Palestinians: Tel Aviv Bombing Legitimate

[ECH1969]

A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant in a bustling area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing eight other people and wounding at least 49 in the deadliest Palestinian attack in more than a year.

The Palestinians' new Hamas leaders called the attack a legitimate response to Israeli "aggression.

Islamic Jihad, which is believed to be funded in part by Iran and refuses to observe a cease-fire, claimed responsibility in a telephone call to The Associated Press. The group identified the bomber as Sami Salim Mohammed Hammed, from the West Bank town of Jenin.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060417/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_explosion_20

[HuffleClaw]

1. oh man thats funny

an echo of the same phrases israel uses whenever it lobs missiles into palestinian territory.

[Coastie for Truth]

2. And the threatened Leon Klinghoffer-Achille Lauro escalation

Palestinian militants linked to President Mahmoud Abbas's increasingly fractured Fatah movement threatened on Monday to attack Jews overseasto force Israel to release Palestinian prisoners from its jails.

<<<snip>>>

and if the enemy does not release our prisoners, then Zionists outside Palestine will be an easy target for our fighters," the group said in a statement.

<<<snip>>>

But gunmen from the group, which has also carried out suicide bombings and other attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories during the five-year-old uprising, have not previously threatened Jews abroad.

[idontwantaname]

3. do you think they have the resources to do that?

not abbas himself but folks from his party.

[Coastie for Truth]

4. To blow up a Temple or a JCC?

Less then a car load of "kids" here on student visas. You can get explosives and detonaters at Home Depot or WalMart. A car remote or fast trak or RFID device as a detonator. It ain't brain surgery - or rocket science - or nuclear physics.

Our local Fire Department Arson Investigator gives a class on these devices to the Volunteers.

[idontwantaname]

5. so they would be acting on their own?

without the true support of al-aqsa?

[Coastie for Truth]

6. When I was Regular Coast Guard

I was a "COP' on the New Orleans waterfront. Being a psychiatrist, social worker, or surrogate mommie was above my pay grade.

And who knows if they are "free agents" or brain washed semi-free agents - you want to "bet your life" or your kid's life or your grandma's life?

[idontwantaname]

7. preemptive mindset

like why were in iraq?

[Coastie for Truth]

9. I spent half of my tour in Port Security

that's half cop work and half fire fighter-haz mat tech work.

I don't like cops - I don't like to socialize with them. I don't like their mind set. But, I have a lot of respect for what the cops have to do, and I am glad that THEY (not me) do it. And until you are in a patrol boat or squad car - don't judge them.

Do you really want to drive down Tchoupitoulas Street or the Henry Truckway around 2 AM. I've been there - I'll take a class A suit and a 70 pound Scott Pak and face a leaker -- any time thank you.

As much as I don't like cops - I think some so-called "students" properly indoctrinated could do a heck of lot of damage. How many guys did Timothy McVeigh work with? 2? 3? 4?

Yes - I take the threat seriously. Could be anther Achille Lauro. Could be another Buenos Aires JCC.

[Poll_Blind]

8. Perhaps they were "sending a message", Israeli style.

Homicide. Suicide. Ultimately fratricide.

They who tear pages from the Devil's playbook, whether the Israeli government or the Palestinian government will have their mouths filled with dust. Their hearts are.

I wonder, does the Creator notice the crimson stain soaking up the hem of a celestial robe as it sweeps over our world? Or is there some other hidden purpose to it all, as the grapes wonder when the feet of the vintner are near.

PB

[Phx_Dem]

12. Israeli "style"

kind of a stretch don't you think? Since when do the Israelis employ suicide bombers?

[Poll_Blind]

13. Tell me the difference between a high explosive shell...

...fired into a populated civilian area and a suicide bomber who detonates himself in the presence of civilians, won't you?

Do the little bits of burned flesh and headless trunks and dismembered arms and legs look different as the ZAKA or the Palestinian Authority policemen pick them up?

Is one side afforded more mercy by the other?

It is a bloodbath and the mouths gasping for peace are just breaking the red foamy roil. When it is all over only the historians on either side will bother with the minutia of who was slightly less inhuman, but only them. And apparently yourself.

PB

[Phx_Dem]

14. A very short response

I'm familiar with your posts so I don't see the need to go into a lot of detail.

ME terrorists have for years gone out of their way to fire Kassams etc from populated civilian areas, as well as using people and children for shields. This fact is well documented. I imagine they do this partly for the kind of response people like yourself provide. Congrats.


edited for clarity.

[idontwantaname]

15. kassams

are fired from strawberry firelds in gaza.

please provide an instance where palestinian fighters actively used children or "people" as human shields.

when special forces(israelis) occupy palestinians homes they often use palestinian civilians to "get in".

[Phx_Dem]

16. I'm busy working

I will post later.

[barb162]

25. I think the school incident of several months back was a case.

Israel destroyed part of a school where certain Palestinians were having meetings in classrooms, doing training for attacks on Israel, etc. Also the people in Gaza who wrote the letter to Hamas last week or two weeks ago about the kassams said the kassams were being fired too close to their homes. The kassams are shot from fields but these fields are Very close to residential areas.They knew Israeli rockets were not going to be totally accurate; military maneuvers never are. It's impossible to have total accuracy. The kassams are a case in point.

below from
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_casualties.php

"The standard tactic is to use children as bait, burning tires and shooting slingshots, to attract the television cameras and distract the IDF. At the same time, well-armed Palestinian gunmen in ambush positions are ready to shoot at Israeli targets. Since the Palestinian public knows that Israeli soldiers are ordered not to shoot live ammunition at children, the children act as shields to protect Palestinian snipers who shoot to kill any exposed members of the IDF. When the youths rush forward throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, Palestinian snipers on rooftops and in alleys take aim at the IDF. On some occasions Palestinian Arabs have shot children from behind, a fact that seldom makes it into media reports of the incidents. According to IDF sources, Palestinian gunmen have also fired shots from within a rioting crowd of civilians"

[idontwantaname]

27. according to racist sources, this info is accurate

barb, the IDF does shoot live ammo at children.

the 1st intifada, which your quoted source talks about, was largely a rock throwing uprising. ill defer to pelsars knowledge whether there were palestinian snipers ect. as the article states above... he knows better than i.

[barb162]

29. Oh come on, that's not a racist souce. UN reports back that up

What about the school incident a few months back. Why were there meetings in a school other than to use kids as shields.

[King Mongo]

35. I wouldn't say that it's racist...

but it is certainly one-sided and not balanced. Thus, I would not rely on it as a source of accurate information.

