perhaps someone should send WNET a vat of vaseline.

To channel 13, forget those pledges. I, for one, will watch the station for free.....if this is the programming my money buys.

not surprised... at all

The odd thing is that a few months ago, PBS produced a pretty decent special on the Middle East conflict, with a good timeline of events. (Can't find it on their site now.)

who is responsible for this revision of history.??

what can we do..?

But we just don't understaaaaaaaaaand them.

We need to blame ourselves for the current situation - we could have done so much more to help!

But its all the fault of those....

Oh, enough sarcasm -

Its continually amazing, how, people with an agenda seem to think they can blithely peddle blatantly erroneous and misleading (often also referred to by the ugly term lying) information to advance their position, often times in what should be an unbiased forum, and that they'll actually get away with it.

That...is nothing but pure chutzpah...or alternately, symptomatic of an undiagnosed brain tumor.

And regularly, equally as amazing, these same types will display absolute shock and surprise, if not anger that they either 1) got caught, 2)somebody dared question their pronouncement, 3) that someone is actually 'attacking' their 'reasonable statements'.

Since its a PBS station, wonder how much of the salary is from the membership drives, and how much from fed funding - and if the station management really cares that having stupid people doing Belasarius style stunts might adversely impact listener/viewer support.

Maybe we should email and pose them that question....

No donation from me anymore. I don't care if Peter, Paul AND Mary ask.

Though it was pretty cool of them to have Iggy Pop on Sessions at W.54th... Hmm.

David Van Taylor is vice president of Lumiere Productions, where he completed Local News (PBS). He began in the company as series producer of With God On Our Side: The Rise Of The Religious Right In America, 1950-1994 (ITVS). Van Taylor's feature documentary A Perfect Candidate was nominated for an Emmy. Since 1986, Van Taylor has written, directed and edited for PBS, HBO (She's Having A Baby Brother), Discovery (Hollywood Talent Agents), MTV (I Want To Be A Millionaire), and TV Nation with Michael Moore.

Brad Lichtenstein directed Safe, about a Brooklyn battered women's shelter for the Discovery Channel. Prior to that he directed André's Lives , which tells the story of "the Jewish Schindler" and his confrontation with a long-buried past. Brad first worked with Lumiere as an associate producer of With God On Our Side. He was associate producer of Frontline's Peabody Award-winning special, The Choice '96. Since 1992, Lichtenstein has worked on numerous films including History Of The Blues, Lost In Mississippi, and a film on Israeli arms dealer Ari Ben-Menashe.

Methinks some leftists. I wonder if they got Said and Esposito to help with the history part.

Note that the New York Sun article refers to a map portraying all of Israel as "Palestine."

The only map I found is on the timeline page, and the portion in yellow is marked "Palestine/Israel".

However, when you roll over a yellow item in the timeline, only the word "Palestine" lights up on the map -- which makes me think that "Israel" may have been hastily added in response to the controversy.

For a proper Fisking of this site,

[Link: israpundit.blogspot.com...]

please scroll down

It's quite a long program and (it seems to me) you didn't find too much to bitch about.
Maybe there was something right????

The Palestinian narrative weaves ever deep into the fabric of the world media.

Perhaps they should all be required to read Oren's Six Days of War . . . instead of the North Carolina Quaran and the collected works of Norm Chomsky.

In case PBS deletes/changes the page, here is their account of the 'history' of Palestine:

History

The area referred to as Palestine is an historic region, the extent of which has varied greatly since ancient times, situated on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, in southwestern Asia. This area is now largely divided between Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza, parts of which are self-administered by Palestinian Arabs.

Around 63 B.C., the Roman Empire took the Jewish kingdom of Judah and placed it under a series of consuls, including Herod the Great and Pontius Pilate at the time Jesus was believed to have lived and preached. The Empire under Caligula prompted a Jewish uprising, which lasted four years but was crushed when the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed. After a second revolt, Jerusalem was razed and the province of Palestine decreed. The defeat marked the end of the Jewish state and the beginning of the second Diaspora, or scattering of the Jewish people (the first Jewish Diaspora came when the first Temple was destroyed about 586 BC).

In 331 A.D. Emperor Constantine became a Christian, giving approval to a previously illegal religion. Churches of the Holy Sepulchre and the Nativity sprang up all over the region to mark sites of religious importance. But in 638 A.D. Jerusalem fell to Caliph Omar and was declared a holy city of Islam. In 1099 the Christians occupied Jerusalem, murdering Muslims and beginning nearly 100 years of Christian rule. But by the mid-1200s the Islamic Mamluks reclaimed Jerusalem.

The Ottomans took over in the beginning of the 16th century, but by the 1800s began to lose control of the region. Britain opened a consulate in Jerusalem, and in 1878 the first Jewish colony was founded.

At the end of World War I, Britain promised both the Arabs an Arab state and the Jews a homeland in Palestine. When the war ended, Britain was given a mandate by the League of Nations to rule the country, and stopped all immigration to Palestine. Despite this law, large-scale Jewish immigration from abroad (mainly from Eastern Europe) took place, with numbers swelling in the 1930s as Jews fled Nazi persecution and genocide. Palestinian Arab demands for independence and resistance to Jewish immigration led to a rebellion in 1937, followed by continuing violence from both sides during and after World War II. In 1947, Great Britain turned the problem of bringing independence to a land ravaged by violence over to the United Nations.

The U.N. proposed partitioning Palestine into two independent states, one Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized. Zig-zagged borders that cut off portions of Arab and Jewish populations from each other proved impractical. Antagonism between Arabs and Jews quickly escalated into a cycle of violence characterized by gunfights, bombings, riots and sabotage.

When the British withdrew their forces in May of 1948 Jews in Palestine declared Israel a Jewish State defined by the UN resolution borders. The next day neighboring Arab nations, with the exception of Jordan, declared war on Israel and attacked. By the end of the war in 1949 Israel had expanded to occupy 77 percent of the total territory defined in the UN's resolution. Over half the Palestinian Arab population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab state that never came into being.

In 1967, after a period of increasing hostilities between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel launched a strike against Egypt, sparking a full-scale war with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. After six days Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine - the West Bank and the Gaza Strip-which had been under Jordanian and Egyptian control, respectively. This included East Jerusalem and the Old City, which Israel annexed. Five hundred thousand Palestinians left.

In this period, Yasir Arafat of the Fatah Party became chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and leader of the movement for a Palestinian state. Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza began soon after the war, and by 1977 were official Israeli policy. Today some 200,000 Jews live in settlements scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza.

In 1987 a popular uprising, the intifada, brought international attention to the Palestinian cause, but resulted in a heavy loss of life among the civilian Palestinian population. In 1991 Israeli officials met with a Palestinian delegation in Madrid, and eventually PLO leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Itzak Rabin agreed to work for peace. After months of negotiations, the Oslo Accords were drawn up, detailing a phased exchange of land for peace between Israel and the PLO. In 1993, Israel and the PLO signed an accord providing for joint recognition and for limited Palestinian self-rule in the Gaza Strip and Jericho. In 1995, Israel and the PLO agreed on a transition to Palestinian self-rule in most of the West Bank. Despite the major setback of Rabin's assassination by a radical right-wing Jewish Israeli, and the election of the prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the right-wing Likud party, negotiations for peace continued after a brief stall.

The Labor party came into power in 1999 headed by former military leader Ehud Barak. His withdrawal from the Security Zone in southern Lebanon, where Israeli troops and Hezbollah guerillas had been fighting, raised hopes for a final peace settlement that would establish a Palestinian state alongside Israel. An agreement was nearly reached at Camp David, but broke down over two issues: the status of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, and a proposed Palestinian right-of-return. In February 2001, Israelis elected as prime minister right-wing politician Ariel Sharon, who had inflamed Palestinians eight months earlier by visiting the temple mount in Jerusalem, which is also the site of the Al-Aqsa mosque holy to Muslims. This marked the beginning of the second intifada.

Since then, the area has suffered the worst violence in decades. Palestinian suicide bombers have killed and wounded many Israeli civilians. Many Palestinian civilians have also been killed by Israeli troops, who have intermittently occupied most of the West Bank in military attacks they claim are meant to hunt down militants and damage terrorist infrastructures.

With political opinion on both sides increasingly polarized, there is no end in sight to the historic and ongoing struggle over this land.

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

Aah, I see the bitter, brittle Raghida Dergham is featured.

As taj (#3) put it, I'm not surprised. I actually wouldn't expect anything less from PBS or NPR, those two bombastic bastions (though crumbling) of Leftist think (is that an oxymoron?).

That aside, without tax payer money they would dissolve into nothingness.

Religion

The majority of Arab Americans are Christian. Only about 12 percent of Muslims worldwide are Arabs. In fact, there are more Muslims in Indonesia than in all Arab countries combined. Today, Arab Muslims represent the fastest growing, albeit still minority, part of the Arab American community. Religious practices that direct personal behavior--including the five-times-daily prayers, month-long fast at Ramadan, beards for men and the wearing of the hijab (headcover) for women make Muslims more visible than most religious minorities and thus more vulnerable to bigotry.

How come they admit that most of these people are Christian in the first sentence and then spend the next 4 sentences talking exclusively about Muslims? Wheres the informations about Lebanese Maronites, who make up the largest section. How about Egyptian Copts? Iraqi Assyrians? Why must the focus always be the Muslims when they are so insignificant a section by numbers.

Just look at any website for an Arab-American association, on all the ones I've seen the ratio of Islamic issues to Christian issues is about the same as the preceding paragraph.

Such a shame when programs and organizations which are supposed to be representative of a community are anything but.

At least they have that Lutheran Minister as one of their people, even if he is anti-Israel for good measure.

Looks like Mr Whitaker has taken another bite of the cherry, with another attack on MEMRI. Looks like he is convinced that MEMRI and the J-E-W-S have conspired to send Americans to their death for the Zionist cause.

Seriously, this article is disgraceful - no doubt it will be quoted extensively in Arab News.

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

The 'history of palestine' is not only biased, but amateurish:

The Jewish revolt was not in the 'Empire under Caligula', but started decades later under Nero, and ended 6 (not 4) years later under Vespasian.

The British gave all kinds of promises to various Arabs, but they did not promise a state to the Arabs of Palestine.

The British did not 'stop all immigration to Palestine' when they got the mandate. Instead, in the '30s, they placed increasing restrictions and quotas, culminating in the infamous White Paper of 1939.

The paragraph about the '47 partition lines implies that they were implemented on the ground and their impracticality led to the war. What a gross misrepresentation of events.

The number of Palestinians who left after '67 given as half a million is inflated.

I've seen no account of Camp David that says that the settlements were the problem. The cause for failure was Jerusalem and the right of return. That, and Arafat's essential non-participation.

Amir

Update: In the hour between 1:00 and 2:00 PM, first the descriptions of the histories of the countries were disabled, then the timeline. Now, even the links are gone and this is what's up:

Their Homelands:

"The purpose of this Web site is to be a companion piece to CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE: Arab Americans in Wartime, a documentary which looks at the lives of three Arab Americans living in New York City following the events of September 11.

"The "Homelands" section of the site drew attention away from the message of the film. Our goal was to provide background information that contextualized the cultural histories of the people whose lives are chronicled in the film. In an effort to keep the focus on the current experience of Arab Americans, we have removed that section of the site."

Or maybe your politicization and inaccuracies drew attention away. God forbid you should correct the inaccuracies. Any way, good idea to remove it if you can't get it right.

Thanks for the update mommydoc, glad we have recorded here their version of 'history'...

BRAVO.....

another one for the bloggers.......

:O)))))

The history is indeed awful. But they can't even speak English:

After a second revolt, Jerusalem was razed and the province of Palestine decreed.

Does one decree a province?

I hate to nitpick given that their account is largely a-historical, but you would think that whatever Arab propagandist they hired to write this garbage would at least speak English.

They probably hired Mr. Bradley from Arab News. His English and grammar are, to put it lightly, deplorable.

Everytime I read something like this, I feel like I've gone down the rabbit hole with Alice. I wonder where is the sense of shame? How could you just outright lie like this? This is so completely foreign to my frame of reference that I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around this. I just can't image what goes through a person's mind when they sit down to write something they know is not true, knowing that people who are looking for answers will believe it. It's just pure evil. The people that would write lies and half-truths and then present it as factual information are just as despicable as terrorists to me. At least terrorists will let you know how they really feel. What can be done to chase the amoral leftists out of public broadcasting, the universities, etc?

Damn.. there goes another source I respected (well.. I only respected them because I was flipping through and saw one of the smartest guys in the world being interviewed - Bernard Lewis).

Very disappointing.

Well I thought they had the Lutheran Minister in focus because they finally realized that Islam is not predominant in the Arab community of the United States. But it turns out it was really because the Lutheran Evangelical Church funded part of the filming (See the Sun article).

So much for that sliver of journalistic integrity. Now the entire show is pure pandering - Even to things not entirely Arab.

Trying to click on the Timeline now returns a PBS-Whoops. This page no longer exists.
These wimps really can't take the heat when they get caught.
They should at least get some backbone.

The British gave all kinds of promises to various Arabs, but they did not promise a state to the Arabs of Palestine.

Actually they did - that state is now called Jordan. Funny, no mention of Jordan in that above "history".

In this period, Yasir Arafat of the Fatah Party became chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and leader of the movement for a Palestinian state.

In a piece full of significant inaccuracies, this one stands out for me, because it goes to the heart of the matter. This is the first mention of the PLO, which is described solely as a movement of nationalism, and only in the post-'67 context of the WB & Gaza.

But the PLO was founded 2-3 years BEFORE the 6-Day War, with a mandate to destroy Israel. The PLO was never even arguably about a Pal state in the "occupied territories" side-by-side with Israel, until Oslo. Of course, it now appears that the original mandate remained unchanged in the hearts & minds of Palestinian leadership.

Exactly, Dan (#30). And Evan (#29) Why do you think no one ever makes this point more publicly? Is it only out of deference to our loose alliance (if I can even call it that?) with Jordan? If Arafat had been allowed to take over Jordan, would we still be in the current situation vis a vis a Palestinian homeland? Probably.

Evan:

They do mention Jordan, albeit inaccurately, they state that Jordan never went to war against Israel, or should I say never delcared war on Israel during the war for independence.

I meant in that article posted at no. 14 - no mention of Jordan as part of Palestine.

the collected works of Norm Chomsky.

I get the image of a guy who writes disconnected, dishonest rants about beer.

The district of Palestine which was under Ottoman role for hundreds years included Syria, Trans Jordan. That was the region about which the British gave their promises to the Arabs and Zionist leaders. Until now the Syrians are speaking about Israel as just a South Syria. Trans Jordan was delivered by Churchill, minister for colonies, to the Hasemits in 1922, thus deviding the historical land of Israel, to the Zionist chagrin, though Churchill, who defined himself, as a Zionist, (yes, there were in the far past Englishmen who were proud to call themselves Zionists...), had believed that by this act he strengthend the Zionist demand for the area west of the river. He was mistaken, as matter of fact he created the first Palastinian state. They now want, by their grand scheme, 3 states: Jordan, Palastine State in the "west bank", and another on the ruins of Israel.

Another fact, which PBS will never tell, is that that since the collapse of Jewish control of Israel and Judaea, there had been a Jewish majority in Jerusalem to those days.

I am a moderate Israeli though always guided by "real politics", unfortunetly I met quite a few Israelis who adopted the habit of licking Arab asses just because of fear, or still Jewish Galut mentality, or paving their academic life by flattering their western colleagues; yet, why many people in the mighty US has catched this malaise, including Bush in so short time is beyond me. After all, the cracks among Israelis have appeared only after 100 years of fighting local Arabs. With such of mentality the Americans would have never won the war of King Philip against the Indians, and face extinction in New England.

BUSTED!

And, as is depressingly normal - a simple run away, run away, hide, hide. No apology, no 'oops, we made a mess on the carpet', nada. Zippo. Zilch.

To take such an outwardly admirable idea for a project and use it like a floormat for the muddy boots of their anti-semetic propagandist bile. Portrayal of what has probably been a tough row for Arabic (and others of Middle Eastern and points immediately East appearance) immigrants - particularly the ones the don't agree with and aren't sucked in by the religo-centric spinsanity, actually love this country, the life they've made for themselves, and are actually making the effort to assimilate. We can rant back and forth about how many or how few of them fit that description - fine, but they are out there.

This, imho, makes the paragons of virtue responsible for this amatuerish bilge pumping doubly dispicable and heinous.

It ain't Friday, but here's my prayer -

Oh G-d, grant that they suddenly develop the capacity to feel the overwhelming shame for the deceitfulness the so richly deserve, for it is within your power.

Wow, my typing sure goes south when I get wound up...

oops.

Brandi in AZ, they may very well not be deliberately lying. Those of us who have done some research and hunted for some facts in the past year notwithstanding, most or all of what's given in that "history" is in fact the conventional wisdom. The writer of the timeline may not even have bothered to check sources - what need, when one thinks one already "knows" the history?

I mean, just to take one example, how many people even realize that Jordan was part of the British Mandate of Palestine? One in a hundred?

and accurate, or they would not have published it in the first place. Their lack of a correction is also troubling, and would back up the notion that they believe this information to be true, and still stand by it.

How very sad for PBS, and how very sad for those who value truth over lies and propaganda.

I am convinced the only way for people to learn aboutt they believe this information to be true, and still stand by it.

How very sad for PBS, and how very sad for those who value truth over lies and propaganda.

I am convinced the only way for people to learn aboutor they would not have published it in the first place. Their lack of a correction is also troubling, and would back up the notion that they believe this information to be true, and still stand by it.

How very sad for PBS, and how very sad

Wow, even the New York Times thought this documentary was too biased:

"Caught in the Crossfire," however, explores only one facet of the dynamic: the Arab-American as victim. In trying so hard to make an audience like its major characters, and so to accept Arab-Americans as decent folks just like us, the film actually strips those characters of the complexity of emotion and experience that makes them fully human."

........

"So what do Ms. Dergham, Mr. El-Yateem and Mr. Nasser think of that? What could it have been like to be an Arab-American cop last fall when the search for Al Qaeda confederates in New York and elsewhere began? What did Ms. Dergham, as a journalist writing for the Arab media, make of conspiracy theories of Israeli involvement?

One never knows, either because the filmmakers never asked or they chose to excise the answers.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

All of this seems to have disappeared from their website, possibly after even the producers of the piece went public saying it was a bunch of crap.

I know the 'P' stands for Philistine, but what does the 'BS' stand for?

So this is another lesson from the blogosphere for PBS: "We can fact-check your ass!"

A random idiotarian's history of Palestine:

How many countries have a truly ‘indigenous’ people? Most nations are the result of migration / flux. Nations are artificial constructs that reflect (or inadequately reflect) the ethnic make-up of the inhabitants. No, there’s been no piece of land with neatly-dotted borders branded with the word ‘Palestine’ in mile-high letters since the dawn of time; neither was Israel neatly set up by some heavenly cartographer. By your own argument, you’ve admitted that Arab peoples have been resident in the region for thousands of years (actually, the vast majority of the population have been Arabic since the 7th century) – I’d say that’s a fair claim to basic territorial rights.

The image of the Arabs being relentless warmongers isn’t historically accurate. Are you denying that Zionism was an expansionist philosophy, that used the Ottoman land laws to buy up the land of Arab peasants and displace them?

The reasons Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan are many and varied. It’s partly because they were fed up with European powers carving up land that wasn’t under European jurisdiction (would the majority of inhabitants of the land affected have approved the Balfour Declaration?). Besides, Europe had promised the Arab population of the region independence in return for supporting the Allies. Let’s put it simply: two-thirds of the inhabitants of the region were Arab. Even assuming the UN had the legal right (dubious) to carve up the territory in this way, why should they submit to it? The history of Israel has been one of a minority population attempting to exercise disproportionate control over land. Maybe ‘Palestinian’ is a convenient handle for them to adopt to further their cause; what of it? Is it less of an artificial construct than ‘Israeli’? Things might well have been better if they’d accepted partition; then again, they might not. I can’t really see two states co-existing in the region without some kind of tension, and people weren’t exactly queuing up to offer military support to help enforce / police partition at the time.

Oh, I see, you ARE denying that Israel ever had any kind of expansionist agenda. I’d suggest you read some books, but you’d doubtless have trouble seeing past the blinkers. I could post quotes from various prominent Zionists here, but, frankly, I can’t be arsed. Yes, some Arabs are probably motivated by anti-Semitism (bad); but I don’t buy into your simple-minded representation of the Jews as always in the right, only ever taking ‘defensive’ action, etc. At least admit degree of moral complexity in the situation.

Mmhmm, yes, the Jews have roots in the region going back thousands of years. As a minority, for the most part of recent history. The keyword here is ‘small’. The amount of control they now exercise is, however, disproportionately large.

What a lot of assumptions you make about me. How tiresome that you equate anyone who dares to assume Israel hasn’t invariably acted in the right with being an anti-Semite. It’s this kind of blinkered, ‘you’re either with us or against us’ attitude, this refusal to recognize the validity of opposing views, that’s let the whole grisly Middle East situation simmer along for so long.

These guys don't just want Israel to pull out of the "occupied" territories, they want Israel to pull out, period.

Does Pakistan have the right to exist? Before the partition there was no Pakistan, only a larger India. Did the majority of Indians want an Independant Pakistan? What about all the Hindu refugees that had to flee the new state, should Pakistan be overthrown?

I tend to notice that only Israel faces similar calls. When will the Arabs pay compensation to all the Jews expelled from their countries after 1948?

This is on now.

Anybody watching?

Zulubaby....

I caught the last 5 minutes....gee, doesnt Islam look great....?magnificent pictures....

all those wonderful people, who love this country

gimme a barf bag....

antisemitic rant by a "Thomas C Greene in Washington" decrying jewish control over the media spotted at The Register:

PBS Purges Web Content on Israeli Disapproval

anti semitic my arse, the guy was simply pointing out that PBS are cowards, I guess the truth is now "anti semitic" as well?
some of you ppl disgust me

Bill #48 : Are you so unable to defend your viewpoints that you take any questioning of them to be 'bigotry'.
This is the last haven of people who know they are wrong, but refuse to admit it to themselves.

By the way, I'm not anti-semetic, just anti-'the brutal oppression of a native people by an occupying force.'

P.S. If Palestinians fighting against the occupation of their land are terrorists, what were the French Resistance in World War II ?

Bill from #48
To quote The Register:
Now, I don't want to get into arguments with readers about who's right and who's wrong and who threw the first punch in Palestine. The conflict is messy and old and full of complications and interference from geopolitical players, the full effects of which which I don't pretend to understand. I'll say this much: personally I'd be a lot more comfortable with the Palestinian struggle if they'd stick to attacking Israeli military targets exclusively, and leave civilians out of it. On the other hand they are under occupation, they have no homeland, and most importantly, no army with which to attack military targets. They're so outmanned, outmanouvred and outgunned that it's hard to think of what else they could do to fight back.

How is that antisemitic exactly? Were the French resistance wrong to oppose the Nazi occupation of France?

fuckin shitty tv 0wned by the jews anyways...im telling you, pay-per-view is better ;D

[I'm sorry, this goes on longer than I intended, please forgive any spelling errors, none are malicious]

Just a couple of general comments.

1) I've noticed that many people have said something along the lines of 'get your history from books' Would these people please note that all books are actually part of the media and are all inherrently biased in some way.

2)Most people are undereducated, misinformed idiots. All Israelis, all Palastinians, all Arabs, all Jews, all Muslims, all Christians - for crying out loud EVERYBODY (including myself) is a person. Follow the logic.

3) What we know (and lets face it, we know nothing but we believe a lot of things - including that 1+1=2) may not be correct. As an example, give 1+1 to a computer scientist and they'll tell you the answer is 10. We are all biased in some way.

The point I'm trying to get at is that none of us ever know the whole of any story.

In any argument, in any conflict, the only correct answer to who is in the wrong is this:

Virtually everybody.

There's no point in continuing a conflict saying 'They started it' even if you believe that to be the case. They will undoubtedly believe that you started it and the circle will continue.

Too many people on all sides (including those who tried not to be involved) have died.

Too many have died.

--------------------------

Right, now the sermonising is out of the way, time for my opinion:

The only solution (that I can see) is for a non secular democratic country to occupy the currently desputed region (ie all of Isreal and the occupied territories). This would mean Arafat would be in the Knesset (or if that name annoys you, the Fred - after all, would a rose by any other name...) and all people inthe current Israel and the occupied territories would have freedom of movement, vote and religion (please note this last one anyone who would convert all nonbelievers or have them dead).
Equally, everyone would have to stop murdering everyone else. This goes for the Israeli Army AND all the Terrorist groups.

Of course, I'm a realist and I've read point 2).

That's me done, Let the mis-representation begin!

After hearing a brief news article on BBC Radio 4 recently ( UK ) regarding the British pulling out of Palestine, I found this discussion quite interesting.

In this news item they told of the bombing of the British embassy by Zionist terrorists ( their description ) and that was one of the reasons why they pulled out, the terrorist organisations later went on to form the ruling party in Isreal ( apparently )

some info I have found recently ...

"The Truth About Terrorism Is Contained in Encyclopedia Entries"
irgum-zvai-leumi
Irgun Terrorism 1931-1948

If you want a french documentary about this area's history, visit
[Link: www.worldtent.com...]
[Link: www.worldtent.com...]
It covers the conflict since 1800's

#53:
including that 1+1=2) may not be correct. As an example, give 1+1 to a computer scientist and they'll tell you the answer is 10.

Mate, "2" in any base system above unary and binary is equal to "10" in binary. It's just that a different symbolic representation is used.

As an aside, this site's full of fundamental zionists isn't it? Apparently (BBC TV) the US gives almost all of it's international aid to Israel. Who here would say that Israel qualifies as a 3rd world country?

I got to this site via the Register article previously mentioned. The comments here reflect the bigoted mindset (on both sides) that many have regarding the mid-East.

The history of this area is a history of terrorism on both sides, dating back to, at least, the slaughter of the residents of Jericho by the Jews under Joshua. In modern times, the greatest single act of terrorism in the area remains the bombing of the King David Hotel by the Zionists. This is not to say that the local peoples who have opposed them are blameless: they, too, have a long trail of blood behind them. Add to this the outsiders who periodically come through the region and slaughter everybody, and you have a recipe for continued, justifiable violence by both sides.

The United States is on the wrong side in the conflict. The wrong side that we are on is the inside. We should be on the outside. We need to cut off foreign aid and arms sales to all the participants. Let them fight to the death, if that is what they want. I don't care. It's not worth a drop of American blood or a dollar of American money to sway the outcome.

last year the united states gave - not loaned, gave - $2 billion in military aid to isreal. the year before, $3billion. in total, since 1974 the us has *given* almost $40 billion dollars to isreal to buy weapons.

in fact, isreal receives about one third of all us foreign assistance (at the expense of countries like, say, sierra leone, who are actually poor and could use it).

don't you feel like you're being taken for a ride?

oh yeah, sources:
[Link: www.us-israel.org...]
that's from the jewish-american library.

ps. it's noam chomsky. not norm. if pbs had made that error many of you would have had no shortage of bad things to say about them. i'll be more polite.

are you guys nuts? you are trying to terrorize the terrorists and then say that they are bad? we are all humans and that makes us part of this disgrace... you think anyone will give a damn about this show couple hundered years from now?

I feel that the U.S. should attack that Middle East country that possesses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, attacks its neighbor countries, and carries out a holocaust of neighboring nationals. That country, however, is spelled I S R A E L, not I R A Q.

Or, more accurately, based on its modus operandi, Nazi Israel.

#53, #56
Mate, "2" in any base system above unary and binary is equal to "10" in binary. It's just that a different symbolic representation is used.

Yes, I completely agree with you that 2 and 10 are different symbolic representations of exactly the same value, but I was trying to emphasize how exactly the same thing can be presented in two different ways depending on what you want to say.

Don't forget (and please forgive me for vaguely trivialising this) the Anderson (Enron's accountants) answer to 1+1 would be 'What do you want it to be?' Which I think, says it all.

don't you feel like you're being taken for a ride?

No.

How come dumbass nazis always spell it "Isreal"?

The article is not biased. Many of the above commenters think it is. Has anyone heard of open-mindedness? Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians want to fight. Perhaps their leaders do, but sometimes elected leaders go against the wishes of their constituents. Both are also at fault for continuing the bloodshed. If the Palestinians stopped attacking the Israelis, their oppression would stand out much more, especially to the international community. You may not like it, but the same goes for the Israelis: they should just stop. Of course, the best result would come about if they both just quit...

Regarding US aid to Israel. It could just as easily been called aid to US aerospace and defense workers. Most US military aid to Israel is in the form of credit that must be used for the purchase of US military hardware like all those Apaches and F-16s the Palestinians keep reminding us that they would use targeting civilians if they had them. The exception may be tanks because the Israelis build the Merkava which is more suitable to their conditions and needs than the M1.

Besides the fact that most US military aid to Israel flows back into the US is the value received by the US in terms of technology advancements by the Israelis that are shared with the US, like advanced avionics.

Most of the blurb came from the UN website: see the docs here:

[Link: www.un.org...]

Side Note: Israel's supporters should really take a hard look at what is happening when people get desperate.

Amusing to see the anti-semites come out with their lies. The US actually gives more total aid - economic and military - to Israel's enemies such as Jordan and Egypt than to Israel.

The rest of the lies above are left as an exercise for the reader.

Robin,
All Arabs consider Jordan an alley to Isarel rather than an arabic country.
Stop all this non-sense of linking any criticism to Israel to anti-semitism. It is likea gun against democracy. I thought Israel was complaining that it is the only country in the area that had democracy. Isn't it?????

Ronnie,
If Israel is not benefiting from the US aid, why not ask US to sto it instead of asking for 700M more to build the new wall around Jeursalem?
Wrost case scenario, if the US gave this aid to some of the african countries rather than Israel/Egypt/Jordon. It would help save lives, instead of hlping armies shedding more blood.

Welcome to all our visitors from the Register, where Thomas C. Greene seems to think that PBS changed their ridiculously slanted “historical summary” because of pressure from the International Zionist Conspiracy™ -- rather than out of simple shame at the exposure of their error- and bias-riddled text.

Get your history from The Book, such as this sample from Joshua chapter 8:24-27

24 When the Israelite army finished killing all the men outside the city, they went back and finished off everyone inside. 25 So the entire population of Ai was wiped out that day—twelve thousand in all. 26 For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed.£ 27 Only the cattle and the treasures of the city were not destroyed, for the Israelites kept these for themselves

The book of Joshua documents how the kingdom of Israel was established by slaughtering the original inhabitants.

It should be no surprise that the State of Israel should be established in a similar albeit more sophisticated manner.

The strong will always take by force from the weak.

I pray for both Palestinians and Israelis.

May someday they see each other as people.

The book of Joshua documents how the kingdom of Israel was established by slaughtering the original inhabitants.

There's no book of America, book of Philistia, book of Britain, book of Arabia, book of Russia book of every nation under the sun which documents how they too established their kingdoms by slaughtering the original inhabitants. We all did. It's the way of the world. Only the Jews are honest enough to meticulously document the good and the bad about themselves.

So piss off.

Any information that does not fit your prejudice is, strictly by coincidence, always wrong! Without a doubt you will feel more secure knowing that disagreeable controversy is made invisible to you. The frustration that others- invariably without cause- feel will somehow benefit you. And why not feel that way, for after all your own needs are paramount, and must never be subordinate. There is no cost so high that it should stand in the way of your own complete gratification. Don't let anything stand in your way! There is absolutely no need to gain a different perspective; viewpoints of others are without merit and entirely useless in helping your understanding. It is a fact that there is a probability of zero that you may be wrong on any particular of any set of beliefs you already hold. Your own vision of the world is the only possible correct interpretation. Absolutely there is not the slightest chance that your grasp of the facts could be flawed to any degree. Your comprehension is perfect and without any possibility of improvement. In the face of your omniscience there is really no legitimate reason for dissent.

#72,

How about deal with the specifics of the critique. For example, you can start with:

* Israeli premiers Barak, Netanyahu and Sharon are described, respectively, as a “former military leader,” “hawkish” and a “right-wing politician.” But Yasser Arafat is described as “leader of the movement for a Palestinian state” with no mention of his connections to terrorism.

and you can tell me how our flawed perceptions invalidate this very basic and simple distortion.

Lord, the Jew-haters have stunk up this thread!

Go crawl back under your rocks, it's not worth anyone's time to debate such a pack of inbreds. Every anti-Semite has this in common with every other anti-Semite (and the loony left as well): a hatred of brains and success.

How come all of the new Israel-hatin' left-wingers (a) can't spell and (b) can't form a coherent sentence?

Peterford #53: No one would bother misrepresenting your idea because it's just so stupid. I know, let's just *force* the Israelis and Palestinians to get along! That's pretty much the perfect solution to any global conflict, isn't it?

David #57: I actually agree with this. If all the foreign aid money being sent to *both* sides (and that includes all the EU blood money to the Palestinians) were removed, things would be better for both sides. Mostly because Arafat's terrorists would run out of money. But it ain't gonna happen.

Fisk #67: Do all Arabs really consider Jordan an "alley to Isarel"? What about the Jordanians ? Egypt is the only one of Israel's neighbors that isn't technically at war with it, you know.

Doug #72: If you only have one thing to say, just say it, instead of rephrasing it 20 times.

Funny that nobody has mentioned the Ramadan War -- what the Jews call the Yom Kippur War -- in 1973.

As in previous Palestinian conflicts, the massed armies of many Arab nations gathered peacefully on the borders of the Zionist entity in hopes that the Jews would finally do what they were supposed to do, namely all jump into the sea and drown. But just as had happened in other conflicts, instead of behaving in a peaceful manner the Jews wantonly attacked the Arab armies and drove them back not by superior courage (Jews are all cowards) or because they had more munitions, which they certainly did not since the peacfeul Armies the Jews attacked not just from one country but from Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt and had the economic might of peace-loving Saudi Arabia behind them, but by using black magic to defeat the righteous, and that magic came from the blood of Christain and Muslim babies that was then made powerful by exposure to cabbalists and their ally, Satan. This is the way the Jews managed to vanquish peace-loving Arab armies in 1967, 1956, and 1949, you know.

The worst part of all this was the slaughter of innocent Arab soldiers who expected to march joyously through the Zionist entity, rape a few Jewesses, loot some Jew homes and businesses, burn some cities to remove the Jewish taint from them, then return home as peacefully as they had come. The second worst part was the way the honorable Palestinians, who were ready to help with the peaceful raping, looting, and burning, were disappointed in their honorablle goal. Some of them had spent their whole lives watching Jews despoil a barren desert with groves of fruit trees, fields full of healthy produce, cities with modern conveniences, public transporation, and other abominations.

Note that the Palestinians did not despoil their land with any of this. They honorably stayed in refugee camps and complained about their fate. Instead of acting like despicable Zionists and doing for themselves, they at one point plotted to overthrow the government of Jordan, which is why many of them were not allowed to settle there, even though most of Jordan is barren and unfruitful enough to satisfy the most devout worshiper of the desert idol called "Allah," who is kept hidden inside a rock in the Saudi Arab city of Mecca.

In any case, no one should feel sorry for the Jews. They were given many opportunities to surrender and were not civilized enough to take any of them, the way they has done so gracefully in Europe not long before.

Our hearts must go out to the Palestinians and all their Arab allies, who did their best to give the Zionists a chance to martyr themselves and were fully prepared to make use of the farms and cities the Jews had built for them. It is a shame that Jews have managed to turn history on its head and make it look like the honest worshippers of the idol "Allah" are evildoers just because they have tiny penises and treat their women like dirt the way god and the false idol "Alllah" both said they should.

Hopefully the Jews will soon come to their senses, and the bloodshed in the middle east will end.

So sorry, Augustus, I was just trying to include all possible points of view!

Cheers!

Looks like morons from The Register have arrived. As James in #72 stated why doesn't Thomas Greene deal with the problems in the background material and not just attack the people pointing them out.

Just thought I'd add my 2p. First, there is much argument over the history of the region over the last few thousand years, and only relatively recent history (last century) can be taken as any kind of guide to what may be true. Much that is purported history is shrouded in myth, inaccuracy, lies and religious zealotry which even noted academics still fight over. The salient points I will address here are first that it is a religous view of the Jewish people that Israel was given to them by God and therefore any use of force to take that land from the inhabitants, the Palestinians, and hand it over to the Jews is a victory of religious belief over human rights, and that is essentially what the UN did at the the behest of the US. The US had several reasons for wanting to placate Jews, the fact that the US did not enter the war against the Nazis until after Pearl Harbor, even though there was plenty of intelligence on the Ghettos that Jews had been forced into and knowledge of the genocide that followed. There is also a lot of information on how the US benefited from contracts with the Nazis, most notably IBM who supplied the tabulating machines used to keep track of the Nazis industrialized genocide, now I know many will be thinking, but wasn’t America helping Britain? Well not really, the US sold Britain supplies at over inflated prices, which basically bankrupted the country, in fact it was only this year 2002 that the last vestiges of wartime debt were paid, it was biggest price gouging some even say extortion, in history. And lets not forget that after the war the US took in 5000 Nazis to work in aerospace and other ventures, many if not all with the blood of innocents on there hands, so the US wanted to placate the Jews as they and their mostly American Christian supporters were getting uppity, now you'll note that this is very different from other victims of the Nazis, Romany Gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally and psychically ill / disabled as didn’t get anything because they had no one to speak for them in the political / media arena. So Truman tried and failed to get the British who had the mandate for Palestine to accept the immigration of 100,000 Jews, when Britain relinquished its mandate, Truman pushed through the UN the partitioning of Palestine to give the Jews a land and get them off his back, the partition of Palestine in direct opposition to the will of the the people was the beginning of the more than half century of conflict that has engulfed the region.

A few other points to make you think -

There are 3.5 million Palestinian refugees who have been driven off their land

Israel is sometimes referred to as the only democracy in the Mid-East, but no one mentions that there was democracy in Iran before an American coup installed the Shah in 1953 and that America shores up many illegitimate, undemocratic and tyrannical regimes in the Mid-East, like Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere

American definition of terrorism is based on money / votes / oil, has anyone else noticed that the IRA is not on the list of terrorist organizations because the US politicians want to the votes of millions of Irish Americans? Does anyone remember that back in 1997 a New York court refused the extradition of an IRA terrorist to Britain because in America killing British people is "a political act" to quote the Judge? What would the Americans reading this say if the British turned round and said 9/11 was a "political act" and refused to extradite suspects, or even assisted them?

In the current US jingoism of Lets Get Saddam, always remember you gave that psycho the weapons in the first place so he could have a war with Iran, because the US was upset that the Iranians ousted the Shah who the US had installed in their own coup back in 1953 against a democratic regime.

One last thought... perhaps Americas hypocrisy and mercenary attitude is coming back to haunt it like megaton of bad karma, don't you think?

it is a religous view of the Jewish people that Israel was given to them by God and therefore any use of force to take that land from the inhabitants, the Palestinians, and hand it over to the Jews is a victory of religious belief over human rights

You are correct that it is a religious view of the Jewish people that Israel was given to them by God, but your follow-up does not follow the premise.

Why don't you prove that the historical claims of the Jewish people, having been ancient inhabitants, a continuous presence in the land throughout the ages and the present-day sovereigns of the land is "a victory of religious belief over human rights"?

Irrespective of religious belief, the land of present-day Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people in the way that Italy is the homeland of the Italian people. Jewish claims to the land are no less valid simply because they have an additional religious claim.

Try to justify American claims to America. You know how to justify it? Because the present-day sovereigns of America are sovereign and capable of defending it. How is that different from Israel? And how then is Israel different from any other nation?

Why don't you prove that the historical claims of the Jewish people

That would assume that if someone’s ancestors at some point lived in a place then they have claim to it, so then you have the problem of how far back do you go? 1000 years? 10000 years? 100000 years? As all humans originated from Africa I could claim it as my own and tell all Africans to leave my land immediately... see how absurd that argument is? Israel was created at a time in human history where ideas of law, justice, and inalienable rights where said to be paramount, yet its creation was in direct violation of those principles, is it any wonder the Palestinians want their land back?

The "2p" is rather telling. It does make me think actually.

Merlin Broil (#76):

Go fuck yourself.

I think the nazis fell in here by mistake. Why aren't you people over at Konrad's site? You'll be amongst friends there.

Now scram.

Try to justify American claims to America. You know how to justify it? Because the present-day sovereigns of America are sovereign and capable of defending it. How is that different from Israel? And how then is Israel different from any other nation?

I didnt see much capability on 9/11, and they didnt even use mass casualty weapons, did you know the Soviets created the worlds most deadly neurotoxin, it is lethal in doses of less than on microgram, one kilogram to kill a billion people, six kilos to kill the world, if you want to base the future of humanity on having the biggest guns, we're all dead, within the century

Funny that whenever anyone stands up to Israel they are termed 'anti-semites'. Were the jury who found Charles Manson 'anti-U.S.' simply because Manson, a mass murderer, was born in the USA? Those opposed to the Jewish holocausters are not anti Semites, they oppose the holocaust committed by the Jews in the Middle East, but the apologians for war crimes commited by the Jews insist on putting a spin on it every single time, to defray the truth.

Nazi Germany could have taken lessons on holocausts from Nazi Israel.

Zulubaby: I might br wrong about this, but if you take another look at Merlin Broil's post, I believe it's intended as a parody of the anti-Semitic posts.

It is a shame that Jews have managed to turn history on its head and make it look like the honest worshippers of the idol "Allah" are evildoers just because they have tiny penises and treat their women like dirt the way god and the false idol "Alllah" both said they should.

The first line, referring to "the Ramadan War" threw me off too at first, but I think Mr. Broil is pulling our leg.

Donna V.,

I'm not sure about that. I'm not in a particularly forgiving mood right now.

And there are a lot of nazis on this thread.

sortafunny is a colossal idiot.

"Those opposed to the Jewish holocausters are not anti Semites..."

So does that mean that the "Jewish holocausters" are Jew-lovers then?

THANKS PLOOME FOR GRABBING MY ATTENTION
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
I'll get to work now, starting at:
#49 'Steve'
About this article:[Link: www.theregister.co.uk...]
I'd say that, at very least "buckled to pressure (or the fear of pressure) from New York's Jewish and Israeli lobbying groups, and removed content from the companion site which dares to tell the Palestinian story without the mandatory pro-Israel bias.....PBS buckled because it feared that some diabolical cabal of well-heeled New York Jews could obstruct its funding and shave its viewership makes this something of a cyberattack -- or at least a cybersurrender...." tends to show a VERY anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish point of view, quite frankly, by the definition of the term 'anti-semetic', he is exactly that. He instigates the idea of a neurotic, over-reaching, all-pervasive secret entity formed by some vast international conspiracy- don't just take my word, LOOK at what he says, this is the exact wording used by conspiriatoralists. I have never taken my beliefs from those who believe in secret government conspiracies AND USE THE 100% OPINION-DRIVEN METHOD OF ARGUMENTATION. I have spoken about possible conspiracies, but without using the simple and corrupt argumentative style. The author of the article claims that the other site is heavily biased, but then he fails to explain where this thought comes from (as you just did to the previous post (#48)) nor does he give any justification. Later on, the author ADMITS that such a conspiracy is unlikely (given the short amount of time in which the change was made) and then goes on to claim that MAYBE it was just PBS's FEAR of such a radical, sudden campaign that made them change- hence he has claimed that it was
a) "some diabolical cabal of well-heeled New York Jews" (which he subsequently denies, although his full argument up until then was for that point)
and then that it was
b)"It appears that PBS was cowed into jelly-like submission merely by the fear of such a terrible inconvenience as alienating New York Jews, who the organization assumes will do them harm"
So, I ask you, which is YOUR point of view?

What's worse is that he has since LINKED TO THIS PAGE TO WILLIAM'S POST #14. Apparently, if we were to, say, delete that post or move it, then there would be no history for his entire argument- No evidence, therefore it does not exist?

-------------------
(#50) Matt(ie), (#51)'David Goldblum'
If he is " so unable to defend [his] viewpoints that [he] take[s] any questioning of them to be 'bigotry'," then I would love to see YOUR role in the matter, since you give no evidence to the contrary that indeed it is YOU who are "so unable to defend your viewpoints that you" just resort to tort, unsupported, claims against those whose view differs from YOURS. (If you don't get it the first time, try reading it more slowly and attempt to understand each connection between the words as they arrive).
Likewise, you give no evidence to your broad claim of "This is the last haven of people who know they are wrong, but refuse to admit it to themselves." I am *guessing* that you were hyper-linked over here from the article and you 'just happened' to read a few of the other posts. This would mean that you have not looked at any of the other posts or threads and so have not seen any of the points of view about anything ELSE EXCEPT for the 'Palestinian' Issue. I feel, good sir (or, assuming that you are not married or over the age of, let's say 15, good master), that YOU only show ignorance by your post. I would love to see your evidence of
a) Our ignorance in matters of this issue and
b) Your supreme knowledge in matters of the Issue. You fail, I might add, to even bother clarifying the subject of your unsupported statement with a subject or any modifier to the subject to make your intended statement clear.

Oh, and to your claim "By the way, I'm not anti-semetic, just anti-'the brutal oppression of a native people by an occupying force.'" Yes, Israel IS an occupying force, but this means that rather than allowing the 'Palestinians' to live in 'refugee' cities, which are made of the same materials and are of MORE sturdiness than most 3rd world minor cities, which the 'camps' so clearly are, the Israelis could tomorrow proclaim that they are annexing the lands and begin deporting the 'Palestinians' from Israel's borders as illegal immigrants. Then again, it would be much less expensive, save Israel much time, and liquidate the 'Palestinian' Terrorists if Israel were to just start bombing the cities of the West Bank. The UN set out a proposal which was rejected by the Arabs, the Arabs were only ever promised the Arabian Peninsula to the end of its 'open' end. They were, according to the British agreement with them, to not have the land next to the EAST BANK of the Jordan river, let alone the East Bank itself. There was to be an Arab state in what became the West Bank, for the benefit of the LOCAL Arab populous, instead the other Arabs moved in, stole the local Arabs' land and tried to take the land of the new Jewish state as well. The Jordanians and Egyptians now controlled all of the land meant for their 'bretheren's' use, and they did not allow them to use it or administer to it themselves. The 1967 war was not started randomly by Israel in a grab for land, but rather was in response to the fact that its neighbors' armies had massed along its borders- for most of the world, the mobilization for war, and the deployment of troops, is considered to be an action made ONLY just before a war will ACTUALLY begin. If a country wants peace, it will not mobilize its troops. The Arab states had their armies massed within the 'Arab-portioned' sections of Palestine, as the people in those lands were referred to, as they referred to themselves, as Arab refugees, NOT 'Palestinians' which was used to refer to the Arabs of Israel and the Israelis themselves! By most military acccounts of the war, the Arab states were the agressors (I invite you to read any general history on famous wars of history and to then tell me that Israel is a force that needlessly occupies the West Bank and Gaza strip (the Golan Heights were annexed a while ago, and are only really considered to be an occupied territory by the Syrians and, apparently, the organizer of the website). The Israelis could easily 'dispose of' the 'Palestinians' but chooses not to BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO ACT HARSHLY!
If you are against unfair and inhumane occupations, then I can refer to you a list of similar situations world wide:
China's control over Tibet (a few million people), China's occupation of Mongolia (MANY millions of people), Mugabe's expulsion of the White farmers and refusal of forgein aid despite the (intentional) starvation of SEVERAL MILLION of his people, North Korea's opression of their own citizens under a 'communist' government, Colombia's massive military campaign against the drug-running and drug-producing 'liberation organizations', Iran's harsh treatment of minorities and political opponents, Saudi Arabia's oppression of well over 95% of its own, the Sudan's violent attacks on its own (which have caused many million deaths), Russia's oppression of the Chechans in what was once an independant country, and other such incidents.

Now, tell me, is Israel causing damage close to these figures? Is it in the same category? Get the truth, then I want to hear you speak of the true horrors of this world.

Oh, "P.S. If Palestinians fighting against the occupation of their land are terrorists, what were the French Resistance in World War II ?" They were resistance fighters, who had not attacked (first) the forces occupying them in 4 wars over 50 years, unless of course, you consider the Germans to have been the victims of the first World War and the Franco-Prussian war.....If the Germans HAD won WWII, then there wouldn't be this discussion, just as if the Israelis HADN'T won the 1948 war, or the 1967 war, or the 1973 war, well then, they would all have died and I guess that would have been alright, right? I mean, 5 million MORE dead Jews isn't anything to you, is it? The Arabs are numbered in the hundreds of millions, the Moslems of the world number around a BILLION, If they can't control another area the size of Rhode Island, and 5 million Arabs are DISPLACED into the rest of the ARAB-Muslim population, then does that mean that 5 million of the remaining 14 million Jews worldwide should just allow themselves to be slowly killed off, so that the only truely democratic government in the middle east vcan be replaced with another radical, totalitarian regime? Maybe you should travel to Israel or the OT and then tell me what the problem is?

P.S.- The French never did this:[Link: www.mideasttruth.org...] this, [Link: info.jpost.com...] this, [Link: www.mideasttruth.com...] this, [Link: www.israel.org...] or especially THIS: [Link: www.gamla.org.il...]

--------------
Blocker, just shut up.
-------------
Peterford,
Your first section is good. The Idea was already attempted, with a third party dealing with the legal system and policing- It didn't work. Furthermore, what is preventing the other Arab states from sending millions of people into the territories before the new state is established, thus making the Jews and Christians of Israel a minute, easily persecuted minority?

On your point #2:
[Using literacy as a measure of general education, where literacy is taken as it is defined in the CIA worldfactbook (factbook[Link: www.odci.gov...] age 15 and over can read and write]

The U.S's literacy rate (1979 est.): 97% in all categories

The UK's Literacy (1978 est.): 99% (this is uncertain, as no male and female numbers are given, and the estimate is quite old)

China's rate (1995 est.): 81.5% total

Israel's literacy rate (1992 est.): 95% of the overall population, 97% in men, 93% in women.

West Bank's Literacy Rate : no data recorded....

Egypt (1995 est.): 51.4% (63.6% of men, 38.8% of women)

Gaza: undefined.....

India: 52%

Iran: 72%

Iraq: 58%

Suadi Arabia: 62.8%

I won't say anything else on the subject, except that the populations of certain of the countries mentioned are ten-fold of the populations of others.
-------------
Dooby,
You have mentioned three terrorist attacks by a single jewish group, there were at least a half-dozen more. However, you fail to point out the dozens of attacks against Israelis by the Arab civilians at the time, with only the provocation of their clerics' words, as well as the many more attacks against the British. I can name several hundreds of thousands of more attacks by the Arabs against the Jews of Israel, counting every bullet fired, every fist thrown, every rock hurled and every shell shot, all without provocation- hence Israel's return fire is not terrorist, but a reasonable response of a state to an attack. Tell me that list, and I will say that you are balanced.
--------------
COMPUTER SCIENTIST, stay in computers,
The US gives 2 Billion in (SPECIFIED USE) aid to Israel a year. 500 million is given to International AIDS research and prevention by USAID alone, there are several such agencies in the US. The US government gives AT LEAST 3 billion to Egypt of UNRESTRICTED aid, an additional 2 billion to Jordan, and 2-4 billion to the Saudis, yes, the Saudis. This does not include separate social-program grants, which measure in the HUNDREDS of MILLIONS, which are granted to most of the 'friendly' Arab countries, but not to Israel. Billions more are sunk into Egypt, East Asia, India, Eastern Europe, and WESTERN EUROPE. I'm afraid that your 'source' is quite off. My be it's just that the US gives most of its political support since January to Israel, which has yet to criticize the US's policies....
------------------------
(#57) david,
The attack of a tribe of wanderers is not usually considered terrorism, especially when normal procedures of war were followed with an armed opposing force (note: accepting a part of the old testament accepts its over-all validity, hence the Jew's UNABRIDGED right to control of the lands, just keep awake on your sources). If, However, you consider military maneuvers to be terrorist attacks, then the Crusades were surely the GREATEST terrorist attack. The SINGLE act is not the greatest by number killed, by intention (they did not seek to destroy a country's infrastructure by it, in fact, they didn;t even intrend to destroy the building), for destructive power (the constant katyushka rocket attacks by the Hizbollah are more explosive, as are most bombings of busses and car bombings), for horror (the suicide bombing of a seder last year has that record), or for the fact that it was against a civilian target (it wasn't).
You present yourself as an isolationist, so practice as you preach- never used forgein goods, never pay taxes to the government, don't support multinational companies, and don't participate or use anything not produced locally, that includes your computer, your computer devices (ie internet connection devices) or anything else. Heck, since this is an international forum, DON't USE IT! If you want Isolationism, tell those who died during WWI and WWII because the American Isolationists thought that if we all just ignored the problem that it would just go away.....
-----------------
Faster, please
-----------------
Frymaster, you have provided what is given to Israel, but not the total forgein aid given by the US, also, many of the amounts listed on the table are one-time expenditures, most of which are loans or grants to military or economic endeavors. Much of the military grants were in the form of equipment, like retired tanks and helicopters that are appraised at their 'new' price. I would need to see the total forgein aid granted by the US over that time period, since your 1/3 figure is ridiculous if you think that the US has only given 240 billion in economic aid over those years. One fact cannot make two others without evidence.....
--------------------------------
(#59) who cares,
to 'Terrorize terrorists' is current US forgein policy, as has been Spain's with the Basque separatists (hmmm, haven't heard much from spain about the ME), Russia with the Chechens, India with the Pakistani-backed fighters in kashmir, mexico with theirs, canada with theirs, england USED to with theirs, Germany USED to with theirs, HELL it seems like ALL DEMOCRACIES like this idea. If you are sympathetic, at least follow the party line of 'terrorizing the activists.' Yes, we are all humans, and many are disgraced, so why don't we just nuke the whole middle east into one giant pane of cracked glass and call it quits? No more Arabs, No more Israelis, no more fights right? ((I'm Sorry if the sarcasm DOESN'T get through)) You care enough to argue or you don't care enough to research, choose one, cause with only one half of a argument, you'd might as well be quiet.
-----------------------
Schelle, folk, schnelle
-------------------------
(#60) me2,
Israel has signed and ratified the test-ban treaty, they are a major democcratic power, which provides many advances in the sciences and technology. They have not slaughtered their neighbors, unless you count their brilliant sucesses in the 1967 and 1973 wars 'holocausts.'
{{{{{{NOTE TO ALL}}}}}}}}}
THERE WAS ONE (1) HOLOCAUST, IT IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE SHOAH, BOTH WORDS MEAN A GREAT DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF LIFE BY A(N ENGULFING) FIRE. USE SLAUGHTER, USE GENOCIDE, USE ETHNIC CLEANSING, THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OF THESE, BUT UNLESS A COUNTRY WERE TO FOLLOW HITLER'S USE OF THE HUGE 'OVENS', THEN IT WOULD NOT BE A HOLOCAUST, GET IT?
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Israel is not likely to use these weapons, it is at least as likely to use bio- or chem-warfare as is the US (not likely at all). The use of nukes by Israel would only be in the case of an existential threat to the country- they're not crazed despots who'd rather kill everyone possible just to show or test their power.

On 'nazi israel':
a) Israel is not a totalitarian fascist state
b) It is not controlled by a single, militant party
c) It does not instigate war, especially not with the intention of gaining land
d) they have not sought to impose a 'Final Solution' upon the 'Palestinians'
e) They are not a homogenized state seeking ethnic 'purity' (see African, Asian, Indian, European, South American, Australian, and North American Jews. HEY, THAT'S EVERY INHABITED CONTINENT!)
f) They have not enforced military oversight over its own citizens.
g) Israel maintains amicable economic and educational interaction with its fellow countries
h) Israel DOES NOT SEEK WORLD DOMINATION, 'sad, but true'.
HENCE:
Israel is not Nazi
----------------------------------
Don't Use cliches, USE EVIDENCE.
------------------------------------

Ted(#63)
Israel DID try to stop,
That's when the ISlamist groups began launching multiple attacks every day (do you remember that?). Israel held back, did nothing, waited for Arafat to pick up his role. He did not, so Israel initiated Operation Defensive Shield. Tell the other side to stop- they seem to be more intent on Israel's destruction than Israel is on theirs (do you see carpet bombing or artillery shelling in Ramallah?). I'd love it if it worked that way, but Israel has tried to stop enough times, let the other side have a turn.....
------------------------------
thank you ronnie
------------------------------

WHEW!
I think I pulled something....like their arguments into the trash...... :)
-Ratz

I didnt see much capability on 9/11, and they didnt even use mass casualty weapons, did you know the Soviets created the worlds most deadly neurotoxin, it is lethal in doses of less than on microgram, one kilogram to kill a billion people, six kilos to kill the world, if you want to base the future of humanity on having the biggest guns, we're all dead, within the century

Big guns have nothing to do with it. Imagine that the world is a blank slate and there's a race: claim your land, settle it and defend it and then its yours. That's exactly how the world came to be settled and how all present sovereigns came to claim validity in their sovereignty. The ability to defend borders by the sovereigns is one of the only realistic hallmarks of a valid claim to sovereignty. The Americans live in America and no one can stop us: ergo, we have a valid claim. Same thing with any other nation, including Israel.

9/11 was an attack. We are still here.

In the case of Israel, in addition to being the sovereigns of the land, the Israelis are the majority inhabitants and also possess a historical claim to the land -- more ancient than the Arabs and certainly no less valid. If your contention is that historical claims have a statue of limitations then guess what! The statue of limitations has passed and the Arabs lost their historical claim in 1948 and then again in 1967 on the rest.

I'm tired of this nonsensical back and forth.

#1) I do not care one whit if Shamir WAS a "terrorist". He is NOT leading Israel today.
However, Arafat IS leading the PLO today and he IS a terrorist (and a liar and a murderer and a thief).

#2) The solution for ending the cycle of violence rests NOT upon complaining about what happened in the PAST. Rather, is rests on fixing the problem now, in the PRESENT.

#3) People are being killed by bombers.

#4) Arafat is the leader of the spawners of the bomber/killers.

Therefore (drum roll please)...

GET RID OF ARAFAT NOW!

Here in NYC, the Boyz call that "getting two in the hat".

On 2nd thought though, perhaps three in the hat is better.

USA can pay the extra $1 for the extra bullet.
Where should we send the $$....?

Came here via the Reg.

I see why the article got pulled off the Website. Not because of invertabrateism, but an abundance of fallacy.

For my .02 Cents, I saw America should pull out, let the occupants slaughter each other, and make peace with whomever is left standing. I'm sure they'd be happy to sell Oil to us.

I say America should pull out

Pull out of what?? America isn't *in*.

Donna V.,

I just re-read that, and I think you're right. I had read the real nazi posts before that, so I was not finding humor in anything :-)

Not trusting anyone...

Man this board is full of bagels. The only worthy thing in here is what PBS deleted. Thanks for saving it.

THANK YOU MERLIN BROIL
Zulu, look at donna's post (#86)....

Makes you think,
Try fact-checking, It helps. I won't criticize any further, that being the essential failing of your argument. 1 mg is less than what could affect more than a very small number of nerves, not even viruses can survive for the time it takes to get around the body in that amount. The human immune system would surely take care of it, that's if this neurotoxin does exist. After all, why would the USSR bother with anthrax which cannot be spread effectively over large area instead of just aerosolizing a few grams of this toxin? Also, by what means of administration would this kill you? I mean, a milligram of pure alchohol or oxygen would kill you pretty quickly, a milligram of clorox injected into the brain would melt it to mush pretty fast. Whyt bother with mustard gas and VX and bubonic plague and small pox when this toxin is soo much more effective? As they say, 'when it's too good to be true.....'

Sortafunky,
read my note on the definition of a holocaust. Yes, if the Nazi holocaust were as severe as the Israeli one, well then, maybe noone would have complained about the nazis, afterall, noone is complaining about he others who suppress their internal insurgents (USofA, AROUND 1850s, one of the bloodiest wars in US history, millions die, both counted as US soldiers.....). In fact, most Europeans would have joined the Germans against Russia had the Nazi's Holocaust been as horrid as the Israelis'. Look at the facts, look at yourself, one of them is wrong, take a guess, then guess again, and again, and again.....when your answer is finally 'myself', then you're right and the whole curse dissapears in a puff of logic....

-RATZ

Ratz,

I think you mean Donna's post #85 :-)

Look at my post #92.

Its not a holocaust unless it can be blamed on Germans, with poor Nazi Israel painted as the victim, ad infinitum? Ovens dont consitute a holocaust. Wholesale slaughter of a nation`s civilians on a daily basis is a holocaust, which the nation of Palestine is subjected to on a daily basis. I think it really bothers you supporters of Nazi Israel to see your long-held 'we were holocausted' stories seeing it tossed back in your faces for the holocaust committed by Nazi Israel.

Indeed, who founded Nazi Israel`s secret police? Ask one of its early agents, David Kimke, who has publicly admitted that Nazi Germany and Nazi Israel together founded Nazi Israel`s first secret police, the mossad. For that matter, Who funded Hitler in the very first place? Jews who owned the Bank of Worm et Cie. Or doesnt real history count to the pro-Nazi Israel revisionists?

How was the Nazi state of Israel founded? By terrorist murders, committed by Yitzak Rabin and Yitzak Shamir, who introduced the technique of terrorist bombings into the Middle East, though the victims of the terrorists still, after all these years, get blamed by the apologians of Nazi Israel.

U.S. tax dollars collected from Jews who were born in the U.S. and live their entire lives in the U.S., get funneled out of the U.S. on the grounds that the U.S. doesnt have the right to collect taxes from Jews who happen to have been born in the U.S. and live in the U.S., which they dress up as 'international aid from the U.S. treasury to Israel. So, excusing the funneling of U.S. tax dollars to Nazi Israel is hardly legitimate by pretending that equal amounts are funneled into any other single country`s war coffers (where do you think they got the money for their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons stockpiles?)

If Iraqis were Jews, the U.S. would be shipping money and arms to them, but they dont worship fairytale creatures named Yahoo (god of death and war) so they get to be called 'terrorist' prima facie.

Lastly, why are so many supporters of Nazi Israel in this thread terrified of words typed by persons who found this site via the Register? Isnt any discourse accepted unless the repliers found their way here via some propoganda site in Nazi Israel?

I've read all this and I'm still sitting here with my mouth dropping open.

I have a request: Will one of you "historians" do me the favor of covering the period in the Levantine between 1890 and 1970 for me?

This is some of the funniest pack of Pseudo-facts and black propaganda I've ever seen...

Zulubaby: Yeah, it took me a minute to catch on, with Merlin Broil sandwiched between so many morons. Plus, nowadays there's so much idiotic, evil crap out there (like the Friday sermons Charles posts) that look like parody but are actually meant seriously, that it's getting hard to tell the two apart.

And cheers to Ratz, who writes the longest posts in existence:-)) I never scroll past them though, 'cause I always learn something from you.

The Register uses the term "well-heeled New York Jews". This is sure to trigger the sensitivities of some Jews. It may seem like paranoia to you, but the centuries of anti-Semitism are quite real and have left scars best left un-poked. The superfluous usage of the phrase "For Christ's sake" in the second to last paragraph not only makes the Jews more suspicious but has got to offend religious Christians (and might offend the Creator himself).

Reading the piece, it's pretty clear they pulled it because of obvious distortions and/or errors that would be sure to inflame a debate about topics other than the condition of Arab-Americans. The web piece wasn't well-written, and changing the text would probably bring up a shouting match in the newsroom (and would take too long to get right). The Register admits "the conflict is messy and old and full of complications" and hard to understand. The TV station had trouble with it too. So rather than make a major investment, they pulled it. Not necessarily an act of cowardice.

A TV outfit will do their major work on the stuff they put on the air, and should have the courage to defend it if they believe in it. But why get into a catfight about something so secondary that it wasn't even fact-checked?

I'd bet the web site was written by a mid-level staff or intern and later reviewed and pulled by more experienced upper staff.

P.S. I've checked the history books I have available, and Jordan was indeed part of the Arab attack against Israel in 1948. An error is forgivable. But the presence of the error bolsters my argument that the piece just wasn't given much effort to begin with.

Ratz

Try fact-checking, It helps. I won't criticize any further, that being the essential failing of your argument. 1 mg

mg is milli thats a thousands, I said micro, that's a millionth of a gram, and my source used to work on the Soviet weapons program, and he has no reason to lie.

is less than what could affect more than a very small number of nerves

Who says? Does the term Avagados number mean anything to you? Here's a clue as to how many molecules you'll find in a mole of any given substance -

http://gemini.tntech.edu/~tfurtsch/scihist/avogadr o.htm>

Plus you're discounting any cascade effects that might take place inside the body.

not even viruses can survive for the time it takes to get around the body in that amount. The human immune system would surely take care of it, that's if this neurotoxin does exist.

Viruses are much more complex and have to invade host cells to effect the body with their DNA, we're talking here about a relatively simple chemical reaction, how long do you have to hold your hand in the flame before it is burnt?

Vin:
BTW, numbnuts, I'm not Jewish. Your assumption that one has to be Jewish to defend Israel speaks volumes about your intellectual abilities (or lack thereof).

Why doesn't anyone expect the Colonizers like Britian to apologize to the world for their past ways. They created all the current modern problems in the middle east and africa. You can't use western thinking to form nations in the world by drawing square lines. The British and the West should be held responsible for this mess.

Israel will never survive by using force but by living with the peoples of that region. They never had the right to create a state and if they did than so did the Arabs or Palestinians. Could you imagine if Norwegians tried to become a state in Minnesota because htey have the numbers and majority? I will never support Israel, the Jewish people yes, Israel no. You are only strong and becoming evil because of the US bowing to your whims.... Dan

Israel will never survive by using force but by living with the peoples of that region. They never had the right to create a state and if they did than so did the Arabs or Palestinians.

Hey dumbass, the Arabs have 20 states. "If Israel has a right then so did the Arabs" yes, and then so did Israel.

I will never support Israel, the Jewish people yes, Israel no.

Classic antisemitic formula: "To the Jews as individuals everything, to the Jews as a nation nothing". [Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre in the French National Assembly of 1789]

Yeah, I bet some of your best friends are Jews, right? Guess what? Jews can't rely on the goodwill of everyone else as history has shown.

Augustus 75,
No, I wasn't wrong on this.
- In 1948, the Jordanian king betrayed the arabs in the war when he was supposed to attack from the east, but he didn't and left the back of arabs uncovered which led to their defeat. He did this arrangement with the English and got the west bank in return.
- Jordan allowed Isreali airplnes to go inside Jordan in 1972 to attack the Palasinians and kick them out.
- In 1973 Jordan betrayed the arabs and went to tell Goldmaeier about the intentions of the arabs to attack Israel (The 50 Years War: Israel and the Arabs, by PBS).
- Currently, Jordan is the only country that increased co-operation with Israel during all the Israeli agression.
Today, Jordan declared a new development project with Israel to link dead sea to the red sea.
Those are just an example of many. So, what do you think about all of this?????

Finally, I know that when someone cannot find anything useful to say, he starts attacking other's language views etc. It only means that he can not find any justification for what he is saying.

Big guns have nothing to do with it. Imagine that the world is a blank slate and there's a race: claim your land, settle it and defend it and then its yours. That's exactly how the world came to be settled and how all present sovereigns came to claim validity in their sovereignty. The ability to defend borders by the sovereigns is one of the only realistic hallmarks of a valid claim to sovereignty. The Americans live in America and no one can stop us: ergo, we have a valid claim. Same thing with any other nation, including Israel.

So when the advance of weapons technology means that it becomes impossible to defend the land? Might we then choose to co-operate as a species or would you prefer we just destroy each other?

9/11 was an attack. We are still here.

Minus 3,000+ people and $100BN+ and you’re lucky they learnt the wrong lesson from the1993 attack. Had they been smart they would have realized that when the bomb they had in the van exploded the smoke went up the building,like a giant chimney, and caused more than 1,000 minor casualties from inhalation of the smoke, had they used it to disperse a chemical agent they could have killed everyone in the building, two van bombs, a relatively simple agent like Sarin, as used by Aum Shinriko in Tokyo and there would have been 30,000 dead in the buildings plus however many effected by the dispersal outside the building, like I said you’re lucky they focused on taking down the buildings and not the actual kill ratio.

In the case of Israel, in addition to being the sovereigns of the land, the Israelis are the majority inhabitants and also possess a historical claim to the land -- more ancient than the Arabs and certainly no less valid. If your contention is that historical claims have a statue of limitations then guess what! The statue of limitations has passed and the Arabs lost their historical claim in 1948 and then again in 1967 on the rest.

Indeed Jews became the majority by ethnically cleansing the Palestinians off their land (the 3.5 million refugees I mentioned earlier) and by settling Jews from other parts of the world in Israel. Had Milosovec cleansed the Albanians from Kosovo would Serbs have a "right" to Kosovo as you claim Jews have a "right" to Palestine? And who says that the Jews were there before the Arabs? Perhaps 10,000 years ago the ancient Arabs had the land, you and I simply do not know, if as one poster mentioned you take the Book of Joshua as fact then Jews slaughtered the previous inhabitants of Palestine. What is clear is that for a very long time Palestine was the home of Palestinians, until 1947 and partition, the subsequent wars and ethnic cleansing by the Jews. and I assume you meant Statute of Limitations not statue, there’s no Micheal Angelo’s David here. Your argument is basically that of any bully, if I can take it from someone else by force then it is mine, in a world where I could if I was so inclined whip up a batch of chemicals so deadly that I could take anything I liked from anyone, myself, without armies, or billions in the bank, then your argument falls apart and becomes a recipe for the extinction of us all.

me2:

Is that the best you can do? Are you from Iraq? What drivel!

"If Iraqis were Jews, the U.S. would be shipping money and arms to them, but they dont worship fairytale creatures named Yahoo (god of death and war) so they get to be called 'terrorist' prima facie."

And if my Bobba had balls she'd be my Zaida.

"Lastly, why are so many supporters of Nazi Israel in this thread terrified of words typed by persons who found this site via the Register? Isnt any discourse accepted unless the repliers found their way here via some propoganda site in Nazi Israel?"

Oooh, we're just terrified of you "persons". Half-wit. You guys love calling the Jews nazis. Does it give you a tingle up and down your spine. What else you got, wanker.

Discourse is one thing. Hatred and anti-Semitism and are quite another. How you got here is irrelevant.

What's your point anyway you Jew-Hating-Good-For-Absolutely-Nothng?

zulu, sorry, I hadn't updated since my last post, so I didn't see your follow up.
-ratz

Ratz,

I would forgive you anything. You kept me company during an earthquake didn't you? ;-)

Don't worry about it. Just keep doing what you're doing. You're all over it tonight (as always).

So, what do you think about all of this?????

Good for Jordan. Probably the last, greatest hope for the Arab world. They'll learn to go the way of Jordan or eventually go the way of Hiroshima.

#105,

And how do you think the Arabs came to occupy the middle east apart from the Arabian peninsula and North Africa if not by 'bullying'? The Palestinians are nothing but descendents of Arab colonialists, just as you accuse Jews of being. When did the statute of limitations for Arab aggression end? Clearly the Arab historical claim is no greater than that of the Jews. The Arabs have a swath of land in which they're sovereigns nearly 550 times greater than that of Israel. I think the Arabs will just have to learn to share. :)

#110

I think the Arabs will just have to learn to share. :)

So you wont mind if I come to your house, eat your food, sleep in your beds, and generally do what I like with your things then, because you'll just have to learn how to share, right?

.
.
After having the mis-fortune to read your article, I can only reply that it sickend me.

Your mis-directed disinformation not only "forgot" to mention the very valid "Talk Back" forum going on about the subject, but your clap-trap yellow journalism with heavy anti-jew undertones was appauling.

Not only did you have the nerve to post this tripe, but you appear to really believe this garbage.

Or, perhaps, you believe we will believe it......

Not only will I not be "donating" to anything you are part of, I will hereby tender and quit all business with Amazon and PayPal as well -

Anything you are part of obviously isn't worth the time for honest upright God fearing citizens of America to get involved in.

Someone needs to take away your keyboard and hand you the mop - a positoion you seem to be much more qualified for if this column is any indication.

You're a fool....

Bishop Paul D.D.
.
.

Bishop Paul ......D.D., is that your bra size...?

So you wont mind if I come to your house, eat your food, sleep in your beds, and generally do what I like with your things then, because you'll just have to learn how to share, right?

Your analogy assumes that the Jews did that to the Arabs. On the contrary; it is the Arab who occupies the homes of the Jews and the Jews are damn magnanimous about it. The rest of the Arabs will learn to appreciate the situation or as a result of courting death one time too many they will get it.

dear, zulu

Doesnt it just rankle you to think that your monopoly on the 'we were holocausted, the world owes us now til the ends of time' has been handed to the modern victims of Nazi Israel?

As to Nazi Israel`s secret police having been created by Nazi Germany, read up on your own heros in the mossad, starting with its long time agent David Kimke. Or dont they have a free press in Nazi Israel that covers such factual history?

And if you arent aware of Shamir and Rabin being the founders of the terrorist Stern and Irgun gangs, you should roll back your clocks to the time prior to revisionism, maybe you`ll find those well known facts in the pre-revisionist books written by honest writers not so eager to defend Nazi Israel.

As far as U.S. tax collectors not being allowed to tax Jews in the U.S., what other reason then is the U.S. not entitled to tax Jews who were born in, and live their entire lives in, the U.S.? Those funds transfered to Nazi Israel to fund its weapons stockpiles isnt just a 'feel good' activity, regardless how they dress it up. The U.S. taz system is robbed of revenues because unlike the rest of the population, Jews dont have to pay taxes to their own country, they pay their taxes to Nazi Israel via the make-beleive 'international aid' that is funneled, year after year, to Nazi Israel.

And, regarding the nonsense that Nazi Israel contributes in return to the U.S. by way of technology, I suppose you mean that when Nazi Israel`s spies steal nuclear secrets from the U.S., that is beneficial to U.S. technology?

An occasional nazi infestation is actually fun. Change of pace and all.

I wonder if "me2" = "Mark Konrad with a proxy server".

awwwww, poor James. If you cant dispute the truth, just dodge it, eh?

As to a proxy server, why should I hide my IP? Is Nazi Israel going to send their death squads after me?

Speaking of disappearing news, the PBS piece wasnt the only bit of disappearing news last night. CBC.CA carried a story that Nazi Israel has once again turned to forging Canadian passports to outfit its assassins with for their forays into Palestine to commit their acts of murder and sabotage. An hour later, CBC apparently was ordered to remove the news, because it didnt shed a favorable light on Nazi Israel`s international criminal behavior.

It is amazing how a country in the Middle East can weild so much influence in the braodcasting of news in the so-called free world.

me2,
We don't feel threatened, we're evangelizing, of course. No better way to get you non-blievers (truth-seekers) to join up than to brain wash you by sending subliminal messages through your computer screen, scrambling your brain and making you a sleeper-robot.....seriously, its enough.

(98) Donna,
sorry for making you read it all, but thanks for your devotion. I'm back in school, so I only get a few minutes here and there to look at lfg and my other sites.

(97) absynthe,
to whom do you refer?

(100)
First, I would love to have a link to a site explaining or corroberating your claim to this neurotoxin. If not that, then at least the name, scientific (ie g-Amino-b-Hydroxybutyric Acid) or common (ie aspirin) [no, the two examples are of different chemical compounds].

Thanks for clarifying, micro IS indeed what you said, and it is what i considered (I worked in a bacteriological lab this summer and everything refered to as mg meant micrograms). So, you can stop criticizing the rest of the argument in relation to the volume/amount. A more compllicated molecule is only more massive. This makes the matter even more complicated. What is the chemical base for the neurotoxin? Since I'd assume that your 'source' is not referring to direct-injections into the brain. Is it mercury based (for skin penetration through fabrics?), or mustard-related? I've had to deal with microlitres of liquids, hence approx. micrograms of samples.

Your source, like many in the world, has any and every reason to lie: there is no other way to confirm his claim, nor anyone who would think it realistic enough to deny. Just enough bait to take in any hungering for the secret and obscure.

Yes, 6.022 X 10^23, I believe? One mole contains that number of molecules, one micromole a millionth of that amount, though the only real use of the number is that it converts nicely from atomic mass to grams 1.008amu=1.008g @ 1mole. I was assuming a fairly light-weight and simple molecule, which would mean good spreadability and penetration (through skin AND blood-brain barrier). No neurotoxins, nor toxins of any other type would work WITHOUT the cascade effect (high-purity alcohol kills heart cells, causes lack of pumping ability, causes lack of oxygen, acidosis, collapse of muscle and other tissue (most importantly brain tissue)). Most neurotoxins are meant to kill by covering the brain to such an extent that enough systems collapse or, if the poisoner is lucky, the toxin will affect a critical area.

Viruses don't only have DNA, some do, but many more use RNA, which is read directly by the ribosomes. There are also the class of retroviruses, which convert their RNA into DNA before inserting it into the genome of the cell. DNA viruses (and retro viruses) are inherently more complicated than RNA viruses, but all are surprisingly simple and effective. Burning your hand is a bad example, since it deals more with the effect of high energy levels on your hand and the subsequent reaction of the sugars in your hand crystalizing as your proteins denature and your cells collapse and die. What is the name of this toxin? Surely of it existed in the USSR then it was maintained by Russia, and with their security levels, it was then probably leaked to US Intelligence (if they did not already know) and considering that the Soviet weapons program ended 10+ years ago, with the Soviet Union, then it sould be leaked to a greater audience, don't you think?
Where did you meet this 'contact'? How assured of his background are you? Does he speak English without an accent? How many degrees does he have (it was common practice among many Russian Intellectuals to take various degrees since the government provided (provides?) Graduate-level students with a hearty stipend)? What lab did he work in? How old is he? After all, a researcher would have to be very experienced to advance under the Soviet research programs, since the USSR was not known for its preference of independant and bright rising stars. I don't understand why he didn't just release the information to the NY times for a hearty bounty, and don't tell me that he 'fears for his life,' since he would then have no reason to tell you, since it would eventually get to the Superiors, who would then not have much trouble tracking him down. Any of these questions needs to be of a source who offers 'secret information'. Please respond at your leisure. Also, please respond to the point concerning the dissemination of this supposed super-toxin, since, from your sparse explaination, it sounds like the attacker would have to go up to each person and give them a shot of the stuff. Ask your 'contact' what the float/drift rate is for the toxin in the open air on a clear, windless day, I would LOVE to know how well such a toxin spreads, since good old sarin doesn't do well in terms of maintaining sufficient concentrations for deadliness and is some-what easily decontaminated.

-Ratz

(111) makes you think,
If I had 275 acres, I'd be happy to give you one, given that it was your parent's land, your grand parent's land, your great-grand parent's land, etc. and it had originally been established as a family home in the 17th century while he accompanied the Spanish into So. Cal.
Furthermore, If I had a house with 551 beds, I'd be happy to offer you one, provided you let me be the rest of the time, and that you make your own money, provide services, are a good neighbor and don't try to expand into other rooms. (I think, btw, that 550 is a bit small)

-Ratz

Much can be blamed on the British for F*ing-up royally (or would that be parliamentally?) on their administration of the region. But I also blame that stupid book called the Bible (well, ok, the Torah) for telling some people that since their ancestors had so strenuously and repeatedly murdered for that land by God's say-so, so by GOD, they are going to have it again almost two thousand years later.

I say: pave the Middle East with nuclear bombs, both sides.

To prove that I am not anti-semitic (Palestinians are semitic also), pave Northern Ireland too, where my distant relatives clash to this day.

Israel has long denied its responsibility for the events of 1948, the Nakbah, that forced the Palestinian population from Palestine at the point of Israeli guns. However, today when recognition of the wrongs done to the Palestinians in 1948 is finally dawning, many Israeli politicians are openly advocating a new "Transfer Option", writes Ilan Pappe, a professor of political science at Haifa University.

As a Jewish child, born in Haifa in the early 1950s, I did not encounter the term Nakbah (catastrophe), nor was I aware of its significance. Only in my high- school days did the term make its first appearance. There were three Israeli Palestinian pupils in my class, and we all participated in joint and guided tours around Haifa and in its vicinity. In those days, there was still evidence of Arab Haifa in the Old City: beautiful buildings, remnants of a covered market later destroyed by the Israelis in 1948, mosques and churches.

These relics testified to the city's more glorious past. Many of these residues of the past are gone now, demolished by the bulldozers of an ambitious city mayor who has erased any urban characteristics that could point to the city's Arab past. But in those days there were quite a few Arab houses squeezed between the modern concrete buildings. The guides on the school tours used to refer to them as Hirbet Al-Shaych, a vague reference to an Arab house from an unidentified period. My Palestinian classmates muttered that these were houses left from the 1948 Nakbah, but they did not dare to challenge their teachers, nor did they expand on what they meant.

Later, as a young doctoral student at Oxford University I chose 1948 as the subject of my thesis. I wrote on British policy in that year, but incidentally discovered evidence in the Israeli and British archives that, when put together, gave me for the first time a clear idea of what the Nakbah had been about. I found strong proof for the systematic expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine, and I was taken aback by the speed at which the judaisation of the formerly Palestinian villages and neighborhoods was carried out.

These villages, from which the Palestinian population had been evicted in 1948, were renamed and resettled within a matter of months. This picture contrasted sharply not only with what I had learned at school about 1948, but also with what I had gathered as a BA student in Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, even though quite a few of my courses dealt with the history of Israel. Needless to say, what I found also contradicted the messages conveyed to me as a citizen of Israel during my initiation in the army, at public events such as Independence Day, and in daily discourse in the country's media on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

When I returned home to Israel in 1984 to begin an academic career, I discovered the phenomenon of Nakbah denial in my new environment. It was in fact part of a larger phenomenon -- that of excluding the Palestinians altogether from local academic discourse. This was particularly evident, and bewildering, in the field of Middle Eastern Studies in which I had commenced my career as a lecturer. Towards the end of the 1980s, as a result of the first Intifada, the situation improved somewhat, with the Palestinians being introduced into Middle Eastern Studies as legitimate subject matter. But even then this was done mainly through the eyes of academics who had been Intelligence experts on the subject in the past, and who still had close ties with the security services and the IDF [Israeli Defense Force]. Thus, this Israeli academic perspective erased the Nakbah as a historical event, preventing local scholars and academics from challenging the overall denial and suppression of the catastrophe in the world outside the universities' ivory towers.

For a short while at the end of the 1980s, several academics, including myself, caught public attention by publishing scholarly books that challenged the accepted Israeli version of the 1948 War. In these books, we accused Israel of expelling the indigenous population and of destroying the Palestinian villages and neighborhoods. Although our early works were hesitant and cautious, and mine were not even translated into Hebrew, it was still possible to gather from them that the Jewish State was built on the ruins of the indigenous people of Palestine, whose livelihood, houses, culture and land had been systematically destroyed.

Public response in Israel at the time moved between indifference to the total rejection of our findings. Only in the media and through the educational system did we succeed in directing people towards taking a new look at the past. However, from above, the establishment did everything it could to quash these early buds of Israeli self-awareness and recognition of Israel's role in the Palestinian catastrophe, a recognition that would have helped Israelis to understand better the present deadlock in the peace process.

The struggle against the denial of the Nakbah in Israel then shifted to the Palestinian political scene in the country. Since the 40th anniversary of the Nakbah in 1988, the Palestinian minority in Israel has associated, in a way that it never did previously, its collective and individual memories of the catastrophe with the general Palestinian situation and with their predicament in particular. This association has been manifested through an array of symbolic gestures, such as memorial services during Nakbah commemoration day, organized tours to deserted or formerly Palestinian villages in Israel, seminars on the past, and extensive interviews with Nakbah survivors in the press.

Through its political leaders, NGOs and media, the Palestinian minority in Israel has been able to force the wider public to take notice of the Nakbah. This re-emergence of the Nakbah as a topic for public debate was also helped by the climax of the Oslo negotiations -- the Camp David summit meeting between the then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak and Arafat in the summer of 2000. The false impression at the time, which had it that the end of the conflict was about to be achieved, placed the Nakbah and Israel's responsibility for it at the top of the Palestinian list of demands. And, despite the collapse of the summit meeting, mainly due to an Israeli wish to enforce its point of view on the Palestinian side, for a while the catastrophe of 1948 was brought to the attention of a local, regional, and to certain extent global, audience.

Not only in Israel, but also in the United States, and even in Europe, it was necessary to remind those concerned with the Palestine question that this conflict did not only entail the future of the occupied territories, but also that of the Palestinian refugees who had been forced from their homes in 1948. The Israelis had earlier succeeded in sidelining the issue of the refugees' rights from the Oslo Accords, an aim helped by ill-managed Palestinian diplomacy and strategy.

Indeed, the Nakbah had been so efficiently kept off the agenda of the peace process that when it suddenly appeared on it, the Israelis felt as if a Pandora's box had been pried open in front of them. The worst fear of the Israeli negotiators was that there was a possibility that Israel's responsibility for the 1948 catastrophe would now become a negotiable issue, and this "danger" was, accordingly, immediately confronted. In the Israeli media and parliament, the Knesset, a consensual position was formulated: no Israeli negotiator would be allowed even to discuss the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees to the homes they had occupied before 1948. The Knesset passed a law to this effect, and Barak made a public commitment to it on the stairs of the plane that was taking him to Camp David.

The media and other cultural institutions were also recruited to discourage discussion of the Nakbah and its relevance to the peace process, and it was in this atmosphere that I became involved in the Tantura Affair. This erupted after an MA student at my university, Haifa, exposed an hitherto unknown massacre, one of the largest yet known, carried out during the 1948 War by Israeli forces in the Palestinian village of Tantura. This student was taken to court in December 2000 accused of defamation, and later, in November 2001, he was expelled from the university for daring to add yet further evidence of Israel's responsibly for the Palestinian catastrophe. The court system, it transpired, thus willingly joined the denial process.

This year, as I look back over the attempts that I have made, together with those of others, to introduce the Nakbah onto the Israeli public agenda, what emerges is a very mixed picture. I can now detect cracks in the wall of denial and repression that surrounds the Nakbah in Israel, coming about as a result of the debate on the "new history" in Israel and the new political agenda of the Palestinians in Israel. The new atmosphere has also been helped by a clarification of the Palestinian position on the refugees issue towards the end of the Oslo Peace Process. As a result, it is, after more than 50 years of repression, more difficult in Israel to deny the expulsion and destruction of the Palestinians in 1948. However, this relative success has also brought with it two negative reactions, formulated after the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

The first reaction has been from the Israeli political establishment, with the Sharon government, through its minister of education, beginning the systematic removal of any textbook or school syllabus that refers to the Nakbah, even marginally. Similar instructions have been given to the public broadcasting authorities.

The second reaction has been even more disturbing and has encompassed wider sections of the public. Although a very considerable number of Israeli politicians, journalists and academics have ceased to deny what happened in 1948, they have nonetheless also been willing to justify it publicly, not only in retrospect but also as a prescription for the future. The idea of "transfer" has entered Israeli political discourse openly for the first time, gaining legitimacy as the best means of dealing with the Palestinian "problem".

Indeed, if I were asked to choose what best characterizes the current Israeli response to the Nakbah, I would stress the growing popularity of the Transfer Option in Israeli public mood and thought. The Nakbah -- the expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine -- now seems to many in the centre of the political map as an inevitable and justifiable consequence of the Zionist project in Palestine. If there is any lament, it is that the expulsion was not completed. The fact that even an Israeli "new historian" such as Benny Morris now subscribes to the view that the expulsion was inevitable and should have been more comprehensive helps to legitimize future Israeli plans for further ethnic cleansing.

Transfer is now the official, moral option recommended by one of Israel's most prestigious academic centers, the Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Herzeliya, which advises the government. It has appeared as a policy proposal in papers presented by senior Labor Party ministers to their government. It is openly advocated by university professors, media commentators, and very few now dare to condemn it. And, lately, the leader of the Republican Majority in the American House of Representatives, Representative Dick Amory, has openly endorsed it.

A circle has thus been closed. When Israel took over almost 80 per cent of Palestine in 1948, it did so through settlement and ethnic cleansing of the original Palestinian population. The country now has a prime minister who enjoys wide public support, and who wants to determine by force the future of the remaining 20 per cent. He has, as did all his predecessors, from Labor and Likud alike, resorted to settlement as the best means for doing this, adding the destruction of independent Palestinian infrastructure. He senses, and he may not be wrong in this, that the public mood in Israel would allow him to go even further, should he wish to repeat the ethnic cleansing not only of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, but also that of the one million Palestinians living within the pre-1967 Israeli borders.

The Nakbah thus is no longer denied in Israel; on the contrary, it is cherished. However, the full story remains to be told to the Israelis, as there may still be some among that state's population who are sensitive about their country's past and present conduct. This segment of the population should be alerted to the fact that horrific deeds were concealed from them about Israeli actions in 1948, and they should be told, too, that such deeds could easily now be repeated, if they, and others, do not act to stop them before it is too late.

To prove that I am not anti-semitic (Palestinians are semitic also), pave Northern Ireland too, where my distant relatives clash to this day.

Bravo Neil. I say pave your neighborhood too.

#121, Do you think anyone is going to read that snoozer of a book you wrote?

tokugawa (#121)

A fine post.

One nit-pick though; you refer to "the leader of the Republican Majority in the American House of Representatives, Representative Dick Amory"

It's not 'Dick Amory'; it's 'Dick Army' (think "penis battalion").

(105) MAKES YOU THUNK,
Sarin is relatively inefficient (as I explained above), since despite its high toxicity, it has a high rate of dissipation and is easily removed and the victims decontaminated, the Aum Shinriko attack actually caused more respiratory problems than deaths, I don't recall any deaths actually....Furthermore, given the nature of the gas, an explosion is a poor method of dispersing and would likely just vaporize (as in break apart, not turn into vapor) the chemical, save the off chance that the Islamists knew some special technique to transfer the heat away from the sample, which would limit the van's effectiveness as a bomb.....

About your skepticism on defense,
There is a concept called 'deterrence' which was developed during the early years of the 'Cold War' which shaped the rest of the story. Basically, the plan goes that if you make any move against me, then I'll level your 5, 10, 50, 100, 1000, 100,000 biggest cities, military depots, factories, supply bases, etc. This is also known as mutually assured destruction. If Iraq were to gas-attack Israel, then Baghdad might not still exist the next morning, nor would most of Iraq's soldiers, who would be nuked in the field (I bet you can't use just one....). This provides that all other contries stay out of each others' business.

Oh, and on references to the Bible-
If you'd read it yourself, then you would know that the Israelites had started out there and were, you guessed it, reconquering the land. The quote was also out of context, and shows little about the surrounding time period or immediate history. At the time, it was basically the nomral Operationg Procedures to kill off the men (and maybe the children and women) and to usurp the lands, riches etc (and the women, if they were left). No biggie, but this incident is recorded and well known. If Jews DID control the world, as your compatriots claim, then there would be no mention of this, nor would there be mention of the 'Palestinians', since they, along with the rest of the Arab world would *surely* have been eradicated or at least driven off by combined US-Israeli forces, right?

Me2, I'vE HAD ENOUGH SO JUST
make a real point (with produced evidence, hey habeus corpus, baby). You have yet to respond to my earlier questions (from post #87), or to defend your points from others' questioning. I would take this as avoiding the question, and so essentially admitting fault with your argument, your point, and your position....I'm waiting....oh, and I'd be delighted if you could produce evidence for your article from one of the dozen+or so archiving sites, I'm sure that at least ONE is free from the 'zionist influence'.
BTW, can you even define Zionism, Nazism, or Terrorism, simply as terms?

-Ratz
THANKS TO BISHOP PAUL

BTW, can you even define Zionism, Nazism, or Terrorism, simply as terms?

Allow me to answer for me2:

J - E - W - S

;)

oh, I almost forgot.

Revisionist history, for me2's benefit, goes more along the lines of tokugawa's post. Revisionist history is the view of history 'from the other side'. It has made abig splash in the American field of Historical interpretations, with its writings on such topics as Columbus' mass-genocide of the 'Indians' of Hispaniola and Cuba, an incident rarely mentioned before the arrival of revisionism, if at all. It is usually a philosophy focused on conflict and the 'under-classes'. It strives to focus our attention on the conflict which is skimmed over by 'consensus' historians.
'Apologists' (of the sort that is self-blaming) are often portrayed (as they are) as having gone too far with this idea.

-Ratz, I'd just thought you'd like to know....

Israel is the work of the AntiChrist and it is shameful that America is closing their eyes and not helping the Palestinian people in ending their suffering.

Shame on Israel who are Christ killers.

Makes you stink (#111)

"So you wont mind if I come to your house, eat your food, sleep in your beds, and generally do what I like with your things then, because you'll just have to learn how to share, right?"

I'll tell you this much. I don't mind sharing. Not at all. I'll open my home to anyone who respects it. I've done that many, many times for friends and family, and it's been my pleasure.

But if you come into my home with the intention of murdering me and my family because you happen to like what I've done with the place, I'll blow your head off first.

My Papa taught me well.

LizTalk,

Did you just troll in? Welcome.

me2,

You are such an idiot. Thanks for the laugh. Doos.

Don't you people want to go over to clearguidance or something?

James (#116)

"An occasional nazi infestation is actually fun. Change of pace and all.

I wonder if "me2" = "Mark Konrad with a proxy server".

Nah, he used BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, and takes the opportunity to advertise his feel-good site with a link.

Anyway, I'm quite sure Charles knows exactly where all these nazikidz are.

We're coming to get you...

Shame on Israel who are Christ killers.

Piece of advice: don't cross the International Jewish Conspiracy, Lizzie. We might nail you to a cross.

:D

I too found this thread from the Register but took the time to read the whole thing and have a few points:

#63 ...If the Palestinians stopped attacking the Israelis, their oppression would stand out much more, especially to the international community...

This just isn't the case. I've read a few posts that seem to equate ill informed with stupid. Certainly making statements of "fact" would be foolish but we all base our opinions on this matter (or anything) on the available information; which is seemingly one sided. To put aside interpretation and give you one example of the weight given to FACTS in the media, a recent car/bus/suicide bomb was described in the UK press as "one of the worst acts" in the recent conflict. In the artilce I read it spent almost a whole page column describing the atocity then ended with "The bomb attack was in retaliation for an attack on the (WB or gazza, i forget) where 15 Palistinians were killed.

That was it, one sentence. The point is the facts that I'm given to digest, without making a point of studying the topic closely for myself, are not complete and good enough. Killing by a state military force should not be more legitamate than by an individual if that State is just.

#79 is a good example of this as just as I hope you don't expct me to appreciate the intricacies of this issue they obviously don't appeciate the Anglo-Irish question as I would as a local.

They are right to question America's aggressive foreign policy though. It's worth bearing in mind that when you make an effort to remove someone from power it really doesn't do to leave before you know whos replacing them. A little OT I know but you spend all that effort keeping the Soviets out of Afghanistan by training all those fanatics but pay no attention when they take over the country and then cry foul.

I wonder who'll replace Saddam, or how much press coverage that will get. Anyone know whats happening in Afgan right now? Everything all right now is it? Or SriLanka? Or Somalia? Yet the western governments take less or no interest. I have my own opinions on why tht is but its speculation so I'll not bother airing them

#89 Not to draw a direct comparison but Nelson Mandela is also a terrorist - just because you don't like someone or what they've done doesn't mean you don't have to deal with them. Despite the fact that the Tamal Tigers have killed 60,000 peopl since 1983 in their quest for an independant Tamal state (sound familiar) they still need to be negotiated with if a resolution is to be found. As much as you disagree (to the point of voilence) with a point of view doesn't mean that it will change if an individual goes. And again, what would the person who replaces him be like?

#120 Colonial Europe also has a case to answer for aggressive foreign policy, no one would argue that. But I'm fairly certain that the "kill em all and let god decide" wouldn't work. fairly.

It seems to me, and again this is from the point of view of questionable information from the press and trolling groups like this, that America does seem to disproportionatly favour the Israeli side in this affair. I question then if thats really because of the whole Democracy thing or in equal measure that Israel are an ally in the region, have effective lobbyists in congress ( does that make me a conspiricist) and are a consumer for military hardware. Them Apaches aren't cheap and the UK only bought 12 after all.

But thats just my impressions as an outsider. Again I'd encourage those of you who do have an initmate understanding to try and be tolerant of those of us who may not be the best informed. Certainly the american press not the intelect of the posters here and people in general has more to do with misguided beliefs.

Free Palestine!

Lobbying...huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing...say it again!

PBS purges Web content on Israeli disapproval
By Thomas C Greene in Washington
Posted: 05/09/2002 at 14:37 GMT
[Link: www.theregister.co.uk...]

The US Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is airing a documentary film this week by affiliate WNET in New York, called "Caught in the Crossfire: Arab-Americans in Wartime," which considers the predicament of Arab-Americans since the 9/11 atrocity. In addition to the film is a companion Web site offering background material for curious viewers.

Unfortunately, a few people disapproved of some of that material, and PBS did exactly what any spineless pandering coward would do; they buckled to pressure (or the fear of pressure) from New York's Jewish and Israeli lobbying groups, and removed content from the companion site which dares to tell the Palestinian story without the mandatory pro-Israel bias.

Some of the purged, non-Kosher information may have been inaccurate, according to this heavily-biased report by Ira Stoll in the New York Sun. But the story's chief implication, that PBS buckled because it feared that some diabolical cabal of well-heeled New York Jews could obstruct its funding and shave its viewership makes this something of a cyberattack -- or at least a cybersurrender.

Now, I don't want to get into arguments with readers about who's right and who's wrong and who threw the first punch in Palestine. The conflict is messy and old and full of complications and interference from geopolitical players, the full effects of which which I don't pretend to understand. I'll say this much: personally I'd be a lot more comfortable with the Palestinian struggle if they'd stick to attacking Israeli military targets exclusively, and leave civilians out of it. On the other hand they are under occupation, they have no homeland, and most importantly, no army with which to attack military targets. They're so outmanned, outmanouvred and outgunned that it's hard to think of what else they could do to fight back.

But here we're concerned with another area where Israel has the Palestinians hopelessly outdone: in the marketplace of public debate, which the PBS self-censorship move illustrates, and, in its own pathetic way, exacerbates. Israel possesses, by Palestinian standards, effectively limitless resources to advance their propaganda. They demonize Palestinian combatants as 'terrorists', lionize their own dead as sacrificial lambs, and justify their aggressive military assaults as a matter of self-preservation. And that's fine; propaganda is what governments do.

But we ought to be permitted to hear from both sides and draw our own conclusions. I may come close to vomiting from NY Times blowhard William Safire's 'Israel uber alles' screed, but my preferred solution to clumsy propaganda like that is opposing propaganda. Keep the marketplace of ideas open to all comers, I say, and caveat lector. This is a fundamental element of civilized life which we simply cannot allow to be subverted by legions of well-heeled lobbyists and their obedient mouthpieces in the mainstream press.

But in this case, there's no evidence that a lobbying effort had got underway; indeed, there hardly seems to have been adequate time to organize such a thing. It appears that PBS was cowed into jelly-like submission merely by the fear of such a terrible inconvenience as alienating New York Jews, who the organization assumes will do them harm.

The PBS explanation is laughable:

"The 'Homelands' section of the site drew attention away from the message of the film. Our goal was to provide background information that contextualized the cultural histories of the people whose lives are chronicled in the film. In an effort to keep the focus on the current experience of Arab Americans, we have removed that section of the site.'

Not only are they too spineless to defend their own content in the face of what may well be completely imaginary threats, they haven't got the cojones to admit it, either. The background material 'drew attention from the film's message' indeed. That's what background information is all about, for Christ's sake. It's an excursus, an appendix. So what they're really saying is, 'we purged the background information because it was background information.' And what they really mean is, 'we took down controversial material which we feared might invite financial and public-relations retaliation from a small, and small-minded, fraction of our patrons.'

Well, if one journalist can frighten them into censoring themselves, perhaps another can shame them into showing a bit of spine. It's worth a shot, I suppose; but I'm not optimistic about a network which has descended in the past couple of decades from airing the superb intellectual contributions of Jacob Brownowski and Eugen Weber to airing the crowd-pleasing psycho-babble of such lowbrow parasites as Deepak Chopra, Suze Ormond and Andrew Weil. ®

Why does everyone here seem to hate everyone else that has opposing views?

Why is the world so full of hatred for people that are different or have different views?

Doesn't about every religion on this planet preach "Thou shall not kill" in some manner or form? To this end, isn't everybody in the wrong?

Ratz - you must be some kind of god! How come you know so much about so many topics.

I think the parallel with the situation with N.Ireland is good, an undeclared civil war with one side hopelessly outgunned.

The peace process there still continues on (and will continue hopefully), despite terrorist acts happening every week by the men and women of violence.

Few have courage to turn the other cheek, if I may be Biblical. Vengence is understandable and always pointless and pathetic.

There is horror and atrocity on both sides, and sadly the time for peace is not now.

I DON'T KNOW whether Israel is doing Ethnic Cleasing by a prettier name. All my information is from secondhand sources AND INCOMPLETE - something EVERYONE here shares.

History will judge Israel and ALAS the Jews of this time on the behaviour of Israel. (to clarify that last statement - I don't think it is correct to blame or edify a generation for the acts of a few).

As for journalists - (and PBS in this instance) - I always look to see whom is paying for the work.

In this case its the US Govt - (I think).

I've friends whom have written for major newspapers. Sometimes it's not what they think, but the editors and the owners have their own ideas and they pay the checks.....

That's why I post on these things.

He does have a rather thick Russian accent and is enough of a respected expert to have appeared in documentaries here in the UK, I would not put forward something if I did not have the highest regard for the source, I couldn’t quote his resume, sorry, I will look for some links to work he has done. As for lying, telling the world it exists and as I seem to recall there was no antidote does seem rather pointless, By the way as an aside you can usually spot the fakes a mile away they speak of weapons of mass destruction in regard to biological and chemical agents, rather than use the correct term, mass casualty weapons.
And yes, it is highly likely that it is out in the wild, and yes he will tell anyone who will listen, it seems his only reason is that he is scared that these weapons will get into the hands of those who don’t care a damn about concepts like Mutually Assured Destruction, those who have blind hatred and will do anything to sate their appetite for murder and destruction, imagine the guilt you might feel if you had a hand in its creation and it was losed on the world for no reason?

As faras Sarin goes, if it is being carried on large updrafts of air from an explosion dispersion may not be an issue, how you construct a useful weapon, use a shaped charge to create a blast that is sufficient to knock out the floor of the first floor of the offices from the underground car-park is not something I really want to think about, or discuss, just so no one can accuse me of anything.

Deterrence only works when people can be deterred, how do you deter those who think they are Martyrs and will be rewarded on some ethereal plane? And I’m not just talking about Muslim extremists here, there are plenty of Christians just waiting for the Battle of Armageddon, The Rapture and all that. The Cold War had the advantage that neither side thought there was some way to ”win” by thinking it would happen other than on planet Earth.

On the Bible question, I didn’t say I took it as true, and I’m sure you’ll note from history that every time a land is conquered it is always land that “Was originally ours anyway”, Milosovec said that, Hitler said that, why should there be any credence to this, especially when the argument is not just that it was theirs before, but that a supernatural being, of which there is no evidence at all, called by various names including ”God”, “Yahwah” etc gave them the land in the first place. And I never said Jews control anything, please do not mistake me for any other poster on this thread or others, I’d say the people ”in control” are of various “religions”, though “psychosis” is probably more appropriate from my POV. As far as why there are Palestinians still living, well the attempts to eradicate them have kept failing miserably, wars in Lebanon, massacres at refugee camps etc have not eliminated them yet, you should note of course that Ariel Sharon has been accused of being complicit in some if not all of these actions, there was a case that was going to be held in Belgium, but somehow the star witness to the Israeli Armys involvement in a massacre conveniently turned up dead a while back, but who cares about the murder of a witness to cover up yet more murder?

Fuck them both, let them destroy each other, getting tired of the bullshit perpetrated by the religious morons. Give them the weapons they need to do the job and then take out the winners.

Why is the Israeli viewpoint the only proper one? I personally am tired of having a "correct" version of a story imposed upon me. I can make up my own mind. Most of the comments I see posted are one-sided and arrogant, no wonder the middle east is such a hot bed of violence.

This thread started with the assertion that:

Israeli premiers Barak, Netanyahu and Sharon are described,respectively, as a "former military leader","hawkish" and a "right-wing politician." But Yasser Arafat is described as "leader of the movement for a Palestinian state" with no mention of his connections to terrorism.

But consider this:

David Ben-Gurion is often described as "leader of the movement for a Zionist state" with no mention of HIS connections to terrorism. Even though Irgun and the Stern Gang got most of the publicity for terrorist acts carried out by the Zionists, Haganah did its share of nasty stuff, too.

And then there is the little matter of the Lavon Affair: the bombing of American targets in Egypt, made to look like the work of Muslim extremists, when it was actually an undercover Israeli operation, whose purpose was to prevent better Egyptian - U.S. relations. Operation Susanna worked for awhile, until one of the bombs went off prematurely, resulting in the capture of one of the Jewish terrorists, who then spilled the beans, resulting in the capture of nearly all the conspirators. After initial denials of involvement by the Israeli government, blame was fixed on Defense Minister Lavon, who resigned, and was replaced by David Ben-Gurion, who came out of retirement. But six years later, proof surfaced that Lavon's signature had been forged on crucial documents. The real planner of Operation Susanna was Ben-Gurion, aided by young aides Moyse Dayan and (current Israeli Foreign Minister) Shimon Peres. The Ben-Gurion government fell due to the scandal, and Ben-Gurion finally retired for good.

Well guys you certainly have nothing else to do I guess, but get involved in an impractical argument. Let’s say someone “get’s rid of” Arafat. So what? All the Palestinian Arabs will start loving Jews and Jews will start loving Arabs? This aggravation of the situation by quoting and misquoting history will undoubtedly take you to a dead-end. For a record I am not a Jew, but I am not an Arab or Muslim either. All I want is peace in the world. Accusations are the last things that will lead to peace, maybe you should try to talk about what can be done to make peace happen (not killing Arafat, that’s not a solution. You don’t kill a kid if he is a trouble. Maybe a kid is not a really good parallel in this situation, but imagine it as a neighbor’s kid, not yours), instead of what was done or not done.

Beep

As of your posting #137 Maybe you should try to use a dictionary to indentify proper usage of word whom. And, by the way it is strange, people usually misuse who, and stick it in their sentences instead of whom, but using whom instead of who? That's a weird one...

Wow! Amazing how much lather you've worked up over this little trifle. All because of a little intellectual pretense on the part of people who think that PBS is a better Media Stream than any other.

How about fighting the real problem, and forcing all Media streams to become secular and a-political. Encourage your elected officials to segregate the ownership of content creation from the ownership of content distribution.

That is the only way to ensure that information can be free of the taint of corporate, religious and political corruption.

Where have all the invetigatvie reporters gone?

Listen all of you Monkeys and Pigs:

We will settle the issue on the battlefield sooner or later. The Muslims are coming sooner to a home near you! So I suggest you pack your bags and go to New York because that is your home now.

We will avenge every drop of blood that has been spilled. No matter how long you stick your ass to the land, we will uproot it and get the world of the most despicable group that has ever existed. You give the devil a run for his money.

Palestinians are losing because they can't defend themselves and have only rocks to do the job. Who is scared here? The tables will be turned around when the Palestinians realize that this is Muslim issue that concers 1 billion or more Muslims. That day is coming soon and we will see how tough you are. Let all hell break loose. There is one death and we'd rather die fighting than anything else.

You can insult all you want because it won't do you any good when all is said and done. Down you will go and it is your destiny to go down you bunch of ingrates; no wonder you are the only group of people whom Allah has made monkeys and pigs from. Transgression and twisting of things are your common trademark.

You were kicked out of the Arabian Peninsula for good reason and you will be kicked out of th entire middle east and the Muslim world soon.

No one will help you for those who do will suffer the same fate as you will.

Go to the zoo to see your brothers and sisters!

It seemed only appropriate that I read all these posts (although skipping the references) before adding anything of my own.

I have a few simple comments.

* the "did....did not!.....did so!!!" argument and the dogmatic requirement for two, and only two, sides fail to illuminate, advance or otherwise add anything to the debate.

* Tokugawa seems, at present, to be the only voice of authoritatively informed reason on this list

* Instead of flinging poorly constructed and vitriolic prose, wouldn't it be better to foster one of America's greatest achievements; the 1st Ammendement to the Constitution?

The US should be returned to its original and rightful inhabitants; the Native Americans tribes of the Abenaki, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, the Alabama Quassarte, the Arapaho, the Assiniboine and Sioux of the Fort Peck Reservation, the Bay Mills Ojibwe, the Blackfeet, the Caddo, the Catawba, the Cherokee, the Cheyenne & Arapaho, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Citizen Band Potawatomi, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Colville Confederated Tribes, the Comanche, the Crow, the Crow Creek Sioux, the Flathead, the Ft. McDowell Yavapai, the Hawaiians, the Ho-Chunk or Winnebago, the Inter Tribal Council of California, the Iowa of Oklahoma, the Iroquois League, the Jamestown S'Klallam, the Kialegee Creek, the Leech Lake Ojibwe, the Lenni Lenape or Eastern Delaware, the Lower Elwha Klallam, the Makah, the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara, the Mashuntucket Pequot, the Menominee, the Miccosoukee, the Minnesota Chippewa (Ojibwe), the Modoc, the Mohawk, the Mohegan, the Muckleshoot, the Navajo, the Nez Perce, the Northern Cheyenne, the Oglala Sioux, the Oneida, the Otoe Missouria, the Ottawa, the Passamaquoddy, the Pawnee, the Penobscot, the Powhatan Renape of New Jersey, the Quapaw or O-Gah-Pah, the Quileute, the Quinault, the Red Lake Ojibwe, the Sac & Fox of Iowa, the Sac & Fox of Oklahoma, the Salt River Pima & Maricopa, the San Carlos Apache, the Santa Clara Pueblo, the Sault Ste. Marie Ojibwe, the Seminole of Florida, the Seminole of Oklahoma, the Seneca of New York, the Southern Ute, the Spokane, the Thlopthlocco Creek, the Tohono O'odham, the Tonkawa, the Tulalip, the Tunica Biloxi, the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee, the United Sioux Tribes, the Warm Springs, Northern Paiute & Wasco, the Washoe, the Wichita, the Yakima or Yakama, the Yankton Sioux, the Yosemite Miwok and the Zia Pueblo.

Oh wait - they're not mentioned in the Bible. Silly me.

Why is the Israeli viewpoint the only proper one?

Because it is the truth. You see, just because other people assert lies as their 'narrative' doesn't make it any more true.

well some of those tribes have reservations... and sooner or later, Americans realized that they were eradicating native Americans, so when are you going to realize that you are doing a blood work?

Saying that something is a lie doesn’t make a source a certainty.

I've read most of this and I still can't see the point to it all.

Whilst your all having this nice dicussion people are still getting killed, nothing that is said here will affect this.

What ever we (people, humans, whatever..) do always ends up with us killing each other, usually in the name of religion.

It just saddens me

#145:

There is one death and we'd rather die fighting than anything else.

Now there's your mistake, in a nutshell: prefering to die fighting than anything else. You really should try living — happily, successfully, lovingly and, not least, morally. We — the Jews and Jew-lovers who rule the world — would far rather do that, than die fighting.

But, if you absolutely insist on the superiority of your values, we are willing to help you with your ultimate ambition. For, in the service of a just cause, we are quite ready to kill fighting.

I came over from the link on the Register (since I'm a computer-type guy).. I have a couple comments.

1. The article displayed by PBS has misrepresentations of historical data, and therefore should be pulled, regardless of why there are errors -- be it poor research, intentional bias, or careless writing.

2. The endless bickering about who has a historical right to occupy what land is irrelevant. It's fairly obvious that neither side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is totally pure and both sides have relatives that have lived on the same land at various times.

3. It seems to me that no other state in the middle east cares for the plight of the Palestinians as much as the Israeli people do. Their sole objective is to destroy Israel, not to help the Palestinians. Whenever Israel tries to establish some sort of peaceful relations with Israel, the Arab leadership squashes it by encouraging further terrorist attacks. The Palestinian and other Arab leadership have by choice left their citizenry in refugee camps and educated (miseducated?) their children to hate Israel and blame Israel for all their problems. Instead of building better infrastructure for economic devolopment, Palestinian leadership has squandered their money in continually promoting war and unrest.... In contrast, Israel has repeatedly held out the olive branch in attempts to make peace. Yes, there are times Israel has not tried to make peace, but these are generally when the Palestinians ignored those steps towards peace.
......

I don't claim that Israel has done everything right and the Palestinians everything wrong, but the root of the problem is NOT Israel hating Palestinians and trying to eradicate them (or it would have been done by now), but rather Palestinians hating and vowing to destroy (not live in peace with) Israel....

Just my 2 cents...

Brian

Saying that something is a lie doesn’t make a source a certainty.

Most assuredly not. But there *is* a truth regardless of the existence of other viewpoints. In response to the question "Why is the Israeli viewpoint the only proper one?" I merely point out that just because there is "another viewpoint" doesn't ipso facto make it equally or alternatively true.

This thread is like some horrible car crash. You begin to see how prejudice and dogma lead to situations like Bosnia where educated men and women much like most of the readers of this group are able to inflcit horrors on each other, each clinging to half-truths or even absolute truths yet unwilling or unable see the bigger tragedy unfolding around them until it is too late. And yet you are almost compelled to keep reading.

On the PBS comment: Seems to me that the author was writing a brief comment, not a book. Necessarily it could not be comprehensive. Maybe it could have been better edited but I don't think there was a conspiracy.

FWIW I agree with #53. I think a secular democracy representing all the people living in what my atlas decribes apolitically as "The Holy Land" is a laudable goal. Is that hopelessly idealistic? Yes. Will it help get the parties to the negotiating table? No. Yet think of South Africa. I was one of the people who had deep reservations about the Mandela Day concert - factually this great man was a justifiably convicted terrorist. And yet, what an example. Is Arafat a Mandela? Hardly. But needless cynicism won't help either. Someone has to have the guts and imagination to think of a bigger solution.

Of course this betrays my bias. Indeed, one of the most sadest things for me is the persistent use of the word "jews", and the assertion that any criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-semitic. That seems all-but guaranteed to fan flames.

Kudos to #121 for his thoughtful post.

Finally, could people at least nail this left-wing, right-wing issue? Jewish people as a group have a reputation for being Democrats, not Republicans. It is a gross generalisation but I am not alone in making it - and I will refer flamers (with tounge firmly in cheek) to Woody Allen's "Everyone Says I love You." Democrats are generally accepted to be "left of centre." Many Jewish people - I would risk a guess that it is a substantial majority - are ardent supporters of Israel in the abstract, if not always of specific policies (as you would expect of any intelligent population in a democracy). It cannot then be the case that to be critical of Israel or even downright anti-semitic is a "left wing." I risk being facetious but it is equally generally accepted that the Nazi Party was an extreme right-wing party. My point? Whether one believes in omnipotent government or untramelled capitalism really has very little relevance to whether one is an ardent Zionist or virulent anti-semite.

My own opinions? Well to those who think The Book of Revelations is a roapmap of the future (something I used to find amusing and in the "Area 54 really has aliens" camp until I read last week's Economist "Lexington" on it), let's just take it as read that I am in league with the antichrist (well, being British, that was a given), and not waste each other's time debating it.

To the others, maybe the lurkers, if I could recommend one thing it would be to see David Hare's "Via Dolorosa," an amazing one-man monologue on the subject. You will find a brief summary here:
[Link: www.salon.com...]

What is truth anyways? According to Webster’s people it's a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true. But accepted by whom? We have three sides, ones who claim something's true, other who claim it's not (claiming that not truthfulness of the abovementioned is the truth) and the ones try to define why something can be true and at the same time untrue. Well I will be packing my bags and joining the third camp.

PS. (no, I am not going to New York and that threat bullshit of #145 is disgusting)

It is necessary for peace that both sides in this conflict be understood. We have for a very long time been informed of the Israeli side, it is now time to look at the Palestinian side of things. The Israelis arent always right and their way of seeing things is not always right. What are the right-wing apologists for Israel so afraid of?

Not only that but what is the big deal? The program was good, the history on the web site accurate. All of you who are saying you wont support public tv because they didnt air your viewpoint or because you disagree with a few comments in the webpage need to grow up . Do us all a favor and go back to watching Baywatch.

Tokugawa:

So, I assume you're in favor of letting millions of peace-loving chaps like #145 here into Israel. What do you think will happen next? Do you hope that they kill you last? Or maybe first so that you won't have to witness the real new Holocaust?

I don't see anything historically wrong with the information in the above bullets. All of the above information is completely accurate. I don't see why many of you are so upset about PBS accurately portraying history.

There is a basic principle that people on this board who are "enraged" by the article is missing:

What happened to democracy and free debate?

Just because you disagree with someones stance or version of truth, doesn't make the opinion or the person giving it :
1) a racist
2) stupid (come on now, criticizing the guy's grammar? Thats really weak and wouldn't fly in a grammar school debate!)
3) Pro or anti anything.

I can't help but notice in these sensitive political times that any time you criticize Israel you are instantly branded an anti-semite. Israel is a state, not a race, and a government is not necessarily representative of those it pretends to represent.

If there is going to be any solution both sides have to admit they did things that were wrong.

Shooting missiles into apartment complexes is wrong. So is barring international reporters from trying to get information.

Blowing yourself up in cafe's school buses and discos is also wrong.

Living in a refuge camp is wrong. If the Israeli goverment seeks some kind of high moral ground, then explain why three generations of children are growing up in a chain link, barbed wire ghetto?

"David Goldblum":

If this is your real name, my question to Tokugawa applies to you, too: do you count on savages killing you last after they destroy Israel?

If you're just some little putrid nazi twat hiding behind in-your-face Jewish name, then fuck you and rot in hell.

Tokugawa:

My question to you is serious. You don't seem to be particularly self-hating, if maybe too moralistic. I sincerely wonder if you're taking into consideration what would really happen if the "right of return" is acted upon.

I can't help but notice in these sensitive political times that any time you criticize Israel you are instantly branded an anti-semite.

I can only repeat what's been said before: the surest way to avoid being branded an anti-Semite when you criticize Israel is to criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite.

Bush did it, don't you know,
Sacrificed his people for black gold

#158: you like to make assumptions. If #145 is an extremist, then are millions of Palestinians who are also extremists? I think there would be many, many, many more suicide bombings if that were the case.

Using the same reasoning, if there is one Israeli extremist, does that mean there are millions of Israeli extremists? I don't think so. One Bernard Goldstein is enough.

In my opinion, the vast majority of both the Israelis and the Palestinians want peace. Jews and Arabs lived and thrived together in the Holy land for most of the 1300 years that Islam has existed. Jews and Arabs lived together in Baghdad for 2,500 years. What changed? Zionism.

If Jews had come to Palestine to live in peaceful coexistence with the indigenous Arabs, there would have not been a constant state of war for the last 54 years.

But no, the Zionists wanted an EXCLUSIVELY Jewish state. Herzl thought the locals might leave with financial incentives, but that did not work.

So 1948 saw the ethnic cleaning of 750,000 (500,000? 1,000,000?) Palestinians who lost their neighborhoods, their homes, their land, and their possessions. Sometimes they left at gunpoint, sometimes just the terror was enough to induce them to leave. If they resisted, then they usually died, such as in the Deir Yassin massacre or the Dahmash Mosque massacre.

Israelis promised the United Nations that, as a condition of admission to the U.N., they would allow the refugees to return or to be compensated. After 54 years, the world is still waiting for that promise to be honored.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until there is JUSTICE for both sides. Camp David did not solve the refugee problem, therefore it was fatally flawed.

Unfortunately, today extremists have risen to leadership positions. Sharon is NOT a man of peace. Neither is Arafat. The sooner both are gone, the better.

"I can only repeat what's been said before: the surest way to avoid being branded an anti-Semite when you criticize Israel is to criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite. "

Well, Q, how can you do that if you're not even allowed a voice to criticize at all?

Well, Q, how can you do that if you're not even allowed a voice to criticize at all?

And who has silenced your voice?

It has gotten more interesting now. So I will add on, a "correct" viewpoint is very likely a censored viewpoint. The power struggles in existence in the world will always promote some type of censorship to present the "correct" viewpoint. One form is the withholding of information that would allow a person to form a well-reasoned opnion. Is that not what we are seeing? The release of information that supports only one side of a story? Whether it be from Israel, Palestine our even the USA?

(#164)

You make some excellent points about the conflict at hand. However, when you speak of "justice for both sides" you do not make it clear what would be fair.

What is real justice? The problem is deciding who gets what. Essentially, there is no possible way to decide that without introducing some sort of bias. Injustices have been heaped upon the Palestinians, however I would have to say that Israel has been the recipient of injustice as well. Every possible solution involves taking the possessions of some and giving them to others. Is this fair? It all depends on your perspective and what rules you have established. In order for the peace to work both sides must accept the rules... good luck on ever getting that to happen!!!

Essentially, I believe that when someone is born, they come into the world with nothing. There is no promise of another day, nor of any riches or possessions. All people really need is hope of opportunity. That is all about what the United States is about -- opportunity including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Right now Israel can be hopeful because it is a free, democratic country. People living there have a measure of security in knowing that they will have opportunities to do well and live well under the laws they are governed.
Do Palestinians have the same? Not right now. Their leadership ignores them, they have no solid security in their land, and there is little hope for the future. These things need to happen to the Palestinians to increase stability in the region and establish peace:

1. Democratic self-government safeguarding personal freedoms.
2. Established and secure statehood.
3. Objective and informed educational system.

......
Any plan for peace that does not address these issues directly will fail. These three things can occur without addressing other issues. Other issues can be worked out later..

Just a reminder:
(From the jargon file)

Godwin's Law prov.

[Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Where they aren’t the oppressed but the oppressors.
Most of the comments on this page are ignorant and one sided.
Are these then NEW Jews? If I don’t believe the same way you
do I am wrong? When is the book burning going to start?
I see a lot of comments about not supporting a public entity because
they did some un-bias reporting. Well fah on you..

RE: Well, Q, how can you do that if you're not even allowed a voice to criticize at all?
The response being:
"And who has silenced your voice? "
---------------------
Well, the fact that we're debating an article that was yanked off of a website due to pressure from an interested party pretty much answers the question. We wouldn't be here if people weren't being silenced. Of course you'll say, you're saying your piece right now,
but the fact that people can sling the kind of insults that I'm reading on this thread (and that goes for BOTH SIDES though one side seems more virulent than the other) shows that there is an intolerance for open discussion.

I can and can't believe that I read that whole thing.... I only have one thing to comment on, and it is something that I hold very dear to my heart and am quite passionate about. Message #138, you mention that there is no proof of God... I find that very interesting and also very naive. If there is no God, then how was the Universe and everything in it created? Talk to any Chemist... They will tell you that you can't make something from nothing.

Also, if you looked at the complexity of any give organism on this earth, you should wonder if infinite time + chaos = order and complexity. Give it a try..... take a coin and write see how long it takes to flip that coin heads 50 times in a row. I hope that you don't have any plans for the next few days (at least). The DNA of even the most basic of organisms is incredibly complex, and even if you could randomly create DNA, could you also randomly create the support structures that are REQUIRED to sustain it and allow for it's replication?

After considering these things, seriously considering them, you might have a difficult time still believing in "there is no God".

So... for those interested, who is God? God is Love, God is Truth, God is Jesus Christ. He is a personal God, and loves EVERYONE. He does not desire death and hurt, but because so many of us do not know Him or have a relationship with Him, we have pain and suffering. If you want to get to know God, you have to spend time with Him and you have to take time to read the Bible. They are His work, and are for us to read to better know Him.

(#170)

I can agree that much of the article is factual, however the way the Israeli leaders are presented is not factual. The factual tone has changed into one that follows the recent media habit of assigning blame to certain Israeli leaders for hampering the peace process. Unfortunately, there is not equal treatment of Mr. Arafat as well as the different terrorist groups that have no desire for peace, only destruction of Israel. This is the largest problem with the article. If I didn't know better, from this article I would assume that these specific Israeli leaders were solely to blame for the continued conflict, regardless of the other people and circumstances involved. Apparently, "right-wing", "military", and "radical" applies to Israelis but "terrorist" and "stubborn" do not apply to Mr. Arafat? It's interesting how when the Israelis have just cause for military action, the reasons they give are only a "claim"...

Whether for good reason or not, the article remains biased.

"If you want to get to know God, you have to spend time with Him and you have to take time to read the Bible. They are His work, and are for us to read to better know Him. "

If you really want to know God, one thing to do is stop killing in his name, or pretending that you or your tribe are the only ones who know who the true God is, ect. ect. ect.

It's right acts and right living and love, not preaching mantras that are devoid of any meaning, or giving money to corrupt ministers or condemning and judging people.

#161:
Well, I certainly hope I'm not some "little putrid nazi twat". I'm a British Jew but that shouldn't and doesn't stop me from trying to be a little impartial in my view of all things Israeli. The situation is not all black and white as you would quickly realise if you read up on the events leading up to the creation of Israel and the events that have followed since.

It may do some of you some good to take a look at what Meretz is trying to do.

Now, "do you count on savages killing you last after they destroy Israel?" Hmm tough one, but the only savages I can see are the ones leading Israel, the PA and the US.

#174
People should stop killing in His name. There have been many tragic events in our history by well intentioned people.

God is available to EVERYONE, but you have to come to Him on His terms. His terms are very simple: 1) Accept the truth that Jesus was God was killed in our place for our sins and resurected after 3 days and then accended into Heaven. 2) Submit our life to Him and have a relationship with Him.

When you truly know God and are walking with Him, His character flows out from you because His spirit lives within you.

Rueben, please no proselytizing. Your religious beliefs are your personal beliefs. Since a religion demands implicit faith and belief without question, discussions that interject religion will invariably end in some type of disagreement.

And Brian, does the original article remain biased? Do any of us have all the actual unbiased facts on any of the issues in the middleast? I doubt it. Remember power is the withholding of information. Who has the power?

#174 - Not to get off topic on this thread....

But why is your version of God the real one and no one elses is? There are millions of people in this world who aren't Christian. So are they all going to hell? This line of thinking is responsible for the whole stupid Middle East mess. There are plenty of sick so called Christians waiting around for the Jews and the Arabs to slug it out so that the soap opera Armageddon can be played out.

And if you know anything about Jesus, he never wanted a church, and he sure as hell didn't come to earth for people to "submit" to him. He is not Baal or Yahweh or any number of so called immortal beings with oh so mortal flaws such as needing your attention and sacrifice. He was about FREEDOM, he was about the God inside of you!

And if you know anything about Jesus, he never wanted a church, and he sure as hell didn't come to earth for people to "submit" to him. He is not Baal or Yahweh or any number of so called immortal beings with oh so mortal flaws such as needing your attention and sacrifice. He was about FREEDOM, he was about the God inside of you!

Out of curiosity Kenny, what is your source about Jesus apart from the New Testament? The New Testament posits that he was Yahweh. Surely you realize that there's nothing else about Jesus that even approaches being contemperanous. So where do you draw your personal view of Jesus from when all 'known' information about him is in the New Testament?

(#174)
I love the "stop killing in his name" ...
You could probably tell that to most militaries in any sort of war. Just because someone claims a religion doesn't mean they represent that religion. People that do evil will try to justify themselves in any way they can. At least they are fighting for something -- which is much better than fighting for the status quo (which is what you seem to advocate).

I find it interesting that you think people should stop claiming that their beliefs in God are the only true ones. That's just pure idiocy. Any logical person would know that there are religious beliefs that cannot coexist without conflict. There is a difference between loving someone and accepting their misguided notions about God. It's obvious you are from the United States where we are too concerned about pleasing everyone. This is the most intolerant and closed-minded behavior -- to worry about keeping peace so much that you deny the essence and existence of ultimate truth. If you no longer seek the truth, then you are spiritually dead. If you have no convictions that are strong enough to share and live, then beware of the brainwashing you will receive from those you believe are tolerant like you. Beware of the whipping you will receive at the hands of those with strong convictions.

I, for one, believe that Jesus was and is the Messiah, and that He is who he claims to be, having died and rose from the dead. All my friends know what I believe, and although I may disagree with them about this and other things, they know that I still love them.

You're right that love is important, but you're wrong that the truth isn't important. If you ruin your life by continually submitting to your own selfish lusts, you will never be fulfilled. Is it love to speak out against corruption and evil, or to keep it to myself? Yes, there are hypocrites everywhere, but even hypocrites cannot destroy the truth. Those that hide behind hypocrites are smaller than them.

Yes, truth without love is easily corrupted, but love without truth is just as easily corrupted.

Brian

The fundamental issue is not whether the government of Israel is "Nazi" or fascist per se (#87), nor how well or badly it is treating its citizens. The difficulty lies in the treatment of the Palestinian Arabs in the occupied West Bank by the Israeli government.

Israel is effectively colonizing a region to which no other country recognizes a legitimate Israeli claim. Being non-citizens of a "Greater Israel," the denizens of this region are denied some rather basic freedoms and are gradually being displaced from their lands, homes and resources (esp. water rights).

The situation reminds me strongly of apartheid-era South Africa, where the local blacks lacked freedom of movement, assembly and due process rights, among others. Previously proposed peace settlements, resulting in a "swiss cheese" Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, remind me of South African homelands.

The pro-Israel camp rightly points out the repressive nature of surrounding Arabic countries - military dictatorships (Egypt, Syria), absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia) - countries that deny even their citizens rights that Americans hold dear.

So why are we as Americans supporting any of these regimes in any way? Are our fundamental freedoms enshrined in our bill of rights only good for Americans? Should we go on subsidizing colonialism, religious repression and dictatorship - all in the name of big oil?

Let's cut Israel's military purse-strings. At the same time, however, we need to stop funding Egyptian totalitarianism and Saudi religious extremism.

This path won't be easy - we are heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil. The first step on our way is to work towards energy independence - conservation, alternative fuels, urban density and public transportation.

If we don't take this path we'll remain embroiled in this nasty conflict and continue to be targeted by extremists of all stripes.

Never said the truth isn't important. But it's not your place or mine to tell anyone what the truth is, you dig?

My source? Check out the gnostic texts, which predate the New Testament, which was really written by Caesars converted cronies. Or how about the Gospel According to Thomas, which is banned, and I wonder why? No need for calling names and saying someones an idiot if you believe your position so strongly.

In 2003, a giant comet is going to swing by the earth. It will cause the earths rotation to stop. Resulting in the core of the earth melting. Storms. Giant Tidal waves. The north poles will become the south. So all your petty little wars mean nothing. Nor your religious postering. Get ready, mankind. You are going to change whether you want to or not.

#164:

I wrote: "You don't seem to be particularly self-hating". Well, now you're doing your best to prove that impression wrong. At the very least, you appear self-deluded and either ignorant of your own history ("500,000? 1,000,000?" - How about gazillion?), or willfully distorting it.

If #145 is an extremist, then are millions of Palestinians who are also extremists? I think there would be many, many, many more suicide bombings if that were the case.

As the Israeli intelligence and IDF stated (yes, I consider them reliable sources in this regard), the number of eager splodeydopes-to-be is not the bottleneck. The bottleneck is the availability of explosives and organizational skills.

And how could you expect the hereditary "refugees" who eat, breathe and shit out Jew-hatred to be anything other than "extremists"?

In my opinion, the vast majority of both the Israelis and the Palestinians want peace.

Why can't you take them at their own words? "We want all you filthy Jews to leave 'our' land and/or die!!!" The only "peace" they are willing, and have been ever willing, to accept is peace with the dead.

Jews and Arabs lived and thrived together in the Holy land for most of the 1300 years that Islam has existed. Jews and Arabs lived together in Baghdad for 2,500 years.

Read Bat Ye'or on dhimmitude. "Peaceful coexistence" my ass.

If Jews had come to Palestine to live in peaceful coexistence with the indigenous Arabs, there would have not been a constant state of war for the last 54 years.

But no, the Zionists wanted an EXCLUSIVELY Jewish state. Herzl thought the locals might leave with financial incentives, but that did not work.

Are you sure you haven't copied this sewage from Arab News? Sounds exactly like "Israel Shamir's" toxic outpourings.

There were plenty of different viewpoints among Zionists on the relations with the Arabs. There was at least one (probably more) group, Brith Shalom, that advocated bi-national state that would include Jews and Arabs on equal terms. Since very few Arabs reciprocated (and most of those who did were murdered by other Arabs), that idea failed.

There will be no peace in the Middle East until there is JUSTICE for both sides. Camp David did not solve the refugee problem, therefore it was fatally flawed.

It boggles the mind how an Israeli like you can fail to realize that the only "JUSTICE" the Arabs seek is Judenrein "Palestine". They do not want ANY solution as long as it involves the existence of Israel, even the indefensible rump within the so-called "1967 borders". The "return of refugees" - flooding the shrunken state with millions of hostile strangers - is just the tool to bring about the ultimate destruction of Israel.

It may do some of you some good to take a look at what Meretz is trying to do.

All Meretz is trying to do is to stick their (and every Israeli's) heads into the ovens and turn on the gas.

So Q, what do you want to have happen to the Palestinians? Should they all be neutered so they can't reproduce anymore? Should they be put into ovens? Don't you dare invoke the holocaust, buddy. The Israelis are the ones with the jets and missiles, and the tomahawk helicopters, so who exactly is being oppressed. Look in the mirror, buddy. The Nazi is YOU.

No I am not antisemetic. Don't even go there.

Jews and Arabs lived and thrived together in the Holy land for most of the 1300 years that Islam has existed. Jews and Arabs lived together in Baghdad for 2,500 years.

The Jewish minority were never citizens in Arab lands. Remind you of anything? Maybe like the Palestinians in the territories? If it's intolerable for the Palestinians, then surely it was intolerable for the Jews.

Jews lived with Mesopotamians in Baghdad 2500 years ago, insofar as Arabs did not arrive in and conquer (with force) Baghdad until over 1100 years later.

fuck all of ya'll,

I lived in the holy land first before all of you, ME!!! I'm the one with the chutzpah to back it up! I made Big Bird who he is and OSCAR! I taught Iggy Pop how to rock out with his cock out. I am THE MAGNIFICENT, You can take that to the bank and cash it, and buy some Ramen noodles.

So Q, what do you want to have happen to the Palestinians? Should they all be neutered so they can't reproduce anymore? Should they be put into ovens? Don't you dare invoke the holocaust, buddy.

They have a whole range of option:

- accept a state in the West Bank and Gaza and live peacefully next to Israel. This they were literally offered withour cost to them in July of 2000 and this they -- assuming they were correctly represented by Arafat -- turned down without explanation or counter-offer.

- they can live with autonomy provided they desist acts of terror against Israelis

- they can immigrate elswhere

The Israelis are the ones with the jets and missiles, and the tomahawk helicopters, so who exactly is being oppressed.

What relevance is that? If a thug mugs me with a knife and I happen to be packing heat, it was he who was the aggressor and not I -- even if I defend my life with his.

No I am not antisemetic. Don't even go there.

Semitic, semantic. You're opposed to Jewish nationhood and the secure existence state of Israel, the only physical guarantee of Jewish safety worldwide. You cannot be opposed to the aspirations of the vast majority of the Jews worldwide and hostile to their security and be a friend of the Jews. So you are antisemitic even if you do not think so.

So..... In response to Kenny in #182... if telling the truth to others is none of my business... then who's is it? If I see someone that is about to blow their brains out because they think that it won't kill them, isn't it my DUTY as a human being to try to inform them of all the people that have successfully killed themselves by that method?

Truth is not based on opinon. Truth is not open to argument or perception. Water is Water is Water. Yes, it can be in 3 different forms, but it is still water. Just be cause it is frozen, does not make it magically turn from frozen water to steal.

If you want to live your life according to writtings of people that believed in nothing other than their own experiences... I should wish you good luck (though I personally don't believe that luck exists).

Saying someone is saying something idiotic does not make them an idiot. Saying someone is foolish does not make that person a fool. Saying someone did something evil does not make the person evil. Saying a policy is ignorant does not make the person that came up with the policy and ignoramous

I make no judgements about true character -- only the merit of ideas represented. Surely, you can tolerate a difference of opinion without taking it personally?

If the truth is important, it is important to broadcast. It is EVERYONE's responsibility to tell what the truth is. Why do you think the truth is so often hidden? It's because people don't speak up. Why is it an issue if a supposedly unbiased report is actually biased? It's because the truth IS everyone's responsibility.

Yes, it's yours and my responsibility to tell anyone and everyone what is true. You cannot depend on people finding the truth on their own. People are like sheep -- they are attracted to what makes them "feel" better, not necessarily what is true. Feelings are not truth. Just because the writer of that article probably felt he was being objective and fair does not make him so. It is his job to report the truth the way he sees it, however it is our job to report truth the way we see it, whether to agree or refute the way he sees it.

In the end, each person is responsible for their own beliefs, but there is always truth. Truth doesn't change... only perception.

You cannot claim to be open-minded yet be opposed to people trying to convert others to their way of thinking. You may disagree and think that someone is misguided, but I admire those that have convictions, even though I may disagree with them.

Again, perhaps yours and my beliefs are not important, but on the other hand, what if they are very important? Why risk denying others knowledge of the truth?

The people that speak lies in the name of truth will be found out. So, don't fear those with a message from God -- only fear God.

Brian

"Stop killing in His name."

If you don't believe in 'God' as I do (I'm really an agnostic who leans toward atheism), then the notion that anyone would kill in the name of a non-existant entity is obscenely horrific.

Brian... you said it.

(#192)

Tony,

I'm surprised you're even in on this discussion. "Muslims" have killed Christians and Jews in the name of Allah. "Christians" have killed Jews and Muslims in the name of Jesus, and "Jews" have killed all sorts of people in the name of YHWH (or God).

Does that make you more sick than hearing about a serial killer on the news that is motivated by pure lust? I'm just curious....

It must be pretty hopeless for you to realize that when you die, that is the end, and after awhile, noone will remember you. Just think, you don't know what bad could happen to you in your car or anywhere -- and for what purpose.. is that scary? Just curious...

who really gives a flying f--k?
the world is falling apart since that lard ass Israeli pm visited a religious shrine with the intent to flame the fires of hate & 2 years + later were still haunted by daily acts of violence & barbarity, then the attack, oh no! lets not forget the Pearl Harbour thing. We've now in a state of War, just what the right wingers & hawks of various persuation got the thumbs up to go after poor Sadam ;-) trample all over our civil liberties etc. etc. there is no end to where all this shit is heading.
Do you remember the Mcarthy era: reds under the bed & all that. this is just a re-run 'X' years later.
This is all about 'OIL' & very big money, nothing else.
Have a great week-end.

Wow,

From some of these posts, it's nice to see that things are getting back to normal on the Continent. The weak-kneed Euro-trash from the Register have lived up to expectations by confirming that Europe is nothing more than bunch of lazy, anti-Semite hypocrites living off the nanny-state.

Bravo to Bush for calling it like it is: "I don't give a shit what the Europeans think". Ditto from here as well - Europe is irrelevant to U.S. policy. The last 500 years are replete with examples of how Europeans have fostered and enabled hatred and evil around the world. Why should we think they would change now? And we want their support for what reason? And why do we need it? I say- screw Europe. Since they can't even deal with the dispute over a rock 500 yards off the coast of Morocco, (not to mention Bosnia/Kosovo) what value do they add to the Middle East?

I highly recommend reading the article posted in the blog above regarding the German firebombing of a Holocaust memorial. It's written by an American living in Germany and is chilling. It's interesting to note that you don't hear about Saudi embassies burning to the ground, or mosques being bombed here in the US. But just read the newswire from the continent that brought us Mussolini, Hitler, Haider, Le Pen, et al. Human rights in Europe are on the downslide again.

I, for one, would be ecstatic to see us go it alone in Iraq. Then Iran. Then Saudi Arabia. Who's going to stop us? Europe? Not likely - they'll whine in a shrill tone from their cafes in London, Paris, Berlin and Brussels - and then, like always, do nothing.

Europe is again showing their true colors. Dictatorial, socialist bigots consistently on the wrong side of history.

We're number one and you're not.
We're going to do what we want and we don't care what you think.
Tough.
Now bugger off.

in responce to 189

»- accept a state in the West Bank and Gaza and live peacefully next to Israel. This they were literally offered withour cost to them in July of 2000 and this they -- assuming they were correctly represented by Arafat -- turned down without explanation or counter-offer.«

I guess your acquainted with 'bantustans' as in pre-Nelson Mandela South Africa, right!

Sure the palestinians were offered land. A bit here & a bit there.

I guess your acquainted with 'bantustans' as in pre-Nelson Mandela South Africa, right!

Sure the palestinians were offered land. A bit here & a bit there.

That's a lie. They were offered contiguous territory; even Arafat did not dispute this until his cronies concoted this lie a year later.

hey tail gunner, you have a very short memeory or are you of more recent vintage?
remember Somalia? Vietnam? Khobar?
you are not as invincible as you think.
I hope we are all wrong.
Kicking the shit out ove some one fort the right reasons counts.
But I guess you already know that, so go ahead & flame me.

James, please go the this URL, a little more about bantustans, I'm sure fellow readers of this B.B. who are a little fair minded & open to brain washing from the opposite side might find this enlightning & food for thought.

[Link: www.counterpunch.org...]

James, please go the this URL, a little more about bantustans, I'm sure fellow readers of this B.B. who are a little fair minded & open to brain washing from the opposite side might find this enlightning & food for thought.

One catch. Regardless of 'unmasking' Sharon's strategy the fact remains that big, bad Sharon was not prime minister until February of 2001 and he was elected to defend Israel from Palestinian terrorism. Had the Palestinians not chosen a war they wouldn't have had to contend with Sharon. Action have consequences, do you know that? "Bantustans", "salami tactics" -- whatever you want to call them -- the Palestinians chose Sharon because of their murderous actions and will reap the fruits of what they've sown.

The Palestinians were offered a real state in July of 2000; not Bantustans. They chose wrong. They cannot just call it all off, haha, it was just a joke after two years of terror.

#186:
Don't you dare invoke the holocaust, buddy. The Israelis are the ones with the jets and missiles, and the tomahawk helicopters, so who exactly is being oppressed. Look in the mirror, buddy. The Nazi is YOU.

No I am not antisemetic. Don't even go there.

Three things:

*Yes you are.
*I'll go wherever the fuck I want to go.
*You ain't my buddy, Badbrains.

Alexander Nevskii, huh? Why not Yaroslav the Wise (which you ain't)? Fuck, why not Ilya Muromets, while you are at it?

"hey tail gunner, you have a very short memeory or are you of more recent vintage?
remember Somalia? Vietnam? Khobar?
you are not as invincible as you think."

Who said anything about being invincible?

I said we're number one and Europe's not.
Europe is politically irrelevant and morally bankrupt. The US can and should act unilaterally.

And I stand by those statements.

Mr. Q:

I disagree with ALL your rebuttals to my post #164. Your post #184 seems to be very thorough in stating all your objections to my post. Therefore, rather than argue over our disagreements, let's look at those points where we agree:

Sometimes they [those evicted Palestinians in 1948] left at gunpoint, sometimes just the terror was enough to induce them to leave. If they resisted, then they usually died, such as in the Deir Yassin massacre or the Dahmash Mosque massacre.

Israelis promised the United Nations that, as a condition of admission to the U.N., they would allow the refugees to return or to be compensated. After 54 years, the world is still waiting for that promise to be honored.

Unfortunately, today extremists have risen to leadership positions. Sharon is NOT a man of peace. Neither is Arafat. The sooner both are gone, the better.

Very interesting indeed. Palestinians evicted at gunpoint in 1948. Massacres of Palestinians who resisted eviction. Israel's broken promise to the U.N. to allow the refugees to return. And finally, Sharon is NOT a man of peace (nor is Arafat).

You seem to WANT the Palestinians to hate Israel and react using violence. That justifies Israeli repression, which guarantees more violence on both sides, which means infinite conflict with never ending casualties on both sides.

I say: "Give Peace A Chance."

One last thing, I said I wasn't going to argue over our disagreements. But I do object to your name calling, your character assassination, your use of guilt by association, your patronizing attitude and your obscenities. Can't we discuss this in a civilized manner? And what makes you think I'm an Israeli? I'm not. Are you?

Mr. Tokugawa (#205):

And what makes you think I'm an Israeli? I'm not.

#121: "As a Jewish child, born in Haifa in the early 1950s..." Sure fooled me.

Are you?

No, I'm not. This means that you don't have "home field" advantage.

Obscenities? I haven't used any "obscenities" in our discussion (unless you count PG-13 word "shit").

What makes you think I agree with you on the points I didn't specifically object to? Even if, on the surface, your facts appear to be correct (more or less), I most strenuously object to the spin you put on them.

I think it's beyond discussion that 1948 war was started by the Arabs and that it was the war for the very existence of Israel and Jewish presence in their homeland. Thus, for Israel, the war was just.

Massacres happen in wars. Innocents die in wars. If you want to have your peace and prosperity - your very life - securely protected, and you're not a hypocrite of "not in our names" sort or Beilinesque suicidal buffoon, you have to be clear-eyed about this. That is the world we live in. Wake up and smell the blood of innocents.

Sharon is NOT a man of peace.

VDH sums up the role of Sharon much more eloquently than I can.

You seem to WANT the Palestinians to hate Israel and react using violence. That justifies Israeli repression, which guarantees more violence on both sides, which means infinite conflict with never ending casualties on both sides.

What piffle. Now who's being patronizing and presumptuous.

I say: "Give Peace A Chance."

Israelis already did. Again, and again, and again. And were hit in the face with the tire iron every single time.

I have spent many minutes trying to silence the foolish with corrections to their facts and grammar and essential flaws in their arguments, all but 'makes you think' have apparently stopped.

TO MY FELLOWS OF LFG;
Abandon the thread, If there are none who will listen to others but rather seek to simply throw out their own POVs, then there is no chance of reconciliation.
BRIAN, AND DEPRESSED:
I would be glad if you were to join in our discussions.
=--===---=====----=============
MAKES YOU THINK and TOKUGAWA: You have won me over with your consideratioms of the issue, your care for the actual search for the truth behind the jumble. Though I still disagree with your claims, I would be glad to continue our debates, perhaps in other threads and on other Issues. I cannot speak for the other 'regulars' of LFG, but personally, I feel that you could add some balance, seeing as to how you at least strive to support all of your claims with evidence, where others have fallen to simple hearsay and ignorant acception of the facts given to them.

----------------------------------
I HEREBY PROCLAIM THIS THREAD DEAD. THE IDEOLOGICAL FISSURE IS JUST TOO GREAT TO REACH ACROSS AND THE TOPIC HAS LONG SINCE LEFT THE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TOPIC. LFGers: I WILL NOT OBJECT TO FURTHER POSTING, BUT I WILL NOT RETURN TO THIS THREAD.
-----------------------------------

-RATZ

I did not mean to insult Makes you Think as being foolish, he has sought to support his arguments, and so has every right to remain- he passed the gauntlet of my criticism, to which I must tip my (virtual) hat.
-RATZ

To Tailgunner (196)

Hope there aren't many Americans like you around!

Bush has finally realized that it's better to have allies than go it alone.
Unilateralism sets a dangerous precedent.

I hereby proclaim Ratz's credibility dead. Just when I was starting to listen to him, too.

I say: "Give Peace A Chance."

Israelis already did. Again, and again, and again. And were hit in the face with the tire iron every single time.

The following article suggests it is Israel wielding the tire iron, and Palestinians being hit in the face. Again, and again, and again:

Israel's War For Terrorism

by Ran HaCohen

It is high time to reiterate the favourite media question – "Is Arafat Unable, or Rather Unwilling to Stop Terrorism" – but with a different protagonist. Prime Minister Sharon has now been in office for about 15 months. He has been enjoying total and unprecedented freedom, both nationally and internationally, to fight Palestinian terrorism however he likes, using all measures at hand and blatantly ignoring all moral and legal considerations. In spite of that, Palestinian terrorism is alive and killing.

So is Sharon unable – or rather unwilling to stop terrorism? Last week's events in Gaza irrefutably prove that the Israeli leader is not only unwilling to see Palestinian terrorism stopped; Sharon would also do anything to ensure and encourage terrorism against his own people.

The Gaza Massacre

All experts unanimously agree: terrorism cannot be stopped by military means alone. Politics and diplomacy are essential, both bilaterally and on the Palestinian side. Even devoted supporters of the Israeli occupation admit that a "political horizon" is necessary. The term is revealing: "horizon" is the place you never get to, and that's the most generous offer made to the Palestinians: a "horizon" never to be reached, a "vision" never to be realised. In short, the very goods that Shimon Peres has been selling so efficiently to the Palestinians and to the world over the past decade. Israel's Foreign Minister indeed met with Palestinian officials in the last weeks, in what was described as the most serious talks between the sides for many months.

Much more importantly, reliable reports say that, on the 22nd of July, "the heads of Tanzim, convened at Jenin, approved the text of a communique calling unilaterally for an end to fighting by Tanzim, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. A few hours before, Muhammad Dahlan [influential former head of Palestinian Security in the Gaza Strip] met with [Hamas Leader] Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in which meeting Yassin accepted the principles of the cease-fire communique" (Yedioth Achronot, 24.7.02). For weeks, Israel has been following deliberations inside the Tanzim on the idea of declaring a unilateral cease-fire; Israel was also officially briefed by the European Union, which, together with Egypt and Saudi Arabia, supported the initiative.

So after 21 months of violence, a ray of hope could be observed. A chance for cease-fire, for a cessation of violence. Unilaterally even, without any demands from occupying side. Israel's reaction was immediate and swift. "One and a half hours after the Tanzim leadership approved the document at its Jenin gathering, Israel carried out the assassination of Salah Shehadeh, in the course of which dozens of civilians were killed and wounded as well. In this way, Israel apparently destroyed the chance to test the viability of a cease-fire" (ibid.).

Though this be madness, yet there is Method in it. Time and again, Israeli assassinations (as well as other offensive measures) abruptly ended prolonged periods of hope. In November 2001, the assassination of the Hamas activist Mahmoud Abu Hanoud was carried out just when the Hamas was respecting for two months its agreement with Arafat not to attack inside Israel. In January 2002, the assassination of Raed Karmi ended a few weeks of relative quiet in the territories. The same pattern repeated itself this time too. The operation was no mistake; the decision to use a bomb instead of missiles, the more usual means used by Israel for its extra-judiciary killings, was undoubtedly deliberate. And whoever gave the order to drop, in the middle of the night, a 1.000 kg bomb on a residential house in one of the most densely populated strips on earth, knew very well what he was doing. It was a premeditated act of state terrorism, a cold-blooded massacre. 14 innocent civilians, 9 of them children, were killed to ensure the continuation of Palestinian terrorism, in which many more innocent civilians will be killed.

It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that Sharon does not want to stop terrorism, but rather to perpetuate it. The very moment political negotiations seemed to be serious, the very moment Palestinians intended to stop terrorism, Israel dropped a bomb. Whether Sharon should be sent to the Hague or rather to Guantanamo is one question; a more important one is: why has he done it?

Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, Politicide

What is Israel's interest in terrorism? Remember its vision for the occupied territories. Israel has never made a secret of it. Whether it was Ehud Barak, who claimed that UN resolution 242 did not apply to the West Bank and Gaza, or Ariel Sharon, who said he would never discuss evacuating a Jewish settlement, Israel's intentions have always been quite clear: keeping a maximal share of the occupied territories, with a minimal number of Palestinians.

The almost-total dispossession of Palestinian land and water, achieved during the Oslo years, has not satisfied Israel's colonial appetite. It wants more: the Palestinians should not be there at all. They should either be killed, or deported, or annihilated as an independent political and social entity. These three, partly overlapping options can be termed genocide, ethnic cleansing, and politicide respectively. Politicide – a term suggested by Israel's leading sociologist Baruch Kimmerling – has been implemented extensively since last April ("Operation Defensive Shield"). The Palestinian national, public, cultural and academic infrastructure has been destroyed: Israeli soldiers systematically demolished everything, from the Sakakini Cultural Centre in Ramallah, through the database of the Palestinian Bureau of Statistic, down to the last hard-disk of a doctor's clinic broken into. Israel's present policy continues along these lines.

The other two options – genocide and ethnic cleansing – are waiting for the right opportunity, which has not arrived yet. But the recent movement of the idea of "transfer" (i.e. mass deportation) into main-stream Israeli discourse, together with the warnings of so-called "mega-attacks" (a new term introduced in the last weeks), are preparing the hearts for such measures.

The Benefits of Terrorism

Here is where terrorism comes in. Israel cannot carry out these atrocious plans without effective propaganda. Terrorism has always been an excellent excuse, even more so since September 11th. The plans were there long before, as documented painstakingly by Israeli analyst Tanya Reinhart. They have nothing to do with terrorism: they are aimed at entrenching the Israeli occupation, making it irreversible and reducing the Palestinians to ashes. But every terror attack enables Israel to implement the next steps in its premeditated plans, and to sell it to the world as "self-defence", "retaliation", "prevention" etc. No wonder, then, that none of these plans actually stops terrorism: they are not meant to. And since terrorism gives the best legitimation for carrying them out, stopping terrorism would be, from Israel's point of view, counter-productive.

Palestinian terrorism thus serves Israel's interests on both an international and a national level. Internationally, Israel's propaganda machine efficiently exploits every terror attack to strengthen Israel's image as a victim, and to obscure and justify the proceeding oppression of the Palestinians. Moreover, the Israeli use of terrorism has now been adopted by the American administration, that keeps sending Israel money – $200 million last week – for "fighting terrorism" (note that Israel may spend it as it wishes!); and, as the Washington Post put it (28.7.02), "the United States should not pressure Sharon's government while Palestinian violence continues."

Nationally, as Spinoza observed back in the 17th century, people in adversity "know not where to turn, but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by. No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes will raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair." Keeping the Israeli people constantly exposed to fatal violence (and to "terror alerts", true or false) is the best way to ensure national coherence. Understandably terrified, most Israelis indeed back the most futile, absurd and fatuous – not to say immoral – operations of their government, misled to believe that its goal is securing their lives rather than perpetuating a murderous occupation that most Israelis do not want.

So Sharon has a vested interest to keep Palestinian terrorism at a high level. As long as he is in power, and as long as the Bush administration actually rewards Israel for Palestinian violence, terrorism will persist. This does not relieve Palestinians of their moral responsibility; but, on the list of states supporting terrorism, Israel, as well as the United States, deserve a good place.

Ran HaCohen was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and has grown up in Israel. He has B.A. in Computer Science, M.A. in Comparative Literature and he presently works on his PhD thesis. He lives in Tel-Aviv, teaches in the Department of Comparative Literature in Tel-Aviv University. He also works as literary translator (from German, English and Dutch), and as a literary critic for the Israeli daily Yedioth Achronoth. His work has been published widely in Israel. His column appears monthly at Antiwar.com.

************************************************** ****************

I'm sorry I was not more precise in #121, it is an article by Ilan Pappe, not me.

Obscenities? I haven't used any "obscenities" in our discussion (unless you count PG-13 word "shit").

So you do not deny that you used name calling, character assassination, guilt by association, and a patronizing attitude.

What makes you think I agree with you on the points I didn't specifically object to?

Well, you now have had two chances to refute my points.

Very interesting indeed. Palestinians evicted at gunpoint in 1948. Massacres of Palestinians who resisted eviction. Israel's broken promise to the U.N. to allow the refugees to return. And finally, Sharon is NOT a man of peace (nor is Arafat).

Even if, on the surface, your facts appear to be correct (more or less), I most strenuously object to the spin you put on them.

I stated the above facts which you did not dispute. No spin. Just facts. What part of "Israel's broken promise to the U.N. to allow the refugees to return" is spin?

I think it's beyond discussion that 1948 war was started by the Arabs

I disagree. Both sides are equallt to blame.

...it was the war for the very existence of Israel and Jewish presence in their homeland

Who determined it was 'their homeland'? Was it:

1) G-d?
2) The British? (They promised it to the Arab, also.)
3) The United Nations?
4) The fact that there was a Jewish nation there 2,000 years ago?

Before the 1948 war, 6% of Mandate Palestine was owned by Jews (actually, most of this was owned by the the Jewish Nation Fund).

After the 1948 war, Israel consisted of 78% of Mandate Palestine, and since the 750,000 Palestinian refugees were not allowed to return, their land was confiscated (stolen, actually).

It is this massive theft that must be addressed before there can be peace. I do not say that all of the refugees need to return to Israel, there could be compensation paid to those who lost their property. Camp David did not address this problem in a satisfactory manner. (Israel's offer: let the international community pay compensation, not us.) Perhaps if the illegal settlements are evacuated, some Palestinians would accept those homes.

VDH sums up the role of Sharon much more eloquently than I can.

As I said, Sharon is NOT a man of peace. (And neither is Arafat.)

Sharon did not keep his campaign promises: there is neither peace nor security in Israel now.

If the Sharon government had continued Barak's peace talks, there might have been a settlement by now. Sharon actually has the best credentials to make a fair settlement, since nobody can accuse him of being a wimp. (Nixon's establishing relations with The People's Republic of China comes to mind.)

As a non-American it is easy to comment on both Israel And Palastine without bias.In my view both sides are involved in atrocites,only the palestinian suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians are no worse than the Israeli army when they kill innocent civilians.To regard muslims as some kind of religious simpletons is folly as Israel claim rights to land based on religious teachings(can you imagine native American indians trying to claim back 70% of the states based on some millennia old religious land right?).As far as I,m concerned: Arafat is a terrorist rat,Sharon is a fanatical war-mad liar-bottom line.The difference between criticizing the two nations is simple: if condemn suicide bombers you are a right minded and peace loving human being,condemn Israel....you are an anti semite?
Even if Israel kill civilains indiscriminately,the pain is supposed to be eased by the knowledge that the dead 7 year old was a fanatical threat to Israel and would have probably grown up to be some kind of terrorist mastermind....so who to believe Israeli propaganda (the mossads motto is "By Way of Deception thou shalt do war")or my lying eyes?America seems to be the only country on earth that falls for the constant BS Israel passes out.(I dont doubt that Arafat passes out similar dis info,but no one gets to really hear that).In closing-the middle east is not as black & white as it seems,there are good and bad guys on BOTH sides,the sooner the American people realize that,the better it will be and hopefully a long lasting peace can be achieved.

P.S. Hail to the chimp!

Tokugawa (#121): Totally foul play, lifting an entire passage by someone else without attribution. In fact, that's officially called plagiarism. And you weren't being imprecise, as you euphemized in your last post. You were being dishonest and you got caught in your own deceit. You have been very civil, I'll give you that, but you haven't a single original thought in your head. At least you had the good grace to attribute your second article, but how about just posting a link, rather than taking up space?

It's very postmodern to compare Al Nakbah with the Holocaust. We know how much the Islamofascists like to incorporate others' history into their 'narrative,' such that Jesus becomes a Muslim, and Al Aqsa by some strange timewarp now predates Solomon's Temple. Even if it were true that the IDF evicted the 'indigenous' Arabs in 1948, far more historically appropriate parallels would be the Diaspora or the Expulsion. There is a universe of difference between the displacement of Al Nakbah and the systematic genocide of 50% of the world's Jewish population in the Shoah. This is not one the Islamofascists are going to coopt.

For those who would like to check out Dr. Pappe's credentials, check out where he's got his audience:

Great company this guy keeps!
[Link: www.ahram.org.eg...]

[Link: jerusalem.indymedia.org...]

[Link: jerusalem.indymedia.org...]

[Link: www.arabia.com...]

[Link: www.globalministries.org...]

Don't Pappe, Fisk, and Chomsky look like brothers?
[Link: www.arabic.hour.org...]

A more balanced discussion: (the discusssion thread is pretty good, too)
[Link: hnn.us...]

Another point of view:
[Link: www.israelinsider.com...]

Interesting site; still sounds like fact mixed with fiction:
[Link: www.alnakba.org...]

The Lavon affair (aka Operation Susannah)
[Link: www.us-israel.org...]

Ran HaCohen is pretty much a junior Pappe; part of the "we condemn terrorism, but..." Once he gets his PhD, he'll probably drop the "but."

As for you, Tokugawa, I am intrigued by your choice of screen name:

[Link: www.infoplease.com...]

This is the family that invented the concept of hostage-taking to ensure loyalty, tight regulation of travel, secret police and land control. Yet, agriculture, trade and literacy flourished.

You, yourself, would be so much more convincing if you hadn't trotted out this mangy old mule:

Jews and Arabs lived and thrived together in the Holy land for most of the 1300 years that Islam has existed. Jews and Arabs lived together in Baghdad for 2,500 years.

In what parallel universe? But, since Q and James have fisked you handily on this one, I'll just move along.

What changed? Zionism. If Jews had come to Palestine to live in peaceful coexistence with the indigenous Arabs, there would have not been a constant state of war for the last 54 years.

Yup. It's all the fault of the J-E-W-S. Not content with oppressing American Blacks and drinking the blood of Christian and Moslem babies, we came to Palestine specifically to oppress the Arab peasants. And we looted them because--what---they had riches hidden in their mattresses?

Okay--reality check here. Has anyone ever noticed that Buddhists and Hindus generally don't have a big issue with Jews. Why? Jews don't prosletyze and neither do Hindus and Buddhists, who take none of their religious dogma from Judaism. Here it is in a nutshell, folks. It's not the J-E-W-S who can't play well with others. We just don't take well to other people telling us what to believe, when they're just trying to sell us a repackaged and "magical" version of our own religion. Especially when, if we won't agree, we're threatened with second-class citizenship, taxation, or death. (see for reference Inquisition, Holocaust, Koran.) The Hindus and Buddhists have never done that to us, nor have we done it to them.

Following that logic, let's look at the history of Christianity. History of playing badly with Jews (Inquisition, pogroms), Muslims (Crusades, missionaries), Buddhists (missionaries), Hindus (missionaries), pretty much any indigenous animist culture to which they can get access (missionaries). Having come out of a difficult childhood and adolescence after 2,000 years, starting to calm down and respect others' rights to religious freedom of choice. Certain posts here and a few tens of thousands of missionaries and evangelists notwithstanding.

Islam. Hoo-boy. The baby of the family is definitely going through a "difficult" childhood that has lasted about 1300 years and seems to be regressing. Plays well with no one. Jews? Read the Koran. Or any Arab newspaper. Christians? Crusades were an answer to Islamic invasion of western Europe. Hindus? (See Pakistan.) And who the hell can't get along with the Buddhists? Apparently, from their recent work in Afghanistan, Islam.

So, is it really Judaism? Or is it her daughter and granddaughter? I'm struck by the parallels to a rebellious teenager, who shouts defiantly to her mother when her mother won't give her the car, "I HATE YOU! I'm taking the car anyway!" Now that the daughter has an ungrateful daughter of her own, she is a little more sympathetic to her own mother, but still indulges her self-absorbed, spoiled, wild daughter, who has now become hostile to the grandmother. So, what's a mother to do? Time out is a very good option. If that doesn't work, grounding and withholding allowance and privileges work pretty well. Ultimately, though, if the granddaughter is being physically violent, the grandmother may just have to defend herself. It would behoove Mom to help out, because if Daughter knocks off Grandma, she's going after Mom next...

And, after more than 2,000 years of this shit from her daughter and granddaughter, Grandma is getting tired of this shit. She's mad as hell and she's not going to take it anymore. And she's packing nukes. So, behave and stop daring her.

Brian (#168) Excellent point. First things first. And then, Grandma just might let her have the car keys and her own apartment to boot.

Now that Mommydoc has officially spoken very recently, and after Ratz's pronouncement, I would like to point out a few things to "Uncle Sam."

"As a non-American it is easy to comment on both Israel And Palastine without bias."

First, this is bad philosophy and psychology; just because you are a non-Israeli or a non American does NOT make you bias free. You have a pscychological need to write here (otherwise you wouldn't have done so), and so do I. So we both have bias. We must do our best to: 1) become aware of our biases, and 2) to overcome them.

Second, it is not easy to comment in an informed manner about the Israel-Palestine situation. On the contrary, it is rather difficult, and takes, among other things, a thorough knowledge of history and current affairs.

"In my view both sides are involved in atrocites,only the palestinian suicide bombers who kill innocent civilians are no worse than the Israeli army when they kill innocent civilians."

True, both sides are, and have been, involved in atrocities. The difference between the suicide bombers and the IDF, however, is substantial. The suicide bombers kill civilians intentionally. If they are backed by Hamas, their underpinning desire is ultimately 100% Palestine for the Palestinians. The Hamas people have taken pride in saying things like Jews are free to leave Israel, or stay as subjects under Islamic laws. This amounts to genocide or apartheid, real genocide and real apartheid! This is the real, fully-stated, aim of Hamas, whose suicide bombers are still approved by a majority of Palestinians (as certified by scientific polls conducted by Palestinians).

Furthermore, when the IDF kills Palestinian civilians, it is typically by accident. Go look at the stats: most Israelis killed by Palestinians in the last year or two are NON-COMBATANTS. Most Palestinians killed by Israelis are COMBATANTS! This is a very substantial difference in the morality of the situation, and yes, it renders the terrorist Palestinian side morally inferior.

"To regard muslims as some kind of religious simpletons is folly as Israel claim rights to land based on religious teachings(can you imagine native American indians trying to claim back 70% of the states based on some millennia old religious land right?)."

One could certainly take the position that Israel as a country should never have existed. Let's grant that. The fact is now that millions of Israelis have been born in Israel. They had no choice, they were simply born there. Israel has been on the map since 1948. Israel has counted among her statesmen and politicians people as diverse as religious fundamentalists and atheists. Atheists have no agreement with land claims based on religious teachings. You must be careful to distinguish the various groupings, religious and political within Israel.

Furthermore, the Palestinians are dominated by those who argue Palestine for Palestinians based on such religious claims. For example, Jerusalem has never been an administrative or political capital of the Palestinian area under any Islamic regime, so the grounds for desiring Jerusalem as a national capital are not historical, but religious (how many times do we hear of Jerusalem being the "third holiest site" to Islam?).

"America seems to be the only country on earth that falls for the constant BS Israel passes out.(I dont doubt that Arafat passes out similar dis info,but no one gets to really hear that)."

I really can't believe this assertion on your part! It is total ignorance on your part at best, or falsehood at worst. Read the propaganda Arafat puts out; it's everywhere. Read the propaganda Hamas (a real player in the Palestinian reality) puts out. These people have webpages linked to CNN.com stories! Even liberal, left-wing, newspapers which routinely condemn Israel profile Hamas et al, and listen sympathetically to Arafat.

Yes, there ARE good and bad people on both sides, as you mentioned. However, the moral equivalency you evince is indicative of your lack of awareness of the situation, which suggests a real intellectual laziness.

slight correction: "these people," i.e. the Palestinians of Arafat's faction.

Amen, Nathan.

Thank you, Mommydoc.

#136 'What "hopelessly outgunned" side are you talking about? Your lack of understanding of that Anglo-Irish question is exactly what I was talking about. Here you make sweeping conclusive statements with NO UNDERSTANDING of the background or current situation, just like those commentators who make similar generalisations about what should or shouldn't happen in the middle east. It all seems so obvious doesn't it, sitting in middle america, why wont those foreigners just see sense the way we can, they must be just mad. Obviously the way to be moderate is to consume and pollute more than most of the rest of the word put together then deny its happening when the neighbours complain (Global warming? poppycock, I have a scientist here who says its a myth)

...The peace process there still continues on (and will continue hopefully), despite terrorist acts happening every week by the men and women of violence...

Does anyone else see the contradiction there?

And the analogy is a poor one, and quite possibly offensive to one or both sides of the Arab/Israeli conflict. There are no curfews, refugee camps or suicide bombers in Northern Ireland, there are 2 organisations, little better than organised crime rings, that maim and kill civilians to keep the population hating and fearing one another. in the whole recent NI conflict 3000 have been killed, thats over 35 years. 1700 Palastinians and 800 Israelis have died in the past 2 years, Tamal Tigers have killed 60000 since 1983. No comparrison.

#196 If Europe is so weak and worthless then how come your President won't go to war alone. Maybe its because the US isn't terribly good and winning them. If you're going to start that "we sure bailed you out of WW2" garbage just remember the only counrty who won WW2 was Russia, or do you count winning as something other than doubling the area of land under your direct control? And america won... oh yes, a recession. Dictatorial, thats a laugh. How much difference did YOUR vote make to the running of your country do you think? Do you believe the administration is doing whats in YOUR best interests or the best interests of a) getting itself re-elected and b) the Lobbyists... and whats good for them is possibly directly oppsed to whats good for you. Grow up.

The US acts like a thug when it comes to foreign policy and then complains when no one else wants to help it steal the worlds lunch money... or ozone layer.

And before I'm flamed please bear in mind that criticism of the american government or state does not make me an american hater any more than others' criticism of Israeli policy makes them anti-semite. Suggesting it does reveals exactly the kind of mindset one would accuse others of.

Devilman, I'm the self-appointed guard on duty for trolls here at the moment, but I don't know how to categorize you, yet, because your (Irish?) temper has prevented you from writing in an understandable fashion (in one paragraph you mentioned Ireland, the Middle East, and an ecological crisis!). You ought to focus your comments clearly if you want to be understood. Right now, I might think that you're in some loony-bin with nothing to do but hate the States--and then deny it.

What changed? Zionism. If Jews had come to Palestine to live in peaceful coexistence with the indigenous Arabs, there would have not been a constant state of war for the last 54 years.

Yup. It's all the fault of the J-E-W-S.

I am offended by your assumption that all Jews are Zionists. But I'll let Rabbi Weiss respond in detail:

Blasting the Big Lie

Presented by Rabbi David Weiss at the Metropolitan Muslim Federation Protest in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza on January 26, 2001

With the help of the Creator, may my words lead to a sanctification of His great and glorious name.

I have come here today to tell all of you participating in this noble gathering, to tell the media here assembled and to proclaim to the world that a terrible lie, a big lie has been foisted upon the mankind. This lie is pernicious and capable of creating great harm if left unchallenged.

What is this horrible lie?

Well, it has been advocated by some people for the past hundred years and it has been repeatedly condemned by true Torah leaders.

It is the lie which says that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. Judaism is not Zionism and Zionists do not represent the Jewish faith.

Judaism is the faith of the Torah.

Zionism proclaims the denial of the Torah and of the G-d who gave it.

Judaism teaches the Jewish people to be kind and fair to all men.

Zionism, from its inception, advocated and urged cruelty towards the Palestinian people.

Judaism teaches that Jews must walk humbly amongst the nations. Zionism advocates and executes war against all nations.

Judaism cares about the plight of the poor and suffering. Zionism sadistically abuses them.

My Islamic brethren -- Our peoples have lived in peace throughout the centuries in many countries.

For thousands of years we lived together in peace in the Holy Land. It was only after Zionists began to invade your country with an eye to taking it over that animosity began.

There is no excuse for the Zionist takeover of the Holy Land. It was achieved only after a series of wars and incessant brutality. It is a cause of pain and shame to Torah Jews world wide.

But please, please always keep in mind. This is not the work of religious Jewry. This is not the work of Jews who take their moral obligations seriously. It is the bizarre and madcap heresy of a cult of largely ignorant and irreligious Jews. And, my friends the long nightmare of Zionism is rapidly coming to an end.

Let me explain.

The Palestinian people have graciously agreed to participate in a so called peace process with the Israeli government. That is most kind of them.

However, we must warn them that it is our belief that until the scourge of Zionism, incarnated in the state of Israel, is removed from the Middle East there can be no peace.

We are a people in exile. We are forbidden to attempt to reconquer the Holy Land. By attempting this Zionism is bound to fail. With G-d’s help it will, speedily and peacefully in our days.

What does Neturei Karta International advocate?

Our Torah based position is quite simple.

We call for a peaceful dismantling of the Israeli state without violence or bloodshed.

We submit that this can come about only if and when the Jewish population of Israel first begins to understand that their current problems are the result of Zionism.

We look forward to the day when Jews and Palestinians may live together under a Palestinian government.

We challenge Zionism to present any alternative to the current impasse other than continued fighting and oppression.

We challenge Zionism to deny that the path of true peace, based upon the dismantling of the state, will not yield mutual respect and true mutual understanding.

With G-d’s help the day will come -- and we pray that it shall come soon -- when, after the demise of the Israeli state, Jews and Muslims will once again live together and worship G-d together in peace.

tokugawa, uncle sam and devilman - Bravo!

What's interesting to me is the attitudes of the Americans and Europeans to each other and to the Israeli occupation. Any suggestions as to why exactly the US is so blindly pro-Israel and it would seem, anti-Europe? I wonder if they feel threatened by a larger and expanding market with a somewhat more than superficial culture.

Hi anti Whom - thanks for reading my post and giving me feedback....i just checked my dictionary (Pocket Oxford) and it seems to agree with me. However - if you can give me why it was wrong please do so - always willing to learn.

I think the point is still - always look for the organ grinder - the monkey is just the sideshow. Journalists get paid and will produce to continue doing so. Listen to ALL OPINIONS, and try and gather what is correct.

And until the populations throw up leaders who realise that they have to live together - we will have war.

And devilman - I agree about the criminality of the people of violence, my point was that you have criminals (from both communities) undertaking acts of violence, but it SEEMS the political leaders are trying to look at a larger view. It also SEEMS the current impasse in the Israel situation is that this is not happening.

Thank you for bringing the Sri Lankan situation into this thread. The recent Sri Lankan government statement unbanning the Tamil Tigers pre-talks not withstanding 60,000 dead (I am unsure of the figure - I am using yours in the meantime), and the Tamil Tiger positive response to it I think makes the point wonderfully. When the leaders want peace....

And people are people, the fights are the same no matter where in the world they come from.

David Goldblum #221:

Any suggestions as to why exactly the US is so blindly pro-Israel and it would seem, anti-Europe?

Because the US and Israel are moral, and Europe is immoral.

PS: Sorry if I used words you don't understand.

Reuben -

Message #138, you mention that there is no proof of God... I find that very interesting and also very naive. If there is no God, then how was the Universe and everything in it created? Talk to any Chemist... They will tell you that you can't make something from nothing.

E=mc^2 - Einstien, or to put it another way mass and energy are just different forms of the same thing, and how the universe was created is a very interesting question, one that is being explored through science, perhaps you might like to do some reading in that area, String Theory, M Theory etc, if you're not willing to spend money on books I'd suggest you use Google or any other good search engine, also read about both the Copenhagen and Transactional interpretations of quantum theory, that might help you towards a greater understanding of what the universe is.

Also, if you looked at the complexity of any give organism on this earth, you should wonder if infinite time + chaos = order and complexity.

I think you missed out Darwin there, evolutionary pressure, etc etc, Darwins original Origins of the species is still a good read, also you could check out some of Richard Dawkins books, The Blind Watchmaker etc.

After considering these things, seriously considering them, you might have a difficult time still believing in "there is no God".

That is an argument from the premise "I don't currently know the answers, so it is the domain of God", this has historically been a weak argument, though it as been used and is still used against any form of science, Galileo being the most prominent example of how this mindset is used to crush the development of scientific understanding.

So... for those interested, who is God? God is Love, God is Truth, God is Jesus Christ.

That is your personal belief, it may make you feel better about yourself, or at the other extreme want to censor/kill anyone who does not share the belief, but in the real world it doesnt serve any purpose other than your happiness at willing to remain ignorant of other ideas that are more useful.

One last point, science is about the pursuit of understandiing, religious faith is about giving up that search, science is about saying "I don't know" and religion is "Everything that can be known is in this one book / person / statute / rock / whatever", if you choose religous faith over any attempt to understand, you make yourself and humanity poorer for it.

Ratz-

Thanks, I think...

tokugawa (#220) Oh, bravo. How impressive. You reprint an entire quote (don't you know how to provide a link?) from a lunatic-fringe rabbi as if to imply he's representative.

[Link: www.netureikarta.org...]

Very few Jews would agree with him or his relationship with Lewis Farrakhan.

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

The Neturei Karta group is theologically opposed to a sovereign state of Israel, claiming that Jews must wait patiently for the Messiah before assuming political leadership in the Land of Israel, which Weiss referred to as Palestine during his comments...

Mainstream Jewish leaders sounded a sober note on the association between the two groups.

"It is clear that Farrakhan is using this group as a way of claiming outreach to the Jewish community," said Michael Kotzin, executive vice president of the Jewish Federation/Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago. "But by showcasing a tiny fringe group that in no way represents anyone but themselves and which espouses such repugnant views, it is really an affront to the Jewish community."

No, not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews, sort of like women and feminism, bu the enlightened and self-preserving ones generally are. And, unfortunately, some Jews developed Stockholm Syndrome in the camps:

When asked about the centuries of Jewish persecution, Weiss replied that the Jews bore no ill will toward their host societies. He added that if Jews had been willing to speak to Hitler, perhaps "hundreds of thousands of Jews would have avoided the gas chambers."

Yeah, hundreds of thousands. Out of six million. Which ones? The elite, perhaps? Oh, and one small detail. Hitler wasn't willing to speak with the Jews. He wanted to kill them, okay?

Bellowed Weiss, "We apologize for the chutzpah, the nerve of the Zionist leaders who attack the honorable Minister Farrakhan. All those who have called you an anti-Semite, let them be shamed.... All those who say they are Jews who speak ill of Mr. Farrakhan are not Jews."

[Link: www.tnr.com...]

Trying to use Weiss or members of his group to represent mainstream Judaism's position on Israel is like using the Jehovah's Witnesses to represent mainstream Christianity's position on blood transfusion. Some people would rather die in a misinterpretation of God's will than accept what God made available. Fine for them, but they don't get to decide for anyone else.

Oh, and notice where Neturei Karta is based: Israel. They live there under the protection of the Israeli government, all the while believing that if there were fewer Jews there, they would be safer because they wouldn't threaten the Arabs so. Yeah, the Jews in pre-WWII Germany thought so, too, while they looked down their noses at Jews from other countries. And look how well that turned out for them.

So far, you haven't countered my criticism at all. You're just digging yourself further into the bullshit. Enjoy!

As a non-european, non-american, non-jewish, non-arab (but western) person, I do consider my opinion less settled than most of the posters above.
I have been of the opinion that reporting on the israel-palestine stories has had quite a lot of pro-israel bias. These days there is less, and often some quite clearly pro-palestine stories.
This is a good thing, if both sides can state their case, and try and justify their position, but at least have the decency to admit to an entrenched point of view, one day, people might get around to listening.

Kolya (#223)
"Because the US and Israel are moral, and Europe is immoral."

What a fantastic argument. I'm sure you can do better than that. If not, at least attempt to back it up in some way.

David:

Any suggestions as to why exactly the US is so blindly pro-Israel and it would seem, anti-Europe?

Kolya:

Because the US and Israel are moral, and Europe is immoral.

David:

What a fantastic argument.

Thanks, David. I think it's pretty penetrating myself.

#227:

This: [Link: www.weeklystandard.com...]

And this:
[Link: www.jewishjournal.com...]

And this:
[Link: www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk...]

This:
[Link: www.netanyahu.org...]

Especially this:
[Link: main.faithfreedom.org...]

And pretty much any Friday sermon from any mullah in the mideast. Take your pick, Charles has lots of them:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

These:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I don't have time to get you the links to the stonings of women, the honor killings, the Sharia court-ordered gang rape of the girl to punish her brother who committed the crime of walking with a woman to whom he was not related, the genital mutilation of women which, as an OBGYN, I have seen first-hand, and the general indifference to human life, even their own, exhibited on a daily basis by much of the Islamic Arab world.

If you can't see the difference between morality and immorality, I pity you.

David Goldblum, were you serious? If you were, you are incredibly stupid. Didn't you read my post where I took "Uncle Sam" to task? Devilman is just an incoherent twerp, so far. Tokugawa, in his latest post, has just unmasked himself and his reason for being here: he's advertising his own idea, but he's doing it in what is now the archives. C'mon you guys, get with the program!

And Andrew, the Palestinian entity cannot, will not listen to Israel. Anyone who does may risk being murdered without trial by the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades. You idiots exhaust my patience. :-[

Kudos to you, Mommydoc, for refuting Tok. He's just a nut. But perhaps we should meet them somewhere other than the archives? LOL :-)

Nathanincanada:
Tokugawas last post was a (looong) quote from Weiss, and not his idea. Is that the post you meant?

I agreed with uncle sams comment:
"America seems to be the only country on earth that falls for the constant BS Israel passes out.(I dont doubt that Arafat passes out similar dis info,but no one gets to really hear that).In closing-the middle east is not as black & white as it seems,there are good and bad guys on BOTH sides,the sooner the American people realize that,the better it will be and hopefully a long lasting peace can be achieved."

(but also agreed with much of what you said in your follow-up post)

...and devilmans comment:
The US acts like a thug when it comes to foreign policy and then complains when no one else wants to help it steal the worlds lunch money... or ozone layer.

And before I'm flamed please bear in mind that criticism of the american government or state does not make me an american hater any more than others' criticism of Israeli policy makes them anti-semite. Suggesting it does reveals exactly the kind of mindset one would accuse others of.

I agree that the tearing up of Kyoto, the non-signature of the International Criminal Court, and Bushs non-attendance at Johannesburg say volumes about Americas attitudes towards foreign policy. Colin Powell seems like the best of a bad lot, and he's rumoured to be quitting soon.

mommydoc:
Come on, do you REALLY believe that all muslims are immoral? - you should see how some less developed parts of Africa interpret Christianity.

David Goldblum, thank you for setting me straight on Tokugawa's post--yep, you were right about which one I meant. As you see, I'm somewhat impatient in this archived thread.

I'm glad you agreed with my follow up post to "Uncle Sam," but you can't have it both ways. I responded to Sam's allegations with facts, and I regard his posting as a spent force. I don't think "Uncle Sam" is at all familiar with the current socio-political situation in Israel.

You mentioned treaties. If it is your intention to discuss US foreign policy specifically (Devilman was rather incoherent), then I would say that the treaties should be taken individually. I'm very dismayed at the Kyoto boycott, but I'm not bothered by Bush's failure to show up in Jo'burg for a bunch of morons stuffing themselves (see the LGF thread on that one) to no effect. On the other hand, I'm extremely happy to see the US boycott the ICC, as their concerns were not addressed. I've become convinced that international treaties and organizations concerned with justice are just going to fall prey to the organized dictators. Look at the members of the Human Rights council, look at Syria's seat on the Security Council. The US is going it alone, and very sensibly, too. I'm not sure why the US should be held hostage to bunch of third world crooks and European crankpots.

What amazes me is the amount of Islamophobia presented by many respondents. many are willing to believe and propagate any anti-Islamic sentiment, without even checking.

mommydoc:

female genital mutilation is a horrid practice - why do you think it's an Islamic one?

the shaira court that handed down the gangbang sentence has itself been sentenced to death for that action - why do you think that Islam would allow a gangbang sentence?

Indifference to human life - where in heaven did you get such an impression? Do you know any Muslims - as friends....?

Many anti-Islamic sentiments expressed here are based on heresay, generalisations and plain old bigotry and thereby detract from any valid arguments (if any) that you might have about the ME situation.

Of course those kinds of sentiments might be expressed to detract from the lack of substance in arguments.

For instance mommydoc does not answer any of the arguments put forward by the Rabbi Weiss or Ilan Pappe; rather she chooses to character assassinate *them* and to make reference to Islamofacists (who are those?).

Interestingly most pro-Palentinian posters seem to avoid generalisations and stereotypes about Jews - rather they counter the arguments presented. On the other hand, pro-Israeli posters find it easy to stereotype Muslims or to put words into the mouths of others to make it seem as if they are anti-semitic, ie 'Yup it must be the fault of the JEWS.'

To me it seems that no matter how you slice or dice it, the Zionists displaced the original inhabitants and until and unless they are willing to face up to that responsibility there is no chance of peace. Only when they recognise that will it be possible to start on the road to finding a solution - and no amount of name-calling will change that.

To quote Nathan Chofshi, a Jew who move to Palestine in 1908 - 'Only an internal revolution can have the power to heal our people of their murderous sickness of causeless hatred...It is bound to bring complete ruin upon us. Only then will the old and young in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled Jews who were brought here from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruits of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed we put up houses of education, charity, and prayer, while we babble and rave about being the "People of the Book" and the "light of the nations"'...

I am from South Africa - I have seen what everyone calls 'the miracle' and I won't kid you - South Africa is far from having healed the wounds or undone the injustices of apartheid - but we can see the possibilities and more than Mandela, it required de Klerk to get us started on that road. Of course it helped that after the end of the cold war we were less important to US foreign policy or domestic politics and as a result there was less interference from that quarter.

Hmm, madmax, I would like to tackle your email. You are writing in the archives, you know (I'm suggesting you make your comments in a current thread. Due to the nature of LGF, you'll tend to get very similar sentiments to oppose in those).

What amazes me is the amount of Islamophobia presented by many respondents. many are willing to believe and propagate any anti-Islamic sentiment, without even checking.

I personally find a lot of LGF-ers using links to back up their allegations.

Female circumcision. Yes, you are correct; it is not an inherently Islamic practice, to my knowledge. However, Islam has not had much success eradicating it, even if it has ever tried.

Islam presumably wouldn't allow a gang-RAPE sentence, but the fact is that these were all Muslims who did this. Islam is notoriously misongynistic, as even you must realize. It is no coincidence that this gang-rape was ordered by a quasi-legal body in Pakistan by Muslims and not by some law court in the USA. Furthermore, one of the men charged with the rape has claimed to have married the woman. Islam knows nothing about spousal rape, a fact quite consistent with its gynophobia (did I just invent a word?). If this marriage were a reality, the man would be let off the hook by Islamic law.

I appreciated the quote by Chofshi that you included. I notice you didn't include a similar quote from a Palestinian who regreted the suicide bombings. Here's my take on the situation: the Israelis have a very large number of people in the below-50 set who don't believe in a biblical right to the Palestinians' land, and are seeking an equitable peace (or at least were, before Intifada II). The Palestinians have a very large number of people, a majority, in fact, (according to their own scientific polls) who advocate suicide bombing of innocent civilians. When will you people face this fact? In fact, the Palestinians have a majority that supports the suicide bombers of Hamas, an organization whose stated aim is the destruction of Israel. These people's own information reveals that they are not just anti-Israel but anti-Jew. Your allegation of "Islamophobia" is absolutely astounding, given the current global reality of militant, terroristic, Islam. It is you who neglect the facts.

I appreciate your comments, based on your personal experience, regarding South Africa. Indeed, it is far from perfect. You say the responsibility began with de Klerk, and was continued by Mandela. But I say to you the names Yitzak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and Yassir Arafat, the controller of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the sherrif, judge, jury, torturer and executioner of civilian women and children.

Stop blaming the troubles of the world on the USA, I'm pretty !@#$-ing tired of it.

Mommydoc, (and other LGF-ers), if you are still around, feel free to do a further rebuttal.

#213, in response to my #141 to on The Lavon Affair (aka Operation Susannah), a link was provided to an article from the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL), which includes:

On July 2, 1954, they went into action. They first blew up some post offices and a few days later, the American libraries in Cairo and Alexandria.

So there is no dispute that American targets were bombed by agents of Israel.

Curiously, JVL makes no determination of who actually planned and ordered the operation, although it goes into great detail about the prison experience of those conspirators who were not executed or did not commit suicide. That they were given a hero's welcome upon their release and return to Israel says something about Israel's real attitude about terrorism.

Nor is disputed that:

After initial denials of involvement by the Israeli government, blame was fixed on Defense Minister Lavon, who resigned, and was replaced by David Ben-Gurion, who came out of retirement. But six years later, proof surfaced that Lavon's signature had been forged on crucial documents. The real planner of Operation Susanna was Ben-Gurion, aided by young aides Moyse Dayan and (current Israeli Foreign Minister) Shimon Peres. The Ben-Gurion government fell due to the scandal, and Ben-Gurion finally retired for good.

So Operation Susanna was planned by a former and future Prime Minister of Israel, Ben-Gurion, who is usually described as one of Israel's founders, and not as a terrorist. [see start of thread]

Were there any other American targets attacked by Israel with the intention of blaming the Arabs? Unfortunately, yes. Recent evidence has surfaced that tends to confirm that the U.S.S. Liberty was intentionally attacked in 1967, with the goal being to cause U.S. entry into the six-day war on Israel's side.

The plan failed when the Liberty was able to send out a radio SOS message, despite the destruction of its antennas and the jamming of its radio frequencies by Israel. If that message had not been sent out, the goal of sinking the Liberty and killing any survivors would probably have been achieved. The sinking would then have been blamed on the Egyptians, and the American media would have gone into a frenzy of anti-Arab hate, resulting in
devastating U.S. reprisals to Egypt, and increased U.S. support to
Israel.

After the radio message was sent, everything changed. American fighter planes were launched from U.S. Aircraft Carriers, and Israel broke off the attack, and even offered assistance to the Liberty (which was declined). President Johnson had recalled the planes before they arrived and ordered a cover-up of the entire incident (34 American sailors dead, 171 wounded), intimidating all survivors, and saying he would "not embarrass our allies."

In the aftermath of the attack, both the U.S. and Israel conducted investigations which were cover-ups. The crewmen of the Liberty were threatened with jail if they told anybody what happened.

Everybody, except the surviving members of the Liberty crew, seemed satisfied with the Israeli explanation that the attack was an accident, that the Israeli planes and boats could not see the American flag on the ship, that they thought it was an Egyptian ship and the Israelis had misidentified it, that the Israelis miscalculated the speed of the ship, and so on.

The recent new evidence of an intentional attack consists of:

1) The publication of the book "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century" in 2001 by James Bamford. In it, it is revealed that during the Liberty attack, a U.S. spy plane was flying directly overhead at a very high altitude, and recorded an Israeli pilot's message to his commander the he saw an American flag on the ship. Supporters of the accident theory dispute this, yet the transcript of the tape of the Israeli pilot has never been released. (Thousands of pages of documents about the Liberty attack have also been withheld from the public.)

2) In the June 26, 2002 NAVY TIMES, U.S. Navy Admiral Boston admits that while he was serving on the official U.S. Navy investigation, he participated in a cover-up of the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, because he was ordered to.

Another anomaly of the Liberty attack is the fact that it was the first U.S. naval disaster in U.S. history which was not investigated by the U.S. Congress.

You again! Here, in the archives! That was an awful lot of space you just tied up to a comment that hadn't been bothered with at all, and which isn't either the original topic or part of the BIG PICTURE of what this thread is about (sigh). . .

Nathanincanada in #234, says:

Stop blaming the troubles of the world on the USA, I'm pretty !@#$-ing tired of it.

Well you may be tired of it, but that does not change the facts:

1950-73, Vietnam: The slippery slope began with siding with French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of Communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, but this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of Communist.

Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations with chemical warfare such as Agent Orange, Washington had achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

1953: Iran: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture; 1979: takeover of Iran by Muslim fundamentalists, American embassy workers taken hostage

1953-1990s, Guatemala: A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims

1953-64, British Guiana/Guyana: For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist, his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics - from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

1955-73, Cambodia: Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.

Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

1959- present, Cuba: Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 42 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, a full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations, harboring of terrorists in the U.S., and the use of chemical and biological warfare (African swine fever, hemorrhagic dengue fever, and other diseases which had never appeared in the Western Hemisphere before).

1960-65, The Congo/Zaire: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.

Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

1961-64, Brazil: President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy,
resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but, still, the country has been saved from communism.

For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship that Latin America has come to know were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture...the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.

1963-66, Dominican Republic: In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought "showcase of democracy" that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.

Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country. His policies were made up of the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.

A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

1965, Indonesia: A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately - of Communists, Communist sympathizers, suspected Communists, suspected Communist sympathizers - was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "Communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them.

1970-1973, Chile: Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for Washington: the only thing worse than a Marxist in power was an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.

After failing to sabotage Allende's electoral endeavor in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA turned their attention to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; more than 3,000 executed.

1964-74, Greece: The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "Communist takeover."

It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.

1975-2002 East Timor: In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was
launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.

Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

1978-89, Nicaragua: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-"another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

1979-84, Grenada: What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba".

U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance.

At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.

1981-89, Libya: Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate him, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, and economic sanctions.

1989, Panama: Washington's bombers strike again, with a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.

Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

1990s, Iraq: Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million dead by now from sanctions, most children under the age of five.

Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price. "

1979-92, Afghanistan: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic
fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost.
More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

1980-92, El Salvador: El Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.

Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

1987-94, Haiti: The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest,
Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers, and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend - because of all their rhetoric about "democracy" - that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its
workers receiving literally starvation wages.

1999, Yugoslavia: The United States bombed the country back to a preindustrial era.

We've seen this before, I think?

Ok, I'll just admit up front that I tend to be sympathetic to you on many of the Latin American countries. Furthermore, I am not sufficiently studied in that area to make any comments whatsoever. Other LGF-ers?

So you do have some good points (and being Canadian, I'm particularly sensitive to the case of Cuba).

Unfortunately for you (and me), you mixed your good cases with your bad ones.

Iran: I've met a fair number of Iranian immigrants, and I've never heard one bad word about the Shah (not, I'm sure because the Shah was flawless . . .), but I have heard a lot crap about the Revolution.

Libya: not only did they get "uppity," they became a major sponsor of international terrorism.

Afganistan: all the women say that under the King they had their best days, and this is significant. Guess who liked him? C'mon, you're blaming the Americans for Afganistan when you should be invading the Soviets! America DID NOT FORCE the Soviets to invade Afganistan, that is something the Soviets CHOSE to do, and they bear the blame.

Yugoslavia: could you have done any better? I praise the States for saving the Bosnians from the Serbs! In that hell-hole I don't doubt that they did the best they did, once they finally got involved (and people like you probably would have told them to ignore the suffering of the Bosnians).

Iraq: nobody forced Saddam to attack Kuwait either. The US could have nuked the country, but instead exercised remarkable restraint (I repeat, they could have nuked Iraq). Sanctions? You've got to be crazy to blame the US for this. Saddam is so tied to his WMD that he has steadfastly refused to let in weapons inspectors, and when they were in he obstructed their search. This is a man who gassed hundreds of thousands of people, had a decade-long war with Iran, a man whose cruelty is well-known, and a man who, unprovoked, attacked an annexed a peaceful neighbour. As one Kuwaiti professor has put it, he's the closest thing the Middle East has to Hitler. I for one am glad that the US cares about WMD proliferation. Blame Saddam, and not the US, for Iraq's problems.

What the hell happened to this thread? Did someone post a link to it on metafilter?

Oh, wait - The Register? Can't say that makes me feel any better...

Ok, the 240th link is mine! Oops! Now the 241st. An auspicious number, certainly (ok, I lie!)

Speaking about links, here's a joke for all of you (especially my opponent Tokugawa; may he laugh in peace-time)

Tiger Woods is driving his BMW in Newfoundland, but stops it at a gas station in the self-serve section. As he gets out, a couple of golf links fall out of his pocket. The attendant, who wants his autograph, says, "what are these for?" Tiger replies, "these are what I rest my balls on for when I'm driving." The Newfy replies, "Man, those German engineers have thought of everything!"

tees, not links, ahhh! :-P

If the Israeli goverment seeks some kind of high moral ground, then explain why three generations of children are growing up in a chain link, barbed wire ghetto?

Because Arab leaders want to keep them there as pawns against Israel. Nice use of the word "ghetto", though. Bloody idiot.

The source of that last quote by Evan_the_Bored was #160. My own rebuttals only begin with "Uncle Sam."

Whoops, yeah no. 160.

No worries!

While I'm here, here's a myth-busting piece from David Horowitz:

[Link: www.jewishworldreview.com...]

Well, Tokugawa has certainly read his Chomsky, which means he's woefully misinformed about post-WWII history.

First of all, you seem to think that being anti-Communist was worse than being Communist. I would suggest you read "The Black Book of Communism" which details the crimes of the Communists. The author (a French scholar whose name escapes me), estimated that Communism was responsible for the deaths of 100 million people world-wide during the 20th century. Were we wrong to oppose a brutal ideology?

Regarding Nicaragua: when there were finally free and fair elections in that country, Danny Ortega got his ass kicked royally by "The People" the Communists claim to care so much about. A friend of mine was there at the time, and she said people were delighted to get rid of the Sandinistas, who were utterly corrupt thugs. The only people sulking and whining that she saw were the foreign lefties and the press corp.

Afganistan: The Soviet-backed forces who overthrew the King instituted a police state that slaughtered thousands. When civil war broke out, the Soviets intervened, thus making a terrible blunder. As Nathan pointed out, nobody there seems to be longing for the good old days of the late '70's.

As for Iraq: yeah, we just woke up one morning and decided to bomb the crap out of Iraq for no reason whatsoever. The only thing we did wrong there was not getting Sadaam's head on a plate. (And remember, the UN approved the Gulf War. We had a coalition force if you recall).

Libya: So Gaddaffi was "uppity?" "Uppity" is an odd word to use for a head of state who blows up airplanes and bombs discos. How would you describe Stalin? As "crabby?"

I could go on, but I'm awfully tired and I want to check out the active threads. Tokugawa, my suggestion is that you dump that linguist-turned-wealthy -flim-flam man and read Robert Conquest, Bernard Lewis, Paul Johnson, Daniel Pipes, Conor Cruise O'Brien, and Bat Y'eor, for starters. And if you really want a debate, post on an active thread.

Thank you Evan_the_Bored and Donna V.

Donna, you highlighted some points that I had either forgotten for some unexplicable reason (the millions killed by Stalin and Mao Tse Tung)or not known (the situation in Nicaraugua). Amen, yes, by all means DO post in an active thread!

Shouts out to our friend Charles, on the 250th Anniversary of this dead thread! Also here's to Zulubaby, Mommydoc, Ratz, Evan_the_Bored, Donna V, Kolya, and all the other relevant people! 250 is quite a number isn't it?

David Goldblum #221:

Any suggestions as to why exactly the US is so blindly pro-Israel and it would seem, anti-Europe?

The pro-Israel part is easy to answer!

1) Many Israeli citizens are former U.S. citizens (or have dual U.S./Israeli citizenship). Therefore that there are many relatives of Israelis here in the U.S.

2) U.S. firms have invested billions of dollars in Israel, with numerous offices, fabrication plants, equipment and personnel.

3) From the Cold War onward, Israel has provided the U.S. a strategic, non-Arab military and intelligence presence in the oil-rich Middle East

4) For good or ill, the U.S. has a hard time turning its back on historical allies

5) There is a well-funded and dynamic pro-Israel lobby in Washington D.C.

Is the U.S. really anti-Europe? Perhaps the U.S. just "acts out" on behalf of the Europeans. After all, don't Citroens and Fiats burn the same desert oil as do Fords and Chevys?

BTW Kenny Davis #182

Thanks for your out-of-left-field comment on the Gospel of Thomas! I watched that groovy movie Stigmata when it came out many moons before and always meant to dig it up...

So, just as apropos of nothing as #182, here goes a pithy quote:

Jesus said, "One can't enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house."

Sounds like good Holy advice to me! At least it would work in the Middle East.

For more sage advice, visit: [Link: www.misericordia.edu...]

Zzzpest:

1) Many Israeli citizens are former U.S. citizens (or have dual U.S./Israeli citizenship). Therefore that there are many relatives of Israelis here in the U.S.

This myth is nothing short of ridiculous, yet for some inexplicable reason, it is actually gaining currency among idiots like yourself.

From 1948 to 1995, a total of 71,480 American Jews immigrated to Israel. The total Jewish polulation of Israel is over 4,847,000 - you do the math.
The vast majority of Jewish Israelis are actually descendents of refugees from Eastern Europe and the Arab World who poured into Israel in its early days. Then there is the recent waves of immigration by Jews from the former Soviet Union, India, South Africa, Ethiopia, etc.

All Americans, right...

5) There is a well-funded and dynamic pro-Israel lobby in Washington D.C.

Yup, just like they said in the "Protocols", why those pesky Jews. Bet they run the exceedingly pro-Palestinian media too - why those cunning, pesky Jews.

Wow Evan-the-Board, nice ad-hominem attack in #253!

Listen I'll buy your statistic of 71,480 Americans emigrating to Israel. In my book that's many American-Israelis! It's not merely a question of percentages, or the killing of ~3,000 Americans out of a population of 300+ million wouldn't seem signficant, now would it?

Regarding the well-funded pro-Israel lobby - are you aware of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee? What exactly do they do if not promote aid to Israel? Are they spending their millions in campaign contributions to convince Congress to increase Mid-West farm subsidies?

I'm not actually anti-Israel. I am, however, extremely opposed to Israel's occupation of the West Bank, and dismayed that I am contributing (through my tax dollars) to modern day colonialism.

Tell me, Evan, do you support Israeli colonization of the West Bank? If so, how far should it go? Are the existing settlements sufficient, or does Israel need more, to accomodate new waves of immigrants? And what about the folks that already live in the West Bank? Should they be encouraged to emigrate to make room for the newcomers?

Zzzpest,

I'm too lazy to go over to the site that you linked.

Is it a site about Paganism?

Oh, one other thing. Anyone who trots out the comparison of Israel to Apartheid South Africa has but not a clue. Sorry, but it just doesn't wash. And you're insulting the South Africans by saying so.

The Palestinians have a "leader". If they would stop murdering Israelis, they could have their own state, right now. They prefer to blame the Israelis for their desperate lives than get off their fucking asses and do something for themselves for once. The 'woe is me' whining is grating on my nerves. Arafat has ensured that their anger is misplaced. Those of us with a brain know that the anger should be directed at the $30 billion baby-wipe Uber-Terrorist.

boohoobaby #255

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about "the" comparision of Israel to Apartheid South Africa. I made several specific comparisions, pertaining to the status of the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza. Here, I'll make a rather specific comparision which I hope won't insult the South Africans:

Citizenship & Homelands.

Black South Africans were not allowed full citizenship rights (e.g. voting) within their own country during Apartheid. There were several ethnic "homeland" states to which a black South African could belong to and be a citizen of.

Likewise, an inhabitant of the occupied territories isn't a citizen of the state of Israel. Only with the emergence of the "Palestinian Authority" (PA) over the last few years has there been anything resembling a "state" to which such a denizen could belong to and be a citizen of. The maps of the PA-territories in the West Bank riddled with Israeli settlements certainly remind me of the Apartheid homelands - small enthic enclaves surrounded by a sea of foreign citizens.

On the same lines, a black South African (of the day) needed to carry a passbook and pass through numerous checkpoints when transiting out of a homeland, presumably to work in a remote township or visit relatives in other areas. Similarly, a West Banker needs to pass through some tough checkpoints to get to work in Israel, or to visit relatives in Gaza.

Like the South African homelands, a fragmented PA with few resources and little water would be a weak ethnically-defined enclave under the control of Israel. I imagine foreign investment would be rather scarce in the region, so I don't picture some sort of PA industrial boom following Israeli-defined "statehood."

I need to check some facts, but I believe that for residents of Israel proper there are further restrictions on the rights of citizens based on ethnic categories. Land purchases from the state, for example, are limited for the most part to Jewish citizens, with a percentage cap on state land transfers for non-Jewish citizens.

Your second point seems to be some sort of racially-focused attack on Palestinian Arabs in general and a character attack on Arafat in particular. I'm not keen on racist attacks myself, but I agree that Arafat is a dangerous man.

"Black South Africans were not allowed full citizenship rights (e.g. voting) within their own country during Apartheid. There were several ethnic "homeland" states to which a black South African could belong to and be a citizen of."

Total bullshit. Only thing that you have right is that black South Africans were not allowed to vote. They were still full citizens. I'm not sure what you mean about 'homeland' states in South Africa. No such thing. There were segregation laws which prevented black people from living in certain areas. There were (still are) townships where black people live. Not "homeland states", just areas or suburbs. This is total fiction, and I'm not even sure what you're talking about.

"Likewise, an inhabitant of the occupied territories isn't a citizen of the state of Israel. Only with the emergence of the "Palestinian Authority" (PA) over the last few years has there been anything resembling a "state" to which such a denizen could belong to and be a citizen of. The maps of the PA-territories in the West Bank riddled with Israeli settlements certainly remind me of the Apartheid homelands - small enthic enclaves surrounded by a sea of foreign citizens."

Again with the homelands. There are no homelands in South Africa. Are you saying that the settlements in Israel are small, and they are surrounded by a sea of foreign citizens? By that do you mean that they are surrounded by Palestinians? South Africa looks nothing like that. And again the citizen issue is not applicable to South Africa.

Another question. Why do the Palestinians want to be citizens of the State of Israel, you know, the one they are determined to drive into the sea? Does Israel have a right to exist or not? Does the State of Israel in fact exist at all? Or yes or no. In the (Palestinian) maps of the Middle East, Israel is nowhere to be seen. How does one become a citizen of a country that doesn't exist? Do they acknowledge that Israel is a legitimate state or don't they? If they don't, then why waste their time fighting for citizenship to a country that they don't acknowledge exists? Seems a little schizophrenic, doesn't it?

"On the same lines, a black South African (of the day) needed to carry a passbook and pass through numerous checkpoints when transiting out of a homeland, presumably to work in a remote township or visit relatives in other areas. Similarly, a West Banker needs to pass through some tough checkpoints to get to work in Israel, or to visit relatives in Gaza."

Dude, you need to get your facts straight before you start screaming, "Apartheid, Apartheid" Yes, the black people had to carry passbooks. No, they did not pass through checkpoints, no THERE ARE NO HOMELANDS - got it? No they did not go to work in remote townships, they worked in the city.

Now, the West Bankers, as you call them, are not carrying passbooks, they are showing their identification to the soldiers at the checkpoints. If they would stop strapping bombs onto themselves and murdering Israelis, the soldiers wouldn't be at the checkpoints.

Carrying a passbook in South Africa because you were black was cruel. That's what oppression is, that's what Apartheid is. There was no good reason for making the black people carry passbooks.

I'm sure you can understand that the Israelis are a little nervous about having Palestinians mingling with them at the market, in coffee shops, etc. That's not out of racism, that's out of fear. If they were working in Israel, that would be one thing. But some of their brethren aren't working in Israel, they're blowing themselves up and killing innocent Israeli civilians. They fucked it up for everyone, including those that were actually working there. Responsiblity lies with the homicide bombers, not the Israelis.

"Like the South African homelands, a fragmented PA with few resources and little water would be a weak ethnically-defined enclave under the control of Israel. I imagine foreign investment would be rather scarce in the region, so I don't picture some sort of PA industrial boom following Israeli-defined "statehood."

Again, the non-existant "homelands" in South Africa. It's getting tedious.

With regards to the fragmented PA, why is that Israel's fault? The Palestinians have a leader. Why doesn't he help his people? Why does he turn a blind eye to the fact that they are 4 generations deep in the "refugee camps"? Why doesn't he use the billions of aide dollars he's been given to help the Palestinians, instead of using the money to buy weapons and fund the fools that are brainwashed into blowing themselves up? He's a greedy, grubby, heartless monster who doesn't give a shit about his "people".

"I need to check some facts, but I believe that for residents of Israel proper there are further restrictions on the rights of citizens based on ethnic categories. Land purchases from the state, for example, are limited for the most part to Jewish citizens, with a percentage cap on state land transfers for non-Jewish citizens."

Go check the facts. Get back to me. First time I've heard that non-Jewish citizens are told where and where not to live. Let's not forget one very human trait here. By nature, people tend to stick to their own.

"Your second point seems to be some sort of racially-focused attack on Palestinian Arabs in general and a character attack on Arafat in particular. I'm not keen on racist attacks myself, but I agree that Arafat is a dangerous man. "

You know, I'm getting tired of the 'racism' screeching too. The Arabs, Palestinian or otherwise, hate the Jews. Despise them. Hate them so much that they are prepared to kill themselves in order to kill Jews. Hate them so much that mothers are willing to sacrifice their children so that said children will murder Jews. They are proud of their children for slaughtering Jews. If that isn't racism sweetheart, I don't know what is.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians who are decent people and wish to live in peace. But for those Palestinians that support terrorism, throw parties when their children have blown themselves up, celebrate when Jews are murdered, don't expect any love from me. Is that racist? I'll let you decide.

And Arafat is beyond dangerous. I think you're being polite. There is one thing you are right about though - I am attacking Arafat in particular. I think he is the worst kind of terrorist ever. I think he's a liar, a thief, a manipulative good-for-nothing evil man. He has used and abused the Palestinians for his own purposes. He has done nothing to ease the misery of their lives. He has turned down offers to have his own state and by doing so, deprived the Palestinians of better lives. He incited, inspires and funds terrorism. He has more blood on his hands, Palestinian and Israeli, than anyone else in the world. He is a power-hungry, ego-maniac with ice for blood and stone for a heart. And it has nothing to do with racism.

I hear a deafening silence concerning post #235.

Especially since it is 'on topic', specifically:
Yasser Arafat is described as "leader of the movement for a Palestinian state"; with no mention of his connections to terrorism. [at start of thread]

I pointed out that David Ben-Gurion is usually described as one of Israel's founders, and not as a terrorist.

Then I pointed out that Ben-Gurion was involved in terrorism, specifically in the Lavon Affair.

[I understand that my next point will brand me as a anti-semite (or a self-hating Jew if I am Jewish) at this web site for all eternity. (The truth hurts, doesn't it?) For the record, I am not an anti-semite and I do not hate myself.]

Considering their goals and the tactics they used to achieve those goals, Arafat and Ben-Gurion are morally equivalent.

RE #205, Toker, you mention all the poor Arabs who were forced off their lands in what became Israel, but what about all the Jews who were forced off THEIR lands in the surrounding Arab countries? I don't hear you crying for them.

I don't hear you crying for them.

I don't think the majority of these people even know about them. All they know is that in 1948, the new and apartheid-crazed state of Israel launched a war of genocide/ethnic cleasing against all Arabs living in their midst and that's what started today's "refugee problem". Forget the fact that the only war of genocide that occured in 1948 was that which was launched against Israel by her Arab neighbours. In the face of war, the "Palestinians" left or were told to leave - but population transfers go hand in hand with wars - are the former German citizens of Danzig and East Prussia gonna get a "right of return"? Course not - you know why? Because they were fully integrated into modern Germany - not kept in squalid refugee camps by their leaders as tools against their enemies. And forget the other fact that Israel absorbed, at her own expense, a multitude of Jewish refugees ethnically cleansed from Arab nations, with their wealth and property confiscated. Nope - a regular "footnote in history", ain't it?

Hell, those genocidal Israelis didn't even do a very good job, because there are over a million enfranchised Arabs living within their country's 1967 borders! Himmler would've been most upset.

Tokugawa

If you wish to debate us, debate us in an active thread. If you feel that a certain article supports your argument, by all means link to it.

However, republishing the article in full not only breaches the author's copyright, it is also downright annoying for the people reading the blog.

We are happy to debate any points that you might wish to rationally engage us in. However, if you continue to show disrespect for the format of the blog by publishing articles in full (using up everyone's bandwidth), you clearly do not belong here.

Charles has already warned you on this one.

As for your comments on the Lavon affair, I refuse to engage you in serious dialogue on this topic in an archived blog. However, if you really want answers, ask the questions on this topic in an active blog. I'm sure that you will get plenty of responses.

Look, we can all find faults (and there are plenty to be found) with the current leaders and those who have gone before them.

There is an example of how these matters should be dealt with in Schleswig-Holstein, a peculiar joint-guchy that was part of the Kingdom of Denmark but disputed by what is now Germany.

After a long and bloody history that is far too long to attempt to go into, a Danish plebiscite was held after the first world war that gave most of the land to Germany and about a third of the territory to Denmark. Despite the Danes losing, there has been no fighting since.

As good liberal democrats, we must realise that we cannot undo or compensate for history and the movements of people, but settle problems in the fairest way possible.

Perhaps a plebiscite in Israel would settle the problem?