anastrophe wrote: oh, just to double check, you did see the citations i provided in response to your demands for same regarding the israeli settlers forcibly removed from the west bank?
the flow of the topic has been so furious, i can certainly understand if you "overlooked" it.
Could you give a post number 'cos I certainly missed it
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: Here's a review of The Cult of the Suicide Bomber, a documentary for those who really seek to understand.
He observes that the event that launched suicide bombings inside Israel was perpetrated not by a Palestinian but by an Israeli settler who in 1994 opened fire in a Hebron mosque, killing 29 worshippers and injuring more than 100.
Yet another one who was hiding behind an army uniform!
It didn't count though because he was only an army reservist but he seemed to feel that dressing up in his uniform somehow made it official.
He observes that the event that launched suicide bombings inside Israel was perpetrated not by a Palestinian but by an Israeli settler who in 1994 opened fire in a Hebron mosque, killing 29 worshippers and injuring more than 100.
Yet another one who was hiding behind an army uniform!
It didn't count though because he was only an army reservist but he seemed to feel that dressing up in his uniform somehow made it official.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Originally Posted by anastrophe
oh, just to double check, you did see the citations i provided in response to your demands for same regarding the israeli settlers forcibly removed from the west bank?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Could you give a post number 'cos I certainly missed it
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so I don't know what he's referring
to, either. Perhaps he'll give an accurate pointer.
oh, just to double check, you did see the citations i provided in response to your demands for same regarding the israeli settlers forcibly removed from the west bank?
Bryn Mawr wrote: Could you give a post number 'cos I certainly missed it
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, so I don't know what he's referring
to, either. Perhaps he'll give an accurate pointer.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Um. Is this over now? Maybe I'm going through withdrawl...
Attached files
Attached files
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
From Robert Fisk's diary this week:The BBC is back to its old craven self, referring in a report from Israel to the tiny sliver of Lebanese territory taken at great cost by Israeli troops as Israel's "security zone" - Israel's own preposterous title for what must be the most insecure piece of land on earth.
It is, of course, an "occupation zone" but not, it seems, if it's occupied by the Israelis. Had Hizbollah seized Israeli territory - they did after all provoke this savage conflict with their own reckless crossing of the border - would the BBC be calling it Hizbollah's "security zone" in northern Israel? Would they hell.
It is, of course, an "occupation zone" but not, it seems, if it's occupied by the Israelis. Had Hizbollah seized Israeli territory - they did after all provoke this savage conflict with their own reckless crossing of the border - would the BBC be calling it Hizbollah's "security zone" in northern Israel? Would they hell.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
They did have this encouraging article though.
Regular refrain
Mr Bush used the term on at least two separate occasions this week.
On Monday, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism". A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound".
Then, on Thursday after the arrest in Britain of two dozen people suspected of plotting of bomb planes travelling to the US, he said "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom".
That day, the Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to him to complain.
Its chairman Parvez Ahmed condemned his "use of ill-defined hot-button terms", which, he said, "feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam".
The council had not had a reply from the White House as of Friday afternoon, its legal director Arsalan Iftikhar told the BBC.
Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to BBC requests for clarification of the term.
Mr Younis of Mpac said he believed the president's use of the term was "a mistake" and that Mr Bush's speechwriters would drop it in the future.
He added that the idea that "there is a school of thought called Islamic fascism is a misnomer".
Regular refrain
Mr Bush used the term on at least two separate occasions this week.
On Monday, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism". A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound".
Then, on Thursday after the arrest in Britain of two dozen people suspected of plotting of bomb planes travelling to the US, he said "Islamic fascists... will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom".
That day, the Council on American-Islamic Relations wrote to him to complain.
Its chairman Parvez Ahmed condemned his "use of ill-defined hot-button terms", which, he said, "feeds the perception that the war on terror is actually a war on Islam".
The council had not had a reply from the White House as of Friday afternoon, its legal director Arsalan Iftikhar told the BBC.
Neither the White House nor the State Department responded to BBC requests for clarification of the term.
Mr Younis of Mpac said he believed the president's use of the term was "a mistake" and that Mr Bush's speechwriters would drop it in the future.
He added that the idea that "there is a school of thought called Islamic fascism is a misnomer".
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Diuretic wrote: I heard an interview on BBC World (radio), I don't have a link because as I say it was on the radio. An Israeli spokesperson stated that the Israelis will observe the cease-fire but stated that they will defend themselves if required. The Hezbollah spokesperson was evasive and wouldn't answer the same straightforward question put by the BBC interviewer. I don't hold for either side but the continued evasiveness of the Hezbollah spokesperson didn't augur well.
I think the hesitancy is based on determining whether or not Israel is agreeing to return to the boundaries of its own border. If they don't then Palestine and Lebanon are still at war. They don't consider occupation to be peaceful.
If the rest of the world doesn't recognise that the occupation is continuing the war then it becomes difficult to talk about ceasefires.
That's my impression.
I think the hesitancy is based on determining whether or not Israel is agreeing to return to the boundaries of its own border. If they don't then Palestine and Lebanon are still at war. They don't consider occupation to be peaceful.
If the rest of the world doesn't recognise that the occupation is continuing the war then it becomes difficult to talk about ceasefires.
That's my impression.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Diuretic wrote: I heard an interview on BBC World (radio), I don't have a link because as I say it was on the radio. An Israeli spokesperson stated that the Israelis will observe the cease-fire but stated that they will defend themselves if required. The Hezbollah spokesperson was evasive and wouldn't answer the same straightforward question put by the BBC interviewer. I don't hold for either side but the continued evasiveness of the Hezbollah spokesperson didn't augur well.
It's the Israeli definition of defending themselves that needs to be looked at.
It's the Israeli definition of defending themselves that needs to be looked at.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Diuretic wrote: I don't hold for either side but the continued evasiveness of the Hezbollah spokesperson didn't augur well.Sitting on a hillside listening to the goats and knowing that a $50 fusillade from a Kalashnikov is certain to evoke a $50 million dollar response might well make a less-disciplined fanatic's finger twitch. If only the knee-jerk reaction weren't guaranteed, the temptation might not be so insistent. It's like picking at a scab. (I speak with no experience of the Kalashnikov, but many satisfying moments of scab-picking).
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
gmc wrote: You are not one to let facts get in the way of a good belief system. Clearly their fellow arabs were not averse to stitching them up as well but the fact remains the palestinian state never got off the ground from the get go.gmc, I was on vacation last week, nowhere near a computer, and the thread has gone so far in the meantime that I don't expect to rejoin it.
I think it, though, only couteous to acknowledge your reply to me and remind you that I have always said that if I ever post anything on these forums as fact, and I am mistaken, I wish to be corrected with RELIABLE information.
Having said so, I'm not sure what part of my post you consider unfactual. In any case, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the BASIC facts remain these:
1. Israel, from its inception, has wanted nothing but to live in peace, freedom, and security.
2. Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
3. When Israel is attacked by these scum-sucking bastards, IT FIGHTS BACK! Don't want your bridges bombed? Don't want your cities reduced to rubble? Don't want the helpless women and children you are hiding behind to get hurt? Then DON'T ATTACK ISRAEL and you will never have anything to fear from it.
4. Israel has never inflicted any sort of violence or hardship on its neighbors, be it occupation, military strikes, or otherwise, that was not the result of, or in answer to, Islamic terrorism against Israel originating in the country involved.. It's not a chicken-or-egg situation as the apologists for the jackals attempt to portray it. First comes the terrorism, then the Israeli response. See 3.
When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I hope that day will come soon, but I am not holding my breath.
I think it, though, only couteous to acknowledge your reply to me and remind you that I have always said that if I ever post anything on these forums as fact, and I am mistaken, I wish to be corrected with RELIABLE information.
Having said so, I'm not sure what part of my post you consider unfactual. In any case, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the BASIC facts remain these:
1. Israel, from its inception, has wanted nothing but to live in peace, freedom, and security.
2. Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
3. When Israel is attacked by these scum-sucking bastards, IT FIGHTS BACK! Don't want your bridges bombed? Don't want your cities reduced to rubble? Don't want the helpless women and children you are hiding behind to get hurt? Then DON'T ATTACK ISRAEL and you will never have anything to fear from it.
4. Israel has never inflicted any sort of violence or hardship on its neighbors, be it occupation, military strikes, or otherwise, that was not the result of, or in answer to, Islamic terrorism against Israel originating in the country involved.. It's not a chicken-or-egg situation as the apologists for the jackals attempt to portray it. First comes the terrorism, then the Israeli response. See 3.
When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I hope that day will come soon, but I am not holding my breath.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen wrote: gmc, I was on vacation last week, nowhere near a computer, and the thread has gone so far in the meantime that I don't expect to rejoin it.
I think it, though, only couteous to acknowledge your reply to me and remind you that I have always said that if I ever post anything on these forums as fact, and I am mistaken, I wish to be corrected with RELIABLE information.
Having said so, I'm not sure what part of my post you consider unfactual. In any case, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the BASIC facts remain these:
1. Israel, from its inception, has wanted nothing but to live in peace, freedom, and security.
2. Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
3. When Israel is attacked by these scum-sucking bastards, IT FIGHTS BACK! Don't want your bridges bombed? Don't want your cities reduced to rubble? Don't want the helpless women and children you are hiding behind to get hurt? Then DON'T ATTACK ISRAEL and you will never have anything to fear from it.
4. Israel has never inflicted any sort of violence or hardship on its neighbors, be it occupation, military strikes, or otherwise, that was not the result of, or in answer to, Islamic terrorism against Israel originating in the country involved.. It's not a chicken-or-egg situation as the apologists for the jackals attempt to portray it. First comes the terrorism, then the Israeli response. See 3.
When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I hope that day will come soon, but I am not holding my breath.
I have never in my life seen such a biased diatribe presented as fact (except, possibly, some of Golem's more extreme utterances).
If you wish to present your opinion then feel free - but do not claim it to be fact.
And please, the presentation of "fact" should cut out the emotive descriptions.
