Rue

Bob and Bloody if you don't mind me saying to you both-yer too much in each other's faces. Too personal. You are entitled to distinct opinions. Neither needs to defend their credibility. Get back to the issues. I may not agree with a thing you say Bloody but I have no right to question you personally about it. I am not sure how Bob felt put on to defend himself but he need not. Keep in mind though and I say this about ANY Palestinian or Israeli, if they live there, automatically their perspective is different then the one those of us have living in Canada or the US or somewhere physically removed from the actual conflict zone. I defer to Bob the way I would any Palestinian or Israeli or say a Lebanese person talking about Lebanon or a Syrian talking about Syria, etc. Phsyical proximity and day to day life does change one's perspective particularly if you live in the Middle East and physical space is so crowded and directly impacts on one's political and psychological perspective and is something we do not understand in a country like Canada where we can go days on end, never each the end of the country and couldn't image a country so small in parts it would be smaller than the City of Montreal or Toronto.

Oh wait for a second I thought you were talking about China's or Turkey's support of Iran and Sudan and the Hezbollah and Hamas.

Say now, you mean you don't blame either the U.S. or Israel for anything and everything that happens in the Middle East? Well why not. La dee dah to you.

Ah I believe that is precisely the point. By the way not that anyone has noticed but Brazil has been an ally of Iran and Syria promoting their agendas now for over 2 years. If you think its because they care try this-they are seeking to sell their nuclear technology and are directly competing in that regard with Russia, North Korea and China.

Ah yes. Trot out the simplistic blame Israel card.

Bud I will respond keeping in mind I am more long winded: You asked me what I meant by this comment I said about you: "In fact people like you are never intentionally anti-semitic and that is what worries me the most." First off my comments to JB are on an entirely different issue and no never once have I referred to myself as anything but a bias Zionist. Never hid it. Its obvious. My biases are worn out in the open. I have been on the forum long enough for most people to know where I come from. What I mean by the above is precisely that. You for example accuse Israel of engaging in ethnic cleansing because it wants a sovereign state for Jews. I find that unintentional anti-semitism. I do not think you hate Jews. In fact I think you are probably someone who means no disrespect to anyone. What I do get worried about though is, I believe from reading your comments, you do not believe Jews are a people who have a right to live as a collective and express ourselves through universal sufferage. That to me is anti-semitic in the sense that it is something Muslims have (many sharia law Muslim states) and Christians have and yet you refer to as ethnic cleansing when Jews try achieve it. If Israel was truly interested in ethnic cleansing Arabic would not be an official language of its government, the law would not enshrine property rights to Muslim Jews which have been upheld and it would not allow Muslims to be elected in its knesset. It wouldn;t have ceded East Jerusalem municipal laws to Muslims. It would not exercise restraint over the Muslim refusal to allow Christians and Jews to pray on the Mount. It would have thrown out all Muslims from Israel and prohibit them from living in Israel as Arab League states did to Jews and it would practice dhimmitude against Muslims as they do to Jews in Muslim countries. I fail to understand how states enshrine Christian religion into their state institutions or Muslim states but when Jews do it, suddenly its unfair. That is a double standard against Jews. However I do not classify that double standard you engage in on the same level as I would if you engaged in the blood libel or made comments such as I control the banks or Hollywood or the Congress etc. I think there are degrees of anti-semitism and some are limited to only specific double standards and are not deliberately meant to insult or hurt and to me they are harder to deal with. Blatant hatred in the open is easy to deal with. Subtle discrimination is much harder especially when it is coined pretexting it as defending the rights of Palestinians. Puttingd own the right of Jews to have a state and collective identity will not and does not empower Palestinians it simply exploits their suffering to try disenfranchise Israelis. This is why I phrase the debate as I did saying BOTH peoples have the right to the same thing and its not a black and white all or nothing and either Palestinians have a state or Jews do but not both. I do not see them as diametrically opposed but as mutually inclusive and possible. I was taught as a Zionist and very much as a Zionist that a key and central belief in Zionism is the respect and peaceful co-existence with the other peoples of the Middle East and that includes not just Muslims, but Christians, Druze, Berbers, Kurds, Assyrians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, Beduins and that there are many different peoples all with existential ties to the area. Now you want to call out what I say as being inconsistent take the words, paraphrase them and state why and I will respond. Show me their inconsistency and I will try respond. Simply make ambiguous references and I can't. You stated: "not everything is black and white, but some things are.." then interestingly you went on to give examples of what you think are black and white, i.e. terrorism against civilians". Its actually an interesting statement because in fact both Hamas and Hezbollah defend what they do my posing their terrorism as not being terrorism, i.e., by saying its not black and white and when I and others argue what they do is terrorism we are told its not black and white so with due respect you waffle around if we can use that word as much as you think I do with my positions. In fact I have said repeatedly I force myself to see more than black or white and to try find a middle position for every extreme and I continue to do so and so sometimes I come out on one side, and sometimes on another and that in itself does not make me a hypocrite just a moderate who does not maintain one rigid inflexible view point. Let us also get this clear to your statement about illegal settlements. I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I believe settlement expansion is an obstacle to peace and it should be frozen. I have also said it was a mistake to even create the freeze in the first place as I believe it is now being deliberately used as a red herring by Abbas to avoid peace talks and its been a valuable opportunity for him to have to do nothing but stall since he has no mandate to negotiate and hangs by his skin. You also said, give us statistics, numbers and facts. I have many times in the past to back up my points. Many. However I do not have to in every single post and certainly you do not. Hold yourself to the same standard you hold me and I will respond accordingly. Give me a specific fact or statistic instead of your subjective opinion and I will respond the same way. Throw out a subjective opinion and most times all I can do is respond to what you said. When I initiate new positions not already stated before I do back them up with stats. Just rread back my old posts. You stated: "you feel should not be contested because you have deemed yourself as the fair and balanced zionist." With do respect ask me how I feel, don't tell me. Its kind of silly to tell me how I feel. I have never on this forum deemed myself fair and balanced nor have I patted myself on the back. Lol. Be serious. Stick to the issues and don't make personal comments that project feelings, emotions and motives on to me. Stick to my words. If you have questions about them ask. Don't assume you know how I feel. You don't. Only Paris Hilton truly knows how I feel..and Lindsay Lohan...terrors the 2 of them. I am still limping.

