BS: Israel Moves in.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:22 AM

"During the Ottoman period peasants had leases on farms and homes that they and their families occupied and worked for hundreds of years. When the European Jews showed up, they conducted back room deals with absentee landlords to take those homes and farms away from the families who had been living in them for all those many years." - CarolC

I now know what the C stands for - CRAP

The Ottomans only ever sold the Jewish immigrants useless land. I believe I've given you examples dating back to the 1870's before. Detailing land and what the Jews accomplished with that land through drainage and hard work.

Even given your example above - the absentee landlords selling land and property which lets face it those landlords owned to someone prepared to pay the asking price - It would appear that if the peasants from the Ottoman period have got a beef with anyone it would be the landlord who has sold the property not the person that has bought it. But Oh wait!! The absentee landlord was probably a Turk or an Arab whereas the person who purchased the property perfectly legally was a Jew - Must be the Jews fault - Your logic smacks of racism and bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: GUEST,C. Ham
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:14 AM

Are the Jews using Israel for a staging area to take over the world?

Absoloutely. We already control the U.S. government, the Canadian government, the European Union, NATO, etc.

The only thing we're having trouble with is the United Nations and Mudcat Cafe. That'll come though.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 11:11 AM

No, I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 May 09 - 10:55 AM

Are the Jews using Israel for a staging area to take over the world?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 03:16 AM

I would also continue to speak out when my government enables the government of Israel to do what it's been doing to the Palestinians (and also its neighbors) in other ways as well, like for instance through its use of its UN veto. So I guess the only way to shut me up is to persuade the government of Israel to give up its hegemonic and imperialist ambitions altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:57 AM

I'll still be complicit, and I will still have the blood of innocent Palestinian children on my hands, regardless of whether or not my money is reimbursed, because it's my money that has enabled the government of Israel to do what it's been doing. So instead of reimbursing me, I would suggest waging a campaign to end US taxpayer money being given to the government of Israel. Once the government of Israel can no longer to afford to do what it's been doing to the Palestinians (because the US taxpayers are no longer providing them with the means to do it), I will be happy to shut up about it. Although I would still counter any racism I see being expressed towards Palestinians, Muslims, and Arabs (as I also do when I encounter racism being expressed towards other groups, including Jews).

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:38 AM

Good night, Ralph.

Sam

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:16 AM

Regarding "WITH MY TAX MONEY".

If I reimburse you, will you kindly stfu? Your share is likely in the area of $50. Complain about the health care system for a change. (Are there Jewish doctors in the US? If so, forget I said that.)

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 02:09 AM

"I don't really give a shit about the constant cut and paste histrionics as to whether Israel has a right to exist. My own country voted that it did. Period. Israel exists."

Good words from that poster!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 01:13 AM

During the Ottoman period peasants had leases on farms and homes that they and their families occupied and worked for hundreds of years. When the European Jews showed up, they conducted back room deals with absentee landlords to take those homes and farms away from the families who had been living in them for all those many years.

The bomb shelters are built in Jewish neighborhoods and not in Arab neighborhoods. It doesn't matter if a bomb shelter in a Jewish neighborhood would allow an Arab in it (and I think it's an open question whether or not it would), if the bomb is falling in an Arab neighborhood. This problem extends far beyond the question of bomb shelters, though. The government of Israel also discriminates against Arab Israelis in the delivery (or lack thereof) of all public utilities and infrastructure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28489020/

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 09 - 01:02 AM

CarolC, your post of 07 May 09 - 12:04 AM. Please give me examples of instances where Jews dispossessed Arabs in the area formerly known as Palestine between the years 1850 and 1947. The post I refer is a classic example of the ignorance and denial you are in about this period of this areas history.

CarolC, your post of 07 May 09 - 12:13 AM. Please give sources and proof regarding the bomb shelters only being for Jewish Israelis. I find this rather difficult to imagine having seen those shelters down in the south of Israel. They are rather similar to large sections of concrete drain pipes with blast walls protecting the open ends. You couldn't "prevent anybody getting into them if you tried. The warning times only allow you to run into these things before the rocket or mortar lands and explodes, there is no time to check anything. Warning times are so short these shelters are all over the place.

Nickhere, no group of so called refugees has been given more in aid than the Palestinians. All the Palestinian "leadership" has ever done has been to squander it to keep themselves in power.

