Another Double-Standard Story; Tears for Rachel Corrie,

[GostHacked]

George Washington was hardly a faceless, anonymous murderer.

You are comparing George Wasthington to a Hamas fighter? Really?

[jbg]

You are comparing George Wasthington to a Hamas fighter? Really?

Yes. I am saying if we could fight using named, known fighters so can Hamas.

[Guest American Woman]

When the occupied territories becomes an independant nation state. Then they can build a military to fight with. Untill that time all you are going to get is faceless, nameless anonymous murderers.

jbg is absolutely correct. The colonies, which were not an independent nation state, built a military to fight for independence; they were not faceless and nameless, nor did they resort to targeting and murdering innocent civilians rather than engaging in military battles. I can't begin to understand why so many people go out of their way to defend/make excuses for Hamas.'

Edited April 25, 2011 by American Woman

[bud]

why compare hamas and their actions and tactics to a watered down, feel good history of george washington when you can compare hamas to a few different jewish militant/terrorist groups?

afterall, both hamas and the jewish militant/terrorist groups resorted to murdering innocent civilians.

[GostHacked]

jbg is absolutely correct. The colonies, which were not an independent nation state, built a military to fight for independence; they were not faceless and nameless, nor did they resort to targeting and murdering innocent civilians rather than engaging in military battles. I can't begin to understand why so many people go out of their way to defend/make excuses for Hamas.'

I make no apologies for Hamas either. But in many cases when people talk about the bad things Israel has done, people automatically say that person supports Hamas. It's like saying one is an anti-semite when saying negative things about Israel. I did not make the comparison to George Washington, that might make him a terrorist by today's standard.

Hamas was not faceless at one point, they were elected by the people. Even the PLO was not nameless, or faceless.

Hamas wants to build a military so they can gain independance. Why is Wasthington a good guy and Hamas a bad guy?

Oh right, the double standard.

[GostHacked]

Yes. I am saying if we could fight using named, known fighters so can Hamas.

There are two entities. the IDF and Hamas. Both are essentially nameless and faceless. We don't talk about the IDF commanders individually it seems, so to me both can be considered nameless and faceless. But they both have a name, one is IDF the other is Hamas.

[jbg]

jbg is absolutely correct. The colonies, which were not an independent nation state, built a military to fight for independence

Thanks for the support.

There were, however, some situations where the American colonists fought out of uniform, and ambushed unsuspecting British troops, just as there were some rapes by British troops of American civilians and some plunder, euphemized as "living off the land". Neither, though, was the central way the troops fought, unlike Hamas.

[Guest American Woman]

Thanks for the support.

There were, however, some situations where the American colonists fought out of uniform, and ambushed unsuspecting British troops, just as there were some rapes by British troops of American civilians and some plunder, euphemized as "living off the land". Neither, though, was the central way the troops fought, unlike Hamas.

I agree. Which is why I said what I did. There are always rogue forces acing on their own will. That goes without saying and has nothing to do with 'official policy.'

[Guest American Woman]

I make no apologies for Hamas either. But in many cases when people talk about the bad things Israel has done, people automatically say that person supports Hamas. It's like saying one is an anti-semite when saying negative things about Israel. I did not make the comparison to George Washington, that might make him a terrorist by today's standard.

No, you didn't make the comparison to George Washington. What you said is: When the occupied territories becomes an independant nation state. Then they can build a military to fight with. Untill that time all you are going to get is faceless, nameless anonymous murderers.

That sounds like making excuses to me. You are saying that because the "occupied territories" aren't an independent nation, there is no way they could raise an army, and therefore can only resort to faceless, nameless anonymous murders. As was pointed out, the colonies, which were an occupied territory, not an independent nation, raised an army and didn't resort to faceless, nameless anonymous murders. And if George Washington wasn't part of a military, participating in military operations, if he were instead targeting and murdering innocent civilians rather than fighting Britain's army, then he indeed would have been a terrorist by today's standards. But since he didn't do those things, he would not be.

