The Israel Project (a new pop-up on the Netscape browser)

[donsu]

Twice today this has popped up:

The Israel Project

Training Seminar June 27-29

Learn cutting edge skills to improve Israel's image

Speak up for Israel

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

if Israel wants to improve it's image they should stop occupying Palestine and murdering it's people.

[mmm]

1. These people have no shame

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Stop murdering!?!?

What an outrageous concept THAT is?? </sarcasm> :eyes:

[Jim Sagle]

3. Israel RAWWWWWWWWWKSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[Loonman]

4. Maybe they need to be "disarmed" of their WMDs

It's a start.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. The Arabs have tried disarming Israel several times

They have failed each and every time.

[LeahMira]

5. Easy for YOU to say...

if Israel wants to improve it's image they should stop occupying Palestine and murdering it's people.

One thing that I've noticed that seems to be characteristic of Americans is that we tend to focus on whatever has happened in the past week, or month. We don't tend to go back very far in history to events that happened even a year ago... let along a decade or two ago... when we make judgements about issues.

What we don't seem to realize, or to relate to, is that we are sort of unique in this respect.

I've been doing some research on the ways that American Indians frame "current events" that concern them, and almost inevitably they will cite events going all the way back to their first interactions with European settlers. Treaties and promises that were made a hundred years ago are not "just history." Events that took place back in 1850 are remembered and viewed as relevant today. They will list these kinds of things to support their current position on an issue.

But it isn't just American Indians who do this. In particular, as pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma, both sides recall events, agreements, promises, treaties... whatever, that happened several decades ago or even several centuries ago and both sides see those past things as vitally important and vitally relevent to what's happening right now.

There's certainly a history with Israel and with Palestine... and a history with the Jewish people and the Arab people, including their respective experiences not only with one another but with other nations with whom they've interacted over the centuries.

What I'm trying to say, probably not so gracefully, is that the Israelis have reasons for behaving the way they do, and those reasons have roots in their recent past history and also in their long past history. The history exists in Israeli minds as if it happened yesterday. It's impossible for Americans to be on the same wave length unless the Americans take that attitude into account.

Same thing goes for the Palestinians.

When you take the time to understand all of this history, you probably will still think that Israel is behaving really badly towards the Palestinians but you will begin to understand their mindset and their reasons. That's what they mean by improving their image. They want to voice those reasons and have others understand why they have a particular mindset.

You may or may not relate, but unless Americans try to listen and to struggle with that mindset (i.e. how would you feel if you came from this background of events), they are never going to be able to accomplish anything good in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Same thing goes for the Palestinians, of course.

No, it is still terribly wrong to persecute and murder one another. So, why can't either side find a better way? I think those blindspots have a lot to do with the history that goes back several decades... at least... if not several centuries.

[donsu]

7. I'm old - been there, done that

save your breath

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. The biggest problem with what you're saying is

That Americans and the media have absolutely no desire to even TRY to understand the Palestinian side.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. I think we have a natural revulsion to suicide bombers

Go figure.

[bigbillhaywood]

18. Muddle, my old nemesis. Once again you are peddling the notion that

the Palestinian "side" consists of suicide bombers-- a very small percentage of the Palestinian population. The old racist propaganda that the Palestinians (and all Arabs) are all terrorists. Why not just round us all up and put us in detention camps?

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. The radical elements of the Palestinian side DO

So, I asked this question before of a pro-Palestinian member. What percentage of Palestinians do you suppose are actively engaged in terror?

Since I have NEVER claimed that even the majority are INVOLVED in terror, your complaint is worthless.

[bigbillhaywood]

25. Your post suggested you did think that.

The post you replied to said basically that Americans don't even try to understand the Palestinian side. Your response was that "Maybe we have a problem with suicide bombers". Logical inference: Palestinian side=suicide bombings. If you did not mean to say that, you should have been more careful in your wording. However, based on previous discussions I've had with you, I believe you have no moral problem painting all Palestinians with the same broad brush.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. The majority of Palestinians support terror

According to surveys. So the majority support the suicide bomber as an expression of their popular will.

Fortunately, all Palestinians are not this way. The problem with the more moderate folks is that they don't speak up or take back their society.

Now, what percentage of Palestinians do you feel actively engage in terror?

[bigbillhaywood]

29. I don't know. I don't have my "Terrorist Almanac" handy, but I would guess

it's less than 1% of the population. As to your surveys, who conducted the surveys, and what was the methodology? Surveys can often be suited to reach the conclusions of the surveyor.

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. OK, so you are saying less than 90,000

That's still a hell of a lot of would-be murderers and suicide bombers.

As for the survey:

"The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, the leading Palestinian polling institute, has disclosed that a majority of Palestinians, 53 percent, support terror attacks against Israeli civilians. This represents a rise in support for terror - last December, 48 percent of respondents in a poll articulated support for terror attacks. In the latest poll, 87 percent of respondents said they favor attacks on Israeli soldiers; 86 percent supported attacks on settlers in the territories."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=63616

[bigbillhaywood]

62. Less than 90,000. Could be a lot less. But with compulsory military

service, a lot more Israelis serve in the Occupation Army which continues to oppress the Palestinian people. As far as attacks on soldiers and settlers (most of whom are armed) is concerned, I don't see the moral problem. This whole "suicide bomber" thing is a red herring anyways, it distracts from the real point-- the continued oppression and military occupation of the Palestinians and their land. Please see my "What if Canad invaded America" post below.

[GirlinContempt]

43. Terror in response to...?

Supposing that a survey like that is accurate, in this case, they support terror in response to... what?
Their people being killed?
Being forced out of their homes?
Terror against themselves?

Or, is it just, terror in general? I'd find that pretty hard to stomach, then again, I find a vauge 'survey' hard to stomach as well.

[Supply Side Jesus]

111. the $25,000 question!

You hit it on the head.
Why are Palestinians 'terrorizing' Israelis?

We know the history of Arab countries going after Israel in the beginning, but that won't be happening again, considering Israel has the bomb and all. So why continue the suppression? The only way to peace is a unified Palestine/Israel that has both sides living together. Not like thats going to happen anytime soon. But a nice thought.

[LeahMira]

45. Be careful...

So, I asked this question before of a pro-Palestinian member. What percentage of Palestinians do you suppose are actively engaged in terror?

You are being disingenuous here, Muddle. First you make a statement about how difficult it is to "understand" a suicide bomber (as if that were all there is to understand about Palestinians, their history, and their world views. Then you seem to be backpedalling by saying that you never claimed that all Palestinians are suicide bombers.

I'd guess that there are about as many (percentage-wise) suicide bombers in the Palestinian population as there are of the gung-ho type soldiers who are ready, willing and eager to ship out to Iraq and defend the country, hoo-yah. The occupation, though, touches every Palestinian, from the little toddlers to the grandmothers. I'm sure tempers fray more easily now than three or five years ago.

Maybe the easiest way to understand the Palestinians... and the Israelis... would be to imagine how it is to live in that part of the world. How would you feel if you did?

Quite honestly, I feel pretty powerless living in a country that's run by this crew in the administration right now. I can only imagine how powerless both the Israelis and the Palestinians... the people in the street... must feel living with their predicament.

[LibInternationalist]

32. all Palestinians are not suicide bombers

and there is most certainly a Palestinian side to the conflict that should be heard, without prejudice to the Israeli side that should also be heard

[bigbillhaywood]

44. Yes they are. You're an Anti-Semite.

(Sarcasm disclaimer)

[Muddleoftheroad]

46. There are many sides to every conflict

Nor have I ever implied even the majority of Palestinians are terrorists. But the majority certainly lets the others do what they will.

