Why did the left betray Israel?

[arad]

As an Israeli leftist, I always put most of the blame on my country for the Israeli-Arab conflict. The fact that Israel did not recognize the Palestinian right to sovereignty was, in my eyes, the worst kind of aggression, worse than the Palestinian terrorism. Of course, the Palestinians never really recognized Israel’s right to exist either, and kept a rather dubious tongue about it, but I felt that we should take care of our position first.
Well, now, after our hard work, we finally managed to bring the Israeli administration and public to the right place, and the Israeli government states loud and clear that it recognizes the Palestinian right for sovereignty. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have elected a Hamas government, which states loud and clear that its aim is to destroy Israel. And they back it up by sending rockets and suicide bombers into our cities. In keeping with my leftist values, I now stand firmly by the Israeli government. Palestinian terrorism could be treated with some sympathy when it was done in the name of a fight for freedom, but not when it is done in the name of a genocidal ideology. I was expecting everyone who regards himself a leftist to stand by Israel at this hour. I do not see it happening.
And when the recent conflict with Lebanon came about, the betrayal of the international left became shockingly painful. There is absolutely no excuse for Lebanon’s criminal behavior, and I was expecting the left to call them on it. But I heard nothing. On the other hand, I heard lots of criticism over Israel’s clearly justified retaliation. Let’s recount Lebanon’s actions:
1. Harboring genocidal terrorists: For the past six years, ever since the IDF pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbollah (a group that announces time and again that its aim is to destroy Israel, backed up by Iran, a country whose President vowed to destroy Israel) has been given permission to reign over southern Lebanon, build fortified bunkers and barracks, stockpile tens of thousands of advanced missiles, and occasionally carry out terrorist attacks or shoot rockets into Israel. Finally they overdid it, and Israel decided to react. Hezbollah proceeded to shoot thousands of rockets into Israeli cities. What did the Lebanese government do? On one hand they did nothing to stop Hezbollah, and even stood by its demands; on the other hand they claimed to be innocent, and cried about “capital punishment”.
Sickening. Imagine that the IRA announced that it is changing its ideology, and its main goal is to establish Irish rule over England. And imagine that the Irish government did nothing to stop it, but actually gave it a whole county in which to train and fortify. Imagine that the IRA then started to shoot thousands of rockets into major English cities. How do you think the Brits would react? And what would they think if the Irish then start yelling that they are innocent?
I didn’t hear the left reprimand Lebanon for this behavior. Am I to understand that the left supports the destruction of Israel?
2. Aiming at civilians: Hezbollah, acting on Lebanon’s blessing, shot thousands of rockets out of civilian populated areas, aiming into civilian populated areas. This is a WAR CRIME. But I heard no one from the left berating Lebanon for it. Any other country in the world would react by shooting back into civilian populated areas, and Israel packs enough firepower to bring Lebanon to its knees within a few hours if it chose to do so. But Israel didn’t use this power. It took every possible precaution to prevent civilian casualties, and attacked only the places where Hezbollah was dwelling. Even so, I heard a lot of protests from leftists against the Israeli actions. Does that mean that the leftists of the world believe that Israel has no right to protect its citizens?
3. Kidnapping: perhaps the most infuriating. Hezbollah went into Israeli territory and kidnapped two soldiers, demanding the release of the Lebanese prisoners, and the Lebanese government stood by this demand. “The Lebanese prisoners”, for those of you who don’t know, are three people, Lebanese citizens who have been captured on Israeli soil doing terrorist activities, tried by our courts, and sentenced to jail. One of them is a notorious terrorist, who murdered a family of four, including two little children, and was sentenced to four consecutive life imprisonments. But even if they weren’t terrorist. Let’s say they were merely criminals. What gives Lebanon the right to demand their release? I’m sure there are Israeli criminals sitting in jails in your own country right now. What would you think if some Israeli organization, in order to spring then out, kidnapped some of your citizens and held them hostage, and the state of Israel supported their demands? This sort of behavior makes Lebanon a TERRORIST STATE. Did the leftwing criticize it for it? Not at all. Does that mean that the leftwing supports this type of international piracy? Is there no more place for law and order in the world?
4. Annexing territory: another ridiculous claim made by Lebanon is that they have the right to employ terrorism in order to “free” a piece of land called the Shebaa Farms. The Shebaa Farms are a small patch of barren land, about 14 square miles in size, which officially belongs to Syria, but is now occupied by Israel, and will be returned to the Syrians when they decide to make peace with us. The Lebanese think they have a claim to it? Fine – take it up with the UN, like any civilized country would do. But the Lebanese think that the fact that they decided amongst themselves that its theirs gives them the right to use terrorism in order to conquer it. I didn’t hear the left condemn them for it. Again I ask: does that mean that the left condones this sort of imperialistic attitude?
5. Lying: we have seen the Lebanese use a trick they learned from the Palestinians, and making vile accusations against Israel, such as that it used phosphorous bombs. Once again, like in all previous cases, not a shred of evidence was presented, and no one was asked to validate. Phosphorous bombs leave a mark, you know. If they were used, then an objective comity could easily determine it. But, of course, no one was asked to check. The accusations were thrown into the air, and repeated by the media. I don’t expect much of the media, but I do expect of leftwingers to employ critical thinking, and ask the right questions. A day will come when the Muslim terrorists will use this as an excuse for using chemical weapons, and say that Israel started it. It will then be too late to go back and check.

Thankfully, the Israeli government had done a good job for once, and got the result we wanted from the war, forcing the Lebanese to accept their responsibility and take charge over their country. But the Israeli leftwing comes out of the war quite powerless to change things within Israel. One of the arguments we use in trying to persuade Israelis to obey international law is that if we do, the world will back us up in our war against terrorism. But now, Israelis see that even when they are clearly justified, the leftists of the world are against them.
The left has betrayed Israel when it needed its support. More than that, it betrayed its own values. And finally, it betrayed the people of the Middle East, for by supporting the forces of imperialism, terrorism and genocide, it reduced the chances for the forces of humanity, peace and democracy to prevail.

Why did you betray us?


Arad

[kaaos_af]

All the "leftists" I know don't support Israel, Lebanon OR Hezbollah. We stand against all aggression.

[PaulMarsh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:33 PM
All the "leftists" I know don't support Israel, Lebanon OR Hezbollah. We stand against all aggression.
Indeed - I think our Israeli friend is confusing us with the likes of the British Socialist Workers Party/Respect Coalition.

[Phugebrins]

I find myself making this point time and again: you don't hear so many people arguing about the whether Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists because there's pretty much no-one who disagrees. It's like why you never hear people debating if grass is green. Israeli policy, on the other hand, has its apologists and supporters.

Second, your entire post relies on one implied argument: Hezbollah is in the wrong, therefore the Israeli government is in the right. There are two problems with this: firstly, the criticism that the assault on southern Lebanon would not weaken Hezbollah, but strengthen it, and secondly, that the killing was indiscriminate or even that civilians were expressly targeted.

Another central supposition is that Israel's assault was a retaliation. Personally, I'm of the view that pretty much all actions by all parties are retaliations, but you might also want to consider the possibility that article (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/08/08/israels-attack-was-premeditated/). I mean, taking a few hostages in an attempt to swap them with your own countrymen held in foreign jails, while criminal, is hardly a declaration of war. By the same standard, Palaestinians should have been gearing up for full-scale invasion of Israel years ago.

For me, the fundamental point in the opposition to the assault on Lebanon is the fact that it further militarises the question of South Lebanon: that is, the lives and rights of ordinary Israelis and Lebanese continue to be placed second to the politicking of the powerful.

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 09:41 AM
You don't hear so many people arguing about the whether Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists because there's pretty much no-one who disagrees.
Ah, no, quite a few people disagree.

Hezbollah are designated as a terrorist organization by only FOUR countries: the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, and Israel (obviously). The rest of the world, including the EU, does not designate them as a terrorist organization.

That's 5.4% of the world. 5% says they are terrorists, 95% don't.

*edit*

The above figure is a percentage of population. If we do it by percentage of nations (272)... it's 1.4% :D

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 07:00 AM
As an Israeli leftist, I always put most of the blame on my country for the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that. And where do you get off saying the left "betrayed" Israel? When did the left promise anything to Israel? You might as well say the left betrayed apartheid South Africa.

This is a standard propaganda technique: "I used to agree with you, but now I've changed my views...." Common in letters to the editor, for example.

Then the supposed new convert proceeds to give the standard line, perfectly rehearsed! Right down to standard turns of phrase.

There've been a number of protests by actual Israeli leftists, opposing the brutal assault on Lebanon and the infrastructure which serves its civilian population.

I doubt many people on the Israeli left - well, depending on what you mean by "left" - really think Olmert has recognized Palestinian sovereignty, for example. When in reality the Olmert government stands for imposing a unilateral division of the West Bank. Building a maze of walls and fences to divide it into a bunch of Palestinian reservations and Israeli settlements.

And in the case of Lebanon, Israel has been routinely violating its airspace and conducting occasional attacks for years. Plus, it retained the Shebaa Farms for no perceptible reason unless it was deliberately seeking to keep the conflict alive. So to put the blame on Lebanon because of the latest minor incident in a long list of incidents by both sides.....

Another example:
Hezbollah went into Israeli territory and kidnapped two soldiers,

"Kidnapped"? Ordinarily, soldiers are "captured". They are combatants and legitimate military targets, y'know. But the official Israeli PR machine always says "kidnapped."

So I'd guess this post is just a bit of hypocrisy from somebody who is now, and always has been, a rabid anti-Arab hawk. Should probably be moved to Opposing Ideologies.

Another argument along these lines, circulating out there: "now Israel is respecting the UN-recognized Blue Line, it's Hezbollah violating it." Well, Israel continues to ignore every other UN resolution - now including the latest ceasefire resolution - so where do you get off being hypocritically self-righteous that someone else ignores a UN decision? Obviously it would favor Israel if all the UN decisions against it are ignored, and those for it are respected.

****

Oh, and Hezbollah aren't terrorists, especially. The standard description of them as "terrorists" is an Orwellian abuse of language and thought.

Most of their attacks have been against military targets. Including the bombing of a certain Marine barracks which is routinely described as a terrorist attack!

Their indiscrimate rocket attacks in this latest war are certainly terrorist, but most armies have done something comparable....it doesn't make those armies simply terrorist organisations, much less "genocidal".

Most Israeli casualties in this war were soldiers. To classify Hezbollah among armed groups: it is a highly effective guerilla army.

[Sadena Meti]

2. Aiming at civilians: Hezbollah, acting on Lebanon’s blessing, shot thousands of rockets out of civilian populated areas, aiming into civilian populated areas. This is a WAR CRIME.

In the past month Israel has done the same thing several orders of magnitude greater, killing more civilians in that time than Hezbollah has in it's entire history.


3. Kidnapping: perhaps the most infuriating. Hezbollah went into Israeli territory and kidnapped two soldiers, demanding the release of the Lebanese prisoners, and the Lebanese government stood by this demand.

Israel did the exact same thing:

The Kidnapping from Lebanon - Operation "Argaz"
During the summer of 1972, Yoni (Jonathan Netanyahu) commands an operation of the Unit in Lebanon, in which his younger brother Iddo also takes part.

Iddo: "There was a plan to kidnap Syrian officers in order to exchange them for Israeli pilots and navigators who were languishing for a long time in Syrian jails."

Aharon Gabai (solider in Sayeret Matkal): "The main figure in all the preparations was Yoni. He trained us for the operation. He went to the field with us, taught us how to grab the men, from which side of the vehicle..."

Yoni's force positions itself at nighttime near the border with Lebanon. When the Syrian convoy and their Lebanese escorts near, Yoni moves in. The convoy is warned by Lebanese civilians and turns back, but Yoni and his men pursue them. In a brief firefight, they overcome the Lebanese escorts and capture the Syrian officers.

Iddo: "When we crossed the border to Israel with the fancy Chevrolet that we captured, full of victory and glory, I remember that Yoni wasn't even with us. He was somewhere in a Lebanese village, trying to find out what happened to a car he thought had escaped.

The Israeli pilots are later freed from Syria in exchange for the top-ranking captives of the Syrian Intelligence."




Israel can't complain when its enemies use the same tactics as Israel does.

[Emperor Ronald Reagan]

Of course, the Palestinians never really recognized Israel’s right to exist either

There was already a general international agreement (including the Arab states and the PLO) in the 1970s that Israel should have the rights of every state in the international system. They accepted Israel's existence decades ago. The "right to exist" however, is a Zionist invention. No state has a 'right' to exist, and no one demands such a right.

[h&s]

Palestinian terrorism could be treated with some sympathy when it was done in the name of a fight for freedom, but not when it is done in the name of a genocidal ideology. I was expecting everyone who regards himself a leftist to stand by Israel at this hour. I do not see it happening.

Everyone stands by the people of Israel, but not its response.
How the fuck is anyone sane going to stand by an army that routinely bombs the shit out of its neighbours?
How the fuck was Israel's response remotely proportionate?
Hezbollah's rockets killed dozens of innocent civillians, the IDF's bombs killed well over a thousand innocent civillians.
If Hezbollah's attacks were terrorism (which they were) then Israel's response was probably the worst terrorist attack since 11/9 (English calender FTW :P ).

[PaulMarsh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:41 PM
I find myself making this point time and again: you don't hear so many people arguing about the whether Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorists because there's pretty much no-one who disagrees.
Actually that is not correct - on all of the big anti-war demonstrations in England, the SWP/Respect have taken part in chanting of "We are Hezbollah" and even "Ooh Ar Hezbollah".

To our shame, the SWP is the biggest party on the far left in Britain.

[D_Bokk]

The left didn't betray Israel, whoever believes this is crazy. Supporting Israel's right to exist is the same as supporting the USA's right to exist. Support for either is reactionary and bourgeois.

And for those of you who are unaware, terrorism is merely an offshoot of guerrilla warfare. Groups like Hizb'allah do not have weaponry to face the Israeli military in small skirmishes, let alone head on. Israel has set up camp on the northern border and unless they come into Lebanon the only way to actually attack Israel is to shoot at them randomly. Can Hizb'allah jump the border without it being suicide? No. Because of this, Israel citizens will die, but none are innocent. Any person within an imperialist country will forever be an enemy of the third world. Because the people of Israel, America, Great Britain (and so on) are too greedy - the terrorists (more accurately, freedom fighters) have to bring the fight to them.

Anyone who opposes "terrorism" now would have opposed Che during the Cuban Revolution.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:17 PM
The left didn't betray Israel, whoever believes this is crazy. Supporting Israel's right to exist is the same as supporting the USA's right to exist. Support for either is reactionary and bourgeois.

And for those of you who are unaware, terrorism is merely an offshoot of guerrilla warfare. Groups like Hizb'allah do not have weaponry to face the Israeli military in small skirmishes, let alone head on. Israel has set up camp on the northern border and unless they come into Lebanon the only way to actually attack Israel is to shoot at them randomly. Can Hizb'allah jump the border without it being suicide? No. Because of this, Israel citizens will die, but none are innocent. Any person within an imperialist country will forever be an enemy of the third world. Because the people of Israel, America, Great Britain (and so on) are too greedy - the terrorists (more accurately, freedom fighters) have to bring the fight to them.

Anyone who opposes "terrorism" now would have opposed Che during the Cuban Revolution.
Come on, stop the bullshit. Supporting the right of nations to exist is bourgeois or reactionary? What bullshit is that. I do not support their governments, but I support their existence.

Also saying that no one is innocent is purely disgusting. These are citizens, and a lot of them didn't even vote on Olmert, and even if they did they are STILL citizens.

And Che's fight was entirely different than the fight of the terrorists. Che didn't want an Islamic theocracy and wasn't an anti-semite.

At the topic starter:

Good topic, but I disagree on a lot of points. Capturing soldiers is not a reason to start a war, and it isn't self-defense either. Israel did not bomb military or Hezbollah targets, but bombed living quarters, bridges, roads, power centrals etc. Israel committed a lot of war crimes, and also violated a lot of UN resolutions.

Almost all of the left hates Islamic terrorist groups, but they also hate the disproportionate agression of Israël. What if ETA captured a French person, would France bomb down roads and bridges in Spain and bomb Madrid living quarters? I guess you would be against that. The Lebanese people are the target now.

Moreover, this war is strategically stupid either. The two reasons for the war (removing Hezbollah out of the border region and getting the captured soldiers back) are not achieved at all, and Israel, after some good work by removing settlements of colonists, will get the hate of the world over itself again, particularly the Arabic world.

Imagine that members of a radical group form your country that you don't support capture two soldiers, and your living block, bridges, power central get bombed away, would you think this is justified? Is it self-defense? Is it proportionate? Just put yourself in that situation.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Interesting post arad!

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs
Come on, stop the bullshit. Supporting the right of nations to exist is bourgeois or reactionary? What bullshit is that. I do not support their governments, but I support their existence.
Explain to me exactly how keeping the United States and Israel intact will help the communist movement. They both represent all that is evil in this world; they both destroyed the native peoples in their land; they both exploit the third world. Therefore, their destruction will benefit the international communist movement.

Also saying that no one is innocent is purely disgusting. These are citizens, and a lot of them didn't even vote on Olmert, and even if they did they are STILL citizens.
Israel is a first world nation that exploits the labor of the third world proletariat. The citizens benefit greatly from this exploitation and refuse to enact change to stop the ruthless oppression waged by Israel and the rest of the west.

Inaction is no different then taking a direct part in the exploitation of others.

And Che's fight was entirely different than the fight of the terrorists. Che didn't want an Islamic theocracy and wasn't an anti-semite.
I completely disagree. Both Che and Hizb'allah were/are fighting against the imperialist west. The only difference is that Che was a communist.

Do you think terrorism from communists is okay?

[RevolutionarySocialist MadRedDog]

Originally posted by PaulMarsh+Aug 22 2006, 02:40 PM--> (PaulMarsh @ Aug 22 2006, 02:40 PM)
[email protected] 22 2006, 01:33 PM
All the "leftists" I know don't support Israel, Lebanon OR Hezbollah. We stand against all aggression.
Indeed - I think our Israeli friend is confusing us with the likes of the British Socialist Workers Party/Respect Coalition. [/b]
Indeed, some of us make a class distinction, not a race or religious distinction.

For one my party the Committee for a Worker's International does this.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Aug 22 2006, 09:50 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Aug 22 2006, 09:50 PM)
Mesijs
Come on, stop the bullshit. Supporting the right of nations to exist is bourgeois or reactionary? What bullshit is that. I do not support their governments, but I support their existence.
Explain to me exactly how keeping the United States and Israel intact will help the communist movement. They both represent all that is evil in this world; they both destroyed the native peoples in their land; they both exploit the third world. Therefore, their destruction will benefit the international communist movement.

Also saying that no one is innocent is purely disgusting. These are citizens, and a lot of them didn't even vote on Olmert, and even if they did they are STILL citizens.
Israel is a first world nation that exploits the labor of the third world proletariat. The citizens benefit greatly from this exploitation and refuse to enact change to stop the ruthless oppression waged by Israel and the rest of the west.

Inaction is no different then taking a direct part in the exploitation of others.

And Che's fight was entirely different than the fight of the terrorists. Che didn't want an Islamic theocracy and wasn't an anti-semite.
I completely disagree. Both Che and Hizb'allah were/are fighting against the imperialist west. The only difference is that Che was a communist.

Do you think terrorism from communists is okay? [/b]
Keeping their governments intact is wrong. However, when talking about nations not to exist, I think about deportation or genocide as the solution. And that's, I hope you think so too, wrong. So explain what you mean exactly with destroying them?

Almost every first world nation uses the third world to cheaply produce goods. So I should start killing people in my country also? No, the point is to make them aware instead of making them dead.

It's also very stupid to think that your opinions will benefit the communist movement whatsoever. When an average person, who in potential is a communist, notices that communists support murdering civilians, he will disgust the communist movement. Of course he will.

And inaction is something different than taking part. When you reason like that, there won't be any potential communist left to convince, because you'd like to kill them all because they're not acting. The duty of the communist movement is to make them act, not to condemn them when they won't. I wonder how many communists you would gather when searching for support...

We're not talking what they're fighting AGAINST, but what they're fighting FOR. When arguing like that, you could compare two totally different things because they're both fighting against each other.

I don't think communist terror is ok, I do think that in certain situations guerrilla warfare is legitimate.

[LSD]

As an Israeli leftist, I always put most of the blame on my country for the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Well I should certainly hope so!

For a "letist", there is no other possible position. Indeed, Israel's culpability in this matter is so blatantly obvious that most leftists don't even need to mention it. The fact that you opened your rant with this (weak) appeal to leftist clichés suggests that your not entirely comfortable in "leftist shoes".

Frankly, you come across as a rightist trying his damnedest to pose as a "moderate" in the hopes of convincing us to your cause. It's an old trick though and you're not very good at it.

If you really want to debate the Israeli-Palestinian issue from your obviously Zionist perspective, feel free to do so, but do it in OI.

Your kind of apologist crap has no place on the rest of this board. :angry:


Of course, the Palestinians never really recognized Israel’s right to exist either, and kept a rather dubious tongue about it

What occupied people in history "recognized the rights" of thier oppressors? Did the French resistance "recognize" Nazi Germany's "right to exist"? Do Kurdish nationalists "recognize" Turkey?

This nonsense about "recognition" is pure blather. Politics aren't about idealist turns of phrase, they're about practical negotiation, and the Palestinians have proven a hundred times over that they are willing to sit down and negotiate.

That's despite the fact that they are entirely in the right on this issue. Israel is a military occupying force in violation of every international law and human rights code on the books.

The Palestinians have every right to fight the only war they can. When the occupation ends and a sovereign Palestinian state emerges, then Israel can start presenting requests to the PLO. But as long as Palestine remains under the bootheels of the IDF, Israel has zero right to demand anything.


Well, now, after our hard work, we finally managed to bring the Israeli administration and public to the right place, and the Israeli government states loud and clear that it recognizes the Palestinian right for sovereignty.

Who is "we"?

The only reason that the Israeli government now pays lip service to the "two state solution" is the hard work of the Palestinian people. It wasn't the "Israeli left" that got the "administration" to "change its mind", it was 30 years of unrelenting resistance.

The Palestinian struggle is a beacon to the whole world precisely because it demosntrates that despite the overwhelming power of imperialism, it can still be resisted and resisted effectively.

Now, I'm the first to admit that the Israeli-Palestinian situaton is commonly blown out of proportion, but to deny the Palestinian struggle is unconscienable. "You" didn't "mange to do" anything and that you would presume to take credit for the work of the Palestinian struggle is frankly despicable.


Palestinian terrorism could be treated with some sympathy when it was done in the name of a fight for freedom, but not when it is done in the name of a genocidal ideology.

"Genocidal ideology"? What "genocidal ideology".

The only country in the middle east with a racial imperialist policy and the capacity to implement it is Israel. Zionism is far more "genocidal" than Hezbollah's mish-mashed ideology.

And because we are all materialists here, we recognize that "belief" is only a part of the story. Hezbollah may not be made up of nice people, but it is not the one carrying out a massive scale invasion of a sovereign country. It is not the one that is on the payroll of American imperialism.

I don't like Hezbollah's "ideology" any more than you do, but I do like that it is fighting Israeli aggression and, for now, that matters a whole lot more than "beliefs".


