PDA

View Full Version : Israel-Palestine / religious terrorism (was non-islamic religious terrorism)



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2008, 01:33 PM
No it is based on the long held premise that 'it is better to let X number (often given a 10 or 99) of guilty peple go free rather than punish a single innocent person'
I tend to agree, although it is a principle of criminal law not warfare, and it was first said by Robespičrre. But as Thomas Sowell points out (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell061501.asp), there are no solutions but only trade-offs. Executing one innocent person is wrong, but is it right to ban all executions if this ban results in the killing of ten times as many innocent people by murderers released on a technicality, after serving 12 years of a 'life" sentence, released on furlough by a leftist governor like Dukakis, or in prison itself? And there are many cases of innocent people being saved because of the deterrent of the death penalty. Sowell's book The Vision of the Anointed (http://www.fff.org/freedom/1295h.asp) says (p. 225):

“In short, while saving some innocent individuals from a false conviction is important, the question is whether it is more important than sparing other equally innocent individuals from violence and death at the hands of criminals. Is saving one innocent defendant per decade worth sacrificing ten innocent murder victims? A thousand? Once we recognize that there are no solutions, but only trade-offs, we can no longer pursue cosmic justice, but must make our choices among alternatives actually available — and these alternatives do not include guaranteeing that no harm can possibly befall any innocent individual. The only way to make sure than no innocent individual is ever falsely convicted is to do away with the criminal justice system and accept the horrors of anarchy.”

The same goes for innocents killed in war, but since this is even more a matter of saving one's own innocent civilians, the burden of proof is lower than in the criminal justice system.

Capablanca-Fan
12-12-2008, 01:46 PM
None of this addresses the underlying tension.
It matters not, if the invadees no longer have the means of acting out this tension in the form of violence.


The annexing of territory is IMO unlikely to reduce conflict. In colonialisation would indicate that the annexing of territory (e.g. Britain / India) is likely to incite further violence.
The reverse is true. Imperialism brought peace; once the evil colonialists departed, there was usually horrible internal bloodshed. Sri Lanka, India, Africa and Indonesia had frightful mass killings after the colonialists left.


Hilter was in the process of trying to annex a number of countries that certainly didn't reduce conflict.
Another case in point: Wilson's "self-determination" rhetoric split the previous European empires into weak countries that Hitler could pick off one by one. Also, the collapse of the empires led to nationalistic radicalism, such as Czech persecution of ethnic Germans in Sudetenland, giving Hitler a pretext to invade.


As libertarian you should be aware that people are likely to resist (often violently) being ruled over by a third party.
Indeed. But liberty is predicated on the rule of law. Murders don't deserve liberty.

Good grief, you say all these lovely things about negotiation, yet Israel has tried all of them as well as given "land for peace". It's the weakness that inspires further violence.


Also the Cold War wasn't really a war. And Reagan didn't win anything, the USSR economic model was collapsing. The arms race may have sped up the collapse.
That's the usual lefty response now. But at the time, lefties claimed that the Soviet system was "here to stay" (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=4108), and might even be economically superior to the US. So they ridiculed Reagan's denuniations of the "evil empire" and prediction:


The West will not contain Communism, it will transcend Communism. We will not bother to denounce it, we'll dismiss it as a sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.


Is there any reason why you dont think it would be beneficial to try to address the underlying predjudices?
Sure it is. But there should be combined with crackdowns on the outworkings of these prejudices in the form of violence. We shouldn't allow continued murders while these prejudices (read rabid neo-Nazi antisemitism) are addressed.

Kaitlin
12-12-2008, 06:55 PM
Can you answer the questions at the end... I can :)
.. now (looked them up :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb4LoTG3C8E

Capablanca-Fan
16-12-2008, 06:22 PM
Geert Wilders in Jerusalem “The Jihad against Israel is the Jihad against the West.” (http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/14/geert-wilders-in-jerusalem-%e2%80%9cthe-jihad-against-israel-is-the-jihad-against-the-west%e2%80%9d/)
Andrew Bostom, 14 December 2008

...

Our political elite is trying to make us believe that the influx of Muslim immigrants is similar to the waves of immigration that took place centuries ago. Or they say that "Christianity developed towards modernity, and therefore Islam will do the same".

How are we to remain a democracy if a large part of the growing Muslim population is in favour of introducing sharia law? How is Amsterdam to remain the gay capitol of Europe if gays are regularly beaten up by non western immigrants, often Muslims? How are the Jewish communities of Europe to survive with a growing presence of an ideology that is so blatantly anti-Semitic? How are we to remain a centre of cultural and scientific excellence if Islam opposes art, and academic exploration? How are we to remain an open and tolerant society if we are faced with part of the Muslim community favouring self-segregation and showing no desire for assimilation? How can we look to the future with confidence, when a large part of the population turns to a seventh century desert for answers?

These are the questions the multiculturalists don't want to answer.

...

Cultural relativism is the biggest disease modern day Europe suffers from. Not all cultures are equal. Our Western culture is better than the Islamic culture. In the words of the brave Dr Wafa Sultan: "It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality". Indeed also here in Israel you are not fighting a territorial war, it's not about territory it's about ideology. The Islamic ideology does not seek cooperation or assimilation but aims for submission and dominance over non-Muslims. There is no moderate Islam, there will never be a moderate Islam. There might be moderate people who call themselves Muslim, but there is no moderate Islam.

Leftist journalists and leftist politicians hasten themselves to label anyone critical of the Islamisation a 'right-wing extremist'. The entire establishment has sided with Islam. Leftists, liberals, and Christian-Democrats are now enslaved to Islam. They are Dhimmis. Lenin once labelled ignorant people that unknowingly aided his cause 'useful idiots'. Well, the West is now full of these 'useful idiots', and they are even proud of it.

...

A few weeks ago the world has once again seen what Islam is capable of. In Mumbai, jihadists separated Muslims from non-Muslims, according to a witness in a Belgian newspaper. The non-Muslims, the Kaffirs, were subsequently shot. The terrorists also went straight for the tiny Jewish centre in Mumbai, where, according to reports made to an Indian news website, they horribly tortured Jewish people before brutally murdering them.

Most of the Western media stick to naming the culprits as being members of 'separatist movements'. In doing so, they are missing the main point and are unjustly ignoring the Islamic nature of the terror attacks. After all, if it is a conflict about borders, why are they killing Jews in Mumbai? Why, in a city of tens of millions, find the jihadists the shortest way to the only rabbi in town — in order to kill him and his wife? Why are Israel's enemies always shouting "Allah hoe-Akbar" and "kill the Jews" if all they want is peaceful coexistence and mutual understanding? Maybe, I'm just guessing, is it because they have an ideology that tells them to kill Jews, to kill unbelievers, and to advance Islam until there is world domination. Islam, after all divides the world in a dar-al-Harb, and dar-al-Islam. Islam is a totalitarian ideology full of hate, violence and submission.

...

Capablanca-Fan
31-12-2008, 06:44 PM
Repugnant Hamas
19–25 Dec 2008 (before Israel's long overdue counteraction)

The mass rally organized by Hamas in Gaza to celebrate its 21st anniversary yesterday was a spectacle repulsive to Israelis.

With trademark cruelty, the gathering included a provocative "play" featuring a character dressed as captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, pleading in Hebrew for his freedom: "I miss my mom and dad."

The pain deliberately caused to Schalit's parents, more than 900 days after his abduction, would have been of little concern to Hamas. As it marks its 21st birthday, Hamas pays no heed to the fact that Schalit has been denied his freedom on his 20th, 21st and 22nd birthdays. Indeed, it aims to keep picking at the open wound, hoping to build pressure from within Israel on the government to conclude the kind of staggeringly unbalanced prisoner "exchange" that Hamas is demanding — a soldier kidnapped from inside Israel's borders in return for a mass release of Palestinian security captives, including murderers [so much for "life means life" as an alternative to executing these scumbags—Jono].

But the kind of Hamas callousness exemplified at yesterday's rally should not only be repulsive to Israelis. It should give pause to the whole world, and most especially to Hamas's co-religionists.

Hamas's avowed agenda of seeking Israel's elimination, its amoral treatment of Schalit, its cynical use of Palestinian residential areas as the launching points for incessant rocket attacks on Israel, its violent overthrow of Palestinian Authority rule in Gaza december 19-25 all of this is pursued, as its suicide bombing campaign has always been pursued, in the purported name of Islam.

...

Hamas claims to represent a humane Islam, and yet it chose to bring suffering on its own people, in the wake of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, by intensifying cross-border rocket fire — destroying the Palestinians' opportunity to start the process of state-building. Now Hamas is threatening to end months of Gaza-Israel "cease fire" — a relative term of increasingly little value — and thus, potentially, to spark still further futile violence.

COMMENDABLY, MOST of the international community has resisted the idea of legitimizing Hamas so long as its does recognize Israel's right to exist, abandon terrorism and accept previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. But the international community sometimes loses track of the fact that the suffering in Gaza, as Israel seeks to thwart the rocket attacks on its civilians, is a consequence of Hamas's disinclination to meet those minimal conditions.

Even Israel's leaders have not always internalized the impossibility of dealing with the bleak, unyielding Hamas. But while Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and would-be Likud defense minister Moshe Ya'alon have drawn criticism from the "free Schalit at all costs" supporters, their latest comments unfortunately make belated good sense.

Kadima leader Livni told high school students in Tel Aviv last week that "we all want Gilad to come home, but there is always the risk of minimum casualties and it isn't always possible to bring everyone home."

Ya'alon, a former chief of staff, asked rhetorically on Army Radio yesterday: "Are you ready to give up the State of Israel for a prisoner?"

Hamas's demands are insatiable, because its opposition to Israel is absolute. An organization that shot dead its own Palestinian people when taking power in Gaza in June 2007 has no compunction in killing, kidnapping and manipulating ours.

Israel can afford no illusions when it comes to confronting, marginalizing and ultimately defeating Hamas. Adherents of a very different Islam, an Islam of "peace, kindness, justice, honesty, integrity and respect," should share that ambition.

MichaelBaron
01-01-2009, 02:42 AM
Repugnant Hamas
19–25 Dec 2008 (before Israel's long overdue counteraction)

The mass rally organized by Hamas in Gaza to celebrate its 21st anniversary yesterday was a spectacle repulsive to Israelis.

With trademark cruelty, the gathering included a provocative "play" featuring a character dressed as captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, pleading in Hebrew for his freedom: "I miss my mom and dad."

.

This horrible....but unfortunately not entirely unexpected..once again Hamas supporters act like animals!

Capablanca-Fan
01-01-2009, 02:05 PM
Israel has about a third of the land area of Tasmania, but has over 7 million people. Yet bleaters in the west want it to cede still more "land for rocket attack sites peace".

From Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mid-East:

What about 'disproportionate reaction'? This strange term has appeared recently and been applied to Israel, as though a country under attack and fighting for its existence is required to inflict equal damage on its enemies. The idea that "you killed three of our civilians, we will kill three of yours", besides being highly immoral, just doesn’t make sense. Such a restriction has never before been placed on a country fighting to defend its people. In all the wars of the last 100 years, it was never suggested that only ‘proportionate response’ can be used by a country defending itself against attack. Can anyone imagine allied forces in WWII being told that they can only inflict ‘proportionate damage’.

What about civilian casualties? The news stories and photos often highlight the civilian casualties resulting from Israel's offensive. This creates a "reversal of reality" in the minds of many readers. Because of international pressure and concern for civilian damage, Israel has repeatedly restrained its armed forces from responding to rocket and missile attacks, rather than acting decisively to stop the attacks. Yet Israel's weapons are very advanced, and its intelligence is among the best in the world. When the need to act became overwhelming, Israel made sure that every bomb dropped was aimed at a specific terrorist or Hamas target. When we read that a mosque was bombed, we tend to react in horror, until we learn that the mosque (as is the case with many mosques) was targeted because it was known to be a base for terrorist activities. Messages were sent to Gazans before the attack began to withdraw from terrorist areas to avoid being hurt. Given the crowded conditions in Gaza, the fact that only some 300 people were killed in these attacks is a demonstration of Israel’s pinpoint accuracy. But what is even more ‘miraculous’, considering that Hamas deliberately operates from within civilian areas, is that only 15% of those killed were civilians! It would be hard to find another nation that has done a better job of minimizing collateral damage while defending itself.

In contrast, Israel’s enemies do not recognize the conventions of international warfare but deliberately target Jewish civilians. The Hamas rocket attacks on Israel (not to mention the suicide bombings) are directed specifically at civilians. Palestinians rejoice when innocent Jews are killed, and those who gave their life to kill them are venerated as martyrs. The fact is that Israel tries to protect innocent Palestinians more than the leadership of Hamas, which deliberately uses Gaza’s civilian population as human shields. Yet it is Israel that is condemned for causing civilian casualties, while the Hamas terrorists get a free pass.
...
Who gets the blame? While Arab statements to the West universally blame Israel for everything, it is instructive to read what Mahmoud Abbas, prime minister of the rival Palestinian Authority, said at a recent Arab press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Abu al-Gheit: "I say in all honesty, we made contact with leaders of the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip. We spoke with them in all honesty and directly, and after that we spoke with them indirectly, through more than one Arab and non-Arab side... We spoke with them on the telephone and we said to them: We ask of you, don't stop the ceasefire, the ceasefire must continue and not stop, in order to avoid what has happened, and if only we had avoided it." Despite this statement by a Palestinian leader, most news media in the West, who raised very little voice about the rocket attacks on Israel, have put the blame on Israel for inflicting suffering on Palestinians. No one seems to point out that if Hamas didn’t want to be attacked, they should have thought of that before they decided to declare war on Israel.

Mokum
05-01-2009, 05:37 PM
Israel has about a third of the land area of Tasmania, but has over 7 million people. Yet bleaters in the west want it to cede still more "land for rocket attack sites peace".

Well, after all Palestina 'has' a fraction of the land area of Israel, and around 3.8 million people. You might not like them much, but they would like to live somewhere too.

MichaelBaron
06-01-2009, 10:14 AM
Well, after all Palestina 'has' a fraction of the land area of Israel, and around 3.8 million people. You might not like them much, but they would like to live somewhere too.

Would they really like to live somwhere or to die somewhere in suiside bombings? It is not about how much land you have it is about how adequate and civilized your actions are. China does not recognize Taiwan however it does not stop Chinese leaders (in fact they have been very successful with it lately) to negotiate rather than to use military force. In a nutshell (and its obviously hard to deal with such complicated problem in a nutshell) the problem is as follows:

We have a civilized state (Israel) on on side and a group of primitive creatures (how else to call murderers who target civil population) on the other side. As i was pointing out in my earlier posts in this thread - those who use their own children as human shiled should not be regarded as human.

antichrist
06-01-2009, 11:12 AM
Would they really like to live somwhere or to die somewhere in suiside bombings? It is not about how much land you have it is about how adequate and civilized your actions are. China does not recognize Taiwan however it does not stop Chinese leaders (in fact they have been very successful with it lately) to negotiate rather than to use military force. In a nutshell (and its obviously hard to deal with such complicated problem in a nutshell) the problem is as follows:

We have a civilized state (Israel) on on side and a group of primitive creatures (how else to call murderers who target civil population) on the other side. As i was pointing out in my earlier posts in this thread - those who use their own children as human shiled should not be regarded as human.

Mike, it is a war crime to collectively punish people, as Israel is doing, Israel does not register with the International Court of Justice, if it did it would be charged with crimes against humanity, just as that Slavic guy was. You can demonise the Palistinians or segments of it, but fair minded people know that they are just trying to get their land back, and that terrorism is just a means to end.

Just as ancient Isrealites used it to obtain Israel in the first instance and some Jews in the second instance. In the Jewish (or Hebrew) "
Old TEstament" they speak of God sanctioning their genocide by making the sun stand still. And coz they had to invade this territory proves that they were not the original inhabitants. So they have always been invaders, who come from what is now Iraq or somewhere like that.

So how you now describe the Palestinians could just as well be described segments of Jews. Indeed there are groups of Jews (imminent Jews) who are strongly opposed to what Israel is doing. It is reported in todays Sydney Morning Herald.

Nazi Germany and the United Nations created this quagmire and the Palestinians have always paid the price.

Capablanca-Fan
06-01-2009, 12:52 PM
Mike, it is a war crime to collectively punish people,
So where were you when Hamas was firing rockets at Israeli civilians? Israel is doing its best to avoid killing civilians, but Hamas wants them to so they hide among them.


as Israel is doing, Israel does not register with the International Court of Justice,
Good. Why should a court of Eurolefties be binding?


You can demonise the Palistinians or segments of it, but fair minded people know that they are just trying to get their land back,
There was never a Palestinian Arab state before WW2. The British Palestinian Mandate was split into a large Arab part, Transjordan, and a smaller Jewish part, Israel.


and that terrorism is just a means to end.
Israel's current action is just a means to an end: protecting its citizens from murderers.


Just as ancient Isrealites used it to obtain Israel in the first instance and some Jews in the second instance. In the Jewish (or Hebrew) "
Old TEstament" they speak of God sanctioning their genocide by making the sun stand still.
In the physically valid reference frame of the Earth that we still use with terms like "sunset".


And coz they had to invade this territory proves that they were not the original inhabitants.
God owns the land, and He can give it to whoever He likes.


Nazi Germany and the United Nations created this quagmire and the Palestinians have always paid the price.
The Palestinian Arabs were allied with the Nazis!

Zwischenzug
06-01-2009, 01:25 PM
Is Hamas merely hiding among civilians or are the Palestinians defending/hiding them? Either way, it seems impossible to go after Hamas without killing civilians and slipping further in to disfavor among the Arab states.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-01-2009, 01:35 PM
Is Hamas merely hiding among civilians or are the Palestinians defending/hiding them?

Both


Either way, it seems impossible to go after Hamas without killing civilians and slipping further in to disfavor among the Arab states.
It is impossible for Israel to avoid disfavour among the Arab states, as they are strongly upset by it's existence. Other so called "grievances" are secondary.
It has always been a very stupid policy of Israel to try and win favour with Arab (or any other for that matter) state. Israel is always condemned whatever it does. As a result they should stop caring about "world opinion" altogether.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-01-2009, 01:38 PM
So where were you when Hamas was firing rockets at Israeli civilians? Israel is doing its best to avoid killing civilians, but Hamas wants them to so they hide among them.

He was definitely applauding them.

I had a lengthy discussion with A/C about two or three years ago on this forum. It is useless as he is immune to any logical arguments. After everything he put forward was refuted he just typed it back as a proven fact. No need to bother with A/C, I don't think anybody takes him seriously anyway.

Zwischenzug
06-01-2009, 01:49 PM
It is impossible for Israel to avoid disfavor among the Arab states, as they are strongly upset by it's existence.

Does this mean that peace in the middle east is impossible because of the mere existence of Israel? I understand that efforts for Israel to win "favor" will be abused by groups such as Hamas but the alternative seems to be endless war between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-01-2009, 01:59 PM
Does this mean that peace in the middle east is impossible because of the mere existence of Israel?

I am not sure it is impossible, but highly unlikely. It requires paradigm change from either Arab world or Israel.


I understand that efforts for Israel to win "favor" will be abused by groups such as Hamas but the alternative seems to be endless war between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states.
"efforts for Israel to win favour" convey wrong message. It actually fuels "endless war between Israel and the Arab states".

MichaelBaron
06-01-2009, 02:02 PM
Mike, it is a war crime to collectively punish people,.

Get Real! Hamas i using women and children as a human shied. What else can Israel possibly do but to try to protect itself?

Capablanca-Fan
06-01-2009, 02:15 PM
Well, after all Palestina 'has' a fraction of the land area of Israel, and around 3.8 million people. You might not like them much, but they would like to live somewhere too.
Israel was a small fraction of the land originally called Palestine. 3/4 of this land that was East of the River Jordan went to the Arabs and was called "Transjordan", meaning "across the Jordan". See History of Israel & "Palestine" (http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html). The proposed Palestinian flag is almost identical to that of Jordan:


...
Our Palestinian Cousins started the '48 war, and in so doing released the warlike appetites of a nation of survivors, a people with no place to run, who had repressed their rage for millennia, and had now earned full title to it!

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of its entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

...

Usually when one side starts a war and loses both the war AND some territory, no one on the planet would expect the winner to give back anything! This not only sounds preposterous, it IS preposterous! But the Jews (I hate to admit) had such an insane obsession of wanting the world to love them that they were willing to give back the entire Sinai Desert (oil fields, air bases and endless miles of security buffer) to Egypt for a piece of paper. Thus, in 1982 Egypt regained their Sinai and Israel lost a massive buffer against any future Egyptian aggression! Thus far, Egypt has not aggressed against Israel militarily; however, the basest, anti-Semitic vile to come out of Egypt is not unlike the worse of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda! This 1982 Camp David Peace Accord has to be the coldest peace deal in history!
...

A fraction of the money spent on funding rockets and suicide bombers could be used for giving them very nice homes. But Israel even left functioning infrastructure and greenhouses, which Hamas destroyed as soon as they took over. So they have no right to moan about the squalor they caused themselves.

Capablanca-Fan
06-01-2009, 02:21 PM
Does this mean that peace in the middle east is impossible because of the mere existence of Israel? I understand that efforts for Israel to win "favor" will be abused by groups such as Hamas but the alternative seems to be endless war between Israel and the Palestinians/Arab states.
Once again, the fallacy of the unlimited enemy, refuted by Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell111904.asp). Israel needs to follow the strategy of the Allies in WW2 of bombing them into unconditional surrender, and quit following the failed strategy of WW1 of allowing an armistice which just postponed fighting.

ER
07-01-2009, 02:10 AM
A/C how can you say that?

Mike, it is a war crime to collectively punish people, as Israel is doing,


It is a crime against human intelligence as well as absolute lack of sensitivity to refer to terms such as collective punishment when you are talking to or about Jewish people!

A/C when you claim that..

... there are groups of Jews (imminent Jews) who are strongly opposed to what Israel is doing. It is reported in todays Sydney Morning Herald...

You are obviously unaware that...

This is also the case in Israel, where similar groups organise demonstrations and offer legal and even financial support even to accused terrorists. You are forgetting that Israel is a democracy and it's citizens exrpess their opinion freely!

A/C could you even imagine a Jewish Rights Support organisation such as ...

http://www.adalah.org/eng/index.php

who defend Palestiinian Rights in Israel, being allowed to function, let alone be financially supported by any Govt of countries surrounding Israel?



CAGLES

MichaelBaron
07-01-2009, 01:00 PM
A/C how can you say that?

Mike, it is a war crime to collectively punish people, as Israel is doing,


It is a crime against human intelligence as well as absolute lack of sensitivity to refer to terms such as collective punishment when you are talking to or about Jewish people!

A/C when you claim that..

... there are groups of Jews (imminent Jews) who are strongly opposed to what Israel is doing. It is reported in todays Sydney Morning Herald...

You are obviously unaware that...

This is also the case in Israel, where similar groups organise demonstrations and offer legal and even financial support even to accused terrorists. You are forgetting that Israel is a democracy and it's citizens exrpess their opinion freely!

A/C could you even imagine a Jewish Rights Support organisation such as ...

http://www.adalah.org/eng/index.php

who defend Palestiinian Rights in Israel, being allowed to function, let alone be financially supported by any Govt of countries surrounding Israel?



CAGLES

OK responding to everyone (JAK, A/C etc( as well as expressing my opinion on these matters. Some of the points brought up in their posts i agree with but others i do not.

1) Israel is not punishing Palestine collectively. JAK what can Israel do if Hamas continues to attack it? Is their any other solution but to try to stop Hamaz? Is their any way to stop Hamaz other than counter attack?
2) Regarding Jews against the war letter - to me it is first of all an indicator that Jewish people are free to express their opinion. In Palestine -35 people got killed by Hamas in recent days as "punishment" for saying that Israel has a right to defent itself and Hamas should stop bringing trouble to ordinary people.
3) There are Palestinians living in Israel...Can you imagine a single Jewish person living in Palestine?

ER
07-01-2009, 02:00 PM
Michael, because this is a very sensitive matter I want to point out to you that in my post I was responding to A/C and not to you.
In summarising, now:
in my first point I make it clear to AC that it is at least insensitive and tactless to talk to Jewish people about collective punishment. Meaning that if one ethnic, religious or any other group has suffered collective punishment including holocausts and genocides, that is the Jewish People

In my second point (again directed to A/C) I also make it clear that the existence of Jewish groups or individuals be they in Israel or internationally, that disagree with the official Israeli Govt, indicates the fact that Israel is a democratic society where everyone can express their opinions freely...

In my third paragraph I am giving an example of the existence of such a forum in Israel where Palestinians and other Arabs express their opinion...

If you need any further explanation leave me a note so we can discuss it when I come back... I am very busy at present!

CAGLES

MichaelBaron
07-01-2009, 03:02 PM
Michael, because this is a very sensitive matter I want to point out to you that in my post I was responding to A/C and not to you.
In summarising, now:
in my first point I make it clear to AC that it is at least insensitive and tactless to talk to Jewish people about collective punishment. Meaning that if one ethnic, religious or any other group has suffered collective punishment including holocausts and genocides, that is the Jewish People

In my second point (again directed to A/C) I also make it clear that the existence of Jewish groups or individuals be they in Israel or internationally, that disagree with the official Israeli Govt, indicates the fact that Israel is a democratic society where everyone can express their opinions freely...

In my third paragraph I am giving an example of the existence of such a forum in Israel where Palestinians and other Arabs express their opinion...

If you need any further explanation leave me a note so we can discuss it when I come back... I am very busy at present!

CAGLES

JAK, that what i said..that was agreeing with your points! :)

ER
07-01-2009, 05:39 PM
k Michael, thanks! I just wanted to make my position very clear, nonetheless, I agree that the "read my lips" :hmm: heading was overfetched and rather out of place! :)
CAGLES

Capablanca-Fan
07-01-2009, 06:20 PM
Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate' (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085925621747981.html)
Hamas are the real war criminals in this conflict
Alan Dershowitz
Wall Street Journal
2 Jan 09

Israel's actions in Gaza are justified under international law, and Israel should be commended for its self-defense against terrorism. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter reserves to every nation the right to engage in self-defense against armed attacks. The only limitation international law places on a democracy is that its actions must satisfy the principle of proportionality.

Since Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, Hamas has fired thousands of rockets designed to kill civilians into southern Israel. The residents of Sderot -- which have borne the brunt of the attacks -- have approximately 15 seconds from launch time to run into a shelter. Although deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime, terrorists firing at Sderot are so proud of their actions that they sign their weapons.

In a recent incident related to me by the former head of the Israeli air force, Israeli intelligence learned that a family's house in Gaza was being used to manufacture rockets. The Israeli military gave the residents 30 minutes to leave. Instead, the owner called Hamas, which sent mothers carrying babies to the house.

Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.

These despicable tactics -- targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians -- can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding.

...

Until the world recognizes that Hamas is committing three war crimes -- targeting Israeli civilians, using Palestinian civilians as human shields, and seeking the destruction of a member state of the United Nations -- and that Israel is acting in self-defense and out of military necessity, the conflict will continue.

TheJoker
08-01-2009, 02:35 PM
For those like Jono who where advocating a solution via Israeli military, this should act as a good acid test to see whether the current operation causes a reduction in future violence or an escalation. Should it fail to reduce violence or cause an escaltion I assume you change your positions on how to best manage this conflict.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 09:14 PM
For those like Jono who where advocating a solution via Israeli military, this should act as a good acid test to see whether the current operation causes a reduction in future violence or an escalation. Should it fail to reduce violence or cause an escaltion I assume you change your positions on how to best manage this conflict.

Joker, what is your solution? Pls suggest an alternative - and i will embrace it!

Basil
08-01-2009, 09:17 PM
Joker, what is your solution? Pls suggest an alternative - and i will embrace it!
Ditto. Perhaps a solution like the one the world is taking with respect to Zimbabwe? :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Carry on! You're all doing extremely well - not!

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 09:36 PM
Ditto. Perhaps a solution like the one the world is taking with respect to Zimbabwe? :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

Carry on! You're all doing extremely well - not!

Bringing in international force? Good idea!

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2009, 10:48 PM
Israel's Response Is Disproportionate (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonathan/mark_disproportionate.php3)
By Jonathan Mark
30 Dec 2008

I condemn Israel's disproportionate attack on Hamas because, so far, it has only lasted four days and I would like to see a proportionate response that terrifies Hamas for seven years, the years that have filled Sderot and neighboring towns with nightmares, death, amputations and trauma coming from rockets and mortars fired from Gaza.

Perhaps a proportionate response would have Gaza's leaders fearful of being killed every day for the next two years, as Gilad Shalit has been terrified of torture and death every day for the last two years in his solitary Gaza dungeon.

A proportionate response would have Hamas mothers and fathers as fearful for their children's lives as Shalit's mother and father have been fearful for Gilad's life.

A proportionate response would have Gaza's children crying for their mommies and daddies, the way at a Hamas pageant earlier in December a Palestinian actor dressed as Shalit got down on his knees, mock-begging in Hebrew for his Ima and Abba while the Gaza crowds laughed.

A proportionate response would so intimidate Hamas that they will grovel and, as a "gesture," send cocoa and jam into Sderot, the way Israel has groveled in response to rockets from Hamas, sending cocoa and jam into Gaza. Imagine Churchill sending cocoa and jam into Berlin as a humanitarian gesture after - during - the bombing of London.

A proportionate response would be one that will convince Hamas there is no military solution, no solution but surrender. They can then call surrender a "peace process," if they like, just as the mostly unanswered attacks on Jews have convinced some Jews that there is no military solution but surrender to any and all demands. They suggest a euthanasia by the euphemism of "peace process," that Israel become what some are already planning to call "Canaan," a non-Jewish state of all its citizens.

...

TheJoker
08-01-2009, 10:55 PM
Joker, what is your solution? Pls suggest an alternative - and i will embrace it!

That both sides focus on increasing social and economic cooperation in the face of the terrorist actions. Try to persecute the terrorist but when it is possible to do so without causing collateral damage. If Palestinian and Israeli children went to school together I think the predjudices might slowy be eroded. If Palestinian had business/fininacial that meant they were keen to see relations with Israel maintained there would be less support for terrorism.

That's my idea it could be wrong, but I think it is worth a try. The key has to be breaking down the predjudices and removing the reasons for hatred. I just dont see war as means that is likley to convince the Palestinian population to cooperate with Israel.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2009, 11:09 PM
That both sides focus on increasing social and economic cooperation in the face of the terrorist actions.
As long as Hamas shoots rockets, then Israel should do what it takes to protect its citizens.


Try to persecute the terrorist but when it is possible to do so without causing collateral damage.
Then tell Hamas to stop hiding their rockets among civilians. They even move mothers and babies to rocket bases as human shields.


If Palestinian and Israeli children went to school together I think the predjudices might slowy be eroded. If Palestinian had business/fininacial that meant they were keen to see relations with Israel maintained there would be less support for terrorism.
Yet Israel left functioning greenhouses and infrastructure that Hamas destroyed. The "Palestinians" refused to take Israeli-donated blood.


That's my idea it could be wrong, but I think it is worth a try.
Good thing you weren't advising Churchill and FDR in WW2 to try this soft-headed appeasement. It's a shame that Israel isn't following their lead to demand unconditional surrender.

MichaelBaron
08-01-2009, 11:45 PM
That both sides focus on increasing social and economic cooperation in the face of the terrorist actions. Try to persecute the terrorist but when it is possible to do so without causing collateral damage. If Palestinian and Israeli children went to school together I think the predjudices might slowy be eroded. If Palestinian had business/fininacial that meant they were keen to see relations with Israel maintained there would be less support for terrorism.

That's my idea it could be wrong, but I think it is worth a try. The key has to be breaking down the predjudices and removing the reasons for hatred. I just dont see war as means that is likley to convince the Palestinian population to cooperate with Israel.

Joker, do me and you live on the same planet?
Do you seriously expect Hamaz to cooperate with Israel Socially and Economically? How to prosecute terrorists if they use human schields. See Jono's article above! The only solution when fighting terrorism..is to eliminate it all together.

Social and economic cooperation....Orh, God. Hamas leaders would be laughing over such proposal.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 12:28 AM
Joker, do me and you live on the same planet?
Do you seriously expect Hamaz to cooperate with Israel Socially and Economically?.
Hamas No... Other Palestinians yes.

How to prosecute terrorists if they use human schields. See Jono's article above! The only solution when fighting terrorism..is to eliminate it all together.

Its difficult but the rocket attacks dont really cause a significant number of casualties anyway.


Social and economic cooperation....Orh, God. Hamas leaders would be laughing over such proposal.

I suspect they would since support for their terrorist actions requires conflict not cooperation.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 12:33 AM
Hamas No... Other Palestinians yes.
They voted for Hamas, and do its bidding, such as transporting mothers with babies to be human shields.


Its difficult but the rocket attacks dont really cause a significant number of casualties anyway.
They shouldn't be causing ANY!!!! And Hamas (Hebrew for "violence") is always upgrading their rockets -- as opposed to spending this money for infrastructure, housing etc.


I suspect they would since support for their terrorist actions requires conflict not cooperation.
And they laugh because Israel's current dovish leftist "leadership" is so keen to appease (http://townhall.com/Columnists/BenShapiro/2009/01/07/why_israel_will_lose_--_again), more concerned about "world opinion" than protecting its people.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 12:36 AM
Yet Israel left functioning greenhouses and infrastructure that Hamas destroyed. The "Palestinians" refused to take Israeli-donated blood..

Great example of the level of predjudices involved, until they are dealt with we cannot expect people to behave rationally.



Good thing you weren't advising Churchill and FDR in WW2 to try this soft-headed appeasement. It's a shame that Israel isn't following their lead to demand unconditional surrender.

Totally different situation. The Northern Ireland conflict would have more in common. Since it involved terrorism and guerilla tacics.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 01:15 AM
They shouldn't be causing ANY!!!!

No doubt that direct attacks against civilian target are to be deplored.


And they laugh because Israel's current dovish leftist "leadership" is so keen to appease[/URL], more concerned about "world opinion" than protecting its people.

You can hardly call it keen to appease or dovish, when Israel has inflicted far more casualties on the Palestinians than vice versa. You might consider their responses justified. But considering the Palestinian casualties one might consider the Hamas responses as justified as well.

As we all know it is impossible to define who started/provoked the conflict.

And while violence is the solution of choice for both sides, I expect the tit-for-tat attacks to continue indefinitely.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 02:40 AM
Hamas No... Other Palestinians yes.


Its difficult but the rocket attacks dont really cause a significant number of casualties anyway.



I suspect they would since support for their terrorist actions requires conflict not cooperation.

So
1) Do we agree that Hamas should be destroyed?
2) Given "insignificant number of casualties (how significant would it be if you would have family living in Israel in constant fear of Hamas attacks) should Israel just allow Hamas to go on?

I am wondering do we really need to get a September 11th of our own till people in Australia start realising how barbarian, Hamas, Al-Queda and Hesbollah are.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 02:46 AM
But considering the Palestinian casualties one might consider the Hamas responses as justified as well.

As we all know it is impossible to define who started/provoked the conflict.

.

1) Hamas is not responding, Israel Does! Israel would be happy with seizefire if only its security is guaranteed. It is only Hamas that wants to fight the war till "complete destruction of Israel"

2) It is actually more than possible to define who started/provoked the conflict.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 08:55 AM
You can hardly call it keen to appease or dovish,
Yes I can. This reaction was long overdue, and they warned Hamas of impending attacks, which gave them a chance to move more human shields. Remember, they gave Gaza to the "Palestinians" and have been trying to appease Hamas for some time. They attacked now only because they fear hard-liner Netanyahu winning the upcoming election, and while GWB is still in the White House.


when Israel has inflicted far more casualties on the Palestinians than vice versa.
Irrelevant:

America inflicted far more casualties on Germany and Japan in WW2, yet there is no doubt that Germany and Japan were the bad guys.
Israelis have foiled hundreds of attempted Palestinian terrorist attacks that would have killed tens of thousands. Attempted atttacks are as morally culpable as successful ones.
Israeli medical skills save many lives of terrorist victims. More Palestinians would have been saved if they had accepted Israeli medical help instead of incompetent Palestinian doctors. Remember the case when they refused donations of Jewish blood?
Palestinian casualty reports often count the suicide bombers, armed fighters, terrorist leaders, terrorists shot in self-defence while planting or throwing bombs, bomb-makers (and their neighbours) killed when the bombs they were making blew up, "collaborators" killed by other Palestinians, those killed by the absurdly dangerous Palestinian practice of shooting live ammo at funerals and protests, and innocent people caught in the crossfire even when there is no evidence that Israelis fired the fatal shot.
Israeli female fatalities outnumbered Palestinian female fatalities 3 or 4 to 1. Israeli females were 40% of Israeli non-combatants killed by Palestinians, while Palestinian deaths were 95% male. So the Palestinians deliberately target females, as well as other unarmed civilians and children, while Israelis killed armed male soldiers.
According to the Boston Globe, April 2003, of the 800 Israeli deaths in the Intifada, 567 were innocent civilians including women, children and the elderly. But in Israel's legitimate actions of self-defence, only 18% of the 2000 Palestinians killed were civilians. And the moral culpability of these accidental casualties of war is far less than the culpability of deliberately targeting civilians as the Palestians have done since the days of Hitler's Mufti.



You might consider their responses justified.
There is no doubt that it is justified; it is rather too soft and too late.


But considering the Palestinian casualties one might consider the Hamas responses as justified as well.
Crap. Hamas wants Palestinian casualties, which is why they move mothers and babies to their rocket launching sites. "World opinion" enables this by blaming Israel, not Hamas, for such deaths, while giving the "Palestinians" carte blanche for deliberately targeting Israeli civilians, and even giving them billions of dollars.


As we all know it is impossible to define who started/provoked the conflict.
It's very easy: the ones who deny Israel's right to exist and shoot rockets at civilians.


And while violence is the solution of choice for both sides, I expect the tit-for-tat attacks to continue indefinitely.
Unlimited enemy fallacy again. Luckily the Allies didn't think this in WW2. And who says it's "tit-for-tat" as opposed to preventative.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 09:32 AM
According to the Boston Globe, April 2003, of the 800 Israeli deaths in the Intifada, 567 were innocent civilians including women, children and the elderly. But in Israel's legitimate actions of self-defence, only 18% of the 2000 Palestinians killed were civilians.

Those figures dont seem accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_minors_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict



It's very easy: the ones who deny Israel's right to exist and shoot rockets at civilians..

This conflict started long before rockets were even invented. :rolleyes:



Unlimited enemy fallacy again. Luckily the Allies didn't think this in WW2. And who says it's "tit-for-tat" as opposed to preventative.

Firstly you cease with WW2 comparisons because the conflict is so different its just plain stupidity to equate the two. Hamas is a Guerilla force embedded within its own population and as you have mentioned they enjoy the support of the civilian population in many instances. If you want to compare it to any large scale war Vietnam is far more applicable. In WW2 the Nazis were an overt military force that were happy to engage in conventional warfare. Chalk and Cheese.

Show me any example of were a Guerilla force embedded within the population and enjoying popular support from civilians has been eliminated through military force.

The first step to defeating Hamas has to be to undermine their support within the civilian population. IMO the current offensive is unlikely to do so.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 09:50 AM
Those figures dont seem accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_and_minors_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
Boston Globe v Wikipedia. Note also, Palestinians use children as human shields, while they deliberately target Israeli kids.


This conflict started long before rockets were even invented. :rolleyes:
Conflict sensu lato, but not the current Hamas one.


Firstly you cease with WW2 comparisons because the conflict is so different its just plain stupidity to equate the two.
The Nazis and Japanese knew that a continued guerilla campaign would not have worked, because the Allies were prepared to blow up houses to destroy the last vestiges of resistance.


Hamas is a Guerilla force embedded within its own population and as you have mentioned they enjoy the support of the civilian population in many instances.
Israel should have less compunction about deaths of those who hide and shelter terrorists.


Show me any example of were a Guerilla force embedded within the population and enjoying popular support from civilians has been eliminated through military force.
This applies only if the enemy is moral. If the enemy has no compunction about killing civilians, then this wouldn't work.


The first step to defeating Hamas has to be to undermine their support within the civilian population. IMO the current offensive is unlikely to do so.
If enough people who allowed the terrorists to hide among them were killed, then they would think twice about it.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 10:28 AM
2) It is actually more than possible to define who started/provoked the conflict.

Firstly do you mean the Second Intifada the Palestine-Israel Conflict in general or the Arab-Israeli conflict?

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 10:58 AM
This applies only if the enemy is moral. If the enemy has no compunction about killing civilians, then this wouldn't work.

True but then you are as bad as the terrorists.

What's the difference between killing civilians who provide physical support and those that provide financial/political support?

Under this line of thinking (no compunction to kill civilians who support the enemy fighters) you also justifiy all Hamas action as legitimate military operations


If enough people who allowed the terrorists to hide among them were killed, then they would think twice about it.

Fight terrorism by terrorising the population, interesting idea.

I prefer the Northern Ireland idea of addressing the issues that cause the population to support the terrorists in the first place.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 11:46 AM
True but then you are as bad as the terrorists.
Nope. The terrorists deliberately target civilians. I would target the military, and the enemy that uses human shields is to blame for their deaths. This is according to the normal rules of warfare, which "world opinion" excepts Israel from.


What's the difference between killing civilians who provide physical support and those that provide financial/political support?
If they are in the same building as the weapons, then they are legitimate collateral damage.


Under this line of thinking (no compunction to kill civilians who support the enemy fighters) you also justifiy all Hamas action as legitimate military operations
I meant, support by inviting the military into their homes, or willingly acting as human shields. Hamas regards all Jews as targets.


I prefer the Northern Ireland idea of addressing the issues that cause the population to support the terrorists in the first place.
The issue that causes this terrorism is the very existence of Israel!

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 01:10 PM
Nope. The terrorists deliberately target civilians. I would target the military, and the enemy that uses human shields is to blame for their deaths. This is according to the normal rules of warfare, which "world opinion" excepts Israel from.


If they are in the same building as the weapons, then they are legitimate collateral damage.


I meant, support by inviting the military into their homes, or willingly acting as human shields. Hamas regards all Jews as targets.

So you would have supported the killing of French women and children by the Nazis if they were found to be harbouring French resistance fighters.

You don't seem to condemn the allied resistance for hiding among the civilian population during WW2.



The issue that causes this terrorism is the very existence of Israel!

No its not!!! It is stupid religious/racial predjudices.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 01:30 PM
So you would have supported the killing of French women and children by the Nazis if they were found to be harbouring French resistance fighters.
The Nazi cause was evil, and they were the aggressors. Israel just wants to be left alone, while the Nazis wanted world domination.


You don't seem to condemn the allied resistance for hiding among the civilian population during WW2.
Here, the hiding was for the purpose of hiding, not for using the civilians as human shields. The resistance tried to avoid endangering the citizenry. Also, the human shield tactic wouldn't have worked on the Nazis, but only on a power that values human life, like those evil Israelis.


No its not!!! It is stupid religious/racial predjudices.
It is a fact that the Hamas charter is committed to the annihilation of Israel. Israel is basically a secular country.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 01:49 PM
The Nazi cause was evil, and they were the aggressors. Israel just wants to be left alone, while the Nazis wanted world domination.

From the Palestinian perspective there is little difference, to them Israeli is the aggressor occupying what they believe to be Palestinian Land and they are merely resisting the occupation.



Here, the hiding was for the purpose of hiding, not for using the civilians as human shields. The resistance tried to avoid endangering the citizenry. Also, the human shield tactic wouldn't have worked on the Nazis, but only on a power that values human life, like those evil Israelis.

I expcet the same is true for Hamas, they must hide amonst the population of they would be eliminated by a vastly superior military force.

I am sure they dont willingly endager the citizens, But in such a tiny area with such a dense population, conducting the fight from tiny areas free of civilians would almost ensure getting crushed by the Israeli military. They have no choice but to fight from amongst the citizens anything else who mean certain defeat.



It is a fact that the Hamas charter is committed to the annihilation of Israel. Israel is basically a secular country.

Israel is for all intents and purposes a Jewish state.

So to address the issue you need to understand the underlying reason why Hamas feel that the annihilation of Israel is justified.

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2009, 02:07 PM
From the Palestinian perspective there is little difference, to them Israeli is the aggressor occupying what they believe to be Palestinian Land and they are merely resisting the occupation.
They are wrong, despite your postmodernism. Israel gave them Gaza. Look what it got them. The Arabs already received 3/4 of Palestine, now called Jordan.


I expcet the same is true for Hamas, they must hide amonst the population of they would be eliminated by a vastly superior military force.
They are not hiding in the sense of trying to elude detection: Israel knows where they are. They are hiding behind human shields.


I am sure they dont willingly endager the citizens.
They do so. I've already pointed out how they moved mothers and babies to rocket places.


Israel is for all intents and purposes a Jewish state.

So to address the issue you need to understand the underlying reason why Hamas feel that the annihilation of Israel is justified.
Yes, they hate Jews, just like the Nazis, the great allies of the Palestinian Arabs during WW2.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-01-2009, 02:09 PM
Firstly do you mean the Second Intifada the Palestine-Israel Conflict in general or the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The so-called "Second Intifada" is just a part of ongoing Arab-Israeli that started more then 60 (about 75-80 to be precise) years ago.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-01-2009, 02:23 PM
From the Palestinian perspective there is little difference, to them Israeli is the aggressor occupying what they believe to be Palestinian Land and they are merely resisting the occupation.

Israel left Gaza some time ago (wrongly, IMO). Hamas has full control of Gaza. If it was only about "1967 borders", they would have no reason to fire at Israel.

However, given their inability of peaceful development, to stay in power and keep control over the population they need a constant conflict. "Resisting the occupation" is nothing but propaganda.



I expcet the same is true for Hamas, they must hide amonst the population of they would be eliminated by a vastly superior military force.

I am sure they dont willingly endager the citizens, But in such a tiny area with such a dense population, conducting the fight from tiny areas free of civilians would almost ensure getting crushed by the Israeli military. They have no choice but to fight from amongst the citizens anything else who mean certain defeat.


They do willingly endanger their citizens. PLO, FATAH, Hamas, Hezbollah has been doing since they realise it works. At least from 2000, if not earlier.
If they cared about civilians, all they need is to stop firing rockets at Israel. If they hide among the population that willingly help them and voted for them during the election, they have no one to blame,




Israel is for all intents and purposes a Jewish state.

Correct. However other nationalities are allowed to live their and have full rights. So called "negotiators" for Arab do not even want to consider allowing Jews to live among them, yet along keep their properties.


So to address the issue you need to understand the underlying reason why Hamas feel that the annihilation of Israel is justified.
It is just a part of broader Arab movement to annihilate Israel. They reason they came into prominence is that they tactics works better then anything else Arabs employed so far.
In a way they show the sheer absurdity of Israel's approach to the problem (or, I should say, complete absence of approach).

Igor_Goldenberg
09-01-2009, 02:39 PM
So you would have supported the killing of French women and children by the Nazis if they were found to be harbouring French resistance fighters.

You don't seem to condemn the allied resistance for hiding among the civilian population during WW2.


First of all, French resistance did not deliberately use French women and children as a human shield. That would never work against Nazis (or anyone else at that time, including US and Britain) anyway.
Arabs did not start using their women and children (and ambulances!) as a human shield until they realise how good it looks on sympathetic Western TV. It means that media and politicians that recycle the mantra of high casualties among innocent civilians are culprits as well.

Second, France (the sovereign state in existing for centuries) was occupied during war by another state. In case of Arab-Israel conflict "occupation" is nothing but a shameless propaganda.

And the main argument. I am not sure about international law on war conflict or Geneva convention. I would think that any guerrilla or partisan are not protected by the law or convention to the same degree as uniform wearing soldiers. Same applies to civilian that aid them.
Therefore, while resisting occupation is not a war crime, it would not be a war crime for occupying power to prosecute guerrilla/partisans and their accomplices.
Please remember that spies/saboteurs or any combatants not wearing uniform are not covered by Geneva convention. In any war they are usually executed when caught (often on the spot). It has never been considered as a war crime.

Civilian causalities during combat is not a war crime either. During any war a resisting city is bombed by another side irrespectively of whether there are any civilians inside or not.

Very few countries (like Israel and, to slightly lesser extent, USA) try to minimise enemies casualties. Other countries (which leaves virtually everyone else) don't give a damn.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 04:23 PM
Israel left Gaza some time ago (wrongly, IMO). Hamas has full control of Gaza. If it was only about "1967 borders", they would have no reason to fire at Israel.

I dont believe it is about 1967 borders I believe the Arabs feel the region belongs to them and not the Jews. They genuinely feel they have a rightful owernship of the land. Whether they are wrong or right is another question.



However, given their inability of peaceful development, to stay in power and keep control over the population they need a constant conflict. "Resisting the occupation" is nothing but propaganda.

I would rather think they fear that if they take a moderate approach to what they perceive as the occupation of their lands, that they will loose power and relevance to a more fundametalist group. And the election of Hamas over Fatah is probably good evidence that such a fear is well founded.




If they cared about civilians, all they need is to stop firing rockets at Israel.

But they are also trying to "liberate" the land form the occupation. It like saying if the allies cared about there civilians they would have surrendered to Hitler.




So called "negotiators" for Arab do not even want to consider allowing Jews to live among them, yet along keep their properties.

Again evidence of the underlying racial and religous predjudices that need to be addrressed before any form of peace can be achieved.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 04:41 PM
First of all, French resistance did not deliberately use French women and children as a human shield. That would never work against Nazis (or anyone else at that time, including US and Britain) anyway.
Arabs did not start using their women and children (and ambulances!) as a human shield until they realise how good it looks on sympathetic Western TV. It means that media and politicians that recycle the mantra of high casualties among innocent civilians are culprits as well.

Firstly I very much doubt this and the idea that they intetionally use human shields to gain sympathy seems absurd to me and is like Israeli propaganda. In all liklihood fighting form among the civilians is a neccesity for two reason:

1. Another other strategy would lead to immediate defeat by a superior military force.

2. The Gaza Strip is so heavily populated that it would be nearly impossible to operate both covertly and away from civilian populations.


Second, France (the sovereign state in existing for centuries) was occupied during war by another state. In case of Arab-Israel conflict "occupation" is nothing but a shameless propaganda.

I I think they truly believe they are fighting for against the occupation of their "Holy Land". After all palestine was under Islamic rule for centuries prior to British Imperial rule. The Jewish hadn't ruled the area for approx 2000 years.


And the main argument. I am not sure about international law on war conflict or Geneva convention. I would think that any guerrilla or partisan are not protected by the law or convention to the same degree as uniform wearing soldiers. Same applies to civilian that aid them.
Therefore, while resisting occupation is not a war crime, it would not be a war crime for occupying power to prosecute guerrilla/partisans and their accomplices.
Please remember that spies/saboteurs or any combatants not wearing uniform are not covered by Geneva convention. In any war they are usually executed when caught (often on the spot). It has never been considered as a war crime.

Haven't seen anyone call it a War Crime, just immoral.

Civilian causalities during combat is not a war crime either. During any war a resisting city is bombed by another side irrespectively of whether there are any civilians inside or not..[/QUOTE]

Haven't seen anyone call it a War Crime, just that the response is too heavy handed considering the risk the rocket attacks pose to Israeli lives. And that the response is unlikely to achieve anything constructive in fact the opposite.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 08:34 PM
I dont believe it is about 1967 borders I believe the Arabs feel the region belongs to them and not the Jews. They genuinely feel they have a rightful owernship of the land. Whether they are wrong or right is another question.




I would rather think they fear that if they take a moderate approach to what they perceive as the occupation of their lands, that they will loose power and relevance to a more fundametalist group. And the election of Hamas over Fatah is probably good evidence that such a fear is well founded.





But they are also trying to "liberate" the land form the occupation. It like saying if the allies cared about there civilians they would have surrendered to Hitler.





Again evidence of the underlying racial and religous predjudices that need to be addrressed before any form of peace can be achieved.

Sorry, but you are drifting further and further away from the Truth and your arguments are becoming less logical.

1) If I "genuinly" feel that Your house belongs to Me..does it mean i have a right to come and live in your house and try to kick you out? This is absurd!
2) Of course religious predjudices need to be addressed..but does it mean that in the meantime, fundumentalists should be given green light? and will it help to solve the problems or deepen them further?
3) Hitler and Hamas actually have alot in common. Both try to achieve complete destruction of the Jewish nation.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 08:36 PM
Firstly I very much doubt this and the idea that they intetionally use human shields to gain sympathy seems absurd to me and is like Israeli propaganda. In all liklihood fighting form among the civilians is a neccesity for two reason:

1. Another other strategy would lead to immediate defeat by a superior military force.

2. The Gaza Strip is so heavily populated that it would be nearly impossible to operate both covertly and away from civilian populations.



I I think they truly believe they are fighting for against the occupation of their "Holy Land". After all palestine was under Islamic rule for centuries prior to British Imperial rule. The Jewish hadn't ruled the area for approx 2000 years.



Haven't seen anyone call it a War Crime, just immoral.