[bigbillhaywood]

55. Okay, let's say Canada invaded America. They annexed the Northeast and

Midwest (creating a huge refugee population), then kept the rest of the country under military occupation for over 30 years. The Canadians deny Americans basic civil rights, and build illegal Canadian "settlements" in Occupied America. Then they re-route all utilities and water to these Canadian settlements. American homes in close proximity to the settlements are bulldozed for "security", and American farmers are denied access to their crops (vital for their survival) because the fields are close to the settlements, and if they try to enter them they will be shot. You can be stopped by the Canadian police at any time, searched and arrested for any reason, and will not, as an American, be given the same civil protections as a Canadian. You are also barred from gaining citizenship rights through marraige to a Canadian citizen. The Canadian military uses your children as human shields.

Now, after all this, some American terrorists bomb downtown Toronto, killing hundreds of innocent Canadian civilians. Morally reprehensible? Yes. But should anybody really blame you if you, as an American, don't give a shit about the dead Canadians?

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. There was no invasion

Thus endeth the comparison. The mere fact that you even used such a bogus example says a lot about your views on the right of Israel to exist.

[bigbillhaywood]

63. Okay, replace Canada with "Israel" and US with "Palestine". Now, do you

want to give me a response as to why it's okay for Israel to do all these things?

[bigbillhaywood]

81. Muddle, please give me an argument justifying the actions of the Israeli

government I listed above (in the Canada example). I'd really like to hear it. Please make it something more original than "security". And please don't tell me "because the Jews are oppressed" I've heard that argumnet enough from you it doesn't justify them oppressing others. So please, give me a sound reason why it's okay to indefinitely militarily occupy a people's land, destroy their homes, deny them basic civil rights, deny them self-determination, terrorize them to get them to flee your newly-established nation, deny them economic opportunity and domestic infrastructure (regardless of the suicide bombers-- by the way, I bet there would be a lot fewer if Israel stopped doing this shit).

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Israel has both made peace with neighbors and offered it to Palestinians

It made peace with Jordan. It made peace with Egypt. It offered peace to Arafat. In turn, he responded with terror.

How do YOU think Israel should respond?

Should they give up the West Bank and Gaza without a peace treaty? Especially since the Palestinians have made it clear they want more land than that? Should they give up land without peace? Should they embolden the terrorists who swear to drive Israel into the sea?

I'm waiting...

[bigbillhaywood]

97. That does not really answer my question. You still haven't told me why it

was okay for Israel to take the land in the first place and terrorize people to flee their homes. Nor have you explained to me why its okay for Israel to build settlements (illegal under international law), and bulldoze Palestinian homes that are near the settlements, nor have you explained why it's okay to deny them basic civil rights. All of these things are illegal under int'l law in peacetime or in war, so your peace treaty argument doesn't hold.

By the way, if Israel did agree to give up ALL of the West Bank and Gaza (not just pieces), and come to some sort of compromise on the Right of Return for the '48 refugees (say, reparations), then you bet your ass the PA would sign a peace treaty. Hamas and Islamic jihad might not, but they would soon become irrelevant, and the PA would have every reason to crush them, and the people every reason to reject them. Unfortunately, Israel has NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to such a settlement. Barak's supposed "generous" offer would have given only 65% of the West Bank to the PA (spread out all over the place), and it didn't address the issue of the '48 refugees at all. Sorry, but the land isn't fucking theirs to bargain with. They want a peace treaty, they gotta give it all back, come to an arrangement on the '48 refugees and start treating the Palestinians like human beings, not vermin infesting their holy land.

[bigbillhaywood]

106. Come on, Muddle give me a response. You're killin me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

117. Boy, your post is so far out in leftfield

It belongs in the filming of Major League IV.

Israel didn't take the land in the first place. Israel was GIVEN a nation by the UN and the Arab world did its best to wipe Israel out. THEY killed partition.

Right now, the West Bank and Gaza remain disputed territories and the only state in charge of them remains Israel. Until there is a final peace that hands over land to a Palestinian state, Israel remains the state in charge. As such, it can build homes, administer the peace AND control the borders.

Yeah, "if Israel did agree to give up ALL of the West Bank and Gaza (not just pieces), and come to some sort of compromise on the Right of Return for the '48 refugees" it would be fighting the next battle in Tel Aviv and then on the beaches.

Hamas and their murdering scumbag buddies have sworn to destroy Israel, not make peace. Giving in to them with no peace treaty and no guarantees is just another term for surrender.

And if the Palestinians want reparations, I think they should have them -- from the Arab world in return for the ethnic cleansing THEY did of their own Jewish populations.

Barak's offer was not countered, it was rejected and replied with terror. That is not the actions of a partner in peace, that is the action of a terrorist.

Sooner or later the PA or the Palestinian people will face facts that they will NOT get everything they fantasize over and they will either make peace or not at that time.

Jerusalem has been, is and shall be the capital of Israel. How the rest is divided is up to the final peace treaty.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Violet_Crumble]

133. Yr post is full of nonsense...

Feel free to try to refute any of this with facts, not opinion, okay?

Israel didn't take the land in the first place. Israel was GIVEN a nation by the UN and the Arab world did its best to wipe Israel out. THEY killed partition.

Wrong, Muddles. The UN did NOT give the Zionists a nation. What it did was call for a Jewish and an Arab state under a partition plan. The 'Arab world'? Since when have Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Transjordan been the 'Arab world'? Clearly you don't know this, but there was a civil war raging in Palestine between the Zionists and Palestinians for a fair while before the Arab states intervened...

Right now, the West Bank and Gaza remain disputed territories and the only state in charge of them remains Israel. Until there is a final peace that hands over land to a Palestinian state, Israel remains the state in charge. As such, it can build homes, administer the peace AND control the borders.

It's been explained to you in many threads now why the West Bank and Gaza are NOT disputed territories, but occupied territory. You've also had it explained to you many times that Israel as an occupying power does NOT have the right to do whatever it likes in the occupied territories. It has obligations to the occupied population, and bulldozing their homes and making apartheid settlements isn't one of those obligations...

Yeah, "if Israel did agree to give up ALL of the West Bank and Gaza (not just pieces), and come to some sort of compromise on the Right of Return for the '48 refugees" it would be fighting the next battle in Tel Aviv and then on the beaches.

Not a very rational argument. Returning more than just pieces of the West Bank and Gaza would mean a reasonably viable Palestinian state. Bits and pieces won't. The return of the occupied territories coupled with a compromise on the Right of Return (some refugees should be allowed to return to family inside Israel and the rest should be compensated financially and given the option of resettling in places like the US, Canada, Australia etc) would mean that while there'd still be residual bitterness, the factors that have been feeding the hostilities would have been removed...


Hamas and their murdering scumbag buddies have sworn to destroy Israel, not make peace. Giving in to them with no peace treaty and no guarantees is just another term for surrender.

Hamas isn't the Palestinian people, Muddles. It's the Palestinian people that Israel should be negotiating with, and despite the claims that Israel has no-one to talk to, it's because Israel doesn't want to talk to moderates...

And if the Palestinians want reparations, I think they should have them -- from the Arab world in return for the ethnic cleansing THEY did of their own Jewish populations.

Actually, it was Israel that ethnically cleansed over 700,000 Palestinians from what's now Israel, taking their property and giving it to immigrants. It's Israel that's consistantly refused to consider allowing those people who if they hadn't been expelled would have been Israeli citizens to return to their homes. In fact, Israel has refused to even consider compensation for them. Oh, and on the subject of post-creation of Israel ethnic cleansing in Arab states? I'd like to see some documentation about what happened because all I've ever seen is you claim it happened. I'd like to see something like a breakdown of the states, the population numbers involved, and some sort of evidence that they were expelled rather than voluntarily going to Israel like many other Jewish immigrants did...

Jerusalem has been, is and shall be the capital of Israel. How the rest is divided is up to the final peace treaty.

The state of Israel has only existed since 1948. The UN partition plan that you appear to hold in some reverence said that Jerusalem should be an internationalised city and not the capital of either new state. Israel's now occupying part of Jerusalem, a no-no under international law. That's why Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel. Mind you, if the Palestinians in Jerusalem are happy to have Israeli citizenship and Israel is happy to give it, that'd be one thing that'd have me sway more towards it being Israel's capital. But the appalling treatment of Palestinians in Jerusalem doesn't give me any hope that either party wants that solution...