I think it, though, only couteous to acknowledge your reply to me and remind you that I have always said that if I ever post anything on these forums as fact, and I am mistaken, I wish to be corrected with RELIABLE information.
Having said so, I'm not sure what part of my post you consider unfactual. In any case, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the BASIC facts remain these:
1. Israel, from its inception, has wanted nothing but to live in peace, freedom, and security.
2. Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
3. When Israel is attacked by these scum-sucking bastards, IT FIGHTS BACK! Don't want your bridges bombed? Don't want your cities reduced to rubble? Don't want the helpless women and children you are hiding behind to get hurt? Then DON'T ATTACK ISRAEL and you will never have anything to fear from it.
4. Israel has never inflicted any sort of violence or hardship on its neighbors, be it occupation, military strikes, or otherwise, that was not the result of, or in answer to, Islamic terrorism against Israel originating in the country involved.. It's not a chicken-or-egg situation as the apologists for the jackals attempt to portray it. First comes the terrorism, then the Israeli response. See 3.
When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I hope that day will come soon, but I am not holding my breath.
I have never in my life seen such a biased diatribe presented as fact (except, possibly, some of Golem's more extreme utterances).
If you wish to present your opinion then feel free - but do not claim it to be fact.
And please, the presentation of "fact" should cut out the emotive descriptions.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
August 14, 2006
Israel, Defeated
Round one: Lebanon, 1 – Israel, 0
Author :Justin Raimondo.
We hear much about "the cycle of violence" in the Middle East, with liberals and conservatives wailing that it needs to be "broken," but never do they say who started this "cycle," or whose brazen coercion and outright viciousness keeps it going. Yet even as the Israelis were approving UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands a cease-fire in Israel's war of aggression against Lebanon, the IDF was launching a huge offensive, and within minutes of the Israeli cabinet vote, the bombs were falling on Beirut. Right up until the last moment – 7 a.m., Monday morning – they were killing as many Lebanese as they could. And people wonder why Arabs teach their children to hate the Israelis. The feeling, rest assured, is mutual.
News of the Lebanese denouement is being covered as one would report a soccer match, with the gist of the story being "Who won?" Both sides claim "victory." This is typical of the region, where chest-beating bravado long ago overshadowed efforts to reach a peaceful settlement. Alright, then, so who "won"? The answer, at least as far as the first round, is Hezbollah, and, standing behind them, the government of Lebanon.
Take a look at Resolution 1701: it is quite a lengthy document, which goes well beyond the call for a cease-fire and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive solution to the current crisis in the Middle East – one in which Israel gains not an inch. If implemented – and that, of course, is the key – it endorses the seven-point program of the Lebanese government, first put forward at the international conference of July 26. This means a mutual exchange of prisoners – not only the two Israeli soldiers, but the many Lebanese still being held by the Israelis – and the return of the disputed Shebaa Farms enclave to Lebanon. Resolution 1701 also harkens back to the 1989 Taif Agreement, brokered by the Arab League, that put the West's imprimatur on the Syrian "occupation," ending the Lebanese civil war.
When 1701 endorses the efforts of the Lebanese government "to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon," consider that Hezbollah's political arm has two ministers in this government.
The Lebanese army, furthermore, is urged to take control of southern Lebanon: and, in tandem with this, Hezbollah is to be "disarmed." But who, exactly, is in this army? Lebanon's military recruiters will have a field day, as the ranks of the armed forces swell with Hezbollah fighters. The resolution orders the Israelis out of south Lebanon, and invites Hezbollah back in.
Remember, Hezbollah is not some foreign force, or even an Iranian "proxy," as the Israelis (and George W. Bush) aver: it is a Lebanese institution, by far the best organized political force in the country – and one that now has the overwhelming support of the populace. The Israelis have not only lost militarily – in the sense that Hezbollah fought the IDF to a draw – they has also lost politically, within Lebanon, where they have alienated their former allies by bombing Christian neighborhoods. As the Washington Post reports:
"Israel's ferocious bombing has rallied many more Lebanese around Hezbollah, regardless of politics or religion, said Gen. Antoine Lahd, who led a now defunct militia that helped Israeli troops police the occupation zone before they withdrew six years ago.
"Beirut's leading newspaper, An-Nahar, has long been critical of Hezbollah – especially its harassing rocket attacks on Israel before the war began – but it urged all Lebanese to stand behind Nasrallah's group to achieve victory against the Jewish state."
The events surrounding Israel's second invasion of Lebanon underscore the utter isolation of the U.S. and Israel in the face of universal opposition: we are getting a taste of what it would be like if the Americans went along with Tel Aviv's strategy of a U.S.-Israeli alliance against the world. As the divergence between American and Israeli interests widened, the former blinked – and reined in the latter. But for how long?
That is the question we face as the cease-fire takes effect, and expectations are low. Condoleezza Rice anticipated this on Sunday, when she said there would no doubt be "skirmishes" but hoped that the major fighting would end. We can see, however, that it takes very little for a "skirmish" to turn into an all-out war: this, after all, is what precipitated the present conflict to begin with – a border skirmish between the IDF and Hezbollah, which Israel used as a pretext to put into operation its long-standing plan to take out Hezbollah.
The plan backfired, and badly, not only militarily but also politically. To begin with, it undermined support for Olmert's government within Israel. As the war went on, support for the Kadima-led coalition declined significantly, as did Olmert's personal popularity. This precipitated the Israeli decision to accept 1701.
The invasion also dealt a blow to the Israel lobby's efforts to retain control of American policy in the Middle East at a time when that stranglehold is being challenged as never before. Though subjected to a sharp attack by neoconservative guru Richard Perle for suggesting negotiations with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear program, the American secretary of state now looms all the larger in the Washington firmament, after having successfully chaperoned 1701 to its debut. This is, in effect, her debut – and, so far at least, she is the shining queen of the ball. Whether it all ends as did Carrie's night at the prom, in the famous American horror movie of the same name, remains to be seen; for the moment, at least, Secretary Rice is riding high.
That means the neocons are still bleeding and reeling from the wounds inflicted on their power and prestige by the near-meltdown of the American occupation in Iraq. The balance of power in Washington is shifting, as the reality of what professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt call "the Lobby" reveals itself. What was chiefly notable, during this little episode, was the laughable crudity of the Lobby's propaganda. As Ken Silverstein acerbically remarked:
"With nearly one thousand people killed in Lebanon, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has outdone itself – spinning press releases with a mastery of the form that could bring a tear to the eye of even the most hardened and cynical flack.
"Exhibit one is a July 27 memo entitled 'Beirut Largely Unscathed as Israel Targets Hezbollah Strongholds,' in which AIPAC suggested that IDF forces were using state-of-the-art technology to wage a surgical bombing campaign that spared civilians. Despite large-scale destruction in Beirut and beyond, AIPAC cheerily noted that 'an overwhelming majority of the city remains untouched' and lauded Israel for dropping 'leaflets and taking other measures to urge civilians to leave the area.'"
Who are you going to believe, the Lobby asked, us or your lying eyes? As propagandists, not even the Soviets were this bad.
The American public watched, aghast, as the Israelis heedlessly slaughtered Lebanese civilians and leveled the country's infrastructure, and, for the most part, they didn't like what they saw. The polls show decidedly mixed results, but what it comes down to is this: Americans are about evenly split when it comes to their stance toward Israel's actions in the Middle East. About half want us to side neither with the Israelis nor the Arabs, and a plurality disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation, which, as we all know, is to give unconditional support to Israeli aggression. An ABC/Washington Post poll shows a plurality in favor of the proposition that Israel and Hezbollah are equally to blame for the outbreak of hostilities.
This is a defeat for Israel on every level: militarily, politically, and diplomatically. It is also a stunning setback for the War Party, which is already falling back on the argument that its platform, far from being discredited, was never acted on in the first place. As Jim Lobe points out, they are directing their fire at the Israelis for not killing enough Lebanese, and, now, for signing on to the cease-fire.
They may be down, but they are not out – not by a long shot. The cease-fire is fragile, and as we have seen, the Israelis are adept at provoking minor incidents and then blowing them out of proportion to carry out their preexisting agenda. However, in the developing regional conflict pitting Israel and the U.S. against Iran and Syria, we have to award round one to the latter. And for that, Tel Aviv and Washington have no one to blame but themselves.
As usual, Seymour Hersh has the inside dope, and he depicts Israel's failed blitz as a dress rehearsal for the main event: an American confrontation with Iran. Once again, as in the run-up to American's war with Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and his office were among the chief instigators. Hersh reports:
"Cheney's point, the former senior intelligence official said, was 'What if the Israelis execute their part of this first, and it's really successful? It'd be great. We can learn what to do in Iran by watching what the Israelis do in Lebanon.'"
If this dress rehearsal is any indication of how the show will be received once it hits the big time, then remember: this administration has been duly warned. As have the Democrats, who tried to outflank the GOP by being more royalist than the king on the question of unconditional support for Israeli aggression. Let those famed "antiwar" candidates the Democratic Party is fielding for Congress this summer come out against U.S. war plans for Iran – then, and only then, can we afford to breathe a sigh of relief.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/
Israel, Defeated
Round one: Lebanon, 1 – Israel, 0
Author :Justin Raimondo.
We hear much about "the cycle of violence" in the Middle East, with liberals and conservatives wailing that it needs to be "broken," but never do they say who started this "cycle," or whose brazen coercion and outright viciousness keeps it going. Yet even as the Israelis were approving UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands a cease-fire in Israel's war of aggression against Lebanon, the IDF was launching a huge offensive, and within minutes of the Israeli cabinet vote, the bombs were falling on Beirut. Right up until the last moment – 7 a.m., Monday morning – they were killing as many Lebanese as they could. And people wonder why Arabs teach their children to hate the Israelis. The feeling, rest assured, is mutual.
