Israel continues to threaten peace process.

[bribri16]

It's a cryin shame but who didn't know this was going to happen. The "terrorists" the US fails to inspire, Israel will take up the slack.

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has accused Israel of wrecking prospects for peace after soldiers killed five Palestinians and Tel Aviv unveiled plans to expand the largest West Bank settlement.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F903669F-27B0-4EFE-883C-9186F1E27A35.htm

[bluesoul]

1. oh my

They're expanding the largest West Bank settlement and still claiming they're pulling out of Palestinian territory and land? Out of a few small settlements, yet still continue to ilegally occupy foreign land.

Someone watching CNN and not knowing the details could almost believe the hype that they have withdrawn completely which they should have done a long time ago according to UN resolutions. What a sham!

[Colorado Blue]

2. Wait a second. UN 242 calls for withdrawal from land - not

THE land - in exchange for peace. The withdrawal from Gaza and the several West Bank communities was undertaken on a completely unilateral basis, with only 2 of the 22 Arab League states having peace agreements with Israel. The Palestinian Covenant still calls for her total destruction, and the "hudna" now in place is neither a truce nor a true ceasefire, but actually translates in Arabic to "rest between fighting".

Meanwhile, it is important to understand two things: the so-called "Green Line" is not a true border, as one has never been formally negotiated. The terrorities on which the close-in settlements lie is on territory that at best could be termed disputed, not "Palestinian". I understand, in fact, that the Green Line was drawn after the cease-fire in 1948, by people going from body to body, burned house to burned out car, and that is the so-called border. It hardly constitutes the secure borders required for long term peace and the safety of Israeli civilians. Probably you should take a look at a map to understand how dangerous this situation really is: the country is only about 6 miles in places, and all too easily infiltrated and vulnerable now, to missiles.

Secondly, the recent shootings were apparently of Islamic Jihadists, who were responsible for suicide bombings that claimed several Israeli lives - among them some young women who were shopping. This happened about the same time as the London bombings but received very little press, as world attention seemed focused on Europe. The other, very recent fatality was a young Israeli seminary student, stabbed to death in Jerusalem, by an Arab. His friend was also gravely injured in the attack. The fact is that Abbas has not, after repeated pleas, corralled the terrorists.

[bluesoul]

3. That's

your view, pretty one-sided as far as I am concerned not taking into account many important details that go in favor of the Palestinian. Fact is those UN resolutions and conventions do exist and Israel isn't exactly abiding them. Israeli settler also killed several Palestinians as well as the IDF has done in the past. Let's not go into who killed who as the Israelis have a high civilian bodycount on their hands as well, even exceeding those of the suicide bombers..

[barb162]

4. Thank you for the clarification on UN 242

and from the article
"The five fighters, one from Islamic Jihad and the rest from al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, were shot and killed when an arrest operation in Tulkarm refugee camp disintegrated into a shootout."

[Colorado Blue]

5. I'd like to add a few thoughts, and ask for suggestions.

I think, to avoid a one-sided POV, one has to take into account both sides and regrettably, the post to which I initially responded did not.

Indeed, all too often, criticism of Israel neglects altogether to acknowledge the decades of violence that have plagued this region. Nor does it suggest that perhaps the Palestinians and the other Arab governments might want to take some responsibility for their actions both in fomenting violence and in victimizing the people who find themselves used as political pawns. The occupation itself wouldn't have happened, had it not been for Arab aggression, nor would its harsher aspects have been implemented had it not been for ongoing terrorism. And ironically, I just saw a Yahoo article a few minutes ago in which the Palestinians are concerned that, without Israeli medical care, the health situation in Gaza will deteriorate! So the situation is full of ironic complexity and nuance, and defies simplistic analysis.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050825/wl_mideast_afp/mideastpulloutgazahealth_050825151832

But sadly, one finds oneself, when participating in such discussions, having to take a much harder line than one would like, simply to effect a balance. It is regrettable that the proPalestinian faction doesn't seem to see the Israeli POV at all, even a little, but will seize any opportunity to blast and demonize the Israelis - regardless of the provocation or situation to which they may have been responding.

Moreover, reliance upon opinions generated at the UN, wherein the Israelis are outnumbered 6 million to several hundred million Arabs, and a total of 1.3 BILLION Muslims, will prove to be shaky at best, bigoted at worst.

In any case I would suggest, and indeed implore people participating in these threads, to please dial down the rhetoric, try to avoid stereotyping and attempt to understand that there is more than one way to look at this problem.

As you know, it has taken many decades, since the early part of the 20th century, and much bloodshed, to reach the place we are today. Attacks on Jews began in the 1920's, culminated in the blockading of the region throughout and following the Holocaust - which cost more lives, including those lost on refugee ships filled with desperate people - and finally resulted in 3 major wars against Eretz Israel, and countless acts of terrorism. All of this must be understood in order to comprehend current events - yet I fear little of it is even known let alone serves to provide a basis for empathy.

Meanwhile, it is difficult enough to try and build bridges between people when the so-called lovers of peace, the Left, are squawking louder and taking a harsher and more provocative stance, often appearing in fact to regard terrorist violence as acceptable "activism" whilst ignoring that their intended victim is a democratic state - than the "war-mongers" on the Right. This puzzles and concerns me deeply, and indeed I question, in such cases, whether "Left Wing" and "Progressive" are indeed synonymous.

Shouldn't we try to work together, as true progressives should, without the shrill finger pointing, to help bring about a fair and lasting peace? Shouldn't we try to find creative solutions, not just to this problem, but to the fissures between cultures that endanger us all, rather than emphasising the differences between people and contributing to the angst?

I would welcome suggestions as to how we might go forward to accomplish that, to create a better, more productive dialogue, and contribute something positive to the outcome of this situation.

[bluesoul]

7. Hmm

You forgot all about the history of Israeli (IDF) violence, oppression, torture, humiliation, civilian infrastructure demolishment, daily raids, checkpoints, stopping medical aid.... against Palestinian civilians and all the land grabbing that had nothing to do with fighting terrorism, since it wasn't some forces being there rather then bringing people from all over the world that never lived in that piece of the world for the first place. To ensure the "greater Israel". So yes, it couldn't be more one-side POV from your side. You left all the important details that don't exactly make Israel the innocent bystander or claiming the "higher moral ground", far from it!

[Colorado Blue]

8. Whoa. I think that you had already covered the bad deeds

of the Israelis pretty well, as if we haven't heard them ad infinitum already.

As I stated, I'm trying to provide some balance, which is sorely lacking in these little presentations, along with some understanding as to the background and history of the people of Israel - which is also completely missing in this recitation along with an acknowledgement of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who were expelled from their communities in the Middle East after 1948 or of the dreadful conditions confronted by Jewish people elsewhere, which has led to the necessity for the creation of Israel. The establishment of Israel was hardly undertaken as a lark but rather as a desperate measure to try and preserve at least part of the tiny Jewish community - estimated at less than 13 million globally today, fewer than before Hitler.

Their lives and their stories are just as important as the Arabs', as is an awareness that the borders as drawn by Sykes-Picot - the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by the British and the French - were completely arbitrary. There is no reason whatsoever why, in the vastness of the Arab landscape, the tiny corner called Israel shouldn't exist in peace and room for the burgeoning Arab population can't be found.

Here are some links, perhaps you'll find them interesting. Please note these are from a neutral source, and please pay special attention to the map of "Greater Israel", which is smaller than Lake Erie and which, I think you'll see, is dwarfed by the 22 Arab states. It should also be noted that the Arab people are NOT indigenous to, for example, Africa, but have in fact expanded over an enormous territory and not always by peaceful means.

So enough with the 'MORAL HIGH GROUND' and on with some FACTS, which hopefully might lead folks to a better understanding of the issues and history of the Jewish and Israeli people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Israeli_conflict
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew

I believe you'll find that the tragic events that have befallen the Arab people haven't been ignored by the Israelis or by supporters of Israel here in the US. Rather, we are attempting to find ways to minimize and hopefully, end the violence, which has lasted for over 80 years and has claimed too many innocent lives on both sides. Beyond that, people of good will are trying to find ways to improve the economy of the region, connecting for example Israeli and Egyptian textile concerns, Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli waterworks and environmental projects, and other practical and much needed economic projects. Along with any such constructive ideas, however, must be an awareness of the very real security problems faced by Israeli and Arab alike. Condemning the Israelis for trying to arrest and finally having to shoot terrorists, when the P.A. either cannot or will not do so, reflects a simple lack of understanding and so I implore you to do some reading and some reflecting. Try, perhaps, to put yourselves in the shoes of the people who've lost loved ones to terror and war. We can understand the Arabs; can you understand the Israelis?

I am asking for rational and constructive dialogue, with educated people, on these matters. I hope you will join me in trying to find ways to improve communications and help solve some real world problems. None of this will occur in an aura of finger-pointing and blame.

[bluesoul]

10. emm

Palestinians are NOT the 22 Arab states (i don't know why you keep repeating that we're talking about P/I) and Palestinians were not the ones responsible for the Holocaust or Hitler's policy and actions. Yes of course I feel sorry for them and their plight during and after the war (my granpa unfortunately had to witness the same fate), but that doesn't mean that the Palestinians should pay a price for the sins of others and be expelled from their homes and land, especially since Israel already has it's state and land (beyond the green line) and the rest was "given" to the Palestinians, that little part that remained, yet some would still want to grab more of it, as though as they didn't have enough. Not even mentioning the hijacking of the natural resources (water etc) of which the Palestinians have been deprives, or the water reservates the IDF so gladly likes to target and destroy..

[Colorado Blue]

20. Excuse me but this battle HAS BEEN and IS between Israel

and the entire Arab world. None of the wars was merely between Israel and the "Palestinians" but in fact between groups of Arab allies - many of whose leaders, including Yasser Arafat, weren't at all interested in establishing a Palestinian state but in fact had and HAVE, panArabic nationalism as a long-range goal.

Arafat himself, along with Muamar Gaddafi, Nasser, and others who've made war and sponsored terror - not just against Israel but against the West - was funded and supported by the Soviet Union. Israel and the Palestinian people have been pawns in battles between Great Powers and indeed, the entire modern Middle East was shaped by Great Power and oil industry interests. And of course oil-rich Arab states have helped fund and continue the violence.

The Arab states are playing another, quite sinister role in keeping the pot boiling: their immigration policies, except for Jordan, have greatly restricted Palestinian immigration and citizenship. This has kept refugees in the camps until a few hundred thousand have become millions, and people have festered there for almost 60 years. Egypt says this is "to preserve the Palestinian identity." Jordan has just announced it won't allow major new immigration.