Civilian causalities during combat is not a war crime either. During any war a resisting city is bombed by another side irrespectively of whether there are any civilians inside or not..

Haven't seen anyone call it a War Crime, just that the response is too heavy handed considering the risk the rocket attacks pose to Israeli lives. And that the response is unlikely to achieve anything constructive in fact the opposite.[/QUOTE]

1) Do not doubt the idea! They do indeed use human schields intentionally! It is a proven fact!
2) No effort has EVER been made by Hamas to show care for civilian population
3) Considering risk of rocket attackes posing on Israeli lives? Isn't it great that Israel cares about each and every one of its citizens unlike Hamas.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 10:54 PM
1) If I "genuinly" feel that Your house belongs to Me..does it mean i have a right to come and live in your house and try to kick you out? This is absurd!.

If you hard no other recourse to regain your property I would say that would be a fairly rational action.




2) Of course religious predjudices need to be addressed..but does it mean that in the meantime, fundumentalists should be given green light? and will it help to solve the problems or deepen them further?




Terorrists should always be punished, but not at the expense of hundreds of childrens' lives (not matter who you hold responsible), not in a manner that garners international support for the terrorists cause, not in manner that is likley to increase the Palestinian populations hostility toward Israel.

But the main aim should be to address the underlying issue that causes people to become radical terrrorists in the first place, racial and religous predjudices and the dispute over property rights.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 11:19 PM
1) Do not doubt the idea! They do indeed use human schields intentionally! It is a proven fact!.

Even if in some cases they intenitonally use human sheilds (which is something I cannot fathom) there are also cases of Israel showing blatant disregard for civilian casualties such as bombing Hamas militant leaders while they are at home with their families. And prohibiting fuel and food from entering Gaza causing humanatrian crisis.

I am not alone when I say that Israel's response seems out of proportion and also seems unlikely to have any serious long-term benefits for Israelis.

On the other I agree that Hamas' direct targetting of civilians is terrible and should be both condemned and punished.

The only point of difference is that I see the punishement of the terrorists as secondary to taking steps to solve the underlying issues that causes the terrorist actions in the first place. An Once of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2009, 11:39 PM
If you hard no other recourse to regain your property I would say that would be a fairly rational action.




Terorrists should always be punished, but not at the expense of hundreds of childrens' lives (not matter who you hold responsible), not in a manner that garners international support for the terrorists cause, not in manner that is likley to increase the Palestinian populations hostility toward Israel.

But the main aim should be to address the underlying issue that causes people to become radical terrrorists in the first place, racial and religous predjudices and the dispute over property rights.

1) My property? It is not mine..i just feel its mine. That is a different story all together
2) what causes people to become terrorists? Crazy religious fundamentalism and complete disregard and disrepect for people who think otherwise.

TheJoker
09-01-2009, 11:42 PM
1) My property? It is not mine..i just feel its mine. That is a different story all together.

but it would still be a rational action for you if you truly believed the property was yours.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2009, 01:23 AM
Even if in some cases they intenitonally use human sheilds (which is something I cannot fathom)
It's well documented. It's easy to fathom: Hamas is proud of saying "You love life; we love death". Hamas is currently going through jails in Gaza shooting Fatah prisoners in the legs or murdering them so they can’t co-operate with Israel?


there are also cases of Israel showing blatant disregard for civilian casualties such as bombing Hamas militant leaders while they are at home with their families.
Crap. They have even warned of impending attacks on military targets to give civilians time to evacuate, even though it allows preventative measures. Hamas has responded by moving mothers and babies to the targets.


And prohibiting fuel and food from entering Gaza causing humanatrian crisis.
Bawl, humanitarian crisis, awww .... never mind that Israel left irrigation facilities and greenhouses in Gaza, which would have been quite a nice haven for the people. But Hamas destroyed all that. They squandered millions of dollars of Israeli and international aid, buying weapons to use against Israel, instead of food and medicine for their children. They turned homes, schools and mosques into weapons stores and rocket launching sites, targeting Israeli civilians.


I am not alone when I say that Israel's response seems out of proportion
It is as I've said above: they are not destroying those who want to destroy Israel.


and also seems unlikely to have any serious long-term benefits for Israelis.
Utter destruction of Hamas would have a long term benefit, just as utter destruction of the Nazi and Japanese war machines did in WW2.

What has constantly proven to be of no benefit whatsoever to Israel is "land for peace" deals and trying to appease "world opinion".


The only point of difference is that I see the punishement of the terrorists as secondary to taking steps to solve the underlying issues that causes the terrorist actions in the first place. An Once of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure.
Nothing like blasting terrorists to smithereens to prevent further attacks.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2009, 01:31 AM
I I think they truly believe they are fighting for against the occupation of their "Holy Land".
They truly believe that Israel should be wiped out.


After all palestine was under Islamic rule for centuries prior to British Imperial rule.
It was under Ottoman rule. There was never an Arab Palestinian state.


The Jewish hadn't ruled the area for approx 2000 years.
The Jews bought the land legally, and Israel was only 1/4 of Palestine and already had a heavy Jewish population. Arabs were given 3/4 of Palestine, called Transjordan then Jordan.

Arabs attacked Israel, and lost. Why should Israel give back any land, especially when it's used to stage rocket attacks against it? No other country that attacked another and lost would be considered to have a right to its land returned. But "world opinion" always makes an exception for Israel.


Haven't seen anyone call it a War Crime, just that the response is too heavy handed considering the risk the rocket attacks pose to Israeli lives.
NO country should have to put up with rocket attacks against its civilians.

MichaelBaron
10-01-2009, 10:43 AM
but it would still be a rational action for you if you truly believed the property was yours.

No it would not be! May be for 3 yo kid it would but for a civilized person - it would not.

TheJoker
11-01-2009, 12:17 AM
Nothing like blasting terrorists to smithereens to prevent further attacks.

Except it tends to make terrorists out of their families.

TheJoker
11-01-2009, 12:19 AM
No it would not be! May be for 3 yo kid it would but for a civilized person - it would not.

So you are saying the rational action to take when you believe somebody has appropriated your property is to sit idle?

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 12:30 AM
Except it tends to make terrorists out of their families.
Allowing terrorists to live makes terrorists out of their families.

TheJoker
11-01-2009, 12:41 AM
They truly believe that Israel should be wiped out.

Yes or at least that the Jews should be totally removed from what they consider their land.



It was under Ottoman rule. There was never an Arab Palestinian state.

Ottoman Empire was Islamic. IMO the conflict seems to be largley a religous rather than racial one.


The Jews bought the land legally.

That depends on whether you consider that the seller had the right to sell the land. I suspect the Muslims believe that no law can supercede their religous right to the so-called Holy Land.

THis discussion seems to going in circles, you consider massive military action as the long-term solution. You base your arguement on WW2, despite the lack of similarity. Ignoring the fact that the worlds foremost military power the USA hasn't been able to deal with extremely similar problems in Iraq or Afghanistan using military might.

I consider the long-term solution to be based around addressing religous predjudices through integration.

TheJoker
11-01-2009, 12:43 AM
Allowing terrorists to live makes terrorists out of their families.
Possibly but either way you end up with terrorists, unless you address the underlying causes.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 01:30 AM
Possibly but either way you end up with terrorists, unless you address the underlying causes.
Impossible, since the underlying cause is Israel's very existence. So unless they stop shooting rockets, Israel must do what the Allies did in WW2: wipe out the regime responsible. Presumably the Joker would have objected to the Allies' actions back then, claiming that it would just breed more Nazis and Kamikazes.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 01:36 AM
Yes or at least that the Jews should be totally removed from what they consider their land.
Only because all land by definition should be judenrein and Islamic.


Ottoman Empire was Islamic.
It was Turkish, so the idea that the Palestinian Arabs were dispossessed of a state is historical nonsense.


IMO the conflict seems to be largley a religous rather than racial one.
Israel is a secular country.


THis discussion seems to going in circles, you consider massive military action as the long-term solution.
And you apparently believe that Israel shouldn't stop the thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas.


You base your arguement on WW2, despite the lack of similarity.
The principles are the same. In both cases, there were fanatics and suicide bombers, yet after WW2, the Nazis and Japanese militarists were no more.


Ignoring the fact that the worlds foremost military power the USA hasn't been able to deal with extremely similar problems in Iraq or Afghanistan using military might.
Only because they fight with one arm behind their backs.


I consider the long-term solution to be based around addressing religous predjudices through integration.
This would mean abolishing Islam.

TheJoker
11-01-2009, 02:49 AM
It was Turkish, so the idea that the Palestinian Arabs were dispossessed of a state is historical nonsense..

Its not Arab rule they are fighting for it is Islamic



Israel is a secular country..

For all intents and pruposes Israel is a Jewish state, and the point is that Hamas wants Islamic rule.



And you apparently believe that Israel shouldn't stop the thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas.



The principles are the same. In both cases, there were fanatics and suicide bombers, yet after WW2, the Nazis and Japanese militarists were no more..

Principles maybe... practical situations not even close. WW2 was largely convetional warefare and not Guerilla warfare. Vietnam is a much better analogy.

Also there was the threat of nuclear attack. something Israel is not going to do given the proximity of Gaza.


Only because they fight with one arm behind their backs.

I guess you're referring to their reluctance to use nuclear weapons.



This would mean abolishing Islam.

Intrestingly you didn't consider abolishing Judaism. But either it is not true as there are many Muslim and Jewish populations living in secular countries. Also many Muslim scholars believe the Qua'ran preaches tolerance towards "People of the Book" i.e. Christians and Jews. So it is not as if the Islamic religion prohibits peace between the two in fact more likely the opposite.

AFAIK all three religions worship the exact same God.

Zwischenzug
11-01-2009, 06:14 AM
Only because they fight with one arm behind their backs.

My best guess is (judging by Jono's general thoughts in past posts), he refers to the laws of the Geneva Convention and the Guidelines of the Nuremburg Principles. These laws that the US troops are required to follow could be considered a hindrance whereas terrorists by not following these laws and guidelines have carte blanche. Abandonment of such laws/guidelines will make the US effort in Iraq easier but will enable the US to commit further atrocities akin to what happened in Abu Graib. I disagree with such an idea.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 11:06 AM
My best guess is (judging by Jono's general thoughts in past posts), he refers to the laws of the Geneva Convention and the Guidelines of the Nuremburg Principles.
Which apply to soldiers in their own uniforms. During the Battle of the Bulge, some German soldiers fluent in English impersonated American soldiers and put on American uniforms. When they were captured, they were put up against a war and shot. There was no war crime precisely because they were not covered by these laws.


These laws that the US troops are required to follow could be considered a hindrance whereas terrorists by not following these laws and guidelines have carte blanche.
The whole point is that these principles are meant to guide everyone in war. And there is an incentive to follow them yourself if you will be treated in accordance with them. When lefty judges and politicians give the privileges of these laws to those who flout them, they remove the incentive for the scum to follow them.


Abandonment of such laws/guidelines will make the US effort in Iraq easier but will enable the US to commit further atrocities akin to what happened in Abu Graib.
Abu Graib was never sanctioned by the government; it was a few rogue soldiers, who were duly punished. But Americans and Iraqis will die because soft-headed lefties extend the Geneva Convention to those combatants the convention was never intended to cover.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 11:29 AM
Its not Arab rule they are fighting for it is Islamic
Yes, Islam is the problem. There are no Christian Arab suicide bombers.


For all intents and pruposes Israel is a Jewish state, and the point is that Hamas wants Islamic rule.
So there will be no peace unless Hamas is destroyed.


Principles maybe... practical situations not even close. WW2 was largely convetional warefare and not Guerilla warfare.
The Japs were planning guerilla warfare if the Allies invaded their home islands. The two nukes eventually stopped this idea, and saved millions of Allied lives and even more American lives.

The Germans knew that the Allies stop at nothing until they had obliterated the Nazi regime, so surrendered unconditionally rather than resort to guerilla warfare.


Vietnam is a much better analogy.
In the sense that America was expected to fight with one hand behind its back, and the Leftmedia wanted it to lose, yes. Israel needs to avoid the mistakes of Vietnam, including Leftmedia declaring victory for the bad guys even after they were beaten militarily, as with the Tet Offensive (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010908.php3) where the Vietcong lost 10-1 in casualties.


Intrestingly you didn't consider abolishing Judaism.
Of course not. Israelis largely don't follow it, and its followers don't preach the destruction of non-Jews.


But either it is not true as there are many Muslim and Jewish populations living in secular countries. Also many Muslim scholars believe the Qua'ran preaches tolerance towards "People of the Book" i.e. Christians and Jews. So it is not as if the Islamic religion prohibits peace between the two in fact more likely the opposite.
As I've pointed out before (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6190/):


However, Muslims have a doctrine called Naskh (نسخ) or ‘abrogation’, where if there is a conflict, passages written later supersede earlier ones. The problem in our society is explained by John Burton in Encyclopedia of Islam:


‘Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.’

Answering-Islam.org explains in Jihad in Islam: Is Islam Peaceful or Militant? (http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/jihad.htm)


The well known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, notes four stages in the development of jihad: 1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists. He views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent.


AFAIK all three religions worship the exact same God.
Nonsense, they all have different attributes.

Ian Murray
11-01-2009, 03:45 PM
...The whole point is that these principles are meant to guide everyone in war. And there is an incentive to follow them yourself if you will be treated in accordance with them. When lefty judges and politicians give the privileges of these laws to those who flout them, they remove the incentive for the scum to follow them...

By your definition the Red Cross is a lefty organisation, claiming as it does that the Geneva Conventions (and all international humanitarian law) apply to terrorism:

International Humanitarian Law at the Beginning of the 21st Century (http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5E2C8V?OpenDocument)
Dr. Jakob Kellenberger, ICRC President


...............

International humanitarian law is, quite distinctly, the body of rules that regulates the protection of persons and conduct of hostilities during an armed conflict. Its aim is to alleviate the suffering of individuals affected by war regardless of the underlying causes — and therefore regardless of any justification — for the conflict. There are no "just" or "unjust" wars in terms of international humanitarian law because civilians, to name just one category of persons protected by its rules, have the right to be spared murder, torture or rape, no matter to which side they happen to belong.

A related doubt which has been raised is whether international humanitarian law is applicable to the challenges posed by terrorism.

The struggle against terrorism can take various forms: judicial co-operation and punishment of those responsible for acts of terrorism, the freezing of assets used to finance terrorism and, in the wake of the attacks of 11 September, armed conflict.

Accordingly, different bodies of law, including national and international rules of criminal law, are relevant in the struggle against terrorism. Inasmuch as the fight against terrorism takes the form of armed conflict, the position is uncontroversial: international humanitarian law is applicable. Factually, if there exists an armed conflict, whatever the causes, whatever the aim, whatever the name, it is regulated by international humanitarian law.

There is, in the ICRC’s view, no doubt that international humanitarian law is also adequate to deal with security risks in war because its provisions were designed specifically for the exceptional situation of armed conflict. The generations of experts and diplomats who developed international humanitarian law over the last two centuries were fully aware of the need to balance state security and the preservation of human life, health and dignity. That balance has always been at the very core of the laws of war.

It cannot be emphasised enough that the protection afforded to individuals by international humanitarian law is not an obstacle to justice. The application of the protection laid down in the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols will not amount to impunity – either in respect of crimes committed before the hostilities, nor in respect of violations of international humanitarian law committed during a conflict. They only require that due process of law be applied in dealing with offenders.

Each of the Geneva Conventions contains specific provisions listing acts which are considered grave breaches of their rules, such as killing, torturing and denying the right to a fair trial to protected persons. The list of grave breaches was expanded with the adoption of the Additional Protocols to criminalize certain other acts, particularly those aimed at harming civilians through the unlawful conduct of hostilities. The Conventions and Protocols not only encourage states to bring perpetrators of war crimes to justice, they demand it, including by means of the exercise of universal jurisdiction.

...................

MichaelBaron
11-01-2009, 04:09 PM
[QUOTE=TheJoker]Yes or at least that the Jews should be totally removed from what they consider their land.

QUOTE]

Not removed but Destroyed! Islamic Fundmentalism is all about distruction

MichaelBaron
11-01-2009, 04:11 PM
Possibly but either way you end up with terrorists, unless you address the underlying causes.

I have a question. What about poor people in other parts of the world? Do all of them become terrorists. Have you heard about Christian terrorist organisations of similar scale? Or Jewish Terrorist organisations?

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 07:21 PM
By your definition the Red Cross is a lefty organisation, claiming as it does that the Geneva Conventions (and all international humanitarian law) apply to terrorism:
Ah yes, one who thinks that a home owner shouldn't hit an axe-wielding home-invader is bound to think that murderers who flout the Geneva Convention should still be entitled to its protections. Yet the whole point was to encourage all soldiers to act justly, not remove any incentive. Look at the actual rules: they protect civilians and captured POWs, but not spies or guerillas. That's why German spies in American uniforms were shot, with no violation.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2009, 07:24 PM
Not removed but Destroyed! Islamic Fundmentalism is all about distruction

First Gaza, Then the World (http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=2507)
By: Ben Dror Yemini

The confrontation in the Gaza Strip is not between Hamas and Israel, but rather between Al Qaeda, Iran and radical Islam, and the free world.

...

Sheikh Muhsin Abu Ita stated on the Al Aqsa channel that “The annihilation of the Jews is a wonderful blessing.” Dr. Ahmed Bahar, acting speaker of the Palestinian parliament stated that “the Jews are cancer, and they and the Americans should be destroyed to the last person.” According to the Palestinian constitution, this man, Bahar, will become the head of the Palestinian Authority if Abu Mazen ceases to function. Dr. Al Astal made clear that the annihilation order is a matter for our time and not for the future, and that "we are sure that the Holocaust is still to come upon the Jews".

The book by Dr. Matthias Kuntzel, “Jihad and Jew-Hatred,” elaborates on the annihilation ideology of radical Islam, including among Hamas.

...

Lately, when the prevarication mills (the “industry of lies”) began working at full steam on the bitter fate of the refugees in the Gaza Strip, who once again were forced to experience violence, the Cinematheque in Tel Aviv screened the film, The Forgotten Refugees, by director Michael Grynszpan. The film has already been shown in many places around the world, including in the U.S. Congress, but not on any channel in Israel.

The film deals with the Jewish communities in Muslim countries - a million people at the end of the second world war - who were forced to leave or expelled with an enormous amount of property expropriated. They became refugees, primarily in Israel.

The Nakba occurred because the Arabs rejected the UN proposal, and because they declared a war of annihilation on Israel. The Nakba of the Jews in Islamic countries, in contrast, occurred without a reason. The Jews of Morocco or Yemen or Iraq or Egypt did not declare any war. But despite that, in some cases, in Iraq and in Libya, dozens of Jews were slaughtered.

There is no "progressive" academic who does not inflate the Dir Yassin episode. But the slaughter of Jews by Arabs is never mentioned. Most of them arrived with absolutely nothing. They lived in immigrant camps. But they were not perpetuated as an open wound, as refugees, like the Palestinians.

Israel, for reasons that are hard to understand, has never played the card of the Jewish refugees. The story of the forgotten refugees could have been the unequivocal Israeli response to the issue of the Palestinian refugees. After all, the right of the Jewish refugees to reparations is far greater than the right of the Palestinians.

The former suffered and were forced out, despite the fact that they started no war and declared no annihilation. The latter did. So the Jews, and only the Jews, have the right to reparations. Those who do not succeeded in executing their plots of annihilation have no right to reparations. There is no historical precedence for an aggressor who turns himself into a victim. Such an absurdity has never existed, nor will it. Even in this matter, Israel has defeated itself in the propaganda battle. And here, too, it is not too late to rectify the error.

MichaelBaron
11-01-2009, 09:02 PM
First Gaza, Then the World (http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=2507)
By: Ben Dror Yemini

The confrontation in the Gaza Strip is not between Hamas and Israel, but rather between Al Qaeda, Iran and radical Islam, and the free world.

...

.

Precisely!

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 08:19 AM
‘Many verses counsel patience in the face of the mockery of the unbelievers, while other verses incite to warfare against the unbelievers. The former are linked to the [chronologically anterior] Meccan phase of the mission when the Muslims were too few and weak to do other than endure insult; the latter are linked to Medina where the Prophet had acquired the numbers and the strength to hit back at his enemies. The discrepancy between the two sets of verses indicates that different situations call for different regulations.’

Jews and Christian are not considered unbeliever's due to the fact they worship the same monotheistic Abrahamic God.

Islam is a revision of Judaism and Chirstianity, just as Christianity is a revision of Judaism. Even Jesus is recognised as a prophet of God in Islam.

During the Ottoman Empire amny Jews and Christians lived in the region under Islamic Rule. So the concept of a society where the the two religions can co-exist should not be ruled out.

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 08:30 AM
I have a question. What about poor people in other parts of the world? Do all of them become terrorists.

What's poor got to do with it? I don't see anywhere where I have stated that economic status is a cause of terrorism, only that stronger economic ties between Israel and Palestine would provide an incentive for Palestinians not to support militant action against Israel.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 09:06 AM
What's poor got to do with it?
Well, you're the one who talks all that "root causes" crap. Yet Tibetans have been the victims of genocide by Chinese Communists, yet haven't become terrorists. Jews were thrown out of Arab countries where they had lived for generations, and their property stolen, yet tiny Israel resettled them. But the other Arabs keep Palestinian Arabs in squalor to use as pawns and terrorist indoctrination material.

Israel gives its Arab citizens full democratic rights, yet Arab countries are judenrein.

NB, Hamas' literally thousands of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians were not part of a "cycle of violence", but were subsequent to Israel's wimpy 2005 concession that forced Jewish settlers out of Gaza and turning it over to the "Palestinian" thugs. This is just another example of how appeasement actually produces a more reliably violent response from Islamic terrorists than do decisive military actions.


I don't see anywhere where I have stated that economic status is a cause of terrorism, only that stronger economic ties between Israel and Palestine would provide an incentive for Palestinians not to support militant action against Israel.
Sure, and the Allies should have tried for stronger economic ties between Hitler and Japan to settle their differences.

Kevin Bonham
12-01-2009, 09:19 AM
Sure, and the Allies should have tried for stronger economic ties between Hitler and Japan to settle their differences.

Don't you mean "with Hitler and Japan"?

Of course, there's a widespread view that if economic arrangements post-WW1 had been handled better, Hitler's rise to power would not have happened in the first place.

MichaelBaron
12-01-2009, 10:20 AM
What's poor got to do with it? I don't see anywhere where I have stated that economic status is a cause of terrorism, only that stronger economic ties between Israel and Palestine would provide an incentive for Palestinians not to support militant action against Israel.

Do you seriously, think that Israel (a civilised state with one of the highest proportion of university educated people in the world) would oppose economic ties with Palestine. Of course not! But how can you develop economic ties with those who terrorize your wifes and children?

MichaelBaron
12-01-2009, 10:22 AM
Jews and Christian are not considered unbeliever's due to the fact they worship the same monotheistic Abrahamic God.

Islam is a revision of Judaism and Chirstianity, just as Christianity is a revision of Judaism. Even Jesus is recognised as a prophet of God in Islam.

During the Ottoman Empire amny Jews and Christians lived in the region under Islamic Rule. So the concept of a society where the the two religions can co-exist should not be ruled out.

Joker, you are missing the point! From a scholarly perspective all Religions can and should co-exist. However, Hamas, Hesbollah, Al-Queda and religious groups behind them have a clear objective of wiping out all "un-believers".

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 10:31 AM
Don't you mean "with Hitler and Japan"?
Yes. I.e. between them, the Allies, and Hitler and Japan.

Of course, there's a widespread view that if economic arrangements post-WW1 had been handled better, Hitler's rise to power would not have happened in the first place.
That, allowing an armistice that gave Hitler a pretext to claim that the Army was stabbed in the back, hence WW2 policy to insist on unconditional surrender so the Germans would know they were thoroughly thrashed; the rise of Czech nationalism that made the Sudeten Germans second-class citizens, giving Hitler a pretext to invade, which also gave him the powerful Skoda Works ...

But once the war had started, economic means would not have finished it as long as the Nazi regime continued.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 10:35 AM
Islam is a revision of Judaism and Chirstianity, just as Christianity is a revision of Judaism. Even Jesus is recognised as a prophet of God in Islam.
They don't worship the same God because they have different attributes. In Christianity, Jesus is divine, for example. It's laughable for misotheists to instruct the followers of these religions that they are basically the same, when this would be news to these followers.

Sure, they can co-exist, but don't pretend that they are the same. BTW, Muslims are free to worship Allah and proselytize in Israel and in the countries normally called Christian. But Jews and Christians are not free to proselytize in Islamic countries, and Muslims who convert are sentenced to death.


During the Ottoman Empire amny Jews and Christians lived in the region under Islamic Rule. So the concept of a society where the the two religions can co-exist should not be ruled out.
Jews and Christians were dhimmis. But Arab countries became judenrein and persecute Christians.

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 11:43 AM
Joker, you are missing the point! From a scholarly perspective all Religions can and should co-exist. However, Hamas, Hesbollah, Al-Queda and religious groups behind them have a clear objective of wiping out all "un-believers".

Possibly, but you are simply demonstrating that the issue is the radical interpretation of Islam. This has happened with other religions in the past and has been overcome by facilitating a more moderate approach.

There are many moderate Muslims who are quite happily co-exist with other religions so it is not only a scholarly opinion but a fact Islam is capable of religous tolerance. So what causes these groups to radicalise? People are not born as terrorists, all Muslims are not terrorists so it quite feasble to identify the reasons why these people radicalise and to address these issues. Again its a case of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 11:50 AM
Possibly, but you are simply demonstrating that the issue is the radical interpretation of Islam.
The problem is the Koran itself, since the passages advocating violence supersede those that advocate tolerance, according to the Islamic doctine of Naskh (نسخ) or ‘abrogation’.


There are many moderate Muslims who are quite happily co-exist with other religions so it is not only a scholarly opinion but a fact Islam is capable of religous tolerance. So what causes these groups to radicalise? People are not born as terrorists, all Muslims are not terrorists so it quite feasble to identify the reasons why these people radicalise and to address these issues. Again its a case of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure

Economist and author Dr Walter Williams argued that the peaceful Muslim majority is irrelevant (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams031908.php3). He compared the current constant hectoring about this with WW2:


Think back to the 1930s when the Japanese murdered an estimated 3 million to 10 million people in China, Indonesia, Korea, Philippines and Indochina; and on December 7, 1941 when they attacked Pearl Harbor, killing over 2,400 Americans. I’m betting that most of Japan’s at-the-time 60 million population were peace-loving people and would have wanted nothing to do with the brutal slaughter in China and the attack on the U.S. In formulating our response to the attack, should President Roosevelt have taken into account the fact that most Japanese are peace-loving people ruled by fanatics? Should our military have only gone after the Japanese pilots and their naval armada? I’d also wager that most Germans were peace-loving people and not part of the Nazi sadists wanting to wage war on their neighbors and exterminate the Jews. Again, should Roosevelt and Churchill have taken that into account in their response to German militarism? My answer is no and thank G-d it was their answer as well. Whether most Germans, Italians or Japanese were peace-loving or not was entirely irrelevant in formulating the Allied response to their militarism.

