Hanging Europe's Jews out to dry

[jbg]

The vast majority of countries wouldn't have done what Israel has done to earn the wrath of every single nation in the area. But I digress, I am not defending the actions of either the PLO or Hezbollah, I am pointing out that Israel is just as bad and in the grand scheme probably lower on the moral scale.

As far as "earn(ing) the wrath of every single nation in the area" any non-Islamic nation in an area of Islamic ones is marked for death. Just ask Lebanon's Christians, the Coptic Egyptians, or Hindu India.

Apparently next to you I know a staggering amount. There are significant portions of Lebanon where there is strong support for Hezbollah, apparently you are unaware of the religious weighting system used to bias the elections in Lebanon, the one where the vast majority of votes (Muslims) are LITERALLY counted for the same amount as the minute minority (Christians). Try actually doing some research on Lebanese elections.

Oh yes, "elections" in an area where the "Hezbollah Party" is armed to the teeth. How would you like the CPC to enter the next elections armed in that manner?

[Yaro]

Sorry to be so laggard in my reply. Here is the information you asked for regarding the intent of Sheik Nasrallah from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Nasrallah. If you are unable to accept the sources linke at the end of the article, you may need to read Arabic to find the originals online/

<begin Quote>

Views on Israel

Speaking at a graduation ceremony in Haret Hreik, Nasrallah announced on October 22, 2002: "if they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."[7][8] The New York Times qualifies this as "genocidal thinking"[9], whereas the New York Sun likens it to the 1992 Hezbollah statement, which vowed, "It is an open war until the elimination of Israel and until the death of the last Jew on earth."[10] Michael Rubin qualifies his goal as genocide too, quoting Nasrallah ruling out "co-existence with" the Jews or "peace", as "they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment."[11] The Age quotes him like so: "There is no solution to the conflict in this region except with the disappearance of Israel."[12]

Despite declaring "death to Israel" in his public appearances, Nasrallah said in an interview to The New Yorker, "at the end of the road no one can go to war on behalf of the Palestinians, even if that one is not in agreement with what the Palestinians agreed on." [13] When asked whether he was prepared to live with a two-state settlement between Israel and Palestine, he said he would not sabotage what is a Palestinian matter. [14].

In another interview with the Washington Post, Nasrallah said "I am against any reconciliation with Israel. I do not even recognize the presence of a state that is called "Israel." I consider its presence both unjust and unlawful. That is why if Lebanon concludes a peace agreement with Israel and brings that accord to the Parliament our deputies will reject it; Hezbollah refuses any conciliation with Israel in principle." [15].

<end quote>

Point conceded that there are many members of Hezbollah that are indeed genocidal in ideology. However Hezbollah does not represent Lebanon, they are a single party with marginal authority.

But if you want a war of quotes concerning Lebanon ok easy enough. The only difference is that the quotes I provide will be from influential people in real positions of power.

For example on Lebanon

'The Muslims rule of Lebanon is artificial and easily undermined. A Christian state ought to be set up whose southern borders would be Litani River. Then we'll form an alliance with it."

Ben-Gurion

On what is considered modern Palestine

"I am satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."

Ben-Gurion

On the plans for establishing Israel, a land not as currently defined but as biblically defined as the land of milk and honey which measures most of the middle east.

"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country."

Ben-Gurion

"I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim."

Ben-Gurion

"the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity."

Ben-Gurion

On Transjordon

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."

Ben-Gurion

I could go on for a while but if your more interested in the philosophies of what many consider the father of modern Israel then I suggest you read one of the many good books on the man.

So lets move on to another man who many consider to be one of the forefathers of Israel. In many ways Moshe Sharett was one of the most moderate of the Zionists and so I would hate to paint him with the brush of many others but perhaps it should be understood that the following is the thoughts of a man who perhaps more then any other Zionist had compassion for the resident Arabs in Israel.

On the formation of Israel

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [but] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.

Moshe Sharett

On the first of the transfers of Arabs, the ethnic cleansing designed to bring about a Jewish majority in Palestine

"The proposed Jewish state [referring to the proposed 1937 Peel Commission partition plan] territory would not be continuous; its borders would be twisted and broken; the question of defending the frontier line would pose enormous difficulties .... the frontier line would separate villages from their fields .... Moreover the [Palestinian] Arab reaction would be negative because they would lose everything and gain almost nothing ..... in contrast to us they would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be a loss to the hinterland Arab states..... It would mean that they would be driven back to the desert ('Zorkim Otam') .... A Jewish territory [state] with fewer Arab subjects would make it easy for us but it would also mean a procrustean bed for us while a plan based on expansion into larger territory would mean more [Palestinian] Arab subjects in the Jewish territory.

