Hello George Orwell?

[trilingual]

Ad rian thinks "they should be deported back to their militaristic theocracies"? So he can have a nice "Judenrein Amerika"? I guess that pretty much exposes ad rian for what he really is (as if his other posts hadn't already done that).

 

Ad rian also is fond of the Joseph Goebbels "big like" technique. He's been going on and on about the first article of Israel's constitution. Teensy problem here. Israel (like the UK) doesn't have a constitution, so there's no first article of that non-existent document.

 

He also tries to make people believe the Palestinians bravely resisted occupying powers. That's another "big lie." For one thing, the Palestinian concept of themselves as a separate and distinct people is very recent, only dating from the time of the partition of mandatory Palestine. Once Israel came into being as an independent state, and the other Arab countries didn't want anything to do with them (did the other Arabs know something we don't know?) the Palestinians figured out they were on their own in the world and that's when they began developing a national consciousness. Prior to that, there was no such consciousness, national movement or resistance to anyone. For centuries prior to World War I, Palestine had been a forgotten backwater of the Ottoman empire, which, of course, was Muslim-ruled. Virtually devoid of any desirable natural resources, most of the land was the property of absentee landowners who lived in much nicer and important places like Damascus and Istanbul. The Arabs who actually lived in Palestine in Ottoman times were mostly dirt-poor tenant farmers, and there is no record that they ever considered themselves anything other than Ottoman subjects or that they ever "resisted" Ottoman rule. Back in the 13th and 14th centuries Palestine was under Christian rule as a result of the bloodthirsty Crusades, but the European Christian rulers were eventually driven out by the Muslims. Prior to that, from the time of the rise of Islam to the coming of the Crusaders, Palestine was ruled by Arabs under the caliphate. Following the fall of the Jewish kingdoms in biblical times, Palestine was never an independent entity or nation; it was always part of a larger empire. First under the Romans, then under the Muslims. The only exception was the brief period of the Christian Crusader kingdoms.

 

As for "occupation," that's a bit of a slippery term in the current Middle-eastern context. At partition, Israel was declared an independent state, but the counterpart Arab state was never established. Instead, the neighboring Arab states declared war and invaded Israel. To the everlasting chagrin of people like ad rian, the Israelis won that war, ending up with more territory than originally allotted by the U.N. partition, including control of West Jerusalem (the international city plan never came to pass because of the Arab-initiated war). The war ended with a truce. Peace was never established and internationally recognized borders were never delineated. No independent Palestinian state was set up in the land beyond the cease-fire line. Instead, what is now known as the West Bank was occupied by Transjordan, which had been part of the Palestine Mandate but was allowed to become independent unilaterally by Britain (which was the mandatory power) without the consent of the League of Nations, which established the Mandate. The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt. Neither Arab-occupied area was considered to be integral parts of either Jordan or Egypt; they remained occupied zones. This situation continued until the 1967 war, which the Arabs lost. At that point, Israel became the occupying power in the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai, the Golan Heights and all of Jerusalem. In return for a peace treaty with Egypt, Israel relinquished the Sinai. It also gave back part of the Golan Heights. That territory became a U.N. occupied buffer zone between Israel and Syria. Exercising the right of conquest, Israel annexed all of Jerusalem and the remaining part of the Golan Heights, so those areas became integral parts of a sovereign nation.

 

The reason "occupation" is a slippery word in the context of the West Bank and Gaza is that they haven't been sovereign territory (either their own or any other nation's) since the fall of the Ottoman empire. (The succeeding Palestinian Mandate was only supposed to be a temporary arrangement under the aegis of the League of Nations.) For almost a century, the West Bank and Gaza have been under the control of non-indigenous powers: first the British, then the Jordanians and Egyptians, and then the Israelis. But even before that, "Palestine" was never a sovereign entity except under the Jews and, briefly, the Christian Crusaders. For most of the past two thousand years it was part of the larger Greek, Roman, Arab or Ottoman empires.

 

Ad rian also conveniently ignores in this discussion the fact that there could now be a sovereign Palestinian nation had Yasser Arafat said "yes" to during the Camp David negotiations in the Clinton administration. If he had said "yes," there would have been a contiguous Palestinian territory on the West Bank (plus the Gaza Strip, of course) comprising a state with its capital in part of Jerusalem. Unfortunately, not satisfied with anything less than 200%, Arafat and the Palestinians walked away and unleashed their terrorist campaign. And that's why we're at this pretty pass.

 

As for the "militaristic theocracy" ad rian keeps ranting about, Israel may be militaristic (because of the unhappy circumstance of living in a hostile neighborhood) but it's a parliamentary democracy. The only one in the entire area, I might add. Because of the security situation, many of its recent prime ministers are former military officers (but then, virtually every Israeli has formerly been in the military). However, all of those leaders were ELECTED in free democratic elections, and their governments fell because of no-confidence parliamentary votes, or they resigned to avoid such votes, or they came to the end of their maximum five-year terms. Religious parties do play a part in Israel's political life (much more so than I would like), but Israel has an independent judiciary that frequently rules against both the government and the religious parties, to much gnashing of teeth on their parts. None of this is intended to disguise the fact that Israel has done things that are ugly and racist, beyond anything that could be considered legitimately necessary because of the security situation. But then, so have other democratic countries like Canada and the U.S. during scary times, like when they interned their own CITIZENS of Japanese descent during World War II. Or like what the U.S. is doing now to people of Middle Eastern descent, or to the allegedly fearsome captives from Afghanistan held at Guantanamo, including the senile old men who were recently released.

