A monument to intolerance?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre's plan for a 'Museum of Tolerance' on top of a Muslim cemetery is causing anger in Jerusalem

Abe Hayeem


The whittling away and destruction of Muslim memory and history has been a key aim in Jerusalem's development (as in the rest of Israel). This is especially so with the recent acceleration of the Judaising of illegally-annexed East Jerusalem, by infiltrating it with more Jewish settlements built on expropriated land and homes in the heart of Palestinian neighbourhoods. In Silwan, below the Old City wall, fundamentalist settlers, wishing to establish "the City David" in the Arab neighbourhood, are illegally digging under people's houses, and ancient burial remains are being bundled away into boxes, preventing documentation of important evidence of the Islamic era of Jerusalem.

The Muslim cemetery in Mamilla, West Jerusalem, is suffering a similar fate in one section, where hundreds of skeletons are being unearthed and boxed, to make way for the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's euphemistically-named "Museum of Tolerance". The recent judgment by Israel's Supreme Court to allow the construction of the museum complex to proceed on top of this cemetery of religious and historical importance defies all satire and irony, making it a flashpoint for more conflict and hatred, and still engendering strong protests.

This project, started in 2004, was frozen due to public outcry, most especially from Muslim religious authorities and the Israeli Islamic movement, as well as Orthodox Jews, about disturbing family graves, and the graves of venerated figures from Arab history and religion going back to Saladin and Muhammad. The site, near Independence Park in the centre of Jerusalem, is on disputed land, taken over by Israel's Land Administration in 1948 as absentee property, whose ownership is claimed by the Islamic authorities as waqf land, with their very present dead. It has been described as "disused", but local Muslims disagree and point out that it is still visited by relatives of the dead.

It is disingenuous and misleading for the Weisenthal representatives to claim this was declared a "deconsecrated" cemetery by an Islamic trust in 1964, and that there were no protests when a car park was built over part of it in 1960. Jonathan Cook pointed out in a recent article: "The Islamic trusts have no legitimacy among Palestinian Muslims in Israel, nearly one-fifth of the country's total population, let alone among Palestinians in the occupied territories. The Islamic officials on the trusts are widely seen as corrupt, appointed by the state because of their willingness to do the government's bidding rather than because of their public standing or Islamic credentials."

read on...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/26/israelandthepalestinians-humanrights

[shira]

1. the remains are being removed and buried respectfully

besides....this place was a parking lot for 3 decades (and used publicly for the last 50 years) and not a peep of outcry resulted from that.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. How ironic that the road to the "Museum of Tolerance" is littered with checkpoints.

How self-absorbed can people be? LOL!

[shira]

you mean checkpoints that didn't exist pre-Oslo, before busses and pizzerias blew up?

Let me see if I understand you correctly....if Israel were more "tolerant" and allowed freer passage with few/no checkpoints, then there would be WAY MORE bombings and death within Israel, and as a natural result, more Palestinians would get killed in the OT when Israel counter-attacks in response.

You prefer that sort of 'tolerance'?

ps
Where was the outrage when this place was used publicly and as a parking lot for over 3 decades? Why the sudden outrage?

[Vegasaurus]

8. It only matters that the "place" is now being used by Jews

as a parking lot, not so much.

Just like it wasn't really an occupation in Gaza or the WB when Egyptians or Jordanians were doing the occupying.

It only became an "occupation" when Jews were doing the same thing.

And funny how these Israeli haters forget that there were once no checkpoints and no walls, and that those security measures were imperative when terrorism became the main business of the Palestinians.

[Evangelical Atheist]

3. I've read your posts where you defend a fascistic terrorist organization

and yet you call yourself progressive.

How ironic can people be? "LOL!"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. And it would be equally silly for Hamas to open a "Museum of tolerance."

At least Hamas is honest with itself about what it is.

Can a nation with its boot on the neck of 1.5+ million really consider itself "tolerant?" You don't find that ironic?

Sorry, I'm spitting coffee on my monitor.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Although I disagree with many of PM's views, she is not a supporter of Hamas..

She has made this clear in a number of her posts.

As regards the Museum of Tolerance: I think that the particular objection here is questionable, inasmuch as practically EVERYWHERE in Israel itself, and in neighbouring areas, covers historical and holy sites related to one or more major religions. It's not possible to avoid building over them, unless you are to vacate the whole area and let it become purely an archaeologists' paradise. However, since there *are* these objections, and one does not want a 'museum of tolerance' to become a focus for pain and conflict: I think that the parties concerned should get together and negotiate where the museum should be built. Muslims should *not* be able to prevent Jews from having their own museum; but they can set some stipulations on where it can be built. The same the other way around.

I hope that one day Jerusalem itself will be a monument to tolerance, with people of all religions and none living and working together, but unfortunately that day is clearly some way off.

[Crunchy Frog]

12. If they wanted to build a REAL "museum of tolerance" in the region

they would do it as a cooperative effort between Muslims and Jews. That is the biggest area of intolerance there today, and the one that is currently ripping that society apart. The way that this is evidently being conducted now makes it nothing more than a sick joke.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Well said...

Pretty much covered all I had to say on the subject :)

[LeftishBrit]

14. That would be a great thing - and add Christians-

there are three major religions who hold Jerusalem holy, and sadly all are adding to the conflict.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. I agree. They don't seem to be party to the conflict at quite the same level

but they are definitely part of the regional mix. My main point is that there needs to be a concerted and deliberate area amongst all people of good will in the area to promote genuine acceptance and social harmony. There also seems to be a rise in conflict between the more religious types and the more secular types.

All in all, it's a potent mix for conflict, and I'm mostly just glad that I don't live there myself. Sometimes I wish religion would just disappear from the face of the Earth, but then of course, people would just find something else to fight about. :(

[ProgressiveMuslim]

48. I don't know that Christians in Palestine would agree with the statement that they aren't party to

the conflict to the same level.

[Crunchy Frog]

65. At least to an outside observer who doesn't know much about the situation.

;) (I'm talking about me.)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. You never did answer my question. You can't because it defies rationality. nt

[Kurska]

9. Israel is a tolerant nation

Tolerant of homosexuals, who can serve openly and have their marriage recognized.
Tolerant of druze, who are considered full citizens and even serve proudly in the IDF
Tolerant of Israeli arabs, who enjoy full voting rights and are far better off in all regards then both foreign refuges and those in the west bank or in gaza
Israel just seems unwilling tolerate continual response less bombardment of their cities and towns, imagine that.

Why don't you compare the tolerance of israel to the vast majority of nations of the world?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. That's funny!

Sorry dude, but my husband's scars show the *true* face of Israeli tolerance, as do my BIL's scars from the time he was used as a human ashtray by some IDF soliders just practicing a little of their special brand of "toleration."

But I am continually amazed how you Israel supporters can compartmentalize. I guess human rights abuses against Arabs just don't count.

I've seen too much with my own eyes. Save it for a newbie, please.

[Kurska]

11. I don't know what you think you're going to gain by talking like this

So far you've put words into my mouth and insulted me, based on that I really don't expect much from this dialogue.

However, if you want some true barbarity why don't you look into some of the actions of israel's biggest critics, iran, cuba and libya. Remind me, are they still hanging homosexuals in iran or has that been stopped yet? Are they still stoning women, well everywhere in the middle east. How many times are people assaulted by overzealous cops in america? Or tortured not only in libya, but in the good ole usa? Are they still killing political dissidents in russia?

No, the fact that the vast majority of nations in the world do these sorts of things doesn't excuse israel, but it certainly shines a light on the double standard constantly being applied to it.

I've had first hand experiences with Israelis aswell, they are wonderful, nice and accommodating people that remain that way while caught up in one of the most partisan, politicized conflicts on earth. Frankly, sometimes it shocks me how well that tiny outcrop in a much larger hostile region has done for itself. Not only for the zionists who settled there, but for the local arabs and druzes who enjoy very high standards of living and full political suffrage.

Wake me up when another nation in the middle east has come even close to as far as israel has come in the matter of civil rights; not to mention if they are under even half the domestic and international strain israel is under while they do it.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. That kind of cognitive dissonance must be exhausting.

"Wonderful, nice and accomodating" people don't routinely engage in murderous human rights abuses, they don't set up ghettos, they don't imprison people for years on end without charge or trial, they don't steal land, they don't destroy homes, they don't murder people, they don't jail children,... the list goes on.

I don't doubt that some Israelis were nice to you, and that gay Jews have rights in Israel (as long as they aren't in religious areas!), but it doesn't change the fact that the gov't of Israel has been engaged in a 40+ year program of violent, military occupation and has created an apartheid-like system for those it suppresses.

In no possible world does that fact belong in the same sentence with TOLERANCE.

[shira]

16. you lose credibility...

...when you accuse the state of Israel of deliberately murdering Palestinians, running an apartheid-like system in the OT, and in earlier posts - bringing up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion neo-nazi crap.

You bring up good points that show how un-enlightened the occupation truly is, and which war (low level or not) isn't, but the rest of your usual screed is intended only for the ignorant and the haters.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. When have I ever so much as MENTIONED the protocols?

You'd better watch what you accuse people of.

My point remains unchallenged: A tolerant society doesn't engage in an "unelightened" occupation of 1.5+ civilians.

Period.

And Shira, the occupation is much worse than "unenlightened." It is EVIL.

[shira]

19. you're right...you didn't mention the words Protocols of Zion....

...but there is this. Maybe you forgot already or can explain what you really meant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x225155#225472

Israel tried to end the occupation in 1967 but due the 3 no's of Khartoum, they were denied. Same for Camp David / Taba 2000, which you probably believe was a "wise" decision by the Palestinian leadership......that is, to allow Israel to continue this evil occupation. Just as you probably think it was wise of Palestinian leadership to destroy the "build-your-own-home" program of 1977, which would have put Palestinians in houses instead of the refugee camps.

If Israel had her way, there'd be NO evil occupation. It seems Arab leadership is FOR evil occupation rather than see Israel exist as a nation state.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

21. Explain what? The overwhelming influence of AIPAC on American mideast policy?

Are we supposed to pretend that doesn't exist?

I didn't get the memo that was was anti-semitic, or akin to the Protocols to discuss that.

Somtimes things are true Shira, as uncomfy as that may be for you.

[Kurska]

24. America is mostly a pro-israeli nation, by public sentiment

Is it so hard to imagine that there are nations are there that align more with the interests of jews, then against them? No, it simply must be that one lobbying group has the ability completely shape american foreign policy.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. I see...

So if a country isn't populated by folk who give blind 110% support of everything Israel does, then that country isn't aligned with the interests of Jews?

[oberliner]

27. So you were saying that the US "jumps to the tune of AIPAC"

That was the "rest of the story" that "we all know" referenced in your other post.

Is that right?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

28. OK. Are we pretending that AIPAC doesn't exert ENORMOUS influence in the USA's mideast policy?

For crying out loud, cut the crap. I can point you to several progressive Zionist bloggers who are working to counter that reality.

