Israel Defends Itself

[Debo]

Unfortunately the Palestinian people have become a world cause and cant be dealt with in an efficient manner.

[Craig Read]

The support that the PLA gets in the world press constantly amazes me. They receive $300 million from the EU alone, to fund their terrorist campaigns, nary a whit of that goes to building institutions of peace and governance, yet i hear constantly about the poor Palestinian people. The best thing that could happen for them is to have Arafat dead, a new leadership and some sensible socio-economic governance.

Israel created a modern state from the desert. I don't see the Palestinians doing the same.

[Black Dog]

Unfortunately the Palestinian people have become a world cause and cant be dealt with in an efficient manner

And what do you mean by that?

hey receive $300 million from the EU alone, to fund their terrorist campaigns, nary a whit of that goes to building institutions of peace and governance, yet i hear constantly about the poor Palestinian people. The best thing that could happen for them is to have Arafat dead, a new leadership and some sensible socio-economic governance.

Proof? Didn't think so.

Israel created a modern state from the desert. I don't see the Palestinians doing the same.

Israel was given a state in the desert. The palestinians have been caught between Israel's expanisonist ambitions and the Arab worlds manipulations for decades. They've never had a chance.

[FastNed]

Over a twenty year period, I visited Israel many times. Bluntly, the land is pathetic - if Israel is now a land of "Milk & Honey" it is because Israelis have spend generations reclaiming the land. Generations of hard backbreaking work - as any farmer who has attempted such a thing can testify.

I have also seen these techniques shared with any Arab, Christian or otherwise who wished to do the same thing on their own land.

The Sabras of Israel have taken desert and turned it into farmland and have shared the knowledge, but get no credit for it. No, what they get is Palestinian nut-jubs who wish to walk in and take the fruits of those generations of work.

[Black Dog]

The Sabras of Israel have taken desert and turned it into farmland and have shared the knowledge, but get no credit for it. No, what they get is Palestinian nut-jubs who wish to walk in and take the fruits of those generations of work.

Once again, Israel's apologists assume some sort of pre-existing level playing field wherein Israel flourished by virtue of its own hard work (and not as a result of the post-imperial powers' support of the Israeli state) while the Palestinian people simply lack the good-old fashioned gumption to make their lot better. What rot.

If you are referring to the OT, the land doesn't belong to the Israelis. Anything they've built in the territories is based on theft of local resources, favorable government policies towards Jewish settlers (including the use of force by the IDF to make the region safe for settlers including bulldozing palestinian property) and systematic oppression of local populations.

[KrustyKidd]

hey receive $300 million from the EU alone, to fund their terrorist campaigns, nary a whit of that goes to building institutions of peace and governance, yet i hear constantly about the poor Palestinian people. The best thing that could happen for them is to have Arafat dead, a new leadership and some sensible socio-economic governance.

Proof? Didn't think so.

KK

Sorry to jump in here Craig. I was waiting for the Sauna to heat up and thought I'd see if I could find proof in thirty seconds or less

As talks about Palestinian political reform progress, the donors intend to find an acceptable means enabling the group to begin disbursing $1.2 billion in donor funds to the Palestinians.

European Disenchantment with Arafat

To date, the EU has rejected President George W. Bush's call to replace Arafat with a leadership "not compromised by terror."

Evidence that Arafat has continued to approve funding for Palestinian terrorists, including a June payment of $20,000 to the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades just as the group claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, persuaded American policymakers of the need to find Palestinian interlocutors other than Arafat. European decisionmakers have not reacted as decisively to this evidence, but should be increasingly concerned and embarrassed that at least some of the funds funneled to terrorist groups were made available through creative accounting schemes and old-fashioned laundering of EU donor funds. Documents Israel seized in Arafat's compound and elsewhere in the West Bank establish that while condemning terrorist attacks (albeit not as acts of terror per se, but rather as harming the national interests of the PA), Arafat personally authorized the financing of groups and individuals engaged in terror attacks against Israeli citizens.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/watch/p...tch2002/638.htm

As well, enter EU aid to Paletine and you will come up with a figure of something like 4.4 billion Euros. I don't know what the exchange rate is but it's more than $300 million I think.

Black Dog, before you challenge facts please spend at least a minute on a search of some kind. Thanks.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear KK,

I am not sure what currency you are trading into, but 4.4 billion euros is about 5.4 billion US . Mind you, Israel was given 1 Billion US cash and 8+ billion US in loan guarantees since the invasion of Iraq. To sum up that level playing field, 9 billion US to Israel. Most of it to 'fight fear'.( Wait, I mean lots of fear, like terror) The biggest fear of Israel is that they won't be able to take all of Palestine away from the Palestinians without loss of life. (mind you, underhanded murderers like suicide bombers should be held up to the world just as much)

At to Arafat, I cannot believe the people that think he has done as much as he is credited/blamed for. He took credit where he had no hand, just to give rise to his ego. Many 'attacks he ordered' were claimed long after the fact (especially in 87-90) of the people of Palestine trying to decide for themselves, without Arafat, without Hamas and without Islamic Jihad.

[Black Dog]

Black Dog, before you challenge facts please spend at least a minute on a search of some kind. Thanks.

KKK, why would I waste my time trying to prove someone else's point for them? If you make a statement on this board (or anywhere else for that matter), the burden of backing it up is on you, not the person you're arguing with.

[KrustyKidd]

Prove to me that that is the law of Mapleleaforums RB.

Now, while we wait for a week or so for you to waste time compiling a complete survey of all members of the forum on this matter let us explore your valid belief that the burden of proof lies with the one who makes the statement.

I agree and disagree with you. It is proper to ask for proof of something that is way out to lunch but you have to remember, you challenged the fact without anything to back it up save "prove it." Where is your counter reasoning or facts? There wasn't any so why should Craig look up something he knows if you simply laid out a demand (and a slightly contemptuous one at that?) If you came back with proof that they didn't recieve money then it would certainly be up to him to disprove you.

If you really didn't know and wanted to learn then you might have asked where you could peruse this information but you were challenging his statement with nothing offered from yourself. That is why in this case the onus was on you to at least try.

Now I hardly think that funds being channeled to Hamas through aid is news. He didn't tell you that everything you had ever known was wrong or that the laws of physics have been reversed. He told you some minor point about Aid given to Palestinians and you immediately demanded proof. Do like I did, thirty seconds with a search engine and fifty answers came up. I wouldn't waste your time with frivolous demands for proof like that. If we all did that to each other point for point nothing would be discussed - ever.

Just wondering, is your proof on the validity of your statement reguarding the onus of proof going to come in the form of a pie chart or graph?

[Black Dog]

KK:

I agree and disagree with you. It is proper to ask for proof of something that is way out to lunch but you have to remember, you challenged the fact without anything to back it up save "prove it." Where is your counter reasoning or facts? There wasn't any so why should Craig look up something he knows if you simply laid out a demand (and a slightly insulting one at that?

If you really didn't know and wanted to learn then you might have asked where you could peruse this information but you were challenging his statement with nothing offered from yourself. That is why in this case the onus was on you to at least try.

Nope. I didn't make the statement, it's not up to me to defend it.

Now I hardly think that funds being channeled to Hamas through aid is news. He didn't tell you that everything you had ever known was wrong or that the laws of physics have been reversed. He told you some minor point about Aid given to Palestinians and you immediately demanded proof. Do like I did, thirty seconds with a search engine and fifty answers came up.

Afgain: so what? (By the way, I find it interesting that you are the one who answered the call for a source and not the original poster.)

Craig regularly posts his opinions in the guise of "facts" and seldom offers any sources. Knowing this, it's entirely appropriate to ask for a some proof of any statement. After all, how can one be expected to form a counter-argument based on someone else's opinion?

[KrustyKidd]

I responded because I knew it for a fact and an easily verifiable one at that. A question for you, what was your counter argument, I mean why would you not believe that? In any discussion I have with you do I have to prove every sentence I write because you wish to fillabuster me with demands for proof on every point? Of course not, I was perplexed that you demanded proof without saying why you did not believe that.

[Black Dog]

A question for you, what was your counter argument, I mean why would you not believe that? In any discussion I have with you do I have to prove every sentence I write because you wish to fillabuster me with demands for proof on every point? Of course not, I was perplexed that you demanded proof without saying why you did not believe that.

Simple: I considered the source. Also, I found the phraseology of the original statement troublesome, as it implied that the full amount of foreign aid contributions to the PA are directed to terrorist activity, something I found rather difficult to believe and still do. While the PA's funding of terror groups is well documented and undeniable, the idea of $300 million going to Hamas seemed like a whopper to me.

[KrustyKidd]

OK. I understand now.

I did not have any hard evidence of how much goes to the terrorist arms either. However, I imagine that whatever their budgets are they must be in the tens and most likely hundreds of millions. One would be hard put (even with interpol and the CIA at your fingertips) to be able to track down the exact sources and dollar amounts of these funds. Suffice to say that given the Palestinian's lack of industry and reliance on charity that all of the needs of Hamas and Jihad come from International Aid or Charities after it is laundered and moved around a few times. To estimate how much the EU gives terror would simply be a question of estimating the terrorist'sr expenditures by percentage of PA intake and then matching it against the proportion's each doner has given.

[Debo]

Unfortunately the Palestinian people have become a world cause and cant be dealt with in an efficient manner

And what do you mean by that?

What I mean is that any efficient manner in which to deal with the problem will be cut short by the involvment of every bleeding heart lib in the world. They care not for remedies or reasons only mediocre nothing. That is thier way.

Israel created a modern state from the desert. I don't see the Palestinians doing the same.

Israel was given a state in the desert. The palestinians have been caught between Israel's expanisonist ambitions and the Arab worlds manipulations for decades. They've never had a chance.

Israel cut this barren spot out of the desert with plenty of blood and sweat with no help. Also, they were working on it long before the Brits stripped the area from the Ottomans.

hey receive $300 million from the EU alone, to fund their terrorist campaigns, nary a whit of that goes to building institutions of peace and governance, yet i hear constantly about the poor Palestinian people. The best thing that could happen for them is to have Arafat dead, a new leadership and some sensible socio-economic governance.

Proof? Didn't think so.

Now thats just silly. What would be one downside to this extremly intelligent proposal?

[Hugo]

Israel's expanisonist ambitions

Thanks for reminding me of that, Debo.

After the Arab nations launched several attacks on Israel - often without formal declaration of war - Israel humiliated their armies and was able to actually make territorial gains. Most of those gains were returned to their original owners (e.g. the Sinai peninsula), some were retained for their strategic value (e.g. the Golan Heights, to prevent Syrian artillery from shelling Israeli settlements as they had in the past).

If Israel truly had expansionist ambitions they could command the Middle East from Suez to Teheran by now. The only ones in the Middle East who have expansionist ambitions are the Arabs, who chiefly want to expand into Israel (and each other, when they're not fighting Israel).

[Black Dog]

What I mean is that any efficient manner in which to deal with the problem will be cut short by the involvment of every bleeding heart lib in the world. They care not for remedies or reasons only mediocre nothing. That is thier way.

And what is this "efficient manner" you speak of? You ducked the question by posting that little bit of ad hominem dribble about "bleeding heart libs". Answer the question.

Israel cut this barren spot out of the desert with plenty of blood and sweat with no help. Also, they were working on it long before the Brits stripped the area from the Ottomans.

I guess every nation needs its creation myth. fact is, yes, there was a fairly large jewish population in Palestine prior to World War 2, working alongside their Arab neighbours to build a life under the colonial rule of the Ottomans and then the British. However, the notion that the area was completely barren prior to the creation of Israel is revisionist bunk.

If Israel truly had expansionist ambitions they could command the Middle East from Suez to Teheran by now. The only ones in the Middle East who have expansionist ambitions are the Arabs, who chiefly want to expand into Israel (and each other, when they're not fighting Israel).

Maybe: if the sum total of one's knowledge of geopolitcs is derived from the game Risk. First, despite its military might, Israel's population is quite small, especially when stacked up against its more populous Arab neighbours. An Israeli land grab of which you speak would be logistically and militarily unfeasable, not to mention completely impossible to maintain. (What is it with right-wingers that they can't see things in anything but extremes: ie. Israel mustn't want land because they haven't taken it all. WTF?)