For the next 10 years the possibility of transferring the Arab population would not be 'practical'. As for the long-term future: I am prepared to see in this a vision, not a mystical way but in a realistic way, of a population exchange on a much more important scale and including larger territories. As for now, we must not forget who would have to exchange the land? those villages which live more than others on irrigation, on orange and fruit plantations, in houses built near water wells and pumping stations, on livestock and property and easy access to markets. Where would they go? What would they receive in return? ... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. At this stage let us not entertain ourselves with the analogy of population transfer between Turkey and Greece; there were different conditions there. Those Arabs who would remain would revolt; would the Jewish state be able to suppress the revolt without assistance from the British Army?"

Moshe Sharett

It is at this point which it becomes important to understand the conditions under which early Israel existed. Only Jews could own land, only Jews could vote, and only Jews could have any kind of job of significance. Quite literally this may have been the most singularly racist country in the world in the 20th century. Moshe Sharett didn't want bloodshed, he wanted a peaceful expulsion of Arabs from Greater Israel (an intermediary between current Israel and "the land of milk and honey"). However he had no reservations about the issue that Israel (greater or the land of milk and honey) is Jewish and everyone else should leave.

I'm tired its late so I am going to give a few more names and maybe come back and make a few more comments but I grow tired of debating this with people who's knowledge is to say the least shallow and peripheral.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky

Chaim Weizmann

Yosef Weitz

[daddyhominum]

quotes I provide will be from influential people in real positions of power.

Not looking for a war of any kind. I thought you asked me to produce evidence that Hizbullah was determined to wipe Israel off the map, so I did.

For example on Lebanon

'The Muslims rule of Lebanon is artificial and easily undermined. A Christian state ought to be set up whose southern borders would be Litani River. Then we'll form an alliance with it."

Ben-Gurion

On what is considered modern Palestine

"I am satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state--we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."

Ben-Gurion

On the plans for establishing Israel, a land not as currently defined but as biblically defined as the land of milk and honey which measures most of the middle east.

"No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ..... Our possession is important not only for itself ... through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state .... will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country."

Ben-Gurion

"I don't regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim."

Ben-Gurion

"the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity."

Ben-Gurion

On Transjordon

"The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision. We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today--but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them."

Ben-Gurion

I could go on for a while but if your more interested in the philosophies of what many consider the father of modern Israel then I suggest you read one of the many good books on the man.

So lets move on to another man who many consider to be one of the forefathers of Israel. In many ways Moshe Sharett was one of the most moderate of the Zionists and so I would hate to paint him with the brush of many others but perhaps it should be understood that the following is the thoughts of a man who perhaps more then any other Zionist had compassion for the resident Arabs in Israel.

On the formation of Israel

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [but] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we cease to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.

Moshe Sharett

On the first of the transfers of Arabs, the ethnic cleansing designed to bring about a Jewish majority in Palestine

"The proposed Jewish state [referring to the proposed 1937 Peel Commission partition plan] territory would not be continuous; its borders would be twisted and broken; the question of defending the frontier line would pose enormous difficulties .... the frontier line would separate villages from their fields .... Moreover the [Palestinian] Arab reaction would be negative because they would lose everything and gain almost nothing ..... in contrast to us they would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such ... They would lose the richest part of Palestine; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be a loss to the hinterland Arab states..... It would mean that they would be driven back to the desert ('Zorkim Otam') .... A Jewish territory [state] with fewer Arab subjects would make it easy for us but it would also mean a procrustean bed for us while a plan based on expansion into larger territory would mean more [Palestinian] Arab subjects in the Jewish territory.

For the next 10 years the possibility of transferring the Arab population would not be 'practical'. As for the long-term future: I am prepared to see in this a vision, not a mystical way but in a realistic way, of a population exchange on a much more important scale and including larger territories. As for now, we must not forget who would have to exchange the land? those villages which live more than others on irrigation, on orange and fruit plantations, in houses built near water wells and pumping stations, on livestock and property and easy access to markets. Where would they go? What would they receive in return? ... This would be such an uprooting, such a shock, the likes of which had never occurred and could drown the whole thing in rivers of blood. At this stage let us not entertain ourselves with the analogy of population transfer between Turkey and Greece; there were different conditions there. Those Arabs who would remain would revolt; would the Jewish state be able to suppress the revolt without assistance from the British Army?"

