Hating a way of life

[Argus]

I don't know how widespread anti-semitism is in society at large, but what I DO know is that your average newspaper reader will nod in agreement to Kofi Annan's insistence that atrocities committed on children in Israel and Palestine are equal in value BECAUSE THE F'ING MEDIA NEVER LAUGHS ITS ASS OFF WHENEVER HE GETS ON ONE OF THOSE RANTS.

Again: what are you basing this on? Surely to god, if this problem were so extensive, you'd have absolutely no trouble finding a citation. So pretty please with sugar on top, provide an example.

Actually, the best example was the last resolution calling on all nations to do their best to ensure that Palestinian children are not harmed in the conflict (I forget the exact wording but that is pretty close).

The second last time this resolution was introduced in the UN Israel tried to have it amended to say "Palestinian AND Israeli children. But the amendment was massively voted down.

Then the last time the resolution, same thing, the Arabs introduce it regularly, was introduced, the Israelis were told that if they didn't object and delay it, and if the resolution could be made unanimous, then they could introduce their own similar resolution and it would be pased. They cooperated, then the Arab countries which had promised Ireland (the head of that particular commitee, i believe at the time) they would not interfere with the Israeli resolution immediately turned around and blocked it, refusing to allow the Israeli motion to come up to a vote. I suppose I could find the details if I put more time into it but I have work tomorrow.

[Guest LLL]

Actually, the best example was the last resolution calling on all nations to do their best to ensure that Palestinian children are not harmed in the conflict (I forget the exact wording but that is pretty close).

The second last time this resolution was introduced in the UN Israel tried to have it amended to say "Palestinian AND Israeli children. But the amendment was massively voted down.

Then the last time the resolution, same thing, the Arabs introduce it regularly, was introduced, the Israelis were told that if they didn't object and delay it, and if the resolution could be made unanimous, then they could introduce their own similar resolution and it would be pased. They cooperated, then the Arab countries which had promised Ireland (the head of that particular commitee, i believe at the time) they would not interfere with the Israeli resolution immediately turned around and blocked it, refusing to allow the Israeli motion to come up to a vote. I suppose I could find the details if I put more time into it but I have work tomorrow.

Argus -

Perfect answer but Black Dog will not accept it as the truth without a backup website.

I suspect he just likes to use other posters as his clipping service.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Funny thing was, as came out later, Israeli reporters are banned from the Palestinian territories by the PLO under threat of death of caught. No protest about that. None.

Actually, Israeli reporters in 'Palestine' are more unwelcome by the IDF . They have said that they refuse to protect them should they come into harm's way, because the IDF doesn't want the beating to death of protesters to be shown on TV. It can make for some 'bad press'. The same goes for the IDF using Palestinian children as target practice; if it was caught on tape, and the soldiers get aquitted, it is that much tougher for the gov't courts to plead 'impartiality'.

There are plenty of reasons to judge Israeli policies badly. But every single one of them calls for judging Arab and Palestinians policies and actions worse.

Indeed, could the french Resistance of WWII be called 'worse' than the Nazi occupation? (Bear in mind, France had it way better than Eastern Europe, while under the jackboot).

So what do we call this disgusting display of one-sidededness when it obviously wasn't over principals at all? What excuse did they really have? Near total ignorance, perhaps

It seems that the media, and the 'nearly totally ignorant' give the rest a choice between a

disgusting display of one-sidededness

for the Israeli's or a

disgusting display of one-sidededness

for the Palestinians.

But, you are right, they both need to be criticized. Suicide-bombing of civilians is disgusting and abhorrent. It is made all the worse because it is so easy to do. It is, in a way, genocide, when directed at a particular identifiable group. The actions of the Israeli's aren't much better, and both sides seem content to trade, what we in the west consider, abhorrent atrocity for abhorrent atrocity.

How to pick sides? Israel's pseudo-democracy (where only the minority Jews can vote)? Or the Palestinian's claim of defending invasion? It is tough to pick a side when neither party has demonstrably shown that they are acting from 'moral high ground'.

[KrustyKidd]

It is tough to pick a side when neither party has demonstrably shown that they are acting from 'moral high ground'.

