Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
Sound of Trumpet
Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
Posted on 30. september 2009 20:46:34 by GodGunsGuts
The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
deniers?
The ADL has objected to attempts to inject Nazi imagery into the
health-care reform debate ("Such statements only serve to diminish and
trivialize the extent of the Nazi regime's crimes against humanity"),
the abortion debate ("Such analogies can only trivialize and diminish
the horror"), the animal-rights debate ("the issue should stand on its
own merits, rather than rely on inappropriate comparisons that only
serve to trivialize the suffering of the six million Jews"), and in
many other contexts.
But if Rush Limbaugh, for example, used "outrageous, deeply offensive
and inappropriate" Nazi comparisons to stigmatize sponsors and
supporters of health-care reform, why is it no less outrageous to
compare people (like the late Irving Kristol, for example) who doubt
Darwinian evolution to the moral cretins who deny the Holocaust? In
his new book, currently the #22 best seller on Amazon, The Greatest
Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Dawkins calls Darwin
critics "history-deniers" and dwells on the comparison, even remarking
that "The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence
for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust."
Is that some sort of cruel joke? The evidence for Darwin's account of
evolution and, more so, its controversial mechanism of natural
selection is a matter of inference, no matter how strong you think the
inference is. The evidence for the Holocaust includes countless eye-
witness accounts -- a very different and superior order of evidence.
"People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level
with Holocaust deniers, argues an author in his controversial new
book," headlined the London Times when the book came out there last
month. Yet not a peep from the ADL.
In his last book, The God Delusion, Dawkins used incredibly offensive
language in characterizing the God of the Hebrew Bible, whom he called
among other things, "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a
vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic,
racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,
megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Now in a Newsweek interview he repeats the insult, saying: "The God of
the Old Testament is a monster. It's very, very hard for anybody to
deny that. He's like a hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini." Asked by
Newsweek's Lisa Miller where this leaves the "90 percent of Americans
[who] say they believe in God" and of whom "some portion...are
intelligent people," Dawkins replies, "But they wouldn't disagree with
what I said about the God of the Old Testament. They'd probably say
something like, 'Oh, that's quite different. We believe in the God of
the New Testament.'"
This places Jews among the portion of believing Americans who would
have to be characterized as unintelligent. Miller calls Dawkins on
this. He then says of Jews: "Well, sure enough. They'd say, 'OK, we've
moved on since that time.' Thank goodness they have."
In other words, you can be an intelligent Christian who takes his
Bible at least somewhat seriously, but not an intelligent Jew who does
the same. And this is a statement, from a very prominent public
intellectual, a popular and respected scientist and author, that
neither the ADL nor any other Jewish anti-defamation group I'm aware
of sees fit to protest? I find this bewildering.
The same Richard Dawkins paid a backhanded compliment to the "Jewish
Lobby" a couple of years back in the Guardian, expressing the wish
that if only atheists could throw their weight around like the Jews
do, then how wonderful that would be: "When you think about how
fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact,
they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than
atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign
policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a
small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better
place" (emphasis added).
There you have it. Not only does he trivialize the intellectual
offense of Holocaust denial. Not only does he say the only intelligent
Jews are either Christian converts or secularists. He tops it off by
finding plausible the idea that a shadow "lobby" of Jews controls
U.S. foreign policy.
The very term itself, Jewish Lobby, is of course a shibboleth. No one
uses it who is friendly to the Jews. It's even more of a red flag than
"Israel Lobby." The ADL's Abraham Foxman is himself the author of a
recent book, The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of
Jewish Control. In short, where on earth is the ADL when you need them?
Nomen Publicus
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>
> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>
> beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
>
> Posted on 30. september 2009 20:46:34 by GodGunsGuts
>
>
> The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
> fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> deniers?
Perhaps because Jews in general are in favour of education and see few
problems with evolution?
"Today, most Jewish denominations accept the science of evolutionary theory
and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, thus endorsing
the stance of theistic evolution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution
--
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities. -- Voltaire
hypa...@comcast.net
Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews,
you so-called Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a
compliment. There aren't that many Jews and some of
them have done very well. What he says is that he wishes
that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware
of such atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how
well they have done and how much they have donated
to charity (millions), but that doesn't mean that he was
insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on the other hand,
are and will always be a lying, trouble-making so-called
Christian. I doubt that very many Christians find you to
be anything more than a big mouth with no substance.
Ben Kaufman
>On Oct 18, 3:58�am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@hush.com> wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>>
>> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>>
>> beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
<SNIP>
>Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews,
>you so-called Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a
>compliment. There aren't that many Jews and some of
>them have done very well. What he says is that he wishes
>that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware
>of such atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how
>well they have done and how much they have donated
>to charity (millions), but that doesn't mean that he was
>insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on the other hand,
>are and will always be a lying, trouble-making so-called
>Christian. I doubt that very many Christians find you to
>be anything more than a big mouth with no substance.
I find it ironic when true believers in an all powerful supreme being behave
like cry babies.
Ben
Terry Cross
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "hypati...@comcast.net"
It IS ironic, isn't it? Tens of millions of people from all nations
died in the war, but when remembering it, we are supposed to mourn
only the Jewish victims, and regret the rest of us did not do enough
to save them.
TCross
raven1
<soundof...@hush.com> wrote:
>The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
>fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
>trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
>protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
>Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
>deniers?
Because it doesn't "trivialize the Holocaust" to note that both groups
are in deep denial of reality, and that both groups have a
not-so-hidden agenda behind that denial.
Phlip
> The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
> fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> deniers?
Because deniers have one thing in common - they try hardest to
convince themselves. So the ADL knows the comparison is valid, unlike
certain other comparisons.
Creationists try hardest to convince only themselves that God created
the world as a wind-up toy and set it in motion.
Holocaust deniers try hardest to convince only themselves that Nazis
murdered several million people, mostly Jews.
And Richard Dawkins tries hardest to convince only himself that his
existence has no more meaning or spirit than the random agitation of a
giant molecule trying to copy itself.
Phlip
wrote:
> > The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
> > fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> > trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> > protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> > Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> > deniers?
>
> Perhaps because Jews in general are in favour of education and see few
> problems with evolution?
That would imply that the crime of "Holocaust denial comparisons" gets
selective enforcement if the compared denialist's rubrik happens to be
correct.
Example: "My neighbor denies the Earth is hollow. I guess he's in
denial, just like Holocaust deniers deny the Holocaust occurred".
If my neighbor then preaches up and down our block the Earth is not
hollow, he's indeed doing the denial thing.
Phlip
> It IS ironic, isn't it? Tens of millions of people from all nations
> died in the war, but when remembering it, we are supposed to mourn
> only the Jewish victims, and regret the rest of us did not do enough
> to save them.
Who says that?
When I was a kid, our school history textbook listed "Jews, gypsies,
homosexuals, and political dissidents" as the Nazi's victims.
Nobody ever says the Nazis only killed Jews, so you are not going to
claim any professional victim status by saying they do!
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
> Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews, you so-called
> Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a compliment. There aren't that
> many Jews and some of them have done very well. What he says is that he
> wishes that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware of such
> atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how well they have done and how
> much they have donated to charity (millions), but that doesn't mean that
> he was insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on the other hand, are
> and will always be a lying, trouble-making so-called Christian. I doubt
> that very many Christians find you to be anything more than a big mouth
> with no substance.
In fairness, the author of the article, David Klinghoffer, is Jewish, not
Christian.
He's a creationist, one who recently argued that gay marriage would hurt
women because they couldn't possibly hope to compete with "smooth skinned
boys".
His argument that Dawkins was calling creationists nazis is pure
nonsense. Dawkins was pointing out that evolution, like the Holocaust,
is supported by a vast store of direct evidence that is irrefutable by
any honest party. Creationists aren't nazis; they just suffer from the
intellectual deficiences and dishonesties that Holocaust deniers have.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>
>
>
> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>
> beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
>
> Posted on 30. september 2009 20:46:34 by GodGunsGuts
>
>
> The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
> fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> deniers?
>
Something your tiny little pea brain can't seem to grasp the concept of.
Someday, when you grow up, you might understand it. Today, however, is
not going to be that day.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Phlip
That's "you plural" BTW...
Phlip
> Because it doesn't "trivialize the Holocaust" to note that both groups
> are in deep denial of reality, and that both groups have a
> not-so-hidden agenda behind that denial.
Whereas claiming you are a master race, and herding your opponents
into concentration camps and death machines, DOES trivialize the
Holocaust...
Never again, guys?
Phlip
> On Oct 18, 12:58 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@hush.com> wrote:
>
> > The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
> > fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> > trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> > protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> > Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> > deniers?
>
> Because deniers have one thing in common - they try hardest to
> convince themselves. So the ADL knows the comparison is valid, unlike
> certain other comparisons.
>
> Creationists try hardest to convince only themselves that God created
> the world as a wind-up toy and set it in motion.
>
> Holocaust deniers try hardest to convince only themselves that Nazis
never
> murdered several million people, mostly Jews.
>
> And Richard Dawkins tries hardest to convince only himself that his
> existence has no more meaning or spirit than the random agitation of a
> giant molecule trying to copy itself.
Sorry about the bum edits!
raven1
wrote:
What, exactly, is your point?
raven1
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:11:25 -0700, hypa...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews, you so-called
>> Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a compliment. There aren't that
>> many Jews and some of them have done very well. What he says is that he
>> wishes that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware of such
>> atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how well they have done and how
>> much they have donated to charity (millions), but that doesn't mean that
>> he was insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on the other hand, are
>> and will always be a lying, trouble-making so-called Christian. I doubt
>> that very many Christians find you to be anything more than a big mouth
>> with no substance.
>
>In fairness, the author of the article, David Klinghoffer, is Jewish, not
>Christian.
>
>He's a creationist, one who recently argued that gay marriage would hurt
>women because they couldn't possibly hope to compete with "smooth skinned
>boys".
TMI about Klinghoffer...
Emma
Terry Cross says...
>
>
>It IS ironic, isn't it? Tens of millions of people from all nations
>died in the war, but when remembering it, we are supposed to mourn
>only the Jewish victims, and regret the rest of us did not do enough
>to save them.
>
Don't you have a Remembrance Day in the US? We remember the
dead every year. Then we have a Holocaust Memorial day
when we remember the victims of the holocaust.
The victims were overwhelmingly Jewish, so it's right that
we should remember Jews especially.
--
..EMMA..
http://www.britsattheirbest.com/
http://www.cfoi.co.uk/
Phlip
wrote:
> > beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
> > The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
> > fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> > trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> > protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> > Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> > deniers?
>
> Because, shit for brains, evolution and the holocaust are both FACTS.
> Something your tiny little pea brain can't seem to grasp the concept of.
Is David K a known denier? I thought he was just baiting Zionists.
I agree there's not much of a difference...
Phlip
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:11:25 -0700, hypati...@comcast.net wrote:
> > Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews, you so-called
> > Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a compliment. There aren't that
> > many Jews and some of them have done very well. What he says is that he
> > wishes that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware of such
> > atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how well they have done and how
> > much they have donated to charity (millions), but that doesn't mean that
> > he was insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on the other hand, are
> > and will always be a lying, trouble-making so-called Christian. I doubt
> > that very many Christians find you to be anything more than a big mouth
> > with no substance.
>
> In fairness, the author of the article, David Klinghoffer, is Jewish, not
> Christian.
So f---ing what? He's still baiting; his religion doesn't give him a
pass!
> He's a creationist, one who recently argued that gay marriage would hurt
> women because they couldn't possibly hope to compete with "smooth skinned
> boys".
That happens to match the evolutionary argument for gayness. A gene
pool is more stable and productive if some members can get the
ancillary benefits of a sexual relationship without always producing
more babies. Even Dawkins will tell you evolution games for high-
quality babies, not too many babies!
So, is there any group this David K. has not yet successfully baited?
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
He's not a denier.
He is, however, a "young earth" creationist.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
> On Oct 18, 9:17 am, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:11:25 -0700, hypati...@comcast.net wrote:
>> > Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews, you so-called
>> > Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a compliment. There aren't that
>> > many Jews and some of them have done very well. What he says is that
>> > he wishes that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware of
>> > such atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how well they have done
>> > and how much they have donated to charity (millions), but that
>> > doesn't mean that he was insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on
>> > the other hand, are and will always be a lying, trouble-making
>> > so-called Christian. I doubt that very many Christians find you to be
>> > anything more than a big mouth with no substance.
>>
>> In fairness, the author of the article, David Klinghoffer, is Jewish,
>> not Christian.
>
> So f---ing what? He's still baiting; his religion doesn't give him a
> pass!
Drink some coffee, guy. I wasn't giving him a pass.
>
>> He's a creationist, one who recently argued that gay marriage would
>> hurt women because they couldn't possibly hope to compete with "smooth
>> skinned boys".
>
> That happens to match the evolutionary argument for gayness. A gene pool
> is more stable and productive if some members can get the ancillary
> benefits of a sexual relationship without always producing more babies.
> Even Dawkins will tell you evolution games for high- quality babies, not
> too many babies!
>
> So, is there any group this David K. has not yet successfully baited?
Well, he certainly got you...
Phlip
The Universe continually creates itself.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
>> He is, however, a "young earth" creationist.
>
> The Universe continually creates itself.
Just the fact that the diaspora is ACCELERATING tells us it isn't just a
passive reaction to a long-ago event.
Terry Cross
Apparently you are a part of the problem. Many millions of people
died in the war, including 20-30 million Russians. And nobody counts
the number of homosexuals among them.
You seem to specialize in irrelevance.
TCross
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
topic. I just can't stand our resident troll, Strumpet, throwing around
wild, unfounded accusations made by others. Strumpet never has had a
unique thought in his head. But he loves posting stupid shit he will
never respond to.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Do we even know how many gays were killed by the Nazis? I know they had a
pink star they had to wear to identify them as such in the labor camps.
Sam Taylor
Actually the Germans were much more humane in their killings
than the japanese who killed more than Terry's Hero Adolph Hitler,
and the one She hates for not losing to Uncle adolph, stalin.
the Japs killed 35 million, over 12 million in Burma alone
>TCross
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Burma lost an estimated 272,000, 90% of which were civilian. Your
overall number is closer to accurate, with the high end estimate at 26
million. However, most of those -- some 18 million, died as as a result
of famine secondary to the war. By far, the most casualties were in
China.
I don't know if I would use the word "humane" for any of the combatants
in World War II.
panam...@hotmail.com
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>
> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>
>
>
> fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> deniers?
Because it's accurate.
Next question?
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Oct 18, 3:58�am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@hush.com> wrote:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>>
>> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>>
>> beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
>>
>> Posted on 30. september 2009 20:46:34 by GodGunsGuts
>>
>> The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
>> fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
>> trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
>> protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
>> Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
>> deniers?
>
>Because it's accurate.
Their methods are very similar. They are both in denial about reality
and seize on minor differences between investigators that they blow
out of all proportion to pretend there is a controversy.
Sam Taylor
the Japs killed 12 million ciilians in Burma, 3 million in Indochina,
7 million in Korea 9 million in what is now thialand, cambodia, and
Loas
Yes China by far was the place they killed and tortured most
let alone the 26 Million P.O.W.'s they killed.
7 Million alone in medical Experiments alone.
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Nonsense. Burma had a total population of 16 million in 1939.
Terry Cross
> In article <948dd21b-6d8d-4f64-9eae-36b52483a...@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Terry Cross says...
>
> >It IS ironic, isn't it? Tens of millions of people from all nations
> >died in the war, but when remembering it, we are supposed to mourn
> >only the Jewish victims, and regret the rest of us did not do enough
> >to save them.
>
> Don't you have a Remembrance Day in the US? We remember the
> dead every year. Then we have a Holocaust Memorial day
> when we remember the victims of the holocaust.
> The victims were overwhelmingly Jewish, so it's right that
> we should remember Jews especially.
And do you have Pol Pot Memorial Day, Red Terror Memorial Day, Rwunda
Memorial Day, Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, Irish Famine Memorial
Day, Ukrainian Famine Memorial Day, Black Death Memorial Day, Small
Pox Memorial Day, Influenza Memorial Day, Mao's Famine Memorial Day,
Opium War Memorial Day, William of Normandy's Famine Memorial Day,
Stalin's Purge Memorial Day, Dresden Memorial Day, Hiroshima Memorial
Day, ...
Or do you have room for only the Jews on your calendar?
TCross
Terry Cross
wrote:
Do you even know how many Nazis were gay? When you start pretending
Jews are different from Gentiles, gays are different from straights,
and Germans are different from allies, you lose all perspective of
human events.
TCross
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Why would I do that? You were the one who complained that "nobody counts
the number of homosexuals among them." I was just observing that nobody
knows how many of them were gay. But the Nazis targeted gays, along with
Jews, trade unionists, socialists, intellectuals, Slavs, the mentally
retarded, communists, Africans, and others.
hypa...@comcast.net
> On Oct 18, 5:46 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>
>
>
>
>
> doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "hypati...@comcast.net"
>
> > <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >On Oct 18, 3:58 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@hush.com> wrote:
> > >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>
> > >> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>
> > >> beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
> > >Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews,
> > >you so-called Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a
> > >compliment. There aren't that many Jews and some of
> > >them have done very well. What he says is that he wishes
> > >that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware
> > >of such atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how
> > >well they have done and how much they have donated
> > >to charity (millions), but that doesn't mean that he was
> > >insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on the other hand,
> > >are and will always be a lying, trouble-making so-called
> > >Christian. I doubt that very many Christians find you to
> > >be anything more than a big mouth with no substance.
>
> > like cry babies.
>
> It IS ironic, isn't it? Tens of millions of people from all nations
> died in the war, but when remembering it, we are supposed to mourn
> only the Jewish victims, and regret the rest of us did not do enough
> to save them.
>
The fact is, you'd prefer it if the Holacaust was ignored altogether
and all the Jews, Christians, gypsies, gays, unionists, sick and
disabled
people who were murdered by the Nazis were simply forgotten. It's your
cross to bare that they won't be.
Phlip
wrote:
> >> He is, however, a "young earth" creationist.
>
> > The Universe continually creates itself.
>
> Just the fact that the diaspora is ACCELERATING tells us it isn't just a
> passive reaction to a long-ago event.
I meant this:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?KleinBottle
You are still thinking about linear time. In terms of Cosmology I mean
the "steady state" system, where a Big Bang only appears to have
happened. Metaphorically, there are those who think that measuring the
age of the universe via doppler shift is subtly flawed, like measuring
the reflection of a tree in a lake to see how deep the lake is.
But spiritually, I mean that all time is simultaneous, and the point
of power is in the present. If something happens that's meaningful to
you, the Universe will retrofit any necessary primary sense data to
make that thing happen. So pushing the Creation back 4,000 years - or
16 billion years, or endless oscillations of Big Bangs - is really
just abrogating responsibility for the creativity that occurs right
now. The energy at the neck of the Klein bottle is going around to
form the surface of the bowl of the Klein bottle; we are inside one
oscillation, where the next oscillation is the next millisecond of the
entire apparatus.
Oh fuck I just noticed news:alt.atheism is on the list. Guys, these
aren't the droids you're looking for. He can go about his business.
--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand
Emma
Terry Cross says...
We remember the holocaust especially because it was unique.
There have been plenty of famines and wars, plenty of
epidemics and plagues, but the attempted annihilation of
an entire people to the extent that anyone with a
Jewish ancestor was hunted down and killed, is unique.
But you're going to deny its uniqueness because you're
a holocaust denier.
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
>On Oct 18, 5:46 am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
>doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:11:25 -0700 (PDT), "hypati...@comcast.net"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Oct 18, 3:58 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@hush.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>>
>> >> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>>
>> >> beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
>> <SNIP>
>> >Stop trying to make trouble between atheists and Jews,
>> >you so-called Christian liar. What Dawkins said was a
>> >compliment. There aren't that many Jews and some of
>> >them have done very well. What he says is that he wishes
>> >that as many atheists did as well. He may not be aware
>> >of such atheists as Soros, Buffet and Gates and how
>> >well they have done and how much they have donated
>> >to charity (millions), but that doesn't mean that he was
>> >insulting either atheists or Jews. You, on the other hand,
>> >are and will always be a lying, trouble-making so-called
>> >Christian. I doubt that very many Christians find you to
>> >be anything more than a big mouth with no substance.
>>
>> I find it ironic when true believers in an all powerful supreme being behave
>> like cry babies.
>
>It IS ironic, isn't it? Tens of millions of people from all nations
>died in the war, but when remembering it, we are supposed to mourn
>only the Jewish victims, and regret the rest of us did not do enough
>to save them.
>
>TCross
Only in your head. Cry baby.
Ben
Phlip
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:37:38 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
That Zionists in Israel behave like Nazis. They "need more living
room", they make up fables about their history to claim a divine right
to invade other peoples' lands, they put Palestinians into
concentration camps, and they murder them wholesale. All with the
blessing of their US sponsors, and the MSM.
Zev
"During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts
of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is,
to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable.
But the IDF took on those risks".
Bear
wrote:
Hello Philip,
What about the concentration camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, by
their own people? How many of them did the Jordanian government
"murder"? Why is this never brought up by those so quick to condemn
Israel? When has Israel ever attacked the Palestinians without prior
provocation? Is it OK for the Palestinians to lob thousands of
rockets and mortars at schools and civilians, to blow up people in
restaurants and buses? I thought the Balfour Decorations allocated
land for Israel, the same as for Jordan, is that not correct? It is
my understanding that the land now owned by Israel was previously
owned by the Ottoman Empire, not the Palestinians, is that in error?
Bear
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
You're safe. Most atheists accept the notion of Klein bottles.
I don't think there's any particular atheistic stance on the Big Bang,
either. Some accept it as a valid hypothesis, and others, including
myself, suspect the linear projection model is flawed, and that the
universe doesn't project back to a singularity any more than it expands
to infinity.
The notion of time being simultaneous or linear is even more open to
question, because either opinion is equally valid, given what we know.
Viacheslav Belavkin in Dynamical Programming of Continuously Observed
Quantum Systems demonstrated that with pair atoms, if you reverse the
spin in one, you reverse the spin in the other simultaneously. If you
separate the two, the same thing happens, simultaneously. Not at the
speed of light--simultaneously. Something is happening there that don't
pay any attention to c.
haiku jones
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2351796/posts
>
> Richard Dawkins's Jewish Problem
>
> beliefnet ^ | September 29, 2009 | David Klinghoffer
>
>
> The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to
> fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of
> trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in
> protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author
> Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust
> deniers?
Perhaps because the ADL, being smarter than you are,
see that there's nothing to object to?
Creationists may be quite aptly compared to
Holocaust deniers. And to moon-landing
deniers, HIV/AIDS deniers, round-earth
deniers, Egyptian pyramid deniers, and
heliocentric solar system deniers.
Haiku Jones
>
> The ADL has objected to attempts to inject Nazi imagery into the
> health-care reform debate ("Such statements only serve to diminish and
> trivialize the extent of the Nazi regime's crimes against humanity"),
> the abortion debate ("Such analogies can only trivialize and diminish
> the horror"), the animal-rights debate ("the issue should stand on its
> own merits, rather than rely on inappropriate comparisons that only
> serve to trivialize the suffering of the six million Jews"), and in
> many other contexts.
>
> But if Rush Limbaugh, for example, used "outrageous, deeply offensive
> and inappropriate" Nazi comparisons to stigmatize sponsors and
> supporters of health-care reform, why is it no less outrageous to
> compare people (like the late Irving Kristol, for example) who doubt
> Darwinian evolution to the moral cretins who deny the Holocaust? In
> his new book, currently the #22 best seller on Amazon, The Greatest
> Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Dawkins calls Darwin
> critics "history-deniers" and dwells on the comparison, even remarking
> that "The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence
> for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust."
>
> Is that some sort of cruel joke? The evidence for Darwin's account of
> evolution and, more so, its controversial mechanism of natural
> selection is a matter of inference, no matter how strong you think the
> inference is. The evidence for the Holocaust includes countless eye-
> witness accounts -- a very different and superior order of evidence.
>
> "People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level
> with Holocaust deniers, argues an author in his controversial new
> book," headlined the London Times when the book came out there last
> month. Yet not a peep from the ADL.
>
> In his last book, The God Delusion, Dawkins used incredibly offensive
> language in characterizing the God of the Hebrew Bible, whom he called
> among other things, "a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a
> vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic,
> racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential,
> megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
>
> Now in a Newsweek interview he repeats the insult, saying: "The God of
> the Old Testament is a monster. It's very, very hard for anybody to
> deny that. He's like a hyped-up Ayatollah Khomeini." Asked by
> Newsweek's Lisa Miller where this leaves the "90 percent of Americans
> [who] say they believe in God" and of whom "some portion...are
> intelligent people," Dawkins replies, "But they wouldn't disagree with
> what I said about the God of the Old Testament. They'd probably say
> something like, 'Oh, that's quite different. We believe in the God of
> the New Testament.'"
>
> This places Jews among the portion of believing Americans who would
> have to be characterized as unintelligent. Miller calls Dawkins on
> this. He then says of Jews: "Well, sure enough. They'd say, 'OK, we've
> moved on since that time.' Thank goodness they have."
>
> In other words, you can be an intelligent Christian who takes his
> Bible at least somewhat seriously, but not an intelligent Jew who does
> the same. And this is a statement, from a very prominent public
> intellectual, a popular and respected scientist and author, that
> neither the ADL nor any other Jewish anti-defamation group I'm aware
> of sees fit to protest? I find this bewildering.
>
> The same Richard Dawkins paid a backhanded compliment to the "Jewish
> Lobby" a couple of years back in the Guardian, expressing the wish
> that if only atheists could throw their weight around like the Jews
> do, then how wonderful that would be: "When you think about how
> fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact,
> they are less numerous I am told -- religious Jews anyway -- than
> atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign
> policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a
> small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better
> place" (emphasis added).
>
> There you have it. Not only does he trivialize the intellectual
> offense of Holocaust denial. Not only does he say the only intelligent
> Jews are either Christian converts or secularists. He tops it off by
> finding plausible the idea that a shadow "lobby" of Jews controls
> U.S. foreign policy.
>
> The very term itself, Jewish Lobby, is of course a shibboleth. No one
> uses it who is friendly to the Jews. It's even more of a red flag than
> "Israel Lobby." The ADL's Abraham Foxman is himself the author of a
> recent book, The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of
> Jewish Control. In short, where on earth is the ADL when you need them?
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Do you have anything other than rhetorical questions without any cites to
back them up?
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>Do you have anything other than rhetorical questions without any cites to
>back them up?
Irony anyone?
--
Contrary to what liberals whine, nobody
owes you anything.
Bear
I do not ask questions if I do not wish an answer to. OTOH, I guess
that "rhetorical" could apply to some of my questions because, as you
demonstrated, people refuse to answer questions that may prove
embarrassing to their views and assertions. BTW, do you suppose you
could explain why my questions qualify as being "rhetorical",
especially the last two?
Is it an accepted practice when asking questions to "cite" something
and if so, what do you want "cited"? I believe the subjects of most,
if not all, of my questions are general knowledge of ones reading
history or news events.
Why not just provide an answer if you have one and if not, why not
just simply say that you cannot?
To answer your question, yes, and three sources are "cited" below.
Definition: Black September is both the name of Jordan's ruthless war
on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in September 1970 and
of a Palestinian commando and terrorist movement created in the
aftermath of the war to avenge the Palestinians' losses in Jordan.
Arab nations colloquially referred to Black September after King
Hussein's 1970 crackdown on the PLO because of the brutality of the
three-week war, which put an end to the PLO's rogue
state-within-a-state in Jordan as well as its guerilla attacks on
Israeli-occupied Arab territory in the West Bank. Hussein, who was the
target of numerous assassination attempts by the PLO and other
Palestinian factions, and whose authority had been in doubt, first
signed a cease-fire agreement with the PLO in late September, 1970,
then expelled Yasser Arafat and the PLO in early 1971. The PLO
migrated to Lebanon, weapons and destabilizing designs in tow.
http://middleeast.about.com/od/terrorism/g/black-september-definition.htm
You have also brought help to the refugee camps in Lebanon. What is
the situation?
STERN: It is different but equally painful. The Palestinian
refugees in Lebanon all live in camps run by the United Nations. The
difficulties also come from the traditional and by now deteriorating
balance of constitutional powers in Lebanon between Maronite
Christians, Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims, based on the respective
numbers of the population. Now, none of these three groups wants a
numerous Palestinian component to enter the picture, and all are
agreed in saying that the only prospect for these refugees is that of
returning to their own countries. But this is now practically
impossible. Thus the refugee camp is the only thing left for these
poor people, to live in prison that is. I dream of the day when there
is a universally recognized Palestinian State, and perhaps all of
these poor people can have a Palestinian passport, so as to obtain a
residence visa to work in Lebanon. Because, things being as they are,
Lebanon will never accept these people as proper citizens. Today more
than two hundred thousand Palestine Muslims are refugees in the camps,
armed, in complete isolation, prevented from going to Palestine. It is
an unbearable way of life, that has made them nasty, with reason.
http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=10522
Hussein chose not to join Egypt and Syria in their surprise attack on
Israel in October 1973, although he did make a symbolic gesture by
sending tanks to assist Syria in the Golan Heights. In negotiations
immediately following the war, Hussein once again demanded the return
of the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Israel. He was bitter that
Israel-in response to pressure from U.S. Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger-proposed a withdrawal of its forces from Israeli-occupied
Egyptian territory but made no such overtures to Jordan. However, by
August 1974 discussions were under way with Israel over "disengagement
accords," which recognized Jordan as the speaker for the Palestinians
and encouraged regional economic and tactical cooperation, especially
in relation to the threat posed by Palestinian guerrilla groups. In
October leaders of the Arab League at an Arab summit meeting in Rabat,
Morocco, declared that the Palestinian people, under the leadership of
the PLO ("their sole legitimate representative"), had the right to
establish a national independent authority in liberated Palestine. In
response Hussein announced that his country would exclude the West
Bank from Jordan and would never enter into a federation with a
Palestinian state, as such a step would inevitably give the
Palestinian population a majority and bring about the loss of his
kingdom.
Faced with American reluctance to supply arms and an Egyptian-Israeli
Sinai accord, Jordan with Syria agreed in August 1975 to form a joint
"supreme command" to coordinate their foreign and military policies in
an effort to control PLO activities. In March 1977 ?Hussein met with
Arafat in Cairo, their first meeting since Black September in 1970. In
July 1977 Hussein, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat, and U.S.
President Jimmy Carter once again discussed the possibility of a link
between Jordan and a Palestinian "entity," but it was denounced by the
PLO.
Encyclopedia Britannica
Bear
raven1
I'm unclear as to which of the questions above are rhetorical,
especially the last four. Could you elaborate?
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
It's a favorite gambit in these parts when people are trying to bluff.
Simple declaratives would be more effective, particularly in conjunction
with the questions.
>
> Is it an accepted practice when asking questions to "cite" something and
> if so, what do you want "cited"? I believe the subjects of most, if not
> all, of my questions are general knowledge of ones reading history or
> news events.
That's not the case.
>
> Why not just provide an answer if you have one and if not, why not just
> simply say that you cannot?
>
> To answer your question, yes, and three sources are "cited" below.
>
> Definition: Black September is both the name of Jordan's ruthless war on
> the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in September 1970 and of a
> Palestinian commando and terrorist movement created in the aftermath of
> the war to avenge the Palestinians' losses in Jordan. Arab nations
> colloquially referred to Black September after King Hussein's 1970
> crackdown on the PLO because of the brutality of the three-week war,
> which put an end to the PLO's rogue state-within-a-state in Jordan as
> well as its guerilla attacks on Israeli-occupied Arab territory in the
> West Bank. Hussein, who was the target of numerous assassination
> attempts by the PLO and other Palestinian factions, and whose authority
> had been in doubt, first signed a cease-fire agreement with the PLO in
> late September, 1970, then expelled Yasser Arafat and the PLO in early
> 1971. The PLO migrated to Lebanon, weapons and destabilizing designs in
> tow.
>
> http://middleeast.about.com/od/terrorism/g/black-september-
definition.htm
All fine and good, but you referenced "concentration camps" No mention
here.
>
>
>
> You have also brought help to the refugee camps in Lebanon. What is the
> situation?
>
> STERN: It is different but equally painful. The Palestinian
> refugees in Lebanon all live in camps run by the United Nations. The
> difficulties also come from the traditional and by now deteriorating
> balance of constitutional powers in Lebanon between Maronite Christians,
> Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims, based on the respective numbers of the
> population. Now, none of these three groups wants a numerous Palestinian
> component to enter the picture, and all are agreed in saying that the
> only prospect for these refugees is that of returning to their own
> countries. But this is now practically impossible. Thus the refugee camp
> is the only thing left for these poor people, to live in prison that is.
> I dream of the day when there is a universally recognized Palestinian
> State, and perhaps all of these poor people can have a Palestinian
> passport, so as to obtain a residence visa to work in Lebanon. Because,
> things being as they are, Lebanon will never accept these people as
> proper citizens. Today more than two hundred thousand Palestine Muslims
> are refugees in the camps, armed, in complete isolation, prevented from
> going to Palestine. It is an unbearable way of life, that has made them
> nasty, with reason.
>
> http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=10522
>
You, um are referring to UN run refugee camps as concentration camps run
"by their own people"? Your own cite isn't doing a very convincing job
of backing your question.
All fine and good, but none of it addresses the questions you posed.
I would love to see how the Balfour Declaration pertains to lands that
were not Israel's at the time, and in fact are not Israel's now.
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 18, 9:43 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:37:38 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 18, 7:33 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Because it doesn't "trivialize the Holocaust" to note that both groups
> >> >> are in deep denial of reality, and that both groups have a
> >> >> not-so-hidden agenda behind that denial.
>
> >> >Whereas claiming you are a master race, and herding your opponents
> >> >into concentration camps and death machines, DOES trivialize the
> >> >Holocaust...
>
> >> >Never again, guys?
>
> >> What, exactly, is your point?
>
> >That Zionists in Israel behave like Nazis. They "need more living
> >room", they make up fables about their history to claim a divine right
> >to invade other peoples' lands, they put Palestinians into
> >concentration camps, and they murder them wholesale. All with the
> >blessing of their US sponsors, and the MSM.
>
> Hello Philip,
>
> What about the concentration camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, by
> their own people? How many of them did the Jordanian government
> "murder"? Why is this never brought up by those so quick to condemn
> Israel? When has Israel ever attacked the Palestinians without prior
> provocation?
December 2008. Of course, you will say the vicious attack on the Gaza
was provoked -- but what nation has ever failed to find "provocation"
for an aggressive war when one was desired. But the truth is that
very few, approaching zero, Jews were killed or wounded in the so-
called rocket attacks from Gaza. The provocation was every bit as bad
as the Gulf of Tonkin attack that brought the US hardware to Vietnam.
Go visit a schoolyard - provocation is easy to find, even if it is
only a flimsy lie.
TCross
5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09
Phlip
wrote:
> > Oh fuck I just noticed news:alt.atheism is on the list. Guys, these
> > aren't the droids you're looking for. He can go about his business.
>
> You're safe. Most atheists accept the notion of Klein bottles.
In the movie "Jumanji", when the pieces on the board move by
themselves, the children in the 1960s say, "they must be magnetic".
The children in the 1990s say, "they must be microchipped".
Enough said!
Zev
The truth is that rocket and mortar attacks
had been disrupting life in Sderot and smaller towns
surrounding the Gaza Strip for years.
Many residents of Sderot left, renting houses further away from Gaza.
Israel had warned, threatened, and bluffed in an effort
to end it without a fight.
All to no avail, Hamas insolence only got worse.
Finally, public pressure tipped the scales.
Germany and Japan, dispite their wartime propaganda
and belief in their own invincibility, were totally defeated
and rehabilitated along modern, liberal lines.
Over 60 years later, they show no signs
of a return to their wicked ways.
It can be done.
The price they paid is a function of their obstinance.
The PA could have established itself years ago
as a peaceful country which would take its place
among the nations of the world.
Instead, they concentrate on bellicose victimology.
They could be investing in education and economic production.
Instead they invest in rockets and tunnels.
No wonder even Muslim nations despise them, except for Iran.
Zev
בהודעה:oIOdne-VNtKng0DX...@posted.carinet...
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:56:57 -0500, Bear wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:17:29 -0500, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
>> <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:33:36 -0500, Bear wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phli...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
<snipped>
> I would love to see how the Balfour Declaration pertains to lands that
> were not Israel's at the time, and in fact are not Israel's now.
It's a British statement of policy concerning lands
which were part of the Turkish Empire
and soon became British.
It was later accepted by the League of Nations.
That's how.
Ben Kaufman
You seem to be operating under some fables as well. You do realize that the
owners of the land the Palestinians dwelled on decided to annihilate Israel (a
few times) and it backfired.
Ben
randy
"Emma"
> We remember the holocaust especially because it was unique.
> There have been plenty of famines and wars, plenty of
> epidemics and plagues, but the attempted annihilation of
> an entire people to the extent that anyone with a
> Jewish ancestor was hunted down and killed, is unique.
> But you're going to deny its uniqueness because you're
> a holocaust denier.
It does make you stand back and ask why Jews appear to receive "special
treatment." And I agree with you, Emma, that there are other reasons that
the Jews receive favorable treatment in many respects. One is that Jews have
a special place in the book that have influenced three major religions. Two
is that Jews have *not* received their proper due over the centuries of
Christian civilization. Christians have a need to atone for their sins, for
allowing people to do to Jews in their name what ought not to have been
done. And three is because of the centrality Jews seem to play in just about
everything. They are key in science, key in philosophy, key in religion, key
in world events, etc. etc.
Why is that? Is that because we've been mesmerized by Jewish propaganda? Or
is it because *God Himself* has determined to make it clear His plan *began
with the Jews?* I do think the latter. The idea that Jews are some kind of
manipulative lobby causing the West to favor Israel is ridiculous. If the
West favors Israel it is because there is much to be salvaged from Jewish
influence in the world. Why don't we try to salvage Moslems? It is because
there are so many of them, and so many states to protect them. I believe we
in the West, and Christians in particular, have this internal need to be on
God's side with regard to the Jews. They really have been traumatized by
Diaspora, by God's dealings with them in history. And it is because they
still represent His people.
randy
Terry Cross
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
And you realize that Israelis have invaded unarmed Palestinian camps
on a number of occasions and slaughtered men, women, and children in
brutal unprovoked aggressions?
Of course you do.
TCross
Terry Cross
> "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> כתב
> בהודעה:oIOdne-VNtKng0DXnZ2dnUVZ_qSdn...@posted.carinet...
>
> > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:56:57 -0500, Bear wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:17:29 -0500, "5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09"
> >> <d...@dead.com> wrote:
> >>>On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:33:36 -0500, Bear wrote:
> >>>> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > I would love to see how the Balfour Declaration pertains to lands that
> > were not Israel's at the time, and in fact are not Israel's now.
>
> It's a British statement of policy concerning lands
> which were part of the Turkish Empire
> and soon became British.
> It was later accepted by the League of Nations.
>
> That's how.
So you recognize the opinion of the League of Nations and the United
Nations?
Then let us turn our attention to the 321 UN resolutions that Israel
refuses to follow.
It's a two-edged sword.
TCross
Terry Cross
> In article <1aeb6ad4-ac98-434f-bd39-370976aee...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Are you so unfamiliar with English literature? Robert Luois Stevenson
tells of the extermination of the Picts in his poem "Heather Ale."
http://www.bartleby.com/246/961.html
Many racial exterminations have been not just attempted, but actually
accomplished in history. The Holocaust did not even come close to
exterminating the Jews -- if indeed extermination was even tried.
Europe has millions of Jews today, Israel is over-populated, and
America has more than ever.
For real annihilations, look to the Hawaiians, certain tribes of
Amerindians, the Albigensians, the Cossacks, and the Amaleks, whom the
Jews themselves take credit for exterminating. And there are other
cases, too.
> But you're going to deny its uniqueness because you're
> a holocaust denier.
I deny its uniqueness because it is not unique. And it was far, far
from successful.
TCross
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>> We remember the holocaust especially because it was unique.
>> There have been plenty of famines and wars, plenty of
>> epidemics and plagues, but the attempted annihilation of
>> an entire people to the extent that anyone with a
>> Jewish ancestor was hunted down and killed, is unique.
>> But you're going to deny its uniqueness because you're
>> a holocaust denier.
>
>It does make you stand back and ask why Jews appear to receive "special
>treatment." And I agree with you, Emma, that there are other reasons that
>the Jews receive favorable treatment in many respects. One is that Jews have
>a special place in the book that have influenced three major religions. Two
>is that Jews have *not* received their proper due over the centuries of
>Christian civilization.
I'm not sure what you mean, Randy. I don't think Jews
receive special treatment at all.
For instance, if millions of people from another group
had been slaughtered in the same way, we would remember
them. So we don't remember the holocaust because Jews
were the main victims; we remember the holocaust because
of the particular nature of it.
Terry is trying to say that we only give the holocaust
special attention because the victims were mainly Jewish,
and she implies that Jews demand special treatment.
That's not true.
>Christians have a need to atone for their sins, for
>allowing people to do to Jews in their name what ought not to have been
>done. And three is because of the centrality Jews seem to play in just about
>everything. They are key in science, key in philosophy, key in religion, key
>in world events, etc. etc.
Yes, but I thought we were talking about holocaust
remembrance.
I agree that Jews are incredibly successful though
and, as you know, I'm fascinated by their history.
Christians did persecute them, but they haven't responded
with hatred. That fascinates me too, that such a persecuted
people don't hate. Jews are even returning to live in
Germany! Can you believe that?!
>Why is that? Is that because we've been mesmerized by Jewish propaganda? Or
>is it because *God Himself* has determined to make it clear His plan *began
>with the Jews?* I do think the latter.
I think we have been won over by a people who get on with
life despite everything. Judaism gives Jews a real
enjoyment of life. Yes, I think God is with them.
> The idea that Jews are some kind of
>manipulative lobby causing the West to favor Israel is ridiculous. If the
>West favors Israel it is because there is much to be salvaged from Jewish
>influence in the world. Why don't we try to salvage Moslems? It is because
>there are so many of them, and so many states to protect them. I believe we
>in the West, and Christians in particular, have this internal need to be on
>God's side with regard to the Jews. They really have been traumatized by
>Diaspora, by God's dealings with them in history. And it is because they
>still represent His people.
Well I identify very much with Israel and Israelis and
I don't identify at all with Muslims. As you mentioned,that has a
lot to do with Christianity, but also it's because Israel is
free and like us.
Emma
Terry Cross says...
>
>
>Are you so unfamiliar with English literature? Robert Luois Stevenson
>tells of the extermination of the Picts in his poem "Heather Ale."
>http://www.bartleby.com/246/961.html
>
>Many racial exterminations have been not just attempted, but actually
>accomplished in history. The Holocaust did not even come close to
>exterminating the Jews -- if indeed extermination was even tried.
>Europe has millions of Jews today, Israel is over-populated, and
>America has more than ever.
>
>For real annihilations, look to the Hawaiians, certain tribes of
>Amerindians, the Albigensians, the Cossacks, and the Amaleks, whom the
>Jews themselves take credit for exterminating. And there are other
>cases, too.
Of course there have been genocides in ancient history. We're
talking about a very thorough, scientific method of
extermination in "civilised" Europe. This was not like
a war between ancient tribes. This was Europe, within
living memory.
>
>I deny its uniqueness because it is not unique. And it was far, far
>from successful.
>
Thank God.
Zev
"5228 Dead, 361 since 1/20/09" said
he would love to see something,
I showed him.
The League of Nations bit was just icing on the cake.
UN inconsistency and inaction have made it irrelevant.
What did the UN do about the Indian
invasion and conquest of Goa (Dec.19, 1961)?
What does the UN do about Chechnya, Tibet, Darfur, and Iraq?
What does the UN care about minority
and women's rights in Arab/Muslim countries?
What does the UN do about Turkish water theft
(from down-river countries)?
What does the UN do to enforce compliance
with resolution 1701?
Zev
Israelis?
Unprovoked?
Terry Cross
> On Oct 20, 4:32 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 7:33 am, Bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Oct 18, 9:43 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:37:38 -0700 (PDT), Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > What about the concentration camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, by
> > > their own people? How many of them did the Jordanian government
> > > "murder"? Why is this never brought up by those so quick to condemn
> > > Israel? When has Israel ever attacked the Palestinians without prior
> > > provocation?
>
> > December 2008. Of course, you will say the vicious attack on the Gaza
> > was provoked -- but what nation has ever failed to find "provocation"
> > for an aggressive war when one was desired. But the truth is that
> > very few, approaching zero, Jews were killed or wounded in the so-
> > called rocket attacks from Gaza. The provocation was every bit as bad
> > as the Gulf of Tonkin attack that brought the US hardware to Vietnam.
>
> > Go visit a schoolyard - provocation is easy to find, even if it is
> > only a flimsy lie.
>
> The truth is that rocket and mortar attacks
> had been disrupting life in Sderot and smaller towns
> surrounding the Gaza Strip for years.
Bringing down the property values? That certainly qualifies as
provocation for a massacre. Lemme attem.
> Many residents of Sderot left, renting houses further away from Gaza.
> Israel had warned, threatened, and bluffed in an effort
> to end it without a fight.
> All to no avail, Hamas insolence only got worse.
> Finally, public pressure tipped the scales.
So you say we should not blame the Israeli government - we should
blame the Israeli people. Very well, then.
> Germany and Japan, dispite their wartime propaganda
> and belief in their own invincibility, were totally defeated
> and rehabilitated along modern, liberal lines.
> Over 60 years later, they show no signs
> of a return to their wicked ways.
> It can be done.
> The price they paid is a function of their obstinance.
Reform of Japan and Germany may look intentional -- but donating the
eastern half of Europe to the Soviet Union at the Malta Conference
belied the accomplishment. There was no evil in the world proven to
be so great or so powerful as the Soviet Union, yet we kissed its
feet.
Shortly thereafter, when we could have demonstrated our "liberal"
intent, we permitted China to be so oppressive that Mao "anything but
liberty" Zedong was able to enslave, slaughter, and ruin the eastern
half of Asia.
> The PA could have established itself years ago
> as a peaceful country which would take its place
> among the nations of the world.
> Instead, they concentrate on bellicose victimology.
> They could be investing in education and economic production.
> Instead they invest in rockets and tunnels.
> No wonder even Muslim nations despise them, except for Iran.
I don't think so. The portrait of those people as vicious,
disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims is just too convenient for the
expansionist ambitions of Israel. The continuous crushing of those
people under the settlements and the "wall" makes a lie of the whole
picture you would paint.
TCross
Zev
"Property values"?
Well, sure.
If Jewish blood doesn't count, what's left?
"Property values"!!!
Terry, you're so smart!
> > Many residents of Sderot left, renting houses further away from Gaza.
> > Israel had warned, threatened, and bluffed in an effort
> > to end it without a fight.
> > All to no avail, Hamas insolence only got worse.
> > Finally, public pressure tipped the scales.
>
> So you say we should not blame the Israeli government - we should
> blame the Israeli people. Very well, then.
Israel wants no part of Gaza,
There are no emotional or historical ties to the Jewish people
there as there are in the West Bank.
That's why they left.
Why shouldn't a self-respecting country do *whatever*
needs to be done to defend itself against
an unconscionable enemy at its border?
Public pressure also forced a procrastinating government
to build "the wall", after too many Israelis were killed by terrorists
who easily passed the "Green Line" from the West Bank.
Somebody should have told the Israeli government
that Jewish blood doesn't count.
It would have saved them a fortune.
> > Germany and Japan, dispite their wartime propaganda
> > and belief in their own invincibility, were totally defeated
> > and rehabilitated along modern, liberal lines.
> > Over 60 years later, they show no signs
> > of a return to their wicked ways.
> > It can be done.
> > The price they paid is a function of their obstinance.
>
> Reform of Japan and Germany may look intentional -- but donating the
> eastern half of Europe to the Soviet Union at the Malta Conference
> belied the accomplishment. There was no evil in the world proven to
> be so great or so powerful as the Soviet Union, yet we kissed its
> feet.
>
> Shortly thereafter, when we could have demonstrated our "liberal"
> intent, we permitted China to be so oppressive that Mao "anything but
> liberty" Zedong was able to enslave, slaughter, and ruin the eastern
> half of Asia.
Truman's biggest mistake was firing General Macarthur?
> > The PA could have established itself years ago
> > as a peaceful country which would take its place
> > among the nations of the world.
> > Instead, they concentrate on bellicose victimology.
> > They could be investing in education and economic production.
> > Instead they invest in rockets and tunnels.
> > No wonder even Muslim nations despise them, except for Iran.
>
> I don't think so. The portrait of those people as vicious,
> disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims is just too convenient for the
> expansionist ambitions of Israel. The continuous crushing of those
> people under the settlements and the "wall" makes a lie of the whole
> picture you would paint.
"Vicious, disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims"
is the picture that I paint?
Are they not investing in rockets and tunnels
instead of education and economic production?
Are you perhaps thinking of someone elses posts?
As "continuous crushing" goes, it's not all that bad.
Palestinians who live in Gaza or Jordan are self-governing.
Those who live in Israel are full citizens of their country.
Most of those who live in the West Bank
are governed by their own PA.
80% of 1922 Palestine is Arab governed.
I don't say they have no right to wish for more
than they can get peacefully.
Wars have been fought for less.
But maybe it's time for decent people like you
to tell them enough is enough.
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
Both sides have spilled innocent blood, mr/miss one sided. But the fact is
that Arabs in that region have tried to annihilate Israel on multiple occasions.
Israel has never returned the favor.
Ben
randy
"Emma"
randy
> I'm not sure what you mean, Randy. I don't think Jews
> receive special treatment at all.
> For instance, if millions of people from another group
> had been slaughtered in the same way, we would remember
> them. So we don't remember the holocaust because Jews
> were the main victims; we remember the holocaust because
> of the particular nature of it.
> Terry is trying to say that we only give the holocaust
> special attention because the victims were mainly Jewish,
> and she implies that Jews demand special treatment.
> That's not true.
No, I agree with Terry that Jews receive favorable treatment, even though
they appear to be a despised people. This is clearly a paradox, in my
estimation. I understand Terry's concern, from her pov, but I do take your
side that Jews merit special attention.
randy
Terry Cross
We have been over that ground -- there were no contemporaneous reports
of death or injury from the "rocket fire." None.
> "Property values"!!!
> Terry, you're so smart!
>
> > > Many residents of Sderot left, renting houses further away from Gaza.
> > > Israel had warned, threatened, and bluffed in an effort
> > > to end it without a fight.
> > > All to no avail, Hamas insolence only got worse.
> > > Finally, public pressure tipped the scales.
>
> > So you say we should not blame the Israeli government - we should
> > blame the Israeli people. Very well, then.
>
> Israel wants no part of Gaza,
> There are no emotional or historical ties to the Jewish people
> there as there are in the West Bank.
> That's why they left.
Whatever that means. The invasion and confiscation of the Palestine
continues. These seven year old maps show the continuous and
unrelenting expropriation of the Palestinian lands. http://www.firstpr.com.au/nations/
> Why shouldn't a self-respecting country do *whatever*
> needs to be done to defend itself against
> an unconscionable enemy at its border?
A "self-respecting country" should NOT do "whatever" because ( and you
should know this) doing "whatever" is the definition of
unconscionable. That is the cause for horror and outrage over
Israel's war against the Palestinians. Israel proceeds to operate as
though the Middle East were "a land without people," just as the
Exodus myth would pretend. That is, the Palestinians are NOT people,
just vermin subject to extirpation.
> Public pressure also forced a procrastinating government
> to build "the wall", after too many Israelis were killed by terrorists
> who easily passed the "Green Line" from the West Bank.
That might be believable if the wall were just a wall. But it is
not. It meanders around through the Palestinian lands cutting farmers
off from fields, fields from villages, and villages from other
villages. It does not follow the border, but operates as a tool of
expropriation. http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm
> Somebody should have told the Israeli government
> that Jewish blood doesn't count.
> It would have saved them a fortune.
Someone should have told the Israeli government that they are wrong to
think "a million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (That
is what Rabbi Perin said in his eulogy at the funeral of New York
doctor Baruch Goldstein, who used an assault rifle to kill 29 men,
women and children while they were worshiping at a mosque.)
> > > Germany and Japan, dispite their wartime propaganda
> > > and belief in their own invincibility, were totally defeated
> > > and rehabilitated along modern, liberal lines.
> > > Over 60 years later, they show no signs
> > > of a return to their wicked ways.
> > > It can be done.
> > > The price they paid is a function of their obstinance.
>
> > Reform of Japan and Germany may look intentional -- but donating the
> > eastern half of Europe to the Soviet Union at the Malta Conference
> > belied the accomplishment. There was no evil in the world proven to
> > be so great or so powerful as the Soviet Union, yet we kissed its
> > feet.
>
> > Shortly thereafter, when we could have demonstrated our "liberal"
> > intent, we permitted China to be so oppressive that Mao "anything but
> > liberty" Zedong was able to enslave, slaughter, and ruin the eastern
> > half of Asia.
>
> Truman's biggest mistake was firing General Macarthur?
Don't you think it's a little cavalier to call the Communist Holocaust
a "mistake"?
TCross
Terry Cross
doll...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com>
On the contrary. Israel "annihilated" Palestine by massacring some of
the residents and driving the others out in forced emigrations -- an
action that is defined by International Law as a war crime. Israel is
now on course to annihilate the occupied territories through
massacres, armed settlements, and bulldozers.
Israel has repeatedly (through its spokespersons) defined its policy
against the Palestinians by calling them "Amalek", i.e., a people
targeted for holy war and extermination.
TCross
TCross
Zev
> On Oct 21, 1:09 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 21, 1:25 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 20, 3:21 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 20, 4:32 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 19, 7:33 am, Bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Phlip
> > > > > > <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > The truth is that rocket and mortar attacks
> > > > had been disrupting life in Sderot and smaller towns
> > > > surrounding the Gaza Strip for years.
>
> > > Bringing down the property values? That certainly qualifies as
> > > provocation for a massacre. Lemme attem.
>
> > "Property values"?
> > Well, sure.
> > If Jewish blood doesn't count, what's left?
>
> We have been over that ground -- there were no contemporaneous reports
> of death or injury from the "rocket fire." None.
If Jewish blood doesn't count, a dozen corpses equals none.
That Terry's "New Math".
> > "Property values"!!!
> > Terry, you're so smart!
>
> > > > Many residents of Sderot left, renting houses further away from
> > > > Gaza.
> > > > Israel had warned, threatened, and bluffed in an effort
> > > > to end it without a fight.
> > > > All to no avail, Hamas insolence only got worse.
> > > > Finally, public pressure tipped the scales.
>
> > > So you say we should not blame the Israeli government - we should
> > > blame the Israeli people. Very well, then.
>
> > Israel wants no part of Gaza,
> > There are no emotional or historical ties to the Jewish people
> > there as there are in the West Bank.
> > That's why they left.
>
> Whatever that means. The invasion and confiscation of the Palestine
> continues. These seven year old maps show the continuous and
> unrelenting expropriation of the Palestinian lands.
> http://www.firstpr.com.au/nations/
The Gaza Strip is not the West Bank.
Please try to keep up.
> > Why shouldn't a self-respecting country do *whatever*
> > needs to be done to defend itself against
> > an unconscionable enemy at its border?
>
> A "self-respecting country" should NOT do "whatever" because ( and you
> should know this) doing "whatever" is the definition of
> unconscionable. That is the cause for horror and outrage over
> Israel's war against the Palestinians. Israel proceeds to operate as
> though the Middle East were "a land without people," just as the
> Exodus myth would pretend. That is, the Palestinians are NOT people,
> just vermin subject to extirpation.
Israel has every right to defend itself and *will* do so.
Eat your heart out.
> > Public pressure also forced a procrastinating government
> > to build "the wall", after too many Israelis were killed by terrorists
> > who easily passed the "Green Line" from the West Bank.
>
> That might be believable if the wall were just a wall. But it is
> not. It meanders around through the Palestinian lands cutting farmers
> off from fields, fields from villages, and villages from other
> villages. It does not follow the border, but operates as a tool of
> expropriation. http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm
Your unbelief is just willful ignorance
and has nothing to do with the path the wall takes
or its political and economic implications.
> > Somebody should have told the Israeli government
> > that Jewish blood doesn't count.
> > It would have saved them a fortune.
>
> Someone should have told the Israeli government that they are wrong to
> think "a million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (That
> is what Rabbi Perin said in his eulogy at the funeral of New York
> doctor Baruch Goldstein, who used an assault rifle to kill 29 men,
> women and children while they were worshiping at a mosque.)
29 men, women and children???
Are you sure about that?
> > > > Germany and Japan, dispite their wartime propaganda
> > > > and belief in their own invincibility, were totally defeated
> > > > and rehabilitated along modern, liberal lines.
> > > > Over 60 years later, they show no signs
> > > > of a return to their wicked ways.
> > > > It can be done.
> > > > The price they paid is a function of their obstinance.
>
> > > Reform of Japan and Germany may look intentional -- but donating the
> > > eastern half of Europe to the Soviet Union at the Malta Conference
> > > belied the accomplishment. There was no evil in the world proven to
> > > be so great or so powerful as the Soviet Union, yet we kissed its
> > > feet.
>
> > > Shortly thereafter, when we could have demonstrated our "liberal"
> > > intent, we permitted China to be so oppressive that Mao "anything but
> > > liberty" Zedong was able to enslave, slaughter, and ruin the eastern
> > > half of Asia.
>
> > Truman's biggest mistake was firing General Macarthur?
>
> Don't you think it's a little cavalier to call the Communist Holocaust
> a "mistake"?
I assume you don't know the background for this,
which surprises me.
Zev
Do you call Malcolm X a spokesperson for America?
Terry Cross
> On Oct 21, 7:57 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 1:09 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 21, 1:25 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Oct 20, 3:21 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 20, 4:32 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 19, 7:33 am, Bear <tevans9...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:22:39 -0700 (PDT), Phlip
> > > > > > > <phlip2...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > The truth is that rocket and mortar attacks
> > > > > had been disrupting life in Sderot and smaller towns
> > > > > surrounding the Gaza Strip for years.
>
> > > > Bringing down the property values? That certainly qualifies as
> > > > provocation for a massacre. Lemme attem.
>
> > > "Property values"?
> > > Well, sure.
> > > If Jewish blood doesn't count, what's left?
>
> > We have been over that ground -- there were no contemporaneous reports
> > of death or injury from the "rocket fire." None.
>
> If Jewish blood doesn't count, a dozen corpses equals none.
> That Terry's "New Math".
There were no contemporaneous reports of a "dozen corpses." Do you
think "a dozen corpses" would justify the river of blood and
destruction Israel inflicted on Gaza?
> > > "Property values"!!!
> > > Terry, you're so smart!
>
> > > > > Many residents of Sderot left, renting houses further away from
> > > > > Gaza.
> > > > > Israel had warned, threatened, and bluffed in an effort
> > > > > to end it without a fight.
> > > > > All to no avail, Hamas insolence only got worse.
> > > > > Finally, public pressure tipped the scales.
>
> > > > So you say we should not blame the Israeli government - we should
> > > > blame the Israeli people. Very well, then.
>
> > > Israel wants no part of Gaza,
> > > There are no emotional or historical ties to the Jewish people
> > > there as there are in the West Bank.
> > > That's why they left.
>
> > Whatever that means. The invasion and confiscation of the Palestine
> > continues. These seven year old maps show the continuous and
> > unrelenting expropriation of the Palestinian lands.
> >http://www.firstpr.com.au/nations/
>
> The Gaza Strip is not the West Bank.
> Please try to keep up.
And the Palestinians are not the Palestinians. And Palestine was a
"land without people."
> > > Why shouldn't a self-respecting country do *whatever*
> > > needs to be done to defend itself against
> > > an unconscionable enemy at its border?
>
> > A "self-respecting country" should NOT do "whatever" because ( and you
> > should know this) doing "whatever" is the definition of
> > unconscionable. That is the cause for horror and outrage over
> > Israel's war against the Palestinians. Israel proceeds to operate as
> > though the Middle East were "a land without people," just as the
> > Exodus myth would pretend. That is, the Palestinians are NOT people,
> > just vermin subject to extirpation.
>
> Israel has every right to defend itself and *will* do so.
> Eat your heart out.
Israel, as you say, is unconscionable.
> > > Public pressure also forced a procrastinating government
> > > to build "the wall", after too many Israelis were killed by terrorists
> > > who easily passed the "Green Line" from the West Bank.
>
> > That might be believable if the wall were just a wall. But it is
> > not. It meanders around through the Palestinian lands cutting farmers
> > off from fields, fields from villages, and villages from other
> > villages. It does not follow the border, but operates as a tool of
> > expropriation. http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm
>
> Your unbelief is just willful ignorance
> and has nothing to do with the path the wall takes
> or its political and economic implications.
The path of the wall makes its own statement, and it calls Israel a
liar.
> > > Somebody should have told the Israeli government
> > > that Jewish blood doesn't count.
> > > It would have saved them a fortune.
>
> > Someone should have told the Israeli government that they are wrong to
> > think "a million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (That
> > is what Rabbi Perin said in his eulogy at the funeral of New York
> > doctor Baruch Goldstein, who used an assault rifle to kill 29 men,
> > women and children while they were worshiping at a mosque.)
>
> 29 men, women and children???
> Are you sure about that?
Correct me.
On February 25, 1994, that year's Purim day, Goldstein entered a room
in the Cave of the Patriarchs serving as a mosque, wearing "his army
uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve
officer on active duty" (Shamgar report). He then opened fire, killing
29 people and wounding 150 (A Time magazine article reported that
Israeli officials counted 39 killed and Palestinians reported 52
killed). Mosque guard Mohammad Suleiman Abu Saleh said he thought that
Goldstein was trying to kill as many people as possible and described
how there were "bodies and blood everywhere." After being subdued with
a fire extinguisher and disarmed, Goldstein was beaten to death.
According to Ian Lustick, 'by mowing down Arabs he believed wanted to
kill Jews, Goldstein was reenacting part of the Purim story'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein#Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre
> > > > > Germany and Japan, dispite their wartime propaganda
> > > > > and belief in their own invincibility, were totally defeated
> > > > > and rehabilitated along modern, liberal lines.
> > > > > Over 60 years later, they show no signs
> > > > > of a return to their wicked ways.
> > > > > It can be done.
> > > > > The price they paid is a function of their obstinance.
>
> > > > Reform of Japan and Germany may look intentional -- but donating the
> > > > eastern half of Europe to the Soviet Union at the Malta Conference
> > > > belied the accomplishment. There was no evil in the world proven to
> > > > be so great or so powerful as the Soviet Union, yet we kissed its
> > > > feet.
>
> > > > Shortly thereafter, when we could have demonstrated our "liberal"
> > > > intent, we permitted China to be so oppressive that Mao "anything but
> > > > liberty" Zedong was able to enslave, slaughter, and ruin the eastern
> > > > half of Asia.
>
> > > Truman's biggest mistake was firing General Macarthur?
>
> > Don't you think it's a little cavalier to call the Communist Holocaust
> > a "mistake"?
>
> I assume you don't know the background for this,
> which surprises me.
Assume your own surprises, if it pleases you. The betrayal of Eastern
Europe was a monstrosity that exceeded the Nazi Holocaust.
TCross
Zev
1) They weren't killed all at once.
2) Do you think Israel should have sent
policemen to catch the guilty?
> > > > "Property values"!!!
> > > > Terry, you're so smart!
>
> > > > > > Many residents of Sderot left, renting houses further away from
> > > > > > Gaza.
> > > > > > Israel had warned, threatened, and bluffed in an effort
> > > > > > to end it without a fight.
> > > > > > All to no avail, Hamas insolence only got worse.
> > > > > > Finally, public pressure tipped the scales.
>
> > > > > So you say we should not blame the Israeli government - we should
> > > > > blame the Israeli people. Very well, then.
>
> > > > Israel wants no part of Gaza,
> > > > There are no emotional or historical ties to the Jewish people
> > > > there as there are in the West Bank.
> > > > That's why they left.
>
> > > Whatever that means. The invasion and confiscation of the Palestine
> > > continues. These seven year old maps show the continuous and
> > > unrelenting expropriation of the Palestinian lands.
> > >http://www.firstpr.com.au/nations/
>
> > The Gaza Strip is not the West Bank.
> > Please try to keep up.
>
> And the Palestinians are not the Palestinians. And Palestine was a
> "land without people."
OK.
The statement you found unbelievable was mine, not the wall's,
and has nothing to do with the exact path it eventually followed
but rather its expected effectiveness.
> > > > Somebody should have told the Israeli government
> > > > that Jewish blood doesn't count.
> > > > It would have saved them a fortune.
>
> > > Someone should have told the Israeli government that they are wrong to
> > > think "a million Arab lives are not worth a Jewish fingernail." (That
> > > is what Rabbi Perin said in his eulogy at the funeral of New York
> > > doctor Baruch Goldstein, who used an assault rifle to kill 29 men,
> > > women and children while they were worshiping at a mosque.)
>
> > 29 men, women and children???
> > Are you sure about that?
>
> Correct me.
>
> On February 25, 1994, that year's Purim day, Goldstein entered a room
> in the Cave of the Patriarchs serving as a mosque, wearing "his army
> uniform with the insignia of rank, creating the image of a reserve
> officer on active duty" (Shamgar report). He then opened fire, killing
> 29 people and wounding 150 (A Time magazine article reported that
> Israeli officials counted 39 killed and Palestinians reported 52
> killed). Mosque guard Mohammad Suleiman Abu Saleh said he thought that
> Goldstein was trying to kill as many people as possible and described
> how there were "bodies and blood everywhere." After being subdued with
> a fire extinguisher and disarmed, Goldstein was beaten to death.
> According to Ian Lustick, 'by mowing down Arabs he believed wanted to
> kill Jews, Goldstein was reenacting part of the Purim
> story'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein#Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_...
Compare your statement with your source's.
You're on the virge of making yourself a foolish liar.
In retrospect, that's an idiotic statement.
But blame it on England and France.
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
>On Oct 21, 5:07�am, Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-
Amazing how your idea of annihilation allows for a population to grow.
In fact, there is the possibility of a two state solution between Israel and
the Palestinians.
>
>Israel has repeatedly (through its spokespersons) defined its policy
>against the Palestinians by calling them "Amalek", i.e., a people
>targeted for holy war and extermination.
>
Just because someone is an Israeli doesn't make them the country's spokesman,
you do know that?
Clearly, a country with Israel's army and weapons could have achieved this
goal if that was their intention a long time ago..
>TCross
>
>
>TCross
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean, Randy. I don't think Jews
>> receive special treatment at all.
>> For instance, if millions of people from another group
>> had been slaughtered in the same way, we would remember
>> them. So we don't remember the holocaust because Jews
>> were the main victims; we remember the holocaust because
>> of the particular nature of it.
>> Terry is trying to say that we only give the holocaust
>> special attention because the victims were mainly Jewish,
>> and she implies that Jews demand special treatment.
>> That's not true.
>
>No, I agree with Terry that Jews receive favorable treatment, even though
>they appear to be a despised people.
You agree with Terry?! You think that the holocaust is
given too much attention, and it's given too much
attention because Jews demand it?
What do you base this on?
> This is clearly a paradox, in my
>estimation. I understand Terry's concern, from her pov, but I do take your
>side that Jews merit special attention.
What is Terry's concern, in your opinion?
You can't agree with both of us.
Basically, Terry hates Jews. All her opinions are
coloured by that prejudice. The fact that you find yourself
agreeing with her at all is worrying.
randy
"Emma"
randy
>>No, I agree with Terry that Jews receive favorable treatment, even though
>>they appear to be a despised people.
> You agree with Terry?! You think that the holocaust is
> given too much attention, and it's given too much
> attention because Jews demand it?
No, I think they deserve favorable attention--not just because they are a
persecuted minority--there are *many* persecuted minorities, as Terry
indicated. The reason I believe Jews deserve special attention is because
God created them to be a sign to the world, a sign of the world's
redemption. And redemption does not come easily. It is a mega-adventure,
complete with great tragedies and great deliverances. We have seen the
tragedy--the great Diaspora of the Jews. Now we are witnessing the great
deliverance, the time of Israel's redemption out of seeming defeat. Just my
opinion.
> What is Terry's concern, in your opinion?
> You can't agree with both of us.
> Basically, Terry hates Jews. All her opinions are
> coloured by that prejudice. The fact that you find yourself
> agreeing with her at all is worrying.
I don't see Terry as a hateful person at all. I have always seemed to get
along with her, even though she clearly disagrees with me on a number of
issues. So you have to ask yourself why *you* don't get along with her. I
have not compromised my beliefs. So it just seems to be a matter of *getting
along!*
But to answer your question, Terry seems concerned to show that other
minority groups cannot be neglected when considering the special needs of
the Jews. Arab, Moslems, and other ethnic groups cannot be forgotten if
we're going to remember Jews and Judaism. That is quite true. God is God of
the whole earth, and not just God of Israel.
I take your side with the need to show favorable treatment to Israel for a
number of reasons. One is the need for God to fulfil His promises to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He said there would *always* be a homeland for
the Jews in Israel, even after long periods of exile. So God's faithfulness
is on the line.
Secondly, the Jews have been persecuted and have seemed to required a place
to call a "Jewish homeland" once again. The Arabs and the Moslems already
have their homes. Palestinians insist that the ancient homeland of the Jews
be considered a Moslem home as well. And this is the conflict.
I think the weight of need lies with a Jewish homeland, because there are
none. The Moslem Arabs have many. But above it all is the need for God to
have His way. We simply must try to discern the will of God in the Middle
East, and this is not an easy answer. It requires constant prayer, in my
opinion.
randy
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>>>No, I agree with Terry that Jews receive favorable treatment, even though
>>>they appear to be a despised people.
>
>> You agree with Terry?! You think that the holocaust is
>> given too much attention, and it's given too much
>> attention because Jews demand it?
>
>No,
But (above) you said you did agree with Terry.
> I think they deserve favorable attention
Well Terry does *not* think they *deserve* anything.
She thinks Jews have manipulated, whinged and demanded.
So please don't say that you agree with her.
>-not just because they are a
>persecuted minority--there are *many* persecuted minorities, as Terry
>indicated.
Terry said that because she denies that the holocaust was a unique
event.
>
>I don't see Terry as a hateful person at all. I have always seemed to get
>along with her, even though she clearly disagrees with me on a number of
>issues. So you have to ask yourself why *you* don't get along with her.
OK, I've asked myself. My answer is that she's a holocaust
denier and an anti-Semite.
Zev
??????:le2dnQB-lo2jt37X...@wavecable.com...
> "Emma"
> randy
> I don't see Terry as a hateful person at all. I have always seemed to get
> along with her, even though she clearly disagrees with me on a number of
> issues. So you have to ask yourself why *you* don't get along with her. I
> have not compromised my beliefs. So it just seems to be a matter of
> *getting along!*
>
> But to answer your question, Terry seems concerned to show that other
> minority groups cannot be neglected when considering the special needs of
> the Jews. Arab, Moslems, and other ethnic groups cannot be forgotten if
> we're going to remember Jews and Judaism. That is quite true. God is God
> of the whole earth, and not just God of Israel.
Randy, it's not only Emma.
Several people here have called her anti-semitic.
Read her posts concerning Jews, Israel, or Hebrew.
You'll see she's either stupid or hateful.
Since the innuendo is all in one direction,
my guess is that she's hateful.
I've mentioned her anti-semitism to you before,
and I'm surprised that you don't see this yourself.
randy
"Zev"
randy
>> But to answer your question, Terry seems concerned to show that other
>> minority groups cannot be neglected when considering the special needs of
>> the Jews. Arab, Moslems, and other ethnic groups cannot be forgotten if
>> we're going to remember Jews and Judaism. That is quite true. God is God
>> of the whole earth, and not just God of Israel.
> Randy, it's not only Emma.
> Several people here have called her anti-semitic.
> Read her posts concerning Jews, Israel, or Hebrew.
> You'll see she's either stupid or hateful.
> Since the innuendo is all in one direction,
> my guess is that she's hateful.
> I've mentioned her anti-semitism to you before,
> and I'm surprised that you don't see this yourself.
She's concerned about Israel's favorable treatment in regard to
Palestinians. And I don't see it as fair to shout "antiSemite" every time
somebody takes a nonZionist position.
As you know, I disagree with her view that Israel should not receive
favorable treatment. But Terry has always treated me respectfully, even when
she could consider my views small-minded and ignorant. I'm not into
name-calling, unless it is truly called for. Somebody has to be able to take
a nonJewish position here without being labelled an "antiSemite."
Why not discuss these issues objectively, without forming battle lines?
Sometimes even the "other side" brings up points that we fail to consider
because of our own particular biases.
randy
Terry Cross
> In article <97a9dd02-331c-44e5-a87d-89664f1d2...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Apart from the deaths, which were suffered by many people in many
countries during the wars, it was a non-event. Other exterminations
in history were real. The extermination of the Jews was not. They
did not even make the endangered species list.
It was not "very thorough."
It was hardly "scientific."
It was not at all unique.
It was far from successful.
The only unique aspect is the overwhelming compensation that has been
paid the survivors, many times over, punishing the Palestinians by
taking their land to give to the Jews, trillians of dollars in aid and
military hardware, uncounted trillions in supporting wars to guarantee
the sanctity of Israel, uncounted punitive actions against thousands
of people all around the world ...
Since you have no conscience about any other extermination, real or
attempted, can you tell me when this debt (that we did not incur) is
paid?
TCross
Zev
??????:vvadncLClarZUXjX...@wavecable.com...
> "Zev"
> randy
Randy, I'm all for it, that's why I'm here.
But sometimes the "other side" brings up lies instead of points.
Tell you what...
*You* ask her:
Why leaving one's home (in Sderot) is no more than
a "property value" problem,
Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
Why she says Baruch Goldstein killed
"29 men, women and children",
Why she claims that I call Palestinians:
"Vicious, disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims".
And now a question for you.
Why is it unfair to shout "anti-semitism"
in the face of apparent anti-semitism?
BTW, I usually don't make much of a point
about people's ant-semitism,
but since the matter came up, I commented on it.
Terry Cross
> "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> ???
> ??????:vvadncLClarZUXjXnZ2dnUVZ_vudn...@wavecable.com...
Being forced to abandon homes is the same choice repeatedly given to
Palestinians. First in the Israeli terror campaigns of 1947-9, and
again in the raids since, including bulldozer attacks on villages to
build Israeli settlements.
"Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should bring
tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
> Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
I asked around on this board and others at the time of the alleged
rocked bombarding from Palestine, and there were NO contemporaneous
reports of injury or death among the Israelis. That is why there were
NONE.
You way there were a dozen, and I let you have that so you could
justify for killing hundreds, maybe thousands of Palestinians (the
numbers are still disputed) in retaliation.
> Why she says Baruch Goldstein killed
> "29 men, women and children",
And how many did Baruch kill in your view, Zev? Or were they not
human at all?
> Why she claims that I call Palestinians:
> "Vicious, disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims".
>
> And now a question for you.
> Why is it unfair to shout "anti-semitism"
> in the face of apparent anti-semitism?
If the word be given fair definition by its usage, let us define it
now: Antisemitism is refusing to give Israel permission to do the
terrible things Israel attempts to do.
When Israel calls others idolaters and condemns them, let us shine a
light on the rampant idolatry in Israel.
When Israel begs for tears and billions in apology over the Holocaust,
let us point out the Holocaust Israel is perpetrating in present day.
When Israel weeps over pogroms of past years, let us be reminded of
the pogroms Israelites undertook in Europe, Russian, and Asia Minor.
When Israel demands special treatment of any kind, let us remove all
the Jewish propaganda thumbs the scales and tell the stories of truth
and justice as they need be told.
This they call antisemitism: refusal to pass sentence on anything but
a fair trial where Israel and Jews are concerned. Let Jews live by
the same rules as all other humans.
> BTW, I usually don't make much of a point
> about people's ant-semitism,
> but since the matter came up, I commented on it.
May you live by the same rules required of the rest of us. Isn't that
a most profoundly antisemitic curse?
TCross
Zev
??????:fa42fdbb-29c4-41ec...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Is Sderot a "property value" problem, or isn't it?
> "Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should bring
> tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
Well, no.
I mentioned it to explain what caused
the recent war in Gaza.
Do you actually believe that someone cried
at "the mere thought" of this?
Terry, spare me, please.
>> Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
>
>
> I asked around on this board and others at the time of the alleged
> rocked bombarding from Palestine, and there were NO contemporaneous
> reports of injury or death among the Israelis. That is why there were
> NONE.
I'm not sure what you mean by "alleged rocked bombarding",
but over the years thousands of rockets and mortars
were shot from Gaza, mostly in the general direction of Sderot.
And Israelis were killed, no one denies it.
Who did you ask about this?
Why do you persist in this BS?
> You way there were a dozen, and I let you have that so you could
> justify for killing hundreds, maybe thousands of Palestinians (the
> numbers are still disputed) in retaliation.
Palestinians don't claim "thousands" of killed.
Why do you?
And "retaliation" is a poor description of that war.
It was an attempt to put an end to an intolerable situation.
It wasn't 100% effective (throughout 2009, every once in a while
a Palestinian missile of some kind comes over the border),
but's it's *much* better than it was before the war.
>> Why she says Baruch Goldstein killed
>> "29 men, women and children",
>
> And how many did Baruch kill in your view, Zev? Or were they not
> human at all?
Show me a source for the statement,
or admit you made it up.
Can you do that?
>> Why she claims that I call Palestinians:
>> "Vicious, disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims".
Intentionally left blank?
>> And now a question for you.
>> Why is it unfair to shout "anti-semitism"
>> in the face of apparent anti-semitism?
>
>
> If the word be given fair definition by its usage, let us define it
> now: Antisemitism is refusing to give Israel permission to do the
> terrible things Israel attempts to do.
I'll give you another definition.
Defining Anti-semitism as you have.
> When Israel calls others idolaters and condemns them, let us shine a
> light on the rampant idolatry in Israel.
>
> When Israel begs for tears and billions in apology over the Holocaust,
> let us point out the Holocaust Israel is perpetrating in present day.
>
> When Israel weeps over pogroms of past years, let us be reminded of
> the pogroms Israelites undertook in Europe, Russian, and Asia Minor.
>
> When Israel demands special treatment of any kind, let us remove all
> the Jewish propaganda thumbs the scales and tell the stories of truth
> and justice as they need be told.
>
> This they call antisemitism: refusal to pass sentence on anything but
> a fair trial where Israel and Jews are concerned. Let Jews live by
> the same rules as all other humans.
>
>
>> BTW, I usually don't make much of a point
>> about people's anti-semitism,
>> but since the matter came up, I commented on it.
>
>
> May you live by the same rules required of the rest of us. Isn't that
> a most profoundly antisemitic curse?
>
> TCross
Changing the subject in the middle of an argument
is a sure sign that you know you're losing.
It's sometimes the best way to salvage some dignity.
If it makes you feel better, that fine with me.
I would have confronted the issues you brought up anyway,
but it would have made this post far too long.
If you pursue them, we *will* discuss them,
perhaps one by one.
The following is interesting because of its discussion
of "asymmetric" war in the M.E.
Part of it is devoted to aspects of IDF behavior
in the war in Gaza of last January.
I'm including it because of the remarks you made
about Israeli activities in that war.
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=378&PID=0&IID=3026
by Richard Kemp CBE
Published July 2009
Address to Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Joint International Conference
on
HAMAS, THE GAZA WAR AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
18 June 2009
International Law and Military Operations in Practice
Colonel Richard Kemp CBE
I will examine the practicalities, challenges and difficulties faced
by
military forces in trying to fight within the provisions of
international
law against an enemy that deliberately and consistently flouts
international
law.
I shall focus on counter-insurgency operations from the British and to
some
extent the American perspective drawing on recent British experience
generally and my own personal experience of operating in this
environment.
Soldiers from all Western armies, including Israel's and Britain's,
are
educated in the laws of war.
Commanders are educated to a higher level so that they can enforce the
laws
among their men, and take them into account during their planning.
Because the battlefield - in any kind of war - is a place of confusion
and
chaos, of fast-moving action the complexities of the laws of war as
they
apply to kinetic military operations, are distilled down into rules of
engagement.
In the British forces, rules of engagement normally regulate military
action
to ensure that it remains well within the laws of war giving an
additional
safety cushion to soldiers against the possibility of war crimes
prosecution.
In the most basic form these rules tell you when you can and when you
cannot
open fire.
In conventional military operations between states the combat is
normally
simpler and doesn't require complex and restrictive rules of
engagement.
Your side wears one type of uniform, the enemy wears another; when you
see
the enemy's uniform you open fire. Of course there are complexities.
The
fog of war, sometimes literally fog, but always fog in the sense of
chaos
and confusion means that mistakes are made. You confuse your own men
for
the enemy.
The tragedies that have ensued from such chaos and misunderstanding
are
legion throughout the history of war. We call it blue on blue,
friendly
fire or fratricide.
And there are other complexities in conventional combat that make
apparent
simplicity less than simple. Civilians perhaps taking shelter or
attempting
to flee the battlefield can be mistaken for combatants and have
sometimes
been shot or blown up.
Enemy forces sometimes adopt the other side's uniforms as a deception
or
ruse. But in the type of conflict that the Israeli Defence Forces
recently
fought in Gaza and in Lebanon, and Britain and America are still
fighting in
Iraq and Afghanistan, these age-old confusions and complexities are
made one
hundred times worse by the fighting policies and techniques of the
enemy.
The insurgents that we have faced, and still face, in these conflicts
are
all different. Hizballah and Hamas over here, Al Qaida, Jaish al
Mahdi and
a range of other militant groups in Iraq. Al Qaida, the Taliban and a
diversity of associated fighting groups in Afghanistan. They are
different
but they are linked.
They are linked by the pernicious influence, support and sometimes
direction
of Iran and/or by the international network of Islamist extremism.
These groups, as well as others, have learnt and continue to learn
from each
others' successes and failures. Tactics tried and tested on IDF
soldiers in
Lebanon have also killed British soldiers in Helmand Province and in
Basra.
These groups are trained and equipped for warfare fought from within
the
civilian population.
Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of
armed
conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that
they
do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.
They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by
international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They
then
do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main
weaknesses.
Their very modus operandi is built on the, correct, assumption that
Western
armies will normally abide by the rules.
It is not simply that these insurgents do not adhere to the laws of
war. It
is that they employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently
outside
international law. Their entire operational doctrine is founded on
this
basis.
In Gaza, as in Basra, as in the towns and villages of southern
Afghanistan,
civilians and their property are routinely exploited by these groups,
in
deliberate and flagrant violation of any international laws or
reasonable
norms of civilised behaviour for both tactical and strategic gain.
Stripped of any moral considerations, this policy operates simply and
effectively at both levels.
On the tactical level, protected buildings, mosques, schools and
hospitals,
are used as strongholds allowing the enemy the protection not only of
stone
walls but also of international law.
On the strategic level, any mistake, or in some cases legal and
proportional
response, by a Western army will be deliberately exploited and
manipulated
in order to produce international outcry and condemnation.
And in sophisticated groupings such as Hamas and Hizballah, the media
will
be exploited also as a critical implement of their military strategy.
Thus in April 2004 as Coalition forces fought to wrest the Iraqi town
of
Fallujah from Al Qaida's control the media reports screamed of a US
bombardment of a mosque.
The reality of that day was that five US Marines were wounded by fire
from
that mosque and that the Marine commander on the ground exercised
great care
and restraint, only allowing fire to be directed upon the outer wall
of the
building.
Despite this, the damage was done and the impression that we had
levelled a
mosque indiscriminately was firmly established.
In Gaza, according to residents there, Hamas fighters who previously
wore
black or khaki uniforms, discarded them when Operation Cast Lead
began, to
blend in with the crowds and use them as human shields.
We have of course seen all this before, in Lebanon, in Iraq and in
Afghanistan.
Today, British soldiers patrolling in Helmand Province will come under
sustained rocket, machine-gun and small-arms fire from within a
populated
village or a network of farming complexes containing local men, women
and
children.
The British will return fire, with as much caution as possible.
Rather than drop a 500 pound bomb onto the enemy from the air, to
avoid
civilian casualties, they will assault through the village, placing
their
own lives at greater risk. They might face booby traps or mines as
they
clear through.
When they get into the village there is no sign of the enemy.
Instead, the
same people that were shooting at them twenty minutes ago, now
unrecognised
by them, will be tilling the land, waving, smiling and talking
cheerfully to
the soldiers.
These same insurgents will mine roads used by British vehicles and
tracks
used by foot patrols. Many soldiers have lost their legs or their
lives in
such attacks.
There is of course no question of minefields being marked, as is
required
under international law. The idea would be preposterous, but although
one
of the clearest tenets of the laws of war, is rarely if ever commented
on by
the media.
Like Hamas in Gaza, the Taliban in southern Afghanistan are masters at
shielding themselves behind the civilian population and then melting
in
among them for protection.
Hamas of course deployed suicide attackers in Gaza, including women
and
children.
Women and children are trained and equipped to fight, collect
intelligence
and ferry arms and ammunition between battles.
I have seen it first hand in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Female
suicide
bombers are almost commonplace.
Schools and houses are routinely booby-trapped. Snipers shelter in
houses
deliberately filled with women and children. Every man captured or
killed
is claimed as a taxi driver or a farmer.
In Basra, the common plea from captives was that they were police
officers.
Unfortunately, more often than not, this particular claim proved to be
true.
They were only involved in terrorist operations as their shift
patterns
allowed!
I make light of it but the difficulties in fighting an enemy who
legitimately own and use the uniforms, vehicles and weapons of a
police
force, established, funded and trained by us, are self evident.
The British and US armies have grappled with these problem and I hope
that
we are now finding some solutions. Solutions that allow us to treat
those
that oppose us according to the laws of war while also defeating them
on the
battlefield. When an enemy flouts the rules of war then we cannot shy
away
from hard decisions.
Let me quote from the US military counterinsurgency manual, recently
produced under the direction of General Petraeus and using lessons
from Iraq
and Afghanistan. This pretty much encapsulates the approach that we
use as
well as that used by the Americans.
"The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated loss
of life
and damage to property incidental to attacks", that is, to non-
combatants,
"must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military
advantage expected to be gained. Soldiers and marines may not take
any
actions that might knowingly harm non-combatants.
"This does not mean they cannot take risks that might put the populace
in
danger.
"In conventional operations, this restriction means that combatants
cannot
intend to harm non-combatants, though proportionality permits them to
act,
knowing some non-combatants may be harmed."
Under our equivalent of General Petraeus' doctrine, when necessary
British
forces now attack protected locations after weighing up the risk that
non
combatants might suffer. We respect international norms and the
sanctity of
holy places. However, when our troops take fire from these locations
or
roadside bombs stored there are used to murder the innocent, we have
no
choice other than to act.
British and American troops now routinely search mosques in
Afghanistan and
Iraq and when necessary we bring down fire on those locations. This
is not
done, or should not be done, in a trigger-happy or careless manner but
rather in a proportionate way and always with the aim of minimising
wider
suffering. Obviously this kind of action is undesirable - but faced
with
the enemy we face, there is no alternative.
General Petraeus' manual goes further than the strict requirements of
the
laws of war. Let me quote again:
"The use of discriminating, proportionate force as a mindset goes
beyond the
adherence to the rules of engagement."
"Proportionality and discrimination applied in counter insurgency
require
leaders to ensure that their units employ the right tools correctly
with
mature discernment, good judgement and moral resolve."
This describes the use of restraint and focused violence as a positive
tool
in counter-insurgency, not just as humanitarian and legal moderation.
It
recognises the importance of winning and maintaining the support of
the
local population, and sometimes even the insurgent himself, perhaps
over and
above the priority of winning a particular engagement.
Ultimately, in counter insurgency operations the military commander
must
balance a series of often conflicting and very difficult judgements in
addition to the other pressures he faces on any battlefield. The
balance is
between firstly achieving the mission by engaging and killing the
enemy,
secondly, avoiding civilian casualties and thirdly, the effect on
hearts and
minds - the support or otherwise of the civilian population.
There is a fourth judgement as well.
It is often overlooked in media and human rights groups' frenzies to
expose
fault among military forces fighting in the toughest conditions. The
fourth
is preventing or minimising casualties among your own soldiers. There
will
frequently be times when a military commander must make a snap
judgement
between the safety of his own troops and that of other people.
Human nature dictates that he will often choose his own men. It is
hard to
see how it could be otherwise. And there is more to it even than the
commander's human nature and loyalty to his men. For soldiers to
follow
their commander into combat - at any level, but especially at the
point of
battle - they must trust him.
How many soldiers want to die, be blinded, burnt, or have their arms,
legs
or faces blown off? No soldier will trust, or follow, a commander who
is
profligate with his men's lives.
Let us not forget that these calculations, judgements and decisions
are not
taken in an air conditioned office or from the safety of a rearward
military
headquarters. The commander must weigh these things up in altogether
different circumstances.
As a commander you are surrounded by your men yet totally alone. You
have
the military arsenal of your country or perhaps an alliance like NATO
at
your disposal. But the most useful weapons in the kind of close
combat I am
talking about are the rifle and the bayonet.
You have to kill the enemy knowing that you will then need to shake
hands
and win the consent of the family in the compound that he is
occupying.
You haven't slept for two days, you are shattered, you are wet with
sweat
and the chaos of battle reigns all about you.
There are no computers, on your map with your pen you must compute the
locations and intentions of the enemy, your flanking forces, and your
own
troop positions.
You must do this immediately because the CO needs a situation report,
your
company need a briefing to orient them, and your Fire Support Team
commander
is about to bring in fast air, helicopters and mortars, and needs to
know
that the danger-close fire missions are not going to kill your own
men. You
must assess the situation and give the go in seconds to secure the
initiative.
The only advantage for the commander of all this is that it makes you
forget
the eighty pounds on your back, the water in the ditch that is up to
your
waist, and the sweat and dirt that streams constantly into your eyes.
The battle manifests itself as a wall of noise that surrounds you,
interspersed with the infantryman's most detested sound, incoming
bullets
cracking above, to the side and below your head.
Every soldier who has been in combat - whether it is Gaza, Lebanon,
Afghanistan or Iraq - can testify to the chaos and confusion of war.
According to a well-known military adage, ‘no plan ever survives
contact
with the enemy'.
It is difficult enough to manoeuvre large numbers of troops and
vehicles
across treacherous and inhospitable terrain, sometimes by night, in
dust
storms, rain or searing heat, in armoured vehicles with limited
external
vision against near-impossible time-lines and coordinating with
neighbouring
forces, ground attack aircraft, helicopters, artillery, engineers and
logistic support.
The complexities and potential for confusion are hugely increased when
the
enemy is trying to prevent you from doing it by killing you and
blowing up
your vehicles and equipment.
Piled on top of this are the limits of reconnaissance and the frequent
inaccuracy or incompleteness of the intelligence picture, sometimes
brought
about by the enemy's own operational security, deception and
disinformation,
sometimes by lack of resources or inadequacy of collection systems.
For every intelligence success, even in modern armies, there are a
hundred
failures. In close combat even the most technologically sophisticated
weapons, surveillance systems and communications devices can, and
frequently
do, fail, especially when you need them most.
Messages are sometimes not transmitted, not received, or garbled.
Precision-guided munitions don't always hit the target they're
supposed to
and sometimes explode when they shouldn't or don't explode when they
should.
Especially in close infantry combat, the concept of the precise,
surgical
strike is more often pipe dream than practical reality. The close
combat,
urban or rural environment that often exists in Helmand, Gaza or Iraq
can
also serve to diminish the advantages of technology, frequently
putting
hi-tech British forces for example on an equal footing with the
Taliban.
Then there is perceptual distortion, common in combat situations,
which can
lead a commander or soldier to comprehend events in a way that is
different
to reality.
The stresses and fears of battle tiredness and the body's natural
chemical
reactions including production of adrenalin can lead to excluding or
intensifying sounds, tunnel vision, temporary paralysis, events
appearing to
move faster or more slowly than they actually are, loss, reduction or
distortion of memory and distracting thoughts. These affect
different
people in different ways and can add to the confusion and chaos of
battle.
Amid the disorientation, the smoke, the fire, the explosions, the
ear-piercing rattle of bullets, the screams of the wounded, the
incomplete
intelligence picture and the failure of technology commanders and
soldiers
must work on to achieve their mission, no matter how hard it gets.
These realities apply to any combat situation and the challenges they
add
are self-evident. But they become that much harder when fighting a
tough,
wily, skilful enemy one minute shooting at you or setting a landmine
to blow
up your vehicle the next leaning on the threshold of his compound,
smiling
at you, dressed indistinguishably from the population.
General Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander of forces in
Afghanistan,
has said the reduction of unnecessary civilian casualties is one of
his top
priorities. It should be. That is also a high priority of British
commanders in Afghanistan.
I have personally witnessed the efforts that American forces have been
making for years in Iraq and Afghanistan to minimise civilian deaths.
These
have been impressive but of course they have not always worked in
either of
our armies.
In some cases because of the factors I have mentioned imperfect
intelligence, technological failure, poor communications, the fog of
war.
There is also another factor that we shouldn't forget. There will
always
be bad soldiers who deliberately or through incompetence go against
orders.
We have seen this in the British Army and among the Americans, in
well-publicised cases in Iraq and elsewhere.
I have spoken of the considerable British and American efforts to
operate
within the laws of war and to reduce unnecessary civilian casualties.
But
what of the Israeli Defence Forces? The IDF face all the challenges
that I
have spoken about, and more. Not only was Hamas's military capability
deliberately positioned behind the human shield of the civilian
population
and not only did Hamas employ the range of insurgent tactics I talked
through earlier. They also ordered, forced when necessary, men, women
and
children , from their own population to stay put in places they knew
were
about to be attacked by the IDF. Fighting an enemy that is
deliberately
trying to sacrifice their own people. Deliberately trying to lure you
in to
killing their own innocent civilians.
And Hamas, like Hizballah, are also highly expert at driving the media
agenda. They will always have people ready to give interviews
condemning
Israeli forces for war crimes. They are adept at staging and
distorting
incidents.
Their people often have no option than to go along with the charades
in
front of the world's media that Hamas so frequently demand, often on
pain of
death.
What is the other challenge faced by the IDF that we British do not
have to
face to the same extent?
It is the automatic, pavlovian presumption by many in the
international
media, and international human rights groups, that the IDF are in the
wrong,
that they are abusing human rights.
So what did the IDF do in Gaza to meet their obligation to operate
within
the laws of war? When possible the IDF gave at least four hours'
notice to
civilians to leave areas targeted for attack.
Attack helicopter pilots, tasked with destroying Hamas mobile weapons
platforms, had total discretion to abort a strike if there was too
great a
risk of civilian casualties in the area. Many missions that could
have
taken out Hamas military capability were cancelled because of this.
During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid
into
Gaza. This sort of task is regarded by military tacticians as risky
and
dangerous at the best of times. To mount such operations, to deliver
aid
virtually into your enemy's hands, is to the military tactician,
normally
quite unthinkable.
But the IDF took on those risks.
In the latter stages of Cast Lead the IDF unilaterally announced a
daily
three-hour cease fire. The IDF dropped over 900,000 leaflets warning
the
population of impending attacks to allow them to leave designated
areas. A
complete air squadron was dedicated to this task alone.
Leaflets also urged the people to phone in information to pinpoint
Hamas
fighters vital intelligence that could save innocent lives.
The IDF phoned over 30,000 Palestinian households in Gaza, urging them
in
Arabic to leave homes where Hamas might have stashed weapons or be
preparing
to fight. Similar messages were passed in Arabic on Israeli radio
broadcasts warning the civilian population of forthcoming operations.
Despite Israel's extraordinary measures, of course innocent civilians
were
killed and wounded. That was due to the frictions of war that I have
spoken about, and even more was an inevitable consequence of Hamas'
way of
fighting.
By taking these actions and many other significant measures during
Operation
Cast Lead the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a
combat
zone than any other Army in the history of warfare.
But the IDF still did not win the war of opinions - especially in
Europe.
The lessons from this campaign apply to the British and American
armies and
to other Western forces as well as to the IDF.
We are in the era of information warfare. The kind of tactics used by
Hamas
and Hizballah and by the Taliban and Jaish al Mahdi work well for
them. As
they see it, they have no other choice. And they will continue to use
it.
How do we counter it? We must not adopt the approach that because
they
flout the laws of war, we will do so too. Quite the reverse. We must
be
and remain - whiter than white.
Within the absolute requirements of operational security, and
sometimes we
may need to really push the boundaries of this out as far as we can,
we must
be as open and transparent as we can possibly be.
There are three lines of attack.
First, we must allow, encourage and facilitate the media to have every
opportunity to report fairly and positively on us and on our
activities.
This requires positive and proactive, not defensive and reactive,
engagement
with the media. We should bring the media into our training, let them
get
to know our units before battle, bring them in whenever possible
during
combat.
Perhaps embed them into combat units as the British forces often do,
sometimes for protracted periods, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them
see our
soldiers doing their job in as complete a way as we can.
There are risks in all this, big risks which are self evident and do
not
need to be spelt out. But we must be brave enough to take those
risks.
The benefits are great. The insurgents - Hamas in particular - put a
human
face on war with spectacular success. We must do the same. We must
let the
field soldiers speak with sand on their boots and with a sweat and
dirt-covered human face.
Second, we must show the media in a way they cannot misunderstand the
abuses
perpetrated by the enemy. Our own units must identify such enemy
abuses,
and make statements about them, backed up by the hardest available
evidence.
Every front line unit must be trained and equipped to collect this
information in the same way as they are trained and equipped to
collect
intelligence on enemy operations.
This is information war.
Third, we must be proactive in preventing adverse media stories about
our
own units. I am not talking here about distorting the facts. We must
look
ahead and identify potential problem areas - preferably before they
arise.
We must have what the British Labour Party used to call rapid rebuttal
units.
They should have the ability to establish the facts on the front line
very,
very quickly. Be absolutely sure of the facts, and ensure they are
pushed
rapidly to the media. If they are not one hundred percent sure of the
facts
they must say as much.
Where real problems do occur, where our troops are in the wrong, if
possible
we should say so as quickly as we can, driving the agenda, pre-empting
the
shrieks of the enemy or of the UN.
This demands a culture of openness and honesty among commanders and
soldiers
at all levels, so they are willing to admit their mistakes readily to
their
chain of command.
For any of this to work, I repeat, our people must be whiter than
white.
This requires the best of training and the toughest of discipline and
it is
sometimes even harder among conscript troops and mobilised reservists.
Here I am not just talking about serious abuses and breaches of the
laws of
war. I include smaller things like graffiti-ing and trashing people's
homes
that have been taken over, or are searched or cleared. Like being as
courteous as possible to civilians. Maintaining control over soldiers
who
have just seen their best mates blown apart is far from easy, but it
is
vital.
Where there is genuine concern over our own troops' conduct or action,
we
must not hesitate to conduct enquiries and investigations, and if
necessary
bring people to justice. As far as possible, these processes should
also be
open and transparent.
But this involves of course yet another major complication -because we
must
not confuse mistakes made as a genuine consequence of the chaos and
fog of
war with deliberate defiance of rules of engagement and the laws of
war.
Mistakes are not war crimes. We must also know how to explain this.
Most armies do some of these things already. But what we need really
is a
radical re-evaluation of the effort required to achieve the impact we
need.
This requires a mind-set that is hard to find in most armies around
the
world. It requires extra resources and a shift in priorities. And it
significantly complicates already highly complex military operations.
It does not answer all of our problems by any means. But all the
steps I
have mentioned are - in my view - essential to countering the
strategies and
tactics of the insurgents we are faced with today -in Gaza,
Afghanistan,
Iraq and elsewhere.
They are also I believe essential in defending our military policies
and
objectives -and in defending our brave servicemen and women who are
prepared
to put their lives on the line to defend their country.
Emma
Terry Cross says...
>
>
>Apart from the deaths, which were suffered by many people in many
>countries during the wars, it was a non-event. Other exterminations
>in history were real. The extermination of the Jews was not. They
>did not even make the endangered species list.
>
>It was not "very thorough."
>It was hardly "scientific."
>It was not at all unique.
>It was far from successful.
>
>The only unique aspect is the overwhelming compensation that has been
>paid the survivors, many times over, punishing the Palestinians by
>taking their land to give to the Jews, trillians of dollars in aid and
>military hardware, uncounted trillions in supporting wars to guarantee
>the sanctity of Israel, uncounted punitive actions against thousands
>of people all around the world ...
>
>Since you have no conscience about any other extermination, real or
>attempted, can you tell me when this debt (that we did not incur) is
>paid?
We support Israel for many reasons. It's in the frontline
of the war against Islamic extremism. It's the only free,
democratic nation in the region. It makes incredible
contributions to the world.
So it's in our own best interests to support it.
What you would prefer? A democratic, free Israel, or
another Islamic state?
Emma
>
>
>She's concerned about Israel's favorable treatment in regard to
>Palestinians. And I don't see it as fair to shout "antiSemite" every time
>somebody takes a nonZionist position.
Actually, Terry was talking about the Holocaust and not Israel.
There are some people here (Muslim Council of Britain)
who boycott Holocaust Memorial Day because they don't like
it's emphasis on Jewish suffering. I think that boycott is
disgusting, but Terry agrees with that sort of thing.
>As you know, I disagree with her view that Israel should not receive
>favorable treatment. But Terry has always treated me respectfully, even when
>she could consider my views small-minded and ignorant.
I think that's the crux of the matter Randy; if someone
is nice to you, you tend to be uncritical of them forever after.
Even if they deny the existence of gas chambers.
Terry Cross
> "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> ???
> ??????:fa42fdbb-29c4-41ec-9df9-38b646f55...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Sderot is a city in Israel. It is sitting on land that was taken
violently from other people, and they are not happy about it. Israel
does not have clear title to the property. Yes, Sderot certainly has
"property value" problems.
> > "Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should bring
> > tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
>
> Well, no.
> I mentioned it to explain what caused
> the recent war in Gaza.
> Do you actually believe that someone cried
> at "the mere thought" of this?
> Terry, spare me, please.
You are the author of the phrase, and you used it to wring sympathy
from the reader. In consideration of the contested right to that
home, I do not weep.
> >> Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
>
> > I asked around on this board and others at the time of the alleged
> > rocked bombarding from Palestine, and there were NO contemporaneous
> > reports of injury or death among the Israelis. That is why there were
> > NONE.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "alleged rocked bombarding",
> but over the years thousands of rockets and mortars
> were shot from Gaza, mostly in the general direction of Sderot.
Over the years was not the excuse for the war. Allegedly, Israeli
cities were bombarded with rockets, and to stop that Israel
slaughtered the Palestinians. But there were no contemporaneous
reports of Jewish casualties.
> And Israelis were killed, no one denies it.
When?
> Who did you ask about this?
> Why do you persist in this BS?
Why do you fail to persist in the subject under discussion?
> > You way there were a dozen, and I let you have that so you could
> > justify for killing hundreds, maybe thousands of Palestinians (the
> > numbers are still disputed) in retaliation.
>
> Palestinians don't claim "thousands" of killed.
> Why do you?
"Over the years", since that is now your new topic for this
discussion? Let's get a statististic:
At least 6,348 Palestinians and 1,072 Israelis
have been killed since September 29, 2000.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
> And "retaliation" is a poor description of that war.
> It was an attempt to put an end to an intolerable situation.
Well, fancy that. And if someone pushed you off your land and built a
city there while you lived in a refugee camp, would that be an
"intolerable situation?" What about if a couple of generations later
when you had established communities, those same people bulldozed your
villages and built their own on the land, making you again a refugee,
would that be an "intolerable situation?"
The Jewish right to commit atrocities over "intolerable situations" is
exactly the same as the Palestinian right.
> It wasn't 100% effective (throughout 2009, every once in a while
> a Palestinian missile of some kind comes over the border),
> but's it's *much* better than it was before the war.
No doubt. Dead people don't fight back.
TCross
Zev
Sderot was built on empty sand dunes.
It wasn't "taken" from anyone.
> > > "Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should bring
> > > tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
>
> > Well, no.
> > I mentioned it to explain what caused
> > the recent war in Gaza.
> > Do you actually believe that someone cried
> > at "the mere thought" of this?
> > Terry, spare me, please.
>
> You are the author of the phrase, and you used it to wring sympathy
> from the reader. In consideration of the contested right to that
> home, I do not weep.
"Wring sympathy"?
From "Humanists" like you?
Are you kidding?
> > >> Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
>
> > > I asked around on this board and others at the time of the alleged
> > > rocked bombarding from Palestine, and there were NO contemporaneous
> > > reports of injury or death among the Israelis. That is why there were
> > > NONE.
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "alleged rocked bombarding",
> > but over the years thousands of rockets and mortars
> > were shot from Gaza, mostly in the general direction of Sderot.
>
> Over the years was not the excuse for the war. Allegedly, Israeli
> cities were bombarded with rockets, and to stop that Israel
> slaughtered the Palestinians. But there were no contemporaneous
> reports of Jewish casualties.
The reason for the war was the "thousands of rockets and mortars
shot from Gaza, mostly in the general direction of Sderot.
Over the years, they killed at least a dozen people
and crippled others.
No one denies it.
What are you trying to gain from denying facts
which everyone else agrees with?
> > And Israelis were killed, no one denies it.
>
> When?
>
> > Who did you ask about this?
> > Why do you persist in this BS?
>
> Why do you fail to persist in the subject under discussion?
You mean, Why do I say the same thing, over and over?
But can you tell me whom you asked about this?
And while we're at it,
can you tell me where you got
"29 men, women, and children" (killed by Goldstein) from?
Will you admit you made it up?
Will you answer the questions I asked about the UN?
Will you admit that Palestinian terror
forced Israel to build the "Wall"?
> > > You way there were a dozen, and I let you have that so you could
> > > justify for killing hundreds, maybe thousands of Palestinians (the
> > > numbers are still disputed) in retaliation.
>
> > Palestinians don't claim "thousands" of killed.
> > Why do you?
>
> "Over the years", since that is now your new topic for this
> discussion? Let's get a statististic:
Nothing new about it.
It's what we've been talking about all along.
IIRC, Hamas claims less than1500 killed.
> At least 6,348 Palestinians and 1,072 Israelis
> have been killed since September 29,
> 2000.http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
Now this *is* new.
Why do you bring it up?
What does it prove?
But analyze these statistics, before the "Wall" and after.
The "Wall" saves lives, Israeli and Palestinian.
> > And "retaliation" is a poor description of that war.
> > It was an attempt to put an end to an intolerable situation.
>
> Well, fancy that. And if someone pushed you off your land and built a
> city there while you lived in a refugee camp, would that be an
> "intolerable situation?" What about if a couple of generations later
> when you had established communities, those same people bulldozed your
> villages and built their own on the land, making you again a refugee,
> would that be an "intolerable situation?"
Be careful Terry, you're making your client look like:
"Vicious, disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims".
> The Jewish right to commit atrocities over "intolerable situations" is
> exactly the same as the Palestinian right.
Legally, you're more than right because the PA
is not a sovereign state and it has fewer obligations.
But it's morally irrelevant because the Israeli government
has an *obligation* to defend its citizens.
When its soldiers come under fire,
they have an *inalienable* right to shoot back.
The article you snipped dealt with this dilemma,
Alan Dershowitz and others have been writing about it for years,
and it apparently will be going to the UN soon.
I'm appending another article which
deals with it from a different angle.
Much of the world is wrestling with this issue,
while you sit in comfort making remarks
only a simpleton would make.
> > It wasn't 100% effective (throughout 2009, every once in a while
> > a Palestinian missile of some kind comes over the border),
> > but's it's *much* better than it was before the war.
>
> No doubt. Dead people don't fight back.
And here I was thinking that Palestinian casualties
were women and children.
Now it turns out they were fighters!
Appended, as promised:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=ROBERT%20L.%20BERNSTEIN&st=cse
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN
Published: October 19, 2009
AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years
and
now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never
anticipated: I must publicly join the group's critics. Human Rights
Watch
had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate
basic
freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing
reports on
the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn
Israel
into a pariah state.
Kelly Blair
At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic
societies
have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability
to
correct them - through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press
and many
other mechanisms that encourage reform.
That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and
nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights.
We
wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a
moral
equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by
drawing
attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and
those in
the Soviet gulag - and the millions in China's laogai, or labor camps.
When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70
countries,
most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing
frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and
closed
societies.
Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The
region
is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights
records.
Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more
condemnations of
Israel for violations of international law than of any other country
in the
region.
Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human
rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected
government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government,
a
politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging
by the
amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any
other
country in the world - many of whom are there expressly to cover the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million
people,
and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no
internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit
from
the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human
rights
organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch's
Middle
East division prepares report after report on Israel.
Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in
which
Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah,
organizations
that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human
shields.
These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly
declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews
everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the
Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to
wage
war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming
neighborhoods
into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing
into both
Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that
this
militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the
peaceful
and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of
aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch's criticism.
The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are
fought, not
with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by
the
laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties.
Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-
defense
and those perpetrated intentionally.
But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been
violated? In
Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to
the
military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is
extremely
difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting
often
relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may
testify for
political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own
rulers.
Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British
forces in
Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense
Forces in Gaza "did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a
combat
zone than any other army in the history of warfare."
Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility
that
animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force
in the
Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its
credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the
world
significantly diminished.
Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of
Random
House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.
Terry Cross
Once again, the "land without people" argument. Don't you think it is
a little tired and dated?
> > > > "Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should bring
> > > > tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
>
> > > Well, no.
> > > I mentioned it to explain what caused
> > > the recent war in Gaza.
> > > Do you actually believe that someone cried
> > > at "the mere thought" of this?
> > > Terry, spare me, please.
>
> > You are the author of the phrase, and you used it to wring sympathy
> > from the reader. In consideration of the contested right to that
> > home, I do not weep.
>
> "Wring sympathy"?
> From "Humanists" like you?
Who are you quoting?
> Are you kidding?
>
> > > >> Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
>
> > > > I asked around on this board and others at the time of the alleged
> > > > rocked bombarding from Palestine, and there were NO contemporaneous
> > > > reports of injury or death among the Israelis. That is why there were
> > > > NONE.
>
> > > I'm not sure what you mean by "alleged rocked bombarding",
> > > but over the years thousands of rockets and mortars
> > > were shot from Gaza, mostly in the general direction of Sderot.
>
> > Over the years was not the excuse for the war. Allegedly, Israeli
> > cities were bombarded with rockets, and to stop that Israel
> > slaughtered the Palestinians. But there were no contemporaneous
> > reports of Jewish casualties.
>
> The reason for the war was the "thousands of rockets and mortars
> shot from Gaza, mostly in the general direction of Sderot.
> Over the years, they killed at least a dozen people
> and crippled others.
> No one denies it.
> What are you trying to gain from denying facts
> which everyone else agrees with?
"Over the years" Israel has killed many Palestinians. The statistics
show Israel is killing six for every dead Israeli.
> > > And Israelis were killed, no one denies it.
>
> > When?
No answer.
> > > Who did you ask about this?
> > > Why do you persist in this BS?
>
> > Why do you fail to persist in the subject under discussion?
>
> You mean, Why do I say the same thing, over and over?
No, I mean why do you change the subject from immediate "provocation"
to a litany of complaints "over the years?"
> But can you tell me whom you asked about this?
> And while we're at it,
> can you tell me where you got
> "29 men, women, and children" (killed by Goldstein) from?
> Will you admit you made it up?
The Baruch fatality statistic is not controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
> Will you answer the questions I asked about the UN?
I am not enough of a wonk to research the referendum numbers and call
them out like fast food orders.
> Will you admit that Palestinian terror
> forced Israel to build the "Wall"?
If Israel had built the wall on the border, I might believe it. But
Israel has bulldozed Palestinian villages to build settlements, the
built the Wall and military garrisons to protect the settlements.
Will you admit that?
> > > > You way there were a dozen, and I let you have that so you could
> > > > justify for killing hundreds, maybe thousands of Palestinians (the
> > > > numbers are still disputed) in retaliation.
>
> > > Palestinians don't claim "thousands" of killed.
> > > Why do you?
>
> > "Over the years", since that is now your new topic for this
> > discussion? Let's get a statististic:
>
> Nothing new about it.
> It's what we've been talking about all along.
> IIRC, Hamas claims less than1500 killed.
>
> > At least 6,348 Palestinians and 1,072 Israelis
> > have been killed since September 29,
> > 2000.http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
>
> Now this *is* new.
> Why do you bring it up?
> What does it prove?
It shows that the weight of wrong suffered is on the side of
Palestinians, rather than on the side of Israel as you are claiming.
Israel has provoked hostilities with the settlements.
> But analyze these statistics, before the "Wall" and after.
> The "Wall" saves lives, Israeli and Palestinian.
The wall destroys Palestinian life because it meanders around on the
Occupied Territories instead of simply separating Israel and
Palestine.
TCross
Zev
In Sderot it is either true or it isn't.
That kind of logic is *really* old.
So what?
Which is it?
> > > > > "Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should
> > > > > bring
> > > > > tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
>
> > > > Well, no.
> > > > I mentioned it to explain what caused
> > > > the recent war in Gaza.
> > > > Do you actually believe that someone cried
> > > > at "the mere thought" of this?
> > > > Terry, spare me, please.
>
> > > You are the author of the phrase, and you used it to wring sympathy
> > > from the reader. In consideration of the contested right to that
> > > home, I do not weep.
>
> > "Wring sympathy"?
> > From "Humanists" like you?
>
> Who are you quoting?
You yourself, in another thread.
Maybe you were kidding.
There was a crescendo of violence leading up to the Gaza war,
and there's always a last straw which forces action,
but I never said the war was caused by an "immediate provocation".
> > But can you tell me whom you asked about this?
> > And while we're at it,
> > can you tell me where you got
> > "29 men, women, and children" (killed by Goldstein) from?
> > Will you admit you made it up?
>
> The Baruch fatality statistic is not
> controversial.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Goldstein
Of course not.
Even Palestinians don't claim
"29 men, women, and children"
were killed by Goldstein.
They'd be laughed out of Hebron if they did.
> > Will you answer the questions I asked about the UN?
>
> I am not enough of a wonk to research the referendum numbers and call
> them out like fast food orders.
You have "321 UN resolutions that Israel refuses to follow"
at your fingertips,
but these you have to "research"?
> > Will you admit that Palestinian terror
> > forced Israel to build the "Wall"?
>
> If Israel had built the wall on the border, I might believe it. But
> Israel has bulldozed Palestinian villages to build settlements, the
> built the Wall and military garrisons to protect the settlements.
> Will you admit that?
I assume that means "no".
You've never been in Israel,
you don't take a serious interest in it,
but that won't stop you from writing BS about it.
> > > > > You way there were a dozen, and I let you have that so you could
> > > > > justify for killing hundreds, maybe thousands of Palestinians (the
> > > > > numbers are still disputed) in retaliation.
>
> > > > Palestinians don't claim "thousands" of killed.
> > > > Why do you?
>
> > > "Over the years", since that is now your new topic for this
> > > discussion? Let's get a statististic:
>
> > Nothing new about it.
> > It's what we've been talking about all along.
> > IIRC, Hamas claims less than1500 killed.
>
> > > At least 6,348 Palestinians and 1,072 Israelis
> > > have been killed since September 29,
> > > 2000.http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html
>
> > Now this *is* new.
> > Why do you bring it up?
> > What does it prove?
>
> It shows that the weight of wrong suffered is on the side of
> Palestinians, rather than on the side of Israel as you are claiming.
No, I claim that the reason for the war was the
"thousands of rockets and mortars shot from Gaza,
mostly in the general direction of Sderot".
You want to discuss "weight of wrong"
of a century long confrontation, on the Usenet?
> Israel has provoked hostilities with the settlements.
>
> > But analyze these statistics, before the "Wall" and after.
> > The "Wall" saves lives, Israeli and Palestinian.
>
> The wall destroys Palestinian life because it meanders around on the
> Occupied Territories instead of simply separating Israel and
> Palestine.
Terry, how cynical can you get?
randy
"Zev"
randy
>> She's concerned about Israel's favorable treatment in regard to
>> Palestinians. And I don't see it as fair to shout "antiSemite" every time
>> somebody takes a nonZionist position.
>> being labelled an "antiSemite."
> ...Randy, I'm all for it, that's why I'm here.
> But sometimes the "other side" brings up lies instead of points.
> Tell you what...
> *You* ask her:
> Why leaving one's home (in Sderot) is no more than
> a "property value" problem,
> Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
> Why she says Baruch Goldstein killed
> "29 men, women and children",
> Why she claims that I call Palestinians:
> "Vicious, disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims".
You know emotional disagreements can appear to be very unbalanced.
> And now a question for you.
> Why is it unfair to shout "anti-semitism"
> in the face of apparent anti-semitism?
That begs the question whether it is antiSemitism to begin with. Is
disagreeing with the Israeli position lockstep "antiSemitic?" I don't think
so. That there is antiSemitism on the Palestinian side is without question
true.
But the question here is whether *Terry* is antiSemitic. I don't really
know. I can only say that she has not been that way with me, perhaps became
I'm not Jewish. But I've been strongly pro-Israel for a long, long time in
this ng, and she has never once viciously attacked me for it. She has only
raised sensitive, but thoughtful issues.
I have Moslem relatives. Their choice to defend Muslims is not antiSemitic,
but to be expected. I don't even know what religion Terry has. It may be
some kind of moralistic humanism, for all I know.
randy
randy
"Emma"
randy
> Actually, Terry was talking about the Holocaust and not Israel.
Apparently she talks about both.
> There are some people here (Muslim Council of Britain)
> who boycott Holocaust Memorial Day because they don't like
> it's emphasis on Jewish suffering. I think that boycott is
> disgusting, but Terry agrees with that sort of thing.
That doesn't mean she hates Jews. She is opposed to unbalanced, favoritistic
treatment of the Jews, that appears to discriminate against other ethnic
groups. That is always a legitimate question in any society favoring one
group of people above another. Minorities should always be given a voice to
air their complaints. The world at large should also be given a voice to
question the practises of a ruling elite.
> I think that's the crux of the matter Randy; if someone
> is nice to you, you tend to be uncritical of them forever after.
> Even if they deny the existence of gas chambers.
Not at all. If Terry denies the existence of gas chambers, I disagree with
her, and I do so emotionally. However, the bigger picture cannot be ignored
either. There is a largescale religious disagreement involved between three
religions, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. This sometimes bleeds into
questions about *how important* it is to focus on Jewish suffering in WW2 as
opposed to the suffering of other ethnic groups.
I don't know any reasonable person who denies the Jewish holocaust. What
Terry seems to deny is the importance of placing *Jewish suffering* ahead of
the suffering of many other groups who were massacred in WW2.
As for your charge that I am favoritistic towards those who are "nice to
me," I think that is unfair. I do respect good character, and this is
consistent with God and Christianity, that good character is required in our
associations. However, it is not fair to indicate that I am therefore biased
in my assessments.
I do not agree with Terry that Israel should be "unfavored." The Jews and
the State of Israel require *favored treatment* precisely because they are
so *unfavored* in the world, both in terms of minority status and in terms
of statehood. Israel is just one state against many, many Islamic states! It
is also just one state against many, many present or former Christian
states...
randy
Terry Cross
Sderot is a city, not a proposition or an hypothesis.
> That kind of logic is *really* old.
> So what?
> Which is it?
>
> > > > > > "Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should
> > > > > > bring
> > > > > > tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
>
> > > > > Well, no.
> > > > > I mentioned it to explain what caused
> > > > > the recent war in Gaza.
> > > > > Do you actually believe that someone cried
> > > > > at "the mere thought" of this?
> > > > > Terry, spare me, please.
>
> > > > You are the author of the phrase, and you used it to wring sympathy
> > > > from the reader. In consideration of the contested right to that
> > > > home, I do not weep.
>
> > > "Wring sympathy"?
> > > From "Humanists" like you?
>
> > Who are you quoting?
>
> You yourself, in another thread.
> Maybe you were kidding.
I have never called myself a "humanist."
TCross
> > > Will you answer the questions I asked about the UN?
>
> > I am not enough of a wonk to research the referendum numbers and call
> > them out like fast food orders.
>
> You have "321 UN resolutions that Israel refuses to follow"
> at your fingertips, but these you have to "research"?
Yes. You cannot cite the UN as an authority for the existence of
Israel or anything else if you refuse to obey it in other respects.
> > > Will you admit that Palestinian terror
> > > forced Israel to build the "Wall"?
Will you admit The Wall is in violation of UN resolutions?
> > If Israel had built the wall on the border, I might believe it. But
> > Israel has bulldozed Palestinian villages to build settlements, the
> > built the Wall and military garrisons to protect the settlements.
> > Will you admit that?
>
> I assume that means "no".
> You've never been in Israel,
> you don't take a serious interest in it,
> but that won't stop you from writing BS about it.
You have never been to Nazi Germany, but it seems to hold an interest
for you.
TCross
Zev
??????:_fSdnVVg5bZ233HX...@wavecable.com...
> "Zev"
> randy
>>> She's concerned about Israel's favorable treatment in regard to
>>> Palestinians. And I don't see it as fair to shout "antiSemite" every
>>> time
>>> somebody takes a nonZionist position.
>>> ....Somebody has to be able to take a nonJewish position here without
>>> being labelled an "antiSemite."
>
>> ...Randy, I'm all for it, that's why I'm here.
>> But sometimes the "other side" brings up lies instead of points.
>> Tell you what...
>> *You* ask her:
>> Why leaving one's home (in Sderot) is no more than
>> a "property value" problem,
>> Why a dozen Israelis killed is "none",
>> Why she says Baruch Goldstein killed
>> "29 men, women and children",
>> Why she claims that I call Palestinians:
>> "Vicious, disgusting, reprobate, chronic victims".
>
> You know emotional disagreements can appear to be very unbalanced.
I asked why she claims I said those things about Palestinians.
She's had a chance to cool off.
Do you think she'll apologize?
>> And now a question for you.
>> Why is it unfair to shout "anti-semitism"
>> in the face of apparent anti-semitism?
>
> That begs the question whether it is antiSemitism to begin with. Is
> disagreeing with the Israeli position lockstep "antiSemitic?" I don't
> think so. That there is antiSemitism on the Palestinian side is without
> question true.
"Israeli position"?
Randy, if she disagrees with Israel's right to defend itself,
she disagrees with Israel's right to exist!
Twice I included articles concerned with this issue,
written by knowledgeable people.
Both times she snipped them out,
apparently hoping to hide the truth by erasing it.
> But the question here is whether *Terry* is antiSemitic. I don't really
> know. I can only say that she has not been that way with me, perhaps
> became I'm not Jewish. But I've been strongly pro-Israel for a long, long
> time in this ng, and she has never once viciously attacked me for it. She
> has only raised sensitive, but thoughtful issues.
Your uncertainty reminds me of someone's Usenet signature:
"If it looks like s- and smells like s-,
do you really have to taste it?".
She doesn't "viciously attack" me either, that's not the issue.
If you take the trouble to compare my posts to her replies to them,
you may notice that she avoids difficult questions by snipping them,
(I'm referring here to my remarks,
not to the articles she also snipped out)
while leaving tons of really old stuff alone.
People who raise "thoughtful" issues
aren't expected to act that way.
And while you're at it, could you tell what "thoughtful issues"
she's raised in her replies to me?
> I have Moslem relatives. Their choice to defend Muslims is not
> antiSemitic, but to be expected. I don't even know what religion Terry
> has. It may be some kind of moralistic humanism, for all I know.
For all it's worth, she says she's not Muslim.
But I discuss the M.E. with Muslims also.
I don't say that Palestinians have no right to wish for more
than they can get peacefully.
Wars have been fought for less.
But maybe it's time to say enough is enough.
Zev
??????:8f82f155-bbf3-4782-
abae-793...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 2:33 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 8:40 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Oct 29, 5:48 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > On Oct 29, 4:11 am, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Oct 27, 8:08 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > "Terry Cross" <tcros...@hotmail.com> ???
>> > > > > ??????:fa42fdbb-29c4-41ec-9df9-38b646f55...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> > > > > > On Oct 27, 1:30 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >> "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com> ???
>> > > > > >> ??????:vvadncLClarZUXjXnZ2dnUVZ_vudn...@wavecable.com...
>> > > > > >> Tell you what...
My statement about it is a statement and is either true or not.
>> That kind of logic is *really* old.
>> So what?
>> Which is it?
>>
>> > > > > > "Leaving one's home", indeed, as though the mere thought should
>> > > > > > bring
>> > > > > > tears of sympathy and make us forget the Israeli terrorists.
>>
>> > > > > Well, no.
>> > > > > I mentioned it to explain what caused
>> > > > > the recent war in Gaza.
>> > > > > Do you actually believe that someone cried
>> > > > > at "the mere thought" of this?
>> > > > > Terry, spare me, please.
>>
>> > > > You are the author of the phrase, and you used it to wring sympathy
>> > > > from the reader. In consideration of the contested right to that
>> > > > home, I do not weep.
>>
>> > > "Wring sympathy"?
>> > > From "Humanists" like you?
>>
>> > Who are you quoting?
>>
>> You yourself, in another thread.
>> Maybe you were kidding.
>
>
> I have never called myself a "humanist."
OK, I was sure I saw this in one of your posts.
>> > > Will you answer the questions I asked about the UN?
>>
>> > I am not enough of a wonk to research the referendum numbers and call
>> > them out like fast food orders.
>>
>> You have "321 UN resolutions that Israel refuses to follow"
>> at your fingertips, but these you have to "research"?
>
>
> Yes. You cannot cite the UN as an authority for the existence of
> Israel or anything else if you refuse to obey it in other respects.
I told you a while ago,
"UN inconsistency and inaction have made it irrelevant".
I asked you a series of rhetorical questions to prove that to you,
not because I'm in the habit of citing
the UN as an authority for anything.
>> > > Will you admit that Palestinian terror
>> > > forced Israel to build the "Wall"?
>
>
> Will you admit The Wall is in violation of UN resolutions?
I asked you first.
>> > If Israel had built the wall on the border, I might believe it. But
>> > Israel has bulldozed Palestinian villages to build settlements, the
>> > built the Wall and military garrisons to protect the settlements.
>> > Will you admit that?
>>
>> I assume that means "no".
>> You've never been in Israel,
>> you don't take a serious interest in it,
>> but that won't stop you from writing BS about it.
>
>
> You have never been to Nazi Germany, but it seems to hold an interest
> for you.
What a cop out...
Emma
>
>
>"Emma"
>randy
>
>> Actually, Terry was talking about the Holocaust and not Israel.
>
>Apparently she talks about both.
But if you don't agree with her opinions on the Holocaust
then you shouldn't say, "I agree with Terry", when she is actually
talking about the Holocaust.
>> There are some people here (Muslim Council of Britain)
>> who boycott Holocaust Memorial Day because they don't like
>> it's emphasis on Jewish suffering. I think that boycott is
>> disgusting, but Terry agrees with that sort of thing.
>
>That doesn't mean she hates Jews.
If you add that to her views about gas chambers and
her denial of the millions who died, and her links to
websites that carry anti-Semitic articles, and her continual
venom at Jewish posters,and on and on, I think you can safely
say that she hates Jews.
>She is opposed to unbalanced, favoritistic
>treatment of the Jews, that appears to discriminate against other ethnic
>groups.
Such as?
>As for your charge that I am favoritistic towards those who are "nice to
>me," I think that is unfair. I do respect good character, and this is
>consistent with God and Christianity, that good character is required in our
>associations. However, it is not fair to indicate that I am therefore biased
>in my assessments.
It's my opinion that you are biased towards people who
are nice to you. Sorry, but you are.
I find it pretty outrageous that you extend that
to Holocaust deniers, but that's what you do.
Terry Cross
> In article <7b720cc3-9154-4811-9102-83c6dd6fb...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> Terry Cross says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >Apart from the deaths, which were suffered by many people in many
> >countries during the wars, it was a non-event. Other exterminations
> >in history were real. The extermination of the Jews was not. They
> >did not even make the endangered species list.
>
> >It was not "very thorough."
> >It was hardly "scientific."
> >It was not at all unique.
> >It was far from successful.
>
> >The only unique aspect is the overwhelming compensation that has been
> >paid the survivors, many times over, punishing the Palestinians by
> >taking their land to give to the Jews, trillians of dollars in aid and
> >military hardware, uncounted trillions in supporting wars to guarantee
> >the sanctity of Israel, uncounted punitive actions against thousands
> >of people all around the world ...
>
> >Since you have no conscience about any other extermination, real or
> >attempted, can you tell me when this debt (that we did not incur) is
> >paid?
>
> We support Israel for many reasons. It's in the frontline
> of the war against Islamic extremism.
During the Gulf War, Israel was just a nuisance. And you know there
would be no "war against Islamic extremism" and probably no "Islamic
extremism" if not for Israel.
Israel is a very profitless asset.
> It's the only free,
> democratic nation in the region.
"Free democratic" -- where women cannot initiate divorce because the
divorce courts are run by Orthodox rabbis? How is is that "free
democratic?"
> It makes incredible
> contributions to the world.
Israel takes incredible tribute FROM the world. Every year, the
United States donates billions in cash, loan guarantees, and free
military hardware and technology, and directly fights off retributions
from people Israel has provoked.
> So it's in our own best interests to support it.
>
> What you would prefer? A democratic, free Israel, or
> another Islamic state?
I would prefer that Israel were democratic and free, and that Israel
did not continuously provoke war with its neighbors. I would prefer
that Israel did not fancy itself the "chosen people" designated by God
to exterminate the current populations between the Nile and Euphrates
Rivers and take over those lands. I would prefer that Israel did not
try to run the United States affairs through dual citizens like Dov
Zakheim, Philip Zelikow, and hundreds of others.
TCross
Zev
> On Oct 28, 10:58 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7b720cc3-9154-4811-9102-83c6dd6fb...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > Terry Cross says...
> During the Gulf War, Israel was just a nuisance. And you know there
> would be no "war against Islamic extremism" and probably no "Islamic
> extremism" if not for Israel.
The "Gulf War" had little to do with Islam or Israel
and it proves how worthless your argument is.
> Israel is a very profitless asset.
Many Americans and Europeans will happily choose
the easy way, the path of the weak.
They will sacrifice Israel on the alter of world peace,
just as a previous generation sacrificed Czechoslovakia.
They forget the fact that every Islamic success
strengthens the extremists and weakens the moderates.
It's common sense.
Those who are unmoved by a sense of justice
are unmoved even by a sense of self-interest.
American support for Israel has never been unwavering.
In fact, American aid started in 1966,
after the Israeli raid in Es-Samu,
for the express purpose of providing leverage on Israel.
The West is unable to end the conflict in Iraq or Afghanistan.
It is unable to impose its will on Iran.
Europeans, watching the process
of Islamification all over Europe,
wring their hands as the world they knew becomes history.
They can indeed do nothing.
They are dependant on Arabs/Muslims for labor, markets and oil.
> > It's the only free,
> > democratic nation in the region.
>
> "Free democratic" -- where women cannot initiate divorce because the
> divorce courts are run by Orthodox rabbis? How is is that "free
> democratic?"
In the 1992 elections in Israel,
a majority of Jews voted for parties
which were to the right of Mr. Rabin's party.
Rabin's majority, through which he became Prime Minister,
and eventually made concessions to Palestinians in Oslo,
depended on the support of Arab members of Knesset.
In which Arab/Muslim country do non Arabs/Muslims
have the same level of honest-to-goodness political influence?
Terry Cross
> On Nov 1, 6:21 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 28, 10:58 am, Emma <e...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7b720cc3-9154-4811-9102-83c6dd6fb...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Terry Cross says...
> > During the Gulf War, Israel was just a nuisance. And you know there
> > would be no "war against Islamic extremism" and probably no "Islamic
> > extremism" if not for Israel.
>
> The "Gulf War" had little to do with Islam or Israel
> and it proves how worthless your argument is.
But you removed the context! Really, Zev, that is a phenomenally
dishonest tactic.
Emma had written:
> We support Israel for many reasons. It's in the frontline
> of the war against Islamic extremism. It's the only free,
> democratic nation in the region. It makes incredible
> contributions to the world.
> So it's in our own best interests to support it.
And I replied:
During the Gulf War, Israel was just a nuisance.
You see how those things go together? When the US thought it needed
the "frontline of war" most desperately in the Middle East, the US
military had to use the ultra-Islamic Saudis to house the base, not
Israel.
> > Israel is a very profitless asset.
>
> Many Americans and Europeans will happily choose
> the easy way, the path of the weak.
> They will sacrifice Israel on the alter of world peace,
> just as a previous generation sacrificed Czechoslovakia.
Czech did not provoke the war with Germany. That is a very big
difference.
> They forget the fact that every Islamic success
> strengthens the extremists and weakens the moderates.
> It's common sense.
> Those who are unmoved by a sense of justice
> are unmoved even by a sense of self-interest.
Tell me why you think Israel has a right to invade that land and then
just keep it, take more and more land, and exterminate the natives.
This ought to be interesting.
TCross
randy
"Zev"
randy
>> You know emotional disagreements can appear to be very unbalanced.
> I asked why she claims I said those things about Palestinians.
> She's had a chance to cool off.
> Do you think she'll apologize?
Most people will not apologize at any rate because they expect that they are
being baited. I expect apologies only rarely, and I'll let Terry decide if
an apology is at all warranted.
>> That begs the question whether it is antiSemitism to begin with. Is
>> disagreeing with the Israeli position lockstep "antiSemitic?" I don't
>> think so. That there is antiSemitism on the Palestinian side is without
>> question true.
> "Israeli position"?
> Randy, if she disagrees with Israel's right to defend itself,
> she disagrees with Israel's right to exist!
Well yes, if that's what she believes. In history many empires have taken
over aboriginal territory and completely absorbed it, never to let it be
recovered by the original peoples again. From the Moslem perspective, Israel
is no different. The Jewish people have a right to live there, as much as
any other people. But the political rule, they think, belongs to the vast
majority of Moslems who have ruled that region for centuries. I don't agree
with that position, but that's the argument.
> Twice I included articles concerned with this issue,
> written by knowledgeable people.
> Both times she snipped them out,
> apparently hoping to hide the truth by erasing it.
I haven't found the "magic formula" for Middle East peace yet either. ;)
> Your uncertainty reminds me of someone's Usenet signature:
> "If it looks like s- and smells like s-,
> do you really have to taste it?".
No, Terry has always seemed to me a very thoughtful, friendly person, unless
she is viciously attacked. We have disagreed, but the key to Terry is, I
believe, to try to see behind her words to understand her position. There is
a very thoughtful person in there, and I think it would be great if you
could harness her intelligence and win her to the pro-Israeli position.
> She doesn't "viciously attack" me either, that's not the issue.
For me that is the *whole* issue! A person's character is central if there
is any hope of resolving difficult issues. I've tried to discuss things with
others here who are hard and obstinate, and it seems a waste of time.
Others, like yourself included, are willing to discuss things over long
periods of time, letting time itself sort of "calm" the issues. Gradually
there are slight compromises that really do mean a lot, I think.
> If you take the trouble to compare my posts to her replies to them,
> you may notice that she avoids difficult questions by snipping them,
> (I'm referring here to my remarks,
> not to the articles she also snipped out)
> while leaving tons of really old stuff alone.
> People who raise "thoughtful" issues
> aren't expected to act that way.
> And while you're at it, could you tell what "thoughtful issues"
> she's raised in her replies to me?
I don't read most of those conversations. I'm too busy discussing my own
issues.
> For all it's worth, she says she's not Muslim.
> But I discuss the M.E. with Muslims also.
> I don't say that Palestinians have no right to wish for more
> than they can get peacefully.
> Wars have been fought for less.
> But maybe it's time to say enough is enough.
I've been a Netanyahu fan for a long time, and have high hopes that his
pragmatism will bring out the best and the worst of the Palestinians. Then
maybe we can see real change that means something?
randy