With the birthrate exploding the population, even if the Palestinians had the whole of the West Bank tomorrow - do you really think they could all live there in anything but poverty? What will happen to Israel then, and to the Palestinians? I think you can see the shape of long-term Arab League policy? And who is suffering for it? Is it not Arab and Israeli alike? Doesn't the Arab/Israeli struggle give corrupt governments the perfect excuse to ignore reforms and create economic opportunities and empowerment for their people?

Even today, following the demise of the Soviets, the Saudis have picked up the bill for the terrorism, having sent BILLIONS to the Palestinian militants, whilst Iran has been funding Hizbollah and other Shi'a groups - all of which are intent upon Israel's destruction. Meanwhile the people have a lousy economy, a birthrate that is exploding the population in the tiny region of I/P, with emmigration strictly limited, and textbooks that don't even show Israel on the map. Islamism is actually moving people AWAY from secularization and modernization, women in particular have been become symbols - veiled symbols - of a cultural struggle not just against the hated Israelis - but against the West.

Therefore one cannot see the I/P situation as merely a struggle between Israel and the Palestinians. It never has been, although I wish it were. If that were the case I truly believe that people of good will on both sides could prevail and we've have reached an accomodation decades ago.

Please read the links I provided, and perhaps also some histories of the modern Middle East. The history of the 6 Day War, which resulted in the occupation that so plagues us today, was caused partly by Soviet misinformation, whereas the Lebanese civil war, involved just about the whole damn planet and some mighty strange allies: at one point Israel and Syria actually defended the same side.

The original war against Israel in 1948 involved 5 Arab armies, in some cases armed and trained and led by the British, against 35,000 poorly armed Israeli fighters. Though the Palestinian Jewish fighters had fought alongside Britain in WWII, the Brits had confiscated their arms even as they attempted to blockade refugee ships - ships carrying Holocaust survivors - from reaching safety in the Palestine Mandate. This was done because the British interests in the region were ALWAYS about Empire and OIL, not about humanitarian concerns for the Jews, and the Arabs were not in favor of helping the Jews - even to the extent of letting them stay during the war in concentration camps.

How much do you think this has changed today? How long will Israel be able to hold out against this kind of pressure, with oil becoming scarcer all the time and many Arabs demanding that ALL the "occupied terrorities" be liberated - and this means all of Israel?

The Yom Kippur war, in 1973, which came close to a catastrophe for Israel, similarly was a gang attack. Decisions in the UN also feature group voting, not only by Arab states but by MUSLIM states, all working against Israel. Israel gets more resolutions passed against it than governments like Sudan, which is involved in an actual genocide.

As far as the Holocaust is concerned, local leadership, in the form of Haj Amin al Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, absolutely involved the people of the area. He spent the war years, from 1941 to 1945, in Berlin - working for Adolph Hitler. You can read about him in the transcripts of the Nuremburg Trials if you don't believe me.

Among other things he helped create a Bosnian brigade that was directly involved in the Holocaust and made radio broadcasts calling for the extermination of all the Jews in the Middle East. He had been appointed to his post by the Brits in 1922, I believe, and was directly responsible for a great deal of the violence against both Jews and moderate Arabs, which helped destroy any possibilities for peace and understanding between Jews and Arabs all those many decades ago. The riots he helped create in the 1930's resulted directly in the limitations placed by the British on Jewish immigration and land sales in the region at the time when they were most needed. Do you really think this hasn't resulted in bad blood? How and why do you think Irgun was established? It was originally created to defend Jews against Arab attacks, then became involved in the struggle against the British, and ultimately evolved into the Likud. All modern politics has its roots in the past.

After Hitler fell, al Husseini fled to Lebanon where he was involved in helping direct the war against the fledgling state of Israel.

READ. There are layers and layers of history involved in this struggle. The war of 1948, following hard on the heels of the near-total disaster of the Holocaust, was an existential struggle for the Jewish people - and it is difficult not to see the plight of modern Israel in the same light.

We are reaping the bitter fruit of this history today. Pretending that none of this happened, that it just evolved yesterday, or that one side is 100% guilty whilst the other is 100% innocent, will NOT help solve the problem, nor will trying to pretend that the Arab-Israeli struggle is limited to a misunderstanding between the people of Israel and the people of the Palestinian territories.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

35. I

never mentioned Al Jazeerah. They're as much propaganda as Jerusalem Post is and all those right wing media sources owned by Murdoch and the gang...

From the Israeli media i prefer Haaretz, if you're wondering.

[barb162]

69. Outstanding analysis, Colorado Blue!

I think you clearly are showing that instead of pointing fingers and endlessly using excuses, the parties involved now have to work together peaceably for a two state solution and rein in their own militants.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I got a balance done on my car the other day...

Took it to one guy who did it so that it steered slightly to the left, so I took it to another guy who told me he'd provide a balanced wheel alignment to fix up the previous lack of balance, and when he'd finished, the car was steering so far to the right that it was going in circles!


Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

21. I am not sure what your car has to do with this discussion.

But, I wish you well with your repairs.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. Think about it...

Keep thinking the word 'balance' and what it means. It may come to you eventually ;)

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Here's my suggestions...

in no particular order, but all hand-crafted to give the discussion in this forum a nicely nuanced stance that will 'take into account both sides'

• We must NOT criticise Israel under any circumstances. If there's a feeling we will look like we have a one-sided POV if we don't, we must use faint criticism peppered with the words maybe and possibly, and then close with 'WHY ISN'T ABBAS DOING SOMETHING TO STOP THIS???'
  
  
• We must praise Israel as much as possible. As with fighting the nasty scourge of criticism of Israel, don't worry if what we have to say is directly opposite to what the Israeli govt says. After all, what do they know?
  
  
• Read 'The Clash of Civilizations' and believe it...
  
  
• If anyone appears who doesn't want to join in with us, we'll just surround them and insist that in voicing legitimate criticism of Israel, they're actually 'so called lovers of peace' and more than likely card-carrying members of Islamic Jihad...
  
  
• We must drop a Holocaust reference into every second post and use the term 'dhimmi' every third post. Also mention every few days that several million MUSLIMS actually participate at the UN, making sure to stress that because there's so many muslims there the UN is bigoted. Even if all of these have got zero to do with what we're reply to it'll work a treat!
  
  Now for the serious part. This comment: 'But sadly, one finds oneself, when participating in such discussions, having to take a much harder line than one would like, simply to effect a balance.'
  Speak for oneself please. I've seen plenty of extreme stances on both sides since I arrived here, and effecting a balance does not mean taking a hardline and extreme stance in return. Being balanced means actually being able to see both perspectives and feeling empathy for both people, and being true to our own beliefs. What is so difficult about honesty when discussing the conflict? In my opinion, there's something just a bit little-kid about coming out with hardline comments we don't actually hold. Then again, who's to know if that hardline comment is actually the real opinion of the poster or not.
  
  Finally, what does yr idea of a 'fair and lasting peace' entail?
  
  Violet...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bluesoul]

26. Em

Only when we hear you acknowledging that Palestinians are human beings EQUAL to Israelis, having the same right to their state and land (UN partition) and finally, hearing you say something nice and positive about them. Up to know there was NADA. And we have strong reasons to suspect you regarding that issue. Therefor...

[Colorado Blue]

30. I guess you don't me very well. I have been sharing my life

with Arab (and other Muslim/Middle Eastern) people since the early 1970's. Indeed, I've been involved with these folks so long I remember when they were "Jordanian" and "Egyptian". Believe it or not, "Palestinian" wasn't always the term of choice, nor was Palestinian statehood always a matter of importance. Some of my younger friends, way back in the dawn of time, did refer to themselves as Palestinians but most did not.

I will say I am retroactively frustrated for them, that they didn't get their state in 1948, and even more so, during Clinton's time in office, and I'm furious that Bush chose to ignore the situation, and most of all it hurts me deeply that people have been living in cages for almost 60 years. It shouldn't happen to dogs let alone to human beings, who have largely been victims, and in many cases have had no control over events. So, I'm beyond frustrated on behalf of the Palestinian people, I'm angry.

In the case of my personal history, actions, I think, do speak louder than words but how were you to know that?

I would, therefore, like to suggest that it pays to be a little careful about projecting, ok? One doesn't really know to whom one is speaking.

Now, how about a nice round of applause for the Israelis? And an acknowledgement that they too deserve their statehood and their home?

[bluesoul]

31. Yeah right

Emm.. you claim you have some personal "expertise" (them living for 60 years in cages???) and then spit out the stereotypical RW remarks about Palestinians/Arabs that are actually insulting portraying the Palestinians as some primitive tribe that is inferior compared to the Israelis. Funny thing is the ones I met in my life were completely different from the ones you portray. So much for you sharing your life with them. You're not the only one that lived among Muslims/Arabs or Palestinians in particular and your views hold no more truth or ground then any other here, sorry to spoil it for you...

[Colorado Blue]

36. Excuse me, but where in my posts have I EVER said or

implied such a thing? I have NEVER stated that the Palestinians or other Arabs, are a "primitive tribe" and I would appreciate an apology. Indeed I don't believe I've made any characterization of Arabs at all, other than to say I've spent much of my life in their fellowship, which means they must be friends, yes? Sympatico people - why would I spend time with people I despise? Some were airline pilots, some students, some were musicians in my company, for example - how primitive is that?

Please reread what I'm saying, OK? You're making some extremely insulting assumptions.

I think you're getting the wrong impression and also I do not believe that in any statement I've made, I've implied that Israelis are superior to Arabs. Perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else.

I'm shocked at your statement, to be honest, and really don't get where you're coming from, and you're putting words in my mouth and making inferences that simply aren't supported by anything I've said.

As for the refugee camps, how would you describe them? Resorts? They SUCK and are a wound upon humanity, one of many we need to heal.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

38. Of course I don't think the Palestinians want to live in

refugee camps. HAVE YOU READ WHAT I'VE BEEN WRITING???????? Have I not stated that I am sad and angry for the Palestinian people, that I wish they'd had their state in 1948, regret the missed opportunity during Clinton's term, am angry at Bush for allowing the violence of Intifada 2 to reach such terrible proportions, etc, etc and so forth? These comments upset you? I'm baffled.

As far as "ethnic cleansing" is concerned - I wouldn't use that term unless you want to deal with the fact that the entire Middle East is practically judenrein, the ancient Mizrachi and Sephardic communities of nearly 1,000,000 people having been reduced to about 8,000 between 1948 and 1970 or thereabouts in retaliation for the creation of Israel, and one could even consider the expulsion of settlers from their homes in Gaza and West Bank an example of ethnic cleansing as well. I know some of these people, from Iraq, Morocco, Tunisia. They lost homes, businesses, in many cases people lost their lives. Several hundred thousand wound up in South America, the majority in tent cities in tiny Israel, where they've been fighting for their lives ever since. Suffering hasn't been limited to either Arabs or Israelis, and nor is bigotry.

