Who are the Terrorists????

[Gaybutton]

Personally, I don't blame Israel for "over-reacting," if that is indeed what they are doing. Perhaps I am wrong, but from what I understand Israel has never attacked anyone unless they were attacked first or were in obvious danger of imminent attack. Am I wrong about that?

 

It seems to me the anti-Israel middle eastern countries that despise Israel and say their homeland was taken from them have directed their hatred toward the wrong people all along. Israel was set up by UN charter wasn't it? I have never really understood why they go after Israel rather than the UN.

 

I also don't understand what good either side thinks bombs, terrorist attacks, and that sort of thing will do. All that ever seems to do is provoke more mutual mistrust and hatred.

 

I think the problem has nothing to do with the fact that these hatreds have gone on for so long. I think it has to do with both sides being in a no-win situation that so far has not been able to be resolved through negotiation. If they are never able to reach a compromise, one that works, then I see no end to it.

[KhorTose]

Personally, I don't blame Israel for "over-reacting," if that is indeed what they are doing. Perhaps I am wrong, but from what I understand Israel has never attacked anyone unless they were attacked first or were in obvious danger of imminent attack. Am I wrong about that?

It seems to me the anti-Israel middle eastern countries that despise Israel and say their homeland was taken from them have directed their hatred toward the wrong people all along. Israel was set up by UN charter wasn't it? I have never really understood why they go after Israel rather than the UN.

 

No GB, Israel definitely attacked first in 1967, but she did so to counter a very real threat from Egypt and Nassar. She also attacked first in 1956 but with the aid and cooperation of England and France. Many argue that she started the violence in 1948, but that is very debatable.

 

Israel was set up by UN Charter, but the boundaries were broken up and very small. Only 1 mile wide at one point. The 1948 war set Israel's first boundaries not the UN charter.

 

The original charter allowed the Palestians to stay on thier land, they left it for two reasons.

1. Some of the hostile arab counties asked them to leave.

2. The Irgun (Israel) killed everyone in an arab village and fear of that happening to them pushed the Exodus even more.

3. The arab countries refused to accept the Palestians forced off their land as their citizens, and thus the camps and the continuing hatred. One exception is Lebanon where the Christian Palestians were accepted but not the Muslim.

4. It will end only when we have an American President strong enough to force a peace on both sides, and stand up to the strong Religious Right movement in the USA, and the Israeli lobby.

[Guest fountainhall]

Perhaps I am wrong, but from what I understand Israel has never attacked anyone unless they were attacked first or were in obvious danger of imminent attack. Am I wrong about that?

 

Up to a point! But you seem to forget that history is littered with examples of countries which have deliberately so goaded neighbours/enemies knowing perfectly well that the point will be reached when those neighbours/enemies take the initiative and attack first. This then opens the door wide to those "attacked" to retaliate. In my view Israel has been guilty of this, and then raises its arms on high and pleads to the world it is the aggrieved party.

 

I agree entirely with KhorTose about the problem being incapable of resolution until America knocks heads together. That means the Jewish lobby in the US has to be dealt with. Perhaps with Obama's determination to stamp out lobbyists - despite his support of Israel - there may be a glimmer of light at the end of this dreadful tunnel.

[Guest slackersam]

I think we can all agree that if the US stood up to both Israel and Hammas with more force than they have so far that things would get better.

[Guest fountainhall]

I think we can all agree that if the US stood up to both Israel and Hammas with more force than they have so far that things would get better.

 

Personally I think this is as good a point as any to put this thread to one side. I and others have made our arguments, and I thank shebavon and those supporting his views for meaningful and insightful contributions.

[Guest shebavon]

Shebavon, sorry I am going to have to steal a quote that Wesely uses on another Web site.

 

I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

- Robert McCloskey

 

Lack of sleep when I wrote this is my only excuse, and I sincerely apologize if I have offended you with my, less then specific and very poor choice of words. However, I will stand by the following choice of words.