Since 1947 the people of Palestine both Jew and Arab have been like two people arguing over something. First they are given the opportunity to share it, the Jews accept the Arabs reject the proposal so they decide to cut a pack of cards for it. The Arabs lose, so they say best of three, they lose again and suggest best of five, they lose again and demand best of seven. They lose yet again and now want to accept a lesser share than they originally turned down. If you elect to decide something by force of arms then losing has its consequences, that has been constant throughout the history of the human race, the Arabs of Palestine elected to fight and they lost. It is high time that they accepted that fact and lived with it, because if they do not and adhere to the Charter of Hamas, they will surely die and it will be by their own chosing.

Level playing fields do not enter the equation Nickhere, in 1948 the newly created Jewish State of Israel was given aid, the Palestinian Arabs were given aid, the playing field was fairly level. The Jews did something constructive with theirs, the Arabs funded pipe-dreams with theirs and allowed themselves to be used as political pawns in the game known as the "Cold War". As time went by this continued and "playing field" got distorted as happens when one side acts sensibly and other continues to pursue the impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:59 AM

They might have been had not someone deep in his cups posted in between some of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:58 AM

None of my posts have been concerned with the question of whether or not Israel has a right to exist. They are concerned with whether or not Israel has a right to expand, to wage an illegal military occupation of land outside its internationally recognized borders, to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing, to wage wars of aggression against other countries, and to discriminate against members of its own population, WITH MY TAX MONEY.

Trying to characterize my posts as being about whether or not Israel has a right to exist is a standard hasbara smear tactic that is used for the purpose of silencing dissent. These tactics have been very successful in the past, but they insult the intelligence of most readers, and for this reason, and because of their overuse for so many years, they are quickly losing their effectiveness.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:45 AM

I have a bet for $5.00 that you'll post at least seven in a row. Count the last two. Goooooooo. I need the fin.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:42 AM

The poster with the ironic screen name has either misunderstood me or is intentionally distorting what I have said.

I don't think either Israel, or Hamas or Hezbollah should police themselves with regard to the war crimes they have committed. No entity who has committed war crimes should be the one to police itself. People who commit war crimes can't be trusted to police themselves.

I have repeatedly said they should be brought before an international court for war crimes. As should the government of the United States, for its war crimes. And it should be a completely impartial international court and not one where some countries have more influence than others.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:35 AM

Some more commentary on Caryl Churchill's, 7 Jewish Children...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710762124&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


From the Jerusalem Post:

After reading a lot of the pro and (mainly) con about Seven Jewish Children - a play for Gaza, I prepared to write a column saying that while it took an excessively critical view of Israel, it was not anti-Semitic, and that there was a big difference between the two.

Being a responsible journalist, I then set aside 10 minutes to actually read the play, and I found that not only isn't it anti-Semitic, it isn't excessively critical of Israel, either. As far as I'm concerned, it's just critical enough - which is to say very, very critical. More precisely, this short play by Britain's Caryl Churchill expresses moral outrage at Israel - which is what I felt during the war in Gaza, and what lots of other Jews and gentiles who want the best for this country felt as well.

I don't know what Churchill thinks would be best for this country, or for the Jewish people, and I don't know if I'd agree with her if I knew. But what she seems to be saying in this play is that the trauma to the Jews during the Holocaust has, over the years, been twisted into the aggression of the Jews in today's Israel. She's saying that while Jews saw Israel as a sanctuary after the Holocaust, the building of this sanctuary also meant the displacement of a lot of natives, specifically Beduin. She's saying the Six Day War turned us into conquerors, made us callous toward the Palestinians, and that our callousness reached a shocking new extreme during our onslaught in Gaza.

She's saying Jewish victimhood has not been redemptive; that instead, it's fueled Israel's victimization of Palestinians and been used as an excuse for it. She doesn't portray Palestinians as pacifists, noting, in the words of her characters, that they're known to "set off bombs in cafes," that they include "Hamas fighters" and that "they're attacking with rockets." But her view in the play is that Israel exaggerates the Palestinian threat out of all proportion and gives many, many times better than it gets.

Seven Jewish Children says this country has become hysterical with fear and aggression, that the more hell we inflict on innocent Palestinians, the more desperate we are to deny any wrongdoing and the more medals we pin on our chests.

Churchill wrote the play in January, while the war was going on. It was a harsh portrayal of this nation, but, in my opinion, a true one.

The play's spirit isn't filled with hatred; it's filled with moral outrage. There's a difference. You don't have to be an anti-Semite or even an anti-Zionist to be morally outraged at our treatment of Palestinians, especially during Operation Cast Lead.

The charge has been made that the play compares Israelis to Nazis. I never thought that for one moment while reading it, rereading it or watching a staging of it on YouTube. The American journalist James Kirchick wrote that by the end of the play, the Jewish child being raised in Israel is a "Baruch-Goldstein-in-training."

