israel responds to terrorism by killing civilians

[bloodyminded]

I haven't defended them. Show me one post where I've come to their defense.

That you consider my alleged one-sidedness to be a defense of pro-Palestinian "misrepresentations," "outright fabrications," and so forth--as if such a thing does not occur among Israel's defenders here--speaks volumes, if you are to remain silent while the people with whom you agree use "anti-semite" as a rhetorical grenade.

I stress that I don't feel you have any obligation whatsoever to remark on it at all; nor do you have some obligation to remain "even-handed" in this debate. Which, of course, you do not; I have yet to see anyone who can properly pull off such a feat.

In short, I don't think you're defending them, which is why I phrased it as I did.

At any rate, this was decidedly the minor point of my post. Do you have any comments about the bulk of it?

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

I was referring to, first, UN resolutions, and second, those who seem to believe that Israel behaves worse than any other nations (a preposterous belief).

I realize that, and it's a reality that Israel is put in that position; and if you think people don't react to that, you don't understand human nature. As I've said, as long as that's the situation, as long as Israel is unjustly criticized, I will try to tip the scales by coming to their defense.

I wasn't referring to criticizing the behaviour of a close ally whose defenders remain obstinate that every bloody thing is the fault of the Palestinians. They're horribly wrong, and so I will dispute their extremist beleifs on this matter.

Just as the other supporters believe that everything Israel does is wrong. Do you deny that? Even the occasional "Hamas is bad" comments are peppered with the 'they are reacting to Israel' qualification, therefore it's implied that even that is partly Israel's fault.

I find no fault with the idea of criticizing Israel, even with extreme harshness.

That's obvious. Go for it. I have no criticism for that, but I find it odd when you see one side as oh-so-biased and unfair while you seem to think you/your side is so open-minded. It's not.

I find fault with a focus on Israel that I perceive (correctly or not) lacks a sense of proportion.

That you don't similarly find fault with a focus on Palestine that "lacks a sense of proportion," is what my comments were/are in regards to. Your criticism is very one sided and biased. Look at your scenario in your previous post. Do you actually believe it??

And for the record, I similarly perceive a wild sense of disproportion in criticisms of the Palestinians.

So if you recognize that Palestinians' criticisms are also "wildly disproportionate," why don't you find that "horribly wrong" and feel a need to "dispute their extremist beliefs?"

Alright, then let me correct your misunderstanding.

Whatever you think is the worth of bud's (and some other posters') concessions to Hamas' iniquity--that you perhaps consider the concessions tepid, or not really meaningful--it rises well above what the self-styled "Israel supporters" who debate him offer along similar lines.

Which is zero.

Nothing.

I've already explained the "worth" of the "concessions." It would be pretty difficult not to occasionally admit that the targeting and killing of innocent people is "bad" so we do get the occasional "Hamas is bad" with the peppered qualification that 'Israel made them do it.' I don't call that rising above anything. For one thing, as I already pointed out, the distinction between "Hamas" and "Palestine" is very deliberate. There is no such distinction with "Israel." I noticed you had nothing to say about that. But the way it comes across to me is that by throwing in the occasional Hams is bad, even though Israel made them do it, the supporters of Palestine seem to think they've taken the High Road. You seem to think bud has taken the high road, in spite of his lies, misrepresentations, and ludicrous accusations and insults hurled at anyone who calls him on it.

So if bud's remarks aren't sufficient, or aren't meaningful enough, where does that place his opponents, who don't go nearly so far? The question is instantly and clearly begged.

I've explained where bud is coming from regarding his comments about "Hamas" and "Israel." It's so easy to criticize "Hamas" while giving "Palestine" a pass. That's essentially what's being done while, again, the criticism isn't for the IDF, it's for Israel. And for the record, there have been posters who have said that the IDF overreacts at times; that there have been times when they've reacted too harshly. I see no difference between that and the occasional "hamas is bad" observations. Do you?

As you just pointed out my remark about a disproportionate focus on Israel, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

I'm not contradicting myself at all. I'm not referring to the "focus" placed on Palestine vs Israel, I was referring to the misrepresentations, twisted truths, and outright doctoring of 'evidence' that's put forth by supporters of Palestine. But I suppose as long as they throw in an occasional "hamas is bad" they are holier-than-thou.

Edited April 17, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

That you consider my alleged one-sidedness to be a defense of pro-Palestinian "misrepresentations," "outright fabrications," and so forth--as if such a thing does not occur among Israel's defenders here--speaks volumes, if you are to remain silent while the people with whom you agree use "anti-semite" as a rhetorical grenade.

