Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

And the loser is.... Israel. Again. By Ori Nir

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 11:49 PM
Original message
And the loser is.... Israel. Again. By Ori Nir
Israeli voters did not hand down a verdict yesterday. They have not given a clear mandate to any one politician or political party. They did not enthrone a winner, but they left many losers behind.


The biggest loser - and not for the first time - is the Israeli political system. "The political system is shattered," declared Eitan Haber, the chief editorial writer of Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest circulation newspaper, in today's editions. The paper, attempting to capture the outcome of this indecisive election, features on its front page today photos of the two largest parties' leaders - Tzipi Livni of Kadima and Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud - with a large caption that reads: "I won."


Both claimed victory last night, but neither is a clear winner.

True, Livni's Kadima received more Knesset seats - 28 of 120 - compared with Likud's 27 seats. Livni ran an effective campaign and came from behind after having trailed by six or seven seats in public opinion polls only a month ago. Livni "was entitled to feel like the Israeli Obama, even if for only one night," wrote Yedioth's political columnist, Nahum Barnea.


But Livni's victory is short lived. Because in Israel - unlike the U.S. - the winner doesn't take all. In Israel, the winner is not even guaranteed to be the first to attempt forming a government coalition. According to Israeli law, Israel's president assigns that task to the Knesset member that he believes has the best chances to form a coalition. Livni can only form a coalition that includes Netanyahu's Likud. Netanyahu, however, can either form a center-right national unity coalition with Kadima (and other parties) or put together a right wing coalition with several other hawkish and religious parties.


Livni, therefore, may have won the battle, but she lost the war. Most political analysts believe that President Shimon Peres will assign Netanyahu with the task of forming the next government coalition. Netanyahu can easily construct a bloc of more than 61 Knesset members - more than half - to obstruct any attempts by Livni to form a coalition.


And Likud has not said its last word. This morning's tally is not yet final. It does not include the Israeli soldiers' votes. Young soldiers usually support right wing parties and are likely to grant Likud and/or its nationalist partner Israel Beitenu an extra Knesset seat.


But Likud cannot regard itself a real winner either, with less than a quarter of the Israeli parliament's seats and with expectations for a much more decisive victory.


Big losers last night were Israel's traditional Zionist left wing parties. The Labor Party received only 13 Knesset seats and Meretz only three.


The election results are bad news for the region's security and stability. They are very bad news for the Obama administration, which seems determined to push for Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab peace.


Netanyahu has never been a supporter of the two-state solution. His vision is of an "economic peace" between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank. Practically, that means improving the living conditions of the Palestinians as an alternative to trying to accommodate their national aspirations for independence and sovereignty. For the Palestinians, the Arab world, the U.S. government and the international community, that is a non-starter.


Netanyahu's rejectionist approach pits the future Israeli government against the Obama administration and sends a belligerent message to the Palestinians and to the Arab world.


The possible inclusion of Avigdor Lieberman's ultra-nationalist, racist Israel Beitenu Party in the future coalition will further provoke and antagonize the Arab world. The Obama administration will not easily find the Israeli ally that it so much needs to push its new regional policy.


The political crisis created by yesterday's elections both underscores and further exacerbates the chronic instability of the Israeli political system. That instability has cut the four-year term of most recent Israeli governments by half. Political experts already predicted last night that Israeli voters will make their way to the polls for another general election in two years or less.

Ori Nir, a former Israeli journalist, is the spokesman for Americans for Peace Now.

http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090211187-and-the-loser-is-israel-again-by-ori-nir.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. The Nut and Yahoos coalition prevailed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rwheeler31 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is so sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-09 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
3. Europeans fearful over rise of right wing in Israeli elections
<snip>

"As the two leading candidates in Israel's election continued to claim victory, many Europeans expressed fear Wednesday that the shaky peace process was the real loser in the nearly deadlocked vote.

With an ultranationalist in the role of kingmaker, many were predicting that the hawkish Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu would eventually prevail over the moderate Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni - hardening the government's stance in already stalled Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The ambiguous election results threaten President Barack Obama's desire to make a peace deal an urgent priority, as signaled by his appointment of veteran negotiator Sen. George Mitchell as special envoy, European politicians and commentators said.

Andrew Gwynne, a Labour Party legislator in Britain who chairs a pro-Israeli group, said he was disappointed by the results, which he said are likely to bring Netanyahu's rightwing Likud Party back to power.

"That seems the most realistic outcome, sadly, although I would like to see a progressive government committed to the peace process," said Gwynne, chairman of Labour Friends of Israel.

In the past, Netanyahu has strongly resisted compromising with the Palestinians.

The rising influence of Avigdor Lieberman, whose ultranationalist party won enough seats to become the third-leading force in Israel's Parliament, also caused alarm. His party pushed Israel's once formidable Labor Party, which has often pursued peace, into fourth place.

"Can you imagine anything further from the proposals of Barack Obama than the xenophobic ideas proposed by Lieberman," asked Italy's left leaning La Repubblica newspaper.

The Swiss daily newspaper Basler Zeitung said the vote showed the majority of Israelis don't believe in peace and that impetus toward a settlement must now come from outside."

more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. "Peace process"?
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 12:28 AM by Chulanowa
The"peace process" has been floating and rotten in the kiddy pool since Bill Clinton let Bibble Nutty-yahoo mangle it back in the 90's. Kadim wasn't going to touch it. Labour wasn't. Every major party in Israel was stumbling over itself to promise more and more dead Arabs to Israelis.

And the people of Israel, like good bloodsport aficionados, rewarded the maniacs with first, second, and third places in the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. How can someone who knows so little express it so much?
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 12:21 PM by Chulanowa
You really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, do you? I believe we've covered all this ground before, which had resulted in total radio silence from you after I slapped each of your ridiculous points out of the water. Yet here you are again, repeating them.

The"peace process" has been floating and rotten in the kiddy pool since Yasser Arafat unleashed his war of terror on Israel

Ah, there you go about the second intifada. Since I've already deboned your claim that it was orchestrated by Arafat previously, let's look at another facet of your lack of knowledge.

The Oslo Accords occurred in 1993. Israel completely refused to abide by any of its agreements. Settlements continued to be built, assassinations continued to be administered, and the demands being made from Rabin to Arafat kept changing. My personal favorite is demanding that Arafat beef up security, spoken in almost the same breath as a demand that Arafat cut down on the Palestinian Authority's police force. Well, actually it's a tie between that, and the negotiations at Oslo where the Palestinians were given maps that were twenty years out of date to go by...

And then an israeli patriot terrorist murdered Rabin and Bibi became prime minister in 1995.

But apparently, according to the Henank way of looking at the world, there was the 1993 Arafat-Rabin handshake, and then we should just you know, skip over seven years of history so we can come right to the Second Intifada, where we can then proceed to ignore every single reason given for it by anyone who might actually be involved in it, and instead accept unflinchingly the claim from an Israeli bureaucrat that it was all orchestrated by a senile old man who couldn't even organize his own eyeballs.

Apparently it's absolutely vital that we do not look at how, exactly, Israel conducted itself during those seven years. Because if we looked at that period, well, maybe the Arabs won't look so crazy so easily. We can't have that, can we?

Every major public statement in Arabic by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders to the Palestinians was stumbling over itself to promise victory, total annihilation of Israel and more and more dead Israelis to Israelis the Arabs.

Ah yes, the claim that Arafat was saying one thing in English, and another thing in Arabic. Man, I haven't seen that claim since 2003 when I set cruising right-wing boards behind me. Unfortunately, Henank, this claim relies entirely on the assumption that nobody understands Arabic except Arafat's audiences. As I'm sure you know, though, lots of people understand Arabic. I myself understand a smattering of spoken Arabic - can't read it worth a damn, I'm afraid. Among hte people who understand Arabic are reporters, statesmen, human rights officials, and many, many other people who would just love to know when, exactly, Arafat was talking about the destruction of Israel, post-Oslo.

How 'come you have the minutes of these apparently super-secret speeches that nobody heard? What, exactly, is your source? Is it newsmax or chronwatch?

No, my friend, Arafat did no such thing (the leaders of Islamic Jihad on the other hand...). Arafat spent most of the time he used in speechifying to the palestinians harping on the great and wonderful things that would come out of the Oslo Accords, if only the people of Palestine would give it time, more time, more and more time. Basically, Arafat spent the years between Oslo and his death plying his trade as a snake oil salesman, trying desperately to keep his own people - who could see that this non-elected carp-faced son of a bitch had basically sold them all for beads and whistles - from stringing him up like a goose.

And the Palestinians, like good bloodsport aficionados, rewarded the maniacs with first, second, and third places in the government by electing Hamas. The Israelis suffered years of suicide bombings, shootings and stabbings.

I like how you do your history. First it's 1993 and Oslo, then we skip seven years to 2000 and the Second Intifada, then we skip six more years, to the election of Hamas in Gaza. Where oh where will this whirlwind journey end?

The Israelis did suffer years of suicide bombings courtesy of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They did suffer many shootings and yes, even some stabbings. On top of that we have the occasional fatality from a rocket. 1,053 Israelis have been killed. between the start of the Second Intifada and April 30, 2008 (courtesey B'Tselem).

Now, we could stop there, with a little sad look at our feet over all those pointless and undeserved murders. In fact, if you were still running this Willy Wonka-style boat ride through history, I'm sure this is right where we'd stop. Oh, the Israelis, look at the burden they bear, look at their blood on the pavement, and feel shame, O Chulanowa, feel shame, right?

Israelis murdered 4,789 Palestinians during the second Intifada (B'Tselem, again). They murdered 1,300 or so more a few weeks ago. With Captain Bibbles leading the parade now, I expect we'll see the number increase by a couple thousand more in the years to come.

I use "murder" in both cases, because it is not a war. Calling it a war would legitimize both Palestinian terror, and Israeli mass reprisals. You cannot have a war where only one side is allowed to have a military and target civilians, can you?

Back to your point, such as it is, can you really compare the election of Hamas to the election of Likud and Yisraeli Betinu? To begin with, the Palestinians simply don't have a healthy political system. In Gaza there was Fatah, and there was Hamas. Let's compare the two.

Fatah was, basically, every caricature the right Wing comes up with about Democrats, given body and form. They would take your money, then either throw you in prison for saying the wrong thing or they would actively help your nation's enemies kill you. Fatah party members worked closely with Shin Bet and Mossad to "police" Gaza, they gathered money but embarked on no public works, and basically capitulated on every single thing that ever came up. Fatah had a fair share of torture prisons for its political opponents terrorists, and probably added an additional two thousand or so to the nearly five thousand Palestinians killed during that time period.

Hamas was pretty much the opposite. To steal more American political idioms, they were "tough on defense" and "fiscally sound." Not only was Hamas willing to shoot at Israel (always a bonus if you're in a country constantly getting bombed and shot up), but it also used money for things like hospitals and job creation. Of course there were drawbacks, such as the whole "Israel wants them, their families, and their dogs" dead, paired with the fact that Hamas thinks they are hezbollah, in the same way your housecat thinks it's a ferocious tiger while it poops in a box.

Hamas' primary reasons for victory in Gaza was twofold. First, there were only two parties running, and two, the other guys had torture prisons and collaborated with Israel for money.

Now can we really compare this screwed up situation with this recent Israeli election? I'd honestly say that's pretty insulting to Israel's political system which, while flawed, at least has a wide variety of options, coupled with a broad and diverse population, most of whom aren't living off grass clipping stew.

I guess what I'm saying is that, given their options, I can understand why Gazans would pick Hamas - they have two options and one of those options wants to rob and kill them, so they go with option B. But I can't really get why Israelis, so often portrayed as a field of sparkling stars in the black void of the middle east, would elect a pair of violent and racist parties, given all the options and issues and affluence at hand. I can attribute Hamas to a lack of options at hand, but Likud and Yisraeli Betinu? No, those fucks are there because people honestly wanted them there - this says much more about hte people of Israel than Hamas says about the people of Gaza.

After the withdrawal from Gaza Israel continued to suffer from more years of intense rocket fire thereby ensuring that Israelis will think twice, three and four times before handing over more territory to the bloodthirsty Palestinians.

Bloodthirsty Palestinians huh?

Bloodthirsty compared to what, exactly? As far as occupied people under violent military colonialism go, the Palestinians are pretty fucking sedate, you realize. I imagine the map of our country would look quite a bit different if there had been as many Shawnee as there are Palestinians, don't you? Imagine if Shaka Zulu had had access to missiles and automatic rifles. The only occupied people I can think of who are less violent, would be the goddamned Tibetans, and that could change swiftly after the Dalai Lama dies.

"Handing over more territory" - I like how you phrase it as if it's Israel's territory to hand over in the first place. You know, perhaps if Israel actually "handed over" all of that land it's stolen, the Palestinians would be a lot less "bloodthirsty." One thing's for certain, holding onto it isn't going to improve the situation at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Ah, last defense of the defenseless - "google it yourself"
A good day to you, Henank. Same time next week?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Douglas Carpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. more of the same tiresome and tideous racist bullshit over and over and over again
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 08:57 AM by Douglas Carpenter
if someone repeatedly posted this hateful, racist - craziness about any other people .. they would have been banned a long, long, long time ago.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Indeed, let us hang our heads and reflect...
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 12:33 PM by Chulanowa
Let us ask ourselves, why is it Vegesaurus only displays this "concern" in the context of trying to make Israel look better?

Where was his outrage at the rape and murder of Arab women at the hands of the Hussein triumvrate of Iraq?
Why did he not shower us with his outrage at the use of chemical weapons against the beleaguered defenders of Iran?
Where is his pain, at the sight of seeing Bedouins across the Arab world be forcibly settled?
Where are the tears for the plight of the Ma'dan?
Where was his sorrow at the expulsion and state executions of thousands of Palestinians and Bidoon in Kuwait after the Emir regained power?
Why does he not speak more often of the horrors perpetrated against good and decent Arabs of Muslim and Christian faiths by the governments of Algeria and Egypt?
Why does his heart not wrench at the ongoing plight of the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank, who suffer not just from Israel, but from an incompetent governance and apathetic "allies"?

Let us ponder these heavy thoughts, and dream of reasons why oh why, Vegesaurus can only dredge up a mote of sympathy for those eleven million dead Muslims, in the context of "only" tens of thousands killed by Israel over sixty years.

Let us also wonder at why, despite showing such concern, Vegesaurus always seems so smug and pleased about this number...

But let us not ask for a source, and take him solely at the value of the face he presents to us...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
9. Actually, the biggest losers are the Palestinians.

This election means that warfare, occupation and the expansion of the settlements are sure to continue. That inflicts a little harm on Israel but - despite what the Israeli lobby would have you believe - Palestinian violence actually only kills very few Israelis (although, obviously, that's still too many). But for the Palestinians, it's a catastrophe - Israel will continue to kill large numbers of innocent Palestinian civilians, and to oppress and impoverish all of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. i agree ...the Palestinians lose again....but hamas was smart....
its quite known around the israel and the Palestinians that attacking israel during elections will bring about a "right wing govt"....so what does hama do?.shoot some rockets.

its not that they are responsible, but they definitely have an affect....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. You have logic in your hands. Now, rub it on your forehead
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 12:49 PM by Chulanowa
Logic-on! Logic-on! Logic-on! It really really works!

No, seriously. You've almost got it. But this isn't bowling, you don't get a score for knocking over just one pin.

First off, we've covered who, exactly, attacked who. One day there's a cease-fire, the next day missiles and bombs are blowing up in Gaza. So far the only "counterargument" to these facts have been a couple of people trying to redefine "truce."

More to the point, exactly, what exactly does Hamas gain from this election? if you're going to sit there and flap your gums at me and tell me it's a Hamas plot (What isn't, with you?) you're going to have to explain the purpose of this plot.

Of course, like most conspiracy theories, "The Plot," the ever-popular explanation for everything that happens in hte middle east, is pretty much bogus.

This election is exactly what it looks like. Violent militaristic racists deciding they want other violent militaristic racists to run their violent, militaristic racist society. The assault on Gaza had been planned months beforehand expressly to cater to this base - Israeli officials have blatantly said as much.

"Cast Lead" was Israel's superbowl, Pelsar. A publicity stunt to draw out the crowds and fire them up to jostle for which party would bring them even more circus, even at the expense of bread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. pretty funny....
i've read your posts.....they bascially remind me of pravada.....lots of big words....but i'm afraid no real meat to your info. Its a nice and convincing read as long as the reader has in fact little knowledge (first hand knowledge being the real killer) of the history and actual events....... something i do.

and there are some gems designed for emotional impact....my all time favorite is when an army is accused of having plans to attack/defend itself from a potentially hostile neighbor. Most of us call it being a responsible govt...in fact if you really want to get all excited and accuse israel about being nasty, israel has plans to attack egypt, syrian, lebanon, iran..all just sitting on some hard disks somewhere.....ooooh those nasty israelis, preparing for the possible future event.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. And yours remind me of FOX news - all smear, no rebuttal
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 05:22 PM by Chulanowa
Yes, I'm certain Israel has lots of plans sitting on disks covering what to do in such a situation. and you know what? If they're anything like the United States, you can bet your ass that there's just as many disks detailing how to go about an aggressive war against the same countries.

Operation Cast Lead falls into that latter category, friend. Calling Cast Lead "defensive" is like saying Poland was invaded to protect that German radio station on the border
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. a rebuttle?...
most of you posts is made up of conclusions based on info that cant be proven......its all hearsay.....great for the chearleaders but not much meat behind them.

you probably believe intifada II was spontaneous......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. In fact I don't
And have said nothing to the effect of that. I have called it a popular uprising, and pointed out that Arafat had no part in it aside from some piss-diddle propaganda to try to keep the lynch mobs out of his office in Ramallah.

Simply put, you can only expect peopel to put up with being dicked around for so long, don't you think? And that's all the Oslo Accords were. it was Rabin and Arafat clutching hands, looking deep into each other's rheumy, saggy eyeballs and saying in one voice, "Fuck the Palestinians".

The basic deal was, Arafat give Israel free reign to do whatever the fuck it wanted in Gaza and the West Bank, and cave to all demands to the best of his ability. In return he would be allowed to remain in power without too many questions asked, and maybe someday perhaps by chance, Israel might deign to talk about withdrawing from some Palestinian territory.

That's the Oslo Accords in a nutshell. Bizarrely, Israel went back for a second helping in 1995 and tried to wriggle out of some of those promises it had made that were already completely non-binding. Land for peace, the idea was called. Apparently this meant that Israel gets land, and gets to demand peace, too, because the colonies actually expanded greatly during this period, and expulsion of Arabs reached a high point as neighborhoods in East Jerusalem were effectively purged of their Arab population while a wall of Israeli colonies was built around the city, chock full of exclusive roads and armed checkpoints.

The Intifada was the response of a people who had spent the greater part of a Decade watching their "president" kill and rob them while letting an enemy state loot and sack and conquer around them.

Contrary to some thoughts, the Arabs of Palestine aren't actually mindless beasts, but actually are reacting to the events going on around them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #31
40. i plead ignorance.....
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 11:05 AM by pelsar
i really have no idea what went out behind the scenes with oslo...i do know the local leadership of intifada I got screwed by arafat and his gang and i have nothing but loathing for him and his friends...since i do believe the best chance for peace was with the grass roots leadership of intifada I..who know exactly how far to got with the IDF and israelis to get results...and they did...

they got recognition of their existance and the acknowledgement of a future state, ..and then arafat took over with the oslo agreement and threw them all out....


as far as the writen agreement goes, both sides violated...but that was no surprise, that was expected, the hopes were to get beyond the infractions.....and intifafa II started
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Plea granted
It wasn't "behind the scenes" - Madrid, 1991, that was "behind the scenes" and was the beginning of Palestinians starting to notice Arafat might not be in it for them...

What I describe is exactly what the Oslo accords were - Israel making demands and getting htem, in return for non-binding promises to someday talk about Palestinian concerns. And you know, I don't actually blame Israel for this - I just can't blame either party for trying to get the best deal it can, after all. Instead I blame Bill Clinton. You see the mistake made was that the Americans and Norwegians (Okay, pretty much just the Americans) pretended that Israel and Palestine are equal powers. They're certainly not, and I think you and I have gone over this before. End result, Arafat agrees to screw Palestinians.

"Arafat" didn't "throw them all out" - that was part of Israel's demands in Oslo. Israel would only deal with the PLO, period. it was signed in the agreement. Everyone not in the PLO could go fuck a chicken as far as Israel was concerned.

And bullshit, "both sides violated". Arafat bent over so far backwards that his kaffiyeh got stuck in his ample asscrack. The problem of "violation" was in fact designed into the agreement. The most ludicrous example is this...

Israel demanded that the PA do more to curb terrorism. Crack down on Islamic Jihad, Fatah, and Hamas. If the PA failed to do this, they were "in violation of the agreement"
Israel also demanded that the PA reduce its security forces from 18,000 to a more tolerable, four-digit number of some sort. If the PA failed to do this, it was "in violation of the agreement"

You see what they did there? If the Palestinian Authority tried to meet one of those demands, it would be violating the other, wouldn't it? The agreement was designed to fuck the Palestinians, just like every other "agreement" in the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. what...i have to list where the PA failed in its agreement?
one example is what you listed....the PA had a cap according to the agreement on the number of forces.....they ignored it as well as the structure. (its irrelevant why)

thats nothing more than another fact you got wrong....another one.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 03:51 AM
Response to Reply #50
64. The "Why" is quite relevant, as the reasson was to meet one of Israel's other demands
Of course Palestine "failed" in the agreement to cut down its security forces. If it didn't fail at doing so, it would have failed at Israel's demand for increased security. You can't demand a decrease in security forces along with an increase in security. It does not work. That is what Israel did, however.

Oslo.
Was.
Designed.
To.
Fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. The best part is when they post 'debunkers'
From such reputable sites as CAMERA and little green footballs.

Keep in mind that LGF won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" in 2005 and is a right-wing propaganda mill who disseminates the bullshit of Charles Krauthammer and Victor Hanson.

All you need to know about CAMERA is they sponsored a conference called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#.22Israel.27s_Jewish_Defamers.22">"Israel's Jewish Defamers" in which they criticized any Jewish author to write a bad word on Israel. Ha'aretz- the biggest left-wing newspaper in Israel- has also been a frequent target for CAMERA's "facts."

I personally think CAMERA should win an award for their numerous claims that there "have been no new settlements" in the West Bank since Oslo. Amazing that they can say that line with a straight face.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. for someone who makes constant mistakes......
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 03:59 PM by pelsar
your accusations dont really have much impact.....

you really should google first before you post, you'll find less to write, but learn more. For instance, learn about the aquifers, thats an easy one to start with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. You should learn about your own water sources
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 04:22 PM by Idealism
In the Middle East, water is a resource of great political concern. Since Israel receives much of its water from two large aquifers which are sprawled across the Green Line, the use of this water has been contentious in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since some of the wells used to draw this water lie within the Palestinian Authority areas, there are many who question the legality of using the water for Israeli needs.<99><100><101>

But critics of this argument point out that even though Israel withdraws some water from these areas, it also supplies the West Bank with approximately 40 MCM annually, contributing to 77% of Palestinians' water supply in the West Bank, which is to be shared for a population of about 2.3 million.<102>

While Israel's consumption of this water has decreased since it began its occupation of the West Bank, it still consumes the majority of it: in the 1950s, Israel consumed 95% of the water output of the Western Aquifer, and 82% of that produced by the Northeastern Aquifer. Although this water was drawn entirely on Israel's own side of the pre-1967 border, the sources of the water are nevertheless from the shared groundwater basins located under both West Bank and Israel.<103> By 1999, these numbers had declined to 82% and 80%, respectively.<99><100><101>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Resource_distribution


Like I said, two aquifers that both hold jurisdiction to, but guess who gets WAY more of the water? Odd how that works out, considering more of the water is located directly under Palestinian territory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. I think he'll watch it next time he tells people to google something...
Maybe next time he'll present his own facts instead? it would be nice, wouldn't it, to be able to compare facts and discuss?

Am I the only one noticing the irony of the people defending the Palestinian side being the ones with all the arsenal, and the pro-Israeli side is the one armed with rocks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. try again.....
no......your defenses arent really based on facts....nor anything near what the Palestinians or israelis do as two societies.....you make assumptions based on nothing that even comes close the reality...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. I'm afraid they certainly are based on facts
And given that your only counter-argument has been to tell me "nuh uh" without providing a single fact to counter my statements, I'm going to assume that oyu know damn well I'm telling you the truth, but you're incapable of admitting it, sincethat would damage that precious machismo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #32
34. like this one?
Every major party in Israel was stumbling over itself to promise more and more dead Arabs to Israelis.

funny how i cant recall "arab dead" being on the campaign platforms of any of the parties..perhaps you can link me to those promises or perhaps just "made up this fact"...or perhaps you just decided it was a fact, because you think it is....

go for it....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. Erm... Then you don't think very hard
Likud's platform includes the complete dissolution of any idea of an Arab state west of the Jordan River.
Yisrael Beiteinu's platform hinges around expulsion of Israeli Arabs, total conquest of the occupied lands, and a "hard line" approach towards Arabs in general.
Kadima declares that Israel has an inherent right to the "whole of Israel" but that some territory might be given up (that some territory being Gaza and whatever patches of the West bank lack colonies) , and pays lip service to the "road map"

One party flat refuses to recognize the possibility of a Palestine.
The other will create such a nation by expelling all Arabs from Israel and hten beating hte fuck out of anyone who complains
The final party basically wants to keep the status quo.

True, none of them outright say "We're going to kill a whole lot of Arabs"... But that's precisely what the results are. When we pair it up with pre-election bloodsport like "Operation Cast Lead" and Shimon Peres' "Operation Grapes of Wrath" the intent of these parties becomes awfully clear.

What the fuck do you think "tough on defense" and "hard line approach" and "will not negotiate" mean, Pelsar? it's Bureaucrat-speak for "We're going to make a pile of bodies." Sort of like how Lockheed Martin only sells "defensive systems" that will "neutralize" their "target" - It's bad business to say "We sell missiles that blow people into bloody chunks" after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. There is a definite trend
They like to tell you how wrong they are, but offer nothing in return. We are expected to believe some people "just know things." Things not published on any website or in any book... When asked to provide evidence of their claim, they deflect the question or resort to a broad brush attack to the effect of "this is expected from someone like you". It is quite sad, as I would like to have a civil debate with certain people on topics here. Most are out of reach, I fear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. the trend is accusations that "hold no water"
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 08:47 AM by pelsar
care for a short list?

israel has control over all of gazas borders...took about a year after israel left for most of those who did the accusing to accept that egypt and PA/hamas in fact control their own border

(fun fact-after israel left and the euros went to the border, the cameras installed were all turned off))

after israel left gaza the settlers went to the westbank (about 2 families.....)

after israel left gaza the settlements grew exponentially (there is no data on settlement growth that is public-try and find it.....)

israel broke the ceasefire with hamas in 2008 (except there was none......)
______

an intelligent discussion can be held when facts are presented or at least one trys to keep to them as much as possible.....making accusations that are patently false is hardly the basis for a discussion.....one first has to explain how they are not true....

try doing the research before the posting....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #35
38. About those settler numbers
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 11:13 AM by azurnoir
you know the 2 families

Nine Israeli families have moved to a valley deep in the West Bank, setting down six trailer homes and promising Friday to bring more to the disputed area the Palestinians want for a future state.

The action - funded in part by a private U.S. group - is the latest Israeli settlement activity to anger Palestinians as peace negotiators try to reach a final agreement outlining borders. U.S. President George W. Bush hopes to get the sides to complete a deal by the end of the year.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954698.html

Of the 39 families evacuated from the Morag settlement, 23 are here in Ofra, a large settlement not far from the Palestinian city of Ramallah.

The West Bank settler population is about 240,000. With the number increasing by more than 10,000 a year, the growth will offset those who have been removed, even if none of the evacuees resettle in the West Bank. The figures do not include Israelis in East Jerusalem.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/international/middleeast/23settler.html

Former Gaza settlers said Wednesday they plan to move their mobile homes to a former army post in the West Bank and that they were informally assured of government backing.

http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/palestine/3481.html

The number of Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank has grown by more than 9,000 so far in 2005, an Israeli interior ministry official has said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4188216.stm

from wiki in 2004 there were an estimated 234,487 Jewish settlers on the West Bank. In 2006 there were an estimated 282,400 settlers in the same area or a growth rate of about 24,000 a year both figures exclude East Jerusalem

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

edited to change figure from 14000 to 24000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. see how that works...very good.....
i had remembered about two....and did not check before i wrote...and stand corrected.

NO PROBLEM......


_____

the actual settlements have no official public database and whereas the numbers have grown there was no major increase after the gaza pullout...which is part of the standard excuse i read when someone tries to explain why the gaza pullout was nothing more than a trick by the israeli govt (it has to be a "trick" because the israeli govt would never do anything that might help the Palestinians with their independence....like self govt.....)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #39
45. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, Pelsar
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/07/gaza-israel-palestine

"In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace."

Now, I'm not sure what the annual average of Jewish colonist influx into the West Bank is, but 12,000 seems like kind of a large number. Especially considering that at the time, Israel was supposed to be following that "road map" which called for a freeze on colonies.

And... self government? You're kidding, right? That's a joke, I'm sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:02 PM
Original message
an excellent example of why one should research before posting....
But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank

Now, I'm not sure what the annual average of Jewish colonist influx into the West Bank is, but 12,000 seems like kind of a large number.


once again one has to show the facts...(and some wonder why there is not a serious disussion here.....)...and the facts are just two posts above (the annual number is 24,000)

-----
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=260046&mesg_id=260293\\

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4188216.stm

from wiki in 2004 there were an estimated 234,487 Jewish settlers on the West Bank. In 2006 there were an estimated 282,400 settlers in the same area or a growth rate of about 24,000 a year both figures exclude East Jerusalem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
____________________


And... self government? You're kidding, right? That's a joke, I'm sure.
oh and another fact: the govt in gaza, you know hamas....i believe they are now the de facto govt of gaza....and they are there only because israel left gaza
(should i be keeping a list of all the things you get wrong?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
49. I did miss that, thanks
Though given the increase of "settlements" in and around East Jerusalem, I must wonder why they were omitted...

And yes, I know, Hamas. The government that Israel has been trying to destroy for two years now through gratuitous violence, assassinations, border blockades, and Israel-funded coup attempts. You can call it "self rule" if you like, but it's pretty farcical to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. so hamas is not running gaza?
do they know this?....and if not them is israel doing it by remote control?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Are they?
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 01:29 PM by Chulanowa
Israel controls Gaza's coast and airspace, and has repeatedly demonstrated that controlling the land wouldn't be too difficult either. It engages in frequent assassinations against members of hamas, militant or no, as well as against their families and associates. Israel targets Gazan civilians without fear of retaliation either from Hamas or other nations. Israel forments and funds coup attempts by Fatah and other rival powers in Gaza.

Can Hamas really be said to be "in charge" in light of all this, Pelsar? Can you tell me with a straight face that, even while Israel forcefully dominates pretty much all aspects of Gazan society, that the people there have "self rule?"

If so, you must say the same thing about the Warsaw Ghetto. Or the Soviet "Republics"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. you certainly mix up stuff to make a point....
and has repeatedly demonstrated that controlling the land wouldn't be too difficult either

what has that got to do with hamas being in charge of gaza or not...israel can also invade jordan......


and in fact hamas has proven it several times..first and formost by the tedhidya (spelling?) that it made with israel and when it was time to renew, for reasons that only hamas knows decided against it....they certainly rule gaza from a government point of view, they decide who gets the social services, the jobs, the division of the limited resources...all define govt actions.



really...cant you stop with the non proven story telling...
Israel forments and funds coup attempts by Fatah and other rival powers in Gaza.......there are more than enough to write about without the fantasy interpretations (psst-funding the PA was part of the agreement and helping them with their security needs and hamas was clearly a threat-as they took over gaza by force)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. How can you live next door and be so utterly ignorant?
Or do you live in the town in Missouri named "Israel" or something? Is this like how 1/3 of all people on FreeRepublic and other right-wing sites are "ex-marines"? :shrug:

Israel could invade Jordan. In fact Israel Harel, in an article in Haaretz, advised that Israel must "stake its claim" to Jordan - this immediately after Jordan gave up its claim to more land that Israel had stolen in 1967 as part of a "peace agreement" with Israel. However, there's a big difference - Israel hasn't conducted devestating ground invasions of Jordan, it has done so in gaza. So maybe they could roll over Jordan's armed forces - but htey certainly have done so to gaza.

And as for why Hamas declined to continue its cease-fire, that could be because Israel had just a few days prior shown its unwillingness to abide by the agreement. Bomb my country while we're under a truce, and no, I'm not going to extend my trust to you a second time.

Hamas took gaza by force? No, in fct they won the gazan elections, and Fatah refused to honor the resutls of those elections. Fatah started shooting first, and Hamas, as one could expect, shot bck - and happened to have more men and more guns. Israel decided to pitch in with Fatah, against the election results. They continue to work with Fatah to stage assassinations and target hamas members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #59
66. i guess my "ignorance" stems from living in the area...and having more news sources than some here
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 05:20 AM by pelsar
Fatah started shooting first, and Hamas, as one could expect, shot bck

we'll keep this simple..one accusation at a time...... and proof at a time:

LINK?

the proof were looking for, just to clarify, is that Fatah starting shooting first..btw, and dont forget to include the 'starting date" of the shooting that started it (and dont forget to include why you chose that date and not an earlier one or later-when hamas was doing the shooting)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #66
70. Right here
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 05:52 AM by Chulanowa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah-Hamas_conflict

"On December 15, 2006, fighting broke out in the West Bank after Palestinian security forces fired on a Hamas rally in Ramallah"

The two had been popping shots at one another in Gaza and the West bank, without it being clear who exactly opened up first - as usual when reporting deaths in Palestine, it was described as "clashes", a nice, neutered word. However December 15 was a "Shit meets fan" moment

Now, before you return to your sweeping insults and non-informative "counterarguments" and assertions about my mother absed on my not picking your favored date, whatever it is, I do have a question for you...

What would be the reaction in Israel's government, if a new party took power and the IDF refused to follow its orders? Would there be factional fighting, do you think? Who would shoot first? If the Duly elected government opened fire first, and succeeded in suppressing the attempted military coup, would you call it "taking Israel by Force" or would you call it "Protecting Israeli Democracy"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. an excellent example of why one should research before posting....
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 01:03 PM by pelsar
But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank

Now, I'm not sure what the annual average of Jewish colonist influx into the West Bank is, but 12,000 seems like kind of a large number.


once again one has to show the facts...(and some wonder why there is not a serious disussion here.....)...and the facts are just two posts above (the annual number is 24,000)

-----
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=260046&mesg_id=260293\\

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4188216.stm

from wiki in 2004 there were an estimated 234,487 Jewish settlers on the West Bank. In 2006 there were an estimated 282,400 settlers in the same area or a growth rate of about 24,000 a year both figures exclude East Jerusalem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
____________________


And... self government? You're kidding, right? That's a joke, I'm sure.
oh and another fact: the govt in gaza, you know hamas....i believe they are now the de facto govt of gaza-at least they believe so (and you know better than them because....)....and they are there only because israel left gaza
(should i be keeping a list of all the things you get wrong?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
57. I don't even know where to begin...
First off: who has said these things?

israel broke the ceasefire with hamas in 2008 (except there was none......)

Israel and Hamas ceasefire begins
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7462554.stm

Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians

So you don't believe there was a cease-fire agreed upon by both sides? You mean there was no Egpytian-brokered tahdiya? The one that went on with no injuries or casualties until a November 4th IDF raid that killed 6 Palestinians? That cease-fire, the one that Israel and Hamas agreed to, and Israel's military intelligence (and their http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfFMZ7Y-s_c">government spokesmen Mark Regev) said that Hamas was keeping their end of the bargain up- even deterring other militant groups from firing rockets? Even http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1000881.html">arresting members of the Al-Aqsa Brigades that fired rockets into Israel, even arresting the http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2008/06/2008629141838866503.html">Al-Aqsa spokesmen for continued attacks? You mean THAT "non-cease fire?"

after israel left gaza the settlements grew exponentially (there is no data on settlement growth that is public-try and find it.....)

Here is some settlement data- Amazingly it IS public!. I don't think anyone has said they have grown exponentially since the disengagement plan without being corrected, but they have certainly grown more than their average birth rate, indicating that there has been an increase of emigration to these settlements.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Settlements/Settlement_population.xls

At the end of 2008, the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem) contained 121 settlements that the Interior Ministry recognized as “communities,” even though some of them contain stretches of land on which the built-up area is not contiguous. Twelve other large settlements and small settlement points are located on land annexed by Israel in 1967 and made part of Jerusalem. There are an additional 100 or so unrecognized settlements, referred to in the media as “outposts,” which are usually smaller than the recognized settlements.

By the end of 2008, the number of settlers in the West Bank stood at 479,500. This figure is based on two components: according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), in 2008, 285,800 settlers were living in the West Bank, excluding East. In addition, based on growth statistics for the entire population of Jerusalem, the settler population in East Jerusalem at the end of 2008 is estimated at 193,700.

According to CBS’s estimate, in 2008, the settler population (excluding East Jerusalem) grew at a much faster rate than the general population: 4.7 percent compared to 1.6 percent respectively. In 2007, the population of the settlements (excluding East Jerusalem) grew faster than Israel’s general population: 4.5 percent compared to 1.5 percent. Some 40 percent of the settlements’ population growth was comprised of Jews emigrating from Israel and abroad.


The number of settlers in the West Bank has doubled since Oslo, as the graph shows. Here is another graph, if you doubt B'Tselem. This graph only shows from 95-05, and excludes East Jerusalem.

http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/settlement-info-and-tables/stats-data/population-in-israel-and-west-bank-settlements-1995-2005

Israel controls their border with Gaza, Egypt controls theirs. Egypt wants their borders closed with Gaza for numerous reasons- one such reason being that they don't want to make Israel upset. It might lead to the US being upset, and potentially withholding the billions of dollars in USAID we hand to Egypt on a silver platter each year. There are many other reasons working into that equation but the result is Mubarak is looked down upon by the Arab world, for this and other things.

I do so enjoy your attacks of "try doing the research before the posting....," when it is clear you either do not know as much as you think- or that is somehow a conspiracy against Israel to acknowledge the fact that they too have blood on their hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #57
67. confused again..we'll keep this simple...your quotes
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 05:27 AM by pelsar
So you don't believe there was a cease-fire agreed upon by both sides? You mean there was no Egpytian-brokered tahdiya?

simple: Tahdiya is not a cease fire.

hence there was no ceasefire to break (btw tahdiya is the term hamas uses and used in the hebrew papers-since there is no direct western concept for it, the lazier western journalist used the term 'ceasefire".
___

keep posting, you sure do have a lot of misinformation


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #67
71. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. this should be a good explanation.....
since the aquifer goes under PA areas....and they're drilling their own water.....is israel threatening to shoot the drillers?... (or is there an agreement.....and perhaps israel supplies the PA with water from its own sources as well?......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. The aquifers in question fall under both territories
and thus the dispute. The problem is Israeli has been drilling wells side-ways to get more water onto their side of the wall. These are the only two aquifers that Jerusalem and most of Israel draw their water from.

Perhaps you really should google first before you post, you'll find less to write, but learn more. For instance, learn about the aquifers, thats an easy one to start with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. and the Palestinians cant drill because....
wasnt that your accusation that israel steals the water and the Palestinians get very little.....so one must conclude that the Palestinians.....cant drill...

care to explain why?

and why is israel drilling sideways? I assume you have a link to a professional article about it.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
56. Part of Oslo was water rights, which Israel has overlooked
Arafat bent over backwards at Oslo on a number of things, water being one of them. He gave away partial sovereignty over 2 out of 3 aquifers in the West Bank (they only use two; one is so far underground, they don't have the technology nor willpower to undertake the drilling), in exchange for Israel to help drill for Palestinian water. Israel, in return for helping the Palestinians, decided where they would get to have their wells drilled- which coincidentally ended up being the most bountiful wells. The PA controls a fraction of the wells, with Israel and the Israeli settlements controlling most of them.

The Israeli settlements in the Jordan valley take up a considerable amount of water each year, due to the regions arid nature. There is a fear of over-drilling on an aquifer that doesn't allow you to safely drain it of more than a set amount of water each year, for fear that it will not replenish as quick and ultimately dry up. If that were to happen to even 1 aquifer, it would be a disaster for all parties.

Here is a good, short study on Hydropolitics of the region by a hydrogeologist who worked in the West Bank for 8 years.

http://www.juragentium.unifi.it/en/surveys/palestin/water.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dick Dastardly Donating Member (741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 04:24 AM
Response to Reply #56
65. It doesn't say anything about Israel drilling sideways. Israel doesn't have to and never did have to...
even in pre-occupation

The aquifers are not fully located in the WB. The water in the aquifers that are reachable in the WB are of lower quality(too high in salinity to be usable) or unreachable in much of the WB and can only be tapped easily in Israel. Your source even states that


Fig. 3 shows a combination of best drilling conditions
(better in the West Bank, because aquifer is not deeply
buried) and best pumping conditions (better in the
coastal plain, because here the aquifers are strongly
confined): The resulting most favorable well
locations lie mainly in Israel and only in a narrow strip
along the green line inside the West Bank.


Israel's water supply always came from these Aquifers, both during mandate times and when the land was held by Jordan. Israel used to use 95% of this water in the 50s but uses only about 80% as it has allocated more to the Palestinians and Jordanians under Oslo and the Israel Jordan peace treaty. Besides a general drought that has effected everyone, many water problems the Palestinians have stem from themselves such as over pumping, contamination, poor conservation and general mismanagement.

Israel has also increased the supply greatly by using new drilling techniques to reach the water in the mountain aquifer before it becomes unreachable or unusable. Most of this aquifer flows naturally into Israeli territory and the new drilling techniques to recover water that was previously unrecoverable or unusable that has been developed at a big expense and fully implemented over the past 60 years solely by Israel. Israel has historical riparian rights on the principle of prior use.
There has always been water shortages in the area but if it weren't for Israels use of new technology and techniques to get to water it would be much worse. The total water supply and per-capita use in the WB and even Gaza has increased greatly since the occupation.



The proportion of households in the occupied territories with access to safe water rose from 15% in 1970 to 90% in 1991 according to The World Bank linked below. Israel has offered to connect Palestinian villages to the Israels water system and around 250 have done so but many more refuse to be connected to it
Developing the Occupied Territories : an investment in peace
http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main?menuPK=51521804&pagePK=51351007&piPK=64675967&theSitePK=40941&menuPK=64154159&searchMenuPK=51521783&theSitePK=40941&entityID=000009265_3970311123238&searchMenuPK=51521783&theSitePK=40941





clip
Israel obtains roughly 40 percent of its water from the Sea of Galilee and the Coastal Aquifer, both of which are entirely within Israel's pre-1967 borders. Another 30 percent comes from the Western and Northeastern Aquifers of the Mountain Aquifer system. These two aquifers straddle the Green Line that separates Israel from the West Bank, but most of the stored water is under pre-1967 Israel, making it easily accessible only in Israel.

Agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs included discussion of water resources and responsibilities for them. Prior to the Oslo agreements, when Israel had full control of the West Bank, Israel's policy was to ensure a safe supply of drinking water for all inhabitants, although some Palestinian Arab communities refused to be hooked up to the Israeli-built system for political reasons. Annex III, Article 40 of the Oslo II agreement stipulates an increase of water for Palestinian use and sets forth the details of measures each side is to take to achieve this increased water supply. Two-thirds of the increase was to be developed by the Palestinians, one-third by Israel.

After Oslo II, Israel moved expeditiously to fulfill its side of the water development, but the Palestinian Authority (PA) has severely neglected its obligations. In some locations, nothing was done. In other cases, Israel produced wells but the PA did not build the pipes to carry the water to Palestinian Arab consumers. The PA has not repaired antiquated and corroded pipes which cause significant water losses. In line with other corruption rampant in PA-controlled areas, there is considerable theft of water. Water trucks tap the resource illegally from water mains, then sell the water to thirsty customers.

In areas where the PA controls water for Jewish communities, in the vicinity of Hebron for example, there are frequent supply disruptions and shortages. Some of the water that is supplied is undrinkable. Wealthy Palestinians in Bethlehem, Hebron and Ramallah have private swimming pools and ample water supply, a fact that always escapes the notice of pro-Palestinian reporters.

In the 1950s Israel used 95 percent of the Western Aquifer's water, and 82 percent of the Northeastern Aquifer's water. By 1999 Israel's share of those aquifers declined to 83 percent and 80 percent respectively. That is, under Israeli administration the Palestinian share of the aquifers increased. Another 40 MCM (million cubic meters) of water per year from sources within Israel is piped over the Green Line for Palestinian use and additional water is sent to Jordan. Ramallah, for example, receives over 5 MCM annually from Israeli sources. The Palestinians are using Israeli water, not the other way around.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_water.php








Karen Hudes, PhD, JD, Senior Council for the World Bank, in a Sep. 1999 essay titled "Shared Water Resources in the Jordan River Basin," posted in the International Law Journal Across Borders, wrote:

The most important source of water in the Jordan River basin is groundwater. The groundwater reservoir beneath the West Bank is the largest water resource in the region, supplying 600 mcm of water per year. Israel uses 495 mcm/yr. and the Palestinians use 105 mcm/yr. Prior to 1967, Israel had used 455 mcm of the groundwater. After 1967, the Israelis developed a new well system on the upper slopes of the West Bank, which makes it possible to retrieve more groundwater before it becomes saline. This aquifer is the source of 35% of Israel's total annual consumption. For the Palestinians in the West Bank, the aquifer provides 90% of their annual consumption: the rest of the water (15 mcm/yr.) comes from the National Water Carrier, local cisterns and surface waters.
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=539



Lecture Presented by Prof. Emeritus Dan Zaslavsky at Bar-Ilan University on the occasion of the inauguration of an Interdisciplinary Project entitled “Efficient Use of Limited Water Resources: Making Israel a Model State” in the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, sponsored by Soda-Club Ltd., Israel.
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/water/zaslavsky.html


Which treaties/agreements address the issue of water?
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=540


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #56
69. did you just make this up?
they don't have the technology nor willpower

huh? they dont have the "will power"?....wow, how did you figure that one out?.....do have a link that has lead you to this conclusion?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
68. what happened to the drilling sideways?
would you post a link as it sounds interesting ....or did you just make it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #21
82. But they don't make constant mistakes and that post was spot-on...
What exactly have you taken offense to in that post that leads you to think they got something about CAMERA wrong? They didn't get it wrong...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-12-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. Mr. Carpenter, please describe precisely what is racist about the comments
Edited on Thu Feb-12-09 07:03 PM by shira
Maybe it's not okay to criticize extremist leadership and influence in the Arab/Muslim world? To criticize is racist?

Sounds like the crap peddled about those who merely criticize Israel and are accused of anti-semitism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #25
33. I can explain it for you
Edited on Fri Feb-13-09 02:11 AM by Chulanowa
Have you ever heard someone say "Blacks shouldn't complain, they have it way better in the United States than they would in Africa!" Ist's the same basic statement, and is just as racist

Your good friend Vegesaurus just loves to defend Israel by citing this number of "11 million Muslims killed by Muslims, muslims are teh genocide!"

The message is pretty simple. No matter how barbarous the actions of Israel agaisnt the people of Palestine are, no matter how many Palestinian Arabs Israel kills, maims, and drives from their homes, it's all okay because other Muslims elsewhere ahve killed each other at some point.

Vegesaurus is basically saying that because Saddam Hussein killed more Muslims than Israel has, the Palestinians have no right to complain about anything.

This is sort of like going the other way and saying that since the Nazis killed way more Jews than Arabs ever have, Israel has no right to be upset by terrorist actions against it - I have no doubt you would find a statement like that offensive and racist. I certainly would. Same with the one about blacks having it better under racist American treatment than if htey were back in Africa.

It's the "someone in the world is worse off than you, so you can't complain" argument - it's an idiotic argument, often fielded by right-wingers about economics - "you can't be poor because you're not as poor as this Somalian kid!" When you apply it to a race, ethnic group, or some other large chunk of people, it crosses the boundary from "idiotic" to "racist" and "bigoted"

Another, less explicit message in his statement is that Arabs are bloodthirsty savages who are basically cannibals, eager to kill and destroy their own. Again this has its reflections in America, directed towards blacks - the constant hand-wringing over "black on black crime" with nary a word spoken of white-on-black crime, all the way back to the "common knowledge" that black men couldn't be trusted around white women. It's a bestialization of an entire group. They're all bloodthirsty savages. They all just want to kill each other. They're all violent and mindless, etc, etc.

Just for added measure, he refers to "Muslims" and "Arabs" interchangeably. Most Muslims are not Arab. Lots of Arabs are not Muslims - there's a lot of Christian Arabs and Israel probably won't be running out of Jewish Arabs anytime soon. Another pair of little messages, "they all look alike to me" and "Since they're all the same, I get to hit them with one brush"

To top it all off, he never once has cited a source for the claim in the first damn place - for all we know it's just another pulled-from-ass number getting passed around in chain emails, along with dire warnings of what will happen if you don't send it to 50 other people.

I really can't help but think that if his statement was about any other group you would have managed to see the bigotry in it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. What's a "Jewish Arab"?
A Jew who was kicked out of the Arab countries (all 850,000 of them)?

They aren't Arabs.

Do you mean the Israeli Arabs?

They aren't Jews.

The point about 11 million Muslims killing each other is germane to the topic.

Every day some suicide bombers blows up him/herself and lots of other people.

Read today's news, and yesterday's. Most of the dead people are other Muslims.

I guess you don't have compassion for the 35 women and children that a female suicide bomber killed today in Iraq, as they were near a festival.

If Israel killed those 35 people, you'd be condemning Israel's "genocide" of the Palestinians.

The point stands.

People care only about deaths of Muslims when they are killed by Americans or Israelis.

When they kill each other, just turn your back,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Are you for real?
First off... A Jewish Arab is an Arab who practices Judiasm. There's lots of 'em - In Israel mostly, but there's a fair number in Yemen, North Africa, and even Iraq. There are also Persian Jews, Indian Jews, Ethiopian Jews, etc, etc. Jews cover a lot of ethnic groups, just like Christians and Muslims.

Now, as to your "point"....

Where's your compassion, Vegesaurus? Please, do explain to me why you never say anything about the loss of Muslim lives, except when you're trying to say that what Israel's doing is okay? Please explain to me why your "concern" about those 35 dead Iraqis only extends as far as you can use their deaths to prove your "point" that nobody should talk about Israel killing 1,300 Palestinians in two weeks?

As far as I can see, Vegesaurus, you couldn't care less about dead Muslims unless you can use their corpses to your advantage. Such as you're trying to do now.

Basically your statement is, 35 dead Iraqis are more important than 1,300 dead Palestinians. Which is curious because I'm sure you feel that one dead Israeli is more important than 35 dead Iraqis, too.

I'm still curious where you're getting your 11 million figure, however. Here's a couple figures of my own. Since you've apparently found time to show concern for some Iraqis, let's start there.

Gulf War 1: 200,000 Iraqis killed. 3,664 were civilians killed during the carpet bombing of Iraq prior to the start of the ground war.
Aftermath: At least 1 million Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions on Iraq after the war, more than half of them children. Probable estimates of deaths from these sanctions are probably higher, as these are just the deaths recorded by hospitals and human rights groups. Cancer and birth defects from the US's DU ammunition makes its first grand appearance in Iraq.
Dubya's Iraq war: 10,800 Iraqi soldiers died during our renewed attack on Iraq. 23,837 "Insurgents" dead by American hands. 95,000 civilians dead either as a direct result of American arms, or as a result of conditions brought on by the invasion - those 35 people you have decided to care about fit here, as there were no suicide bombings anywhere in Iraq until the American occupation.

So that's 1,329,637 dead Iraqis directly attributable to American action.

Now let's toss in the two Proxy wars - We gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait, and we did supply him with hte logistics, the munitions, the funding, and the chemical weapons for his invasion of Iran.

Five thousand Kuwaitis - at the very least - lost their lives from our green-lighting of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
The Iran-Iraq war, one bankrolled and encouraged by the United States, resulted in the loss of roughly 800,000 Iranian lives (civilian and military) and 500,000 Iraqi lives (likewise)
I can't find a total of how many lives were ended in the 1991 uprising that the United States formented but failed to support in Iraq. There are 200 documented mass graves, however, including one south of Baghdad containing more than 12,000 people.

Want to take a flying guess at how many Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam's regime between 1977 and 1990, when he was our "good guy" in the region, supported by the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia? 'Cause really, we don't have numbers. We know that if we did have a number for that, it would be abominably large. Based on some rough estimates, let's call it 350,00o

So that's at least three million dead Muslims, directly attributable to western action and support, in regards to Iraq alone.

Should I start tallying up the death tolls from the Maniac the United States installed and supported in Iran? How about we try to figure out how many people died from our and Israel's support of the Phalangists in Lebanon? For that matter, how many have died from our creation and loyal support for Israel?

I have a deep suspicion, Vegesaurus, that the 11 million number you rub so hard, is actually vastly smaller in reality. I suspect you know this, thus why you refuse to provide a source for it. However, point remains. The only reason you constantly fling that number around, is to bestialize Muslims and excuse Israel's own barbarism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Start counting
The information gathered here is based on various research institutes, academic bodies, international organizations (such as Amnesty and other bodies that follow human rights), the UN, and governmental agents

Algeria: A few years after the establishment of the State of Israel, there began another war of independence. This time it was Algeria against France, between the years 1954-1962. The number of victims on the Muslim side is a subject for controversy. According to official sources in Algeria it is over a million. There are research institutes in the west that tend to accept that number. French sources have tried in the past to claim that it is only a quarter of a million Muslims, with an additional 100,000 Muslim collaborators with the French. But these estimates are regarded as tendentious and low. Today there is no question that the French killed nearly 600,000 Muslims. And these are the French, who do not stop preaching to Israel, the Israel that in the whole history of its conflict with the Arabs failed to reach even one tenth of that number, and even then, according to the more severe assessments.

The massacre in Algeria continues. In the 1991 elections the Islamic Salvation Front was voted in. The results of the elections were cancelled by the army. Since then a civil war has been raging, between the central government, supported by the army, and Islamic movements. According to various estimates, there have been about 100,000 victims so far. Most of them have been innocent civilians. In most cases it has been horrific massacres of whole villages, women, children and old people. A massacre in the name of Islam.

Algeria summary: 500,000 to 1 million in the war of independence; 100,000 in the civil war in the 90’s.

sudan: the worst series of crimes
Sudan: A country torn by campaigns of destruction, almost all of them between the Arab-Muslim north, that is control of the country, and the south, populated by blacks. Two civil wars have taken place in this country, and a massacre, under government patronage, has been taking place in recent years in the district of Darfur. The first civil war spanned the years of 1955-1972. Moderate estimates talk of 500,000 victims. In 1983 the second civil war began. But it wasn’t a civil war but a systematic massacre suitably defined as ‘genocide’. The goals were Islamization, Arabization and mass deportation, that occasionally becomes slaughter, also for the need to gain control over giant oil fields. We are talking about an estimated 1.9 million victims.

The division between Muslim and other victims is unclear. The large district of Noba, populated by many black Muslims, was served its portion of horrors. The Muslims, should they be black, are not granted any favors. Since the rise to power of radical Islam, under the spiritual guidance of Dr. Hassan Thorabi, the situation has worsened. This is probably the worst series of crimes against humanity since WWII. We’re talking about ethnic cleansing, deportations, mass murder, slave trade, forcible enforcement of the laws of Islam, taking children from their parents and more. Millions have become refugees. As far as is known, there are not millions of publications about the Sudanese ‘Right of Return’ and there are no petitions by intellectuals negating Sudan’s right to exist.

Recent years have been all about Darfur. Again Muslims (Arabs) are murdering (black) Muslims and heathens, and the numbers are unclear. Moderate estimates are talking about 200,000 victims, higher estimates say 600,000. No one knows for sure. And the slaughter continues.

Throughout the atrocities of Sudan, the slaughter has been perpetrated mainly by the Arab Muslim regime, and the great majority of victims, if not all, are black, of all religions, including Muslims.

Sudan summary: 2.6 million to 3 million.
Afghanistan: This is a web of nonstop mass killing – domestic and external. The Soviet invasion, which began on 24th December 1979 and ended on 2nd February 1989, left about a million dead. Other estimates talk of 1.5 million dead civilians and an additional 90,000 soldiers.

After the withdrawal of the Soviet Forces, Afghanistan went through a series of civil wars and struggles between the Soviet supporters, the Mojahidin and the Taliban. Each group carried out a doctrine of mass extermination of its opponents. The sum of the fatalities in civil war, up to the invasion of the coalition forces under American leadership in 2001, is about one million.

There are those who complain, and rightly so, about the carnage that took place as a result of the coalition offensive to overthrow the Taliban regime and as part of the armed struggle against al Qaida. Well, the invasion into Afghanistan caused a relatively limited number of deaths, less than 10,000. Had it not taken place, we would have seen a continuation of the self-inflicted genocide, with an average of 100,000 fatalities a year.

Afghanistan Summary: One million to one and a half million, as a result of the Soviet invasion; about one million in the civil war.
somalia: unending civil war
Somalia: Since 1977 this Muslim state in East Africa has been immersed in an unending civil war. The number of victims is estimated at about 550,000. It is Muslims killing mainly Muslims. UN attempts to intervene, in the interest of peace keeping, ended in the failure, as did later attempts by American Forces.

Most of the victims died not in the battle fields, but as a result of deliberate starvation and slaughter of civilians, in bombardments aimed at the civilian population (massive bombardments of opponent districts, such as the bombardment of Somaliland, that caused the deaths of 50,000 ).

Somalia Summary: 400,000 to 550,000 victims in the civil war.
Bangladesh: 1 of the 3 greatest genocides
Bangladesh: This country aspired to gain independence from Pakistan. Pakistan reacted with a military invasion that caused mass destruction. It was not a war, it was a massacre. One to two million people were systematically liquidated in 1971. Some researchers define the events of that year in Bangladesh as one of the three greatest genocides in (history - IJ) (after the Holocaust and the Ruanda genocide).

An inquiry committee appointed by the government of Bangladesh counted 1.247 million fatalities as a result of systematic murder of civilians by Pakistan’s army forces. There are also numerous reports of ‘Death squads’, in which “Muslim soldiers were sent to execute mass killings of Muslim farmers”.

The Pakistani army ceased only after the intervention of India, which suffered from waves of refugees - millions – arriving from Bangladesh. At least 150 thousand more were murdered in acts of retaliation after the retreat of the Pakistan army.

Bangladesh summary: 1.4 million to 2 million.
indonesia: The massacre commenced with a communist uprising
Indonesia: The biggest Muslim state in the world competes with Bangladesh for the dubious title of ‘The biggest massacre since the Holocaust’. The massacre commenced with a communist uprising in 1965. There are different assessments (of the number of fatalities - IJ) in this case as well. The accepted estimate talks of as many as 400 thousand Indonesians killed in the years 1965-1966, although stricter estimates claim the number is higher.

The massacre was perpetrated by the army, led by Hag’i Mohammed Soharto, who seized power in the country for the next 32 years. An investigator of those years points out that the person who was in charge of suppressing the rebellion, General Srv Adei, admitted: “We killed 2 million not 1 million, and we did good work”. For this argument, we will stick to the lower, more accepted estimates.

In 1975, after the end of the Portuguese rule, East Timor announced its independence. Within a short time it was invaded by Indonesia, who ruled the area until 1999. During these years about 100,000 to 200,000 people were killed, along with the complete destruction of infrastructure.

Indonesia summary: 400,000 killed, with an additional 100,000 to 200,000 in East Timor
Iraq: the destruction of Saddam Hussein
Iraq: Most of the of the last two decades was the doing of Saddam Hussein. This is another case of a regime that caused the deaths of millions. Nonstop death. One of the highpoints was during the Iran-Iraq war, in the conflict over the Shat El Arab River, the river that is created by the convergence of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. This was a conflict that led to nothing but large scale destruction and mass killing. Estimates are between 450,000 and 650,000 Iraqis, and between 450,000 and 970,000 Iranians. Jews, Israelis, and Zionists were not around, as far as is known.

Waves of purges, some politically motivated (opposition), some ethnic ( the Kurdish minority) and some religiously motivated (the ruling Suni minority against the Shiite majority), yielded an astounding number of victims. Estimates vary from one million, according to local sources, to a quarter million, according to Human Rights Watch. Other international organizations quote an estimate of about half a million.

In the years 1991 - 1992 there was a Shiite uprising in Iraq. There are contradictory estimates about the number of victims. The numbers vary from 40,000 to 200,000. In addition to the Iraqis that were slaughtered one must add the Kurds. During Saddam Hussein’s reign, between 200,000 to 300,000 of them were killed in a genocide that continued all through the 1980’s and the 1990’s.

Over half a million more Iraqis died from diseases because of the shortage of medicine, which was the result of sanctions imposed after the first Gulf War. Today it is clear that this was a continuation of the genocide perpetrated by Saddam on his own people. He could have purchased medicine, he had enough money to buy food and to build hospitals for all the children of Iraq, but Saddam preferred to build palaces and to distribute franchises to many in the west and in Arab states. This issue is being exposed in the corruption of the UN’s ‘Oil for Food’ project.

The Iraqis continue to suffer. The civil war that is raging there now - even if some would rather not give that name to the mutual massacre of Sunis and Shiites – is costing tens of thousands of lives. It is estimated that about 100,000 people have been killed since the coalition forces took control in Iraq.

Iraq Summary: 1.54 million to 2 million victims.
Iran Summary: 450,000 to 970,000 victims.
Lebanon: The Lebanese civil war
Lebanon: The Lebanese civil war took place from 1975 to 1990. Israel was involved in certain stages, by way of the first Lebanon War in 1982. There is no disagreement that a considerable part of the victims were killed in the first two years.

The more assessments talk of over 130,000 killed. Most of them were Lebanese killed by other Lebanese, on religious, ethnic grounds and in connection with the Syrian involvement. Syria transferred its support between various parties in the conflict. The highest estimates claim that Israeli activities were the cause of around 18,000 people, the great majority of which were fighters.

Lebanon summary: 130,000.

Yemen: In the civil war that took place in Yemen from 1962 to 1970, with Egyptian and Saudi involvement, 100,000 to 150,000 Yemenites were killed, and more than a thousand Egyptians and a thousand Saudis.

Egypt committed war crimes by incorporating the use of chemical warfare. Riots in Yemen from 1984 to 1986 caused the deaths of thousands more.

Yemen summary: 100,000 to 150,000 fatalities

Chechnya: Russia turned down Chechen Republic demands for independence, and this led to the first Chechen war of 1994 to 1996. The war cost the lives of 50,000 to 200,000 Chechens.

Russia put a great deal into this conflict, but failed miserably. This did not help Chechens, because although they had gained autonomy there republic was in ruins.

The second Chechen War began in 1999 and officially ended in 2001, but it has not really ended, and number of the victims is estimated at 30,000 to 100,000.

Chechnya summary: 80,000 to 300,000 fatalities.
smaller confrontations
From Jordan to Zanzibar: In addition to the wars and the massacres, there have also been smaller confrontations, that have cost the lives of thousands and tens of thousands, of Muslims and Arabs (killed) by Muslims and Arabs. These confrontations are not even taken into account in the tables presented on these pages, because the numbers are small, relatively speaking, even though the numbers of those killed are far higher than the numbers of the victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here are some of them:

Jordan: 1970 to 1971 the Black September riots took place In the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. King Hussein was fed up of the Palestians use of the country and their threatened to take control of it. The confrontation, mainly a massacre in the refugee camps, took thousands of lives. According to estimates provided by the Palestinians themselves - 10,000 to 25,000 fatalities. According to other sources - a few thousand.

Chad: Half of the population of Chad are Muslims: In various civil wars 30,000 civilians have been killed.

Kosovo: In the mainly Muslim area of Yugoslavia about 10,000 were killed in the war there from 1998 to 2000.

Tajikistan: Civil war from 1992 to 1996 left about 50,000 dead.

Syria: Hafez Assad’s systematic persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood ended in the 1982 massacre in the city of Hama, costing the lives of about 20,000 people.

Iran: Thousands were killed in the beginning of the Humeini Revolution. The precise number is unknown, but is somewhere between thousands and tens of thousands. The Kurds also suffered at the hands of Iran, and about 10,000 of them were murdered there.

Turkey: About 20,000 Kurds were killed in Turkey as part of the conflict there.

Zanzibar: In the earlyu 1960’s the island was granted independence, but only for a short time. At first, the Arabs were in power, but a black group, made up mainly of Muslims, slaughtered the Arab group, also Muslim, in 1964. The estimates are that 5,000 to 17,000 were killed.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Thank you for the numbers
it's only taken me banging you head about six times for you to cough it up.

Now I suggest you go through all that information you just copy-based, and do a real count. Iraq fought a proxy war for the United States against Iran. The fatalities of that war are thus on the hands of the United States. The same can be said of Israel and the US' involvement in the Lebanese civil war, which was primarily Christian-on-Muslim violence. Chechnya and Bosnia are both examples of a Muslim group being murdered and oppressed by a Christian western group. You can try to figure out Afghanistan on your own - there are so many bloody hands coming from so many directions that it's probably impossible to keep track of.

I also see a few head-scratchers in there. Case in point, regarding the deaths from the Iraq sanctions. Lots and lots of people died as a direct result of these sanctions. However the source you cite pins the blame on Saddam Hussein, and not on the nations that formented, implemented, and enforced those sanctions. Nor does it give any blame to the nations who's intentional and targeted destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure was the primary cause of those deaths. Certainly no blame is delivered to the users of depleted uranium bombs and artillery rounds that resulted in a post-war explosion of cancers and birth defects among the people of Southern iraq.

I also note that even while Russian aggression against Chechens gets a note, there isn't a single mention of Palestinians, save for a mention that the King of Jordan was sick of 'em.

So, again. You're presenting me with incomplete info (at best) in an effort to tell me that because the Algerian civil war resulted in a lot of dead people, what Israel is doing is okay. You're also claiming that I have no concern for the dead and threatened muslims of the world, which I'm sure you're aware is quite a lie, and a hypocritical one at that.

If you dig any deeper, you might hit magma.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. If you aren't horrified by the number of deaths I posted
then you aren't paying attention.

Enough with the "proxy war" ****.

Iraq internecine violence has nothing to do with the US.

They are busy suicide bombing and murdering each other to this day.

Same is true in Afghanistan, with the Taliban and their insurgency.

Or between Hamas/Fatah.

And the Darfur Janjaweed (killing millions of people, and also each other).

Among many many others,

You can attempt to blame all this Muslim on Muslim violence on the US or Israel, but it won't make it any more true.

The fact is, these groups would be murdering each other, no matter what Israel or the US did.

But if it makes you sleep better at night to blame someone else, you go right ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #48
53. I'm quite horrified
But if you're going to tell me the US has no hand in Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, or that Israel has no part in Lebanon or Palestine, then I'm afraid that you're utterly full of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. I never said the US had no hand in those countries
but we aren't talking about most of the suicide bombings directed at the US army.

That at least, would make more sense.

But the US (or Israel, in the case of the Palestinians) is not responsible for the internal conflicts which seem prevalent in the Muslim world.

The fact that there is a centuries old conflict between Shia/Sunni is not the fault of imperialism.

The fact that there are so many groups trying to vie for power, is also not the fault of the US/Israel.

The US and Israel (and other western powers) have interfered a lot, but the internal conflicts are separate, and would be there anyway.

The 11 million Muslim on Muslim murder rate really can't be blamed on the West.

They need to look within and figure out the causes and solutions to their own strife.

More to the topic of this forum, until Hamas and Fatah get over their issues, there isn't any chance of them having a state.

They have their own internal work to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Ah yes. "It would happen anyway"
I love that comeback Vegesaurus!

Of course I have to ask... How do we know that these conflicts would have happened with our without our direct hand in formulating and instigating them? It's not as though we can experiment your hypothesis, is it? No, it's an ssumption you are making, based entirely on their being Muslim.

In one fell swoop by saying "but the internal conflicts are separate, and would be there anyway" you not only absolve any and all western powers - Great Britain, France, the United states, Israel, Russia - from any guilt of responsibility, but you also continue to bestialize Muslims with the assertion that these conflicts would continue, simply by virtue of muslims being inherently savage and bloodthirsty.

Basically your statement is no matter how many dictators receive western support, funding, and weaponry, no matter how many coups and assassinations are directly ordered by western powers, no matter how many border disputes were intentionally formulated by the British and French, and no matter how many men, women, children, and babies are killed as a direct result of western bullets, bombs, missiles, bulldozers, and infrastructure destruction, it is always the Arab's fault.

And that is why Douglas Carpenter is calling you a racist, and that is why I agree with hsi assessment of your statements and personal character.

We're done here. have a good day, Vegesaurus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Pointing out facts isn't racist
If Native Americans, who suffered a far worse fate than the Palestinians have sp far, were busy killing each other, I'd say the same.

Of course there were tribal disputes, but were they blamed on US settler expansion?

Were they blamed on outside influences?

There are many other ethnic groups that have suffered terribly, but also aren't killing each other.

Did Jews, who have suffered 2000 years of persecution, denial of rights, outright murder, resort to murdering each other?

No.

So, the internal conflicts within the Muslim sects are theirs and theirs alone.

They would exist with or without outside intervention, because they have been going on this way since time immemorial.

No one is saying that Muslims are "inherently savage and bloodthirsty", but that their internal conflicts far outweigh any external forces or conflicts from the outside.

Those are just the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Hi there. I'm a Native American
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 01:57 AM by Chulanowa
Specifically, I'm Choctaw. Way back when, round about oh, 1812, my people fought like motherfuckers against the Creeks. A real knock-down, drag-out fight.I want you to remember, most Native Americans didn't fight like europeans - they dressed up in pretty reds and blues and stood in lines shooting at each other, while rich people sat on a hill sipping wine and watching. No, we Indians were pretty good at the "massacre" tactic. We would go in, wipe out as many of the adult men as we could, and either sell the women to our neighbors or keep them for ourselves.

Now... Why would we do such a thing to our neighbors in Alabama and Georgia? Were there bitter, ancient tribal rivalries? Unsettlable territorial or religious differences? A little, sure, there had always been some tit-for-tat over the centuries. Bust mostly it was because the Americans were paying us and the British were paying them. Most of the War of 1812 was fought this way - The Americans pitting one Indian tribe against a tribe backed by the British. This is also why Tecumseh failed to win any Choctaw or Chickasaw to his confederation - He was backed by the British, we were backed by the Americans, and even though Tecumseh's federation might have been the last best chance the people of the Americas had to defend what was theirs, we Choctaw said "no thanks, we like-um Greenbacks, not redcoats"

Similarly when my people, along with their Chickasaw brothers, the remaining Creeks, the Cherokee, and the Seminoles the Americans could catch were shipped out to Oklahoma (Choctaw word, by the way, from okla humma, meaning "red people") this act of ethnic cleansing resulted in open warfare between the, ahem. "five civilized nations" and our cousins who were already living there... Since of course the United States had either figured no one owned all that "empty land", or perhaps that all us redskins are the same. Battles were fought between these five nations and the Kiowa-Comanche alliance. Then in turn they scrabbled with new deportees from the upper midwest.

This process was repeated several times, as Canadian expansion pushed the blackfeet south, as American expansion pushed the Lakota and Cheyenne into Absaroka and Hidatsa land. Way up north, Russians transported boatloads of Aleuts into the lands of the Tlingit, Aluutic, and Eyak, creating a fair amount of strife there as well. Spaniards set the so-called "Mission Indians" of California against one another, to say nothing of their recruitment of the Tlaxcala confederacy to tear down the Mexica.

In fact the only case I can really pick out where a bunch of Indians "would have done it anyway" is in the case of the Inca - Pizzaro had the absolute blind luck of crash-landing in Peru immediately after a civil war of succession - a civil war that continued even after Pizzaro had all claimants to the throne burned. Even in this case, there was distant European influence in the civil war - the clear lines of succession had all died from a devastating smallpox outbreak brought south from Panama by traders plying the coasts - Indian traders, European disease.

Were they blamed on outside influences? Well... Yeah, actually, because by and large, most of the infighting after 1492 was the direct, or indirect-but-traceable influence of outside powers.

Were there intertribal rivalries and fights between these people? Of course there were. Are there conflicts between Muslim communities? Of course. Did Indians engage in all-out massacres without pressure to do so either from "The Crown" or "The Great Father in the East"? No. Did Muslims do the same, without western powers fanning the flames, arming the sides, and playing them against one another in an ever-heightening escalation of tension? Again, no.

The facts aren't racist. The manner in which you use them is. For example.
Fact: Black children average lower scores on standardized testing than white students.
Racist conclusion drawn from this fact: Blacks are on average less intelligent than whites.

You are using the deaths of 11 million Muslims to excuse the deaths of probably another million, total, at the hands of Israel. That in itself is pretty vile, Vegesaurus. But to top it all off, you further claim that all of those deaths were the faults of the victims - "It's all the Muslims' fault, everyone else's hands are clean!" - there is not a single entry in your list that does not have western involvement, incitement, and armament involved. not one. Not a goddamn one, Veggy. Some are more distant than others - the Yemeni civil war for instance was pretty much just the Yemenis - but they still used western weapons sold to them by western governments who made promises to both sides just in case that side should win, thus spurring more aggression to get said victory.

You are, in fact, saying exactly that - that Muslims are inherently bloodthirsty. You give us a figure of 11 million dead Muslims. You claim that all of them died at the hands of other Muslims (which is a flat-out lie). You then deny that any of it was caused by anyone other than said Muslims, and even go so far as to break out the old "Shia and Sunni have been fighting forever" bullshit. Your message is very clearly that they kill each other because that's just what Muslims do, and they would do it even without western involvement.

Why you need to point out that they would do it "even without" western involvement while at the same time denying there is any such involvement would be baffling if I didn't already know you were speaking out of the wrong end of your digestive tract.

And yeah, it's against forum rules to call you out on your racism. It's also against them to be racist on the board, this doesn't seem to have phased you much. However, Shira asked, and I felt she (he?) should get an answer - I also believe that you could benefit from someone pointing out what's coming out of your mouth (Well, fingers) as well. I really do try to assume most people expressing the sort of things you do, do so out of ignorance of facts and their own arguments, rather than any genuine belief. Sometimes though, I wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #60
86. Facts? Since when have the East Timorese been Muslim??
That's what that 'factual' article you posted was claiming. To the drooling idiot who wrote that schlock and to anyone stupid to think that stuff is 'fact', the East Timorese are predominantly Christian, ya dingbats! Sheez, how hard is it to get even the most basic fact straight? Apparently very difficult when one's embarked on a Hate Those Arabs And Muslims adventure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-13-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #58
61. Incidentally, calling me a racist is against the forum rules:
Do not publicly accuse anyone of anti-Semitism, racism, or any bigoted bias.


Do not post accusations of anti-Semitism, racism, bigotry, personal attacks, plagerism, duplicate threads or any other rules violation. This includes claims against yourself or other people. Such posts add nothing to the discussion and often create more problems than the original rules violation. Use the "Alert" button instead, the moderators will deal with the post as soon as they are able.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Speaking of "incidentally," Vegesaurus...
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 03:44 AM by Chulanowa
I noted that despite copy-pasting that entire thing, you still failed to cite the source. Interestingly this is another DU rules violation :) Man, I like how you pull a tear-jerker when I explain to you what your statements actually mean, but look at you go with your own violations! Anyway...

For those wondering about Vegesaurus' source for this list, it is an editorial article titled http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html">"A Homemade Genocide" written by Ben Dror Yemini and first published on NRG, a fairly center-right Hebrew-language newspaper (I have no idea if it is a print paper or not as well as online - I don't read Hebrew any better than I read Arabic, I can't find an English language version, and the google translater is only so helpful.) Thankfully, the article itself is printed in English.

Dr. Yemeni starts out with a hell of a straw man - he starts off his article with a claim that the entire world sees Israel as the cause of every conflict that vaguely involves Muslims in any form. And boy does he ever wrestle the fuck out of that straw man. I'm sure Dorothy is shocked at this treatment of her brainless friend.

Segue into an assault on "liberal academia" with a particularly pedantic example of some "leading academic" accusing Israel of a "symbolic genocide." From there it's time to State that Israel, basically, has nothing to do with anything bad anywhere in the middle east. And for good measure, anyone who disagrees is - say it with me now - an antisemite. Now that your loins have been girded with the knowledge that the entire world hates jews and smart liberals are your enemy, we're ready to jump right into the meat of the matter, starting with the Arab-Israeli conflict. The 1948 one, to be exact.

Here's a few excerpts from that section just to show you where Dr. Yemini is going with this thing.

"Most of the Arabs killed in those years were killed in armed struggles of Arabs amongst themselves"
"On Israel’s side there were also barbarous acts, but they were on the fringe of the fringe. Less, far less, than in any other war in modern times."

Not being a Historian (in fact he's a lawyer and a journalist playing at being a historian) I can't help but wonder what exactly Dr. Yemini thinks happened to all the Arabs in cities and towns and villages like Beersheba and Najd and Majdl - Oh, sorry, those are named Sderot and Ashkelon now - Did they just vanish? Did they perhaps immediately convert to Judiasm and run the Israeli flag up the flagpole with no one the wiser? What happened in Dier Yassin (now a suspiciously flat area a few meters north of Yad Vashem)? What events transpired in al-Lydda (now Lod) and Ramla (now Ramleh)? Why do the names "Irgun" and "Palmach" and "Haganah" and "Lehi" and "Givati Brigade" appear next to the names of so many slaughters and exoduses (exodi?) of the 1948 war?

"Fringe of the fringe," I suppose, means "no need to give details of these events." After all, the entire purpose of this article is to excuse Israel of it's barbarisms while simultaneously adulating and justifying them.

Reading on...

Under "The Blood Price of the Muslims" we find the section of the list that Vegesaurus has been using - a list of conflicts involving Muslims, starting from (but completely omitting) Israel's formation. Putting all his numbers together - and using the lowball estimates that he actually encourages - we end up with just under ten million Muslims dead by various means and actors over a sixty year period. Perhaps if we include Israel's conflict with Palestine and its neighbors, or America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we could hit that vaunted 11 million mark? it should of course be noted, he freely makes mention of foreign involvements in these killings, somethign that Vegesaurus has denied even while copy-pasting this very article.

I won't harp too much on Dr. Yemini's omission of those numbers. While it's apparently very easy to figure out how many Afghans have died since the Russian invasion, despite, well, everything in the universe working against such a tally, it is damnably hard to find accurate figures for the victims of American action in the Middle East, or totals for dead Palestinians since 1948. I assume that Dr. Yemini lacks the military credentials to access such classified info, just like the rest of us.

I must note that while he makes passing mention of Israel's involvement in Lebanon's civil war, he makes no mention of its eighteen-year occupation and role in equipping, funding, and uniforming the Phalangist militias. Qana, Sabra, and Chatila certainly never enter the picture.

The rest of the article can be summed up very simply, all of Dr. Yemeni's words compacted into a phrase considerably smaller that conveys the same message.

"Israel hasn't hurt anyone. If it did, it was justified. besides, those numbers are much smaller than these numbers, because I say they are, and that makes whatever Israel has done acceptable. if you call our actions a genocide, you are an antisemite"

Now, moving beyond Dr. Yemini's article onto Vegesaurus' citation of it, I can't really think Vegesaurus got his information straight from this article. Dr. Yemini's point is more "Israeli CYA" than Vegesaurus' "evil dirty muslims" goal. I find two other word-for word google hits of Vegesaurus' post, both of course cribbed from Dr. Yemini's editorial.

The first is on ICJS.org, an Australian "think tank" with an apparent focus on such topics as "Jihad", "Dhimmitude", "Media imbalance", and "neo anti semitism" - none of the links to these topics work, which gives me a hint that perhaps rather than worry so much about evil Muslims, they might want to worry about coding. However the archive section does work, and include such lovely non-racist (According to Vegesaurus' definition) and non-fearmongering statements as these!

"Personally, I think the Arabs will take this rope, wrap it into a noose, place it around their collective necks, and swing in the wind like musical chimes playing a dirge." - Howard Galganov, "A New Chapter In The Sorry Book Of The Palestinians."

"The threat of the radical Islamists taking over Europe is every bit as great to the United States as was the threat of the Nazis taking over Europe in the 1940s." - Tony Blankley, An Islamist threat like the Nazis (via The Washington Times)

"The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations - between the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based on the Koran. And this must be clear. There is no fundamental Islam." - Prf. Moshe Sharon, "Agenda of Islam - a war between civilisations (emphasis his)

"The left was given its chance with the 1993 Oslo peace accords. They proved a fraud and a deception. The PLO used Israeli concessions to create an armed and militant Palestinian terrorist apparatus right in the heart of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel′s offer of an extremely generous peace at Camp David in the summer of 2000 was met with a savage terrorism campaign, the second intifada, that killed a thousand Jews. (Given Israel′s tiny size, the American equivalent would be 50,000 dead.)" - Charles Krauthammer, A Calamity for Israel (Via the Washington Post)

(I include this one primarily because I like quoting Krauthammer making an ass out of himself. The actual population equivalent would be 44,917 Americans. What he naturally doesn't mention is that the Israelis killed 4,897 Palestinians during the Second Intifada - The population equivalent of 618,787 Americans. But of course Krauthammer would never suggest a Palestinian life was anywhere near worth as much as an American one. I won't even go into the farce that was Oslo, I've done so plenty and on the exact example he cites, elsewhere)

"Moderate Muslims don't really understand what "rights" are." - Ronit Fraid, "Moderate Islam"

I could go on, of course, there's lots of articles in the archives that continue down this line, and no shortage of links to pro-Israeli (or perhaps just anti-Arab, hard to tell with some) blogs off to the side. But there's that second website that our good friend Vegesaurus may have cribbed this article of his from.

A blog titled "Who's Fault Is it?" - Of course the title question is rhetorical, since every fault the writer finds lays with either Muslims or liberals. I just love the cartoon he call's "great" in http://whosfaultisit.blogspot.com/2006/10/dutchblog-great-web-blog-by-dutch.html#links"> this post. Isn't that a riot? There's also a salivating review of both Bridgette Gabriel's and Walid Shoebat's books. And on and on and on beats the quite blatant bigotry, hareted, and racism at this particular blog.

So did Vegesaurus snag this bit of info straight from NRG and Dr. Yemini's article? probably not. Dr. Yemini is simply trying to excuse Israel by saying other people have done bad things, too. Vegesaurus' additional claims - that all those deaths were made by muslims against Muslims, that this "would have happened anyway" etc, etc, etc, are not present in the original article, nor in what bit of NRG I can read.

This leaves either the hate-filled, fear-mongering Aussie right-wing think tank, or the blatantly racist and ridiculous "Who's Fault Is It?" blog as a source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #63
72. This is exactly the link from the site where the info came from
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/483/521.html

The rest of your ad hominems and character assassinations aren't worth addressing because you aren't worth my time,

I stand by my statement that while the West, US and Israel have interfered in the middle east, they aren't responsible for 11 Million Muslims killing each other.

The tribal influences and religious disputes are older than Western involvement.

Read a little history and educate yourself.

Bye now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. I'm quite versed in the history; this seems to be the problem
Talking with you about history has certain parallels with trying to explain evolution to a dedicated creationist. No matter what facts are presented, you will demand that I use those facts to explain something totally unrelated all while arguing that your fantasy universe is the real truth.

Goodbye. :wave:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #61
81. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #58
73. very weak rationalization
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 10:45 AM by shira
Genocides are happening at the hands of Islamist leadership in Sudan, Rwanda, Somalia, Afghanistan. There are millions enslaved in Mauritania, but because the West is supposedly behind all this, those situations should be virtually ignored and more time and obsession should be placed on Israel? The victims over there don't count as much as the victims of the Israeli military? It's racist to criticize fanatical Islamist leadership for what they have done?

Let's talk racism, or rather, indifference to racism and hate:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x257956

What do you think about the left's virtual silence WRT the huge spike in antisemitism worldwide? Shouldn't we expect better from "progressives" dedicated to peace, anti-racism, and intolerance? Why the silence?

Worse, why the double-standard with accusations of racism when fanatical Islamist leadership is criticized for its countless millions of victims - most of whom are fellow Muslims? It's racist to criticize fanatical Islamist leadership but not so much WRT Israeli leadership? I personally have a problem with people defaming and demonizing Israel. That's racism IMO, covering for mere criticism. Do you believe it's defamatory and demonizing to call out fanatical Islamist leadership for its actions worldwide?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. Rwanda?
Do yourself a favor, Shira. If you're going to try to correct me on something, don't start out with telling me that Rwanda is run by Islamists. It's a good way to get me to dismiss anything you say after that point to be the ravings of a lunatic.

Moving past your startling ignorance regarding the subject which has you clutching at your blouse...

Where has anyone said that the people in Somalia, starving and beign slaughtered by warlords in that tax-free libertarian wonderland "don't count as much"? I know I certainly have said no such of a thing!

Where has a lack of sympathy been expressed towards the people of Afghanistan who are undergoing pretty much the same thing as the Somalis? I haven't seen it, and I know damn well I haven't joined in with it, either.

There are lots of people speaking out against the genocide being wages against the Africans of Sudan by the country's Arab government. You'll find no shortage of threads about this very subject here on DU. Know who's voice you don't hear regarding the massacres in Darfour? Israel's. Israel has adopted a no-comment, non-action stance towards the entire situation and has been busily denying refuge to Sudanese seeking shelter from both Sudan and Egypt and rounding up the ones who sneak in anyway. This is similar to Israel's overt denial of the Turkish genocide against Armenians (A stance which, thankfully, seems to be changing due to the spat between prime ministers)

You're saying "virtually ignored" and "virtual silence." What this tells me is that you know there is no one ignoring this, there is no such silence, but for the point of arguing on the internet, you are going to ignore reality and insteadd construct a "virtual" reality all your own in order to bolster your straw man.

You know Shira, upon reflection, it's kind of funny. Here you and Vegesaurus are, in the Israel / Palestine section of DU, arguing that everyone here should just ignore Israel and Palestine's conflict, and instead train our eyes on the Algerian Civil War, the situation in Somalia and - I presume, though neither of you mention it - the plight of the Uighurs under China's thumb.

Yet I don't see either of you making any posts anywhere else on this site regarding those very same subjects. As I said, I've seen lots of threads about Darfour. Where have you been? None of them were started by you, Shira. My memory isn't flawless, but I can't remember ever seeing you post your concerns on any of them. I know damn well I've never seen Vegesaurus do so - His one-line-rant "paragraph" style make him hard to miss in a crowd after all.

But here both you are, in the I/P forum, telling us to ignore the issue of I/P, and instead devote our attention to say, Syria's 1982 crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The message the two of you are shouting from your rooftops is perfectly clear to those of us in the street, Shira. You can refuse to acknowledge the meaning of your statements and positions all you like. Lord knows, southern Republicans refuse to admit what htey mean by "state's rights", too. Doesn't stop the rest of us from knowing what they're saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. focus
Forget Rwanda, you basically ignored all the main points in my post to you. Why? Here they are again, reworded, and if you choose to ignore them again - don't bother and save your rants for someone else.

1. Why is it racist to criticize fanatical Islamist leadership, responsible for real genocide, slavery, intolerance toward women, gays, minorities, etc, but not racist/antisemitic to demonize/defame Israel?

2. Why is the left virtually silent WRT antisemitism now? Did you read this article? By virtually silent, I mean, are you proud of the left's recent (nearly non-existant) efforts to combat anti-semitism? Seems the left was much better at combatting antisemitism years ago....what happened?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x257956

3. Ben Dror's article shows how obsessed the world is with its focus on Israel, and not the real genocide, rape/torture, slavery elsewhere throughout the world. Forget DU and the I/P forum where I/P should be the focus - I'm talking about the left's obsession with Israel in comparison to far worse elsewhere. What accounts for this? Why is the left FAR, FAR more uptight about Israel than anywhere else in the world?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. I think it'd help if you got yr basic points right for a change...
You claim something that was totally incorrect and then accuse the other poster of not focusing when they correct you on it. Instead of blindly accusing others of ranting when you realise they're more knowledgable than you, how about doing just a bit of basic research and making sure that what you post is correct?

Also, why do you constantly attack the left-wing? DU is a left-wing forum and it starts to get just a bit suspicious when someone like you does nothing but make false accusations against the left time and time again....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. you could chime in and answer those points anytime too
Edited on Sat Feb-14-09 08:45 PM by shira
not that I'm holding my breath, however.

I had Rwanda on my mind, sue me. I was thinking French - not just with Algeria but also their involvement and complicity in hundreds of thousands of Rwandan deaths - kinda makes Israel's involvement in Sabra-Shatilla pale in comparison, minus as much press and righteous indignation and criticism, huh?

The point is, neither he and now you, will answer the main points from that post.

I have a problem with the hard left AND hard right. This is democratic underground, not far-left underground. In fact, check out the 4-5 articles in this thread alone, all written by liberals questioning the left and its silence WRT antisemitism. Are these liberals and progressives not "left" enough for you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x257956
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Hope you don't asphyxiate then...
Yr a little too full of yr own self-importance if you think anyone who reads this thread is obligated to take notice of, let alone answer yr 'questions'. If someone isn't a troll and has a genuine interest in hearing what others have to say, then they're the sort who I like answering questions when they pose them. You luck out on both counts. I just wanted to remind you that you couldn't even get yr facts straight on Rwanda and when picked up on it, you did some very quick projecting of ranting onto the poster who'd corrected you...

Hard left, my arse. All you ever do is slag off the left, and there's nothing 'hard' about it when you slag off the entire left the way you do. Where's all the criticism of conservatives? Nowhere to be seen. Why is that no surprise, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #79
91. so pretend
Edited on Sun Feb-15-09 08:58 AM by shira
that I'm not some "troll" who should be ignored, and try to answer the questions. The questions themselves are more important than the person asking them, right?

Yes, hard left. Ever read Dershowitz, David Hirsch, Nick Cohen, or Shlomo ben Ami? They ALL have similar criticisms of the same hard left. But maybe these people aren't your types of leftists?

Is Amos Oz your type of leftist? He wrote this:

"Mr Arafat is a colossal tragedy for both peoples. He has allowed the newly created Palestinian authority to sink in corruption, and he has incited his people against Israel and against the Jews. Finally, he has initiated this recent burst of hateful violence, in an attempt to inspire a raging fury all over the Arab and Islamic world to start a jihad, a holy war, against the Jews.

As I listen to the rhetoric of the Palestinian official state and media, and of the Arafatesque intellectuals, I am hardly surprised by the lynching committed in Ramallah. The Palestinian people are suffocated and poisoned by blind hate. "


If you criticize leftists like the aforementioned people above, what does that make you, Violet - a conservative? Maybe they are the real progressives and you're not.

And why should I write against conservatives like Pat Buchanon and David Duke? Everyone knows they're hateful dipshits and this is what we've come to expect from rightwingers over time. So what? Does that excuse many on the left for sinking into the same, hatefilled abyss?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #78
85. So what you're saying is, then...
French culpability in Rwanda excuses Israeli culpability in Sabra and Shatila? I wasn't aware that massacres canceled each other out, Shira. This seems to be a new lesson I'm picking up from the pro-Israel side of things. "My massacre is okay because yours was bigger."

It's quite an eye-opening lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #85
87. nope
France was found culpable, even more recently than Israel WRT Sabra/Shatilla, for a genocide that makes Sabra/Shatilla absolutely pale in comparison. The bigger news story, however, is Israel's culpability - in the UN, and OP/ED commentaries - for Sabra/shatilla - to this day (not just here at DU, but throughout the real world). It's not even debatable that those who still hold animosity towards Israel WRT Sabra/Shatilla do not care or are even aware about France/Rwanda.

How is that possible?

Why?

France was culpable in a true, large scale genocide. France's citizens were never threatened by anyone from Rwanda. The world didn't go ape-shit at France as they did and still do with Israel. We know there's simply no way the world would have remained as apathetic with Israel had they, instead of France, been behind Rwanda. In fact, let's face it, WRT Rwanda only, where hundreds of thousands were killed, Israel could never be considered "as bad" as France, nevermind the hundreds of thousands of Algerians that the French slaughtered just 40 years ago. Even if every single accusation against Israel is true, and we know most are not, Israel is still minor league compared to France.

But France isn't being singled out like Israel in OP/ED's worldwide, the UN, NGO's, etc.

Why?

And it's not just France.....there's the USA and Britain in the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Well over a million killed. Yet Israel is even MORE a pariah for the 60,000 Arabs killed in all Israeli wars since 1948 (all in self-defense).

How is it possible Israel is considered more a threat to world peace than France, the USA, or the UK? Shall we get into Russia and China, who have killed and victimized more than France, USA, and UK all combined? What would be the point, right? That's the entire security council of the UN - none of whom are singled out for BSD by other Western countries and organizations sympathetic for all those victimized.

Israel has BY FAR a better record WRT its own conflict than any of the aforementioned WESTERN countries, but only Israel is villified constantly.

Now back to Ben Dror WRT real genocide throughout the Arab/Muslim world:

"Fact no. 1: Since the establishment of the State of Israel a merciless genocide is being perpetrated against Muslims and/or Arabs. Fact no. 2: The conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and the Arabs as a whole and against the Palestinians in particular, is regarded as the central conflict in the world today. Fact no. 3: According to polls carried out in the European Union, Israel holds first place as “Danger to world peace”. In Holland, for instance, 74% of the population holds this view. Not Iran. Not North Korea. Israel. Connecting between these findings creates one of the biggest deceptions of modern times: Israel is regarded as the country responsible for every calamity, misfortune and hardship. It is a danger to world peace, not just to the Arab or Muslim world".

It's already been established that in comparison to Western countries, like the entire UN security council, Israel's record is far better WRT its own conflict. And WRT to the carnage of the Arab and Muslim world, the comparison to Israel is even more lopsided.

But Israel is considered one of, if not THE biggest villain on the world stage.

How is this possible? Why is this the case? What's going on?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #87
93. You're almost close to the reason why
The focus on Israel over France isn't because the world hates Jews. It's because the world doesn't give a shit about Africans.

It is racist. Just not the sort you might think. Take a look at the situation in Kongo - the civil war there has killed more people than any war since World War 2. Where is the mention of this huge, bloody, terrifying war on the news? Where is the outrage at people hunting and eating the pygmy peoples in order to get magic powers? Where are the demands for humanitarian intervention to stop the rape of women and use of child soldiers in this war?

There isn't any. Because they have black skin, woolly hair, broad noses, and live in Africa. No one cares.

Incidentally, Israel seemed to not have a huge problem with France's actions in Algeria, since it was receiving quite a nice annual sum in money and military aid from France until the 1967 war, and didn't express any outrage over French paratroopers - the same soldiers that caused so much carnage in Algeria twenty years before - coming to Lebanon to help Israel and Phalangists massacre Palestinians and Lebanese, did they? Similarly, the United State's frankly atrocious record of slaughter and destruction in the Middle east and Asia doesn't seem to put much of a damper on Israel's willingness to receice monetary aid, military "gifts" and a guaranteed UNSC veto. Britain's inexcuable behavior in India, Iraq, and the Palestine Mandate a few years before didn't keep Israel from invading Egypt on Britain's behalf (with France, no less!) in 1956. Russia's long, long, long list of atrocities, even against its own Jews, has never once made Israel stop to reconsider all the aid and political rapport between the two.

Amazingly, the only gigantic fucking asshole Israel wasn't buddy-buddy with, was Saddam Hussein - and that's because Israel was on Khomeini's side!

Jeeze, really. Spare me "All these other people are bad too, why don't we talk about them?" - I don't know about you, Shira, but I sure as hell do talk about them. In fact I, personally, ascribe more blame to the United States and Britain for the ISrael-Palestine conflict than I do to either the Israelis or the Palestinians. The British created the problem and the Americans seem to have dedicated about a fifth of their foreign policy to keeping all the wounds open and well-salted.

But what you're doing is identical to what right-wingers do when Abu Ghraib comes up - they talk about Daniel Pearl's murder, or the crimes of Saddam Hussein - one guy even tried to deflect discussion to Josef Stalin. But that's all it is. A deflection. You know your side is in the wrong when the subject comes up, and so you try to avoid discussing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 05:57 AM
Response to Reply #93
97. not almost, dead-on actually
Edited on Mon Feb-16-09 06:01 AM by shira
You say the world is racist and does not care for Africans. Now as sad and pathetic as that is, and I agree with you, what makes you think the world really cares for Palestinians? Did they care for them between 1948-67, when the Egyptian and Jordanian occupation was far more brutal? No. Or now, when Hamas victimizes them? No. In both cases, Palestinian victimization is virtually ignored. Conditions are even worse for Palestinian refugees in other countries - does the world really care about them? Not at all. Conditions for them could be 10x worse, but there's no way they'd receive as much press and world sympathy as Palestinians within Israel. Their stories are hardly newsworthy, except to rail against Israel.

So your answer seems to be incomplete - do you agree?

And it's not the strawman of "jeeze, all these other people are bad too...", it's that when Israel is compared to all UN reps of the security council as well as other countries involved in conflict around the world, Israel's record is far better - in fact, it's not even close. That's too say in order of magnitude, Israel's actions would have to rate near the bottom of the list, behind perhaps almost every other country involved in conflict the past 50 years.

This brings us back to Ben Dror:

Fact no. 1: Since the establishment of the State of Israel a merciless genocide is being perpetrated against Muslims and/or Arabs. Fact no. 2: The conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and the Arabs as a whole and against the Palestinians in particular, is regarded as the central conflict in the world today. Fact no. 3: According to polls carried out in the European Union, Israel holds first place as “Danger to world peace”. In Holland, for instance, 74% of the population holds this view. Not Iran. Not North Korea. Israel.

Connecting between these findings creates one of the biggest deceptions of modern times: Israel is regarded as the country responsible for every calamity, misfortune and hardship. It is a danger to world peace, not just to the Arab or Muslim world.


Now it may be that YOU personally care EQUALLY for all victims and all oppressed around the world. But you are one of the exceptions among those who are completely obsessed with defaming and demonizing Israel - to the extent that other atrocities take a backseat. These people hardly care about anything else except demonizing Israel. Kinda like RW'er Islamophobics who found their "cause". There's virtually no difference between the two types.

Dozens of publications, articles, books, periodicals and websites are dedicated to one purpose only: Turning Israel into a state that ceaselessly perpetrates war crimes. In Jakarta and in Khartoum they burn the Israeli flag, and in London, in Oslo and in Zurich hate articles are published, supporting the destruction of Israel.

Any request in Internet search engines for the words “genocide” against “Muslims”, “Arabs” or “Palestinians”, in the context of “Zionists” or “Israel” – will give us endless results. Even after we’ve filtered out the trash, we are left with millions of publications written in deadly seriousness.

This abundance brings results. It works like brainwashing. It is the accepted position, and not just a fringe opinion. Only five years ago we were witness to a international anti-Israeli show in the Durban Convention. Only two years ago we were shocked when a member of our Academia blamed Israel of ‘symbolic genocide’ against the Palestinian people. Much ado about nothing. There are thousands of publications blaming Israel of genocide, and not ‘symbolic’.

Under an academic and/or journalistic umbrella, today’s Israel is compared to the damned Germany of yesteryear. In conclusion, there are those who call to terminate the ‘Zionist project’. And in more simple words: because Israel is a country that perpetrates so many war crimes and engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide – it has no right to exist. This, for instance, is the essence of an article by the Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder (writer of “Sophie’s world”), who wrote, among other things: “We call killers of children by their name”). The conclusion is that Israel has no right to exist.


Israel is singled out, out of all proportion - they are demonized (not just criticized) excessively - and you cannot see this? You're unwilling to see this? Consider only the Nazi imagery attributed to Israel....can you imagine fellow leftists using that disgusting analogy with any other country besides Israel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #76
84. My points seem to have sailed over your head. Have you considered lifts?
Edited on Sun Feb-15-09 01:58 AM by Chulanowa
Perhaps a tall hairstyle?

I have already answered #1. Allow me to reiterate, since you have special needs.

It's not racist to criticize Islamist leadership (though the use of "fanatical" could be questionable, depending on your basis of comparison. ). Not in the least - I've done it several times, regarding Hamas, regarding the Saudi royals, regarding Musharriff, regarding Assad (who, technically, is about as far from "islamist" as one can get in the middle east without being in Israel) and several others.These regimes and their actions have earned criticisms - as have numerous non-Arab, non-Muslim governments around the world.

However, should we interrupt discussion of the crimes of Hamas, to talk about Chinese oppression, or the actions of Vladmir Putin against Chechens, or his successor against Georgians? I don't think so. So why then, should we talk about the Algerian civil war when the subject is the conflict between Israel and Palestine? This is what Vegesaurus wants to do. It's what you want to do. You are saying "Let's not talk about that, let's talk about something unrelated. That in itself is pretty damned dumb. On its own, it's not racist, it's just an indicator that you're scared someone might say something that's true, and leave you gasping with nothing but insults to throw. Again.

However, put into context, it becomes racist. As presented by Vegesaurus, the statement is "The probable millions of Palestinians killed, maimed, imprisoned, beaten, and rendered Homeless by Israel do not matter because some other Arabs in Yemen killed each other too!" It is a statement that it's okay for Israel to kill and oppress these Arabs, because some other Arabs somewhere else are fighting another conflict. It's saying that because the war between Iran and Iraq killed more Muslims than Israel has, that we should never say anything regarding those that Israel has killed.

Which takes us back to my initial reply to you and the example of the "better than Africa!" canard. Remember, blacks have no right to complain about lynchings, second-class citizenship, harsher sentencing, vote theft, and racial profiling because hey, it's better than living in Chad. Saying this sort of thing about blacks is unquestionably racist. it's saying that racism against them is okay, because they might be treated worse somewhere else. Similarly what Vegesaurus - and by running to his defense, yourself - is saying, is that it's okay to kill and maim Palestinians, because they'd probably have had it even worse under Saddam.

In regards to your second point...

I can't say why the British left has been quiet about the subject. I don't live in Britain. However, I'll make a flying leap of a guess as to why they hurried to advise against demonizing all Muslims, but haven't done so regarding Jews.

Perhaps they, such as yourself and so many other DU'ers (most of whom I assume, fall towards "the left" on a majority of issues) simply feel that Israel's slaughter of civilians is perfectly acceptable. God knows, it seems most Americans think this. Israel's actions are thus, in these eyes, not "Terrorism". The massacre of families via bomb is acceptable, even laudable to a frightening number of people on "the left" so long as it's Israel or America or Britain pushing the button. Perhaps "the left" doesn't even consider that someone might even be upset about this, certainly not to the degree that people were upset on 9/11, or after the london bombings.

After all, it's just Arab Muslims getting killed, and they deserve it for voting for Hamas. Why should anyone in the west be upset about those "people" getting their just deserts, right?

This sort of mentality is almost hardwired into the west. The Arab is always evil. The Muslim is always insane. They hate everyone. They're greedy and dirty. They fuck camels and children. They're all terrorists. These are mainstream, often acceptable statements in Great Britain, in America, in most of Europe.

Can the same be said about Jews? Is it acceptable in western society to claim that Jews are inherently evil? That all Jews are treacherous? All Jews are filthy? They're pedophiles? All Jews are greedy? Is it okay for someone in a western bar to look at the news report on the TV and say "We should just kill 'em all and let Jesus sort 'em out" with regards to Israelis?

No. It is not acceptable to say these things about Jews, and rightly so. This fact, this unacceptability of such statements and behavior regarding Jews (or blacks, or Asians, or Catholics...) is so ingrained into western culture these days that most people wouldn't even think about thinking such things. When an Israeli gunman opens fire at a mosque, killing 25 and wounding nearly fifty, that's all he is - a rogue, crazy man with a gun. When a Palestinian shoots up a jewish wedding, the west immediately demands that each and every Muslim in the world stand up to condemn the act.

Put in much shorter terms - Sikhs were murdered for wearing their turbans after 9/11. How many Jews were killed in America or Britain after Cast Lead? Grapes of Wrath? Sabra and Shatila? Antisemitism is a problem, no doubt. Anti-Arabism and islamophobia simply happens to be a much more widespread, more socially acceptable, and much more violent problem at the moment.

Perhaps if there were fewer people claiming that it's okay to kill Palestinians because the Sudanese Janjaweed are killing Sudanese blacks...

And three.

Ben Dror has no articles about all those atrocities he has listed. There is nothing from him about the Russian war against the Chechens. There is no lament for the fallen of the Algerian Civil War. He does not once even offer sympathy for the victims of Israel's invasion of Lebanon and support for the Christian Phalangists that slaughtered so many Lebanese men and women.

I do not see any such remorseful, introspective statements from yourself. Nor Vegesaurus. In fact, every time I see someone start talkign about how many Arab and Muslim lives have been lost at the hands of other Arabs and Muslims... It's always being stated by someone who has made frequent examples of their own hatred of Arabs and loathing of the Islamic faith.

I'll be blunt, Shira. You do not give a fuck. You expressed immense pleasure over Israel's latest battering of Gaza. You argued that all the people dead deserved it somehow, and that Israel was "very restrained" implying that if you were calling the shots, even more Gazans would lay lifeless in morgues. In the same lines, neither Vegesaurus nor Dr. Yemini give a fuck, either. For you three, all a big pile of mutilated Arabs means is that you have something to hide behind.

More directly to your point, regarding "the left being uptight about Israel" well... Have you ever stopped to consider that we on the left are pretty "uptight" about war, slaughter of civilians, and racist obfuscation no matter the source, and it's just your own defensiveness due to being called out on your support for such things that makes you think it's just Israel we're looking at?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #84
88. see post 87 too
1. So there's nothing racist in criticizing the leadership of any Arab or Muslim country that victimizes its own citizens. Glad we cleared that up.

The point is, FAR WORSE is happening in those countries to FAR more victims. But Israel is the bigger news story. Israel (it's Jewish leadership) is condemned 100x more in OP/ED's worldwide, the UN, journals, etc. And types like yourself, being supposed peace activists who are anti-racism, etc - who say they care about all this - seemingly have no problem allowing things to remain as they are, while the lives of hundreds of millions worldwide get only worse. Your obsession, and the same goes for all those alligned on your side, lies mostly with Israel and that's how things should remain. Bringing up 11 million Arab and Muslim deaths at the hands of their Islamist masters since 1948 is really not high on your list of priorities. Ergo, you have no problem watching the UN, NGO's, and OP/ED commentators spending an inordinate amount of WASTED time, effort, and emotion against Israel. Sure, it would be nice if they focused 10x as much attention on bigger issues as they do Israel, but...whatever. You're fine with letting hundreds of millions suffer elsewhere, so long as Israel remains the prime focus.


2. It's not just the British left that has been eerily silent WRT to a big spike in antisemitism. It's the noisy left in general. It appears you're claiming that because Muslims need protection from Islamophobics, rallying against anti-semitism comes in a distant second - and this explains the silence? They can't do both?

How about a little less focus on I/P to utilize in combatting anti-semitism? The point is that antisemitic acts against Jews worldwide are at levels EXCEEDING attacks on Arabs, Muslims, and blacks. There's simply no way that a hate spike against blacks, Arabs, or Muslims would be met with as little reaction from the left, and we all know it.

3. As to Ben Dror, he is simply pointing out hypocrisy - like your own hypocrisy. You claim that "we" don't care, show no sympathy, and are excited about Arabs being killed by Israel (BTW, is that what you need to believe?). WRT what I believe, Noa said it well for me as well as all other "zionists" I know....of course this was met with screeches and gags by those on your side:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450

Ben Dror points out that it is YOU and those like yourself who pretend to care about Palestinians while virtually ignoring far worse elsewhere - and pretending that Israel is the world's biggest villain. It's a hell of a deception.

Even within the I/P conflict itself, this is glaringly apparent and it's one reason you and those like yourself aren't taken seriously. Whenever Hamas or Fatah inflicts major harm on Palestinians, and that's pretty much everday, it's met with little more than a shrug - or the pitiful "they're just collaborators" argument - and worse, such everyday victimization against Palestinian women, children, and minorities is nothing compared to what Israel does. And we're to believe you "care" for Palestinians? And then there's the Israeli victims - and as I've been told numerous times here, Israelis cannot be the victims in this conflict. There's rarely any sympathy shown here by YOUR side to Israeli casualties.

And we're to believe you and your side cares?

The only thing to make of your side is that you prefer to rail and rant against Israel (the Jews) and show sympathy only to Palestinians when they're victimized by Israel. No sympathy for Palestinian or Israeli victims of the PA. Far less criticism of the PA in comparison with Israel (kinda like the little criticism Sudan or Russia receives in comparison to Israel).

It's all deception and ugly, blatant hypocrisy.

And the best (and most tragic) part is when your side conflates, uses hyperbole and goes off the deep end obsessing, defaming and demonizing Israel with bogus stories of false Jenin massacres, al-Dura, bogus hits on UN schools, stupid Apartheid analogies, etc. If your side really and truly cared for Palestinians, you wouldn't waste time with these hateful libels, you would focus on issues that deserve criticism and action. Those on "my side" who know these are false, hateful allegations are forced to either put all REAL concerns (minor in comparison) on the backburner in order to confront these big lies, or IGNORE everything I/P due to the fact that they know most of the news and opinions against Israel is mostly BS. That is truly tragic because it does NOTHING to help Palestinians and only prolongs their suffering. Sure, defaming and demonizing Israel serves the purposes of haters worldwide, but is that pretty much the best reason to focus on Israel? It seems to be for your side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #88
92. 'hate spikes against blacks, Arabs, or Muslims' don't always get much reaction on the left
There have been hate spikes against Muslims in the UK every time that there's a terrorist attack and sometimes at other times, and though it gets reported and people tut-tut, it's not treated as that big an issue mostly.

There are very few Arabs in most Europaean countries (unless you count Algerians in France) so attacks on Arabs are a bit off the radar here. I don't know the situation in America.

Attacks on black people might get more attention, if the spikes in attacks are extreme.

But I think the problem is that there is not one 'left' but many 'lefts'. Opposition to xenophobia is perhaps NOT the biggest left-wing cause at the moment; I wish it were more so! Left-wingers often concentrate far more on the anti-war cause, foreign policy issues, and economic issues. All of which are very important but sometimes opposition to xenophobia (including antisemtism) needs more attention. Partly, because there have been improvements in the level of blatant racism over the last 30 or 40 years, people have become a bit complacent.

But I don't think we'll solve the problem by treating it as a competition between groups, and assuming that other groups than our own are 'safer' or that attacks on them are taken more seriously. All minority groups and their supporters have to get together against hate-crime and xenophobia, and realize that a threat to any minority group is ultimately a threat to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #92
98. good point
the one about there being not one 'left', but many 'lefts'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #88
94. I just want to clear a few things, then we're done
The point is, FAR WORSE is happening in those countries to FAR more victims.

And my point is, since when do you care, Shira? Why the concern you are showing now, why show it here? You have given absolutely no indication that you can spare a cup of give-a-shit for dead Arabs, or dead blacks, or dead Asians, Indians, or anyone except when you can use them to deflect discussion away from Israel. You're trying to tell me you care about the deaths of people in Iraq, or Algeria, or Bosnia - All while clearly not caring about the deaths of people in Gaza, or the West bank, or Lebanon?

I don't know what variety of toe-sucking idiot you're used to trying to fool with that sort of crap, Shira, but I'm evidently not that particular brand.

Bringing up 11 million Arab and Muslim deaths at the hands of their Islamist masters since 1948 is really not high on your list of priorities.

Ben Dror's list comes up to 9 million, and the majority of them died as a result of western nations either directly killing htem or hiring patsies to do it for them, while the remainder have as much to do with "Islam" as the massacred in Rwanda you so suddenly bleed from your heart for have to do with "Catholicism." Seriously, you're going to try to tell me that Saddam and Assad were Islamists, and to top it off, the Lebanese Phalangists were, too? Your ignorance would be startling if I didn't already count on it.

As to Ben Dror, he is simply pointing out hypocrisy

David Duke says the same thing when he claws at Affirmative Action. I suggest you read some more of Dr. Yemini's articles, Shira. A fair number of them would make Ann Coulter blush.

and worse, such everyday victimization against Palestinian women, children, and minorities is nothing compared to what Israel does.

This is going to be something that requires rational thought, so you may want to get some scrap paper.

Hamas is powerful because of Israel. I mean that literally. Israel funded and helped Hamas, to provide a counter to the PLO. Israel did not halt its own efforts against the PLO - thus, Hamas supplanted the PLO as a dominant force in the area. It conducted all the activities and attacks that we all know about, and even expanded enough to win fair elections.

Hamas is still powerful because of Israel, Shira. Of course, Israel does not fund or aid Hamas at all like it used to, but its actions sure as hell do directly help the organization and others like it. Look at the most recent, Operation Cast Lead. Do you think this assault discouraged people from Hamas? Do you think that ISrael telling them to flee their hosues before blowing up said houses made Israel any friends? If you said yes to either one, you're deluded. The longer this conflict goes on, the more powerful Hamas and groups like it get.

As I've discussed with Pelsar and a few others previously, Israel happens to be holding all the cards in this situation - You're a fool if you think anyone on the Palestinian side really has anything to bargain with. If Israel were to take the measures needed for peace - even just a few good-sized steps like actually dismantling all the West Bank settlements - Hamas would find its power sapping away pretty damn fast.

Hamas is a reactionary guerrilla organization, as are Islamic Jihad, Fatah, the PLO, and all the others. Since you seem to know very little about a whole hell of a lot, Shira, I'll explain the nature of such organizations to you. The guerrilla force is dependent on support from "its people" - Hamas gets their support from Gazans, FARC from Colombian peasants, etc. When the enemy of the guerrilla group - Israel, the Colombian military, the Sheriff of Nottingham, whoever - begins cracking the heads of the supporters of the guerrillas, all it does is prove those guerrillas right and create more sympathy for them. Similarly killing the guerrillas themselves also engenders sympathy for the "martyrs" or "fallen revolutionaries" or whatever the term is.

The only way to defeat a guerrilla organization is to take away their cause. Israel is not going to do this. Israel isn't even going to make an attempt at lessening the causes of Hamas. It's going to keep beating heads, and thus, Hamas will remain a problem, both for Israel and for the people of Gaza who suffer from it. Without Israeli aggression and crimes, there is no Hamas, to put it simply. If tomorrow, Israel opened the Gaza checkpoints, began herding colonists back into Israel, and started tearing down that theft wall in West Bank, it would do what no missile, no number of soldiers, has managed yet - dealing a defeating blow to Hamas. Similarly if tomorrow Israel were to withdraw from Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights. I guarantee Syria and Iran would both take a much more pleasant stance regarding Israel, and hezbollah would be weakened as a result.

But until then, what we have is a symbiotic relationship between Israeli militarism and Hamas terrorism, Israeli threats and Iranian-Syrian saber-rattling.

And the best (and most tragic) part is when your side conflates, uses hyperbole and goes off the deep end obsessing, defaming and demonizing Israel with bogus stories of false Jenin massacres, al-Dura, bogus hits on UN schools, stupid Apartheid analogies, etc.

I would think that someone who has called Rwanda an Islamist country and declared every war ISrael has fought to be defensive really, really wouldn't be trying to correct anyone else's facts.

Jenin and the UN school hit are a symptom of poor media coverage. I can count on one hand the number of western journalists who cover the conflict from within the occupied territories, and I wouldn't even have to use my thumb. Israel does a pretty good job of keeping journalists out of the West Bank and Gaza, as I'm sure you know - So when we get numbers like 1,000 dead at jenin, or a direct hit on a UN school, well, that's what we have to go on until we actually have verified numbers. When Israeli Brigadier-General Ron Kitri tells the Israeli army radio that "hundreds have been killed" in Jenin, well, what are we supposed to think? When Israel admits hitting a school, what are we supposed to think? Especially given the ban on independent journalists during these sort of operations? Yes, we now know that "only" fifty-six died in Jenin, and that the Israeli shell "only" hit "near" the school, even after Israeli forces had already justified a direct hit in about five different ways.

And if you're going to buy into the "Mohammed Al-Durrah's death was fake!" you better start saying the same about Richard pearle, and might want to start posting in our local "9/11 Conspiracy theory" forum, too.

That is truly tragic because it does NOTHING to help Palestinians and only prolongs their suffering.

Refer to my first question to you in this post.

Sure, defaming and demonizing Israel serves the purposes of haters worldwide, but is that pretty much the best reason to focus on Israel? It seems to be for your side.

If you really think the reasons we criticize Israel hinge on "defaming and demonizing" Israel, well, truly your ignorance is a wellspring of non-knowledge. Truly, you're someone who protests way too much. Perhaps you should stick with just cheering for the death of Arabs, Shira. It's what you're good at, it's what we expect of you, and everyone's comfortable with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. disappointing response from you
I pointed you to this article, that speaks well for almost every Jewish person I know who I've talked to about this conflict:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x255450

I have yet to meet one Jewish person who takes 'delight' in the death of Palestinians, or shows little to no sympathy for it.

How pathetic of you to resort to ad-hominems in order to derail this discussion. Even if I were THE MOST uncaring person in the world, that doesn't take away from the fact that this conflict has served the best interests of dictators everywhere else - and has resulted in worse atrocities around the world being virtually ignored. THOSE victims deserve better than to be told that had they lived in the PA territories, people would care a bit more about them.

You gave short-shrift to Jenin, the recent UN building hit, etc....and seem to believe the Muhammad al-Dura story is not a hoax. Wow. You really need to stop typing and learn something.

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/12363.htm

You can check out the al-Dura footage here and see for yourself what that French court saw:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzsCBFhCsyY

Can you begin to understand just what it takes for media to pull off a stunt like that? The bogus Jenin massacre. The recent UN building hit (where 12 died, 9 of whom were Hamas - not 40 civilians). All these provoke rage throughout the world against Israel.

Loved that RW bit about David Duke and Ann Coulter, but here's some info. for you; you're using David Duke and Pat Buchanon's talking points on all that is I/P, not me. Seems you have some soul-searching to do when your views on I/P are virtually indistinguishable from the worst of the hardcore RW.

But here's the real doozy from your last post - I'll let the al Dura one slide because most people in the world still think that's real - the real doozy is that while you arrogantly try to make me look stupid in comparison, you come up with this ignorance:

"As I've discussed with Pelsar and a few others previously, Israel happens to be holding all the cards in this situation - You're a fool if you think anyone on the Palestinian side really has anything to bargain with. If Israel were to take the measures needed for peace - even just a few good-sized steps like actually dismantling all the West Bank settlements - Hamas would find its power sapping away pretty damn fast."

Israel already took a few good-sized steps just 3 years ago dismantling all settlements and ending the occupation of Gaza. Hamas didn't find its power sapping away fast - in fact just the opposite occured. So what on earth makes you think a different result will occur if Israel does that WRT the W.Bank now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #37
83. Sorry, but yr comments are as usual, steeped in bigotry...
Edited on Sun Feb-15-09 12:13 AM by Violet_Crumble
If someone were here on DU who was obsessed with how many Jews were killed by other Jews, and trying to use that as some basis for Jews being violent and evil, you'd be one of the first rightly complaining of the bigotry of that poster. Yet when it comes to Arabs or Muslims yr always every bit as bad as some of the disgusting bigots I've had the misfortune to read over at LGF.

I always hold out hope that when people express bigoted views that's there's some hope they may be changed, but you've shown time and time again that yr hatred is so ingrained and part of you that nothing will change you. Everyone else would realise that when it comes to people's deaths, it's a sick fuck who gets all obsessed about *who* kills them when it comes to an ethnicity or religion the sick fuck dislikes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #83
89. come on Violet, you just wrote:
"Everyone else would realise that when it comes to people's deaths, it's a sick fuck who gets all obsessed about *who* kills them when it comes to an ethnicity or religion the sick fuck dislikes."

==============================

Wow, you walked right into this one and it's Veggie's exact point.

Muslims and Arabs are victimized all over the world by their own brutal leadership. There is seemingly FAR less concern and sympathy for these hundreds of millions - from you and those like yourself - than for Palestinians. Why, is it racist to call out Muslim/Arab leadership...or have you just given up on all those hundreds of millions due to not feeling you can get through to their leadership?

Just the same, Hamas and Fatah victimize and murder Palestinians, but your side treats this with a shrug at best. "They're just collaborators. Oh, it's not as bad as what Israel does to them." Or worse, THAT'S Israel's fault, blame them instead.

Your obsession (and those like you) WRT to all issues I/P shows you are not as concerned about the victim as you are the alleged oppressor. If you cared equally for all Muslims and Arabs everywhere in the world who are victims of their own fanatical leadership, you (and those like you worldwide) should be incensed that their cause is nothing in comparison to the Palestinian cause. If you care for Palestinians equally, you should be incensed that the suffering they receive at the hands of their Islamist Hamas masters is nothing in comparison to the suffering they receive at the hands of Israel.

Just to be clear....when the media, academics, endless publications, books, periodicals and websites in the West are focused more on Israel's behavior towards Palestinians than all other horrors described above, why does this - and go back to your quote above - not anger you? Are you happy with the little coverage that horrible conflicts worldwide receive in comparison to Israel?

The fact is that victims do not appear to matter to you and those you esteem most on I/P matters. Your focus is not on the victims as much as the oppressor (and only when it's Israel, not Hamas or Fatah).

Veggie and I are looking for consistency in your views (and those like yourself). We see very little consistency and therefore doubt your sincerity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #89
96. Your straw man lacks a brain
but your side treats this with a shrug at best. "They're just collaborators. Oh, it's not as bad as what Israel does to them."

Evidence, please?

Your obsession (and those like you) WRT to all issues I/P<...>

Shira, I don't think I've ever seen a post from you outside this part of DU.

The fact is that victims do not appear to matter to you and those you esteem most on I/P matters.

You cheer for the deaths of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis, don't bat an eye at the deaths of Palestinians to other Palestinians, and only care about others being dead if it lets you deflect from criticism of Israel.

Veggie and I are looking for consistency in your views (and those like yourself). We see very little consistency and therefore doubt your sincerity.

Given that your idea of what our views are is based primarily off your own imaginary straw men, I don't think you'll ever get satisfaction on this one. But point in the favor of the two of you - your bigotry and joy for death are pretty consistent. Not that that's actually a good thing, but hey, George Bush sees unrelenting consistency even with bad ideas to be a virtue, so I guess you've got at least one guy in your pocket. He likes dead Muslims too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #96
100. see post #99
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-14-09 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
80. So damn predictable...
When it comes to bigotry against Arabs or Muslims (and while I didn't see the most recent hatefilled load of bigotry before it was deleted, I've seen more than enough from that poster before to get an idea of what was said), it's always excused by folk like you as being solely aimed at the leadership, even though the writer of the bigotry would be slapped with the antisemite label if the same thing was said about Jews. So how does this double standard when it comes to bigotry that I've seen exhibited by quite a few Americans get explained to folk like me who believe that ugly and hateful things aimed at ethnic groups are bigotry and there's no line where if the bigotry is aimed at an ethnic group that's not well-liked in America, then that's not racism or bigotry? Making bigotry an acceptable thing is the first step towards some really horrible things and that's been proven in the past...

btw, speaking of those who throw accusations of anti-semitism at those who merely criticise Israel, it's not like you'd ever do that, right, Shira? (Do I need the sarcasm emoticon here as I remind you of some of yr past posts where you seem to deem there's no such thing as merely criticising Israel and accuse NGO's critical of the IDF's conduct in Gaza of being antisemites?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #80
90. Violet, there's criticism and then there's.....
Edited on Sun Feb-15-09 08:39 AM by shira
defamation and demonization.

We are both aware of nutball rightwing Islamophobic hate sites and we both agree that is racism.

This is different. Whenever Muslim/Arab leadership is questioned or criticized LEGITIMATELY, without defamation or demonization, such criticism should NEVER be considered hate speech - especially given the fact that Arab and Muslim victims within those nations are incapable of speaking up for themselves. I don't see how you could possibly disagree with this.

What then is the excuse for all the demonization and defamation against Israel? It cannot be that you're unaware of this phenomenon on the left (and of course the right, but that's expected from those idiots) with its obsessive invective directed against Israel, which is replete with obfuscations, myths, half-baked stories, and outright lies. Just the Nazi comparisons and Israel Lobby = Protocols insanity is enough. But it's much more than that, and we both know it.

Just as there is Islamophobia based on hateful accusations, there is certainly antisemitism involved with anti-Israel accusations. The hypocritical double-standard is not coming from those on "my" side, but yours.

Can you explain this and help me to understand "your side" better? Or do we now agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-15-09 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. You're a real case.
Whenever Muslim/Arab leadership is questioned or criticized LEGITIMATELY, without defamation or demonization, such criticism should NEVER be considered hate speech

This is coming from someone who thinks legitimate criticism of Israel is hate speech and who has just been trying to defend another poster's defamation and demonization of all Muslims and Arabs. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-16-09 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #95
101. sigh
Is comparing Israel to Nazi Germany legit criticism?

Do you believe the PA (especially Hamas) should be harshly criticized at least as much as Israel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC