Darth Wong's Israel bashing

[Admiral Piett]

Why argue with a APC? Does it have the right to vote?

Sarcasm is an unknown concept to you.They tried to protest peacefully and were welcomed with machinegun fire (I guess that this was not aired in the US).This happend to foreigners,mind you.
Guess what happens to palestinians,whose death would not even cause a diplomatic accident.

Hell, do you even know what Ghandi did? Cause it sure doesn't cound like it.

Civil disobedience,peaceful protests,boycott and all the other stuff.It works only against people who have scruples.Sharon and many of his supporters do not.

So you admit they were harder than the Palestinians.

Where have I said that?These people were not shut down by the government.A better description would be that they became THE government.Many of their members at least.
Something you should know well if you bothered to read some zionist websites,such as that I pointed out.But I guess that repeating the standard american bullshit about the "israelians were hard on their terrorists organization" is easier.

Whose leader is also a ex-terrorist. Whose security force consists of mostly ex, or not so ex-terrorists. Whose biggest attack against terrorism is the occational harsly worded letter.

Which applies wonderfully to the Isreal of the early years.
Let us recapitulate.
Many of their leaders ex terrorists.
Whose security forces made partly by terrorists (because many of the Irgun ended in the IDF).
And whose biggest attack against terrorism were harsly communiques ,before the birth of Isreal, and nothing after.

Fuck you, bitch. If you've got a rock and I've got a M-16 of course I'm going to kill more of you than you are of me.

Standard practice to deal with rocks throwing protestors in the USA,I guess?

Of are you too fucking stupid to take training and equipment into account?

And I that I thought that the superior training and equipment was supposed to be used to minimize collateral casualties...

You go on repeating the pro Israel party's line without even bothering to read ZIONIST material.But I guess that even that must be too much pro palestinians.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Why argue with a APC? Does it have the right to vote?

Sarcasm is an unknown concept to you.They tried to protest peacefully

When? Betweem suicide bombings?

Hell, do you even know what Ghandi did? Cause it sure doesn't cound like it.

Civil disobedience,peaceful protests,boycott and all the other stuff.It works only against people who have scruples.Sharon and many of his supporters do not.

But the people who vote? Polls show they support removing settlements.

So you admit they were harder than the Palestinians.

Where have I said that?

"Certainly not much harder than the palestinians."

Not much harder = Harder, just not a lot.

Whose leader is also a ex-terrorist. Whose security force consists of mostly ex, or not so ex-terrorists. Whose biggest attack against terrorism is the occational harsly worded letter.

Which applies wonderfully to the Isreal of the early years.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Fuck you, bitch. If you've got a rock and I've got a M-16 of course I'm going to kill more of you than you are of me.

Standard practice to deal with rocks throwing protestors in the USA,I guess?
Certainly I suppose that many fascists would argue that it is the best form of riot control.

My god, you are stupid.

I've got an assault rifle. You've got a rock. What do you do?

After you throw the rock, thus demonstrating you're too stupid to live. I have three options.

1.) Do nothing.
2.) Drop my gun and throw rocks back.
3.) Return fire.

Remember, this is fucking riot control. This is a god damn combat zone.

Of are you too fucking stupid to take training and equipment into account?

And I that I thought that the superior training and equipment was supposed to be used to minimize collateral casualties...

No, there used to killed you opponents. Granted, you should care about minimizing collateral damage, but when you opponents don't why should you?

You are expecting Israel to take the moral high ground and act much, much better than the Palestinians or they are evil. Don't you see how stupid that is? If it's just you and me the one who acts better, not matter how bad they act is the 'good guy' in the fight. You can't just point to one and say, 'They're not acting like a good guy should, so they are the bad guys. The actions of the other side don't enter into the equation.'

[Admiral Piett]

When? Betweem suicide bombings?

No,the classic dumb western peaceniks who went there to do their sit in and the other non violent stuff.They got a warm welcome.Maybe they learnt something of valuable about how things work in the real world,so it was not wasted ammo at least.
Still I do not see how the palestinians could succeed at that.

But the people who vote? Polls show they support removing settlements.

Then they should ask themselves why they keep on voting people whose agenda does not include a removing settlements policy.

Not much harder = Harder, just not a lot.

My fault.But the point does not change.The israelians did not shut down terrorism.The goal of those organizations was reached and so basically they dissolved themselves (the Irgun had signed a pact to join the IDF).
They faced no consequences for their acts of terror against the british or the palestinians.And many of their members became important israelian politicians.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Are not you the one who says that the Israelians are so much better?

My god, you are stupid.

I've got an assault rifle. You've got a rock. What do you do?

After you throw the rock, thus demonstrating you're too stupid to live. I have three options.

1.) Do nothing.
2.) Drop my gun and throw rocks back.
3.) Return fire.

Remember, this is fucking riot control. This is a god damn combat zone.

Chidren throwing rocks are a combat zone? Wow.(sarcasm on) And they deserve death, like a lot of those pesky no global who go around throwing rocks and dare to protest against the USA and the West,these bastions of freedom which tulerate dissent...(sarcasm off)
A bunch of children throwing rocks is precisely a riot control situation.
They are not different from or more dangerous than western dumbasses throwing rocks at the police.Last time I checked in the West the use of lethal force is not considered the primary option to deal with these situations.

No, there used to killed you opponents. Granted, you should care about minimizing collateral damage, but when you opponents don't why should you?

You are expecting Israel to take the moral high ground and act much, much better than the Palestinians or they are evil. Don't you see how stupid that is? If it's just you and me the one who acts better, not matter how bad they act is the 'good guy' in the fight. You can't just point to one and say, 'They're not acting like a good guy should, so they are the bad guys. The actions of the other side don't enter into the equation.'

So if someone is only slight better than the adversaire,by a small margin, then it becomes the "good guy" and that the hell may descend upon anyone who dares to criticize him.Don't you see how stupid that is?
So according to you no one should dare to criticize the Soviet Union or God forbid, Stalin, because they were better than the nazis.

[beyond hope]

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:

So, after voicing criticism of this essay for being "so damn long," you proceed to go through and post the essay in it's entirity, along with several repetitions of the URLs you use from Israel apologist websites in attempted refutation. Do I hear the pot calling the kettle something? This is precisely why I made the comparison to DarkStar: what you're indulging in here is the "Argument from Exhaustion" where you hope that people will get fed up half-way through reading your post and fail to address some point in it. It won't endear you to anyone who's gone through one of DarkStar's long-winded diatribes before.

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.

If you dislike that analogy, perhaps you'd prefer Apartheid South Africa. 3.3 million Palestinians are crowded into the West Bank and the Gaza strip in a manner highly reminiscient of the Bantus without even the poor joke of "self-rule." As far as the "overwhelming majority," another 1 million of Israel's population of 6.6 million are arabs. Add those to the 3.3 million in territory that Israel likes to claim as its own without claiming the original inhabitants, and arabs are nearly 2/3rds of Israel's population.

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.

We're talking about the state of Israel here: a state which ceased to have any independant existance since at least the Roman occupation of 63 b.c. I suppose by this logic we should be prepared to hand over most of Europe to re-form the Holy Roman Empire. Not only did the UN decide to resurrect a dead state, but they proposed to give the jewish minority in Palestine over half of the land!

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

Please read the Fourth Geneva convention. Not only does it expressly forbid colonizing foreign lands seized in battle (ie. the settlements in the West Bank,) but it also forbids the wholesale punishment of a conquered population for the actions of a few (by cutting off their power or water, for example.) Israel stands in clear violation of it. Rather than directly address that here you indulge in a little UN and China bashing of your own (strawman anyone?) You don't like China's civil rights record? Let's see, what do they do... oh yes, they're occupying land (Tibet for one) gained in an invasion, and they put down demonstrations against the government using their military, sometimes in spectaculary bloody fashion. Hmmm... sounds like another nation I know. Too bad for China they don't have Israel's skill at PR.

I find the arguments regarding the UN and China particularly offensive: it's the morality of a kid in trouble for coming home from a party with beer on his breath, who says "everyone else at the party was drinking vodka, so I shouldn't be grounded for having a few beers." Shall we free murderers because serial murderers are worse? It's laughable as a moral position. Yes, I find the spectacle of some African and Middle Eastern countries condemning Israel to be nauseating when similar activities (and worse) go on within their own nations. That does not invalidate the criticism.

This line of argument is also a tacit acknowledgement that the charges regarding Israel's conduct have merit. Do you truly have that little confidence in your position?

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.

So you're saying you wasted some pixels right here to make a totally irrelevant point? Sounds like a red herring to me.

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?

Again we return to "everyone else is doing it, so why can't Israel?!" This seems to be a common theme in your "rebuttal." Other countries do it too, so that makes it okay? Surely you have a better justification than that.

Now, let's look at these "better economic conditions." Unemployment is 50% in the West Bank and an appalling 70% in the Gaza Strip. 67% of the Palestinians in the occupied territories live under the poverty line of $2 a day. Compare that to a $20,000 GDP per capita and 9% unemployment within Israel. Oh yeah, let's not forget total government control of the water supply in the West Bank. Drilling a new well or repairing an old one requires a variety of permits which are notoriously difficult to acquire. Arabs in the occupied territories sure have it good. Want to argue that $2 a day is better than the GDP per capita of "the entire arab world" and advance some proof for the point, or would you prefer to stick with our little friend the Unsupported Claim?

(Incidently: Syria's GDP per capita is $3200. With 15-20% of their population living under that $2 a day poverty line, conditions there are STILL better than the occupied territories.)

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.

How did I know this guy was going to use the term "Homicide Bomber" sooner or later?

You seem to forget the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians their homes in 1948, or the seizure of property in the West Bank after Israel declared that any property which the occupants could not produce title to belonged to the state of Israel. The license plate marking scheme is simply a continuing evolution of Israel's policy of treating the Palestinians as foreign nationals on their own land while simultaneously claiming they are "Israeli-Arabs" and thus not a distinct minority.

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.

This is out-and-out bullshit. Tell that to the 750,000 arabs (out of about 900,000 living in the area before Israel declared independence) who were expelled from the country. Tell it to the approximately 25% of those remaining within Israel whose land was seized, causing them to end up as internal refugees. Nice to see you resort to outright lying on this one.

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.

Don't forget that 25% of the Gaza strip and 46% of the West Bank are currently controlled by the settlements. That's 25% of a 26 mile stretch of land in the hands of only 7,000 Israeli settlers compared to the 1,100,000 Palestinians: .6% of the people control 25% of the land! The West Bank is the same story: 46% of the land controlled by 376,000 settlers with the scraps left for the 2,200,000 arabs. That's 46% of the land in the hands of 17.1% of the people there.

P.S.: demanding evidence when you've failed to advance much yourself is an amusing bit of hypocrisy.

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.

This is another bald-faced lie. The ONLY non-jewish group permitted to serve in the IDF are the Druse. Shame on you for even trying to pull that one. The special priviledges for military service include larger mortgages, preferential public employment and eligibility for public housing, and lower course fees. And while we're on the subject, Israel is a signitory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite the fact that it bans punishment of conscientious objectors, Israel still routinely imprisons people who refuse to serve and in at least one case has jailed a man (Victor Sabranski) 5 times for it in further violation of the ban on punishing conscientious objectors more than once. Throwing in the "no matter what they do you'll say it's wrong" part makes it an Ad Hominem attack as well, implying that personal bias is the root of Mike's entire argument while failing to refute the point that "Israeli-Arabs" who may wish to join the IDF are barred from service.

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 histotalitarian terrorist friends. Site empirical evidence to these claims.

7,000 Israelis own 25% of the land in the Gaza strip and 376,000 Israelis own 46% in the West Bank. Settlements are dotted across both occupied territories in such a manner as to isolate the Palestinian enclaves from each other (and to make any effort to make a contiguous Palestinian state totally futile.) This was the aim of extremists in Likud in the first place: to make withdrawl from the occupied territories totally impossible for future Israel leadership.) The entire region is controlled by roadblocks and checkpoints, so that it can take an entire day to make the 25-mile journey from Ramallah to Jericho. Those checkpoints are manned and all of the settlements guarded, which puts the lie to your claim that the IDF "only shows up in the area when Palestinians cause trouble." Within Israel's own territory, 31.6% of Arabs live in overcrowded conditions compared to 5.7% of Jews. Arabs receive only 12.5% of Israel's welfare budget, despite having 28.3% of their people living under the poverty line compared to 16% of the Jewish population.

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.

See above. Since the title of Mike's essay was "The True Nature of Israel" it's entirely relevant. Stop trying to move the goal posts here.

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.

It's spelled out right in the 1992 Law of Political Parties, which prevents candidates from participating in the elections if their platform suggests the "denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." In other words, any political party whose aim is equality for arabs and jews cannot participate in elections. Taxation without representation. Try and find just ONE damn Palestinian legislator in the Knesset.

"...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

Nice loaded language in the first sentance. This would be more accurately stated as "Israel prevents the Palestinians in these areas from voting because the most likely act of a conquered people would be to vote for their freedom from Israeli domination." The following 3 sentances are Begging the Question. How's this for an answer: maybe they'd vote to have equal rights under the law (which the Basic Law: Human Diginities and Freedom does *not* specify... in fact it affirms "the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." - emphasis mine.) Maybe they'd also vote for creation of a Palestinian nation. Israel wants neither.

The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.

Did you even read this essay before you pasted the link?! The author clearly disagrees with you on the morality of allowing Israel to disenfranchise 3.3 million Palestinians in the occupied territories. Way to shoot your own rebuttal in the foot.

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."

I can play this game too: "if the Israelis really wanted peace, they wouldn't have elected a Likud extremist like Sharon who had his troops stand back and watch while the Christian Phalange slaughtered refugees in Sabra and Shatila. The fact that they did proves they don't want peace and just want to exterminate the Palestinians. As a result they suffer more bomb attacks." How do you like it from the opposing point of view? We can toss those sorts of statements back and forth all day long and they signify nothing. To rebutt your friend's point: Mike is saying that Judeo-Christian nations have a built-in bias in favor of Israel. Keep on beating up that "Judeo-Christians are bigots" strawman, though.

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?)

See evidence above. They're an Apartheid state in the tradition of South Africa.

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?

Good idea: I'd bet they'd tell you they were unhappy with the UN plan for the Jewish minority (many of whom were recent immigrants) to end up with over half of Palestine.

Anyway, that's as far as I'm going through this drivel.

[papachulo10]

I know i am gonna regret this later on, but i feel that i must put in my 2 cents.

"A bunch of children throwing rocks is precisely a riot control situation.
They are not different from or more dangerous than western dumbasses throwing rocks at the police.Last time I checked in the West the use of lethal force is not considered the primary option to deal with these situations." (not sure who wrote this and since i don't know how to quote....can someone help me with this).

Ok i understand that some of the israli tactics might be harsh, yet one must understand that this isn't the west. This is more like the wild west. You aren't in cincinatti and seattle trying to subdue tree huggers and rabid sports fans. I understand that children are among the dead. It is like you are in Stalingrad over there, bad things happen.

I just don't think the Palestinians have the right to kill civilians, kill troops damnit. Kill merkvas, kill apcs, kill m16 toting isralies, just stay away from the cafes. The palistinians could at least claim that they are attackin military targets and get some sort of internation support.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

When? Betweem suicide bombings?

No,the classic dumb western peaceniks who went there to do their sit in and the other non violent stuff.They got a warm welcome.Maybe they learnt something of valuable about how things work in the real world,so it was not wasted ammo at least.
Still I do not see how the palestinians could succeed at that.

So outsiders failed to get sympathy. Hmm, I never would have guessed that.

But the people who vote? Polls show they support removing settlements.

Then they should ask themselves why they keep on voting people whose agenda does not include a removing settlements policy.

Cause they are more concerned about security cause the Palestinians are triyng to use terrorism to win.

Not much harder = Harder, just not a lot.

My fault.But the point does not change.The israelians did not shut down terrorism.The goal of those organizations was reached and so basically they dissolved themselves (the Irgun had signed a pact to join the IDF).
They faced no consequences for their acts of terror against the british or the palestinians.And many of their members became important israelian politicians.

They were disarmed. Which is more than you can say for the Palestinian terrorists.

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Are not you the one who says that the Israelians are so much better?

Israelians?

Anywho, you're talking about the early years, you even said so yourself. This situation exists today in Palestine.

My god, you are stupid.

I've got an assault rifle. You've got a rock. What do you do?

After you throw the rock, thus demonstrating you're too stupid to live. I have three options.

1.) Do nothing.
2.) Drop my gun and throw rocks back.
3.) Return fire.

Remember, this is fucking riot control. This is a god damn combat zone.

Chidren throwing rocks are a combat zone?

When you move into a situation where deadly force is expected, it's a combat zone. If the people with gun don't show up, but instead sent out kids with rocks, it's still a combat zone. When those kids die, their blood is on the hand of those that sent them out.

Wow.(sarcasm on) And they deserve death, like a lot of those pesky no global who go around throwing rocks and dare to protest against the USA and the West,these bastions of freedom which tulerate dissent...(sarcasm off)

A bunch of children throwing rocks is precisely a riot control situation.
They are not different from or more dangerous than western dumbasses throwing rocks at the police.Last time I checked in the West the use of lethal force is not considered the primary option to deal with these situations.

Keep talking, and keep proving you know nothing about the situation.

No, there used to killed you opponents. Granted, you should care about minimizing collateral damage, but when you opponents don't why should you?

You are expecting Israel to take the moral high ground and act much, much better than the Palestinians or they are evil. Don't you see how stupid that is? If it's just you and me the one who acts better, not matter how bad they act is the 'good guy' in the fight. You can't just point to one and say, 'They're not acting like a good guy should, so they are the bad guys. The actions of the other side don't enter into the equation.'

So if someone is only slight better than the adversaire,by a small margin, then it becomes the "good guy" and that the hell may descend upon anyone who dares to criticize him.Don't you see how stupid that is?

Nice strawman.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

I just don't think the Palestinians have the right to kill civilians, kill troops damnit. Kill merkvas, kill apcs, kill m16 toting isralies, just stay away from the cafes. The palistinians could at least claim that they are attackin military targets and get some sort of internation support.

Yep, I have no problem when Palestinians attack military targets. And they do, on occasion, ambush military checkpoints. It's when they target civilians they lose any sympathy they might deserve.

[beyond hope]

I know i am gonna regret this later on, but i feel that i must put in my 2 cents.

"A bunch of children throwing rocks is precisely a riot control situation.
They are not different from or more dangerous than western dumbasses throwing rocks at the police.Last time I checked in the West the use of lethal force is not considered the primary option to deal with these situations." (not sure who wrote this and since i don't know how to quote....can someone help me with this).

Ok i understand that some of the israli tactics might be harsh, yet one must understand that this isn't the west. This is more like the wild west. You aren't in cincinatti and seattle trying to subdue tree huggers and rabid sports fans. I understand that children are among the dead. It is like you are in Stalingrad over there, bad things happen.

I just don't think the Palestinians have the right to kill civilians, kill troops damnit. Kill merkvas, kill apcs, kill m16 toting isralies, just stay away from the cafes. The palistinians could at least claim that they are attackin military targets and get some sort of internation support.

First, welcome to the boards. Second, you can quote in two ways: either hit the "quote" button to automatically format the quote, or also type

Code: Select all

[quote] then what you want to paste in, then [/quote]

You'll get the hang of it as you go along.

I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the Palestinians are a squeaky-clean bunch or that there's any justification for suicide bombings. Neither is there any justification for the Israeli "Targeted killing" tactic of firing hellfire anti-tank missiles from Apache gunships into cars and apartments.

<edited to properly show how quotes operate>

[papachulo10]

Thanks for the tips. Ill put them to good use.

I understand the fact that the palestinians are squeaky clean, i also understand the fact that neither are the isralies. Yet many people seem to take a definate anti-israli view. Not that is wrong, i just haven't seen that many in one spot (or haven't seen that many vocal ones).

[SeebianWurm]

Can I poke it?

[beyond hope]

Be careful poking newbies, you don't know where they've been

[Vympel]

Good post Beyond Hope- you actually bothered to trudge through that crap. Matus seems to be a proponent of the debate through exhaustion as well.

[Nixon]

So, after voicing criticism of this essay for being "so damn long," you proceed to go through and post the essay in it's entirity, along with several repetitions of the URLs you use from Israel apologist websites in attempted refutation. Do I hear the pot calling the kettle something? This is precisely why I made the comparison to DarkStar: what you're indulging in here is the "Argument from Exhaustion" where you hope that people will get fed up half-way through reading your post and fail to address some point in it. It won't endear you to anyone who's gone through one of DarkStar's long-winded diatribes before.

That was precisely my point, Darth Wong's essay was in fact argument from exhaustion. I attempted to point out the ad nauseam nature of his essay.

If you dislike that analogy, perhaps you'd prefer Apartheid South Africa. 3.3 million Palestinians are crowded into the West Bank and the Gaza strip in a manner highly reminiscient of the Bantus without even the poor joke of "self-rule." As far as the "overwhelming majority," another 1 million of Israel's population of 6.6 million are arabs. Add those to the 3.3 million in territory that Israel likes to claim as its own without claiming the original inhabitants, and arabs are nearly 2/3rds of Israel's population.

Nice way of ignoring my argument. I said, the name of the country, does not predispose how that country treats its ethnic minorities. Regardless if you think Israel abuses its minorities or not (or to what degree), or what territory you think should constitute Israel or not. I'll state what Darth Wong said again: "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."

Now, there are many examples where a country identifies itself with an ethnic group, or religion. I'll take one, Greece. The Greek flag, has a cross on it, representing the Greek Orthodox Christianity. Greece, is a name identifying the Greek ethnicity, an ethnic and religious identification. Yet there are approximately 2 million Albanians and other non-Greeks, which are not victims of abuse by the Greek government. Therefore, contrary to what Darth Wong said, what a country calls itself, or what is on its flag, does not presume it is a nation founded on the premise of racial and religious separatism. He made the remark (a non-sequiter) to color his argument. That's no longer finding an objective truth, but promulgating idealogy.

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.

We're talking about the state of Israel here: a state which ceased to have any independant existance since at least the Roman occupation of 63 b.c. I suppose by this logic we should be prepared to hand over most of Europe to re-form the Holy Roman Empire. Not only did the UN decide to resurrect a dead state, but they proposed to give the jewish minority in Palestine over half of the land!

A state does not have to exist for the Jewish people to have existed in this region for millenia. What are you talking about?

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


Please read the Fourth Geneva convention. Not only does it expressly forbid colonizing foreign lands seized in battle (ie. the settlements in the West Bank,) but it also forbids the wholesale punishment of a conquered population for the actions of a few (by cutting off their power or water, for example.) Israel stands in clear violation of it.

That is a strawman argument. Israel's actions were in self-defense, not colonial conquest, nor should the fact it is Geneva convention rules make it right. As far as the wholesale punishment of Palestinian Arabs, I refer you to Matus's recent post, showing that Palestinian Arabs under Israel have enjoyed far greater growth of wealth and individual rights, than when they were under Arab governments of Jordan, Syria, PLO, et al.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 111#221111

Rather than directly address that here you indulge in a little UN and China bashing of your own (strawman anyone?)

Not at all. The UN has a poor track record of upholding peace by trying to be inclusive to aggressive totalitarian regimes. I was merely pointing out the initial strawman argument of Darth Wong, just because there are UN resolutions calling for Israel to act in a certain way, does not make it right. That is a strawman.

You don't like China's civil rights record? Let's see, what do they do... oh yes, they're occupying land (Tibet for one) gained in an invasion, and they put down demonstrations against the government using their military, sometimes in spectaculary bloody fashion. Hmmm... sounds like another nation I know. Too bad for China they don't have Israel's skill at PR.

What do you call that? That is most certainly a strawman argument. Tibet did not lauch attacks against China, it does not launch daily death squads into China, Tibet was not part of a different country oppressed by it, it does not have people in its country that like rule under China than it does under Tibet. And finally, China is a totalitarian regime, Israel is not. Israel is one of the few countries in the middle east that allows Arabs to vote, and the only one in the middle east to allow women to vote.

This line of argument is also a tacit acknowledgement that the charges regarding Israel's conduct have merit. Do you truly have that little confidence in your position?

Not at all. Only that whatever abuses Israel has taken, does not make it a bloodthirsty facist state since biblical times, nor does it take away its right to exist.

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.


So you're saying you wasted some pixels right here to make a totally irrelevant point? Sounds like a red herring to me.

Uh no, that's not a red herring. It would be a red herring if I said it was relevant to the topic I was discussing, and abandoning the original arguments. Which I clearly said it was not when I said "...that's for another discussion" and when I said "I have some issues with the essay"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... rring.html

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?

Again we return to "everyone else is doing it, so why can't Israel?!" This seems to be a common theme in your "rebuttal."

Do you find it difficult to read? I didn't say that, I said "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."

Other countries do it too, so that makes it okay? Surely you have a better justification than that.

Strawman. I never said it was okay that countries do it too.

Now, let's look at these "better economic conditions." Unemployment is 50% in the West Bank and an appalling 70% in the Gaza Strip. 67% of the Palestinians in the occupied territories live under the poverty line of $2 a day. Compare that to a $20,000 GDP per capita and 9% unemployment within Israel. Oh yeah, let's not forget total government control of the water supply in the West Bank. Drilling a new well or repairing an old one requires a variety of permits which are notoriously difficult to acquire. Arabs in the occupied territories sure have it good. Want to argue that $2 a day is better than the GDP per capita of "the entire arab world" and advance some proof for the point, or would you prefer to stick with our little friend the Unsupported Claim?

Ok, let's talk numbers:

Life expectancy for palestinian people is higher than it has ever been before, the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule. During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000. Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars. Compare this progress to all neighboring Arab states which are corrupt despotic theocracies.

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.


How did I know this guy was going to use the term "Homicide Bomber" sooner or later?

So what do you call them? Freedom fighter? I'd like to know.

You seem to forget the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians their homes in 1948, or the seizure of property in the West Bank after Israel declared that any property which the occupants could not produce title to belonged to the state of Israel.

You seem to forget all Arabs living under Israel's initial borders were given full civil liberties. You also forget to mention over a million Jews were persecuted and jewish communities destroyed all throughout the muslim countries in 1948.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 120302.asp

Now I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but let's not kid ourselves and morally equivalize everything Israel has done to what Arab dictators and theocracies have done, which is what you and Darth Wong has done. Assuming what your saying is true or not, and this most certainly does not mean you can generalize on the "True Nature of Israel".

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.


This is out-and-out bullshit. Tell that to the 750,000 arabs (out of about 900,000 living in the area before Israel declared independence) who were expelled from the country.

Tell it to the approximately 25% of those remaining within Israel whose land was seized, causing them to end up as internal refugees. Nice to see you resort to outright lying on this one.

How am I lying? Arabs under the intial boundaries of Israel were granted full citizenship. It's not a lie. You're the one twisting my remarks to mean something else. Why do you ignore the fact Arabs living under Israel prefer that government over the PLO?

Quote:
Quote:
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.


Don't forget that 25% of the Gaza strip and 46% of the West Bank are currently controlled by the settlements. That's 25% of a 26 mile stretch of land in the hands of only 7,000 Israeli settlers compared to the 1,100,000 Palestinians: .6% of the people control 25% of the land! The West Bank is the same story: 46% of the land controlled by 376,000 settlers with the scraps left for the 2,200,000 arabs. That's 46% of the land in the hands of 17.1% of the people there.

P.S.: demanding evidence when you've failed to advance much yourself is an amusing bit of hypocrisy.

Territory taken after they were attacked several times, and in the Six Day War in self-defense. Perhaps you feel territory taken when advancing into enemy territory after your enemy attacks you is not sufficient reason for self defense. But the governments who attacked Israel, whom the Palestinians were living under, were totalitarian despotic regimes, and no totalitarian regime has the right to exist. And whatever wrongs that have happened in Jewish settlements in the West Bank does not morally equivalize Israel with her neighbors, when on the contrary, Palestinians (no not all, but definitely a percentage) under Yasser Arafat would rather live under Israel. Yasser Arafat also suppresses his people from free speech and efforts to establish individual rights.

Quote:
Quote:
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.

This is another bald-faced lie. The ONLY non-jewish group permitted to serve in the IDF are the Druse.

You are lying. Arabs under Israel's borders are permitted to serve.

Shame on you for even trying to pull that one. The special priviledges for military service include larger mortgages, preferential public employment and eligibility for public housing, and lower course fees.

Ever heard of Veteran's benefits in America? Or ROTC? Or free housing for those serving in the American military? Shame on you for distorting reality.

And while we're on the subject, Israel is a signitory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite the fact that it bans punishment of conscientious objectors, Israel still routinely imprisons people who refuse to serve and in at least one case has jailed a man (Victor Sabranski) 5 times for it in further violation of the ban on punishing conscientious objectors more than once. Throwing in the "no matter what they do you'll say it's wrong" part makes it an Ad Hominem attack as well, implying that personal bias is the root of Mike's entire argument while failing to refute the point that "Israeli-Arabs" who may wish to join the IDF are barred from service.

I don't know what to say other than you're wrong. First of all, the Druze are a muslim population. Second, Israeli-Arabs are permitted to volunteer:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF

Quote:
Quote:
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.


See above. Since the title of Mike's essay was "The True Nature of Israel" it's entirely relevant. Stop trying to move the goal posts here.

It's misleading. As my numbers above point out, Arabs under Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have had more economic growth, even in some time periods surpassing Israeli GDP growth, than under Yasser Arafat.

Quote:
Quote:
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.


It's spelled out right in the 1992 Law of Political Parties, which prevents candidates from participating in the elections if their platform suggests the "denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." In other words, any political party whose aim is equality for arabs and jews cannot participate in elections. Taxation without representation. Try and find just ONE damn Palestinian legislator in the Knesset.

First of all, you left out the rest of the law, it states:

A party will not be registered if any of its purposes or deeds, implicitly or explicitly, contains


1. negation of the existence of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state;
2. incitement to racism.
3. reasonable ground to deduce that the party will serve as a cover for illegal actions.

Now the first clause is definitely troublesome. And I agree, is counterproductive to liberty. I would find it acceptable if the first clause left out "Jewish". However, the Supreme Court of Israel has brought up the problems of this law and this does not say "Arabs cannot participate in the democratic process and be candidates for elections", nor does this imply that identification as a Jewish state means a denial of individual rights to Arabs. Yes I agree, the law is bad, but I don't agree with you it means taxation without representation.

And you said: "Try and find just ONE damn Palestinian legislator in the Knesset"

How about Azmi Bishara. There, I found ONE, and there are many more.

Quote:
Quote:
"...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


Nice loaded language in the first sentance. This would be more accurately stated as "Israel prevents the Palestinians in these areas from voting because the most likely act of a conquered people would be to vote for their freedom from Israeli domination." The following 3 sentances are Begging the Question. How's this for an answer: maybe they'd vote to have equal rights under the law (which the Basic Law: Human Diginities and Freedom does *not* specify... in fact it affirms "the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." - emphasis mine.) Maybe they'd also vote for creation of a Palestinian nation. Israel wants neither.

Alex Epstein wrote:
The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.


Did you even read this essay before you pasted the link?! The author clearly disagrees with you on the morality of allowing Israel to disenfranchise 3.3 million Palestinians in the occupied territories. Way to shoot your own rebuttal in the foot.

You're twiting the language, Alex Epstein clearly states:

"That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom."

And the Palestinians under the PLO have elected Yasser Arafat, a known terrorist who has gone on record saying he wishes to annihilate the Jews and drive them into the sea. Clearly, if the Palestinians, under the control of PLO, vote for the PLO, deny the rights of individuals. Way to shoot your own rebuttal in the foot.

Quote:
Quote:
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&#8217;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."


I can play this game too: "if the Israelis really wanted peace, they wouldn't have elected a Likud extremist like Sharon who had his troops stand back and watch while the Christian Phalange slaughtered refugees in Sabra and Shatila. The fact that they did proves they don't want peace and just want to exterminate the Palestinians. As a result they suffer more bomb attacks." How do you like it from the opposing point of view? We can toss those sorts of statements back and forth all day long and they signify nothing. To rebutt your friend's point: Mike is saying that Judeo-Christian nations have a built-in bias in favor of Israel. Keep on beating up that "Judeo-Christians are bigots" strawman, though.

Perhaps they have a bias, I don't know, but again, (you obviously ignored what I said in response to this) there was no proof that linked the IDF, or Ariel Sharon, to being directly responsible for the war crimes committed in Sabra and Shatila. And as I pointed out, the United States supported Stalin during World War 2. Hitler was killing Jews in Poland in his effort to annihilate the Jews, after the United States gave mounds of financial and military support to Stalin in an effort to defeat Germany, Stalin, after marching into Poland, picked up where Stalin left off, and continued the extermination of Jews in Poland. Does that mean the United States was morally responsible for the murders committed by Stalin while they stood by? I can see if you want to say it was a grave tactical error, or that it was a terrible mistake to side with someone like Stalin, or in Israel's case the Lebanese Christian militia, but you cannot say they were morally responsible.

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


Good idea: I'd bet they'd tell you they were unhappy with the UN plan for the Jewish minority (many of whom were recent immigrants) to end up with over half of Palestine.

So because the UN partition was unjust, it therefore gave the right to illegitimate governments (illegitimate since they were theocracies and despotic regimes) to launch an effort to annihilate the Jews?

Anyway, that's as far as I'm going through this drivel.

Maybe if you read this drivel, you will see what I'm talking about when I say Darth Wong's essay was filled with half-truths, subjective judgements, moral equivalence, non-sequiters, failure to justify his ethical stance on civilians in combat or captured lands during advances against an enemy who initiated force, and the occasional lie.

That was the POINT of my drivel.

[Admiral Piett]

So outsiders failed to get sympathy. Hmm, I never would have guessed that.

And what makes you believe that the palestinians would fare better?

Cause they are more concerned about security cause the Palestinians are triyng to use terrorism to win.

You are so pathetically naive.They were not more willing to remove settlements before the breaking out of the second intifada.

They were disarmed. Which is more than you can say for the Palestinian terrorists.

Are you capable of reading? Evidently not.THEY WERE NOT DISARMED.
THEY WERE NOT JAILED.THEY FACED NO CONSEQUENCES AT ALL,CHRIST.
The IDF does their former job much more efficently ,keeping the palestinians online with not much better methods.If you have the army that is working for you,why wasting efforts with terrorism?

Anywho, you're talking about the early years, you even said so yourself. This situation exists today in Palestine.

I mentioned the early years,because at the time the former terrorists were still in charge.Now the people are changed.The methods have not.See Sharon.

When you move into a situation where deadly force is expected, it's a combat zone. If the people with gun don't show up, but instead sent out kids with rocks, it's still a combat zone. When those kids die, their blood is on the hand of those that sent them out.

And this would justify shooting the kids...How?
It does not.They are not more justified that policemen shooting rock throwing protestors.There is no difference and the "combat zone" bullshit does not change the fact.Besides demonstrate me that when children are shot there is usually a sniper behind them.Ah yes, there might be one.
And one of the protestors might be armed,so the police should be justified shooting protestors.

Keep talking, and keep proving you know nothing about the situation.

Because what do you know? You keep on with "the terrorists were disarmed" bullshit while I point you websites written by the ex terrorists thmeselves that show you that is not the case.
Sorry sir,if there is an ignorant here,you are the one.

Nice strawman.

No,my dear,it is just the direct consequence of your theory.Let's see

If it's just you and me the one who acts better, not matter how bad they act is the 'good guy' in the fight

The soviets were better than the nazi.Ergo the soviets were the good guy.
Since you are reacting so much to my critics directed towards Israel it is obvious that you believe that the "good guy",under your definition, does not deserve much criticism for the simple fact of being slight better than the adversaire "not matter how bad they act ".So I pointed out a case where the flaws of your theory can be seen.

[Coyote]

Mind you, I have nothing against a jewish state.But this does not mean that all their policies are good.They often behave and have behaved exactly like the palestinians.

This explanation here really is the only thing that matters.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

So outsiders failed to get sympathy. Hmm, I never would have guessed that.

And what makes you believe that the palestinians would fare better?

Cause they live there. Outsiders will almost always be looked upon as if they don't really know what's going on.

Cause they are more concerned about security cause the Palestinians are triyng to use terrorism to win.

You are so pathetically naive.They were not more willing to remove settlements before the breaking out of the second intifada.

Care to back up this time frame? I think one of us is confused.

They were disarmed. Which is more than you can say for the Palestinian terrorists.

Are you capable of reading? Evidently not.THEY WERE NOT DISARMED.
THEY WERE NOT JAILED.THEY FACED NO CONSEQUENCES AT ALL,CHRIST.
The IDF does their former job much more efficently ,keeping the palestinians online with not much better methods.If you have the army that is working for you,why wasting efforts with terrorism?

Yes they were disarmed. Yes it was after they were no longer facing immediate destruction. It is still better than what the Palestinians are doing.

I mentioned the early years,because at the time the former terrorists were still in charge.Now the people are changed.The methods have not.See Sharon.

Right. So in you opinion killing a civilian as part of collateral damage is the same as targetting that civilian. No wonder you're Pro-Palestinian.

And this would justify shooting the kids...How?

They attacked first. They attacked a superior foe. They attacked a foe they knew were superior armed foe. They had to know the most likely response would be. They choose to throw the rocks anyway.

There is no difference and the "combat zone" bullshit does not change the fact.

Two points:

1.) Protests are not trying to kill the police. This is not true with the Palestinians.
2.) In a combat zone the soldiers only have live ammo. They can only fire with deadly force. When the situation is not a combat zone, the soldiers have and use rubber bullets and tear gas.

Besides demonstrate me that when children are shot there is usually a sniper behind them.Ah yes, there might be one.

And when planning a mission that's all that matters.

Because what do you know? You keep on with "the terrorists were disarmed" bullshit while I point you websites written by the ex terrorists thmeselves that show you that is not the case.
Sorry sir,if there is an ignorant here,you are the one.

Wrong. Your 'critics' of Israel are not accompanied by the equally fair critics of Palestine. That's the problem I have.

[Coyote]

In regards to the Arabs serving in the IDF:

Arabs are allowed to serve in the IDF, in fact there is a Special Forces unit called "Sayyerit ha'Bedium" which is made up entirely of Bedouin soldiers. The Druze also have "Sayyerer ha'Druzim", an SF unit of Druze. Both ethnic groups are allowed to serve in the IDF regular forces.

While I do not know for sure if Israeli Palestinians are allowed to serve, I do remember an essay written by a Palestinian boy that was reprinted in the "Jerusalem Report" magazine around 1999. He was a High School boy that wantd to fly for the Israel Air Force (he dreamed of flying an F-16) and he had the grades to do it-- smart kid, very capable. But he felt that he would probably not be given his F-16, but rather a support job, like mechanic or something.

Clearly, he expected to be able to enter the IDF but not to get to his full potential. And I asked my Bedouin roommate, Muhannid, why more Bedouin did not join the Army and he said that most Bedouin in the Army find that they never quite get past ranks like Colonel-- they always seem to miss becoming Generals and the like, and acquiring real status.

So the charge of not being allowed to serve is not true; however, there is an institutional racism that bars Arabs from attaining their potential.

Things change slowly: as the High School boy was lamenting his lost F-16, a Palestinian Arabic woman who met all the requirements and then some was passed up when she applied to be a stewardess at EL Al, the Israeli airline. She filed discrimination charges in the Israeli Supreme Court and won; she now works for El Al and another Arab woman has stated that she intends to be a pilot for them as well. I don't know what became of her story.

In a northern suburb (I forget the name) an Arab family tried to buy a home in a Jewish settlement stating that the schools, standard of living, and crime rate were better. The real estate agent declined them, they sued, and won the right to live in the Settlement.

There are small victories in the system but clearly much work remains.

[Admiral Piett]

Cause they live there. Outsiders will almost always be looked upon as if they don't really know what's going on.

No sir.If they started to use Ghandi methods the israelians would simply start to provoke them until the limits of human tulerance are reached and then use their reaction to carry on the repression.Sharon is a master at that,like he has repeatedly demonstrated.
Ghandi menthods require scruples on the side of the enemy. Sharon does not have them.Have you read the report of the Kahan commission?
Obviously no.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ign0
Israel ministry of foreign affairs official website


"Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed"

He sent the israeli proxies into a camp of palestinians with no direct israelian supervision little time after that Bashir Jemayel, the phalangist leader, had been killed by a bomb.It does not take a genius to put together two and two and figuring out that leaving these people,that according to israelian intelligence itself were more than willing to slaughter palestinians if the opportunity arose, running among palestinian camps was not exactly a bright idea.Since he is not an idiot, that alone speaks volumes of him.

"These reports reinforced the feeling among certain people - and especially among experienced intelligence officers - that in the event that the Phalangists had an opportunity to massacre Palestinians, they would take advantage of it."

Care to back up this time frame? I think one of us is confused.

Were they demolishing their settlements before the breaking out of the second Intifada?

Yes they were disarmed. Yes it was after they were no longer facing immediate destruction. It is still better than what the Palestinians are doing.

Sir,you are lying or you have not bothered to read what I have said on the subject.I pointed out to you evidence of the opposite.
If you are so full of yourself that you refuse even what the same ex terrorists say ,then I do not know what to do.
From an other definitively pro Israel website.
http://medialdea.net/historyguy80538/cease.htm
"The Haganah, Palmach and Irgun formed a single entity, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF)."
I cannot write it larger and in a simpler way than this.If your brain is still incapable of processing this information I do not know what to do.
If this means disarming for you,then you must have a very weird definition of what the word disarming means.

Right. So in you opinion killing a civilian as part of collateral damage is the same as targetting that civilian. .

When the "collateral damage" reaches a 3:1 ratio (or worse,I have not yet calculated the rate,which does not change the fact that palestinians losses are far higher), and includes the dismantling of the civilian infrastructures such as water related facilities or crippling the economy and all the other things the israelians do, yes,it ceases to be a simple antiterrorist effort.
The zionist terrorists did to the british things that would make Hamas members proud.The british reaction was not however to call a retaliatory airstrike.

They attacked first. They attacked a superior foe. They attacked a foe they knew were superior armed foe.

The same that protestors do.

1.) Protests are not trying to kill the police. This is not true with the Palestinians.

Ladies and gentlemen,it is official: the rocks thrown by the protestors are not an attempt to kill policemen,while those thrown by the palestinians are.
Because,as everyone knows, ME rocks are worse than western rocks.
What about engaging brain before typing?

2.) In a combat zone the soldiers only have live ammo. They can only fire with deadly force. When the situation is not a combat zone, the soldiers have and use rubber bullets and tear gas.

If the IDF does not properly equip its soldiers to deal with a bunch of children in a non lethal way then it is still their fault.

And when planning a mission that's all that matters.

What do you mean,that shooting the children is planned in the mission ( it is not "planned",but it happens)?
And that would be a good thing?

Gee, Ex-terrorists. That must mean they are not terrorists anymore. That must mean they have been disarmed.

Repeating disproved bullshit ad nauseam.They were not disarmed.Two of them have been prime ministers.A lot of others politicians and members of the military.
They have used the military to carry on the same job.

BTW, the US gave supplies and miliary aid to Russia to help their fight against the Nazis. I think that proves my point.

Then the soviets could not be criticized.Good.
The situation in Palestine is the following.
One side sucks.The other too.One is slighty better than the other,or maybe not,depending on what factors you value more.The propaganda bombards you with "demonstrations" that there is a clear cut difference and praises the "good"side. Can't one criticize the "good" side without writing an half meter long disclaimer about how bad the "bad" side,while the propaganda is repeating the same things ad nauseam?
In other places I have argued against the palestinians,because there is more bias towards them.One does not need to be a genius to see that Arafat is corrupt and a lot of palestinians are,purely and simply, assholes.
Since however the american opinion,with the excpetion of a few "liberal" dumbasses,is heavily biased towards Israel I wanted to make clear that they are not so good as so many in the USA love to depict them.

Wrong. Your 'critics' of Israel are not accompanied by the equally fair critics of Palestine. That's the problem I have.

I do not have the time to write an half meter long disclaimer to repeat you what the american press say every day.I pont you the flaws of the israelians.For those of the palestinians you can watch the TV.

[Peregrin Toker]

You must be joking now- from the Arab Human Rights Association based in Nazareth

http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet6.htm- Arab children in Israel
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet5.htm- Arab women in Israel
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet4.htm- unrecognized villages
http://www.arabhra.org/article26/factsheet1.htm- forms of discrimination

Erm... all those links are broken. By the way, Arab sources often have a tendency to be negative towards the Israeli due to common prejudices. (The most outrageous is that the Jews are cannibals - I'm not joking, see here)

That statement in itself is worth pages of arguments. If you can find any facts on that page, present them.

Of all the land in Israel, 92% is owned by the government. The rest is privately owned, and some of this land is owned by the Arab Waqf, a Muslim charitable organization.

Bloodthirsty psychopaths? Excuse me? Where the fuck do you get that? All I'm saying is that the Palestinians have been under military occupation for decades, in poverty and stateless, in limbo. If the land is theirs, why are there settlements all over the West Bank? If the land isn't theirs but Israel's, why are they discriminated against?

Israel does not keep its Arab citizens down in poverty. It's possible that Arabs are discriminated against in Israel, but the Israeli government does not support it!! (a bit like in Denmark, where many corporations discriminate against Arab immigrants even though ethnical discrimination is illegal)

By the way, the Hebrews have every right to be on the west bank, since they have lived there since ancient times.

My 'caricature' of Israel, in the respect of how they treat their non-Jewish population, is entirely accurate. Arguing that it's better than the surrounding countries is also not worth saying- is being better than them a real huge achievement

You describe the Israeli government as purposely discriminating against ethnic minorities, like the Soviet Union was rumoured to do. I'm sure discrimination against Palestinian citizens takes place in Israel, but the government doesn't support it!!

By the way, here's a comparison of human rights in Israel and in Arab countries:

The Israeli government is more or less democratic, while most Arab states either are military dictatorships, absolute monarchies, incredibly corrupt or something far worse.

In Israel, the death penalty has only been used once. In Saudi Arabia, for comparison, citizens can be executed for something as trivial as "sexually deviant behaviour."

In Israeli prisons, prisoners have some of the best conditions of prisoners worldwide. Compare this to the prisons of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where torture and mutilation is commonplace.

In Israel, men and women have equal rights. In Arab nations, women are purposely discriminated against!!

Israeli laws outlaws forced labour. The constitution of Lebanon does not.

Israel has freedom of speech. Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan all have severe restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Israel has never been in the hands of a communist government. Egypt was once a socialist state, thus violating property rights. Iraq is officially ruled by the socialist party, although I do not know how much Saddam Hussein deviates from Marx' teachings.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

Cause they live there. Outsiders will almost always be looked upon as if they don't really know what's going on.

No sir.If they started to use Ghandi methods the israelians would simply start to provoke them until the limits of human tulerance are reached and then use their reaction to carry on the repression.Sharon is a master at that,like he has repeatedly demonstrated.

Sharon has no power if he's not elected. That's the whole point. The people, who do the electing, are more sympathetic to the Palestinians' side then you give them credit.

Care to back up this time frame? I think one of us is confused.

Were they demolishing their settlements before the breaking out of the second Intifada?

You know very little about Israeli politics.

Yes they were disarmed. Yes it was after they were no longer facing immediate destruction. It is still better than what the Palestinians are doing.

Sir,you are lying or you have not bothered to read what I have said on the subject.

I can read. And having read more sources than just the ones you've given I came to the following conclusion:

Israel did more to reign in Terrorists than the Palestinians have done.

Right. So in you opinion killing a civilian as part of collateral damage is the same as targetting that civilian. .

When the "collateral damage" reaches a 3:1 ratio

Who gives a fuck what the ratio is. Israel has better weapons, of course they are going to kill more. If they put the same effort into killing Palestinians that the Palestinians put into killing Israelis there would be no more Palestine.

But you'd rather cling to your red herring than look at the facts.

They attacked first. They attacked a superior foe. They attacked a foe they knew were superior armed foe.

The same that protestors do.

Generally speaking, the protestors aren't trying to kill the police. Nor is there a great chance that any of them are armed. Or have even picked up a gun.

1.) Protests are not trying to kill the police. This is not true with the Palestinians.

Ladies and gentlemen,it is official: the rocks thrown by the protestors are not an attempt to kill policemen,while those thrown by the palestinians are.
Because,as everyone knows, ME rocks are worse than western rocks.
What about engaging brain before typing?

It's called intent. Maybe you should look the word up before trying to debate me.

2.) In a combat zone the soldiers only have live ammo. They can only fire with deadly force. When the situation is not a combat zone, the soldiers have and use rubber bullets and tear gas.

If the IDF does not properly equip its soldiers to deal with a bunch of children in a non lethal way then it is still their fault.

They're not going in to the area to deal with children. They are going in to deal with armed terrorists who definitely have the capability to kill.

The IDF has two options:

1.) Arm its soldiers with live ammo and hope civilians don't try and start something. If they are wrong Palestinian lives may be lost.

2.) Arm its soldiers with rubber bullets and hope the terrorists don't try and start somthing. If they are wrong, they lose soldiers' lives.

Care to guess which is the smart thing to do?

And when planning a mission that's all that matters.

What do you mean,that shooting the children is planned in the mission ( it is not "planned",but it happens)?
And that would be a good thing?

Oh fuck! What is wrong with you?

When planning a mission and arming your soldiers the possibility of armed opposition is all that matters. If the possibility is too great you arm them with live rounds.

Gee, Ex-terrorists. That must mean they are not terrorists anymore. That must mean they have been disarmed.

Repeating disproved bullshit ad nauseam.They were not disarmed.Two of them have been prime ministers.A lot of others politicians and members of the military.
They have used the military to carry on the same job.

And this makes them worse than Palestinians how? Remember, Palestinians are led by the leader of a terrorist organization. Run by terrorists. Their security forces is made up of terrorists.

BTW, the US gave supplies and miliary aid to Russia to help their fight against the Nazis. I think that proves my point.

Then the soviets could not be criticized.Good.

Fuck you and your army of strawman. You god damn lying prick.
Your worthless as a debater, you do know that, right?

Wrong. Your 'critics' of Israel are not accompanied by the equally fair critics of Palestine. That's the problem I have.

I do not have the time to write an half meter long disclaimer to repeat you what the american press say every day.I pont you the flaws of the israelians.For those of the palestinians you can watch the TV.

Then shut the fuck up. If you don't want to be fair then write some crack-pot web site.

[Admiral Piett]

Sharon has no power if he's not elected. That's the whole point. The people, who do the electing, are more sympathetic to the Palestinians' side then you give them credit.

Maybe.Since they do not act "do the electing" as sympathetically as you depict them then it matters little.The Palestinians currently have to face Sharon.Which would behave like I have described,making acting like Ghandi
an impossible proposition.

You know very little about Israeli politics.

And you are the expert.Please enligthen me.(sarcasm)

Israel did more to reign in Terrorists than the Palestinians have done.

Can you explain that? Because if I find a website written by an ex Irgun member who claims that the Irgun joined the IDF and it is confirmed by multiple others sources then demonstrating the opposite becomes somewhat difficult.
The Irgun (read the terrorists) melted with the Haganah (basically a self defense militia) and others and became the IDF.The terrorists themselves were not disarmed.They merely entered in an other organization (and with their weapons too).
I would be extremely surprised if you were able to demonstrate that this has not happened.
Post some sources that claims the opposite if you are capable of finding them.
The action of the Irgun were not opposed by the future israelians more than the action of the various palestinian organizations are opposed by the palestinians.Useless communiquès from the others jewish organizations,yes,like the ones written by Arafat.
Many israelians supported the terrorists, like many palestinians do.

If they put the same effort into killing Palestinians that the Palestinians put into killing Israelis there would be no more Palestine.

Then obtaining the USA helps so important for their economy and military would become a bit more difficult,without mentioning embargoes.Because all the pro Israel bias would not be able to cover a full scale genocide.

Generally speaking, the protestors aren't trying to kill the police.
Nor is there a great chance that any of them are armed.

Both apply to the rock throwing palestinian children.You can see if a 11 years old child in shirt is weilding an AK47

It's called intent. Maybe you should look the word up before trying to debate me.

So some angry anarchist do not have the intent while a bunch of palestinian children have it.Surely many police officials would agree. (sarcasm)

They're not going in to the area to deal with children. They are going in to deal with armed terrorists who definitely have the capability to kill.

Care to guess which is the smart thing to do?

What about carrying some tear gas on their jeep?

When planning a mission and arming your soldiers the possibility of armed opposition is all that matters. If the possibility is too great you arm them with live rounds.

See as above.What you says apply only when they are going there on their feet (thus being limited in the amount of ammo they can carry).When they are going there with their vehicles,which happens in most of cases, keeping a little of riot control ammo should not be impossible.Unless you can demonstrate that all the children have been shot only in the first case.
Good luck at that.

And this makes them worse than Palestinians how?

You keep missing the bloody point.They are not worse they are like them. If you had actually read my post you should have grasped that.

Remember, Palestinians are led by the leader of a terrorist organization. Run by terrorists. Their security forces is made up of terrorists.

Perfect description of Israel of the early years.See what I posted previously.
And they have kept carrying on the same policies.

Fuck you and your army of strawman.

Like the one that I am pro palestinian? Have you read what I have written about Arafat?

You god damn lying prick.

I guess that you are referring to yourself about the zionist terrorists being disarmed.

Your worthless as a debater, you do know that, right?

The same apply to you

Then shut the fuck up. If you don't want to be fair then write some crack-pot web site.

I am fair with both sides.Re read my post.You are the one biased towards the israelians.And I do not see why anyone who write something against the israelians has to write an half meter long disclaimer, while the israelians supporters should be exempted from that.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

You know very little about Israeli politics.

And you are the expert.Please enligthen me.(sarcasm)

Sure, Isreal elects their representatives on a purely proportional basis. That means if you get 10% of the vote you get 10% of the representation. Because of this, and the fact that there are lots of parties, in order to remain in power you must form coalitions. Recently, the extremists pulled out of Sharon's coalition and it would have failed if it wasn't for some political maneuvering. But this still lead to an early election call.

Anywho, because of the Coalitions, the extremists tend to get larger say. However, even a small shift in voter response causes an effect in the government make up. Unlike in the US where the president could win by one EC Vote or one hundred without any difference at all.

Now, while the Israeli people support a free Palestine and a pullout of the settlements, they want security more. So with Palestinian attacks they will vote for hardliners like Sharon that offer security over peace talks. But if the Palestinians took a more Ghandi like approach the security issue would become less of an issue and Pro-Peace Treaty parties would get more votes.

Israel did more to reign in Terrorists than the Palestinians have done.

Can you explain that?

Sure. Look at the Pro-Israeli Terrorist attacks of the past. Look at the Pro-Israeli Terrorist attacks of today. Compare the number and severity.

Look at the Pro-Palestinian Terrorist attacks of the past. Look at the Pro-Palestinian Terrorist attacks of today. Compare the number and severity.

Which one has been reduced the most? And therefore, which side as done more to disarm the terrorists?

If they put the same effort into killing Palestinians that the Palestinians put into killing Israelis there would be no more Palestine.

Then obtaining the USA helps so important for their economy and military would become a bit more difficult,without mentioning embargoes.Because all the pro Israel bias would not be able to cover a full scale genocide.

So? How does this red herring effect the debate?

Generally speaking, the protestors aren't trying to kill the police.
Nor is there a great chance that any of them are armed.

Both apply to the rock throwing palestinian children.You can see if a 11 years old child in shirt is weilding an AK47

But someone in the crowd might have a gun. And there are certainly terrorists in the area that do. That's why the soldiers were sent in there.

It's called intent. Maybe you should look the word up before trying to debate me.

So some angry anarchist do not have the intent while a bunch of palestinian children have it.Surely many police officials would agree. (sarcasm)

No, the average WTO protestors doesn't have the intent to kill off the police. Cause propertly damage, yes. Be as much as a nuisance as possible to get arrested, yes. Kill as many cops as possible, no.

They're not going in to the area to deal with children. They are going in to deal with armed terrorists who definitely have the capability to kill.

Care to guess which is the smart thing to do?

What about carrying some tear gas on their jeep?

Sometimes they do, when it's part of their mission profile. But that's not always possible.

When you are going into a hot area to kill a house full of terrorists who have turned the basement into a bomb making factory you don't have time to worry about LTL means.

Unless you can demonstrate that all the children have been shot only in the first case.

I don't have to. All I have to do is show that the soldiers intent from the planning stages was not to kill those children. If I can do that, then the Israelis are better than the Palestinians who target civilians.

And this makes them worse than Palestinians how?

You keep missing the bloody point.They are not worse they are like them. If you had actually read my post you should have grasped that.

And I'm saying no matter how similar you think they are, they are still better.

Remember, Palestinians are led by the leader of a terrorist organization. Run by terrorists. Their security forces is made up of terrorists.

Perfect description of Israel of the early years.

Emphasis mine.

See what I posted previously.
And they have kept carrying on the same policies.

Yeah, in your mind maybe. But you see all civilian deathes the same, regardless of the situation and intent.

Then shut the fuck up. If you don't want to be fair then write some crack-pot web site.

I am fair with both sides.Re read my post.You are the one biased towards the israelians.

I've never written a post to praise Israel or attack Palestine. I will correct people when they make mistakes.

[beyond hope]

Maybe if you read this drivel, you will see what I'm talking about when I say Darth Wong's essay was filled with half-truths, subjective judgements, moral equivalence, non-sequiters, failure to justify his ethical stance on civilians in combat or captured lands during advances against an enemy who initiated force, and the occasional lie.

That was the POINT of my drivel.

Bargained well and done. I have little spare time during the week so I may not be able to return to this and give it the attention it deserves until the weekend. I say that now so I don't have to put up with "where are you... have you conceded?" posts before I can prepare a response.

[Admiral Piett]

But if the Palestinians took a more Ghandi like approach the security issue would become less of an issue and Pro-Peace Treaty parties would get more votes.

In you dreams maybe.The right wing extremist would still keep the others by the balls,like they did before the breaking out of the second Intifada.
I live in a state which had the same electoral system until a few years ago,I have some clues about what you are speaking about,without mentioning that I have to study this sort of stuff.
Proportional system are a bitch when it comes down to take these types of decisions (but I doubt a different system would be a great improvement).A small change of preferences would not change much.A center right coalition would not go anywhere without the right wing parties. And a center left coalition would not go much further, fearing to lose their moderate supporters.The problem is that the religious zealots and the fanatics of the great Israel are not a simple minority.They are a compact and vocal minority.Thus they mange to have a much greater influence on politics than their numbers on paper would suggest.Again this is not an unkown phenomenon in politics.Active minorities can count as much as passive masses.

Sure. Look at the Pro-Israeli Terrorist attacks of the past. Look at the Pro-Israeli Terrorist attacks of today. Compare the number and severity.

You have totally failed to understand the the problem.Those terrorist strikes were directed against:
1)The british.The purpose was driving them out.
The british were driven out.Pretty useless keeping on targetting them after that.
2)The palestinians.The purpose was,to say in simple words, "keeping them online".
The army is now tasked with this job,and kills more palestinians than any eventual israelian terrorist organization would be capable of.Israelian terrorism reached its goals.They had won.Without a function ,which is now instead performed by the IDF,it stopped.
Palestinian terrorism has not reached its goals,thus it is going on.Unlike the israelians they do not have an army working for them.
So it is somewhat difficult to compare the numbers.
At the time the israelian terrorist acts were equal or worse of those of the palestinians today,just ask me and I will be more than happy to flood you with evidence(King David Hotel,just to start).
Your statement "were disarmed" seems to imply that the government repressed it.This did not happen.

So? How does this red herring effect the debate?

Many pro israelians love to use the "they could kill all the palestinians if they wished" as great piece of evidence evidence of israelian moral superiority.As I pointed out they could not do that without facing fatal consequences.Imagine the israelian economy collapsing under the combined effects of embargoes and lack of the US billions and you understand why the could not do that even if they wished.

But someone in the crowd might have a gun. And there are certainly terrorists in the area that do. That's why the soldiers were sent in there.

As far I can see from the news the most typical case is a few israelis soldiers with a vehicle available(usually a reinforced jeep or an APC),stationed in a place (a check point for example),opening fire against a group of rocks throwing children.
There have been some occasions where armed palestinians have used the children as shield and in such a situation firing at them may be justified if no others option are available, but you would be very hard pressed to demonstrate that this has always been the case.For the palestinian children probably throwing rocks against the israeli soldiers is the national sport.
The fact that there is a low probability that there might be a sniper somewhere does not justify shooting group of children with live ammo if others options available,unless as I said the sniper started to use them as cover.Few WTO protestors have cocktails molotov,and sure as hell Molotov can hurt, but you do not see the police shooting randomly on a mob of rock throwing protestors because "someone in the crowd" might have one.Besides,as I said, it is rather quick to see if a bunch of children are carrying firearms.The soldiers are not sent there always only to go specifically after terrorists in terrorist infested blocks on their feet with only an obviously limited amount of supplies that can be carried.There are,for example check point guard duties.In those situation keeping riot control ammo on hand to deal with a group of children starting to gather together to throw stones is not the insurmontable difficulty you try to make.
But it seems that this is specifically one of the occasions where children are shot.I do not say that children are always shot ,but it happens from time to time.And it is inexcusable.
Conclusions.
Shooting rock throwing children is justified only as last ditch act of self defense when no others options are available or when they are acting as human shields for gunmen or in similar circumstance.
Clearly those children shot by the IDF have not been killed all in these circumstances.
Any bullshit about "the palestinians are responsible for their blood" etc does not count as a justification,like would not count as justification in a court for trigger happy police officials in western countries.

No, the average WTO protestors doesn't have the intent to kill off the police. Cause propertly damage, yes. Be as much as a nuisance as possible to get arrested, yes. Kill as many cops as possible, no.

The average policeman stoned or worse by someone whose intent is, according to you,supposedly to cause only property damage would not be very satisfied by this.Curious this "intention" concept.Do you have thelepatic powers to discriminate between the intents of a bunch of rabid rock throwing anarchists and angry palestinians boys?
Cause I want them too...

Emphasis mine.

Expanding settlements policy:check.
Oppression of the palestinian population:check.
Denying the palestinians an indipendent state:check
The players have changed.The music has not.

Yeah, in your mind maybe. But you see all civilian deathes the same, regardless of the situation and intent.

Do you think that nearly all those people that were killed by the IDF were terrorists? Properly indentified as such? And that all the others are a limited number of unfortunate,unavoidable collateral causalties?
Do not make me laugh.The british did not use airstrikes or sistematic destruction of the civilian infrastructure against the israelian terrorists.But this is a standard practice for the IDF.
When there is a terrorist strike the typical israelian answer is sending some helicopters firing missiles at some building in the area.Unsurprisingly someone gets killed in the process (sometimes they fire missiles against the cars of the terrorists, which would not be bad,but this is not what I am referring to now).That is not a great way to counter terrorism but surely as far as intimidation goes must be good.Then they drive their tanks there, dismantle civilian facilities and bulldoze entire quarters.Do you buy that entire quarters are bomb factories?If there was some palestinian left that did not hate the israelians to death,that changes it.
In fewer words terrorist strikes and reprisals.Eye for eye,tooth for tooth, if you prefer.This is the intent.When collateral damage ceases to be an infotunate error and becomes routine then it becomes a policy.At that point it is not more excusable.
The israelians are plenty of missiles,and the palestinians are plenty of dumb teenagers with suicide pulsions to use as cannon fodder.
This of course does not lead anywhere.But with plenty of fanatics on both sides with their dreams of great Israel or great Palestina it could not go otherwise.
Any attempt to find a deal would be sabotaged by one side (murder of Rabin by an israelian fanatic anyone?) or by the other (Hamas bombings anyone?) or more likely by both.
The reciprocal behaviour of both sides is not really different,simply the israelians are more succesful at their PR campaigns in the US.

[Vympel]

Erm... all those links are broken. By the way, Arab sources often have a tendency to be negative towards the Israeli due to common prejudices. (The most outrageous is that the Jews are cannibals - I'm not joking, see here)

I accidentally included the - in the URL. Look again and delete the dash at the end. In addition, to instantly claim bias by an Arab human rights organization no less is indicative of extreme bias on your part. Every piece of information is fully referenced.

Of all the land in Israel, 92% is owned by the government. The rest is privately owned, and some of this land is owned by the Arab Waqf, a Muslim charitable organization.

And this means what? Does that include the West Bank, where every Palestinian who couldn't produce title lost their land and watched it become the property of Israel so they could settle it?

Israel does not keep its Arab citizens down in poverty. It's possible that Arabs are discriminated against in Israel, but the Israeli government does not support it!! (a bit like in Denmark, where many corporations discriminate against Arab immigrants even though ethnical discrimination is illegal)

Read the links. Also feel free to visit Human Rights Watch has numerous reports on the matter (I assume- so far I've seen one regarding discrimination in the school system) and Amnesty International.

By the way, the Hebrews have every right to be on the west bank, since they have lived there since ancient times.

Oh because your ancestors lived there in 'ancient times' it's alright to throw seize the land of someone who's already living there with no compensation even, and subsequently turn the place into a mass ghetto except for the opulent by comparison Jewish settlements?

You describe the Israeli government as purposely discriminating against ethnic minorities, like the Soviet Union was rumoured to do. I'm sure discrimination against Palestinian citizens takes place in Israel, but the government doesn't support it!!

There are discriminatory laws and practices. This is a fact. Research it goddammit- it's not hard. Need I bring up the religious ID card system, or the license plate system?

By the way, here's a comparison of human rights in Israel and in Arab countries:

The Israeli government is more or less democratic, while most Arab states either are military dictatorships, absolute monarchies, incredibly corrupt or something far worse.

In Israel, the death penalty has only been used once. In Saudi Arabia, for comparison, citizens can be executed for something as trivial as "sexually deviant behaviour."

In Israeli prisons, prisoners have some of the best conditions of prisoners worldwide. Compare this to the prisons of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, where torture and mutilation is commonplace.

In Israel, men and women have equal rights. In Arab nations, women are purposely discriminated against!!

Israeli laws outlaws forced labour. The constitution of Lebanon does not.

Israel has freedom of speech. Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan all have severe restrictions on the freedom of speech.

So what? This makes discrimination all right huh? Why does everyone bring up this totally irrelevant point? Should we let off single murderers because there are serial killers? Fuck me dead, like I said before, being better than *shitty Middle Eastern Country* is not a huge achievement.

Israel has never been in the hands of a communist government. Egypt was once a socialist state, thus violating property rights. Iraq is officially ruled by the socialist party, although I do not know how much Saddam Hussein deviates from Marx' teachings.

What the fuck is this? Because Israel was never communist that makes mass discrimination and injustice against a very large section of its population ok?