Hamas was not faceless at one point, they were elected by the people. Even the PLO was not nameless, or faceless.

This is true, and seriously does nothing to make Palestine/Palestinians "innocent." We hear over and over about evil Israel as compared to "Hamas." It's never the PLO and Hamas or whatever; it's "Israel" and "Hamas." But there is not any clearer distinction between "Palestine" and "Hamas" when Palestinians, as you pointed out, elected Hamas.

Hamas wants to build a military so they can gain independance. Why is Wasthington a good guy and Hamas a bad guy?

You really, seriously need to ask that question??

Oh right, the double standard.

Yes, that's it. It has nothing to do with the targeting and killing of innocent civilians.

And you claim to make no apologies for Hamas??

Edited April 26, 2011 by American Woman

[GostHacked]

No, you didn't make the comparison to George Washington. What you said is: When the occupied territories becomes an independant nation state. Then they can build a military to fight with. Untill that time all you are going to get is faceless, nameless anonymous murderers.

It was a response to what JBG said.

That sounds like making excuses to me. You are saying that because the "occupied territories" aren't an independent nation, there is no way they could raise an army, and therefore can only resort to faceless, nameless anonymous murders. As was pointed out, the colonies, which were an occupied territory, not an independent nation, raised an army and didn't resort to faceless, nameless anonymous murders. And if George Washington wasn't part of a military, participating in military operations, if he were instead targeting and murdering innocent civilians rather than fighting Britain's army, then he indeed would have been a terrorist by today's standards. But since he didn't do those things, he would not be.

I am not making excuses, it's just the way it is. And I am not the one making comparisons of Hamas to George Washington.

This is true, and seriously does nothing to make Palestine/Palestinians "innocent." We hear over and over about evil Israel as compared to "Hamas." It's never the PLO and Hamas or whatever; it's "Israel" and "Hamas." But there is not any clearer distinction between "Palestine" and "Hamas" when Palestinians, as you pointed out, elected Hamas.

So why not just let the Palestinians have their country? Maybe things could be resolved quicker. It is still an occupation. What other options do the Palestinians have at this point? It's like perpetual war is wanted there. Both sides have committed crimes, but we have some apologists on each side. I have not picked sides, regardless of anyone trying to pin me as such.

You really, seriously need to ask that question??

Yes, that's it. It has nothing to do with the targeting and killing of innocent civilians.

And you claim to make no apologies for Hamas??

I am not an apologist for Hamas. Are you an apologist for Israel?

[jbg]

I am not making excuses, it's just the way it is. And I am not the one making comparisons of Hamas to George Washington.

I made that comparison to point out that there is an acceptable way to fight for independence. One might lose or win, but it's not faceless, cowardly murder. If George Washington had organized hit squads to randomly murder Tories in places loyal to Britain such as New York City it would have been a different matter.

So why not just let the Palestinians have their country? Maybe things could be resolved quicker. It is still an occupation. What other options do the Palestinians have at this point? It's like perpetual war is wanted there. Both sides have committed crimes, but we have some apologists on each side. I have not picked sides, regardless of anyone trying to pin me as such.

Because they consider pre-1967 Israel, and the Old City of Jerusalem to also be occupied. None of Israel is legitimate to them.

I am not an apologist for Hamas. Are you an apologist for Israel?

The term "apologist" denotes that the entity being apologized for is horrid or at least morally anathema. Israel isn't.

[Black Dog]

I will tell you and everyone what my agenda is.

...

All that I ask is that Israel be held to the same standards as others.

No, you want Israel to be held to the same standards as the dictators and thugs you claim to oppose.

[GostHacked]

I made that comparison to point out that there is an acceptable way to fight for independence.

So the way George did it, was fine, but the way Hamas is doing it is not. Ok.

One might lose or win, but it's not faceless, cowardly murder. If George Washington had organized hit squads to randomly murder Tories in places loyal to Britain such as New York City it would have been a different matter.

Hamas almost needs to remain faceless. Otherwise old men in wheelchairs get targeted with a couple missiles. And what is acceptable in terms of fighting for independance? As soon as a Hamas leader is elected or shows his face, Israel puts out a hit squad on them.

