A letter to the Palestinians

[IsraelAdvocate]

The Unbearable Burden of Life
How did you get into such a mess? As you yourselves would say and have
indeed said on many occasions, it isn't your fault. It's always the "Great
Satan" America, and it's "Lesser Satan", Israel, that you
blame for all your woes. Everything that you do, such as your "martyrdom
operations", are described as the products of your "rage" at being
"dispossessed of your land", and of your "helplessness" in the face of
"Zionist" might.

There are only 300 million Arabs against over 5 million Jews! How unfair!
How unjust, that so many can do so little against so few!

A number of Western commentators have put Arab failures down to numerous
cultural factors, not the least being Islam. Your religious beliefs in
martyrdom and jihad, coupled with a total inability to accept any blame for
your own predicament, have combined to do you great and lasting damage.

Look closely at why Western countries such as Israel have succeeded, and
Muslim countries have not. Western countries are free-market democracies.
Muslim countries (other than Turkey) aren't. Surely that should tell you
something.

Why I Stand.
As I said, I do not, and I will not, support the Palestinian cause. Why not?
I have a number of reasons, and here they are:

1. You have made it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that you intend to
destroy Israel and kill or drive out its Jewish population. This is
genocide, pure and simple. You justify this by saying that Israel has
committed many crimes against your people, and that you seek "justice". I
say this in response- NOTHING WHATSOEVER is an acceptable justification for
genocide. Loss of land, humiliation at being militarily defeated -others
have suffered these and moved on to create new nations and opportunities for
themselves.

Examples abound- the Germans thrown out of East Prussia in Europe, 1945, the
Nationalist Chinese who fled to Taiwan in 1949, to name but two. Germans and
Taiwanese have coped with military defeat and the
loss of land. They haven't warred with their neighbours, nor have they
launched terrorist attacks upon them. Both countries have more wealth than
any Arab nation. Why can't Palestinians cope? Are Germans and Chinese better
able to deal with adversity than Arabs?

2. You have accused the Israelis of "genocide" against you. Here's a
question for you: Israel has atomic bombs and powerful military forces. If
they really, truly wanted you all dead, they could easily do it.
Why haven't they? If the Israelis went all-out, you would be, as we say in
New Zealand, "dog tucker". Why did they spend so much time negotiating with
your leaders? Because Israel wants peace and secure borders. You refuse to
give them even those. You plan genocide and accuse Israel of the same crime.
Prove it!

3. The use of terrorism. Killing people for being Jewish is despicable.
Terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are also despicable. (At this point,
I'd like to pause and get a question of nomenclature cleared up, regarding
those Palestinians who kill themselves and others with explosives strapped
to their bodies. You call them "martyrs". Western media sources and
academics debate the precise term to use in describing them. Others,
including the Israelis, call them terrorists.
I have a better, more appropriate term. I prefer to use the word
"kamikazes".
The original kamikazes appeared in 1944, in the war in the Pacific. They
were Japanese Navy and Army pilots,organised into "Special Attack Units"
with orders to crash their planes into American warships, in the hope of
destroying them - "one plane, one ship". Their initial impact
was similar to that of the Al-Quaeda attacks on New York and the
Pentagon-shock and horror. (I noted that many Palestinians appeared on
Western TV celebrating the September attacks). Note: The American response,
in both cases was not the one hoped for.

Once the shock had worn off, the US set out to destroy the kamikazes, and
terrible destruction was rained down on Japan,ending only with 2 atomic
bombs. You know what is happening right now in Afghanistan to the Al-Quaeda
group).
>
>4. Using children as suicide bombers. Anyone who
teaches children to kill themselves in suicide attacks is not worth
supporting under any circumstances. For you to do this to your children is
an abomination. A commentator on a Web magazine said that if the
Palestinians laid down their arms, they would get peace and land. If the
Israelis laid down their arms, they would be killed. You know that is true,
even if most of Europe doesn't. Your cause is evil, because it seeks
destruction at any price. Genocide is not justice. Sacrificing your own
children for the sake of your leader's personal ambitions is wicked.

That's why I cannot support you. That's why I stand with Israel.

Palestinian Past or Future?

The Second World War in Europe ended with Hitler's suicide. He was replaced
by Admiral Doenitz who quickly made peace with the Allies. Japan's
leader,Emperor Hirohito, decided on surrender rather than
see his nation destroyed.

If Arafat chooses surrender, though, will the rest of the Palestinians go
along with it? If he dies, will the war end? If the answer to both of these
questions is No, then the Palestinian people are doomed. Do you really
prefer death as a people? Do you fully comprehend what you
are doing? If you are indeed aware that the path you have embarked on
leads to destruction, and if you have freely chosen to walk in that
direction,then as a people you are truly beyond hope.

Are Palestinians really going to be a "Kamikaze Nation"? Are you really
going to give Israel no other option except your destruction? If they must
choose,then as Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld said,
"better a terrible end than terror without end".

Do not think that kamikaze tactics can get you what you want. The Israelis
can tell you all about Masada, if you ask them. Remember
what happened to the Japanese at places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima.
Palestinians deserve better than the current mess you are in now - but
before you can be given anything, you must offer a sincere peace, you must
stop teaching your children to hate, you must stop believing that
"victimhood" justifies everything and - above all other things - GIVE UP
ISRAEL! Accept that you will never go there again except perhaps as workers
or tourists. Accept that Jews are human beings.
Accept the verdict of 1948 and learn to live with it.

Invest in banks, not bombs. Build computer chips,not Kalashnikovs. Teach
>science and mathematics, not hate. Look to the future, not the past. Stop
>blaming Americans and Jews for all your problems, and take responsibility
>for your own actions. Read those parts in the Quran
about living with the "peoples of the Book".

Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime minister, is quoted as saying, "there
will be peace in the Middle East only when the Arabs
love their children more than they hate Israel ". Every time I see pictures
of Palestinian children waving guns and wearing dummy explosives, then I can
only say she is right. The alternative to peace is not victory but death.

Think about it- before it's too late.

From an Infidel to Those Who Submit, and are living in the Holy Land - May
God grant you steadfastness in the face of things that cannot be changed,
the capacity to cope with those that can be changed, and
the wisdom and the ability to tell the difference.
>
>David White
>Auckland, New Zealand

[takeo]

actually the taiwanese who left china still have the possibility to return, and the Germans who originated in eastern prussia are pressuring the polish government to grant them the right of return... (with economic pressure). after all, that's their right to do so, civilians can never be the victim of the deeds of some politicians.
As long as Israel doesn't accept un-resolutions and Geneva-conventions concerning the refugee-question and the illegitimate occupation, it will not know one second of peace.
That's the bare truth.
according to polls, palestinians are prepared to recognise israel (they don't want a genocide against the Jews, only their own rights) 1) if at least some of the refugees can return, 2)if israel withdraws to internationally recognised borders
Your comparison with Japan or Germany in WWII is BS, palestinians are no great empire that was defeated, but an oppressed little people, much more comparable with the Irish, who also used terrorism because they had no other possibility to win their independance against powerfull GB.
the jewish people is a great people, but it doesn't has more or less rights than Palestinians.

"I have noted that large numbers of people, including university educated
intellectuals support the Palestinian cause. Don't be misled by this. No
matter how many western intellectuals, news media and international
organisations may support the Palestinian struggle,none of this matters
because America stands by Israel."

even if the us is biased in the benefit of israel, America will not risk WWIII and its own security to save Israel, some people on this board even accused the state department of being pro-Arab...
South-Vietnam was supported by the US as well...
it's clear that the us will not be able to provide peace and security for israel if israel continues its current policy, so it has to agree with the international and palestinian demands, if they want to live in a normal and peacefull country at least. Yes palestinians use violence, but the occupation is an act of violence of decades as well.
Nothing Israel can do will bring peace, except negociations. (genocide against palestians or Israeli is not an option, in both cases the international community will intervene to punish the perpetrator)

[MGB8]

Things to understand about Israel.

#1) If Israel is ever at real threat of being destroyed, it will take the rest of the mideast with it. This I promise you. Mecca, Medina. Bagdhad, Tehran, Damscus, Kuwait City - all will be uninhabitable for 10,000 years. Ah, the joys of mutually assured destruction.

#2) The US is more likely to go to war over Israel than other countries are to go to war over Palestinian Arabs. The US already threatened WWIII over Israel during 73 to stop Russian support of the Arab armies.

#3) The right of return you are speaking about is a new creation, and has no basis in reality. First, there is the fact that much land was national, not personal, land in the West Bank and Israel proper. Second, land ownership is a title FROM the government, and if the government changes (ie. a war, a revolution), the new government has no responsibility to acknowledge former titles. This is not like the Holocaust, where the actual existing governments took land away from their citizens because of their ethnicity.

#4) The West Bank was won in a defensive war - and is necessary for the defense of Israel. While I aknowledge that Palestinians have CLAIMS to the land, so do Israelis, and the competing nature is cancelled out by that strategic reality.

#5) The UN became a big joke by the 1960's. It is controlled not by democracy of peoples, but by how many regimes, most of them 3rd world, can be blocked together. It is a group of cowards that has no real power. It has done nothing worthwhile since the creation of Israel, and even then, had Israel lost the war, the UN would not have come rushing in to help the Jewish people - they have no oil to protect.


Originally posted by takeo
actually the taiwanese who left china still have the possibility to return, and the Germans who originated in eastern prussia are pressuring the polish government to grant them the right of return... (with economic pressure). after all, that's their right to do so, civilians can never be the victim of the deeds of some politicians.
As long as Israel doesn't accept un-resolutions and Geneva-conventions concerning the refugee-question and the illegitimate occupation, it will not know one second of peace.
That's the bare truth.
according to polls, palestinians are prepared to recognise israel (they don't want a genocide against the Jews, only their own rights) 1) if at least some of the refugees can return, 2)if israel withdraws to internationally recognised borders
Your comparison with Japan or Germany in WWII is BS, palestinians are no great empire that was defeated, but an oppressed little people, much more comparable with the Irish, who also used terrorism because they had no other possibility to win their independance against powerfull GB.
the jewish people is a great people, but it doesn't has more or less rights than Palestinians.

"I have noted that large numbers of people, including university educated
intellectuals support the Palestinian cause. Don't be misled by this. No
matter how many western intellectuals, news media and international
organisations may support the Palestinian struggle,none of this matters
because America stands by Israel."

even if the us is biased in the benefit of israel, America will not risk WWIII and its own security to save Israel, some people on this board even accused the state department of being pro-Arab...
South-Vietnam was supported by the US as well...
it's clear that the us will not be able to provide peace and security for israel if israel continues its current policy, so it has to agree with the international and palestinian demands, if they want to live in a normal and peacefull country at least. Yes palestinians use violence, but the occupation is an act of violence of decades as well.
Nothing Israel can do will bring peace, except negociations. (genocide against palestians or Israeli is not an option, in both cases the international community will intervene to punish the perpetrator)

[takeo]

1) and 2) nobody will destroy israel, but it won't live in peace either.

"#3) The right of return you are speaking about is a new creation, and has no basis in reality. First, there is the fact that much land was national, not personal, land in the West Bank and Israel proper. Second, land ownership is a title FROM the government, and if the government changes (ie. a war, a revolution), the new government has no responsibility to acknowledge former titles. This is not like the Holocaust, where the actual existing governments took land away from their citizens because of their ethnicity. "

BS, whatever the goverment, you can not deny the right to return of civilians in international law because someone belongs to the wrong etnic group. in 1945 by the way most of the land belonged to palestinians.

"#4) The West Bank was won in a defensive war - and is necessary for the defense of Israel. While I aknowledge that Palestinians have CLAIMS to the land, so do Israelis, and the competing nature is cancelled out by that strategic reality. "

1967 was not a defensive war, israel did the first "pre-emptive strikes", to use the euphimism preferred by defenders of israel.
Israel has no legitimate claim to the WB as the palestinians have, their occupation is perceived illegal by the whole world, including the us, some palestinians claim the whole of israel, but that's not legitimate either, because israel is a recognised country, even recognised by some arab countries. (but of course this is independant from the refugee-issue, this is not about state-borders but about individual rights of etnic cleansed people)


"#5) The UN became a big joke by the 1960's. It is controlled not by democracy of peoples, but by how many regimes, most of them 3rd world, can be blocked together. It is a group of cowards that has no real power. It has done nothing worthwhile since the creation of Israel, and even then, had Israel lost the war, the UN would not have come rushing in to help the Jewish people - they have no oil to protect. "

The un is a representation of all nations, every nation has one vote, is that unjust to you? do you think israel and the us should have 10 votes and Arab countries none?
The un has recognised israel, and did a lot of positive things in the world, such as international legislation for solving conflicts, fighting poverty, etc.

[MGB8]

#3) What International Law? Do you understand what International Law is? Its a group of multi-laterall treaties. It can not be imposed on other nations. Moreover, the "right of return" is a completely controversial issue, not something well settled as you like to portray. And, in fact, there has been no application of this right prior to the attempt here with Arabs who lived in the West Bank during Jordan's rule of it.

#4) You are showing your ignorance. There was hard evidence that Jordan, Egypt, Syria and others were planning an attack, gained by British, US and Israeli intelligence. Armies had been moved, Egypt had just cut off access to the canal.

Israel struck before the telegraphed punch could land, but there is no doubt in annyones mind that the punch was coming. The west bank, btw, was crucial in enabling Israel's survival in the Yom Kippur War.

There was no ethnifc cleansing in the West Bank, as the Arabs who lived there remain. What happened in 48, whether there was fleeing or expulsion, is VERY hotly debated, and frankly, I think a lot the expulsion talk, verified by NO ONE except the allegers, is simple propaganda.

Finally, most of the land was not individual Arab land, but State controlled land, by the British first, then in the west bank by Jordan.

