Zionism (and Nationalism in general)

[ibrodsky]

Your straw man is humerous at best. This is immoral, since justice can only be served towards individials. Or, "The sins of the father are not the sins of the son." However, in REALITY, those people who were forcibly removed still do exist, and thus, my claim is valid.

Now your argument is that "since justice can only be served towards individuals" it's OK to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers? Incredible.

There are probably a few Palestinian Arabs still around who are older than 54 and were forcibly evicted from their land. But the people doing the evicting would have to be at least 70 years old today -- unless you imagine that Palestinian Arabs were evicted by six-year old children.

Thus, the conclusion that you believe it is right to punish the sons for the sins of their fathers seems inescapable.

When I said the above, I meant it. You can INTEND an implication, or you can NOT INTEND an implication. In your case, your implication is (I take it from your childish rants), to be UNINTENDED. However, they ARE the rational conclusions to YOUR faulty and bloody premises.

We were talking about what I meant -- not what you meant.

Now who is straying from facts and reason? It seems that when you are unable to defend your arguments you resort to accusing me of "childish rants" and "faulty and bloody premises."

But the fact remains that you constructed your entire argument based on a false premise.

Since your premises are flawed, all other false conclusions must follow. This is the way things currently stand.

Clean up your act.

Admittedly, since you start with false premises and then apply false logic, there is always the slim chance you will accidentally speak the truth. But so far, it hasn't happened.

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

Ad Hominem

You need to brush up on your logic. The above statement is not an argument or response to an argument. I'm simply alerting others that just because someone goes to great lengths to convince us he is a Master of Logic, it doesn't mean he is.

I wonder, do you try to win all arguments by attacking the arguers? How shallow. But then again, you do have a bloody premise, so I can only expect that you would attack arguers.

You respond to my arguments by calling me "immoral," "shallow" and "pro-death," and then you accuse me of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Let me guess... are you Hanan Ashwari?

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky,

You choose to believe that Israel started the '67 war. Actually, closing the straits of Tiran was causis belli. And contrary to your claim, the Arabs were massing forces for an obvious attack.
What you say is that Israel had a good reason to start the 67 war. That does not contradict the fact that it was Israel which fired the first shot. I was pointing out an error in your post #22.

Israel annexed the Golan Heights because the Syrians used the Heights to shoot at Jews living below.
The fact that Syrians used the Golan heights to shoot at Jews living below may give Israel the right to invade the heights or even conquer the heights, but not to annex it.

I have doubts about claims that settlers "confiscated" Palestinian land.
I don’t. For one famous example – take a look at the villages of Ikrit and Bira’am. These villages are located in northern Israel. During the war of 48, the villagers (Christian Arabs who did not participate in any violent actions against Jews) were asked by IDF to move out of their home “until the military situation is stabilized.” They did so, with the belief that soon they will be allowed to return. To this day, they are still “akurim”. Their fertile land was given to neighboring kibbutzim and their houses were demolished (all is left now of Ikrit is the church.)

I agree that Jerusalem and the Golan were annexed. Furthermore, they should never be returned. The Arabs tried their best to massacre the Jews of Jerusalem, and Syria used the Golan to stage attacks.
I believe the Jewish settlements are used by Jewish right extremists to forcefully drive away Palestinians from their land. Baruch Goldstein is a mass murderer who is viewed by the majority of Israelis as a ruthless terrorist. However, the settlers call him “Baruch hagever” (Baruch the man), they built him a memorial garden around his tomb and every year they attempt to rally on that garden to commemorate him and his legacy.
Moreover, this view was publicly expressed in the petition of the IDF officers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, claiming the IDF is doing the settlers’ job.

Have you noticed that Moslems built a mosque on the Temple Mount and they prohibit non-Moslems from walking anywhere
Not true, Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.

There is a large minority that believe they are right to seek to destroy the West and kill Jews "wherever you find them."
There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
It’s always easier to point out the errors and weaknesses of your rival, then to look and acknowledge your own.

