dub

hey dancer what do you think of the settlements?

the settlements. the big nasty bear in the room that israeli apologists refuse to acknowledge as one of the major problems in this conflict.

that's your opinion. i found a lot of those cartoons to be very well done. it showed the irony of the situation quite well. a once persecuted people are now engaged in persecuting others. there are a lot of shitty things that are happening in the arab world and other parts of the world, but that still does not excuse what we do. this is like a rapist trying to excuse what he does by saying what he does is not as bad what the killer does. an editor of a newspaper can censor material being published. this is what the danish newspaper did after declining to publish the holocaust cartoons, even though they announced that they would publish them to show that they're about publishing news and not pushing an agenda.

rue... the reason why his background brings weight to what he says is because the situation in the region is all about nationalism. sometimes nationalism blinds people to the truth and to injustice. this type of nationalism has been seen everywhere, where people who have tried to justify or have looked the other way when their government or someone from their tribe has committed atrocities. examples of this have happened throughout history and continues to happen now. you had majority of germans back in the first early 1900's who backed their government's so-called logic for doing what they did which left many jews, gypsies, homosexuals, political people and others either killed or displaced from their homes. there were, however, some germans who looked beyond the nationalism and saw the "other people" as equals. more recently, you had the serbs overwhelmingly supporting their leaders during the ethnic cleansing. of course, just like the palestinian/israel conflict, that war was not black and white or good vs bad. however, there were things done that were clearly wrong. this is just like the situation now. there are actions done which are absolute. anyone who tries to argue that exterminating the jews was a good idea, is wrong. anyone who tries to argue that blowing yourself up in a civilian bus is a good idea, is wrong. anyone who tries to argue that women should not have the same right as men is a good idea, is wrong. anyone who tries to argue that attacking villages and towns knowing that there will be heavy civilian casualty is a good idea, is wrong. anyone who tries to argue that rounding up all the men in the villages and then shooting them in the head is a good idea, is wrong. anyone who tries to argue that annexing another person's land is a good idea, is wrong. anyone who tries to argue that dropping an atomic bomb that would kill hundreds of thousands civilians is a good idea, is wrong. there are absolutes in our society. absolutes that we've created for ourselves. we've created set rules and standards (like the geneva rules, in which many of them came about due to world war 2) for ourselves and if you go against them, you are wrong. when you are drunk and blinded by nationalism like many people have in the past and present, it's easier for you to see yourself as a victim. you rally around those who say they will defend you and tend to try to find logic in actions that are simply wrong. the reason the jewish MP's words, uri avnery's words, noam chomsky's words, ayaan hirsi ali's words, have so much weight and strength is because they've managed to set themselves free from nationalism and can acknowledge a wrong act no matter who is doing them. so when one of these people which society has categorized and grouped speaks out against unfair treatment of people done by their own group who they're very familiar with, then their words certainly have more weight. i will tell you right now that i'm not typing "jew" with a small j in a derogatory way. i usually type everything in small letters.

that's really heartwarming. there are a lot of good israeli people, including IDF soldiers out there. it's too bad there aren't more of them. these israelis though, are not so good: Settlers throw stones at woman and baby Israelis Beating Palestinian children with sticks Jewish settlers beat palestinian shepherds Israeli 'shooting video' causes outrage - 20 July 2008 Israeli settelers attack palestinian Zionists attack Muslims & Christians. Zionist HATE wow... it never ends. there are hundreds of links of israeli settlers and soldiers who are not so nice to the palestinians.

rue.. i look forward to replying to you once i have the time.

not at all dancer. just like i don't think targeting the gaza strip by shelling streets and buildings, knowing that women and children will be killed is legitimate. however, you should know and perhaps even acknowledge that there is a big difference between targeting illegal settlements and settlers, who are on your land, created and funded by the occupying government and targeting people inside israel. especially when these settlers are known to attack the locals and their farms frequently. have you looked into the treatment of the palestinians by the settlers? probably not. settler attacks on palestinians

you think attacking the occupier inside the west bank is the same as attacking someone in their own country and i would be splitting hairs if i said they're different? okay.

what? you seem to have attention deficit disorder. i'm talking about "you". so "officially" iran was neutral in the conflict but that's not good enough for you because some guys liked to party with their blonde hair, blue eyed business partners... but when iranians have been calling themselves iranians for centuries, you want to go with what they officially wanted to be called by people outside of iran? and you want to use that as "fact" that iran was supporting to nazis? are you seriously interested in history or are you interested in changing it? are you going to answer that or are you going to make an irrelevant comment again, followed by internet emoticons?

right. okay. On Tuesday, April 16, it will be nine years--ages, it seems--since the first suicide bomb in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ripped through the parking lot of a roadside West Bank cafe. inside a west bank cafe. the attack did not happen in israel. attacks against the occupation and against the occupied have been happening inside the palestinian land for a while. sorry to ruin this for you. better hold that hat tight on your head.

so "officially" iran was neutral in the conflict but that's not good enough for you because some guys liked to party with their blonde hair, blue eyed business partners... but when iranians have been calling themselves iranians for centuries, you want to go with what they officially wanted to be called by people outside of iran? and you want to use that as "fact" that iran was supporting the nazis? are you seriously interested in history or are you interested in changing it?

