Why support Israel? [Archive]

CaptainForest

Dec 19, 2006, 01:56 AM

excon

Dec 19, 2006, 05:35 AM

It's not an anti-Semitic thing so leave that dead horse at the door........no matter how outragous and murderous their behavior. We call ourselves a moral country yet we stand for nothing if we let the murder of innocents pass. And we do......... Israel is far from respectable.
Hello again, VB:

Nahhh, I think it's an anti-Semitic thing... They don't murder... They are moral... They are respectable...

If you believe otherwise, you are an anti-Semite!! Or you don't have a clue what's going on in the world. Me?? I choose to think you're an anti-Semite!

excon

ordinaryguy

Dec 19, 2006, 06:13 AM

They don't murder....... They are moral...... They are respectable.........
If you believe otherwise, you are an anti-Semite!!!!

The early zionists used terrorist tactics (bombing civilian targets) to drive the British out, and targeted asassinations are present-day official state policy, recently affirmed by the supreme court, to give just two examples. I know, the palestinians have done the same and worse, so in an "eye for an eye" morality, it's all justified. But you don't have to be an anti-semite to reject that kind of morality. The thing that makes the conflict so intractible is that both sides are absolutely convinced that God is on their side, so compromise is unthinkable. Where compromise is unthinkable, political problems are insoluble and revenge is an engine that never runs out of fuel.

excon

Dec 19, 2006, 06:29 AM

Hello ordinary:

Nahh, the Jews are not fanatics. The country is 90% secular. Nope, they're fighting for their very existence - not for God.

excon

PS> Wouldn't WE have been better off, if we had just targeted Saddam? I'll bet 3,000 American family's of dead soldiers think so.

PPS> We're never going to solve this here. YOU say the wall is blue. I say the wall is green. The problem is truthiness. That's when you can no longer find the truth because of the spin.

ScottGem

Dec 19, 2006, 07:05 AM

It's not an anti-semitic thing so leave that dead horse at the door.
Democracies are good. Yes. Support them, don't overthrow them. Good policy.
My aggitation with our support is the way that support manifests. We will not be critical of them no matter how outragous and murderous their behavior. We call ourselves a moral country yet we stand for nothing if we let the murder of innocents pass. And we do. Even the most limp condemnation from the UN we will block. Why? That country would not, could not exist without our generous support. Yet we can not influence them to behave humanely? Our foreign policy is a sham when we choose to be so two faced. We damage ourselves every time we choose to scream about one act of horror and stay quiet about another. I'm not saying abandon Israel to the wolves. I want us to demand our allies meet a higher standard. I want America and it's allies to be respectable. As they behave today; Israel is far from respectable.

This assumes that what you say is true. While there is a germ of truth in it, its an extremely biased viewpoint and misrepresents facts as well as makes assumptions that are incorrect and one-sided.

You speak of the murder of innocents. What you fail to take into consideration is that Isreal is under siege. It is surrounded by countries that constantly attack it overtly and covertly. The innocents you speak of were put in harms way by the people killing thousands of Isreali innocents. Lets take the recent Hezbollah conflict. Yes, thousands of innocents died (on both sides). But one of the main reasons for that is that Hezbollah sited their missile launchers and launched their attacks from residential, non-combatant areas. They tried to hide behind these people either for protection or public relations.

Isreal's enemies have continually underestimated their resolve to defend the tiny sliver of land they have been given. Isreal is a small country and their response to such attacks has to be swift, decisive and greater then the attacks to survive as a country. This fact and Isreal's policy was affirmed by the reaction of Hezbollah after the cease fire. At least publicly their leader stated that had he known that Isreal would react so strongly they never would have captured the Isreali soldiers that insitigated the conflict.

You are also incorrect that the US's support of Isreal is total and uncritical. One of the stumbling blocks to peace in the Middle East has been Isreal's reluctance to give up as much as the US has been asking them to. There have also been several times when the US has criticized Isreal for actions that have been over the top.

So you may think you are not being anti-Semitic, but you are. You are spouting the same tired anti-Semitic, anti-Isreal propaganda that its enemies have been using since 1948. Other points of your post that are also inaccurate are your contention that Isreal would not and could not exist without our support. In point of fact, other than our recognition in 1948, the US government did practically nothing to support Isreal's birth. During the 1967 and 1972 wars, our support was minimal and confined mostly to SELLING them material like planes, tanks etc.

So my friend, when you take the anti-Semitic blinders off and look at the true historical facts, you might realize how foolish and prejudiced you have made yourself look.

ordinaryguy

Dec 19, 2006, 07:09 AM

Sure, there are lots of ways to justify murder if that's what you want to do. Just don't say "they don't murder". Say "their murdering is justified".

VBNomad

Dec 19, 2006, 07:22 AM

excon

Dec 19, 2006, 07:28 AM

Hello again, ordinary:

I'm not a justifying kind of guy. I speak English. I love the language. It's so - so, precise! Murder is a legal term. Soldiers don't murder - they kill their enemy.

Israeli's don't MURDER - they kill their enemy. The enemy are combatants - not civilians. Any Israeli targeting killing is against an ENEMY FIGHTER - not civilians. ANY civilians killed by Israel are collateral damage.

MURDER is when a bomber intentionally kills innocent civilians. Palestinians do that ALL the time.

I know you don't understand the distinctions in the language that I'm using. But, you should.

excon

talaniman

Dec 19, 2006, 07:45 AM

As was also pointed out, Isreal is a democracy, one of the few true democracies in this world. And, as such, deserves our support. It also deserves our support because the only reasons it has enemies is purely irrational religious hatred.

To me this is the bottom line.

ScottGem

Dec 19, 2006, 07:49 AM

You are so right. I am so very, very sorry for ever thinking to question the morallity of the jewish police state. They live in a tough neighborhood so any and all means are justified. And no, America should never, ever ask that it's allies hold to any moral standard. That would imply that we ourselves should behave morally and that won't ever happen. Moral values are great rhetoric for the campain trails, but you really don't want to have to live that way. Yes, take off the anti-semetitic blinders, and put on the American and it's Allies can do no wrong blinders. Real tight. Don't want any reality leaking through.

Your sarcasm is neither appreciated nor warranted. Where did I say that America can do no wrong or that any of its allies including Isreal can do no wrong? Nor did I say that any means was justified.

But you cannot chastise Isreal for the alleged "murder of innocents" until you, at least equally, chastise the Palestinans for the suicide bombings and similar terrorist actions. Or Hezbollah for their acts against Isreal.

You talk about "reality leaking through", but offer such a skewed, one-sided view of things that I question whether you even know what reality is! Several of your statements have been factually and historically incorrect. Other statements have been extremely one sided. I bear no illusions that Isreal has been angelic in protecting itself. Unlike you, I do know the reality. They have, at times, been overly aggressive and done things neither I nor this country have approved of. And they HAVE been criticized and even sanctioned for them. But I'm willing to cut them some slack since they are in a very tenuous position that requires such actions to survive.

VBNomad

Dec 19, 2006, 10:52 PM

Please accept my apologies. I was angry. I said some irrational things. Being called anti-Semitic because I question the US's one sided stance towards Israel by several of you made it very difficult to take any of you seriously at all. I regret the attempt at sarcasm. Sorry I offended those who are serious. Have a wonderful holiday season.

ordinaryguy

Dec 20, 2006, 05:54 AM

ScottGem

Dec 20, 2006, 06:56 AM

Please accept my appologies. I was angry. I said some irrational things. Being called anti-semetic because I question the US's one sided stance towards Israel by several of you made it very difficult to take any of you seriously at all. I regret the attempt at sarcasm. Sorry I offended those who are serious. Have a wonderful holiday season.

See there you go again. To state that the US's stance towards Isreal is one sided is inaccurate and a misrepresentation.

I will back off on my contention that you are anti-Semitic. I will just say that you are anti-Isreal. While the two often go hand in hand (hence my mistake), its possible to be anti-Isreal without being anti-semitic.

But the bottom line here is that your arguments against continued US support of Isreal and the level of that support is extremely biased, inaccurate and misleading.

In my opinion there are two ways to stop the carnage in the middle East. One way would be to let the Arabs win and wipe Isreal off the map. The other way would be for the Arabs to recognize Isreal's existence and to stop trying to drive them out with terrorist attacks.

I admire your courage, and I look forward to a similar apology from those who levelled the anti-semitism charge. Equating criticism of the policies and actions of the US and Israeli governments with prejudice against an entire people is completely unwarranted and unjustified.

I disagree. As I said above, since Isreal is a Jewish state, its very hard to separate criticism for the state from prejudice against the people. The reason for the strife in the Middle East between Isreal and its neighbors is religious hatred. So equating criticism of Isreal with anti-semitism is neither unwarranted or unjustified. Especially when that criticism is based on inaccurate and misleading propaganda promoted by anti-semitic groups.

But I do concede that it is possible to be anti-Isreal and not anti-Semitic.

excon

Dec 20, 2006, 07:07 AM

I admire your courage, and I look forward to a similar apology from those who levelled the anti-semitism charge
Hello again, ordinary:

Yet, you mischaracterize defending yourself, as murder. When I point out your, shall I say, deliberate misuse of words, and suggest that you have OTHER motives, you say I owe YOU an apology??

In a pigs eye!

Instead of platitudes, why don't you actually argue with me? Tell me, how in your mind, defending yourself become murder. Dude! If you can't discuss this in a rational way, that's fine. But you don't win points by standing by huffily, demanding an apology. Plus, if you don't argue, it means you TOO accept what I say as truth.

excon

NeedKarma

Dec 20, 2006, 07:08 AM

The anti-gentile sentiments here are appalling! :)

excon

Dec 20, 2006, 07:37 AM

The anti-gentile sentiments here are appalling! :)Hello again, Need:

I suspect your comment was made to, dash some water, so to speak, on an inflamed situation - hence, the smiley face. It didn't work.

The Jews have been accused, right here, if you care to look, of MURDER. When I ask why, I get nothing but... well, I get nothing, period!

I haven't yet accused gentiles of murder. I haven't accused them of anything, except a few here of some blatant anti-Semitism.

Accusing a few who exhibit anti-Semitic traits, and who say anti-Semitic things of being, dare I say, anti-Semitic, isn't close to anti-gentilisim. It's close to the truth.

I just consider this more name calling from those who can't argue about events that actually happen on the ground.

excon

NeedKarma

Dec 20, 2006, 07:41 AM

Dude, you need some happy time.

ordinaryguy

Dec 20, 2006, 08:31 PM

Murder is a legal term. Soldiers don't murder - they kill their enemy.
Israeli’s don't MURDER - they kill their enemy. The enemy are combatants - not civilians. Any Israeli targeting killing is against an ENEMY FIGHTER - not civilians. ANY civilians killed by Israel are collateral damage.

By your precise legal definition of the word, no agent of a government (military or otherwise) acting in his official capacity can commit murder, since any killing they do is sanctioned by the state and therefore not a crime. I'll accept that. I don't accept that that necessarily makes it moral or respectable. Asassination (extra-judicial killing) is legal in Israel, but not in the US, so here it would be murder, but there it isn't.

Before the state of Israel was formed, the zionist underground used bombing of civilian targets as an instrument of policy.

"In the summer of 1945, the Labor party came to power in Great Britain. They had promised that they would reverse the British White Paper and would support a Jewish state in Palestine. However, they presently reneged on their promise, and continued and redoubled efforts to stop Jewish immigration. The Haganah attempted to bring immigrants into Palestine illegally. The rival Zionist underground groups now united, and all of them, in particular the Irgun and Lehi ("Stern gang") dissident terrorist groups, used force to try to drive the British out of Palestine. This included bombing of trains, train stations, an officers club and British headquarters in the King David Hotel, as well as kidnapping and murder of British personnel." www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

MURDER is when a bomber intentionally kills innocent civilians. Palestinians do that ALL the time.

Yes, they do, and it's murder when they do it and it was murder when the zionists did it.

I disagree. As I said above, since Isreal is a Jewish state, its very hard to separate criticism for the state from prejudice against the people.
Not so hard, actually. The state of Israel is a nation with a government. Jews are a cultural and ethnic group, some of whom live in the state of Israel, many of which do not. Many Jews, both inside and outside Israel are critical of the policies of the Israeli government.

But I do concede that it is possible to be anti-Isreal and not anti-Semitic.
Thank you.

Hello again, ordinary:
Yet, you mischaracterize defending yourself, as murder. When I point out your, shall I say, deliberate misuse of words, and suggest that you have OTHER motives, you say I owe YOU an apology?? excon

Actually, I thought it was VB who was owed the apology, specifically because of this:

Hello again, VB:
Nahhh, I think it's an anti-Semitic thing... They don't murder... They are moral... They are respectable...

If you believe otherwise, you are an anti-Semite!! Or you don't have a clue what's going on in the world. Me?? I choose to think you're an anti-Semite!
Excon
And this:

So you may think you are not being anti-Semitic, but you are. You are spouting the same tired anti-Semitic, anti-Isreal propaganda that its enemies have been using since 1948.
...
So my friend, when you take the anti-Semitic blinders off and look at the true historical facts, you might realize how foolish and prejudiced you have made yourself look.

Instead of platitudes, why don't you actually argue with me?
Because I hate to argue. I don't think it usually does any good.

Plus, if you don't argue, it means you TOO accept what I say as truth.
If that's what it means to you, I won't argue with you. To me, it means I've decided not to waste any more time.

ScottGem

Dec 21, 2006, 07:01 AM

Before the state of Israel was formed, the zionist underground used bombing of civilian targets as an instrument of policy.

Yes, they do, and it's murder when they do it and it was murder when the zionists did it.

I don't get your point here. Yes SOME of the zionists committed heinous acts. The arabs didn't invent terrorism or even suicide bombings. The State of Isreal is not proud of it. As I've said, there are a number of things they have done that should and have been condemned.

The OP makes claims that such actions have not been condemned, that the US turns a blind eye to them. Those claims are untrue.

Nor does it change the fact that everything the State of Isreal has done has been in defense of its right to exist. If the attacks were to cease and its neighbors agreed to let Isreal exist in peace, then there would be no need for those actions to occur. Any criticism of Isreal has to be viewed from that perspective.

NeedKarma

Dec 21, 2006, 07:17 AM

But $2 billion a year of US funding since 1971? That seems a bit excessive. T

VBNomad

Dec 25, 2006, 09:26 AM

I admire your courage, and I look forward to a similar apology from those who levelled the anti-semitism charge. Equating criticism of the policies and actions of the US and Israeli governments with prejudice against an entire people is completely unwarranted and unjustified.

Well, Thank you, Ordinaryguy. I won't hold my breath for the apologies. My New Year's resolution is to stop wasting so much time arguing with nit-wits and nazis. Have a nice year ordinaryguy. And if you continue the fight for reason, you have my deepest regards, and I admire your courage as well.

ScottGem

Dec 25, 2006, 11:15 AM

I was going to report your last post and have it removed, but I changed my mind. As excon pointed out, resorting to insults, especially such obviously false insults, shows your true agenda.

I think your actions confirm our suspicions that your are an anti-semite. I will close by pointing out that you have given no proof to support your allegations. Your resorting to insults is just a coverup to divert attention from the fact that everything you have said here is anti-Isreal, anti-Semitic proganda.

VBNomad

Dec 26, 2006, 10:10 AM

Oh, please Scott, by all mean, contact the moderator. Perhaps he will notice that you and the con have been specific in your insults and name calling. While my comment about 'nitwits and nazi's' was generic - about this and other forums - not just this thread or you two. So maybe the moderator will take your posts off since they are insulting. For the moderator's benefit, and the rest of us, maybe you would like to define anti-semetism. I know what Websters says, but how do you define this term?

excon

Dec 26, 2006, 10:28 AM

Hello VB:

I know, you didn't ask the "con", but I thought I'd answer anyway.

I've been thinking. I don't know if it was you or the ordinary dude who brought it up, but whoever did it, was right.

In 1945, before the state of Israel was founded, the tactics used by some of the future Israeli's could rightly be called terrorist. I was 3.

Now we can argue about the beginnings, as I'm sure we will, but I wouldn't equate the population of Israel today, with those who aren't alive anymore.

They don't murder today. If you can cite an instance where they do, then I would agree that pointing it out, ISN'T anti-Semitic. However, saying they're murderers, when they aren't, is like saying WE'RE murders because Custer murdered some Indians. The logic is faulty.

So, either your history is off, or you're anti-Semitic. Calling people murderers, when they're the VICTIM of murderers, is anti-Semitic. You may think that's a slur. It isn't. It's a description of your attitude, since you don't look to history.

excon

ScottGem

Dec 26, 2006, 04:02 PM

Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or prejudice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice) against Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) as a religious, racial, or ethnic group. Since Isreal is a Jewish state, run by and for jewish peoples, hostility towards the state of Isreal can be considered anti-semitism.

What you did was pure name-calling. It was inaccurate and irrational. In describing you as anti-semitic, I have your own words to back me up. I tried, earlier, to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your vulgarities and your insistence on spouting one-sided propaganda shows your true colors.

NeedKarma

Dec 26, 2006, 04:21 PM

So what's hostility against the Iraqi people called? What's hostility against Germany called? What's hostility against Canada called?

excon

Dec 26, 2006, 05:05 PM

Hello again, Need:

If someone tried to extinguish one of those groups, I'm sure the world would find a suitable word for it - just like the world found the word anti-Semitism when it happened to the Jews.

excon

ordinaryguy

Dec 26, 2006, 05:15 PM

This statement,

Since Isreal is a Jewish state, run by and for jewish peoples, hostility towards the state of Isreal can be considered anti-semitism.
Doesn't follow from this statement

Anti-Semitism is hostility toward or prejudice against Jews as a religious, racial, or ethnic group.
Unless there is no difference between the nation and the ethnic group. But of course they are different, and you know that.

So I guess you didn't really mean this, huh?

But I do concede that it is possible to be anti-Isreal and not anti-Semitic.

By the way, the correct spelling is "Israel", not "Isreal".

VBNomad

Dec 27, 2006, 12:04 AM

Vulgarities? Before you dive into another round of name calling... how is questioning American foreign policy, or the defense policy of Israel anti-Semitism? How is wishing that our closest ally in the Mid East would behave respectably anti-Semitic? Is it because I didn't start multiple threads asking why we support each of our allies? I picked the one that seems to be causing us the most trouble over these long decades. I think the one that we give multiple billions of our tax dollars to each year should at least be scrutinized. But I take it not in your world view, huh? Suggesting scrutiny of Israel equates to bigotry.