The only peaceful solution is two countries side by side. The people who are most against this, who knowingly harbor and encourage terrorists, and who "negotiate" by presenting the same unyielding list of demands over and over, are the Arabs.
Again, I will state my belief that that both Israelis and Palestinians are to blame for the prolonging of the conflict.
I also want to mention that this whole debate does not belong to this thread and the main discussion of Zionism.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

"Am I to assume you're talking about the Jewish settlements in the occupied terittories? "

No.

The statement: "The PA's policy of evicting Jews however, is immoral ." is attributed to its policy of evicting all Jews, regardless. That (only specifically), is immoral.

Regarding settlers, I have not gotten to that yet, and so I will not address them for the time being.

A-Palestinian,
I did not know that PA's policy is to evict all Jews from Israel. I thought they wanted the eviction of all Jewish settlements in the occupied territory. I don't recall Arafat making such statements. If what you say is true, then PA's policy is not only immoral, its also impractical and very dangerous since this means there will never be peace between us.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.

I have to say I agree with you on this one.

[ibrodsky]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sharonbn

What you say is that Israel had a good reason to start the 67 war. That does not contradict the fact that it was Israel which fired the first shot. I was pointing out an error in your post #22.

No, what I said was that the Arabs started the '67 war. The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that fires the first shot.

I don’t. For one famous example – take a look at the villages of Ikrit and Bira’am. These villages are located in northern Israel. During the war of 48, the villagers (Christian Arabs who did not participate in any violent actions against Jews) were asked by IDF to move out of their home “until the military situation is stabilized.” They did so, with the belief that soon they will be allowed to return. To this day, they are still “akurim”. Their fertile land was given to neighboring kibbutzim and their houses were demolished (all is left now of Ikrit is the church.)

We were talking about the settlers in the territories captured in 1967. (Please stop trying to make your points by changing the subject.) I confess I don't know anything about Ikrit and Bira'am. What is your source?

I believe the Jewish settlements are used by Jewish right extremists to forcefully drive away Palestinians from their land. Baruch Goldstein is a mass murderer who is viewed by the majority of Israelis as a ruthless terrorist. However, the settlers call him “Baruch hagever” (Baruch the man), they built him a memorial garden around his tomb and every year they attempt to rally on that garden to commemorate him and his legacy.
Moreover, this view was publicly expressed in the petition of the IDF officers who are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, claiming the IDF is doing the settlers’ job.

Your blanket statement that the settlers honor Baruch Goldstein is a big fat lie. I personally know settlers who consider Goldstein a terrorist.

The left-wing extremists who refuse to serve in the territories are a tiny minority. You confuse the fact that Israel is a democracy with the opinion that Israel is wrong. There are Palestinians who don't support the PA and Hamas. But to do so openly is to risk one's life.

Not true, Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.

Really? I tried to visit the Temple Mount and was stopped by a Palestinian policeman. I am not religious, was by myself, and wasn't trying to cause a riot -- just walk around.

I also heard a radio report by a European reporter who was on the Temple Mount with Palestinian rioters. He suddenly told the audience he was being forced to leave because he was not a Moslem.

I don't know how you visited these places... perhaps before the first infantifada the Palestinians didn't think they could enforce their ban on infidels. Anyway, everyone in the world knows this is Moslem policy except you. Maybe next you'll tell me about the wonderful time you had in Mecca and Medinah...

There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
It’s always easier to point out the errors and weaknesses of your rival, then to look and acknowledge your own.

True. But not without extreme provocation.

Well, some people would rather point out the errors and weaknesses of their own side.

Again, I will state my belief that that both Israelis and Palestinians are to blame for the prolonging of the conflict.
I also want to mention that this whole debate does not belong to this thread and the main discussion of Zionism.

I can't disagree with your first statement. The naive "peace now" camp has led Israel into a real quagmire.

I like how you complain that this debate doesn't belong in this thread... after you give me an earful. If this upsets you don't you reply to me!

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Please take a look at post#28. Im not sure you have, which is why I state it.

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

ibrodsky

I am going to turn EVERY logically flawed "point" of yours on its head right now.