Not at all. None of the characters is a murderer or a proponent of murder. None is a sadist. What all of them are is callous about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, and by turns worried or defiant about how to justify it. No Nazis here, no Baruch Goldsteins, but rather people who've suffered too much and caused too much suffering, and who have become severely coarsened in the process. Read the "worst" monologue, the climactic one:

"Tell her, tell her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her the names, why not, tell her the whole world knows why shouldn't she know? tell her there's dead babies, did she see babies? tell her she's got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people feel sorry for them, tell them I don't feel sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we're the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can't talk suffering to us. Tell her we're the iron fist now, tell her it's the fog of war, tell her I laughed when I saw the dead policemen, tell her they're animals living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don't care if the world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it's not her."

I heard comments similar to these from some of my relatives during the war. Going back through the 24 years I've lived here, I've heard comments like these from relatives, neighbors, fellow soldiers - I've heard it and read it all over the place. I've heard it from Diaspora Jews too.

Who are we kidding? Does that monologue represent the voice of every Israeli and "pro-Israeli" Diaspora Jew? Of course not. But is it an authentic voice, a view of Palestinians held by many, many Jews here and abroad even if they don't express it publicly? Has that voice not gotten louder? And when push comes to shove with the Palestinians, as it did in Operation Cast Lead, does Seven Jewish Children not echo the inner (and often outer) voice of Israel at war?

I think it does. And I agree - it's an awful echo to hear.


More commentary here...

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/04/7-jewish-children-play-for-gaza.html

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/04/guardian-hosts-7-jewish-children-so.html

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:16 AM

SSDD

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:13 AM

On the subject of bomb shelters, only Jewish Israelis have bomb shelters that they can go to. The government of Israel provides bomb shelters for Jews, but not for Arab Israelis. Which is very convenient for the government of Israel, since it likes to hold up the numbers of Arab Israelis killed in rocket attacks and say, "look, they're killing Arabs".

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:08 AM

I think everyone should eliminate their nuclear weapons. So when I say that Israel should eliminate theirs, I am holding them to exactly the same standard as I am holding everyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 07 May 09 - 12:04 AM

It wasn't the Jews who were being dispossessed during the period when European Zionists started colonizing Palestine. It was the indigenous people (including indigenous Jews) who were being dispossessed by the European Zionists. And this was the source of the conflict. I have not ever denied that any Jews were killed by indigenous non-Jews. Some were. But the aggressors were the Europeans who were working to get the indigenous people marginalized and dispossessed of their homes and livelihoods, and to deny them sovereignty and their right to self-determination. It was always their purpose to take over as much of that region as they could, and to remove anyone who was not Jewish. This is extremely well documented in the writings of the early Zionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 09 - 11:53 PM

Hamas is already being shaken and taken to the headmaster. They have been bombed by Israel, subjected to targeted assasinations, kidnapped and jailed by the Israeli government, the Western powers tried to conduct a coup against Hamas in Gaza, the Gaza strip has been completely blockaded, and the Western powers have completely excluded them from any discussions or negotiations.

In the meantime, absolutely nothing whatever has been done to the war criminals in Israel, except to give them more money and more power.

It seems that a certain poster with the ironic screen name only wants those sub-human brown skinned people in Gaza to be taken to the headmaster, while his lily-white European friends a allowed to do whatever they want.

And since, of the two of us, I am the only one who has said that they should all be tried at the same time (brought before the headmaster), it appears that this poster is trying to divert attention away from his own white supremacist racism by telling lies about me. Not a very effective approach, I think, since other people can read what I've said for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:44 PM

Lox,

Sorry. But she wants a pissing contest with me and now she's got it.

The fundamental question is one of whether Hamas/Hezbollah will ever prosecute its own members the same way Israel is expected to prosecute itself.

I don't really give a shit about the constant cut and paste histrionics as to whether Israel has a right to exist. My own country voted that it did. Period. Israel exists. I know Israelis would love peace. Where will they find it? I am tired of the anti-Jewish/Israeli bias I see so much of on this site. So fuck it. I will not try to reason with her or anyone else who presents those views. PERIOD.

So maybe you could tell me: who will prosecute the Hamas/Hezbollah leadership? Who? And why would you expect honour from Israel when its enemies have so little of it? Where are the moderate voices from either side? A voice that doesn't say, "We want peace, and as soon as Israel doesn't exist we will have it." !!!!????

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: robomatic
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:41 PM

They could go where a whole bunch of Palestinians have gone: Jordan, which is basically a Palestinian State in situ.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:34 PM

"But of course... where would they [Palestinians] go, except into the sea?"