Violet...

[silverpatronus]

135. word. eom.

[LeahMira]

42. Not at all...

The biggest problem with what you're saying is...
That Americans and the media have absolutely no desire to even TRY to understand the Palestinian side.

It seems to me that most Americans think that Israel is a pain and that if the U.S. would just stop supporting it financially and militarily all our own problems in the Middle East would disappear. I really don't know that the average American knows or cares any more about the Israelis than they do the Palestinians.

It's probably a little easier to relate to the Israelis in part because many of them came from European nations and so they're more on our "wavelength" than Arabs are. They know how to relate their views to things we understand.

But also, a lot of times the agenda of those who speak in criticism of Israel is an anti-Semitic agenda... not all the time, please!... but enough of the time that they cast their shadow on any legitimate critics. That doesn't help anyone to understand either side! Where are the legitimate sources?

There are lots of Islamic Studies and Middle Eastern Studies departments springing up in colleges and universities throughout the country these days. The government is funding some of these since it needs a cadre of young people who are familiar with the culture and history of the Middle East because the U.S. plans to be involved there for a while. But the Arab groups and individuals are funding these programs also. Seems as if the Arabs understand, at some level, that the adult population is set in its views, but the young people are more open to look at issues in new ways.

[bigbillhaywood]

11. The Jewish people have had a history of oppression, but let's remember

that the vast majority of this oppression was under the Europeans/Christians, not the Arabs/Muslims. Anti-semitism (or to be more accurate, anti-Judaeism) did not become rampant in the Arab world until the establishment of Israel. All the oppression since 1947 has been suffered on the Palestinian side. And one last thing is that it's wrong to equate the Jewish people with the State of Israel. Israel is a nation-state open to criticism as much as Iran or the U.S.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. You must be joking

Jews were second-class citizens for HUNDREDS of years before 1948. And the combat and abuse at the hands of the Arabs didn't start with partition.

[bigbillhaywood]

21. Yes, they were. But then again, so were all non-Muslims. However, the

Arab world was TEN TIMES more tolerant of Jews than the Europeans. But what difference does it make? I've said it before and I'll say it again. 1. Being oppressed does not give you the right to oppress others. 2. Israel does not equal the Jewish people any more than Iran equals Shiite Muslims.

[Muddleoftheroad]

24. Wow, ten times more tolerant than the Holocaust

There's a marketing jingle for ya.

Yes, Israel does not equal the Jewish people. It just equals five million of about 13 million. That's more than 38%, one hell of a large percentage if you ask me.

[bigbillhaywood]

27. The Holocaust was not the only historical example of European

anti-Semitism. You are forgetting the Inquistion, the pogroms, the expulsion of Jews from Britain, and numerous other atrocities commited by Europeans against the Jews. To your other point, a very high percentage of Shi'ites live in Iran, and most Hindus live in India. Does this make any political decision by Iran or India, an expression of the Shi'ite or Hindu people, respectively? By the same tokem, does criticism of Iran or India as nations = criticism of Shi'ites or Hindus?

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. No, I have mentioned some of the others even today

However, I was simply responding to your point. Ten times better than Europe is not saying much.

[LibInternationalist]

34. he didn't say 10 times more tolerant than the Holocaust

see, that's the problem -- people on both sides always talk past eachother

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. He did say, "TEN TIMES more tolerant of Jews than the Europeans"

The Europeans actually did a lot more than just the Holocaust -- pogroms, murder, Inquisition, ethnic cleansing, etc.

[bigbillhaywood]

23. By the way, I'm not trying to say Muslims, Palestinians or Arabs are

not guilty of any oppression. But saying Jews are incapable of oppressing others because of their own oppression is naive.

[LeahMira]

65. It was...

the vast majority of this oppression was under the Europeans/Christians, not the Arabs/Muslims.

This is true, and you are correct in saying that the Jewish people who lived in Arab states were not particularly persecuted. They were second-class citizens in that they held no political power, but they were not persecuted. In Europe, the story was different. Still, the Jewish people lived in Spain and France, and in Poland and Lithuania and parts of Russia for a time before the climate turned against them. Even in recent times, the Jews were assimilated into Germany to such an extent that they thought of themselves as Germans first and as Jews second. Then, things changed... in all those countries. So, while it is true that the Jews lived in Arab nations reasonably well, to a Jewish person it seems that now their former hosts have turned on them, just as their former European hosts did in times past. That's why the history is so important to understand. It helps to explain some of these things.

PS The Jews did all right in Egypt when Joseph landed there, and for generations after down to around the time of Moses when the climate changed for them there as well. Five thousand years of history... of being accepted for a while and then things change... tends to make anyone a tad suspicious of the "good times" don't you see?

[AlienGirl]

91. Nazi/Arab-right-wing connection

My understading is that, despite the long history of relative tolerance on the part of Muslims, the Nazis were very friendly with right-wing Arab leaders during the 40s. I have to wonder whether some of the anti-Jewish sentiment in the Muslim world today came from that association.

(Before anyone jumps on my back, note I am not saying all Muslims or all Arabs are anti-Jewish . I am saying that some right-wing assholes got together with other right-wing assholes and wondering if there were repurcussions.)

Tucker

[everythingsxen]

98. Quite correct

In fact the B'aath(sp?) party is an offshoot of that.

I have also read that Arafat is the nephew of someone who was in with the Nazi's about as thick as Prescott Bush.

[AlienGirl]

99. Interesting

I did not know the Ba'ath party came from that; how high in the Nazi gov't did it go?

Tucker

[everythingsxen]

102. Heres a little article about it

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/837uvzrs.asp

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28603

[bigbillhaywood]

105. worldnetdaily is a right-wing site. Not exactly credible in my opinion,

unless you think Ann Coulter and others featured on the site are credible. And so what if Arafat's mentor was an anti-Jewish fascist? Mussolini's mentor was an anarchist. Chinese Nationalist Chang Kei-Chek's mentor, Sun Yat-Sen was pro-Soviet. It doesn't mean anything.

Also the article makes the 1936 uprising seem like a anti-Jewish pogrom. Although, atrocities most certainly occured, it would be mischaracterizing it as simply "riots against Jews". It was a nationalist Palestinian uprising (of both Muslims and Christians) against British imperial domination. The Jews sided with the British (since the British had pledged creation of a Jewish homeland in the Balfour declaration).

[everythingsxen]

126. Sorry.. heres a couple more sources...

(and I was answering AlienGirl's question about the Nazi/Arab link - Here is more.

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Arab-Nazi%20relationship%20during%20World%20War%20II

Also try www.google.com search for "Arab +Nazi" only a few hundred thousand hits. I am sure they are all lies though.. :eyes:

[regnaD kciN]

134. Well, let's see...

...the first of these is the website of "Christian Action for Israel," another group of fundy-mentalists who want Israel to re-build the Temple so Jesus can come again (and send all the Jews to Hell). The second comes with an up-front disclaimer that reads "the factual accuracy of this article is disputed." Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the site that carries it. Considering that the your first post included a link from WorldNetDaily, and a second one from Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, I can only wonder about the credibility of these sources.