Hehe. Boy! You have ALOT to learn about proper arguments. First off, let us say I am the "Master of logic" like you put it. How is this relevant to the conversation? Also, say I am *not* the "Master of logic" like you put it. How is this relevant to the conversation?

They are only relevant, if you can show, through proof, that the logical statements I make regarding the arguments are false. (or true).

But you dont do this. You simply make sideline smears and remakrs such as "he thinks he is master of logic". That is simply an

Arbitrary Assertion .

Simply, this particular assertion, hopes to Undermine the arguments, by undermining the "honesty" and "rationality" of the arguer (without proof). Excellent Ad Hominem. Actually, it is subtle, but it exists. It is the Ad Hominem Subfallacy of:

Tu Quoque

Or, "Circumstantial: A Circumstantial Ad Hominem is one in which some irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent is offered as evidence against the opponent's position. "

Nice try.

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

Also, when you state:

"You remind me of someone who is anxious to convince others he is honest and tries to do so by repeatedly announcing that he is honest. In my experience, that's a big red flag. Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest." "

Remember, you said:"Genuinely honest people have no need to keep announcing that they are honest."

(And to which I didn't imply that I was honest, until after the fact that you stated I wasnt.)

"This is the Red Herring logical fallacy.

It goes like this:

Person A makes no claim to q
Person B says A is not q.
Person A corrects B, stating A is q.
Person B concludes, that since person A corrected
B on q (after that fact), then A is not really q.

Hehe. It is quite subtle, but its still there. Again,

NICE TRY.

Notice, that in the above, B point to no evidence. Simply, he maks arbitrary assertions, that lead to a false conclusion.

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

One more thing about Ad Hominems. An Ad Hominem is an attack on the arguer, with hopes of disloging his arguments. (Something you have mastered).

However, if one is to state to someone else, that his arguments lead to something "bloody", or "faulty", that it not an ad hominem, for reason that it is the persons ARGUMENTS, and NOT himself, that lead the results to become bloody.

As such, when I state that your arguments, the way they currently stand, lead to massive bloodshed, then that is not an ad hominem. That is a FACT.

Moreover, *insults* are not ad hominem, (if not in the context of trying to dislodge an arguers arguments.) If I say that you're an idiot, but you really ARE an idiot, is that an insult, or a statement of FACT? If someone kills, and you call him a "cold blooded murderer", is that an insult, or a statement of FACT?

So, you have falsely concluded that anything said against you is an ad hominem. Its a lovely tactic one can use, when he gets pissed everytime he cannot create a proper argument. THIS, is the tactic you have chosen, which is why your posts are REPLETE with false conclusions.

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

When I stated:
"This can be attributed to him either by:

1) Inherently being Pro-Death.
2) Engaged in very sloppy thinking. (and thus, irrational thinking)."

You stated:

Now class, this is an example of the logical fallacy known as false dilemma. A-Palestinian hopes that by giving you just two choices, both of his making, that you will overlook the fact that these are not the only possible explanations.

If it is a false dilemma, then there are more than 2 conclusions here. But you have not stated what they could be, or what they are. You simple make an Arbitrary assertion . The question is, How else can one reach irrational conclusions, if he does not hold inherently irrational views, or is engaged in mistakenly irrational thinking?" What third option is there?

If you are going to cry over "but I meant this!", then wipe your tears, and State, Correctly, and CLEARLY, what exactly you MEAN. Unless you do this, the other party CANNOT be held accountable for any false conclusions, since the only conlcusions that can come out, are from what YOU have said. (i.e, garbage in, equals garbage out).

Take your trash out - its accumalating.

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

You have one more chance to prove to ME, that you are interested in rational talk, on Zionism. You have the chance to correct yourself, re-state, and ammend yourself (and your statements) in any way, so that we may continue - err.. start (since it never started in the first place), communicating with reason.

If you fail, subsequent to this post, then I will purposely ignore you, for the reason that you are irrational, and it is impossible to communicate with irrational people. Irrational people
can have a talent at Red Herrings , where they divert the argument from what is relevant, to what is irrelevant, as I have shown in ample above.