The term Palestinain oinly came into being in the 1960's, remeber that also.

#5) The UN is a joke because it is a completely political entity that is used by some to serve their own interests, particularly those who have a lot of governments. The conference on "racism" (or the conference for racism, as it really was) is a good example.

How about 1 Arab vote versus 1 Israeli vote - wouldn't that be more representative of the # of interests?

I've spent more time doing UN simulations and researching the UN than I'd like to admit - and the conclusion is that the UN is one big waste of time. The UN also screwed up the Palestinian Arab refugee-issue, keeping them in refugee status for over 50 years and allowing their Arab "brothers" to keep them there.

The UN has not lifted a finger to help the kurds or turks in Iraq, the Palestinians that we massacred by Jordan and Syria or expelled by Eqypt, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They have done nothing for Africa, really, as it was Mandela, not the world, that ended appartheid there. They have done nothing to resolve the conflicts in Kashmire, Tibet, Yugoslavia (that was Nato), Chechnya, Peru, Colombia...not to mention going back to africa Rwanda, Sudan, Nigeria, Etheopia, etc.

The UN is a big joke. It has done nothing since the establishment of Israel worth noting. Nothing.

[MGB8]

No response Takeo?

I thought so.

Its so much fun to thrust the truth in the eyes of a person who doesn't want to see it. Its something that Jews and Israelis everywhere must start doing.

They have to do research on the history of the mideast, so that they can refute all the BS that is put out there.

The myth of a Palestinian people - nope. Palestine is just a word the Romans used to call the Area. They called it Palestine because the previous name, Judea, wasn't wanted anymore because of the great revolt (the one that produced massadah, I believe.)

The fact that there has never been a "Palestinian" state (since there never was a palestinian people until the 60's, just arabs.)

The fact that pre-late 19th century, Israel was barren, and hardly populated. The fact that around WWI (Balfour decleration time), there were about 800 people in Israel, a bit over 150K Jewish.

The fact that in 48 there were about 2 million, a little over 600K Jewish - (I made a mistake in terms of time period before.)

All this info is available at mideastweb.org.

The fact that there was no outcry for a Palestine between 48 and 67. The horrible conditions of Jewish holy sites during 67. The fact that it was indeed a defensive war, even if it was a preemptive strike, since Israel, Britain and the US knew of plans attack.

To remind the world of the arab attack on Yom Kippur (and on Pessach this year)

To remind the world that we offered the west bank to Jordan for peace, but they refused.
That we gave back the Sinai. That we could have taken Damascus.

To remind the world that we let Arafat have 9 years of a trial run, and he used it to build up terrorist organizations.

To remind the workd that these grievances of checkpoints, etc, are the result of suicide bombings, NOT the cause.

To remind the world that even since Arafat denounced terror in arabic, we've now found new bombs in his facility. What a surprise.

To remind the world that the West Bank has competing claims over it, but that there is no divine right over one thing or another.

And to bring those who want-to-believe-what-they-believe-no-matter-what, for eexample takeo, kicking and screaming to the truth.

[takeo]

calm down, i have to sleep too you know...

All this issues have been discussed in this forum, use the search engine... and you'll see "the truth" isn't as simple as presented in your propaganda site...

"#3) What International Law? Do you understand what International Law is? Its a group of multi-laterall treaties. It can not be imposed on other nations. Moreover, the "right of return" is a completely controversial issue, not something well settled as you like to portray. And, in fact, there has been no application of this right prior to the attempt here with Arabs who lived in the West Bank during Jordan's rule of it. "

UN-resolutions, which, according to the un-charter, must be observed by all UN-members, including israel.
Geneva-conventions... both explicitly ask for the right of return, not only in the case of the palestinians by the way, but in the whole world, for example bosnia, eastern Timor, etc. The precise articles have been quoted several times by me and other people on this forum.


"#4) You are showing your ignorance. There was hard evidence that Jordan, Egypt, Syria and others were planning an attack, gained by British, US and Israeli intelligence. Armies had been moved, Egypt had just cut off access to the canal.
Israel struck before the telegraphed punch could land, but there is no doubt in annyones mind that the punch was coming. The west bank, btw, was crucial in enabling Israel's survival in the Yom Kippur War."

that's what israel says, but there are no hard evidences. And blocking a sea is a cause for international concern, but no legitimate reason for war. If i kill someone, and i advocate that i had to kill him because he had plans to kill me, but no hard evidences, do you think i will be a free man?
the war in 1973 was a reaction to the occupation in 1967, and showed that israel could win even if it was surprised, there was no reason to attack first, israel could have prepared for war but by attacking first it was the aggressor.

"There was no ethnifc cleansing in the West Bank, as the Arabs who lived there remain. What happened in 48, whether there was fleeing or expulsion, is VERY hotly debated, and frankly, I think a lot the expulsion talk, verified by NO ONE except the allegers, is simple propaganda. "

yes, very hotly debated, but even israeli scholars and the jewish virtual library aknowledge that there were cases of forced eviction. But more importantly many 100's of 1000's of people fled the war, and according to the un-resolutions and geneva-conventions, they should have had the right to come back to their houses and properties after the war. only a minority of Palestinians was able to stay in their homeland, less than 20% .
saying that there is no such thing as palestinian refugees is as saying there was no such thing as the Holocaust, both facts have been relentlessly researched by historians. Not only the UN, but even israel aknowledges that the majority of palestinians who lived in what is israel today before 1948 no longer lived in israel after 1949.

"Finally, most of the land was not individual Arab land, but State controlled land, by the British first, then in the west bank by Jordan. "

wrong, most of the land was privately owned by palestinians. (see the statistics below)



"#5) The UN is a joke because it is a completely political entity that is used by some to serve their own interests, particularly those who have a lot of governments. The conference on "racism" (or the conference for racism, as it really was) is a good example. "

the conference on racism was legitimate, because the israeli policy in the occupied territories is racist, only Jewish people have the right to moove freely, to claim new territory, to vote...
there was also a conference on racism against Soth africa in the 80's...

"How about 1 Arab vote versus 1 Israeli vote - wouldn't that be more representative of the # of interests? "

no, because there are 100's of millions of Arabs and only a few million Israeli, and only one israel and many Arab countries.
one country-one vote is the principle of the un, which was accepted and proposed by your own us by the way. there is also the permanent members of the security council, who have veto-right, no single arab or mulsim-country by the way...


"I've spent more time doing UN simulations and researching the UN than I'd like to admit - and the conclusion is that the UN is one big waste of time. The UN also screwed up the Palestinian Arab refugee-issue, keeping them in refugee status for over 50 years and allowing their Arab "brothers" to keep them there. "

The refugee-question remained unsolved because the refugees could not return to the land they came from.

"The UN has not lifted a finger to help the kurds or turks in Iraq, the Palestinians that we massacred by Jordan and Syria or expelled by Eqypt, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They have done nothing for Africa, really, as it was Mandela, not the world, that ended appartheid there. They have done nothing to resolve the conflicts in Kashmire, Tibet, Yugoslavia (that was Nato), Chechnya, Peru, Colombia...not to mention going back to africa Rwanda, Sudan, Nigeria, Etheopia, etc. "

The UN have pressured south-Africa by all means, the un contributed to the international pressure on south-africa, which led to the end of the Apartheid-regime (as well as "terrorist activities" by the aNC of course). The same international pressure + violence will lead israel to finally accept the un-resolutions.

[takeo]

"The myth of a Palestinian people - nope. Palestine is just a word the Romans used to call the Area. They called it Palestine because the previous name, Judea, wasn't wanted anymore because of the great revolt (the one that produced massadah, I believe.) "

palestine was an internationally recognised name since the middle ages, even Herzl called it "the palestinian question". And palestinians lived there at least since the early middle ages.



"The fact that pre-late 19th century, Israel was barren, and hardly populated. The fact that around WWI (Balfour decleration time), there were about 800 people in Israel, a bit over 150K Jewish. "

absolutely BS (see statistics below)


"To remind the world that we offered the west bank to Jordan for peace, but they refused.
That we gave back the Sinai. That we could have taken Damascus. "

Really, when?

sure you gave back the sinai, and you will give back the other occupied territories too, sooner or later.



"To remind the workd that these grievances of checkpoints, etc, are the result of suicide bombings, NOT the cause. "

actually there were checkpoints, etc. before the intifadeh as well, even before the first intifadeh, when there were no suicide-bombings...


"To remind the world that the West Bank has competing claims over it, but that there is no divine right over one thing or another."

no divine right, no, but un-resolutions make sure the WB belongs to the palestinians, and all the un-members except israel have accepted this resolutions.


"at the end of the Ottoman period the concept of Filastin was already widespread among the educated Arab public, denoting either the whole of Palestine or the Jerusalem Sanjak alone" (Y. Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian National Movement 1918-1929, Frank Cass, 1974).

Estimated Population of Palestina 1870-1946*
Arabs (%) Jews (%) Total

1870 367,224 (98%) 7,000 (2%) 375,000
1893 469,000 (98%) 10,000 (2%) 497,000
1912 525,000 (93%) 40,000 (6%) 565,000
1920 542,000 (90%) 61,000 (10%) 603,000
1925 598,000 (83%) 120,000 (17%) 719,000
1930 763,000 (82%) 165,000 (18%) 928,000
1935 886,000 (71%) 355,000 (29%) 1,241,000
1940 1,014,000 (69%) 463,000 (31%) 1,478,000
1946 1,237,000 (65%) 608,000 (35%) 1,845,000
* Figures are rounded.
Sources: The numbers in this table are estimates constructed from the following: Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, "The Population of the Large Towns in Palestine During the First Eighty Years of the Nineteenth Century, According to Western Sources" in Moshe Ma'oz, ed. Studies on Palestine during the Ottoman Period, Magnus, 1975; Alexander Scholch, "The Demographic Development of Palestine 1850-1882", International Journal of Middle East Studies, XII, 4, November 1985, pp. 485-505; "Palestine", Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edn, 1911; "Palestine", Encyclopedia of Islam, 1964; UN Document A/AC 14/32, 11 November 1947, p.304; Justin McCarthy, "The Population of Ottoman Syria and Iraq, 1878-1914", Asian and African Studies, XV, 1 March 1981; Kemal Karpat, "Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893", International Journal of Middle East Studies, XCI, 2, 1978; Bill Farell, "Review of Joan Peters", 'From Time Immemorial', Journal of Palestine Studies, 53, Fall 1984, pp. 126-34; Walid Khalidi, From Heaven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the Palestine Problem until 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1971 appendix I; Janet L. Abu Lughod, "The Demographic Transformation of Palestine", in Ibrahim Abu Lughod, ed., The Transformation of Palestine: Essays on the Origin and Development of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Northwestern University Press, 1971 pp. 139-63.

[droberts1958]

MGB8

You seem to be saying that because Israel was going to be attacked in 1967 they had the right to launch a pre-emptive attack. I agree. I agree they also have the right to maintain the occupation of the WB and G whilst further attack is imminent in order to secure its safety and security. The fact is however that by maintaining the occupation and not providing any adequate plan to retreat completly back to its old borders, Israel is helping to perpetuate the hatred and the risk of the attacks.

I hear often that without the WB and G Israel, is impossibly thin and easy to roll over in tanks and planes in too short a time to defend. Does the WB and G really make much difference though ? Remember this is the age of nuclear weapons, supersonic planes and missiles. No the truth is that the WB and G make very little difference to Israel's security. Certainly in any postive sense this is the case. If Israel is presently enjoying security then you clearly have a strange interpreation of the word.

The original inhabitants of the WB and G made many mistakes after 1948 and yes they wanted to drive the Jewish people into the sea. Of course they did and it is entirely reasonable that they had this feeling. They felt terribly cheated out of a big chunk of what they had always considered their land.

Reverse the positions. The Jewish population living basically in peace for the best part of the last couple of thousand years suddenly find that some some movement in a different continent has decide that some small religious group was going to start emigrating in mass to their land. This religious group with impeccable connections in many developed parts of the world at that time apply pressure through the existing British colonial masters and through American pressure to force emigration both legal and illegal. The numbers increase and then as a result of massive world sympathy for the religous faction which is massacred by others in a world war the decision is made to give them a big chunk of what had always been possessed by the Jewish population. Would the Jews have accepted the decision and given up all the land peacefully. Not a chance in the world and to suggest otherwise is bald faced lie.

People can change however and now there is acceptance of the existance of the state of Israel. In a final peace agreement now my view is that Israel could get guarantees of peace from every state in the region. The crack pot extremists would be marginalised because most people only want what is fair and an Israel in its 1967 borders would be considered fair.

Israel has no permanent claim to the WB and G other than crack pot suggestions that continuous presence by a small minority somehow amounts to something more than the gross majority's claims to the same land. Or alternately the spoils of war argument. This little beauty seems to work on the principle that what ever you want you are entitled to take no matter who happens to own it.

You are right there is no divine right by anyone to the WB and G. There is however a legitimate permanent claim by the Palestinians and a totally supurious permanent claim by Israel.

You quote numbers "there were about 800 people in Israel, a bit over 150K Jewish". This makes no sense. What do you mean.

