Thoughts on war

[doc]

What do you think of the Alim software? Looks pretty comprehensive. Do you think it's subject to the same "rewrite" bull**** that we seem to see in Saudi Arabia?

[dave]

but doc this is the thing... anyone can look in Quran or look in a book of hadith - i mean there is so much there. But i will try to explain this quickly as its complicated. If you see a hadith for example:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 11:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:

A man asked the Prophet , "What sort of deeds or what qualities of Islam are good?" The Prophet replied, 'To feed the poor and greet those whom you know and those whom you do not know"

This is generally how things are laid out on this kind of software. But what this doesnt tell you is that Imam Bukhari (the compiler) hear from A who heard from B who heard from C who heard from D who heard from bin Umar who heard the Prophet Muhammad say this. Hadith were not compiled in to a written format till around 80 years after the Prophet died minimum. They were around orally but were not used to decide authoratitively on matters of Law.

Now from there, the scholars may look at the chain of narrators and find out: oh, C used to tell lies or say things for his own gain. In such a case the grading of hadith moves down from being reliable to being more unreliable. It is a very very complicated process and for hundreds of years scholars argued on the use of hadith to create Law. They compiled basically histories of all the companions of the Prophets they could find and about pretty much every person who narrated a saying. So it is a very complicated process.

Another example... there are certain hadith which are graded "mutawatir". This means that there are generally over 100 people who originally heard the Prophet say this or witnessed the Prophet do this etc. From there it was passed down to more and the chain gre even bigger until it was collected. Actually in Islamic Law, Quran is also graded "mutawatir" which means there are so many people from all walks of life who witnessed it and memorised it that they cant possibly agree on an error. Now, the interesting thing is that for the hadith, traditional scholars have managed to find around 4 that meet this criteria also. Considering Bukhari alone has over 7000 and not forgetting the other 3 main books (and others) i hope you can see what i am saying.

Now, most of the hadith even in Bukhari are classed as "ahad" which basically comes from the arabic word "wahad" which means one. They originally only had one single narrator or perhaps a couple. Like i said originally, considering 10 000 people witnessed Muhammads last sermon and so on, i think you can see the scope of this. Now even if the chain of people is reliable, we still have to think: when did this happen? Is there another which came later and abrogated this? Was it normative or a sudden occurence or event?

For example: There is one hadith (cant find the number online) but it basically says "there are 3 things which are bad omens: a donkey, a women and a Jew". Some people take this and justify racism and sexism. But another hadith says: "The pagans used to say that there are 3 things which are bad omens: a donkey, a women and a Jew". So i hope this example kind of shows you what i mean? It is not an easy thing that you can just grab from a CD full of them or a web page... i mean that is not even getting in the hermaneutics of the actual arabic text itself and so on (which i dont know about anyway).

The Salafi/Wahabbi types basically say that Bukhari and Muslim are "Sahih" collections of hadith. To them this means perfect and authentic. But classical scholars basically used these while knowing they are compiled by humans so not free from error. They made a difference between "wahy" which is revelation and what is a human process. "Shariah" is Gods Law for mankind, but "Fiqh" is the understanding and man-made application of it.

I am trying not to make this post too long - but i hope now you can see what i think of such software. For sure its maybe good for reference and general things... but basically all it does is search the texts it has for keywords you put in and such. But the thing is - you cannot randomly take verses from Quran out of their socio-historical context and use them straight, or else that basically means you can find a verse to justify anything you want. Of course, certain theological ones can be used like that as they dont really have such an important context compared to the verses dealing with law and actual events. Muslims say "Quran is applicable for all times", but that doesnt mean you can just look in it and randomly pick things out... you have to kow which verses came first and which later... Quran isnt in order - the very first verse that was revealed is 96:1 and the last is in chapter 5!

Islamic Law is very complicated much i assume like Jewish Law is too. Apart from Quran and the Sunnah (hadith) we also have things like Qiyas (allegorical reasoning), Ijma (consensus of scholars), Ijtihad (free application of principles) and also other things like Juristic preference, continuity and so on. Thats why i dont understand how people can look online and read these "fatwas" from scholars. I mean check out Islam Q&A to see what i mean. This is one from Saudi and i know a lot of people follow this guy. Khaled Abou el Fadl (the articles i linked to before a few pages ago) is basically their worst nightmare

Ok this is too long but i hope it may be a little informative

dave

[dave]

ok, moving on :P

Most of these high flying software and book stuff are all published either in Saudi itself or financed by Saudi money. Hate linking to the same people over and over, but this is a real good article too (and hes one of the few people who is actively speaking out against all this stuff)

Annotating Islam by el-Fadl

The first copy of Quran i actually got was a Saudi one. It is very very literal and also twists things around. For example... in the very first chapter the last line says "Show us the straight path, the path of those in your favour. Not those who have encurred your wrath, or those who have gone astray"... but in the Saudi one it says "Not those who have encurred your wrath (ie. the Jews) or those who have gone astray (ie. the Christians)". This type of bracketed "explanation" is all the way thru the whole Quran. Its a very scary thing indeed.

Even so far as one verse dealing about covering says "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers...." (24:31). The Wahabbi version of Quran i got basically says something like "that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms (ie. cover the whole body and show nothing apart from 2 eyes, or one eye and the hands)". Which is a huge leap from what the text says and is a very very minority opinion in classical Islam itself.

Its scary stuff

dogchow: well, the links i posted were pretty much against Wahabbism and at a place where everyday muslims can air their views - so you gotta expect there to be a bit of a mix up As far as your story its interesting. At my Uni there was one Israeli guy and we both worked on a Uni job together. At first he was obviously nervous once i told him i was a Muslim, but after that it was cool. I mean he was even looking out for me and trying to find out if the meat on the food was halal and such.

The thing is there is "one sided-ness" from both sides and the hardest part is to try and see both.

dave

[Wesley]

Hi all,

Im the friend that Dave mentioned in the above post. He has managed to twist my arm enough to get me to post something.

There has been a few people in this thread that have mentioned taking a good long hard look at history with regard to the issue of Israel and Palestine.

Firstly the creation of state of Israel in 1948 went somewhat differently to how has been depicted time and time again by the media and many sources. In 1947 the UN general assembly made a recomendation that there be the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine, with a international zone that would include Jerusalem (for religious reasons). Abiding by this recomendation was a condition of Israel becoming a member state of the UN. This was flat out rejected by Israel. Infact at this point war broke out in Palestine. By early 1948 over a quarter of a million Palestinians had been pushed out of their homes. This left the zionists with a far larger area under control than outlined by the UN.