Well Lonius, so very glad that you opened this up like this. Tough to pick a side when they are both as bad

Easy, if it's a coin toss for morality, go for self interests. To me, my kin, my company, my country, my civilization and even my race be I black, white, yellow or brown to have a crew like Hamas in charge of the land on which Israel now sits is a big down side slide. Israel is more western than the Palestinians, more of a trading partner, more supportive of the US (and the west's wich we are part of) interests in the region. At least far more than the Palestinians ever would be once they team up with all the other right wing and repressive governments in the region which we all know they would.

So, therefore, by default, unless you are a nut, you have to side with Israel in a tie.

[caesar]

Then the last time the resolution, same thing, the Arabs introduce it regularly, was introduced, the Israelis were told that if they didn't object and delay it, and if the resolution could be made unanimous, then they could introduce their own similar resolution and it would be pased. They cooperated, then the Arab countries which had promised Ireland (the head of that particular commitee, i believe at the time) they would not interfere with the Israeli resolution immediately turned around and blocked it, refusing to allow the Israeli motion to come up to a vote. I suppose I could find the details if I put more time into it but I have work tomorrow.

As I have been told many times when citing well known facts (which this certainly isn't) Prove it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

Israel is more western than the Palestinians, more or a trading partner, more supportivbe of the US (and the west's) interests in the region.

Actually, Israel is looking after it's own interests, and is quite derogatory towards the 'the west', the US in particular. (Israel also considers the US as 'unholy'. If a temple or other site is built using 'goy' labour or resources, it can still be deemed to be 'ok' as long as it is sanctified, or 'made kosher' after the filthy unbelievers have left)

So, to qualify, one would naturally pick the lesser of two evils in a tie. Unless you were on the side of law.

[KrustyKidd]

No, I would pick the one that we trade with, that produces goods, that does not use suicide bombers to make a point, that does not keep their people in a state of perpetual misery in order to stay in power and the one that holds elections and allows free anti government protests instead of lynching mobs for suspected spies. I do believe that being anti leadership in Gaza is treading a dangerous line for your life and that of your families. Nice try but really, there is no comparrison from our perspective.

Actually, Israel is looking after it's own interests, and is quite derogatory towards the 'the west', the US in particular.

Like I really dig the French too. But if it came down to a choice to either back Osam Bin Laden and Chirac, guess who? Now if I remember right, there wasn't much rejoicing in Tel Aviv on 911 was there? And if they were not looking out for their own interests they wouldn't deserve to be in power as a government would they.

For some reason you continue to think that a governments responsibility is to first, take care ot the rest of the world rather than their own people. revelations from you saying the US is only looking after their own people and all make it out to be a sin of some kind. Of course they do, and of course they try to be benevolent to the rest of the world. However, in a tie, I'll take a few anit US demonstrations over a team up with Al Queda or Hamas anyday. as would any sane person.

[Guest LLL]

Suicide-bombing of civilians is so easy to do.

Yeah, it's easy.

It's so easy even you can do it.

Can I watch?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

For some reason you continue to think that a governments responsibility is to first, take care ot the rest of the world rather than their own people.

I think that a 'good' gov't should set an example.

"A government is good when those near are happy, and those far off are attracted". Confucius, Analects nos. 44 and 99.

But if it came down to a choice to either back Osam Bin Laden and Chirac, guess who?

Hopefully not 'Black Jaques Chiraq'! At least Bin Laden is honest. (Somewhat kidding here, except Bin Laden is honest)

[Black Dog]

I'm not sure that's his mission, although I'm sure he gets enjoyment from it. I think he's more into manipulating the uneducated and easily persuaded. Colter's work, at least, takes some basic political understanding to enjoy it fully.

BWAHAHAHA! Please: don't flatter yourself.

He says he's like a average joe, but he lives in a 1.2 million house and actually gets tax cuts from Bush. Does this sound like an average joe to you?

At least Moore made his own money, unlike the Yale and Harvard educated scoin of East Coast old money, George W. Bush. Really: the conservative myopia on display is quite fascinating.

Anybody ever listen to Michael Savage? There's a guy who the CRTC would never let through...

Ah yes: Michael Weiner, the ultra racist, homophobic "shock jock". Another example of how conservatives have destroyed the political discourse in America.

So therefore, you admit that those who hate Israel would continue to do so simply because they exist, reguardless of the Palestinian issue. Hence, Israel must have done something to them, or threaten them in some way shape or form. What is that Black Dog? How does Israel threaten the Arabs of the Middle East who are not Palestinians?