Oberliner, here's a newsflash, there is an instance where pro-Israel individuals wield tremendous power and influence. My saying so does not mean that I believe Jews drink Christian babies' blood on Passover, and I really resent Shira making that insinuation by comparing my offhand comment about EGYPT's PASSIVITY to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Why doesn't Egypt do anything to ease suffering in Gaza? it's not because Mubarak is an Arab and he's by definiation bad, or because Arabs don't care about each other (as the pro-Israel forces on this site insinuate). It's because the leader of Egypt is a US puppet, a dictator who remains in power because of money the US pumps into Egypt....

Here on the DU, it's perfectly fine to insinuate all Arabs are craven and eat their own. It's just wrong to point out that the US policy in this area is heavily influenced by right-wing pro-Zionists.

Whatever.

[oberliner]

29. I would appreciate further clarification of your position on this subject

One of the main ideas promoted in the Protocols was that Jews in various countries were controlling the governments of those countries in service of the betterment of Jews worldwide and against the interests of the particular countries in question.

Russians, then, could point to Jews as being the source of their problems because of the manner in which Jews had insinuated themselves into positions of power and directed the policy of the country against it own interests in accordance with the instructions laid out in these phony protocols.

Therefore, when someone appears to make the claim that "pro-Israel individuals" are controlling US foreign policy in order to assist Israel to the detriment of the United States then I think you can see why someone might see that as being reminiscent of the way in which the protocol forgeries were used.

You stated in your post that "pro-Israel individuals wield tremendous power and influence".

Would you go so far as to say that these individuals dictate US foreign policy?

Would you go so far as to say that they do so against the interests of the United States and in service to the interests of Israel?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. There's a huge flaw in yr request for further clarification...

'Therefore, when someone appears to make the claim that "pro-Israel individuals" are controlling US foreign policy in order to assist Israel to the detriment of the United States then I think you can see why someone might see that as being reminiscent of the way in which the protocol forgeries were used.'

Firstly, PM never said anyone controls US foreign policy. Or do you believe there's no difference between influence/power and control?

Secondly, you appear to be under the false impression that 'pro-Israel' individuals must be Jewish. So, has all that stuff I've read on what is probably the most powerful and influential pro-Israel bunch, Christian Zionists, been incorrect?

Thirdly, yr questions are quite nasty, imo. Yr working from the starting point (due to misreading what PM said) that she's antisemitic, and framing yr questions from that starting point.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. Then, since she didn't explain...you do it.

ProgressiveMuslim (1000+ posts) Wed Nov-26-08 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Dear Shira
I feel your pain. I can only imagine the cognitive dissonance that is required to justify the creation of a ghetto in Gaza, to justify using mass hunger as a weapon against women and children in order to acheive political ends.

Perhaps you should think about fighting the oppression of Palestinians rather than spinning your wheels justifying it so vehemently.

Egypt is certainly complicit in this crime. They jump to the tune of their American masters, who jump to the tune of... well, we all know that story, don't we? source

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Better clean this up...

Oberliner was addressing PMs post and that's what I was referring to. If you have something to add to that, feel free, but I'm not at yr beck and call to explain posts from other threads....

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Oh, dear...read the thread.

Yes, Oberliner was addressing PM's post, but it was in regards to the other post she made in the other thread. Keep up.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I did. You should practice what you preach...

Nowhere in Oberliner's post did he mention another post in another thread. I'm not the slightest bit interested in engaging in any discussion with a small number of posters in this forum, and yr one of them. Oberliner on the other hand isn't, which is why I replied to his post pointing out some flaws. If you have some comment to make on *my* post, go for it, but otherwise yr on yr own...

[Behind the Aegis]

37. so sad.

oberliner (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-30-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. So you were saying that the US "jumps to the tune of AIPAC"
That was the "rest of the story" that "we all know" referenced in your other post.

Is that right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=225676&mesg_id=225919

I added the bold.

Confused? Well, it was because of this post:

ProgressiveMuslim (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-30-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Explain what? The overwhelming influence of AIPAC on American mideast policy?
Are we supposed to pretend that doesn't exist?

I didn't get the memo that was was anti-semitic, or akin to the Protocols to discuss that.

Somtimes things are true Shira, as uncomfy as that may be for you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=225676&mesg_id=225912

You see, Shira, wrote:

shira (386 posts) Sun Nov-30-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. you're right...you didn't mention the words Protocols of Zion....
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 12:35 PM by shira
...but there is this. Maybe you forgot already or can explain what you really meant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=225155&mesg_id=225472

Israel tried to end the occupation in 1967 but due the 3 no's of Khartoum, they were denied. Same for Camp David / Taba 2000, which you probably believe was a "wise" decision by the Palestinian leadership......that is, to allow Israel to continue this evil occupation. Just as you probably think it was wise of Palestinian leadership to destroy the "build-your-own-home" program of 1977, which would have put Palestinians in houses instead of the refugee camps.

If Israel had her way, there'd be NO evil occupation. It seems Arab leadership is FOR evil occupation rather than see Israel exist as a nation state.

Can you follow? :P

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Yeah, you seem incapable of following what I said...

Instead of copying stuff that's got nothing to do with what I posted, if you get the urge again to hit reply to one of my posts, try replying to what *I* said instead of making pathetic demands that I explain something said in another thread. And I've got Shira on ignore, so don't repost her posts in replies to me. The ignore feature's there for a reason...

So, I take it you have NOTHING at all to comment on when it comes to the content of my initial post. Okay....

[Behind the Aegis]

40. Can't follow the real sub-thread, can ya?

Violet_Crumble (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-01-08 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. I did. You should practice what you preach...
Nowhere in Oberliner's post did he mention another post in another thread. I'm not the slightest bit interested in engaging in any discussion with a small number of posters in this forum, and yr one of them. Oberliner on the other hand isn't, which is why I replied to his post pointing out some flaws. If you have some comment to make on *my* post, go for it, but otherwise yr on yr own...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=225676&mesg_id=225987

oberliner (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-30-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. So you were saying that the US "jumps to the tune of AIPAC"
That was the "rest of the story" that "we all know" referenced in your other post.

Is that right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=225676&mesg_id=225919

"And I've got Shira on ignore, so don't repost her posts in replies to me."

So basically, if it interferes with your intrusive remarks, it should be avoided?

"So, I take it you have NOTHING at all to comment on when it comes to the content of my initial post. Okay...."

But, I did. You just don't seem to comprehend the situation.

[oberliner]

38. In response to your points

For your first point, that poster wrote, on another thread, that the US "jumps to the tune of" and then did not explicitly say who. Here, the poster has apparently indicated that AIPAC was who the US was "jumping to the tune" of. That phrasing seems to suggest more than just an implication of "influence/power" but it is not clear, therefore, I have asked for further clarification.

To your second point, the poster specifically mentioned AIPAC. Most Americans, I believe, would identify themselves as "pro-Israel". Perhaps the poster could clarify who the "pro-Israel" individuals are that wield this power.

To your third point, I do not operate from that starting point. I am trying to point out why someone might relate the comments that were made about the US "jumping to the tune of" AIPAC or "pro-Israel individuals" to the Protocols.

I encourage the poster to clarify what was meant by some of the comments. If the poster is not saying that "Zionists" or "pro-Israel individuals" control US foreign policy then this would be an opportunity for that to be made clear.

If the poster is saying that, then people can draw their own conclusions of whether or not that is anti-semitic - I have made no such accusations.

I do, however, note with dismay, that this poster has occasionally posted articles from authors who are (in my opinion) anti-semitic. The most recent example of which has recently been deleted.

[Violet_Crumble]

41. I've got a question...

Why is some ambiguous comment on another thread suddenly being thrust into this one? I thought that sort of thing wasn't allowed...

If yr saying most Americans would identify themselves as 'pro-Israel' then why portray it in yr post where you equate 'pro-Israel individuals' with Jews? Had PM done that? I don't recall seeing her ever do that...

Yeah, you have indeed implied that PM is antisemitic. And you know what I find just a bit on the hypocritical side, Oberliner? It's that despite the bigoted anti-Muslim/Arab posts that appear in this forum, you don't note with dismay that the posts are bigoted...

Here's my take on AIPAC. They're a highly influential and powerful lobby group and their lobbying does have an impact on the direction of US foreign policy when it comes to Israel. They're also warmongering fuckers and I don't understand why any progressive would support them when JStreet exists with a much more progressive and balanced stance on Israel and Palestine. And you know what? If anyone draws the conclusion that what I just said was antisemitic, then fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on :)

[oberliner]

42. Another poster cited the other thread

It was cited by another poster to support the claim they were making. Have you not cited other threads as examples when you are trying to make a point?

If you look upthread you will note that one poster accused the other of bring up Protocols of Zion type crap.

The poster ProgressiveMuslim responded by asking when the protocols was mentioned.

The poster Shira responded by posting a link to the other thread where ProgressiveMuslim made the comment about "jumping to the tune" of whomever.

The poster ProgressiveMuslim expressed "not getting the memo" that says that discussing "the overwhelming influence of AIPAC on American mideast policy" was akin to the Protocols.

My response was meant to explain why someone could make the connection between the language used by Progressive Muslim and the language used in the Protocols, and to seek clarification as to what ProgressiveMuslim was suggesting.

I do not equate "pro-Israel individuals" with Jews. If someone wants to make the claim that "pro-Israel individuals" are controlling American foreign policy to the detriment of the US and to the benefit of Israel then I would argue that is still similar to the Protocols, except with "pro-Israel individuals" being used in place of "Jews".

My argument is that there is not a group of powerful "pro-Israel individuals" who direct foreign policy against the interests of the US, but rather that most Americans are pro-Israel and that US foreign policy is a reflection of that fact.

I don't mean to imply that ProgressiveMuslim is anti-semitic, and I am opposed to bigotry in all of its forms. While I may not note with dismay bigoted comments against Muslims or Arabs that have appeared on this forum, I don't attack people who do note that bigotry as you seem to be doing here.

Incidentally, AIPAC is on record as supporting economic sanctions, not military action, as the way of addressing Iran.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. No, can't say I get involved in dragging he said she said shit from other threads...

And most especially not to accuse someone of something they haven't done, or join in on pile-ons, which seems to have been the case in this thread. Listen, do me a favour. I've already said that I have Shira on ignore so please don't give me blow by blow replays of what they post...

You did equate pro-Israel individuals with Jews in the post I replied to, and again yr using the word *control* even though PM didn't use it in this thread....

Another question. Why don't you note with dismay bigoted comments against Muslims or Arabs that have appeared in this forum? That's what I don't get. And as nothing PM has said in this thread is bigoted, and I haven't attacked you, will there be any more false accusations aimed at me?

Almost forgot. AIPAC are still warmongering fuckers...

[oberliner]

44. Fair enough

Sorry about the blow by blow, I thought it would be helpful in explaining where I was coming from but I realize I went on a bit.

Regarding "pro-Israel individuals" vs. "Jews" and "influence" vs. "control" I again am asking for clarification from the poster. I would love to see that poster state that they do not believe the US foreign policy is "controlled" by any group that favors Israel to our country's detriment, be they Jews, Zionists, AIPAC, or pro-Israel individuals.

And you did imply that I was a hypocrite - that was the attack that I meant.

Your position on AIPAC is duly noted.

[Vegasaurus]

45. There are posters here who absolutely believe that AIPAC and Jews control US foreign policy

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Ah, sorry for implying that...

I was a bit heavy-handed there and I apologise for that....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

97. Just curious as to what you make of

Richard Silverstein's post on this subject:

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/11/23/why-no-arab-americans-dealing-with-israel-palestine-in-obama-state-department/

And re: the article that was deleted (I think it was the piece from Al-Ahram weekly, the egyptian english weekly... I see stuff online that I think could make for interesting discussion. I was intrigued by the question of Israel possibly moving toward facism. I don't necessarily subscribe to every word of something I post. Do you think most posters do?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

47. The best enunciator of the reality of the situation,

in my humble opinion, is Phil Weiss.

I think there is much honest discussion there (unlike the silly games that we play here on the DU).

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/

[Kurska]

18. You're right they don't

Thats why the average israeli's doesn't do any of those things, nor does the israeli government with any greater frequency then so called victims do. Get back to me when you can show me how israel is not only worse then it's neighbors, but in a less complex politicized and partisan situation.

Atleast israel isn't denying the people the right to hajj like hamas is.

[Vegasaurus]

20. Nor is Israel denying their citizens religious freedom

no matter what their religion.

Nor is Israel denying freedom of the press.

Nor is Israel punishing its civilians with an evil, terrorist government.

Hamas is doing all of those things.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Does the government exist apart from the people in the country? What's worse

every government, Labor, Likud, Kadima, unity governments, have engaged in occupation, murder, arrests, settlement expansion, etc.

It's not just a few crazies. It's the 40+ year policy of the nation of Israel.

[Kurska]

23. Doesn't that exact sentiment justify the "Collective punishment" of gaza?

The people of israel and palestine are either both responsible or both innocent of the actions of their government. You can't apply a double standard anymore, especially since hamas was elected by the democratic process.

[Vegasaurus]

25. No, Kurska

You are still new around here, so perhaps have not learned that Israel is responsible for most of the misery in the world.

If it weren't for Zionism, everyone in the middle east would get along perfectly.

There would be no violence whatsoever.

Human rights for all!

It's only because of Israel that Muslims murder each other every day, that women are stoned, or gays or hanged.

Israel is responsible for all repressive Arab governments, and the fact the UNWRA keeps the Palestinians in camps for 60 years, and for Hamas, treating its citizens likes pawns and shit.

Yes, this is all Israel's fault.

The Palestinians are just poor, pitiful, innocent people, who have done absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong. In fact, it was probably Israelis who have been shooting those rockets too.

[LeftishBrit]

26. Agreed - and it would also justify the collective punishment of many other countries.

My view is that no country is evil; though governments often are.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oberliner]

50. This is seriously crossing the line

Israel has no territorial ambitions in Gaza.

Israel withdrew all of the Gaza settlements - none now exist.

Israel does not wish to destroy Palestinian society, in fact, quite the opposite.

Dirty underbelly of Zionism? Where do you even get this stuff from?

[Vegasaurus]

51. Look how anti-semitism can be all neatly wrapped up

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

53. Every birthright tour that includes the wonders of the blooming Negev, and the wonders of

Tel Aviv should also include stops at Balata, and Jenin and Jebaliya -- because those camps are very much the other side of the Zionist coin.

At least have the courage to admit the truth. Wonderful Israel is built on destroyed villages as well as the denied human rights and freedoms. In spite of that the people of Palestine STILL want to make peace. It's pretty amazing, IMO, but let's not act as though the Zionist enterprise has not been a deadly, violent reality for its victims.

[Vegasaurus]

55. The people of Palestine (or their leaders)

DO NOT WANT TO MAKE PEACE.

They have said they will never recognize, much less make peace with Israel.

The goal is annihilation of Israel and taking back all of the land for the Palestinians. They are at least honest about their goals, which have never changed.

But the Birthright trips are wonderful. Members of my family have taken them, and are amazed at how Israel has managed to survive and thrive in the face of 100 years of Arab terrorism.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. And yet another crap negative stereotype of an entire population...

What next? 'A people who worship death'? Oh, yeah. That one's already been used....

[cali]

89. oh, bullshit. most Palestinians want peace.

another poster who just spews hate and rage. Ugh.

[Vegasaurus]

92. Actually, I said leaders (if you read the post)

but the majority of Palestinians (over 50%, by their own admission) would prefer to keep up the violence.

And even if "most"Palestinians want peace, their leadership (certainly Hamas, and Abbas is too weak) does not.

One need only read their constant anti-Israel rhetoric which states, constantly, that they will never make peace with the "Zionist entity".

I believe what they write and say. I wonder why others don't.

And I have only rage for terrorists and murderers and those that support them. You obviously do not carefully read my posts.

[Vegasaurus]

54. 1.5 million people have been treated like pawns by their own "government"

and all the repressive Arab regimes of the world.

Look at the ugly belly of these leaders, who would use and scapegoat 1.5 million people (actually 4.5 million, including all those Palestinians living in fetid refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, evicted from Iraq, etc) for political means.

[azurnoir]

56. So now your saying that those you repeatedly

accused of all being terrorists who only want the destruction of Israel and Jews is worldwide or only Israel I forget are pawns? All of the Palestinians or at least 150,000 of the 1,866,000 Palestinians who are living in Jordan most of whom are now Jordanian citizens held in fetid refugee camps? And Lebanon it would seem that the Lebanese themselves are not doing much better and Iraq the Palestinians were evicted from Iraq in June of 2003, perhaps events in Iraq facilitated that eviction

Saddam's government championed the cause of the Palestinians and ordered landlords to rent apartments to around 90,000 of them for as little as $1 a month. Now, most of the landlords want the Palestinians to get out or pay sharply raised rents.

Other assistance given to the Palestinians may have led to resentment from Iraqi citizens and the evictions may be part of a backlash against the refugees, UNHCR said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-24-un-palestinians-iraq_x.htm

I wonder if given a choice between the Palestinians coming back in exchange for America's leaving and America staying on what the Iraqi's would choose

[Shaktimaan]

105. what does this...

I wonder if given a choice between the Palestinians coming back in exchange for America's leaving and America staying on what the Iraqi's would choose

have to do with the subject being discussed?

Palestinians in the Arab world ARE truly treated miserably, are discriminated against and prevented from becoming citizens. If you feel that Israel is practicing apartheid because of the way that they treat the Palestinians who are not Israeli then wouldn't it stand to reason that every single Arab state (with the exception MAYBE of Jordan) is practicing a more brutal version of apartheid themselves? After all, Israel endows Arab Israelis with equal rights, something that Palestinians are denied in the rest of the Arab world (again excepting Jordan.) In fact, their rights are restricted by decree of the Arab League and apply to all Arab state members.

And Lebanon it would seem that the Lebanese themselves are not doing much better

Do you have any idea of what kinds of discrimination Palestinians face in Lebanon? Clearly not if you made the previous statement seriously.

Your reason given for the Palestinians eviction from Iraq was pretty pathetic. Bear in mind that when the Palestinians in Israel were evicted it was for attempting to destroy the state itself, and even then Israel allowed a large percentage to remain. (BTW, when the Palestinians tried that in Jordan, Jordan massacred tens of thousands within a few weeks.) But the Iraqis were mad over the low rent that the Palestinians were allowed to pay and thus expelled the entire population?

Just one more example of how the Arab world treats Palestinians far worse than Israel ever has... while the same people who lambaste Israel at any given opportunity make excuses for even the worst non-Israeli anti-Palestinian acts.

[azurnoir]

117. Interesting post

First your question as to what my comment has to do with the subject of the OP

I wonder if given a choice between the Palestinians coming back in exchange for America's leaving

I was answering another posters comment which was

Look at the ugly belly of these leaders, who would use and scapegoat 1.5 million people (actually 4.5 million, including all those Palestinians living in fetid refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, evicted from Iraq, etc) for political means.

My comment stemmed from the fact that a good number of Iraqis say that life was better under Saddam than it is under American occupation.

To answer your comment that what you claim to be my reason for Palestinians being evicted which was

"Your reason given for the Palestinians eviction from Iraq was pretty pathetic. Bear in mind that when the Palestinians in Israel were evicted it was for attempting to destroy the state itself, and even then Israel allowed a large percentage to remain. (BTW, when the Palestinians tried that in Jordan, Jordan massacred tens of thousands within a few weeks.)But the Iraqis were mad over the low rent that the Palestinians were allowed to pay and thus expelled the entire population?

No that was not my claim but part of a link in my post as to reasons the Palestinians were evicted from Iraq a few months after America invaded and toppled Saddam. The Palestinians were one of Saddam's favorite causes and it is possible that Palestinians were better treated by Saddams government than Iraqi Shia's who perhaps you did not realize became suddenly more powerful after America's invasion, and with that new power evicted those Saddam favored.
But a question from in that comment you first go all over the place with how evil the Palestinians were in Israel and badly treated they were in Jordan before you actually address what you called pathetic in the first place, why?

As for Lebanon my claim was not that the Palestinians were well treated in Lebanon. history has shown us that with the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, but that the Lebanese themselves are impoverished and at this point in time still not recovered from the 2006 conflict but to outline Palestinian maltreatment in Lebanon I offer this link

Elaborating on a different topic, a very discriminating and unfair law has been enforced for more than a decade which deprives the Palestinians of the right to own any kind of land or property: including a house, an apartment or a field. This law has left the Palestinians prey to landlords because the price of renting houses in Lebanon is soaring, aggravating the economic agony Palestinians are already suffering. Even when a Palestinian dies, his sons or daughters cannot inherit his house; nor could anyone bequeath any of the pre-registered properties to their descendants. This law possibly constitutes the high point of the systematic discrimination against the Palestinians in Lebanon, though I don’t know if I could truly rank in order of severity the agonies that we are suffering from. In any case, the list is long and all of the examples of discrimination touch directly on the life and dignity of every Palestinian living in Lebanon.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/pale-m15.shtml

As for Jordan you are right Jordan did kill thousands of Palestinians 38 years ago, today however there 1,866,000 Palestinians living in Jordan most of whom are Jordanian citizens with exception of 150,000 who are refugees from Gaza rather than the West Bank or Israel and are not allowed citizenship in Jordan at this point in time.

And lastly my favorite strawman Israeli Arabs

Israel endows Arab Israelis with equal rights, something that Palestinians are denied in the rest of the Arab world (again excepting Jordan.) In fact, their rights are restricted by decree of the Arab League and apply to all Arab state members.

I will for right now take your word about the Palestinians and the Arab League but must ask why then have they not condemned or ousted Jordan? As for Israeli Arabs they are Israeli citizens and Palestinians are not albeit I have seen it argued here that Israeli Arabs are indeed Palestinians.

[Shaktimaan]

118. Thank you for your well-reasoned answers.

But a question from in that comment you first go all over the place with how evil the Palestinians were in Israel and badly treated they were in Jordan before you actually address what you called pathetic in the first place, why?

Everything I wrote in that post was basically a rejection of the double standard I often see regarding how people view events involving Israel as opposed to those involving Arab states.

My position was basically that the Palestinians in Iraq have been getting attacked, kidnapped, killed and expelled as punishment for something that they had nothing much to do with, AND despite the fact that they pose no threat whatsoever to the people of Iraq. (ie: no reason at all.) I offered the examples of Jordan and Israel as comparisons because in both of those instances the Palestinians actually posed significant threats to the states which ultimately expelled some of them. In those cases the Palestinian expulsions were in response to an existential threat that they posed. Yet, despite this, neither state tried to ethnically cleanse themselves of the entire population as punishment. Whereas in Kuwait, by comparison, 400,000 Palestinian refugees living there were expelled because the PLO supported Saddam's invasion in 1990. (In other words, for no reason at all.)

My point was that people often react to the Nakba by voicing disgust, disparaging Israel and insisting that anything less than a full offer of a right of return by Israel is ethically moribund. But many of these same people react to far worse stories of Palestinian expulsions (massacres, discrimination, etc) with a calm, reasoned explanation as to why it may have happened, making every effort to see the situation from the POV of the aggressors. Even when the reasons for their actions are non-existent or essentially just xenophobic hatred.

My point was that I believe a double standard exists, by which people seek to excuse Arab/Palestinian conflict while disproportionately focusing on, and condemning, Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I believe this happens even when the cases of Arab on Palestinian violence are utterly pointless and just as merciless while cases involving Israel, such as the Nakba, occurred during struggles for Israel's survival.

------------

Lebanon might be the worst offender of all the Arab states when it comes to their treatment of Palestinians. And none of it has anything to do with the 2006 war. Palestinian refugees have been there for 60 years... there is no reason to forbid them from owning land or houses, refuse them access to the state healthcare system (that every other foreigner can use), forbid them from working in over 70 fields of employment (leaving them only the lowest-status and worst-paying jobs), refuse them citizenship (excepting a few thousand over 60 years), and so on. The number of restrictions against them has actually been mounting since 1990!

Sabra and Shatila was one thing... that was an example of ethnic strife during wartime. But these restrictions are the work of the government and have held firm despite 60 years of other political changes. Yet again I perceive a double standard. Carter actually wrote a book decrying what he saw as Israeli apartheid while Lebanon practices far worse actions WITHIN their own country and WITHOUT any reasonable explanation. (They do have an explanation... it just happens to be totally retarded.)

------------

There are actually close to 3 million Palestinians living in Jordan. Only 1.5 mil are refugees though. Let's be clear here. Jordan has done some awful things to the Palestinians, no question. But they are far and away the best of the Arab states in this category. Probably because between 40 and 50% of its citizens are themselves Palestinian. (As opposed to Bedouin.)

------------

I don't think that breaking that rule about Palestinian citizenship was enough to get Jordan ousted from the Arab League. Far from it, I doubt they were even censured. (Egypt did have its membership suspended for a few years after signing a peace treaty with Israel. They really hate Israel!) But that's not the point. Arab states don't follow this rule because they are afraid of censure but because they themselves support it. It is supposedly for the Palestinians own good. (So they won't get too comfortable and forget about their country that they are supposed to be endlessly fighting for until Israel gives it back. This is the same reason the PLO opposes moving any refugees out of camps and into communities with real houses and also why Lebanon has so many restrictions.)

In reality, all that stuff is done to the Palestinians so that they can be used as political pawns (and cannon fodder) against Israel. Really. That's the reason all of those people are kept in such misery for so many decades. (Insert obligatory comment condemning double standard again.) I mean, Israel has probably offered more Palestinians citizenship over the last few decades than the rest of the Arab states combined. And is one of the only middle eastern states who hasn't expelled thousands or millions of them during that time as well. (Even Jordan stripped over a million of its Palestinian citizens of their citizenships as recently as 1988. No one's perfect.)

As for Israeli Arabs they are Israeli citizens and Palestinians are not albeit I have seen it argued here that Israeli Arabs are indeed Palestinians.

What are you talking about, of course they are Palestinian! Most of them, anyway. What in the world else do you think they could be? The only difference between an Israeli Arab and a Palestinian refugee is that the Israeli Arab didn't leave.

"Palestinian" is a nationality, after all. If an Italian person moves here and becomes an American citizen does he stop identifying himself as Italian?

[oberliner]

58. Of course not

This is certainly not a joke. You are just ill-informed.

Economic devastation is not the goal. Israel would love nothing more than to have the Palestinian people being peaceful and prosperous neighbors.

The face of Zionism is the State of Israel living in peace and security free from suicide bombings, free from missile attacks, free from threats of destruction.

You are the one engaging in hyperbole over and over (treated worse than animals for decades?).

My views are the views of Barack Obama who has said:

The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations.

I also appreciate his comments on Zionism:

I first became familiar with the story of Israel when I was 11 years old. I learned of the long journey and steady determination of the Jewish people to preserve their identity through faith, family and culture. Year after year, century after century, Jews carried on their traditions, and their dream of a homeland, in the face of impossible odds.

The story made a powerful impression on me. I had grown up without a sense of roots. My father was black; he was from Kenya, and he left us when I was 2. My mother was white; she was from Kansas, and I'd moved with her to Indonesia and then back to Hawaii. In many ways, I didn't know where I came from. So I was drawn to the belief that you could sustain a spiritual, emotional and cultural identity. And I deeply understood the Zionist idea — that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

Lord knows how you would respond to President Obama if he were to share his thoughts on this message board!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

61. And I stand by the words of Jimmy Carter:

(from an interview with Amy Goodman)...

...and the word “apartheid” is exactly accurate. You know, this is an area that’s occupied by two powers. They are now completely separated. Palestinians can’t even ride on the same roads that the Israelis have created or built in Palestinian territory. The Israelis never see a Palestinian, except the Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians never see an Israeli, except at a distance, except the Israeli soldiers. So within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way. And the other thing is, the other definition of “apartheid” is, one side dominates the other. And the Israelis completely dominate the life of the Palestinian people.... Americans don’t want to know and many Israelis don’t want to know what is going on inside Palestine. It’s a terrible human rights persecution that far transcends what any outsider would imagine. And there are powerful political forces in America that prevent any objective analysis of the problem in the Holy Land. I think it’s accurate to say that not a single member of Congress with whom I’m familiar would possibly speak out and call for Israel to withdraw to their legal boundaries or to publicize the plight of the Palestinians or even to call publicly and repeatedly for good faith peace talks. There hasn’t been a day of peace talks now in more than seven years. So this is a taboo subject. And I would say that if any member of Congress did speak out, as I’ve just described, they would probably not be back in the Congress the next term.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/10/fmr_president_jimmy_carter_on_palestine

Oberliner, if the governments (plural) of Israel had any real interest in peace, they would have long ago quit the continual settlement expansion and cease doing everything in their power to undermine the elected governments of Palestine.

[oberliner]

62. I agree with President Carter as well

From the same interview:

Well, there’s an inherent commitment in America, which I share as a Christian, of a deep commitment to make sure that Israel is safe and that Israel is free and that they can seek for peace. So there’s a strong inclination for all of us to support Israel’s continued existence in peace.

[LeftishBrit]

64. As I understand...

Jimmy Carter uses the term 'apartheid' to refer to the situation in the Occupied Territories. He does not say that the whole of Israel is an apartheid state. At any rate, occupation is a very bad thing; and should come to an end.

'if the governments (plural) of Israel had any real interest in peace, they would have long ago quit the continual settlement expansion and cease doing everything in their power to undermine the elected governments of Palestine.'

By the same token, one could say that if the Palestinian leaders had any real interest in peace, they would have ceased their terrorist activities against Israel, practiced purely nonviolent resistance, and would have united sufficiently to be an effective negotiating partner.

Both statements would be true to a large degree, but oversimplified. One can't focus on just one side. The end of a war, and this is a form of war, means that both sides need to change their ways and attitudes. Settlement expansion must stop; and serious plans made for a withdrawal from the occupied territories. At the same time, rocket attacks and suicide bombing must also stop. And both - indeed all - parties must come to the negotiating table with a serious aim for peace.

[cali]

88. You've lost it.

all that your posts project are hate and rage. And that's just sad.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

57. Still speechless that you seem to think Israel's occupation of Palestine is something neat and tidy.

Oberliner, the occupation is an ugly, bloody, dirty, mess.

It includes daily humiliation, torture, jailing, and killing, home demolition and land theft, uprooting 1000+ year old trees.

It is college students who are throwing stones being shot with live ammunition.

It's kids bleeding to death in cars at checkpoints, in the laps of their friends.

It's injured college kids in hospital by themselves, recovering from bullet wounds, because their family can't get to them.

It's taking 7 years to graduate college -- and those were the good old days.

It's eating animal protein once a week so that your kids can be educated... again, the good old days.

It's being shut in your house every night at 8, and for many whole-days as well -- life sucks when it's under constant curfew.

It's "fresh" water being available from out outdoor spigot for 20 mins a day -- better fill up those used soda bottles!

It's Shin Bet shooting boys in the back, and dumping them in the backs of their trucks like potato sacks.

It's 13 year old boys being kidnapped by Shin Bet in an effort to turn them into collaborators. It includes sexual abuse in order to make the best possible shot at turning them.

It's standing in long lines for days on end, for a 10 minute meeting with the local magistrate, to beg to be allowed to leave.

It's being humiliated by IDF soliders who are barely in their 20s, with less education than your dog has.

It's being forced to dodge checkpionts like a common criminal when you're a grown man who is a university professor trying to get to work.

It's being held in a foreign airport for days on end because you don't have the correct papers.

And of course, it's being denied the right to vote and have that vote count.

------------------

These are just a few tidbits from the lives of people I know, from a family that is lucky because they are one of the few families not to experience murder and administrative detention. And of course this doesn't even encompass what life is like under siege.... it doesn't even come close.

And you have the absolute GALL to tell me I HAVE CROSSED THE LINE by stating what is patently, and horrifically true?

I'm speechless.

[oberliner]

59. IDF soldiers with less education than your dog has?

You are saying that Israeli soldiers are less educated than Palestinian dogs?

That's just lovely.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

60. How dare I insult the ignoramous soldier

who humiliated a Palestinian professor, whose contributions to his scientific field have made the world a better place!

Thanks for making my point. Clearly, you have never stood in fear while a sadistic, ignorant, barely teenaged low-life is holding a gun on you, humiliating you for sport.

I pray to God that you never have to experience it.

I can live with calling Zionism's ugly underbelly exactly what it is. Too bad so many can live with the crimes that continue to be perpretrated in the WB and to Gaza on a daily basis.

[pelsar]

63. wow were a pretty evil bunch....

how about listing the various jihadnikim actions just as a balance.....i'm sure you can do it as well i.....

you know stuff like massacring school children, shooting kids at point blank range, tying up people and then shooting them, dragging bodies in the streets.....sounds like a pretty evil bunch to me....(or perhaps you, as some have declared its their way of defending themselves.......shooting children)

[ProgressiveMuslim]

68. Indeed. The implementation of Israel's 40+ violent military occupation, replete

with murder, home demolition, jailing without charge or trial, land theft, mass curfews, collective punishment and widespread denial of basic human rights is nothing short of evil.

Do any here believe that the occupation is not an evil institution?

[pelsar]

69. i'll answer and you can answer....straight question...

you asking is the occupation an "evil institution"....no..i wouldnt go so far as say the israeli occupation is evil, i reserve the use of that word for institutions that the nazis devised which are a million more times worse, or the education of the extremists which, like terrorists attacks all around the world, want to spread fear and terrorism everywhere possible.

the occupation i believe is a temporary situation that has its "ups and downs" has justification for some of its actions and has no justification and are infact despicable, for other actions.....but evil?...that would mean there is no justification for its existence and unfortunately as we've seen in gaza and have so many have admitted here (including yourself) that without the occupation there will in fact be missiles on israeli cities (some say for a limited period some say for a longer period)....

so no...evil in my mind is for actions whos only purpose is pure destruction

__________
how about the jihadnikim which look for and try to kill children and other civilians "as a defense"......i see that philosophy as evil, as its goal is to destroy a society....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

75. As an occassional occupation implementer yourself

I'd be very surprised if you considered the occupation evil. I'm sure it's all pretty banal to you.

Very interesting that you folks here seem to view the occupation as a form of administrative mechanism rather than what it really has been. Just trying to inject a little reality in to the conversation.

And the siege of Gaza isn't for destruction? Are you kidding?

Didn't really see any question in there for me to answer, unless your asking me about the "jihadnikim" was your question.

You know full well I wish every Palestinian would practice nonviolent resistance as the most effective way to end the conflict and recapture the moral high ground.

[pelsar]

79. in every single briefing .....

and we're going back quite a few years here....the orders always have something to the effect of "minimize the affect on the general population" and to me that negates the idea that the occupation is nothing but evil

but thats just for general knowledge.....the question is not what you prefer, the question is the definition of evil.

your claiming the occupation is evil, i'm asking if you can define the methods of the various jihadnikim as evil.....(i dont believe you think so....) but thats just an "intellectual exercise"...the question below is far more interesting to me:


you actually believe that israel is trying to destroy gaza....that would mean either killing all the inhabitants or moving them out....is there something i'm missing here?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

96. Pelsar, I don't believe that resistance

to (what I personally consider evil) can ever be worse than the evil itself. I know I am in the minority here, but that's what I believe. I don't believe Jewish kids have more value than Palestinian kids, that Jewish adult have more value than Muslims adults, that Israeli Jews have some a priori right to human rights that outstrips the Arabs' same rights. The Arabs of Palestine didn't try to destroy your people in Europe. They have as much value as you and your kids have.

One would never know it though.

Where is it written that Palestinian Arabs are decreed to sit back and take passively whatever your countrymen care to dish out?

If there is ever a day with a peace agreement that is fair, that recognizes Palestinian people's aspirations, that deals justly with them ... and there were a rocket attack I'd be the first to decry it.

I think you are kidding yourself that the cumulative effect of what your gov't has prepetrated for decades isn't evil because... you don't really *mean* to be mean (the policies ARE intended to break bones, destroy homes and destroy lives)... it's temporary -- it's NOT... whatever else your rationale for thinking it's not *that bad*. Look at the cumulative picture over 40 years. Not sure how a moral person can draw any other conclusion.

[pelsar]

98. i think your fundamentally wrong in your beliefs....

I don't believe Jewish kids have more value than Palestinian kids....

neither do I, nor the people that i know...nor do i believe that we are the minority......and yet I'm still part of the occupation...



Where is it written that Palestinian Arabs are decreed to sit back and take passively whatever your countrymen care to dish out?

its not written anywhere, nor is it written that israelis should stand around and wait to be killed.....theres lot of that to go around

but more important: your "justice" does not have a single definition agreed to by all, in fact no one is going to agree on what is just, for those who want to have some kind of peace..they wont be talking about justice...just compromise.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

106. I'm quite sure you don't believe that personally

but that's pretty clearly the value that Israel's policies and actions are based on, and the value that allows most of the rest of the world to sit idly, patiently by while those policies are implemented.

I've told you before Pelsar, that I believe Palestinians have the right to fight back. And I have come to believe that TPTB in Israel have absolutely no interest in peace.

I'm curious as to your take of this article in the London Review of Books:

"The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam"
Henry Siegman
When Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush met at the White House in June, they concluded that Hamas’s violent ousting of Fatah from Gaza – which brought down the Palestinian national unity government brokered by the Saudis in Mecca in March – had presented the world with a new ‘window of opportunity’.<*> (Never has a failed peace process enjoyed so many windows of opportunity.) Hamas’s isolation in Gaza, Olmert and Bush agreed, would allow them to grant generous concessions to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, giving him the credibility he needed with the Palestinian people in order to prevail over Hamas.

Both Bush and Olmert have spoken endlessly of their commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is their determination to bring down Hamas rather than to build up a Palestinian state that animates their new-found enthusiasm for making Abbas look good. That is why their expectation that Hamas will be defeated is illusory. Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for Olmert is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory. In the end, what Olmert and his government are prepared to offer Palestinians will be rejected by Abbas no less than by Hamas, and will only confirm to Palestinians the futility of Abbas’s moderation and justify its rejection by Hamas. Equally illusory are Bush’s expectations of what will be achieved by the conference he recently announced would be held in the autumn (it has now been downgraded to a ‘meeting’). In his view, all previous peace initiatives have failed largely, if not exclusively, because Palestinians were not ready for a state of their own. The meeting will therefore focus narrowly on Palestinian institution-building and reform, under the tutelage of Tony Blair, the Quartet’s newly appointed envoy.

In fact, all previous peace initiatives have got nowhere for a reason that neither Bush nor the EU has had the political courage to acknowledge. That reason is the consensus reached long ago by Israel’s decision-making elites that Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank. To be sure, Israel would allow – indeed, it would insist on – the creation of a number of isolated enclaves that Palestinians could call a state, but only in order to prevent the creation of a binational state in which Palestinians would be the majority.

The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank.

Anyone familiar with Israel’s relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza’s situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants.

Israel’s disingenuous commitment to a peace process and a two-state solution is precisely what has made possible its open-ended occupation and dismemberment of Palestinian territory. And the Quartet – with the EU, the UN secretary general and Russia obediently following Washington’s lead – has collaborated with and provided cover for this deception by accepting Israel’s claim that it has been unable to find a deserving Palestinian peace partner.

Just one year after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan, a former IDF chief of staff who at the time was minister of defence, described his plan for the future as ‘the current reality in the territories’. ‘The plan,’ he said, ‘is being implemented in actual fact. What exists today must remain as a permanent arrangement in the West Bank.’ Ten years later, at a conference in Tel Aviv, Dayan said: ‘The question is not “What is the solution?” but “How do we live without a solution?”’ Geoffrey Aronson, who has monitored the settlement enterprise from its beginnings, summarises the situation as follows:

Living without a solution, then as now, was understood by Israel as the key to maximising the benefits of conquest while minimising the burdens and dangers of retreat or formal annexation. This commitment to the status quo, however, disguised a programme of expansion that generations of Israeli leaders supported as enabling, through Israeli settlement, the dynamic transformation of the territories and the expansion of effective Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan River.

In an interview in Ha’aretz in 2004, Dov Weissglas, chef de cabinet to the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, described the strategic goal of Sharon’s diplomacy as being to secure the support of the White House and Congress for Israeli measures that would place the peace process and Palestinian statehood in ‘formaldehyde’. It is a fiendishly appropriate metaphor: formaldehyde uniquely prevents the deterioration of dead bodies, and sometimes creates the illusion that they are still alive. Weissglas explains that the purpose of Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, and the dismantling of several isolated settlements in the West Bank, was to gain US acceptance of Israel’s unilateralism, not to set a precedent for an eventual withdrawal from the West Bank. The limited withdrawals were intended to provide Israel with the political room to deepen and widen its presence in the West Bank, and that is what they achieved. In a letter to Sharon, Bush wrote: ‘In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.’

In a recent interview in Ha’aretz, James Wolfensohn, who was the Quartet’s representative at the time of the Gaza disengagement, said that Israel and the US had systematically undermined the agreement he helped forge in 2005 between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and had instead turned Gaza into a vast prison. The official behind this, he told Ha’aretz, was Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser. ‘Every aspect’ of the agreement Wolfensohn had brokered ‘was abrogated’.

Another recent interview in Ha’aretz, with Haggai Alon, who was a senior adviser to Amir Peretz at the Ministry of Defence, is even more revealing. Alon accuses the IDF (whose most senior officers increasingly are themselves settlers) of working clandestinely to further the settlers’ interests. The IDF, Alon says, ignores the Supreme Court’s instructions about the path the so-called security fence should follow, instead ‘setting a route that will not enable the establishment of a Palestinian state’. Alon told Ha’aretz that when in 2005 politicians signed an agreement with the Palestinians to ease restrictions on Palestinians travelling in the territories (part of the deal that Wolfensohn had worked on), the IDF eased them for settlers instead. For Palestinians, the number of checkpoints doubled. According to Alon, the IDF is ‘carrying out an apartheid policy’ that is emptying Hebron of Arabs and Judaising (his term) the Jordan Valley, while it co-operates openly with the settlers in an attempt to make a two-state solution impossible.

lots more...
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/sieg01_.html

[pelsar]

110. my take on that?

frankly i have a very low belief factor in politicians, their historical moves, the interpretation of those various moves, the quotes used, the "papers found" that try to explain their real motives etc.....this is true for all politicians and leaders regardless of color of skin, religion, height and weight. They all have various changing agendas that mix in with the pressures of the day that in combined with other factors create those decisions which may or may not work out....

Begin a hard core right winger returned the sinai...who would have guessed? Even sharon, the guy who encouraged the "hill top youth" pulled out of gaza...i dont care how others interpret his moves, nor do i care, I'm only interested in the fact that we left....and I dont have to go back there (and i do believe no matter what sharons plan was according to some, the gazans have the chance of lifetime-they just have to be smart about it

For every plan that an israeli politician makes there are other israelis and Palestinians who are there to stop it...thats how life is. The "winner" is the one who plays it smarter. So i'm sure parts of the article are true for certain time periods and part of it is pure imagination/exaggeration and dont take in to account that people change in time with experiences (how else would you explain the likuds positional changes?)

one point however is true as far as i know and worries me:
Alon accuses the IDF (whose most senior officers increasingly are themselves settlers) of working clandestinely to further the settlers’ interests
Pakistan has this problem in that many muslim extremists are high in the intelligent services and the concept of making career soldiers out of the settlers was intentional.....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

111. Well, how do you explain Israel's ongoing intransigence in light of the fact

that most of the population would prefer to trade land for peace?

How can you explain the ongoing occupation machine?

[pelsar]

114. missiles on jersualem...kassams on the airport

that what it comes down to.....for this period. Again, it doesnt matter that leaving gaza wasnt perfect for all of the Palestinians, what matters is that instead of making lemon juice out of the lemons, their energies and focus was on manufacturing and shooting missiles and attacking israel across the border.

the previous periods when there was no wall? ....the constant attacks, both verble and physical in israel and abroad kept the israeli population in a "not trustful mood."

_____

the ONLY time there was a serious change was when the Palestinians reduced the violence and kept it limited to the westbank and gaza. That sole period, gave the israelis a bit of confidence that we could live together......and oslo came about the Palestinians started on the path to self rule

and then soon after the attacks in Jersualem and TA started again....(as claimed because of israels imperfect policies)
_____

the occupation machine, outside of Hebron, doesnt get much news, its there, it goes on, but we have no real reason to remove it (even though most agree with the land for peace principle)...for what? missiles on our homes?...like those around gaza?


i dont know what sharons motives were, but i will tell you my take on it:
israel was divided 50/50 and from a civil point of view it was tearing up the country (left and right). Never one to have a problem with sacrificing others or taking risks, he knew that pulling out of gaza would lead to missiles and attacks from gaza on israel (actually we all knew that)...and when that happened the lefts argument that pulling out of the westbank would lead to peace would fall apart. He was right, the lefts argument disappeared and the hard divide of left and right disappeared with it and so too did the argument that just removing settlements brings peace-because it didnt when tried.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

119. So you'll keep the boot on their necks for another 50 years?

And you think Siegman's article is innaccurate? Let the bantustanization continue!

[Vegasaurus]

120. This answer is exactly why the Palestinians' situation hasn't improved,

and has actually worsened over the past 60 years.

The "boot" is one of their own making, but only they do not realize or acknowledge it.

They could remove the boot in no time at all.

It would only take stopping terrorism and recognizing Israel.

But no. It is easier to blame the world (and the evil Zionist underbelly enemy) for all of the problems, that mostly they have created themselves.

[pelsar]

123. if it if means staying alive....of course-who wouldnt?

asking us/demanding us to commit suicide for someone elses definition of justice isnt really a reasonable option.....

Siegman's article is inaccurate in that he writes as if all israelis in power have but one goal in mind...and that is 'greater israel". He seems to ignore the concept of action and reaction not to mention people like Begin, Rabin etc.....

the ball for change lies with the Palestinians, its a shame they dont take advantage of it, starting with gaza....

[ProgressiveMuslim]

124. Intersting that you equate trading land for peace with suicide.

Whatever.

[Vegasaurus]

125. Trading land for peace hasn't worked ever in the past

It has just been a recipe for increased violence.

Every single time.

Israel knows this now (Gaza was a final indicator), and isn't giving up land for more rockets and more suicide bombers.

Unfortunately, the Palestinians have never seemed to understand that their violence makes Israel more oppressive, not less so.

The minute Israel gives an inch, either in territory or reduced restrictions, the militants increase their violent tactics.

Perhaps one day the Palestinian leadership will control their militants so that there can be an actual effort for peace.

But Israel would be suicidal to give up land in the WB at this time, because everyone knows what the Palestinian response will be.

Just look at Gaza.

[pelsar]

126. whats so confusing about gaza?....land for missiles

you and others have already agreed that after a withdrawal there will be missiles etc on israeli cities as per the gaza experience.....at least as the way things stand today......and missiles do kill and maim and terrorize

so what part of a missile landing is the "peaceful" part your talking about?

seriously are you now claiming that if israel works out a deal with the PA, pulls out the settlements they're WONT be missiles on israel?...spare me the "if its a just" peace ...give me 5 westerners and 5 middle easterners jews, christians, palestinians, muslims, druze, israelis and at best 2 will agree on what exactly "just" actually means..the rest will be busy preparing their weapons to push their version of "just"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

127. And your gov't got exactly what it wanted, didn't it: no partner for peace.

Boo hoo.

[pelsar]

128. huh?....the Palestinians/hamas in gaza have utterly failed

to produce a viable society.....they spend their limited resources on attacking israel and preparing for an IDF invasion instead of concentrating on improving their society...I'm no longer there, we're no longer in jabaliya, Chan Yunis, Gaza city, etc

i'm satisfied.....i'd rather not have the missiles landing in israel, but its far better to have than then the other alternative. I dont give a shit what "my govt wanted".....hamas/fatah/islamic jihad gave the israeli right exactly what they wanted; proof that when given the chance to improve their own society, they prefer instead to try to kill israelis.

boo hoo?....i'm afraid thats the child in gaza who has a future of limited possibilities, the sick in gazas hospitals that have limited supplies and few doctors, since hamas chased out so many....

you cant have you cake and eat it too: try to kill israels and their lives get more and more miserable......you would think after 60+ years it might just sink in, but i guess living in peace with israel is not the real goal is it?

boo hoo?...israel is a thriving modern society, not much to cry about here....on the other side however there is plenty.

[Vegasaurus]

130. Progressive Muslim really should respond to this post

or any of the other anti-Israel posters.

[pelsar]

116. btw...this is the most ridiculous sentence/belief

The limited withdrawals were intended to provide Israel with the political room to deepen and widen its presence in the West Bank

and its used to explain why gazas withdrawl was nothing more than some diabolical israeli plan......here are a few relevant facts (and they will probably disappoint all those who like to believe that the israeli govt always has ulterior motives when it comes to the Palestinians...)

there was no specific change in the settlements growth, during or after the various withdrawls.....the only place for such aprox info is from peace now: http://www.peacenow.org.
and you'll have to really dive into the stats and also realize that many of the expansions are not publicized-so its not exact.

thats what i mean when i say i have little faith in those articles and books that try to explain politician motives based on various analysis of this or that...and sometimes they just make up stuff ( as in the above).

and of course they dont seem to take into account that ones mans plan can easily be thwarted: imagine for a second if after the gaza withdrawl the gazans didnt shoot missiles, attack israel, but concentrated on building a society and pressuring egypt to widen the rafah terminal.....nothing violent, just political maneuvering....opened up a club med outlet and started exporting gazan hot peppers to israel (long story on that one...). Sharons plan would have been thwarted, the lefts ideal of land for peace would have been shown to have something to it....

instead the gazans did exactly what they were expected to do....fell right in to the israeli rights hands....so dumb and they did it all by themselves

[Shaktimaan]

99. Hang on a sec.

Earlier you stated that you believe Israel's goal is to destroy the Palestinians' nation and culture. But here you decry Israeli peace efforts for not significantly recognizing Palestinian aspirations or offering a fair enough agreement. I'd say there's quite a disparity there, wouldn't you?

The fact of the matter is that any peace deal which allows Israel to exist will not meet the standards of justice many Palestinians have set as agreeable. And there have, in fact, been several peace offers that the Palestinians have rejected as not being fair enough, despite the fact that every rejection has brought only greater and greater loss and suffering upon them. Because every Palestinian rejection of a potential peace plan has been accompanied by a decision to resort to violence.

I have trouble imagining a peace deal which potentially offered as much to the Palestinians as the original Oslo document did. Since it was open ended there was no real reason to object to its terms on Jerusalem or right of return. It granted the Palestinians sovereignty over some land, allowed them elections... an opportunity to govern themselves without Israeli interference. It made the Palestinians partners in the process with Israel. And it even came along with a complete freeze on all settlement building for at least six months. All in all, it was an unrivaled opportunity for a real working peace and a nation for the Palestinians.

Yet Hamas began ramping up their attacks the very instant it was signed. They went on record as rejecting any peace treaty with Israel whatsoever. They still do, in fact.
Now, how can there ever be the possibility of attaining a just peace when it is not the goal of one of the protagonists?

The Arabs of Palestine didn't try to destroy your people in Europe.

No, they did not. They tried to destroy my people in Palestine. Many still are trying to destroy my people in Palestine, which is the problem. If the only "just" peace treaty to the Palestinians includes eliminating Israel or otherwise negating Zionism then it isn't going to happen. You can not blame Israel for failing to support the Palestinians' own unrealistic goals. Nor can you blame Israel for defending itself when the Palestinians decided to attack, (presumably until their demands are met.)

What exactly would you have Israel do? Really, I'm curious. What would you consider a responsible reaction to the situation, from Israel's perspective? What would you consider a fair and realistic peace offer?

[Vegasaurus]

108. I would like, for once

some intellectual honesty in response to Shakti's questions.

I have seen Pelsar pose the same ones, and they are always ignored.

It's quite simple really.

Israel, unlike any other nation on earth, is supposed to do nothing about security threats, rockets and suicide bombers and border crossing incursions?

Israel is supposed to give back land when the last time they did that (Gaza) all that was received in return was violence?

Israel is supposed to negotiate with a leadership which has sworn to her annihilation?

I think true discourse would demand that these questions are addressed honestly.

[Shaktimaan]

101. hmmmm...

Pelsar, I don't believe that resistance to (what I personally consider evil) can ever be worse than the evil itself.

Do you realize that there is a gaping logical flaw in that statement?

This conflict is a series of actions and reactions; causes and effects. Now you may believe that the occupation is the ultimate evil present and think that all of the other evil deeds stem from it. The occupation, though, is not a single entity. It developed over time. So let's say that you see the occupation to be more evil than the act of firing rockets from Gaza into Israel, as that is an act of resistance against the occupation.

That does not mean that the rocket attacks themselves are not in fact evil, does it? It just is not AS evil as the occupation. Still evil though, correct? I mean, they are rockets that are being fired against innocent civilians, lacking any kind of military benefit. That's got to be evil.

But then if the siege against Gaza is just an Israeli reaction to the rocket attacks, (as they surely are), then that means the siege closing off Gaza is not as evil as the Qassam attacks. It means that some aspects of the occupation can never be worse than some aspects of the resistance, depending on when they occurred. See the problem here?

[Shaktimaan]

102. I just thought of something.

Pelsar, I don't believe that resistance to (what I personally consider evil) can ever be worse than the evil itself.

OK, follow my logic here... Since the very first incidents of violence in this conflict were inflicted UPON the Jews BY the Palestinians, while Jewish retaliation was merely resistance against these (initial and evil) massacres, would that not make the Palestinians THEMSELVES responsible for perpetrating the MOST evil acts in the history of the conflict?

As the perpetrators of the very first evil act (to require resistance), what special responsibility (if any) should the Palestinians have in resolving this conflict? Meaning... since the "original evil" was of Palestinian creation, do they bear a greater degree of responsibility for all of the subsequent evil? Or is there some kind of statute of limitations on the evil?