[Englander]

50. I would, they excuse/explain/support the murder of children.

The site justifies the targeting of children/ambulances, or anyone else that the idf
chooses to target. It's full of hateful propaganda, it uses racist sites (eg FrontPageMag)
as sources, it's full of mentions of 'Arabs', &tc. I'd say it was a racist site.

[idontwantaname]

38. schools

from what i remember(i was there in the summer time) kids go to school (stereotypically) from 7 or 8 am til noon. after that theyre done(im not sure why they only go to school til noon, maybe its the summer schedule).

but in general, schools are buildings with lots of space, meeting rooms ect.

im sure in gaza folks may use schools for social works committee meetings and perhaps after that meeting ends they walk 2 doors down and talk about planning a suicide mission. regardless, bombing the school isnt helping anyone. in gaza its near impossible to get away from people... theyre everywhere. its the most populated place on earth.

note: youre correct barb, your source is not racist, although i did find it funny how they dealt with the palestinian currency question. theres also house deeds still out there... but thats not an issue i want to deal with right now.

[pelsar]

31. intifada I....

no snipers, weapons being fired by the palestenains were rare (we had single incident with someone shooting at us from 500m away (no danger).

there were cases of moltov cocktails being thrown down on patrols from building, or blocks, and in fact that was were the danger was, but not from the protesters (rocks from slingshots being the most potent).

Intifada I was an actual "people uprising" hence the mix of older and younger within the protesters.

[idontwantaname]

39. thanks for the info. n/t.

[Englander]

32. PalestineFacts = hateful fantasists.

They're deluded, racist, propagandists. That should mean that they wouldn't be used as
a credible source, but I guess there's always a section of the posting populace that finds
hateful propaganda appealing...

Which 'school incident of several months back'? Link?

[barb162]

48. PalestineFacts=facts

And I guess there's always a segment of the posting population who can't see facts staring them in the face

[Englander]

49. Nice reactionary response.

Not-so-nice abuse of language. Subjective, hateful opinion = not facts.

What about this 'school incident of several months back'? I asked for some *actual*
*evidence*, from a non-hateful site, please.

[eyl]

40. Well,

there's this (picture on the left, obviously) for starters. I can give you some more photos of a similar bent.

(disclaimer: the photo is an AP photo; I chose the specific site simply because the photo is no longer available on the news sites where I originally saw it, and this was one of the first hits on goole, not because of the rest of the site's content)

[idontwantaname]

41. “voluntary combatant”

by 2004 theyre aware of the can dos of the IDF. thanks for the link.

[barb162]

47. thanks

they are worth a thousand words

[Poll_Blind]

17. It would seem there is a mote in both your eye and your heart.

Though my post addressed murderers on both sides of the issue, you could not bring yourself to address the misdeeds of the side which you favor. I understand how easily this can come to pass. You have blood in your eyes. But it will never make you see more clearly.

Please consider thinking of the deaths of innocents on both sides as equally abhorrent.

It will change your attitude toward violence against all innocent men, women and children. Not just the ones you favor. It would greatly please your Creator, if you believe in one.

Consider speaking with religious council on the matter. I do not know of any religion that does not have a relevant chapter, passage, book, quatrain or what-have-you on why all innocents should be spared the sword.

PB

[Phx_Dem]

18. If you are trying to persuade

you might want to stick to basic english. I have no idea what you are referring to with the "mote" sentence. I take it it is some sort of insult. I was trying to address inaccuracies in your posts, please don't assume that I think that the IDF/Israeli Gov. is without fault, it just was not relevant.

[Poll_Blind]

28. Not trying to change your mind, Sir or Madam, but taking a sounding....

...of your empathy for innocent human life, period. Active sonar, if you will. It takes more effort and it gives away my position (to continue the nautical motif) but ephemeral as thoughts and minds are, impervious to torpedoes.

There are two types of persons on each side of a political issue: Those who blindly root for their side without self-criticism and those who appreciate the fact that both sides have positive and negative aspects.

A mote is speck of dust, a word still in circulation (though limited) almost exclusively because of the book of the Christian Bible, Matthew 7:1-7:5. Being an atheist myself, I included another idiom possibly more familiar to a non-Christian: Having blood in one's eye- to be blinded by rage.

PB

[Phx_Dem]

37. Thanks for your clarification PB

There are numerous sites on the web that have AP/Reuters pics that clearly show terrorists firing weapons/rockets while surrounded by civilians. I won't post these links because I do not support the overall assertions/conclusions drawn by the site's authors.

In the interest of fairness, the IDF used human shields for several months, they were volunteers mostly and were used to "assist" with raids on apts. etc. The Israel Sup court correctly condemned this practice as a human rights violation, and the IDF discontinued the practice.

Hey, did you know that Mota in spanish slang means weed? You know like the kind you smoke, I wonder if it derived from mote?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. No, they were mostly coerced....

Human Rights Watch has reported extensively on the coerced use of Palestinian civilians during military operations, and most recently documented the use of Palestinian civilians as "human shields" and for military purposes during the Israeli military operations in Jenin. In April 2002, Human Rights Watch released a report on the coerced use of Palestinian civilians by the IDF, entitled "In a Dark Hour: The Use of Civilians during IDF Arrest Operations."

In its May 2 report entitled "Jenin: IDF Military Operations," Human Rights Watch documented several cases of IDF use of "human shields," including one case in which eight Palestinian men, including a fourteen-year-old boy, were taken from their homes and placed on a balcony overlooking Palestinian fighter positions while IDF soldiers fired from behind the men. In another case, IDF soldiers put a sixty-five-year-old Palestinian woman on the exposed roof of her home during a gun battle.

Prior to the May 9 Israeli army decision, rather than investigating the practice, Israeli army officials regularly issued blanket denials about the IDF's coerced use of civilians and the use of "human shields." For example, in response to the April 2002 Human Rights Watch report on the coerced use of civilians, IDF spokesperson Isaac Greenburg told Agence France-Presse: "Under no circumstances do we use, or will we ever use civilians to help us. The very idea, the very allegations are preposterous."

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2002/05/10/isrlpa3914.htm

That was a minor quibble, as I think you and I are in agreement on being opposed to the use of civilians as human shields, whether it was by the IDF or by Palestinian militants...

Violet...

[barb162]

24. There is a difference: intent. The suicide bomber is actively

looking to kill as many INNOCENT civilians as he/she can. Then suicider doesn't care if there are Israelis, children, Israeli Arabs, tourists from Iceland or China, etal. A military action aimed at and for destroying rocket launch sites is not intended to kill INNOCENT civilians, though some may be killed in the process of self- defensive manueuvers.

[Poll_Blind]

26. I propose that continued reckless negligence is tantamount to intent.

I recognize that analogies made on both sides by posters here often only exacerbate the enmity between posters, not draw them together or clarify issues. Having said that, I offer this one with a genuine hope of clarifying why I believe what I do:

Imagine two large groups of people, one Israeli and one Palestinian one hundred paces apart. For every Palestinian who sneaks into the Israeli group and detonates a suicide bomb, the Israeli group empties two clips of rifle rounds into the Palestinian crowd.

While all analogies fall down at some point, I think the one above will do at least to illustrate how I see the behavior on both sides. A Palestinian suicide bomber intends to kill and maim Israelis.

But are the Israelis somehow ignorant of the (at best) reckless negligence of such actions when they fire into the crowd?

Do they have "only the best of intentions" when firing into that milling mass?

If they do it again and again, aware of the consequences, who will claim that they still have the "best of intentions" if they keep repeating what they know is likely to kill innocents?

While the uninformed phonographic-ally repeat jingoisms about "collateral damage" and "justifiable response" surely you would recognize that both actions bring nobility to neither group and lower same to animalistic* behavior.

PB

* Very few animals, beyond humans and chimpanzees, to my recollection, deliver this sort of retribution to their enemies. While "animalistic behavior" is an accurate description in English parlance it is used with some reluctance so as not to give the animal kingdom, which is mostly concerned with eating and reproduction, a bad name.

[barb162]

30. That analogy is not a good one. A suicider intentionally

wants to kill and injure as many people as he can. IDF is not looking to do that. It is looking to stop the damned attacks on Israel. If they wanted, the IDF could have flattened the towns around where the kassams were being shot. They were not trying to do that and I think you know that. And the Palestinian police could have arrested the kassam launchers months ago if they had wanted.

[Englander]

53. Neo-con nonsense. n/t

[madeline_con]

65. Well done.

Very eloquent and thoughtful post. :toast:

[King Mongo]

36. Terror is not limited to suicide bombings

.

[Andromeda]

52. I think the poster was just trying to be creative.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RDU Socialist]

10. hamas really doesn't want anyone to like them

fuck hamas, innocent people dying is never legitimate, whether it's an Israeli soldier killing a Palestinian or a suicide bomber killing people at a fast food restaurant.

[Phx_Dem]

11. more on the way

"There are many other bombers on the way," he said.

"The response by Hamas leaders represented a sharp departure from the previous Palestinian leadership's immediate condemnations of such attacks."

"We think that this operation ... is a direct result of the policy of the occupation and the brutal aggression and siege committed against our people," said Khaled Abu Helal, spokesman for the Hamas-led Interior Ministry"

I guess this is the way Hamas negotiates for "peace"

[King Mongo]

34. From a fair perspective....

Israel claimed that it would negotiate if Palestinans recognized that Israel exists. Yet, Isreal does not recognize that Palestine exists, so Palestinians probably didn't feel the need to do what Israelis themselves refuse to do. In all fairness, both sides must be willing to accept that both exist and one can't blame one side more than the other when both refuse such.

The end result is that negotiations are not possible and thus violence is seen by both sides as being the best option. In my opinon, it would have been better to ignore the fact that both don't recongize that they exist while focusing on permanent borders so that both will indeed exist.

[idontwantaname]

19. FUN FACTS

In the last two and a half weeks (since the previous suicide bombing) Israeli forces have killed at least 26 Palestinians -- at least 5 of them children -- and injured 161 Palestinian men, women and children. A college student lost her right eye today after being shot by an Israeli sniper last week.

There have been 369 raids by Israeli forces, mostly into the West Bank. Gaza has undergone sustained shelling by Israeli forces and continued closures, resulting in increasing lack of food and medical supplies. According to UN reports, between March 30 and April 12th, Israeli forces launched 2300 artillery and tank shells and 34 missiles into Gaza.

Defense for Children International reports that 4,000 Palestinian children have been arrested in the past five years, 400 of them currently in prison, including a fifteen-year-old girl, who has been in prison for over a year after being shot in the stomach by Israeli soldiers. DCI reports that the arrests are increasing.

At 5.30pm on Monday 10 April 2006, at least six artillery shells fired by the Israeli military fell on the family house of Mohammed Rabe'eya Ghaban in Beit Lahiya, in the north of the Gaza Strip. Shrapnel from the shells pierced the skull of Mohammed's eight-year old daughter Hadeel, killing her instantly. The shelling also resulted in the injury of eight other family members, including Hadeel's brothers and sisters:

Rawan Ghaban 1 and a half years old
Rana Ghaban 3 years old
Munir Ghaban 4 years old
Amneh Ghaban 9 years old
Ghassan Ghaban 11 years old
Bassam Ghaban 15 years old
Tahrir Ghaban 17 years old

The children's mother, 35-year old Sofia, was the eighth family member wounded in the attack.

Several neighbours were also injured including:

Jaqueline Mo'ein Maarouf 11 years old
Mariam Maher Al-'Assi 15 years old

[cali]

20. Those are terrible

and damning facts, but do they legitimize this attack? Do they justify.it Every time Israeli shelling kills civilians, a thread is posted about it here. And it should be. When people try to justify the deaths of innocent Palestinians, they are responded to. These deaths in Israel are no more or less tragic than the deaths in Palestine. Try to remember that next time someone posts about the tragic loss of life of Palestinians and someone comes on the thread and lists the victims of this attack. I'm sure you're not trying to diminish this tragic loss of life or justify the attack, but it sure could be seen that way.

[idontwantaname]

21. they do not justify attack, suicide bombing or other...

however i hope such things would help shed some light on the situation some folks are born into. for a lot of us in the US this is rationale many will never fully understand. when the US govt or someone else try to relate suicide bombings with hating freedom ect folks need to educate themselves and realize theres more to it than what FOXnews offers up.

... but i do get your drift.

[Malikshah]

23. Yes-- but the issue as ever

is that the US public only hears one aspect of this human tragedy.

There is a war going on-- the tools used kill. the blood is just as red.

The previous post does not appear to show any attempt to legitimate the attacks by Islamic Jihad or to detract from the loss of Israeli civilian lives--

*that* perspective is seen by some for their own reasons.

The U.S. media traditionally discusses these heinous attacks by Islamic Jihad as ending a "lull" in the violence.