Moshe Sharett

It is at this point which it becomes important to understand the conditions under which early Israel existed. Only Jews could own land, only Jews could vote, and only Jews could have any kind of job of significance. Quite literally this may have been the most singularly racist country in the world in the 20th century. Moshe Sharett didn't want bloodshed, he wanted a peaceful expulsion of Arabs from Greater Israel (an intermediary between current Israel and "the land of milk and honey"). However he had no reservations about the issue that Israel (greater or the land of milk and honey) is Jewish and everyone else should leave.

I'm tired its late so I am going to give a few more names and maybe come back and make a few more comments but I grow tired of debating this with people who's knowledge is to say the least shallow and peripheral.

Ze'ev Jabotinsky

Chaim Weizmann

Yosef Weitz

I hold that extinguishment of Israel is different from expanding the state of Israel and that killing Israelis is far different from Israel including Arabs in the state of Israel.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Isr...d_its_aftermath

The Arab Higher Committee of Amin al-Husayni

Main article: Amin al-Husayni

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."[citation needed] He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."[19] [20] In the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, such statements by Arab leaders (along with the Mufti's violently antisemitic history) led to a widespread belief that the Israelis were facing a new “warrant for genocide.”[citation needed]

[Argus]

Sigh, you start off talking about Hezbollah a group that was started for the express purpose of fighting off Israels occupation and then go into talking about the PLO? you do realize they are different enemies right? As for intolerable situations, Israel has killed 3 times as many civilian Palestinians as the total combined deaths in Israel from all terrorist attacks, that number includes a 5-1 ratio of child deaths.

Well gee, I guess that tells us all we need to know. Of course, since the Americans killed far more Germans than the Germans did Americans I guess there's no question that the Germans were the good guys in world war two.

The PLO violated the July 1981 cease-fire agreement repeated, and staged close to 300 terrorist actions in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and along the Lebanese and Jordanian borders.

Once again, cease fires have been broken by Israel EVERY SINGLE TIME, there has not been a single cease fire in which Israel has not continued to attempt assassinations on PLO or Hezbollah members. They simply haven't been calling it a break in the cease fire.

There has never been a cease fire where the PLO or other such ilk did not commit terrorist attacks on Israel and Israelis. Oddly, that doesn't seem to concern you much.

Israel had no choice but to defend itself and stop the repeated attacks, if anyone thinks any country would standby while it was repeatedly shelled and attacked simply for living and being there they are wrong.

The vast majority of countries wouldn't have done what Israel has done to earn the wrath of every single nation in the area.

Be Jewish? No, likely not.

But I digress, I am not defending the actions of either the PLO or Hezbollah, I am pointing out that Israel is just as bad and in the grand scheme probably lower on the moral scale.

So long as your moral scale is confused and bass ackwards.

I have a question,maybe naively asked but here goes,Why is Lebanons' Government and by extension, its' Army so weak that it can't expel Hezbollah if it really wanted to?

There's a laundry list of reasons really, first off remember that Hezbollah is not just a para-military orginization (which the former "terrorist" branch has largely evolved into) they are a political party with significant support, and they are a charitable organization.

Charitable organizations collect money and distribute it to whomever needs it. Hezbollah is given money by the Iranian government and uses it in hearts and minds campaigns to buy people's loyalty. But if it really cared about people it would not locate its arms supplies and rocket launchers in civilian towns and villages.

[Yaro]

Well gee, I guess that tells us all we need to know. Of course, since the Americans killed far more Germans than the Germans did Americans I guess there's no question that the Germans were the good guys in world war two.

So just out of curiosity did you even read what I wrote, or skim over it for a second and think you got the jist? or are you just being out and out dishonest? Just a question.

There has never been a cease fire where the PLO or other such ilk did not commit terrorist attacks on Israel and Israelis. Oddly, that doesn't seem to concern you much.