 

Of course, Israel isn't the only country with strong religious parties. We have one right here in the U.S.A. It's called the Republican Party, whose machinery has been taken over in lock, stock and bank account by the fundamentalist Christian right. (And just watch what they're going to do now that they control the White House, Congress and, soon, the Judiciary. Kiss separation of church and state good-bye.)

 

Then there's ad rian's "demographic" argument. The most recent census figures show that Jews are the majority in the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. However, the Arab birthrate is higher than the rate of the Jewish population increase, so eventually there will be more Arabs than Jews in the area. The Israelis certainly are aware of that, and that's one big reason that they understand that eventually there must be a separate Palestinian state, if Israel isn't to be overwhelmed and lose its character as a "Jewish" state.

 

But these are all logical and/or factual points. They're wasted on the ad rians of the world, who believe, beyond all reason, in the kind of thinking found in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and "Mein Kampf." All we can do is point out the facts, in the hope that other well-meaning but ignorant people won't get sucked into world of delusional anti-Semitism.

 

And now it's time for Tri's beauty rest. Brazil awaits in less than forty days. . .

[Guest Bitchboy]

>I plead guilty as charge. I reject that militaristic

>theocracy without hesitation or apology. Hey if you want to

>side with Bewarewofnick feel free. As often happens on this

>Board, I get a lot of private emails and IM thanking me for

>exposing this rot. I am not surprised. Civil liberties are

>important to gays, and folks who want to procure escorts

>on-line. Why you defend these abridgements of our liberties

>here while you could no doubt do so in gay old Jerusalem is

>beyond me, unless of course you know that it ain't quite so

>gay after all.

 

 

Well, I've stayed out of this because I reject ad rian as a historian and as a feeling human being. But, since he says he has gotten emails thanking him, I definitely want to go on record as saying that I, as a Christian who works for an Israeli institute and who travels there four or five times per year, find his anti-semitic and unintelligible rants perhaps the ugliest and most flawed thinking I've had the "pleasure" of reading on this site. I will not debate him and think that woodlawn has passed the point of accomplishing anything. However, it must be said that ad rian, in my opinion, is despicable in his hate of a good and intelligent people who took a slice of desert that no one wanted and turned it into a viable and happening democracy. I will not respond to his lies that will follow.

[woodlawn]

>Where have you heard that from. Both China and Russia

>supported Nelson Mandela's ANC. You aren't fooling anybody.

>The whole world knows that Israel was the greatest ally of the

>Apartheid Soutrh Africa, and I have pointed out leaders from

>Ben Gurion to the present have nt apologized for that. They

>are honest, at least, they know that there is no way to oppose

>apartheid without opposing Zionism and vise versa.

 

 

The above seems to be the sort of thing that Bitchboy had in mind when he referred to your 'lies' and 'anti-Semitic rants.' I guess he has dealt with you before. Did Israel do business with South Africa? Sure. So did a number of the other countries you cite whenever you cite 'world opinion' to support your position. What hypocrisy!

 

>I never said that only Jews support Democrats. I just

>pointed out that targeting McKinney an Hilliard resulted in a

>lower turn out of their base so the Democrats lost all the big

>ticket races in the last elecion cycle, including that of the

>on again off again Jewish Govenor of Alabama.

 

 

Oh I see, the governor of Alabama lost because he was a Jew. You really are a nasty little anti-Semite after all, aren't you? I regret not listening to the people who made that point earlier.

 

 

>Maybe you can't

>see the writing on the wall, but Diane Feinstein has been

>singing a very different tune recently so the electoral

>calculus for the Jewish emocrats is going to become a lot more

>complicated from here on in.

 

 

You clearly don't follow American politics very closely. If you did, you would know that African American turnout in the South was little different from that in the last midterm election. The difference that enabled Bush to win a couple of races was the increase in white turnout from previous midterms. Not that it was much of an increase. If 22,000 votes in three states had gone Democrat rather than Republican, Democrats would still control the Senate.

 

But of course you miss the real point. Sharon and his people have done what no previous Israeli administration could do. They have created an unbeatable Israel lobby here on both the left and the right. American Jews, who hold the whip hand over the Democrats, are now allied with evangelical Christians, who hold the whip hand over the Republicans, in support of Israel. Liberal Democrats are uncomfortable with Sharon's confrontational approach, but they can't afford to be less than enthusiastic in their support for the alliance because they can't survive without Jewish votes and money. Conservative Republicans, on the other hand, are actually egging Sharon on to get rid of Arafat because that is what evangelical Christians are demanding. To them, the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine is the precursor of the Second Coming. The next step, as they see it, is the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. So I'm afraid relinquishing control of the Temple Mount is out of the question.

 

>That's

>>why the UN decided a Jewish homeland is necessary.

>

>Maybe, but if the UN was so important then, one might expect

>a little decency and respect for its Resolutions, but then

>again I am still waiting for you to point to a single UN

>Resolution that endorses the current borders of Israel. Hmmh?

> Intersting.

 

 

You are the one who keeps citing the UN charter and resolutions, not me. The one resolution you prefer to ignore is the one that endorsed the Zionist vision of a Jewish homeland that Jew-haters like you find so abhorrent. You can't come up with any UN resolution that endorses your notion of forcing Israel to become part of a Muslim majority state, since there is no such resolution.

 

Given the current political situation there really is no place left in this country for politicians who don't support Israel, so if you are hoping to see the alliance end, your life is destined to be one of great frustration for the foreseeable future.

