Canada's cold shoulder to U.S.

[Black Dog]

So?  So? Big shrug, right? Such a fat, lazy, unimaginative borgeois leftist. So? A man, a young one, no doubt, who has never faced want, or need, or danger, and cannot imagine what it would be like dismisses the fifty year long attacks on Israel as if they are of no importance, hardly worth a thought. So? Big shrug. Attacks by mass armies, terrorist attacks on homes, schools, aircraft workplaces, power plants, beaches, shopping centres - bombs going off in streets, buses, suicide bombers, crazed Palestinians attacking old ladies with knives, scuba divers coming ashore with no motivation but hatred of Israelis and the suicidal determination to murder some before dying. So? A frenzied mob of Palestinians gets their hands on a pair of Jewish reservists who make a wrong turn and tear the apart. So? No big deal. So?

First: you can stick your ad hominem attacks where the sun don't shine.

Second: in your view, because Israel had to struggle for its survival, that gives them carte blanche to do unto others as others have done to them?

Oh right. Sure, what do they have to be afraid of? Silly Jews. So there's six million of them and 320 million Arabs who want them dead. After all, some of them signed peace treaties! That means they can never attack again. Even though they hate Israel with every fibre of their being. Those Jews are so paranoid, after all.

Ever wonder why there hasn't been an Arab Israli war for so long? Because Israel is teh best armed, best-trained, largest, most powerful military in the region, backed unquestioningly by the U.S.A. There is no threat to Israel's survival. The rhetoric of perpetual victimhood is used to justify expansionism and aggression.

The life of the Palestinians was no worse than that of their counterparts in Egypt or Jordan prior to the Intifada. Since they began a virtual state of war with Israel, setting off bombs all over the place, naturally they've drawn fire on themselves, and naturally Israel treats them with even less respect than they might otherwise. But yes, it is the violence of the Palestinians which has inspired Israeli violence. Some people don't accept this, of course. Some people just don't like Jews.

I wonder how much you'd enjoy life in squalid refugee camps, ruled by a foreign military power, with no rights or protections. You really don't know what you're talkiing about, do you?

You ought to, it's YOUR conclusion. What I said was that if people were really motivated by human rights concerns they would be spending most of their time on the world's worst human rights offenders. When, instead, they focus all their attention on Israel there is clearly something motivating them other than Israel's spotty human rights record; like anti-semitism.

In other words: "look over there! Those guys are worse!" Well, I got news for you: it's the left that campaigns dilligently for human rights around the world. It wa steh left that brought South African apartheid to teh world's attention. the left cried out over teh crimes of the Suharto regime in Indoenesia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Today, it is the left that has brought places like Sudan to the headlines, while smug, amoral right-wingers count the money they make from doing business with the world's thugs. The left is not responsible for what the mainstream media chooses to focus on: there's many reasons the Middle East is neswsworthy and recieves so much attention. It has nothing to do with anti-semetism. That argument is as tired and empty as the rest of your rhetoric.

Argus:

Did it demand an end to all acts of terror? Or did it demand an end to Israeli acts of terror? I'm not interested in YOUR wording or YOUR description. If you want me to look at a resolution the US vetoed and give you my opinion on whether the veto was fairly applied then give me the resolution number.

That was the text of the draft resolution. There's no resolution number because it was vetoed.

[April]

None taken, and none meant.

It's been my experience that the opposite is true: many Canadians having nothing against the US, but don't care for Bush.

For example, I may not like the fact that the US, under the leadership of Pres. Bush went into Iraq. I don't dislike the US or Americans or hold the US in general responsible for that. I hold Pres. Bush responsible and dislike him. (Not just because of Iraq, but that's a different story.)

I expect this like I would expect Americans not to dislike Canada or Canadians because the Canadian government didn't support the Iraq war.

On other words, this Canadian do not resent America or Americans, I resent Pres. Bush.

Good...I am glad to hear that...I don't much care for him either...and that is putting it nicely...

I don't blame Canada...I was against it too...the evidence did not support the claim...plain and simple,and even if it had it was your call not ours...you would have to live with your decision just as we now have to live with ours.Sometimes I see big mouthed Americans spouting their stupidity to Canadians on these boards and quite frankly its embarrassing...

I don't know any fellow Americans who speak of Canada or its people let alone say anything negative about you or your country.I seriously know of no American who holds ill feelings towards your Government or people because you did not go with us into Iraq....If someone here does...its their tuff shit...and if they tell you there are many others just like them...don't believe it...because it is simply not true.

You are not alone in your resentment...many Americans feel the same...the problem is he plays on their fears...and that just might win him the election....

God help us if it does....

[caesar]

I am very much in disagreement with the policies of the Bush administration. I feel that his actions have brought more danger to the world and resentment from the Muslim world and will turn many more into "terrorists". Re-electing Bush will send the message that Americans approve of his actions; including the torturing of prisoners and holding people without allowing them their Geneva convention rights. I think the invasion of Iraq was a big mistake; it took away the focus on the real terrorists. It sacrifices many young peoples lives on a endeavor that was not in defense of their country. A thousand have died but how many more are disabled physcally or mentally for life.

This invasion of Iraq was discussed well before the attack on the WTC; it was based on proven invalid information PRIOR to the invasion. It allowed the alQuaeda to regroup and spread.

[Argus]

Second: in your view, because Israel had to struggle for its survival, that gives them carte blanche to do unto others as others have done to them?

Hardly, but I do cut them some slack, and I recognize that circumstances prevent them from behaving the same way as the protected western democracies do. There are overriding security considerations generally caused by Palestinian terrorism which they must cope with.

Ever wonder why there hasn't been an Arab Israli war for so long? Because Israel is teh best armed, best-trained, largest, most powerful military in the region, backed unquestioningly by the U.S.A. There is no threat to Israel's survival. The rhetoric of perpetual victimhood is used to justify expansionism and aggression.

There is not, at the moment, a threat of overt military action being taken against Israel. It is absurd to take from this that there is no threat to the Jewish state. We need only look at the information coming out of the UK regarding the terrorist cell there which was trying to forumulate a "dirty" bomb and set it off in London to realize that terrorists have ambitions far beyond what they accomplished on 911, and some of them have a lot of support from Muslim governments.

I wonder how much you'd enjoy life in squalid refugee camps, ruled by a foreign military power, with no rights or protections. You really don't know what you're talkiing about, do you?

So if only they were in Jordan or Egypt they'd... what? Oh, they'd be able to vote, right? They'd have due process of law? They'd have political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press? Life in much of the middle east is squalid, and nowhere is there the kind of civil rights we enjoy here, or Israelis enjoy - including Israeli Arabs.

What I said was that if people were really motivated by human rights concerns they would be spending most of their time on the world's worst human rights offenders..

In other words: "look over there! Those guys are worse!"

That would seem to make sense.