I think blind allegiance to Israel, especially if you are only an outside observer - an American citizen, for instance - is bigotry. Yes, Scott I think it's you who has the problem. Your words, the speed to which you resort to hurling insults. Your definition doesn’t even hang together with the argument. You are the bigot. Not me.

The murder of innocents I was talking about was when Israeli artillery shelled the Palestinian town killing a large family in their house. They weren't combatants. They were civilians, just like the civilians in Southern Lebanon, and just like the UN observers who died by Israeli artillery fire. These are well documented instances in the last six months. I don't know where international law comes down on UN observers, but intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. "Collateral damage" is a nice, antiseptic phrase, but when you are standing in the dock at the Hague the word is murder.

I think we need our ally to act respectably if we are ever to solve the conflict in the Mid East. 30 years of rubber stamping one outrage after another has not served the United States well.

ScottGem

Dec 27, 2006, 07:29 AM

Vulgarities?
Sorry, I used the wrong word. Vulgarities was incorrect. Instead I should have used abusive insults.

how is questioning American foreign policy, or the defense policy of Israel anti-Semitism?
I have already explained why I think you are exhibiting anti-semitism. Please go back and reread those explanations.

How is wishing that our closest ally in the Mid East would behave respectably anti-Semitic? Is it because I didn't start multiple threads asking why we support each of our allies? I picked the one that seems to be causing us the most trouble over these long decades. I think the one that we give multiple billions of our tax dollars to each year should at least be scrutinized. But I take it not in your world view, huh? Suggesting scrutiny of Israel equates to bigotry.

I think blind allegiance to Israel, especially if you are only an outside observer - an American citizen, for instance - is bigotry. Yes, Scott I think it's you who has the problem. Your words, the speed to which you resort to hurling insults. Your definition doesn't even hang together with the argument. You are the bigot. Not me.

The problem here is that you continue to ignore any facts that don't fit into the propaganda you believe in. Your suggestion that our alliance with Israel shouldn't be scrutinized makes the invalid assumption that it isn't already.

Bigotry is the hatred of a group of people simply because they are part of that group. I haven't expressed hatred or even antipathy towards anyone. So your accusation of bigotry is just another of your unsupported claims.

As for blind allegiance. You are again ignoring the facts. I have said several times that Israel has done things I don't support and they should not be proud of. Things that I have been critical of. But, unlike you, I look at the larger picture. I look at how Israel is beset by groups dedicated to their destruction. I look at why so-called civilians are sometimes killed when Israel retaliates for attacks against it. I look at the atrocities committed against Israel. When I look at the big picture and all the facts, I feel that continued support of Israel is the right thing to do.

The murder of innocents I was talking about was when Israeli artillery shelled the Palestinian town killing a large family in their house. They weren't combatants. They were civilians, just like the civilians in Southern Lebanon, and just like the UN observers who died by Israeli artillery fire. These are well documented instances in the last six months. I don't know where international law comes down on UN observers, but intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. "Collateral damage" is a nice, antiseptic phrase, but when you are standing in the dock at the Hague the word is murder.

Again you ignore the fact about why so-called civilians get killed in instances like those. You ignore that Hamas and Hezbollah continually launch their attacks from such civilian areas. They bear a greater part of the responsibility for such casualties. Until you condemn them for those actions, until you condemn them for constantly harassing Israel, until you condemn them for putting their civilians at risk then your comments bear the mark of anti-semitism In my opinion.

I think we need our ally to act respectably if we are ever to solve the conflict in the Mid East. 30 years of rubber stamping one outrage after another has not served the United States well.

And here is where you go so far afield as to be ludicrous. There is only one way to solve the conflict in the Middle East. I stated it earlier. Get organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas to acknowledge Israel's right to exist and to stop attacking it. Get countries like Syria to stop funding these terrorists organizations. Get such countries to also acknowledge Israel's right to exist. That's where the road to peace lies. Why should ANYONE ask Israel to act respectably when their enemies show no inclination to do likewise? For us to withdraw our support or publicly chastise Israel for actions that are not what you refer to as respectable is only to provide fodder for Israel's enemies to continue their attacks.

No, the problem is you. Your extremely one-sided view, your refusal to consider facts that mitigate or falsify your position indicate a prejudice that supports the anti-semitic tag.

talaniman

Dec 27, 2006, 07:57 AM

What would you have a nation do, if they are attacked with rockets from southern Lebanon and embeds itself into the population? What would you have a nation do when people strap bombs to themselves and walks into a crowd of every day people? What would you have a nation do who is openly terrorized by fanatics who promise the death of Israelis? What would you have a nation of people do when all their neighbors harbor weapons and fanatical nuts, who openly seek the overthrow and death to millions of Israeli people? The Israeli state in question has a right to seek and destroy its enemies and all who follow the path of destruction that hatred and stupidity have brought to its people. What makes anyone think these misguided souls will stop at just destroying the Jewish nation when they have already said that WE, America is next. Call names and place blame, the real threat of nuts to kill and destroy others is a threat to us ALL.

excon

Dec 27, 2006, 07:57 AM

The murder of innocents I was talking about was when Israeli artillery shelled the Palestinian town killing a large family in their house. They weren't combatants. They were civilians, just like the civilians in Southern Lebanon,......... but when you are standing in the dock at the Hague the word is murder.Hello again, VB:

No, no they weren't. The civilians in Northern Israel, killed by the shelling from Hezbollah, were targeted by the government. The civilians killed by Israel were killed by mistake. There's a difference there - a BIG difference.

I don't excuse those killings. The US didn't excuse those killings. But, most importantly, THE ISRALI GOVERNMENT DIDN'T EXCUSE THOSE KILLINGS. Investigations ARE underway. IF somebody DELIBERATELY targeted civilians, THEY WILL BE PUNISHED. Israel IS a civilized country, contrary to Gaza or Southern Lebanon.

The difference is, and what you fail to see, is that it's the PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT itself, that targets and pays for the killing of civilians, and the suicide bombers who do it.. and the rocket launchers. Nobody is punished - ever…. Just the opposite.

This information is clear, and similar information has been available for over 50 years. Some people want to see it differently than it is. When that difference is aimed at the Jews, it's called anti-Semitism.

excon

tomder55

Dec 28, 2006, 04:27 AM

A Nation Like Ours (http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/225tpziw.asp)Yes from a realpolitik calculation it would make much more sense to abandon Israel . But thankfully foreign policy is not always measured by pure self interest .

A good start to understanding would be to read <a href=http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/225tpziw.asp >A Nation Like Ours Why Americans stand with Israel</a> by David Gelernter .He explains that the US and Israel have shared experiences in the founding of our respective nations.

[an interesting sidenote ;David Gelernter was one of the unibomber's victims ]

I think that if there were no Jews in America at all ,that the US would still support Israel due to our common experience of creating a nation from an idea ;a dream. Settlers in both countries saw lands that were essentially unused empty space and through hard work cultivated the land and made it prosperous. They like us built it and deserve to own it."We hope to plant a nation, where none before hath stood."

Beyond that the jihadists of the Middle East would still loathe America, even if we didn't support Israel. America is the "Great Satan".OBL and his al-Qaeda freeks did not mention Israel in their original fatwas against us.

Israel is a democracy in the Middle East,surrounded by antagonistic Islamic regimes. It does not deserve to be forced out of existence by hateful neighbors. America supports Israel because it can count onto be an ally like nobody else in the region.

ScottGem

Dec 28, 2006, 06:56 AM

Why does the USA support Israel?

Let me take a different tack here. Let me ask you to answer these questions

1) Do you believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist?

2) Do you believe that a sovereign state has a right to defend itself against attack?

3) Do you believe its right for any military organization to hide behind civilians?

NeedKarma

Dec 28, 2006, 07:01 AM

Scott, you're going a bit overboard don't you think? If one asks "Why does the USA support Israel?" why do you need to ask "Do you believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist?"? Isn't that a little confrontational? It's like asking "Why did IBM sell their laptop business to China?" and you respond "Do you believe that the China has a right to exist?".

Why not just answer the question cooly and with facts? I think tomder did a pretty good job of that.

What gets tiresome is the constant trotting out of the persecution complex.

excon

Dec 28, 2006, 07:18 AM

Hello again, Need:

Ummh, ummmh, ummh. Couple things. I'm a Jew. I was born in 1943. IF I happened to have been born in the country my parents had emigrated from, I would have found myself tattooed and screwed. That's MYSELF – ME – my perfect little body.

Frankly, I have every right to inform you how the Jews have been persecuted, because – they have. And, but for an accident of my birth, it WOULD have been me. That's personal, dude!

However, you have never heard me or Scott play the poor Jew card. That we deserve this stuff because the world did us dirty. Your characterization of his arguments as “persecution complex” oriented, just ain't so. Certainly, you don't think I sound persecuted.

Nope, my and Scotts arguments have been quite cool, under the circumstances, and quite factual. So, instead of talking about him and me personally, why don't you address the facts we present??

I think it's because you just aren't able. I'm waiting……….

excon

NeedKarma

Dec 28, 2006, 07:23 AM

I mentioned that tomder presented some good facts. You guys just jumped all over the OP. This thread isn't about the Holocaust as much as you'd like it to me, it's about someone wondering why the U.S. offers so much support to another country.

excon

Dec 28, 2006, 07:32 AM

Hello again, Need:

You're still talking about us. I'm not interesting. Argue with what I say, not who I am.

Still waiting...

excon

NeedKarma

Dec 28, 2006, 07:33 AM

You brought up who you are.

Still waiting...

ScottGem

Dec 28, 2006, 07:38 AM

Scott, you're going a bit overboard don't you think?

No I don't. I have, previously, answered the question cooly and factually. Nor do I believe I am exhibiting a persecution complex.

I have been told I am wrong in applying the anti-semite tag here. The purpose of these questions is to help me determine if I was wrong in doing so. I believe the answers to those questions will help me formulate a better answer. Like I said I'm trying a different tack in dealing with this issue.

This thread isn't about the Holocaust as much as you'd like it to me, it's about someone wondering why the U.S. offers so much support to another country.

I think that part of the question was answered early on. The OP wasn't "jumped" on until he kept ignoring the true facts. He has opened up another issue by constantly promoting propaganda and rhetoric.

NeedKarma

Dec 28, 2006, 07:45 AM

As much as I was curious to the answer of the original question I do agree that the OP went in different direction with the whole "murderer" tagging. I was more interested in why such a large mount of funds has been diverted there for so many years while other domestic and international ills ravaged on with little support.

talaniman

Dec 28, 2006, 07:47 AM

With all the crazies with bombs and wanting to blow somebody up, don't you think a few friends would come in handy?? If you look at a map don't you see the only thing stopping the whole region from being NUTS is Israel? And last, but not least since we have the same enemies doesn't it make a lot of sense to be allied with Israel?? Am I the only one up this early who can see this?? Oh, If we didn't support Israel, what do you think them terrorist would do after they bombed Israel to bits? Didn't WWII teach you guys anything about what happens when some one hates you and nobody stands up to them?

NeedKarma

Dec 28, 2006, 07:51 AM

Didn't WWII teach you guys anything about what happens when some one hates you and nobody stands up to them?But that happens in many African countries and the U.S. doesn't step in. Why?

talaniman

Dec 28, 2006, 07:56 AM

African affairs are tribal in almost every case and The middle east is regional. Also upon further thought, we should stop giving money to the Jews, and instead send them all the guns, and bombs, and nukes they need. Would that satisfy everyone?

NeedKarma

Dec 28, 2006, 08:00 AM

Tribal or regional, who cares, genocide is genocide right?

talaniman

Dec 28, 2006, 08:06 AM

Yes it is, but that's another thread.

NeedKarma

Dec 28, 2006, 08:07 AM

Roger that.

excon

Dec 28, 2006, 08:08 AM

I have been told I am wrong in applying the anti-semite tag here. The purpose of these questions is to help me determine if I was wrong in doing so.Hello again:

Scott is so much more logical and introspective, than I am. Maybe that's the computer geek in him. The above applies to me too, and I wonder if I'm wrong...

Ok! Wondering over. I'm not wrong! I think the thoughts presented here ARE based on anti-Semitism, rather than on history. I would rather NOT think so, but arguments against the facts, both Scott and I have presented, have been NON EXISTENT. In the absence of argument, what am I left with, but prejudice?

I WAS wrong, however, to say so, because the thread became about THAT instead of the politics. My bad. Ok, I did that. Sorry. If I've falsely accused anyone here of bigotry, show me.

Indeed, at this stage of the discussion, I think it's incumbent on you guys to argue, with facts on the ground, how your positions are NOT anti-Semitic.

In the absence of that, there's really nothing more to say, except – Go Jews!

excon

talaniman

Dec 28, 2006, 08:38 AM

I am not a Jew
I am not a computer geek
I don't know if I am anti semantic
I do know the same fools who drove airplanes into the World Trade buildings hate America
I do know terrorist HATE Jews (they said so)
I do know all this debate does goes back to hatred
I do know I have all the facts say US vs THEM for survival.
Who's side should America be on??
With the absence of common sense... Go BEARS

tomder55

Dec 28, 2006, 08:55 AM

Perhaps if there wasn't such a visceral reaction when this issue is presented then rational dialogue would be possible . Certainly I do not blame someone like EXCON for his responses. Most times when the issue is discussed invariably the issue of the "Jewish Lobby " and their "manipulations" of American politics,government , and press is mentioned.

Consider the essay published by professors John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University entitled The Israel Lobby and US Policy
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf#search='the%20israel%20lobby'. They argue that US supports Israel even to the detriment of the US;basically anti-Israeli propaganda masquerading as scholarship in my view . It is full of errors of fact, logic and deliberate omission.

U.S. foreign policy shapes events in every corner of the globe. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East, a region of recurring instability and enormous strategic importance. Most recently, the Bush Administration’s attempt to transform the region into a community of democracies has helped produce a resilient insurgency in Iraq, a sharp rise in world oil prices, and terrorist bombings in Madrid, London, and Amman. With so much at stake for so many, all countries need to understand the forces that drive U.S. Middle East policy.
The U.S. national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering U.S. support for Israel and the related effort to spread democracy throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized U.S. security.

To prove that it is basically anti-Semitic all you have to do is read the reaction of some of America's most renown biggots ;like David Duke who said

"It is quite satisfying to see a body in the premier American university essentially come out and validate every major point I have been making since even before the war even started." (NY Sun)

David Gergen who served for Presidents of both parties called the essay An Unfair Attack
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm .

Over the course of four tours in the White House, I never once saw a decision in the Oval Office to tilt U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of America's interest. Other than Richard Nixon--who occasionally said terrible things about Jews, despite the number on his team--I can't remember any president even talking about an Israeli lobby. Perhaps I have forgotten, but I can remember plenty of conversations about the power of the American gun lobby, environmentalists, evangelicals, small-business owners, and teachers unions.

He goes on to make this key observation...
10 straight American presidents have befriended Israel--not because they were under pressure but because they believed America had made a commitment to Israel's survival, just as we have to other threatened outposts of freedom like Berlin, South Korea, and Taiwan.

That's right .The US has made a commitment to shed blood and treasure to defend nations all over the world . Recently Bush reaffirmed our strong commitment to the defense of Taiwan ,which could potentially bring us to nuclear confrontation . Also foreign pressure has penetrated the halls of US gvt besides the Jewish lobby... the Saudi princes come immediately to mind .So it is disingenuous to point out the "jewish lobby " as the reason for our support .

ordinaryguy

Dec 28, 2006, 02:12 PM

So it is disingenuous to point out the "jewish lobby " as the reason for our support .
You're the first person to mention it.

ordinaryguy

Dec 28, 2006, 04:39 PM

Let me take a different tack here. Let me ask you to answer these questions
1) Do you believe that the State of Israel has a right to exist?
In the current (2006-2007) geopolitical context, yes.

2) Do you believe that a sovereign state has a right to defend itself against attack?
Yes, by means that are allowed by the international laws of war, including, but not limited to Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949, to wit:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm)

3) Do you believe its right for any military organization to hide behind civilians?
No. However, fighting an enemy who does so doesn't absolve military forces of the responsibility to avoid civilian casualties when their presence is known.

Now let me ask you to answer these questions:

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?

excon

Dec 28, 2006, 05:02 PM

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?Hello again, ordinary:

I'll give you my two cents. They DON'T!!

But, I've never said they did - no more than we have a right to exist - and we DON'T. If you think I have said that, please show me where.

Here's a short course on history. The people who hold the land, hold it because they're strong enough to hold it. “Rights” be damned. Might is right. Nothing else. That’s the way the world works, and always has.

Let the UN debate about the purported rights you talk about. I couldn't care less. What? You’ll give your house back to the Indians because they have “rights” to it? I don’t think you would.

Israel is a Democracy who's holding on to their land because they can. We should support them because we said we would, and for no other reason.

None of my arguments have been based upon any perceived rights. Argue with what I say, not with what you make up.

excon

ScottGem

Dec 28, 2006, 06:11 PM

Now let me ask you to answer these questions:

1) What gives any nation state the right to exist?

2) What gives any ethnic/cultural group the right to have a nation state of its own?

First, my questions were directed at the OP not you. Second, your quote from the Geneva Convention refers to an "active part" in the hostilities. Harboring combatants, permitting attacks to be launched from your lands and homes can be considered an active part.

As for the rest, when the OP answers my questions I will deal with them.

ordinaryguy

Dec 28, 2006, 07:00 PM

Hello again, ordinary:

I'll give you my two cents. They DON'T!!!

But, I've never said they did - no more than we have a right to exist - and we DON'T. If you think I have said that, please show me where.

Here's a short course on history. The people who hold the land, hold it because they're strong enough to hold it. “Rights” be damned. Might is right. Nothing else. That's the way the world works, and always has.

Let the UN debate about the purported rights you talk about. I could care less. What? You'll give your house back to the Indians because they have “rights” to it? I don't think you would.

Israel is a Democracy who's holding on to their land because they can. We should support them because we said we would, and for no other reason.

None of my arguments have been based upon any perceived rights. Argue with what I say, not with what you make up.

excon

I know you didn't say anything about rights, but Scott did, and I was responding to his post. I happen to agree with you that nation states exist by virtue of might, not rights. As I understand it, the rules of war are designed to protect the rights of persons, not nations. In your view, do people have rights, or is the whole idea bogus?

ordinaryguy

Dec 28, 2006, 07:23 PM

First, my questions were directed at the OP not you.
Are you saying that I am forbidden (or at least unwelcome) to answer any question not directed specifically to me?