[takeo]

even in the ardently biased pro-israeli sites cases of forced etnic cleansing are reported, as well as the fact that most palestinian fled the war to neighbouring countries and were not allowed to return.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf14.html#a

"The Haganah did employ psychological warfare to encourage the Arabs to abandon a few villages. Yigal Allon, the commander of the Palmach (the "shock force of the Haganah"), said he had Jews talk to the Arabs in neighboring villages and tell them a large Jewish force was in Galilee with the intention of burning all the Arab villages in the Lake Huleh region. The Arabs were told to leave while they still had time and, according to Allon, they did exactly that.21
In the most dramatic example, in the Ramle-Lod area, Israeli troops seeking to protect their flanks and relieve the pressure on besieged Jerusalem, forced a portion of the Arab population to go to an area a few miles away that was occupied by the Arab Legion. "The two towns had served as bases for Arab irregular units, which had frequently attacked Jewish convoys and nearby settlements, effectively barring the main road to Jerusalem to Jewish traffic."22 "

Subcommittee II of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, established in September 1947 issued a report in November 1947 which stated under item 63:

"The village statistics for 1945 prepared by the Palestine administration and showing the position as at 1 April 1945 furnish interesting data regarding land ownership in Palestine. The total Palestinian land ownership is given in dunums (4 dunums equals approximately 1 acre), as being 12,574,774, as against a total Jewish ownership of 1,491,699. [...] The following figures are of particular interest:
CATEGORY OF CROPS OWNERSHIP

Palestinians Jews (in dunums)

Citrus 135,368 139,728
Bananas 1,843 1,079
Plantations 1,052,222 94,167
Taxable cereals (categories 9-13) 5,653,346 869,109
Taxable cereals (categories 14-15) 823,046 67,839


Item 64 of that same report stated:
"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewish State, and own the bulk of the land"
(Source: Doc. C74 UNSCOP Report to the UNGA, Documents on Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 165, PASSIA, December 1997).

if you need some more information go to this Jewish site:

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

[Mediocrates]

ok so you've reprinted many of your prior posts here - and?? your sources are generally all from the UN and are self recursive, and?

But even for you, that comment about Durban is a new one. You seem to be blocked, you need to break through and blurt out the statement you want to make; that the whole of Israel is illegitimate.

[Gatorade]

I noticed that site (http://www.cactus48.com/statehood.html) uses a couple quotes from Benny Morris.

However, the site doesn't tell the viewer who Benny Morris blames for the refuges plight.

In a intereview (http://www.between-lines.org/archives/2001/dec/Benny_Morris.htm) ,

Qutestion: Is it not you who revealed for the Israelis, that they have responsibility for the refugee problem.

Morris: I revealed to the Israelis the truth about what happened in 1948 - the historical facts. But the Arabs started the fighting. They started shooting. So why should I take responsibility? The Arabs are the ones who started the war, so they are responsible".

And Morris does not agree with the "Right to Return"

Q: So this question should be ignored in the final settlement?

Morris: The Palestinians should be given some solution, but we should not recognize the right of return. […] Even if Arafat will sign an agreement, in light of his behavior in the last two years, it is difficult for me to believe, that he or his descendents will keep the agreement.

[takeo]

who is Morris?
ok, i reposted some links and facts for new users, what's wrong with that?

"You seem to be blocked, you need to break through and blurt out the statement you want to make; that the whole of Israel is illegitimate."

I never said so, I think, even if the way israel established in 1948 was illegitimate, as well as the whole idea of zionism, the fact that millions of Israeli people live and were born in Israel, is enough legitimation for the recognition of Israel. (not zionism).
Also the un recognised Israel, so it is a "fait accompli"

[Mediocrates]

I never said so, I think, even if the way israel established in 1948 was illegitimate, as well as the whole idea of zionism, the fact that millions of Israeli people live and were born in Israel, is enough legitimation for the recognition of Israel. (not zionism).
Also the un recognised Israel, so it is a "fait accompli"


"I love humanity, it's all the ****ing people I can't stand." So basically the idea of a Jewish state is anathema to you.

[takeo]

it should not have happened in such conditions and with such exlusive ideology, but nowadays the jewish state exists, and an israeli people has been created, this can no longer be returned, so I accept the idea of a Jewish state in Israel.

[Mediocrates]

How generous.

[Gatorade]

Originally posted by takeo [/i] who is Morris?

Morris is a very controversial left wing “post-Zionist” historian. He served time in prison refusing to serve in the military in the West Bank in the 1980’s and now is a professor at Ben-Gurion University.

Morris wrote "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" in 1988. Websites like the Jews for Justice, which you provided link, use very selected quotes from his works to give a false perception for who he blames or who he puts responsibility for the cause of the refugees leaving. Morris squarely puts the blame on the Arabs who started the war for the refugees leaving.

Jews for Justice do not tell that Morris puts the blame and responsibly squarely on the Arabs for starting the war for the refugees leaving or being forced to leave.

A short story about his lecture at UC Berkeley. - http://www.memri.de/uebersetzungen_analysen/laender/israel/israel_morris_09_12_01.pdf

For a good read on why Morris made a transformation to now believe: (1) There will no peace with the current generation of Palestinian leaders and (2) why he believes – even though he wrote the book many cite who blame Israel for the refugees existence – why he is against the Right to Return.

Everyone should read this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,653594,00.html)

[Gatorade]

Futhermore, it is not really fair when takeo calls Mithcell Bard, author of the Jewish Virtual Library “ardently biased pro-Israeli” while not giving any adjectives or even comparing him to Jews for Justice website. I agree that he does present a pro-Israel side to his writings but has he ever presented false information or taken quotes out of context to present an argument the writer did not intend as Jews for Justice do?

Bard is one person and has a reputation to uphold as a historian. And as an individual his reputation on the line every time he debunks a myth. Have you found a myth that he has debunked that he was factually inaccurate?

Dr. Bard was a postdoctoral fellow at the University of California at Irvine. He earned a Ph.D. in political science from UCLA and a master's degree in public policy from Berkeley. He received his B.A. in economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara.

What are the creditials of the authors of the Jews for Justice? Where is the accountablity when they make false perceptions from other people’s works? Where are the names of the people who wrote the book, “Origens of the Conflict?”

I don’t know who the authors are for Jews for Justice and since I don’t know I do not give their information as much weight as someone who has established himself as an expert.

The Guardian on Morris (http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,653594,00.html)

[takeo]

Morris may have changed his opinion, it doesn't mean that they can't use his quotes when it helps to proove their point?
Historians and politicians do it all the time. For example you will point to the "martyr-speech" of Arafat, but you won't mention the 1000 times he condamned suicide-bombing...

I don't know who wrote it, i guess Norman Finkelstein and Chomsky have at least influenced the work, as their studies are used frequently.

about the Jewish Virtual Library...

"or taken quotes out of context to present an argument the writer did not intend as Jews for Justice do? "

plenty of it...
for example:

"that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation... (emphasis added).

The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands."

only TWO WORDS are used to proove that the whole resolution did not demanded to right of return of the palestinians. they draw their own interpretation of those very obvious "that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. " without ever mentioning that some Palestinians would like to live in peace and just assuming things that are not mentioned in the resolution.
They also picture quite some people and organisations in a very selective way. It is their right to do so of course, as long as they don't use false information. It is a very extensive and torough work with lots of references, that's right, but still, i hope you will agree, the point is to proove Israel's point of view, so it's a propaganda site, as well as "Origins of the palestine/israel conflict".

Another example: the pflp is cited several times as a terrorist organisation but nowhere is indicated that this organisation is not fighting for the destruction of Israel but is willing to recognise israel on certain conditions

[elke]

In a legal document, ALL words are important, including the ones omitted.

PFLP is a terrorist organization, because it fits the definition of such. It is immaterial what its ultimate goals are: it has specifically targeted non-combatants for political gain, and it's a sub-governmental organization.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
Estimated Population of Palestina 1870-1946*
Arabs (%) Jews (%) Total
1870 367,224 (98%) 7,000 (2%) 375,000
1893 469,000 (98%) 10,000 (2%) 497,000

Takeo, if it weren't so pitiful, it would almost be amusing to see the same old tired Arab lies in the form of those "statistics" that you post constantly on this forum.

You know very well that the statistics you post are nearly entirely fabricated from the Arab propagandists listed last on your list of sources, like Walid Khalidi, Janet L. Abu Lughod, and Ibrahim Abu Lughod, etc.

The fact is that your statistics are nothing more than third-rate Stalin-style Arab propaganda that proves only one thing: that there are people like you who will gladly try to pass off these lies to ill-informed readers.

Here are some facts:
*****************

"The Jewish population increased by 470,000 between World War I and World War II while the non-Jewish population rose by 588,000. In fact, the permanent Arab population increased 120 percent between 1922 and 1947.

This rapid growth was a result of several factors. One was immigration from neighboring states — constituting 37 percent of the total immigration to pre-state Israel — by Arabs who wanted to take advantage of the higher standard of living the Jews had made possible. The Arab population also grew because of the improved living conditions created by the Jews as they drained malarial swamps and brought improved sanitation and health care to the region. Thus, for example, the Muslim infant mortality rate fell from 201 per thousand in 1925 to 94 per thousand in 1945 and life expectancy rose from 37 years in 1926 to 49 in 1943.

The Arab population increased the most in cities with large Jewish populations that had created new economic opportunities. From 1922-1947, the non-Jewish population increased 290 percent in Haifa, 131 percent in Jerusalem and 158 percent in Jaffa. The growth in Arab towns was more modest: 42 percent in Nablus, 78 percent in Jenin and 37 percent in Bethlehem. "



Sources: Governmet of Palestine, Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922 taken on 23rd of October, 1922, compiled by J.B. Barron, Jerusalem, 1922.
Government of Palestine, Office of Statistics, Village Statistics, April 1945. Jerusalem, 1945.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Settlements, their Population and Codes, 31, XII, 1967, Technical Publications Series 28, Jerusalem 1968.
Israel Defense Forces, Census of Population conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics, 1: West Bank of the Jordan, Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, Golan Heights, Jerusalem 1967.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities, their Populations and Codes, 31, XII, 1995. Technical Publications Series 68, Jerusalem 1996..
Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Small Area Population: Revised Estimates for 1996, Ramallah, April 1996.

[takeo]

My source is not Arab propaganda but based on several scientific researches, including israeli and american studies. (see the list of references)

"The numbers in this table are estimates constructed from the following: Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, "The Population of the Large Towns in Palestine During the First Eighty Years of the Nineteenth Century, According to Western Sources" in Moshe Ma'oz, ed. Studies on Palestine during the Ottoman Period, Magnus, 1975; Alexander Scholch, "The Demographic Development of Palestine 1850-1882", International Journal of Middle East Studies, XII, 4, November 1985, pp. 485-505; "Palestine", Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edn, 1911; "Palestine", Encyclopedia of Islam, 1964; UN Document A/AC 14/32, 11 November 1947, p.304; Justin McCarthy, "The Population of Ottoman Syria and Iraq, 1878-1914", Asian and African Studies, XV, 1 March 1981; Kemal Karpat, "Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893", International Journal of Middle East Studies, XCI, 2, 1978; Bill Farell, "Review of Joan Peters", 'From Time Immemorial', Journal of Palestine Studies, 53, Fall 1984, pp. 126-34;"

and some Arab studies too, so what?

What about your information...
"Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Settlements, their Population and Codes, 31, XII, 1967, Technical Publications Series 28, Jerusalem 1968.
Israel Defense Forces, Census of Population conducted by the Central Bureau of Statistics, 1: West Bank of the Jordan, Gaza Strip and Northern Sinai, Golan Heights, Jerusalem 1967.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, List of Localities, their Populations and Codes, 31, XII, 1995. Technical Publications Series 68, Jerusalem 1996.. "

hey elke it seems our new bound is breaking apart...
All words are important, sure, but it is just ridiculous to use "who wish to live in peace" as an excuse to deny the obligation for israel formulated in the total resolution, because nowhere is stated that refugees are not willing to live in peace, it is just an assumption, unlike the other parts of the resolution which are very clear and above doubt or assumption.

the PFLP is a terrorist organisation, ok, and a sub-governmental organisation that was responsible for civilian casualties, but so was the IRA in Ireland and in fact most resistance organisations around the world. It is always very important to know what is their AIM to see if a peace-deal with them is possible or not and why they are fighting. Denying this information is a half truth, or a half-lie.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
Estimated Population of Palestina 1870-1946*
Arabs (%) Jews (%) Total
1870 367,224 (98%) 7,000 (2%) 375,000
1893 469,000 (98%) 10,000 (2%) 497,000



I catch a glimpse of what?s in your posts now and then whenever someone quotes from them.

I thought Muslims weren?t supposed to hit the bottle and that exactly what you must have been doing when you posted those numbers.

If you want to post statistics at least use numbers that are believable.

A good source is old books from that era and they are available on microfilm from any good university. You can even order films to be sent to you from other universities.

I think I?ll have to remove you from ignore so that I can correct your worst nonsense.

[Gatorade]

Originally posted by takeo
Morris may have changed his opinion, it doesn't mean that they can't use his quotes when it helps to proove their point?
Historians and politicians do it all the time. For example you will point to the "martyr-speech" of Arafat, but you won't mention the 1000 times he condamned suicide-bombing...I

two very different things.

If Arafat was consistent and sincerely changed his views and condemned terror acts on Israel, it would be wrong to quote his old speeches as evidence that he still is a thug. However, Arafat continues to give speeches where he calls for martyrs while also saying he condemns terror acts depending on the audience. Arafat is not consistent, so also not sincere.

Morris has been consistent that he blames Arabs for the war and for the continued violence. He doesn’t change his speeches according to the audience. He does not deny that some Arabs were expelled or that others left out of fear of the Israeli military. However, he has always said that the fact that Arabs started the war has been the cause and websites like Jews for Justice only cite part of what he says.

I am sure in a couple years others will be citing Hitler’s Jewish Army in similar ways.

[takeo]

But if they want to quote him to proove that some refugees were expelled, if that is their point, why do they need to mention the other viewpoints of Morris, which are not important for the theory they want to proove? they used the studies of Morris, but they didn't mention that they draw the same conclusions...
By the way, Arafat's position after 1993 was always quite consistent, unlike the speeches in which he condams violence, the "martyr-speeches" are not a call for suicide-bombers, that is only an assumption and an interpretation. So when dealing with this matter, the speeches in which he spoke clear language should be prefered or at least mentioned. Some people on this board also refere to Arafat as a terrorist who is not ready to accept Israel because of what happened in the period before 1993. ("once a terrorist, always a terrorist")
It is more or less the same principle...