Israel's neighbours have been trying to do exactly that to Israelis since 1947.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 08:30 PM

"Yes Peace, but it seems significant to me also that Hamas will accept a return to 1967 borders. This to me indicates their position is not as extreme as might be thought, and that Hamas have a bargaining point."

Read again that post, Nickhere. Yes, they will accept a return to the '67 borders, but they will NOT agree to a lasting peace--at least the tenor of the article you linked to indicates they would like 30 years, maybe, and no rewrite of the Hamas Charter. That would tell any Israeli government that it's a tactic to rebuild arms supplies and effect a trained army and THEN goodbye Israel.

Please know I am talking about Islam, not Muslims. The vast majority of Muslims on this planet are peaceful people. Toss a few Imams who are loony into the mix, and then go back and look at the invasions of North Africa and Spain. Nope. When religion is used in this manner, I have no use for the bastards. When a Holy book can be twisted so that its believers think it's good to go cut of heads and kill 'unbelievers' and shit like that, they lose any sympathy from me. Much as did the Christians back in the various Crusades (about a dozen of them). That isn't religion. It's insanity, and I ain't buying into it. My neighbour can practise (or not) any faith he/she wants. But when my neighbour begins to tell me I'm worthless because I don't believe as he does, he can go fuck himself. That is a gross MISuse of religion, and I see too much of that in today's world.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 07:32 PM

For me the key paragraph in Stephens article was

"In other words, if you're prepared to manipulate history as dishonestly as our vile little "play" about black America does, then it's easy to draw a damning moral. And if you're clever enough to cast the indictment as a story about some blacks or some Jews, or as one of generational decadence, then you might also acquit yourself of charges of racism or anti-Semitism, since you can point to a few Jews or blacks worthy of your considered respect"

This represents the point where Stephens shifted the argument from being a criticism of Israel / the Israeli State (as I understood Ms.Churchill's play to be, from his description of it) to a more familiar old accusation of anti-semitism.

In other words, Stephens leaves us with a stark choice: either admit we are racists or else shut up and let the Israeli Authorities get on with making life hell for Palestinians without comment.

Nice one, Stephens.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 07:15 PM

I hope the irony / sarcasm in the last paragraph was obvious. Just in case it's not, it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 07:10 PM

If racism has become taboo, then too, would be anti-semitism, as it is merely a form of racism.

But many forms of racism still persist in the US and elsewhere, it's just the focus of racism has shifted. Once upon a time when it was black people who were margianlised and disenfranchised by white people, those same white people felt threatened that the fellow humans they oppressed would rise up against them. Thus they held racist nations about a 'black threat' or attempted to justify their ongoing immoral behaviour toward their fellow human on various spurious racist theories.

Then for various reasons and slowly over time, the oppression and marginalisation stopped (though many would argue not completely) and black people were absorbed into mainstream 'white' society (i.e the Cosbys rather than Black Panthers) and it became uncool to be racist towards black people.

Then there was the cold war and the Russians were the baddies, and ok, so there were no pogroms against Russo-American shopkeepers etc., There was no long tradition of it unlike against black people.

The cold war ended and the main 'threat' remained from Islamic fundamentalists / or the middle east in general (I'm over-simplifying here, and can't include the reasons for that 'threat' as the scope is too large, but suffice to say it wasn't like Arabs just went mad one day and just decided to go bad)

Then Arabs became the bad guys and especially after Sept 11th it became -if not actually ok - then at least not taboo to express racist attitudes towards Arabs (or Muslims in a wider sense). You don't have to look even too far away from here to see that.

So yes, there has always and probably will always be racism. There were always be people who feel there are other races of people in the world not quite as good - or much worse - than their own 'race'. And, in the end of the day, what is 'race'? Are we not all people? Humans? Germaine Greer, though I find fault with much of what she says, wrote in "The Female Eunuch" that if aliens were to invade we would suddenly find we had much more in common with those people some of us now hold in distaste (her actual words were a lot more biting) than with the life-form from Planet X. Maybe an alien invasion would do us some good!

When I was younger I often criticised the Soviet regime to my friends -at least those who felt communist Russia to be way superior to the decadent West. While they had some good points, I asked them what about suppression of the press, free speech (on that note: )
the suppression of religious freedom in service of the atheist state, the gulags, etc., we are all familiar with the failings of the Soviet Regime and I doubt anyone here would stick up for it. But neither would anyone say I was 'anti-Russian' or that I hated the Russian people. I think any normal, sane person in full possession of all their faculties would see that criticising the actions and foreign policy of the Soviet State was not an expression of hatred towards the Russian people or a desire to see them all gone from Earth.