News of the Lebanese denouement is being covered as one would report a soccer match, with the gist of the story being "Who won?" Both sides claim "victory." This is typical of the region, where chest-beating bravado long ago overshadowed efforts to reach a peaceful settlement. Alright, then, so who "won"? The answer, at least as far as the first round, is Hezbollah, and, standing behind them, the government of Lebanon.
Take a look at Resolution 1701: it is quite a lengthy document, which goes well beyond the call for a cease-fire and lays the groundwork for a comprehensive solution to the current crisis in the Middle East – one in which Israel gains not an inch. If implemented – and that, of course, is the key – it endorses the seven-point program of the Lebanese government, first put forward at the international conference of July 26. This means a mutual exchange of prisoners – not only the two Israeli soldiers, but the many Lebanese still being held by the Israelis – and the return of the disputed Shebaa Farms enclave to Lebanon. Resolution 1701 also harkens back to the 1989 Taif Agreement, brokered by the Arab League, that put the West's imprimatur on the Syrian "occupation," ending the Lebanese civil war.
When 1701 endorses the efforts of the Lebanese government "to extend its authority over its territory, through its own legitimate armed forces, such that there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon," consider that Hezbollah's political arm has two ministers in this government.
The Lebanese army, furthermore, is urged to take control of southern Lebanon: and, in tandem with this, Hezbollah is to be "disarmed." But who, exactly, is in this army? Lebanon's military recruiters will have a field day, as the ranks of the armed forces swell with Hezbollah fighters. The resolution orders the Israelis out of south Lebanon, and invites Hezbollah back in.
Remember, Hezbollah is not some foreign force, or even an Iranian "proxy," as the Israelis (and George W. Bush) aver: it is a Lebanese institution, by far the best organized political force in the country – and one that now has the overwhelming support of the populace. The Israelis have not only lost militarily – in the sense that Hezbollah fought the IDF to a draw – they has also lost politically, within Lebanon, where they have alienated their former allies by bombing Christian neighborhoods. As the Washington Post reports:
"Israel's ferocious bombing has rallied many more Lebanese around Hezbollah, regardless of politics or religion, said Gen. Antoine Lahd, who led a now defunct militia that helped Israeli troops police the occupation zone before they withdrew six years ago.
"Beirut's leading newspaper, An-Nahar, has long been critical of Hezbollah – especially its harassing rocket attacks on Israel before the war began – but it urged all Lebanese to stand behind Nasrallah's group to achieve victory against the Jewish state."
The events surrounding Israel's second invasion of Lebanon underscore the utter isolation of the U.S. and Israel in the face of universal opposition: we are getting a taste of what it would be like if the Americans went along with Tel Aviv's strategy of a U.S.-Israeli alliance against the world. As the divergence between American and Israeli interests widened, the former blinked – and reined in the latter. But for how long?
That is the question we face as the cease-fire takes effect, and expectations are low. Condoleezza Rice anticipated this on Sunday, when she said there would no doubt be "skirmishes" but hoped that the major fighting would end. We can see, however, that it takes very little for a "skirmish" to turn into an all-out war: this, after all, is what precipitated the present conflict to begin with – a border skirmish between the IDF and Hezbollah, which Israel used as a pretext to put into operation its long-standing plan to take out Hezbollah.
The plan backfired, and badly, not only militarily but also politically. To begin with, it undermined support for Olmert's government within Israel. As the war went on, support for the Kadima-led coalition declined significantly, as did Olmert's personal popularity. This precipitated the Israeli decision to accept 1701.
The invasion also dealt a blow to the Israel lobby's efforts to retain control of American policy in the Middle East at a time when that stranglehold is being challenged as never before. Though subjected to a sharp attack by neoconservative guru Richard Perle for suggesting negotiations with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear program, the American secretary of state now looms all the larger in the Washington firmament, after having successfully chaperoned 1701 to its debut. This is, in effect, her debut – and, so far at least, she is the shining queen of the ball. Whether it all ends as did Carrie's night at the prom, in the famous American horror movie of the same name, remains to be seen; for the moment, at least, Secretary Rice is riding high.
That means the neocons are still bleeding and reeling from the wounds inflicted on their power and prestige by the near-meltdown of the American occupation in Iraq. The balance of power in Washington is shifting, as the reality of what professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt call "the Lobby" reveals itself. What was chiefly notable, during this little episode, was the laughable crudity of the Lobby's propaganda. As Ken Silverstein acerbically remarked:
"With nearly one thousand people killed in Lebanon, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has outdone itself – spinning press releases with a mastery of the form that could bring a tear to the eye of even the most hardened and cynical flack.
"Exhibit one is a July 27 memo entitled 'Beirut Largely Unscathed as Israel Targets Hezbollah Strongholds,' in which AIPAC suggested that IDF forces were using state-of-the-art technology to wage a surgical bombing campaign that spared civilians. Despite large-scale destruction in Beirut and beyond, AIPAC cheerily noted that 'an overwhelming majority of the city remains untouched' and lauded Israel for dropping 'leaflets and taking other measures to urge civilians to leave the area.'"
Who are you going to believe, the Lobby asked, us or your lying eyes? As propagandists, not even the Soviets were this bad.
The American public watched, aghast, as the Israelis heedlessly slaughtered Lebanese civilians and leveled the country's infrastructure, and, for the most part, they didn't like what they saw. The polls show decidedly mixed results, but what it comes down to is this: Americans are about evenly split when it comes to their stance toward Israel's actions in the Middle East. About half want us to side neither with the Israelis nor the Arabs, and a plurality disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation, which, as we all know, is to give unconditional support to Israeli aggression. An ABC/Washington Post poll shows a plurality in favor of the proposition that Israel and Hezbollah are equally to blame for the outbreak of hostilities.
This is a defeat for Israel on every level: militarily, politically, and diplomatically. It is also a stunning setback for the War Party, which is already falling back on the argument that its platform, far from being discredited, was never acted on in the first place. As Jim Lobe points out, they are directing their fire at the Israelis for not killing enough Lebanese, and, now, for signing on to the cease-fire.
They may be down, but they are not out – not by a long shot. The cease-fire is fragile, and as we have seen, the Israelis are adept at provoking minor incidents and then blowing them out of proportion to carry out their preexisting agenda. However, in the developing regional conflict pitting Israel and the U.S. against Iran and Syria, we have to award round one to the latter. And for that, Tel Aviv and Washington have no one to blame but themselves.
As usual, Seymour Hersh has the inside dope, and he depicts Israel's failed blitz as a dress rehearsal for the main event: an American confrontation with Iran. Once again, as in the run-up to American's war with Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and his office were among the chief instigators. Hersh reports:
"Cheney's point, the former senior intelligence official said, was 'What if the Israelis execute their part of this first, and it's really successful? It'd be great. We can learn what to do in Iran by watching what the Israelis do in Lebanon.'"
If this dress rehearsal is any indication of how the show will be received once it hits the big time, then remember: this administration has been duly warned. As have the Democrats, who tried to outflank the GOP by being more royalist than the king on the question of unconditional support for Israeli aggression. Let those famed "antiwar" candidates the Democratic Party is fielding for Congress this summer come out against U.S. war plans for Iran – then, and only then, can we afford to breathe a sigh of relief.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen wrote: I hope that day will come soon, but I am not holding my breath.Meanwhile some of us will print your diatribe in large letters and pin it to the local notice board, to remind those who see it what true Christian charity means in the 21st century.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bryn Mawr wrote: I have never in my life seen such a biased diatribe presented as fact (except, possibly, some of Golem's more extreme utterances).
If you wish to present your opinion then feel free - but do not claim it to be fact.
And please, the presentation of "fact" should cut out the emotive descriptions.I don't deny that the language was biased. I don't know of any rule here that requires the use of neutral or unbiased language. If you wish to view biased diatribes, I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts of the anti-Semitic posters here.
But facts are facts. Instead of attacking my point of view, why not point out anything in the post that is unfactual. I keep asking for that and no one has done so. Here's your chance to be the first.
Are you denying that Islamic terorists use women and children as human shields? That they have vowed to destroy Israel at any cost? Do you claim that Israel has ever inflicted any sort of suffering or hadrdship on its neighbors that was NOT in response to attacks from those neighbors? If so, give some examples. Do you deny that so-called 'Palestinians' send their little children, who should be in school, out to attack armed soldiers while their parents hide under the bed? Is that bravery or cowardice, BM?Pinky wrote: a. For such a good Christian, you really have some disgusting views about this!
b. No-one reading this diatribe could possibly take any it to be fact,
c. ...merely your islam-hating views.
d. How the hell you can justify what you just said I really don't know - you want people to ki11 each other and promote more hatred?a. Well, Pink, I think we have had this conversation before. How about giving us your own views? Which is more disgusting, cringing cowards who hide behind women like yourself and their children, or my expressing how I feel about such human garbage?
b. What is unfactual?
c. I abhor no religion, only those who use religion as a shield or excuse for inhuman behavior.
d. Of course not, I want Israel to be able to live in peace and security. The Islamic hoards can do as they wish among themselves. That is really of no concern to me as long as it is kept among themselves, except that, I gotta admit, I feel very sorry for women in Islamic societies, who are treated worse than animals, and you as a woman should too.
And what about this?...Issie wrote: Israel, Defeated
Round one: Lebanon, 1 – Israel, 0 What a joke! The fact that these losers make such claims only further proves what liars they are and what fools they have for followers. The guy on TV with the filthy rag wrapped around his head is hiding in a hole or cave somewhere, if he comes out he will be a corpse within hours, the Southern half on Lebanon lies in smoldering ruins, it will take them years if not decades to rebuild, they have gained absolutely NOTHING and their losses are enormous. Some victory! Some joke! By Issie's standards, the Germans won WWII.
Let me also remind you, the UN agreement requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah with all deliberate speed, and prevent it from re-arming, neither of which they are going to do, so to paraphrase the late Al Jolson, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
If you wish to present your opinion then feel free - but do not claim it to be fact.
And please, the presentation of "fact" should cut out the emotive descriptions.I don't deny that the language was biased. I don't know of any rule here that requires the use of neutral or unbiased language. If you wish to view biased diatribes, I suggest you go back through the thread and re-read the posts of the anti-Semitic posters here.