Really? Because it seems to me that there is a current cease fire in Lebanon but the IDF just broke it today. Interesting how that works isn't it. Israel also arrested one of the most moderate members of Hamas in the occupied territories. But I understand, you don't concern yourself with such stupid things as "facts" and "historical precedence" or "logic". They always seem to get in the way of a good rant against those durn Muslims.

Be Jewish? No, likely not.

That's funny really it is, to hear someone who has done no research and has absolutely no idea what hes talking about comment on the situation its great...wait a minute Bill Oreilly is that you? come on Bill you can admit it.

So long as your moral scale is confused and bass ackwards.

Right I forgot, morality is based upon might makes right. Its not about who actually committed more atrocities or committed atrocities on a larger scale, or who continues to epitomize everything that the modern right is supposed to be against its about your team and my team and your team backs Israel therefore without any actual consideration of your own you do. It must be good not to have to exercise independent thought, really comforting to know god is on your side.

Charitable organizations collect money and distribute it to whomever needs it. Hezbollah is given money by the Iranian government and uses it in hearts and minds campaigns to buy people's loyalty. But if it really cared about people it would not locate its arms supplies and rocket launchers in civilian towns and villages.

Once again maybe because you can't seem to read my actual posts, I am hardly a fan of Hezbollah. However by the strict definition of charity they damn well do qualify as a charity. And as for using civilian towns or buildings, I believe it was Israel who pioneered the use of human shields try actually looking it up sometime.

Its sad really that someone who obviously has no actual knowledge of the subject would spend his time here revealing, no maybe reveling in his ignorance would be a better term, instead of actually spending this valuable time researching the topic. Sad but not surprising.

[Yaro]

Not looking for a war of any kind. I thought you asked me to produce evidence that Hizbullah was determined to wipe Israel off the map, so I did.

My apologize, dealing with people like Argus tends to bring out the worst in me. No I never asked for evidence about Hezbollah's desire to wipe out Israel, in fact I stated several times that was the case. What I said was show me where it was stated as offical government policy of one of the other middle eastern countries.

I hold that extinguishment of Israel is different from expanding the state of Israel and that killing Israelis is far different from Israel including Arabs in the state of Israel.

And as I pointed out the state of Israel as planed by the founders of Israel and who's ideology is continued in its modern form in the Likid party encompasses the entire middle east. You also describe expanding the state of Israel as something other then the extinguishment of Israels neighbors, this is not the case, Transjordan, Palestine, and Lebanon are just three of the nations which would be extinguished in the Zionist dream.

It should also be noted that you have yet to produce a statement of an official government position that states it is the goal of any country in the middle east to "push Israel into the sea".

I also consider actual crimes of genocide of which the Israelis are guilty on numerous accounts to be far worse then the theoretical genocide spoken of in psychotic rhetoric.

In short yes both sides are what could loosely be defined as "bad", one side the Israelis largely get a pass from the media on the vast majority of atrocities. They also get a pass on virtually any political or historical context being brought to the analysis in the media, maybe that's because of the remaining WW2 guilt, maybe its because of the mass Jewish ownership in modern media or maybe its just lazy and budget driven reporting but regardless of the cause, one sides atrocities are largely theoretical and the others are not.

[Argus]

Well gee, I guess that tells us all we need to know. Of course, since the Americans killed far more Germans than the Germans did Americans I guess there's no question that the Germans were the good guys in world war two.

So just out of curiosity did you even read what I wrote, or skim over it for a second and think you got the jist? or are you just being out and out dishonest? Just a question.

What I did was reply to what you wrote. If you're now saying that the actual numbers killed are not relevent then maybe you shouldn't have tried to use the numbers as an indication of who was the more guilty.

There has never been a cease fire where the PLO or other such ilk did not commit terrorist attacks on Israel and Israelis. Oddly, that doesn't seem to concern you much.

Really? Because it seems to me that there is a current cease fire in Lebanon but the IDF just broke it today.

Well, ya see, you're wrong. There was a truce, but it was broken by Lebanon the day after it was signed, when they announced to the world they had absolutely no intention of disarming Hezbollah. Why do you think the French and everyone else suddenly backed out of what had just become an impossible situation? The French brokered the UN agreement wherin UN troops would go in and aid the Lebanese army in gaining control of the south and disarming Hezbollah, and then they jumped out. Duhhh, because suddenly Lebanon turned around, proclaimed Hezbollah heros, and said they would not be disarming them, and they were sending the Lebanese army south not to disarm or reign in Hezbollah but to protect the "Islamic victory" from Israel.

