying all of this factionalism and
nonsense is the generally separative, paranoid, self-centred Jewish
culture.
Just today Joe argues that the existence of "Jewish snakes" is what causes
the entire group to be hated. Even if his "Jewish snakes" actually exist,
all he's doing is rationalizing prejudice and hatred, no different than
someone who says that blacks are hated because "black snakes" steal, or
that gays are hated because "gay snakes" are child molesters. This is the
logic of hate.
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/10/72789_comment.php#73280
My point re the Holocaust period was that even when it was possible for
Jews to flee nazi Europe to other countries, no country would take them
in -- despite Jewish immigration quotas being unfilled in those countries.
One could almost think that even had the US accepted several hundred thousand
Jewish immigrants (rather than sending them back to their deaths) that the
US would have been flooded by Jewish immigrants. (Consider that Israel, a
country of 5 million, just absorbed 1 million Jewish immigrants from the
former USSR. Israel also took in, per capita, more "boat people" than
any other country.) Simply put, the reason no one was willing to accept
Jewish refugees is because no one wanted Jews and many were happy to
leave them locked in with their nazi executioners. Yes, there were exceptions
such as Raoul Wallenberg and a Japanese diplomat whose name eludes me, but
the glaring reality is how few of these there were.
Richard should consider if the existence of a Holocaust museum (which
recognizes more than just the Jewish victims) deprives any other group of
"victimhood".
This response has been erased.
Because the war would've reached their doorsteps after the germans were done with other europeans?? And Japan was already bombing the US? Besides, what I said is a general rule. I also said that if someone does come to your help, be thankful for it but don't whine if no one helps you. My point is that don't expect others to sarifice their loves ones for you. Even we liberated Bangladesh and send peace-keeping troops to other nations.
SJ, do you think that Polish immigration quotas in the US during the war years were unfilled and that Poles were sent back to Poland to be killed by the nazis? The fact of the matter is that the US State Department at the time was full of anti-semites and that this influenced decisions made at that time. If you truly think that a total change is possible so quickly, then let me caution you that the change can be undone just as quickly. Perhaps that explains what's been happening in Europe the last few years.
re: a few responses back...lk, I've been to malaysia. If you are an american citizen, they stamp your passport, they don't ask you what religion you are. They don't allow citizens of Israel, whether they are jewish or not, into their country. You could be a catholic citizen of Israel with an Israeli passport and not get into Malaysia. But you could be a jewish citizen of the U.S. with a U.S. passport and you would get in. That makes what Malaysia does political in nature, not racist. In fact one of the persons whom I met up with in Kuala Lumpur was jewish. He had a great time there. lk you have a victim complex, you react to every viewpoint that you see as anti israel as being racist. you are being naive and showing the nature of how radical you really are.
This response has been erased.
Having an Israeli visa stamp on your passport means you are disallowed entry into GCC nations. "The fact of the matter is that the US State Department ....." I would've accepted your *fact-of-the-matter*, if you were an impartial commissioner or judge investigating the issue. Since you are not, I cannot accept your *fact-of-the-matter*. What I was saying is that the US not wanting immigrants by the boat- loads might be a better explaination than the one that says they hated jews. A few individuals might've turned down immigrants on the basis of their religion, but the whole state department? Now thats a little hard to believe. Ummm ... well .... its been almost half a century since the WW-II ended. Is that a short period of time to be labelled quick? I guess thats debatable. I did not say there has been a *total* change. I agree change can be undone very quickly but I was just stating my belief that a lot has changed since WW-II. And for the better. You can continue to believe that jews are the most hated community in the world. Nothing can stop you from believing that. But I would humbly suggest that have a little more faith in your fellow beings and take a more optimistic view.