Well, there's the simple matter of history. I'm not really up for rehashing the entire history of the Zionist experiment, but the manner of Israel's creation and the subsequent support it recieved from western countries have long stuck in the craw of the Arab world. Add to that the fact that Israel makes a great scapegoat for certain elements in Arab society.

So between blaming the Tsami on Israeli nuclear testing, the Palestinian issue (which Arab countries do less to solve and help than Israel does) how is Israel threatening anybody? What you and the Arabs seem to be on about is the equivilent of Canada making continual war on South Africa for stealing white farmers land. It makes sense to some and it does not make sense to others, but our foreign policy would be dictated by the percieved unfafirness to a majority race issue.

I'm not sure I follow. But as for the point about Arab countries not facilitating a solution to the occupation, how would that be done when the Occupation is a problem of Israel's making?

Now, other than the border despute with five million Palestinians, how does Israel threaten the other 295 million people of the Middle East?

How is that relevant?

I nodded off several times while trying to decide how to answer the post above. And every time I'd nod off I'd fall into the same dream, that I was in a classroom, full of high schoolers

So, basically, you can't back your arguments up and have to resort to this kind of childshness. Loser.

Nonsense. Uneducated sputtering. The reason for the turmoil is the hatred of the Arabs, their religious fanaticism, the corruption, incompetence and stupidity of their leaders, and their continued miltary and economic attacks on the Israelis. The economic disparity between the Israelis and Palestinians? What Marxist drivel is this?

Well, I'll take the comments of an racist like you for what they are worth: sweet F.A.

I know this might confuse you, as you apparently know virtually nothing about race (or anything else), but there really is no racial difference between the Arabs and most Israelis. They are both Semitic people.

Which would make you an anti-semite.

"Semite" is not a race, but a term for peoples who speak Semitic languages. Zionism is based on the notion that Jews are a seperate racial and ethnic group.

Certainly the Americans backed Israel in part because it was a democratic bullwark against the mostly pro soviet Arab states in the middle east. But the US backed Israel out of guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, and then, in large part, because they were friends and allies.

If you were actually aware of history instead of just vomiting up neocon talking points, you'd know that a big reason Israel was formed in the first place was because western nations (including the U.S.) were extremely reluctant to accept the tide of European Jewish refugees (U.S. immigration quotas had kept European Jews out of the United States since the 1920s).

As well, Truman supposted Israel in order to prevent a mass exodus of Jewish voters from the Democratic party in the run up to a election. As Truman himself put it during a 1947 a meeting with U.S. ambassadors to the Middle East, according to William A. Eddy, the ambassador to Saudi Arabia, "I'm sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents."

There was no doubt that Soviet aid would have allowed the Arab states around Israel to overrun them if the US had not supported Israel.

Again, your historical ignorance shines through. Soviet influence in the region was limited at the time The dominant political force in the region was not Soviet Communism, but Arab nationalism. For instance, Egypt's Nasser spent most of the post-war period prior to the Suez crisis negotiating a neutral course between the two superpowers. If anything, U.S. support for Israel forced many Arab countries to seek Soviet aid.

I think the evidence speaks for itself. There are plenty of reasons to judge Israeli policies badly. But every single one of them calls for judging Arab and Palestinians policies and actions worse. Yet, how odd, so many vocal opponents of Israel have not one single solitary critical word to say against the Arabs or the Palestinians.

Putting aside the basic flaw in your premise (that being that being no one defends Palestinian terror and the corruption and despotism of many of the Arab/Muslim regimes), the contrortions of Israel's apologists, people who never miss a chance to excuse an atrocity, demands a response.

Actually, the best example was the last resolution yadda yadda yadda

First: your facts are wrong: Israel simply withdrew its resolution, citing "hostile amendments ".

Certianly, there's no denying the existence of hostility towards Israel at the UN (though I fail to see what the above has to do with LLL's assertion that there's widespread antiIsrael sentiment in the western press).

Of course the other way to look at is that Palestinian children suffer far more from the institutionalized oppression of the occupation than Israel's youngsters do from terrorism.

Well Lonius, so very glad that you opened this up like this. Tough to pick a side when they are both as bad

Easy, if it's a coin toss for morality, go for self interests. To me, my kin, my company, my country, my civilization and even my race be I black, white, yellow or brown to have a crew like Hamas in charge of the land on which Israel now sits is a big down side slide. Israel is more western than the Palestinians, more of a trading partner, more supportive of the US (and the west's wich we are part of) interests in the region. At least far more than the Palestinians ever would be once they team up with all the other right wing and repressive governments in the region which we all know they would.