My comment was obviously directed at your defense of bud in regards to what jbg had said. There is no one here who flings more sh*t at other posters than bud does. Yet I've never seen you call him on it. You seem to feel as if the supporters of Palestine have the High Road here, and that's absolutely ludicrous.

I stress that I don't feel you have any obligation whatsoever to remark on it at all; nor do you have some obligation to remain "even-handed" in this debate. Which, of course, you do not; I have yet to see anyone who can properly pull off such a feat.

Yet you come across as if you think you remain even handed, as you outright say that the supporters of Palestine are more even handed than the supporters of Israel. Which is also absolutely ludicrous.

[bloodyminded]

I realize that, and it's a reality that Israel is put in that position; and if you think people don't react to that, you don't understand human nature. As I've said, as long as that's the situation, as long as Israel is unjustly criticized, I will try to tip the scales by coming to their defense.

Awesome. And so long as the Palestinians are unjustly criticized, I will try to come to theri defense.

Just as the other supporters believe that everything Israel does is wrong. Do you deny that? Even the occasional "Hamas is bad" comments are peppered with the 'they are reacting to Israel' qualification, therefore it's implied that even that is partly Israel's fault.

I understand your point, but you decidedly do not understand mine.

We don't have one side saying "Hamas is bad, but.." and another side saying "Israeli leaders are bad, but..."

That is, you're criticizing one side for a weak concession, which the other side won't even go so far as to make.

That's obvious. Go for it. I have no criticism for that, but I find it odd when you see one side as oh-so-biased and unfair while you seem to think you/your side is so open-minded. It's not.

I'm not saying they're "so open -minded." Only relative to the other side, which demands complete compliance with paramters of discussion as determined by themselves.

That you don't similarly find fault with a focus on Palestine that "lacks a sense of proportion," is what my comments were/are in regards to. Your criticism is very one sided and biased.

You misread my comment. Similarly:

So if you recognize that Palestinians' criticisms are also "wildly disproportionate," why don't you find that "horribly wrong" and feel a need to "dispute their extremist beliefs?"

Again, you mistook my meaning.

To clarify the two passages you quote:

1. I do think that criticisms of (aimed towards) Israel are out of proportion;

2. I similarly think that criticisms of (aimed towards) the Palestinians are out of proportion.

I've already explained the "worth" of the "concessions." It would be pretty difficult not to occasionally admit that the targeting and killing of innocent people is "bad" so we do get the occasional "Hamas is bad" with the peppered qualification that 'Israel made them do it.'

No. We've got "Hamas commits war crimes" (true) versus "Israel occasionally regrettably kills innocent people, but it's not their fault."

Not quite an equal concession.

There is no such distinction with "Israel." I noticed you had nothing to say about that.

It's good you noticed, since it was, as you say, "deliberate," and I think you might have a fair point.

But the way it comes across to me is that by throwing in the occasional Hams is bad, even though Israel made them do it, the supporters of Palestine seem to think they've taken the High Road.

????

Everyone thinks they're taking the "high road," else they would believe something different.

You honestly don't think Israel's defenders in these discussions believe themselves to be taking the "high road"? What are they then, psychopaths?

And for the record, there have been posters who have said that the IDF overreacts at times; that there have been times when they've reacted too harshly. I see no difference between that and the occasional "hamas is bad" observations. Do you?

"Overreacts sometimes" versus "bad"?

You don't see the difference?

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

My comment was obviously directed at your defense of bud in regards to what jbg had said. There is no one here who flings more sh*t at other posters than bud does.

That's because you're not the focus of the guys who fling out "anti-semite" continually, and inform you you've got a fetish for "terrorists' beards" (???? that's weird) and other such things. Believe me, the shit flies in more than one direction.

Yet I've never seen you call him on it.

Well, as you certainly wouldn't wish to hold me to higher standards than you hold yourself, perhaps you can link me to the spots where you've called out the "anti-semite" screamers.

(I'm not expecting this of you, I reiterate. But since you evidently are expecting it, it's put up time.)

You seem to feel as if the supporters of Palestine have the High Road here, and that's absolutely ludicrous.

If there is a high road in this very contentious series of debates, I have yet to witness it.

Yet you come across as if you think you remain even handed, as you outright say that the supporters of Palestine are more even handed than the supporters of Israel. Which is also absolutely ludicrous.