Leeron is right about anti-semitism in Malaysia: 'Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad on Thursday told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy" and the world's 1.3 billion Muslims should unite, using nonviolent means for a "final victory."' (AP wire. See http://tinyurl.com/r5dv) It doesn't get much more blatant than that.
yeah if you have an israel exit/entrance stamp in your u.s. passport, you could be turned away at the Malyasian border. But is regardless of whether you are jewish or not. A catholic who visited Israel and had the stamp in his passport might get turned away. It is a political ban. We don't do the same thing? The U.S. has plenty of entrance restrictions, and had even more in the past, including often blocking people from arab countries in the past from entering. But what we did and have done in the past to not give tourist visas to suspected terrorists or people we suspect might not leave if we let them in, is called racist when another country does it? Could a muslim from Malaysia visit Tel Aviv? I don't agree with Malaysia's policy, but if we reserve the right in the U.S. to do what we have to do at the borders-- including turning people away-- in the intersts of national security, and if Israel does the same thing to protect their borders--- who are we to argue about what Malaysia or other muslim countries do on their borders. We'd sound hypocritical.
Do you think it is possible that it is a political ban that has a hatred of Jews behind it?
Given the Malaysian Prime Minister's comments, I think that's extremely likely.
That is what I am thinking too.
"blah blah blah... and IF Israel... blah blah blah".
See? These are the type of assumptions that I think Dan is concerned about.
(And I know I am. (: )
I know the word "if" is included, but the reality is that this assumption
is a formality and an argument and belief follows. No checking is made into
that assumption, but if one were to suggest that it is wrong then suddenly
there is a demand for tons of proof.
As it is, Richard's assumption is (again) wrong. Tens of thousands of
Muslims tourists visit Israel each year.
Here is some more of what Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia,
said yesterday:
We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000
years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking,"
Mahathir said. "They invented Socialism, Communism, human
rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear
to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.
In other words, equal/human rights don't apply to Jews; persecuting
them is OK.
He urged Muslims worldwide to ignore teachings by religious
fundamentalists that scientific studies are somehow un-Islamic.
We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships
for our defense."
OT: I heard you can get Israeli customs to give you the visa stamp on a separate piece of paper so as not to have it in your passport if you want to visit a Muslim country later.
That's true, but sad.
leeron, whether malaysia or any muslim country's views towards israel are racially motivated or not, does that give israel or pro-israel sympathizers license to act JUST as racist, just as mean, just as elitist as they think these other countries are? I'd ask the same thing of palestinian sympathizers. Hate only breeds more hate. It is a vicious cycle. You cannot outhate those who hate you. This is not the way it works if you love israel, if you want what is best for it, you want peace. To get peace you must stop the hate. if you love palestinians, if you want what is best for palestine, you must stop the hate. Stop trying to WIN the war, because the war cannot be won. Just concentrate on ending it. And there are people, moderate israelites (unlike leeron) and moderate palestininans who can make the peace. It is up to the hardliners on both sides to give up this war and listen to them
This response has been erased.
Re #154, sj2 wrote: >Because the war would've reached their doorsteps after the germans were >done with other europeans?? And Japan was already bombing the US? Bull. You either don't know or try to make everyone else forget that the US also fought the Germans in WWI, when there was *no* threat to the US from Germany or any ally; further, the US could have simply gone to fight Japan instead of also declaring war on Germany. This nation isn't always right, but we have a history of acting on principle rather than realpolitik. This scares a lot of opportunists and cynics. Fine, I like it that way.
Yeah, except the principle isn't what it used to be.
Richard, notice how once again your post is full of unsubstantiated
assumptions? False assumptions on which you build false arguments?
Have you forgotten that in 1947, Israel was willing to accept the UN
partition compromise and the Arabs chose to go to war?
Were you aware that in 1949 Israel was seeking to make peace but the
Arab League issued its "3 NOs", No negotiations, no recogntion, no peace.
That following the 1956 war, Israel unilaterally withdrew from all
territories it captured as a good faith measure toward entering peace
talks? The Arab League reiterated it's "3 NOs".
That in 1967 Israel accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, the
"land for peace" formula? The Arab League reiterated its "3 NOs".
When Egyptian President Sadat opted for peace in the mid 1970s, Israel
(even under right-wing "extremist" Menachem Begin was waiting for him.