But facts are facts. Instead of attacking my point of view, why not point out anything in the post that is unfactual. I keep asking for that and no one has done so. Here's your chance to be the first.
Are you denying that Islamic terorists use women and children as human shields? That they have vowed to destroy Israel at any cost? Do you claim that Israel has ever inflicted any sort of suffering or hadrdship on its neighbors that was NOT in response to attacks from those neighbors? If so, give some examples. Do you deny that so-called 'Palestinians' send their little children, who should be in school, out to attack armed soldiers while their parents hide under the bed? Is that bravery or cowardice, BM?Pinky wrote: a. For such a good Christian, you really have some disgusting views about this!
b. No-one reading this diatribe could possibly take any it to be fact,
c. ...merely your islam-hating views.
d. How the hell you can justify what you just said I really don't know - you want people to ki11 each other and promote more hatred?a. Well, Pink, I think we have had this conversation before. How about giving us your own views? Which is more disgusting, cringing cowards who hide behind women like yourself and their children, or my expressing how I feel about such human garbage?
b. What is unfactual?
c. I abhor no religion, only those who use religion as a shield or excuse for inhuman behavior.
d. Of course not, I want Israel to be able to live in peace and security. The Islamic hoards can do as they wish among themselves. That is really of no concern to me as long as it is kept among themselves, except that, I gotta admit, I feel very sorry for women in Islamic societies, who are treated worse than animals, and you as a woman should too.
And what about this?...Issie wrote: Israel, Defeated
Round one: Lebanon, 1 – Israel, 0 What a joke! The fact that these losers make such claims only further proves what liars they are and what fools they have for followers. The guy on TV with the filthy rag wrapped around his head is hiding in a hole or cave somewhere, if he comes out he will be a corpse within hours, the Southern half on Lebanon lies in smoldering ruins, it will take them years if not decades to rebuild, they have gained absolutely NOTHING and their losses are enormous. Some victory! Some joke! By Issie's standards, the Germans won WWII.
Let me also remind you, the UN agreement requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah with all deliberate speed, and prevent it from re-arming, neither of which they are going to do, so to paraphrase the late Al Jolson, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen wrote: gmc, I was on vacation last week, nowhere near a computer, and the thread has gone so far in the meantime that I don't expect to rejoin it.
I think it, though, only couteous to acknowledge your reply to me and remind you that I have always said that if I ever post anything on these forums as fact, and I am mistaken, I wish to be corrected with RELIABLE information.
Having said so, I'm not sure what part of my post you consider unfactual. In any case, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the BASIC facts remain these:
1. Israel, from its inception, has wanted nothing but to live in peace, freedom, and security.
2. Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
3. When Israel is attacked by these scum-sucking bastards, IT FIGHTS BACK! Don't want your bridges bombed? Don't want your cities reduced to rubble? Don't want the helpless women and children you are hiding behind to get hurt? Then DON'T ATTACK ISRAEL and you will never have anything to fear from it.
4. Israel has never inflicted any sort of violence or hardship on its neighbors, be it occupation, military strikes, or otherwise, that was not the result of, or in answer to, Islamic terrorism against Israel originating in the country involved.. It's not a chicken-or-egg situation as the apologists for the jackals attempt to portray it. First comes the terrorism, then the Israeli response. See 3.
When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I hope that day will come soon, but I am not holding my breath.
I too have been away for a few days.
I posted factual information about what actually happened when the Israeli state came in to existence. You choose to completely ignore anything factual that disagrees with what you choose to believe. If there was anything of the factual content you took issue with and could point out where the error lay with reputable sources I would have been interested.
Instead you resort to a diatribe filled with the same blind bigotry you get from any religious groups. I particularly liked the bit about anti-semitic diatribes
posted by bronwen
Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
Of course in your eyes I presume that is not in the least bit racist or bigoted in any way but a clear statement of cause and effect and shows a clear understanding of the course of events leading up to the present situation and is a stunning example of christian tolerance and understanding.
Nothing can be done to change what has happened in the middle east but one thing for sure, blind bigotry will change nothing.
Sooner or later Israel will have to sit down and talk to terrorists, understand the root causes of it all and destroy their support base by facing up to those reasons. and make peace, because until they do nothing will change.
If Bush and Blair may want their crusade hopefully most of us will have the sense not to be taken in by their insane rhetoric
I think it, though, only couteous to acknowledge your reply to me and remind you that I have always said that if I ever post anything on these forums as fact, and I am mistaken, I wish to be corrected with RELIABLE information.
Having said so, I'm not sure what part of my post you consider unfactual. In any case, and in spite of all the rhetoric, the BASIC facts remain these:
1. Israel, from its inception, has wanted nothing but to live in peace, freedom, and security.
2. Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
3. When Israel is attacked by these scum-sucking bastards, IT FIGHTS BACK! Don't want your bridges bombed? Don't want your cities reduced to rubble? Don't want the helpless women and children you are hiding behind to get hurt? Then DON'T ATTACK ISRAEL and you will never have anything to fear from it.
4. Israel has never inflicted any sort of violence or hardship on its neighbors, be it occupation, military strikes, or otherwise, that was not the result of, or in answer to, Islamic terrorism against Israel originating in the country involved.. It's not a chicken-or-egg situation as the apologists for the jackals attempt to portray it. First comes the terrorism, then the Israeli response. See 3.
When the terrorism against Israel ends, once and for all, I can personally guarantee you that none of these filthy, rat-infested Islamic hellhole nations will have anything to fear from Israel. They will then be able to spend all of their time murdering and terrorizing one another, in the name of Al-lah, of course, while Israel lives in peace, freedom, and security.
I hope that day will come soon, but I am not holding my breath.
I too have been away for a few days.
I posted factual information about what actually happened when the Israeli state came in to existence. You choose to completely ignore anything factual that disagrees with what you choose to believe. If there was anything of the factual content you took issue with and could point out where the error lay with reputable sources I would have been interested.
Instead you resort to a diatribe filled with the same blind bigotry you get from any religious groups. I particularly liked the bit about anti-semitic diatribes
posted by bronwen
Israel is surrrounded by filthy, murderous Islamic jackals who have been trying to destroy it from Day One of its existence, and they do so by the most cowardly means imaginable, hiding behind their own women and children.
Of course in your eyes I presume that is not in the least bit racist or bigoted in any way but a clear statement of cause and effect and shows a clear understanding of the course of events leading up to the present situation and is a stunning example of christian tolerance and understanding.
Nothing can be done to change what has happened in the middle east but one thing for sure, blind bigotry will change nothing.
Sooner or later Israel will have to sit down and talk to terrorists, understand the root causes of it all and destroy their support base by facing up to those reasons. and make peace, because until they do nothing will change.
If Bush and Blair may want their crusade hopefully most of us will have the sense not to be taken in by their insane rhetoric
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Originally Posted by Issie
Israel, Defeated
Round one: Lebanon, 1 – Israel, 0
What a joke! The fact that these losers make such claims only further proves what liars they are and what fools they have for followers. The guy on TV with the filthy rag wrapped around his head is hiding in a hole or cave somewhere, if he comes out he will be a corpse within hours, the Southern half on Lebanon lies in smoldering ruins, it will take them years if not decades to rebuild, they have gained absolutely NOTHING and their losses are enormous. Some victory! Some joke! By Issie's standards, the Germans won WWII.
FactI don't know of any rule here that requires the use of neutral or unbiased language
In that case......
FactLet me also remind you, the UN agreement requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah with all deliberate speed, and prevent it from re-arming, neither of which they are going to do.
What about Israel disarming.? let me remind you that was NOT required.
so to paraphrase the late Al Jolson, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
You should try paraphrasing the late Al Jolson......My heart is an open book.
Israel, Defeated
Round one: Lebanon, 1 – Israel, 0
What a joke! The fact that these losers make such claims only further proves what liars they are and what fools they have for followers. The guy on TV with the filthy rag wrapped around his head is hiding in a hole or cave somewhere, if he comes out he will be a corpse within hours, the Southern half on Lebanon lies in smoldering ruins, it will take them years if not decades to rebuild, they have gained absolutely NOTHING and their losses are enormous. Some victory! Some joke! By Issie's standards, the Germans won WWII.
FactI don't know of any rule here that requires the use of neutral or unbiased language
In that case......
FactLet me also remind you, the UN agreement requires Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah with all deliberate speed, and prevent it from re-arming, neither of which they are going to do.
What about Israel disarming.? let me remind you that was NOT required.
so to paraphrase the late Al Jolson, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
You should try paraphrasing the late Al Jolson......My heart is an open book.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Pinky wrote: 1. What I found rather abhorrent to the whole statement was that you seem to think that all followers of Islam are bloodthirsty maniacs. To then state that they would surely just wipe themselves out in some sort of seems to back this up.
2. It's like saying you don't care whether there is more hatred, war, etc as far as they are concerned as they are obviously completely evil and a plague uopn the earth.
3. Yes, I agree with what you say on the situation of women in many Islamic countries, but I don't think that gives antone the right to condemn the lot of them...On a recent visit to Leicester, I lost count of how many women I saw walking around in burkas - In this country, they do have more of a choice about this type of thing, yet many still choose to abide by the rules of their religion.1. Pinks, I don't think that, I didn't say that, nor imply that. There is no question, however, regardless of your opinion of the present situation, that that segment of Islam which DOES fit that profile is a menace to the entire world, not just to Israel, and the sooner that threat is destroyed the better off all peace and freedom loving people will be.
2. I would put it this way. I am waiting for an MMMMMM - a Million Man Muslim March to the Middle of Mecca - where that cube thingy is - and all 1,000,000 of them carrying signs and banners saying, 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM'. When that happens, I will be willing to agree with you there are lots of good Muslims who eschew violence and want peace.
