# Interesting little tidbit or Israeli/Arab history



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Given the lengthy (almost ad nauseam) arguments over the past few weeks with planethoth I've decided to become a little more educated on the subject.

While glancing around I came across this...

http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac10.htm 

Upon learning this I find that the arguments of our favorite frosty star wars planet to be somewhat hypocritical.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Irgun or Etzel was a terrorist oganization - who said that terrorists don't get their way!
True it's not that simple, you should also look up the "Balfour Declaration" and to some degree T. E. Lawrence to understand the players...

I will be accused of being an anti-semite after writing the above....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I would agree that the Irgun was a terrorist group. However, keep in mind that the Haganah, which was the group wanting peaceful means to partition, continued to condemn the Irgun in the strongest possible terms prior to and after their acts. In the end, it was the political settlement that was sought by the Haganah that won out, with the UN declaring partition in 1948. Thus, the Haganah, and the State of Israel, were the victors.


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> the Haganah, which was the group wanting peaceful means to partition, continued to condemn the Irgun in the strongest possible terms prior to and after their acts..


But were they actually seperate or were they secretly affiliated? I think the latter is a strong possibility.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Bosco, it was never substatiated that they were linked, since the leaders of the Haganah knew that without favorable world opinion, there would be any hope for a State of Israel. Now, once they became a nation, and tanks and troops from 6 different Arab countries attacked Israel less than a day after they declared nationhood, then they were ALL fighting for their country.

I never understood the bombing of the King David Hotel, just as I don't understand the idea of bulldozing all of the settlements in Gaza once the Jewish settlers have been removed. I am Jewish, but I don't blindly support everything that Israel has done and is doing today.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> However, keep in mind that the Haganah, which was the group wanting peaceful means to partition, continued to condemn the Irgun in the strongest possible terms prior to and after their acts.


Maybe, but you forget that the Haganah was a paramilitary group in Palestine that evolved. From defenders to offenders....
Some members of the Haganah became Irgun. 
And what to you make of anti-British "operations" of Hagana in Palestine? 
By operations, we are talking of bombings and sabotage... 

Yes Irgun and Haganah did clash but seems it was more of a power struggle...


Haganah carried out the "Deir Yassin massacre" (killing of Arab civilians), no?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Given the lengthy (almost ad nauseam) arguments over the past few weeks with planethoth I've decided to become a little more educated on the subject.
> 
> While glancing around I came across this...
> 
> ...


This will be my only post on this subject, since it is futile discussing it with the blind.

Hey semi-literate one: you see fit to become educated NOW? So why were you arguing, exactly?

Oh, you fail to highlight the most important point: they warned the King David Hotel AHEAD OF TIME that they would blow it up! Oh, if only the Palestinian suicide bombers had such class before they go to their 'martyrdom'. You really are deluded.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Oh, you fail to highlight the most important point: they warned the King David Hotel AHEAD OF TIME that they would blow it up! Oh, if only the Palestinian suicide bombers had such class before they go to their 'martyrdom'. You really are deluded.


And you forget the facts once more - 
Moshe Sneh who was the chief of the Haganah, gave Menachem Begin (leader of the Irgun) instructions. The orders were given by David Ben Gurion (who later ordered the bombing canceled), Menachem Begin blew up the hotel anyway. Those two last names became Israeli Prime Ministers (yup Terrorist Prime Ministers!).
91 were killed - almost all civilians.

Yes, warning messages were delivered - one to the hotel telephone operator, the French consulate and a newpaper.
Secret British documents show that the warning was received by the British officer in charge AS the Hotel blew up......

Note that the hotel was in the British Mandate of Palestine. 

So now planethoth, it's okay if you blow stuff up with "advanced" warning?
And you are okay with murderers becoming heads of State? I'm sure that you don't even see/understand why that area is such a hotbed of this kind of activity...

I much prefer seeing someone educate themselves than a dogmatist*.


planethoth here are the definitions for you:
1 : positiveness in assertion of opinion especially when unwarranted or arrogant
2 : a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> This will be my only post on this subject,


And a good thing too as anything you do post will only be totally hypocritical. I cited one example, there are others. It is amazing that this little piece of history is buried given the context of the issue in region. The fact of the matter is that the Israeli's employed similar tactics to what the Palestinians are currently using for pretty much the same reasons (gaining their independence).

It is a good thing you aren't posting anything else since you clearly do not have a leg to stand on in this case 

"let he who cast the first stone be free of sin" (or something to that effect)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
it's all about "spin"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Uh oh, hell's getting chilly again. I agree.


----------



## Sybersport (Jun 7, 2005)

ja jonesy

I don't get it - why do you keep after planethoth?

Sure, there was some banter back and fourth, some threads were closed, others weren't. Seems to me you had more than enough opportunity to post your opinion??

Again, I don't understand why you're making new posts here. I'm looking at this from the outside, and to be honest, you look a little nutty here for posting all of these threads about planethoth.

Why not just try stopping? Each time they turn into an argument.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

da_jonesy said:


> "let he who cast the first stone be free of sin" (or something to that effect)


Pot: Hey Kettle! You're black!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sybersport said:


> ja jonesy
> 
> I don't get it - why do you keep after planethoth?
> 
> ...


There were only two threads I started... The one wondering if he wold return (and that one was done tongue in cheek) and this one. This one was only to point out the blatant fact that his ongoing anger at all things Islamic is completely intolerant and serves no purpose but to incite more strife in this issue.

I started this thread only because I had come across some interesting perspectives which show that prior to the current Palestinian/Israeli conflict that similar tactics in terms of targeting civilians using "terrorist" tactics were employed by BOTH sides while under British rule.

The problem in this whole issue is intolerance... and the only way to overcome intolerance is through understanding, education and cooperation. None of that can occur when people are so intolerant that they refuse to learn from mistakes made in the past.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

_Originally Posted by da_jonesy
"let he who cast the first stone be free of sin" (or something to that effect)_



Chealion said:


> Pot: Hey Kettle! You're black!


How so? In this case I side with neither of the two parties of the conflict. I find that both sides are using extreme tactics against their opponents and neither can or will reach an amicable settlement while things remain as they are.

I think you mistake my comments that I support one side more than the other. The only thing I point out is that "over here" we get a very biased view of the conflict presented to us by our media... I happened across that article on the bombing I mentioned and had to do some real looking to find out more about it.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

I think Islam, like every other religion on this planet, and Islamism, like all kinds of political movements are subjects people in a free society should be able to comment on, including criticism, praise, or outright indifference. 

So Planethoth may or may not be a tool. Life goes on. He may or may not have a point about Islam or Islamism, life goes on. 

But stop hauling out the racist card to stop this "thought crime" by Planethoth. If he says something people find abhorrent, they'll ignore him or shun him. Better to know where someone stands. 

As they say in the G.I. cartoon, And Knowledge is Half the Battle. Or something like that. 

(gets off soapbox)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

extremism/fanaticism of any form is usually bad

14 steps to fascism, an animation

http://www.ericblumrich.com/14.html


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

Wow, 

I never seen a collection of more half-truths and spurious arguments. Will people get over the "Bush stole the election" crap. 

Wow I can't wait until a decade from know when I can look back at this and laugh about "the sky is failing, GWB is Hitler crap". 

Whatever.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

NBiBooker said:


> So Planethoth may or may not be a tool. Life goes on. He may or may not have a point about Islam or Islamism, life goes on.
> 
> But stop hauling out the racist card to stop this "thought crime" by Planethoth. If he says something people find abhorrent, they'll ignore him or shun him. Better to know where someone stands.


We've gone over this... 

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin.

The issue here is (and I've said this before) it too easy to say nothing and let hate be spread... the problem is that hatred all to easily leads to violence so it has to be stopped and it cannot be tolerated. 

Case in point... during the holocaust it was far too easy for the German people to just ignore what was happening to the Jews and how many people were slaughtered because they were "ethnically" different?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> We've gone over this...
> 
> 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
> 
> ...



You can get off this incitement to hate crap already. This is borderline libel. Your holocaust analogy is so laughable... did I say we should kill all Muslims? Put them in concentration camps? Expel them from the continent? 

You need to make a public apology to me for this garbage. You are completely out of line here.

And no, your even-handedness as regards to these issues is complete farce. If you have no opinion, then why do you have an opinion? You and your Jew-baiting friends Artist Series and Macspectrum ("rothschilds"--man, it really has been a long time since someone dredged that up!) don't even merit much comment from me, I guess me, the evil right winger, has more commitment to free expression than you and the left-wing poseurs.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> You can get off this incitement to hate crap already. This is borderline libel.
> 
> You need to make a public apology to me for this garbage. You are completely out of line here.


You are deluded if you think my pointing out the negative meaning of YOUR language is even close to libel. I think you need to have a look at the definition of libel. You got the print part right, however you missed the point that I have been quoting your own words.

You will never get an apology out of me... bring on a libel suit if you think you have been harmed by me. A libel suit cannot be used when I have clearly pointed out your use of negative language to describe the Arab community in the Middle East.



planethoth said:


> And no, your even-handedness as regards to these issues is complete farce. If you have no opinion, then why do you have an opinion? You and your Jew-baiting friends Artist Series and Macspectrum ("rothschilds"--man, it really has been a long time since someone dredged that up!) don't even merit much comment from me, I guess me, the evil right winger, has more commitment to free expression than you and the left-wing poseurs.



Feel free to point out any anti-semetic remarks I may have made in my posts... you will not be able to point to one. As for Artist Series and Macspectrum... I don't even know them past the fact that we all post here on ehMac.

I will admit that I have started a thread or two in order to bait you in particular, but it nice to see that regardless of your own statements, ahem I bring to exhibit A, post #8 for this thread...



> This will be my only post on this subject,


Well done buddy. (BTW.. nice touch on showing your true feelings with the Jew Baiting comment).


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

dajonesy, you are a joke. The libel is not in quoting my words. The libel is in posting hate speech regulations and thinking you can tie them to that. I would have said nothing more on this if you did not bring that out again. You have no leg to stand on. As for calling your comments anti-semitic, I have this to say:

You did not say anything anti-semitic per se, nor did I say you did--I said Macspectrum and Artist Series did. You did, however, bait me using ethnicity, so that is the essence of what it amounts to. But who cares? You have chosen the terms of debate, if you are going to persist in saying I am inciting hate, you are also fair game for these comments.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

While I am finding it difficult and disturbing to read through this thread, being Jewish I personally find it difficult to see Macspectrum guilty of "Jew-baiting". We may not agree on every issue, but I see Michael (aka Macspectrum) as a friend.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

well planetoth has played his cards
"Jew baiting"

downright shameful

if you recall my quote it was "Rothchilds et al" (et al meaning powerful, rich families like Rockefellers and Carnegies)
but why let facts get in the way of labelling someone anti-Semitic, eh?

your anti-Arab sentiments, thinly disguised as "anti-terrorist" make me sick
i grew up being taught to be tolerant of all peoples and that all peoples have bad people

Canada is a great country
unfortunately one of the prices we pay for our tolerance and diversity is to tolerate extremists like yourself that decide, on whims, who and what is "bad"

nevermind trotting out the anti-Semitic bogeyman like this was some sort of Nazi/KKK clan meeting

it is true that Dr. G. and I do disagree, but that hardly makes me anti-Semitic

it's obvious you like using that label to try to "frighten" people and it makes light of true anti-Semitism and racism


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, re your comment "it is true that Dr. G. and I do disagree, but that hardly makes me anti-Semitic", we probably agree more than disagree on various points that are meaningful. I still don't see you as being anti-Semitic in your comments.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> dajonesy, you are a joke. The libel is not in quoting my words. The libel is in posting hate speech regulations and thinking you can tie them to that. I would have said nothing more on this if you did not bring that out again. You have no leg to stand on. As for calling your comments anti-semitic, I have this to say:
> 
> You did not say anything anti-semitic per se, nor did I say you did--I said Macspectrum and Artist Series did. You did, however, bait me using ethnicity, so that is the essence of what it amounts to. But who cares? You have chosen the terms of debate, if you are going to persist in saying I am inciting hate, you are also fair game for these comments.



Nice try on backing off on the libel stuff... Posting a definition of hate speech and then posting an example of your negative comments is what it is... and it isn't libel by any stretch of the imagination. That was simply a weak ploy on your part to feebly defend your indefensible comments and position.

When and were did I ever come close to bait you based on your ethnicity? You are grasping at straws... my issue has nothing to do with what you are... it only has to do with what you say publicly.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Michael, re your comment "it is true that Dr. G. and I do disagree, but that hardly makes me anti-Semitic", we probably agree more than disagree on various points that are meaningful. I still don't see you as being anti-Semitic in your comments.


Well, who would think you would see him as that? Anyone who defends someone who claims the "Rothschilds" are behind everything is not a Jew who cares much about defending his own, are they?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Nice try on backing off on the libel stuff... Posting a definition of hate speech and then posting an example of your negative comments is what it is... and it isn't libel by any stretch of the imagination. That was simply a weak ploy on your part to feebly defend your indefensible comments and position.
> 
> When and were did I ever come close to bait you based on your ethnicity? You are grasping at straws... my issue has nothing to do with what you are... it only has to do with what you say publicly.


You are completely dishonest, yet again. You haven't proved anything about my "indefensible" comments, you have asserted they are indefensible, and so?

I stand by every comment I made, including the tribalism of the Arab world. It is a fact plain to see by all but people who want to ignore inconvenient facts. That obviously describes you.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> well planetoth has played his cards
> "Jew baiting"
> 
> downright shameful
> ...


Well, you make ME sick, Macspectrum. You don't need to be part of the Klan or Nazis to be a racist or anti-semite, you people on the demagogic left do it just fine.

You don't have any values or beliefs except in the endless conspiracy of power, so you follow a religion I call "Chomskyism". People like you will be the ones who let the jihadist barbarians pick us apart, no matter what race or religion we are. Screw your lies about my "bogeyman" who is literally blowing people up every day in dozens of countries around the world. Go back to kindergarten if you can't recognize that.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

planethoth said:


> Well, who would think you would see him as that? Anyone who defends someone who claims the "Rothschilds" are behind everything is not a Jew who cares much about defending his own, are they?


By attacking Dr. G., you've more than proved you're narrow, hateful and bigoted person.
You need professional help and lots of it.

I doubt you would anyone else on this board would have even one unkind word for Dr. G.

So go ahead and attack me if you must, but you really should leave Dr. G. out of this. He's way out of your league as a gentleman and a human being.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

raving by planetoth



> Well, you make ME sick, Macspectrum. You don't need to be part of the Klan or Nazis to be a racist or anti-semite, you people on the demagogic left do it just fine.


so now it's a left wing conspiracy, now eh?

call your physician in the morning and have him/her recommend a psychiatrist
you really need therapy and pharmacalogical help


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> You are completely dishonest, yet again. You haven't proved anything about my "indefensible" comments, you have asserted they are indefensible, and so?
> 
> I stand by every comment I made, including the tribalism of the Arab world. It is a fact plain to see by all but people who want to ignore inconvenient facts. That obviously describes you.


Well at least you are starting to drop the negative adjectives when describing Arab culture... perhaps some good can come from me taking you to task on your negative view of Arabian and Middle Eastern society.

But, I have totally incapacitated any argument you may have by pointing out that the Israelis used the same tactics against the British in Palestine that Islamic terrorists are using now against the Israelis. You seem to think that a phoned in warning exonerates the bombers of the King David Hotel. That was just as much a cowardly act as anything being perpetrated today.

In terms of ignoring the facts perhaps if you are going to point fingers at "Islamic" terrorists I suggest that you point them at some others as well.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Well at least you are starting to drop the negative adjectives when describing Arab culture... perhaps some good can come from me taking you to task on your negative view of Arabian and Middle Eastern society.
> 
> But, I have totally incapacitated any argument you may have by pointing out that the Israelis used the same tactics against the British in Palestine that Islamic terrorists are using now against the Israelis. You seem to think that a phoned in warning exonerates the bombers of the King David Hotel. That was just as much a cowardly act as anything being perpetrated today.
> 
> In terms of ignoring the facts perhaps if you are going to point fingers at "Islamic" terrorists I suggest that you point them at some others as well.


You totally incapacitated nothing. You are a real lightweight, a moral midget too. I already shot down your claim that this is something at all the same, so suck it up.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, you might find this of interest.

A personal reflection upon the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz

The horror of Auschwitz is a stark challenge to many to try and understand not only how this overt act of genocide could have happened, but how we allow this sort of violence to continue to take place in various parts of our world even today. Let no one think that the Holocaust was a unique event in human history, in that while it exceeded other genocides (e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) in the numbers of innocent persons murdered, it was not different in the basic intent underlying these crimes against humanity. I think that this is why it is important to take a moment and recall the reality that was Auschwitz to ensure that deep within our own humanity we do not forget the unforgettable. For in remembering, one is forced to integrate these many lives - these trapped souls - into one's consciousness. Auschwitz must become a place that reminds the world of not only “man’s inhumanity to man”, but also the dignity of people that makes each of us responsible for world peace. The philosopher George Santayana is quoted as stating that “The one who does not remember history is bound to live through it again”. To this end, we must all bear witness to what takes place within our world each day of our lives.

It is a custom in the Jewish religion to leave a pebble atop a gravestone when visiting a loved one's resting place. May this short passage serve as a pebble of remembrance for those who died in Auschwitz, as well as for those distant members of my own family who I never knew and who died in Dachau (http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0075/dachau-39). “Never Again”. Shalom, Paix, Peace.

Dr. Marc Glassman
Professor
Faculty of Education
Memorial University of Newfoundland


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> You totally incapacitated nothing. You are a real lightweight, a moral midget too. I already shot down your claim that this is something at all the same, so suck it up.


You are a sad sad individual, is that your retort? Is that your answer? Straight to the personal attacks again (right from the Karl Rove playbook). You have nothing so you attack your opponent rather than try to defend your indefensible position. 

Dr G. has given you a very eloquent argument as to why history is important and why we need to look to it to understand how we need to behave today to prevent the tragedies of the past from happening again.

Care to try explaining why you think history can teach us nothing of todays issues?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> You can get off this incitement to hate crap already. This is borderline libel.
> 
> You and your Jew-baiting friends Artist Series and Macspectrum


planethoth, your kind of remarks are ignorant and focus on a narrow part of history.
What I pointed out was fact, some of it written by the key players themselves and from a Jewish perspective. 
I don't agree with all the tactics that Israel is using (targeted murders amongst them) but at the same time I am trying to see what led up to that. 
What are the historical reasons that led to the creation of Jewish state, who were the key players, to some extend the relationship with America and the why....

By the way, if it's true it's no libel - you did not deny anything that I wrote (or was it too much to read?). 

I do not know Macspectrum or da_jonesy but agree with all they have written here...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Planetoth, you might find this of interest.
> 
> A personal reflection upon the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz
> 
> ...


Dr. G., while I respect your desire to share with us your Holocaust reflections, with all due respect, I cannot take seriously one who will cry for dead Jews but not defend living Jews who are among the first targets of the Islamist murderers. 

I have relatives I will never know because of those bastards in Europe, and their sin is unforgivable. But it is past--what about the present? Do we have to fight the Germans now? 

And seriously man, you don't see anything anti-semitic in Macspectrum's "Rothschilds" thing? Is that not the oldest anti-semitic bogeyman in the book? Literally, straight out of the pages of Der Sturmer and you don't see anything anti-semitic about it?

The Jewish nation lives, and that's the way I prefer it. The Holocaust is over, there is nothing to learn from it except that evil exists. If you want to keep crying for dead Jews instead of defending the living, go ahead. But don't claim something is not what it is.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> planethoth, your kind of remarks are ignorant and focus on a narrow part of history.
> What I pointed out was fact, some of it written by the key players themselves and from a Jewish perspective.
> I don't agree with all the tactics that Israel is using (targeted murders amongst them) but at the same time I am trying to see what led up to that.
> What are the historical reasons that led to the creation of Jewish state, who were the key players, to some extend the relationship with America and the why....
> ...


What did you understand? I didn't see you trying to understand anything, only trying to double and triple team me.

And as for "targeted murders", I say, MORE! That's the best way! Look at the damage it did to Hamas, never has a policy been more effective.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Your paranoia is staggering. 
It's all about planeboth and if you don't agree with him, then you are ganging up on him.....

Violence will only lead to violence.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your paranoia is staggering.
> It's all about planeboth and if you don't agree with him, then you are ganging up on him.....
> 
> Violence will only lead to violence.


Not paranoia, it is a fair question: what have you been trying to understand about history of the Middle East, as opposed to your various potshots at me?

By the way, and I can say this for dajonesy and others too, anyone who refrains from insulting my person or intelligence, claiming I am a bigot or ignorant, then I will also refrain from attacks in kind. I am not for this method of debate. I am only returning what I am getting.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your paranoia is staggering.
> It's all about planeboth and if you don't agree with him, then you are ganging up on him.....
> 
> Violence will only lead to violence.


Kudo's well said


----------



## Bosco (Apr 29, 2004)

planethoth said:


> The Jewish nation lives,


Finally something relevant again in this thread though I had to quote it out of context.

This seems to be the biggest problem in the Middle East. Over here it's the bickering and name calling on this thread. 

The subject matter interests me. The world seems to revolve around the area. Normally I don't mind the disagreements but you guys are not very interesting. 

Please either stop it or put a little more thought behind it and double check your facts. Perhaps you can punch up the grammer. A little misspelled cursing?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth, re-read what I wrote and you will see my interest in the history of the region. 
There has been very little pot-shots directed towards you from me. Your style of argument is one that refuses to answer questions when asked directly and go off on a tangent. 

In this Thread, I have even asked you to explain/clarify a few points - you preferred to try to turn this into an anti-jew diatribe.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> planethoth, re-read what I wrote and you will see my interest in the history of the region.
> There has been very little pot-shots directed towards you from me. Your style of argument is one that refuses to answer questions when asked directly and go off on a tangent.
> 
> In this Thread, I have even asked you to explain/clarify a few points - you preferred to try to turn this into an anti-jew diatribe.


But what is the answer to my proposal? Do you prefer refrain from the namecalling, claims of my ignorance or bigotry, etc.? Or is it war?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Bosco said:


> But were they actually seperate or were they secretly affiliated? I think the latter is a strong possibility.


Bosco, I would say they were affiliated.
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=253395&postcount=9


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> But what is the answer to my proposal? Do you prefer refrain from the namecalling, claims of my ignorance or bigotry, etc.? Or is it war?


I did not see a "proposal".... War? 
planethoth - some of what you spew is well.... bordering on phantasy.

I can only answer that I will be debating you with the same tone you take with me....

How about answering a few direct questions now? ;>


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I did not see a "proposal".... War?
> planethoth - some of what you spew is well.... bordering on phantasy.
> 
> I can only answer that I will be debating you with the same tone you take with me....
> ...


My proposal is, we stop the personal attacks entirely, no claiming the other is bigoted, ignorant, paranoid, etc. I posted a new thread about my proposal, too. I think the debate needs to have some self-imposed discipline, regardless of what I or you or others have done up to this point.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Again planethoth you have avoided all questions asked and went off on a tangent.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Again planethoth you have avoided all questions asked and went off on a tangent.


I don't wish to debate further until you tell me whether or not we have an agreement or not...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> I don't wish to debate further until you tell me whether or not we have an agreement or not...


See above:
I can only answer that I will be debating you with the same tone you take with me....


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> See above:
> I can only answer that I will be debating you with the same tone you take with me....


Well my proposal means that I would not make these sort of attacks if you agree to also stop them. It takes two for an agreement, right? I am stating that if you refrain from calling names on me, attacking my person, claiming i am a bigot, or questioning my intellect or mental health, I will do the same for you.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth, I will agree to debate you with "your rules" on this thread only. If you are able to stay within your guidelines, I will do the same. If it works out well, we can continue on other threads.

So how about answering all those questions directed at you now?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> planethoth, I will agree to debate you with "your rules" on this thread only. If you are able to stay within your guidelines, I will do the same. If it works out well, we can continue on other threads.
> 
> So how about answering all those questions directed at you now?


I have lost track, are talking about what you said:

"What are the historical reasons that led to the creation of Jewish state, who were the key players, to some extend the relationship with America and the why...."
?

I didn't exactly see those as direct questions but rhetorical questions referring to what you were trying to understand, in general. What is the question you want me to answer?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> =I didn't exactly see those as direct questions but rhetorical questions referring to what you were trying to understand, in general. What is the question you want me to answer?


http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=253395&postcount=9


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=253395&postcount=9



Sure I can answer these questions. I may go over my paragraph limit for this one, since they are so many.

First of all, it is true that there were innocents who were killed in that bombing. This is not something I would aim to justify on its own terms.

Besides that, there are a few key differences that expain why I take exception to comparing this event with the Islamist terror operations such as 9/11, the London Bombing, the Sharm e Sheikh bombing this week, etc.:

1. The King David Hotel was a Jewish-owned hotel that was literally commandeered by the British for military and government operational purposes. While some of its staff might be called "civilian", in fact this was no longer civilian target since it housed the British mandatory government's operations. There is no such discernment of targets with the jihadists, as you can see.

2. Also unlike the jihadists, advance warnings were given to the hotel and the French consulate next door. Giving advance warning is much different, morally speaking, than concealing yourself until the last moment and blowing yourself up to kill people. Whether the hotel received the warning in time is a matter of historical murkiness.

3. When fighting wars, government targets are more legitimate than civilian or non-combatant targets. The reason for this should be obvious, but you should not take this as an unrelated and dismissive point. It is a distinction worth making that Lehi attacked a government target (actually, a former civilian one stolen by the British) and not a civilian one. The jihadists also do not do this; there is no equivalence between kids at a nightclub or commuters on the subway or people working at an investment firm, and the people working for military command.

4. The Jews were fighting an enemy, in this case the British, at a time when millions of Jews had died in the gas chambers and death camps and death marches. That was largely the fault of the British, not to exculpate the Germans who actually did it. If they had not brought in the 1939 White Paper barring more Jews from immigrating to the Holy Land (it made the Arabs, who also hated the British, and furthermore, were starting to become important to Britain via oil, angry), then there is no doubt that there would be millions more Jews today. You have to understand in the context of 1947 just how real that fight would be for a Jew like me.

The Jews and Arabs were promised states by the British. The British screwed them both over, played both sides against each other, alternately cracking down on one and then the other. In 1947, the Jews had to fight Brits on one hand, and Arabs on the others, after having lost a third of our people. This is worth noting, too.

No, I would not say it is "okay" to blow stuff up with advanced warning, but I would say it is less of a crime than blowing people up intentionally by surprise. Every dead person is an equal loss, but every act is not morally equal. The jihadist seems to have absolutely no red lines. I was trying to argue that this is not common to all terrorists, but rather this kind of terrorist has a deeply held belief system that in fact legitimizes this, if taken literally.

As for heads of state being terrorists, I will admit to being agnostic on that. I only consider the real terrorists people who intentionally target and kill non-combatants for political or ideological purposes. That is the definition I use. It requires intent and motivation as well as outcome.

Remember that, while Jews are of course not innocent they did not return to the Middle East in violence. The first violence, long before any state existed, was committed by the Arabs against Jews. The Middle East has never been really at "peace", whether territory was controlled by Jews or British or French or Americans or Arabs or Turks, so to trace the "root cause" is really looking for something that is no longer there.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> No, I would not say it is "okay" to blow stuff up with advanced warning, but I would say it is less of a crime than blowing people up intentionally by surprise. Every dead person is an equal loss, but every act is not morally equal.


HHmmmm that is a very odd statement coming from you. I thought you did not believe in moral relativism? You just made a statement which is exactly the point of moral relativism.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> HHmmmm that is a very odd statement coming from you. I thought you did not believe in moral relativism? You just made a statement which is exactly the point of moral relativism.


I am not certain where you get that as being moral relativism.

I would think the loss of innocent life is bad in any situation. I also think that the causes of these deaths are not morally equal. This does not make any point of equivalence. The loss of life is bad but the crime itself is dependent on intent and motivations. There is likely at least one form of terrorism that is worse than other terrorisms, which are also bad. They depend on those distinctions.

That isn't moral relativism at all.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Someone who believes in moral relativism believes that there are no transcendent moral truths. I do believe in absolute moral truths. Gradations are important in determining how severely to view a moral crime or infraction, or to judge whether it is or not at all.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth, I'm not quite sure why you try and bring jihadist into this.
You are side stepping the questions and by inference trying to bring Islam into this.

It remains that both jihadists and Irgun used terrorism methods to achieve a goal. In the case of Irgun, the Jewish state.

The warning was received by the British AS the hotel blew up. Your historical "murkiness" is a cop out. If I called the Russian embassy and told them that I planted a bomb in the South American hotel how fast to you think the news would travel? The warning itself was rather nebulous: "I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned."

The roots and cause of unrest in the middle east predate 1947 - 
During WWI the Arabs revolted against Ottoman empire under the promise that they would be free of colonial rule. What happened is that they got British and French rule instead. Lawrence of Arabia was tormented by this betrayal until his death...

In 1916 France and Britain made a secret agreement (Sykes-Picot) that eventually included Italy and Russia. After Russia was denied it's spoils of the Ottoman Empire, Lenin released a copy of the agreement. 

This caused dstrust among the Arabs, let's face they became nothing more than pawns in a game....

Now the other part of this story is that around the same time Britain enlisted the help of Jews in the USA during WWI. More precisely, the Balfour Declaration (a letter basically) to Lord Rothschild that supported Zionist plans for a Jewish homeland. This was done while Palestine was still Ottoman. 

At first Palestinian Arabs welcomed immigration but opposition grew as more and more European Jews arrived - land ownership rights and kibbutzim was a source of the conflict. 

The British government tried to stem some of the immigration by the means of quotas. This led to violent attacks on both side (Arabs and Jews). 

Following WW2 Britain refused to lift an immigration ban this lead to Irgun and other Jewish terrorist organisations attacking British and Arab targets.

The British in 1947 (after terrorist attacks) withdrew from the Palestine Mandate. The 1947 UN Partion plan was rejected by Arabs seeing it mostly as a stepping stone for more land grab (this is supported by DB Gurion and the New Historians).

Since then Israel has found a steadfast ally with the USA but remains on shaky grounds with the UN. Israel has been at "war" with the Arab league ever since.

Does Israel have a right to exist? I would say yes, but it's policies have not made any friends in the region.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

On May 14, 1948, when the British High Commissioner, General Sir Alan Cunningham, left the port of Haifa, the British mandate in Palestine came to an end. A few hours later, at a ceremony in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the birth of the state of Israel.

When the state was proclaimed only 650,000 Jews were living in the territory. Now there are nearly 5 million. 

Israel's War of Independence was the first war between the State of Israel and the neighboring Arab countries. It started on the eve of the establishment of the state (May 14, 1948) and continued until January 1949. The war broke out following the rejection of the United Nation's Partition Plan, Resolution 181 of the General Assembly (November 29, 1948), by the Arab states and the Arab Higher Committee. The representatives of the Arab states threatened to use force in order to prevent the implementation of the resolution. "We shall push them into the sea" were slogans painted on the Arab tanks. 

On May 15, Egyptian airplanes struck Tel-Aviv. This attack signaled the invasion of Israel by the Arab states' regular armies.

Field Marshall Montgomery, commander of the victorious Allied armies in North Africa and Northern Europe, that the new State of Israel would be defeated within two weeks.

The War of Independence caused heavy Israeli losses: More than 6,000 dead including almost 4,000 soldiers - almost 1% of the total population. Arab loses are estimated at about 2,000 regular invading troops and an unknown number of irregular Palestinian forces. 

About 750,000 Arab Palestinian refugees and more than 600,000 Jewish refugees were created during this conflict. Jewish refugees from Arab lands migrated to Israel, while Arab refugees were prevented from settling in neighboring countries in that no Arab country wanted these Palestinian refugees. 

Israel still survives.............and has not been pushed into the sea. Shalom.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

AS..... why bother... he's a moral objectivist and so by his own lights "knows" what is absolute right and absolute wrong and that stance CAN admit of no variation.
It's a complete an utter waste of time.

He CAN'T see another point of view as in his world....there are none and can be none.
Sounds quite "fundamental" to me.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

And what has been the aftermath of Israel's War of Independence?
Palestinian refugees in camps, anti-Isreaeli sentiment and a source of anti-american resentment in the area. One wonders how complicit the US was during the war and if they saw the Israel War of Independence as a way to establish themselves in the region. Mickey Marcus was a hero to the state of Israel during that time.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> And what has been the aftermath of Israel's War of Independence?
> Palestinian refugees in camps, anti-Isreaeli sentiment and a source of anti-american resentment in the area. One wonders how complicit the US was during the war and if they saw the Israel War of Independence as a way to establish themselves in the region. Mickey Marcus was a hero to the state of Israel during that time.


No, that is the aftermath of the war in which Israel was attacked, drove back its attackers, and kept the land, since 1967. What other country has been asked to give back land taken in war, and complied? While still under attack?

Palestinians live in good conditions and in dismal conditions in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and elsewhere. They protest there rarely because the repercussions are swift and harsh. Politically, there is far more chance that Israel will give land to Palestinians than any other country will give them voting rights or human rights.

Go figure.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, you speak the truth with your comment "No, that is the aftermath of the war in which Israel was attacked, drove back its attackers, and kept the land, since 1967. What other country has been asked to give back land taken in war, and complied? While still under attack?" A most valid point. Shalom.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

How many countries have been attacked on 5 fronts???

http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/images/invade.jpg

Notice how small Israel was on the eve of Independence. The bottom line is that they were attacked time and time and time again.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

There are many moderate voices in Israel that would gladly trade land for peace.
Resolving the Palestinian question would be a huge first step. Ignoring it only fans the flames of conflict.

Perhaps without the huge support of the United States the hawks in Israel would be forced to seek a true and lasting peace. Neccessity is the mother of invention.

Instead they build walls.

"Because a very old book [Bible] tells me that is our land!"
- Benjamin Netenyahu

That isn't the voice of a reasonable man.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Don't confuse the the Six Day war with Israel's War of Independence. 

Zionist openly refer to the "Arab problem" - that brings a chill every time I hear that.

"I support compulsory [Palestinian Arab population] transfer. I do not see in it anything immoral."
Ben-Gurion, 1938

"Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance."
Moshe Sharett

"[Palestinian Arab] villages inside the Jewish state that resist 'should be destroyed .... and their inhabitants expelled beyond the borders of the Jewish state.'"
Nur Masalha

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country."
Ben-Gurion, to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948

"I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of [Palestinian] Arab population."
Ben-Gurion

"I do not accept the version [i.e. policy] that [we] should encourage their return. . . I believe we should prevent their return . . . We must settle Jaffa, Jaffa will become a Jewish city. . . . The return of [Palestinian] Arabs to Jaffa [would be] not just foolish."
Ben-Gurion

"We cannot start the Jewish state with .... half the population being Arab . . ."
Menachem Ussishkin

"[houses were destroyed] not in battle, but as punishment . . . and in order to CHASE AWAY the inhabitants . . . contrary to government policy."
Moshe Dayan

"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist."

"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force."
Avraham Katznelson

"the ... transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the moss(sic) just, moral and correct that can be done. I have thought of this for many years."
Shlomo Lavi

So basically, Israel feels it's okay to commit war crimes, ethnic cleansing. People wonder why Arab neighbours are outraged.....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver. said:


> What other country has been asked to give back land taken in war, and complied?


UN Security Council Resolution 242 - Israel has NOT complied.
" Israel continues to refuse to consider any large-scale resettlement of Palestinian refugees on Israeli territory, claiming that such a move would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel and lead to its collapse."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

I hate jumping into these types of aruguments but ArtistSeries why don't you just say that you hate Isreal. You obviously have a great deal of dislike for the country.