you're babbling and avoiding the point, again. israel has not done anything (like to decrease or even freeze settlements) to indicate they want to be a partner in a real and just peace. they have continued to increase the settlements since the occupation started. also, could you give me something else besides a link from CAMERA that shows that there was a suicide attack inside israel in 1993? even this extremely biased site that calls the west bank and gaza and jerusalem, israel, does not mention the attack that CAMERA has mentioned. i'm sure you can understand my concern about information coming from the site CAMERA and wanting to be better informed.

i guess i will have to repeat and also point you to something about this article from "Camera" which is not exactly known for having an unbiased look at the situation. but lets say the information is true about the attacks: this doesn't change the fact that israel has not taken any steps to show that they're serious. the settlements have continued to increase and israel has not even frozen the settlements. this is even after the PLO accepted israel's right to exist. israel showed not even an ounce of interest in moving towards peace. they didn't even freeze the settlements. you can continue to keep your asshat on your head.

first of all, the first suicide attack mentioned above, happened in 1994, and not in 1993 when the peace accord happened. furthermore, the point of all this is that israel has NOT taken any steps to decrease or AT LEAST freeze the settlement building in the last several decades, meaning that they're not interested in a real and just peace and all they do is talk and spin what is really happening. it's the palestinians who have not had a real partner at the table since this conflict started. it's always been about israel unilaterally making decisions and when asked why they're going against resolutions and against international law and why they're not willing to take any steps, they raise their shoulders and falsely claim that they have no partner.

there are many big holes in your argument. #1 - if nazi germany's main goal was to exterminate the jews and iran was SO for the nazi regime, why did iran have the largest jewish population in the middle east? (iran still has a fair number of jews living in it, despite the many incentives israel has offered iranian jews to leave iran.) #2 - also, iran did not allow any military activity to happen in iran, whether it was by germans or by the allied forces. this was the major reason england and soviet union attacked iran, so that they could get supplies through iran to soviet union from the persian gulf. but by declaring itself a neutral country, it would go against the rules of engagement. #3 - you keep avoiding this simple fact as well; iran did business with more than just the germans, they also did business with the british. who cares if they did more business with germany? #4 - and the biggest problem with your argument is that iran declared itself neutral. oh yeah.. here is more that may not be in wikipedia: iranians have been calling their country iran since before christ.

not really. the iranian cartoons were mostly a statement about the ironic situation that has been created. where a group who was so persecuted is persecuting another group. are these first and second prize winner cartoons, offensive? http://www.irancartoon.com/120/holocaust/0...llah-Morroc.jpg http://www.irancartoon.com/120/holocaust/0...Latuff-(12).jpg not really. regardless, the point that the danish paper was trying to make was that they're championing the freedom from censorship. they wanted to show they would not give into the protests of publishing the muhammed and islam cartoons. that i agreed with, but then they went and censored the holocaust cartoons even after they said they would publish them to show that this was all about freedom from censorship. maybe they had an ulterior motive? after looking at the people around the danish paper, i've come to the conclusion that their intentions were different.

this isn't really a "high five" post, but i have to be honest here; you're a bit of an ass kicker, eyeball.

this MP has lived in israel and is familiar with everything there is to know about the zionist movement since he's been part of and is part of zionist organizations. he also had a family member who was killed by the nazis during the holocaust. he has studied the situation and has written about the situation. i would think he's more qualified to speak about the situation than many of us, including you. so in some ways it doesn't matter that he's a jew but it does in the instance above? you need to stay consistent with your beliefs. there is nothing wrong with criticizing injustice. just because he is a jew, it doesn't mean that he should blind himself with nationalism.

you right. your memory is probably okay. it's that you just don't know enough about the situation which prevents you from making a logical and rational argument.

what's your point about this? why do you make irrelevant comments? the important point is that the PLO accepted israel but israel continued to increase its settlements and continued to occupy the palestinians. from 1988 to 1994, israel continued to increase the settlements both in land size and in population. do you know why israel says they want peace with someone who recognizes them and when they are recognized, their actions shows that they really don't care about it and continue to do something that shows that they just want to grab more land? so who is going to trust the israeli government? what if hamas accepts israel's right to exist? will israel go towards a fair and just peace or will they continue to do what they have been doing in the past 60 years? say one thing and do something else?

i only asked that you would have a memory longer than 8 years. the PLO accepted israel in 1988. what is israel's excuse for continuing to occupy AND increase settlements after the PLO accepted israel and when the very first suicide attacks started? or what is your excuse?

wrong. here is a list of suicide attacks from wikipedia by the following: * List of Hamas suicide attacks * List of Palestinian Islamic Jihad suicide attacks * List of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades suicide attacks * List of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine suicide attacks the earliest was in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suic...tinian_conflict israel has been occupying the palestinians, annexing their land and increasing the settlements well before 1994.

that's israel's excuse and you are repeating their excuse. i wish people would have a memory longer than a few years. before hamas, fatah had accepted israel's right to exist and agreed to the 1967 border. what happened in return? more palestinian land annexed and more settlement increase.

are you talking about the $50 million total US gave to the palestinians in 2007? the US gave israel $120 million as an economic grants in 2007. at the same time, US gave israel $40 million just for "migration and refugee assistance". instead of wasting your own time and others' time, read the following links in regards to US aid to both israel and to the palestinians. you might learn a few things: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33222_20080102.pdf http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS22370.pdf

that is true. i frequently hear ahmadinejad being called hitler or his regime called the nazis when they refer to him.