3. Good, I'm glad we can agree on that, and you are certainly correct that British law gives them that choice, but their own religious leadership is a different thing. I am not familiar with the situation in Leicester, but I would lay heavy odds that most of those women are compelled to dress that way by their religious leaders and would not dare disobey. Now, if it's a choice and not a compulsion, if they dress that way because they believe it is in some way respectful to God, that is fine. I wonder, if you were to ask several of them, what they would say. They probably wouldn't even be allowed to talk to you.
2. It's like saying you don't care whether there is more hatred, war, etc as far as they are concerned as they are obviously completely evil and a plague uopn the earth.
3. Yes, I agree with what you say on the situation of women in many Islamic countries, but I don't think that gives antone the right to condemn the lot of them...On a recent visit to Leicester, I lost count of how many women I saw walking around in burkas - In this country, they do have more of a choice about this type of thing, yet many still choose to abide by the rules of their religion.1. Pinks, I don't think that, I didn't say that, nor imply that. There is no question, however, regardless of your opinion of the present situation, that that segment of Islam which DOES fit that profile is a menace to the entire world, not just to Israel, and the sooner that threat is destroyed the better off all peace and freedom loving people will be.
2. I would put it this way. I am waiting for an MMMMMM - a Million Man Muslim March to the Middle of Mecca - where that cube thingy is - and all 1,000,000 of them carrying signs and banners saying, 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM'. When that happens, I will be willing to agree with you there are lots of good Muslims who eschew violence and want peace.
3. Good, I'm glad we can agree on that, and you are certainly correct that British law gives them that choice, but their own religious leadership is a different thing. I am not familiar with the situation in Leicester, but I would lay heavy odds that most of those women are compelled to dress that way by their religious leaders and would not dare disobey. Now, if it's a choice and not a compulsion, if they dress that way because they believe it is in some way respectful to God, that is fine. I wonder, if you were to ask several of them, what they would say. They probably wouldn't even be allowed to talk to you.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen we've been through a whole load of facts that you are
a) not addressing
b)denying with your proposed facts.
I'd like to hear your explanation as to
1)The treatment by Israel of the Golani Druze (who managed to successfully use nonviolent action to end their apartheid but not to reclaim their territory) These people did not fire back. Why is Israel still there?
2) The apartheid by occupying forces in West Bank and Gaza (which are one territory even though not joined) including
i) bulldozing of houses with or without the owners inside,
ii) the holding of thousands of detainees without charge
iii)the Israeli laws condoning torture of detainees
iv) the fact that the occupation of palestine, golan heights and any part of lebanon are illegal occupations
v)the fact that the settlements are being used to establish a presence that will allow them to annex most of the west bank
I do not use the word apartheid casually. There are global anti-apartheid movements, I belong to the Canadian one. Who best to discuss the reality of living in apartheid than South Africans? Here is their declaration:
http://psc.za.org/pscsaourdeclaration.htm
Declaration by South Africans on Apartheid Israel
The Palestinian rebellion has been a long time coming. Over three decades of occupation is but one dimension of their tragedy. Driven from their original homes, villages and land by sustained atrocities, condemned to miserable camps, dispersed in a far-flung Diaspora, subjected to massacres like the Sabra and Shatila slaughter of over 2000 refugees, and unending persecution.
The suffering in the West Bank and Gaza is the continuation of the colonisation of all of Palestine. Zionist militias seized 75% of the land and drove out 800 000 Palestinians through a series of massacres between the partition of Palestine in 1947 and the formation of Israel. With the declaration of the state of Israel, 531 Palestinian cities, towns and villages were razed to the ground, disappearing from the map. Those remaining were denuded of land, confiscated without compensation...
We, South Africans who have lived through apartheid cannot be silent as another entire people are treated as non-human beings; people without rights or human dignity and facing daily humiliation. We cannot permit a ruthless state to use military jets, helicopter gun-ships and tanks on civilians. We cannot accept state assassinations of activists, the torture of political prisoners, the murder of children and collective punishment.
We, South Africans who lived for decades under rulers with a colonial mentality see Israeli occupation as a strange survival of colonialism in the 21st century. Only in Israel do we hear of ‘settlements’ and ‘settlers’. Only in Israel do soldiers and armed civilian groups take over hilltops, demolish homes, uproot trees and destroy crops, shell schools, churches and mosques, plunder water reserves, and block access to an indigenous population’s freedom of movement and right to earn a living. These human rights violations were unacceptable in apartheid South Africa and are an affront to us in apartheid Israel.
We South Africans faced apartheid and exploitation, bullets and prison, not with bouquets of flowers, but with resistance. We are proud of this, our history. This is the history of all oppressed people. Why should it be different for Palestinians? Born in squalid refugee camps, living in poverty and believing the world community does not care, more and more young Palestinians see empty futures, aborted hopes and feel unbearable frustrations. The great African-American poet, Langston Hughes, asked: "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun¦or does it explode?" The shocking suicide bombings answers this rhetorical question. Apartheid Israel has created a situation in which people feel they have nothing to lose. This dangerous situation could be reversed, if the Israeli state and the one country that funds and supports it unconditionally- the US, as well as the world community, act in a moral and just manner.
a) not addressing
b)denying with your proposed facts.
I'd like to hear your explanation as to
1)The treatment by Israel of the Golani Druze (who managed to successfully use nonviolent action to end their apartheid but not to reclaim their territory) These people did not fire back. Why is Israel still there?
2) The apartheid by occupying forces in West Bank and Gaza (which are one territory even though not joined) including
i) bulldozing of houses with or without the owners inside,
ii) the holding of thousands of detainees without charge
iii)the Israeli laws condoning torture of detainees
iv) the fact that the occupation of palestine, golan heights and any part of lebanon are illegal occupations
v)the fact that the settlements are being used to establish a presence that will allow them to annex most of the west bank
I do not use the word apartheid casually. There are global anti-apartheid movements, I belong to the Canadian one. Who best to discuss the reality of living in apartheid than South Africans? Here is their declaration:
http://psc.za.org/pscsaourdeclaration.htm
Declaration by South Africans on Apartheid Israel
The Palestinian rebellion has been a long time coming. Over three decades of occupation is but one dimension of their tragedy. Driven from their original homes, villages and land by sustained atrocities, condemned to miserable camps, dispersed in a far-flung Diaspora, subjected to massacres like the Sabra and Shatila slaughter of over 2000 refugees, and unending persecution.
The suffering in the West Bank and Gaza is the continuation of the colonisation of all of Palestine. Zionist militias seized 75% of the land and drove out 800 000 Palestinians through a series of massacres between the partition of Palestine in 1947 and the formation of Israel. With the declaration of the state of Israel, 531 Palestinian cities, towns and villages were razed to the ground, disappearing from the map. Those remaining were denuded of land, confiscated without compensation...
We, South Africans who have lived through apartheid cannot be silent as another entire people are treated as non-human beings; people without rights or human dignity and facing daily humiliation. We cannot permit a ruthless state to use military jets, helicopter gun-ships and tanks on civilians. We cannot accept state assassinations of activists, the torture of political prisoners, the murder of children and collective punishment.
We, South Africans who lived for decades under rulers with a colonial mentality see Israeli occupation as a strange survival of colonialism in the 21st century. Only in Israel do we hear of ‘settlements’ and ‘settlers’. Only in Israel do soldiers and armed civilian groups take over hilltops, demolish homes, uproot trees and destroy crops, shell schools, churches and mosques, plunder water reserves, and block access to an indigenous population’s freedom of movement and right to earn a living. These human rights violations were unacceptable in apartheid South Africa and are an affront to us in apartheid Israel.
We South Africans faced apartheid and exploitation, bullets and prison, not with bouquets of flowers, but with resistance. We are proud of this, our history. This is the history of all oppressed people. Why should it be different for Palestinians? Born in squalid refugee camps, living in poverty and believing the world community does not care, more and more young Palestinians see empty futures, aborted hopes and feel unbearable frustrations. The great African-American poet, Langston Hughes, asked: "What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun¦or does it explode?" The shocking suicide bombings answers this rhetorical question. Apartheid Israel has created a situation in which people feel they have nothing to lose. This dangerous situation could be reversed, if the Israeli state and the one country that funds and supports it unconditionally- the US, as well as the world community, act in a moral and just manner.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
gmc wrote: 1. I posted factual information about what actually happened when the Israeli state came in to existence. You choose to completely ignore anything factual that disagrees with what you choose to believe. If there was anything of the factual content you took issue with and could point out where the error lay with reputable sources I would have been interested.1. gmc, I thought that I did respond. The link was to a pro-Arab website and, to be charitable, I'll say that it presents a FAIRLY factual picture of ITS OWN SIDE of the story. It is misleading because of what it does NOT present. I think you're referring to this excerpt, to which I have added only the letter references:a. Although Jews constituted only one-third of the population and owned less than 7 percent of the land, the UN partition plan assigned 55 percent of Palestine’s territory to the Jewish state.
b. In March 1948, Zionist forces launched major operations throughout Palestine. Their attacks were brutal. Through terrorism , psychological warfare, and direct conquests, Palestine was dismembered, many of its villages destroyed, and many of its people expelled as refugees.
c. By the time the British withdrawal had been completed, Palestinian resistance had been largely broken. British evacuation and the Zionist leaders’ proclamation of the Israeli state on 15 May 1948—forcibly created beyond the area allotted to the Jewish community in the UN partition plan—prompted military intervention by the neighboring Arab states, precipitating the first Arab-Israeli war.a. I believe I said that the 55%/45% split was correct but misleading, as the Arabs also got ALL of what had been known as Trans-Jordan, giving them by far the bigger piece of the pie, with Israel not heard to complain.
b & c. Also essentially correct, but completely ignoring the fact that the other side, which opposed the partition entirely, was fighting just as brutally. The Israelis won decisively, as they would do many more times, right up to the present conflict, which is now just beginning, but will have the same result. Courage will always defeat cowardice.