No doubt there are some people unable to distinguish between the Soviet State, and the cheerleaders who supported its policies, and the Russian people at large. I have had dealings with many Russian people and I found them to be just like my own people - a mix of good and bad (in my judgement), a truism which hardly needs saying.

But such people are not going to respond to rational argument anyway.

Likewise, I find it tiresome in the extreme when it is suggested that criticism of the State of Israel and its actions or those of its supporters is tantamount to anti-semitism (as seems to be the case above). It also implies that all Jews around the world are complicit in the immoral actions carried out by the Israeli State (as opposed to the moral ones, which no doubt occur too). How in hell are all Jews around the world complicit in the immoral actions of the Israeli State? Just because they are Jewish? Even the ones that disagree with the actions of the Israeli State? Surely that's a racist viewpoint too?

If you disagree with me, you are simply revealing that you're an anti-Irish / pro-British-imperialist racist who probably wishes that we were all killed off during the potato famine and that we are not fit for self-government. That means I don't have to listen to you and you are probably a very disturbed person. Now that's a handy argument that should win them all. If you also happen to be Irish, it's because you hate your own race in addition to the points above.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: C. Ham
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:38 PM

The other excellent article I was referring to is from The Independent, a British newspaper.

From the Independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: C. Ham
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:34 PM

I was just reading a couple of excellent articles about the recent play by Caryl Churchill and was struck by this paragraph from an article in the Wall Street Journal by Bret Stephens:

But logic is not the issue here, nor, really, are the facts: Try arguing either with someone determined to ignore them. The issue is about taboo -- a word easy to mock until you realize it often upholds what is best in society. Racism has become taboo in American society, and that's a very good thing. Anti-Semitism used to be taboo, but that's been eroded by an obsessive criticism of Israel that seems to borrow freely from the classic anti-Semitic repertoire ("tell her they're filth") while adopting the brilliant trick of treating Jewish victimization as a moral ideal from which modern Israel has sadly deviated.

Boy, does that sound like someone familiar.

The whole article by Bret Stephens.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:08 PM

But of course... where would they go, except into the sea?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 06:07 PM

Teribus, compare like with like. Give Hamas some of the billions given to Israel each year, end the blockade of Gaza, weapons embargoes etc., and I'm sure Hamas would be able to provide far more adequate defence for Gazans than they do. As it is their militants daily risk their lives tunneling across borders and smuggling to get small arms to sustain their efforts. I'm not condoning what they do (nor do I condone what the Israeli Army do) but you are not talking about a level playing pitch here. Maybe Hamas could ask all Gazans to leave Gaza while they conduct their war? Israel would be delighted!

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 May 09 - 05:36 PM

"Absolutely. When's the last time anyone from Hamas or Hezbollah were grabbed and taken to the headmaster? Seems a certain lady wants only Israelis taken there."

Peace,

Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses.

But compare your assertion above to these quotes from carols posts.

"the government of Israel as well as Hamas and Hezbollah should all be prosecuted at the same time"

"I have already said that Hamas and Hezbollah should be brought before an international court for war crimes"

and

"Nobody on this thread has expressed a pro-Hamas stance. I have even said that I think Hamas should be brought before an international court for war crimes."

And if you keep looking back you'll find the same approach repeated again and again.

There is nobody on this site who thinks Hamas or Hezbollah policy is acceptable.

So there is no discussion happening.

There are different views on Israeli policy.

So thats why that discussion is still alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 09 - 05:20 PM

Hamas Charter

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:39 PM

oh, 1500.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:37 PM

Nick,

"it seems significant to me also that Hamas will accept a return to 1967 borders"

What about the 1923 borders, when the ARAB MOSLIM homeland was carved off Mandate Palestine, taking 77% of the entire mandate territory, and Jews were prohibited from living there?? How many times do the Arabs need to be given "their own country"?

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Teribus
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:35 PM

"I have heard a lot about the 8,000 rockets fired by various militant groups (including Hamas) into Israel from Gaza. It has been proposed that this is proof of their so-called intent to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Yet the casualties in all those rocket attacks were literally a handful of Israelis.

So, were they too playing hide and seek? I gather they were huddling terrified in bomb shelters most of that time, which no person should have to do in this day and age. Or perhaps the militants have 'no desire to annihilate anyone'?" - Nickhere

The lack of Israeli casualties is incidental what must be taken into account fully is the intent of those firing the rockets. In so doing remember that the rockets are indiscriminately targeted at Israeli civilian centres of population.

Yes when the rockets are fired the Israelis in the towns targeted would be huddled in bomb shelters. The observation towers, the battle-field projectile detection radar, warning systems and the shelters were provided for the populations of those towns by the Israeli Government. What measures have Hamas taken to protect its citizens Nick?? I mean they do know that the Israelis will fire back at locations from where rocket attacks are launched against its citizens, that's self defence.

The declared intent on the part of Hamas to destroy Israel and annihilate its population is plainly written for all to see in black and white. They themselves do not deny it, why those who espouse the cause of the Palestinians cannot accept this fact I do not know.

That declaration contained within the Hamas Charter is wrong, totally unacceptable and cannot be defended by anyone, therefore Hamas must change it.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:30 PM

"applying equal pressure to Israel to sign the treaty and eliminate their weapons"


Sorry, those powers that HAVE nuclear weapons WHEN THEY SIGN are NOT required to eliminate them.


So, you are insistying that Israel do MORE than any other nation????

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:16 PM

Yes Peace, but it seems significant to me also that Hamas will accept a return to 1967 borders. This to me indicates their position is not as extreme as might be thought, and that Hamas have a bargaining point.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:13 PM

Sorry Teribus, but that sounds like it could be applied both ways. I have heard a lot about the 8,000 rockets fired by various militant groups (including Hamas) into Israel from Gaza. It has been proposed that this is proof of their so-called intent to 'wipe Israel off the map'. Yet the casualties in all those rocket attacks were literally a handful of Israelis.

So, were they too playing hide and seek? I gather they were huddling terrified in bomb shelters most of that time, which no person should have to do in this day and age. Or perhaps the militants have 'no desire to annihilate anyone'?

A lot has been said (including by you) about why both these things are bad and wrong, and I agree with you. But do you not have the humanity to apply the same standards to Israel's neighbours? If more Palestinians weren't killed it was probably because they too, were huddled terrified wherever they could find shelter. Yet around one a half thousand died over a short period which is one and a half thousand too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 04:04 PM

The Hamas offer (linked to by Nickhere) pretty much describes why Israel will see NO reason to seek peace. Hell, "The Protocols" were discredited by scholars a century ago. Anti-Jews still quote it today.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Teribus
Date: 06 May 09 - 03:55 PM

Now Barry Finn takes something I said that is factual and can be easily verified:

"While the Taleban were never elected Hamas was and the reason given for not recognizing them is their Charter which demands the destruction of a fully recognized member state of the United Nations (i.e. Israel) and the annihilation of her people. That by the bye Don is where the MORAL Right of the matter comes into play."

i.e. Hamas' Charter does undeniably call for the destruction of Israel and the annihilation of her people and that is why Hamas as a government is not recognized by the UN and the majority of the nations of the world. And he replaces that with his own highly subjective opinion and attempts to present it as being of equal weight:

"What makes you think Teribass that Israel's intent isn't the same????
Christ, by their actions it is identical to the words of Hamas & Hezbollah."

Well then Baz it doesn't work that way does it because everything must stand up to critical analysis. Shall we take a run through it then?? To make it easy we'll skip the first twenty odd years of the Palestinian Mandate Period where the Jews were repeatedly attacked dispossessed and murdered by Palestinian Arabs, attacks that CarolC conveniently denies ever happened. Unfortunately for CarolC they did and they are extremely well documented. Let's take the events of last Christmas, the last Israeli incursion into Gaza.

OK Baz your contention is that Israel demands the destruction of Gaza and the West Bank and the annihilation of the Palestinians, but this is not written anywhere or spoken of – Rather unfortunate for your case that, because the Hamas declaration is there for everybody to read and there are loads of "You Tube" clips of Arab "leaders" spouting about killing Jews and destroying Israel.

Anyway Baz back to the Israelis. The question must be asked have they got the kit to do the job? And the answer to that Baz is a resounding yes, they have all the tools they need and more.

Have they got the necessary training and ability Baz to destroy Gaza and the West Bank and annihilate the people? Once again, I'd have to say yes.

So come on Baz, how did this well equipped, well trained, capable killing machine that is the IDF perform in Gaza over Christmas then. From the 27th December 2008 until the 21st January 2009 they killed between 1285 and 1117 people.

The population of Gaza at the start Baza was around 1,400,000 people. So for 26 days the most powerful army, navy and air force in the region pummelled the Palestinian enclave of Gaza and succeeded in killing 0.09% of the population they have sworn to annihilate. Almost a whole of 0.1% Barry!!!! Were they having a series of off-days?? Feeling liverish?? Not quite "into it" at that time of the year?? I mean come on Barry f**ckin' ell 26 days going at it hammer and tongs F-16's, laser guided bombs, white phosphorus, tanks and heavy artillery, throwing the whole bloody "ish" at it and all they can succeed in annihilating is not even 0.1% of the population – Not too good for your argument is it, they should have done a lot better than that shouldn't they?? Apart from which the West Bank wasn't even touched!!!

Of course Barry this lack of performance could be put down to one of two other possible reasons considering how good the IDF is:

1.        The Palestinians in Gaza are all World "Hide-And-Seek" Champions and the IDF unfortunately attacked during a practice session

OR

2.        There is no desire whatsoever on the part of the Israel Government, the Israeli Defence Force, or the Israeli people, to annihilate anybody.

Now being a logical sort of person and going through all that I'll put my money on the latter explanation being the truth. Now come on Baza you convince me otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 May 09 - 03:54 PM

The Latest from / about Hamas - for whatever it's worth

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Peace
Date: 06 May 09 - 03:36 PM

"YOU GRAB BOTH OF THEM, PULL THEM APART, AND SEND BOTH OF THEM TO THE HEADMASTER FOR PUNISHMENT!!!"

Absolutely. When's the last time anyone from Hamas or Hezbollah were grabbed and taken to the headmaster? Seems a certain lady wants only Israelis taken there.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 09 - 02:04 PM

From yesterdays Irish Times:
A new low - or leftie propaganda?
Jim Carroll

GAZA PATIENTS BEING INTERROGATED SAY MEDICS
RORY MCCARTHY
in Jerusalem

AN ISRAELI medical human rights group said yesterday that an increasing number of Palestinian patients from Gaza were being interrogated by Israeli security services before being allowed to leave the strip for treatment.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel said at least 438 patients had been summoned for interrogation by the Shabak, the Israeli general security service, at the Erez crossing out of Gaza between January 2008 and March this year.
It took evidence from several patients and found they were "forced to provide information as a precondition to exit Gaza for medical care".
The group said the ratio of applicants being interrogated rose from 1.45 per cent in January last year to 17 per cent in January this year.
Their research also suggested the number of interrogations increased sharply from the begin¬ning of this year, after Israel's three-week war in Gaza.
One unnamed patient, who had been referred for orthopaedic treatment to a hospital in east Jeru¬salem, told the group that, as he was trying to leave Gaza, he was asked to give information on the people in his neighbourhood and was asked if he knew any Hamas members.
When he refused to give any information, he said his interro¬gator replied: "I understand that you don't want to answer me and that you don't want to work with us, so go back to Gaza."
Another patient, who was trying to reach a hospital in east Jerusalem, said he was asked: "If you tell me which meubers of your family belong to the Hamas and which to the Islamic Jihad, I'll let you leave Gaza or the hospital." When he refused, he was told he would be sent back to Gaza.
The group said that patients were photographed by the security services holding a card with their name and identity card number on it, sometimes by coercion.
Others described being insulted during the questioning and being locked up at the crossing, some¬times for several hours without explanation.
Physicians for Human Rights said it took on average six to eight hours for each patient to cross. The group said it believed the Israeli security services were vio¬lating international laws on torture and coercion.
"PHR-Israel reiterates its claim that the way in which the GSS [general security servicc| is exploiting patients' medical condi¬tions by exerting pressure on them, be it overt or hidden, constitutes coercion prohibited under the fourth Geneva convention," it said.
"The exacerbation of the situa¬tion is the outcome of failure of i public bodies in Israel to take effec¬tive steps to restrain the GSS."
It was to present its findings to the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva.
Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli government, rejected the allegations.        
He said: "The idea that there is ! a conditionality that people who come into Israel for medical treat¬ment must provide intelligence co-operation is simply untrue."
Mr Regev said 13,000 Palestinians from Gaza were allowed into Israel last year for medical treatment and said they had to go through "legitimate" security checks.- (Guardian service)

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 09 - 01:02 PM

I would expect Israel to sign it, and then uphold it. For Israel and the Western powers to expect other countries in the Middle East to not have nuclear weapons, while supporting Israel's possession of them, rather than applying equal pressure to Israel to sign the treaty and eliminate their weapons, is a double standard, and is racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:52 PM

so, CarolC, you will hold Israel to a treaty it did not sign or benefit from ( the MPT) but allow Iran to violate it after having signed and gotten the benefits????


Israel developed it's nuclear weapons BEFORE the NPT- If anything, Israel should be listed as one of the nuclear powers, which under the NPT have the right to keep their weapons ( although encouraged to reduce the number).

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:15 PM

Here's another example of Israel holding itself to a different standard than everyone else (and Israel being held to a different standard by the Western powers, and fuck what all of those racially inferior brown skinned people want or need)...

http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/05/egypt-offmessage-on-iranian-nukes.html#more


Egypt insists on talking about Israeli nukes

Bruce Wolman writes:

Speakers at the AIPAC policy conference regularly said that some Arab nations are on the same page with Israel in considering the Iranian nuclear program the biggest threat to regional stability, but the Egyptian Foreign Ministry articulated a different message yesterday.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki said that Western policies aimed at "pressuring Iran to give up its nuclear program will fail because they disregard Israeli nuclear capabilities." More critically, Egypt called the Israeli nukes "the first and greatest threat to security in the region."

Needless to say, Israel did not take the statement kindly. Yigal Palmor, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman rejected the Egyptian characterization, adding

    If he can quote at least one occasion in which Israel has threatened any of its neighbors with the alleged nuclear weapon, then his statements would gain him credibility. Unless he produces evidence to support his claims, these kinds of remarks are completely out of line.

Does Israel really want us to go there? According to globalsecurity.org, hardly a disarmament web site:

    The total Israeli nuclear stockpile consists of several hundred weapons of various types, including boosted fission and enhanced radiation weapons ("neutron bombs"), as well as nuclear artillery shells. Strategically, Israel uses its long-range missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft (and, some say, submarines with nuclear-armed cruise missiles) to deter both conventional and unconventional attacks, or to launch "the Samson Option", an all-out attack against an adversary should defenses fail and population centers be threatened. In addition, despite Israel's insistence that it "will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East," these systems represent an effective preemptive strike force. At the same time, Israel deploys tactical systems designed to rapidly reduce an invading force. Following the 1973 war, Israel fielded at least three batteries of atomic-capable self-propelled 175mm cannons equipped with a total of no less than 108 warheads, and placed atomic land mines in the Golan Heights during the early 1980s.

    Nuclear weapons need not be detonated to be used as weapons. Early in the 1973 war, Israel went on a nuclear alert, partly in the knowledge that it would be detected by the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviets, Israel assumed, would restrain their Arab allies while the Americans would speed up resupply efforts. While the USSR did inform Egypt that Israel had armed three nuclear weapons, the extent to which Israel's nuclear alert affected the timing of Washington's subsequent decision to rearm Israel is not clear.

Since the intelligence services of Israel's neighbors can search online just as easily as we can, a reasonable conclusion for them to draw is that Israel's ideas about tactical nuclear weapons in the region represent a real threat.

Zaki announced that Egypt "sought to realize the aims of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to guarantee the security of all states, whereas possession of nuclear weapons by some countries disrupted the balance of power and encouraged other nations to address this imbalance by seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."

At the AIPAC conference an optimistic Jane Harman "hopefully" pointed out the conflicts Egypt was having with Hezbollah and Iran. But only a few hours earlier Egypt had "called on the international community to justify and indiscriminately apply the Non-Proliferation Treaty that requires states to comply with its provisions, and asked it to refrain from the adoption of double standards in pressuring states to abandon their programs."

An Egyptian official directly told the Jerusalem Post that Egypt preferred Israel to pursue diplomacy rather than a military option in confronting Iran's nuclear program.

And lest anyone regard the Foreign Ministry briefing as pro forma, the Egyptian daily Al-Ahram reported on Sunday that President Hosni Mubarak told Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in a meeting that "Egypt opposed any proliferation in the region and that efforts aimed at shedding light on the Iranian nuclear program must be accompanied by parallel efforts to deal with the Israeli program."

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 09 - 12:04 PM

Shit, did the Jews under the Roman occupation love the Romans, or did they hate them? How about in Egypt? Did the Jews living in Egypt under the Pharaoh not hate their oppressors? Hell, many Jews still hate the Roman and Egyptian empires to this very day! How do Jews feel about the Tzars and the Cossacks? How about the Poles?

This is what I am talking about when I say that people who expect the Palestinians to behave differently than they are willing to behave themselves are racists. They see the world as belonging to them and everyone else just has to suck it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Israel Moves in.
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 09 - 11:54 AM

This is a question of indigenous people being subjected to genocide, ethnic cleansing, and subjugation at the hands of a foreign occupying power. This was even the case back when Britain was telling the Palestinians what to do. The Palestinians have every right to hate the powers that occupy and commit genocide and ethnic cleansing on them. They are not in any way obligated to submit to anything that is imposed on them by any occupying power, neither the British prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, nor the Israelis.

It is the responsibility of the aggressors (in this case Israel) to show the people they have victimized and oppressed for more than sixty years that they are willing to change. Hamas has a right to not submit to Israeli subjugation. When Israel shows by its actions, that it is willing to let the Palestinians remain in their place of origin, and undo the more than sixty decades of showing them through their actions that they intend to wipe the Palestinians off the face of the map, that is when I would expect Hamas to change its charter. Not before.