And as for the UN, they become more corrupt with every passing day. The UN have passed more resolutions regarding Isreal than any other issue in their entire exsistance.

The Israelis are not perfect and the Arabs aren't either. This conflict will continue for many years to come despite what anyone says here.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AA, for the record, I did not initially state "Originally Posted by Dr.G.
What other country has been asked to give back land taken in war, and complied?". It was HowEver that initially stated this in part of his posting, and I said that I felt it was true.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr G, I have corrected the post.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Merci, AS. See, there is the possibility for legitimate disagreements and civility, even in this thread.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

This is a harder Thread than most. I find discussing Arab-Israeli matters even between friends one where emotions flare up quickly. 

I have said that I think that there should be a Jewish homeland, I just find a certain level of hypocrisy and disdain about the way that Israel is going about it. 

Not sure about the solutions, but I find it important that we remember how the State of Israel was formed.

I admire prisoner of conscience like Mordechai Vanunu that show the hypocrisy of Israel.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, I see your point. I have not been comfortable with some of the things that Israel has/is doing. I would have thought that it would have been a great gesture to have given the Palestinians the homes in the Gaza rather than bulldozing them down just prior to the handover. Being Jewish myself, and having grown up in a predominantly Jewish section of New York City, I was never confronted with overt acts of anti-semitism. This sort of "experience" did not take place until I went down south to Alabama and Georgia. Still, if the US Draft Board did not scare me in 1970, the KKK was not going to scare me out of the deep south in 1971-74. 

However, just as I could never understand what it was like to be an African-American or an Hispanic in the US, some people will never understand the sensitivities of being Jewish. I am not paranoid, but once I left the safe enclave of my neighborhood, and faced the real world, I saw how some people see/treat you differently. Strangely enough, it was when I suggested that a friend of mine, who was African-American, go running with me at night in my neighborhood in Waycross, Georgia, that I truly understood being seen/treated as "different". He told me that he would rather not, because, as he told me "someone black running through a white neighborhood was not a good idea".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> some people will never understand the sensitivities of being Jewish.


True.
This is something that is hard to phantom (for me) but does exist.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, it is the same sort of thing for many minorities -- I cannot fully understand/appreciate what it was/is like to be discriminated against because one is Irish/Polish/Italian Catholic, or of Ukranian heritage, or a person of color from the Carribean or Africa, or Asian, etc, etc. This is why I like the multi-culturalism of Canada rather than the "melting pot" of the US. In Canada, we are like a great tossed salad, with all sorts of interesting and exotic vegetables and fruits to comprise this salad. In the US, the goal has been "assimilation and accommodation" -- in that you are expected to accommodate to the traditions and language of the US and thus be assimilated.

Granted, my grandparents, who were forced out of Ukraine back in 1903 when the Czar ordered all Jewish people within the "Pale of Settlement" (which were the 25 provinces of Czarist Russia where Jewish people were allowed to live since 1772) out of Russia. So, they came to America and settled in New York City. They kissed the ground when they arrived at Ellis Island in 1903. They made it a point to learn English (although they spoke Yiddish around me when I was a child so that I would not know what they were talking about), and to always celebrate American Thanksgiving (the last Thursday in Nov.) and July 4th. As a little boy, I always saw my grandfather put his hand over his heart when he saw an American flag. If the truth be known, I do the same thing every time I see an American or a Canadian flag, and proudly fly each flag on July 1st and July 4th.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Interesting, of course Artist Series you tried to infer right off the bat that I was remiss in bringing the jihadists into it as a comparison--no, that was the essence of my objections to dajonesy placing them in the same category in the first place!

You only wanted me to answer your queries as a formality. You hardly addressed my points. You aren't teaching me anything, because I know as much Middle East history as you can post off wikipedia or wherever.

Here's a fact you overlook: the ceasefire lines of the War of Independence are no more or less valid than those of 1967! If you start a war--the Arabs did in 1947, 1956, 1967 (with the Soviets egging them on), and 1973--be prepared to suffer the consequences when you lose.

The Arabs rejected even the most marginal of proposals for Jews to have a state, no matter how small the territory was. In truth, the real Palestinian Arab state is now being run by the Hashemite dynasty the British handed it to--it's called Jordan. Eastern "Palestine", i.e., east of the Jordan river, was earmarked as an Arab state, and west of the Jordan river was supposed to be the Jewish state. Look at the map and you tell me that would not have been a sensible split considering geography. Note also that "Eastern Palestine" is like three times the size of what was left for the Jews.

War is war. You lose it, don't claim you get to dictate the terms. So the Arabs will have to come to grips with the consequences they placed themselves in, which is having less territory than they would have otherwise.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

By the way, Mordechai Vanunu, "prisoner of conscience"? Give me a break.

Vanunu was a left wing anti-Israel activist who managed, bizarrely, to get a job where he had access to state secrets. One who goes abroad to tell foreign media about these secrets is not legitimately called a "prisoner of conscience", he is a called a bloody traitor and a violator of the fiduciary duty he had as a state employee.

Israel has never used its nuclear weapons, it retains them as a deterrent because it exists surrounded by people who hate its very existence. Sorry, I can't join in crying for a bastard like Vanunu who even went so far as to convert to Christianity so as to spite the Jews. His acts are the one thing a state CANNOT be expected to tolerate, and that is treason.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> I don't understand the idea of bulldozing all of the settlements in Gaza once the Jewish settlers have been removed.


The Palestinians don't want them, and the PA insisted they be demolished. The homes are mostly single family dwellings and the PA wants to build higher density.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

da_jonesy said:


> It is amazing that this little piece of history is buried given the context of the issue in region. The fact of the matter is that the Israeli's employed similar tactics to what the Palestinians...


Just because you were not aware of it does not mean it was covered up. It's hardly buried. It was a notorious episide and there was a great deal of controversy about Begin becoming PM - on the other hand (like only Nixon could go to China) it was Begin who dragged settlers out of the Sinai and made peace with Egypt.

There is, further, a significant difference between this attack and blowing up moms and babies in a pizzeria. A building was targeted and a warning was given - cold comfort to the victims, and it shows that violent acts can't be neatly controlled — but surely you recongnize the distinction between trying to kill innocents and trying NOT to.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Don't confuse the the Six Day war with Israel's War of Independence.
> 
> Zionist openly refer to the "Arab problem" - that brings a chill every time I hear that.
> 
> ...



I realize you are tired of being called anti-Semitic, but what else is this?

Israel isn't committing war crimes and it isn't "ethnic cleansing."

As you know, Israelis are especially concerned about such comments given their background. And this of course is exactly why people like AS make such comments. Bringing up "ethnic cleansing" is like turning on a switch, it provokes unnecessarily.

Saying it doesn't make it true, and quoting various Israeli statements doesn't mean they were either enforced or put into action either. The only thing that *is* demonstrated with the last sentence quoted above is that you have gone beyond argument to name calling.

That raises an empty challenge.

By the way, while you have been talking about the so-called "war of independence" -- are you talking about every Arab country attacking Israel the day after the United Nations declared Israel a country, and not letting up until driven back? -- I have knowingly referred to the Six Day War. If not for that war, Gaza etc. would not have been taken when Israel drove their attackers back. No confusion there.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> UN Security Council Resolution 242 - Israel has NOT complied.
> " Israel continues to refuse to consider any large-scale resettlement of Palestinian refugees on Israeli territory, claiming that such a move would undermine the Jewish character of the state of Israel and lead to its collapse."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council_Resolution_242



That's funny. Last time I checked, the United Nations was mostly populated by fascist and at the least undemocratic states. You could quote the anti-Palenstinian anti-terrorist and anti-whatever resolutions also.

Do we really care about motions approved with the help of, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban or Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Or are these the opinions you respect over countries that at least have the pretense of elections and human rights and trials and the like?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> if you recall my quote it was "Rothchilds et al" (et al meaning powerful, rich families like Rockefellers and Carnegies)


I am not acccusing anyone of anything, but if you want to be illustrative of a wealthy family, your choice of a wealthy Jewish family that made its fortune in the 19th century was unfortunate. Why not someone more relevant and contemporary? Why not someone who isn't Jewish? Why not, say, the Saudi royal family, for instance?

The slander that the rich Jews control the banks has been a common falsehood used to foster anti-semitism. It's a sensitive issue.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> True.
> This is something that is hard to phantom (for me) but does exist.


Phantom? Are your posts being ghost-written?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Saying it doesn't make it true, and quoting various Israeli statements doesn't mean they were either enforced or put into action either.


So you mean to say that UN resolution 194 was only drafted on a lark?

However, resolution 242 is in direct contradiction with your claim that Israel has given back it's occupied territories....


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The British in 1947 (after terrorist attacks) withdrew from the Palestine Mandate. The 1947 UN Partion plan was rejected by Arabs seeing it mostly as a stepping stone for more land grab (this is supported by DB Gurion and the New Historians).


However the Arab states saw the partition plan, why be an apologist for the Arab world's rejection of it? Is it OK for the Arab states to disregard the UN and attack a new state because they don't like it? 

Secondly, when the British withdrew, they left a new Israel, with an undermanned, undertrained and woefully equipped army, with all of its Arab neighbour states ready to attack. I wonder that the UK (and the US, and everyone else) figured was going to happen?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> However the Arab states saw the partition plan, why be an apologist for the Arab world's rejection of it?


Not making apoligies for it's rejection. 
Just that we seem to forget to reason why it was rejected. From a Arabs point of view it was a poor deal - this is open to debate. 



nxnw said:


> Is it OK for the Arab states to disregard the UN and attack a new state because they don't like it?


No it's not.
After WW2 and the holocaust, a Jewish homeland was a guarantee. Terrorist attacks on British targets made the British hand over the whole problem to the still young UN.



nxnw said:


> Secondly, when the British withdrew, they left a new Israel, with an undermanned, undertrained and woefully equipped army, with all of its Arab neighbour states ready to attack. I wonder that the UK (and the US, and everyone else) figured was going to happen?


Most likely what happened. You set up a new country where it is not wanted - war is bound to happen.
The Arab neighbout were also new states recently free of it's imperial masters.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

The validity of Israel as a state does not rest on the Holocaust. It rests on the valid right for any group of people to self-determination.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> The slander that the rich Jews control the banks has been a common falsehood used to foster anti-semitism. It's a sensitive issue.


Unfortunate. 
The Balfour declaration was one such incident where sterotypes came into play.
The British needed money and thought that banking was controlled by Jews.
Zionist played up that myth to get the British promise of a homeland in Palestine.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Unfortunate.
> The Balfour declaration was one such incident where sterotypes came into play.
> The British needed money and though that banking was controlled by Jews.
> Zionist played up that myth to get the British promise of a homeland in Palestine.


That's only partially true. There were also British government officials who genuinely believed in the justness of the Zionist cause, and also ones that hoped it get the Jews out of Britain for good.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Unfortunate.
> The British needed money and though that banking was controlled by Jews.


??????

An extraordinary inappropriate comment, particularly in response to what I originally said.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

nxnw said:


> ??????
> 
> An extraordinary inappropriate comment, particularly in response to what I originally said.


You're surely right on there.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

NXNW said:


> Secondly, when the British withdrew, they left a new Israel, with an undermanned, undertrained and woefully equipped army, with all of its Arab neighbour states ready to attack. I wonder that the UK (and the US, and everyone else) figured was going to happen?





ArtistSeries said:


> Most likely what happened. You set up a new country where it is not wanted - war is bound to happen.


How about, the outnumbered, poorly equipped and undertrained Israel army of the time would be wiped out, and the rest of the population soon afterward. That's what the Arab states were promising, and they had every reason to be confident. Who needed a partition? Have you considered that, perhaps, that's why the Arab states rejected the partition plan.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> By the way, Mordechai Vanunu, "prisoner of conscience"? Give me a break.


What did he do? He revealed Israel's nuclear capability and that Israel worked with South African on a nuclear program. At the time that he worked in Israel's secret nuclear installation, the country insisted it did not have nuclear plans.

"The passive acceptance of and complacency with regard to the existence of nuclear weapons anywhere on earth is the disease of society today. Never in human history has there been such a threat to the very existence of mankind and to all forms of life on earth. It is not we who are opposed to nuclear arms who break the law but the governments which have chosen to create this greatest threat to humanity. The struggle against these weapons is not only a legitimate one, it is a moral, inescapable struggle."
- Mordechai Vanunu



planethoth said:


> Vanunu was a left wing anti-Israel activist who managed, bizarrely, to get a job where he had access to state secrets. One who goes abroad to tell foreign media about these secrets is not legitimately called a "prisoner of conscience", he is a called a bloody traitor and a violator of the fiduciary duty he had as a state employee.


The Mossad kidnapped Vanunu in Italy and an Israeli court sentenced him to 18 years in prison. 
His treatment in prison was condemned by Amnesty International as " cruel, inhuman, and degrading."
He was released from prison April 21, 2004. 
He has asked to leave Israel but the goverment will not let him go. 
He was arrested in 2004 a few times on various offences and as even stated that he want to emigrate to Canada.
On March 17, 2005, he has been charged with 21 offences


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> ??????
> 
> An extraordinary inappropriate comment, particularly in response to what I originally said.


It should of been "thought" - I corrected it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> How about, the outnumbered, poorly equipped and undertrained Israel army of the time would be wiped out, and the rest of the population soon afterward. That's what the Arab states were promising, and they had every reason to be confident. Who needed a partition? Have you considered that, perhaps, that's why the Arab states rejected the partition plan.


ahh yes, the great myth of Arab superiority....
http://www.answers.com/topic/1948-arab-israeli-war
...approximately 1,000 Lebanese, 6,000 Syrian, 4,500 Iraqi, 5,500 Egyptian, 6,000-9,000 Transjordanian troops and unknown number of Saudi and Yemenite troops invaded Israel. Together with the few thousand irregular Arab soldiers, they faced an Israeli Zionist army numbering 30,000-35,000. Both sides increased their manpower over the following months, but the Israeli advantage grew steadily.

In fact, the Arab forces were inferior to the IDF. By mid-May 1948 the IDF was fielding 65,000 troops; by early spring 1949, 115,000. The Arab armies had an estimated 40,000 troops in July 1948, rising to 55,000 in October 1948, and slightly more by the spring of 1949. Of the Arab aircraft, only less than a dozen fighters and three to four bombers saw action, the rest were unserviceable. With only a dozen or so airplanes the IDF achieved air superiority by the fall of 1948. And the IDF had superiority in firepower and knowledgeable personnel, many of whom had seen action in WWII. Source: "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001", Benny Morris (2001), pp. 217-18."

But don't let facts get in your way....


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

More proof that you do not want to deal with what I say, rather only what you want to say, Artist Series.

Vanunu is not a hero, he is a traitor and violated his fiduciary obligation to the state. I don't care what he says. Don't put a quote from him on here like as if it is an argument.

Considering Israel is surrounded by or near hostile states, at least two others which were known to have nuclear ambitions, I don't see developing defensive weapons as something condemnable. You do, perhaps because of your obvious, demonstrated distaste for Israel.

Also, I no more care what Amnesty International says about anything than you care what the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute says. Vanunu had zero right to divulge state secrets and indeed, in a less merciful country than Israel, he would have either got a stiffer penalty or outright execution.

At any rate, as far as I can see, you threw in Mordechai Vanunu's name merely b/c he is a cause celebre for the anti-Israel crowd. Let me ask, are you up in arms that Iran is getting a nuclear weapon? Were u exercised about Iraq possibly having one? Do you worry about North Korea's nukes? Pakistan? India? France?

No more quotes from Vanunu or fleeting claims by Amnesty about anything.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> You hardly addressed my points.


What would you like me to address?



planethoth said:


> Here's a fact you overlook: the ceasefire lines of the War of Independence are no more or less valid than those of 1967! If you start a war--the Arabs did in 1947, 1956, 1967 (with the Soviets egging them on), and 1973--be prepared to suffer the consequences when you lose.


And you, overlook the fact that Israel planned ethic cleansing or should I call it "transferist"


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> The validity of Israel as a state does not rest on the Holocaust. It rests on the valid right for any group of people to self-determination.


Tell that to the Gypsys, Catalan, Basque, Kurds, Innu, Any of the aboriginal tribes the world over, Quebec etc. 
If that's all it took we'd have many, many more countries. 

Do you really believe this?

What about said right for all these other groups I just mentioned?
Should they too all get their own nations?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> What would you like me to address?
> 
> 
> And you, overlook the fact that Israel planned ethic cleansing or should I call it "transferist"


"Ethnic cleansing" sure is a big word! If the Israelis really went and did ethnic cleansing, they sure did a lousy job! 20 percent of the population inside the "Green Line" is Arab! So much for 'ethnic cleansing'!

And by the way as an FYI, my personal favourite Zionist leader, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Revisionist Zionists, was not in favour of transfer. In fact, he specified it was not an option--and the leftist Zionists like David Ben Gurion called him a fascist!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Tell that to the Gypsys, Catalan, Basque, Kurds, Innu, Any of the aboriginal tribes the world over etc.
> If that's all it took we'd have many, many more countries.
> 
> Do you really believe this?
> ...


Perhaps they should? But not the "Gypsy", they do not have a territorial claim or contiguity. Catalan and Basque already have a large operational autonomy, maybe they deserve more, I am unsure. The Innu are basically recipients of Canadian federal tax largesse and I doubt they wish to separate from this arrangement. The Kurds have a very, very compelling case, in fact a FAR MORE compelling one than the Palestinian Arabs have. So I wish I would hear even one sixteenth as much uproar about them.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Perhaps they should? But not the "Gypsy", they do not have a territorial claim or contiguity. Catalan and Basque already have a large operational autonomy, maybe they deserve more, I am unsure. The Innu are basically recipients of Canadian federal tax largesse and I doubt they wish to separate from this arrangement. The Kurds have a very, very compelling case, in fact a FAR MORE compelling one than the Palestinian Arabs have. So I wish I would hear even one sixteenth as much uproar about them.


You didn't mention Quebec.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> =Let me ask, are you up in arms that Iran is getting a nuclear weapon? Were u exercised about Iraq possibly having one? Do you worry about North Korea's nukes? Pakistan? India? France?


Iran - yes
Iraq - no
North Korea - yes
Pakistan - worried
India - worried 
France - no

Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (they would have to publicly admit that they have the weapons), neither has India or Pakistan.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> You didn't mention Quebec.


Hah! Well, personally, I am in favour of Quebec separating, as long as we take Montreal.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Iran - yes
> Iraq - no
> North Korea - yes
> Pakistan - worried
> ...


But, who cares about that stupid treaty? Don't you see that a treaty is meaningless for anything in the real world?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> And by the way as an FYI, my personal favourite Zionist leader, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of the Revisionist Zionists, was not in favour of transfer.


I should of known you would of choosen a right-winger ;>

Jabotinsky wrote some very interesting comments about the Peel Report that support what you say, but did he not change his mind later on in life?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I should of known you would of choosen a right-winger ;>
> 
> Jabotinsky wrote some very interesting comments about the Peel Report that support what you say, but did he not change his mind later on in life?


Change his mind in regard to what? Transfer? Not to my knowledge. Jabotinsky died in 1940 before he was ever able to see the War of Independence and the rebirth of Jewish sovereignty.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> And you, overlook the fact that Israel planned ethic cleansing or should I call it "transferist"


You are engaging in unbelievable intellectual dishonesty. You post a bunch of ancient quotes and from this, you invent a patently false claim that Israel has a policy of "ethnic cleansing". 

There has never been a transfer policy, which is evident from the fact that there has been no transfer. Moreover, I presume you know that the term "ethnic cleansing" is a euphemism for genocide, as the term was commonly used in the former Yugoslavia. Your comments are very disturbing.

Likewise, your specious allegation that the Balfour declaration came about because the British "thought" they would get favours from the "rich Jews", is the type of comment that tears my heart out. Do you think that adding the word "thought" makes any difference?

You are painting an unattractive picture of yourself.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

NXMW,
My quotes came from Jewish Sources who participated in the events that shaped Israel.

The transfer policy was a goal, if it makes you feel better to deny it good for you. But, please explain what happened to the 720 000-750 000 Arab refugees 
http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/IMAGES/REFUGE.JPG (please note that this link is biased towards Zionism) and the 600 000 Jewish refugees.

Ethnic cleansing is used not for genocide but the removing of an ethnic group. The terms used by Israel in this case is forced emigration. Look up Nakba or Palestinian exodus and the Arab-Israeli War....

The Balfour declaration was made during a time when there was worldwide anti-Semite feelings. Looking at socio-political factors helps put it in context. The anti-Semite feelings were not right then, as they are not right now, but denying that they existed is ignoring a tragic part of human history.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> NXMW,
> My quotes came from Jewish Sources who participated in the events that shaped Israel.
> 
> The transfer policy was a goal, if it makes you feel better to deny it good for you. But, please explain what happened to the 720 000-750 000 Arab refugees
> ...




The problem is that you may accept some sources as truthful that others believe to be fictional.

The numbers and nature of the migration, and even whether it was forced at all, differ depending on who is speaking. Mostly, in the literature, these are new and specious claims unsubstantiated by historical research. In fact, many people moved into Israel as well as out of it. The overall numbers that I have read (actual researched books subjected to academic scrutiny, review and fact-checking) show as much migration *to* Israel as from it/emigration.

As for "ethnic cleansing" having the meaning of moving people rather than _killing_ them, it's time that at least this part of your research improved. I appreciate your comments that anti-Semitic feelings are "not right," so why add to the mix?

As stated before, accusing Israelis of "ethnic cleansing" makes you part of a very sad and unfortunately growing sect who prefer to use such catchphrases among methods for causing harm, a harm that is very specific because <Godwin's law invoked>. If you were not knowingly doing this before, that situation no longer applies.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver in response to ArtistSeries said:


> I realize you are tired of being called anti-Semitic, but what else is this?


I'm sorry but I have to call BS here. BEING ANTI-ISREAL IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING ANTI-SEMETIC. 
I'm sick of this misdistinction. Not all Jews are Isreali. Not all Jews are Zionist.
Live with it.

As someone with a Jewish background who does not support the actions of the govenment of Isreal I take great offence to the idea that a non-Zionist outlook is the same thing as anti-semetism. It isn't.

I find it sad that no one else chose to make this distinction earlier considering the amount of trafic this thread has had.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

martman said:


> I'm sorry but I have to call BS here. BEING ANTI-ISREAL IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING ANTI-SEMETIC.
> I'm sick of this misdistinction. Not all Jews are Isreali. Not all Jews are Zionist.
> Live with it.
> 
> ...


Small point, but why not take a minute and spell anti-Semitic and Israel correctly?

The point above wasn't that somebody was anti-Semitic for being anti-Israel, but for (continually, repeatedly, and according to a pattern that is well-established among those who are anti-Semitic) accusing Israelis of something that did not happen, using specious sources to 'prove' it, and generally using a massive double standard which, as usual, is applied to no other country or people.

You may also wish to point out that not all Israelis are Jewish, that there are other members of the government in Israel, and that co-existence in Israel is mostly the norm, including cooperation in the government that makes these decisions.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> I'm sorry but I have to call BS here. BEING ANTI-ISREAL IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING ANTI-SEMETIC.
> I'm sick of this misdistinction. Not all Jews are Isreali. Not all Jews are Zionist.
> Live with it.
> 
> ...


Anti-Zionism is borderline anti-semitism, unless you are prepared to denounce all other ethnic national self-determination movements--including Palestinian Arab nartionalism--on the same grounds. If not, I see no other reason to think of anti-Zionism, whether from Jews or gentiles, as anything but anti-semitic by extension.

You can easily be an anti-semite from Jewish heritage--there were even a few Nazis who were Jews!

NOTE: this is not saying specific policy critiques of Israel are anti-semitic. It saying that anti-Zionism is, in general.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Small point, but why not take a minute and spell anti-Semitic and Israel correctly?
> 
> The point above wasn't that somebody was anti-Semitic for being anti-Israel, but for (continually, repeatedly, and according to a pattern that is well-established among those who are anti-Semitic) accusing Israelis of something that did not happen, using specious sources to 'prove' it, and generally using a massive double standard which, as usual, is applied to no other country or people.
> 
> You may also wish to point out that not all Israelis are Jewish, that there are other members of the government in Israel, and that co-existence in Israel is mostly the norm, including cooperation in the government that makes these decisions.



I'm dyslexic, don't like my spelling tough. That is not what this is about so lets put this issue asside.

There is more than one side to this issue (not the spelling) and neither side has a history of being entirely honest in its historical assesments.

Please show me the double standard being used by AS.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Anti-Zionism is borderline anti-semitism, unless you are prepared to denounce all other ethnic national self-determination movements--including Palestinian Arab nartionalism--on the same grounds.


This is not true just because you say it is. There are many issues that are involved with the Isreal situation which mke it different than most movements to start a nation.
An area that was occupied by an Arab majority was given to its Jewish minority who then brough in the bulk of its modern day population from out of the country. 

Now I actually believe in Isreal's right to existance but I do not believe in its right to expansionism even under the guise of retaliation for attacking Isreal without provocation. 
I would add that attacking a nation is not legal grounds for 
annexing territory from another nation. (despite what happened after the end of WWII).

I would also add that Artist Series may or may not be Anti-Zionist, it hasn't been made clear. I dissagree with most of the Isreali gov'ts decisions. That doesn't make me Anti-Zionist. It makes me anti-hypocracy.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> This is not true just because you say it is. There are many issues that are involved with the Isreal situation which mke it different than most movements to start a nation.
> An area that was occupied by an Arab majority was given to its Jewish minority who then brough in the bulk of its modern day population from out of the country.
> 
> Now I actually believe in Isreal's right to existance but I do not believe in its right to expansionism even under the guise of retaliation for attacking Isreal without provocation.
> ...


You really "dissagree with most of the Isreali gov'ts decisions." Really. So, I guess you are so well-versed in all the various decisions of the Israeli state since 1948 that you can confidently say you disagree with "most"?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> You really "dissagree with most of the Isreali gov'ts decisions." Really. So, I guess you are so well-versed in all the various decisions of the Israeli state since 1948 that you can confidently say you disagree with "most"?


Fine you insist on trying not to understand what I say even though you really do. I will rephrase:
I dissagree with most of Isreal's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
Satisfied?
Cripes!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Fine you insist on trying not to understand what I say even though you really do. I will rephrase:
> I dissagree with most of Isreal's policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
> Satisfied?
> Cripes!


Do you think someone should be expect to start a war, then upon losing it complaining that they are unfairly punished?

And, to the point, do u think someone can start a series of wars and then demand that they get 100 percent of what they ask for?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Do you think someone should be expect to start a war, then upon losing it complaining that they are unfairly punished?
> 
> And, to the point, do u think someone can start a series of wars and then demand that they get 100 percent of what they ask for?


Did I ever say that? No.
No one is going to get 100% of what they want out of this issue. Not the Palestinians, not the Isrealis, no one.
You make this all sound so black and white. It isn't, so what is your point?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Did I ever say that? No.
> No one is going to get 100% of what they want out of this issue. Not the Palestinians, not the Isrealis, no one.
> You make this all sound so black and white. It isn't, so what is your point?



Oh no, I ask only one thing from you in our debate: please, please, no reiterating the "world is not black and white, it's shades of gray" cliche. Honestly, please.

The point is, you have a lot of contempt for Israel and sympathy for the Palestinians at Israel's expense, when in fact it is the Palestinians who refused to agree to any Jewish sovereignty in even the most minimal conceptions. I think you have to factor that in to your determination of what are or are not correct policies.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> The problem is that you may accept some sources as truthful that others believe to be fictional.


Please point them out - my source of references were mostly/wholly Jewish. 
I have yet to see you attack a source yet - or even disprove it. Empty banter is all I have read. It's so easy to play the anti-Semite card. 



HowEver said:


> The numbers and nature of the migration, and even whether it was forced at all, differ depending on who is speaking. Mostly, in the literature, these are new and specious claims unsubstantiated by historical research. In fact, many people moved into Israel as well as out of it. The overall numbers that I have read (actual researched books subjected to academic scrutiny, review and fact-checking) show as much migration *to* Israel as from it/emigration.


Many Jewish scholars disagree with what you are saying. Yes there was an emigration to Israel - did I ever deny that?
You have taken the position that Israel can do no wrong in the name of religion - I'll let you figure out the rest....



HowEver said:


> As for "ethnic cleansing" having the meaning of moving people rather than _killing_ them, it's time that at least this part of your research improved. I appreciate your comments that anti-Semitic feelings are "not right," so why add to the mix?


You defined "ethnic cleansing" your way. If I had meant killing I would have said so. 



HowEver said:


> As stated before, accusing Israelis of "ethnic cleansing" makes you part of a very sad and unfortunately growing sect who prefer to use such catchphrases among methods for causing harm, a harm that is very specific because <Godwin's law invoked>. If you were not knowingly doing this before, that situation no longer applies.


So you prefer I deny history? Try to hide it? 

For some people you where trying not to use Hitler and Nazi Germany congrats -


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Oh no, I ask only one thing from you in our debate: please, please, no reiterating the "world is not black and white, it's shades of gray" cliche. Honestly, please.
> 
> The point is, you have a lot of contempt for Israel and sympathy for the Palestinians at Israel's expense, when in fact it is the Palestinians who refused to agree to any Jewish sovereignty in even the most minimal conceptions. I think you have to factor that in to your determination of what are or are not correct policies.


I dissagree. The numbers of the dead speak for themselves.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Oh no, I ask only one thing from you in our debate: please, please, no reiterating the "world is not black and white, it's shades of gray" cliche. Honestly, please.


Fine but you owe me more than one concession by now. 
I'll rephrase: Just because Isreal does it doesn't make it right. Isreal has done hypocratical things. Actions that make people wonder if they leared any lesson from the holocaust besides "anti-sematism is wrong".

This notion in the Jewish community that to criticise Isreal is anti-semetic, is BS.
All governments have room for improvement. Including Isreal.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Artist Series, the evidence of an entire program of ethnic cleansing is pretty scant, I'd say. The Arabs ended up making up 20 percent of Israel! This fact alone testifies to the inappropriateness of this loaded term "ethnic cleansing".

I don't think anyone here would say that Israel is beyond criticism or the state can do no wrong, but the sum total of the way you have been arguing about it definitely is making me wonder, why does Artist Series have a double standard when it comes to Israel?

I'll tell you what I definitely consider anti-semitic in its subtext is your use of the "my source of references were mostly/wholly Jewish" line. So what? There is zero reason to bring the ethnicity of the references up except to say, "look, even one of your own is against you". Do you think that we Jews only respect Jewish sources, regardless of their merit?

If so, that is pretty anti-semitic, not overtly (I don't expect you to come on and say the Jews should leave Canada) but with a little clever veil on it. Some of the biggest anti-semites are or were Jews.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> I dissagree. The numbers of the dead speak for themselves.


The numbers of dead? This is your crude calculus for who is more to blame? Man... that is reduced to the absolute lowest common denominator, isn't it?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Fine but you owe me more than one concession by now.
> I'll rephrase: Just because Isreal does it doesn't make it right. Isreal has done hypocratical things. Actions that make people wonder if they leared any lesson from the holocaust besides "anti-sematism is wrong".
> 
> This notion in the Jewish community that to criticise Isreal is anti-semetic, is BS.
> All governments have room for improvement. Including Isreal.



Now you are really skirting the line... your rephrasing was of course uncontroversial. 

But then you had to go and say this,

"Actions that make people wonder if they leared any lesson from the holocaust besides "anti-sematism is wrong"."

OK, so now, you are accusing Jews of not learning any "lessons" from the Holocaust--i.e., now the Israelis are doing to Arabs as just what the Nazis did to the Jews, right? Well this kind of equivocation is disgusting.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> The numbers of dead? This is your crude calculus for who is more to blame? Man... that is reduced to the absolute lowest common denominator, isn't it?


I never said that. As usual you are putting words in my mouth.

The numbers certainly show that there is plenty of blame to go around. No one is an angel in this conflict and those who claim moral superiority are deluded (unless we are talking about those who are honestly looking for peace).

A nation with an offical policy of killing more Arabs than Isrealis killed does not have any more of a moral high ground than a nation that allows people to take mortar pot shots at Jews.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Now you are really skirting the line... your rephrasing was of course uncontroversial.
> 
> But then you had to go and say this,
> 
> ...



WRONG! I am accusing Isrealis of not learning lessons from the holocaust not Jews. There is a difference. I would add that many Isrealis do indeed dissagree with the policies of Isreal's right wing. So really it is the right wing of Isreal I refer to ie. those in power thanks to wierd coalitions in gov't.

Maybe it is disgusting but if the shoe fits...

Can you honestly tell me that the Palestinians are not being ghetoised? It would be unfair to accuse the Isrealis of genocide but I don't think that my characterisation is that unfair.

I should have been more precise however: it compares to the run up to the holocaust.

As an aside, how many times have I heard this from Isrealis: "The Arabs are not human". Hell how many time have I heard this crap from my own familly?
Too many I assure you.
Sound familliar?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> This notion in the Jewish community that to criticise Isreal is anti-semetic, is BS.
> All governments have room for improvement. Including Isreal.


Why can you spell community, government and improvement correctly, but not semitic or Israel. That's really odd.
On your point, I note your reference to your Jewish "background". If you were part of the community, you would be well aware that there is hardly any community that is more self-critical and has more internal debate. Jews criticise Israel, both from inside and outside the country. There is plenty of criticism of israel that is not branded as being anti-Semitic.

There is a particular brand of criticism, however, that is transparently anti-Semitic. Applying a double standard to Israel is, in my view, anti-Semitic. Rushing to condemn Israel on false reports is anti-Semitic — Remember the "massacre" at Jenin - or do you believe it happened? The CBC put a Palestinian woman on national TV screaming, "They took all the men away!" and portrayed it as truth. Even Amnesty International reported that these stories were false. What do you think motivates that kind of reporting?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> I never said that. As usual you are putting words in my mouth.
> 
> The numbers certainly show that there is plenty of blame to go around. No one is an angel in this conflict and those who claim moral superiority are deluded (unless we are talking about those who are honestly looking for peace).
> 
> A nation with an offical policy of killing more Arabs than Isrealis killed does not have any more of a moral high ground than a nation that allows people to take mortar pot shots at Jews.


At the same time as denying you are saying it, you then go and basically repeat it a paragraph down!

Moral superiority? Man, you are the one who is touting the Israel is to blame line, pretending like the Arabs were shortchanged by the Jews when they in fact started these wars in hopes of preventing or destroying any Jewish sovereign state whatsoever.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Artist Series, the evidence of an entire program of ethnic cleansing is pretty scant, I'd say. The Arabs ended up making up 20 percent of Israel! This fact alone testifies to the inappropriateness of this loaded term "ethnic cleansing".


Ethnic clensing doesn't nessecarilly imply killing. The Diaspora was ethnic clensing too. Showing that 20% of Isreal is Arab doesn't discount the fact that Isreal did participate in Ethnic cleansing.Where is the other 40%? I should think that AS's quote make plain that this was a popular notion in early modern Isreal.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> WRONG! I am accusing Isrealis of not learning lessons from the holocaust not Jews. There is a difference. I would add that many Isrealis do indeed dissagree with the policies of Isreal's right wing. So really it is the right wing of Isreal I refer to ie. those in power thanks to wierd coalitions in gov't.
> 
> Maybe it is disgusting but if the shoe fits...
> 
> ...


Listen, if you want to talk about Israeli history, don't go on this crap about the right wing. The country has been governed by bloody left-wing socialist Labor for the majority of its existence, including the first 30 years! If anything, you can blame the leftists for this situation, not the right wingers! And really, what is the "right wing"?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> A nation with an offical policy of killing more Arabs than Isrealis killed does not have any more of a moral high ground than a nation that allows people to take mortar pot shots at Jews.