Because they consider pre-1967 Israel, and the Old City of Jerusalem to also be occupied. None of Israel is legitimate to them.The term "apologist" denotes that the entity being apologized for is horrid or at least morally anathema. Israel isn't.

That sounds like a load of bull to me. Get out of the occupied territories or face more terror attacks. Get out of the illegal settlements or .. more attacks happen. It's happened before where Israel says .. ok we will pull out .. then reverse that decision which results in terror attacks from the Palestinians. Round and round we go!

And being an apologist is making any excuse to support what ever side you want to support. Works both ways. But I guess there in lies another double standard.

And no matter how one looks at it. Jerusalem is being occupied by Israel, perpetual war is favoured in order to completely drive out the Palestinians. I've said it before, one or the other will be driven out, but the advantage is Israel's right now.

Edited April 27, 2011 by GostHacked

[bud]

No, it wasn't a typo. I am saying clearly that the bulldozer driver cannot simply stop the operation even if he saw her.

you are mentally and morally ill.

[bud]

Because they consider pre-1967 Israel, and the Old City of Jerusalem to also be occupied. None of Israel is legitimate to them.

maybe a minor percentage of palestinians still hold that belief. majority do not. kind of like how a minor percentage of israelis believe in greater israel which includes the west bank and east jerusalem.

i hope you don't repeat that misinformation again, jbg.

[Black Dog]

It's interesting to hear Bob chime in for his talk of double standards, given his oft-repeated refrain of Israel as the "the eternal Jewish homeland". Any other democratic state founded on principles of ethnino-religious exclusivity would rightly be castigated as discriminatory at best, yet exclusion is the fundamental principle of Bob's Zionism.

[Rue]

Thanks, Rue.

It's not even a political argument--although politics inevitably becomes enmeshed with it. I simply don't think the two situations are analogous.

Yer welcome. I give you and Black Dog and Ghost some others blasts and fire and wrath in many debates but I do so out of respect in most cases. Most of the people I have blasted over Israel issues I do so with great respect. May not sound that way but it is.

I blast JBG a lot because I think he baits extremists into commenting. There's a way to preface remarks. If we preface them staring off with extremist comments, that is what we will invite back in responses.

I get frustrated sometimes at the double standard used by certain posters over Israel's conduct yes. That is though I concede a seperate issue then the issue as to whether the force Israel uses in particular situations was excessive or not.

I get frustrated because I see both JBG and people on the other side of the debate, BOTH for their own political agenda reasons appropriating her death as the pretext to justify their views.

Here is my point which I know we all agree. No one wants to see any young person die. None of us. It is a sad day and time whenever someone dies.

I just don't see how using this girl's death to justify extreme political views is meaningful however pollyanna that sounds.

As usual American Women spoke the words I would have other then the above but that said, no I do not wish anyone to die fighting over political issues. This is not what Zionism taught us contrary to what some would believe. We did not set out to bulldoze girls no. No we don't sit around planning to bulldoze girls.

Then again I don't see how using this girl's death to complain about a moral double standard is relevant. The same point could have been made without exploiting her death to make that point.

[Rue]

It's interesting to hear Bob chime in for his talk of double standards, given his oft-repeated refrain of Israel as the "the eternal Jewish homeland". Any other democratic state founded on principles of ethnino-religious exclusivity would rightly be castigated as discriminatory at best, yet exclusion is the fundamental principle of Bob's Zionism.

Really? Will you be going to the United Kingdom soon to protest the Anglican Church's affinity to the Queen and state? Will you be travelling to the Vatican to demand its closure?

Oh wait, will you tell Dalton McGuinty he must stop funding Catholic Schools?

Oh now wait now, will you travel to the Quebec National Assembly and tell them to take the crucifix off the assembly wall?

Oh wait, when do you travel to India to tell the government to stop engaging in all those references to Hinduism?

Then its on to Thailand. Those damn Bhuddists.

