# Israeli treatment of American youth



## Chouan

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/06/israel-police-beat-us-teen-palestinian-boy

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...alleged-beating-of-teenager-by-israeli-police

Whether the young man being beaten in the second is the American or not, it's pretty harrowing stuff. Especially after the kidnapping and burning of his cousin in retaliation for the death of three Israeli young men.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/05/palestinian-boy-mohammed-abu-khdeir-burned-alive

I would be interested in the views of American members on these events.


----------



## Odradek




----------



## eagle2250

I think it interesting to note that while the Israeli's already have several Israeli suspects in custody for the crimes against the Palestinian youth(s), the Palestinian authorities have done nothing but spout off excuses claiming to justify the brutal killings of the three Israeli youths! Are we applying a double standard in the evaluation of the responses of these two Nations? :icon_scratch: Bottom line, regardless of the nationality of the victims, both crimes represent brutal and inexcusable acts!


----------



## 32rollandrock

Oh man. Now we're wading into the Middle East. Just sayin'.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Article~
The United States government says it is "profoundly troubled" by reports that a 15-year-old American of Palestinian descent was badly beaten by Israeli paramilitary police during riots in East Jerusalem. 
Calling for an urgent investigation, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki confirmed that the teen, Tariq Khdeir, was being held by Israeli authorities in Jerusalem and said a consular officer had visited him on Saturday. 
Khdeir is a cousin of Mohammed Abu-Khdeir, the youth whom Palestinians believe was abducted and murdered by far-right Israelis on Wednesday.
"We are profoundly troubled by reports that he was severely beaten while in police custody and strongly condemn any excessive use of force," Psaki said. "We are calling for a speedy, transparent and credible investigation and full accountability for any excessive use of force."

That seems pretty clear to me.

What part did you have trouble with??


----------



## maltimad

I absolutely agree with the last sentence - as I think anyone would. However, the first part isn't fully true. In the interest of accuracy, it should be noted that the Palestinian authorities in the West Bank (the area in which the Israeli youths were initially kidnapped) have actually cooperated very closely with Israeli authorities in the search for the three youths, and later for the two alleged kidnappers - whom no one (Israeli or Palestinian) has been able to find. Israeli PM Netanyahu himself praised Palestinian PM Abbas for his and his government's cooperation.

However, it's true (I think) that Hamas in the Gaza Strip praised the kidnappings (but I don't think the killings), while denying responsibility. Absolutely deplorable to praise either act, even if they had nothing to do with it. And as of now, it doesn't look like it was an official Hamas act of any sort. The allegation seems to be that the two alleged kidnappers are rogue Hamas operatives - but getting to the bottom of that storyline seems to not be a priority any more.

Lastly, even though the alleged kidnappers have yet to be found (let alone found guilty), their family homes have been demolished. As far as I'm aware, none of the six Israeli suspects have had their family homes demolished.

I'm happy to be corrected if I'm misinformed on any of this.

Peace and love to all, everywhere in the world.



eagle2250 said:


> I think it interesting to note that while the Israeli's already have several Israeli suspects in custody for the crimes against the Palestinian youth(s), the Palestinian authorities have done nothing but spout off excuses claiming to justify the brutal killings of the three Israeli youths! Are we applying a double standard in the evaluation of the responses of these two Nations? :icon_scratch: Bottom line, regardless of the nationality of the victims, both crimes represent brutal and inexcusable acts!


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> I think it interesting to note that while the Israeli's already have several Israeli suspects in custody for the crimes against the Palestinian youth(s), the Palestinian authorities have done nothing but spout off excuses claiming to justify the brutal killings of the three Israeli youths! Are we applying a double standard in the evaluation of the responses of these two Nations? :icon_scratch: Bottom line, regardless of the nationality of the victims, both crimes represent brutal and inexcusable acts!


Is it not hard to start a criminal investigation when Israel has already imprisoned about 100 people over the matter while bombing and killing everyone that gets in the way? As Israel isn't really under attack, they have the time and energy to investigate such matters. Palestine has no option as to questioning the hundreds that were arrested and thrown into Israeili prisons. In the meantime, hundreds are being killed and injured at the hands of the "peaceful" Israeilis...Can you see the difference I'm mentioning or no? You're a retired police officer...If I stole all of your suspects... Coud you actually try to investigate and prosecute them?

EDIT WARNING FOR THE CRYBABIES......I changed the word "cop" to "police officer" in respect to Eagle's service to the community...


----------



## eagle2250

^^I understand the point you are proposing, but Israel, not entirely by their choice, sits in the lap of and is totally surrounded by their enemies. They are constantly under attack and their very survival is threatened by those enemies. A constant state of hyper-vigilance and military preparedness is, to date, what has kept them from being wiped from the face of this Earth of ours. The occupied territory causing such present day dispute exits as a direct result of one such past effort, in which Israel clearly prevailed. From a military perspective, maintaining a protective buffer of land, a sand moat if you prefer, seems to make a lot of sense, given the prior military strikes against them. Given such a history, a bit of potential over reaction is perhaps ,ore understandable. 

When you stated, Israel isn't really under attack," were you disregarding the recent reports of missile attacks against targets within Israel?


----------



## Odradek

eagle2250 said:


> ^^I understand the point you are proposing, but Israel, not entirely by their choice, sits in the lap of and is totally surrounded by their enemies.


Israel, entirely by their choice, stole a very large chunk of land, and have squatted there for the past 65 odd years with impunity. It is no wonder that the people displaced by this are not too happy about the situation.


----------



## eagle2250

^^Was it not the British Government's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, just after WW I, establishing the Israeli state in the Palestinian midst what started it all? When all did not go well and the British Government seemed unable to resolve the dilemma they had created and turned it over to the UN for resolution, didn't the UN reaffirm this arrangement in the late 1940's? :icon_scratch:


----------



## tocqueville

Odradek said:


> Israel, entirely by their choice, stole a very large chunk of land, and have squatted there for the past 65 odd years with impunity. It is no wonder that the people displaced by this are not too happy about the situation.


Stole it from whom? And are you including the bits from which Jews had been violent expelled in the 1930s and 1940s? I gather Israel should not have moved on its central front in 1967 and simply held the line. It's also hard to explain the '67 war given that, by your lights, the root of Arab antipathy lies in post-'67 events. So if Israel to were give up all the land conquered then all would be well--peace would break out. Right? If Netanyahu were to destroy the settlements, all would be well. Right? Like Sharon did in Gaza.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Odradek said:


> Israel, entirely by their choice, stole a very large chunk of land, and have squatted there for the past 65 odd years with impunity. It is no wonder that the people displaced by this are not too happy about the situation.


If I wuz them, I'd get over it and move onto something more constructive.


----------



## tocqueville

WouldaShoulda said:


> If I wuz them, I'd get over it and move onto something more constructive.


Not if you were paid to sit in refugeee camps for 60 years.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> Not if you were paid to sit in refugeee camps for 60 years.


With no booze, horse racing or air conditioning??

They don't have enough money to keep me there!!


----------



## Odradek

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Was it not the British Government's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, just after WW I, establishing the Israeli state in the Palestinian midst what started it all? When all did not go well and the British Government seemed unable to resolve the dilemma they had created and turned it over to the UN for resolution, didn't the UN reaffirm this arrangement in the late 1940's? :icon_scratch:


The British government have a long history of handing things they don't own over to other folks.
If the British government, or anyone else, were to hand over your house to a gang of heavily armed eastern European thugs who turfed you out, would you be happy with the situation?



tocqueville said:


> Stole it from whom? And are you including the bits from which Jews had been violent expelled in the 1930s and 1940s? I gather Israel should not have moved on its central front in 1967 and simply held the line. It's also hard to explain the '67 war given that, by your lights, the root of Arab antipathy lies in post-'67 events. So if Israel to were give up all the land conquered then all would be well--peace would break out. Right? If Netanyahu were to destroy the settlements, all would be well. Right? Like Sharon did in Gaza.


1967?
Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, so the rest is irrelevant.


----------



## tocqueville

Odradek said:


> Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, so the rest is irrelevant.


There you go. At least you're honest.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Was it not the British Government's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, just after WW I, establishing the Israeli state in the Palestinian midst what started it all? When all did not go well and the British Government seemed unable to resolve the dilemma they had created and turned it over to the UN for resolution, didn't the UN reaffirm this arrangement in the late 1940's? :icon_scratch:


The Balfour Declaration was simply an acceptance by the then British Government that the Jews should have a place where they could settle. There was no suggestion that the Jews should aggressively seize control of Palestine and evict the indigenous peoples, or, seize control of Palestine militarily and practice a very aggressive apartheid against the indigenous population.
Britain's Mandate from the League of Nations was to maintain order, temporarily, until Palestine could become self-governing. Post-WW2 the UN granted statehood to Israel, so Israel is predicated upon the UN's recognisation, yet Israel has aggressively and militarily seized land, denied civil rights to the indigenous population, and ignored virtually every UN Resolution intended to establish peace and peaceful co-existence in the region.


----------



## eagle2250

^^So you are suggesting that Israel, when attacked by the enemies who surround them, should not presume to defend themselves and in those instances they do defend themselves and are victorious, they should unilaterally and generously restore the pre=attack status-qou(!)? If so, that sounds more than just a bit unrealistic expectation to me.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^So you are suggesting that Israel, when attacked by the enemies who surround them, should not presume to defend themselves and in those instances they do defend themselves and are victorious, they should unilaterally and generously restore the pre=attack status-qou(!)? If so, that sounds more than just a bit unrealistic expectation to me.


So, Israel, having occupied, then invaded and seized more of the region in question, and is now illegally, according to the UN which gave Israel recognition of its existence, occupying more of it, having either driven out the indigenous population through the use of terror and massacre, or controlling them through a repressive and aggressive form of apartheid in which the indigenous population can be dispossessed, beaten and arrested with impunity, are to be seen as victims, whilst those being so treated are to be seen as aggressors?
The US sought independence from a "tyranny" far less odious that that of Israel, yet denies such independence to the Palestinians, and continues in its support for this oppressive racist state.


----------



## justonemore

Ok. Is this not a country that was given rights by the u.n. only to start denying u.n. authority? "we got what we wanted, now we want more. As such, you have no rights to try and tell us what to do... We were given land Under a b.s. claim as to "religious rights" due to some nonesensical "religious history"... But now we want more. In fact, we deny international law in doing so...." In fact, we have members here that claim there is no such thing as international law.... SG and Toqueville are the main criminals here...


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> There you go. At least you're honest.


Your point is what? That a certain religious community deserves to be treated better due to historical reasoning? Is that not being racist in and of itself???


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> ^^So you are suggesting that Israel, when attacked by the enemies who surround them, should not presume to defend themselves and in those instances they do defend themselves and are victorious, they should unilaterally and generously restore the pre=attack status-qou(!)? If so, that sounds more than just a bit unrealistic expectation to me.


It's more insidious than that, Eagle. Basically, by their reckoning Israel is illegitimate from birth and has no right to exist, thus everything Israelis do to defend themselves compounds and proves that essential illegitimacy. The only logical solution, (dare I say, final solution?) is for Israelis to stop defending themselves and just, I guess, turn the other cheek. Say, I'm so sorry, world, do what you want with me. I'm guilty. Now, let's ponder what happens then and what that would look like.


----------



## tocqueville

justonemore said:


> Your point is what? That a certain religious community deserves to be treated better due to historical reasoning? Is that not being racist in and of itself???


My point is that you would deny the right of my family and loved ones to live in safety and to live their lives as they see fit. And somehow I am a racist for wanting that.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> So, Israel, having occupied, then invaded and seized more of the region in question, and is now illegally, according to the UN which gave Israel recognition of its existence, occupying more of it, having either driven out the indigenous population through the use of terror and massacre, or controlling them through a repressive and aggressive form of apartheid in which the indigenous population can be dispossessed, beaten and arrested with impunity, are to be seen as victims, whilst those being so treated are to be seen as aggressors?
> The US sought independence from a "tyranny" far less odious that that of Israel, yet denies such independence to the Palestinians, and continues in its support for this oppressive racist state.


The US never sought to destroy Briton or terrorize Britons in their home. Britain was never under threat.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> The Balfour Declaration was simply an acceptance by the then British Government that the Jews should have a place where they could settle. There was no suggestion that the Jews should aggressively seize control of Palestine and evict the indigenous peoples, or, seize control of Palestine militarily and practice a very aggressive apartheid against the indigenous population.
> Britain's Mandate from the League of Nations was to maintain order, temporarily, until Palestine could become self-governing. Post-WW2 the UN granted statehood to Israel, so Israel is predicated upon the UN's recognisation, yet Israel has aggressively and militarily seized land, denied civil rights to the indigenous population, and ignored virtually every UN Resolution intended to establish peace and peaceful co-existence in the region.


Such a one-sided narrative, you present. Pretty schlock scholarship.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> So, Israel, having occupied, then invaded and seized more of the region in question, and is now illegally, according to the UN which gave Israel recognition of its existence, occupying more of it, having either driven out the indigenous population through the use of terror and massacre, or controlling them through a repressive and aggressive form of apartheid in which the indigenous population can be dispossessed, beaten and arrested with impunity, are to be seen as victims, whilst those being so treated are to be seen as aggressors?
> The US sought independence from a "tyranny" far less odious that that of Israel, yet denies such independence to the Palestinians, and continues in its support for this oppressive racist state.


You misrepresent the dynamics of the situation. Israel was attacked and they defended themselves and in so doing they secured a buffer zone/sand moat to protect themselves against future attacks. We might consider that 'the spoils of war.' In any event, The Israelis have every right to defend themselves from attack and to secure their borders to the very best of their ability. If a neighbor were to violate the integrity of your home, threatening you and your family, would you not defend yourself and your loved ones. I certainly would and have actively prepared to do so. Israel, as a State, has done nothing more than defend their home, family and loved ones. Sounds pretty honorable to me.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> It's more insidious than that, Eagle. Basically, by their reckoning Israel is illegitimate from birth and has no right to exist, thus everything Israelis do to defend themselves compounds and proves that essential illegitimacy. The only logical solution, (dare I say, final solution?) is for Israelis to stop defending themselves and just, I guess, turn the other cheek. Say, I'm so sorry, world, do what you want with me. I'm guilty. Now, let's ponder what happens then and what that would look like.


If Israel's legitimacy is based on its recognition by the UN, which is Israel's legal argument. Then Israel should be bound by the resolutions of the UN, and should have ceased its territorial aggrandisement. It hasn't. Israel continues to ignore the UN resolutions on territorial expansion, is continuing to expand, continuing to seize land, continuing to dispossess Palestinians, continuing its armed aggression, continuing its apartheid, continuing its racist repression and denial of civil rights on racial grounds, and is continuing to claim that it is the victim of aggression. It can, of course, only afford to do so through American financial and political support. Its forces of repression can, of course, beat up Americans with impunity, as long as the colour of the skin of said Americans, or their religion, it seems, is the colour or the religion that isn't entitled to reasonable treatment.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> The US never sought to destroy Briton or terrorize Britons in their home. Britain was never under threat.


Yet that is what Israel is doing to Palestinians on a daily basis.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> You misrepresent the dynamics of the situation. Israel was attacked and they defended themselves and in so doing they secured a buffer zone/sand moat to protect themselves against future attacks. We might consider that 'the spoils of war.' In any event, The Israelis have every right to defend themselves from attack and to secure their borders to the very best of their ability. If a neighbor were to violate the integrity of your home, threatening you and your family, would you not defend yourself and your loved ones. I certainly would and have actively prepared to do so. Israel, as a State, has done nothing more than defend their home, family and loved ones. Sounds pretty honorable to me.


They occupied Palestine, by stages, throughout the 1920's and 1930's, until there were enough of them to seize the country, with American support, then invade the rest, in stages, using terror to displace the Palestinians. Having seized the country by force, they now occupy it by force. Doesn't sound very honourable to me.
Perhaps if one considers a similar situation it might be clearer. A territory, lets call it "America", has an established population. People arrive from a different continent, with more advanced technology, military and economic support, and a belief that this new land is a "promised land". They invade, kill and terrorise the indigenous population, driving them out and dispossessing them, ultimately seizing the whole country, impoverishing the surviving natives, and forcing them to live in enclaves, killing them mercilessly if they try to assert themselves or reclaim their land. That doesn't sound very honourable either. Perhaps that explains the US support for Israel.


----------



## tocqueville

And that is what Palestinians do and have done at every opportunity since at least as far back as the 1910s. The big immigrant waves of the turn of the last century were never heavily armed as Odredreck insists, but they only armed up once threatened. Violence was a constant through that period, and then came 1948. Ever since then, Palestinians have always made clear that their objective was to wipe it out and have terrorized the Israeli population continuously through the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, etc.. Some, recently, have been endorsing a two state solution, which is welcome news, but it would take a serious act of faith on Israel's part to give that a shot. I think Israel should and must take the risk, but I sympathize with the reluctance. What do you think would have happened had Zionist settlements not defended themselves in the 1920s and 1930s? (The answer is obvious, given the massacre of Jews in various locations in those years under the British Mandate)? What would have happened in 1948 had the Arab armies (who were much better armed--sorry, Odradek), had won? In '67? '73?

There are two sides to this. Heaping blame on one side and asking it to do what, go away? is cruel and horrifically naive.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> They occupied Palestine, by stages, throughout the 1920's and 1930's, until there were enough of them to seize the country...


It started long earlier, and in fact they were always there. And do you know who they were and why they were there?


----------



## tocqueville

Are all nationalist movements evil? Are any other nations as illegitimate as Israel? I should add to that, do you all so freely discount other people's religious convictions?


----------



## eagle2250

^^It seems to me the Israelis gained claim to the land through British decree, followed by UN affirmation. Chouan seems wont to set all that aside, in crafting his badly distorted version of events!


----------



## tocqueville

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It seems to me the Israelis gained claim to the land through British decree, followed by UN affirmation. Chouan seems wont to set all that aside, in crafting his badly distorted version of events!


They were also attacked by their Arab neighbors who rejected the UN resolution, starting the war that resulted in the refugee problem. They would have gotten a much better deal had they accepted the terms of the resolution. Israel, however, committed the inexcusable crime of surviving.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> It's more insidious than that, Eagle. Basically, by their reckoning Israel is illegitimate from birth and has no right to exist, thus everything Israelis do to defend themselves compounds and proves that essential illegitimacy. The only logical solution, (dare I say, final solution?) is for Israelis to stop defending themselves and just, I guess, turn the other cheek. Say, I'm so sorry, world, do what you want with me. I'm guilty. Now, let's ponder what happens then and what that would look like.


You are aware that terrorism played a very large part in Israel becoming a country, correct?


----------



## tocqueville

I offer this only to underscore the two-sided nature of the conflict:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Hebron, it should be noted, is a Jewish holy city and has essentially hosted a Jewish community since forever. The Jews there were not, I believe, recent immigrants associated with the Zionist movement. The massacre there did have the effect, however, of encouraging Jews in Palestine to organize for their self defense. Hebron's Jewish buildings and sites were trashed and looted, synagogues were raised. Jews were effectively denied access to the holiest part of all, the Cave of the Mahpelah, were Abraham allegedly buried Sarah. After 1948, it was completely sealed off. Only in 1967 were the Jewish sites reopened, and only in the late 1970s did the settler movement decide that it was time to rebuild the Jewish community there. The Hebron settlers are an awful bunch, but I cannot question the fundamental right for Jews to live there, or in any of the other places from which they were expelled, such as Jerusalem's old city. I suppose that for Chouan et Cie the Jews massacred in Hebron had it coming, because they had no right to be there, and Jews are not entitled to regard Hebron or any place else as of religious significance.


----------



## SG_67

vpkozel said:


> You are aware that terrorism played a very large part in Israel becoming a country, correct?


