i dont have anything to say but i am Israely and have to get into a argument in this thread

For the few well-explained posts by FS and DJ from last evening, +1

if my neighbourg has nothing but stones to defend himself from my full metal and fire arrmy, I can allway slap in his face, fearing nothing.
If my neighbour has the same tanks as me, and missiles, and gunships... Y will be his friend for a long time!!!

sad but true...

I apologize, I don't have a ton of time to field responses today so I'll try covering the important points...

Dingleberry / Treefarn -

I got the quotes from here (I already posted this above):
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/palestinians.html

There are hundreds of quotes here. I picked two relevant ones from the top. You managed to rebut those two from what I would consider a questionable source. Would you mind sending me a rebuttal to the other hundred?

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

CAMERA is a Boston-based, non-profit, pro-Israel[2] media watchdog group. CAMERA has been noted for its pro-Israel media monitoring and advocacy.

In May 2008, five Wikipedia editors involved in a secret CAMERA campaign to edit Wikipedia were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that the project's open nature "is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing by ideologically like-minded individuals"

Accuracy? If you say so, I guess. It should just be called IMERA (Israeli Middle East Reporting in America). The slant is obvious...just go to the front page now and read the blurbs.

Summary: Pro Israel biased reporting. 'nuff said.


obiwanobiwan -

"so against Israel for defying the UN- and yet what about IRAN? The constant threat to Israel"

Ok, firstly, this thread is specific to the Israel - Palestinian conflict as it relates to current events. If you want to start pointing some fingers elsewhere, start a new thread about Iran.

Secondly...a "constant threat to Israel?" Who has nukes? I rest my case. But also since we are talking about it, let's examine the "wipe Israel off the map" quote...

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025

"So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh" is not contained anywhere in his original Farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's president threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." despite never having uttered the words "map." "wipe out" or even "Israel."

The Proof:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from)."

There you have it. Any Farsi speakers are welcome to chime in and verify this.

Otherwise, this is just another case of Israel creating a threat to justify it's actions. Israel is VERY good at this.

"the more Israelis attack...Hamas gets more angry Palestinians to join"

I've already said this. Can you not see this through to its logical end? It ain't pretty. Israel can and should take the moral high ground or face international condemnation (which they are now).

The Palestinians are a poor, defeated people who are fighting back by any means necessary. Do not act surprised or with horror when they resort to suicide bombings. It's the most effective retaliation they have. Just as Israel is dropping large bombs in densely populated areas. I'm not saying either are right. But let's try to understand why they are doing this.

Look at the UN partition plan for Israel in 1948. Now look at Israel today. The maps tell the story.

Let me ask you a question...

What crime did the Arabs commit against the Jews?

Pandarsenic -

"They cannot justify years of Shelling Each Others' Civilians for Fun and Profit."

Oh but they can! Weaponry is a highly profitable business! Money can be used to justify anything.

And finally, I'll leave you with a story that's reflective of Israeli policy:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009181119551714.html
Israel fires on UN Gaza convoy -
At least one Palestinian has been killed after a UN relief agency convoy came under fire from Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip, officials say. The attack took place on Thursday as the lorries travelled to the Erez crossing to pick up supplies that were to have been allowed in during a three-hour ceasefire.

So, Israel declares a three hour cease fire "for humanitarian reasons" (i.e. wants to look merciful in the eyes of the world) then breaks their own cease fire and shoots up a United Nations food convoy.

This is typical of the IDF...as I've shown many times already.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7817926.stm someone really needs to step in this is disgusting

Darwyn,

"Ok, firstly, this thread is specific to the Israel - Palestinian conflict as it relates to current events. If you want to start pointing some fingers elsewhere, start a new thread about Iran."

Everyone EXCEPT you, for the most part, has a greed that Israel is in the state of mind it is in now (shoot first and all and do it quickly) BECAUSE of constant threats made against it by other powers in the region- and Iran, DOES fit that bill. "

Wipe off the map" or "vanish from the page of time"- does it make that much of a difference? BOTH state that Iran wants "the Zionist regime" to go- not the CURRENT Israeli regime, the enitrety of the rgime- the nation.

And how well known is it to the world that Iran desperately wants nuclear power and the bomb?

Does anyone else not think that this is a simple case of putting two and two together-

Iran wanting Israeli statehood gone+the bomb=THREAT TO ISRAEL.

Or, Darwyn, are you so very against Israel in this conversation that you will not ALLOW yourself to see that?

And how is this relevant to the Palestine-Israeli issue? Iran sponsors terror regimes- it is, ina sense, the Godfather of the Middle East.

So if you were Israel, knowing that the terror group attacking you now (with newer and far superior weapons than last time, missiles that can go much farther than simple home-made missles alone, perhaps a gift from the Godfather?) was potentially sponsored by the power that has said that you must "vanish from time", what would you do- call the UN for help and await a few sanctions that have done SO MUCH to curb powers in the past, or defend yourself- quickly and brutally- against who you thought was a threat.