The previous post appears to be an attempt to address the true context of this ongoing bloody war.

If folks are unhappy, then folks need to work together for a solution.

[geek tragedy]

22. Gee, and I had such high hopes for the

peace process.

:sarcasm:

The peace process is dead. Of course Hamas is going to celebrate every Jewish death--they're Hamas. They are not going to change.

The Israelis are going to draw a line and build a wall in a manner unfair to the Palestinians. They're then going to withdraw behind that wall, and that will be that. No talks, no negotiations, no nothing.

The Israelis have concluded that this outcome is better than anything they could ever negotiate, so they're going to impose it unilaterally--because they can.

[King Mongo]

33. Unoccupied people are often against violence....

... which harms civilians. Yet, occupied people often support such forms of violence. In fact, many people in every nation support terror even if their nation is threatened and not yet occupied. For example, many civilians were targeted during WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam, etc. Nations often condemn terror until they find themselves in the same position of those whom they once condemned.

This simply demonstrates why it is so important for both Israel and Palestine to recognize that both exist as independent unoccupied nations. Until this happens, both sides will accuse the other of doing what they do.

[Spinoza]

42. Good point

Remember all those heroic members of the French Resistance in WWII who murdered the wives of German officers, and their children. Oh wait, did that ever happen? Sorry, my mistake they actually risked their lives fighting German soldiers, not blowing up children.

[King Mongo]

45. The English and US blew up children by bombing civilians in cities....

...Yet after 50+ years of conflict, it is very possible that French Resistance would have sought other forms of self-defense, just as how others did it. Suicide bombings were only practiced after 50+ years of occupation and the French were not occupied that long. Maybe the reason why some Israelis practice terror is because they believe that "their" land has been occupied for the past 2000 years. French Resistance did target the Vichy government and just imagine what would have happened if the Germans built illegal German settlements in France.... It is always easy to blame others if we don't like them.

[Spinoza]

60. Damn right

Kill the kids if your occupied.

[King Mongo]

64. Civilians should never be killed...

...but this concept does not prevent nations from targetting and killing civilians for self-defense purposes. The only reason why nuclear powers have nuclear weapons is to kill thousands or even millions of civilians for the purposes of self-defense, if seriously threatened. 1000 suicide bombings are nothing compared to one single nuclear bomb and that is why some nations charish mass-murder as a form of self-defense. I agree that nuclear powers have not yet been occupied because of their ability to murder many civilians.

[Spinoza]

67. I must be obtuse,

but I fail to see how the THREAT of nuclear retaliation, as a form of self-defense, is no different from the deliberate CONTEMPORANEOUS blowing up of a bunch of kids in a Tel-Aviv pizza parlor. Those kids are screaming in agony NOW, not 65 years ago in WWII or in a hypothetical future where a nuke goes off. (I disagree with your view of WWII bombing of cities and the rationale for nuclear weapons, but thats a different subject.)

"Explaining" suicide bombers by citing Allied bombing of civilians in WWII, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear stockpiles, occupations, etc are simply rationalizations (in effect if not intent) for the deliberate, pre-meditated killing and mutilation of children (and others).

[King Mongo]

72. Is killing kids with nuclear bombs less evil than smaller bombs?

It is wrong to kill kids, even with nuclear bombs. No matter what type of bombs are used, it is wrong to kill kids. Of couse, there are always some who believe that it is good to use some types of bombs to kill kids but not others, but this logic is flawed.

>> deliberate, pre-meditated killing

Using nukes for self-defense purposes is a deliberate, pre-meditated killing and mutilation of children. Of course, the usage of bombs is generally discouraged unless one is threatened of being occupied or has become occupied. The only difference between nukes and other bombs is that nukes kill far more kids than other bombs, but it really doesn't matter who uses which types of bombs for what justifications since the usage of bombs to kill kids for self-defense purposes are wrong.

[Spinoza]

74. More rationalizations for murder.

EOM

[King Mongo]

76. Criticism of murder is by no means support for murder

Nuclear bombings are terrible forms of murder, just like suicide bombings and many other types of bombings. It is important to criticize all forms of murder, not just that practiced by "them". Murder is not justified simply because we have nukes and will kill civilians with them to defend ourselves, if necessary. All forms of terror must be condemned, not just the terror practiced by "them".

[cali]

77. Yes, yes

Nuclear bombs are terrible and condemning their use is always appropriate, but really doing so in this context is a diversion. It's far more effective to discuss the Israelis shelling of places that are densely populated by civilians. Because really, when the folks who defend it do so, the argument that the Israelis aren't targeting civilians or that they could kill more people if they wanted to, really is weak.

Now how about that Jeruslaem as Paris argument?

[King Mongo]

79. It is a diversion to not discuss nukes in this context...

If a nuclear power is threatened to become occupied, the nuclear power will target and kill innocent civilians. If a nuclear power will target and kill innocent civilians if it is threatened to become occupied, then it will also target and kill innocent civilians if it is occupied.

We must criticize all forms of terror, not just that practiced by "them". It is always easy to preach hatred about the occupied when one is not occupied, especially when one is the occupier.

As I stated before, if Paris or Jerusalem or any other city is controlled by a non-Jewish majority for 2000 years, than that city will have a non-Jewish culture, language, history, etc. That city will be a non-Jewish city until the city has a Jewish majority which changes the language, culture and even history.

Years of excavation in Arab East Jerusalem in the post-1967 era by Dame Kathleen Kenyon, Mazar and Ben Dove, however, did not unearth any traces of Jewish existence from the so-called ‘Temple Mount Era.' Much to their embarrassment what surfaced were more Muslim palaces, courts and mosques, and ruins belonging to the Romans, Greeks and Canaanites.
http://www.doublestandards.org/siddiqui2.html

[cali]

81. It's most amusing to

watch you try to maneuver around the facts I presented. As for your example of a dig that didn't turn up any traces of a Jewish existence from the "Temple Mount Era", that hardly compares to the facts that I laid out.

You claimed Jerusalem is a Palestinian city and that that claim goes back 2000 years. That, my liege, is bullshit. Don't try and maneuver out of it now. The claim that Jews attained a majority in Jerusalem by ethnic cleansing- an incendiary charge- an out and out falsehood.

BTW, there is plenty of archeological evidence confirming that the Jews were indeed inhabitants of the old city. Or are you now claiming that Jerusalem was never a Jewish city? Why wouldn't I be surprised?