Only at this point did Israel came under attack from neighbouring Arab states. Infact some scholarship points to the Arab invasion being primarily directed at King Abdullah of Jordan beacuse he was working with new Israeli government to partition what was left of Palestine between them. Note Abdullah was basically the left over remains of British Imperial power in the region and percieved as that by neighbouring Arab elites.

As for the prevailing idea that the Arab states hated Israel and wanted it pushed into the sea. Both Syria and Egypt put forth peace proposals in 1949. They were rejected by Israel.

I personally feel this idea that a people could collectively hate Jews on mass was a projecting of guilt onto Arabs for over a 1000 years of hatred aimed at Jews in Christian and post Christian Europe, this culminated in the Holocaust. As for modern hatred against Jews coming from Arab Muslims, this is mainly a result of Israel's presence and actions. Its appearence in 'Islamic" teaching is a result of reactionist/rejectionist fundamentalism, which is in itself a reaction to neo-colonialism amongst other things.

With regards to the Peace Process that is constantly touted, the aim of this process has alot in common with the creation of bantustans setup by apartheid South Africa. In fact the SA version left the black africans were a more econmically viable setup due to the governments pouring money into them create markets. Israel infact has a history of capturing Palestinian money and resources. The Palestinians are also used as a cheap labour force inside of Israel.

Another point that comes up in the camp david peace plan is the explict statement that Israel is not to be held accountable for anything it has happened in the OT. The PA is made the only responsible agent for what has happened there, they are also designated as the ones that must pay for any future claims made over anything in the OT. Even though it is occuppied by Israel. These conditions to the peace treaty were designed explictly to retroactivley nullify UN resolutions 194 (december 11, 1948) calling for the return and settlement of refugees and UN resolution 242 (november 22, 1967) calling for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the then newly occupied areas. These were coached in terms of the Palestinians declaring an 'end to conflict', yet it seems rather obvious that its intent was to destory any chances the Palestinians had of an equitable settlement that respected their right to return and the pre 1967 borders. Which of course were far less than the original UN recommendation, but better than what they have currently. The treaty also included the annexation of even more Palestinian land that illegal Jewish settlements had been created on. This land included the homes of 120,000 Palestinians.

Add to this the fact of Israel's brutal and collective repression in the OT. The sad reality of the issue is that the state of Israel is guilty of massive crimes against the people of Palestine and Lebanon (not to mention crimes commited as a gun for hire by the US). Of course this doesn nothing to legitamise sadistic attacks against Israelis by militants. And neither do the militant attacks justify one of the longest occupations in modern history or the isolation and smashing up of Palestinian society. The reality is that a people placed in inhumane conditions tend to become inhuman. To some of the people on this forum who may see this as anti-israel propaganda please widen your reading horizons and check out some dissident literauture on the issue of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. If Israel is so clean in there approach to Palestine why then has Israel and the US repeatedly denied the UN human rights monitors in the OT?

This is explained in a far better detail in Tanya Reinhart's book Israel/Palestine.

"Our fundamental condition for co-operating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to scientific methods inovated by Germany in the handling of it's Jews. The answer i got was: "The Jews are yours."

the source for this is a quote of the memoirs of Haj Amin Al-Husseini. this man was appointed to be the religious and spiritual leader of the Muslims in Pre-Israel "Palestine". the British appointed him in response to escalating violence against vulnerable Jewish elements in the area. The above is an example of the kind of leadership the palestinian arabs have historically had, and is a clear indication of what the leadership's intentions were. It might interest you to know that part of the Palestinians in this struggle regard this "man" as a hero while a lot of them are ashamed by him. this may be comforting for a short while until one makes the interesting discovery that this man is the hero and role model of the person calling the shots in the Palestinian authority, who has never held an election, who has brutally murdered and held to public display palestinians who collaborated with Israel, a person who'se hatred of jews runs so deep that it is hardly possible he will ever be replaced with someone worse...this man is the man calling the shots behind every action the PA, the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad in the area, and other terrorist groups take, NOT A SINGLE MAN OTHER THAN Yasser Arafat.

.....

i would like to see where that debate goes when it is brought up that compared to others who have been in controll of this territory, Israel has a track record that makes its neighbours look like Hitler, and ignoring this shows a deliberate and inexcusable double standard posed on Israel and not on other countries.

Yes the Mufti of Palestine had heavy conenctions to Hitlers Nazi regime, but so did President George Bush's grandfather. Infact untill the outbreak of WW2 most of Europe leadership held Hitler and co. in high regard. Even during his prewar persecution of the Jews. Infact Britian and US capped their Jewish immigration levels during the period of time in which Hitlers persecution was begining. If your going to throw mud, throw it at everyone who deserves it.

I personally find the notion that Yasser Arafat is in control of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad, laughable. Firstly Yasser Arafat as a resistance leader is a failure. He capitulates at every turn with the Israelis and has done little to nothing to gain any support outside of Palestine for a answer to the problem that would be fruitful for the Palestinian people as a whole.

As for HAMAS and Islamic Jihad. In 1971 Sheikh Yasin founded the Mujamah an Islamist welfare organization that would oppose the PLO's brand of secular nationalism. It was heavily supported both poltically and finacially by Israel as a way of diluting the strength of the PLO's resistance. In 1987 at the beginning of the first intifada HAMAS the miltary wing Mujamah stepped no to the scene. From its very inception HAMAS has been not only oppossed to Arafat but it is also the child of Israeli realpolitik. The number of clashes that has occured between the PA and HAMAS also point to the fact that Arafat has no control over them. Infact many commentators have claimed that it is far beyond Arafats means to reel in HAMAS and co. Recently when he order the arrest of just a few street level activists several of his own men were targetted by HAMAS hitmen. If this the response to arrests, I could soundly say that tackling HAMAS head on would lead to almost full scale civil war in Palestine, and unfortunately I think that the PA would lose.

As for Islamic Jihad much like its Egyptian counterpart it is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organisation that is oppossed to secular goverment in the Muslim world. Much like HAMAS they share a dislike for Arafat.

When discussing Palestinian resistance and terrorism it must be kept in mind that there was no massed popular resistance movement until the first intifada began in 1987. Prior to this for 20 years of brutal military occupation the Palestinains commited very few acts of violence against Israel. It appears most of the violence is a response to an ongoing occupation.The reality of the situation is that there is an occupation occuring in Palestine that most of the world community through the UN deems unacceptable. Another thing that must be kept in mind is that occupation has not kept Israel safe but has infact provoked attacks form militants.