I said nothing about being even-handed; I don't even know quite how anyone can do this, as there's no clear-cut objective measure of it.

I only said that one side offers more concessions than the other does. I know, I know; you consider the concessions profoundly weak. Probably they are.

But when compared to zero.....

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

That's because you're not the focus of the guys who fling out "anti-semite" continually, and inform you you've got a fetish for "terrorists' beards" (???? that's weird) and other such things. Believe me, the shit flies in more than one direction.

No, I'm the focus of the guys who call me a liar for calling them on their misrepresentations and lies. I'm the focus of the guys who fling out "Israelbot" or whatever the idiotic term is. I'm the focus of the guys who fling bigot and anti-Islamic because I disagree with them on one issue. I'm the focus of the guy who says I love Pastor Jones because I defend his right to express himself according to law. That would be the same guy whose defense you came to in this thread.

Well, as you certainly wouldn't wish to hold me to higher standards than you hold yourself, perhaps you can link me to the spots where you've called out the "anti-semite" screamers.

I don't "call out" anyone anymore, unless it's directed at me. I don't come to anyone's defense. JBG may have been out of line, but it's nothing that bud hasn't flung at him and just about anyone else here who has ever spoken out for Israel. If you can show me where you've called him out I'll take back my charge that you are one-sided in that regard. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know that I'm wrong.

(I'm not expecting this of you, I reiterate. But since you evidently are expecting it, it's put up time.)

I'm not expecting it at all. I'm just puzzling over why you call one side on it and not the other, especially as you make the claim that supporters of Palestine are more even-handed than supporters of Israel.

If there is a high road in this very contentious series of debates, I have yet to witness it.

Yet you are constantly ascribing the High(er) Road to the supporters of Palestine, which, I repeat, is outright ludicrous.

I said nothing about being even-handed; I don't even know quite how anyone can do this, as there's no clear-cut objective measure of it.

I only said that one side offers more concessions than the other does. I know, I know; you consider the concessions profoundly weak. Probably they are.

But when compared to zero.....

There's no "probably" about it. They are weak at best, yet seem to serve as a means to claim holier-than-thou status. By the same token, I do find it interesting that you find concessions that the IDF comes down too heavily at times to amount to "zero." Says a lot to me about where you are coming from. But if you weren't being one-sided yourself as you criticize others I would just let it all slide. If I didn't feel you were someone whose opinion I could really respect, someone I could really respect, I'd just roll my eyes and move on. Not that I expect you to care one way or the other; I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.

Edited April 17, 2011 by American Woman

[bud]

I'm the focus of the guy who says I love Pastor Jones because I defend his right to express himself according to law. That would be the same guy whose defense you came to in this thread.

you compared and equated the crazy extremist muslims to the kkk and then compared terry jones, the book burning pastor to rosa parks. by making such remarks, you're comparing the struggles of rosa parks to terry jones'.

you're either not bright enough and can't find a better analogy or you have a soft spot for terry jones and he's your rosa parks.

I don't "call out" anyone anymore, unless it's directed at me. I don't come to anyone's defense. JBG may have been out of line, but it's nothing that bud hasn't flung at him

yeah? really? show me where i've said anything along the lines of: You probably gloat over the bloodshed, and legs, heads, flying in different directions. Or at least you enable it.

here is your chance to shine. show a quote.

[Chippewa]

Isreal is just a North American Welfare State. If it wasn't for the billions of dollars North America gives Isreal every year along with arming the with Weapons of Mass Destruction, I don't think Killing innocent civilians is just cause for anything. Its just another front for the Christian/Muslim wars that have lasted for centurys.

War profits, and Industrial Military Complex run todays world.

[Bob]

Isreal is just a North American Welfare State. If it wasn't for the billions of dollars North America gives Isreal every year along with arming the with Weapons of Mass Destruction, I don't think Killing innocent civilians is just cause for anything. It's just another front for the Christian/Muslim wars that have lasted for centurys.

War profits, and Industrial Military Complex run todays world.

First of all, it isn't billions of dollars from North America, its from the USA. And it isn't "along with WMDs", foreign aid from the USA to Israel is primarily in the form of military aid - meaning money that must be used to purchase weapons and defensive systems (almost always from American manufacturers and service providers). Military aid is the overwhelming majority of funds transferred to Israel. Of course, nobody ever mentions the billions of dollars transferred to the Palestinians, who are actually entirely dependent on foreign aid and much more worthy of the title "welfare state", considering about fifty cents of every dollar in their economy comes from foreign aid - whereas about 1% of Israel's economy is composed of American foreign aid.

Did you really just parrot the Islamic propagandist accusation that Israel is a front for modern crusaders?

Edited April 19, 2011 by Bob

[Bonam]

Did you really just parrot the Islamic propagandist accusation that Israel is a front for modern crusaders?

For some reason I have noticed that a strong and poorly informed anti-Israeli stance is very prevalent among Canadian natives and their supporters.

[Bob]

For some reason I have noticed that a strong and poorly informed anti-Israeli stance is very prevalent among Canadian natives and their supporters.

That's unsurprising to me, because they get informed primarily through the mainstream media. This is ironic, considering that Israel should be viewed as an excellent contemporary example of an ultra-minority securing real independence and resisting destruction by all means. You would think that passionate advocates for Native rights, at least those who call for increased independence, would admire the example set by Israel.

And yes, I've certainly noticed the same thing at least among certain aboriginals, and certainly those who loudly take up their cause - who often aren't natives but just rebels without a clue.

[bud]

Of course, nobody ever mentions the billions of dollars transferred to the Palestinians,

billions of dollars? do tell. we're talking actual money received and not how much has been 'pledged'.

who are actually entirely dependent on foreign aid and much more worthy of the title "welfare state", considering about fifty cents of every dollar in their economy comes from foreign aid - whereas about 1% of Israel's economy is composed of American foreign aid.

the palestinians have had crappy government for many years, but that's not the main reason why palestinians are not able to prosper. the main reason is israel's occupation and their control of everything that goes in and out. when the borders, the air and the sea and imports and exports are heavily controlled by another government, then you need to be a little more honest about why the economy is doing crappy.

[Jonsa]

billions of dollars? do tell. we're talking actual money received and not how much has been 'pledged'.

From 2007 about $2 billion a year in foreign aid to the PA. Last year $1.2 and this year less than a $1 billion with a view to eliminating aid by 2013.

Budget for 2011 in the PA, 3.7 Billion. UNWRA budget $568 million. Hamas 2010 budget was $540 million of which $60 million was from internal revenues and the balance from "foreign donors.

Interesting that Gazans certainly have less government than the wb.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011%5C02%5C05%5Cstory_5-2-2011_pg4_4

the palestinians have had crappy government for many years, but that's not the main reason why palestinians are not able to prosper. the main reason is israel's occupation and their control of everything that goes in and out. when the borders, the air and the sea and imports and exports are heavily controlled by another government, then you need to be a little more honest about why the economy is doing crappy.

The WB experienced 9% growth last year. Seems a strategy of co-operation and compromise while still being able to criticize Israeli policy is working for the PA. Meanwhile, Hamas is totally dependent on Iran, Saudis, Syria et.al. to retain power and provide minimal services. Wonder which strategy is more effective and beneficial to the palestinian people, let alone to the goal of statehood.

[Bob]

billions of dollars? do tell. we're talking actual money received and not how much has been 'pledged'.

Bud, I don't need to prove anything to you. They have received BILLIONS of dollars, and receive hundreds of millions of dollars every year directl and indirectly (for example, and primarily, from the UN) from places like the USA, Canada, Mexico, the UK, France, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc. I am NOT talking about pledges. The controversy around what was pledged against what was actually given was only a real issue from ARAB countries who try to excuse not following through on their commitments by stating that giving money to the Palestinians would constitute compensating the Palestinians for the crimes of Israel. I doesn't matter to me whether you want to believe me, these are facts you can EASILY find. Remember, the Palestinians receive hundreds of millions of dollars every year, and have received BILLIONS of dollars over recent years, and are the highest recipients of foreign aid on a per-capita basis in the world. Furthermore, they are entirely dependent on it as it composes about half of the value of their entire economy.

the palestinians have had crappy government for many years, but that's not the main reason why palestinians are not able to prosper. the main reason is israel's occupation and their control of everything that goes in and out. when the borders, the air and the sea and imports and exports are heavily controlled by another government, then you need to be a little more honest about why the economy is doing crappy.

Well, this is a complicated subject that cannot be summarized by someone like yourself in a few lines. There is certainly a connection between Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and negative impacts on their economies. Moreso in Gaza, but again, it's complicated and certainly not as simple as "it's Israel's fault". Of course, you make no mention of legitimate security concerns that are behind these policies.