[Violet_Crumble]

76. I think the occupation is a very destructive thing...

Do I think it's particularly evil? No, but then again I wouldn't use the word *evil* to describe much at all. That's because to me the term *evil* is used when something is seen by someone as too irrational for a proper explanation or understanding, and in many cases they don't really want to have a rational understanding of why something happens. It's one of those many hyperbolic words I wish Skinner would invent a hyperbole filter for and instantly expunge all hyperbole from DU. The thing is that all those things you mentioned, the murder, the home demolitions, collective punishment, etc, are happening and there's no justification for them, but they're all things that happen because of the occupation, not the other way round. I'd describe the occupation as destructive and a wet dream for the system of bureaucracy, but not evil, coz the reasons for it happening are rational ones even though I don't agree with many of the reasons...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

80. I normally stick with the factual descriptors: the occupation is a violent, murderous institution

that has targetted civilians and denied human rights to 1.5+ million for 40+ years.

I also happen to think that is evil. I don't expect people to share my POV.

[Shaktimaan]

103. question...

I normally stick with the factual descriptors

What is a "factual descriptor?" Does a factual descriptor usually contain any "facts"? Is it mandatory to include any "facts" or can the whole thing just be subjective opinion?

Is the statement, "the occupation is a violent, murderous institution" an example of a factual descriptor?

[Shaktimaan]

104. what exactly does "evil" mean? np

[oberliner]

66. Shin Bet kidnaps and sexual abuses 13 year old boys?

Where exactly does that information come from?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. Real life.

Did you ever stop and ask yourself how Palestinian collaborators are made, Oberliner?

Do you think Palestinians walk up to the local "mukabbarat" office and volunteer for service?

Hardly. Just like pimps and slimey underground figures here, the vulnerable are preyed upon, lied to, manipulated and exploited. They are often put in compromising positions, and then blackmailed. The Israeli handlers exploit the fact that this is a society which does not countenance shaming the family. The creation of (child) collaborators is truly one of the Israeli government's most despicable actions.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

73. Still wondering how you think collaborators are made, Oberliner?

[oberliner]

82. This article may shed some light on that question

Here's an article in The Guardian from June of this year about some of those collaborators:

A secret fresh start: former Palestinian collaborators forge new life in Israel

Excerpt:

Samir is not his real name, for this heavy-set, 52-year-old Palestinian is scared to reveal his true identity. This is his fresh start, his reward after working for more than 20 years in secret in his native Gaza as a collaborator with the Israeli security forces. "I don't regret any of my story," he said. "I'm very happy that I helped the state of Israel. Here everything is straightforward, not like with the Arabs. Here there is a law and there are rights."

<snip>

Samir began after his brother was wrongly accused of being a collaborator and killed in the early 70s. By giving information on the groups who killed his brother he sought revenge. "Because of what they did to my brother I decided to work for the Israelis. He was so strong, so beautiful and they killed him for something he hadn't done." He hid documents in his roof and speaks proudly of how for years he operated in complete secrecy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/13/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

This article indicates that some of them became collaborators to escape jail time for drug trafficking or other criminal offenses.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

90. Do you believe the Shin Bet uses terribly unscrupulous means to create collaborators? nt

[oberliner]

94. They are a pretty secretive bunch

It would not surprise me if they used means that were unscrupulous.

Edit: I see you responded to the article elsewhere in the thread.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

95. What a scumbag.

I think adults who collaborate are the scum of the earth.

I think it's really (not to be hyperbolic, but truly for lack of a better term) evil to put children and youth in a position where that's their only choice.

Of all the crimes Israel has committed against the people of Palestine, to me personally, this is the absolute worst... more than any other this practice destroys families and communities.

[Shaktimaan]

71. I am also speechless.

Though it is interesting to see you finally speak honestly as to how you really feel about Israel, the conflict and Zionism in general.

I would point out only that this life, unfortunately, is one that the Palestinians have chosen themselves. All that would be necessary for the most odious of your charges, many of which are incidentally either NOT true or are greatly exaggerated, to disappear would be for the Palestinians to refrain from their constant attempts at inflicting far worse acts against the Israelis.

If Israel's goal was truly to destroy Palestine as a nation and a society then they would have already done so. Or at least made a legitimate attempt at doing so. And if Palestine were truly facing complete destruction then it would seem that they would have chosen peace one of the many times it has been offered to them. They would not have responded to the signing of the Oslo Accords with suicide bombs. Upon finally gaining a settlement-free Gaza, they would not have spent their energies on attacking Israel but on building a working society.

I could easily formulate a list demonstrating the opportunities that Palestinians have wasted; or one listing the ways that Israel has actually aided the Palestinians; or one that listed the attacks that Palestine has initiated against Israel, which would make your list pale in comparison. A curfew, after all, is not a suicide bomb. Can you imagine what would have happened had the Palestinians been the ones with greater firepower and a stronger military? Were that the case you likely would have seen what it truly looks like when one society decides to destroy another. But I doubt you would have made a list for that one.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

72. I can't grasp how anyone can look at the facts of the last 40+ years (not even counting

what went down pre-67, and draw a different conclusion.

If you really believe that Palestine violance against Israel makes what Israel has done pale in comparison, I think you live in la-la land.

So, basically, Israel is really *good* because just think what the craven Arabs would have done with greater firepower? I guess Jews are inherently more moral.

Glad to know what YOU really think Shakti!

[oberliner]

83. Some of the facts from just one month out of the last 40+ years

From March of 2002:

Mar 2, 2002 - Eleven people were killed and over 50 were injured, 4 critically, in a suicide bombing at 19:15 on Saturday evening near a yeshiva in the ultra-Orthodox Beit Yisrael neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem where people had gathered for a bar-mitzva celebration. The terrorist detonated the bomb next to a group of women waiting with their baby carriages for their husbands to leave the nearby synagogue. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade took responsibility for the attack.

Mar 5, 2002 - Maharatu Tagana, 85, of Upper Nazareth was killed and a large number of people injured, most lightly, when a suicide bomber exploded in an Egged No. 823 bus as it entered the Afula central bus station. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 7, 2002 - A suicide bomber blew himself up in the lobby of a hotel in the commericial center on the outskirts of Ariel in Samaria. 15 people were injured, one seriously. The PFLP claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 9, 2002 - 11 people were killed and 54 injured, 10 of them seriously, when a suicide bomber exploded at 22:30 PM Saturday night in the crowded Moment cafe at the corner of Aza and Ben-Maimon streets in the Rehavia neighborhood in the center of Jerusalem. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 17, 2002 - A suicide bomber exploded himself near an Egged bus no. 22 at the French Hill junction in northern Jerusalem. 25 people were lightly injured.

Mar 20, 2002 - Seven people, four of them soldiers, were killed and about 30 wounded, several seriously, in a suicide bombing of an Egged bus No. 823 traveling from Tel Aviv to Nazareth at the Musmus junction on Highway 65 (Wadi Ara) near Afula. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 21, 2002 - Three people were killed and 86 injured, 3 of them seriously, in a suicide bombing on King George Street in the center of Jerusalem. The terrorist detonated the bomb, packed with metal spikes and nails, in the center of a crowd of shoppers. The Fatah al-Aqsa Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 27, 2002 - 30 people were killed and 140 injured - 20 seriously - in a suicide bombing in the Park Hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, in the midst of the Passover holiday seder with 250 guests. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. The terrorist was a member of Hamas from Tulkarem, on the list of wanted terrorists Israel had requested be arrested.

Mar 29, 2002 - Two people were killed and 28 injured, two seriously when a female suicide bomber blew herself up in the Kiryat Yovel supermarket in Jerusalem. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 30, 2002 - One person was killed and about 30 people were injured in a suicide bombing in a cafe on the corner of Allenby and Bialik streets in Tel-Aviv. The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 31, 2002 - 15 people were killed and over 40 injured in a suicide bombing in Haifa, in the Matza restaurant of the gas station near the Grand Canyon shopping mall. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide+and+Other+Bombing+Attacks+in+Israel+Since.htm

That's about 80 Israelis, some of them children, some of them elderly, all of them killed by Palestinian terrorist attacks while attempting to go about their lives, over the course of one month.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

91. You sure you want to start counting dead bodies? You'll lose. Badly.

I gave examples from my own family, which is very lucky by local standards. Even the lucky suffer.

[oberliner]

93. This is not a game or a competition

You sometimes present a version of the reality of the last forty years that does not take into account the totality of the situation.

I do not wish to count bodies and I am not trying to "win" anything, and if you are interested to hear about examples from my own family, please send me a private message.

[Violet_Crumble]

77. I definately agree that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Gaza...

It's not like the West Bank where Israel has made it very clear that it does have territorial ambitions there. If Israel had the same ambitions for Gaza, the disengagement wouldn't have happened, and the reason it happened was imo coz maintaining the settlements and occupation of Gaza was a major pain in the arse with little return - after all there's none of those ancient religious sites in Gaza that pepper the West Bank...

While I don't think Israel wishes to destroy Palestinian society, I don't agree that the opposite is true. I think the reality is that society itself isn't something that's given any thought and there's definately no desire to nurture Palestinian society...

Dirty underbelly of Zionism? That's hyperbole, and the problem with hyperbole is it instantly jumps out from something that may contain really valuable stuff, and in the process that valuable stuff is buried under the sensationalistic, tabloid-style hyperbole. Which is why I wish people could get their points across without resorting to it. When it comes to *dirty underbelly of Zionism*, I googled it and found this. I don't know who this guy is and I'm not sure if I'd agree with his stance on the I/P conflict or not, but he said something about this phrase which I thought was worth posting:

'In my travels around the world and here in Canada, I have noticed many people ranting about Israel’s dirty underbelly more and more in recent years. It seems to reach almost epidemic proportions in some instances. On the flip side, I have encountered my share of “Christian Zionists” and right wing demagogues who spout about Israel’s “specialness” and elevated status, in much of the obsessed and awkward way as their anti-Israel counterparts.'

http://www.tikkun.org/archive/backissues/tik0805/politics/webarticles/zeraviv

[Vegasaurus]

78. It isn't up to Israel to "nurture" Palestinian society

In order for a society to be functional, those that live there have got to want to nurture it themselves.

The Palestinians have never shown the effort or ability to do this, or to act without massive help and outside intervention.

But they have it within their means; afterall, other societies have faced even greater challenges and managed to rise above them and develop themselves.

So the Palestinians "could' nurture themselves, but it would mean giving up their aspirations of taking back the land that is Israel's, and of ridding the middle east of Jews.

Zionism itself has no dirty underbelly at all. It was a place for a persecuted people to finally realize their nationalist dreams, after being denied these for 2000 years.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

81. Very interesting.

In the post where I used the phrase "dirty underbelly of Zionism" to describe the horrors of the occupation, I actually thought my use of " or is it the true character of Zionism" would raise a lot more ire.

I truly don't see any hyperbolic about the use of the phrase. I do find it fascinating that there is more focus on criticizing Israel correctly, than on their actions that merit criticism. I don't mean you personally, VC. But in general, we're oh-so-careful to get our criticism of Israel just so.

For what? It never leads to anything anyway. There are people here who believe the occupation really isn't that bad, that it's temporary, that Israel is force into doing something ugly that they have to do, but that they do it gallantly. That's all hogwash.

It mirrors the whole dynamic related to Palestinians resistance. The unspoken in this forum, and in many people's beliefs is that Palestinians are responsible for their own situation... as though if they just resisted in the "correct" way, the occupation could end... as though there were a set of steps that if they could just take, everything would go away.

I have come to believe over the past 15 years that that is malarky. The occupation is ongoing, not because Palestinians are 'bad' and aren't resisting properly, it goes on because there are powerful forces in Israel's government that wish it to continue.

I would love for you to read this commentary by Henry Siegman, VC: I think it is spot on. Here's a piece:

...the consensus reached long ago by Israel’s decision-making elites that Israel will never allow the emergence of a Palestinian state which denies it effective military and economic control of the West Bank. To be sure, Israel would allow – indeed, it would insist on – the creation of a number of isolated enclaves that Palestinians could call a state, but only in order to prevent the creation of a binational state in which Palestinians would be the majority.

The Middle East peace process may well be the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history. Since the failed Camp David summit of 2000, and actually well before it, Israel’s interest in a peace process – other than for the purpose of obtaining Palestinian and international acceptance of the status quo – has been a fiction that has served primarily to provide cover for its systematic confiscation of Palestinian land and an occupation whose goal, according to the former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon, is ‘to sear deep into the consciousness of Palestinians that they are a defeated people’. In his reluctant embrace of the Oslo Accords, and his distaste for the settlers, Yitzhak Rabin may have been the exception to this, but even he did not entertain a return of Palestinian territory beyond the so-called Allon Plan, which allowed Israel to retain the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank.

Anyone familiar with Israel’s relentless confiscations of Palestinian territory – based on a plan devised, overseen and implemented by Ariel Sharon – knows that the objective of its settlement enterprise in the West Bank has been largely achieved. Gaza, the evacuation of whose settlements was so naively hailed by the international community as the heroic achievement of a man newly committed to an honourable peace with the Palestinians, was intended to serve as the first in a series of Palestinian bantustans. Gaza’s situation shows us what these bantustans will look like if their residents do not behave as Israel wants.

Israel’s disingenuous commitment to a peace process and a two-state solution is precisely what has made possible its open-ended occupation and dismemberment of Palestinian territory. And the Quartet – with the EU, the UN secretary general and Russia obediently following Washington’s lead – has collaborated with and provided cover for this deception by accepting Israel’s claim that it has been unable to find a deserving Palestinian peace partner.

read on, please!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/sieg01_.html

...

[Vegasaurus]

84. Stop resisting, recognize Israel, stop terrorism

and the Palestinians would have had a state decades ago.

The Israelis have made a million concessions. I don't think the Palestinians have made one, and they continue to believe that they hold all the bargaining chips, that they can make demands about right of return, etc.

The Palestinians have the ability to make peace, but they have to want it badly enough to compromise.

Apparently, it is easier to blame their plight on others, than to take responsibility for the misery they have created for themselves.

[Phx_Dem]

85. That article is a hoot

I especially like this part:

What is required for a breakthrough is the adoption by the Security Council of a resolution affirming the following: 1. Changes to the pre-1967 situation can be made only by agreement between the parties. Unilateral measures will not receive international recognition. 2. The default setting of Resolution 242, reiterated by Resolution 338, the 1973 ceasefire resolution, is a return by Israel’s occupying forces to the pre-1967 border. 3. If the parties do not reach agreement within 12 months (the implementation of agreements will obviously take longer), the default setting will be invoked by the Security Council. The Security Council will then adopt its own terms for an end to the conflict, and will arrange for an international force to enter the occupied territories to help establish the rule of law, assist Palestinians in building their institutions, assure Israel’s security by preventing cross-border violence, and monitor and oversee the implementation of terms for an end to the conflict.

I hate to say this but I would kinda like to see an "international force" enter the OTs, I'm sure the Palestinians will welcome them with open arms, because after all who doesn't love foreigners trying to help out by imposing a solution on the locals.

[eyl]

70. Let me get this straight

you're pro collective punishment except when Israel does it?

[Kurska]

86. The crux of the entire issue on both sides

"It's okay when we do it" is what has lead to some many years of tragedy and bloodshed, a truly sad situation.

[cali]

87. nice. real david duke quality stormfront rhetoric- again.

Yeah, I think you are.

[azurnoir]

100. You think that the poster you address is what

elaborate please. But i will bet you do not.

The op is about a monument to a man who I have long respected and admired being built on disputed land and I for one have to wonder what Mr Wiesenthal would have to say about that. No one is opposed to this monument being built or obviously being built in Israel or Jerusalem for that matter, it is that the spot is a cometary. I wonder if Arabs were to move Jewish bodies what the reaction would be, actually I do not your post outlines the mindset quite perfectly

[cali]

107. I have no idea what you're asking of me.

And as far as my take on building this on disputed land- I'm against it. Nevermind the hypocrisy of those who had no objection to this land being used as a parking lot for years and years. If it provokes the kind of controversy it's provoking, it can't serve the ideal it purports to express.

And sorry, I'm against ugly extemist language directed at either Israelis or Palestinians. At either Jews or Arabs. And I'll speak up when I see it.

[azurnoir]

109. It was your post directed at another poster

nice. real david duke quality stormfront rhetoric- again. Yeah, I think you are.

That last line-you think she's what?
you don't have to answer it was just a really nasty post but this has been a nasty thread with a number of deleted posts including one by a poster I don't think has ever had a post deleted before

[Vegasaurus]

112. What was nasty?

Some people finally admitted their opinions on Zionism, underbelly and all, as well as the way that the US is controlled by Jews.

Good to know.

[azurnoir]

113. She did not say one thing

about America being "controlled by Jews" but you make that false claim of course after the post was deleted so it cannot be double checked. I cannot post exactly what was said and you know that too, again convenient, she to paraphrase what was said is that there is a dark side to Zionism and IMO that side is well represented by the settlers in Hebron

As far as what was nasty I am sure Cali understands.

[Shaktimaan]

115. Not exactly.

Her statement did not refer to any "dark side of Zionism." The post was about Israel's supposed goal of destroying Palestinians' culture and economy as part of a larger plan to disenfranchise them to such a degree that Israel would be able to lay claim to their remaining land. PM saw this as an obvious and deliberate scheme which revealed "the true face of Zionism."

To more accurately paraphrase her, PM thinks that Zionism is a destructive force that is centered around eradicating other cultures in order to appropriate their resources for itself. Thus, Israel's current oppression of the Palestinians in the OPT is not an unwelcome result of decades of violent conflict but rather just business-as-usual, the execution of a plan that existed before the conflict even began, and the inevitable result of Zionism's victory over the Arabs. Presumably this outcome would have occurred regardless of whether or not the Palestinians accepted the UN's partition plan or ever engaged the Israelis with violence. This happened to the Palestinians because it is what Zionism is all about. Not because it is what conflict is all about.

----------

You are right about one thing... she did not mention America being controlled by Jews, as far as I remember. But I see how one could make that mistake. These beliefs usually come all together, as part of a standard set. There's different versions... the traditional anti-semitic one vs the more contemporary anti-Zionism type, but these are differences of styling, not of content. There are several, "traditional" memes usually associated with anti-semitism that today form the basis of modern anti-Israel propaganda. While some of the superficial details have been altered to appease changing tastes, (Jew-hating is out right now, while Israel-hating is in) the entire canon of memes themselves have remained basically unchanged.

For example, the whole "pro-Israel Zionists control American policy" is obviously just the old "Jews control the world" shtick, while this "Zionism's "true face" is the destruction of Palestine" is just blood-libel revisited. Here, see if you can spot the similarities... Us Jews need Christian blood in order to bake our Matzoh, as Judaism commands us to. VS Us Zionists need to destroy the Palestinians to build our state, as Zionism dictates.

The original set contains 24 protocols. Most anti-Israel propaganda today still use many of the exact same ones as the anti-Jew propaganda of old.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

121. Let's clarify.

I am saying that Zionism is a nationalist movement predicated around creating a homeland for Jews around the world. The problem is that the homeland they've selected to populate was already populated. By design, implementation of the dream requires removing the indigenous inhabitants. Because they aren't willing to go freely, this has involved violence, force, murder, land theft. These issues continue to this day.

THAT is the realty of Zionism. While I am sure that Jews around the world take comfort and pride in the creation of the state of Israel, the re-invigoration of Hebrew language and Israeli culture, the reality is that the flip side of the achievement has been the ongoing violent supression and dispossession of an entire national group.

A nation which engages in that supression is quite hypocritical to think itself "tolerant." That is my point.

I'm not saying that the goal of early Zionist was to kill and dispossess Arabs, but the fact remains that in order to achieve their goals in British Manadate Palestine, that's exactly what they had to do.

There is a big difference between that and the scenario Shakti describes. I think the reason I lost my cool in this thread earlier was the overwhelming sense that the occupation was really no big deal, that what the gov'ts of Israel have done, and continue to do, to the people of Palestine hardly disqualifies them of being considered "tolerant."

To clarify the other point, anyone with 2 brains cells can see that US mideast policy is heavily influence by pro-Israel lobbying groups such as AIPAC. Are we supposed to pretend this isn't the case? I believe that our mideast policy is to our nation's detriment.

Look at the State Department leadership under Bush. Look at it under Obama. Do you see a single Arab-American? There is nothing CLOSE to balance there. In fact, I'd call it decidedly UNbalanced. My pointing out the reality of the situation in this country during these last years is not akin to claiming with glazes eyes "Jews run the world!"

Richard Silverstein wrote about it. In fact, many liberal zionist Jewish bloggers address that reality.

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/11/23/why-no-arab-americans-dealing-with-israel-palestine-in-obama-state-department/

[Vegasaurus]

122. I posted this on another thread, but it bears repeating, in light of these posts

particularly the bolded part, which is that ANTI-ZIONISM and ANTI-SEMITISM overlap.

"A survey last year by the Anti-Defamation League of five European countries found that half of those questioned believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than the countries in which they live. That was what the Nazis believed.

And almost half of Europeans surveyed also said Jews "probably" have too much control of international finance. That was another Nazi view.

Almost half also believe that Jews control U.S. Middle East policy. The Nazis would have agreed.

The editor of Der Sturmer, Julius Streicher wrote in 1944: "The Jews have made America what it is today: a nation…forced into helping the Jews achieve world domination!"

Manfred Gerstenfeld, a leading Holocaust expert, says the constant demonization of Israel by the European media and the European left has helped create what he calls a "new anti-Semitism" against the "collective Jew"; that is, Israel and Zionism.

"All studies show that Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism almost entirely overlap," he said. "Now, of course, it is very bad to say you are against the Jews after the Holocaust, so you have a found an escape clause to be against the Jews without saying you are against the Jews. And you say I am against Israel, applying standards to Israel that you do not apply to any other nation."

[azurnoir]

129. After wading through the posts here

I am beginning to think the real "monument to intolerance" is this thread and yes I too am guilty.