Another important point that is never covered in the media is the importance of the water in the OT and Golan heights to Israels plans there.

Isreal and the US have rejected UN resultions and recommendations numbering into the hundreds over this issue.

As for the assertion that Israel has a cleaner record than other governments in the area. This seems to largely ignorant of history and operating from a world view where Israel is the embodiment of good and therefore anything its does can only be understood as good or a tragic mistake. Also the idea that Israel is 'good' and it neighbours are 'bad' is similarily constructed. As for critcism of other regimes I personally heap it on. As for other people you have to kidding if you think there isnt strong condemnation for the crimes of other middle east states, coming from both internally and externally.

A question that should be asked is why does the media not cover it. Why does the media turn a blind eye to the crimes of Saudi Arabia and its hand in destroying Islam with its horrific brand of exported fundamentalism? Maybe its has something to do with US contracts and oil?

A really good book on the whole issue is The Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky.

For me both sides are victims of history, yet the reality is that power to end this ongoing conlfict lays in the hands of those who are most powerful. In this instance Israel and the US.

thanks
cya

[doc]

When discussing Palestinian resistance and terrorism it must be kept in mind that there was no massed popular resistance movement until the first intifada began in 1987. Prior to this for 20 years of brutal military occupation the Palestinains commited very few acts of violence against Israel.

True. They did commit few acts against Israel. But if you look at the history of terrorism, which, for our purposes, started somewhere in the mid sixties, the Palestinians were involved with just about all world wide terrorist groups.

They assisted with their training.

Nice discourse. Appreciate the history. Looking forward to a response from the pro-Israel camp.

[dogchow108]

Hi all,

Im the friend that Dave mentioned in the above post. He has managed to twist my arm enough to get me to post something.

There has been a few people in this thread that have mentioned taking a good long hard look at history with regard to the issue of Israel and Palestine.

Firstly the creation of state of Israel in 1948 went somewhat differently to how has been depicted time and time again by the media and many sources. In 1947 the UN general assembly made a recomendation that there be the creation of a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine, with a international zone that would include Jerusalem (for religious reasons). Abiding by this recomendation was a condition of Israel becoming a member state of the UN. This was flat out rejected by Israel. Infact at this point war broke out in Palestine. By early 1948 over a quarter of a million Palestinians had been pushed out of their homes. This left the zionists with a far larger area under control than outlined by the UN.

it is an interesting twist to say that Israel rejected the 1947 proposal starting a war in the area. and, really, rediculous as it is people still believe it despite efforts before that and after that to come to agreements of exactly the nature of the 1947 partition plan. also, war didnt just break out- it was started. another thing you fail to mention is that most palestinians, according to more than enough accounts, left what is now Israel without ever seeing an Israeli soldier- hardly justification for stating that they were "pushed" out, though it is interesting that you dont state exactly who pushed them out. Israel has accepted every opportunity it had to come to an agreement that would result in the Arab nations recognizing its legitimacy as a country- during, before, and after 1947, the most spectacular example of which was the Camp David turndown which was called, even by Arafat's advisor at the time, a crime against the Arab People and the people of the region. not only that, but he is quoted as asking arafat if he would rather deal with Sharon. The truth is, the people who are now the Palestinians never, EVER had any intention of accepting such a partition. they did the same thing every time that they got an answer other than "jews out": they resorted to violence. massacers after massacres, with accounts describing such unspeakable savagery that one must really wonder how anyone ever really stayed there to begin with. and you know what happened after this eruption? the British Mandate reduced the number of jews allowed to come to the area- terrorism pays, and that is what this whole story is about. the fact that they started a war and got their asses handed to them is no one's fault but their own- also, and i think i've mentioned this before- take a look at what the UN defines as a PALESTINIAN (not any other) refugee. you might find this definition very interesting and worth a look.

Only at this point did Israel came under attack from neighbouring Arab states. Infact some scholarship points to the Arab invasion being primarily directed at King Abdullah of Jordan beacuse he was working with new Israeli government to partition what was left of Palestine between them. Note Abdullah was basically the left over remains of British Imperial power in the region and percieved as that by neighbouring Arab elites.

As for the prevailing idea that the Arab states hated Israel and wanted it pushed into the sea. Both Syria and Egypt put forth peace proposals in 1949. They were rejected by Israel.

Most Arab countries, especially during the time you claim they gave peace proposals, were entirely devoted to three "N"'s regarding Israel- NO peace No recognition No negotiations. I think it is rediculous to even suggest that the Arab countries, given especially the views of their leaders, at the time wanted anything to do with Israel much less have peace with it, ESPECIALLY Syria. Even today, Syria still remains one of the most troubling prospects for israeli-arab violence in the middle East.
If King Hussein of Jordan was attacked for anyr eason, it was for even talking to the Israelis, regardless of partition or not.

I personally feel this idea that a people could collectively hate Jews on mass was a projecting of guilt onto Arabs for over a 1000 years of hatred aimed at Jews in Christian and post Christian Europe, this culminated in the Holocaust. As for modern hatred against Jews coming from Arab Muslims, this is mainly a result of Israel's presence and actions. Its appearence in 'Islamic" teaching is a result of reactionist/rejectionist fundamentalism, which is in itself a reaction to neo-colonialism amongst other things.