[bud]

Bud, I don't need to prove anything to you. They have received BILLIONS of dollars, and receive hundreds of millions of dollars every year directl and indirectly

okay. so this billions is not yearly. it's accumulated over the years which is different than how your comment came out.

israel receives $3 billion + a year. that's a considerable chunk of us taxpayers' money, considering israel doesn't like to consider itself a welfare state.

Well, this is a complicated subject that cannot be summarized by someone like yourself in a few lines. There is certainly a connection between Israeli restrictions on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and negative impacts on their economies. Moreso in Gaza, but again, it's complicated and certainly not as simple as "it's Israel's fault". Of course, you make no mention of legitimate security concerns that are behind these policies.

settlement increases and the wall that cuts deep into the west bank and the theft of water on palestinian land are not security concerns. it's expansionism and theft.

what you and many unconditional supporters of the extreme right israeli government do is try to sweep and justify everything israel does as part of 'legitimate security concern'. unfortunately for you guys, these claims are trumped by reality.

[bud]

The WB experienced 9% growth last year. Seems a strategy of co-operation and compromise while still being able to criticize Israeli policy is working for the PA. Meanwhile, Hamas is totally dependent on Iran, Saudis, Syria et.al. to retain power and provide minimal services. Wonder which strategy is more effective and beneficial to the palestinian people, let alone to the goal of statehood.

for sure, there has been growth.

one problem is that israel refuses to deal and cooperate with hamas at all. the whole thing about hamas' charter that commits itself to the destruction of israel certainly doesn't help, however, at least they've shown some interest in talking and changing their stance. unlike israel, which intensified the blockade since hamas was democratically elected by the palestinians. here is an example of hamas making some effort:

In July 2009, Khaled Meshaal said Hamas was willing to cooperate with the United States (WSJ) on promoting a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas, he said, would accept a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders provided Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel and East Jerusalem be recognized as the Palestinian capital. The proposal fell short of recognizing the state of Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks.

there are some talks between the two, but they only involve shalit and a prisoner swap.

the longer this goes on, the more i'm convinced that both hamas and the extreme right wing government behind israel's expansionism need the status quo to continue in order to achieve their goals and to stay in power.

[Bob]

okay. so this billions is not yearly. it's accumulated over the years which is different than how your comment came out.

israel receives $3 billion + a year. that's a considerable chunk of us taxpayers' money, considering israel doesn't like to consider itself a welfare state.

Israel does not regularly receive three billion dollars a year. It is obvious that you are throwing around numbers that you are unfamiliar with. I'm not sure Israel ever received three billion dollars in any one year, either. With respect the the Palestinians, they have perhaps received nearly as much total dollars in aid as Israel has, at least over the past fifteen to twenty years.

***Ok, I looked it up - the only years Israel received more than three billion dollars in a given fiscal year were 199, 2000, and 2003. Foreign aid since 1949 to Israel from the USA has been 1.71 billion dollars. Israel's been averaging close to three billion per year from the USA in total aid since 1997 - 2.85 billion dollars on average. That is about .0002% of America's GDP. Don't get me wrong, it's a lot of money, but i don't know if I'd phrase it like your did: "a big chunk of" of America's taxpayer money.

settlement increases and the wall that cuts deep into the west bank and the theft of water on palestinian land are not security concerns. it's expansionism and theft.

what you and many unconditional supporters of the extreme right israeli government do is try to sweep and justify everything israel does as part of 'legitimate security concern'. unfortunately for you guys, these claims are trumped by reality.

Well, I'm not an unconditional supporter of what you describe as the "extreme right Israeli government". First of all, I don't see the government as particularly right-wing.

More importantly, however, is your inability to understand that water and land issues are security concerns. Perhaps not in the traditional sense, as in terrorism, but they are matters of national security. I also don't think you and I would agree on exactly what water and land belongs to who.

[Bob]

for sure, there has been growth.

one problem is that israel refuses to deal and cooperate with hamas at all. the whole thing about hamas' charter that commits itself to the destruction of israel certainly doesn't help, however, at least they've shown some interest in talking and changing their stance. unlike israel, which intensified the blockade since hamas was democratically elected by the palestinians. here is an example of hamas making some effort:

Why should Israel deal with Hamas, exactly? You think there's a likely outcome of positive developments in speaking with an organization openly committed to our destruction? Get real.

And please, Israel doesn't need to soften its stance on anything. We never committed ourselves to genocide, as Hamas have towards the Jewish people. We don't need to take steps back from such hatred, because we never walked those steps in the first place. So just because Hamas has said a few "softer words" for the exclusive release in Western media doesn't mean Israel needs to reciprocate a softer approach towards such an organization. If you declare your intention is to destroy me and I express distaste for your organization, if you go back on your words (but leave your wishes explicit in your charter) a little, don't expect me to be enthusiastic about talking to you.