So the next time Israel hammers Lebanon the Lebanese govenrment better not snivel about how they're not involved and they have nothing to do with Hezbollah.

Be Jewish? No, likely not.

That's funny really it is, to hear someone who has done no research and has absolutely no idea what hes talking about comment on the situation its great

How would you know the difference? You clearly are reading from an ultra-left, Jew-haters playbook without the slightest hint of an open-mind or moderation.

So long as your moral scale is confused and bass ackwards.

Right I forgot, morality is based upon might makes right. Its not about who actually committed more atrocities or committed atrocities on a larger scale, or who continues to epitomize everything that the modern right is supposed to be against

You mean like democracy and freedom of speech, and a free press, and freedom of worship, and an independant court system, all those things Israel has but we're supposed to hate? Sorry, but Israel is clearly in the right, and your rabiid, religious wacko Arab friends are clearly in the wrong and need to be put down.

Charitable organizations collect money and distribute it to whomever needs it. Hezbollah is given money by the Iranian government and uses it in hearts and minds campaigns to buy people's loyalty. But if it really cared about people it would not locate its arms supplies and rocket launchers in civilian towns and villages.

Once again maybe because you can't seem to read my actual posts, I am hardly a fan of Hezbollah.

I've seen people saying that, while studiously avoiding any criticism of Hezbollah. I think it's a debating tactic necessary to moderate and right wing groups because if people admit they share Hezbollah's ideals everyone just laughs them off the board.

I don't know you. But from reading your posts, I get the strong impression you don't like Jews. Care to talk about it?

[Argus]

I hold that extinguishment of Israel is different from expanding the state of Israel and that killing Israelis is far different from Israel including Arabs in the state of Israel.

And as I pointed out the state of Israel as planed by the founders of Israel and who's ideology is continued in its modern form in the Likid party encompasses the entire middle east. You also describe expanding the state of Israel as something other then the extinguishment of Israels neighbors, this is not the case, Transjordan, Palestine, and Lebanon are just three of the nations which would be extinguished in the Zionist dream.

Do you have any cite that says any mainstream politicians or party in Israel today has any plan, thought or desire to take over Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine?

I also consider actual crimes of genocide of which the Israelis are guilty on numerous accounts to be far worse then the theoretical genocide spoken of in psychotic rhetoric.

Israel is guilty of genocide, huh? How? Where? When? Do bear in mind most of the people here actually know what genocide means.

[jbg]

I don't know you. But from reading your posts, I get the strong impression you don't like Jews. Care to talk about it?

He's saying directly what Euro-Trash, including people like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien say indirectly about Jews and Israel.

[Argus]

I don't know you. But from reading your posts, I get the strong impression you don't like Jews. Care to talk about it?

He's saying directly what Euro-Trash, including people like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien say indirectly about Jews and Israel.

No, he's not saying it directly. That's why I asked. I would like a confirmation of his position on that.

[Yaro]

What I did was reply to what you wrote. If you're now saying that the actual numbers killed are not relevent then maybe you shouldn't have tried to use the numbers as an indication of who was the more guilty.

Wow, just stunning. Your trying to suggest that comparing war deaths is somehow on par with comparing civilian deaths? This is seriously the position that you want to be seen taking?

He's saying directly what Euro-Trash, including people like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien say indirectly about Jews and Israel.

Right, euro-trash. Because you would obviously have to be euro-trash to not want to ignore Israels war crimes.

No, he's not saying it directly. That's why I asked. I would like a confirmation of his position on that.

My position is simple, its informed and its researched how about yours? If I am to take your posts to be total display of your knowledge of it I would guess its really and I mean REALLY ignorant.

How would you know the difference? You clearly are reading from an ultra-left, Jew-haters playbook without the slightest hint of an open-mind or moderation.

Right, you mean like from IDF released statistics?

You mean like democracy and freedom of speech, and a free press, and freedom of worship, and an independant court system, all those things Israel has but we're supposed to hate? Sorry, but Israel is clearly in the right, and your rabiid, religious wacko Arab friends are clearly in the wrong and need to be put down.

You can't be serious. This can't be an actual response when discussing Israel. Do you have any idea how stupid what you wrote is? Lets break this down and see how many factual errors are in this one statement.