Well, I got news for you: it's the left that campaigns dilligently for human rights around the world. It wa steh left that brought South African apartheid to teh world's attention. the left cried out over teh crimes of the Suharto regime in Indoenesia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Even were it true, and it's not, that is not addressing the question of why you are so focussed on Israel. The fact is the left has NO concern for human rights in the world except in regard to nations who are close to the US, who support the US or are US client states. You mentioned Syria as a "totolitarian anti-democratic state", asking if we should allow Israel to be as bad as them. But the fact is no one is protesting against Syria. If the Syrian president comes to Canada the only people who'll protest are expatriate Syrians. If Israel's president shows up you and your ilk will be out in the streets screaming and howling, and there'll be riot squads and tear gas. Now why would that be?

Argus:

Did it demand an end to all acts of terror? Or did it demand an end to Israeli acts of terror? I'm not interested in YOUR wording or YOUR description. If you want me to look at a resolution the US vetoed and give you my opinion on whether the veto was fairly applied then give me the resolution number.

That was the text of the draft resolution. There's no resolution number because it was vetoed.

It would have had a number. Even failed resolutions have a title and date. I am confident the US would not have vetoed a resolution which "condemned acts of terror" unless it was one-sidedly aimed at Israel and ignored Palestinian terrorism.

[caesar]

Hardly, but I do cut them some slack, and I recognize that circumstances prevent them from behaving the same way as the protected western democracies do. There are overriding security considerations generally caused by Palestinian terrorism which they must cope with.

Nonsense; no one is more protected than Israel; financially, militarily, and with getting off on humanitarian and other illegal actions (US veto). Give me a break. It is time we expect them to behave as a civillized country. Many times they are no better than the terrorists.

[caesar]

We need only look at the information coming out of the UK regarding the terrorist cell there which was trying to forumulate a "dirty" bomb and set it off in London to realize that terrorists have ambitions far beyond what they accomplished on 911, and some of them have a lot of support from Muslim governments.

The same intelligence that claimed Iraq had WMD????

Why not; why wouldn't Muslim countries support them; especially now when Iraq was invaded using invalid and fraudulent excuses. Iraq WAS cooperating with UN weapons inspectors but the USA invaded anyhow. The USA vetoes any resolution requiring Israel to take responsibility for its illegal actions against the Palestinians. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I don't condone the terrorist actions but I do not condone Israel's actions either. Israel has killed many more Palestinians than the reverse. Many of them are innocent women children and civillians.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

QUOTE 

We need only look at the information coming out of the UK regarding the terrorist cell there which was trying to forumulate a "dirty" bomb and set it off in London to realize that terrorists have ambitions far beyond what they accomplished on 911, and some of them have a lot of support from Muslim governments.

The same intelligence that claimed Iraq had WMD????

Indeed, the US, and the UK especially, must consider the Iraq invasion as 'crying wolf' and it has served to undermine international respect for them. The second time it happens, (in such an obvious way), people will be more leery. The third time, they will cry "Bullsh*t", and it may be when they actually need help the most. Oh well, if Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair haven't read the story, they may be the ones eaten.

[Black Dog]

Hardly, but I do cut them some slack, and I recognize that circumstances prevent them from behaving the same way as the protected western democracies do. There are overriding security considerations generally caused by Palestinian terrorism which they must cope with.

So, in other words, security concerns trump democratic values. How enlightened.

It is absurd to take from this that there is no threat to the Jewish state. We need only look at the information coming out of the UK regarding the terrorist cell there which was trying to forumulate a "dirty" bomb and set it off in London to realize that terrorists have ambitions far beyond what they accomplished on 911, and some of them have a lot of support from Muslim governments.

It's a matter of scale. There are threats to Israelis, but none pose a legitimate danger to the continued existence of Israel as a national entity.

Life in much of the middle east is squalid, and nowhere is there the kind of civil rights we enjoy here, or Israelis enjoy - including Israeli Arabs.

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories don't have any of the rights you mentioned, living as they do under the de facto rule of a foreign military.

QUOTE 

What I said was that if people were really motivated by human rights concerns they would be spending most of their time on the world's worst human rights offenders..

In other words: "look over there! Those guys are worse!"

That would seem to make sense.

As a dodge, yes, it makes perfect sense.

It would have had a number. Even failed resolutions have a title and date. I am confident the US would not have vetoed a resolution which "condemned acts of terror" unless it was one-sidedly aimed at Israel and ignored Palestinian terrorism.

The resolution in question.

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, including resolution 1322 of 7 October 2000,

Emphasizing the need for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of (22 October 1973 and the principle of land for peace,

Emphasizing further in that regard the essential role of the Palestinian authority which remains the indispensable and legitimate party for pence and needs to be preserved fully,

Expressing its grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000,

Expressing also its grave concern at the recent dangerous deterioration of the situation and its possible impact on the region,

Emphasizing the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians in the whole Middle East region, and condemning in particular all acts of violence and terror resulting in the deaths and injuries among Palestinian and Israeli civilians,

Expressing its determination to contribute to ending the violence and to promoting dialogue between the Israeli and Palestinian sides,

Reiterating the need for the two sides to comply with their obligations under the existing agreement,

Reiterating the need for Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949,

1. Demands the immediate cessation of all acts of violence, provocation and destruction, as well as the return to the positions and arrangement which existed prior to September 2000;

2. Condemns all acts of terror, in particular those targeting civilians,

3. Condemns all acts of extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and wide destruction of properties;

4. Calls on the two sides to start the comprehensive and immediate implementation of the recommendations made in the Report of the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee (Mitchell Report) in a speedy manner;

5. Encourages all concerned to establish a monitoring mechanism to help the panics implement the recommendations of the Report of the Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee (Mitchell Report) and to help create a better situation in the occupied Palestinian territories;

6. Calls for the resumption of negotiations between the two sides within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis, taking into consideration developments in previous discussions between the two sides, and urges them to reach a final agreement on all issues, on the basis of their previous agreements, with the objective of implementing its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973);

7. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

[Argus]

Hardly, but I do cut them some slack, and I recognize that circumstances prevent them from behaving the same way as the protected western democracies do. There are overriding security considerations generally caused by Palestinian terrorism which they must cope with.

Nonsense; no one is more protected than Israel;

No one is more threatened than Israel.

financially, militarily, and with getting off on humanitarian and other illegal actions  (US veto).

You mean like Syria does, like India, like Russia, like China, like Indonesia, like Nigeria, like Zimbabwe, like Paragua, like Angola, like Cuba, like Vietnam, like North Korea, like Iran, like Libya, like Kenya, like Sierra Leone, like Mexico, like Cambodia, like.....

[Argus]

We need only look at the information coming out of the UK regarding the terrorist cell there which was trying to forumulate a "dirty" bomb and set it off in London to realize that terrorists have ambitions far beyond what they accomplished on 911, and some of them have a lot of support from Muslim governments.