Don't you see how you desperately try to compare Hamas and the Israeli government? You cannot make one statement about Hamas without pathetically trying to draw some non-existent false parallel with the Israeli government. You'll never get respect from anyone worthwhile with such an approach to this conflict.

In July 2009, Khaled Meshaal said Hamas was willing to cooperate with the United States (WSJ) on promoting a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Hamas, he said, would accept a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders provided Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israel and East Jerusalem be recognized as the Palestinian capital. The proposal fell short of recognizing the state of Israel, a necessary step for Hamas to be included in peace talks.

there are some talks between the two, but they only involve shalit and a prisoner swap.

the longer this goes on, the more i'm convinced that both hamas and the extreme right wing government behind israel's expansionism need the status quo to continue in order to achieve their goals and to stay in power.

Ok, let's get something straight here, in case anyone believes this bullshit of yours - Hamas has NEVER accepted the concept of an Israeli state on ANY piece of this land, forget about the 1949 armistice lines (what you misleadingly refer to as the 1967 "borders"). All Hamas had offered would be an undefined truce is such an arrangement is made. More importantly, such an arrangement is impossible because we will never see those lines again. Any future final status agreement will certainly not be a resumption to those lines.

You're confusing a Hamas statement that was willing to accept a Palestinian state on "1967 borders" (the CFR really should be better than using such politicized and INACCURATE language), NOT that it was willing to accept an Israeli state. Moreover, Hamas clearly stated that it would not mean a cessation of hostilities or a peace agreement with Israel. So Israel should surrender land on which live half a million Israelis, land that is essential for security and for society, accept millions of Palestinian "refugees" (the overwhelming majority of whom were born after 1949, and still massive proportion of those born after 1967), in order to secure.... what exactly? A temporary interim where Hamas commits NOT to engage in violence? As if the word of Hamas is worth more than your comments in this forum?

And again, you're trying to draw a parallel between the Israeli government and Hamas.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Bob

[bud]

Israel does not regularly receive three billion dollars a year. It is obvious that you are throwing around numbers that you are unfamiliar with. I'm not sure Israel ever received three billion dollars in any one year, either.

israel receives $3 billion a year in aid. on top of that, israel also receives loan guarantees which have varied every year. at the moment, they have $9 billion for 3 years. so add another $3 billion a year to that. these are loans that israel has never been required to pay back. i hope you remember this the next time such a discussion comes up.

With respect the the Palestinians, they have perhaps received nearly as much total dollars in aid as Israel has, at least over the past fifteen to twenty years.

really? show something to back up this claim.

Well, I'm not an unconditional supporter of what you describe as the "extreme right Israeli government". First of all, I don't see the government as particularly right-wing.

then you are on crack.

More importantly, however, is your inability to understand that water and land issues are security concerns.

it's theft. israel has control of palestinian water which they disproportionately divide between themselves and the palestinians.

Perhaps not in the traditional sense, as in terrorism, but they are matters of national security.

you don't even know the meaning of security. you've butchered the meaning just like you have with anti-semite and terrorism.

I also don't think you and I would agree on exactly what water and land belongs to who.

who cares what you and i agree on. if this water is not on israeli land and does not belong to israel as a matter of law, then it doesn't. it's quite simple.

Edited April 21, 2011 by bud

[Rue]

For some reason I have noticed that a strong and poorly informed anti-Israeli stance is very prevalent among Canadian natives and their supporters.

There are militants in the native community no different than in the non native world.

However I know native peoples who are spiritually well connected to the Jewish community and Israel and worked hard to have respctful relations with us and vice versa.

In fact many native elders and spiritual leaders and Jewish spiritual leaders are well connected. Many of the native spiritual practices are identical to principles taught in the Talmud or that originate from the Kabala.

For example their protocols for settling disputes or teaching ethics are very similiar to the ones in Judaism.

Its tempting to think extremists or militants are mainstream but they are not in anyone's culture. As well Chippewa speaks for himself as I do myself. The fact I am a Jew or JBG is a Jew does not automatically confer on us automatic status to speak for other Jews. We speak only four ourselves.

More to the point, why would you expect the average native Canadian to know much about Israel? They probably would not have learned too much about Jewish history in school. Sure they were taught Canadian history, but that Canadian history curriculum focuses on the British and French and is just beginning to acknowledge native Canadians, so don't hold your breath expecting any coverage of European history to go too thoroughly into Jewish history or what Zionism is.

