Israel committing "memorycide"

They seem to have a lot more than rocks these days, but rather rockets, and also there are always those who prefer to blow themselves up and everyone around them with a suicide belt.

no offense but check the death count.. use anyones numbers you wish.

since there is bound to be offense.. numbers of deaths does define right and wrong, it simply brings reality to some of the statements above. If we are going to discuss the subject we should at least do so in reality, instead of strong feelings land.

LOL.

Right. Yeah, a Palestinian throwing rocks at oppressive Israeli guards is exactly the same thing as Israeli guns and bulldozers destroying Palestinian lives and homes.

LOL? What's so funny about terrorism? (Perhaps because you think the victims are Jews? But-- they aren't only Jews):

As a Christian couple here can painfully testify – it is not only Jews who are being attacked and killed by Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.

Berhanu Bogale and his wife, Kidist, lost their daughter Galila to a Palestinian-Muslim suicide bomber on June 18. The attack was on a city bus, just two stops from her home. The bus was full of mostly school-age children from the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo. By today's standards, a Muslim suicide bomber killing 19 people, including many children, is not a big news story. To many of today's news networks, there is a lack of interest because, after all, those who die are "just Jews."

But most often those killed in these bombings are not "just Jews." Many of the civilians, including women and children, who die in the attacks are immigrant workers, Israeli Arabs and Christians. This bombing was no exception.

Christians also victims of Islamic terror

Right. Yeah, a Palestinian throwing rocks at oppressive Israeli guards is exactly the same thing as Israeli guns and bulldozers destroying Palestinian lives and homes.

And how would you describe a Palestinian with a bomb strapped to him blowing himself up on a bus or in a cafe? Is that exactly the same as the IDF hunting down militants?

since there is bound to be offense.. numbers of deaths does define right and wrong, it simply brings reality to some of the statements above. If we are going to discuss the subject we should at least do so in reality, instead of strong feelings land.

Most of the deaths in WW2 were Russian deaths, so, of course, Soviet ideology was the "right" one. And, of course, Germany suffered the greatest European death casualties. Am I arguing with serious people?

Joulesbeef,

It is tempting to look at the number of Palestinian deaths versus Israeli deaths and conclude that Israelis are oppressing and wantonly murdering Palestinians. You seem to misunderstand that Palestinians often fight in heavily populated civilian areas, maintain weapons labs amongst civilians and parade live rockets through Gaza streets filled with innocent men, women and children.

Many Palestinians have died at the hands of Palestinians and often Israel is blamed for their deaths. See my recent posting here on newsvine for specific cases: http://israelk.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/25/1608875-the-israeli-palestinian-divide

You seem to misunderstand that Palestinians often fight in heavily populated civilian areas,

That's an understatement! They deliberately place their kids on the front lines, in hopes of having them killed-- makes great propaganda!

Almost every day?

Qassams were first fired at Israeli targets in October 2001 and have continued since then. The first Qassam to land in Israeli territory was launched on February 10, 2002. The first time an Israeli city was hit was on March 5, 2002, when two rockets struck Sderot. Some rockets have hit as far as the edge of Ashkelon. From 2001 until May 2008, there have been over 3,050 Qassam rockets fired at Israeli targets,[1] mainly against Sderot and the Western Negev. Fifteen (15) Israelis have been killed and over 433 injured, along with significant property damage. Additionally, more than 2,500 mortar attacks have been launched against Israel from Gaza.[2] This has resulted in eight (8) Israeli deaths.[3].

The combined total of Israeli deaths from Palestinian rockets and mortars, since 2001, is 23.

link.

kpr37
I'm going to comment on your side for a change , although I am really on both sides. I am on the side of peace. I am trying to help. You really hurt your side when you exaggerate or speak from emotion.(hey we all do it from time to time we are human)
Instead though you could point out that despite the low deaths the rockets are specifically weapons of terror. Its the nature of humans. Loud bangs nearby, destruction not far from you home, not knowing which room you children should sleep in. It doesn't matter the statisics, your eyes and ears tell you something else. The rockets effective in both inducing terror and producing victimization news. These rockets generally don't kill anyone, but they scare the crap out of people and destroy some things, like it or not, that isnt very internationally newsworthy. which is just great for hamas. They can terrorize and not get bad publicity. Now you jab at the big dog with a stick enough, eventually he is going to bite back. This leads to bad publicity for Israel. Hamas isnt stupid, they see these rockets never make the american news.
See how much more effective you can be, when we have an honest debate?
The very first step in theses debates is ti try to turn off emotion and argue your case with facts and accept that not everyone is going to agree with you and its not because they hate you.

**palistinian disclaimer
I do this snarky bit when I comment against isreal as well, Paliistine is great, the muslims,christains and jews all have a long history there. I have a palistian friend IRL. there are people on both sides for whom peace is a negative.

Exactly. These rockets have no guidance system. They're little more than a flying pipe bomb... a steel tube full of explosives. When they shoot one off, they have no idea where it's going to hit, and they don't care, either.

The whole point is to scare people, and keep them scared.

They're little more than a flying pipe bomb..

Gee...you make them sound almost harmless.

"Exactly. These rockets have no guidance system. They're little more than a flying pipe bomb... a steel tube full of explosives. When they shoot one off, they have no idea where it's going to hit, and they don't care, either."

- Excerpted from, "The Little Quassam That Could", by Dennis P. McCann

(note: I am not implying you support terror. Merely adding my ironic take on the humanization of a poor little guidance system-less missile and it's struggles in an unforgiving world)

Nope. Don't play that game.

I said

These rockets have no guidance system. They're little more than a flying pipe bomb... a steel tube full of explosives

Because that's exactly what they are, and that's the danger. If they had a guidance system they could be aimed at military targets. Because they don't, civilians are likely to be hit.

Not downplaying anything, just stating fact.

Because that's exactly what they are, and that's the danger. If they had a guidance system they could be aimed at military targets. Because they don't, civilians are likely to be hit.

Actually, they are deliberately aimed in the general direction of civilian targets...i.e. the town of Sderot. What you say is true-- if they had an accurate guidance system, they could be aimed at military targets. But-- they wouldn't be. Hamas is deliberately aiming them at the (civilian) town of Sderot.

they are deliberately aimed in the general direction of civilian targets

Aimed...in the general direction? Isn't that an oxymoron?

if they had an accurate guidance system, they could be aimed at military targets. But-- they wouldn't be.

We don't, and can't, know that.

Hamas is deliberately aiming them at the (civilian) town of Sderot.

No, they're pointing them there. They aren't aiming them, because they can't be aimed.

Just because it is unguided doesn't mean it can't be aimed. If I picked up a rock, it would be an unguided weapon, correct? Yet I could still aim it at your general direction. As to your semantic issue of using point, that's just silly, you point a gun but you aim a rocket or a mortar, regardless of accuracy.

No, they're pointing them there. They aren't aiming them, because they can't be aimed.

That's just silly. "Point" "aim"...what is this, the war of the words?

There are no military targets in Sderot, but there are elsewhere within Kassam range. Thus, the mere fact that rockets are aimed at Sderot shows a desire to target civilians, rather than legitimate military targets.

No, they're pointing them there. They aren't aiming them, because they can't be aimed.

Ah-- so they are deliberately pointing them at civilian target-- but they are not aiming them at civilian targets. DOH! (it never ceases to amaze me the lengths that some people will go to . . . in a futile attmept to defend a barbaric terrorist organization).

No, they're lobbing them into Israel. They don't care where they hit and they can't control where they hit.

'set the coordinates for 'over there'.."

No, they're lobbing them into Israel. They don't care where they hit and they can't control where they hit.

'set the coordinates for 'over there'.."

They are pointing them in the direction of the Israeli town of Sderot.

They are pointing them in the direction of the Israeli town of Sderot.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure if my home town was getting shot at with unguided rockets it wouldn't make me feel any better about it. As noted in #4.12 there are military rockets within firing range, so this is a deliberate attempt by terrorists to....gasp....spread terror! Actually no one has brought up this point yet--the casualties caused by Qassams are fairly low, but they inspire constant fear, and this is precisely because they are fired indiscriminately. This means you could get hit walking to work, or your kid could get hit swinging on the playground. These are acts of terror.

Actually no one has brought up this point yet--the casualties caused by Qassams are fairly low, but they inspire constant fear, and this is precisely because they are fired indiscriminately

No one? It's where we started.

Exactly. These rockets have no guidance system. They're little more than a flying pipe bomb... a steel tube full of explosives. When they shoot one off, they have no idea where it's going to hit, and they don't care, either.

The whole point is to scare people, and keep them scared.

Mike,

There are no checkpoints in Gaza. Palestinians living there never see a checkpoint getting to their homes.

???

Mike,

You make a terrible debater. First of all, I said there are no checkpoints in Gaza. Your attempt to prove me wrong made use of 3 articles describing West Bank checkpoints. Second, the map pinpointing Gaza checkpoints has no date but it is obviously from before Israel's 2005 disengagement.

I don't know where you live and I don't know if you've ever been to the Middle East but I am much more qualified than you to discuss anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You need to be less confrontational in your threads and more willing to learn historical facts - not the Palestinian propaganda for which you've so eagerly fallen.

There are checkpoints between Gaza and Israel, naturally. That's a different story altogether, though. They aren't "in" Gaza. There's checkpoints between the US and Canada, too...

I don't see why he would argue that - Israel does control the airspace and waterways to/in Gaza. Obviously, since they disengaged, they removed all their checkpoints. Why (or how) anyone would argue the opposite is beyond me.

Mike,

You make a terrible debater. First of all, I said there are no checkpoints in Gaza. Your attempt to prove me wrong made use of 3 articles describing West Bank checkpoints. Second, the map pinpointing Gaza checkpoints has no date but it is obviously from before Israel's 2005 disengagement.

I don't know where you live and I don't know if you've ever been to the Middle East but I am much more qualified than you to discuss anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You need to be less confrontational in your threads and more willing to learn historical facts - not the Palestinian propaganda for which you've so eagerly fallen

I think that perhaps sometimes he lets his hatred obscure the facts. (Or are his attempts to mislead us deliberate? Hard to tell..).

There are no Israeli checkpoints in Gaza-- for the simple fact that there are no Israelis in Gaza! At one point they did, in fact, occupy Gaza-- but they left. Completely. There's not a Jew in the place! (In fact, remember all those settlements in Gaza-- the ones that were supposed to be "a permanent obstacle to peace"? LOL! Those so called "permanent" obstacles are no more!