Answer me this, then: if Israel has no interest in expanding its borders, why does ity continue to buiold settlements in the Occupied Territories and nudge its aparth...er...security fence beyond the boundaries of the Green Line?

[Hugo]

if Israel has no interest in expanding its borders, why does ity continue to buiold settlements in the Occupied Territories and nudge its aparth...er...security fence beyond the boundaries of the Green Line?

Because the original borders of Israel are very difficult to defend. Expansion thus far has been chiefly to make Israel defensible. Land gained in Arab-initiated wars that was not of value for defensive purposes was returned after hostilities ceased.

Israel continues to build colonies in Occupied Territories because it wishes to use the land that it has for decent and productive purposes. These settlements are made of ordinary, decent people. They just want to work, raise their children and lead a normal life. My sister was in just one such kibbutz around a month ago. The people there are not nutcases or soldiers, they are ordinary people, telecommuters, businessmen, teachers, lawyers etc. They all have military training because every adult Israeli does, and they have fences around their communities and rifles because roving bands of Arabs tend to attack them on a sporadic basis.

Or do you believe that warlike and fanatical network administrators and day-traders are launching attacks on innocent Arabs?

Maybe: if the sum total of one's knowledge of geopolitcs is derived from the game Risk.

So you think that Israel has expansionist ambitions but no territorial ambitions? How does that make sense? They certainly aren't spreading political, cultural, commercial or religious influence throughout the Middle East, are they?

To call Israel "expansionist" illustrates that you don't know what expansionism is. The British Empire was expansionist. The Soviet Union was expansionist. Red China is expansionist. Israel has taken some extremely small parcels of land - smaller than the Niagara Region - which were won in wars that they did not initiate and are retained for the purpose of defence in case of more wars that they do not initiate.

[Black Dog]

Israel continues to build colonies in Occupied Territories because it wishes to use the land that it has for decent and productive purposes. These settlements are made of ordinary, decent people. They just want to work, raise their children and lead a normal life. My sister was in just one such kibbutz around a month ago. The people there are not nutcases or soldiers, they are ordinary people, telecommuters, businessmen, teachers, lawyers etc. They all have military training because every adult Israeli does, and they have fences around their communities and rifles because roving bands of Arabs tend to attack them on a sporadic basis.

There are plenty of fanatics who conduct attacks on their Palestinian neighbours, bulldoze Palestinian property and push their ultra-Zionist nationalist agenda for a Greater Israel. they are as much a part of the problem as Hamas.

(By the way "roving bands of Arabs" is a nice little bit of racist imagery)

Or do you believe that warlike and fanatical network administrators and day-traders are launching attacks on innocent Arabs?

Yes. Yes they are.

Waiting for justice.

Israeli police now believe that a handful of settlers arrested in recent months might have been involved in violence that has killed at least seven Palestinians in the West Bank in the past three years, including the Itmeizis. Though authorities admit key pieces of the puzzle are still missing, the investigation already marks the widest net cast over settlers since fighting erupted in the West Bank and Gaza in September 2000. One of the suspects has led police to a stockpile of arms hidden in caves in the West Bank, including rifles, grenades and even rocket launchers. West Bank police commander Shahar Ayalon says that while the shooters have not been identified yet, ballistic tests have linked some of the rifles to the attacks on Palestinians. “I was shocked to see so many guns and so much ammunition,” Ayalon said, poring over photographs of the cache in his Jerusalem office last week. Even human-rights groups, like B’Tselem, which often accuse police of being soft on settlers, say the investigation is serious.

To call Israel "expansionist" illustrates that you don't know what expansionism is. The British Empire was expansionist. The Soviet Union was expansionist. Red China is expansionist. Israel has taken some extremely small parcels of land - smaller than the Niagara Region - which were won in wars that they did not initiate and are retained for the purpose of defence in case of more wars that they do not initiate.

They are settling in illegally occupied land. I don't care if the land is smaller than the Niagara Region or smaller than a football field: they are still grabbing land, it's still expansionism.

My point (which you clearly missed) was that there is an obvious middle ground between having no desire to increase their land holdings and your notion that, if they did, they woul dhave just conquered the entire Middle East.