Not only was no other Arab state (nor the PLO) willing to accept President
Carter's invitation, the Arab League expelled Egypt for making peace.
In 1982 Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by the
Syrian/PLO/Shiite axis for signing a peace agreement with Israel.
And on and on.
Yet Richard wishes to ignore these and pretend that it's merely
mutual hate that is the problem, a "cycle of hate".
We've previously discussed the hate expressed in text books. Newly
printed PA textbooks neglect to mention the peace process or include
Israel on maps. Perhaps better than Syrian textbooks that have gramar
exercises where students are asked to punctuate sentences like "the
Jewish pigs must be killed" and math problems such as "2 dead zionists
+ 3 dead zionists = ?". In contrast, Israeli textbooks have been
criticized for over-romanticizing Israel's position (which I've
analogized to "George Washington never told a lie", and even if md
thinks that American children were never taught this in the last decades
it's certainly true that for about 100 years after Washington's death he
was treated almost like a saint in American texts and this fault in
Israeli textbooks can hardly be compared to the contents of Arab texts.)
see: www.edume.org
Oh, did I mention that in the last 10 years Israel has created textbooks
that remove the rose-colored lenses and present the Arab side?
As the Washington Post reported last year, even some Muslim schools in
the US teach this hatred. An 11th grade textbook instructs students that
on the day of Judgment, when Muslims fight and kill Jews, even the trees
will help in the battle and say "'Oh Muslim,Oh servant of God, here is a
Jew hiding behind me. Comee here and kill him.'"
The same motif is also found in the mideast. Sheikh Muhammed Abd Al
Hadi La'afi, in charge of Religious Teaching and Instruction in the
Muslim Wakf [Trust/Authority], wrote an article in the official PA
paper _Al-Hayat Al-Jadida_ (18-May-2001) that:
the Day of resurrection will not come without the victory of
the believers [the Muslims] over the descendents of the monkeys
and pigs [the Jews] and with their annihilation.
So what is it that makes Richard make false equivalences such as that
"both sides have murdered" when the terrorists are intentionally murdering
innocent civilians and Israel, in an effort to defend its population from
these attacks, unintentionally kills some civilians when going after the
terrorists (who are harbored by the PA)?
What is it that makes Richard falsely presume a "cycle of hate" and
whitewash the realities of the situation?
With Richard's take, he might have claimed American anti-aircraft
gunners, because of their hatred for the Japanese, opened fire on
Japanese air-planes flying over Pearl Harbor. And that Americans
and nazis were both murderers....
Re #169, Like the Bay of pigs?? Some principle!!! Or training the taleban? Realpolitik drives every nation. Its sold as principle. Thats what PR is for.
(The Bay of Pigs was based on principle: the Cubans deserved the right to an elected government, not a dictatorship.) (Training the Taliban? Mujahideen, sure, when they opposing the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan. Are you saying the two are the one?)
I wish the US stopped deciding whats good for others and whats not.
This response has been erased.
Richard stated: > for every argument you make, there are counter arguments.... Where are the counter arguments to what I said in #82, 104-110, 118 & 147? Highlights: #82: Discussion about borders, cease-fire lines and fences. #104 (murph): > As far as I can tell, the Arabs and Jews living in Israel tend to be capable > of getting along. The Israelis and Palestinians lving in the West Bank don't Interesting, isn't it, that Arabs & Jews can get a long where Jews are a majority but not where they are a minority, eh? #105 (sj2): GENERAL ASSEMBLY Resolution 181 was DOA due to Arab rejection. Following Arab violence, it was abandoned even by the GA which sought other solutions. The resolution of record today is UN Security Council Resolution 242. It established the "land for peace" formula and serves as the basis of the original 1970s Camp David Agreement and of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Israel accepted UNSCR 242 in 1967. Most Arab nations still reject it. #106: 3.5 years after unilaterally and completely withdrawing from Lebanon, Israel continues to come under attack from Hezbollah. [Contrary to conventional "wisdom" which asserted that if Israel "played nice" and withdrew such attacks would cease. This was a blatant reversal of cause & effect. Israel held a 6-mile security strip in Lebanon because it was the subject of repeated terrorist attacks from Lebanon, not vice versa.] Tell me, why hasn't the Lebanese Army moved into the area vacated by Israel? Why is Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, allowed to roam free here? #107 (slynne): > Has Israel had major problems with Egypt since they gave back the Sinai? The sad reality, however, is that even after 25 years, the "peace" is more like a "cease-fire", held in place via a $3 Billion annual ransom which the US pays to Egypt.