The same intelligence that claimed Iraq had WMD????

Why not; why wouldn't Muslim countries support them; especially now when Iraq was invaded using invalid and fraudulent excuses. Iraq WAS cooperating with UN weapons inspectors but the USA invaded anyhow.

This is complete bullshit, you know. Iraq threw UN weapons inspectors out. They only slowly and grudgingly began to "cooperate" after a fashion, when the US and UK military buildups were nearing completion.

The USA vetoes any resolution requiring Israel to take responsibility for its illegal actions against the Palestinians.

Please list for me the resolutions which required the Palestinians to take responsibility for their illegal actions against innocent Israelis.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

If that man is morally and intellectually bankrupt perhaps.

I don't condone the terrorist actions but I do not condone Israel's actions either.  Israel has killed many more Palestinians than the reverse.

And you know this because........

[Argus]

Hardly, but I do cut them some slack, and I recognize that circumstances prevent them from behaving the same way as the protected western democracies do. There are overriding security considerations generally caused by Palestinian terrorism which they must cope with.

So, in other words, security concerns trump democratic values. How enlightened.

Yeah, we Canadians are so much more enlightened. Yet I seem to recall that when we had a terrorist problem, granted, a very small terrorist problem compared to theirs, all we did was suspend all civil liberties, put troops in the streets with machine guns, and round up and imprison anyone we even suspected might be sympathetic to the aims of the terrorists. Gee, I wonder what would have happened if we'd had bombs and suicide attacks every other week for years on end.

It is absurd to take from this that there is no threat to the Jewish state. We need only look at the information coming out of the UK regarding the terrorist cell there which was trying to forumulate a "dirty" bomb and set it off in London to realize that terrorists have ambitions far beyond what they accomplished on 911, and some of them have a lot of support from Muslim governments.

It's a matter of scale. There are threats to Israelis, but none pose a legitimate danger to the continued existence of Israel as a national entity.

A single large nuke going off in Tel Aviv would pretty much wipe out Israel's ability to govern itself or to survive as an independant entity. Hell, the place is half the size of nova scotia. But in any case, the threats from terrorism are such they cannot be ignored, and Israel is required to take extraordinary means to guard against them.

Life in much of the middle east is squalid, and nowhere is there the kind of civil rights we enjoy here, or Israelis enjoy - including Israeli Arabs.

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories don't have any of the rights you mentioned, living as they do under the de facto rule of a foreign military.

Please list for me the rights enjoyed by Syrians but not by Palestinians.

It would have had a number. Even failed resolutions have a title and date. I am confident the US would not have vetoed a resolution which "condemned acts of terror" unless it was one-sidedly aimed at Israel and ignored Palestinian terrorism.

The resolution in question.

Okay. I think it's illustrative to recall that at the time this was introduced Israel had endured a number of horrific suicide bombings, and was in the midst of major operations against Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the PLO. I believe this was the time they had Arafat's compound surrounded, wasn't it? The US evidently felt the language was aimed at isolating Israel and was one-sided in that it did not mention the extremist groups and, in effect, called on Israel to halt its operation immediately while condemning the "extra judicial killings" Israel had been involved in.

Clearly the Arab nations who submitted this resolution saw no need for it when Israelis were being blown up in buses, only when Israel was retaliating. Only then did it demand the "immediate cesation of all acts of violence".

[Black Dog]

Yeah, we Canadians are so much more enlightened. Yet I seem to recall that when we had a terrorist problem, granted, a very small terrorist problem compared to theirs, all we did was suspend all civil liberties, put troops in the streets with machine guns, and round up and imprison anyone we even suspected might be sympathetic to the aims of the terrorists. Gee, I wonder what would have happened if we'd had bombs and suicide attacks every other week for years on end.

See, this would only work if i felt the invocation of the War Measures Act was an appopriate response to the FLQ crisis. I don't ,so you don't really have an argument.

A single large nuke going off in Tel Aviv would pretty much wipe out Israel's ability to govern itself or to survive as an independant entity. Hell, the place is half the size of nova scotia. But in any case, the threats from terrorism are such they cannot be ignored, and Israel is required to take extraordinary means to guard against them.

I would agree that imprisoning an entire population in poverty-ridden reservations under military control while enganging in an illegal campaign of collective punishment and expansionism is "extraordinary". What I also find extraordinary is the lengths that people who claim to defend freedom and humanity can go to justify certain crimes. What you're practicing is called moral relevativism; that is, the selective application of moral principles.

Please list for me the rights enjoyed by Syrians but not by Palestinians.

No, because it's irrelevant. The issue is whether Israel behaves in a manner consistent with the principles of a western-style liberal democracy.

Okay. I think it's illustrative to recall that at the time this was introduced Israel had blah blah blah...

Wiggling away again, eh? Funny, first you say "the US would not have vetoed a resolution which "condemned acts of terror" unless it was one-sidedly aimed at Israel and ignored Palestinian terrorism..." Then, when shown that the resolution in fact demanded an end to acts of violence across the board, you wiggle away by impunging the motives of the resoluitions authours in order to justify the double-standard that favours Israel. You're quite the contortionist.

[caesar]

What I said was that if people were really motivated by human rights concerns they would be spending most of their time on the world's worst human rights offenders..

I believe that I checked who was the worst; USA is number two worst offender. hehe

[caesar]

See, this would only work if i felt the invocation of the War Measures Act was an appopriate response to the FLQ crisis. I don't ,so you don't really have an argument.

It worked so it was appropriate and nipped the problem before it grew. How can you argue with success.

The USA does the same on a much larger scale today.

[Argus]

Yeah, we Canadians are so much more enlightened. Yet I seem to recall that when we had a terrorist problem, granted, a very small terrorist problem compared to theirs, all we did was suspend all civil liberties, put troops in the streets with machine guns, and round up and imprison anyone we even suspected might be sympathetic to the aims of the terrorists. Gee, I wonder what would have happened if we'd had bombs and suicide attacks every other week for years on end.

See, this would only work if i felt the invocation of the War Measures Act was an appopriate response to the FLQ crisis. I don't ,so you don't really have an argument.

You're making relativistic moral judgements on the behaviour of the Israelis. I'm pointing out that other nations faced with threats have done and will do the same thing. The Israelis are only unique in that their terrorist threat is far greater and has been far more lasting than that of other nations.

A single large nuke going off in Tel Aviv would pretty much wipe out Israel's ability to govern itself or to survive as an independant entity. Hell, the place is half the size of nova scotia. But in any case, the threats from terrorism are such they cannot be ignored, and Israel is required to take extraordinary means to guard against them.

I would agree that imprisoning an entire population in poverty-ridden reservations under military control while enganging in an illegal campaign of collective punishment and expansionism is "extraordinary". What I also find extraordinary is the lengths that people who claim to defend freedom and humanity can go to justify certain crimes. What you're practicing is called moral relevativism; that is, the selective application of moral principles.