In any case I'm sorry that we seem to have reached a conversational impasse. I will leave you with one comment: referring to refugees from persecution, for example from the former Soviet Union as "illegals", shows an astonishing lack of sensitivity. They may have been dead wrong politically, nevertheless they are human beings who were merely seeking a better life, and have been caught up in the complexities of this situation.

If you are an American citizen, perhaps you should consider your own family's history. This land was built by immigrants, with far less righteous claim to its soil than the Israelis, and with far greater destruction to its indigenous people, who have been reduced in number to less than 1.5 million souls, their culture and way of life virtually destroyed. Nevertheless we hold our country dear and SOME of us even have the nerve to condemn OTHER refugees as "illegals". Perhaps THOSE refugees should have sat in the gulags and died, or spent the rest of forever hiding in the shadows from religious bigotry? And if indeed you are of Native American heritage, please consider the fact that your people too were immigrants - from Asia.

The same lack of compassion thus exhibited has marred this entire struggle, it isn't limited to one side or the other; but I'm saddened to see it on a progressive forum.

[bluesoul]

45. Naa

"If you are an American citizen, perhaps you should consider your own family's history. "

I' am not an American, don't live there and am not burdened with the things you talk about, fortunately. So spare me your guilty laying for genocide or claim of land. The land i live on was never stolen by anyone...

[Colorado Blue]

71. Really???? I don't know where you are from but I'd bet that

at some point, it was fought over.

Human history is replete with struggle and violence. Until we learn to use nonviolent means to settle our disputes, this will continue. Perhaps I/P can be an example of good will and reason triumphing over hatred and violence. That is my dearest hope.

Meanwhile, the claims of moral purity are really making me ill.

Europe is mentioned in a previous post. Perhaps, since this is supposedly such a morally superior paradise, we could hear an explanation for all the many wars there, which in the 20th century alone cost tens of millions of lives? The genocides of gypsies, gays, dissidents and of course, Jews? The religious bigotry that has torn the continent apart? Does it need to mentioned that antisemitism was one of the hallmarks of "liberal" European society, most regrettably French and British, during the 1930's and before? Nor has this sentiment abated, judging from recent crime reports detailing attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions such as schools, cemeteries, memorials and SCHOOL BUSES. Indeed, I would trust NOTHING European on the topic of Jews or Eretz Israel. Jewish history in Europe is soaked in blood. Shall we imagine these sentiments simply died in 1945? I think NOT.

Also, since we're going far back into history, discussing "stolen land", I'd suggest a little study of the history of Israel, land and people; and of the Jewish communities throughout the Middle East, which by and large no longer exist. And, I'd like to suggest a little study of AMERICAN history - both continents. The "thieves" came from somewhere. The Middle East? Gimme a break already. This territory has been disputed by many parties, for millenia. Russia? Greece? Africa? China? Central Asia? England? Canada?

Australia, perhaps? Don't get me started.

The fact is that the history of mankind is the history of migration, immigration, nomadism, emmigration, population transfer, intermarriage, tribablism, assimilation, xenophobia, xenophilia, and unfortunately, war. Change and dispute are NORMAL on this planet. Strife itself, competition and challenge, are built into nature and they're part of the human animal, and much of our history has reflected the effort to channel this complex and often violent nature into creativity, cooperation and mutual concern.

All this, all of this struggle, creativity, challenge and change, is what has made our planet the marvelously diverse and intricate place we celebrate, love, and die for. Our task now is to see, not our differences, but our similarities, and build bridges bases on our common humanity.

We can see our planet from space, it is tiny, beautiful, glowing and alone. Let's treasure it, and ALL its lovely and imperfect inhabitants, with their brilliance and their idiocy, and stop this silly finger-pointing and moral one-upsmanship, ok? It solves nothing and serves only to throw up more walls.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Colorado Blue]

75. Give ME a break. Once again you are projecting. I am hardly

an Islamaphobe nor do I hate Europe and/or Europeans. I have people on all sides of WWII, for example, including Germany - so my ties to Europe are deep and profound as have been my connections to Muslim people. That doesn't mean I can't read history.

Meanwhile, these latest insults are so silly in view of the circumstances of my personal and professional life I really don't know where to begin so I'm not even getting into it. I might add that projecting and calling people names and insulting them doesn't constitute much of an argument.

Nor does anything I have said suggest that I can't criticize the Israeli government. That's bull. Nobody is MORE critical of Israel than the people who love and support her, including her vocal and DEMOCRATIC citizens.

What I will not do is agree that Israel should simply lie down and die, celebrate terrorism or bend over and accept the appellation of "rightwinger, Likudnik, Islamophobe, hater of Europe, insulter of Palestinians" etc etc and so forth, which you have levelled at me. None of this is supported by anything that I have written, lived or felt, none of constitutes any kind of an argument and worse it suggests nothing I've written is actually being read.

I am in fact asking that people stop throwing out these silly insults and try to find creative solutions to our problems, think a little bit outside their personal box and learn some history, better yet learn some EMPATHY - but I see I'm not getting very far.

Sad. And it bodes ill for the future.

[bluesoul]

77. Bullshit

It's not insults, it's the simple truth. I've been reading your posts and they reveal enough for me.

Empathy is for people that deserve it. Up to now you haven't shown anything that you would deserve it. Especially considering your one-sided views and anti-Islamic anti-Palestinian views all over this section. You don't fool me. And don't patronize me or tell me what I should learn or think outside my personal box. It's you having that very problem regarding Palestinians and anything that is not Judeo/Christian. So spare me..

[simcha_6]

123. Seems some think any pro-Israel person is anti-Palestinian

What a limiting view.

[Violet_Crumble]

127. And it seems like some think any pro-Palestinian person is anti-Israel...

An equally limiting view, but one some seem intent on ignoring the existence of...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Huh?

Australia, perhaps? Don't get me started.

Why?

[simcha_6]

124. History of Australia's pretty bad

Genocide, or ethnic cleansing of the aboriginies is well documented. (Unfortunately, my area of interest lies a bit to the West of Australia, so I don't know it all, including whether the term genocide is more or less appropriate than ethnic cleansing.)

Did you ever watch "Rabbit-Proof Fence." That will give a bit of background on semi-modern treatment of aboriginies. For more detailed history, as always, books are best.

[Violet_Crumble]

128. Uh, yes. I'm already aware of that...

Still doesn't fill me in on what point exactly CB was trying to make. If there were DUers who denied that ethnic cleansing and genocide and a whole bunch of other terrible things were part of Australia's history, then it'd make sense, as it appears that there's some DUers who deny ethnic cleansing was part of Israel's history...

I saw Rabbit Proof Fence about two years ago. It was a great film. Reading some stuff on the Stolen Generation is also a good place to start when doing some research into the treatment of indigenous Australians. Unfortunately, there's a RW brigade here who just like some of the most avid 'defenders of Israel' will deny till they're blue in the face that these things happened (Keith Windshuttle being an obvious and prominent one)...

Violet...

[simcha_6]

121. Putting words in others' mouths and twisting their arguments...

to make them absurd strikes me as a little lame, but then what do I know. (Even if you ignore everything else, please read the "what you have to remember" paragraph.

From a pragmatic standpoint, though, the more you criticize Israel, the less likely peace is to come. I know several people (including myself) who are moderately pro-Israel, but we veer right whenever someone starts laying on unqualified attacks at the Jewish state. Also, since the Jews have a history of being hated by just about everyone, attacks on Israel do seem reminiscent of anti-Semitism (Martin Luther King, Jr. even equated the two, although I personally don't think that the two are exactly the same anymore), which I, and plenty of others, I imagine, view as irrational. That means that, when attacks against Israel are made with no effort to understand Israel's position, we figure that some of that criticism is really just neo-anti-Semitism, which can't be changed regardless of Israel's actions.

Worse, people like me veer right upon hearing these accusations, and start excusing Israel for everything and ignoring the Palestinians plight, even when we personally are sympathetic to their problems.

About criticism of Israel, though. I view criticisms of Israel as sometimes real, other times just Judeopathy. When Israel pulls creates a Palestinian state, the rational will presumably end, the the other faction of Israel-bashers will harp on about border crossings, and security measures, or the final agreement status. My town's holding this forum on the "57 year occupation of Palestine." This makes it sound like, even when Israel gives up the Palestinian Territories, Israel will still be criticized for being an occupier, which leads one to think, "why change when the criticism won't?"

The answer is, of course, that the nature of the criticizers will change (the real ones will go away, the rest will be the anti-Semitic faction that has existed since the Diaspora). Security is also a reason. Ever since the Passover bombing in Netanya years ago, my reasoning for being pro-Palestinian state has been as much, or more for Israel's sake than the Palestinians, mostly because I expect 5-10 years of chaos after Palestine is created before real development starts (for everyone's sake, I hope I'm wrong). Being in the territories is bad for Israel's security anyway, and pulling out is the only way for Israeli society to progress, hopefully retaining the glory it had in the eighties and nineties (record education levels, economic success, etc.)

What you have to remember is that Israel holds all the cards in the I/P conflict; a modern army, relative wealth, a powerful patron, the land, and the capability to end the conflict on its own terms. (Hamas, for all its talk, couldn't destroy Israel. Israel, if it wanted to, could do things so horrific to the Palestinians that it would convince me to move to Israel simply to riot.) Fortunately, Israel doesn't do these things, but its politicians are as stubborn as those in America, so to get them to do what you want, you need to talk on their terms. It doesn't matter to Sharon, I think, how many years the Palestinians have lived in the area, or how horrible of conditions they live in. What matters is Israel's security (and maybe getting reelected.) So those looking for real peace have to address Israel's concerns most of all.

One last thing. A just peace is impossible, I think, but a good peace would have economic success and security for both sides. This probably means that Hamas would have to be co-opted or destroyed, and Israel would have to be in charge of security at the Western Wall and the Dome of the Rock (though it would be good if Palestinian security forces shared the security burden). This is for two reasons. First of all, Israel's record of protecting Islamic Holy Sites is better than Islamic nations' records, at leas in recent history. More importantly, after the creation of a Palestinian state, Israeli terrorists will almost certainly try to infiltrate Palestine in order to destroy said holy site, thereby sparking war and the reoccupation of the Palestine. Because Arafat messed up the Palestinian security forces, and because Israel destroyed their capability to act (a deeply stupid move, in my opinion) I think Israel is the only actor able to provide enough security. However, Haram al-Sharif should be open to all Palestinians without them having to go through security to get there, thereby allowing freedom of worship, so it would appear like a shared zone even though it would be under Israeli authority. In ten to twenty years, if things calm down, perhaps the Palestinians could take over security, or at least the leading role in security.

[Violet_Crumble]

126. It does strike me that way too...

Which is why I don't do it, and if you'd been reading the threads in this forum, you'd understand why I posted it...