#1 Democracy - Israel is not a democratic state, it is an apartheid state. Only Jews are allowed to vote or own property.

#2 Freedom of speech/Freedom of Worship - Once again wrong, the official religion of Israel is Judaism. You can't worship in any other way and maintain any semblance of freedom.

#3 Independent court system - The Israeli court is among the most ridiculed in the world, coming out with insane decisions at a rate that makes the US supreme court look mild.

#4 Israel is clearly in the right - again are you kidding me? was south Africa in the right when they excluded blacks from voting, holding certain jobs, living in certain places, and moving about? There is absolutely no scale you can use there is no measure you can devise with which Israel is anything remotely approaching the moral high ground. But as per usual your ability to maintain your position independent of the facts is truly astounding.

I've seen people saying that, while studiously avoiding any criticism of Hezbollah. I think it's a debating tactic necessary to moderate and right wing groups because if people admit they share Hezbollah's ideals everyone just laughs them off the board.

I have criticised Hezbollah several times, but considering how little you know about Hezbollah how would me taking a position supporting or opposing Hezbollah make any real difference at all?

I don't know you. But from reading your posts, I get the strong impression you don't like Jews. Care to talk about it?

I don't know you, But from reading your posts, I get the strong impression you don't like facts or Arabs. Care to talk about it?

Do you have any cite that says any mainstream politicians or party in Israel today has any plan, thought or desire to take over Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine?

I have a tendency to look at the actions of a nation rather then the rhetoric they spew. Acts of genocide in Palestine and Lebanon speak volumes to me. I have posted the words of the founders of Israel, I have drawn lines to the current political iteration of the Zionist movement. Are you unable to actually look up Ariel Sharon's complicity in an act of genocide and how it is in direct support of one of the major steps that the founding fathers if Israel envisioned?

Israel is guilty of genocide, huh? How? Where? When? Do bear in mind most of the people here actually know what genocide means.

This is exactly what I am talking about, anyone that wants to discuss this knowledgeably could not miss this information in their 5 minutes of research. Their have been four acts of ethnic cleansing called "relocation programs" within Israel since 1948, their have been a half a dozen cases of mass slaughter in Palestine, their was the case of 3500 Muslims in slaughtered in Lebanon by Lebanese Christians and facilitated by the IDF. There have literally been hundreds of acts that are the signs of genocide. If any other nation on earth had done in the last 50 years what Israel had done they would have been condemned to high hell by every nation on earth. Oh and I would say that clearly you need to do some research on what exactly genocide means.

Once again, you have proven that your knowledge on the region and its history is at best marginal.

[geoffrey]

This is exactly what I am talking about, anyone that wants to discuss this knowledgeably could not miss this information in their 5 minutes of research. Their have been four acts of ethnic cleansing called "relocation programs" within Israel since 1948, their have been a half a dozen cases of mass slaughter in Palestine, their was the case of 3500 Muslims in slaughtered in Lebanon by Lebanese Christians and facilitated by the IDF. There have literally been hundreds of acts that are the signs of genocide. If any other nation on earth had done in the last 50 years what Israel had done they would have been condemned to high hell by every nation on earth. Oh and I would say that clearly you need to do some research on what exactly genocide means.

Once again, you have proven that your knowledge on the region and its history is at best marginal.

Genocide requires an intent to remove an ethnicity from a region. Killing 3500 Muslims in an area of millions of them isn't genocide, especially since Israel has the capacity through it's nuclear capabilities of actually ethnically cleansing the region.

Genetically, many Jews are of Arab descent and therefore they'd have to irradicate non-European Jews for genocide to truly be happening.

If I murder someone of another ethnicity, I'm not commit genocide. If I murder a race of people, or attempt to do so, then I am.

So it's not genocide.

[jbg]

Yaro, responding point by point to your post is something I'm not going to do. Suffice to say that Israeli Arabs do vote, if they have obtained Israeli citizenship, and the only right they do not have is (with the exception of Druzes) to serve in the army. Go here for more information.

[Argus]

What I did was reply to what you wrote. If you're now saying that the actual numbers killed are not relevent then maybe you shouldn't have tried to use the numbers as an indication of who was the more guilty.

Wow, just stunning. Your trying to suggest that comparing war deaths is somehow on par with comparing civilian deaths? This is seriously the position that you want to be seen taking?

I am simply pointing out how logically inconsistent - meaning dumb - your point was.