No, what we're doing is practicing logic. It's the understanding that dangerous situations often require unpleasant applications of force to resolve. The Palestinians would be in poverty no matter who was in charge. Nor will they have any freedom, even if the Israelis leave, so that's rather irrelevant.

Please list for me the rights enjoyed by Syrians but not by Palestinians.

No, because it's irrelevant. The issue is whether Israel behaves in a manner consistent with the principles of a western-style liberal democracy.

No, it's not. The issue raised in this thread is why so many people are obsessed with Israel when it is far, far from being the worst human rights violator and when they, at least, as compared to others, have some excuse. You say it's because of the miserable existence of the Palestinians but then decline to show me how their existence - aside from the violence they perpetuate - is any worse than that of their neighbours. The unpleasant fact you choose not to address is that even if Israel leaves they will continue to live in miserable poverty with no human rights whatsoever, just like their Syrian, Egyptian and Lebanese neighbours.

Okay. I think it's illustrative to recall that at the time this was introduced Israel had blah blah blah...

Wiggling away again, eh? Funny, first you say "the US would not have vetoed a resolution which "condemned acts of terror" unless it was one-sidedly aimed at Israel and ignored Palestinian terrorism..."

And then I show that the resolution was one-sided. Yes, so? I'm still interested in the logic behind your hatred of Israel.

[caesar]

Israel does NOT have any excuse for their actions. It is these actions that keep the middle east in a turmoil and bring them danger. It has now spread to North America; thanks to the USA "s complete backing of their aggressive actions against the Palestinians. Israel is well armed and financed by the USA; they are the Goliath against the little David (Palestinians)

[Black Dog]

you're making relativistic moral judgements on the behaviour of the Israelis. I'm pointing out that other nations faced with threats have done and will do the same thing. The Israelis are only unique in that their terrorist threat is far greater and has been far more lasting than that of other nations.

Actually, I'm the only one showing any consistency. The actions of Israel with respect to its Palestinian population have been overwhelmingly inappropriate. Whether other nations have behaved teh same way is irrelevant: it's wrong when Israel does it, it's wrong when Syria does it and it's wrong if Canada were to do it. One standard. No excuses.

It's the understanding that dangerous situations often require unpleasant applications of force to resolve.

Israel has been using "unpleasant applications of force" to "resolve" the question of Palestinian "terror" for a while. What's resulted has been a cycle of violence where Israel has the upper hand due to its military superiority. In other words, Israel's policies not significantly changed the nature of the so-called "threat" to it. The only explanations for the continuation of such a blatantly flawed set of policies is either stubborness or stupidity. Of course the alternative explanation is that Israel's polices are not defensive, but part of a plan to marginalize and ultimately destroy or displace the Palestinian population in the OT and turn the land into Eretz Israel.

The Palestinians would be in poverty no matter who was in charge. Nor will they have any freedom, even if the Israelis leave, so that's rather irrelevant.

How so? If the Palestinians had a viable state, what's to say they wouldn't develop? Or are you simply assuming that brown people don't know how to run themselves?

The issue raised in this thread is why so many people are obsessed with Israel when it is far, far from being the worst human rights violator and when they, at least, as compared to others, have some excuse.

Could it be that so much attention is fixed on Israel precisely because of what I stated earlier, that being that, while not the worst, Israel is definitely behaving in a manner inconsistent with the way democracies should behave.

Let's take a trip in the way back machine to the 1980's, when South African apartheid was a major cause. Africa is rife with totalitarian states and tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts and countless examples of human rights violations. Yet the world's eyes turned to South Africa, a western-style country that was not the worst-behaved nation in Africa, let alone the world. Why? Was it because the mainstream "liberal" media has an anti-Anglo/Dutch bias? Or is something else at work?

The unpleasant fact you choose not to address is that even if Israel leaves they will continue to live in miserable poverty with no human rights whatsoever, just like their Syrian, Egyptian and Lebanese neighbours.

Putting aside what's obviously a racially-based assumption, is it therefore better to let Israel ethnically cleanse the Palestinians than risk a failed Palestinian state? We should simply accept crimes against humanity?

Really your logic is quite alien to me.

And then I show that the resolution was one-sided. Yes, so? I'm still interested in the logic behind your hatred of Israel.

Yu didn't show the resolution was one sided. You cast aspersions, made assumptions and generally shrugged off what, on viewing of the full text, was an even-handed censure of violence in the region. You're either unwilling or unable to admit that US defense of Israel, as well as Israeli actions vis avis the Palestinians, are cynically motivated and morally indefensible. That's why you keep coming back to terms like "hatred". I expect you'll probaby play the antisemetism card again soon.

[Black Dog]

Two girls, two shots to the head

Islam Dwidar's classmates were still taking in her shocking death - the teacher weeping outside before facing the girls, her closest friend recounting how they walked to school together each day - when the news arrived about Tahreer Abu El Jidyan.

The two 15-year-old pupils at Jabaliya's school were both shot in the head by Israeli soldiers inside their homes just a few blocks and several hours apart. Islam died almost immediately after the bullet smashed through her forehead as she baked bread with her mother in their yard on Sunday. Tahreer is still on life support at a Gaza hospital after an operation to remove shards of shattered skull from her brain.

"Oh Tahreer, my heart. I wish I were lying in this bed, not you," she whispered to her child. "She was sweeping the floor in front of the door," said Mrs Abu El Jidyan. "I was standing talking to her. We knew the Israeli soldiers were around, we knew they had snipers in the buildings on our street but we didn't expect what happened. They just shot her in the head. Her brains spilled out. She said: 'Mum, I'm hit'. She praised God and she collapsed."

There were two bullets. The first struck Tahreer in the head. As she fell, the second hit the wall behind her. "I've no doubt a sniper shot her deliberately. There was no fighting in the area. There were no other shots, only the ones that hit Tahreer," said her mother.

Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups say that about half of the nearly 80 people killed by the army over the past week of "Operation Days of Penitence" are civilians. The military says it has carefully targeted Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighters with missile strikes.

But while the numbers are in dispute - in part because it is often hard to say whether youths in their mid to late teens are bystanders or part of the Palestinian resistance - there is no doubt that a growing number of children have been felled by Israeli snipers.

But the killing went on as the conflict claimed the life of another teenage girl in the Gaza strip yesterday. Palestinian medics said Israeli soldiers fired about 20 bullets into 13- year-old Iman al-Hams, including five into her head.

The military said she had entered a forbidden zone in Rafah refugee camp, and that she dropped a bag that soldiers feared was a bomb.

The Palestinians said Iman was walking to school when troops entered the camp and that she dropped her bag as she ran away in fear.

The bag was not found to contain a bomb.