[Mediocrates]

Oh come now - as soon as all the Jews leave the illegal settlements in Tel Aviv and Haifa there will be peace. I guess they could all move to a big floating island but you'd complain they were 'occupying' the ocean and 'oppressing' the fish.

[Mr. Pumps]

Today %51 Percent of Palestinians believe the Ultimate goal is to Destroy Israel as a nation. For all you "Peaceniks" out there, you cannot Negotiate with such a people like that under any circumstances.

And the Right of return belief will doom Israel as a nation. This forum won't exist..Jews in the Middleeast will be gone....The Arabs in around around Israel will celebrate Israel's instant demise with innsane religious fervour. So don't be stupid and accept that as a way to peace... for it is not....Just the total loss of 50 years of hard fought existence.

[takeo]

BS, which proof to you have to make such statements?
According to polls (search this forum and you'll find links) more half of the Palestinians is ready to accept Israel.
And allowing some refugees in israel won't destroy the nation, that's rubbish. 1 million more of palestinians will, i am convinced, even stimulate the israeli economy that needs labour (that's why people from all over the world, thailand, Romania, etc. are attracted to work in israel). And of course if this is the concession israel will have to make to achieve lasting peace, it will have much more advantages as well.

Lomplighter, i'm so delighted that you decided not to ignore any longer my posts, yet it would be preferable to read the whole post before criticising them...

[Mediocrates]

Well if you mean that there will still be buildings and roads, yes you are correct there will still be buildings and roads. But it will be absent Jews, or if you understand Arafat it would have a tiny Jewish minority held in ghettos.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
BS, which proof to you have to make such statements?
According to polls (search this forum and you'll find links) more half of the Palestinians is ready to accept Israel.
And allowing some refugees in israel won't destroy the nation, that's rubbish. 1 million more of palestinians will, i am convinced, even stimulate the israeli economy that needs labour (that's why people from all over the world, thailand, Romania, etc. are attracted to work in israel). And of course if this is the concession israel will have to make to achieve lasting peace, it will have much more advantages as well.

Lomplighter, i'm so delighted that you decided not to ignore any longer my posts, yet it would be preferable to read the whole post before criticising them...

Many Muslims are clearly bad news and that’s why the National Party in France garnished 20% of the electorate’s votes. Denmark, Holland and Austria moved to the right and there are indications that much of the EU is moving that way.

If you guys don’t STOP what you’re doing a wave will sweep over the world and swallow you up. If you would have succeeded in committing despicable acts in Britain on 9/11 it might have done it. There’s always the straw that breaks the camels back.

Perhaps you spend your time picking the fly **** out of the pepper as for me I would discard it all. Given Islam’s track record there’s no way under G_d’s heaven people like that should be granted entry into a peace loving country like Israel. NO WAY!

[takeo]

this is again one of lomplighter's famous racist and generalising anti-Arab opinions. as if all Arabs and
Palestinians in the whole world are member of al-Qaida...
Arabs in France and Europe live mostly in peace, and in the latest elections the anti-Arab (and anti-semite at the same time) party got a huge defeat with less than 12% of the votes. the rightwing parties in Europe may take a harder stance against immigration but they will certainly not evict or discriminate Muslims in their country. But i'm not going to ignore lomplighter, as it's always funny to read such statements...
what Arafat and most of the Palestinians mean is Israel as a predominantly Jewish state, with a Palestinian minority of around 20 to 30%. This would be the situation after the return of some million of Palestinians, as proposed by Arafatin camp David.
As the palestinians already in israel (AND in Europe, altough in Europe they came as immigrants, nothing to do with the right of return) makes clear, once you give them the opportunity to devellop a normal life, they will renounce terrorism and conduct themselves as a normal citizen of their country. the only thing that prevents a full integration of israeli palestinians is some discrimination that is still present (of course not comparable to the discrimination in the occupied territories).

[Mediocrates]

What evidence do you have to support that? What evidence do you have to support your factoid that at 3-4x the mean fertility rate the Palestinian population would remain 20-30% of Israel. And what evidence do you have to support your factoid, that were the Palestinians able to garner a statistical majority that they simply wouldn't sweep all the Jews off the map by 'legal' means. And please don't fall back on "well laws are laws, aren't they, of they wanted to evict all the Jews by election I guess that would be their right." - you know, that kind of standard argument you pull out of your ear, the one about morality is for US but laws and statistics are for YOU.

Let me ask you this - what is a perfect Israel in your eyes? Is it an Arab state with no physical presence of Jews? Or is it an Arab Secular state populated with a minority of Conversos? There is no third choice for you. There is not a single solitary Arab state or state of mind on earth that has, does or will permit a legal presence of Jews on their soil beyond token dhimmi status.

Yes yes I know your party line about how Jews lived in prosperity and peace shoulder to shoulder with their Arab brethren for 1300 years and it was the evil zionists who corrupted them like sparkly things from Satan. But you, and the Egyptian press are the only people who believe that.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

Let me ask you this - what is a perfect Israel in your eyes? Is it an Arab state with no physical presence of Jews? Or is it an Arab Secular state populated with a minority of Conversos? There is no third choice for you. There is not a single solitary Arab state or state of mind on earth that has, does or will permit a legal presence of Jews on their soil beyond token dhimmi status.



A perfect Israeli State in the eyes of takeo is one where mostly cloned Arafags reside. Of course there has to be the likes of takeo to worship and bow in the presence of Arafags.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
this is again one of lomplighter's famous racist and generalising anti-Arab opinions. as if all Arabs and
Palestinians in the whole world are member of al-Qaida...



Muslim terrorist?s organizations are ONE I don?t make a distinction. Polls have been conducted in Islam and more than 50%+1 support terrorism in WB and GS. Therefore I have the right to generalize when discussing Islam. If that makes me a racist so be it. I couldn?t care less if 1.3 billion Muslims started chanting that L@mplighter is a racist.

You guys use the word racist so that when people are accused of racism they cover in shame but it has no effect on me.

[Mediocrates]

That's because in the year 2002 it's the worst thing you can call someone. Really, it is. You can call someone a child molesting crackhead who dances naked with the devil 'round the bible fire and that's ok - it's just a difference of cultures. But a racist? holy nuclear ****storm, batman! That's baaaaaaad.

I wonder though if intolerance of hate speech is therefore is itself hate speech. :p

[elke]

While racist views are provided a certain amount of protection by the freedom of speech, it does not mean that racism is a positive concept.

The problem, IMHO, is not intolerance of hate speech, but rather lax use of language. "Racist" has a certain definition. According to Merriam Webster, it means:

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

- where "prejudice" means:
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

-and "discrimination" means:
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
(the other two definitions given by the Dictionary were irrelevant, IMO)

The key to racism is the irrationality and generalization - NOT adverse opinion per se. Intuitively, most people know that. The PR people also know that some words resonate emotionally more than others. Palestinian propaganda has been using many words of this type: "Racist", "Nazi", "Occupation", etc. etc. Upon scrutiny, however, it becomes clear that these words are not being used according to their accepted meaning, so the reality becomes obscured by inaccurate word usage.

[takeo]

I agree, such as the word "anti-semite", which is even more abused than the word "racist"

But i think according to the definition you gave above, lomplighter's opinion is certainly racist.
"2 : racial prejudice or discrimination "
"- where "prejudice" means:
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
-and "discrimination" means:
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
(the other two definitions given by the Dictionary were irrelevant, IMO)
The key to racism is the irrationality and generalization - NOT adverse opinion per se."

"I wonder though if intolerance of hate speech is therefore is itself hate speech"

interesting tought... :rolleyes:

lomplighter bases his opinion on the fact that 50+1 palestinians support suicide-bombing, that leads him to draw the conclusion that all Arabs and Muslims in the world are potential terrorists ready to destroy Western civilisation... if that isn't generalisation...

I didn't take into account natural population growth. I'm not a demographic specialist, but 20 to 30% of the population at the current birth rate of jews and Palestinians in Israel (not even taking in account future jewish emigration to israel) would take 50 years or more to reach 50 % of the population. By that time it is well possible that higher living standards have lowered the Palestinian birthrate, and that palestinians have become fully integrated in the israeli society.

"that kind of standard argument you pull out of your ear, the one about morality is for US but laws and statistics are for YOU. "

one of the basic fundaments of the American and French society, and Western democracy in general, is that they are based on the rule of law...

but anyway there is no law that allows the Jews to be etnically cleansed from israel, it is against the un-charter, un-resolutions and Geneva-conventions... and i would never ever support such a senceless crime. You always twist my opinions and words.

The perfect Israel in my eyes, according to the current and future conditions, is a multi-cultural pre-dominantly Jewish state, within its internationally recognised borders and living at peace with all of its neighbours, with a considerable Palestinian minority that has exactly the same rights and duties as any other Israeli citizen. This is not some illusion, palestinian israeli live in peace in israel, and it's not true that there are no more Jews living in arab countries, i still saw Jewish communities in Morocco and Tunisia, who could leave for israel or France if they wish so(but prefere to stay) and even met some Jews in Iran. A majority of pals is prepared to live at peace with or in israel once a peace-deal has been concluded including the issues of occupation and right of return;

[elke]

I beg to differ. I went back over some of L@mplighter's more recent comments, and believe that he is, at worst, "generalizing" (which is not the same as "making a racist statement"). We are all guilty of that - you, me, others, on all sides.

Although the Dictionary I used does not provide a clear definition of "racial" or "race", in common usage it implies physical and/or cultural attributes only, rather than the given group's actions. As an example, to say that "African Americans are violent" is a racist statement; while to say that "Black Panther Movement was violent" is not - even though all members of the Black Panthers were African American.

Given the continuous terrorist attacks, perpetrated almost exclusively by Muslims, - as well as the results of the polls in the Muslim world (as opposed to elsewhere), - L@mplighter's statements cannot be considered irrational and baseless, nor based on "race". Therefore, they are not racist.

[MGB8]

51% of Palestinian Arabs, according to recent polls, want the eventual destruction of Israel. My guess is that in their heart of hearts that number is higher, since it has been going down as the intifadag drags on.

About 3/4, down from 80%, support suicide bombings.

[takeo]

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2002/p4a.html
(this link was originally posted by cerulean on this forum)

"Two-thirds support the Saudi initiative (defined as two states, 1967 borders, full normalization and peace)
70% support reconciliation between the two peoples after peace and statehood
54% support Palestinian participation in the peace conference called for by the US
But only 17% expect to see a quick end to armed confrontations and return to negotiations"

[elke]

From the same poll:
09. After reaching a peace agreement between the Palestinian people and Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state that is recognized by Israel, how soon do you think will reconciliation between the two peoples be achieved?
1. Reconciliation is not possible ever
42.0
2. Only in many generations to come
14.7
3. Only in the next generation
9.0
4. Only in the next decade
6.1
5. On the next few years
16.0

10-4 Take legal measures against incitement against Israel

1. Strongly Support
3.0
2. Support
29.8
3. Oppose
46.8
4. Strongly Oppose

10-5 Adopt school curriculum in the Palestinian state that recognizes Israel and teaches school children not to demand return of all Palestine to the Palestinians
1. Strongly Support
1.2
2. Support
5.6
3. Oppose
51.4
4. Strongly Oppose
39.7

The moral of the story is: you have to read the full questionnaire carefully, instead of just relying on the summaries. :)

[takeo]

I think lomplighter does more than generalising (which is racist as well according to your definition)

"Although the Dictionary I used does not provide a clear definition of "racial" or "race", in common usage it implies physical and/or cultural attributes only, rather than the given group's actions. As an example, to say that "African Americans are violent" is a racist statement; while to say that "Black Panther Movement was violent" is not - even though all members of the Black Panthers were African American. "

to say that Hamas or al-quaida are terrorist movements is correct, to say that all Muslims are terrorists is incorrect, even if all members of Hamas and Al-Quaida are Muslim...


"Given the continuous terrorist attacks, perpetrated almost exclusively by Muslims, - as well as the results of the polls in the Muslim world (as opposed to elsewhere), - L@mplighter's statements cannot be considered irrational and baseless, nor based on "race". Therefore, they are not racist."

Maybe not based on race, OK, but he often mentions "Arabs" and "Muslims" in the same sentence, and being anti-Arab is being racist. because generalisations of bad stereotypes of a people is racist according to your definition.

"Many Jews are clearly bad news and that’s why the National Party in France garnished 20% of the electorate’s votes. Denmark, Holland and Austria moved to the right and there are indications that much of the EU is moving that way.
If you guys don’t STOP what you’re doing a wave will sweep over the world and swallow you up. If you would have succeeded in committing despicable acts in palestine it might have done it. There’s always the straw that breaks the rat's back.
Perhaps you spend your time picking the fly **** out of the pepper as for me I would discard it all. Given Jewish’ track record there’s no way under G_d’s heaven people like that should be granted entry into a peace loving country like France. NO WAY!"

Now tell me, wouldn't you consider this to be racist and anti-semitic? I would!

"an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics "

lompligter's view is irrational, there is no reasonable reason to believe that Muslim people (i'm not talking about terrorists but Muslims in general) are a danger for Europe.
It's as saying that jews are a danger for Russia because some jewish people are oligarchs... that would be racism too.

[takeo]

ok, that's right, but the other results indicate that they want peace with israel, but don't think that israel wants peace with them...


also

"08. After reaching a peace agreement between the Palestinian people and Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state that is recognized by Israel, would you support or oppose the process of reconciliation between the state of Palestine and the state of Israel?