By the way, I googled as you suggested. On the first page, I found the sites you mentioned, another site bashing those who protested against the U.S. invasion of Iraq as "pro-Saddam Idiotarians," an article from a talk-show host on The American Freedom Network (anyone want to guess his politics?), a libertarian site claiming (falsely, as it turns out) that the Ba'ath Party's actual name was the "Arab National Socialist Party," an article from the "Freeman Center" (a explicitly pro-Israeli Texas-based Jewish think-tank apparently several degrees to the right of the Likud Party), a random and rambling newsgroup post from someone providing many links to the National Review web site (you remember -- the former domain of Ann Coulter, and the place that suggested that Chelsea Clinton should be put to death because she carried the "genetic stain" of her parents?) in lieu of actual evidence, an historical article rebutting the claims of an Arab-Nazi connection, and...a reprint of the "Christian Action for Israel" article mentioned above on Free Republic! :eyes:

The second page revealed several duplicate copies of the above links mirrored on sources like NewsMax, articles from www.eretzyisroel.org (gee, I wonder how impartial they are?), and the Likud Party (likewise), a foaming-at-the-mouth post from an "Etgar Lefkovits" that merely insulted Arabs by repeatedly calling them "Nazi-Muslims" without making any factual connection, a pro-U.S. essay by an Arab-American which doesn't even use the word "Nazi" (Google's cache mentions "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: nazi"...whatever that means), another link from a fundy Christian site of dubious sanity, and a thread from a web discussion of Middle East affairs where the word "Arab" was used in some posts, and the word "Nazi" in others, but never in the same post together.

So far, I haven't seen a lot of convincing evidence.

And, as to your suggestion that the sheer number of items containing those words together must mean that they can't all be false: try googling +"9/11" +mossad and see how many pages come up. Does that mean that "where there's smoke, there's fire"...?

:crazy:

[bigbillhaywood]

100. True, but true elsewhere in the world. Nazis had contacts with fascists

in South America as well. And Italy and Japan were military allies. Not sure if it had any reprecussions for modern anti-Jewish thought in the Middle East, but I kinda doubt it. Most anti-Jewish rhetoric in that area is couched in criticism of Israel or a more general "death to the infidels" Islamic fundamentalist line. I don't think many are appealing to Nazi ideology, even if you could classify the Islamic fundies as "religious fascists"

[The Magistrate]

119. Actually, Mr. Haywood

The Nazi affiliation did have a great deal of effect on the development of Arab Nationalism, perhaps most unfortunately for it, during the period immediately after the Second World War.

The Arab Revolt in Mandatory Palestine, roughly between 1935 and 1937, received much propaganda encouragement from the Reich, which actively courted the al'Husseini leadership of the gunmen. The Grand Mufti's war-time collaboration with Nazi Germany, to which he fled, was extensive, and well attested.

Arab Nationalists in both Egypt and Iraq, during the Second World War, sided openly and enthusiastically with the Nazis. A plot for a rising in Egypt was quashed; a rising took place in Iraq that bid fair for a while to succeed, and was marked by extensive pogrom in Baghdad and other places.

Such extensive and well known collaboration with the Axis during the war acted to greatly weaken Arab political standing in the years immediately subsequent, when the United Nations set about dealing with the Palestine Mandate it inherited from the old League.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

138. Phalangists

The Lebanese Phalangist's founder was inspired to start his party by the discipline he saw on a visit to Nazi Germany in 1936, or so he said in many interviews during the Lebanese Civil War and the Israeli occupation. Yet Israel loves the Phalangists and armed, trained and supported them during the Lebanese civil war.

One gang of white supremicists is much the same as another I guess. Depends who has the loot you are fighting for.


Arab Nationalists in both Egypt and Iraq, during the Second World War, sided openly and enthusiastically with the Nazis. A plot for a rising in Egypt was quashed; a rising took place in Iraq that bid fair for a while to succeed, and was marked by extensive pogrom in Baghdad and other places.

True. And many Arabs fought for the Allies during WW2. The British/Jordanian Arab Legion for a start.

[The Magistrate]

142. An Interesting Sideline, Sir

Though without too much bearing on the topic of German influence on Arab Nationalism during the thirties and forties. The Phalange was, and is, certainly an unsavory group of Christian Arabs, formed on a fascist model: at the time, in relatively backward countries, fascism and communism competed as political means for modernization, using the examples of the Soviet Union on the one hand, and of Fascist Italy and defeated Germany as exemplars. In France there were very powerful fascist tendencies at the time, that very nearly issued in civil war during the time of the Spabish Civil War, and a fascist movement among the most loyal elements of the populace in a valued Levantine colony met with much encouragement. It was in no sense a nationalist movement against France, but more akin to the Ulster Unionists in its effect.

The Jordanian Legion was a small force, officered by Englishmen, tracing back to the founding of the Emirate of Trans-Jordan. Its principal service in the Second World War was in the invasion of Vichy Syria, where it performed valuable scouting duties. Its scale was far smaller than such things as a plotted mutiny by the Egyptian High Command, or the Iraqi rising of Rashid Ali.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

145. I salute your knowlege of history, Sir.

All too rare here.

A few points though.

It was in no sense a nationalist movement against France

Not so. Pierre Gemayel organised riots against the French occupiers during the 30's.

It is interesting that his party, modelled on the Nazis, was the organisation Israel felt most comfortable arming during the civil war and Israel's occupation. Thankfully, the Phalange is now submerged in the Lebanese Forces Party, although some may question whether merging with fanatics like Kateb was a positive step.

invasion of Vichy Syria, where it performed valuable scouting duties

Sarcasm? If Vichy Syria had put up more than symbolic resistance, the Arab Legion (by far the strongest military in the Arab world) was there to crush it.

Both the Zionists and Arab nationalists looked to France and Britian's enemies to free them in the 30's and 40's. Disgracefully, some turned to Germany for support. One such party, the Phalange, was later backed by Israel. The ironies of history.

[The Magistrate]

146. Not Sarcasm In The Least, Sir

The Vichy forces in Syria and Lebanon put up a stiff fight. The English forces comprised six brigades, including two drawn from blocking positions before Rommel at Mersa Mehtru, and two Free French brigades, including a Foreign Legion demi-brigade that had been committed to Norway, and thus fetched up in England rather than the colonies. Vichy forces comprised thirty battalions of infantry, two fifths of them colonial levies, and twenty squadrons of Algerian cavalry: the Vichy force included tanks, heavy artillery, and had ninety aircraft, against the English total of sixty, with no signifigant technical disparity between them. No point would be served by even a summary in any detail of the campaign, but it took five weeks, cost each side more than a thousand dead, and on at least two occassions seemed likely to end in a Vichy victory. French forces have been unfairly caricatured in popular history of the time, and the colonial armies in particular were primed to fight Englishmen. It should be clear from the foregoing that the several hundred men of the Jordanian Legion committed to the endeavor were hardly capable of crushing Vichy resistance. Nor were Jordanian forces anything like the most powerful Arab military at the time.

It is my understanding that Gemayel rioted against the Popular Front government, and did so on left v. right, rather than national v. colonial, grounds, but the matter is not one that has ever been the object of my close study. The cultivation of the Arab Nationalists was a considered policy of the Reich, to which substantial resources were devoted, and which had some success: one of its lead selling points was Anti-Semitism, with the allegation that Jews controlled the actions of England being a particularly useful point. The allegation that Zionists looked to Germany and the Nazis for assistance against England during the thirties and forties is a grotesque exaggeration, that time does not permit engaging fully just now: the nearest thing to a real foundation for it is an abortive approach made by progeniters of the Irgun, at the time a tiny splinter comprising no more than a few hundred adherents; mainline Zionists were of great assistance to England in suppression of the Arab Revolt, and in the Second World War.

The alliance in the modern era with the Phalange during the invasion of Lebanon by Begin and Sharon is indeed an unsavory episode, that very poorly served the state of Israel.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

148. Thank you for your post.

The detail of the campaign in Syria are new to me, most history books gloss over it in a paragraph or two. I should look it up.

The rest of your post I entirely agree with.

[The Magistrate]

149. A Pleasure, Sir

Out of the way campaigns are a speciality of mine, and the colonial war between England and Vichy is one of the least known. Two of the Commonwealth brigades, by the way, were Australian, from the 7th Div., if memory serves.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

30. Since 1948, the Israelis have behaved more like the early American...

...settlers when they were killing off or forcing the relocation of the American Indians.

