NY congressman at terror site: 'We would be using B-52 bombers'

[Freddie Stubbs]

A visiting American congressman said Sunday that had any other country in the world faced the onslaught of Palestinian suicide bombings that have rocked Israel over the last three years they would be "carpet bombing" the Palestinian territories.

"If any country in the world would be attacked the way Israel is they would be carpet-bombing the Palestinian territories," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (Dem.-NY) Nadler said. "If this was America that was attacked we would be using B-52 bombers."

The New York Congressman, who visited the site of Sunday's Jerusalem bombing, blasted those who condemned Israel's construction of a security barrier, which zigzgas in and around the West Bank, and is meant to prevent suicide bombers from entering the country.

"The various hypocrites arguing in The Hague against the building of the security fence are similar to those who condemned the Czechs 65 years ago for getting in Hitler's way," he said.

more: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077423458175&p=1006688055060

[cspiguy]

1. does anyone seriously doubt this?

n/t

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. No, it's true

EVERY major nation would have done the same thing. The Israelis are victims of their own morality.

[el_gato]

3. ha ha what a laugh

gimme a break
I guess it's an example of morality to bulldoze homes of children.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. By comparison to what other nations would do in response

To the murder of their own children, yes it is.

Look at Russia in Chechnya, China pretty much everywhere, the U.S. in history, Britain in Ireland, etc.

[rockymountaindem]

5. As ususal, Muddle

you say all the smart things before I get a chance to respond.

I agree that if the same things that were happening to Israel were happening in the US, most people would be calling for drastic action.

[mazzarro]

7. What about other people suffering the same humiliations the Palestinians

are going through? There are two sides to this issue and we should not overlook the other side's predicaments.

[mobuto]

10. No we shouldn't

but there are worse things than humiliation. Much worse.

[Carl21014]

27. Absolutely

Israel creates it's own problems. As long as they oppress the Palestinian people the Palestinian people will resist. I know I would. I wouldn't allow an occupier to steal my home, kill my relatives, and lock me in a canton for my whole life. I would rather die, and kill as many as I could before I went!

Live free or die!

[Blayde Starrfyre]

8. "Race to the bottom?"

Is this a "race to the bottom" where Israel says "Well Russia violates human rights, so we get to as well!" and we see who in the world can tally up the biggest body count? "That guy was speeding too" doesn't get you out of a parking ticket. "That country killed a bunch of children too" doesn't exempt you from following international law.

[Gimel]

28. Not Israel's rational

This discussion is about what other countries might do, but that is not Israel's rational in responding to the viscious, repugnant crimes against humanity which have killed more than 900 of it's citizens. Most of those killed were entirely innocent civilians

[lefty_mcduff]

30. Growing up in N. Ireland

Don't recall the drone of B-52s over Belfast...

[Freddie Stubbs]

6. Most countries would have bombed the homes, killing everyone inside

[_Jumper_]

15. Indeed it is true

But it isn't because Israel has morality that is superior to the entire world. It is because it has its hands tied by a foreign country that it is dependent on for survival.

[ex_jew]

9. So now Israel is the Czechs and Palestinians are Hitler ?

Whoa boy - that's a stretch. I wonder what he REALLY thinks but feels he must keep to himself. This man is certifiable.

And how many other countries resort to carpet bombing for ANY reason ? I can't think of any but the good old USA ! Makes me proud.

[mobuto]

11. Nadler is certifiable?

Its nice to see such strong support for the Democratic Party on the Democratic Underground.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. He is one of the most liberal members of Congress

Which would put him the the right of most DUers.

[ex_jew]

13. Liberal or not, comparing Israel to Czechoslovakia means

he's INSANE ! He has completely lost touch with reality. It was bad enough when they compared Saddam to Hitler, but now the Palestinians are the Nazis ? Excuse me while I puke.

Actually, of course, Nadler is only INSANE because Israel is making him insane. He thinks nothing else in human history can compare to the latest bus bombing - everyone else who suffered terrorist attacks has used B-52s to carpet bomb everything. It's just not true.