Talk to me some more about the "unpleasant applications of force" that result in teenage girls spilling their brains onto their kitchen floors. Tell me how this makes Israel safer. And whle you're busy trying to cook up some more excuses, chew on this:

No peace process: Sharon aide

The United States on Wednesday evening asked Israel to clarify statements made by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's senior advisor, Dov Weisglass, during an interview to Haaretz that the disengagement plan means a "freezing of the peace process," Israel Radio reported.

 

"The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Weisglass, one of the initiators of the disengagement plan, said in an interview for the Friday Magazine.

"And when you freeze that process," Weisglass added, "you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem.

"Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

"The disengagement is actually formaldehyde," he said. "It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians." 

There it is, from the horse's mouth: no peaceful settlement, no negotiation. They're not interested.

[Argus]

Israel does NOT have any excuse for their actions. 

I'd say suicide bombings and rockets coming across the border gave them plenty of excuse.

It is these actions that keep the middle east in a turmoil and bring them danger.

A more reasonable opinion might be that Arab hatred of Israel and their continued and relentless attacks; military, economic and political, have kept the middle east in turmoil.

Israel is well armed and financed by the USA; they are the Goliath against the little David (Palestinians)

Yes, that seems to bother a lot of people - that the Jews are well-armed this time. No doubt if they'd just die and die and die and never retaliate people would have more sympathy for them. Or not.

[Argus]

Actually, I'm the only one showing any consistency. The actions of Israel with respect to its Palestinian population have been overwhelmingly inappropriate. Whether other nations have behaved teh same way is irrelevant: it's wrong when Israel does it, it's wrong when Syria does it and it's wrong if Canada were to do it. One standard. No excuses.

I've never been a big fan of the "no excuses" school of thought. It's simple, I'll grant you, but it ignores context and reality, which is really what you're consistent at. As I said before, someone who has never known any danger is hardly fit to judge those who have lived with it on a daily basis their entire lives.

Israel has been using "unpleasant applications of force" to "resolve" the question of Palestinian "terror" for a while. What's resulted has been a cycle of violence where Israel has the upper hand due to its military superiority.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not a fan of Sharon and his bull-headed ways. Where we differ is in the habit you guys on the left have of blaming Israel repeatedly, and never casting any blame on the Palestinians. Maybe it's those military uniforms you can't stand. You guys seem to reflexively hate anyone who is military. I am not about to blame Israel ahead of the Palestinians simply because it's stronger and better organized.

In other words, Israel's policies not significantly changed the nature of the so-called "threat" to it. The only explanations for the continuation of such a blatantly flawed set of policies is either stubborness or stupidity.

And the Palestinians? What of them and their deliberate and continued instigation of violence? I mean, was anyone over there under any illusions that if they fired rockets across the border the Israelis would retaliate? But they continue to do so anyway.

The Palestinians would be in poverty no matter who was in charge. Nor will they have any freedom, even if the Israelis leave, so that's rather irrelevant.

How so? If the Palestinians had a viable state, what's to say they wouldn't develop? Or are you simply assuming that brown people don't know how to run themselves?

The Palestinians never HAD a state. There was a chance for a viable state when Israel was created and the Palestinian "state" was to be created out of the remaining territory. But Arab violence and hatred put an end to that. Jordan wound up being carved out of that, and it is a viable state - yet still poverty stricken and with no freedoms. Any state which emerges on the present territory of the Palestinians would have insufficient resources to sustain itself without massive economic aid. As for the "brown people" crack, let us just say that the PLO has given no indication it will govern any differently than the other corrupt, murderous dictators and strongmen in the Arab world.

The issue raised in this thread is why so many people are obsessed with Israel when it is far, far from being the worst human rights violator and when they, at least, as compared to others, have some excuse.

Could it be that so much attention is fixed on Israel precisely because of what I stated earlier, that being that, while not the worst, Israel is definitely behaving in a manner inconsistent with the way democracies should behave.

No. Examine what India has been doing to the people in its rebellious provinces. The mass murder, mass rape, the reports from Amnesty and other international rights agencies of the brutality inflicted on Muslims and Sikhs. And how much international condemnation does this draw? None. The Indian Army and security forces have killed far, far more Muslims than the Israelis have, but no one seems to care, not even other Muslims.

Let's take a trip in the way back machine to the 1980's, when South African apartheid was a major cause. Africa is rife with totalitarian states and tribal, ethnic and religious conflicts and countless examples of human rights violations. Yet the world's eyes turned to South Africa, a western-style country that was not the worst-behaved nation in Africa, let alone the world. Why? Was it because the mainstream "liberal" media has an anti-Anglo/Dutch bias? Or is something else at work?

It was because the people in charge were White. The liberal media and liberal politicians and leftists couldn't stand the thought of Black people being oppressed by White people. It was really that basic, that simple. Black people being oppressed by Black people didn't bother them a bit. This is the hypocrisy of the left.

The unpleasant fact you choose not to address is that even if Israel leaves they will continue to live in miserable poverty with no human rights whatsoever, just like their Syrian, Egyptian and Lebanese neighbours.

Putting aside what's obviously a racially-based assumption,

No, it's culturally based. There are no Arab democracies. There are no Muslim democracies. The behaviour of the PLO towards its people; its corruption, it's extra-judicial executions and murders, the beating and arrest and murder of political opponents of Arafat, all show that Palestine would be no more free than the rest.

And then I show that the resolution was one-sided. Yes, so? I'm still interested in the logic behind your hatred of Israel.

Yu didn't show the resolution was one sided.

It was no more even-handed than the one the US vetoed yesterday. The Arabs never call for an end to violence until after Israel has been attacked and is in the process of retaliating. Then, suddenly, they rush forth a resolution demanding an end to violence. And invariably with one-sided language.

[Argus]

Talk to me some more about the "unpleasant applications of force" that result in teenage girls spilling their brains onto their kitchen floors. Tell me how this makes Israel safer.

I don't know, dude. I haven't defended Israeli policy, merely sought to put it in context. But back to my point again, I notice that your outrage is again selective. You have posted no lengthy, sobby stories of the two Israeli children whose murders sparked this retaliation. The Left never seems to care when Jewish kids or women die.

I wonder why that is.

[Black Dog]

I've never been a big fan of the "no excuses" school of thought. It's simple, I'll grant you, but it ignores context and reality, which is really what you're consistent at. As I said before, someone who has never known any danger is hardly fit to judge those who have lived with it on a daily basis their entire lives.

It's interesting, because one could easily employ the same logic to justify suicide bombing. Indeed, I've run into this elsewhere, where attempts to look at context and such are painted as "defending terrorism". Tthe key difference between your path and mine is that I deplore and condemn acts of terrorism, but use context to explore the causes. You, on the other hand, would use the context or circumstances to excuse or rationalize terror.