[King Mongo]

82. Don't deny what you cannot deny

Your "facts" only demonstrate that Jerusalem had a non-Jewish cultural majority for the past 2000 years, basically meaning that Jerusalem was a non-Jewish city for the past 2000 years. You can even read about this in old stories on the net written prior to 1910. Why are you so desperate to deny the fact that Jerusalem indeed had a non-Jewish cultural majority for a very long time, meaning that Jerusalem is a very important city to non-Jews, especially Palestinians?

It is not a falsehood that Israel expelled non-Jews from Jerusalem and prevented others from returning home. This is a fact documented by many Israeli sources. How can you argue that the truth is "bullshit", when you know that Jews were a minority in Jerusalem for the past 2000 years? Why are you so desperate to reject the non-Jewish history of Jerusalem? Why are you so desperate to reject the fact that Jews prevented non-Jews from returning home, thus practicing racial cleansing?

I agree that Jews found Jerusalem or took it from the Canaans. But, I don't understand why you are so hostile towards the non-Jews who were the cultural majority in Jerusalem for the past 2000 years.

[cali]

85. Oh, please

I'm not denying that Israel expelled Palestinians from Jerusalem post '67, and I'm not defending it either. In fact, I condemn it. You know full well I was discussing Jerusalem prior to the founding of Israel. I'm not in the least desperate to do anything but put the boot to your fabrications and one sided view of history.

You seem unwilling to admit that Jews were part of the lively mix of culture that was Jerusalem for much of the 2000 years you're referring to. There was no culturally pure majority. You seem to want to erase them entirely from the equation.

I bear no hostility toward the Palestinians. That should be clear from my postings on these threads.

[King Mongo]

90. Please modifiy your hostile language...

I am not making fabrications. I am sharing my views, my opinons. Please get that straight. I am not a Palestinians and I am not a Muslim. I am simply an ordinary human being. Just because my views are different from yours, that does not mean that I am making "fabrications". You may not be aware of it, but there are many people who discuss things here who do not make "fabrications".

I disagree that my views are "one-sided". You are just misunderstanding my views.

>>You seem unwilling to admit that Jews were part of the lively mix of culture that was Jerusalem

I have often stated that for the past 2000 years, Jerusalem had a non-Jewish majority. This means that your assumption is wrong.

>>want to erase them entirely from the equation

Wrong. I am simply pointing out that the city had a non-Jewish majority for the past 2000 years, meaning that its Jewish part was quite small and thus one can't argue that it was a Jewish city for the past 2000 years.

>>I bear no hostility toward the Palestinians

I just got the impression that you wanted to claim that the city was a Jewish city because it had a Jewish minority for the past 2000 years. Yet, how can it be a Jewish city with a Jewish minority over such a long period of time?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

43. Has it occurred to you

that perhaps a massive non-violent campaign of resistance to the Occupation might be the most effective way to counter it? God knows, what the Palestinians have been doing hasn't worked. And of course, Spinoza is quite right there are many examples of countries under occupation where the targeting of civilians wasn't practiced.

[King Mongo]

44. massive non-violent campaign of resistance to the Occupation...

...will not cause Israel not to annex occupied territory. Is it beneficial to allow others to grab one's homeland? I agree that non-violence would be the most beneficial for both sides if they practiced such, as long as one is willing to give up a part of their homeland. The reason why non-violent is not practiced is because both sides have no desire to yield territory, with one wanting to take occupied territory and the other wanting to keep it.

In my opinion, if one side was not trying to take occupied territory, then the other would have no motive to use violence and thus non-violence can be encouraged by not annexing occupied territory. This makes sense, since it is not essential to annex occupied territory. Asking Palestinians to give up Jerusalem is no different from asking the French to give Paris to China.

[pelsar]

46. poor assumption

The reason why non-violent is not practiced is because both sides have no desire to yield territory

thats not why.....non violence would get the israelis out of the westbank.....that route however requires a very different "language" to be used, different leadership and a very different view of things....

[King Mongo]

62. non violence would not get the israelis out of the westbank....

Even with non-violence, Israel would still annex Jerusalem and other parts of the West Bank. This means that as a result of non-violence, Israel would permenantly remain in some parts of the West Bank. Of course, the same would happen with violence. The benefit of non-violence is simply that fewer people would get killed so that Israel can annex territory.

[cali]

54. Of course you have

no way of knowing what the result of a massive non-violent campaign of resistance would be. Why assume you do? I always find such assumption of omnicience curious. No, it's not helpful that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory. But history has to be factored in. It wasn't helpful in 1948 that none of the Arab countries accepted the creation of Israel. You may well believe that Israel should never have been created, but it was. The hostility toward the existence of Israel by its neighbors has to be factored in.

Sorry, history does not bear out your theory that there would be no violence directed toward Israel if they weren't occupying Palestinian territory. In fact, one can assume that violence against Israel would continue even if it moved back within the Green Line. Does that mean that Israel should continue the Occupation. Hell no. Israel should remove all of its settlements on the west bank, and Jerusalem should be a city under an international protectorate. Asking Palestinians to share Jerusalem is entirely fair. And let's face it, when they had control, Jews weren't allowed to pray at their holiest site. Your comparison of Jerusalem to Paris, and asking the French to cede control of it to the Chinese is entirely specious. In case you've forgotten, Jerusalem was a Jewish city long befor it was anything else. Having said that, Jerusalem is too important to too many different factions, for one group to control it.

As far as the efficacy of non-violence goes, it has worked. India comes to mind immediately. We cannot know if a campaign of non-violence would be effective against the Occupation. I think there's a good chance that it would. You don't. Both positions are rooted in opinion.

[pelsar]

55. cali- you've wrote the "unmentionable"

history does not bear out your theory that there would be no violence directed toward Israel if they weren't occupying Palestinian territory. In fact, one can assume that violence against Israel would continue even if it moved back within the Green Line.....

and with that sentence lies the heart of the matter for most of the israelis.....post "withdrawl".....how does the IDF protect its citizens in such a scenario?

[cali]

56. I don't know pelsar.

You're far more knowledgable than I on the subject. But why couldn't they? Didn't they do so up until the '67 war?

[pelsar]

59. times have changed.....

a note here:
this is soley based on predicting the future...a scenario if you will, something which may or may not come to pass, but it is the minds of the israelis when withdrawl is talked about.

pre 67 the palestenains as a group were far less organized with a far weaker national identity, hence the attackes from the fedayen were more sporadic and not very sophisticated, and had the backing of the surrounding states.