[LeahMira]

71. For different reasons, though.

Since 1948, the Israelis have behaved more like the early American...
...settlers when they were killing off or forcing the relocation of the American Indians.

But for different reasons. The Arab nations attacked Israel as soon as it formally became a state.

The American Indians attacked settlers only when the Indian homelands were threatened or when the Indians had been attacked first. The Indians were usually quite willing to permit the settlers to use some of the land. After the colonies declared their independence and then proceeded to move west of the Appalachian mountains (England wasn't going to let them move over past the mountains, but Washington was able to recruit some troops with promises of land in that area when they won), then the real troubles started.

If Israel had immediately expanded into Jordan, Syria, and Egypt after statehood was established, you might have a point. But Israel didn't occupy any territory other than what was given it until after it was attacked.

[bigbillhaywood]

75. Maybe so, but it doesn't give them the right to indefinitely occupy the

land, expand settlements in the land, bulldoze homes next to those settlements as a "security" risk, and deny the Palestinians basic rights. Also, don't forget that in 47-48, there were Israeli terrorist outfits like the Stern gang (Shamir, Rabin, Begin, and Peres all members) that went into Palestinian villages and committed massacres, encouraging the Palestinians to flee the area which became Israel. Also, just because the UN "gave" them that land doesn't make it right.

[redqueen]

6. Remember Mordechai Vanunu

IAEA access to Israel NOW!

[Jim Sagle]

10. Disarmament treaties apply only to those nations that sign them.

Israel didn't.

[redqueen]

12. IAEA only monitors disarmament? Really?

I was not aware that's how it worked. Hmmmm....

[redqueen]

14. Pfft. That's not what (all) they do. Thought not!

learn

[Jim Sagle]

19. I didn't characterize the agency. I just said treaties don't apply to

nations that didn't sign them - which they don't.

[redqueen]

20. Which is meaningless

:crazy:

The point is, if they have nukes they should have inspections, period!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[bigbillhaywood]

33. Untrue. Israel has a "nuclear guarantee" from the US. If a country tries

invading Israel, we pledge to nuke them. It's been US policy for over 20 years.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. "Guarantees" change with every administration

Israel HAS a guarantee already.

[bigbillhaywood]

56. This one has not changed since Reagan and it is unlikely to. n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. After a Holocaust

Only a complete fool would put his trust of the actions of other nations.

Things were pretty good for Jews in Germany at one point in time...until things changed.

[LeahMira]

58. The U.S. defend Israel?

Israel has a "nuclear guarantee" from the US. If a country tries...
invading Israel, we pledge to nuke them. It's been US policy for over 20 years.

Somehow, guaranteed or not, I doubt the U.S. will pull out it's nukes to save Israel. Even so, that might come a bit late for the Israelis, might it not?

It's certainly to Israel's advantage to have everyone believe they have nuclear weapons, given the neighborhood in which it's situated.

Inspections would only serve to prove to it's neighbors that Israel either does or does not have them. That might not be the best thing for the neighbors to know for sure right now. Certainly if Israel does have nuclear weapons, it's being careful not to use them and it's had plenty of provocation.

[Gimel]

136. Hilarious

Israel is supposed to depend on that pledge and give up security concerns? That is about as flimsy as the the sale of America to Columbus.

[LibInternationalist]

35. how will they be butchered, exactly?

they kicked their enemy's ass just fine in the last two wars using conventional weapons, and they are certainly even more militarily superior today than they were then

[bigbillhaywood]

40. How? By evil Arab butchers, that's how!

(Sarcasm disclaimer)

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Such things change

But the power to nuke your enemy does not go away and that will keep the Arab word at least nominally in line.

[bigbillhaywood]

According to this logic, it is acceptable for any nation with hostile

neighbors to have nukes. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that argument, but I am saying that is the logical extrapolation from your line of reasoning.

[Muddleoftheroad]

78. No nation's people have suffered like the Jewish people

No people have been so abused for so long. To give up their last line of defense would be insane.

[bigbillhaywood]

80. Ah yes, the old "Let's make an exception for Israel" argument.

This is your whole problem, you want the suffering of a people to give a free pass to a sovereign, modern nation-state. Right and wrong are universals. This reminds me of your worn-out response to me evrytime I bring up Palestinian oppression that "The Jews are the most oppressed people on the planet". As if oppression of a people gives them license to oppress others. And once again, I need to point out to you that Israel does not equal the Jewish people. I don't give a fuck if 38% of Jews live there. It's a fucking nation, and even if 100% of Jews lived there, unless it's some sort of anarchist consensus-based utopia, the actions of its government cannot possibly be equated with the actions of the ethnic group which constitutes its polity.

I've got an idea for you, Muddle. Why don't you take some vacation time (if you've got any coming to you) and go to Israel. Spend two weeks living in Tel Aviv and two weeks in a Palestinian refugee camp. When you come back, we'll see if you've still got this ass-backwards analysis of who's oppressing who.

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. I've been to Israel

Israel has been at war for 56 years and remains at war every single day. And you act as if you don't care.

:crazy:

[bigbillhaywood]

90. You been to the refugee camps?

[Muddleoftheroad]

92. Nope, doubt I would get out alive

They don't treat Zionists very well there.

[bigbillhaywood]

101. Don't tell them you're a Zionist then. You're black, right? They wouldn't

know it unless you told them. I'm quite serious. If you go back, you should at least avail yourself of looking at it from the other side. Couldn't hurt.

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. I tell everyone I am a Zionist

It is part of who I am and I don't lie about it.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[fla nocount]

157. Any "nations people" who have suffered and don't happen to be Jewish

would probably take exception to that statement. Ah, but that would lead us back to the concept of two-armed, two-legged, oxygen dependent carbon constructs living together on this tiny blue marble speeding through space. That argument is wasted upon the chosen, but not upon the assimilated. We're all in this world together and the only differences stem from ego or sheer delusion.

[bigbillhaywood]

67. According to this logic, it is acceptable for any nation with hostile

neighbors to have nukes. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that argument, but I am saying that is the logical extrapolation from your line of reasoning.

[redqueen]

36. Who said anything about 'giving up' their nukes?

All I insist on is INSPECTIONS.

I N S P E C T I O N S

Clearer now?

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. No

Clearer now?

[redqueen]

52. LOL! Why not?

This oughtta be good!

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. It is the first step to try and take away such weapons

Why agree to it?

[redqueen]

57. LOL

Who would take those weapons away? Hmmmmm?

on edit: the reason? SAFETY!

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. Safety?

Considering the Arab world has spent 56 years trying to wipe out Israel, it sure as hell wouldn't be safe for Israel.

[redqueen]

64. How would having an international agency inspect their facilities

make them LESS safe?!

Imagine this -- what if, God forbid, something were to happen leaving all those nuclear materials unsecured and the Israeli records accounting them destroyed? How would we ever be able to ascertain whether or not all materials had been recovered WITHOUT outside corraboration?

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. How do we do it now for other states?

We don't. No one knows what happened to the Russian nukes. Heck, even the U.S. loses nuclear material every year.

[redqueen]

70. Oh for crying out loud

Russia and the United States are signatories to the NPT, so at *least* they've done *that* much... why will Israel not sign it? Because they're developing nuclear weapons!

Do you support them building new nukes? Do you support Bush doing so?

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. Yes, I support Israel building nukes

They have not signed anything because they don't want anyone to try and stop them.

Shocker...

[redqueen]

82. So you must also approve of bush's nuclear weapons plan

right?

If not, why?

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. I don't "must" do anything

And I doubt if * has a plan for anything.

[redqueen]

93. What?!!!

Surely you're aware that they're already working on tactical nukes!

If you support Israel building nukes, why not bush?

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. I think * already has a bunch of nukes, don't you?

[LeahMira]

73. Because...

How would having an international agency inspect their facilities...
make them LESS safe?!

As it is, there is some debate about just what Israel actually has. Inspections would quantify that.

A comparison...