1. For the past six years, ever since the IDF pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbollah (a group that announces time and again that its aim is to destroy Israel, backed up by Iran, a country whose President vowed to destroy Israel) has been given permission to reign over southern Lebanon

Nobody's been "given permission", Hezbollah is a guerilla resistance group. It neither expects nor demands "permission" to carry out its liberation campaign.

And besides, don't you see the enormous irony of, in one sentence, condeming Hezbollah (and Iran and Lebanon, and anyone you feel like mentioning) while openly acknowledging that in the immediate past, Israel was occupying Lebanon.

Hezbollah may be a despicable group, but it sure beats the hell out of Israeli occupation. And since that's the choice we're faced with today, those of us who are actually leftist have no choice but to support Hezbollah.


2. Aiming at civilians

According to the latest figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict), for every Israeli civilian killed, 22 Lebanese civilians have been murdered by the IDF.

So, logically, if Hezbollah is to be condemned for its actions, Israel must be condemned 22 times more.

Somehow, though, I doubt that you would agree... <_<


perhaps the most infuriating. Hezbollah went into Israeli territory and kidnapped two soldiers

Really? That&#39;s the "most infuriating" to you? It baffles me that a self-described "leftist" would care about a pair of fascist thugs, but then your credibility as a "leftist" is rapidly diminishing.

There is not much in international law that is uncontroversial, but one of those rare principles is that soldiers are valid military targets. When one is at war, killing the enemy is not only acceptable, it&#39;s obligatory.

So, like the September 11th attack on the Pentagon, Hezbollah&#39;s neutralization of two members of an aggressive imperialist occupying army was perfectly justified.

Obviously the Israeli army doesn&#39;t like to lose soldiers, but to claim that an attack upon military personel is "terrorism" or "kidnapping" is absurd.

This is precisely the kind og newspeak rubbish that the Israeli PR machine is famous for and that you are so eager to repeat the company line casts considerable doubt on your claims of "leftism".


4. Annexing territory

Hezbollah is a guerrila resistance, it can&#39;t "annex" anything. The IDF, on the other hand, is not only a modern and fantastically well-equiped army, but it even has a long and bloody history of occupying Lebanon.

And the fact that you would try and turn the Israeli occupation of the Sheba farms into an example of Lebanese imperialism is the height of hypocracy.

If this territory is so insignificant as you assert than why on earth is Israel holding on to it? The excuse that it&#39;s "actually Syria&#39;s" is completely nonsensical as it isn&#39;t Syria that&#39;s holdind it, it&#39;s Israel.

No nation on earth has the right to force another country "recognize" it. It doesn&#39;t matter what Syria or Lebanon think about Israel, Israel is nonetheless holding territory that even she admits is not hers.

It should also be noted at this point that Syria has come out and stated that the Sheba Farms are Lebanese territory. So this nonsense about "controversy" is just that.


Thankfully, the Israeli government had done a good job for once

:blink:


Originally posted by RevLeft Guidelines
Who is restricted?

In general, anyone who is ideologically opposed to the revolutionary leftist vision of this board is restricted to OI.

Anyone who defends capitalism or otherwise opposes worker liberation is automatically restricted. Anyone who opposes the rights of any other oppressed group is similarly restricted. This includes so-called "pro-lifers" or anyone else who opposes the right to abortion on demand.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Mesijs+--> (Mesijs)Keeping their governments intact is wrong. However, when talking about nations not to exist, I think about deportation or genocide as the solution. And that&#39;s, I hope you think so too, wrong. So explain what you mean exactly with destroying them?

Almost every first world nation uses the third world to cheaply produce goods. So I should start killing people in my country also? No, the point is to make them aware instead of making them dead.

It&#39;s also very stupid to think that your opinions will benefit the communist movement whatsoever. When an average person, who in potential is a communist, notices that communists support murdering civilians, he will disgust the communist movement. Of course he will.

And inaction is something different than taking part. When you reason like that, there won&#39;t be any potential communist left to convince, because you&#39;d like to kill them all because they&#39;re not acting. The duty of the communist movement is to make them act, not to condemn them when they won&#39;t. I wonder how many communists you would gather when searching for support...

We&#39;re not talking what they&#39;re fighting AGAINST, but what they&#39;re fighting FOR. When arguing like that, you could compare two totally different things because they&#39;re both fighting against each other.

I don&#39;t think communist terror is ok, I do think that in certain situations guerrilla warfare is legitimate.[/b]
What I mean is that there should be no country named Israel. All of the land known as Israel was stolen by the Europeans, specifically the European Zionists. Palestine should belong to the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

I used to think in a simular fashion as you, however overtime I&#39;ve come to realize the utter greed of the bourgeoisified proletariat within the imperialist nations. In the end, there shouldn&#39;t be a need to convince people to become communist, especially when they&#39;re working class people. You cannot reason with people who already have a good standard of living. Americans are conservatives and so long as the imperialized countries are exploited they will remain so. Until Americans suffer the wrath of true capitalism, there will never be a revolution here.

How has your ideas furthered the communist movement? All you&#39;re doing is siding with the accepted opinion, where you live, in order to not scare away "recruits." The only people you will ever succeed in convincing are a few liberals who will do nothing or take the ignorant "it would be good if it worked" line of argument.

Terrorism doesn&#39;t practice mass-murder. They aim to accomplish one of these two objectives:

1) Put fear into the minds of the citizenry in order to stop the exploitation of their own people.
2) Destroy governmental targets without very much loss in man power.

Israel has very few accessible governmental targets and therefore the only action available is against Israelis. This is terrorism from the outside because the inside is too self-centered to care about the plight of the exploited.

Now, if the terrorists are citizens themselves - they&#39;re able to target the government. Places like military bases, police stations, courts, prisons, weapon factories, congresses ect. Would this really anger the citizens? Americans really didn&#39;t give two shits about the pentagon when it got hit by a plane and in fact they rarely ever mention it.

One wouldn&#39;t need very many to commit terrorist acts. The Anarchists in the early 20th century were able to conduct many attacks on governmental and private locations/people. They were decentralized and yet were completely capable. An American communist&#39;s goal should not be to bring about a revolution within America - but to cripple America so the third world is free to have their own revolutions. This is what a terrorist would do, while the "revolutionary" convinces people to be "communists."

How well has the convincing people to be communists worked out so far?

I posted this in another thread, but I&#39;ll restate part of it here:

Hasan Nasrallah
What we are saying to our socialist friends who want fight together with us for fraternity and freedom, do not come at all if you are going to say �Religion is an opiate�. We do not agree with this analysis. Here is the biggest proof of this in our streets with the pictures of Chavez, Che, Sadr and Hamaney waving along together. These leaders are saluting our people in unison. So long as we respect your beliefs, and you respect ours, there is no imperialist power we cannot defeat&#33;

Che and Nasrallah are both in a struggle with a simular enemy, an enemy which is far more evil than either of these freedom fighters. Yet there is very little support coming from this forum for Hizb&#39;allah who aims to help the communist revolution come quicker by fighting imperialism. The only reasoning behind this is because people here don&#39;t want to be considered "crazy" or an extremist. Here&#39;s some news, you&#39;re a communist so they look at you as a crazy extremist anyway. So quit putting on a front to seem normal.

Guerrilla warfare is terrorism.

[JimFar]

So I take it that we have a left Zionist amongst us, who presumably has all sorts of illusions concerning the fundamentally "progressive" nature of Zionism. That&#39;s been a problem with Zionism from the very beginning. The Labor Zionists, in particular, were over the years quite successful in sowing illusions among progressives, by no means limited to progressive Jews, that the Zionist project was compatible with progressive and even socialist values and ideals. Thus support for Zionism was among other things portrayed as being compatible with support for anti-imperialism for instance, which is clearly nonsensical.

One of the few early Zionists, who had an even halfway realistic understanding of how things would turn out was the intellectual father of Revisionist Zionism, Z&#39;ev Jabotinsky. In his essay, "The Iron Wall" (http://www.saveisrael.com/jabo/jabowall.htm), Jabotinsky, argued among other things that the success of the Zionist project required that the Zionists ally themselves with Western imperialists (in his day, the British, Italians, and French) against the national aspirations of the Arabs and other peoples of the Middle East. He wrote:

"We can offer only two things: either money or political assistance or both. But we can offer neither. Concerning money, it is ludicrous to think we could finance the development of Iraq or Saudi Arabia, when we do not have enough for the Land of Israel. Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be
considered on any account.

"Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say "no" and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population -- an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy."

Jabotinsky did not mince words here. He also made it quite clear in his essay, that Arab opposition to the Zionist project was not at all irrational. From their perspective, they were quite right to oppose it, since it necessarily threatened their own national aspirations. As he put it:

"Any native people -- its all the same whether they are civilized or savage -- views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our "Arabo-philes" comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network."

I think that Jabotinsky was quite right in his assessment and the events of the past eighty-three years have only shown his analysis to have been correct. Where he goes wrong is in his faith in the continued viability of colonialism, and he clearly saw Zionism as kind of colonialist project. The success of the Zionist project, in his view, required the backing of the imperialist powers (in his day, Jabotinsky spent much time, trying to cultivate support from the British, then Mussolini&#39;s Italians, and later the British again). Now a days, the US plays this sort of a role. Thus to support Zionism, is to support imperialism and colonialism. That was true in 1923 and it is true now, as we can see when we look at the news about both Iraq and Lebanon.

[Jamal]

As an Israeli leftist, I always put most of the blame on my country for the Israeli-Arab conflict. The fact that Israel did not recognize the Palestinian right to sovereignty was, in my eyes, the worst kind of aggression, worse than the Palestinian terrorism. Of course, the Palestinians never really recognized Israel’s right to exist either, and kept a rather dubious tongue about it, but I felt that we should take care of our position first.

yeah man and the Red Indians should acknowlegde the &#39;Cow Boys&#39;&#39;right to exist on thier land and develope a country after commiting a genocide to thier people just like that, because they believe that the land belongs to them.



Well, now, after our hard work, we finally managed to bring the Israeli administration and public to the right place, and the Israeli government states loud and clear that it recognizes the Palestinian right for sovereignty. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have elected a Hamas government, which states loud and clear that its aim is to destroy Israel. And they back it up by sending rockets and suicide bombers into our cities.

give them another way to free thier thier land and they will do it&#33;



In keeping with my leftist values, I now stand firmly by the Israeli government.

How can that work? beeeeeeepp&#33; CONTRADICTION FOUND&#33;&#33;&#33;



Palestinian terrorism could be treated with some sympathy when it was done in the name of a fight for freedom, but not when it is done in the name of a genocidal ideology. I was expecting everyone who regards himself a leftist to stand by Israel at this hour. I do not see it happening.

people that kill 5-10 palestinians on normal basis are the people with a genocidal ideology.



And when the recent conflict with Lebanon came about, the betrayal of the international left became shockingly painful. There is absolutely no excuse for Lebanon’s criminal behavior, and I was expecting the left to call them on it. But I heard nothing. On the other hand, I heard lots of criticism over Israel’s clearly justified retaliation. Let’s recount Lebanon’s actions:

yeah, what about that?&#33; lets see



1. Harboring genocidal terrorists: For the past six years, ever since the IDF pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbollah (a group that announces time and again that its aim is to destroy Israel, backed up by Iran, a country whose President vowed to destroy Israel) has been given permission to reign over southern Lebanon, build fortified bunkers and barracks, stockpile tens of thousands of advanced missiles, and occasionally carry out terrorist attacks or shoot rockets into Israel.

WTF&#33;&#33;&#33; Hezbollah don&#39;t "control" the south, they are a well armed, well trained, well organized guerilla resistance force that has kicked Israel out of Lebanon&#33; "occasionally carrying terrorist attacks or shoot rockets into Israel" yeah "terrorist" attacks on the IDF outposts in the shibaa farms and tilal kefarshooba is a justified to all rational thinkers&#33;



Finally they overdid it, and Israel decided to react. Hezbollah proceeded to shoot thousands of rockets into Israeli cities.

Its like that happened over night&#33;



What did the Lebanese government do? On one hand they did nothing to stop Hezbollah, and even stood by its demands; on the other hand they claimed to be innocent, and cried about “capital punishment”.Sickening. Imagine that the IRA announced that it is changing its ideology, and its main goal is to establish Irish rule over England. And imagine that the Irish government did nothing to stop it, but actually gave it a whole county in which to train and fortify. Imagine that the IRA then started to shoot thousands of rockets into major English cities. How do you think the Brits would react? And what would they think if the Irish then start yelling that they are innocent?

yeah, I bet the Brits will bomb the shit out of Irland, killing over 5000 if we take the ratios of the Lebanese population to that of Irland.



I didn’t hear the left reprimand Lebanon for this behavior. Am I to understand that the left supports the destruction of Israel?

What has this have to do with this? its not even related?&#33;



2. Aiming at civilians: Hezbollah, acting on Lebanon’s blessing, shot thousands of rockets out of civilian populated areas, aiming into civilian populated areas. This is a WAR CRIME.

many of the rockets fired reached non-civillian targets, over 60%. I am against every rocket that killed a civillian&#33;



But I heard no one from the left berating Lebanon for it. Any other country in the world would react by shooting back into civilian populated areas, and Israel packs enough firepower to bring Lebanon to its knees within a few hours if it chose to do so. But Israel didn’t use this power. It took every possible precaution to prevent civilian casualties, and attacked only the places where Hezbollah was dwelling.

something like 20 Hezbollah guerilla fighters died or lets say 3o members of hezbollah; the casualties of the war are 1030&#33; Where did you go with 1000 civillians? Israel didn&#39;t use its power?&#33; That&#39;s bullshit&#33; The sum of the damage consumed is about one Hiroshema bomb every two weaks&#33; Israel used all its power&#33;&#33;&#33; except for the nuclear one ofcourse



Even so, I heard a lot of protests from leftists against the Israeli actions. Does that mean that the leftists of the world believe that Israel has no right to protect its citizens?



3. Kidnapping: perhaps the most infuriating. Hezbollah went into Israeli territory and kidnapped two soldiers, demanding the release of the Lebanese prisoners, and the Lebanese government stood by this demand.

yes ofcourse&#33; in what way should someone get his prisoners? The deplomatic political way didn&#39;t work&#33;



“The Lebanese prisoners”, for those of you who don’t know, are three people, Lebanese citizens who have been captured on Israeli soil doing terrorist activities, tried by our courts, and sentenced to jail.

What the fuck gives Israel the right to give tham a trial? They are non Israeli people and therefore shouldn&#39;t be tried under the Israeli law and court&#33; "Terrorist" should be returned to thier country and then thy would recieve what they deserve there.



One of them is a notorious terrorist, who murdered a family of four, including two little children, and was sentenced to four consecutive life imprisonments.

That "terrorist" is Samir Kuntar(communist&#33;&#33;&#33;), he went into Israel when his land was occupied by Israel and attempted to capture an Israeli nuclear scientist to apply pressure on Israel to pull out of Lebanon and to exchange him with some of his comrades after this was achieved. He went there and captured the xcientist then after a while, the scientists house was surounded by IDF soldiers but Samir Kuntar didn&#39;t go without a fight, in the fight the family died and Samir was injured and then captured.



But even if they weren’t terrorist. Let’s say they were merely criminals. What gives Lebanon the right to demand their release?

because they are Lebanese, duh&#33;



I’m sure there are Israeli criminals sitting in jails in your own country right now. What would you think if some Israeli organization, in order to spring then out, kidnapped some of your citizens and held them hostage, and the state of Israel supported their demands?

its not the same thing stupid&#33;



This sort of behavior makes Lebanon a TERRORIST STATE. Did the leftwing criticize it for it? Not at all. Does that mean that the leftwing supports this type of international piracy? Is there no more place for law and order in the world?

International piracy&#33;?&#33; you are using big definitions for your age. What has this got to do with international piracy? "This makes Lebanon a terrorist state", well by your definition of terrorusm, that&#39;s a good thing.



4. Annexing territory: another ridiculous claim made by Lebanon is that they have the right to employ terrorism in order to “free” a piece of land called the Shebaa Farms. The Shebaa Farms are a small patch of barren land, about 14 square miles in size,

Why then is Israel still holding it?



which officially belongs to Syria, but is now occupied by Israel, and will be returned to the Syrians when they decide to make peace with us.

How does Israel have the right to do that anyway? WTF&#33;&#33;&#33;




The Lebanese think they have a claim to it? Fine – take it up with the UN, like any civilized country would do.

Do you think we haven&#39;t? But the UN UNfortunately is not a United Nations, it is simply one nation and the others just do what it wants. With the US VITO nothing could be done&#33;



But the Lebanese think that the fact that they decided amongst themselves that its theirs gives them the right to use terrorism in order to conquer it. I didn’t hear the left condemn them for it. Again I ask: does that mean that the left condones this sort of imperialistic attitude?


Thats imperialistic? :D conquer itt :lol:



5. Lying: we have seen the Lebanese use a trick they learned from the Palestinians, and making vile accusations against Israel, such as that it used phosphorous bombs.

Phospherous and decentrated, coted Uranium



Once again, like in all previous cases, not a shred of evidence was presented, and no one was asked to validate. Phosphorous bombs leave a mark, you know. If they were used, then an objective comity could easily determine it. But, of course, no one was asked to check. The accusations were thrown into the air, and repeated by the media.

They leaft marks, didn&#39;t you see the burns, the black skin which is the only part of the body that has been burned isn&#39;t that odd? or you where buisy playing with your ActionMan and didn&#39;t have time to continue the news?



I don&#39;t expect much of the media,

hehe, yeah I know, CNN, Fox news , Sky news suck :P



but I do expect of leftwingers to employ critical thinking, and ask the right questions. A day will come when the Muslim terrorists will use this as an excuse for using chemical weapons, and say that Israel started it. It will then be too late to go back and check.

yeah good one, the muslim terrorists have chemical weopons, yey lets go kill them, arn&#39;t you tiered? The same old phrase said over and over again&#33; I&#39;m surprized people stlill believe this junk?&#33;?&#33;



Thankfully, the Israeli government had done a good job for once, and got the result we wanted from the war,

hahhhhaaahaaahahahahahahaahahaahhahahhahhaahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahaahahhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha :D :lol: :lol:

good one, made me laugh hahahaah :lol: still laughing right now



forcing the Lebanese to accept their responsibility and take charge over their country.

yeah yeah, same old crap, its like they haven&#39;t already&#33;&#33;&#33;



But the Israeli leftwing comes out of the war quite powerless to change things within Israel.

yeah, it was so powerful before :rolleyes:



One of the arguments we use in trying to persuade Israelis to obey international law is that if we do, the world will back us up in our war against terrorism. But now, Israelis see that even when they are clearly justified, the leftists of the world are against them.

clearly justified?&#33;&#33;&#33; ofcourse, somepeople captured two of thier soldiers, it justifies the killing of 1030 people and the destruction of a country <_< ah give me a break&#33;



The left has betrayed Israel when it needed its support. More than that, it betrayed its own values.

illustrate, in which part of the Left&#39;s values does it say "support imperialism"?



And finally, it betrayed the people of the Middle East, for by supporting the forces of imperialism, terrorism and genocide,

your talking as if you where the only people living in the middle east&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry: don&#39;t just look at your self, look at the people around you&#33;&#33;&#33;



it reduced the chances for the forces of humanity, peace and democracy to prevail.

and lets concluse by saying: hail George Bush



Why did you betray us?


hmmmm, let me think about that......... WTF&#33;&#33;&#33;, when was the left with Israel and its Zionist agenda? when did the left ever promise Israel anything for them to "betray" you?

My friedn, you are the product of the Israeli media reflecting thier racist, secterianist propaganda.

a peace of advice, get your news off the internet and not off Israeli media and don&#39;t just believe anything said to you about stuff like "aaaah everybody around us is a terrorist&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;" or "the Israeli commandos cought 5 Hezbollah members in its last successful mision&#33;" or "we are only targeting Hezbollah bases and rocket stockpiles" come on man, the thing is so simple, the whole world is not against you, you just need to stop believing these lyes and start thinking, it may be hard at first, but once you get used to it, piece of cake&#33;&#33;

[arad]

Thank you for your replies. I haven’t figured out how to answer each post separately, so I will give this general reply.

You are all missing the main point – the fact that Israel is dealing now (or rather once again) with groups that call for its annihilation, and accept no compromise. Anything you accuse Israel of is not on the same level. Israel doesn’t threaten to destroy its neighbors.
We are in a very complicated situation in the Middle East, and in every nation there are people who are working to try and bring reconciliation. On the other hand, there are many people who want no reconciliation, and go for totalistic solutions. I expect the left to stand by the former and denounce the latter. But many times, when I hear leftists speak, it sounds like they are picking sides in the conflict, as if one side is right and the other wrong. That does not help those of us who are trying to advance reconciliation.
Some of you have claimed that Hezbollah is a guerilla organization. That is hysterical. For a group to be a guerilla, it should to be fighting against foreign occupation, should it not? What occupation has Hezbollah been fighting? There is only one foreign body threatening Lebanese sovereignty, and that is Syria. But Hezbollah did not fight against Syrian occupation – it was, and still is, cooperating with it.
Then there’s Israel, which does not threaten Lebanon’s sovereignty. There has not been even one Israeli, even of the most extreme rightwing ones, who ever wanted any part of Lebanese land. Once, in 1982, Israel tried idiotically to interfere in Lebanese politics, got burned, and learned its lesson. After that, for many years, it stayed in southern Lebanon in order to protect itself. From whom? From Hezbollah, of course, who was constantly threatening our northern citizens with rockets and terrorist attacks. If there was no Hezbollah, there would have been no Israeli presence in Lebanon. So, let me see: Hezbollah is in cahoots with one foreign element operating in Lebanon, and did everything in its power to keep another foreign element in Lebanon. A true guerilla organization, indeed.
As long as Israel was in Lebanon, the Lebanese had an excuse to do nothing against Hezbollah, and to paint them as freedom fighters. Hezbollah, of course, never claimed to be so, and never hid the fact that it would keep on attacking Israel even if it went out of Lebanon (their motto is “All the way to Jerusalem”). Even so, in the nineties we started to campaign for Israel’s withdrawal. Our claim was that Lebanon is no longer the chaotic mess it was in the seventies and eighties, but an organized state, so we should entrust it with protecting our northern border. Finally, in 2000, the IDF pulled out, and Lebanon can have no more claims against Israel. What has happened since? Hezbollah kept on carrying out fatal attacks, kidnap attempts and occasional rocket launchings. It gave no option for peace: when they were asked what would it take for them to lay down their arms, they gave no answer. And the Lebanese government did nothing about it, but allowed them free reign over its south. The excuse that Israel is breeching Lebanese sovereignty by making flights above it is laughable: when you are holding an organization within your midst that is hostile to a neighboring country, you cannot complain when that said country is spying on you. It is your responsibility.
Finally, after six years of this, Israel had enough, and decided to react. I cannot criticize my government for that: when your citizens are living in constant fear, you should do something about it, and when the other side accepts no diplomatic solutions, you have no other option but to fight. The Israeli government stated that the goal of the war is to make the Lebanese government take responsibility over its southern border, and I cannot criticize that, either – it is a completely legitimate demand. And when you fight a war, you have to fight to win: if Hezbollah is firing its rockets out of villages, you have to fire on the rocket launchers, even if civilians might get hit in the process. If Israel wouldn’t have done that, there may not have been so many Lebanese dead, but on the other hand, there would have been a lot more Israeli civilians dead, the war would have been lost, and Hezbollah would have remained the ruler of southern Lebanon. I cannot blame my government for fighting to win, and I saw no proof that civilians were intentionally targeted, or that there was indiscriminate shooting. It’s heartbreaking that so many people had to die before Lebanon agreed to Israel’s clearly justified demand, but they have mainly themselves to blame. Maybe if the world was more adamant in demanding from Lebanon to live up to its responsibilities, instead of protesting against the Israeli action, a lot of the bloodshed could have been prevented.