That is precisely my annoyance or anger at your comments too JB. Let's get this straight. I debate many on this forum. I don't claim to be moral or better than anyone. I am a bias Zionist its obvious and I don't hold back. I blast people and they blast back and in fact some I blast do not blast me back and easily could but don't because they are restrained. I am the first to admit I am a fool and opinionated and wrong about many things and I say it here and now and I openly admit my biases and say I sound worse in writing than in person and when I bark in words there is a tongue in cheek smile on my face that is missed with those I bark at which I regret they can not see. All that said I must add to what Globe said. You make many generalized comments about all Muslims and don't take the time to specify what it is you criticize and you've done it more than once. Look we all are politically incorrect at times and take word short cuts. But you have done it a lot with references to Muslims and you and I and others we all have to take time to watch our sweeping generalization references to an entire group of people and its not because I think its politically incorrect but its because its not fair. Heck I am the rudest person on this planet. I pee everyone off. But what I am saying is we all have to try hard not to negatively stereotype others intentionally. I see no good in hating all Muslims or blasting all Muslims for the views of Hamas or Hezbollah or Arab terrorists or extremists. Why? I hate it when anyone does that to anyone, i.e., Christians, Jews, first Canadians, Quebecois, Americans. It's just lazy. We see statements all the time making sweeping assumptions and generalizations about Israelis, Jews, gays, women, on and on. Its not fair or logical. Never mind the diplomacy. I have no problems someone saying something incorrect to me if its not done with malice or intentionally. Its when its done deliberately to incite negative thoughts about an entire group of people I challenge it. Stop saying sorry and discipline yourself to be more specific as to what and who you criticize, i.e., Muslim extremists, Muslim terrorists, Muslim fundamentalists. The religion has many archaic passages yes. So does Judaism and Christianity. We all have our share of bearded smelly men and fanatics. The only way we can achieve peace is to challenge our demonization of each other. I am not lecturing. I am just adding to what Globe said. No more apologies. Let's just debate the specific beliefs or values or ideas and stop phrasing it as if its an entire people to blame. Or as my father always said, shut up and be tolerant.