Second, your quote from the Geneva Convention refers to an "active part" in the hostilities. Harboring combatants, permitting attacks to be launched from your lands and homes can be considered an active part.
Are you saying that because of the nature of the enemy they face that Israel's armed forces are not and should not be subject to the laws of war? Or are you saying that the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

As for the rest, when the OP answers my questions I will deal with them.
Of course, you're under no obligation, but I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions about the rights of nations.

Fr_Chuck

Dec 28, 2006, 07:27 PM

ScottGem

Dec 28, 2006, 07:39 PM

Are you saying that I am forbidden (or at least unwelcome) to answer any question not directed specifically to me?

Not at all. But the question was not a general one posed to anyone who wants to respond. I was looking for a response from a specific person because I want to see how that person will respond. I don't want to deal with other people's responses until I get the OP's response.

I have often said that once something is posted it is open for anyone who wants to to comment. But there is some discretion to be exercised. In a case like this, it was clear that I wanted the answers from a specific person.

Are you saying that because of the nature of the enemy they face that Israel's armed forces are not and should not be subject to the laws of war?

No, I'm saying that the laws of war are subject to interpretation. When your enemy is not the army of a country, but a people who assume many guises, then the line between what is a combatant and what isn't is very blurred. That is the main point that has to be taken into account when judging Israel's actions.

Of course, you're under no obligation, but I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions about the rights of nations.

I didn't say I wouldn't answer, only that I wanted to see if the OP will respond and what that response is before I answer your questions.

ScottGem

Dec 28, 2006, 07:43 PM

can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non miliary as basic shields.

That is the crux of the argument I have been making. To condemn one side without condemning the opposing side when the opposition is committing much greater atrocities is one sided and prejudicial.

ordinaryguy

Dec 28, 2006, 09:09 PM

Rights are a "idea" and only valid in war if and when both sides agree to it.
In the Revolutionary War, the US broke every rule of war by not standing in a open field and shooting at each other, they did not wear uniforms and hide behind trees and other places, they were considered barbarions and terrorists for thier methods of fighting.
Don't you think there's an important difference between rights, as in "...all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...", and rules, such as the laws of warfare?

And in Isreal for example, if you are fighting an enemy that hides its weapons around family apartments, will launch missles from behind schools, and use moblie missles shooting from family living parts of town.

So when you attack these areas, non military people will die, it is to be expected, And does other nations really have a right to hold aonother free nation to thier standards, and can you blame one side for protecting it, if you don't condemn the nation using non miliary as basic shields.

A enemy that is not fighting by any rules, can they really ask for and expect the other side to have to follow those rules, since doing so, will mean they will have to lose
Refusing to adopt an enemy's standards of conduct doesn't necessarily mean you lose. Remember WWII? And Israel hasn't resorted to suicide bombing of civilian targets, and they haven't lost yet, even though their enemies use it routinely. By this logic, though, there would be no reason to abstain from it if they really thought it was necessary to win.

This is a good example of what is happening in Iraq today also
Yes, what's happening in Iraq is a tragically good example isn't it? Wasn't it John McCain who said that the rules of warfare and treatment of prisoners that we follow are about who WE are, not who THEY are? If we accept for ourselves no limits to inhumanity beyond whatever is accepted by our enemy, then don't we allow them to define us? If there is no level to which we will not stoop in our quest for "victory", can we still claim to be worthy of it?

talaniman

Dec 28, 2006, 09:28 PM

Israel is not sbject to our rules. They can defend themselves any way they see fit. So if they say area so-and so will be destroyed you'd be a zip damn fool to stay there, just my humble opinion. What idiot allows a bully to throw rocks at the local tough guy and then stands there and lets the bully hide behind him? If the lebanese are that dumb why should I care if they get here butts blown up with the terrorist. Again just my humble opinion. Rules ae only as good as the ones who enforce them.

ordinaryguy

Dec 28, 2006, 09:45 PM

Not at all. But the question was not a general one posed to anyone who wants to respond. I was looking for a response from a specific person because I want to see how that person will respond. I don't want to deal with other people's responses until I get the OP's response.

I have often said that once something is posted it is open for anyone who wants to to comment. But there is some discretion to be exercised. In a case like this, it was clear that I wanted the answers from a specific person.
Please excuse my indiscretion. It wasn't clear to me that no one else was supposed to respond.

No, I'm saying that the laws of war are subject to interpretation. When your enemy is not the army of a country, but a people who assume many guises, then the line between what is a combatant and what isn't is very blurred. That is the main point that has to be taken into account when judging Israel's actions.
Are you saying that because of the presence of guerrilla fighters among them, the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

I didn't say I wouldn't answer, only that I wanted to see if the OP will respond and what that response is before I answer your questions.
I don't see what his response has to do with it, but I'm in no hurry, so take your time.

To condemn one side without condemning the opposing side when the opposition is committing much greater atrocities is one sided and prejudicial.
I certainly agree that greater atrocities deserve greater condemnation than lesser atrocities, but don't you think even very small atrocities deserve at least a teeny tiny condemnation?

ordinaryguy

Dec 28, 2006, 09:56 PM

talaniman

Dec 28, 2006, 10:14 PM

1-Get behind him and knock hell out of him with a big stick
2-Get a couple of other family guys and knock hell out of him with a big stick
3-See him coming with a rock and knock hell out of him with a big stick
4-catch him in the john and knock hell out of him with big stick
5-Burn his house down, and when he ran to escape the fire, knock hell out of him with a big stick
6-Tell the local bad boys that there's a bully with a rock talking about his mama and he lives over thar!
7-Get all my buddies together and round up all the bullies and knock the hell out of them with a big stick
8-knock the hell out of any one in my villagewith a rock in his hand.
Not only does this work on bullies ,but terrorists and young boys who sell dope in my neighborhood.

ScottGem

Dec 29, 2006, 06:25 AM

Please excuse my indiscretion. It wasn't clear to me that no one else was supposed to respond.

Again, I didn't say no else could respond, only that I was looking for an answer from a specific person.

Are you saying that because of the presence of guerrilla fighters among them, the civilian population of the occupied territories or Lebanon is not covered by Article 3?

No, I'm saying that the line between civilan and combatant is extremely blurry.

I don't see what his response has to do with it, but I'm in no hurry, so take your time.

I have my reasons for waiting for a response.

I certainly agree that greater atrocities deserve greater condemnation than lesser atrocities, but don't you think even very small atrocities deserve at least a teeny tiny condemnation?

And you make the same mistaken assumption that they have not and are not being criticized.

excon

Dec 29, 2006, 08:35 AM

Hello again:

While we work on that, I want to project our discussion into the near future.

In the declared global jihad, Africa is now fully involved. China is lining up with Iran. Europe is appeasing the jihadists in the hopes that they won't be attacked. Venezuela has guaranteed Iran its supply of refined fuel, because Iran doesn't refine its own. South America is now fully in the jihadist camp. The UN is helpless. Indeed, in the face of sanctions from the UN, Iran INCREASED is production of nuke fuel.

What I'm saying, is that in a year or two, it's going to be the jihadists against the world. The US and its ally Israel, are the ONLY ones who are going to be standing up. Maybe Australia would help. Roogirl?

What are you going to think of Israel then?

By the way, in my view, the scenario I allude to, is GOING to happen.

excon

NeedKarma

Dec 29, 2006, 08:36 AM

excon

Dec 29, 2006, 08:42 AM

<adjusts tinfoil hat>
Hello again, Need:

So sayeth Nevill Chamberlain, too. "The Nazi's are kiddin........."

excon

NeedKarma

Dec 29, 2006, 08:45 AM

In a year or two if it's the jihadists against the world I'll buy you a beer... or a bag of weed. :)

excon

Dec 29, 2006, 08:53 AM

Hello again, Need:

Cool. Canada is going to be the only safe place. I'll be a knocking...

excon

tomder55

Dec 29, 2006, 09:33 AM

I think we should all go to school on how the Ethiopians handled the jihadist in Sudan this week . http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3345844,00.html

The funny thing is I hear no one belly aching about disproportionate force. ( rumors abound about US forces in the region supplying "support" by the way ).This brief and successful military operation should send a message to the 'realists' of the Baker/ Hamilton Iraq Surrender Group and our State Department that appeasement doesn't pay.

The irony is that Israel with its advanced military equipment and highly trained forces could accomplish another similar victory in the war against Jihadistan by re-entering Gaza and rooting out the Hamas and al Qaeda terrorists killing Israelis daily with the unabated rain of Qassem rockets.

Now that I think about it ;isn't Ethiopia the purported location of the lost tribes of Israel ?

excon

Dec 29, 2006, 09:59 AM

The irony is that Israel with its advanced military equipment and highly trained forces could accomplish another similar victory in the war against Jihadistan by re-entering Gaza and rooting out the Hamas and al Qaeda terrorists killing Israelis daily with the unabated rain of Qassem rockets.

Now that I think about it ;isn't Ethiopia the purported location of the lost tribes of Israel ?Hello again, tom:

Instead, Olmert is giving money and weapons to Fattah - a terrorist organization who's been at war with Israel since the beginning. Isn't that crazy??

Yes, Ethiopia IS where the last tribe came from. There was a black police chief named Greenburg in Charleston, SC. He's not a convert.

I think Sammy Davis Jr. was from there, too... Ok, maybe not.

excon

urbisoler

Apr 14, 2007, 03:43 PM

[QUOTE=VBNomad]Why does the USA support Israel?

Because they think like Americans. We have a Judaic-Christian culture in common. They are a powerful nation in spite of their size. They are intelligent. Productive, etc. They will fight for their existence to the death unlike most European nations and perhaps even America. In Israel, we have an ally that, combined, have the best chance to convert the region to free and democratic principles which, if you are an American, you should encourage. We have a moral obligation to do what can be done to encourage regime change in all countries that subjugate their populations by dictatorial means. That will require a change in how we define 'sovereignty'. We need Israel because the United Nations is an impotent organization which we should abandon. They are, increasingly, not our friends. They can't even solve a relatively simple problen in Darfur. So people die.

magprob

Apr 14, 2007, 11:55 PM

Could it have something to do with the fact that in the holy land, sitting smack dab on the grounds of the long destroyed Christian Temple, there sits an Islamic Temple. Hummm, I don't know for sure and I would like to know if anyone has any ideas on this. I think, according to the Jews, it was once GODs permanent address. Also, according to Islam, Muhhamad asended straight up to heaven from there. Seems like a very sought after piece of real estate.

fitnahpolice

Apr 19, 2007, 10:22 PM

excon

Apr 20, 2007, 06:12 AM

Hello fit:

I'm a Jew. According to your propaganda, we've taken over the world. If that's so, then I declare you to be a jerk of monumental proportions.

excon

ScottGem

Apr 20, 2007, 06:32 AM

I just note who is responible for that stuff. It is clearly biased reporting. Mostly a rehash of the garbage that Arab countries have been spewing about Isreal since 1948.

talaniman

Apr 20, 2007, 06:33 AM

Must See: MPACUK - Must Watch Documentary: The Israel Lobby Exposed (http://www.mpacuk.org/theisraellobby)

YouTube - The Israel lobby (AIPAC): a danger to the world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J43VHxwNd5g)

Interesting but so one sided, as to be taken with a lot of salt. I guess everyone can have an opinion, right or wrong.

ScottGem

Apr 20, 2007, 07:16 AM

Interesting but so one sided, as to be taken with a lot of salt. I guess everyone can have an opinion, right or wrong.

One thing I found interesting was the comments on the page. All supportive and almost none from arab sounding names. Makes one wonder.

fluid identity

Apr 20, 2007, 08:51 AM

I do think that U.S supports Israel for mainly three reasons:

1) is the guilt of western Christians for belated action ref massacre of jews
2) the influence of the Jewish Lobby
3) the anti-islam sentiments of the USA ( where they believe everyone is equal but that they are more equal then everyone else especially barbaric muslims!)

I know that a lot of people are going to claim this is anti-semitic but I'm actually pro-semitic since I support the claim of Palestinian people (muslim & christian) to inhabit their land since they are from semite stock.
Before anyone accuses me of being anti-jewish, I believe in the right of Jewish people to inhabit Jerusalem & lands that belong rightfully those arabs (palestinians) that lived there for generations, or in Europe or in the US but they do not have a right to arbitrarily take the land & murder innocent people (of all creeds).

I'd also like to present another distinction. That a differenced exists between normal jews & extremist Jews (zionists); After the holocaust (apologies as I do not have the original quote) Einstein stated that the Zionists were the biggest threat to Jews since Hitler & that they had no right to do to the palestinians what Hitler had attempted to do to them. Therefore the Isreali state is not a jewish state but more akin to the Taleban of Afghanistan, a extremist jewish state that insults the remaining conservative jewish populace.

I also believe everyone has a right to disagree with me & this admission I hope takes out the virulent sting of any postings that may reply to this.

But I digress because as one zionist has eloquently stated in this forum that, it is what they achieve by might, not what is right that counts.
Going back to the original question, USA is in a fundamental christian administration who will argue for a Jewish state as they believe in a prophecy that Jesus will only be resurrected when Israel exists so they will want that to take place. They have been put on that path & now changes in administration will not deter them from this course of supplying so many weapons to a country whose foe can only pack bombs on their person & use themselves as weapons in response.

ScottGem

Apr 20, 2007, 10:01 AM

I know that a lot of people are going to claim this is anti-semitic but I'm actually pro-semitic since I support the claim of Palestinian people (muslim & christian) to inhabit their land since they are from semite stock.
Before anyone accuses me of being anti-jewish, I believe in the right of Jewish people to inhabit Jerusalem & lands that belong rightfully those arabs (palestinians) that lived there for generations, or in Europe or in the US but they do not have a right to arbitrarily take the land & murder innocent people (of all creeds).

The fallacy of your argument is that Israelis did not "arbitrarily" take the land. The original settlers were given the land. They were given mostly barren desert areas of then Palestine. The State of Israel was granted by a vote of the United Nations. Palestinians were not thrown out of Israel, but left on their own accord or were driven out when they took up arms against Israel.

And your comparing Zionist to the Taliban is so ridiculous. The government of Israel has never been the tyrannical, religious extremists that the Taliban is. Israel is actually one of the most democratic of governments.

magprob

Apr 20, 2007, 10:22 AM

Just one more thing to say: Mayer Amschel Bauer.

President Andrew Jackson, the only one of our presidents whose administration totally abolished the National Debt, condemned the international bankers as a "den of vipers" which he was determined to "rout out" of the fabric of American life. Jackson claimed that if only the American people understood how these vipers operated on the American scene "there would a revolution before morning."

BTW, has anyone here read the Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion? I'm not pronouncing it as truth or fiction but, it really does describe our plight today. Coincidence?

ScottGem

Apr 20, 2007, 10:48 AM

BTW, has anyone here read the Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion? I'm not pronouncing it as truth or fiction but, it really does describe our plight today. Coincidence?

Is this

Anti-Semitic Myths: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: Introduction (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_intro.asp)

What you refer to? And in case you think that this is ADL propaganda, there are many other references to this publication being a hoax.

talaniman

Apr 20, 2007, 12:13 PM

Rebuttal to fluid identity,

I do think that U.S supports Israel for mainly three reasons;

1) is the guilt of western Christians for belated action ref massacre of jews
How about a supporting democracy among many unstable monarchies, who support, arm, and train terrorists recruited from misguided poor people.
2) the influence of the Jewish Lobby
The last I looked the monarchies had their own lobby.
3) the anti-islam sentiments of the USA ( where they believe everyone is equal but that they are more equal then everyone else especially barbaric muslims!)
There is no such thing as anti Islamic sentiment in the USA, the dispute is with terrorist who blow up people, places, and things which if you checked the facts is against the muslim way of life, and has been condemned by a vast majority of the muslim community in the USA.

excon

Apr 21, 2007, 07:27 AM

Hello:

History is murky for some. So, I thought I might bring up some history that occurred as recently as two years ago. Possibly it can be remembered. However, to some it won't be.

Israel withdrew from occupied Gaza. They UNOCCUPIED IT! They just withdrew and returned it to the Palestinians to do with as THEY chose. Along the way, they destroyed their OWN settlements, and forced their OWN Jewish settlers off land that was promised to them.

What did the Palestinians do with Gaza? Did they build a state?? Nooo, they didn't. They are using it to launch rockets at Israeli citizens and build Hezbollah like fortifications along the border for their coming attack on Israel.

What should Israel do about that? Sit there?? Some of you Anti-Semites would say yes. But, they won't, nor should they. What?? You like Hamas??

excon

fitnahpolice

Apr 21, 2007, 12:11 PM

I'm not Palestinian or Israeli but if I come and take over your house and think I'm doing you a favor by vacating a room for you to live, what would you do?

talaniman

Apr 21, 2007, 02:26 PM

One thing I would not do is kill the innocent. I'm not a jew, arab, palestinian, muslim or christian. Terrorist tactics cannot be tolerated, nor condoned. Maybe the palestinians need a government to negoiate in good faith on their behalf and not armed thugs who use terror as a tool to get what they want.

excon

Apr 21, 2007, 02:31 PM

Hello fit:

See, that's the trouble with history. I understand your point, however. You think Israel took land and are only offering a pittance back.

Let's forget for a minute that I disagree with your scenario, but even if Israel was wrong for taking it in the first place, they DID give it back.

It wasn't enough was it? So, it's OK to send your children with bombs strapped on their bodies...

Let me ask you some history, fit. How did Israel get, or to use your terms, "take over" the occupied land to begin with? Let's see. They were attacked by the Arabs and they won the land. How do you think they got it?

Or are you talking about the land Israel sits on? Is that the land you want them to vacate?? Probably.

excon

ScottGem

Apr 21, 2007, 03:22 PM

I'm not Palestinian or Israeli but if I come and take over your house and think I'm doing you a favor by vacating a room for you to live, what would you do?

As excon indicated, this statement is both one sided and not in keeping with historical fact. Israeli did NOT come in and take over someone's house.

The original Jewish settlers in British controlled Palestine were either given or purchased the land they settled on. The state of Israel was created by the United Nations.

Whatever lands that Israel gained after 1948 was due to them being attacked by the Arabs and winning the wars started by hostile countries. Had the Arabs won do you think they would have eventually given back land that they took? The Arab world has gone on record as stating they want to wipe Israel off the map of the world.