An "an offical policy of killing more Arabs". This statement is shameful. It is a lie, and it is the kind of statement that breeds hatred against Jews.

Please withdraw it. If you have any integrity, you won't replace it with a prevarication.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> At the same time as denying you are saying it, you then go and basically repeat it a paragraph down!
> 
> Moral superiority? Man, you are the one who is touting the Israel is to blame line, pretending like the Arabs were shortchanged by the Jews when they in fact started these wars in hopes of preventing or destroying any Jewish sovereign state whatsoever.


No I am not. You are putting words in my mouth yet again! Please stop this as I disslike the taste of your words.

I said:"there is plenty of blame to go around."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> An "an offical policy of killing more Arabs". This statement is shameful. It is a lie, and it is the kind of statement that breeds hatred against Jews.
> 
> Please withdraw it. If you have any integrity, you won't replace it with a prevarication.


NO I will not.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0605/p01s01-wome.html


> Lost in the rhetoric was the reality that the Israelis have killed three Palestinians for every Israeli that has been killed since strife broke out in September 2000.


This number holds amazingly steady since then.

And no it doesn't breed hatered against Jews. I repeat Israel is not "Jews". Jews are not "Israel. They are seperate things. It is ok for people outside of Israel to critisize Israel. Critisizing Israel is not the same as anti-sematism.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> As an aside, how many times have I heard this from Isrealis: "The Arabs are not human". Hell how many time have I heard this crap from my own familly?


Are you suggesting that this is a widespread point of view among Israelis? Nonsense. It is no more the common Israeli sentiment than it is to Canadians. Why do you hold all Israelis, or all Jews, responsible for the inappropriate views of a few?
Here's where I have often heard that statement, however — with reference to terrorists who delude misguided teenagers, even children, into strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up. What humanity do they have?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> And really, what is the "right wing"?


In Isreal the right wing is usually characterised by a more aggressive stance on the Palestinian issue and the left by a less aggressive stance. 
I am talking about Sharon vs Perez not about Labour Vs Conservative.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Are you suggesting that this is a widespread point of view among Israelis? Nonsense. It is no more the common Israeli sentiment than it is to Canadians. Why do you hold all Israelis, or all Jews, responsible for the inappropriate views of a few?
> Here's where I have often heard that statement, however — with reference to terrorists who delude misguided teenagers, even children, into strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up. What humanity do they have?


Yes I am because I have heard this crap from MANY Israelis including those in my familly.

I don't have information on what percentage of the population believes this crap but I have heard this sh*t so many times it makes my head spin. 
Also this one: "there is no such thing as a Palestinian."
This is like saying there is no such thing as a Mowhawk.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> In Isreal the right wing is usually characterised by a more aggressive stance on the Palestinian issue and the left by a less aggressive stance.
> I am talking about Sharon vs Perez not about Labour Vs Conservative.


What is "aggressive stance"? And so you think the Israeli right wing has monolithic ideas?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> What is "aggressive stance"? And so you think the Israeli right wing has monolithic ideas?


Targeted killing is an agressive stance. Widespread curfews and severe economic control is an aggressive stance.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Your allegation of an "official policy", or even an unofficial policy, is false and shameful. You have no basis to make such a claim. I ask you again show some integrity and retract it. 

Israel's policy is to defend its population, which includes its Arab population, from terrorist attacks. The body count establishes only that there is a tragic war going on.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Targeted killing is an agressive stance. Widespread curfews and severe economic control is an aggressive stance.


Targeted killing is among my favourite policies! I think I am an evil right winger, since I think killing people who order suicide bombings is a just policy!

On the other hand, I would prefer less economic control of the Palestinians. I would prefer they develop their own market and support themselves. What does that make me?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Your allegation of an "official policy", or even an unofficial policy, is false and shameful. You have no basis to make such a claim. I ask you again show some integrity and retract it.
> 
> Israel's policy is to defend its population, which includes its Arab population, from terrorist attacks. The body count establishes only that there is a tragic war going on.


Sorry but I dissagree this policy is clear. Why are the numbers so consistant?
I repeat if the policy is only to defend why is the 3:1 ratio so consistant?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Targeted killing is among my favourite policies! I think I am an evil right winger, since I think killing people who order suicide bombings is a just policy!
> 
> On the other hand, I would prefer less economic control of the Palestinians. I would prefer they develop their own market and support themselves. What does that make me?


I dissagree with ex-judicial executions. I believe in the rule of law.

I don't support bombers, shooters etc. 

I also believe that many people in the Middle East are so used to war and strife they don't want peace. I believe Sharon is one of them, so was Arafat.


----------



## Bajan (Apr 11, 2004)

martman said:


> "there is no such thing as a Palestinian."
> This is like saying there is no such thing as a Mowhawk.


This will probably cause a s*%t storm but the word "Palestinian" actually does not refer to Arabs alone. During the period of the Mandate, it was the Jewish population that was known as "Palestinians" including those who served in the British Army in World War II.

As for the work "Palestine" itself it refers to a geographical term and not a county. There may be a "Palestine" one day but there has never ever been a country called "Palastine".

I hate just posting quotations but here goes....


> Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.
> Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.
> 
> -- from "Myths of the Middle East", Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, WorldNetDaily, 11 October 2000





> "There is no such country as Palestine. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented. . . . Our country was for centuries part of Syria. 'Palestine' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it."
> -- Local Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937





> "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not"
> -- Professor Philip Hitti, Arab historian to Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 1946





> "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
> -- Ahmed Shukairy, United Nations Security Council, 1956


Have fun discussing kids!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> .
> On your point, I note your reference to your Jewish "background". If you were part of the community, you would be well aware that there is hardly any community that is more self-critical and has more internal debate.


I don't buy that for a second. All I've seen from within the Jewish community outside of my familly is people saying "If you don't live in Israel you don't have the right to critiscize Israel".
I would love to see more and more public debate from the whole community.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Yes I am because I have heard this crap from MANY Israelis including those in my familly.
> 
> I don't have information on what percentage of the population believes this crap but I have heard this sh*t so many times it makes my head spin.
> Also this one: "there is no such thing as a Palestinian."
> This is like saying there is no such thing as a Mowhawk.


Can't you admit when you are just talking off the top of your head? These are serious accusations you are making, and half-baked anecdotes of what some members of your family may have said is as irrelevant as can be. It's just mudslinging.

The issue of whether there is such a thing as a "Palestinian" has a legitimate basis, but it is really a semantic argument that makes no difference.

In real life, Arabs with roots in the West Bank and Gaza can call themselves whatever they like. They call themselves Palestinians and Israel recognizes the Palestinian Authority as their representative.

Any more red herrings in your barrel?

... and there is no such thing as a "Mowhawk".


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> I dissagree with ex-judicial executions. I believe in the rule of law.
> 
> I don't support bombers, shooters etc.
> 
> I also believe that many people in the Middle East are so used to war and strife they don't want peace. I believe Sharon is one of them, so was Arafat.


Ah, "ex-judicial"... I always loved that one.

Sorry, a war is a war. People who serve as dispatchers of bombers do not get amnesty from the sword during a war. Got that, a WAR, not dealing with a thug on the street who robbed the liquor store. WAR.

Sharon = Arafat, another classic lameass moral equivalence. Yes, all the same, completely. Damn, I wish you would come up with something more creative than that for me, I really do.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Sorry but I dissagree this policy is clear.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


> The oft-cited "Big Lie Theory" originated with Adolf Hitler's 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf. In that book Hitler wrote that people came to believe that Germany lost World War I in the field due to a propaganda technique used by Jews who were influential in the German press. This technique, he believed, consisted of telling a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe anyone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". The first documented use of the phrase "big lie" is in the corresponding passage: "in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility".
> Later, Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the phrase big lie. In this theory, the English are attributed with using a propaganda technique where in they had the mendacity to "lie big" and "stick to it".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

nxnw, thanks for this info. Sadly, they look like fine homes.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


This has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
Israel kills 3 Arabs for every Israeli killed. Do you deny this?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

"Palestine"... where did that word come from, again?

Oh, actually I know, from Latin, "Palestina" which means, "Land of the Philistines".

Who gave it that name? The Romans did.

When? After they smashed the last Jewish revolt against their imperial rule and forced them to leave Judea, thereby creating what is now called "the Diaspora".

Why? To insult the Jews who dare rise against their rule---and why is this an insult?

Because the Philistines were the ancient enemies of the Jews. Goliath was a Philistine, for example. The Philistines no longer exist. They disappeared. The Arabs are not Philistines. Nor were the Arabs the original inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, who were conquered in the time of Joshua. They are as much a foreign influence as the Jews are, and then some. They came when they CONQUERED the land from the Byzantine empire. They have no more claim to it than we do.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Can't you admit when you are just talking off the top of your head? These are serious accusations you are making, and half-baked anecdotes of what some members of your family may have said is as irrelevant as can be. It's just mudslinging.
> 
> The issue of whether there is such a thing as a "Palestinian" has a legitimate basis, but it is really a semantic argument that makes no difference.
> 
> ...


No I can't I've heard this crap too many times in too many places to allow you to claim it is not prevelent.

I've heard it from Hasids, Conservatives and from Reformed. I've hear this in Berkeley, Toronto, NYC and SF.

I will not claim that it is a majority opinion but it IS prevelent.

As for the Mowhawk did I misspell that or do you not believe in the existance of aboriginal people?


If it is spelling then get bent as there is a lot more at stake here than my inability to spell.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> "Palestine"... where did that word come from, again?
> 
> They came when they CONQUERED the land from the Byzantine empire. They have no more claim to it than we do.


{sarcasm}That's right 400 years of inhabiting a land means zip{/sarcasm}


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Can't you admit when you are just talking off the top of your head? These are serious accusations you are making, and half-baked anecdotes of what some members of your family may have said is as irrelevant as can be. It's just mudslinging.


Are you honestly telling me you haven't heard this yourself?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Martman, having grown up in a Jewish neighborhood in New York City, I too have heard the phrase ""If you don't live in Israel you don't have the right to critiscize Israel". One of my closest boyhood friends emmigrated to Israel about 20 years ago. We had marched together against the war in Vietnam back in the 60's and 70's. Now, he proudly (although with a father's fear) sends his son off to serve in compulsory military service in Israel. He emails me about his fears, not only for his son, but for his family's well being. Still, he wants to make Israel his home. He has been critical of various decisions the governments have made in the past 20, and yet he is willing to have his car searched, his bags searched, at two different checkpoints when he shops at certain stores. He was a great civil libertarian when he was in NYC, but in Israel, public safety has come before the privacy of the individual. Personally, I don't have his sort of courage to live in that sort of constant wondering/fear, nor would I be willing to give up my sense of civil liberties. Still, it is easy for me to say these things sitting here in St.John's (with a Jewish population of less than 200 persons in NL). If I was back in NYC or London, things would be different. If I was with Steve in Haifa, things would be even more different.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> The issue of whether there is such a thing as a "Palestinian" has a legitimate basis, but it is really a semantic argument that makes no difference.
> 
> In real life, Arabs with roots in the West Bank and Gaza can call themselves whatever they like. They call themselves Palestinians and Israel recognizes the Palestinian Authority as their representative.
> 
> Any more red herrings in your barrel?


Exactly. Call 'em what you will there were people there. statements like there is no such thing as a Palestinian is to say that those folks in the refugee camps don't exist.

red herring I think not. notice PT trying to jump on this bandwagon.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Kofi Annan:


> It is hard to believe that, 60 years after the tragedy of the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is once again rearing its head. But it is clear that we are witnessing an alarming resurgence of this phenomenon in new forms and manifestations. This time, the world must not, cannot be silent.
> 
> We owe it to ourselves, as well as to our Jewish brothers and sisters, to stand firmly against the particular tide of hatred that anti-Semitism represents. And that means we must be prepared to examine the nature of today's manifestations of anti-Semitism more closely, which is the purpose of your seminar.
> 
> ...


:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw that is very nice.
What is your point?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Exactly. Call 'em what you will there were people there. statements like ther is no such thing as a Palestinian is to say that those folks in the refugee camps don't exist.
> 
> red herring I think not. notice PT trying to jump on this bandwagon.


Well, it's clearly not Israeli policy, so why are you slinging mud? Your introduction of this issue only malign Israel or Jews, or both, because of an irrelevant semantic argument that few Israelis or Jews care about.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}That's right 400 years of inhabiting a land means zip{/sarcasm}


Not the point, is it? You act as if they had an inherent national right to this land. I just demonstrated that to be false.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Not the point, is it? You act as if they had an inherent national right to this land. I just demonstrated that to be false.


{sarcasm}That's right 400 years of inhabiting a land means zip{/sarcasm}


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}That's right 400 years of inhabiting a land means zip{/sarcasm}



Does that beat the Jews having 1,600 years of sovereignty over it?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

martman said:


> I would also add that Artist Series may or may not be Anti-Zionist, it hasn't been made clear.


I have written that I believe in the right to the State of Israel. That this homeland be in/or around Palestine in a mixted society (binational state). I have written about this in this thread.
I don't believe in the radical Zionism that aproaches racism.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Well, it's clearly not Israeli policy, so why are you slinging mud? Your introduction of this issue only malign Israel or Jews, or both, because of an irrelevant semantic argument that few Israelis or Jews care about.


If you look back in this thread you will find your answer.
AS was accused of being an anti-semite because he dared to critisize Israel. As well PT was making posts that had the effect of saying all Israel does is right all Arabs do is wrong. 
I was using this as an example of hypocracy within the Jewish community.
I was illustrating the point that everyone is wrong. I mean this. I see no one acting responsibly in and around Israel. That is why the place is such a mess. You do not get peace through retaliation. This is a lesson both sides need to learn and desperatly.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I have written that I believe in the right to the State of Israel. That this homeland be in/or around Palestine in a mixted society (binational state). I have written about this in this thread.
> I don't believe in the radical Zionism that aproaches racism.


Thanks for clarifying this. 
At this point I will say you are not anti-Zionist then.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Does that beat the Jews having 1,600 years of sovereignty over it?


Interupted by how many years?
Are you ready to get kicked out of Canada or submit to the laws of the Iroquios nation?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I have written that I believe in the right to the State of Israel. That this homeland be in/or around Palestine in a mixted society (binational state). I have written about this in this thread.
> I don't believe in the radical Zionism that aproaches racism.



The binational state! Surely if there is a dangerous idea in this debate, this has to be it. As you can see, this sort of arrangement worked out so well in "Yugoslavia". And what with all the goodwill between Arabs and Jews, we will have Belgium in no time!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Many Jewish scholars disagree with what you are saying. Yes there was an emigration to Israel - did I ever deny that?
> ...
> You have taken the position that Israel can do no wrong in the name of religion - I'll let you figure out the rest....
> ...
> ...


It isn't that you denied immigration to Israel, it's that you talked about people leaving Israel, only. If just as many went there as left (all kinds of people, all walks of life), then the "forced migration" transparency becomes obvious. Mostly not discussed, but obvious.

btw the classic book about Jewish immigration to Canada during World War II is called "None is Too Many," an apt description of Canadian policy as stated by an Canadian immigration administrator.

Your clinging to "ethnic cleansing" as something other than killing, or even as something other than mostly killing, doesn't serve you very well.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Thanks for clarifying this.
> At this point I will say you are not anti-Zionist then.



Correction then: Artist Series is an anti-Zionist who denies the basic goal of ALL Zionists, namely, a state governed for the Jewish national interest by Jews.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Ah, "ex-judicial"... I always loved that one.
> 
> Sorry, a war is a war. People who serve as dispatchers of bombers do not get amnesty from the sword during a war. Got that, a WAR, not dealing with a thug on the street who robbed the liquor store. WAR.
> 
> Sharon = Arafat, another classic lameass moral equivalence. Yes, all the same, completely. Damn, I wish you would come up with something more creative than that for me, I really do.


It is a war is it? could have fooled me. Were the Jews at war with Britain in the Palestinian mandate? Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians?


Sharon = Arafat. Did I say this? No.
What is it with you. Can you ever stop lying about what I say?
What I said was neither man wants(ed) peace.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Correction then: Artist Series is an anti-Zionist who denies the basic goal of ALL Zionists, namely, a state governed for the Jewish national interest by Jews.


That is BS. Read what he wrote again.
Nowhere does he say that Isreal has no right to form a state.

How would you like it if I claimed you said "Arabs have no right to exist?"

Why don't you stop lying about what folks are saying?
Is it that hard to come up with a decent argument that you have to continually put BS in the mouths of others?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> It is a war is it? could have fooled me. Were the Jews at war with Britain in the Palestinian mandate? Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians?
> 
> 
> Sharon = Arafat. Did I say this? No.
> ...


Hello, what is the difference, in this context, between saying Sharon = Arafat and your claim that "neither man wants(ed) peace"? That means, in essence, both guys are bad. No difference. They both don't want peace. How is that not saying Sharon = Arafat, for the purposes of what you are discussing?

Were the Jews at war with Britain in the Palestinian mandate? Yes, at the end they were!

Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians? No need to, this war has been raging off and on since 1920 at least, bro.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> That is BS. Read what he wrote again.
> Nowhere does he say that Isreal has no right to form a state.
> 
> How would you like it if I claimed you said "Arabs have no right to exist?"
> ...


Artist Series is in favour, in his words, of a "BINATIONAL STATE". Do you know what this means, I was assuming you did? I don't assume my opponent is dumb. I am assuming you know what the "Binational State" means. And that is anti-Zionist by definition.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Hello, what is the difference, in this context, between saying Sharon = Arafat and your claim that "neither man wants(ed) peace"? That means, in essence, both guys are bad. No difference. They both don't want peace. How is that not saying Sharon = Arafat, for the purposes of what you are discussing?
> 
> Were the Jews at war with Britain in the Palestinian mandate? Yes, at the end they were!
> 
> Has Israel declared war on the Palestinians? No need to, this war has been raging off and on since 1920 at least, bro.


Neither man wants(ed) peace. I stand by that.

I don't call a few terrorist acts a war but if you do so be it.

If you believe that Israel is at war with the Palestinians the n they are violating the Geneva conventions.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Interupted by how many years?
> Are you ready to get kicked out of Canada or submit to the laws of the Iroquios nation?


There has been a Jewish population in the area now comprising Israel, as well as the west bank, throughout recorded history.

For that matter, there was a large Jewish population in each of Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Yemen ... until most of them were deported and had their property confiscated. In contrast to the Arab world, which has refused to absorb Palestinian refugees so they can be a political football with which to demonize Israel, these Jewish refugees - transferees - were welcomed into Jewish society.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Artist Series, the evidence of an entire program of ethnic cleansing is pretty scant, I'd say. The Arabs ended up making up 20 percent of Israel! This fact alone testifies to the inappropriateness of this loaded term "ethnic cleansing".
> 
> I don't think anyone here would say that Israel is beyond criticism or the state can do no wrong, but the sum total of the way you have been arguing about it definitely is making me wonder, why does Artist Series have a double standard when it comes to Israel?
> 
> ...


planethoth, I agreed to debate you along your "rules" for this Thread, try to stay within them, please.

If I had quoted only Arab sources I would of been accused of being Pro-Arab and biased. The quotes came from books from Jewish heros or people who shaped Israel. 
Ben-Gurion= first prime minister of Israel
Nur Masalha = Senior Lecturer and Director of Holy Land Research Project 
Menachem Ussishkin = Acting Chairman of the Zionist Commission
Moshe Dayan = Israeli military warrior who became a crusader for peace
(http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Dayan.html)
Avraham Katznelson = Member of the National Council
Shlomo Lavi = Kibbutz founder


Please point out my double standard? 

Your last paragraph is well perplexing.....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Artist Series is in favour, in his words, of a "BINATIONAL STATE". Do you know what this means, I was assuming you did? I don't assume my opponent is dumb. I am assuming you know what the "Binational State" means. And that is anti-Zionist by definition.


Well I'd have to see more about his opinios on the matter but I would call it non-Zionist more than anti-Zionist. Of course as a Bush fan you would probably believe this: "You are either for us or against us".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> There has been a Jewish population in the area now comprising Israel, as well as the west bank, throughout recorded history.
> 
> For that matter, there was a large Jewish population in each of Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Yemen ... until most of them were deported and had their property confiscated. In contrast to the Arab world, which has refused to absorb Palestinian refugees so they can be a political football with which to demonize Israel, these Jewish refugees - transferees - were welcomed into Jewish society.


No one said Palestine was devoid of Jews. While it would be nice if the rest of the Arab world took in the Palestinians they didn't. I don't see this as any different than many policies of Israel. For instance Israel won't take me in because my father is Jewish and I have not been Barmitzah or given a Hebrew name by an Orthodox rabbi.
Why should Iraq clean up Israel's mess?
Yes the Palestinians are pawns in some ugly world politics. This doesn't excuse human rights violations on either side.

I'd add that Israel needed these refugees to become a viable state. Hardly a fair comparison.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> An "an offical policy of killing more Arabs". This statement is shameful. It is a lie, and it is the kind of statement that breeds hatred against Jews.
> 
> Please withdraw it. If you have any integrity, you won't replace it with a prevarication.


What the hell is targeting Hamas Leaders?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> planethoth, I agreed to debate you along your "rules" for this Thread, try to stay within them, please.
> 
> If I had quoted only Arab sources I would of been accused of being Pro-Arab and biased. The quotes came from books from Jewish heros or people who shaped Israel.
> Ben-Gurion= first prime minister of Israel
> ...


The last paragraph is pretty clear, I thought. A Jew can easily hold an anti-semitic opinion. The Jews have a very strong tradition of self-hatred. 

I don't think quotes are going to illuminate much. They certainly did not override the fact that if they were going to do ethnic cleansing they did the lousiest job of it in all of history.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> What the hell is targeting Hamas Leaders?


That's a policy targeting murderers, not Arabs.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Some interesting reading about Palestinian leadership before Israel. Also, guess what Gaza was for a while in the 50s?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:


> Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (ca. 1895-July 4, 1974, ???? ???????, also spelt al-Husseini or el-Husseini, also known as Al-Hajj Amin or Haj Amin), was a Palestinian Arab nationalist and Muslim religious leader. A member of Jerusalem's most prominent family, his most important positions were as Mufti of Jerusalem and President of the Supreme Muslim Council.
> Known as the "Grand Mufti of Jerusalem", he received this title in 1921 after the death of his father (the Mufti of Jerusalem) under the auspices of the then High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel. He played a major role in Arab resistance to Zionist political ambitions in Palestine and recruiting Muslims to fight in the German army during World War II. He became very close to the Nazi leading circle and conducted radio broadcasts and recruitment operations on their behalf during the war.
> ...
> Viewing the Balfour Declaration as a betrayal, Al-Husayni organized anti-Jewish demonstrations in Jerusalem. During the Jerusalem pogrom of April, 1920, Al-Husayni incited the masses to murder Jews and loot their homes. He organized Jaffa riots of May, 1921, followed by the annual anti-Balfour riots. For his crimes the British military court sentenced Al-Husayni (in absentia) to ten years imprisonment on charges of fomenting the riots, but he had already fled to Damascus by way of Trans-Jordan.
> ...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

An enlightened view of Anti-Zionism, from a paper by Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi, secretary general of the Italian Muslim Assembly:


> As a basic point of my paper, I firstly want to look at classical Islamic sources with the objective to show that that they do not support the so-called "Islamic antizionism", preached by radical groups in Middle East and abroad. While reflecting on the historical development of this attitude and the dangers it represents for the contemporary world, it is necessary to underline that the idea of considering Jewish ‘Aliyah to Eretz Israel as a Western invasion and Zionists as new colonizers is quite recent, and has no connection with basic features of Islamic faith.
> ...
> The idea of making Islam a factor that prevents Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over Palestine is – on the contrary – an artificial apparatus that has no precedent in Islamic classical sources. Reading antizionism as a direct consequence of Islam is a form of explicit anti-historical misunderstanding, that implies the desubstantialization of Islam from it religious contents and its arbitrary transformation into a mundane ideology. This deviation was systematically perpetrated by the late British-appointed "muftî" of Jerusalem, Amîn al-Husseynî, the one who - being morally and materially responsible for most of Arab defeats - hardly persecuted all Arabs who understood cooperation with Jews as a precious opportunity for the development of Palestine, and was so rooted in his hate for Jews to accept to put his religious position at the disposal of the anti-religious and anti-humanitarian ideology of National Socialism. After him, Jamâl al-Dîn ‘Abd al-Nassêr based his policy on Pan-Arabism, hate and contempt for Jews and line-up with Soviet Union. All these options were a determinant factor in causing Arab backwardness, but fortunately most of Nassêr’s mistakes were afterwards corrected by the martyr Anwâr Sadât. After the defeat of Nasserianism, the fundamentalist movements made antizionism an outstanding part of their propaganda, trying to describe the negation of any right of Israelis over Palestine as rooted in Islamic tradition and derived from religious principles.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> I don't think quotes are going to illuminate much. They certainly did not override the fact that if they were going to do ethnic cleansing they did the lousiest job of it in all of history.


That is just silly. Ther are many examples of ethnic clensing that was far less successfull than israel's ethnic clensing.

In Rwanda the Tutsis make up 15% of the population AFTER very aggressive ethnic clensing By the Hutus. So I don't see Israel's less than 19.9% as failed ethnic clensing.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rw.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html

Don't forget that the Arabs have a higher birth rate so 30 years ago there were fewer Arabs by percentage.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

More facts about Jewish dispossession from Arab countries. "It is estimated that in 2003, the Iraqi Jewish population numbered less than 100. The population of Jewish communities of the Middle East and North Africa was reduced from about 900,000 in 1948 to less than 8,000 today"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


> Farhud (translation from Arabic: "pogrom", "violent dispossession") took place in Iraq on June 1-2, 1941.
> 
> Historical background
> 
> ...


Now, THAT'S ethnic cleansing.

Let's see ArtistSeries and Martman give this real ethnic cleansing some attention instead of their baseless accusations against Israel.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Correction then: Artist Series is an anti-Zionist who denies the basic goal of ALL Zionists, namely, a state governed for the Jewish national interest by Jews.


planethoth, I agreed to debade you along your rules - even asked to you abide by them. Your word is not worth much. 
From someone who is considered "part of the tribe", produced material for various synagogues, who has held archival material from the Holocaust museum, choked up at hearing an olderly woman bring in "artifacts", seen too many tattoos, had to honor to sit at various functions beside the Rabbi and Cantor, welcomed into a congregation, participated in many "reserved" Jewish holidays, and been in business with partners of Jewish faith, I will try and remember those people and not the bigoted, racist, obtuse narrow minded and people who lack even basic respect. 
Your attitude is one that contribute to an anti-Jewish sentiment, one where some Jews feel a sense of entitlement - keep up the circle of violence.

Unlike planethoth who promised not to participate in this thread, I will not contribute here anymore - but please note that you have planted a seed questioning some of my involvement. While the respect may still be there, the policies and hypocrisy of Israel seem not only ingrained in the State but SOME of the people with a fanatical bigotry bound by no logic.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> More facts about Jewish dispossession from Arab countries. "It is estimated that in 2003, the Iraqi Jewish population numbered less than 100. The population of Jewish communities of the Middle East and North Africa was reduced from about 900,000 in 1948 to less than 8,000 today"
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Now, THAT'S ethnic cleansing.
> 
> Let's see ArtistSeries and Martman give this real ethnic cleansing some attention instead of their baseless accusations against Israel.


Give me a thread about it and I'll denounce it. Infact I'll denounce it now. 
I'll also denounce the ethnic cleansing of Christians from Iraq!
Feel better?
The point is this thread is about Israeli / Arab history not Iraqi Jewish History. Iraqis aren't even Arabs.

I am not happy about anything to do with Iraq. That is one country where I do not envy the people one bit.  

Baseless? Come on. Close to 40% of your population doesn't just leave. I hope you are not going to claim that every one who left Israel wanted to.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Give me a thread about it and I'll denounce it. Infact I'll denounce it now.


Why don't you start one? Not on your radar?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Iraqis aren't even Arabs.


I didn't think you knew much about the Middle East, given your uninformed comments. Now it looks like you don't know anything.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

No it isn't to be honest. 
I didn't start this thread either.
The only reason I jumped in is I am sick of people equating The Jews with Israel and Israel with the Jews.

Many Jews chose not to live in Israel but are still Jewish. Many won't go to Israel because they don't agree with what is going on. They are not anti-semites. Non Zionist people are not allways anti-Semetic unless you think most non Lubovitch Hasids are anti-Semetic.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I didn't think you knew much about the Middle East, given your uninformed comments. Now it looks like you don't know anything.


I stand corrected. I thought they were Persians like Iran.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Non Zionist people are not allways anti-Semetic unless you think most non Lubovitch Hasids are anti-Semetic.


I think your should stop posting until you know something. Lubovich are not anti-Zionist.

Have you spelled Semitic correctly even once?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Read the quote: "non Lubovitch" it says.
And I said "Anti-Semetic" not "Anti-Zionist." (which apparently is spelled semitic.)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Have you spelled Semitic correctly even once?



Keep making fun of me because I have a learning dissability.
I'll refrain from calling you names.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Martman, I too am learning disabled in spelling. So, keep the faith, brother.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> I stand corrected. I thought they were Persians like Iran.


You sure know a lot about the middle east.

Here's an apt quotation from Abba Eban: "His ignorance is encyclopedic". I don't know who he was talking about, unfortunately.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You sure know a lot about the middle east.
> 
> Here's an apt quotation from Abba Eban: "His ignorance is encyclopedic". I don't know who he was talking about, unfortunately.


That's nice do you have an argument to make?
An apology for making fun of my spelling?
or are you just going to call me names?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Keep making fun of me because I have a learning dissability.
> I'll refrain from calling you names.


I'm not making fun of you. I have observed that you have no problem spelling many difficult words, but you consistently spell Semitic incorrectly, although it has been pointed out to you. It does not reflect a learning disability, but a lack of respect.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Martman, I too am learning disabled in spelling. So, keep the faith, brother.


Thanks.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I'm not making fun of you. I have observed that you have no problem spelling many difficult words, but you consistently spell Semitic incorrectly, although it has been pointed out to you. It does not reflect a learning disability, but a lack of respect.


I spell phonetically when I am not sure.

Ihave ortholexia a form of dyslexia. What do you know about this?
I am part Hungarian and part Latvian Jew. I am a semite. There is no dissrespect except from you.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> An apology for making fun of my spelling?
> or are you just going to call me names?


I am not making fun of your spelling. I am questioning how someone who didn't even know that Iraqis are Arabs can purport such superior knowledge of middle east politics.

It's like not knowing water is wet.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Martman, I have to spell things out and look at it carefully. I am able to pick up most of my misspelled words. However, when in doubt, I try to use a dictionary. It slows things down a bit, but it helps. 

I teach undergrad and grad students how to assess language learning disabilities here in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. I usually ask my students to raise their left hand if they are learning disabled. I am usually the only one with his/her left hand raised. Then I ask for anyone with a Ph.D. to raise their right hand, and again, I am the only one with both hands raised. I do this to show them that even learning disabled students are able to achieve success.

I know that this is WAY off of the topic, but I just had to jump in and help defend someone who is also learning disabled.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I am not making fun of your spelling. I am questioning how someone who didn't even know that Iraqis are Arabs to be purporting such superior knowledge of middle east politics.
> 
> It's like not knowing water is wet.


I'd say that is an unfair anology but what ever. I'd add that I never claimed to have superrior knowledge just a different bias.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> I spell phonetically when I am not sure.
> 
> Ihave ortholexia a form of dyslexia. What do you know about this?
> I am part Hungarian and part Latvian Jew. I am a semite. There is no dissrespect except from you.


Fair enough. I take back the Mowhawk crack. 

The reference to Semitic was not intended to make fun of you. It looked like disrespect. Now I know better.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Martman, to be honest, I have not heard of "ortholexia".

Check out http://www.ldonline.org/abcs_info/articles-info.html which is a great site re learning disabilities.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

nxnw, you are an understanding person now. In the Jewish faith, that is called a "mitzvah", or a "good deed".


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> I'd say that is an unfair anology but what ever. I'd add that I never claimed to have superrior knowledge just a different bias.


Uninformed bias = prejudice.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Martman, to be honest, I have not heard of "ortholexia".
> 
> Check out http://www.ldonline.org/abcs_info/articles-info.html which is a great site re learning disabilities.


Ortholexia is a form of dsylexia that shows most of its effect in writing (and typing hence the spelling)


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

*Israel's policy*

Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948:


> Even amidst the violent attacks launched against us for months past, we call upon the sons of the Arab people dwelling in Israel to keep the peace and to play their part in building the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its institutions, provisional and permanent.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Uninformed bias = prejudice.


I'm informed enough to know that people didn't chose to leave all their property in Isreal and go to refugee camps.

Are you going to argue this point?


edit: oh you just did!
hang on.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Israel's Proclamation of Independence, read on May 14, 1948:


from wikipedia (a source I believe you recently used):


> They fled or were expelled from their homes in the part of Palestine that would become the State of Israel to other parts of Palestine or to neighbouring countries.
> 
> The degree to which the flight of the refugees was voluntary or involuntary is hotly debated, with some citing attempts by the surrounding Arab governments to evacuate women and children, and the attempt by some Jewish leaders, especially in Haifa, to stem flight, and others citing a score of the well-documented direct expulsion of the residents of some towns and villages, including Lydda and Ramle.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Martman, then it is a form of dysgraphia. Thanks for this info.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> I'm informed enough to know that people didn't chose to leave all their property in Isreal and go to refugee camps.


Really, come on. The 900,000 Jews who were dispossessed from Arab countries (I am including Iraq, although I understand that the populace is ethnically scandinavian or something) were driven out by violence, murder, rape, confiscation, and deportation. Why are there no refugees now?

The Jewish Virtual Library says:


> The number of Jews fleeing Arab countries for Israel in the years following Israel's independence was roughly equal to the number of Arabs leaving Palestine. Many Jews were allowed to take little more than the shirts on their backs. These refugees had no desire to be repatriated. Little is heard about them because they did not remain refugees for long. Of the 820,000 Jewish refugees, 586,000 were resettled in Israel at great expense, and without any offer of compensation from the Arab governments who confiscated their possessions. Israel has consequently maintained that any agreement to compensate the Palestinian refugees must also include Arab compensation for Jewish refugees. To this day, the Arab states have refused to pay any compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced to abandon their property before fleeing those countries.
> 
> The contrast between the reception of Jewish refugees in Israel with the reception of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries is even more stark when one considers the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation experienced by the two groups. Most Jewish refugees traveled hundreds — and some traveled thousands — of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language. Most Arab refugees never left Palestine at all; they traveled a few miles to the other side of the truce line, remaining inside the vast Arab nation that they were part of linguistically, culturally and ethnically.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> from wikipedia (a source I believe you recently used):


that particular article relies heavily on the writings of Benny Morris, who is not well regarded. Even so, don't disregard the significance of, "They <b>fled </b>or were expelled"; "The degree to which the flight of the refugees was voluntary or involuntary is hotly debated";" the attempt by some Jewish leaders, especially in Haifa, to stem flight"


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Some quotes from mostly contemporary Arab sources:


> "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
> – Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.
> 
> "The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> and others citing a score of the well-documented direct expulsion of the residents of some towns and villages, including Lydda and Ramle.


you left out this part.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

As I said earlier neither side is being completly honest in this conflict.
Claiming no one was expelled is just plain fantasy.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Claiming no one was expelled is just plain fantasy.


I didn't say there were no expulsions in '48. 

Artistseries said "Israel planned ethic cleansing...", which is untrue. That certain elements of the fragmented Israeli military of the day were involved in expulsions does not make expulsion either a past or present policy. It was not and is not.