Last night I was at a talk by David Kay. One person wondered why Saddam didn't just say that he didn't have the WMDs. Mr. Kay said that had Saddam accounted for everything, for sure that would have gotten everyone off his back. But what the U.S. didn't take into consideration was that Saddam didn't want his own people to know that he didn't have any more WMDs because then they wouldn't have been afraid of him. So, our reading of his actions missed the real motive he had for acting the way he did.

Same sort of deal with Israel, but different also. If Syria knows for sure that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons, what do you think Syria will do? Or if Syria knows that Israel has only one facility that has nuclear weapons stored, of course Syria is going to go after than one place.

It's best for Israel to keep everyone guessing about its weapons.

Rest assured that if it has them, it isn't going to use them as recklessly as the U.S. used its atomic capability in WWII. The Israelis would never stand for that.

[redqueen]

74. *IF* it has them????

Do you know who Mordechai Vanunu is? He outed them DECADES ago!

They have them, and it's high time they fessed up about it.

Regarding reckless use - that's not the only risk involved, as I've stated in other posts. Besides that I'd be careful about stating flatly what Israel would never stand for. Look what they're doing NOW, for goodness sake!

[bigbillhaywood]

84. I'm not sure US's use of nukes during WWII was "reckless"

It was a calculated decision that probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives (maybe more). Can you imagine the casualties (on both sides) if the US had launched an invasion of Japan?

Also, don't underestimate the ability of a government to use deadly force in spite of what its own people want, even in a "democracy". Also, the Israeli people have already "stood for" quite a bit. The electorate chose a man responsible for war crimes as their Prime Minister after all, who is leading their country into a dangerous cycle of violence.

I also think it's unlikely Syria will invade in any event. They know they will risk war with the US if they do.

[silverpatronus]

68. hmm...

consider it this way. if someone came and plunked down a communist country in the middle of the US because 'god said this is our land', i'm sure the US would have a lot to say about it, and most of it violently. islamic arabs hold their religion as dearly to their hearts as the majority of americans hold capitalism to theirs. not to mention that carving out your country from bits of other countries and saying 'tough luck to you, this is my land now' is bound to garner you a few enemies. to paraphrase chris rock, i ain't sayin they're right. but i understand.

[LeahMira]

76. It was not that way...

The United Nations and the world community affirmed the right of the Jewish people to a homeland and agreed as a world body that the Jewish homeland would be where Israel is now.

It's not as if the Jewish people just came in and took the land. First of all, there were always some Jews living there. Then, after the war, in most cases the world Jewish community and/or individuals paid the Palestinians for the land they actually sold to Jewish settlers. But even when that was not the case, if you want to blame somebody, blame the rest of the world for taking land from the Palestinians and giving it to the Jewish people.

[bigbillhaywood]

89. I do blame the British. First they screwed the Jews, then the Palestinians

The author of the Baflour declaration was a notorious anti-Semite who viewed giving the Jews a homeland as a way to get them out of Britain. He was also a confidant of SA apartheidist Jan Smuts.

Also, although the Jews did pay for some of the land. However, there were also ruthless Jewish terrorist groups such as the Stern gang (four future Israeli PMs were members) going into Palestinian villages and murdering people in order to encourage them to flee.

There were leaders like David Ben-Gurion who encouraged the Palestinians to stay, but tell me, if you're a Christian or Muslim, why would you want to help build a "Jewish" homeland, rather than a secular state of all of its citizens?

[Cassandra]

150. A Communist country...

would be unlikely to say anything affirmative about God. Jews needed a country of their own; a location where there was a continuous presence for thousands of years, as well as a religious attachment, was the most logical choice. Perhaps the Muslims should have thought twice about building a mosque over the site of the Temple. I guess they never thought Jews might be back in force one day to reclaim their heritage.

[silverpatronus]

152. it's their holy land too...

it's not the exclusive home of judaism.

[bigbillhaywood]

13. But did Iraq or Iran sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?

[Johnny Arson]

31. There's no issue like Israel to make people crazy

I'm just sayin'...

[redqueen]

37. If you spend 14 BILLION a year, people will want to know it's used wisely

n/t

[Jim Sagle]

69. More like 4 billion.

[redqueen]

72. Learn

here

or here

or here

Or ANYWHERE.

Geez. This took me all of what... 15 seconds? Did you pull that 4 billion out of thin air, or what made you think it was in any way, shape, or form a valid estimate?

:eyes:

[RafterMan]

77. From your links

"This year’s appropriations bills for FY 2001, which began Oct. 1, 2000, include, in addition to the $2.82 billion in economic and military foreign aid to Israel, an additional $60 million in so-called refugee resettlement and $250 million in the DOD budget, plus $85 million imputed interest, for a total of at least $3.215 billion. In addition, on Nov. 14, 2000, President William Clinton sent a special request to Congress for an additional $450 million in military aid to Israel in FY 2001, plus $350 million for FY 2002."

http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/010201/0101015.html

"Israel is not saying how much money it is looking for, but the domestic media speculate that it could be as much as $14bn, of which $4bn would be military aid and $10bn loan guarantees.

About $2.9bn in grants and aid are routinely awarded each year,

Loan guarantees would allow Israel to borrow at rock-bottom rates. As long as Israel keeps up with repayments - and it has never defaulted, government officials are at pains to stress - the guarantees cost the US nothing. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2513159.stm

"The country is the biggest recipient of US aid worldwide and initially asked for $4bn (£2.5bn) in military aid and $8bn in loan guarantees.

The US would deduct from the loan guarantees any Israeli expenditure on settlement activities in Palestinian areas. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2867619.stm

So it seems ~$4 billion annually is a fairly accurate estimate, unless I am misunderstanding your complaint.

[redqueen]

83. Snips don't do it

If you read the information, it's clear that the number you cite is the lowest amount, but then they ask for more:

""The country is the biggest recipient of US aid worldwide and initially asked for $4bn (£2.5bn) in military aid and $8bn in loan guarantees."

$4bn plus $8bn = $12bn

I think if you check the US budget, you'll get a much more complete picture (and a very rude awakening). It's NEVER just the lowest amount.

[RafterMan]

88. Snips? They're your links.

I think you're counting the loan guarantee as (a) an expense and (b) an annual expense. As for checking the budget, it looks like wrmea did just that and came up with about $3.3 billion, or 10% over the official number.

There just isn't any evidence there for an annual figure above $4 billion.

[redqueen]

95. Those are *snips* from the links.

Here's one paragraph:

"With the turmoil surrounding the presidential election essentially freezing Congress into inaction, this is probably a good time to take another look at aid to Israel. The common figure given for U.S. aid to Israel is $3 billion per year—$1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military aid. As impressive as this figure is, however, since it represents about one-sixth of total U.S. foreign aid, the true figure is even more remarkable. It is difficult, however, to arrive at an exact number. Much of the money the U.S. gives Israel is buried in the budgets of other government agencies, primarily the Defense Department (DOD). Other subsidies come in a form that isn’t easily quantifiable, such as the early disbursement of aid, which allows Israel to gain (and the U.S. taxpayer to lose) the interest on the unspent money."

So if you actually read all the information, you'll discover there is so much more to the story than the figures you want to stick with.

[RafterMan]

103. Read the numbers

They come up with an extra $6 billion, cumulative historically, for the categories you highlight. Even if you reach and say that's an extra billion annually over the official $3b, that's still just $4b, the figure cited by the original poster.

[Jim Sagle]

120. Loan guarantees aren't repaid because they are aren't loans, they are

guarantees. My figure was right, yours was wrong, and that's the end of it.

[Tinoire]

94. 4 Billion + 8 Billion in loans that will be forgiven = 12 Billion

Up to now we have only dealt with the aid flows that are visible to all Americans--the government's audit agency, the GAO, will have no problem computing such numbers. But in addition, one must now account for the long list of hidden subsidies.