So I suggest you open your eyes a bit. I'm not saying that Israel hasn't made mistakes, committed questionable or unethical acts, etc. But, if you don't open your eyes to the whole story, then your opinions will be dismissed as biased.

fitnahpolice

Apr 21, 2007, 09:35 PM

tomder55

Apr 22, 2007, 02:47 AM

Should the US roll back to it's 1776 borders ? Property ownership is contingent on your ability to defend it. Excon made the definitive point in this debate. Israel returned Gaza and it has since been used as a platform for attacks on Israel . If Israel rolled back to pre-1948 borders then you could kiss Israel goodby.

ScottGem

Apr 22, 2007, 03:36 AM

Firstly, I'm not condoning the killing of innocent civilians. That is absolutely wrong. We agree both sides have made mistakes. But the cry of the hour is PEACE as has been for decades now!

Recently the Arabs have stretched their hand forward. Hamas, who had come into power via a majority, went into a collaboration with the other party....the Saudi proposal to return to pre-1948 borders...the Syrian initiative. But seems like Israel just does not want peace.

Gideon Levy - an Israeli journalist for Ha'aretz, a member of its editorial board and former spokesman for Shimon Peres - tells it all. And rightly so.

Israel doesn't want peace - Haaretz - Israel News (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/846420.html)

Gideon Levy: Israel Does Not Want Peace (http://www.counterpunch.org/levy04092007.html)

You cite one voice. I'm sure others can be found to disagree. For example you cite a Saudi proposal to return to "pre-1948 borders". But pre-1948 means when Israel didn't exist! I've see some of the so-called peace initiatives offered by other countries. There was always one major thing lacking in them. The guarantee of Israel's security and sovreignty. Israel made peace with Egypt because they did provide those guarantees.

I will reiterate what excon pointed out. That Israel forced settlers in Gaza to give up their homes so the area could be returned. I notice Levy makes no mention of that.

But when you have a situation where you are surrounded by stated enemies, where you have been under attack consistently for almost 60 years, would you be expected to just roll over to peace proposals that do not guarantee your security?

You've already proven that you are biased and your viewpoint is narrow. You only seem to look for things to support those biased views. Israel has been asking for Peace from the day of the 1948 vote. After decades of attacks, terrorist bombings and other threats they are to just accept that now the arabs want peace? Hamas has been one of the most active perpetrators of terrorism. Syria has been training and supporting terrorists since 1948. Saudi Arabia, proposes that Israel return to where they were BEFORE they were granted statehood! Is is any wonder that that Israel is skeptical of these offers?

The only real concessions I have seen is Israel's give back of Gaza. Syria offers peace while it continues to funnel money and materials to Hezbollah. Hamas makes offers but can't (or won't) control its people and stop them from terrorist acts.

Sorry, but I can't fault Israel for taking a hard line about such peace offers.

excon

Apr 22, 2007, 07:01 AM

Hello again, fit:

Just a minor correction, but it makes a big difference. The Saudi plan you mention calls for a retreat to the 1949 Armistice lines. That would be the present state of Israel. Actually, that's fine with the Israeli's. They never wanted anything more than that in the first place.

However, the part you didn't mention about the Arab plan is the “right of return” for the Arabs. If that were implemented, then the Arabs would take over Israel from the inside.

Uhhh, the Jews aren't going to let that happen. Those of you, who think it SHOULD happen, think that Israel should be wiped off the map, which is exactly what the Arabs call for. They're not lying. They don't want peace.

I suggest you examine the position you have taken a little more closely.

excon

fluid identity

Apr 23, 2007, 09:53 AM

First of all I have read a lot of posters who accuse other people of narrow one -sided views but are equally as one-sided against the palestinians. Do they seriously believe they wanted to be in their current situation & want to wallow in pain & misery & LIKE the fact that they are reduced to sending out human bombs.
Another point, I believe the arabs countries attacked israel after Ben Gurion (similar to Hitler, except for the amount of people he ordered massacred), ordered villages of innocent palestinans slaughtered as a tactic to terrify the populace & get them to abandon their homes. This tactic worked & the rest of the arab states had an influx of palestinian refugees leading to pressure from the arab populace to defend their brethren. You are right in that the greed & corruption of arab states plus the narrow self -interest of the west ensured their defeat.

Those that argue against the return of the refugees to their own land seem to be heartless; yes the jews will lose their majority but Israel could remain as a state, if they adopt these people, which is what the jews wanted is it not? Or do they believe that these palestinians will massacre them like the jews massacre palestianians after hitler massacred them ; a vicious cycle of human evil.

If the arabs were all wrong like a lot of zionists want to show the world than they would have won the Propanganda war completely but even with a lot of the anti-arab brigade, what israel seems to be standing for, sits uneasily with them.
By the way gaza is just a prison, releasing that sliver of land was done on purpose as there were less settlements there then the West bank & this was just done as an appeasement still leaving the central conflict unresolved. Its all worked out for Israeli government. Those years of dehumanising the palestinans & turning them into such reactionaries has worked in their favor as it gives them grounds for arguing against the release of the West Bank or the control of air/ sea borders.

excon

Apr 23, 2007, 10:21 AM

Hello fluid:

Your history is wrong. Just flat wrong. You do that to justify your hate or you're just plain ignorant. Probably both. Lot's of Anti-Semites don't want to be bothered with the facts. Hatred is good enough.

excon

ScottGem

Apr 23, 2007, 10:21 AM

Do they seriously believe they wanted to be in their current situation & want to wallow in pain & misery & LIKE the fact that they are reduced to sending out human bombs.

No I don't believe that. What I DO believe, mostly because they have said it themselves, is that many Palestinians are dedicated to the elimination of Israel. That they refused to try to work within the state of Israel. That their hatred and fanaticism as led them to the state they exist in.

Another point, i believe the arabs countries attacked israel after Ben Gurion (similar to Hitler, except for the amount of people he ordered massacred), ordered villages of innocent palestinans slaughtered as a tactic to terrify the populace & get them to abandon their homes. This tactic worked & the rest of the arab states had an influx of palestinian refugees leading to pressure from the arab populace to defend their brethren. You are right in that the greed & corruption of arab states plus the narrow self -interest of the west ensured their defeat.

Oh please! Where did you get such claptrap? In 1948, Israelis were outnumbered, outgunned and totally surrounded. Why or how would Ben Gurion believe such a tactic would work? Why would a people scarred by the Holocaust do such things? What proof is there that such a thing happened? If you are going to believe such lies then there really isn't anyway to get you to believe the truth.

fluid identity

Apr 27, 2007, 02:26 AM

My mistake then since the attacks I referred to did take place but I think in 1953. So I was wrong about the time but they did take place, ordered by Ben Gurion which hardened the hatred for the state of Israel for the sactioned massacre & which is why many palestinans wanted the state to be eliminated. I believe Ariel Sharon was present which did not help future dealings with the palestinans.
At the end of the day the point of my original post was about narrow view points, I can admit when I made an error but many people here lambast the palestinans but don't admit that the state made errors which resulted in the current misunderstandings & hatred.
Apparently I am an Anti-Semite to people always quick to try to close discourse. Do you not consider by engaging me you could correct some of my knowledge you believe incorrect. Instead you react with hostility & label me as a hater of a whole race of people that spans two religions (Anti -Semite - from semite stock i.e most arabs are from this stock as well as jews).
I actually think that whereas I don't like Zionists but don't extend this antipathy to ALL jews ; certain people here are extremely anti-palestinan, anti-arab & anti-islamic. I think it's the chosen race complex - We are chosen by god so the rest can suffer in camps. Amazingly I think Hitler believed something similar.

excon

Apr 27, 2007, 05:22 AM

whereas I dont like ZionistsHello again, fluid:

Tell me why.

excon

ScottGem

Apr 27, 2007, 06:12 AM

my mistake then since the attacks i referred to did take place but i think in 1953. so i was wrong about the time but they did take place, ordered by Ben Gurion which hardened the hatred for the state of Israel for the sactioned massacre & which is why many palestinans wanted the state to be eliminated. i believe Ariel Sharon was present which did not help future dealings with the palestinans.
At the end of the day the point of my original post was about narrow view points, I can admit when I made an error but many people here lambast the palestinans but dont admit that the state made errors which resulted in the current misunderstandings & hatred.
Apparantly I am an Anti-Semite to people always quick to try to close discourse. Do you not consider by engaging me you could correct some of my knowledge you believe incorrect. Instead you react with hostility & label me as a hater of a whole race of people that spans two religions (Anti -Semite - from semite stock i.e most arabs are from this stock as well as jews).
I actually think that whereas I dont like Zionists but dont extend this antipathy to ALL jews ; certain people here are extremely anti-palestinan, anti-arab & anti-islamic. I think its the chosen race complex - We are chosen by god so the rest can suffer in camps. Amazingly I think Hitler belived something similar.

First let deal with the attacks. You say now that you "think" they happened in 1953. So clearly you really don't know much about them. What proof do you have that these attacks occurred at all? Or, if they did, they were of the nature you are stating. Whjat it sounds like to me, is that you are listening to propaganda without asking for proof.

What amazes me is that you complain about narrow viewpoints at the same time that you promote your own, very narrow viewpoint. I don't know who you specifically refer to, but as someone active in this thread, I also admit when I'm wrong and I have acknolwedged that the sate of Israel is lily white. They have done things I do not condone and even denounce. But any actions on the part of Israel have to be viewed in the context of a beleaguered nation that has been under almost continual attack for nearly 60 years. I firmly believe that, had the arab world agreed to let Israel exist and not tried to wipe it out, then the history of the Middle East would be vastly different.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread who is "extremely anti-palestinan, anti-arab & anti-islamic". I have seen some who are extremely anti-Israel. And yes, Arabs are also semites, but the term anti-semitic refers to jews, not all semites.

Finally, your Hitler analogy doesn't hold water. Palestinian refugee camps are administered by Israel. Palestinians don't have to go into them. From what I've seen, the arabs want those camps to help breed the terrorists they can turn against Israel.

fluid identity

Apr 27, 2007, 07:13 AM

1953 attack on Qibya is one example which was condemned by the UN & led to a suspension of support for a short time by the US (am I making this up?).
As for the issue of propaganda, the amount of propaganda that the state of isreal & the USA have spewed forth cannot be matched by anyone else on any other political debate. Unlike most people I don't trust one source & will go to many to try explore the validity of any news story but not everyone can say the same.
Please tell me what narrow viewpoint Im promoting. I put forward a point when answering a question to instigate discourse & may be even learn something but Am quickly being attacked because I do not adhere to your beliefs... hmmm... intolerant as perhaps you accuse other people of being.
& if the actions of Isreal can be justified because of the position they find themselves over the 60 years then Im sorry but following that same logic every time a palestinan explodes a bomb he is justified as they have been oppressed & mistreated for the same number of years(?) . Therefore if you believe that Isreal can do what it likes becase it is under attack then the palestinans can respond ; we will remain in this same cycle of violence.
As for refugee camps, if Israel do not give those refugees a right to return to their lands then they are removing their choice of staying out of camps..

talaniman

Apr 27, 2007, 07:17 AM

Doesn't any one care that the palestinians have no central government other than strongmen who represent terrorist groups. You can't negotiate anything, let alone peace with someone who is dedicated to your utter extermination.

fluid identity

Apr 27, 2007, 07:17 AM

Ex-con... I've never met a zionist who is not a rabid rascist who believe the world owes him because of the holocaust & that muslims are evil & palestinians are vermin that need to be exterminated. Please let me know of any good zionists( if that's not an oxymoron & no no puns on the moron part intended) you have met. That's why I make the distinction between them & other jews.

excon

Apr 27, 2007, 08:17 AM

Hello again, fluid:

I'm a Jew. I know lots of Jews, some of whom are Zionists. I've been to Israel. There are lots of Zionists there. I've never met ANY who have the beliefs you put upon them. There was this Klahanie guy who was virulently anti Arab. He had a small following that very well could have believed that way. But, when I say small following, I mean really, really small – 1% of the population. Israeli Jews, Zionist Jews, even NY Jews just don't believe the stuff you ascribe to them.

You say you've met Zionists who felt that way, and apparently you've met more than one. Where did you meet them? Indeed, I wouldn't know where to go to meet a group of Zionists, and I'm a Jew.

Certainly, Jews love to write. If there is such a group of Zionists (or if Zionists are ALL that way), surly they've written their political views. Where could I go read what a real Zionist thinks? Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm on the wrong side. Help me.

excon

ScottGem

Apr 27, 2007, 08:34 AM

1953 attack on Qibya is one example which was condemned by the UN & led to a suspension of support for a short time by the US (am i making this up?).

I didn't say you were making anything up, just that you were believing propaganda. As for Qibya, is this what you refer to:

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_qibya_1953.php

From looking at several sites including this one, this is not the wanton massacre of Palestinians as your propagandists would have you believe.

As for the issue of propaganda, the amount of propaganda that the state of isreal & the USA have spewed forth cannot be matched by anyone else on any other political debate. Unlike most people i dont trust one source & will go to many to try explore the validity of any news story but not everyone can say the same.
Please tell me what narrow viewpoint Im promoting. I put forward a point when answering a question to instigate discourse & may be even learn something but Am quickly being attacked becuase i do not adhere to your beliefs....hmmm...intolerant as perhaps you accuse other people of being.
& if the actions of Isreal can be justified because of the position they find themselves over the 60 years then Im sorry but following that same logic every time a palestinan explodes a bomb he is justified as they have been oppressed & mistreated for the same number of years(?) . Therefore if you belive that Isreal can do what it likes becase it is under attack then the palestinans can respond ; we will remain in this same cycle of violence.
As for refugee camps, if Israel do not give those refugees a right to return to their lands then they are removing their choice of staying out of camps..

The narrow viewpoint I refer to is typified by your use of Qibya as an example of Israeli atrocities. You claim to not trust one source and look for validity, yet my, admittedly brief, research came up with several sources debunking your claim of an unjustified massacre.

There is a root here to this cycle of violence that you continue to ignore. That the UN approved the establishment of the State of Israel. The Arab world refused to accept this and vowed to wipe out Israel. That started the violence. Had the Arab world accepted the UN action and tried to live peacefully with Israel, then none of this would have happened. So you can't say that the Palestinians are justified because of the mistreatment they have endured (a mistreatment I don't deny). They had the opportunity to peacefully live with Israel and they refused it. This ROOT fact is the one you ignore and narrows your view.

excon

Apr 28, 2007, 06:58 AM

Hello again, fluid:

The truth is, you've never met a Zionist, have you? All you've done is repeat what you've heard. Don't feel bad. MOST of the world makes up what they know about Jews, too. It's a shame – but a fact of life Jews accept.

There was a time when I thought that reasonable people could work through their differences. I still think so, however it takes two to tango. If one side thinks like you, and the other side thinks like me, peace will NEVER happen.

So, after 60 or so years, and after 5 - 10 wars (who's counting?), when are you going to get that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face? You will NEVER wipe Israel away. If you try, they'll wipe you away.

Go Jews!

excon

fluid identity

May 1, 2007, 04:47 AM

excon
I have met jews in London who I got on with & some I didn't.
I have met Zionists (or so they claimed because it not tatooed on their foreheads) in London who I never got on with
Nasty breed - & what I quoted one zionist blatantly said while the others implied with forced reasonable sweetness, hidden dislike, & smiles on their faces - sweet knives but knives nonetheless.

& just because you're jewish does not mean I automatically hate you. I can dislike the zionist state of israel & what it stands for but still make a distinction between the government & the jews. Humanity exists in us all... just a few of us have chosen to forgo it to stubbornly stick to murderous regime.

Can I ask you why you don't want regime change? Can I clarify, not wiping people of israel away, just the government & install a new non-zionist government - palestinian arab christian & jewish? I accept this is not a serious possibility in the current climate before you exclaim with increduality.. I know it will not happen.. . I just would be interested in your answer to this hypothetical (almost fantastical) situation..

fluid identity

May 1, 2007, 04:48 AM

Quoting Scottgem
"There is a root here to this cycle of violence that you continue to ignore. That the UN approved the establishment of the State of Israel.

Had the Arab world accepted the UN action and tried to live peacefully with Israel, then none of this would have happened. So you can't say that the Palestinians are justified because of the mistreatment they have endured (a mistreatment I don't deny).
They had the opportunity to peacefully live with Israel and they refused it. This ROOT fact is the one you ignore and narrows your view.[/QUOTE]

Remember who are on the UN security council & at the time where the balance of power was in the world. Like someone on this site said earlier Palestine was taken by might not by right so therefore Palestinians will always be justified fighting for their freedom. This is quite eloquently & impartially stated by Gandhi.

"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French... What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct... If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs... As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." Mahatma Gandhi, quoted in "A Land of Two Peoples" ed. Mendes-Flohr.

fluid identity

May 1, 2007, 05:22 AM

Quoting Scottgem:
So you can't say that the Palestinians are justified because of the mistreatment they have endured (a mistreatment I don't deny). They had the opportunity to peacefully live with Israel and they refused it. This ROOT fact is the one you ignore and narrows your view.[/QUOTE]

It is not a root fact except in your lexicon... When someone is told to accept a situation or leave it is a ulitmatum, which was foisted on the palestinans. It is not or never will it be justified for Israel to create a exclusive nation on another peoples land. That is the root fact. The fact you quote is adjacent to the root of the misery (from your viewpoint I hasten to add). They had the opportunity to live with Israel... The european zionist jews should have requested an opportunity to live peacefully with palestinians not stride in arrogantly & claim the land as theirs in recompense for the holocaust.
But anyway like I asked previously why will you not advocate the right of return for palestinans living in refugree camps if they agree to live peacefully on their lands under israeli rule, even if it is in sufferance?
I also request that you calm your vehement answers down... stop trying to pound your viewpoint into me... we have already established we are approaching this conundrum from completely different angles. I think you are misguided & another cog in Israeli propaganda war machine while you think I've been raised on a diet of malnorished palestinan manna.

ScottGem

May 1, 2007, 06:20 AM

Nasty breed - & what I quoted one zionist blatantly said while the others implied with forced reasonable sweetness, hidden dislike, & smiles on their faces - sweet knives but knives nonetheless.

Zionists are not a "breed". They are people who share a belief. Stereo typing a group based on the few you might have met is wrong and, In my opinion, shows your true feelings.

Whether the UN was right in establishing the State of Israel is a subject for another discussion. The fact is that they did it. You ask why doesn't the government include non-Jews. I do not believe that being jewish is a requirement for being a citiizen of Israel. Nor is it a requirement for participating in the government of Israel. The fact is that, in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel an appeal was made "to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions".

So, its not a root fact only in my lexicon. I ask you what government existed in Palestine prior to 1948 or even prior to Brisitsh occupation? The fact is there was no Palestinian state. The area now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire until WWI. Going back to Roman times and before it was part of the kingdom of Judea. Therefore, Ghandi's quote is inaccurate in that Jews do have a valid claim on the area.