You then go on to state:d. A palestinian state will only be established when Israel accepts that Palestinians have a right to exist in the first place and accepts that it's own actions have done much to make a bad situation worse. Freedom and justice is something others desire not just israeli's
e. Terrorism is the only means of resistance palestinians have...
f. Sooner or later Israel is going to have to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah because like it or not they have popular support and after this little episode are gaining even more and you will never win a guerrila war when the guerillas have popular support.
g. Far from ending attacks on Israel it is guaranteeing another generation of children are growing up with good reasons to ha te Israel and those who stand back and let them do what they want.d. I believe I said that the Israelis have always accepted that, and in fact have given the so-called 'Palestinians' one chance after another to establish a state of their own, and each of these opportunities has been squandered away by repeated attacks on Israel. I don't question that there are 'Palestinians' who wish to live in a democratic society like Israel's. They will NEVER achieve that through terrorism.
e. I believe I said that this was utter nonsense. Why not agree to live peacefully with Israel as Egypt and Jordan have done?
f. Here you lose it. You cannot bargain or negotiate with terrorists. The nations which harbor them are going to have to eliminate them or Israel will do it for them. It's a simple choice. Lebanon chose not to restrain them, they are now suffering the consequences.
g. Hate Israel because it had the courage to defend itself from the jackals? If the children of these countries are going to grow up hating anyone, they should be hating the criminals in their own midst who are responsible for all of their hardships.gmc wrote: 2. I particularly liked the bit about anti-semitic diatribes
3. Nothing can be done to change what has happened in the middle east but one thing for sure, blind bigotry will change nothing.2. In this regard you need look no further than a few posts prior to this one. The notion of 'Jews selling Germany down the river' is classic anti-Semitic claptrap. I gotta say, I have always considered anti-Semites the absolute lowest form of animal life, but to see them wallowing in their own filth here on these forums is quite disappointing.
3. I agree with you and I do not consider myself guilty of that. Look, I didn't just toss a coin in order to choose sides in this conflict. These are facts. On the one side, Israel, the ONLY democratic country in the region, wanting ONLY to live in peace, freedom and security. On the other side, the jackals, not even knowing or understanding the meaning of the words democracy and freedom, wanting ONLY to destroy Israel no matter what the cost to them or to their women and children behind whom they hide like cringing cowards. That is the choice. You are free to support whom you will.
b. In March 1948, Zionist forces launched major operations throughout Palestine. Their attacks were brutal. Through terrorism , psychological warfare, and direct conquests, Palestine was dismembered, many of its villages destroyed, and many of its people expelled as refugees.
c. By the time the British withdrawal had been completed, Palestinian resistance had been largely broken. British evacuation and the Zionist leaders’ proclamation of the Israeli state on 15 May 1948—forcibly created beyond the area allotted to the Jewish community in the UN partition plan—prompted military intervention by the neighboring Arab states, precipitating the first Arab-Israeli war.a. I believe I said that the 55%/45% split was correct but misleading, as the Arabs also got ALL of what had been known as Trans-Jordan, giving them by far the bigger piece of the pie, with Israel not heard to complain.
b & c. Also essentially correct, but completely ignoring the fact that the other side, which opposed the partition entirely, was fighting just as brutally. The Israelis won decisively, as they would do many more times, right up to the present conflict, which is now just beginning, but will have the same result. Courage will always defeat cowardice.
You then go on to state:d. A palestinian state will only be established when Israel accepts that Palestinians have a right to exist in the first place and accepts that it's own actions have done much to make a bad situation worse. Freedom and justice is something others desire not just israeli's
e. Terrorism is the only means of resistance palestinians have...
f. Sooner or later Israel is going to have to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah because like it or not they have popular support and after this little episode are gaining even more and you will never win a guerrila war when the guerillas have popular support.
g. Far from ending attacks on Israel it is guaranteeing another generation of children are growing up with good reasons to ha te Israel and those who stand back and let them do what they want.d. I believe I said that the Israelis have always accepted that, and in fact have given the so-called 'Palestinians' one chance after another to establish a state of their own, and each of these opportunities has been squandered away by repeated attacks on Israel. I don't question that there are 'Palestinians' who wish to live in a democratic society like Israel's. They will NEVER achieve that through terrorism.
e. I believe I said that this was utter nonsense. Why not agree to live peacefully with Israel as Egypt and Jordan have done?
f. Here you lose it. You cannot bargain or negotiate with terrorists. The nations which harbor them are going to have to eliminate them or Israel will do it for them. It's a simple choice. Lebanon chose not to restrain them, they are now suffering the consequences.
g. Hate Israel because it had the courage to defend itself from the jackals? If the children of these countries are going to grow up hating anyone, they should be hating the criminals in their own midst who are responsible for all of their hardships.gmc wrote: 2. I particularly liked the bit about anti-semitic diatribes
3. Nothing can be done to change what has happened in the middle east but one thing for sure, blind bigotry will change nothing.2. In this regard you need look no further than a few posts prior to this one. The notion of 'Jews selling Germany down the river' is classic anti-Semitic claptrap. I gotta say, I have always considered anti-Semites the absolute lowest form of animal life, but to see them wallowing in their own filth here on these forums is quite disappointing.
3. I agree with you and I do not consider myself guilty of that. Look, I didn't just toss a coin in order to choose sides in this conflict. These are facts. On the one side, Israel, the ONLY democratic country in the region, wanting ONLY to live in peace, freedom and security. On the other side, the jackals, not even knowing or understanding the meaning of the words democracy and freedom, wanting ONLY to destroy Israel no matter what the cost to them or to their women and children behind whom they hide like cringing cowards. That is the choice. You are free to support whom you will.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: Bronwen we've been through a whole load of facts that you are
a) not addressing
b)denying with your proposed facts.
I'd like to hear your explanation as to.... Golem is much better equipped to discuss such specific issues, and such issues are beyond the theme of this thread. In case you haven't noticed, he is off fighting the jackals. I suggest you ask him when and if he returns.
Some people seem unable to grasp the concept of a Jewish homeland. Trying to equate it with (former) apartheid South Africa is extremely foolish, but then, no one ever accused anti-Semites of being intelligent.
a) not addressing
b)denying with your proposed facts.
I'd like to hear your explanation as to.... Golem is much better equipped to discuss such specific issues, and such issues are beyond the theme of this thread. In case you haven't noticed, he is off fighting the jackals. I suggest you ask him when and if he returns.
Some people seem unable to grasp the concept of a Jewish homeland. Trying to equate it with (former) apartheid South Africa is extremely foolish, but then, no one ever accused anti-Semites of being intelligent.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen wrote: Golem is much better equipped to discuss such specific issues, and such issues are beyond the theme of this thread. In case you haven't noticed, he is off fighting the jackals. I suggest you ask him when and if he returns.
Some people seem unable to grasp the concept of a Jewish homeland. Trying to equate it with (former) apartheid South Africa is extremely foolish, but then, no one ever accused anti-Semites of being intelligent.
But these are exactly the issues that one needs to know about to understand the problem. If you don't know about them, I suggest you look into it. Or admit you're talking about something about which you are ignorant. Anti-semitism has been a propaganda weapon of Israelis for a long time, as Norman Finkelstein so successfully documents in his two books about it. (He's a Jew, you know) The extreme harm in misusing this label is that the real anti-semitists get lost in the crowd. Criticising Israel is different than hating jews. Get your mind around that.
I should think a fight against a jackal would be easy for an armed man. Unless you mean humans. Dehumanizing the Arabs has been brought to perfection in this battle. I am perfectly aware of golem's position on how dirty and smelly the Arabs are. I'm sure he feels they should submit to his perceived idea of a superior race. If he returns safely, which I hope he does, I expect he will think his opinion untouchable as he put his own life at risk. I credit him with passion but that's about it.
Some people seem unable to grasp the concept of a Jewish homeland. Trying to equate it with (former) apartheid South Africa is extremely foolish, but then, no one ever accused anti-Semites of being intelligent.
But these are exactly the issues that one needs to know about to understand the problem. If you don't know about them, I suggest you look into it. Or admit you're talking about something about which you are ignorant. Anti-semitism has been a propaganda weapon of Israelis for a long time, as Norman Finkelstein so successfully documents in his two books about it. (He's a Jew, you know) The extreme harm in misusing this label is that the real anti-semitists get lost in the crowd. Criticising Israel is different than hating jews. Get your mind around that.
I should think a fight against a jackal would be easy for an armed man. Unless you mean humans. Dehumanizing the Arabs has been brought to perfection in this battle. I am perfectly aware of golem's position on how dirty and smelly the Arabs are. I'm sure he feels they should submit to his perceived idea of a superior race. If he returns safely, which I hope he does, I expect he will think his opinion untouchable as he put his own life at risk. I credit him with passion but that's about it.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
The notion of 'Jews selling Germany down the river' is classic anti-Semitic claptrap. I gotta say, I have always considered anti-Semites the absolute lowest form of animal life, but to see them wallowing in their own filth here on these forums is quite disappointing.
Not my words Bronwen, have a listen to this guy....you might learn something
Quote:
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 32803163&q
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm
Not my words Bronwen, have a listen to this guy....you might learn something
Quote:
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. "We've been so nice to them"; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 32803163&q
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
I've had it with the anti-Semitic label as slander.
Bronwen, report the accused to admin. The forum does have policies about racist statements.
If you are accusing me, I would like to see which things I wrote that allows that label.
Bronwen, report the accused to admin. The forum does have policies about racist statements.
If you are accusing me, I would like to see which things I wrote that allows that label.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
posted by bronwen
I agree with you and I do not consider myself guilty of that. Look, I didn't just toss a coin in order to choose sides in this conflict. These are facts. On the one side, Israel, the ONLY democratic country in the region, wanting ONLY to live in peace, freedom and security. On the other side, the jackals, not even knowing or understanding the meaning of the words democracy and freedom, wanting ONLY to destroy Israel no matter what the cost to them or to their women and children behind whom they hide like cringing cowards. That is the choice. You are free to support whom you will.
Clearly you do not understand irony. You are a bigot every bit as much as those jackals you would condemn, so blind you can't see it.