You mean like democracy and freedom of speech, and a free press, and freedom of worship, and an independant court system, all those things Israel has but we're supposed to hate? Sorry, but Israel is clearly in the right, and your rabiid, religious wacko Arab friends are clearly in the wrong and need to be put down.

You can't be serious. This can't be an actual response when discussing Israel. Do you have any idea how stupid what you wrote is? Lets break this down and see how many factual errors are in this one statement.

#1 Democracy - Israel is not a democratic state, it is an apartheid state. Only Jews are allowed to vote or own property.

You have a cite for that which doesn't originate on a KKK web site? You're wrong, btw.

#2 Freedom of speech/Freedom of Worship - Once again wrong, the official religion of Israel is Judaism. You can't worship in any other way and maintain any semblance of freedom.

Odd. I wonder what people do at all those mosques and churches. Perhaps they're simply parking garages designed to be eye appealing for tourists.

#3 Independent court system - The Israeli court is among the most ridiculed in the world, coming out with insane decisions at a rate that makes the US supreme court look mild.

You mean the Israeli court which made the government back down in several places on the way it was putting up its wall? The Israeli court which is the only court in the middle east which is independant of the government? You mean the American court which is the most quoted on the planet in terms of defences of civil liberties?

For a guy who shouts about how well-informed he is, well, you ain't.

#4 Israel is clearly in the right - again are you kidding me? was south Africa in the right when they excluded blacks from voting, holding certain jobs, living in certain places, and moving about? There is absolutely no scale you can use there is no measure you can devise with which Israel is anything remotely approaching the moral high ground.

Israeli Arabs can vote, and have representation in parliament. They have more rights than Arabs in any other nation in the middle east. This is simply a fact beyond dispute by anyone with even a fragmentary knowledge of Israel.

Do you have any cite that says any mainstream politicians or party in Israel today has any plan, thought or desire to take over Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine?

I have a tendency to look at the actions of a nation rather then the rhetoric they spew.

So that's a big "No" right?

Acts of genocide in Palestine and Lebanon speak volumes to me.

No doubt these volumes are contained in the fiction section of your average Arab book store.

Israel is guilty of genocide, huh? How? Where? When? Do bear in mind most of the people here actually know what genocide means.

This is exactly what I am talking about, anyone that wants to discuss this knowledgeably could not miss this information in their 5 minutes of research. Their have been four acts of ethnic cleansing called "relocation programs" within Israel since 1948, their have been a half a dozen cases of mass slaughter in Palestine, their was the case of 3500 Muslims in slaughtered in Lebanon by Lebanese Christians and facilitated by the IDF. There have literally been hundreds of acts that are the signs of genocide.

Yes, yes, yes. There has been fifty years of war around Israel and lots of people have died.

But no genocide, nor any sign of any attempt at one. Mind you, if your pals the crazy Arabs ever take over Israel THEN we'd see a genocide.

Once again, you have proven that your knowledge on the region and its history is at best marginal.

That still puts me on the page. Your knowledge is -- well, lacking.

[uOttawaMan]

Look out folks.. e-fight.

[Wilber]

My apologize, dealing with people like Argus tends to bring out the worst in me. No I never asked for evidence about Hezbollah's desire to wipe out Israel, in fact I stated several times that was the case. What I said was show me where it was stated as offical government policy of one of the other middle eastern countries.

What does this mean?

[jbg]

My apologize, dealing with people like Argus tends to bring out the worst in me. No I never asked for evidence about Hezbollah's desire to wipe out Israel, in fact I stated several times that was the case. What I said was show me where it was stated as offical government policy of one of the other middle eastern countries.

What does this mean?

Beyond the capacity of many to understand. Especially those that don't understand that the Sharon government complied with a Supreme Court edict to move the terror wall.

[daddyhominum]

My apologize, dealing with people like Argus tends to bring out the worst in me. No I never asked for evidence about Hezbollah's desire to wipe out Israel, in fact I stated several times that was the case. What I said was show me where it was stated as offical government policy of one of the other middle eastern countries.

What does this mean?

And there is this:

http://internationalreporter.com/news/read.php?id=1264

Iranian President vows to quit UN and wipe out Israel

MIL/Agencies, Apr 25, 2006.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeated his vow that Iran would wipe out Israel off the world map. He continued to say "We cannot allow this fake regime of Israel to exist any more."