After WWI the Middle East was divied up between England and France. Palestine was carved out of parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. The British controlled Palestine and was its government.

As indicated by the quote from the Declaration above, the Arabs living in Palestine WERE given the opportunity to participate in the State of Israel as equal citizens and live in peace in their homes. They were never told to leave. Just the opposite. They chose to leave rather than help build a government.

fluid identity

May 3, 2007, 02:20 AM

[QUOTE=ScottGem]Zionists are not a "breed". They are people who share a belief. Stereo typing a group based on the few you might have met is wrong and, In my opinion, shows your true feelings.

So, its not a root fact only in my lexicon. I ask you what government existed in Palestine prior to 1948 or even prior to Brisitsh occupation? The fact is there was no Palestinian state. The area now known as Palestine was part of the Ottoman empire until WWI. Going back to Roman times and before it was part of the kingdom of Judea. Therefore, Ghandi's quote is inaccurate in that Jews do have a valid claim on the area.

After WWI the Middle East was divied up between England and France. Palestine was carved out of parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt. The British controlled Palestine and was its government."

Please explain what Zionist are supposed to stand for then?

Ghandi's quote refers to the fact that the Jewish claim is not as valid as the claim of the people that lived there at the time & previously for the last few hundred years , descendents of the original inhabitants of that area.Stronger than some claim by majority of the people that lived a hundreds of years in another continent. Again I state that if these jews felt that strongly they should have entered the area in peace & with the permission of the inhabitants (muslim, chritian & jews already there) rather than controlling the whole area like a god given right (which its not otherwise they would never have lost it inb the first place). A state may not have existed there before but that was not through fault of the people there but through exsternal factor & the current state has denied the people the right of self-determination as well. The fact it was controlled by Britain does not mean anything as they imperialistically controlled the area & had promised the arabs self rule & determination but then supported the land claim of the European Jews out of guilt. They essentially betrayed the people they were supposed to be (unelected) guardians of.

ScottGem

May 3, 2007, 05:57 AM

Again I state that if these jews felt that strongly they should have entered the area in peace & with the permission of the inhabitants (muslim, chritian & jews already there) rather than controlling the whole area like a god given right (which its not otherwise they would never have lost it inb the first place).

And again I state that they did. Most of the original settlements WERE established peacefully and with the permission of the existing residents. Many arabs gave or sold land to jewish settlers. The land they sold was generally arid and useless to the arabs. The settlers, using modern techniques and hard work, made these settlements pay off. So the arabs wanted them back.

Again I point out that quote from the Declaration where all residents of the established State of Israel were invited to live in peace and participate in the government.

But yes, in the Jewish religion the land WAS granted them by God. That they lost it for a time was due first to the Romans and then the Ottomans.

I am also noting a typical pattern here. You make an argument based mostly on opinion and propaganda. I counter with an argument that is supported by hard facts. You ignore those facts and keep repeating the propaganda.

excon

May 3, 2007, 06:21 AM

Hello again, fluid:

One can cherry pick history to find times when the land we're talking about belonged to Arabs. Others can find times in history when the land belonged to the Jews. Why would ownership of land at one time in history be any more valid than somebody else's ownership of the same land at another time in history? I don't think it is. In fact, I think the Arabs claim on the land is just as valid as the Jews.

So, how would one determine the correct owner??

In my view (and the view of the world), the land belongs to those who can hold it. Indeed, that's how we do it, and that's how we've always done it.

Where do you live? Wasn't the land your house sits on owned by native people at one time? Aren't YOU occupying their land? Would you give it back to them if they asked? If you aren't predisposed to giving away your house, maybe if they threatened to kill your family, you might. I wouldn't.

Nope. If it was me, I wouldn't give back my land. Indeed, it IS me. I own land and I'm not going to give it back to the Indians even though it wasn't taken fairly from them.

excon

fluid identity

May 3, 2007, 07:21 AM

Scottgem I also notice a pattern with you. Anything you don't like is always attributed to be the product of propaganda. If you can answer it with the hard facts that you claim, then you disprove it & you don't need to denounce it as propaganda unless there is a part of you that believes there is truth (even a kernel) in the statements & you wish to deny & decry it.
Scottgem nothing you have said has been based on hard facts but viewpoints or statements that you are trying to present as the only way to look at the situation. If that was the case then this problem of israel would be pretty straight forward would it not & be easy to resolve?

Again can you explain what Zionism is according to you since I have misunderstood & sterotyped them. I do not like to think that I have passed bad judgement so please rectify any errors.

fluid identity

May 3, 2007, 07:27 AM

Hi excon,
The only reason I went into that line of discussion was when scottgem postulated that Gandhi erred in his statement which I think he did not.

Going back to your argument that the land belongs to those who can hold it, The only way that Israel has held it is because of the support of the USA & other western nations so Israel could not of held it without their money, armaments & propaganda.

I don't own any land where I live. But I own a house & one day I may be rounded up like the nazis rounded up jews since I don't ascribe to the typical view on the war on terror etc that the country I live ascribes to . I hope not but in the current climate of the world it is entirely possible for one event to tip us over the abyss of repeating history.

Also we were discussing the morality & in my view the land belonged to the palestinans (ie arab muslim & christinans who lived in that area) rather than european jews. Like you say, if I came to the usa & purchase some land & then found some ancestral link or commonality the native americans & said that this land originally belonged to me & then set up a state, I would not be right even if I could get away with that travesty. But why should I insist on a state when I can just live in the U.S.

Referring to the original thread then, USA supports Israel for various reasons but Israel would never have been able to hold onto that land without their support so is it not fair to say Israel is not a country in its own right but an american enclave?

excon

May 3, 2007, 07:58 AM

Hello again, fluid:

Yes, we gave them money and guns. Is that your argument now, that they couldn't have held the land without money, and that's why they should give it back? Really?

We give money, guns, AND OUR OWN SOLDIERS to a lot of countries around the world who wouldn't survive without us. Is that something WE shouldn't do? Should those countries NOT accept? Are they wrong if they do? Should they ALL fall?

Who helps YOU hold on to YOUR land? It's the same people from the same government, feeding you equally ugly propaganda, using the same police powers, spending the same money that, in addition to supplying armaments to Israel, arms your local cops. I don't see you complaining when they come to protect YOUR property, should you call 911. That strength keeps you, your home and your family safe from those who would take your house. Why does it bother you that others feel safe in their homes for the same reasons you do? Because they're Jews?

No, Israel isn't a state of ours, but they are a democracy. We like democracies don't we?

excon

PS> (edited) I'm not going to argue with you about Israel being an American enclave either. Ok. So what? That means they shouldn't exist? Florida is an American enclave. Indians had it before Floridians did. They don't now because the Floridians took it, and they're strong enough to keep it. I think we should support the Floridians, don't you?

ScottGem

May 3, 2007, 08:21 AM

Scottgem i also notice a pattern with you. Anything you dont like is always attributed to be the product of propaganda. If you can answer it with the hard facts that you claim, then you disprove it & you dont need to denounce it as propaganda unless there is a part of you that believes there is truth (even a kernel) in the statements & you wish to deny & decry it.
Scottgem nothing you have said has been based on hard facts but viewpoints or statements that you are trying to present as the only way to look at the situation. If that was the case then this problem of israel would be pretty straight forward would it not & be easy to resolve?

Again can you explain what Zionism is according to you since I have misunderstood & sterotyped them. I do not like to think that I have passed bad judgement so please rectify any errors.

This is getting ridiculous and tiresome.

First, I explained twice what Zionism is. You referred to them as a "Nasty breed". I didn't say you misunderstood, I said they are not a "breed" and sterotyping was wrong.

Second, No, I do not label everything I don't like as propaganda. But the fact is that much of what you have posted here is propaganda, much of that is extremely slanted and narrow. I have disproven much of what you have said with facts. That doesn't mean I can't label the propaganda for what it is. One of the things about propaganda is that it usually does have a kernel of fact behind it. That's what makes it work. Look at the Qibya thing for example. Israel retaliated for the killing of some innocent civilians and attacked a village that was harboring terrorists. Those are facts. But your propaganda has turned it into the deliberate and unprovoked massacre of innocents for the purpose of driving them out of Israel. So, yes I will denounce such propaganda as it deserves to be denounced.

Third, I did not say that Gandhi erred, I said the statement was inaccurate. Historically Jews have just as much right to the area now known as Israel as the arabs who occupied it after the fall of the Ottomans.

Yes I have presented several hard facts. Facts that you continue to ignore because they don't fit the propaganda based viewpoint you have. Facts like how the original jewish settlements were established. Facts like the statement in the Declaration that I quoted. I have also tried to answer you point by point, yet you ignore the points I make. But then I didn't expect anything different. I don't expect you to see the truth, your mind was made up for you long ago. My main purpose is making arguments so anyone reading this who doesn't have a closed mind on the issue may see the truth.

fluid identity

May 3, 2007, 08:59 AM

I agree scottgem much of our argument here is getting tiresome & may I add repetitive.
Id also like to point out once again I don't agree with you & your views are equally if not more so narrow & slanted & set in stone. Much of what you have posted here is also western propaganda & you are a product of propaganda. Like I have stated earlier we are approaching the argument from different viewpoints but whereas I am willing to engage, your condescending attitude knows no barriers.
Yes I bought up the Qibya incident yet you state unequivocally that they were attacked for harbouring terrorists... (I though terrorists only existed since 9/11 or is now the only of history being re-edited with all enemy combatants relabelled as terrorists). This is not a fact as you were not there so it one is version of events just like mine is one version of events just like another version of event was the israeli government claiming that the miliatry did not attack the village but israeli civilians had. The declaration you quoted is quite meaningless especially when the government of Israel does not practise it i.e like using civilians as shields or treating the Israeli Arabs as second class citizens.
You see scottgem I may state certain things which seem propaganda to you but you make value statements that you state as hard & fast facts when they are not. You also ignore the context of which certain statements are made in to exploit the weakness of one point among many ignoring any other salient arguments.Since this is getting "ridiculous" we should just end this conversation. Ditto ex-con.
Anyone else please feel free to contribute about past posts.

excon

May 3, 2007, 09:37 AM

Hello again, fluid:

I see that you have summarily dismissed Scottgem and myself. I'm not surprised. We're Jews. You don't like Jews. Your answers make that abundantly clear.

excon

ScottGem

May 3, 2007, 10:06 AM

You don't have to agree with me that's your right. I'm sure my views do appear narrow to you. Anything that doesn't agree with your biased viewpoint is going to appear narrow to you. The difference between us, is that I look for the facts and then base my opinions on those facts. You, on the other hand, listen to the propaganda you have been handed without trying to see if the facts fit. And I very much deny that I am the product of western propaganda. As I said, I form my positions based on raw facts.

Its amusing, but sad to see you claim that you are "willing to engage" when you have consistently avoided dealing with the facts I have presented. As I pointed out, I have tried to answer you point by point, but you have evaded my points. That doesn't show a willingness to engage, just the opposite. And if I've been condescending its because you continue to ignore the facts as you spout your propaganda.

I don't know where you got the idea that terrorists only existed since 9/11. That's ridiculous. For you to say that shows your lack of historical knowledge. Terrorists have existed long before that. In fact, the Irgun were among the first groups to have that term applied to them. And no, I neither support nor condone what the Irgun did.

Getting back to Qibya, I read several accounts of the incident, including the UN resolution censuring Israel over it. EVERY account I read included the facts that the raid was in retaliation for the killing of some civilians. Again, I try to get to the true facts before I take a position.

I won't deny that in current times the Declaration I quoted is not applied. But I attribute the reason for that to the actions of the Arab world and their stated desire to wipe out Israel. Israel extended an olive branch and not only was it rejected, but it was trampled on. Is it any wonder that Israel has backpedaled? But I firmly believe, that, had the Arabs gone along and participated as they were invited to do, that they would have become a part of the government.

So we are back at the same stand. Despite your protestions and trying to twist things around to apply what I've shown to me instead of you, I believe when one looks at the evidence, the true facts and the history the conclusion is inescable that Israel's actions are much more defensible then the Arabs. That doesn't mean that Israel's record is pristine or the Arabs all bad. It just means that I can accept and understand most of what Israel has done a lot more than I can do the same for the Arabs. Or do you think 9/11 was justified too?

ScottGem

May 3, 2007, 10:09 AM

Hello again, fluid:

I see that you have summarily dismissed Scottgem and myself. I'm not surprised. We're Jews. You don't like Jews. Your answers make that abundantly clear.

excon

Oh no, you have him wrong. Its not jews he doesn't like its zionists. Its not Israelis he doesn't like it just the state of Israel. And he doesn't like us, not because we are jews but because we won't lay down and accept his biased, narrow and ignorant viewpoint of world history as the truth.

Or at least that's what he would have people believe. ;)

fitnahpolice

May 3, 2007, 11:43 AM

Interesting op-ed in the LA Times:

Why Israel is after me
Why Israel is after me - Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bishara3may03,0,2351340.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail)

Azmi Bishara, a Christian, is ridiculously accused by Israel of being an agent for the Lebanese Islamic group Hezbollah! Bishara is widely respected as a human rights activist among Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Israel, Palestine, and the whole region.

ScottGem

May 3, 2007, 12:34 PM

Doing some more research on this, there are some disturbing aspects of it. But two points are important to note. First, that Bishara was, for several years, a member of the Israeli parliament. Thereby showing that there is representation for non-jews. Second, that Bishara DID publicly voice support for Hezbollah. An organization dedicated to the elimination of Israel and the instigator of a the most recent war between Israel and Lebanon.

I do think it paranoid of Israel to censure Bishara. But Israel's paranoia is the result living under constant attack. The only way peace will come is when the Arabs completely and formally recognize Israel's right to exist and recant their goal of eliminating Israel as a state.

talaniman

May 3, 2007, 12:50 PM

Another point of contention seems to be Israel's position not to let refugees back into the country, even though they have ceded the disputed land, back to the Palestinians.

fluid identity

May 4, 2007, 07:05 AM

Scottgem [ Or do you think 9/11 was justified too?[/QUOTE]

First of all that is another discussion. But I don't think that was justified. Stop trying to imply that just becuas I don't agree with you about Israel that it means that I aprrove of slaughter aimed at the western world.

fluid identity

May 4, 2007, 07:10 AM

Hello again, fluid:

I see that you have summarily dismissed Scottgem and myself. I'm not surprised. We're Jews. You don't like Jews. Your answers make that abundantly clear.

excon

I have not summarily dismissed you guys. I apparently am not allowed to state my position without being called ridiculous & tiresome.In fact I was dismissed by you guys because my views did not fall in with you.

But though scottgem has been qualifying his statements even if I don't agree with them why don't you qualify yours. I don't hate jews, its just by labelling me as anti-jewish you hoep it will turn everyone against anything opined by me. Good luck.

fluid identity

May 4, 2007, 07:23 AM

Scottgem if you were so right & so confident of being right, you would not be so volatile. What facts I have ignored. All your points have been read & understood. I may not agree with them but what have I ignored?

Maybe you should re-read my post? I have not suggested that terrorists existed since 2001. I was being sarcastic. What I have actually meant was that since 9/11 (& not 9/11 itself) every one not conforming to the U.S.A plans or that of its allies is lablelled as a terrorist. You seem to be going into the past & labelling all rebellions as terrorist actions to modify people opinions.

& scottgem I have no reason to hate Jews because not every jew condones the state of Israel or the actions of the government. You can believe I hate jews if it helps you to justify your contempt of me.

fluid identity

May 8, 2007, 06:57 AM

Talaniman, Im not spewing crap & haven't been. What part of what I said do you think is crap. The faact I don't hate jews?
But you are right I have said as much as I wanted on this thread.
C you people.

ScottGem

May 8, 2007, 07:37 AM

Scottgem if you were so right & so confident of being right, you would not be so volatile. What facts I have ignored. All your points have been read & understood. i may not agree with them but what have I ignored?

Maybe you should re-read my post? I have not suggested that terrorists existed since 2001. I was being sarcastic. What I have actually meant was that since 9/11 (& not 9/11 itself) every one not conforming to the U.S.A plans or that of its allies is lablelled as a terrorist. You seem to be going into the past & labelling all rebellions as terrorist actions to modify people opinions.

& scottgem i have no reason to hate Jews because not every jew condones the state of Israel or the actions of the government. You can believe I hate jews if it helps you to justify your contempt of me.

Volatile? I have every confidence in the rightness of my position, otherwise I wouldn't take it. I don't defend things, unless I am confident that I'm right. That doesn't mean I can't be convinced or shown to be wrong, it just means there has to be a lot of evidence to do so.

Sarcasm is not easy to portray in written communications. I define terrorism as using tactics targeting civilians and non-combatants to intimidate people and governments to change their position. So no, all rebellions are not classified as terrorism. I do agree with you, however, that the label of terrorists is bandied about too much and used to get support where it shouldn't.

Ok, so you don't hate all jews, just those that support Israel. That doesn't seem to leave a lot of jews for you to like. My contempt for you (and I admit to it) is because you condemn Israel and Isrealis for defending themselves against a people that have vowed to wipe them out. That you feel the (inevitable) excesses that have occurred are based on some imagined evil on the part of Israel. At the same time, you say nothing against the much greater excesses that Israel has had to defend against.

fluid identity

May 9, 2007, 09:11 AM

I define terrorism as using tactics targeting civilians and non-combatants to intimidate people and governments to change their position. .

So therefore I presume the Israeli government can be classed as terrorists for targeting non-combatants & civilian population (even under the guise of self-protection ) to get them to change their support for Hamas &/or accept Israel?

Ok, so you don't hate all jews, just those that support Israel. That doesn't seem to leave a lot of jews for you to like. My contempt for you (and I admit to it) is because you condemn Israel and Isrealis for defending themselves against a people that have vowed to wipe them out. .

In that case you are worthy of contempt by your own definitions as you don't believe in the palestinians right to defend themselves against barbaric actions by the Israeli government (which can be viewed as trying to wipe them out as well). You are condemning these people for defending their rights/lives. They may be forced to use self-bombing (since they do not have access to the weapons that the Israelis have). The Israeli government does not seem to have any compunction targeting civilian areas or civilains (even though they cynically make up excuses for this) or even arresting palestinians that disagree with them. A lot of the actions of the Israeli government seem to be to break the spirit of the palestinans & they have even been criticised by factions in Israel (B'Tsalem for instance).
I condemn Israel for the murder of innocents not for defending themselves & to be honest with you I condemn them for the feelings of superiority they have that a Israeli live seems to be worth 10, 100 maybe even 1000 palestinan lives (with reference to disproportionate responses). & if they had not murdered as many innocents, they would not have as many palestinans/ arabs with hatred in their hearts & mind on revenge as they are. Like I said its all a cycle but you just seem to be interested in propagating & justifying one part of the cycle rather than understnading the other sides viewpoint.
You could probably justify a soldier shooting rock-weilding children as defending his country or soldiers shooting a school girl because she had strayed into their territory on her way home from school but I cant.
See if this is enough for you to denounce me as anti-semitic & dismiss my views but that is just cowardly.