 

As for civil liberties, while there really is no connection between that and the Israel issue, there isn't much you can do about that either, other than wail and gnash your teeth. Your only real option, if you find the 'sacrifice' intolerable, is to stay away from America. What a loss for us Americans! We'll just have to bear your absence as best we can!

[trilingual]

P.S. Expect another flurry of posts from ad rian repeating his crackpot theories ad nauseam. That's his technique. Along with his mentor, Joe Goebbels, he thinks that if you repeat something often enough, either it'll become true or people will believe it's true (which is almost the same thing). Ad rian does this with Israel (like with his constant references to the non-existent first article of Israel's non-existent constitution) or with poor Bruno Gaúcho (like his unsubstantiated harping about posters here supposedly benefitting financially from Bruno, or trying to make people believe that positive reviews of Bruno are really negative!). The problem for ad rian is that no matter how many times you call a swan a sow, it's still a swan!

[ad rian]

>Did Israel do business

>with South Africa? Sure. So did a number of the other

>countries you cite whenever you cite 'world opinion' to

>support your position. What hypocrisy!

 

No the question was did any other country sell weapons of mass destruction to apartheid South Africa. Sorry that is an honor that belongs alone to Zionist Israel. The truth hurts.

 

>Oh I see, the governor of Alabama lost because he was a Jew.

 

No, can't you read. He lost because the targeting of anti-Israeli candidates supressed his base. There is more of that to come.

 

>You clearly don't follow American politics very closely. If

>you did, you would know that African American turnout in the

>South was little different from that in the last midterm

>election.

 

That simply is not true for Alabama or Georgia where the Democrats lost the state-wide offices.

 

>But of course you miss the real point. Sharon and his people

>have done what no previous Israeli administration could do.

>They have created an unbeatable Israel lobby here on both the

>left and the right. American Jews, who hold the whip hand

>over the Democrats, are now allied with evangelical

>Christians, who hold the whip hand over the Republicans, in

>support of Israel.

 

A startling admision. Are yu suggesting thee is a Jewish conspiracy? You are such an antisemite! At any rate, as pointed out, the strategy sure failed in Alabama nd Georgia, and listen closely to Senator Feinstein. I think she cn see the writing on the wall.

 

>You are the one who keeps citing the UN charter and

>resolutions, not me. The one resolution you prefer to ignore

>is the one that endorsed the Zionist vision of a Jewish

>homeland that Jew-haters like you find so abhorrent.

 

And you tell me, if you respect that holding, why not respect the UN condemnation of the Israeli occupation, torture and war crimes?

 

>As for civil liberties, while there really is no connection

>between that and the Israel issue, there isn't much you can do

>about that either, other than wail and gnash your teeth.

 

Well, that's your view but I think a backlash is forming already. People are mobilizing to resist the Zionist state, leading divestment campaigns and fighting back in the strets and in the courts in defense of civil liberties. History is not written in a ay.

[ad rian]

>Ad rian does this with Israel (like with his constant

>references to the non-existent first article of Israel's

>non-existent constitution)

 

Denial is a facinating technique, but I understand why you would not want to defend a militaristic theocracy in a public forum. I agree on one point though - the actions of Israel do suggest that constitutional values are not a big part of that society. We see exactly what are your plans for our future, but you will not succeed.

[woodlawn]

>No the question was did any other country sell weapons of

>mass destruction to apartheid South Africa. Sorry that is an

>honor that belongs alone to Zionist Israel. The truth

>hurts.

 

The lies of Jew-haters like you don't hurt anyone but yourselves.

 

>No, can't you read. He lost because the targeting of

>anti-Israeli candidates supressed his base. There is more of

>that to come.

 

My English is a hell of a lot better than yours, if the above quote from your last post is an example. And the turnout of the Democrat base in the South was in no way 'supressed.' That's just another lie you created so that you can blame something else on Israel. You really have a one-track mind.

 

>That simply is not true for Alabama or Georgia where the

>Democrats lost the state-wide offices.

 

You are lying. Again.

 

>A startling admision. Are yu suggesting thee is a Jewish

>conspiracy? You are such an antisemite! At any rate, as

>pointed out, the strategy sure failed in Alabama nd Georgia,

>and listen closely to Senator Feinstein. I think she cn see

>the writing on the wall.

 

A conspiracy! LOL! I don't think anyone asked Sharon's permission when the evangelical Christians began taking over the Republican party 20 years ago. But there is no denying that this has worked to the advantage of the Israel lobby in this country. There was a time when the Republican Party provided a refuge for anti-Israel types like yourself. No longer. My sympathies.

 

As for Alabama and Georgia, if you think wealthy Jews in New York and California care who governs those states you are even more of a fool than you seem. They do care about electing members of Congress who support Israel, and they achieved that goal by getting rid of McKinney and Hilliard. I think you will find that Senator-elect Chambliss is as enthusiastic a supporter of Israel as anyone in Congress. So is Norm Coleman, who happens to be Jewish himself. November 5 was a very good day for the Israel lobby.

 

>And you tell me, if you respect that holding, why not respect

>the UN condemnation of the Israeli occupation, torture and war

>crimes?

 

And if I 'respect the UN condemnation,' then what? I am supposed to stop supporting the existence of Israel because some of its soldiers have been guilty of excesses? Have you stopped supporting Palestinian independence because of the many atrocities committed by Palestinian homicide bombers, including the blowing up of a bus filled with high school kids earlier today? Apparently you have not.