Today the national identity is far stronger, they're abilities and experience in fighting has increased to the point of homemade missles, mortors, bringing in a katusha, modern small arms to be had at market prices. Meaning there is no problem in abtaining illegal as well as legal armaments (The PA was complaining a few months ago about being outgunned by the various militias in gaza). The PA as an authority, may or may not be able to control its militias, or may not want to (who knows what the PA will be?), but they are well armed with arms, experience, an infrastructure and an organized hierarchy.

The 67 border on the westbank snakes very close to major israeli cities (Netanya, Hadera, Jerusalem, Afula) a few random mortors, kassams of which there is no defense will do more than enough damage on an apt building......but thats the heart of it, once flying there is no real defense against them, they're small with short flight paths

outside of "Force Fields"....nothing will stop them. The only realistic way is the pounding of the launch sites, but that would mean razing palestenain villages ( a mortor is nothing more than a tube of metal-setting up and firing-30 seconds).

the only real solution is not to get in to that situation in the first place....and this is why i am against an immediate palestenain state. I think the dangers of the above scenario outweigh the short term (a day?) of an independant palestine.

[King Mongo]

63. Anyone can easily see the situation....

Israel is not going to give up Jerusalem and all of the West Bank. It is going to annex occupied territory with or without violence. Israel has made this very clear. It is simply unrealistic to think otherwise, after everything which has been said and done.

>>It wasn't helpful in 1948 that none of the Arab countries accepted the creation of Israel.

It also wasn't helpful that the voice of the majority was ignored.


>>Jerusalem was a Jewish city long befor it was anything else

For the past 2000, Jerusalem has had a non-Jewish majority. This means that Jerusalem is to Palestinians what Paris is to France, even if Palestinians didn't establish the city. 2000 years is a very long time for a city to be controlled by others and times causes people to become attached to their habitat. After 2000 years, certainly the non-Jewish people of Jerusalem will desire to defend their city equally as the French desire to not cede paris.

>>non-violence

I agree that non-violence will work. It will help Israelis to annex occupied territory, including Jerusalem, while bring peace and stability to the region. The only problems is that the "French don't want to give up Paris" or even Nice or any other city.

[cali]

66. Let's see.

"It also wasn't helpful that the voice of the majority was ignored."

Please elaborate. To what, precisely, are you referring?


"For the past 2000, Jerusalem has had a non-Jewish majority. This means that Jerusalem is to Palestinians what Paris is to France, even if Palestinians didn't establish the city. 2000 years is a very long time for a city to be controlled by others and times causes people to become attached to their habitat. After 2000 years, certainly the non-Jewish people of Jerusalem will desire to defend their city equally as the French desire to not cede paris."

The argument can equally be made, that Jews have always lived in the city they founded, despite not being a majority. Jerusalem has been controlled by various factions since its establishment. No one group should have sole dominion over Jerusalem. Jerusalem is just as important to Jews as Paris is to the French. Sorry, you can't totally rewrite history. Jerusalem is holy to too many groups. And of course, the Palestinians didn't control it for 2000 years.

Regarding your endless pronouncements of what would happen if the Palestinians mounted a massive campaign of non-violence against the Occupation: You have no idea what would happen. Again, you are not omnicient. You're simply biased beyond any ability to make an accurate forecast.

[King Mongo]

73. The majority of the people in the Palestinian Mandate...

... was rather ignored by the League of Nations regarding the partition plan. Knowing this helps to understand the nature of the conflict during that period.

If Paris was owned and controlled by the Chinese for 2000 years and had a Chinese majority, then Paris would be a Chinese city, with a Chinese language, culture, holidays, traditions, etc. There are in fact many such French cities in France which were German less than 200 years ago. There are also cities in Italy which were once German but today are very Italian, only after a few years. I understand, however, the interests of nationalists who refuse to recongize the given situation.

I agree that Jerusalem has become a Jewish city since most of the natives were racially cleansed from the city, but one must admit that a city which is controlled by a different majority for 2000 years culturally belongs to that majority until the majority is forced from the city.

>>You have no idea what would happen

This is what you wish to believe, but there is so much evidence backing up my view, that I can't imagine otherwise. Even you have to admit that Jerusalem is now a Jewish city since most of the natives were racially cleansed from it due to strategic activities on the part of Israel.

[cali]

75. Again, your comparison

to Paris/China, couldn't be more misbegotten. Jerusalem has a tumultuous history, but it doesn't have a 2000 year Palestinian history that is in any way, shape or form similar to the French history of Paris.

Let's review, shall we? In brief: The Jews, The Jews under the aegis of the Romans,the Romans, Byzantine rule. Muslims took the city in 638. Under early Christian rule Jews were booted out. The first Crusade, Saladin, Tatars, Egyptians, Mongols and Turks. The city was a bloody ping pong ball. Jews were part of the fabric of the city most of this time, and throughout the 18th and 19th century the Jewish population of Jerusalem grew to the point that by the early 20th century, they were the majority.

"Jewish immigration accelerated (especially from the time of the Egyptian occupation of Jerusalem by Muhammad Ali in 1832–41), and by 1900, Jews made up the largest community in the city and expanded settlement outside the Old City walls.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/je/Jerusale.html

See, It's not nearly as easy as you're making it out to be, and whatever else is true your claim that its been a Palestinian ciry for 2000 years, isn't. It's a fairy tale, but go ahead keep telling it to yourself, and gullible others who will listen.

[King Mongo]

80. Thus, Jerusalem had a non-Jewish cultural majority for the past 2000

>>Let's review, shall we? In brief:

Thus, Jerusalem had a non-Jewish majority for the past 2000 years and so until Zionist immigration, it was unfair to claim that Jerusalem was a Jewish city.

>>It's a fairy tale

You have the right to believe as you wish. That's why you believe this stuff:

Another technique employed is: manipulation of history. A classic example is the Israeli-sponsored 'Jerusalem 3000' celebration in 1998
http://www.doublestandards.org/siddiqui2.html

...and reject this stuff:

Jerusalem was central to the spiritual identity of Muslims from the very beginning of their faith. When the Prophet Muhammad first began to preach in Mecca in about 612, according to the earliest biographies, which are our primary source of information about him, he had his converts prostrate themselves in prayer in the direction of Jerusalem.
http://www.time.com/time/2001/jerusalem/islam.html


You have the right to be one-sided and hostile towards other cultures. It's your choice.

[cali]

83. You are, alas, the one who's

hostile to another culture, and sadly hostile to the point of hatred. Your total denial of Jewish history and culture as having any claim on Jerusalem cements that claim.