ScottGem

May 9, 2007, 09:57 AM

So therefore I presume the Israeli government can be classed as terrorists for targeting non-combatants & civilian population (even under the guise of self-protection ) to get them to change their support for Hamas &/or accept Israel?

There you go proving my point. Show me any instance where the Israeli government deliberately and knowlingly TARGETED non-combatants and civilians.

There are two major fallacies to what I quoted above. The first is whether there can really be non-combatants when an entire people has declared their intent to wipe you out. When women and children are used as suicide bombers. When groups like Hamas launch missile and mortar attacks from within allegdedly civilian enclosures. The second is your assumption that the Israeli government would deliberately target such people. Israel exists largely through the support of its allies. Israel has to tread a fine line to protect themselves without using extreme measures. It would be against Israel's interests to commit the acts you attribute to them and which you don't have proof of.

In that case you are worthy of contempt by your own definitions as you dont believe in the palestinians right to defend themselves against barbaric actions by the Israeli government (which can be viewed as trying to wipe them out as well). You are condemning these people for defending their rights/lives. They may be forced to use self-bombing (since they do not have access to the weapons that the Israelis have). The Israeli government does not seem to have any compunction targeting civilian areas or civilains (even though they cynically make up excuses for this) or even arresting palestinians that disagree with them. A lot of the actions of the Israeli government seem to be to break the spirit of the palestinans & they have even been criticised by factions in Israel (B'Tsalem for instance).
I condemn Israel for the murder of innocents not for defending themselves & to be honest with you I condemn them for the feelings of superiority they have that a Israeli live seems to be worth 10, 100 maybe even 1000 palestinan lives (with reference to disproportionate responses). & if they had not murdered as many innocents, they would not have as many palestinans/ arabs with hatred in their hearts & mind on revenge as they are. Like I said its all a cycle but you just seem to be interested in propagating & justifying one part of the cycle rather than understnading the other sides viewpoint.
You could probably justify a soldier shooting rock-weilding children as defending his country or soldiers shooting a school girl because she had strayed into their territory on her way home from school but I cant.
See if this is enough for you to denounce me as anti-semitic & dismiss my views but that is just cowardly.

And this is more of the same rhetoric. You speak of alleged "babrbaric" acts on the part of Israel. Yet you say nothing of Palestinians sending suicide bombers to blow up market places, school buses, and other purely civilian targets. That isn't Palestinians defending themselves. Those are terrorist (and barbaric) acts on the part of a people dedicated to wiping out another.

Is it Israeli's who think one life is worth many palestinians, or is it the other way around? Wouldn't a people that sends a suicide bomber loaded with nails or other shrapnel, think that one life is worth many of their assumed enemies?

The Palestinians STARTED with hatred in their hearts. They were offered the chance to be part of Israel and refused because of that hatred. They have spent the last 60 years trying to wipe out Israel because of that hatred. That Israel has helped fuel that hatred by their response to it cannot be denied. I have, at times within this thread, acknowledged that Israel is not entirely blameless. That they have, on occasion, been excessive in their retaliations. But they have to be to survive. After the last action against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the leader of Hezbollah announced that, if they had known how Israel would react, they wouldn't have infiltrated Israel and seized the two soldiers, an action that precipated that mini-war. Thereby showing that Isrel's reaction was the best way to protect their country.

As I said, my contempt for you is your narrow mindedness. Your refusal to acknowledge facts. Your refusal to condemn the horrors perpetrated against Israel. You are attempting to condone terrorism because Israel's reaction to those outrages is, sometimes, equally as outrageous. And that doesn't work for me.

fluid identity

May 24, 2007, 05:46 AM

[QUOTE=ScottGem]There you go proving my point. Show me any instance where the Israeli government deliberately and knowlingly TARGETED non-combatants and civilians. [QUOTE=ScottGem]

The israeli government do this every time they do' retaliatory' strikes & assume it is fine as collateral damage & tar all the dead with the nonsense that they were all hamas/terrorsists. They always have plausible deniability by saying that the terrosits were using them as sheilds thus placing the burden of blame on them but you prove to me that this is the case- that the civilians were sheilding terrorists. Show me one instance that the Israeli government targeted a legitimate target.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]There are two major fallacies to what I quoted above. The first is whether there can really be non-combatants when an entire people has declared their intent to wipe you out.[QUOTE=ScottGem]
You are generalising & condemning an entire people. An entire people has not expressed a desire to wipe out the people.Some have expressed desire to have their land back & some want the 'state of Israel' to be gone while SOME have expressed desire to wipe out like you have said. But by this statement you are trying to justify Israels treatment of Palestinans by reducing them ALL to a level of inhumanity & here I thought my contempt for you could not grow.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]The second is your assumption that the Israeli government would deliberately target such people. Israel exists largely through the support of its allies. Israel has to tread a fine line to protect themselves without using extreme measures. It would be against Israel's interests to commit the acts you attribute to them and which you don't have proof of.[QUOTE=ScottGem]

You yoursalf are assuming again that the Israeli government is a pragaon of restraint when it has committed atrocities in the past which elements of its own populace have crtisicised it for. & again Israel can commit these acts if it has plausible deniability.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]And this is more of the same rhetoric. You speak of alleged "babrbaric" acts on the part of Israel. Yet you say nothing of Palestinians sending suicide bombers to blow up market places, school buses, and other purely civilian targets. That isn't Palestinians defending themselves. Those are terrorist (and barbaric) acts on the part of a people dedicated to wiping out another. [QUOTE=ScottGem]

I do not sanction the killing of innocent people yet Israel goes in and commits barbaric attack on civilian population (you will find numerous example of them boming house, raids etc on the internet wothout me giving you specific examples just like you have not given me any specific examples here) with their military hardware to crush their resistance & they retaliate. You can abhor the methods but that the palestinian population is so desperate that they use their own bodies as weapons. Just ponder that for the moment. I am not condoning 'suicide bombing' but have you considered how much pain & suffering a populace needs to go through that in the end in an unequal war they uses their own bodies as weapons. They do not have tanks to fight back. & once again the Israeli have killed many innocent civilians... do I need to find a list of examples to satisfy your pedanticness?
BUT again it is not every palestinan that is fighting or sending other to be bombers. There are some just arguing for their land & their rights & it is that part of the population (that is being terrorised by the terrorist government of Israel & the IDF) that I AM SUPPORTING so do not try twist the argument to say I am supporting terrorrists.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]Is it Israeli's who think one life is worth many palestinians, or is it the other way around? Wouldn't a people that sends a suicide bomber loaded with nails or other shrapnel, think that one life is worth many of their assumed enemies? [QUOTE=ScottGem]
Again you are just dealing with semantics. Fact, every time one israeli dies, The IDF go in & exact revenge by killing in excess of that number of people so therefore they believe that one israeli life is equivalent to many palestinan lives.

[QUOTE=ScottGem]the Palestinians STARTED with hatred in their hearts. They were offered the chance to be part of Israel and refused because of that hatred. They have spent the last 60 years trying to wipe out Israel because of that hatred. That Israel has helped fuel that hatred by their response to it cannot be denied. I have, at times within this thread, acknowledged that Israel is not entirely blameless. [QUOTE=ScottGem]

No scottgem you have just alluded to their wrongs and have always tried to justfy it.
This comment above just shows how deeply you are biased against the palestinans. But you throw a half hearted criticism in Israels direction to try & show you are evenhanded. You are a hypocrite - you accuse me of supporting terrorism but you do exactly the same of what you accuse me of.
How was it the palestinans who started everything against the poor israelis. They did not refuse to be part of Israel because of hatred, they refused to have a country & imperialistic rule forced on them & on the land they lived. The hatred was formed by the Israeli forcing them off their land & taking Jerusalem. The hatred is there because of the refugress that are refused right of return.
You conveniently gloss over Israel poor human rights records & the wrongs they perpertrated over the palestinan people. You accuse others of narrow mindedness but demonstrate this in abundance yourself within the pro-israeli rhetoric of your posts on this thread.

fluid identity

May 24, 2007, 05:47 AM

I thought this article might be pertinent when it comes to discussing the right of refugees to return.

"The BBC News website is publishing a series of articles about the attempts to achieve peace in the Middle East and the main obstacles. Today, Martin Asser looks at the emotive issue of the Palestinian refugees.

Forty years after the Middle East war of 1967 and nearly 60 since the establishment of Israel, there is no Arab-Israeli issue that remains as utterly divisive as the fate of Palestinian refugees.
In the course of Israel's creation in 1948 and its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, more than half the Arabs of pre-1948 Palestine are thought to have been displaced.
Today there are millions of Palestinians living in exile from homes and land their families had inhabited for generations.
Many still suffer the legacy of their dispossession: destitution, penury, insecurity.
Palestinian historians, and some Israelis, call 1948 one of the biggest, most comprehensive examples of ethnic cleansing in history - perpetrated by the Haganah (later the Israeli Defence Forces) and armed Jewish gangs.
Official Israeli history, by contrast, says most Palestinian refugees left to avoid battle or at the behest of Arab leaders, though it admits a "handful" of expulsions and unauthorised killings.
What is undisputed is that the refugees' fate is excluded from most Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts because, given a right of return, their numbers endanger the future of the world's only Jewish state.
The issue of the refugees is therefore seen by many Israelis as an existential one.
Massive displacement
Four million UN-registered Palestinian refugees trace origins to the 1948 exodus; 750,000 people belong to families displaced in 1967 - many for the second time.

Palestinian advocacy group Badil says another million and a half hail from pre-1948 Palestine but were not UN-registered, while an additional 274,000 were internally displaced inside Israel after 1948, and 150,000 were displaced in the occupied territories after 1967.
That makes more than six millions people, one of the biggest displaced populations in the world.
Israel steadfastly argues that all refugees - and it disputes the numbers - should relinquish any aspirations to return to what is now its territory, and instead be absorbed by Arab host countries or by a future Palestinian state.
It disavows moral responsibility by arguing that 800,000 Mizrahi Jews were displaced from Arab countries between 1945 and 1956 (most of whom settled in Israel) and insists Palestinians left willingly.
But that view is at odds with UN General Assembly Resolution 194 and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Resolution 194 asserts the refugees' unconditional right of return to live at peace in their old homes or to receive compensation for their losses.
Disputed status
Whatever the rights and wrongs of their cause, the practicality of return and questions of moral justice, in Mid-East diplomacy the refugees' fate has been largely ignored.
This has been achieved by a dual process pegging all solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the 1967 war, and discounting the events of 1948 as a element of the conflict.

Israel has effectively deployed a number of arguments to justify this, such as saying that it is the only Jewish state, the refuge of Jews from around the world, while there are 22 Arab countries where the refugees could go.
It also points out that UN General Assembly resolutions have no force under international law and says the unassimilated refugee population has been held hostage by frontline Arab states waiting for Israel's destruction.
The diplomatic focus on 1967 has been advantageous for Israel: territory occupied at that time is regarded as the entire problem, and solutions can therefore be limited to dividing up that land.
This is problematic for Palestinians, however, because it sidelines the Nakba, the "catastrophe" of 1948 - an issue that for them lies at the heart of the conflict.
Demographic prerogative
Palestinians accuse Israel of a kind of "Nakba-denial", absolving itself of liability, but thereby condemning itself to perpetual conflict with its Arab neighbours.
Israel vigorously denies such a characterisation. Official histories justify what happened in 1948 by saying the new Jewish state was threatened with annihilation by invading Arab armies.
But so-called revisionist Israeli historians say Israel's founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, exaggerated the Arab threat, so he could implement a covert plan to expel Palestinian civilians and grab as much of the former Palestine as possible.
Demography - the need to have a large majority of Jews to sustain a Jewish state - has certainly been a key concern for Israel since its foundation.
Under a 1947 UN-sanctioned plan to partition Palestine, Israel would have been established on 55% of the former territory, without a significant transfer of population, the Jews in the territory would have scarcely have exceeded the Arab population there.
The 1948 war ended with Israel in control of 78% of the former Palestine, with a Jewish-Arab ratio of 6:1.
The equation brought security for Jewish Israelis, but emptied hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns of 700,000 inhabitants - the kernel of the Palestinian refugee problem today.
With the justification of not wanting to jeopardise its Jewish majority, Israel has kept Palestinian refugees and their descendants out of negotiations on a settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
But for most Palestinians, their fate remains an open wound, unless there is a Middle East peace deal that acknowledges what happened to the refugees.

fluid identity

May 24, 2007, 05:51 AM

I think I have posted sufficiently on this subject. Sccttgem I know you will come back to accuse me of supporting terrorism, anit-semitic & probably being a terrorists myself. People like you is why discussion is stifled & why this conflict will probably never e resolved. Go in peace & maybe someday you will find in your heart to acknowledge the truth that the palestinans do not deserve their suffering or their position.

ScottGem

May 24, 2007, 12:43 PM

I think I have posted sufficently on this subject. Sccttgem I know you will come back to accuse me of supporting terrorism, anit-semitic & probably being a terrorists myself. People like you is why discussion is stifled & why this conflict will probaly never e resolved. Go in peace & maybe someday you will find in your heart to acknowledge the truth that the palestinans do not deserve their suffering or their position.

Excuse me? People like me? All I seek is the truth. And I haven't seen enough truth to make me change my feelings. The article you just posted helps enforce that truth.

I have never said that the Palestinans "deserve" their suffering or position. What I have said is that they have largely bought that suffering and position on themselves by their own actions.

All of your diatribes in your earlier post today (in answer to my last post) just repeat the same tired propaganda that I have answered several times in this thread.

But I also wish you go in peace. I wish that you promote peace not the acts of terrorism committed daily by Palestinans. There was a truce, broken by Hamas rockets being sent against Israel, not by Israel. I wish that you become enlightened by the real truths here, not the propaganda you choose to believe. Maybe then there could be real peace.

tomder55

May 25, 2007, 03:04 AM

The Palestinians could do much to help their cause by stop raining missiles down on Israel from an area Israel already returned to them .

Theirs is a self inflicted plight.

As to the right of return . They have no more of a right of return than native Americans have to reclaim Manhattan Island. The whole concept is absurd.

The reality in this world is that land ownership is contingent on your ability to defend it. Thus was it ever so. If you think it is not so ,then just ask the hundreds of Americans who have recently been forced from their lands by the use of eminent domain laws.

excon

Jun 29, 2007, 07:04 AM

Why does the USA support Israel? Hello again:

Because the Israli's don't throw people off the roof...

excon

Dark_crow

Jun 29, 2007, 08:15 AM

Why does the USA support Israel? What do we as a county gain from supporting them, when the negatives are so obvious and numerous? Is it political, moral, financial, romantic? Why is the existence of a Jewish homeland still important to America?
There are far too many responses for me to read them all, so if I add anything new I suppose it to be surprising.

At the inception of the partition of Palestine, America was very reluctant to support it, and later was going to abstain from the U.N. vote. However, Americans have always had a keen eye for the underdog and for the oppressed; after all, most Americans at that time came from colonies of the Imperial Crown and had been crushed by European oppression. And here again was another example of a people being crushed by European oppression, so it was only natural to support the Jew against European Elitism.

Why do we continue to support Israel; for the same reason we support any ‘good principled freedom loving people?’

ETWolverine

Jun 29, 2007, 10:41 AM

Why does the USA support Israel? What do we as a county gain from supporting them, when the negatives are so obvious and numerous?

Why does the USA support Israel?

Perhaps it is because Israel supports the USA.

In the UN, only two members have consistently voted the same way as the USA on almost every topic. The two members? One is Micronesia. The other is Israel.

Then there is the fact that Israel's intelligence network has supplied the USA with important information it has needed to keep this country safe and stop its enemies.

How about the fact that Israel trades openly with the USA for all sorts of goods and products from fresh food to electronics to automobiles to grey goods. That computer you are using... about half the parts and about half the programming were developed in Israel for Microsoft or other companies.

How about intergovernmental military assistance? Israel's elite fighting units regularly trains with the USA's elite fighting units. We cross-train our fighter pilots. We cross-train our security and anti-terrorist agencies. Israel grants the USA its only truly safe harbor for US naval vessels in the entire Middle East.

How about their sharing of Medical technology and other scientific breakthroughs. Israel is the world leader on prosthetic technology (a product of bombs always going off around them, I guess). They have gladly and openly shared this technology not just with the USA, but with all countries. They are also the worlds leaders in the development of agrarian technology... development of better farming methods and technologies. This they also share with the world.

Then there's the whole Democracy thing. We are supporters of democracy. Israel is one of perhaps 3 democracies in the Middle East right now, and the others are shakey. We should be supporting the only fully developed democracy in the Middle East.

And how about the fact that we OWE Israel big time for holding off on responding to attacks by Saddam Hussein in 1991 so that we could maintain the coalition against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Israel took a big hit at our request. No other country in the world has ever taken that many hits from a declared enemy as a favor for a friend. Israel did it because WE asked them to. And we have asked them to hold off on responding to other provocations by their enemies as well since then (and before as well). We owe them for that. They did us a favor... a bunch of them actually. You don't turn your back on that sort of favor.

I could go on all afternoon discussing what we and the rest of the world get in return for supporting Israel. But I doubt that those who have made up their minds really care what we get in return. They are stuck on the idea that Israel is somehow the aggressor in the Middle East, and that all problems in the Middle East stem from our support of Israel. And they may even be right... the Middle East may indeed be a powder keg because of Israel's existence. I doubt it, since it was a powder keg for 1500 years before Israel ever existed as a modern state. But perhaps they are right.

So what?

You don't abandon friends because your enemies want you to. That's just stupid. You stick by your friends and you fight the enemies together. You help each other out against the mutual enemies that are trying to kill you both. You don't abandon them in the hopes that the enemy will suddenly love you for it, because they won't.

Israel is our friend. Probably the most reliable friend we've got in the world... with the possible exception of Micronesia. Even England hasn't always been on our side all the time on all issues. Israel pretty much has, and where they have not agreed with us, they have allowed us the luxury of trying to convince them to go along with us anyway. We even disagree on friendly terms with Israel in the few cases where we don't agree. You don't turn your back on a friend like that.