this is one of the most rediculous parts of the arguement, actually- the notion that Jews try to project guilt onto others and use the holocaust to do so. European jews merely JOINED jews already present in what is now Northern Israel. this land was purchased from absentee landlords who, in my opinion undoubtably, had no will to live in the place at all. why? it was a ****HOLE. the jews who lived there bought the land, worked it at the cost of lives, health and a normal life. When this was done, a place that had been described as uninhabitable and uncultivatable now possessed in it a Jewish Community consisting almost entirely of SHEPARDIC-descendant Jews. THESE were the jews who were subject to Massacres, violence, Polgroms, a degrading status in society and a long list of other crimes- NOT EUROPEANS. people need to get off the holocaust guilt-trip bandwagon and start realizing what is going on. the fact is, the jews there were hated and abused regardless of what was going on in europe- the only thing that happened just prior to and during the holocaust was that Al-Hussni was given power and the magnitude of these crimes of authority towards a defenceless minority was increades exponentially. what was bothering these people? the places that jews lived in were nearly uninhabitable...not only that but census data from the period before WWII suggested that most people who were born there never died there. again, what the **** was bothering the Arabs there? the fact that a jewish community had grown there, in an area nearly devoid of Arab life, and had in it a community consisting of cities, hospitals, schools and other such elements. not only that, but no one in these jewish settlements cared who lived there- people from EVERYWHERE moved there, non-jews from as far as checkoslovakia came to live there. people from other arab nations moved there to avoid persecution. The muslim Palestinians, who constituted almost nothing of the population there and had never done anything to make the land liveable, had NOTHING to lose from these jewish settlements becoming independent- in fact, many jews even supported a suggestion following the Peels Commission (1919?) that proposed not even a nation, but simply a right to self-control and, basically, a status that placed it as pretty much an unofficial country. the Arabs, again, had NOTHING to lose from this- no one would chase them away, there was generally no violence caused by jews of that area (largely because they were simply incapable of engaging in violence to even defend themselves much less attack someone else). The Jews had everything to earn, at the expense of basically no one. yet, as soon as word came out that this was even a thought, massacres, polgroms, and acts of unimaginable inhumanity and greed ensued. this status of what is like an unofficial, yet autonomous country, is what is allowed the Palestinians. they make their rules, and have their own leaders and have even declared, not surprizingly, Islam as their religion. they were given a lot of things such as running water and electricity to live on by Israel, and took a big **** on it- yet still they are autonomous, hold seats in the Israeli parliament, israeli-born palestinians dont have to serve the military and their leaders in israel use tax money to support "informative" activities that are nothing less than anti-israel propaganda and the tours to make these activities heard. the arguement of a guilt trip is not only utterly shameless, it is deliberately misleading in that the Europeans are mintioned. NO respected Israeli arguement embraces the idea of getting support through playing the holocaust card, yet the palestinians are known throughout the world as Victims of Israel, and not their own leaders' greed.

With regards to the Peace Process that is constantly touted, the aim of this process has alot in common with the creation of bantustans setup by apartheid South Africa. In fact the SA version left the black africans were a more econmically viable setup due to the governments pouring money into them create markets. Israel infact has a history of capturing Palestinian money and resources. The Palestinians are also used as a cheap labour force inside of Israel.

again, it is worth noting that palestinian arabs hold office in Israeli Parliament, need not join the military, and are afforded other luxuries that Jewish Citizens are afforded. Jews, under the rule of the arabs who lived in Pre-Israel Palestine were made to pay a tax, MAYBE offered protection in exchange for another tax, and were treated and counted as second-class non-citizens with no right to land, no right to vote---hah, what a concept, votion, and no way to defend themselves. Israel is a Secular country, and in fact the ONLY group in Israel that is ever discriminated against, are non-orthodox jews. also, the fact that Israel allows people who hate it to come into it and work for jobs that could otherwise belong to Israeli Jews is again a slep to the face of an Apartheid system. Indeed, one look at the way Jews were regarded before Israel in comparison to the rights palestinians BORN or NOT in Israel, makes this a completely rediculous comparison. here's another more personal example. summer of 1999, i was hanging out with my friends on a beach in Haifa. two Palestinians walked up to my friends and I and cursed us for being racist Jews, and said the words "We bringing life to Gaza". these two were being very beligerrent and made absolutely no attempt to hide their thoughts, opinions and origins. why? because they DONT HAVE TO. yet, Israelis that wander into palestinian territories are Kill on Sight- not only that, but the Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories are Kill on Sight if they are thought to be collaborating with Israel- what information would the Israeli government want from an every-day mohammed? information regarding suicide attacks. The PA organizes the killings of these people and hangs them in city squares to discourage "collaboration"- which pretty much means that the PA is devoted, even on that level, to promoting terrorism and DOES NOT CARE what happens to its people should Israel respond because, as we have seen, Terrorism pays.

Another point that comes up in the camp david peace plan is the explict statement that Israel is not to be held accountable for anything it has happened in the OT. The PA is made the only responsible agent for what has happened there, they are also designated as the ones that must pay for any future claims made over anything in the OT. Even though it is occuppied by Israel. These conditions to the peace treaty were designed explictly to retroactivley nullify UN resolutions 194 (december 11, 1948) calling for the return and settlement of refugees and UN resolution 242 (november 22, 1967) calling for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the then newly occupied areas. These were coached in terms of the Palestinians declaring an 'end to conflict', yet it seems rather obvious that its intent was to destory any chances the Palestinians had of an equitable settlement that respected their right to return and the pre 1967 borders. Which of course were far less than the original UN recommendation, but better than what they have currently. The treaty also included the annexation of even more Palestinian land that illegal Jewish settlements had been created on. This land included the homes of 120,000 Palestinians.

I dont know what the OT is so i wont comment on it- if you would like, explain it to me i would be very interested in hearing what an anti-israel arguement has to say about it.

other than that, you mention that camp david removes what has been dubbed the "right of return". the right of return is a policy that has been adopted by the Palestinian National Charter. according to many, including Arafat and other Major figures in the PA, the right of return clause was adopted SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of destroying Israel by flooding it with palestinian "refugees" (for example, the "refugees that not compose 60% of Jordan, who owes more to the Palestinian people than Israel will ever), eventually creating a muslim Arab majority and thus eliminating the Jewish country. to turn down a proposal that nullifys this unofficial declaration of war is again a blatant characteristic of the Palestinian Leadership's long history of deliberately AVOIDING peaceful, SECURE resolve--- not surprizingly, palestinian "suicide" bobers went into fashion at a level that had never existed before.

as for resolution 242, it specifically called for the withdrawal of MOST of the newly occupied territories...can you guess why almost? oh, i bet you know! ok, i'll let you in on it, it was designed to allow Israel to maintain strategic points that could be used against it to destroy it. why, oh why, would the US delegate on the matter suggest this wording? i will address that at the end of my post, along with a general arguement that i feel people agree with whether they say so or not.