 

The majority of the "Jews of Israel" have become Nazi-like. As to the why I said that it would take up pages and you already know most of it. Suffice to say the following:

1. I did not like the Irgun's (Etzel) actions at Deir Yassin in 1948.

2. Ben Gurion is on record from 1936 on as saying Israel's borders should be the biblical borders.

3. The deliberate attack on the Liberty in 1967. (I was in the Army Security Agency at the time, and yes, the attack was deliberate.

4. There is justification for Attacking Egypt in 1967, but not Syria and Jordon. They were provoked by Israel. Dylan himself is on record as stating this.

5. The seizure of homes and land in the West Bank from the Palestinians

6. The building of settlements on that land by right wing religious "god is on our side settlers". It is okay to be the chosen people, but not to act like other people are inferior and of no consequence.

7. Sixty years of defying UN mandates.

 

These are just a very few of the high points. I could spend some time and give you many other points and quotes, some from Israelis and American Jews who agree with my Nazi-like assessment, but as I said earlier, you know most of this. I have been reading you post and you are to well read and informed not to know there is great dissent inside the Jewish community as a whole, and inside Israel specifically. I am not the first to make this comparison and it is not only Gentiles or Arabs saying this. Come on now.

 

Been too busy savoring Bush's departure, and even more joyously (if that is possible) Obama's arrival to respond. But let's take them in order.

 

1. Deir Yassin. I thought I had remembered some documentary on this, and I was right. It was on PBS in 1999 and featured interviews with Palestinian survivors. Conclusion drawn was that it was a hoax perpetrated by the Mufti to fuel the passions of the neighboring Arab states. Witnesses spoke of how they were told to lie about rapes and murders. In reality the town was an armed military target that had high ground over the TelAviv to Jerusalem highway and was shelling Jewish convoys. The town was attacked by 135 Irgun soldiers, who blared on loudspeakers that the civilians should leave, thereby giving up stealth. Indeed, 1/3 of the attackers were killed or wounded (the myth is that the town was unarmed). What was it that you did not like, that the Irgun won the battle?

 

Law of unintended consequences applies here. Because of the immediate broadcast of the so-called massacre on Arab radio, hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians fled their homes in the 1948 war.

 

It is interesting that Khor Tor did not mention Hebron 1929 where a Jewish community which had existed there peacefully for hundreds of years were attacked by the Arab community resulting in 67 of 800 Jews dead. The survivors were relocated to Jerusalem.

 

Nor were the 510 Jews murdered by Palestinian Arabs rioting between 1936 and 1939 mentioned

 

Also forgotten were the 1256 Jews murdered by Palestinian Arabs between the adoption of UN Partition in November of 1947 and May of 1948 when the independent State of Israel came into being.

 

To your second and fourth points, I will only say that they are both entitled to their opinion in free societies. Final borders still have to be negotiated, and the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian armies were mobilizing on their borders. Was this the inspiration for the Bush Doctrine of legitimate right of pre-emption in self defense?

 

Concerning the Liberty, successive US administrations have accepted Israeli apologies and have moved on. I would be more concerned with Islamo-Terrorism, and more recent history, i.e. US Cole in Yemen, not to mention 9/11, Madrid, London, and Mumbai attacks. All free and aspiring to be free nations are in danger from that threat.

 

5. Seizures of homes and buildings: Israel has repeatedly throughout it's 60 year history show that it was willing to trade land for peace but not disappear. See past posts. When you end up occupying an area, you administer it. And Israel recently and forcefully relocated it's most militant settlers in Gaza. By the way you might want to be aware of the Jewish communities in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Aden who though living in those nations for centuries, were forced to leave. In 1948 the populations totalled 856,000. By 1968 just 31,000 remained.

 

6. I will agree with you, but Israel is a democracy with competing viewpoints, as is the US and many other nations. We all have our share of religious fanatics.

 

7. It takes 2 to tango. The issues still need to be worked on by the principle parties involved. Can you imagine the tourist dollars flowing to that part of the world if peace broke out? It is certainly in Israel's best interest financially to resolve this mess.