 

>Well, that's your view but I think a backlash is forming

>already. People are mobilizing to resist the Zionist state,

>leading divestment campaigns and fighting back in the strets

>and in the courts in defense of civil liberties. History is

>not written in a ay.

 

 

Yes, history is written in a day. In one day the USA Patriot Act was passed. In one day, yesterday, the Homeland Security Act was passed. Those Republican victories in the South you falsely attribute to Israel happened because Bush persuaded voters that Democrats were holding up the very measures you say are so intolerable. Well, now they've passed. You can either get used to them or go live in some other country. Bon voyage.

[ad rian]

>>No the question was did any other country sell weapons of

>>mass destruction to apartheid South Africa. Sorry that is

>an

>>honor that belongs alone to Zionist Israel. The truth

>>hurts.

>

>The lies of Jew-haters like you don't hurt anyone but

>yourselves.

 

As I said the tuth hurts. Israel sold WMD to apartheid South Africa, and its leaders refuse to apologize. QED I suggest you read: http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html.

 

Lies indeed?! Let me quote Leonard Cohen from the poem Israel:

 

"...The Covenant is broken, the condition is dishonoured, have you not noticed that the world has been taken away? You have no place, you will wander from generation to generation without a thread. Therefore you rule over chaos, you hoist your flags with no authority, and the heart that is still alive hates you, and the remnant of Mercy is ashamed to look at you. You decompose behind your flimsy armour, your stench alarms you, your panic strikes at love. The land is not yours, the land has been taken back, your shrines fall through empty air, your tablets are quickly revised, and you bow down in hell behind your hired torturers, and still you count your batallions and crank out your marching songs. Your righteous enemy is listening. He hears your anthems full of blood and vanity, and your children singing to themselves. He has overturned the vehicle of nationhood, he has spilled the precious cargo, and every nation he has taken back. Because you are swollen with your little time. Because you do not wrestle with your angel. Because you dare to live without G-d. Because your cowardicehas led you to believe that the victor does not limp."

 

Israel, by Leonard Cohen!

[woodlawn]

>As I said the tuth hurts. Israel sold WMD to apartheid South

>Africa, and its leaders refuse to apologize. QED I suggest

>you read:

>http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/Safrica/SABuildingBombs.html.

 

 

If 'the tuth' hurts, may I suggest a visit to the dentist?

 

As I said, the lies of Jew-haters like you hurt no one but yourselves. They certainly make no impression on me, no matter how many times you repeat them and in how many forms. Your support for a group that shoots elderly men, women and children during their Passover meal indicates that nothing you say is to be trusted.

 

Speaking of apologies, when may we expect your beloved leader Arafat to apologize for giving the order to kill the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics? So far we've been waiting 30 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>Lies indeed?! Let me quote Leonard Cohen from the poem

>Israel:

>

>"...The Covenant is broken, the condition is dishonoured,

>have you not noticed that the world has been taken away? You

>have no place, you will wander from generation to generation

>without a thread. Therefore you rule over chaos, you hoist

>your flags with no authority, and the heart that is still

>alive hates you, and the remnant of Mercy is ashamed to look

>at you. You decompose behind your flimsy armour, your stench

>alarms you, your panic strikes at love. The land is not

>yours, the land has been taken back, your shrines fall through

>empty air, your tablets are quickly revised, and you bow down

>in hell behind your hired torturers, and still you count your

>batallions and crank out your marching songs. Your righteous

>enemy is listening. He hears your anthems full of blood and

>vanity, and your children singing to themselves. He has

>overturned the vehicle of nationhood, he has spilled the

>precious cargo, and every nation he has taken back. Because

>you are swollen with your little time. Because you do not

>wrestle with your angel. Because you dare to live without

>G-d. Because your cowardicehas led you to believe that the

>victor does not limp."

>

>Israel, by Leonard Cohen!

>

[woodlawn]

>Ad rian thinks "they should be deported back to their

>militaristic theocracies"? So he can have a nice "Judenrein

>Amerika"? I guess that pretty much exposes ad rian for what

>he really is (as if his other posts hadn't already done that).

>

>

>Ad rian also is fond of the Joseph Goebbels "big lie"

>technique. He's been going on and on about the first article

>of Israel's constitution. Teensy problem here. Israel (like

>the UK) doesn't have a constitution, so there's no first

>article of that non-existent document.

>

>He also tries to make people believe the Palestinians bravely

>resisted occupying powers. That's another "big lie."

 

I owe you an apology. In another thread in another section I challenged you on your assessment of ad rian as 'negative' and 'nasty.' When I wrote that post I had not yet seen one of the anti-Semitic rants that several posters have now told me are a characteristic of his. Now that I have seen one, I realize that you were right about him and I was wrong. You obviously know him a lot better than I do. I'll know better next time.

[ad rian]

>Ad rian also is fond of the Joseph Goebbels "big like"

>technique. He's been going on and on about the first article

>of Israel's constitution. Teensy problem here. Israel (like

>the UK) doesn't have a constitution, so there's no first

>article of that non-existent document.

 

The teensy problem is that you don't even know that the Proclamation of Independance has quasi-constititional status by the first Article of the Basic Law. Just how far will you go to defend this corrupt militaristic theocracy?

 

The problem for you, however, is that I am not afraid to meet you in debate. It is pathetic that you can't critique Isarael. Irish can criticize Ireland. Chinese can criticize China. Africans can criticize Africa. Indians can criticize India. But can a Jew criticize Israel? The evidence for that is scant on this Board. How sad or how arrogant, I am not sure which. I will never understand those who want to rule over a people who reject that rule whether effected directly or through Mr. Barak's Bantustans. You do your cause no credit by defending apartheid in Israel or in South Africa, but you will reap what you sow. That is as true with respect to civil liberties here or there.