Then Williams pointed out that the radicals couldn’t exist without at least tacit support from a large number of moderates:


At this particular time, fanatical jihadists are calling the terrorism shots in many Muslim countries. Their success in committing terrorist acts is in no small part the result of the actions by the millions of peace-loving fellow Muslims. First, there is not enough condemnation of their terrorist acts by the Muslim community. More important is the direct or indirect assistance terrorists receive through the silence of their fellow Muslims. There is no way terrorists can carry on their operations, obtain explosive materials, run terrorist training camps, raise money without the knowledge of other Muslims, whether they’re government officials, bankers, family members, friends or neighbors.

Williams points out in Will the West survive? (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0604/williams_2004_06_23.php3)


By no means are all Muslims murderers. But on the other hand, I’ve never heard broad Muslim condemnation of their fellow Muslims’ murderous acts committed in the name of their god. If anything, there has been jubilation and dancing in the streets in the wake of Muslim attacks on Westerners. Contrast their response to the widespread Western condemnation of the, mild by comparison, behavior of a few coalition forces in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 12:03 PM
They don't worship the same God because they have different attributes. In Christianity, Jesus is divine, for example. It's laughable for misotheists to instruct the followers of these religions that they are basically the same, when this would be news to these followers.

I didn't say they were the same I said they worship the same God. The gospels are even part of Islamic scripture. Of course they have there own intrepretations of how to worship this God properly. E.g. following the teachings of Jesus or following the prophecies of Muhummad. But similiarites such as the belief in Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Abraham etc. Show that the religous are different sects of the Abrahamic faith.

For someone who works as a Christian minister I am surprised you could even contemplate arguing this fact.


Sure, they can co-exist, but don't pretend that they are the same. BTW, Muslims are free to worship Allah and proselytize in Israel and in the countries normally called Christian. But Jews and Christians are not free to proselytize in Islamic countries, and Muslims who convert are sentenced to death.

I never said they had the same levels of religous tolerance. But heretics have also been executed by Christian in times when Christians opted for a more radical approach to Christianity.

Even so Islamic ruled place can be quite popular with other religious groups such as is the case in Dubai.


Jews and Christians were dhimmis. But Arab countries became judenrein and persecute Christians.

Not in places like the UAE.

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 12:20 PM
The problem is the Koran itself, since the passages advocating violence supersede those that advocate tolerance, according to the Islamic doctine of Naskh (نسخ) or ‘abrogation’.

This is currently still the subject of debate between many Muslim scholars as to how those passage should be interpreted and applied. So their is certainly an opinion that a moderate and tolerant intrepretation is feasble.



Economist and author Dr Walter Williams argued that the peaceful Muslim majority is irrelevant (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams031908.php3).

So what's ur solution to Islamic terrorism to WW3 comprised of full scale military attack includeing use of nuclear weapons on as many Islamic nations as possible? For the sake of a few terrorists who cause a small number of deaths each year.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 12:26 PM
I didn't say they were the same I said they worship the same God.
You're wrong. The God of Christianity is triune, and one of the Persons is Jesus Christ. The god of Islam does not include Jesus.


The gospels are even part of Islamic scripture.
Not they are not. Islam asserts that the extant Gospels have been corrupted, without evidence of course. The Gospels teach that Jesus died on the Cross; the Koran explicitly states that he did not. Muhammad was also basically ignorant of the teachings of the Torah.

It's notable that the Koran teaches that Jesus was sinless and virginally conceived.


Of course they have there own intrepretations of how to worship this God properly. E.g. following the teachings of Jesus or following the prophecies of Muhummad. But similiarites such as the belief in Adam and Eve, Noah, Moses, Abraham etc. Show that the religous are different sects of the Abrahamic faith.
As I've pointed out in Intolerance and fundamental conceit (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2205):


Finally, while the likes of Dawkins groups Islam and Christianity as “Abrahamic religions”, the true Abrahamic\biblical religion is salvation by grace alone through faith alone, not by works, as shown by Paul’s citation of Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed the LORD, and it was credited to him as righteousness” (Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6, cf. Eph. 2:8–9). Islamic terrorists were trying to earn salvation by a work, i.e., martyrdom, so by definition was not part of the Abrahamic religion; rather, their religion was a counterfeit. Many professing Christians who committed unchristian acts were also practising a salvation-by-works mentality, in an age where the Bible was not readily available to the people.

Guilt-by-association is a deceitful debating trick. The difference has been well documented in books such as The Sword of the Prophet (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/aug03/eidelberg.htm) by Serge Trifkovic (2002).


For someone who works as a Christian minister I am surprised you could even contemplate arguing this fact.
I work as a scientist for a Christian ministry, but I'm not surprised that a misotheist would blather so ignorantly on topics he doesn't understand, and prattle about moral equivalence.


I never said they had the same levels of religous tolerance. But heretics have also been executed by Christian in times when Christians opted for a more radical approach to Christianity.
Yet this was contrary to the teachings of Christ, who explicitly stated that people must come to Him freely.


Even so Islamic ruled place can be quite popular with other religious groups such as is the case in Dubai.
Yet the Chess Olympiad in Dubai, 1986, excluded the Israeli team. The hotel did not have a Bible available despite the room guide claiming to have one. The UAE is liberal only compared with Saudi Arabia.

See also this Islamic rent-a-mob in Fort Lauderdale FL on 30 Dec 2008, who wouldn’t dare to protest in an Islamic country, with such lovely comments as “Nuke Israel”, “Go to Hell”, “Get back to the oven” ... the "Religion of Peace" in action:

j3Xl68kP4wo

MichaelBaron
12-01-2009, 01:25 PM
Possibly, but you are simply demonstrating that the issue is the radical interpretation of Islam. This has happened with other religions in the past and has been overcome by facilitating a more moderate approach.

There are many moderate Muslims who are quite happily co-exist with other religions so it is not only a scholarly opinion but a fact Islam is capable of religous tolerance. So what causes these groups to radicalise? People are not born as terrorists, all Muslims are not terrorists so it quite feasble to identify the reasons why these people radicalise and to address these issues. Again its a case of an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure

I see no problem with moderate Muslims. However, moderate muslims have nothing to do with Hamas or Al-Queda.

Secondly, people radicalise not because they have no other alternatives but because of their own cultural context they are growing in. Palestine's poverty is a direct result of years of corruption by the country's leaders and religious organisations. However, they try to use Israel as scapegoat and blame for all of its misfortunes.

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 01:44 PM
You're wrong. The God of Christianity is triune, and one of the Persons is Jesus Christ. The god of Islam does not include Jesus.

Yes but the God they worship is also part of the christian triune. The point being that the differences should not be insurmountalbe in terms of co-existence. And in are not insurmountable.



Guilt-by-association is a deceitful debating trick.

You are on a different track to me. I was pointing out the similarities as an argument to why co-existence shouldn't be a problem.


I work as a scientist for a Christian ministry.

Interesting most of your articles I have read nothing to do with science and are about christian apologetics.


Yet the Chess Olympiad in Dubai, 1986... The hotel did not have a Bible.

You wont find a Koran in most hotels in christian countries either.

If Dubai is so illiberal why are so many non-muslim foriegners flocking there?

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 02:46 PM
Yes but the God they worship is also part of the christian triune.
They do not believe in the Triune God, so it's a different god.


The point being that the differences should not be insurmountalbe in terms of co-existence. And in are not insurmountable.
Jesus is divine v Jesus is not divine. Pretty insurmountable, at least to those who value logic (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1860/).


You are on a different track to me. I was pointing out the similarities as an argument to why co-existence shouldn't be a problem.
Theists co-existing with atheists is not a problem, but it doesn't mean that atheism is similar to theism.


Interesting most of your articles I have read nothing to do with science and are about christian apologetics.
You clearly have read very few then.


You wont find a Koran in most hotels in christian countries either.
Yet this hotel said in its room guide that one was available,


If Dubai is so illiberal why are so many non-muslim foriegners flocking there?
Let them try to preach Christianity and see how liberal it is. Unlike the evil USA which, as shown above, allows Islamic rent-a-demos. Many foreigners work in Saudi Arabia as well. It might be the ample oil money ...

BTW, as The Sword of the Prophet: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Serge Trifkovic points out:


being a Greek, Armenian, Serb, or indeed any other Christian in the Ottoman Empire meant living in daily fear of murder, rape, torture, kidnap of one's children, slavery, and genocide.

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 03:05 PM
Yet this hotel said in its room guide that one was available

Probably an oversight as it is most likely illegal in Dubai.



Let them try to preach Christianity and see how liberal it is.

Rather common practice to restrict organisations that represent a threat to the ruling powers. Much the like the outlawing of capitalism/communism that occured in many countries which held the opposite systems.

So in your opinion can Islam, Christianity and Judaism co-exist peacfully in the same region?

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2009, 04:19 PM
Probably an oversight as it is most likely illegal in Dubai.
Surely not, in liberal Dubai ;) :P


Rather common practice to restrict organisations that represent a threat to the ruling powers. Much the like the outlawing of capitalism/communism that occured in many countries which held the opposite systems.
Yet Islam is not outlawed here.


So in your opinion can Islam, Christianity and Judaism co-exist peacfully in the same region?
As long as the Muslims don't follow Muhammed, I guess so. ;)

TheJoker
12-01-2009, 08:23 PM
As long as the Muslims don't follow Muhammed, I guess so. ;)

So i take it you are calling for the annihilation of Islam as the solution to the conflict?

MichaelBaron
12-01-2009, 08:56 PM
So i take it you are calling for the annihilation of Islam as the solution to the conflict?

Why not simply ensure that same international laws apply to all people irrespectively of what religion they follow. Following Islam should not be used as an excuse for acting barbarically

Capablanca-Fan
13-01-2009, 12:46 PM
Children of Hamas

eTGbP55HGi8

The UN has been silent to the following criminal activities of the Hamas terrorist organization:

Hamas has violated the rights of the Palestinian children abusing them, brainwashing them and inciting them to hate and kill.
Hamas has deliberately and exclusively fired missiles at Israeli civilian populations hoping to hurt as many civilians as possible. In 2008 alone, Hamas fired 3,278 rockets and mortars from Gaza to Israeli cities.
Hamas has been firing these rockets from within densely populated areas using the Palestinian people as human shields. Mosques, hospitals, kindergartens and children are criminally being used as human shields by Hamas operatives.


How can there be peace when the Hamas butchers poison their own children, while the UN and Leftmedia enable them?

Enough is enough. UN: your silence to this brings shame to your institution.

MichaelBaron
13-01-2009, 02:32 PM
Probably an oversight as it is most likely illegal in Dubai.




Rather common practice to restrict organisations that represent a threat to the ruling powers. Much the like the outlawing of capitalism/communism that occured in many countries which held the opposite systems.

So in your opinion can Islam, Christianity and Judaism co-exist peacfully in the same region?

Of course they can co-exist. They do co-exist in Israel!
They do co-exist in Most European countries. No European country restricts' peoples' right to practice Islam.

I have been doing some work for the ACU (Australian Catholic University). The university employs a lot of muslims.

Capablanca-Fan
13-01-2009, 04:10 PM
Endgame in Gaza (http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/charles-krauthammer/2009/01/09/endgame-in-gaza.html)
By Charles Krauthammer
9 Jan 2009

...

Lebanon-like cessation of hostilities ... would be a terrible mistake.

It would fail on its own terms. It would have the same elements as the phony peace in Lebanon: an international force that abjures any meaningful use of force, an arms embargo under which arms will most assuredly flood in, and a cessation of hostilities until the terrorist side is rearmed and ready to initiate the next round of hostilities.

The U.N.-mandated disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon is a well-known farce. Not only have foreign forces not stopped Hezbollah's massive rearmament, their very presence makes it impossible for Israel to take any preventive military action, lest it accidentally hit a blue-helmeted Belgian crossing guard.

The “international community” is now pushing very hard for a Gaza replay of that charade. Does anyone imagine that international monitors will risk their lives to prevent weapons smuggling? To arrest terrorists? To engage in shootouts with rocket-launching teams attacking Israeli civilians across the Gaza border?

Of course not. Weapons will continue to be smuggled. Deeper and more secure fortifications will be built for the next round. Mosques, schools and hospitals will again be used for weapons storage and terrorist safe havens. Do you think French “peacekeepers” are going to raid them?

Such a deal would buy Israel maybe a couple of years. After which, Round Two — with Hamas rockets by then killing civilians in Tel Aviv, making Ben-Gurion airport unusable and reaching Israel's nuclear reactor in Dimona.

...

The fall of Hamas rule in Gaza is within reach, but only if Israel does not cave in to pressure to stop now. Overthrowing Hamas would not require a permanent Israeli reoccupation. A transitional international force would be brought in to immediately make way for the return of the Palestinian Authority, the legitimate government whose forces would be far less squeamish than the Europeans in establishing order in Gaza.

...

Olmert had such an opportunity in Lebanon. He blew it. He now has a rare second chance. The one-step-from-madness gangster theocracy in Gaza — just four days before the fighting, the Hamas parliament passed a sharia criminal code, legalizing, among other niceties, crucifixion — is teetering on the brink. It can be brought down, but only if Israel is prepared — and allowed — to complete the real mission of this war. For the Bush State Department, in its last significant act, to prevent that with the premature imposition of a cease-fire would be not just self-defeating but shameful.

Capablanca-Fan
13-01-2009, 04:25 PM
Guess Who Cares about Dead Palestinians? Jews! (http://townhall.com/Columnists/DennisPrager/2009/01/13/guess_who_cares_about_dead_palestinians_jews!?page =2)
by Dennis Prager
13 Jan 2009

...

This moral chasm that separates Israel from its enemies, and separates the Jews from their enemies, merely confirms what Hamas repeatedly says about itself: We love death more than the Jews love life. This motto is so true that Hamas not only doesnt weep for dead Israelis, it doesnt weep for dead Palestinians. It uses living Palestinians as human shields and uses dead Palestinians as propaganda. The moral disequilibrium is such that Jews weep for dead Palestinian far more than Hamas does.

The second point to be raised is about perspective.

If during World War II, Western news media had reported German and Japanese civilian casualties in the same detail and with the same sympathy they report Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza, it is doubtful that the Nazis and the Japanese militarists would have lost that war. Certainly, at the very least, the anti-Nazi, anti-Fascist war effort would have been severely compromised.

The analogy is entirely apt. Hamas is on the same moral level as the two World War II enemies. Do those who condemn Israel for its attacks on Hamas fighters that have tragically resulted in hundreds of civilian Palestinian deaths also condemn the Allied bombings of German and Japanese military targets that resulted in far more civilian deaths? I suspect not since most critics of Israel still regard World War II as a moral war. The overriding issue, therefore, is whether fighting Hamas is moral. If it is, then the unintended death of Palestinian civilians is a tragedy, not an evil (except on the part of Hamas, because it situates its fighters and its missiles among civilians, including schools).

Third, if Hamas had the same ability to bomb Israel as Israel has to bomb Gaza, would the number of Jewish civilians be in the hundreds? Or would there be the Holocaust in Israel that Hamas and its Iranian sponsors dream of?

...

MichaelBaron
13-01-2009, 07:30 PM
While I do not agree with all of the points made in the article above, I certainly agree that Jews care much more about Palestinians than Hamas.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2009, 11:58 AM
Article Thirteen of Hamas' Charter:


“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. ‘Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know.’

“Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Muslim problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Muslims as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

“‘But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah.’ (The Cow - verse 120).

“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with. As is said in the honourable Hadith:

“‘The people of Syria are Allah’s lash in His land. He wreaks His vengeance through them against whomsoever He wishes among His slaves It is unthinkable that those who are double-faced among them should prosper over the faithful. They will certainly die out of grief and desperation’.”

Yet they would not succeed without the complicity of the Western Leftmedia (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_media_collude_in_terrorist.html):


...

The key is not the terrorists. They are stuck in their ways. The real key is the international media — who are hardly neutral observers as they like to pretend. The international leftist media are essential players in this melodrama.

...

It was just reported that Gaza City hospital received Arab beheading victims — not exactly Israel's way of making war. Hamas has been reported to be butchering and breaking the hands of Fatah supporters in Gaza. How many of them were civilians, killed just because they wanted to escape? Remember how Saddam Hussein cut off the tongues of his own bureaucrats, to terrorize them before the American invasion. That's what Hamas is doing right now in Gaza.

...

In fact, it is the media themselves who are criminally complicit in the internment of Gaza's civilians in the line of fire. They could stop the terrorists simply by headlining Hamas' responsibility for the plight of the Arabs of Gaza, over and over again. That's the real story — if only they could headline the facts right in front of their eyes. But they don't.

That shows us the real values of CNN and BBC; morally they are no better than the terrorists. The media are essential to the Kabuki play of terror, response, and renewed terror. They are constantly fanning the flames.

So when the media and the Left predictably demand Israeli appeasement of Hamas, let's just ask them: where is your compassion for the Arab victims of a jihadist internment camp called Gaza? How much longer do you want civilians to be turned into the bloody victims of the terrorist publicity machine?

The next time you turn on CNN, remember that you are looking at smiling faces that knowingly collude in the deaths of civilians, both Jews and Arabs. Without the leftist media there is no payoff for terrorists. Shut off the oxygen of publicity and Hamas shrivels to a powerless gang of thugs.

...

Media + terrorism = death and destruction.

Maybe we can't change the terrorists, but Americans can hold their media responsible.

Desmond
15-01-2009, 08:23 AM
would be interested to hear what people make of this article from the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2009, 09:26 AM
would be interested to hear what people make of this article from the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine
Of course, Leftist rags like the Guardian can parade self-loathing Israelis like that. In Israel, it is free to dissent from government policy. Conversely, Hamas mutilates and shoots dissenters.

Even this article admits that Israel has the right to act in self-defence, but has fallen for this crap about "proportionality". Logically, this would mean that if Hamas fires a rocket at Israel and kills three Israeli civilians, then Israel should not remove this threat but merely fire a rocket back trying to kill three Palestinian civilians. And America should have stopped after they had destroyed the same number of Japanese ships as the Japanese destroyed in Pearl Harbor.

This is a lie:


Gaza, however, is not simply a case of economic under-development but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development.

No, Israel left functioning infrastructure, immigration and greenhouses. As soon as the Palestinians moved in (after Jewish settlers were forced out in a fraudulent "land for peace" deal), they destroyed all those.

And if a hundredth of "aid" money went to improving their lot instead of rockets and terrorism, they would be very well off. The Arab nations could easily resettle them, as Israel did with Jews the Arabs forced out of their countries after stealing their property.

The article whinges about Israel's alleged brutality, but the civilian deaths are entirely down to Hamas (which this moron actually defends) firing rockets and storing arms in homes, schools, hospitals and mosques, and deliberately using human shields. Conversely, the Arabs have launched wars of annihilation against Israel, deliberately targeting women and children.

Desmond
15-01-2009, 09:50 AM
Thanks Jono. Yes it did look quite biased to me.

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2009, 10:32 AM
You're welcome, Boris. As a counterpart, here is an Arab-made video, Real Face of Hamas, the Murderer Of Palestinians, showing how Hamas kills and brutalizes its own people, yet sheds crocodile tears over deaths over Israeli-caused deaths and dance in the streets over American and Israeli murders. They recruit little children as soldiers with machine guns and explosives, yet demand that the world cries over the deaths of their children.
7_OGhj43GAE

Zwischenzug
16-01-2009, 06:04 PM
Certainly looks bad for Hamas. What was Hamas trying to achieve in that video or is it that the Hamas leaders have no control over their men? When it happened and why it happened hasn't been made clear. Another question that suddenly came to mind is: if the killing of Palestinians by Hamas is widespread (I'm guessing is what the creator of that video is trying to imply) why did the Palestinians vote for Hamas in their 2006 election? Why are the people hiding/shielding Hamas soldiers?

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2009, 06:57 PM
There's a chess dimension to this with a longtime NZ activist John Minto calling on GM Mikhalevski to withdraw from Queenstown on account of his Israeli nationality and the current Gaza situation. See GPJA release here (http://www.gpja.org.nz/newsletter/israeli-chess-grandmaster-asked-withdraw-tournament).

Apparently GPJA only became aware Mikhalevski was playing on Tuesday but still chose to make their call anyway.

Whatever my views on the Gaza situation I have little time for this kind of boycott call.

MichaelBaron
16-01-2009, 11:13 PM
There's a chess dimension to this with a longtime NZ activist John Minto calling on GM Mikhalevski to withdraw from Queenstown on account of his Israeli nationality and the current Gaza situation. See GPJA release here (http://www.gpja.org.nz/newsletter/israeli-chess-grandmaster-asked-withdraw-tournament).

Apparently GPJA only became aware Mikhalevski was playing on Tuesday but still chose to make their call anyway.

Whatever my views on the Gaza situation I have little time for this kind of boycott call.

If i would be in Mikhalevsky's shoes, when approached by that idiot - i would punch him in the face.

Kevin Bonham
16-01-2009, 11:22 PM
I would certainly have some very uncomplimentary things to say if I was in his position. More likely though he will just show his professional class and ignore it.

I just had a bit of a rant about this in a comment submitted to TCG in which I pointed out that if Minto was serious he could target Americans as well and could have targeted Australians at least while JWH was still in office. But no, Israeli sporting figures are easy targets for this sort of boycott call.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2009, 10:27 AM
Bloody Comrade Mintov is still at it. He was vocal even during my NZ uni days and possibly even high school, which is really ancient ;) Once more, it was a soft target — his sport boycott organization HART (Halt All Racist Tours) targeted the admittedly utterly repulsive apartheid system of Seth Effrica, which as bad as it was, was hardly the worst human rights abuse in the world or even in Africa.

Capablanca-Fan
14-02-2009, 01:02 PM
Geert Wilders' speech in the House of Lords — if he had not been barred from entering the UK (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024814.php)


...
Today, I come before you to warn of another great threat. It is called Islam. It poses as a religion, but its goals are very worldly: world domination, holy war, sharia law, the end of the separation of church and state, the end of democracy. It is not a religion, it is a political ideology. It demands you respect, but has no respect for you.

There might be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. Islam will never change, because it is build on two rocks that are forever, two fundamental beliefs that will never change, and will never go away. First, there is Quran, Allah’s personal word, uncreated, forever, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. And second, there is al-insal al-kamil, the perfect man, Muhammad the role model, whose deeds are to be imitated by all Muslims. And since Muhammad was a warlord and a conqueror we know what to expect.

Islam means submission, so there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That’s a given. The question is whether the British people, with its glorious past, is longing for that submission.

...

I was confident the British government would never sacrifice free speech because of fear of Islam. Britannia rules the waves, and Islam will never rule Britain, so I was confident the Border Agency would let me through. And after all, you have invited stranger creatures than me. Two years ago the House of Commons welcomed Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, linked to Al Qaeda. He was invited to Westminster by Lord Ahmed, who met him at Regent’s Park mosque three weeks before. Mr. Rideh, suspected of being a money man for terror groups, was given a SECURITY sticker for his Parliamentary visit.

...

But there is still much work to be done. Britain seems to have become a country ruled by fear. A country where civil servants cancel Christmas celebrations to please Muslims. A country where Sharia Courts are part of the legal system. A country where Islamic organizations asked to stop the commemoration of the Holocaust. A country where a primary school cancels a Christmas nativity play because it interfered with an Islamic festival. A country where a school removes the words Christmas and Easter from their calendar so as not to offend Muslims. A country where a teacher punishes two students for refusing to pray to Allah as part of their religious education class. A country where elected members of a town council are told not to eat during daylight hours in town hall meetings during the Ramadan. A country that excels in its hatred of Israel, still the only democracy in the Middle-East. A country whose capitol is becoming ‘Londonistan’.

I would not qualify myself as a free man. Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate. But for the leftist fan club of islam, that is not enough. They started a legal procedure against me. Three weeks ago the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered my criminal prosecution for making ‘Fitna’ and for my views on Islam. I committed what George Orwell called a ‘thought crime’.

You might have seen my name on Fitna’s credit role, but I am not really responsible for that movie. It was made for me. It was actually produced by Muslim extremists, the Quran and Islam itself. If Fitna is considered ‘hate speech’, then how would the Court qualify the Quran, with all its calls for violence, and hatred against women and Jews?
Mr. Churchill himself compared the Quran to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Well, I did exactly the same, and that is what they are prosecuting me for.

Igor_Goldenberg
14-02-2009, 03:04 PM
I would certainly have some very uncomplimentary things to say if I was in his position. More likely though he will just show his professional class and ignore it.


That's what he did.

pax
15-02-2009, 10:11 AM
Jihad watch is a pretty hateful anti-islamic site. There have been some very nasty things posted on there, and a friend of mine (a very peaceful and generous, but politically active Muslim) has been virtually accused of being a terrorist.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2009, 10:19 AM
Jihad watch is a pretty hateful anti-islamic site.
More Dhimmitude from Pax. Jihad Watch is not hateful; it reports the widespread hatred from the Islamic world. Similarly, as Wilders says, he didn't really have to make Fitna; the Islamists made it for him.


There have been some very nasty things posted on there, and a friend of mine (a very peaceful and generous, but politically active Muslim) has been virtually accused of being a terrorist.
As Wilders says, there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

So, does Pax have anything to say about how UK-stan refused to admit a democratically elected fellow EU parliamentarian, but allowed hate-preaching Imams.

pax
15-02-2009, 12:50 PM
As Wilders says, there are moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam.

Some might say the same about a religion whose holy book advocates the stoning of adulterers and prostitutes.

pax
15-02-2009, 12:53 PM
So, does Pax have anything to say about how UK-stan refused to admit a democratically elected fellow EU parliamentarian, but allowed hate-preaching Imams.

I don't think it's particularly productive to ban anybody from entering a country on the basis of what they say, unless they have a record of actually inciting violence or criminal activity. I don't know whether that applies to either Wilder or the Imams you mentioned.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2009, 01:28 PM
I don't think it's particularly productive to ban anybody from entering a country on the basis of what they say,
That I agree with.


unless they have a record of actually inciting violence or criminal activity.
Agreed.