Oh now wait. None of them have state institutional ties to religion. Er... well they do but they are "different" right Black Dog? Well of course they are different. They are not JUH HUH JUH dare we say it Jews right Black Dog?

After all this is about Jews not knowing their place and insisting on a state organ protecting their collective identity. Now of another state that is democratic has religious ties between the state and religion we just ignore that right Black Dog? Quick get some vasoline words and slip and slide your way out of that one Black Dog. Can't wait..oh no Rue...those states are different because.......

Oh now wait, you know I seem to remember there being a whole lot of Sharia law states that escape your selective review as well. Oh but wait, they aren't "democratic". Let's not forget that escape clause Black Dog uses so he doesn't have to deal with Muslim states. How convenient we just skip them all since they are not democratic and ignore them and the discrimination they practice against Jews which caused Jews to be ethnically cleansed and forced to flee to Israel for protection. Poof begone with such detail. Poof begone with the Christian state nations that mixed their state with religion to define Jews as unworthy of owning land or attaining equal rights of citzenship culminating in the holocaust. Poof begone to all that! Poof Black Dog says.

Oh but wait why stop their with the poofing. How about the 170 nations with laws of return no different then Israel's designed just like Israel's to recognize and protect from extinction a particular identified collective identity just like Israel does with Jews... what's this other countries have the same law of return Israel does..no get out...no really....for example, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, The Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, now really...but are they democratic? Ooopsy now what Black Dog?

No problem, everyone now join me as I say poof begone with these nations and any comparison to them-POOF!

You see when an Irish nation wants to protect and guarantee Irish people citizenship, well that's groovy. If Israel does it with Jews, look out yegads.

In fact using Black Dog's rules for determining how to morally Judge Israel he can simply make up the criteria of selectivity as he goes along so we can ignore 90% of the world's nations democratic or not.

Oh but wait...in Israel's case,Black Dog also seem to conveniently ignore the actual rights of non Jews in this country. Poof begone to that too.

We can skip over their land rights, right to vote in the Knesset, religious and family courts, legal and human rights protection in the court system-no none of that exists. Presto poof all the rights afforded Christians and Muslims no they don't exist. The Bahaiis and Druze in Israel oh poof to their equal treatment as well. Poof I say to the atheists and communists too. Pooof pooof and more pooooof.

We just say poof begone and that is it they disappear from our selective consideration right Black Dog?

Oh but wait that's o.k. because when we compare Israel and its policies to the Black Dog standards of morality we just make it up as we go along and ignore reality. We just create this moral vaccum in which Jews and Israel alone exist.

Israel is to be defined with a standard that allows us to ignore most of the world with the escape clause its not democratic right black dog and oh how wonderful that is. It avoids having to explain the real world Israel lives in and how its policies often are constructed in reaction to threats against it. No no no. Israel operates in an arbitrary vacuum. It was not created as an existential statement of preservation-no it just appeared from under a cabbage leaf for no reason.

Say now Black Dog know where I heard that script before?

Your need to constantly reinvent and set the moral standard against Jews oh its pretty stale. Its called the Passion Play. Been sung my many a Christian fundamentalist preacher. The Muslim fundamentalists have their version too. Its stale Black Dog.

In fact I know the script off by heart. Over the years its been repeated by many preachers and missionaries. Now instead of wearing black and white, the latest preachers like you wear trendy black and red checker kerchiefs right Black Dog?

Lol. Doesn't matter to me how much of a tan you know have Black Dog, I still see a presumptions holier then thou presumptious self righteous preacher holding a torch and screaming out that Frankenstein the Jew savage that I am needs to be torched.

Oh come now BlackDog. Just look at me. SUCH a savage Jew in need of your morally presumptious lectures.

What next Black Dog, do I sing something from Oliver or Fidler on the Roof or maybe say a few words from Merchant of Venice?

Lol, the presumption you are in the position to lecture Jews on moral standards is hilarious Black Dog.

why Black Dog me thinks thine need to lecture is the result of being conditioned for thousands of years that thou is superior to moi.