[woodlawn]

>The teensy problem is that you don't even know that the

>Proclamation of Independance has quasi-constititional status

 

The 'teensy problem,' as tri points out, is that you've been misrepresenting the situation all along. 'Quasi-constitutional status' my ass. That sort of prevarication hardly inspires confidence in the rest of what you say. He's right about you.

 

>The problem for you, however, is that I am not afraid to meet

>you in debate. It is pathetic that you can't critique

>Isarael. Irish can criticize Ireland. Chinese can criticize

>China. Africans can criticize Africa. Indians can criticize

>India. But can a Jew criticize Israel?

 

You have GOT to be kidding! Anyone who has bothered to take a look at any of the daily papers in Israel, most of which are available online, would bust a gut laughing at the suggestion that Jews don't criticize Israel. What planet are you from?

[trilingual]

Good point. You can get your information from the horse's mouth, so to speak, right here on the net. Then you don't have to get it from the horse's ass!

 

Israel's most prestigious daily, Ha'aretz, has an edition in English, at http://www.haaretzdaily.com

 

The Jerusalem Post is at http://www.jp.com The Post was for long the only English-language paper in Israel, and an example of outstanding journalism, but in recent years it was bought by conservatives and it's editorial line is now strongly pro-Likud. Its news articles are still good, though, and even the Post doesn't always go along with everything the government does.

 

As for other Jews criticizing Israel, I'm Jewish and, as you can see in my posting above, I did just that, when I said that Israel has done some ugly and racist things. Other Jewish participants on M4M have said critical things about Israel in other threads. So that makes it clear that ad rian and his ilk only see what they want to see, and they'll continue using propagandistic catch-phrases and slogans like "militaristic theocracy" and "first article of the Israeli constitution" over and over again long after they've been proven to be unfounded or untrue. It's a product of their paranoid delusional dysfunction. It's sad to see ad rian and spending so much time spouting here on this (and I'm sure other) sites, when the time could be so much more productively spent getting treatment! They do have some terrific things available these days to help with these illnesses, and it's a shame ad rian isn't taking advantage of them. Being able to see the world clear-eyed and level-headed is actually very nice. Ad rian should try it some time, and see what he's been missing!

[ad rian]

>As for other Jews criticizing Israel, I'm Jewish and, as you

>can see in my posting above, I did just that, when I said that

>Israel has done some ugly and racist things.

 

Ok Tri, let me test you. Do you agree with any of the following. I have yet to see you agree here, but have seen many denials from your cohort here:

 

1. Do you condemn Israel for selling weapon of mass destruction to apartheid South Africa? Yes or no?

 

2. Do you agree that Israel should sign and submit to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Test Ban Treaty? Yes or no?

 

3. Do you agrew with the systematic use of torture by israel as approved by its Supreme Court? Yes or no?

 

4. Do you agree with the with the occupation of Palestinian land on the West Bank and Gaza, and oppose the Bantustatans of Mr. Barak? Yes or no?

 

5. Do you agree with the application of collective punishment by Israel in violation of the Geneva Convention? Yes or no?

 

6. Do you agree with repoulating civilian populations on territory gained in war in violation of the Genebva Convention? Yes or no?

 

7. Do you agree with denying medical assistance to civiliuan population in war zones? Yes or no?

 

8. Do you agree with military censorship? Yes or No?

 

Before you start writing prescriptions and engaging in name calling, why not tell us where you stand rather than engage in soliloquies and obfuscation in defense of the Israeli militaristic theocracy?

[bluenix]

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-75.jpg

[jackhammer91406]

hey Bluenix,

FINALLY, thank you thank you thank you. As the one who started this thread, (I forget now what it was about) is it possible to petition HooBoy or Daddy to delete it? I never would have posted if I had know it was going to draw so much anger, hatred, and venom.

jack

[Guest newawlens]

>Ok Tri, let me test you. Do you agree with any of the

>following. I have yet to see you agree here, but have seen

>many denials from your cohort here:

 

 

I am not sure why you keep harping on human rights violations by Israel, since almost every government in the world has things like that on its record, and that includes the Palestinian Authority which has been severely criticized for human rights violations by Amnesty International. The five permanent members of the Security Council all have some terrible atrocities on their records, so I can't see them lecturing Israel on human rights. And a lot of the accusations made against Israel turn out to be false. Remember the accusations of a massacre in Jenin a few months ago? The UN and other international agencies now admit it never happened. What do you have to say to the Palestinians and others who made those accusations? Are they going to apologize?

 

It is pretty arrogant to demand that another poster take a test to see if he meets your standards of political correctness. If you want to have a real discussion about the Middle East problem you should stop making accusations and propose something that both sides might actually consider.

[ad rian]

>It is pretty arrogant to demand that another poster take a

>test to see if he meets your standards of political

>correctness. If you want to have a real discussion about the

>Middle East problem you should stop making accusations and

>propose something that both sides might actually consider.

 

I really find the inability of those who defend Israel on this Board to answer specifics. What are you afraif of? And can it be serious that even to pose these questions is an act of antisemitism? That isa frightening Stalinist rhetorical tactic, that I would suggest is not very strategic either for Jews generally or Israelis specifically. I have posed the questions aboutIsrael. Why do you have such difficulty in sting whether you support any of the following?