 

 

 

[Guest shebavon]

Up to a point! But you seem to forget that history is littered with examples of countries which have deliberately so goaded neighbours/enemies knowing perfectly well that the point will be reached when those neighbours/enemies take the initiative and attack first. This then opens the door wide to those "attacked" to retaliate. In my view Israel has been guilty of this, and then raises its arms on high and pleads to the world it is the aggrieved party.

 

I agree entirely with KhorTose about the problem being incapable of resolution until America knocks heads together. That means the Jewish lobby in the US has to be dealt with. Perhaps with Obama's determination to stamp out lobbyists - despite his support of Israel - there may be a glimmer of light at the end of this dreadful tunnel.

If you are to accuse Israel of this, please be more specific. Particularly about the 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 wars which resulted in the major war-related changes of boundaries.

 

Referring to the Jewish Lobby, why stop there. The Arabs have an even better funded lobby supported by our petrodollars. Should they also not be reigned in? Somehow we need to de-couple Jewish from Pro-Israeli. They are not the same. Neither would be Pro-Palestinian and Muslim. You can be pro-Israel without being either Jewish, nor being in lockstep without all of the nations policies, and you can be pro-Palestinian without being a terrorist sympathizer or Muslim.

 

[Guest slackersam]

I think he meant the "Israel Lobby" and not the "Jewish Lobby" which I think we can all agree are two different things.

[Guest shebavon]

I think he meant the "Israel Lobby" and not the "Jewish Lobby" which I think we can all agree are two different things.

I am still not sure what he meant given the composition of his last sentence. What does stamping out lobbyists particularly have to do with Obama's support of Israel?

 

How do you stamp out lobbyists without stamping out free speech? Or do you only stamp out the free speech of those who disagree with you.

 

Fortunately Obama has created an administration of diverse views and he is intelligent enough to use the collective input to arrive at decisions. However this is way off the topic of this link.

[Guest slackersam]

My understanding is that Obama is going to work to stem the undue influence of lobbyists in the political process.

 

Free speech is fine, but the way the current Washington situation is structured some people are given much more free speech than others.

 

How to make lobbists less influential does strike me as difficult, but it will be interesting to see what he tries to do.

[Guest shebavon]

My understanding is that Obama is going to work to stem the undue influence of lobbyists in the political process.

 

Free speech is fine, but the way the current Washington situation is structured some people are given much more free speech than others.

 

How to make lobbists less influential does strike me as difficult, but it will be interesting to see what he tries to do.

I do like that he announced yesterday that he would prohibit those leaving public service for jobs in related fields, to return to the administration. That is closing the revolving door. Good move, but again off topic.

[Guest slackersam]

The thing is I don't see how to blunt the power of the Israel Lobby unless you change the electoral college system.

 

So much of the money that funds that lobbying group comes from residents of New York and Florida - which are states you need to win to become president. Therefore, their influence becomes unbalanced.

 

The thing is, I suspect it would be hard for the right wing of Israel to do what they do without help/acceptance of the American government. If we were less willing to support them, the left wing side of Israeli politics might have a better shot of winning and achieving a lasting peace.

[Guest shebavon]

The thing is I don't see how to blunt the power of the Israel Lobby unless you change the electoral college system.

 

So much of the money that funds that lobbying group comes from residents of New York and Florida - which are states you need to win to become president. Therefore, their influence becomes unbalanced.

 

The thing is, I suspect it would be hard for the right wing of Israel to do what they do without help/acceptance of the American government. If we were less willing to support them, the left wing side of Israeli politics might have a better shot of winning and achieving a lasting peace.

Sorry Sam,

 

I do not get the point. Why does it matter for a national lobby that it's money comes from particular states. I can understand that through a group's predominance in a particular state's electorate, that group can have a disproportianate effect on the electoral college, and in the Senate. Many Arab Americans live in Michigan and Ohio, also battleground states. Uncle Tonoose in Dearborn?

 

Successive American Governments of both the Democratic and Republican type have concluded that Israel is an Ally and Strategic asset, through both liberal and conservative Israeli governments. Perhaps you should examine the reasons for this.