The biggest unofficial additional subsidy comes in the form of US loans to Israel subsequently forgiven by an act of Congress. That is, every year Congressmen engage in an ingratiation-frenzy to show that they are "friends of Israel," and this often entails forgiving loans. It is difficult to determine the sums involved, but this practice explains why Israel is overjoyed to obtain loans--these will eventually be forgiven in any case. As Stephen Zunes stated, "all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan."


A few years ago Israelis bombed Lebanon with American-made F16 fighters. What was remarkable about this is that the bombs used were "on loan from the US." It is rather odd to lend anyone a bomb. There are deeply disturbing implications that an American owned bomb is thrown on Lebanese people by a third party, but we'll avoid this discussion. The explanation for this odd arrangement is that the Pentagon budget is being used to subsidize Israel. Thus, the Pentagon procures the bombs, and then they are shipped on loan to Israel. This amounts to a clear additional subsidy, especially if those bombs are never seen again. The extent of this underhand subsidy can't be calculated. There are also questions about the "pre-positioned" armaments to be used by the US military; Israelis can use these at any time.

http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html

Note 1: There are many issues arising when computing such numbers, and on valid grounds, several can be justified. The primary one will be how to account for loans--given that most of them are subsequently forgiven, it may be valid to equate them as actual transfers. A more accurate measure would entail obtaining figures on loans that actually have to be repaid--figures we don't have. However, the numbers quoted as US aid to Israel don't include the loans. The figure produced here from 1967 onwards equates the loans as economic aid--assuming most of those loans will never be repaid. NB: No adjustment was made for interest due on loans.

Note 2: www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

Note 3: The Tax Cut of 2001 amounted to about $500 / family on average. Assuming a family of four on average, the Israeli above board handout of 2001 was about four times this amount and that happens every year

http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html

[redqueen]

96. Thanks, Tinoire!

What a bonus having your input on this thread.

:yourock:

[bigbillhaywood]

38. SCREW YOU!!!!! ---Just kidding

[Tinoire]

39. Sounds like an Army Recruiting Ad.

Onward Christian soldiers.

Learn cutting edge skills.

Israel needs you.


:eyes:


What Israel needs right now is a huge kick in the ass

[redqueen]

41. And we should end their *taxpayer-funded* allowance, as well. n/t

[JohnLocke]

104. I'm fine with that.

Just end the "taxpaper-funding allowance" of Egypt, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

[bigbillhaywood]

112. Excellent idea. n/t

[IronLionZion]

107. Why isn't this locked yet?

or moved to I/P?

[bigbillhaywood]

108. I thought General Discussion was just that-- discuss anything political.

[JohnLocke]

113. No.

From the Rules:

Due to continuing problems, discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues is limited to the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs forum, and is governed by a special set of rules which are available in that forum. If a discussion is primarily about U.S. policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, it is still allowed in other forums. Discussion of other Middle East issues is also allowed. If a thread is on a different topic, but later goes off-topic and becomes a discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues, the moderators may move the thread to the Foreign Affairs/National Security forum.

[bigbillhaywood]

114. So I/P discussions are not allowed in General Discussion. Seems kind of

silly to me.

[JohnLocke]

115. Not really.

The constant flame wars (see sig) were becoming disruptive.

[Tinoire]

116. You're only pushing for this knowing perfectly well that it'll get locked

down there

"Locking per I/P guidelines. Not based on a recent article" and squash, end of discussion.

Meanwhile, there is NO elephant in the middle of the living room ;)

[Muddleoftheroad]

123. Rules do help everyone get along better here

[Tinoire]

125. Nonesense. These are rules which were pushed by one side

in order to allow one side more control of the discussion.

And they do not help everyone get along. They do more harm than good by stifling discussion of this very important issue that is blowing up the entire world & creating an unfair perception that the Admin & moderators are biased when in actuality all that happened is that the they were harrassed and bombarded in an organized campaign to get the conversation-stifling rules imposed.

It's hilarious to see that about half of those who argued the loudest for these "rules" were later exposed, banned and now blow kisses to DU from their right-wing sites.

It's a despicable shame that all you have to do is hide behind the flag of Israel and you can spout thoughts as vile as how the murder of Palestinians "arouses" you or that you wouldn't hesitate to machine-gun a crowd or that Palestinians smell and still pass as a Progressive. What unadulterated crap.

What is additionally unfortunate is that these rules cleverly polarize people into 2 stubborn camps with a clear barrier between the two preventing any semblance of progress. Divide and conquer.

But you know what they say, the squeaky mouse gets the cheese!

[The Magistrate]

127. Our Memories Of That Time Seem To Differ, Ma'am

The intial step of sequestering the matter was wildly popular, particularly with the great majority of people who do not much care about the issue, and were tired of seeing the bitter combats of the committed clogging the upper rungs of Breaking News and General Discussion.

The regulations that followed addressed matters partisans of both sides complained of frequently, and were freely discussed before being put into practice. They have never seemed to me unduly restrictive: admittedly, hyperbole is not much to my taste as a rhetorical tool....

[Tinoire]

129. I recall it quite differently. It was not wildly popular

at all except with one side and a few moderates. Especially that ludicrous rule about not using the term Zionist which was requested in a deliberate attempt to prevent people from talking about the problems we are seeing today.

No pro-Palestinian poster requested a ban on placing images in posts yet that was demanded by the ardent supporters of the political status quo to prevent people from seeing Sharon's Carnage in the illegally occupied territories. The same with the term Zionist- we fought that vigorously knowing that was designed to perpetuate the ongoing myth that all Jews are Zionists, that Zionism represents the Jewish people, that Zionism IS the Jewish people ergo anything done by the defenders of Zionism is being done for the Jewish people and if you criticize one you are criticizing ALL Jews, being anti-Semitic and wishing for the destruction of Israel. In other words, you must shut up about it and keep plodding along with the little myth that the Zionists made the desert bloom & those nasty Palestinians just want to push all Jews into the sea.

Liberal Jews in the US put these ploys and the resulting confusion to rest by speaking out at the top of their lungs. Many of them are right here at DU but many won't even step into I/P because the stench is so strong.

I have that thread with the discussion of "we need rules" book-marked somewhere and will happily drag it up one of these days because there was a LOT of acrimony in it. The rules were not freely discussed, nor were they voted on. We had a few days worth of discussion and very heavy-handed accusations by certain posters, some hence banned, of anti-Semitism all over the place DESPITE the fact that people like Indiana Green, in that very thread, stated that these were the same tactics used to shut people up and that even in her synagogue people were harassed in a similar manner by the "thought police" & harassed.

I remember that thread well...

Now the part about clogging up LBN and GD, I barely said a word about that because I could see both sides of the issue but it did do a big disservice to the Progressive cause because it's only know, after the fuse has been lit and the Middle East is about to explode, that normal Americans are trying to catch up with "what the hell really happened there", "why did Bin Laden specifically mention the injustice in Palestine", "what is this alliance of the Christian Right and the Likudniks", "what are these huge settlements in the middle of someone else's land".

So they can't openly talk about it even here and good people, decent people, end up vulnerable to vile right-wing propaganda from the US government, the Israeli government, & the racists, such as David Duke, would seek to exploit the Palestinian problem to advance an anti-Jewish agenda.

And you know what's really, really sad? It's that at the end of all this maneuvering to hush things up, chaos is created and the greatest disservice is being done to Israel, fast approaching pariah nation status, and its people.

[The Magistrate]

137. We Will Have To Agree To Disagree Here, It Seems, Ma'am

We have had plenty of practice at it, eh?

It may be worth clarifying several points, however, as my intended meaning does not seem to have come through in some instances.

The measure characterized as wildly popular was the sequestration of discussing this matter in Foreign Affairs, not the guidelines eventually promulgated by Administrator Skinner. That characterization seems to me most accurate: not only do a great many forum members have little interest in the topic, but a great many were, and still are, put off by the venom with which it is frequently discussed by committed partisans.