Hamas is in civilian areas- if Hamas TRULY doesn't want civilian casualties, then why not fight Israel openly? Wh not come out of hiding if they are so mighty and face Israel as the self-styled "freedom fighters" they are?

REAL revolutionaries fight at least SOME of their battles in the open, they are NOT cowards, they come out to fight- and damn the superior forces.

The colonists did that in the American Revolution at Lexington, Saratoga, Yorktown (sorry, Englishmen on the thread, no hard feelings :p)

In the French Revolution, the masses came out in the open and stormed Marseilles and the Basteille.

Even in WWII the French resistance fought the Nazis in the open, instead of ONLY launching missiles from the safety of an innocent family's home.

Even the ISRAELIS fought the PALESTINIANS on open ground in 1948 for the land. And they fought that way, still outnumbered by many Arab states, in 1967 and 1973.


Hamas is a collection of terrorists and cowards that would use the Palestinian people and homes as bases and shields.

Now I do wonder why THAT doesn't bother you, why don't you condemn THEM I wonder.......

"Israel is in the state of mind it is in now (shoot first and all and do it quickly) BECAUSE of constant threats made against it by other powers in the region"

And the point I've been trying to drive home from a historical perspective is...WHY? Why is Israel under constant threat? Why can't Israel get along with everyone else?

PERHAPS it had something to do with what the Arabs view as the stealing of their land? I don't care what right Zionist Jews thought they had in declaring Palestine theirs, it's NOT a viewpoint held by Arabs. And until THAT is addressed the bloodshed will continue...in favor of a financially and militarily backed Israel by the US.

Again, what crime did the Arabs perpetrate against the Jews? And then ask yourself the reverse...this is to give you perspective. Something you obviously don't have.

"Wipe off the map" or "vanish from the page of time"- does it make that much of a difference?"

It does! It was deliberately mistranslated to garner greater sympathy for Israel. I TOLD you they were very good at that. And you bought it.

"Iran wants "the Zionist regime" to go- not the CURRENT Israeli regime, the enitrety of the rgime- the nation."

The CURRENT Israeli regime IS Zionist. A regime is NOT the people. You yourself are implying something that is not there.

"And how well known is it to the world that Iran desperately wants nuclear power and the bomb? "

Israel has nukes. They acquired them without international approval, without signing the NPT and in fact, did so IN SECRET!... where's the outrage?

Iran is attempting to gain nuclear power through the proper channels...if they are attempting to gain nukes it is likely to counter Israeli nukes. So if you want to argue that Israel needs nukes to protect herself, then Iran can use the same argument.

But again, this thread isn't about Iran. Let's stay on course...

"if Hamas TRULY doesn't want civilian casualties, then why not fight Israel openly?"

lol...absolutely ridiculous question. Where is it open? Gaza is the most densely populated piece of real estate on the planet. You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a civilian there. And that is Israel's doing. Israel forced this situation with the same tactics it always uses...provoke and then use overwhelming force to the subsequent retaliation as justification to steal even more land . Poor, poor Israel, right? Again, look at the maps. Looks like conquest to me.

From an IDF soldier himself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine?1
How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe...
The only way to make sense of Israel's senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians.

That's EXACTLY what I've said. Until you and the people you sympathize with get your head wrapped around that obiwan, I'm afraid you are wrong.

The entire world has condemned this onslaught against Palestinians...yet here you are using the "defense" excuse. Laughable. Absolutely laughable...and might I add...arrogant.

You do not end injustice by being unjust.

You do not end hate by being hateful.

You do not bring peace by making war.

another quote from that link:

A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones.

Well... historically you do bring peace by making war. If you manage to totally destroy your enemy then they can no longer attack you, ergo a state of peace has beeen brought about.

Ofcourse that is no longer true but it is difficult to break with over 2000 years of basic strategy in less than 50.

No one is saying here that there aren't other terrorist nations...just that Israel fits the bill as one too.

Deal with it.

I believe Tacitus said it best:

“They made a wasteland and called it peace”

Yes he did say it best.
But from a certain viewpoint it is true. Its just not a view point that is accepted by anyone anymore. It was accepted as a valid and effective strategy up until the early 20th century, although it was going out of style by about the 17th.
I think the main reason it is no longer used is that to do that you have to either kill the entire population or take the remaining ones you didnt kill as slaves, so it went out of style at about the same time as slavery.

I could ofcourse be wrong about reasons for it going out of style but it isnt really relevant.

Wow, thanks for the source Darwyn. I learned that everything the US government has ever said is a lie.

Please, do you really think that site is any less biased than camera.org?

you talking about the guardian link?

No, I am referring to whatreallyhappened.com

ok i wasn't sure

The Guardian link was a good read. The author has lived in England since the 70s. He served in the Israeli military in the 60s.