We have a similar situation in the Gaza strip. Israel cleared out of Gaza, and the Palestinians have elected a Hamas government, which doesn’t recognize Israel and will accept no other solution except its destruction. That doesn’t mean that all Palestinian want to see Israel destroyed - Hamas was elected for a lot of different reasons – but it does mean that the road for reconciliation is currently blocked. And our citizens in the south have been living for a year under a daily barrage of rockets coming from Gaza. Again, the Israeli government had to react: you cannot let your citizens live under constant bombardment, and when there can be no diplomatic solution, you have to fight back. The world, and the left in particular, must not support the Palestinians in this fight, until their government changes its tone. The Palestinian public must learn that Hamas ideology is unacceptable. Otherwise, the forces of reconciliation within the Palestinian side will never prevail.


Arad

[Raisa]

I am solid to the Isreali people always, but their government can go......

Worship a cow.

Shit, How do you expect me to support those genocidal sons of *****es?
You could call me a Nazi, I dont give seventy seven shits.
Isreal got a evil government, and their invastion and assaults on the Lebanese people is completely unjustifiable.

Aside of how I feel about Isreals government being a snake ass devil ,I feel the same way about you, who ever the hell you are for coming on here trying to sway people in here to support the menace that is the Isreali government, when we know better then to support Imperialist agressors, and Zionist Opressors.
You know, some people here dont support Palestine either, but they damn ass well wont ever support Israel.


The reason why I would, betray you, or never support you at all is because your government that you say I should support hurts innocent people as a government.
Your government isnt even worthy of being a government.
It has no HONOR.

I am a Leftist, I am a communist. And I will never support Israel.

When I was reading your post I hummed &#39;Unadikom&#39; to myself just to shit in your cornflakes.

What a wack ass thing to post on Revolutionary Left.

What gives you the notion your government can opress a whole nation of people and be supported by leftists?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:48 PM
Again, the Israeli government had to react: you cannot let your citizens live under constant bombardment, and when there can be no diplomatic solution, you have to fight back.
I&#39;m sure the Palestinians feel the same way...

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:48 PM
You are all missing the main point – the fact that Israel is dealing now (or rather once again) with groups that call for its annihilation, and accept no compromise. Anything you accuse Israel of is not on the same level. Israel doesn’t threaten to destroy its neighbors.
The Israeli government&#39;s been saying that for 58 years, while in reality it is Israel which has been committing all kinds of aggression against Palestinians and other Arabs. Frankly, this bit of rhetoric is completely worn out.


We are in a very complicated situation in the Middle East, and in every nation there are people who are working to try and bring reconciliation. On the other hand, there are many people who want no reconciliation, and go for totalistic solutions. I expect the left to stand by the former and denounce the latter.

Why? Is it the job of "the left" - whatever that means - to be impartial between the oppressor and the oppressed, between the slaveowner and the slave in revolt? Well, count me out of that kind of "left".

But I&#39;ll just ignore your threadbare attempt to appeal to the "left" from here on. This is standard Israeli official propaganda, and I haven&#39;t debated a standard Israeli propagandist for a while. Despite there being a lot of them on the web.

Here&#39;s the deal:

There can be no peace without justice. So if you want peace, work to establish justice. Not just a withdrawal from a few scraps of land, but a full recognition of the human rights of all the people the Israeli regime has dispossessed. Full equality for the Palestinians within Israel proper; citizenship or a meaningfully independent state for those in the "occupied territories"; and the right to return - a basic, universally recognized human right - for the refugees.

Of course this means Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state, you&#39;ll say. Well, yeah. What has this whole "Jewish state" business accomplished for anyone? Why not a democratic, secular state with equal rights for everyone?

You&#39;re going to have a Palestinian majority even inside Israel proper eventually, you know. Unless you carry out another ethnic cleansing of the "Israeli Arabs", you&#39;ll have to give up the whole Jewish supremacy thing eventually. Why fight to the bitter end to hold on to it?

The Israeli apartheid regime is founded on the ethnic cleansing on the Palestinian population. It is by its very nature, as a colonial-settler state, eternally at war with the natives it is driving out - both the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states.

It is an instrument of Washington and other imperialist powers to intervene against every progressive development in the region. From the Suez canal war - was Egypt trying to destroy Israel by nationalizing the canal? To its &#39;78 and &#39;82 invasions of Lebanon, which blocked those forces in Lebanon who were fighting for "one person, one vote" and a democratic, secular system. And allied with the fascist-like Phalangists.

That&#39;s its nature. That&#39;s why millions hate Israel, in every country of the region. That&#39;s why they&#39;d like to see it destroyed - though of course everyone is aware of the relationship of forces which makes that impossible to accomplish by military means.

Not because Arabs are bloodthirsty, savage fanatics who love nothing better than hiding behind a sand dune, just waiting for the chance to ride out on their camels and spill innocent blood with their rusty scimitars. No, don&#39;t bother denying it, obviously that&#39;s the implication behind everything you&#39;ve said, and the whole myth of poor, persecuted Israel.

There was no peace in southern Africa until the apartheid regime in South Africa was destroyed, either. Not just when it got out of Namibia. (And Israel still won&#39;t even get out of its Namibia.)


For a group to be a guerilla, it should to be fighting against foreign occupation, should it not?

That would be news to many Latin American guerillas, for example. No, guerilla describes a military tactic and a form of political violence, that&#39;s all. One of four basic types of armed conflict: Conventional warfare, terrorism, guerilla warfare, and mass insurrection.


What occupation has Hezbollah been fighting? There is only one foreign body threatening Lebanese sovereignty, and that is Syria.

That&#39;s rich. There are no Syrian troops in Lebanon anymore. And they went in with the agreement of Washington and Tel Aviv, because they were on the opposite side of the civil war from the PLO.

Until a few years ago, Washington and Tel Aviv both accepted Syrian troops in Lebanon as a force for "stability". But in your bottomless hypocrisy, you turn around and use them as an excuse for your own invasions and occupations.

It&#39;s a standard Israeli argument, of course, to justify everything they do because the Arab regimes do it too. "Look, the Jordanian monarchy is massacreing Palestinians, why is it bad for us to massacre Palestinians too?"


Then there’s Israel, which does not threaten Lebanon’s sovereignty. There has not been even one Israeli, even of the most extreme rightwing ones, who ever wanted any part of Lebanese land. Once, in 1982, Israel tried idiotically to interfere in Lebanese politics, got burned, and learned its lesson.

Oh. Never mind that it&#39;s constantly interfered in Lebanon since - including since 2000. Constant overflights with warplanes, then you complain because Hezbollah shoots at the warplanes. Plus the Shebaa Farms - which somehow is still part of occupied Syria, even though both Syria and Lebanon say it&#39;s part of Lebanon. (Not to mention the village of Shebaa is Lebanese.) What possible purpose can there be for holding on to the Shebaa Farms anyway, except to deliberately keep alive conflict with Lebanon?

Somehow none of that is violating Lebanese sovereignty. Maybe because you don&#39;t think Arabs can really have any sovereignty - there&#39;s no other way your statements make sense. Certainly you wouldn&#39;t put up with anybody doing all that to Israel, but you expect Lebanese to put up with it.


After that, for many years, it stayed in southern Lebanon in order to protect itself. From whom? From Hezbollah, of course, who was constantly threatening our northern citizens with rockets and terrorist attacks.

That was the excuse for the 1982 invasion too, only it was PLO artillery. Never mind that artillery hadn&#39;t killed a single Israeli in the year before the invasion.

No, this "security zone" business is inherently bullshit. Because people will attack into the "security zone" from outside. So you need a &#39;security zone&#39; for your &#39;security zone&#39;. Etc. If you have the strength, it&#39;s the perfect excuse for unending expansion. Since Israel doesn&#39;t have the strength, it&#39;s a stupid excuse for keeping conflict alive.


If there was no Hezbollah, there would have been no Israeli presence in Lebanon.

Exactly backwards. Hezbollah was a product of the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. It did not exist before 1982. So the truth is "If there was no Israeli presence in Lebanon, there would have been no Hezbollah."


The excuse that Israel is breeching Lebanese sovereignty by making flights above it is laughable: when you are holding an organization within your midst that is hostile to a neighboring country, you cannot complain when that said country is spying on you.

Oh. Can other countries overfly Israel on that basis? It&#39;s definitely holding an organization - the IDF - which is hostile to its neighbors.

In any case, the demand that Lebanon forcibly smash Hezbollah is ridiculous; its weak and divided army is incapable of doing so. It&#39;s a demand that a new civil war be launched between rival sectarian militias. A civil war Hezbollah would win, if it didn&#39;t just become a bloody stalemate like the last one.

If the IDF couldn&#39;t beat Hezbollah, nobody else in the region can militarily defeat it.

And you must know that; it&#39;s so obvious. So this is just a specious justification for whatever Israel decides to do, not a serious demand that actually aims at changing the Lebanese government&#39;s behavior.


IFinally, after six years of this, Israel had enough, and decided to react. I cannot criticize my government for that: when your citizens are living in constant fear, you should do something about it,

Ah. Yup, they really protected Israeli citizens from rockets by launching this war, huh?

Nope, this was about removing the leverage that Hezbollah&#39;s mostly unfired rockets represented. Some would be fired, others destroyed (they hoped): the relationship of forces would be changed. That cold-blooded realpolitik calculation was more important than, say, not having Haifa hit by rockets.

Besides, it&#39;s often the military general staff that calls the shots in Israel - more than the elected politicians - and the more frequently they&#39;re at war, the bigger their power and budgets.


The Israeli government stated that the goal of the war is to make the Lebanese government take responsibility over its southern border,

Which can only be done by collective punishment, yes? If only Hezbollah was hit, why would the Lebanese government care? So obviously the destruction of Lebanese civilian life and property was not just "collateral damage" - it was a necessary part of trying to achieve the objectives of the war. Coercing the Lebanese government.

And Hezbollah&#39;s civilian base was especially hard hit - because Lebanon can&#39;t "take control of the border" unless Hezbollah agrees to it. The IDF&#39;s hope, as always, is that they can break a community&#39;s will to resist. Usually, this hope proves futile, as terrorism typically is self-defeating and produces anger and a desire to strike back.

To the degree the stated reason was the real reason, that is. Which is limited.

Tel Aviv had no confidence in the Lebanese government "taking control of the border". That&#39;s why they refused to negotiate or accept an "immediate cease-fire" under any conditions for so long. (How ironic, then, that you complain about anybody else supposedly refusing to negotiate.)

They intended to have the IDF smash Hezbollah - having no confidence in anyone else&#39;s capability to do so. Of course, they failed.


And when you fight a war, you have to fight to win: if Hezbollah is firing its rockets out of villages, you have to fire on the rocket launchers, even if civilians might get hit in the process.

Which leaves out the infrastructure and transport destroyed throughout the country. That, and the flight of the refugees, produce a lot of hunger and disease. Probably that will kill more people that those directly killed in the bombing. Look up the numbers from the First Gulf War for a parallel. If you care.

What was that, if not collective punishment?


If Israel wouldn’t have done that, there may not have been so many Lebanese dead, but on the other hand, there would have been a lot more Israeli civilians dead, the war would have been lost,

It was lost, or at least failed to achieve its goals. Why else are Israeli politicians locked in recriminations over who&#39;s to blame for the conduct of the war?


Israel cleared out of Gaza, and the Palestinians have elected a Hamas government, which doesn’t recognize Israel and will accept no other solution except its destruction.

Yeah, that&#39;s bullshit. They&#39;re willing to accept an end to hostilities on the basis of complete withdrawal from the occupied territories. Of course, Israel has no intention of doing that, under any conditions. The withdrawal from Gaza just means it&#39;s the world&#39;s biggest prison: do guards have to live inside the cellblock to control it?


That doesn’t mean that all Palestinian want to see Israel destroyed -

Of course they do. You think anyone likes being driven out of 78% of their homeland? Whether its militarily feasible to do anything about that, is of course a different matter. Even Hamas knows the answer to it.


Hamas was elected for a lot of different reasons – but it does mean that the road for reconciliation is currently blocked.

It always has been. That&#39;s one reason Hamas was elected - everyone could see Oslo, and negotiations with Israel, were pointless. They were simply a delaying game, while more and more settlements, walls, and fences were built.

If Israel had any intention of completely withdrawing from the territories - under any conditions - why would they keep putting more settlers in? Under all governments, whether headed by Likud or Labor.


And our citizens in the south have been living for a year under a daily barrage of rockets coming from Gaza.

More BS. "Fifteen Israelis have been killed in rocket attacks from Gaza in the past five years, according to army figures, and more than 175 rockets of different kinds have been launched by Palestinians into Israel in the past month."source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0623/p06s02-wome.html) Is an average of 5 rockets a "barrage"? And people in Gaza would celebrate if only 3 of them were killed by Israel per year. But they&#39;re Arabs - their lives are worth less.


Again, the Israeli government had to react: you cannot let your citizens live under constant bombardment, and when there can be no diplomatic solution, you have to fight back.

It&#39;s already been pointed out this could equally be said by Hamas and Hezbollah. But it&#39;s off target on its own terms, anyway.

More accurately: when you lead a colonial-settler state, surrounded by people who justifiably hate you, you have to react with totally disproportionate force to every attack. This will bring even more retalitation against your own citizens, of course, but that&#39;ll help keep people in line. The main thing is: let them hate, as long as they fear&#33;


The world, and the left in particular, must not support the Palestinians in this fight, until their government changes its tone. The Palestinian public must learn that Hamas ideology is unacceptable. Otherwise, the forces of reconciliation within the Palestinian side will never prevail.

But that&#39;s not the problem. The problem is: how can the forces of resistance prevail over the forces of oppression? Again, only when there is justice can there be peace.

Heck, even an unstable negotiated peace is only possible on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal to its &#39;67 borders. Obviously no Israeli government has ever had any intention of doing that.

Olmert&#39;s government doesn&#39;t even pretend: it plans a "unilateral separation" which leaves it in control of Jerusalem, big chunks of the West Bank....and probably the Jordan River and everything else necessary to cut off the Palestinian reservations from each other and the outside world.

Until the relationship of forces is shifted against Israel, it will never make any kind of peace. So that&#39;s the question: how to do that?

First and most of all, by opposing "our" governments&#39; aid to Israel. Especially military aid, and most especially Washington&#39;s billions a year.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 05:17 PM
Because of this, Israel citizens will die, but none are innocent. Any person within an imperialist country will forever be an enemy of the third world.
You say that everyone who lives in an imperialist country is guilty; but you live in USA. Then why don&#39;t you leave your country? Or if you are guilty just because you are a U.S. citizen, why don&#39;t you "punish" yourself?

[Jamal]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

see this arad, I wouldn&#39;t call this self defence&#33;

good reply Severian

[Wanted Man]

Oh dear. Poow wittle IDF. :(

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel
You say that everyone who lives in an imperialist country is guilty; but you live in USA. Then why don&#39;t you leave your country? Or if you are guilty just because you are a U.S. citizen, why don&#39;t you "punish" yourself?
I wouldn&#39;t be angry at the anti-imperialists if they bombed me - I would be mad at the US government. For example, I&#39;m not mad about 9/11... the US had it coming.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Aug 23 2006, 06:50 PM--> (D_Bokk &#064; Aug 23 2006, 06:50 PM)
adenoid hynkel
You say that everyone who lives in an imperialist country is guilty; but you live in USA. Then why don&#39;t you leave your country? Or if you are guilty just because you are a U.S. citizen, why don&#39;t you "punish" yourself?
I wouldn&#39;t be angry at the anti-imperialists if they bombed me - I would be mad at the US government. For example, I&#39;m not mad about 9/11... the US had it coming. [/b]
Responsible people stop doing something when they realise that this "something" is bad.
Hypocrites continue doing something, while they publicly preach that this " something" is bad.

If you say that living in the U.S.A. makes you guilty, then you should have the guts to leave U.S.A.

And the powers which support Hizbollah( Iran etc.) are not anti-imperialist..... they have imperialist ambitions, just like USA

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by adenoid hynkel
Responsible people stop doing something when they realise that this "something" is bad.
Hypocrites continue doing something, while they publicly preach that this " something" is bad.
That&#39;s nice. What do I need to stop doing?

If you say that living in the U.S.A. makes you guilty, then you should have the guts to leave U.S.A.
Wait, so you&#39;re asking me to leave the USA because I completely disagree with it? I bet you&#39;d like that. If everyone who disagreed with the USA left - there would be no opposition.

You aren&#39;t a communist, are you?

And the powers which support Hizbollah( Iran etc.) are not anti-imperialist..... they have imperialist ambitions, just like USA
You mind backing up your claim?

[theraven]

Wait, so you&#39;re asking me to leave the USA because I completely disagree with it? I bet you&#39;d like that. If everyone who disagreed with the USA left - there would be no opposition.

You aren&#39;t a communist, are you?


1) most of the oppison in the US isn&#39;t anti-imperailist

2)leaivng the US would be removing taxable peole as well as conspcripts



You mind backing up your claim?

well lets see why is iran training, funding, and guiding hezbollah? could it be they would like to dominaite the middle east?

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

see this arad, I wouldn&#39;t call this self defence&#33;

good reply Severian
you don&#39;t call invading the palce where missles were bombarding your cities from slef defense?

[Phugebrins]

"you don&#39;t call invading the palce where missles were bombarding your cities from slef defense?"
I take it by that answer you didn&#39;t watch the video, then.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 09:45 PM
"you don&#39;t call invading the palce where missles were bombarding your cities from slef defense?"
I take it by that answer you didn&#39;t watch the video, then.
i watched a bit about how the israeli soliders accidnetly killed a guys wife and so on. for that you can blame hezbollah

[Phugebrins]

You&#39;re saying that Hezbollah is responsible for the IDF breaking into someone&#39;s house, shooting an unarmed woman, and refusing to allow medical aid to be conveyed? And that the IDF had not an ounce of culpability in this?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

1) most of the oppison in the US isn&#39;t anti-imperailist
That&#39;s irrelevant.



2)leaivng the US would be removing taxable peole as well as conspcripts
So you want him to stay, then.


well lets see why is iran training, funding, and guiding hezbollah? could it be they would like to dominaite the middle east?
When was the last time Iran invaded another middle-eastern nation?

[arad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:39 PM


What I mean is that there should be no country named Israel. All of the land known as Israel was stolen by the Europeans, specifically the European Zionists. Palestine should belong to the Palestinians, not the Israelis.




Very interesting. On what grounds are you claiming that Palestine should belong to Palestinians?

Is it because they were here first? No, that can&#39;t be it. Jews have been living here constantly for at least 3500 years. The Arabs came here about 1400 years ago, and since then they have been living here together.

Is it because the Palestinians hold this land more dearly? No, that can&#39;t be it either. The only people who held this land as their homeland were the Jews. This has been their homeland since before history was even written, and it remained a spiritual center around which the identity of the Jewish nation grew. All Jews living out of it saw themselves as living in diaspora.
For the Arabs, on the other hand, this land was merely part of the larger Arab empire. The Palestinians started to define themselves as a separate nation only in the 19th century, and some say much later than that.

Is it because the Arabs were the legal sovereigns of this land before those bad bad Europeans came and took it away from them? Not at all. The last time there was Arab sovereignty over any part of this land was in the 13th century, some 650 years before the British occupied it. If that gives them any rights over it, then we should be reminded that the Jews were sovereigns over it long before that, and for a longer period of time.
For some reason, the Arabs claim that there is something illegitimate about the fact that the British sovereigns allowed many Jews to immigrate and join their fellow Jews already living in Israel. Why was that illegitimate, while the fact that the Arab sovereigns of many centuries back let Arabs immigrate into it? Why do occupiers who came from Arabia have more rights than occupiers who came from Europe?

Is it because you are driven by some irrational hate towards Israel? I guess that&#39;s probably it.


Arad

[arad]

I&#39;m happy for the opportunity to see things from a Lebanese perspective. During the war I was reading some blogs written by Lebanese, trying to understand their position. It made me cry, but it didn&#39;t help me understand. Your post was a lot more helpful. But the advice you gave me in the end can apply to you as well.



2. Aiming at civilians: Hezbollah, acting on Lebanon’s blessing, shot thousands of rockets out of civilian populated areas, aiming into civilian populated areas. This is a WAR CRIME.

many of the rockets fired reached non-civillian targets, over 60%. I am against every rocket that killed a civillian&#33;

Name one non-civilian target that was hit.


something like 20 Hezbollah guerilla fighters died or lets say 3o members of hezbollah; the casualties of the war are 1030&#33;

You really believe that, don&#39;t you?
The IDF says it has 500 confirmed killings of Hezbollah fighters, and estimated that up to 800 actually got killed. Since they were a lot more reliable than Arab sources in the past, I guess they are more close to the truth.
I don&#39;t know how many of those killed fighters were counted amongst the civilian casualties (after all, Hezbollah are also "Lebanese civilians"). I hope it&#39;s a lot.




“The Lebanese prisoners”, for those of you who don’t know, are three people, Lebanese citizens who have been captured on Israeli soil doing terrorist activities, tried by our courts, and sentenced to jail.

What the fuck gives Israel the right to give tham a trial? They are non Israeli people and therefore shouldn&#39;t be tried under the Israeli law and court&#33; "Terrorist" should be returned to thier country and then thy would recieve what they deserve there.

What&#39;s that? A new law? If someone does crime on your soil, he does time in your prisons.
You suggest, basically, that we should release any terrorist that comes to harm us, so that there would be no deterrent, and terrorist can repeat their actions as long as they want.



That "terrorist" is Samir Kuntar(communist&#33;&#33;&#33;), he went into Israel when his land was occupied by Israel and attempted to capture an Israeli nuclear scientist to apply pressure on Israel to pull out of Lebanon and to exchange him with some of his comrades after this was achieved. He went there and captured the xcientist then after a while, the scientists house was surounded by IDF soldiers but Samir Kuntar didn&#39;t go without a fight, in the fight the family died and Samir was injured and then captured.


A nuclear scientist, eh? Is that what they told you? Nice myth.
There was no nuclear scientist. The victims were a young family, chosen at random. And some eye witnesses say that Kuntar himself shot the girl.
Samir Kuntar has been in prison for a long time. Long enough. He seems like a man that can do a great deal of good if he was released. Personally, I hope he gets released soon.




4. Annexing territory: another ridiculous claim made by Lebanon is that they have the right to employ terrorism in order to “free” a piece of land called the Shebaa Farms. The Shebaa Farms are a small patch of barren land, about 14 square miles in size,

Why then is Israel still holding it?

Why? Because it is an obvious excuse. Everyone knows that if we withdraw from the Shebaa Farms, Hezbollah will find some other stupid excuse to keep the conflict alive.
If the Lebanese offered a deal in which they disarmed Hezbollah in exchange for the Shebaa Farms and the prisoners, Israel would take it.



Do you think we haven&#39;t? But the UN UNfortunately is not a United Nations, it is simply one nation and the others just do what it wants. With the US VITO nothing could be done&#33;

Interesting&#33; That is exactly the reasoning that our rightwing assholes use as an excuse to do whatever they want.