Personally, I think if you start excusing Israel for everything, no matter what the reason, then yr no better than someone who excuses everything done by Palestinians and using an equally lame excuse to do it...


Violet....

[newyorican]

6. This "view"...

of the UN resolutions was debunked many moons ago. It was during the days of DU1 and exists somewhere in these archives.

[Andromeda]

13. Thank you for your great posts, Colorado Blue.

They will not be contented just with disputed territory and so it's silly to assume that there is any good faith coming from the Islamic Jihad.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. It's not 'disputed' territory...

The particular post you were praising was full of major flaws which I've addressed in my post. The silly claim that the occupied territories are 'disputed' is included in the reply....

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

28. Sez you. Many in Israel, and many in the US as well and

elsewhere, would disagree.

The "Green Line" is not a formal border.

[bluesoul]

29. Well

Many rightwingers maybe in Israel and the US, NOT progressives (or they're not what they claim to be since they disrespect the UN and it's decisions)

Uri Avnery, Amira Hass, Noam Chomsky and many others would strongly disagree with you...

[Colorado Blue]

32. Disrespecting the UN, which is often wrong, isn't a sign of

being rightwing.

It's important to recognize that the UN, like any other human institution, isn't perfect and in the case of Israel, has often reflected the sheer force of numbers. The dark side of "the rule by the many" is "mob rule."

I believe that Israel has been unjustly criticized in the UN whilst other governments, guilty of far, far worse, have skated - Syria is on the security council. If you know anything about the Syrian government, especially vis a vis the Israeli democracy, that should amaze and alarm you.

Even here on DU, there's a whole separate forum for I/P yet it's difficult to get a discussion going about the Sudan or the other nightmares in Africa.

Why?

As far as Hass, Chomsky, et.al. - not all liberals and progressives are hard left. Indeed, one could argue that most real progressives, since we value the art of compromise, will be found toward the center. I know many people, good people, DEMOCRATS even, who are and have been quite offended by the philosophers you mention, and not just on topics concerning Israel. Similarly I've been both appalled and amused by threads damning Hillary Clinton for being rightwing.

In general, I think it would be good to have a discussion on the difference between "left wing" and "progressive". I'd been thinking they were synonymous but I'm beginning to question that assumption. "Left wing" has all sorts of political and economic overtones, assumptions about what should be considered right and wrong and moral; whereas being "progressive" to me means working peacefully and gradually for positive change, and thus could embody a whole spectrum of political philosophies.

Indeed, political purists run the risk of cutting off valuable insights from parties or "wings" they deem politically incorrect, and that strikes me as dumb.

[bluesoul]

33. Reality check

The US has gone so much to the right that I am not surprised by your labeling certain people as the "hard left" or even "extremists". Moderates are the ones that brought Bush to power and being a moderate in the US is more to the right apparently then the left which is particulary sad. How many registred democrats voted for Bush? Too many!

If there are democrats that are offended by brilliant linguists and analysts as Chomsky then maybe they're in the wrong party or even the wrong side of the policital spectrum. But that's the above mentioned story of the shift to the right (even within the Democrats, considering what people were candidates for the presidency - Joe Lieberman, i rest my case)

Not really surprised that you would label me then as an "extreme", even though in Europe I'm pretty much a moderate liberal with humanistic views, those so lacking among many self proclaimed progressives in the US and elsewhere, considering everything I have read on numerous forums...

And the same applies to the whole I/P issue and you being closer to the Likudnik views and me to the Gush Shalom peace movement. And I'm the extremist, right?

[simcha_6]

122. Stop equating progressives with obedience to the UN

The UN is a regressive organization that often times ignores problems when the problems are not convenient to member nations. (Especially regarding precedents of overriding sovereignty.) If they do tackle a problem, they usually do so by putting a freeze on the problem (such as feeding refugees, without helping them move on with their lives) until the world's attention goes away, and then they drop the refugees from the food delivery list without warning the refugees that they're about to have the rug pulled out from under them. (Research the history of Internally Displaced People from the Azerbaijan Armenian war in the 1990's for more information. Make sure your research covers those around Mingachevir and covers what happened between November 2004 and February 2005.) I have little respect for the UN specifically because I'm a progressive, and I don't want global law determined by a large group of selfish nation-states.

As for Israel, the UN is as biased as I am (albeit in a different direction) and I would even venture to guess a little more biased. The "(un)disputed territory" in the meantime, is obviously disputed because people are disagreeing (aka disputing) who it belongs to. (Proper answer, of course, is no one.)

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Please read my post about 242 and respond to it if you want...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x99555#99599

'Sez you!' isn't exactly a convincing rebuttal of the very compelling argument that 242 does not give Israel any legitimate claim over occupied territory. The use of the word 'disputed' tends to be used in order to lay claim to land that doesn't belong to Israel. Go back and reply to the lengthy post I just gave you the link to if you wish to move beyond 'sez you!!'

fwiw, Many Americans disagree that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. May Americans also disagree that angels don't exist (there's a cute poll I saw once that had that). If what was factually correct was decided on a popularity contest, then the world would be in an even sorrier state than it is now...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Oh well. It was worth a try...

Can't say I'm really surprised at the passing up of a chance to actually discuss the issue rather than generalising about other posters...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

73. I think this is what isn't understood here, that the "disputed

territory" happens to include all of Israel.

Worst of all, on this particular thread as well as others I've seen here, is the continuous accusation that supporters of Israel are somehow rightwing terrorists determined to kill Palestinian children. That's irresponsible, OTT, silly and insulting.

I really wish I had some clue how to speak sensibly to people who are determined not to see honest disagreement among people of good will, but some sort of murderous rightwing plot. Similarly, it appears that some of us are absolutely determined not to accept either certain historical facts OR a hand extended in good will, but to rebuff both or either. Again, no reasonable discourse is offered, merely insults and labels (right wing and "Likudnik" seem to be perennial favorites, to the point they're beginning to lose their meaning.)

Extremism isn't limited to armies and militias, it shows its face in words as well, and I'm concerned about this. There's nothing "progressive" in equating a nation's attempts at self-defense with terrorism, which deliberately seeks to harm and murder innocent life. The fact that some on the Left have chosen to do so, or worse to celebrate the terrorists, is harming the entire Left. The Right will have a field day with this stuff, it is going to hurt us at the polls - and besides I find it utterly hypocritical.

We have seen, after just one terror bombing in London, how rapidly liberal Europe has moved to curtail the rights of certain groups and individuals, how an innocent man was blown away with 5 shots to the head because he looked funny to the police, how international police agencies supported such actions as justifiable in the face of imminent threat from suicide bombers, how people have been deported and freedom of speech curtailed. Israel has been taking hits like this since before it was Israel, beginning actually in 1920 and continuing unabated.

I am beginning to get the impression that, to certain posters, the only possible course of action Israel can take is to dismantle itself and scatter its people to the winds.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. I really think you need to read my post about the term 'disputed'...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x99555#99599

My post and indeed the article I provided a link to are very specific in talking about the territory occupied by Israel after 1967. I'm at a loss as to how anyone could read that post and link and come to the conclusion that it's talking about all of Israel. If you'd like to address what I actually posted, I'd more than welcome it...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Several huge flaws in that worn out chestnut...

One by one...

UN 242 calls for withdrawal from land - not THE land - in exchange for peace.

The preamble of UN 242 says: 'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,' and then goes on to call for the 'Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;'

The Resolution makes it clear that the expectation is that Israel will withdraw from the territory it acquired in the war. Any claims that it means only one bit of territory returned will satisfy the requirements of UN 242 fail to recognise that the Resolution starts by stating the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory in war...

An article you should read on this issue is The basis for peace: Security Council Resolution 242 by John McHugo

This is the bit in particular that applies to the argument you just made:

'Many pro Israel publicists maintain that the wording of the first principle was intentionally devised to enable Israel to have the right to acquire some of the territories. 'Withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict', we are told, only meant withdrawal from 'some' of these territories. We are also told that words such as 'all' or 'the' were deliberately not included before 'territories', and that the interpretation intended by the Security Council was that Israel could fulfil its obligation by only withdrawing from 'some' of them.

This argument is fallacious for all the following reasons:

(i) It is not true that the plain meaning of the English wording 'withdrawal from territories occupied in the recent conflict' does not cover all the territories occupied. If you saw a notice which said 'Dogs may swim in ponds in the park', would you not assume that it applied to all ponds in the park, even though the notice does not say 'all ponds in the park' or 'the ponds in the park'. It is similar with 'territories occupied in the recent conflict'. A reader is entitled to assume that all such territories are intended.

(ii) The Israeli interpretation is inconsistent with the prohibition on the acquisition of territory by war in International Law which is emphasised in the Resolution.

(iii) There is a presumption in International Law that a document should be interpreted in order to make its meaning clear, and so an interpretation which leads to an uncertainty should be avoided if possible. By giving Israel a right to remain in 'some' of the territories, uncertainty arises as to which these territories are. This is a recipe for further conflict and cannot have been the intention of the Security Council.

(iv) There is a presumption that documents should be free of contradiction. The Israeli interpretation leads to a direct contradiction with the emphasis on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force, as well as the uncertainty just mentioned.'

The Palestinian Covenant still calls for her total destruction...

This comment is misleading. After all, the latest copy of the Likud charter that I could locate calls for the state of Israel to encompass both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Should we totally ignore everything else that's said and done and just focus on that one document? In the case of this attempt to claim that the PA doesn't recognise Israel and wishes to destroy it, a rather important moment in history called the Oslo Accords shows that up to be a blatantly untrue claim, as both Israel and the PA exchanged letters acknowledging the right of each other to exist. Would you like a link to the letters?

and the "hudna" now in place is neither a truce nor a true ceasefire, but actually translates in Arabic to "rest between fighting".

Nothing can be a true truce or ceasefire if the other side refuses to participate, and Israel refused to enter into a truce...

Meanwhile, it is important to understand two things: the so-called "Green Line" is not a true border, as one has never been formally negotiated. The terrorities on which the close-in settlements lie is on territory that at best could be termed disputed, not "Palestinian".

If that's the case, then what's now Israel is territory that at best could be termed disputed, not "Israeli". After all, the Green Line isn't a true border, so it works both ways if someone wants to deny the right of the Palestinian people to their own land. Trying to label the West Bank and Gaza Strip as 'disputed' is as ridiculous as if supporters of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor had claimed East Timor was disputed and not an occupation. Israel has no legitimate claim on the West Bank or Gaza Strip (see above comment and link about UN 242 if you need further information)...


It hardly constitutes the secure borders required for long term peace and the safety of Israeli civilians. Probably you should take a look at a map to understand how dangerous this situation really is: the country is only about 6 miles in places, and all too easily infiltrated and vulnerable now, to missiles.