1. Strongly support
9.0
5.2
15.2

2. Support
60.6
63.9
55.4

3. Oppose
20.3
22.4
17.0

4. Strongly oppose
8.4
7.0
10.5

5. No opinion/do not know
1.7
1.5
2.0


Total
West Bank
Gaza Strip"

[elke]

I don't know much about French criminal system, but in the US there are 2 major types of crimes: "Felonies" and "Misdemeanors". For a stark comparison, murder is a felony; but vehicular manslaughter (an auto accident due to the driver's negligence, which results in someone's death) is a misdemeanor.

The difference between racism and generalization is like that: it's the matter of extent. If you take the gist of L@mplighter's posts in total, the meaning is clear: he is referring to the "militants" and their sympathizers. This is not irrational, nor is it baseless. You can argue the veracity of the data his views are based on, but you still can't call him a racist.

While poll results may not be accurate, the majority of the available information is pointing towards wide support for terrorist activity among individuals in the Muslim world. What that means in concrete terms is this:
If you meet a Muslim person in the street, before you know anything else about him/her, the chances that s/he supports terrorist activity are 51%.

While it would be the height of stupidity to make decisions such as whether to talk to a particular person based on polls and other statistical data, collectively all countries have to base their immigration, tourism, and other national security-sensitive policies on such data. It's inevitable, since much damage can be done by only a few of particular individuals.

[elke]

Yes, but to me this one overrides anything else they may say:

10-5 Adopt school curriculum in the Palestinian state that recognizes Israel and teaches school children not to demand return of all Palestine to the Palestinians
1. Strongly Support
1.2
2. Support
5.6
3. Oppose
51.4
4. Strongly Oppose
39.7

Everything else is prevarication. So long as this is true, there will be no peace. The Palestinians MUST be ready to stop demanding return of all Palestine, and begin teaching their children tolerance. This is NOT tolerance.

[takeo]

I think lomplighter is not only referring to terrorist organisations and their supporters, he is refering to all Muslims, in for example France, and says that Europeans must limit immigration from Muslim countries (thus not only referring to terrorists). The polls can not indicate the acts of a few individuals and are worthless for catagorising a whole people. it is not because many israeli supported the jenin-bloodshet that all israeli are bloodthursty people or that suicide-actions against israeli civilians are justified.
I don't think any nation uses polls to determine who is allowed to enter the country...
By the way there are no general polls or catarcteristics for the entire Muslim world, people in indonesia think very different from people in Palestine, from people in nigeria, from Kasakh people...

[elke]

OK, not polls per se, but rather "profiles" for immigration policies. A person from Syria applying for a visa to come into US would be subject to far more scrutiny than a person from Japan.

I agree that the polls, as any statistics, are useless in individual case predictions. However, when done and evaluated properly, they can predict collective behavior. To generalize :) , the results of that PCPSR poll seem rather schizophrenic to me. On one hand, the participants want to live "side by side", but on the other hand they don't see why incitement against Israelis is wrong and don't want to teach their children that Israel is legitimate - while, at the same time, recognizing its legitimacy on collective level.

This is actually consistent with other polls I have seen, done by various organizations. Which means that either the Palestinians as a group don't really know what they want; or their intentions are that this "side by side" Palestinian State be only a springboard to the whole thing. Either way, it seems that this current idea of a Palestinian State will not result in cessation of hostilities and reconciliation.

However, having said that, given the outrageous treatment of "collaborators", it is entirely possible that the responses given on the poll are NOT the true picture of what many Palestinians think. Therefore, if there is ever rule of law in the Territories, it is entirely possible that the situation is not nearly as dire as the polls suggest.

[Mediocrates]

These polls sound like Communist elections. Ceacescu regularly got 98% of the vote. Until they executed him and his wife by firing squad.

I live in the middle of the fastest growing Hispanic community in the US. We have become the new haven for documented and undocumented people from Central America and Hispanic Caribbean. I suppose you could go into the communities and survey them how they feel about expanding rights to undocumented workers but I'm not sure what you would do with that information.

[Mediocrates]

Of if you look at the arab world in general you could make a case that given democracy, they would choose to elect fascism. So perhaps the results of polling reflect the same urge. Given a choice, people choose to wipe their hands of making any decisions over their own destiny. Better to pick the party line than worry if your neighbors will turn you in.

[elke]

Except that Arafat does not get anywhere near the 98% vote, even in such polls! :D

[Mediocrates]

Oh, never mind, I forgot. tskacreffeo believes in communist elections.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by elke
Except that Arafat does not get anywhere near the 98% vote, even in such polls! :D


ok then 80% then - long will liberty ring !!

[takeo]

actually Arafat only gets around 30% in the polls, and Palestinians believe that the PA is corrupt and the big majority wants more democracy instead of less, based on the israeli and American example!!!! (the same polls)
not really like elections in Romania under Ceaucescu... (nowadays i'm sure Ceaucescu would easily win in free elections if he was still alive, but that's another matter...)
I think it's extremely important to know what the Palestinians want, in what they believe, equally important as the opinions of the Israeli people. I believe the opinion of those Latino's are important too, they are an important and growing part of your country's population, if you like it or not.
Elke, maybe after 11/9 it's possible that someone coming from an Arab country will be scrutinised more seriously than a Japanese or Belgian, but i'm sure it will make no difference for the immigration policy.
I don't think those polls are schizophrenic. people know that making peace with Israel is a necessity, but after 50 years of intense hate you can not expect them to love Israel, they want peace (including a cessation of hostilities) because it's also in their own interest but will not become anytime soon Israel-lovers... and history lessons will still mention "zionist massacres", etc. while israeli history lessons will not stop mentioning the PLO violence against israel in the 80's...
they know they will never get more of than the return of some refugees and the return of the occupied territories, they will not get back all historical palestine. all but a few extremists have accepted this.
You can see the same thing in Yougoslavia, they still hate eachother, which is reflected in education, but they know it's in the benefit of all to stop the war.
I think such deep historic rifts only narrow slowly, as for France and Germany it took two generations to forget the mutual hate, and stil Germans are referred to as "Bosch"...
i think people in the polls answer honestly, they are not afraid to anwer unconventionally concerning the PA and support for the suicide-bombers.
the treatment of collaborators is an entirely different issue, these are people who collaborated with israeli assasinations in most cases. Such people who helped the occupier in WWII were assasinated in an even more brutal way by the resistance...

[cerulean]

Originally posted by takeo

not really like elections in Romania under Ceaucescu... (nowadays i'm sure Ceaucescu would easily win in free elections if he was still alive, but that's another matter...)

You can't be serious. I'm starting to think "takeo" is a performance artist whose objective is to post ridiculous things to see if they're taken seriously.

[elke]

You can't get into the US if you have been a member of certain groups, which means that people from certain countries where such groups are prominent, are scrutinized more closely than others. My father spent a large number of hours with a big, burly, cigar-smoking FBI agent, even though he was never a member of a Communist party. Quite frankly, we didn't mind: it's the right of any country to control who they wish to accept as its citizens.

It is important to know what Palestinians want, the only question is whether it's possible to do that. In statistics, there is a concept called "credibility". This is a factor between 0 and 1 assigned by the statistician performing the calculations, to reflect just how reliable s/he believes the data is. I don't know what the credibility factor is for these polls (the closer to 1 the more reliable), and neither do I know if it has been applied to the results; but there has got to be an equivalent to this concept in polling: it's central to any statistical analysis. In a different thread, Vic stated that a friend of his who knows how polls are made, said that these are not reliable.

[takeo]

Cerulean, go to Romania and see with your own eyes and hear for yourself, most Romanians refere to the ceaucescu time in positive words, also for me it was a surprise, as i tought it was one of the worst regimes in Eastern Europe.
but it's not because Ceaucescu was actually such an ideal leader but because the current ones are WORSE. (Romania today is poorer, corrupter, etc. than in the 70's or 80's)


"You can't get into the US if you have been a member of certain groups, which means that people from certain countries where such groups are prominent, are scrutinized more closely than others. My father spent a large number of hours with a big, burly, cigar-smoking FBI agent, even though he was never a member of a Communist party. Quite frankly, we didn't mind: it's the right of any country to control who they wish to accept as its citizens. "

that's right, even as a tourist you need to answer some questions. (the question about political allegiance was luckily no longer asked) but the US still accepts Muslims to emigrate as before, but pobably the scrutiny is harder.


"It is important to know what Palestinians want, the only question is whether it's possible to do that. In statistics, there is a concept called "credibility". This is a factor of 0 to 1 assigned by the statistician performing the calculations, to reflect just how reliable s/he believes the data is. I don't know what the credibility factor is for these polls (the closer to 1 the more reliable), and neither do I know if it has been applied to the results; but there has got to be an equivalent to this concept in polling: it's central to any statistical analysis. In a different thread, Vic stated that a friend of his who knows how polls are made, said that these are not reliable"

that's right, but polls always give an indication of the popular support, not detailed, but in general mostly the trends seem to be confirmed.

[L@mplighterM]

There are three main races on this planet and they are Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. The majority of the individuals that support the terrorist attacks in the ME are Caucasoid and I belong to the same race. Some polls indicate that there?s upwards of 80% support for the actions taken by the Islamic Fundamentalists against Jews. Whatever the percentage I consider these people scum and the lowest form of life on this planet. Further I firmly believe they should be eradicated or eradiated. Pick one!!!

Whatever an Arab frog says is of no concern to me he/she/it can call me a racist. I would gladly wear a yellow armband with RACIST painted on it if that?s required to hold beliefs like mine.

You?ll notice that I exclude Christian Arabs from my posts!!

Any country that would even consider letting individuals immigrate that belong to a group of identifiable individuals where 50-80% support killing the inhabitants of that country would be doomed. DOOMED!

Identifying which ones will support vs. will not support terrorism is impossible. This is not an art like sexing chickens. If the ones that don?t support terrorism has a problem with this issue they should take it up with their brethren NOT WITH THE COUNTRY THAT DENIES THEM ENTRY.

READ THIS!!!!!!

AS FAR AS I?M CONCERNED EVERY ARAB/MUSLIM COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS ANTI SEMETIC.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
I think lomplighter is not only referring to terrorist organisations and their supporters, he is refering to all Muslims, in for example France, and says that Europeans must limit immigration from Muslim countries (thus not only referring to terrorists). The polls can not indicate the acts of a few individuals and are worthless for catagorising a whole people. it is not because many israeli supported the jenin-bloodshet that all israeli are bloodthursty people or that suicide-actions against israeli civilians are justified.
I don't think any nation uses polls to determine who is allowed to enter the country...
By the way there are no general polls or catarcteristics for the entire Muslim world, people in indonesia think very different from people in Palestine, from people in nigeria, from Kasakh people...

The Scandinavian countries recently held a conference to discuss the growing problems generated by Muslims. I didn?t call for the conference. Europe is moving right with good cause and I would even say that the US is slowly shifting in that direction. News laws are being enacted to protect the security of the US and I?ll tell you it?s going to be next to impossible for foreign students to study there. I believe that foreign Nationals can no longer enter the US for a six month less one day stay, if my memory serves me correctly its one month maximum now.

Quote me exactly or not at all!!!

[elke]

I am sorry, L@mplighter, but I have to disagree with you: it is important that correct terminology be used. Not only do such discussions degenerate into unproductive personal vendettas, but also the facts are obscured with rhetoric.

The so-called "propaganda war" hinges on words with high emotional impact. It may not matter to you personally that your views are called racist, but it does matter when many people have a difficult time with the word and are "undecided" about what Zionism or terrorism means. Most people don't have the time or inclination to research this subject deeply, so the short, quick bites of information become their source. Use the word "racist", and such people will not look any further to discover whether or not it's true, but rather will mouth off - and more importantly, vote - based on such cursory knowledge.

[L@mplighterM]

I have zero tolerance when it comes to terrorists and their supporters and I firmly believe that the world would be a better place without them. If I’m deemed a racist because of a belief like that so be it.

I have no objections to any race of people that adopt a ‘live and let live attitude’. I don’t care what religious affiliation individuals have as long as it doesn’t have a built in philosophy to harm others.

If by believing that terrorists and their supporters are scum it somehow makes me a racist so be it. In that context I would be proud to be labeled a racist.

[L@mplighterM]

For the sake of an argument let’s say that I don’t like most Catholics would that make me a racist?

What if I said that I didn’t like most Buddhists?

What if I said that I didn’t like most Hindus?

I think if I publicly stated that all Arabs are scum it would make me a racist.

I think if I publicly stated that all East Indians are scum it would make me a racist.

The point is that I’m attacking the individuals philosophically beliefs and that doesn’t make me a racist.

But if anyone wants to see that as being racist let it be so.

[elke]

The point is that I’m attacking the individuals philosophically beliefs and that doesn’t make me a racist.

Of course not, - that's exactly my point! Your views are NOT irrational, nor are you attacking a particular group with innocuous characteristics. Therefore your views are not racist, by definition.

What I disagree with you about is that I think labels are important. Accurate word usage is important, because it's key to communication. We can't change the mindset or time availability of an average Joe, but we can affect the quality of information s/he gets in that sound bite s/he does hear, by being careful with the words we use and challenging when they are not used appropriately.

[takeo]

I think lomplighter is racist, and he even contradicts himself:

"I think if I publicly stated that all Arabs are scum it would make me a racist"

yes, and that's exactly what you said! (well instead of scum you use the nice words like frog, or camel)
95% of the Arabs are Muslim! And in Palestine the Christian minority is involved in terrorism as wel (the PFLP)

if i said that i hated all Jews (which isn't of course), would that make me an anti-semite and a racist, even if i only hate religious Jews?
certainly!

People catagorising whole peoples because they are of a different race (and you repetously used the word "Arab" without specification, you use polls which INCLUDE christians to base your opinion upon) is racist of course.

And don't know how you would call people generalising and hating all people of one certain ideology.
It would make them intolerant of course, but is it racism? I don't know, but it's certainly contrary to the principles of the western liberal ideology that was the basis for the American constitution.