- The ball's in your court. Throw it IN the court.

[ibrodsky]

A-Palestinian,

I'll leave you with this logical dilemma:

You are either a knave or a fool.

And that is a fact.

[sharonbn]

A-Palestnian,

I think I understand the confusion (between reality and theory.) However, after giving the issue some thinking I conclude that you are also mixing the two a little.
What I mean is that Zionism as an ideology does not address the question of the people that inhabit the land of Israel in any given point of time - simply because this is not an idealistic question.

Let us revisit the Definition of Zionism:
Zionism, the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, advocated, from its inception, tangible as well as spiritual aims. […] ultimately, the common goal of a Jewish state in its ancient homeland was attained.

The issue of “dealing” with whoever resides on the land is never mentioned as part of the Zionist ideology. This whole question, with all possible answers, together with the issue of the borders of the Jewish state (they don't have to be the whole of biblical Israel) and any other geographical, demographical and sociological issues are not "idealistic" questions but practical ones and go to the greater issue of the means by which the goal of a Jewish state in Israel will be attained. The only thing that can be derived from the ideologist statement is that the Jewish state (the goal of Zionism) should be Jewish in its character. This implies a Jewish majority, a Jewish government, A link to the Jewish faith, etc.

Moreover, the focus of Zionism was always the fate of the Jewish people, not of the land of Israel. This is why the Uganda option was raised by Benjamin Hertzel as a viable answer to the Zionist goal. This option was rejected by the Zionist congress since it was decided that the only land the Jews will accept is the land of Israel. This does not conflict with the beginning of this paragraph.
To explain this point, I have drawn my own diagrams. You will see that the focus in then are the people, not the land.

Initial state

Ideology and Mean

For the record, I will state clearly and explicitly:
The goal of Zionism was never the eviction of Palestinians from their land. It was never explicitly proclaimed, nor was it implicitly intended. The goal is to gather all Jews from the Diaspora to the land of Israel. Zionism as an ideology did not address the issue of the fate of Palestinians at all.

You seem to think that the only mean by which the gathering of the Jews to the land of Israel could be accomplished implies the displacement of Palestinians. This is your personal assumption. This assumption, however, conflicts with what actually happened, as I detailed before.

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

Regarding the issue of “The ends justifies the means”:
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough before: IMO, the end should never justify the means. Similarly, the morality of the means should never affect the morality of the end.

I go back to your example:
"I am a moral person, since I want to save my mother by giving her a kidney transplant. (intention), via, killing someone else in order to get a kidney. (means). My intentions may be sound, but my means not. Thus, I cannot be a moral person. "
[...]
This is an example of the ENDS justifying the MEANS, and as such, is immoral and evil.

My point is:
1) Your wish to save your mother’s life is moral.
2) You chose to kill someone to achieve your goal – this is immoral.
1 and 2 do not conflict. Moreover, they don’t even relate to one another.
If you choose this or other means (giving your own kidney for example), it does not change the morality of your goal. Similarly, regardless of the goal (money for example), killing someone usually cannot be justified (with ther exception of self defence.)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

I would like to fully address your post, but I cannot, because the links you have provided go nowhere. (They dont work - I get a make up commercial when I click on them). Please see to it that they are corrected so that I may reply.

[victot]

Statement 1: From 1800, and especially since then, there have always been people residing in any given part of the temperate world (in varying numbers), that is, in any part of the world excluding and the Antarctic.
Statement 2: Thus, any attempt to create a nation on Earth, (excluding the Antarctic) must at some point also take into account the native populus on said piece of land. "Accounting" for the natives, means that when a new nation is formed, they are either part of it, in which case they can stay, or they are not part of it, in which case they cant stay.
Statement 3: If a new nation is formed, with the intention for being solely for the "X" people, then it can be formed on previously un-inhabited land. (Like Mars). If the new nation for the "X" people is to be founded on land previously occupied by the "Y" people, then the "Y" people must somehow be removed. If the "Y" people can be persuaded into leaving, then the new Nation for the "X" people can be formed. If the "Y" people cannot be presuaded to move, then force must be used to remove the "Y" people.
Statement 4: By the second line of Post number two, a Zionist state's majority populus must remain Jewish. Since a Zionist state is to be formed in an area of land previously occupied by "Y" people, the only hope for a Zionist, is for the "Y" people residing in ancient Israel to go away. Since the "Y" people in ancient Israel will not go away, then a Zionist (if adamant enough), can use force to evict the "Y" people.