Arad

[arad]

[Severian,Aug 23 2006, 09:05 AM]

There can be no peace without justice. So if you want peace, work to establish justice. Not just a withdrawal from a few scraps of land, but a full recognition of the human rights of all the people the Israeli regime has dispossessed. Full equality for the Palestinians within Israel proper; citizenship or a meaningfully independent state for those in the "occupied territories"; and the right to return - a basic, universally recognized human right - for the refugees.

Of course this means Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state, you&#39;ll say. Well, yeah. What has this whole "Jewish state" business accomplished for anyone? Why not a democratic, secular state with equal rights for everyone?

I agree with you that the "Jewish State" concept has to go. It is despicable to my eyes. This is a remnant of 19th century thinking, when a state was seen as a body supposed to express the "national spirit" of a certain nation. Unfortunately, while other countries have basically worked their way out of this historical phase, Israel was founded on 19th century notions, so it&#39;s harder for it to change. It also has to do with Holocaust paranoias, and not wanting to live amongst gentiles. People like myself, who are third generation after the Holocaust, already think differently, and in time, we will change things through the democratic system.
But the "right to return" has nothing to do with that. We cannot grant this right because this will create a Palestinian majority here, a majority of people who are mostly a) undemocratic; and b) don&#39;t accept the rights of Jews to live here as well. This is suicide.
The Palestinians will have to get realistic about the refugee issue. They should remember that it&#39;s mainly their fault. No one kicked any Palestinian out of his home before 1947, when the UN decided to divide the country between its Jewish and Arabic population. The Jews accepted the resolution, the Arabs didn&#39;t. A war ensued, during which Israel was invaded by the armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Its only chance of survival was to fight them back, and take more land, to create defensible borders. And since the Palestinian population would not live with the Jews, they had to be driven out. Even after that, they would not accept coexistence, and kept on preaching the destruction of Israel. How exactly did they expect Israel to take them back?


No, this "security zone" business is inherently bullshit. Because people will attack into the "security zone" from outside. So you need a &#39;security zone&#39; for your &#39;security zone&#39;. Etc. If you have the strength, it&#39;s the perfect excuse for unending expansion. Since Israel doesn&#39;t have the strength, it&#39;s a stupid excuse for keeping conflict alive.

It&#39;s hard for me to believe that you don&#39;t understand this, but the purpose of the security zone was to prevent attacks on our civilians. In the security zone there were only soldiers.



If Israel wouldn’t have done that, there may not have been so many Lebanese dead, but on the other hand, there would have been a lot more Israeli civilians dead, the war would have been lost,

It was lost, or at least failed to achieve its goals. Why else are Israeli politicians locked in recriminations over who&#39;s to blame for the conduct of the war?

I don&#39;t really see the politicians locked in recriminations. What I see is the Israeli public blaming the government for all sorts of stuff.
There were three main lines determining Israel&#39;s action in this war: 1. To keep the Lebanese democratic system and government intact. 2. To prevent the IDF from getting stuck in Lebanon again, and giving Hezbollah an excuse to continue to exist. 3. To corner the Hezbollah into accepting the rule of the Lebanese government, and to get the latter to accept responsibility for its south. I think that the Israeli government worked very carefully and thoughtfully, and got a very good result.

The public doesn&#39;t see it that way. They followed the usual warmongers, who told them that Israel is going to destroy Hezbollah (the government and army never claimed it&#39;s possible). They wanted their pint of blood, and they didn&#39;t get it, so now they want the government&#39;s head instead.




Israel cleared out of Gaza, and the Palestinians have elected a Hamas government, which doesn’t recognize Israel and will accept no other solution except its destruction.

Yeah, that&#39;s bullshit. They&#39;re willing to accept an end to hostilities on the basis of complete withdrawal from the occupied territories.

Huh??&#33;&#33;&#33;
Where did you get that from?
They want the destruction of Israel. That is what they are saying. Any territory they will get will be used as a base for further attacks.
You are asking of Israelis to withdraw from the occupied territories, so that every part of our country will be exposed to rocket attacks, and we can never have peace. Not only that, but you show us that even if we try to defend ourselves against these attacks, you will be on the side of the Palestinians, and many other people in the world will do the same. No, thank you.


Arad

[Phugebrins]

"Name one non-civilian target that was hit."
It is illegal for the media to broadcast reports of hits on military targets. I&#39;m surprised you weren&#39;t aware of this.

"On what grounds are you claiming that Palestine should belong to Palestinians?"
Because the Palaestinians of today have lived there all their lives. They should not be driven out of their homes or made to suffer because of their ethnicity or because of decisions made in the times of their ancestors.

[arad]

[Phugebrins,Aug 27 2006, 03:07 PM]


"On what grounds are you claiming that Palestine should belong to Palestinians?"
Because the Palaestinians of today have lived there all their lives. They should not be driven out of their homes or made to suffer because of their ethnicity or because of decisions made in the times of their ancestors.

If by saying "Palestine" you mean Gaza and the West Bank, you are right. But the person I was quoting claimed that ALL OF ISRAEL belongs to the Palestinians. Which means, to kick out the millions of Jews who have been living in it all their lives.


Arad

[arad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 11:13 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

see this arad, I wouldn&#39;t call this self defence&#33;

good reply Severian

First of all, this is Betlehem, not Lebanon. But I suppose things like that happened in Lebanon as well.
You don&#39;t have to teach ME about these things. It happens in the occupied territories on a daily basis. In this kind of situation, humans behave like animals. I&#39;ve heard worse.
Which is why we need to put an end to Israeli occupation as soon as possible. But that will not happen if the Palestinians won&#39;t accept Israel&#39;s existence. If Israel withdraws from all of the West Bank, and the Palestinians start to shoot rockets from there into Tel-Aviv, we have achieved nothing. Israel will be forced to react, and this reaction will cause a lot more suffering than the occupation does today.



Arad

[theraven]

That&#39;s irrelevant.

why?


So you want him to stay, then.

I&#39;m fine with it, however if his ideology is anti-american he&#39;d be better off elsewhere...




When was the last time Iran invaded another middle-eastern nation?

offically? the 80s, however a wing of their miltiayr, is a major force in lebanon.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 09:07 AM
I agree with you that the "Jewish State" concept has to go. It is despicable to my eyes.
.....
But the "right to return" has nothing to do with that. We cannot grant this right because this will create a Palestinian majority here,
So you&#39;re opposed to the concept...but committed to the reality of Jewish supremacy.
That Jewish majority you&#39;re committed to - was created by ethnic cleansing. It&#39;s maintained by denying citizenship rights to Palestinians under occupation - and continuing to keep out the victims of ethnic cleansing. It&#39;s as if Serbia was still refusing to readmit the population of Kosova.

And as I pointed out - and you didn&#39;t respond to - the Jewish majority can only be maintained long-term by a new round of ethnic cleansing against "Israeli Arabs". If current demographic trends continue - birthrates plus Jews leaving Israel - the Jewish majority will eventually be a thing of the past.


The Palestinians will have to get realistic about the refugee issue. They should remember that it&#39;s mainly their fault.

This victim-blaming is wholly false, as Benny Morris and other Israeli historians have pointed out. Morris even supports the ethnic cleasning, but doesn&#39;t deny what Israel&#39;s founders did.

If the state of Israel was going to be created with a Jewish majority, the Palestinian population had to be driven out. Israel&#39;s founders had to create "A land without a people for the people without a land" to quote the Zionist movement&#39;s slogan.

That&#39;s the reality behind all the excuses.


It&#39;s hard for me to believe that you don&#39;t understand this, but the purpose of the security zone was to prevent attacks on our civilians. In the security zone there were only soldiers.

The Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip occupation were all initally justified the same way (and to some extent still are. The Jordan River must be Israel&#39;s security border, the Labor Party platform says.) But Israel moved Israeli civilians into all of those areas&#33;

It just proved impractical to set up settlements in occupied Lebanon - due to the strength of the resistance.

And do I need to remind you that the latest Lebanon invasion was justified over an attack on soldiers? Israel recognizes no distinction between attacks on its soldiers and civilians; both are considered terrorism.


I don&#39;t really see the politicians locked in recriminations......
[The public] followed the usual warmongers, who told them that Israel is going to destroy Hezbollah (the government and army never claimed it&#39;s possible).

Down the memory hole, huh? Let&#39;s look at what the Olmert and the generals actually said in the first days of the war.

"We know it&#39;s going to be a long and continuous campaign and operation, but it&#39;s very clear. We need to put Hezbollah out of business," Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan told The Associated Press.Associated Press (http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/news/060715/middle.shtml)

And here&#39;s the text of Olmert&#39;s speech to the Knesset (http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Communication/PMSpeaks/speechknesset170706.htm) The relevant part:
We can all see how the majority of the international community supports our battle against the terror organizations and our efforts to remove this threat from the Middle East.

We intend to do this. We will continue to operate in full force until we achieve this. On the Palestinian front, we will conduct a relentless battle until terror ceases, Gilad Shalit is returned home safely and the shooting of Qassam missiles stops.

And in Lebanon, we will insist on compliance with the terms stipulated long ago by the international community, as unequivocally expressed only yesterday in the resolution by the 8 leading countries of the world:
- The return of the hostages, Ehud (Udi) Goldwasser and Eldad Regev;
- A complete cease fire;
- Deployment of the Lebanese army in all of Southern Lebanon;
- Expulsion of Hizballah from the area, and fulfillment of United Nations Resolution 1559.

We will not suspend our actions.
.....
We will search every compound, target every terrorist who assists in attacking the citizens of Israel, and destroy every terrorist infrastructure, everywhere. We will persist until Hizballah and Hamas comply with those basic and decent things required of them by every civilized person. Israel will not agree to live in the shadow of missiles or rockets aimed at its residents.

I could give more - including claims that 50% of Hezbollah&#39;s missiles were destroyed, and by Olmert that Hezbollah&#39;s "infrastructure" actually had been destroyed - but enough.

Were the captured soldiers returned? No, and Israel is now seeking the prisoner swap it coulda held instead of going to war.

Was Hezbollah expelled, or will it be expelled from that area? No. At most, it will put its weapons away, and not be the main armed force on the street every day.

How can you not know this stuff, if you&#39;re really an Israeli? In my experience only its American supporters so inflexibly and uncritically repeat the official excuses.

*****

The Olmert quote also supports another point from my last post: this war was not intended to stop the firing of rockets - obviously it did the opposite. It was aimed at eliminating the "shadow of missiles or rockets" as Olmert puts it.

The threat, the deterrence, their effect on the balance of power. Israel, of course, has no intention of giving up its capability to attack others - but it insists no one else have the capability to retaliate.

This is Washington&#39;s struggle with the Axis of Evil, writ small.



Huh??&#33;&#33;&#33;
Where did you get that from?
They want the destruction of Israel. That is what they are saying. Any territory they will get will be used as a base for further attacks.

n January 2004, senior Hamas leader Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi offered a 10-year hudna in return for complete withdrawal from all territories captured in the Six Day War, and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Rantissi said the hudna was limited to ten years and represented a decision by the movement because it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage; the hudna would however not signal a recognition of the state of Israel." Hamas&#39; former spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin made similar statements at this time, including a one hundred year Hudna. Israel characterised the offer as ridiculous and a "smoke screen for military preparations". Both Israel and the United States insist that Hamas is "an enemy of peace" that must be disarmed and dismantled[3]. Following further terror attacks by Hamas, Yassin was killed by Israel in March 2004, Rantissi in April[4]Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudna)

I might point out that most peace treaties do not claim to be eternal. The few that have - like the U.S. promise that the Black Hills would belong to the Dakota Indians "as long as the grass shall grow"...have proved not so eternal.

And:
Hamas&#39;s top elected official, Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, now accepts that to stop his people&#39;s suffering, his government must forsake its all-or-nothing call for Israel&#39;s destruction. "We have no problem with a sovereign Palestinian state over all our lands within the 1967 borders, living in calm," Mr. Haniya told me in his Gaza City office in late June, shortly before an Israeli missile destroyed it. "But we need the West as a partner to help us through."
....Hasan Yusuf, a Hamas official held in Israel&#39;s Ketziot prison, doesn&#39;t think President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran&#39;s declaration that the main solution to the Middle East crisis is for the elimination of the "Zionist regime" is practical or wise. "The outcome in Lebanon doesn&#39;t change our view," Mr. Yusuf informed me last weekend. "We believe in two states living side by side."
.....
He also said that "all Hamas factions have agreed to a unilateral cease-fire, including halting Qassam rockets; the movement is ready to go farther if it receives any encouraging responses from Israel and the West."
.... While Mr. Meshal says Islam allows only a long-term truce with Israel, Hamas officials closer to Prime Minister Haniya believe that a formal peace deal is possible, especially if negotiations can begin out of the spotlight and proceed by degrees.

Originally from the New York Times (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_081806E.shtml)

[arad]

It&#39;s as if Serbia was still refusing to readmit the population of Kosova.


Yeah, well, if the population of Kosovo claimed that all Serbians should be kicked out of Serbia, and taking them back would have put the Serbians in a number disadvantage, no one in their right mind would have demanded of the Serbians to readmit them.



And as I pointed out - and you didn&#39;t respond to - the Jewish majority can only be maintained long-term by a new round of ethnic cleansing against "Israeli Arabs". If current demographic trends continue - birthrates plus Jews leaving Israel - the Jewish majority will eventually be a thing of the past.


That doesn&#39;t bother me one bit. If a gradual growth of the percentage of Arabs in Israel does happen, then it will be accompanied by an increasing coexistence with the Jews. By the time they will have a majority, we will already be one nation. But right now, there is very little coexistence, and bringing in a large Arab population - the refugees - will surely cause chaos.


This victim-blaming is wholly false, as Benny Morris and other Israeli historians have pointed out. Morris even supports the ethnic cleasning, but doesn&#39;t deny what Israel&#39;s founders did.


I read Benny Morris. I didn&#39;t see any evidence that Israel planned an ethnic cleansing, before the Arab refusal to the partitition plan forced it into an all-or-nothing confrontation.
You can claim, of course, that Israel could have acted differently a few times a long the way, and maybe the refugee problem could have been prevented. The truth is that both sides are to blame. But we can&#39;t turn the wheel back now. We must think of a realistic way to solve this problem.





It&#39;s hard for me to believe that you don&#39;t understand this, but the purpose of the security zone was to prevent attacks on our civilians. In the security zone there were only soldiers.



The Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip occupation were all initally justified the same way (and to some extent still are. The Jordan River must be Israel&#39;s security border, the Labor Party platform says.) But Israel moved Israeli civilians into all of those areas&#33;


So you think Israel has expansion in mind? Is that how you read the situation?
Well, you know, there is just one small problem with that: when a certain state has its eye on a piece of land, it manifests itself in things said by its people. You cannot keep such a thing a secret, especially not in democracies. Can you quote any Israeli comment that talks about expanding beyond our current borders?

I want you to take a step back and look at how redicilous your stance is. Israel is a very small country. It has an enormous advantage in power over its neighbors, and if it wanted, it could easily expand. But in the 58 years of its existence, its borders changed very little.
In 1967, it occupied the small pieces of land that you mention above, and initially, they were indeed meant for security, to be given back only for a full peace deal. But the combination of Arab refusal to make peace, coupled by a rise in nationalistic and religious enthusiasm, sent Israelis to settle in the occupied territories. But once the Arabs started talking peace, the power of the "greater Israel" fanatics started to gradually diminish, and of those who believe in land-for-peace to grow. Today, the "greater Israel" camp numbers only the religious zealots, who are 5-10% of the poplulation. Eventually, we will be out of all these places.
In short, Israel is behaving like a normal country, a country that makes mistakes and gets carried away sometimes, but ultimately wants to live peacefully with its neighbors.


Down the memory hole, huh? Let&#39;s look at what the Olmert and the generals actually said in the first days of the war.


I didn&#39;t see anything in your quotes that suggests that Israel thought it could destroy Hezbollah. For every army figure that said it could, there were ten who said it isn&#39;t possible.
Naturally, the final aim is to eliminate Hezbollah as a threat to the everyday life of the citizens in our north. But that is a long struggle, and only the Lebanese can do it.
You think Israel gained nothing by this war? Well, you have never been to our northern border, then. Our citizens there were living their lives when constantly, about a hundred yards away, they could see a Hezbollah gunmen, and didn&#39;t know when he will decide to shoot. It&#39;s hard to lead a normal life this way. Nowadays, Hezbollah cannot carry guns, and that is a huge difference.


Finally, as to the Hamas quotes you bring, they are indeed very encouraging, but they do not represent the Hamas official line yet. And they are not good enough. I really don&#39;t understand how you don&#39;t get the difference between a truce and a peace agreement. Sure, a peace may not last forever, but in the agreement, the borders are being set and given an official stamp, so that the future generations are bound by them as well. In a truce, nothing is being determined, so the Palestinians can merely wait for the right hour, the hour when they feel stronger than Israel, and then attack. Would you accept such a deal?
These latest quotes are interesting. If Hamas will truly take this line that says a peace with Israel is the solution, then Israelis like me will immediately start to push for resuming negotiations, and it will happen in no time. But until then, we have to keep the pressure on the Palestinians.


You know what your problem is? You don&#39;t think of the people of this region as human beings. You don&#39;t see them as creatures driven by beliefs, fears, hopes, misunderstandings, grudges, ignorance etc., sometimes acting benevolently, other times monsterously. You decided that Israel is bad and wants only to expand at the expence of its neighbors, so you look for anything that supports your theory and disregard the rest. And you think that the Palestinians are good, and that if they will be given their rights, they will forget about their wish to destroy Israel, and live with it peacefully. Well, it doesn&#39;t work that way. There are people here locked in a deadly struggle, and many of us, on both sides, are trying to find the way out. So the question I put to all of you is: are you going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?


Arad

[Phugebrins]

"their wish to destroy Israel"
So... you&#39;re accusing him of attributing expansionist desires to Israelis, and at the same time justifying yourself by attributing to the Palaestinians the wish to destroy Israel?

Come off it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Arad, simple reason: Israel is a colonial-settler state, founded on the expropriation of Palestinian land, and now acting as a watchdog in the M.East for US imperial/oil interests.

Hence its continual agression, and its brutal terror tactics.

And I say this a a Jewess myself.

Fuller explanation here:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9334

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9373

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/cliff/isrviol.htm

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/selfa/zionism.htm

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/index.htm

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/index.htm

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 03:32 PM
Arad, simple reason: Israel is a colonial-settler state, founded on the expropriation of Palestinian land, and now acting as a watchdog in the M.East for US imperial/oil interests.

Hence its continual agression, and its brutal terror tactics.

And I say this a a Jewess myself.

Fuller explanation here:

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9334

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9373

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/cliff/isrviol.htm

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/selfa/zionism.htm

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/schoenman/index.htm

http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/index.htm
a jewess?? are
you kididng me?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new&#33;
Jew‧ess  /ˈdʒuɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[joo-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Usually Offensive.
a Jewish girl or woman.Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source new&#33;
Jew‧ess  /ˈdʒuɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[joo-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Usually Offensive.
a Jewish girl or woman.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=jewess&x=0&y=0

I am jewish also and have NEVER had a girl call herself a jewess.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raven:


I am jewish also and have NEVER had a girl call herself a jewess.

You should get out more.

[JimFar]

Rosa, I don&#39;t know about the UK, but on my side of the pond, nobody ever uses the word "Jewess," except in Ivanhoe movies.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 11:01 AM
Raven:


I am jewish also and have NEVER had a girl call herself a jewess.

You should get out more.
Rosa I get out plenty, I&#39;ve been invovled with temple, youth groups and hillel my whole life. I know old jews and young jews, from many countires (includign many in the UK). and can&#39;t imagien any refering to themselves as a "jewess". the only place i&#39;ve ever seen that word is on neo-nazi websites.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raven:


Rosa I get out plenty,

Try it sober, then.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 05:08 PM
I am jewish also and have NEVER had a girl call herself a jewess.
How do Jewish girls call themselves, if they feel the need to stress their religious affiliation?

Luís Henrique

[arad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 02:34 PM
"their wish to destroy Israel"
So... you&#39;re accusing him of attributing expansionist desires to Israelis, and at the same time justifying yourself by attributing to the Palaestinians the wish to destroy Israel?

Come off it.

I&#39;m sorry. Did I say "wish"?
I should have said the professed ideology of the Palestinian government.
And apparently, an ideology supported by a few members of this forum, as well.


Arad

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, there seem to be all manner of &#39;racist&#39; jewish women out there who, like me are so full of &#39;self-hatred&#39;, they keep using this dastardly descriptor, &#39;Jewess&#39;.

Check these out:

http://barefoot_jewess.blogspot.com/

http://www.hti.umich.edu/a/amjewess/

[The above was a magazine devoted to American Jewesses; they should be shunned...]

http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/...wess_of_orh.htm (http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/100_i_am_a_jewess_of_orh.htm)

http://jewess.wordpress.com/

http://www.molly.com/2003/08/26/wandering-jewess/

There are plenty more.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 03:34 PM
Raven:


Rosa I get out plenty,

Try it sober, then.
rosa just admit your not a "jewess" but just an anti-semtiic idiot

[theraven]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Aug 29 2006, 04:07 PM--> (Luís Henrique @ Aug 29 2006, 04:07 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 05:08 PM
I am jewish also and have NEVER had a girl call herself a jewess.
How do Jewish girls call themselves, if they feel the need to stress their religious affiliation?

Luís Henrique [/b]
they would say "i am jewish" or "i am a jew"

your links rosa

the first appears to be the wiritng of some oddball the 2nd descibes a magizine form over 100 years ago (And i doubt your that old), the rest are a couple of random blogs. it doesnt hcange the fact that even those blog writers would probably never refer t themslves as a jewess in normal conversation, nor does it change the fact that "jewess" is an offesneive term.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raven, beginning to struggle:


the first appears to be the wiritng of some oddball the 2nd descibes a magizine form over 100 years ago (And i doubt your that old), the rest are a couple of random blogs. it doesnt hcange the fact that even those blog writers would probably never refer t themslves as a jewess in normal conversation, nor does it change the fact that "jewess" is an offesneive term.

So, I find a magazine (albeit defunct) where Jewish women were once happy to use the term &#39;Jewess&#39; to describe themsleves to all the world, several blogsters who do this now to the entire internet, and you cling to your odd-ball story (when once you said no one uses this term).


I am jewish also and have NEVER had a girl call herself a jewess.

If I, a jewess, use this word (and am proud to use it) to describe myself, and you can&#39;t handle that, I should care.

[Phalanx]

I&#39;m active in my local temple, and I have to say I&#39;ve never heard a female Jew call herself a Jewess. I&#39;m not saying that I&#39;m offended by this, it&#39;s just...odd.

[Luís Henrique]

they would say "i am jewish" or "i am a jew"

Isn&#39;t "Jew" a masculine form?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 05:51 PM
the first appears to be the wiritng of some oddball the 2nd descibes a magizine form over 100 years ago (And i doubt your that old), the rest are a couple of random blogs. it doesnt hcange the fact that even those blog writers would probably never refer t themslves as a jewess in normal conversation, nor does it change the fact that "jewess" is an offesneive term.
Perhaps the linguistic use where Rosa lives is different from where you live?

What do you have to base your accusation that she is antisemitic, except your own wish that she was?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, I have described myself this way all my life, so have my female relatives, and many of those I know.

So, I do not know what odd part of world these &#39;sensitive&#39; souls come form.