Lol. You have the chutzbah to think your need to lecture Jews is unique and based on unique political standards?

Oh come now, repeat after me-Jews killed Jesus! Jews are infidel! Say it Black Dog.... why hold back.

It aint new Black Dog. Its a rancid old tune. No Black dog you are not my Bwana coming to lecture the Jew savage.

You are not my massuh.

No you are not the missionary come to tell the murderous Jew he must attone or he will not be saved and will go to hell.

No Black Dog. All you do is attempt to proseltyze. Y ou just updated the language to delete the references to Jesus or infidel ignoring Muhammed. Lol.

Yer just another wanna be trying to make himself feel morally superior trying to play the role of Jew confronter.

Yer about as effective as Mel Gibson or Yasser Arafat.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Rue

[GostHacked]

Another double standard?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13221843

Israeli officials have criticised a reconciliation deal between rival Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas.

The foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman warned that Israel would not negotiate with the new unity government.

The US also responded coolly, saying the government that resulted must recognise Israel and renounce violence.

Israel will not work with the government unless violence is renounced and that Israel is recognized.

"Hamas, however, is a terrorist organisation which targets civilians. To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any Palestinian government must... renounce violence, abide by past agreements, and recognise Israel's right to exist."

So they won't recognize Hama's authority (the elected goverment) and won't work with them, but expect them to recognize Israel and work with Israels government.

Stalement. No progress. Both sides do not want to negotiate anything. And I think that is the double standard.

[Black Dog]

Really? Will you be going to the United Kingdom soon to protest the Anglican Church's affinity to the Queen and state? Will you be travelling to the Vatican to demand its closure?

Oh wait, will you tell Dalton McGuinty he must stop funding Catholic Schools?

Oh now wait now, will you travel to the Quebec National Assembly and tell them to take the crucifix off the assembly wall?

Oh wait, when do you travel to India to tell the government to stop engaging in all those references to Hinduism?

Then its on to Thailand. Those damn Bhuddists.

There's a world of difference between recognizing religion and making ethno-religious character the central, dominant mode or organization.

Oh now wait, you know I seem to remember there being a whole lot of Sharia law states that escape your selective review as well. Oh but wait, they aren't "democratic". Let's not forget that escape clause Black Dog uses so he doesn't have to deal with Muslim states. How convenient we just skip them all since they are not democratic and ignore them and the discrimination they practice against Jews which caused Jews to be ethnically cleansed and forced to flee to Israel for protection. Poof begone with such detail. Poof begone with the Christian state nations that mixed their state with religion to define Jews as unworthy of owning land or attaining equal rights of citzenship culminating in the holocaust. Poof begone to all that! Poof Black Dog says.

Democracy is an important distinction to make.

Oh but wait why stop their with the poofing. How about the 170 nations with laws of return no different then Israel's designed just like Israel's to recognize and protect from extinction a particular identified collective identity just like Israel does with Jews... what's this other countries have the same law of return Israel does..no get out...no really....for example, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, The Ukraine, Japan, Taiwan, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, now really...but are they democratic? Ooopsy now what Black Dog?

No problem, everyone now join me as I say poof begone with these nations and any comparison to them-POOF!

You see when an Irish nation wants to protect and guarantee Irish people citizenship, well that's groovy. If Israel does it with Jews, look out yegads.

Who said anything about the law of return? And really: are you sure you want to bring that into this discussion?

Your need to constantly reinvent and set the moral standard against Jews oh its pretty stale. Its called the Passion Play. Been sung my many a Christian fundamentalist preacher. The Muslim fundamentalists have their version too. Its stale Black Dog.

In fact I know the script off by heart. Over the years its been repeated by many preachers and missionaries. Now instead of wearing black and white, the latest preachers like you wear trendy black and red checker kerchiefs right Black Dog?

Lol. Doesn't matter to me how much of a tan you know have Black Dog, I still see a presumptions holier then thou presumptious self righteous preacher holding a torch and screaming out that Frankenstein the Jew savage that I am needs to be torched.