When Mike says "prove it" (that the Israelis are no longer there)...I wonder if he's even worth debating? Except for a few ignorant types such as him (ignorant-- or did he really think he could convince people that the Israelis are still there?)-- the entire world knows-- the Israelis are totally out of Gaza. (Just another one of his futile attempts at taqiyya?).

P.S. For those that are interested in further evidence about his attempted deception (that the Jews are still in Gaza...manning checkpoints, heh)...here's an interesting photo essay: Exodus From Gaza
The forcible evacuation of August 2005

There's not a Jew in the place!

Well, I'm sure there are Palestinian Jews there. There are some of those, you know.

You're sure of a lot of untrue things when it comes to this situation. But-- the more you say, the more it becomes obvious that your knowlege onf the situation is lacking...

At a sandbagged military checkpoint on a bleak patch of asphalt in the West Bank, an Israeli soldier yanked 29-year-old Mohammad Yousef out of a Palestinian ambulance.

Thanks for bringing this up-- it a subject that is not often WELL covered in the media. Here's an excellent brief video clip that explains a lot more about the Palestinains-- and the special way they use ambulances: The "Special" Uses of Palestinian Ambulances.

Well, I'm sure there are Palestinian Jews there. There are some of those, you know.

Prove it. Find some evidence of Jews still living in Gaza. (Remember, it's logically impossible for me to prove that no Jews live in Gaza, so the burden of proof lies with you.)

For the record, Arab Jews, of any nationality, are called Mizrahi Jews.

I'm also pretty sure there aren't any Palestinian Jews. And if there are, that'd make a hell of a sitcom. Oy.

I'm also pretty sure there aren't any Palestinian Jews.

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

Wikipedia is not considered an academically reliable source of information. I have yet to meet anyone who classifies themselves as a Palestinian Jew. Jews living in Israel consider themselves Israeli - even if they were once considered to have been a Palestinian Jew.

The examples of people on Wikipedia who consider themselves a Palestinian Jew identify with left-wing political ideologies and use the term Palestinian Jew only for political purposes.

Wikipedia is not considered an academically reliable source of information. I have yet to meet anyone who classifies themselves as a Palestinian Jew. Jews living in Israel consider themselves Israeli - even if they were once considered to have been a Palestinian Jew.

The examples of people on Wikipedia who consider themselves a Palestinian Jew identify with left-wing political ideologies and use the term Palestinian Jew only for political purposes.

Funny how you people say that when you don't like what Wiki posts.

Funny how you people say that when you don't like what Wiki posts.

I'm unsure what you mean by "you people." You seem to use it with a negative connotation though.

If you'll notice, I never use Wikipedia as a source in any argument I make. I stand by my original statement that Wikipedia is not reliable - even if it documents pro-Israel positions and opinions.

I'm unsure what you mean by "you people." You seem to use it with a negative connotation though.

You bet I do!

Dressed in a formal shirt
and suspenders -- his front pocket brimming with
scribbled cues -- Dr. Uri Davis looks very much an
academic. He sports a silver goatee and thinning hair,
speaking with sparse, sardonic jibes.

The Jewish scholar stands poised before a roused group
of undergraduates, behind a podium draped in a
Palestinian banner. Organized by the National Council
on Canada-Arab Relations and Solidarity for Palestinian
Human Rights, his keynote address at Toronto¹s York
University is no sober oration, though. His is a
heartfelt plea.

"The flag of the State of Israel does not represent for
me any signifier of pride or contentment. The flag of
my country, the flag of Palestine, is the flag I'm
happy to speak behind," he says with scorn.

"I identify my country as the country of Palestine. I
identify the state in which I'm a citizen as the state
of a Israel, a member state of the United Nations
organization. It has a flag I personally would not
wish to speak in front of. This flag is raised over
detention and torture centers, police stations and
prisons, where political detainees are incinerated."

Davis is a Jewish citizen of Israel, but staunchly
identifies himself as a "Palestinian Jew". Born in an
undivided Jerusalem in 1943, and raised by his British
and Czechoslovakian parents, he is an unlikely booster
of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).

For 30 years, the anthropologist and philosopher
excavated Israel's democracy, trying to expose what he
calls the "pervasive system of legal and social
discrimination" against the Palestinian people.

http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind0411c&L=portside&T=0&P=1486

It story goers on to prove that there are indeed Jews who are Palestinians.

jdoyle:
I have to agree with Israel. Israeli or Palestinian denotes which side of the conflict you are on so it doesn't have much to do with whether they are Jews or not but I'm pretty certain anyone calling themselves a Palestinian Jew is no friend of Israel.

Jdoyle,

Again,

Bring me one example of a Palestinian Jew who does not identify with a left-wing ideology.

What's wrong with left wing ideology? Why is that a problem?

Because the extreme left and extreme right in the Levant both want Israel to cease to exist, Dennis.

I don't know, people - a Jew's a Jew. Believing in a particular ideology doesn't lessen that - I find Norman Finkelstein's views abhorrent but that doesn't change his ethnicity.

Scott, he didn't say 'extreme.'

I tend to consider "leftist" as a term for extreme.

Well, he didn't say that either.

Bring me one example of a Palestinian Jew who does not identify with a left-wing ideology.

You and I consider right wingers extreme, don't we?

There are a few types..

There's the slight conservative, who is well intentioned, just always wrong. There's the paerty hack, who just repeats whatever Fox tells them to think, spouting talking points about issues they don't comprehend.

Then there's the other 90%, that I affectionately call bat@!$%# crazy.

Batsh*t crazy was pretty much where I was going with the left wing term.

ROFL. Jesus. Scipio - have you ever seen an actual episode? I find the idea both really offensive and potentially hilarious.

I'm also pretty sure there aren't any Palestinian Jews.

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

Thanks-- interesting link.

As the article points out, there is a lot of disagreement over the terms.

However, the idea of a unique "Palestinian" identity was only invented (for propaganda purposes) in 1967. Before that, Arab inhabitants of the area were often referred to as inhabitants of "Greater Syria". (Even Lebanon was an artificial creation-- it was really also part of "Greater Syria"-- the French created it via gerrymandering so as to create a country with a Christian majority-- in the jhopes that it would be very "pro-French". So-- they artificially carved out a region that just barely had a Christian majority).

But, I digress. The point is, "Palestine" was never an ethnic identity-- it was a geographical area. It was a term coined by colonialist powers-- it didn't occur to the Arabs to support that term-- until 1967 when they realized they could use it to their advantage as a propaganda tool (in fact, most Arabs resisted it at first-- they realized that there was no such things as a "Palestinain" ethnic group-- it was only a coloialist term.

Btw, the article you linked too has some interesting information about this:

During the times of the British Mandate of Palestine, all residents of the Mandate were referred to as 'Palestinian' officially. However, the Arab residents of the Mandate, who largely identified with the Arab cause, and saw themselves as having a different national identity, viewed the term "Palestinian" as a derogatory colonialist British term, designed to erase their Arab identity.

This sentiment was especially strong during the 30s and early 40s, when the idea of Greater Syria was viewed positively by the Arab of the Levant, among them the Palestinian Arabs.

Once again, jdoyle-- thanks again for the link!

That's all meaningless.

We know they're Arabs, krishna, as opposed to a separate ethnicity. But so what? "Israeli" didn't exist before 1948, yet no one questions that they exist today - and that includes Israeli Arabs, of course.

"Israeli" didn't exist before 1948

Huh?

John 1:49:

Nathanael answered and saith unto him [Jesus], Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.

Book of 1 Samuel, 13:19:

Now no blacksmith could be found in all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears."

Exodus 2:23:

And it came to pass in process of time that the king of Egypt died and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage and they cried and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage

1 Chronicles 29:23:

Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.

The modern nation state.

There's the slight conservative, who is well intentioned, just always wrong.

I disagree whole-heartedly that those "slight" conservatives are "always wrong" though I do believe people on all sides are sometimes wrong and sometimes right (and people to the extremes are usually wrong).

In any case, any Israeli Jew who calls himself a Palestinian Jew is obviously trying to make a political point. And they're probably pretty far to the Left....

Well, I was exaggerating a little.

Almost always wrong. Better?

KPr; 37:

Here is a link to the rot of Western imperial aggression within the U.N. and the corruption by Western states to participate in illegal aggression, which Nazis were tried for, and Japanese military officials through the Nuremberg trials, and clearly stated in the U.N. charter, article 51 against alliances of fascist Western states and aggression.

Do you mean to say that the rot of western imperialism-- is present in the U.N. of all places? I am shocked, I tell you-- /www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/09/06/Casablanca72.jpg>shocked!
/sarcasm

Do you mean to say that the rot of western imperialism-- is present in the U.N. of all places? I am shocked, I tell you--

Whoops, I cut off the full quote. It should read as follows:

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! "

Apparently, you dance to the beat of a different drummer.... I find this steatement in the article anti-semetic:

This is a complete lie. Something a would expect from an undergraduate who does not have a full grasp of history as of yet but is driven to think the last thing he read is the truth - maybe the light - whatever.

I would recommend that you spend a few minutes at this iste to get a somewhat impartial view of the situation in 1948. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

I think you need to look inside and question what is driving your partiality in this matter.

How is a statement about an army anti-semitic? I don't get it.

It may be true, it may be false...but it sure as hell isn't anti-semitic.

What happened to my remark. I pointed out that nationalism, corporate fascism, are the hall marks of conservatives, much like Hitler??? I did not say any names???

There are many views of what proved to be one of the worst planned and ill-conceived decisions in British history. Perhaps the India-Pakistan partition ranked worst, but only because it occurred over a longer period and involved many more people. And there are many lessons to be learned if and as we withdraw from Iraq on an appropriate schedule under the circumstances.

The views of the 1948 War and its aftermaths are so varied, and the subject so well-reported, one cannot help but find facts all around sufficient to find a basis for many views. Here are two. In the first, a Palestinian Center discusses the 1948 War in much the same language you condemn. In the other, Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee, a well-researched if one-sided account represents a perhaps less biased view of the mess.

If you are unable or unwilling to place blame on those who chose to disrupt thousands of years of history by imposing a partition, then you have not begun the sad story properly. Whatever mean is chosen, the yardstick is one that fails adequately to test the problems created by the swift and complete withdrawal of English speaking forces from Palestine. And you certainly have forgotten that history if you choose the rancid and odoriferous excretion planned by the Democrats.