I don't know whether that applies to either Wilder or the Imams you mentioned.
It doesn't to Wilders, but does to the Imams.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2009, 01:31 PM
Some might say the same about a religion whose holy book advocates the stoning of adulterers and prostitutes.
Boring christophobic biblical illiteracy and moral equivalence that we've come to expect from Pax. Christian countries do none of this, because the New Testament doesn't teach it; those rules were for the theocratic nation of Israel in preparation for the Messiah to come. Conversely, many Islamic countries really do stone the above as well as homosexuals today. See my response to another person who raised this canard (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6190/).

Mokum
15-02-2009, 04:20 PM
It doesn't to Wilders, but does to the Imams.
The jury is still out right now for Wilders, as he is being prosecuted for his hate speeches, and comparing Islam with Nazism, which is a punishable insult in Holland. However, Geert Wilders is not so much a criminal that should be banned from entering any country, but a simple (stupid) man with dangerous ideas and unfortunately with a platform in Dutch politics to express those in. This action by the UK government only strengthens his support, we are now even discussing that idiot at the other side of the world.

Mokum
15-02-2009, 04:33 PM
... because the New Testament doesn't teach it...
I agree with Jono that you shouldn't compare modern day Christianity with some of the excesses of Islam, although I could forgive anyone for being a little confused when even Jesus said:
"...not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Mt 5.17.
Also, the (thin) layer of civilization in our modern Western Christian society is the result of many influences, scientific, philosophical, religious and political, and Christianity alone can't walk away with all the credit for that.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2009, 05:04 PM
I agree with Jono that you shouldn't compare modern day Christianity with some of the excesses of Islam,
Yet this sort of moral equivalence is used far too often. It's not the Christians who are funding suicide bombers, flying airplanes into buildings, denying the Holocaust, or calling for the annihilation of the Jews.


although I could forgive anyone for being a little confused when even Jesus said:

"...not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." Mt 5.17.
Jesus did fulfil the Mosaic Law by obeying it perfectly and becoming the final sacrifice for sin, as the book of Hebrews said. As He fulfilled the Law, it is no longer operative today. The difference between ‘fulfil’ and ‘abolish’ can be illustrated by the many prophecies He fulfilled during His first coming. For instance, Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Messiah’s Virginal conception. But since He has already been born of a virgin (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2875/), we no longer need to look forward any future virginal conceptions. But if that prophecy had been abolished, no virginal conceptions would have occurred.

The Law of Moses is specifically for the Israelites from Moses up to the resurrection of Christ, so are not applicable today—see The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ (http://www.ariel.org/mbs006e.htm). Certainly, some of the Levitical laws were clearly designed to keep the Jews separate from the pagans to keep the Messianic Line pure. Since the coming of Christ, the barrier between Jew and Gentile has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14), so both Jews and Gentiles can now become one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:28, Col. 3:11).

A simple proof that the Mosaic Law no longer in force today: no Christians sacrifice animals in their churches.


Also, the (thin) layer of civilization in our modern Western Christian society is the result of many influences, scientific, philosophical, religious and political, and Christianity alone can't walk away with all the credit for that.
Just most of it, as documented in the books For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581/) and The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Let to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5970)by Rodney Stark, who is not even a Christian.

Capablanca-Fan
15-02-2009, 05:10 PM
The jury is still out right now for Wilders, as he is being prosecuted for his hate speeches, and comparing Islam with Nazism, which is a punishable insult in Holland.
If this is the case, it's a ludicrous law. Is there a similar law that punishes comparison of Christianity with Nazism? Is it unlawful to point out the fact that the Islamic leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years with Hitler, recruited Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen SS Handžar division, and urged his friend Adolf Eichmann (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6217) to hurry up with the Final Solution? See this thread (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=229069#post229069)for documentation, which also documents the love for Nazism in Arab countries even today.

Also, Essa bin Mohammed Al Zedjali, chairman and editor-in-chief of the Times of Oman, the sultanate’s oldest English-language newspaper, says that the Jews of Europe deserved it, and Hitler's brutal measures were justified (http://www.timesofoman.com/view_point.asp?details=on&ratopic_nd=238):


It is illustrative to browse through the relevant pages of history to know the real history of the Jews in Germany. You would then come to know why Hitler had taken harsh measures against them. The entire economy of Germany, including banks, publishing houses, jewellery stores, light and heavy industries and almost all economic organisations of consequence, was under the total control of the Jews.


However, Geert Wilders is not so much a criminal that should be banned from entering any country, but a simple (stupid) man with dangerous ideas and unfortunately with a platform in Dutch politics to express those in.
Yet you fail to document a single error. And those who claim to be worried by religious extremism are hardly helping when they criminalize talking about it.


This action by the UK government only strengthens his support, we are now even discussing that idiot at the other side of the world.
Once again, where is the proof that he's an idiot. As he says, he didn't really make Fitna; the Islamofascists made it for him!

pax
15-02-2009, 11:59 PM
Boring christophobic biblical illiteracy and moral equivalence that we've come to expect from Pax. Christian countries do none of this, because the New Testament doesn't teach it; those rules were for the theocratic nation of Israel in preparation for the Messiah to come. Conversely, many Islamic countries really do stone the above as well as homosexuals today. See my response to another person who raised this canard (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6190/).

Boring Islamophobic spiel that we've come to expect from Jono, completely missing the point as usual.

pax
16-02-2009, 12:02 AM
Yet this sort of moral equivalence is used far too often. It's not the Christians who are funding suicide bombers, flying airplanes into buildings, denying the Holocaust, or calling for the annihilation of the Jews.

Perhaps I missed the line in the Koran where it says "thou shalt murder thousands of innocents by flying planes into buildings".

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2009, 12:55 AM
Boring Islamophobic spiel that we've come to expect from Jono, completely missing the point as usual.
"Islamophobia" is a myth of leftist moral equivalence types, who think that the real danger is not mad mullahs who call for the annihilation of the West but Christian homeschoolers.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2009, 01:17 AM
If this is the case, it's a ludicrous law. Is there a similar law that punishes comparison of Christianity with Nazism?

If so then they've actually codified the normative adaptation of Godwin's Law.

It had to happen somewhere!

I have mixed feelings about laws banning spurious comparisons with fascism. On the one hand they are illiberal; on the other hand they do a great deal to improve the quality of debate.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2009, 08:56 AM
I have mixed feelings about laws banning spurious comparisons with fascism. On the one hand they are illiberal; on the other hand they do a great deal to improve the quality of debate.
But who's to decide that they are spurious? It should be for the debaters to show, not the courts! Is it spurious to point out the Grand Mufti's alliance with Hitler, Mein Kampf in bookshops in Islamic countries, an Omani editor saying that Hitler was justified in his harsh measures toward Jews, the Iranian president denying the Holocaust but advocating another one?

Mokum
16-02-2009, 03:12 PM
If this is the case, it's a ludicrous law. Is there a similar law that punishes comparison of Christianity with Nazism?

Yes, maybe I was unclear, any comparism with Nazism only to insult people is unlawful.


Is it unlawful to point out the fact that the Islamic leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years with Hitler,...

No, and Wilders is not charged with that.




Once again, where is the proof that he's an idiot.

There is no proof, it’s my opinion, and fortunately that of most, but not enough, of my fellow countrymen. That opinion is based on the type of arguments and language he uses, and the sort of people he attracted to form his political party. I am no friend of Islam whatsoever, and am utterly disgusted by some of its excesses. But it’s a simple fact that there are a lot of Muslims in Holland and many good initiatives have taken place to create integrated communities of all religions. Geert Wilders and likeminded radicals have done a lot of harm in polarizing those communities, although at the end of the day his influence is limited. That is because most of the Dutch society is secular, religion is a private matter, like many other things, and with a little give and take and respect for each other there is a lot possible.

Mokum
16-02-2009, 04:51 PM
Is it spurious to point out the Grand Mufti's alliance with Hitler, Not in itself, unless you use that as an argument that all Muslims are therefore like the Nazi's. Just like it would be insulting to accuse all Christians for being pedofiles just because some Catholic priests are.

Mein Kampf in bookshops in Islamic countries
You can buy Mein Kampf in any bookshop here as well, as almost everywhere else. Mein Kampf is not sold in Holland, a leftover from the period shortly after the war when it was thought that exposing the ignorant public to that book could be dangerous, and Wilders has argued to ban the Koran for the same reasons.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:05 PM
The jury is still out right now for Wilders, as he is being prosecuted for his hate speeches, and comparing Islam with Nazism, which is a punishable insult in Holland. However, Geert Wilders is not so much a criminal that should be banned from entering any country, but a simple (stupid) man with dangerous ideas and unfortunately with a platform in Dutch politics to express those in. This action by the UK government only strengthens his support, we are now even discussing that idiot at the other side of the world.

I don't think outrageous speakers should be banned coz they may exagerate but to a degree what they say may be true. Our minds have evolved to spew out all sorts of minds - the co-operative, the racist, the anti-racist. Nature has created a balance of all opinions. By gagging some we are upsetting the balance.

They should not be called stupid, this is rude, it is only a matter whether their views are relevant at the time of their calling them.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:10 PM
Some might say the same about a religion whose holy book advocates the stoning of adulterers and prostitutes.

I have not seen a reply to this yet, but may have missed. This is old Testament stuff as the Christians like to remind us, that is under the old Covenant that Jesus did away with.

This response implies that Judaism is inferior coz has not copped the enlightment of Jesus Doesn't-Exist Christ. The Jews do not at the moment practise this - but give the Orthos in Israel a few more decades that could end up as bad as the Muslims.

Christianity has eternal Hell on the menu for people who disobey their New Testament stupidity. No more worse than the Old Testament rubbish.

But what I don't understand how the Christians disown the Old Testament but happily keep the Old Testament part to tithe - that is to take 10% off their poor sucker followers. Bloody hypocrites those church leaders are. And robbers.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:12 PM
Why not simply ensure that same international laws apply to all people irrespectively of what religion they follow. Following Islam should not be used as an excuse for acting barbarically

Nor should following Judaism be an excuse for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity - and wholesale robbery of other people's lands.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:18 PM
Yet this sort of moral equivalence is used far too often. It's not the Christians who are funding suicide bombers, flying airplanes into buildings, denying the Holocaust, or calling for the annihilation of the Jews.


.



Christians have committed terrorism acts in the US - the Oklahama bombing plus many others. What about Jonestown where they all committed suicide for nothing. At least Muslims do it as a means to get back their land from Israel or for another political cause.

Christians do deny the Holocaust. Bishop Williamson of the UK has been re-instated by the Pope and he has been a denier for decades. I am an atheist anti-Zionist but have never denied the Holocaust. Truly some of my best friends are Jews and they know my opinion. They half share my opinion some of them.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 05:20 PM
Perhaps I missed the line in the Koran where it says "thou shalt murder thousands of innocents by flying planes into buildings".

It was "Christian" US who sponsered the techno terrorists - firstly against the atheistic pro-Soviet modernist Afghanistan government about 25 years ago - I remember it well. What goes round comes round so to speak.

Kevin Bonham
16-02-2009, 05:54 PM
But who's to decide that they are spurious? It should be for the debaters to show, not the courts! Is it spurious to point out the Grand Mufti's alliance with Hitler, Mein Kampf in bookshops in Islamic countries, an Omani editor saying that Hitler was justified in his harsh measures toward Jews, the Iranian president denying the Holocaust but advocating another one?

It seems he is being charged for comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf and saying it is a fascist book that should not be allowed to be sold. Is he also facing charges for the above?

As for allowing the presence of Mein Kampf in bookshops in Islamic countries, what does this prove except that the book isn't banned? Should it be banned? It isn't banned in Australia; does this make Australia fascist?

Wilders apparently thinks he's a libertarian. I can't say I'm convinced.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2009, 06:12 PM
Christians have committed terrorism acts in the US - the Oklahama bombing plus many others.
What crap. Timothy McVeigh was a christophobe right up to his execution, explicitly declaring himself an agnostic (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/mcveigh.htm).


What about Jonestown where they all committed suicide for nothing.
And there wasn't a Bible in the compound, as the US marines discovered. Small wonder, because Jones was a long-time Communist (http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Tapes/Tapes/TapeTranscripts/Q134.html).


At least Muslims do it as a means to get back their land from Israel
Which they never had—see History of Israel & "Palestine" (http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html).

So you think blowing up Israeli school buses and blowing up Jewish nightclubs is OK then? Maybe you agree with the Omani Times editor who claimed that Hitler's harsh measures towards the Jews were understandable?


or for another political cause.
Yes, usually called Jihad against the Infidel.


Christians do deny the Holocaust. Bishop Williamson of the UK has been re-instated by the Pope and he has been a denier for decades.
And this denial was roundly condemned, and when the Pope found out he demanded a retraction (http://www.welt.de/english-news/article3192974/Pope-says-Holocaust-denial-is-intolerable.html).

Mokum
16-02-2009, 09:44 PM
I don't think outrageous speakers should be banned coz they may exagerate but to a degree what they say may be true. Our minds have evolved to spew out all sorts of minds - the co-operative, the racist, the anti-racist. Nature has created a balance of all opinions. By gagging some we are upsetting the balance.

They should not be called stupid, this is rude, it is only a matter whether their views are relevant at the time of their calling them.

I agree with you, and I think banning Wilders for entering the UK is a huge mistake. Everyone can judge for themselves what people like Wilders have to say. Usually their crap attracts a lot of people initially but because of a complete lack of substance that support wears thin after a while. I was in Holland when Wilders' much anticipated film Fitna was released, and even his supporters thought it was weak and that it didn't add anything new to the discussion. Wilders was doing badly in every opinion poll but now he is back in the news and popular again.

Calling anyone stupid is indeed politically not very correct, but in his case I would be delighted to get an opportunity to say it in his face, so I stand by it. I am sure he won’t mind, he pretty much calls everyone else much worse all the time. The Dutch language is very rich that way.

antichrist
16-02-2009, 09:57 PM
So you think blowing up Israeli school buses and blowing up Jewish nightclubs is OK then? Maybe you agree with the Omani Times editor who claimed that Hitler's harsh measures towards the Jews were understandable?


[/URL].
have cut a lot as cant answer to night but:

No I don't agree but Israel introduced the modern terrorism in the Middle East to obtain Israel. And they have used cluster bombs, white phorphorus etc, all war crimes to uphold their robbery.

why can Israel use terrorism and the Palestinians cant? That is racism.

The Old Testament if full of terrorism by the Ancient Jews or whatever they were called, their god even condoned genocide to rob land, just as Israel is doing for the past 60 years. So so called Holy Books are rubbish. If they are valid they do not need to be holy, and if they are holy, rubbish in them is still rubbish.

Before Israel agents killed Jews in Iraq and blaming it on Arabs, to scare the Jews to leave Iraq and to go to Israel. If Jews can commit terrorism against Jews why cant Palestinians? If not well that is racism.

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2009, 10:34 PM
No I don't agree but Israel introduced the modern terrorism in the Middle East to obtain Israel. And they have used cluster bombs, white phorphorus etc, all war crimes to uphold their robbery.
What robbery? They bought their land legally, and the original "Palestine" was given 3/4 to the Arabs as it was!


why can Israel use terrorism and the Palestinians cant? That is racism.
Israel targets soldiers; Hamas targets Israeli civilians and uses its own as human shields. Not really surprising, since many Arabs supported the Nazis.


The Old Testament if full of terrorism by the Ancient Jews or whatever they were called, their god even condoned genocide to rob land,

God made the land; He can give it to whoever He wishes. And the people wiped out practised child sacrifice and other atrocities, and were given centuries of warning. Read this (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html)and stop your whinging about ancient history.


just as Israel is doing for the past 60 years.
Israel even allows Arabs to stand in the Knesset. But Hamas and Iran really do want to commit genocide.


Before Israel agents killed Jews in Iraq and blaming it on Arabs, to scare the Jews to leave Iraq and to go to Israel. If Jews can commit terrorism against Jews why cant Palestinians?
Nonsense. OTOH is it well document that many Palestinian Arabs have died at the hands of other Palestinian Arabs.

MichaelBaron
16-02-2009, 10:36 PM
Before Israel agents killed Jews in Iraq and blaming it on Arabs, to scare the Jews to leave Iraq and to go to Israel. If Jews can commit terrorism against Jews why cant Palestinians? If not well that is racism.


You are posting rubbish once again. I demand you provide some evidence that Israeli agents were killing Jews in Iraq! Pls show me a valid source making this claim!

Capablanca-Fan
16-02-2009, 11:11 PM
You are posting rubbish once again. I demand you provide some evidence that Israeli agents were killing Jews in Iraq! Pls show me a valid source making this claim!
He can't of course. Indeed, the anti-Israel bigots have a long history of falsifying casualty reports (see for example Meet Naim the “medic” and the other innocents (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_vanishing_dead_of_gaza/)). But the following shows how Hamas is murdering Arabs:
7_OGhj43GAE

pax
17-02-2009, 10:46 AM
God made the land; He can give it to whoever He wishes.
Therein lies the source of the entire problem in the middle east.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2009, 10:47 AM
Therein lies the source of the entire problem in the middle east.
Typical atheopath. Yet Israel has always been a secular democracy.

pax
17-02-2009, 10:48 AM
Israel even allows Arabs to stand in the Knesset.

Not if that extremist Lieberman (leader of the third largest party in the Knesset) gets his way.

pax
17-02-2009, 10:51 AM
Typical atheopath. Yet Israel has always been a secular democracy.

I'm talking about both sides, not just Israel. When two groups of people believe to the core of their being that they own the land because God gave it to them - what hope is there for a peaceful resolution?

Basil
17-02-2009, 11:48 AM
I'm talking about both sides, not just Israel. When two groups of people believe to the core of their being that they own the land because God gave it to them - what hope is there for a peaceful resolution?
Reasonable, if there's an independently brokered deal that requires both sides to keep their missiles in their pockets and their little subversives in check :wall: :doh:

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2009, 11:49 AM
I'm talking about both sides, not just Israel. When two groups of people believe to the core of their being that they own the land because God gave it to them — what hope is there for a peaceful resolution?
That one of them (the Islamofascists you favour) admit they are wrong.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2009, 12:03 PM
Not if that extremist Lieberman (leader of the third largest party in the Knesset) gets his way.
Any proof? One would hope this doesn't happen. But note that Labor lost a lot of support precisely because of their failed "land for peace" appeasements, which just gave away land but got more violence instead of peace.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-02-2009, 01:56 PM
Not if that extremist Lieberman (leader of the third largest party in the Knesset) gets his way.
Can you substantiate your claim Arabs won't be able to stand for election (and/or be elected) if "Lieberman gets his way"?
Can you substantiate another claim that Lieberman is an extremist?

pax
17-02-2009, 02:15 PM
Can you substantiate your claim Arabs won't be able to stand for election (and/or be elected) if "Lieberman gets his way"?
Can you substantiate another claim that Lieberman is an extremist?

Come on, Lieberman is widely reported as supporting the forced expulsion of Arab Israelis. Can you prove this is false?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/967364.html


The main reason behind this wave of vitriol is, probably, Yisrael Beiteinu leader MK Avigdor Lieberman's belief that elections are in the offing. After the Mercaz Harav attack, Lieberman told Arab MKs that the current government is full of "weaklings. "Believe you me it's temporary, and you're temporary," he said. "Another government will come and take care of you just like the Kuwaiti government takes care of things." Kuwait's government, according to Lieberman, plans to expel all the participants in a memorial for slain Hezbollah leader Imad Mughniyah.


Meanwhile, right-wing MKs are pushing a number of bills aimed at making the Knesset off-limits to Arab lawmakers. Orlev and Yisrael Beiteinu's Esterina Tartman have introduced two separate bills that would disqualify people who visited enemy states from being an MK. Arab lawmakers consider visits to Arab states an inseparable part of their job. Hadash chairman MK Mohammed Barakeh said: "If we are given a choice of being faithful to our people or being in the Knesset, then I bid the Knesset farewell. I don't want it." Zahalka said: "At the current rate of legislation, the Knesset will be Arab-free."

pax
17-02-2009, 02:20 PM
That one of them (the Islamofascists you favour)
I don't favour anybody.

admit they are wrong.
It's exactly this kind of trenchant attitude on both sides which perpetuates the conflict.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2009, 02:25 PM
It's exactly this kind of trenchant attitude on both sides which perpetuates the conflict.
As I said, Israel doesn't even have this attitude as it is a secular democracy.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-02-2009, 02:45 PM
Come on, Lieberman is widely reported as supporting the forced expulsion of Arab Israelis. Can you prove this is false?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/967364.html

Is it the best you can come up with? Before making a claim, it pays to do a little research. FYI, Lieberman propose to strip citizenship from those that oppose to Israel existence. Can you see the difference?
Frankly, I cannot envisage Australian citizen that openly aids Australia enemy and opposes to Australia existence be allowed to stand for election.

Also "widely reported" and "true" are different things. I will agree with your claim when you find any quote of Lieberman where he suggests "forced expulsion of Arab Israelis", not "forced expulsion of some specific Arab Israeli". If you do not find such a quote, I expect you to retract the claim.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-02-2009, 02:50 PM
Meanwhile, right-wing MKs are pushing a number of bills aimed at making the Knesset off-limits to Arab lawmakers. Orlev and Yisrael Beiteinu's Esterina Tartman have introduced two separate bills that would disqualify people who visited enemy states from being an MK. Arab lawmakers consider visits to Arab states an inseparable part of their job. Hadash chairman MK Mohammed Barakeh said: "If we are given a choice of being faithful to our people or being in the Knesset, then I bid the Knesset farewell. I don't want it." Zahalka said: "At the current rate of legislation, the Knesset will be Arab-free."

Visiting enemy state (it does not mean any Arab state), unless authorised by the government, is a treason by Israeli law. I think majority of countries have similar, if not stricter, law. If the quoted Knesset member thinks his loyalty lies with the enemies of Israel, he has no business being in the Knesset.

pax
17-02-2009, 03:06 PM
Visiting enemy state (it does not mean any Arab state), unless authorised by the government, is a treason by Israeli law. I think majority of countries have similar, if not stricter, law.

I don't know of any liberal democracy which has any such law.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2009, 03:10 PM
I don't know of any liberal democracy which has any such law.
What do you think would have happened to an American who went to Germany or Japan during WW2 and expressed support for the Axis and advocated wiping out America?

antichrist
17-02-2009, 04:30 PM
You are posting rubbish once again. I demand you provide some evidence that Israeli agents were killing Jews in Iraq! Pls show me a valid source making this claim!

You will find it on a website if you look hard enough. Its authenticity was backed up on their being court cases about it in England. Either a member of parliament had to back up his claim or a newspaper had to, London Times I think.

antichrist
17-02-2009, 04:43 PM
What robbery? They bought their land legally, and the original "Palestine" was given 3/4 to the Arabs as it was!

A/C
Israel got plenty of Palestinian-occupied land, that is why millions of Palestinians have the right of return. Israel received stolen goods when Israel was created. Why should Palestinians have to put up with where being told to live by Israeli's who they hate and occupy their land.

Jono
Israel targets soldiers; Hamas targets Israeli civilians and uses its own as human shields. Not really surprising, since many Arabs supported the Nazis.

A/C I cant see any difference between Nazis and extremist Jews. The Nazis used to kill maybe 60 Jews for every the Nazi that the Jews killed, whereas the "Nazis" in Israel kill 100 Palestinians for every Jews killed. I will let you do the sums as to who is the worse "Nazi".

A/C Bullshit, Israel is being investigated for war crimes for using white phoraphus(?), is it impossible not to target civilians in built up areas, and Israel very well knows that. They also clustered bombed suburban areas of Beirut - which maimed hundreds of children.


Jono
God made the land; He can give it to whoever He wishes. And the people wiped out practised child sacrifice and other atrocities, and were given centuries of warning. Read this (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html)and stop your whinging about ancient history.

A/C You are coming the same bullshit as Mike Baron. There is no stupid f...ing bloody God - get that into your stupid heads. Ortho Israeli Jews use ancient history as their justification for occupying current Palestine - well then that claim is open for scrutiny. You must prove the Jewish god before that claim has any validity. And until you do, and even if you do, you are going along with genocide - 3,000 years ago and for the past 60 years.

Jono
Israel even allows Arabs to stand in the Knesset. But Hamas and Iran really do want to commit genocide.

A/C
Get off Palestinian land and those peoples could not care shit about Jews to do them any harm. If that was to happen I would join the Jews in repulsing.

Jono:
Nonsense. OTOH is it well document that many Palestinian Arabs have died at the hands of other Palestinian Arabs.

A/C Of course the long problem of Palestine coupled with all the pressures and divisive tactics of Israel, and bribery by Israel, have put Palestinian against Palestinian. But remember, not too long ago about 90% voted for Yasser Arafat - so that is a great indicator when the Palestinian heart lies. For return of their stolen land.

Capablanca-Fan
17-02-2009, 04:47 PM
Of course the long problem of Palestine coupled with all the pressures and divisive tactics of Israel, and bribery by Israel, have put Palestinian against Palestinian.
You mean thug against thug. Israel didn't force Hamas militants to shoot Fatah militants in the legs and murder them.


But remember, not too long ago about 90% voted for Yasser Arafat — so that is a great indicator when the Palestinian heart lies. For return of their stolen land.
Yep, for the terrorist leader who called Hitler's Mufti al-Husseini "our hero", and made himself very wealthy with "aid" money while leaving the ordinary people in squalour.

antichrist
17-02-2009, 04:49 PM
You mean thug against thug. Israel didn't force Hamas militants to shoot Fatah militants in the legs and murder them.


Yep, for the terrorist leader who called Hitler's Mufti al-Husseini "our hero", and made himself very wealthy with "aid" money while leaving the ordinary people in squalour.

Israel's president got murdered for trying to make a just peace - by one of his own extremists. If Israeli's can kill their president, why can't Palestinians also kill an Israeli president?

pax
17-02-2009, 05:02 PM
What do you think would have happened to an American who went to Germany or Japan during WW2 and expressed support for the Axis and advocated wiping out America?
That's a different question entirely. It is not travelling to a particular country that is the crime, but what was done while there.

Igor_Goldenberg
17-02-2009, 05:32 PM
That's a different question entirely. It is not travelling to a particular country that is the crime, but what was done while there.
FYI - some Arab members of Knesset travelled to Syria and made anti-Israel speeches there. Given that Israel is officially at war with Syria, how does it sit with being member of Knesset?

"forceful expulsion of Israeli Arabs" implies that about a million of Israeli Arabs are going to be relocated. Can you substantiate that claim?

pax
18-02-2009, 08:39 AM
"forceful expulsion of Israeli Arabs" implies that about a million of Israeli Arabs are going to be relocated. Can you substantiate that claim?
He has advocated excising Arab villages from Israel.

pax
18-02-2009, 08:46 AM
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061172.html

pax
18-02-2009, 10:47 AM
http://www.pjvoice.com/v18/18003transfer.aspx


In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs, said that the primary way to achieve peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs - including Israeli-Arabs - to live separately. “Minorities are the biggest problem in the world," he claimed. Asked if Arab Israeli citizens should be removed, he said: "I think separation between two nations is the best solution. Cyprus is the best model. Before 1974, the Greeks and Turks lived together and there were frictions and bloodshed and terror. After 1974, they constituted all Turks on one part of the island, all Greeks on the other part of the island, and there is stability and security."