Clearly your idea of an objective source is one that says israel good, everyone else bad. The pro islamic site, as you put it is so biased (no scrub that you wouldn't get the irony lets keep it literal)
That pro islamic site also pointed out how their fellow arabs were more than happy to use force to take land off the palestinians themselves which is why the arabs-as you put it ended up with the west bank and the gaza strip. The putative palestinian state was caught in the middle.
My point was the palestinian state was stillborn at birth, your contention that there had never been a palestinian state while true was also spurious ands misleading. Both should have been created at the same time
In March 1948, Zionist forces launched major operations throughout Palestine. Their attacks were brutal. Through terror, psychological warfare, and direct conquests, Palestine was dismembered, many of its villages destroyed, and many of its people expelled as refugees. By the time the British withdrawal had been completed, Palestinian resistance had been largely broken. British evacuation and the Zionist leaders’ proclamation of the Israeli state on 15 May 1948—forcibly created beyond the area allotted to the Jewish community in the UN partition plan—prompted military intervention by the neighboring Arab states, precipitating the first Arab-Israeli war.
Maybe you would like to see it in a zionist site. Same facts different spin
http://www.betar.co.uk/facts/disputed.php
You have to love the semantics. They're not occupied territories they're disputed but we're keeping the good bits and control of the water supply.
The rights and wrongs of this are so murky that people who see only black and white need their eyes tested.
One thing for sure-so long as blind hatred and bigotry rule all you will get is more war that no one will win.
Incidentally the link to prophecies about the middle east is illuminating. How anyone can belief claptrap like that is beyond me. Wjhat is worrying is that many seem determined to make it come true.
Religious people are irrational, we should not listen to their demented ravings whatever their faith.
I agree with you and I do not consider myself guilty of that. Look, I didn't just toss a coin in order to choose sides in this conflict. These are facts. On the one side, Israel, the ONLY democratic country in the region, wanting ONLY to live in peace, freedom and security. On the other side, the jackals, not even knowing or understanding the meaning of the words democracy and freedom, wanting ONLY to destroy Israel no matter what the cost to them or to their women and children behind whom they hide like cringing cowards. That is the choice. You are free to support whom you will.
Clearly you do not understand irony. You are a bigot every bit as much as those jackals you would condemn, so blind you can't see it.
Clearly your idea of an objective source is one that says israel good, everyone else bad. The pro islamic site, as you put it is so biased (no scrub that you wouldn't get the irony lets keep it literal)
That pro islamic site also pointed out how their fellow arabs were more than happy to use force to take land off the palestinians themselves which is why the arabs-as you put it ended up with the west bank and the gaza strip. The putative palestinian state was caught in the middle.
My point was the palestinian state was stillborn at birth, your contention that there had never been a palestinian state while true was also spurious ands misleading. Both should have been created at the same time
In March 1948, Zionist forces launched major operations throughout Palestine. Their attacks were brutal. Through terror, psychological warfare, and direct conquests, Palestine was dismembered, many of its villages destroyed, and many of its people expelled as refugees. By the time the British withdrawal had been completed, Palestinian resistance had been largely broken. British evacuation and the Zionist leaders’ proclamation of the Israeli state on 15 May 1948—forcibly created beyond the area allotted to the Jewish community in the UN partition plan—prompted military intervention by the neighboring Arab states, precipitating the first Arab-Israeli war.
Maybe you would like to see it in a zionist site. Same facts different spin
http://www.betar.co.uk/facts/disputed.php
You have to love the semantics. They're not occupied territories they're disputed but we're keeping the good bits and control of the water supply.
The rights and wrongs of this are so murky that people who see only black and white need their eyes tested.
One thing for sure-so long as blind hatred and bigotry rule all you will get is more war that no one will win.
Incidentally the link to prophecies about the middle east is illuminating. How anyone can belief claptrap like that is beyond me. Wjhat is worrying is that many seem determined to make it come true.
Religious people are irrational, we should not listen to their demented ravings whatever their faith.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Pinky wrote: I wonder why people bother to enter debates when they can't look at other views / facts objectively? There have been various comparisons made with the situation under discussion, but it seems some are unwilling even to think about a different point of view. If the only way of responding is to attack, that does not say much for the poster's faith in their own 'facts', or their own abilities to debate or reason.
Some people cannot conceive that another point of view is possible - to question their belief is to attack their sub-conscious worldview and that sparks the agressive response.
At that point it's gone beyond reason and become instinctive reaction.
I would hate to think that anyone in the Garden falls into that category. Occasionally we all react without thinking but, in general, I think that we can all present a rational argument to support our views and reach a concordance.
Some people cannot conceive that another point of view is possible - to question their belief is to attack their sub-conscious worldview and that sparks the agressive response.
At that point it's gone beyond reason and become instinctive reaction.
I would hate to think that anyone in the Garden falls into that category. Occasionally we all react without thinking but, in general, I think that we can all present a rational argument to support our views and reach a concordance.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
On behalf of all people who see that Israel has some explaining to do I post the following query:
If Israel is so justified, why has Nelson Madela declared the the situation in Palestine to be apartheid and Gandhi, in his lifetime, refused to support them?
If I am anti-semitic for questioning Israel then I'm in good company.
If Israel is so justified, why has Nelson Madela declared the the situation in Palestine to be apartheid and Gandhi, in his lifetime, refused to support them?
If I am anti-semitic for questioning Israel then I'm in good company.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bryn Mawr wrote: Some people cannot conceive that another point of view is possible - to question their belief is to attack their sub-conscious worldview and that sparks the agressive response.
At that point it's gone beyond reason and become instinctive reaction.
I would hate to think that anyone in the Garden falls into that category. Occasionally we all react without thinking but, in general, I think that we can all present a rational argument to support our views and reach a concordance.
Personally I enjoy this most when there are such widely differing views. You learn to think by being forced to express yourself and learn most when views diverge.
The thing is having a point of view is arrived at by logical analysis of a situation and is arrived at by the individual. A belief system is not rational but blind belief that a thing is so because it is usually because someoine has told them it is so. As you say questioning someones beliefs triggers an aggressive response because some are not used to thinking for themselves, it hurts. Dismissing critics as anti-semitic avoids having to think about it-as does dismissing critics of the war in Iraq as unpatriotic or supporting terrorists.
Interesting article, if true
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060813/wl ... 0813183058
War and anti war, alvin & heidi toffler, read this when it came out, interesting interesting in light of what is happening now. If you see it in the library or bookstore I recommend a read. They were the ones who coined the term future shock.
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/inde ... t_id=10145
At that point it's gone beyond reason and become instinctive reaction.
I would hate to think that anyone in the Garden falls into that category. Occasionally we all react without thinking but, in general, I think that we can all present a rational argument to support our views and reach a concordance.
Personally I enjoy this most when there are such widely differing views. You learn to think by being forced to express yourself and learn most when views diverge.
The thing is having a point of view is arrived at by logical analysis of a situation and is arrived at by the individual. A belief system is not rational but blind belief that a thing is so because it is usually because someoine has told them it is so. As you say questioning someones beliefs triggers an aggressive response because some are not used to thinking for themselves, it hurts. Dismissing critics as anti-semitic avoids having to think about it-as does dismissing critics of the war in Iraq as unpatriotic or supporting terrorists.
Interesting article, if true
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060813/wl ... 0813183058
War and anti war, alvin & heidi toffler, read this when it came out, interesting interesting in light of what is happening now. If you see it in the library or bookstore I recommend a read. They were the ones who coined the term future shock.
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/inde ... t_id=10145
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Scrat wrote: In case you have been in the woodshed these last few weeks you should take notice that now the greater part of the entire Arab world is getting in on this in one way or another.The greater part of the entire Arab world has ALWAYS been 'in on this in one way or another'.
Tell ya what, Scat. When I am able to go to an Islamic hellhole like Saudi Arabia and practice my Christian religion freely and openly, then I might consider discussing 'Israeli apartheid' with you.
When that time comes, you be sure to let me know.
Tell ya what, Scat. When I am able to go to an Islamic hellhole like Saudi Arabia and practice my Christian religion freely and openly, then I might consider discussing 'Israeli apartheid' with you.
When that time comes, you be sure to let me know.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: 1. But these are exactly the issues that one needs to know about to understand the problem.
2. Criticising Israel is different than hating jews. Get your mind around that.
3. I should think a fight against a jackal would be easy for an armed man. Unless you mean humans. 1. Well,. that may be true to some extent, but most of the items on your list are rather easily dealt with. F'rinstance, you don't want your home bulldozed? I don't blame you, neither would I. So, in that case, you don't use it for terrorist activities, you don't consort with terrorists, you don't support terrorists. That's pretty elementary.
I would give your list more credence if it mentioned 60 years of Arab terrorism against Israel. That is the central problem. That and Islamic oppression of their own people.
2. Right. And as one reads the posts of this thread it is quite easy to sort out the Jew haters from the sincere critics.
3. If you consider people who not only commit acts of terrorism and then hide behind their helpless women and children, but also take their mentally ill and retarded brethren, strap explosives to them, and send them out to commit acts of mass murder while blowing themselves to bits, if you consider such people on the level of human beings, then you are entitled to that assessment.
I myself consider them closer to animals. The jackal, whose lifestyle has similar characteristics, comes to mind.
Equating them with Israeli soldiers, who fight valiantly and courageously to defend their homeland, their women and their children is really quite outrageous.
2. Criticising Israel is different than hating jews. Get your mind around that.
3. I should think a fight against a jackal would be easy for an armed man. Unless you mean humans. 1. Well,. that may be true to some extent, but most of the items on your list are rather easily dealt with. F'rinstance, you don't want your home bulldozed? I don't blame you, neither would I. So, in that case, you don't use it for terrorist activities, you don't consort with terrorists, you don't support terrorists. That's pretty elementary.
I would give your list more credence if it mentioned 60 years of Arab terrorism against Israel. That is the central problem. That and Islamic oppression of their own people.