[Phalanx]

It must just be different in London. But to American Jews, the term &#39;Jewess&#39; is kind of confusing. You&#39;d call a female lion a lioness, but it seems strange to apply it to yourself. It&#39;s a bit like calling a female Arab an Arabess.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 29 2006, 07:01 PM
LH, I have described myself this way all my life, so have my female relatives, and many of those I know.

So, I do not know what odd part of world these &#39;sensitive&#39; souls come form.
I read somewhere that an American journalist interviewed Frank Bruno, and kept calling him "African-American".

Bruno complained that he was not American, and had no links to Africa. But the journalist couldn&#39;t get himself out of it.

Political correctness is going to make Americans crazy. Or being slugged a good one on the eye... by Frank Bruno no less.

And I will cry a river... :rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

[Phugebrins]

"Jewess. The late Marghanita Laski, novelist and broadcaster, told me round about 1970 that it was not acceptable for me to call her a Jewess, but that Jewish people were entitled to use the term among themselves. This habit of claiming exclusive rights to the use of particular words and denying them to outsiders is one of the paradoxes of the 20C. The word Jewess has in fact been in continuous use since the 14C, and, until the 20C., seems to have had no adverse connotations..."
- Fowler&#39;s Modern English Usage, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1996.

[theraven]

So, I find a magazine (albeit defunct) where Jewish women were once happy to use the term &#39;Jewess&#39; to describe themsleves to all the world, several blogsters who do this now to the entire internet, and you cling to your odd-ball story (when once you said no one uses this term).


its not odd ball, i&#39;ve never heard anyone use this term, your only exmaples are a few oddball blogs and a 100 year old jornal. perhaps in another time it was apporite. perhaps those women are idiots like yourslef might be. none the less the fact remains I, and my many jewish firends, have never heard the term "jewess" used in a postiive sense.



If I, a jewess, use this word (and am proud to use it) to describe myself, and you can&#39;t handle that, I should care.

why are you proud to use a derragoty term for yourself? this makes as much sense as the use of the N word to desiceb black people.

[EvilSeal]

it&#39;s just a word, for fucks sake. if shes not offended by it, thats her own business and i see no reason why she shouldnt be allowed to call herself whatever she wants.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 10:30 PM
it&#39;s just a word, for fucks sake. if shes not offended by it, thats her own business and i see no reason why she shouldnt be allowed to call herself whatever she wants.
oh shes allowed i was just calling her an idiot and questiongi her authentiicty.

[TheGreatestOne]

woops

[EvilSeal]

oh, sorry, i thought you said allowed, but you said "proud". my mistake, i was confused when i saw that a fellow libertarian said someone wasn&#39;t allowed to call herself what she wanted.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raven, goes into extended moan mode:


its not odd ball, i&#39;ve never heard anyone use this term, your only exmaples are a few oddball blogs and a 100 year old jornal. perhaps in another time it was apporite. perhaps those women are idiots like yourslef might be. none the less the fact remains I, and my many jewish firends, have never heard the term "jewess" used in a postiive sense.

As I said, get out more.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 12:18 AM
Raven, goes into extended moan mode:


its not odd ball, i&#39;ve never heard anyone use this term, your only exmaples are a few oddball blogs and a 100 year old jornal. perhaps in another time it was apporite. perhaps those women are idiots like yourslef might be. none the less the fact remains I, and my many jewish firends, have never heard the term "jewess" used in a postiive sense.

As I said, get out more.
that won&#39;t help. here are the resposne i got from jewish girls i know

various varaions of " who calls herself a jewess&#33;?"

anyway needless to say maybe among the comardes thats a common term..but not in the real world.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Raven, goes into extended moan mode:



its not odd ball, i&#39;ve never heard anyone use this term, your only exmaples are a few oddball blogs and a 100 year old jornal. perhaps in another time it was apporite. perhaps those women are idiots like yourslef might be. none the less the fact remains I, and my many jewish firends, have never heard the term "jewess" used in a postiive sense.


As I said, get out more.


Rosa, far be it from me to agree with a self-proclaimed libertarian neo-con like Raven, but here in the States, virtually no one uses the word Jewess. I don&#39;t think that I was being entirely facetious, when I said that I don&#39;t recall the word ever being used here outside of Ivanhoe movies (e.g. the Jewess Rebecca). I recknown that things are different in the UK as they are with lots of other things regarding the English language. As G.B. Shaw once put it, England and America are two countries divided by a common language.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raven, moans into a second great, and badly-typed, week:


that won&#39;t help. here are the resposne i got from jewish girls i know

They should get out more.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 01:01 AM
Raven, moans into a second great, and badly-typed, week:


that won&#39;t help. here are the resposne i got from jewish girls i know

They should get out more.
or perhaps you need to get out and stop watching ivanhoe, since thats clealry the only place anyones ever heard it. I was in enlgand for 2 months, spent every fri/sat with a jewish family in town never heard the word jewess once.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks for that, but as you can see from an earlier thread, even a cursory google shows that many Jewesses in the USA and the UK are quite happy with this term

You need to read between the lines here; what Raven objects to is not my use of this word, but that a Jewess objects to Zionist agression/mass murder.

So, this is a political dispute; you need to focus on that.

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


You need to read between the lines here; what Raven objects to is not my use of this word, but that a Jewess objects to Zionist agression/mass murder.

So, this is a political dispute; you need to focus on that.

I don&#39;t doubt that, after all what sort of position would a self-proclaimed libertarian neo-con hold except that of being a supporter of Israeli aggression. As I am sure you well aware, the worst venom of Zionist apologists is spared for those Jews (i.e. Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, even that tepid liberal, Tony Judt) who openly criticize Zionist aggression against the Palestinians, Lebanese etc.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 01:04 AM
Jim, thanks for that, but as you can see from an earlier thread, even a cursory google shows that many Jewesses in the USA and the UK are quite happy with this term

You need to read between the lines here; what Raven objects to is not my use of this word, but that a Jewess objects to Zionist agression/mass murder.

So, this is a political dispute; you need to focus on that.
no my objection would be the same if a girl in hillel used it, the idffernec is she wouldn&#39; view it as a politicla attack.

anyway as a JEWISH libertian neo-con i am firmly suportive of israels right to defend itself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


anyway as a JEWISH libertian neo-con i am firmly suportive of israels right to defend itself.

And the IDF got a good kicking.

More to come I hope.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, I think you misread what I posted, since you then went on to agree with me after saying this:


I don&#39;t doubt that

Or I misunderstand you.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 02:55 AM
Raving:


anyway as a JEWISH libertian neo-con i am firmly suportive of israels right to defend itself.

And the IDF got a good kicking.

More to come I hope.
so you hope the genocidal fundies in hezbolalh succed in destroying israel :wacko:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


so you hope the genocidal fundies in hezbolalh succed in destroying israel

I can settle for the IDF for starters.

As a Jewess, I pray for that day.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 30 2006, 01:18 PM
As a Jewess, I pray for that day.
fucking self-hating jew&#33; :rolleyes:

on a more serious note, israel has been genocidal from the start. or, if not genocidal, willing to remove every palestinian that refuses to submit to hegemony. sort of like, you know, population transfer.

these ideas are at the very core of mainstream zionism.. even "labor" zionism has been explicitly socialistic only for the jews; accordingly, only the jews are qualified for the kind of prosperity that zionism entails. dissenters exist, no doubt.. many zionists have tried to point out the "minor fact" that the popular zionist ideas of, say, 1905 would mean the absolutely un-ethical treatment of an entire group of people.. folks liked to pretend that palestine was an empty desert before jewish colonialism, but that&#39;s not the case at all. some of the leading jewish authorities of the time (and even of today) are explicitly against such treatment and non-factual "historical" revisionism, and rightfully so. the fact that such people exist attests to a very possible, very near sense of justice that rightfully belongs to all people.

and, at bottom, zionism is nothing more than out-dated metaphysics.. so out-dated, in fact, that it even stands contrary to classical liberal values. jews are entitled to another&#39;s land not merely due to persecution, but because they have some kind of "blood connection" to palestine -- a conscious geneology that two thousand years can never erase. strangely enough, that&#39;s rather anti-semitic.. zionists seem to imbue very physical, very "real" properties onto themselves, as if their "race" constitutes an entirely separate consciousness or awareness.. at bottom, they say that jews see something that the rest of the world does not. zionism is a little matter of re-forging some kind of "natural" relationship with the "homeland," that jews, regardless of where they are today, belong there; that jews, despite their newly-acquired assimilation, their new cultures, new ideas and new relations, have a primal urge to re-populate this rather distant place.. that there are no real independent nations that the jews can "belong to," only a single, national entity that is ethnically homogeneous. jews cannot be anywhere else; they cannot belong anywhere else. guess who made that argument before, around, say, seventy years ago? and guess what happened as a result of such fine argumentation?

i find that offensive to egalitarians, as well as to jews. the accusation of jewish self-hatred comes from this inconvenient fact -- the idea that, somehow, jews are supposed to hold specific political opinions and be blessed with the kind of vision that ordinary mortals cannot have. anyone that dissents from the popular hegemony is branded, outcast, and reviled. why?

any sensible person can see how weak such arguments are. if time cannot erode our blood connections to specific regions of the world, we might as well start a campaign to go back to africa.. after all, we were all "original men" at some point. let&#39;s move in, then. let&#39;s move in and fight and kill and enslave the weakest of the weak.

sadly, today&#39;s explicitly political zionism can have no other conclusion. jews and arabs can co-exist in peace, no doubt.. as long as one doesn&#39;t take the clearly-fascist stance that, "we&#39;re jews/arabs/whites/blacks and therefore, we are entitled to X, and you are not."

[arad]

Your criticism of Zionism, Brooklyn-Mecca, has a lot of truth in it.
The Zionistic movement does indeed contain all the things you mentioned. It sprang out of 19th century Romanticism, and held the Romantic notion that a person is defined by his/her nationality and his/her cennection to a certain homeland, and can be "authentic" only in that homeland.
These notions are now completely outdated, and Israel is slowly working them out of its system. As I said before, it is harder to do in Israel, since it was actually founded on these notions. But we are definitely on our way.
This, however, doesn&#39;t delegitimize the right of Jews to live in Israel. You have one fatal mistake: it is not that a "blood connection" connects the Jews to a land they forgot 2000 years ago. Jews have always lived in Israel; Jews have always regarded Israel as their homeland and spiritual center; and Jews have always seen themselves as one people, spread throughout the world but connected to one another, with the holyland as their heart.

But your criticism is, as I said, basically justified. Which I can&#39;t say for the batch of rubbish that Rosa posted and asked me to read. Ok, I did. It made for an extremely boring read.
I learned nothing from these pamphlets. They were just rehashes of old material, put in a way that creates a certain picture. It&#39;s the easiest thing in the world to do: come with a preconceived story, look for the facts that corroborate it and ignore the facts that contradict it, and you have a simple, black/white story. The goal is to cover the fact that the mid-east conflict is between two nations who both have a rightful claim for the land, and both refused to acknowledge the other&#39;s claim, and so brought calamity upon themselves. This kind of recognition would have entailed these writers to get deeper into the complexities of the issue; in other words, it would have required of them to THINK, and thinking is clearly not something they like doing.
This kind of approach can benefit only one side: the side of the strong and hegemonic. When you cultivate an approach that says that you can tell any kind of story and you don&#39;t really need to search for the truth, then you give the dominant the legitimacy to enforce his own story.
Someone mentioned Benny Morris on this thread. Benny Morris embarked on a serious exploration of the refugee issue, let the facts lead him to his conclusion, and worked like a true historian should work. As a result, his study was accepted and discussed, and created a real change in the way Israelis view the subject. But then there are other historians, who work like those "historians" from Rosa&#39;s post, and they simply help the Israeli rightwing to avoid the issue by painting the new historical studies as unserious.

Lastly, think about this. These "historians" count all the crimes of Zionism, in order to paint it as illegitimate. Well, all those crimes were also performed, a thousand times more, by the historical Communist movements. Should we therefore conclude that Communism is inherently evil and should be eradicated off the face of the earth?



Arad

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 05:25 PM
This, however, doesn&#39;t delegitimize the right of Jews to live in Israel. You have one fatal mistake: it is not that a "blood connection" connects the Jews to a land they forgot 2000 years ago. Jews have always lived in Israel; Jews have always regarded Israel as their homeland and spiritual center; and Jews have always seen themselves as one people, spread throughout the world but connected to one another, with the holyland as their heart.

But your criticism is, as I said, basically justified. Which I can&#39;t say for the batch of rubbish that Rosa posted and asked me to read. Ok, I did. It made for an extremely boring read.
I learned nothing from these pamphlets. They were just rehashes of old material, put in a way that creates a certain picture. It&#39;s the easiest thing in the world to do: come with a preconceived story, look for the facts that corroborate it and ignore the facts that contradict it, and you have a simple, black/white story. The goal is to cover the fact that the mid-east conflict is between two nations who both have a rightful claim for the land, and both refused to acknowledge the other&#39;s claim, and so brought calamity upon themselves. This kind of recognition would have entailed these writers to get deeper into the complexities of the issue; in other words, it would have required of them to THINK, and thinking is clearly not something they like doing.
This kind of approach can benefit only one side: the side of the strong and hegemonic. When you cultivate an approach that says that you can tell any kind of story and you don&#39;t really need to search for the truth, then you give the dominant the legitimacy to enforce his own story.
Someone mentioned Benny Morris on this thread. Benny Morris embarked on a serious exploration of the refugee issue, let the facts lead him to his conclusion, and worked like a true historian should work. As a result, his study was accepted and discussed, and created a real change in the way Israelis view the subject. But then there are other historians, who work like those "historians" from Rosa&#39;s post, and they simply help the Israeli rightwing to avoid the issue by painting the new historical studies as unserious.

Lastly, think about this. These "historians" count all the crimes of Zionism, in order to paint it as illegitimate. Well, all those crimes were also performed, a thousand times more, by the historical Communist movements. Should we therefore conclude that Communism is inherently evil and should be eradicated off the face of the earth?



Arad
the fact that jews have always lived in palestine is one thing.. the idea that the land is any more "theirs" than another&#39;s, however, is an entirely different issue.

i don&#39;t deny anyone&#39;s right to exist in palestine. i only deny the "right" for one group to exploit another.. the lack of reparations is terrible, if not expected, too.

by the way, if any group wants to continue living in their home, the home of their parents, grandparents, and so on, there&#39;s nothing wrong with that. but, if someone claims he has the right to push one population out to appease his sense of belonging, his "heart" (your phrase), i then stop listening.

as for the comparison with communism, there&#39;s really no point. zionists have, almost from the start, been keen on "population transfer" -- it was at the core of practicality. how can you establish a sovereign and hegemonic nation-state without either oppressing or removing the hapless population?

now, i&#39;ll grant you one thing -- it&#39;s perfectly conceivable that zionism could have developed into a labor-oriented jewish movement, with no desire whatsoever to replace once group with another. yet, if your ideology is about racial purity and an ethnically-homogeneous or ethnically-plural society, how can you possibly hope to treat all people with respect if you&#39;re bent on an uncompromising sense of racial identity? you can&#39;t establish an ethnic state without first doing something about those "other people." wherever you go, "other people" exist.

and today, zionism is at its natural conclusion. of course, if zionism would have developed with different aims, and different means, it might have been completely un-interested in domination and homogeneity. would have been a great thing to see.

again, how else do you establish a jewish plurality without first getting rid of non-jews?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Brooklyn&#045;[email protected] 30 2006, 03:05 PM
[QUOTE=Rosa Lichtenstein,Aug 30 2006, 01:18 PM] and, at bottom, zionism is nothing more than out-dated metaphysics.. so out-dated, in fact, that it even stands contrary to classical liberal values. jews are entitled to another&#39;s land not merely due to persecution, but because they have some kind of "blood connection" to palestine -- a conscious geneology that two thousand years can never erase. strangely enough, that&#39;s rather anti-semitic..
Yes. Zionism directly stems out of antisemitism. It is an attempt to "dejudaise" Jews: for centuries, Jews were seen as an "abnormal" people, since they had no specific ties to any country. Zionism, instead of stating the obvious - that not being attached to a particular patch of land is perfectly normal, and even probably a good thing - seeks to "cure" Jews from that disease, making them "a people like any other", with a "homeland" where they can deal with agriculture (because agriculture, we know from feudal ideology, is the only decent human activity).

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, Zionism is a capitulation to racism, based on the idea that you can&#39;t fight anti-semitism (and that it is endemic), so you have to run away from it.

Ironically, this only created a place where Jews have become more unsafe than anywhere else on the planet since the fall of Nazi Germany.

So, Zionism is 100% pernicious.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 03:09 PM
LH, Zionism is a capitulation to racism, based on the idea that you can&#39;t fight anti-semitism (and that it is endemic), so you have to run away from it.

Ironically, this only created a place where Jews have become more unsafe than anywhere else on the planet since the fall of Nazi Germany.

So, Zionism is 100% pernicious.
the reason for this is because the most virulent anti-semites focus on wiping out israel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


the reason for this is because the most virulent anti-semites focus on wiping out israel.

Since Arabs are all sons and daughters of Shem, and the Zionists kill many times more of them, and threw them off their land, they are the worst anti-semites on the planet since WW2.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 01:00 PM
As an Israeli leftist, I always put most of the blame on my country for the Israeli-Arab conflict. The fact that Israel did not recognize the Palestinian right to sovereignty was, in my eyes, the worst kind of aggression, worse than the Palestinian terrorism. Of course, the Palestinians never really recognized Israel’s right to exist either, and kept a rather dubious tongue about it, but I felt that we should take care of our position first.
Well, now, after our hard work, we finally managed to bring the Israeli administration and public to the right place, and the Israeli government states loud and clear that it recognizes the Palestinian right for sovereignty. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have elected a Hamas government, which states loud and clear that its aim is to destroy Israel. And they back it up by sending rockets and suicide bombers into our cities. In keeping with my leftist values, I now stand firmly by the Israeli government. Palestinian terrorism could be treated with some sympathy when it was done in the name of a fight for freedom, but not when it is done in the name of a genocidal ideology. I was expecting everyone who regards himself a leftist to stand by Israel at this hour. I do not see it happening.
And when the recent conflict with Lebanon came about, the betrayal of the international left became shockingly painful. There is absolutely no excuse for Lebanon’s criminal behavior, and I was expecting the left to call them on it. But I heard nothing. On the other hand, I heard lots of criticism over Israel’s clearly justified retaliation. Let’s recount Lebanon’s actions:
1. Harboring genocidal terrorists: For the past six years, ever since the IDF pulled out of Lebanon, Hezbollah (a group that announces time and again that its aim is to destroy Israel, backed up by Iran, a country whose President vowed to destroy Israel) has been given permission to reign over southern Lebanon, build fortified bunkers and barracks, stockpile tens of thousands of advanced missiles, and occasionally carry out terrorist attacks or shoot rockets into Israel. Finally they overdid it, and Israel decided to react. Hezbollah proceeded to shoot thousands of rockets into Israeli cities. What did the Lebanese government do? On one hand they did nothing to stop Hezbollah, and even stood by its demands; on the other hand they claimed to be innocent, and cried about “capital punishment”.
Sickening. Imagine that the IRA announced that it is changing its ideology, and its main goal is to establish Irish rule over England. And imagine that the Irish government did nothing to stop it, but actually gave it a whole county in which to train and fortify. Imagine that the IRA then started to shoot thousands of rockets into major English cities. How do you think the Brits would react? And what would they think if the Irish then start yelling that they are innocent?
I didn’t hear the left reprimand Lebanon for this behavior. Am I to understand that the left supports the destruction of Israel?
2. Aiming at civilians: Hezbollah, acting on Lebanon’s blessing, shot thousands of rockets out of civilian populated areas, aiming into civilian populated areas. This is a WAR CRIME. But I heard no one from the left berating Lebanon for it. Any other country in the world would react by shooting back into civilian populated areas, and Israel packs enough firepower to bring Lebanon to its knees within a few hours if it chose to do so. But Israel didn’t use this power. It took every possible precaution to prevent civilian casualties, and attacked only the places where Hezbollah was dwelling. Even so, I heard a lot of protests from leftists against the Israeli actions. Does that mean that the leftists of the world believe that Israel has no right to protect its citizens?
3. Kidnapping: perhaps the most infuriating. Hezbollah went into Israeli territory and kidnapped two soldiers, demanding the release of the Lebanese prisoners, and the Lebanese government stood by this demand. “The Lebanese prisoners”, for those of you who don’t know, are three people, Lebanese citizens who have been captured on Israeli soil doing terrorist activities, tried by our courts, and sentenced to jail. One of them is a notorious terrorist, who murdered a family of four, including two little children, and was sentenced to four consecutive life imprisonments. But even if they weren’t terrorist. Let’s say they were merely criminals. What gives Lebanon the right to demand their release? I’m sure there are Israeli criminals sitting in jails in your own country right now. What would you think if some Israeli organization, in order to spring then out, kidnapped some of your citizens and held them hostage, and the state of Israel supported their demands? This sort of behavior makes Lebanon a TERRORIST STATE. Did the leftwing criticize it for it? Not at all. Does that mean that the leftwing supports this type of international piracy? Is there no more place for law and order in the world?
4. Annexing territory: another ridiculous claim made by Lebanon is that they have the right to employ terrorism in order to “free” a piece of land called the Shebaa Farms. The Shebaa Farms are a small patch of barren land, about 14 square miles in size, which officially belongs to Syria, but is now occupied by Israel, and will be returned to the Syrians when they decide to make peace with us. The Lebanese think they have a claim to it? Fine – take it up with the UN, like any civilized country would do. But the Lebanese think that the fact that they decided amongst themselves that its theirs gives them the right to use terrorism in order to conquer it. I didn’t hear the left condemn them for it. Again I ask: does that mean that the left condones this sort of imperialistic attitude?
5. Lying: we have seen the Lebanese use a trick they learned from the Palestinians, and making vile accusations against Israel, such as that it used phosphorous bombs. Once again, like in all previous cases, not a shred of evidence was presented, and no one was asked to validate. Phosphorous bombs leave a mark, you know. If they were used, then an objective comity could easily determine it. But, of course, no one was asked to check. The accusations were thrown into the air, and repeated by the media. I don’t expect much of the media, but I do expect of leftwingers to employ critical thinking, and ask the right questions. A day will come when the Muslim terrorists will use this as an excuse for using chemical weapons, and say that Israel started it. It will then be too late to go back and check.

Thankfully, the Israeli government had done a good job for once, and got the result we wanted from the war, forcing the Lebanese to accept their responsibility and take charge over their country. But the Israeli leftwing comes out of the war quite powerless to change things within Israel. One of the arguments we use in trying to persuade Israelis to obey international law is that if we do, the world will back us up in our war against terrorism. But now, Israelis see that even when they are clearly justified, the leftists of the world are against them.
The left has betrayed Israel when it needed its support. More than that, it betrayed its own values. And finally, it betrayed the people of the Middle East, for by supporting the forces of imperialism, terrorism and genocide, it reduced the chances for the forces of humanity, peace and democracy to prevail.

Why did you betray us?


Arad
First of all, you fail to recognize Israel&#39;s current crimes. While I admit that Palestinian terrorism is wrong, Israel statistically kills more people with its "right to defense itself," than terrorists do.

If you look at the current casualty rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict) of the conflict, you&#39;ll see what I mean.

If they kill more Arabs than Arabs kill Jews, then how can anyone claim the conflict is justified? The popular perception in Israel, however, is that Jews&#39; lives are more valuable than Arabs&#39; lives. This is reflected in their racist immigration policy.