Your argument boils down to a plea to sympathy: that we can't judge Israel, because we can't possibly understand their circumstances. That is, of course, crap. Democracies are expected to adhere to certain principles. These principles should be upheld regardless of circumstances, as they are the basis upon which the very notion of liberal democracy rests. Basically, you can't crap all over basic things like human rights and still go around callling yourself a democracy.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not a fan of Sharon and his bull-headed ways. Where we differ is in the habit you guys on the left have of blaming Israel repeatedly, and never casting any blame on the Palestinians. Maybe it's those military uniforms you can't stand. You guys seem to reflexively hate anyone who is military. I am not about to blame Israel ahead of the Palestinians simply because it's stronger and better organized.

I get really tired of people ascribing points of view to me that I've never articulated. You're putting words in my mouth in order to bolster your own morally untenable position. "You guys on the left" dioesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot, as "the left" is not monolithic, nor am I the official spokesman for it.

But you do make an interesting point regarding the disparity in strength and organization between the two sides. I would argue that Israel's superiority means they also have a greater responsibility for operating with caution. For instance, if Israel wants to kill one person, is it necessary to use a helicopter to launch rockets into a crowd? If they have the ability to shoot 15 year old girls in the head, surely they could find more efficient means of carrying out their dubious extra-judicial murders.

And the Palestinians? What of them and their deliberate and continued instigation of violence? I mean, was anyone over there under any illusions that if they fired rockets across the border the Israelis would retaliate? But they continue to do so anyway.

Israel is the aggressor. They are the occupying power, They are the one's colonizing the territories with their continued settlement building, wall construction, and land seizures. That's the instigation.

The Palestinians never HAD a state. There was a chance for a viable state when Israel was created and the Palestinian "state" was to be created out of the remaining territory. But Arab violence and hatred put an end to that. Jordan wound up being carved out of that, and it is a viable state - yet still poverty stricken and with no freedoms.

If we're going to dredge up the history, at least have the honesty to include the bit about how the state of Israel was imposed upon the residents of the area by foreign powers. The main reason being, the western countries didn't want to end up with an influx of Jews.

Any state which emerges on the present territory of the Palestinians would have insufficient resources to sustain itself without massive economic aid.

In other words, it would be just like Israel.

As for the "brown people" crack, let us just say that the PLO has given no indication it will govern any differently than the other corrupt, murderous dictators and strongmen in the Arab world.

Oh? That's not what the Palestinian Constitution says.

Article (1) Palestine is an independent state with full sovereignty, of a republican form of government

....

Article (19)

All Palestinians are equal before the law, and are entitled to enjoy civil and political rights and bear public duties without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, religion, gender, political opinion, or handicap.

In all instances, the term ”Palestinian” or “citizen” in this Constitution refers to both male and female.

Article (20)

Basic Human rights and liberties are binding and must be respected. The State shall guarantee religious, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and liberties to all citizens on the basis of equality and equal opportunity.

No one shall be deprived of his legal competence, basic rights and liberties for political reasons.

Article (21)

Every Palestinian, eighteen years or older shall have the right to vote in accordance with the law. Each Palestinian national shall have the right to enter presidential elections or parliamentarian elections, and/or assume a ministerial or a judicial post. The law shall regulate the required age and other preconditions for assuming these posts.

Article (22)

Women shall have their right to recognition as a person before the law, and shall have their independent financial entity. They shall have the same rights, liberties and duties as men.

Article (23)

Women shall have the right to participate actively in the social, political, cultural and economic aspects of life. The law shall strive to abolish restraints that prevent women from contributing to the building of family and society. The constitutional and legal rights of women shall be safeguarded. Any violation of such rights shall be punishable by law. The law shall also protect their legal inheritance.

Article (24)

Children shall have all the rights guaranteed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

No. Examine what India has been doing to the people in its rebellious provinces. The mass murder, mass rape, the reports from Amnesty and other international rights agencies of the brutality inflicted on Muslims and Sikhs. And how much international condemnation does this draw? None. The Indian Army and security forces have killed far, far more Muslims than the Israelis have, but no one seems to care, not even other Muslims.

I I've said over and over again that I, nor do activists, dictate the headlines or where international attention is focused. I'm pleased to see you take some interest, but would also like to point out that Amensty International does yeoman's work all over the world trying to bring this type of stuff to the world's attention. if it wasn't for them, many global tragedies would be completely unheard of. So they are a good example of why your argument that "the left hates Israel and focuses on them exclusively" is bunk. AI is nominally non-partisan, but inarguably a progressive organization. Oh, and they also talk a lot about Israel.

It was because the people in charge were White. The liberal media and liberal politicians and leftists couldn't stand the thought of Black people being oppressed by White people. It was really that basic, that simple. Black people being oppressed by Black people didn't bother them a bit. This is the hypocrisy of the left.

I'd like to see some evidence to support your outrageous conclusion.

I still find it sad that you can focus so much vitriol on the left, while sparing those from your end of the poliical spectrum, including many responsible for alllowing human tragedies to occur. I guess you expect more from a kid with a mohawk at a peace march than you do of, say, the President of the United States.

No, it's culturally based. There are no Arab democracies. There are no Muslim democracies. The behaviour of the PLO towards its people; its corruption, it's extra-judicial executions and murders, the beating and arrest and murder of political opponents of Arafat, all show that Palestine would be no more free than the rest.

There's very few viable African democracies: does that mean Afaricans are culturally unable to form democracies?

For some one who is droning on about "looking at the context", you sure are selective about when you decide to do so. But I guess making culturally-biased assumptions is easier than asking tricky questions about how so many Arab countries ended up as dictatorships.

It was no more even-handed than the one the US vetoed yesterday. The Arabs never call for an end to violence until after Israel has been attacked and is in the process of retaliating. Then, suddenly, they rush forth a resolution demanding an end to violence. And invariably with one-sided language.

As I pointed out, the very fact of the occupation makes Israel the aggressor.

You have posted no lengthy, sobby stories of the two Israeli children whose murders sparked this retaliation. The Left never seems to care when Jewish kids or women die.

What's stopping you from doing so? I can't say heard anything about the story in question.

Anyway, given the disparity between Palestinian and Israli casualties, is it any wonder there's more sad stories from Gaza and the West Bank? There's simply more stories to tell.

[August1991]

Interesting discussion.

[Argus]

I've never been a big fan of the "no excuses" school of thought. It's simple, I'll grant you, but it ignores context and reality, which is really what you're consistent at. As I said before, someone who has never known any danger is hardly fit to judge those who have lived with it on a daily basis their entire lives.

It's interesting, because one could easily employ the same logic to justify suicide bombing.

Not really. Nowhere will you see me justifying the brutalities some members of the IDF inflict on civilians. I'm aware that a lifetime of this conflict has produced hatred on both sides. But I do not excuse an IDF soldier who deliberately shoots someone who is not threatening him or others. I do not excuse deliberate attacks on civilians by either party. What we were talking about above was not violence but what you might term the oppression Israel inflicts on the Palestinians (searches, road blocks, curfews, prohibitions, etc.). If you want to use the "no excuse" line there I might well agree.