Treefarn, thanks for that link. I'll read it over when I have more time. This might be my last post here for a week because I'm participating in Carnival and will probably be drunk for the next seven days. =D

spartan, it's true that complete military obliteration was once an effective strategy, but I don't believe that is the case in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians cannot hope to defeat the vastly superior Israel and if Israel goes through and massacres the Palestinians it will have some very hostile Arab neighbours who might very well perpetuate the same anti-Zionism violence.

obiwan, I've been saying it the entire thread. Hamas can't fight the IDF in the open because if it did it would get utterly destroyed. They can't afford to fight on the same grounds because on those grounds they are vastly inferior. They can't come out in masses and storm Israel because they are still massively outgunned. The French in WWII were a very powerful military force and could afford to fight Germany on open ground (or so they thought). It's just that they were too occupied with the idea that trench warfare and the Maginot line was the way to go, and the Germans just pulled a Schlieffen plan redux. It's like saying a man born into riches is more moral than a man born into poverty because the rich man pays for his bread whereas the poor man must steal bread to survive.

I love when people claim that sources are biased. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of sources on this topic are highly biased. The trick, difficult though it may be, is to see what facts arise out of both sides. That said, it doesn't mean that the middle of the road is the correct path... or that there is even a correct path. I would and have been arguing that both sides are responsible for perpetuating the conflict and they need to break the positive feedback loop of violence before they pass some critical mass.

"do you really think that site is any less biased than camera.org? "

Well, the difference is that I cite a multitude of articles (mostly from credible sources) that whatreallyhappened.com links to that would normally be time consuming to find individually.

CAMERA, on the other hand, seems to write their own content in their own opinion in it's aim to discredit some of the very same reports WRH links to.

For instance, take a look at this article:
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=1580

It attempts to smear these Norwegian doctors via defamation, citing: "Gilbert is a radical Marxist and a member of the political Red (Rodt) party, a revolutionary socialist party in Norway. He has been a pro-Palestinian activist since the 1970's and travelled to Lebanon in support of the Palestinians during the first Lebanon war in 1982."

If being a pro-Palestinian activist is part of CAMERA's argument to discredit this doctor, what does that say about CAMERA who is relatively open about being pro-Israel?

Double standard much?

And what about the under handed tactics I linked to concerning the alteration of Wikipedia that I linked to?

In short, I'll take a blog with a collection of articles with opinionated comments over a site with opinionated comments supported by a collection of articles.

The difference in credibility here is that I cite the original article WRH links to. You cite CAMERA...not the original articles used to support their opinion.

So yes, I think WRH is less biased than CAMERA. Not saying WRH isn't biased...just less so.

The author or that piece from the Guardian, Avi Shlaim, also has a famous quote "The job of the historian is to judge."

Just out of curiousity Darwyn, you found that quote of Israeli quotes. Is there a similar page on whatreallyhappened.com with Arab and Persian quotes? Or are there only anti-israeli quotes on that site? I truly do not know the answer, as I found the site difficult to navigate.

Incidentally, had you delved deeper into camera.org, there is also a collection of blogs written by others on others websites there too.

uh-oh...this could be a recipe for disaster. Let us hope Israel or Iran doesn't do anything stupid here...

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=81228&sectionid=351020202

Dingleberry,

I'm not sure if there is. I have no doubt, however, that anti-Israel hate speech by Arabs exist though.

I addressed this above and I think it's an important distinction:

"I'm sure there is much hate speech from Arabs as well. But examine the differences here. I'm not saying it's right, but Arabs hate speech is founded in injustice...as if a crime has been committed against them. Israel's hate speech is founded in hubris...as if they are superior. Do you see the difference?"

I don't get ALL my stuff from WRH, just so you know.

My question as to whether there was arab hate speech contained there was to determine whether or not the site was 'fair and balanced', or just one side of an issue reporting the news. I have no doubt there is hate speech on the other side, but is it on that website? Or is that just the Anti-Israel site?
You seem to be willing to excuse, even condone, hate speech, violence, etc, on behalf of the side of an issue you happen to agree with. You realize that any Israeli support, myself included, can provide you with a long list of grievances and EXCUSES, just as you do when condoning arab violence against Israel.

Alright, I must bow out here...I've spent far too much time on this and will now have to play catch up for doing so.

I apologize if I offended anyone and thank everyone for your input.

Maybe I'll post again, maybe not...otherwise, take care.

Yes, I knew that's the point you were trying to make. And I have no doubt you can provide a list of Israeli grievances Dingleberry.

My anti-Israel stance was not meant to condone Arab violence. But just to provide additional perspective...and maybe to rattle the cage a bit. =D

We obviously don't agree and that's fine. I just hope that if we play a game together, you don't treat me like obiwan treated that Arab kid in his game. :p

So since I could provide such a list to you, since I obviously believe my viewpoint, I should call you arrogant (repeatedly) for failing to agree with me?

Well, you can if you want, I suppose.

But I've been using the term arrogant to characterize any assumption that regards Arabs as having less rights than others, namely Jews...not because anyone disagrees with me.