Also, what evidence do you have that the rocket attacks were carried out with the "blessing" of Lebanon?

I think the better question is, "Why did Israel betray America?"

I supported Israel until the invasion of Lebanon. They&#39;ve continually sought military intervention, using our money and weapons, without any request for support. Their recent use of cluster bombs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5286352.stm), contrary to treaties with America is a further testament to their insolence. Nothing has changed since their false-flag operation in the Suez Canal crisis. If anything, this war was largely supported to undermine America&#39;s attempts at re-gaining diplomatic ties with the Middle East, particularly Iraq. Though Iraq probably would have failed anyway, Israel&#39;s invasion of Lebanon guaranteed it.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:25 AM
Yeah, well, if the population of Kosovo claimed that all Serbians should be kicked out of Serbia, and taking them back would have put the Serbians in a number disadvantage, no one in their right mind would have demanded of the Serbians to readmit them.
Heh. Serbs in Kosova were at a tremendous numerical disadvantage (85% of the population was Albanian. And in fact they were driven out of most of Kosova, soon after the Serbian army withdrew. NATO occupation forces stood by and watched.

Apparently Israel&#39;s chief backers in North America and Western Europe are "not in their right mind"? You said it, not me.


. But right now, there is very little coexistence, and bringing in a large Arab population - the refugees - will surely cause chaos.

Yes, it&#39;s hard to coexist with people who have ethnically cleansed you. Hm...though &#39;til recently a lot of expelled Palestinians did go back across the border to work...among other things, tilling the land that was stolen from them.

The Israeli state was prepared to accept that, but not to let &#39;em live there. Like Black workers in apartheid South Africa - they could come into the cities to vote, but not stay past sundown.

And of course both are deprived of the right to vote. Ruled &#39;em for near 40 years now, but maintains the fiction that the occupied territories aren&#39;t part of Israel - so it&#39;s population doesn&#39;t have citizenship rights.

Now Israel&#39;s divested itself of financial responsibility too. That&#39;s one of the prime reasons Sharon and others have given for not letting the Palestinian Authority collapse completely. If it did - Israel would again be responsible for providing basic services to the Palestinian population.


I didn&#39;t see anything in your quotes that suggests that Israel thought it could destroy Hezbollah. For every army figure that said it could, there were ten who said it isn&#39;t possible.

If you believed the first excuse yourself, you wouldn&#39;t need the second one. And of course there&#39;s only one prime minister, and his speech to the Knesset is the most authoritative possible statement of goals.

It is true that different leaders and different times named different goals. Destroy Hezbollah, destroy its rocket arsenal, push it north of the Litani, and/or recover the captured soldiers. But none of those were accomplished.


You know what your problem is? You don&#39;t think of the people of this region as human beings. You don&#39;t see them as creatures driven by beliefs, fears, hopes, misunderstandings, grudges, ignorance etc., sometimes acting benevolently, other times monsterously. You decided that Israel is bad and wants only to expand at the expence of its neighbors, so you look for anything that supports your theory and disregard the rest.

It&#39;s true that I don&#39;t consider the Israeli state a person; that&#39;s because it&#39;s an institution. If you try to understand states and parties as driven by individual motivations like "beliefs, fears, hopes, misunderstandings, grudges, ignorance", no wonder you&#39;re so confused.

They&#39;re driven by institutional interests, and at bottom class interests.


And you think that the Palestinians are good, and that if they will be given their rights, they will forget about their wish to destroy Israel, and live with it peacefully.

I think nothing of the sort. Have you forgotten my earlier post - that there can be no peace without justice? There is no way "they will be given their rights" - their generally recognized human rights - short of destroying Israel. You&#39;ve made that clear yourself, rejecting their right to return to their homeland, which is recognized in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I certainly don&#39;t suggest that anyone will "forget about their wish to destroy Israel" in exchange for 22% of Palestine. They&#39;d have to be masochists.

I do suggest that Palestinians are aware of the military relationship of forces....

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein
Since Arabs are all sons and daughters of Shem, and the Zionists kill many times more of them, and threw them off their land, they are the worst anti-semites on the planet since WW2.
Hah, I&#39;d like to see his reply to this.

[Orion999]

The idea that the Jews have no right to Israel land because the Palestinians were the more recent occupiers of the it is absurd. The Jews right to Israel is the same as that the Palestinian ancestors used to steal it in the first place, superior military might. The Muslims conquered the middle east in a merciless jihad of domination, and therefore have no right to ***** and moan when it is taken from them in the same manner. Islam would conquer the entire world in a heartbeat if it could, and force everyone to submit to there twisted ideaology. To think otherwise is completely wrong. It&#39;s true that a majority of Muslims probably have no inclination to destroy the non muslim world, but unfortunately they have shown very little ability to stand up to these extremist.

When after one of the many Muslim atrocities commited in the past few year have the Majority of Muslim&#39;s stood up and condemnd them. Everyday An average of 100 muslims are killed by MUSLIMS, yet where is the outcry for this murder to stop? The sick fact is that there is almost no oppositon to Muslims there own citizens in vastly more numbers than Israel ever has. It seems they have very little problem with killing their own women and children, but when any non muslim country kills civilians even while trying to destroy rocket positions purposely placed in civilian population it is the most heinous act of all time. If Israel was so evil as you all claim why not just continue to blow Lebanon to pieces. The fact that only 1000 people died during the entire operation clearly shows Israel was very focused on minimizing civilian casulties. But this is war and they cannot be prevented, and considering their enemy, militant Islam, stated goal is to destroy Israel&#39;s entire population, it&#39;s pretty noble.

If you want proof of just how demented these people are look at what set the entire Muslim world into flames and death chants more than anything except the recent war. Is it the daily slaughter of their own people by their own people, NO. Is it Muslims crashing planes into populated buildings, No. Is it the televised beheadings of kidnapped Westerns, No. It was the publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed in Danish fringe Newspaper depicting The Prophet in an unkind way. This spawned enormous outrage in the Muslim world bring about more death chants calls and for jihad. As if the entire world should be subjected to their insane religous laws, and if we don&#39;t then we should be destroyed. Yhis clearly shows their desire to convert the entire world. They are the most hypocritical people in the entire world where the right and wrong of any action is not determined by the actual action itself, but simply by whether the people doing the action is Muslim or not. YA real rational group of people.

The idea that Israel could just cease all military action and the Muslims would simply live in peaceful coexsistance is absurd. They even publically acknowledge this. So what is Israel to do? You tell me. when surrounded by multiple enemies seeking anything less than your complete annialation it becomes pretty difficult to remain benevolent towards them. Israel cannot just sit back and answer each islamic aggresion with equal amounts of aggresion. Should they wait for 10&#39;000 of their own people to be killed before they answer in turn? Wait for chemical or nuclear weapons to be used before they can retatiliate. The showing of any military weakness by Israel is immediately used as propaganda to encourage the Islamic wackos that they can indeed annialate Israel. Israel has no choice to respond to aggresion with supeior aggresion to do other wise would be suicide.

Militant Islam is the enemy of the entire world because one of their most sacred beliefs is to convert the entire world. Therefore any action that undermines their ability to do this okay in my opinion.


Frankly I think anything that seeks to counter this desire of Islam.

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Orion999+Sep 2 2006, 04:24 AM--> (Orion999 &#064; Sep 2 2006, 04:24 AM)The idea that the Jews have no right to Israel land because the Palestinians were the more recent occupiers of the it is absurd. The Jews right to Israel is the same as that the Palestinian ancestors used to steal it in the first place, superior military might. The Muslims conquered the middle east in a merciless jihad of domination, and therefore have no right to ***** and moan when it is taken from them in the same manner. Islam would conquer the entire world in a heartbeat if it could, and force everyone to submit to there twisted ideaology. To think otherwise is completely wrong. It&#39;s true that a majority of Muslims probably have no inclination to destroy the non muslim world, but unfortunately they have shown very little ability to stand up to these extremist.

When after one of the many Muslim atrocities commited in the past few year have the Majority of Muslim&#39;s stood up and condemnd them. Everyday An average of 100 muslims are killed by MUSLIMS, yet where is the outcry for this murder to stop? The sick fact is that there is almost no oppositon to Muslims there own citizens in vastly more numbers than Israel ever has. It seems they have very little problem with killing their own women and children, but when any non muslim country kills civilians even while trying to destroy rocket positions purposely placed in civilian population it is the most heinous act of all time. If Israel was so evil as you all claim why not just continue to blow Lebanon to pieces. [/b]
Two wrongs don&#39;t make a right.


[email protected] 2 2006, 04:24 AM
Militant Islam is the enemy of the entire world
Militant Zionism is just as dangerous. In Israel&#39;s early history, they were avowed terrorists and had even killed British soldiers. They don&#39;t commit recognizable "terrorism," today because they don&#39;t need to resort to such measures, but are just as murderous.

[KC]

The idea that the Jews have no right to Israel land because the Palestinians were the more recent occupiers of the it is absurd. The Jews right to Israel is the same as that the Palestinian ancestors used to steal it in the first place, superior military might.

This is a completely bullshit argument. That&#39;s basically saying that if I kick your ass I can take your shit. That&#39;s just not how it works in this society.

Contemporary society is completely different than society back then. You can&#39;t compare the two in the same way because the way we deal with property currently is completely different than the way property was dealt with a few hundred years ago.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 31 2006, 06:21 PM
Raving:


the reason for this is because the most virulent anti-semites focus on wiping out israel.

Since Arabs are all sons and daughters of Shem, and the Zionists kill many times more of them, and threw them off their land, they are the worst anti-semites on the planet since WW2.

an‧ti-Sem‧ite  /ˌæntiˈsɛmaɪt, ˌæntaɪ- or, especially Brit., -ˈsimaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-tee-sem-ahyt, an-tahy- or, especially Brit., -see-mahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.

while techincally your correct (ie arabs are semites) the term applies to hatred of jews speicifcly. also i would dispute what your saying ie the mass murdes and being forced off the land. then agian i&#39;ve already debated tha tpoint on here extneseivly with a far more intellgenet poster

[theraven]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 2 2006, 07:10 AM

The idea that the Jews have no right to Israel land because the Palestinians were the more recent occupiers of the it is absurd. The Jews right to Israel is the same as that the Palestinian ancestors used to steal it in the first place, superior military might.

This is a completely bullshit argument. That&#39;s basically saying that if I kick your ass I can take your shit. That&#39;s just not how it works in this society.

Contemporary society is completely different than society back then. You can&#39;t compare the two in the same way because the way we deal with property currently is completely different than the way property was dealt with a few hundred years ago.
in term sof interntiaonl conflicts things never really change. if both sides agree on a more civlized approahc thne awesome, but in reality might makes right ulitamtely on the world stage

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


while techincally your correct (ie arabs are semites) the term applies to hatred of jews speicifcly. also i would dispute what your saying ie the mass murdes and being forced off the land. then agian i&#39;ve already debated tha tpoint on here extneseivly with a far more intellgenet poster

Could you now look up the word "intellgenet" for me.

[JimFar]

Luis wrote:


es. Zionism directly stems out of antisemitism. It is an attempt to "dejudaise" Jews: for centuries, Jews were seen as an "abnormal" people, since they had no specific ties to any country. Zionism, instead of stating the obvious - that not being attached to a particular patch of land is perfectly normal, and even probably a good thing - seeks to "cure" Jews from that disease, making them "a people like any other", with a "homeland" where they can deal with agriculture (because agriculture, we know from feudal ideology, is the only decent human activity).

And Rosa wrote:


LH, Zionism is a capitulation to racism, based on the idea that you can&#39;t fight anti-semitism (and that it is endemic), so you have to run away from it.



Well, I would say that Zionism and anti-Semitism have long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. The existence of anti-Semitism provides the rationale for Zionism which is proposed as a solution to the oppression that anti-Semitism has long created for the Jewish people. At the same time though, both anti-Semitism and Zionism as social and political ideologies share certain assumptions in common. Both ideologies hold that it is impossible for Jews and Gentiles to live harmoniously together as equals. Both anti-Semites and Zionists regarded "Jewish emancipation" as a fraud and a delusion, presumably for somewhat different reasons. Given the existence of these shared assumptions, it should not be surprising that at various times and places, anti-Semites have actually been supportive of the Zionist project.

Thus, a century ago, Theodor Herzl was in fact able to win support for his proposal for a Jewish state from some of the leading anti-Semitic agitators in Europe including Edouard Drumont and Alphonse Daudet in France, as well as from Ivan von Simonyi, who was an anti-Semitic member of the Hungarian Diet, and an enthusiastic admirer of Herzl. Herzl also attempted to cultivate support from the anti-Semitic Russian interior minister, V.K. Plehve. A move that put Herzl at odds with his Russian Jewish supporters, since this very same interior minister had presided over some of the worst pogroms in Russia.

Later on certain top Nazis including the notorious Adolf Eichmann, professed to be sympathetic towards Zionism for similar reasons as well. And at the present time, Europe has on the far right a number of politicians with well-deserved anti-Semitic reputations, who are also strong supporters of Israel, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen of France. In the United States on the other hand, we have numerous Christian Zionists, who tend to be evangelical Protestants. Many of these folk are also anti-Semites, who believe that the "Jews killed Christ," but who nevertheless are strong supporters of Israel, since they see the creation of the state of Israel as an essential event in
their eschatology. And they believe that the coming battle of Armageddon will take place there.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:32 PM
Luis wrote:


es. Zionism directly stems out of antisemitism. It is an attempt to "dejudaise" Jews: for centuries, Jews were seen as an "abnormal" people, since they had no specific ties to any country. Zionism, instead of stating the obvious - that not being attached to a particular patch of land is perfectly normal, and even probably a good thing - seeks to "cure" Jews from that disease, making them "a people like any other", with a "homeland" where they can deal with agriculture (because agriculture, we know from feudal ideology, is the only decent human activity).

And Rosa wrote:


LH, Zionism is a capitulation to racism, based on the idea that you can&#39;t fight anti-semitism (and that it is endemic), so you have to run away from it.



Well, I would say that Zionism and anti-Semitism have long enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. The existence of anti-Semitism provides the rationale for Zionism which is proposed as a solution to the oppression that anti-Semitism has long created for the Jewish people. At the same time though, both anti-Semitism and Zionism as social and political ideologies share certain assumptions in common. Both ideologies hold that it is impossible for Jews and Gentiles to live harmoniously together as equals. Both anti-Semites and Zionists regarded "Jewish emancipation" as a fraud and a delusion, presumably for somewhat different reasons. Given the existence of these shared assumptions, it should not be surprising that at various times and places, anti-Semites have actually been supportive of the Zionist project.

Thus, a century ago, Theodor Herzl was in fact able to win support for his proposal for a Jewish state from some of the leading anti-Semitic agitators in Europe including Edouard Drumont and Alphonse Daudet in France, as well as from Ivan von Simonyi, who was an anti-Semitic member of the Hungarian Diet, and an enthusiastic admirer of Herzl. Herzl also attempted to cultivate support from the anti-Semitic Russian interior minister, V.K. Plehve. A move that put Herzl at odds with his Russian Jewish supporters, since this very same interior minister had presided over some of the worst pogroms in Russia.

Later on certain top Nazis including the notorious Adolf Eichmann, professed to be sympathetic towards Zionism for similar reasons as well. And at the present time, Europe has on the far right a number of politicians with well-deserved anti-Semitic reputations, who are also strong supporters of Israel, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen of France. In the United States on the other hand, we have numerous Christian Zionists, who tend to be evangelical Protestants. Many of these folk are also anti-Semites, who believe that the "Jews killed Christ," but who nevertheless are strong supporters of Israel, since they see the creation of the state of Israel as an essential event in
their eschatology. And they believe that the coming battle of Armageddon will take place there.
the only thing i raly have to say tot his is most pro-isralei envgicals are for the msot aprt not anti-semtic

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim when you get this sort of &#39;devastating&#39; response, you know you hit the nail on the head:

Raving:


the only thing i raly have to say tot his is most pro-isralei envgicals are for the msot aprt not anti-semtic

I suggest you remove your space suite before trying to type in future -- or better still, naff off back to Pluto.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, I am sure you are familiar with the work of Leni Brenner in this regard.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 10:24 PM
The idea that the Jews have no right to Israel land because the Palestinians were the more recent occupiers of the it is absurd. The Jews right to Israel is the same as that the Palestinian ancestors used to steal it in the first place, superior military might. The Muslims conquered the middle east in a merciless jihad of domination, and therefore have no right to ***** and moan when it is taken from them in the same manner.
What this leaves out, of course, is the rights of human beings.

This view - the typical pro-Israeli view - holds that only peoples (in the sense of nationalities) have rights to hold a land; individuals have no rights.

The denial of basic, generally recognized democratic rights to the flesh-and-blood human beings called Palestinians....is simply invisible to these apologists unless it is pointed out. When it is pointed out, they&#39;re just not much interested in it.

"There was no Palestinian nation", they keep repeating...as if it would matter if that was true.

[theraven]

What this leaves out, of course, is the rights of human beings.

This view - the typical pro-Israeli view - holds that only peoples (in the sense of nationalities) have rights to hold a land; individuals have no rights.

in terms of the govenrance of land only natiosn are capable of it. inside those natiosn indiviaudsl shoudl be the primary owners of the land


The denial of basic, generally recognized democratic rights to the flesh-and-blood human beings called Palestinians....is simply invisible to these apologists unless it is pointed out. When it is pointed out, they&#39;re just not much interested in it.

"There was no Palestinian nation", they keep repeating...as if it would matter if that was true.


they are allowed to own land..

[Orion999]

Of coarse Israel is no where near perfect, and they have definitely committed their fair share of atrocities. But how can any of you rationalize the support of Islamlic jihadist over Israel.


Militant Zionism is just as dangerous. In Israel&#39;s early history, they were avowed terrorists and had even killed British soldiers. They don&#39;t commit recognizable "terrorism," today because they don&#39;t need to resort to such measures, but are just as murderous.

Istael is just as dangerous to the world because they killed some british soldiers 60 years ago. What planet are you living on?

Really, so you think Israel poses just as big a threat to the world as militant Islam.
Is Israel demanding that their Islamic neighbors convert to Judaism or face annialation? During the bombing of Lebanon, Israel could of killed 100,000&#39;s of people if they wanted to, yet only around 1000 died because Israel tries to avoid the killing civilians if they can. Islamos stated purpose is the death of as many civilians as possible, and this is not just because they are guerilla fighters and this is their only way to fight back.

Give me the Israeli equivalant of this.

When after one of the many Muslim atrocities commited in the past few year have the Majority of Muslim&#39;s stood up and condemnd them. Everyday An average of 100 muslims are killed by MUSLIMS, yet where is the outcry for this murder to stop? The sick fact is that there is almost no oppositon to Muslims murdering their own citizens in vastly more numbers than Israel ever has. It seems they have very little problem with killing their own women and children, but when any non muslim country kills civilians even while trying to destroy rocket positions purposely placed in civilian population it is the most heinous act of all time. If Israel was so evil as you all claim why not just continue to blow Lebanon to pieces. The fact that only 1000 people died during the entire operation clearly shows Israel was very focused on minimizing civilian casulties. But this is war and they cannot be prevented, and considering their enemy, militant Islam, stated goal is to destroy Israel&#39;s entire population, it&#39;s pretty noble.

If you want proof of just how demented these people are look at what set the entire Muslim world into flames and death chants more than anything except the recent war. Is it the daily slaughter of their own people by their own people, NO. Is it Muslims crashing planes into populated buildings, No. Is it the televised beheadings of kidnapped Westerns, No. It was the publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed in Danish fringe Newspaper depicting The Prophet in an unkind way. This spawned enormous outrage in the Muslim world bring about more death chants calls and for jihad. As if the entire world should be subjected to their insane religous laws, and if we don&#39;t then we should be destroyed. Yhis clearly shows their desire to convert the entire world. They are the most hypocritical people in the entire world where the right and wrong of any action is not determined by the actual action itself, but simply by whether the people doing the action is Muslim or not. YA real rational group of people.

Militant Islam delivering death and destruction upon the entire world is limited only by their inferior military might. If they were in Israel&#39;s position they would have killed every man, woman and child in Lebanon.

[JimFar]

Rosa, you will probably enjoy reading this (http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2006/09/one-step-beyond.html).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that Jim; all too familiar I&#39;m afraid&#33;

We have a few of these incoherent nutters posting here, as I am sure you can see.

[Orion999]

Then tell me where exactly where are muslims expressing their outrage over muslims killing on average 100 other muslims everyday. For driving around Baghdad and executing people based on whether their Sunni or Shiite. Muhammed cartoons definitely seem to be more upsetting to most of Islam. This is not something made up it is a fact.

[Orion999]

And what exactly is incoherent about my post. Please enlighten me with your all knowing communist knowledge.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Orelse999:


Please enlighten me with your all knowing communist knowledge.

I do not debate with the incoherent.

[Orion999]

Please quote these so called incoherent statesments. Do you not know how to read or something? It&#39;s one thing to disagree with something, but to just lable something as Incoherent when it is obviouly not, is rediculous.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Orelse999:


Please quote these so called incoherent statesments. Do you not know how to read or something? It&#39;s one thing to disagree with something, but to just lable something as Incoherent when it is obviouly not, is rediculous.

Incoherent spelling corrected:


Please quote these so-called incoherent statements. Do you not know how to read or something? It&#39;s one thing to disagree with something, but to just label something as Incoherent when it is obviously not, is ridiculous

There slightly less incoherent.

[One incoherence left: if I did not know how to read, there would be no point you typing that question, or even that &#39;response&#39;.]

And I ignored the split infinitive, and the odd use of capitals in "Incoherent".

No&#33; No thanks needed.

[Orion999]

What is this a spelling bee? You can&#39;t talk to people without perfect spelling. I&#39;m not wrighting an english here. This is an internet message board, chill out.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Orelse999:


What is this a spelling bee? You can&#39;t talk to people without perfect spelling. I&#39;m not wrighting an english here. This is an internet message board, chill out.

Well done, an improvement&#33;

See, I can be of help to you incoherents.

[Orion999]

Your a loser. Feeling superiour through spelling is beyond stupid. Just because I don&#39;t go over my posts to make everything perfect doesn&#39;t mean shit. Get a life.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Orelse999:


Your a loser. Feeling superiour through spelling is beyond stupid. Just because I don&#39;t go over my posts to make everything perfect doesn&#39;t mean shit. Get a life.

Not bad, 7/10.

I think it should be "You&#39;re", and "superiour" should be "superior".

With my continued help, I think you might just be able to work your way up to being coherent; in a decade or so....

[theraven]

those who can&#39;t debate attack spelling...

[Orion999]

Oh my God. she doing it to everybody. Refusing to respond to arguements because of spelling. I don&#39;t even know what to say about this person. This is an internet message board not an english thesis paper, get over it. Loser.

[JimFar]

Orion,

Take my word for it, you can count yourself lucky that Rosa has chosen to just concentrate on your errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax, rather than on the "substance" of your arguments. By doing this she has spared you much humiliation.
Believe me that if she had chosen to focus her fire on your arguments, such as they are, you would find the resulting pain to be most unbearable.

And I wonder where you and raven have ever gotten the idea that things like spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax don&#39;t matter when one is arguing in behalf of a political position? Those things, along with logic and a knowledge of the relevant facts, are the basic tools for argument. A workman who had showed that much lack of respect for the tools of his trade would garner very respect in turn.