The founding of any new nation is a violent act. Ask Pharaoh's army, King George III, Louis XVI or any other number of monarchs or tribal leaders who have fought and lost wars throughout the centuries and millennia.

Let's talk about the here and now. Israel is an established state. There's no question as to it's existence or it's commitment to remain that way.

Organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah refuse to even recognize that. It's not a matter of "let's negotiate borders" with intermittent violence in the form of limited wars in order to achieve some upper hand to better negotiating positions. The Palestinians are warring amongst themselves and as a matter of course kidnap and lob missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas. In short, they are using violence without really any political end. Their own rhetoric suggests a lack of political desire, rather an existential denial of a state called Israel.

As for "Palestinian authorities", this is a non sequitur. There's really no definitive Palestinian authority. How can one government negotiate with an entity when the former does not even know if the latter has the backing of the people or can implement any agreement that is reached.


----------



## tocqueville

vpkozel said:


> You are aware that terrorism played a very large part in Israel becoming a country, correct?


A very large part? Really?


----------



## Kingstonian

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Was it not the British Government's issuance of the Balfour Declaration, just after WW I, establishing the Israeli state in the Palestinian midst what started it all? When all did not go well and the British Government seemed unable to resolve the dilemma they had created and turned it over to the UN for resolution, didn't the UN reaffirm this arrangement in the late 1940's? :icon_scratch:


Or Zionist banksters?

Money and opportunism works wonders.


----------



## Kingstonian

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...israelis-arent-telling-this-week-9596120.html


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> Or Zionist banksters?
> 
> Money and opportunism works wonders.


Wow. Kingstonian's going for the gold in the Anglo-Antisemitic olympics.


----------



## Kingstonian

The anti Semite trick does not work any more.


----------



## tocqueville

You brought up the Zionist "banksters." That's a cute neologism. Any more antisemitic cliches you want to throw out?

Let's not put a label on it, fine. But you hate Jews. Odradek's already signed on to the elimination of Israel. Chouan's almost there.

What is it with you Brits? Trying to compensate for your past crimes in the Middle East? The French have this problem as well.



Kingstonian said:


> The anti Semite trick does not work any more.


----------



## Kingstonian

This clear enough for you ?

Foreign Office,

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement [sic] of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Elders.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> This clear enough for you ?
> 
> Foreign Office,
> 
> November 2nd, 1917
> 
> Dear Lord Rothschild,
> 
> I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:
> 
> "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement [sic] of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Elders.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Arthur James Balfour


Please, Kingstonian, tell me more about these Zionist Elders.

Edit: I should add that it's entirely possible that Lord Balfour was himself possessed of antisemitic notions of his own with regard to Jewish power, Zionist Elders, and so on. I can only imagine what Rothschild must have thought when he read that last sentence. Probably something akin to, WTF?, followed by a shrug of the shoulders.


----------



## eagle2250

Kingstonian said:


> Or Zionist banksters?
> 
> Money and opportunism works wonders.


.....and just what facts/circumstances can you provide to support such extremely suggestive and inflamatory suggestions? Or is it that you just get a thrill out of maligning entire nationalities?


----------



## Kingstonian

eagle2250 said:


> .....and just what facts/circumstances can you provide to support such extremely suggestive and inflamatory suggestions? Or is it that you just get a thrill out of maligning entire nationalities?


So you do not see the money angle? Well I suggest you do some research.

Untermeyer, Brandeis and Wilson would be a start. Or Herzl and Rothschild.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> So you do not see the money angle? Well I suggest you do some research.
> 
> Untermeyer, Brandeis and Wilson would be a start. Or Herzl and Rothschild.


What's your point? Rich Jews bought British foreign policy? The Jewish Lobby?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It seems to me the Israelis gained claim to the land through British decree, followed by UN affirmation. Chouan seems wont to set all that aside, in crafting his badly distorted version of events!


I'm OK with the edict of possession is 9/10 of the law or my all time favorite; finders keepers!!


----------



## Odradek

tocqueville said:


> Odradek's already signed on to the elimination of Israel.


Odradek's done what now?



tocqueville said:


> What is it with you Brits?


Careful who you're calling a "Brit", a chara.


----------



## tocqueville

Odradek said:


> Odradek's done what now?
> 
> Careful who you're calling a "Brit", a chara.


I quote: "Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, so the rest is irrelevant." So then what? Let's think through the implications.

So not a Brit...right, Irish? Ireland's the nicest place I've ever been. Got no quarrel there, although I wonder what perhaps some nuns might have taught you...are you old enough to have been schooled pre-Vatican II?


----------



## Odradek

tocqueville said:


> I quote: "Israel shouldn't exist in the first place, so the rest is irrelevant." So then what? Let's think through the implications.
> 
> So not a Brit...right, Irish? Ireland's the nicest place I've ever been. Got no quarrel there, although I wonder what perhaps some nuns might have taught you...are you old enough to have been schooled pre-Vatican II?


My vow to stay away from The Interchange is sadly crumbling. I come to AAAC to talk about clothes. Best to keep it all apolitical. There is another site I frequent for that kind of thing.

Israel shouldn't exist. It's a fake state founded on stolen land by some pretty odious characters, and at the expense of the original inhabitants. It's continued existence in it's present form cannot be justified.


----------



## Odradek

tocqueville said:


> What's your point? Rich Jews bought British foreign policy? The Jewish Lobby?


They're still at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_friends_of_israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Friends_of_Israel

https://ldfi.org.uk

They'll probably open a UKIP branch next.



> *Conservative Friends of Israel*, abbreviated to *CFI*, is a British parliamentary group affiliated to the Conservative Party and dedicated to strengthening business, cultural and political ties between the United Kingdom and Israel. CFI is an unincorporated associationIt was founded by Conservative MP for Bury and Radcliffe, Michael Fidler. It is currently chaired by Stuart Polak. The Parliamentary Chairman is James Arbuthnot, the Parliamentary President is Baroness Shephard of Northwold. The Vice Chairmen are John Butterfill and James Clappison, the Secretary is David Amess, the Officers are Alistair Burt, Lee Scott, and Theresa Villiers, and the Chairman of CFI Europe is Timothy Kirkhope.
> According to the _Channel 4_ documentary _Dispatches - Inside Britain's Israel Lobby_ around 80% of Conservative MPs are members of the CFI. *In 1995 Conservative politician **Robert Rhodes James** called it "the largest organisation in Western Europe dedicated to the cause of the people of Israel"*.


After all, it works so well for them in the USA.


----------



## Odradek

Kingstonian said:


> This clear enough for you ?
> 
> Foreign Office,
> 
> November 2nd, 1917
> 
> Dear Lord Rothschild,
> 
> I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:
> 
> "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement [sic] of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
> 
> I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Elders.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> 
> Arthur James Balfour


This was totally opposed by Edwin Montagu, Britain's pre-eminent Jewish politician of the day.



> Montagu was the second British Jew to enter the Cabinet, the inner circle of government. However, he was strongly opposed to Zionism, which he called _"a mischievous political creed"_, and opposed the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which he considered anti-semitic and whose terms he managed to modify. In a memo to the Cabinet, he outlined his views on Zionism thus: _"...I assume that it means that Mahommedans [Muslims] and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test."_


His full rebuttal of the Balfour Declaration can be read here....



> It is in this atmosphere that the Government proposes to endorse the formation of a new nation with a new home inPalestine. This nation will presumably be formed of Jewish Russians, Jewish Englishmen, Jewish Roumanians, Jewish Bulgarians, and Jewish citizens of all nations - survivors or relations of those who have fought or laid down their lives for the different countries which I have mentioned, at a time when the three years that they have lived through have united their outlook and thought more closely than ever with the countries of which they are citizens.
> Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom. If a Jewish Englishman sets his eyes on the Mount of Olives and longs for the day when he will shake British soil from his shoes and go back to agricultural pursuits in Palestine, he has always seemed to me to have acknowledged aims inconsistent with British citizenship and to have admitted that he is unfit for a share in public life in Great Britain, or to be treated as an Englishman. I have always understood that those who indulged in this creed were largely animated by the restrictions upon and refusal of liberty to Jews in Russia. But at the very time when these Jews have been acknowledged as Jewish Russians and given all liberties, it seems to be inconceivable that Zionism should be officially recognised by the British Government, and that Mr. Balfour should be authorized to say that Palestine was to be reconstituted as the "national home of the Jewish people". I do not know what this involves, but I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test......
> 
> 
> ......I feel that the Government are asked to be the instrument for carrying out the wishes of a Zionist organisation largely run, as my information goes, at any rate in the past, by men of enemy descent or birth, and by this means have dealt a severe blow to the liberties, position and opportunities of service of their Jewish fellow-countrymen.
> 
> *I would say to Lord Rothschild that the Government will be prepared to do everything in their power to obtain for Jews in Palestine complete liberty of settlement and life on an equality with the inhabitants of that country who profess other religious beliefs. I would ask that the Government should go no further.*
> 
> E.S.M.
> 23 August 1917


----------



## Odradek

And now I shall retreat, to talk of saddle shoes and woollen ties.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^It seems to me the Israelis gained claim to the land through British decree, followed by UN affirmation. Chouan seems wont to set all that aside, in crafting his badly distorted version of events!


Apart from essentially ignoring everything else I and others more knowledgeable than me have written on this topic, you've again gone back to Balfour. He didn't promise a Jewish state, and had no power to issue a "decree", whatever you think that means. Allowing Jews to settle in Palestine is one thing, sanctioning a Jewish State is another thing entirely, whatever the Zionists thought.
I would appreciate your showing how "my version of events" is distorted. The timeline is pretty much:
1) Balfour declaration, whilst Britain is at war with the Ottomans. A few Jews are resident in Palestine.
2) British Mandate of Palestine, awarded by LofN.
3) Jews, mostly from E.Europe with no ethnic connection to "Israel", self-funded and funded by Zionists start settling in Palestine.
4) Palestinians start to get annoyed by this. Violence begins. Brits attempt to stop violence.
5) Intafada. Brits try to stop violence.
6) WW2
7) Massive influx of European Jews. Jewish terrorist campaign (Irgun) against Brits and Palestinians.
8) UN awards statehood. Brits leave. Jewish terror campaign, now state sponsored, continues against Palestinians.
9) US and Zionist funding of new Jewish state, which defeats surrounding Arab countries.
10) Israel seizes more territory in Palestine, increasing number of Palestinians are displaced.
11) Repeat 10 ad nauseam. With occasional Israeli sponsored massacres of Palestinian refugees, in Lebanon, for example.
12) Israel subject to UN resolutions condemning settlements of Jewish migrants from the rest of the World, in the process of which dispossessing increasing numbers of Palestinians 
13) Repeat 12 ad nauseam.

Please point out the distortions or misrepresentations.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I offer this only to underscore the two-sided nature of the conflict:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
> 
> Hebron, it should be noted, is a Jewish holy city and has essentially hosted a Jewish community since forever. The Jews there were not, I believe, recent immigrants associated with the Zionist movement. The massacre there did have the effect, however, of encouraging Jews in Palestine to organize for their self defense. Hebron's Jewish buildings and sites were trashed and looted, synagogues were raised. Jews were effectively denied access to the holiest part of all, the Cave of the Mahpelah, were Abraham allegedly buried Sarah. After 1948, it was completely sealed off. Only in 1967 were the Jewish sites reopened, and only in the late 1970s did the settler movement decide that it was time to rebuild the Jewish community there. The Hebron settlers are an awful bunch, but I cannot question the fundamental right for Jews to live there, or in any of the other places from which they were expelled, such as Jerusalem's old city.* I suppose that for Chouan et Cie the Jews massacred in Hebron had it coming*, because they had no right to be there, and Jews are not entitled to regard Hebron or any place else as of religious significance.


Try not to use straw man arguments. Surely your case is valid enough without doing so. Also please don't revert to the "anti-semitism" accusations that you're very fond of using.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> It started long earlier, and in fact they were always there.


That some Jews were there has never been denied.



tocqueville said:


> And do you know who they were and why they were there?


Do tell! I couldn't possibly imagine!


----------



## tocqueville

Odradek said:


> And now I shall retreat, to talk of saddle shoes and woollen ties.


Gallows for the Israelis, woolen ties for you. That's what you want, fine.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> A very large part? Really?


An example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> You brought up the Zionist "banksters." That's a cute neologism. Any more antisemitic cliches you want to throw out?
> 
> Let's not put a label on it, fine. But you hate Jews. Odradek's already signed on to the elimination of Israel. Chouan's almost there.


There is, only you appear to be incapable of making such distinctions, a difference between disliking the actions of a violent and aggressive oppressive racist state, Israel, and liking or disliking individuals. Your suggestion that Kingstonian hates Jews is both odious and puerile.



tocqueville said:


> What is it with you Brits? Trying to compensate for your past crimes in the Middle East? The French have this problem as well.


What crimes are they by the way?


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Please, Kingstonian, tell me more about these Zionist Elders.
> 
> Edit: I should add that it's entirely possible that Lord Balfour was himself possessed of antisemitic notions of his own with regard to Jewish power, Zionist Elders, and so on. I can only imagine what Rothschild must have thought when he read that last sentence. Probably something akin to, WTF?, followed by a shrug of the shoulders.


Balfour antisemitic? Having, apparently offered Jews a state in Palestine? What would he have done if he was pro-semitic?


----------



## Chouan

Odradek said:


> Odradek's done what now?
> 
> Careful who you're calling a "Brit", a chara.


As an American he probably can't tell the difference.


----------



## tocqueville

Time does not permit a better response that a quick run down:



Chouan said:


> I would appreciate your showing how "my version of events" is distorted. The timeline is pretty much:
> 1) Balfour declaration, whilst Britain is at war with the Ottomans. A few [more than a few] Jews are resident in Palestine. *Nothing prior? Nothing happened before? Your narrative is too Anglocentric.*
> 2) British Mandate of Palestine, awarded by LofN.
> 3) Jews, mostly from E.Europe *[YES] *with no ethnic connection to "Israel"* [hardly]*, self-funded and funded by Zionists start settling in Palestine. *[OK, but why? Tell me? Malice? Racism?]*
> 4) Palestinians start to get annoyed by this *[why?]*. Violence begins. *Yes *Brits attempt to stop violence. *Sometimes.*
> 5) Intafada. Brits try to stop violence. *Sometimes*
> 6) WW2
> 7) Massive influx of European Jews.* [Who otherwise should go...] *Jewish terrorist campaign (Irgun) against Brits and Palestinians.* Yes. The Irgun wasn't pretty. There's no denying it, although in the context of 1945-1948, I find it hard not to sympathize with radicalism.*
> 8) UN awards statehood. Brits leave. Jewish terror campaign, now state sponsored, continues against Palestinians. *Um, you forgot Arab armies attacking..ARab rejection of the resolution*
> 9) US and Zionist funding of new Jewish state, which defeats surrounding Arab countries. *Thank God. Let's not pretend we don't know what would have happened had they lost.*
> 10) Israel seizes more territory in Palestine , increasing number of Palestinians are displaced. *You mean 1967? A war of choice, I guess, in your eyes.*
> 11) Repeat 10 ad nauseam. With occasional Israeli sponsored massacres of Palestinian refugees *(Sabra and Shatilla? Classic...Christians kill Muslims, everyone blames the Jews)*, in Lebanon, for example. *Notwithstanding Palestinian attacks on northern Israeli communities through the years leading up to 1982.*
> 12) Israel subject to UN resolutions condemning settlements of Jewish migrants from the rest of the World, in the process of which dispossessing increasing numbers of Palestinians *..with rest of world persecuting Jews, that's a laugh.*
> 13) Repeat 12 ad nauseam.
> 
> Please point out the distortions or misrepresentations.


You also forgot to mention the half of Israel's residents who had to flee Arab lands.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Time does not permit a better response that a quick run down:
> 
> _12) Israel subject to UN resolutions condemning settlements of Jewish migrants from the rest of the World, in the process of which dispossessing increasing numbers of Palestinians _*..with rest of world persecuting Jews, that's a laugh.*
> 
> You also forgot to mention the half of Israel's residents who had to flee Arab lands.


Could you point out examples of Jews currently being persecuted in South Africa, or the US, or in Britain, or elsewhere in Europe, or S.America, such that they need to flee to Israel. Giving them ready made settlements and land and power, at the expense of the Palestinians might be more of a factor.
I'll, similarly, reply more fully to your differing interpretation of events when I've more time.


----------



## tocqueville

At the moment, a bunch have been leaving France. Of course, leaving one country for refuge in Israeli is like leaping from the kettle to the fire, or whatever that expression is. Before them the big waves were Russians, who weren't having much fun. Syrians and Iranians. Yemenites. Iraqis got chased out, as did the Egyptians. Moroccan Jews more or less decided to leave but weren't necessarily chased out. Most Jews in most places except for Britain and the US have generally felt insecure, and for good reason. German Jews felt very safe; French Jews wrote the most painful letters to Petain saying, my friend, I served with you at Verdun, why are you deporting me to my death? Some might dream of a place of one's own, where at least one can fight back, which was not the case in the Russian Empire, from which sprang many of the early zionists. The rhythm of early immigration waves at the beginning of the 20th century was often set by pogroms. Many Jews saw the writing on the wall and thought they should get the hell out. Most went to America. Some went to Palestine. Israel is the dream and always has been. It's not a bs argument based on ancient claims but a fundamental, existential link for any Jew raised with a bit of Jewish culture. 

I realize it's not the Palestinians' fault that Europeans massacred Jews (as did plenty of Arabs and Persians elsewhere), and that's the tragedy of the situation. There are clashing national aspirations. Clashing dreams, each with merit. I react violently to the suggestion that one has no merit. One has no right. Moreover, it's naive to think that Arab and Muslim antipathy toward Jews in israeli is only because of their having "turfed" out their brother Arabs/Muslims. They LIKE Jews so long as Jews are second class citizens and live at their mercy, which is what had always been the case. Jews were ok in Muslim lands, sort of, but they were never secure, and it was never their land. Always an apartheid scenario, which is why Jews can only smirk when accused of racism and apartheid..."that's rich," one thinks, "coming from you all who have always treated me to the same.

And besides, you've never answered my question: Let's say Israel has no right to exist, what then? It disappears. A nation disappears. A culture and all its accomplishments. I'm sure Hamas in charge will be equitable. No, it won't. There will be blood, not to speak of a serious refugee problem, and I'm sure you'd all love to invite all those refugees into your countries. LOL. You say, "well, that's justice." One reaps what one sows, I guess. That's not so easy to say if the bodies are your's and your loved ones.

Find a way to provide justice to Palestinians that doesn't involve death and bloodshed and the annihilation of a people, and you'll have my support 100%. There will be no peace without justice, although I worry if even that will be enough. For some, like Hamas, there's no interest in fairness. Or equity. Or sharing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

*SPEAK MY MIND TIME*

Regardless of the presence of the British in the Middle East in imperial days, the establishment of Israel in 47, regardless of what the Americans have done since the 60s in the Middle East, the facts are clear for all to see, and it is only political correctness that prevents people from saying it, Muslims will continue to kill Muslims all over the world because of differences in religious sects, as retaliation for previous killings, due to tribal and family feuds etc, it is clearly in their nature, they know nothing else. The same applies to huge tracts of Africa and many Africans as well. It will never stop, no matter what the west has done, is doing or will do. 
Also in their nature is the destruction of Israel, no matter what they say.

I'm sick to death of Muslim apologists calling Islam a religion of peace. Really?

I used to be extremly pro-Palestinian, but in the last say 5 years the Arabs and Muslims IMO have overplayed their hand all over the Middle East and throughout Africa and lost lots of support from the West. (please don't try to correct me & say Islamic fundamentalists & extremists)

It seems the USA was right all along, support the Shah, support Israel. Why did we ever doubt them? After all it is the job of intelligence services to know what is happening on the ground and how things are developing, long before everyone else, that's what they are trained for.

My views have changed drastically in recent years, when I see Israel withstanding repeated attacks, and constant attempts to destroy her, surrounded by Islamic psycopaths and terrorists on all sides. We should be thankful for Israel's strength and determination.

But even if Israel were no longer there, and was an Islamic country, these psychos would still be killing each other over religion, land, power, family etc. It is in their nature. Yes, I do think people are different in different parts of the world from different cultures, especially cultures that have been fighting their neighbours for thousands of years.

That's what I think, so sue me!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Could you point out examples of Jews currently being persecuted in South Africa.


I can. I met a family of white American Jews in SA in 2009 who had been living in South Africa since the 80s who were now leaving due to persecution from the black authorities. Zimbabwe is another example, whites just aren't wanted there, but Jews are wanted even less. Black Jews in SA and Ethiopia are also being persecuted, especially so in Islamic countries.
https://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2013/11/08/jews-are-south-africans


----------



## tocqueville

While we're at it, Venezuelan Jews were leaving under Chavez, who had made antisemitism official. Part of this leftist rhetoric as well as his attempts to court Iran. I don't know if the migration has abated.

Argentine Jews have left in large numbers, although mostly for economic reasons. Still, they were not impressed when Iran blue up the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires with the apparent collusion of the Menem Administration. And the Junta that Britain so kindly helped topple in 1982 was virulently anti-semitic. A disproportionate number of those tortured and murdered by the regime were Jews. You'll find plenty of Argentines in Israel for that reason.


----------



## vpkozel

tocqueville said:


> A very large part? Really?


Yes, really.

The influx of Jews after the end of the war was probably unavoidable since they had no homes and could not exactly consider themselves as popular. But these Jews then began to assassinate target and kill British officials, military, and police for stopping illegal Jewish immigrants or cracking down on the Jews arming. The Jewish terrorists also blew up the King David hotel.

Britain finally got sick of its subjects being targets and turned the whole thing over to the UN.


----------



## Kingstonian

vpkozel said:


> Yes, really.
> 
> The influx of Jews after the end of the war was probably unavoidable since they had no homes and could not exactly consider themselves as popular. But these Jews then began to assassinate target and kill British officials, military, and police for stopping illegal Jewish immigrants or cracking down on the Jews arming. The Jewish terrorists also blew up the King David hotel.
> 
> Britain finally got sick of its subjects being targets and turned the whole thing over to the UN.


Jews have had to be expelled from so many countries.

England in 1290. Cromwell was paid to let them back in several centuries later.

https://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/expulsions.html

And it is always somebody else fault?

They never work out how to avoid annoying the host nation.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> Jews have had to be expelled from so many countries.
> 
> England in 1290. Cromwell was paid to let them back in several centuries later.
> 
> https://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/expulsions.html
> 
> And it is always somebody else fault?
> 
> They never work out how to avoid annoying the host nation.


It was a close race, but it's Kingstonian for the gold!


----------



## justonemore

What term can be used for Israelis that bother Christians and Muslims???? Ît actually seems that Israeli Jews are some of the most biased people I have seen. I don't see 1000s of youtube videos out of Britain or France showing discrimination against jews but sure enough, there are plenty of videos out out of Israel showing prblems coming from the jewish side... Once again, the kettle calling the pot black???? I've heard plenty of whining from Israelis (and fans of Israel) as to "Anti-Semitism", but I have ^never heard any of these folks suggesting a way to cure the same thing coming from Israeli jews... WHY?

Edit warning for the crybabies.....

Is it also not odd that there are critics against muslim dressing requirements but not those of the Israelis? Has anyone else seen the signs telling "non-jews" to dress correctly?


----------



## Pentheos

Earl of Ormonde said:


> *SPEAK MY MIND TIME*
> 
> Regardless of the presence of the British in the Middle East in imperial days, the establishment of Israel in 47, regardless of what the Americans have done since the 60s in the Middle East, the facts are clear for all to see, and it is only political correctness that prevents people from saying it, Muslims will continue to kill Muslims all over the world because of differences in religious sects, as retaliation for previous killings, due to tribal and family feuds etc, it is clearly in their nature, they know nothing else. The same applies to huge tracts of Africa and many Africans as well. It will never stop, no matter what the west has done, is doing or will do.
> Also in their nature is the destruction of Israel, no matter what they say.
> 
> I'm sick to death of Muslim apologists calling Islam a religion of peace. Really?
> 
> I used to be extremly pro-Palestinian, but in the last say 5 years the Arabs and Muslims IMO have overplayed their hand all over the Middle East and throughout Africa and lost lots of support from the West. (please don't try to correct me & say Islamic fundamentalists & extremists)
> 
> It seems the USA was right all along, support the Shah, support Israel. Why did we ever doubt them? After all it is the job of intelligence services to know what is happening on the ground and how things are developing, long before everyone else, that's what they are trained for.
> 
> My views have changed drastically in recent years, when I see Israel withstanding repeated attacks, and constant attempts to destroy her, surrounded by Islamic psycopaths and terrorists on all sides. We should be thankful for Israel's strength and determination.
> 
> But even if Israel were no longer there, and was an Islamic country, these psychos would still be killing each other over religion, land, power, family etc. It is in their nature. Yes, I do think people are different in different parts of the world from different cultures, especially cultures that have been fighting their neighbours for thousands of years.
> 
> That's what I think, so sue me!


You trolling us? Because this is not the attitude I have come to expect from you.


----------



## Pentheos

justonemore said:


> What term can be used for Israelis that bother Christians and Muslims???? Ît actually seems that Israeli Jews are some of the most biased people I have seen. I don't see 1000s of youtube videos out of Britain or France showing discrimination but sure enough, there are plenty out of Israel... Once again, the kettle calling the pot black???? I've heard plenty of whining from Israelis (and fans of Israel) as to "Anti-Semitism", but I have ^never heard any pof these folks suggesting a way to cure the same thing coming from Israeli jews... WHY?


Your spelling and grammar needs a buff. Perhaps then thinking minds will take you more seriously.


----------



## justonemore

Pentheos said:


> Your spelling and grammar needs a buff. Perhaps then thinking minds will take you more seriously.


Yes. My spelling and grammar are right on point. Can you not stick to the topic at hand or do you need to grab at straws due to your lack of knowledge on the topic????


----------



## justonemore

Are these guys the "peacful jews" or the "terrorist muslims"? I can't really telll...


----------



## justonemore

Another video... One of 1000s... And to think that this country is the biggest welfare recipient of U.S. taxpayer money....


----------



## justonemore

A bit more as to Israeli biases against women... Sitting in the back of the bus was a racist thing in the U.S. not long ago but I guess it's ok for the israeili jews to do so to their women???


----------



## Chouan




----------



## justonemore

And Israeli laws as to allowing refugees are in question as well. I guess that just because you were given your country by the U.N. it doesn't mean that you should also follow U.N. rules. As "god's chosen people" they can commit international crimes as much as they like....


----------



## justonemore

And..... While European banks are being raped by the U.S. for funding programs that the U.S. sees as "not beneficial", the Israelis are more than happy to sell off U.S: technology to China (without any worry as to being sanctioned for such).


----------



## justonemore

US crybaby med pros that support $billion in aid to Israel while crying about "obamacare" seem to ignore this factor(I guess they feel that fellow Americans should have less rights than foriegn welfare grabbbers) ....

*Health care in Israel* is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory. All Israeli citizens are entitled to basic health care as a fundamental right. Based on legislation passed in the 1990s, citizens join one of four health care funds for basic treatment but can increase medical coverage by purchasing supplementary health care.[SUP][1][/SUP] In a survey of 48 countries in 2013, Israel's health system was ranked fourth in the world in terms of efficiency.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3]

[/SUP]


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


>


----------



## justonemore

More as to the benefits Israelis recieve due to U.S. funding (at the cost of U.S. résidents that pay for having less rights)

.
In 2012, Israel was named the second most educated country in the world according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Education at a Glance report, released in 2012. The report found that 78% of the money invested in education is from public funds and 45% of the population has a university or college degree.[SUP][3][/SUP]


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> At the moment, a bunch have been leaving France. Of course, leaving one country for refuge in Israeli is like leaping from the kettle to the fire, or whatever that expression is. Before them the big waves were Russians, who weren't having much fun. Syrians and Iranians. Yemenites. Iraqis got chased out, as did the Egyptians. Moroccan Jews more or less decided to leave but weren't necessarily chased out. Most Jews in most places except for Britain and the US have generally felt insecure, and for good reason. German Jews felt very safe; French Jews wrote the most painful letters to Petain saying, my friend, I served with you at Verdun, why are you deporting me to my death? Some might dream of a place of one's own, where at least one can fight back, which was not the case in the Russian Empire, from which sprang many of the early zionists. The rhythm of early immigration waves at the beginning of the 20th century was often set by pogroms. Many Jews saw the writing on the wall and thought they should get the hell out. Most went to America. Some went to Palestine. Israel is the dream and always has been. It's not a bs argument based on ancient claims but a fundamental, existential link for any Jew raised with a bit of Jewish culture.


I'm sure that what you're saying is true, but that doesn't explain or justify Israel's ongoing aggressive seizure of Palestinian owned lands, the dispossession of the Palestinians within Israel, the apartheid being practiced and the racism shown towards the Palestinians



tocqueville said:


> I realize it's not the Palestinians' fault that Europeans massacred Jews (as did plenty of Arabs and Persians elsewhere), and that's the tragedy of the situation. There are clashing national aspirations. Clashing dreams, each with merit. *I react violently to the suggestion that one has no merit.* One has no right. Moreover, it's naive to think that Arab and Muslim antipathy toward Jews in israeli is only because of their having "turfed" out their brother Arabs/Muslims. They LIKE Jews so long as Jews are second class citizens and live at their mercy, which is what had always been the case. Jews were ok in Muslim lands, sort of, but they were never secure, and it was never their land. Always an apartheid scenario, which is why Jews can only smirk when accused of racism and apartheid..."that's rich," one thinks, "coming from you all who have always treated me to the same.


Straw man again. I've never suggested that. If treating Jews as second class citizens in Arab countries is wrong (of course it is), why is it acceptable for Palestinians to be treated as second class citizens in Israel?



tocqueville said:


> And besides, you've never answered my question:* Let's say Israel has no right to exist*, what then? It disappears. A nation disappears. A culture and all its accomplishments. I'm sure Hamas in charge will be equitable. No, it won't. There will be blood, not to speak of a serious refugee problem, and I'm sure you'd all love to invite all those refugees into your countries. LOL. You say, "well, that's justice." One reaps what one sows, I guess. That's not so easy to say if the bodies are your's and your loved ones.


Straw man again. I've never said or suggested that.



tocqueville said:


> Find a way to provide justice to Palestinians that doesn't involve death and bloodshed and the annihilation of a people, and you'll have my support 100%. There will be no peace without justice, although I worry if even that will be enough. For some, like Hamas, there's no interest in fairness. Or equity. Or sharing.


How many times this week have Hamas asked for a cease-fire? Hamas, until the burning alive of the Palestinian kid, had successfully stopped the launching of rockets into Israel. Israel's response led directly to the escalation of such attacks. Israel's government understands the mood of its electorate; violence, revenge. Israel continues to ignore the UN's calls for peace, for cease-fires, for a cessation of Israel's seizing of Palestinian land and property. As long as Israel oppresses the Palestinians, in their own country, the Palestinians are going to be unhappy, to say the least. How would you feel if you could be turned off your land and out of your house, at very short notice, at gunpoint, to make room for new immigrants? As long as Israel continues in this way the problem will never be resolved.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Pentheos said:


> You trolling us? Because this is not the attitude I have come to expect from you.


I know it is not what people expect from me, nor is it what I WANT to think or feel, nor am I sure that I really believe it, but it is what is on my mind currently, I think it is a way for my mind to express my frustration, my sadness and sense of hopelessness at all this Islamic violence, you see unfortunately recent history has made me re-analyse things and look at why the Arab world, especially Palestine, and rebel armies fighting against governments, garner so much support despite all the atrocities commited by Arabs and other Muslims in the name of Allah and why Israel is so universally hated despite simply trying to exist by fighting fire with fire, after all they live by the Old Testament.

I'm just trying to get my head around it, but for every Islamic militia in Africa that kidnaps another group of schoolgirls or massacres another group of monks or nuns or cruxifies another gorup of Christians or wipes out another village or for every suicide bomber in the Middle East that blows up a market place or an opposing sect's mosque or a hospital or a school or for every psycho-Islamist executing someone under Sharia Law for something that isn't even a crime anywhere else in the world I undersrtand less and less about Islam, and despise it a little bit more each time, and despise it even more when the so called moderate Islamic world fails en masse to condemn these atrocities. The aim of these psychos is to have a world under Sharia Law, to make Judeo-Christianity illegal and to wipe out Jews and Christians.


----------



## Langham

^ What is lacking in a lot of Muslim countries is firm government. I think there are unfortunately(?) a great many schisms within the Islamic world generally, both religious and socio-economic (God knows, a lot of those places must be absolutely hellish places to live), and unless there is a very strict system in place - rather like what the Iraqis had under Sadaam Hussein, in fact, or Saudi Arabia at the moment - then there is an untold capacity for all hell to break out at any time. 

Balfour's declaration was issued on grounds of pure expediency but in no way was intended to sanction the creation of the present state of Israel. I have very great sympathy for the Jews but they seem utterly incapable of cohabiting peacefully in the region.


----------



## Chouan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I know it is not what people expect from me, nor is it what I WANT to think or feel, nor am I sure that I really believe it, but it is what is on my mind currently, I think it is a way for my mind to express my frustration, my sadness and sense of hopelessness at all this Islamic violence, you see unfortunately recent history has made me re-analyse things and look at why the Arab world, especially Palestine, and rebel armies fighting against governments, garner so much support despite all the atrocities commited by Arabs and other Muslims in the name of Allah and why Israel is so universally hated despite simply trying to exist by fighting fire with fire, after all they live by the Old Testament.
> 
> I'm just trying to get my head around it, but for every Islamic militia in Africa that kidnaps another group of schoolgirls or massacres another group of monks or nuns or cruxifies another gorup of Christians or wipes out another village or for every suicide bomber in the Middle East that blows up a market place or an opposing sect's mosque or a hospital or a school or for every psycho-Islamist executing someone under Sharia Law for something that isn't even a crime anywhere else in the world I undersrtand less and less about Islam, and despise it a little bit more each time, and depsise it even more when the so called moderate Islamic world fails en masse to condemn these atrocities. The aim of these psychos is to have a world under Sharia Law, to make Judeo-Christianity illegal and to wipe out Jews and Christians.


These people have very little to do with Islam, and a lot to do with tribal politics and power. Religion is a useful tool for creating legitimacy and by using religion, and the sense of the "other", the enemy, who is of a different religion, or faith or confession of the same religion, can be more easily demonised. 
Look at N.Ireland. Very few Catholics or Prods are actually actively religious, in the sense of being truly believers, but they use their confessional status as a tribal badge, an identity, whilst not being very Christian in their behaviour at all. Islam is very much the same.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> These people have very little to do with Islam, and a lot to do with tribal politics and power. Religion is a useful tool for creating legitimacy and by using religion, and the sense of the "other", the enemy, who is of a different religion, or faith or confession of the same religion, can be more easily demonised.
> Look at N.Ireland. Very few Catholics or Prods are actually actively religious, in the sense of being truly believers, but they use their confessional status as a tribal badge, an identity, whilst not being very Christian in their behaviour at all. Islam is very much the same.


I'd like to agree with you completely, and in the case of N. Ireland you're correct.

The problem is that these are self confessed Jihadists and actually institute Sharia law. Their express intent is well noted and explained by them so I see no reason to take them at their word. Their intent is expressly religious and pan Islamic.

I sometimes ask myself, "who are the extremists and who are the moderates?" I think one could make the argument that those that the west labels as "moderate" are actually extreme in their view as they don't espouse the violence and subjugation of other religions the way an organization such as ISIS does.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> These people have very little to do with Islam, and a lot to do with tribal politics and power. Religion is a useful tool for creating legitimacy and by using religion, and the sense of the "other", the enemy, who is of a different religion, or faith or confession of the same religion, can be more easily demonised.
> Look at N.Ireland. Very few Catholics or Prods are actually actively religious, in the sense of being truly believers, but they use their confessional status as a tribal badge, an identity, whilst not being very Christian in their behaviour at all. Islam is very much the same.


You are 100% correct about Northern Ireland. But I'm sorry, my previous post must make it clear that I no longer buy into the declamation "These people have very little to do with Islam, and a lot to do with tribal politics and power" 
These extremists have made it painfully clear that ultra-Islam is their driving force, they aren't using it as a tool, it is their be all and end all. They aren't using it as a means to an end, it is their end, it is their ultimate goal, extreme Islamic Sharia law, governing everything and everyone.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

SG_67 said:


> The problem is that these are self confessed Jihadists and actually institute Sharia law. Their express intent is well noted and explained by them so I see no reason to take them at their word. Their intent is expressly religious and pan Islamic.
> 
> I sometimes ask myself, "who are the extremists and who are the moderates?" I think one could make the argument that those that the west labels as "moderate" are actually extreme in their view as they don't espouse the violence and subjugation of other religions the way an organization such as ISIS does.


+1

Oh how you read my mind sir! As the "moderates" seem to diminish every day, and as fewer and fewer of them speak out in condemnation either due to fear (of losing support and/or "worshippers" or fear of recriminations) or due to tacit agreement with the atrocities it raises the question if they really do represent Islam as a whole, as this clearly erroneously described "religion of peace".

Because if they did truly represent the young Muslims in their congregations why then did so many young Muslim men travel from the UK, US and other countries to fight for the Bosnians and the Kosovans, to fight for the Mujahidin against the Soviets, to fight for Iraq and Iran, to fight for the Taliban, to fight for Al-qaieda, and to fight for various other jihadist, Islamist and terrorist groups no matter where in the world the fight was occurring?


----------



## eagle2250

Kingstonian said:


> So you do not see the money angle? Well I suggest you do some research.
> 
> Untermeyer, Brandeis and Wilson would be a start. Or Herzl and Rothschild.


You seem to read a lot into the intent/purpose of documents you reference that may not have been intended by their authors. How would you address and/or close out a letter to a senior official of the Catholic Church?