 

1. Do you condemn Israel for selling weapon of mass destruction to apartheid South Africa? Yes or no?

 

2. Do you agree that Israel should sign and submit to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Test Ban Treaty? Yes or no?

 

3. Do you agree with the systematic use of torture by israel as approved by its Supreme Court? Yes or no?

 

4. Do you agree with the with the occupation of Palestinian land on the West Bank and Gaza, and oppose the Bantustatans of Mr. Barak? Yes or no?

 

5. Do you agree with the application of collective punishment by Israel in violation of the Geneva Convention? Yes or no?

 

6. Do you agree with repopulating civilian populations on territory gained in war in violation of the Genebva Convention? Yes or no?

 

7. Do you agree with denying medical assistance to civilian population in war zones? Yes or no?

 

8. Do you agree with military censorship? Yes or No?

[Barry]

eDNA What's next?

 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/838773.asp?0cv=TB10

[phage]

>Why do you have such difficulty in

>sting whether you support any of the following?

 

First, you need to slow down. The endless stream of typos creates a mental picture of someone frothing at the mouth while he pounds the keyboard in an obsessive frenzy.

 

Second, I’ve got time on my hands and no desire to be politically correct. As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not Jewish but am decidedly pro-Israel. I’ve had it with the Palestinians and their barbaric response to the loss of land they haven’t controlled in ages.

 

Keep in mind these are the opinions of a reasonably intelligent, reasonably informed person. I pay attention but do not obsess about these issues. If it were not for the fact that their issues become our problems, I would probably be completely ambivalent about the problems of a pain-in-the-ass region a world away. It may not be pretty, but I certainly come closer to having an average American opinion than you do.

 

>1. Do you condemn Israel for selling weapon of mass

>destruction to apartheid South Africa? Yes or no?

 

Yes. Does than change anything or make you feel any better? I also condemn our own government for the arms-for-hostages debacle. Condemnation out of the way…let’s move on.

 

>2. Do you agree that Israel should sign and submit to the

>Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Test Ban

>Treaty? Yes or no?

 

Yes and no. (Those are two different treaties. Are they not?) Even though enemies SURROUND them, there is no reason for them to spread nuclear weapons to other regions. However, since enemies do surround them, I do not blame them for pursing chemical weapons as a last resort. Have any of their Arab neighbors signed the treaty?

 

>3. Do you agree with the systematic use of torture by israel

>as approved by its Supreme Court? Yes or no?

 

Yes. If we had busses exploding on an almost weekly basis, I would say, ‘Torture the SOB’s.’ If they have information that will help save teenagers lives then I would want our security people to get it – whatever it takes.

 

>4. Do you agree with the with the occupation of Palestinian

>land on the West Bank and Gaza, and oppose the Bantustatans of

>Mr. Barak? Yes or no?

 

Please try to word your question so that a single response is possible. Yes, I believe in the occupation. The land is a spoil of war. It is now part of Israel – a sovereign nation – and they can do with it as they please.

 

>5. Do you agree with the application of collective punishment

>by Israel in violation of the Geneva Convention? Yes or no?

 

(I hope I understand this correctly. You sometime confuse simple little me.) Yes. They are in essence at war with a civilian population that celebrates their “martyrs” and supports the terror campaign in every way. Striking back at that collective group seems appropriate. Blowing up the family home of the last terrorist seems measured and reasonable.

 

>6. Do you agree with repopulating civilian populations on

>territory gained in war in violation of the Genebva

>Convention? Yes or no?

 

Yes, for the same reasons as above.

 

>7. Do you agree with denying medical assistance to civilian

>population in war zones? Yes or no?

 

Yes. I see no reason to provide assistance to the enemy. They want to be an independent State…let them take care of themselves.

 

>8. Do you agree with military censorship? Yes or No?

 

No, but I also believe that is an issue for Israel to decide. They are the ones living with this on a daily basis and they need to decide what is in their best interest – just as the US will do.

[ad rian]

>First, you need to slow down. The endless stream of typos

>creates a mental picture of someone frothing at the mouth

>while he pounds the keyboard in an obsessive frenzy.

 

Thanks for answering. I respect the honesty. It helps clarify what people are supporting when they support Israel. If we can be clear on these questions, we can be clear on our policy choices and tradeoffs. For my money, I think that if most people had to answer these questions in a structured and logical way (e.g. the infamous "push polling") support for Israel would drop deamatically. I also think that is why most on this Board prefer to engage in name-calling than to answer the questions.

 

As for my typing, I repeat that I type with one finger. In my day job, I dictate or write long hand. The browser does nt have spellcheck. S I plead guilty to the pedants' charge, but unless or until I get paid for these posts, please forgive the typos.

[ad rian]

A few substantive responses.

 

>>1. Do you condemn Israel for selling weapon of mass

>>destruction to apartheid South Africa? Yes or no?

>

>Yes. Does than change anything or make you feel any better?

>I also condemn our own government for the arms-for-hostages

>debacle. Condemnation out of the way…let’s move on.

 

It is a crucial admission since the case for war in Iraq is their use of WMD.

 

>>2. Do you agree that Israel should sign and submit to the

>>Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Test Ban

>>Treaty? Yes or no?

>

>Yes and no. (Those are two different treaties. Are they

>not?) Even though enemies SURROUND them, there is no reason

>for them to spread nuclear weapons to other regions. However,

>since enemies do surround them, I do not blame them for

>pursing chemical weapons as a last resort. Have any of their

>Arab neighbors signed the treaty?

>

Yes, their neoghbors have signed on to both treaties, and it is the Arab League's position that the Middle East should be a nuclear free zone. I think most serious observers realize that an Israel as the only WMD regional super power cannot be a stable equilibrium. Whether we want to confront that now or later, we will have to confront that.

[trilingual]

RE: ad rian's quiz

 

Gee, I don't have a problem with answering ad rian's (somewhat distorted) quiz:

 

>1. Do you condemn Israel for selling weapon of mass destruction to apartheid South Africa? Yes or no?

 

I've never seen any evidence that Israel sold weapons of mass destruction to the apartheid regime in South Africa, so this can't be answered with a "yes" or "no." If they did do that, I'd condemn it, but at this point it's meaningless as there's no longer an apartheid regime in South Africa, regardless of the kinds of weapons it had or where it got them. (I do think it's likely that Israel sold technology for developing nuclear weapons to South Africa and Taiwan. I suspect Israel wasn't the only nation that did that.)

 

>2. Do you agree that Israel should sign and submit to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Test Ban Treaty? Yes or no?

 

If the political and security situation in the Middle East permitted it, I'd like to see Israel sign the treaties. But under the current circumstances, I'm not sure it would be a good idea. Besides, I don't think Israel should be held to a higher standard than, say, the U.S., which has recently renounced arms proliferation treaties and is about to start tests to develop new nuclear weapons. Besides, treaties are only as good as the paper they're written on. Witness the recent U.S. approach to treaties. While they look nice and sound good, I don't put a whole lot of stock in treaties. When push comes to shove, nations do whatever is in their self-interest, regardless of treaties.

 

>3. Do you agree with the systematic use of torture by israel as approved by its Supreme Court? Yes or no?

 

The Supreme Court of Israel has never approved the systematic use of torture. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of course I condemn torture, personally (like that'll make the slightest difference to torturers!). I don't think there's ever a need for torture in a nation of law. But that doesn't mean imprisonment or interregation is supposed to resemble a rejuvenating stay at a spa.

 

>4. Do you agree with the with the occupation of Palestinian land on the West Bank and Gaza, and oppose the Bantustatans of Mr. Barak? Yes or no?

 

I have no idea what Bantustans you're referring to. I'm not aware that it's a term of art in Israeli policy. Mr. Barak, by the way, hasn't been the prime minister of Israel for some time, so you're a bit out of touch, it seems. I don't support the occupation of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza and, like millions of other Jews, would like to see it end. Unilaterally, if necessary, and soon. That doesn't mean I support giving back ALL of Jerusalem. I do support giving back parts of East Jerusalem, including traditionally Arab quarters of the Old City and the two mosques on the Temple Mount. In view of the continuing terrorist threat, I would also support building a wall along Israel's borders, with closely controlled crossing points at appropriate locations. By the way, if any Bantustan is created in the Middle East, it will probably be independent Palestine, because the Palestinians have made it clear they don't want any Jews living in their country under any circumstances. Israel, in contrast, although established as a homeland for the Jewish people, has always had non-Jewish resident populations, with rights of citizenship. (In practice, Arab Israelis have often been treated like second-class citizens, which is racist and shameful, but legally they are as Israeli as any Jewish Israeli. Unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa, Arab Israelis always have had the right to vote and run for public office, own land, hold passports, operate businesses, pursue higher education, exercise professions, etc., and they do. Arab Israelis aren't subject to mandatory military service like Jewish Israelis are, but they can volunteer and many do serve in the military, which is a major avenue of training and career advancement for all Israelis.)

 

>5. Do you agree with the application of collective punishment by Israel in violation of the Geneva Convention? Yes or no?

 

No, I don't believe in the application of collective punishment. It's despicable. It's one of the ugly things Israel has done to which I referred earlier. Millions of other Jews believe it loathesome, too, vividly conscious that within living memory Jews themselves were the victims of collective punishments, and worse.

 

>6. Do you agree with repopulating civilian populations on territory gained in war in violation of the Genebva Convention? Yes or no?

 

No, I don't agree with the Israeli settlement policy, although as part of any final agreement I do support modest realignments of the boundaries between the West Bank and Israel to increase security and to protect and preserve access to major Jewish holy sites. In return for such realignments, I support transferring some Israeli territory to modestly expand the Gaza Strip. (I believe this is similar to the Camp David proposals the Palestinians rejected but now wish they could resurrect.)

 

>7. Do you agree with denying medical assistance to civilian population in war zones? Yes or no?

 

No, I don't agree with that. Denying medical assistance (in war zones or anywhere else) is despicable. It is also a profound breach of Jewish ethics and beliefs.

 

>8. Do you agree with military censorship? Yes or No?

 

I loathe censorship, but I recognize that in a time of war some censorship may be unavoidable. Most of the time censorship is pointless, because the enemy and the public often already know the information that's trying to be suppressed, particularly any military defeats, efforts to suppress atrocities. In these days of internet; satellite news, cameras and phones; etc., it's virtually impossible to keep information from being disseminated. When you get right down to it, censorship is an almost obsolete concept these days, and it's highly ineffective. In spite of censorship, we know that Israel has nuclear weapons, we know about U.S. invasion plans for Iraq, we know about troop movements, we knew about the Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet gulag, etc. But your point in asking the question is?

[ad rian]

RE: ad rian's quiz

 

>I've never seen any evidence that Israel sold weapons of mass

>destruction to the apartheid regime in South Africa, so this

>can't be answered with a "yes" or "no." If they did do that,

>I'd condemn it, but at this point it's meaningless as there's

>no longer an apartheid regime in South Africa, regardless of

>the kinds of weapons it had or where it got them. (I do think

>it's likely that Israel sold technology for developing nuclear

>weapons to South Africa and Taiwan. I suspect Israel wasn't

>the only nation that did that.)

 

Well, read the link provided by me in an earlier point. I suggest to you that Jane's Defense and the Rand Corpration have acknowleded the Israeli role. No other country has ever been asociated with that program or with the testing in the ocean off the coast of South Africa. Of course, the best evidence is that Mandela's government admitted it and invited the Israelis to dismantle it which makes the Israeli official "no comments" and the denials of their supporters laughable. Now if we are going after Sadam for past crimes, and collecting reparations still from European banks and corporations for Hollocaust crimes, I guess the Israeli point is not quite so moot after all. To be clear, I would apply exactly the same punishment to Israel as we apply to Iraq.

 

>>2. Do you agree that Israel should sign and submit to the

>Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Test Ban

>Treaty? Yes or no?

>

>Besides, I don't think Israel should be held to a

>higher standard than, say, the U.S., which has recently

>renounced arms proliferation treaties and is about to start

>tests to develop new nuclear weapons.

 

Should Iraq be held to a higher standard than Israel or the United States?

 

>>3. Do you agree with the systematic use of torture by israel

>as approved by its Supreme Court? Yes or no?

>

>The Supreme Court of Israel has never approved the systematic

>use of torture. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

Where do you get this stuff? (It s like your population stats that I ignored from the earlier post. Of course, your's did not include those in refugee camps. Why do you think Israel rejects the Palestinian right of return.) The Israeli Supreme Court has approved both torture and collective punishment, and no less authority than Professor Dershowitz speaks and writes approvingly of both.

 

>>4. Do you agree with the with the occupation of Palestinian

>land on the West Bank and Gaza, and oppose the Bantustatans of

>Mr. Barak? Yes or no?

>

>I have no idea what Bantustans you're referring to. I'm not

>aware that it's a term of art in Israeli policy. Mr. Barak,

>by the way, hasn't been the prime minister of Israel for some

>time, so you're a bit out of touch, it seems. I don't support

>the occupation of Palestinian land in the West Bank and Gaza

>and, like millions of other Jews, would like to see it end.

>Unilaterally, if necessary, and soon. That doesn't mean I

>support giving back ALL of Jerusalem. I do support giving

>back parts of East Jerusalem, including traditionally Arab

>quarters of the Old City and the two mosques on the Temple

>Mount.

 

In substance, we agree but I would point you to the map on Michael Lener's Tikkun.com web site which shows that the famous Baralk offer was not one of contiguos land. It was akin to what was known under apartheid as "Bantustans" - a proposal rejected by Mandela and the world. No Palestinian leader could or would accept such an offer just as the current world hero of the moment, Mandela rejected similar offers.

 

>>5. Do you agree with the application of collective

>punishment by Israel in violation of the Geneva Convention?

>Yes or no?

>

>No, I don't believe in the application of collective

>punishment. It's despicable. It's one of the ugly things

>Israel has done to which I referred earlier. Millions of

>other Jews believe it loathesome, too, vividly conscious that

>within living memory Jews themselves were the victims of

>collective punishments, and worse.

 

>>8. Do you agree with military censorship? Yes or No?

>

>....But your point in asking the question is?

 

Israel institutes military censorship, their word not mine, on all broadcasts from the West Bank and Gaza, and at times from Israel propper as well. For those here who want to whitewash the nature of that regime, I think it is important for people to know what we are really dealing with over there. For my part, I think to much of our war on terror is based on the Israeli model with its consequent effect on our civil liberties. If I were hinting for models, I might start with the UK in Northern Ireland instead, although that ain't much of a model either.

[Guest newawlens]

>>It is pretty arrogant to demand that another poster take a

>>test to see if he meets your standards of political

>>correctness. If you want to have a real discussion about

>the

>>Middle East problem you should stop making accusations and

>>propose something that both sides might actually consider.

>

>

>I really find the inability of those who defend Israel on

>this Board to answer specifics. What are you afraif of?

 

 

It's not that I and others don't want to discuss this with you, it's that you only want to discuss it on your terms. You want to have a discussion about the crimes of Israel. I would rather talk about solutions to the problems of the region. Those are two completely different discussions. I don't see much point in the first one, I do see a point in the second one.

 

You say you want people to join you in opposing militaristic theocracies. While I grant that Israel does have some elements of a militaristic theocracy, there are some other countries, including some Muslim ones, that have as many or more of those elements. Why is it I never see you condemning any of them? If the only militaristic theocracy you ever talk about is Israel and you ignore the rest, I can see why people think you have a problem with Jews.

 

Wood made another good point, which is that it looks kind of odd when people condemn Israeli abuses of Muslims but not abuses of Muslims by people of other religions and nationalities, of which there are plenty. When you do that it also makes it look as though you have a problem with Jews, but not with others who do the same stuff.

 

 

>Why do you have such difficulty in

>sting whether you support any of the following?

 

It looks like you have some difficulty answering the question I asked about the mythical Jenin massacre. Palestinian leaders claimed it happened and some European papers including the Guardian reported it as if it was a fact, but as we now know it never took place. But most of the people who made those claims never apologized, so that kind of looks as though they just hate Jews also. Why else wouldn't they be honest and own up to what they did?

 

Like I said, I see no point in listing a bunch of crimes of Israel. Whether they are true or not the 5 million Israelis are not going to go away or give up control of their country to someone else, so what is the point of going on and on about it? It doesn't lead to anything practical or helpful.