Also, you are absolutely out of your mind to call 1.5 billion people frogs or whatever because some of them support terrorism (and only for specific reasons, most americans also supported terrorism against yougoslavia, nicaragua, etc;)
Most of this people don't even care for politics and are just people who live somewhere on the planet doing what every family is doing, trying to make a living, living their life.
Are the people in Tatarstan so much different from Russians? are they all scum because some poeple in Pakistan and palestine support terrorism? of course not, it only shows the irrational hatred of lomplighter, that is even more extreme than Le Pen (if Le pen would say so he would loose his civil rights, anyone making anti-muslim, anti-jewish or racist comments can be persecuted here)

I think in scandinavia too, by the way; those countries may have restricted immigration, but there is no law in any democratic country restricting only Muslims or Arabs...

I hope, Elke, that you don't agree with views of this kind, you have not condamned it.
But at least one can say that lomplighter is honest, more people think that way but are afraid to say so.

"If the ones that don?t support terrorism has a problem with this issue they should take it up with their brethren NOT WITH THE COUNTRY THAT DENIES THEM ENTRY. "

I think MOST muslims don't support terrorism, indonesians, malaysians, kasakh, etc. etc. have absolutely no relations whatsoever with the Palestinians or Pakistani, they should not "take it up with their brethren " because it aren't there brethren.
And terrorism is not only a Muslim problem, the us is responsible too for crimes in the world, does it make anti-american attacks legitimate? according to your logic, yes. The tamils commit terrorism in sri Lanka, should we hate all tamils in india too?
In uganda god's liberation army killed 1000's of innocent people, should we hate all christians? ETC ETC actually it is too obvious, but apparently not everyone in the US thinks so...
Israel is responsible for crimes, would it legitimate anti-jewish laws in france?
actually your kind of generalisation is the one used by Arab extremists in france to attack jewish citizens, despisable.
yes, muslim-related problems are discussed, but not a single scandinavian country has or will ever take discriminatory laws against Muslims.

[Mediocrates]

if i said that i hated all Jews (which isn't of course), would that make me an anti-semite and a racist, even if i only hate religious Jews?
certainly


You're more clever than that. You hate all Israelis, at least the Jewish ones, which of cource is completely politically correct and even promoted. That old "how can I be an anti semite, I am a semite" babble.

[Mediocrates]

the us is responsible too for crimes in the world, does it make anti-american attacks legitimate? according to your logic, yes.

According to YOUR statements, yes - that's your line of reasoning.

The tamils commit terrorism in sri Lanka, should we hate all tamils in india too?
In uganda god's liberation army killed 1000's of innocent people, should we hate all christians? ETC ETC actually it is too obvious, but apparently not everyone in the US thinks so...

Again, that's YOUR rationale - any self professed group who claims a war of liberation is defacto correct, right, righteous, the good guy and is entitled to use by any means necessary. You've listed group after group on this very board you support where most of the rest of the world calls them terrorists.

[takeo]

"You're more clever than that. You hate all Israelis, at least the Jewish ones, which of cource is completely politically correct and even promoted. That old "how can I be an anti semite, I am a semite" babble."

no, I'm not against all Jewish Israeli, quote me properly.
that's a lie, i only hate the ruling elite in Israel.

"the us is responsible too for crimes in the world, does it make anti-american attacks legitimate? according to your logic, yes.

According to YOUR statements, yes - that's your line of reasoning."

No, I never agreed to any act of violence against civilians, and certainly not in the US.


"Again, that's YOUR rationale - any self professed group who claims a war of liberation is defacto correct, right, righteous, the good guy and is entitled to use by any means necessary. You've listed group after group on this very board you support where most of the rest of the world calls them terrorists."

no, not all of them, only if they fight for a just cause and are persecuted and there is no peacefull way to end the repression, such as the Kurds (in BOTH Iraq and Turkey, i suppose you only support the iraqi Kurds...) , or the Palestinians.

[elke]

You have to base your opinion on facts. Even though the polls are far from perfect, certainly about details, they are the best we have. As I said before, an opinion based on such information may be "generalizing", but racism? IMHO, NO.

[takeo]

yes, generalising!
What if a poll would show that 70% of Americans would support dropping a nuclear bomb in iraq?
should it lead me to the conclusion that all Americans are scum?
i don't think so, there will always be Americans opposed to this, and you can't base your opinion about a people on just one single issue.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by takeo
yes, generalising!
What if a poll would show that 70% of Americans would support dropping a nuclear bomb in iraq?
should it lead me to the conclusion that all Americans are scum?
i don't think so, there will always be Americans opposed to this, and you can't base your opinion about a people on just one single issue.

What if Takeo were to put words in other people's mouths?

The fact is that 70% of Americans don't support "dropping a nuclear bomb in Iraq," but very likely that many do support removing Saddam Hussein from power. He raped Kuwait, gassed his own people, and offers rewards to the families of terrorists.

But a majority of Palestinians support terrorism. This is not some obscure or poorly understood issue. When a majority of Palestinians say they support terrorist attacks, they are saying loud and clear that they support the mass murder of Jews.

We can and must draw conclusions about the Palestinian people based on such poll results.

They clearly are not to be trusted with their own state: headed by the Father of modern terrorism and friend of Iran, Iraq, and Syria, it would surely be a terrorist-sponsoring state.

[Mediocrates]

should it lead me to the conclusion that all Americans are scum?

First off, you're convinced of that already. You just haven't formulated your justifications for it yet.

(Bomb Iraq) Again by your own rationale it would be correct for us to that and you should accept that fact and allow us to act on it in the name of the free will of the people. You can't have it every which way. You can't say will of the people this will of the people that, non interference this non interference that and then categorize after the fact which bedfellows you prefer on absolutist grounds. Simply say it's not a rational or fair decision on your part and let it go at that. You may think we're all scum but by your own words, you simply can't claim the right to complain about it or do anything about it (except of course to fund or assist terrorists who fight against us).

...You can't call the IRA a good kind of terrorism and something else a bad kind of terrorism. What about FARC? Do you like them too? After all they fund themselves by selling drugs to America. One would think you'd be clapping based on that one fact alone. Death to the Great Satan!!!

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
I think lomplighter is racist, and he even contradicts himself:

"I think if I publicly stated that all Arabs are scum it would make me a racist"

yes, and that's exactly what you said! (well instead of scum you use the nice words like frog, or camel)
95% of the Arabs are Muslim! And in Palestine the Christian minority is involved in terrorism as wel (the PFLP)




The only Arab that I ever called a frog is you takeo. Actually you?re a scummy Arab frog because of the position you hold on terrorists.

You?re good at cutting and pasting so why don?t you show where I made these alleged statements. Quote me !!!!

If calling an Arab a camel is considered derogative then you just became an Arab camel scummy frog.

I?ve got no bone to pick with Arab/Muslims that go about their business earning a buck, paying their taxes and cutting their grass.

[elke]

Originally posted by takeo
yes, generalising!
What if a poll would show that 70% of Americans would support dropping a nuclear bomb in iraq?
should it lead me to the conclusion that all Americans are scum?
i don't think so, there will always be Americans opposed to this, and you can't base your opinion about a people on just one single issue.

You are not getting it:

if Iraq was just sitting there, minding its own business, with nary a thought of assassinating a President of the United States or of attacking its neighbors, - and most Americans wanted to bomb the hell out of Iraq for sport or because they believed that they could get cheaper oil that way, - you would be JUSTIFIED in calling them "scum". Your opinion would thus be RATIONAL and therefore such statement would NOT be "racist". You may be "generalizing", - because 30% of Americans in your example there do not wish to bomb Iraq; but you are still not a racist.

BTW, should we all take your comment that Mexicans are nicer colonizers than Yankees as a racist statement? By your definition of racism, it certainly is!

[takeo]

"The fact is that 70% of Americans don't support "dropping a nuclear bomb in Iraq," but very likely that many do support removing Saddam Hussein from power. He raped Kuwait, gassed his own people, and offers rewards to the families of terrorists. "

It was just an example. But anyway the US has no legal right to attack Iraq, and Iraq, nor any terrorist groups based in Iraq, has not attacked the US, which rules out self-defense, and the un didn't gave the US a permission to bomb Iraq. And illegally bombing a country is terrorism. So if 70% of Americans would agree with bombing Iraq and killing innocent iraqi people, than the majority of Americans would be terrorist-supporters.
You may say, legally we can't bomb Iraq but morally yes.
OK, Saddam is scum, so is Bush, so is Kissinger who is coresponsible for the killing of millions of Vietnamese, etc.
if we want to bomb iraq we have to bomb the whole middle-east, including israel, for moral reasons, and the whole of Africa, and Guatemala, where the vice-president is a mass-murderer, etc. etc.
We don't live in a moral world, and the us is not exactly the moral example and such a superpower is not best suited to be the "moral judge and policeman" of the world...
the only justice we have is the UN, which is recognised by the whole world (unlike the US-hegemony) for solving international disputes and issues.




"But a majority of Palestinians support terrorism. This is not some obscure or poorly understood issue. When a majority of Palestinians say they support terrorist attacks, they are saying loud and clear that they support the mass murder of Jews. "

Yes, but when israeli say they support harder and more violent actions against palestinians, they are saying that they support the killing of Palestinians. When americans say they want military strikes against iraq they are supporting the mass murder of Iraqi citizens.
I always make a distinction between supporters and perpetrators, being a supporter is an opinion, which doesn't make them criminals. They may have based their opinion on wrong information and may change later, they have not caused any major damage. And they are civilians, it is their right to hve an opinion, whatever that is, but they have not the right to kill civilians. that's why i don't support the murder on israeli or Palestinian civilians.




"They clearly are not to be trusted with their own state: headed by the Father of modern terrorism and friend of Iran, Iraq, and Syria, it would surely be a terrorist-sponsoring state."

read the polls properly, and you'll notice that the majority wants to live in peace with israel under certain conditions. Israeli people support Sharon, which doesn't make me conclude that israel should cease to exist and all israeli must be occupied forever...



"First off, you're convinced of that already. You just haven't formulated your justifications for it yet. "

again, you accuse me of twisting your words, but you are constantly doing the same. where did i say that all Americans are scum??????

"(Bomb Iraq) Again by your own rationale it would be correct for us to that and you should accept that fact and allow us to act on it in the name of the free will of the people. You can't have it every which way. You can't say will of the people this will of the people that, non interference this non interference that and then categorize after the fact which bedfellows you prefer on absolutist grounds. Simply say it's not a rational or fair decision on your part and let it go at that. You may think we're all scum but by your own words, you simply can't claim the right to complain about it or do anything about it (except of course to fund or assist terrorists who fight against us). "

the same applies for you or the us in general..
you can't complain about terrorism but on the other hand support and fund "friendly" terrorists in afghanistan and nicaragua in the 80's, in Kosovo, in iraqi Kurdistan (while at the same time helping to oppres the Turkish Kurds, how cynical one can be?) etc.
actually you can't bomb Iraq because Iraq is not a part of the US.... it has nothing to do with non-interfearance...
By the way you are not interfearing in iraq because of those poor Kurds but because you want a "nice" dictator in the second or tirth oil-nation in the Gulf... (the same way you want a "nice" dictator in Venezuela, democratic elections or no democratic elections)? I support internal rebellions against oppression and injustice AND resistance against foreign occupation, which is still something different than allowing other nations to interfear in the internal policy of other countries by military means. (BTW, i do not agree with the Soviet-invasion in czechoslovakia)




"...You can't call the IRA a good kind of terrorism and something else a bad kind of terrorism. What about FARC? Do you like them too? After all they fund themselves by selling drugs to America. One would think you'd be clapping based on that one fact alone. Death to the Great Satan!!!"

I don't know enough about the FARC to come to any conclusion, they fight inequality and injustice in Colombia, but i don't approove their means.
BTW: the drugs of Colombia is not only coming from the leftist guerilla's but as well and even more from ultra-right-wing para-military (the ones most often cited in the yearbooks of amnesty international for killing peasants and civilians) and from druglords linked to the ultra-corrupted us-backed government.


"The only Arab that I ever called a frog is you takeo. Actually you?re a scummy Arab frog because of the position you hold on terrorists. If calling an Arab a camel is considered derogative then you just became an Arab camel scummy frog. "

What about the rules concerning personal insults that are established on this forum?



"You?re good at cutting and pasting so why don?t you show where I made these alleged statements. Quote me !!!! "
I?ve got no bone to pick with Arab/Muslims that go about their business earning a buck, paying their taxes and cutting their grass."





Originally posted by takeo
yes, generalising!
What if a poll would show that 70% of Americans would support dropping a nuclear bomb in iraq?
should it lead me to the conclusion that all Americans are scum?
i don't think so, there will always be Americans opposed to this, and you can't base your opinion about a people on just one single issue.

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



You are not getting it:

if Iraq was just sitting there, minding its own business, with nary a thought of assassinating a President of the United States or of attacking its neighbors, - and most Americans wanted to bomb the hell out of Iraq for sport or because they believed that they could get cheaper oil that way, - you would be JUSTIFIED in calling them "scum". Your opinion would thus be RATIONAL and therefore such statement would NOT be "racist". You may be "generalizing", - because 30% of Americans in your example there do not wish to bomb Iraq; but you are still not a racist.

BTW, should we all take your comment that Mexicans are nicer colonizers than Yankees as a racist statement? By your definition of racism, it certainly is!

[elke]

Hey, Takeo, that was my post you pasted, not L@mplighters! :)

[Mediocrates]

We don't live in a moral world, and the us is not exactly the moral example and such a superpower is not best suited to be the "moral judge and policeman" of the world... the only justice we have is the UN, which is recognised by the whole world (unlike the US-hegemony) for solving international disputes and issues.


