Israel-Palesine Discussion

[Skins7ny]

There's that too. FOX news tries to piggyback on NPR's credibility. Williams has a decent history but his appearances on FOX were rather Colmes-esque.
Football analogy:
Andre Johnson=Hannity
DHall=Colmes
they dont call NPR- NATIONAL PALESTINE RADIO for nothing.. if this happened on it's own i would say it is an example of a snake eating it's own tail (i.e. Liberal political correctness getting one of it's own).. but, i want to see the next commentator who gets fired for anti-Israel remarks on NPR That would be funnier if it weren't so true. NPR's reporting has been slanted strongly towards the Palestinians for years. Check out http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=28
How are anti-Israel remarks the same thing?
I don't think Israel nor Palestine can claim the moral high ground in their dispute, but someone critical of Israel is not necessarily anti-jewish.There are very few moral high grounds anywhere in the world. Until someone tells me how the Israelis could have handled it better, and draws analogies to how our country has handled even remotely similar threats to our security in a more "moral" fashion, I will have to remain unimpressed with the "high-ground" criticism. Israel, but nature of its very existence, has been left with a constant state of internal and external war and armed conflict not of its own choosing. It has tried (and succeeded) in making peace with any country who was interested. It has unilaterally withdrawn from the Gaza strip because it was told that the obstacle to peace was its "occupation" of Gaza and the West Bank-did peace follow? No, just Kassem rockets raining on Israeli schools and homes and more cross-border raids.
BTW, getting fired for making racist remarks isn't a first amendment issue. Correct.
Well I don't listen to know one way or the other, but I am pretty critical of Israel myself, and it has nothing to do with disdain for Judaism the faith, but Israel in the context of geo-politics.That is a shame. I hope you are at least as critical of cthe many ountries around the world that truly deserve your criticism: that subjugate its female population and treat them like property, that gas or otherwise engage in mass murder of its own people, who assasinate leaders of foreign states they are trying to control, who starve their own people and keep them ignorant and uneducated while living in palaces, etc. All of the criticism of Israel stems from the fact that she defends herself against internal enemies who are being Arab Israeli men are the freest Arab men in the entire Middle East. Arab Israeli women are the freest by a margin too wide to fathom.
this has NOTHING to do with your personal beliefs, but rather with the perception of a LOT of Americans of Jewish faith who believe that NPR is vigorously slanted towards the Palestinians, and who have withdrawn support of NPR for that specific reason.
Take it in the context that the vast majority of Jews are on the liberal side of the political spectrum and it should tell you how negatively NPR is viewed.. Correct. Ironically, for much of the 60s and 70s, Israel was pretty much a darling of the political left. It was a quasi-socialist country with lots of can-do spirit that was turning the desert into a productive agricultural utopia to the tune of Israeli folk songs. What changed? Ironically, Yassir Arafat and his people started blowing up airplanes, and the world accorded him celebrity, then head of state status. The first intifada also was very effective as an intentional method of swaying public opinion to the Palestinian's side.
The coverage of Isreal and Palestine is mind boggling. According to Jackson Diehl, Obama sabotaged the recent peace talks by asking Israel to maintain the moratorium on their illegal settlements. Everyone involved acknowledges the settlements are illegal, even Netanyahu. But he says his cabinet will walk out if he further postpones the settlements.

This is like in WWII when Stalin said he didn't have the authority to support a non-communist elements for the Government in Poland. Roosevelt, with enormous majorities in congress and a packed supreme court, made similar ridiculous claims about the limits of his power.

The fact is they were making excuses for their own opinions and policies.

How anyone could say Obama ruined the talks simply by demanding all parties follow international law is perplexing. But that is the state of our coverage of the subject. /rams head into wall The settlements are on disputed land. Contrary to the accepted dogma, the territory you speak of is not legally "occupied". It is "disputed". And the whole argument is a red herring. Even the Palestinian's own Finance Minister admits that the settlement expansion that Abbas is using as an excuse to stop negotiating is inconsequential-the expanded housing is already understood to be on land that will remain as part of Israel in any negotiated deal. with equivalent land swaps to the Palestiinians to make up for them. Obama screwed up by conditioning the negotiations of settlement halt in the first-place, which as always led the Palestinians to believe that the US government would win its concessions for them. The settlements have never stipped discussions before. Now they are not willing to give up on that idea. That is where Obama screwed the ppoch. The land is not legally occupied. f you think this is mind-boggling?
I've never heard of that. I know plenty of Jews who listen to NPR. Because of the liberal politics. And many Jewish people are also overly criticical of Israel.

[akhhorus]

All of the criticism of Israel stems from the fact that she defends herself against internal enemies who are being Arab Israeli men are the freest Arab men in the entire Middle East. Arab Israeli women are the freest by a margin too wide to fathom.

You have a better point when it comes to Hamas and Gaza(but they've been quiet for awhile). Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself from its enemies, but when Fatah gets the West Bank secure and quiet(which israel has been demanding for years), its wrong to turn around put up new conditions or demand new land for Israeli settlers in exchange for giving some of what was promised previously if they gave Israel the security its been demanding.


The settlements are on disputed land. Contrary to the accepted dogma, the territory you speak of is not legally "occupied". It is "disputed"

The West Bank and Gaza were given to the Palestinians in 1948. Israel agreed to allowing Gaza to be run by the Palestinians in the treaty with Egypt to end the Arab-Israeli war in 48. They then occupied that and the West Bank(the West Bank being occupied by Jordan in 67) after defeating the Arab armies in 67. At the very least, Israel is in a legal bind. Either they have to annex both territories, or they have to restore Gaza to its autonomous status and either give the West Bank to the Jordanians or the Palestinians. And if they don't annex the West Bank, they are legally occupying it.

[Keino]

I think any nation that is established by taking the resources of others and commits atrocities that rival those they escaped from is worthy of criticism. I am also critical of recruiting and brainwashing young people to believe that 99 Virgins await them in heaven if they strap a bomb on their back and take themselves and a bunch of innocent civilians out. Both the Israelis and Palestinians have attacked the others' hospitals and schools each in the name of self defense and both morally repugnant from my point of view. And to your point, I am also critical of the United States in these instances.

Withdrawn from the West Bank? Surely you jest. One of the biggest sticking points in the peace process is the number of illegal settlements that keep popping up. Both sides have agreed to accords only to find some bogus reason to subsequently violate that peace accord. Both sides. Both sides are responsible for killing innocent women and children. Both sides.

[Skins7ny]

You have a better point when it comes to Hamas and Gaza(but they've been quiet for awhile). Israel absolutely has the right to defend itself from its enemies, but when Fatah gets the West Bank secure and quiet(which israel has been demanding for years), its wrong to turn around put up new conditions or demand new land for Israeli settlers in exchange for giving some of what was promised previously if they gave Israel the security its been demanding.

The West Bank and Gaza were given to the Palestinians in 1948. Israel agreed to allowing Gaza to be run by the Palestinians in the treaty with Egypt to end the Arab-Israeli war in 48. They then occupied that and the West Bank(the West Bank being occupied by Jordan in 67) after defeating the Arab armies in 67. At the very least, Israel is in a legal bind. Either they have to annex both territories, or they have to restore Gaza to its autonomous status and either give the West Bank to the Jordanians or the Palestinians. And if they don't annex the West Bank, they are legally occupying it. Gaza is quiet because Israel invaded it and kicked Hamas' behind, then made it clear that it would do so again with no restrictions,including going after all of Hamas' leaders personally, if the bombing continued. The West Bank is quiet because Israel a security wall surrounding it to protect it from suicide bombers. The rest of the world howled in objection when Israel invaded Gaza and when it buiilt the security wall, criticizing it as an "apartheid wall" in the PR battle to liken Israel to apartheid-era South Africa. Both actions taken by Israel saved Jewish (and doubtless many Arab) lives,and set the table for the improvement we see in the West Bank today. Due to the security provided by the wall, Israel has beenn able to ease restrictions on Palestinian movement and commerce. That coupled with the PA finally getting their act together in the West Bank in the absence of Arafat and his kleptocracy under the new finance minister, who has done a terrific job, has led to Western-style economic growth, and the seeds for statehood are being sown. Unfortunately, Hamas in Gaza will not sit quiet and allow the peace process to succeed. The idea of them joining some type of unity government if Israel and the PA reach a peace agreement, and peacefully surrendering their control of Gaza, is a pipe dream.

I think any nation that is established by taking the resources of others and commits atrocities that rival those they escaped from is worthy of criticism. I am also critical of recruiting and brainwashing young people to believe that 99 Virgins await them in heaven if they strap a bomb on their back and take themselves and a bunch of innocent civilians out. Both the Israelis and Palestinians have attacked the others' hospitals and schools each in the name of self defense and both morally repugnant from my point of view. And to your point, I am also critical of the United States in these instances.

Withdrawn from the West Bank? Surely you jest. One of the biggest sticking points in the peace process is the number of illegal settlements that keep popping up. Both sides have agreed to accords only to find some bogus reason to subsequently violate that peace accord. Both sides. Both sides are responsible for killing innocent women and children. Both sides. If you are using the bolded sentence to refer to Israel, as it seems clear that you are, you are making a very ignorant and racist statement. Period. For the following reasons:
(1) Israel was not established by "taking" the resources of others. This is a canard promoted by many people who know it is false, but repeating lies so often that they become truth is a big and successful part of the Palestinian PR strategy. There have ALWAYS been Jews living in the land of Israel. The land of Israel has ALWAYS had Jews living in it. Since the last Jewish Kingdom existed, many powers have ruled the land, whcih is a valuable bridge between Africa and Europe/Asia. From time to time in history, the ruling powers have kicked Jews out of Israel and placed them into exile, but they never were able to find and expel everybody. Some people believe that before Israel existed, Palestine was a Palestinian county devoid of Jews, and the Palestinians were usurped from their land so Jews could take over. The truth is a lot more complicated than that. There were plenty of Jewish residents of Gaza and the West Bank who would have been displaced by the UN partition plan, and would have had to move to a carvedp-up Israel to make way for the independent state of Palestine. Yet the Jews of the area accepted the partition, and the Arabs refused it and declared war. At which time almost all of the Arab nations expelled their Jews and displaced them. Where is your concern for those displaced persons?
Before the creation of the modern state of Israel, there were many thousands of Jews living on the land. Arabs lived there too. There were pogroms in the 19th and 20th centuries (prior to 1948) in which Arabs slaughtered Jews in an effort to get them to leave. No one ever talks about those. But the idea that Israel was created by allowing a bunch of European Jews to go over and kick the Arabs off of their land is a distortion of history.
The Zionist movement began in the 19th Century, decades before Nazism. There were lots of Jews already living in Israel for generations before 1948. The Balfour Declaration committing Britian to the creation of Israel as a national homeland for the Jewish People,in recognition to the Jewish People's eternal claim and bond with the land, came in 1917, 2 decades before the Holocaust. The images of dead Jews throughout Europe no doubt bolstered the argument that the Jewish people needed (and deserved) a homeland-but did not create it. The Jewish people bulit Temples in Jerusalem more than 2000 yeaea before there was such thing as a "Palestinian". There was no such thing as a "Palestinian" until around 1964, when an Egyptian named Yasser Arafat started the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the idea of the Arabs of the land called Israel having a seperate national identity from the Arabs of Egypt or Jordan did not take shape until the 1970s.
(2) Your statement equates what Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to that which the Nazis and others did to the Jews of Europe. This canard is so ignorant and offensive as to close off legitimate debate. I should not have to point out any of this to you, but apparently, I must:
The Nazis rounded up all the Jews of Europe that they could get their hands on and systematically exterminated each of them by shooting, gassing and starving them to death. Their motive was one of racial superiority and racial hatred.
Israel has conferred full rights on its Arab population. Arabs hold seats in the Israeli Parliament and criticize the government to the point of treason without even being arrested. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are full of cities and villages with beautiful homes and stores selling food, there are restaurants and businesses there. There is no systematic program to exterminate all of Israel's Arab population, or the poplulation of the West Bank and Gaza. Your suggestion otherwise crosses the line from being anti-Israel into anti-semitism. I am sorry, but there is no other way to describe your statement and the comparison that it makes.

This is a dispute over land. Period. Yes, there are some religious tensions, but the dispute here is over who gets what portion of the land, and the reality that both sides have to share it. All Israel wants is to be left alone. They want to not be attacked and to live their lives. All the things you complain about in the remainder of your post arise out of the fact that Israel has throughout her entire existence had to defend herself against enemies within her borders and immediately outside its borders. I think she has tolerated way more than any other country would ever tolerate. Does it do so perfectly? No, Israel is made up of human beings and is not perfect. There is no instruction book on how to deal with domestic terrorism. Israel has in the past let Palestenian ambulances go by, only to find out after the fact that the ambulance was used to transport a suicide bomber to blow up a school bus full of kids or a restaurant. Now they check ambulances, which slows the ambulance down. Can you really blame them? Israel used to allow women to pass without checking them for bombs hidden under their clothing. Until a female who they let pass blew up a restaurant full of Jews. Now they check women. Can you blame them? The checkpoints everyone complains about would never have existed had the bombings not happened.

If you attack me and I defend yourself, are we morally equivalent? No,we are not. You started the violence and were the aggressor. What if I, in defending myself, totally kick your ass? Are we morally equivalent then? No, you still were the agressor and brought the damage upon yourself.

Israel is the only country in the world that is expected to take a beating from a guerilla army, allow its solidiers to be killed so that civilains among whom the guerillas fight and hide behind are spared, and then still get criticized.

[akhhorus]

Before I start, I'd just like to say that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the most overhyped conflict of the last 100 years. Ever since the Israelis beat back the Arab armies in 73, its been a low intensity conflict that gets a lot of press due to both sides playing it up the other's "sins" in the media that frankly the rest of the world has moved on from. People still complain about Israel and the Palestinians, but no one really cares. The Arab world is cutting business/science deals with Israel between the diplomatic kabuki theater of complaining about her actions.

Gaza is quiet because Israel invaded it and kicked Hamas' behind

You can believe that if you want to and they did do some damage to Hamas' military capabilities but they didn't "kick their behinds." Hamas still has all their capabilities to attack Israel if they wanted to.

then made it clear that it would do so again with no restrictions,including going after all of Hamas' leaders personally, if the bombing continued. The West Bank is quiet because Israel a security wall surrounding it to protect it from suicide bombers.

No, even after that Wall was put up, Hamas and Fatah linked bombers still got into Israel to attack. It was Fatah providing security that all but ended any attacks coming from the West Bank.

The rest of the world howled in objection when Israel invaded Gaza and when it buiilt the security wall, criticizing it as an "apartheid wall" in the PR battle to liken Israel to apartheid-era South Africa. Both actions taken by Israel saved Jewish (and doubtless many Arab) lives,and set the table for the improvement we see in the West Bank today.

The walls that surround Gaza do nothing to stop Hamas from using their primary weapons against Israel.

Due to the security provided by the wall, Israel has beenn able to ease restrictions on Palestinian movement and commerce.

Yes and no. Fatah's security and Israel letting them use some of the major roads in the West Bank have helped that, but the Israeli enclave in Hebron still is a major barrier to things since it blocks up one of the main traffic arteries in the West Bank just so that a few settlers can claim to be living there. I've seen video/pictures from inside the Settlements in Hebron, it looks like the Protestant enclaves in Catholic Belfast where the Brits would escort 1 police officer with a company of troops just to say that they patrolled the streets with the police.

That coupled with the PA finally getting their act together in the West Bank in the absence of Arafat and his kleptocracy under the new finance minister, who has done a terrific job, has led to Western-style economic growth, and the seeds for statehood are being sown. Unfortunately, Hamas in Gaza will not sit quiet and allow the peace process to succeed. The idea of them joining some type of unity government if Israel and the PA reach a peace agreement, and peacefully surrendering their control of Gaza, is a pipe dream.

Then where are they? With Israel offering up east Jerusalem to Fatah and willing to work on a deal(at least until Bibi's government falls in a couple months), why haven't they attacked out of Gaza?

(1) Israel was not established by "taking" the resources of others. This is a canard promoted by many people who know it is false, but repeating lies so often that they become truth is a big and successful part of the Palestinian PR strategy. There have ALWAYS been Jews living in the land of Israel. The land of Israel has ALWAYS had Jews living in it.

Even stipulating to your beliefs(which are probably wrong), the question is where was the Jewish part of the Levant. There's a lot of scholarship that it was Jerusalem and points west and south(ending around the Sinai). That would not include southern Lebanon, the Jordan river valley and the Golan heights.


I cut out your short history of the Jews because it really is irrelevant. If you want to discuss the history of British Occupied Israel/Palestine, you're going to find out that every side had bloody hands attacking each other. The simple fact is that the UN gave land to both sides. Israel occupied the Palestinian areas after 67(the Palestinians are willing to do a deal on the 67 borders) and have let the sore fester through inaction.


This is a dispute over land. Period. Yes, there are some religious tensions, but the dispute here is over who gets what portion of the land, and the reality that both sides have to share it. All Israel wants is to be left alone. They want to not be attacked and to live their lives.

If thats all Israel wanted, they would cut a deal with Fatah tomorrow. Especially with the Arab world much more interested in doing business with Israel than attacking them(The Saudis do a lot of business with Israel currently). They've shown that they can keep the West Bank secure. If its about Israel wanting to be left alone, they would make a deal with Fatah, then use those resources currently defending the settlements to squeeze Hamas into a favorable one.

All the things you complain about in the remainder of your post arise out of the fact that Israel has throughout her entire existence had to defend herself against enemies within her borders and immediately outside its borders.

So again: why don't they cut a deal with Fatah?

Israel is the only country in the world that is expected to take a beating from a guerilla army, allow its solidiers to be killed so that civilains among whom the guerillas fight and hide behind are spared, and then still get criticized.

The criticism Israel gets isn't because no one wants to let Israel defend itself. The criticism Israel gets is because they don't understand how disproportionate force looks like when its broadcast around the world. Israel has every right to attack, for instance, a group of Hamas rocket operators out in the open readying to fire on Israeli towns. Using an Apache attack chopper to fire missiles into an apartment block in the most crowded area in the world might end up taking out the target, but its a PR nightmare. You can't tell me that Israel couldn't get the job done by using the Mossad to sneak in and kill them(especially since Mossad keeps claiming that they've totally infiltrated Hamas and Hezbollah) or sit on them using a drone until they get out into the open. Israel could achieve its goals of defending the state/people much better if they cared a bit more about how her actions look on the international stage, and they can do that without ceding any security to her enemies.

[RedskinsDave]

Continue....

[redskin_rich]

*Bringing my chair over, cursing Dave*

Thanks Dave.

;)

[justinskins]

I'm generally pretty much on the Israeli side in the debate. However, I don't have much sympathy for right-wing Israeli governments like Netanyahu's. (I do however, think that Sharon did a brave thing by withdrawing from Gaza, and that he may have been able to play a unique role had he not entered his coma--someone who combines a will for peace with right wing bona fides, like de Gaulle in the 60s.) This government really should have at least continued the settlement freeze, and by failing to do so it is sacrificing any possibility of piece for internal political gain. They are missing a golden opportunity because Abbas is a much more reasonable man than Arafat. He would likely be willing to give up more ground on final status issues than anyone before or after him.

[Death_Venom]

In regards to Hamas:

Hamas's 1988 charter calls for replacing the State of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. Although the charter identifies the conflict as a "struggle against the Jews", Hamas leaders said it is political and not religious.

After the elections in 2006, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar did not rule out the possibility of accepting a "temporary two-state solution", and stated that he dreamed "of hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it."

In regards to Hezbollah:

From the inception of Hezbollah to the present, the elimination of the State of Israel has been one of Hezbollah's primary goals. Some translations of Hezbollah's 1985 Arabic-language manifesto state that "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated".

References can be found on Wikipedia.

Neither of these groups sound reasonable or have reasonable expectations. I assume that Israel entertains these groups in negotiations to obtain a brief reprieve from terrorist attacks.

[akhhorus]

In regards to Hamas:

In regards to Hezbollah:

References can be found on Wikipedia.

Neither of these groups sound reasonable or have reasonable expectations. I assume that Israel entertains these groups in negotiations to obtain a brief reprieve from terrorist attacks.