Add to this the fact of Israel's brutal and collective repression in the OT. The sad reality of the issue is that the state of Israel is guilty of massive crimes against the people of Palestine and Lebanon (not to mention crimes commited as a gun for hire by the US). Of course this doesn nothing to legitamise sadistic attacks against Israelis by militants. And neither do the militant attacks justify one of the longest occupations in modern history or the isolation and smashing up of Palestinian society. The reality is that a people placed in inhumane conditions tend to become inhuman. To some of the people on this forum who may see this as anti-israel propaganda please widen your reading horizons and check out some dissident literauture on the issue of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians. If Israel is so clean in there approach to Palestine why then has Israel and the US repeatedly denied the UN human rights monitors in the OT?

crimes against the people of lebanon? look, man, if someone is throwing grenades into your back yard, you ask them to stop and instead they lease a room in their house for more grenade-throwers, you WILL do something. my dentist is a Lebanese Arab Muslim who told me that when the Israeli troops left, his family was afraid to leave the house. why? because given Lebanon's uneducated choice in where to invest the money, they had no such military to stop terrorists from coming in. my source from this? a pre-med Lebanese with MORE than enough brains in his head to hold a good arguement and the general taste towards Israel that almost ALL muslims (arab or not) have.
a gun for hire for the US? oh, please, not another Imperialism arguement, i'm sick of addressing this garbage. also, if people placed in inhumane situations become inhuman, why is it that the palestinians are the only people in modern history to behave so inhumanly? Jews living in far, FAR worse conditions never did anything even remotely resembling what the palestinians have done. Israel has NEVER made a charter specifically defining its intentions to destroy ANY country EVER. why are the taiwanese not blowing themselves up even though China uses Taiwan to test out Missles? Why is there no such violence in Tibet? Why did blacks in Apartheid South Africa, a considerably worse situation than that placed on the Palestinians, not behave the way the palestinians are behaving? you know whay? all these people have something in common- they are willing to compromise. Mandella, though a racist son of a bitch, is a diplomat. granted the country's condition is appauling and his rise to power came as a high cost, but the "civil war" in south africa was absolutely nothing coming from South African Blacks compared to what it is coming from the PA.

also, your call to "widen horizons" implies that Israelis and people who argue on their behalf have no exposure to opposing material. if this is what you think, you simply have no idea what you are talking about. Just because i read material from the Palestinian side of the arguement dosent mean than i will agre with it. also, this is one of the major problems with information from this side. the stance they took on israel before realizing that it is simply NOT GOING ANYWHERE was so radical, inhumane and appauling that now they pretty much have to do all they can to erase that nature of their approach. i would consent that many more arabs realize today that annihilation (the type of war that many arabs declared they were fighting against Israel during ALL of it's major wars) of a people simply wont fly for all sorts of reasons spanning from public opinion to the fact that they couldnt do it without killing everyone else around them. also, i think that today most people pretty much accept the two-state plan for one reason or another- but the fact is that the events leading to the palestinians' current situation has occurred for no other reason than the Arab Nations' lack of willingness to compromize. a good example of this is the west bank and Jordan. Jordan, soon after the six-day war, pretty much told israel to keep the west bank. why? well, the arab countries encouraged and urged about a million palestinian arabs there with the promise that Palestine would be rid of every last jew. they lost. Now, usually a country that starts such a war and causes a refugee problem is made to absorb that population and offer compensation. but, as with everything in this story, an exception was made. Jordan said they dont want the west bank, thus leaving Israel with an angry and growing population of what are actually defineable as refugees...at least a lot of them. according to a delegation appointed by the UN to handle the issue of Palestinian refugees, the definition for such includes any arab who lived at least two years, TWO YEARS (that's nothing!) before the war, and in another section defines these refugees (ONLY Palestinian) as any palestinian arab who had moved, not out of what is now israel, but even from ONE PART TO ANOTHER. you do realize this means that palestinians now living in Israel can legally count as refugees. it is for reasons like this that the UN wont really go too deep into these issues. in fact, just about anything that the UN every tries to to to idrael will probably render it illegitimate because the double standard it has set on countries such as Israel will be so formally exposed that it will just make the UN look like exactly what it is- a cowardly bunch of assholes with a sadistic bias against israel that simply refuses to ever set anything thing straight which it is often responsible for. i'll note here that prior to the six-day war, the UN was told by Egypt to leave the area of the suez canal (during this time, Egyptian forces were illegally attacking convoys en route to Israel. during this time Egypt, along with other Arab countries were massing a large military force just outside the israeli border. let me ramind you that this is the same country you said had offered Israel peace before these events occurred in the 70's. the UN picked up their skirts and left. during this war and other wars, arab forces attacked cities and towns. when Jewish towns surrendered, the civillians were slaughtered. note, also that had the jews won, there would be nowhere for them to go. it is often noted by scholars that a widely held opinion for the israeli victories have to do with motivation- again, an issue i will address at the end of the post.


One more point- Israel's human record isn't clean- but when the worst comes out to blame the best, there is an obvious insencerity in the arguement. this is why Zionists often complain that anti-zionist claims are made to demonize israel- and for good reason. the UN has ignored so much atrocity on behalf of the arabs that to pursue Israel for the things it is responsible for would be hypocritical to a level that even the UN can't compete with.


This is explained in a far better detail in Tanya Reinhart's book Israel/Palestine.



Yes the Mufti of Palestine had heavy conenctions to Hitlers Nazi regime, but so did President George Bush's grandfather. Infact untill the outbreak of WW2 most of Europe leadership held Hitler and co. in high regard. Even during his prewar persecution of the Jews. Infact Britian and US capped their Jewish immigration levels during the period of time in which Hitlers persecution was begining. If your going to throw mud, throw it at everyone who deserves it.

yes, this obviously deserves criticism i agree... but putting the actions of the US and the British and saying they are anything comparable with that of the Mufti's ACTIVE role with the nazis (the stuff i posted before is nothing near a significant amount of what he is responsible for) is rediculous. the US and Britain faught against the Nazi's. and you know who else did? the Jews. Jews from Europe, asia, AND Palestine fought for the winning side of both World War's. The muslims of palestine, lead by al Hussni, were owed absolutely nothing. Jews were LEAVING europe and for good reason. the British Mandate, who had obviously considerable say in what goes on in Palestine- under the Britsh mandate- decided it was time to come up with a solution for the Jewish refugee problem. the Jews accepted the tiny plot of land that was allotted them and the arabs rejected it, attacking the one-day old Jewish nation. again- they lost. tough ****ing luck. who encouraged them? Arab leaders. you saythat i should "throw mud" on Everyone who deserves it in a paragraph implying that the US and Britain were just as bad as Husseini- i find that a callous attempt at taking two compltelyly different wrongs and making them out to be the same. The Allied opwers did not owe Jews a mass immigration to their countries- the poeple who owed them that were, if anyone, then people explicitly involved in the war that swallowed 60% of europe's jews. The Jews of Europe did not get their country because someone felt bad for them- they got their country because they were legally entitled to it.