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:54 PM
Orion,

Take my word for it, you can count yourself lucky that Rosa has chosen to just concentrate on your errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax, rather than on the "substance" of your arguments. By doing this she has spared you much humiliation.
Believe me that if she had chosen to focus her fire on your arguments, such as they are, you would find the resulting pain to be most unbearable.

And I wonder where you and raven have ever gotten the idea that things like spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax don&#39;t matter when one is arguing in behalf of a political position? Those things, along with logic and a knowledge of the relevant facts, are the basic tools for argument. A workman who had showed that much lack of respect for the tools of his trade would garner very respect in turn.
puhleeze. rosie is patheti when it comes to arguments. her knoweldge of her subject s is minmal and only from a limited persepctive

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Orion999,


To be very honest, if I were an ignorant, reactionary, neo-conservative like you, I&#39;d not be arguing any more. But despite the fact that almost each of your moronic arguments in support of Israel has been screwed over ten times by my comrades in this forum, you persist in arguing on this topic.

And being the ignorant neo-con that you are, you&#39;ve shifted your focus from defending Israel to bashing MUSLIMS. :angry:

I come from Pakistan, and a Muslim majority country. As a Marxist, I don&#39;t consider myself a Muslim any more, but I can still counter your idiotic assertions against the Muslim people of the world.


The Muslims conquered the middle east in a merciless jihad of domination, and therefore have no right to ***** and moan when it is taken from them in the same manner.

Historical records other than those kept by neo-con writers show that the Arabs were fighting to drive Persian and Byzantine conquerors from Arab land. In effect, they were fighting a war of national liberation to free their brethren under foreign domination.

And far from being a "merciless Jihad", it was actually carried out in a more humane way than today&#39;s Israel could ever dream of. Umar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of Medina, actually cleaned the trash which Christians had dumped in Jewish temples in Jerusalem. So much for your "merciless Jihad". Phusshh.



Islam would conquer the entire world in a heartbeat if it could, and force everyone to submit to there twisted ideaology. To think otherwise is completely wrong. It&#39;s true that a majority of Muslims probably have no inclination to destroy the non muslim world, but unfortunately they have shown very little ability to stand up to these extremist.

Bullshit, every single fucking word of it.

Firstly, there is no such thing as one unified, monolithic "Islam". Secondly, in all my years when I was a moderate Muslim, never once was I taught that its necessary to conquer the world.

The extremists you refer to were raised by the imperialist west to counter the USSR, from 1979 to 1989. Muslim people are not responsible for the actions of madmen who were armed by the imperialist West.


When after one of the many Muslim atrocities commited in the past few year have the Majority of Muslim&#39;s stood up and condemnd them. Everyday An average of 100 muslims are killed by MUSLIMS, yet where is the outcry for this murder to stop? The sick fact is that there is almost no oppositon to Muslims there own citizens in vastly more numbers than Israel ever has. It seems they have very little problem with killing their own women and children, but when any non muslim country kills civilians even while trying to destroy rocket positions purposely placed in civilian population it is the most heinous act of all time. If Israel was so evil as you all claim why not just continue to blow Lebanon to pieces.

And your sources for this crap are.....?



The fact that only 1000 people died during the entire operation clearly shows Israel was very focused on minimizing civilian casulties. But this is war and they cannot be prevented, and considering their enemy, militant Islam, stated goal is to destroy Israel&#39;s entire population, it&#39;s pretty noble.

Oh, noble , NOBLE IDF. They could have killed 2000, but they were merciful and they killed just 1000. Same shit, Orion. It&#39;s called "KILLING INNOCENTS".


If you want proof of just how demented these people are look at what set the entire Muslim world into flames and death chants more than anything except the recent war. Is it the daily slaughter of their own people by their own people, NO. Is it Muslims crashing planes into populated buildings, No. Is it the televised beheadings of kidnapped Westerns, No. It was the publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammed in Danish fringe Newspaper depicting The Prophet in an unkind way. This spawned enormous outrage in the Muslim world bring about more death chants calls and for jihad. As if the entire world should be subjected to their insane religous laws, and if we don&#39;t then we should be destroyed. Yhis clearly shows their desire to convert the entire world. They are the most hypocritical people in the entire world where the right and wrong of any action is not determined by the actual action itself, but simply by whether the people doing the action is Muslim or not. YA real rational group of people.

Therefore our Nazi neo-con now holds 1.3 billion people all over the world responsible for the acts of a few extremists. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, out where I live, the anti-Danish protestors were actually stopped from doing more damage by moderate Muslims. I wonder where you get your news, though. :angry:

[Spirit of Spartacus]

The idea that Israel could just cease all military action and the Muslims would simply live in peaceful coexsistance is absurd.

Aha&#33; So you started off bashing "extremist Muslims" and now you&#39;ve shifted your entire focus to all Muslims in the world, who number nearly a quarter of the world&#39;s population.

Give me ONE good reason why Muslims cannot live in peace, but ignorant retarded neo-cons such as you CAN live in peace. :angry:



They even publically acknowledge this. So what is Israel to do? You tell me.

Well, why not attack Muslim countries and get screwed by anti-imperialist resistance? That sounds like a good strategy for Israel to follow. :rolleyes:



when surrounded by multiple enemies seeking anything less than your complete annialation it becomes pretty difficult to remain benevolent towards them. Israel cannot just sit back and answer each islamic aggresion with equal amounts of aggresion.


Good, good, you already sound a lot like Der Fuhrer back in the 30s.


Should they wait for 10&#39;000 of their own people to be killed before they answer in turn? Wait for chemical or nuclear weapons to be used before they can retatiliate. The showing of any military weakness by Israel is immediately used as propaganda to encourage the Islamic wackos that they can indeed annialate Israel. Israel has no choice to respond to aggresion with supeior aggresion to do other wise would be suicide.

Indeed. Long Live the superior race of Jewish Israeli people.

What are you going to do next? Sing the Hoerst-Wessel song, perhaps? <_<


Militant Islam is the enemy of the entire world because one of their most sacred beliefs is to convert the entire world.

While I will NOT attempt to defend any irrational religious superstition, including Islam, I insist that you back up this claim with proof. Why? Because being the ignorant right-wing Fascist that you are, you&#39;re going to use this as a justification for a Holocaust of Muslim people on a scale that would have made Hitler proud.

So prove to me, from Muslim holy texts, that world domination is "one of their most sacred beliefs".

Seriously, you are such a retard.



Therefore any action that undermines their ability to do this okay in my opinion.

I see. Would that include indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Muslim countries? :rolleyes:



Frankly I think anything that seeks to counter this desire of Islam.

Islam is no more ONE bloc than Christianity. You are an ignorant neo-con who believes all the shit fed by Fox News. I know its a waste of time to argue with you, but maybe some of the other members of this forum will benefit from this.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Is Israel demanding that their Islamic neighbors convert to Judaism or face annialation?

Worse. They&#39;re demanding that all their neighbours give up their lands and either be killled or leave.



During the bombing of Lebanon, Israel could of killed 100,000&#39;s of people if they wanted to, yet only around 1000 died because Israel tries to avoid the killing civilians if they can.

I see. So how do you explain the following fact recently presented by the UN:

90 percent of the cluster-bombs dropped by Israel in Lebanon were dropped during the last 72 hours of the conflict, when Israel KNEW that a cease-fire was being signed.


Islamos stated purpose is the death of as many civilians as possible, and this is not just because they are guerilla fighters and this is their only way to fight back.

I said it before, and I&#39;ll say it again:

While I will NOT attempt to justify any religious superstition, INCLUDING Islam, I will counter this particular argument of yours, because you&#39;re using it to justify indiscriminate murder of Muslim civilians.

You will present to us, in this very thread, proof from basic Islamic texts, which instruct Muslims to deliberately kill as many civilians as possible, AND which call for dominating the entire world using FORCE.

[theraven]

Historical records other than those kept by neo-con writers show that the Arabs were fighting to drive Persian and Byzantine conquerors from Arab land. In effect, they were fighting a war of national liberation to free their brethren under foreign domination.


arabs were far from the majorty or even a major part of the middle east prior to the arab invasion. it was an imperial expanion...


And far from being a "merciless Jihad", it was actually carried out in a more humane way than today&#39;s Israel could ever dream of. Umar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of Medina, actually cleaned the trash which Christians had dumped in Jewish temples in Jerusalem. So much for your "merciless Jihad". Phusshh.

he then built a mosque on it....



Bullshit, every single fucking word of it.

Firstly, there is no such thing as one unified, monolithic "Islam". Secondly, in all my years when I was a moderate Muslim, never once was I taught that its necessary to conquer the world.

your lucky i guess


The extremists you refer to were raised by the imperialist west to counter the USSR, from 1979 to 1989. Muslim people are not responsible for the actions of madmen who were armed by the imperialist West.

these people fundiamitsiom far predates america...

[theraven]

sparty said

Worse. They&#39;re demanding that all their neighbours give up their lands and either be killled or leave

--------------


really? where?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:



those who can&#39;t debate attack spelling...

Those who can&#39;t spell, can&#39;t debate.

Exhibit A:


rosie is patheti when it comes to arguments. her knoweldge of her subject s is minmal and only from a limited persepctive

What is "patheti"; is it a sort of Italian pasta?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, thanks for those comments, but I never debate with capitalist buffoons like Raving/Orelse999; I just wind them up.

Why?

Because it&#39;s easy.

[Luís Henrique]

The idea that the Jews have no right to Israel land because the Palestinians were the more recent occupiers of the it is absurd. The Jews right to Israel is the same as that the Palestinian ancestors used to steal it in the first place, superior military might.

By that logic, the Jews have also no right to the land. The history of the violent conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews is no secret; it is told, in detail, in the Torah.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:00 PM
the only thing I really have to say to this is [that] most pro-israeli evangicals are, for the most part not anti-semitic
(Spelling corrected so that third parties can understand what I am responding to)

Maybe not.

Are you equally able to allow that many Jews are not only not Zionists, but even anti-Zionists? Are you willing to admit that this applies not only to left-wing secular Jews, but also to right-wing Jews, and even to some deeply religious Jews? Are you able to admit that this does not stem from self-hate, but to legitimate political (or religious) concerns?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, check this out:

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

There are loads of websites written by jews all pushing an anti-zionist line.

It is a lie that there aren&#39;t thousands of jews like me who are ashamed of what the Ashkenazi Zionist Jews are doing in Palestine.

[Luís Henrique]

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

Thanks, Rosa.

I also like B&#39;Tselem (http://www.btselem.org/English/); it is pretty petty-bourgeois liberalism, but still has many important information on the de facto apartheid regime in Israel.


It is a lie that there aren&#39;t thousands of jews like me who are ashamed of what the Ashkenazi Zionist Jews are doing in Palestine.

Of course. Most jews are citizens of the countries they live in, with no reasons to feel attached to a foreign country.

Do you think that only Ashkenazim are to blame for Israeli anti-Palestinian policies?

Luís Henrique

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 08:52 PM
LH, check this out:

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/

There are loads of websites written by jews all pushing an anti-zionist line.

It is a lie that there aren&#39;t thousands of jews like me who are ashamed of what the Ashkenazi Zionist Jews are doing in Palestine.
1) sephardic jews are zionsit too

2) thousnds of jews may oppose ziions,..but millions more support it...

[theraven]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+Sep 4 2006, 08:04 PM--> (Luís Henrique @ Sep 4 2006, 08:04 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 11:00 PM
the only thing I really have to say to this is [that] most pro-israeli evangicals are, for the most part not anti-semitic
(Spelling corrected so that third parties can understand what I am responding to)

Maybe not.

Are you equally able to allow that many Jews are not only not Zionists, but even anti-Zionists? Are you willing to admit that this applies not only to left-wing secular Jews, but also to right-wing Jews, and even to some deeply religious Jews? Are you able to admit that this does not stem from self-hate, but to legitimate political (or religious) concerns?

Luís Henrique [/b]
the number of anti-zoinsit jews to zionsit jews is minsicule. some on the very far right and sorta far left are anti-zoionst. the overwhemling majory however are zionist to some degree

[Nathyn]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 06:27 PM
Raving:



those who can&#39;t debate attack spelling...

Those who can&#39;t spell, can&#39;t debate.

Exhibit A:


rosie is patheti when it comes to arguments. her knoweldge of her subject s is minmal and only from a limited persepctive

What is "patheti"; is it a sort of Italian pasta?
Guys, just leave him alone.

You shouldn&#39;t make fun of the mentally retarded.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


sephardic jews are zionsit too

So?

Zionism is an Ashkenazi idea.

Why?

Well they are not sons of Abraham, but Kazars, coverts to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Sephardis are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine.

-------------------------------------------

Nathyn:


Guys, just leave him alone.

You shouldn&#39;t make fun of the mentally retarded.

Spoil sport&#33;

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 08:01 AM
Then tell me where exactly where are muslims expressing their outrage over muslims killing on average 100 other muslims everyday. For driving around Baghdad and executing people based on whether their Sunni or Shiite. Muhammed cartoons definitely seem to be more upsetting to most of Islam. This is not something made up it is a fact.
OK, Orion, you were whining &#39;cause Rosa was pointing out your spelling errors not your "substance". I&#39;ll give you what you want, just this once. (But it&#39;s a reality that nobody will take you seriously on the &#39;net unless you can spell.)

What is the matter with you? You don&#39;t think Muslims are outraged that their relatives and friends are being murdered in Baghdad? Of course they are. Lemme break it down for you: Muslims are hu-man be-ings.

The Shi&#39;a have been outraged for months or years about the slaughter by Zarqawi and his ilk. This has been reflected in "man in the street" statements, opinion polls, and the statements of religious and political leaders.

Amazingly, they were restrained in their response for a long time, thanks in part to statements by religious leaders like Sistani discouraging revenge.

But since nobody was able or willing to put a stop to it, they took revenge in kind.

You ask, where&#39;s the outrage? Look at the dead bodies of Sunnis, there&#39;s the outrage. And of course then, there&#39;s more revenge by Sunnis against Shi&#39;a.

This is not some special Muslim thing. It&#39;s the same dynamic as Yugoslavia, and plenty of other ethnic conflicts in the world. It wasn&#39;t inevitable...but nobody with power - no capitalist party or government - took the necessary actions to prevent it either.

In fact, the U.S., from the beginning, has deepened sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1837002,00.html) The age-old "divide and conquer" game. Washington&#39;s certainly not the only one to blame - as that article makes clear - but it&#39;s part of the problem, not part of the solution. From when they set up the first Governing Council - with all representation based on sect or ethnicity - to today.

In contrast: Was anyone killed over the Muhammad cartoons? Offhand, no, if anyone was it was just a few people. It took months after their publication before they were widely noticed. So no, not so much outrage there really.

A certain attempt to manipulate the issue by some governments and opposition parties in majority-Muslim countries, that&#39;s all. I might point out the cartoons were originally published by a right-wing Danish newspaper in a deliberate attempt to provoke a response that would "prove" Muslims couldn&#39;t respect free speech.

That was really much more attention than any of your points deserved. So stop pretending that anyone isn&#39;t refuting them because they can&#39;t: it&#39;s because your feeble points don&#39;t need refuting.

[theraven]

So?

Zionism is an Ashkenazi idea.

Why?

Well they are not sons of Abraham, but Kazars, coverts to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Sephardis are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine.

wow what an increidbly racist comment. so obviusly you must be sephradic eh? well while i am aware that modern zionsim came from the asheknazi easten europe, however those "civilized" sephraidcs (what makes them so civlized?) decided to follow their breathren for the most part..

PS the kazaar thing is a nasty roumer spouted by only the stupidst of anti-israelis....i seriously doubt you are jewish

[Severian]

Originally posted by Spirit of [email protected] 4 2006, 09:15 AM
Historical records other than those kept by neo-con writers show that the Arabs were fighting to drive Persian and Byzantine conquerors from Arab land. In effect, they were fighting a war of national liberation to free their brethren under foreign domination.
Weird. Upside-down.

Egypt and Persia were "Arab lands"?

No, the initial Arab conquest was a nomadic migration like many others - Huns, Mongols, early Indo-Europeans, etc. Chaotic like others, with a fair bit of migration before the military conquest.

Accounts from the time, or shortly afterwards, describe it in the same way - with emphasis on the bloodthirst of the barbarians. (http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html) The conquerors were apparently tolerant of religious differences - but so was Genghis Khan.

Interestingly, they have little reference to Islam, and those who do often describe it more as a heresy than a new religion.

There are no contemporary Muslim accounts - even the Muslim scriptures were not written down until well after their supposed origin. Only on faith can anyone believe in accurate oral transmission for such a time.

Also consider the coins of the time (http://islamiccoins.ancients.info/umayyads/readingumayyadcoins.htm); references to Allah gradually appear, and only later references to "Mohammed is his prophet" and to the caliphs.

The oldest major example of Islamic architecture is the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem - not anything in Arabia - and the Koranic inscriptions there are different from the present canonical version of the Koran.

So there was a merciless Arab conquest - but whether it was Muslim is questionable. Or whether Islam as we know it had a later origin, perhaps as a synthesis of the religions of the conquered peoples. Like the Mongols in China, barbarian conquerors were often assimilated by their more culturally advanced subjects....


And far from being a "merciless Jihad", it was actually carried out in a more humane way than today&#39;s Israel could ever dream of. Umar ibn Khattab, the second caliph of Medina, actually cleaned the trash which Christians had dumped in Jewish temples in Jerusalem. So much for your "merciless Jihad". Phusshh.

There&#39;s no reliable account of the early Caliphs, either, especially not Umar. The Hadith were later creations intended to support positions in theological and legal debate, not historical accounts. The more detailed their supposed chain of transmission (isnad), the later their real origin.

I recommend a collection called "The Search for the Historical Muhammad" edited by Ibn Warraq. He&#39;s also edited a collection of scholarly articles about the origins of the Koran. There&#39;s a great deal of uncertainty over whether any of these conclusions are right - but at least the authors attempt to examine physical and historical evidence.

Rather than accept on faith a religion&#39;s account of its own origins. Christianity also has an account of its own origins, which on sceptical examination has proved highly doubtful.

A similar examination of Islam is just starting. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_early_Islam)

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 4 2006, 07:21 PM
Zionism is an Ashkenazi idea.

Why?

Well they are not sons of Abraham, but Kazars, coverts to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Sephardis are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine.
This is truly fucked-up.

Let&#39;s suppose, for the sake of argument, that European Jews (Ashkenazim) are of Khazar descent rather than "sons of Abraham." That&#39;s questionable, but who cares.

What the fuck does that have to do with the origins of Zionism? To blame someone&#39;s ideology on their descent is profoundly, explicitly, racist.

[Orion999]

Severian,

I do no believe all Muslims are inhuman mosters. But to continually blame the U.S. for the daily death in and destruction in Iraq makes no sense. When have the governments of Iran or Syria ever publically denounced the actions of Al-Quada in Iraq? There was an absolute uproar over the cartoons (your attempt to blame this on a "right wing" newspaper is ridiculous.) in these countries, but please tell the last time a public rally against the mass murder in Iraq was held in Iran or Syria that equaled the huge protests following the cartoon. In case you don&#39;t know the answer is zero.

Iran and Syria have no problem with the murder of muslims if it supports there political ends. They continually supply Al-Quada, and Iran sends people over the border with the sole pupose of instigating civil war through mass murder. There is NOT more outrage over this than there was over a cartoon. This is simply a fact.



I had no idea that communists were such spelling nazis, so all further posts will b proofread just like I&#39;m sure you do.



I

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


wow what an increidbly racist comment.

Why?


so obviusly you must be sephradic

No, Ashkenazi.


PS the kazaar thing is a nasty roumer [rumour?] spouted by only the stupidst of anti-israelis....i seriously doubt you are jewish

Not so; Jewish scholars also accept it, mainly because of the clear historical record.

So, the land of Israel is now occupied by those who are not the sons and daughters of Abraham (Ashkenazi Jews), whereas the sons and daughters of Abraham (the Palestinians) have been kicked out.

No wonder you do not like to be reminded of this fact.

[I doubt you are a descendant of Abraham; I am not, but I am Jewish.]

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Severian:


Let&#39;s suppose, for the sake of argument, that European Jews (Ashkenazim) are of Khazar descent rather than "sons of Abraham." That&#39;s questionable, but who cares.

I don&#39;t, but they do -- so it&#39;s a nice rhetorical device to use against these non-semitic Zionists, the Ashkenazi (of which group I belong, which makes it even worse for them).

That is why they go apoplectic when this is mentioned -- as you can see is the case with Raving.


What the fuck does that have to do with the origins of Zionism? To blame someone&#39;s ideology on their descent is profoundly, explicitly, racist.

Where do you see the word &#39;blame&#39; in anything I said?

And, as I said above, it matters not to me where or why Zionism began, but to these racist Zionists it does.

And that is the only reason I brought it up -- to wind them up.

It works every time.

So, chill out....

[JimFar]

Rosa,

Most of the genetics studies that I am familiar with suggest that Ashkenzic Jews do have a Middle Eastern origin, and that the various Jewish communities around the world: Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and Mizraim are more genetically related to each other than they are with other ethnoc groups. In any case, at least half the Israeli population now a days consists of Mizraim or Sephardim, and nobody doubts that these people are Semites. Of course in Israel, the Ashkenazim continue to dominate the country economically and politically, but that is another matter. Anyway, I do agree with Arthur Koestler (who was one of the most famous proponents of the Khazar hypothesis) that the justifiability of Zionism, or the lack thereof, is not effected by whether or not Askenazim Jews turn out to be the descendents of Khazars. Koestler, himself, as I am sure you know, was a Zionist, but I would agree with him that this issue is a red herring in terms of whether or not Zionism is justified.

[theraven]

I don&#39;t, but they do -- so it&#39;s a nice rhetorical device to use against these non-semitic Zionists, the Ashkenazi (of which group I belong, which makes it even worse for them).

That is why they go apoplectic when this is mentioned -- as you can see is the case with Raving.

asheknazi jews are semetic you incredibly stupid women. You have the most fucked up view of things I can imagine...



Why?


because you imply that whites (aka asheknezia) are less civlized then meddeterianina peoples (aka sephardics).


No, Ashkenazi.


ah so your just stupid then?




Not so; Jewish scholars also accept it, mainly because of the clear historical record.

what clear historical record..


So, the land of Israel is now occupied by those who are not the sons and daughters of Abraham (Ashkenazi Jews), whereas the sons and daughters of Abraham (the Palestinians) have been kicked out.

No wonder you do not like to be reminded of this fact.

[I doubt you are a descendant of Abraham; I am not, but I am Jewish.]

1)it is occupied by rightful heirs of abraham, not his bastards

2) asheknazis have been linked geneticly with jews all over the world. there is a distinct genetic mutation in cohen jews whihc if in a proper proportion to a group of jews proves they are abrahamic jews. asheknazi have this prportion

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 01:21 AM
Raving:


sephardic jews are zionsit too

So?

Zionism is an Ashkenazi idea.

Why?

Well they are not sons of Abraham, but Kazars, coverts to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Sephardis are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine.

-------------------------------------------

Nathyn:


Guys, just leave him alone.

You shouldn&#39;t make fun of the mentally retarded.

Spoil sport&#33;
How is saying "Sephardics are far more cultured than Ascenazis" less racist than saying " whites are far more cultured than blacks"?

Noun
racism

The belief that members of one race are superior to members of other races
The belief that members of one ethnic group are superior to members of another ethnic group.
The belief that capability or behavior can be racially defined.

According to these definitions you are obviously a racist.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim thanks for that; I am aware of these &#39;genetic&#39; studies, but I am suspicious of them in view of the fact that they &#39;confrim&#39; a view that is helpful to US interests, etc.

But notice what a storm I can provoke by just mentioning this thorny issue&#33;

That alone makes me do it (since it suggests they have something to hide).

And I absoultely agree with you over what you say about the justification (or lack of it) for Zionist domination of Palestine.

Even so, there is as much genetic evidence to suggest that the Palestinians are &#39;semites&#39; as there is that Jews are.

Which makes the Zionist state of Israel the most anti-Semitic regime on the planet since the second world war.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


asheknazi jews are semetic you incredibly stupid women

But are they Semites? I think only some of them are.

Who are the &#39;Semetes&#39;, by the way?

And there is in fact only one of me, so you needn&#39;t call me a &#39;women&#39; (sic).

However, your spelling suggests that howsoever &#39;stupid&#39; I am, you leave me standing.

I suspect we have not yet invented a word to cater for your uniqely low level.


You have the most fucked up view of things I can imagine...

Oh dear, have I hit a nerve?


because you imply that whites (aka asheknezia) are less civlized then meddeterianina peoples (aka sephardics).

Where do I imply this?

And since I am an Ashkenazi, I would not dream of doing this.

And you say I am stupid....


ah so your just stupid then?

No, I said I was Ashkenazi. Have you now lost the ability to read too?


what clear historical record..

The one you can&#39;t read.


1)it is occupied by rightful heirs of abraham, not his bastards

Ah, so now we get to the real hurt.

You object to the fact that Abraham screwed around.

But not to the fact that his descendants (the Palestinians) have been kicked off the land by these non-Semitic interlopers (the Ashkenazi)?

What an odd morality you have.


asheknazis have been linked geneticly with jews all over the world. there is a distinct genetic mutation in cohen jews whihc if in a proper proportion to a group of jews proves they are abrahamic jews. asheknazi have this prportion

So you say, and if I had a guilty secret to hide like you, I&#39;d say the same thing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Adenoid:


"Sephardics are far more cultured than Ascenazis"

Which I did not say, as your own highlighted quotation boxes will confirm.

What I did say was:


Sephardis are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine.

So I suggest you get your facts right before you soil yourself in public again.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 12:23 PM
Adenoid:


"Sephardics are far more cultured than Ascenazis"

Which I did not say, as your own highlighted quotation boxes will confirm.

What I did say was:


Sephardis are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine.

So I suggest you get your facts right before you soil yourself in public again.
Are you kidding me??

You say that Aschenazis created the "racist doctrine " of zionism.
This means that you do not consider them( the Aschenazis) "far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"

And then you say that you consider Sephardics " far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"
If
A= "Sephardics are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
B="Aschenazis are not far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
then obviously
C= "Sephardics are more cultured than Aschenazis" is true

According to you A and B are true, and so according to you C is true.

Fucking common sense

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Oh dear, Adenoid soils himself in public once more, but abusively this time:


You say that Aschenazis created the "racist doctrine " of zionism.
This means that you do not consider them( the Aschenazis) "far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"

And then you say that you consider Sephardics " far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"
If
A= "Sephardics are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
B="Aschenazis are not far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
then obviously
C= "Sephardics are more cultured than Aschenazis" is true

According to you A and B are true, and so according to you C is true.

No, I actually had this in mind: "The Ashkenazim are far too cultured to have dreamt this racist theory up, so why they did so is a total mystery".

So the Sephardim and Ashenazim are equally cultured, but the latter fell prey to this pernicious creed.

Now go and clean yourself up.

[theraven]

But are they Semites? I think only some of them are.

Who are the &#39;Semetes&#39;, by the way?

And there is in fact only one of me, so you needn&#39;t call me a &#39;women&#39; (sic).

However, your spelling suggests that howsoever &#39;stupid&#39; I am, you leave me standing.

I suspect we have not yet invented a word to cater for your uniqely low level.


what you think carries very little weight, least of all with me.


Oh dear, have I hit a nerve?

indeed-my tolerance of stupidity is astonishingly low. bad spelling i could handle. having no understanding of history and insisiting you do i cannot.



Where do I imply this?

And since I am an Ashkenazi, I would not dream of doing this.

And you say I am stupid....

adenol illustrates exactly how you implied this. you never said the things that you use to mitage your racism, thus you are now just covering your tracts. the chance that you are as you claim is growing smaller by the day.



The one you can&#39;t read.


so no sources then eh? no suprise lol


Ah, so now we get to the real hurt.


You object to the fact that Abraham screwed around.

But not to the fact that his descendants (the Palestinians) have been kicked off the land by these non-Semitic interlopers (the Ashkenazi)?

What an odd morality you have.

1) the ashkenazi are semetic

2) i don&#39;t care that abrahm screwed around, however it does not entitle his bastards to his legitiamt heirs land.


Jim thanks for that; I am aware of these &#39;genetic&#39; studies, but I am suspicious of them in view of the fact that they &#39;confrim&#39; a view that is helpful to US interests, etc.

But notice what a storm I can provoke by just mentioning this thorny issue&#33;

That alone makes me do it (since it suggests they have something to hide).


you know most jews wouldn&#39;t use the word "they" when discussing other jews...


PS there really isn&#39;t a zionist conspriacy. i promise.

/goes off to secret meeting..that has nothing to do with zionism.

And I absoultely agree with you over what you say about the justification (or lack of it) for Zionist domination of Palestine.

Even so, there is as much genetic evidence to suggest that the Palestinians are &#39;semites&#39; as there is that Jews are.

Which makes the Zionist state of Israel the most anti-Semitic regime on the planet since the second world war.

how is israel anti-semitic? it is defending itself the anti-semits are the states around it that won&#39;t help thier fellow arabs and turn them on their cousions the jews.

its disgraceful...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


what you think carries very little weight, least of all with me.

That is probably because I am a Semite, whereas you are a Semete.

[And if what I say carries little weight with you, why bother to keep replying? You sound very confused to me.]


indeed-my tolerance of stupidity is astonishingly low. bad spelling i could handle. having no understanding of history and insisiting you do i cannot.

So end it all; jump under a bus.


adenol illustrates exactly how you implied this.

I don&#39;t think anyone with that name posts here.

Are you hallucinating now?



thus you are now just covering your tracts

I have never written a tract in my life before.

You are hallucinating.


the chance that you are as you claim is growing smaller by the day.

Evidence?


so no sources then eh? no suprise lol

None you would be able to read.


Ah, so now we get to the real hurt.

Pinching my words now, are you?

I can understand why: you can&#39;t spell your own.


1) the ashkenazi are semetic

But are they Semitic?

You keep refusing to tell me who the Semetes are.


2) i don&#39;t care that abrahm screwed around, however it does not entitle his bastards to his legitiamt heirs land.

They do have a better claim than these Japhetic interlopers: the Ashkenazi.


you know most jews wouldn&#39;t use the word "they" when discussing other jews...

Who was discussing &#39;other jews&#39;? Not me.


PS there really isn&#39;t a zionist conspriacy. i promise.

Who said there was? Not me.

Gangsters and mass murderers do not need to conspire.


goes off to secret meeting..that has nothing to do with zionism.

Are you determined to live up to your name: Raving?


how is israel anti-semitic?

That one is so easy to answer, even you should have been able to do it.

They kill the sons and daughters of Abraham (the Palestinians) and kick them off their land.

And the Zionists are Japhetic anti-Semites to boot.


it is defending itself the anti-semits are the states around it that won&#39;t help thier fellow arabs and turn them on their cousions the jews.

Well the Arabs are the Semites here, the Zionists are not.


its disgraceful...

I agree: you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

[adenoid hynkel]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 02:46 PM
Oh dear, Adenoid soils himself in public once more, but abusively this time:


You say that Aschenazis created the "racist doctrine " of zionism.
This means that you do not consider them( the Aschenazis) "far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"

And then you say that you consider Sephardics " far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"
If
A= "Sephardics are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
B="Aschenazis are not far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
then obviously
C= "Sephardics are more cultured than Aschenazis" is true

According to you A and B are true, and so according to you C is true.

No, I actually had this in mind: "The Ashkenazim are far too cultured to have dreamt this racist theory up, so why they did so is a total mystery".

So the Sephardim and Ashenazim are equally cultured, but the latter fell prey to this pernicious creed.

Now go and clean yourself up.
Your comment was clearly racist.. anyone with half brain can understand this.

You either do not have the mental capability to understand it or you do not have the guts to admit it.

And Raven do something about your spelling; I can hardly understand what you say.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Adenoid, oops I have soiled myself again, hynkel plops again:


Your comment was clearly racist.. anyone with half brain can understand this.

Well, Mr half brain, you can repeat this till the cows evolve, it matters not.

You need evidence.

Got any?


You either do not have the mental capability to understand it or you do not have the guts to admit it.

Understand what?

Make-believe?

I think we can safely leave that in your soiled hands.

[adenoid hynkel]

My evidence is this and it is very clear

Adenoid Hynkel

You say that Aschenazis created the "racist doctrine " of zionism.
This means that you do not consider them( the Aschenazis) "far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"

And then you say that you consider Sephardics " far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"
If
A= "Sephardics are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
B="Aschenazis are not far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
then obviously
C= "Sephardics are more cultured than Aschenazis" is true

According to you A and B are true, and so according to you C is true


Your ""rebuttal"" is this and it is a strawman of the worst kind



No, I actually had this in mind: "The Ashkenazim are far too cultured to have dreamt this racist theory up, so why they did so is a total mystery".

So the Sephardim and Ashenazim are equally cultured, but the latter fell prey to this pernicious creed.

Now go and clean yourself up.

It is a shame you do not even have the guts to say openly that you are racist against Aschenazis.

[theraven]

Originally posted by adenoid [email protected] 5 2006, 06:25 PM
My evidence is this and it is very clear

Adenoid Hynkel

You say that Aschenazis created the "racist doctrine " of zionism.
This means that you do not consider them( the Aschenazis) "far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"

And then you say that you consider Sephardics " far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine"
If
A= "Sephardics are far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
B="Aschenazis are not far too cultured to dream up such a racist doctrine" is true
then obviously
C= "Sephardics are more cultured than Aschenazis" is true

According to you A and B are true, and so according to you C is true


Your ""rebuttal"" is this and it is a strawman of the worst kind



No, I actually had this in mind: "The Ashkenazim are far too cultured to have dreamt this racist theory up, so why they did so is a total mystery".

So the Sephardim and Ashenazim are equally cultured, but the latter fell prey to this pernicious creed.

Now go and clean yourself up.

It is a shame you do not even have the guts to say openly that you are racist against Aschenazis.
me thinks the "commie club" has a neo nazi pretending to be jew on their hands...from "her?" use of anti-semeitc slurs to refer to herself to her refering to ashkenazi jews as "un cultured" she is either incredibly stupid or lying.




That is probably because I am a Semite, whereas you are a Semete.

[And if what I say carries little weight with you, why bother to keep replying? You sound very confused to me.]

becuase I enjoy debating idiots, it passes the time between classes.



So end it all; jump under a bus.


nah being paralyzed takes all the fun out of life




I have never written a tract in my life before.

You are hallucinating.


tracks is the word babe



Evidence?


I am sure the fact is apparent to anyone who has been reading this thread



None you would be able to read.


so you have none eh well there is a suprise....






But are they Semitic?

You keep refusing to tell me who the Semetes are.


because I know you understand exactly what i am refering to



They do have a better claim than these Japhetic interlopers: the Ashkenazi.


except the asheknazi are semitic also...




Who was discussing &#39;other jews&#39;? Not me.

in the quoted text you were


Who said there was? Not me.

Gangsters and mass murderers do not need to conspire.


no one is talking about arafat and hezbollah



Are you determined to live up to your name: Raving?


I know you like to make up your own definiotns but what i am doing can hardly be considered raving



how is israel anti-semitic?




They kill the sons and daughters of Abraham (the Palestinians) and kick them off their land.


not getting into the most basic disagreemnet (that is that israel hardly kicked them off their land) even had they done so this would not make them anti-semites. they did not do this because the arabs were fellow semite




I agree: you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.

brilliant my dear

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Even so, there is as much genetic evidence to suggest that the Palestinians are &#39;semites&#39; as there is that Jews are.

Which makes the Zionist state of Israel the most anti-Semitic regime on the planet since the second world war.

In fact some of the genetic studies I have seen, suggest that Jews (including Ashkenazic Jews) are genetically closely related to Palestinian Arabs. I have also heard of studies that Jews are genetically, closely related to the Kurds too. I am not sure what to make of that particular result.

Concerning the term, anti-Semitism, I am sure that you are quite aware that the term was coined by the German anti-Jewish agitator, Wilhelm Marr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr). Since the late nineteenth century was the great age of racial theories, including in Germany and elsewhere, theories about Aryan races and Semitic races and so forth, Marr most likely intended by his term, anti-Semitism, to convey the idea that Jews constituted a race that was supposedly alien to European society, and which properly belonged in the Middle East. Marr apparently had no intention of using the term as a means for expressing racial hostility towards Arabs, who in his day, were demographically very insignificant in Europe. However, I see nothing particularly wrong with broadening the meaning of the term to encompass anti-Arab racism as well, since Arabs are just as much "Semites" as Jews. Actually, most contemporary anthropologists would deny that "Semites" constitue any sort of a valid racial category, and would instead insist that the term is properly just a label for a language family (i.e. Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic etc.). The speakers of those languages, are in reality of diverse ancestries, so it makes little sense to lump them altogether as constituting any sort of a "race" as such, assuming that the notion of race is something more than a pseudoconcept, anyway.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, if you look here you will see all the evidence on both sides (posted by an expert), including some of the stuff you mentioned:

http://www.khazaria.com/

Particularly:

http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts.html

As usual I agree with your reasonable conclusions, except, you must remember I am only doing all this to wind Raving up (and even though I have told you this, she still takes the bait&#33;).

[theraven]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:02 PM
Rosa wrote:


Even so, there is as much genetic evidence to suggest that the Palestinians are &#39;semites&#39; as there is that Jews are.

Which makes the Zionist state of Israel the most anti-Semitic regime on the planet since the second world war.

In fact some of the genetic studies I have seen, suggest that Jews (including Ashkenazic Jews) are genetically closely related to Palestinian Arabs. I have also heard of studies that Jews are genetically, closely related to the Kurds too. I am not sure what to make of that particular result.

Concerning the term, anti-Semitism, I am sure that you are quite aware that the term was coined by the German anti-Jewish agitator, Wilhelm Marr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr). Since the late nineteenth century was the great age of racial theories, including in Germany and elsewhere, theories about Aryan races and Semitic races and so forth, Marr most likely intended by his term, anti-Semitism, to convey the idea that Jews constituted a race that was supposedly alien to European society, and which properly belonged in the Middle East. Marr apparently had no intention of using the term as a means for expressing racial hostility towards Arabs, who in his day, were demographically very insignificant in Europe. However, I see nothing particularly wrong with broadening the meaning of the term to encompass anti-Arab racism as well, since Arabs are just as much "Semites" as Jews. Actually, most contemporary anthropologists would deny that "Semites" constitue any sort of a valid racial category, and would instead insist that the term is properly just a label for a language family (i.e. Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic etc.). The speakers of those languages, are in reality of diverse ancestries, so it makes little sense to lump them altogether as constituting any sort of a "race" as such, assuming that the notion of race is something more than a pseudoconcept, anyway.
good post mate-glad to see some people can disagree with the idiot

[Severian]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 02:59 AM
And, as I said above, it matters not to me where or why Zionism began, but to these racist Zionists it does.

And that is the only reason I brought it up -- to wind them up.
In other words, you&#39;re trolling. And trolling by expressing a racist view, whether or not you really believe it.

This doesn&#39;t help.

The earlier parts of this thread were on a higher level than most debates in OI. You&#39;re contributing to dragging it down by extended meaningless quibbles with some of the less serious restricted posters.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


me thinks the "commie club" has a neo nazi pretending to be jew on their hands

I am glad you have owned up. So naff off back to Nuremberg then.


becuase I enjoy debating idiots, it passes the time between classes.

Reading classes, by any chance?


nah being paralyzed takes all the fun out of life

I take it that this condition of yours is from the neck up?


tracks is the word babe

You need to make your mind up.


I am sure the fact is apparent to anyone who has been reading this thread

That rules you out then.


so you have none eh well there is a suprise....

What is a "suprise"?


because I know you understand exactly what i am refering to

Yes, you are a &#39;Semete&#39;, but you refuse to say what one of these is.


except the asheknazi are semitic also...

You see you can spell when you try&#33;

Now concentrate on the really difficult stuff, like &#39;and&#39; and &#39;the&#39;.

We&#39;ll have you coherent within the next ten years, I&#39;m sure of it.


in the quoted text you were

So you say, but you are raving.

Now, you see why I get cross with you when you undo all the progress I have managed to achieve with you:


I know you like to make up your own definiotns but what i am doing can hardly be considered raving

What is a "definiotns"?

Or is this part of your mental condition?


no one is talking about arafat and hezbollah

Correct for once, we were talking about the IDF.


how is israel anti-semitic?

Already answered.


not getting into the most basic disagreemnet (that is that israel hardly kicked them off their land) even had they done so this would not make them anti-semites. they did not do this because the arabs were fellow semite

Eh?


brilliant my dear

I am rather.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:25 PM
When have the governments of Iran or Syria ever publically denounced the actions of Al-Quada in Iraq?
I&#39;d guess they have, though I&#39;m not going to search through the Iran News Agency archives right now.

What is this? You think the Shi&#39;a-led governments of Iran and Syria don&#39;t oppose al-Qaeda&#39;s massacres of Shi&#39;a?

The Iranian government&#39;s done a lot more than verbally denounce it: they&#39;re arming the enemies of Zarqawi in Iraq. (And actions do speak louder, y&#39;know.)

They&#39;ve armed the Shi&#39;a party militia, starting with the SCIRI and Dawa parties which were in exile in Iran until recently. It&#39;s been alleged Iran is arming the Mahdi army as well - which has been the most active in killing alleged Ba&#39;athists and Takfiris and Sunnis generally.

Your obsession with demanding people condemn Washington&#39;s enemies is pretty pointless, too.

Do you imagine "al-Qaeda in Iraq" would kill any fewer Shi&#39;a because of anyone denouncing it?

Condemning and opposing the atrocities of one&#39;s "own" nation is far more productive. Washington has to worry about U.S. citizens turning against the war. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" has to worry if Iraqi Sunni Arabs oppose its atrocities. Each side in the Yugoslavia had to worry about those of its own ethnicity opposing its wars and ethnic cleansing.

And those are the only real opponents of wars and atrocities, those who oppose the crimes of your own rulers. Even Milosevic opposed ethnic cleansing...when it was done by his enemies. In order to justify his own.

And that&#39;s what you&#39;re doing - condemning the atrocities of Washington&#39;s enemies in order to justify the atrocities of Washington and its client regimes, like Israel.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Adenoid:


My evidence is this and it is very clear

An invalid inference is not evidence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Severian:


And trolling by expressing a racist view,

What racist view?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


good post mate-glad to see some people can disagree with the idiot

You should refrain from calling yourself such names.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 5 2006, 09:54 PM
Raving:


me thinks the "commie club" has a neo nazi pretending to be jew on their hands

I am glad you have owned up. So naff off back to Nuremberg then.


becuase I enjoy debating idiots, it passes the time between classes.

Reading classes, by any chance?


nah being paralyzed takes all the fun out of life

I take it that this condition of yours is from the neck up?


tracks is the word babe

You need to make your mind up.


I am sure the fact is apparent to anyone who has been reading this thread

That rules you out then.


so you have none eh well there is a suprise....

What is a "suprise"?


because I know you understand exactly what i am refering to

Yes, you are a &#39;Semete&#39;, but you refuse to say what one of these is.


except the asheknazi are semitic also...

You see you can spell when you try&#33;

Now concentrate on the really difficult stuff, like &#39;and&#39; and &#39;the&#39;.

We&#39;ll have you coherent within the next ten years, I&#39;m sure of it.


in the quoted text you were

So you say, but you are raving.

Now, you see why I get cross with you when you undo all the progress I have managed to achieve with you:


I know you like to make up your own definiotns but what i am doing can hardly be considered raving

What is a "definiotns"?

Or is this part of your mental condition?


no one is talking about arafat and hezbollah

Correct for once, we were talking about the IDF.


how is israel anti-semitic?

Already answered.


not getting into the most basic disagreemnet (that is that israel hardly kicked them off their land) even had they done so this would not make them anti-semites. they did not do this because the arabs were fellow semite

Eh?


brilliant my dear

I am rather.
wow you&#39;ve gone from trying to defend idiotic positions literally to not making one single meaningful response. I think my work is done here.

CC members-It seems you have a neo-nazi interloper.

[theraven]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 5 2006, 09:54 PM--> (Severian @ Sep 5 2006, 09:54 PM)
[email protected] 4 2006, 11:25 PM
When have the governments of Iran or Syria ever publically denounced the actions of Al-Quada in Iraq?
I&#39;d guess they have, though I&#39;m not going to search through the Iran News Agency archives right now.

What is this? You think the Shi&#39;a-led governments of Iran and Syria don&#39;t oppose al-Qaeda&#39;s massacres of Shi&#39;a?

The Iranian government&#39;s done a lot more than verbally denounce it: they&#39;re arming the enemies of Zarqawi in Iraq. (And actions do speak louder, y&#39;know.)

They&#39;ve armed the Shi&#39;a party militia, starting with the SCIRI and Dawa parties which were in exile in Iran until recently. It&#39;s been alleged Iran is arming the Mahdi army as well - which has been the most active in killing alleged Ba&#39;athists and Takfiris and Sunnis generally.

Your obsession with demanding people condemn Washington&#39;s enemies is pretty pointless, too.

Do you imagine "al-Qaeda in Iraq" would kill any fewer Shi&#39;a because of anyone denouncing it?

Condemning and opposing the atrocities of one&#39;s "own" nation is far more productive. Washington has to worry about U.S. citizens turning against the war. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" has to worry if Iraqi Sunni Arabs oppose its atrocities. Each side in the Yugoslavia had to worry about those of its own ethnicity opposing its wars and ethnic cleansing.

And those are the only real opponents of wars and atrocities, those who oppose the crimes of your own rulers. Even Milosevic opposed ethnic cleansing...when it was done by his enemies. In order to justify his own.

And that&#39;s what you&#39;re doing - condemning the atrocities of Washington&#39;s enemies in order to justify the atrocities of Washington and its client regimes, like Israel. [/b]
Iran is arming its shiite terrorists, syria and the wahhabbi(sp?) network are giving weapons to the sunnis (both foriegn and domestic) and the US is giving weapons to the kurds as well as trying to start a decent national army.

world politisc is rarely humane or moral sadly.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raving:


wow you&#39;ve gone from trying to defend idiotic positions literally to not making one single meaningful response. I think my work is done here.

Still incapable of arguing for your &#39;position&#39; I see.

This is probably because you find reading too much of a challenge.


CC members-It seems you have a neo-nazi interloper.

As already noted, this confession of yours was long overdue.

[theraven]

This is probably because you find reading too much of a challenge.



what exactly would i read? your one liners? they have nothing to do with the argument.



As already noted, this confession of yours was long overdue.

I am not a member of the CC

you howver......