..and you support delibeately mistating what he states....your point? If you disagree with his position state why but do us all a favour, hold off on the mistatements and telling people what he thinks or what he stated. Thanks I can read what he said myself and he can tell me what he thinks. He doesn't need you to translate particularly when you ignore everything he said. In fact I would prefer given your need to mistate what people said and reduce their opinions to simplistic sound bites for your consumption to just stick to explaining what your opinions are. You clearly get lost trying to understand others and what they say and need to reduce their comments to one liners to make it easy for you and I wish no part of that cognitive process if I may call it that. Let's stop with the snideness. No the fact that we Jews believe we are entitled to a homeland does not mean we believe in ethnic cleansing. If we did we would have like the Arab League of Nations, expelled every Christian and Muslim from Israel back in 1947. For you to throw out the ethnic cleansing accusation is pure b.s. rhetoric. You are well aware Jordan was created as a country out of over 85% of the mandated area for a Jewish homeland and made Jew free. You are well aware of the restrictive laws against Jews migrating or living in sharia law nations. Don't try trot out the canard that Jews are the only people in the world who seek universal sufferage and do so at everyone else's expense. It is selective and unoriginal. Go on tell me. Did the 900,000 Jews who got expelled in your opinion get cleansed ethnically forcing 700,000 of them to Israel and 200,000 to disperse all over the world and mostly in the U.S.? Or do you only use that word with Israeli Jews who want a homeland? Do you use that word to describe what has happened among other nations, Mexico,Brazil,Argentina, Uruguay, Japan, Vietnam, China, Russia, Sudan, Nigeria, Rwanda, Burundi, Iran, Syria, or do you only save it for Israel? Save the Hamas rhetoric and lets talk about the issues. You want to trot out the actual propaganda line drafted by Nazis who fled to Damascus post WW2 and wrote the sound bite that Jews are colonialists go ahead its stale dated. So is the attempt to suggest IsraeliJews are racist, bigoted etc. They are no different than you. They want the same things. The difference is they had to create a nation because people like you insist on holding Jews to a different standard than others and so they had to create a nation state to protect themselves from people like you who refuse to acknowledge their right to be a collective.

I second what YankeeGal said in her responses.

Bob, I thoroughly enjoy your posts and valuable insights. I am glad you are on the board. I concur with your statements. I have distanced myself from JBG's statements because I believe he his remarks evidence an agenda to incite negative feelings about ALL Muslims and unlike you, me and many others, he does not take the time to differentiate criticism of Muslim fundamentalism/terrorism from Muslims as a people. I think it is absolute b.s. to criticize Muslim extremism as if it is synonomous with all Muslims. No one is more frustrated then I in my failure to have found sufficient Muslims to forge peace alliances with but no I do not and will never negatively stereotype all Muslims as extremists as I believe many of JBG's comments do. As a Zionist and Jew I was never taught to put down Muslims or insult them or get into a pissing contest as to who is better or say anything that could be interpreted as a Jew ridiculing another because of their religion or culture. When I criticize people its because of their views or how they interpret their religion not because they are of a particular ethnicity or nationality or religion. The Muslim community of the Aga Kahn(Ismailis) (I apologize if I spelled that wrong) and Amidyah Muslims are peaceful, law abiding, people and great citizens. I know Sunni and Shiite Muslims who are not extremist. I am not going to get in a pissing contest with Muslims or Christians or anyone else as to whose culture is better or worse. I hate everyone equally. Never met a human I liked. Prefer dogs, cats, horses, birds. I also do not presume to speak for Israelis or Palestinians because many of the views of these people is based on their day to day lives and the practical realities of beinge exposed to lack of land size, water, and the stress inherent with security issues in the area. I do not presume to know what it is like to live as an Israeli or Palestinian. I live in Canada. All I know is my standard of life is what most people in the world wish they had. I am lucky to live where I do and enjoy what I have. I can take things for granted an Israeli can not. So its easy for me to say certain things that it may be impossible for an Israeli or Palestinian to feel. So my perspective is to defend Israel's right to exist free and clear of terror but to use the advantages I have to try help Israelis achieve this by trying to reach out to Palestinians in Canada and around the world and forge alliances so one day the children of both need not fear each other. I criticize all orthodox religions equally and never met a man with a beard I trusted.