What about the safety and security of Palestinian civilians? Don't they even rate a mention? And if the Zionist leadership back at the time of the partition plan shared yr opinion on military security, then why did they accept the partition plan? Here's a scenario - Israel takes huge chunks of the West Bank using the security excuse. How does that stop it from being infiltrated and vulnerable to missiles? The only way to stop that happening is to keep on expanding outwards. I'm curious, but where do you think Israel's borders should be located in order to ensure security? And what of the Arab population that would then find themselves in the new Israel? Would they be given Israeli citizenship or told to shove off?

The other, very recent fatality was a young Israeli seminary student, stabbed to death in Jerusalem, by an Arab. His friend was also gravely injured in the attack. The fact is that Abbas has not, after repeated pleas, corralled the terrorists.

You may have to explain this one. How is Abbas supposed to control what happens in Jerusalem when Israel totally controls the city and its inhabitants??

Violet...

[bluesoul]

16. Yeah...

"What about the safety and security of Palestinian civilians? Don't they even rate a mention?"

That's a question worth repeating a million times, yet we'll never hear the answer from people that apparently think Palestinians are not equal to Israelis as human beings and therefor do not deserve the same kind of treatment and rights. But I've gotten used to such kind mentality even here on DU....

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Bluesoul!

A bit belated, but welcome back! I missed you! :)

Actually, a trend I notice amongst some is to speak of peace and security as though it's only Israelis who should be thought about. If their peace and security comes at a high cost to the Palestinians and means they continue to live in misery, then so be it. Strangely enough, no-one's yet to explain to me why either Israelis or Palestinians are more worthy than each other, as I've always believed that the lives of both are equally valuable...

Violet...

[simcha_6]

125. The problem with this conflict is that neither side sees peace as possible

Since Hamas wants to destroy Israel, and is as or more popular than the PA, I see creating Palestine as a way to aid Hamas in its goal of destroying Israel. The only way to create a Palestinian state while preventing this would be sealing the borders and building a wall to the sky that could stop Qassam rockets, both of which would be bad for Palestinians. Similarly, if a Palestinian state were created encompassing the Dome of the Rock, it's likely that Israeli terrorists would go and try to destroy the Mosque. Since the PA's security is very ineffective, what with Israeli dismantling, PA's corruption, and Hamas' kidnappings, it seems likely that the Israelis would succeed, sparking more hate. Also, notice people in this forum stating that, even though he just gave up Gaza, Sharon is planning to reoccupy it. With this mindset, it stands to reason that Israel cannot be coexisted with. What is to be done?

[Colorado Blue]

25. Of course the safety of the Palestinians is important. Damn.

They are entertwined. When terror erupts innocents get hurt on both sides.

Hello? Why is it supposed that people who see the Israeli POV do not see the Arabs? We do.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. I don't think yr indicative of the 'Israeli POV' whatever that is...

I'm not really sure why you use the collective 'we' when speaking of yrself, but as I don't think that people who see the Israeli POV are all one mass of same-thinking robots, I have a problem when someone lumps them all together like that. Especially considering there are quite a few people like me who see the Israeli POV (assuming the POV you talk of is actually a support for the continued existance of Israel and the safety of its population, and not knee-jerk support of everything Israel does) as well as the Palestinian POV. And *gasp* we even have our own POV which don't follow some preordained party line!

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

76. This is agree with. I think I'm tending to lump all supporters

of Israel together in response to attacks on us as a group, and of course that's an oversimplification.

[Violet_Crumble]

79. About fixating on 'us' and 'them'...

Apart from the fact that it is grossly oversimplifying people's stances and turning any chance of constructive discussion into nothing more than a cyber-football game cheersquad type of thing, what it also does is leave the advocate of 'us' and 'them' in a position where they themselves are making attacks on 'them' as a group...

Another problem with this sort of thing is that the terms used like 'supporters of Israel' isn't defined. What does it mean to you, Colorado Blue? Does it mean someone who supports Israel right to exist within well-defined borders? That's me. Does it mean someone who believes Israel has the right to use legitimate means when reacting to attacks on its citizens? That's me as well. The only thing I can see that would have me falling into the 'them' category is that I also believe those same things apply just as much to the Palestinians. Which is why I think that yr oversimplification and the use of the collective 'us' isn't conducive to any sort of constructive discussion of the conflict, but more about polarising...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

87. Violet, we agree. That's why I think it's beyond annoying to

be labelled a rightwinger, a Likudnik, an Islamophobe, a person who disresepts Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims and somebody who hates Europe.

Please see Bluenote's posts to me - well I guess you can't because they've been deleted. But they're not atypical of the response proIsraeli posters frequently encounter.

Recently a proIsraeli poster, a long-time DU'er, a good man who spends his life saving the lives of others - was disappeared from this board - accused of not having shown sufficient compassion for the Palestinians. Hello? He was an avowed enemy of terrorism - not of the Arabs. But his comments against terror were interpreted as bigotry.

This, I don't understand. Protestations that "Arab" or "Muslim" and "terrorism" aren't synonymous are vanquished by the fact that a person who deplores terrorism can be accused by being anti-Arab or anti-Muslim.

Does this make sense?

How on earth support for Israel became a supposedly "right wing" cause I'll never know but it's frustrating and very difficult to deal with, especially for people with actual Communists in the family (my aunt), not to mention a Socialist mother and a personal lifetime spent espousing liberal causes, and especially in light of the desperate humanitarian reasons that lay behind her creation.

Humanitarian causes are theoretically a standard of the Left but not in Israel. In Israel, we see only concern for PALESTINIAN humanity, not for Israeli, and no respect whatsoever for the very real security problems - ie the vulnerability of 6 million people to attack, to the fact of several wars launched against her, not acknowledgement that most of the more draconian measures against Arabs were engendered by these on-going attacks - merely some vague wishful thinking that if people would just retreat to the Green Line all would be well.

Apparently, the Hamasniks who just the other day vowed to turn all of "Palestine" into "hell" are just kidding, right?

Concern for basic security isn't a rightwing phenomenon. Awareness of violent and existential threat isn't a rightwing phenomenon. Ignoring those problems isn't left wing, it's stupid, and in the case of the Jewish people has proven fatal.

With respect you embody this philosophy to some degree. In your Oslo paper your source list is all pro-Palestinian or "neutral" as in "New Historians", including the academically discredited Ilan Pappe - whilst you imply that Efraim Karsh, a professor in London - scholarly and highly intelligent - is somehow beyond the Pale and can't be used a reputable source. Why? Why leave out the work of a person who has a great deal to say about this topic? Because he doesn't fall into your idea of political correctness? Because he challenges political and/or emotional assumptions? Is that really scholarly or objective when preparing an academic paper?

In any case, if I'm oversimplifing I apologize. As I have mentioned in more than one post I've found myself taking a harder line than I would like simply to counterbalance attacks on my integrity, the integrity and sensibilities of the pro-Israeli posters on this board - almost all of whom are liberals or we'd be on some OTHER political board; and on Israel and her citizens and her leaders.

Indeed I'm getting the impression that many of the anti-Israel posters really are determined to see her gone altogether, and in fact espouse the violent philosophy of Hamas.

How are we supposed to talk to THEM? It's really impossible. The more one reasons, the more one tries to build bridges, the more concessions are made - as in the withdrawal - the greater the hatred and the determination to destroy.

Things have gotten even wierder, with Christians beginning to throw their weight around. Imagine how that feels, if you can - here's this powerful group of people, historically opposed to your very existence - as Jews, not just as Eretz Israel - invoking the word of "The Christ" in order to scold, punish and once again, try to coerce Jewish people to do what THEY think is right. Maddeningly, attempts to reason with THIS outfit runs smack into the moral superiority conferred only by an assertion that they have a direct line to the almighty - and have been "saved" to boot. A Greek Orthodox cleric is being severely punished - for the terrible sin of having sold property in Jerusalem to Jews. I think this is bigoted, medieval.

No doubt my own overgeneralizations, if in fact I've made them, are at least partially in response to that uncomfortable awareness, and to a growing despair. I fear a great catastrophe.

You castigate Benny Morris for having assumed much of the same sorrow and doubt - but it doesn't come from a political ideology. It hasn't grown from a preconceived idea but from experience, and therefore it can't just be dismissed as "right wing fanaticism" or other terms I've heard used to describe Benny and other Israeli and proIsraeli writers, posters, and politicians - and just recently, for pity's sake, neutral sources like the encyclopedia and the NY Times have been accused of rightwing bias. By rightwing, I think what is meant is "antiArab" or "proIsraeli" - as if the two must be mutually exclusive. That in and of itself is an appalling and illiberal concept.

Similarly, you wrote in a recent post, that proIsraelis are always talking about historical events and phenomena such as the Holocaust and dhimmitude, and you denigrated this. Why? These are very important factors in the history of the Middle East and of modern Israel. They are hardly irrelevant, and in fact the popularity of holocaust denial in much of the Middle East along with the denial that Jewish people were less than 1st class citizens before 1948 speaks very clearly to this point. Similarly, the fact that there does indeed exist a great cultural gap between "East" and "West", for want of better terms, is hardly irrelevant to the I/A struggle.

Espousing the values of the West is NOT RIGHT WING. I believe in civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, the right of people to express their sexuality and their artistic vision without fear of reprisal; to enjoy a democratic and secular government. I think women should keep their private parts, chose their own husbands in a monogamous environment and reproduce responsibly, bearing the increasingly fragile environment in mind - otherwise we're going to wind up with forced abortion as in China. Don't most liberals share at least some of these ideals?

Yet I see supposed liberals apparently supporting terrorism against a democratic, Western state when it comes to I/A, and similarly it seems acceptable to disrepect just about every religion or spiritual belief on the planet EXCEPT ISLAM, which has apparently been adopted as the politically correct religion of the so-called Left even though many of its precepts, and the customs in parts of the world where Islam happens to be the dominant religion, are anti-liberal and anti-democratic. No doubt somebody will call me an Islamophobe simply for mentioning these facts, and mentioning my confusion. Isn't that part of the problem with the totalitarian "left"? Any cause which has been adopted by these folks, for whatever reason - rational or otherwise - becomes sacred ground and mustn't be questioned or challenged - anybody who does so is automatically - you guessed it - RIGHT WING.

Duh? The fact that the far right and the far left are often accord seems to have escaped notice. But I notice, and deplore the lack of nuance and sensibility, and the lack of room for reason and rational debate.

I am angry, sad and increasingly depressed at the nonstop attacks, not only on Israel but on the people who are concerned for her citizens and her future. I think Hamas is winning and I fear that some in the so-called LIBERAL world, who should be espousing the virtues of democracy, individual freedom and non-violence, indeed espouse anything but.

How, with a pen, do we fight THAT?

[Behind the Aegis]

88. Well stated!

One should be able to speak out on all kinds of terrorism and not be labeled "right-wing," or "anti-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim." It is a "broad sweeping generalization" to think that calling out or being against terrorism is a "broad sweeping generalization" against Palestinians. It is similar to those that claim they "can't discuss Israel for fear of being labeled antisemitic." Some of us feel we can't "discuss terrorism without being labeled as one who is Donning an anti-Palestinian attitude!"

[Violet_Crumble]

98. Not really...

One should be able to speak out on all kinds of terrorism and not be labeled "right-wing," or "anti-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim."

One can do so. I've done so since I first arrived here and have never been labelled any of those things. Could it just possibly be that there are some folk who get labelled as bigoted against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims because they use the excuse that they're speaking out against terrorism to peddle their bigotry against these people? eg, folk who make broad and sweeping accusations of terrorism against the entire Palestinian people?

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

100. Actually, it was well stated.

Could it just possibly be that there are some folk who get labelled as bigoted against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims because they use the excuse that they're speaking out against terrorism to peddle their bigotry against these people? eg, folk who make broad and sweeping accusations of terrorism against the entire Palestinian people?

Just as you opine one possibility, I do so in reverse. Could it just possibly be that there are some folk who get labeled as bigoted against Jews because they use the excuse that they're speaking out against Israel to peddle their bigotry against these people? eg, folk who make broad and sweeping generalizations against the entire Israeli people/Israel that resemble the old antisemitic canards?

[Violet_Crumble]

101. It was nonsense...

Just as you opine one possibility, I do so in reverse.

Instead of just repeating what I've asked back at me and switching words, could you maybe answer the question I asked? See, the thing is that the post yr so intent on cheering on wasn't talking about 'some' folk or a few - it was making broad-brush and negative generalisations about anyone who doesn't fall into whatever the poster defines as 'pro-Israel', and as she didn't care to explain how she defines it, it is starting to seem as though anyone who criticises Israel more than she likes is 'anti-Israel'...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

105. It wasn't rhetorical?

Your "questions" appeared to be rhetorical. Thus, no answer.

[Violet_Crumble]

106. No, but then again I wasn't really expecting any real answer...

And I didn't get one, nor anything that addressed my post in any way. You claimed that people should be able to speak out against terrorism without being branded right-wing or anti-Palestinian, and I pointed out that I've spoken out against terrorism and never been branded those things. Am I just unique? Note: that one is a rhetorical question ;)

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

107. answer

Although this one is rhetorical, Am I just unique?, I will say "no." You are no more unique than am I, who has spoken out against some of the illegal actions of Israel, yet is branded a 'right-winger,' 'Likudist,' and other choice words.

[Violet_Crumble]

108. I should label my real questions as rhetorical ones!

There may be a real chance they'll get an answer if I make it clear they don't require one! ;)

Uh, yr not talking about the same thing, bta. You claimed that one should be able to speak out against terrorism without being called a RWer, etc, and I said I've spoken out against it and haven't been labelled as that. So you come back saying that you speak out against some of the illegal actions taken by Israel and are called a Likudist for doing that. Regardless, in my years in this forum I've never yet seen someone called a Likudnik or RWer for criticising Israeli policy, and strongly suspect that may be because it's actually never happened...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

109. Read a little closer...

I said, "You are no more unique than am I, who has spoken out against some of the illegal actions of Israel, yet is branded a 'right-winger,' 'Likudist,' and other choice words." I didn't say I was called "'right-winger,' 'Likudist,' and other choice words" because I had "spoken out against some of the illegal actions of Israel." The fact remains that I and others are called "'right-wingers,' 'Likudists,' and other choice words" because we are 'pro-Israeli' and, therefore are seen as 'anti-Palestinian.'

Therefore, your suspicions that you've "yet seen someone called a Likudnik or RWer for criticising Israeli policy, and strongly suspect that may be because it's actually never happened..." is correct, but it's not what I said.

On edit: bolding issue

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Then why bring up something that's got nothing to do with the discussion?

You originally claimed people get called RW etc because they speak out against terrorism, didn't you? So, to bring up a pararel example, wouldn't you have had to use an example where people are labelled because they criticise Israel?

Here's another rhetorical question. What do you define as 'pro-Israeli'? It's a rhetorical question that some folk seem to avoid answering, and I think it'd clear up a few things if that was made clear. Also, misuse of labels aren't a one-way street by any means, despite the attempts of some to act that way. Generally, I think that there's some folk who are actually the things they get called, though being a good little camper, I tend to keep my opinions to myself*, and there's others who don't deserve it at all and aren't given the chance they deserve - again this isn't restricted to one 'side' only...

* To be more precise, I don't make those opinions public, mainly because throwing accusations and labels at someone is a sure-fire way to put a stop to any chance of discussion, and because no-one's probably all that interested in what I think when it comes to that stuff. I know I don't dwell on it all that much except when it's shoved in my face...


Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

111. Review the sub-thread

You originally claimed people get called RW etc because they speak out against terrorism, didn't you?

NOPE! I originally claimed: "One should be able to speak out on all kinds of terrorism and not be labeled "right-wing," or "anti-Palestinian/Arab/Muslim."" I didn't say they were called those names because of anything; that was your contention.

So, to bring up a pararel example, wouldn't you have had to use an example where people are labelled because they criticise Israel?

Why should I use an example, you didn't provide one. It is the reason I said "(j)ust as you opine one possibility, I do so in reverse."

Here's another rhetorical question. What do you define as 'pro-Israeli'? It's a rhetorical question that some folk seem to avoid answering, and I think it'd clear up a few things if that was made clear.

Well, rhetorical questions often go unanswered, as that is the concept of "rhetorical questions." Therefore, rhetorically, what is 'pro-Palestinian?'

Also, misuse of labels aren't a one-way street by any means, despite the attempts of some to act that way.

I couldn't agree more! It happens on BOTH sides! Despite, some who pretend it is only a 'one-way' street.

Generally, I think that there's some folk who are actually the things they get called, though being a good little camper, I tend to keep my opinions to myself*, and there's others who don't deserve it at all and aren't given the chance they deserve - again this isn't restricted to one 'side' only..."

Again, I agree! There are a few here who are what they show themselves to be, no matter how hard they pretend to be something they are not. Hate is not reserved for "one" side.

* To be more precise, I don't make those opinions public, mainly because throwing accusations and labels at someone is a sure-fire way to put a stop to any chance of discussion, and because no-one's probably all that interested in what I think when it comes to that stuff. I know I don't dwell on it all that much except when it's shoved in my face...

Yet again, we agree. One, it is not permisable here to call people out for what they really are, and Two, we all react when things are 'shoved in our face,' especially lies and misdirection. It is a human response.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Okay, so you weren't saying it was because they oppose terrorism...

Glad that's sorted. Not sure what the point of it was in that case, and don't really find it interesting enough to ask why, considering you refused to answer my question about what you define 'pro-Israeli' as, and this is a going nowhere fast sort of pointless sub-thread...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

114. Sorted, indeed.

"Not sure what the point of it was in that case, and don't really find it interesting enough to ask why..." I am not in the least bit surprised.

"...considering you refused to answer my question about what you define 'pro-Israeli' as,..." "Here's another rhetorical question."

"...and this is a going nowhere fast sort of pointless sub-thread..." The agreements just aren't stopping tonight!

On edit: "Okay, so you weren't saying it was because they oppose terrorism...Glad that's sorted. Yet, that is how it was portrayed. Misspeak, mistyped, misrepresented? One can only guess.

[Violet_Crumble]

115. Damn...

You didn't realise when I said 'here's another rhetorical question' that I was trying out my new plan I'd just told you about in the post you replied to? Y'know, where I said I'd try labelling my real questions as rhetorical ones because there may be a chance that way they'd get an answer? No? Can't remember that very recent post? Oh, well. Not really sure why the question's such a hard one to deal with, actually, but it seems as popular in some parts as Kim Beazley's sweaty armpits...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

97. No, we don't agree...

I doubt you even bothered reading my post, considering you didn't bother to answer any of the questions I asked you that might have gotten a more constructive discussion going. Instead I return to find more of the exact same generalising of 'them' that you complain about happening to 'us'.

On a side note, I don't think anyone that calls Palestinian society a 'sicko society', uses the terms 'terrorstinians', and makes sick pancake queen jokes about Rachel Corrie is a good person. People would think someone like that was a bigot due to comments made that display bigotry towards Arabs and Muslims. The same goes for anyone who constantly implies or outright states that the Palestinian people are intolerant and anti-Semitic. In those sorts of cases, when those same folk turn around and announce way too loudly and way too often that they really do care about Palestinians and not just Israelis, the bullshit meter starts to ping...

Not sure why yr bringing my essay into this thread, but yr accusations about the sources I used are pretty ridiculous, especially as I doubt you have any knowledge of some of the authors used. As for Efraim Karsh, I used him for a source in an earlier essay about a topic that he's written a fair bit on, so I've got no idea where you've come up with that crap about me saying he's not a reputable source. The fact was that I said I could have gone looking for something said by Karsh on Oslo, but then I would have had to point out that most (in hindsight I should have stuck the word OTHER in here to make it even clearer for those who need lots of help) reputable sources don't share that view and the word limit constrained me...

I castigate Benny Morris for making bigoted comments, not for his work as a historian, which I hold in very high regard. I'm not really sure what yr trying to say here, CB. That the 'sorrow and guilt' excuse can be used to justify bigotry?

Similarly, you wrote in a recent post, that proIsraelis are always talking about historical events and phenomena such as the Holocaust and dhimmitude, and you denigrated this. Why?

Because I never said what you just accused me of saying, perhaps? Just like I never claimed all settlers are extremists, despite yr accusations that I did...

As I have mentioned in more than one post I've found myself taking a harder line than I would like simply to counterbalance attacks on my integrity...

And did you read my reply to that post where I explained how juvenile and insincere I find that particular tactic? What's wrong with being honest and standing by our own genuine views? You act as though you and whoever falls under yr label of 'pro-Israeli'* are the only posters who ever cop flak. Here's a big newsflash. I get attacked pretty regularly, yet I don't use that as an excuse to trot out hardline stuff. I see other posters getting accused on a regular basis of being anti-Semitic, yet I don't see them making a massive song and dance post after post after post about their integrity being attacked...

I've given you more than a few opportunities to engage in constructive discussion on issues, rather than on fellow posters, yet my posts remain unanswered. So, CB, whatever the hell it is you truly think yr fighting, count me out, as I've come to the conclusion you and I agree on very little, and because I'm here to discuss the conflict, and there are a few folk around these parts who seem quite willing to do so. Feel free to join us when you get sick of this martyr stuff...

Violet...

*As with the other questions I asked in my post you just replied to, this one was left unanswered, so I'm none the wiser as to how you define these labels...

[eyl]

85. Which, apparently, is contradicted

by several of the framers of 242.

"We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever."

Lord Caradon (who prosed the final draft of the resolution), McNeil/Lehrer report, 30/3/1978

"It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary..."

Lord Caradon, Kol Israel interview, February 1973

"To seek withdrawal without secure and recognized boundaries, for example, would be just as fruitless as to seek secure and recognized boundaries without withdrawal. Historically there have never been secure or recognized boundaries in the area. Neither the armistice lines of 1949 nor the cease-fire lines of 1967 have answered that description, although the General Armistice Agreements explicitly recognize the necessity to proceed to permanent peace, which necessarily entails the recognition of boundaries between the parties. Now such boundaries have yet to be agreed upon."

Arthur Goldberg, US ambassador to the UN, S/PV.1377, Paragraph 65

[Violet_Crumble]

99. No, it's not...

Lord Caradon doesn't appear to be talking about Israel having any legitimate claim to areas like the West Bank. My interpretation of what he's saying is that he's speaking of areas within the occupied territories that could go to Israel as part of a future negotiated settlement. I definately didn't read it is a green light for Israel to grab huge chunks of the West Bank and say Res 242 allows it to. In fact, it could be just as easily argued from those comments that Israel could be just as easily expected to lose territory as the Palestinians. I'd be interested to see what was said in more of a context as I suspect his statement would be clearer then. Then again, maybe he had a habit of totally contradicting what he said when the Resolution was drafted...

There's a really good paper available by John McHugo called: "Resolution 242" A legal reappraisal of the right-wing Israeli interpretation of the withdrawal phrase with reference to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians that goes into detail about what the framers of the Resolution had to say, and about the debate surrounding the draft Resolution that was finally accepted unanimously. Unfortunately since I last read it, it's only available using a paid subscription ($28 for one day's access to the article! What a rip-off. But if you can track down a free copy of it, it's very worthwhile reading, and don't let the 'right-wing' in the title fool you)...

Here's what Lord Caradon had to say:

"In our resolution we stated the principle of the 'withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict' and in the preamble we emphasised 'the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war'. In our view, the wording of those provisions is clear....In the long discussions with the representatives of the Arab countries they have made it clear that they seek no more than justice. The central issue of the recovery and the restoration of their territories is naturally uppermost in their minds. The issue of withdrawal is all important to them, and of course they seek a just settlement to end the long suffering of the refugees.

The Israelis, on the other hand, tell us taht withdrawal must never be to insecurity and hostility. The action to be taken must be within the framework of a permanent peace, and withdrawal must be to secure boundaries. There must be an end to the use and threat and fear of violence and hostility.

I have said before that those aims do not conflict; they are equal; they are both essential; they are interdependent. There must be adequate provision in any resolution to meet them both, since to pursue one without the other would be futile."

http://iclq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/51/4/851.pdf

Violet...

[Andromeda]

9. Then, dang it, Mr. Abbas,

Have your Jihad citizens stop sending suicide bombers to Israel. That's not too much to ask, is it?

I really don't take aljazeera too seriously as a news source, but that's just me.

[bluesoul]

11. hm

I also dont take JPost,NYPost, Fox News, LGF, Foxandcorkum and all those RW sources too seriously as a news source, but that's just me.

[Andromeda]

12. Neither do I.

Especially the NYPost, ESPECIALLY Fox News and I don't know what LGF is so I probably have never read it. I've read the JPost but with a critical eye---the way I read everything else I choose to read.

Aljazeera is a ME propaganda tool, and I'm being nice.

I am an American and a Democratic populist. I despise the right-wing and everything they stand for. You've made a mistake to assume that because I'm pro-Israel that I'm RW.

No liberal is monolithic. We are not all cut from the same cloth and we all have our own opinions and ideas.

[Colorado Blue]

27. I couldn't agree more. Thank you. The assumption that

aljazeerah is reliable is actually quite laughable.

More importantly, is the assumption that supporters of Israel are rightwingers. That is something strange, something I really don't understand and I'm afraid it's going to harm the liberal movement at a time when we really need to stay together to fight for what we believe in: human rights, WOMEN'S and gays' rights, the environment, evolutionary (not violent) change, and the peaceful and productive interaction between global cultures.

I also do not understand the apparent espousal of violent militarism and terror by some on the Left, nor their apparent romanticization of oppressive leaders like Hussein. Worse, in the cause of Israel I guess terror is now called "activism". Does this make sense?

Isn't the Left supposed to be about tolerance, mutual respect and peaceful means?

[Andromeda]

83. Thanks, CB...

You said it better than I did.

[eyl]

22. So let me understand

Israel responds against IJ "militants" who were involved in recent attacks - against which Abbas apparently did nothing - and it's Israel who's threatening the peace process? Notwithstanding that IJ has continued attacks, and has pledged to continue them in the future?

[barb162]

39. Ah, wisdom and ability to to see the truth, facts and light!!

Thank you for stating it so clearly that the Israelis have a right to defend themselves against terrorist acts. Palestinian militants have been threatening the peace through their speeches ( some of which have been posted in IP) and acts. It is clear Israel is trying only to defend itself and maintain the peace.

[Jim Sagle]

93. Upside down morality, isn't it?

[barb162]

40. Hamas leaders openly incite violence and it is not the fault of Hamas?

Wow, that is very intersting reasoning

[Violet_Crumble]

53. Are you in the right thread? Hamas wasn't involved in this...

From the article:

"The five fighters, one from Islamic Jihad and the rest from al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, were shot and killed when an arrest operation in Tulkarm refugee camp disintegrated into a shootout."

Violet...

[barb162]

58. Yes I am in the right thread. Are you? Hamas, IJ , what's the diff?

A militant is a militant is a militant. You know, a rose by any other name .... When Hamas, IJ or others incite terrorism and/ or act out on it, maybe they should take a mirror about responsibility if the PEACE process stalls or breaks down completely. Mindsets on making the peace work is what is needed and maybe the Palestinian leaders and people need to start looking at the situation in a different way? Israel made the right move about the settlements. Is Abbas strongly condemning the militancy speeches of the last few weeks?

[bluesoul]

59. ...

The IDF is a terrorist group just as well with their bloody history and present actions...

[barb162]

60. Wrongo n/t

[bluesoul]

61. As they say...

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter (and vice versa)...

EOS

[Violet_Crumble]

82. They're different groups, that's why...

It's just like being picked up on saying the disengagement was removing all the settlements from the West Bank instead of Gaza and then saying 'Gaza? West Bank? 'disputed' territory is 'disputed' territory is 'disputed' territory' ;) It kind of hints that the person doing so hasn't bothered reading the article that was posted, or if they did they didn't understand it...

Violet...

[barb162]

89. Different group names+ same basic purposes= what's the diff?

[idontwantaname]

90. democrat - republican = whats the diff???

bill clinton signed NAFTA

george bush signed CAFTA

they MUST be from the same party.

[barb162]

91. Clearly, on the trade deals, not a damned bit of difference

[idontwantaname]

92. good answer...

and as far as killing innocent civilians theres no difference between hamas, al aqsa, IDF or USOF.

hamas is influenced by religious ideology more than the al aqsa martyrs brigades...

[barb162]

96. I think there is a difference on the new groups mentioned.

IDF and the USDF are not PURPOSELY blowing up innocent people in restaurants, bus stations, etc. The other groups are doing exactly that. And that's for starters

[Violet_Crumble]

102. They have in the past purposefully blown up civilians...

What about the US military bombing civilians in Iraq? And what about the IDF dropping a bomb on a residential apartment that ended up killing about nine children, including babies?

My original point was that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are NOT the same groups, and I posted an editorial from Ha'aretz that explained a big difference between them as seen by the Israeli govt (one was refraining from attacks, the other wasn't, and Israel was reacting in different ways to both groups). But, hell, let's just dumb down this entire forum and call any Palestinian group Hamas and any Israeli political party Likud. After all, different group names - same basic purpose, right? ;)

Violet...

[barb162]

118. Such little niceties as whether one group

is inciting violence the last month or two versus another group is actually carrying out attacks the last month or two doesn't really make much difference in the end when they both have as their aim the destruction of Israel and actively carry out terrorist attacks against Israel for most of the last few years.

The really important point is lost which is what the hell is Abbas doing about these militants and terrorists. Seemingly nothing or next to nothing.

In any case, puhleez, don't misstate my comments as misstating comments does indeed dumb down the entire forum.

[barb162]

119. US military actions in Iraq have nothing to do with this forum

anymore than terrorists in Iraq who are suicide bombing innocent people shopping in village squares.

[barb162]

120. As to the IDF comment, link? Terrorists in the building?

[Brightmore]

44. So, the IDF kills some terrorists

And that's threatening the peace process?

How?

[bluesoul]

46. aha

In your ideological world, Palestinian children and civilians (elderly and other non combatants) are "terrorists". No wonder you mention that term only, as if the IDF hasn't killed plenty of civilians as well, far surpassing the suicide bombing death toll. So much for their higher moral ground and fight against terrorism.

:puke:

[pelsar]

47. bluesoul?

"In your ideological world, Palestinian children and civilians (elderly and other non combatants) are "terrorists"."

whos world?

and if we're going to count killed terrorists vs civilians I always have trouble identifying the terrorists...since the only uniform I've ever seen them wear is a stolen IDF uniform....can you help us out here?..identifying marks....something that can help us to sperate the civilians from the "others"

[bluesoul]

48. Em

Right wing world...

Non armed civilians certainly ain't terorists. Or children throwing stones at tanks and then being shot at since they didn't even threaten anyone behind all the steel...

Whole families of Palestinians also aren't terrorists, and just because one suspected terrorist is hiding or being in the vicinity, doesn't give anyone the right to kill all the others that are in the same area at the time. It'a called indiscriminate killings and it's a (war) crime. Comprende? Unless you want to tell me that the whole population of Palestinians are "terrorist" and suspects per se,then we really don't have anymore to talk about.

But alas anything I say to the pro-Israeli crowd is like talking to walls over here...:eyes:

[Brightmore]

49. Did you even read the article?

The article says the IDF killed one Islamic Jihad and four al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades members. ALL terrorists. No children. No civilians.

[bluesoul]

50. ...

I look at the whole picture, not just one case. There's several thousand Palestinians that were killed in the last 5 years, around 650 of them minors by the IDF or fanatical settlers. That's a more important fact to me then just one incident...

http://www.btselem.org/english/statistics/Casualties.asp

[pelsar]

52. minors?

are you talking about 14 yr olds....like that ones that were killed sneaking up on a settlement in gaza with ak-47s...the 16-17 yr old crowd that also have been known to carry weapons?

i impressed how you can differentiate so well between the minors that carry weapons and those that dont in your list...btw tricky question....lookouts and information gatherers that go in to "no go areas"....which part of the list do they go on?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. He'd be talking about the ones that don't carry weapons...

Like ones who get shot while walking to school, or out flying their kites, or sitting in their homes. Amnesty International has no trouble at all telling the difference between armed and unarmed kids...

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

Khalil Ibrahim al-Mughrabi. On 7 July 2001 three children were shot by IDF sniper fire as they were flying kites and playing soccer in an open space near the border fence at Rafah. Khalil Ibrahim al-Mughrabi, age11, was killed by a high-velocity bullet in the head. Ibrahim Kamel Abu Sussain, age 10, and 13-year-old Suleiman Turki Abu Rijal were also shot and both sustained serious injuries in the abdomen and in the testicles, respectively. The shots came from an IDF post about 800 metres away, and the boys were in a large, open space. According to testimonies given to Amnesty International by Ibrahim Kamel Abu Sussain and by other children who were present at the time of the incident, there were no disturbances or clashes in the area at that time. The IDF claimed that there had been rioting and throwing of fragmentation grenades in the area at the time, but confidential IDF records showed that this was untrue. On 8 November 2001, the IDF informed the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem that it had decided not to initiate an investigation of the incident because there was no suspicion of criminal behaviour by the soldiers. However, a file was attached to the IDFs response, apparently in error, which contained internal records of the IDFs operational de-briefings and the opinions of the IDF Southern Command Judge Advocate and of the Chief Military Prosecutor. These documents, which have been made public by B'Tselem, show that the IDF, in spite of the evidence, decided not to order a Military Police investigation and cleared the soldiers who killed Khalil al-Mughrabi and injured the two other children, and that in its response to B’Tselem the IDF deliberately presented an incorrect version of the incident.(8)

On 22 July 2002, just before midnight, the IDF dropped a one-ton bomb from an F-16 aeroplane on a densely populated neighbourhood of Gaza city killing 17 people, including nine children, and wounding more than 70 others, many seriously. The children killed were: Ayman Raed Matar (18 months), Muhammad Raed Matar (three years), Diana Raed Matar (five years), Subhi Mahmud al-Hweiti (four years), Muhammad Mahmud al-Hweiti (six years), Dina Rami Matar (two months), Ala Muhammad Matar (10 years), Iman Salah Shehada (15 years), and Maryam Matar (17 years, seriously injured in the attack, she died on 15 August).

The attack destroyed the house of leading Hamas activist Salah Shehada, who was among those killed. Two other houses were completely destroyed, and four homes left uninhabitable. The Israeli authorities accused Salah Shehada of having been responsible for organizing a number of suicide attacks. Given the location of the target, in a densely populated civilian area, and the method of attack selected, those responsible for planning this attack must have known that civilians, including children, would be killed and wounded.

Six-year-old Ashraf Khader and his 11-year-old brother Bilal were killed on 31 July 2001 when the IDF launched a rocket attack on an apartment building in a busy residential area in Nablus. The attack targeted and killed two Hamas leaders, Jamal Mansur and Jamal Salim, as well as four others; 15 people were wounded. The children had been playing outside, waiting for their mother while she visited a clinic in the same building.

On 10 December 2001, three-year-old Burhan al-Himuni 13-year-old and Shadi Ahmad Arafe were killed in a failed Israeli assassination attempt on a suspected Islamic Jihad activist. The target of the attack jumped clear of his car moments before two missiles fired by the IDF from helicopter gunships slammed into a busy Hebron intersection. Burhan al-Himuni and his father Muhammad were trapped inside the car; the child was decapitated. The other child, Shadi 'Arafe, was travelling in a taxi behind the targeted car; the taxi and a third vehicle were destroyed.

KILLING THE FUTURE:Children in the line of fire


Violet...

[bluesoul]

55. ...

So you advocate the killing of children, even if they only carry weapons??? How many of the youth in the USA carries weapons? And sneaks somewhere? Should they all also be executed? Wooow, now this is turning out to be really "interesting". I might have been even diplomatic with the RW thing. It's much worse then I expected...

And I'm impressed by how you generalize and paint every single Palestinian resisting the occupation as a "terrorist" and criminal.. (as though self defense is prohibited when one is confronted by the mighty IDF and all its military power) :puke:

[eyl]

56. "only weapons"?

A rifle carried by a 15-year-old will kill you just as dead as one carried by a 30-year-old.

And last I checked, the US wasn't a war zone.

[bluesoul]

57. WTF?

So any armed Palestinian (child or not) should be shot at point by the IDF? Even in a "war zone" there are certain rules. So if Israel is in war with the Palestinian people they can kill any Palestinian they want, them being all legitimate targets as long as they carry something they find threatening to them, following YOUR kind of logic. Amazing. But then why cry for every suicide bomber (that may just also kill soldiers not just civilians, they cant control it) After all, it's a war zone. Wooow, you people really are EXTREME. :wow:

You make me sick :puke:

[barb162]

64. I would say you are misstatting by miles what the poster just wrote

Did you ever hear of peaceful, non-violent resistence?

[bluesoul]

65. Em

Doesn't work against one of the most powerful and aided militaries (billions of US money) in the world...

They could peacefully protest and then be peacefully and gradually all killed to the last one.

And we all saw what happens to peace activists - they're bulldozed to death by the Israelis, illegaly destroying civilian houses on occupied (non Israeli) territory Rachel Corrie RIP!

[barb162]

67. Incorrect. It worked in India against the British, it worked in the US

in the civil rights movement. Why can't the peace-loving Palestinians and their leaders work against the Palestinian militants in the same way... for social and political change in their own society (just as the civil rights movement in the US did).

[barb162]

62. The peace-loving Palestinians need to root out the fanatics

among them, they need to start a grass roots movement to stop supporting them, etc. The PEACE will move along a lot faster that way. The Israelis have a right to defend themselves.

[bluesoul]

63. The same goes for the Israelis

The Israelis have to root out their fanatics just as well. Starting with their government, Likudnik extremists, those in the Knesset that talk about the "endloesung" of the Palestinians and driving them all away or even killing them. Ditto for all the fanatical settlers that resist international law and even orders from their own police and military and decisions made by their own goverment. And all those putting bombs before Arab schools or houses in Israel...

[barb162]

66. Extremists have to be stopped on both sides to give peace

a chance. Sharon made the first move with peace these last few weeks. The Palestinians need to reciprocate the gesture IN PEACEFUL fashion.

[Coastie for Truth]

68. To some

Israel's mere continued existence is a war-like provocation. (And I don't just mean Palestinians or their sympathizers - some of the worst exploiters of the Arab nation are more anti-Israel then Hamas or Islamic Jihad - maybe they are worried that Israel's left wing roots are a threat to their continued exploitation of the Arab nation.)

[barb162]

70. The several wars started against Israel in the last 50 or so

years indicate you've got a good point there.

[Violet_Crumble]

78. And what's wrong with Israel following non-violent resistance?

You demand the Palestinian people use non-violent resistance not against the power that's occupying them, but against armed and dangerous militant groups that even Israel can't control. So, is there some reason why Israel shouldn't be expected to use non-violent resistance against the same groups, rather than violence? Because you explain why it wouldn't work for Israel, and you'd then answered why it wouldn't work for the Palestinians...

Violet...

[pelsar]

86. because...

the palestenain jihadnikim target those who dont carry weapons...who by definition are in non violent mode....people traveling on buses, eating in resturants etc are not threatening anybody...but are targets nevertheless

on the otherside, we, and no doubt not always successful, dont go looking for those unarmed civilians to kill them....in fact for the most part we try not to kill them....if we were, there sure would be a lot more dead

that is probably the most obvious difference.....the palestenians have tried several times to get a non violent movment going, sometimes with israelis to help...but it seems the support from the palestenian community isnt there.

any arguement which says it wont work...is a a false arguement since it implys that the IDF and israelis have no moral compunction about shooting unarmed protestors (yes i know its happend in the past...probably about .01% of the total number of protests-just a guess)...anybody who knows us, or cares to, would laugh as such a statement....it would take time...but it would win over the israeli public....and in fact now would be an excellent time to start now that the extreme side of some of the settlers has been shown.

the problem lies more within the palestenian/arab culture....non violent protests involving women and men...is not a very macho thing to do...nor does it abide by the religion as defined by some....two very very big hurdles to overcome

[Violet_Crumble]

103. That didn't really answer the question, pelsar...

You clarified what I said about the militant groups being armed and dangerous, but you didn't explain why the Palestinian people are expected to try to use non-violent resistance, while Israel isn't expected to do the same...

I think some of yr post talking about non-violent resistance was about non-violent resistance against Israel as the occupying power. That is an area where I think conditions could change and it could grow, though I have some doubts about how effective it could be as Israel isn't dependent on the Palestinian economy. But the posts I've been replying to aren't calling for the Palestinians to engage in non-violent resistance against Israel (I have a sneaking suspicion this would be something that would cause great outrage), but for them to resist groups like Hamas. I can think of a whole long list of reasons why I find those sorts of calls poorly thought out and unrealistic and another long list of reasons why it wouldn't be effective even if it were tried...

Violet...

[pelsar]

104. non violence....

i guess i didnt understand....the palestenains as i see it have to use violence or at least police powers against their own..as does israel.

non violence against extremists or against those that "god has ordainded" aint gonna work

[Violet_Crumble]

113. Yeah, we agree there...

I think non-violence against the extremist and armed to the teeth types will only achieve a bunch of dead non-violent resisters. It probably sounds idealistic, but I think the most efficient way to disarm them may be to make them *want* to disarm, though I'm not even sure that even if they got everything they wanted, they'd want to disarm...

Violet....

[pelsar]

116. you never met one of them....

have you?.....talking to them is like talking to a brick wall.....their language is so so different from those who dont have "their version of god on their side" Their interpretation of events is quit the opposite that can be believed...and if its doesnt make sense, its because god works in mysterious ways. But what they want is their own version of the taliban style of govt.

more than that, since they believe that they KNOW, they tend to look down upon us as lesser people, which means we have nothing to "teach them"....

no they have to be disarmed by force, and then (my personal preference) placed on an island in S. Pacific surrounded by white sharks (sort of like australia.....)

[eyl]

117. Have you no heart?

What did the sharks ever do to you?!?!

[Jim Sagle]

94. And their defenders on DU and elsewhere need to promote non-violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Did you even read the entire sentence?

It also said: 'and Tel Aviv unveiled plans to expand the largest West Bank settlement.

Can you see how that would threaten the peace process?

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

95. Al Jazeerah? Now THERE'S a reliable source.

Haw haw haw. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: