Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Politics (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=260)
-   -   Why support Israel? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=47456)

  • May 3, 2007, 07:21 AM
    fluid identity
    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.
  • May 3, 2007, 07:27 AM
    fluid identity
    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?
  • May 3, 2007, 07:58 AM
    excon
    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?
  • May 3, 2007, 08:21 AM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fluid identity
    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.
  • May 3, 2007, 08:59 AM
    fluid identity
    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.
  • May 3, 2007, 09:37 AM
    excon
    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
  • May 3, 2007, 10:06 AM
    ScottGem
    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?
  • May 3, 2007, 10:09 AM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    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. ;)
  • May 3, 2007, 11:43 AM
    fitnahpolice
    Interesting op-ed in the LA Times:

    Why Israel is after me
    Why Israel is after me - Los Angeles Times

    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.
  • May 3, 2007, 12:34 PM
    ScottGem
    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.
  • May 3, 2007, 12:50 PM
    talaniman
    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.
  • May 4, 2007, 07:05 AM
    fluid identity
    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.
  • May 4, 2007, 07:10 AM
    fluid identity
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    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.
  • May 4, 2007, 07:23 AM
    fluid identity
    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.
  • May 8, 2007, 06:57 AM
    fluid identity
    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.
  • May 8, 2007, 07:37 AM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fluid identity
    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.
  • May 9, 2007, 09:11 AM
    fluid identity
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    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?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    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.
  • May 9, 2007, 09:57 AM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fluid identity
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fluid identity
    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.
  • May 24, 2007, 05:46 AM
    fluid identity
    [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.
  • May 24, 2007, 05:47 AM
    fluid identity
    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.
  • May 24, 2007, 05:51 AM
    fluid identity
    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.
  • May 24, 2007, 12:43 PM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fluid identity
    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.
  • May 25, 2007, 03:04 AM
    tomder55
    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.
  • Jun 29, 2007, 07:04 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by VBNomad
    Why does the USA support Israel?

    Hello again:

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

    excon
  • Jun 29, 2007, 08:15 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by VBNomad
    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?’
  • Jun 29, 2007, 10:41 AM
    ETWolverine
    Quote:

    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
  • Jun 29, 2007, 01:55 PM
    ETWolverine
    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
  • Jun 29, 2007, 04:13 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ETWolverine
    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.
  • Jun 29, 2007, 05:19 PM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    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.
  • Jun 29, 2007, 06:01 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    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.
  • Jun 29, 2007, 07:19 PM
    ScottGem
    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.
  • Jun 30, 2007, 08:41 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    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.
  • Jun 30, 2007, 12:11 PM
    MikeElt
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by VBNomad
    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
  • Jun 30, 2007, 03:38 PM
    ScottGem
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dark_crow
    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.
  • Jun 30, 2007, 04:45 PM
    talaniman
    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.
  • Jun 30, 2007, 05:08 PM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    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.
  • Jul 1, 2007, 03:52 AM
    ScottGem
    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.
  • Jul 1, 2007, 08:19 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    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:
  • Jul 1, 2007, 09:25 AM
    ScottGem
    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 through 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.
  • Jul 1, 2007, 09:49 AM
    Dark_crow
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    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.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 AM.