The Arab states, in contrast, effected a complete ethnic cleansing, dispossessing more Jews than the highest estimate of Arabs who became refugees in '48.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I didn't say there were no expulsions in '48.
> 
> Artistseries said "Israel planned ethic cleansing...", which is untrue. That certain elements of the fragmented Israeli military of the day were involved in expulsions does not make expulsion either a past or present policy. It was not and is not.
> 
> The Arab states, in contrast, effected a complete ethnic cleansing, dispossessing more Jews than the highest estimate of Arabs who became refugees in '48.


I wouldn't argue with you about that. I agree.

The problem here is that you are using the fallacy of deflection.
"They are worse" may be true but it doesn't make up for the fact that we are in the wrong.
"two wrongs doesn't make a right"
This is another of the main problems in this conflict.
I also see this fallacy brandied about by Bush supporters when they defend the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> I wouldn't argue with you about that. I agree.
> 
> The problem here is that you are using the fallacy of deflection.
> "They are worse" may be true but it doesn't make up for the fact that we are in the wrong.
> "two wrongs doesn't make a right"


I am not saying anything of the kind. My main point is that Israel was being falsely accused of having a particular policy where, in fact, expulsion is precisely what happened in every Arab state.

My reason for mentioning what the Arab states did is to emphasize the double standard that is applied to Israel and Jews. Of course two wrongs don't make a right. However, two wrongs require two remedies, but the wrong against Arabs is emphasized and exaggerated while the wrong against Jews is completely ignored.

Why do the Arab states shun their own brothers rather than welcome them into their communities? Why can the Arab states evade responsibility for settling Arab refugees? Why is there no outrage against the Arab states who universally expelled their Jewish populations — 900,000 Jews — and confiscated their property? Why is their no outrage that the Arab states refuse reparations to these Jewish refugees, while Israel is aggressively charged with the sole responsibility for Palestinian refugees?

That's my point.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

That is all fine and dandy but you make it sound like the Arabs are one people. They are not. There are many religious and political divides. You might as well lump "the Christians" or "White people" into one group and ask simillar questions. Incase you didn't notice there is a conflict between ****e and Sunni sects that often errupts into violence. 
It seems to me your objection about the "Arab" states is facille.

That said it would be nice if the Arab states acted as better neighbours to each other but remember it is the British who carved up the Middle East this way. They did it to increase tensions so it would be easier to get at the oil and to reduce the likelyhood of an Arab oil stopage. Infact I think a large part of these problems rest solely on the shoulders of the Brits.

The refugees come from Israel. Who should take responsibility? I agree that Jews were expelled from Arab states but I don't see any Jews seeking right of return. If they did I'd support it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Also this is still a deflection. This kind of deflection is entirely counter productive. I agree that the "Arabs" (in particular the Jordanins and the Egyptians) are not doing their fair share but that doesn't make this deflection any more useful.
If Israel wants peace Israel will have to work for it. It may not be "fair" but it is true. 

Why is every one on Israel about this?
Because people are being born, growing, up and dying in refugee camps. I don't see Israelis living with constant curfews, and blocades that prevent them from going to work and visiting relatives. How many Jews live in refugee camps?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Well Martman, there is a way the Palestinians can get out of refugee camps. It's called the Arabs come to grips that they lost the war they started and now they take responsibility. But, of course, I am not holding my breath.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

The Arab countries are a monolith when it comes to hating Israel and Jews. When it came to attacking Israel the day the state was declared, it was all for one and one for all. When it came to violence and oppression against their Jewish citizens, when it came to confiscation and expulsion, there was no dissent among them. But you don't care about that. 

Criticise Israel - a country where Arabs remain a large minority, vote, hold public office, have successful access to Israeli courts, enjoy the benefit of the rule of law and better lives than the general population of any Arab country – but ignore the fact that EVERY Arab country actually did expel their Jewish populations - 900,000 Jews. Jews are virtually extinct in the Arab world today. 

Why the double standard. Why don't the Arab countries have an obligation to make reparation to the Jews they expelled? 

Two wrongs require two remedies, but the wrong against Arabs is emphasized and exaggerated while the wrong against Jews is completely ignored.

Too bad you only see fit to demand justice from Jews, but not for Jews.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Too bad you only see fit to demand justice from Jews, but not for Jews.


Too bad you only read from me what you want to. You are acting like PT now putting words in my mouth.
Where did I ever say that Arabs have no blame. Didn't I single out the Jordanians and the Egyptians? Of course what I type doesn't matter.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Well Martman, there is a way the Palestinians can get out of refugee camps. It's called the Arabs come to grips that they lost the war they started and now they take responsibility. But, of course, I am not holding my breath.


This may or may not be true but what is true is that as long as that is the prevailing attitude Israel will not have peace.
It sucks but it is true.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> Too bad you only read from me what you want to. You are acting like PT now putting words in my mouth.
> Where did I ever say that Arabs have no blame. Didn't I single out the Jordanians and the Egyptians? Of course what I type doesn't matter.



Really, I have a better idea for all of this, and of course I know you will hate it, Martman. And that is to leave Israel and the Arabs to fight it out themselves instead of having busybodies from North America and Europe exacerbating the problem.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> This may or may not be true but what is true is that as long as that is the prevailing attitude Israel will not have peace.
> It sucks but it is true.



Israel will not have peace until the Arab world comes to grips psychologically with it. It is not going to solved by signing treaties that are worthless.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Really, I have a better idea for all of this, and of course I know you will hate it, Martman. And that is to leave Israel and the Arabs to fight it out themselves instead of having busybodies from North America and Europe exacerbating the problem.


I agree so long as the US and Europe stop foreign aid to Egypt and Israel.
How is that for a surprise?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

martman said:


> I agree so long as the US and Europe stop foreign aid to Egypt and Israel.
> How is that for a surprise?



Do you know the reason why the aid money goes to Egypt and Israel? It was an agreement made by JIMMY CARTER for them to sign a peace accord. This was part of the agreement. Now you can say this was a bad agreement, that may be true. But it was the terms of the agreement. Now, if they withdraw this money, the agreement is worthless! 

If you want to complain about foreign aid, complain about all of it. Free money distorts every situation.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Too bad you only read from me what you want to. You are acting like PT now putting words in my mouth.
> Where did I ever say that Arabs have no blame. Didn't I single out the Jordanians and the Egyptians? Of course what I type doesn't matter.


No, actually you admitted that the expulsions of Jews wasn't on your radar. I think I know a double standard when I see one.

Your grudging acknowledgement that Jordan and Egypt bear some responsibility for the Palesinians - presumably since they controlled the entire west bank and gaza from 1948 to 1967 - is empty, so long as you give them a free pass and demand nothing from them.

Until Arab countries take responsibility and contribute to a solution, the Palestinians will continue to suffer. It isn't only a question of fairness. Israel can't do it alone.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I don't give them a pass. There you go again putting words in my mouth.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Martman, I have to spell things out and look at it carefully. I am able to pick up most of my misspelled words. However, when in doubt, I try to use a dictionary. It slows things down a bit, but it helps.
> 
> I teach undergrad and grad students how to assess language learning disabilities here in the Faculty of Education at Memorial University. I usually ask my students to raise their left hand if they are learning disabled. I am usually the only one with his/her left hand raised. Then I ask for anyone with a Ph.D. to raise their right hand, and again, I am the only one with both hands raised. I do this to show them that even learning disabled students are able to achieve success.
> 
> I know that this is WAY off of the topic, but I just had to jump in and help defend someone who is also learning disabled.



Yes, but clearly the left-right challenged students in your class are disadvantaged by this exercise! (I'm kidding, but there is such a thing.)

Seriously, asking learning disabled students to self-identify publicly in this way would come back and bite you on the rear in most universities. I'm not surprised no one (else) puts their hand up.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Let's see. The Palestinian (and they weren't called that then) state was profferred in 1947. It was refused by the Arab world, uniformly.

The Oslo accord made another such offer. Palestinians chose the intifada instead. And Israel wasn't even recognized as having a right to exist.

Whey you have a nation-state handed to you, and you don't take it, preferring to keep blowing your children up beside your enemy instead, what is that?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> No, actually you admitted that the expulsions of Jews wasn't on your radar.


The context of that was starting a thread in the forum.
I think if you look that I haven't started many threads. So most things are not on my radar including this issue. I didn't start this thread.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, when you write "Seriously, asking learning disabled students to self-identify publicly in this way would come back and bite you on the rear in most universities. I'm not surprised no one (else) puts their hand up.", I every so often get a student who openly admits being learning disabled. I sincerely and greatly praise this student as a "risk taker", which all learners must be as they learn. I then have an activity which allows everyone to experience what it is like to be learning disabled. Some come up to me after the activity and say "I never knew how difficult it was to read/write with a learning disability". At this point, I have them ready to learn how to assess and provide needed instruction for ALL of their students. Of the 7000 MUN students I have taught, 2000+ have been in my one course which deals with literacy learning disabilities.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

martman said:


> Give me a thread about it and I'll denounce it. Infact I'll denounce it now.





nxnw said:


> Why don't you start one? Not on your radar?





martman said:


> No it isn't to be honest.
> I didn't start this thread either.


Now then let's be a little more honest in how we quote people.


note: my quotes are taken from the end of page 19 and the beginning of page 20 so you can't accuse me of miss quoting.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> HowEver, when you write "Seriously, asking learning disabled students to self-identify publicly in this way would come back and bite you on the rear in most universities. I'm not surprised no one (else) puts their hand up.", I every so often get a student who openly admits being learning disabled. I sincerely and greatly praise this student as a "risk taker", which all learners must be as they learn. I then have an activity which allows everyone to experience what it is like to be learning disabled. Some come up to me after the activity and say "I never knew how difficult it was to read/write with a learning disability". At this point, I have them ready to learn how to assess and provide needed instruction for ALL of their students. Of the 7000 MUN students I have taught, 2000+ have been in my one course which deals with literacy learning disabilities.



Sadly or fortunately or reasonably or horribly or whatever way you want to look at it, it will only take one (1) student to take part in this exercise and later complain about being singled out for their disability. That will result in a university-wide enquiry and eventually a new policy on these matters.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

HowEver, I see your point, but remember, I am usually the only one who raises his/her hands. I have had a few students raise their hands, and about 20 come to me after class to say that they had a learning disability but were too ashamed to raise their hand, but that my overt act of showing that even someone with a LD could achieve academic success helped them and their self-esteem. Still, in this era of total PC, I could see your scenario taking place in a classroom. I am now a teleprofessor, with all of my courses online, so I am not able to do this simulation anymore.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr. G, I hope as a Jew you will defend me against the anti-semitic insinuations of Artist Series, who now claims in another thread that I am only pro-USA because I think it serves Israel's interests.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Planetoth, for what it is worth, no, I don't feel that you support the US only because "it serves Israel's interests". In the past, I have supported some of the things the US has done, objected to some of the things the US has done, and strongly objected to some things the US was doing (e.g., Vietnam) to the point of going to jail to demonstrate the sincerity of my beliefs. As well, I support some of the things Israel has done over the years, objected to some of the things they have done over the years, but I have never equated my support for the US up against a "gestalt" of how it might positively/negatively have a positive/negative effect upon Israel.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Dr. G, I hope as a Jew you will defend me against the anti-semitic insinuations of Artist Series, who now claims in another thread that I am only pro-USA because I think it serves Israel's interests.


That was tasteless, putting G on the spot like that. Do you do that kind of thing in real life, too?

If you think someone has said something offensive to you, tell them you're offended and why. If someone else wants to defend you, they will. Someone called you a liar in another thread and I defended you, because I wanted to.

Incidentally, I don't think ArtistSeries' statement is anti-semitic. I don't think there is any truth to it, either, be that's something else entirely.

Dr G, excellent, excellent response. You are truly a gentleman.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Planetoth, for what it is worth, no, I don't feel that you support the US only because "it serves Israel's interests". In the past, I have supported some of the things the US has done, objected to some of the things the US has done, and strongly objected to some things the US was doing (e.g., Vietnam) to the point of going to jail to demonstrate the sincerity of my beliefs. As well, I support some of the things Israel has done over the years, objected to some of the things they have done over the years, but I have never equated my support for the US up against a "gestalt" of how it might positively/negatively have a positive/negative effect upon Israel.


A non-denial denial.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Thank you, lpkmckenna, for the kind words. I am glad that someone in the military (it's on your public profile) realizes that I objected to the war in Vietnam, but was not against the soldiers. I was drafted as a non-combatant Conscientious Objector, and would have been a frontline para-medic in Vietnam, but I was never called up to active duty. Paix.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

IronMac, it's not really a "non-denial denial", just the truth. This is how I feel.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> IronMac, it's not really a "non-denial denial", just the truth. This is how I feel.


The end result is the same.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

IronMac, what do you see as the "result" of my statement?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> IronMac, what do you see as the "result" of my statement?


You not moving to defend PlanetHoth.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

IronMac, he asked for my support and I wrote "Planetoth, for what it is worth, no, I don't feel that you support the US only because 'it serves Israel's interests'." He is a grown man and can defend himself quite well. I am not sure where all of this "back and forth" arguing is going, so I shall stay out of it unless I am drawn in by specific questions or insults directed towards me. Personally, I would rather see a calming down of the passions, but this is a free country and free speech is a way of publically showing this basic freedom.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> Thank you, lpkmckenna, for the kind words. I am glad that someone in the military (it's on your public profile) realizes that I objected to the war in Vietnam, but was not against the soldiers. I was drafted as a non-combatant Conscientious Objector, and would have been a frontline para-medic in Vietnam, but I was never called up to active duty. Paix.


I am a soldier, but I am also against conscription. Conscription is a grave violation of rights, on par with slavery. The state can no more force a person to be a soldier than they can force a person to be a doctor or a doorman.

Conscription is not just a tyranical policy, it makes other tyranical policies possible. A great many of the wars fought in this century would have been impossible without conscripts. When a government raises a conscription, it is a clear signal to others nations: we are going to attack you.

As a soldier, the one thing I know is: not everyone is cut out to be one. More importantly, I don't want the man watching my back thinking he would rather be doing something else.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"As a soldier, the one thing I know is: not everyone is cut out to be one. More importantly, I don't want the man watching my back thinking he would rather be doing something else." Well put, mon ami. I asked to serve my 2 years of military service as a teacher somewhere in a rural or urban ghetto area where I might have helped someone.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, what are your views about the "back door draft", with National Guardsmen and women being kept on the front line with the "stop loss" provisions in their enlistment agreements?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

conscription would force rich American youth to join the military and die along side their economically challenged brothers

then when suburban white kids start coming home in flag draped coffins we might see a change in the current U.S. imperialist policy in Iraq
or maybe even a few congressman and senator children too

a draft would make things much more equal and force all americans of age to be ready to serve


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> conscription would force rich American youth to join the military and die along side their economically challenged brothers
> 
> then when suburban white kids start coming home in flag draped coffins we might see a change in the current U.S. imperialist policy in Iraq
> or maybe even a few congressman and senator children too
> ...


That's a good idea. After all, it got George W Bush and Bill Clinton to do their duty in Vietnam just like their "economically challenged brothers."

Talk like this makes me sick. The notion that you can achieve beneficial foreign policy changes with the blood of young men is incredibly callous. And your belief that only the rich will be impacted is absurd. The overwhelming numbers of draftees will be the middle class.

A draft would make things more equal? Rubbish. First of all, are you going to draft women too? And all sorts of changes have happened in the last few decades. Many more are obese and cannot meet the medical standards. Are we gonna draft them too? Many more people are on various medications requiring monitoring and therapy. Are the clinically depressed and the bulimic gonna be drafted too? Obesity is pretty easy to achieve, and an eating or mood disorder can faked more easily than a physical ailment. I suspect with a draft, the number of young people getting psychiatry therapy would skyrocket.

The notion that you'd trade the lives of your neighbours in the name of equality has a very Stalinist edge to it.

If you want to make changes in the political climate, find yourself a bloody soapbox and work for it with your own sweat and saliva, not the blood of our youth and the tears of their mothers.

/rant


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> lpkmckenna, what are your views about the "back door draft", with National Guardsmen and women being kept on the front line with the "stop loss" provisions in their enlistment agreements?


I'm not too familiar with these policies. I'll have to look it up and think about it first.

But I will say this: if the government wants to make provisions in enlistment contracts requiring overseas service, they can. Someone joining up needs to make sure what their obligations are, and watch for that fine print.

But the government adding or changing legal obligations is completely off-limits.

I'll look into that stuff and get back to you.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> That's a good idea. After all, it got George W Bush and Bill Clinton to do their duty in Vietnam just like their "economically challenged brothers."
> 
> Talk like this makes me sick. The notion that you can achieve beneficial foreign policy changes with the blood of young men is incredibly callous. And your belief that only the rich will be impacted is absurd. The overwhelming numbers of draftees will be the middle class.
> 
> ...



the point i was trying to not so obviously make is that a draft would perhaps bring the war much closer to home to a majority of americans than it is today

why do you think that "draft talk" is handled with such kid gloves by the current regime in the white house?

rich means NOT poor
why do recruiters go to the "poor mall" (ref: Moore's F 9/11) and avoid the more affluent "white mall"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Michael, I saw your intent about the draft for everyone. Yes, it would work to equalize the responsibility aspect, but I personally would rather just end the war instead. Maybe this is a simplistic view, but there should be no need for a draft unless the US is under direct attack from a foreign country, as was the case in WWII. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Dr. G.,
perhaps if there were a draft the regime would have thought twice about invading and perhaps avoided the war altogether

the war in viet nam was, in my opinion, brought to and end by increasing pressure from middle america when they started having enough of their kids coming home horizontally

those in power rarely, if ever, are in harms way are or asked to put their lives on the line, hence the laisse faire attitude about military conflict

it's easy to be a cheerleader in the cheap seats

i say make it law that all federal politicians must submit either themselves and children, if of age, for slective service


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the war in viet nam was, in my opinion, brought to and end by increasing pressure from middle america when they started having enough of their kids coming home horizontally


I don't think this is true. Victory costs blood. The Allies accepted the human cost of the war because they knew what they were fighting for. They were willing to have their children die in battle so that their grandchildren could be free. However, the goal of Vietnam was not so clear. Americans have accepted far greater losses in other conflicts, but borne the burden because they knew what they were doing was right; they did not feel that way about Vietnam.

And the war was not brought to an end by the Americans. The south and north continued to fight for 2 more years after the American withdrawal. The war ended with the victory of the north.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> i say make it law that all federal politicians must submit either themselves and children, if of age, for slective service


Watch as the number of able men and women willing to do public service drops. Politicians already have to live under the microscope, be subjected to the anal probe of past allegiances and financial inquiry and childhood errors, and often take a substantial pay cut to do so. They are rewarded with backbench positions if their views are out of step with their cynical leaders, and are typically obligated to vote against their conscience in the name of "party discipline." Simply put, add the risk of military conscription for their children and a number of good men and women will lose interest.

As for the notion of politicians being obligated for service, we have a convention against members of the military being involved in the political arena. A member of the CF cannot be subject to the policies of the DND yet be free to openly discuss it, or any other political policy. It flies in the face of the civilian control of the military. Besides, many politicians are too old or too fat to join.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

"rich means NOT poor"

Pardon me as I blow my nose on my million dollar bills. But don't criticize me; you're wiping your ass with the pages of the dictionary.

"why do recruiters go to the "poor mall" (ref: Moore's F 9/11) and avoid the more affluent white mall"

Not in Canada they don't.


----------



## Tara (Aug 17, 2004)

I just wanted to clarify something in response to one of Martman's earlier posts:

Israeli immigration policy for Jews uses Hitler's definition of Jewish - not having a Jewish mother, and even not having a Jewish father, makes no difference. One Jewish grandparent is all it takes. On the other hand, it is not necessary to be Jewish to immigrate to Israel, although only Jews are guaranteed the right to immigrate.

Also, one needs to be careful with death statistics, since numbers of Palestinian dead include the suicide bombers, the assasinated leaders of terror squads, and Palestinians murdered by other Palestinians for "collaboration." It is possible to find statistics that take all that into account and do a breakdown of civilian versus non-civilian deaths. The numbers are not exactly three to one...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Tara, you may want to read this. I realize that you will question the source, but may find some info. interesting.

_Which deaths matter?
Camille T. Taiara 
28 May, 2003

Study shows Chronicle downplays Palestinian fatalities 

THE SAN FRANCISCO Chronicle is 20 times more likely to report on the deaths of Israeli children killed in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than it is to cover Palestinian children's deaths, a new study shows. 

If Americans Knew, a fledgling Berkeley outfit dedicated to disseminating underreported information on Israel and the occupied territories, analyzed the Chronicle's coverage of the region during the first months of the current intifada – a time period the study's researchers chose "because of its significance in forming the context within which all subsequent reporting on the conflict is viewed." 

Four Israelis under the age of 18 died as a result of clashes that took place from Sept. 29, 2000, the first day of the uprising, through March 31, 2001, according to the report, the preliminary results of which were released May 21 to both the Chronicle and the Bay Guardian. During that period, it found, the Chronicle reported on those incidences in a headline or a first paragraph five times. The deaths of Palestinian minors received such attention only six times, although 93 were killed in that same time frame. 

If Americans Knew based its calculations on figures from Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem, which keeps detailed statistics on deaths resulting from the conflict (see www.btselem.org). B'Tselem and If Americans Knew deem their figures on Palestinian deaths conservative, since they don't include those who died as a result of their inability to access medical care due to Israeli-imposed road closures and curfews. 

Among the study's other findings: Israeli deaths made headlines and/or first paragraphs in the Chronicle 72 times, while Palestinian deaths got similar placement 129 times – although a total of 65 Israelis and 343 Palestinians died as a result of the conflict during the six months the study covered. 

The Chronicle reported the total death toll from the conflict only 12 times in 251 news articles on the conflict – and not once did it give a breakdown of total Israeli versus total Palestinian deaths. Yet, "during this period, Palestinians were being killed at a rate approximately 5.3 times greater than Israelis," reads the preliminary report. 

If Americans Knew founder and executive director Alison Weir spent a month in the West Bank and Gaza in February and March of 2001 before founding If Americans Knew. 

Weir explained that the organization chose quantitative standards for the study specifically because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so subjective and politically loaded. 

"I come [to the issue] with no ethnic, regional, or emotional ties to one side or the other," she said. "If the numbers were equally skewed in the other direction, I'd be equally upset." 

Chronicle foreign editor Mark Abel said the paper's staffers hadn't had time to fully review the report and prepare a response. _

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/media/Which_deaths_matter.htm


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Tara, you may want to read this. I realize that you will question the source, but may find some info. interesting.
> 
> 
> http://www.palestinemonitor.org/media/Which_deaths_matter.htm



You sure got the "question the source" part right.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

*Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 20 April 2004*

These statistics are maintained by the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (in Israel) http://www.ict.org.il/

The ages and genders of the dead, as numbers of Palestinians killed by Palestinians, and statistics respecting non-combatants, provide a clearer picture of the conflict.<table BORDER=1 CELLSPACING=4 CELLPADDING=4 WIDTH="95%" bgcolor="ffffcc">
<tr>
<td WIDTH="40%"><b>Palestinians</b></td>
<td WIDTH="10%" align="right">2770</td>
<td WIDTH="40%"><b>Israelis</b></td>
<td WIDTH="10%" align="right">920</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="left">No. of whom were female</td>
<td ALIGN="right">124</td>
<td ALIGN="left">No. of whom were female</td>
<td ALIGN="right">285</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td>
<td ALIGN="right">972</td>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td>
<td ALIGN="right">715</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="center">No. of whom were female</td>
<td ALIGN="right">90</td>
<td ALIGN="center">No. of whom were female</td>
<td ALIGN="right">280</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="left">Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td>
<td ALIGN="right">1310</td>
<td ALIGN="left">Combatants killed by Opposite Side</td>
<td ALIGN="right">186</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="left">People killed by actions of own side</td>
<td ALIGN="right">359</td>
<td ALIGN="left">People killed by actions of own side</td>
<td ALIGN="right">22</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatants below age 12</td>
<td ALIGN="right">78</td>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatants below age 12</td>
<td ALIGN="right">36</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatant Males between ages 12-29</td>
<td ALIGN="right">529</td>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatant Males between ages 12-29</td>
<td ALIGN="right">176</td>
</tr>

<tr>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatants Aged >= 45</td>
<td ALIGN="right">82</td>
<td ALIGN="left">Non-Combatants Aged >= 45</td>
<td ALIGN="right">226</td>
</tr>
</table>


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

HowEver said:


> You sure got the "question the source" part right.


If you read the entire article and not just the source, you might have noticed that the study was conducted by a seemingly non-partisan source, but better to dismiss the data if it suits your purpose, eh?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> These statistics are maintained by the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (in Israel) http://www.ict.org.il/
> 
> The ages and genders of the dead, as numbers of Palestinians killed by Palestinians, and statistics respecting non-combatants, provide a clearer picture of the conflict. (table follows)


Interesting analysis. Is anyone aware of a Palestinian rebuttal?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> If you read the entire article and not just the source, you might have noticed that the study was conducted by a seemingly non-partisan source, but better to dismiss the data if it suits your purpose, eh?


Did you read the post above yours?

The numbers quoted in the Palestinian source and the numbers quoted in the Israeli source obviously do not agree.

I have no doubt that more Palestinians than Israelis have died, and I have no doubt that there is biased reporting on all sides.

I also have no doubt that the Arab countries at war with Israel, and the Palestinians in particular, refused offers of statehood for Palestinians because they would rather be at war, and do not completely accept Israel's right to self-determination.

Why would they prefer to keep dying for their cause when they have had what they supposedly wanted handed to them on a platter so often?

And has been pointed out, the numbers of Palestinians apparently dead as a result of this conflict have not been differentiated to include those killed by other Palestinians.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> If you read the entire article and not just the source, you might have noticed that the study was conducted by a seemingly non-partisan source, but better to dismiss the data if it suits your purpose, eh?


I read this part: "Weir explained that the organization chose quantitative standards for the study specifically because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so subjective and politically loaded."

In other words, the study was indifferent (i.e. blind) to who was killed and in what circumstances. The circumstances of the fatalities, however, is critical to understanding the numbers, and disregarding the circumstances is deceptive.

One could better argue that, since the Chronicle reported Palestinian deaths at almost double the rate of Israeli, it's the Israeli deaths that were underreported, considering that the number of <i>noncombatant</I> fatalities is similar on each side.

Emphasizing this point is the statistic showing that the number of fatalities among Israeli women and Israeli persons over 45 (by nature, all noncombatants) was much higher than the like statistic for Palestinians.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

So do you mean that a non-combatant fatality deserves more frequent media coverage than a combatant fatality? 

If so, you might want to let CNN and FAUX news know about this when covering the war in Iraq.

Death is death.
The current situation, in Israel and surrounding territories, has been going on now for about 60 years. It doesn't, at least to me, seem to be getting better.

Insanity is described as doing the same thing expecting a different result.
Let's just see how this "wall/fence/barricade" helps solve the problem.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> So do you mean that a non-combatant fatality deserves more frequent media coverage than a combatant fatality?
> 
> If so, you might want to let CNN and FAUX news know about this when covering the war in Iraq.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's just all the great reporting, but I heard about the Israeli woman at home in her kitchen with her young son both being stabbed to death by the Palestinian who had entered their neighbourhood, as often as I heard about the young Palestinian woman who became a suicide bomber.

I think the media played those instances about equal.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Insanity is described as doing the same thing expecting a different result.
> Let's just see how this "wall/fence/barricade" helps solve the problem.


Clearly, you harbour the naive belief that if ONLY Israel just left the West Bank and Gaza, all violence would end. It's all Israel's fault, and Israel is always wrong - that's what you sincerely believe, right?

The majority in Israel believes in a two state solution. Israel IS leaving Gaza. Israel offerred to leave most of the West Bank and gaza at Camp David, and was rejected by Arafat. Here's what Clinton said:


> The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism.


 It takes TWO sides to make peace, and when one is unwilling, there is no choice but to fight. It is no coincidence, by the way, that in the last 50 years at least, there has been no war - at least none I can think of - between two democracies. 

These issues are life and death to people some of us know and love, and thoughtless, uninformed criticism of Israel is hurtful and dangerous. 

As for the wall - its construction has coincided (even before the "truce") with materially reduced terror attacks. Further, Palestinians have had successful access to the Israeli courts to substantially change the location of the wall. Try that in what Arab coutry?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> So do you mean that a non-combatant fatality deserves more frequent media coverage than a combatant fatality?


I sure do. Fatalities among innocents, on both sides, are the real tragedies. 

By your measure, the 42,000 motor vehicle deaths in the US last year proves that th US media is vastly biased in favour of Palestinians over Americans. After all, how many of those 42,000 highway deaths made it on to CNN?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

*How Arafat Chose violence over a Palestinian State*

The following comments are by Dennis Ross, a senior US diplomat at Camp David. Israel's PM at the time was Ehud Barak, leader of the (left-wing) Labour party. The following proposal did not bring peace. rather, the (second) intifada followed these peace talks. The devastating violence - numerous bus bombings in the heart of Israel - cost Barak the next election and brought Sharon to power.

Dennis Ross:


> One of the most important mythologies and one of the revisionisms that has emerged is that in the end what was offered to the Palestinians was something that no Palestinian could have accepted. A mythology developed that the Palestinians were offered a state that couldn't have been viable, territories that were totally divided and surrounded, settlements interspersed throughout the Palestinian territories, no independent border with Jordan as an example in the West Bank, and something that by definition no Palestinian could accept.
> 
> For the first time, I present maps that compare what the Palestinians were offered with what Arafat says he was offered.
> 
> ...


(emphasis added)

http://www.cceia.org/printerfriendlymedia.php/prmID/5000


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I have Ross' book right in front of me...on one point only:

Looking at Ross' own maps, if Arafat was offered *Arab* East Jerusalem, he is getting a polyglot mess of Palestinian neighbourhoods. In fact, you have to read very carefully what the proposal says..*Arab* East Jerusalem, not all of East Jerusalem.

On another point, Ross has a couple of maps preceding the Jerusalem one and he says that they do not show the 1% to 3% of territorial swaps to the Palestinian state from areas within Israel. I wonder why he does not show those?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

IronMac said:


> If Arafat was offered *Arab* East Jerusalem, he is getting a polyglot mess of Palestinian neighbourhoods. In fact, you have to read very carefully what the proposal says..*Arab* East Jerusalem, not all of East Jerusalem.


Personally, I don't know of any state that would have its own capital divided up by checkpoints and border posts from another country. Would it even be viable? I mean, can you imagine going from the unemployment office in one neighbourhood...then passing through 2-3 border posts...just to get to the driver's licensing department?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Looking at Ross' own maps, if Arafat was offered *Arab* East Jerusalem, he is getting a polyglot mess of Palestinian neighbourhoods. In fact, you have to read very carefully what the proposal says..*Arab* East Jerusalem, not all of East Jerusalem.
> 
> On another point, Ross has a couple of maps preceding the Jerusalem one and he says that they do not show the 1% to 3% of territorial swaps to the Palestinian state from areas within Israel. I wonder why he does not show those?


The territory to be swapped was abutting the Gaza strip. Perhaps it was subject to further discussion that did not happen, because Arafat chose the horror of the intifada over <B>97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip</B>.

Jerusalem is the sorest point for Jews. It contains the seat of our religion — the temple mount. We were not permitted to go there until Jordan lost it in 1967. If Arafat wanted peace and a Palestinian State, he would have made this compromise and been the father of a Palestine covering <B>97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip</B>.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Personally, I don't know of any state that would have its own capital divided up by checkpoints and border posts from another country.


I don't know of any state, other than Israel, where other countries purport to say where its capital should be. Israel's capital is in Jerusalem - physically in West Jerusalem - yet everyone keeps telling them it's in Tel Aviv. You can look for the Knesset in Tel Aviv, but you won't find it.

I'm sure there's no problem putting the Palestinian passport office, licence bureau, etc. in Nablus, Jenin, Bethlehem, etc. They would put the Palestinian parliament in Jerusalem. Unless you think something as picayune as the location of the licence bureau is too much of a compromise.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> If Arafat wanted peace and a Palestinian State, he would have made this compromise and been the father of a Palestine covering <B>97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip</B>.


We could always turn this around and say that if Israel wanted peace, it would have given all of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians in return for free access to wherever it wanted...such as the Temple Mount.

It sounds like neither side wants to "compromise".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Israel's capital is in Jerusalem - physically in West Jerusalem - yet everyone keeps telling them it's in Tel Aviv.


So...if Israel wants its capital in West Jerusalem...and the Palestinians want East Jerusalem...what's the holdup?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

by IronMac;


> It sounds like neither side wants to "compromise".


Perhaps the best one sentence summary throughout these now 29 pages.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

IronMac said:


> We could always turn this around and say that if Israel wanted peace, it would have given all of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians in return for free access to wherever it wanted...such as the Temple Mount.
> 
> It sounds like neither side wants to "compromise".


There was also the not so small matter of the several intifadas. Makes it hard to give away the store if they keep blowing up the keys in your outstretched hand.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> So...if Israel wants its capital in West Jerusalem...and the Palestinians want East Jerusalem...what's the holdup?


So your idea of "compromise" is that Israel gives everything and gets nothing.

I don't know if you think you are being clever or funny, but this kind of thoughtless, flippant position says that Israelis have no right to anything except to be blown up. What a shameful and destructive bias.

Under Arab control, Jews could not set foot on our holy sites, which are not in West Jerusalem, but in the old city. Under Israeli rule, Moslems have autonomous control over the temple mount. Under Arab rule, the synagogues were burnt down.

No, I think A Palestinian state made up of the 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza is something that would have been acceptable to a Palestiniaan leader who wanted a Palestinian state more than he wanted bloodshed.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Perhaps the best one sentence summary throughout these now 29 pages.


Sure, if you are bent on ignoring reality, its a great summary. 

I think A Palestinian state made up of the 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza is something that would have been acceptable to a Palestinian leader who wanted a Palestinian state more than he wanted bloodshed. Those who offered it were demonstrably eager to compromise. Those who turned it down were clearly not.

What do you call a compromise? 98%? 99%?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Sure, if you are bent on ignoring reality, its a great summary.


Your reality is that Israel is perfect even though the UN (which helped create Israel) has voted almost unanimously in favour of a huge amount of resolutions condemning things that Israel has done/is doing. Why is that? Is the UN anti-Israel? Against the very state it helped create? Perhaps the UN is anti-Semitic? I know some on here would like to think so.

Using words like "holy sites" to justify domestic policy smacks of theocracy.
That works for both sides, by the way.

"Because a very old book [Bible] told us that land is ours."
Benjamin Neten-yahoo, former PM of Israel

Imagine Paul Martin making that statement?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> ..."Because a very old book [Bible] told us that land is ours."
> Benjamin Neten-yahoo, former PM of Israel...


your comments are excruciatingly disingenuous.
-Benyamin Netanyahu is not the Prime Minister of Israel, and his views are not the views of the state nor are they the views of its majority. Don't let that get in the way of deceptive point;
- While I do not agree with his politics, your silly misspelling of his name reflects on the prejudice and malevolence that inform your opinion on this subject; 
-The UN is a body that is dominated by dictators and demagogues and has been notoriously anti Israel for many years, while paying little attention to what goes on in its many oppressive, totalitarian, even murderous member states. Your expressed views of the UN are, at best, embarrassingly naive as well as inaccurate; 
-I have not claimed Israel is perfect - but certain unsavoury segments of society love holding Israel, and Jews, up to that standard;

Most important - this is what you do - ugly, incorrect mudslinging - when called on your false claims that <B>Israel</B> has been unwilling to compromise, when <B>Arafat</B> rejected 97% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip.

Clinton:


> The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism.


