From the site's guestbook:

Insha'Allah the Palestinian people will see peace and regain their land very soon. Fantastic website, keep educating everyone out there. There are still many ignorant people (especially here in the US) that need to see the truth.
Thank you very much.

Farouk C.
Jewnited States of America

...although to be fair this is also in the guestbook:

I think your website is very emotional, human and direct. I do want to point out though that just as the people you portray in your ads have little hope and live in a land of despair, so do the Jewish people. What about them, dying at the hands of suicide bombers. Maybe we should all consider humans as equal and try to respect each other's rights to coexist. Thank you.

I assume the lennon poster and most others violate copyright. Anyone want to inform the copyright holder? Or maybe tell the people making the posters that they are violating the law and you will sue them on behalf of the copyright holders. Maybe a fake nasty email from the copyright holder will work.

Has anyone followed the money trail? Who is funding this slick piece of propaganda?

Okay, somebody explain this to me:

1. Khaled wants to be a Jew?
2. Zaid wants to be an American?
3. Johnny wants to make his living doing something the Koran forbids?

Huh???

This rises to the level of Goebelesque in its subtlety of message.

One can easily skim through it and take away the impression that it couldn't possibly be an indorsement of no hope - so lets just martyr ourselves foolishly.

The kind of people that could cynically put such a thing together, and miss the point that what they are saying is actually true in a sense - that the children pictured will never achieve the dreams and desires ascribed if the expend themeselves in a futile and hateful gesture - and that it is absolute insanity that cannot be rationalized in any way - just absolutely are beneath contempt.

If that isn't what they are up to, they got some heavy duty 'splainin to do.

Fay,

You took the words out of my mouth

:-)

Very interesting web-site.

One of the children wants to be Gandhi. A noble aspiration, one can only hope that he takes Gandhi's teachings on non-violence to heart.

And the site quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. Again, one can only hope that the authors (who appear to be Jordanian copy-righters and advertising types) took the time to read more of what Dr. King had to say.

Interesting how none of them want to be Arafat or Bin Laden. I would donate money to them if they use it to print out their lovely posters (in Arabic) and paste them all over Gaza and the West Bank.

"Chaplin's silent films tickled the world and made us laugh. Where Bassem is now, there is no cause to even smile. It's no joke how sadness is gripping every Palestinian today. Bassem's heart is breaking. Silently, he is dying to laugh."

Well, hell, he wants a good laugh? He needs to go to some of those Palestinian parties where they find the cutest baby and dress him as a suicide bomber! Those are a laugh riot. That's a great joke; my side is splitting just thinking about it! Don't tell me there's no humor in Occupied Palestine. They can find humor anywhere.

You know what else can give you a big smile? Killing collaborators. To wit:

"Gandhi wanted peace and freedom above all things. Ahmad wants exactly the same things. The path to peace begins by understanding why Palestinians are not even free to yearn. Ahmad is dying to believe that such a path exists."

Yeah, well Ahmad's going to be dying if the PA and affiliated groups find out that he yearns more for peace and freedom than for Jew-killing. In fact, his dead body will be dragged around town and then hung upside down from a light pole. Well, at least it will give Bassem and all the other Palestinian comics a good belly laugh.

...of Palestine...???

Are Air France sponsoring this campaign per chance?

I don't see any little Palestinian kids running around with John Lennon ("give peace a chance" "all you need is love") necklaces. They wear "martyr" necklaces. "What do you want to do when you grow up?" the most common Palestinian response is "kill the enemy (Jews) and die a martyr."

I am devilishly thinking of the satirical inspirational posters where instead of "Courage" and "determination" they have "laziness" and "cowardice"

Someone with some graphics ability should mock these lies by showing the true aspirations of this poisoned generation of children.

Hitler, Stalin and other great mass murderers from history.

Hitler gave the world something to sing about. But now the only song in the hearts of Palestinians is composed by curfew and fence which prevents him from killing at will. Start imagining why Johnny is being stopped from killing. That will be music to his ears.

Boy, Charles, just when I think I can't work up any more anger, you find just the thing to get the bile flowing again.

Okay, somebody explain this to me:

1. Khaled wants to be a Jew?
2. Zaid wants to be an American?
3. Johnny wants to make his living doing something the Koran forbids?

Huh???

Fay, Fay, Fay.

If you watched your Oprah you'd know that all that is perfectly OK with Islam.

;)

What do the people who have put together this site think of Palestinians dressing their own children as suicide bombers?

Are these people even remotely aware of the hypocrisy of the statement that this site makes when held up to the reality of what they are actually doing to their children?

Apparently, these people understand that this campaign can only be effective if they know that we care about the future of all children.

I am glad that they understand the effectiveness of using these techniques on the West.

I wish that they would work as well on the Palestinians.

Denise, if you really want to be ill read the feedback column.

Here is what Palestinians really dream of becoming.

This is the worst ploy yet. This is what the slick anti-semites talk about when they say that the overt anti-semitic posters like the "slaugtered according to Jewish rites" harm the cause of anti-semitism.

Dammit is my blood boiling.

That which seperates evil from simple ruthlessness is the willingness to use your own goodness as a weapon aqainst you.

It's a Jordanian site.

IAA Jordan
P.O.Box 910437
Amman, 11191
JO

Domain Name: DYING2LIVE.COM

Administrative Contact:
Nidal Nasereddin nidal@cns.com.jo
Computer Networking Services
P. O. Box 35055
Amman, - 11180
JO
Phone: 962 6 5535733
Fax: 962 6 5535734
Technical Contact:
Maher Muhtadi support@cns.com.jo
Computer Networking Services
P. O. Box 35055
Amman, - 11180
JO
Phone: 962 6 5535733
Fax: 962 6 5535734

Record updated on 2002-04-17 02:54:44.
Record created on 2002-04-17.
Record expires on 2003-04-17.
Database last updated on 2002-07-16 19:34:06 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.CNS-PRIMUS.NET 216.147.43.141
NS2.CNS-PRIMUS.NET 216.147.1.119

"Gandhi wanted peace and freedom above all things. Ahmad wants exactly the same things. The path to peace begins by understanding why Palestinians are not even free to yearn. Ahmad is dying to believe that such a path exists."

No, Ahmad is dying to believe that his parents, neighbors and society value him as a human being, and not as a walking bomb. The path to peace will begin when Palestinians stop promoting the culture of death, stop supporting terrorists and start to build a society based on freedom and peace.

This ad campaign is sick - another example of how Arabs use the Palestinians to attain their goals.

If all of the Palestinians were like John Lennon (his song "Imagine" is in part about atheism) or like Einstein (he didn't like war) or like Lincoln (an honorable man), we wouldn't have any problem dealing with them.

Perhaps I am seeing something only because I want to, but maybe this will backfire and PA children will begin to think that they can identify with someone other than Arafat or Bin Laden. Maybe they will only buy into part of the message. Am I a fool to think this?

Hey, there's no problem with those ads. The problem comes when they say Israel is the problem. The problem is Arafat and the other Arab "leaders" who would gladly smear those children into a paste beneath the treads of a tank if they thought it would destroy Israel.

Words cannot describe how disgusting this "campaign" is. Does anyone need any more evidence that the world is upside down? I can't even think of anything deep or pithy right now. I'm just worn out by this.

Perhaps I am seeing something only because I want to, but maybe this will backfire and PA children will begin to think that they can identify with someone other than Arafat or Bin Laden. Maybe they will only buy into part of the message. Am I a fool to think this?

Well, this ad campaign is directed at us. I would be very surprised if little Zaid who wants to be Abe Lincoln was told who Abe Lincoln is when he posed for that photo. In any case it is an ad campaign for us, there aren't going to be any John Lennon posters on the streets of Gaza.

Carey,
I wouldn't call you a fool, but I would say that there is no way that this ad campaign will positively effect Palestinian children. You know why? Because the ads are for the US. There's no need to show them in "Paleswine", where the kids pretty much know that their lives are hopeless.

Carey: I think you’re missing the point. These ads will never be seen by Palestinian children. They are for us—the West.

The Voice of Palestine feeds Palestinian children a steady diet of open hatred and militaristic propaganda. Westerners need to be gently led to accept martyrdom as a legitimate act, and that’s the purpose of this thoroughly scurrilous advertising campaign.

Here's an idea for an Israeli ad campaign:

Uri had dreams of being a great scientist, like Albert Einstein. Or a distinguished physician, like Jonas Salk. But a bomb went off one day on Uri's school bus. Now he's in a coma with a dozen nails embedded in his body. Uri doesn't dream anymore.

Um Kulthum WHO??? Only the best known singer and cultural icon in Egypt from about 1910 to 1973, that's who. The Arab world held her in reverence, and whole towns would knock off work and head for the radio when she did her weekly broadcast. If one has any interest in what pushes Arab buttons, learn something about her. John Lennon was a flash in the pan by comparison.

Oh, that Umm Kulthum. I have a dim memory of someone else in my dim past lecturing me on how I was a complete dolt for not knowing about Umm Kulthum...

Guess I was too busy transcribing Pat Martino solos.

Okay, maybe I'm being obtuse, naive or maybe I'm just an idiot... but I don't see the harm here.

The historical figures used in this campaign are all worthy of emulation and suitable role models. Would it be better if it said, "Omar imagines himself as a suicidal psychopath,"?

This is a refreshing change from the oft cited photos of children and babies wielding weapons and strapped with C-4. If the Jordanians choose to hold out an option for these kids rather than spout the Islamist crap that's the norm for government controlled media in that region, isn't that good thing?

In a land where children are raised thinking that to die a martyr is the best hope they have, John Lennon doesn't sound too bad.

[picture]

"This is Danielle Shefi. She dreamed all kinds of things while she slept in her Mickey Mouse sheets. Then a terrorist broke into her house and shot the five-year-old child in her own bed.

[picture of bloodied sheets]

"Danielle doesn't dream anymore."

James, Elana, and Charles, thanks for explaining the folly of my thinking. (that these are for western eyes) Of course it is obvious to me now. Palestinian children would have no idea who these people are. Now I'm just disgusted.

Great work David Hines.

For whatever its worth, the owners:

IAA Jordan
P.O.Box 910437
Amman, 11191
JO

Domain Name: DYING2LIVE.COM

Administrative Contact:
Nidal Nasereddin nidal@cns.com.jo
Computer Networking Services
P. O. Box 35055
Amman, - 11180
JO
Phone: 962 6 5535733
Fax: 962 6 5535734
Technical Contact:
Maher Muhtadi support@cns.com.jo
Computer Networking Services
P. O. Box 35055
Amman, - 11180
JO
Phone: 962 6 5535733
Fax: 962 6 5535734

Record updated on 2002-04-17 02:54:44.
Record created on 2002-04-17.
Record expires on 2003-04-17.
Database last updated on 2002-07-16 21:26:27 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.CNS-PRIMUS.NET 216.147.43.141
NS2.CNS-PRIMUS.NET 216.147.1.119

Absolutely sickening.

If this campaign ever reaches the University of Auckland (which I'm sure it will), I will single-handedly rip down every single one of these posters I can get my paws on. Or maybe I'll get my AUJS buddies to help me at it.

Anyway, this is an obscenity - on par with that "The Anne Franks of Palestine" story in terms of vomit-inducement.

I could not figure out how to get a comment on their site.

If someone can figure out how to do it, I say that we innondate them with messages like the ones in this thread and they will eventually shut it down.

J. Lichty,

You probably have to e-mail them, and then survive their editorial process to get on the comments page. Its not a pure guestbook, but rather, a listing of all the favorable comments only.

You people are just plain racist, aren't you?

Cleatus the slack-jawed yokel?

Wow, pretty slick campaign. Although I think this creepy "Dying to live" slogan will find resonance only among the already-confirmed pro-terrorist camp. I mean, can it be any more Orwellian? "Freedom is slavery" has nothing on this little tagline.

Anyways, did anyone catch this little gem in the feedback section? Emphasis mine:

to have thought of the campaign.
I am member of the European Parliament and very much concerned about the right to live and engaged on Palestine-Israel.
Your campaign is just absolutely important,i cannot described my joy when i discovered it. Above all in these days were just crimes are done against palestinians.
I will organize the italian translation and i think we should also have exbition the the web, also here in the European Parliament.
Thank you thank you very much.
Please get in touch .

Luisa Morgantini

Not that Europe's opinion matters much (it's already pretty much wholesale pro-Arab), but I hope the Israeli embassy and Jewish organizations are paying attention. The delegitimization campaign has already been way too successful.

You people are just plain racist, aren't you?

No.

And you are just plain stupid.

Evan_the_bored writes:

If this campaign ever reaches the University of Auckland (which I'm sure it will), I will single-handedly rip down every single one of these posters I can get my paws on. Or maybe I'll get my AUJS buddies to help me at it.

Forget that shit. It's an idiotarian/Arab tactic, and you're better than that.

Put up posters of your own. There have been some great ideas in the comments section. Show who sponsors this campaign. Show the comments they publish -- about being at the mercy of "Jewish-controlled media." Contrast the oh-so-photogenic little Arab angels to the photos of babies with pistols in their lap. Put up "Arabs in English/Arabs in Arabic" contradictions.

So, if you're not a racist, why your whole thing about 'Arabs', when the situation isn't about Arabs?

But why not generalise and introduce our own bias? After all, those filthy Arabs do.

E. Nough,

Whew, I was just so enraged by the "campaign". Yeah, we tried the posters thing, but nothing became of it. New Zealand is one entire "cult of the underdog" and we are "proud" of our "agitator" heritage - Apartheid South Africa was our devil incarnate in the early 80's. Even now, some (completely innocent) immigrant White South Africans often face slander of the "racist pig", "kaffir-killer" kind. Israel is simply our new hobby horse of hate - the Apartheid State of the new century, and these kind of stories really tug at those bored housewives' heartstrings and fill those "peace-loving" students with rage. Why should anyone care about Israelis (or "Israelites", as some of ignorance call them here) or Jews for that matter?

Sometimes you've just got to stop something before it poisons them even more.

So, if you're not a racist, why your whole thing about 'Arabs', when the situation isn't about Arabs?

I'm sorry, just who is the situation about? The "Palestinians" are Arabs -- the same Arabs as the ones that live across the river in Jordan, or in Egypt, or in Lebanon. No one had ever heard of "Palestinians" until after the 1967 war. It's a bullshit term -- they are just Egyptians and Syrians who happened to reside in the British Mandate territory when Israel was founded, and are no more "Palestinian" than the Jews. This conflict is not about five million Jews vs. three million "Palestinians" -- it's about five million Jews vs. hundreds of millions of Arabs, as every Arab nation from Iraq to Lybia to Morocco is happy to remind us on a daily basis.

But why not generalise and introduce our own bias? After all, those filthy Arabs do.

The word "filthy" is yours, not mine. And yeah, that (suppressing opinion in disfavor) is what they do. Find me an Arab society anywhere on earth where freedom of speech is something other than a punchline, and I'll happily admit my mistake.

Until then, your shrieks of "racism" are just ever-so-much masturbatory self-righteousness.

Note how Edward "Two-Faced Stone-Thrower" Said points to the truth of the matter (despite himself, of course):

''[Suicide bombings have] disfigured and debased the Palestinian struggle. All liberation movements in history have affirmed that their struggle is about life not about death. Why should ours be an exception? (my italics-Q) The sooner we educate our Zionist enemies and show that our resistance offers co-existence and peace, the less likely will they be able to kill us at will, and never refer to us except as terrorists.''

(The quote is taken from AI website).

Why indeed! This "liberation movement" is, as we have seen again and again, a death cult.

Really, who out there got the literal "dying" mixed up with the figurative "dying"? Show of hands? Anyone?

Unfortunately, the Palestinian splodeydopes have chosen to engage in the literal kind, instead of the yearning and striving and working that attainment of goals in THIS world require.

I agree this is for us, and not for the Palestinians. Too bad for the people that came up with this tripe; I think most of us (with a few exceptions; that's freedom ain't it?) get it that this is maneuvering and manipulation rather than a considered putting-forth of thought.

I must be missing something...let's look at this quote.

''[Suicide bombings have] disfigured and debased the Palestinian struggle. All liberation movements in history have affirmed that their struggle is about life not about death."

Doesn't this mean suicide bombing is bad? Isn't this a good thing?

"Why should ours be an exception? (my italics-Q) The sooner we educate our Zionist enemies and show that our resistance offers co-existence and peace"

If in fact it was peaceful resistance, that too would be a good thing.

"the less likely will they be able to kill us at will, and never refer to us except as terrorists.''

IF they stopped suicide bombing, and other acts of terrorism, wouldn't that also be a good thing?

Granted, the guys full of crap... but, taken at face value, I don't see very much damning about that particular quote.

cedar, I think that was Q's point. Said's words, in this case, are quite sensible -- in opposition to the slick insanity of the Dying2live campaign.

Did anyone else notice that the site translates into French?

I made a comment earlier about Air France sponsoring this site, seeing as though they are the ones who told passengers that they were arriving in 'Palestine' when landing in Israel.

I was half-joking.

Now I'm convinced.

My point about Said is that, even when he is trying to appear "sensible" (for Western consumption), the truth about his (note how he can't bring himself to refer to Israelis other than "Zionist enemies") and "liberation movement's" real nature still seeps through - just like with this campaign.

Said's words generally are quite sensible - until you get to that piece of fiction he wrote called his autobiography.

That guy lies like a Persian rug.

Much like Clinton's statements, I don't spend much time trying to parse the meaning of the words of a known liar. Even if he does speak with a nice fake English accent.

Further,

Maybe - if this Jordanian ad campaign can be believed - it is the hated, brutal Israeli occupation that has prevented young Zaid, Johnny, and Mohammed from developing into the Arab version of Shakespeare, Einstein, or Abraham Lincoln.

What is their excuse for the rest of the children in the Arab world for the past 500 years? How come there aren't any Arab Lincolns or Einsteins or Shakespeares? Ever?

They can't blame the Jews for everything, can they?

Sorry, I forgot. Umm Kulthum is an Arab, I guess. Score a big one for them.

Incidentally, I wouldn't give a squirt a piss for young Ziad's future when some Palestinian figures out that Einstein - his role model - is a Jew.

Palestine. Dying to live.

Now there's a slogan you can drink some beer with. Now let's analyze it. Dying to live...well, it seems that this is another case where "sex" sells anything and everything. I assume when they strap on their 6-pack of dynamite, they know they are going to die. But then they are going to live or rather... live it up... with 72 virgins crawling naked all over them. So in fact the slogan is very true. They choose to murder, maim & massacre in order to DIE.