The meaning intended by stating the guidelines addressed complaints made by both sides was not that both sides agreed on each thing addressed (which would have verged on the miraculous, and obviated any need for the measure), but rather that the guidelines addressed complaints made seperately from both sides, and combined the complaints of both sides about the other side's excesses into a single code. That, too, seems an accurate characterization to me, and there are certainly grounds in the guidelines for barring the most extreme expressions of partisans of Israel, and abundant evidence that these are enforced.

There were certainly people who argued against the guidelines, during the period of public comment, and more of these were advocates of Arab Palestine. But to my certain knowledge, the thing once in place had the support of most participants.

To address a couple of your particular points, namely the bans on images and loose employment of Zionist, may also be worth doing.

The image ban came from incidents where "photo-shopped" images were employed, and from a tendency by some to employ images of the dead in the Nazi extermination camps to illustrate a claim of identity between the actions of Israel and the Reich. Neither of these things can be viewed as appropriate, by an honest advocate for either side, and while it may be heavy handed, it is far easier to enforce a blanket prohibition than a nuanced one: there is far less ground for argument with the enforcement in any particular instance.

"Zionist" is a term which, like many others, has a technical meaning, and also a propagandistic and perjorative meaning. It is perfectly permissible under the guidelines to use the term in the former sense, and forbidden to use it in the latter. It would be indiscrete of me to refer to prominent old advocates of Arab Palestine who to my knowledge expressed privately agreement with banning the perjorative use. It is a dicier thing to enforce, but it is usually quite clear when the usage is technically correct, at least, and safe enough to assume perjorative intent where it is not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

128. Come on, Tinoire

You can do better than that.

Any rules can be accused of either adding to order or stifling discussion. Since the rules are well established, no one really has any trouble making the points they wish. This is a topic area filled with new stories every day. If you have issue with the rules, please do take them up with the mods or go to the ask admin area.

Actually, if we were doing a real count of those who have departed, the larger number of veteran posters who were excised is heavily pro-Palestinian. That in no way impugns the remaining posters. However, those who departed now spend their days bitching about DU, the mods, Israel, etc. In fact, they have turned into a regular anti-DU hate group going so far as attacking DU on other sites and then bragging about it.

These rules don't polarize people into two camps, we're in two camps. And, given how divided people are HERE, I can't envision any hope for a solution in the near future in the Mideast.

[Tinoire]

130. There's no "C'monTinore" here Muddle

Tinoire is NOT coming along. This is one vile sheet of music & I'm not playing this game.

Of course you find the rules delightful. You are one of the ones who supported that since-banned racist poster who repeatedly stated that Palestinians "have a distinct odor" and managed to, in the course of over a year(?) make some of the most offensive posts I have ever read on this site. The rules protected racists like him for that long, with a tacit, complicit silence from "those who have no quarrel with what Bush and Sharon are doing either in Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Iraq". Sheesh, why am I even being polite? The rules protected him (and others very much like him) with much encouragement and buddy-buddying from "those who have no quarrel with what Bush and Sharon are doing either in Israel, the Occupied Territories, and Iraq". The treatment of Rachel Corrie in I/P was one of the MOST vile things I've ever seen in my life. OFFENSIVE pancake jokes? And not one cry from the peanut gallery. There is no way progressives can get along with people who mock the death of an American activist and twitter over the gruesome manner in which she died.

And Muddle, while we may agree on a few issues, as long as people remain as obtuse as you deliberately do and just spend their time combing through DU to see if Israel was mentioned so that they can rush up with the hasbara defenses (and if that doesn't work, turn it into an I/P flame fest so that the thread can promptly be moved down here and locked), there will be no progress either here or in the Middle East. But then, I suppose, what does it matter? Jesus will come swooping down from the skies, rapture away all the Christians faithful to Pat Roberston's vision, leaving the Jews and non-NT-bible thumpers to die. Charming vision that Pat Robertston and the rest of the Stand-by-Israel-because-Falwell-said-God-said-so crowd has.

Defend the rules Muddle. They weren't requested by people like me. We vigorously fought them because we understood the game.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. Rules provide a sense of order

Otherwise this would degenerate into the web version of shouting even more than it does. Of course I am against that. At least this way we sometimes manage reasoned debate.

I vaguely remember a discussion of odor and that's all. I do know I have encountered trained dogs on numerous occasions that hate black people and I know I said so in that thread. I have never known how they do it, but do we smell differently to animals? Hell if I know, but it certainly seems like a reasonable question.

The Rachel Corrie situation escalated ON BOTH SIDES. One side considers her a saint or martyr. The other considers here both a supporter of terror and pretty stupid for getting in the way of construction equipment. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there was a Rachel Corrie thread every single day -- often several a day -- promoting her sainthood. It reached a point where it was downright ridiculous. Much like waving a red flag in front of a bull, those who consider her to blame for her own death responded.

I know this might surprise you, but I don't spend my time combing for threads about Israel. They are, however, easy to find and often filled with goodies such as the poster who said the other day that she didn't care if another Holocaust happened. If you think I will walk away from that crap, you are mistaken.

I will agree things look bleak for the Mideast. I have said that for a long time.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[Selwynn]

110. What aren't all 9/11 threads moved to the 9/11 forums?

Why aren't all kerry threads moved to the General Elections forums? Why aren't all threads on criminal issues moved to the Criminal justice forums?

[Muddleoftheroad]

124. Because they don't spur the same level of online near violence

Only guns and I/P piss off both sides quite so well.

[JohnLocke]

147. LOL

"Only guns and I/P piss off both sides quite so well" -- so true.

[Selwynn]

109. HEAR HEAR!

"if Israel wants to improve it's image they should stop occupying Palestine and murdering it's people."

The best PR campaign money can buy....
:)

[Gimel]

131. Back in 1978

Then Prime Minister Begin proposed a Gaza withdrawal, but the US agreed only on condition that Egypt supply a police patrol to prevent anarchy in the territory. Egypt's Sadat would not go for it, so the initiative failed. It is not just Israel who is to blame for the "occupation". There is no rule of law in Gaza, only the rule of terrorist organizations.

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

140. Begin was a terrorist

Founder of the Irgun, responsible for masterminding bombings, rapes and massacres. I wouldn't have trusted him an inch.

And do you have a link for this fantasy?

[Gimel]

151. Mastermind

Menachem Begin was mastermind of the Camp David peace with Egypt. Also a freedom fighter and founder of the Irgun which masterminded a breakout of Jewish underground prisoners from the Acco prison, although only about half made it past the ruthless British gunners.

As I said, the interview was on the radio, which mentioned the idea of a Gaza pullout was part of Begin's proposals. No link.

Do you have a link to your claims of bombings, rapes and massacres? The blip about an interview and the Golan Heights is worthless, so don't bring that up.

[The Magistrate]

154. The Irgun, Ma'am

Did engage in some killings of Arab Palestinians, essentially at random, during the latter years of the Mandate: by no means all acts of the Irgun were legitimate strikes at English authorities, or at Arab Nationalist guerrillas....

[Gimel]

155. The claims

You may be correct, I have no record of where every bullet went or the day to day records of the years of the Irgun, but the bombings, rapes and massacres seems a little outrageous to accuse Begin of masterminding.

Random killings have often occurred in the last century of conflicts.

[The Magistrate]

156. The Irgun, Ma'am

Is a difficult group to defend, and an easy one to attack: they were undeniably the "bad hats" of the latter Zionist movement. It is certainly doubtful Begin "master-minded" every act of its gun-men, but as leader, he must bear command responsibilty for them, just as Arafat and the late Yassin must bear for their minions.

[The Magistrate]

153. There Was Such A Proposal Made, Sir

President Sadat felt he could not speak or act on behalf of the Arab Palestinians; that was probably a wise political judgement, from his point of view....

[JohnLocke]

158. Kick (nt).

[Lithos]

159. Locking

The discussion on the article topic ended long ago and what remains is off topic.

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground