Darth Wong's Israel bashing

[Nixon]

I read Michael Wong's article on the Middle East. And I must say, I must take strong disagreement to a lot of it. I will seperate this into two posts because his essay was so damn long. (Going on ad nauseam I might add). Here it goes:

The True Nature of Israel
Before we begin, let me remind you of the definition of Israel. Israel is a Jewish state, which
means that it was founded on the premise of racial and religious separatism and apartheid. You
have been conditioned by the media and perhaps by religious upbringing to blindly accept that a
Jewish state is a reasonable idea, but consider the idea of an "Aryan state", and you will see the
problem.

Although Israel is not the perfect country for individual liberty and freedom, it is a far better at
upholding liberty than their surrounding Arab neighbors. And your analogous comparison to a
Jewish state to that of an Aryan state is highly suspect, when Jews are not just unified by a religious
tradition of Judaism but are also an ethnic group. Change your analogy from "Aryan state" to
"Greek state" or "Italian state" or "German state" or "French state" or "Japanese state" All these
countries have one overwhelming ethnic majority sharing a common religion or culture. And
within those countries are ethnic minorities. But just because a state has an identification with
their predominate ethnic majority, does not mean that predisposes how they will treat their ethnic
minorities.

The whole idea of Israel is that the Jewish race needed a country (in a place delinerated by
religious birthright) where they could freely discriminate against non-Jews! Keep that in mind as
we continue.

Also keep in mind that Jews lived in this region for centuries, from the Roman Empire through
the Ottoman Empire and beyond. Lets not pretend there was never any Jews in the region or that
100 percent of all Jews had fled the region during all this time.

In a just world, Israel would be considered a profoundly racist pariah state with a history of
atrocities. It has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions demanding that it end its occupation of the
West Bank, and it has used its connections to silence criticism of its Jim Crow-style segregation
and discrimination policies (see last year's African resolution that Israel be declared a racist
state, and how the US used its muscle to silence this criticism). Repeated condemnations from
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been ignored. They elected Ariel Sharon
despite the fact that the UN condemned him as the architect of the widely reviled Sabra and
Shatile refugee camp massacres two decades ago.

These are unfair characteristics riddled with name-calling and unsubstantiated claims. Not to
mention, the UN is an institution that does not respect individual liberty and freedom, it is an
organization comprised of dictators and other totalitarian regimes. Hardly the source of sound
morality and ethics. With nations like China on the UN permanent security council, lets stop
acting like the UN is an effective pundit for peace. China is hardly in a position to criticize
anyone on human rights. Please read these articles:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt090301.shtml

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt042902.shtml

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt041502.shtml

It is true that Israel is nominally a democracy, but in practice, it is a nation of explicit racial and
religious discrimination in which there is no true democracy because all men are not created
equal.

Well first of all democracy is not a guarantee for liberty. Democracy means majority rule, and
liberty requires that the majority not be able to take away the liberties of the minority through a
vote. A constitutional republic, that enumerates the constricted powers of government and the
rights of individuals, is what usually is required for a protection of liberty. But thats for another
discussion.

Did you know that what Israelis call "nationality" is defined on the basis of religion, and that all
Israelis must carry a card which identifies them as a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian?

For many years in Greece the same policy was in practice. All Greek citizens had to carry a card
identifying them as Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, but recently this was repealed. (Actually just last year) Point
being, countries that have a greater respect for liberty than say, the entre Arab world, are capable
of correcting their mistakes and make efforts to better their liberties. Israeli-Arabs living under
Israel enjoy more liberties, better economic opportunities, and more political freedoms than their
Arab cousins in surround Arab territories. Do you think their lives would be better under a
totalitarian terrorist thug like Arafat?

Did you know that ethnic Palestinians in Israel must have special license plates on their cars so
that they can be easily identified by police forces from a distance? How is this any different from
Hitler's armband marking schemes?

Of course you fail to mention this was done AFTER Israelis have been under constant terrorist
attacks by Palestinians. You seem to conveniently leave out the heinous acts carried out by
Palestinian homicide bombers on Israelis school children in malls, yet you are so ready to
condemn everything Israel does without taking a more objective approach as to why they act the
way they do. Not to mention, it is far different than Hitlers armband marking schemes for
several reasons: 1) Hitler was a totalitarian dictator, Israel, as you admit yourself "It is true that
Israel is nominally a democracy" so again, a dubious analogy 2) Jews were not systematically
killing German school children, nor did they initiate a war against Germany. The Jews had not
initiated any violence against other German citizens but were simply victims to Hitler's plan for a
pure race.

Did you know that Israel does not grant citizenship on the basis of birthplace? Jews from all
over the world can emigrate to Israel and instantly gain full citizenship, with numerous rights
denied to ethnic Palestinians who have been living in the region for centuries.

That is misleading. All Arabs who fell under Israel's initial boundaries were granted citizenship.
The Palestinians you refer to are those in the West Bank and Gaza strip, territories that were
seized after Israel was attacked by surrounding Arab states and the source of non-stop constant
terrorist attack.

Those rights include exclusive rights to most land (more than 90% of Israel's land is earmarked
Jewish-only), preferential hiring for both public and private employment, special education
loans, home mortgages, and preferential admission to universities.

You must give empirical evidence to support this claim.

Did you know that other special rights are granted for those who serve in the military (shades of
Starship Troopers' fictional fascist state!), and that ethnic Palestinians are prohibited from
serving?

The first part of your statement is completely laughable, all citizens of Israel, male and female are
required to serve in the military. Take that fact and read your sentence again. And as for
Palestinians prohibited from serving, who are you referring too? Israeli-Arab citizens or those
who live in the terrorist infested Gaza strip and West Bank? If Palestinians were forced to serve
in their military like Israelis citizens are, you'd accuse Israel for forcefully conscripting
Palestinians, yet on the other hand, they don't, so you accuse them of racism. Damned if they do,
damned if they don't. And I'm sure it would behoove Israel to not take Palestinians and put them
in their military, since the Israelis are fighting a war against Palestinians that the Palestinians
initiated.

Did you know that Palestinians inside Israel are essentially ghetto-ized and segregated, and that
Palestinian towns receive minimal spending on roads, electricity, clean water, education, etc?

Simply not true, you are referring to largely Palestinian controlled lands under Yasser Arafat. (Don't come right bac and say it's occupied territory, the Israeli army shows up when violence by Hamas and Hezbollah incrase) Again,
although not a perfect nation for individual liberty, it is far better than Yasser Arafat and his
totalitarian terrorist friends. Site empirical evidence to these claims.

Did you know that the economic disparity between Jews and Arabs in Israel makes the
black/white economic disparity in America seem downright insignificant by comparison?

If that were true, and again you provide no data or reference to substantiate this, that is no
argument for Israel not having the right to defend herself.

Did you know that Arabs in the occupied territories pay taxes to Israel, yet receive no
representation in Israel's government?

Provide empirical evidence to this claim. The burden of proof is on you since you made it.
People can't just take your word on it.

"...And what about voting rights? Pro-Israel types insist that Arabs can vote in Israel, but that's
only because Israel is good at pretending to be a democracy. In reality, the distinction between
;occupied territory&#and the rest of Israel is defined by race; Israeli settlements in the
;occupied territories&; have full voting rights in Israel, while Arabs in those same occupied
territories do not.

Israel does not grant full liberties to terrorist infested Palestinian territories. Can you blame
them? What would they do? Vote to exterminate the Jews? And again, a democracy is not the ultimate goal to liberty, lets dispel that myth right
away:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meanin ... vote.shtml

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/pr110702.shtml

Israel enjoys broad support among nations with a Judeo-Christian background, while its actions
have been widely criticized among nations without a Judeo-Christian background. As an
example of the audacious spin-doctoring that is common in Israel's supporter nations (including
my own), Time Magazine ran a comparison piece between a typical Palestinian family and a
typical Israeli family recently; the Palestinian family's home had been destroyed by Israeli
shelling and they were living hand to mouth, while the Israeli family was feeling a lot of stress
because of Palestinian terrorism; the magazine actually had the temerity to pretend that their
situations were equally difficult!

How ridiculous, if a people support a terrorist thug like Yasser Arafat, who the Palestinians
freely elected, than of course that means they don’t want peace, they don't want normal relations
with Israel, and as a result of this outward support for terrorism against Israel, they suffer their
own demise. Aren't these the same Palestinians that celebrated in the streets of the West Bank
after al-Qaeda terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11? Sorry, really can't feel bad for the
Palestinian cause, they did it to themselves:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt042202.shtml

And as my friend Moff Jerjerrod put it "This is particularly offensive. Time could've written a
piece detailing an Israeli family that lost a loved one to Palestinian hatred. Secondly, he is
suggesting somehow that nations with a Judeo-Christian background are inherently more biased
than those that do not."

Israel's supporters often tout its "right to exist", but I vehemently deny that "right". Israel defines
itself as a "Jewish state", which is an explicit declaration of its commitment to religious and
racial discrimination!

How ridiculous, that in and of itself does not preclude that it is a racist state. Again, is an "Italian
State" an explicit declaration of its commitment to religious and racial discrimination?
(Hmm.....anyone smell ad nauseam?)

Would we tolerate an "Aryan state", or defend its "right to exist"?

How about a Palestinian state? What's with the double standard?

Of course not, and the only reason we accept the "Jewish state" is that Judeo-Christians have
been conditioned to accept the idea through the Biblical Old Testament. There was no reason for
Palestine to be partitioned between races and religions in the first place; why couldn't the Jews
simply live side by side with the Palestinians in one nation-state?

Good question. Why don't you ask the Arabs that initiated attacks against Israel?

History of Israeli Military Aggression
Israeli propaganda tells us a sad story of how Israel was formed in the midst of hostile Arab
nations. We are told that the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 as soon as it was formed, but Israel
defended itself in the War of Independence. We are told that the Arabs were ready to attack
Israel again in 1967, but Israel defended itself in the Six Day War. We are told that the Arabs
tried to attack Israel yet again in 1973 (the Yom Kippur war), but Israel defended itself yet
again. We are told that Israel has been fighting off terrorist aggression ever since then, and that
the real goal of Israel's enemies is to completely wipe out Israel because of their anti-semitism
(and not because Israel is a profoundly racist state that doesn't deserve to exist in its current
form).
Let's look at the reality, shall we? If you believe Israel's sad story, then answer me this: why is it
that every single one of Israel's "defense" actions has greatly expanded their territory?

That is your basis that Israel did not respond in it's self defense? It took territory in a war it didn't
start? You seem to overlook the fact the Arabs initiated those wars against the Jews. You seem to
talk a good game yet you seem to conveniently leave out important facts. Expanding territory
happened when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt launched attacks against Israel. Israel does not have the
luxury of two humongous oceans like the US or Canada has to serve as a geographical defense.
Easy for you to armchair quarterback military strategy, but put yourself in the situation that you
are a country about the size of Connecticut, surrounded by Arabs that say they want to drive into
the sea that dwarf your country's size. (Egyptian President Gamal Nasser's infamous quote about
"Driving the Jews into the Sea.") Golda Meir thanked the United States for its financial support
after the Arab states INITIATED their war against Israel, Gold Meir said if it were not for the
United States, Israel would have been annihilated. You seem to be very quick to condemn Israel
for its actions on Palestinians, but you ignore the actions of their racist neighbors.
During the Yom Kippur War, both Egypt and Syria
received billions of dollars in aid from the Soviets. Additionally, President Nixon was burned in
effigy in the US press for jumping to the aid of Israel during this crisis. Secretary Brezhnev sent
the White House a note suggesting that the USSR would intervene unilaterally with troops, so
Nixon was forced to raise military alert to Def-Con III, and he had Archibald Cox, the Watergate
Special Prosecutor, fired during this period because he felt he could not afford to have Brezhnev
believing that he wasn't in control of his own government.

Now, the historical record has focused mainly on Nixon's firing of Cox, not the fact that his
airlift to Israel, in the opinion of Golda Meir and others, saved Israel from certain destruction.
Considering that the US media is so "Pro-Israel", as he claims, why is this event not celebrated
rather than easily forgotten and ignored? Golda Meier said "God Bless President
Nixon." So where is this propaganda by Israel you so readily assert?

Could it be that its detractors are correct, and that Israel has been a military aggressor state
since the beginning? Read your Bible, folks. According to its own self-glorifying history, Israel
has always been a military aggressor state.

What a load of anti-Semitic drivel. The Bible is hardly a history book, and you seem to forget
Rome essential tore apart Jewish society in Israel by spreading them all throughout Europe and
the Ottoman Empire essentially scapegoating the Jewish minority by constantly persecuting
them. You started off saying "As for the Jewish race, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with
Jewish people. It's the nation of Israel that I criticize, not the Jewish race" Gee that's funny, you
seem to have a problem with the Jewish race when they only existed in Israel in biblical times.
Are you now saying they have some kind of predisposition to aggression?

It was a ruthless military aggressor state the first time around, and it's been a ruthless military
aggressor state this time too. Consider the following maps, which show Israel's territory in blue
in 1947 (as defined by the UN), 1949, 1967, 1982, and 2000. Note that red is occupied territory
(see the third map, showing how Israel has expanded to control or occupy the entire region in
1967, including all of the former Palestinian territory as well as the entire Sinai, and the Golan
Heights).

All of those maps do not illustrate who it was that initiated those wars against Israel that lead to
the taking of those territories. You're quick to condemn Israel for taking territory during wars it
was forced to wage while ignoring all the American territory taken from Mexico and Spain
during its history. Is America then by that definition a ruthless military aggressor?

1947 (Israel demands 55% of Palestinian territory)
Original UN partitioning plan. Jews represent 30% of the regional population and just 6% of the
land owners, but they are awarded 55% of the land anyway, thus confiscating vast amounts of
land from Palestinians without a shred of compensation. Naturally, the Palestinians and
surrounding Arab nations refuse. For 50 years, this has been portrayed as evidence of their
unreasonable behaviour.
Note that Jerusalem is set aside as international land (in white). For some reason, modern
diplomats often propose the idea of making Jerusalem an international territory as if it would
solve the problems of the region. Have they forgotten that this was the original UN plan and that
it obviously didn't solve anything?

You mean Israel refuses to give up Palestinian land when Palestinians are attacking Israeli school
children? Can't blame them, giving up any territory in the name of appeasement only invites
more violence. Israel has always been willing to talk and negotiate a peace (did you forget they
did so successfully with Egypt? Oh no I guess you did bring that up, but of course you ignore it
here and decide that was for ulterior motives) But Israel must be guaranteed an end to violence,
they refuse to be blackmailed. Where is the outrage toward Jordan for not providing land to the
Palestinians? Why are no discotheques being bombed there?

1949 (Israel seizes more than two thirds of Palestinian territory)
Results of 1947-1948 war. Israel conducts an extended campaign of military aggression

Military aggression? You got to be kidding me.

in order to take by force what the Arabs refuse to give, ie- more than half of Palestine even
though they represent less than one third of the population. Not satisfied with these gains, they
continue to expand until they have more than two thirds of the land. Naturally, they also seize
part of Jerusalem for religious reasons.

You mean Palestinians, that supported Germany during World War 2 and later allied themselves
with the Soviet Union?

1967 (Israel occupies 100% of Palestinian territory, attacks and annexes parts of
neighbouring countries)
The Six Day War. Israel attacks Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, swiftly conquering large regions of
new territory. They seize the Golan Heights from Syria, the Sinai from Egypt, and the West Bank
from Jordan. They also seize all of Jerusalem, and begin a military occupation of the remaining
portions of the former Palestinian territory. They claim that this is a strictly "defensive"
operation (until then, the world had been blissfully unaware of the fact that a "defensive"
operation could involve annexing huge regions of neighbouring territory, as opposed to simply
defending your territory and/or destroying hostile military forces).

Again, you are no military strategist. A country the size of 4 million, with a land mass about the
size of Connecticut, cannot possibly defend itself from an onslaught of Arab aggression from
Arab states that dwarf the size of Israel in comparison. They cannot simply defend their territory
and or destroy hostile military forces. They are not big enough to accomplish this. I suppose
you'd consider the US occupation of Japan after World War 2 to not be a defensive operation.
What about the fact that the armies in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan had been massing for a massive
assault, and that it was Gamal Nasser's stated intention to destroy Israel?

1973 (Egypt and Syria try to retake their land)
The Yom Kippur War. As expected, Egypt and Syria tried to take the Sinai and the Golan Heights
back from Israel. Both were repulsed, thanks to a combination of American military aid and
Israeli military prowess. Again, Israeli propaganda describes this as a "defensive" war.

Yes, a defensive war to keep territories it took from previous onslaughts of violence. Israel
should not give up territory unless it can be guaranteed peace and an end to Arab aggression:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/israelsuicide.shtml

Think about it: Egypt and Syria were trying to take their own land back. Who's really on the
defensive here?

That is such a myopic view of the situation. You mean to say, they were trying to take land back
it lost after the first time they started a war with Israel, land Israel was able take after repelling
the invasion launched by Egypt and Syria into Israeli land. It wasn't Egyptian and Syrian land the
Egyptian and Syrians invaded in 1967. You seem to leave that important fact out. So who's really
on the defensive now? You say the Judeo-Christian countries are blindly supporting Israel in the
name of god in some type of religious conspiracy theory to kill Muslims, but you conveniently
leave out the Soviet Union supporting Egypt, Syria et al in their aggression against Israel (Soviet
Union being the US cold war enemy in case you forgot). What would the Soviet Union gain in a
victory over Israel, besides eliminating one of the few Arab allies (Egypt, at this time) of the
United States? Purely altruistic on their part, I'm sure.

1978 (Israel negotiates peace treaty with Egypt, thus freeing its forces to invade Lebanon)
The so-called "land for peace" deal, also known as the Camp David accords (nice tweak of the
nose to the Arabs; naming the camp after a Biblical character who massacred huge numbers of
Arab women and children).

Dude, you've to be kidding me, Camp David was named after Eisenhower's grandson, in 1954,
24 YEARS BEFORE THIS EVENT TOOK PLACE!

Israel agrees to withdraw from the Sinai in return for peace.

Yes Mike, in return for peace. That's not an unreasonable request. As Matt Jerijerrod told me "And amazingly, there have been no wars in the region since that time. Perhaps because Anwar
Sadat, figured out that all these wars were doing was killing Egyptians, who had no real beef
with Israel. And Egyptians consider the Yom Kippur War a victory, as Nixon had hoped, thus
legitimizing Sadat's regime and then allowing him to make peace with Israel"

It also agrees to offer autonomy for the Palestinians living under Israeli occupation in the Gaza
Strip and Jordan's West Bank, which it still controls to this day. Of course, we all know now that
Israel would never honour the second part of the agreement, only partially withdrawing its
forces and immediately rushing back in at the slightest provocation.

The slightest provocation? You mean the Palestinians were not living up to their end of the deal
right? I'm sure that's what you are trying to say.

Later this same year, Israel attacked Lebanon, killing hundreds of civilians and rapidly seizing
large territories. After stalling on a UN resolution to withdraw, they withdrew their troops but
handed over "their" territory to Major Saad Haddad, an Israeli ally in Lebanon, who allowed
Israeli troops to continue using the territory while keeping UN peacekeepers out.

Oh you mean an attack on Lebanon, the country which was harboring Hamas and Hezbollah
terrorists, killing Israelis and Americans (Remember over 200 US Dead Marines in Beirut?) Oh
yeah Mike, certainly an unprovoked attack on Lebanon. Mike you seem like a really smart guy,
but your distortion of the facts is disconcerting, saying Israel didn't have the right to attack a
country harboring and supporting terrorists with the help of Syria, Iraq, and Iran, is like saying
the United States had no right to attack the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda after the US was
attacked. And your proof that it was not self-defense since Israel took territory, is analogous to
the US occupying Afghanistan or Japan after it was attacked. (And Japan had no outside
supporters to foster anti-US sentiment to carry out attacks against the US after Japan surrendered,
unlike the case of Israel, where they are constantly told to show restraint. They would not take
the same course of action the US did in it's victories over Germany and Japan because of all this
political pressure driven by misconstrued notions by the liberal left. The US spent years de-
nazifying Germany, Israel could not do the same to the territories it captured, because the Arab
despotism reached throughout the entire middle east.)

1982 (Israel attacks Lebanon again, this time annexing its entire South)
Israel uses "terrorist" attacks outside its territory (on a diplomat in France, and on Israeli
soldiers in occupied territory) as an excuse to attack Lebanon again, invading and annexing a
large part of its territory.

Oh I see, if Hamas and Hezbollah, working out of Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza Strip,
with the support also from Syria and Iran, kill Israelis not currently presiding Israel, then Israel
has no right to take action. Is that your argument Mike? So when Americans were attacked in the
African Embassy bombings, on the USS Cole, or vacationing in the Phillippines, then they don't
have the right to attack the countries who harbor and support those terrorists? Why the double
standard?

They also bombed a nuclear reactor in Baghdad

You mean they bombed a nuclear reactor that the US said if they hadn't done so, Saddam
Hussein would be in possession of nuclear weapons in the first Gulf War?

and killed 300 civilians in bombing raids on Beirut the previous year.

Innocents of war?:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/innocentsinwar.shtml

They conduct numerous ground and air attacks against Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon,
which they invariably characterize as "PLO training camps"

Yes Mike, because they have "PLO training camps" and I'm not sure why putting that in quotes
discounts that claim.

after the fact even if the dead are mostly women and children.

Baloney. More of that moral relativism crap.

The infamous Sabra and Shatila massacres of unarmed civilians took place during this invasion,
masterminded by Ariel Sharon.

Completely false. Those attacks were not masterminded by Ariel Sharon. The Israelis did not
know the Christian Lebanese would commit those massacres, afterwards they immediately
withdrew all support from those that committed those war crimes. Sometimes even free nations
make tactical errors, the US allied themselves with Stalin during World War 2 to take down
Hitler, in the mean time Stalin was carrying out his systematic killings of Jews and Ukranian
farmers in his plans to collectivize the farming industry. Is the US at fault then for the deaths of
10 million Ukrainians? Why do you so conveniently point out this massacre that the Israeli
government had no predisposed knowledge yet you ignore the deplorable amount of war crimes
committed against Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah lead by Yasser Arafat?

2000 (Israel bows to international pressure and withdraws from Lebanon, maintaining its
occupation of the Golan Heights and generously "granting" partial autonomy to the
Palestinian people)
A half-century after the formation of Israel, the Palestinian people are still homeless and
penniless, reduced to a marginalized existence under Israeli military occupation in a small
portion of what was once their territory.

That's completely laughable, the Palestinians never had a homeland, it was under the rule of
Jordan and Egypt. Why don't you condemn those countries for not giving the Palestinians a
homeland? Where do you think the majority of Palestinians live? Jordan anyone?

The intifada is in full swing. Israelis continue to aggressively settle in the occupied territories, as
part of their obvious long-term goal of a Greater Israel.

How ridiculous, not only is it one-sided and propagandized, but the Israelis as far as I know as of
2000 did not take any more territory from any country. What on Earth are you talking about here?

Israelis continue to demonstrate their mastery of public relations by pretending to offer generous
concessions to the Palestinians

Mike, you seem so easy to jump to some grand conspiracy theory, unsubstantiated and totally
implausible conspiracy theory, yet you run a website that has a whole section devoted to
debunking pseudoscience and scientific skepticism? Why the double standard, you look at
science objectively but the issue of Arab-Israeli conflict you paint with a wide conspiracy theory
brush.

"....They continue their masterful manipulation of public opinion by portraying Palestinian
resistance actions in the occupied territories as terrorist attacks against Israel.
Remember: the West Bank is not part of Israel; it is Jordanian territory which was invaded and
occupied by Israel in 1967!

Yes Mike, Jordanian territory (glad to see you admit it was never Palestinian) after an attack on
Israel in 1967. Why do you consistently and deliberately try to distort the facts?

All of this leads inevitably to another wave of violence, which the Israelis naturally blame on
Palestinian aggression.

Yes, naturally. Since it's true.

2001-2002 (Israel begins a fresh campaign of occupation, this time in particularly brutal
fashion, for what is supposedly an attempt to "stamp out terrorism")
What more need be said? Israel used the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack as an excuse to
attack the Palestinians anew, despite the fact that it was conducted by a Saudi Arabian operating
out of Afghanistan. The Palestinians naturally responded with the only weapon left to them after
decades of occupation, poverty, and American arms embargoes: suicide bombings.

You've got to be kidding me? You act like there were no homicide bombings before 9/11, or that
somehow all those decades of Arab aggression would somehow get a clean slate after 9/11? The
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip don't seem to be interested in peace, since they
continually support Islamic terrorists and vote in a totalitarian terrorist thug (Yasser Arafat) to
rule over them. Israel negotiated a peace with Egypt, which gave back all territory it had seized
when Egypt originally attacked, because Egypt guaranteed them peace. The Palestinians, and
their other Arab allies, refuse to stop the violence. The violence must end first before land for
peace can be negotiated. Otherwise it's called appeasement.

Naturally, these suicide bombings were described as terrorism in the American media, even
though Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians were not.

Moral relativism at its finest. Palestinians running onto buses with school children strapped with
a bomb, killing innocent civilians shopping in malls, and you compare this with Israeli military
operations attacking terrorists? How is that different than the US hunting down al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan? Israel is forced to defend itself, all collateral damage fall on the responsibility of
the aggressor:

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/innocentsinwar.shtml

As of this writing, virtually the entire Palestinian civilian infrastructure has been destroyed.
Ariel Sharon has made no attempt to explain why the "war on terrorism" necessitates the
destruction of water towers, firefighting brigades, sewage treatment plants, water mains,
residential homes, police stations, or shopping malls (to say nothing of widespread looting by
Israeli soldiers).

Widespread looting by Israeli soldiers? What is this, the conspiracy zone? Are you just making
this stuff up?

Let's be honest, people.

Oh for crying out loud, yes let's be honest Mike!!!

Does this look like the history of a peaceful nation surrounded by aggressors?

Well gee, if you distort everything they way you did then yeah, I guess you can make up all kinds
of lies and make it convincing propaganda.

Israel has consistently invaded neighbouring countries and expanded its territory over the years,
always with the same excuse: the need for "security".

Ok, Mike, you seem to take ad nauseum to the nth degree. Stating the same thing over and over
again is not going to make what you are saying true.

Their pattern does not change; they annex territory, and when resistance fighters in the occupied
territory attack their soldiers, they call it "terrorism" and use it as an excuse to increase their
military presence and crack down on the civilian population. Then they start to settle the
occupied territories, and when these settlers are attacked, they call it a "terrorist attack upon
Israeli civilians" even though they are not in Israel, and use it for an even greater military
presence as well as even harsher crackdowns.

Ad nauseum.

They did this with the Palestinian territory they seized in the 1947-1948 war (which is now
considered part of Israel, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the technique), and they are in
the process of extending this policy to Syria's Golan Heights, Jordan's West Bank, and the Gaza
strip.

Already said that. Ad nauseum.

[victorhadin]

Well I shouldn't really comment, but:

Fuck that. I'm not reading that lot.

[Majin Gojira]

Having read most of it, let me say this...

Isreal is one messed up place, has been from the get-go. probably the stupidest thing to come out of the second World War. Accept it.

[Nixon]

The second part to this long diatribe.

Myth
Reality
The Jews and Arabs shared Palestine prior to 1948, and the UN split the land evenly and fairly
between them. Arabs had no good reason to oppose this plan, so it is clear that they have been
unreasonable from the very beginning.
The UN did not split the land evenly or fairly. In 1947, Jews made up 30% of Palestine's
population and owned only about 6% of the land, but the UN gave them 55% of the land! Arabs
had every right to oppose this grossly unfair "partitioning" plan. Jewish property increased by
more than nine times under this plan, while Arab property decreased to less than half of what it
was.

First of all, listen to your own reasoning, since Israelis comprised of 30 percent of the population,
but owned 6 percent of the land, then after the UN partition, Israelis got 55 percent, they unfairly
received nine times the amount of land they previous had. Well since this gross unfairness you
spout says Israel originally had 6 percent of the land, wouldn't it be fair, according to your
premise of unfairness, that the Israelis get at least 30 percent of the land since they comprise of
30 percent of the population? So that would be an unfair, 4.116 times more than before. 30
percent minus 55 percent divided by 6 percent gives us 4.116. But that's besides the point. You
fail to state that the Arabs wanted all land in this region before UN partition to belong to Arab
sovereignty, thus the Jews would be subjected to persecution once again, as they had for
centuries first under Rome and then under the Islamic Ottoman Turks. Obviously the Jews did
not want this, but were always willing to compromise whereas the Arabs were not so willing. As
a Czechoslovakian member of The UN established Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP)
said to a delegation of Arabs in Beirut "I have listened to your demands and it seems to me that
in your view the compromise is: We want our demands met completely, the rest can be divided
among those left."

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Histor ... _plan.html

Myth
Reality
The UN partitioning plan was a good idea, and it would have worked if not for the unreasonable
Arab nations.
The UN partitioning plan was an awful idea. "Partitioning" is simply a euphemism for racial and
religious segregation, which is hardly a good idea. To delineate national borders based on race
and religion is an immoral, anachronistic throwback to a medieval age of ignorance and savagery
(see the Biblical Old Testament).
Religious separatism is a poison that destroys the fabric of just societies and creates walls of
enmity where none existed before, and in the examples of both Pakistan and Israel, we can see
quite clearly that it has led to nothing but unremitting hostility and territorial disputes.

That is a very myopic view and does not take reality into account, considering the Arabs before
partition were more than willing to kill the Jews before they could ever even establish any
independent state. An independence that many countries, like Greece, fought for from their
Islamic Turkish oppressors. Why are the Jews singled out for trying to gain their independence as
well? Both ethnic minorities were brutalized under Ottoman oppression, both sought
independence. But I guess according to you a "Greek State" is like saying an "Aryan State" So
what would you have the Jews do Mike, who offered compromises, in an effort to not be
brutalized under a theocratic or totalitarian Arab regime? Again, Israel is not the brutal theocracy
you make it out to be, it is far more tolerant of its ethnic and religious minorities than any Arab
nation. Do you think the Jews would enjoy the same kind of tolerance it gives to Muslims under
Yasser Arafat?

Myth
Reality
The UN legally recognized Israel's borders in 1948. That makes them legitimate.
Let's get real, people. The fact that something is legal does not necessarily make it right. And
Israel's supporters have no right to quote the UN's 1948 resolution as justification when Israel has
repeatedly ignored UN condemnations of their subsequent actions.

Israel does not require legitimacy from anyone. Not from you, not from the UN. It deserves to
live free from Islamic oppression. Oppression and annihilation which has been the ultimate stated
goal by the Arab states since day one. But let's look at the second part of your sentence, if Israeli
supporters have no right to use the UN's 1948 resolution as justification, then you cannot use any
other subsequent UN resolution since it comes from the same entity, by your own logic. What
right do you have to site UN resolutions that go against Israeli self-defense but ignore the UN's
1948 resolution? The argument goes both ways.

Myth
Reality
The UN delineated Israel's borders in 1948, and then Israel occupied them afterwards.
Check your dates. Israel had been conducting "clearing operations" against Palestinian towns and
villages since 1947, long before it had legal status. Zionist forces had been fighting a guerilla war
and conducting terrorist attacks since 1945! By the time the UN legalized the borders of Israel,
they were drawn around territory already won by military conquest in the 1947-1948 war, thus
consecrating an invasion which had driven an estimated 400,000 Palestinians out of their homes.

This is misleading considering the Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated "His Majesty's
Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people,"

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html#c

As far as allegedly starting their attacks against Arabs in 1945, you are citing terrorist acts
committed against British citizens in Palestine, not against Arabs. And as deplorable they were,
they did not represent the majority of Israelis. Hardly an all out attack on Palestinians by Israelis
that lead to mass refugees.



Not to mention, the Jews in this region for all this time before 1947 wanted peace with their Arab
neighbors, 80 percent of the Palestinians comprised of nomads and bedouins under absentee
landlords, and "the Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where
Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and,
most important, without tenants"

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html

Your assertion that there were "clearing operations" (If we are to assume that means forcefully
taking Palestinian territory) is untrue. As stated, the Jews were looking for peaceful means to
coexistence, you are referring to Jewish extremist killing British police officers and British
buildings in Palestine:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html

And of course once you again you distort the facts to suit your claims. Israelis took that land in
1947-1948 after their Arab neighbors attacked them and refused to cooperate to establish a
peaceful coexistence.

Myth
Reality
The creation of Israel represents justice for the victims of the Holocaust.
If this were about justice and not millenia-old religious land claims, the Jews should have been
given part of Germany, not part of Palestine! Today, the Germans are stronger and more
prosperous than ever, while the Palestinians live under the grinding heel of Israeli occupation. Is
this what we call "justice" for the Holocaust?

You are correct in that the holocaust is not a justification for the existence of Israel. That is not a
sufficient argument to a creation of Israel. But you say "millenia-old religious land claims" yet
you do not consider Jews had been living in Palestine for 2000 years. And that the Arabs, when
considering "millenia-old religious land claims" had no more a better claim than the Jews. So the
issue was, can these two ethnically and religiously diverse cultures co-exist peacefully? The
Jews, wanted a homeland, as was the case for so many other nations around the world (Greece,
Poland) and sought to have a peaceful relationship with the Arabs. But as I sited from those links,
the Arabs were not interested in peace.

Myth
Reality
The Palestinians left Israel of their own accord in 1948, and they had no reason to complain
about the situation until they were turned away by neighbouring Arab countries.
This is one of the most ridiculous Israeli myths in existence; are we supposed to seriously believe
that 400,000 people just got up and left their homes voluntarily in order to live in squalid refugee
camps? The Israelis forced the Palestinians out with so-called "clearing operations": a brutal
campaign of terror starting in 1947, designed to spread fear among the Palestinians and drive
them out of Israel.
Women and children were ruthlessly butchered in public as a warning to other Palestinians. The
most famous incident was the massacre of more than 100 unarmed civilian men, women and
children at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948 (yes, more than a month before Israel was declared a
nation), which was actually outside the territory granted to Israel but which occupied a
strategically useful location.

That is completely preposterous! The Arabs said in 1947, before the UN partition "the Arabs
would drench "the soil of our beloved country with the last drop of our blood . . . ." spoken by
Jamal Husseini, the Arab Higher Committee's spokesman, and holy men of Al-Azhar University
in Cairo called on the Muslim world to proclaim a jihad (holy war) against the Jews. The Arabs
started their attacks in 1947. Stop acting like the Jews all of a sudden started a war and drove out
the Palestinians. The Jews were attacked first!

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf4.html

The Arabs also launched a boycott against "Zionist products" in 1945. Even though Jewish
merchants had existed along side Arabs for centuries. And of course this being before 1947, the
boycott was in response to the possibility of Israeli state hood.

Myth
Reality
Jews purchased most of the land legally from Palestinians.
Most of Israel's land has been confiscated from Palestinians with no monetary compensation
whatsoever. Even in the occupied territories, thousands of Palestinian homes have been
bulldozed to make way for Jewish settlements, casting their residents out onto the streets without
compensation.

Completely and utterly false, with the exception of Jewish settlements, which had happened after
decades of Arab aggression. Israel did not confiscate land before 1947, before they were
attacked:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf2.html

Myth
Reality
Israel's territorial gains are legitimate war booty, just as legitimate as the land stolen from the
Native Americans. If Israel should give up the occupied territories, America and Canada should
give the land back to the Indians.
The two situations are not remotely comparable. Yes, European invaders conquered the Native
Americans a long time ago. Yes, they refuse to leave. But no, present-day Americans and
Canadians are not acting just like the Israelis! I can't speak for America, but I know that in my
own Canada, natives are full citizens with rights equal to or greater than those of any other group.
They receive preferential treatment at borders and at the income tax office. They can come and
go as they please, and on the reserves, they can engage in activities which would be illegal for
most other citizens, such as organized gambling. And of course, they can vote. Yes, they were
conquered. Yes, this was a bad thing. But today, a descendant of natives has greater rights than
any other Canadian citizen.
Contrast this to the Israelis' treatment of the Palestinians, who are marginalized and discriminated
against in Israel, and treated as an insect infestation in the occupied territories. If Israel wants to
compare itself to America, it should give up the pretense, annex the occupied territories and
declare them part of Israel, and then give all of the Palestinians in the occupied territories full
citizenship rights.
But they won't do that, will they? The last thing they want to do is to formally declare the
occupied territories part of Israel and give the Palestinians voting rights! They want to maintain
their racially discriminatory society while still claiming to be a democracy, and the two goals are
incompatible if they suddenly grant the vote to a huge bloc of non-Jewish people. That's why, for
more than 50 years, they have tried to slowly squeeze the Palestinians out of the region and into
neighbouring countries. That's why the occupied territories have never been declared part of
Israel even after decades of occupation. They don't want to assimilate the Palestinians; they want
to get rid of them through a combination of terror tactics in the occupied territories and overt
discrimination in Israel.

Absurd, to just give up all control over this territory without a peace agreement that is
guaranteed, would spell suicide for Israel. (Again, Israel is willing to talk, as they did with Egypt
and gave back all Egyptian land, the same with agreements to give back land to Syria and
Lebanon, and their efforts by Ehud Barak at the Oslo accord) You act like the Palestinians have
done nothing wrong, nevermind the constant attacks on Israel. Everything about this essay is
filled with misrepresentations of the truth. And you act like Israel is some kind of monster that
eats Palestinians for breakfast. Painting the Palestinians as "victims", they are not anymore
"victims" than Nazis and the German civilians that supported them during World War 2.

Myth
Reality
The day after Israel was formally recognized by the UN in 1948, 5 neighbouring Arab nations
declared war on it. This demonstrates their simmering hatred of Israel, which obviously had no
choice but to defend itself.
Once again, check your dates. Armed hostilities did not start at that time; they had actually been
ongoing since 1945, and at a high level of intensity since 1947. When the UN legitimized Israel's
military gains over their protests, it is not at all surprising that outraged Arab states reacted by
launching a major offensive.

You're not being honest. Those attacks you try to construe as something against Palestinian
Arabs, were committed by a Jewish Terrorist group which no longer exists. And those terrorist
acts, as deplorable as they were, were orchestrated against British civilians in Palestine. This is
hardly an outright attack on the Palestinians to drive them out of their land. The terrorist acts of
1945 were not targeted against them. Hostilities like these were isolated incidents by a radical
extremist group that targeted British civilians. A group that was not representative of the Jewish
population who sought peace with their neighbors.

Myth
Reality
Israel did not want to occupy the West Bank and the Golan Heights; it was forced to occupy the
West Bank and the Golan Heights in order to secure its borders.
Israel apparently learned the wrong lessons from Adolf Hitler, who used the same argument in
order to invade and occupy neighbouring nations before WW2.

A completely stupid analogy when you consider the countries Hitler invaded never launched an
attack against Germany.

It is obvious that they are lying about the motivations behind their occupation, since they have
been aggressively settling in the occupied territories since day one. The occupation is about
military conquest and expansion, not national security.

Ok buddy. Cause the Israelis just love being blown to bits by homicide bombers. I'm not going to
go on ad nauseam anymore like you have throughout your long repetitive diatribe. I believe I've
sufficiently covered this and dispelled it's idiocy.

Myth
Reality
Israel cannot withdraw from the occupied territories now, because the Palestinians would simply
use them as a staging ground to attack Israel. Do you expect Israel to leave itself defenseless?
True security is won by keeping good relations with your neighbours, not by brutalizing them or
putting an entire nation in a perpetual state of humiliating house arrest and debilitating enforced
poverty. 50 years of unremitting hostility and brutal suppression have not led to a safe and secure
Israel, so stop selling this bullshit story about how the solution is more of the same. Evil begets
evil.

Yes, Israel is bent on conquest, that's why it only expands when it's attacked, and then gives the
land back when sincere offers of peace are presented.

Myth
Reality
The land rightfully belongs to Israel, which is merely returning home after thousands of years in
exile.
Actually, the Israelis' own "holy scriptures" brag about the ruthless campaign of butchery in
which they originally conquered Canaan thousands of years ago (massacres of women and
children, complete extermination of entire cities, much as they did the second time around), and
that is no basis for a land claim! They didn't deserve the land thousands of years ago, and they
don't deserve it now.

Ad nauseam Mike. You already stated the aggressive nature of the Jews since the beginning of
time. (Yes, nothing against the Jewish people right Mike?) Nevermind the Arabs have no more a
legitimate claim to this region than the Jews by that criteria. As if what people did thousands of
years ago (as you seem to take as fact because its in holy scriptures) has any bearing on what
happened in the past 50 odd years.

All your remaining myths deal with issues, surprise, you already discussed. To sum in short, all
Palestinian civilians if not most are not innocent (read above links on Innocents of War) You try
to make a case for moral relativism, again, and I dispel that myth as well.

[Nixon]

Isreal is one messed up place, has been from the get-go. probably the stupidest thing to come out of the second World War. Accept it.

Ridiculous, you say this because you've bought Darth Wong's essay hook line and sinker. Despite the fact it totally misinterprets the events and distorts facts.

[Majin Gojira]

I say it because of what I learnedin History. It was made for 2 reasons: an apology for all the jews killed by hitler, and a place for them to go now that their homes were destroyed. so, they grabbed land from where Israel used to be, and gave it to them. completely ignoring the fact that people were currently living their.

Tell me that's not stupid.

(PS, Never read Wongs artical on the subject till you posted your response here...and why does your post look so messed up?! Are you pasting this response from a document in Word Perfect or something? cuz it's bugging the hell out of me!)

[Sir Sirius]

Although Israel is not the perfect country for individual liberty and freedom, it is a far better at upholding liberty than their surrounding Arab neighbors.

Unless you happen to be an Arab living in Israel. Besides two wrongs don't make a right.

And your analogous comparison to a Jewish state to that of an Aryan state is highly suspect, when Jews are not just unified by a religious
tradition of Judaism but are also an ethnic group.

There is no justification for attrocities and read the OT, the jews originaly conquered Palestine through force they are not the natives.

Change your analogy from "Aryan state" to "Greek state" or "Italian state" or "German state" or "French state" or "Japanese state" All these countries have one overwhelming ethnic majority sharing a common religion or culture. And within those countries are ethnic minorities. But just because a state has an identification with their predominate ethnic majority, does not mean that predisposes how they will treat their ethnic minorities.

Greek, Germany, Italy, France and Japane do not actively oppress their minorities, nor do they uphold apartheid policies. Isreal does both.

Of course you fail to mention this was done AFTER Israelis have been under constant terrorist attacks by Palestinians.<SNIP. Empty, appeals to emotions rhetoric removed.

There is no justification for attrocities and racism. Isreal oppresses all Palestinians, not just the terrorists.

Israel does not grant full liberties to terrorist infested Palestinian territories.

So your a racist as well. Nice to know your true colours.

Can you blame them?

Yes and I do blame them.

What would they do?

I think they would like to be independent and free from Israeli oppression.

Vote to exterminate the Jews?

So you claim that the vast majority of Palestinians wish to exterminate the jews. Nice that you show your true clours again, racist.

Aren't these the same Palestinians that celebrated in the streets of the West Bank after al-Qaeda terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11?

Broad generalization of the Palestine people based on the actions of a few radicals and there for inherently racist in nature.

Sorry, really can't feel bad for the Palestinian cause, they did it to themselves:

Again, there is no justification for attrocities and racism.

"This is particularly offensive. Time could've written a
piece detailing an Israeli family that lost a loved one to Palestinian hatred. Secondly, he is suggesting somehow that nations with a Judeo-Christian background are inherently more biased than those that do not."

Again two wrongs do not make a right and there is no justification for attrocities. Besides Isreal isn't driving the Palestinians from their homes to combat terrorism. Their just conducting an ethnic cleansing.

Bah, I've crown tired of reading this racist's crap. Could someone give "Nixon" the title 'Watergate man'.

Nixon see: http://www.zmag.org/ZNET.htm
Read the articles in the MidEast section and stopping hitting enter after every line.

[Warspite]

Now, that was... LONG!

I'm not going through all this, but can I pick a small point?

Yes, Israel is bent on conquest, that's why it only expands when it's attacked, and then gives the
land back when sincere offers of peace are presented.

I agree with Israel's expansion, but how about the colonates (typo?), the palestinian houses bulldozed to make way for Jewish "strongholds"? The palestinians were there before Europe shipped the Jews, so they have a right to the land. And when was the last time there were sincere offers of peace, and Israel did give the land back? Most offers of peace happen because Israel is pressured by the US and it may loose support, I never saw the Israelis give land ON THEIR OWN with a smile and a hardy handshake.

[Yogi]

Nice article Nixon.

Unfortunatly, Darth Wong knows his logic is absolutely correct and cannot be flawed, so arguing against him is quite futile. You can concede now, or you can be given a degrading custom title and/or run off the forum.

[Crown]

Also keep in mind that Jews lived in this region for centuries, from the Roman Empire through
the Ottoman Empire and beyond. Lets not pretend there was never any Jews in the region or that
100 percent of all Jews had fled the region during all this time.

To be fair I didn't read much beyond this 'argument' because really what is the point? You seek to rationalise an absurd action by a very weak thread. What exactly does this prove? I am Greek, my ancestors had settelements in the current area of Turkey. Take Istanbul, there is still a Greek minority there. They were there before the Ottomans, does this mean that I should storm the gates of Istanbul, drive all the Turks into the sea and rename the city Constantinople? Or Byzantine? Ridiculous? Absolutely. I could go even one better; my ancestors must have at one point treked out of Africa, does that mean that I have a 'historic' right to all of Africa? Even more ludecrous.

However here is a question, I assume that you reside in North America, so tell me have you given up your home to the Native Americans yet? Would you?

Well anyway, welcome to SD.net.

[Crown]

Yes, Israel is bent on conquest, that's why it only expands when it's attacked, and then gives the
land back when sincere offers of peace are presented.

It seems that Moshe Dayan disagrees with you;

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 0&start=30

Here is a quote from Moshe Dayan, Israel's celebrated Defence Minister of the 1967 War;

'At least 80% of the skirmishes there [prior to the War] started by us sending a tractor to plough inside the demilitarised zone, knowing in advance the Syrians would start shooting. If they did not, we would tell the tractor to go on until the Syrians got nervous and did start shooting. Then we would use cannons and later even air force.' Dayan added that the decision to occupy the Golan was taken by PM Levi Eshkol, among other reasons, under pressure of a delegation from the Kibbutzim [...], whose true motivation was the desire for more land" (Yedioth Achronot, 17.12.1999).

The occupied Golan has formally been annexed, settled by Israelis, and, contrary to international legislation, Israel has been extensively exploiting its nature resources: "Mey Eden", an Israeli-based mineral water producer, is pumping in the occupied Golan. Typically, even the Yizchak Rabin Monument in Tel-Aviv is made of black basalt from the Syrian Heights

And giving land back??!!!

In the Shepherdstown Protocol leaked from the latest peace talks under President Clinton, the Syrian proposal –

"The location of the border has been agreed upon by the parties, based upon the line of June 4th, 1967. The State of Israel will withdraw all its military forces and civilians behind this border"

– was met by the following Israeli version:

"The location of the border has been agreed upon by the parties, taking into account security considerations and other considerations essential to the parties, as well as legal considerations of both parties. The State of Israel will re-deploy all its military forces behind this border."

So Barak's "generous offer" to Syria offered no withdrawal but just "redeployment"; no eviction of Israeli civilians; and did not even mention the 1967 border. (Document published in Ha'aretz, 13.1.2000).

Seems you might want to research something other than pro-Israeli media.

[Stravo]

Nice article Nixon.

Unfortunatly, Darth Wong knows his logic is absolutely correct and cannot be flawed, so arguing against him is quite futile. You can concede now, or you can be given a degrading custom title and/or run off the forum.

I assume that's sarcasm because if it is not I feel sorry for folks who believe that anyone is infallible when it comes to a topic like the Middle East where the lines of blurred to the point where no one is right and everyone has unclean hands.

[NecronLord]

So..... your argument boils down to "Israel is not as bad as it's neighbours" I could say that the USSR was not as bad as Nazi germany (yes they did kill more, but over a much longer time period) and therefore the USSR was a good state.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I say it because of what I learnedin History. It was made for 2 reasons: an apology for all the jews killed by hitler, and a place for them to go now that their homes were destroyed. so, they grabbed land from where Israel used to be, and gave it to them. completely ignoring the fact that people were currently living their.

Tell me that's not stupid.

Not only is that not stupid, it's wrong. A Jewish state was forming in that area since 1882 when the first Aliyah began. At first the Jews bought, note, that's bought not stole, empty land. Then when there was no more of that, they legally purchased land from the owners. Since that's well before Hitler came into power it has very little to do with him.

In 1917 and area, which was controlled by the British and not the Arabs, was divided into two countries Transjordan for the Arabs and Palestine for the Jews. The Jews got 23% of the land, much of which was desert. Remember, this in 1917, still nothing to do with Hitler.

After Anti-Jewish riots and WWII (where the Jews fought for the Allies and the Arabs publicly praised Hilter for trying to exterminate the Jews), the land was divided again, this time the Jews got 55% of what was left, or roughly 12% of the original figure. But you only hear 55%. Some freak out saying that the Jews were only 30% of the population and 6% of the land owners, but the division wasn't based on the number of Jews there, but the number of Jews that would be there if Israel was formed. And guess what? More Jews moved to Israel, or should fled to Israel than Arabs who fled away. And Israel even offered to compensate those Arabs, under the condition that Arab countries compensated Jews who lost homes, property, etc. when they left. The Arabs refused, but the lack of compensation is still brought up as a reason Israel is wrong.

[Darth Wong]

Every idiot who seeks to discredit that essay always assumes that it claims Palestine is morally flawless, that Palestine and all Arab nations should be treated as a monolithic group (because they're the same race; hmmmm ... what does this say about "Nixon" ...) and performs the bait-and-switch of refuting comments about Palestinians living in the race-ghetto of the occupied territories with Palestinians living outside the race-ghetto, even though the article takes pains to point out the difference (and the fact that this distinction is the loophole the Israelis use to excuse their own behaviour).

It is a rather pitiful comment on the state of reading comprehension in North America that this is the most common "rebuttal". Perhaps if they taught people how to read in school ...

[Darth Wong]

Nice article Nixon.

Unfortunatly, Darth Wong knows his logic is absolutely correct and cannot be flawed, so arguing against him is quite futile. You can concede now, or you can be given a degrading custom title and/or run off the forum.

If that were the case, I would have run your ass out of here a long time ago, asshole.

[Nixon]

Every idiot who seeks to discredit...

Ad hominem attacks Darth Wong? Why not discuss the merit of the arguments I bring up?

that essay always assumes that it claims Palestine is morally flawless, that Palestine and all Arab nations should be treated as a monolithic group

I never said such a thing!! On the contrary, you have successfully painted Israel as a morally corrupt country since Biblical times (Amazing considering Israel was almost virtually destroyed by the Romans and afterwards the Ottomans) You are guilty of claiming that Israel has only done wrong, and nothing but wrong. You claim you have nothing against the Jewish race, and then go on to bash the Jewish race. You say they are an expansionist military facist state, yet at the same time say, at least, nominally democracy. And you completely fail to point out Israel has given back a lot of territory taken in armed conflict through peace negotiations. Your comments are racist and full of unsubstantiated propoganda. And you try to guess the ulterior motives of actions where there was a clear motive of self-defense. And I stated clearly several times, Israel is not perfect, it has its flaws, but as I said, and is clearly true, it is light years better than their Arab neighboring states.

(because they're the same race; hmmmm ... what does this say about "Nixon" ...)

When did I say that Darth Wong? You're just taking my arguments out of context and making a straw man argument. Is that the best you can say?

and performs the bait-and-switch of refuting comments about Palestinians living in the race-ghetto of the occupied territories with Palestinians living outside the race-ghetto, even though the article takes pains to point out the difference (and the fact that this distinction is the loophole the Israelis use to excuse their own behaviour).

And you painstakenly ignore all the food and aid that has gone to these "race-ghetto" as you call them, with Israel herself donating, but with Yasser Arafat being the depost that he is, has not let his own people get that aid and now has millions of dollars in a European bank account. The charities have been pouring in, pouring into Yasser Arafact and Hamas and Hezbollah. You completely make the issue one-sided, and CONSISTENTLY ignore attempts by Israel to make peace and rectifiy the situation.

It is a rather pitiful comment on the state of reading comprehension in North America that this is the most common "rebuttal". Perhaps if they taught people how to read in school ...

That's just lazy Darth Wong. Can you try any better?

You say Israel is a fascist military state and compare to "Starship Troopers" because those who serve receive special rights. Which doesn't make sense considering all Israeli citizens serve in the military, male and female, so by that criteria, no one can receive any more special rights than any other person since every citizen serves. Plus you ignore the fact that in the US, Veterans receive special rights and everyone in this country DOES NOT serve in the military. Seems like by your argument the US is more of Facist military state than Israel.

But hey, I'll take the high ground and not call you an idiot.

[Nixon]

Yogi wrote:
Nice article Nixon.

Unfortunatly, Darth Wong knows his logic is absolutely correct and cannot be flawed, so arguing against him is quite futile. You can concede now, or you can be given a degrading custom title and/or run off the forum.

If that were the case, I would have run your ass out of here a long time ago, asshole.

Hmmm......asshole. Have I made my point? What else do you want to call Yogi? Poopy head? Doo doo face? Go ahead, get it all out.

[HemlockGrey]

You say Israel is a fascist military state and compare to "Starship Troopers" because those who serve receive special rights. Which doesn't make sense considering all Israeli citizens serve in the military, male and female, so by that criteria, no one can receive any more special rights than any other person since every citizen serves. Plus you ignore the fact that in the US, Veterans receive special rights and everyone in this country DOES NOT serve in the military. Seems like by your argument the US is more of Facist military state than Israel.

But in the US, everyone has the right to join the army. In Israel, the Pales cannot.

'D' is for death, discrimation, and, in your case, denial.

[Colonel Olrik]

Yogi wrote:
Nice article Nixon.

Unfortunatly, Darth Wong knows his logic is absolutely correct and cannot be flawed, so arguing against him is quite futile. You can concede now, or you can be given a degrading custom title and/or run off the forum.

If that were the case, I would have run your ass out of here a long time ago, asshole.

Hmmm......asshole. Have I made my point? What else do you want to call Yogi? Poopy head? Doo doo face? Go ahead, get it all out.

Of course, it has never ocurred to you that this forum existed before you joined, and that that comment is related to the posting story of Yogi, specially his past debates with Darth Wong.

[HemlockGrey]

And you painstakenly ignore all the food and aid that has gone to these "race-ghetto" as you call them, with Israel herself donating, but with Yasser Arafat being the depost that he is, has not let his own people get that aid and now has millions of dollars in a European bank account. The charities have been pouring in, pouring into Yasser Arafact and Hamas and Hezbollah. You completely make the issue one-sided, and CONSISTENTLY ignore attempts by Israel to make peace and rectifiy the situation.

Just a brief comment, here; shelling, forcible occupation, curfews, bulldozers, discrimination, and tanks are not tools of a peacable force.

[Falcon]

Just a brief comment, here; shelling, forcible occupation, curfews, bulldozers, discrimination, and tanks are not tools of a peacable force.

Neither is the flood of teens with tnt strapped to their bodies which prompts Israel to take such actions.

[HemlockGrey]

Neither is the flood of teens with tnt strapped to their bodies which prompts Israel to take such actions.

So? I didn't say the Palestinians were paragons of virtue. I was simply pointing out that Israel has not yet made any serious attempts at peace- and, might I add, that the floodgates were opened by Israel's own actions.

[Sir Sirius]

Just a brief comment, here; shelling, forcible occupation, curfews, bulldozers, discrimination, and tanks are not tools of a peacable force.

Neither is the flood of teens with tnt strapped to their bodies which prompts Israel to take such actions.

The Israeli aren't driving the Palestinians out of their homes to combat terrorism. And which came first, the terrorism or Israeli apartheid?

[Falcon]

The Israeli aren't driving the Palestinians out of their homes to combat terrorism. And which came first, the terrorism or Israeli apartheid?

Very often attacks are launched from civilian housing or are carried out by the average Palestinian. Bombs have to be strapped on somewhere, terrorists have to organize on someone's table, the civilians are not innocent in all this. Directly or indirectly they support what goes on.

btw, if Israel were out to kill all the Palestinians all I can say is that they are doing a lousy job of it so far. The Palestinians are doing a better job of killingthemselves (lo suicide bombers) /irony