Israel doesn't negotiate with Hezbollah. There's no reason to since they occupy Southern Lebanon and can't really project their power into Northern Israel except to shoot some rockets into the suburbs of Haifa. Hezbollah also isn't fighting Israel since they're having their own troubles with the other factions inside of Lebanon. Hamas doesn't technically "believe" in the existence of Israel(much in the way we don't technically believe in the existence of Iran's current government), but if Israel were to give the West Bank a deal giving them essentially sovereignty(or a firm commitment giving it to them in a set time frame), Hamas will feel the pressure of the people that they-for lack of a better word-rule over in Gaza to cut their own deal. Or they're going to watch everyone who can leave Gaza for the West Bank do so. Which Israel should be more than happy to help with since it would weaken Hamas' power base.

I'm generally pretty much on the Israeli side in the debate. However, I don't have much sympathy for right-wing Israeli governments like Netanyahu's. (I do however, think that Sharon did a brave thing by withdrawing from Gaza, and that he may have been able to play a unique role had he not entered his coma--someone who combines a will for peace with right wing bona fides, like de Gaulle in the 60s.) This government really should have at least continued the settlement freeze, and by failing to do so it is sacrificing any possibility of piece for internal political gain. They are missing a golden opportunity because Abbas is a much more reasonable man than Arafat. He would likely be willing to give up more ground on final status issues than anyone before or after him.

Bibi's problem is going to be pissing off Labor by not doing the freeze and pissing off the far right wing by continuing to negotiate(and openly talking about giving up East Jerusalem). Id be surprised if his government survives for very long, but a labor-likud-kadima(Kadima won the most votes in the last election, but Bibi was allowed to form the government first) coalition will be committed to getting a deal done.

[Keino]

Sorry but it is not racist to point out that people were kicked out of their homes and run off of their land in 1948. I happen to know one such Palestinian (Christian BTW) family who was lucky enough to have distant relatives in Jordan who took them in and the financial ability to legally move to the United States. I'd love for someone to tell that family who lost land, home and personal belongings that it is racist to assert that the resources of others was taken in the establishment of Israel.

[shally]

Sorry but it is not racist to point out that people were kicked out of their homes and run off of their land in 1948. I happen to know one such Palestinian (Christian BTW) family who was lucky enough to have distant relatives in Jordan who took them in and the financial ability to legally move to the United States. I'd love for someone to tell that family who lost land, home and personal belongings that it is racist to assert that the resources of others was taken in the establishment of Israel.

first of all, i will certainly admit that the individual scenario you have pointed out (a family being pushed off their land in 1948) is most likely true. tragedies often happen with land that is held dear by multiple groups of people of different cultures or religions.. but admitting that point, i think you are totally missing the larger truth:

NO COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS HAD TO ENDURE WHAT ISRAEL HAS HAD TO ENDURE. THE ADMITTED PUBLIC POLICY BY OTHER NATIONS THAT ISRAEL HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST AND SHOULD BE EXPUNGED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH

that would be akin to the US saying that Brazil has no right to exist. moreover, do you actually know who originally owned the land YOUR house sits on ? i know you bought it in a legitimate sale, but at SOME point it was likely owned by a native tribe that was forced to give it up, either at bayonet point, or in exchange for largely worthless trifles. most of the Southwest was seized from Mexico, or Spain, who in turn had seized it from native tribes, who in turn had seized it from other, older (Anasazi) native tribes. whose land is it ?

where i live in the pacific northwest, the land was owned by the Yakama Tribe who were forced into a reservation along with the Nez Perce
after a brutal war. i bought my house, but at some point it belonged to a tribal member. whose land is it ??

coming back to the Israel/Arab conflict i will tell you that most American Jews do not feel that Israel is blameless, nor do we condone atrocities or imperialistic policies by the Israeli government. most Israeli's would gladly trade land for peace. moreover, Israel cannot survive long term absorbing that much land and Arab population. where countries have offerred true peace in exchange for concessions (Egypt and Jordan) Israel has forged lasting peace. that has,TO THIS POINT not been the case with Palestinians. It would be a tragedy for all if the Israeli's miss an opportunity for lasting peace with the Palestinians because of greed, or failure to reign in their extremist factions but the bedrock of any such agreement is the admission by ALL ARAB STATES that the nation of Israel has an implicit right to exist

[Keino]

Oh, I know I am living on stolen land. I am able to admit that without calling people racist who point that out. My land belonged to the Seminole tribe, with whom many treaties were broken. The difference is one of time. My father was alive in 1948. Nobody I know was alive when Andrew Jackson was violating treaties in the name of enforcing Fugitive Slave laws. In short, I can trace the chain of title to my land to 1948.

I am not arguing that Israel has no right to exist. I am arguing that Israel is far from blameless for the current state of things and that maybe, the foundations of Israel are shaky from a moral and human perspective. Skins7NY seems to think that anyone who does not support the Zionist effort is automatically a racist, when it can be argued that the Zionist effort is itself racist. I don't advance that argument, but I can see it, especially when one considers the exclusion of Ethiopian jews as automatic citizens of Israel (and I don't know the current state of that policy, but it was a controversy in 90s when I was up on such things). Having said that, the reality is 1948 cannot be undone. So at this point, I advocate for a wholly independent Palestinian state with some concessions over Jerusalem, which represents a holy city for all 3 major religions.

But the crux of my position is that Israel, like Hamas and other Palestinian groups, has innocent blood on their hands, and has violated peace accords and cannot claim to be on any moral high ground as Skins7ny would like us all to believe.

[RedskinsDave]

I agree with Sean on this one. While I support Israel in their fight against the backpack bombers and whatnot, I agree that they didn't exactly get to this point in time without doing the same thing that was done to them.

I also think comparing Israel to the U.S. is weak. Israel was created during modern times.

[akhhorus]

coming back to the Israel/Arab conflict i will tell you that most American Jews do not feel that Israel is blameless, nor do we condone atrocities or imperialistic policies by the Israeli government. most Israeli's would gladly trade land for peace. moreover, Israel cannot survive long term absorbing that much land and Arab population. where countries have offerred true peace in exchange for concessions (Egypt and Jordan) Israel has forged lasting peace. that has,TO THIS POINT not been the case with Palestinians. It would be a tragedy for all if the Israeli's miss an opportunity for lasting peace with the Palestinians because of greed, or failure to reign in their extremist factions but the bedrock of any such agreement is the admission by ALL ARAB STATES that the nation of Israel has an implicit right to exist

Yes, but the Palestinians, at least in the West Bank, have done what the Israelis have demanded and secured its borders. Now the Israelis are turning around and demanding that the Palestinians not only accept the settlements already in place, but that the Israelis can take an undefined amount of the west bank for new settlements, and the Israelis aren't promising if that would be enough. If its about security, and Israel has the right to be safe, then why are they demanding land for the settlers. That has absolutely nothing to do with the security of Israel.

[Skins7ny]

Before I start, I'd just like to say that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the most overhyped conflict of the last 100 years. Ever since the Israelis beat back the Arab armies in 73, its been a low intensity conflict that gets a lot of press due to both sides playing it up the other's "sins" in the media that frankly the rest of the world has moved on from. People still complain about Israel and the Palestinians, but no one really cares. The Arab world is cutting business/science deals with Israel between the diplomatic kabuki theater of complaining about her actions. I agree with you that the Arab/Israeli conflict gets way too much media attention in relation to its importance. There have been problems in the world far more important and far more deserving of media attention and resources, but they are ignored. There are lots of possible reasons why this is so, including the oil issue, the importance of Israel to many Americans (of Christian, Jewish and Moslem faiths), the special relationship Israel has with the U.S. as its only Middle Eastern ally in the Cold War and the only true democracy in the Middle East. I think there is an element of holding the Jewish state to higher moral standards that the rest of the world.

You can believe that if you want to and they did do some damage to Hamas' military capabilities but they didn't "kick their behinds." Hamas still has all their capabilities to attack Israel if they wanted to. They are rearming through the tunnel with Egypt and clandestine tunnels they have built. But I think the last incursion really scared them. They have been pretty quiet recently.

No, even after that Wall was put up, Hamas and Fatah linked bombers still got into Israel to attack. It was Fatah providing security that all but ended any attacks coming from the West Bank. The walls that surround Gaza do nothing to stop Hamas from using their primary weapons against Israel. Infiltration into Israel from areas covered by the wall virtually stopped as the wall was being built. Thank G-d, there have been virtually no suicide bombers since that time. The wall did exactly what it was intended to do, namely save Israeli lives. Those who argued it should not be built obviously placed little value on the lives of Israelis. That is a large part of the problem behind much of the criticism of Israel.

Yes and no. Fatah's security and Israel letting them use some of the major roads in the West Bank have helped that, but the Israeli enclave in Hebron still is a major barrier to things since it blocks up one of the main traffic arteries in the West Bank just so that a few settlers can claim to be living there. I've seen video/pictures from inside the Settlements in Hebron, it looks like the Protestant enclaves in Catholic Belfast where the Brits would escort 1 police officer with a company of troops just to say that they patrolled the streets with the police. Hebron is an ancient city of Jewish origin. I understand why religious Jews want to continue to have a presence there. However, everybody understands that in a final peace agreement, the area will be under Palestinian control. Remember also that when Jewish holy sites such as contained in and near Hebron, notably the Cave of Machpelah, site of burial of all of the Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs save Rachel, were controlled by Arabs, the holy places were desecrated and Jews were given no access. It is understandable that religious Jews, and even secular Jews, would not want to return to those days. If the land is to return to Arab control, Israel must be given guarantees of access and respectful treatment. Notably, Arabs and people of all faiths have had access to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem ever since Israel took control of East Jerusalem in 1967-in fact, Israel surrendered control over it to the Muslim Waqf Trust, whcih still finds every occassion to bitch and moan about Israeli interfence for security purposes.

Then where are they? With Israel offering up east Jerusalem to Fatah and willing to work on a deal(at least until Bibi's government falls in a couple months), why haven't they attacked out of Gaza? They crossed the border and killed 5 Israelis the first day Netanyahu and Abbas met for talks. Israel responded the next day or two by killing the high-ranking Hamas official who organized the attack. I don't think Hamas has done anything since. Their high-ranking people know that Israel will go after them personally, and they can no longer go hiding behind ingorant and stupid 18 and 19 year olds who buy the whole 72 virgin thing and blow themselves up.

Even stipulating to your beliefs(which are probably wrong), the question is where was the Jewish part of the Levant. There's a lot of scholarship that it was Jerusalem and points west and south(ending around the Sinai). That would not include southern Lebanon, the Jordan river valley and the Golan heights. The UN tried to approximate the population patterns existent in the land when it partioned it among the Jewish and Arab populations thereof in the 1947 Partition Plan. This is why the West Bank and Gaza (and parts of the north near Lebanon) were allocated to the Arab population, and the southern part, the western coast and the northeast part near Syria (next to the Golan Heights) were allocated to the Jewish population. This of course did not mean that there were no Jews living in Hebron or the rest of the West Bank, or that there were not Arabs living in the southern part of the country.
I cut out your short history of the Jews because it really is irrelevant. If you want to discuss the history of British Occupied Israel/Palestine, you're going to find out that every side had bloody hands attacking each other. The simple fact is that the UN gave land to both sides. Israel occupied the Palestinian areas after 67(the Palestinians are willing to do a deal on the 67 borders) and have let the sore fester through inaction. Israel took over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in a war started by 4 neighboring Arab states (with the support of many others) in an attempt to wipe Israel off the map. Israal won that war in 6 days and found themselves in control of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and most joyously, East Jerusalem. They promptly unified Jerusalem and sought to repair the damage done to Jewish holy places and other important places by 20 years of Jordanian assault and neglect. They may have "let the sore fester" initially, but in the last 17 years, they have been trying to find a way to negotiate resolution of both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It is not as simple as just vacating the area, there are issues to be negotiated when handling a land transfer like that. Not being able to find a partner with whom it could reasonably negotiate, Israel did what the world always said it wanted and pulled out of Gaza, even without a treaty. Hamas filled the vaccuum of power in the area, which is not unlike Al-Queda taking over Mexico. Which is why you don't want to cede land on your border without some type of treaty-but Israel did it anyway. And still (somehow) takes international abuse because of it.

If thats all Israel wanted, they would cut a deal with Fatah tomorrow. Especially with the Arab world much more interested in doing business with Israel than attacking them(The Saudis do a lot of business with Israel currently). They've shown that they can keep the West Bank secure. If its about Israel wanting to be left alone, they would make a deal with Fatah, then use those resources currently defending the settlements to squeeze Hamas into a favorable one. You have this fantasy world view, that you have posted before, that Arab countries are doing voluminous business with Israel. There is absolutely no evidence or sign of this anywhere. Please cite to one authority that backs up your claim. You cannot walk into a Saudi market and see Israeli products there. They certainly don't trade in arms. The countries do not have diplomatic relations, let alone trade relations. There are discussions that go on through back channels and intermediaries, of that I have no doubt, but this huge Arab desire to integrate Israel into their foreign trade is a fantasy of your own making. A nice one that I hope comes true, but for now, still fiction.

The criticism Israel gets isn't because no one wants to let Israel defend itself. The criticism Israel gets is because they don't understand how disproportionate force looks like when its broadcast around the world. Israel has every right to attack, for instance, a group of Hamas rocket operators out in the open readying to fire on Israeli towns. Using an Apache attack chopper to fire missiles into an apartment block in the most crowded area in the world might end up taking out the target, but its a PR nightmare. You can't tell me that Israel couldn't get the job done by using the Mossad to sneak in and kill them(especially since Mossad keeps claiming that they've totally infiltrated Hamas and Hezbollah) or sit on them using a drone until they get out into the open. Israel could achieve its goals of defending the state/people much better if they cared a bit more about how her actions look on the international stage, and they can do that without ceding any security to her enemies. When a guerrila army hides among civilians, your choices are to shoot at the civilians or let the guerrilas go. Israel has shown incredible and admirable restraint over the years in dealing with the civilian population. Israel has taken precautions for Palestinian civilians which have cost the lives of Israeli soldiers. There are Israeli soldiers who did not make it back to their grieving families because they hesitated to shoot towards a civilian area and got rewarded with a PLO or Hamas or Hezbollah bullet or grenade or other device. No other Army in the world is criticiized for valuing the lives of its soldiers over the lives of the enemy. Rarely do you hear criciticism of the Palestinians for using children as soldiers, or as human shields, or training them from the age of 5 to be martyrs to their cause (which is what? getting back the "occupied territories"? eliminating the state of Israel entirely?). When they target Hamas officials who use 18 year old boys to do their suicide bombing for them, Israel takes utmost caution to try to take out the official with no civilian casualties-but given that these guys move in packs and stay with their families, that is very hard to do.
I'm generally pretty much on the Israeli side in the debate. However, I don't have much sympathy for right-wing Israeli governments like Netanyahu's. (I do however, think that Sharon did a brave thing by withdrawing from Gaza, and that he may have been able to play a unique role had he not entered his coma--someone who combines a will for peace with right wing bona fides, like de Gaulle in the 60s.) This government really should have at least continued the settlement freeze, and by failing to do so it is sacrificing any possibility of piece for internal political gain. They are missing a golden opportunity because Abbas is a much more reasonable man than Arafat. He would likely be willing to give up more ground on final status issues than anyone before or after him.Netanyahu seems to have softened his stance on negotiating with the Palestinians since his last term. Still, even in his last term, he unilaterally handed the ancient Jewish holy city of Hebron over to the Palestinians without getting anything in return. Is that the action of a hardened right-winger who is an obstacle to peace? Much like Nixon going to China, it is usually the more right-wing leaders who are able to make a peace agreement, perhaps because they already establshed their bona fides on issues of security and carry more trust not to make a deal that endangers security in the name of peace. And you are 100% correct about Sharon. Abbas is extremely ineffectual-he has no juice as a political leader, and he knows it, which is one reason why he is reluictant to makea deal.
In regards to Hamas:
In regards to Hezbollah:
References can be found on Wikipedia.
Neither of these groups sound reasonable or have reasonable expectations. I assume that Israel entertains these groups in negotiations to obtain a brief reprieve from terrorist attacks. Be careful with Wikipedia. Because of its policy on letting anybody contribute to "definitive articles" on topics, it is known for being very slanted against Israel. Not surprisingly, they get more contributions from people predisposed against Israel (Arabs and Muslims) and they write the histpry in Wikipedia accordingly.

Sorry but it is not racist to point out that people were kicked out of their homes and run off of their land in 1948. I happen to know one such Palestinian (Christian BTW) family who was lucky enough to have distant relatives in Jordan who took them in and the financial ability to legally move to the United States. I'd love for someone to tell that family who lost land, home and personal belongings that it is racist to assert that the resources of others was taken in the establishment of Israel.
It is not racist to point out that people were kicked out of their homes, but only if you apply it without regard to race, which you clearly were not doing. As I pointed out, plenty of Jews living in the UN Partition Plan designated for Palestine (the Arab country) were to be displaced by the Plan, had the Arabs not rejected it and declared war on Israel. Meanwhile, almost a million Jews were thrown out of Arab countries in 1948, leaving behind property, friends, etc. Jews lived in Arab lands for hundreds of years and were systematically thrown out and made stateless-fortuntately, they had the new state of Israel to emigrate to, but they were forced immediately from a position of relative comfort (although not equal rights) in their home countries to a condition of immediate war in their new countries. And the Jewish Army defending Israel ran very few Arabs off their land during the 1948 War of Independence-the majority of Arabs left at the behest of the Arab League, so as to permit the Arab armies clear playing fields with the promise of return to their homes once the Jews were vanquished and the country fell to exclusive Arab sovereignty. Some Arabs left voluntarily rather than be around the fighting. The fighting was the Arabs' fault-they are the ones who declared war.

BTW, my mother and father left Cuba in a rush in 1962 to come to the United States. Are you telling me that I can look forward to getting their house back from the family that lives there now?

You left out the important fact of where your Palestinian friends lived before they left for Jordan and then the U.S. If it was in the part allocated to Palestine, I would have no problem telling them thatt they should have accepted the UN Partition Plan and stayed in their homes. Then they would have been part of a thriving independent Palestinian Country for the last 62 years. If it was in the part allocated to Israel, then I would have told them that I am very sorry, that I understand that it is a great sacrifice for them to leave their homes, but that by going along with the UN Partition Plan they will get an equal plot of land in another part of the area, they will enjoy complete independence in a Palestinian state for the first time in recorded history; they will have full citizenship and a government of their own choosing; and will guarantee peace of their children and their children's children. In doing so, they don't have to leave their country-they just have to move to another part of it.

Political displacement happens quite often in the world,. It stinks, no question, but sometimes the resons for it are legitimate and not evil. Here, you have two nations that claim the same land. The only solution is to share it. And the only way to share it with any defined structure is going to involve people moving in either direction until people of each nation are in their respective sides of the border.

Anyway, my issue with your post was in equating Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews. I have heard that canard before, and it makes my blood boil.

[shally]

Yes, but the Palestinians, at least in the West Bank, have done what the Israelis have demanded and secured its borders. Now the Israelis are turning around and demanding that the Palestinians not only accept the settlements already in place, but that the Israelis can take an undefined amount of the west bank for new settlements, and the Israelis aren't promising if that would be enough. If its about security, and Israel has the right to be safe, then why are they demanding land for the settlers. That has absolutely nothing to do with the security of Israel.

agreed. i part company with the Israeli government if they adhere to this policy.. i think most Israeli's feel the same way as i do. the difference is that THEIR lives are on the line, not mine so security is a real concrete issue for them

[Keino]

It is not racist to point out that people were kicked out of their homes, but only if you apply it without regard to race, which you clearly were not doing. As I pointed out, plenty of Jews living in the UN Partition Plan designated for Palestine (the Arab country) were to be displaced by the Plan, had the Arabs not rejected it and declared war on Israel. Meanwhile, almost a million Jews were thrown out of Arab countries in 1948, leaving behind property, friends, etc. Jews lived in Arab lands for hundreds of years and were systematically thrown out and made stateless-fortuntately, they had the new state of Israel to emigrate to, but they were forced immediately from a position of relative comfort (although not equal rights) in their home countries to a condition of immediate war in their new countries. And the Jewish Army defending Israel ran very few Arabs off their land during the 1948 War of Independence-the majority of Arabs left at the behest of the Arab League, so as to permit the Arab armies clear playing fields with the promise of return to their homes once the Jews were vanquished and the country fell to exclusive Arab sovereignty. Some Arabs left voluntarily rather than be around the fighting. The fighting was the Arabs' fault-they are the ones who declared war.

BTW, my mother and father left Cuba in a rush in 1962 to come to the United States. Are you telling me that I can look forward to getting their house back from the family that lives there now?

You left out the important fact of where your Palestinian friends lived before they left for Jordan and then the U.S. If it was in the part allocated to Palestine, I would have no problem telling them thatt they should have accepted the UN Partition Plan and stayed in their homes. Then they would have been part of a thriving independent Palestinian Country for the last 62 years. If it was in the part allocated to Israel, then I would have told them that I am very sorry, that I understand that it is a great sacrifice for them to leave their homes, but that by going along with the UN Partition Plan they will get an equal plot of land in another part of the area, they will enjoy complete independence in a Palestinian state for the first time in recorded history; they will have full citizenship and a government of their own choosing; and will guarantee peace of their children and their children's children. In doing so, they don't have to leave their country-they just have to move to another part of it.

Political displacement happens quite often in the world,. It stinks, no question, but sometimes the resons for it are legitimate and not evil. Here, you have two nations that claim the same land. The only solution is to share it. And the only way to share it with any defined structure is going to involve people moving in either direction until people of each nation are in their respective sides of the border.

Anyway, my issue with your post was in equating Israel's treatment of the Palestinians with the Nazis' treatment of Jews. I have heard that canard before, and it makes my blood boil.

First of all, Judaism is a religion not a race. I made no mentions of race in pointing out what I pointed out and what I pointed out remains true, no matter what outside conditions, stipulations and justifications placed on the fact. The reason I don't mention the part of Palestine than my friends were from is because I don't know. I only know that it is a source of extreme bitterness for this family and really, who the hell can blame them?

An equal plot of land in a barren section of the country is no compensation at all. But, I suppose you would be okay with the UN partitioning the area of Montgomery County you live in, giving it to people who recently immigrated to the area (as the vast majority of zionists were of European origin, despite the thousands of Jews living there) and taking an equal size plot of land in a dump section of SE DC. Sorry, just some routine political displacement.

I submit you would not be okay with that, and to expect someone else to be okay with that is not really a reasonable position in my view.

As to the Nazi comparison, perhaps that was a bit extreme, but atrocities are atrocities and there is no doubt that Israel has committed its share and has done so recently.

[Skins7ny]

Hard to know where to begin with Keino's post, so I will parse out each ridicilous statement and address it on its own merits.
....I am not arguing that Israel has no right to exist. I am arguing that Israel is far from blameless for the current state of things I never said Israel is blameless. As I have said, Israel is run by human beings. There is no manual on how to deal with guerrila warfare being waged among a civilian population (we in the US are still feeling the effects of our inability to do so in Vietnam). My position is that Israel has done as well as any country in dealing with the challenges it faces in a proper and moral manner. It is hard to kill morally. It is hard to defend yoursefl miliarily in a moral manner. People make mistakes, and overreact in battle. Jews are people, and we are no exception to human nature. But only Jews get held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. Meanwhile, there are real human rights abuses going on every day, people killing and maiming in the name of religion, racial superiority (see Darfur) and political or financial gain (see the drug trade in South America, Afghanistan, etc.) all over the world, but it doesn't generate 1/100th of the opprobrium of this tiny little country trying to defend its very existence from terrorist organizations funded by our enemies in Iran and Syria who are dedicated to her destruction.
and that maybe, the foundations of Israel are shaky from a moral and human perspective. They are not shaky from a moral perspective. Israel has been the religious and spiritual home of the Jewish people since Abraham moved there from Iraq thousands of years ago and founded the Jewish religion (and monotheism, for that matter). Jews have always lived in the land of Israel since then. Islam made a land grab claim on Israel due to its economic, strategic and political importance despite it never having been mentioned even once in the Koran and despite their being no record of Muhammed having visited there. Jews have been kicked out of Israel at various times dating back centuries-by the Palestinians' logic, if equally applied, this would mean that every Jew who was kicked out or killed by the Romans, the Byzantines or the Crusaders, etc. would have the right to return to their property as the original owners. If that were the case, there would be no room in the land for a single Palestinian.
Skins7NY seems to think that anyone who does not support the Zionist effort is automatically a racist, when it can be argued that the Zionist effort is itself racist. I never said that or even implied that. I said that you, in equating Jewish treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews, went so far beyond the pale of rational argument as to only be explainable as racism. I explained why in my previous post, and I stand behind it. You have offered no reason why I am wrong.
I don't advance that argument, but I can see it, especially when one considers the exclusion of Ethiopian jews as automatic citizens of Israel (and I don't know the current state of that policy, but it was a controversy in 90s when I was up on such things). I always am incredulous when someone calls Israel a racist state. Many people don't know it, but Israel bribed the government of Ethiopia to allow thousands of Ethiopian Jews to emigrate to Israel, escaping lives of famine, poverty and political hardship. Israel supplied the planes and flew them in to the country, offered them social benefits, housing and education, . There have been bumps in the road toward assimilation, no doubt. But can you name me another "white" (actually, olive) country that has paid to bring in thousands of Africans and offered them citizenship and all of the social benefits of the country, rather than to enslave them? This was notwell-publicized and so very few people know about this, which is funny because supposedly Jews control the media.
Having said that, the reality is 1948 cannot be undone. So at this point, I advocate for a wholly independent Palestinian state with some concessions over Jerusalem, which represents a holy city for all 3 major religions. I agree with you. Although no safeguards need be taken for the 3 major religions in territory controlled by Israel. All three religions already enjoy full access to their Holy Sites. In fact, last time I was there, in 1994 (it has been too long), I enjoyed a full tour of all the major Christian and Moslem sights, in addition to the Jewish ones. It was an incredible trip.
An independent Palestinian state with some concession over Jerusalem (short of dividing it) is what we all want. So why hasn't it happened yet? Even when Barak and leter Olmert offered to cede authority over East Jerusalem, Arafat and later Abbas did not make peace. What gives? The Palestinians should have had their state years ago.
But the crux of my position is that Israel, like Hamas and other Palestinian groups, has innocent blood on their hands, and has violated peace accords and cannot claim to be on any moral high ground as Skins7ny would like us all to believe Israel does have some innocent blood on its hands. When you fight a bloody war every two-three years, amid civilian populations there is going to be innocent blood shed. But contrast self-defense manuevers in a war of its enemy's choosing with the innocent blood shed by a suicide bomber tearing apart bus riders or a kindergarten. There is no moral equivalency there. One is a deliberate targeting of civilians in an effort to promote terror and insecurity to drive people of their land; the other is a military self-defense incursion into enemy territory to shut down rocket-launching and other attacks coming from the territory and directed towards Israeli citizens.
I agree with Sean on this one. While I support Israel in their fight against the backpack bombers and whatnot, [B]I agree that they didn't exactly get to this point in time without doing the same thing that was done to them.I also think comparing Israel to the U.S. is weak. Israel was created during modern times.
So you are saying that the Jews have given the Palestinians a taste of what Hitler did to them? That is funny, because I am sure that when my father was running for his life from the Nazis, he sure would have loved to have had a McDonald's or a KFC to eat at instead of having to forage for the raw onions and potatoes he would find and quietly eat in the fields in order to survive. He would have loved to eaten a meal anywhere without fear of being detected and caught and sent to a camp for extermination. And he would have loved to have had a nice hotel like this to stay at in between his escapes the trains that sought to take him to concentration camps. http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/intercontinental/en/gb/locations/overview/bethlehem
Yes, but the Palestinians, at least in the West Bank, have done what the Israelis have demanded and secured its borders. Now the Israelis are turning around and demanding that the Palestinians not only accept the settlements already in place, but that the Israelis can take an undefined amount of the west bank for new settlements, and the Israelis aren't promising if that would be enough. If its about security, and Israel has the right to be safe, then why are they demanding land for the settlers. That has absolutely nothing to do with the security of Israel. Where are you getting this information? Source this, please, I have heard this nowhere else.

[akhhorus]

I agree with you that the Arab/Israeli conflict gets way too much media attention in relation to its importance. There have been problems in the world far more important and far more deserving of media attention and resources, but they are ignored. There are lots of possible reasons why this is so, including the oil issue, the importance of Israel to many Americans (of Christian, Jewish and Moslem faiths), the special relationship Israel has with the U.S. as its only Middle Eastern ally in the Cold War and the only true democracy in the Middle East. I think there is an element of holding the Jewish state to higher moral standards that the rest of the world.

You can believe whatever you want to. My point is that no one actually cares about this conflict, not even the majority of israelis care(which is why a lot of them move to Tel Aviv and pretend it's someone else's problem since Tel Aviv is situated far enough away from Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank where they aren't under any threat from them). Despite all the Sturm und Drang from Europe over Israel, they rarely do anything to "punish" Israel over her actions.

They are rearming through the tunnel with Egypt and clandestine tunnels they have built. But I think the last incursion really scared them. They have been pretty quiet recently.


They weren't quiet after the last incursion until the people of Gaza basically said that this wasn't helping them out.

Infiltration into Israel from areas covered by the wall virtually stopped as the wall was being built. Thank G-d, there have been virtually no suicide bombers since that time. The wall did exactly what it was intended to do, namely save Israeli lives. Those who argued it should not be built obviously placed little value on the lives of Israelis. That is a large part of the problem behind much of the criticism of Israel.


Again: believe whatever you want to, the Wall wasn't stopping the suicide bombers from the west bank until Fatah got training and money to stop them.

Hebron is an ancient city of Jewish origin. I understand why religious Jews want to continue to have a presence there.

So, since Hebron is a city of ancient Jewish origin, the Jews can continue to carve out part of it?Thats what you're saying. So, you would have to agree that Jerusalem should be an international city since all 3 Abrahamic faiths have an ancient claim to it?

However, everybody understands that in a final peace agreement, the area will be under Palestinian control.

With a big part of it carved out for settlers.

Remember also that when Jewish holy sites such as contained in and near Hebron, notably the Cave of Machpelah, site of burial of all of the Jewish patriarchs and matriarchs save Rachel, were controlled by Arabs, the holy places were desecrated and Jews were given no access. It is understandable that religious Jews, and even secular Jews, would not want to return to those days. If the land is to return to Arab control, Israel must be given guarantees of access and respectful treatment. Notably, Arabs and people of all faiths have had access to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem ever since Israel took control of East Jerusalem in 1967-in fact, Israel surrendered control over it to the Muslim Waqf Trust, whcih still finds every occassion to bitch and moan about Israeli interfence for security purposes.

The Jews have an ancient tie to Iraq, so should Israel be allowed to have an enclave there? Using biblical history(which is pretty poor at best) as a justification for settlements is asking for another 100 years of fighting.

They crossed the border and killed 5 Israelis the first day Netanyahu and Abbas met for talks. Israel responded the next day or two by killing the high-ranking Hamas official who organized the attack. I don't think Hamas has done anything since. Their high-ranking people know that Israel will go after them personally, and they can no longer go hiding behind ingorant and stupid 18 and 19 year olds who buy the whole 72 virgin thing and blow themselves up.

So, Fatah and Israel seem to get serious about talks, and Hamas does one attack. That undermines your theory.

The UN tried to approximate the population patterns existent in the land when it partioned it among the Jewish and Arab populations thereof in the 1947 Partition Plan. This is why the West Bank and Gaza (and parts of the north near Lebanon) were allocated to the Arab population, and the southern part, the western coast and the northeast part near Syria (next to the Golan Heights) were allocated to the Jewish population. This of course did not mean that there were no Jews living in Hebron or the rest of the West Bank, or that there were not Arabs living in the southern part of the country.

And your point is what exactly? If Israel has a legal/political claim on what we know as Israel prior to 67 due to the UN mandate, then the Palestinians have an equally valid claim to the Gaza strip/West bank.

Israel took over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in a war started by 4 neighboring Arab states (with the support of many others) in an attempt to wipe Israel off the map. Israal won that war in 6 days and found themselves in control of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and most joyously, East Jerusalem. They promptly unified Jerusalem and sought to repair the damage done to Jewish holy places and other important places by 20 years of Jordanian assault and neglect. They may have "let the sore fester" initially, but in the last 17 years, they have been trying to find a way to negotiate resolution of both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It is not as simple as just vacating the area, there are issues to be negotiated when handling a land transfer like that. Not being able to find a partner with whom it could reasonably negotiate, Israel did what the world always said it wanted and pulled out of Gaza, even without a treaty.

They have? Rabin and Sharon have been the only prime ministers that have seriously moved towards that(and the wackjobs killed one of them, the other one is legally dead). Fatah has been saying for almost a decade that they have no problem with recognizing Israel at the 67 borders(even hinting that they can negotiate on East Jerusalem) and Israel is saying that they're willing to give up East Jerusalem...so what's the hold up if the issue as simplistic as you want to make it out to be?

Hamas filled the vaccuum of power in the area, which is not unlike Al-Queda taking over Mexico. Which is why you don't want to cede land on your border without some type of treaty-but Israel did it anyway. And still (somehow) takes international abuse because of it.

Wrong again: thanks to Dubya, we encouraged Israel to allow for elections in both the gaza strip and west bank. Hamas won, we looked the other way as Fatah ignored the results in the west bank. Israel doesn't take international abuse for keeping the status quo, they take abuse for things like the settlements.

You have this fantasy world view, that you have posted before, that Arab countries are doing voluminous business with Israel. There is absolutely no evidence or sign of this anywhere. Please cite to one authority that backs up your claim. You cannot walk into a Saudi market and see Israeli products there. They certainly don't trade in arms. The countries do not have diplomatic relations, let alone trade relations. There are discussions that go on through back channels and intermediaries, of that I have no doubt, but this huge Arab desire to integrate Israel into their foreign trade is a fantasy of your own making. A nice one that I hope comes true, but for now, still fiction.

I've posted links about this before, but here you go:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3308116,00.html
http://www1.albawaba.com/business/israeli-exports-arab-countries-21
Link (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16137&skintype=G&skinname=_default&skinsrc=printmodule.ascx&containertype=G&containername=_default&containersrc=printContent.ascx&mid=912)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3335306,00.html

You can retract your comment anytime you feel like, but I doubt you're capable of admitting that you're wrong.

When a guerrila army hides among civilians, your choices are to shoot at the civilians or let the guerrilas go. Israel has shown incredible and admirable restraint over the years in dealing with the civilian population. Israel has taken precautions for Palestinian civilians which have cost the lives of Israeli soldiers. There are Israeli soldiers who did not make it back to their grieving families because they hesitated to shoot towards a civilian area and got rewarded with a PLO or Hamas or Hezbollah bullet or grenade or other device. No other Army in the world is criticiized for valuing the lives of its soldiers over the lives of the enemy. Rarely do you hear criciticism of the Palestinians for using children as soldiers, or as human shields, or training them from the age of 5 to be martyrs to their cause (which is what? getting back the "occupied territories"? eliminating the state of Israel entirely?). When they target Hamas officials who use 18 year old boys to do their suicide bombing for them, Israel takes utmost caution to try to take out the official with no civilian casualties-but given that these guys move in packs and stay with their families, that is very hard to do.


No one is saying that the Palestinians are guiltless here, but when the fight is "modern army vs guerilla force" the guerilla force tries to get the modern army to fire into groups of civilians since that good PR for them(see the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan). Israel can defend itself without taking that bait. Hell, they've developed a air to ground missile designed to kill a small area and leave the surrounding area unharmed(here's the link) (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/mystery-weapon/). Israel has every right to fire into a crowd to take out a military target but blowing up apartment buildings is just feeding the very insurgency that they're trying to fight. You create more suicide bombers doing that then whatever target you're after.

It is not racist to point out that people were kicked out of their homes, but only if you apply it without regard to race, which you clearly were not doing. As I pointed out, plenty of Jews living in the UN Partition Plan designated for Palestine (the Arab country) were to be displaced by the Plan, had the Arabs not rejected it and declared war on Israel.

The Palestinians had their land taken from them by the Arab countries. This is the essential problem: Israel, in a legal sense, is holding or occupying the lands that were given to the Palestinians. The Palestinians, at least Fatah, seem perfectly willing to go back to the 67 Borders and Israel seems willing to give up part of East Jerusalem for peace, so what's the hold up?


.So you are saying that the Jews have given the Palestinians a taste of what Hitler did to them? That is funny, because I am sure that when my father was running for his life from the Nazis, he sure would have loved to have had a McDonald's or a KFC to eat at instead of having to forage for the raw onions and potatoes he would find and quietly eat in the fields in order to survive. He would have loved to eaten a meal anywhere without fear of being detected and caught and sent to a camp for extermination. And he would have loved to have had a nice hotel like this to stay at in between his escapes the trains that sought to take him to concentration camps. http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/intercontinental/en/gb/locations/overview/bethlehem

Put away the Nazi card. No matter what happened to your family, you have absolutely no right to keep waving it to get out any criticism/disagreement. You're insulting all Jews and especially the ones who were killed by those monsters by doing that just to avoid having to answer someone disagreeing with you on a damn message board. Reading you write that makes my skin crawl in disgust.

Where are you getting this information? Source this, please, I have heard this nowhere else.

Where have you been? Thats what Sharon demanded(Fatah controlling the West Bank enough to secure it), Dubya got them to agree to allow us to fund their security training/equipment, and Kadima was moving towards a deal because of the security provided by Fatah when Bibi became prime minster. Now its totally about the settlements since Bibi is trying to please Lieberman.

[Skins7ny]

You don't have to tell me about dispossessed people. I grew up with two such people. My father was dispossessed twice. First when the Nazis entered his town of Buchirch, Poland in March 1943 and rounded up and killed all of the Jews, including his beloved brother for whom I am named. My uncle was able to warn his family of the invasion before he was killed, and my father and his sister fled into the woods. My father spent the rest of the war on the run. He was 14 years old. After the war, he wanted to come to America, but there were quotas on how many Jews we would take in, so he decided to go to Cuba, figuring it was as close as he could get to America for the time being. He was happy as a clam there, built up a successful business, met and married my mother there, until Castro took over. My father was dispossed again, along with my mother and her entire family who had been in Cuba since the 1920s, and were lucky enough to be permitted to leave for America with only clothes on their back in Aug 62-my mom was 8 months pregnant with my older brother.

My mother often talks about her longing for the land in which she grew up. Being dispossessed and kicked out of your country is indeed a terrible thing. I do not blame your friends for being bitter. Howver, the fact remains that they probably left because they were told to or they left of their own free will with the war breaking out. They can't blame ISrael for that, when the Jews accepted the Partition Plan and the Arab League said no and declared war. They should be mad at the Arab League. If they were in the part of the territory designated as Jewish, they could have stayed-Israel invited all of its Arab citizens to stay, and many of them did, which is why there are so many Arab Israelis living in Israel as full citizens today. If he did not want to live in Israel, he could have moved (comparatively speaking, the equivalent of moving from one town in New Jersey to another one in a different part of the state) and been under Palestinian/Arab control. All of these displaced Palestinian refugees are always so bitter, but they don't give you all of, or even any important part, of their story. Your friends' bitterness, I would suggest is somewhat mislplaced.

[justinskins]

First of all, Judaism is a religion not a race. I made no mentions of race in pointing out what I pointed out and what I pointed out remains true, no matter what outside conditions, stipulations and justifications placed on the fact. The reason I don't mention the part of Palestine than my friends were from is because I don't know. I only know that it is a source of extreme bitterness for this family and really, who the hell can blame them?


It's not a race, but it has often been talked about as one. That was true of the Nazis, but also elsewhere; in the early 20th-century US, Jewish issues were often referred to as problems of race (including by prominent Jews themselves). Most of the anti-Semites in the world think of the Jews as a race. Moreover, there is the biblical idea of the Jews as a nation or people that make Judaism in some respects as much like an ethnos as a religion.

That's why accusations of anti-Semitism can generally considered to be tantamount to racism. But criticisms of the Israeli government shouldn't be automatically considered anti-Semitic, so I think it's a little unfair to start accusing Keino or anyone else on the forum of racial discrimination.

It's not outrageous for Arabs still to be upset about the displacements of 1948. Despite what Skins7ny has written, Palestinian activists still very much contend that the Israeli Army forced out lots of Arabs during the war. I don't have much of an opinion on the issue itself, but the fact remains that people were displaced during wartime. In theory that means that those displaced people have a right of return; although for the UN to declare that right is somewhat hypocritical as it oversaw some of the largest forced migrations of people ever at the end of WWII (just as the League of Nations did at the end of WWI).

I would agree with Shally that there are some serious double standards when it comes to Israel. Most nation-states have done pretty dark things in their past, many of them to acquire the territory they now inhabit, and many of them to minorities still under their rule. To the extent that Israel's critics want to delegitimize it as a state or say that Zionism is a racist ideology, similar arguments could be made about the US or most other national governments, including the Arab states. Such arguments are also blind to the exceptional threats to Israel's security that have existed since it's inception.

The facts are this: peace will not come until both sides are willing and able to make some serious sacrifices. On the Israeli side, that will mean dismantling all West Bank settlements and agreeing to share sovereignty over Jerusalem. On the Palestinian side, it will mean permanently giving up all claims to a right of return, and entering into full diplomatic relations with the state of Israel (along with the rest of the Arab League). Unfortunately, it's been some time since such an agreement has even seemed possible. The only other way peace will come is by the genocide of one side by the other.

[akhhorus]

You don't have to tell me about dispossessed people. I grew up with two such people. My father was dispossessed twice. First when the Nazis entered his town of Buchirch, Poland in March 1943 and rounded up and killed all of the Jews, including his beloved brother for whom I am named. My uncle was able to warn his family of the invasion before he was killed, and my father and his sister fled into the woods. My father spent the rest of the war on the run. He was 14 years old. After the war, he wanted to come to America, but there were quotas on how many Jews we would take in, so he decided to go to Cuba, figuring it was as close as he could get to America for the time being. He was happy as a clam there, built up a successful business, met and married my mother there, until Castro took over. My father was dispossed again, along with my mother and her entire family who had been in Cuba since the 1920s, and were lucky enough to be permitted to leave for America with only clothes on their back in Aug 62-my mom was 8 months pregnant with my older brother.

We used to have a regular poster in this forum, who when ever discussing the war on terror, would claim that since he was in the WTC building on 9-11(and got out), that this gave him additional credibility. Whether or not he was telling the truth, it didn't give him any additional credibility and he-supposedly-at least went through the traumatic events. You didn't and you're still disgracing the memory of all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis by trying to use this as your trump card just to keep from making relevant comments to someone who took the time to respond to you. If you honestly believe that what happened to your family 80 years ago gives you any credibility on this subject and that we're supposed to just agree with you because of what happened to your father, you simply have no soul.

Unless your next post in this thread is an apology to everyone for using the Nazi card in this thread, I'm not going to feed your disgusting trolling anymore. As a fellow Jew, I can't tell you how much I'm offended by your constant use of this meme. I used to just disagree with how you see the world/football, but unless you apologize for this, you do nothing but disgust me as a Jew and a human being for your use of the Nazis just to try and spin in a message board thread. Look in the mirror and see what you're becoming before its too late.

[Keino]

Hard to know where to begin with Keino's post, so I will parse out each ridicilous statement and address it on its own merits.
I never said Israel is blameless. As I have said, Israel is run by human beings. There is no manual on how to deal with guerrila warfare being waged among a civilian population (we in the US are still feeling the effects of our inability to do so in Vietnam). My position is that Israel has done as well as any country in dealing with the challenges it faces in a proper and moral manner. It is hard to kill morally. It is hard to defend yoursefl miliarily in a moral manner. People make mistakes, and overreact in battle. Jews are people, and we are no exception to human nature. But only Jews get held to a higher standard than the rest of the world. Meanwhile, there are real human rights abuses going on every day, people killing and maiming in the name of religion, racial superiority (see Darfur) and political or financial gain (see the drug trade in South America, Afghanistan, etc.) all over the world, but it doesn't generate 1/100th of the opprobrium of this tiny little country trying to defend its very existence from terrorist organizations funded by our enemies in Iran and Syria who are dedicated to her destruction.

And what makes you think I am not critical of all those things that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict? Morally, I am holding Israel to the same standards I hold everyone else. Your initial objection was that I am critical of Israel, yet you admit here that there are things that Israel has done that are worthy of criticism. It's not holding someone to a different or higher moral standard when pointing those things out. Injustice and atrocities don't become something else based on who is committing them. You may feel that Israel was justified in some of these actions. I don't, but my view is detached from the situation as I have friends on both sides of it. So please spare me the "jews held to a higher standard" bit. Most of the world is sympathetic to the fact that Israel is surrounded by hostile neighbors.


They are not shaky from a moral perspective. Israel has been the religious and spiritual home of the Jewish people since Abraham moved there from Iraq thousands of years ago and founded the Jewish religion (and monotheism, for that matter). Jews have always lived in the land of Israel since then. Islam made a land grab claim on Israel due to its economic, strategic and political importance despite it never having been mentioned even once in the Koran and despite their being no record of Muhammed having visited there. Jews have been kicked out of Israel at various times dating back centuries-by the Palestinians' logic, if equally applied, this would mean that every Jew who was kicked out or killed by the Romans, the Byzantines or the Crusaders, etc. would have the right to return to their property as the original owners. If that were the case, there would be no room in the land for a single Palestinian.

Did you say Abraham? You are aware that Abraham's other son, Ishmael is the progenitor of the Arab people, right? He and his mother Hagar were sent off to the Arabian peninsula thanks to Sarai's jealousy. So I think all 3 religions, have about the same legal claim to the area dating back to the days of Abraham's covenant with God and given the number of times the land has changed hands, any arguments claiming that land dating back to Abraham belongs to any one single group are specious at best.


I never said that or even implied that. I said that you, in equating Jewish treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews, went so far beyond the pale of rational argument as to only be explainable as racism. I explained why in my previous post, and I stand behind it. You have offered no reason why I am wrong.

I haven't? Look no further than me looking at atrocities as atrocities and the Nazis committed them against jews and Israelis have committed them against Palenstinians. Is that incorrect?

I always am incredulous when someone calls Israel a racist state. Many people don't know it, but Israel bribed the government of Ethiopia to allow thousands of Ethiopian Jews to emigrate to Israel, escaping lives of famine, poverty and political hardship. Israel supplied the planes and flew them in to the country, offered them social benefits, housing and education, . There have been bumps in the road toward assimilation, no doubt. But can you name me another "white" (actually, olive) country that has paid to bring in thousands of Africans and offered them citizenship and all of the social benefits of the country, rather than to enslave them? This was notwell-publicized and so very few people know about this, which is funny because supposedly Jews control the media.

I'll have to take your word on this.

An independent Palestinian state with some concession over Jerusalem (short of dividing it) is what we all want. So why hasn't it happened yet? Even when Barak and leter Olmert offered to cede authority over East Jerusalem, Arafat and later Abbas did not make peace. What gives? The Palestinians should have had their state years ago.

It hasn't happened because there are elements of both sides that do not want peace with the other. Each of those elements has a fair amount of influence on their respective side.



Israel does have some innocent blood on its hands. When you fight a bloody war every two-three years, amid civilian populations there is going to be innocent blood shed. But contrast self-defense manuevers in a war of its enemy's choosing with the innocent blood shed by a suicide bomber tearing apart bus riders or a kindergarten. There is no moral equivalency there. One is a deliberate targeting of civilians in an effort to promote terror and insecurity to drive people of their land; the other is a military self-defense incursion into enemy territory to shut down rocket-launching and other attacks coming from the territory and directed towards Israeli citizens.


So, your contention then, is that all innocent blood spilled by Israelis was in self-defense? There have been no missile or other offensive attacks aimed at hospitals, heavily populated civilian areas or missionary boats?

I don't think anyone with an objective viewpoint would draw those conclusions.

[justinskins]

I haven't? Look no further than me looking at atrocities as atrocities and the Nazis committed them against jews and Israelis have committed them against Palenstinians. Is that incorrect?

I'm guessing Skins7ny's objection is that the Holocaust is an entirely different class of atrocities from what the Jews have done to Palestinians. The Nazis didn't displace the Jews and use extraneous force against Jewish civilians while pursuing legitimate security objectives. They launched themselves on a path of world domination, one goal of which was to rid the entire world of Jews, and in the course of which they ultimately killed millions of Jews with a sickeningly heartless industrial and bureaucratic precision.

[Keino]

I'm guessing Skins7ny's objection is that the Holocaust is an entirely different class of atrocities from what the Jews have done to Palestinians. The Nazis didn't displace the Jews and use extraneous force against Jewish civilians while pursuing legitimate security objectives. They launched themselves on a path of world domination, one goal of which was to rid the entire world of Jews, and in the course of which they ultimately killed millions of Jews with a sickeningly heartless industrial and bureaucratic precision.

And I am certain that I acknowledged the comparison was extreme. The Nazis also killed milliions of Gypsies and Christians who harbored and/or sympathized with Jews.

I won't apologize for calling a a quacking thing on webbed feet a Duck.

[justinskins]

And I am certain that I acknowledged the comparison was extreme. The Nazis also killed milliions of Gypsies and Christians who harbored and/or sympathized with Jews.

Millions may be a bit of an overstatement. I believe that the best scholarly estimates are that 100-200,000 Roma & Sinti were killed by the Nazis. I'm not sure what the numbers are for Christians harboring Jews (probably not that large, since I don't think there were a million Christians directly harboring Jews in all Europe). Nazi Germany brought about the deaths of millions of people, through war, war atrocities, and civil persecution. No group was targeted as consistently and effectively as the Jews, though.

I agree with your general point that there have been Israeli atrocities. I just think that making the comparison at all stirs up more trouble than it is worth.

[akhhorus]

Millions may be a bit of an overstatement. I believe that the best scholarly estimates are that 100-200,000 Roma & Sinti were killed by the Nazis. I'm not sure what the numbers are for Christians harboring Jews (probably not that large, since I don't think there were a million Christians directly harboring Jews in all Europe). Nazi Germany brought about the deaths of millions of people, through war, war atrocities, and civil persecution. No group was targeted as consistently and effectively as the Jews, though.


Probably closer to 600000-1000000 for the Roma. About 11 million died in the in what is considered the Holocaust. Jews, obviously, made up the biggest part of it, but they also killed millions of Soviet/Poles/Czechs via gassing/execution.

[justinskins]

Probably closer to 600000-1000000 for the Roma. About 11 million died in the in what is considered the Holocaust. Jews, obviously, made up the biggest part of it, but they also killed millions of Soviet/Poles/Czechs via gassing/execution.

It depends on which historian you talk to. Some want to reserve the term Holocaust for what happened to the Jews (which was how the term was originally used), while others are fine with applying it to the whole range of "other victims." My personal inclination is to use the term more liberally but recognize the special quality of the Nazi drive to exterminate Jews. The politics of the situation become problematic insofar as they lead to a perverse drive to create a hierarchy of victimhood. I do think, however, that there is an unsavory aspect of some groups (esp. Poles) wanting essentially to claim that they suffered as much as the Jews.

I would dispute your numbers on gassing. My understanding is that gassing was the primary mode of execution only in the five extermination camps (apart from the sporadic use of gas vans elsewhere), which mostly targeted Jews. Most non-Jewish Polish civilians who died in the war weren't killed at Auschwitz (although some were). Non-Jewish Eastern European civilians were more likely to die in various different massacres, or in German slave labor camps.

[akhhorus]

It depends on which historian you talk to. Some want to reserve the term Holocaust for what happened to the Jews (which was how the term was originally used), while others are fine with applying it to the whole range of "other victims." My personal inclination is to use the term more liberally but recognize the special quality of the Nazi drive to exterminate Jews. The politics of the situation become problematic insofar as they lead to a perverse drive to create a hierarchy of victimhood. I do think, however, that there is an unsavory aspect of some groups (esp. Poles) wanting essentially to claim that they suffered as much as the Jews.


That is true, but there are hard numbers on the Nazis mass executing civilians in Eastern Europe. I could buy that they killed millions when they're killing them 20k at a time.

I would dispute your numbers on gassing. My understanding is that gassing was the primary mode of execution only in the five extermination camps (apart from the sporadic use of gas vans elsewhere), which mostly targeted Jews. Most non-Jewish Polish civilians who died in the war weren't killed at Auschwitz (although some were). Non-Jewish Eastern European civilians were more likely to die in various different massacres, or in German slave labor camps.

The gas vans were used initially for killing Eastern Europeans. They had 30 of these vans by 1942 and they could kill hundreds per day. It was the effectiveness of these vans in committing mass murder that inspired Heydrich to propose expanding the program and making them into camps at the Wannsee conference.

[justinskins]

That is true, but there are hard numbers on the Nazis mass executing civilians in Eastern Europe. I could buy that they killed millions when they're killing them 20k at a time.

The gas vans were used initially for killing Eastern Europeans. They had 30 of these vans by 1942 and they could killed hundreds per day. It was the effectiveness of these vans in committing mass murder that inspired Heydrich to propose expanding the program and making them into camps at the Wannsee conference.

The politics of the history get very difficult. On the one hand, there's no doubt that everyone in Eastern Europe suffered terribly because of German aggression. I would never deny that millions of non-Jewish civilians were killed in Eastern Europe, for a variety of reasons and by a variety of methods. On the other, only the Jews (and also Gypsies) were targeted for immediate extermination. The Slavic peoples were going to be displaced, enslaved, and exterminated over a period of decades.

As for the vans, it's been several years since I've read much about the details of their use. The Wikipedia article on the Holocaust seems to mesh with what I remember, in that the vans were originally used to "euthanize" mental patients, then at Sachsenhausen, and then in Eastern Europe where they were primarily used against Jews (but not exclusively). Then the practice was incorporated into the extermination camps, as you have written.

[akhhorus]

The politics of the history get very difficult. On the one hand, there's no doubt that everyone in Eastern Europe suffered terribly because of German aggression. I would never deny that millions of non-Jewish civilians were killed in Eastern Europe, for a variety of reasons and by a variety of methods. On the other, only the Jews (and also Gypsies) were targeted for immediate extermination. The Slavic peoples were going to be displaced, enslaved, and exterminated over a period of decades.

And political opponents(they even threw the deputy Foreign Minister in a concentration camp in 44 which was ironic since he was a major figure at Wannsee) and gays. I think that the historiography generally separates those civilians who died in the fog of war, or via siege/attack and those who were marched out and executed(or attacked after the battle lines moved away, like the sack of Warsaw). Its generally thought that the Nazis killed a few million civilians(Jewish and non-Jewish) in Eastern Europe outside of in the midst of battle or in a concentration camp.

As for the vans, it's been several years since I've read much about the details of their use. The Wikipedia article on the Holocaust seems to mesh with what I remember, in that the vans were originally used to "euthanize" mental patients, then at Sachsenhausen, and then in Eastern Europe where they were primarily used against Jews (but not exclusively). Then the practice was incorporated into the extermination camps, as you have written.

They definitely used them against Jews in eastern europe, but they were used against anyone they marked for execution.

[Skins7ny]

An equal plot of land in a barren section of the country is no compensation at all. But, I suppose you would be okay with the UN partitioning the area of Montgomery County you live in, giving it to people who recently immigrated to the area (as the vast majority of zionists were of European origin, despite the thousands of Jews living there) and taking an equal size plot of land in a dump section of SE DC. Sorry, just some routine political displacement.

I submit you would not be okay with that, and to expect someone else to be okay with that is not really a reasonable position in my view.

As to the Nazi comparison, perhaps that was a bit extreme, but atrocities are atrocities and there is no doubt that Israel has committed its share and has done so recently.
If I lived in a disputed land shared by two distinct peoples (which Israeli Arabs weren't at that point, BTW), and I were asked to move for the sake of posterity so that my children and I could live in peace, your damn right I would. I wouldn't like it, but I would recognize that sacrifices have to be made for the larger good. You can tell me I am full of it, but the proof in that pudding is that the Jews accepted the 1947 Partition Plan and the Arabs did not. Lots of Jews were going to be "moving from Montgomery County" and into a land far more undeveloped and hopeless than "the dump section of SE DC" to which you refer. The Jews fought off the Arab armies and turned Israel into a modern marvel despite devoting much of their human and financial capital to military and security needs. The Arabs have wallowed in self-pity, stayed in what they dishonestly continue to call "refugee camps" alone among all potlitical refugees in the world who have agreed to be re-settled (like my mother for example), as sucky as it is. Their most successful product for export has arguably been pictures for the TV news, at least the ones they don't censor by beating cameramen and confiscating their equipment.

As far as the Nazi-like atrocities you refer to demonize the Jewish State, be specific-what exactly has Israel done to the Palestinians that are similar to what the Nazis did to the Jewish people?
Again: believe whatever you want to, the Wall wasn't stopping the suicide bombers from the west bank until Fatah got training and money to stop them. Your timing is incorrect.

So, since Hebron is a city of ancient Jewish origin, the Jews can continue to carve out part of it?Thats what you're saying. So, you would have to agree that Jerusalem should be an international city since all 3 Abrahamic faiths have an ancient claim to it? Read the next sentence of my post-since you apparently missed it last time, I put it in bold for you:
"Hebron is an ancient city of Jewish origin. I understand why religious Jews want to continue to have a presence there. However, everybody understands that in a final peace agreement, the area will be under Palestinian control". Why are you distorting the plain text of what I posted? Just address my arguments honestly, for goodness' sake.

With a big part of it carved out for settlers.
C'mon, stop beating that dead horse. The number of settlements that will be kept by Israel have been known for literally years. And the compensation that Israel will give the Palestinians in land to make up for the settlements also has been known for years. They are not fighting about the settlements-there is going to be a tit for tat exchange of land in the final peace agreement. Everybody knows this, and the PA Finance Minister, who is more interested in reaching an agreement and getting a state than he is all this PR/political gamesmanship, has admitted the same and advised Abbas to get off that horse. You have followed the issue well enough to know that is true as well.

The Jews have an ancient tie to Iraq, so should Israel be allowed to have an enclave there? Using biblical history(which is pretty poor at best) as a justification for settlements is asking for another 100 years of fighting. Thank you for making my argument for me. If Jews expelled from Iraq cannot go back and claim their homes, and if my mother cannot go back and claim hers, wherefore the argument that Palestinians get to go back and claim theirs (the right of return)?

So, Fatah and Israel seem to get serious about talks, and Hamas does one attack. That undermines your theory.How so?

And your point is what exactly? If Israel has a legal/political claim on what we know as Israel prior to 67 due to the UN mandate, then the Palestinians have an equally valid claim to the Gaza strip/West bank. I agree that the Palestinians have a valid claim on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Valid, but not exclusive. In any event, both territories have been under Palestinian control for years now. Israel withdrew completely from Gaza years ago. And the PA has been in control of the West Bank for years now and is finally getting it ready for statehood. All that is left is to negotiate a peace treaty. I would love to see that happen. As a Jew who loves Israel, has family living in Israel, and the desire to visit more often and the chance my children will go there, I am extremely desirous of peace and security.

Let's say a peace treaty is signed tomorrow that the West Bank Palestinians ratify in a referendum. What do you think happens next? Does Hamas throw everyone a big party? Do they renounce violence and change their charter calling for Israel's destruction and join a unity Palestinian government? Will Israel and the West Bank Palestinians really enjoy peace at that point?

They have? Rabin and Sharon have been the only prime ministers that have seriously moved towards that(and the wackjobs killed one of them, the other one is legally dead). Fatah has been saying for almost a decade that they have no problem with recognizing Israel at the 67 borders(even hinting that they can negotiate on East Jerusalem) and Israel is saying that they're willing to give up East Jerusalem...so what's the hold up if the issue as simplistic as you want to make it out to be?The parameters of a deal have been known for years. Twice the parties have come to the edge of an agreement, but the Palestinians have failed to pull the trigger. Either because they are not fully prepared to recognize the permanency of Israel as a Jewish state (hence all the hand-wringing about that lately) or for some other reason no one can understand. It has not been Israel's refusal to deal. The Palestinians cannot pull the trigger on the deal.

Wrong again: thanks to Dubya, we encouraged Israel to allow for elections in both the gaza strip and west bank. Hamas won, we looked the other way as Fatah ignored the results in the west bank. Israel doesn't take international abuse for keeping the status quo, they take abuse for things like the settlements.I agree that they take abuse for the settlements. My point is, the abuse is not justified.

I've posted links about this before, but here you go:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3308116,00.html
http://www1.albawaba.com/business/israeli-exports-arab-countries-21
Link (http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=16137&skintype=G&skinname=_default&skinsrc=printmodule.ascx&containertype=G&containername=_default&containersrc=printContent.ascx&mid=912)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3335306,00.html

You can retract your comment anytime you feel like, but I doubt you're capable of admitting that you're wrong.Dude, you are seriously talking about 12 Israeli companies doing $470,000 worth of business with Saudi Arabia? If that is what you are hanging your fantasy hat on, then I guess you are right. But you are talking about less money than Donovan McNabb makes for playing 1 game compared to the overall budget of Saudia Arabia? Boy, are you reaching here. The larger figures cited in the article includes trade with Egypt and Jordan, with whom Israel has peace treaties, and Morrocco, with whom Israel has relatively warm relations.

No one is saying that the Palestinians are guiltless here, but when the fight is "modern army vs guerilla force" the guerilla force tries to get the modern army to fire into groups of civilians since that good PR for them(see the US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan). Israel can defend itself without taking that bait. Hell, they've developed a air to ground missile designed to kill a small area and leave the surrounding area unharmed
So you are saying that Israel, rather than acting immorally, is acting stupidly by allowing the Palestinians to win the PR war. That is different.


The Palestinians had their land taken from them by the Arab countries. This is the essential problem: Israel, in a legal sense, is holding or occupying the lands that were given to the Palestinians. The Palestinians, at least Fatah, seem perfectly willing to go back to the 67 Borders and Israel seems willing to give up part of East Jerusalem for peace, so what's the hold up?
You are right about this. So why does no one talk about this? Because it doesn't fit into the "Israel victimizes Palestinians" narrative that is sold to us on a constant basis.

Put away the Nazi card. No matter what happened to your family, [U]you have absolutely no right to keep waving it to get out any criticism/disagreement. You're insulting all Jews and especially the ones who were killed by those monsters by doing that just to avoid having to answer someone disagreeing with you on a damn message board. Reading you write that makes my skin crawl in disgust. [/B]
My reaction to this portion of your post cannot be printed. I reacted to a poster who said that Israel has treated the Palestinians in a Nazi - like fashion, and I took offense and refuted that. In refuting that, I naturally had to discuss the Nazis and their atrocities. I referenced my father's experience as a relevant example. I have not used it to get out of any criticism or disagreement. I have used it as an example of what Nazis did to Jews. Neither you nor anyone else have refuted my argument that it is not the same. Do you believe that it is?

Are you really saying after all these pages of arguement that I have avoided answering the posters who have disagreed with me?

And I can guarantee you that, far from "insulting all Jews" and especially Holocaust victims with my argument, that the opposite is true. While it is very touching that you purport to be looking out for the moral outrage of Holocaust victims in making your rather empty counter-arguments, I am extremely comfortable knowing my late father, may he rest in peace, as I do, that he would be even more vocal than I am in defending Israel from UNFAIR criticism.

Where have you been? Thats what Sharon demanded(Fatah controlling the West Bank enough to secure it), Dubya got them to agree to allow us to fund their security training/equipment, and Kadima was moving towards a deal because of the security provided by Fatah when Bibi became prime minster. Now its totally about the settlements since Bibi is trying to please Lieberman.I always find it hilarious when you refer to Prime Minister Netanyahu by his colloquial nickname, as if you are a oersonal friend. I know you do it to show that you are knowledge about internal Israeli politices, but really, it is enough already. You are embarrassing yourself with all of the "Bibi" talk. But please say hello to him for me next time you are at the residence for Shabbat Dinner!

[Skins7ny]

It's not a race, but it has often been talked about as one. That was true of the Nazis, but also elsewhere; in the early 20th-century US, Jewish issues were often referred to as problems of race (including by prominent Jews themselves). Most of the anti-Semites in the world think of the Jews as a race. Moreover, there is the biblical idea of the Jews as a nation or people that make Judaism in some respects as much like an ethnos as a religion.
You phrased this much more eloquently and intelligently than I could. +1.

That's why accusations of anti-Semitism can generally considered to be tantamount to racism. But criticisms of the Israeli government shouldn't be automatically considered anti-Semitic, so I think it's a little unfair to start accusing Keino or anyone else on the forum of racial discrimination.
I did not accuse Keino of anti-Semitism for his criticisms of the Israeli gov't. I made the accusation because he likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the Nazis' treatment of Jews. I don't take the accusation lightly, and I am hopeful that it was just a one-time rhetorical exxageration on his part. If so, he should realize that words have meaning and rhertorical exxageration can be quite damaging to a race of people, or a religous group, or anybody.

It's not outrageous for Arabs still to be upset about the displacements of 1948. Despite what Skins7ny has written, Palestinian activists still very much contend that the Israeli Army forced out lots of Arabs during the war. I don't have much of an opinion on the issue itself, but the fact remains that people were displaced during wartime. In theory that means that those displaced people have a right of return; although for the UN to declare that right is somewhat hypocritical as it oversaw some of the largest forced migrations of people ever at the end of WWII (just as the League of Nations did at the end of WWI).Studies have been done that show that the Israeli Army has forced out Arab resident during the War. Tthe Arab armies killed entire villages of Jews who were non-combatants-expelling them would have been an act of mercy in comparison.
It was a war, and the Arab residents were the enemy. But the studies also show that the vast majority left voluntarily, many at the behest of the Arab League. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_refugees_arabs_why.php

We used to have a regular poster in this forum, who when ever discussing the war on terror, would claim that since he was in the WTC building on 9-11(and got out), that this gave him additional credibility. Whether or not he was telling the truth, it didn't give him any additional credibility and he-supposedly-at least went through the traumatic events. You didn't and you're still disgracing the memory of all those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis by trying to use this as your trump card just to keep from making relevant comments to someone who took the time to respond to you. If you honestly believe that what happened to your family 80 years ago gives you any credibility on this subject and that we're supposed to just agree with you because of what happened to your father, you simply have no soul.
Unless your next post in this thread is an apology to everyone for using the Nazi card in this thread, I'm not going to feed your disgusting trolling anymore. As a fellow Jew, I can't tell you how much I'm offended by your constant use of this meme. I used to just disagree with how you see the world/football, but unless you apologize for this, you do nothing but disgust me as a Jew and a human being for your use of the Nazis just to try and spin in a message board thread. Look in the mirror and see what you're becoming before its too late.
That is funny. I have read literally hundreds of your posts, and this is the very first time that you have identified yourself as a Jew. Understand that it makes no difference to me for purposes of this discussion if you are Jewish are not. However, since YOU are now playing your "Jew Card" in an effort to purport to speak for the Jewish People, I have to address it. You have previously mentioned that you are half-Jewish. Usually when someone self-identifies that way, it means that their father is Jewish and their mother is not. If your mother is Jewish, you are considered Jewish by birth, so most people with Jewish mother identify that way unless they have chosen to practice some other religion or no religion at all. You have never in all of your posts shown any love or affection for Israel as a country or as the homeland of the Jewish people. You have always seems to speak about it as you would any other country. Since you purport to speak as a Jew now in an effort to bolster your credibility or perspective on the subject, it is fair to ask you: are you a practicing Jew? are you "culturally Jewish"? Were you raised Jewish? Ever participate in any religious observances or attend a synogogue?

To address the vile substance of your post, I believe you doth protest too much. I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Like I said earlier, I used my father's example of living on the run from the Nazis for 2 years to make the point that Israel has not forced the Palestinians to live similarly. Period. That is it. If you are reading more into it, that is your problem. And I am quite comfortable that I am honoring the memories of my father, my uncle and all of the other relatives who were lost or tormented by the Holocaust by defending the Jewish State from unwarranted attack.
Your alleged personal revulsion is so overly dramatic and unwarranted as to be transparent in its intent. I really could give a horse's crap what you think of me as a Jew, as an American, as a man, as a human or as a Redskins fan? Am I making myself clear? Your turning around my simple defense of Israel as not being a Nazi-like state into a personal attack on me trying to paint me as some Holocaust abuser shows once again, in a very dramatic way, who intellectually bankrupt you are when you are losing an argument. Your only way out is to attack. But accusing me of disrespecting Holocaust survivors and my fellow Jews is beyond the pale and completely out of bounds.

I have not "used the Nazis to spin in a message board thread". Keino introduced the Nazis to the thread in a way I found offensive. I responded by showing that the Israeli's behavior is nothing like the Nazi's behavior. What part of that exactly do you not understand? How is that sinister and disrespectful to my co-religionists and to Holocaust survivors? It is positions taken like Keino's that are offensive to Holocaust survivors and to the Jewish People. If you were even remotely in touch with your Jewish heritage, you would see that.
....[Did you say Abraham? You are aware that Abraham's other son, Ishmael is the progenitor of the Arab people, right? He and his mother Hagar were sent off to the Arabian peninsula thanks to Sarai's jealousy. So I think all 3 religions, have about the same legal claim to the area dating back to the days of Abraham's covenant with God and given the number of times the land has changed hands, any arguments claiming that land dating back to Abraham belongs to any one single group are specious at best. I am fully aware. I read the story in its original language. And, true to Biblical legacy, the Arabs control all of the Arabian Peninsula, which G-d gave to Ishmael for a heritage. The Arabian Peninsula does not contain Israel, which G-d gave to the Jewish people for an inheritance. If you don't believe in the Bible, that is one thing. But since Muslims also believe in the Torah and revere Abraham as a prophet, why is there a dispute about this? The Arabs have the Arabian Peninsula, and the Jewish people get this tiny land mass the size of New Jersey (actually, in the Bible it is a little bigger, but that is not an issue in the modern conflict). Judaism predates Christianity by about 1,400 years, and Islam by about 2,000. So saying that all claims are equal is specious at best.

I haven't? Look no further than me looking at atrocities as atrocities and the Nazis committed them against jews and Israelis have committed them against Palenstinians. Is that incorrect? That is not proof that similar atrocities have been committed. It is a statement that requires proof. You have offered none.

I'll have to take your word on this. Don't. Google "Operation Moses", "Operation Joshua" and "Operation Solomon".

It hasn't happened because there are elements of both sides that do not want peace with the other. Each of those elements has a fair amount of influence on their respective side.Israel has throughout her history taken enormous risks for peace, usually involving swapping land for words, i.e. promises of future peaceful relations. Sometimes, it has worked, sometimes it hasn't. But if Israelis knew that the Palestinians could deliver peace in a treaty tomorrow (real peace, not Hamasistan on its back porch), Israel would sign tomorrow. That would include almost all the so-called "right-wingers". It is an issue of trust. Look at the history and tell me that they have reason not to be concerned.

So, your contention then, is that all innocent blood spilled by Israelis was in self-defense? There have been no missile or other offensive attacks aimed at hospitals, heavily populated civilian areas or missionary boats? I don't think anyone with an objective viewpoint would draw those conclusions. Israel does not intentionally target schools and hospitals. If there are terrorists shooting at them from there, yes, they may retreat or they may shoot back. Do you expect Israeli's to surrender themselves to Palestinian bullets so as to protect your view of Israel's moral fibre. I will skip your admiration and keep my life, thank you.
And are you referring to those Turkish ships as missionary boats? Seriously? Are you the only person who has not seen the footage? Some of the people on that ship were armed and looking for a fight. They attacked the Israeli soldiers as they were rappelling down to sieze control of the ship, which was violating a valid and legal Israeli blockade. the soldiers fought back. The other 6 ships in the flotilla were siezed without incident because the passengers were not armed and seeking violent confrontation. The supplies were off-loaded in Jaffa and offered to the Gazan authorities, which initially refused them. Eventually the aid made it to Gaza through other auspices.

And I am certain that I acknowledged the comparison was extreme. The Nazis also killed milliions of Gypsies and Christians who harbored and/or sympathized with Jews.

I won't apologize for calling a a quacking thing on webbed feet a Duck.No you didn't. And doing so doesn't undo the harm that words can cause. Think before you speak.

[akhhorus]

That is funny. I have read literally hundreds of your posts, and this is the very first time that you have identified yourself as a Jew. Understand that it makes no difference to me for purposes of this discussion if you are Jewish are not. However, since YOU are now playing your "Jew Card" in an effort to purport to speak for the Jewish People, I have to address it.

I'm not playing the Jew card, I'm saying that your waving of the Jewish persecution at the hand of the Nazis to avoid discussing the substance on Keino's post. And no, you're not addressing it, you're trying to make me the issue so you don't have to actually make a relevant comment, which is your MO in everything apparently.

You have previously mentioned that you are half-Jewish. Usually when someone self-identifies that way, it means that their father is Jewish and their mother is not. If your mother is Jewish, you are considered Jewish by birth, so most people with Jewish mother identify that way unless they have chosen to practice some other religion or no religion at all. You have never in all of your posts shown any love or affection for Israel as a country or as the homeland of the Jewish people. You have always seems to speak about it as you would any other country. Since you purport to speak as a Jew now in an effort to bolster your credibility or perspective on the subject, it is fair to ask you: are you a practicing Jew? are you "culturally Jewish"? Were you raised Jewish? Ever participate in any religious observances or attend a synogogue?


1. One doesn't have to agree with your political beliefs to "love Israel." It is the height of hubris to try and equate one's political beliefs to "loving" a country/people, but considering how arrogant and egotistic you've been in your time here(I have a large ego, but its a grain of sand as compared to your Washington Monument of egotism), it seems to be par for the course for you. Thats akin to saying that someone who doesn't agree with either the left or the right in the United States isn't patriotic. Its stupid when Americans try to create that litmus test, even more so when you're doing it for another nation.

2. I am culturally jewish, I was bar mitzvahed and I spent 2 spring breaks on a Kibbutz outside of Jerusalem.

3. I had 16 maternal relatives who died in the ovens(and another 40 who were executed as civilians or died in war fighting for the soviets or with the Partisans).

4. Im under no obligation to give a full bio on anything in my life if I don't want to. I've mentioned that I'm Jewish before in other threads and that my mother is Jewish(my father isn't). Nor am I under any obligation to present 'credentials' that have to be 'acceptable' to someone like you.

To address the vile substance of your post

You're the only one being vile here. It shows how much of a sad, pathetic little turd you are that you try to cloak yourself in the holocaust just to try and avoid the substance of what was being discussed.

, I believe you doth protest too much. I have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Like I said earlier, I used my father's example of living on the run from the Nazis for 2 years to make the point that Israel has not forced the Palestinians to live similarly. Period. That is it. If you are reading more into it, that is your problem. And I am quite comfortable that I am honoring the memories of my father, my uncle and all of the other relatives who were lost or tormented by the Holocaust by defending the Jewish State from unwarranted attack.

Then you're a disgusting, soulless person. The Holocaust has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with Israel's policy regarding the Palestinian question. Yet you're trying to link the two(which is ridiculous even with Keino's comment), and you're ending up crapping all over the real victims of the Holocaust.

Your alleged personal revulsion is so overly dramatic and unwarranted as to be transparent in its intent.

My only intent is to express how disgusting you are as a person.

I really could give a horse's crap what you think of me as a Jew, as an American, as a man, as a human or as a Redskins fan? Am I making myself clear? Your turning around my simple defense of Israel as not being a Nazi-like state into a personal attack on me trying to paint me as some Holocaust abuser shows once again, in a very dramatic way, who intellectually bankrupt you are when you are losing an argument. Your only way out is to attack.

You might have a vague point if I didn't bother responding to your previous post and decided to "fake outrage" instead of responding. But I didn't, so you're wrong..again. I won't be holding my breath for you to ever admit that you're wrong no matter if God comes down from Heaven and shows your that you are incorrect on anything.

But accusing me of disrespecting Holocaust survivors and my fellow Jews is beyond the pale and completely out of bounds.


I'm not accusing you of anything. You're disrespecting Holocaust victims and survivors with your last posts. And people like you deserve to end up at Gehenna.

I have not "used the Nazis to spin in a message board thread". Keino introduced the Nazis to the thread in a way I found offensive. I responded by showing that the Israeli's behavior is nothing like the Nazi's behavior. What part of that exactly do you not understand? How is that sinister and disrespectful to my co-religionists and to Holocaust survivors? It is positions taken like Keino's that are offensive to Holocaust survivors and to the Jewish People. If you were even remotely in touch with your Jewish heritage, you would see that.

I saw Keino's comment. He retracted it also, and even if he didn't: you have no right to try and play this card unless you are so desperate to try and spin things that you're going to try and play the Nazi card.

No you didn't. And doing so doesn't undo the harm that words can cause. Think before you speak.

Take your own advice before you defame the memories of the 6 million who died again.

Skins7ny: I'm not wasting anymore time in my life on a disgusting person who's so desperate to win message board arguments that they'll disrespect one of the most sacred parts of a faith that they claim to care about. No Jewish person(or human who has a soul) who actually cares about any of the 6 million or those who escapes from the Holocaust would play that meme for any reason, much less about trying to gain the upper hand on someone on a message board. Feel free to have the last word, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. And if anyone is too stupid to see you for what you truly are or to see how much of a hypocrite or how much of sad person you are, I have no sympathy for them. I really hope that you wake up and see how your political beliefs and ego are making you say desperate disgusting things, but I doubt that your ego will ever let you admit to a mistake or saying anything incorrect. You could be a nice person and contributor here if you ever let your insecurities stop driving you, but I'm kidding myself if I ever thought you could admit to yourself that you have a problem(or make any mistakes).

[justinskins]

And political opponents(they even threw the deputy Foreign Minister in a concentration camp in 44 which was ironic since he was a major figure at Wannsee) and gays. I think that the historiography generally separates those civilians who died in the fog of war, or via siege/attack and those who were marched out and executed(or attacked after the battle lines moved away, like the sack of Warsaw). Its generally thought that the Nazis killed a few million civilians(Jewish and non-Jewish) in Eastern Europe outside of in the midst of battle or in a concentration camp.

They definitely used them against Jews in eastern europe, but they were used against anyone they marked for execution.

I can't argue with any of this. The last thing I would add, which was the point I was clumsily trying to make earlier on, is that German historians do agree that the Jews were exceptional as a focal point of both Nazi ideology and murder. So while it's perfectly legitimate to talk about other victims (everyone whom the Nazis killed wound up equally dead, after all), I do think it is a mistake to minimize the central place of the Jews in the Holocaust (I'm not saying that's what you were doing, I just wanted to make the point clear).

[akhhorus]

I can't argue with any of this. The last thing I would add, which was the point I was clumsily trying to make earlier on, is that German historians do agree that the Jews were exceptional as a focal point of both Nazi ideology and murder. So while it's perfectly legitimate to talk about other victims (everyone whom the Nazis killed wound up equally dead, after all), I do think it is a mistake to minimize the central place of the Jews in the Holocaust (I'm not saying that's what you were doing, I just wanted to make the point clear).

I can agree with that. I wasn't trying to minimize anything, the Jews(how they decided constituted someone who was Jewish in their eyes) were the central focus on the Nazi's evil, but the full history is more complicated then that. For example: Hitler protected his mother's doctor-who was Jewish-and his family throughout the entire war. I believe(although the sourcing is bad on this) that he posted SS guards for them to prevent any abuse/harm. Not trying to humanize Hitler here, but the issue of the Holocaust is something we're still peeling back the layers on. I would recommend watching the HBO movie "Conspiracy" which was based on Martin Luther's(the deputy Foreign minister who was thrown in a concentration camp in 44) personal notes on the Wannsee conference(starring Branagh as Heydrich and Stanley Tucci as Eichmann). They, at least for the actual conference, stick to the notes that were recovered about what was discussed about starting the final solution. And contrary to conventional wisdom, there was some real resistance/opposition to it for various reasons(but it was steamrolled by the SS).