Your argument boils down to a plea to sympathy: that we can't judge Israel, because we can't possibly understand their circumstances. That is, of course, crap. Democracies are expected to adhere to certain principles.

These would be the principles none of us adhered to during our last great war, right? What are there principles we're supposed to adhere to?

and his bull-headed ways. Where we differ is in the habit you guys on the left have of blaming Israel repeatedly, and never casting any blame on the Palestinians. Maybe it's those military uniforms you can't stand. You guys seem to reflexively hate anyone who is military. I am not about to blame Israel ahead of the Palestinians simply because it's stronger and better organized.

I get really tired of people ascribing points of view to me that I've never articulated.

Perhaps you have simply left that impression with your attacks on Israel and your lack of complaints regarding the Palestinians, their leadership, the corruption and their lack of respect for human rights. In any event, since you have been unable to articulate any logical or coherent reason for this fixation on Israel I'm left to try and figure it out on my own. Since you claim it's not anti-semitism, and admit Israel is far from the worst among human rights violators, I thought perhaps the general dislike, fear and contempt expressed by the Left towards the military might be a factor.

"You guys on the left" dioesn't really mean a whole hell of a lot, as "the left" is not monolithic, nor am I the official spokesman for it.

The Left is monolithic to a certain extent, depending on the topic. How much of the left is opposed to same-sex marriage, for example? And the subset of the Left which is most vociferous on the Israeli/Palestine issue does seem to be of a similar mindset, and quite predictable.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not a fan of

But you do make an interesting point regarding the disparity in strength and organization between the two sides. I would argue that Israel's superiority means they also have a greater responsibility for operating with caution.

When you fight in a civilian area there are going to be civilian casualties. There is simply no way around that, no matter how cautious you are.

For instance, if Israel wants to kill one person, is it necessary to use a helicopter to launch rockets into a crowd?

Yes. What's the alternative? Launching a raid into the town? That would require scores, if not hundreds of heavily armed soldiers, probably tanks, as well, and in the shootout going in and out the civilian casualties would almost certainly be far, far higher.

Now whether you can justify civilian casualties in order to murder a terrorist is another point. The Israelis use the theory that if they don't kill so and so that person will plan terrorist raids which will kill many Israelis. By that logic it's better to kill a few innocent Palestinians than a greater number of innocent Israelis. I question the accuracy of the theory, though.

If they have the ability to shoot 15 year old girls in the head, surely they could find more efficient means of carrying out their dubious extra-judicial murders.

It's a matter of getting into the other person's territory. When the PLO or Hamas carries out extra-judicial murders they can do so fairly easily because they are operating in their own territory. When they want to murder Israelis they use rockets, and the accuracy of them leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, it is difficult to argue the rockets used in the recent attack went astray. They were specifically aimed at a civilian residential area with the intent to murder civilians. No doubt those who launched them celebrated their victory.

I continue to find it worth noting that the world community virtually ignores those kinds of attacks, deliberate murders of Israeli civilians, but when the Israelis launch an attack on a terrorist and incidentally or accidentally kill or wound other people we get the United Nations passing resolutions condemning Israel and guys like you writing weepy stories about the poor Palestinian victims.

And the Palestinians? What of them and their deliberate and continued instigation of violence? I mean, was anyone over there under any illusions that if they fired rockets across the border the Israelis would retaliate? But they continue to do so anyway.

Israel is the aggressor. They are the occupying power,

Too simplistic. The Israelis are the occupying power because they were repeatedly attacked and the Arabs always refused to sign peace accords. Right now their big problem with the Palestinians appears to be they don't want a "nation" of agressive, homocidal maniacs living next door to them. Palestinians with home made rockets are bad enough. They don't want Palestinians with jet fighters.

Any state which emerges on the present territory of the Palestinians would have insufficient resources to sustain itself without massive economic aid.

In other words, it would be just like Israel.

Uhm, nope. Israel could survive fine if it wasn't devoting billions to its military and security. Not to mention if all its neighbours didn't hate them and boycotted them economically.

As for the "brown people" crack, let us just say that the PLO has given no indication it will govern any differently than the other corrupt, murderous dictators and strongmen in the Arab world.

Oh? That's not what the Palestinian Constitution says.

Oh spare me. Oh please don't quote me the Palestinian constitution. It's rather meaningless so long as the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and refuses to obey it. The Soviet Union had a high sounding "Constitution" too, but they ignored it in practice.

I I've said over and over again that I, nor do activists, dictate the headlines or where international attention is focused.

Do you similarly have no control over where YOUR attention is focused? Because while I've seen plenty of anti-Israeli posts here from you and others on the left I've yet to hear anyone decry the brutality of the Indians, or the Chinese, or the Indonesians or Nigerians or Zimbabweans.

It was because the people in charge were White. The liberal media and liberal politicians and leftists couldn't stand the thought of Black people being oppressed by White people. It was really that basic, that simple. Black people being oppressed by Black people didn't bother them a bit. This is the hypocrisy of the left.

I'd like to see some evidence to support your outrageous conclusion.

What evidence do you require? You've admitted yourself the SA government was far from the worst in Africa, yet there was an enormous international campaign - largely by the left - to condemn them and unseat them. There have never been any similar campaigns against the brutal dictators who have made Africa a pest-hole for the last fifty years. Why was SA singled out? Because they were democracitic? No, because India does not get similar treatment. No, it was because they were White. Really, it was a patronizing, and somewhat racist attitude. Most of the left never articulated it, but their opinion seemed to be that because they were Whites they should be held to a higher standard.

I still find it sad that you can focus so much vitriol on the left, while sparing those from your end of the poliical spectrum.

Such as? We happen to be discussing Israel, who, even with their faults, I find less savage and less brutal than their neighbours. And unlike you I don't find it odd to focus on the worst offenders first.

No, it's culturally based. There are no Arab democracies. There are no Muslim democracies. The behaviour of the PLO towards its people; its corruption, it's extra-judicial executions and murders, the beating and arrest and murder of political opponents of Arafat, all show that Palestine would be no more free than the rest.

There's very few viable African democracies: does that mean Afaricans are culturally unable to form democracies?

So far - yes. They haven't the traditions of cooperation and independance from tribal elders, nor the education to understand how democratic institutions work.

But I guess making culturally-biased assumptions is easier than asking tricky questions about how so many Arab countries ended up as dictatorships.

I think an unswerving, unquestioning devotion to and obedience of their religion and the words and rules and wisdom of their religious leaders has a lot to do with it.

You have posted no lengthy, sobby stories of the two Israeli children whose murders sparked this retaliation. The Left never seems to care when Jewish kids or women die.

What's stopping you from doing so? I can't say heard anything about the story in question.

No one is stopping me? Why should I? Because I'm on "their" side and you're on the side of the Palestinians? Didn't you say you were neutral and unbiased and dissaproved equally of terrorist incidents? As for you never having heard of it, that really is quite an indictment regarding the depth of your knowledge of the situation there.