I, on the other hand, have great respect for the Muslim claim to Jerusalem, along with the Jewish claim, and for that matter, the Christian claim. It's a city holy to all three faiths. I don't for a moment forget that. That's why I've repeatedly stated that the only solution that seems equitable to me, is Jerusalem under an international mandate. You seem to say that the only legitimate claim is that of the Palestinians, and that the city should be part of a Palestinian state.

[King Mongo]

84. Wrong assumptions....

I am not denying Jewish history and I certainly never made a "total denail" of such. I am only pointing out that Jerusalem had a non-Jewish majority for the past 2000 years, meaning that Jerusalem was, to the most part, a non-Jewish city for the past 2000 years since its language, culture, history and traditions were mostly non-Jewish. This is not disrespectful to Judaism. This is simply history, the way it happened.

>>You seem to say that the only legitimate claim is that of the Palestinians

I have never made this claim. I am only pointing out that Israel will annex Jerusalem regardless if Palestinians practice violence or non-violence, since the e-1 plan has been practiced, as well as other activities, for this very reason, changing demographics to assist the annexation, making it extremely difficult to not occur.

Please, try to not make false claims about me, ok?

[cali]

86. Go back and reread your posts upthread.

Try and remember your Paris/China comparison. It's a tad disengenuous of you to assert that I'm making false claims. Not to mention the false claims that you've blithely made about me.

[King Mongo]

88. Paris/China

I simply pointed out that since Jerusalem had a non-Jewish majority for the past 2000 years, it was a Palestinian city until Zionist immigration changed it, for the same reason that Strasbourg is a French city and no longer a German city. I have no idea how you could not agree with this. You can't disagree, unless you believe that Strasbourg is a German city and not a French city. Certainly, Germans still live in Strasbourg and Strasbourg has some German history and culture, but Strasbourg is indeed a French city and not a German city.

So, do you now see why your assumptions are wrong? Are you not a bit to criticial of my views? My argument is totally logical. I mean, if Berlin has a Jewish majority and was ruled by Jews for 2000 years in a region called Bersrael, then Berlin would be a Jewish city, not a German city.

[cali]

78. Actually, I was far too kind with my initial response.

Your rhetoric was classic propaganda- utilizing all the tools of such.

Your statement that "Even you have to admit that Jerusalem is now a Jewish city since most of the natives were racially cleansed from it due to strategic activities on the part of Israel."

Hmm. What could you have meant by "even you"? My position on the I/P dispute is clear. I've condemned Israeli military action in the West Bank and Gaza. I've stated that I think Israel should withdraw to 1967 borders- with the exception of Jerusalem which should come under international governance of some kind. So your use of the phrase "even you" is quite curious. Pray explain.

And I guess as I provided evidence that the Jewish majority in Jerusalem wasn't attained by racial cleansing, I don't have to admit anything, seeing as that majority was attained some half a century before Israel even became a state.

I dislike revisionist history no matter how "good" the cause its being asked to serve.

[King Mongo]

87. If non-Jewish civilians had been allowed to return home...

... Then Israel would have never practiced racial cleansing. It is simply wrong to prevent people from returning home because of their race or religion.

As you can see, there is nothing "propaganda" about my views. I'm just talking about what happened in the past.

>>Hmm. What could you have meant by "even you"?

You are aware that some non-Jews were expelled from their homes and others were prevented from returning home. I think that everyone knows this, since it is well documented.

>>Jewish majority in Jerusalem wasn't attained by racial cleansing

I was wrong here. By 1904, Jerusalem did gain a Jewish majority due to European immigrants who moved to cities since they were city dwellers in Europe and Russia. Yet, it is still fair to recognize the fact that non-Jews have been discouraged and forced to leave Jerusalem, or prevented from returning home.

[cali]

89. Thank you for admitting you erred,

but it's not exculpatory. It's a huge error to claim that Jews attained a majority in Jerusalem through ethnic cleansing. Your admission that you were wrong, is of course couched in language excusing your error. Your language and hostility toward all things Israel are disturbing.. And that wasn't the only thing you were wrong about. I can't get into now, as I have to go, but I will be back with more facts.

Oh, and your explanation about why you used the phrase "even you", blows.

Cheers, cali

[King Mongo]

92. Your language is disturbing

I made a small error, but it doesn't dismiss the fact that non-Jews were racially cleansed from the land and that Israeli politics is extremely interested in preventing Israel from having a non-Jewish majority. If Palestinians had not been racially cleansed from the land since they are not Jewish, then it is very possible that Jerusalem today would have a non-Jewish majority. It is also important to not dismiss the fact that Israeli policy has encouraged and forced non-Jews from living in Jerusalem.

>>Your language and hostility toward all things Israel are disturbing

I am not very fond of those who advocate creating a nation for "their" race by removing other races or cultures, but I do respect and appreciate many things about every nation and thus your language is very disturbing when you claim that I express "hostility toward all things Israel". Why would you make such an extreme claim?

[cali]

93. If you wish to maintain

that an unfounded accusation of ethnic cleansing created the Jewish majority in Jerusalem, that a state that didn't exist at the time, perpetrated said ethnic cleansing, is a small error, you go right ahead and maintain it. And if you wish to to keep up your silly Paris/China model- flimsy as it is- to bolster your erroneous claim that Jews have no claim on Jerusalem, go for it. You want to make the equally flimsy claim that Palestinians have an unbroken claim on Jerusalem going back 2000 years? Have at it. But don't expect that you won't be challenged. (And before you start- I've already made clear that the claim of one group doesn't invalidate the claim of another)

The funny thing is there's really no need to fabricate something like this; the panoply of wrongs perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinians- ongoing wrongs- is both wide and deep.

You just admitted to your hostility toward Israel. You stated "I am not very fond of those who advocate creating a nation for "their" race by removing other races or cultures,"

Tacking on the disclaimer "but I do respect and appreciate many things about every nation", hardly vitiates the first part of your statement. In addition, I have never seen you attempt to look at things from anything but an excessively simplistic POV, which essentially boils down to: Israel=bad and Palestinians=good.

[King Mongo]

94. Are you not hostile towards hostilities?

>>small error

Yes, it was a small error. We both know that Zionists wanted to create a Jewish State in Palestinian land and that after the war in 1948 many Palestinians were prevented from returning home - an act of racial cleansing. Basically, Zionists wanted to turn Jerusalem into a Jewish city and they did that.

>>Paris/China model

Can't you explain why Strasbourg is not a German city? My argument is not silly. You really need to modify your language. Why don't you attempt to discuss things that you don't understand with others instead of being hostile?