See SEX sells no matter what the culture. I see hundreds of horny little Palestinian 14 year olds lining up to try on their dyno-mite belts as if they were Gap T-shirts.

Hey Zulubaby, did you get the "Hot Rats" CD?

You know what, I've been sick since the weekend (touch of 'flu) and did not get to Virgin.

BUT...I will get it.

I have to now don't I?

And if my toes don't tingle, you're in big trouble Bossman :-)

I cannot believe many of the comments I have been reading. I do believe many have missed the overall point.

People.

I have to agree to a degree with the very first poster and say that many americans may in fact be ignorant. Again maybe they bought a different type of hype.

Personally I would love to see another Gandhi, I think this ad works. It is very credible. Maybe moreso than some of the items many are being spoonfed and digesting.

What may really bother me, and is quite possibly related - the hipocracy that is floating about.

Perhaps the same people that are posting right to life posters are the same ones that might like to see these particular ads burned as well as the people who they portray?

I guess one form of barbarism is okay, just depends on who is doing the choosing?

Seems a bit backwards, no?

They can't blame the Jews for everything, can they?

Wanna bet?

I guarantee not only your toes will tingle but every cell in your body, and I mean each and every one. You'll feel all warm, fuzzy and zulufied.

Enjoy!!!

qxv:

Personally I would love to see another Gandhi, I think this ad works.

Ahem, the kids aren't exactly going to see these ads - its propaganda for the folks in the Western world. I doubt whether a few of these kids even know who Gandhi is.

Perhaps the same people that are posting right to life posters are the same ones that might like to see these particular ads burned as well as the people who they portray?

Well, not exactly - just the people who encourage kids to blow themselves up. This little campaign is child exploitation and the kids featured in the ads are, without a doubt, to be pitied.

Bossman,

I've been convinced for a while...you're completely nuts!

Thank you.

I'll let you know :-)

...to be pitied for being part of an exploitation scam, I mean.

Is qvx for real?

Einstein & Co must be spinning in their graves right now.

They may dream, however their dreams will never materialize as long as their brains are sistematically washed by hatred and intolerance.

Bossman, there's a Hot Rats outtake called Bognor Regis circulating around. Heard it?

I hear there's a CD that accompanies the print campaign...it too is a rip-off, at least the melody is. It goes something like this...

"Martyr, Martyr-Man

I want to be a MartyrMan."

And so on...I hear they wear leathers in the video, with those criss-cross bullet suspenders.

(No woman's video as yet, they're afraid to die their hair blonde like britney)

Look at this little treasure...

[Link: www.counterpunch.com...]

I was scrolling the 'feedback' section and found this link.

Have you read some of the feedback on that site? My G-d!

re: DiploMan

Sorry, I haven't. What the hell does Bogner Regis mean anyway? Is that Regis' evil twin brother. Is he Willie The Pimp II?

These ads are just another form of exploitation of the Palestinian youth. I doubt any the children in the photos even know who the people are that they've been paired with. It is obvious these ads are aimed at the West...to tug at our heartstrings and make us rail at those nasty Israelis for doing this to the children. Well, I'm angry all right, but I'm angry at the Palestinian leaders and parents who are the true thieves of hope.

Boss... I guess it's the name of an English town.
Drop me a line and I can send a copy of the tune.

And by the way Bossman, that what all the boys say.

This is what it says on the home page:

As Martin Luther King once said:
We shall have to repent in this generation, not so much for the evil deeds of the wicked people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.

Help us break the silence.

Help Palestine live in peace.

(I don't know how to put it into italics)

My friend found a reply to this on the feedback page I think, which he e-mailed to me earlier. I can't seem to find it now.

#69 is right on!

These kids don't have a clue as to who those famous people are. All they know is "Abdul Super Bomber & His Pals. If you're feeling blue, kill a Jew!" They couldn't even afford to buy the magazine it would be featured in. And neither could their parents. Of course it's aimed at the West.

It's all David Ogilvy's fault. Those emotional type ads are just too (sob, sob) heartwrenching...(sob, sob) I'm so touched, I think I'll donate a quarter to UNICEF tomorrow.
Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday that quarter will arrive in the West Bank to further little Abdul and his sister Abdul-Sis' education. Quick, somebody get me a kleenex, my nose is starting to run! (sob, sob...)

Damn advertising!

And Zulu Baby, I'm not a boy. I'm a man.
I'm a Bossman. (don't deny it, you just tingled...)

LOL

Yes, and completely crazy

This is what it says on the home page:

As Martin Luther King once said:
We shall have to repent in this generation, not so much for the evil deeds of the wicked people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.

Help us break the silence.

Help Palestine live in peace.

These people are idiots. Martin Luther King, was, ahem, pro-Zionism and supported the notion of Israel as the rightful homeland of the Jewish people.

But they didn't know that did they?

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with some of you, I don't think the actual ad campaign is that bad of an idea. Granted, it is aimed at the West, but it is promoting peace, not suicide bombings.

Anyways, I'm actually more disturbed with the people in the feedback column. For instance, this gem (emphasis mine):

Bismillah. Asalaam Alaykum:

I am a female Muslim 3-dimensional artist working primarily in glass and stone. For the last year I have dedicated my work in creating pieces that commemorate the Palestinian victims of Israeli violence and massacres. I was recently selected to created a large memorial commemorating the Dir Yassin victims which will be built and displayed in Geneva, New York this year inshaAllah.

I have had great difficulty finding complete and comprehensive lists of Palestinian victims, although I do have a complete list of Dir Yassin and The Ibrahim Mosque victims. I would very much appreciate any assistance that you can lend. I am especially interested in a complete and comprehensive list of all children. I have now working on a special piece that will feature a rock with every single Palestinian child's name who has been martyred.

You can contact me at the following:
Haifa Bint-Kadi
72 Water Street
Cumbola, PA 17930
(570) 277-6789

Ja Zack Allah Khere!
Haifa

Looks like we've got a future suicide "martyr" on our hands here. And she even left her address. Umm...FBI, where are you?

I've just finished reading the comments.Yuck. But, hey some of the english is super:

I'm a french man, and 've ridden an article about you in the newsmagazine "Courrier international". Congratulations : when advertising people use their art in the aim to increase respect and consideration, it gives us a good example of the power of words and pictures.

Bernard Jacquand, Lyon, FRANCE

"Ridden an article"?

And was this one being serious?:

To All Involved:

As I write these words, my eyes are filled with tears, tears of sadness, but tears of happiness and hope as well when I saw your website. I am an American who lived in Kuwait for 3 years and gained consciousness a about the Palestinian movement there. Ever since then, I have been on the bandwagon, preaching the message to both deaf and listening ears. PALESTINE MUST EXIST. THE BIBLE SAYS GOD WILL ONE DAY JOIN THE NATION OF ISRAEL TOGETHER, NOT MAN!!! ISRAEL WAS NOT CREATED BY THE HAND OF GOD BECAUSE GOD LOVES ALL HIS CHILDREN AND WOULD NEVER THROUGH SOME OF HIS CHILDREN, THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF ABRAHAM AS WELL, INTO ETERNAL ANGUISH. Some have actually come around. My other point has always been, THE WAR FOR PALESTINE IS NOT BEING FOUGHT IN ISRAEL, IT IS BEING FOUGHT IN THE LIVING ROOMS ON AMERICA!! Public Relations is the only way. That's how the Jews took Palestine and that is the only way the Palestinians will ever get it back.

A few items to consider. Women represent 52% of the population. Your website is very boy dominated and the 2 girls seem like tokens. Also, most of the kids look very typically Palestinian, but what about showing all colors more? There are Palestinians that are very dark, evidently have African blood as there are blond Palestinians. In this wan you could counteract the perception that Arab culture is male dominated and controlled and possibly have a better chance of gaining support among African Americans and Latinos, who more and more are gaining a fierce political presence.

GOD BLESS YOU!!! ALLAH WAKBAR!!!

Your sister, Victoria Kennedy

Finally, one chappie claims to be part of the Palestinian "Diaspora" - hmmm, wonder where he got that word from?

Evan_the_Bored:

But they didn't know that did they?

Now they do.

I was kind enough to e-mail them MLK's speech.

I hope they're embarrassed.

Here's a nice one from the feedback page:

I have no dog in this fight but I do believe that the Israelis have taken a page from the Nazis handbook on their "final solution". They are determined to humiliate, dehumanize, destroy and if that doesn't work kill the remaining Palestinians. Then they can have "more living space" Another tem used by the Nazis before W.W. 2. I am a combat veteran from W.W. who participated in every battle in Europe from D. Day 7am Omaha beach to V. E. day on the Austrian border. Was in the first occupation of Germany and we treated them with dignity. Have the Jews become so hardened by there mistreatment that they have lost their famous sense of justice, tolerance and fairness?

George Weitner

There's one that's even better. I have to look for it again.

I'm at the point right now that I am reading these posts on the website and laughing.

Bunch on f*@*ing nitwits.

Great stuff, mon vieux!

Here we go. This is the one that I liked.

They found each other: The German filmmaker, his friend Abdul, and the webmasters. It's a match.

"What can we do?

I am co-owner and director of ‘Kobalt Productions’, a film and television company in Berlin, Germany. We produce documentaries, ads., image films, but also 3 ,half hour, weekly television magazines for the First Public German Television, ARD, and for “arte”, the German-Frensh culture channel.

Your campaign has been brought to my attention by a friend of mine, Dr. Hashem Abdul Khaleq, a Palestinian, I, also, am a Palestinian- My family lives in Jerusalem and Beit Jala.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Michael Khano"

and since when do Palestinians name their sons Johnny?

[Link: www.dying2live.com...]

Now I'm really going to scream

[Link: www.dying2live.com...]

Well, show them the chapter in "Long Walk To Freedom" where Nelson Mandela speaks of his admiration of Jews - he commends them for being hard workers and more sensitive to issues of racial injustice, after having been through the worst forms of it.

This guys are eeediots! BUt I'm noticing a trend... who next?

Find me a link to 'Long Walk to Freedom' so I can send them the text.

You know I will.

They're not posting any negative feedback.

That I know for sure.

Zulu, they're all your's:

Here's one:

[Link: www.canoe.ca...]

another:

[Link: www.suntimes.co.za...]

and another:

[Link: www.jewishsf.com...]

Go get 'em!

Perhaps the same people that are posting right to life posters are the same ones that might like to see these particular ads burned as well as the people who they portray?

Ass, you, me. Right?

What are you talking about?

Perhaps the same people that are posting right to life posters are the same ones that might like to see these particular ads burned as well as the people who they portray?

Ass, you, me. Right?

What are you talking about?

***

Whoops, that should have been quoted.

1984 is now

Airstrip Palestine

Freedom is Slavery (blogger bug free link)

Jihad is Not War

Death is Life

Evan_the_Bored:

You are awesome. Thank you so much.

I did some cutting and pasting and sent them my third e-mail for the night.

Those links were brilliant.

I need to send one more to ask why there is no negative 'feedback' displayed on their site. Only the feedback from morons who obviously don't read or write English very well. Not their first language, I understand. That's my point.

If you have really good vision, it's worth reading the plucking-at-the-heart-strings drivel at the bottom of each picture.

My previous e-mail responded to that crap one by one. Probably a little over the top in bitchiness, but you know how us girls get when you piss us off :-)

Horrors! The inhumanity! Another Holocaust in the making! Someone makes an effort to get the world -- including, possibly but implausibly, American Jews and Israelis -- to treat Palestinian children like human beings rather than fleas (or whatever it was that Golda Meir called them) and the Jews go nuts. Such a tolerant, open-minded people.

Looking at the image with the Mandela quote:

        &n bsp;       &nbs p;           Only free men can negotiate

why not disseminate this under the headline: "Palestinians endorse Bush's call for democratic institutions"?

Um, John, of course Palestinian children deserve to be treated like the human beings they are (don't recall Meir sating anything about "fleas"), but this ad campaign is a dirty farce. Read the above posts.

I've seen a lot of ignorant comments on this page. People deride quotes that I can see nothing wrong with. For instance it is quite a good point that there are black and blond arabs, they are a pretty racially diverse group, there's nothing wrong with portraying that fact.

Also, I can't see what's funny about a Palestinian boy being called "Johhny". There are plenty of Palestinian Christians who are perfectly entitled to call their children by Christian names. It's also not uncommon for kids to have Western sounding nicknames, for instance I've met a few Achmeds and Mohameds who are known as "Eddie".

There's a few other things I could mention but my main point is not to tar everyone with the same brush, Palestinians are human beings too, they're not all uneducated wannabe suicide bombers. However, I do agree that it would be more useful to run these ads in Palestine so that the kids could get different role models than the usual martyrs and murderers.

"Dying to Live"

is a justification for suicide bombers.

I can't wait till Iran goes up. They once had a Jewish Queen. Esther. I know some Persians in America who have a quite favorable attitude towards Jews and Israel. I think that attitude might really shake the Euros.

Faster, please.

Iran is the key to changing every-one's perception of the ME.

Faster, please.

If Palestinians want to be known for something other than being suicidal murderers, they need to start to "Think Different."

(I thought I'd seen this campaign somewhere before...)

[Link: www.sleepingcat.com...]

My astonishment at the debasement and borderline psychosis of the Arab world is boundless. I simply cannot take it in.

350 million Arabs living beneath the thumb of ruthless dictators. A paternalitic religion so dogmatic and doctrinaire, banned (presumably forever) from the light of human reason, that girls are alowed to burn to death rather than evacuate, veil-less and thereby risk offending the Eye in the Sky. Sitting atop the planet's most richly desired natural resource, while its inhabitants sit atop mountains of poverty and illiteracy.

All of this madness spanning dozens of nations, encompassing hundreds of millions of people, and who is to blame?

A religion utterly unaffected by the Enlightenment?

A collective consciousness unmoved by the light of human endeavor or rationality?

Maniacal allegiance to religion?

Dictators?

Contempt for learning?

No. A tiny, little democracy called the State of Israel.

And the solution? Murder and suicide.

If the world were able to witness this conlict with total objectivity, free of the dual scourges of anti-Semitism and third-worldism, we would see this for exactly what it is:

A civilization that has failed utterly and completely. One that should not and must not be allowed to drag the rest of the world into its own festering violent madness.

Roy - perfectly said!

The only conclusion:

Unless Israel manages to do a decent PR job or lets itself be helped with it, it's done, for all its army and nukes.

Sorry for the bluntness.

Well, this topic got a link on Metafilter, and predictably, they’re screaming racist. And I’ve also received some lovely hate mail this morning already! Rise and shine!

I have to say I’m amazed that some people apparently don’t (or won’t) see the subtext in this ad campaign. Sure, all the famous people in the posters are good role models. Sure, the text doesn’t say “Death to the sons of pigs and dogs!”

And no, I don’t want to see the ads “burned as well as the people they portray,” as one sick moron wrote above.

But if you honestly can look at this ad campaign, with its obvious fixation on dying, for God’s sake, and not see it for the propaganda it is, then I just don’t know what to tell you.

This is one of the creepiest things I’ve ever seen.

It's particulary ironic that they use Lincoln in one of the posters. After all, it was the Arabs who were the main suppliers of slaves. Granted, that was the Arabs in North Africa and not the Levant, but still...

Charles,
...and suddenly I'm not entirely sorry you're taking most of the credit for this posting! Hate mail? We only got a bit of criticism on our site!

hmmm... trying to remember, wasn't Einstein also the first (ceremonial) President of Israel?

Fay Greenwood wrote:

"Johnny wants to make his living doing something the Koran forbids?"

As has been pointed out before, a large proportion of Palistinians are Christians.

Palistinian!=Muslim

Einstein was asked to be first president of Israel but declined, Bill. He was a Zionist however.

Exactly, Charles. This "Dying to live" line simply means "Hey Americans, can't you see that our war is for a positive end?"

In other words it justifies the Palestinian war tactics that use deliberate targeting of and killing civilians as the means and even justifies the use of their own children as human shields; these children are inevitable casualties in an urban war.

They're "dying to live".

This war was chosen by Palestinians as an alternative to statehood and peaceful coexistence. They began it on their own terms. So sorry that it won't be ended on theirs. There are consequences to actions.

To all those who say how "nice" this campaign is,

For once in your lives start paying attention to what people do, and not what they say. Also, pay attention to what they say in English (like this) and what they say in Arabic. In other words, stop being so ignorant and Orientalist (thinking that all important communication is done in English).

I would love it if the Palis were like Gandhi -- they would have achieved their state a long time ago. To all those who say that they have no other choice but to blow themselves up -- Wrong! They can follow Gandhi, but they don't -- they prefer to kill Jews.

That's what maked this whole campaing so sick. The difference between the reality and the propaganda. The Soviet Uion would do this kind of shit all the time and the West fell for it all the time. No wonder the EU and the Left love this, like Pavlovian dogs they are just reacting to the meat they were raised on (anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism).

Not to mention that this campaign is from Jordan.

Is Johnny who wants to be John Lennon from Gaza or is he from Amman? More dishonesty.

It's particulary ironic that they use Lincoln in one of the posters. After all, it was the Arabs who were the main suppliers of slaves. Granted, that was the Arabs in North Africa and not the Levant, but still...

The North African slavers sold slaves to the Arabs, too. I don't know how the numbers compare, but, well, there's good evidence the slave trade continues to this day.

Elana:

suddenly I'm not entirely sorry you're taking most of the credit for this posting!

Charles gave you credit in the first line of this post.

The CR writes:

The Soviet Uion would do this kind of shit all the time and the West fell for it all the time. No wonder the EU and the Left love this, like Pavlovian dogs they are just reacting to the meat they were raised on (anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism).

Don't forget third-worldism, as someone has pointed out above.

The EU and other idiotarians will fall for it every time, and congratulate themselves on their fair- and open-mindedness.

By the way, Pavlov's dogs reacted to his bell, even when there was no meat. Which makes the analogy all the more fitting: Arabs make the correct noises, and the usual suspects start salivating and barking, not bothering to check if there is anything to the sound.

Roy, #97, couldn't have said it better, bravo.

John Martin:

Horrors! The inhumanity! Another Holocaust in the making! Someone makes an effort to get the world -- including, possibly but implausibly, American Jews and Israelis -- to treat Palestinian children like human beings rather than fleas (or whatever it was that Golda Meir called them) and the Jews go nuts. Such a tolerant, open-minded people.

Ah. "The Jews". I suppose you've done a circumcision check, John Martin?

It doesn't even occur to you that people who aren't Jewish could support Israel.

Victor Davis Hansen commented recently on this very phenomenon.