2. Right. And as one reads the posts of this thread it is quite easy to sort out the Jew haters from the sincere critics.
3. If you consider people who not only commit acts of terrorism and then hide behind their helpless women and children, but also take their mentally ill and retarded brethren, strap explosives to them, and send them out to commit acts of mass murder while blowing themselves to bits, if you consider such people on the level of human beings, then you are entitled to that assessment.
I myself consider them closer to animals. The jackal, whose lifestyle has similar characteristics, comes to mind.
Equating them with Israeli soldiers, who fight valiantly and courageously to defend their homeland, their women and their children is really quite outrageous.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen wrote: The greater part of the entire Arab world has ALWAYS been 'in on this in one way or another'.
Tell ya what, Scat. When I am able to go to an Islamic hellhole like Saudi Arabia and practice my Christian religion freely and openly, then I might consider discussing 'Israeli apartheid' with you.
When that time comes, you be sure to let me know.
Tell you what Bronwen, since it was Saudi terrorists that attcked on 911 and al queda is saudi based and much of the fundamentalist islamic philosophy originated in saudi how come they don't get the blame for all this and the despotic regime responsible overthrown in the name of democracy?
You do also appreciate that much of the anti-semitism you so abhor is inspired by christianity and in particular the doctrines of the catholic church as the largest -although they have modified their views considerably.
Going from past experience it's not the muslims Israel should worry about, it's the christians.
Tell ya what, Scat. When I am able to go to an Islamic hellhole like Saudi Arabia and practice my Christian religion freely and openly, then I might consider discussing 'Israeli apartheid' with you.
When that time comes, you be sure to let me know.
Tell you what Bronwen, since it was Saudi terrorists that attcked on 911 and al queda is saudi based and much of the fundamentalist islamic philosophy originated in saudi how come they don't get the blame for all this and the despotic regime responsible overthrown in the name of democracy?
You do also appreciate that much of the anti-semitism you so abhor is inspired by christianity and in particular the doctrines of the catholic church as the largest -although they have modified their views considerably.
Going from past experience it's not the muslims Israel should worry about, it's the christians.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Diuretic wrote: Well there was one Christian who was definitely not anti-Semitic
http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_jews.html
Luckily some of the jews, like the rothschilds, picked the right side.:sneaky:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryID=ac19
The Rothschild family gambles heavily on the eventual defeat of Napoleon. Their loans are all to his enemies (surprisingly Napoleon allows Jacob, operating from Paris, to raise money for the exiled Bourbons). Their network of contacts enables them to move money around Europe even in wartime conditions. A famous example, but only one of many, is Nathan's transfer of large sums of money from London to Portugal to pay the British troops in the Peninsular War.
http://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_jews.html
Luckily some of the jews, like the rothschilds, picked the right side.:sneaky:
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/Pla ... oryID=ac19
The Rothschild family gambles heavily on the eventual defeat of Napoleon. Their loans are all to his enemies (surprisingly Napoleon allows Jacob, operating from Paris, to raise money for the exiled Bourbons). Their network of contacts enables them to move money around Europe even in wartime conditions. A famous example, but only one of many, is Nathan's transfer of large sums of money from London to Portugal to pay the British troops in the Peninsular War.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
gmc wrote: 1. Tell you what Bronwen, since it was Saudi terorists that attacked on 911 and al queda is saudi based and much of the fundamentalist islamic philosophy originated in saudi how come they don't get the blame for all this and the despotic regime responsible overthrown in the name of democracy?
2. You do also appreciate that much of the anti-semitism you so abhor is inspired by christianity and in particular the doctrines of the catholic church as the largest -although they have modified their views considerably.
3. Going from past experience it's not the muslims Israel should worry about, it's the christians.1. Run that by me again? I'm not an expert on Saudi Arabia, but my understanding is that the 'despotic regime' - by which I assume you are referring to the royal house - opposes rather than supports the extremists. If I am mistaken, here is your opportunity to enlighten me.
2. I don't 'appreciate' that at all. I am a lifelong Catholic, attended Catholic schools for 11 years, and was never exposed there to anything remotely resembling anti-Semitism. On the contrary, we shared a special kinship, firstly because we Catholics understood our Church's Jewish roots, and secondly because we were both minority religions in the mainly Protestant USA. If you are talking about the Middle Ages, you will have to justify that by providing some proof that things that occurred that long ago are relevant today. I don't see it.
3. LOL! Name one or two Christians whom Israel should fear. For example, how many Christian suicide attacks have there been?gmc wrote: Luckily some of the jews, like the rothschilds, picked the right side.It might also be mentioned that Hyam Solomon practically financed the American Revolution single-handed, and several of George Washington's top political advisors were Jews.
2. You do also appreciate that much of the anti-semitism you so abhor is inspired by christianity and in particular the doctrines of the catholic church as the largest -although they have modified their views considerably.
3. Going from past experience it's not the muslims Israel should worry about, it's the christians.1. Run that by me again? I'm not an expert on Saudi Arabia, but my understanding is that the 'despotic regime' - by which I assume you are referring to the royal house - opposes rather than supports the extremists. If I am mistaken, here is your opportunity to enlighten me.
2. I don't 'appreciate' that at all. I am a lifelong Catholic, attended Catholic schools for 11 years, and was never exposed there to anything remotely resembling anti-Semitism. On the contrary, we shared a special kinship, firstly because we Catholics understood our Church's Jewish roots, and secondly because we were both minority religions in the mainly Protestant USA. If you are talking about the Middle Ages, you will have to justify that by providing some proof that things that occurred that long ago are relevant today. I don't see it.
3. LOL! Name one or two Christians whom Israel should fear. For example, how many Christian suicide attacks have there been?gmc wrote: Luckily some of the jews, like the rothschilds, picked the right side.It might also be mentioned that Hyam Solomon practically financed the American Revolution single-handed, and several of George Washington's top political advisors were Jews.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen wrote: 1. Run that by me again? I'm not an expert on Saudi Arabia, but my understanding is that the 'despotic regime' - by which I assume you are referring to the royal house - opposes rather than supports the extremists. If I am mistaken, here is your opportunity to enlighten me.
2. I don't 'appreciate' that at all. I am a lifelong Catholic, attended Catholic schools for 11 years, and was never exposed there to anything remotely resembling anti-Semitism. On the contrary, we shared a special kinship, firstly because we Catholics understood our Church's Jewish roots, and secondly because we were both minority religions in the mainly Protestant USA. If you are talking about the Middle Ages, you will have to justify that by providing some proof that things that occurred that long ago are relevant today. I don't see it.
3. LOL! Name one or two Christians whom Israel should fear. For example, how many Christian su icide attacks have there been?It might also be mentioned that Hyam Solomon practically financed the American Revolution single-handed, and several of George Washington's top political advisors were Jews.
1. What's the point? You are clearly someone that ignores or diisregards facts that challenge your world view. Do your own research-try googling wahhabi, al queda, read the 911 commission report, find out the nationalities and background of the terrorists, find out about the regime in saudi arabia and decide for yourself whether it is a shining example of middle eastern democracy and freedom.
2. same thing. try researching sectarianism in the USA. Why so many different christian sects? You went to a catholic school, why? How many catholic presidents have their been and why not more? Research the origins of anti semitism and the christian connection. If you don't already know the gist of it all what planet are you on?
You're in westphalia aren't you. Have a look at the thirty years war and the peace of westphalia, the protestant revolution helped shaped modern europe and even america, if you don't understand the significance of it then you will have fun learning all about it.
3. George Bush and tony Blair-well they worry me.
It might also be mentioned that Hyam Solomon practically financed the American Revolution single-handed, and several of George Washington's top political advisors were Jews.
so what? jews were involved in banking all over the place, in fact it's one of the favourite points raised by anti semites that they were behind all the wars and financed both sides on a regular basis. I'm surprised at you mentioning it. Why do you think it significant?
2. I don't 'appreciate' that at all. I am a lifelong Catholic, attended Catholic schools for 11 years, and was never exposed there to anything remotely resembling anti-Semitism. On the contrary, we shared a special kinship, firstly because we Catholics understood our Church's Jewish roots, and secondly because we were both minority religions in the mainly Protestant USA. If you are talking about the Middle Ages, you will have to justify that by providing some proof that things that occurred that long ago are relevant today. I don't see it.
3. LOL! Name one or two Christians whom Israel should fear. For example, how many Christian su icide attacks have there been?It might also be mentioned that Hyam Solomon practically financed the American Revolution single-handed, and several of George Washington's top political advisors were Jews.
1. What's the point? You are clearly someone that ignores or diisregards facts that challenge your world view. Do your own research-try googling wahhabi, al queda, read the 911 commission report, find out the nationalities and background of the terrorists, find out about the regime in saudi arabia and decide for yourself whether it is a shining example of middle eastern democracy and freedom.
2. same thing. try researching sectarianism in the USA. Why so many different christian sects? You went to a catholic school, why? How many catholic presidents have their been and why not more? Research the origins of anti semitism and the christian connection. If you don't already know the gist of it all what planet are you on?
You're in westphalia aren't you. Have a look at the thirty years war and the peace of westphalia, the protestant revolution helped shaped modern europe and even america, if you don't understand the significance of it then you will have fun learning all about it.
3. George Bush and tony Blair-well they worry me.
It might also be mentioned that Hyam Solomon practically financed the American Revolution single-handed, and several of George Washington's top political advisors were Jews.
so what? jews were involved in banking all over the place, in fact it's one of the favourite points raised by anti semites that they were behind all the wars and financed both sides on a regular basis. I'm surprised at you mentioning it. Why do you think it significant?
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Diuretic wrote: I think Jews invented banking in the west. I could stand corrected on that but I'm pretty sure they did.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... iest_Banks and
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/orig ... #invention it would appear that banking, per se, started in ancient Mesopotamia and that "Western Banking" started with the London Coffee Houses.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... iest_Banks and
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/orig ... #invention it would appear that banking, per se, started in ancient Mesopotamia and that "Western Banking" started with the London Coffee Houses.