The Iraqis, like the Palestinians, deserve better.

just as I really hate the quick draw of the anti-semitic gun.
I'd like to point out that it is impossible to be anti-semitic when talking about this conflict as both the Jews and Palestinians are by definition Semites.

It is my goal to keep that claim out of this battle. as the only way to be truly anti semitic is to hate all middle easterners

If you want to be strict with semantics you would know that to be truly anti-semitic you wouldn't hate all middle-easterners because that would include many people who are not, by your definition, Semites. But words take on new meanings sometimes, and this is such a time.

Right. But criticizing Israeli policy or the Israeli military is not anti-semitic. It's no different than criticizing the policies and military of any other nation.

I made no comment as to the use of the term, only on the term itself. But thanks for extrapolating.

How you could ever believe that the illegal occupation and dispersion of a population is fine and dandy, or the redrawing of borders by the British is ok, or the demolition of Palestinian homes to make way for Jew-only housing complexes is acceptable, is absolutely beyond me.

Interesting that the discussion of colonial borders ALWAYS focuses on Israel--not on the countless other post-colonial nations with "redrawn" borders. There are many. Look at Africa, the Middle-East, Asia. Redrawn borders abound. Look at a map of the Middle-East in the early 20th century. No Syria, no Jordan, no Palestine, no Israel, no Iraq. These are all newcomers with redrawn borders. This has caused many, many problems obviously, and yet the one country in the whole area that has democracy is constantly attacked. Aside from Turkey and Lebanon, the rest of these countries have been ruled either by military dictators, theocrats, or autocratic monarchies. Yet Israel is the one attacked for its so-called "class nationalism" as though these other nations were devoid of that???

I truly don't understand. The only thing that I can think of is that this is a country of Jews, and that just riles people up. Because if you wanted to talk human rights abuses, oppression, class nationalism, etc. you would be focusing on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria...

Interesting that the discussion of colonial borders ALWAYS focuses on Israel--not on the countless other post-colonial nations with "redrawn" borders.

Well of course we are talking about Israel here, so why bring up off topic subjects?

The fact that the creation of Israel could have gone about in a better way is practically indisputable. However, blaming Israel for the fact that its country was established @!$%#tily is silly. Most of the current Israeli government was in diapers, or not born yet, when Israel was established.

Ehad:

Anti Zionism is anti nationalism. Zionism is nationalism, racism, apartheid, colonial, imperial, and its ideolgocial cousins from Nazi Germany. Mike is only saying that anti Zionism is not anti Semitism.

Anti Zionism is anti nationalism. Zionism is nationalism, racism, apartheid, colonial, imperial, and its ideolgocial cousins from Nazi Germany. Mike is only saying that anti Zionism is not anti Semitism.

That's crap and maybe you don't know it, but it is. If it's anti-nationalism why not call it that? Why call it Zionism? Oh yeah, because Zionism is Jewish nationalism. All other nationalism is much more bland, mild etc. except for Jewish nationalism. Right?

You see, Zionism now is the belief in Israel's right to exist. So anyone who claims they are anti-Zionist is claiming that Israel has no right to exist. So all of you on this thread who rail against Zionism, basically what you're saying is that you are hoping for a day when you can look at a map of the middle east and see no Israel. No democracy in the middle east. No human rights or dignity--oh, and no Jews.

If you want to be taken seriously, ever, than you'll stop using Zionism as an epithet. Until then, you're all anti-Semitic in my book and you always will be. And you may be right at home at an Iranian holocaust denial conference, but in America this sort of talk is ONLY acceptable online and in David Duke's kitchen. In any serious, respectable circles, this sort of talk, this railing against Zionism, would be considered bigotry. Because it is. It is singling out the one nationalism that really gets under your skin: the Jewish kind.

Have you ever met a Zionist? Most Jews in America are Zionists. You know why? They believe in Israel's right to exist. I agree that you have a right to criticize the Israeli government. But you don't have a right to use Zionism as an epithet. You have the right, but it makes you an anti-semite. If all it was was a benign desire to attack the policies of Israel, you would just do that. You would say "I think this policy is BS due to such and such" but instead you say "Zionism is evil fascist imperialistic racist yada yada yada...." which translates to "Jews wanting a homeland is fascist imperialistic racist...." Got that? Anyone who uses Zionism as an epithet is an anti-Semite.

I agree that you have a right to criticize the Israeli government. But you don't have a right to use Zionism as an epithet. You have the right, but it makes you an anti-semite.

Why not? People use socialist as an epithet. People use capitalist as an epithet. Why not zionist?

If you are for something the word becomes a compliment. If you're against it, it becomes an epithet.

That's just how it works, you Neocon, you. ;-)

Why not? People use socialist as an epithet. People use capitalist as an epithet. Why not zionist?

Because Zionist is particularly Jewish. Socialist, etc, is not tied to a people.

Not all zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are zionists. Zionism is a political belief, and should be open to criticism.

Not all zionists are Jews, and not all Jews are zionists. Zionism is a political belief, and should be open to criticism.

Sure, but Zionism today simply is the belief that Israel should exist. So criticism of Zionism should at least be honest. Those who criticize Zionism are stating that Israel should not exist.

Those who criticize Zionism are stating that Israel should not exist.

Maybe in an either/or, black and white world, but not in mine.

Mike makes a good point that the creation of Israel was badly handled. There are myriad ways it could have been done better.

But, it exists, and we now come to that. Do you think Israel is ensuring it's existence the best way it could? Note that I didn't say it shouldn't ensure it's existence...of course it should. But can all this stuff be handled in better ways, and should it?

Yes. Because the way they are going about it now is not working.

And just to let you know, I view nationalism as a disease. All nationalism, no matter what the nation. Patriotism is great, but when one is a nationalist they believe that their nation can do no wrong, and that's very unhealthy and leads to all sorts of fanaticism.

I agree about nationalism, and I believe Zionism falls squarely into the category of a nationalistic movement.

Indeed, nationalism is a problem. I've noted before that the rise of Arab nationalism and Zionism at the same time has led us to this problem. I believe that if Zionism had occurred a hundred years earlier, under Ottoman rule, it would have met much less resistance. But two very strong ideologies clashed when Arab and Jewish nationalism came together in Palestine.

In any case, 1948 can in no way be blamed solely on the Jews. They accepted the partition, were willing to follow the international decisions, but the Arabs were not. This led to that first war. I think there's blame to go around. Moot point, though. We need to talk about the present day, not lament the past.

They accepted the partition, were willing to follow the international decisions,

Because the decisions were beneficial to them.

but the Arabs were not.

Because the decisions were not beneficial to them.

This led to that first war. I think there's blame to go around. Moot point, though. We need to talk about the present day, not lament the past.

Yep. But we need to do so honestly. No charges of anti-semitism where none exists...it only derails the conversation.

But the way the borders were drawn and resources split really ticked them off, as it should have, and then the @!$%# hit the fan.

Ever seen how many times those borders were drawn?

. Zionism is nationalism, racism, apartheid, colonial, imperial, and its ideolgocial cousins from Nazi Germany.

Erik-- I am a Zionist, as are several others here. And-- you are misrepresenting out views-- that is not what Zi0nism is about. So-- please dispense with the personal attacks.

Ever seen how many times those borders were drawn?

Here is an excellent animated map that gives a good idea of that very issue: map

# 12.8:

You are right. The creation of Israel in 1948 did bring about much conflict, death and destruction but your eagerness to blame only Israel is misplaced. Don't forget, if only the Arabs had accepted partition instead of launching a war...

You sure are a funny feller. When did Al Jazeera become one of the most respected news agencies in the world? Also, funny you point out what you consider to be artie's bias, while clearly making a biased statement. Great stuff.

Wow. Ilan Pappe is an Israeli. @!$%#, I've never heard any Americans say crazy things about America. Or have you already forgotten about Sulayman al-Faris? Just because an Israeli criticized Israel, doesn't mean its a legitimate criticism, it simply means that an Israeli, in a democracy, criticized his own government. But great try at legitimizing your argument, like I've never heard that example before, Mr. Broken Record.

Also, I don't watch the Oscars to determine which movies I see anymore than I read the Webbys to tell me what sites to frequent. I like to do my own thinking, thank you very much.

As to your example of bias:

Who are you to claim an article from one of the most respected news agencies in the world is lesser than your mideastweb.org website?

And, I'm not surprised that you "fail to see any bias whatsoever." People who are confident in their views and comfortable with their beliefs don't feel the need to disparage and delete the comments of those who disagree with them.

Respected is subjective, how hard is that to understand? I do not respect them. Just like I don't respect Fox or CNN.

You do realize you're speaking to an Israeli, whose father served in Lebanon in 82, whose grandfather served alongside Rabin in the Palmach before Israel's independence. So, I value my opinion about my country, a lot more than some New Historian whose distorting the truth.

As to who am I to define legitimate criticism? I am the student of the former lead negotiator for the country of Israel, whose currently writing a paper about media distortion, which this Israeli university professor called groundbreaking. But again, great efforts.

It took the faculty adviser (I had him for sociology) for SDS at CCNY to teach me about identifying the truth from media and government distortions. So I value my judgement must more than Pappe or Finklestein. Michael is an undergraduate and enamoured with the PHD types. He is falling for the intellectual trap of believing those who have the most degrees and also agree with his innermost closeted prejudices..

Michael is an undergraduate and enamoured with the PHD types. He is falling for the intellectual trap of believing those who have the most degrees and also agree with his innermost closeted prejudices..

Yes, and the moral relativism and liberal bias against Israel is present in spades amongst the academia. It's funny, though, I've actually met quite a few very liberal Zionists in my day. They have plenty of criticism for the Israeli and American governments. Yet, under the classifications we find on Newsvine, they are racist imperialistic fascists. Hmmm....

Yes, how racist and imperialist and fascist of me...

I never called you that. I said that people call Zionists that, and often. Was your initial quote in that vein? No.

But read some comments below yours. Immediately people begin equating Zionism with all sorts of horrible atrocities. It just doesn't add up.

Well, those are three different things.

I don't see any racism on this thread, except for that one guy who was spouting off all that nonsense about 'the Jews.' Imperialism? The creation of Israel was certainly an imperialist act, but that was at it's creation. It's not imperialist to remain in existence. Fascism? Well, that's debatable. A case could be made that some Israeli tactics are fascist, like closing the Gaza borders and not letting people out, or cutting off electricity and water to the Palestinian people.

A case could be made that some Israeli tactics are fascist, like closing the Gaza borders and not letting people out, or cutting off electricity and water to the Palestinian people.

A case could also be made that very, very few other countries would act as humanely as the Israelis have. When you've been attacked as often as they have, its pretty hard not to cut off the supplies that make those attacks possible....

Collective punishment can't be justified, ED.

Collective punishment can't be justified, ED.

Yes, and Hamas should stop committing acts of terror. They are the root of the problem. If Hamas doesn't want to collectively punish their own people, they should make peace.

Yes, and Hamas should stop committing acts of terror.

Agreed.

They are the root of the problem.

Arguable, though certainly add to it.

If Hamas doesn't want to collectively punish their own people, they should make peace.

Don't you mean if they don't want Israel to.... ?

Don't you mean if they don't want Israel to.... ?

No. I think Hamas is punishing their own people. Israel withdrew from Gaza. That could have been the start of a new era for the Gazan Palestinians, but Hamas had different intentions.

Do you find your behavior even slightly duplicitous when you strongly condemn anyone who calls someone who expresses anti-Semitism an anti-Semite, but are curiously silent regarding those who blatantly and repeatedly use Zionism as a hateful slur towards a class of people?

No, of course not. Anyone who expresses anti-semitism is an anti-semite. Zionism is nothing more than a political ideology, and like all ideologies, it's open to criticism.

I would add, though, that it's not used against a 'class of people," it's used against a group of people who subscribe to that particular belief system.

Hamas, is the root of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

They, and groups like them, are the root of the perpetuation of the conflict. Before them it was the unwillingness of any of Israel's neighbors to make peace. Why is that so hard to understand?

Oh, of course. Israel's hands, like always, are clean as can be.

Did I say that? I'm sure there's blood on their hands, too, but then again, what should a country besieged and bombarded do? Your recipe for peace is flawed because not everyone will participate in a kiss-and-make-up session. Unless Israel can be secure from terrorist attack, there will be very little alternative to a reactionary defense. It would be best if peace could be achieved, but so long as this terrorism continues, I can't see how that's going to happen....

OK, Mike, if you were in Israel's situation right now, what would you do? "Flying pipe bombs" are landing in your cities every day. Every few months, a suicide bomber blows up a store or a market in other of your cities. What would you do? Remember, you have to get re-elected at some point -- such is the nature of a democracy. You don't have the benefits that "leaders" like Yasser Arafat got, of never having to be elected in a real election.

Mike, you do understand that in the 2000, right before the Palestinians launched what they call the "Second Intifada," the most violent campaign of terrorism against Israel since its inception, Palestinians were the best off they have ever been, including that long forgotten era before the Jewish State. This is a good article about the lessons of the "Second Intifada", which showed that economics has a lot less to do with the problem than you claim.

Israel gave the Palestinians the right to vote, their women the right to exist as equals, everyone a chance to get an education, improve their economic situation...opportunities denied them anywhere else in the Middle-East. Yet you claim that Israel is behind all these horrors you mention???

I've never said that Israeli life isn't better than Palestinian life. In fact, I remember implying quite the opposite. But the fact that you, and many others, believe Israel has some @!$%#ing inherent right to dole out privileges like they were soup kitchen workers is beyond repulsive.

How do you feel about the United States' doling out rights-- for example, the right to vote...etc...in fact, the entire Bill of Rights? I'm wondering...does being a Muslim influence your judgement of these issues in any way? (re: governments allowing certain democratic rights?)

What the heck are you talking about?

Oh, Israel gaaave Palestinians the right to vote? They gaaave women the right to exist as equals?

Israel does not get to "grant" anything to anyone like they were parents rewarding a well-behaved child.

Nation's usually give or take rights, freedoms, etc. Israel like any other. The West Bank and Gaza were formerly parts of Jordan and Egypt, so when Israel captured them in 1967 after being attacked by those countries they gaaaaave Palestinians (or former Jordanians/Egyptians) rights they had not experienced before. I would say that's a pretty fair-minded thing to do.

Oh, and what gave them the "right?" Sadly, it was the 1967 war, and to the victor go the spoils. See the history of the Sinai for reasons Israel may have wanted a bit of extra land....

Just because I support Palestine does not mean I am a Muslim.

Of course not. Lots of non-Muslims support Palestine. So-- you are not a Muslim then?

So how does Lebanon treat them?

Anyway, I have been reading away here, and I must say, some is good, the rest... well the rest falls under the same mentality that has caused this situation in the first place, and keeps it going.

We say Jews,Israelis, Zionists, Palestinians, Muslims. What is wrong with everyone?

The truth of the matter is, that the general populace, regardless of opinion, hate the situation. All of it. From all sides... they just can't make out why they have to keep at it.

Look at it this way:

You are living in Palestine. You don't have any issues with the Israelis because you have been raised to treasure life over death, and good treatment. The Palestinian militia, decides to wage a war, and as is to be expected, Israel defends itself and retaliates (and please no one mention the whole "answer in the like not more"). After a few years of this, you no longer care about facts other than the 1 fact about yourself "You are living in fear for your life every day because Israeli rockets might hit you"

What happens here? One of two things. Either you hate them all, or you end up hating one of them. If you hate your own side, you leave. If you hate the other side, you leave. In both cases, propaganda spreads.

And this is the same to the Israelis, who are always keeping their ears open to listen to the warning sound, so they can run to their bunkers. And that's only when they are able to be warned. Same situation here.

Just because you identify with one side does not mean you are allowed to stand up against the other. Because the downright truth is that NONE of the people (no the extremist minority) actually want the war... NONE of the people have a problem with peace in the region. Well actually, not any more, since the extremists after causing the conflict (from both sides) have been able to draw a larger amount of supporters.

Yeah, Marcus, I think most people want peace. They want to be able to go to the grocery store without getting bombed. That's why this is such a frustrating debate.

Unfortunately, Ilan Pappe and Norman Finkelstein are not reliable historians but are instead, revisionists. They seek to delegitimize the State of Israel by re-writing Israeli history and adhering to a left-wing political ideology.

Ilan Pappe specifically, uses the rhetoric of human rights to demonize Israel, supports anti-Israel boycott campaigns, supports Hamas and uses false accusations of war crimes against Israel.

LOL why did I guess you would attempt to smear any one who points out Israel's crimes?

JDoyle, you are a common visitor on the vine and you have much to contribute. Unfortunately, without concrete evidence to back up your claims such as your belief that Israel is committing crimes, it becomes difficult to engage you in serious conversation. I don't know your age, background or experience but I hope you come here with proper knowledge of the subject at hand. If not, leave this discussion to those who can bring forth intelligent arguments with evidence to back up their statements.

Ilan Pappe specifically, uses the rhetoric of human rights to demonize Israel,

How does 'the rhetoric of human rights' demonize Israel?

supports anti-Israel boycott campaigns,

Nothing wrong with supporting boycotts if you feel strongly about a cause.

supports Hamas

The political party or the violent extremists? It's possible to support their cause while decrying their tactics. That's how I felt about the IRA.

and uses false accusations of war crimes against Israel.

False, or unproven? Accusations are just accusations until proved true or false.

How does 'the rhetoric of human rights' demonize Israel?

You need to be familiar with Pappe's writings to understand this. It seems you are not.

Unfortunately, without concrete evidence to back up your claims such as your belief that Israel is committing crimes, it becomes difficult to engage you in serious conversation.

All concrete evidence is instantly dismissed by you people because you are unwilling to admit the truth.
All along this whole board people have proved proof which you people dismiss without any real facts to back your view.

Its pretty clear you are the ones without the proof or facts not us.

You need to be familiar with Pappe's writings to understand this. It seems you are not.

That's, you know, why I asked.

I appreciate your sincere interest in furthering your knowledge of the subject at hand.

Ilan Pappe uses terms such as "ethnic cleansing" when it is impossible to attach this term to Israel's actions. He uses the term "collective punishment" in reference to Gaza even when it is clear that Israel is not obligated under international law to supply Gaza with goods.

He also uses "genocidal policy" when Israel is not, in fact committing genocide, nor is there an evident existent policy advocating this. Pappe also claims that "apartheid policies were put in place" by Israel after 1967 yet he is unable to document this.

He uses the term "apartheid" when referring to Israel and the West Bank. This term was made famous by White minority policies against the majority South African blacks during which they were subjected to racial separation and discrimination. Israel, on the other hand, maintains no such racist ideology.

Finally, Pappe writes that Israel is creating "bantustans," a reference to South Africa's tribal mini-states created to deny blacks citizenship. This is not the case in the West Bank. Israel does not seek to deny Palestinians citizenship. Rather, Israel is working to help create a Palestinian state in the West Bank as part of a comprehensive peace deal, even if it means jeopardizing the security of its citizens.

My point is that it is easy for people who want to find pro-Palestinian viewpoints to use sources such as Pappe's writings. What is important and absolutely crucial, is to look through the footnotes and be able to verify that these authors are basing their claims on substantial evidence.

I fully support debate on this and similar subjects but I only condone it if the arguments can be substantiated independently.

It sounds like Pappe wants to compare the Israelis to Nazis.

Pappe has in the past, and displaying his anti-Israel viewpoints, compared Israel's legitimate defensive military operations to Nazi barbaric tendencies.

I back my statement up (as I expect anyone else to do in making a valid argument) with the following article by Ilan Pappe: http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10391

Eh. I just read that Illan Pappe piece and he actually doesn't compare Israeli policies to Nazism in any way. His argument is that part of the reason, a large part, of what he sees as European intransigence in condemning Israeli policies he disapproves of is guilt of mistreatment of European Jewry that culminated in the Holocaust. I think some of what he says is reasonable, some isn't (I really don't share any affinity with Marxism, for one) but I see no evidence of him comparing Israeli militarism to the Shoah.

Pappe will never come out and say it outright since his parents fled Nazi Germany, but ...

This is bad form SA. The form reflects an attempt to cast aspersions that could not be verified.

Consider this: SA will never admit it but ____.

hey, I could fill in the blank however I wished because you'd never fess up to it anyway. I'm not saying your assessment of Pappe is right or wrong but that the manner in which you've expressed it evokes suspicion of your motives because of the way it is structured.

This "memorycide" is just like the Palestinian "genocide." In other words, complete bull@!$%#. In fact, just like the redefinitions of any number of terms that are rampant on the Palestinian side of this conflict. Such as the Palestinian "genocide," in which the number of Palestinians is growing every day, or Palestinian "refugees," whose refugee status is hereditary, unlike refugees in any other conflict.

Then its not a genocide, because no geno- (ethnic group) is being -cided (killed).

Mike, so whenever anyone is being killed by someone of another ethnic group, it's a genocide?

How about when Laurence Lovette killed Eve Carson a few months ago in Chapel Hill, NC? Or when the same man killed Abhijit Mahuto in Durham, NC a few months earlier? Was this a genocide, committed by black people against white people and Indian people, or simply a pair of murders? In both cases, White people (ethnic group) and Indian people (ethnic group) Are being. Killed.

There is simply no evidence, whatsoever, that Israel is trying to eliminate Arabs (ethnic group) from Israel. True, Palestinian Arabs often die, but so do Jews, even Arab Jews. The fact that the number of Palestinians is increasing, that Israeli Arabs serve in the IDF and in Knesset, and the fact that there are no public plans or statements by the Israeli government regarding a goal to eliminate all Arabs from Israel speaks to the absurdity of an accusation of genocide.

In fact, accusations of genocide by Israel serve only to weaken the term and risk a weaker response to actual genocides in the future. When the word is associated with every conflict with an ethnic dimension, actual genocides, like in Darfur, lose their sense of urgency in the eyes of the world.

If the Palestinians, who are, according to you, suffering from a genocide at the hands of the Israelis for the past 60 years, have managed to grow in that time period, why should I bother responding now to the crisis in Sudan?

That's a 5-1 ratio, to do the basic math for you. So it's not one person killing one person. It's one Israeli killing, on average, five Palestinians.

Is it possible that some of that disparity may arise from a greater investment in medical care by the Israelis? Or simply better weaponry and reach? After all, Israel can reach into all of the Palestinian Territories, while Palestinian "militants" have trouble reaching even into Ashkelon from Gaza, let alone Tel Aviv, Haifa or Jerusalem.

The Palestinians do not have a military, the Israelis most certainly do, so whenever you see a news headline trumpeting Israel's "retaliation" to Palestinian violence, it's quite misleading and actually quite the opposite.

So violence is impossibly unless you have a military?

Also, what would you call Hamas, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and the other militant groups in Gaza, if not a military? Hamas, in particular, is the de-facto ruler of Gaza, and has an armed wing. What is a military if not the armed wing of a government?

So when you say there's "no evidence that Israel is trying to eliminate Arabs" (and by "Arabs" I assume you mean "Palestinians", just as Egyptians and Syrians are also Arabs), you are conveniently ignoring death records, Israeli demolitions of established Palestinian residences, and the general air of inferiority applied to Palestinians in their own country.

For a genocide, a "genus," or an ethnic group, must be killed. Palestinians aren't an ethnic group any more than North Carolinians are an ethnic group. Therefore, Israel would need to try to eliminate Arabs in general from Israeli soil. I invite you to provide proof of such a systematic effort to remove all Arabs from Israel.

Simply trying to remove Palestinians (a set of people based on citizenship, not ethnicity) is no different than the US trying to remove illegal immigrants, regardless of ethnicity, from the US. Neither is genocide.

So it's not one person killing one person. It's one Israeli killing, on average, five Palestinians.

Wrong. It is not one Israeli killing five Palestinian (that would result in 36 million deaths).

It is one dead to five dead.

Oh, that's right. The Palestinians don't have a government. In their own country.

What is Hamas but a government? It runs all the social services, has foreign policy, runs the police force, etc.

So the reason that Israel can never be retaliating to Palestinian violence, and the opposite must always be the case is because the Palestinian government is not recognized by many other states? That's rather absurd.

The Palestinians do not have a military,

That statement is False and misleading...

Gee, I'm sorry the Palestinians aren't getting slaughtered at a fast enough rate to qualify as a negative population trend.

Brother. And the discourse falls another notch.

This nonsense about 5-1 death ratio--did you ever consider who the body count was? And who causes it? Inter-Palestinian strife causes plenty of those 5000 deaths you cite. You know, the whole Gaza take-over as Hamas executed countless Palestinians loyal to Fatah? All the other internal chaos...

Besides that, I should hope that as many Palestinian terrorists are killed as possible. Very few Israeli military are killed. Many of the Israeli casualties are civilian. However, the bulk of Palestinian casualties are militants. Oh, and those civilians who they use as human shields...

It's those damn Palestinian terrorists. Because only Arabs and Muslims can be terrorists, y'know.

Obviously (obviously!!!) Israeli's kill Palestinians too. But the numbers are always spun to suggest that all those deaths are at the hands of Israelis, and it is simply not true. At all. Go to Gaza. Go back in time to when Hamas took over.

The violence has killed at least 90 people in the past five days, including 33 on Thursday alone. Witnesses, Fatah officials and a doctor reported executions by Hamas militants of defeated Fatah fighters Thursday; Fatah said seven of its men were shot in the head gangland-style. Hamas denied any such killings.

And it continues...

Just in Gaza:

It seems that even the improvement in personal safety is relative. From the June 2007 coup until the beginning of this month, human rights groups say, 118 Palestinians have been killed in internecine fighting. Hundreds of Fatah members populate the jails as the result of political persecution, and arrests are carried out almost every day.

It's those damn Palestinian terrorists. Because only Arabs and Muslims can be terrorists, y'know.

I believe I speak for E.D., Ehad Aham, Krishna, and the rest of the pro-Israel commenters here when I ask you to not put words in my mouth. I'm sure we'd all agree that actual Jewish terrorists, like Baruch Goldstein, are just that, terrorists. However, we're also unwilling to apply the terrorist moniker to soldiers who are defending their homeland from those who would destroy it. (I'll remind you that Israel has repeatedly agreed to acknowledge a future Palestinian state, once peace is made, while Hamas refuses to recognize that there will ever be an Israel in the region.)

I'm sure we'd all agree that actual Jewish terrorists, like Baruch Goldstein, are just that, terrorists.

Amen.

the "memorycide" of the close to 900,000 Jews who where forced out of Arab countries with their property confiscated since 1948.

Just another memorycide
This means that 900,000 were living in Arab countries and those Arab countries desided ''allover a sudden'' to dismiss them in an amazing coincidence with their longing to move to the newly declared state of Israel . Posing as victims who immigrated unwillingly is distasteable

Arteia, Fada just proved your point. It is a "memorycide," and no one is willing to grasp that all of history doesn't obey a "Jews oppressing Arabs" paradigm.

Certainly they are oppressing Palestinians and not all Arabs
because they grabbed Palestinian,s homeland

The Jews have painted themselves as the eternal victims, and therefore their desires are to go unquestioned.

I'm really this close to just putting you on my ignore list, Mike. You've managed to continuously paint "the Jews" as a unitary body with an agenda, which is quite anti-Semitic.

Fada you can say wahtever you like. Leaving in a Moslem country and not being a devote of Islam makes you a 2nd class citizen. You are also a Jerw-hare having missed the whole intent of my statement.

You are also a Jerw-hare

a what?

Mark doesn't realize that he's just another in a long line of people who rail against Israel and propose not one whit of constructive criticism, practical solutions, etc. Every now and then I have a conversation with someone who actually has ideas on how to make the situation better, how to bring about peace, etc. Not on this thread though. All the old stereotypes have emerged.

Fada you can say wahtever you like. Leaving in a Moslem country and not being a devote of Islam makes you a 2nd class citizen. You are also a Jerw-hare having missed the whole intent of my statement.

No one word here is correct -except ''not devoting to Islam''
I don,t hate anyone , having jew relatives in law I know that many jews are better than the way they,r showing up on political websites.

I guess you know now why I miss the intent in your statements

Leaving in a Moslem country and not being a devote of Islam makes you a 2nd class citizen.

What? Let's not generalize here. Saudi Arabia do make it a point to brand you as non-Muslim on your visa, by giving it a brownsih color. Not sure about Kuwait. But for what it matters, that's pretty much it. I have a lot of friends and family living across the region, all of which are Christian, and having no issue whatsoever.

I myself am living in the UAE, and for one thing, do prefer having it sate on my visa that I am Christian. Only way I can actually buy alcohol from a liquor store. (though you find those outside UAE in the Gulf region).

The whole Islamic - Jewish conflict is a smokescreen. I am not saying it is not there, just that it was created to cover up for an underlying problem.

The people of the Mediterranean Coast, would gladly all sign a peace treaty. They are not idiots. They know that with a peace treaty they would be in control of a most strategic location. the region would indeed flourish.

1- There are pipelines for the transport of oil, going straight to the north of Lebanon. Just as there are a couple more across the front. Those, if reconnected, would effectively cut the costs of oil.

2- The area is "littered" with history and would draw unbelievable numbers of tourists yearly should there be peace.

3- ALL parties involved in the conflict, hold to benefit financially as well as socially from peace.

Speculations some might say, and if so, go ahead and prove me wrong.

You can work and live as non-muslem at any muslem country , you even may be favoured with lucrative contracts despite of your religion or nationality
The only state that is discriminating between religions is Israel

Even Lebanese people, albeit Christians mostly, are welcome in Israel. Not only that, but for those who want to go there, and to avoid having their passports stamped, which would cause problems in Lebanon and other countries in the Gulf mostly, they willingly provide you with a separate visa form.

As for discriminating against religions, well, they don't. They may be discriminating against Muslims, but that is only due to the extremist Muslims who pose a threat to Israel.

Just as you would not trust a Jewish person or Israeli because of your views on Israel.

And with all due respect, but Muslim countries, and specially in the Gulf, do not take lightly to Jewish presence or more specifically Israeli, and therefore do indeed discriminate.

but Muslim countries, and specially in the Gulf, do not take lightly to Jewish presence or more specifically Israeli, and therefore do indeed discriminate.

But which? Jewish, or just Israeli? If it's Jewish, that's discrimination. If it's Israeli, that's just politics - much like Israel won't let you in if you have a Syrian or Iranian stamp in your passport.

Leaving in a Moslem country and not being a devote of Islam makes you a 2nd class citizen.

This is a false generalization. Take it from me. I live in Turkey, I'm not Muslim, and I'm not a second class citizen. Second class citizens don't teach in Turkey's top university.

But which? Jewish, or just Israeli? If it's Jewish, that's discrimination. If it's Israeli, that's just politics - much like Israel won't let you in if you have a Syrian or Iranian stamp in your passport.

Both. And it is exactly my point Dennis, that it is not only one side that is discriminating, but both. And to a certain extent, it is justifiable, because of the fear that each side has instilled in the other. (not that I agree with it, I simply look at the psychological reference).

You can work and live as non-muslem at any muslem country , you even may be favoured with lucrative contracts despite of your religion or nationality
The only state that is discriminating between religions is Israel

Of course. Not only work and live-- but also worship as you choose. (That's why there are so many churches and Jewish Houses of worship in Muslem countries. In fact-- did you know that, after Israel, Saudi Arabia has the highest number of Jewish Temples of any country n the Mid-East? And-- that's why the Bahii hold their convention in Tehan every year-- because of the warm welcome Ahmadinejad give them! And-- the Moon is made of Blue Cheese! The world is flat. And...think you now deserve a place on peopler's Watch List Fada...whenever Newsviners want to know the real truth-- they can count on you! (Btw, I've got a bridge I can sell you-- its really cheap!)

You can deny it all you want, krishna, but in most of the Middle East Jews and Christians are free to live and work. Throughout history all three religions have lived together in relative harmony.

In fact, there have been many times in history when the Jew's best friends were the Muslims...the Ottomans, who allowed them refuge numerous times when no one else would.

Krishna, while definitely entertaining as a point (big fan of sarcasm) the truth is actually that though you do not have Jewish houses of worship, called Synagogues, there are churches and places of worship for non-Muslims. Here in the UAE, in Dubai alone, there are about 3-4 churches. You are able to purchase crosses as well from any store that may wish to sell them.

As for the lucrative contracts, it is not despite nationality, but rather because of it:

Best paid salaries go to North Americans, Europeans and Australians. Irrelevant of Religion.

I would not go so far as to say they were best of friends, but definitely not the sworn enemies they are made out to be nowadays.

Dennis:
Kemal remade Turkey so I don't think you can rightly state that it is a Muslim country since he instituted strict laws that forbade things like headscarfs and burqas. I mean, do you think that's a fair comparison? Also my friend from Turkey tells me that they are preparing to dissolve the AKP party because of their religion. That's pretty secular and rather different from other Muslim countries where Muslim political parties aren't prohibited but, rather, encouraged.

Dennis:
Kemal remade Turkey so I don't think you can rightly state that it is a Muslim country since he instituted strict laws that forbade things like headscarfs and burqas

The population is 98% Muslim. Ataturk did not forbid headscarves, etc. He only banned them from government institutions, such as the military, government offices, and universities. A Muslim nation with a secular government.

Also my friend from Turkey tells me that they are preparing to dissolve the AKP party because of their religion

Sort of. The Constitutional court is now hearing a case that charges that the AKP has been involved in attempts to subvert the secular clause in the constitution. If found guilty, the party will be disbanded.

I mean, do you think that's a fair comparison?

There are varying kinds of governments in Muslim countries, just as there are in non-Muslim countries. From secular democracy all the way to theocracy. This conversation began with the assertion that you can live and work in any muslim country.

I don't mean by population composition, Dennis. I mean with regards to the culture and how the govt comports itself. Kemal made sure there would be no Islamic fundamentalism or subversion of the secularism of Turkey. The army has stepped in to assure that several times in Turkey's modern history as well.

And-- that's why the Bahii hold their convention in Tehan every year-- because of the warm welcome Ahmadinejad give them! And-- the Moon is made of Blue Cheese! The world is flat. And...think you now deserve a place on peopler's Watch List Fada...whenever Newsviners want to know the real truth-- they can count on you! (Btw, I've got a bridge I can sell you-- its really cheap!)

Very very very funny but no fun , just silly personal attack for disruption I guess''typical''

Saudia is a muslem thiocracy but Christians are working there , jews may not, Saudians are free to take the policy they want

There,r 35,000 Jews in Iran since diaspora and they have good relationship with Shia scholars''despite your joking tone'' I,ve photos showing their very warm meetings
Jews have temples especially in Asfahaan and no one bans them of visiting it
There are tombs of propet Daneil, Benjamin ''brother of prophet Yosuf' and Habqouq , and a Jewish named Murdakhay

but Moon is not made of Blue Cheese funny guy !

When Palestinians kill Israeli children though, its legitimate resistance, right?

When Israelis kill Palestinian children though, it's in protection of their Biblically-given homeland, right?

When those children are innocent, it's bad, and should be avoided, but is almost always (I don't know of any counterexamples, I just never say never/always) accidental or collateral to a justified killing (it is war, after all). In the former case, Israel often tries to offer some sort of remuneration to the family.

Mike - do you see any issues with Palestinians killing innocent children, women, infants, etc via suicide bombing. Yes or No

Of course I do. Do you think I believe murder in any form to be justified?

All I'm saying is that the Israeli forces, these include Jews (omgomgomg overreaction time), kill more Palestinians more often than vice versa.

Do you dispute this fact?

The side that has more civilian casualties isn't necessarily "right". That is not a valid measure of who is "right" and who is "wrong". Nazi Germany had many, many more more civilian casualties than the U.S. did in WWII. (Same with Japan). Does that mean the Nazis were "the good guys"?

And...when a main form of "warfare" is suicide bombing..there will be lots of casualties on that side...self-inflicted!

Fada, your sources are purposefully emotive and obviously one-sided to a fault.

Mark

When Israelis kill Palestinian children though, it's in protection of their Biblically-given homeland, right?

This has nothing to do with the Bible anymore. The fact is, Israel exists. Either it will continue to or it won't. Either you support a two-state solution or you don't.

I would not dispute that fact that Israel has a higher kill ratio. But think for a minute, suppose the thousands of rockets from GAZA were accurate. Humm. Would your opinion change? Your comment says it would have to— so what is really driving your prejudices????

"Suppose" the rockets form Gaza were accurate?

If they had accurate weapons, they could fight a war, instead of resorting to terrorist tactics, I suppose. Not sure that would be better....

If they had accurate weapons, they could fight a war, instead of resorting to terrorist tactics, I suppose. Not sure that would be better....

NONSENSE. Hamas and Hizbullah are fighting a war. They're doing it for the Arab states who no longer wish to use their own sophisticated armament in what they know will be a lost fight. After enough failed attempts they've now pawned the battle off on these militant groups. The best move they ever made, too, as these groups manage to gain massive world sympathy in ways the arab states never could via all-out war.

Hamas are quasi-military terrorists. They aren't an army, in the sense that the IDF is an army.

Let me be clearer, though. I should have said a 'proper' war... targeting military sites, etc., rather than civilians.

Fada, your sources are purposefully emotive and obviously one-sided to a fault.

It,s just sources of news , and news have no emotions It portrays the incident the way it happened

What should any news do to make ''shooting at a palestinian infant'' a good and unbiasing news??

Adding a comment that the infant was a terrorist?

Hamas are quasi-military terrorists. They aren't an army, in the sense that the IDF is an army.

They have uniforms, generals and supply lines. What else do you need to be an army?

Yup. They're terrorists who loosely follow a military structure.

Which is, you know...what I said.

There are plenty of online dictionaries for those who need a little help with understanding words.

Scip:

I thought the term was pretty silly, too. Most of the armies in the world, including by far the greatest, started off as "quasi-military terrorist" organizations.

A google search of the term 'quasi-military' turns up 68,700 entries.

Most of the armies in the world, including by far the greatest, started off as "quasi-military terrorist" organizations.

Yes, they did. So then why is it a silly term?

Dennis:

Scipio is quite correct.

In any event, in situations like this you can't use a semantic or verbal definition. You need a functional definition. Since the Hamas militia acts like military force, since it's treated by itself and by Israel as a military force, that's what it is.

The difference between Hamas and the IDF is one of degree, not of kind.

On edit: This answer your question?

No, not really.

Hamas is a terrorist organization that loosely follows a military structure. I won't legitimize them by calling them a militia, and they certainly aren't a legitimate military force.

The difference between the IDF and Hamas is one of kind. IDF is a military force of a sovereign nation. Hamas is a bunch of asshats with guns and bombs.

edit:

Oh, by the way Jack, I love the irony of you coming to Scipio's aid by linking to bartleby.com. Was that intentional?

Dennis:

a bunch of asshats with guns and bombs.

As were the Sons of Liberty, the ANC, the Irgun and the pre-independence IRA.

But now, rather than drawing a semantic distinction, you seem to be drawing a moral distinction, or, at least, to be raising a question of legitimacy. But there is no such distinction--if those asshats with guns and bombs employ them for a national purpose, they're military.

I like Bartleby.

As were the Sons of Liberty, the ANC, the Irgun and the pre-independence IRA.

Yep.

or, at least, to be raising a question of legitimacy.

That's what I've done since the beginning.

But there is no such distinction--if those asshats with guns and bombs employ them for a national purpose, they're military.

A national purpose without a nation?

Dennis:

A national purpose without a nation?

YES. That's exactly the reason why I used those four particular examples. The leaders of every one of those paramilitaries, from John Adams to Michael Collins to Menachim Begin to Nelson Mandela ended up as leaders of nations.

Those paramilitaries had a national purpose because they did not have a nation, not despite the fact.

BTW, in almost every case they were contemptuously dismissed as just some asshats with guns (in different vernacular, of course). The Israeli government isn't making that mistake. Since Hamas functions as military in resistance to Israeli policy, the IDF treats them as military.

Do you think either Hamas or the IDF are sitting around bull@!$%#ting about the distinction between a "quasi-military terrorist" organization and a "military force"? Um. No. They're too busy shooting at each other.

Of course they aren't, and I don't know why we are either, when my original point Hamas uses inferior weapons that can only be fired randomly.

Dennis:

Seemed to me like you point was to minimize the threat posed by Hamas, but maybe that's just me.

No, not minimize. Put it in perspective.

If they had accurate weapons, they could target military installations and the like. But they don't, so they just lob missiles into Israel at random. This decreases the chances of hitting official targets, while increasing the chance of hitting civilians.

At this point in the conversation that's no longer relevant. It was a couple days ago, though.

Dennis, despite the fact that Kassam missiles aren't very accurate, you can at least point them in a general direction. Gaza isn't THAT small, and Sderot isn't THAT large. Just like you can sorta-aim a roman candle, (I assume) you can sorta-aim a Kassam. When cities and military targets are many degrees (in terms of a circle/triangle) apart from almost everywhere in Gaza, it's gonna be hard to hit the city when you're aiming for the army base. It's quite clear that Hamas is directing its attacks at civilian targets when military targets are available. It's also quite clear that the IDF, as a matter of policy, directs its attacks at quasi-military terrorist targets and at the asshats with rockets. While in practice, mistakes are made, Israel is making a good-faith effort at restricting the military harm inflicted on the Palestinian people, while Hamas does not reciprocate.

While in practice, mistakes are made, Israel is making a good-faith effort at restricting the military harm inflicted on the Palestinian people, while Hamas does not reciprocate.

Yep. And that's where the 'terrorist' bit comes in in regards to Hamas.

The thing that bothers me though, from the Israeli side, is the collective punishment. Cutting off electricity, water, etc. That's just wrong, because it doesn't just target Hamas, it affects civilians, too.

The thing that bothers me though, from the Israeli side, is the collective punishment. Cutting off electricity, water, etc. That's just wrong, because it doesn't just target Hamas, it affects civilians, too.

Yes-- But I suppose you could object to Hamas' collective punishment of Israelis-- their firing rockets doesn't just target the Israeli army, it affects civilians, too. (Actually the rockets are deliberately pointed at civilian towns..not military bases). Seems like a double standard here...?

Has it ever occurred to you that you have a dog in this fight?

I do at that. The innocent people on both sides.

Seems like a double standard here...?

Where? I denounce Hamas for their terrorist tactics and I criticize Israel for collective punishment of Palestinian civilians.

Cutting off supplies and services really is aimed at Hamas. The Israeli government wants to undermine them, say: Look, this is what happens when you elect terrorists, this is what happens when Hamas is in charge, when you declare war on Israel by putting these criminals in charge. They're trying to pull the rug out from under them.

That's collective punishment, ED. They have to find a better way.

Dennis:

Not anymore it ain't, which is the profound, cosmic irony of Hamas having won the election.

I wonder if anti-Semitism might have something to do with it since Israel by charter is "the Jewish state?"

It wouldn't matter if it was the Martian state. It's their land...their border. It has nothing to do with Egypt (or those pesky Moldavians).

Not anymore it ain't, which is the profound, cosmic irony of Hamas having won the election.

Yeah. Hamas won the election. Still, it's wrong to punish the civilian population.

While in the abstract, it's easy to say that it's wrong to punish the civilian population, it's not that simple in reality.

Israel really has no duty to provide Gaza with anything. Gaza is sovereign now, and needs to grow up and move out of the house. Israel's population is being punished with having to pay, in shekels and in lives, to supply Gaza with food, fuel, etc.

If Canada ran out of supplies, would the US be required to supply Canada with food, fuel, etc? Of course not. (We would, but that's beside the point.) Likewise, Israel has no duty to Gaza, especially when Gaza's rulers are at war with Israel.

Likewise, Israel has no duty to Gaza, especially when Gaza's rulers are at war with Israel.

And yet, they do...Israel supplies hundreds of thousands of tons of supplies and food to Gaza every year....

While in the abstract, it's easy to say that it's wrong to punish the civilian population, it's not that simple in reality.

Ah, but it is. Collective punishment is against the Geneva Conventions. It's a war crime.

Israel really has no duty to provide Gaza with anything. Gaza is sovereign now, and needs to grow up and move out of the house.

Gaza isn't sovereign. Nations are sovereign, and Gaza is not a nation. Semi-autonomous at best.

If Canada ran out of supplies, would the US be required to supply Canada with food, fuel, etc?

No, because Canada is a sovereign nation.

Of course not. (We would, but that's beside the point.) Likewise, Israel has no duty to Gaza, especially when Gaza's rulers are at war with Israel.

So what happens to all that aid money? Israel does have a responsibility toward Gaza, unless and until it becomes a sovereign nation, which isn't going to happen.

Gaza isn't sovereign. Nations are sovereign, and Gaza is not a nation. Semi-autonomous at best.

Why, specifically, is Gaza not a nation? Gaza is autonomous, with a government that is sovereign over all of Gaza. Yes, Israel occasionally enters Gaza to perform raids, but cross-border raids occur in many nations which I'm sure you consider nations nonetheless.

What nations recognize the 'nation of Gaza?' Where is their constitution? Are they a member of the UN?

Really, are you serious?

What nations recognize the 'nation of Gaza?'

Why does recognition make a state? It doesn't affect the actual running of the state hardly at all.

Where is their constitution?

The UK doesn't have a constitution, but it's a nation.

Are they a member of the UN?

Taiwan isn't a member of the UN. Again, like recognition, UN membership doesn't affect the nation itself very much.

Really, are you serious?

Yes. Nationhood is really a silly, ill-defined idea. Requiring Israel to provide Gaza with supplies based on a some ill-defined concept of the difference between an autonomous area and a nation is illogical.

The international community thinks Israel should arrange for the passage of food and materials to Gaza because

Israel, which occupied the Gaza Strip from 1967-2005, still controls the strip's airspace, territorial water and offshore maritime access, as well as its side of the Gaza-Israeli border. Egypt, which occupied the Gaza Strip from 1948-1967 controls the southern border between the Gaza strip and the Sinai desert.

Dennis - I think that's what you meant, that Israel has a responsibility to allow food into Gaza because it controls most of the entry-points to Gaza. It's a fair point.

It's absurd to suggest that Israel should arrange for passage simply because Israel controls most of the entry points. There are other ways in, through countries that aren't being attacked by Gaza. I simply don't understand why no pressure was put on Egypt to let humanitarian supplies in through Egypt.

Gaza is hostile. If Gaza just quit being hostile, Israel would open the border points. (As evidenced by the fact that the border points are being opened tomorrow, I believe, because of the truce. So, progress is being made.)

It's really just silly to suggest that Israel, despite being attacked by Gaza, should give Gaza things.

They can't have it both ways.

If they're going to keep the borders, airspace and water access closed, they have to provide. If they don't want to do that, they should let Gaza declare independence and be independent.

The fact is Israel actually does supply the Gazans with a great deal of aid, supplies, medicine, food, water, etc. I won't go into details, but it's a fact. They supply Gaza with phenomenal amounts of aid, which the leadership there squanders.

If they're going to keep the borders, airspace and water access closed, they have to provide. If they don't want to do that, they should let Gaza declare independence and be independent.

Israel wouldn't have to open its borders with Gaza if Gaza is independent. Nothing's wrong with not having open borders with another country.

But Israel will not allow that independence, because it would be freaking nuts to do so. How long would it be before the arms were shipped in from Syria, you know?

Arms are already smuggled in via tunnels from Egypt. Kassam rockets aren't among the supplies the UN trucks in. (At least, I hope not, although on a certain level I wouldn't be surprised.)

If they're going to keep the borders, airspace and water access closed, they have to provide. If they don't want to do that, they should let Gaza declare independence and be independent.

That's what I like to call a duh statement. Also, let's be honest here - Gaza isn't really a sovereign state - sovereign states can control their own airspace and waterways. The Gazans can't arrange for a shipment of potatoes w/o outside approval. I find the Hamas government abhorrent, but given the Israelis' control over the territory, the Israelis are faced with the Herculean task of rooting out terror while making sure the people have the goods they need to survive.

If they're going to keep the borders, airspace and water access closed, they have to provide. If they don't want to do that, they should let Gaza declare independence and be independent.

Of course, Egypt is also keeping its border closed-- the Gazans could just as easily get supplies from Egypt as from Israel (in fact..they used to, before the Israeli occupation began in 1967). It is interesting that the world blames Israel for keeping their boprder with Gaza sealed (although they do allow in supplies)...but the fact that Egypt keeps its border closed is never mentioned (and-- Egypt does not allow in supplies!)

More information:

"The most exaggerated "humanitarian crisis" in history

The definition of a "siege" and "blockade" are:

Siege, blockade are terms for prevention of free movement to or from a place during wartime. Siege implies surrounding a city and cutting off its communications, and usually includes direct assaults on its defenses. Blockade is applied more often to naval operations that block all commerce, especially to cut off food and other supplies from defenders.

Here is a list of what Israel allowed to be shipped to Gaza during the first half of June:

The Unit for Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories reports daily on the general humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip. The data for the supplies transferred via the Karni and Sufa crossings are based on the reports of Palestinian merchants.

Two-way traffic at the Erez Crossing of international organizations' staff, Gaza residents seeking medical treatment together with the people accompanying them ("medical evacuations"), and Palestinian civilians has been permitted for humanitarian and medical aid since 18 January 2007 and occurs almost daily.

Via the conveyor at the Karni Crossing, hundreds of tons of grain - wheat, barley, soy beans, corn and animal feed - are transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip every week.

Via the Nahal Oz fuel depot, diesel fuel for transportation and the local Gaza power station, petrol, and gas for cooking and heating are transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip, according to an assessment of civilian needs mandated by the Israeli court.

Via the Sufa Crossing, the following supplies are transferred by truck from Israel to the Gaza Strip: food, including: baby formula and food, rice and legumes, fruits and vegetables, meat, chicken and fish, dairy products, flour and yeast, oil, salt and sugar; hygiene products; raw materials for essential infrastructures; medicines and medical equipment; and a myriad of other items - ranging from school books to wheel chairs - needed by the civilian population.

The Kerem Shalom Crossing has been closed since 19 April 2008, due to terrorist attacks directed at it.

June 15, 2008 17 trucks delivered 456 tons of food to the Gaza Strip via Sufa crossing. At the Nahal Oz fuel depot, 212,000 liters of diesel fuel for the power station were transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip.

In addition, 53 people (patients and their companions) crossed into Israel at the Erez crossing for medical treatment.

June 13, 2008 51 trucks carrying mostly food products were transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip via the Sufa crossing. Via the Nahal Oz crossing, 510,000 liters of diesel fuel for the power station, 130,000 liters of diesel fuel for transportation, and 173 tons of gas were delivered.

In addition, 55 people (patients and their companions) crossed into Israel via Erez crossing for medical treatment.

June 11, 2008 38 trucks carrying fruit and vegetables and other food products as well as materials for humanitarian infrastructure were transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip via the Sufa crossing.

In addition, 54 people (patients and their companions) crossed into Israel via Erez crossing for medical treatment.