So, therefore, by default, unless you are a nut, you have to side with Israel in a tie.

How appalling. Israel flagrantly abuses human rights, perpetuates muilitary occupation and ethnic cleansing, but they get a free pass because they look more like us than their neighbours?

Here's a crazy notion: why not come out on the side of peace, justice and the wonderful, humanist ideals of western civilization. That means recognizing and fighting against man's inhumanity to man in whatever form it takes.

No, I would pick the one that we trade with, that produces goods, that does not use suicide bombers to make a point, that does not keep their people in a state of perpetual misery in order to stay in power and the one that holds elections and allows free anti government protests instead of lynching mobs for suspected spies

You mean the country that doesn't need to sacrifice people because it has high-tech weaponry to do its killing? The country that keeps millions imprisoned under martial law and deprived of most of the basic rights that their settler neighbours enjoy (all because of race?) That mercilessly exploits the memory of one of history's great human tragedies to fuel a brutish colonialism? That one?

[Argus]

Then the last time the resolution, same thing, the Arabs introduce it regularly, was introduced, the Israelis were told that if they didn't object and delay it, and if the resolution could be made unanimous, then they could introduce their own similar resolution and it would be pased. They cooperated, then the Arab countries which had promised Ireland (the head of that particular commitee, i believe at the time) they would not interfere with the Israeli resolution immediately turned around and blocked it, refusing to allow the Israeli motion to come up to a vote. I suppose I could find the details if I put more time into it but I have work tomorrow.

As I have been told many times when citing well known facts (which this certainly isn't) Prove it.

See "The rest of the world."

[Argus]

Nonsense. Uneducated sputtering. The reason for the turmoil is the hatred of the Arabs, their religious fanaticism, the corruption, incompetence and stupidity of their leaders, and their continued miltary and economic attacks on the Israelis. The economic disparity between the Israelis and Palestinians? What Marxist drivel is this?

Well, I'll take the comments of an racist like you for what they are worth: sweet F.A.

If they were with "sweet F.A." then why respond? What evidence do you have of my "racism"? Is it racist to judge people by their actions? Is it racist to judge nations by their actions? Are you so politically correct you believe it wrong to judge anyone for anything? Well, apparently not, as you feel no difficulty in judging those who disagree with you, casting insults at them and instantly dismissing their value.

I know this might confuse you, as you apparently know virtually nothing about race (or anything else), but there really is no racial difference between the Arabs and most Israelis. They are both Semitic people.

Which would make you an anti-semite.

No, I judge peoples based on their behaviour. You appear to judge peoples based on whether they're Jewish or not.

Certainly the Americans backed Israel in part because it was a democratic bullwark against the mostly pro soviet Arab states in the middle east. But the US backed Israel out of guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen, and then, in large part, because they were friends and allies.

If you were actually aware of history instead of just vomiting up neocon talking points, you'd know that a big reason Israel was formed in the first place was because western nations (including the U.S.) were extremely reluctant to accept the tide of European Jewish refugees (U.S. immigration quotas had kept European Jews out of the United States since the 1920s).

I think I acknowledged that in what I wrote. But national guilt existed over that anti-semitism (clearly not among the anti-semites like you, of course). And it seemed a fair thing to hand a tiny sliver of the mideast over the Jews who had been trying to create a safe Jewish homeland for so long.

There was no doubt that Soviet aid would have allowed the Arab states around Israel to overrun them if the US had not supported Israel.

Again, your historical ignorance shines through. Soviet influence in the region was limited at the time The dominant political force in the region was not Soviet Communism, but Arab nationalism.

At which time? I'm talking about U.S. support for Israel throughout the last forty years.

Actually, the best example was the last resolution yadda yadda yadda

First: your facts are wrong: Israel simply withdrew its resolution, citing "hostile amendments ".

The resolution was to condemn the violence done to Israeli children. The "hostile amendments" removed the words "Israeli children", and added words about the occupation and Israeli violence. Gee, what a surprise they withdrew it.

Of course the other way to look at is that Palestinian children suffer far more from the institutionalized oppression of the occupation than Israel's youngsters do from terrorism.

as opposed to the institutionalized oppression of the Palestinian Authority? Or the institutionalized repression of the Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian, Libyan, Yemeni, Sudanese, Moroccan and Iranian governments? How about the 13 year old girl the Iranians are set to execute because she reported that her older brother had had sex with her?