Hansen writes:

I am a 48-year-old Swedish-American Protestant and have expressed support for Israel for 30 years — but never once before had I been asked, "Are you Jewish?" This past year alone, however, that question — usually framed as an accusation — has arisen at least 50 times — along with printed and electronic invective that would make Mr. Goebbels proud.

While not all Palestinians are Muslims, ALL of the Palestinians who have committed homicide bombings WERE Muslims. ALL OF THEM.

This campaign is another classic case of one message being delivered to the world in English while an entirely different message is delivered to the Muslim world in Arabic.

Anyone in the West who believes this drivel is true is either deluded, or a moron, or both.

"most Arabs are not terrorists; most terrorists are Arabs.

Can we please ban Pantload already? He keeps saying the same bullshit.

And pretty please no links to LGF? I'll go so far as to characterize that site as shit as well. It's sooo far gone at this point that it borders on group dementia. If the FBI wants to investigate crazy militant cults, start right there.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:11 AM PST on July 17"

[Link: www.metafilter.com...]

Take a look at the FBI's 25 most wanted terrorists.

Perhaps you are all adding an anti-Isreal bias when none actually exists. Certainly that is what one would expect out of the region.

Arafat has killed anyone that speaks out against him, and his regime kills freedom. These posters could also be seen as anti-Arafat.

Wow, James, that sure is a coincidence, isn't it? What are the chances of ALL 25 OF THEM being Muslims?

Metafilter... What stooges!

Mr. E,

Of course, you are corrent, I was just embelishing.

Another comparative use of the Pavlovian method is described in Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad (a great book, btw):

Several German panzer divisions also encountered a new form of unconventional weapon during this fighting. They found Rusian dogs running towards them with a curious-looking saddle holding a load on top with short upright stick. At first the panzer troops thought that they must be first-aid dogs, but then they realized that the animals had explosives or an anti-tank mine strapped to them. These 'mine-dogs', trained on Pavlovian principles, had been taught to run under large vehicles to obtain their food. The stick, catching agaist the underside, would detonate the charge. Most of the dogs were shot before they reached their target, but this macabre tactic had an unnerving effect.

So, I guess this is where I got the meat reference...

There is an interesting comparison between using dogs and children as suicide machines.

I think it's nice to see the people of Palestine as PEOPLE and not just thugs with bombs.

I don't want the next gen of Palestinian kids to end up as "holy martyrs", I don't want to see any more civilians or soldiers of Israel killed.

The truth is that both sides are at fault in this ancient family disagreement. Both sides have to compromise.

I don't care what the Bible, or the Torah or the Quran says about this being the Jew's lands, or the Arab's land, or whatever. Maybe God wants us to grow up and stop fighting over the sandbox.

GROW UP and stop killing each other over a bit of ancient dirt.

"In other words it justifies the Palestinian war tactics that use deliberate targeting of and killing civilians as the means and even justifies the use of their own children as human shields; these children are inevitable casualties in an urban war."

Yes. Furthermore, there is the subtext of all the messages that it's entirely Israel's fault that Johnny can't sing or Sarah can't be Mother Teresa or Bassem can't laugh. (But, hmm, I seem to remember a lot of Palestinian children howling with laughter and cheering on 9/11. I guess they didn't know about this ad campaign yet.)

No recognition of the PA's role in Palestinian children's suffering, or that of the surrounding Arab states. It's all Israel's fault, isn't it?

Finally, to all those who think it's a nice, peace-filled message: That is what is so damned frustrating! It creates the false perception that Palestinians want peace; the Jews do not. It puts such a sympathetic face on the Palestinian cause by lying about the PA's aspirations (which, in case you haven't heard their own words, is the complete destruction of Israel).

As I said, perhaps to subtly, in #10, the PA does not want its children to grow up to be Gandhis or Abes or MLKs. Any such person would be killed as a "collaborator" and his body is dragged through the streets and then hung upside-down from a light pole, to the delight of a cheering crowd. Now that's "dying to live."

Dana, Dana, Dana.

Israel has compromised time and again. Israel has agree to nearly every Palestinian demand in exchange for just a promise of peace. Just a promise! And even that they cannot do. They won't take yes for an answer. Do you even know what the Oslo Accords are? How Israel transferred land and soveriegnty and military and economic help to 98% of the Palestinians and agreed in principle to the establishment of a Palestinian state -- something they delivered twice in the year 2000 -- all of this for just an agreement that the Palestinians would cease violence. The Palestinians haven't compromised an inch of their position (that Israel is to be supplanted by Palestine).

In return Israel got a war. How much more compromising can they do? They can't compromise their country away simply because murderous thugs demand it.

I suppose you're simply uninformed.

Dana,

Your words are beautiful, but what if one side refuses to abide by those rules?

Is there still moral equivalence between the two? If two people have a disagreement are they both "in the wrong" equally? Are murder victims as morally responsible as the people who kill them? Does it matter if they can come up with an argument?

Real world does not fit in very well with post-modernism. In teh real world we deal with hate and greed and envy. And we there is no moral equivalnce...

RE: #120

It is counterproductive to trivialize the fight between Israel and the Palestinians by telling them to "Grow up and stop killing each other."

If that were really the solution, this problem would have been solved ages ago. It's almost like telling the US Military to "grow up" and get over that whole "September 11th" thing and stop killing terrorists in Afghanistan. The Israelis are retaliating to terrorists attacks on their citizens. No amount of "growing up" will change that fact.

Added on to the obvious hypocrisy of this ad campaign is yet another hypocrisy-

This crap comes from Jordan!

Jordan has always proven itself to be a true friend of the Palestinian cause. In September 1970 (where the name "Black September" comes from, for all you fans of Palestinian terrorist groups that Arafat has claimed plausible deniability from), Jordan killed upwards of around 10,000 of them, without so much as a second thought, in what was termed a civil war.

And why was it a civil war? Because the majority of the population of Jordan is, get this, Palestinian! If they had a democracy in that country, there would already be a Palestinian state!

Does it even need to be said that the country of present-day Jordan was originally part of Palestine under the British Mandate?

Those poor dispossessed Palestinians, with nowhere in the world to go, and brutalized by the Jews. And the good people in the enlightened kingdom of Jordan are doing all they can, with this ad campaign, to help out.

Very good point, Ben.

This ad campaign is designed to raise sympathies for the Palestinians which in turn will result in a continuation of this war. The Palestinians cannot defeat Israel, but they can continue terrorizing Israelis as long as world pressure (particularly American) keeps Israel from decisively defeating these terrorists. So what we have is a recipe for perpetual war. With no Palestinian state at the end.

Why shouldn't Jordan want a Palestinian state next door? Easy. The same reasons Israel would really rather not have one (although they've agreed in principle to take the risk for peace, as noted).

So encouraging perpetual war does two things:

1) it ensures that Jordan will not actually ever have to be neighbors with a Palestinian state
2) it assures Jordan's Palestinian majority that its government cares about their cousins across the river

Lots and lots and lots of dishonesty.

re: #78 Evan_the_Bored

Palestian Diaspora? They probably meant the Palestianian Diaperasspora, which is why Arafat always has a box of baby-wipes handy.

Re: #96 Ken Barnes--Advertising people are always ripping each other off. It's the nature of the biz, though many will deny it. There are hacks in every business. How can these people
"Think Different" when they can't even "think."

The campaign is unacceptable...

I will not think to their level.

Considering the oppresive regimes currently ruling the majority of the Arab world, did the creators of this effort misspell Lennon? 'Yassir of Palestine imagines he can be a Lenin.' That works a lot better.

Something I need to get off my chest:

I'm getting sick to death (pardon the pun) of all this grade-school rhetoric from our "betters" in the "peace" camp. From admonitions to "grow up," to references to LGF readers as "the mean crew" (mean? mean? Who writes this stuff -- an eight-year-old?) to comparisons with "family disagreements" which are somehow "ancient," to the moronic insights that maybe people shouldn't fight over the land (so killing is bad? Wow -- thanks!), to all this sanctimonious advice about working for some exercise in onanistic delusional do-goodism like Seeds of Peace -- I'm getting pretty fed up with this self-righteous arrogance backed by willful ignorance.

I think it's these "fair-minded," "progressive" wankers that need to grow up, remove their head from their ass, and realize that the world doesn't run like an after-school special or a counseling session; that there really are bad people in broken societies opposing good people in functional societies. But they won't, because they are too locked in the infantile worldview inherited from the 1960s, which would certainly explain why they respond so readily to any absurd notion if it can only be reduced to the viewpoint of a child. It's also why they react so loudly to anyone who rejects their worldview, and tries to inject some adult notions of reality into it. In extreme cases, it also explains the use of childish tactics such as puppets in their demonstrations, childish appeals to emotion over reason, or childishly screaming something they learned to be bad in grade school ("racist!!!") every time they encounter someone who doesn't think that "love and understanding" will solve everything.

I am usually happy to view opinions that diverge from mine. But this is crap. It's not an argument, or a point of view -- it's abject delusional stupidity, bolstered by arrogance. Just reading it is nauseating, like a copy of Adbusters, when you realize that the writers are serious. Shit, I'll take Arab propaganda over them any day.

I seem to recall a saying: "Where there's life, there's hope." One can easily conclude that violence on both sides is extinguishing hope on both sides.

Thanks again, E. Nough, for reading my mind and writing my thoughts much better than I ever could. I just read the comments on Metafilter, and it is unreal how blind these people are.

They just don't get the problem with this ad campaign. It's not that we don't want messages of peace; we just want them delivered to the Palestinian children too, instead of having them (1) dressed up like suicide bombers as a joke, (2) subjected to Jew-hating after-school specials, and (3) sent to preschools where Hamas is celebrated as heros.

I wish the Palestinian children's heros really were MLK, Abe Lincoln and Mother Teresa. What a wonderful world it would be! But the Palestinian adults won't let it happen, and the rest of the Arab world won't either. Are the Saudis and Saddam sending fat checks to the families of Palestinians who stage sit-ins, or sing "Give Peace a Chance," or volunteer in hospitals? Nope, you only get one of those checks if you send your kid to blow himself up while taking as many Jews with him as possible.

Adam, I like E. am gettig tired of the "its both their fault": It is not. Why can't the Jews like all other nations have a tiny sliver of land, the size of New Jersey, without constant attempts to eradicate them from the face of the earth.

One can easily conclude that violence on both sides is extinguishing hope on both sides.

Israel's hope is to live in peace, something violence on one side has extinguished. There is violence on both sides only because one side insists on using violence to destroy the other.

Show a person who does not use "violence" to defend themself from "violence" and I will show you a corpse. See the Holocaust (6 million Jews slaughtered by violence perpetrated against them).

Your statement is nothing but "cycle of violence," moral equivilence bullshit. Do you honestly believe that if the Palestinians, or the Arab world in general were peaceful, Israel would use "violence" on them?

Get a history book (not an Arab one) and do some reading. Jews in Israel have been constantly attacked pre-dating 1948 and their only option for survival has been to defend themselves through what you term as "violence." If you need some perspective here is a brief and simplistic presentation of the history of the "violence."

If the Jews true aim was to use violence, the only Arabs you would see are the ones living in North America and Europe. There is right and there is wrong.

SNIP:

Eric the CR wrote

" Your words are beautiful, but what if one side refuses to abide by those rules?

Is there still moral equivalence between the two? If two people have a disagreement are they both "in the wrong" equally? Are murder victims as morally responsible as the people who kill them? Does it matter if they can come up with an argument?

Real world does not fit in very well with post-modernism. In teh real world we deal with hate and greed and envy. And we there is no moral equivalnce... - Eric the CR."

Eric,

I think the Isrealis are driven by more than, as you say "hate and greed and envy". Some of it is also the Russian style impulse of coping with fear by co-opting all the territories around it - and by not being raised to understand that the peoples in those territories are equally human.

And although I agree that the number is minute in comparison, there are also Isreali "murder victims" in this conflict.

However, I do agree with your overall point that the Palestinians have to deal with the reality that land that has been in their families for generations - passed down by oral contracts rather than British-style titles and deeds, are being taken away from them, and it is their moral duty to stop this by any means possible. What we need to show them is that there are other means that are effective besides the current ones. Simply calling the Isrealis murderers, as you come close to doing, is not going to inspire them the Isrealis to do anything other than live down to your expectations.

Robert Allen in Austin Texas

Robert: I think you read Eric the CR’s comment exactly opposite to the way he intended.

Whoa, Robert Allen, Eric was saying no such thing. You read into his comments precisely the opposite of what he intended.

Also:

I think the Isrealis are driven by more than, as you say "hate and greed and envy".

This is a farcical statement. Israelis don't need to "envy" the Arabs -- they have a far more prosperous and functional society than the Arabs do now or will in the near future. And if they were motivated by "hate and greed," this entire discussion would be academic, as Israel has the military strength to send Arabs the way of the dodo bird. To the contrary, Israelis just want to have their own country, and live on land that is a fraction of a percent of the size of land available to the Arabs -- and has no oil or natural resources to boot.

Some of it is also the Russian style impulse of coping with fear by co-opting all the territories around it

It's not merely "fear." Those territories have been used to attack Israel in the past, with the express and stated purpose of destroying the country and murdering its citizens. This purpose is stated to this very day. One need only look at the maps of the Palestine National Authority -- where Israel is conspicuously absent -- to appreciate that fact. But if that's too subtle, a visit to the web site of Hamas or Islamic Jihad will make it painfully clear.

Israel doesn't want Arabs out of the Middle East; the Arabs want Israel out. End of story.

and by not being raised to understand that the peoples in those territories are equally human.

You've got it exactly backwards. Israeli schools teach about Arab culture as part of their curriculum; it's Arab schools and kindergartens and official television that paints "Jews" as "pigs and monkeys," and calls for their murder through acts of glorious martyrdom.

Again, if Israelis really wanted to kill Arabs -- in Palestine and elsewhere -- that feat would have been accomplished decades ago. It is precisely because Israelis are unwilling to take that step that they have to endure regular mass murders in their streets, and face constant calumny from the EU and people in the US such as, well, you. If the Israelis ever fall to the level of murderous depravity that Arab societies currently occupy -- well, let's just say you might not want to buy Egyptian municipal bonds.

Ah, those lovable Metafilter kids. After calling LGF vile and racist and a bunch of other names, and demanding a ban on LGF and someone who defended us, now they’ve retched up a soggy Zionist media conspiracy rant.

Thanks to Fred Lapides for trying to say something sensible. Boo to Matt Howie for slapping him down.

Robert,

You completely misunderstand me. What I was saying is that I'm tired of the Leftie crowd saying that both parties are equally to blame.

I think that the Palestinians have no moral basis for their actions. Much like the poverty of the post WWI Germans cannot in any way justify the violence they unleashed on others.

Thank you very much, Charles and E., for defending my honor!

From metafilter:

Finally, Little Green Footballs. Not the best place to start the day if you are a lover of life. Don't do it kids...

This one had me howling.

J Lichty said:

Get a history book (not an Arab one) and do some reading. Jews in Israel have been constantly attacked pre-dating 1948 and their only option for survival has been to defend themselves through what you term as "violence." If you need some perspective here is a brief and simplistic presentation of the history of the "violence."

If the Jews true aim was to use violence, the only Arabs you would see are the ones living in North America and Europe.

Not all of Israel's wars were started by the Arabs. Though Israelis often argue that the 1967 war (in which the occupied territories were captured) was a Israeli preemptive strike against massing Arab forces intent on the distruction of Israel, notable Israelis have gone on record saying otherwise:

Yitzhak Rabin, then head of the army: "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into the Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it, and we knew it." Le Monde, 28 February1968

General Mattitahu Peled of the IDF General Staff: "All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel's existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army." Le Monde, 3 June 1972

Mordechai Bentov, Minister of Housing: "The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail, and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory." Al-Hamishmar, 14 April 1971

Menahem Begin, Israeli Prime Minister in an op-ed piece in The New York Times: "In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." Op-ed piece. The New York Times, 21 August 1982

(Excerpted from How war came: The Motives and Maneuverings Behind Israel's Attack)

The difficulty with prespectives gained from simplistic presentations is that they tend to be, well, simplistic.

These nutjobs seem to think that self-immolation is the answer to every problem. See the article in today's Jerusalem Post reporting that a Lebanese taxi driver set himself on fire to protest the government's ban on diesel engines!

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

Let's see all those statements in context, Alex.

As for the Begin one all he seems to be saying is that Israel had a choice to wait further and see if Nasser would attack or make a pre-emptive attack. They chose the latter, as any responsible government would do when faced with such circumstances.

The notion that "Hahahah! Nasser was only joking when he said he'd push Israel into the sea" is ludicrous. I'd like to see you respond with nothing when your next door neighbors vow to kill you and your family and encamp outside your boundaries with armies.

Even if it really is a little ambiguous as you suggest, it would behoove the Arabs to make their peaceful intentions clear -- if there are any -- and we will see if Israel really is aggressive and expansionist. At best you can make the case that Nasser was crying wolf. Well, like the boy in the story there are consequences to crying wolf. The Arabs always choose war. It's pathological, it's absurd but it's the way things are.

So, this is my view of the new kulturkampf:

Like the end of WWI, the end of the Cold War was confusing. The victory was not total and the losing side has retained its prejudices and world views.

In this case, the Left (both here and in Europe) has never given up on the idea of socialism and still believes that America is the only barrier that stands between them and their goal. Likewise, they have never let go of the prejudices acquired after decades of the Cold War struggle.

As is usually the case in history, it is only in the aftermath of a tragic event (like 9/11) when the masks come off. What I saw on the Left frightened me. Behind the mask is enourmous prejudice, hate and envy.

Behind their flowery language is a lack of respect for everything that I stand for -- democracy, justice and individual rights. For the Left, these are merely rhetorical preteneses, meant to cover-up jeaulosy, rage and impotence (compare with post WWI Germany). Simply put, there is no way to reconcile many of their postions with respect for the basic notions of liberalism.

Most of the positions of the Left can be bolied down to hate of America, of Jews and of anyone who dares to side with them. To me, it is as simple as that. Decades of Soviet anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda is hard to undo. Much like the post-WWI Germans, whose wounded pride led them to find their scapegoats, the Left has sought refuge for their souls in the same wells of hate.

I can't get enough of E. Nough. E. Nough is never enough. Keep clearing your chest E. Nough, most of the rest of us breathe a little easier after reading your outstanding, articulate commentary.

Thank you.

For anyone who cares, I've got a short history of Umm Kalthum I wrote a few years ago posted over at my old zine's website.

If you're interested, the article would explain who she was and her importance in the Arab world. She certainly doesn't fit the mold of a "traditional" Muslim woman. She was a strong, capable, independant woman, and was paradoxically loved for it by the masses. Makes you sort of believe there's hope yet.

If these ads were tailor made for a western liberal-left audience they didn't do a very good job. By PC standards the campaign is unbelievably sexist. Only 2 of the ten children are persons of gender. The two young women both aspire to traditional female roles - entertainers and servants (ie. whores and slaves).

If this campaign had been made in the West a more "equal" number of kids would be female - say 9 out of 10. And they would all hope to emulate great scientists, engineers and WWF champions.

alex,

As per J Lichty, please do not use propaganda sites as references. If these articles are true, please post the links to the originals. I would take your argument more seriously then.

Second, even if everything you say is true, it still has no bearing on the conclusion. Lets assume for the sake of the argument that in the 1967 war the Israelis attacked for fun (just like their patrons the Americans). You can't hold one side to a perfection standard, while allowing the other side to sidestep all moral behavior. You can't expect the Israelis to be perfect angels all the time, while explaining away the criminality of the Arabs. Whatever the standard it has to be the same for both sides.

So even if the Israelis started that war, the Arabs started many more and are responsible for much more misery in the region. Net net, the moral judgement goes to Israel in any case.

I second E. Nough's eloquence. Here's one of his past posts that's well worth repeating:

"Let's go even further: assume that the FBI had information on the exact
> date, time, flight number, and descriptions of suspects. So they raid all
> the planes, and arrest the 19 dirtbags.
>
> ...And then what? Not much, I imagine. Oh, CAIR and it's ilk would be
having
> a fit, of course, complaining to everyone including George W. about
> profiling and unfair targeting of Arab-Americans. After all, just what did
> the FBI find? Some box cutters? Those aren't illegal on airplanes. Flight
> manuals? These men were all attending accredited flight schools, trying to
> achieve the American dream, etc. etc. So they had one-way tickets: is that
a
> crime? Funeral shrouds? Are you honestly arresting these men for bringing
> white sheets onto a plane? Korans? So because these men are pious Muslims,
> you dare to assume...! And really, folks, come on: flying a Boeing into a
> skyscraper? You've been watching too many movies! Who would come up with
> something this complicated, when a truck bomb in a garage would do just as
> well?
>
> And so on and so on. I'm sure at least half these men would have been
> released within a couple of days. Profiling would be discussed at length
on
> CNN and PBS. Several specials would be made, with weeping, hijab-wearing
> photogenic young women, describing in perfect Midwestern English the
ordeal
> of being singled out by airport security. American Airlines would issue an
> apology, and make a contribution to the Arab-American Anti-Defamation
> Society, with a promise of more "outreach efforts." Norman Mineta would be
> outraged! and put in all sorts of new restrictions designed specifically
to
> avoid giving extra scrutiny to "people of Middle Eastern appearance."
(hey!
> wait a second!) George W. would go on the record saying that "pro-filling"
> is "discriminatational" and against everything he holds dear. Clinton
would
> tell a story of his Lebanese-American great-uncle who was once denied
entry
> into the White House. Al Gore would talk about his years of service under
> Lawrence of Arabia. Pretty soon, the whole thing would be forgotten as
> another embarrasing example of the Latent Racism in American Society.
>
> Until one day, another group of men board an airliner..."
>
> posted by Enough @ 5/15/2002 09:28PM PST
>

How hard would it take to create a mock site with similar pictures, but with Lenon instead of Lennon, and Adolf Eichman instead of Einstean.

Most of the pics shown on that site were from western countries, not arab countries. Is whether there is any Arab country that affords its citizens enough freedom that their children can realistically aspire to greatness.

I doubt it.

Alex, on the subject of who attacked whom in 1967, tell us what you make of the following message transmitted on the morning of 5 June 1967, by Prime Minister Eshkol to King Hussein asking Jordan to refrain from hostilities:

We are engaged in defensive fighting on the Egyptian sector, and we shall not engage ourselves in any action against Jordan, unless Jordan attacks us. Should Jordan attack Israel, we shall go against her with all our might.

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Regrettably, King Hussaein ignored Israel's guarantee of nonbelligerence and attacked in force. The rest, as they say, is history.

Joe-

I can't believe you actually said "persons of gender."

So what are men? Genderless? Are the only people "of gender" women?

I didn't know that PC BS had reached this point!

Fay Greenwood # 143

Amen

alex, we've been over this already. Yes, there can be some argument as to whether Egypt and Syria intended to attack in 1967, but I'd say massing troops at the border and constantly broadcasting promises to destroy Israel leave an unambiguous signal. (I mean, really, why did Nasser mass troops at the Israeli border, and kick out the UN peacekeepers? Was he going to hold a big parade, and the blue suits didn't fit the color motif?

Even more to the point, the very fact that it was uncertain whether Egypt and Syria would attack or not already justified a preemptive attack by Israel. If there was even a good probability that the Arabs were going to attack, the Israelis had no reason to wait for the bombs to start falling. Given the actions of Egypt and Syria, in combination with their rhetoric, I'd say the probability was way better than good. Oh, and then there is the small matter of Egypt blockading the Strait of Tiran. (Perhaps for an Air and Water show, in combination with the parade they were going to hold in the North.) That is an act of war, you know.

General Peled's words to Le Monde are particularly ironic, given that the Israeli Army would be attacked by the Egyptians the next year, and lose quite a bit of territory before recovering enough for a counterattack. Good thing they had the Sinai to lose territory in, or else Israel may have fallen altogether. Peled was blustering, nothing more.

The simple fact is, Israel had no wish for another conflict with Arabs. We take it for granted that Israel has military superiority over Arab nations, but this was far from the case in 1967. Remember, this was before the U.S. decided to ally with the Israelis, so they not only were outmanned and outgunned, they didn't even have a reliable large benefactor. (In contrast with the Arabs, who were already massively supported by the Soviets.) All year long, there were fears in Israel of an imminent massive Arab attack -- not least because the Arabs kept promising one. And if there is any lesson Jews learned from the Holocaust, it's that when someone promises to wipe you off the face of the earth, take them seriously.

Steven Den Beste could probably do a much better military/historical analysis of the events in 1967, but to portray them as Israel attacking, out of the blue, three separate well-armed countries all around it, is preposterous. Moreover, it is the height of hypocrisy for Arabs to shriek about "Israeli aggression" after repeated promises, on the radio, in so many words, to push the Jews into the sea, and blocking off a vital shipping route. Even more to the point, all the land that had been taken away from Egypt was has been given back in good faith -- thereby proving conclusively that the Israelis stick by agreements, and were not just starting a war to get land they'd give back 10 years later.

The difficulty with prespectives gained from simplistic presentations is that they tend to be, well, simplistic.

Yeah, tell me about it.

I too can't get enough of E. Nough.

I move that E. Nough starts his (her?) blasted blog already. :)

Eric the CR said:

As per J Lichty, please do not use propaganda sites as references. If these articles are true, please post the links to the originals. I would take your argument more seriously then.

and James said:

Let's see all those statements in context, Alex.

I regret that these articles largely predate online media, and a google search for the original texts largely came up short. I did find these well-cited articles, though and offer them as partial proof of the validity of the above quotes:
[Link: www.washington-report.org...]
[Link: www.columbiariverpeace.org...]
[Link: www.jewsweek.com...]
[Link: www.rcpbml.org.uk...]
[Link: www.browndailyherald.com...]
[Link: www.bargione.co.uk...]

I was able to find the original text that Menahem Begin's quote was pulled from; It was originally from a speech delivered on Aug. 8, 1982, before the Israeli National Defense College (text here)

James is correct; the quote does appear out of context. Consider the following exteneded quote (which contains the above quote):

"Our other wars were not without an alternative. In November 1956 we had a choice. The reason for going to war then was the need to destroy the fedayeen, who did not represent a danger to the existence of the state. Thus we went off to the Sinai campaign. At that time we conquered most of the Sinai Peninsula and reached Sharm el Sheikh. Actually, we accepted and submitted to an American dictate, mainly regarding the Gaza Strip (which Ben-Gurion called 'the liberated portion of the homeland'). John Foster Dulles, the then-secretary of state, promised Ben-Gurion that an Egyptian army would not return to Gaza. The Egyptian army did enter Gaza ... After 1957, Israel had to wait 10 full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland.

"In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him. This was a war of self-defense in the noblest sense of the term. The Government of National Unity then established decided unanimously: we will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation."

I would argue that the full text of the speech shows the expansionist intentions of the Israeli government. I interpret Begin's speech to mean:
1.The Egyptian army reclaimed Gaza in 1957, and Israel would have to wait 10 years to reclaim that "portion of the homeland. "
2. In 1967, Israel faced no real danger from Egyption forces and the preemtive strike was not necessary the imediate existance of the state
3.The "war of self defense in the nobelist sense" was intended to severely cripple Egyptian forces and retake lands, in the absense of an imediate threat.

That's merely my take; you're of course welcome to your own opinions.

Koyla said:

Alex, on the subject of who attacked whom in 1967, tell us what you make of the following message transmitted on the morning of 5 June 1967, by Prime Minister Eshkol to King Hussein asking Jordan to refrain from hostilities:

I think the above discussion argues that that the distinction of defensive fighting is somewhat dubious, and that the Arab world was apt to see Israel's actions as agressive. I think King Hussaein acted against what he precieved to be Israeli belligerence. His actions may have been reckless and headstrong (not to mention stupid, given the desparity between Egyptian and Jordanian forces), but I think he was motivated by misplaced loyality for his arab allys (as well as a hate for Israel and all things Jewish).

E. Nough makes excellent arguements, and I agree wholeheartedly that the statements and actions of the Arab states upto the events of 1967 (and since) created an extremely threatening environment for for Jewish people in the Middle East. However, I think Israeli's actions in 1967 cannot be fully justified under the pretense of self defense, and I think that the Israeli leaders to some degree saw the opportunity to annex arab land in a "preemptive" strike. How else can I explain Israel granting premission to its citizens to relocate in the occupied territories, despite frequent assurances to the United Nations and the United States that it would not do so?

~ Cheers.

OOPS:

In my last comment i said:

How else can I explain Israel granting premission to its citizens to relocate in the occupied territories...

I ment to say:

How else can I explain Israel immediately granting premission to its citizens to relocate in the occupied territories...

The distinction is significant, as Israeli citizens began claiming portions of the territiories within 5 weeks of the end of hostilities.

In response to Zion Blogster's inquiry way up in post #3:

For what it's worth, a message about this ad campaign has been forwarded to an attorney who represents the estates of John Lennon and Pablo Picasso (I am friends with one of the attorney's relatives, who promised to send along the information).

I don't know what might come of this, but I know that, in the past, Yoko's been none too keen about the unlicensed use of her husband's likeness.

James #154, shame on you questioning E(dward) Nough's gender. You've been around these posts enough (no pun intended) to know that Mr. Nough is a Mr.

In fact, I was going to propose to him if he isn't already married!

Suzanne (post #151):

I believe Joe was being sarcastic. He was mocking PC bullshit you seem to be against. BTW, James Lileks used "woman of gender" gem in one of his latest screeds (can't find the link).

E. Nough is staying here with us.

Stop telling him to start his own blog.

Look at this lovefest...

[Link: www.littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Ross writes:

I don't know what might come of this, but I know that, in the past, Yoko's been none too keen about the unlicensed use of her husband's likeness.

I bet Yoko, like the rest of the leftie crowd will be thrilled that the heroic Palestinian martyr heroes are looking up to John Lennon. For Peace activists homicide murdering does not disrupt peace, Jews eating Pizza does.

In addition, she needs to support the other former beatles including Ringo Starr.

James #154, shame on you questioning E(dward) Nough's gender. You've been around these posts enough (no pun intended) to know that Mr. Nough is a Mr.

In fact, I was going to propose to him if he isn't already married!

In fact I thought he is a he but had a moment of self doubt. Mea culpa. ;)

alex writes:

However, I think Israeli's actions in 1967 cannot be fully justified under the pretense of self defense,

You beg the question when you say "pretense." You can certainly argue that Israel attacked Egypt and Syria in order to gain land, but you'd still be wrong, and if you are going to claim that, I would like to ask why they would attack in 1967 specifically.

and I think that the Israeli leaders to some degree saw the opportunity to annex arab land in a "preemptive" strike. How else can I explain Israel granting premission to its citizens to relocate in the occupied territories, despite frequent assurances to the United Nations and the United States that it would not do so?

First, correlation is not causation. (Don't you hate it when people quote truisms like that? :-) Israel could have fought a defensive war, and having won territory in said war, used it however they chose. Russia still controls Sakhalin, and the Saipan is a U.S. territory, even though Japan was defeated over a half-century ago, and is no longer an aggressor. (I really don't give a rip what "international law" says on the subject, much less how the Carter Administration interpreted it. Winning land in a defensive war entitles you to it -- it's a concept that dates back to prehistoric times.)

Anyway, that wasn't the case. There was actually much argument over whether to allow Israelis to settle in the West Bank, mostly because the Israeli government really thought they'd be giving the land back to Jordan in short order. A very limited number of Orthodox Jews was allowed to settle in the West Bank prior to the 1980s, and that followed a very contentious religious/political debate.

Frankly, all of this is irrelevant minutiae. The 1967 "border" with Jordan was nothing more than a trenchline, not recognized as a border by the UN -- because Jordan did not wish it to be recognized. Arab stance against Israel had been aggressive and belligerent since the country's founding in 1948, and they attacked several times in order to take all of Israel's territory and murder its people wholesale. That they failed to do this is a measure of their own incompetence, not some high-minded respect for "international law." In the context of the Arabs' continued belligerency, any military action taken by Israel to weaken them -- including the strike on massed Egyptian forces in 1967 and bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1980 -- is defensive by definition. Until the Arab nations stand down, recognize Israel's existence (!), stop supporting the murder of civilians, open up diplomatic relations, and begin acting like responsible governments, they are in no position to demand or criticize anything done by Israel, and Israel is under no obligation to concede to any demands made on their behalf.

J Lichty,

Sorry to have to kick the hyperbolic soapbox you're standing on, but you're flat-out wrong. Sympathy for a cause is one thing (and given the fact that you know nothing about Yoko Ono's viewpoint on this particular issue, you can't even take that for granted. This leftie has no sympathy for homicide bombers, for instance).

But business is business, and letting a copyright infringement slide for the purposes of promoting a marketing disaster such as suicide bombing is bad business.

Unless, of course, you believe she's of the mindset that, by supporting this cause, she can increase sales of "Double Fantasy" and Lennon-inspired Carter's baby gear to the mullahs enough to outweigh their concomitant loss of sales in the West.

I don't accept Alex's quotes, or the links he provided after the fact, as valid. The second link doesn't work at all, and the rest of them come from what are obviously virulently anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sources, except for Jewsweek; and the Jewsweek "proof" is a mere assertion by an anti-Israel individual having a debate with a pro-Israel opponent. Very official.

We have seen how complete lies have taken hold and proliferated: the urban myth that Israeli spies were on top of a building smiling at the destruction of the World Trade Center; that Ariel Sharon said that he controls the U.S. government and that such a statement was reported on Kol Yisrael, and so on. None of these things ever happened, there was never any such report on KY, but I keep seeing these slanders repeated.

In 1967, Nasser had been making extremely threatening and inflammatory statements for weeks. He had massed troops on Israel's borders. After the attacks of 1948 and 1956, it doesn't surprise me one bit that Israel decided to use a preemptive strike to destroy Egypt's air power. It would have been foolhardy for them to have done otherwise.

And the 1967 war reunited Jerusalem, ending the Jews' exclusion from the Western Wall and other holy places which had started with the Jordanian annexation of the "West Bank" and East Jerusalem in 1948.

By the way, when the Arab League took East Jerusalem, which included the old Jewish Quarter, in 1948, they evicted all of the Jews, even though Jews had lived in the Jewish Quarter for milennia. I don't hear those who scream loudest about Arab expulsions ever mention the fact that Jews were kicked out of their homes without compensation of any kind, not only in Jerusalem but from all of the Arab countries.

Are you aware that Jews had lived in Syria and Egypt since before Roman times? Thus, the Jews were there before Islam even existed. Yet they were expelled or forced to flee. Where was the world's outrage then? Fortunately, Jews didn't allow other Jews to end up as political pawns in squalid refugee camps; all of the refugees from Arab lands were immediately absorbed by Israel, despite the fact that doing so stretched Israel's meager resources to their breaking point.

It's OK for the Arabs to want Judenrein territory, is it? Perhaps that's why no one says a word about that fact that Jews are not even allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia, lest they "pollute" the "holy soil." The U.S. government won't send Jewish citizens to Saudi Arabia, in deference to our good friends' sensitivities.

For those who demand that Israel dismantle all "settlements" in Judea and Samaria, what about the Jews of Hebron, who have lived there for many hundreds of years (between Arab pogroms, that is)? Are they entitled to stay, or is everything "Arab land"?

I am sick to death of how Arab discrimination and bigotry is shrugged off, yet the Jews are attacked constantly.

James #154, shame on you questioning E(dward) Nough's gender. You've been around these posts enough (no pun intended) to know that Mr. Nough is a Mr.

It's no problem. I am perfectly ok with people not keeping a detailed log of everything I say. I mean, seriously... And I'm secure enough in my gender that questioning it doesn't bother me. ;-)

For what it's worth, Edward Nough really was just a character I invented for one of my posts. I didn't mean for him to become synonymous with me; the original name "Enough" was a fairly thoughtless moniker for a comment I posted on Stephen Green's website in the wake of the Netanya passover bombing. Oh well, it's moot now.

I really am male, though. Like most other factoids about me, I don't consider that important to the discussion, but it certainly makes it easier to know which pronouns to use.

In fact, I was going to propose to him if he isn't already married!

blush

Nooo comment...

This is unprecedented in its cloying cynicism, even for the Palys. What they really need to do is to create a version of this in Arabic to dissuade the children from playing "Shaheed" (as in the Ha'aretz article Charles linked to earlier [Link: www.haaretzdaily.com...] )
and teach them to do something more positive with their lives.

Sorry E. Nough, didn't mean to make you blush!

E. Nough said:

I really don't give a rip what "international law" says on the subject, much less how the Carter Administration interpreted it.

I think our opinions on international law and the roll of the united nations are probably pretty unreconcilable. For interest's sake, I'd point out that the two examples you cite predate the Geneva Convention. Unless the Geneva convention may be applied retroctively* (and I don't think ever has been) Sakhalin and Saipan would not fall under its jurisdiction.

That they failed to do this is a measure of their own incompetence, not some high-minded respect for "international law." In the context of the Arabs' continued belligerency, any military action taken by Israel to weaken them -- including the strike on massed Egyptian forces in 1967 and bombing of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1980 -- is defensive by definition. Until the Arab nations stand down, recognize Israel's existence (!)

While I agree that failure of the arab states to recognize Israel's right to exist is contemptable, I disagree that Arab actions gave Israel an unlimited licence to persue its own interests. However I'd use international law to support that arguement too.

International law aside: I feel that Israel, as a democratic society, must recognize the right of the residents of the occupied territories to self-determination. That right exists regardless of the illegal actions actions of a minority of militants, and cannot be withheld over an extended period (30 years!) for any reason. I feel that this arguement is irrelevant of international law and criticism, and can stand on moral grounds alone.

Amy said:

I don't accept Alex's quotes, or the links he provided after the fact, as valid.

That's a convient way to disregard opinions you don't like. If I avoided material that was incongruent with my own worldview, I'd never have read this website. Incidently I wandered over here from the much despised MetaFilter earlier this morning.

Cheers / Alex.

* Footnote, a Google search for "geneva convention retroactive " returned this virulently anti-Israel and anti-Zionist source(amy, consider that fair warning) that inadvertently points out that the Geneva Convention may not guarentee the right of return to refugees who left Israel after the war of 1948.

Ross writes:

This leftie has no sympathy for homicide bombers, for instance

I cannot concisely describe the definition of left is, but it is unlikely you fit into my working categorization of "lefty" if you were outraged by this ad campaign and are against suicide murders.

Perhaps someone else here has a good working definition of lefty, which I use to describe the European "intelligentsia," most of academe and most of the "mainstream" media.

I will also not get into the record of the verve and vigor in which the "left," as I use it, has hypocritcally said "all you need is love unless you are an Israeli, in which case you deserve to die because you are the worst apartheid war criminals who make the heroic people who want to murder you stand on line at a security check point to come into your country that the world has ever known."

Regarding your second complaint:

business is business, and letting a copyright infringement slide for the purposes of promoting a marketing disaster such as suicide bombing is bad business.

If the use of the image were explicitly supporting suicide bombings I may agree with you. However even if it did, people have made some really goofy and spiteful commercial decisions including boycotts regarding Israel. Many otherwise rational companies and organizations have unleashed an irrational fury against all things Israel, and Yoko, if she supports the Palestinian cause is not immune to the same tomfoolery.

I am no fan of Yoko but you are correct, I do not know here political leanings or stance on this position, but can only guess that she has been poisoned by the lies like many in the entertainment industry.

But I really just wanted to get that link into the Ringo=Arafat picture thing, and I am sorry you took offense to the nature of my post.

I applaud your efforts to send this to Yoko and I hope that she shuts down this profane use of her late great husband's image. Although, please don't knock me off my soap-box, I like it up there.

alex writes:

I think that the Israeli leaders to some degree saw the opportunity to annex arab land in a "preemptive" strike. How else can I explain Israel granting premission to its citizens to relocate in the occupied territories

This is patent drivel. In the preceding paragraph you acknowledged my point that Israel tried to avoid fighting over Jerusalem and the West Bank, which is where the overwhelming majority of settlers subsequently set up residence.

The undisputed fact that Israel tried to avoid having to occupy the very areas that were far and away the most tempting from a settlement point of view, makes a nonsense of your claim.

This kind of cavalier attitude to the facts does not inspire confidence in your intellectual integrity.

Alex writes:

The difficulty with prespectives gained from simplistic presentations is that they tend to be, well, simplistic.

You fail to apprecitate the value of simplicity in certain cases. For example, your failure to comprehend the simple in this case.

Rather than focussing on this simple fact of long-standing unprovoked Arab agresssion against the Jews, you focus on a very dubious, at best claim, that Israel was the agressor in one of the countless acts of "violence" in the history of that region.

Good work by Amy, Enough and Eric the CR for calling him on it.

alex writes:

While I agree that failure of the arab states to recognize Israel's right to exist is contemptable, I disagree that Arab actions gave Israel an unlimited licence to persue its own interests.

That's not what I said. I was only referring to actions that weaken hostile Arab states militarily. Remember, with the exception of Jordan and Egypt, the Arab world is still at war with Israel. Does that mean that Israel can gas a Yemeni village at will? No -- only Egypt can get away with that -- but nuclear reactors and chemical-warfare factories are fair game.

: I feel that Israel, as a democratic society, must recognize the right of the residents of the occupied territories to self-determination. That right exists regardless of the illegal actions actions of a minority of militants, and cannot be withheld over an extended period (30 years!) for any reason.

It wasn't "without any reason." The land has strategic importance. Israel cannot afford to cede it all back.

That said, I think you are right, and so do the Israelis, which is why there was an Oslo process, and why Arafat got to play "King of Palestine" for eight years. However, the Israelis likewise have the right to live in peace and security, without worrying about a blitzkrieg from the east, or bombs walking into their cafes. It is up to the Arabs, in the West Bank and elsewhere, to show good faith in putting this into practice. The simple and ironic fact is, had Arabs not kept trying to destroy Israel since the day of its founding, Ramallah and Hebron and Tulkarm would be cities in Transjordan today (but not an independent "Palestine" -- that's a whole 'nuther irony), the Golan Heights would belong to Syria, and the Arabs would benefit from the assistance of the most -- the only -- advanced and innovative society in the region. Not that their leaders would care for that too much.

Instead, they choose to "fight," and continue to lose, and then get all indignant that they have all these dead people. Had Arafat not chosen to negotiate with rocks and suicide bombers, he would probably be President-for-Life of the "The People's Democratic Republic of Palestine" today. (Let's not kid ourselves -- at the height of his power, Arafat could have hung every suspected Hamas and Islamic Jihad member from a flagpole, and no one would complain. Well, maybe Amnesty International.) Tourism and trade across the Green Line would have been wide open, and Israelis would be putting up factories in the West Bank to take advantage of cheap labor. Materially, the Palestinians would be some of the best-off Arabs outside Kuwait, and tourism would be bringing in tons of currency. But he chose as he chose, and Israel did what she had to, and now it's a bit rich for people to get all worked up about Israeli "aggression." No one is obligated to sit still and watch its people die.

As usual, the Arabs are their own worst enemy.

Once again, more idiocy wrapped in meaningless slogans from the 1960s-era.

To paraphrase Alex (who sounds like a reasonable, thoughtful - though not thoughtful enough individual) "International law aside: I feel that Israel, as a democratic society, must recognize the right of the residents of the occupied territories to self-determination. That right exists regardless of the illegal actions actions of a minority of militants, and cannot be withheld over an extended period (30 years!) for any reason. I feel that this arguement is irrelevant of international law and criticism, and can stand on moral grounds alone."

Self-determination! Wonderful. At least he has gotten beyond the empty slogans of "war is harmful to animals and other living things" type of hooey, and moved on to emptier slogans.

This self-determination - which should be granted, in Alex's words, 'on moral grounds alone' - is another phrase that substitutes for thinking.

I don't wish to rehash the Palestinians' actual nebulous claims to the land west of the Jordan. But this "self-determination", on moral grounds, is just silly.

I suppose it should apply equally...to the Confederacy, perhaps? Or maybe to any group which has identified itself (please look at the former Yugoslavia for an example of the efficacy of that solution). How about just to minorities living in democratic societies, such as the Quebec separatists, the Basques, the Tamil separatisits, and my favorite, the Kashmiri separatists...of course, this list goes on and on.

But "self-determination" as a moral goal only seems to have only one target - the Jews.

Except for the time that it was used successfully on behalf of the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia.

More irony -

most of those who scream the loudest for "self-determination" would deny it for the Jews.

Guess what! "Zionism" equals "self-determination" for Jews, yet so many trumpeters of "self-determination!" are anti-Zionist (although never, ever, ever antisemitic of course *wink, wink*).

You said it faster than I Ben. :)

Except for the time that it was used successfully on behalf of the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia

The Jews were the ultimate target then, too. Less then two months separate the destruction of Czechoslovakia from Kristallnacht.

It 's not surprising, thus that the only European leader who sided with Israel in the current war was Czechoslovakia's prime minister.

The palestinians are fools and stupid if they think for one second that they will/can defeat Israel. Israel is the super-power of middle east; they buy our F-16s, weaponry, tanks, rocket launchers, etc. How foolish the palistinians are! Instead of coming to realize that Israel is likely to be never defeated by rocks, bottles, and suicide bombers, they continue to use self-defeatist tactics which doesn't win them any allies in the US! Too bad the American press won't come out and state the truth of the conflict in the middle east: it's a religious war against Israel and the palistinians declared it.
I say the US should "screw" the middle east: stop wasting our money there altogether - let all of the countries in the middle east solve their own f*ing problems!

J Lichty,

No harm no foul. I caught your comment at a bad angle and responded more harshly than I should have.

It's funny and a shame that there is such a close resemblance between the clown prince of the Greatest Band of All Time and that evil clown of a baby wipe bomber.

The creators of these ads were not aware that Albert Einstein was a Jew and a Zionist!

I'd like to thank the person who reminded me that Martin Luther King Jr. was pro-Zionist.

In the Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. you can read "Letter to an anti-Zionist Friend". He clearly says that aniti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

Israel is the super-power of middle east; they buy our F-16s, weaponry, tanks, rocket launchers, etc.

That they do, and they also make their own. Search the article for Kfir.

Something else interesting, from the same article:

IAF pilots also faced Russian pilots who occasionally participated in the defense of Egyptian air space. Encounters between Russian and Israeli pilots reached a climax on 30 July 1970 when four Mirage IICs were sent to attack a radar base in the Nile Delta to draw the Russian pilots into the battle. At the same time, another four Mirages and four F-4s were lying in ambush at a very low altitude. The Russians sent two formations of four MiG-21s to shoot down the Mirages. A short time later, another dozen MiGs took off. In the ensuing air battle, five Russian-piloted planes were shot down.

Not only were the Arabs getting Russian hardware, they also got Russian pilots and other military personnel to work that hardware. And they still lost. You'd think they'd get the idea by now, wouldn't you.

I say the US should "screw" the middle east: stop wasting our money there altogether - let all of the countries in the middle east solve their own f*ing problems!

That would be equivalent to consigning a huge number of Arabs to a death sentence.

Besides, we get a pretty good bang for our buck from the Israelis. $2 billion a year is a helluvalot less than it costs us to defend, say, South Korea, the U.S. doesn't have to use its own troops, and for our cash, we get a completely reliable ally in a very volatile region where we are rather short of real allies.

Now, as to what we get from the Egyptians, there you got me...

Actually, I think it's kind of telling that the people these kids are supposed to emulate are all non-Arabs (or non-Muslim).

I guess there are no favorable Arab/Palestinian/Muslim role models out there.

Doesn't speak well for the Arab culture... all those years, all the opportunities... and no one to show for it (Saladin and bin Laden don't count).

E. Nough wrote:

That said, I think you are right, and so do the Israelis, which is why there was an Oslo process, and why Arafat got to play "King of Palestine" for eight years.

I'll be the first to say that Arafat's actions are criminal, but I'm also skeptical about the commitment of past and present Israeli leaders to the peace process. That's my liberal leftest roots showing.

Ben wrote:

I don't wish to rehash the Palestinians' actual nebulous claims to the land west of the Jordan. But this "self-determination", on moral grounds, is just silly.

I suppose it should apply equally...to the Confederacy, perhaps? Or maybe to any group which has identified itself (please look at the former Yugoslavia for an example of the efficacy of that solution). How about just to minorities living in democratic societies, such as the Quebec separatists, the Basques, the Tamil separatisits, and my favorite, the Kashmiri separatists...of course, this list goes on and on.

STRAW MAN: Each of the groups you mention are part of democratic societies with elected officials and in which there exist avenues for dissent. For instance consider the Quebec separatist example: In 1970 the FLQ detonated a number of bombs in mail boxes and kidnap James Cross & Pierre Laporte, demanding airtime to read a separatist manefesto. Their actions were criminal, and they have been tried for them.

More recently, the separtist Parti Quebecquois was elected to the Quebec provencal government, and the separtist Bloc Quebecquois was elected as the official opposition in the federal government. The groups organized a provincial referendum in 1995, which asked the Quebec population if they wished to separate from Canada. 50.56% voted NO. So ended one of the best examples of self determination in moden history.

Comparison between the Palistinian population and these groups is futile because of the disparity between their civil rights. The Palistinan population cannot elect representatives to the Israeli government, and the authority of their elected leaders is superseded by the wishes of the Israeli government and population.

International law aside, I think there are two ways the Israeli government can fufill its moral obligation to the population in the territories it occupies:
1. Recognize the territories as a separate soverign state, or
2. Integrate the inhabitants of the territories into Israeli society, recognizing that they have the same rights and responsibilities as Israeli citizens.

We know #2 is not in Israeli interests, as it would destroy the Jewish character of the state (and the legitimacy of a non-secular democracy is beyond the scope of this debate). That leaves only #1.

I fully realize that the transition form occupied territories to soverign state is a long one and that Arafat has not been especially helpful in this process. However, I think Sharon and his predecessors were too quick to derail the peace process and order incursions into the territories, and too slow to halt settlement expansion.

I'll be the first to say that Arafat's actions are criminal, but I'm also skeptical about the commitment of past and present Israeli leaders to the peace process. That's my liberal leftest roots showing.

So, withdrawing from the Sinai (an extremely valuable piece of real estate) in 1977, and staying out since, doesn't convince you? A lasting peace deal with Jordan doesn't convince you? Withdrawing gradually from the West Bank and arming Arafat's security forces doesn't convince you? Setting up a joint tax collection structure to fund the PNA doesn't convince you? Barak's offer to share control of Jerusalem doesn't convince you? Just how else should the Israelis have proven their commitment? I hope you are at least as skeptical of Arab offers of "normalized relations". . .

This isn't about leftist roots; it sounds like ordinary prejudice. "Them Israelis just ain't trustworthy."

I remain unconvinced when:

* Israel continues to deny housing permits to support the natural growth of Palistinian population centers in Area C, and targets houses built without permits for demolition.
* Israel, in the persuit of militant groups, continues to impose curfews and travel restrictions that restrict the population's access to to essentials such as food, health care and education.
* Israel has consistantly failed and continues to fail to dismantle and prevent the expansion of settler outposts, which are illegal under Israeli law.
* Israel maintains restrictions on trade and buisness which have crippled the Palistinain economy and pushed unemployment pasy 70% in some areas.
* Israel persues discriminatory policies that restrict the rights of its own non-jewish citiziens.

Alex, you give Israel no credit at all. Israel may not live up to your every demand and expectation, but considering the fact that they can really do anything they want including ending this terrorism with sheer, brutal force -- in a matter of weeks, should they choose to -- but don't, and have also done all that E. Nough has outlined... perhaps your expectations for a people at war with a brutal enemy (sure, flip it around if you want -- but it remainsthat the Palestinians are a brutal enemy at war with Israel at present) are too high.

The Palestinians are lucky, yes lucky, that Israel doesn't drop napalm on top of them and be done with this garbage once and for all.

Moral, schmoral. You live in the clouds.

James said:

The Palestinians are lucky, yes lucky, that Israel doesn't drop napalm on top of them and be done with this garbage once and for all.

Now i know why the folks at MetaFilter.com cried racist. Forgive me for giving you the benifit of doubt.

Racist? Winning a war launched by your enemies and defending your lives is racist? Maybe in newspeak. I'll take racism then.

I doubt anyone cares... but Umm Kalthum (also
spelled Oum Kalsoum and a bunch of other
ways) was an Egyptian singer. One of the most
popular Arab musicians ever, as I understand.

Alex,

The comment would be racist if "James" had said, "The Palestinians deserve to have napalm dropped on them, etc., etc." That would suggest that there was something inherently within the Palestinians, in James' view, that made them worthy of having it done.

OTOH, to observe that the Israelis have the ability to do so, and that the Palestinians are fortunate in facing an opponent that does not utilize that power is no more racist than observing that Martin Luther King, Jr. was lucky not to be simply shot by the Selma PD, or that the anti-globalist protestors are lucky to be protesting in G-7 democracies and not, frex, in China, where they might well be shot.

Alex is still unconvinced. Let's see why:

Israel continues to deny housing permits to support the natural growth of Palistinian population centers in Area C, and targets houses built without permits for demolition.

This has nothing to do with Palestinian independence. Area C is under exclusive Israeli control.

Israel, in the persuit of militant groups, continues to impose curfews and travel restrictions that restrict the population's access to to essentials such as food, health care and education.

Yep, that's what happens in a war zone. To do otherwise would result in far more deaths of civilians, especially since the Arab "resistance" fighters don't wear uniforms, thereby being indistinguishable from combatants. (Hey! What does the Geneva Convention say on this topic?) Once again, I don't see how Israel's behavior after the peace process was summarily rejected by the Arabs demonstrates their own rejection of the peace process. Arafat was in power for eight years before the "Al-Aqsa intifada," 90-some percent of the West Bank was Israeli-free, and certainly no curfews were imposed then. Nothing says the Israelis have to be nice to the Arabs after the latter started their glorious uprising.

Israel has consistantly failed and continues to fail to dismantle and prevent the expansion of settler outposts, which are illegal under Israeli law.

Once again, I don't see how this matters. Nothing says that the West Bank is supposed to be Judenrein. Even if the West Bank was granted full autonomy, some of the so-called "settlers" would probably choose to stay, and be subject to Arafat's authority. And again, I fail to see how this demonstrates bad faith on the part of Israelis.

Israel maintains restrictions on trade and buisness which have crippled the Palistinain economy and pushed unemployment pasy 70% in some areas.

Gee, alex, I wonder why they do this? I mean, it's not like letting the Palestinians into Israel endangers the population or anything, right? What are the Arabs going to do, murder Israelis wholesale? Oh, wait...

The "restrictions" you decry were put in place after the Palestinians demonstrated their full hostility, and killed quite a few Israelis. The Israelis certainly aren't responsible for the fact that Arafat & Co. were too corrupt and incompetent to set up a functioning economy within the West Bank, and they are under no obligation to let them use Israel as a source of income.

Israel persues discriminatory policies that restrict the rights of its own non-jewish citiziens.

Yeah, unlike those Palestinians and their local echo chambers who call for a West Bank free of non-Arabs, right?

Yeah, this policy leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too -- but you neglect that the topic is highly controversial, and the Israeli High Court actually ruled against such discrimination -- in spite of probably the most anti-Arab climate in the country in recent memory. I don't suppose you can point me to an Arab equivalent, where perhaps a Palestinian official said it's OK for Jews to remain in the West Bank? (I was going to ask for a court, but that's a joke that writes itself.) Or forget the West Bank -- point me to any other Arab country, even one that has never had an Israeli soldier on its territory, where Jews have rights. Or even where Arabs have rights. Let alone the same rights as Arabs within Israel. Go on, I'll wait.

Of course, all of this is completely beside the point. Yes, Israel has its problems -- you know, like every other country on the planet. But exactly how does any of what you cited demonstrate that the Israelis were not trying, in good faith, to reach a permanent peace agreement with Arafat's PA? And if you are going to use the examples such as above to demonstrate some kind of "hostile environment," shouldn't you be putting even less faith in Arafat's organization, given that, after all, it was founded on the premise of removing Jews from "historic Palestine"? Or that their history books have been Judophobic ever since the Israelis turned the West Bank over to Arafat? Or that their official, government television regularly advertises to people the joys of "martyrdom"? Why is the onus always on the Israelis?

OTOH, to observe that the Israelis have the ability to do so, and that the Palestinians are fortunate in facing an opponent that does not utilize that power is no more racist than observing that Martin Luther King, Jr. was lucky not to be simply shot by the Selma PD, or that the anti-globalist protestors are lucky to be protesting in G-7 democracies and not, frex, in China, where they might well be shot.

Very nicely said, Dean.

As an aside, I will add that mass murder is pretty much de rigeur for Arab governments, so the Palestinians are rather fortunate that they face Israelis, as opposed to Jordanians, or Egyptians, or the Lebanese, or Iraq... Any one of those countries would have "dealt with the problem" a long time ago.

Am I saying that's what the Israelis should do? Absolutely not, and neither is James. To the contrary, it's not what Israel should do, and both James and I are giving the Israeli people a lot of credit for their humane treatment of people who are basically calling for them to be murdered en masse. Israel's behavior in this conflict has been far more moral than just about anyone else's in history -- and vastly more moral than that of their adversaries, within and without the West Bank.

Alex,

I formerly called myself Alex, but will change it due to the other Alex on board.

So I am one of the "liberals" on board here (Masters in Multicultural Education, how liberal can you get) and I do see some racism on LGF. But I don't think that's the main climate here. Rather it seems pragmatic to me, even if I don't always agree.

I don't think what James said was racist. Harshly realistic, yes. Racist, no. I think all he was trying to say was that although Isreal is not a country who has achieved the highest democratic ideals on the planet as of this moment, it's actually doing a pretty good job, especially as a new country surrounded by a hostile political climate. Isreal borders countries who supress uprisings (or unloved citizens) through tyranny and genocide. Genocide, meaning, the real thing, not the "jenin massacre". So all James was saying, I think, is within this context of modern tribal warfare, the Palestinians are lucky not to be dealing with an Assad or a Hussein. And I certainly agree with that.

Am I racist? And is a liberal racist if they also care to critique the Arab Nation's oppression of Isreal? I mean, I critique Isreal all the time with my liberal friends, but can't get them to say a word against Arafat. Kinda wierd.

I don't think it's weird at all.

I think it's typical.

And it's spelt Israel.

I don't think it's weird at all.

Zulubaby, I think that a little sarcasm on Alexia's part. Obviously Alexia noted it was typical as that was one of the basic elements of her point.

And it's spelt Israel.

Is that supposed to be a joke? I mean this is not a term paper.

The restraint on Israel from brutalizing more than it is already comes from its dependent on US aid, and the methods listed by James (napalm, etc.) would jeopardize that aid. Regardless, I fear that the Sharon is waiting for the opportune time anyway to really go in and show the Palestinians who's boss. Check out the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem for examples of Israel's "restraint." [Link: www.btselem.org...]

If Israel would live inside its borders then they would have morality on its side. That Israel is using its army to brutalize the Palestinians and clear the way for expanded settlements really puts the sham to their claim that this conflict is about security.

If there is one lesson from history, it is that people despise occupation. Afterall, the Zionists and Israelis employed terrorist acts when fighting for its independence. Look up Qibya, Deir Yassin, etc.

To Dean and E.Nough: thank you for defending my honour. :)

In the words of Senor Wences (sp?):

S'alright.

Besides, there's enough DELIBERATE misunderstanding of people's comments and intentions (Oh Jak/BNK, where are you?), that clearing up the unintentional ones seems more like a duty (albeit a good one)!

But look to E. Nough for the heavy lifting. We're pikers compared w/ him!

How you people just keep ignoring the facts and come back over an over again with this "end the occupation" crap, I'll never understand.

The problem is indeed Jewish occupation alright. More specifically, it's that jews occupy any territory whatsoever. There are NO borders that will satisfy Arab Palestinians. What will it take to convince you dolts? These people are just as evil as Hitler. You cannot appease them, you can only eliminate them. If you don't beleive me, just ask them:

This is from 2000, but I'd wager the numbers haven't changed much (at least not for the better): http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Palest inian_Public_Opinion_Poll.asp

4. If East Jerusalem comes under Palestinian sovereignty, will you accept Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem?

Yes 21.1
No 74.3
Not sure 4.6

8. Do you think that there is a chance for peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis?

Yes 32.6
No 60.2
Not sure 7.2

11. Do you support or oppose military attacks against American targets in the region?

Support 72.9
Oppose 21.7
Not sure 5.4

14. If you support military attacks, what should be the target of these attacks?

11.7 Support only against military targets
03.0 support only against settlers
33.1 against both military & settlers
00.4 against civilians in the 1948 proper
62.3 against all Israelis regardless

Go save a rainforest, or a whale or something. You clearly have no concept of what is going on in this part of the world.

It may not be a term paper, but if you have listened to Ashrawi & Co, they pronounce it Isreal.

It bugs the living hell out of me.

You write about the Palestinians "You cannot appease them, you can only eliminate them."

Maybe such attitude explains your poll numbers. It certainly explains Israeli actions in the WB.

It certainly explains Israeli actions in the WB.

No it doesn't. If it did there'd be a million dead Palestinans. Or 50,000. Pick any number many, many times greater than the amount of Palestinian dead in the current war against the Jews.

You know very well that Israel could end this business with shocking brutality in weeks, if not days and NO army would stop them. Impotent UN resolutions would be passed, op-ed pages would scream "Crucify them! [the Jews]" and everyone would promptyl move on like everyone always moves on.

But they don't and its not because they can't.

Everyone is so quick to accuse Israel of evil, they ought to be careful. Eventually Israel might conclude that for the same price they really can be evil and solve their problems.

Of course I'm being facetious. Israel will never choose evil, because they are not evil. But the "friends" of the Palestinians and the Palestinians themselves would do well to refrain from tempting them with their constant baiting and libels. There are always red lines that can't be crossed and consequences if they are.

Those aren't my poll numbers. In fact, this poll was conducted before I started paying very much attention to what these people thought of me. Now I know. When are you going to wake up?

The current situation has nothing to do with some sort of unfair treatment accorded to a minority population, and everything to do with religious fanaticism and ethnic-born hatred.

Arabs have been hating Jews long before the current "occuption". Get a clue already.

Rich Phillips writes:

The restraint on Israel from brutalizing more than it is already comes from its dependent on US aid, and the methods listed by James (napalm, etc.) would jeopardize that aid.

Wow, we just can't put this annoying idea out of its misery, can we?

Look, U.S. aid makes up only a few percentage points of the Israeli GDP. Israel benefits from it immensely, to be sure, but it's not like Arafat's PA, which would be completely bankrupt without its outside (primarily EU) benefactors. If aid were cut, Israel would really have nothing to lose, and enormous need of new revenue sources, so they'd end up having to expand their territory -- probably starting with the Sinai. When the pro-Arab crowd screams about cutting aid to Israel, they show their total ignorance of the law of unintended consequences. Aid to Israel and Israeli restraint form a mutual dependence: one cannot exist without the other.

And "brutalizing"? Give me a break. Israelis treat the Arabs with kid gloves, especially as compared to how Arabs treat each other. Had Palestinians tried their "resistance" against Jordan or Lebanon, they'd have been slaughtered wholesale a long time ago. (Oh, wait, they did -- see Black September, 1970.)

Check out the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem for examples of Israel's "restraint." [Link: www.btselem.org...]

Wow, nothing like an ultra-Left group to grab your info from. Gee, I'd love to give you an equivalent site made by Arabs, but I think the webmaster was lynched by an Al-Aqsa brigade a while back.

Damn those Israelis, for not being perfect cricket-playing gentlemen while fighting for their lives!

If Israel would live inside its borders then they would have morality on its side.

If Arabs didn't murder Israeli civilians in the street, they might actually lecture others on morality.

And Israel did live inside its borders, to the sound of regular raids and shelling from its peaceful oh-so-honorable Arab neighbors.

That Israel is using its army to brutalize the Palestinians and clear the way for expanded settlements really puts the sham to their claim that this conflict is about security.

Well, this is vacuously true, since Israel isn't using its army for any such purpose, as evidenced by the fact that settlements are not build where Arabs used to live, and that Arabs are still in the West Bank. If the intention was to clear the West Bank of Arabs, the Israeli army wouldn't have taken 35 years to do it.

If there is one lesson from history, it is that people despise occupation.

Yeah, tell me about it. For instance, the Israelis don't care to be occupied and murdered by Arab powers. Now, if the Arabs would only take a hint and stop calling for same.

The "Palestinians" lived under Jordanian "occupation" until 1967. No one seemed to object. Only after Israel walked into the territories -- after being shelled by Jordan without provocation -- did we suddenly discover the "Palestinian people" who were "occupied." And the Israelis have shown plenty of willingness to return the land to Jordan (hence barely any settlement prior to the 1980s), and were also willing to give the West Bank self-rule (hence Arafat's reign through the 1990s). Nope, sorry, it's not the Israelis that are being stupid here.

If the Palestinians want independence, they can have it -- but not by killing Israelis. Whatever grievances they have don't justify that, and the Israelis are not required to address any Palestinian demands until they own well-being is secure. And if the Palestinians adopt the attitude that there can only be one people on the land, then eventually there will be -- and it won't be them.

<sarcasm>Oh, come on. When will the supporters of Israel drop the ridiculous condition that the Palestinians stop killing Israelis? It just gets in the way of achieving peace!</sarcasm>

The fascinating assumption underlying Rich Phillips' comments is that, if only the Israelis would return to their (pre-'67) borders, then there would be peace.

Now, I'm not going to go into whether the borders are defensible, or whether Israel was justified in launching the '67 War. My question is simply this:

What makes you think that the Arabs (and/or the Palestinians) would accept the pre-'67 borders? Zymurgist's statistics certainly would suggest that that is not hte case, but let's assume that the polls were unscientific, or unsound, or biased, or what-have-you.

Commentators here regularly point out that Jews "stole" the land of 1948 Israel. That they have long been aggressive, what w/ Deir Yassin and the Stern Gang, etc. So, I'm curious: what makes, to these folks, the pre-'67 borders any MORE legitimate, when the very act of founding the Israeli state is suspect?

Now, there is ONE thing left out: the issue of a Palestinian "right of return." The elephant in the living room, so to speak. Do the Palestinians get this, in addition to their state established on the West Bank and Gaza?

Great post, E.

I'm really enjoying this site.

Sir E. Nough,

You blow me away every time.

You tell us that without US aid, Israel will be compelled to expand even further. That to me seems like an amazing admission of Israel's expansionist intentions, and certainly make unbelievable the notion that Israel treats Arabs with "kid gloves." You also state "aid to Israel and Israeli restraint form a mutual dependence: one cannot exist without the other." That is exactly what I said--Israel is minimally behaving because it wants US aid.

I can understand your confusion, though, since you use transparent sophistry to defend the indefensible, namely Israeli expansionism.

Israel is using its army to expand settlements beyond its borders, which naturally enrages the Palestinian population, who have already lost so much. The refusal of the "Israel right or wrong" crowd to come to terms with this foments the intransigence and hatred.

What do you think the refusal of the "its okay for Arabs to kill Jews" crowd to come to terms with the reality of a besieged Israel foments?

Rich,

I'm not sure who here has made the case that, w/o US aid, Israel would expand further. One could easily make the case, though, that an Israel that perceived itself to be utterly alone and friendless would choose to establish the most defensible borders it could, pending some kind of peace deal.

Therefore, an Israel w/o friends might well decide to establish itself w/ borders on the Golan Heights, through the Jordan River, down to the Gulf of Tiran, then along the Negev Desert (presuming that the peace w/ Egypt held), and swallow the entire Gaza strip and all of the West Bank. Those would be defensible borders, which Israel, w/ no friends, might choose to pursue.

OTOH, an Israel that perceives itself allied w/a strong power can at least argue that its defenses are supported by other factors (i.e., potential US intervention), and that it can risk things like giving up the West Bank and Gaza, etc.

Note that a condition of the 1978 Camp David Accords was the provision of US aid to Israel AND Egypt, in the belief that this would reassure BOTH sides that the US would serve as ultimate guarantor of the peace.

As for the "kid gloves" comment, I happen to disagree. I don't think Israel is necessarily treating the Palestinians or Arabs w/ "kid gloves." I think it is treating them in the manner that one normally would treat a hostile population, no better, but certainly no worse. (Think of the Germans and how THEY traditionally dealt w/ francs-tireurs, or the Japanese, to get an idea of what schreikglichheit [sp?], or "frightfulness" could be like.)

Could Israel be more brutal? Don't kid yourself, the answer is easily: YES. Why are they not? You clearly believe that it is solely US aid that keeps them in check. IF that is correct, then ask yourself this, "What would happen if that aid were to disappear?" By that logic, you should be a great advocate of continued US aid, if only to forestall worse Israeli behavior.

I happen to disagree w/ your very premise, but the above is the logical corollary to your argument.

Dean,
Those are all good points. They seem solvable, however, especially the "right to return" for which compromises have been fielded on both sides.

But the continuing, threatening expansion of the settlements through military occupation of the WB thwarts any intention of justice and peace. The only conceivable strategy for such is ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories, which the US (I would hope) would forcefully discourage.

Dean,
It was E. Nough in #207 that explained that for economic reasons Israel would have to expand if US aid ended.

The argument about aid as a restraint on Israel brutality was advocated by E Nough, incredibly. Doesn't say much for Israel's morality. Instead of "Israel is always right" I wish there was more "Israel is better than what it is now doing."

Subjugating millions of Palestinians through military means while stealing their land is not treating them with "kid gloves"--I'll agree with you on that.

I agree with Rich; clearly it is U.S. aid to Israel that maintains this lack of brutal action on their part vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Certainly, a country like Egypt - which recieves approximately the same amount of aid - wouldn't be brutal in putting down a revolt by the 'Muslim Brotherhood.' Oh, wait. We could go through the list in Central and South America, too, of U.S. supported regimes that dealt brutally (far more so than Israel) in the defense of their governments against the far worse threat of communism. Or take a look at others in the neighborhood which were on the recieving end of American largess (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.) But I digress.

This argument stands reason on its head. Any Israeli government is obliged to act in its own self-interests; the Palestinians government should also take their interests into account. The problem is that the country with a majority of Palestinians has a Hashemite monarchy in power.

That Israel relies upon itself for its own security and not on American promises and security guarantees is not surprising - the restraint with which it defends itself, however, is remarkable.

If we had a terrorist problem like this on our borders, we would act a tad bit more ruthless. If you don't believe me, ask Pancho Villa.

spellcheck baby... Watch these words...
beach, teach, reach, meat, leaf...etc.
hands trained with the "ea" pattern common in English...hands had difficulty with IsrAEl, despite brains knowledge of spelling... oops, missed a possessive "s"...
wait... what am i doing?? is this a good use of time???

Ben #217,
So El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are the standards you are compelled to use to defend Israel. Pretty telling, I think.

The "restraint" Israel uses is refuted by Israeli civil rights groups [Link: www.btselem.org...]

If this was about border defense, you'd have a point. But the problem is Israel won't live in its borders, but is rather expanding through the military subjugation of millions of people.

We always hear about Israel's security--but what about the Palestinians' security, against the Israeli incursions?

"...thwarts any intention of justice and peace." Please cite one example of this intention from the Palestinian side of the table.

And therein lies the problem. You cannot make peace with people who do not want it. How long must Israel continue this ridiculous charade of moving towards peaceful co-existence with a neighbor whose people don't even try to hide the fact that they will not cease the violence no matter the capitulation.

Rich Phillips writes:

You tell us that without US aid, Israel will be compelled to expand even further. That to me seems like an amazing admission of Israel's expansionist intentions,

Then you have a problem with reading comprehension.

Israel would only have to expand if U.S. aid were cut off, and it had no other way to maintain its military, which staves off a certain Arab invasion and genocide.

If Israel were expansionist, they could take the Sinai tomorrow, U.S. aid be damned.

and certainly make unbelievable the notion that Israel treats Arabs with "kid gloves." You also state "aid to Israel and Israeli restraint form a mutual dependence: one cannot exist without the other." That is exactly what I said--Israel is minimally behaving because it wants US aid.

To a degree. More like, Israel is "behaving" -- which is more than one can say for its Arab neighbors -- because it can afford to do so, given U.S. aid. Conversely, the U.S. aids Israel to keep them from "destabilizing" the region, which translates to "taking enough Arab land to maintain a self-sufficient society."

If U.S. aid were cut, for Israel to remain within its borders would likely be suicidal -- and they are under no obligation to commit suicide in order to be nice to their enemies. This is true regardless of whatever Israel does in the West Bank -- the concern is Sinai and southern Lebanon and possibly even Syria.

I can understand your confusion, though, since you use transparent sophistry to defend the indefensible, namely Israeli expansionism.

Yes, "sophistry," because if-then logic is such a difficult concept. And as for "the indefensible," please explain that to the Arabs, who have tried to perform "the indefensible" several times -- coincidentally, the only times when those oh-so-expansionist Israelis actually "expanded."

Israel is using its army to expand settlements beyond its borders

Quite simply put: no, it doesn't.

Dean writes:

As for the "kid gloves" comment, I happen to disagree. I don't think Israel is necessarily treating the Palestinians or Arabs w/ "kid gloves." I think it is treating them in the manner that one normally would treat a hostile population, no better, but certainly no worse.

Sorry Dean, but you're just wrong on this. If you look throughout history, hostile populations are generally simply killed en masse. This was true in the U.S. bombings of World War II, or the Russian artillery barrages of Grozny, the latter of which killed hundreds of thousands. Israel, on the other hand, refuses to simply lay waste to the hostile Arab population in the West Bank; they lost two dozen men in Jenin simply because they insisted on pinpointing terrorists with infantry, instead of wiping out the town Syrian-style, using artillery and Apaches. Not only have the Israelis approached the Arabs better than other Arabs would, they exceeded the norms of any other country -- U.S. included -- in doing so. That's what I meant by "kid gloves," and I stand by the term.