The state of Israel has caused a massive disruption in rationality worldwide, which is not the least of its dire consequences.

[rockymountaindem]

14. The comparison to Czechoslovakia is valid.

First, the Germans asked only for the Sudetenland, an area populated by ethnic Germans who spoke German. To the world this seemed like a reasonable request, and the globe pressured the Czechs to relinquish the land to it's "rightful" owners, Germany. That was in 1936. Only one problem with that for Czechoslovakia; all it's defenses were located in the Sudetenland (as it was on the German border). The Czechs had a formidable army and would have been able to mount a decent defense against Germany in 1936 using a mini-Maginot line style defense against the Germans. After the defense line was annexed by Germany, the Czechs had nothing to defend themselves with. When Hitler threatened to invade them in 1938, the Czech president's only choice was to capitulate so as to avoid a war that his country couldn't win and that would destroy everything.

If Israel were to give up control of the West Bank, Israel would only be 8 miles wide at it's widest point and will have relinquished control of the high ground. I don't see why Israel isn't allowed to defend itself. I believe it really is a country fighting for it's life. It won't make the same mistake the Czechs did in 1936 when they caved to world opinion.

[ex_jew]

16. So now Arafat is threatening to invade Israel

and the separation wall is the main thing stopping him ? I must be missing something.

The Palestinians are the ones who gave up land for peace, but it didn't work. They're now confined to a small fraction of the original homeland and even that area can hardly be said to belong to them.

How is that Israel existed very nicely without control of the West Bank until 1967, when it suddenly became critical to the defense of a country which has jet fighters and nuclear weapons ? Is it just because Israel conquered this area and then looked around for a justification ? The West Bank is mostly a burden and only to a much lesser degree a strategic advantage. This "wall" we've been talking about is a recognition of that fact.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. "existed very nicely?"

You seem to forget a few wars and ongoing border conflict during that time.

[ex_jew]

19. Wars yes, terrorism no

Wars are easy for Israel to handle, terrorism is obviously very difficult. I was only 13 at the time, but I don't remember Israel's situation in 1967 as a permanent horrible crisis. Now it is. Has control of the West Bank made things better ?

[MikeGalos]

22. Wars yes, terrorism yes

Look up the "War of Attrition" and Fedayeen sometime.

[ex_jew]

24. OK, I looked it up

The "War of Attrition" was fought between 1969 and 1970. Not sure what your point is here. As to fedayeen, you'll have to be a little more specific.

[MikeGalos]

26. The Fedayeen in this context

were terrorists who launched over the border attacks on Israel in the 50s and 60s. (You know, back before there were any "Palestinians", the West Bank was illegally occupied by Jordan and the PLO thought that was just fine and Egypt was calling for the extermination of all the Jews in Israel)

[tinnypriv]

31. And one of the most serious (Israeli) historians says:

That the border attacks were "insignificant" (Martin v Creveld)

As for "terrorists", that's an interesting blanket definition. Some were, some weren't. Some of those who weren't had at least as much legitimacy as the Zionist pre-state organisations and some of the terrorists had perhaps the same legitimacy as Lehi (depends on their motivations in both cases).

Oh, you can add "incompetent" to insignificant (look up some of their claims of responsibility, as well as the casualty figures of their actions).

Moving on, and since you're on the subject, Israel was also carrying out terrorist attacks during the period you give ("50's and 60's"), and they were "launched over the border".

To name two examples: Operation Black Arrow¹ (authorised by Sharatt, carried out by Sharon, the pretext was laughable)², and the "Lavon affair", which I can't believe you're ignoring, given that it was an operation almost soley comprised of terrorist attacks on westerners (cultural facilities in Egypt, private cars, random targets, economic centers etc)³.

These are two, there are many more.

Just for kicks, since you mentioned the fedayeen, you might want to look up the history of their formation. To save you the effort, I'll quote an Israeli historian:

"That the Egyptian government began to organise the fedayeen units in the spring of 1955 is not in dispute ... (however) Nasser's version was that the formation of the fedayeen represented a reversal of his previous policy of restraint and that it was the raid on Gaza ("Black Arrow") that brought about this reversal.

... Records of Egyptian and Jordanian military intelligence captured by the Israeli army in the course of the 1956 and 1967 wars conclusively (disprove the IDF version) and substantiate Nasser's version. These records show that until the Gaza raid, the Egyptian military authorities had a consistent and firm policy of curbing infiltration by Palestinians (into Israel) and that it was only following the raid that a new policy was put in place, that of organising the fedayeen units and turning them into an official instrument of warfare against Israel." ⁴

Invert the history if you like, and continue to loudly denounce the devious PLO and murderous Egyptians, but don't expect your arguments to be taken seriously if you do.

-----

1. During the course of the operation, 37 Egyptian soldiers were killed and their army HQ completely destroyed. The ferocity of the attack shocked even Sharatt.
2. The pretext was the death of a cylist, and two infiltrations, which constituted a period of relative tranquility along the border.
3. According to Nahum Barnea, who currently is one of the most respected commentators in Israel (he writes for Yediot Aharonot), the terrorist attacks were meant to be even more severe ("poisining the water supply" is one example he gives, writing in the Israeli press at the time).
4. Emphasis added. Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall, p.129 and sources cited.

[MikeGalos]

18. No - they gave up land for war

Some left on the promise from the Arab League that after the Jews were exterminated in 1948 they'd get the Jews land when they returned. Other just left because they wanted to avoid a war zone.

They ONLY people in the area who traded land for peace have been the Israelis who gave the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for the treaty and the West Bank back to Jordan in exchange for a treaty (but Jordan didn't want it back)

[ex_jew]

20. OK - the Palestinians gave up land for nothing.

Definitely not peace.

Haven't heard from you in a while, Mr. Galos !

[mobuto]

21. Ex_Jew please explain your user name

what it means and why you chose it. I'm curious.

As for your assertion, I think the Palestinians would be well served asking the governments of Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt why they can't return to their homes or why the state of Palestine no longer exists.

[ex_jew]

23. Since you asked (even though it's off-topic)

I am a person who was raised as a Jew and even had his sons Bar Mitzvah-ed but who no longer participates in any Jewish ritual, mainly because of the religion's tragic entanglement with a particular blood-soaked piece of land (among other things). In case you're wondering, I'm not currently involved with any other religion, nor am I likely to be.

As to the history lesson, I wonder if you would consider including Israel on the list of countries responsible for the Palestinian disposession ? Or has Israel nothing at all to do with the situation ?

[mobuto]

29. No, Israel has very little to do with the problems

Palestinians living in refugee camps face.

1. I freely acknowledge that some Arabs were chased from their homes in 1948 by Jews. Many left voluntarily, others were coerced by the invading Arab armies. Looking at the context of a nascent state, barely more than a few settlers and refugees and without a government, I think the Jews' fear was justified. They were under attack from all directions and from five armies - and the context is all-consuming. Israel is simply not responsible for the 1948 war.

2. There is absolutely no reason why Palestinians had to stay in refugee camps generation after generation, except that the Arab states have feared Palestinians and wanted to use them as a political pawn.

3. There should be a Palestinian State. In fact, there would be, if Jordan hadn't annexed it in 1948.

As for your explanation about why you consider yourself now to be an "ex" Jew, I find that most bizarre. You're saying that your decision has nothing to do with faith or conviction, but simply because you disagree with other Jews on a matter of public policy? If Christians and Muslims left their respective religions everytime coreligionists did something asinine in their names, there wouldn't be any religions.

[dudeness]

25. no doubt those B-52s kick ass

just look at the results MILLIONS of dead yellow and brown people wordwide..shit, who wouldn't brag about such a wonderful achievement?