If you were native Canadian, why would you differentiate Jews from other Europeans or people that came here after them? In their experience one would think it wouldn't be too important because it certainly wouldn't be relevant to the present day issues they are emersed in and the unresolved conflicts they have with the Canadian government. To put it bluntly-they probably have their own issues to deal with.

Nwo don't get me wrong, I do not speak for them, nor do I condone or agree with Chippewa's comments, I am simply saying he is not necessarily a mainstream indication of the relations between Jews and native peoples in Canada.

For the most part we have been deeply respectful of one another and the native communities have welcomed us as friends and spiritual brothers/sisters.

Chippewa speaks for himself as I do. He no more represents all native peoples then I do Jews. We are but two people with opinions. Period.

I would say to Chippewa when Zionism is restated or represented to you as a colonial imposition of Jewish rule on Arabs, of course I would expect you to reject it.

I would also say to Chippewa when Israel and Jews are represented as being brought up sucking the breast milk of Americans and causing all others to become runts, I would expect you to think Jews are too fat.

However I would then also say, the representations you base your assumptions on might not be accurate.

Maybe one day someone will have the opportunity to explain to you Zionism is not about colonialism- but escaping from it.

Maybe one day I can explain to you why I don't suck or have ever sucked American breasts and grown fat from it.

Chippewa is a warrior-wolf. he's been told all kinds of things about me. I am a weasel, a fisher, a muskrat, a blue jay, a rat.

No no Chippewa none of the above. The people who have described me

are confused. Everytime they hear a bump in the dark they think its me. And so I take on infinite shapes and sizes.

Why Chippewa you would think I am a shapeshifter the way they assign me all these different forms. Uh no. I am no crow either.

Closet analogy I can give you is wolverine. No I am not a skunk although of course I am related to them and weasels and fishers.

We all have questionable relatives.

As for you, I expect you to change from wolf to red tailed hawk and shriek at me before you leave.

A lot of birds shriek when they see me come waddling by. Wolverines have quite the reputation you know.

Most of us would be quite happy if you remain distant rather then have to bite you.

We are no different then wolves in that respect.

We interestingly don't believe we chose our destiny but it was imposed upon us by the creator and now we must do the honourable thing, i.e. honour that destiny.

Now me I must admit I have been influenced by otters. I am inclined to believe I did in fact choose the destiny I was given as a test to see if I can co-exist with the beaver.

Its not easy living down stream of a beaver

Never sure if you are crying for joy or sorrow Chippewa. But I hear it yes.

Then again I also hear the sound of beer cans being crushed and people pissing and swearing in the woods and I do not like that. Its the same voices that tell you to bite me.

They think you are a pit bull. I am no cock in their arena Chippewa. I am no gladiator to amuse them by turning on you. Their cages can't hold me. Don't mistake my choosing to leave ou standing alone in the arena.

You'll find me in the stands going after the sob who organized the event.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Rue

[bloodyminded]

I don't "call out" anyone anymore, unless it's directed at me. I don't come to anyone's defense. JBG may have been out of line, but it's nothing that bud hasn't flung at him and just about anyone else here who has ever spoken out for Israel. If you can show me where you've called him out I'll take back my charge that you are one-sided in that regard. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know that I'm wrong.

Again, as you say, I don't think we have an espcial responsibility to continually come to one another's defense, even if we disagree with charges being made. I have, however, come out in defense of some of my more regular debate opponents here, from protesting against Shady's being called a "racist," to defending some of Bush_Cheney2004's remarks, to sticking up for MDancer. I have come to your defense several times. If it hasn't particularly been on the Israeli-Palestine debates, that's not pointed or significant

I'm not expecting it at all. I'm just puzzling over why you call one side on it and not the other, especially as you make the claim that supporters of Palestine are more even-handed than supporters of Israel.

"More even-handed" no more connotes even-handedness than my saying Lucky Luciano might have been a gentler man than Al Capone on a personal level.

By the same token, I do find it interesting that you find concessions that the IDF comes down too heavily at times to amount to "zero."

Saying that an active military force "comes down too heavily at times" is less a criticism than it is basic reportage. They all do--this has nothing whatsoever to do with the IDF specifically. It's the nature of the beast. That's why I personally think that embattled soldiers (from any nation) deserve more leeway than do their political masters for rotten misdeeds, including all but the most blatantly egregious war crimes. The institutionalization of behaviours and the heat of armed conflict means that behaving properly cannot be committed to in every instance with surgical precision. (I should stress that I'm not talking about exoneration for war crimes, but rather appreciating certain mitigating factors. Sadistic torture, sexual or otherwise, as well as wanton acts of mass murder like My Lai, do not apply.)

If I didn't feel you were someone whose opinion I could really respect, someone I could really respect, I'd just roll my eyes and move on. Not that I expect you to care one way or the other; I'm just explaining where I'm coming from.

OK, and I appreciate that.

[Chippewa]

That's unsurprising to me, because they get informed primarily through the mainstream media. This is ironic, considering that Israel should be viewed as an excellent contemporary example of an ultra-minority securing real independence and resisting destruction by all means. You would think that passionate advocates for Native rights, at least those who call for increased independence, would admire the example set by Israel.

And yes, I've certainly noticed the same thing at least among certain aboriginals, and certainly those who loudly take up their cause - who often aren't natives but just rebels without a clue.

I know my world history..

If you knew anything about 1947, it was a march to take the palistinians off there land, to create another North American corporation called Isreal.

As far as im concerned, and the marks of history, the Palistinians own that property, and because of the WMD and billions thrown that way, Isreal was born and made. Why couldn't they just splinter up Germany where most of them came from in the first place.

Immigrant peasants who get off a banana boat in Canada somehow assume they own more rights and resources then the people who actually own the joint.

[bloodyminded]

I know my world history..

If you knew anything about 1947, it was a march to take the palistinians off there land, to create another North American corporation called Isreal.

As far as im concerned, and the marks of history, the Palistinians own that property, and because of the WMD and billions thrown that way, Isreal was born and made. Why couldn't they just splinter up Germany where most of them came from in the first place.

I doubt Germany seemed, at the time, wholly feasible. At any rate, it's not a matter of telling Jews where they were going to live. It was Jews deciding for themselves where to live, in what rationally appeared to be the most likely place, for obvious historical reasons.

[Rue]

I know my world history..

If you knew anything about 1947, it was a march to take the palistinians off there land, to create another North American corporation called Isreal.

Immigrant peasants who get off a banana boat in Canada somehow assume they own more rights and resources then the people who actually own the joint.

Spoken like a true skunk. Lots of smell when you get defensive yes? Arabs, Jews, Druze, Berbers, Assyrians, Kurds, and many others we all came and we come and go like the desert sand.

Nothing is permanent in the face of the wind and the shifting sands. Nothing.

Stay out of this desert Chippewa until you learn to shut your mouth. You'll drown swallowing all the sand.

There are many people Chippewa with many histories and ties to the land. None own it, all have legacy to it. Your attempt to ignore all but one people and revise history speaks for but one thing-your own political bias and ignorance of not just the origins of Jews, but Muslims, Christians, Druze, Berbers, Kurds, Assyrians, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, and so many others.

You are nothing but a mocking bird Chippewa and your imitation of the people that spew hatred at you turned back onto Jews is absurd. Its a pale imitation of that which you seek to mimmick.

By the way before you call my ancestors immigrant peasants who got off a banana boat...lol... I think it hilarious you find that an insult.

You think yours came from under a cabbage leaf? Ahahah.

Look carefully fool, we are all descended from bastards-sorry to break that to you.

What you think if you try act like a mocking bird and sing some racist's song it makes you tough?

Lol. Banana boat. Hah.

Had far worse then you call me Jewboy or my grandparents or me f..cking or dirty Jews. Far worse.

You are darn right my grandparents were immigrants. They were fortunate to be able to come to Canada. The stories it took for them to survive so I could be born here are my legacy. Go on fool. Try remove the spirit and see what happens. Go on fool. Mock the spirit and see what happens.

Lol.

Chippewa that was one lousy imitation of a white man. You want to try again?

Ahahah. Banana boat... try freighter. Hahah. Banana boat. No. It was no canoe that's for sure. Had lots of rats Chippewa. Some got off and mixed with the native ones.

Might explain your desire to wallow in the refuse now.

What's the matter Chippewa. You scared of a Golem?

Boo!

Edited April 26, 2011 by Rue

[bud]

some things never change.

american woman accusing and defaming people and then failing miserably to back up her claims when confronted and rue expressing himself just before it's time to take his meds.

29 pages have passed and none of the IDF die-hards have been able to explain or justify the fact that israel often responds to terrorism by killing innocent civilians.