[Hugo]

Black Dog,

I must stress something here: the Israelis have never initiated violence. Every war that has happened, the Arabs have begun. Israel has only occupied Palestinian lands in response to terrorism and violence. If the Palestinians want to cry "foul" now that things aren't going their way, might I suggest that they should have thought of that before they started bombing buses, schools and cafes?

Furthermore, I think this whole "settler violence" thing is bullshit. I personally know Israeli settlers and they are peaceful people who I'm happy to have as friends. I've been to the country. My sister, as I said, was there as little as a month ago. These people are under threat of attack. Your complaint that Israeli settlers are starting violence has as much validity as your complaint that Israel started the Six Day War - basically, complete ignorance of the facts to prove a false point.

What personal experience do you have of this region, Black Dog?

As regards your accusation of "racist imagery", you might want to consider dropping your use of language that comes straight from Mein Kampf.

And if you are so upset about illegally occupied land, I would remind you that:

1) China has illegally occupied Tibet and brutally oppressed its people for decades

2) India illegally occupies most of Jammu and Kashmir and has broken all promises for referenda, and continues to exercise arbitrary martial law there

3) Russia illegally occupied and waged war on Chechnya and destroyed the city of Grozny as the Chechens wished to separate from the CIS

What percentage of your posts have concerned these issues, BlackDog?

None. Which just illustrates your ignorance - you choose to pick on the only democratic and free country in the Middle East, knowing nothing about the situation, while closing your eyes to gross human rights abuses and unjust, illegal and unilateral wars fought elsewhere. I'm glad you support the Palestinian side - it reassures me that I'm in the right.

[Black Dog]

I must stress something here: the Israelis have never initiated violence. Every war that has happened, the Arabs have begun. Israel has only occupied Palestinian lands in response to terrorism and violence. If the Palestinians want to cry "foul" now that things aren't going their way, might I suggest that they should have thought of that before they started bombing buses, schools and cafes?

Sorry "they started it!" doesn't work in the scholyard and sure doesn't work here. There's no disputing the struggles Israel went through to establish itself and survive, but past abuses do not excuse those of the present.

If Israel was genuinely interested in peace and security, it would end the settlements in the illegally occupied territories, tear down the wall and work to build a viable Palestinian civil society instead of continuing to expand settlement and oppress the Palestinian people (who are caught between the rock of corrupt leadership and the hard place of Israel's war machine).

Despite you and others of your ilks attempts to cast Israel as an innocent victim, it holds all the cards in this situation.

Furthermore, I think this whole "settler violence" thing is bullshit. I personally know Israeli settlers and they are peaceful people who I'm happy to have as friends. I've been to the country. My sister, as I said, was there as little as a month ago. These people are under threat of attack. Your complaint that Israeli settlers are starting violence has as much validity as your complaint that Israel started the Six Day War - basically, complete ignorance of the facts to prove a false point.

And I'm sure some of your best friends are black, too.

What you think you know is irrelevant. Violence perpetrated by Jewish settlers is a well-documented fact as is Israel's aggression in the Six Day War. (Sinc eyou don't believe me on the latte rpoint BTW, here's what the people who made the call had to say:

Menachem Begin, Minister without Portfolio:

"In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (New York Times, August 21, 1982)

General Yitshak Rabin, Chief of Staff, Israeli Defence Forces:

"I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." (Le Monde, February 28, 1968 )

General Mattitiahu Peled, Chief Quartermaster-General’s Branch, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our defence against the Egyptian threat. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army." (Le Monde, June 3, 1972)

General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations, Israeli Defence Forces, General Staff:

"There was never a danger of extermination. This hypothesis had never been considered in any serious meeting." (Ha’aretz, March 29, 1972)

General Yeshayahu Gavish, Commanding General Southern Command:

"The danger of Israel’s extermination was hardly present before the Six-day war." (Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection , New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, p. 558)

General Mordechai Hod, Commanding General, Israeli Air Force:

"Sixteen years planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it." (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978, pp. 558-559)

General Haim Barlev, Chief of General Staff Branch, Israeli Defence Forces:

"We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility." (Ma’ ariv, April 4, 1972)

But I digress.

What personal experience do you have of this region, Black Dog?

Irrelevant.

As regards your accusation of "racist imagery", you might want to consider dropping your use of language that comes straight from Mein Kampf.

Example?

1) China has illegally occupied Tibet and brutally oppressed its people for decades

2) India illegally occupies most of Jammu and Kashmir and has broken all promises for referenda, and continues to exercise arbitrary martial law there

3) Russia illegally occupied and waged war on Chechnya and destroyed the city of Grozny as the Chechens wished to separate from the CIS

What percentage of your posts have concerned these issues, BlackDog?

Also irrelevant. I didn't start thi stopic. If someone were to start a thread on any of the above, I would be happy to participate in the discussion. As for the above, I have personally worked on the Tibetan cause in the past, am oppossed to the continued Russian oppression of Chechnya, and, to be honest, haven't followed the Khasmir situation. Something to look into.

None. Which just illustrates your ignorance - you choose to pick on the only democratic and free country in the Middle East, knowing nothing about the situation, while closing your eyes to gross human rights abuses and unjust, illegal and unilateral wars fought elsewhere.

It is you who demonstrate your ignorance by defending the actions of Israel. As the only democratic nation in the region, I would expect better than for that nation to engage in the same kind of repressive tactics employed by its tyrranical neighbours. But if you think it's fair to put Israel on the same plane of moral equivilancy as, say, Syria, that's your problem. As for "closing my eyes to gross human rights abuses..." you obviously haven't been reading anything else I've written on this forum. I ma concerned with human rights abuses, illegal wars and occupations regardless of who conducts them You are willing to excuse any abuse, any crime so long as it is perpetrated by the "good guys", as befits a blind idealogue such as yourself.

I'm glad you support the Palestinian side - it reassures me that I'm in the right.

As if there's anything in the world that would ever convince you that you would be wrong. That would require an openess and humility that you and those like you simply do not possess.

[Hugo]

Sorry "they started it!" doesn't work in the scholyard and sure doesn't work here.

No, Blackdog, in politics and history "who started it" is crucially important. If what you say is true, that means that Germany and Belgium were equally to blame for Germany's unprovoked and surprise attack on neutral Belgium in 1940.

Clearly, this is not the case.

What you think you know is irrelevant.

No, it is not, because unlike you I have personal experience of what is going on in that region. All your information is second or third-hand, however, which means you are subjected to any bias in the interpretation of that information.

Example?

What about "ultra-Zionist nationalist agenda for a Greater Israel."

Reminds me of:

"The word "ZOG" is commonly used by Revolutionary Nationalist Socialists today but for the uninitiated, ZOG is an acronym for Zionist Occupation Government. "

Taken from an article on Combat 18's website. Combat 18 is a British Neo-Nazi movement, committed to extreme white supremacist ideology, violence and murder against racial minorities, and eulogy of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP.

You mention a bunch of quotes about the Six Day War, but I find it very interesting that you haven't got a single one from Moshe Dayan, who was then Defence Minister and in the best position of anyone in government to know what was going on. You have basically tried and condemned Israel without even examining the main witness.

The fact remains that the blockading of the Gulf of Eilat was a belligerant act according to existing treaties. Even after the Egyptian Navy did this, the Israeli Government did allow them around a fortnight to withdraw, despite the fact that Egypt had already committed an internationally recognised act of war against Israel.

I'm also not interested in any quotes from Alfred Lilienthal. This guy is a nut who accuses the "Zionists" of being as racist as Hitler and sees Zionist conspiracies everywhere from the Truman Administration and the American mainstream press to the Atomic Energy Commission.

You are willing to excuse any abuse, any crime so long as it is perpetrated by the "good guys", as befits a blind idealogue such as yourself.

On the contrary. It seems to me that you are greatly concerned with the "injustices" of free and democratic nations such as Israel and the USA while you are willing to overlook the actions of evil and despotic regimes such as China or Saddamite Iraq.

You argue that there is no comparison of moral scales - which is really moral-relativist nonsense, by the way, and is basically an ethically void excuse for overlooking egregious behaviour - but maybe you have something.

Let me make an analogy. My neighbour is a decent guy, who I've known for a long time, with a wife and kids and generally an upstanding citizen. I learn that he hit somebody in the street.

A little later, I learn that a lifelong criminal just released on parole after doing time for aggravated assault also just hit somebody in the street. I'm going to be a lot more forgiving of my neighbour's behaviour, because I believe that he's basically a man of good character and if he did something like that, he was probably justified in doing so. I'm not going to be so forgiving of a career criminal with a history of violence, though, because I find it hard to believe that this was not a malicious act against an innocent party, given his track record.

[Black Dog]

No, Blackdog, in politics and history "who started it" is crucially important. If what you say is true, that means that Germany and Belgium were equally to blame for Germany's unprovoked and surprise attack on neutral Belgium in 1940.

Clearly, this is not the case.

Yes, but the Palestinians can't be held responsible for the actions of the other Arab nations, now can they? The past conflicts between Israel and its Arab neighbours were not initiated by the inhabitants of the Occupied Territories. Unless you think one "roving gang of Arabs" is as good as another...

No, it is not, because unlike you I have personal experience of what is going on in that region. All your information is second or third-hand, however, which means you are subjected to any bias in the interpretation of that information.

And are therefore unable to rationally and objectively assess the situation. It's a two-edged sword.

What about "ultra-Zionist nationalist agenda for a Greater Israel."

Reminds me of:

"The word "ZOG" is commonly used by Revolutionary Nationalist Socialists today but for the uninitiated, ZOG is an acronym for Zionist Occupation Government. "

Taken from an article on Combat 18's website. Combat 18 is a British Neo-Nazi movement, committed to extreme white supremacist ideology, violence and murder against racial minorities, and eulogy of Adolf Hitler and the NSDAP.

Now you're reaching. If you actually read that line in context, it's clear I was talking about an element within the population of settlers, not the Jewish people or the Zionist movement as a whole. This looks a lot like the tactic that Israel apologists employ to deflect criticism by levelling charges of anti-Semetism. Nice try though.

You mention a bunch of quotes about the Six Day War, but I find it very interesting that you haven't got a single one from Moshe Dayan, who was then Defence Minister and in the best position of anyone in government to know what was going on. You have basically tried and condemned Israel without even examining the main witness.

Military cheif of staff and a clusterful of generals aren't good enough? Why would they tell a differnt story than Dayan?

As for

I'm also not interested in any quotes from Alfred Lilienthal. This guy is a nut who accuses the "Zionists" of being as racist as Hitler and sees Zionist conspiracies everywhere from the Truman Administration and the American mainstream press to the Atomic Energy Commission.

The quotes weren't his, but statements made on the public record. Your beef is with the messanger.

On the contrary. It seems to me that you are greatly concerned with the "injustices" of free and democratic nations such as Israel and the USA while you are willing to overlook the actions of evil and despotic regimes such as China or Saddamite Iraq.

Bullshit. When I have I ever excused or apologised for the actions of Iraq or China? Show me.

You argue that there is no comparison of moral scales - which is really moral-relativist nonsense, by the way, and is basically an ethically void excuse for overlooking egregious behaviour - but maybe you have something.

It's not moral relevativism to not be surprised when despots to act like despots and to hope that self-described defenders of freedom and justice conduct themselves as such. You are the moral reletavist because you refuse to hold your "good guys" responsible when they act like the "bad guys".

BTW, your analogy is crap. You can't compare nations' deliberate acts of policy to traffic accidents. You can't assign human traits such as "good character" to a bloody country. Ridiculous.

[Hugo]

Yes, but the Palestinians can't be held responsible for the actions of the other Arab nations, now can they?

Well, I'm glad you can admit to that error.

Anyway, to answer your new point, no, but they can be held responsible for their own, which includes bombing buses, schools and cafes, killing innocent and (relatively) unsuspecting men, women and children, noncombatants all.

And are therefore unable to rationally and objectively assess the situation.

Whatever. The fact is that I know a lot more about this situation than you because I've been there and I know a lot of people who are still there, and if you can't or won't see that, that basically means that you were sleeping in history class when they taught you about primary and secondary sources. I learnt that when I was 11. Apparently, you still haven't.

Military cheif of staff and a clusterful of generals aren't good enough? Why would they tell a differnt story than Dayan?

Possibly because they are not as well informed. Usually, the big picture is only known to one or a few men at the top of the command structure. That's how the military operates. Also, these quotes are not particularly scathing of Israel - most of them speak of the threat from the Arabs not being as huge as thought at the time, not that there was no threat, or that war was not imminent - there was, and it was.

The quotes weren't his, but statements made on the public record. Your beef is with the messanger.

Lilienthal puts an extreme spin on anything he encounters and is a very unreliable source. My beef is that the messenger plays up one part of the message while disregarding another.

It's not moral relevativism to not be surprised when despots to act like despots and to hope that self-described defenders of freedom and justice conduct themselves as such.

Yes, it is. You are basically saying that despots can be excused despotic behaviour. Rubbish. Tell that to the Dalai Lama, in exile in India. Tell it to the prosecution for Slobodan Milosevic. Tell it to those who tried Nicolai Caucescu.

You can't assign human traits such as "good character" to a bloody country.

It was an analogy. A nation that gives its citizens freedom and equality before the law, like the USA or Israel, is a nation of better moral character than one that denies its citizens freedom and equality and refuses to respect their human rights, like Iraq or the Palestinian government. A nation can have a moral character, which generally refers to the governing regime.

[Black Dog]

The fact is that I know a lot more about this situation than you because I've been there and I know a lot of people who are still there, and if you can't or won't see that, that basically means that you were sleeping in history class when they taught you about primary and secondary sources. I learnt that when I was 11. Apparently, you still haven't

Oh, go stick your condecesion up your ass. You may have "seen it" but that hardly make you an expert, while your sources are going to be as biased as anyone else, if not more so (you say you know settlers for god's sake: hardly an impartial source).

. You are basically saying that despots can be excused despotic behaviour.

Noooooo. I'm saying despots can be expected to act like despots (way of the world). That's a non-judgemental statement, it says nothing of whether or not their actions are excusable. On the other hand, for the US or Israel to claim to be beacons of peacer and justice while fostering terror and oppression is rank hypocricy.

A nation that gives its citizens freedom and equality before the law, like the USA or Israel, is a nation of better moral character than one that denies its citizens freedom and equality and refuses to respect their human rights, like Iraq or the Palestinian government.

Even while conducting unjust and downright heinous violations of international law and basic human rights? Oh yeah right: the good guys don't do that stuff in your world. cause they're good guys.

[Hugo]

Even while conducting unjust and downright heinous violations of international law and basic human rights?

Do unto others. If Palestinian civilians are killed in the crossfire of the war that their leaders started, then the blame lies with their leaders for deliberately killing Israeli civilians and refusing all their peace offers. These were genuine offers and were fair. The fact is that Palestinian leaders are personally profiting from this war and thus are not about to end it, even if Israel concedes 95% of their demands (which they have).

I don't believe for a split second that these Palestinian "civilians" being killed are anything other than 1) genuine collateral damage or 2) terrorists posing as civilians, paramilitaries preparing to commit acts of violence or "innocent" women and children who just so happen to be toting AK-47s. Israeli soldiers aren't mercenaries, they aren't even career soldiers, they are mostly conscripts from a free and democratic society who serve for a short time before going back to work or college or whatever they were about to do. I don't believe that student conscripts who are about to go back into the "real world" in a few months are just itching to blow away some Palestinian children. If they engage a target, you can bet that they have at least a reasonable perception of a threat.

Regarding the collateral damage, it's an unfortunate fact of modern warfare and not even laser-guided weapons can completely eliminate it. It's even harder to avoid when your targets are hiding in groups of civilians. If the Palestinian leadership is so outraged by collateral damage, perhaps they should have hesitated to initiate a war in which collateral damage was inevitable. For that matter, they should have hesitated to deliberately target civilians themselves.

On the other hand, for the US or Israel to claim to be beacons of peacer and justice while fostering terror and oppression is rank hypocricy.

Now that the Cold War is over, the US is no longer fostering terror and oppression. They ended Saddam's evil regime in Iraq and the Taliban's evil regime in Afghanistan, and are probably setting up to end evil regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea and elsewhere - but you complain about that! There's just no pleasing some people.