Richard: > for every argument you make, there are counter arguments.... Where is the counter argument to my response to you in #110? #110 (richard): > you classify all palestinians as murderers, when only comparatively > few have committed such acts. That may be true, but this "minority" is supported by the MAJORITY. And this minority is supported by the Palestinian Authority government. > Killing innocent bystanders in the process. That is murder too. No, it's not. Israel TARGETS terrorist militants. That these terrorists hide behind their own civilian population is not Israel's responsibility. Israel's actions are within the confines of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Murder is intentional. Israel does not intentionally kill bystanders. (Nor are deaths in the course of a war normally considered "murder") > Both sides have committed murders. What a disgusting and false moral equivalence. Does Richard truly not see a difference between blowing up an ice cream parlor filled with young families (or a pizzeria, or a school bus, or a disco) and with inadvertant casualties while attempting to kill the people who organize these terrorist murders?! > Both Sharon and Arafat are egomaniacs who are doing a disservice to their > people. By acting so militant and staging military actions.... The difference, of course, is that Sharon wasn't in the Israeli government when Arafat walked out of peace talks and resumed his violent "military" ways (terrorism, the targeting and intentional murder of innocents). Sharon was elected (and re-elected) by the Israeli people to combat this. (Arafat, on the other hand, has postponed elections indefinitely.) Think about it. Arafat has headed Fatah since ~1958 and the PLO since 1968. Sharon was a military man (not a political figure) throughout most of this time and was first elected Prime Minister in 2001. Yet Richard seems to think that Sharon is responsible for the failure of peace throughout this time period. I bet Richard can't even name all the Israeli PMs that have been in government during the last half century (most of them were left wing Labor party members, only 4 were right wing Likud members.)
" That may be true, but this "minority" is supported by the MAJORITY. And this minority is supported by the Palestinian Authority government." Has it occured to you that this majority is probably as much in fear of going against the minority as they are the Israeli government. If you were Palestinian, would you speak out against what your fellows were doing? "No, it's not. Israel TARGETS terrorist militants. That these terrorists hide behind their own civilian population is not Israel's responsibility. Israel's actions are within the confines of the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Murder is intentional. Israel does not intentionally kill bystanders. (Nor are deaths in the course of a war normally considered "murder")" Innocent bystanders killed by persons trying to kill someone are counted as murder victims under the law. Are you saying this is different in Israel? I don't know what Arafat wants...I'm not entirely sure if he wants peace anymore than Sharon does.
This response has been erased.
This response has been erased.
Yes, they are considered collateral damage. They are considered as such by most who kill others and managed to knick a kid in the process. That does aobsolve the military of responsibility. Second of all murders don't necessarily intend to kill other besides their target, either, they just don't care if someone else happens to be in the way or not. Not much of a difference, other than one is under military sanction and the other is not. Sure, one should speak out. And yes, jcurl and sj2 do it all the time. Do they currently living in Gaza or the West Bank? Also, we have no idea what is going on...perhaps there *is* someone there speaking out. It's not as if that aren't people who wouldn't want that known...it ruins their argument.