I personally find the notion that Yasser Arafat is in control of HAMAS and Islamic Jihad, laughable. Firstly Yasser Arafat as a resistance leader is a failure. He capitulates at every turn with the Israelis and has done little to nothing to gain any support outside of Palestine for a answer to the problem that would be fruitful for the Palestinian people as a whole.

As for HAMAS and Islamic Jihad. In 1971 Sheikh Yasin founded the Mujamah an Islamist welfare organization that would oppose the PLO's brand of secular nationalism. It was heavily supported both poltically and finacially by Israel as a way of diluting the strength of the PLO's resistance. In 1987 at the beginning of the first intifada HAMAS the miltary wing Mujamah stepped no to the scene. From its very inception HAMAS has been not only oppossed to Arafat but it is also the child of Israeli realpolitik. The number of clashes that has occured between the PA and HAMAS also point to the fact that Arafat has no control over them. Infact many commentators have claimed that it is far beyond Arafats means to reel in HAMAS and co. Recently when he order the arrest of just a few street level activists several of his own men were targetted by HAMAS hitmen. If this the response to arrests, I could soundly say that tackling HAMAS head on would lead to almost full scale civil war in Palestine, and unfortunately I think that the PA would lose.

As for Islamic Jihad much like its Egyptian counterpart it is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organisation that is oppossed to secular goverment in the Muslim world. Much like HAMAS they share a dislike for Arafat.

to even imply that the palestinian authoruty has no say on terrorist actions occurring in Israel is apologetic on a sad, self-degrading level. Arafat ORDERED the Intifada and has received money from Saudi Arabia and other countries to pay the families of girls and boys who go blow themselves up on busses, in schools, and other places with high human volume. the PA, as mentioned before, kills palestinians who collaborate with Israel heres an interetsing stat: during the first intifada, the PA executed roughly 400 palestinians on charges of collaborating with Israel. you know what they did with this munber? they added it to the body count of victims of Israeli aggression.

When discussing Palestinian resistance and terrorism it must be kept in mind that there was no massed popular resistance movement until the first intifada began in 1987. Prior to this for 20 years of brutal military occupation the Palestinains commited very few acts of violence against Israel. It appears most of the violence is a response to an ongoing occupation.The reality of the situation is that there is an occupation occuring in Palestine that most of the world community through the UN deems unacceptable. Another thing that must be kept in mind is that occupation has not kept Israel safe but has infact provoked attacks form militants.

Israel would get attacked with or without the occupation. i will be the first to admit that occupation is no way for anyone to live under, but the fact is that the area is simply untrustworthy. the PA simply wont controll terrorism coming from the occupied territories- either because it cant or because it wont- but the fact is then that something must be done. the sad thing is that the PA uses the fact that the palestinians are occupied to incite them into a spiral of unneccasary violence. add this to the fact that by "occupied territories" the PA basically means all of Israel, it is blind not to see what the ultimate goal is when arafat says "end occupation" in an interview of him by Geraldo rivera, who is seen live reaching to arafat and BEGGING HIM to say on the television to end VIOLENCE- arafat would have none of it- why? because if he says to stop, the violence stops and his playing card disintegrates.



Another important point that is never covered in the media is the importance of the water in the OT and Golan heights to Israels plans there.

Isreal and the US have rejected UN resultions and recommendations numbering into the hundreds over this issue.

As for the assertion that Israel has a cleaner record than other governments in the area. This seems to largely ignorant of history and operating from a world view where Israel is the embodiment of good and therefore anything its does can only be understood as good or a tragic mistake. Also the idea that Israel is 'good' and it neighbours are 'bad' is similarily constructed. As for critcism of other regimes I personally heap it on. As for other people you have to kidding if you think there isnt strong condemnation for the crimes of other middle east states, coming from both internally and externally.

never has a country had to deal with SUCH a ****heap of a situation, yet history has yet to bring up an example of a country that has acted better than Israel in situation far less complicated and violent. no one claims that everything that israel does is good- the thing that we Israelis jump on is that much of the criticism is sponsored by either people who are directly responsible for it or are guilty of things so much worse that it is like hitler saying that someone who has killed someone in self-defense should be tried for crimes against humanity.


A question that should be asked is why does the media not cover it. Why does the media turn a blind eye to the crimes of Saudi Arabia and its hand in destroying Islam with its horrific brand of exported fundamentalism? Maybe its has something to do with US contracts and oil?

A really good book on the whole issue is The Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky.

hahaha, Chomsky...i'm sorry man i just jad to laugh. chomsky is an author who has literally taken sources for his work and uses them to say the exact opposity of what they actually say. i'm not really questioning the legitimacy of your information, because that will just lead to a poitless arguement over who's sources are more reliable than who's, but seriously man watch it with ol' Noam.

For me both sides are victims of history, yet the reality is that power to end this ongoing conlfict lays in the hands of those who are most powerful. In this instance Israel and the US.

you have failed to realistically argue this point. in no way will ending a necessary occupation end violence and killing. killing more people is obviously not the answer either, but then when we go and do the opposite and try building a wall instead, we still get yelled at. in a sad way, the wall actually has the ability to help the Palestinians. it will inflict a suffering upon them that they did not bring uopn themselves, and they will see how it is when you are actually suffering of someoe else' accords instead of your own. palestinian schools, parents, and the PA deliberately raise children to be terrorists. they are brought up in a militaristic way, playing with guns, attending violent demonstrations and following a leader who's hero was a known Nazi collaborator who planned on opening extermination camps in what is now, thankfully, Israel. yet these people demonize Israel, putting uopn it a Libel of blood and calling its leaders Nazi's. as i said, frankly, these people could use a dose of the reality the wall can provide and once they have sufferen out of their own control the violence has a better chance to slow down. not to mention that a wall is simply harder to cross, especially with dynamite.

thanks
cya



you are welcome, and to finish i will mention the point i was talking about throughout the post. from the selective use of words that gives Israel a legal and deserved right to strategic points making an Arab invasion difficult, to the characterization of Israel's armed forces as fighting feircely because their motivation to win was basically to avoid genocide, a number of things characterize israel's struggle in a way that they do not characterize the struggle of the Arabs: no one is trying to destroy the Arab nations. this is a truth that only unforgivable bigotry can attempt to distort. the arab nations laubched, every time, attacks with intention to DESTROY, not simply defeat the country. the Arab nations have nothing to lose from this. whenIsrael won the 6-day war, it didnt go and take over whole countries- it took enough land, as some people have argued and to some degree i agree with, to bargain for peace. the fact that Israel has to do such a thing makes no sense- never has a country given SO MUCH in attempt to make peace with its neighbours. even now, as israel is not at war with the countries around it, the consensus exists among its neighbors that it is overwhelmingly favorable to destroy Israel than to live in peace with it. this notion dwells in the hearts of even the most moderate of Arab leaders- the late king hussein, a hero of his time in his pioneering efforts at peace with Israel, still never did recognize, personally, Israel's right to exist- but you know what he did? he COMPROMIZED. you need look no further than the leadership in this conflict to see who is responsible for the sheer burning of lives that has commensed over the last 50 years. since Arafat has come around, israel has had leader after leader willing to compromize and compromize- one of the dearest of which was asassinated because of how much he compromized (interestingly, his asassination was not because he made peace with arabs but because he gave land the asassins did not believe beloneged to anyone other than god). yet, throughout this conflict, arafat has been the only leader of the palestinians to engage with Israeli diplomats and time after time he has taken a **** on what he has been offered.

Wesley, i urge you to heed your own advice. don't talk to people as if they dont know who is telling them what. Israel is not America- everyone over 18 has military experience and knows exactly what kind of things go on in the middle east- people with this kind of experience are one of the major sources for the Israeli Arguement. my roommate is ex-IDF who served in Hebron. i am not blind to the wrongs of my country, but i sure as hell wont argue an arguement that dosent have any business being argued.

Israel has fought for it's existence every time it has engaged in warfare- it still is today and is scrutinized for that very fact by many people. wake up.

[doc]

I believe OT stands for Occupied Territory.

Nice response. I'm surprised neither one of you discussed the history of the Palestinians themselves. Especially the part that gets into the fact that they were evicted from quite a few Arab countries during their time. And the fact that they were responsible for training many individuals that were involved in terrorist activities throughout Europe and America during the seventies and eighties.

[dave]

just wanted to say that some of this is playing devils advocate to see what comes out of it - and i know im not an israel hating moozlem. Just hate attrocities to people by both sides.

ok work time,
great posts so far

dave

[Wesley]

dogchow108

I personally dont find your response that satisfying.

Firstly much of your post is emotive rhetoric, that seems to come from an ontologically close world view in the
state of Israel is always right.

Israel = good

Arabs = bad


Another point I find uncomfortable is the fact you keep refering back to the Mufti of Palestine in what seems to be an attempt to paint all Palestinians as nazi collaborators. This argument is obviously about setting up Israel as constant victim of Nazi aggression.

You also seem to twist my words to make its seem I am laying all blame the on the Israeli/Jews not the Palestinians.

For instance: When I mentioned the war in 1947/48 you twisted my words to make it seem that I claimed the Israelis were the only guilty parties. I didnt claim this. I simpy stated a historical fact.

BTW I was actually refering to non-Jewish people feeling guilt because of what anti-semitism in Europe over 1000 years had led to. I was making a statement about the very idea that Arabs are now considered the consumate Jew haters in history rather than European civilisation. I didnt mean to claim that Jews have used the Holocaust as play card, but simply the idea that non-Jews have projected their own guilt onto Arabs.

But the part of your post that brings to light the weakness of it the most is that fact that you simply avoid many points I bring up. And then you attack my sources or ignore them (Tanya Reinhart) without even beginning to mention your own. If you dont want to debate sources and the legitamacy you shouldnt even discuss history and politics. But I feel the reason you have done this because you dont really have any. My sources maybe wrong but Im willing to accept that if they actually refuted. You dont seem that interested in history or facts at all.

Im not going to be bothered in higlighting all the points that you ignored, they should be obvious to anyone who actually looks the discussion and remains intellectually honest.

cya

[dogchow108]

dogchow108

I personally dont find your response that satisfying.

you weren't expected to. i understand that.

Firstly much of your post is emotive rhetoric, that seems to come from an ontologically close world view in the
state of Israel is always right.

Israel = good

Arabs = bad

emotice rhetoric? right back at ya, bud. nothing you say will make me feel sorry for people behaving like animals where others have behaved better in worse situations.
Also, i specifically mentioned that no one claims that everything israel does is good. people, especially in israel, are often very, VERY critical of the choices the government makes in regards to the Palestinians. this, by the way, is not only orchestrated by now Israeli Muslim Arabs who live in Israel, but by Israeli Jews. people all over the world criticize israel harshly for measures it takes- every time. to argue that everything Israel does is always seen as the right thing is rediculous.


Another point I find uncomfortable is the fact you keep refering back to the Mufti of Palestine in what seems to be an attempt to paint all Palestinians as nazi collaborators. This argument is obviously about setting up Israel as constant victim of Nazi aggression.

you are incorrect. if the influence of the Mufti and the likes of him were not a factor anymore in the PA's decisions this would not be a problem, but Yasser arafat has specifically mentioned this man as his hero. i am NOT trying to paint all Palestinians as Nazi collaborators, but i will not be the apologetic who ignored the role their leadership has had with that party, and the fact that nazi or not nazi, there is an anti-semitism in the PA that is worse than any other form of anti-semitism in the world today. how far this has managed to infiltrate into the minds of the common Palestinian man or woman- anyone's guess. i can't claim to know how much of the population if Palestinians actually think the way Arafat does, but consider that he has always been their leader since his rise to power (a long, long time now) and also consider the way children are educated in palestine. find for me an instance in Israeli schoool material where arabs are blamed for the problems of the world or the region in as direct a way as it is blamed for the jews in palestinian educational material. you wont find it- how do i know? because i went to school in Israel during high school and elementary school.

You also seem to twist my words to make its seem I am laying all blame the on the Israeli/Jews not the Palestinians.

For instance: When I mentioned the war in 1947/48 you twisted my words to make it seem that I claimed the Israelis were the only guilty parties. I didnt claim this. I simpy stated a historical fact.

my problem is not with who you said was guilty, i had a problem with the fact that you, knowingly or not, utterly lied in saying that Israel rejected the partition plan. Israel had every reason to accept it, the violence shortly following israel's declaration as a State was characteristic of the anti-semitic violence that was already happening there.

BTW I was actually refering to non-Jewish people feeling guilt because of what anti-semitism in Europe over 1000 years had led to.

oh...good you mention it now...

I was making a statement about the very idea that Arabs are now considered the consumate Jew haters in history rather than European civilisation. I didnt mean to claim that Jews have used the Holocaust as play card, but simply the idea that non-Jews have projected their own guilt onto Arabs.

...but the fact is that mass-hatred of jews has nothing to do with the European anti-semitism. jews persecuted in what is now Israel by people living in what is now Israel are not an example of European hatred towards jews, so the source for this guilt trip is completely irrelevant. maybe not in the 1940's but today, the arabs of the middle east ARE the worlds most vicious Jew-haters. the history of Israel speaks for itself- when has a European nation attacked Israel? why so, if they are supposed to hate jews so much?

But the part of your post that brings to light the weakness of it the most is that fact that you simply avoid many points I bring up.

i think that is a distortion, seeing as to how i specifically ADDRESS most of your points.

And then you attack my sources or ignore them (Tanya Reinhart) without even beginning to mention your own. If you dont want to debate sources and the legitamacy you shouldnt even discuss history and politics. But I feel the reason you have done this because you dont really have any. My sources maybe wrong but Im willing to accept that if they actually refuted. You dont seem that interested in history or facts at all.

some of the sources i use for pro-israel arguement include Alan Dershowitz (who has been boycotted, by the way, by many universities that are known for having very, very active and sometimes violent "Pro-Palestinian" protests). the material Derschowitz presents in many of his arguements are so straight and to the point that in fear of his scholarship, people have labeled him an "Extremist". Derschowits, by the way notes himself to be a "civil libertarian and a liberal"...in fact, if you ever manage to look at c-span archives, look up an interesting debate he had with Alan Keyes over religion in schools. i think you will find his arguements more than secular.

others include Dore Gold (ex: Hatred's Kingdom which as someone aware of the Saudi Arabia thing you might be interested in) and Ibn Warraq- a muslim who, well...has a bit of a Quarell with his roots.

but really, you dont need many of these books for much other than to simply point out trends...much of the information that, for example, Derschowitz cites comes from pro-palestinian writings, and very often quotes from Arab leaders.


by the way, when you say i ignored or attacked your sources, you are only mildly correct. i have never read Tanya Reinharts material so i didnt comment on it. had i read it, i would have, but even then you didnt really say anything about her for me to comment about in the first place.
as for chomsky, first of all he's good. theres no doubt...i just have a problem with him. i gues i came across as a little too harsh, i really should have responded in a more subtle way but thats just how i am, and i have a watchful eye on academics like chomsky, him specifically. another example is Edward Said. the sources i use are very often criticized, and this is in my opinion because people are afraid of what they say. like i said earlier, the arab invasions in Israel were SO inhuman in their goals, that i feel many writings now are an attempt to cover up on the nature of their Query- either to avoid criticism or simply because the authors genuinely just can't believe what these people tried to do.

Im not going to be bothered in higlighting all the points that you ignored, they should be obvious to anyone who actually looks the discussion and remains intellectually honest.

cya


I don't really know what more to say at this point- you accuse me of ignoring your points when i believe this is untrue- i guess its a matter of your word vs. mine. really, as is most often the case, people will just decide.

[dogchow108]

Originally posted by doc
I believe OT stands for Occupied Territory.

Nice response. I'm surprised neither one of you discussed the history of the Palestinians themselves. Especially the part that gets into the fact that they were evicted from quite a few Arab countries during their time. And the fact that they were responsible for training many individuals that were involved in terrorist activities throughout Europe and America during the seventies and eighties.

tjis is because much of what i am talking about is in regards to things that ocur within Israel. however, i havent left this untouched. where i said that if anyone owes the palestinians something, it is Jordan. this country's government, by the way killed a few thousand Palestinians who disagreed with his diplomatic actions and subsequently kicked them out of Jordan. in my opinions this is because if the made too much noide, the palestinian population which now composes 60% of jordan would maybe start to think hey, wait, instead of israel lets have Jordan.

as for training terrorism (and being trained in terrorism) i thik that this is something that Wesley and I dont necessarily disagree with. i may be wrong tho...

[dogchow108]

http://www.counterpunch.org/may0424.html

i actually read this and thought it was interesting.
this was written by Todd Mat, a professor of Philosophy at Clemson University. this site is supposed to be a "tell all" site about cover-ups and things like that, basically on the bandwagon of the anti-US and Zionist "expansion", brutality, and so forth.

note, that in this article, the concept of palestinian terrorism is DELETED. so is palestinian violence before, during the occupation, and in breaks between the occupation

this is very typical of the arguements i hear.

[doc]

Janet Jackson says "Oops, it was an accident", Martha Stewart says "Not me, I didn't do anything wrong", and Dave says "I'm just playing devil's advocate...."

LOL. And where the hell is Inevitable, who started this whole damn thing, with some sort of comment about looking for virgins? Someone has to tell him they don't exist.

Come on Dave. Don't jump ship on us now. Not when it's getting good. And where's Lippy? Someone tell him his "heavyset friend" is ready to get into it. Bring it on youngster.

[dogchow108]

i hear martha stewart actually got convicted on all charges. man, what has happened to "wholesome" american icons these days?

[doc]

Dogchow, from that above mentioned website.

Two facts are clear: that Israelis have needlessly killed many Palestinians civilians in their recent incursion into the West Bank and that the United States has greatly assisted in those killings. The first fact is obvious. The second fact is nearly as obvious, since it stems both from the billions of dollars the U.S. supplies Israel each year and Israel's use of Apache helicopters, F-16's, and American made products such as Caterpillar bulldozers.

The question is: what is the responsibility of American citizens in all of this? I'm not talking about the U.S. government, which is clearly culpable, but regular citizens, folks who just go to work, raise their families, and, of course, pay taxes.

Let me start with an analogy. You're walking along the beach and you see a child drowning in some shallow waves. You know how to swim. The water isn't very turbulent. Are you morally responsible if you keep walking? Of course you are. You could have saved the child at no risk to yourself, but you chose not to. If the child dies, you should feel responsible for it.

Have I drawn a proper analogy? In some ways I have. Palestinian civilians are no more able to resist their killing than the child could resist the waves. And Americans, through our taxes, are helping to stir the water.



The first few lines completely set the tone for some people's way of writing. And, expressing themselves. His first paragraph clearly identifies the writer as an ignorant liberal. Ignorant because he doesn't back up his statements with facts, liberal because he doesn't back up his statements with facts...

I ignore such ****. And I expect it from our highly liberal and occasionally misguided centers of "higher education".