[Guest slackersam]

The reasons are that lots of voters in New York and Florida give money to the Israel lobby and the people who run presidential campaigns have the ability to count.

[Guest shebavon]

The reasons are that lots of voters in New York and Florida give money to the Israel lobby and the people who run presidential campaigns have the ability to count.

So, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? Do you really want to stifle the views of those you differ with. We had that for 8 years, and look where we are now.

 

Fortunately we have a President with an inquiring mind who welcomes all points of view.

 

 

[Guest slackersam]

I don't want to stiffle anything. I'm just saying that the views of certain groups of people get magnified because of Electoral College georgraphy.

 

This is why we haven't had a rational Cuba policy in decades - because the Cuban exiles and their children are irrational fuckwits, but live in Florida and vote.

 

We have a crazy Israel policy because Israel supporters live in New York and Florida and vote.

 

If both groups of loony tunes lived in New Mexico or Kansas nobody would give a shit about their opinions and we'd be at less risk of having our buildings blown up and we'd all be able to take cheap vacations to Havana.

[KhorTose]

Been too busy savoring Bush's departure, and even more joyously (if that is possible) Obama's arrival to respond. But let's take them in order.

 

1. Deir Yassin. I thought I had remembered some documentary on this, and I was right. It was on PBS in 1999 and featured interviews with Palestinian survivors. Conclusion drawn was that it was a hoax perpetrated by the Mufti to fuel the passions of the neighboring Arab states. Witnesses spoke of how they were told to lie about rapes and murders. In reality the town was an armed military target that had high ground over the TelAviv to Jerusalem highway and was shelling Jewish convoys. The town was attacked by 135 Irgun soldiers, who blared on loudspeakers that the civilians should leave, thereby giving up stealth. Indeed, 1/3 of the attackers were killed or wounded (the myth is that the town was unarmed). What was it that you did not like, that the Irgun won the battle?

 

Law of unintended consequences applies here. Because of the immediate broadcast of the so-called massacre on Arab radio, hundreds of thousands of Arab civilians fled their homes in the 1948 war.

 

It is interesting that Khor Tor did not mention Hebron 1929 where a Jewish community which had existed there peacefully for hundreds of years were attacked by the Arab community resulting in 67 of 800 Jews dead. The survivors were relocated to Jerusalem.

 

Nor were the 510 Jews murdered by Palestinian Arabs rioting between 1936 and 1939 mentioned

 

Also forgotten were the 1256 Jews murdered by Palestinian Arabs between the adoption of UN Partition in November of 1947 and May of 1948 when the independent State of Israel came into being.

 

To your second and fourth points, I will only say that they are both entitled to their opinion in free societies. Final borders still have to be negotiated, and the Egyptian, Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian armies were mobilizing on their borders. Was this the inspiration for the Bush Doctrine of legitimate right of pre-emption in self defense?

 

Concerning the Liberty, successive US administrations have accepted Israeli apologies and have moved on. I would be more concerned with Islamo-Terrorism, and more recent history, i.e. US Cole in Yemen, not to mention 9/11, Madrid, London, and Mumbai attacks. All free and aspiring to be free nations are in danger from that threat.

 

5. Seizures of homes and buildings: Israel has repeatedly throughout it's 60 year history show that it was willing to trade land for peace but not disappear. See past posts. When you end up occupying an area, you administer it. And Israel recently and forcefully relocated it's most militant settlers in Gaza. By the way you might want to be aware of the Jewish communities in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, and Aden who though living in those nations for centuries, were forced to leave. In 1948 the populations totalled 856,000. By 1968 just 31,000 remained.

 

6. I will agree with you, but Israel is a democracy with competing viewpoints, as is the US and many other nations. We all have our share of religious fanatics.

 

7. It takes 2 to tango. The issues still need to be worked on by the principle parties involved. Can you imagine the tourist dollars flowing to that part of the world if peace broke out? It is certainly in Israel's best interest financially to resolve this mess.