GostHacked you stated: " I don't see Israel giving anything. Since it's modern inception, it has continually grown for one reason or another." Of course not. You just prove with the above statement you see what you want to see. Your take on the Palestinian mandate is selective. What you didn't see was Britain unilaterally and illegally taking over 80% of the land mandated for a Jewish state and creating an Arab puppet state with it that to this day prohibits Jews from living in it. You also do not see how and why the pre 1967 Israel border came about or understand the implications of the creation of Transjordan as a Palestinian state, the de facto border creation of pre 1967 Israel, the fact that to this day the majority of the Arab League of Nations remains in declared war against Israel including Syria or the fact that the West Bank was never part of any nation and is technically not a nation. You also fail to see Israel signed a peace treaty agreeing to recognize West Bank adn Gaza as a Palestinian state and offered the Palestinian representative government 98% of what it asked for in negotiations only to have Arafat declare to the world he bargained in bad faith all along..Israel should have known that...Israel should have known the Palestinians would never agree to anything but all of Israel and Jordan as its state and to this day the West Bank is home to hundreds of terror cells, each with its own leader who have no allegiance to Abbas and have no intention of ever recognizing a Jewish state let alone the Jordanian state. You fail to see how Mr. Abbas has openly stated he will never accept Israel as a Jewish state or give up the position that anyone who comes to the West Bank who is not Jewish but is Muslim and stays 2 years, is then automatically defined as a Palestinian. You also fail to see that Mr. Abbas claims any Palestinian has the right to return to Israel and must be given the land they ask for and be made an Israeli citizen as part of any peace treaty. You fail to see that the West Bank has a group called Fatah which despises Hamas but despises Israel and Jordan just as much and is fully armed. You fail to see Mr. Abbas has no control or legitimate authority over his people and clings to power and would lose an open election if it was held today to Hamas on the West Bank. You also claim Israel keeps expanding. Really. How about you open your eyes and compare the growth of the Palestinian populationc compared to Israel's in the last 60 years-tell me how is it you only see Israel growing in size but no one else? Tell me did you or can you see the descendants of 700,000 of 900,000 Jews in Israel today thrown out of the Middle East Arab nations simply because they were Jews in retaliation fora Jewish state being formed? Does your selective vision see where they and their children live? Can it see the Felashie Jews forced to flee to Israel and where they now live or the Russian Jews that came to live in Israel to get away from the anti-semitism in the Ukraine and Russia? Does it see the Israelis born in Israel who have a right to live there and have a state that is not a Sharia law state that defines Jews as inferior dhimmi/kafi with second class and inferior legal rights and no right to own land? what do you see? Oh wait I know. You see Palestinians as victims. You see Palestinians as the only victims. You see Palestinians but not Israelis apparently. Me I see two sets of people who were displaced through no fault of either, surrounded by a bunch of corupt, self-serving sharia law nations and people like you living at a large distance who presume to see things. By the way that thing over their is called a camel.

Let's slow down. I may disagree with some of your views, but let's just slow down. You said nothing anti-semitic and the personal attacks against your motives for your opinions are uncalled for. You can criticize Israeli politics for heaven's sake. That doesn't make you an anti-semite or even anti Israeli. What the heck is going on here. I detest your simplistic generalizations and accusations but they do not make you anti-semitic per se. In fact people like you are never intentionally anti-semitic and that is what worries me the most, your lack of insight as to how some of the stuff you say makes sweeping negative generalizations against an entire nation. However making sweeping negative generalizations about your motives in return isn't right either nor is your accusation of another poster being a liar, etc. Come on knock it off everyone and let' stick to the issues. I respect your right to your opinions even though I think you are ovestating them and engaging in irrational assumptions but I see no reason to attack you as a person or accuse you of hating me because I am a Jew. I regret you personally have to defend yourself. Sheesh. Disagree with Israeli government policies. Its your right to and no I won't assume you hate me because I am a Jew or a Zionist. Look I am a grouch on this forum. I can't stand knee jerk anti-Israeli critics but I also think its b.s. to accuse someone of being an anti-semite merely because they criticize Israel or quote an Israeli newspaper known for its anti-Israeli government views. You were making politically bias or partisan anti-Israeli statements. Its par for the course. This is a political debate forum. Enough with the attacks on you or others as a person. Debate the positions. Lol. I need to practice what I preach too.

No just convert them/us which is tatamount to spiritual death.Given the no. of Christians in the past who wiped out Jews and other non Christians in the name of Jesus, I wouldn't be too quick to give such a response. None of our religions come with clean hands. All have fought bloody wars or engaged in autrocities in the name of God.

Here are though some Muslim and jewish peace groups that do exist: http://www.peoplebuildingpeace.org/thestories/article.php?typ=theme&id=153&pid=34 http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-02-11-voa16-68714812.html The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement http://mpf21.wordpress.com/about-2/ http://peacewalk.blogspot.com/2004/05/read-this-article-by-attendee-of.html http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/tag/israeli-peace-movement/ http://peacethroughunderstanding.blogspot.com/2006/11/rabia-terri-harris.html http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Projects_working_for_peace_among_Israelis_and_Palestinians/

Of course we don't and neither does any other religion. He likes peeing into the headwinds evidently.

JB Globe just demonstrated why I criticize you. You make the statement that Islam as a religion has no peace network. You throw out the criticism against all Muslims and their entire religion when any fool realizes one can make the exact same critcism about Christianity, Judaism or any other religion. You are precisely the kind of person I challenge. You throw out negative generalizations and all you do is make yourself look foolish because the very thing you criticize applies to more people than just people who follow Islam. Your answer above proves how ridiculous a shrill you have become and what a mockery you make of we Jews particularly those of us who like Christians, Muslims, people of other religons or atheists, are capable of criticizing religious dogma without smearing ALL people who might follow different versions of it.

I will say it again, you are a one trick pony who tries to bait people into bashing Muslims in general and the Muslim religion in general. There is nothing pseudo-intellectual about my criticism. In fact if anything is pseudo intellectual it is you trying to justify your Muslim bashing. What my agenda is-is to challenge you and anyone who engages in incitement of an entire people and society by engaging in negative stereotypes. My agenda is to remind people that negatively generalizing about any people is pointless. It does nothing but breed intolerance. My agenda is to let people know that well known Jewish Zionists like me and my kind who believe Israel has a right to exist and defend itself against Muslim extremists do not hate Muslims and do not blame all Muslims for the extremists in their society anymore then I want to be labelled as having the same opinions as you or Lieberman, There is a way to discuss extremists and terrorists without doing what you do and that is to incite hatred against all Muslims and not differentiate. You are as intolerant as anyone you claim to criticize and therein lies the irony.

Therein lies your true agenda as manifested by the above words and the title you used to start this thread. Your agenda is to get into a pissing match between the West and East and turn this unfortunate act of cold blooded terror into a platform to once again pull out your agenda of putting down the Muslim world. You used this terrorist tragedy as an opportunity to advance your real agenda. To me you are doing nothing different then those who come on this board and so the same in reverse against Israel and blame every Israeli and Jew in the world and/or women, and/or gay, etc. for anything they perceive is unfair.

I agree with both your posts bjre. I also think the title of this thread was completely non germaine to the issue and inflammatory.

All kidding aside, its one thing to release he said she said gossip-I agree with you though that when you release info you know will compromise the safety of someone's life and get them killed, then you are acting unethically. I also question how releasing sites governments are worried are vulnerable to terrorist attacks is vital or promotes full disclosure and democracy. All it does is scare people and encourage terrorists to attack these sites. Police often repress evidence to protect the public. Knowing what to release to the public is not an all or nothing black and white issue as Assange turned it into. His efforts probably will result in governments justifying themselves acting even more secretly in the future. He like many of his trendy kind, are short sighted, feel entitled, and live in the present tense with no thought of the future. Assange's sex life merely confirms his personality profile-a narcissist bully with a short attention span.

"I want you in isolation". That's what I said to Paris Hilton when she tried to kiss me and I noticed this big cold sore on her mouth....

Let's get this clear...crystal clear-99% of Sudan's oil is going to China. Since all the oil is in the South the Northern Muslim Sudanese government will continue to wipe out the Southern coal black Christians. There is China, the puppet Muslim government China props in Sudan, and the oil of South Sudan China is 100% dependent on. China is not about to make any new deals with any new nation. It spent years creating the puppet colony it has now. Its not about to start all over again. China views Sudan as its exclusive oilcolony. China and Russia and the Arab League of Nations have all made it clear they will continue to support the current Sudan regime no matter what happens internally to southern Sudanese people. So has the Organization of African states. There will be no war. There will simply be another round of genocide when the referendum is rejected or fixed. The world will do nothing as it has done over the last 20 years. The cold hard reality is that if these people in the South of Sudan were white, and being wiped out-the world would do something. Given the fact they are black and not even brown like their Muslim brothers to the North no one gives a damn. True there are some Christian organizations trying to save Southern Sudanese but they are limited in what they can do and Israel has no space to take in any more Sudanese and Egypt can't afford to take in any mroe Sudanese refugees either and no one in the first world wants any Sudanese. Let's also spell this out loud and clear-in the Arab League of nations there has always been an inherent racism based on skin colour-the darker you are the more inferior you are seen as and if you are not a Muslim as the Southerners are, you are in addition to being inferior because of your dark skin and therefore at best seen as a labourer, nothing more then khalif, infidel, expendable dhimmi call it what you want but you are worth nothing-your are an inferior human. The trendy leftist supporters of Sharia law nations like Sudan could care less about their racist beliefs deeply entrenched in their Sharia law systems. The trendy leftists selective concerns are only for Israel. One only uses the word racist when it comes to Israel. Any country you see in the third world is without fault. If there are problems its because of the US and/or Israel. If genocide continues in Sudan the same trendy leftists who are quick to come on this board and pee pee cluck cluck about the US and Israel will say NOTHING about China or Sudan or the role of the Arab League of nations in condoning Sudan's policies. The UN will only be too glad to support Sudan. After all the majority of its nations are human rights violators of the worst kind.

I have contended in earlier posts during Middle East discussions that Palestinians are as mad at Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and Arab League nations as they are Israel. If anything what this outburst serves to remind us is that this is not a black and white issue where all Palestinians think the same and all Israelis think the same and we can reduce this complex conflict into black and white, good guy v.s. bad guy scenarios. The fact is Hamas has miserably failed its people by deliberately choosing to engage in terrorism and violence and blowing up the infrastructure of its people built during an earlier time period when Israel did work hand in hand with Muslim charities building roads, houses, community centres, schools in Gaza and allowing Gaza residents into Israel to work. It was Hamas which deliberately chose to turn from anti-terrorism and violence to just that and threaten all its people with death and torture if they tried to live peacefully with Israelis. Hamas first and foremost is the primary agent of culpability for the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. I believe Palestinians in Gaza turned to Hamas not because of violence but because they were desperate for an alternative to the corupt Arafat Palestinian authority. The Palestinian Authority under Arafat and Abbas has no one but itself to blame for its continuing coruption. The Arab League is to blame for failing to take an active role in unanimously denouncing terrorism and exerting pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah to cease and desist. The Arab Leage of nations prefer to use Israel as a convenient scapegoat to sidetrack from their own internal economic problems and political coruption. The Arab League of nations has historically been responsible for its own internal corupt, brutal, totalitarian regimes some closely related to fundamentalist extremist Muslims they use to maintain their political power bases. All that said, while I am a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist and a Zionist I also do not want Palestinians to remain in their horrible status quo- their plight is not the vision Zionism intended and Zionism can never be complete until the Jewish collective can find peace with its Arab neighbours and help build a future for Palestinians. So with that in mind I also would say with no reluctance that yes Israel's governments may very well have missed the boat failing to take advantage of opportunities to avoid confrontation and instead perhaps engage in excessive force and/or missed opportunities to dialogue peacefully. Its security quaranntine of Gaza to prevent arms smuggling while necessary I believe may have gone too far with certain items or took too long for products to be processed through the border. All sides can find blame. I am not here to point fingers at just one party although I believe Hamas shares most of the moral blame. The bottom line is if a solution is found calling anyone names or judging them won't mean a damn thing and if anything will only prevent peace from coming about. We have to move on from the blame game. Now. The youth are saying stop with the name calling and focusing on past mistakes and deal with here and now. Enough is enough harping over the past. Deal with now. To Gaza youth I say this loud and clear-reach out to Israeli youth and form peace networks. Just do it. Use the internet and also initiate physical contacts in neutral countries. That is how you break this cycle of violence and never changing despair. Reach out. Just reach out. Revolutions are started by one person, just one reaching out to his alledged enemy and forming a friendship. Israeli youth are just as frustrated and angry as Palestinian youth. If they genuinely thought they had someone to reach out to on the other side they would. So now just do it. So simple, yet so hard to do because we all are afraid to each out to our enemy for fear of rejection.

Here's a direct rebuttal to Bloody's attempt to suggest Chomsky did not defend the Khmer Rouge and deny they engaged in genocide or never supported Faurison's anti holocaust views: source: http://j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/archives/000155.html " ... Insights? Like his writing a preface for a book by Robert Faurisson--a guy whose thesis seems to be that "the alleged massacre in gas chambers and the genocide of the Jews is part of one and the same lie, a gigantic political and financial racket for the benefit of Israel and international Zionism"? Like his claiming in said preface that Faurisson seems to be "a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort"? Like his claims that he "know very little" about Faurisson's work, has "no special knowledge" about the topics Faurisson writes about, and--as Jay Parini notes-- continues to "maintain to this day that he has never read anything by Faurisson that suggests that the man was pro-Nazi"? These are supposed to be high quality insights? But whenever I ask the Chomskyites why he would claim that Robert Faurisson is a "relatively apolitical liberal," and how he could possibly manage to "never read anything by Faurisson that suggests that the man was pro-Nazi," I get one or more of three responses: What Chomsky wrote and said about Faurisson was written and said in haste, without proper reflection--it's not representative of his thought. Chomsky is quoted out of context: he's defending Faurisson's right to free speech according to the principles of Voltaire, not endorsing or defending Faurisson. Yes, he's made some mistakes. And he refuses to back down or make concessions when he is wrong. But it's more than counterbalanced by the extraordinarily good work he's done uncovering the cynical crimes of power-mad governments like the U.S. and Israel. Which makes me ask, wouldn't it be better not to misrepresent Faurisson's beliefs? Not to claim that he is a relatively apolitical liberal? Not to say that you have seen no evidence that Faurisson is pro-Nazi? It is, after all, a much stronger defense of free speech to say that you are defending a loathsome Holocaust-denier's right to free speech because free speech is absolute, then to say that poor Faurisson--a relatively apolitical liberal--is being persecuted for no reason other than that some object to his (unspecified) "conclusions." And uncovering the cynical crimes of mad governments? Take a look at Chomsky's 1979 After the Cataclysm: If a serious study…is someday undertaken, it may well be discovered…that the Khmer Rouge programs elicited a positive response…because they dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the imperial system.… Such a study, however, has yet to be undertaken. Reflect that it was published three full years after the Cambodian Holocaust of the Year Zero. Ask yourself whether this is an uncovering or a covering of the crimes of an abominable regime. But it gets worse. Go back to your Nation of 1977, and consider the paragraph: ...there are many other sources on recent events in Cambodia that have not been brought to the attention of the American reading public. Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing. Of this, [email protected] writes: Sounds very impressive, does it not? If... entirely respectable magazines denied the accusations that the Khmer Rouge had committed vast crimes... we cannot take seriously these allegations.... There must be some substantial evidence, presented by these magazines, that shows or strongly suggests that the refugees tales of terror were nonsense, right?... He claims that these are "conflicting reports" that justify disbelief in the alleged crimes of the Khmer Rouge.... In the case of the Economist, there are no [such] articles.... Presumably [Chomsky] refers to a letter to the Economist ... a letter replying to an entirely accurate article.... [T]his letter was indeed... ["provided"] by the Economist, but it is misleading to invoke [its] authority... the Economist opposes Chomsky's claims. In the case of the Far Eastern Economic review the review did indeed publish an article that said almost, but not quite, what Chomsky represents it as saying.... Nayan Chanda ( Far Eastern Economic Review October 29 1976 ) does indeed doubt the refugees are telling the truth... but he... [presents no] evidence contradicting their stories. He does indeed say "thousands"... he does not say "at most in the thousands"... [he says] "the numbers killed are impossible to calculate."... Chomsky presented the Far Eastern Economic Review as confidently denying the possibility that the killings were vastly higher, but Chanda specifically denies such knowledge and confidence.... Chomsky lies by misdirection.... [H]e said "[provided]" to associate the authority of the Economist with a letter to the editor... [he said] " at most in the thousands" as if it were a conclusion of an article... [in] the Far Eastern Economic Review.... I've looked through the Economist. If there's anything written by the Economist's staff that has evidence casting doubt on the Cambodian Holocaust, I missed it as well. So why does Chomsky lie about the "highly qualified specialists"? The claim that it is "space limitations" rather than "nonexistence" that prevents their being named cannot be a claim made in good faith, can it? And why would anyone lie for Pol Pot, unless they were either a nut-boy loon or were being mendacious and malevolent in search of some sinister and secret purpose? But when I ask the Chomskyites why he would falsely claim in 1977 that accusations of Cambodian genocide had been disputed in the pages of the Economist and the Far Eastern Economic Review by "highly qualified specialists"judging "the full range of evidence" and that these highly-qualified specialists put a firm upper bound of "at most in the thousands" on Khmer Rouge executions, I get one or more of three responses: What Chomsky wrote and said about the Khmer Rouge was a mistake, but it's uncharacteristic of his work. Chomsky never said the Khmer Rouge were genocidal butchers, he only said that there wasn't conclusive evidence that they were genocidal butchers. W hen a serious study of the Khmer Rouge is carried out, we will learn that most of the evidence of their "crimes" was faked by the Vietnamese after their conquest of Cambodia I can't see how anyone can make the second claim in good faith: Chomsky not only said that there wasn't conclusive evidence that the Khmer Rouge were genocidal butchers, he wrote--falsely--that there was reliable evidence that they weren't genocidal butchers. And I don't see how anyone can claim that Chomsky's lies are "uncharacteristic" of his work. There are just too damned many of them. I tried (unsuccessfully) to ascertain the reasons for the appeal of Chomsky--to people who don't believe that the Khmer Rouge are benevolent friends of humanity, that Robert Faurisson is an apolitical liberal, and that U.S. intervention in Bosnia was motivated by metal mines and pipeline routes, that is--once before." You can have him Bloody,I consider him just another weasel of the day.

Here's a rebuttal Bloody of your attempt to apologize forChomsky's support of Faurison. Chomsky in my opinion is dishonest. Time and time he is caught making a sweeping generalized statement or engaging in a misquote and then when called on it tries to deny it. http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomsky_and_hol.html