[justinskins]

I can agree with that. I wasn't trying to minimize anything, the Jews(how they decided constituted someone who was Jewish in their eyes) were the central focus on the Nazi's evil, but the full history is more complicated then that. For example: Hitler protected his mother's doctor-who was Jewish-and his family throughout the entire war. I believe(although the sourcing is bad on this) that he posted SS guards for them to prevent any abuse/harm. Not trying to humanize Hitler here, but the issue of the Holocaust is something we're still peeling back the layers on. I would recommend watching the HBO movie "Conspiracy" which was based on Martin Luther's(the deputy Foreign minister who was thrown in a concentration camp in 44) personal notes on the Wannsee conference(starring Branagh as Heydrich and Stanley Tucci as Eichmann). They, at least for the actual conference, stick to the notes that were recovered about what was discussed about starting the final solution. And contrary to conventional wisdom, there was some real resistance/opposition to it for various reasons(but it was steamrolled by the SS).

I saw Conspiracy, but that was like seven years ago... I remember it being pretty good and historically accurate, though. Unfortunately the only detail I remember well is Heydrich telling Eichmann that Schubert was sentimental Viennese crap (they were listening to the Forellenquintett I believe). lol

[akhhorus]

I saw Conspiracy, but that was like seven years ago... I remember it being pretty good and historically accurate, though. Unfortunately the only detail I remember well is Heydrich telling Eichmann that Schubert was sentimental Viennese crap (they were listening to the Forellenquintett I believe). lol

It was Eichmann saying that he never understood Schubert's sentimental Viennese crap after Heydrich picked it out to play lol.

[Keino]

No you didn't. And doing so doesn't undo the harm that words can cause. Think before you speak.

I absolutely did. Check the 18th post on this thread.

Pertinent quote: "As to the Nazi comparison, perhaps that was a bit extreme, but atrocities are atrocities and there is no doubt that Israel has committed its share and has done so recently."

Yep, looks like acknowledgement that the comparison was extreme. Feel free to put away your cross.

That is not proof that similar atrocities have been committed. It is a statement that requires proof. You have offered none.

You stipulated to it (unless killing of innocent women and children doesn't count as an atrocity in your book, it certainly does in mine), so I felt no need to offer examples. You the went on to argue that people make mistakes and I was holding Jews to a higher standard, when a) I never said or implied anything that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion and b) I have been very careful to phrase my comments in the context of Israel the country. I don't hold Jews responsible for the actions of Israel any more than I hold Christians responsible for the actions of the US, or Muslims responsible for Iran.


I am fully aware. I read the story in its original language. And, true to Biblical legacy, the Arabs control all of the Arabian Peninsula, which G-d gave to Ishmael for a heritage. The Arabian Peninsula does not contain Israel, which G-d gave to the Jewish people for an inheritance. If you don't believe in the Bible, that is one thing. But since Muslims also believe in the Torah and revere Abraham as a prophet, why is there a dispute about this? The Arabs have the Arabian Peninsula, and the Jewish people get this tiny land mass the size of New Jersey (actually, in the Bible it is a little bigger, but that is not an issue in the modern conflict). Judaism predates Christianity by about 1,400 years, and Islam by about 2,000. So saying that all claims are equal is specious at best.

I am happy that you read it in the original language, does that somehow make you understand it better? Anyway my argument for why there is relatively equal claim is not based on religious dogma, but rather the fact that the land has changed hands over time, whereas, the Arabian peninsula has experienced no such muddying of the waters in the "chain of title" so to speak. Nobody came into the Arabian peninsula and carved it up to make a country for people who had moved away centuries beforehand. The "Jewish people" as you put it are diverse group making up many many nationalities and ethnicities and are not some monolithic group of people, consistent with the promise made by God to Abraham (He promised him the land on certain conditions and that he would father many nations). Furthermore, my point, which you clearly missed is that while the Jewish Religion as an organized faith has been around longer than either of the other monotheistic religions, all 3 would tell you that the foundation of their faith is God's covenant with Abraham. They would further tell you that said covenant extends to them. Me? I am not religious. Religion causes too much strife.

[justinskins]

It was Eichmann saying that he never understood Schubert's sentimental Viennese crap after Heydrich picked it out to play lol.

I guess I should have kept in mind which one was the small-minded bureaucrat.

[akhhorus]

I guess I should have kept in mind which one was the small-minded bureaucrat.

If you ever read any of the translations of the SS documents on the Final solution, its striking how dry and banal they are about mass murder. It really was Its bone chilling. Eichmann is the perfect example of the Nazi's murder machine: he saw it as a matter of numbers.


I am happy that you read it in the original language, does that somehow make you understand it better? Anyway my argument for why there is relatively equal claim is not based on religious dogma, but rather the fact that the land has changed hands over time, whereas, the Arabian peninsula has experienced no such muddying of the waters in the "chain of title" so to speak. Nobody came into the Arabian peninsula and carved it up to make a country for people who had moved away centuries beforehand. The "Jewish people" as you put it are diverse group making up many many nationalities and ethnicities and are not some monolithic group of people, consistent with the promise made by God to Abraham (He promised him the land on certain conditions and that he would father many nations). Furthermore, my point, which you clearly missed is that while the Jewish Religion as an organized faith has been around longer than either of the other monotheistic religions, all 3 would tell you that the foundation of their faith is God's covenant with Abraham. They would further tell you that said covenant extends to them. Me? I am not religious. Religion causes too much strife.

Just a point, but if a people derive political legitimacy over a piece of land based on what their holy book gives them, then everyone of the Abrahamic religions can put in a claim to Levant/Israel. Especially the city of Jerusalem, which historically has been a multi-cultural city that generally had some autonomy to allow for religious freedoms and gave each religion their own piece of the city to "rule" no matter who politically was in charge of the city(Romans, Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, etc).

[Keino]

Just a point, but if a people derive political legitimacy over a piece of land based on what their holy book gives them, then everyone of the Abrahamic religions can put in a claim to Levant/Israel. Especially the city of Jerusalem, which historically has been a multi-cultural city that generally had some autonomy to allow for religious freedoms and gave each religion their own piece of the city to "rule" no matter who politically was in charge of the city(Romans, Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, etc).

That is exactly the point I am trying to make.

[justinskins]

If you ever read any of the translations of the SS documents on the Final solution, its striking how dry and banal they are about mass murder. It really was Its bone chilling. Eichmann is the perfect example of the Nazi's murder machine: he saw it as a matter of numbers.
I've only looked at microfilm reels of Einsatzgruppen reports before. Lots of numbers of how many Jews they had killed since the last report (of course they always write that the victims were Partisan resistance fighters, a ridiculously paper-thin conceit), the reports being passed on to the next level in the SS bureaucracy. And of course, those guys were probably the least bureaucratic of them all (in that they were roaming Eastern Europe looking for Jews and Communists to kill, not sitting behind some desk).

[BigCountry]

I was born in Israel, virtually my entire family lives there, my grandfather survived Auschwitz and fought in the 1948 war, my Dad served under army intelligence and was in the air during a famous hostage rescue in which Netanyahu's brother was killed, my uncle was a decorated battle pilot and was one of the 27 that wrote the "infamous" letter a few years ago, my cousin joined an elite counter terror unit because he wanted to protect his country and not be a part of what was being done to the Palestinian people. Israel has a right to existence, there are no people in the world like Israelis and I could not be prouder of my heritage. That being said, forcefully occupation in 2010 is an atrocity. The dehumanization of the Palestinian people is an atrocity, just like acts of terror against civilians are an atrocity. Killing children in a field with an F-16 is just as bad as killing children on a bus with a bomb. As Skins7ny has shown us, it's completely hopeless when side X fails to comprehend that side Y is an equal human being and has rights of his own, and that's the bottom line. If anyone claims Israel is a soverign, peace hungry nation who only wants to co-exist, they do not belong in a discussion with rational people with half a brain. There is only one racist in this thread, but some people don't see hating Arabs as legitimate racism.

[Fathead]

Anyone who thinks any side of the Palestinian/Israeli issue is spotless is being totally ridiculous. Pretty much everyone who has ever been involved at a policy level (including 3rd parties) has gotten their hands filthy in the process.

[akhhorus]

I was born in Israel, virtually my entire family lives there, my grandfather survived Auschwitz and fought in the 1948 war, my Dad served under army intelligence and was in the air during a famous hostage rescue in which Netanyahu's brother was killed, my uncle was a decorated battle pilot and was one of the 27 that wrote the "infamous" letter a few years ago, my cousin joined an elite counter terror unit because he wanted to protect his country and not be a part of what was being done to the Palestinian people. Israel has a right to existence, there are no people in the world like Israelis and I could not be prouder of my heritage. That being said, forcefully occupation in 2010 is an atrocity. The dehumanization of the Palestinian people is an atrocity, just like acts of terror against civilians are an atrocity. Killing children in a field with an F-16 is just as bad as killing children on a bus with a bomb. As Skins7ny has shown us, it's completely hopeless when side X fails to comprehend that side Y is an equal human being and has rights of his own, and that's the bottom line. If anyone claims Israel is a soverign, peace hungry nation who only wants to co-exist, they do not belong in a discussion with rational people with half a brain. There is only one racist in this thread, but some people don't see hating Arabs as legitimate racism.

Excellent post. Weird historical note about my family's escape from Europe, but my grandmother got one of the last visas issued to Lithuanian Jews by, ironically enough, one of the Consuls of the Empire of Japan(he was issuing thousands of them to Lithvaks before he was recalled for pissing off the Nazis). She got out of Danzig 2 days before the Nazis invaded.

Anyone who thinks any side of the Palestinian/Israeli issue is spotless is being totally ridiculous. Pretty much everyone who has ever been involved at a policy level (including 3rd parties) has gotten their hands filthy in the process.

I went to grad school with someone who worked for one of the Israeli consulates and we were discussing the political situation(this was during the Sharon years). He said that Israel couldn't do business with Abu Mazan(which is another name for Abbas) since he was tied to acts of terror years ago(tangentially, its questionable about how much involvement he actually had). I pointed out Sharon's war crimes in Lebanon and said: "This issue will never be settled if both sides are going to wait for a handshake that consisted of two hands without blood on them." He ruefully agreed.

[shally]

Excellent post. Weird historical note about my family's escape from Europe, but my grandmother got one of the last visas issued to Lithuanian Jews by, ironically enough, one of the Consuls of the Empire of Japan(he was issuing thousands of them to Lithvaks before he was recalled for pissing off the Nazis). She got out of Danzig 2 days before the Nazis invaded.



I went to grad school with someone who worked for one of the Israeli consulates and we were discussing the political situation(this was during the Sharon years). He said that Israel couldn't do business with Abu Mazan(which is another name for Abbas) since he was tied to acts of terror years ago(tangentially, its questionable about how much involvement he actually had). I pointed out Sharon's war crimes in Lebanon and said: "This issue will never be settled if both sides are going to wait for a handshake that consisted of two hands without blood on them." He ruefully agreed.

you are a LITVAK ???? oy vey, we are related somewhere back there...

lol

[akhhorus]

you are a LITVAK ???? oy vey, we are related somewhere back there...

lol

Lol probably not, the Litvak side all has red hair(no I don't have any female cousins between ages of 26-80 you can get the number for) and the last name is the Litvak equivalent of "Smith" so the family thinks that they were originally Vikings who converted to Judaism or married into Jewish families long time ago.

[RedskinsDave]

Lol probably not, the Litvak side all has red hair(no I don't have any female cousins between ages of 26-80 you can get the number for) and the last name is the Litvak equivalent of "Smith" so the family thinks that they were originally Vikings who converted to Judaism or married into Jewish families long time ago.

How do you convert to a race? /sarcasm ;)

[akhhorus]

How do you convert to a race? /sarcasm ;)

A lot of bagels/latkes are involved.

[BigCountry]

A lot of bagels/latkes are involved.

There are molecules in bagels that turn your sense of humor dark and give you an innate ability to overstate your suffering.

[shally]

There are molecules in bagels that turn your sense of humor dark and give you an innate ability to overstate your suffering.

must be something like that in the food the Irish eat also..lol

[shally]

Lol probably not, the Litvak side all has red hair(no I don't have any female cousins between ages of 26-80 you can get the number for) and the last name is the Litvak equivalent of "Smith" so the family thinks that they were originally Vikings who converted to Judaism or married into Jewish families long time ago.

cant say that i blame you.. i wouldnt want to admit that I was related to me, if i had a choice..lol

[akhhorus]

must be something like that in the food the Irish eat also..lol

One of my best friends in this world is Irish Jewish and his father is Irish Catholic. Rough.

cant say that i blame you.. i wouldnt want to admit that I was related to me, if i had a choice..lol

lol.

[Skins7ny]

I'm not playing the Jew card, I'm saying that your waving of the Jewish persecution at the hand of the Nazis to avoid discussing the substance on Keino's post. And no, you're not addressing it, you're trying to make me the issue so you don't have to actually make a relevant comment, which is your MO in everything apparently.
That is exactly what you were doing, and to pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. But that is no surprise, because you are the king of intellectual dishonesty on this site. You are also the king of using ad hominem attacks to change the subject of a debate you are losing.

I will say this one last time. Kieino compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the Nazis' treatment of Jews. That enraged me, as it should have enraged you, because it is untrue. I pointed out the fallacy of Keino's argument. Later, Redskins Dave essentially echoed Keino's accusation. I pointed out how ridiculous the comparison is by comparing my father's experience running from the Nazis and foraging for food, all the time fearful of being discovered, to the Palestinians, who live in cities with American fast food and luxury hotels. Ridiculous and dangerous arguments that libel and entire country such as those made by Keino and Redskins Dave deserve forceful and unequivocal responses.

You responded, not by pointing out where I was wrong, but with you usual ad hominem attack, but this time with one of the vilest and disgusting accusations that anyone caould make to me: that I dishonored the Jewish people and victims of the Holocaust specifically with my post. If it is becausde you are offended by my use of my father's experience to defend the state of Israel, you are cordially invited to screw yourself. I guarantee you he would have been more than OK with it. And since you never met him and do not know the first thing about him, and I am his son, that is my decision to make, not yours. You have a lot of effing nerve to tell me how or whether to use my father's experience in answering a slander about Israel, which he loved with a passion.

Regardless, how does my pointing out, in response to an attack on Israel's intergrity, that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is nothing like that of Jews' treatment under the Nazi's (which should be obvious and need no defending) constitute a dishonoring of the Holocaust? Keino, not I, brought up the Nazis in the Juan Williams thread, not I. I merely responded to an outrageous suggested. I am sorry if Keino is a friend of yours who has had your back on this thread. I understand your trying to defend him, but be honest about it.

Accusing me of what you accused me of goes beyond the pale of legitimate debate and discussion. Your cynical m.o. of attacking the personal character of posters as a last resort in a losing argument is merely irritating when it comes to football, but on a subject like this it crosses over into totally amoral and offensive.

You think you are so damnned clever and smart and you have your enablers and yes-men on this site you reinforce what you are doing. But there is a huge silent audience on this site that sees you for exactly what you are, and intellectually dishonest bully who stifles debate and is wrong far more often than he is right.

One doesn't have to agree with your political beliefs to "love Israel." It is the height of hubris to try and equate one's political beliefs to "loving" a country/people, but considering how arrogant and egotistic you've been in your time here(I have a large ego, but its a grain of sand as compared to your Washington Monument of egotism), it seems to be par for the course for you. Thats akin to saying that someone who doesn't agree with either the left or the right in the United States isn't patriotic. Its stupid when Americans try to create that litmus test, even more so when you're doing it for another nation.
None of this pablum you are spewing has anything to do with what we are arguing about. I have never accused anyone of not loving Israel if they disagree with me. I merely pointed out that in 5 years and way, way too many posts of yours that I have read, I have never seen you identify even once with the land of Israel. Not once. Until yesterday.
2. I am culturally jewish, I was bar mitzvahed and I spent 2 spring breaks on a Kibbutz outside of Jerusalem.
3. I had 16 maternal relatives who died in the ovens(and another 40 who were executed as civilians or died in war fighting for the soviets or with the Partisans).
4. Im under no obligation to give a full bio on anything in my life if I don't want to. I've mentioned that I'm Jewish before in other threads and that my mother is Jewish(my father isn't). Nor am I under any obligation to present 'credentials' that have to be 'acceptable' to someone like you. Believe me, you are not "acceptable" to me. And it has absolutely nothing to do with your religion.
You're the only one being vile here. It shows how much of a sad, pathetic little turd you are that you try to cloak yourself in the holocaust just to try and avoid the substance of what was being discussed. Then you're a disgusting, soulless person. The Holocaust has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with Israel's policy regarding the Palestinian question. Yet you're trying to link the two(which is ridiculous even with Keino's comment), and you're ending up crapping all over the real victims of the Holocaust. My only intent is to express how disgusting you are as a person.
Since you are permitted to call me a "turd", which I think you agree goes beyond legitimate debate and into name calling, and tell me and the viewers of this forum what a disgusting, soulless person I am, let me tell you what you are:
You are a 6-year old socially stunted keyboard jockey who apparently did not get enough love or validation from your parents and thus feels the need to show everyone how great and smart he is 24/.7. You are so insecure in yourself that you treat every discussion, every argument and every disagreement as World War III. Your personality as shown on this board would never be tolerated by people outside of cyberspace, which means you must moderate yourself socially or you have no friends outside of this message board. That would also explain why you always have so much time to type and look things up and why you apparently cannot keep a girlfriend.

Before you go crying the mods that your feelings are hurt, let it be known that you began by levelling a terrible personal accusation against me and then following it up by calling me a "turd" and a disgusting, soulless person who deserves to spend an eternity in hell (see below). If you are going to dish out personal insults, be prepared to take them. Even a 6-year old such as yourself should understand that.

How on earth am I "crapping all over the real victims of the Holocaust"?
I challenge you to excerpt one quotation from any of my posts on this thread and show me how I am disrespecting the real victims of Holocaust(are you implying that my father is not a "real victim")?

I'm not accusing you of anything. You're disrespecting Holocaust victims and survivors with your last posts. And people like you deserve to end up at Gehenna.
That is funny. Gehenna is a term that only Christians use. Anyway, thanks for telling me that I deserve to go (essentially) hell. I will remember that next time you tell a poster who have insuted that you never attack anybody personally on this Website, just their posts.

If you were any more full of crap,you would be a septic tank.

I don't for the life of me understand why the owners of this site, which is otherwise so excellent, tolerate you and your shenanigans. You hold back traffic by discouraging people who would otherwise post but who are afraid of engaging in 2-day long scorched-earth debates with you (like this one) and getting attacked personally. I don't think anyone who posts regularly on this site is as wrong as often as you are. Your knowledge of the sport consists of throwing out insider terminology and looking up stuff on Google. You are Terrell Owens' ego with Taylor Jacobs' performance.

I saw Keino's comment. He retracted it also, and even if he didn't: you have no right to try and play this card unless you are so desperate to try and spin things that you're going to try and play the Nazi card.
Take your own advice before you defame the memories of the 6 million who died again.

Skins7ny: I'm not wasting anymore time in my life on a disgusting person who's so desperate to win message board arguments that they'll disrespect one of the most sacred parts of a faith that they claim to care about. No Jewish person(or human who has a soul) who actually cares about any of the 6 million or those who escapes from the Holocaust would play that meme for any reason, much less about trying to gain the upper hand on someone on a message board. Feel free to have the last word, I'm not going to respond to you anymore. And if anyone is too stupid to see you for what you truly are or to see how much of a hypocrite or how much of sad person you are, I have no sympathy for them. I really hope that you wake up and see how your political beliefs and ego are making you say desperate disgusting things, but I doubt that your ego will ever let you admit to a mistake or saying anything incorrect. You could be a nice person and contributor here if you ever let your insecurities stop driving you, but I'm kidding myself if I ever thought you could admit to yourself that you have a problem(or make any mistakes).
Mazal Tov. Please, don't waste anymore of your valuable time on me. My motive is not to gain the upper hand on anyone-I think you are confusing me with you. My motive was to remedy an attempt to invoke the Nazis to slander the State of Israel. THAT is what should have offended you. The fact that it didn't tells me all I need to know about your motives. I have not discussed my political beliefs in this thread, except to agree with Keino's recommendation as to how to move forward in the Middle East (see my post from yesterday, 2:23pm). How can you psychoanalyze me based on my political beliefs when you don't know what they are?
I absolutely did. Check the 18th post on this thread.

Pertinent quote: "As to the Nazi comparison, perhaps that was a bit extreme, but atrocities are atrocities and there is no doubt that Israel has committed its share and has done so recently."

Yep, looks like acknowledgement that the comparison was extreme. Feel free to put away your cross.
"...perhaps that was a bit extreme" is such a half-assed apology, it is no wonder I missed it. I acknowledge your half-assed, insincere apology.

But are you really telling someone you know is Jewish to put away his cross? And in response to my criticizing you for making an anti-Semitic statement about Israel? Are you accusing me of crucifying you? Sorry, I guess I was wrong about the whole thing.:rolleyes:


]You stipulated to it (unless killing of innocent women and children doesn't count as an atrocity in your book, it certainly does in mine), so I felt no need to offer examples. You the went on to argue that people make mistakes and I was holding Jews to a higher standard, when a) I never said or implied anything that would lead a reasonable person to that conclusion and b) I have been very careful to phrase my comments in the context of Israel the country. I don't hold Jews responsible for the actions of Israel any more than I hold Christians responsible for the actions of the US, or Muslims responsible for Iran.
By comparing it to Hitler's actions against the Jews, you actually did. Hey,we bombed the hell out of a WEDDING PARTY in Afghanistan, and have committed similar "atrocities" in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Does that make us murderers morally equivalent to the Taliban and to Al-Queda in Iraq? No, it doesn't. But your argument, if you assess American behavior similarly to that of Israel, says it does.

If you are no longer making your Israel - Nazi argument, then my analysis no longer applies. But don't fault me for addressing your ridiculous argument whle you are advocating it.
I am happy that you read it in the original language, does that somehow make you understand it better? Anyway my argument for why there is relatively equal claim is not based on religious dogma, but rather the fact that the land has changed hands over time, whereas, the Arabian peninsula has experienced no such muddying of the waters in the "chain of title" so to speak. Nobody came into the Arabian peninsula and carved it up to make a country for people who had moved away centuries beforehand. The "Jewish people" as you put it are diverse group making up many many nationalities and ethnicities and are not some monolithic group of people, consistent with the promise made by God to Abraham (He promised him the land on certain conditions and that he would father many nations). Furthermore, my point, which you clearly missed is that while the Jewish Religion as an organized faith has been around longer than either of the other monotheistic religions, all 3 would tell you that the foundation of their faith is God's covenant with Abraham. They would further tell you that said covenant extends to them. Me? I am not religious. Religion causes too much strife.
1. Yes, reading something in its original language does usually help you understand it better. I have also read the commentary on it, which illumnates the relationship between Isaac and Ishmael and purports to explain why Sarah undertook such a seemingly cruel position towards Ishmael and Hagar.
2. So you are saying that the Jews lose their moral claim to their ancient homeland because the Crusaders, Romans, Turks, etc. have conquered it by force over the centuries, and the Arabs get to keep their moral claim towards the Arab Penninsula (and all of its oil wealth) because no one has challenged them for it. By that logic, ExxonMobil and Sunoco ought to have their band of mercernaries ready right not to go in and invade. They can always take half of the oil by force and then lay a moral claim based on possession to the land.
Are you really thinking about your posts before you post them?

[Skins7ny]

If you ever read any of the translations of the SS documents on the Final solution, its striking how dry and banal they are about mass murder. It really was Its bone chilling. Eichmann is the perfect example of the Nazi's murder machine: he saw it as a matter of numbers.

Just a point, but if a people derive political legitimacy over a piece of land based on what their holy book gives them, then everyone of the Abrahamic religions can put in a claim to Levant/Israel. Especially the city of Jerusalem, which historically has been a multi-cultural city that generally had some autonomy to allow for religious freedoms and gave each religion their own piece of the city to "rule" no matter who politically was in charge of the city(Romans, Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, etc).Except that the Jewish claim to Israel is by several centuries the oldest, as everyone acknowledges. As I posted earlier in this thread. But don't ever let facts get in the way of the argument you want to make. Anyone can make a claim on land that already has been validly claimed by somebody else. Doing so leads inevitably leads to conflict.
Regardless, that is not an issue here. The Jews of Israel agreed to share the land in 1948. The Arabs refused and declared war. Israel still agrees to share the land and acknowledge an independent Palestinian state. It is just a matter of them coming to an agreement.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. The point you are trying to make is incorrect. See above.

I was born in Israel, virtually my entire family lives there, my grandfather survived Auschwitz and fought in the 1948 war, my Dad served under army intelligence and was in the air during a famous hostage rescue in which Netanyahu's brother was killed, my uncle was a decorated battle pilot and was one of the 27 that wrote the "infamous" letter a few years ago, my cousin joined an elite counter terror unit because he wanted to protect his country and not be a part of what was being done to the Palestinian people.
Who was your cousin fighting in the elite counter-terrorism unit? The Canadians?

Israel has a right to existence, there are no people in the world like Israelis and I could not be prouder of my heritage. That being said, forcefully occupation in 2010 is an atrocity.
The dehumanization of the Palestinian people is an atrocity, just like acts of terror against civilians are an atrocity. Killing children in a field with an F-16 is just as bad as killing children on a bus with a bomb. You act as if Israelis have killed children in a field for sport. You fail to give concrete examples and the context in which "atrocities" have occurred. There are bad eggs in any military unit, and people make mistakes, especially when they are under fire and at risk for their lives. As I pointed out in the previous thread, the U.S. military has had its share of "atrocities" as well. Every military unit engaged in armed combat among civilians does.

It would be nice if we could go back to the days when competing armies met in a field somewhere away from populated towns and fought each other using accepted rules of war. Apparently, those days are over.
Civilian casualties, including yes, of women and children, will inevitably result. I don't understand why your opprobrium is not reserved for the Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades fighters who hide amongst the civilian population putting them at risk, which is a violation of the Geneva conventions and all accepted rules of war.

As Skins7ny has shown us, it's completely hopeless when side X fails to comprehend that side Y is an equal human being and has rights of his own, and that's the bottom line.
That is a big accusation. Back it up or apologiize. Show me one post in which I have claimed that Arabs are subhuman and not deserving of equal human rights. I am advocating them having their own country alongside Israel, for heaven's sake! As I have said before, in a thread you were part of, I want Palestinians to have a vibrant economy, and brotherly relations with Israel and for us all to get along happily. I want both Israeli and Palestinian children to live without hatred for the other, in peace and harmony, without war of fear of war. How does that make me an Arab-hater and a monster, exactly?
If anyone claims Israel is a soverign, peace hungry nation who only wants to co-exist, they do not belong in a discussion with rational people with half a brain. Israel is not a sovereign nation? Why not? Israel is not peace-hungry? Then why did they
give up the entire Sinai desert and its strategic buffer zone, to Egypt for the promise of peace? Why did they make concessions to the Jordanians for peace? Why did they offer the Palestinians a state with land swaps on both sides and control over East Jersulam and the West Bank? No country that size facing an existential threats that it does has made more sacrifices than Israel for peace. I am sorry, I don't know what kind of baggage you are carrying against your former country, but your statement is ridiculous.
There is only one racist in this thread, but some people don't see hating Arabs as legitimate racism. Of course hating Arabs is racist. I don't hate Arabs and I defy you, as above, to show one post I have made that shows racism against Arabs. I will expect your apology after you fail to substantiate your baseless accusation.
Criticizing your counrty does not = loving Arabs.
Supporting Israel doesn't mean you hate Arabs.
I consider Arabs my cousins (half-brothers) and fellow Semites.
I am hopeful that one day Israelis and the Arab World will be reconciled
and have peaceful, even brotherly relations again.

Anyone who thinks any side of the Palestinian/Israeli issue is spotless is being totally ridiculous. Pretty much everyone who has ever been involved at a policy level (including 3rd parties) has gotten their hands filthy in the process. I love when people outside the conflict get all judgmental about the parties. Especially people in the State Department who think that if they can just talk these backwards savages into doing what is right (i.e. what we tell them), everything will fall into line. I think we have proven many times that American diplomacy is not inherently superior to that of other countries. The Arabs and Israelis are not going to just do what we or anybody else tell them to do. Which equates to "getting your hands dirty" when you try and fail to get others to do what you want them to do. Getting rid of our condensation toward both parties would go a long way in our (and the Europeans) having more success diplomatically on the issue.

I went to grad school with someone who worked for one of the Israeli consulates and we were discussing the political situation(this was during the Sharon years). He said that Israel couldn't do business with Abu Mazan(which is another name for Abbas) since he was tied to acts of terror years ago(tangentially, its questionable about how much involvement he actually had). I pointed out Sharon's war crimes in Lebanon and said: "This issue will never be settled if both sides are going to wait for a handshake that consisted of two hands without blood on them." He ruefully agreed.
Brilliant insight. I will file this under the catergory of "Duh".
What was Yassir Arafat? A pacifist? The venerated (rightly so) Yitchak Rabin was an Israeli warrior who had blood on his hands. Virtually everybody who has signed an agreement or negotiated for either side, ever, has had "blood on his hands" through war or terrorist attacks. Although I would argue they are in no way morally equivalent-Rabin was a soldier who fought Arab armies that attacked his country. Arafat was a terrorist who blew up planes and buses of civilians, strapped bombs to his own children and built himself a palace in France with his peoples' aid money.
Anyway, I think we are way past the point of your post. As nice as it would be, no one is insisting on the other side's representative being blood-free anymore, and no one has for years. That ship sailed when Arafat shook hands with Rabin on the White House lawn. 17 years ago.
"blood

There are molecules in bagels that turn your sense of humor dark and give you an innate ability to overstate your suffering. Self-hatred too, apparently.

[Skins7ny]

If you ever read any of the translations of the SS documents on the Final solution, its striking how dry and banal they are about mass murder. It really was Its bone chilling. Eichmann is the perfect example of the Nazi's murder machine: he saw it as a matter of numbers.

Just a point, but if a people derive political legitimacy over a piece of land based on what their holy book gives them, then everyone of the Abrahamic religions can put in a claim to Levant/Israel. Especially the city of Jerusalem, which historically has been a multi-cultural city that generally had some autonomy to allow for religious freedoms and gave each religion their own piece of the city to "rule" no matter who politically was in charge of the city(Romans, Byzantines, Caliphate, Ottomans, etc).Except that the Jewish claim to Israel is by several centuries the oldest, as everyone acknowledges. As I posted earlier in this thread. But don't ever let facts get in the way of the argument you want to make. Anyone can make a claim on land that already has been validly claimed by somebody else. Doing so leads inevitably leads to conflict.
Regardless, that is not an issue here. The Jews of Israel agreed to share the land in 1948. The Arabs refused and declared war. Israel still agrees to share the land and acknowledge an independent Palestinian state. It is just a matter of them coming to an agreement.

That is exactly the point I am trying to make. The point you are trying to make is incorrect. See above.

I was born in Israel, virtually my entire family lives there, my grandfather survived Auschwitz and fought in the 1948 war, my Dad served under army intelligence and was in the air during a famous hostage rescue in which Netanyahu's brother was killed, my uncle was a decorated battle pilot and was one of the 27 that wrote the "infamous" letter a few years ago, my cousin joined an elite counter terror unit because he wanted to protect his country and not be a part of what was being done to the Palestinian people.
Who was your cousin fighting in the elite counter-terrorism unit? The Canadians?

Israel has a right to existence, there are no people in the world like Israelis and I could not be prouder of my heritage. That being said, forcefully occupation in 2010 is an atrocity.
You should be proud of not only your heritage, but your country as well.
The dehumanization of the Palestinian people is an atrocity, just like acts of terror against civilians are an atrocity. Killing children in a field with an F-16 is just as bad as killing children on a bus with a bomb. You act as if Israelis have killed children in a field for sport. You fail to give concrete examples and the context in which "atrocities" have occurred. There are bad eggs in any military unit, and people make mistakes, especially when they are under fire and at risk for their lives. As I pointed out in the previous thread, the U.S. military has had its share of "atrocities" as well. Every military unit engaged in armed combat among civilians does.

It would be nice if we could go back to the days when competing armies met in a field somewhere away from populated towns and fought each other using accepted rules of war. Apparently, those days are over.
Civilian casualties, including yes, of women and children, will inevitably result. I don't understand why your opprobrium is not reserved for the Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades fighters who hide amongst the civilian population putting them at risk, which is a violation of the Geneva conventions and all accepted rules of war.

As Skins7ny has shown us, it's completely hopeless when side X fails to comprehend that side Y is an equal human being and has rights of his own, and that's the bottom line.
That is a big accusation. Back it up or apologiize. Show me one post in which I have claimed that Arabs are subhuman and not deserving of equal human rights. I am advocating them having their own country alongside Israel, for heaven's sake! As I have said before, in a thread you were part of, I want Palestinians to have a vibrant economy, and brotherly relations with Israel and for us all to get along happily. I want both Israeli and Palestinian children to live without hatred for the other, in peace and harmony, without war of fear of war. How does that make me an Arab-hater and a monster, exactly?
If anyone claims Israel is a soverign, peace hungry nation who only wants to co-exist, they do not belong in a discussion with rational people with half a brain. Israel is not a sovereign nation? Why not? Israel is not peace-hungry? Then why did they
give up the entire Sinai desert and its strategic buffer zone, to Egypt for the promise of peace? Why did they make concessions to the Jordanians for peace? Why did they offer the Palestinians a state with land swaps on both sides and control over East Jersulam and the West Bank? No country that size facing an existential threats that it does has made more sacrifices than Israel for peace. I am sorry, I don't know what kind of baggage you are carrying against your former country, but your statement is ridiculous.
There is only one racist in this thread, but some people don't see hating Arabs as legitimate racism. Of course hating Arabs is racist. I don't hate Arabs and I defy you, as above, to show one post I have made that shows racism against Arabs. I will expect your apology after you fail to substantiate your baseless accusation.
Criticizing your counrty does not = loving Arabs.
Supporting Israel doesn't mean you hate Arabs.
I consider Arabs my cousins (half-brothers) and fellow Semites.
I am hopeful that one day Israelis and the Arab World will be reconciled
and have peaceful, even brotherly relations again.

Anyone who thinks any side of the Palestinian/Israeli issue is spotless is being totally ridiculous. Pretty much everyone who has ever been involved at a policy level (including 3rd parties) has gotten their hands filthy in the process. I love when people outside the conflict get all judgmental about the parties. Especially people in the State Department who think that if they can just talk these backwards savages into doing what is right (i.e. what we tell them), everything will fall into line. I think we have proven many times that American diplomacy is not inherently superior to that of other countries. The Arabs and Israelis are not going to just do what we or anybody else tell them to do. Which equates to "getting your hands dirty" when you try and fail to get others to do what you want them to do. Getting rid of our condensation toward both parties would go a long way in our (and the Europeans) having more success diplomatically on the issue.

I went to grad school with someone who worked for one of the Israeli consulates and we were discussing the political situation(this was during the Sharon years). He said that Israel couldn't do business with Abu Mazan(which is another name for Abbas) since he was tied to acts of terror years ago(tangentially, its questionable about how much involvement he actually had). I pointed out Sharon's war crimes in Lebanon and said: "This issue will never be settled if both sides are going to wait for a handshake that consisted of two hands without blood on them." He ruefully agreed.
Brilliant insight. I will file this under the catergory of "Duh".
What was Yassir Arafat? A pacifist? The venerated (rightly so) Yitchak Rabin was an Israeli warrior who had blood on his hands. Virtually everybody who has signed an agreement or negotiated for either side, ever, has had "blood on his hands" through war or terrorist attacks. Although I would argue they are in no way morally equivalent-Rabin was a soldier who fought Arab armies that attacked his country. Arafat was a terrorist who blew up planes and buses of civilians, strapped bombs to his own children and built himself a palace in France with his peoples' aid money.
Anyway, I think we are way past the point of your post. As nice as it would be, no one is insisting on the other side's representative being blood-free anymore, and no one has for years. That ship sailed when Arafat shook hands with Rabin on the White House lawn. 17 years ago.

There are molecules in bagels that turn your sense of humor dark and give you an innate ability to overstate your suffering. Self-hatred too, apparently.

[Skins7ny]

Sorry for the duplicative post. Don't know how that happened. I was just editing the quotation marks and saved, for some reason it now shows up twice. Mod, please feel free to delete #57, it is the one that I was trying to correct. Thanks.

[Death_Venom]

The tone of this thread has gone from to debate to vendetta.

I have been posting on this site for-actually I dont know how many years. MY many thanks goes to the owners of this site-by far and away the best REDSKINS message board/fansite on the web. I know none of the other posters personally (probaly due to geographic reasons). Frankly I am not fond of being called anyones "Yes-man". I personally enjoy Akh's weekly write-ups and very much look forward to them.

I may not always agree with everything written and I believe AKH & myself have had one or two non-football related disagreements that were settled amicably.

Moving right along:

In no way does the Nazi's appalling treatment and attempted extermination mainly of the Jews compare even remotely to the Israelis treatment of the Palestinians. In my mind no race in the history of mankind has faced the kind of oppression that the Jews have. There have been several blunders on either side, diplomatically and militarily.

I do not believe that Israel will ever have a lasting peace in that region for that matter either. Furthemore my understanding of the Bible is that Jews were given a much larger chunk of that region by GOD.

I personally side with the Jews in this conflict probaly because I am a Christian. Due to that fact I feel a close kinship to the Jews and their nation (I have never been there but would definetly go if I had the opportunity). I am however opposed to anything dehumanizes the Palestinians.

[BigCountry]

Except that the Jewish claim to Israel is by several centuries the oldest, as everyone acknowledges. As I posted earlier in this thread. But don't ever let facts get in the way of the argument you want to make. Anyone can make a claim on land that already has been validly claimed by somebody else. Doing so leads inevitably leads to conflict.
Regardless, that is not an issue here. The Jews of Israel agreed to share the land in 1948. The Arabs refused and declared war. Israel still agrees to share the land and acknowledge an independent Palestinian state. It is just a matter of them coming to an agreement.

The point you are trying to make is incorrect. See above.


Who was your cousin fighting in the elite counter-terrorism unit? The Canadians?


You should be proud of not only your heritage, but your country as well.
You act as if Israelis have killed children in a field for sport. You fail to give concrete examples and the context in which "atrocities" have occurred. There are bad eggs in any military unit, and people make mistakes, especially when they are under fire and at risk for their lives. As I pointed out in the previous thread, the U.S. military has had its share of "atrocities" as well. Every military unit engaged in armed combat among civilians does.

It would be nice if we could go back to the days when competing armies met in a field somewhere away from populated towns and fought each other using accepted rules of war. Apparently, those days are over.
Civilian casualties, including yes, of women and children, will inevitably result. I don't understand why your opprobrium is not reserved for the Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades fighters who hide amongst the civilian population putting them at risk, which is a violation of the Geneva conventions and all accepted rules of war.


That is a big accusation. Back it up or apologiize. Show me one post in which I have claimed that Arabs are subhuman and not deserving of equal human rights. I am advocating them having their own country alongside Israel, for heaven's sake! As I have said before, in a thread you were part of, I want Palestinians to have a vibrant economy, and brotherly relations with Israel and for us all to get along happily. I want both Israeli and Palestinian children to live without hatred for the other, in peace and harmony, without war of fear of war. How does that make me an Arab-hater and a monster, exactly?
Israel is not a sovereign nation? Why not? Israel is not peace-hungry? Then why did they
give up the entire Sinai desert and its strategic buffer zone, to Egypt for the promise of peace? Why did they make concessions to the Jordanians for peace? Why did they offer the Palestinians a state with land swaps on both sides and control over East Jersulam and the West Bank? No country that size facing an existential threats that it does has made more sacrifices than Israel for peace. I am sorry, I don't know what kind of baggage you are carrying against your former country, but your statement is ridiculous.
Of course hating Arabs is racist. I don't hate Arabs and I defy you, as above, to show one post I have made that shows racism against Arabs. I will expect your apology after you fail to substantiate your baseless accusation.
Criticizing your counrty does not = loving Arabs.
Supporting Israel doesn't mean you hate Arabs.
I consider Arabs my cousins (half-brothers) and fellow Semites.
I am hopeful that one day Israelis and the Arab World will be reconciled
and have peaceful, even brotherly relations again.

I love when people outside the conflict get all judgmental about the parties. Especially people in the State Department who think that if they can just talk these backwards savages into doing what is right (i.e. what we tell them), everything will fall into line. I think we have proven many times that American diplomacy is not inherently superior to that of other countries. The Arabs and Israelis are not going to just do what we or anybody else tell them to do. Which equates to "getting your hands dirty" when you try and fail to get others to do what you want them to do. Getting rid of our condensation toward both parties would go a long way in our (and the Europeans) having more success diplomatically on the issue.


Brilliant insight. I will file this under the catergory of "Duh".
What was Yassir Arafat? A pacifist? The venerated (rightly so) Yitchak Rabin was an Israeli warrior who had blood on his hands. Virtually everybody who has signed an agreement or negotiated for either side, ever, has had "blood on his hands" through war or terrorist attacks. Although I would argue they are in no way morally equivalent-Rabin was a soldier who fought Arab armies that attacked his country. Arafat was a terrorist who blew up planes and buses of civilians, strapped bombs to his own children and built himself a palace in France with his peoples' aid money.
Anyway, I think we are way past the point of your post. As nice as it would be, no one is insisting on the other side's representative being blood-free anymore, and no one has for years. That ship sailed when Arafat shook hands with Rabin on the White House lawn. 17 years ago.

Self-hatred too, apparently.

A forceful occupation of another people is by definition not soveirgn. Of course you're not going to come out and say you hate Arabs, but anyone with half a brain can tell that injustices have also been done to the Palestinian people. You're obviously not stupid and you defend that with "what is Israel supposed to do?", so the only conclusion I can reach is you don't think the Palestinian people, who are predominantly Arab, don't deserve the same rights as Jewish people. You turn a blind a eye to the fact that the IDF has killed more then its fair share of civilians, but you call that a few bad apples. If you truly see the wrong in something, you wouldn't make excuses for it. We both know what has been done to the Palestinians and that the civilian casualties have been heavy on both sides, but all I can draw from your posts is that Palestinian lives are not equal, so yes, I think you have a disdain for Arabs and will never apologize. If you actually owned it I'd respect you a lot more. The only significant compromises Israel has ever made to the Palestinians came under Rabin, and his fate as a result of this is no coincidence. Ever since Netanyahu's first regime, when he gave governmental rolls to nut jobs like Zachi Hanegbi, who instigated violence against the Rabin regime, it has all gone to hell. I love my country and its people, but at the moment it is an oppressive nation and i refuse to accept the fact that my country has to resort to the same violence and hate as its enemies. You talk about what Israel has "given" the Palestinians, but what needed to be "given" was their God given rights as equal human beings. Get your head out of the sand, or admit that you don't believe Palestinians deserve the same rights as Israelis.

[Skins7ny]

The tone of this thread has gone from to debate to vendetta.

I have been posting on this site for-actually I dont know how many years. MY many thanks goes to the owners of this site-by far and away the best REDSKINS message board/fansite on the web. I know none of the other posters personally (probaly due to geographic reasons). Frankly I am not fond of being called anyones "Yes-man". I personally enjoy Akh's weekly write-ups and very much look forward to them.

I may not always agree with everything written and I believe AKH & myself have had one or two non-football related disagreements that were settled amicably.

Moving right along:

In no way does the Nazi's appalling treatment and attempted extermination mainly of the Jews compare even remotely to the Israelis treatment of the Palestinians. In my mind no race in the history of mankind has faced the kind of oppression that the Jews have. There have been several blunders on either side, diplomatically and militarily.

I do not believe that Israel will ever have a lasting peace in that region for that matter either. Furthemore my understanding of the Bible is that Jews were given a much larger chunk of that region by GOD.

I personally side with the Jews in this conflict probaly because I am a Christian. Due to that fact I feel a close kinship to the Jews and their nation (I have never been there but would definetly go if I had the opportunity). I am however opposed to anything dehumanizes the Palestinians.
There are a number of people who rush to Akhhorus' defense when he puts his foot in his mouth. It would be funny if it weren't so 2nd-grade schoolyard pathetic. If you are not one of those people, you shouldn't be offended. I don't think of you that way, but I also don't keep a list. Some people who do it are obvious.

I also don't beleive in dehumanizing the Palestinian people or anyone else for that matter. But some of the things that they complain (with reason) dehumanize them are things that Israel utilizes to fight terrorism. Israel instituted checkpoints to stop suicide bombers from entering the country. This forces law-abiding Palestinians into long lines in order to enter Israel. This is dehumanizing and unfair, and if Israel had never caught a suicide bomber trying to get into the country, then you could say that their purpose was to dehumanize Palestinians. But they have caught lots of prospective bombers at checkpoints and deterred countless others. This has saved hundred of Israeli lives, including those of Israeli Arabs who also ride the busses and go to pizzerias there. Much like the long lines we had at the airport, it is intended for security reasons not to invade peoples' privacy or cause them undue delay. If bombers arrived with signs around their necks saying "Stop me! I'm a suicide bomber" it would not be necessary.
A forceful occupation of another people is by definition not soveirgn. Of course you're not going to come out and say you hate Arabs, but anyone with half a brain can tell that injustices have also been done to the Palestinian people. You're obviously not stupid and you defend that with "what is Israel supposed to do?", so the only conclusion I can reach is you don't think the Palestinian people, who are predominantly Arab, don't deserve the same rights as Jewish people. You turn a blind a eye to the fact that the IDF has killed more then its fair share of civilians, but you call that a few bad apples. If you truly see the wrong in something, you wouldn't make excuses for it. We both know what has been done to the Palestinians and that the civilian casualties have been heavy on both sides, but all I can draw from your posts is that Palestinian lives are not equal, so yes, I think you have a disdain for Arabs and will never apologize. If you actually owned it I'd respect you a lot more. The only significant compromises Israel has ever made to the Palestinians came under Rabin, and his fate as a result of this is no coincidence. Ever since Netanyahu's first regime, when he gave governmental rolls to nut jobs like Zachi Hanegbi, who instigated violence against the Rabin regime, it has all gone to hell. I love my country and its people, but at the moment it is an oppressive nation and i refuse to accept the fact that my country has to resort to the same violence and hate as its enemies. You talk about what Israel has "given" the Palestinians, but what needed to be "given" was their God given rights as equal human beings. Get your head out of the sand, or admit that you don't believe Palestinians deserve the same rights as Israelis.
For those who don't have direct ties to Israel, you should know that Israel is a tiny country of 7.5 million people, about 75% of whom are Jews and about 20% of whom are Arab. Its neighbors include Syria and Lebanon, both of whom are supported by Iran, which is also a missle's distance (G-d forbid) away. Every Jew except those with religious exemption serves in the military (women too) and the men remain in the reserve for call-up into their 40s. Israel has fought 6 wars in her 62 years of existence.

In a country as small as Israel, everyone has at least one relative or friend who died or was grievously injured in a war or a terrorist action. Think about what that does to the psyche of a nation, one which also includes houses many children and grandchildren of Holocaust survicvors.

Do both sides "hate" one another? That is a simplistic generalization, but of course there is animosity and hatred on both sides. Most humans do not harbor positive feelings towards the people that kill their loved ones. Of course, that applies equally to both sides of the conflict.

If we in the United States had never stopped fighting World War Two against the Japanese, and had been in a constant state of war with them for the last 62 years, how do you think people here would feel about the Japanese? That is just human nature. Jews are human, just as are the Arabs. hese feelings are understandable.

I think the larger issue is that Israelis had pinned a lot of hopes for a peaceful future on Oslo, and were stunned when Arafat and the Palestinians rejected an offer from the Barak government better than anyone thought would ever be offered, and instead of returnng to the table for more negotiations, launched the bloody 2nd Intifada instead. That convinced a lot of Israelis (and American supporters of Israel) that the handshake on the South Lawn and the Nobel Peace Prize was just a sham and the Palestinians were never serious about making a deal. The most likely reason for which is that they still had not accepted Israel's right to exist as a permanent member of the world community, and could not give up their dream of taking over the whole land. Couple that with the continued incitement in the Palestinian media and education system, which clearly crosses the line into anti-semitism and does nothing to prepare the Palestinian people for peaceful coexistence, and the whole thing is depressing. Israelis want peace. More than that, they need peace.

As far as my personal feelings toward the Palestinians, they are as follows: G-d has endowed every living thing with certain human rights and dignity. The Palestinians have the right to their own country with self-determination (although under the circumstances, it should be demilitirized, at least initially). I am resentful that their leaders have, until recently, chosen the blowing up of civilians in pizzerias, on cruise ships, airplanes and busses as their primary form of political activity. I think it is awful, for themselves and for us, that they have promoted this culture of death and martyrdom in an effort to achieve their political goals. I am very happy that they seem to have at last recognized that this strategy has not given them what they wanted and are finally seeming to come to grips with Israel's permancy in the region and choosing a peaceful path to co-existence, and hope that it is not just a temporary strategy towards eventual pursuit of the entire land, as Abbas himself has suggested. I am hopeful that an agreement will be reached that will allow everyone to live in harmony, and that somehow Hamas and its Iranian sponsors will not be permitted to torpedo the whole thing.

[Keino]

"...perhaps that was a bit extreme" is such a half-assed apology, it is no wonder I missed it. I acknowledge your half-assed, insincere apology.

But are you really telling someone you know is Jewish to put away his cross? And in response to my criticizing you for making an anti-Semitic statement about Israel? Are you accusing me of crucifying you? Sorry, I guess I was wrong about the whole thing.:rolleyes:

What is hilarious about this is that I never once mentioned "Nazi" in any post. I made an implication, and as soon as it was pointed out that even by implication it was not entirely appropriate, I backed off of that. If that seems insincere to you, then that is your problem. Even still, to assert that Israel has committed atrocities is a statement that is true (and again, one in which you have stipulated to earlier in the thread) and not anti-semitic at all. As I have said repeatedly, I don't attribute the actions of a country to a certain religion.

And no I am not accusing you of crucifying me, I am accusing you of bearing a cross (and your reaction indicates you are still doing so. You've seriously never heard that expression?). You insisted that I had not backed off the implied comparison on the 18th post, you have continued to (and are still doing so as of the post I am responding to) some 40 posts later, belabor the Nazi point without really addressing the substance of the post when the implied comparison was not even critical to my argument at all. (As an aside: I have told you over and over again I am not religious. So I am not one who blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. It was the Romans who put Jesus to cross. Accusing a Jew of bearing a cross is not anti-semitic)

Finally, I have never asserted that I apologized. I asserted that I acknowledged the comparison to be extreme, which you claimed did not happen. I will not and do not apologize for making the claim that the country of Israel has committed atrocities which was the underlying point of the post.


By comparing it to Hitler's actions against the Jews, you actually did. Hey,we bombed the hell out of a WEDDING PARTY in Afghanistan, and have committed similar "atrocities" in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Does that make us murderers morally equivalent to the Taliban and to Al-Queda in Iraq? No, it doesn't. But your argument, if you assess American behavior similarly to that of Israel, says it does.

If you are no longer making your Israel - Nazi argument, then my analysis no longer applies. But don't fault me for addressing your ridiculous argument whle you are advocating it.

See above. Only you kept addressing it long after I ceased to advocate it even by implication. And yes killing of innocents is immoral even when we do it. Asked and answered on numerous occasions, Counselor.

1. Yes, reading something in its original language does usually help you understand it better. I have also read the commentary on it, which illumnates the relationship between Isaac and Ishmael and purports to explain why Sarah undertook such a seemingly cruel position towards Ishmael and Hagar.

I don't agree. I don't speak or use the original language so reading it in the vernacular makes the most sense for the purposes of understanding. And there has been plenty of commentary written from scholars of each religion, also published in English. Furthermore, even the original written version of the Abraham story was handed down by oral tradition in a different language. Anyway, I think it rather obvious why she took the position she did.


2. So you are saying that the Jews lose their moral claim to their ancient homeland because the Crusaders, Romans, Turks, etc. have conquered it by force over the centuries, and the Arabs get to keep their moral claim towards the Arab Penninsula (and all of its oil wealth) because no one has challenged them for it. By that logic, ExxonMobil and Sunoco ought to have their band of mercernaries ready right not to go in and invade. They can always take half of the oil by force and then lay a moral claim based on possession to the land.
Are you really thinking about your posts before you post them?

No. I never spoke about a moral claim at all. The only morality I have introduced into the discussion relates to senseless killing of innocents, which you have tried to rationalize when it is Israel doing the killing.

I spoke of legal claim which involves possession, even if that possession is adverse. I spoke of chain of title and other real property concepts. Arabs for the most part always possessed the Arabian peninsula. The land of Canaan was not always in possession of The Jewish people as you have so termed. Furthermore, I have argued that all 3 religions believe that they are beneficiaries of the covenant made by God with Abraham and thus all make the same moral and dogmatic claims on the land. That covenant is the foundation of each religion. It matters not that your claim is the oldest if I view myself as a beneficiary under the covenant. My view is that nobody has more of a moral claim since the sons of Ishmael are just as much the descendants of Abraham as the sons of Isaac. Then again, as I have said over and over, I am not tied to any one particular religion so I can be objective about such matters. So with those minor points said, I don't advocate using dogma to deal with secular matters of a geo-political nature and therefore keep my thoughts on just possession of land in the realm of law as I understand it.

It is clear that in responding to only parts of my post you are failing to read them in the their entirety.

[akhhorus]

I'd like to point out that while people wave around Biblical claims on land/people/etc(or that what's written in the Old Testament means anything), the Old Testament also says that the Jews were slaves in Egypt. Back in the real world, there is basically zero archeological evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt. Or were in Egypt in large numbers. Or that the Egyptians ever had a large amount of contact with the Jews in the ancient world. Using the Bible as proof of anything(at least the Old Testament) is fairly absurd....unless it confirms what you want to believe anyways.

[BigCountry]

There are a number of people who rush to Akhhorus' defense when he puts his foot in his mouth. It would be funny if it weren't so 2nd-grade schoolyard pathetic. If you are not one of those people, you shouldn't be offended. I don't think of you that way, but I also don't keep a list. Some people who do it are obvious.

I also don't beleive in dehumanizing the Palestinian people or anyone else for that matter. But some of the things that they complain (with reason) dehumanize them are things that Israel utilizes to fight terrorism. Israel instituted checkpoints to stop suicide bombers from entering the country. This forces law-abiding Palestinians into long lines in order to enter Israel. This is dehumanizing and unfair, and if Israel had never caught a suicide bomber trying to get into the country, then you could say that their purpose was to dehumanize Palestinians. But they have caught lots of prospective bombers at checkpoints and deterred countless others. This has saved hundred of Israeli lives, including those of Israeli Arabs who also ride the busses and go to pizzerias there. Much like the long lines we had at the airport, it is intended for security reasons not to invade peoples' privacy or cause them undue delay. If bombers arrived with signs around their necks saying "Stop me! I'm a suicide bomber" it would not be necessary.

For those who don't have direct ties to Israel, you should know that Israel is a tiny country of 7.5 million people, about 75% of whom are Jews and about 20% of whom are Arab. Its neighbors include Syria and Lebanon, both of whom are supported by Iran, which is also a missle's distance (G-d forbid) away. Every Jew except those with religious exemption serves in the military (women too) and the men remain in the reserve for call-up into their 40s. Israel has fought 6 wars in her 62 years of existence.

In a country as small as Israel, everyone has at least one relative or friend who died or was grievously injured in a war or a terrorist action. Think about what that does to the psyche of a nation, one which also includes houses many children and grandchildren of Holocaust survicvors.

Do both sides "hate" one another? That is a simplistic generalization, but of course there is animosity and hatred on both sides. Most humans do not harbor positive feelings towards the people that kill their loved ones. Of course, that applies equally to both sides of the conflict.

If we in the United States had never stopped fighting World War Two against the Japanese, and had been in a constant state of war with them for the last 62 years, how do you think people here would feel about the Japanese? That is just human nature. Jews are human, just as are the Arabs. hese feelings are understandable.

I think the larger issue is that Israelis had pinned a lot of hopes for a peaceful future on Oslo, and were stunned when Arafat and the Palestinians rejected an offer from the Barak government better than anyone thought would ever be offered, and instead of returnng to the table for more negotiations, launched the bloody 2nd Intifada instead. That convinced a lot of Israelis (and American supporters of Israel) that the handshake on the South Lawn and the Nobel Peace Prize was just a sham and the Palestinians were never serious about making a deal. The most likely reason for which is that they still had not accepted Israel's right to exist as a permanent member of the world community, and could not give up their dream of taking over the whole land. Couple that with the continued incitement in the Palestinian media and education system, which clearly crosses the line into anti-semitism and does nothing to prepare the Palestinian people for peaceful coexistence, and the whole thing is depressing. Israelis want peace. More than that, they need peace.

As far as my personal feelings toward the Palestinians, they are as follows: G-d has endowed every living thing with certain human rights and dignity. The Palestinians have the right to their own country with self-determination (although under the circumstances, it should be demilitirized, at least initially). I am resentful that their leaders have, until recently, chosen the blowing up of civilians in pizzerias, on cruise ships, airplanes and busses as their primary form of political activity. I think it is awful, for themselves and for us, that they have promoted this culture of death and martyrdom in an effort to achieve their political goals. I am very happy that they seem to have at last recognized that this strategy has not given them what they wanted and are finally seeming to come to grips with Israel's permancy in the region and choosing a peaceful path to co-existence, and hope that it is not just a temporary strategy towards eventual pursuit of the entire land, as Abbas himself has suggested. I am hopeful that an agreement will be reached that will allow everyone to live in harmony, and that somehow Hamas and its Iranian sponsors will not be permitted to torpedo the whole thing.


And so on the other side, there are many Palestinians who lost family members to those "bad apples" you were talking about earlier. For those of us who view the two sides as equal human beings, it works both ways. They have been pushed to desperation ever since that animal Sharon took over power, and the election of Hamas was the product.

[BigCountry]

I'd like to point out that while people wave around Biblical claims on land/people/etc(or that what's written in the Old Testament means anything), the Old Testament also says that the Jews were slaves in Egypt. Back in the real world, there is basically zero archeological evidence that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt. Or were in Egypt in large numbers. Or that the Egyptians ever had a large amount of contact with the Jews in the ancient world. Using the Bible as proof of anything(at least the Old Testament) is fairly absurd....unless it confirms what you want to believe anyways.

+1111111111111

I just read "Brave New World" and believe it is my right to receive unlimited amounts of free soma from the government. Writings in a book should not decide the fate of one peoples or another, and to say "God promised us this land" is the simplistic, irrational and backwards thinking that has no place in modern society, just like radical islam has no place in modern society. A Jewish state was needed to give the Jews a safe heaven from persecution. 100 some odd years ago Jews began migrating there because of the idea of Zionism, but Benny Herschel never insisted that Israel HAS to be that heaven but events unfolded in a way that led to Israel being the land, but if things went differently, we could have ended up in Uganda or Australia.

[justinskins]

Skins7ny: I could understand your outrage if it was directed against those who argue that the State of Israel should be dismantled in favor of a biethnic (and, in effect, majority Arab) state in Palestine (and this certainly is the viewpoint of many, if not most in the Palestinian activist community). However, I don't think anyone in the thread has argued for such a thing; many have merely pointed out that there have been atrocities and that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances.

[akhhorus]

+1111111111111

There's an increasing amount of scholarship that is all saying the same thing: thats the old testament is really a collection of stories from the Eastern Med that the Jews slapped together with a creation myth.

I just read "Brave New World" and believe it is my right to receive unlimited amounts of free soma from the government. Writings in a book should not decide the fate of one peoples or another, and to say "God promised us this land" is the simplistic, irrational and backwards thinking that has no place in modern society, just like radical islam has no place in modern society. A Jewish state was needed to give the Jews a safe heaven from persecution. 100 some odd years ago Jews began migrating there because of the idea of Zionism, but Benny Herschel never insisted that Israel HAS to be that heaven but events unfolded in a way that led to Israel being the land, but if things went differently, we could have ended up in Uganda or Australia.

We could end this. The Palestinians get everything but Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the Jews get South Florida(its the land of our people anyways) lol.

[BigCountry]

There's an increasing amount of scholarship that is all saying the same thing: thats the old testament is really a collection of stories from the Eastern Med that the Jews slapped together with a creation myth.



We could end this. The Palestinians get everything but Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the Jews get South Florida(its the land of our people anyways) lol.

I need Eilat for vacation time.