 

I delayed answering this because I wanted to be sure my memory was correct. The massacre did happen, and it did not happen the way you said, but the way it is reported in so many of the books that I read. (Wiki has a short blurb on it with references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

I could find no reference to a PBS program so I emailed them and asked if they had a 1999 program on Deir Yassin or any other program that disproved the event. I just got the answer back. They had had many specials on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but have never denied the massacre at Dier Yassin. So I must ask you for your citation. I did find two sites that said the same thing you did, but both of these sites did not give out who they where, and I found distortions in everything they said about the Arab Israeli conflict from 1917 on. I have to say come on now again, I mean even the Jewish Authority and the Haganah admitted this happened. In fact, this village was neutral, but aided the Haganah.

 

I did not mention Hebron or any of the things that occurred on both side prior to 1948 as we are talking about Israel, and as I said I was just giving some points to justify my Nazi-like picture of the Israeli Jews. Listing everything on both sides would take twenty pages, and I decided not to go into the British mandate as this is not really the subject.

 

Wiki has a good article on the Liberty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

 

I cannot give you a citation on the real reason the liberty sank as I only have hearsay from the communications interceptors that were in Addis Ababa who heard the whole thing. However, my pledge to keep the secrets I knew was only for 10 years, and that has long passed, so here is the truth as told to me by the interceptors at that station. Israel deliberately attacked the Liberty, knowing it was American, in order to distract the Egyptians and keep their air force on the ground where Israeli planes could take them out. They knew the American Carrier off of Libya would scramble aircraft and the Egyptians would see this and keep their planes on the ground fearing the Americans would attack them thinking they were hitting the Liberty. Air Commanders who monitored the whole Israeli air force taking off desperately asked to scramble their planes only to be told to stay on the ground by their command. A brilliant ruse at our expense, and I despise Johnson for letting Israel get away with it. To quote CS Lewis, "You can never know the truth, you can only chose to believe or not believe."

Since I cannot offer a citation--believe this or not.

 

5. Seizures of homes and buildings:--Come on now. Building without a permit on your own land and your home is leveled by bulldozers. A wall is built so you cannot get to your field your family has owned for a hundred years or more, Right wing Jewish settlers--often from Russia--are allowed to carry machine guns and terrorize the arabs in the communities they live in. These are the same people responsible for killing Simon Peres because he wanted peace.

 

6. As far as some dissidents go, they include many of the original Jews who fought for Israel in 1948 and have since left the country do to the increasing militarism and fanaticism of Israeli right-wing. Many of these Jews were the Kibbutzers, of which Israel has only a few left.

[Guest slackersam]

I've seen this myth all around the Internet. The massacre did happen as did the forced evacuation, rapes and torture, but there seems to be a lot of people who think that if they say often enough that it didn't happen that people will believe it.

 

It's very similar to Holocaust deniers.

[KhorTose]

It's very similar to Holocaust deniers.

 

Exactly the same.

 

[Guest shebavon]

I delayed answering this because I wanted to be sure my memory was correct. The massacre did happen, and it did not happen the way you said, but the way it is reported in so many of the books that I read. (Wiki has a short blurb on it with references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

I could find no reference to a PBS program so I emailed them and asked if they had a 1999 program on Deir Yassin or any other program that disproved the event. I just got the answer back. They had had many specials on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but have never denied the massacre at Dier Yassin. So I must ask you for your citation. I did find two sites that said the same thing you did, but both of these sites did not give out who they where, and I found distortions in everything they said about the Arab Israeli conflict from 1917 on. I have to say come on now again, I mean even the Jewish Authority and the Haganah admitted this happened. In fact, this village was neutral, but aided the Haganah.

 

I did not mention Hebron or any of the things that occurred on both side prior to 1948 as we are talking about Israel, and as I said I was just giving some points to justify my Nazi-like picture of the Israeli Jews. Listing everything on both sides would take twenty pages, and I decided not to go into the British mandate as this is not really the subject."

 

Deir Yassin took place in April 1948, before the State of Israel was declared. Therefore it would have been appropriate for you to be more even-handed in your citations.

 

Below is what Wiki says about the event.

 

"Deir Yassin

 

 

Deir Yassin (Arabic: دير ياسين‎), was an Arab village, lying 1,400 meters to the north of what is now Yad Vashem, which had declared its neutrality during the 1948 Palestine war. In an effort by the Jewish militias to clear the road to Jerusalem, which was being blockaded by Arab forces, Deir Yassin was attacked and emptied of its inhabitants by Irgun forces. [1] The incident, in which between 107 and 120 villagers were killed, became known as the Deir Yassin massacre. The Irgun also suffered 37 wounded and 3 dead during the incident.[2] After the battle, the Irgun forces escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference.

 

A year following the incident, the neighborhood of Givat Shaul Beth was built partially over the village despite scholarly protests to Ben Gurion.[3] Noam Chomsky reported that some streets were named after units of the Irgun and Palmach forces that conquered the village.[4] In 2008 however, streets in the former Deir Yassin area do not bear these names.[5]"

 

 

Very easy way for you to locate info on the PBS documentary is by going to your search window and type "deir yassin PBS" It will even bring up U-tube snippets from the doc.

 

I stand by all I have said. The town was a legit military target.

 

Here is a link for Utube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdX3kQKO3wU

[Guest shebavon]

I've seen this myth all around the Internet. The massacre did happen as did the forced evacuation, rapes and torture, but there seems to be a lot of people who think that if they say often enough that it didn't happen that people will believe it.

 

It's very similar to Holocaust deniers.

I guess PBS, the home of Bill Moyers is in the hands of the Zionist bad guys.

[Guest slackersam]

In general Wikipedia entries about Israel are considered very, very unreliable - because they are often edited by pro-Israel types then re-edited by anti-Israel types back and forth so that you never on any given day have a clue as to what type of propoganda is there.

[Guest shebavon]

In general Wikipedia entries about Israel are considered very, very unreliable - because they are often edited by pro-Israel types then re-edited by anti-Israel types back and forth so that you never on any given day have a clue as to what type of propoganda is there.

I guess Khor Tose happened by on a lucky day. Does PBS have the same problem? Let's be real!

 

What happened at Deir Yassin was nothing different than what all too frequently happens in the heat of battle. The winning or surviving participants pissed off about losing their friends get a little steamed and fire off at some surviving losers. In this case, according to the PBS report, it was Rabbi's who stopped what would have been more than the massacre of 18 Palestinians. Listen carefully to what the Palestinian survivor says.

 

For similar examples look at Wounded Knee, Mai Lai, and I forget the village in Iraq. And those are just American examples.

[Guest shebavon]

Khor Tose wrote "I cannot give you a citation on the real reason the liberty sank as I only have hearsay from the communications interceptors that were in Addis Ababa who heard the whole thing. However, my pledge to keep the secrets I knew was only for 10 years, and that has long passed, so here is the truth as told to me by the interceptors at that station. Israel deliberately attacked the Liberty, knowing it was American, in order to distract the Egyptians and keep their air force on the ground where Israeli planes could take them out. They knew the American Carrier off of Libya would scramble aircraft and the Egyptians would see this and keep their planes on the ground fearing the Americans would attack them thinking they were hitting the Liberty. Air Commanders who monitored the whole Israeli air force taking off desperately asked to scramble their planes only to be told to stay on the ground by their command. A brilliant ruse at our expense, and I despise Johnson for letting Israel get away with it. To quote CS Lewis, "You can never know the truth, you can only chose to believe or not believe."

Since I cannot offer a citation--believe this or not."

 

LBJ, was he not the President for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Similar circumstances. Peculiar.

 

I would not doubt your suspicions at all. I might go one step further and suggest that perhaps Johnson was a part of the plan before it even happened.

 

Back to reality. I think you should be more pissed off about the US Cole and the Beirut bombing of the US quarters, and yes, 9/11.

 

[Guest slackersam]

Freedom of Information Act requests have already documented that LBJ, McNamara and Allen Dulles knew about and helped stage the Gulf of Tolkin farce. (Though to be fair, Dulles was only in on the planning stages, he'd been forced to resign by the time it actually happened.)