And what, exactly was wrong with a resolution condemning violence against them?

How appalling. Israel flagrantly abuses human rights, perpetuates muilitary occupation and ethnic cleansing, but they get a free pass because they look more like us than their neighbours?

How about siding with the side which is less vicious, violent and hateful? The one which doesn't have a culture of praise for suicide bombing and terrorism?

Here's a crazy notion: why not come out on the side of peace, justice and the wonderful, humanist ideals of western civilization. That means recognizing and fighting against man's inhumanity to man in whatever form it takes.

And how would noble notions like that allow us to allign ourselves as wholeheartedly and unquestioningly with the Palestinians as you do?

[KrustyKidd]

How appalling. Israel flagrantly abuses human rights, perpetuates muilitary occupation and ethnic cleansing, but they get a free pass because they look more like us than their neighbours?

I think that a Morrocan Israeli would laugh at you Black Dog. Unless you are very dark or olive skinned they really look no more like your average white person or balck person, Chinese person than you do. Matter of fact, when I was over there I couldn't tell the difference except for tell tale signs like wrting, language and behavior.

Now, if you would be a good boy, and read the history of that comment. It was in response to Lonius who stated that he did not side with either because they, to him, were both the same. I gave reasons why if that was the case, he should side with the people that he held more comon values with. So, if you like to sacrifice your children in Jihad, produce no goods for market trade, rejoice when westerners die, call for the destruction of your neighbor rather than compromise, live under a dictatorship, and have the opinion that your children for generations will live in poverty or see thier enemy destroyed and no inbetween then by all means, back Palestinians as a default mode. Oh yes, and have a really close working relationship with all sorts of terrorist organizations that are commited to destroying not only the US, but Canada, France and lots of others.

Well, there's the simple matter of history. I'm not really up for rehashing the entire history of the Zionist experiment, but the manner of Israel's creation and the subsequent support it recieved from western countries have long stuck in the craw of the Arab world.

Well, if there is something the Israel must do to make peace with the entire Arab world that directly affects the entire Arab world minus Palestians, I have never heard of it therefore to melyou wouldn't be rehashing a thing. Please show me the horrible thing that Israel has directly done to the Muslims of the world and that affects them so deeply to this day that they cannot recognize the she even exists.

Add to that the fact that Israel makes a great scapegoat for certain elements in Arab society.

Ahh, the truth. Black Dog, I thought you had lost it.

I'm not sure I follow. But as for the point about Arab countries not facilitating a solution to the occupation, how would that be done when the Occupation is a problem of Israel's making?

Syria Jordan Egypt all occupy parts of historical Palestinian land. So why are they not attacked and hated?

How is that relevant?

You brought it forth into the discussion here.

BD

The Occupation and colonization of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the resulting the economic and political disparity between Israelis and the people they occupy is the primary source of conflict in the region today.

End the occupation and the bulk of the violence will end with it.

I'm not sure I follow. But as for the point about Arab countries not facilitating a solution to the occupation, how would that be done when the Occupation is a problem of Israel's making?

How does Israel create conflict with anybody other than Palestinians which is essentially a sort of civil war between them and them only? If you cannot answer that then, in your book, Arabs are either mindless bigots, grudge holding hillbillies or simply hate mongerers. Where is this valid reason?

We all have problems with the foreign policies and actions of various countries, yet deal with them, and still maintain trade and cultural relations as well. The Arabs deal with the US, they deal with France, they also deal with China and Russia and all of those countries that have repressed some group on the planet at some time. Yet Israel is singled out. Explain what Israel does to them directly please.

Well, I'll take the comments of an racist like you for what they are worth: sweet F.A.

I won't raise my concern to this level, but unless you can show in any sense that Israel is oppressing the entire Middle East and why Israel is justifiably "the primary source of conflict in the region today" I would begin to lean that way and wonder if it was because you were a mindless Liberal following the historical liberal trend or that you simply hated Jews period. Because as far as I can see, the only people who have any rightful grudge or issue here is the Palestinians, and even that is arguable if one takes into account much of the entire history. Like why don't the Arabs make the Kurds their pet oppressed people to rally around? What the hell, why don't you?

What we are taliking about here is not that particular issue but the direct threat, transgression or whatever you want to call it against the entire Arab people of the Middle East by Israel. Show it to us please or just scale this Palestinian issue down to what it really is, a civil war and nothng else.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Is it racist to judge people by their actions? Is it racist to judge nations by their actions?