bhelliom, re#178: > Has it occured to you that this majority is probably as much in fear of > going against the minority as they are the Israeli government. If you > were Palestinian, would you speak out against what your fellows were doing? I think I've stated something to the effect that ultimately it is the Palestinian Arabs who are the greatest victims of Arab terrorism and rejectionism (of peace). Furthermore, I've pointed out that those who have spoken out against "child martyrs" have been compared in official papers to "collaborators". A clear warning for them to shut up or end up dead. But there comes a point where people have to take responsibility for what they do -- and what they don't do. Terrorists claim to be representing the "Arab street". Arafat claims his hands are tied by the "Arab street". And now you want us to believe that the "Arab street" actually doesn't want these people as its representatives? It's simply not so. Yes, there is a minority (I'd guess about 20%) which opposes this. But Arafat remains the most popular leader, in part because he hasn't moved against the terrorists. The "street" endorses and supports terrorism. And if it didn't, it would be one more reason to move against the terrorists and liberate them from their real "oppressors". > Innocent bystanders killed by persons trying to kill someone are counted > as murder victims under the law. That's not true, not in domestic law (if the police kill an innocent by-stander, or a hostage in a rescue situation, it is not murder). And it certainly isn't true under international law. As I said, the Geneva Conventions actually permit this. > I don't know what Arafat wants...I'm not entirely sure if he wants peace > anymore than Sharon does. Thank you for yet another false equivalence. As I pointed out, Sharon has been in office a total of 2.5 years. He was elected because Arafat violently rejected the Clinton compromise. Furthermore, if Sharon were to reject a workable peace agreement he would be voted out of office. The "Israeli street" (Jews and Arabs) can vote. As you pointed out above (how quickly you forget?), the "Arab street" is not thusly empowered.
Out of the Mouths of Left Wing Liberals The Near East Report quoted famed left wing U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee while on a trip to Israel recently as saying that Israel's security fence is a necessary and proper defensive measure. Oh my gosh!
Richard stated: > for every argument you make, there are counter arguments.... Where are the counter arguments to what I said in #82, 104-110? (See #176) Or #118: Indeed, no one questioned that Mohammed al-Dura (the 12-year old Arab killed early in the intifada) was killed by Israel. The question was only if it was intentional. Now the evidence shows he was killed by Arab fire, and under very suspicious circumstances that suggest that he may have been intentionally murdered to frame Israel. The very people who were outraged over the death allegedly by Israel don't seem to care anymore.
Thank you for yet another false equivalence. Hardly...I truly don't know if either of them want peace.
This response has been erased.
(A piece of what, tod?)
You only prove my point, bhelliom: > I truly don't know if either of them want peace. Let's for a minute assume that your worst fears are right and that neither Arafat nor Sharon want peace. 1. Arafat has been the leader of Fatah for 45 years and of the PLO for 35. Sharon has been Prime Minister for less than 3 years. Let's even ignore Netanyahu and Shamir, even Begin (who made peace with Egypt). Are you saying that Barak, Peres, Rabin, Golda Meir, Ben Gurion and other Israeli PMs were just as much of the problem as Arafat? 2. Sharon was democratically elected AFTER the start of the intifada. And re-elected. Yet the majority of the Israeli public favors peace. But peace with security. If Sharon is the obstacle to such peace he will be voted out of office (and unlike American Democrats who are unhappy with the 2000 election, Israelis don't even need to wait until the next election. A no confidence vote can tumble the government and trigger early elections). Arafat is a dictator who has repeatedly put off elections. (Didn't you suggest that a majority of the Palestinian Arab population are also his victims?) Now do you see why your simplification is no more than a false equivalence? We may not like Bush, but would you suggest that you don't know if either Bush or Bin Laden / Saddam want peace -- as if there is thus no difference between the US and the former Iraqi state or Al Qaida? (While ignoring that Clinton didn't get along with either of them, too?) [Idle late-night observation: Lo Qidai means "not worth it"].
Maybe no one can get along with the likes of Arafat or bin Laden but that doesnt mean that Bush or Sharon are good leaders.
This response has been erased.
(There are 2 opposing points of view on your most-obscure reference.)
This response has been erased.
"At least GW is offering to help build Iraq with the UN." Certainly took him long enough, didn't it?
This response has been erased.
With the assistance of the U.N. it will only take twice as long to do the job. (If we are lucky.)
This response has been erased.
whore.
You have several choices: