Settlers torch Palestinian property, uproot trees

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Nablus – Ma'an – Angry at their government over a slowdown in the expansion of West Bank settlements, Israeli settlers set fire to Palestinian vehicles and buildings and uprooted more than 50 trees on Sunday.

Settlers set ablaze two warehouses, two cars, and a tractor belonging to Palestinian farmers in the northern West Bank village of Einabus near Nablus on Sunday morning.

Palestinian sources said firefighters from the Civil Defense service and Nablus municipal council were alerted at 2:30am and headed to the home of Nadir Mufdi to extinguish a fire in his barn, as well as a tractor and private car.

Separately, eyewitnesses told Ma'an that Israeli settlers set fire to a car owned by Fayiz Allan in the same area. No injuries were reported in either apparent arson.

Israeli Defense Ministry sources told Ma'an that while they could not confirm the attack was in retaliation for plans to temporarily freeze some settlement construction in the West Bank, a large contingent of military forces was in the area and operating under the assumption that the incident was "a revenge act."

more...
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=244578

[MineralMan]

1. Religion is the worst human invention on the planet.

[atreides1]

2. This isn't fueled by religon

This is just plain old fashioned generations old hatred!

And the constant denial that Israelis can be has evil as Palestinians!!!

[elleng]

3. Yea, hatred based on ? ? ?

[MineralMan]

6. Exactly...

God (by whatever name) gave us this land. Those of you who don't worship as we do can get the hell out!

The battle has raged since Old Testament times. It rages still. Religion is at fault, as it so often is.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. That's exactly what ultra-Zionists would have you believe, so that you would

wash your hands of this conflict, and think of it as some intractable conflict from time immemorial.

It's a conflict about occupation, and one party imposing a violent military occupation over a civilian population. It's decades old, and it's quite easy to solve.

End the occupation.
Break the siege.

[MineralMan]

16. My DU friend...

You do not know how I feel about this conflict. I deplore its continuation more than you will know, but I blame both sides in the situation. I blame religion in general more, however.

I can do nothing to affect what happens. I can only hope that both sides will come to their senses and end this centuries old conflict. I am not optimistic.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

19. Both sides? So the settlers are destroying Palestinians land and homes because... they exist?

Seriously. I think that's the biggest falsehood of this entire conflict... that both sides share equal blame in this.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

139. Would love a Zionist to answer this? Settlers destroy land & property, and this is "two" sided why?

What is two-sided about settler terrorism?

[shira]

137. PM, this conflict began well before 1967...what do you propose to solve that?

What will ending the occupation and siege do to solve a situation that has existed since at least 1948? Actually it existed before, going back to the Hebron massacre. Like Mufti al-Hussayni, who was wildly popular before, during, and after WW2 in the Arab world? You realize the radical elements in charge NOW still largely subscribe to his views?

What do you do about radical elements in power now like Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran..?

How will ending the occupation and siege address those in power who are still influenced and act upon the grand Mufti's ideology? It's not like those guys will allow more moderate nations to 'play nice' with Israel once the situation returns to pre-June 1967. Whatever Iran does, Syria will follow along with Lebanon through Hizbullah. Then there's Saudi Arabia, home of the Mufti's brotherhood and ideology....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

138. Take the soliders, settlers and shin bet and GTFO.

[shira]

140. they weren't there prior to 1967, so how does that solve things?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

145. The situation today is not what it was in 1967, is it?

I guess there are many who hold the position you seem to suggest, i.e., unending suppression of the indigenous people.

[Ken Burch]

26. The word you're looking for is "nationalism"

Something that Albert Einstein once called the childhood disease of mankind.

[MineralMan]

4. It's religion. Jews believe their deity gave them that land.

Muslims disagree with that position. Yes, many generations have duked it out over this. It has its foundation in religion, and always will. Any group can be evil if they believe they are doing as their deity tells them to do.

You cannot divorce religion from this in any way. At the foundation, it is religion behind this conflict.

[Ken Burch]

27. It's nationalism, not religion

Not all Jews are Zionists.

Not all Zionist Jews are supporters of the Occupation.

Most early Zionists were, in fact, secular.

[LeftishBrit]

79. You are right

However, the intrusion of religious extremists (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) into the whole mess does not help matters to improve.

[Ken Burch]

86. And the two faiths(nationalism and religion)have often worked in tandem

Look at everything from the Crusades to the Serbian Orthodox Church's influence on the bloodsoaked nationalist movement in Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina(btw, does anybody know there are still any actual Herzegovinians around?)

[PDJane]

5. The hatred isn't generations old.

It's a new thing, fueled by the myths of the Zionists.

It's wrong, and it's depressing.

[proteus_lives]

20. Yeah, it has nothing to with the actions of the Palestinians or the arab states.

They are stainless kittens who have never committed an act violence or atrocity against Israel and the Jewish people. And their Imams certainly don't preach violence and hatred. And they don't have children's shows that teach kids that Jews are pigs and demons. No, none of that happens.

You're right, it's those evil, evil Jews. :eyes:

[PDJane]

21. They were kicked out of their homes for

Israel to exist, they continue to be treated as interlopers...they have a right not to have all of their land stolen and their children jailed......but of course, Jewish lives are worth more than Palestinian's lives....

[proteus_lives]

23. Typical.

Won't even acknowledge the Palestinian role and responsibility in the conflict.

You probably wish Israel had been wiped out in '48.

[PDJane]

24. No. I don't.

Both sides do things that one would wish they wouldn't. But Palestinian violence is over-reported; up to ten times overreported. Israeli violence, on the other hand is underreported.

Sticking your head up your a** and blaming the Palestinians for being shoved around on what is their own land, permitting Israel to steal resources and kill the ecology, and generally play the bully isn't helping Israel or Palestine. Closing your eyes to the situation that Israel caused is simply ignorant.

[aranthus]

31. Not true.

They were not "kicked out of their homes for Israel to exist." They became refugees in a war that they themselves started. Israel would have existed just fine without the war and without the refugees. By the way, what land is their land? How do you define it?

[Ken Burch]

33. Those 600 Palestinian towns that were destroyed, for a start

It's time for Israelis to admit that Palestinian Arabs DO have a deep and equally legitimate history in those lands. Nothing is gained by continuing to pretend that they don't.

[aranthus]

66. I think most Israels do accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim.

Just not to everything.

[Ken Burch]

74. I think, at heart, if they were treated with respect

Most Palestinians would probably accept the reverse of that statement.

[aranthus]

76. You may be right, unfortunately

Palestinian society for the last 60 years has not accepted the legitimacy of a Jewish national entity in Israel, nor has it accepted the legitimacy of a Jewish presence. And that has not been solely because of a lack of respcet by the Jews.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

92. I think that's bull.

What is your statement about "Palestinian society" based on?

[azurnoir]

34. And I am sure it was just an amazing bit of "serendipity"

that the number of Arabs that were expelled equaled the number of Jews that were brought in from other places in the ME.

[Behind the Aegis]

35. You seem to be confused.

There was no "serendipity" involved in the 'number of Arabs that were expelled equaled the number of Jews that were brought in from other places in the ME'. Not all those Jews expelled (fled) (as opposed to your term, "brought in") from Arab lands went to Israel. Therefore, the "exchange rate" is not 'serendipitous."

However, it is good you see one thing in particular.

[azurnoir]

36. LOL parse it anyway you wish it doesn't change history

and the number was equal within the time period from 1946-1948 and when you factor in Holocaust survivors the number is far greater one wonders where the room for all would have been found within the original partition, but your correct it was not "serendipity"

[Behind the Aegis]

37. LOL! Did you forget what you wrote?

[azurnoir]

39. No I did not forget

Jews were airlifted to Israel were they not that would equate to brought in wouldn't you say

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Provide the numbers.

[azurnoir]

41. Google is your friend n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

42. So, as expected...nothing?

You made the assertion, prove it.

[azurnoir]

43. Your admiting you do not know these things?

or you just want to "make" me Google around providing facts you already know to be true

[Behind the Aegis]

44. I am saying you bear the burden of proof.

Maybe Google isn't your friend because you know it won't back your claims.

[azurnoir]

45. Well you seem to be the ignorant onre here

perhaps DU advanced search could be more of a friend to me as we have discussed your proclivity to deny what you already know to be true in the past

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Perhaps you know what you say isn't correct.

And, rather than admit it, something you are known for, you pretend the burden of proof is on me. You like to make statements, then pretend they are "common" knowledge, then refuse to provide proof. Or, perhaps you are already admitting you know it isn't true.

[azurnoir]

47. I would suppose that is a possibility

and we're to presume you let me go on it for 12 hours or perhaps your ignorant of history

[Behind the Aegis]

48. So, nothing.

So very typical. Make an allegation, fail to provide the facts, tell the other person to chase them down, when they fail to fall for your use of logical fallacies (burden of proof, in this case), then make further allegations, this time against the other person such as the person is ignorant or has the information already (ad hominems).

[azurnoir]

49. yes this type of thing is quite typical

of a certain poster here so run along now you have your post of the day somewhere

[Behind the Aegis]

50. Still have nothing but sad little ad hominems, now against an unknown DU'er.

I suppose I should magically know that "fact" too? You made an allegation, I said I doubted it (indicating I don't think what you said was accurate or factual), and then you tell me to "prove" your 'fact.' After a few more posts, you then claim I already know you are correct and am dragging it out. The fact is you made a claim, refused to substantiate, then change the parameters by making another unsubstantiated claim.

Admit you are wrong or prove you are correct.

[azurnoir]

51. If you feel I am wrong state that and prove

your own ignorance or are you simply dithering?

[Behind the Aegis]

52. Again, logical fallacy (burden of proof).

The only one "ditering" is you. The use of logical fallacies, one after another, really demonstrates your "position," or rather its weakness.

[azurnoir]

54. Well you see most reliable posters here

when stating that something posted is not true prove that if you fail we can then presume that you are simply being disingenuous but that is quite expected and now I dismiss both you and this ridiculous conversation but do feel free to blather on however if you feel me to be lying state that or better yet prove it as you are the only here to challenge my statement

[apocalypsehow]

56. In other words: "I have no proof to back up my claim(s), and resent the hell out of being asked to

provide it."

That about covers it, and I even managed to use punctuation.

[azurnoir]

58. Interesting switch off between similar poster

both of whom show unusual degrees of hostility

[apocalypsehow]

60. And now the "interesting" gambit comes into play, with the implication that two different posters

must be one and same - all because they share the view that it is childish to make claims and then pout around about being asked to provide proof.

Textbook, I tell yah.

How about that proof to back up your original claim, now? Or do we wish to evade some more?

[azurnoir]

72. Google would be your friend too

however I did not say you were the same I said you were both quite hostile in your delivery your hostility towards others here starts with your profile and I have really not seen you here on this forum prior to now

also I have posted the facts in this case on earlier occasions on this forum and the poster who you claim not to know yet replied to has admitted in the past that he challenges facts he knows to be true

[Behind the Aegis]

62. Prove it!

"the number of Arabs that were expelled equaled the number of Jews that were brought in from other places in the ME."

"...the number was equal within the time period from 1946-1948 and when you factor in Holocaust survivors the number is far greater one..."

[apocalypsehow]

53. I ran into this the other night: a poster made a claim, and I asked for proof, with a link to actual

data and/or facts.

What did I get in reply? About ten-thousand "everyone knows," a lot of shifty evasiveness, a million ad hominem attacks, and finally outright anger that I continued to insist that a link to factual data be provided to back up the original claim.

Too many people on DU seem to think that because they type something and hit "Post message," it's the equivalent of a self-evident "fact" requiring no evidence of any kind. The poster you're replying to is a case in point.

[azurnoir]

55. I am not familiar with you

but your profile statement speaks for it self, rather hostile aren't you?


Hi profile troll! (*waves*) PM me if you want details of my private life to use against me in forum debate. Now, piss off, turd._____To every one else, a big sincere "howdy"!

and your claim pfffft

[apocalypsehow]

57. And just like clockwork, the hand springs to the projector.

I put that sentence in my profile just for savants like you, by-the-bye: glad you found it. :hi:

[azurnoir]

59. I will have to check your posts on other forums

so when will BTA "return"

[apocalypsehow]

61. I have no idea who "BTA" is, or when they will "return." Are you feeling dizzy?

Any time now, by the way, on that proof to back up your original claim.

Edit: "no" not "not"

[azurnoir]

63. you don't know who BTA is?

that is interesting seeing as how that who you initially replied to

curiouser and curiouser

[apocalypsehow]

81. "Behind the Aegis" - I get it. More fun with semantics. Still waiting on that link for proof to your

original claim - "curiouser and curiouser" indeed.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. Here's a hint for how to participate constructively in this forum....

Treat people how you want to be treated. I'm assuming you don't want people abusing you, so try and be polite to other posters.

If someone isn't answering yr question after you've asked something a few times, it's time to give up as you may well be mistaken for someone who's harrassing and hounding other posters. Make sure that you answer questions yr asked, as it's not a one-way street. Ask yrself if yr question is that vitally important and most of the time you'll realise it's not. As someone who's reading this trainwreck of a subthread, I can't even remember now what it is you actually want provided, so if you want to ask me whatever it is yr so intent on wanting, then I'll see if I can help...

If yr not here to troll, then have a think about telling people about yr views on the conflict and get into discussions about the conflict, and not about other posters.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. What the hell is a profile troll? And why are you being so abusive? n/t

[azurnoir]

68. Seems almost familiar doesn't it? n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

70. No, I don't think I've encountered them before...

All I know is that the few posts I read from them were quite nasty and abusive. And while I'm here, I want to put in my vote for this sub-thread being one of the more pointless 'contributions' to the forum in recent times...

[azurnoir]

71. +2

and no I have not seen that poster on this forum before either

[apocalypsehow]

84. Wait for it, wait for it..."Let's continue to ignore requests to proof we don't have and concentrate

instead on how many juvenile one-liners we can type in one evening."

We'll take that linked proof any time now, please. Where is it? :shrug:

[azurnoir]

94. Right here dear

and I was wrong on 2 points the years were not 1946-1948 but instead 1948 -1951 and there were actually 63,000 more Palestinians expelled

Refugees from 1948 War
Palestinian refugees in 1948
Main articles: 1948 Palestinian exodus, Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, and Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956

During the 1948 Palestine War, around 750,000 out of 900,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel.<6> The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict.<7> Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders, or was an unintended consequence of the war.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugee

This was followed in 1950 by the Law of Return, which granted every Jew the automatic right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen of the state. With the gates wide open after statehood was declared, a wave of mass immigration brought 687,000 Jews to Israel's shores. By 1951, the number of immigrants more than doubled the Jewish population of the country in 1948. The immigrants included survivors of the Holocaust from displaced persons' camps in Germany, Austria and Italy; a majority of the Jewish communities of Bulgaria and Poland, one third of the Jews of Romania, and nearly all of the Jewish communities of Libya, Yemen and Iraq.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/Immigration_Since_1948.html

Oh as to your accusation I merely pointed out that your both very similar in style making abusive posts which contribute little other than that to the subject being discussed what distinguishes you is that your abusiveness starts in your profile

[Behind the Aegis]

95. You were wrong on more than two points. Fail.

Original claim:

And I am sure it was just an amazing bit of "serendipity"
Edited on Fri Dec-11-09 04:17 AM by azurnoir
that the number of Arabs that were expelled equaled the number of Jews that were brought in from other places in the ME. post #38

Neither of your cut-n-pastes prove what you said. The number of Arabs expelled (around 750,000) does not equal the number of Jews 'brought in' (airlifted) from the ME (MIDDLE EAST).

As for your second claim:

azurnoir (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-11-09 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. LOL parse it anyway you wish it doesn't change history
and the number was equal within the time period from 1946-1948 and when you factor in Holocaust survivors the number is far greater one wonders where the room for all would have been found within the original partition, but your correct it was not "serendipity" post #36

Of course, I see you changed the "goalposts" by changing the dates, but, even in doing so, you are still incorrect. You also, in a typical fashion, again attempt to demonize the Jews by changing your claim and stating: "there were actually 63,000 more Palestinians expelled." However, AZ, your own "proof" proved you wrong!

The majority of immigration to Israel at that time was not from countries in the ME, but from Holocaust survivors (Europe). The ME immigrants didn't start pouring in until the late 50's until the end of the 60's; you know, when the Arab nations were throwing Jews out and stealing their property and possessions?

[azurnoir]

96. took you long enough

But your abusiveness has provided a distraction from what must be a horribly embarrassing OP for you as to your facts I take correction when given in a civil manner from a poster who is worthy of respect you are in capable of anything save abuse and there for not worthy of respect as you could have presented your case many posts ago you chose instead to to be as usual abusive and as you have admitted to challenging facts you already know to be true I wanted to see if you had the capability to do anything else besides abuse thanks for that you have only defaced yourself and I on the otherhand accept your correction

oh yeah Happy Hanukkah may the coming year bring you the happiness you so obviously lack

[Behind the Aegis]

97. Look away from the mirror, dear.

The math favors what I said, not you.

"the only goalpost changing was your self serving definition of "brought in" but we expect that of one who has nothing else"

LMAO!

YOU said:

azurnoir (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-11-09 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. No I did not forget
Jews were airlifted to Israel were they not that would equate to brought in wouldn't you say post #39

"oh yeah Happy Hanukkah may the coming year bring you the happiness you so obviously lack "

I must decline your "good wishes" (ad hominem), much the same way I rejected Mel Gibson's apology for his anti-Semitic rant.

PS. don't think it has gone unnoticed you weren't able to refute my post because your post failed to prove its point.

[azurnoir]

99. I already accepted your correction

why would you reject Mel Gibson or compare me to him?

and wishing you a Happy Hanukkah is an ad hominem? I honestly thought you were Jew sorry if I was wrong about that too

[Behind the Aegis]

102. A full 22 minutes after my post and your re-write.

Mel Gibson's apology was as false an apology as your "good wishes" were 'good wishes.'

The ad hominem was your other comment in that so-called "good wish."

Edit "9 minutes" to "22".

[azurnoir]

103. again explain the comparison to Mel Gibson

oh and it took me a full 9 minutes it took over 24 hours to present your case

[Behind the Aegis]

105. It wasn't my "case" to present.

[azurnoir]

108. Most civil posters here present their case

without all the abusive posts you seem to be incapable of that and I note you also provide no links to support your own claims

[Behind the Aegis]

109. And you had your chance.

You FAILED.

[azurnoir]

112. as did you

you challenged my post and most civil posters here present their facts for that challange you however do not or at least in this case chose not to, really it does little good but I was more than happy to keep PM's thread kicked and I am sure she thanks you too for that

[Behind the Aegis]

113. You made the allegations.

You were given the opportunity to provide the facts to back up your claim; you did not. All you did and continue to do is to hurl ad hominems and play the victim.

[azurnoir]

114. if you say so n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

115. It isn't a matter of my "saying so," it is a FACT you made a claim....

...and when challenged, played a game. When you finally provided "proof", you were shown to be wrong, but it didn't stop your ad hominemns or your attempts to make yourself out to be a "civil" poster and just a "victim."

[azurnoir]

116. Again if you say so n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

117. Again, not a matter of my saying so.

This is yet another case of the facts not supporting you.

[azurnoir]

118. True however it took 24 hours to present your case

and back up your own claim, it shows that you were more interested in merely being nasty than in constructive dialogue

[Behind the Aegis]

120. No, it took YOU 24 hours to back up YOUR claims.

It shows you are more interested in "being right" or perceived as such (as well as trying to play victim), then actually prove YOU are correct.

[azurnoir]

119. it took you 24 hours to present your own case n't

[Behind the Aegis]

121. It was your case to present (you can't claim "fact" and not prove it).

[azurnoir]

124. I would disagree most posters who feel that something

is untrue present their own case you however chose to not to even when asked, you can claim it was my case to present however the same applies to you also you seem far more interested in abusing posters here than engaging in any constructive dialogue

eta you seem to feel that you are immune once you said I was lying you also had the responsibility to present that as fact; you chose to abuse instead

[Behind the Aegis]

125. Most posters provide evidence of their "facts."

They don't rely on logical fallacies, like you, of "burden of proof." The reason for this is because it is better for the person making the claim to provide actual facts to dispute. Many think you "can't prove a negative," which is not true; however, it is easier for the claimant to provide facts/proof and then confirm or dispute those facts. The case wasn't mine to present because YOU are the one who made the claims.

[azurnoir]

126. you made a case for yourself to present

when you countered that claim as I said you seem to feel that the "rules" you set do not apply to you

[Behind the Aegis]

127. No, you are the one who thinks the rules don't apply to you.

I don't have to present my case, unless your facts measure up and I still dispute them, then I would have to present.

I will make this VERY simple for you....

YOU: The Earth is FLAT! It is 6000 years old!
ME: No, I don't think the Earth is flat. Can you prove it is 6000 years old?

Burden is on YOU! I may not be sure about the flatness or age of the earth, I only disagree with YOUR assertion. You made it, you prove it. If I continue to disagree, THEN the burden in on ME!

[azurnoir]

128. as I said you make the case that you are more interested in

useless abuse that in dialogue

[Behind the Aegis]

129. Again, put down the mirror.

You are more interested in posting abusive remarks as evidenced by your continued ad hominemns and failure to provide proof. Had you bothered to actually post that one post to my original remark, you would have already been proved wrong, but you had to drag it along, of course I indulged you, then when proved wrong, you couldn't even admit it without personal attacks and continued unproved allegations.

Your posts are the equivalent of another poster who does the same...sling shit, see what sticks, then play the victim when the shit smears the wall and pretend you weren't the one slinging the shit. In essence, your posts are "Don't blame me! Have mercy! I am an orphan!" The issue? The reason the person is an orphan is because s/he is the one who killed his/her parents.

[azurnoir]

133. Have mercy LOL show me where I said that

actually you first refuse to back up your own claim then even when asked then make unlinked claims of your own and even when I accept them chose to continue this in an "I know you are but what am I" style
but for now my SO has arrived home from work and I for one have much better things to do

[Behind the Aegis]

100. You have shown your true colors.

You have altered the post to which I originally responded.

Your personal attacks, lack of honesty, and flagrant misuse of facts are nothing but a continuation of your posting style. I challenged something, which I have proved, by your own post, wasn't true! Thus, your allegation, "...you have admitted to challenging facts you already know to be true I wanted to see if you had the capability to do anything else besides abuse ..." is unfounded.

"I on the otherhand accept your correction"

So, is this your admission you were wrong? LOL! Your post is nothing more than "see, I knew I was wrong, and I wanted to see if you would prove me wrong and be nice about it." How very sad.

"oh yeah Happy Hanukkah may the coming year bring you the happiness you so obviously lack"

Again, not accepted for the reason stated above.

[azurnoir]

101. Interpet as you need

I honestly did not know I was wrong and please explain your comparing me to Mel Gibson who is a known antiSemite

[Behind the Aegis]

104. I didn't compare you to Mel Gibson.

[apocalypsehow]

83. It's only "pointless" to those who don't care to provide linked proof to their dubious claims.

That does get annoying, asking for evidence and all, doesn't it?

Too bad, so sad, sport: that's how it's done in the adult world. Get used to it.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Can you at least try to make a bit of sense? I haven't made any dubious claim..

And why are you now getting all abusive at me for?

[apocalypsehow]

91. You literally could not make replies like this up. Start over, and read down. At some point,

you'll catch on.

Good luck! :thumbsup:

[Violet_Crumble]

93. Huh? I didn't make any dubious claim, so what are you babbling about?

Are you stupid, dishonest or a mixture of both? I'm going for the latter...

[apocalypsehow]

85. Well, if you really believe that coy insinuation, put your money where you mouth is and hit "alert."

Sock-puppetry is against the DU rules, so I suggest you take your suspicions to the moderators. They have the ability to determine the matter within minutes.

After you've finished wasting their time, maybe you'll find it in your heart to concentrate on finding us that link to hard data to substantiate your claim above. How about it?

[apocalypsehow]

82. Ah, yes: asking for proof to an unsubstantiated claim is considered "abusive" in your universe.

Gotcha - but most grownups don't operate under that misapprehension.

As for the first question: pleeeeeeeze. :eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

87. Now I didn't say that. But you have to admit you've been very abusive and nasty...

Will you be needing examples, or is yr admitting you've been abusive as unlikely to appear as any apology for deliberately misinterpreting what I said?


I couldn't care less if you want to ask for proof of a claim. What gives me the shits is when you start screaming abuse at the person yr asking.

Also, can you please answer the question I asked you. What the hell's a profile troll?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

106. Hey BTA... any comment on settler terror?

[Behind the Aegis]

107. Hey PM...any comment on Palestinian terror?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

110. You have 50 posts in an OP about settler terrorism. Not one addresses the OP.

[Behind the Aegis]

111. Very good. You can count.

I was dealing with a sub-thread dealing with something else.

Edit: ooops...gave you too much credit. Not 50 posts. Guess you can't count.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

131. Still can't bring yourself to criticize the settlers for desecrating a mosque. That's a shock! nt

[Behind the Aegis]

141. I have seen your reaction to those that do.

[Violet_Crumble]

143. What do you mean by that? Can you provide a link to what yr talking about? n/t

btw, I wouldn't think it'd be difficult for someone who does oppose attacks on mosques by extremist settlers to just say so when asked. It's not a really difficult question to answer, so I'm wondering why you appear to be so intent on not answering it...

[azurnoir]

146. Sir I find myself at this point needing to inquire

what is your purpose here on this thread? The sub-thread that you mention where you corrected me on my post to another poster there are several questions concerning your intent you engaged me by replying to my comment and challenged me to "prove" my claims showing that you already knew my claim was wrong but rather than simply stating that and presenting the correct facts you continued for hours, why? The only logical conclusion is that you wanted to me prove myself wrong, is that the manner in which debate and discussion are carried out or is it the manner in which one attempts to inflict humiliation on another poster I would say the latter and that Sir is abusive. Adding to that you then show up a few hours later and sling ad hominems at yet another poster, why? It could be seen as you using this thread to carry out some sort of personal grudge you have against not only myself but some of the other posters here and that is at least to the best of my knowledge not the purpose of this forum or being allowed the privilege of posting here.

[Behind the Aegis]

148. Ma'am, look into that mirror.

Re-read this thread with an honest eye. And, think not yourself as arbitrator of this forum, this site, nor the internet, should your vision exceed its field. Examine your own personal attacks and those of your compatriots. Cease your excessive passive-aggressive prattle and learn to accept your mistakes and move past them.

[Violet_Crumble]

149. Could you please respond to my question in post 143?

I realise being a question that's actually related to the conflict doesn't give it the allure of the totally pointless backandforth between you and Az, but if you could give some thought to what I asked you and also think about the apparent reticence to voice yr opposition to the terrorism of the extremist settlers...

[azurnoir]

150. I would invite anyone to read the thread it speaks for itself

and what the accusations you made concerning PM and why did you not simply state your case concerning my post that was made as a reply to a poster other than yourself as it is obvious that you knew my statement was incorrect?
I am done with this now you Sir IMO you regularly and habitually abuse the privilege afforded you as being a member of this board

[Violet_Crumble]

38. And how exactly would Israel have existed just fine if the refugees had stayed where they were?

First off, I just want to point out what should be very obvious to all - the civilian population who became refugees did NOT start the war, and I hope yr not trying to blame them for their plight. Even if things were different and they did start the war, that doesn't justify refusing to allow them to return to their homes after hostilities had ceased....

As for yr claim that Israel would have existed just fine without the war and without the refugees, how would it have worked? The state that would have emerged would have had a very small Jewish majority, and that wasn't what the Zionists wanted for their new state. They wanted as many Jews as possible and as few Arabs as possible, and war and Plan D was their way of achieving it...

[aranthus]

64. Here's how.

V>First off, I just want to point out what should be very obvious to all - the civilian population who became refugees did NOT start the war, and I hope yr not trying to blame them for their plight.

Really? The Palestinians who rioted and attacked Jews in December, 1947 (the act that started the war) were not civilians? The Palestinians that began to attack Jewish buses and convoys a few weeks later, were not drawn form the Palestinian civilian population? You really believe that? Do you really believe that the Arab Higher Committee (the government of the Palestinians) was not responsible for starting the violence?

V>Even if things were different and they did start the war, that doesn't justify refusing to allow them to return to their homes after hostilities had ceased....

Don't be silly. Of course it does. Do the Germans who were living in Silesia and East prussia have a right to return to homes they lost that are now in Poland? Get real. Aggressor nations don't have the same rights as innocents, so even if there was such a thing as a general, unqualified right of return (which doesn't actually exist in international usage), then the Palestinians lost that right by starting the war.

V>As for yr claim that Israel would have existed just fine without the war and without the refugees, how would it have worked? The state that would have emerged would have had a very small Jewish majority, and that wasn't what the Zionists wanted for their new state.

True, the Jewish state would have had a small Jewish majority, but not for long. The Jewish population of Israel doubled very quickly with new immigrants. Even if all of the 400,000 proposed residents of Israel remained (and most did, as the majority of refugees came from areas allotted to the Arab state), then Israel would still have a 70-75% Jewish majority. And you're simply misrepresenting Plan D. Even if you weren't, remember that it was the Arabs who set the stakes at all or nothing.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. I see. Just blame all Palestinian civilians. Pathetic and ugly stuff....

Really? The Palestinians who rioted and attacked Jews in December, 1947 (the act that started the war) were not civilians? The Palestinians that began to attack Jewish buses and convoys a few weeks later, were not drawn form the Palestinian civilian population? You really believe that? Do you really believe that the Arab Higher Committee (the government of the Palestinians) was not responsible for starting the violence?

If you want to be that fast and loose in yr attempt to blame Palestinian refugees for starting a war, just be prepared for the same when it comes to Israeli civilians. I suggest you come to terms with the fact that violence at the time wasn't one-sided and realise that if you start blaming Arab civilians for that, then you must also blame Jewish civilians for the violence that was caused by Zionists...


V>First off, I just want to point out what should be very obvious to all - the civilian population who became refugees did NOT start the war, and I hope yr not trying to blame them for their plight.

Really? The Palestinians who rioted and attacked Jews in December, 1947 (the act that started the war) were not civilians? The Palestinians that began to attack Jewish buses and convoys a few weeks later, were not drawn form the Palestinian civilian population? You really believe that? Do you really believe that the Arab Higher Committee (the government of the Palestinians) was not responsible for starting the violence?

Me>Even if things were different and they did start the war, that doesn't justify refusing to allow them to return to their homes after hostilities had ceased....

You: Don't be silly. Of course it does.

Yr the one that's being completely silly and illogical. Civilians are afforded protections in times of war and one of those protections is that they're supposed to be allowed to return to their homes after the cessation of hostilities. If you don't like that when it comes to Arabs, tough shit...

True, the Jewish state would have had a small Jewish majority, but not for long. The Jewish population of Israel doubled very quickly with new immigrants. Even if all of the 400,000 proposed residents of Israel remained (and most did, as the majority of refugees came from areas allotted to the Arab state), then Israel would still have a 70-75% Jewish majority. And you're simply misrepresenting Plan D. Even if you weren't, remember that it was the Arabs who set the stakes at all or nothing.

No, unlike you I don't blindly support one lot while blaming the other for everything. I'm very aware of what Plan D was and most definately did not misrepresent it.

[aranthus]

75. That's not what I'm doing, again despite your facile attribution.

I don't blame all Palestinians anymore than I blame all Germans for World War II. Nevertheless, I don't support the right of Germans to return to Poland. Do you? Neither do I support the right of Hindus to return to their homes in Pakistan, or Muslims to India, to give one more contemporaneous example (where there is not nearly as clear a demarcation as to who started the violence).

Yes, civilians are afforded protections in war, but those protections are not absolute or unqualified. There simply is not an unqualified right of return for anyone, and there never has been. In some circumstances, refugees do have a right to return, but as my examples (which you haven't challenged) show, that isn't true in every case, and it isn't true with the Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Yes you did when you blamed the Palestinian refugees for starting the war....

Just read back through this exchange and if you can't spot where you did it, I'm more than happy to point you to it.

There is a right of return for Palestinian refugees enshrined in international law. You can disagree with that bit of law, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

[aranthus]

78. Now you're just making things up.

How does saying that the Palestinian side (some of whom became refugees) started the war translate into blaming all Palestinians? That's like saying blaming Germany for World War II means that you're blaming all Germans everywhere. That's just silly. I said that the Palestinians (meaning the Palestinian side) started the war. That doesn't mean that I blame all Palestinians.

If there is a right of return in international law for the Palestinians, then there should also be one for German refugees in World War II and for for Muslims and Hindus in the Indo-Pakistan War. Of course there isn't, and you know it. So what you are arguing for is a special right for Palestinians alone. Care to justify that?

[Violet_Crumble]

89. No, I'm going on exactly what you said...

Me: First off, I just want to point out what should be very obvious to all - the civilian population who became refugees did NOT start the war, and I hope yr not trying to blame them for their plight.

You: Really? The Palestinians who rioted and attacked Jews in December, 1947 (the act that started the war) were not civilians? The Palestinians that began to attack Jewish buses and convoys a few weeks later, were not drawn form the Palestinian civilian population? You really believe that? Do you really believe that the Arab Higher Committee (the government of the Palestinians) was not responsible for starting the violence?

You were blaming the Palestinian refugees for starting a war...



If there is a right of return in international law for the Palestinians, then there should also be one for German refugees in World War II and for for Muslims and Hindus in the Indo-Pakistan War. Of course there isn't, and you know it. So what you are arguing for is a special right for Palestinians alone. Care to justify that?

It's not a case of *if*. The right of return is international law. AS far as I'm aware there's not a whole bunch of German refugees wanting to return to their homes or get compensation, but if there are I'll support their case...

[Shaktimaan]

98. I don't understand.

You were blaming the Palestinian refugees for starting a war...

I don't think he/she is specifically blaming the Palestinian refugees for starting the war. Just saying that it was the Palestinians who initially began the violence following the UN's approval of the partition plan and that the perpetrators eventually became part of the refugee population. NOT that the Palestinian refugees "started it therefore they deserve it."

It's not a case of *if*. The right of return is international law.

What do you mean here exactly? To the best of my knowledge there isn't any right of return enshrined in international law as would apply to refugee populations like the Palestinians or victims of Partition. Can you explain what you're referring to?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

132. Shakti, you and aranthus need to go back and look at the history books on this one.

I highly recommend "The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities" by Israeli historian Simha Flapan.

[Shaktimaan]

135. Well, I've read quite a few history books about this conflict...

though not that one in particular, though I have read several representatives of each of the varying narratives.

What exactly do you take issue with?

[Violet_Crumble]

144. I've just gone back and reread...

And right at the start, aranthus says about the refugees: 'They were not "kicked out of their homes for Israel to exist." They became refugees in a war that they themselves started.' That is specifically blaming the Palestinian refugees for starting the war, though I do accept that Aranthus possibly didn't mean that and it just came out badly...

When it comes to the right of return for the Palestinian refugees, it is enshrined in international law through resolution 194 (hope I got that one right coz I'm going off memory here), and other conventions and resolutions.

btw, welcome back. Haven't seen you round these parts for a while :)

[aranthus]

153. Let's get this clear.

I maintain that the the Palestinian side started the war in the early part of December, 1947. Does that mean that all Palestinians are responsible? Of course not. No more than it means that all Germans started World War II when one suggests that the Germans started that war. But your contrary claim that none of the refugees were at all responsible is patently false. Some of the people who became refugees were directly responsible for starting the war. Does that mean that all of the refugees are directly responsible. No, it certainly does not. Is that clear?

As to UNGAR 194 (you got the number right), it doesn't exactly say what you think. The relevant text is that the General Assembly, "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

First of all, the resolution doesn't use the word "right," though it does use the word should. Does that create or recognize a "Right of Return" in Palestinians? I don't think so for several reasons. First, rights can't be legislated. They are a moral claim based on a state of existence. I have a right to live because I'm a human being. In the international community, states have a right to exist because the nations creating them have an inherent right to do so. The point being that if there is no general right of return for all refugees (and there clearly is not), then the UN can't legislate it into existence. Second, General Assembly Resolutions aren't binding, and one would think that a declaration of a right would have to be. Third, the UN doesn't have the moral or legal authority to declare rights. It isn't a Congress, Parliament, or any other kind of legislative or deliberative body of any kind. It's a political club for governments. Therefore, its resolutions represent the political interests of the members, and are not an exercise of judgment based on common moral or legal principles. It may be that in some cases, UN resolutions parallel moral values because countries who's values you or I agree with muster enough votes (by payment or arm twisting or otherwise) to push through a motion that coincides with our moral values. But that doesn't mean that the UN is the source of values. Instead, it's merely a conduit through which they sometimes flow. That's why reference to UN resolutions doesn't add anything to the discussion; whether we're talking about Israel, Iraq, Korea, or wherever. It's much more fruitful to go to the basic principles themselves than to try and pick through UN resolutions to see if they have channeled something useful.

[Ken Burch]

28. "stainless kittens"?

:eyes:

[aranthus]

67. Do they chase stainless steel rats? n/t

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. Why do you think Paletinians are evil? I'd really like to know.

I look at how the US responded to the loss of 3,000 on 9/11. How many died, or had their lives and homes destroyed?

Imagine our country suffering the kind of oppression, abuse and loss that Palestinians have suffered since 1947...

[MineralMan]

17. You misread the poster's message.

He says that both sides are evil. So far as the hostilities continue, I agree with him. Neither side has a strong position for good.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

18. I'd still like to know why either of you thinks the Palestinians are evil.

I really don't get that.

[PDJane]

22. Because it's convenient

For America and the state of Israel to have a visible and vicious enemy, even if the whole thing is a charade.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. I think most casual onlookers honestly believe there is equal blame on "both sides"

and I'd like to learn more about that POV.

[Shaktimaan]

123. What do you mean?

I guess what I'm asking is how do you view the conflict?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

130. This is a conflict over illegal acquisition of land.

First in 1948 which resulted in the displacement of 700,000+ and again in 1967, which has resulted in the political, personal, daily oppression of millions for over 40 years.

Fighting that injustice is not evil per se. Not by any means. Some means of resistance have clearly hurt the Palestinian cause.

Zionists clearly have a vested interest in selling this conflict as some intractible conflict from time immemorial.. but that is utter nonsense.

This isn't a conflict between 2 equal parties that can never be solved.

[Shaktimaan]

136. interesting.

So do you see the Zionist narrative as being about a conflict between equals that predates the modern Zionist movement?

Also, I'm curious... do you view the conflict as primarily involving Israel and Palestine, (the current situation is resultant mostly from their specific policies and actions); or do you see it more as a wider conflict that has only ever offered both nations a very limited set of options?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

151. I think the hasbara machine likes to portray this conflict as "from time immemorial."

I don't think that was always the Zionist narrative by any means.

What wider conflict are you referring to? Arabs and Jews? Muslims and Jews? Please spell it out.

[Ken Burch]

147. That's largely my view

To which I would add that this was also a horrible example of the consequences of misdirected rage.

The event that finally led to the creation of the State of Israel was the Holocaust. Yes, there had been a nationalist movement pushing for the creation of that state since the late 19th century, but prior to the horrific act of the Nazis and their enablers in western capitalism, that movement never had majority support even in the group it claimed to be representing.

The rage that was justly felt towards Naziism ended up being vented on Palestinians, who, while they may not have been saints, were not in any way responsible for the Shoah.

And in having it directed towards Palestinians and the Arabs in other countries ended up directing it away from the people who were actually responsible for the genocide against the Jewish communities of Europe. Palestinians ended up being demonized and all but morally equated to Nazis, even though all THEY were doing was trying to avoid being forced out of their homes.

In the end, the misdirection didn't serve anyone but those who had perpetrated the crime. It didn't revenge or heal those who survived the genocide, and it victimized people who hadn't caused the suffering.

Plus, it ended up leading to what happened to the Mizrahi(and we really need an international investigation to work out EXACTLY what caused the Mizrahi exodus to Israel, btw.), a group that had neither been victims of the Holocaust nor partisans of Zionism.

[Shaktimaan]

122. What do you mean exactly...

that the "whole thing is a charade?"

The idea that the Palestinians are "evil?" In my experience very few people actually believe that either side is inherently "evil." Particularly my experience with Israelis, who tend to have a pretty good grasp of the complexities and history of the conflict. Folks who haven't bothered to learn anything about the history may see it as having two sides locked in conflict, but anyone I've met who 's read a book about it tend to see things much more in terms of a regional feud.

The situations faced by both sides have historically been heavily influenced by both world and regional events. For instance the Palestinian refugee's awful circumstances resulted from WWII, the cold war and the interests of regional Arab regimes at least as much as they did from actions taken directly by Israel.

Meanwhile, it is not as though the average Israeli's view of the Palestinians has been shaped by propaganda issued by their government in an attempt to influence their opinions so much as it's based on direct experience through historical/current events.

What charade are you referring to?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

134. The poster to whom I replied stated that Palestinians are evil. I asked why?

[PDJane]

152. No.

The charade comes from the idea that Israel 'deserves' the land, that they are somehow entitled to the land of Palestine. They aren't. The Russian jews were the ones who promoted the idea of a land for the Jews; they aren't necessarily entitled to part of the middle east. The Palestinians are the ones with the ties to the land. That land was never empty, and the Jews invaded and stole the land from the original inhabitants in the first place; they were conquered and removed in turn. That doesn't give anyone the right to come back and toss people off the land the second time, nor does it mean that they are somehow entitled to the land.

The Palestinians are farmers, and considering what Israel has done to their children, their land, and their food crops, I'd be throwing bombs at them too.

Moreover, there is an institute which I have been trying to find again on line that has been tracking the disparity between the coverage of Israeli and Palestinian deaths...it's outrageous.

Palestinians are not innocent, no, but they are fighting for their lives. Israelis are not; they've been able to overpower the Palestinians militarily from the beginning. Moreover, the state of Israel was born in terror and bloodshed, and that has become a state tactic.

[MineralMan]

7. Joshua 6

No religious basis, eh?

1 Now JERICHO was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in.
2 And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand JERICHO, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour.
3 And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days.
4 And seven priests shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams' horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.
5 And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram's horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.
6 And Joshua the son of Nun called the priests, and said unto them, Take up the ark of the covenant, and let seven priests bear seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD.
7 And he said unto the people, Pass on, and compass the city, and let him that is armed pass on before the ark of the LORD.
8 And it came to pass, when Joshua had spoken unto the people, that the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets of rams' horns passed on before the LORD, and blew with the trumpets: and the ark of the covenant of the LORD followed them.
9 And the armed men went before the priests that blew with the trumpets, and the rereward came after the ark, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
10 And Joshua had commanded the people, saying, Ye shall not shout, nor make any noise with your voice, neither shall any word proceed out of your mouth, until the day I bid you shout; then shall ye shout.
11 So the ark of the LORD compassed the city, going about it once: and they came into the camp, and lodged in the camp.
12 And Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the LORD.
13 And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
14 And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.
15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times.
16 And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city.
17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.
18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.
19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.
20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.
23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.
24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out JERICHO.
26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city JERICHO: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.
27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.

[Ed76638]

8. These settlers are the worst scum.

Nazi motherfuckers.

[MineralMan]

9. Here's some more religion that applies,

and from many centuries ago:

Numbers 31

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive FOR YOURSELVES.


Still think there's no religious component to this ancient hatred? Incidentally, this took place somewhere near the Gulf of Aqaba.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. That highlighted bit may have some biological, evolutionary basis.

It is surprisingly similar to the sort of primitive warfare practiced by chimpanzees. When there are two warring groups, they will kill all the males they can, and kill all of the infants, but the females who are at or nearing reproductive age will be abducted into the warring group for the males to impregnate.

[dgibby]

10. And helping fan the flames? American Christian fundies. n/t

[MineralMan]

11. Yes, indeed. They need to get the Temple rebuilt so

they can get Ruptured and leave all the evil people behind. Lovely bunch. A few decades, they were the same ones calling Jews names. Now, though, they figured out that the Israeli Jews are useful to them, so they're back in love with them these days.

[dgibby]

12. "get Ruptured"

DUzy! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

73. Did you intend to say 'Ruptured' or is that just a really inspired typo?

Either way, I think it just about sums these people up!

[azurnoir]

15. And IDF is doing what ?

I mean besides being "concerned"

[varelse]

142. The IDF will protect the settlers from retaliation

They are required to do this, even under circumstances in which the soldiers themselves may be well aware of the inherent injustice of the policy.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. The pogrom tactic has been learned well.

[Scurrilous]

32. Assailants vandalize West Bank mosque

<snip>

"Israeli police say assailants have vandalized a mosque in a Palestinian village in the West Bank.

Settler extremists have recently attacked Palestinians and their property in response to Israeli government moves to curb settlement construction. They have dubbed the attacks the "price tag" policy.

Israeli police spokesman Gili Elhadad says the vandals also desecrated holy books in the mosque in the village of Yasuf early Friday. He says the incident is being investigated but the vandals were not caught."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

[LeftishBrit]

80. Disgusting