Yet the only parties you draw moral conclusions about are Israelis and Americans. Everyone else gets a free ticket. Only Americans and Israelis are war criminals, yet everyone else is a freedom fighter.

[takeo]

AS FAR AS I?M CONCERNED EVERY ARAB/MUSLIM COUNTRY IN THE WORLD IS ANTI SEMETIC.

Arabs are their own worst enemies if it wasn’t for US intervention to protect its oil supply the Arabs would kill each other off within a decade. The same goes for the Blacks in Africa if the Europeans wouldn’t have colonized the continent they’d be all gone.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=1503&highlight=arabs#post1503

I have to admit that I would't feel bad if a fellow Muslim of yours stuck a AK47 up your *** and pulled the trigger I think the world would be a little better place.



http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=1120&highlight=arabs#post1120

?m not going to define potential terrorist or terrorist for you because that would most likely seem like I was Arab bashing.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=1433&highlight=Arab

Targeting civilians is an Arab specialty and in our culture individuals are dealt with severely if they do indeed maliciously attack civilians.

Even if one Arab/Muslim corpse was dragged through the streets it wouldn?t even begin to even the score.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=2258&highlight=Arab#post2258


"You are not getting it:

"if Iraq was just sitting there, minding its own business, with nary a thought of assassinating a President of the United States or of attacking its neighbors, - and most Americans wanted to bomb the hell out of Iraq for sport or because they believed that they could get cheaper oil that way, - you would be JUSTIFIED in calling them "scum". Your opinion would thus be RATIONAL and therefore such statement would NOT be "racist". You may be "generalizing", - because 30% of Americans in your example there do not wish to bomb Iraq; but you are still not a racist. "

yes, i would be a racist, because i would attack and condamn an entire people for unjustified reasons (not ALL), not the policy of a country...
That's why you will never hear me saying that all Germans are fascists because most of them cooperated with Hitler...


"BTW, should we all take your comment that Mexicans are nicer colonizers than Yankees as a racist statement? By your definition of racism, it certainly is!"

hey, first, that's about a policy, not an entire people, and secondly, that was a joke :)

[Mediocrates]

what a thin skin - we're just peaceful freedom fighters using whatever poor methods are at our miserable disposal.

[takeo]

ok, elke, i apologise for this serious mistake... :o

"Yet the only parties you draw moral conclusions about are Israelis and Americans. Everyone else gets a free ticket. Only Americans and Israelis are war criminals, yet everyone else is a freedom fighter."

That's not true. I was very much opposed to the taliban, even more than to the israeli policy, i am opposed to the Khmer Rouge, stalinist purges, human rights abuses in Arab countries, French colonialism, etc. AS WELL, but it has no use discussing this on this forum as we all agree.

[elke]

I still think that suspicion of a group, based on their beliefs and/or actions, is a legitimate response and does not constitute racism. Therefore, if 70% of Cherkassians believed that Azerbaijan has to be nuked, Azerbaijanis (and others familiar with the situation) would be justified in suspecting any Cherkassian, until proven otherwise, and should not be considered racist.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
ok, elke, i apologise for this serious mistake... :o

"Yet the only parties you draw moral conclusions about are Israelis and Americans. Everyone else gets a free ticket. Only Americans and Israelis are war criminals, yet everyone else is a freedom fighter."

That's not true. I was very much opposed to the taliban, even more than to the israeli policy, i am opposed to the Khmer Rouge, stalinist purges, human rights abuses in Arab countries, French colonialism, etc. AS WELL, but it has no use discussing this on this forum as we all agree.


By this you mean, you don't support the revolutions that failed.

[takeo]

"By this you mean, you don't support the revolutions that failed"

:D

and also the inhuman ones.


Elke, if the azerbaidjani would conclude from this that all Cherkessians would be criminals and bad people, yes they would be racist. (as many other Caucasians... they all hate eachother for whatever reason)
in Russia many Jews are involved in criminal activities, and if most Russian Jews would pronounce themselves against any legal actions against them, it would still not be a reason to discriminate all Jews in Russia....

according to this kind of logic, Frensh ambassador had the right to call Israel "a little ****ty country", because the majority of israeli's support their government's policy.

[Mediocrates]

Like all ideologues you believe the strength of your convictions will insulate you from the raw realities of their consequence.

[takeo]

no, all ideologies need to be tested on their application in reality, so does zionism.

[MGB8]

Zionism is not an ideology. It is a hope. A goal. The goal being the Jewish homeland in Eretz Yisrael.

Israel is a fact. The Palestinian Arabs refuse to accept that fact, as do many across the Arab World (just look at the articles in even "moderate" newspapers such as the Jordan Times, which recently published an article, "Israel is an unsustainable experiment."

Your posts about the Arab resident living in historic Judea over the last 2000 years is misinformed.

After the diaspora, Judea became less and less populated until most of it was a waste land. Mark Twain reported as much in his visit to the holy land. Most of the Inhabitants were nomadic tribes, like the Druz.

While the land had many "owners" over the 2 millenia, actuall inhabitants were tiny until the beginning of the 20th century, where Zionism brought Jews and jewish money, and that money attracted workers from neighboring areas (as well as a lot of resentment, too.)

The land was not "Arab land" because it had no sizable historic population. In 1917, the Balfour declaration promissed what is now Israel AND Jordan to the Jewish people. In 1948 Judea was carved in 2 by the UN and half given to Israel. The surrounding arab countries immediately made war (and there was no international outcry, shocking) and lost. They planned to make war again in 67, and lost. In 67, Israel acquired the West Bank. For various reasons it never annexed the area. Most of these reasons are political, and some not necessarily pleasant - ie. maintaining a strong jewish majority instead of adopting a bunch of Arabs loyal to the enemy and with a much greater population rate and in much greater need of public assistance. Golda Meir had hoped to trade back the west bank for Peace with Jordan. She offered as much. It was rejected. One great thing was that Jerusalem was reunited and, while Muslims and Christians continued to worship, now Jews were allowed to restore there desecrated religious sites and worship as well. Israel gives a lot of control over the holy city to the particular religions that dominate the quarter.

The land is simply not "Arab land." They want it. They had it once (before the Brits and Turks and Mamaluks). The crusades and expelling the infedels were a source of pride for them. But there is no strong claim to the entire land, nor much claim to individual spots of land.


Originally posted by takeo
no, all ideologies need to be tested on their application in reality, so does zionism.

[andrei]

Sorry guys I am entering your interesting discussion with such a pragmatic subject.

Since I definitely know that many active pro-palesitinian internet participants are employees and are being paid for pubplishing such kind of things, I would like to make a simple opinion poll:

DO YOU THINK THAT TAKEO IS ONE OF THEM?

Take it easy. I'm writing this because I have seen some similarity between his style and the way they usually go on.
Consider this is just interesting for me, what are you thinking.

***
Nice forum, really. I haven't seen discussions of so high level for a long time.

[MGB8]

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ltu0

Israel Line
Thursday, June 13, 2002


POLL: MAJORITY OF PALESTINIANS SUPPORT SUICIDE BOMBINGS, ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL
MINISTRY OF FINANCE SIGN AGREEMENT WITH DEAF
CUSTOMS OFFICIALS SEIZE 1,000,000 CIGARETTES AT RAFAH CROSSING
TERRORIST ATTACKS THWARTED BY IDF TROOPS
ECONOMIC BRIEFS
POLL: MAJORITY OF PALESTINIANS SUPPORT SUICIDE BOMBINGS, ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL

A new poll indicates that a majority of Palestinians believe the aim of the current conflict should be to eliminate Israel and not just end Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, THE JERUSALEM POST reported. The poll, conducted by the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, showed that over 71 percent of Palestinians support terrorist attacks against civilians, more than 68 percent support suicide attacks in general, and almost 48 percent said attacks inside Israel are justified. The poll also indicated that almost half of the Palestinian population believe Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat would win the elections he proposed for early next year.

Approximately 51 percent of those surveyed said the end result of the conflict should be "liberating all of historic Palestine," referring to the British Mandate for a Palestinian State. The JMCC interviewed 1,179 Palestinians over the age of 18 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in late May and early June. The poll has a 3 percent margin of error.

[MGB8]

Birzeit University is a leading Palestinian institution of higher education. In November 2000, the Development Studies Program (www.birzeit.edu/dsp/) conducted a poll of 1,234 Palestinians in 75 locations throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, on questions relating to the intifada and the peace process.

Here are excerpts. Answers are in percentage points, with a margin of error plus-or-minus 3 percent.

1. Do you think that the Palestinian leadership should declare a Palestinian state despite Israeli and American opposition?


Yes 70.9
No 24.2
No opinion 5.0

2. Do you think that the Palestinian leadership should declare a state even if that declaration would lead to a military confrontation with Israel?


Yes 68.5
No 26.3
No opinion 5.2

3. Do think that the Palestinian Leadership accurately informs the public about political developments?


Yes 28.5
No 58.9
Not sure 12.6

4. If East Jerusalem comes under Palestinian sovereignty, will you accept Israeli sovereignty over West Jerusalem?


Yes 21.1
No 74.3
Not sure 4.6

5. Do you believe that peace is possible between Palestinians and Israelis if Israel does not recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return?


Yes 4.9
No 91.5
Not sure 3.5

6. Have your living conditions improved or deteriorated since the start of the peace process in 1993?


Improve 14.3
Deteriorate 45.0
No change 40.8

7. Do you think that the Oslo Accords and the subsequent agreements have lead to positive changes that benefit Palestinians?


Yes 16.5
Fair 24.2
No 54.9
Not sure 4.3

8. Do you think that there is a chance for peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis?


Yes 32.6
No 60.2
Not sure 7.2

9. If negotiations continue, who should guide and watch over them?


USA 3.2
UN 38.9
Others 39.9
Not sure 18.0

10. Do you think Ehud Barak is a leader the Palestinian leadership can negotiate with?


Yes 8.8
No 84.9
Not sure 6.3

11. Do you support or oppose military attacks against American targets in the region?


Support 72.9
Oppose 21.7
Not sure 5.4

12. In the case of establishing an independent Palestinian State, would you view a friendship between a Palestinian and an Israeli positively?


Yes 30.7
No 64.8
Not sure 4.5

13. Do you support or oppose military attacks against Israeli targets at the present time?


Support 80.0
Oppose 15.1
Not sure 4.9

14. If you support military attacks, what should be the target of these attacks?


11.7 Support only against military targets
03.0 support only against settlers
33.1 against both military & settlers
00.4 against civilians in the 1948 proper
62.3 against all Israelis regardless

[MGB8]

"Seventy-five percent5, 6 of Palestinians support suicide attacks and do not distinguish between civilian and military targets."

5 Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre. Public Opinion Poll No. 41. On Palestinian Attitudes Towards Politics including the Current Intifada. June 2001. http://www.jmcc.org/

6 Shikaki, Khalil. Peace Watch, Number 319, April 20, 2001, Palestinian Attitudes During the Bush/Sharon Era, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/Peacewatch/peacewatch2001/319.htm

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by andrei
Sorry guys I am entering your interesting discussion with such a pragmatic subject.

Since I definitely know that many active pro-palesitinian internet participants are employees and are being paid for pubplishing such kind of things, I would like to make a simple opinion poll:

DO YOU THINK THAT TAKEO IS ONE OF THEM?

Take it easy. I'm writing this because I have seen some similarity between his style and the way they usually go on.
Consider this is just interesting for me, what are you thinking.

***
Nice forum, really. I haven't seen discussions of so high level for a long time.

As far as I'm concerned takeo is an Arab paid to post here.

[Vic]

Originally posted by andrei
Since I definitely know that many active pro-palesitinian internet participants are employees and are being paid for pubplishing such kind of things, I would like to make a simple opinion poll:

DO YOU THINK THAT TAKEO IS ONE OF THEM?

Take it easy. I'm writing this because I have seen some similarity between his style and the way they usually go on.
Consider this is just interesting for me, what are you thinking.
I doubt it (I live not so far away from Takeo, in case you need my credentials, I think I have a clear picture of his background and his surroundings by now). I think his activity is a form of public self-psychotherapy gone awry.

[Mediocrates]

http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/jewishsociety/Paris3_When_It_Sizzles_With_Hate.asp


It encapsulates very well the issues for French Jews, if indeed we are talking about someone who is a French Jew. In a print format look around the bottom of page 3 to the bottom of page 4. I'd cut it but's more valuable for you to spend a few minutes reading it yourself for the whole balance.

As my Baptist missionary friends say; "if you want to change the behavior, you have to change the man."

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by takeo
it should not have happened in such conditions and with such exlusive ideology, but nowadays the jewish state exists, and an israeli people has been created, this can no longer be returned, so I accept the idea of a Jewish state in Israel.


As I recall, you Frenchmen were instrumental in helping the Nazis kill as many French Jews as possible. Remember the Vichy government?

Probably not, but we certainly do.

If you had any dignity at all, you would keep your opinions about the establishment of the State of Israel to yourself.
We created Israel (and Zionism) out of necessity from EUROPEAN ANTI- SEMITISM, and murder. If you really feel this way about zionism, maybe your countrymen should not have helped kill so many of us. Then we would be happy French citizens.

This is to say nothing of the current outbreak of Anti-semitism in your so-called coutnry. YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED AND HIDE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.

Let's also not forget the bloody and shadowy activities of the French Military Colonialists in Algeria. How many did you actually kill there?

Quite a few. Your French hands are WASHED in BLOOD (Jewish and Arab), so stay out of our affairs.

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by Vic

I doubt it (I live not so far away from Takeo, in case you need my credentials, I think I have a clear picture of his background and his surroundings by now). I think his activity is a form of public self-psychotherapy gone awry.



LOL!!!!