Rich then writes:

It was E. Nough in #207 that explained that for economic reasons Israel would have to expand if US aid ended.

Not entirely for economic, mostly for strategic reasons. Israel has very few natural resources; cut off from the U.S. (and presumably everyone else), they have to get them somewhere, and the closest repositories are in the Sinai.

Dean responds:

I agree with Rich; clearly it is U.S. aid to Israel that maintains this lack of brutal action on their part vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

Nope, wrong -- it's the will of the Israeli people that keeps the Palestinians alive. The Israelis themselves are opposed to wholesale murder of the Palestinians (as am I). Any government that suggested this would be dissolved pdq. Not even Netanyahu -- considered the most right-wing of the likely candidates -- supports this plan.

U.S. aid is certainly a moderating influence, but it's not like the Israeli government has to fend off public demands for a mass slaughter of Palestinians with threats of cut off U.S. aid.

(And really now: the Israeli GDP is something like $100 billion. Annual U.S. aid is $2 billion. Like I said, it's not exactly keeping the government running.)

I think all you people who think this is propoganda need to think a lot more about what your seeing and hearing every day on the so called news networks and papers. Almost every piece of information us americans get from 99% or all media is propaganda for one group or another.
Theses post on this site is propaganda. Propoganda is the only language people seem able to speak anymore. There are no Facts, only statements. Figures lie and liars figure remember. In fact all you Americans who wouldn't martyr yourselfs for your country don't deserve the freedoms you all take forgranted. YOU ALL MAKE ME SICK!!!
If Mexico or our bitch Canada was able to do to us what the IDF does to all palistineians, I would do all I could to get them out of here. And once I tried everything to no avil I would load myself up with as much explosives and find the sweettest target I could and blow it up. Now I think I would go after military targets first. But if the only I could get to is mexican or canadian seletments land that belongs to my people I would have no problems with that. Isreal is a democrary so the people are supposed to make the decisions through their elected officials. So who do you blame for what the government is doing...the people right they elected the officials that are making the policies...so why aren't the "inocent Civilians" not reponsible for what thier goverment carries out in their name...They elected them Right !!!
Why don't one of you pro-isreali know-it-alls answer me this. If terror isn't the way to victory why did the zioist use it to get there state in the first place. It's just like the Bush administrator "Do as I say!! Not as I do!!!"
-nubmnuts

Rich Phillips writes:

So El Salvador, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. are the standards you are compelled to use to defend Israel. Pretty telling, I think.

I'll put them up against any country that's been at war in the past 100 years. Please give me an example to compare the Israelis to.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with comparing the conduct of Israel to that of its enemies. If they don't comply with civilized rules of conflict (wearing uniforms, separating civilians from combatants, etc.), Israel is absolved of the obligation to do the same. That they try speaks of their morality.

The "restraint" Israel uses is refuted by Israeli civil rights groups [Link: www.btselem.org...]

In any conflict you will find abuses. There's a bunch of idiots that accuse the U.S. of "war crimes" for the bombings of Afghanistan, and the prison conditions of Mazar-i-Sharif; big deal. Restraint doesn't mean perfection; it means that you don't let your military loose to wipe out the population. Again, please find me an example of a country in similar circumstances with a better record.

If this was about border defense, you'd have a point. But the problem is Israel won't live in its borders, but is rather expanding through the military subjugation of millions of people.

Right. Why, just look at all the Israeli expansion since 1948! Shouldn't your accusation have some kind of connection to reality? Like, ever? Or do you really think that Israel, after intentionally occupying the West Bank to settle it in 1967, refused to let Israelis in there until the 1980s, and allows the Arabs to live there until this very day? Of after occupying the Sinai, gave it back at Camp David?

Nope, sorry, it really is about defense. The West Bank was in Jordanian hands until they attacked in 1967. As usual, the Israelis didn't take territory until they had to. And when they did, the Arabs were allowed to stay. Had the intent been to simply grab land, all the West Bank Arabs would have been refugees by 1968, and Tulkarm and Ramallah would be indistinguishable from Netanya and Tel-Aviv.

We always hear about Israel's security--but what about the Palestinians' security, against the Israeli incursions?

What about it? The Israelis left voluntarily in the early 1990s, leaving Arafat in charge of around 97% of the West Bank. They didn't re-enter until 2002. If the Palestinians wanted Israel to stay out of "their" territories, all they had to do was keep their bombs to themselves. This was apparently too hard, so the Israelis had to re-enter and start cleaning up Arafat's mess. Palestinians have no right to be secure in land they use to launch attacks on Israel -- let alone deliberate murderous attacks on Israeli civilians. This is nothing new -- it's why nations keep armies. Live by the sword, die by the sword, that sort of thing.

Wow, for an expansionist power, Israel sure seems inefficient. Weird.

To E. Nough,

First, I think you misquote "ben" for myself in your second citation of me. That was not I who wrote:

I agree with Rich; clearly it is U.S. aid to Israel that maintains this lack of brutal action on their part vis-a-vis the Palestinians. [Sorry, don't know how to do block quotes.]

That was ben, in #217, and I think he was being sarcastic.

As to the "kid gloves" aspect, I think there is a certain difference in perspective. As I noted, many others have been far more brutal, and Israel certainly has paid far more attention to minimizing casualties than, say, its Arab counterparts.

And, Israel's behavior in Jenin (particularly the dispatch of ground troops to do the job) is certainly a tribute to their concerns for minimizing the degree of violence.

That being said, I believe Israel acted in the manner it did (i.e., minimal necessary violence) due to a combination of troop quality (one cannot imagine, for example, Arab or even Indonesian or some Eastern European forces operating with such finesse) and its own perceived political interests (which would not be served by simply flattening Jenin Camp, which it certainly has the ability to do). That is, it did what it did because it COULD (had high quality forces) and because it WANTED to.

I guess I would tend to interpret the term "kid gloves" to suggest a degree of solicitousness that is against its own strategic (as opposed to military) interests. That is, if Israel were to use minimal force despite a clear strategic interest in using more, I'd have tended to use the term "kid gloves" there.

But that is a matter of interpretation and semantics, and I would just as readily accept your view that, since the Israelis acted w/ significant forebearance in much of the recent activities, that this would count as "kid gloves."

bj tarves writes ungrammatically:

Theses post on this site is propaganda.

No, they are opinion. There's a difference; not that you'd know.

In fact all you Americans who wouldn't martyr yourselfs for your country don't deserve the freedoms you all take forgranted. YOU ALL MAKE ME SICK!!!

Hey, whatever floats your boat, bj. I certainly wouldn't "martyr myself for my country" just to kill a bunch of civilians, including women and children. I'm weird that way.

And once I tried everything to no avil I would load myself up with as much explosives and find the sweettest target I could and blow it up. Now I think I would go after military targets first. But if the only I could get to is mexican or canadian seletments land that belongs to my people I would have no problems with that.

bj is now on record at being willing to kill people simply for being "foreigners" on "his" land. But he thinks that he'd go after "military targets" first. Most progressive of him!

If terror isn't the way to victory why did the zioist use it to get there state in the first place.

They didn't, for the most part. Most of what people refer to as Israeli "terror" was really sabotage against the military colonial government in Palestine. They certainly didn't load themselves up with bombs and blow up pubs in Liverpool or buses in London. Leave it to an Arab apologist to paper over the difference.

But hey, if the Palestinians think they can win by regular killings of civilians, I guess there's not much to stop them from trying. Eventually the Israelis will lose their restraint though -- and that's when the full idiocy of this strategy be painfully realized by the Arabs. I'm rather hoping it won't come to that.

Dean writes:

First, I think you misquote "ben" for myself in your second citation of me.

Sorry about that!

And no argument with the rest of your post, either.

Before blowing up Mexico or Canada, I hope that guy blows up his 3rd grade English teacher.

I think his 6th grade civics teacher should be next on the list, also.

I've already given that troll far more acknowledgement than he deserved, but if his writing skills are indicative of his reading skills, he'll probably just end up blowing his own arms off in his kitchen.

bj tarves,

I think it was Arafat who said that terror attacks ought to stop because it just gives Israelis an excuse to murder defenceless Palestinians.

Evidently the terror is not working the way it is supposed to.

Most unfortunate.

Not to worry another month or two without the income that work in Israel used to provide and the Pals will be at the throats of those who send the murdering bombers.

Four years before the start of the stupidfada ex-Jordanian and ex-Egyptian unemployment was 35%. Due to work in Israel by the start of the stupidfada it was below 15%. Now some reports show it above 80%. Terror is working. Just not in the favor of The former Jordanians and former Egyptians.

Most unfortunate.

My hat is off to E. (again) for the heavy lifting engaging Alex, Phillips, and ben.

I think Alex lost it, and his 'racist' remarks smacked of screaming 'nazi' cause he couldn't hold his own, and knew it.

All of these guys suffer from the moral equivalency bug - approaching it from different angles, but starting from the same point.

By extension, I wonder if they would disparage someone that kept hitting a rabid animal repeatedly attacking them, intent on ripping their throat out.

Maybe the Israelis were baited into the conflict of 67. Ok, bad Israelis for taking the bait. I think not; I say bad on those that raised the spectre of moving with the apparent intent of finishing the job the SS started in the 40s, to a nation full of people with first person memories of those events.

Restraint, or the lack thereof - and foriegn aid assistance as a prime motivator. The IDF consistently amazes me with their demonstrated restraint - the best indicator of this being the sensationalism of the very few incidents where their restraint may have actually slipped. The speculation that US aid is a prime motivator is convenient, but without substance. If the amount of aid were perhaps greater by a factor of 10, and the entire Israeli economy were dependant upon such aid, possibly. I suspect the Israelis could loose US funds tomorrow, and have found other funding sources to replace the minor shortfall by the end of the week - and through their own industry, as well. I believe that they are willing to take it simply because we are willing to give it is closer to the truth.

One can take apart literally hundreds of spun media, from one side or the other, and point to isolated incident after isloated incident as proof of their position. But taking in the events, in toto, for the past 60 years, it is the same parties that have called for the annihilation of the other side, it is the same parties that have made concession after compromise after agreement only to see the other party turn consistently either renege or reject same, and it is the same party that has demonstrated absolutely no reservations about murdering innocents by whatever means solely to advance their cause.

In this larger perspective, the choice is clear, to me at least.

Conflicts where people die are inherently ugly, disturbing events.

But if a rabid dog attacks you, despite your words of kindness, you are not wrong or dispicable for clubbing it over the head to keep it from biting and trying to kill you. And there is no 'moral equivalency' between you and the animal.

Now, load on up, and pile on to my analogy, and claim that through my use of an example that I'm an ogre for calling the Palestinians 'animals'. You'd be wrong, but go right ahead if it makes you feel any better.

Wind Rider, I think the moral equivalency problem stems (once again) from bad lessons learned in childhood. It's a natural derivative of the notion that if someone hits you, and you hit back, then you both are equally guilty. The proper response is to try dialogue (never mind that you'll simply get hit again, having proven your weakness), or else tell an authority (*cough* ICC *cough*).

One of the more imbecilic posters I've seen after we started attacking Afghanistan had something like the following written on it:

Afghanistan -- where we kill those who would kill us to show them that killing is wrong!

This is a patently moronic statement: we are not trying to show anyone anything, other than that killing Americans is an act of suicide -- and that's a lesson to everyone else, because our targets will be dead. We were certainly under no delusions that our bombs would teach ethics to al Qaeda; our bombs made their poor grasp of ethics irrelevant.

Still, there was also something absurdly self-righteous in the slogan: the unstated irony that we were killing people for killing, as though that made us equivalent to the original murderers. Until someone grasps the concept that killing a murderer is not equivalent to killing someone who is not a murderer, no amount of historical fact will convince them, because it's completely irrelevant. B kills A, and C kills B, and so therefore B and C are equally guilty. Getting past this absurdity seems to be a real problem for most of the idiotarian Left. (The idiotarian Right has problems all its own, of course.)

Rich,

Israel is living within its borders. It's the Arab nations that refused to comply with the United Nations declarations of 1948.

Take a look at the map of the original UN partition of "Palestine".

Or do only the resolutions since 242 count?

I dunno...i've been reading this entire thread for the last hour and a bit trying to latch on to SOMETHING to no avail. At least I haven't been bored.

No one has the answer! Everyone claims to have the answer to something, but even those that claim or prove to know SOMETHING have yet another thing HIDDEN from THEIR perspective on the subject...This is why that although I found some of the posts educational to knew facts I didn't know, the majority were an uninspiring display of 'this is what I know...what do you got on that?' Please pardon my cynical criticism...I mean no harsh disrespect to anyone and I value the opinions that people have...

...but this TOPIC...UGH

If the internet was around 30 years ago, do you think this thread would be ANY different?? Oh sure, the history would not be so developed, but you're preaching to the choir! The conflict has ALWAYS been the same: The Arab people cannot live alongside, near, or with the Jewish people; and VICE VERSA. Don't cry foul by my over-simplifying the matter...i'm not saying the solution (if there is one) is simple...

The Israelis as expansionists? sure! I haven't heard one mention of their militia representation still in Lebanon...why are they STILL there?? Oh, I don't need reasons--everyone's got one of those. In defending themselves, they took their impetus and kept going...many Arabs resent that.

The Palestinians flaky? sure! The original plan to divvy up the area into sections, (sorry, I won't lie and make up a figure I can't remember...was it 10 sections??) and give equal number of settlements to the Isrealis and to the Palestinians...which recognized the PLO as sovereign was, IMO, a strong plan of compromise. The PLO balked as we know...then they wanted it...then they didn't...c'mon...like has been previously stated in some previous posts...they do not WANT to coexist...PERIOD.

But my personal angst to you all is NOT more opinions and drivvel...it's WHY DID I SIT HERE AND WASTE MY TIME? AND WHY HAVE YOU??? Do you feel some ego inflation for having taken part in such an intellectual discussion? I offer no disrespect to that, if you need that, that's great. Do you feel that you are helping this situation? Sorry...I don't think so...SO MANY PEOPLE TALK. So do I!! I'm no different...but my goodness, this is so futile!

Forgive my cynicism here, folks. But maybe it's realism too. I'm realistic about HOME defense. I'm a N. American. Proud. Patriotic. Parents Canadian and American. What bugs me is that we are spending money for a futile effort...I don't lose sleep thinking that it's THEIR conflict, THEY deal with it. It's not a moral issue--it's just THEIR PROBLEM...and OUR MONEY is being funneled into it. Maybe not as much as some may have us believe, but still--money that can be used back for OUR issues, OUR schools, OUR health care, OUR economy. For the record, I am not prejudiced against other ethnicities (sp?)...Ask my latina fiancee, she'll have a laugh ;)

So while you guys seem to get angry and pissed and bent out of shape at a centuries old conflict that NO N. AMERICAN individual TRULY understands in its entirety...I'm going to take my self-righteous ass out of here and do something else...like fishing, or figuring out why Americans think Canada is the 51st state when the US is really Canada's 11th province (or at least how to ignore people like BJ who think we're your bitches)

frustrated in WA,
Chad

PS. Although i doubt I'll be back to see your responses to this, I SHOULD state that I respect the opinions in here and they are more intelligent than some places I've seen recently. I just wish that although I may have written largely in sarcasm to over-emphasize our 'OVER-emphasis' on the subject, that you can understand that although worldviews may differ, and the issues ARE important, sometimes the fight isn't ours to fight, and there ARE no right answers--so why not focus our energies on something TRULY manageable...like world peace!? DOH

E, the extension of the bad lesson from childhood example encapsulates it perfectly.

Killing. Bad. With that in mind, killing those that have killed, happily, and (the important point) want to kill many more, uncomfortable, but sometimes necessary when it is the only way to make them stop.

Hope that is plain enough for those that can only understand the simplistic argument.

Hope Chad calms down, has nice daydreams of world peace, catches a lot of fish, and works out that 'how to deal with canuks' issue.

Good example of some of the humor in this place - a huge rant about the pointlessness of ranting...got to love it.

Dying ToLive.

I think LivingToDie is a more accurate description of the brainwashing and manipulation the fanatics do on the minds of the young Palestinians. Kids aren't born with hatred. It's indoctrinated in them through bias upbringing and media like Al-Jeezera. To see some of the bile in the Arab media see [Link: www.memri.org...] (a non profit organization that translates Arab press into English). There should be more sites like that - then Westerners would see how the Arab media says one thing to English media and another in Arabic media.

The sad part of this "crappy website" is the double meaning they placed in the site. But I'm sure there will be someone out there who takes this in earnest and not see it for what it is - manipulation of children for political purposes.

If they really wanted to show the Palestinian kids lack of future; they should have done more in depth interviews with the kids showing that they are really kids at heart (especially interviewing the ones that do not want to be martyrs) with dreams of becoming artists or musicians or whatever.

You fools continue the LIE regarding the so-called "palestinian" people AND their so-called land. arabs are world famous for spinning tales and the campaign to convince the world that Gaza & West Bank belong to them is a BIG LIE. Much documented proof exists to dis-prove this line of crap, to bad the average moronic person beleives these lies. I guess if I continue telling lies over and over again someone might beleive me.

Speaking pedanticly there has never been a sovereign state of Palestine. Every one else took turns in ruling it until 1948, therefore no such race as Palestinians. They are decendants of many imigrants from different Arab countries,mainly from Turkey.
As for there wish for a self ruling state consisting of what they consider their home land this encompases all of Israel not just the West Bank and Gazza. When Egypt ruled Gazza and Jordan ruled the West Bank the so called Palestinians didn't use the occupation excuse, they had no desire for these places until 1967 when Israel won them in war. They also won the Siani but gave it back to Egypt when a peace deal was set up. If you care to check the official history books as opposed to the more recent Arab re-write of history you will find that 1948,Palestine was divided, 78% to the Arabic speaking people and 22% to the Jews. That makes the Palestinian home land JORDAN. Most of Arafat's congregation were exiled to the Lebanon in 1970. So who is occuping who's land? Palestinians have no case just propaganda that to them has become the truth, through brainwashing from infancy.I could paraphrase pages of documentary evidence all proving that Palestinians are the racists and will find any excuse to rid the Middle East of Jews then eventualy any other race of non believers as they have tried in the last 1400 years

Those that refuse to consider what Israel is doing in the occupied territories have to rationalize Palestinian rage somehow--unfortunately it seems racism is the predominant rationale, i.e., "innocent Israel is just trying to defend itself against the deranged, evil Arabs, who can only understand brutality." Referring to Palestinians as rabid dogs attacking innocent Israel is the epitome of this false analogy.