When reminded that these people were removed forcibly from their homes, he replied, "Yes, but the final result was better." Later, Lieberman explained, "Israeli Arabs don't have to go…. But if they stay they have to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish Zionist state."

Igor_Goldenberg
18-02-2009, 10:53 AM
When reminded that these people were removed forcibly from their homes, he replied, "Yes, but the final result was better." Later, Lieberman explained, "Israeli Arabs don't have to go…. But if they stay they have to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish Zionist state."

It is not the same as forcing Arabs out, is it?
And what's wrong with that statement?

pax
18-02-2009, 11:05 AM
It is not the same as forcing Arabs out, is it?
And what's wrong with that statement?

Perhaps they don't see Israel as a "Jewish, Zionist state", but as a liberal democracy which includes people of many faiths? Why don't we demand an "oath of allegiance to Australia as a Christian nation" and deport anybody who refuses?

You are very quick to leap to the defence of this man. What's the reason? Most of the Jews I know think he's a bit of a crackpot.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2009, 01:25 PM
Perhaps they don't see Israel as a "Jewish, Zionist state", but as a liberal democracy which includes people of many faiths? Why don't we demand an "oath of allegiance to Australia as a Christian nation" and deport anybody who refuses?
Jewishness in that context refers to the ethnicity not religion.


You are very quick to leap to the defence of this man. What's the reason? Most of the Jews I know think he's a bit of a crackpot.
You are very quick to denounce a reasonable demand that the citizens of one's country don't travel to countries with which one's own country is at war, to denounce one's own country.

pax
18-02-2009, 01:37 PM
Jewishness in that context refers to the ethnicity not religion.
So? The Arabs are not Jewish in either context.



You are very quick to denounce a reasonable demand that the citizens of one's country don't travel to countries with which one's own country is at war, to denounce one's own country.

When the definition of "country at which one's own country is at war" is very loose, and the penalty is exile or execution (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1145961280390), yes I denounce it.

antichrist
18-02-2009, 04:35 PM
What Liebermann is about is ethnic cleansing - just as Nazi Germany did to the Jews - as I have stated earlier some Zionists learnt well from the Nazis.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2009, 07:04 PM
What Liebermann is about is ethnic cleansing - just as Nazi Germany did to the Jews -
Perhaps AC swallows the the Nazi propagandists, who lied that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question (die Endlösung der Judenfrage) was really an "evacuation" (Evakuierung) or "resettlement" (Umsiedlung), which were really code words for extermination.


as I have stated earlier some Zionists learnt well from the Nazis.
If they did, it was most likely from the Arabs who widely sided with the Nazis during WW2.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2009, 07:10 PM
When the definition of "country at which one's own country is at war" is very loose, and the penalty is exile or execution (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1145961280390), yes I denounce it.
But that link was specifically about collaboration with Hamas, who really were at war with Israel, shooting rockets at Israel's civilians and whose charter calls for Israel's annihilation:


In response to the Arab MKs' complaints, Israel Beiteinu MK Estherina Tartman defended Lieberman's comments, saying that "Lieberman didn't speak of Arabs or Muslims, but all collaborators. There is nothing strange about this statement. When you have enemies who seek to destroy the state, you have to deal with them, whatever their ethnicity or religion."

Again, what would have been done to a citizen of America or Britain who met with Hitler or Tojo during WW2?

pax
18-02-2009, 08:12 PM
Again, what would have been done to a citizen of America or Britain who met with Hitler or Tojo during WW2?

I wouldn't have executed them under any circumstances.

Capablanca-Fan
18-02-2009, 08:33 PM
I wouldn't have executed them under any circumstances.
But traitors and war criminals were executed after WW2.

pax
19-02-2009, 08:09 AM
But traitors and war criminals were executed after WW2.
Firstly, meeting an "enemy" is not the same as a war crime. Secondly, if it was up to me, not even war criminals would be executed. Anyway, this is getting way off topic.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-02-2009, 09:53 AM
Perhaps they don't see Israel as a "Jewish, Zionist state", but as a liberal democracy which includes people of many faiths? Why don't we demand an "oath of allegiance to Australia as a Christian nation" and deport anybody who refuses?
Israel was founded as a Jewish state. Anyway, their faith has never been under threat (unlike Jews in Arab states). All that expected from Israeli Arabs is a loyalty. And loyalty means not trying to destroy Israel (at least).


You are very quick to leap to the defence of this man. What's the reason? Most of the Jews I know think he's a bit of a crackpot.
Maybe because I read a little bit about Israel affair to form my own opinion instead of blindly following superfluous coverage?

pax
19-02-2009, 10:14 AM
Israel was founded as a Jewish state. Anyway, their faith has never been under threat (unlike Jews in Arab states). All that expected from Israeli Arabs is a loyalty. And loyalty means not trying to destroy Israel (at least).

Maybe because I read a little bit about Israel affair to form my own opinion instead of blindly following superfluous coverage?

I'm not blindly following anything. Everything I read about this man makes me think he is a very, very scary prospect for Israel.

Suppose an Australian politician demanded an oath of loyalty to Australia as a "Christian Anglo Celtic nation" from all naturalised Pacific Islanders, the excising of the Torres Strait islands from Australian territory, and the execution of Australian members of parliament who have been found to have visited North Korea or Iran. I'd be bloody appalled. Wouldn't you?

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2009, 10:53 AM
I'm not blindly following anything. Everything I read about this man makes me think he is a very, very scary prospect for Israel.
Netanyahu is likely to be the leader, and he is not anti-Arab. He is merely against the demonstrably failed "land for peace" crap that propelled the radicals into a strong position and ruined Labor's support.


Suppose an Australian politician demanded an oath of loyalty to Australia as a "Christian Anglo Celtic nation" from all naturalised Pacific Islanders, the excising of the Torres Strait islands from Australian territory,
Not a valid comparison. Israel is the Jews' traditional homeland. "White Australia" was a Labor aberration abolished by the Liberals.


and the execution of Australian members of parliament who have been found to have visited North Korea or Iran. I'd be bloody appalled. Wouldn't you?
Of course. But during WW2, if an Australian visited Hitler or Tojo and wished them well in the war, such a traitor would have been shot. Hamas was equally at war with Israel, and closer to home too (we never had Japanese or German rockets fired at our mainland).

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2009, 11:08 AM
Put Hamas, Not Israel, on Trial (http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Put_Hamas3_Not_Israel3_on_Trial.asp)
By Alan M. Dershowitz
15 Feb 09

...

Were it now to open an investigation of Israel, ICC would be violating the cardinal principle that must govern all international prosecutions: namely, that the worst must be prosecuted first.

...

There is no country in the world -- literally none -- that has a judicial system that is more open to charges against its own government. Not the United States, not Great Britain, and certainly not Russia, Zimbabwe or Pakistan! Moreover, Israel has a completely open and very critical free press, which is constantly exposing Israeli imperfections and editorializing against them.

Third, the IDF has legal teams that must approve of every military action taken by the armed forces. There are obviously close questions, about which reasonable experts can disagree, but there is no country in the world that goes to greater lengths in its efforts to conform its military actions to international law. Listen to retired British Colonel Richard Kemp — a military expert who, based on his experience, concluded that there has been "no time in the history of warfare when an Army has made more efforts to reduce civilian casualties...than [the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza]."

Despite deliberate efforts by Hamas to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties by firing rockets from behind human shields, Israel has succeeded in its efforts to minimize civilian casualties. Hamas has a policy of exaggerating civilian casualties, both by inflating the total number of people killed and by reducing the number of its combatants included in that total. A recent study conducted by the Italian Newspaper Corriere della Sera disputed Hamas figures and put the total number of Palestinians killed, including Hamas terrorists, at less than 600. And this week, the UN withdrew claims made during the war that Israel had shelled a school run in Gaza by the UN Relief and Works Agency.

The same Rome Statute that established the ICC also describes many of Hamas's actions during the war, such as attacking Israeli civilians and using Palestinian civilians as human shields, as war crimes. Any fair investigation by the ICC would have to conclude that Israel's efforts to prevent civilian casualties, while seeking to protect its civilians from Hamas war crimes, rank it at the very top of nations in compliance with the rule of law. It would also conclude that efforts to brand Israel's actions as war crimes are crassly political, based on ideology and not law. If anything, Hamas belongs in the dock, not Israel.

...

Capablanca-Fan
19-02-2009, 12:07 PM
ciOGS6r97oE lYB4pG3kHIYNegt6IzxPTo

antichrist
19-02-2009, 06:20 PM
You are posting rubbish once again. I demand you provide some evidence that Israeli agents were killing Jews in Iraq! Pls show me a valid source making this claim!


These sites I only found now. A site I found a few years ago told of the British court case, maybe I can find on an old computer later.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2002/10/01/1526411.php

http://www.pogonowski.com/display.php?textid=389

Palestine | Race
The Jews of Iraq -- How the Mossad Caused the Flight of Many Jewish Iraqis
by Naeim Giladi
Tuesday Oct 1st, 2002 8:00 PM
I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called "cruel Zionism." I write about it because I was part of it.
THE JEWS OF IRAQ

by Naeim Giladi
ABOUT THIS ARTICLE:

The Link interviewed Naeim Giladi, a Jew from Iraq, for three hours
on March 16, 1998, two days prior to his 69th birthday. For nearly
two other delightful hours, we were treated to a multi-course Arabic
meal prepared by his wife Rachael, who is also Iraqi. "It's our Arab
culture," he said proudly.

In our previous Link, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe looked at the
hundreds of thousands of indigenous Palestinians whose lives were
uprooted to make room for foreigners who would come to populate
confiscated land. Most were Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe.
But over half a million other Jews came from Islamic lands. Zionist
propagandists claim that Israel "rescued" these Jews from their
anti-Jewish, Muslim neighbors. One of those "rescued" Jews-Naeim
Giladi-knows otherwise.

In his book, Ben Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah & the
Mossad Eliminated Jews, Giladi discusses the crimes committed by
Zionists in their frenzy to import raw Jewish labor. Newly-vacated
farmlands had to be plowed to provide food for the immigrants and
the military ranks had to be filled with conscripts to defend the
stolen lands. Mr. Giladi couldn't get his book published in Israel,
and even in the U.S. he discovered he could do so only if he used
his own money.

The Giladis, now U.S. citizens, live in New York City. By choice,
they no longer hold Israeli citizenship. "I am Iraqi," he told us, "born
in Iraq, my culture still Iraqi Arabic, my religion Jewish, my
citizenship American."

John F. Mahoney
Executive Director,
Americans for Middle East Understanding (AMEU)
MY STORY

Of course I thought I knew it all back then. I was young, idealistic, and more than willing to put my life at risk for my convictions. It was 1947 and I wasn't quite 18 when the Iraqi authorities caught me for smuggling young Iraqi Jews like myself out of Iraq, into Iran, and then on to the Promised Land of the soon-to-be established Israel.

I was an Iraqi Jew in the Zionist underground. My Iraqi jailers did everything they could to extract the names of my co-conspirators.
Fifty years later, pain still throbs in my right toe-a reminder of the day my captors used pliers to remove my toenails. On another occasion, they hauled me to the flat roof of the prison, stripped me bare on a frigid January day, then threw a bucket of cold water over me. I was left there, chained to the railing, for hours. But I never once considered giving them the information they wanted. I was a true believer.

My preoccupation during what I refer to as my "two years in hell" was with survival and escape. I had no interest then in the broad sweep of Jewish history in Iraq even though my family had been part of it right from the beginning. We were originally Haroons, a large and important family of the "Babylonian Diaspora." My ancestors had settled in Iraq more than 2,600 years ago-600 years before Christianity, and 1,200 years before Islam. I am descended from Jews who built the tomb of Yehezkel, a Jewish prophet of pre-biblical times. My town, where I was born in 1929, is Hillah, not far from the ancient site of Babylon.

The original Jews found Babylon, with its nourishing Tigris and
Euphrates rivers, to be truly a land of milk, honey, abundance-and opportunity. Although Jews, like other minorities in what became Iraq, experienced periods of oppression and discrimination depending on the rulers of the period, their general trajectory over two and one-half millennia was upward. Under the late Ottoman rule, for example, Jewish social and religious institutions, schools, and medical facilities flourished without outside interference, and Jews were prominent in government and business.

As I sat there in my cell, unaware that a death sentence soon would be handed down against me, I could not have recounted any
personal grievances that my family members would have lodged
against the government or the Muslim majority. Our family had been treated well and had prospered, first as farmers with some 50,000 acres devoted to rice, dates and Arab horses. Then, with the Ottomans, we bought and purified gold that was shipped to Istanbul and turned into coinage. The Turks were responsible in fact for changing our name to reflect our occupation-we became Khalaschi, meaning "Makers of Pure."

I did not volunteer the information to my father that I had joined the Zionist underground. He found out several months before I was arrested when he saw me writing Hebrew and using words and expressions unfamiliar to him. He was even more surprised to learn that, yes, I had decided I would soon move to Israel myself. He was scornful. "You'll come back with your tail between your legs," he predicted.

About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and
into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a
panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs. But my
mother and father were among the 6,000 who did not go to
Israel. Although physically I never did return to Iraq-that
bridge had been burned in any event-my heart has made the
journey there many, many times. My father had it right.
About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late
1940s and into 1952, most because they had
been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to
learn were Zionist bombs.


I was imprisoned at the military camp of Abu-Greib, about 7 miles
from Baghdad. When the military court handed down my sentence
of death by hanging, I had nothing to lose by attempting the escape I
had been planning for many months.

It was a strange recipe for an escape: a dab of butter, an orange
peel, and some army clothing that I had asked a friend to buy for me
at a flea market. I deliberately ate as much bread as I could to put
on fat in anticipation of the day I became 18, when they could
formally charge me with a crime and attach the 50-pound ball and
chain that was standard prisoner issue.

Later, after my leg had been shackled, I went on a starvation diet
that often left me weak-kneed. The pat of butter was to lubricate my
leg in preparation for extricating it from the metal band. The orange
peel I surreptitiously stuck into the lock on the night of my planned
escape, having studied how it could be placed in such a way as to
keep the lock from closing.

As the jailers turned to go after locking up, I put on the old army
issue that was indistinguishable from what they were wearing-a long,
green coat and a stocking cap that I pulled down over much of my
face (it was winter). Then I just quietly opened the door and joined
the departing group of soldiers as they strode down the hall and
outside, and I offered a "good night" to the shift guard as I left. A
friend with a car was waiting to speed me away.


Naeim Giladi in 1947

Later I made my way to the new state of Israel, arriving in May,
1950. My passport had my name in Arabic and English, but the
English couldn't capture the "kh" sound, so it was rendered simply
as Klaski. At the border, the immigration people applied the English
version, which had an Eastern European, Ashkenazi ring to it. In one
way, this "mistake" was my key to discovering very soon just how
the Israeli caste system worked.

They asked me where I wanted to go and what I wanted to do. I
was the son of a farmer; I knew all the problems of the farm, so I
volunteered to go to Dafnah, a farming kibbutz in the high Galilee. I
only lasted a few weeks. The new immigrants were given the worst
of everything. The food was the same, but that was the only thing
that everyone had in common. For the immigrants, bad cigarettes,
even bad toothpaste. Everything. I left.

Then, through the Jewish Agency, I was advised to go to al-Majdal
(later renamed Ashkelon), an Arab town about 9 miles from Gaza,
very close to the Mediterranean. The Israeli government planned to
turn it into a farmers' city, so my farm background would be an
asset there.

When I reported to the Labor Office in al-Majdal, they saw that I
could read and write Arabic and Hebrew and they said that I could
find a good-paying job with the Military Governor's office. The
Arabs were under the authority of these Israeli Military Governors.
A clerk handed me a bunch of forms in Arabic and Hebrew. Now it
dawned on me. Before Israel could establish its farmers' city, it had
to rid al-Majdal of its indigenous Palestinians. The forms were
petitions to the United Nations Inspectors asking for transfer out of
Israel to Gaza, which was under Egyptian control.

I read over the petition. In signing, the Palestinian would be saying
that he was of sound mind and body and was making the request for
transfer free of pressure or duress. Of course, there was no way
that they would leave without being pressured to do so. These
families had been there hundreds of years, as farmers, primitive
artisans, weavers. The Military Governor prohibited them from
pursuing their livelihoods, just penned them up until they lost hope of
resuming their normal lives. That's when they signed to leave.

I was there and heard their grief. "Our hearts are in pain when we
look at the orange trees that we planted with our own hands. Please
let us go, let us give water to those trees. God will not be pleased
with us if we leave His trees untended." I asked the Military
Governor to give them relief, but he said, "No, we want them to
leave."

I could no longer be part of this oppression and I left. Those
Palestinians who didn't sign up for transfers were taken by force-just
put in trucks and dumped in Gaza. About four thousand people
were driven from al-Majdal in one way or another. The few who
remained were collaborators with the Israeli authorities.

Subsequently, I wrote letters trying to get a government job
elsewhere and I got many immediate responses asking me to come
for an interview. Then they would discover that my face didn't match
my Polish/Ashkenazi name. They would ask if I spoke Yiddish or
Polish, and when I said I didn't, they would ask where I came by a
Polish name. Desperate for a good job, I would usually say that I
thought my great-grandfather was from Poland. I was advised time
and again that "we'll give you a call."

Eventually, three to four years after coming to Israel, I changed my
name to Giladi, which is close to the code name, Gilad, that I had in
the Zionist underground. Klaski wasn't doing me any good anyway,
and my Eastern friends were always chiding me about the name they
knew didn't go with my origins as an Iraqi Jew.

I was disillusioned at what I found in the Promised Land,
disillusioned personally, disillusioned at the institutionalized racism,
disillusioned at what I was beginning to learn about Zionism's
cruelties. The principal interest Israel had in Jews from Islamic
countries was as a supply of cheap labor, especially for the farm
work that was beneath the urbanized Eastern European Jews. Ben
Gurion needed the "Oriental" Jews to farm the thousands of acres of
land left by Palestinians who were driven out by Israeli forces in
1948.

And I began to find out
about the barbaric methods
used to rid the fledgling state
of as many Palestinians as
possible. The world recoils
today at the thought of
bacteriological warfare, but
Israel was probably the first
to actually use it in the
Middle East. In the 1948
war, Jewish forces would
empty Arab villages of their
populations, often by threats,
sometimes by just gunning
down a half-dozen unarmed
Arabs as examples to the
rest. To make sure the Arabs
couldn't return to make a
fresh life for themselves in
these villages, the Israelis put
typhus and dysentery
bacteria into the water wells.

Uri Mileshtin, an official
historian for the Israeli
Defense Force, has written
and spoken about the use of
bacteriological agents[1].
According to Mileshtin,
Moshe Dayan, a division
commander at the time, gave
orders in 1948 to remove
Arabs from their villages,
bulldoze their homes, and
render water wells unusable
with typhus and dysentery
bacteria.

Bacteriological
Warfare

The Haganah put
typhus bacteria into
the water going to
Acre, the people got
sick, and the Jewish
forces occupied
Acre. This worked
so well that they
sent a Haganah
division dressed as
Arabs into Gaza,
where there were
Egyptian forces,
and the Egyptians
caught them putting
two cans of
bacteria, typhus and
dysentery, into the
water supply in
wanton disregard of
the civilian
population.

Acre was so situated that it could practically defend itself with one
big gun, so the Haganah put bacteria into the spring that fed the
town. The spring was called Capri and it ran from the north near a
kibbutz. The Haganah put typhus bacteria into the water going to
Acre, the people got sick, and the Jewish forces occupied Acre.
This worked so well that they sent a Haganah division dressed as
Arabs into Gaza, where there were Egyptian forces, and the
Egyptians caught them putting two cans of bacteria, typhus and
dysentery, into the water supply in wanton disregard of the civilian
population. "In war, there is no sentiment," one of the captured
Haganah men was quoted as saying.

MichaelBaron
19-02-2009, 09:25 PM
This is pure rubbish..its just some idiot making a false claim. I would not call it valid source has it ever been proven? Of course not..because it is impossible!

antichrist
20-02-2009, 07:07 PM
This is pure rubbish..its just some idiot making a false claim. I would not call it valid source has it ever been proven? Of course not..because it is impossible!

I have been saying exactly the same thing about Jono's Creationism but that doesn't quiten him, so yours won't quiten me.

I told you there was a court case about it in London about 20 years ago, I will try to find within 2 weeks.

And you can't disprove the above post like I can't disprove God. We will do a deal, you disprove God to Jono and I will let you disprove the above to me.

antichrist
20-02-2009, 07:12 PM
This is pure rubbish..its just some idiot making a false claim. I would not call it valid source has it ever been proven? Of course not..because it is impossible!


In those quotes that anti-Zionist attribute to Zionists, some of which are pretty shocking. I developed a bit of an open mind towards them, then when the Gaza massacre was on, two Zionists parlliamentarians in Israel actually quoted Ben Gurion and another guy exactly the same as what was in the quotes. So even though Zionists had since denied the quotes when the pressure was on they brought the old chestnuts for another lease of life. Thereby confirming their authenicity.

So the above post could very well be true. Don't knock it just because it is strong. Repeat for the 3rd time: there was a court case about it in London.

MichaelBaron
20-02-2009, 10:58 PM
In those quotes that anti-Zionist attribute to Zionists, some of which are pretty shocking. I developed a bit of an open mind towards them, then when the Gaza massacre was on, two Zionists parlliamentarians in Israel actually quoted Ben Gurion and another guy exactly the same as what was in the quotes. So even though Zionists had since denied the quotes when the pressure was on they brought the old chestnuts for another lease of life. Thereby confirming their authenicity.

So the above post could very well be true. Don't knock it just because it is strong. Re
Repeat for the 3rd time: there was a court case about it in London.

Rather than repeat such anti-semitic noncense - show me findings of the courtcase that confirm that Israel is to blame!

antichrist
21-02-2009, 03:42 PM
Rather than repeat such anti-semitic noncense - show me findings of the courtcase that confirm that Israel is to blame!

Until I have the chance to chase up that old computer, look at on history and the chance of probabilities.

In the last few years, Israel have attacked two relatively defenseless countries. And what methods have they used.

Even whilst under the scrutiny of the United Nations, the International Red Cross and other rights organisations they have:

a) used cluster bombs in highly dense parts of Beirut, even making the bombs in the image of toys so that children would pick up the unexploded ones and get killed and maimed. These were even dropped in the thousands of the morning of the afternoon that the ceasefire was to be announced.

b) in the recent Gaza, against under the same scrutiny they used chemical weapons, that being white phosphorus that burns the skin off.

So if Israel will do these Crimes Against Humanity when under close scrutiny then it stands to reason that they would have no qualm about doing the shocking actions in my earlier post about 4 posts up.

Also you claim they only want peace, and even during peace negiotions they are stealing more land in the West Bank - then they claim Arafat walks away - no wonder. Then they complain there is no one to talk to - when Israel has locked up half the elected representatives in their prisons.

They have been extremely deceitful and genocidal for 60 years.

Capablanca-Fan
22-02-2009, 06:38 PM
Islamic radicalization is on the rise (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/muslim-swat-government-2314278-muslims-islamabad)
Mark Steyn
20 Feb 09

From Islamabad, let us zip a world away to London. Among the growing population of Yorkshire Pakistanis is a fellow called Lord Ahmed, a Muslim member of Parliament. He threatened "to bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the House of Lords" if it went ahead with an event at which the Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders would have introduced a screening of his controversial film "Fitna."

Britain's Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, reacted to this by declaring Wilders persona non grata and having him arrested and returned to the Netherlands.

Smith is best known for an inspired change of terminology: last year she announced that henceforth Muslim terrorism (an unhelpful phrase) would be reclassified as "anti-Islamic activity." Seriously. The logic being that Muslims blowing stuff up tends not to do much for Islam's reputation – i.e., it's an "anti-Islamic activity" in the same sense that Pearl Harbor was an anti-Japanese activity.

Anyway, Geert Wilders' short film is a compilation video of footage from recent Muslim terrorist atrocities – whoops, sorry, "anti-Islamic activities" – accompanied by the relevant chapter and verse from the Koran. Jacqui Smith banned the filmmaker on "public order" grounds – in other words, the government's fear that Lord Ahmed meant what he said about a 10,000-strong mob besieging the Palace of Westminster. You might conceivably get the impression from Wilders' movie that many Muslims are irrational and violent types it's best to steer well clear of. But, if you didn't, Jacqui Smith pretty much confirmed it: We can't have chaps saying Muslims are violent, because they'll go smash the place up. So confronted by blackmail, the British government caved.

...

It's not just that there are more Muslims, but that, within that growing population, moderate Islam is on the decline – in Singapore, in the Balkans, in northern England – and radicalized, Arabized, Wahhabized Islam is on the rise. So we have degrees of accommodation: surrender in Islamabad, appeasement in London, acceptance in Toronto and Buffalo.

MichaelBaron
22-02-2009, 10:00 PM
Until I have the chance to chase up that old computer, look at on history and the chance of probabilities.

In the last few years, Israel have attacked two relatively defenseless countries. And what methods have they used.

Even whilst under the scrutiny of the United Nations, the International Red Cross and other rights organisations they have:

a) used cluster bombs in highly dense parts of Beirut, even making the bombs in the image of toys so that children would pick up the unexploded ones and get killed and maimed. These were even dropped in the thousands of the morning of the afternoon that the ceasefire was to be announced.

b) in the recent Gaza, against under the same scrutiny they used chemical weapons, that being white phosphorus that burns the skin off.

So if Israel will do these Crimes Against Humanity when under close scrutiny then it stands to reason that they would have no qualm about doing the shocking actions in my earlier post about 4 posts up.

Also you claim they only want peace, and even during peace negiotions they are stealing more land in the West Bank - then they claim Arafat walks away - no wonder. Then they complain there is no one to talk to - when Israel has locked up half the elected representatives in their prisons.

They have been extremely deceitful and genocidal for 60 years.

1) I asked you for evidence - you failed to provide it. Now let me repeat the question. Where is the proof that Israel ever killed Jews in Iraq? No evidence? Of course not! All your incinuations were untrue!
2) When did Israel attack any peaceful country? Israel's only objective over the years has been self-defence. Would you call responding to agression from Hasbulla and other terrorist organisations that found home in Lebanon an agression?
3) In Gaza Israel was simply responding to Hamas' agression. In fact in my opinion they stopped too early. Should have finished off those bastards!

MichaelBaron
22-02-2009, 10:00 PM
Until I have the chance to chase up that old computer, look at on history and the chance of probabilities.

In the last few years, Israel have attacked two relatively defenseless countries. And what methods have they used.

Even whilst under the scrutiny of the United Nations, the International Red Cross and other rights organisations they have:

a) used cluster bombs in highly dense parts of Beirut, even making the bombs in the image of toys so that children would pick up the unexploded ones and get killed and maimed. These were even dropped in the thousands of the morning of the afternoon that the ceasefire was to be announced.

b) in the recent Gaza, against under the same scrutiny they used chemical weapons, that being white phosphorus that burns the skin off.

So if Israel will do these Crimes Against Humanity when under close scrutiny then it stands to reason that they would have no qualm about doing the shocking actions in my earlier post about 4 posts up.

Also you claim they only want peace, and even during peace negiotions they are stealing more land in the West Bank - then they claim Arafat walks away - no wonder. Then they complain there is no one to talk to - when Israel has locked up half the elected representatives in their prisons.

They have been extremely deceitful and genocidal for 60 years.

1) I asked you for evidence - you failed to provide it. Now let me repeat the question. Where is the proof that Israel ever killed Jews in Iraq? No evidence? Of course not! All your incinuations were untrue!
2) When did Israel attack any peaceful country? Israel's only objective over the years has been self-defence. Would you call responding to agression from Hasbulla and other terrorist organisations that found home in Lebanon an agression?
3) In Gaza Israel was simply responding to Hamas' agression. In fact in my opinion they stopped too early. Should have finished off those bastards!

Capablanca-Fan
23-02-2009, 11:19 AM
3) In Gaza Israel was simply responding to Hamas' agression. In fact in my opinion they stopped too early. Should have finished off those bastards!
Agreed. If the Allies had been that wimpy during WW2, we'd still be fighting imperialist Japanese and German Nazis. But the latest Israeli elections show that Israelis are sick of "land for peace" appeasement by the leftist, which merely give Israel's enemies new rocket launching basis and terrorist training grounds.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 02:07 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/

If I may recommend a site that shows that Israel's intentions have been nothing to do with peace but land grabbing. And was confirmed by an Israeli MP during the invasion invasion when he quoted Ben Gurion in saying that Israel would not draw its final borders in 1948 coz they will try and get more land ( something to that effect).


And the above reference shows this is exactly what happened.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 02:14 PM
1) I asked you for evidence - you failed to provide it. Now let me repeat the question. Where is the proof that Israel ever killed Jews in Iraq? No evidence? Of course not! All your incinuations were untrue!
2) When did Israel attack any peaceful country? Israel's only objective over the years has been self-defence. Would you call responding to agression from Hasbulla and other terrorist organisations that found home in Lebanon an agression?
3) In Gaza Israel was simply responding to Hamas' agression. In fact in my opinion they stopped too early. Should have finished off those bastards!

Well there area certainly claims and counterclaims all with differing degrees of authenticity.

I have met Palestinians on a personal basis, not politicial, and they told me stories similar to that on that site quoted about 6 posts back. That was what happened in their village in their father's time.

And the maps shown in the above reference confirms what has happened.

Whereas the Jewish basis for Palestine is based on a so-called "holy" book that states that the Ancient Israelities committed God-sanctioned genocide against the inhabitants to take control.

So both Jono and Mike, where is your evidence of your God to grant such permission for such genocide and what kind of a god would sanction genocide.

Did the Jews accept Nazi Holocaust coz Hitler had written some "holy" book, Mein Kemph(?) about it? Coz they never it was all rubbish just as the Anceint Hewbrew book about genocide and land grabbing is also rubbish and the Palestinians also don't accept it.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You two have not even tried to prove that a god exists and stated such commands to take other people's land and commit genocide - so get off your arses and try.

antichrist
25-02-2009, 03:33 PM
"They [our Arab Neighbors] in turn have much to give us, they are blessed with what we lack. Great territories, ample for themselves and their children's children, even if they are far more prolific than they are today. We do not covet their expanses nor will we penetrate them - for we shall fight to end Diaspora in Arab lands as fiercely as we fought to end it in Europe, we want to be assembled wholly in our own Land. But if this region is to expand to the full, there must be reciprocity, there can be mutual aid - economic, political and cultural - between Jew and Arab. That is the necessity which will prevail, and the daily fulminations of their leaders should not alarm us unduly - they do not echo the real interests of the Arab peoples. David Ben Gurion, Speech to the elected assembly of Palestinian Jews, October 2, 1947


Well lo and behold Mike, here it is out of Benny's own mouth how they will fight to get the Jews out of Arab lands - seems like to me that anything goes

antichrist
25-02-2009, 03:51 PM
MORE QUOTES...


"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
-- David Ben Gurion, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.


"There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?"
-- Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp. 121-122.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

-- David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978, p. 99.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country."
-- David Ben Gurion, quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

A/C
Land Robbers from day 1

antichrist
25-02-2009, 05:12 PM
And they they want to con the world that they are a peace-loving inclusive nation - doesn't it say in the Bible somewhere - judge a man by his actions not by his words - as if women never said anything
___________________________________-


"In the midst of wanton aggression, we still call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due representation in its bodies and institutions - provisional or permanent.

We offer peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Hebrew nation for the common good of all." Israeli Declaration of Independence, May 14, 1948

And my mate Mike will be their flag-bearer and back them up

MichaelBaron
25-02-2009, 09:52 PM
[QUOTE=antichrist]And they they want to con the world that they are a peace-loving inclusive nation - doesn't it say in the Bible somewhere - judge a man by his actions not by his words - as if women never said anything
___________________________________-


"In the midst of wanton aggression, we still call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due representation in its bodies and institutions - provisional or permanent.

We offer peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Hebrew nation for the common good of all." Israeli Declaration of Independence, May 14, 1948

And my mate Mike will be their flag-bearer and back them up[/QUOTE

Let me repeat a simple question i have raised earlier. While it is possible to for Arabs to live in Israel, can you imagine a Jew living in Palestine? I think this question alone shows that Israel and Palestine can not even be compared to one another. One is a democtratic state. The other one is a barbarian tribe.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-02-2009, 08:53 AM
Let me repeat a simple question i have raised earlier. While it is possible to for Arabs to live in Israel, can you imagine a Jew living in Palestine? I think this question alone shows that Israel and Palestine can not even be compared to one another. One is a democtratic state. The other one is a barbarian tribe.

You won't see an answer, not from A/C at least. Having a meaningful discussion with his is impossible by definition. He will just recycle old garbage.

antichrist
26-02-2009, 09:03 AM
You won't see an answer, not from A/C at least. Having a meaningful discussion with his is impossible by definition. He will just recycle old garbage.

I am busy at job at the moment and will get back to Mike's post later, but I will answer briefly that an Israeli guy loved a Palestinian guy so much that he got special permission to get him Israeli residency, he could not do without his pound of Palestinian flesh. So it is not that they cannot live with the Palestinians, in this case the Israeli could not live without his Palestinian mate.

antichrist
26-02-2009, 09:59 AM
You won't see an answer, not from A/C at least. Having a meaningful discussion with his is impossible by definition. He will just recycle old garbage.

Briefly speaking again Mike is just parroting the far right wing Libermann chap of Israel who wants to expel all the Palestinians from their homeland in current Israel - in contravention of all UN and human rights conventions - worse than the Nazis because this is Palestinian homeland but Germany was not Jewish homeland - that is out back of Iraq somewhere.

But Libermann's position and Mike's is so on the nose that the new Israeli government cannot have Libermann in the government because it would be so on the nose with the rest of the world. I will go into a longer post later when have more time. But summing up it is just more of the Israeli land grab and genocide.

Basil
26-02-2009, 10:05 AM
Briefly speaking again Mike is just parroting the far right wing ...
Peter, I don't think so. From my perspective there seems many many inconsistencies in the behaviour of the two parties. With the original dispute aside, it appears that at least, the vast majority of hostility and brinkmanship starts on the side of the Palestinians. I am of course referring to the Palestinian authorities and and state, as I have no read on the peoples.

antichrist
26-02-2009, 10:27 AM
Peter, I don't think so. From my perspective there seems many many inconsistencies in the behaviour of the two parties. With the original dispute aside, it appears that at least, the vast majority of hostility and brinkmanship starts on the side of the Palestinians. I am of course referring to the Palestinian authorities and and state, as I have no read on the peoples.

But that is only because you Poms gave the now Israeli's Palestinian land. Look at the maps provided via link about 10 posts back. You defended yourselves against the Nazis now Palestinians are trying for the past 60 years to defend themselves against Israeli Nazis - England's horror only lasted 6 years, Palestinian horror has been 60 years. And bloody Rudd celebrated with them on the anniversary.

Basil
26-02-2009, 10:47 AM
But that is only because you Poms gave the now Israeli's Palestinian land. Look at the maps provided via link about 10 posts back. You defended yourselves against the Nazis now Palestinians are trying for the past 60 years to defend themselves against Israeli Nazis - England's horror only lasted 6 years, Palestinian horror has been 60 years. And bloody Rudd celebrated with them on the anniversary.
OK, you're back to the original dispute (the the 1950s anyway). I (and many brokers and commentators since) specifically deny commentary on the rights and wrongs of the original dispute on the grounds that it is fruitless.

Of course you are quite entitled to tie in the original, but I believe your side must be clear in all of its commentary and military engagements with the acknowledgment that those acts are done in the name of the original dispute - and further that all your side's commentary acknowledges that all brokered arrangements since have been trampled on - in the name of the original dispute.

Finally, until such time as you and the Palestinians abandon the original dispute (and you don't have to) then attending and being party to brokered deals are shams that necessarily require your side to break its word down the track (all in the name of the original dispute).

antichrist
26-02-2009, 10:55 AM
OK, you're back to the original dispute (the the 1950s anyway). I (and many brokers and commentators since) specifically deny commentary on the rights and wrongs of the original dispute on the grounds that it is fruitless.

Of course you are quite entitled to tie in the original, but I believe your side must be clear all its commentary and military engagements with the caveat that those acts are done in the name of the original dispute - and further that all your side's commentary acknowledges that all brokered arrangements since have been trampled on - in the name of the original dispute.

Finally, until such time as you and the Palestinians abandon the original dispute (and you don't have to) then attending and being party to brokered deals are shams that necessarily requires your side to break its word down the track (all in the name of the original dispute).

The only time when "my side" has not linkd disputes back to the original was to try and at least get a bit back - but Hamas, the currently elected reps don't recognise Israel at all, and why, to do so would mean accepting the original deal/separation/creation of Israel that whey were not part of.

That is why some parties call for the "destruction" of Israel, not to kil its people, but to give back to the Palestinians what is justly theirs. (not there's like you would have written)

Basil
26-02-2009, 10:57 AM
(not there's like you would have written)
:lol:

MichaelBaron
26-02-2009, 11:15 AM
I am busy at job at the moment and will get back to Mike's post later, but I will answer briefly that an Israeli guy loved a Palestinian guy so much that he got special permission to get him Israeli residency, he could not do without his pound of Palestinian flesh. So it is not that they cannot live with the Palestinians, in this case the Israeli could not live without his Palestinian mate.

Now I see where your anti-Jewish Skitzofrenic ideas come from. your Palestinian mates must have stuck them down your...............brain (or possibly elswhere...but due to this board's sensorship rules i'd rather not suggest where). In any case, it has by now spread to your brain. :(

antichrist
26-02-2009, 03:55 PM
Now I see where your anti-Jewish Skitzofrenic ideas come from. your Palestinian mates must have stuck them down your...............brain (or possibly elswhere...but due to this board's sensorship rules i'd rather not suggest where). In any case, it has by now spread to your brain. :(

I am quoting this classic before it is deleted, will get back later

antichrist
26-02-2009, 04:08 PM
The following maps tell the whole story. The whole conflict has been about a big, unjust, genocidal land grab. For 60 years the whole world has looked on whilst this injustice has taken place. Does reference in a silly holy book authorise genocide 3,000 years ago, and that genocide 3,000 years ago authorise genocide today - because that is Israel's only claim to Palestine. They came from back of Iraq - not Palestine. They were not wanted then and unfortunately are not very welcome now either because of their tactics.


http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/

WHY DID ARAFAT REJECT BARAK'S PEACE PROPOSAL?
Arafat's rejection of the Barak Peace Proposal at Camp David is the single most often cited reason that Israelis believe that Arafat does not truly want peace, that he wants the destruction of Israel and that he "cannot be dealt with." Below is a map of the state of Palestine as it would exist under the Barak plan.
In newspapers, editorials, commentaries and letters to the editor, one constantly hears that "Barak offered Arafat 93% of the land and he rejected it. This is how we know he secretly desires the destruction of Israel."

The question is: WHY did Arafat reject this plan? Perhaps these maps can help you answer this for yourself.

Large contiguous areas which line the border and penetrate deeply into the territory would be defined as "settlement blocks." In essence it would make permanent the many settlements already there and legitimize the building of unlimited new settlements — these would be annexed to become part of Israel proper. All of the border with Jordan and several wide corridors into the territory would be under "indefinite" control of the the Israeli Defense Force and nearly all existing settlements would remain — only a few outlying settlements would be abandoned. This is precisely the plan outlined by Sharon in 1977 to prevent the formation of an economically viable state of Palestine: "facts on the ground."

Under this plan, the state of Palestine would consist of four areas separated by settlement blocks, Israeli security zones and access roads, which would be completely controlled by the IDF as the settlement bypass roads are now (off limits to Palestinians). This means that the "state" of Palestine would be only 60% of the West Banks, only 20% of historical Palestine (as it existed in 1900). In other words: Bantustans.

Barak said 95% of the West Bank — why the difference? He did not include parts of Jerusalem unilaterally annexed by Israel, nor did he include the "security"areas which would be under Israeli control for 20 years but he did include the area of the Dead Sea as part of the West Bank.


http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/beforeandafter7.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/landloss.jpg

"It is not possible to continue holding 3 1/2 million people under occupation," Ariel Sharon told an assembly of enraged lawmakers from his Likud Party. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy." L.A. Times, May 27, 2003
"Is Zionism racism? I would say yes. It's a policy that to me looks like it has very many parallels with apartheid. The effect is the same. Whether you call it that or not is in a sense irrelevant."

antichrist
26-02-2009, 04:50 PM
The telling point of the above maps is that they are provided by Amnesty International the Gush Shalom an Israeli peace group. They are by independent groups, not propaganda groups.

antichrist
26-02-2009, 07:56 PM
Mike, this story co-incides with the post a week ago how Zionists terrorists may have killed Jews in Iraq to force the issue.

THE SS PATRIA.


November 25, 1940. In September, 1940, around 3,000 Jewish refugees from Vienna, Prague and Danzig were attempting to reach Palestine. In a convoy of four river steamers, they set sail down the Danube and reached the Romanian port of Tulcea where they transferred to three Greek cargo ships named Atlantic, Pacific and Milos. Conditions on board these three ships were horrendous, reminiscent of Japanese hell-ships later in the war. Eventually the ships reached Palestinian waters, but the British Colonial Office refused them permission to land. It was finally decided to deport the refugees to the island of Mauritius where a special camp was to be built. The three ships were then brought into Haifa harbour where the liner Patria was berthed. The refugees were then embarked on the Patria and as the last passengers from the Atlantic were coming on board, a tremendous explosion ripped the liner apart. The death toll amounted to 267 refugees killed. The explosion was the work of the Jewish underground army, the Haganah, who had meant only to damage the ship to prevent it sailing but had miscalculated the amount of explosives needed to disable the ship. Many say that this was no miscalculation and was deliberate murder of Jews by Jews, in an attempt to influence British immigration policy to Palestine.

antichrist
26-02-2009, 08:06 PM
Even fair-minded Jews view Israel's actions as mimicing the Nazi action against Jews.


http://attendingtheworld.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/sir-gilad-kaufman-on-jewish-terrorism/


“Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism” Tzipi Livnis Father was a Terrorist”

Astonishing claims in the House of Parliament. SIR Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Labour MP, yesterday compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland.



During a Commons debate on the fighting in Gaza, he urged the government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said:

“My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed.

“My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”


He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants “was the reply of the Nazi” and added: “I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants.”

He accused the Israeli government of seeking “conquest” and added: “

They are not simply war criminals, they are fools.”

antichrist
26-02-2009, 08:21 PM
Mike, another example of Zionists extremists killing peace-loving fair-minded Jews.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9864.shtml

The words "Jewish" and "terrorist" are not easily uttered together by Israelis. But just occasionally, such as last week when one of the country's leading intellectuals was injured by a pipe bomb placed at the front door of his home, they find themselves with little choice.

The target of the attack was 73-year-old Zeev Sternhell, a politics professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem specializing in European fascism and a prominent supporter of the left-wing group Peace Now.

Shortly after the explosion, police found pamphlets nearby offering 1.1 million shekels ($300,000) to anyone assassinating a Peace Now leader. The movement's most visible activity has been tracking and criticizing the growth of the settlements in the West Bank.

Sternhell, whose leg was injured in the blast, warned that this attack might mark the "collapse of democracy" in Israel. He has earned the enmity of the religious far-right by justifying the targeting of settlers by Palestinians in their resistance to occupation.

Earlier in the year the professor was awarded the Israel Prize for political science. The settlers' own news agency, Arutz Sheva, ran a story at the time headlined "Israel Prize to go to Pro-Terror, Pro-Civil War Prof."

The shock provoked in Israel by the bombing partly reflected the rarity of such attacks. Most Israelis regard the use of violence by Jews against other Jews as entirely illegitimate, which partly explains the kid-glove approach generally adopted by the security forces when dealing with the settlers.

There are a handful of precedents, however, for these kind of attacks. In 1983, Emil Grunzweig was killed when a right-winger hurled a hand grenade into a crowd of Peace Now activists marching against Israel's invasion of Lebanon. And 12 years later Israelis were left reeling when a religious settler, Yigal Amir, shot dead their prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

Violence directed at the Jewish Left typically peaks during periods when the religious far-right believes a deal with the Palestinians may be close at hand. Rabin paid the price for his signing of the Oslo accords. Equally, Sternhell appears to be the address for settler grievances over the government's ongoing talks with the Palestinians over a partial Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

Certainly, the mood among the religious settlers has grown darker since the disengagement from Gaza three years ago. A significant number subscribe to the belief that, in betraying what they perceive to be the Jewish people's Biblical birthright to Palestinian territory, the government proved itself unworthy of their loyalty. Others believe that the settlers themselves failed a divine test in not facing down the government and army.

Either way, many far-right settlers are turning their backs on those secular laws that clash with their own convictions. One Israeli observer has noted that these settlers no longer see their chief loyalty to the state of Israel but to the Land of Israel, a land promised by God not politicians.

The pamphlet found near Sternhell's home, signed by a group called the "Army of Liberators," read: "The State of Israel has become our enemy."

antichrist
26-02-2009, 08:53 PM
I implore CC members to access this link and sign the petition to Israel to free these prisoners of conscious, locked up in Israeli jails. THanks


http://december18th.org/

FREE THE SHMINISTIM – ISRAEL'S YOUNG CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS. The Shministim are Israeli high school students who have been imprisoned for refusing to serve in an army that occupies the Palestinian Territories. December 18 marks the launch date of a global campaign to release them from jail. Join over 20,000 people including American conscientious objectors,Ronnie Gilbert, Adrienne Rich, Robert Meeropol, Adam Hochschild, Rabbi Lynn Gottleib, Howard Zinn, Rela Mazali, Debra Chasnoff, Ed Asner and Aurora Levins-Morales and show your support by contacting the Israeli Minister of Defense using the form below. 40,000 LETTERS AND COUNTING!



Name: Omer Goldman
Age: 19
Location: Tel-Aviv
Why I am one of the Shministim:
“I believe in service to the society I am part of, and that is precisely why I refuse to take part in the war crimes committed by my country. Violence will not bring any kind of solution, and I shall not commit violence, come what may.”
First Sentence: 22nd Sept. - 10th Oct. 2008 (18 days)
Second Sentence: 12th - 24th Oct. 2008 (10 days)

Udi Nir
Name: Udi Nir
Age: 19
Location: Tel-Aviv
Why I am one of the Shministim:
“I will not lend my own hand to the occupation and to acts that contradict my most basic values: human rights, democracy and the personal responsibility each and every human being bears towards fellow human beings.”
Sentence: Aug. 21st - Sept. 7th 2008 (18 days)

Udi Nir was the first conscientious objector to be imprisoned among the 2008 Shministim. He was called up to enlist in the Israeli Military on 18, August, but planned to delay his imprisonment (technically - by going AWOL) to join other signatories of the letter in protest. This intention, however, was noted by the press as to raise the profile of the Shministim Udi had appeared on TV and in a newspaper article. This resulted in what was arguably the quickest operation of its sort in Israel’s history. On 19 August, one day after the date he was meant to enlist at the Induction Base, Udi was arrested by civilian police (itself an unprecedented move), and was subsequently given a conditional sentence of 6 days in prison. The following day he was again tried, this time for refusing an order to enlist, and was sentenced again.

In his refusal declaration Udi wrote:

“I cannot take part in the activities of an occupying army, which constantly violates human rights. As an Israeli citizen and as an adolescent liable for enlistment I feel a sense of extensive responsibility for the cycle of violence and for all the choices I am making. It is out of this sense of responsibility that I refuse to enter the cycle of bloodshed and to add fuel to the fire of hatred raging here. I refuse to enlist into an occupying army so that I will not lend my own hand to the occupation and to acts that contradict my most basic values: human rights, democracy and the personal responsibility each and every human being bears towards fellow human beings.”

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________

Full Declaration of Refusal:


A few months ago I met a few Palestinian youths, face to face, for the first time. As a person who has been long engaged in study of and active resistance to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories and as an activist devoted to preventing human rights violations in the world in general, I did not expect to hear anything that would be unknown or surprising at that meeting.

Indeed, the stories I have heard from those youths about the Israeli military’s activities in the areas administered by the Palestinian Authority, as horrifying as they were, did not surprise me at all. But the look in the eyes of one Palestinian girl, as she was telling these painful stories, touched me and brought up feelings I had not experienced before.

The Israeli-Palestinian cycle of bloodshed I know well, and even though I do not have any suggestion for adequately resolving this violent and bloody conflict, I feel deeply responsible for the part I should or should not be taking in it.

At home and in school I was brought up on the values of freedom, equality, human rights and care for others. Today, these are the values that are most important to me, values that guide me in my decisions to react to various possible scenarios; values in light of which I act in a way a perceive to be moral and right.

Time and time again I find myself bewildered by the fact that the same education system, which has taught me these values early on, preaches me today to enlist into the army that brutally breaches in countless ways each and every one of the values I have mentioned.

I consider it immoral to deny millions of people of the right to free movement. It is immoral to “liquidate” people and to kill men, women and children who happened to be at the same place and time. It is immoral to keep people intolerably long hour at checkpoints in inhuman conditions. It is immoral to collectively punish many for the crimes of few. All these actions are immoral even if they were part of a “war of no choice”, even if these actions are intended to ensure my own security here in the centre of Israel, and that of millions of American citizens and of the citizens of various countries in Europe.

The claim has often been made that sometimes one has to injure innocent people on the other side to save the lives of people on your own. But is such an approach wise? For even if you have stopped one person who endangers you for any innocent person you have injured along the way - you have created a thousand new enemies to endanger you tomorrow because of their growing frustration and desire for revenge or liberation.

I believe this worldview to be valid for any place and time. I am trying to struggle against any violation of human rights, whether it happens in the society I am part of and in the state I am a citizen of, or if it takes place anywhere else on the globe and injures people I have no direct contact with.

Had we taken the resources invested in warfare, occupation and other actions violating human rights, and diverted them to the cause of finding a solution for the problematic situation, we might have discovered a solution for the conflicts, or we might have at least minimised the damage caused by them.

Some raise the option of serving in a non-combatant role in the military, without taking part directly in the fighting. I view this suggestion as a meagre evasion of responsibility. I shall not cooperate with a system that performs so many illegal, vile and horrible actions; I shall not cooperate with it as a combatant, and neither shall I cooperate with it as a junior clerk. The hangman and the one who constructed the gallows share equal responsibility.

My personal moral responsibility, which I have already mentioned, is far deeper and broader than my specific political views or of my perceptions of the repeated errors committed by the Israelis, or of the equally damaging errors committed by the Palestinians. This responsibility I bear because I am human, and it holds in my relations with any other human being. I therefore refuse to take part in immoral violent actions, whether ordered to do so or not.

Some values stand above law and democracy. Freedom and equality are the supreme values, and law and democracy are there to uphold them, not the other way around.

Human rights are violated all over the world under the pretext of the War against Terror. A conspicuous example is the arrest and interrogation, performed by the CIA against citizens of its own country and of others. Many people, often innocent, are secretly kidnapped, removed from their dear ones, and are incarcerated for extended periods of time in facilities such as the one in Guantanamo Bay. And while activities of this sort may perhaps prevent some terrorist acts and save lives in the short term, they only deepen hatred, violence and vindictiveness in all the parties involved, and legitimise illegal actions - because they are themselves flagrantly illegal and immoral. Such activity may be thought to be life-saving, but in fact, in the long term, it only expands the circle of bloodshed and the extent of violence and toll in human lives.

This responsibility I have mentioned has been ingrained in me for many years now, but the eyes of that young Palestinian woman I met a few months ago, and the quiet talk we had, reminded me that on the other side of the Separation Wall there is not only a great and divided nation we are in conflict with for many years. There are also youths my age there, who are also tired of the violence and the bloodshed, who live in constant fear and insecurity.

Violence in our region is more rampant than ever and closer than ever to our reach. Those Palestinian youths and I fact the same choice: will we take part in this violence, or will we take any legitimate course of action to prevent it?

Out of my firm and strong belief that not circumstances or values, in any conflict around the globe, are superior to the importance of human rights and the duty to protect them and prevent their violation, I hereby refuse to take part in the cycle of bloodshed and to cooperate with the system that partakes in it. I shall not serve in the Israeli Defence Forces under any conditions or circumstances.





and there are many more at the abovementioned website

As I have previously stated that some Jews are amongst the best people of the world.

antichrist
27-02-2009, 09:02 AM
If some Zionists have the right to say that Palestinians don't belong in Israel, than Nazis also have the right to say that Jews don't belong in Germany. And we have all seen the ramifications of that thinking.

One could say that the Palestinian had more right to Palestine than the Jews had in Germany.