June 10, 2008 59 trucks carrying food, materials needed for infrastructures, and medications were transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip via the Sufa crossing. 24 trucks carrying 888 tons of grain were transferred via the Karni crossing. Via the Nahal Oz crossing, 280,000 liters of diesel fuel for the power station, 100,000 liters of diesel fuel for transportation, and 88 tons of gas were delivered.

In addition, 66 people (patients and their companions) crossed into Israel via Erez crossing for medical treatment.

June 8, 2008 521,800 liters of fuel and 84 tons of heating gas were transported via the Nahal Oz terminal.

In addition, 10 people (patients and companions) crossed into Israel from the Gaza Strip via the Erez crossing for medical treatment.

June 4, 2008 50 trucks carrying food and hygiene products were transferred from Israel to the Gaza Strip via Sufa crossing. 64 trucks carrying 2,409 tons of wheat, corn, soy beans and animal feed were transferred via the Karni crossing. Cooking gas was transferred via the Nahal Oz fuel depot.

In addition, 17 people (patients and companions) crossed into Israel from the Gaza Strip via the Erez crossing for medical treatment.

June 4, 2008 Medical evacuation: A Palestinian worker was critically wounded by a mortar bomb fired by Palestinian terrorists towards the Nahal Oz fuel depot. He was rushed to hospital in Gaza City. Due to the critical wounds the worker suffered and the deterioration of his condition, an urgent request was forwarded to the Israeli Coordination & Liaison Administration at the Erez crossing, to refer the wounded man for further treatment in Israel.

Colonel Nir Press, Head of Israel's Coordination and Liaison Administration at Erez Crossing, approved the evacuation to Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon as per the request. Co. Press stated that evening: "The attack earlier today caused the casualty of one Palestinian, and ultimately forced the early cessation of pumping of fuel and gas. The Hamas campaign against the Gaza Strip crossings primarily inflicts suffering on the people of the Gaza Strip."

June 3, 2008 60 trucks carrying food, and raw materials for essential infrastructures were transferred to the Gaza Strip via Sufa crossing. At the Nahal Oz fuel depot, 261 tons of gas and 1.124 million liters of fuel for transportation and electricity were transferred.

In addition, 32 people (patients and companions) crossed into Israel for medical treatment.

June 2, 2008 64 trucks carrying rice, vegetables, meat/chicken/fish, dairy and other food products, and raw materials for essential infrastructures were transferred to the Gaza Strip via Sufa crossing. 71 trucks carrying 2,577 tons of wheat, soy beans, corn and animal feed were transferred via the Karni grain depot. At the Nahal Oz fuel depot, 260,410 liters of fuel for transportation and 732,400 liters of fuel for the power station, and 210 tons of heating and cooking gas were transferred to the Gaza Strip.

In addition, 13 people (patients and companions) crossed into Israel via the Erez crossing for medical treatment.

June 1, 2008 30 trucks carrying vegetables, meat/chicken/fish, dairy and other food products, medications and medical equipment, and raw materials for essential infrastructures were transferred to the Gaza Strip via Sufa crossing. 64 trucks carrying 2,500 tons of wheat, soy beans, corn and animal feed were transferred via the Karni grain depot. At the Nahal Oz fuel depot, 1.038 million liters of fuels and 262 tons of gas were transferred to the Gaza Strip.

In addition, 29 people (patients and companions) crossed into Israel via the Erez crossing for medical treatment.

Total (June 16, 2007 - June 15, 2008): 24,375 trucks; 579,491 tons

Not to belabor the point, but Israel does control most of the entrance into Gaza, including all air/sea entryways. Egypt controls one entry point, one border crossing. I'm just making the point that Israel does allow most materials into Gaza and it's obligated to keep doing so.

The Rafah crossing (Egypt/Gaza) has been closed since June 2007 by an agreement between Israel and Egypt. Israel has had significant influence on the crossing even though inspite of reduced legal authority.

The border crossings are a major issue in the recent round of peace negotiations in which Egypt is a major broker. Here's a snip from an AP story that mentions such control over the Rafah border crossing:

Hamas demands that Israel allow the reopening of Gaza's only border crossing with Egypt, but Israel has said it will not allow the reopening of Rafah until the soldier is freed.

The Rafah crossing (Egypt/Gaza) has been closed since June 2007 by an agreement between Israel and Egypt. Israel has had significant influence on the crossing even though inspite of reduced legal authority.

The border crossings are a major issue in the recent round of peace negotiations in which Egypt is a major broker. Here's a snip from an AP story that mentions such control over the Rafah border crossing:

Hamas demands that Israel allow the reopening of Gaza's only border crossing

Well-- agreement or no agreement-- the last thing Egypt needs is for Hamas supporters to enter Egypt again!

Israel has had significant influence on the crossing

Not true
Egypt can open the crossings without refering to Israel, but authors won,t do because of the explosions that were committed in Saini and because police has caught some individuals carrying explosives after breaking the wall between Gaza and Egypt
And it all happened after Hamas took over in Gaza

Why are you keeping tabs?

Drop the quotation marks. The Palestinians are a people, whether you like it or not.

Why are you keeping tabs?

This...after a discussion of the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli casualties...WTF Caroaber?

However, during a genocide (or 'ethnic cleansing"), that population decreases greatly in numbers. However, the so-called "genocide" of the Palestinians has resulted in a great increase in their numbers...because..it isn't happening. See? Its really not all that complicated ....

Drop the quotation marks. The Palestinians are a people, whether you like it or not.

Here's the deal. People should stop saying Palestinian with quotation marks. It's not right. And people should stop using Zionism as an epithet. It's not right. Here's one step toward peace on the Vine. No more Palestinian in quotations and no more Zionist as an epithet. Deal?

Zionism is a failed political position that has lead to the deaths of countless thousands of people.

Translated:

"The desire for a Jewish homeland is a failed political position that has lead to the deaths of countless thousands of people."

Subtext:

"The Jews should not have a homeland."

No, no no.

Translation:

The means employed to establish and defend a Jewish homeland "has lead to the deaths of countless thousands of people."

Subtext:

The means should be changed.

But the means that went into creating this Jewish homeland, the Zionist movement, if you will, was gone about poorly.

Lamenting the past does nobody any good. How do you propose we fix it now?

Mike

1) First off, that Israel should have to admit that the 1948 creation of their state was a crime is absurd. Why is this a necessary step toward peace? Should all the Arab states that attempted to wipe out Israel apologize? Should there be a formal apology for the Yom Kippur war?

2) "Israel stops oppressing the Palestinians" as if it were that simple! You make it sound so black and white! You realize why the checkpoints are up, don't you? How about they ease up on the checkpoints when the terrorists abandon all terrorism rendering them useless anyways.

3) So peace, in your mind, relies on Israel making the first move? How do you answer to the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli's from Gaza? They made the first move and look what they got in return? The ball is in the Pali's court now.

LOL, the creation of their state was a crime. That's not even up for debate anymore. I invite you to look up the definition of "occupied territory".

What laws did it violate? That's the definition of a crime. The UN freakin' sanctioned it, ergo, it didn't violate any laws!

You think this is about pride or something? The creation of Israel is what upset the balance in the Middle East. The balance can only be righted when the variable (in this case, the Jews) decides to act.

The area was totally peaceful before May 1948, right? (Wrong.)

insert, don't try to use reason. When faced with any comment which involves "LOL" followed by a statement which the author claims isn't "up for debate," it is clear this person will not engage in logical discourse.

LOL, the creation of their state was a crime. That's not even up for debate anymore. I invite you to look up the definition of "occupied territory".

Israel was created in 1948. Their occupation of Gaza and the West bank began in 1967.

And, of course Mike, you are aware of the status of Gaza and the West Bank before the Israeli occupation began in 1967... aren't you?

LOL, the creation of their state was a crime. That's not even up for debate anymore. I invite you to look up the definition of "occupied territory".

Well, you've pretty much proved that you're useless to debate with.

Israel has to make the first move, her neighbor's would accept no less. Don't you understand?

They have, numerous times, do you know ANY history?

The creation of Israel is what upset the balance in the Middle East. The balance can only be righted when the variable (in this case, the Jews) decides to act.

Sounds like maybe you have a Final Solution in mind?

Clearly Israel hasn't made a legitimate move.

Like unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and forcibly removing Jews from their homes to, as you put it:

allowing them access to their own land and resources

Of course, this ended up creating a great deal of "dilapidation and filth" but that was really not Israel's fault. Gaza was pristine prior to their withdrawal. After the withdrawal, the Palestinians were completely unable to govern themselves without chaos, and from chaos came Hamas to restore a violent, brutal order.

You're dodging the point.

caroaber:

I don't think you did either. I was asking how accusing someone of antisemitism functions to undermine free speech.

This:

The punishment is in the false charge and the damage it causes to one's reputation.

is no answer. That's because, if you are not an antisemite, your reputation is safe because the charge is demonstrably false, and if you are, you deserve it.

This is antisemitic:

The Jews have painted themselves as the eternal victims, and therefore their desires are to go unquestioned.

I will brook no argument about it. I have no intention of debating either you or the person who made the comment on the question of whether that statement is antisemitic. It is. Period.

But the question I have for you is, How have I undermined free speech by declaring that statement to be antisemitic?

Michael:

The Jewish people have been consistently persecuted throughout history, and you don't think a lot of them have complexes about it?

No, actually, I think you have a complex about it.

Although it's interesting. Here I went and called you an antisemite and your free speech seems perfectly healthy to me.

Mike:

So what? I'm not talking about what they said, I'm talking about what you said.

#24.1 My reading of your earlier post led me to believe that the charge was being levelled against me. I'm a born and bred NYer and I've socialized with all kinds of people.

The filmmaker Spike Lee was called anti-Semitic for his fictional depiction of a Jewish businessman in "Mo' Better Blues." He was forced to defend himself and his professional reputation was on the line. He had to exert his time and effort to refute a false charge that was promoted by no less than the Village Voice's Nat Hentoff. (This same Mr. Hentoff had nothing to say when Black people were viciously caricatured in "Crossing Delancey.") Your declaration that when a charge is demonstrably false there's no harm in it is being played out before our very eyes in the question of whether Sen. Obama is a Muslim. He has refuted the charge, yet the smear campaign continues.

Do you see what I mean when I state that a false charge damages one's reputation?

caroaber:

Spike Lee's a big man. He can take it. And he doesn't appear to have had his reputation damaged.

The question is, adopting your other analogy, how does the Secret Muslim smear undermine free speech?