Technically, a statement like that is patently 'racist', if you are judging every individual of a nation by the actions of the gov't, or it's religious leaders, when they are, by default, the minority. That is exactly what racism is, judging others by the judgement you have placed upon a group they belong to, be it religious or (especially) ethnic divisions. It makes one appear racist if one begins tirades starting with "Those...."

[Guest eureka]

In some of your arguments, Argus, you fail to differentiate betwee Israeli Government policy carried out through its military and Palestinian "terrorists."

Far more Palestinian children have died, for one example, than Israeli. They have dies at the hands of Isralei soldiers: Israelis are dying from suicide bombings that are not ordered by the Palestinian authority.

That is also the difference in approach to the UN resolution. The Israelis have the ability to stop tje slaughter: the Palestinian authority does not. On the Palestinian side, it cannot end since much of it is individual or group action for revenge, until Israel has attempted to bring about a real settlement.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Is it racist to judge people by their actions? Is it racist to judge nations by their actions?

Technically, a statement like that is patently 'racist', if you are judging every individual of a nation by the actions of the gov't, or it's religious leaders, when they are, by default, the minority. That is exactly what racism is, judging others by the judgement you have placed upon a group they belong to, be it religious or (especially) ethnic divisions. It makes one appear racist if one begins tirades starting with "Those...."

Firstly, you are incorrect. Racism is judging people based on the race they belong to. It is presuming your own race, ie. caucasions, are genetically superior to another race. Now judging individual people based on the actions or perceived actions of the whole of those people would be bigotry. Ie, you are bigoted against Italians in general because you had a bad experience with "some" Italians when you visited there.

Now, let's look at Palestinians. Should I judge them all (not as inviduals but as a group) based on the behaviour of, say, suicide bombers? That would be unfair, perhaps. But what if surveys show widespread support among Palestinians for the tactics of suicide bombers? What if suicide bombers are known as community heros, their pictures posted on walls and in shops, their actions and killings spoken about with admiration, their surviving relatives congratulated? Could I not then judge the Palestinian people by my standards without bigotry or racism? I believe I can and have. Now if I apply that judgement to an individual Palestinian I meet, assuming he is a supporter of murder and terrorism without even talking to him I would be guilty of bigotry to some extent, but still not racism.

The sweeping belief that we cannot judge others, other nations, or groups of people based on their actions is inane. Of course we can. And should. Interestingly, the people who are most zealous in opposing such judgements are the first to judge Americans badly in almost all things. They do not see their hypocrisy. But then, they are generally not too bright.

[Guest LLL]

Israel was formed because western nations (including the U.S.) were extremely reluctant to accept the tide of European Jewish refugees ......

I wouldn't ask anyone else to prove the above statement, but since Black Dog is responsible for my having to pay a bundle to my private psychiatrist to get me back on track after BD's "PROVE IT!!!" bombardment, I will.

PROVE IT BUSTER!!!!

Again, your historical ignorance shines through. If anything, U.S. support for Israel forced many Arab countries to seek Soviet aid.

Why the Soviets would ever do such a stupid thing is what I'd like to know.

But due to my historical ignorance, and because I suspect that you're still proud as a peacock of the Soviets for aiding the Arabs back then, I won't ask.

[Argus]

Far more Palestinian children have died, for one example, than Israeli. They have dies at the hands of Isralei soldiers:

Accidentally, for the most part.

Israelis are dying from suicide bombings that are not ordered by the Palestinian authority.

bombings which often deliberately target children, bombings which are supported by the Palestinian people, who celebrate each "success".

Have you ever seen a crowd of Israelis dancing and squealing with joy before the cameras because one of their tanks killed a dozen innocent Palestinians? Yet we often see celebrating Palestinians when some suicide bombers has blown up a bus load of mostly kids, or blown up a disco or restaurant.

The Israelis have the ability to stop tje slaughter: the Palestinian authority does not.

I doubt that the violence would stop unless the Israelis collectively commited suicide. And I doubt the Palestinian Authority is as hepless as you are suggesting. If they seriously wanted to cut down on attacks on Israelis they could do so. They know perfectly well who is organizing them, after all. These are not acts of individual revenge, but organized attacks.

[Guest LLL]

Far more Palestinian children have died, for one example, than Israeli. They have dies at the hands of Isralei soldiers:

Accidentally, for the most part.