Conclusion: Zionism, to take effect on Earth, is immoral.

hey A-palestinian, i shall attempt to logically dual you using these points you mentioned.

btw, i took a course in philosophy once a few years ago...
there are a bunch of differant ways of determining what is moral...
which one do you prefer going by? kant? i sorta forget all that stuff.

anyways, i guess the question is, is it necessarly immoral for 1 people to take land away from another people? well, throughout human history this kinda stuff went on all the time... conquering was the rule of the jungle... it probably wasn't considered immoral before...
i don't know, how immoral was it considered before the last few hundred years to conquer and displace a people?

but it is true, in the last few hundred years, there have been these new "codes" in societal conduct which says things along the lines of "you can't conquer and displace people's populations, it is immoral"

since the jews took israel away from the palestinians by force, is it therefore immoral? if the palestinians kill israeli civilians, is it ok, since they are reverting to the "law of the jungle" rules which israel started when it conquered and displaced the palestinians?

well...
here is my 2 cents on it. if you agree that the arabs living there, migrated there from the rest of the middle east... if they didn't develop their own religion, language, customs...
they weren't "a people" so much as a bunch of arabs living there...
then it can sorta be argued that the extent of zionism's evilness, is once upon a time, 600,000 lives were negatively affected by it.

that is to say... perhaps zionism would have been more immoral if the jews came had conquered and displaced a people who weren't surrounded by ?300 million? of their brothers.
there was no need for the refugee problem, that was an unfortunate, unforseen consequence.

making arabs leave their houses so jews can live there is pretty unfortunate... it is an injustice to those lives which were affected, but perhaps coming out of the ruins of the holocaust, jews in 1948 were entitles to be a little selfish... thinking along the lines of arabs control 799/800ths of the land in the middle east, and outnumber jews ?150? to 1...
perhaps these particular arabs living in this very particular piece of land, could afford to move somewhere else in the middle-east.

i think world history has shown that jews need a country of their own... to protect themselves from a world which continually persecuted them; israel is in a strong position to protect jews around the world from persecution...
as long as there is a strong israel in place, there won't be another holocaust.

jews do have some claim to the land of israel...
they were there long before arabs were... isnt that true?

anyways, i think there are enough variables here for whatever it is that determines what is moral or immoral ?g-d? to have some kind of sympathy for zionism, which gave jews the modern state of israel.
i don't think the arabs living there, what came to be known as palestinians should be forgotten...
they can have the west bank, gaza...

but i think given that
1)jews have at least some claim to the land
2)self-defense, in 1948 jews needed their own country to protect themsleves as a people against a cruel, anti-semetic world...
3)israel has tremendous significance to jews... they face it when they pray, for thousands of years they've dreamed of coming back there...
4)arabs who were living in palestine lost their homes, but at the time they didnt really lose their identiy as a people... they just lost their homes...
(not saying they didnt have a connection to the land... it's just that taking away land from isolated people living somewhere shouldnt be considered the same as taking away land from a people with an orgainzed and unique identity; doing that necessairly has future significance... as opposed to arabs living in palestine could theoretically have been absorbed into another another arab country.)

i guess, i hope palestinians can look at the story of the jews, and just plum open their hearts to their story, give jews this tiny portion of the middle east, and let them live in peace.

[sharonbn]

ibrodsky,

what I said was that the Arabs started the '67 war. The side that starts a war is not necessarily the side that fires the first shot.
YES, whoever fires the first shot – starts the war. The Japanese started the war vs. USA in 1941 (the reason for it being the USA’s extreme pressure on Japan to cease colonial actions in Asia.) You can only say that Israel was provoked to start the 67 war.