[Black Dog]

I do not excuse deliberate attacks on civilians by either party. What we were talking about above was not violence but what you might term the oppression Israel inflicts on the Palestinians (searches, road blocks, curfews, prohibitions, etc.).

Violence, searches, curfews, checkpoints, the division of land: all are part and parcel of the same problem.

These would be the principles none of us adhered to during our last great war, right? What are there principles we're supposed to adhere to?

What does the last great war have to do with anything?

Those would be the principles outlined in the Geneva Conventions and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Perhaps you have simply left that impression with your attacks on Israel and your lack of complaints regarding the Palestinians, their leadership, the corruption and their lack of respect for human rights.

You've simply never asked about it. In any case, the fact is, Israel has the upper hand in the conflict. Israel kills more Palestinains than vice versa. There's also an argument to be made that the conditions of the occupation are not conducive to creating a perfect Palestinian leadership.

. In any event, since you have been unable to articulate any logical or coherent reason for this fixation on Israel I'm left to try and figure it out on my own.

But you see, I don't buy the premise that there is a "fixation" on Israel by what you term "the left". So if your premise is fundamentally flawed, I can't very support it.

The Left is monolithic to a certain extent, depending on the topic. How much of the left is opposed to same-sex marriage, for example? And the subset of the Left which is most vociferous on the Israeli/Palestine issue does seem to be of a similar mindset, and quite predictable.

That's bollocks too. While there's a general consensus across the progressive spectrum on the fact of the problem of the occupation, you'll find a great deal of variance in the nature of the crticisms and approaches.

Besides, what is "the left"?

When you fight in a civilian area there are going to be civilian casualties. There is simply no way around that, no matter how cautious you are.

The queston is whether or not they've been as cautious as they could be.

Yes. What's the alternative? Launching a raid into the town? That would require scores, if not hundreds of heavily armed soldiers, probably tanks, as well, and in the shootout going in and out the civilian casualties would almost certainly be far, far higher.

Snipers today can kill from kilometers away.

It's a matter of getting into the other person's territory. When the PLO or Hamas carries out extra-judicial murders they can do so fairly easily because they are operating in their own territory. When they want to murder Israelis they use rockets, and the accuracy of them leaves something to be desired. On the other hand, it is difficult to argue the rockets used in the recent attack went astray. They were specifically aimed at a civilian residential area with the intent to murder civilians. No doubt those who launched them celebrated their victory.

Your language is disingeous. The "residential area" in question was one of the Israli setttlements. While their can be no doubt the attacks were targetting civilians, from the point of view of Hamas or others, the settlers are occupying Palestinian land. So the same logic that Israel applies when bulldozing Palestinian refugee camps can easily apply to attacks on settlements.

I continue to find it worth noting that the world community virtually ignores those kinds of attacks, deliberate murders of Israeli civilians, but when the Israelis launch an attack on a terrorist and incidentally or accidentally kill or wound other people we get the United Nations passing resolutions condemning Israel and guys like you writing weepy stories about the poor Palestinian victims.

Really? A google search using the term "Israelis killed in rocket attack" turned up several dozen articles. Interestingly, most le doff with the two killed in the settlement, but further down you find information on Palestinians killed in previous incursions by the Israeli army. I think at this point in the conflict, trying to figure out who's retaliating and who's the victim is a pointless excercise. I maintain, however, that Israel is teh aggressor.

Too simplistic. The Israelis are the occupying power because they were repeatedly attacked and the Arabs always refused to sign peace accords.

Yet now, most Arab nations have signed peace accords. As I mentioned earlier, there hasn't been an Arab-Israeli war in over 30 years.

Right now their big problem with the Palestinians appears to be they don't want a "nation" of agressive, homocidal maniacs living next door to them. Palestinians with home made rockets are bad enough. They don't want Palestinians with jet fighters.

I'm finding your racial characterizations increasingly difficult to ignore, and especially ironic in light of your hand-wringing over the precieved antisemetism of the left. It also makes for a bad basis for an argument. By the same token it can be said that the Palestinians are reacting against Israel's occupation.

m, nope. Israel could survive fine if it wasn't devoting billions to its military and security. Not to mention if all its neighbours didn't hate them and boycotted them economically.

Maybe if they pulled out of the OT, stopped trying to ethnically cleanse the OT, they'd meet with a more receptive response. (Oh wait, I forgot: to you them Ay-rabs are all fundamentally bloodthirsty, Jew-hating maniacs).

Oh spare me. Oh please don't quote me the Palestinian constitution. It's rather meaningless so long as the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and refuses to obey it. The Soviet Union had a high sounding "Constitution" too, but they ignored it in practice.

Be that as it may, it's very existence still destroys your point that a Palestinain state would inevitably turn into Syria.

cause while I've seen plenty of anti-Israeli posts here from you and others on the left I've yet to hear anyone decry the brutality of the Indians, or the Chinese, or the Indonesians or Nigerians or Zimbabweans.

Whatever. Consider everybody condemned by me unless explicitly endorsed. Happy?

You've admitted yourself the SA government was far from the worst in Africa, yet there was an enormous international campaign - largely by the left - to condemn them and unseat them. There have never been any similar campaigns against the brutal dictators who have made Africa a pest-hole for the last fifty years. Why was SA singled out? Because they were democracitic? No, because India does not get similar treatment. No, it was because they were White. Really, it was a patronizing, and somewhat racist attitude. Most of the left never articulated it, but their opinion seemed to be that because they were Whites they should be held to a higher standard.

Some actual evidence, like a statement or anything whatsoever by some of th epeople you so resoundingly condemn, would be helpful. Not just more of your opinion.

Such as? We happen to be discussing Israel, who, even with their faults, I find less savage and less brutal than their neighbours. And unlike you I don't find it odd to focus on the worst offenders first.

The point is, you don't focus on anybody. You pay lip service to other places to make rhetorical points, not because you give a crap. I've not seen any posts by you bemoaning the fate of the people oppressed by India, or Syria, or Russia or anywhere unless you bring it up as a weapon in the Israel-Palestine debate. Nor do I see any condemnation of western nations that support regimes in Egypt, Pakistan, Saud Arabia and elsewhere. You're crying crocodile tears.

I think an unswerving, unquestioning devotion to and obedience of their religion and the words and rules and wisdom of their religious leaders has a lot to do with it.

As does the post-colonial legacy of despotic, oppressive regimes installed and backed by western nations, which have created environments where religious extremism has flourished and prevented the development of Arab and Muslim cultures.

No one is stopping me? Why should I? Because I'm on "their" side and you're on the side of the Palestinians? Didn't you say you were neutral and unbiased and dissaproved equally of terrorist incidents? As for you never having heard of it, that really is quite an indictment regarding the depth of your knowledge of the situation there.

No, it's an indictment of my schedule.