I wish you left out the "for the most part".

Or do you believe stillbirths, childhood illnesses, accidents that befall Palestinian kids to be the fault of the Israelis too?

Born with two heads & five noses because you married your cousin? Sharon's damned fault!

Why not? A leading newspaper in Egypt last week blamed the tsumami on the Jews & Infidels.

[Argus]

Far more Palestinian children have died, for one example, than Israeli. They have dies at the hands of Isralei soldiers:

Accidentally, for the most part.

I wish you left out the "for the most part".

I know the hatred some Israelis feel for Arabs. How could they not, given they have been surrounded, and besieged by them for fifty years? Think of what that does to the mindset, the knowledge that these people are trying to get at you any way they can, by swimming, by snorkling, by cutting through fences, or digging under them, any way they can, just to die killing Israelis. And occasionally succeeding. (note, you Palestinian lovers, I can also see why they would hate Israelis).

Given that level of hatred I have little doubt that there have been the occasional brutal killing commited. I have seen the way some IDF troops can treat Arabs as non-humans. I have seen some of the brutality. I vividly remember one Arab trying to argue with an IDF trooper who wouldn't let him past. The IDF guy casually shot him in the lower leg, with about as much emotion as you'd brush off a fly. And this was with reporters around. Think of how much less restrained they might be when alone.

Westerners have a tendency to think of Israelis as being the same as us. They are not. Almost all Israeli men have served in the military, and most are members of the reserve. They have faced the hostility and hatred of Palestinians, been shot at, stoned, sneered, shouted and spit at too many times. It is the nature of such work that it hardens those who do it. You see it in police who work in slum areas, becoming immune to violence. You see it even more often in soldiers forced to act as police over hostile populations. You saw it in the British troops in Northern Ireland. You are probably seeing it among American troops in Iraq, by now. It is the nature of the human beast. Hostility breeds hostility. Hatred breeds hatred.

If you don't think IDF troops have flat out murdered Palestinians on occasion you really don't understand how people are put together.

[Guest LLL]

If you don't think IDF troops have flat out murdered Palestinians on occasion you really don't understand how people are put together.

I thought we were talking about killing little children.

[Guest eureka]

LLL, your ignorance is palpable. What BD posted about the refusal of Western nations to accept Jewish immigrants and refugees is known to any who have not spent their lives incommunicado. Their have been countless stories about that for many years and embarrasses apologies in these apologetic times. Now, if only we could do a little more than apologize!

Your statement that the Palestinians target little children is reprehensible. The Palestinian sucide bombers attacks are often reandom and do not discriminate. When they do target anyone, their targets are more likely to be with tactical intent. The blunt reality is that far more Palestinians are killed by the IDF than Israelis by Palestinian actions. The Israeli actions are deliberate and without discrimination. They bomb and bulldoze and kill Palestinian children almost casually.

BD referred to the French resistance: something that I have also done in the past. There, the Resistence wa a terror campaign to the Germans and a movement of heroes to the occupied country. The situation is not that much different in Palestine today.

Sweeping statements about the Arab world and the Middle East have nothing at all to do with this. It matters not at all who threatened who at some time or other. It does not matter either that Israel acted at times from its sense of insecurity. All that can be dealt with when Israel drops its belief that it has a God given right to whatever lands it feels are its biblical entitlement.

[Guest LLL]

LLL, your ignorance is palpable. What BD posted ...

BD just insulted the Jews in a big way, insinuating that Israel was formed because nobody else wanted them.

And you're giving ME shit?

What nerve.

The least he could do is apologize, don't you think?

Or prove it!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

It is the nature of such work that it hardens those who do it. You see it in police who work in slum areas, becoming immune to violence. You see it even more often in soldiers forced to act as police over hostile populations. You saw it in the British troops in Northern Ireland. You are probably seeing it among American troops in Iraq, by now.

An excellent post. I have quoted some of it because it is very true, and truly understandable to only a few. There are some IDF soldiers who disagree with gov't policy, and some refuse to serve 'in the territories'. Their conscience won't allow them to be put in a position to have duty usurp morality. Still, it has to be tough for them. The IDF (made of militia, or everyday people) has as it's main duty the protection of Israel and it's people, but sometimes the orders, such as demolishing homes out of revenge, goes beyond what they feel is legitimate defence.

A good read about this very thing can be found in "Intifada", by Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari, two top Israeli reporters.

[Black Dog]

What evidence do you have of my "racism"?

A quick seach through the threads revealed some of the following Argus tidbits re: Arabs

"Crazed turbanheads"

"Psychotic"

"fanatical"

"vicious"

That's a damn sight more evidence than you've ever produced of my allegged hatred of Jews.

Is it racist to judge people by their actions? Is it racist to judge nations by their actions?

It is racist to make no distinction between the actions of individuals or nations and the race involved. It's never "anti-israel Arab governments" or "Hamas"; it's always "the Arabs".

A simple test is to see if the same terminology would be considered racist if applied to another race: ie. "vicious Jews", "craze yarmulke-heads". Gee, why that would be anti-Semetism!

No, I judge peoples based on their behaviour. You appear to judge peoples based on whether they're Jewish or not.

No, you judge a race based on the behavior of individuals and nation-states. I judge Israel for its actions. You've never offered a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The resolution was to condemn the violence done to Israeli children. The "hostile amendments" removed the words "Israeli children", and added words about the occupation and Israeli violence. Gee, what a surprise they withdrew it.

See my previous point regarding Israel's occupation and its impact on Palestinian children.

Article.

Over one in five Palestinian children in the West Bank and Gaza (22.5 percent) now suffers from chronic or acute malnutrition. About one in five is anemic. This mass of hungry humanity amounts to a population the size of Minneapolis, about 380,000 kids.

Israel has also killed more than 500 children since September 2000 and keeps hundreds more imprisoned.

as opposed to the institutionalized oppression of the Palestinian Authority? Or the institutionalized repression of the Syrian, Saudi, Egyptian, Libyan, Yemeni, Sudanese, Moroccan and Iranian governments? How about the 13 year old girl the Iranians are set to execute because she reported that her older brother had had sex with her?

Again, this is irrelevant, as no one is defending any of this, where as you are taking great pains to apologize for Israel's many crimes.

How about siding with the side which is less vicious, violent and hateful?

Refresh my memory: who's occupying who, again?

It was in response to Lonius who stated that he did not side with either because they, to him, were both the same. I gave reasons why if that was the case, he should side with the people that he held more comon values with. So, if you like to sacrifice your children in Jihad, produce no goods for market trade, rejoice when westerners die, call for the destruction of your neighbor rather than compromise, live under a dictatorship, and have the opinion that your children for generations will live in poverty or see thier enemy destroyed and no inbetween then by all means, back Palestinians as a default mode. Oh yes, and have a really close working relationship with all sorts of terrorist organizations that are commited to destroying not only the US, but Canada, France and lots of others.

Rubbish. A false dichotomy if there ever was one. This is not a choice between "Israelis and Palestinians". One can reject the crimes of both. For instance, I can reject Israel's practices of extrajudicial murder, collective punishment and ethnic cleansing, while praising the work of Israelis like those in Gush Shalom or the IDF refusniks, Israelis who also stand for real values. Similarily, one can reject Palestinaian terror groups like Hamas whle recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security.

Please show me the horrible thing that Israel has directly done to the Muslims of the world and that affects them so deeply to this day that they cannot recognize the she even exists.

Well, Israel's occupation began in 1967. What happened before that?

Furthermore, your facts are wrong: most of Israel's foes have recognized its existence, including Egypty, Jordan and the PLO.

Syria Jordan Egypt all occupy parts of historical Palestinian land. So why are they not attacked and hated?

Are any of these countries practicing race-based colonization of these areas, all the while claiming to be upholding democratic values?

What we are taliking about here is not that particular issue but the direct threat, transgression or whatever you want to call it against the entire Arab people of the Middle East by Israel. Show it to us please or just scale this Palestinian issue down to what it really is, a civil war and nothng else.

Waitaminute: your premise is crap. For one thing, there does exist a informal eminity towards Israel, based on current factors such as the occupation as well as historical ones. But there's no ongoing physical conflict between Israel and its neighbours, just a lot of propaganda.

I wouldn't ask anyone else to prove the above statement, but since Black Dog is responsible for my having to pay a bundle to my private psychiatrist to get me back on track after BD's "PROVE IT!!!" bombardment, I will.

PROVE IT BUSTER!!!!

OK.

Immigration Policies

BD just insulted the Jews in a big way, insinuating that Israel was formed because nobody else wanted them.

Huh? How did I insult Jews by acknowledging western antisemetism?