We were talking about the settlers in the territories captured in 1967. [...] I confess I don't know anything about Ikrit and Bira'am. What is your source?
Oh, I see, my example shows nothing about Israel’s policy regarding land owned by Palestinians. If you must go to the nibbles – MOST of the settlements in the occupied territories were built on land occupied by Palestinian peasants (one example being Kiryat Arba). And Yes, if they worked the land for several generations – it is theirs by moral argument.
The issue of Ikrit and Bira’am is famous since it was debated numerous times in Israeli courts and in the Knesset. Take a look at this article.

Your blanket statement that the settlers honor Baruch Goldstein is a big fat lie. I personally know settlers who consider Goldstein a terrorist.
Your words suggest you don’t live in Israel and see what other people know here. The big garden surrounding the tomb was displayed in the news. Also, each year, the news cover the attempt of former “Kach” members and followers to perform a memorial service to Goldstein on the site of the tomb.

The left-wing extremists who refuse to serve in the territories are a tiny minority.
NOT TRUE. On 23/2/02 a demonstration was held to support what you call left-wing extremists (they are battle-hardened army officers, “salt of the earth”, not some hippies), some 50,000 people showed up, leading artists sang songs, etc. - quite a big demonstration. As a result of this initiative, several groups of people formed political movements to push the ides of withdrawl of Israel from occupied territories. The most faous one being led by Ami Ayalon - former Shabac leader.

Before the Intifada, I visited the temple mount. Before the first Intifiada, I even went inside the mosque of El-Aqsa.
Really?
REALLY, first-person reporting.

There is a growing minority in Israel that believes the same about Palestinians.
True. But not without extreme provocation.
Even without extreme provocation – don’t forget the Jewish underground who committed several terrorist attacks in the 80s against Palestinian civilians, including shooting at a girls’ school. Also, the underground group from which Igal Amir rose, was practicing firearms in preparation for committing terrorist attacks against Palestinian targets.

Finally, I will state my opinion that PM Binyamin Netanyahu’s way of deliberately violating the Oslo agreement is one of the major causes for the eruption of the current Intifada.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

I would like to fully address your post, but I cannot, because the links you have provided go nowhere. (They dont work - I get a make up commercial when I click on them). Please see to it that they are corrected so that I may reply.

Try this link:
http://www.geocities.com/sharonbn/forum.html

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Thanks. (Were your images originally bitmaps? I only ask because the quality of the images is poor, so perhaps in your conversion to jpgs or html, some quality was lost. I am offering to change them to proper jpgs, if in fact they were bitmaps. Send to my email account. microwarp@hotmail.com)

[A-Palestinian]

Sharonbn,

Im sorry, I made a subtle error in Case2, Post#28. Instead, "Movement X"'s Ends should read:

"The creation of a Nation on all of Land "A", for and only for People "X" ".

Given this ammendment, would you like to change your response to it, or would it be the same as Post#38?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by A-Palestinian
Sharonbn,

Im sorry, I made a subtle error in Case2, Post#28. Instead, "Movement X"'s Ends should read:

"The creation of a Nation on all of Land "A", for and only for People "X" ".

Given this ammendment, would you like to change your response to it, or would it be the same as Post#38?

A-Palestinian,

What is all of Israel? Is it biblical Israel? (whatever this means), Is it Ottoman-ruled Israel? Is it British-ruled Israel? (this would include Jordan.)
Do you see what I’m gaining at? The question of the space to be occupied by the Jewish people is a practical one to be determined by the course of real events, not an idealistic theoretic one.

Also, I must note that you added the “all” word to your diagrams. In the definition of Zionism as I posted (and seen in other articles and commentaries), it is not mentioned that all of the land of Israel is to become home to the Jewish people.

Similarly, I believe that the Palestinians do not demand all of the land of Israel to be their home land. Their demand, as recently expressed by the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, are the territories occupied by Israel in 67.

PS,
regarding the diagrams, they are jpgs of good quality, the problem lies with the builtin HTML editor of Yahoo.