But you know better - "neither side wants to compromise". Is it possible don't know what compromise means. Or maybe you just apply a double standard to Israel.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

First:



> So your idea of "compromise" is that Israel gives everything and gets nothing.


Where did I say that? I only asked why don't both sides just get their respective areas of Jerusalem with the Israelis getting full access to their holy sites? Please don't try to twist my words nor push them to extremes where they were never meant to go.



> I don't know if you think you are being clever or funny, but this kind of thoughtless, flippant position says that Israelis have no right to anything except to be blown up. What a shameful and destructive bias.


Again, where did I say that?



> Under Arab control, Jews could not set foot on our holy sites, which are not in West Jerusalem, but in the old city. Under Israeli rule, Moslems have autonomous control over the temple mount. Under Arab rule, the synagogues were burnt down.


A. You ignored what I said.
B. That synagogues were burnt down is not relevant to whether or not who gets what area and is not tangent to the question of who gets what on the map.



> No, I think A Palestinian state made up of the 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza is something that would have been acceptable to a Palestiniaan leader who wanted a Palestinian state more than he wanted bloodshed.


Hrmmm...sounds like a mantra that cannot be compromised. It all sounds good but the issue is what is in that missing 3%?

Let me ask you this question...how about Israel gets all of its holy sites but loses 97% of its territory? Acceptable? No, of course not.

How about what I brought up before? How about the Israelis getting West Jerusalem with FULL and UNFETTERED access to the holy sites and the Palestinians getting all of East Jerusalem?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> enyamin Netanyahu is not the Prime Minister of Israel


_As Chairman of the Likud Party since 1993, Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister of Israel in May 1996 in the first direct election of prime minister in Israel, serving in this position until July 1999. _
source = http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/netanyahu.html

I did say *former PM*, but why let facts get in the way of a good rant, eh?
if the "former" part is a sticking point, how about "What if Jean Chretien or Joe Clark made that comment?"

================================================



> your silly misspelling of his name reflects on the prejudice and malevolence that inform your opinion on this subject;


Political lampoonism often makes light of things such as names.
Bush is referred to as "the shrub."
I noticed how you deftly ignored his silly and inflamatory quote.

================================================



> The UN is a body that is dominated by dictators and demagogues and has been notoriously anti Israel for many years, while paying little attention to what goes on in its many oppressive, totalitarian, even murderous member states. Your expressed views of the UN are, at best, embarrassingly naive as well as inaccurate;


So the UN is Anti-Israel. But the UN helped create Israel. That means that almost all of the world is anti-Israel? You do realize how silly that sounds, right? Ok, I guess that serves you best. No need to look inward, just circle the wagons and bulid walls. More Apache helicopters and more bulldozers. More nukes and more M-16s.

================================================



> I have not claimed Israel is perfect - but certain unsavoury segments of society love holding Israel, and Jews, up to that standard;


but have you yet once admitted Israel was/is wrong?
Perhaps you need to not admit that Israel may be wrong on issues. Perhaps this makes you sleep better at night. In some ways I understand it.
I would think in today's day and age that one would not need to refer to "certain unsavoury sgements of society"

KKK, Nazi, skinheads, white supremacists. I grant you (obviously) they are not Jewish friendly, but they can hardly be the ones that hold up Israel and Jews to the perfect standard you alluded to.

Care to go into detail on "certain unsavoury...."?

I am neither Jewish, nor Arabic, so my opinions and observations are perhaps more circumspect.

I see many problems on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian issue.
You may find that difficult to believe.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Perhaps this is a good place to start "understanding."

http://buffaloreport.com/articles/030419jacksonjews.html


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Where did I say that? I only asked why don't both sides just get their respective areas of Jerusalem with the Israelis getting full access to their holy sites? Please don't try to twist my words nor push them to extremes where they were never meant to go.


Your question is disingenuous. Arafat rejected:
- A viable Palestinian State;
- Virtually ALL of the territory demanded by the Palestinians - 97% of the west bank and all of Gaza;. 
- The Arab sections of Jerusalem.

You, however, characterise this event as Israel not compromising. You characterise Arafat's choice of Intifada over 97% of the west bank and all of Gaza as Israel's failure to compromise.


> That synagogues were burnt down is not relevant to whether or not who gets what area and is not tangent to the question of who gets what on the map.


No, the destruction of synagogues and NO access to Jewish holy places, when old Jerusalem was in Arab hands, is historical context that would inform reasonable people. Arafat even continued to deny that the Temple mount is a Jewish holy place until his death. Israel has respected the holy places of every faith. Israel has left the temple mount in Arab control. Your glib comments are not constructive.


> It all sounds good but the issue is what is in that missing 3%?


It's mostly areas near Jerusalem with dense Jewish populations.


> How about what I brought up before? How about the Israelis getting West Jerusalem with FULL and UNFETTERED access to the holy sites and the Palestinians getting all of East Jerusalem?


How about Jews getting control over our own holy sites in Jerusalem, just like every other faith does under Israeli governance? Even if your idea were practicable, why should Jews alone, have only "access"? Tell me this is reasonable when Molsems don't control Mecca and Catholics cede the Vatican. 

How about admitting the Clinton plan entailed a mammoth compromise and leap of faith for Israel, and only a party who's real aim was the destruction of Israel would have rejected what was proposed at Camp David?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> So the UN is Anti-Israel. But the UN helped create Israel. That means that almost all of the world is anti-Israel? You do realize how silly that sounds, right?


Yes, very silly. You seem to be saying that the UN is composed only of highly principled and unbiased nations, and the many votes condemning Israel were as pure as the driven snow. But do you really care what corrupt, oppressive regimes like North Korea and Zimbabwe and their ilk say about Israel? Do they set your moral compass?

And how about the leadership of the UN? As you certainly know, Kurt Waldheim was secretary general of the UN from 1971 to 1982 and presided over a whole lot of those UN votes you mention. I am sure I am not telling you anythinng you don't already know, but I will do it anyway. From <i>Slate</i>:


> A little refresher course may be in order. Kurt Waldheim, a widely esteemed former secretary general of the United Nations, was running for president of Austria in March 1986 when it came to light that he had participated in Nazi atrocities during World War II. Waldheim had always maintained that he had served in the Wehrmacht only briefly and that after being wounded early in the war, he had returned to Vienna to attend law school. In fact, Waldheim had resumed military service after recuperating from his injury and had been an intelligence officer in Germany's Army Group E when it committed mass murder in the Kozara region of western Bosnia. (Waldheim's name appears on the Wehrmacht's "honor list" of those responsible for the atrocity.) In 1944, Waldheim had reviewed and approved a packet of anti-Semitic propaganda leaflets to be dropped behind Russian lines, one of which ended, "enough of the Jewish war, kill the Jews, come over." After the war, Waldheim was wanted for war crimes by the War Crimes Commission of the United Nations, the very organization he would later head. None of these revelations prevented Waldheim from winning the Austrian election, but after he became president, the U.S. Justice Department put Waldheim on its watch list denying entry to "any foreign national who assisted or otherwise participated in activities amounting to persecution during World War II." The international community largely shunned Waldheim, and he didn't run for re-election. (This information comes from the1992 book Betrayal: The Untold Story of the Kurt Waldheim Investigation and Cover-Up, by Eli M. Rosenbaum and William Hoffer.)


Doesn't this taint the UN, just a tiny bit?


> I would think in today's day and age that one would not need to refer to "certain unsavoury sgements of society"


That would be nice. Too bad it isn't so.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Jews against the Occupation list of UN resolutions critical of Israel

U.S. vetoes of UN resolutions critical of Israel 

So now the entire UN Security Council, except the U.S., is also anti-Israel?
and yes I realize there are abstentions, but you must also realize that there are permanent members that can hardly be put in the same category as North Korea


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

The U.N., fwiw, is also not exactly happy with the methods used by the palestinians.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Your question is disingenuous. Arafat rejected:
> - A viable Palestinian State;
> - Virtually ALL of the territory demanded by the Palestinians - 97% of the west bank and all of Gaza;.
> - The Arab sections of Jerusalem.


A viable Palestinian State with a capital split up into a polyglot of neighbourhoods? Viable? Maybe..maybe not...obviously that's in dispute.
Second, virtually "ALL" != 97%. I suggest looking up the definition of "all" and coming back to us.
Third, did you even look at Ross' map of the Arab sections? Added all together, they probably make up only 30% of East Jerusalem. The Jewish areas look to be about 20% in total. The mixed neighbourhoods are about 10-15%...lot of white space elsehwhere.

You never answered the question...how about each side getting West and East Jerusalem respectively...with the Israelis getting full access or even control on alternating periods of the holy sites in East Jerusalem? Or are you fixated on getting full control of the Jewish neighbourhoods along with full control of holy sites?

If you believe in the latter...imagine how that would play out in Palestinian/Arab minds.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> So now the entire UN Security Council, except the U.S., is also anti-Israel?
> and yes I realize there are abstentions, but you must also realize that there are permanent members that can hardly be put in the same category as North Korea


Allan Dershowitz said it better than I can:


> If a space alien ever came down from a galaxy a distant galaxy and went to the United Nations or some college campuses and looked around, he would say this is a great planet. Wow! We have a Human Rights Commission headed by this wonderful country called Libya. We have a Security Council that contains peaceful countries like Syria. We have a country like North Korea, few students seem to be objecting to it, but we have one country that everybody seems to be blaming all the problems of the world on. This small country Israel, it must be a really terrible place.
> 
> More resolutions of the United Nations have condemned Israel than any other country in world, probably more than all the other countries combined. And there’s something very wrong with that. In fact, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice before whom the Fence case is now pending reminds me a little bit of the racist southern courts in the United States, say in Mississippi in the 1930’s. Those courts could do justice in cases say involving two whites suing each other. Maybe even in cases involving two blacks suing each other. But it couldn’t do justice in cases involving blacks and whites. The whites always won, the blacks always lost. People might say, that must mean that the blacks are terrible people and the whites are wonderful people in Mississippi. No, it meant the courts were bigotted institutions. They were not doing justice. And the same is true with the UN. Its resolutions against Israel don’t reflect negatively on Israel, they reflect negatively on the United Nations itself.
> 
> http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/speeches/dershowitz_speech.html


On the same note, how many UN resolutions are there are against Iraq, Egypt, Syria, etc., condemning their treatment of their former Jewish populations, who were oppressed and murdered, ant eventually expelled with nothing more than the shirts on their backs? That's 900,000 Jewish refugees.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> As you certainly know, Kurt Waldheim was secretary general of the UN from 1971 to 1982 and presided over a whole lot of those UN votes you mention.


In that case, all UN resolutions from 298 to 508 (about 27 on Macspectrum's list) should be suspect. How many are left then? I would say roughly forty, at least...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Here's an excerpt from <I>Dissent</i> "independent social thought since 1954"


> Longstanding U.S. perceptions of the UN membership as anti-Western, unprincipled, motivated by petty biases, and dominated by a herd mentality stem largely from—and are given continuing basis by—the body’s history of anti-Israel conduct. An organization that has been too fractured and passive to confront the moral challenges of our time—including Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur—has managed to adopt more than twenty resolutions chastising Israel each year since 1985. The isolation of Israel at the UN has strained the U.S.-UN relationship and undercut the legitimacy of the global body in the eyes of many Americans.
> 
> UN secretary-general Kofi Annan is seeking to restore the UN’s credibility after an era of scandal and paralysis. In March he issued a set of recommendations based on the work of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change he set up to propose reforms. Although Annan’s proposals do not directly address Israel’s anomalous position, they do get at certain conditions that have contributed to the ostracizing of Israel. If implemented, these measures should begin to show that the organization is serious about reform. At the same time, simply enacting the Annan reforms will not root out entrenched patterns. The reforms should go hand in hand with a political push led by the United States to put Israel on an equal footing with the organization’s 190 other states. If Israel’s standing does not improve after a major reform effort, Secretary-General Annan and the High-Level Panel will have failed to check the organization’s worst impulses, and the UN’s credibility crisis will persist.
> ...
> ...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> In that case, all UN resolutions from 298 to 508 (about 27 on Macspectrum's list) should be suspect. How many are left then? I would say roughly forty, at least...


Unfortunately, having an antisemitic ex-nazi war criminal as secretary general of the UN was only part of the problem.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> ...how about each side getting West and East Jerusalem respectively...with the Israelis getting full access or even control on alternating periods of the holy sites in East Jerusalem?


Your suggestion is completely arbitrary, and entails driving Jews out of Jewish areas. Yes, Jerusalem would be fragmented. That's a compromise for both sides. Driving Jews out of Jewish areas doesn't seem either reasonable or practicable.

Yes, I do see 97% of the west bank and all of Gaza as "virtually all" of the territory sought by the Palestinians. I even consider 97% of the west bank as being substantially the whole west bank. Your debating this issue betrays either a profound bias or a difficulty with math.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

This is a prime example of how religion has a negative impact on a society. I guarantee that if you took religion out of the equation, there would be peace.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> This is a prime example of how religion has a negative impact on a society. I guarantee that if you took religion out of the equation, there would be peace.


Another good analysis.
Unfortunately "hotter" heads will prevail.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> This is a prime example of how religion has a negative impact on a society. I guarantee that if you took religion out of the equation, there would be peace.


Fantastic! How do we do that?

(You guarantee! How long do I wait until I get my money back?)


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> Fantastic! How do we do that?
> 
> (You guarantee! How long do I wait until I get my money back?)


How droll.
60 years of zealotry doesn't seem to be working out too well.
More guns, helicopters, bulldozers and, oh yeah, that wall or is it barrier? No wait ! It's a fence!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I wasn't trying to be droll, I was serious. Religion is a problem. How do we get rid of it? (Without resorting to the methods of Hitler or Mao.)


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> This is a prime example of how religion has a negative impact on a society. I guarantee that if you took religion out of the equation, there would be peace.


That is not a particularly tolerant statement.

Religion is, in fact relatively new to the equation. For most of its history, until about the last 20 years, the socialist Labour party was the dominant power in Israel. Since then, power has shifted back and forth between Labour and various versions of Likud. Likud has tended to be more dependent on small religious parties, but I don't think there are any of these in the coalition at the moment.

Likewise, in the Arab states, religion has not been a dominant factor until recently. Egypt, Syria and Iraq were all secular Arab nationalist states. 

The dominant players for most of the history of the conflict were not motivated by religion (in the sense of what the Koran or Torah say). Even fairly recently, at the Clinton Camp David peace talks, Israel was prepared to give up 97% of the west bank, anathema to the religious right in Israel - the west bank consists of territory with a long Jewish history and many holy sites. Despite this, the Labour government was prepared to accept this proposal.

Religion can be at the root of conflict, but so can race, and many other factors, particularly nationalism. Religion can also be a force for good, understanding and tolerance.

People who choose to hate others will find an excuse. Using religion as a convenient and generalized whipping boy is inappropriate and is itself quite intolerant.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Religion can also be a force for good, understanding and tolerance.


Examples of such are far and few between.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Actually, I can't think of any.

Using religion as a whipping boy is intolerant? I am afraid not. Religion, by its very nature, is intolerant.

Reason is the source of tolerance. Reason is the knowledge that truth is based on evidence, that all conclusions are contextual, bases on what's known. When what is known changes, the conclusions are updated. Reason places human disputes in the realm of discussion, and he who can prove his case with the evidence in his favor is the winner.

Religion is the notion that certain truths cannot be sought by reason, but are granted by God in the form of revelations, prophecies, commandments, and inspiration. The recipient of these "truths" cannot prove them, and may not fully understand them. He tells others to believe these "truths" on faith. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

Of course, these recipients of the truth are no longer among us. Some writings have been left behind, however. These writings may not be written by him, but by a follower, perhaps even a follower who never met the recipient. And the writings are not consistent.

Groups of followers are bound to disagree; it is human nature to disagree. How can they resolve disagreements? By discussion? Nothing can be proven. By reference to the writings? They are inconsistent. By new recipients of revealed wisdom, who come to explain the truths first revealed by previous recipients?

And so factions split in orders. Orders break away into denominations. Denominations divide into traditionalists, moderates, and reformers. And so on.

Things get even more nebulous one recipient and another recipient arise out of a different culture, on a different continent, with far different views of revealed wisdom.

There is no tolerance in this situation. Tolerance relies on the belief that truth is in the grasp of any man who can prove it. When two men (or two nations) cannot resolve their differences, they must either agree to disagree, or there will be bloodshed.

How can you agree to disagree on issues such as: the stoning of adulterers, homosexuals, and infidels? the burning of heresies and the persecution of heretics? the banning of contraceptives, the suppression of pain-killers, the defaming of chemistry and anatomy?

Need I say more?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Unfortunately, having an antisemitic ex-nazi war criminal as secretary general of the UN was only part of the problem.


So, in other words, it doesn't matter? The whole UN thing is tainted. Now, that's extreme.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Your suggestion is completely arbitrary, and entails driving Jews out of Jewish areas. Yes, Jerusalem would be fragmented. That's a compromise for both sides. Driving Jews out of Jewish areas doesn't seem either reasonable or practicable.


That is not what I said and you're assuming the worst. While we're not here to pound out a whole new agreement I would think that there would be provision for ensuring that the Jewish popu./neighbourhoods would be safeguarded. If they don't like it, they could leave. Of course, we won't be taking the example of the Arabs in Israel after independence.



nxnw said:


> Yes, I do see 97% of the west bank and all of Gaza as "virtually all" of the territory sought by the Palestinians. I even consider 97% of the west bank as being substantially the whole west bank. Your debating this issue betrays either a profound bias or a difficulty with math.


Ignoring what is in that 3%, ignoring the fact that East Jerusalem would be fragmented, ignoring the fact that the barrier is a land grab in some areas...well, we can see who is the one with a profound bias or difficulty with math.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Yes, I do see 97% of the west bank and all of Gaza as "virtually all" of the territory sought by the Palestinians. I even consider 97% of the west bank as being substantially the whole west bank. Your debating this issue betrays either a profound bias or a difficulty with math.


Curious...how about the Palestinians get to choose which 3% of Israel that it gets in exchange?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> So, in other words, it doesn't matter? The whole UN thing is tainted. Now, that's extreme.


I don't see why anyone should see any merit in them. I refer you to the items excerpted from Deshowitz and Dissent, posted above. The following, from an article by Allison Kaplan Sommer adds some additional background.


> The UN's anti-Israel bias is rooted in the organization's very structure. In the General Assembly, 130 of the 190 member nations will, almost automatically, vote against Israel.
> 
> Tal Becker, legal advisor to Israel's permanent mission to the UN, visualizes this anti-Israel voting bloc as a series of "concentric circles." The smallest of the circles is the core of twenty Arab nations that constitute what is known as the "Arab group," which initiates the harshest condemnations of Israel. These countries are part of the larger fifty-six-member "Moslem group," all of whom can be counted on to consistently support anti-Israel resolutions. These fifty-six nations represent part of the "Non-Aligned" group of 115 largely third-world nations that formed during the Cold War and generally have voted as a group independent of Soviet or U.S. influence. And an even larger circle, considered the standard lineup against Israel, is composed of the 133 members of the G-77, which includes all of the developing countries.
> 
> ...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

This is the same Alan Dershowitz who was a big civil liberties guy and then said he was ok with torture?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> This is the same Alan Dershowitz who was a big civil liberties guy and then said he was ok with torture?


Pretty much defines red herring, no?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> That is not what I said and you're assuming the worst.


In fact, it is exactly what you said. Arbitrarily dividing Jerusalem by east and west - your suggestion - would expel a huge number of Jews from their homes and businesses.


IronMac said:


> While we're not here to pound out a whole new agreement I would think that there would be provision for ensuring that the Jewish popu./neighbourhoods would be safeguarded. If they don't like it, they could leave. Of course, we won't be taking the example of the Arabs in Israel after independence..


...or the 900,000 Jews, virtually the entire Jewish population of the Arab world, who were driven out of Iraq, Egypt, etc. in the same time frame. You never miss an opportunity to assert a double standard against Israel, do you?

The Clinton plan called for dividing Jerusalem - a compromise, meaning neither side gets what they want. Your idea of expelling Jews out of the old city is not compromise. Your comment about how, if the Jews don't like it, "they can leave", is particularly unfortunate.


> Ignoring what is in that 3%, ignoring the fact that East Jerusalem would be fragmented, ignoring the fact that the barrier is a land grab in some areas...well, we can see who is the one with a profound bias or difficulty with math.


 I think you are ignoring what's in that 3%. A few hundred thousand Jews are in that 3%. 

You are also distorting the timeline. There was no barrier being constructed at the time Arafat rejected peace in exchance for 97% of the west bank and all of gaza. 

That rejection was followed by terrorist attacks of unprecedented frequency and savagery (the second intifada). The wall followed and its construction has coincided with a reduction on terrorist attacks in Israel. Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. I don't like the wall eiither, but is better than terrorists blowing up innocents on busses, in pizzerias and at Passover seders.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> Curious...how about the Palestinians get to choose which 3% of Israel that it gets in exchange?


They had an opportunity to negotiate it. The Clinton plan entailed the Palestinians getting land in exchange for the 3%, bordering and expanding the Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, as you know, Arafat was not even prepared to accept the Clinton plan as a basis for negotiation.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> This is the same Alan Dershowitz who was a big civil liberties guy and then said he was ok with torture?


 you can't respond to the merits of Dershowitz's criticisms, so you malign him (and also distort what he said). This is one of the classic fallacies. I will illustrate:

Paul Martin: The sun rises in the morning and sets at night. I have observed it over the past year, and here are the statistics;
Macspectrum: Isn't that the same Paul Martin who beats his wife?

If you have any intellectual honesty, you can acknowledge that your perception of the UN has been naive and uninformed.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> The territory to be swapped was abutting the Gaza strip. Perhaps it was subject to further discussion that did not happen, because Arafat chose the horror of the intifada over <B>97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip</B>.
> 
> Jerusalem is the sorest point for Jews. It contains the seat of our religion — the temple mount. We were not permitted to go there until Jordan lost it in 1967. If Arafat wanted peace and a Palestinian State, he would have made this compromise and been the father of a Palestine covering <B>97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip</B>.


Talk about disengenious!
"Barak's Generous offer" was hardly that.
From {sarcasm}those anti-semities{/sarcasm} Gush Shalom:
http://gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
As we can see after watching this flash presentation you are not being entirely honest. The fact is that Barak's offer was a non starter and everyone knew it. You can't have a state that is made up of block that are innaccessable from each other. The whole point of this "offer" was to make the Palestenians look bad by refusing 90+% when infact the offer was a lot less and not contiguious.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> That is not a particularly tolerant statement.
> 
> Religion is, in fact relatively new to the equation. For most of its history, until about the last 20 years, the socialist Labour party was the dominant power in Israel. Since then, power has shifted back and forth between Labour and various versions of Likud. Likud has tended to be more dependent on small religious parties, but I don't think there are any of these in the coalition at the moment.
> 
> ...



This is, again, just silly. Religion has nothing to do with this conflict?
Give us all a break. Fanatics on both sides of this issue have been using religion to fan the flames for a long time. Just because a govenrment is "secular", an argument I do not buyfor either side, does not mean that religion doesn't underlie the whole issue.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> That rejection was followed by terrorist attacks of unprecedented frequency and savagery (the second intifada). The wall followed and its construction has coincided with a reduction on terrorist attacks in Israel. Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. I don't like the wall eiither, but is better than terrorists blowing up innocents on busses, in pizzerias and at Passover seders.


You make it sound like this is the only possible solution. It isn't. Peace is not won with a wall that is actually an excuse for a land grab. 
Before you object to that characterization I will remind you that even Israel's courts have said as much and forced various changes in the planed location of the wall.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> In fact, it is exactly what you said. Arbitrarily dividing Jerusalem by east and west - your suggestion - would expel a huge number of Jews from their homes and businesses....or the 900,000 Jews, virtually the entire Jewish population of the Arab world, who were driven out of Iraq, Egypt, etc. in the same time frame. You never miss an opportunity to assert a double standard against Israel, do you?


What does this have to do with the Palestinians? Did they drive the Jews out of Iraq? Or was it Arafat who drove the Jews out of Egypt? You keep accusing people of anti-semitism but you seem to have no problem lumping all Arabs together for your accusations of collective sin.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Talk about disengenious!
> ... As we can see after watching this flash presentation you are not being entirely honest. The fact is that Barak's offer was a non starter and everyone knew it. You can't have a state that is made up of block that are innaccessable from each other. The whole point of this "offer" was to make the Palestenians look bad by refusing 90+% when infact the offer was a lot less and not contiguious.


I think the senior American diplomat involved in the negotiation, Dennis Ross, is more credible than a flash movie.


> ... the Palestinians were offered the following: 100 percent of Gaza, roughly 97 percent of the West Bank. The principles that guided the way the borders should be drawn and determined by the two sides, based on the percentages were:
> 
> - <B>Contiguity of territory for the Palestinians</B>, non-absorption of Palestinians into Israel....


 and again


> So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. <B>Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.</B>


(empasis added)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

{sarcasm}Yes Gush Shalom are liers
US gov't people never lie.{/sarcasm}


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> This is, again, just silly. Religion has nothing to do with this conflict?
> Give us all a break. Fanatics on both sides of this issue have been using religion to fan the flames for a long time. Just because a govenrment is "secular", an argument I do not buyfor either side, does not mean that religion doesn't underlie the whole issue.


I didn't say it has nothing to do with the conflict. It plays a larger part today. What I said is that religion did not cause the conflict and was not a major factor until more recently. I point out again that the pan Arab nationalist leaders of the 50 and 60s (and also the modern Assads and Saddams) locked up or killed religious extremists and were not influenced by them. 

The dominant Labour party (which led every Israeli government until the early 70s) was socialist and its leaders were not motivated by religious issues.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

martman said:


> You make it sound like this is the only possible solution. It isn't. Peace is not won with a wall that is actually an excuse for a land grab.
> Before you object to that characterization I will remind you that even Israel's courts have said as much and forced various changes in the planed location of the wall.


They 'forced' a few changes, but not many.

The very fact that Israel is a country with a judicial system that protects those within its borders and outside of them should demonstrate what sets Israel apart from those who wish to destroy it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

You mean the Palestinians?
The ones with no state?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> What does this have to do with the Palestinians? Did they drive the Jews out of Iraq? Or was it Arafat who drove the Jews out of Egypt? You keep accusing people of anti-semitism but you seem to have no problem lumping all Arabs together for your accusations of collective sin.


The Arab world has an obligation to help the Palestinians, just as the much smaller Jewish world took in the 900,000 Jews expelled from the Arab countries. It has nothing to do with "collective sin".

It also has a lot to do with applying a double standard to Israel and to Jews. The suffering of Palestinian refugees, which you blame exclusively and unfairly on Israel, seems to be of overriding concern to you. In contrast, you have admitted that the expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab countries, a real "ethnic cleansing", is not on your radar. 

I have not accused anyone here of antisemitism. It is not something I would be quick to do, even if I believed it to be true. 

You may be sensitive about having your double standards pointed out to you, however, and it would be good for you to reflect on them.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> I don't see why anyone should see any merit in them.


We could always go through every resolution not "tainted" by Waldheim's presence to do a breakdown of who voted and see whether or not those votes back up the article.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> The Arab world has an obligation to help the Palestinians, just as the much smaller Jewish world took in the 900,000 Jews expelled from the Arab countries. It has nothing to do with "collective sin".
> 
> It also has a lot to do with applying a double standard to Israel and to Jews. The suffering of Palestinian refugees, which you blame exclusively and unfairly on Israel, seems to be of overriding concern to you. In contrast, you have admitted that the expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab countries, a real "ethnic cleansing", is not on your radar.
> 
> ...


This is the second time you have tried to characterize me this way. You are being disshonest again by taking my comment out of context. You know as well as I do that the context of the was about starting a thread in this forum about this issue.

It makes me want to reseach your other assertions to see how you have manipulated them as well.



martman said:


> Give me a thread about it and I'll denounce it. Infact I'll denounce it now.





nxnw said:


> Why don't you start one? Not on your radar?





martman said:


> No it isn't to be honest.
> I didn't start this thread either.


Now then let's be a little more honest in how we quote people.


note: my quotes are taken from the end of page 19 and the beginning of page 20 so you can't accuse me of miss quoting.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> We could always go through every resolution not "tainted" by Waldheim's presence to do a breakdown of who voted and see whether or not those votes back up the article.


I'd be interested in the results.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> In fact, it is exactly what you said. Arbitrarily dividing Jerusalem by east and west - your suggestion - would expel a huge number of Jews from their homes and businesses....or the 900,000 Jews, virtually the entire Jewish population of the Arab world, who were driven out of Iraq, Egypt, etc. in the same time frame. You never miss an opportunity to assert a double standard against Israel, do you?


A. What you (or the Israelis) want is to break up East Jerusalem into a polyglot of neighbourhoods and then camouflage that by saying that the Palestinians would be getting Arab East Jerusalem.
B. You say that a huge number of Jews would be expelled but you also ignore my suggestion that protections would be in place.




nxnw said:


> The Clinton plan called for dividing Jerusalem - a compromise, meaning neither side gets what they want. Your idea of expelling Jews out of the old city is not compromise. Your comment about how, if the Jews don't like it, "they can leave", is particularly unfortunate. I think you are ignoring what's in that 3%. A few hundred thousand Jews are in that 3%.


A. I never said anything about expelling Jews. Sheesh, you never stop to ignore what I really say in order to twist things around, don't you?
B. If the Palestinians don't like it, they can leave too. How do you like that? Evenhanded enough for you?




nxnw said:


> You are also distorting the timeline. There was no barrier being constructed at the time Arafat rejected peace in exchance for 97% of the west bank and all of gaza.


There is now.



nxnw said:


> The wall followed and its construction has coincided with a reduction on terrorist attacks in Israel. Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. I don't like the wall eiither, but is better than terrorists blowing up innocents on busses, in pizzerias and at Passover seders.


Personally, I'm all for the wall if it is done to protect Israeli citizens and NOT for a land grab as it seems to be.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I didn't say it has nothing to do with the conflict. It plays a larger part today. What I said is that religion did not cause the conflict and was not a major factor until more recently. I point out again that the pan Arab nationalist leaders of the 50 and 60s (and also the modern Assads and Saddams) locked up or killed religious extremists and were not influenced by them.
> 
> The dominant Labour party (which led every Israeli government until the early 70s) was socialist and its leaders were not motivated by religious issues.


If the the first argument for the right of your state to exist is "it in the Bible" then the state is not truly secular. If people can't have legal marriges because they have not been given a Hebrew name by an orthodox rabbi, the state is not secular. There may be secular aspects to the state but ultimatly all arguments to this effect fall flat when you look at the languge chosen for the state. Hebrew is a languge of religion. Until modern Israel no nation or people ever used this languge for everyday communication. Its clear that the choice of Hebrew as the national languge is anything but secular.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

HowEver said:


> They 'forced' a few changes, but not many.
> 
> The very fact that Israel is a country with a judicial system that protects those within its borders and outside of them should demonstrate what sets Israel apart from those who wish to destroy it.


You sure those courts aren't "tainted"?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

martman said:


> Hebrew is a languge of religion. Until modern Israel no nation or people ever used this languge for everyday communication.


uhhh....what?  

What did the Jews use before the formation of Israel???


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

IronMac said:


> uhhh....what?
> 
> What did the Jews use before the formation of Israel???


Yiddish etc.
in Biblical time Aramayic (bad spelling)


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> It also has a lot to do with applying a double standard to Israel and to Jews.
> .........
> 
> 
> ...


Granted the only one you actually come out and say is an anti-semite is Kurt Waldheim and I can see why you would say that in his case. That said you do have a way of saying it with out saying it. from this thread alone:


nxnw said:


> I am not acccusing anyone of anything, but if you want to be illustrative of a wealthy family, your choice of a wealthy Jewish family that made its fortune in the 19th century was unfortunate. Why not someone more relevant and contemporary? Why not someone who isn't Jewish? Why not, say, the Saudi royal family, for instance?
> 
> The slander that the rich Jews control the banks has been a common falsehood used to foster anti-semitism. It's a sensitive issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> If the the first argument for the right of your state to exist is "it in the Bible" then the state is not truly secular. If people can't have legal marriges because they have not been given a Hebrew name by an orthodox rabbi, the state is not secular. There may be secular aspects to the state but ultimatly all arguments to this effect fall flat when you look at the languge chosen for the state. Hebrew is a languge of religion. Until modern Israel no nation or people ever used this languge for everyday communication. Its clear that the choice of Hebrew as the national language is anything but secular.


The justification for Jews living in Israel is that the legitimacy of Israel's existence as a state is not open for debate. Do you deny Israel's right to exist? if so, come out now, so we can see your colours.

As for Hebrew, you make it sound like it was invented for prayer. It was the spoken language in ancient Israel. It was a language that Jews everywhere continued to learn in the diaspora, and therefore tied Jews together as a nation with a common language. It's revival as a spoken language began in the 1800s, and makes quite a fascinating story.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> You sure those courts aren't "tainted"?


Yes I am. It's proven by the several Palestinian victories in those courts on this issue alone. Try that in Syria.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> I think the senior American diplomat involved in the negotiation, Dennis Ross, is more credible than a flash movie. and again(empasis added)


A. The flash movie is about the Barak offer...Ross was not involved so far as I can tell.
B. I think that a hard-core Israeli peace group may have just as much credibility as an American diplomat.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I have to say I see why you are feeling that there is a horrible anti-Israel bias because no one is going on about the nasty things the Palestinians have done / are doing. in this forum. This is a result of the fact that no one who is biased towards the Arabs is posting. If they did I assure you I'd call them on their deceptions too. As I said before there is plenty of blame for both sides.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> The justification for Jews living in Israel is that the legitimacy of Israel's existence as a state is not open for debate. Do you deny Israel's right to exist? if so, come out now, so we can see your colours.


Did I say anything about Israel's right to exist?

{sarcasm}But then you never call anyone an anti-semite.{/sarcasm}


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Granted the only one you actually come out and say is an anti-semite is Kurt Waldheim and I can see why you would say that in his case. That said you do have a way of saying it with out saying it. from this thread alone:


When I mean to say someone is anti-Semitic, I will do it outright, as I did for Waldheim. Also, taking all of those quotes out of context presents them very unfairly.

I did not remember saying it here, but, in fact, I do consider slanderous claims against Israel, or applying a double standard to Jews and Israel, as being characteristic of anti-Semitic views. I do not consider the mere expression of such a view as proof of anti-Semitism, however, as people can express unfair views based on false perceptions, being fed inaccurate information, being poorly informed, etc. 

In your case, your lack of knowledge has been been apparent (for example, your firm belief that, "Iraquis are not Arabs"). Malice did not strike me as being the at the root of your unfair biases. 

You can bet, however, I will point out a double standard or a falsehood when I see. Why not reflect on your double standards and try to be more thoughtful and sensitive to the issues in the future?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw, 
You have insinuated that some members are anti-Semite. 

In some aspects you remind me of Alan Dershowitz. He has written some good articles but his whole outlook on Israel-Palestine is tainted by illogical beliefs bordering on fanatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/sep03/shapiro.htm
http://www.amnestyusa.org/askamnesty/torture200112.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7650&sectionID=107
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=29
http://www.killingtrain.com/archives/000392.html


Your whole arguments are based on Israel that can do no wrong.

If you want to point to a double standard look at how Israel is treating Palestinians. Being an apologist for Israel make you out to be a racist.
The Laudau commission approved state sanctioned torture.
The creation of Israel is a cause, if not the major cause of all this, and the historical aspects should be examined.
You talk of international law yet Israel ignores resolution 194, resolution 242, and resolution 446, on top of ignoring the Geneva Convention.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Did I say anything about Israel's right to exist?


You said:


martman said:


> If the the first argument for the right of your state to exist is "it in the Bible" then the state is not truly secular.


Well, right there you derogate Israel's right to exist by asserting:
1. Israel's right to exist is the subject of "argument";
2. The "first" basis for its legitimacy derives from the Bible.

Why not acknowledge that it was a dumb thing to say, instead of denying that you said it?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> ...no one who is biased towards the Arabs is posting. If they did I assure you I'd call them on their deceptions too.


You are biased. Even if you weren't, your lack of knowledge, demonstrated by your belief that, "Iraqis are not Arabs", leaves you unequipped to recognize deception, much less "call" anyone on it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Yes I am. It's proven by the several Palestinian victories in those courts on this issue alone.


The state of Israel is discriminatory against all but Jews.
Even Israel's ally, the USA recognizes that:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your whole arguments are based on Israel that can do no wrong.... Being an apologist for Israel make you out to be a racist.


Sure, set up a straw man. I am not an apologist for Israel, and I have never asserted that I agree with all of its policies or its acts. Even if I were an apologist for Israel, why would that make me a racist. Your accusation is disreputable.

Criticise Israel fairly, and I will not argue with you. Lie, assert double standards, and somebody is bound to respond. 



ArtistSeries said:


> The creation of Israel is a cause, if not the major cause of all this, and the historical aspects should be examined.


So ArtistSeries, do you deny Israel's right to exist? You blame Israel for existing? Do you blame racism against blacks on the existence of blacks?

The historical aspects are this. The state was created. Every neighbouring country attacked it the next day, aided by other Arab countries in the region. Their focus was to "drive the Jews into the sea", and remains the object of Hamas and other Arab leaders to this day.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxmw, 
you have not answered a single criticism except to change subject and divert the thread.

I have previously answered that I don't deny Israel's right to exist - 

So the history of Israel starts about 60 years ago? No looking at the how and why?
So there is no double standard with regards to Arabs in Israel?

The only nations that have not signed peace treaties with Israel are Lebanon and Syria.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> The state of Israel is discriminatory against all but Jews.


Now there's a slanderous half truth. Not even Sharon would deny that there are human rights abuses. It warrants fair and measured criticism, but does not make Israel an outlaw or a pariah. 

For context, there are also serious human rights abuses in Canada, the US, France, the UK, and throughout the free world. Canadian examples that immediately come to mind include the Saskatoon police abandoning intoxicated native men to freeze to death and Canadian soldiers on a UN peacekeeeping mission beating a Somali teenager to death. Such crimes would assuredly be more frequent in Canada if we were faced with the kinds of challenges Israel has. We criticise Canada not condemn it.

Then there's North Korea, Syria, China, and numerous other states that truly deserve your contempt and condemnation, states whose monumental mideeds should outrage you, but you don't see fit to mention.

That is a double standard.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> nxmw,
> you have not answered a single criticism except to change subject and divert the thread.


My posts will speak for themselves.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Again, nxmw, you can't even answer one question without going on a tangent.

The subject was Israel - not abuses in other parts of the world. 
Your pathetic insinuations are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

http://www.sendflowers.co.il/   

Here is what Google Ads popped up during my viewing of this thread.

Until the ehmac.ca anti-Israel contingent starts an equal number of threads about Palestinian "justice," murder and bombings, there is only one thing to assume about the existence of threads like this one.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Again, nxmw, you can't even answer one question without going on a tangent.
> 
> The subject was Israel - not abuses in other parts of the world.
> Your pathetic insinuations are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.


I have answered you. You don't like my answers. Perhaps I have touched a nerve.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

You have avoided answering most questions - not that I expected much from someone with your extreme bias.....


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> My posts will speak for themselves.


And how.
Extremism and zealotry is ugly no matter where it comes from.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> You have avoided answering most questions - not that I expected much from someone with your extreme bias.....


You can keep saying this as much as you like. I anticipate you will, given your apparently endless supply of vitriol and inability to say anything fair or accurate. 

Our posts can speak for themselves.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Extremism and zealotry is ugly no matter where it comes from.


Indeed, they are.

Your effort to colour my posts with this false characterization is very sad.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw, have you even bothered reading any of the post I or others have made?

Your post do speak for themselves - I'm glad I live in Canada and will defend your right to say/post such garbage...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> nxnw, have you even bothered reading any of the post I or others have made?.


If I hadn't, I don't think my responses would upset you so much. You don't like your comments being held up to the light.

I wonder how many of your 1,038 messages are anti-Israel diatribes?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> endless supply of vitriol and inability to say anything fair or accurate.
> Our posts can speak for themselves.


somewhere there is a pot in need of a kettle

You're starting to sound a bit like B. Netanyahu whose uses the Bible as justification for lands belonging to Israel. You never dismissed nor refudiated, only admitted that he wasn't currently the Israeli PM (like that somehow diminishes the effect of his comments) and that I made fun of his name (spelling it "Netan-yahoo" in light of his laughable comments) and that somehow makes me a bad person.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your post do speak for themselves - I'm glad I live in Canada and will defend your right to say/post such garbage...


Exactement.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

nxnw said:


> I wonder how many of your 1,038 messages are anti-Israel diatribes?


Looks like you've got a lot of work ahead of you. Brew some strong coffee. Put Abe Foxman's number on speed-dial. It's gonna be a long night.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> You're starting to sound a bit like B. Netanyahu whose uses the Bible as justification for lands belonging to Israel. You never dismissed nor refudiated, only admitted that he wasn't currently the Israeli PM (like that somehow diminishes the effect of his comments)


It is very clear from my posts that I agree with the priciple of trading land for peace, which is inconsistent with the idea that the west bank is Israel's because it says so in the Bible. It is also inconsistent with me being either an extremist or a zealot, one of your fabrications in a previous post. 

I do not support Netanyahu. I also pointed out that Netanyahu is not the Prime Minister and his views are not the policy of the Israeli government. Your reference to him, accordingly, was irrelevant and dishonest. 

That is a complete response to you, and more than your post warranted.


MACSPECTRUM said:


> ... I made fun of his name (spelling it "Netan-yahoo" in light of his laughable comments) and that somehow makes me a bad person.


It doesn't make you look good.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You said: Well, right there you derogate Israel's right to exist by asserting:
> 1. Israel's right to exist is the subject of "argument";
> 2. The "first" basis for its legitimacy derives from the Bible.
> 
> Why not acknowledge that it was a dumb thing to say, instead of denying that you said it?


This is a complete load. I said Israel is / was not secular I did not say Israel has no right to exist. But then you never actually read what I type do you? Oh right you can't argue without purposly missquoting / putting words in people's mouths.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I have answered you. You don't like my answers. Perhaps I have touched a nerve.


Deflection is a fallacy, not an answer.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Then there's North Korea, Syria, China, and numerous other states that truly deserve your contempt and condemnation, states whose monumental mideeds should outrage you, but you don't see fit to mention.
> 
> That is a double standard.


This thread is about Isreal and the Arabs where does North Korea and China fit in?

{sarcasm}Oh right! deflection!{/sarcasm}


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Now there's a slanderous half truth. Not even Sharon would deny that there are human rights abuses. It warrants fair and measured criticism, but does not make Israel an outlaw or a pariah.
> 
> For context, there are also serious human rights abuses in Canada, the US, France, the UK, and throughout the free world. Canadian examples that immediately come to mind include the Saskatoon police abandoning intoxicated native men to freeze to death and Canadian soldiers on a UN peacekeeeping mission beating a Somali teenager to death. Such crimes would assuredly be more frequent in Canada if we were faced with the kinds of challenges Israel has. We criticise Canada not condemn it.


I'm more than willing to condemn Canada for its treatment of aboriginal people. Infact I frequently call my mp about this issue. There is no excuse for this kind of thing and I speak out against it whenever possible but this thread is about Isreal and the Arabs and not about this deflection.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> In your case, your lack of knowledge has been been apparent (for example, your firm belief that, "Iraquis are not Arabs"). Malice did not strike me as being the at the root of your unfair biases.


{sarcasm}Oh yes it was a firm belief. {/sarcasm}I said something stupid, you called me on it. I did some quick reseach and found I was wrong and admitted so.
{sarcasm}yes my mistaken belieft that Iraqis are Persians is so off the wall that surely only BS could ever come from my mouth again.{/sarcasm} 
At least I can admit when I make a mistake and at least I don't insinueate that those who dissagree with me are anti-semites.

Now I'm deflecting.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> This is a complete load. I said Israel is / was not secular I did not say Israel has no right to exist. But then you never actually read what I type do you? Oh right you can't argue without purposly missquoting / putting words in people's mouths.


I did not misquote you. The quote was your exact words, to the letter. Your words: "If the the first argument for the right of your state to exist is "it in the Bible" then the state is not truly secular."

We don't "argue" about the right of any other state to exist.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> This thread is about Isreal and the Arabs where does North Korea and China fit in?


Like Dershowitz said: "Because, if a space alien ever came down from a galaxy a distant galaxy and went to the United Nations or some college campuses and looked around, he would say this is a great planet. Wow! We have a Human Rights Commission headed by this wonderful country called Libya. We have a Security Council that contains peaceful countries like Syria. We have a country like North Korea, few students seem to be objecting to it, but we have one country that everybody seems to be blaming all the problems of the world on. This small country Israel, it must be a really terrible place."

There is a little anti-Israel brigade here on ehmac. They don't criticise Libya, or Syria or China or North Korea. They attack Israel, a democratic country governed by the rule of law, instead of those tyrannies. They do it often.

I am offended by it and I am pointing it out. If you don't want to be challenged for awful comments like "the first argument for <b>the right of your state to exist</b>...", then you should think more and post less.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> {sarcasm}Oh yes it was a firm belief. {/sarcasm}I said something stupid, you called me on it. I did some quick reseach and found I was wrong and admitted so.
> {sarcasm}yes my mistaken belieft that Iraqis are Persians is so off the wall that surely only BS could ever come from my mouth again.{/sarcasm}


When I want help with math, I don't ask someone who had to do some "quick research" to find out that 1+1 does not equal 5.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Can you possibly twist people's words an intents anymore. while insinuating they are anti-semites? 
I NEVER QUESTIONED ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST. 
Just because you can take one sentance out of context and with added analysys, attempt to push this meaning into what I posted, does not in anyway mean that I am or have questioned Israel's right to exist so enough with this already I am sick of repeating myself and sick of your disshonestly.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> There is a little anti-Israel brigade here on ehmac. They don't criticise Libya, or Syria or China or North Korea. They attack Israel, a democratic country governed by the rule of law, instead of those tyrannies. They do it often.


This is such a lame argument.

Here is your thread on North Korea:
martman:
Yep it sure would bite to have to live in North Korea.
Kim is starving everybody to death while he lives like a king.

otherperson: yes I hope he doesn't make to many more nukes!

martman: yep


other person: yep


yet another person: agreed!

As you can see, not a very interesting thread.
Why does Israel come up? Precisely because there is something to talk about that people are passionate about and where there is not a consencious.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I'm sick of the expression, "the right of your state to exist", which you said, in your words. There is no context that changes the essence of that phrase other than, say, "I am disgusted by people who use expressions like <b>the right of your state to exist</b>". 

Was it just another dumb, thoughtless comment like the Iraq thing?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> This is such a lame argument.
> 
> Here is your thread on North Korea:
> martman:
> ...


I'm sure North Koreans would find this very amusing.

You evidently have no idea of the monstrous abuses in North Korea. Here's a sample:


> In some cases, executions reportedly were carried out at public meetings attended by workers, students, school children, and before assembled inmates at places of detention. Border guards reportedly have orders to shoot to kill potential defectors. Similarly, prison guards are under orders to shoot to kill those attempting escape from political concentration camps, according to defectors.
> ...
> Reportedly, North Korean officials prohibited live births in prison and forced abortions were regularly performed, particularly in detention centers holding women repatriated from China. Those sources further indicate that, in cases of live birth, the child was immediately killed.
> ...
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I'm sick of the expression, "the right of your state to exist", which you said, in your words. There is no context that changes the essence of that phrase other than, say, "I am disgusted by people who use expressions like <b>the right of your state to exist</b>".
> 
> Was it just another dumb, thoughtless comment like the Iraq thing?


You are so dogmatic it is astounding. 
I too can take your words out of context and shape what they mean, just like you are doing to me. Want me too?
I am disgusted by people who tell me what I can and can't say especially when they twist what I say in an effort to paint me as a bigot. 

I am sick of you trying to say that I am questioning Israel's right to exist. Do you have anything else to say or is that it?
Want to accuse me of this some more? Does this advance the discution?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I'm sure North Koreans would find this very amusing.


I doubt it.
And I'm sure you've done your best to not see my point so you can continue to purpossly missrepresent what I say.

edit:
my point so you don't miss it is that it is boring to discuss topics where there is a consencious unless someone has new / previously unknown information about the issue.
I don't see you starting threads on honour killings in Jordan does that mean this topic is off your radar? Do you think it would be intresting or would it go like my North Korea "thread"?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You evidently have no idea of the monstrous abuses in North Korea. Here's a sample:


Evidently you refuse to communicate. Obviously I am aware of the problems in North Korea. Again you try and miss my point. Is this really how you think you should argue? It is very disshonest. 
I will repeat my point since you refuse to see it. 
It is boring to talk about topics where there is a general concensious unless there is some pertinent new info. on the topic.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> my point so you don't miss it is that it is boring to discuss topics where there is a consencious unless someone has new / previously unknown information about the issue.
> I don't see you starting threads on honour killings in Jordan does that mean this topic is off your radar? Do you think it would be intresting or would it go like my North Korea "thread"?


So, you are not interested in discussing human rights abuses in countries other than Israel, because it's too "boring". I already recognize that you find it less interesting. I do not accept the idea that it is not worth mentioning because there is a consensus about North Korea. Pretty much everything about North Korea would be new information for you, as your concept of North Korean abuses seemed to be limited to hunger and nuclear weapons. If you had bothered even to do a google search, you would have had an idea of how horrible the abuses are, and would not have posted your silly vignette.

I don't know anything about honour killings in Jordan and I'll bet lots of people reading these forums don't know anything about the subject. It sounds like something worth posting, not boring, and valuable information you could share with all of us.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Actually I'm probably more interested than most on these issues but in general a thread like this is not going to go far IMNSHO. 
But the real issue here is that you should start this tread if you want to see it so bad rather than being pissed off that I don't start it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:



> Pretty much everything about North Korea would be new information for you, as your concept of Korean abuses seemed to be limited to hunger and nuclear weapons. If you had bothered even to do a google search, you would have had an idea of how horrible the abuses are, and would not have posted your silly vignette.


Your arrogance is as astounding as your ability to be dogmatic.
I am quite aware of the North Korean situation.
Rather than go on about it in a thread about "Israel / Arab History" why not start a new thread?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I think that everyone needs a bit of a time-out here. It's devolved down to personal attacks now.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> There is a little anti-Israel brigade here on ehmac. They don't criticise Libya, or Syria or China or North Korea. They attack Israel, a democratic country governed by the rule of law, instead of those tyrannies. They do it often..


Have you finished reading all my post yet?
You inability to focus on a subject is not surprising. 

Israel is a "democracy" in name, it is more of a "democracy for Jews". Arab citizens are nothing more than second class with little rights.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

IronMac said:


> I think that everyone needs a bit of a time-out here. It's devolved down to personal attacks now.


I agree 100%. Perhaps people should take a break, or this thread should be closed.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Have you finished reading all my post yet?
> You inability to focus on a subject is not surprising.
> 
> Israel is a "democracy" in name, it is more of a "democracy for Jews". Arab citizens are nothing more than second class with little rights.


The sad thing is that you have consistently distorted facts, made false statements and then accused others of distortion. Your ugly, groundless and dishonest comment here demonstrates nothing but your own biases.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

This is from Beyond Images, "a London-based website which provides facts and resources to help people to argue Israel’s case in an informed and coherent way, and to explain the context for Israel’s actions."


> Israeli Arabs in the ‘Triangle' and the idea of a territorial exchange
> 
> Approximately 20% of Israel 's population within its pre-1967 borders are Israeli Arabs. Around 200,000 of them live in a central Israeli region often referred to as ‘The Triangle'. The main Arab town in the Triangle is Umm el-Fahm, with a population of 38,600.
> 
> ...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

*Israel from the eyes of a Canadian Muslim who lives there*



> Javeed Sukhera spent last Ramadan in Israel, and - to his surprise - the 24-year-old Muslim felt more at home in the Jewish state than he does in his native Toronto. Even a close brush with terror hasn't dampened the enthusiasm of Sukhera, who heads back to Israel this fall.
> 
> by Leora Eren Frucht
> 
> ...


http://www.cicweb.ca/Israel21century/intl/javeed.cfm


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Okay nxnw, I'll make it simple for you.

Please answer "yes" or "no" to the following:
Was former Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin ever wanted for terrorism by the British?
Was Irgun a Jewish terrorist group?

Was Count Bernadotte, a peace negotiator for the UN, murdered by Lehi?
Was that assasination approved by the Lehi 'center'?
Was Natan Yellin-Mor, part of Lehi's center, elected to the Knesset?

Is Israel in defiance of UN resolutions?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I think you should let *nxnw* stew in his own Zionist agenda and post his heart-wrenching propaganda alone. 

Anyone who disagrees with *nxnw* gets accused of being "naive", "uninformed", "distorting facts", posting "ugly, groundless biases" or down right lying.

Only *nxnw* has that esoteric knowledge which enables him to have such a complete and superior understanding of the mid-east situation. LOL!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Okay nxnw, I'll make it simple for you.
> 
> Please answer "yes" or "no" to the following:
> Was former Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin ever wanted for terrorism by the British?
> ...



Is this a Canadian version of an American site, a storm watch dot ca ?

What is the difference if you can post so much directed at one group of people? 

Do you condone the violent acts by Palestinians because they are your "freedom fighters" of today? Or do you prefer a peaceful resolution?

Have you ever talked about violence by anyone other than the Israelis? Anyone else in contradiction with the United Nations, where the despots and dictators far outnumber the rest?

Are you going to keep going on about Israeli history, or are you going to take a step into the present and see that for whatever reason, Israel is, unlike any other country ever has, handing territory over to people who *never* controlled it, so that they can exercise their independence too.

And for the record, the last sentence above means that some people would prefer that Gaza and the West Bank be given back to the countries that Israel took these areas from when Israel was attacked by them. These are nations, by the way, who have not given Palestinians rights, freedoms, access to courts of law, status, citizenship, or any of the other privileges that are being asked of Israel--while it is being shot at, bombed, invaded, attacked, and hated.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Do you condone the violent acts by Palestinians because they are your "freedom fighters" of today? Or do you prefer a peaceful resolution?


Peaceful resolution.
But I will also look at the causes of these "acts of violence". 



HowEver said:


> Have you ever talked about violence by anyone other than the Israelis? Anyone else in contradiction with the United Nations, where the despots and dictators far outnumber the rest?


Yes. The US in Iraq is one example.

Now, you want to talk about abuse in Israel in the modern age? 
Do we start by the killing of civilians or "targeted murders"?
Maybe bombing of residential areas?
Sabra and Shatilla?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Do you condone the violent acts by Palestinians because they are your "freedom fighters" of today? Or do you prefer a peaceful resolution?
> 
> Have you ever talked about violence by anyone other than the Israelis? Anyone else in contradiction with the United Nations, where the despots and dictators far outnumber the rest?
> 
> ...


This is still a deflection.
The argument is similar to this: "they are worse than we are so this justifies what we do even if it is bad."
I personally don't buy this kind of argument. I used to get it all the time in this context: "If you think it is bad here why don't you move to Russia."
Yes USSR's system was worse than Canada's but that doesn't excuse our transgretions against our aboriginal populations.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> <b>Unlike planethoth who promised not to participate in this thread, I will not contribute here anymore</b> - but please note that you have planted a seed questioning some of my involvement.


You postd this a few days ago, but here you are - back with a vengeance.

The above comment came after you had posted a statement about Israel that was a particularly egregious falsehood. You lied, continued to press your falsehood, and drew well deserved criticizm. The sad fact is:
1. You revel in criticizing Israel and seem not to miss an opportunity to do so. Criticism is not objectionable, but it takes on a different character because it is combined with the following;
2. You seem to have no remotely equivalent interest in criticizing any other country - this, despite the fact that the world is filled with countries that really have done things you falsely allege against Israel. You exercise a blatant double standard, however - only Israel draws your venom;
3. It isn't even Arab suffering that concerns you. There is far more Arab suffering in the Arab world than in Israel. For instance, Syria massacred an estimated <b>20,000</b> civilians at Hama in 1982, then used the terror of this massacre to stifle dissent from others. You do not express sympathy or solidarity for those who suffer, however, unless you can make an argument that Israel is to blame;
4. You allege things against Israel that are false, ignore authority to the contrary, and repeat your falsehoods. You "lie big" and "stick to it".
I could add to this list, but the above is enough.

Those are facts, not insinuations. If they add up to something that you don't like, start looking inward.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> This is still a deflection.
> The argument is similar to this: "they are worse than we are so this justifies what we do even if it is bad."


You are missing HowEver's point. The criticism of Israel is excessive, unfair, and reflects a double standard. Biased attacks on Israel will not lead to peace. Everybody, including the Palestinians, will benefit when all of the antagonists in the region are held to the same standard.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> I guess you couldn't help yourself.


This was something that I wrestled with but your BS was just too much.

What lies?
It's easy to claim someone is anti-Semite but I have yet to see you invalidate anything.

Still avoiding all direct questions, I see.....
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=258294&postcount=388

So how many anti-Semite post have I made? What's the breakdown?

Do you deny this?
"The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas. Some members of the security forces abused Palestinian detainees.
Conditions in some detention and interrogation facilities remained poor. During the year, the Government detained on security grounds but without charge thousands of persons in Israel. (Most were from the occupied territories and their situation is covered in the annex.) The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens. The Government did not recognize marriages performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, compelling many citizens to travel abroad to marry. The Government interfered with individual privacy in some instances.

Discrimination and societal violence against women persisted, although the Government continued to address these problems. Trafficking in and abuse of women and foreign workers continued to be problems. Discrimination against persons with disabilities persisted."
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm

Remember this come from Israel's ally, the USA. So how's that nice "democratic" little country doing?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> The criticism of Israel is excessive, unfair, and reflects a double standard. Biased attacks on Israel will not lead to peace.


How about Israel stopping a double standard?
Or is your credo "Zionist aspirations" at all cost?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> What lies?


What Lies? The worst one I remember was your claim that Israel has a policy of "ethnic cleansing". Several people objected to this blatant falsehood, the worst of which was the connotation of genocide in the phrase "ethnic cleansing". You then backtracked, making the mendacious argument that "ethnic cleansing" does not have that connotation, claiming that you were referring to a policy of expelling Arab citizens. This is another "big lie" although less hideous than the first. It was also absurd. An extremist party was barred from running for parliament because it espoused the views you falsely claim to be government policy. Nonetheless, you persisted in your false claims and continued to use the expression "ethnic cleansing".

As for the US report:


ArtistSeries said:


> "The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens; however, there were problems in some areas. Some members of the security forces abused Palestinian detainees.
> Conditions in some detention and interrogation facilities remained poor. During the year, the Government detained on security grounds but without charge thousands of persons in Israel. (Most were from the occupied territories and their situation is covered in the annex.) The Government did little to reduce institutional, legal, and societal discrimination against the country's Arab citizens. The Government did not recognize marriages performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, compelling many citizens to travel abroad to marry. The Government interfered with individual privacy in some instances.
> 
> Discrimination and societal violence against women persisted, although the Government continued to address these problems. Trafficking in and abuse of women and foreign workers continued to be problems. Discrimination against persons with disabilities persisted."
> http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41723.htm


Every country in the world, including Canada has a deficient human rights record. Every country, Israel, Canada should be criticized and challenged to do better. The quote above, by the way, includes assertions of discrimination against Jews, too. Here's an excerpt of the state department's report on Canada.


> c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
> 
> The law prohibits such practices, and the Government observes these prohibitions in practice; however, there were isolated incidents of police mistreating suspects. In February the RCMP began an inquiry into the deaths of four native men, two of whom were found frozen on the outskirts of Saskatoon and two of whom were found dead in or near their homes. Another native man filed charges against two Saskatoon police officers who allegedly picked him up in a police cruiser, drove him to the same spot outside the city where the two other men were found dead, and left him in sub-zero temperatures. At year's end, the two officers were awaiting trial in this case. In October Saskatchewan's Justice Minister ordered a public inquest into the events that led to the death of one of the men who had been found dead in his home, due to a drug overdose, shortly after being released from police custody. The provincial public prosecutions office already had decided that there was no basis for pressing criminal charges in relation to this case.
> 
> ...


http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/wha/729.htm


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> you were referring to a policy of expelling Arab citizens. This is another "big lie" although less hideous than the first. It was also absurd.


nxmw, I find it amusing that you refuse to answer single "yes/no" questions.


I stand by the quotes used and what they infer.

Furthermore, please tell me what are the implications of the following:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.'
David Ben Gurion

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman.
There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."
David Ben Gurion

"Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories." 
Benjamin Netanyahu,

"When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle." 
Raphael Eitan, 
Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defence Forces, 
New York Times, 14 April 1983.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
Golda Maeir, March 8, 1969.

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." 
Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

What was the "Koenig Plan"?

Israel is the oppressor. 


nxnw said:


> As for the US report:
> Every country in the world, including Canada has a deficient human rights record. Every country, Israel, Canada should be criticized and challenged to do better.


Canada is not even close to Israel in terms of human abuse. Good diversion try....

Back to the direct questions:
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=258294&postcount=388


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You are missing HowEver's point. The criticism of Israel is excessive, unfair, and reflects a double standard. Biased attacks on Israel will not lead to peace. Everybody, including the Palestinians, will benefit when all of the antagonists in the region are held to the same standard.


Twice as many Palestinians have been killed as Israelis. By which standard are you hoping to measure?

edit: sorry three times as many.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> What Lies? The worst one I remember was your claim that Israel has a policy of "ethnic cleansing". Several people objected to this blatant falsehood, the worst of which was the connotation of genocide in the phrase "ethnic cleansing".


From the Globe a couple of days ago:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...20050729/GAZA29/TPInternational/?query=israel



> The Israeli government's Minister for Jerusalem, Haim Ramon, acknowledged recently that the barrier's route was drawn up in a way that *"makes Jerusalem more Jewish."*
> 
> And this week, Jerusalem's city planning committee approved the construction of a new, 21-home Jewish district, plus a synagogue, deep in the heart of the Muslim Quarter of the historic Old City.


Emphasis added in by me.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Canada is not even close to Israel in terms of human abuse. Good diversion try....


...and Israel is not close to Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia..... in terms of human rights abuse. Yet Israel is your whipping boy. What motivates you? Not sympathy or solidarity with Arab victims of oppression. There's a lot more of that going on in Arab countries, but that doesn't seem to get your blood up at all.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> I stand by the quotes used and what they infer.


Artistseries rules of debate:
1. Lie big and stick to it;
2. When there are no facts, "infer".

There have been, and always will be, people who make extremist statements. They do not reflect the policy of the State of Israel, and they certainly do not reflect my beliefs. The grab bag of quotes you have cited do include real extremism - the extremists deserve to be renounced, but they do not give you licence to slander a whole race. Others are taken out of context and still others haave been completely miscast by you in order to mislead. For instance:
- Golda Meir asked who to whom the west bank and Gaza would be returned to. They were captured from Egypt and Jordan in '67, but they were occupied territory of Egypt and Jordan, who themselves conquered these areas in '48. So, do you "return" occupied territory to another occupier? Secondly, while this may have something to do with occupation, borders and war, it has nothing to do with "ethnic cleansing" and does not remotely support your claim.
- one statement reflects the reality that many Arabs fled Israel in '48 - this has been discussed above. They left for a variety of reasons. Here are some apt quotes from mostly contemporary Arab sources:


> "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
> – Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.
> 
> "The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
> ...


Finally, here is a quote from the 2004 state department human rights report you previously cited: "Neither the Israeli Government nor the PA used forced exile or forcibly deported anyone from the occupied territories during the year."

There is no policy of either "ethnic cleansing" or expulsion in Israel. Each time you repeat this falsehood, you taint yourself further.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw, so the previous prime ministers of Israel have been extremist?
Glad you concur.

And (this is getting rather boring), you don't answer any direct questions.
Not once do you address the questions at hand. Diversion seems to be your modus operandi.....


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> (quotes re Jerusalem)


This may constitute a land grab, and criticize Israel for that, but "ethnic cleansing"? Nobody is being killed, hurt, expelled, deported or even moved.

As a matter of background, respecting the barrier, the 40-mile segment through the Jerusalem, as presently routed, would cut off four Arab neighbourhoods, but include around 30,000 settlers. The demographic effect, therefore, will be to include more Jews in Jerusalem and leave a number of Arabs outside the wall. It may be disruptive to the Arabs in those 4 neighbourhoods, but it may be less disruptive than if they were on the "Israel" side of the wall. 

Anyway, you want to say the barrier is a land grab, go ahead. Calling it ethnic cleansing, however, is very inappropriate.

As for the <B>21 (twenty-one)</b> houses. Firstly, Israelis bought this property. Nobody was expelled or mistreated in any way. Secondly, its <B>21</B> houses and, if you have any familiarity with architecture in Jerusalem, its pretty compact. Thirdly, it's a long way from happening. According to an AP report, " will take years for the plan to move from paper to actual construction, Alalu said, because several more approval stages remain. In the past, the Housing Ministry and other government agencies have halted the project in the planning stages, he said."

"Ethnic cleansing"? No. It may be provocative. It may be a bad idea. But its just people <b>buying</b> some land and building houses on it.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> nxnw, so the previous prime ministers of Israel have been extremist?
> Glad you concur.
> 
> And (this is getting rather boring), you don't answer any direct questions.
> Not once do you address the questions at hand. Diversion seems to be your modus operandi.....


1. I don't concur. I have a long post that speaks for itself.
2. I have responded, in detail, to as many of your allegations as I have had time to do. It takes me longer to provide a detailed response to your false statements, than it taakes you to manufacture them. You don't like my responses.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> This may constitute a land grab, and criticize Israel for that, but "ethnic cleansing"? Nobody is being killed, hurt, expelled, deported or even moved.


I don't know if it is "ethnic cleansing" per se but when you have an official policy of either harassment, denial of services, etc. in an effort to make an area more "Jewish" it sounds pretty clearcut.



nxnw said:


> would cut off four Arab neighbourhoods, but include around 30,000 settlers. The demographic effect, therefore, will be to include more Jews in Jerusalem and leave a number of Arabs outside the wall. It may be disruptive to the Arabs in those 4 neighbourhoods, but it may be less disruptive than if they were on the "Israel" side of the wall.


A. Cut off Palestinian neighbourhoods...so much for contiguous territory.
B. Include more Israeli settlers...ergo, a more Jewish area in Jerusalem.
C. "May be more disruptive"? I dug around and saw pictures of Israeli roads and roadblocks cutting off neighbourhoods...better believe that it's disruptive!



nxnw said:


> Anyway, you want to say the barrier is a land grab, go ahead. Calling it ethnic cleansing, however, is very inappropriate.


So, will you admit that it's a land grab? And, I never called it "ethnic cleansing" in my original post when I brought up the Globe article.



nxnw said:


> As for the <B>21 (twenty-one)</b> houses. Firstly, Israelis bought this property. Nobody was expelled or mistreated in any way. Secondly, its <B>21</B> houses and, if you have any familiarity with architecture in Jerusalem, its pretty compact. Thirdly, it's a long way from happening. According to an AP report, " will take years for the plan to move from paper to actual construction, Alalu said, because several more approval stages remain. In the past, the Housing Ministry and other government agencies have halted the project in the planning stages, he said."


A. It's interesting to see that in the same article it notes that:



> Official permission to build new structures in Jerusalem is almost impossible to obtain for most Palestinians.


Yet, the Israelis get permission to build.

B. Size of the housing is irrelevant. How many Jewish settlers are in Gaza? What percentage of Gaze did they affect?

C. Why would the city planning committee allow a *group* of Jews to purchase a block in the Muslim Quarter? 



nxnw said:


> "Ethnic cleansing"? No. It may be provocative. It may be a bad idea. But its just people <b>buying</b> some land and building houses on it.


Oh please! Look who's being disingenuous now! You can describe it whichever way you want but a cow patty is still a cow patty.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

More and more I am beginning to see why it is that the Israelis are losing the moral high ground on the world stage. Policies such as the barrier, the preferential treatment of settlers and discrimination against the Palestinians/Arabs, development of nuclear weapons, etc. makes it hard to not equate the country with some of their enemies.

I used to really admire the plucky David vs Goliath story of the last refuge for Jews but disenchantment is making it easier and easier for me to criticize the country.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> And, I never called it "ethnic cleansing" in my original post when I brought up the Globe article.


Well, you posted it to support Artistseries false claims of ethnic cleansing. Why don't you reject and disown his false allegations? The allegation of ethnic cleansing is reprehensible.

More on the issue:


> While detractors make outrageous claims about Israel committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the Palestinian population has continued to explode. In Gaza, for example, the population increased from 731,000 in July 1994 to 1,225,911 in July 2002, an increase of 68 percent. The growth rate was 3.95 percent, one of the highest in the world. According to the UN, the total Palestinian population in all the disputed territories (they include Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) was 1,006,000 in 1950, and rose to 1,094,000 in 1970, and exploded to 2,152,000 in 1990. Anthony Cordesman notes the increase "was the result of improvements in income and health services" made by the Israel. Since the intifada, the Palestinian population has continue to grow exponentially, increasing more than 20 percent just from 1995 to 2,000 when it reached 3,183,000.


 The quote is from Jewish virtual library. The statistics are from 11Anthony Cordesman, "From Peace to War: Land for Peace or Settlements for War," (DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 15, 2003), pp. 12-13.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Well, you posted it to support Artistseries false claims of ethnic cleansing. Why don't you reject and disown his false allegations?


It's kind of hard to say that they're false when you've got the Minister of Jerusalem coming right out and saying, yeah, we want to make sure that this is all Jewish land.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

It's not hard to say. It is not happening, it is not policy, and the demographics make this clear. 

The overwhelming mass of evidence makes it clear that the allegation is false, and the allegation is particularly egregious given that nobody has been more "ethnically cleansed" than the Jews. The Jews of Europe were virtually wiped out. Half of the Jewish population of the planet was murdered. Then, EVERY ARAB COUNTRY expelled its Jewish populations.

So, do then right thing. Disown Artistseries false and ugly allegations.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> It's not hard to say. It is not happening, it is not policy, and the demographics make this clear.
> 
> The overwhelming mass of evidence makes it clear that the allegation is false, and the allegation is particularly egregious given that nobody has been more "ethnically cleansed" than the Jews. The Jews of Europe were virtually wiped out. Half of the Jewish population of the planet was murdered. Then, EVERY ARAB COUNTRY expelled its Jewish populations.
> 
> So, do then right thing. Disown Artistseries false and ugly allegations.





wikkipedia said:


> The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of another ethnic group. At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population transfer, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide.
> 
> At the most general level, however, ethnic cleansing can be understood as the forced expulsion of an "undesirable" population from a given territory due to religious or ethnic discrimination, political, strategic or ideological considerations, or a combination of these.
> 
> Some political commentators avoid use of the term, which they see as a political euphemism which attempts to apply a word with positive connotations (cleansing) to a morally objectionable act (forced population movement usually achieved through violence).


As we can see here your deffinition of ethnic clensing is not the correct one. Ethnic Clensing does not imply genocide. Genocide may be a feature of ethnic cleansing but it is not nessecarily a part.

As to you deflection: "they are worse this excuses us" that is BS and I have shown you why.

Yes ethnic cleansing is a reality that the Jews of the Middle East have had to face and one day maybe they will be compensated.

Does this make it ok for Israel to practice this?
NO!

Did it happen in Israel? Yes. Is it still happening? Yes 
Proof? I think the quotes from above (see AT's posts) make it plain to see.

Why isn't everyone on the case of the Arabs for their role in ethnic clensing? Simple: Show me a population of Jews living in refugee camps. Show me a group of Jews advancing a right of return agenda.

Now you want everyone to judge the Arabs for the expulsion of their Jewish populations but are not willing to do the same Israel. You justification is allways" they do it more or worse". This is not a real justification it is deflection.

What specifically is wrong with this justification besides "two wrongs don't make a right"?
Palestinians didn't expell anyone. They are guilty by association. They are Arabs so they are made guilty for the crimes of their Egyptian , Jordanian etc brothers while they rot in refugee camps, being born, living, and dying never being free.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> ...ethnic clensing...Ethnic Clensing...ethnic cleansing...ethnic cleansing.
> ...
> Why isn't everyone on the case of the Arabs for their role in ethnic clensing? Simple: Show me a population of Jews living in refugee camps. Show me a group of Jews advancing a right of return agenda.
> ...
> Palestinians didn't expell anyone. They are guilty by association. They are Arabs so they are made guilty for the crimes of their Egyptian , Jordanian etc brothers while they rot in refugee camps, being born, living, and dying never being free.


Again, the allegation of ethnic cleansing is a "big lie". The facts:


> While detractors make outrageous claims about Israel committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the Palestinian population has continued to explode. In Gaza, for example, the population increased from 731,000 in July 1994 to 1,225,911 in July 2002, an increase of 68 percent. The growth rate was 3.95 percent, one of the highest in the world. According to the UN, the total Palestinian population in all the disputed territories (they include Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) was 1,006,000 in 1950, and rose to 1,094,000 in 1970, and exploded to 2,152,000 in 1990. Anthony Cordesman notes the increase "was the result of improvements in income and health services" made by the Israel. Since the intifada, the Palestinian population has continue to grow exponentially, increasing more than 20 percent just from 1995 to 2,000 when it reached 3,183,000.


 Jewish virtual library. statistics from Anthony Cordesman, "From Peace to War: Land for Peace or Settlements for War," (DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 15, 2003), pp. 12-13.
...


> "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem."
> – Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948.
> 
> "The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees."
> ...


Various Arab sources.



> Neither the Israeli Government nor the PA used forced exile or forcibly deported anyone from the occupied territories during the year.


 2004 state department human rights report

Second: "Why isn't everyone on the case of the Arabs for their role in ethnic clensing? " Why indeed? Israel has demanded that the Arab States compensate the Jewish victims of Arab expulsion, but each and every state has refused. The reason they are not in refugee camps is because they had somewhere to go - Israel - and that's exactly where the majority of them went. They were taken in, not exploited by their brothers as a political football.

In contrast, for twenty years, the Palestinian refugee camps were in Jordanian and Egyptian held territory, during which both of these countries did not grant them citizenship or any rights, but kept them in camps. Why would you keep your own brothers in refugee camps? 

I have responded repeatedly to your distorted characterization of my position. I have never said two wrongs make a right. I have said that that:

1. A two state solution, which I gather you endorse, means Israel and a Palestinian state, not two Palestinian states, both dominated by an Arab majority.
2. Where do the Palestinian refugees go? They go to a Palestinian state, but they should also be free to settle elsewhere in the Arab world, IF THEY CHOOSE TO, as many of them would.
3. The Arab world has a responsibility to contribute to a solution.
4. Two wrongs don't make a right. Two wrongs require two remedies.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Within hours of Israel becoming a nation, six Arab countries attacked on five fronts. Their goal was simple -- to "push" every man, woman and child into the sea, and thus end the State of Israel. This was to be the ultimate in "ethnic clensing". As it says at the entrance of the Dachau Concentration Camp -- "Never again". Shalom.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Again all you have done is justify the position of Israel by deflection.
WHO DID THE PALESTINIANS DEPORT, EXPELL OR OTHERWISE GET RID OF?
Why should Palestinians be punished for the sins of OTHER Arabs.

WHile I agree to a point that the rest of the Arab (and rest of the world for that matter) should have been (should be) more willing to take in the refugees, there is no way to enforce this. Personally I don't believe in borders but the reality on the ground is that they exist. Iraqis have no legal duty to take in any immigrants. And certainly no "duty" to the Palestinians.
Arguing that Israel did so so should all Arabs neglects the fact that there are many factions within the Arab communities, many with major disutes with each other. You make the Arabs sound like they are one people and one mind while you know this is not the case.
Pointing to Israel, a nation desperate to increase its jewish population, as an example (Israel took then all in, the Arabs should take in the Palestinians) is silly. The reality in Arab stsatees is very different. You might as well be comparing Apple's and oranges. Isreal automatically accepts Jews no matter where they come from but I know of no other similar immigration policy except USA accepting Cubans no matter what.



> Ethnic Cleansing in Jerusalem, Israeli Style
> 
> By Paul Findley
> 
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I can find Israeli's who back my claims just as you can find Arab sources who back yours:


> Amnesty International (AI) notes in discussing Israel's policy on demolitions that "The Palestinians are targeted for no other reason than because they are Palestinians" in a system where "the family may only have 15 minutes to take out what belongings they have before the furniture is thrown into the street and their home bulldozed" (AI, Israel: Home Demolitions, Dec. 8, 1999). Israeli author Israel Shamir, writing in the Russian Israeli publication RI in December 2000, says that Israelis "are taught they belong to the Chosen People, who are Uber Alles. They have been indoctrinated in belief that the Gentiles are not fully human, and therefore can be killed and expropriated at will." And the U.S. Jewish observer Eduardo Cohen says that "traveling through Israel I encountered a deep, widespread and racist contempt for Arabs," based on the belief that Arabs "didn't share the same faculties of thought and reason that 'civilized human beings' possess" (OR, Oct. 18, 2000).
> 
> 
> B'Tselem, a private organization of Israelis concerned about human rights, calls it "a policy of quiet deportation." In its report, subtitled Revocation of Residency of East Jerusalem Palestinians, the group notes that "perhaps thousands of people have been forced to leave" and warns that the worst is still to come.
> ...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Within hours of Israel becoming a nation, six Arab countries attacked on five fronts. Their goal was simple -- to "push" every man, woman and child into the sea, and thus end the State of Israel. This was to be the ultimate in "ethnic clensing". As it says at the entrance of the Dachau Concentration Camp -- "Never again". Shalom.


As far as I know no one is disputing this. 
Does this make what I posted above right?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I have responded repeatedly to your distorted characterization of my position. I have never said two wrongs make a right.


No you only implied it.
Please show me with a quote where I am distorting your arguments.
You are the king of this practice. How dare you. Talk about the pot and kettle.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

These quotes are better:


> The settlements require a pervasive Israeli military occupation, imposing a de facto system of apartheid. Writes Avraham Burg, former speaker of Israel's Knesset:
> "It is very comfortable to be a Zionist in West Bank settlements. . . . Traveling on the fast highway that skirts barely a half-mile west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it's hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied."
> 
> 
> ...


And from the US


> U.S. columnist Ben Shapiro also advocates ethnic cleansing: "If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Baza and Israel proper."


{sarcasm}Of course if I say it (not living in Israel) I'm an anti semite no matter how many Jewish Israelis have said the same thing.{/sarcasm}


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

[QUOTE="Iraqi's are not Arabs and Jewish refugees are not on my radar" martman] WHile I agree to a point that the rest of the Arab (and rest of the world for that matter) should have been (should be) more willing to take in the refugees, there is no way to enforce this. Personally I don't believe in borders but the reality on the ground is that they exist. Iraqis have no legal duty to take in any immigrants. And certainly no "duty" to the Palestinians.
Arguing that Israel did so so should all Arabs neglects the fact that there are many factions within the Arab communities, many with major disutes with each other. You make the Arabs sound like they are one people and one mind while you know this is not the case.
Pointing to Israel, a nation desperate to increase its jewish population, as an example (Israel took then all in, the Arabs should take in the Palestinians) is silly. The reality in Arab stsatees is very different.[/QUOTE]Listen martman. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians lived in the JORDAN occupied west bank both before and after 1948. Jordan conquered and held this territory for 20 years. The majority of Jordanians are as Palesinian as anyone in a refugee camp. Why wasn't Jordan obliged to grant citizenship or any rights to the Palestinians in territory that Jordan was occupying? 

As for the Arabs and Jews relative challenges of settling thier own refugees the Jewish Virtual Library says:


> The contrast between the reception of Jewish refugees in Israel with the reception of Palestinian refugees in Arab countries is even more stark when one considers the difference in cultural and geographic dislocation experienced by the two groups. Most Jewish refugees traveled hundreds — and some traveled thousands — of miles to a tiny country whose inhabitants spoke a different language. Most Arab refugees never left Palestine at all; they traveled a few miles to the other side of the truce line, remaining inside the vast Arab nation that they were part of linguistically, culturally and ethnically.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Listen Mr. You are distorting what I say hypocrate.
You complain that I am distorting what you say but fail to come up with a quote. Then you continue to distort what I say in the follow up. You call AS a lier but you are the one who has repeatedly lied in the thread.


This is the third time you have tried to characterize me this way. You are being disshonest again by taking my comment out of context. You know as well as I do that the context of the was about starting a thread in this forum about this issue.

It makes me want to reseach your other assertions to see how you have manipulated them as well.



martman said:


> Give me a thread about it and I'll denounce it. Infact I'll denounce it now.





nxnw said:


> Why don't you start one? Not on your radar?





martman said:


> No it isn't to be honest.
> I didn't start this thread either.


Now then let's be a little more honest in how we quote people.


note: my quotes are taken from the end of page 19 and the beginning of page 20 so you can't accuse me of miss quoting.


Will you ever give up taking this quote out of context or have you lost all integrity?
I am getting sick of repeating myself.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> As for the Arabs and Jews relative challenges of settling thier own refugees the Jewish Virtual Library says:


This hardly refutes the fact that Israel was / is DESPERATE for more Jews to immigrate to Israel while the Arab states had no such need of muslim immigrants.
You are comparing apples and oranges.

If Israel was truely so great and always right never morally faltering then why don't they take in some (or all) the refugees?
Because they are Arab.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Martman, you have written so much that I could not say yes, you are right, or no you are wrong, in my opinion. Personally, I support Amnesty International, and agree that the demolition of houses is not a correct policy. I do not support the building of the Wall, although I see the rationale underlying this act. 

I also feel that you should tone down your rhetoric somewhat if you want you thoughts to be understood by others. Just a suggestion.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I don't expect anyone to agree with all I've said in this thread. I'm sure even AS dissagrees with parts of my stance. (he seems to be more pro Arab than I)
I'm willing to come down just as hard on the Palestinians but no one is presenting their point of view. The conversation is only between appologists for Israel's policies and people against. I wish that there were fanatics on the Palestinian side in this thread as you only get to see one part of my view on these matters. I will say it again:
There is plenty of blame to go around. As for the tone of my rhetoric, it is tempered by those who argue with me (accuse me of bigotry). 
I agree that I have gotten out of hand (although I don't see what choice I had given nxnw's baiting) but shouldn't you also be saying similar to nxnw?
Why didn't you?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> ...{sarcasm}Of course if I say it (not living in Israel) I'm an anti semite no matter how many Jewish Israelis have said the same thing.{/sarcasm}


First of all, I have explicity said that I do not believe you are antisemitic, so stop shovelling. I do believe you are woefully uninformed, as demonstrated by your "Iraquis are not Arabs" comment. That's like you saying the moon is made of cheese, and then pontificating on astronomy.

That being said, I do not agree with building settlements in the west bank or gaza. I think it is bad policy and not pragmatic. I believe it is wrong. I believe that, while there is an historical Jewish claim for sovereignty over this territory (not from the Bible, but from historical habitation), the claim must be sacrificed for a viable two state solution. I believe most of the settlements will ultimately have to be abandoned. The Clinton peace plan, embraced by Barak but rejected by Arafat, contemplated virtually all of this territory becoming a Palestinian state.

Finally, however, while settlements (or more to the point, what goes with them) does cause hardship to Palestinians, it is not remotely equivalent to ethic cleansing and the raw numbers alone demonstrate that it is not true.


> While detractors make outrageous claims about Israel committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the Palestinian population has continued to explode. In Gaza, for example, the population increased from 731,000 in July 1994 to 1,225,911 in July 2002, an increase of 68 percent. The growth rate was 3.95 percent, one of the highest in the world. According to the UN, the total Palestinian population in all the disputed territories (they include Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) was 1,006,000 in 1950, and rose to 1,094,000 in 1970, and exploded to 2,152,000 in 1990. Anthony Cordesman notes the increase "was the result of improvements in income and health services" made by the Israel. Since the intifada, the Palestinian population has continue to grow exponentially, increasing more than 20 percent just from 1995 to 2,000 when it reached 3,183,000.


Jewish virtual library. statistics from Anthony Cordesman, "From Peace to War: Land for Peace or Settlements for War," (DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 15, 2003), pp. 12-13.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

A high birthrate today does not negate the possibility of ethnic cleansing yesterday.

Look at what I posted around page 15 or so to see what I mean. I would add that ethnic cleansing has been proposed by many recently as well:


> Israel: Ethnic cleansing is now official government policy
> By Jean Shaoul
> 3 December 2002
> 
> ...


Notice Netanyahu's own choice of words. Also notice his position in government. He does indeed speak for Israel at this point in Israel's history.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> I'm willing to come down just as hard on the Palestinians but no one is presenting their point of view.


You almost made me spit coffee all over my keyboard there. You're such a kidder.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You almost made me spit coffee all over my keyboard there. You're such a kidder.


I have argued with Palestinians about this. I assure you, no one is representing their point of view here. You know this as well as I. The closest is AS and he is VERY moderate compared to any Palestinian I have discused this with.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> First of all, I have explicity said that I do not believe you are antisemitic, so stop shovelling.
> 
> That being said, I do not agree with building settlements in the west bank or gaza. I think it is bad policy and not pragmatic. I believe it is wrong. I believe that, while there is an historical Jewish claim for sovereignty over this territory (not from the Bible, but from historical habitation), the claim must be sacrificed for a viable two state solution. I believe most of the settlements will ultimately have to be abandoned. The Clinton peace plan, embraced by Barak but rejected by Arafat, contemplated virtually all of this territory becoming a Palestinian state.


Ok my turn,
I believe that Araft never wanted peace nor does Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

You gave some I will too.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

The reason I get so pissed off about Israel is their policies seem to be designed to perpetuate the hostilities they supposedly want to end.
I have never heard of a conflict where absolute peace was a precondition to negotiations for instance. Settelments as another example.
You can't have peace when you are pushing war. Netanyahu is the posterboy for this.
Electing Sharon is not an action of a nation interesed in peace not just because of his rigid right-wing (in the Israeli outlook) stance but also because of the history behind this man (Israel's courts stripped him of the right to be defence minister because of his actions involving Palestinian refugees). 
Now what really galls me is that we (as Jews) should know better than to dirty our hands with ANYTHING that even approaches ghettowising people and ethnic cleansing.(which I know you think is way to harsh, yet the arguments in favour of this vew are not totally without merit.)
Why do I come down so hard on Israel? Because everybody insists that Israel is "the Jews" and "the Jews" are Israel. With this attitude I get painted with everything Israel does. Quite frankly I am ashamed. I believe we should be better than all of that.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> long article by Paul Findley


Hmm. that would be the Paul Findley who is an obsessive anti-israel commentator, who wrote: "Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the US government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society." and presided over a symposium named: " Is Israel Set Up For Destruction?"

Good source.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Hmm. that would be the Paul Findley who is an obsessive anti-israel commentator, who wrote: "Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the US government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society." and presided over a symposium named: " Is Israel Set Up For Destruction?"
> 
> Good source.


Ok the guy is anti-Israeli. Is what he claims in this article a lie and and can you back that up?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> A high birthrate today does not negate the possibility of ethnic cleansing yesterday.
> 
> Notice Netanyahu's own choice of words. Also notice his position in government. He does indeed speak for Israel at this point in Israel's history.


If there were ethinc cleansing, they would be birthing somewhere else, or not at all. Come on. The population is exploding. The allegation is too bankrupt for words.

Netanyahu also is a thorn in the side of the present government. He is also against withdrawal from Gaza, but they are doing it. He panders to a hardliners, but his views are not government policy. 

Here is another irony. Likud never won an election until the Jews that were expelled from Arab countries increased in number (also a high birthrate) and began to flex their political muscle. Their political beliefs were forged when they had their property confiscated, were oppressed, attacked and expelled. You can diminish and disregard their suffering as much as you want, but in the end, this is the political reality that has to be addressed as part of the peace process.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Hmm. that would be the Paul Findley who is an obsessive anti-israel commentator, who wrote: "Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the US government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society." and presided over a symposium named: " Is Israel Set Up For Destruction?"
> 
> Good source.


I would add that Bin Laden claims that 9-11 was revenge for the invasion of Lebenon.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> If there were ethinc cleansing, they would be birthing somewhere else, or not at all. Come on. The population is exploding. The allegation is too bankrupt for words.


Again this is silly. Ethnic Cleansing is rarely 100% sucessfull.
As I pointed out tutsis make up 15% of Rwanda even after genocide (the harshest form of ethnic cleansing). They still give birth to Tutsi babies in Rwanda. A high birthrate is indicative of low usage of birthcontrol and little else.

Again I will have to quote Netanyahu when he was minister of defence:


Netanyahu said:


> We are going to cleanse the whole area and do the work ourselves.


You may argue that ethnic cleansing is too hash a term for what has / is happening but I don't think it is that unreasonable an argument to make and many prominent Israelis agree with me as seen by their quotes in above posts by me and AS.

Iwould add that it is precisly because of the failure of "ethnic cleansing" that the West Bank and Gazza are being given to the Palestinian Authority. 
Without ceeding these holdings Israel can't retain its Jewish majority. This is the reason for the transfer.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Ok the guy is anti-Israeli...


That's an understatement.

"...a symposium named: "Is Israel Set Up For Destruction?"

there is no merit in posting allegations by people with such profound biases. Even though you may well find some truth in them, they are exaggerated, distorted and unfair.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Again this is silly. Ethnic Cleansing is rarely 100% sucessfull.


And the earth is flat. Again:


> In Gaza, for example, the population increased from 731,000 in July 1994 to 1,225,911 in July 2002, an increase of 68 percent. The growth rate was 3.95 percent, one of the highest in the world. According to the UN, the total Palestinian population in all the disputed territories (they include Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) was 1,006,000 in 1950, and rose to 1,094,000 in 1970, and exploded to 2,152,000 in 1990. Anthony Cordesman notes the increase "was the result of improvements in income and health services" made by the Israel. Since the intifada, the Palestinian population has continue to grow exponentially, increasing more than 20 percent just from 1995 to 2,000 when it reached 3,183,000.


Not successful? Non-existent.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Ok my turn,
> I believe that Araft never wanted peace nor does Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
> You gave some I will too.


I did not "give". That is what I believe.

The problem with the virulent anti-Israel postings here is that, in responding to anti-Israel falsehoods, bias and vilification, there is no room for dialogue.

You don't have any idea what my opinions are on peace, Israel, and the Palestinians. There is no room for them in a discussion like this one, with such a rabid and relentless focus on Israel bashing.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Electing Sharon is not an action of a nation interesed in peace...


Electing him was a direct response to the recent history. 
- Step 1 - Arafat refuses to even discuss a peace plan calling for all of Gaza and 97% of the West bank forming a Palestinian state.
- Step 2 - The intifada begins with a vengeance, bringing unprecedented and relentless terror to the hearts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
- Step 3 - Under Barak, therefore, Israel had been ready to offer so much, yet his term ended with hellish terror. The population reacts and elects a hawk.

There is no democratic country on earth that would have responded differently. It is human nature. Arafat elected Sharon.


martman said:


> Why do I come down so hard on Israel? Because everybody insists that Israel is "the Jews" and "the Jews" are Israel. With this attitude I get painted with everything Israel does.


That is the nature of anti-Semitism by proxy. It is why the response to inflammatory anti-Israel allegations is synagogues being burnt down, and it is why lots of Jews object strenuously to false allegations, exaggerations, and double standards in anti-Israel criticism.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> It's not hard to say. It is not happening, it is not policy, and the demographics make this clear.


So, the Minister of Jerusalem is talking out of his hat?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> While detractors make outrageous claims about Israel committing genocide or ethnic cleansing, the Palestinian population has continued to explode. In Gaza, for example, the population increased from 731,000 in July 1994 to 1,225,911 in July 2002, an increase of 68 percent. The growth rate was 3.95 percent, one of the highest in the world. According to the UN, the total Palestinian population in all the disputed territories (they include Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem) was 1,006,000 in 1950, and rose to 1,094,000 in 1970, and exploded to 2,152,000 in 1990. Anthony Cordesman notes the increase "was the result of improvements in income and health services" made by the Israel. Since the intifada, the Palestinian population has continue to grow exponentially, increasing more than 20 percent just from 1995 to 2,000 when it reached 3,183,000.


According to the Foundation for Middle East Peace:

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info...owth/sources_population_growth_1991-2003.html

The Israeli population in the West Bank and Gaza increased by an annual compound growth rate of 7.85 percent between 1991 and 2003.

In contrast, the numbers used above indicate:

For Gaza, 3.95% is the CAGR for Palestinian population growth.
For all disputed territories, between 1950 and 1990, 1.93% is the CAGR for Palestinian population growth.

Of course, the Palestinian's are out-birthing the Israelis during the last two decades, that's undeniable. But, it seems evident that there unless there were drastic measures taken the Israelis would be outnumbered for the foreseeable future. As someone pointed out, a strong reason to get out while they can.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

IronMac said:


> ...The Israeli population in the West Bank and Gaza increased by an annual compound growth rate of 7.85 percent between 1991 and 2003....


Settlers.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Settlers.


Yeah...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

nxnw said:


> a symposium named: " Is Israel Set Up For Destruction?"


What was the symposium about?


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Basically, a rabid, mendacious tirade, comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, that kind of thing. He bootstraps his arguments on the writings of a notorious self-loathing Jew (who I choose not to name here) who has accused Orthodox Jews of worshipping Satan, rabbinically ordered murders, etc. Findley's premise here is "These are the words of a Jew, so they can't be anti-Semitic". Pretty sickening, frankly. 

One thing Findley says that is not offensive, but revealing, is that he regards Arafat as one of the great political figures of his generation and is proud to be known as his friend.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> I did not "give". That is what I believe.
> 
> The problem with the virulent anti-Israel postings here is that, in responding to anti-Israel falsehoods, bias and vilification, there is no room for dialogue.
> 
> You don't have any idea what my opinions are on peace, Israel, and the Palestinians. There is no room for them in a discussion like this one, with such a rabid and relentless focus on Israel bashing.


By give I meant you actually dared to criticize Israel. I would never expect you to lie about what you believe. I was surprised to see this from you however as you came off as a fanatic.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Electing him was a direct response to the recent history.
> - Step 1 - Arafat refuses to even discuss a peace plan calling for all of Gaza and 97% of the West bank forming a Palestinian state.
> - Step 2 - The intifada begins with a vengeance, bringing unprecedented and relentless terror to the hearts of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
> - Step 3 - Under Barak, therefore, Israel had been ready to offer so much, yet his term ended with hellish terror. The population reacts and elects a hawk.


This is a rather "selective" view of the start of the intifada.
You neglect Sharon's desire to fan the flames despite the wishes of the then Israeli PM who asked him not to go to the Temple Mount. Everyone knew what would happen and he did it anyways. 
I agree that Sharon's election was a reaction but the reaction was a desire for revenge. A desire being payed out in spades.
I repeat electing Sharon shows a desire for revenge not for peace.

As for "Barak's generous offer" I agree with Gush Shalom. The offer was no where near as generous as those who backed it claim. The maps speak for themselves.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> By give I meant you actually dared to criticize Israel. I would never expect you to lie about what you believe. I was surprised to see this from you however as you came off as a fanatic.


No, you assumed that I was a fanatic based on your biases that anyone who defends Israel must be one. 

It's very fanatical to respond to screeds with facts. Sorry.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> You neglect Sharon's desire to fan the flames despite the wishes of the then Israeli PM who asked him not to go to the Temple Mount.


There's another myth for you. Blowing up busses, blowing up moms and kids in pizzerias, blowiing up old people at seders is a response to a Jew going to the Temple mount. That says a lot for Jewish access to our own holy sites, doesn't it.

It would be good if you didn't swallow every anti-Jewish, Anti-Israel claim you hear so uncritically.

Sharon was elected because Arafat rejected peace negotiations, Arafat declared a terrorist war, and people were scared to death. They went for the tough guy.

If Arafat and Arab leaders had wanted peace a fraction as much as any israeli population at any time since 1948, we would have it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Martman, I am not pro-Arab. 

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of Israel. 

I have made a very conscious effort to understand the birth of Israel and the history pre-dating that. 
When arguing about Israel, I have noticed that you always get called anti-Semite; it's the easiest false accusation to make. nxmw has demonstrated that.

Further, nxmx has not answered a single direct question. Why? One thinks that he maybe afraid to find out that some tenets that he holds may not be true.


Dr. G., I will quote from Gwynne Dyer:
"The Creation of Israel in the very centre of the Arab world in 1948 was a political calamity for countries just gaining their independence after centuries of subjugation, first in the Turkish and then in the British or French empires. It was impossible for them to ignore the appeals of their Palestinian neighbours, but the poorly led and ill-disciplined Arab armies didn't have much chance of beating the highly motivated Israeli force. It was the first of five successive lost wars for the Arabs, and the result has been a helpless obsession with the dwarf superpower in their midst that has fatally distracted them from their own urgent domestic priorities. Moreover, since Israel is a creation of the West, defended by the United States in particular no matter how it behaves, for many, perhaps most, Arabs the struggle with the West is not really over yet. The bitterness runs very deep, and the surprising thing is not that there are so many extremist in the Arab world willing to use violence against the West, but that there are so few."


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> If Arafat and Arab leaders had wanted peace a fraction as much as any israeli population at any time since 1948, we would have it.


What a load of BS.

The 1947 UN Partion Plan was rejected for a few reasons.

Distribution of population Jews/Palestinians
http://www.passia.org/images/pal_facts_MAPS/dist_of_pop_jews_and_palestinians_1946.gif

67% of the population was non-Jewish, 33% was Jewish - The Jews were offered 55% of it (and owned much less of it). 
And how many of those Jews were new immigrants? 
Zionist aspirations claim that Palestine belongs to them ONLY - that's racist.

Also, this plan was not enough for Jewish leaders as they planned to "acquire" much more land. This Arab fear was justified.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> ...it's the easiest false accusation to make.


You know all about false allegations.


ArtistSeries said:


> ...Further, nxmx has not answered a single direct question.


My responses are recorded in this thread. I would have to take time off work to respond to all of the distortions, half truths and outright falsehoods you have posted.


ArtistSeries said:


> Martman, I am not pro-Arab.


That, I don't doubt. If you were pro-Arab, you'd spare a word or two from your obsessive anti-Israel focus to comment on how Arabs suffer in Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> What a load of BS.
> 
> The 1947 UN Partion Plan was rejected for a few reasons.
> ...
> ...


Your respect for the UN is very selective, isn't it?


> <b>MYTH</B>
> 
> “The partition plan gave the Jews most of the land, and all of the cultivable area.”
> 
> ...


 http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

*The war of independence*

<p>The chairman of the Arab Higher Committee said the Arabs would "fight for every inch of their country."<sup><a href="#1">1</a></sup> Two days later, the holy men of Al-Azhar University in Cairo called on the Muslim world to proclaim a jihad (holy war) against the Jews.<sup><a href="#2">2</a></sup> Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, had told the UN prior to the partition vote the Arabs would drench "the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood . . . ."<sup><a href="#3">3</a></sup></p> <p>Husseini's prediction began to come true almost immediately after the <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/untoc.html">UN</a> announced <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/parttoc.html">partition</a> resolution on November 29, 1947. The Arabs declared a protest strike and instigated riots that claimed the lives of 62 Jews and 32 Arabs. Violence continued to escalate through the end of the year.<sup><a href="#4">4</a></sup></p> <p>The first large-scale assaults began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back.<sup><a href="#5">5</a></sup> In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.</p> <p>In the first phase of the war, lasting from November 29, 1947 until April 1, 1948, the Palestinian Arabs took the offensive, with help from volunteers from neighboring countries. The Jews suffered severe casualties and passage along most of their major roadways was disrupted.</p> <p>On April 26, 1948, Transjordan's King Abdullah said: </p> <blockquote> <p>[A]ll our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Palestine problem have failed. The only way left for us is war. I will have the pleasure and honor to save Palestine.<sup><a href="#6">6</a></sup></p> </blockquote> <p>On May 4, 1948, the Arab Legion attacked Kfar Etzion. The defenders drove them back, but the Legion returned a week later. After two days, the ill-equipped and outnumbered settlers were overwhelmed. Many defenders were massacred after they had surrendered.<sup><a href="#7">7</a></sup> This was prior to the invasion by the regular Arab armies that followed Israel's <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/dectoc.html">declaration of independence</a>.</p> <p>The UN blamed the Arabs for the violence. The UN Palestine Commission was never permitted by the Arabs or British to go to Palestine to implement the resolution. On February 16, 1948, the Commission reported to the <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/sctoc.html">Security Council</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p>Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.<sup><a href="#8">8</a></sup></p> </blockquote> <p>The Arabs were blunt in taking responsibility for starting the war. Jamal Husseini told the Security Council on April 16, 1948:</p> <blockquote> <p>The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.<sup><a href="#9">9</a></sup></p> </blockquote> <p>The British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, John Bagot Glubb admitted:</p> <blockquote> <p>Early in January, the first detachments of the Arab Liberation Army began to infiltrate into Palestine from Syria. Some came through Jordan and even through Amman . . . They were in reality to strike the first blow in the ruin of the Arabs of Palestine.<sup><a href="#10">10</a></sup></p> </blockquote> <p>Despite the disadvantages in numbers, organization and weapons, the Jews began to take the initiative in the weeks from April 1 until the declaration of independence on May 14. The <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/haganah.html">Haganah</a> captured several major towns including <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vie/Tiberias.html">Tiberias</a> and <a href="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/geo/Haifatoc.html">Haifa</a>, and temporarily opened the road to Jerusalem.</p> <p align="center"> <img border="1" src="http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/maps/04map_pg64.gif" width="350" height="553"></p> <p>The partition resolution was never suspended or rescinded. Thus, Israel, the Jewish State in Palestine, was born on May 14, as the British finally left the country. Five Arab armies (Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq) immediately invaded Israel. Their intentions were declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."<sup><a href="#11">11</a></sup></p> <h3><font color="#800000">Notes</font></h3> <p><sup><a name="1">1</a></sup><i>New York Times</i>, (December 1, 1947).</a> <sup><a name="2">2</a></sup><i>Facts on File Yearbook</i>, (NY: Facts on File, Inc., 1948), p. 48. <sup><a name="3">3</a></sup>.C. Hurewitz, <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0805205241/theamericanisraeA/" target="_blank">The Struggle For Palestine</a></i>, (NY: Shocken Books, 1976), p. 308. <sup><a name="4">4</a></sup><i>Facts on File 1948</i>, p. 231. <sup><a name="5">5</a></sup><i>Facts on File 1947</i>, p. 231. <sup><a name="6">6</a></sup>Howard Sachar, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=067944632X/theamericanisraeA/" target="_blank"><em>A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time</em></a>, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 322. <sup><a name="7">7</a></sup>Netanel Lorch, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0706515455/theamericanisraeA/" target="_blank"><em>One Long War</em></a>, (Jerusalem: Keter Books, 1976), p. 47; Ralph Patai, ed., <i>Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel</i>, (NY: McGraw Hill, 1971), pp. 307*308. <sup><a name="8">8</a></sup>Security Council Official Records, Special Supplement, (1948), p. 20. <sup><a name="9">9</a></sup>Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19. <sup><a name="10">10</a></sup>John Bagot Glubb, <i>A Soldier with the Arabs</i>, (London: Staughton and Hodder, 1957), p. 79. <sup><a name="11">11</a></sup>Isi Leibler, <i>The Case For Israel</i>, (Australia: The Globe Press, 1972), p. 15.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Your respect for the UN is very selective, isn't it? http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf3.html


Your source are only pro-Israel and false.
Not once in this "debate" have you answered a single question.
Master of deflection and staying off course....


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> Your source are only pro-Israel and false.
> Not once in this "debate" have you answered a single question.
> Master of deflection and staying off course....


Pro-Israel=false. I get it. The thread contains my responses. they can speak for themselves, without your distortion.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Again, the allegation of ethnic cleansing is a "big lie". The facts:


Operation Hiram: Order are given to remove the Arabs.
"Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered."
The Deportations of the Hiram Operation: Correcting a Mistake. Benny Morris

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves."
Benny Morris

"Plan D was not a political blueprint for the expulsion of Palestine’s Arabs: It was governed by military considerations and was geared to achieving military ends. But, given the nature of the war and the admixture of the two populations, securing the interior of the Jewish state and its borders in practice meant the depopulation and destruction of villages that hosted hostile local militia and irregular forces…. Plan D provided for the conquest and permanent occupation, or leveling, of villages and towns"
Morris, Birth, second edition, p. 164


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Benny Morris? Here's some more recent Benny Morris:


> Barak, a sincere and courageous leader, offered Arafat a reasonable peace agreement that included Israeli withdrawal from 85-91% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip; the uprooting of most of the settlements; Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem; and the establishment of a Palestinian state. As to the Temple Mount (Haram ash-Sharif) in Jerusalem's Old City, Barak proposed Israeli-Palestinian condominium or UN security council control or "divine sovereignty" with actual Arab control. Regarding the Palestinian refugees, Barak offered a token return to Israel and massive financial compensation to facilitate their rehabilitation in the Arab states and the Palestinian state-to-be.
> 
> Arafat rejected the offer, insisting on 100% Israeli withdrawal from the territories, sole Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and the refugees' "right of return" to Israel proper. Instead of continuing to negotiate, the Palestinians - with the agile Arafat both riding the tiger and pulling the strings behind the scenes - launched the intifada. Clinton (and Barak) responded by upping the ante to 94-96% of the West Bank (with some territorial compensation from Israel proper) and sovereignty over the surface area of the Temple Mount, with some sort of Israeli control regarding the area below ground, where the Palestinians have recently carried out excavation work without proper archaeological supervision. Again, the Palestinians rejected the proposals, insisting on sole Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount (surely an unjust demand: after all, the Temple Mount and the temples' remains at its core are the most important historical and religious symbol and site of the Jewish people. It is worth mentioning that "Jerusalem" or its Arab variants do not even appear once in the Koran).
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=4&ar=10

An Introduction to the Israel-Palestine Conflict
To resolve what was called the "Jewish question" - i.e., the reciprocal challenges of Gentile repulsion or anti-Semitism and Gentile attraction or assimilation - the Zionist movement sought in the late nineteenth century to create an overwhelmingly, if not homogeneously, Jewish state in Palestine. (1) Once the Zionist movement gained a foothold in Palestine through Great Britain's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, (2) the main obstacle to realizing its goal was the indigenous Arab population. For, on the eve of Zionist colonization, Palestine was overwhelmingly not Jewish but Muslim and Christian Arab. (3)

"The tragedy of Zionism," Walter Laqueur wrote in his standard history, "was that it appeared on the international scene when there were no longer empty spaces on the world map." This is not quite right. Rather it was no longer politically tenable to create such spaces: extermination had ceased to be an option of conquest. (5) Basically the Zionist movement could only choose between two strategic options to achieve its goal: what Benny Morris has labeled "the way of South Africa" - "the establishment of an apartheid state, with a settler minority lording it over a large, exploited native majority" - or the "the way of transfer" - "you could create a homogenous Jewish state or at least a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority by moving or transferring all or most of the Arabs out." (6)

Round One - "The way of transfer"
In the first round of conquest, the Zionist movement set its sights on "the way of transfer." For all the public rhetoric about wanting to "live with the Arabs in conditions of unity and mutual honor and together with them to turn the common homeland into a flourishing land" (Twelfth Zionist Congress, 1921), the Zionists from early on were in fact bent on expelling them. "The idea of transfer had accompanied the Zionist movement from its very beginnings," Tom Segev reports. "'Disappearing' the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its existence…. With few exceptions, none of the Zionists disputed the desirability of forced transfer - or its morality."

The goal of "disappearing" the indigenous Arab population points to a virtual truism buried beneath a mountain of apologetic Zionist literature: what spurred Palestinians' opposition to Zionism was not anti-Semitism in the sense of an irrational hatred of Jews but rather the prospect - very real - of their expulsion. "The fear of territorial displacement and dispossession," Morris reasonably concludes, "was to be the chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism." Likewise, in his magisterial study of Palestinian nationalism, Yehoshua Porath suggests that the "major factor nourishing" Arab anti-Semitism "was not hatred for the Jews as such but opposition to Jewish settlement in Palestine."

Come 1948, the Zionist movement exploited the "revolutionary times" of the first Arab-Israeli war - much like the Serbs did in Kosovo during the NATO attack - to expel more than 80 percent of the indigenous population (750,000 Palestinians), and thereby achieve its goal of an overwhelmingly Jewish state, if not yet in the whole of Palestine. (18) Berl Katznelson, known as the "conscience" of the Labor Zionist movement, had maintained that "there has never been a colonizing enterprise as typified by justice and honesty toward others as our work here in Eretz Israel." In his multivolume paean to the American settlers' dispossession of the native population, The Winning of the West, Theodore Roosevelt likewise concluded that "no other conquering nation has ever treated savage owners of the soil with such generosity as has the United States." The recipients of this benefaction would presumably have a different story to tell. (19)

1. See Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (New York: 1995) pp. 7-12. (hereafter: I&R) The envisioned Jewish state would tolerate an Arab minority of no more than 15 percent (Simha Flapan, The Birth of Israel (New York: 1987), p. 104).

2. For the crucial political repercussions on the Zionist movement of its reliance on Great Britain, see I&R, pp. 16-20. 

3. See I&R, chapter 2.

4. Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel (Princeton: 1998), pp. 43-4. Benny Morris, Righteous Victims (New York: 1999), p. 91 (Shertok). Simha Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians (London: 1979), p. 143 (Ben-Gurion). For further discussion and documentation, see I&R, pp. 98-110.

5. Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York: 1976), p. 597 (for discussion, see I&R, p. 198, note 13). Outright annexation of conquered territory had also ceased to be a political option - which crucially accounts for Great Britain's decision to issue the Balfour Declaration (see Isaiah Friedman, The Question of Palestine (New Brunswick, NJ: 1992), esp. pp. 175, 188-9, 288). 

6. Benny Morris, "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus of 1948," in Eugene L. Rogan and Avi Shlaim (eds), The War for Palestine (Cambridge: 2001), pp. 39-40.

7. Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement, 1918-1929 (Frank Cass: 1974), p. 147 (Congress). Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete (New York: 2001), pp.404-5; cf. pp. 403, 406-7, 508. Morris, "Revisiting the Palestinian exodus," p. 42 (Ben-Gurion); for timing, see also Shabtei Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs (Oxford: 1985), p. 35. For further discussion and documentation of Zionist expulsion plans, see I&R, pp. 16, 103-4, and esp. Morris, Righteous Victims, pp. 139-44, 168-9.

8. Morris, Righteous Victims, p. 37. Porath, Emergence, pp. 59, 62. 

9. Neville J. Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism (Berkeley: 1976), p. 40. Yehoshua Porath, The Palestinian National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion (London: 1970), pp. 91-2, 165-6, 297. 

10. See I&R, chap. 4.

11. Yosef Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948 (Oxford: 1987), p. 176; for detailed analysis of Gorny's study, see I&R, chap. 1. Teveth, Ben-Gurion, p. 155. 

12. Uri Ben-Eliezer, The Making of Israeli Militarism (Bloomington: 1998), p. 89 ("fusion") (cf. p. 62). Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History (New York: 1998), p. 312 (Dayan). For discussion, see I&R, p. 106.

13. David Ben-Gurion, My Talks with Arab Leaders (New York: 1973), p. 3. (For Ben-Gurion's private recognition of the real motives behind Arab attacks, see I&R, pp. 108, 110.) Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (New York: 2000), pp. 49-53, 62-3.

14. Segev, One Palestine, p. 182.

15. Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, vol. I (New York: 1997), p. 219. On 
related resettlement schemes, see Michael J. Cohen, Churchill and the Jews (London: 1985), pp. 236, 249-51, and Philippe Burrin, Hitler and the Jews (New York: 1989), pp. 59-61.

16. For population transfers from interwar through postwar period, see Joseph B. Schechtman, European Population Transfers, 1939-1945 (New York: 1946), and Postwar Population Transfers in Europe, 1945-1955 (Philadelphia: 1962), Alfred M. de Zayas, Nemesis at Potsdam (London: 1977), Andrew Bell-Fialkoff, Ethnic Cleansing (New York: 1996), Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred (Cambridge: 2001). Segev, One Palestine, pp. 406-7 (Jabotinsky) (see also Gorny, Zionism, pp. 270-1). See I&R, p. 103 for "positive experience." Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians (Washington: 1992), pp. 157-61 (Labor Party). Bertrand Russell, "The Role of the Jewish State in Helping to Create a Better World" (1943), reprinted in Zionism (1981).

17. Sasson Sofer, Zionism and the Foundations of Israeli Diplomacy (Cambridge: 1998), p. 367 ("social order"). Richard Crossman, Palestine Mission (London: 1947), pp. 33, 152, 167. Kenneth Ray Bain, The March to Zion (London: 1979), p. 35 (Wallace) (cf. pp. 34-6 for Americans' identification of Zionist settlement with American West). For a detailed comparison between Zionist and American conquests, see I&R, pp. 89-98, and esp. Norman Finkelstein, The Rise and Fall of Palestine (Minn.: 1996), pp.104-21. (hereafter: R&F)

18. See I&R, chap. 3; for further evidence supporting the argument in this chapter, see Laila Parsons, "The Druze and the birth of Israel," in Rogan and Shlaim, War, chap. 3, and Ben-Eliezer, Making, pp. 170-81. For comparisons recently evoked by mainstream Israelis with the Serb expulsion, see Finkelstein, Holocaust, pp. 70-1.

19. Sternhell, Founding Myths, p. 173 (Katznelson; for Katznelson's effective support of forced transfer, see p. 176). Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West (New York: 1889), vol. 4, p. 54.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

You persist in returning to the events of 1947-48 which are, to say the least, controversial. I have not disputed that there were instances of expulsion in 47-48, but it is not true that all of the refugees were expelled, as is clear from numerous Arab sources acknowledging first, that the Arab states had encouraged Arabs to leave temporarily, until the Jews were wiped out aand second, that the Arab attack on the new state of Israel was the direct cause of the displacement.

Even the expultions of "hostile elements" (from one of your quotes) must be considered in context of the Arabs stated intentions, as declared by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

You have persisted in your false claim that Israel <b>has</b> a policy of "ethnic cleansing". That is false. The demographics prove it that there is no policy of expulsion. The US state department says there are no expulsions ot deportations. An extremist political party advocating transfer was banned from seeking elected office. I could go on. This has been detailed previously.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Benny Morris? Here's some more recent Benny Morris:


nxmw, glad you like Benny Morris.
(correction: nxmw does not like Mr. Morris) 

Here are some of his recent views that confirm ethnic cleansing.


Haaretz interview said:


> ...At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram (in the north, in October 1948): at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion. That can’t be chance. It’s a pattern. Apparently, various officers who took part in the operation understood that the expulsion order they received permitted them to do these deeds in order to encourage the population to take to the roads. The fact is that no one was punished for these acts of murder. Ben-Gurion silenced the matter. He covered up for the officers who did the massacres.
> 
> *What you are telling me here, as though by the way, is that in Operation Hiram there was a comprehensive and explicit expulsion order. Is that right?*
> Yes. One of the revelations in the book is that on October 31, 1948, the commander of the Northern Front, Moshe Carmel, issued an order in writing to his units to expedite the removal of the Arab population. Carmel took this action immediately after a visit by Ben-Gurion to the Northern Command in Nazareth. There is no doubt in my mind that this order originated with Ben-Gurion. Just as the expulsion order for the city of Lod, which was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, was issued immediately after BenGurion visited the headquarters of Operation Dani.
> ...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> nxmw, glad you like Benny Morris.


I don't. He is off the wall (to be charitable).

Look who's evasive, though. Persisting in your falsehoods that Israel <B>has</B> a policy of ethnic cleansing, but referring back only to 1948 and relying on sources that are, to say the least, controversial.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

*also, you should find sources that Ernst Zundel isn't so crazy about*

From "The Hazards of Making The Case for Israel" By ALAN DERSHOWITZ


> Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as "in exile" at DePaul University because he has been—by his own account—"thrown out of every school in New York."<a href="#_edn6">[6]</a> He has been fired by Brooklyn College, N.Y.U., and several other schools for "incompetence," "mental instability," and "abuse" of students with politics different from his own, according to a high-ranking official at one of the schools. Finkelstein has admitted, "Never has one of my articles been published in a scientific magazine."<a href="#_edn7">[7]</a> And deservedly so, as Peter Novick, whose book <i>The Holocaust in American Life</i> Finkelstein has characterized as "the initial stimulus for [his] book,"<a href="#_edn8">[8]</a> wrote: "As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) 'debate' but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. [...] No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."<a href="#_edn9">[9]</a><br>
> Finkelstein has said that he "can't imagine why Israel's apologists would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo"<a href="#_edn10">[10]</a> and asserted that Israel's human rights record is "interchangeable with Iraq's" when it was ruled by Saddam Hussein.<a href="#_edn11">[11]</a> He has said that most alleged Holocaust survivors—including Elie Wiesel—have fabricated their past, are "bogus," and that those seeking reparations are "cheats" and "greedy." Because of my support of Israel, he has compared me to "Adolf Eichman [<i>sic</i>],"<a href="#_edn12">[12]</a> and accused me of expressing "Nazi moral judgments."<a href="#_edn13">[13]</a> When challenged to defend his frequent comparison between Jews and Nazis, he has responded, "Nazis never like to hear they're being Nazis."<a href="#_edn14">[14]</a> He is a popular speaker among German neo-Nazis; one, Ingrid Rimland, whose husband, the notorious Ernst Zuendel, wrote <i>The Hitler We Loved And Why,</i> even referred to him admiringly as the "Jewish David Irving" ("Jüdischer David Irving")—a reference to the British Holocaust denier and Hitler admirer. The comparison is apt because Finkelstein has reportedly praised the Holocaust-denying Irving as "a good historian!"<a href="#_edn15">[15]</a> and as having "made an indispensable" contribution to our knowledge of World War II."<a href="#_edn16">[16]</a><br>
> A German writer has observed that "seldom has a Jew been more celebrated by brown propaganda that Finkelstein."<a href="#_edn17">[17]</a> Another writer aptly described him as a Jew who "supports anti-Semitism."<a href="#_edn18">[18]</a> Gabriel Schoenfeld has labeled his views as "crackpot ideas, some of them mirrored almost verbatim in the propaganda put out by neo-Nazis around the world."<a href="#_edn19">[19]</a> His books do not sell in America, but they are best-sellers among the growing number of neo-Nazis in Germany.<br>
> <p><a href="#_ednref6" name="_edn6">[6]</a> "'I won't lie down and take the insults,'" <i>Irish Times</i>, July 1, 2003, p. 13.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref7" name="_edn7">[7]</a> Ibid.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref8" name="_edn8">[8]</a> Norman Finkelstein, <i>The Holocaust Industry</i>, p. 4</p> <p><a href="#_ednref9" name="_edn9">[9]</a> Peter Novick, "Offene Fenster und Tueren. Ueber Norman Finkelsteins Kreuzzug," in: Petra Steinberger (ed.): <i>Die Finkelstein-Debatte,</i> (Piper Verlag: Muenchen 2001), p. 159 (translated from German)</p> <p><a href="#_ednref10" name="_edn10">[10]</a> John Dirlik, "Canadian Jewish Organizations Charged With Stifling Campus Debate," <i>Washington Report on Middle East Affairs</i>, April/May 1992, p. 43.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref11" name="_edn11">[11]</a> Norman Finkelstein, "A Reply to Henry Kissinger and Fouad Ajami," <i>Link</i>, December 1992, p. 8.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref12" name="_edn12">[12]</a> Y.M.D. Fremes, "Interview with Professor Norman G. Finkelstein," <i>Palestine Chronicle</i>, November 24, 2003.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref13" name="_edn13">[13]</a> May 15, 2004, public forum at the Vancouver Public Library.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref14" name="_edn14">[14]</a> Simon Rosenblum and Len Rudner, "In a nasty neighbourhood, Israel needs to be tough," <i>Record</i>, June 16, 2003.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref15" name="_edn15">[15]</a> Anne Applebaum, "The battle for the Holocaust Legacy," <i>Sunday Telegraph</i>, July 16, 2000 (accessible at www.anneapplebaum.com/other/2000/07_16_tel_holocaust.html).</p> <p><a href="#_ednref16" name="_edn16">[16]</a> Finkelstein, <i>The Holocaust Industry</i>, p. 71.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref17" name="_edn17">[17]</a> Eds. Martin Dietzsch and Alfred Schobert, <i>"Ein jüdischer David Irving"? Norman Finkelstein im Diskurs der Rechten—Erinnerungsabwehr und Antizionismus"</i> (Duisburg, Germany: Unrast Verlag), p. 6 (translated from German).</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><a href="#_ednref18" name="_edn18">*Ibid.</p> <p><a href="#_ednref19" name="_edn19">[19]</a> Gabriel Schoenfeld's response to critics, "Holocaust Reparations," <i>Commentary</i>, January 2001, p. 20. </p>


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> I don't. He is off the wall (to be charitable).


I'll correct my post....

If you would like more Finkelstein lists you can go to his website
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=12
He keeps the latest ones up there....


Now, you are steering away from the subject (not that I expected any honesty from you).
The Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_affair

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349123
"Quite simply, the book he claims to have written is a hoax: (1) substantial swatches are lifted from another notorious hoax on the Israel-Palestine conflict, (2) it is replete with egregious falsifications, and (3) the few scholarly sources actually cited are mangled beyond recognition."

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=6
"Dershowitz Exposed Yet Again: The Critique of Pure Cant

To deflect scrutiny of copious evidence demonstrating that his book is a hoax, Alan Dershowitz resorts to ad hominem attacks, irrelevant asides and yet new fabrications (not to mention numerous errors). For example, in a letter to the UCLA campus newspaper, The Daily Bruin, Dershowitz stated that criticism of The Case for Israel was "part of a widespread, coordinated and well-funded campaign." He went on to allege that "similar campaigns were conducted…against numerous other writers," listing these names: "Elie Weisel" - but its Wiesel; "Burt Nuborn" - it's Neuborne; "the Honorable Stewart Eisenstadt" - it's Stuart Eizenstat; and "David Goldhagen" - it's Daniel. (October 29, 2003; the editors confirmed that all the errors were his, but refused to publish my reply) The lamentable truth is that Dershowitz hasn't a clue what he's talking about. "

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8594.htm
The Total and Shameless Chutzpah of Alan Dershowitz

[ Editors Note: It takes more than chutzpah for someone who defends torture, and cannot adequately defend himself against accusations of plagiarism to call the son of Holocaust survivors a Nazi and anyone who doesn't believe in his, Dershowitz's Neo Con theories, a fanatic! ]

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7650&sectionID=107
The Case Against Alan Dershowitz
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. Dershowitz
"In fact, however, it is on par with Dershowitz's claim in The Case for Israel, that the Israeli government has a “generally superb record on human rights,” and that “Israel’s record on human rights is among the best in the world”.[5]

What's “clear as day” from this little episode is that Dershowitz's every word should be taken with a mountain of salt."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> No, you assumed that I was a fanatic based on your biases that anyone who defends Israel must be one.
> 
> It's very fanatical to respond to screeds with facts. Sorry.


No I assumed you were a fanatic because you never seemed able to admit that Israel has done anything wrong... ever.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> There's another myth for you. Blowing up busses, blowing up moms and kids in pizzerias, blowiing up old people at seders is a response to a Jew going to the Temple mount. That says a lot for Jewish access to our own holy sites, doesn't it.
> 
> It would be good if you didn't swallow every anti-Jewish, Anti-Israel claim you hear so uncritically.
> 
> ...


This is a load. We all watched this on the news. When Sharon was asked not to go he went anyway. Everyone knew this was a particularily sore spot and Sharon exploited it for politcal gain. Everyone knew the Palestinians were at the boiling point. No one was surprised when the intifada broke out.
They didn't riot because "a Jew" when to the temple mount they rioted because Sharon (a man widly viewed as a butcher by Palestinians) went there as a form of F*ck you to the Palesinians.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Martman, I am not pro-Arab.
> 
> I'm tired of the hypocrisy of Israel.
> 
> ...


I said you were more pro-Arab than me. Then I pointed out that you were not representing the Palestinian side anywhere near as vigorously as any Palestinians I have discussed this with.

I agree about the hypocracy and the anti-semite labeling.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Martman, I am not pro-Arab.
> 
> I'm tired of the hypocrisy of Israel.
> 
> ...


I said you were more pro-Arab than me. Not that you were pro-Arab.
Then I pointed out that you were not representing the Palestinian side anywhere near as vigorously as any Palestinians I have discussed this with.

I agree about the hypocracy and the anti-semite labeling.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

OK, we won't rely on Dershowitz.

NY Times Book Review:


> Finkelstein views himself as innocent of any desire to exploit ''The Holocaust'' for his own ends, unlike his apparently countless enemies. The fact that his sensational ''revelations'' and outrageous accusations draw a great deal of public and media attention is no fault of his own. Nor is his vehement anti-Zionism and seething hatred of what he perceives as a corrupt Jewish leadership in the United States anything but a reflection of a reality that only he can perceive through the clouds of mystification and demagogy that have deceived thousands of lay persons, scholars, and intellectuals. From his Mount Sinai, everything is clear and obvious. It's just that his voice is too faint to be heard in the valley.


 Prof. Edward AlexanderProfessor Emeritus of English, University of Washington:


> The dream-Jew of the anti-Semites
> 
> Local Arab sponsors of the May 29 lecture by Norman Finkelstein ("Anti-Zionist Jew lambastes Israel," May 30) describe him as "a Jew but ... a life-long anti-Zionist; and though very much a leftist ... often praised by far right revisionists." They are correct in their description. "Revisionists" is the current term for those who deny that the Holocaust happened. Most revisionists are neo-Nazis like the Brit David Irving or the Frenchman Robert Faurisson, with whom Finkelstein's mentor, Noam Chomsky, has made common cause. Finkelstein, though indeed "very much a leftist" and supporter of Hizbollah among other "leftist" causes, has written a book called The Holocaust Industry, which has made him a hero in extreme right-wing circles in Europe and also America, and a best-selling author in Germany. This is partly because he blames Jews for anti-Semitism, but also because his book depicts German industrialists and Swiss bankers and wealthy Eastern European owners of looted Jewish property not as beneficiaries of the enslavement and destruction of European Jewry but as the helpless victims of Holocaust survivors, whom Finkelstein usually refers to in quotation marks as "survivors" of "The Holocaust," which he calls, with typical understatement, "the greatest robbery in the history of mankind." (His mother, a person Finkelstein exploits endlessly and shamelessly as virtually the only genuine survivor of the Holocaust, told him that Jewish "survivors" were the cause of much of the world's present misery, and that "If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one ... whom did Hitler kill?")
> 
> ...


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> This is a load. We all watched this on the news. When Sharon was asked not to go he went anyway. Everyone knew this was a particularily sore spot and Sharon exploited it for politcal gain. Everyone knew the Palestinians were at the boiling point. No one was surprised when the intifada broke out.
> They didn't riot because "a Jew" when to the temple mount they rioted because Sharon (a man widly viewed as a butcher by Palestinians) went there as a form of F*ck you to the Palesinians.


"Everyone knew"? This from "Iraqi's are not Arabs" martman. It's too much for me to expect someone with such an encyclopedic lack of knowledge too see though a popular myth.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

*"Benny Morris and the Reign of Error" by Efraim Karsh*



ArtistSeries said:


> Quotes from Benny Morris "confirming" ethnic cleansing.


<B><I>Efraim Karsh</B> is professor of Mediterranean studies at King's College, University of London, and editor of Israel Affairs.</I>


> As a general rule, every war is fought twice: first on the battlefield, then in the historiographical arena. The Arabs failed to destroy the State of Israel in 1948; in the next fifty years, they and their Western partisans waged a sustained propaganda battle to cast the birth of Israel as the source of all evil…
> …politicized historians have turned the saga of Israel's birth upside down, with aggressors turned into hapless victims and the reverse. The Jewish acceptance of the United Nations Resolution of November 29, 1947, partitioning Mandatory Palestine into two new states"Jewish and Arab"is completely ignored or dismissed as a disingenuous ploy; similarly, the violent Palestinian and Arab attempt to abort this resolution is overlooked. The concerted Arab attack on the newly-established State of Israel in mid-May 1948 is whitewashed as a haphazard move by ill-equipped and poorly trained armies confronted with a formidable Jewish force. It has even been suggested that the Palestinians, rather than the Israelis, were the target of this concerted Arab attack.<SUP>1</SUP>
> So successful has this effort been that what began as propaganda has become received dogma. It is striking to see how popularity has widely come to be equated with veracity…
> For this reason, it is important to return to the heart of the matter and reexamine the factual basis underlying the anti-Israel indictment.
> ...


http://www.meforum.org/article/466


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Well chosen sources, Artistseries. An acedemic fraud and a virulent anti-Zionist who finds favour among neonazis, including Zundel's website.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> "Everyone knew"? This from "Iraqi's are not Arabs" martman. It's too much for me to expect someone with such an encyclopedic lack of knowledge too see though a popular myth.


Yes every one knew ,"I never called anyone an anti-semite" nxnw.
We all watched it on the news. Are you happy returning to this level of arguing? It's too much to expect you to not deflect insted of answer a question? Or maybe it is too much to expect you to answer a post you don't like with out a snide insult? Is this supposed to help make your case?
Oh I get it, I was mistaken on the racial makeup of Iraq (thought they were largely Persian) so obviously nothing I say could possibly be of any consequense. 

Nice "myth" but the world was watching as it happened. EVeryone said riots would break out if he went which is precisly what happened. Say what you will we all saw this. You did too.


from the Australian Jewish News: (guess they are anti-semties too)
http://www.ajn.com.au/pages/archives/intifada/50-intifada-00-jd.html


> 6 October 2000
> Temple Mount visit sparks wave of violence
> STAFF REPORTER
> 
> ...


{sarcasm}But then I'm too stupid to have anything worthwile to say.{/sarcasm}


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

from wikkipedia:


> Sharon's impending visit was officially announced and approved in advance, though prior to it some moderates on both sides protested, because of his controversial political stance. He was warned that this could lead to riots but Sharon declared that he went to the site with a message of peace. His visit has condemned by the Palestinians as a provocation and an incursion, as was his over 1,000 strong armed bodyguard that arrived on the scene with him.
> 
> The day after Sharon's visit, following Friday prayers, large riots broke out around Old Jerusalem during which several Palestinians were shot dead. In the days that followed, demonstrations erupted all over the West Bank and Gaza.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

martman said:


> Yes every one knew ,"I never called anyone an anti-semite" nxnw....{sarcasm}But then I'm too stupid to have anything worthwile to say.{/sarcasm}


Talk about deflection. Every time you feel embarassed you accuse me of calling you anti-semitic. That's not true.
As for Sharon's visit causing the intifada, maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anything about bus bombings or the intifada. In fact, the only bombing reported is the day before the visit.

When you say intifada, did you mean riots?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Talk about deflection. Every time you feel embarassed you accuse me of calling you anti-semitic. That's not true.
> As for Sharon's visit causing the intifada, maybe I'm blind, but I don't see anything about bus bombings or the intifada. In fact, the only bombing reported is the day before the visit.
> 
> When you say intifada, did you mean riots?


I didn't say you called me an anti-semite (at this point although the argument could easily be made that you are lying) but you certainly have insinuated AS is one.

As for Sharon's visit, {sarcasm}Wikkipedia is wrong, the BBC is wrong, the LA Times is wrong, the Australian Jewish news is wrong, the Globe and Mail is wrong, The Toronto Star is wrong. Everybody is out to get Israel. Everybody are liers.{/sarcasm}

I'm not saying the intifada was caused by Sharon but he sure did precipitate it at a time when just maybe Oslo could have been saved. (although I admit this was not that likely)

{sarcasm} Oh that's right I'm an ignorant f*ck who doesn't know anything. Why are you even bothering to respond to my posts? {/sarcasm}

When I say intifada I mean intifada. When I say riots (in the context of the recent posts of mine ) I mean the riots which mark the begining of the intifada.

Yes I know, you think the soldier killed the day before marks the begining of the intifada. I don't buy this.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> It's too much for me to expect someone with such an encyclopedic lack of knowledge too see though a popular myth.


nxnw, you have not refutiated a single quote or disproved anything.
You have spewed canned Zionist propaganda and garbage. Your position is that Israel can do no wrong - even when shown the contrary.

You started to quoting Benny Morris to try and get a point across
http://www.ehmac.ca/showpost.php?p=259140&postcount=457
and then start to denounce him when he confirm Israel's ethnic cleansing...

Should we go back to "yes/no" questions? Althought I think you find them to hard to answer....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> nxnw, you have not refutiated a single quote or disproved anything.



Refutiated?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Well chosen sources, Artistseries. An acedemic fraud and a virulent anti-Zionist who finds favour among neonazis, including Zundel's website.


The only fraud seems to be Dershowitz.
Trying to imply that Finkelstein is associated with Zundel is another example of your false logic and quite misleading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
Criticism by the Anti-Defamation League

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called Finkelstein a "Holocaust denier" and accused him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda. Finkelstein has called the ADL's accusations against him empty and undeserved. "I am Jewish and my parents are Holocaust survivors. With others you could say, 'you're an anti-Semite' or 'you're a Holocaust denier,' [but] you can't do that with me," he once responded, "you have to argue the facts." Neither the ADL nor similar groups have quoted Finkelstein denying that the Holocaust actually occurred (Indeed, the premise of his The Holocaust Industry is that the historical Holocaust did occur). Finkelstein was also called a "self-hating Jew" on numerous occasions.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Here's Finkelstein's defence of his positions:


ArtistSeries said:


> "I am Jewish and my parents are Holocaust survivors. With others you could say, 'you're an anti-Semite' or 'you're a Holocaust denier,' [but] you can't do that with me," he once responded, "you have to argue the facts."


i.e. he is beyond reproach, because he is a Jew and a son of survivors. There's an argument as fallacious as they come. His critics DO argue the facts.

I can quote innumerable critics who demolish his claims. I don't need to. Finkelstein's own words damn him: "The tales of 'Holocaust survivors' all concentration camp inmates, all heroes of the resistance were a special source of wry amusement in my home."
...
"The postwar German government provided compensation to Jews who had been in ghettos or camps. Many Jews fabricated their pasts to meet this eligibility requirement. 'If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,' my mother used to exclaim, 'who did Hitler kill?'"

You want to talk about garbage? Finkelstein's writings are despicable garbage. 

I'll tell you something. My parents were both survivors. They both eventually (in the 80's) started receiving reparations, although they had applied many years earlier. Every soul in my mother's family was murdered. My father had two surviving sisters. So completely was my family erased, that I don't even know what any one of my grandparents looked like.

So my parents, with numbers tatooed on their arms, with ample evidence that they were both in concentration camps, that they were natives of Poland before the war, that their families had homes and businesses that were confiscated, that their families were wiped out - THEIR applications took 30 years to approve.

But this Jew hating Jew, Finkelstein, writes a book asserting that Germany has been exploited by money grubbing Jews, by frauds who were not real survivors and by real survivors who should just get over it and stop whining about their families being wiped out.

And indeed, because he trivializes the Holocaust, he is a favourite of neonazis and frequently quoted on Zundel's site.

I assume that you were not aware of most of this when you chose to quote him as a reliable source. Surely, now that you know what he stands for, you would want to distance yourself from him.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

ArtistSeries said:


> nxnw, you have not refutiated a single quote or disproved anything.
> You have spewed canned Zionist propaganda and garbage. Your position is that Israel can do no wrong - even when shown the contrary.
> 
> You started to quoting Benny Morris to try and get a point across
> ...


re: Benny Morris - If you look way back in this thread, you will find a comment from me to the effect that he is not well regarded. I quoted Benny Morris back at you after you chose him as an authority – surely if you accepted him as an authority on one factual assertion, you were bound, out of intellectual honesty, to accept his credibility on another point that was diametrically opposed to views you have asserted here. I prefaced my quote with "Benny Morris? You want Benny Morris?" or something like that, telegraphing my own view of his reliability. 

It seems to me, Artistseries, that you will pick and choose what to accept and not to accept, even from the same author, with surgical precision. And what is the dividing line? If its anti-Israel, it's true. If it suports Israel, it's false.

Now, your claim that I denounce him when he "confirms" ethnic cleansing is typical of your mendacity. I excerpted about 1/5th of the Karsh paper analyzing the specific allegations you cited from Morris. Karsh examines the same records Morris purports to rely on, and in meticulous detail, tears his claims apart. the lengthy excerpt I posted - a fraction of the paper, which details how Morris "misrepresents documents, resorts to partial quotes, withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents" - shows how Morris has misrepresented documents to support his specious arguments. Karsh shows that Morris fraudulently left words out of quotes in order to change their meaning. The balance of the paper, too long to quote online, but well worth reading examines how Morris "withholds evidence, makes false assertions, and rewrites original documents".

Karsh addresses the (lack of) merit of Morris' claims head on, and demolishes it. 

How do you respond to cogent, fact based argument? You call it "canned Zionist propaganda and garbage". Keep at it Artistseries - lie big and stick to it.

Finally, you continue to misrepresent my views, saying "Your position is that Israel can do no wrong", in order to paint me as a zealot, and unworthy of credit. Although I have been mostly occupied responding to your distortions, so there is little occasion for me to interject personal views critical of the government of Israel. Yet, I have, among other things, criticized building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. 

My posts speak for themselves. 

So do yours.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Here's Finkelstein's defence of his positions:i.e. he is beyond reproach, because he is a Jew and a son of survivors. There's an argument as fallacious as they come. ......
> 
> I assume that you were not aware of most of this when you chose to quote him as a reliable source. Surely, now that you know what he stands for, you would want to distance yourself from him.


nxnw, your knee jerk reaction to Finkelstein is typically Zionist...

Again your insinuations are fraudulent and try to divert away from Israel and the Palestinian question.

The book in question is : The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering

Mr Finkelstein has written


> "Will THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY Incite Anti-Semitism?"
> The main thesis of my new book is that The Holocaust has effectively become an industry. Jewish elites, acting in concert with the US government, exploit the horrific suffering of the millions of Jews exterminated during World War II and the few who managed to survive for power and profit. In its ruthless exploitation of Jewish suffering, the Holocaust industry has arguably become a fomenter of anti-Semitism and a purveyor of Holocaust denial.
> 
> The book is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter I explore the genesis of the Holocaust industry.
> ...




One online reviewer had this to say.


> It is sad, though I suppose inevitable, that some anti-Semitic elements have latched on to this book as providing "support" for their prejudice. What is even more sad, however, is that many Jews somehow seem to think that this fact alone is enough to condemn the book. If some racist bigot latched on to a tightly-argued, well-reasoned book criticizing, say, Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan, and used this book to justify their prejudice towards African-Americans, would that fact in and of itself negate the conclusions of the book? Criticism is not the same thing as prejudice or hatred, even if that criticism is exploited by the purveyors of prejudice and hatred. Unfortunately, those who dismiss this book just can't seem to grasp this elementary distinction.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

nxnw said:


> re: Benny Morris -


You cite Karsh as a critic of Morris and the "New Historians" and leave out facts (again)

http://www.meforum.org/article/92
Avi Shiaim 


> Karsh accuses me, as a new historian, of fashioning my research to suit contemporary political agendas. This is a serious charge that he makes without producing a single shred of evidence. He holds that the new historians' "sustained assault on the received version of Israel's early history" has direct political importance in that it affects the course of Israeli-Palestinian efforts to make peace. I beg to differ: the debate about Israel's early history is a debate about history, not about contemporary politics.
> 
> Karsh also accuses me, again as a new historian, of systematically distorting archival evidence to invent an Israeli history in an image of my own making. This, too, is a very serious charge and equally without any basis in fact. If failure to draw from the archival evidence the same conclusions as he does amounts to systematic distortion, then so be it. But if Karsh wants to be taken seriously as a historian, he should desist from distorting and misrepresenting the work of his opponents; and he must produce much more convincing evidence than he has in "Rewriting Israel's History."



And Benny Morris has been criticised by Dr. Nur Masalha for not going far enough with his conclusions...
Imperial Israel And The Palestinians
The Politics of Expansion

Israel and it's policies do not have the moral high ground you seem to conclude.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=160053 
*
But during a meeting with Sharon this year, Bush said he opposes any new settlement construction, even in existing communities, as a violation of the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan.

Asked why Israel was defying the U.S., Asaf Shariv, an aide to Sharon, replied: "This is an existing area that will always be part of Israel."
*

Sharon is trying to piss off Israel's strongest ally by his flagrant attempt to disrupt the peace plan
you're not going to say that the Bush administration is anti-Israel now are you?

the beat(ing of war drums) goes on....


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Artistseries. I will be as brief as I can. I don't respect Benny Morris as an authority, based on Karsh's meticulous demolition of the very book from which you took your supporting quotes. The facts are detailed in post <a href="showpost.php?p= 259162&postcount=470" target="new"><strong>470</strong></a>. If you, nonetheless, maintain your respect for Morris as an authority, he has also, bluntly and emphatically, laid the blame for the failure of the Clinton Peace plan on Arafat and has described Barak's offer as sincere, courageous and generous. (see post <a href="showpost.php?p=259140&postcount=457" target="new"><strong>457</strong></a>).



ArtistSeries said:


> nxnw, your knee jerk reaction to Finkelstein is typically Zionist...


I was distressed to see you say this. We have both dug in our heels in this discussion, and people can say things they don't mean in the heat of an argument. I hope this was the case with the above comment. 

You were responding to a post where I provided two quotes from Finkelstein, where he mocks Holocaust survivors and trivializes the Holocaust: He says how, "The tales of 'Holocaust survivors' all concentration camp inmates, all heroes of the resistance were a special source of wry amusement in my home." Finkelstein also attributes this quote to his late mother: "If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one, who did Hitler kill?"

I shared with you some details of my background, to help you understand why I found these comments particularly abhorrent. I have videos of both my parents telling of their experiences, and I do not believe you would find them a "special source of wry amusement", were you to watch them.

I genuinely believed that you would also be offended by his statements, and reject him as an authority. Instead, you called my comments "typically Zionist". Certainly, my Jewishness bears on the depth of my feelings on this issue. Zionism, however, has nothing to do with it.

I hope you will reconsider your comment.

Perhaps it is also time to close this thread.


----------