On the other hand, the same can be said about the 300 million Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa. :D

[Vic]

10:30 Author A.B. Yehoshua: Palestinians weren`t the first to be driven insane by Jews, look at the Germans (Army Radio)from today's Ha'aretz newsticker

[takeo]

MGB, from the same source as yours... (but didn't find the poll you listed)
"19. Do you support the continuation of negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis until a final agreement is reached?


1) Yes
63.2
60.5
67.2


2) No
33.4
34.4
31.7


3) Don’t know/No opinion
3.5
5.0
1.1


20. Do you support a lasting peace agreement based on UN resolutions (an independent state in the West Bank with Jerusalem as its capital and a just solution to the refugee problem)?


1) Yes
85.5
83.8
88.8


2) No
11.3
11.9
10.4


3) Don’t know/No opinion
2.9
4.3
0.7"

http://home.birzeit.edu/dsp/polls/results_english.htm


Zionism has all the caracteristics of an ideology, it is a kind of nationalism. Every supporter of an ideology will say that his ideology is a dream, for the Arabs Arab unification is a dream as well. But ones dream is the other ones nightmare. and this is always the case with all ideologies based on nationalism, exclusion and fascism, to which Arab nationalism and zionism both belong.

I have statistics to proove that your "empty desert" story is pure ********, but if you have other sources...

And your statement that "both Palestine and Jordan were promised to the Jews in the balfour-declaration" is even more *******.

I'm not one of them, Andrei. I just participate on this forum, I may be easy, no problem. Most people defending the Palestinians do so for the same reason that people defend israel, because they believe unjustice is been done. I became a defender of the palestinian cause after visiting the occupied territories and Israel.
Whatever the israeli's have suffered because of Palestinian terrorism, it is really nothing compared to what Israel did to the Palestinians, and what misery the idea of zionism caused for the original inhabitants of Palestine. The fact that people defending Israel can't understand this is because they feel superior, or a total lack of empathy. it is exactly the same kind of reasoning of people defending colonialism in Algeria some 40 to 50 years ago.

"a form of public self-psychotherapy "

whatever, I just defend my political views on the Middle-Eastern conflict in a rational way, as you are doing too.
i have said from the beginning that the refusal of Sharon to negociate and the harder repression, and that acts as in Jenin did contribute absolutely nothing to israeli security, on the contrary. i was right, unfortunately, you were wrong.
Palestinians will not stop violence untill a peace-conference will establish final peace, WITH right of return and a Palestinians state and an israeli state within its internationally recognised borders. Mosts Palestinians will accept that ,many israeli are prepared to accept that too. But if extremists on both sides decide to make war, than the citizens on both sides will face the consequences.
I'm sure that if all Palestinian violence stopped immidiately and forever, most of you and the israeli right-wing would still not accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders and the right of return, as the world demands. i guess we will have to wait untill a new generation takes over in both israel and palestine, and the hawks will disappear. The cycle of violence will apparently not stop anytime soon, with this people in power and this kind of mentality of the Jewish diaspora in many countries (France an exception were extremism among Jews doesn't seem to be deeprooted) .


"If you had any dignity at all, you would keep your opinions about the establishment of the State of Israel to yourself.
We created Israel (and Zionism) out of necessity from EUROPEAN ANTI- SEMITISM, and murder. If you really feel this way about zionism, maybe your countrymen should not have helped kill so many of us. Then we would be happy French citizens. "

we have discussed this many times before, your statements are a cruel insult for the 100000's of French and other Europeans who risked their lifes to save jewish people, to fight nazism. Without the soviet-union we would probably not have this discussion, most of us would have vanished in concentration camps. by the way zionist movements made deals with the nazi-regime as well, there was a treath about this on this forum.
and who are you to speak in the name of the jewish people? I am (and not alone) sick and tired of zionists in the US and Israel who monopolise all discussion about jewish issues around the world and claim to have the moral superiority to judge other people, for example French Jews, for not hating the Arabs or the Europeans enough... the "Holocaust industry"... these people make abuse of one of the greatest tragedies in human history to defend an ugly repression policy against another people and use it to avoid any criticism. It is nasty and repulsive, and it is one of the causes that I'm defending the Palestinians, even if I don't like some of their methods, but they fight for a just cause, their right to live as a people in palestine!


"This is to say nothing of the current outbreak of Anti-semitism in your so-called coutnry. YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED AND HIDE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND. "

Which country are you from?
the country that killed millions of innocent people in Vietnam, the country that ruled over latin America as if its your backyard, or the country that created the KKK?


"Let's also not forget the bloody and shadowy activities of the French Military Colonialists in Algeria. How many did you actually kill there? "

A lot, but not as much as you killed in Vietnam, and many other countries you bombed and violated.
The people defending colonialsim in Algeria are the same people defending colonialism in israel. During the Algerian war israel and france were on the same side, both fighting for occupation and oppression.

"Quite a few. Your French hands are WASHED in BLOOD (Jewish and Arab), so stay out of our affairs."

nobody will stay out of your affairs as long as some conditions haven't been fulfilled, etnic cleansing and illegal occupation are concerns of the world, it doesn't only affect israel. Stay out of our affairs in France!!!!
the world had the right to interfere in the war in algeria.

[takeo]

extremism on the rise among jewish people in Italy.

http://www.sundayherald.com/25481

"Concern is growing that the gates are again closing around the ancient Roman quarter that was for centuries the Jewish Ghetto. Only this time, instead of the key being turned by a member of the Papal guard, the barriers are being erected from inside the area that is still the heart of Rome's Jewish community.
Jews and non-Jews opposed to the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are outraged by an attack last week on Vittorio Agnoletto, leader of the Italian anti-globalisation movement by a group of Jewish youths after he sat down to eat at a kosher restaurant in the Via Portico d'Ottavia, the main artery of the ex-ghetto.
The youths were incensed that Agnoletto had taken part in a pro-Palestinian demonstration a few weeks previously where some of the protesters had been dressed as suicide bombers. Agnoletto was showered with stones and coins, an ancient Roman custom to show disapproval, and two of his companions received hospital treatment for their injuries.
'His visit to the Portico d'Ottavia was a provocation ,' said Riccardo Pacifici, spokesman for the Jewish community and grandson of a famous rabbi from Genova who died in a Nazi concentration camp. 'His coming here was a publicity stunt.' Pacifici's father, Emanuele, was seriously injured after Palestinian terrorists set off a bomb outside the nearby synagogue in 1983, killing a child.
Police and local vigilantes have stepped up protection of the ex-ghetto since September 11, with the windows of the Jewish school boarded up and a heavy police presence for social and religious festivities. But so far there have not been any attacks or violence directed against Jewish people in Italy.
However, the incident last Sunday has caused alarm among liberal elements of Italy's Jewish community, who are concerned about growing fanaticism among their young people . The Jewish TV journalist Gad Lerner has invited Agnoletto to lunch with him in the ghetto. ' We run the risk of creating a growing spiral of physical confrontations,' he said. 'This is why I have raised the alarm and made the invitation .'
Non-supporters of Sharon are alarmed at the right-wing turn of the Jewish community in Rome. Support for Israel in the ex-ghetto , evident in the blue and white flags that now flutter from the crumbling rooftops , has led them to make friends with their former enemy, the post-fascist leader of the Alleanza Nazionale party, Gianfranco Fini. After a long campaign to clear his party's name of former Nazi crimes, Fini is expected to visit Israel soon.
Last weekend's violence comes hot on the heels of the publication of a book by a well-known Jewish-Italian journalist, Oriana Fallaci, entitled Anger And Pride, which has caused outrage in Italy and France. In the book, an attack on Islam, Fallaci says Muslims 'breed like rats and piss in baptismal fonts'. The book, which has already sold a million copies in Italy, has been attacked by leading European intellectuals, including the prominent French writer Bernard-Henri Levy, as a hate manual.
Just yards from the restaurant where Agnoletto was attacked is the square where 2000 Roman Jews were rounded up and deported to Nazi concentration camps at the end of the last world war. They were sent to their deaths even after local people, Catholic and Jewish, had tried to buy their freedom by donating their wedding rings and any other gold they could lay their hands on. Although Italy's fascist dictator Benito Mussolini did not start his political career as an anti-Semite, his alliance with Hitler after 1938 led to racial decrees in Italy similar to those in Germany and eventually to deportations.
While not condoning last weekend's violence in the ex-ghetto, Rome's Chief Rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, has not condemned it either. 'The stones thrown by the youths were a sign of desperation,' he said in an interview with La Repubblica newspaper. He said: ' It happened because the ghetto was a place devastated by the Nazis; because at the beginning of the sixties there were fascist incursions into the area and there have been so many popular revolts in defence of their territory and their dignity.'
Jews have lived in Rome for more that 2000 years, making it the oldest Jewish community in the West . Jewish slaves built the Colosseum and their religious rites outdate and are different to those of other Jewish communities in the West and even Israel. Still today there are Jewish families with names such as Astrologo, which date from the time when Jews were masters of astrology.
For centuries the community's fortunes depended on the attitudes of the prevailing Roman emperor and later the Pope. Julius Ceasar was a friend of the Jews, granting them freedom to settle anywhere in the empire but in the Middle Ages, a favourite sport during carnival was to roll a Jewish man or woman down a hill in a barrel. The worst came with a Papal Bull issued in 1556 which separated Jews and Catholics by the creation of the ghetto whose gates only came down with Italian reunification in 1870."

[elke]

Originally posted by Vic
from today's Ha'aretz newsticker:
10:30 Author A.B. Yehoshua: Palestinians weren`t the first to be driven insane by Jews, look at the Germans (Army Radio)



Hey, I am considering using this as a signature! :D Would that be legal? ;)

[Mediocrates]

I guess Italy will need EU support in ridding itself of zionist oppression then.

[andrei]

To: IsraelAdvocate

I want to ask your permission to translate and publish your initial letter in one of Israel newspapers, if you is the author of it.

All references to the forum and the author would be provided. (Sorry, no fees)

[L@mplighterM]

From email.

1. You have made it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that you intend to
destroy Israel and kill or drive out its Jewish population. This is
genocide, pure and simple. You justify this by saying that Israel has
committed many crimes against your people, and that you seek "justice". I
say this in response- NOTHING WHATSOEVER is an acceptable justification for
genocide. Loss of land, humiliation at being militarily defeated -others
have suffered these and moved on to create new nations and opportunities for
themselves.

Examples abound- the Germans thrown out of East Prussia in Europe, 1945, the
Nationalist Chinese who fled to Taiwan in 1949, to name but two. Germans and
Taiwanese have coped with military defeat and the
loss of land. They haven't warred with their neighbours, nor have they
launched terrorist attacks upon them. Both countries have more wealth than
any Arab nation. Why can't Palestinians cope? Are Germans and Chinese better
able to deal with adversity than Arabs?


What loss of land has the Palestinians suffered? To date they haven?t lost one square inch of land. This seems like Arab propaganda to me. If the Article is suggesting that the Palestinians loss of land was pre 1948 I would like to remind everyone that Palestinians weren?t a distinct people at that point in time (not that they are now).

[MGB8]

From an IsraelInsider.com article:

In a March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein said:


"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism. ... For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

And then, on the same day in 1993 on which Yasser Arafat signed the Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn, he spoke the following words on Jordan TV:


"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

[andrei]

Guys, I am sorry to bother you again -

if you want your voice to be heard in Israel, which I think really needs it now – there is a real possibility to publish some of your posts in Israel newspapers, even on more-or-less regular basis.

I was very happy to see these friendly messages about our country from US and I would love to do it.

If you can, please help me delivering this message to "IsraelAdvocate" too. I think that his "letter to palestinians" worth publishing.

Personally, I may say that times are really hard in Israel now. And I think that every piece of support, of fresh attitude or understanding will help people realize here they are not alone.

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by andrei
Guys, I am sorry to bother you again -

if you want your voice to be heard in Israel, which I think really needs it now – there is a real possibility to publish some of your posts in Israel newspapers, even on more-or-less regular basis.

I was very happy to see these friendly messages about our country from US and I would love to do it.

If you can, please help me delivering this message to "IsraelAdvocate" too. I think that his "letter to palestinians" worth publishing.

Personally, I may say that times are really hard in Israel now. And I think that every piece of support, of fresh attitude or understanding will help people realize here they are not alone.

Hello Andrei.

Thank you for the note.
The letter is not my own, but was already published in the Jerusalem Post online edition. It is by a Newzealander.

The letter is long, and this thread is only Part 2.
The first part is posted on this site aswell, but most respond to Pt. 2, simply because they respond when they are done reading it. I posted the letter in two parts because it was long.

I would be happy to forward it upon request.

Don't worry Israel - AMERICA IS BEHIND YOU.

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by andrei
To: IsraelAdvocate

I want to ask your permission to translate and publish your initial letter in one of Israel newspapers, if you is the author of it.

All references to the forum and the author would be provided. (Sorry, no fees)

The letter is not mine, but please do publish it.
Translate it, so that our brothers in Israel will read it, and have the inspiration to know that the entire world is not against them.

There are non-jews of good conscience who can see and name black as black, and white as white.

It is simply amazing to me that Arabs make the most outrageous claims (ie - genocide, "struggle" against "occupation", etc, etc) without so much as an attempt to prove them.

[elke]

Prove them - nothing! The trouble is sloppy language, intentional of course. "Soundbites that bite" must be the ad for their PR firm.

[cerulean]

I see two main problems with posting the letter everywhere. It's very clear there are many non-Jews who have positive attitudes towards Israel, so that's not the problem. But here is what I see as the problem with posting this letter as proving anything.

First, do we know for sure this "David White" really exists? I read on another list that this letter has been appearing with different names. I think it's important to be sure who the author is before the letter is published as having been done by anyone.

Second, the letter takes an attitude something like "you lost your land, get over it." That's not really a good assessment of the conflict, in my opinion. You could find someone to do a much more informed letter, I think.