And also if some Zionists can say that Palestinians have no right to be in Israel, then the Canaanites had the right to say that the ancient Israelites had no right to Palestine (or Canaan). This being the case it denies all Zionist claims to present Israel/Palestine.

MichaelBaron
27-02-2009, 02:00 PM
When will you stop posting anti-semitic rubbish and start sticking to reliable sources? show me reports by major newsagencies etc rather than some junky websites.

antichrist
27-02-2009, 02:18 PM
When will you stop posting anti-semitic rubbish and start sticking to reliable sources? show me reports by major newsagencies etc rather than some junky websites.

Come off it, one source was Amnesty International and the Jewish Peace Group. By the way I happen to be a member of that Peace Group so be careful what you say about its authenticity.

And my post immediately above did not refer to any sites, pure logic.

And you are disputing that dec18 site, I have heard about that group ages ago, and you are saying that they are made up. You are just in denial mode -the facade is over mate - the world is waking up. Time for you too as well.

WE all remember that British Jewish MP who spilt the beans, saying that Israel was acting Nazi-like, are you denying that story, we seen it on TV. ARe you accusing him of being anti-Semitic??? Booishly accusing people does not rub anymore.

MichaelBaron
27-02-2009, 10:02 PM
As always AC is finding something shizofrenic to post :doh: . "Jews for Peace" is just a name of a group. it has nothing to do with a genuine Jewish movement. Repeating my point for the last time. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT ISRAEL EVER TRIED TO DESTROY ANY JEWISH GROUPS. FULL STOP! END OF DISCUSSION UNLESS SUCH EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED.
N.B. Some idiot or group of idiots posting something on a website is not regarded as valid evidence!

antichrist
27-02-2009, 11:42 PM
As always AC is finding something shizofrenic to post :doh: . "Jews for Peace" is just a name of a group. it has nothing to do with a genuine Jewish movement. Repeating my point for the last time. THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE THAT ISRAEL EVER TRIED TO DESTROY ANY JEWISH GROUPS. FULL STOP! END OF DISCUSSION UNLESS SUCH EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED.
N.B. Some idiot or group of idiots posting something on a website is not regarded as valid evidence!

But we all remember when Zionist extremists asassinated Yitshak Rabin who was trying to make peace - that was why they asassinated him. So Jews do kill Jews for the sake of expanding Zionism - as I have been saying all along.

So you have become a Denier, just like those Jewish Holocaust Deniers, now you should be able to understand them perfectly[/SIZE][/B]

That peace group I found them because they interviewed the founder on television for about an hour on SBS - he was a war hero going back to '67 or sometime. EVeryone knows that there are many Jewish civil rights groups in Israel trying to protect the Palestinians from Zionist excesses. The IDF has shot and kiled overseas peaceniks trying to protect the Palestinians. They are making a movie about one of them.

I saw Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist, being interviewed on SBS. He listed about 8 crimes against humanity that Israel was committing and said that there were many more as well. It has nothing to do with websites.

End of discussion coz you have badly lost the debate - that is the only reason why - you can't put a facade around war crimes etc. - the UN is carrying out investigations into chemical warfare committed against Lebanon and Gaza.

Capablanca-Fan
28-02-2009, 02:03 PM
But we all remember when Zionist extremists asassinated Yitshak Rabin who was trying to make peace - that was why they asassinated him. So Jews do kill Jews for the sake of expanding Zionism - as I have been saying all along.
A lone wolf almost universally condemned. OTOH Hamas which regularly kills and tortures Fatah members is widely supported. And of course, Jewish suidice bombers are virtually non-existent.


I saw Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist, being interviewed on SBS. He listed about 8 crimes against humanity that Israel was committing and said that there were many more as well. It has nothing to do with websites.
Of course, the Israel government and Hamas have this in common: both permit criticism of the Israel government and praise for Hamas.

antichrist
28-02-2009, 03:08 PM
A lone wolf almost universally condemned. OTOH Hamas which regularly kills and tortures Fatah members is widely supported. And of course, Jewish suidice bombers are virtually non-existent.


Of course, the Israel government and Hamas have this in common: both permit criticism of the Israel government and praise for Hamas.

Jewish bombers are virtually non-existent coz they the heavy artillary and just blow the place up to smithereens - whilst killing thousands of children.

People pull me up in the street to tell me how they have research the M/E issue and that was the Jews who started the terrorism (Stern Gangs etc). And the Zionists weren't in Zionist concentration camps for 60 years like the Palestinians have been to turn them to terrorism.

My Lebo mate has a Israeli wife - and they agree that if you tie a dog to a chain and kick it that it will bite you - and that is exactly what has happened to the Palestinians.

Hamas kills Fatah members coz they accuse Fatah members of telling Israel tortureous interregators their (Hamas) positions whilst being tortured in Israeli jails. Then Hamas gets bombed. The Israel was not created the whole Middle East mentality would have been different.

I have read a few places how Israel helped Hamas in its early stages to cause a split in Fatah.

Now Jono, I would not mind you commenting on those maps http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/ that show all the land stolen from the Palestinians over the past 70 years. There source is Amnesty and an Israeli peace group remember. And that peace group was started by an Israeli war hero whom I seen on TV - so it is not a fake - you research that group yourself - don't rely on Mike's word. Jesus died on the cross for the truth so you search for it.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-02-2009, 04:09 PM
Jewish bombers are virtually non-existent coz they the heavy artillary and just blow the place up to smithereens - whilst killing thousands of children.
This is a lie.


People pull me up in the street
Really?


to tell me how they have research the M/E issue and that was the Jews who started the terrorism (Stern Gangs etc).
Really? Researched?


And the Zionists weren't in Zionist concentration camps for 60 years like the Palestinians have been to turn them to terrorism.

Another blatant and deliberate lie.
Millions of Jews were killed in concentration camps by Nazis (which was and still is applauded in the Arab world.)
There are no "Zionist concentration camps". There are Palestinian "refugee camps" run by Palestinians. Israel did not force anyone to live there. Hamas, Fatah and other Arab (and non Arab like UN) organisations force and encourage people to live there.



Hamas kills Fatah members coz they accuse Fatah members of telling Israel tortureous interregators their (Hamas) positions whilst being tortured in Israeli jails. Then Hamas gets bombed.

Another lie.



The Israel was not created the whole Middle East mentality would have been different.
Not much. Millions of Arabs would be poorer, they would kill more of each other and they would not have Israel to blame.



Now Jono, I would not mind you commenting on those maps http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/ that show all the land stolen from the Palestinians over the past 70 years.

Yet one more blatant lie.

Lie is a deliberate stating of something that is not true with knowledge that it is not true.
A/C is constantly lying, as it was shown to him many times that his claim have no basis.

antichrist
28-02-2009, 05:18 PM
This is a lie.


Really?


Really? Researched?


Another blatant and deliberate lie.
Millions of Jews were killed in concentration camps by Nazis (which was and still is applauded in the Arab world.)
There are no "Zionist concentration camps". There are Palestinian "refugee camps" run by Palestinians. Israel did not force anyone to live there. Hamas, Fatah and other Arab (and non Arab like UN) organisations force and encourage people to live there.


Another lie.



Not much. Millions of Arabs would be poorer, they would kill more of each other and they would not have Israel to blame.



Yet one more blatant lie.

Lie is a deliberate stating of something that is not true with knowledge that it is not true.
A/C is constantly lying, as it was shown to him many times that his claim have no basis.


So it seems that the Zionists are perfect and the Palestinians and Arabs cannot do nothing right - even though those Amnesty International and Jewish peace groups maps http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/ show all the land that the Palestinians have been dispossessed of.

Blimey, is is certainly difficult to get sympathy if you are a Arab.

That top fellow Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, stated on live interview that the whole Gaza Strip was an Israeli concentration camp. This is your own people sayng it. Good and fair people not extremists who believe they are the chosen people of a god that they can't prove exists or what it may have said.

The current genocidal policies against Palestinians are justified by a genocide carried out 3,000 years ago - and you expect people to accept this rot.

You would not by any chance consider yourselves superior or elitist or the chosen people would you?

You come from back of Iraq not Palestine - get your grubby hands off the place.

Capablanca-Fan
28-02-2009, 09:58 PM
So it seems that the Zionists are perfect and the Palestinians and Arabs cannot do nothing right —
Well, as Abba Eban said, they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


even though those Amnesty International and Jewish peace groups maps show all the land that the Palestinians have been dispossessed of.
Who are the "Palestinians"? There was never any Palestinian Arab nation; they were part of the Ottoman Empire. AI has long departed from its noble beginnings as a human rights group to become a leftist front organization.

BTW, Arafat, the disciple of Hitler's Mufti al-Husseini, was born in Egypt!


Blimey, is is certainly difficult to get sympathy if you are a Arab.
No, just difficult to get sympathy if you're a murderer of Israeli schoolkids on buses, or a torturer of fellow Arabs, or forcing fellow Arabs to live in squalor in refugee camps when there are huge tracts of land and vast amounts of oil money to resettle them. Israel settles Jews the Arab countries expelled, and on a tiny strip of land far smaller than Tassie.


The current genocidal policies against Palestinians
Of course, A/C hasn't the slightest proof of any attempt to wipe out the Palestinian "race", mainly because there is none. But plenty of Arabs love Hitler and want to finish what he started.


are justified by a genocide carried out 3,000 years ago - and you expect people to accept this rot.
You're the one who keeps bringing up the past.

antichrist
28-02-2009, 10:02 PM
You're the one who keeps bringing up the past.

Of course coz the only claim that I hear from people and from Mike is that God gave Palestine to them.

And what does their holy book say about - that God sanctioned their committing genocide against the Canaanites, he even made the sun stand still so they could finish the job - well Jesus Christ you expect the Palestinians to cop this Bulldust.

Prove their God and their holy book before any authority can be gotten from that source.

Mike stated about God so he has to live with it.

AS if a genocide 3,000 years ago can authorise a genocide today - coz that is what some right wing extremists want.

Mike has called Palestinians barbarians and other non-human terms - how far along the road to a Israeli Aushwitz are these people going

MichaelBaron
02-03-2009, 02:09 PM
Of course coz the only claim that I hear from people and from Mike is that God gave Palestine to them.

And what does their holy book say about - that God sanctioned their committing genocide against the Canaanites, he even made the sun stand still so they could finish the job - well Jesus Christ you expect the Palestinians to cop this Bulldust.

Prove their God and their holy book before any authority can be gotten from that source.

Mike stated about God so he has to live with it.

AS if a genocide 3,000 years ago can authorise a genocide today - coz that is what some right wing extremists want.

Mike has called Palestinians barbarians and other non-human terms - how far along the road to a Israeli Aushwitz are these people going

1) While I do not follow any religion - I do believe there must be God out there. It is my right to believe in God! I am happy to live with it!
2) Regarding Palestinians being called barbarians. I was not referring to Palestinians as a nation, I was referring to the terrorist groups that run Palestine. And I do stand by my words!
3) I never said that God gave Palestine to Jews or vise-versa - this is your imagination!

Igor_Goldenberg
02-03-2009, 02:35 PM
I don't mind If A/C posts incoherent garbage. However it would be preferable if A/C did it in some designated thread, so other people can have a meaningful discussion.

If someone thinks that I try to avoid discussion with A/C, that's true. Here is the explanation why:
Three years ago I had a lengthy argument here on Chesschat with A/C. After all his lies were thoroughly deconstructed and refuted, he just kept spewing the same garbage. Therefore I see no point in further discussion. Same happens now.
However, if someone thinks that A/C has a valid point, do not hesitate to bring it up for a discussion.

antichrist
02-03-2009, 04:05 PM
1) While I do not follow any religion - I do believe there must be God out there. It is my right to believe in God! I am happy to live with it!
2) Regarding Palestinians being called barbarians. I was not referring to Palestinians as a nation, I was referring to the terrorist groups that run Palestine. And I do stand by my words!
3) I never said that God gave Palestine to Jews or vise-versa - this is your imagination!


I have found where Jono has admitted God sanctioned genocide, I am still searching:


Quote:
Originally Posted by antichrist
The Old Testament if full of terrorism by the Ancient Jews or whatever they were called, their god even condoned genocide to rob land,

Jono
God made the land; He can give it to whoever He wishes. And the people wiped out practised child sacrifice and other atrocities, and were given centuries of warning. Read this and stop your whinging about ancient history.

Good Question...

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

How could a God of Love order the massacre/annihilation of the Canaanites?

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

On those very rare occasions when God displays His judgment within human history, it is very sobering and one which we find genuinely disturbing--it reminds us that "ethics" is not just another branch of philosophy!
And even though each recorded case--regardless of scale--SHOULD 'trouble us', the case of God's alleged ordering the Israelites to annihilate the Canaanites has always been particularly disturbing to our 'status quo' of sensibilities. So, I frequently get a letter like this:

The entire concept of a God of justice and mercy ordering the slaughter of thousands of people (many patently innocent) on many occasions I find abhorrent.

This is an issue I have always had profound trouble with and one I suspended judgment on when I began to believe. Lately, though, it has started haunting me again, and I have been searching and praying for an answer or insight. The responses to this problem I have seen so far (God did them a favor, they were like cancer, or God's justice is beyond ours) seem to me to be lame or inappropriate.

Or, in a less conciliatory tone--

The Old Testament paints a picture of a God who is extremely bellicose, giving repeated instructions to "his people" to exterminate other nations, (because he is giving them their "promised land"), and giving them practical assistance on the battlefield. It is easy to believe that such writings could be the attempted self-justification of a territorially minded people, who excuse their aggression and genocide against other nations as "divine instructions". It is almost impossible to believe that such writings are an accurate description of a God who has infinite love for people of all races.

And finally, a more pointed accusation:

"Is the God of the OT merely sanctioning genocide (nay commanding it)?... isn't this "god" merely an invention for the Jews' own political land-gaining ends? .................................................. ..........................................

So, let's look at the passages involved:

When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations -- the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut 7.1-5)

However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2009, 02:20 PM
AC is an obsessive misotheist. Most of the pro-Israeli arguments have not mentioned God or the Bible. Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel certainly does not, because Dershowitz is a leftist atheist himself!

Fact is, Jews have had a presence in the land throughout. There has never been a Palestinian Arab nation. Jews acquired land by fair purchase when it was worthless, and by hard work and ingenuity turned malaria-infested swamps and sandy deserts into productive lands. When the British took over the land from the Ottoman Empire, they split the former Palestinian Mandate into 1/4 Jewish (Israel) and 3/4 Arab (Transjordan then Jordan).

Jews were expelled from the Arab lands, while Israel invited Arabs to stay; but the Arab enemies of the new state of Israel encouraged them to leave, promising them that they would get their lands back after the Jews were pushed into the sea. Other Arab residents fled simply because it was a war zone. Now these people and their descendants are kept in squalor to be used as pawns.

antichrist
03-03-2009, 09:20 PM
AC is an obsessive misotheist. Most of the pro-Israeli arguments have not mentioned God or the Bible. Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel certainly does not, because Dershowitz is a leftist atheist himself!

Fact is, Jews have had a presence in the land throughout. There has never been a Palestinian Arab nation. Jews acquired land by fair purchase when it was worthless, and by hard work and ingenuity turned malaria-infested swamps and sandy deserts into productive lands. When the British took over the land from the Ottoman Empire, they split the former Palestinian Mandate into 1/4 Jewish (Israel) and 3/4 Arab (Transjordan then Jordan).

Jews were expelled from the Arab lands, while Israel invited Arabs to stay; but the Arab enemies of the new state of Israel encouraged them to leave, promising them that they would get their lands back after the Jews were pushed into the sea. Other Arab residents fled simply because it was a war zone. Now these people and their descendants are kept in squalor to be used as pawns.

there are countless websites (as you usually quote) and books that oppose this biased view.

You said that most pro-Israeli arguments don't mention God or the Bible. But that is the exact argument that you brought up in attempting to justify their occupation. Now that I have shown that via their own Holy Book that they used genocide (your reference I also used) you want to say "Oh that is not important now".

The extreme certainly believe and act like that Palestine is God-given and only they should live there. Well it is a funny of inviting Arabs to stay when the state of Israel is declared a Jewish state. And they have a horde of privileges and protections that the Arabs don't. As second class citizens maybe they stay and lick the Zionists boots. That is the receivers of stolen property boots.

WE can talk as much as we like but the fact remains as shown here, http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/ that Zionists have never stopped stealing land since 1947, using terrorist means and state terrorism.

Terorism and everything that came afterwards from the Palestinians is just normal reaction from people who, as Israeli journalist Gideon Levy states, are living in the concentration camps of the WEst Bank and Gaza STrip.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2009, 12:48 AM
You said that most pro-Israeli arguments don't mention God or the Bible.
Which is true of most of my arguments here, as well as those of IG and MB. Most Israelis are secular.


But that is the exact argument that you brought up in attempting to justify their occupation.
What are you on about? You're the one obsessing about it.


Now that I have shown that via their own Holy Book that they used genocide (your reference I also used) you want to say "Oh that is not important now".
It isn't. Stop living in the past. Australia and Turkey are good friends now despite Gallipoli only 90 years ago.

Today's Palestinian Arabs are not related to the ancient Canaanites, who deserved what they got (child sacrifice, persecution of the Israelites for centuries, refusal to repent).


The extreme certainly believe and act like that Palestine is God-given and only they should live there.
The Arabs received 3/4 of Palestine.


WE can talk as much as we like but the fact remains as shown here, http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos/ that Zionists have never stopped stealing land since 1947, using terrorist means and state terrorism.
Crap; they have been on the defensive against armies trying to wipe them out. The Israelis were right to take the land that was being used to launch attacks on them. Otherwise their land was so narrow it was indefensible.


Terorism and everything that came afterwards from the Palestinians is just normal reaction from people who,
Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? Jews don't blow up German school buses.


as Israeli journalist Gideon Levy states, are living in the concentration camps of the WEst Bank and Gaza STrip.
They are kept there by Arab politicians, who have ample land and money to resettle them. They were the ones who asked them to move out of leave Israel in the first place, so they owe them that much.

MichaelBaron
04-03-2009, 03:11 PM
I found AC's postings cofusing. I response to my post (that he quotes) he argues with Jono....None of the points raised by me were addressed. Therefore, it is clear that AC has nothing to say in response

antichrist
06-03-2009, 08:40 PM
as I was saying it is not necessary to argue every point so I desist. Just look at those maps that you accuse being of left wing bias - that is Amnesty International and that Israeli peace group.

About 2 weeks Israel announced that it will build about 2,000 more homes in the West Bank. Well those maps show dozens of such illegal settlements already. I know, and newspapers will prove, that there have been dozens of similar announcements since Israel illegally occupied them and colonised them. So those maps seem true and plausible.

Do you accept that Israel have paid settlers large amounts to build illegally?

Are you still disputing those maps?

Do you need to put your finger in JC's wound to convince yourself?

Coz if those maps are correct then you agree with the world (except US & Israel) that there has been a terrible great injustice done to Palestinians for decades - war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And about Palestinians - considering that those occupied territorries are still Palestinian land - Palestinians are legally allowed to bomb their own land.

antichrist
08-03-2009, 03:59 PM
Mike and Igor, can I claim victory?

MichaelBaron
09-03-2009, 01:14 PM
Mike and Igor, can I claim victory?

You can only claim that you are a bum with a lot of time to spend on chesschat, i was busy with work, now back

MichaelBaron
09-03-2009, 01:17 PM
as I was saying it is not necessary to argue every point so I desist. Just look at those maps that you accuse being of left wing bias - that is Amnesty International and that Israeli peace group.

About 2 weeks Israel announced that it will build about 2,000 more homes in the West Bank. Well those maps show dozens of such illegal settlements already. I know, and newspapers will prove, that there have been dozens of similar announcements since Israel illegally occupied them and colonised them. So those maps seem true and plausible.

Do you accept that Israel have paid settlers large amounts to build illegally?

Are you still disputing those maps?

Do you need to put your finger in JC's wound to convince yourself?

Coz if those maps are correct then you agree with the world (except US & Israel) that there has been a terrible great injustice done to Palestinians for decades - war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And about Palestinians - considering that those occupied territorries are still Palestinian land - Palestinians are legally allowed to bomb their own land.

First of all, Israel did not support illegal activities at any point!
And what do palestinians want their land for? missile bases?

No injustice has been done towards Palestinians by anyone other than Palestinians themselves. There have been billions of dollars given to Palestinians over the years in aid,and where did the money go? A small state lik this could easilty become prosperous given the amount of aid would the money not be stolen/used in appropriately

Capablanca-Fan
09-03-2009, 01:42 PM
No injustice has been done towards Palestinians by anyone other than Palestinians themselves.
Yes, as Abba Eban said, they never miss and opportunity to miss an opportunity.


There have been billions of dollars given to Palestinians over the years in aid,and where did the money go? A small state lik this could easilty become prosperous given the amount of aid would the money not be stolen/used in appropriately
And Commissar Obamov wants to give Hamas (Hebrew for "violence") 900 million more in aid. Not surprising, since the "church" he attended for 20 years regularly printed propaganda for this terrorist Jew-hating group.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-03-2009, 01:11 PM
Mike and Igor, can I claim victory?

You can claim whatever you like. As I said before, I am not going to debate with someone who is:
1. Cannot comprehend simple things.
2. Constantly and deliberately lying
3. Recycles fairytales that were refuted (without providing any supporting evidence or reasons).

If someone sane on this forum find anything of value in A/C posts (which I doubt) and brings it up for discussion, I'll be happy to debate (with that sane person).

I'll be happy if there is a thread for discussing issues that is not polluted by A/C rubbish. Possible suggestion to mods:
Have two threads on Israel, one where A/C can spew his garbage, and one which free that garbage. That would allow to address serious arguments.

antichrist
11-03-2009, 04:35 PM
You all want to debate seriously - well the whole issue is all about those settlements that have been robbed by Palestinians by Israel. The maps provided here tell it all. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/canthos

The whole world knows the illegal robbery that has taken place except Mike and Igor.

The whole world knows that crimes against humanity have taken place except Mike and Igor.

The whole world knows that war crimes have taken place except Mike and Igor.

I have provided Israeli sites of Israeli soldiers going to prison rather than participate in war crimes? It means nothing to you.

I have provided details of Dateline of Gideon Levy, Israeli journalist, stating that all of Gaza is a giant concentration camp, citing about ten international laws being broken - but Mike and Igor cannot see.

Israel has evolved into an apartheidt, racist criminal state - but Mike and Igor cannot see that.

I don't believe that you two are sufficently unintelligent to know what is going on -so frankly do you agree with Israeli's Nazi policies?

If

ER
11-03-2009, 07:44 PM
You can claim whatever you like. As I said before, I am not going to debate with someone who is:
1. Cannot comprehend simple things.
2. Constantly and deliberately lying
3. Recycles fairytales that were refuted (without providing any supporting evidence or reasons). ....


Igor and Michael
You must have realised by now that most of the stuff he posts here is based
a) upon his ignorance and
b) upon his urge to blame on the Jewish people and Israel the crimes Arab countries (including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria) have committed against the Palestinians. It is a well known coward's way out!
The fool really believes that he can stir people and that he has an audience! You must have noticed by now that none takes him seriously and whatever reaction he gets is one of rejection and contempt.
My approach to his posting is to laugh out loud with his scatological nonsense and occasionally pull his leg so he goes bonkers :evil: and becomes even more laughable! :D

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2009, 10:57 PM
Possible suggestion to mods:
Have two threads on Israel, one where A/C can spew his garbage, and one which free that garbage. That would allow to address serious arguments.

You can always just address the serious arguments as they come up and either put A/C on ignore or skip over his posts.

antichrist
13-03-2009, 02:06 PM
Well lo and behold.

Decent Jews in this country see the Palestinian/Israeli not much different than myself. Groups such as Jews Against the Occupation, Independent Australian Jewish Voices and the Co-alition for Justice and Peace in Palestine are completely against what Israel is doing in Palestine.

And what happens when they want to bring someone out to speak on the issue - Israeli Professor Jeffrey Halper from the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitons - the leading Jewish publication, The Australian Jewish News bans their ads.

That is censorship if the views don't co-incide with right wing Israeli opinion. How un-Australian the whole charade.

The abovementioned groups stand on the side of decency not bigotry and robbery and genocide. And because they are Israelis and Jews saying such about their own people they are amongst the best people in the world. There is a common phrase I hear and even say - the best anti-Zionists are Jews.

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2009, 02:49 PM
What's new? In Israel, groups have always been free to criticise the government. Palestinian Arabs critics of Hamas are shot in the leg or brutally murdered. It just reinforces that fact that Israel is the only free country in the Middle East.

Igor_Goldenberg
13-03-2009, 03:25 PM
My approach to his posting is to laugh out loud with his scatological nonsense
I am even past laughing stage as it gets pretty boring. Unfortunately it distracts from could be a serious discussion.

You can always just address the serious arguments as they come up and either put A/C on ignore or skip over his posts.
Whatever serious arguments A/C can put on were addressed many times (three years ago at considerable length).
If you find any serious arguments in his posting, bring it on under your name, they'll be addressed. I can't be bothered going through the lengthy crap he spills out.

Kevin Bonham
13-03-2009, 07:34 PM
Whatever serious arguments A/C can put on were addressed many times (three years ago at considerable length).
If you find any serious arguments in his posting, bring it on under your name, they'll be addressed. I can't be bothered going through the lengthy crap he spills out.

I wasn't saying that AC himself produces any serious arguments.

Actually at the moment the Palestinian side appears to be a bit short of serious defenders on this board (AC being at best useless) so if there was such a thread without AC it might not see a lot of action.

Mokum
14-03-2009, 03:44 PM
Hamas (Hebrew for "violence")
Hamas is obviously not a Hebrew word. Hamas is an acronym of the Arabic phrase حركة المقاومة الاسلامية, or Harakat al-Muqāwama al-Islāmiyya or "Islamic Resistance Movement".
That doesn't mean they are not violent, just like to stick to the facts.

Mokum
14-03-2009, 04:05 PM
And Commissar Obamov wants to give Hamas (Hebrew for "violence") 900 million more in aid. Not surprising, since the "church" he attended for 20 years regularly printed propaganda for this terrorist Jew-hating group.
U.S. to Give $900 Million in Gaza Aid (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/washington/24gaza.html)

More facts:

The Obama administration intends to provide some $900 million to help rebuild Gaza after the Israeli incursion that ended last month, administration officials said Monday.

In an early sign of how the administration plans to deal with Hamas, the militant Islamist group that controls Gaza, an official said that the aid would not go to Hamas but that it would be funneled through nongovernmental organizations.

By seeking to aid Gazans but not Hamas, the administration is following the lead of the Bush administration, which sent money to Gaza through nongovernmental organizations. In December, it said it would give $85 million to the United Nations agency that provides aid to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.