>>I am not very fond of those who advocate creating a nation for "their" race by removing other races or cultures

One must be hostile towards hostilities. One must be against criminal activities. One must speak up against crime and criticize it. This, however, does not mean that one is anti-Israel. Most Israelis are not responsible for the crimes of others. Yes, I am hostile towards crime, but I am not hostile towards Israel in general.

>>Israel=bad and Palestinians=good

This is what you choose to believe and you may continue to believe such, even though it is not true. This means that you believe things which are not true since you prefer to believe it rather than listening to others why your views are wrong. In the future, we can use this as a reference ot point out why you believe things which are not true.

[cali]

95. LOL!

You do live in a topsy-turvy world, where spouting empty bromides constitutes truth. King, I've provided you with facts and documentation- something you seem to have little use for. Let's try an exercise in logic: You state that you are hostile toward hostility, and that one must be against crime. You further state "I am not very fond of those who advocate creating a nation for "their" race by removing other races or cultures". OK, under your definition of Israel, "those" constitute the large majority of Israelis. You view Israel as an illegitimate country, one based on crimes, you are hostile to such people and such crimes, ergo you are hostile toward Israel. Pretty simple stuff. Why bother denying that you are hostile toward Israel in general? Please point out to me a post where you've said anything that can back up your claim that you aren't hostile to Israel and its existence. Please note that I am not saying that you think Israel should be destroyed or that you bear ill will towards its citizens. I think your hostility has more to do with a concept than anything else.

Regarding my hostility, well, I'd call it combativeness. I have no personal ill will toward you, I just think you're revising history, and not doing a bang up job of it. You seem rather hostile yourself, with your remarks about how I don't know what I'm talking about. and how my views are wrong. (Funny that I'm the one providing documentation for my claims, and you're the one making substantive errors.)

As for using your post as a reference point, I've actually saved it, and several others, as a template for a muddled argument.

[King Mongo]

96. You may believe as you wish....

>>>you aren't hostile to Israel and its existence

Just read my posts and stop imagining things. I do not need to defend myself from your accusations.

>>You seem rather hostile yourself, with your remarks about how I don't
>>know what I'm talking about

Your assumption of my debating style is a justification for you to be hostile towards me? Just because I believe that you know something, that doesn't mean that I am being hostile towards you. It seems to me as if you have a very strong desire to be excessively hostile towards me simply because I do not praise Zionism with every word I say. Certainly, you will continue to be hostile since that is what you desire, and I'll give you the last word. :)

[cali]

97. Instead of

complaining about how i'm not fair to you, why don't you address the salient points I've put forward.
(with, of course, the appropriate documentation). In the other post I wrote this morning, I refuted your claim that Jerusalem was a Palestinian city for 2000 years. Let's stick to the real topic, and get away from silly claims like: "It seems to me as if you have a very strong desire to be excessively hostile towards me simply because I do not praise Zionism with every word I say. Certainly, you will continue to be hostile since that is what you desire, and I'll give you the last word." Seeing as I've stated repeatedly (and boy do I mean repeatedly) that the Israeli Occupation of the West Bank is both illegal and immoral, your trying to make the case that I'm an apologist for the state of Israel, and claim that I'm demanding that you be one as well, is as false as your initial "small error" that Jerusalem became a majoriy Jewish city through ethnic cleansing.

I can only conclude that your willingness to cede me the last word, comes not from some great nobility of spirit, but from an inability to address the points I've made re the history of Jerusalem and the identity of the Palestinian people.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. Mongo's decision was a wise one...

It's easy sometimes to tell the difference between someone who wants a civil and genuine discussion, and someone who just wants to scream at other posters and hit them over the head. The latter type are best left thinking they got the last word coz buried amongst all those insults, there's supposedly some points to be addressed, but my advice to anyone faced with the second breed of poster is to not waste their time on what is basically a hissyfit-fest...


Violet...

[cali]

100. Oh, for pity's sake

Try taking off your cloak of sanctimony. And Mongo didn't leave me with the last word. He responded several times after his post about leaving the last word to me. That's fine. I'm interested in facts, and in coming to something approaching the truth, regardless of your accusation, which is as nasty as anything I've written. Again, that's fine. I'm not complaining, characterize me any way you wish. Sad though that you're ignoring so much.

[Violet_Crumble]

101. Okay, that was a funny one...

Cloak of sanctimony? Put down that mirror and step back from it real slow. You've been abusive as hell, yet you seem to think that Mongo should just suck it up and stay there to cop more abuse from you...

Violet...

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. So where's these many examples?

And the brutality when it came to collaborators in France sort of dispels any notions of Noble and Unsullied when it comes to anything to do with WWII. I'll have to dig up the book, but there's an account of the incredibly brutal murder of a French businessman who'd been doing business with the Nazis. I'm getting the distinct impression that depending on how just the cause is considered, some brutality is ignored. Of course the cause of the French Resistance (which was in no way as romantic or widespread as is portrayed in movies) was just. But they did commit brutal acts. That doesn't make their cause any less just. And the same goes for the Palestinians...

btw, how would a massive non-violent campaign of resistance work when it comes to the Occupation? There's really no economic lever like there was in India against the British, and acts of non-violent resistance that are done by groups of Israelis and Palestinians have generally been met with violence. And it's no surprise that those incidents don't get any coverage in the mainstream media...

On edit: I thought I should make it clear that while I'm skeptical of the chances of a massive non-violent campaign of resistance having any impact at all, I'd much prefer that to attacks on Israeli civilians, which apart from being unsuccessful, are morally and legally abhorrent...

Violet...

[King Mongo]

61. I'm sure that a massive non-violent campaign...

...would result in Israel annexing all of Jerusalem as well as some other parts of occupied territory. Violence will also achieve the same result. Thus, it certainly makes sense to practice non-violence, since it would achieve the same as violence, yet with fewer people would getting killed. Yet, it's always easy to tell Palestinians to give up Jerusalem, knowing that we would never give up Washington DC, even if that meant practicing much violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. Cali?

No answers? Okay...

[Tom Joad]

68. U.S.A. calls bombing of Fallujah Legitiamate.

[Tom Joad]

69. Israel calls shelling of Gaza Legitimate.

[Tom Joad]

70. U.S.A. calls fire-bombing of Dresden Legitimate.

Thousands dead.
As Billy would say, so it goes.

[Coastie for Truth]

71. Will you be in San Jose Friday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x27699-

stop by Premier Pizza and I'll spring for a Beer and Pizza. Click on over to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x27699 and let me know.