Elliot

ETWolverine

Jun 29, 2007, 01:55 PM

I wish I had been here for the "debate" between Fitnahpolice vs. excon and ScotGem. I would have had a thing or two to say on the subject. Those of you who know me from the other sites I have posted on know what I mean.

Ah, well, maybe next time.

In the meanwhile, excon and ScotGem, you have my respect for fighting the good fight with respectful posts and by laying out the facts. Good job, guys.

Elliot

Dark_crow

Jun 29, 2007, 04:13 PM

In the meanwhile, Excon and ScotGem, you have my respect for fighting the good fight with respectful posts and by laying out the facts. Good job, guys.

Elliot
Is this a joke! Elliot :)

Now that I have read the entirety of the posts, as painful as it was, I can only conclude that there was little substance, and many ad hominids. False premises were as common as fleas on a camel, and history completely disjointed and often completely ignored. Frankly, few were interested in the historical facts about how Israel came into being. As I recall Tomder did make an attempt but was just ignored, so I don’t know just what you may have contributed that would have offset the raw ignorance so often displayed.

ScottGem

Jun 29, 2007, 05:19 PM

Is this a joke! Elliot :)

Now that I have read the entirety of the posts, as painful as it was, I can only conclude that there was little substance, and many ad hominids. False premises were as common as fleas on a camel, and history completely disjointed and often completely ignored. Frankly, few were interested in the historical facts about how Israel came into being. As I recall Tomder did make an attempt but was just ignored, so I don’t know just what you may have contributed that would have offset the raw ignorance so often displayed.

Making blanket statements such as this is very easy. If you found anything that was historically inaccurate or a false premise, please identify them. Until I see proof to the contrary, I will stand by my posts as factual.

Dark_crow

Jun 29, 2007, 06:01 PM

Making blanket statements such as this is very easy. If you found anything that was historically inaccurate or a false premise, please identify them. Until I see proof to the contrary, I will stand by my posts as factual.
First, my comments were a summation of the whole of the thread, and not directed at any specific individuals.

And second: I will not be drawn into a tit- for- tat verbal argument on each sentence in the thread; however, in your very first post, #6 I believe, there are several false premises.

1) I quote you: “Seriously, the establishment of the Jewish state of Isreal stems from the guilt of the world at turning a blind eye to the Holocaust while it was happening”.

You really need to do some serious reading about what was happening before, and at the time war was declared by Germany. And particularly about the British concentration camps on Cypress and the boat loads of Jews with no place in the world to go but Palestine, and then murdered at sea by the British… that has more bearing on Americas support than anything you have suggested.

2) “…most of the land was actually given or sold to them. And what was sold was generally non arable desert that the Arabs didn't want”.

Land was sold all right, at about twice the going rate… Perhaps land the Arabs didn't want, but the Palestinians did.

2) “…because the only reasons it has enemies is purely irrational religious hatred.

This is nonsense; as nonsensical as the anti-Semite argument that came along later in the thread.

Of course there were several worse offenses by others, on the other side of the issue.

EDIT: I might add: This nonsense about the Jews “Terrorism” is simply that…nonsense… they were freedom fighters against the British terrorism against them.

ScottGem

Jun 29, 2007, 07:19 PM

Dark_crow

Jun 30, 2007, 08:41 AM

First, Even though you didn't direct your comments at any specific individual you responded to a note from ETWolverine praising what excon and I had said.

Sorry, but your points don't disprove or even contradict what I said. Are you trying to say that the rest of the world was totally unaware of Hitler's final solution? Are you saying that when the concentration camps and other elements of the Holocaust were finally revealed, that the world was not aghast, at least publiclally, over it? I stand by my statement that a major part of the reasons that countries voted for partition was due to guilt over the Holocaust. The British interment camps, not concentration camps, were not pretty. The British took a black eye over their treatment of refugee jews and deservedly so. And yes it played a factor in partition, but again by making countries feel guilty. Whether the Arabs gouged the Zionists or not, the fact remains that they obtained much of the land they settled in legally.

Why is it nonsensical that Israel's enemies are enemies due to religious hatred?

Finally, you have to be kidding, a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what side they fight on. Yes, the Irgun were fighting for jewish freedom and a jewish state. But they did it by bombing both military and civilian targets. That's terrorism!

What I find odd is that we seem to be on the same side here. We both support Israel and their right to exist as a jewish state. I just don't do it blindly to Israel's faults or the lessons of history.
I expect Elliot will speak for himself.

You say, “The British interment camps, not concentration camps, were not pretty. The British took a black eye over their treatment of refugee Jews and deservedly so.”.

No, we are not on the same side; I am not a British apologist. I well understand, from Irish history, the concept of pitting one religion against another, and that was not the British way in Palestine. Britain declared war on freedom; Britain and the betrayal of the Hebrew people should not we white-washed by calling what they did a “black eye”. It was no less than a continuation of the Holocaust!
As to your comment, “a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what side they fight on”: Abstract thought concerns the investigation and analysis of very general principles and concepts which rises to a level above particular instances. For instance, when this or that violent behavior is called "terrorism" we may ask, abstractly and generally, "What is terrorism?" and ask, for instance, what is the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting, concentrating perhaps on the slogan, "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" and ask whether that slogan is true? This may lead to the question of whether terrorism and freedom fighting are really, as the slogan suggests, mutually exclusive, so that the same individual or group cannot be both. Your answer appears to be Yes, while mine is no. So again, we are not both on the same side.
The greatest danger of abstract thinking, as we all know, is that it may rise so far above particularities that it loses contact with them, and we may find ourselves indulging in the abstract and quite literally not knowing what we are talking about.

MikeElt

Jun 30, 2007, 12:11 PM

Why does the USA support Israel? What do we as a county gain from supporting them, when the negatives are so obvious and numerous? Is it political, moral, financial, romantic? Why is the existence of a Jewish homeland still important to America?
It's because we support democracy and do not support hatred, extremism, terroism and Muslim fundamentalism. We also know that if Israel is gone, the muslims will go after Europe later.
There are some things as convictions, beliefs and honor

ScottGem

Jun 30, 2007, 03:38 PM

No, we are not on the same side; I am not a British apologist.

that was not the British way in Palestine. It was no less than a continuation of the Holocaust!

As to your comment, “a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what side they fight on”:

You seem to read into things what you want to see not what was actually said. I really don't know how you arrive at referring to me as a British apologist. As to being on the same side I was referring to supporting Israel.

I just spent a little time doing some research on the Cyprus camps. Nowhere was I able to get any sense they were as you portray them. The Holocaust was the deliberate extermination of jews, I don't see any justification for even suggesting that the British attempt to control immigration to Palestine could be considered like that.

When you attack innocent civilians that's terrorism. I'm not talking abstracts.

I still haven't seen any proofs to support your previous blanket statements.

talaniman

Jun 30, 2007, 04:45 PM

If you look at the middle east, you have old time thugs, who kill the innocent and each other, and you have the Jews, who who are targets of most of the thugs going way back. Though relatively small in number, the thugs pretty much run it, and the ones who are just making a living, keep quiet like sheep, cause the thugs would cut their throat, as quick as they would the Jews. So you can back the thugs, the Jews, or the other sheep. One thing for sure, you better get on one side or the other, even though no side is perfect, sitting on the fence won't help when both sides are shooting over the fence. Since the thugs don't like you either, the choice is clear, send the Jews all the bullets they ask for, and if you have to, you may have to shoot a few sheep, because that's the favorite hiding place for thugs.

Dark_crow

Jun 30, 2007, 05:08 PM

You seem to read into things what you want to see not what was actually said. I really don't know how you arrive at referring to me as a British apologist. As to being on the same side I was referring to supporting Israel.

I just spent a little time doing some research on the Cyprus camps. Nowhere was I able to get any sense they were as you portray them. The Holocaust was the deliberate extermination of jews, I don't see any justification for even suggesting that the British attempt to control immigration to Palestine could be considered like that.

When you attack innocent civilians that's terrorism. I'm not talking abstracts.

I still haven't seen any proofs to support your previous blanket statements.
No Refuge from the Holocaust
The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s Final Solution. After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”10
Some Jews were able to reach Palestine, many by way of dilapidated ships that members of the Jewish resistance organizations smuggled in. Between August 1945 and the establishment of the State of Israel in May 1948, 65 “illegal ” immigrant ships, carrying 69,878 people, arrived from European shores. In August 1946, however, the British began to intern those they caught in camps in Cyprus. Approximately 50,000 people were detained in the camps, 28,000 of whom were still imprisoned when Israel declared independence.11
10) George Lenczowski, American Presidents and the Middle East, (NC: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 23.

11) Aharon Cohen, Israel and the Arab World, (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1970), p. 174.

Yes, and many deny the Holocaust ever existed, too.

If you want to go on believing that “World Guilt” is behind the establishment of the State of Israel be my quest. If you believe the Brit’s were fine chaps who got a little out of line, be my quest; after all, they are pretty cleaver at hiding their history, just ask the Catholics in Ireland.

By the way: the term Terrorism is an abstract term, not a concrete term; that is, it is a concept with-out a concrete object.

ScottGem

Jul 1, 2007, 03:52 AM

Dark_crow

Jul 1, 2007, 08:19 AM

First, that quote jives with everything I've learned about what happened with British attempts to keep jewish refugees out of Palestine. But it does NOT support, in the least, your statements that it was a continuation of the Holocaust.

Yes, there are people who try to rewrite history denying the Holocaust. But what has that got to do with anything that has been said in this thread, especially by me?

Third, lots of countries that have a mostly proud history have their darker moments. Our treatment of the native americans is a prime example of that. The british have a lot to be ashamed of in their treatment of the Irish and their role in Palestine among other chapters. But I'm not going to condemn the whole country because of such chapters. Just as I won't condemn Israel because of some of the times they stepped over the line. I will condemn those times though as I have.

You have still failed to show any proof behind your statements. Everything you have said and shown supports what I have said and not your extremist position. I will go in believing what I have stated because it fits the facts of history.
You make the same judgmental error as the Arab in respect to attributing blame to America and Israel. Is it fair or just to hold the Father guilty for the Sins of his son; similarly is it fair or just to hold the Leaders and Councils of a government responsible for the Sins of her people? I say no, and the Arabs say yes.

To compare the Sins of the British Crown with the Sins of America or Israel is a great error in logic.

You may deny I have proved the premises in your post #6 to be in error, and your position as that of a British apologist as untrue… but the facts speak much louder than your denial.
:rolleyes:

ScottGem

Jul 1, 2007, 09:25 AM

Dark_crow

Jul 1, 2007, 09:49 AM

Do you even know what a fact is? This is getting ridiculous, you have proven nothing. Every fact you have presented backs up my position. You clearly have biases that blind you to the fact, you see everything only thru the blinders you have imposed on yoursefl so that you ignore real logic and real facts.

I stand by the statements I have made with the proofs I have offered. I have no fear that people not as biased as you will see that I am neither in denial and that you have proven nothing.
You really need to take a look at the preposterous claims you made again:

Seriously, the establishment of the Jewish state of Isreal stems from the guilt of the world at turning a blind eye to the Holocaust while it was happening.

Let me also remind people that the jews did not come into Palestine as conquerors like Americans and Indians.

It also deserves our support because the only reasons why it has enemies is purely irrational religious hatred.

Guilt!

Conquerors!

Religious hatred!

These sound more like judgments formed based upon the reckless assertions of enemies, and not upon those of impartial witnesses.

ScottGem

Jul 1, 2007, 11:49 AM

Dark_crow

Jul 1, 2007, 01:27 PM

Again you have offered no proofs that my contentions are unreasonable let alone "preposterous".

Let me ask you point blank. Why do you think the countries who voted for partition did so? And why do you think that way?

Are you saying that the Jews who established settlements in Israel were conquerors? You already admitted that much of the land was sold to them!

Are you saying that the reason arabs have been out to destroy Israel is not do to religious hatred? If that's not the reason, then what do you think it is and why?
The Hebrews, as a British colony, won their independence just as Americans won theirs; no one gave either a snow balls chance in hell- they each threw the British out against all odds. To say that either was given anything would be a gross misrepresentation of fact. The UN has no authority to grant anything beyond recognition. So the reason why any country voted for recognition is moot.

No, I am not suggesting the Hebrew came as conquerors. I am flatly stating that the colonist who came to America did not come as conquerors, any more that the Hebrews did. In both cases they came as settlers of land- farmers for the most part.

Jews and the inhabitants of Palestine lived as neighbors for 5 thousand years; so no, religious hatred came with the British.

EDIT: As I said, your premise is wrong, and now I see why: It is based on the false assumption that Israel was established by the UN and not by the effort of the Jews.

ScottGem

Jul 1, 2007, 02:51 PM

Dark_crow

Jul 1, 2007, 03:38 PM

Boy do you have a twisted view of history. While its true that not all colonists of America came here with the thought of conquest, some did not consider living peacefully with the natives. But the shame of America's treatment of native Americans is not from the initial colonization, but the settlement of the west.

Palestine was not a British colony in the same way that India or the US was, it was a protectorate left over from WW I ans the dissolution of the Ottoman empire.

And yes all the UN granted was recognition, but you seem to have a false idea of the importance of that recognition. Without it there probably would not be a State of Israel.

I'm not, in anyway, trying to diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees in fighting for, both militarily and politically, the establishment of an Israeli state. But, unlike you, I recognize that there were other factors that contributed. If you want to ignore those factors, be my guest, but I won't.
I’ll not get into the anti-American sham of the shame of America's treatment of native Americans, it is too far off topic. Whatever the case, it has nothing to do with the topic of the establishment of an Israeli state, or America.
I know you’re not trying to “…diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees”. You just ignore them completely by attributing the establishment of the State of Israel to the pity of the UN.

Thank you for the conversation.

ETWolverine

Jul 2, 2007, 08:15 AM

Finally, you have to be kidding, a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what side they fight on. Yes, the Irgun were fighting for jewish freedom and a jewish state. But they did it by bombing both military and civilian targets. That's terrorism!

Whoops!! I agreed with you 100% right up until this statement, Scott.

The bombing of the King David Hotel, which is what you are referring to, was not a terrorist act for several reasons.

1) The King David Hotel was a military and government installation, and thus a legitimate military target.

2) There was a bomb-threat warning called before the bomb went off. There was ample opportunity to evacuate the entire installation of all civilian and military personnel. Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and he had insisted that nobody leave the building. A sepperate warning was sent at the same time to the French consulate and another to the Palestine Post in an effort to make sure that the British would listen to the warning. They didn't.

3) After placing the bombs, the Irgun men quickly escaped and detonated a small explosive in the street outside the hotel to keep passers-by away from the area. The Arab workers in the kitchen were told to flee and they did. At all levels, the Irgun attampted to minimalize casualties, including British military casualties and casualties among the Arab civilian population.

The bombing, therefore, does not constitute a terrorist attack. It was political violence, it was guerrilla warfare, and if whoever planted the bomb had been caught, they could have been tried as unlawful combatants for not being in uniform as they fought. But it wasn't TERRORISM.

Elliot

ScottGem

Jul 2, 2007, 08:55 AM

Dark_crow

Jul 2, 2007, 09:22 AM

ScottGem

Jul 2, 2007, 10:35 AM

While we have certainly had some differences of opinion and I hope that in no way influences future dialogue. I think we wore out our arguments on the previous differences.

That said I have a question.

Isn’t what you say here, “They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.” the very essence of the difference between a terrorist action and guerrilla action?

Well, I appreciate the sentiment.

And no, I don't think that is the difference. I still feel that they Irgun was willing to go beyond what I would consider guerilla actions.

ETWolverine

Jul 2, 2007, 11:20 AM

Yes the attack on the King David is the most well-known of the Irgun's activities, but it was far from the only one. Doing some more research, confirms, in my mind, that the Irgun did commit terrorist acts in their fight for Israel's freedom. As terroists go, however, that were a lot more moralistic then the terrorists of today. They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.

I'm sorry, Scott, but I have to disagree with you yet again. In fact, if anything, the Irgun was the victim of terrorism by its own "allies" in Hagganah. The "Saison" (Hunting Season) in which approximately 1,000 members of Irgun and Lechi were arrested by Haganah and turned over to the British for "justice" and the sinking of the Altalena by Hagganah were clearly unprovoked attacks against them, and probably border on terrorism. But that is arguable.

As a general rule, Irgun attacked police, military and government targets under the British Mandate. They fought against restrictions to Jewish immigration. There are very few, if any, attacks by Irgun that can be argued to have been against civilian targets. The only one I can come up with is Deir Yassin (currently called Har Nof). But what most reports fail to note is that there were Iraqi military forces stationed in Deir Yassin, which made the village a legitimate military target. Furthermore, breaking Deir Yassin was absolutely necessary to break the siege of Western Jerusalem, since Deitr Yassin covered the only road into and out of Western Jerusalem at the time. This made attacking the village of Deir Yassin to relive the road absolutely critical from the military perspective. And finally, witnesses (including Arab witnesses) have stated that most of the deaths in Deir Yassin were not the result of Irgun & Lechi targeting civillians, but rather collateral casualties as a result of ongoing combat operations. All claims of rapes and torture of civillians and such have been dismissed as fabrications. And even the number of casualties reported (usually around 250) has now been found to have been exaggerated to make the Israelis look bad... the actual number of dead is somewhere between 107 and 120 according to a study published in 1987 by Bir Zeit University (a Paletinian University located near Ramallah). So what we have here is an attack that some claim was a terrorist act, but which was done because of military necessity, and in a way in which as much as possible was done to limit civilian casualties. I don't call that terrorism.

So I have yet to find a single non-contravercial case of terrorism performed by Irgun. Can you provide me with any such case where there is clear proof that terrorism by Irgun forces took place during the 1948 war or earlier?

Elliot

ScottGem

Jul 2, 2007, 11:52 AM

Well I'm not going to belabor the point. Mainly because I don't have the time to research this thoroughly enough.

I do remember that when Begin became PM, there were a lot hoopla about his alleged terrorist activities with the Irgun. If one googles Menachim Begin terrorism, there are a lot of hits. Though I was especially amused by the one that purported to be a scholarly journal about jewish issues, but seemed clearly being used to do a hatchet job on jews.

P.S. to Dark Crow. I'm curious as to what your background is here. Have you lived in Israel or are you an Israeli? I'm not asking to show bias, just curious because your knowledge of events seems to be very in depth.

ScottGem

Jul 2, 2007, 11:57 AM

Dark_crow

Jul 2, 2007, 02:44 PM

Comments on this post

Morganite (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/morganite.html) agrees: There are those who say that the State of Israel was a reward for terrorism. Do you have any thoughts about that?

Yes, its a pack of baloney.
It seem to me that if we were to allow that Israel became a State as a reward for terrorism, it would appear to follow that all States were a reward for terrorism, which would dilute the concept of terrorism to a common violence.

We could have course discard the slippery concept of terrorism in general, and just stick with human rights violations. After all, Walter Laqueur, in 1999, counted over 100 definitions and concluded that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism)
The most often use of the term appears in a Pejorative sense.

P.S. I’m neither Israeli nor Jewish; I’m just a simple Philosopher who enjoys History.

Jiser

Jul 13, 2007, 07:11 AM

Anti-British following here?

Dark_crow

Jul 13, 2007, 07:20 AM

Anti-British following here?
Against the famine and the Crown

I rebelled, they shot me down:)

Marily

Jul 14, 2007, 01:20 AM

I know that this does not fit in anywhere concerning politics but I just had the urge of mentioning it. ' Did all of you know that the parable of the fig tree in the bible is actually referring to Israel? The answer to this post is only scripture that's being fulfill

Dark_crow

Jul 14, 2007, 08:32 AM

I know that this does not fit in anywhere concerning politics but i just had the urge of mentioning it. ' Did all of you know that the parable of the fig tree in the bible is actually refering to Israel? The answer to this post is only scripture thats being fulfill
So you support Israel because you believe its existence is fulfilling scripture. From that it appears to follow that you believe you are helping God with his plan?

Marily

Jul 14, 2007, 09:01 AM

I never said that I support Israel, all I said was that scripture is being fulfill.

Dark_crow

Jul 14, 2007, 09:13 AM

I never said that i support Israel, all i said was that scripture is being fulfill.
You responded to a Question, “Why support Israel”? If you are not answering the question why are you positing on this Board?

Marily

Jul 14, 2007, 09:48 AM

Spot on excon spot on!!

Dark_crow

Jul 14, 2007, 09:57 AM

Spot on excon spot on !!!
As your signature says, “but God doesn't give merits on good intensions”-especially when your behavior dissuades potential converts rather than draws them towards good Christian behavior.

You are not spreading the Gospel, you just have that intention

Edit: If you want to discuss the parable pose an appropriate question on a new thread..

Mario3

Jul 19, 2007, 05:51 AM

I think the whole reason is money and we support them because there will be economic gains for us in the end... after all one of Hitlers biggest supporters was the catholic church. Everyone should see this free online movie and you will be very changed Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007 (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/) it's zeitgest the movie and you should see all of it and pay attention. The start of it is dumb but it gets great after 20 minutes and it will make you see the light.

BABRAM

Jul 19, 2007, 06:21 PM

Why does the USA support Israel? What do we as a county gain from supporting them, when the negatives are so obvious and numerous? Is it political, moral, financial, romantic? Why is the existence of a Jewish homeland still important to America?

Because outside of Israel there are about six million plus Jews in the U.S. and I'm one of them. Read the words to the Shema and then Hatikvah. :)

ETWolverine

Jul 20, 2007, 06:50 AM

I think one of the reasons Israel is supported so profoundly by America is because there is a proxy-war going on between America and Iran. While America supplies weapons to Israel, for example, Iran supplies them to Lebanon. This results in both Israel and Lebanon going to war, but one with the support and interests of two other stronger nations.

I think there is an error of cause-and-effect here, Oracle. (BTW, did you know that your screen name is that of two comic book characters? Oracle is the former Batgirl of DC Comics, and Ororo Monroe is the real name of Storm from the X-Men of Marvel Comics fame.)

Israel isn't at war with Lebanon because we suplied them weapons. We are supplying them with weapons because they are at war with Lebanon and the rest of the Middle Eastern Islamic countries. And the USA's support of Israel predates any connection we had with Iran. So I question your premise.

There is also a very influential Jewish community in America that continuously lobbies the American government for Israeli support. And at the end of the day, one does answer to the pay cheque.

True enough. But please keep in mind that the Jewish community in the USA is roughly 1% of the total population, compared with about 13% for the Hispanic community. So I wonder how much of a pay cheque the Jewish community weilds as compared to other groups.

The homeland is not only for Jews; my Grandfather and relatives are Jewish and they acknowledge that Israel is dear to Christians and Muslims, all of whom have great respect for the Jewish religion of which they've branched from. The people who do not have respect for this land, or any other land on this earth, are wolves disguising themselves as sheep.

Notice the difference between Jewish control over the Temple Mount and Muslim control over the Temple Mount. Before 1967, the Muslims controlled the Temple Mount, and the only ones allowed there were Muslims, despite the fact that it was Judaism's holiest site. After 1967's Six Day War, the Jewish population took control of East Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount and opened it up to everyone; Jewish, Christian Muslim and any other religious belief (or disbelief).

By contrast, in the city of Nablus in the West Bank, Jews controlled the site of Joseph's Tomb from 1948 (and earlier) until 1995, when the city was turned over to the Palestinians for autonomy. When the current Intafada broke out in 2000, the Tomb, the Yeshiva that sat next to it were destroyed. It was repaired shortly thereafter, but destroyed again in 2003, and repaired again. The site was painted green, which is the color of Islam, but after a world outcry, it was finally repainted a neutral color. Since 2000, no Jews have been permitted to visit the shrine. A group of Breslov Chassidim visited the shrine anyway in May 2007 to pray, but were fired at by Palestinians, and were forced to pray under gunfire.

This is the difference between how Jews treat holy sites of other religions and how Muslims treat holy sites of other religions.

God, I believe, is not racist or prejudice. God, I think, does not necessarily feel that the land of Israel is superior than the First Nation lands like America or Canada… to think otherwise is a process of taking religion out of a spiritual realm and to put it into a material one (or to at least interpret religion in this fashion). But, when governments start supporting some lands over others with obscene amounts of money or political favours, the reasons should be vigorously examined; for this may not be God’s will, but man’s will.

Which is why I do not believe that Israel should be supported by the USA for any religious reason. The reason for the USA to support Israel is because Israel is an ally that has given the USA as much as it has gotten from the USA. As I mentioned in my earlierst post in this string, Israel is a staunch ally, and America's best friend in the region. What I wrote was this:

In the UN, only two members have consistently voted the same way as the USA on almost every topic. The two members? One is Micronesia. The other is Israel.

Then there is the fact that Israel's intelligence network has supplied the USA with important information it has needed to keep this country safe and stop its enemies.

How about the fact that Israel trades openly with the USA for all sorts of goods and products from fresh food to electronics to automobiles to grey goods. That computer you are using... about half the parts and about half the programming were developed in Israel for Microsoft or other companies.

How about intergovernmental military assistance? Israel's elite fighting units regularly trains with the USA's elite fighting units. We cross-train our fighter pilots. We cross-train our security and anti-terrorist agencies. Israel grants the USA its only truly safe harbor for US naval vessels in the entire Middle East.

How about their sharing of Medical technology and other scientific breakthroughs. Israel is the world leader on prosthetic technology (a product of bombs always going off around them, I guess). They have gladly and openly shared this technology not just with the USA, but with all countries. They are also the worlds leaders in the development of agrarian technology... development of better farming methods and technologies. This they also share with the world.

Then there's the whole Democracy thing. We are supporters of democracy. Israel is one of perhaps 3 democracies in the Middle East right now, and the others are shakey. We should be supporting the only fully developed democracy in the Middle East.

And how about the fact that we OWE Israel big time for holding off on responding to attacks by Saddam Hussein in 1991 so that we could maintain the coalition against Iraq in the first Gulf War. Israel took a big hit at our request. No other country in the world has ever taken that many hits from a declared enemy as a favor for a friend. Israel did it because WE asked them to. And we have asked them to hold off on responding to other provocations by their enemies as well since then (and before as well). We owe them for that. They did us a favor... a bunch of them actually. You don't turn your back on that sort of favor.

I do believe that this has more to do with economics and political ends than it does with respecting a nation which Jews, Christians, and Muslims love dearly and regard as a holy land.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't the USA support a country that is an economic and political ally? Why wouldn't that be a legitimate reason to support an ally?

Elliot

ETWolverine

Jul 20, 2007, 09:47 AM

In regards to your claims about how Jewish people treat holy sites versus how Muslims treat holy sites; I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but Arabs are a minority of Muslims in the Muslim world. In fact, the biggest Muslim country in the world is Indonesia. So I am a bit uncomfortable with you insinuating that Muslims treat holy sites poorly. There is a great difference from one Muslim country to the next. For example, in Sudan (black Muslims), women don’t really cover their hair. Another example is Iran (Persian Muslims), where women are university professors and more women go to school than men. Then there is Afghanistan (I’m not sure what they are but they are not Arabs) where a woman was not even permitted to wear lipstick!

The Taliban's destruction of millennia-old Buddhist landmarks;
Al Qaeda's bombing of one of Shia Islam's holiest shrines in Samarra, Iraq;
Hamas's attack on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem,
Iran's destruction of the BaHai holy site of the grave of Quruun,
destruction of holy sites in Gaza by Hamas terrorists,
Destruction Monastery of SS Cosma and Damian at Zociste (holy sites of the Serbian Orthodox Church) by Albanian Muslims,
destruction of Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi (Hindu holy sites) by Muslim invaders during the Middle Ages, etc.

I could go on and on. The fact is that the deliberate targeting, desecrration and descruction of other religions' holy sites by Muslims is a typical tactic of theirs, and it is widespread, not just among Arab Muslims.

If anyone is treating a holy site poorly, they are not Muslim. I have given this example before: the Jewish buses in Israel (only the Orthodox buses that are owned by the Orthodox Jews) make women sit at the back of the bus and have beaten women for trying to sit at the front (where it is a man’s place). Does this mean that Jews treat women poorly? You can research this fact on the BBC, and CBC news (both publicly funded, not privately owned, news stations in England and Canada).

I've been on those busses. First of all, there is a curtain sepparating men from women. Second, the curtain runs down the LENGTH of the bus, so that one side is for women and the other side for men... not front and back. Third, there has never been violence in this regard. If a woman wants to sit in the mens' section, the men will generally get off the bus. Fourth, these are private busses, not public. The private owners can set up their busses however they want and seat passengers wherever they want. So it is hardly like the black/white segregation of public busses in the early half of the 20th century. Fifth, the bus only has segregated seating when the men are praying, which means during morning rush-hour times. The rest of the time, the busses are fairly open. So the entire depiction by these news stories incorrect.

My grandfather is Jewish and I can assure you that NO, a real Jewish person would never do that to a woman.

Being an Orthodox Jew myself, I would tend to agree.

Keeping this in mine, a real Muslim would never disrespect a holy site. Those are just people; evil people pretending to be Muslim,

But a widespread activity, nonetheless.

I think then, if you are going to compare religion and say that one is being brutal while the other one is not, you were going down a dangerous path and not being entirely fair.

I disagree.

I don’t want those orthodox Jews and the cases of the buses to be representative of what Jewish people are like; it’s an insult to my heritage.

Actually, if I were to believe the way those busses were portrayed to the public by the media, I'd be insulted too. But I know better. The story was a terrible misrepresentation of the facts. Unlike the historical actions of Muslims toward other religions' shrines, which is widespread and repetitive behavior.

And the example you presented is an insult to peaceful Muslims (the real ones), who are the brothers of Jews. If people can only “see” this and separate the REAL GOOD from the REAL BAD, instead of making us think that this is only a “Muslim” versus “Jewish” problem, then we would actually get somewhere.

I agree. So where are the REAL GOOD Muslims, and why aren't they decrying and standing up to the REAL BAD Muslims? There are plenty of Jews who stand up to Israeli leaders who they disagree with and do so with gusto. Why is there no similar action coming from those Muslims who disagree with radical Islamist leaders?

Let us not forget the Crusades, where we were taught to think that the reason why Christians butchered Jews had to do with “Christians” and “Jews”…when we can see today that, no, those people who committed those crimes are plain evil and this isn’t, underneath it all, about two religions.

Here I disagree completely. If the Crusades and Inquisitions had been performed by gangs of individuals, then I might agree. But they were perpetrated by the Church acting as the leadership of Christianity, with the aid of Kings and Queens and their Knights under their Divine Authority with the specific intent to target Muslims and Jews, in reaction for the Muslim attacks against Europe in an attempt to conquer the world and make it Muslim. And the Jews got caught in the middle, being found "guilty" by both sides for not belonging to eithe religion. Historically speaking, it was about the three religions, and the actions of all parties were religiously driven. So I have to disagree with you on this point.

In regards to your questions about economics being our primary reason why we support Israel; the importance of this would have to do with morals and values. I say you are somewhat right Wolverine; it can somewhat be moral to support a nation for economic reasons, but “only” if you admit this and do not make this seem as though it’s a story about “the good versus the evil”.

Has anyone in the government stated that our support of Israel is about good vs. evil? If they have, I neve heard it, and I tend to keep up with what people in positions of authority say about Israel. Can you give me an example of someone saying this?

Elliot

Dark_crow

Jul 20, 2007, 09:54 AM

I agree. So where are the REAL GOOD Muslims, and why aren't they decrying and standing up to the REAL BAD Muslims?
Elliot

Because unlike civilized people, they kill dissenters.

ScottGem

Jul 20, 2007, 10:03 AM

Comments on this postMario3 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/mario3.html) disagrees: no they did not turn the desert into a productive land through hard work. It was done through the water supply they keep going to lebanon for through wars. Why are you so brainwashed to not have said that?

Excuse me? I AM brainwashed? Where do you get that garbage? First, the settlements that the jews built in the deserts of Israel were done BEFORE there were any wars. These settlements were started in early 1900s and continued until the second world war. There were built on hard work and gambling on modern agricultural advances. As for going to Lebanon for water?? Who has been feeding you this? You don't farm by stealing water from another country. That's one of the most ridiculous things I have EVER heard. There is no way you can steal enough water to make that successful.

And Mario, giving someone a negative comment should ONLY be done if their post was factually incorrect. Not if your opinion differs. What is worse here is you gave my answer a negative comment based on garbage that is not historical fact nor does it make any sense. Based on this and other things you have posted, I can see that YOU have been badly brainwashed by some communistic/socialistic society.

tomder55

Jul 20, 2007, 10:46 AM

OK here's my problem .when I first joined Askme I did not know I could disable option on e-mail notifications . I first answered this post on page # 5 posting #41 This one is post #190 and every response since my first has generated an email notification

How do I disable it for a question in progress.

BTW . Congratulations this debate has been ongoing since Dec 2006 .

ETWolverine

Jul 20, 2007, 11:09 AM

ok here's my problem .when I first joined Askme I did not know I could disable option on e-mail notifications . I first answered this post on page # 5 posting #41 This one is post #190 and every response since my first has generated an email notification

How do I disable it for a question in progress.

BTW . Congratulations this debate has been ongoing since Dec 2006 .

This may help:

Go into your profile.

On the left side menu, there should be an option for "subscribed questions". Choose "List Subscriptions".

There should be a check-box for "Notification" on the right side of each question you have subscribed to. Make sure that it is UNCHECKED for all questions. You may need to go though each page to take them off individually for all the posts in this question. Tedious, but not TOO bad.

Hope it works.

Elliot

Dark_crow

Jul 20, 2007, 11:15 AM

Wolverine,

This is where you are wrong I think. They have portrayed it as good versus evil. I will give you an example of how we have been misled cleverly, and then tracks have been covered by politicians saying, “well I never said it, now did I?” Shame.

Here is an analogy: 9/11 and Iraq were continuously juxtaposed until people assumed in their heads that the two were intrinsically linked, if not the same. The 2001 anthrax threats (which have mysteriously gone out of the picture…odd because all facts point towards this being homegrown terrorists…) have also been juxtaposed with 9/11 until people started to believe that Middle-Easterners must have been the cause. So, to ask me to provide you with evidence of the “exact words that describe the Israel-Palestinian conflict as good and evil” is somewhat, forgive me for this, juvenile (not that you are juvenile as a person, but I am saying what was said or asked for was).

I can list a million despicable things that the Orthodox Jews and Christians have done too, taking into mind that you have insinuated that the disgraceful things Muslims have done are “telltale signs”. The following I am deeply sad to list because I adore Jews (being of this heritage) and Christians (being of this heritage due to my step-mother) I am not fully sure of this and have not researched this, but my Grandfather tells me, and a Jewish professor of religion I knew, that Jewish Orthodox men still say in some of their prayers “Thank you God for not making me a woman”. Christians burned women for being witches, Christians continue to believe that women are not as important as men (straight from the former Pope’s mouth: John Paul). What about the 65-page report on Israeli war crimes violating the Geneva conventions that Israel doesn’t even recognize (again, you can research this outside the American media, like on the BBC which covered this). Christians have a high rate in molesting children in the house of God…to the point that some less educated people just think it’s a ‘priest thing’; how awful. What about the ethnic cleaning of thousands of Palestinians by Jews in Deir Yassin? What about the relatively recent and absurdly disproportionate measure Israel took against the south of Lebanon; demolishing it? There are also many manipulative facts out there like, “how the current Pope was a former Nazi”. This fact, although irrelevant because he’s not a Nazi now, could be used one day to shun Christians. And yes those buses are privately owned, but they function within Israeli law, which also allows torture in their jails.

Oh yes, those buses do make women move to the back, so you must be talking about an entirely different bus when you say that you have been on some that only divide men and women down a straight line…I wasn’t aware that those existed in addiction to the ones the news is covering, so thank you for bringing that to my attention…I guess we both learned something from each other.

Those Jewish buses make women go straight to the back and have beaten women who don’t obey. Here are some links showing that indeed women have to go sit at the back, and men get to sit at the front…I wonder why many Americans are not aware of this and other countries around the world have covered this:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel's 'modesty buses' draw fire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm)
Women fight ultra-Orthodox bus ban | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21195823-2703,00.html)
Bus Beating Puts Orthodox Women on Online Alert (http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3007/context/archive)

Religion is suppose to bring people together, so we should stop empowering those who use it to divide and make us believe that it is “inherently” bad, and start to get together as “good” brothers; whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Please never insinuate that any religion is bad, especially when it is so close to our own Jewish one.

I don’t buy it one bit…to have us fight and cause bloodshed does not benefit the average religious person, so who does it benefit? This isn’t benefiting the average man, so who is benefiting?
Your whole post is a testimony to the failure of Religion.