The other predominant rationale seems to be that Israel could do even worse; that could be an excuse for any tyranny. Those wrongly brutalized by the Israelis should hardly be solaced that their pain could be much more.

A third rationale is to distort the history (which granted is very complicated). For instance, the PA did not rule 97% of Palestine; Oslo was a gradual transition to quasi-rule, which Burak unilaterally broke far short of 97%. I can't find anywhere the UN resolution giving Israel all of Palestine as Meryl claims. If there is one, I'd like to know. Regardless, Israel has pretty much flaunted the UN for decades now, so using some reading of a '48 one seems pretty disingenuous.

To cavalierly excuse Israel's actions as "restraint" could be applied as well to the Palestinians; maybe they are the ones using reasonable restraint after the occupation and theft of their land. Afterall, three times the number of Palestinians have been killed by Israelis than vice versa this year alone.

Again, the bottom line is is as long as Israel is using its army to subjugate millions of people will taking their land for Israeli-only use, they cannot claim innocence. Frankly, I can understand the unwillingness to accept Israel's brutality, because it is shocking and completely at odds with the dream; but denial only leads to worse.

Chad (in case you do come back to read this), the reason I consider the Middle East conflict so important is that I view domestic U.S./Canadian/European security concerns to be inseparable from it. Putting it simply, the Arabs consider Israel an extension of the West. If the Islamists defeat Israel -- or even if it just looks that way -- they will be encouraged to attack other, bigger targets. (My guess is they'll go after Europe next; it's closer and seems less willing to fight.)

This isn't just some half-baked theory: look at how Osama claims that his mujaheddin caused the fall of the Soviet Union, and therefore he is the "strong horse." Look also at the lessons he drew from the hasty U.S. withdrawal from Somalia. Israel's battle is our battle -- and their defeat (God forbid) will cost us much more than you imagine.

OK! After reading Speck's comment, I'm reminded of another rationale--that the Palestinians are not worthy of self-determination, because they aren't an "official" people. That everybody else got to occupy the WB hardly strikes me as a compelling argument, anyway. Jordan made all the Palestinians citizens; will Israel do likewise? (That was a proposal of early Zionists, btw.) People were living in WB for centuries; regardless of what they did or didn't call themselves, that is no excuse for Israel's subjugation and theft of their land.

The Palestinians are composed of Muslims, Druze, and Christians, so labeling them religious bigots is demagogic. Besides, there are Israelis, including gov't ministers, wanting to rid Israel and the occupied territories of non-Jews; where is your anger at them? They actually are working towards that "dream."

It always seemed to me the US should have more affinity toward the secular Palestinians.

Rich Phillips writes:

Those that refuse to consider what Israel is doing in the occupied territories have to rationalize Palestinian rage somehow

I don't have to rationalize it in any way. I can understand why they are unhappy; that doesn't give them license to deliberately target civilians. Nothing does, and until they stop, Israel is not obligated to address their grievances in any way at all.

To cavalierly excuse Israel's actions as "restraint" could be applied as well to the Palestinians; maybe they are the ones using reasonable restraint after the occupation and theft of their land.

It's not "their" land, and it wasn't stolen, since they still continue to live on it. You seem to be living with the delusion that Jews landed in Palestine already populated by Arabs. That wasn't the case; thank you for proving your ignorance.

And the only "restraint" on the Arabs is the Israeli military. If the Arabs -- in and out of the West Bank -- had the chance, they'd charge into Israel now and kill every Jew there.

Also, my point isn't that the Israeli "tyranny" could be worse -- it's that given the conditions, the Israelis are behaving better than any other country on earth. Nice straw man.

Again, the bottom line is is as long as Israel is using its army to subjugate millions of people will taking their land for Israeli-only use, they cannot claim innocence.

And again, this is vacuously true. The Israeli army isn't taking land in the West Bank for Israeli-only use, and you saying it over and over isn't going to make it true.

Frankly, I can understand the unwillingness to accept Israel's brutality, because it is shocking and completely at odds with the dream;

I can accept that the Israelis are making life unpleasant for the Arabs; that's what happens in a warzone. But "brutality"? Give me a break. Nothing "shocking" or "at odds with the dream" here -- war is ugly, and people get hurt or killed. This was was made exclusively by Arabs -- Arabs in the West Bank and the surrounding countries -- and the responsibility for the ugliness is theirs. That they die in larger numbers and aren't effective fighters makes them weak and stupid, but it doesn't make them moral. That they haven't killed thousands of Israelis by now is not for the lack of trying. Life was far more pleasant for the Palestinians until they started the Al-Aqsa intifada; well, they wanted a war and they got one, and predictably, they are losing. Again, that makes them weak and stupid, not noble and right. The Iraqis and the Taliban weren't much of a foe, either.

study the history of the region, then come back Rich...or are you an arab apologist? here we go again with "occupied terratories'...sure got you fooled (or convinced).

Get this..jews lived alonside arabs for centuries. Yes, the arabs flocked to the region once the jews turned a desert into an oasis.

don't be so sympathetic to the brutal, violent-natured lying arabs.

E Nough,

You state my ignorance is exemplified by thinking that Arabs populated Palestine before the Zionists arrived; well I guess that makes most Israeli historians ignorant as well. Check out Benny Morris's "Righteous Victims," among a gazillion other books. If you have to cling to Peters' book, that has been discredited by virtually everyone including mainstream Israelis, and only believed by Americans and Netanyahu, then that really reveals the level you must go to defend Israel's actions. I guess by your logic, the Israel is entitled to go anywhere that Peters has declared as Arab-free.

But even if your theory were true, that still doesn't excuse the subjugation of millions of people. To not realize that subjugation enrages people, as exemplified by world history, is to be ignorant--I suspect in your case, willfully ignorant.

Damn, I'm sick of this thread.

You refuse to contextualize anything, Rich.

- Israel captured those lands in a war of self defense which they won
- Israel gave political autonomy, military and economic aid to the Palestinians with a planned state on the horizon
- Israel gave them a state

- The Palestinians invalidated all of the above by refusing the state and launching a war.

The "reoccupation" came only after (as of this moment) unrelenting terror directed at Israeli civilians.

When will you acknowledge that there are consequences for actions, even for Palestinians? It seems there are only supposed to be consequences for Israeli actions.

James,
When did Israel give the Palestinians autonomy or a state? I think you are really exaggerating. Israel has been building settlements since the '80s, which confutes this offer of autonomy and statehood. And the IDF has been in the occupied territories continuously, especially to defend these Israeli-only settlements.

BTW, can Arab-Israelis live in the settlements? Are some or all Jewish only? B'Tselem's reporting suggests they are Jewish only, but I'm not sure.

Everyone needs to read the Bible. The history as well as the outcome is there. Try it!!!

The Oslo Accords, Rich. And then Camp David. And then Taba.

Rich, I'm not going to keep this going much more, but really, you keep railing against straw men. I haven't read Peters' book, and I'm sure points of disagreement can be made, but there's no doubt that most of the "Palestinians" are really migrants from what is now Egypt and Syria, and the population of "Palestine" prior to the arrival of the Jews was practically nil. Moreover, towns like Hebron were populated by Jews for millenia -- and centuries before Arabs arrived, or Mohammed was born.

But even if your theory were true, that still doesn't excuse the subjugation of millions of people. To not realize that subjugation enrages people, as exemplified by world history, is to be ignorant--I suspect in your case, willfully ignorant.

You keep playing this tune, and it's getting tired. The Israelis were working with Arabs to set up an independent entity in the West Bank -- if not for outright statehood, then at least self-government. When the second intifada started, the Israelis were not in most of the West Bank, which is why they had to "reoccupy" those towns in the first place.

And no, I am not saying that Israel is entitled to the West Bank based on population statistics from a hundred years ago. They are entitled to the land because they were attacked from it by Transjordan, and won it in a defensive war. They then thought they'd be giving it back to the Jordanians, which is why settlement didn't begin for some 15 years after the land was taken; had Jordan not waited until the 1990s to sign a peace agreement, they'd have most of the land today (and no one would dare even suggesting that Palestinians should have their own state). Aside from that, even the right-wing Israelis like Netanyahu accept that millions of Arabs live in the West Bank, and it would be best to let them stay there and govern themselves. (A courtesy the Arabs aren't exactly returning.)

With the Oslo accords, the Israelis tried, in good faith, to hand most of the land to the Palestinians; this didn't work, because the Palestinians want all of the land, including Israel proper, and state so unequivocally. To achieve that goal, they didn't put on uniforms and take on the Israeli forces in battle, or even limit themselves to sneak attacks on the "occupying" military forces -- no, they sneaked into Israeli cities and went after their women, children, and old folks, shooting them in their cafes, buses, discotheques, and beds. Since the Palestinian fighters failed to distinguish themselves from civilians, then the Israelis aren't required to do so either -- that's why that rule has been in place for millenia. So the Israeli "brutality" is nothing more than a perfectly natural and legitimate response to hostile, murderous attacks. The motive for those attacks is irrelevant -- it's the methods and chosen targets that justify the Israeli response. Disguising your fighters as civilians will result in deaths of real civilians -- not a hard concept to master.

Again, if subjugation was the Israeli intent, we wouldn't have to argue about it, the PLO would all be pushing up daisies, and the Israelis wouldn't be risking their soldiers battling Arab terrorists. Israeli intent at the moment is to fumigate the West Bank's many terrorist nests, and it's working. Israeli intent for the long-term is simply to survive as a nation -- despite the fact that they are surrounded by hundreds of millions of ill-educated, impoverished, murderously hostile people, governed by even more murderous dictators and theocrats. If even half the motives you ascribe to Israel were true, those people would all be "neutralized" by now -- which is a point you never seem able to address.

I'd just like to add two more points, in response to this:

But even if your theory were true, that still doesn't excuse the subjugation of millions of people. To not realize that subjugation enrages people, as exemplified by world history, is to be ignorant--I suspect in your case, willfully ignorant.

It's not the "subjugation" that "enraged" the West Bank Arabs -- if that were the case, Arabs should be "enraged" at their local governments all over the Middle East and North Africa. The "enragement" came from very clear incitement from sources in and outside the West Bank -- such as PA television and Hizbollah literature.

Moreover, being "enraged" is not an excuse for wanton murder. The Palestinians are adult human beings, not five-year-olds whose feelings are hurt by "humiliation." Regardless of their circumstances, they still make the decision whom to attack and how. The responsibility for such decisions is theirs alone, and they should bear the full consequences.

Consider the Tibetans. Contrary to bullshit Palestinian claims of "longest military occupation in history," the People's Republic of China has occupied Tibet -- which is a separate culture that had been a separate nation prior to Mao's invasion -- for a half-century, even though Tibet did not present a military threat to China. Do I think the Tibetans were aggrieved? Absolutely. Do they have the right to resist? Definitely. Would I support them if they started putting bombs in Llasa bus stations and Beijing discotheques? No freaking way -- and if they did, the Chinese would be fully justified in sending their army to crush such "resistance."

It's not about the cause. It's about the methods.

here...here...E. Nough!!!

arab this, arab that. damn!

arafat banned sex ed & drivers ed on the same day 'cause it was to damn hard on their camels

and furthermore, Israel has everything to lose and the Palestinians nothing, this war is doing damage to Israel's economy (no tourists travel to the region anymore, it costs money to maintain the military etc), Israel has better use of their young than having them patrol the Golan heights for instance, so Israel has no interest and no benefits of being at war, so stop accusing Israel of being warmongers!

By continuing to attack civilians, Palestinians stab themselves in the back, they deny themselves the right to live a "normal" life as to send their kids to school and to work in Israel. (And I think they like it, see the proud mom of the son who blew himself up). So it is not a "subjugation" by Israelis but rather self-inflicted misery. You'll see, if the attacks on Israel ever stop, so will the misery for Palestinians.

and... more power to E. Nough!!!

I too, wonder why everyone is obsessed with the Middle East.

So E. Nough said that the anti-idiotarians are hot on this topic because of security issues. If things go wrong in the Middle East, U.S., Canada, and Europe may be at risk. O.K. Gotcha. Sounds rational.

So why is the "left" obsessed with the Middle East? They say humanitiarian reasons. To expose the unjust suffering of the Palestinians. And this is why we see flyers posted in p.c. bookshops, marches, lectures in liberal churches to expose this suffering. I don't buy it. There's far more suffering elsewhere. There are far more people in the world suffering than the Palestinians. Let's look at China, Africa, The Congo... Oh gosh, I don't here anyone talking about the Congo. And who's marching to raise money for the AIDS epedemic in Africa besides Bono ? Why not work on getting the world community to devote more time and money on (what should be) an easy enemy, AIDS, which does not complicate itself with arguments of religion and land? After all, far far more Africans are dying if numbers count at all. This is a real genocide. No, it's not humanitarianism, the lefts obsession with the Middle East, this obsessive critique of IsrAEl. What is it?

I think there's two reasons (among others) that stand out in terms of the Left's interest in Israel and the Middle East.

First, I think that they are able to see, on a visceral level, that this is the first battle in the global war on this Islamic menace. It is no different, as has been stated elsewhere- than the Spanish Civil War in the 30s - its a harbinger of things to come. The Left, these days, sees this as a battle between capitalism and globalism against the Third World, between neo-colonialism and the oppressed, and all of that sort of rot. The fact that their allies in that part of the world share none of these values is almost irrelevant, as is the fact that they have misread the situation entirely.

But this is hardly the first time that the Left has been woefully mistaken about their allies - remember the whole support for Communism thing?

That is why you see these "anti-war" protesters marching in support of the Palestinians, along with the rest of that brain-dead coalition - the anti-globalists, black separatists, and all the rest. These people aren't "anti-war", they are just on the other side.

The second reason - hell, there's nothing that is a unifying force as much as hating Jews, is there?

What does Arafat want?
Dr. John Hagee

"Land for peace" has not worked in the past and it will not work now or in the future. There are times in moral fogs and spiritual twilights when the highest intellectual duty is to restate the obvious in the pursuit of truth. Here are some historical facts about the Middle East that have been rewritten by the world press and forgotten by geo-politically ignorant Americans.
After World War I, the British assumed control of "Palestine" from the Ottoman Turks and promised in the Balfour Declaration to create a Jewish home in Palestine.
In 1922, the British sliced off four-fifths of Palestine and named it "Trans Jordan" and gave it to the Arabs. Trans Jordan was later called Jordan.
The point to remember here is that the Arabs got 4/5 of the land and the Jews got 1/5. The Arabs were furious that the Jews got any land!
In 1947, Palestine was roughly the size of New Jersey and the Jews were given one half of that. The Jews of the world agreed to live on this tiny piece of land to be called Israel.
On May 15, 1948, the United Nations officially recognized the state of Israel. On that day, the Jewish state was attacked by five Arab armies trying to murder the Jewish state in the birth canal.
Arab leaders told the Arab citizens to leave their homes and farms and as soon as the Jews had been driven into the sea, they could return and take both their homes and the land the Jews left behind.
Problem!
The Arabs lost the War of 1948. The War of 1948 produced the "Palestinian refugee" problem. When you declare a war and lose that war, you must be prepared to live with the consequences of that war. As soon as the Arabs lost that war, they started yelling for the Jews to give back the land.
During the Menachem Begin administration, another "land for peace" deal was offered to Israel from Egypt. Israel, ever eager for peace, gave up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.
Israel lost billions in producing oil wells, homes, schools, synagogues and social infrastructure. It did not bring peace.
Yasser Arafat, at the Camp David Accord, during the Clinton administration, was again yelling, "land for peace."
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state with part of East Jerusalem as its capitol. He offered Arafat control of 97 percent of the West Bank. He offered the release of political prisoners and gave Arafat everything he had ever demanded. What was Arafat's reaction? He stormed out of the room enraged.
Why?
It was everything Arafat had ever asked for and he turned it down cold. The answer is very clear! Arafat and other Arab leaders don't recognize Israel's right to exist. They refuse to recognize Israel's right to any of the land.
Arafat's PLO Charter calls for the extermination of Israel. The following news excerpts give us an indication of Arafat's unrelenting goals concerning Israel:
"The goal of our struggle is the end of Israel, and there can be no compromise."
(Washington Post, March 1970)
"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel."
(El Mundo, Caracas, Venezuela, February 1980)
"The jihad will continue ... You have to understand our main battle is Jerusalem ... It is not their capitol. It is our capitol."
(Arafat's speech in Johannesburg, South Africa, May 1994)
"By Allah I swear ... that the Palestinian people are prepared to sacrifice the last boy and the last girl so that the Palestinian flag will be flown over the walls, the churches and the mosques of Jerusalem."
(Arafat, Jerusalem Post, September 1995)
In her book, "My Life," the late Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir wrote, "I have never doubted for an instant that the true aim of the Arab states has always been, and still is, the total destruction of the State of Israel and that even if we had gone back far beyond the 1967 lines to some miniature enclave, they would have tried to eradicate it and us."
What does Arafat want?
He wants what every Arab leader wants: the total and absolute destruction of the state of Israel. He wants to see the last living Jew in Israel driven into the Dead Sea.

[Link: www.worldnetdaily.com...]

patriot:

Excellent.

AMEN.

Maybe we should've left well enough alone - the metafilter crowd is starting to set up shop here. :)

Good stuff, patriot

thx all,

for the uninformed / ill-educated / anti-semitic / just plain ignorant / arab

...Sometimes the TRUTH hurts!

adios

As for the whole Arabs in Palestine before the Jews came business - it can be reasonable to say that they were *some* Arabs already living in the area (in places like Jaffa and Haifa, where alot of them STILL live) - but withoutout a doubt, the majority of the Arab population in 1948 had poured into Western Palestine from bordering nations. They came, of course, because the Jews were making the country habitable. You don't need to go to Peters' book to learn this - Mark Twain in the 1800's said that what is Israel now was a desolate wasteland. Winston Churchill, a veteran of the mandate, gave testimony to the amount of illegal Arab migration from Syria. I happen to own a book written by a British Christian army officer in the late forties (just before the establishment of Israel) entitled "Palestine: Land Of My Adoption", and he too speaks of the Zionists making the desert bloom, and how this attracted neighbouring Arabs. He didn't take sides at all in his book - he just stated facts.

And has it ever occured to the Palestinians and the outside world that "Historic Palestine" also comprises Jordan? So, when they speak of a Right of Return (nice words, those, wonder where they got them from?) to Historic Palestine, Jordan alone could quite easily accomodate them.