Oh come now BlackDog. Just look at me. SUCH a savage Jew in need of your morally presumptious lectures.

What next Black Dog, do I sing something from Oliver or Fidler on the Roof or maybe say a few words from Merchant of Venice?

Lol, the presumption you are in the position to lecture Jews on moral standards is hilarious Black Dog.

why Black Dog me thinks thine need to lecture is the result of being conditioned for thousands of years that thou is superior to moi.

Lol. You have the chutzbah to think your need to lecture Jews is unique and based on unique political standards?

Oh come now, repeat after me-Jews killed Jesus! Jews are infidel! Say it Black Dog.... why hold back.

It aint new Black Dog. Its a rancid old tune. No Black dog you are not my Bwana coming to lecture the Jew savage.

You are not my massuh.

No you are not the missionary come to tell the murderous Jew he must attone or he will not be saved and will go to hell.

No Black Dog. All you do is attempt to proseltyze. Y ou just updated the language to delete the references to Jesus or infidel ignoring Muhammed. Lol.

Yer just another wanna be trying to make himself feel morally superior trying to play the role of Jew confronter.

Yer about as effective as Mel Gibson or Yasser Arafat.

Edited April 29, 2011 by Black Dog

[Bob]

I don't know whether she was or wasn't. I wasn't there to see. I'm addressing your view that even if the dozer driver saw her he should have run her over, and that is a thoroughly indefensible and immoral belief. You don't kill defenseless, unarmed, non-threatening people because of the *possibility* that dealing with them in another way might expose you to danger. You just DON'T. I can see in the midst of combat, perhaps, but that is not the case here. There was no urgency. There were other methods of accomplishing the stated aims which did not involve murder.

And YES, Bob, if you run your dozer over an unarmed, non-threatening person, it's murder any way you want to slice it, even if she is a 'useful idiot' to the Palestinians.

She's not an innocent person, and whether or not she was armed is irrelevant. She was deliberately interfering with a military operation carried out to SAVE LIVES. Her actions put Israeli soldiers at risk. That's it, that's all. Every minute that these buildings remain standing is another minute that they can be used as cover for enemy snipers against Israeli border positions. It's really quite simple.

As an aside, whether or not a person is carrying a weapon isn't relevant in a military context. Forget about Rachel Corrie for a moment and consider scenarios where an unarmed person is still operating for the enemy. They become legitimate targets in the sense that they must be neutralized - that may or may not include violence. In a time-sensitive emergency situation, consider being in conflict where an unarmed individual is operating as a scout for the enemy - where killing him/her immediately is necessary to protect you and your own. I'm only bringing this up to mention that possession or non-possession of a weapon is often irrelevant with respect to these types of discussions.

[Bob]

Perhaps "Israel" doesn't bear any "responsibility" for her death. As I've pointed out, no one knows if the driver of the tractor could see her or not. If he could, and he deliberately ran over her, then the driver is responsible. Since this isn't Israeli policy, "Israel" isn't responsible. We've already been given an example in this thread where three Israeli drivers did stop, so obviously it's not Israeli policy to run over protesters. But again. No one knows if the driver could see her or not, yet he seems to be condemned as guilty by a good number of people. I don't see it as particularly "civilized" to condemn a man as guilty without proof.

I don't think you understand what's at stake here, or what the objective was of this specific military operation. The buildings that were selected for destruction by the IDF that Rachel Corrie was attempting to protect are near (usually within a kilometre of) the Gaza-Israel border. These buildings are typically used as cover for snipers against Israeli soldier border positions, as well as other terrorist operations. These buildings presented a danger to the lives of Israeli soldiers serving in the area, and needed to be destroyed. Allowing them to remain places Israeli soldiers at risk. Rachel Corrie, knowingly or not, was interfering with a military operation that was being conducted to save lives. Her intentions were to preserve buildings that place Israeli soldiers at risk. Considering this, in my view, it is irrelevant whether or not the driver saw her. Unfortunately, the IDF often engages in actions that place its soldiers at increased risk in order to appease political opponents. In other words, it's not uncommon for the IDF to tolerate increased risk to its soldiers in order to lower the risk to non-Israeli civilians (and terrorists, and those in between). If the IDF would have allowed Rachel Corrie's interventions to stop their operations, where would that leave us? She was deliberately protecting terrorist infrastructure. What's next, more young women like her standing in front of mortar launchers and snipers? She was literally just inches away of doing just that.

As far as I'm concerned, if we could rewind time and do things over, the only thing that should be subject to review was the behaviour of Rachel Corrie, and not the soldiers. "Activists" like her have already done a lot of damage to Israeli security by shaping the way the IDF operates. Given the intense hatred and animosity towards Israel that generates agitators like Rachel Corrie, dealing with such interference is now something the IDF spends quite a bit of time addressing in training and in adjustments to its conduct. The IDF has already allowed too much of its operations to be dictated by such persons, there is no need to go further and allow these people to literally stop defensive operations simply by standing in front of our people and equipment.

If the driver had run over her on purpose, if we knew that to be the case, I would not have any defense for the driver. I do, however, think she should have acted reasonably also; therefore, it would be manslaughter, not murder. She did make herself part of the conflict by her actions. She wasn't 'an innocent civilian.' Her decision, her choice, was a huge factor in her death. I agree with the sentiment that she should have been arrested, however. There's no justification for purposely running her over; and again, there's no proof that she was, while there is proof that other Israeli drivers have stopped rather than run over a protester.

It's this comment that suggests to me that you don't completely grasp what's at stake here. Although I completely reject your assertion, let's assume for a moment that the bulldozer operator had seen her. What do you propose he should have done? He has a mission to carry out, a mission to protect the lives of other soldiers, and in between him and success is a young woman named Rachel Corrie who is voluntarily standing in front of your vehicle. Tell me what he should have done differently had he seen her.

[Bob]

I know you see conspiracy theories everywhere, but the real inconsistency is:

1) Arab deaths are so plentiful, they don't report them in the MSM anymore, whether they are at the hands of Israel or others.

2) American deaths always get 5000 times more press than Arab or Israeli or Asian deaths.

But don't let those obvious truths stop you from running around shrieking anti-semitism.

"Arab deaths are so plentiful"? Where? What exactly are you talking about?

As far as which deaths "get 500 times more press", it depends on the media outlet. Canadian media will report on Canadian deaths, American media on American deaths, Arab media on Arab deaths, and so forth. I don't think anyone in here besides you understands what you're trying to say....

[Bob]

When the occupied territories becomes an independant nation state. Then they can build a military to fight with. Untill that time all you are going to get is faceless, nameless anonymous murderers.

Is that what you're hoping for? They need to be given more autonomy in order to more effectively wage their hostilities against us and further their aims towards the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state?

[Bob]

It's interesting to hear Bob chime in for his talk of double standards, given his oft-repeated refrain of Israel as the "the eternal Jewish homeland". Any other democratic state founded on principles of ethnino-religious exclusivity would rightly be castigated as discriminatory at best, yet exclusion is the fundamental principle of Bob's Zionism.

When have I ever castigated another democratic state with an ethno-religious component? Personally, I don't care whether or not other countries define their national identities with an ethnic or religious component. I don't need to point to other examples to justify Jewish independence. If the entire world except Israel was one massive entity of atheists, it wouldn't matter. I don't need parallel examples outside of Israel for legitimacy.

Of course, in today's context you're completely wrong, as there are more than enough states out there with a strong ethnic and/or religious component to their identities. And they certainly are not ever castigated, let alone even known about - as your post illustrates.

If your feelings are hurt, and you feel excluded, you can always convert to Judaism or marry a Jewish girl. You're trying to accuse me of practising double-standards, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any of this type of inconsistency from me. Ironically, your post reveals the very double-standard you accuse me of holding, in the sense that I'd wager that you've never made even one post in here criticizing the national identity of any country other than Israel's that was based on an ethnicity or religion.