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> _1) Balfour declaration, whilst Britain is at war with the Ottomans. A few [more than a few] Jews are resident in Palestine. *Nothing prior? Nothing happened before? Your narrative is too Anglocentric.*_


My starting point was Britain's involvement, as Eagle had raised this before. Unless, of course you wish to involve the Ottomans, the Mamluks, the Crusades, the Seljuks, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Romans, the Successors, Alexander the Great, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Poeni, the Philistines, the Canaanites, and of course, the Habiru.



tocqueville said:


> *3) Jews, mostly from E.Europe [YES] with no ethnic connection to "Israel" [hardly], self-funded and funded by Zionists start settling in Palestine. [OK, but why? Tell me? Malice? Racism?]*


What relevance does it have why they came? Most, if not all E.European Jews are of central Asian origin, via the Khazars, one of the reasons why the Jews are so unpopular in E.Europe is their Historical association with an invading Turkic people who dominated the Slav population. The Khazars were closely related to the Turks actually, hence the central Asian forms of dress and hair styles used by the Hasidic Jewish community. No ethnic or racial link to Palestine or historic Israel at all.



tocqueville said:


> *4) Palestinians start to get annoyed by this [why?]. Violence begins. Yes Brits attempt to stop violence. Sometimes.*


Mass immigration is rarely popular with the natives. Do Texans like having Mexicans flooding into Texas? Would they be happy if they these immigrants bought up most of the land and changed the whole culture of the region, even changing the language?



tocqueville said:


> *5) Intafada. Brits try to stop violence. Sometimes*


Difficult to completely stop popular violence without being self-defeatingly repressive.



tocqueville said:


> *7) Massive influx of European Jews. [Who otherwise should go...] Jewish terrorist campaign (Irgun) against Brits and Palestinians. Yes. The Irgun wasn't pretty. There's no denying it, although in the context of 1945-1948, I find it hard not to sympathize with radicalism.*


No, terrorism, not radicalism. Look again at their "exploits". Is that radicalism or terrorism? If it were Palestinians carrying out such acts would you describe them as "radicals" or as terrorists?



tocqueville said:


> *8) UN awards statehood. Brits leave. Jewish terror campaign, now state sponsored, continues against Palestinians. Um, you forgot Arab armies attacking..ARab rejection of the resolution*


Israel accepts UN resolutions when they want to. Why should the Arab states have to accept UN decisions in Israel won't?



tocqueville said:


> *9) US and Zionist funding of new Jewish state, which defeats surrounding Arab countries. Thank God. Let's not pretend we don't know what would have happened had they lost.*


Again, what relevance has that? Are you suggesting that my statement isn't true?



tocqueville said:


> *10) Israel seizes more territory in Palestine , increasing number of Palestinians are displaced. You mean 1967? A war of choice, I guess, in your eyes.*


No, but if Israel had wanted peaceful coexistence with its neighbours, an accommodating peace, without seizing territory would have been more effective. Surely the Treaty of Versailles showed the world what the result of a harsh post-war settlement would lead to. If Israel hadn't seized territory, the Arab world would have been left without a grievance that could lead to further conflict. If Israel really wanted peaceful coexistence, of course.



tocqueville said:


> *11) Repeat 10 ad nauseam. With occasional Israeli sponsored massacres of Palestinian refugees (Sabra and Shatilla? Classic...Christians kill Muslims, everyone blames the Jews), in Lebanon, for example. Notwithstanding Palestinian attacks on northern Israeli communities through the years leading up to 1982.*


Ariel Sharon handed over control of those camps to Christian Phalange Militia, knowing full well what would happen. It's akin to Nazis claiming that massacres of Jews in Lithuania weren't their fault as they were often carried out by Lithuanian militias.



tocqueville said:


> *12) Israel subject to UN resolutions condemning settlements of Jewish migrants from the rest of the World, in the process of which dispossessing increasing numbers of Palestinians ..with rest of world persecuting Jews, that's a laugh! *


As has been explained to me by other members, persecution of Jews has been occurring in our modern world. But, it is hardly "the rest of the world persecuting Jews", which is rather an exaggeration. In any case, if Jews are facing persecution it doesn't give them the right to take the land and property of Palestinians at gunpoint though, does it?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> My starting point was Britain's involvement, as Eagle had raised this before. Unless, of course you wish to involve the Ottomans, the Mamluks, the Crusades, the Seljuks, the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Romans, the Successors, Alexander the Great, the Persians, the Egyptians, the Poeni, the Philistines, the Canaanites, and of course, the Habiru.
> 
> Mass immigration is rarely popular with the natives. Do Texans like having Mexicans flooding into Texas? Would they be happy if they these immigrants bought up most of the land and changed the whole culture of the region, even changing the language?
> 
> Israel accepts UN resolutions when they want to. Why should the Arab states have to accept UN decisions if Israel won't?
> 
> Ariel Sharon handed over control of those camps to Christian Phalange Militia, knowing full well what would happen. It's akin to Nazis claiming that massacres of Jews in Lithuania weren't their fault as they were often carried out by Lithuanian militias.


+1 on all that.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Here in the US we took care of this by knowing our rights to Life, Liberty and Happiness are granted by God.

Not the F'n UN or a bunch of effete Brits!!


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> What relevance does it have why they came? Most, if not all E.European Jews are of central Asian origin, via the Khazars, one of the reasons why the Jews are so unpopular in E.Europe is their Historical association with an invading Turkic people who dominated the Slav population. The Khazars were closely related to the Turks actually, hence the central Asian forms of dress and hair styles used by the Hasidic Jewish community. No ethnic or racial link to Palestine or historic Israel at all.


Chouan, I have to run and can't give you full replies..I hope to do that later. I will just say that the above is fundamentally wrong. In a nut shell, Europe's Jews came from Palestine to the Rhineland via Italy. Their presence in Italy dates to Rome, and many joined after Hadrian et Cie smashed up Palestine. The migration to the Rhineland happened during Charlemagne's reign. Ashkenaz = Rhineland, and the term refers to the fact that under Charlemagne the Rhineland rabbinate was able to assert its own identity vis a vis the rabbinate the Caliphate, so to be Ashkenazic means to follow the juridical school of the Rhineland rabbinate and their intellectual heirs. The Rhineland Jews learned to speak German, and then many migrated East through the Germanies to the lands of the Polish-Lithuanian Monarchy, which welcomed them. Bits of that came under Russian control under Catherine and later. That's why East European Jews spoke/speak Yiddish, which is nothing more than a German dialect they picked up while in the Rhineland.

The business with the Khazars may never have happened, but if it did, there's little evidence of any inheritance from that period except perhaps the true Central Asian Jews associated with the Caucasus and Bukhara. But no one really knows. The presence of asian features among some Eastern Jews almost certainly reflects intermarriage with locals, who have more than a little Mongol/Tartar DNA in them for reasons I don't need to explain to you.

Unpopularity stems from many causes including Orthodox Church policy and also, tragically, the place of some Jews in the agrarian economy of the Polish kingdom as tax farmers, etc. That was particularly the case in Ukraine, which was a Polish colony. But it's all much more complicated than that.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> Here in the US we took care of this by knowing our rights to Life, Liberty and Happiness are granted by God.
> 
> Not the F'n UN or a bunch of effete Brits!!


Yea, but only the rights of WASPs, yeah? 

Effete Brits? The Brits were fighting WWII for 3 years before you Yanks manned up and joined in....well actually that isn't true either is it...the Japanese forced you to get off your fat arses and join in


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Don't mess with the Horowitz brothers Pal,

Why I oughta...


----------



## maltimad

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I know it is not what people expect from me, nor is it what I WANT to think or feel, nor am I sure that I really believe it, but it is what is on my mind currently, I think it is a way for my mind to express my frustration, my sadness and sense of hopelessness at all this Islamic violence, you see unfortunately recent history has made me re-analyse things and look at why the Arab world, especially Palestine, and rebel armies fighting against governments, garner so much support despite all the atrocities commited by Arabs and other Muslims in the name of Allah and why Israel is so universally hated despite simply trying to exist by fighting fire with fire, after all they live by the Old Testament.
> 
> I'm just trying to get my head around it, but for every Islamic militia in Africa that kidnaps another group of schoolgirls or massacres another group of monks or nuns or cruxifies another gorup of Christians or wipes out another village or for every suicide bomber in the Middle East that blows up a market place or an opposing sect's mosque or a hospital or a school or for every psycho-Islamist executing someone under Sharia Law for something that isn't even a crime anywhere else in the world I undersrtand less and less about Islam, and despise it a little bit more each time, and despise it even more when the so called moderate Islamic world fails en masse to condemn these atrocities. The aim of these psychos is to have a world under Sharia Law, to make Judeo-Christianity illegal and to wipe out Jews and Christians.


I asked my self similar questions, as well. And in my mind an important distinction is that just because Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, or ISIS or whichever crazy band of psychotic murderers claims to be acting in the name of Islam, or even if they believe that they are acting in the name of Islam, that does not mean that they actually are. They don't have a mandate from any authority in Islam to propagate it or act in its name. It's also important to note that the lack of a formal unifying structure in Islam does not help this case. Generally speaking, there is no Muslim figure equivalent to the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Patriarch of Constantinople, etc. who has final, unquestioned say or judgment in religious matters. In Shi'a Islam, this is less so the case, but Shi'as are a minority among the global Muslim population.

Further, while there are many formal courses of study to become an Imam or other person of authority, and many Imams around the world are in fact learned and actually know what they're talking about, there is actually no formal requirement to become an Imam of a particular mosque or congregation. Practically speaking, all that is needed for a person to become an 'Imam' is a congregation willing to follow him and listen to his preaching - or raving as it may be. This system was originally intended to show that any Muslim is capable of being a prayer leader - and that Muslims aren't dependent of a small cadre of specially-trained leaders to be worshipful and mindful of God. That original intention is certainly noble...BUT the flip side of the coin is that crazy, deluded, hateful people can style themselves an 'Imam'...as long as they have enough equally crazy, deluded, hateful people willing to listen and follow. It's a bit like how Terry Jones or the late Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) are the 'preachers' of their churches.

Ah, you might say...the Westboro Baptist Church is TINY, and certainly doesn't have offshoots in multiple countries, and aren't really violent. And you would be absolutely right. Expansion and violence costs money, plain and simply. ISIS wouldn't be nearly as deadly if it was on camels carrying sticks and swords. And where does this money come from? Unfortunately...wealthy Saudi Arabians. Not necessarily the Saudi government, but wealthy Saudi individuals, of which there are many. There are extremists in every religion and country, sure. But very few of them are as wealthy as the Saudis in question.

This brings us to the next part of this mosaical debacle - Wahhabism. Most, if not all terror groups that claim (wrongfully, of course) to be acting in the name of Islam are HEAVILY influenced by Wahhabism. Wahhabism (also called Salafism) is a strain/sect/sub-branch of Islam that is as far from the mainstream as it gets on the conservative end. Like New England Puritans compared to modern Christianity as a whole. Wahhab was a preacher in the deserts of the Arabian peninsula that drew a small band of followers back in the 1700s. Mindset-wise, Wahhabis are still stuck in that time. They would still be the fringe bunch of crazies that they originally were had it not been for an alliance they struck with the al-Saud family/tribe. They each realized that together they'd be stronger than their individual rivals and so they went.

Even combined, they'd still be non-players if they hadn't managed to take over Saudi Arabia by force (and I'll talk about that in a different post, in the interest of clarity and brevity). Now that they did, Wahhabis all of a sudden had a whole country to call their own. And like any extremist religious movement, they believe they're called by God to expand their numbers and export their philosophy. But that takes money...enter Saudi oil. Cha-CHING. So with the MASSIVE welfare state that is Saudi Arabia, everyone gets some money from the government's revenues from selling oil to the rest of the world. And of course people in positions of power and authority are able to funnel more money along their family/tribal/clan relationships to others. And since it is the Wahhabis who are the religious bunch in charge of the country, you can guess which religious movement gets the most. And that all other religions (other branches of Islam included) are suppressed.

And thus they are able to export their radical and violent ideology. They don't care who they have to attack and destroy. Not just non-Muslims, but Muslims too are okay targets. In their view, non-Wahhabis aren't really Muslims to begin with. They happily destroyed early Islamic heritage sites with abandon, too - indicating how they view non-Wahhabis. And when they're expanding, they choose their targets wisely. There's not much Wahhabi influence in wealthier or better-governed countries. Why? Because the locals aren't so oppressed or poor that they'll sign onto a violent cult. Plus better-run and wealthier countries have actual educational systems that teach their youth - both about their religion and the world around them, so that some rich preacher with three partial Quran verses and a warped version of current events can't really find converts. Plus a badly-administered country is ripe to overthrow. Think about where terrorist groups have a major presence...name one country that's actually decently wealthy and decently-run? See what I mean? And thus the cycle continues.

*TL/DR:* Crazy desert fringe preacher (whom is not mainstream Muslim, at all) strikes an alliance with a large tribe...take over Saudi Arabia (aided partly by British apathy and double-crossing, but that's for later)...use oil money to export their intolerant, violent views (Wahhabism) worldwide to poor countries and problem spots worldwide. The sad part about this is that MANY (if not most) Saudis are fervently anti-Wahhabi - but the totalitarian dictatorship (which is perfectly acceptable to the West as long as they sell us oil and buy our weapons) makes it that they can't speak out. And thus the entire nation is demonized by the odious actions of a few with money and power.

Also, the second point about why don't more Muslims speak out - Muslims do. All the time, and all over the place. Unfortunately unless they're personally coming to one of us (in the US, or Sweden, or wherever), and relaying that condemnation in person, the world at large is dependent on the media to broadcast such condemnations. And as much as we'd like to think of media as noble and altruistic, it is a business. And business wants money. It media terms, that means viewers, or comments, or web site hits, all of which are more readily done by excited and angry people. And normal, rational, non-violent Muslims condemning abnormal, irrational, violent acts simply does not excite and anger (and thus garner ratings and comments) as much as not showing those condemnations (thereby implying that they don't exist), and then loudly ask WHERE ARE THE CONDEMNATIONS? It's a game of purposeful omission, and manufactured and curated outrage in the name of ratings and money.

Don't believe me? Google 'Muslims leaders condemning terror' or something thereabouts and see all the condemnations that come up. Here, I'll help you along. Condemnations are obviously out there from Muslim public figures, and organizations. So it's erroneous to say that they don't exist. They're simply not broadcast as much as we would like, or I'm sure as much as those making the condemnations would like. If you have a better reason for why not than what I wrote above, I'm all ears. Also, if you (not just you Earl, but anyone) know any Muslims personally, ask them their views about terrorism. I have a feeling you'll get an earful of the condemnation that many think is lacking. To find condemnations from mainstream Muslims public folks/organizations, one has to look for them directly. Go to those organizations' websites, or check non-traditional media sources. I guarantee they're there.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

maltimad said:


> Don't believe me? Google 'Muslims leaders condemning terror' or something thereabouts and see all the condemnations that come up. Here, I'll help you along. Condemnations are obviously out there from Muslim public figures, and organizations. So it's erroneous to say that they don't exist. They're simply not broadcast as much as we would like, or I'm sure as much as those making the condemnations would like. If you have a better reason for why not than what I wrote above, I'm all ears. Also, if you (not just you Earl, but anyone) know any Muslims personally, ask them their views about terrorism. I have a feeling you'll get an earful of the condemnation that many think is lacking. To find condemnations from mainstream Muslims public folks/organizations, one has to look for them directly. Go to those organizations' websites, or check non-traditional media sources. I guarantee they're there.


I believe you but it isn't enough.

They must take arms against their evil brothers, destroy them and not allow it to spread.

Fatwa chance of that happening...

Heh, heh.


----------



## maltimad

Fatwa chance, ha.  Speaking of, Muslim clerics (actual learned and trained ones, that is) routinely issue fatwas against terrorism and violence in general. Unfortunately, the evil crazies you speak of aren't interested.

Yeah, I'm sure the non-evil ones would love to stop the crazies from spreading their hate and violence...especially since the evil ones seem to target the non-evil ones first, more often than not nowadays. But those same people are pretty much nonviolent (unlike the crazies). So asking non-violent people to become violent...in order to stop violence might not exactly be productive. Still though, they do what they can.

Examples? The British authorities recently arrested a guy who snuck off to Syria, when he tried to come back to the UK. He left a letter that his parents found, and they contacted the police themselves regarding the danger they thought their son would pose. Also, that Nigerian kid that set his underwear on fire on a plane trying to blow it up? His dad contacted the US embassy in Abuja, Nigeria several months prior to try to warn them about his son.

And that attempted bombing in Times Square a few years ago. The vendor who initially saw the smoke from the explosive-filled SUV was a Muslim man from Senegal. He ran over to his neighboring vendors who spoke better English than him (his own admission) to get them to contact and explain what was happening to the police. While the guys he talked to were treated as heroes, there was no mention of him until the Times of London reported on him. It seems that correctly reporting that a Muslim man's pivotal assistance in foiling a would-be terror attack in the US was something not to be reported.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/americas-muslims-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan,

You repeatedly cite Israeli dispossession of Palestinian lands in the present tense as the source of on-going problems. I'll accept that it's an aggravating problem, and I plainly state that I oppose the settlement policy and the Netanyahu government. But by the way, the settlement movement was a private initiative that the government opposed, at first. There was no policy with respect to what to do with the territories gained in 1967, and the settlers took advantage of the policy vacuum until they made themselves something of a fait accompli, at which point the government, for very mixed reasons but foremost among them paralysis, ended up tacitly supporting, until Sharon, I believe, backed it. But I digress:

Let's say I concede with respect to the settlements. I happen to have spent a good deal of time on settlements and have some dear friends there, but I told them at the time they were wrong, and I'll say it a gain. So let's say I had the power to have them all evacuated. And if I had such power, I'd do that.

The problem is that you are lying when you say that the settlements and the dispossession that comes with it (and the persecution of the poeple who live in the territories) is the problem. It's a red herring. THe real problem is that the entire enterprise that is Israel is illegitimate in your eyes and should not exist. That's what you've said. So, I can do what I want with the settlements, it won't change anything. Further: By delegitimating Israel, you are also saying that Israel's inhabitants should willing subject themselves to persecution, exile, or worse. You're saying, "well, because you earned your freedom and autonomy at the expense of others, you must give up your freedom and autonomy, and possibly your lives." You're saying, "you must subject yourselves to being terrorized and persecuted, as you were in your homelands, wherever they might have been." "We won't leave you in peace when you're in the diaspora, but we're not going to let you have your own land."

How does one negotiate with that? If you were to say, "I share your concern and want you to live in peace and security in your land--I recognize what drove you to this land and also what pulls you to it--I respect that, but we need to figure out how to do this equitably and come to a mutually agreeable arrangement with the neighbors," we'd be on the same page. Arafat and Hamas for sure never did that. Abu Mazen, sometimes. You, not yet. You seem to want---I don't know what--for the Jews to all go home? Or just resign themselves to Palestinian sovereignty? What do you want?


----------



## Chouan

maltimad said:


> I asked my self similar questions, as well. And in my mind an important distinction is that just because Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, or ISIS or whichever crazy band of psychotic murderers claims to be acting in the name of Islam, or even if they believe that they are acting in the name of Islam, that does not mean that they actually are. They don't have a mandate from any authority in Islam to propagate it or act in its name. It's also important to note that the lack of a formal unifying structure in Islam does not help this case. Generally speaking, there is no Muslim figure equivalent to the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Patriarch of Constantinople, etc. who has final, unquestioned say or judgment in religious matters. In Shi'a Islam, this is less so the case, but Shi'as are a minority among the global Muslim population.
> 
> Further, while there are many formal courses of study to become an Imam or other person of authority, and many Imams around the world are in fact learned and actually know what they're talking about, there is actually no formal requirement to become an Imam of a particular mosque or congregation. Practically speaking, all that is needed for a person to become an 'Imam' is a congregation willing to follow him and listen to his preaching - or raving as it may be. This system was originally intended to show that any Muslim is capable of being a prayer leader - and that Muslims aren't dependent of a small cadre of specially-trained leaders to be worshipful and mindful of God. That original intention is certainly noble...BUT the flip side of the coin is that crazy, deluded, hateful people can style themselves an 'Imam'...as long as they have enough equally crazy, deluded, hateful people willing to listen and follow. It's a bit like how Terry Jones or the late Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church) are the 'preachers' of their churches.
> 
> Ah, you might say...the Westboro Baptist Church is TINY, and certainly doesn't have offshoots in multiple countries, and aren't really violent. And you would be absolutely right. Expansion and violence costs money, plain and simply. ISIS wouldn't be nearly as deadly if it was on camels carrying sticks and swords. And where does this money come from? Unfortunately...wealthy Saudi Arabians. Not necessarily the Saudi government, but wealthy Saudi individuals, of which there are many. There are extremists in every religion and country, sure. But very few of them are as wealthy as the Saudis in question.
> 
> This brings us to the next part of this mosaical debacle - Wahhabism. Most, if not all terror groups that claim (wrongfully, of course) to be acting in the name of Islam are HEAVILY influenced by Wahhabism. Wahhabism (also called Salafism) is a strain/sect/sub-branch of Islam that is as far from the mainstream as it gets on the conservative end. Like New England Puritans compared to modern Christianity as a whole. Wahhab was a preacher in the deserts of the Arabian peninsula that drew a small band of followers back in the 1700s. Mindset-wise, Wahhabis are still stuck in that time. They would still be the fringe bunch of crazies that they originally were had it not been for an alliance they struck with the al-Saud family/tribe. They each realized that together they'd be stronger than their individual rivals and so they went.
> 
> Even combined, they'd still be non-players if they hadn't managed to take over Saudi Arabia by force (and I'll talk about that in a different post, in the interest of clarity and brevity). Now that they did, Wahhabis all of a sudden had a whole country to call their own. And like any extremist religious movement, they believe they're called by God to expand their numbers and export their philosophy. But that takes money...enter Saudi oil. Cha-CHING. So with the MASSIVE welfare state that is Saudi Arabia, everyone gets some money from the government's revenues from selling oil to the rest of the world. And of course people in positions of power and authority are able to funnel more money along their family/tribal/clan relationships to others. And since it is the Wahhabis who are the religious bunch in charge of the country, you can guess which religious movement gets the most. And that all other religions (other branches of Islam included) are suppressed.
> 
> And thus they are able to export their radical and violent ideology. They don't care who they have to attack and destroy. Not just non-Muslims, but Muslims too are okay targets. In their view, non-Wahhabis aren't really Muslims to begin with. They happily destroyed early Islamic heritage sites with abandon, too - indicating how they view non-Wahhabis. And when they're expanding, they choose their targets wisely. There's not much Wahhabi influence in wealthier or better-governed countries. Why? Because the locals aren't so oppressed or poor that they'll sign onto a violent cult. Plus better-run and wealthier countries have actual educational systems that teach their youth - both about their religion and the world around them, so that some rich preacher with three partial Quran verses and a warped version of current events can't really find converts. Plus a badly-administered country is ripe to overthrow. Think about where terrorist groups have a major presence...name one country that's actually decently wealthy and decently-run? See what I mean? And thus the cycle continues.
> 
> *TL/DR:* Crazy desert fringe preacher (whom is not mainstream Muslim, at all) strikes an alliance with a large tribe...take over Saudi Arabia (aided partly by British apathy and double-crossing, but that's for later)...use oil money to export their intolerant, violent views (Wahhabism) worldwide to poor countries and problem spots worldwide. The sad part about this is that MANY (if not most) Saudis are fervently anti-Wahhabi - but the totalitarian dictatorship (which is perfectly acceptable to the West as long as they sell us oil and buy our weapons) makes it that they can't speak out. And thus the entire nation is demonized by the odious actions of a few with money and power.
> 
> Also, the second point about why don't more Muslims speak out - Muslims do. All the time, and all over the place. Unfortunately unless they're personally coming to one of us (in the US, or Sweden, or wherever), and relaying that condemnation in person, the world at large is dependent on the media to broadcast such condemnations. And as much as we'd like to think of media as noble and altruistic, it is a business. And business wants money. It media terms, that means viewers, or comments, or web site hits, all of which are more readily done by excited and angry people. And normal, rational, non-violent Muslims condemning abnormal, irrational, violent acts simply does not excite and anger (and thus garner ratings and comments) as much as not showing those condemnations (thereby implying that they don't exist), and then loudly ask WHERE ARE THE CONDEMNATIONS? It's a game of purposeful omission, and manufactured and curated outrage in the name of ratings and money.
> 
> Don't believe me? Google 'Muslims leaders condemning terror' or something thereabouts and see all the condemnations that come up. Here, I'll help you along. Condemnations are obviously out there from Muslim public figures, and organizations. So it's erroneous to say that they don't exist. They're simply not broadcast as much as we would like, or I'm sure as much as those making the condemnations would like. If you have a better reason for why not than what I wrote above, I'm all ears. Also, if you (not just you Earl, but anyone) know any Muslims personally, ask them their views about terrorism. I have a feeling you'll get an earful of the condemnation that many think is lacking. To find condemnations from mainstream Muslims public folks/organizations, one has to look for them directly. Go to those organizations' websites, or check non-traditional media sources. I guarantee they're there.
> 
> Peace and love to all, everywhere.


Very well put.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Very well put.


Yes indeed.


----------



## SG_67

Chouan said:


> Very well put.


Yes, well put but unfortunately not the practice. An idealization at best.

Here's what I hear; condemnations occur but are almost always followed by, "and we condemn all violence by states against civilians"...meaning Israel. Or, "we condemn the violence and...." Typically followed up by how Israel needs to end the occupation and it will all be over.

The reason such organizations thrive is because at some fundamental level they are tolerated by the societies from which they sprang. They're hardly marginal players, like westboro baptist, etc., as they seem to run about at will killing and kidnapping. That they are sponsored by states is even worse.

The truth is, these countries have long oppressed their people and so filled them with hate for Jews and other infidels through their media, that they have created a culture of death. Do die heroically for the cause is the ultimate expression of one's solidarity and observance of religion. This is what happens when for almost 100 years, you've taught generation after generation that the other are sub human.

Lastly, there is a strain of fatalism in Islam. It's "allah's will". It's like the scene from Lawrence of Arabia when the two young boys are left to die in the dessert and Lawrence goes back to save them. A religion as fatalistic as this ends up abiding such things.


----------



## maltimad

SG_67 said:


> Yes, well put but unfortunately not the practice. An idealization at best.
> 
> Here's what I hear; condemnations occur but are almost always followed by, "and we condemn all violence by states against civilians"...meaning Israel. Or, "we condemn the violence and...." Typically followed up by how Israel needs to end the occupation and it will all be over.
> 
> The reason such organizations thrive is because at some fundamental level they are tolerated by the societies from which they sprang. They're hardly marginal players, like westboro baptist, etc., as they seem to run about at will killing and kidnapping. That they are sponsored by states is even worse.
> 
> The truth is, these countries have long oppressed their people and so filled them with hate for Jews and other infidels through their media, that they have created a culture of death. Do die heroically for the cause is the ultimate expression of one's solidarity and observance of religion. This is what happens when for almost 100 years, you've taught generation after generation that the other are sub human.
> 
> Lastly, there is a strain of fatalism in Islam. It's "allah's will". It's like the scene from Lawrence of Arabia when the two young boys are left to die in the dessert and Lawrence goes back to save them. A religion as fatalistic as this ends up abiding such things.


The condemnations that you hear that mention Israeli occupation are usually regarding actions/attacks/atrocities/whatever that have to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Just as many Wahhabi-ish terrorist violence has nothing to do in reality with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the condemnation of the former also has nothing to do with the latter. It doesn't make any sense to condemn Boko Haram, for example, and somehow tie that to Israeli occupation. The two are unrelated. Who exactly is pretending that they're related? Or the same when it comes to condemnation of ISIS, or of TTP in Pakistan, and Israeli occupation? The victims largely in all of those groups' attacks are other Muslims and in the case of Boko Haram, Muslims and Christians...in Nigeria. Israel isn't in the picture at all. I think you would agree with me. Likewise, I don't see the condemnation of these and other terrorist activities and automatic inclusion of Israel.

As far as 'violence by states against civilians', that doesn't just mean Israel. I don't know that I've seen any serious actual condemnation of terrorist violence tied to just Israeli violence against civilians - expect maybe by those organizations seeking to justify the violence of their own perpetration (not possible in my mind). And it any case, that's not a serious condemnation in any way. If you think that such wording is directed at Israel and no other nation, then that's unfairly negative to Israel, and unfairly positive to many other nations: Egypt during the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia in Bahrain during that mini attempted revolution, etc. It happens all around the globe too: North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmar, the former Yugoslavia are examples of state-sponsored violence against civilians. That in and of itself is another kind of terrorism. It doesn't matter what group is perpetrating, or what group is suffering - terrorism is terrorism. That's a fact sometimes lost (and sometimes made to be lost) by those wishing to automatically conflate Muslims and terror, always - and some other group and terror, never. But terror is terror. Just because one state does, doesn't mean it's okay for other states do to it. And just because other states do it, doesn't mean it's okay for any one state to do it. I say condemn state violence against civilians all day long, wherever it happens.

I would have agreed with you at one time regarding a culture of death and violence. But it seems that Arabs themselves are rejecting violence more and more. I think this partly stems from the (at least partial) success of the Arab Spring, and also from increased violence in the region (Syrian Civil War, ISIS, sectarian violence in Iraq, etc.) Nothing like being surrounded by something like violence to realize that it's not such a good thing, ever. It's a bit like how following both World Wars fought in their backyards, Europe tends to be so staunchly anti-war. Also, more globalization of media and direct connections with people often demonized as the 'other', and younger, more broad-minded people in general are helping create this welcome change in climate. Interesting article about the recent trends here. So moving forward in time, as that is the only way possible, I think that death/violent culture you mention will recede more and more.

And any religion that believes in an all-powerful deity has a streak of fatalism. It's in it's nature in believing in divine omnipotence. 'It's Allah's will' is not much different from 'God wills it' (Deus vult, I suppose, for purists), or '...Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done...' It's not exclusive to Islam.

And sidenote, though 'Lawrence of Arabia' is an excellent movie, I wouldn't use it as a serious guide or example for Islamic thought and belief any more than I'd use 'The Last Temptation of Christ' as an authentic picture of the life of Jesus. There are far better sources for both.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## maltimad

Chouan said:


> Very well put.





tocqueville said:


> Yes indeed.


Thank you, gents.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## Odradek

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You are 100% correct about Northern Ireland. But I'm sorry, my previous post must make it clear that I no longer buy into the declamation "These people have very little to do with Islam, and a lot to do with tribal politics and power"
> These extremists have made it painfully clear that ultra-Islam is their driving force, they aren't using it as a tool, it is their be all and end all. They aren't using it as a means to an end, it is their end, it is their ultimate goal, extreme Islamic Sharia law, governing everything and everyone.


Opposition to Israel and Zionism does not equal support for Islam.
That's a red herring.

Any chance Earl, that your recent reappraisal of issues might have something to do with the huge influx of Muslim immigrants into Sweden, with consequent problems that the Swedish state refuses to acknowledge?


----------



## Kingstonian

maltimad said:


> The condemnations that you hear that mention Israeli occupation are usually regarding actions/attacks/atrocities/whatever that have to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Just as many Wahhabi-ish terrorist violence has nothing to do in reality with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the condemnation of the former also has nothing to do with the latter. It doesn't make any sense to condemn Boko Haram, for example, and somehow tie that to Israeli occupation. The two are unrelated. *Who exactly is pretending that they're related? *


Hasbara trolls?


----------



## SG_67

maltimad said:


> The condemnations that you hear that mention Israeli occupation are usually regarding actions/attacks/atrocities/whatever that have to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Just as many Wahhabi-ish terrorist violence has nothing to do in reality with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the condemnation of the former also has nothing to do with the latter. It doesn't make any sense to condemn Boko Haram, for example, and somehow tie that to Israeli occupation. The two are unrelated. Who exactly is pretending that they're related? Or the same when it comes to condemnation of ISIS, or of TTP in Pakistan, and Israeli occupation? The victims largely in all of those groups' attacks are other Muslims and in the case of Boko Haram, Muslims and Christians...in Nigeria. Israel isn't in the picture at all. I think you would agree with me. Likewise, I don't see the condemnation of these and other terrorist activities and automatic inclusion of Israel.
> 
> As far as 'violence by states against civilians', that doesn't just mean Israel. I don't know that I've seen any serious actual condemnation of terrorist violence tied to just Israeli violence against civilians - expect maybe by those organizations seeking to justify the violence of their own perpetration (not possible in my mind). And it any case, that's not a serious condemnation in any way. If you think that such wording is directed at Israel and no other nation, then that's unfairly negative to Israel, and unfairly positive to many other nations: Egypt during the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia in Bahrain during that mini attempted revolution, etc. It happens all around the globe too: North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmar, the former Yugoslavia are examples of state-sponsored violence against civilians. That in and of itself is another kind of terrorism. It doesn't matter what group is perpetrating, or what group is suffering - terrorism is terrorism. That's a fact sometimes lost (and sometimes made to be lost) by those wishing to automatically conflate Muslims and terror, always - and some other group and terror, never. But terror is terror. Just because one state does, doesn't mean it's okay for other states do to it. And just because other states do it, doesn't mean it's okay for any one state to do it. I say condemn state violence against civilians all day long, wherever it happens.
> 
> I would have agreed with you at one time regarding a culture of death and violence. But it seems that Arabs themselves are rejecting violence more and more. I think this partly stems from the (at least partial) success of the Arab Spring, and also from increased violence in the region (Syrian Civil War, ISIS, sectarian violence in Iraq, etc.) Nothing like being surrounded by something like violence to realize that it's not such a good thing, ever. It's a bit like how following both World Wars fought in their backyards, Europe tends to be so staunchly anti-war. Also, more globalization of media and direct connections with people often demonized as the 'other', and younger, more broad-minded people in general are helping create this welcome change in climate. Interesting article about the recent trends here. So moving forward in time, as that is the only way possible, I think that death/violent culture you mention will recede more and more.
> 
> And any religion that believes in an all-powerful deity has a streak of fatalism. It's in it's nature in believing in divine omnipotence. 'It's Allah's will' is not much different from 'God wills it' (Deus vult, I suppose, for purists), or '...Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done...' It's not exclusive to Islam.
> 
> And sidenote, though 'Lawrence of Arabia' is an excellent movie, I wouldn't use it as a serious guide or example for Islamic thought and belief any more than I'd use 'The Last Temptation of Christ' as an authentic picture of the life of Jesus. There are far better sources for both.
> 
> Peace and love to all, everywhere.


I really do hope you're right about the culture of death receding.

As for the Lawrence of Arabia reference, I did not mean it as a reflection of the religion, but of the culture itself. It was not just from the movie but was written about by TE Lawrence himself in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom.

So often a religion informs the culture. As Christians, yes we believe that God's will is insurmountable. But we don't claim to know what that will is and so giving up is not in our culture.

As for the apologists, I agree. One does not hear Boko Haram talking about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Hezbollah and Hamas do though and are well tolerated in their host countries. In fact, in both cases they are either well integrated into the government or in the case of Hamas, the de facto government as the Palestinian Authority is effete, corrupt and incapable of exerting any control over their charge.

The apologists I speak of are usually in the west. There's almost a knee jerk reaction to anytime a terrorist organization is criticized in the west.


----------



## maltimad

SG_67 said:


> I really do hope you're right about the culture of death receding.
> 
> As for the Lawrence of Arabia reference, I did not mean it as a reflection of the religion, but of the culture itself. It was not just from the movie but was written about by TE Lawrence himself in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom.
> 
> So often a religion informs the culture. As Christians, yes we believe that God's will is insurmountable. But we don't claim to know what that will is and so giving up is not in our culture.
> 
> As for the apologists, I agree. One does not hear Boko Haram talking about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Hezbollah and Hamas do though and are well tolerated in their host countries. In fact, in both cases they are either well integrated into the government or in the case of Hamas, the de facto government as the Palestinian Authority is effete, corrupt and incapable of exerting any control over their charge.
> 
> The apologists I speak of are usually in the west. There's almost a knee jerk reaction to anytime a terrorist organization is criticized in the west.


With Hezbollah and Hamas, I think much of their 'tolerance' in their areas have to do with rule-by-the-gun. They're just better-funded and armed to the point of being able to overpower/permanently silence opposition. You do that to enough opponents, and you'll intimidate the rest into silence or at least practical non-opposition. That's more or less what's happening in Lebanon with Hezbollah.

Yes, Hamas technically is the elected government in Gaza as a result of the last elections - which is definitely a reaction by the Gazans against what they see as Palestinian Authority inaction and inability. Obviously, no political group or party in the US is violent like Hamas, but in my opinion the pro-Hamas/anti-PA feeling is just a (much) more pronounced version of the recent pro-Tea Party/vote out all incumbents feeling in the US electorate. Now, to be clear, I'm not comparing any US group/faction with the players in Palestine - just laying out the analogy and similar feelings of rejection of the established political forces.

And yeah, the PA is beset by political infighting which results in gridlock often. For a long time the PA and its predecessor Fatah was such a cult of personality around the late Yasser Arafat, that an actual administration was really an afterthought. Certainly, being until recently a government-in-exile hopping from country to country is a reason for this, but the ultimate reality is it's not as efficient a governing body as it could and, I think, should be. But it is the best that's there. Without the force of personality and stature of a figure like Arafat, a lot of the existing divisions did come to the fore after this death. I think though that the current president, Mahmoud Abbas, is slowly but surely turning it around. He's not an ideologue like Arafat was, and actually a decent administrator (within the limits and reality of his fragmented and blockaded territories - at least in the West Bank) for once. And I think the progress and gradual shift in tone and mindset made since the most recent (and I hope the last) Intifada and Arafat's death is indicative of this. I think had the government on the other-side (that is Israel) not been such a right-wing, rather hawkish, and settlement-happy Likud-led coalition (Hi, Kadima, how've you been?), even more progress would have been made, we would all be much closer to a viable and proper Palestinian state at peace with Israel. The existence of (or even tangible progress toward) such a state would take a lot of the wind out of the sails of Hamas and others of its extremist ilk.

That's one of the great tragedies of this situation. The Palestinian cause absolutely is a just and worthy one - they deserve their own viable state and to have control over themselves and that state. The Palestinian people as a whole are decent folks with whom it is easy to sympathize. It's just that until recently, their loudest champions were incompetent egoists who cared more about themselves than their people.

I think you raise a very important point about religion and culture. That's lost sometimes in references like 'all Christians...' or 'all Muslims...' I think more so than a religion's original culture (the culture in which that religion first was observed or followed) defining it, it's the blending of religions and culture that's important. Hence why Christianity in sub Saharan Africa or Latin America (even within similar denominations) is so different from say Northern Europe and North America. Likewise, Islam in the Arabian peninsula is far removed from Islam in say Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India, or even North Africa - and to say nothing of Islam in Western countries.

This unfortunately ties in to what I wrote earlier about Wahhabis exporting their ideas and outlook. Saudi Arabia is a large country by area, and given that the harsh desert made regular travel within it a difficult undertaking until recently, a lot of disconnected pockets of civilization arose, each with different ideas. The al-Saud/Wahhabi are from the Nejd region in the center of Saudi Arabia - far isolated from the regular contact with foreigners that the people of the coastal areas of the Arabian peninsula experienced throughout history. For this reason and other too, Nejdi culture (mindset might be a better word) tends to be very insular and conservative - contributing to the intolerance of Wahhabism. And because they are well-funded and able to expand so much, that most conservative mindset is what's exported - and because of the associated craziness, it commands more attention than other Islamic cultures that are hundreds of years old and completely different from that Nejdi/Wahhabi melange.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Chouan,
> 
> You repeatedly cite Israeli dispossession of Palestinian lands in the present tense as the source of on-going problems. I'll accept that it's an aggravating problem, and I plainly state that I oppose the settlement policy and the Netanyahu government. But by the way, the settlement movement was a private initiative that the government opposed, at first. There was no policy with respect to what to do with the territories gained in 1967, and the settlers took advantage of the policy vacuum until they made themselves something of a fait accompli, at which point the government, for very mixed reasons but foremost among them paralysis, ended up tacitly supporting, until Sharon, I believe, backed it. But I digress:
> 
> Let's say I concede with respect to the settlements. I happen to have spent a good deal of time on settlements and have some dear friends there, but I told them at the time they were wrong, and I'll say it a gain. So let's say I had the power to have them all evacuated. And if I had such power, I'd do that.


Yes. That would go a very long way to solving the problem, both domestically in Israel, and internationally. That Israel repeatedly ignores UN Resolutions on settlements does Israel no good at all, internationally, and creates more and more hostility from the Palestinian inhabitants of Israel. How can one be "loyal" to an occupying power if one always has the feat that one's property will be seized at gunpoint by the "Law Enforcement" of the state in which one lives?



tocqueville said:


> The problem is that *you are lying *when you say that the settlements and the dispossession that comes with it (and the persecution of the poeple who live in the territories) is the problem. It's a red herring.


That's a strong statement to make. You asserting that I'm stating that which I know to be untrue. Apart from the offence caused, naturally, by calling a person a liar, you're actually mistaking deliberate dishonesty with a view that isn't the same as yours. Not the same thing at all. Just because you have a strongly held view, it doesn't follow that somebody with a different view is lying.



tocqueville said:


> THe real problem is that the entire enterprise that is Israel is illegitimate in your eyes and should not exist. That's what you've said. So, I can do what I want with the settlements, it won't change anything. Further: By delegitimating Israel, you are also saying that Israel's inhabitants should willing subject themselves to persecution, exile, or worse. You're saying, "well, because you earned your freedom and autonomy at the expense of others, you must give up your freedom and autonomy, and possibly your lives." You're saying, "you must subject yourselves to being terrorized and persecuted, as you were in your homelands, wherever they might have been." "We won't leave you in peace when you're in the diaspora, but we're not going to let you have your own land."


Another version of the straw man, I've *never* said that. Indeed, this whole paragraph is a straw man. What I have repeatedly said is that if Israel wasn't so racist and oppressive in it's treatment of the Palestinians in Israel, and treated them as equal partners in the state, there might not be the problems that exist now.



tocqueville said:


> How does one negotiate with that? If you were to say, "I share your concern and want you to live in peace and security in your land--I recognize what drove you to this land and also what pulls you to it--I respect that, but we need to figure out how to do this equitably and come to a mutually agreeable arrangement with the neighbors," we'd be on the same page. Arafat and Hamas for sure never did that. Abu Mazen, sometimes. You, not yet. You seem to want---I don't know what--for the Jews to all go home? Or just resign themselves to Palestinian sovereignty? What do you want?


Israel exists, everybody recognises that. However, the problems that Israel faces are caused by Israel's intransigent attitude towards the rest of the world, supported by the US. The view expressed by Israel's government concerning this current crisis suggests that Israel was preparing for an offensive and that the tragic deaths of the three poor teenagers was a good pretext for this offensive.


----------



## tocqueville

maltimad said:


> The condemnations that you hear that mention Israeli occupation are usually regarding actions/attacks/atrocities/whatever that have to do with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Just as many Wahhabi-ish terrorist violence has nothing to do in reality with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the condemnation of the former also has nothing to do with the latter. It doesn't make any sense to condemn Boko Haram, for example, and somehow tie that to Israeli occupation. The two are unrelated. Who exactly is pretending that they're related? Or the same when it comes to condemnation of ISIS, or of TTP in Pakistan, and Israeli occupation? The victims largely in all of those groups' attacks are other Muslims and in the case of Boko Haram, Muslims and Christians...in Nigeria. Israel isn't in the picture at all. I think you would agree with me. Likewise, I don't see the condemnation of these and other terrorist activities and automatic inclusion of Israel.
> 
> As far as 'violence by states against civilians', that doesn't just mean Israel. I don't know that I've seen any serious actual condemnation of terrorist violence tied to just Israeli violence against civilians - expect maybe by those organizations seeking to justify the violence of their own perpetration (not possible in my mind). And it any case, that's not a serious condemnation in any way. If you think that such wording is directed at Israel and no other nation, then that's unfairly negative to Israel, and unfairly positive to many other nations: Egypt during the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia in Bahrain during that mini attempted revolution, etc. It happens all around the globe too: North Korea, Venezuela, Myanmar, the former Yugoslavia are examples of state-sponsored violence against civilians. That in and of itself is another kind of terrorism. It doesn't matter what group is perpetrating, or what group is suffering - terrorism is terrorism. That's a fact sometimes lost (and sometimes made to be lost) by those wishing to automatically conflate Muslims and terror, always - and some other group and terror, never. But terror is terror. Just because one state does, doesn't mean it's okay for other states do to it. And just because other states do it, doesn't mean it's okay for any one state to do it. I say condemn state violence against civilians all day long, wherever it happens.
> 
> I would have agreed with you at one time regarding a culture of death and violence. But it seems that Arabs themselves are rejecting violence more and more. I think this partly stems from the (at least partial) success of the Arab Spring, and also from increased violence in the region (Syrian Civil War, ISIS, sectarian violence in Iraq, etc.) Nothing like being surrounded by something like violence to realize that it's not such a good thing, ever. It's a bit like how following both World Wars fought in their backyards, Europe tends to be so staunchly anti-war. Also, more globalization of media and direct connections with people often demonized as the 'other', and younger, more broad-minded people in general are helping create this welcome change in climate. Interesting article about the recent trends here. So moving forward in time, as that is the only way possible, I think that death/violent culture you mention will recede more and more.
> 
> And any religion that believes in an all-powerful deity has a streak of fatalism. It's in it's nature in believing in divine omnipotence. 'It's Allah's will' is not much different from 'God wills it' (Deus vult, I suppose, for purists), or '...Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done...' It's not exclusive to Islam.
> 
> And sidenote, though 'Lawrence of Arabia' is an excellent movie, I wouldn't use it as a serious guide or example for Islamic thought and belief any more than I'd use 'The Last Temptation of Christ' as an authentic picture of the life of Jesus. There are far better sources for both.
> 
> Peace and love to all, everywhere.


Your's, sir, is a welcome voice. I am hard pressed to find anything in your words that I disagree, although I might be more pessimistic. I am hopeful that the Arab spring has set in motion processes that could bring very good things to the Arab world, although it's going to be a rough ride. Egypt is the most obvious example.

Your Hamas/Tea Party analogy has merit. What would it take for there to be a movement that is as attractive to disgruntled people vis a vis governance but without the militancy vis a vis other people? Imagine a Hamas with all the criticism of the PA but with none of the 'death to Israel'? When I look at Egypt, I see another problem, which is the apparent lack of options between what is in effect a military dictatorship and Morsi's Brotherhood. I think if I were a Egyptian, I'd be very frustrated, as I'd want neither. Maybe Morsi was better than that, but from what I've read, he wasn't going to govern any better than the military. He'd replace one bunch of thugs with another.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan, I don't think it is a strawman argument, given a) your comments about Israeli's origins and b) your apparent rejection of the legitimacy of any Israeli efforts to protect itself. Now, I realize that you have not been so explicit as Odradeck, which is why I said, "at least you're honest," but still except for your statement that "Israel exists, everybody recognizes that," I have seen zero recognition that is more than one side to this, and that the not everything boils down to "Israel's intransigence." 

I apologize for the word "lie." I would be more fair to argue that you might not realize the implications of your own argument, at least as I see it.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Chouan, I don't think it is a strawman argument, given a) your comments about Israeli's origins and b) your apparent rejection of the legitimacy of any Israeli efforts to protect itself. Now, I realize that you have not been so explicit as Odradeck, which is why I said, "at least you're honest," but still except for your statement that "Israel exists, everybody recognizes that," I have seen zero recognition that is more than one side to this, and that the not everything boils down to "Israel's intransigence."
> 
> I apologize for the word "lie." I would be more fair to argue that you might not realize the implications of your own argument, at least as I see it.


My views about Israel's origins don't mean that Israel isn't or can't be a legitimate state. In the timeline I gave, which you commented on, there was nothing incorrect or wrong. You had differing views on some of the aspects, in the sense that your viewpoint was different, but the essential facts were correct. My analogy of a Hispanic takeover of Texas is also a good one, which explains the situation of the Palestinians. I have repeatedly argued that Israel's current problems exist because of Israel's intransigence in treating Palestinians as second class inhabitants. Israel, of course, has a right to protect itself, but does nothing to create a situation in which a military option in defence might not be necessary. The current campaign by Israel is evidence of that. Netanyahu continues to claim that Israel's action towards Gaza is to stop Hamas firing rockets, yet it is grotesquely disproportionate, causing far more destruction and far more deaths than all of the Hamas rockets ever fired put together, with no sign of Israel's campaign stopping. This isn't defence, it is aggression and ultimately self-defeating. Once Israel's current campaign is over, the racist treatment of Palestinians within Israel will continue, the hatred of Israel stoked up by this campaign will develop, and the situation that Israel is claiming to be trying to stop will start all over again. 
The neighbouring Arab states may continue to call for Israel's destruction, but they've done nothing towards achieving that aim since the 1970's. Their rhetoric against Israel will, I'm sure, continue, but they will also, I'm sure, do nothing towards that end. When I was working in Iraq in the 1970's their English language press was full of anti-Zionist and anti-semitic writing, but Iraq didn't actually do anything to further that sentiment. 
Thank you for the apology, I still argue that Israel's treatment of Palestinians within Israel is the major cause of the problem.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Odradek said:


> Opposition to Israel and Zionism does not equal support for Islam.
> That's a red herring.
> 
> Any chance Earl, that your recent reappraisal of issues might have something to do with the huge influx of Muslim immigrants into Sweden, with consequent problems that the Swedish state refuses to acknowledge?


I know it doesn't. Never claimed it did. Personally I think they're all as bad as each other.

As for Sweden, your facts are way off! Sweden has always had a lot of Muslim migrants and refugees from the Middle East, Africa & the Balkans, from the 60s onwards, long before the UK even thought about it.

As for my feelings on it, well I recently fought against the Immigration Service to keep a family of Kosovan Muslims in Sweden. 
I find your suggestion offensive, distasteful and off topic, which should be obvious really.


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> .......
> ............. The current campaign by Israel is evidence of that. Netanyahu continues to claim that Israel's action towards Gaza is to stop Hamas firing rockets, yet it is grotesquely disproportionate, causing far more destruction and far more deaths than all of the Hamas rockets ever fired put together, with no sign of Israel's campaign stopping. This isn't defence, it is aggression and ultimately self-defeating...
> ......


It is interesting to note you fail to give credit to Israel for dropping leaflets on the targets of the Israeli retaliatory strikes, warning the residents of the impending strike(s) and urging that they take cover, while Hamas forces the Palestinian residents of such sites to use their bodies to provide a human shield for high value Hamas military/terrorist headquarters buildings/operations, etc. Are the Israelis more concerned about the safety of Palestinian residents than Hamas? Actions of the Hamas leadership sound less than humane to me...almost like the actions of terrorists! :icon_scratch:


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> It is interesting to note you fail to give credit to Israel for dropping leaflets on the targets of the Israeli retaliatory strikes, warning the residents of the impending strike(s) and urging that they take cover,


Well that's alright then. The 170+ killed mustn't have been paying attention then.



eagle2250 said:


> while Hamas forces the Palestinian residents of such sites to use their bodies to provide a human shield for high value Hamas military/terrorist headquarters buildings/operations, etc. Are the Israelis more concerned about the safety of Palestinian residents than Hamas? Actions of the Hamas leadership sound less than humane to me...almost like the actions of terrorists! :icon_scratch:


Yes. The Israelis have always reported this, so it must be true......


----------



## eagle2250

^^So you are assuming or alleging that the Israelis were in collusion with the onsite news journalists who reported such actions? But then, I suspect you would also be one prone to assert that the Holocaust never occurred, because we were not on site to personally observe the depravity of the Nazis...yes, no?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

maltimad said:


> I asked my self similar questions, as well. And in my mind an important distinction is that just because Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, or ISIS or whichever crazy band of psychotic murderers claims to be acting in the name of Islam, or even if they believe that they are acting in the name of Islam, that does not mean that they actually are.


Well, actually, that's exactly what it DOES mean. No one can tell them that they are wrong and that they are not acting in the name of Islam.


----------



## Kingstonian

More and more Palestinians being killed now - women children etc. While the media desperately seeks out any injury to an Israeli as justification.

It is like shooting fish in a barrel. Completely disproportionate. Israel ignores international requests for moderation.

I believe that what goes around comes around. In due course, maybe not my lifetime, Israel will reap what it sows and Israel will only have itself to blame then.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Conversely, Israel was bombarded yesterday from Gaza, Southern Lebanon and Syria.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^So you are assuming or alleging that the Israelis were in collusion with the onsite news journalists who reported such actions? But then, I suspect you would also be one prone to assert that the Holocaust never occurred, because we were not on site to personally observe the depravity of the Nazis...yes, no?


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/13/guardian-view-conflict-in-gaza

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...k-of-progress-in-the-middle-east-9603172.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/12/disabled-palestinians-unable-escape-israeli-air-strike

The subsequent straw man is contemptible.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Kingstonian said:


> More and more Palestinians being killed now - women children etc. While the media desperately seeks out any injury to an Israeli as justification.
> 
> It is like shooting fish in a barrel. Completely disproportionate. Israel ignores international requests for moderation.
> 
> I believe that what goes around comes around. In due course, maybe not my lifetime, Israel will reap what it sows and Israel will only have itself to blame then.


+1.

And I'm reminded of a passage in Luke, when Jesus looking at Jerusalem, at the unbelievers, and spoke about the city's future destruction by the enemies that surrounded it. I'll find the proper words and post them later


----------



## maltimad

tocqueville said:


> Your's, sir, is a welcome voice. I am hard pressed to find anything in your words that I disagree, although I might be more pessimistic. I am hopeful that the Arab spring has set in motion processes that could bring very good things to the Arab world, although it's going to be a rough ride. Egypt is the most obvious example.
> 
> Your Hamas/Tea Party analogy has merit. What would it take for there to be a movement that is as attractive to disgruntled people vis a vis governance but without the militancy vis a vis other people? Imagine a Hamas with all the criticism of the PA but with none of the 'death to Israel'? When I look at Egypt, I see another problem, which is the apparent lack of options between what is in effect a military dictatorship and Morsi's Brotherhood. I think if I were a Egyptian, I'd be very frustrated, as I'd want neither. Maybe Morsi was better than that, but from what I've read, he wasn't going to govern any better than the military. He'd replace one bunch of thugs with another.


Thank you. Yours as well, regarding the illegality and the general wrongness of the settlements in the Occupied Territories. It's land thievery, plain and simple. It usually seems (especially so from/within Israel) that those with the sentiment that the Occupied Territories is all land for Israel's taking are far louder than those with neutral or opposing views. 'Death to Israel' on one side seems to be ably met by 'Death to Arabs' (especially recently). To say nothing of the revenge burning to death of the Palestinian teen, Pricetag attacks, and general settler violence. I think you would agree that respective extremism of position and propensity of violence-wise, there's not a lot of difference between Hamas and violent settlers. Equally deplorable, both.

To your second question, what would it take? Honestly? Israel sticking to 1967 borders, and getting rid of the settlements in the West Bank. Or at the VERY least, agree to land swaps that give an equal amount of an equal quality (arable, water supply, etc) of land that the settlements occupy to the Palestinians. And let East Jerusalem be fully under Palestinian control, as the capital of the Palestinian state. That gets done, and almost NO Palestinian has a practically legitimate grievance against Israel anymore. And those extremists that do will not find many followers and will basically snuff themselves out. However, as long as settlements continue to be expanded, it just breeds more sympathy for those of Hamas' ilk and more disenchantment with those of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority's.

I agree that Egypt will be messy, as will Libya, and any other emerging democracies. Even with Morsi's overthrow and al-Sisi's election, I classify Egypt still in as an emerging democracy - it'll just take some time, as you alluded to, to get there. Many people seem to forget that today's democratic (broadly-speaking) United States had a VERY messy initial phase of government (the Articles of Confederation). That form of government and governance had so many issues that it was essentially scrapped in favor of the Constitution around a decade later. So, given the history of my own country with nascent democracy, I'm willing to give newer emerging democracies a few years and the benefit of the doubt as they figure themselves out. I think you're absolutely right regarding Egyptian frustration. Part of the broad (if reluctant) support behind Morsi's overthrow by the military I think is evidence of this. Most of Egypt does not want a Brotherhood government - theocracies aren't exactly most folks' cup of tea. They just were the most organized campaigners in the original election, and they won. They commanded a lot of support because the previous US-backed government of Mubarak ignored huge chunks of civil society and needs - a void that the Brotherhood fulfilled. Mubarak got away with impunity because he knew that as long he guaranteed peace with Israel, the US would back him up...then the Arab Spring happened, and Egyptians decided they'd had enough of his bad governance. I think even the Brotherhood's original supporters realized that's it's one thing to provide social services with a heavy dose of religion, but another thing entirely to govern with that heavy dose of religion.

Further, today's emerging democracies are dealing with a lot more factionalism, outside geopolitical forces, and in general a more complicated world than did the nascent United States, and doing so with 24/7 news coverage. Add to that the fact that most of the people in these countries have historically been many smaller, almost completely sovereign and independent groups rather than a few large cooperative nations, and you see why forging a united democracy will take a little time. Remember, most of the nations in the Middle East are artificial creations with arbitrary borders (usually based around natural resources) drawn up by imperialist Europe (largely Britain and France). In cases like Iraq, that meant that three groups of people who had no business whatsoever being part of one country all of sudden found themselves within the same borders. The current fragmentation is the most natural (though certainly not the cleanest) resolution of that unnatural situation.

I think the fascinating part of the Arab Spring revolutions is that the outcomes have been so varied, and are still on going. Grab your popcorn and keep watching, I'd say.

Sidenote, to everyone. I know my replies tend to be long. The topics under discussion in this thread are complex, and a lot my positions merit explanation. Plus, these are interesting topics, and I enjoy writing and discussing them.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## maltimad

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well, actually, that's exactly what it DOES mean. No one can tell them that they are wrong and that they are not acting in the name of Islam.


First, no it does not mean that.

Let me try this in a different way. I don't mean to be sarcastic or patronizing. If I start rampaging and beating people acting in the name of one Earl of Ormonde, because I consider him (you) some sort of authority, and that I consider myself to be acting in his name and doing what he would want me to do - does that mean I'm actually acting in your name, according to your actual principles...just because I say I am? No it does not. Those who are claiming to act in the name of some other (person, authority, deity, whatever) does not automatically reflect that other.

Plenty of people tell them they're wrong and not acting in the name of Islam...that coverage of said criticisms aren't more prominent and certainly not as prominent as it should be ties into what I said earlier about media selectivity and framing of a desired message. BUT, 'aren't more prominent and certainly not as prominent as it should be' doesn't mean non-existent. Here's a good article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28270296.

The article has a link in its opening lines to a nice video. It covers a lot of topics, but condemnation of ISIS specifically begins at around 2:42. Video direct link here:

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Yes, it does mean that. If they think they are acting in the name of Allah and following the Koran, then that is what they are doing. Other Muslims may not like it or agree with it and may tell them they are in the wrong. But no one is in a position to tell them they are not acting in the name if Islam is that is what they truly believe. 

If we use your logic then every single Protestant and Dissenter from the Reformation to today is in the wrong because they all said they were acting in Christ's name and following the Bible, but the Vatican, the Christian authority of the day, told them they were wrong. But they didn't listen and went on to create dozens of new Christian denominations.


----------



## SG_67

maltimad said:


> First, no it does not mean that.
> 
> Let me try this in a different way. I don't mean to be sarcastic or patronizing. If I start rampaging and beating people acting in the name of one Earl of Ormonde, because I consider him (you) some sort of authority, and that I consider myself to be acting in his name and doing what he would want me to do - does that mean I'm actually acting in your name, according to your actual principles...just because I say I am? No it does not. Those who are claiming to act in the name of some other (person, authority, deity, whatever) does not automatically reflect that other.
> 
> Plenty of people tell them they're wrong and not acting in the name of Islam...that coverage of said criticisms aren't more prominent and certainly not as prominent as it should be ties into what I said earlier about media selectivity and framing of a desired message. BUT, 'aren't more prominent and certainly not as prominent as it should be' doesn't mean non-existent. Here's a good article: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28270296.
> 
> The article has a link in its opening lines to a nice video. It covers a lot of topics, but condemnation of ISIS specifically begins at around 2:42. Video direct link here:
> 
> Peace and love to all, everywhere.


I understand your sentiment, however, your analogy is a bit off. If you were to all of a sudden without any prior impetus or precedent start doing those actions in the name of Earl of Oromonde, then I would agree with you. But this analogy is incorrect.

The problem is that we're talking about one person vs. a religion, which transcends any one person. Here is an example of something which tries to put it into perspective:

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

One can argue whether or not this needs to be interpreted more carefully or in a more nuanced manner, but do you see how a group like ISIS or Boko Haram can say that they are following Islam?

So it is not as though Islamic call to violence is not without historical or scriptural precedent. The actual text and scripture are being used to this end.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Well that's alright then. The 170+ killed mustn't have been paying attention then.
> 
> Yes. The Israelis have always reported this, so it must be true......


Actually, todays news is that Hamas has been trying to stop Gazans from leaving town after having been warned by Israel that there would be an attack. Hamas says, "stay put." The locals are saying, "are you crazy?"

I have no patience for the argument about "proportionality," an argument that I've only seen levied against Israel. The ineffectiveness of Hamas rocketry does not negate the fact that they are firing them with intent to kill. Can you imagine a lawyer arguing for leniency for his client because he was a bad shot? Want the bombing to stop? Cut it out with the rockets. I ALthough I in fact argue to all who would listen among my pro-Israel friends that the smart thing for Israel to do would be to not retaliate. I question the military value of the bombings, and clearly Hamas WANTS the bombings to occur, and for civilians to die. That said, it would be really hard for an elected leader to swallow doing nothing.

I see a bizarre willingness to turn a blind eye toward what Hamas is and wants, not to mention the kind of racism and hatred it embodies. The same is true in Chouan's timeline. Chouan, what do I see? I see 1) very little understanding of the protagonists on the Israeli side, 2) a remarkably one-sided narrative of the events, and 3) no grasp that Israel has little reason to think that radical concessions that will only make it more vulnerable will in fact be worth while. "Surrender ground, for then you will be safe." Sure.

From an Israeli point of view, for example, Oslo resulted in Hamas's suicide bombing campaign (I was in Jerusalem during that, listening to the radio to see which bus line had been bombed and where, donating blood) and perhaps worse: Arafat's preference for getting into a macabre pissing contest with Hamas to see who could out bomb whom rather than acting as the leader Palestine needed and distancing himself from the bombings. And then there was the second Intifadah, which was more of the same. Arafat seemed to think that he could get more out of emiscerating his people than by making concessions. He also seemed to think that being a leader meant catering to the mob. Then there's the withdrawal from Gaza, a courageous move by Sharon at great political expense and causing tremendous anguish, which only turned Gaza into a launching pad for suicide attacks and rockets. Or the withdrawal from Lebanon....

Who really thinks handing the West Bank over to the PA will stop people from attacking? And on what basis can one encourage Israelis to cede a position of strength? Can you think of any historical example of a people willingly accepting to make itself more vulnerable? In any event, I would expect to see among anyone really interest in peace to be indignant about rocket attacks and terrorism against Israeli civilians everywhere. But where is your indignation?

Chouan, you always cry "Strawman" when I suggest that what you're implicitly arguing for (Kinstonian's explicit) is for Israel to accept defeat and death in your arguments against Israeli's right to defend itself, but I don't see it that way.


----------



## SG_67

tocqueville said:


> Actually, todays news is that Hamas has been trying to stop Gazans from leaving town after having been warned by Israel that there would be an attack. Hamas says, "stay put." The locals are saying, "are you crazy?"


Are you suggesting that Hamas only cares about the photo op created by dead civilians and not really looking out for the interests of their brethren?


----------



## tocqueville

maltimad said:


> To your second question, what would it take? Honestly? Israel sticking to 1967 borders, and getting rid of the settlements in the West Bank. Or at the VERY least, agree to land swaps that give an equal amount of an equal quality (arable, water supply, etc) of land that the settlements occupy to the Palestinians. And let East Jerusalem be fully under Palestinian control, as the capital of the Palestinian state. That gets done, and almost NO Palestinian has a practically legitimate grievance against Israel anymore. And those extremists that do will not find many followers and will basically snuff themselves out. However, as long as settlements continue to be expanded, it just breeds more sympathy for those of Hamas' ilk and more disenchantment with those of Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority's.
> 
> I agree that Egypt will be messy, as will Libya, and any other emerging democracies. Even with Morsi's overthrow and al-Sisi's election, I classify Egypt still in as an emerging democracy - it'll just take some time, as you alluded to, to get there. Many people seem to forget that today's democratic (broadly-speaking) United States had a VERY messy initial phase of government (the Articles of Confederation). That form of government and governance had so many issues that it was essentially scrapped in favor of the Constitution around a decade later. So, given the history of my own country with nascent democracy, I'm willing to give newer emerging democracies a few years and the benefit of the doubt as they figure themselves out. I think you're absolutely right regarding Egyptian frustration. Part of the broad (if reluctant) support behind Morsi's overthrow by the military I think is evidence of this. Most of Egypt does not want a Brotherhood government - theocracies aren't exactly most folks' cup of tea. They just were the most organized campaigners in the original election, and they won. They commanded a lot of support because the previous US-backed government of Mubarak ignored huge chunks of civil society and needs - a void that the Brotherhood fulfilled. Mubarak got away with impunity because he knew that as long he guaranteed peace with Israel, the US would back him up...then the Arab Spring happened, and Egyptians decided they'd had enough of his bad governance. I think even the Brotherhood's original supporters realized that's it's one thing to provide social services with a heavy dose of religion, but another thing entirely to govern with that heavy dose of religion.


On the first point, I'd like to think you are right, but I am pessimistic about whether a retreat to '68 borders would do much good and that it might be as productive toward peace as Israel's retreat from Southern Lebanon and Gaza. I believe that Israel must do much, much more to strengthen Abbas and be more willing to take a chance on him, if for no other reason than that he represents the best option. There's a profound difference between him and Hamas, and I also think there's a profound difference between him and Arafat. Addressing the needs of Palestinians, it goes without saying, remains a moral imperative regardless. But anything Israel does is fraught with risk...Rabin had the guts, even Sharon at the end (Gaza), in his way. Barak, too. The current government seems to think that managing the problem is the least bad option. I don't agree, but I understand where the pessimism comes from.

Regarding Egypt, I share your assessment, and I think, this being Bastille Day, that one would be wise to remember that it took France roughly 80 years AFTER 1789 to become a stable democracy.

I think US support for Mubarak was about more than Israel but also is engagement/partnership in a host of security matters, most recently counter-terrorism. At a Government-to-Goverment level, he was a great ally. For that reason I know many who were angry with Obama for allegedly allowing Mubarak to fall. My counter argument was that Egypt was destined to blow up, but the longer one sat on it to keep it from blowing up, the worse the explosion. So let it go, and hope for the best.


----------



## tocqueville

SG_67 said:


> Are you suggesting that Hamas only cares about the photo op created by dead civilians and not really looking out for the interests of their brethren?


Yes. I am. That's the standard MO of all terrorist groups (or radicals, or whatever you want to call them.) Attack, provoke a reaction, and then use that reaction to stir up sympathy. It's insurgency 101.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Yes. I am. That's the standard MO of all terrorist groups (or radicals, or whatever you want to call them.) Attack, provoke a reaction, and then use that reaction to stir up sympathy. It's insurgency 101.


Alternatively :-

Israel MO.

Start a war at a time that suits. Occupy land. Do not return it.

Establish " facts on the ground" -possible bargaining crumbs, or more likely elements of a Greater Israel. Less land for Palestinians will help with ethnic cleansing too.

Win win.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> Alternatively :-
> 
> Israel MO.
> 
> Start a war at a time that suits. Occupy land. Do not return it.
> 
> Establish " facts on the ground" -possible bargaining crumbs, or more likely elements of a Greater Israel. Less land for Palestinians will help with ethnic cleansing too.
> 
> Win win.


I know you would rejoice if it were the Jews being ethnically cleansed.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> I know you would rejoice if it were the Jews being ethnically cleansed.


Typical Hasbara reply.

You really are unfit to be a moderator.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> Typical Hasbara reply.
> 
> You really are unfit to be a moderator.


What the hell does that mean? Hasbara reply? Where does your hatred come from, Kingstonian?


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> What the hell does that mean? Hasbara reply?


Don't play the innocent.

You know exactly what it means.


----------



## tocqueville

No, I don't. I don't live in your fantasy world.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> What the hell does that mean? Hasbara reply? Where does your hatred come from, Kingstonian?


So refuting snide comments is hatred now?


----------



## tocqueville

No, your hatred is hatred, and behind your snide remark there's clearly more than a modicum of contempt. And I still don't know what you mean by Hasbara reply.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> No, I don't. I don't live in your fantasy world.


You visit Israel yet you do not know what Hasbara is?

Pull the other one....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


----------



## maltimad

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, it does mean that. If they think they are acting in the name of Allah and following the Koran, then that is what they are doing. Otehr mulims may not like it or agree with it and may tell them they are in the wrong. But no one is in a position to tell them they are not acting in the name if Islam is that is what they truly believe.
> 
> If we use your logic then every single Protestant and Dissenter from the Reformation to roday is in the wrong because they all said they were acting in Christ's name and following the Bible, but the Vatican, the Christian authority of the day, told them they were wrong. But they didn't listen and went on to create dozens of new Christian denominations.


I still maintain that their understanding of Islam is flawed (perhaps by design)...but the populist and open structure of Islam (with respect to a lack of central authority) does not, you're right, allow a Pope-like person of authority to absolutely speak for the entire religion when condemning them and telling them they're wrong.

So, the best answer is they're far out of the mainstream. EXTREMELY. Far enough that most all other Muslims (except other violent groups) would not consider them Muslims - precisely because of the violence they perpetrate on innocent people. That just about ALL other (I'd say 'actual') Muslims ridicule and dismiss the idea of al-Baghdadi (ISIS leader) as the new Caliph (worldwide head of Muslims, and thus successor of the Prophet Muhammad) underscores this.

And thus in evaluating the whole of a non-structured (meaning unlike a defined hierarchical system like Catholicism, for example) religion like Islam, the followers as a whole must be considered - or as close to the whole as possible: all one billion plus of them. And in so doing, it's clear that terrorism of any sort, especially ones that claim to acting in the name of Islam, is condemned - or at the very least opposed.

That those opposing and condemning voices don't seem to merit as much airtime and publicity as crazy ramblings and senseless acts of violence is as much a fault of the wishes of those media vehicles as it is of the wants of their audience.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## tocqueville

Sorry, never heard of it. Only in your dark mind is there a Zionist plot to control the media. I guess I have to be a Hasbara troll if I take offense at your arguments and disagree with what probably passes as perfectly acceptable hatred in your world.

Should I say in response to you, "typical Hamas troll"?


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> You visit Israel yet you do not know what Hasbara is?
> 
> Pull the other one....
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/jan/09/israel-foreign-ministry-media


Actually, let's deconstruct this comment, shall we? Kingstonian assumes that if I visit Israel, I must be collaborating with an arm of the Israeli government. Kingstonian, why would you think that?


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Sorry, never heard of it. Only in your dark mind is there a Zionist plot to control the media. I guess I have to be a Hasbara troll if I take offense at your arguments and disagree with what probably passes as perfectly acceptable hatred in your world.
> 
> Should I say in response to you, "typical Hamas troll"?


Surely you can do better than that?


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Actually, let's deconstruct this comment, shall we? Kingstonian assumes that if I visit Israel, I must be collaborating with an arm of the Israeli government. Kingstonian, why would you think that?


Feigned ignorance of Hasbara does not sit easily with other things you have stated. At least you are confirming that you visit Israel. I thought you might try to deny that too.

Would it be easier if I just said " you are lying" like you said to Chouan a while back?


----------



## maltimad

SG_67 said:


> I understand your sentiment, however, your analogy is a bit off. If you were to all of a sudden without any prior impetus or precedent start doing those actions in the name of Earl of Oromonde, then I would agree with you. But this analogy is incorrect.
> 
> The problem is that we're talking about one person vs. a religion, which transcends any one person. Here is an example of something which tries to put it into perspective:
> 
> https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm
> 
> One can argue whether or not this needs to be interpreted more carefully or in a more nuanced manner, but do you see how a group like ISIS or Boko Haram can say that they are following Islam?
> 
> So it is not as though Islamic call to violence is not without historical or scriptural precedent. The actual text and scripture are being used to this end.


The reason that websites such as the one you linked claim that Islam is inherently a violent religion is the same reason that ISIS/Boko Haram/etc. use to justify their actions: cherry-picked and purposefully out-of-context verses of the Quran.

For example, the first verse discussed in the page you linked starts of with verse 002.191. The author (conveniently) leaves out the verse immediately preceding, .002.190: which specifically states that 'Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits'. () This means that the following verses deal with warfare started by an opposing force, and that war is to be made under strict limits. So that which is stated in .002.191 is not a blanket directive to fight unbelievers (which by the way as a side note in this context are not Christians or Jews, rather polytheists). This is just one example.

You may or may not know this, but the website you linked has a specific goal of discrediting Islam, which it considers a destructive force. See the 'About' section. And the website and its owners are free to say whatever they say about anything. However, it should not be considered a balanced and neutral source, as it will present only those verses that will help its cause (similar MO as ISIS and other such groups, it seems) - and leaving out those that present the former verses in a clearer manner. The source I linked to, to which the website you linked also does incidentally, actually contains the whole Quran, showing ALL its verses. If you're curious about what the Quran actually says - the WHOLE truth, as they say - its a good place to start:

And as with any religious text, the Quran absolutely does need to interpreted in a more careful or nuanced manner - not doing so is what ISIS/Boko Haram and Islamophobic websites and figures have in common.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## maltimad

tocqueville said:


> On the first point, I'd like to think you are right, but I am pessimistic about whether a retreat to '68 borders would do much good and that it might be as productive toward peace as Israel's retreat from Southern Lebanon and Gaza. I believe that Israel must do much, much more to strengthen Abbas and be more willing to take a chance on him, if for no other reason than that he represents the best option. There's a profound difference between him and Hamas, and I also think there's a profound difference between him and Arafat. Addressing the needs of Palestinians, it goes without saying, remains a moral imperative regardless. But anything Israel does is fraught with risk...Rabin had the guts, even Sharon at the end (Gaza), in his way. Barak, too. The current government seems to think that managing the problem is the least bad option. I don't agree, but I understand where the pessimism comes from.
> 
> Regarding Egypt, I share your assessment, and I think, this being Bastille Day, that one would be wise to remember that it took France roughly 80 years AFTER 1789 to become a stable democracy.
> 
> I think US support for Mubarak was about more than Israel but also is engagement/partnership in a host of security matters, most recently counter-terrorism. At a Government-to-Goverment level, he was a great ally. For that reason I know many who were angry with Obama for allegedly allowing Mubarak to fall. My counter argument was that Egypt was destined to blow up, but the longer one sat on it to keep it from blowing up, the worse the explosion. So let it go, and hope for the best.


Agreed regarding the differences between Abbas and Hamas, and Abbas and Arafat...and also with your assessments of Rabin, Sharon, and Barak. And I know you're not a particular fan of Netanyahu or his government. However, in addition to thinking that managing the problem is the least bad option, the longer that it takes to get a lasting peace and a Palestinian state, the more settlements that will be built. Expansion of settlements has been almost a constant of the Netanyahu government. Whether that's his/Likud's wishes or to appease his further-Right coalition members is open to interpretation. The end result is that more and more Palestinian land is being taken...and being taken by the most violence-prone, extremist Israelis.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> Feigned ignorance of Hasbara does not sit easily with other things you have stated. At least you are confirming that you visit Israel. I thought you might try to deny that too.
> 
> Would it be easier if I just said " you are lying" like you said to Chouan a while back?


You get stranger and stranger. Why would I feign ignorance of Hasbara? It must be vastly more important in your imagination than it is in reality: I live among journalists and analysts and people who live and breath middle east affairs and Israel stuff. I even know people who work at bona fide Jewish lobby groups (horrors!), yet no one has mentioned it once. You also seem to think the act of visiting Israel is somehow suspicious. Anyway, I'll fess up to having been there on several occasions and having lived there. In Jerusalem, to be exact, in the 1990s. I was a student. I was last there in 2007, I think, with my wife on holiday. Do you have a problem with that?


----------



## Odradek

tocqueville said:


> Why would I feign ignorance of Hasbara?


You just did.



tocqueville said:


> Sorry, never heard of it. Only in your dark mind is there a Zionist plot to control the media.


The US media do quite well on their own.

ABC News Apologizes After Making Big Israel-Palestine Error
Error?
Or policy?



> ABC News has said it will correct an error it made on Tuesday's edition of "World News," when it mischaracterized a picture of a Palestinian family dealing with the aftermath of an Israeli strike as an Israeli family coping from a Palestinian strike.This was the picture in question. It was taken by the AP's Khalil Hamra. The caption reads, "Palestinians try to salvage what they can of their belongings from the rubble of a house destroyed by an overnight Israeli airstrike in Gaza City Tuesday."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, on Tuesday's broadcast, Diane Sawyer told viewers that the picture showed "An Israeli family trying to salvage what they can"


I guess you're not seeing the photos of the child with half it's head blown off over there either.



tocqueville said:


> I live among journalists and analysts and people who live and breath middle east affairs and Israel stuff. I even know people who work at bona fide Jewish lobby groups (horrors!), yet no one has mentioned it once.


From your location in Washington DC, and your Zionist belligerence that goes without saying. Do you work for AIPAC or JINSA? Or some other, more shadowy agency?


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> You get stranger and stranger. Why would I feign ignorance of Hasbara? It must be vastly more important in your imagination than it is in reality: I live among journalists and analysts and people who live and breath middle east affairs and Israel stuff. I even know people who work at bona fide Jewish lobby groups (horrors!), yet no one has mentioned it once. You also seem to think the act of visiting Israel is somehow suspicious. Anyway, I'll fess up to having been there on several occasions and having lived there. In Jerusalem, to be exact, in the 1990s. I was a student. I was last there in 2007, I think, with my wife on holiday. Do you have a problem with that?


No I do not have a problem with that. I have been to Israel in the past.

What I have a problem with is your original reply. " What the hell does that mean? Hasbara reply"

Thanks for finally agreeing that you do know what it means - even if I had to draw you out to get the answer.


----------



## tocqueville

I know about Hasbara because you wrote about it. I read that Guardian article you posted. What's with you? I still don't understand why you'd assume I'm working for the Israeli government.?


----------



## tocqueville

Odradek said:


> You just did.
> 
> The US media do quite well on their own.
> 
> *ABC News Apologizes After Making Big Israel-Palestine Error*
> 
> Error?
> Or policy?
> 
> I guess you're not seeing the photos of the child with half it's head blown off over there either.
> 
> From your location in Washington DC, and your Zionist belligerence that goes without saying. Do you work for AIPAC or JINSA? Or some other, more shadowy agency?


Ooh, Zionist conspiracy theories much?


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> I know about Hasbara because you wrote about it. I read that Guardian article you posted. What's with you? I still don't understand why you'd assume I'm working for the Israeli government.?


Knocking out a few supportive words for Israel is not exactly the same as working for the Israeli government. There is usually no payment for a start.


----------



## tocqueville

Well, you'll have to enlighten me, since all this Hasbara business is new to me.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Well, you'll have to enlighten me, since all this Hasbara business is new to me.


First you do not know what Hasbara is.

Then you do.

Then you don't.

Make your mind up.


----------



## tocqueville

I know what it is because you mentioned it and I saw your link. Google helped as well.

I've never heard of it. And I find your accusation of my being Hasbara oddly pathological. So seem to think it's a big deal. Why is it so important to you that I must be hasbara?


----------



## tocqueville

Interesting, it seems that you're fond of calling people Hasbara trolls.
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...udy-US-is-an-oligarchy-not-a-democracy/page13

Oh, and you've called me that before:
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...udy-US-is-an-oligarchy-not-a-democracy/page13

What does it mean? What are you trying to say when you denounce people in this manner?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

tocqueville said:


> I know you would rejoice if it were the Jews being ethnically cleansed.


That's out of order, that is a horrible thing to accuse anyone of.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> I know what it is because you mentioned it and I saw your link. Google helped as well.
> 
> I've never heard of it. And I find your accusation of my being Hasbara oddly pathological. So seem to think it's a big deal. Why is it so important to you that I must be hasbara?


It seemed fairly obvious. I never said it was a big deal - a few keyboard Zionists who somehow think they are helping the cause.

It is just another strange phenomenon and one that is probably counter productive.


----------



## Kingstonian

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That's out of order, that is a horrible thing to accuse anyone of.


He has previous.

and yet he remains a moderator.

Go figure as they say in the USA.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Kingstonian said:


> He has previous.


He's got a 609 then, as we used to say in the Job. 

Usually went something like this on TV, "Guv he's got a 609 as long as a donkey's, most recently one across the pavement on The Hill, that gave him 5 in the Scrubs, a score of TDA's an' dippings, and a few B.O.Ps on his own manor, usually outside his local. He's been a busy boy!"


----------



## SG_67

maltimad said:


> The reason that websites such as the one you linked claim that Islam is inherently a violent religion is the same reason that ISIS/Boko Haram/etc. use to justify their actions: cherry-picked and purposefully out-of-context verses of the Quran.
> 
> For example, the first verse discussed in the page you linked starts of with verse 002.191. The author (conveniently) leaves out the verse immediately preceding, .002.190: which specifically states that 'Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits'. () This means that the following verses deal with warfare started by an opposing force, and that war is to be made under strict limits. So that which is stated in .002.191 is not a blanket directive to fight unbelievers (which by the way as a side note in this context are not Christians or Jews, rather polytheists). This is just one example.
> 
> You may or may not know this, but the website you linked has a specific goal of discrediting Islam, which it considers a destructive force. See the 'About' section. And the website and its owners are free to say whatever they say about anything. However, it should not be considered a balanced and neutral source, as it will present only those verses that will help its cause (similar MO as ISIS and other such groups, it seems) - and leaving out those that present the former verses in a clearer manner. The source I linked to, to which the website you linked also does incidentally, actually contains the whole Quran, showing ALL its verses. If you're curious about what the Quran actually says - the WHOLE truth, as they say - its a good place to start:
> 
> And as with any religious text, the Quran absolutely does need to interpreted in a more careful or nuanced manner - not doing so is what ISIS/Boko Haram and Islamophobic websites and figures have in common.
> 
> Peace and love to all, everywhere.


My point is not to validate the website. I'm merely stating that there is a doctrinal precedent for such violence and coupled with the relative backwardness of some of these cultures produces this very Hobbesian call to violence as the first means of political engagement.

Europe owes it's relative modernity to the Renaissance. The Islamic world has yet to undergo anything like this. While it enjoys the trappings of western technology and advancement, it has not developed the culture capable of integrating it and to coming to terms with it. It pretty much imports everything and so the culture has not been able to develop. The Islamic world is for the most part lost, without any organic means of advancement.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> My point is not to validate the website. I'm merely stating that there is a doctrinal precedent for such violence and coupled with the relative backwardness of some of these cultures produces this very Hobbesian call to violence as the first means of political engagement.
> 
> Europe owes it's relative modernity to the Renaissance. The Islamic world has yet to undergo anything like this. While it enjoys the trappings of western technology and advancement, it has not developed the culture capable of integrating it and to coming to terms with it. It pretty much imports everything and so the culture has not been able to develop. The Islamic world is for the most part lost, without any organic means of advancement.


I would say Europe owes it's relative modernity more to the Industrial Revolution. Before that, it was on a par with various other civilisations - Islamic, Chinese etc.

I will take your "Hobbesian call to violence" and counter with Jabotinsky' s Iron Wall philosophy. To summarise you do not negotiate with Arabs. You take what you want by force. Still has adherents today. It goes along with the view of Israel as a latter day Sparta, with a constant need for a militaristic ethos and with young men wandering around with machine guns on a piece of string.


----------



## Kingstonian

Earl of Ormonde said:


> He's got a 609 then, as we used to say in the Job.
> 
> Usually went something like this on TV, "Guv he's got a 609 as long as a donkey's, most recently one across the pavement on The Hill, that gave him 5 in the Scrubs, a score of TDA's an' dippings, and a few B.O.Ps on his own manor, usually outside his local. He's been a busy boy!"


Along with " We' re the Sweeney son and we have'nt had any dinner" ?


----------



## tocqueville

Earl of Ormonde said:


> That's out of order, that is a horrible thing to accuse anyone of.


'Tis, but it is how I perceive Kingstonian's point of view. He seems brimming with hate.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> 'Tis, but it is how I perceive Kingstonian's point of view. He seems brimming with hate.


It's a wonder I can sleep at night.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> It's a wonder I can sleep at night.


I know, haunted as you are by Hasbara trolls. The uneasy sleep of the antisemite.


----------



## maltimad

SG_67 said:


> My point is not to validate the website. I'm merely stating that there is a doctrinal precedent for such violence and coupled with the relative backwardness of some of these cultures produces this very Hobbesian call to violence as the first means of political engagement.
> 
> Europe owes it's relative modernity to the Renaissance. The Islamic world has yet to undergo anything like this. While it enjoys the trappings of western technology and advancement, it has not developed the culture capable of integrating it and to coming to terms with it. It pretty much imports everything and so the culture has not been able to develop. The Islamic world is for the most part lost, without any organic means of advancement.


There is a doctrinal precedent for violence when necessary to defend oneself. The same Quran that provides that precedent also provides strict limits and guidelines. So to focus on the violence while ignoring the limits exemplifies selective reading I mentioned earlier. ISIS/whomever is as guilty of this as anyone else who does it.

You and I discussed culture a few posts earlier, and I think now as I did then that culture is a part of it. I don't know that I'd use 'backward'...but more like 'belligerent' or 'martial'. A disagreement in California might start with passive-aggressive online postings and end with a lawsuit...but a similar disagreement in Appalachia might start with yelling publicly and end with firearms. Yeah, I know I just stereotyped and denigrated out the wazoo here, but you see what I'm saying? The more martial and less compromising Arab cultures are like the backwoods hill folk over there. As Kingstonian pointed out, Arabs aren't the only ones like this. I'd argue many of the settlers who harass and attack Palestinians simply because they can fit also this description as well. They are less prone to talking and discussing things out...but they are not the only people there. There are many folks willing to talk, discuss, compromise, and try to arrive at a middle ground. As tocqueville pointed out, those people are on both sides...Rabin was one, Sharon kind of was one, Abbas seems to be one - if only he found a fully willing partner on the other side.

As you know from your Hobbes, the famous passage ending in '...nasty, brutish, and short' is his idea of what happens without a civil society established by consent of the people involved therein. I'd argue that that civil society is precisely what's missing in the Middle East. Ever since these individual countries were carved out of former Ottoman holdings (at the whim of European nations, with little to no input from the people living in those places), these countries have gone from Ottoman empire control, to European-backed unelected monarchs and/or strongman dictators and (at least initially) European/American control of their economic resources. Until very recently (post-Arab Spring elections), there were no opportunities in these countries to genuinely choose their own leaders and government. And our governments in the West, always espousing the goodness of democracy and holding ourselves up as the bastions of democracy had and have no problem supporting these oppressive governments - as long we get our oil, and as long as they buy our weapons.

If someone here in the US has a problem, they can do all sorts of things to garner attention and reach his/her government. Unless s/he's being violent or trampling the rights of others, his right to do whatever he feels he needs is protected. He can speak against the state all s/he wants. If s/he finds enough like-minded people in a given electorate, s/he can influence or even change part of government through sheer votes. None of that exists in most of the countries in question. Sometimes, it works out okay, decent - Jordan being the best example. And this is why almost no one was calling for the downfall of government in that country. Most of the time though, it's a mess.

Of course, this wouldn't be possible if the leaders of these nations actually cared about their people and countries as much as they cared about staying in power. But they don't - if they did, they wouldn't oppress dissent among their own people as they do. In that sort of environment, violence against the oppressor is often the only method of getting the state to pay attention. Violence in any form that's not strict self-defense against actual attackers is wrong, but the situation is what it is. Wrong, and in dire need of improvement, and everyone from the autocrats to their foreign backers are complicit. The people caught up in the middle suffer. My point: that violence you mentioned isn't from cultural backwardness as much as a lack of opportunities to express any dissent in a non-violent way. In many of these places, violence isn't the first means of political engagement. Thanks to the oppressive policies of their largely Western-backed governments, its sometimes the ONLY way.

We often hear the line that the US and Americans should stand with Israel because it's one of the few, if not the only democracy in the Middle East. That always makes me laugh. Especially when the Occupied Territories - even though they're not even a country yet - actually hold open, consequential elections. And somehow supporting Israel because it's a democracy also means automatically not supporting Palestine. Not necessarily (always) the government line, but a popular view, nonetheless. There are many reasons to support Israel, sure - but that particular one is a farce. Yes, Israel is a democracy. But if democracy is so important, why are we in US and most of Europe supportive of the very non-democratic nations of Saudi Arabia, Mubarak-era Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq (sometimes - it depends if they're fighting someone we like even less or not), Kuwait, etc? Of course, you know the answer is oil, and making sure nothing and no one gets in the way of us getting the oil we need. If the method to ensure oil access and delivery involves weapons bought from us, all the better.

This isn't the first time we've ignored democracy when it comes time to our national interests. Our government militarily and economically supported the various Central and South American right-wing military dictatorships that massacred their own people in the name of fighting communism. We actively overthrew elected leaders whose plans to improve their nations somehow involved not kowtowing to US companies or economic interests and actuallly trying to get fair deal for their own natural resources. (Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossadegh in Iran). If we're going to do that, then let's at least be honest about it - and not paint ourselves as the champion of democracy, and not hypocritically use democracy as a bellwether for whether we support a nation or not.

That I have a right to say this about my own country with legal impunity - and can get like-minded folks together if I want and say so loudly is one of the many things that separates the US and the West in general from the Middle East. Who's standing in the way of this happening there? Their largely Western-backed leaders. A despicable bunch, for the most part. And lending dishonor to anyone who associates with them. Their people in general would love to have such freedoms though, who wouldn't?

I hope though that the Arab Spring and the public popular political movements (nascent and incomplete though they still are) are the beginning of a process that will let the citizens of the countries in question here have the same rights you and I enjoy. It won't be easy and it won't be quick - but very few things worth doing are. Time and youth are on the side of reform. Old contrarians die, and young folks never stop being born. I remain hopeful for meaningful change in my lifetime.

Wow, that's a lot of words. Thanks for hanging with me all this way if you're still reading  I definitely am a believer in the catharsis of writing.

Secondly, I'm not sure I follow what's bad about importing things. Most of the Middle East (not necessarily the whole Muslim world - Malaysia and Indonesia, for example, don't fall under this problem) is very resource-poor, aside from hydrocarbons and light agriculture, animals and the like. So if they need something, and they have the money to import it, why not? Now to be sure, I'm deeply opposed to the exploitation of guest workers that routinely happen in these countries. But importation in general? Maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Also, I'm unclear on the inability to integrate technology and coming to terms with it. I just don't know what that's supposed to mean. Please help me understand, when you get a chance.

On that note, though, I'm exiting this thread, at least temporarily. I'm on vacation staring tomorrow - and hopefully far away from anything that connects to the internet  Earl, SG, Tocqueville, we agree on some things, and not on others - but thanks all the same for the discussion and keeping things largely civil. Kingstonian and Chouan, thanks for supporting the points that you did support. If the thread continues, and I have a strong feeling it will, please enjoy further discussion. I may pick it back up post-vacation.

I hope you all keep an open mind, and seek justice and what's right and the whole truth. Not just on this topic, but all topics. And of course, treat the other person as you would want him to treat you.

Bye.

Peace and love to all, everywhere.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> I know, haunted as you are by Hasbara trolls. The uneasy sleep of the antisemite.



I log on after a good night's sleep and find you are back on the antisemite shtick again. At least "brimming with hate" was an interesting variation of words.

The name-calling says more about you than it does me.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I know, haunted as you are by Hasbara trolls. The uneasy sleep of the antisemite.


You're very, very quick with the accusations of hate and anti-semite stuff, unhealthily so.
As has been said earlier, there is previous on this.


----------



## Shaver

I am minded of the clash over the disputed territories currently occupied by Formicidae and the chemical weapons being employed to exterminate them. However I do not wish to be accused of speciesism or worse:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

tocqueville said:


> I know, haunted as you are by Hasbara trolls. The uneasy sleep of the antisemite.


For a moderator, you do a lot of hurtful name calling. Very inappropriate.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> I see a bizarre willingness to turn a blind eye toward what Hamas is and wants, not to mention the kind of racism and hatred it embodies. The same is true in Chouan's timeline. Chouan, what do I see? I see 1) very little understanding of the protagonists on the Israeli side, 2) a remarkably one-sided narrative of the events, and 3) no grasp that Israel has little reason to think that radical concessions that will only make it more vulnerable will in fact be worth while. "Surrender ground, for then you will be safe." Sure.


Why should I show understanding of one view point or another in my timeline? It is a basic timeline and there's nothing false or wrong in it. I've asked you to point out errors, and you have failed to do so, all you've commented on is my viewpoint, not my accuracy. Again, straw man is being used, as I've never suggested that Israel should surrender ground. What I have repeatedly said is that Israel should stop seizing ground, a different thing altogether. I've also noted that not once have you ever addressed the racist double-standard with which Israel treats the Palestinians within Israel. Does your silence mean that you think that Palestinians being treated as second class citizens by Israel is a good thing?



tocqueville said:


> Chouan, you always cry "Strawman" when I suggest that *what you're implicitly arguing for (Kinstonian's explicit) is for Israel to accept defeat and death in your arguments against Israeli's right to defend itself*, but I don't see it that way.


I often cry straw man when you put words into my mouth that I didn't say, or suggest positions that I haven't suggested. Again the highlighted stuff is straw man, because I have never argued against Israel's right to defend itself. Of course you don't see it that way, because of your grotesquely biased view point.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> ​
> I log on after a good night's sleep and find you are back on the antisemite shtick again. At least "brimming with hate" was an interesting variation of words.
> 
> The name-calling says more about you than it does me.


Typical hamas troll. Hey, look, i've learned something from you.


----------



## tocqueville

Chouan said:


> Why should I show understanding of one view point or another in my timeline? It is a basic timeline and there's nothing false or wrong in it. I've asked you to point out errors, and you have failed to do so, all you've commented on is my viewpoint, not my accuracy. Again, straw man is being used, as I've never suggested that Israel should surrender ground. What I have repeatedly said is that Israel should stop seizing ground, a different thing altogether. I've also noted that not once have you ever addressed the racist double-standard with which Israel treats the Palestinians within Israel. Does your silence mean that you think that Palestinians being treated as second class citizens by Israel is a good thing?
> 
> I often cry straw man when you put words into my mouth that I didn't say, or suggest positions that I haven't suggested. Again the highlighted stuff is straw man, because I have never argued against Israel's right to defend itself. Of course you don't see it that way, because of your grotesquely biased view point.


Arguments of who's biased can go both ways. You started this thread. And it wasn't about the three teenagers who got killed, one of whom is a us citizen. You all think its normal to make offensive statements because everyone you know agrees with you. I don't.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Arguments of who's biased can go both ways. You started this thread. And it wasn't about the three teenagers who got killed, one of whom is a us citizen. You all think its normal to make offensive statements because everyone you know agrees with you. I don't.


Seems to me that you are the one with the problem.

All you have left now are empty accusations of bias against those who disagree with you.


----------



## tocqueville

So let's make a gentlemen's agreement. You stop posting about the middle east. I'll lay off. There, a cease fire.


----------



## Odradek

tocqueville said:


> So let's make a gentlemen's agreement. You stop posting about the middle east. I'll lay off. There, a cease fire.


And will you stop posting about the Middle East, or are you paid a salary to do it?
I'm sure if people stopped commenting on Israel's crimes it would suit you just fine.
Nothing to see here folks, move along.


----------



## Kingstonian

Anyway, back to the subject in hand.

Lets look at some Jewish historians views on post 1948 developments.

Avi Shlaim :-

"They failed to grasp that Jabotinsky's concept included the idea that once Israel had proved its 'iron wall' it could then negotiate effectively from a position of strength. Those such as Yitzhak Shamir were, however, fixed in a mindset of toughness and 'conceived of the iron wall as a bulwark against change and as an instrument for keeping the Palestinians in a permanent state of subservience to Israel.' (p.599) Naturally, considering the theme of Iron Wall, Shlaim is particularly harsh on Binyamin Netanyahu's period in office which he describes, bluntly, as 'Back to the Iron Wall'. Shlaim argues that Jabotinsky inspired Netanyahu with a Manichaean vision of a never-ending conflict with the Arabs. Under Netanyahu, history was 'rewritten from a Revisionist perspective in order to demonstrate that it was not the Jews who usurped the land from the Arabs, but the Arabs who usurped it from the Jews."

https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/153

So hard liners are not looking for accommodation. Peace talks are left there as a fairly transparent fig leaf. US funds Israel and acts not as an honest broker but more as Israel's lawyer.

Meanwhile ultra hard liners push for more settlements and a Greater Israel.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> So let's make a gentlemen's agreement. You stop posting about the middle east. I'll lay off. There, a cease fire.


Running scared now?


----------



## Kingstonian

Not all Jews are Zionist apologists for Israeli government hard liners.

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> Not all Jews are Zionist apologists for Israeli government hard liners.
> 
> https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org


Is that what i am? Have you read my posts? Perhaps you are doing to me what Chouan accuses me of doing to him.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Is that what i am? Have you read my posts? Perhaps you are doing to me what Chouan accuses me of doing to him.


I will leave it for others to decide what you are. Though I could safely bet that you are not a paid up member of Jewish Voices For Peace.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> Arguments of who's biased can go both ways. You started this thread. And it wasn't about the three teenagers who got killed, one of whom is a us citizen. You all think its normal to make offensive statements because everyone you know agrees with you. I don't.


It was about the US citizen, a teenager, being given a serious beating by Israeli security forces, which most American members who have posted in this forum seem to be happy about.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> It was about the US citizen, a teenager, being given a serious beating by Israeli security forces, which most American members who have posted in this forum seem to be happy about.


Beating of innocents is never something to defend. Whether this is a case of an innocent having been beaten is yet to be determined.

How's that?


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> So hard liners are not looking for accommodation. Peace talks are left there as a fairly transparent fig leaf. US funds Israel and acts not as an honest broker but more as Israel's lawyer.
> 
> Meanwhile ultra hard liners push for more settlements and a Greater Israel.


Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. Would it not also be true of the other side?


----------



## Hitch




----------



## tocqueville

Great stuff on Egyptian TV, which seems to be more honest than Hamas's European apologists:


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Let's say for the sake of argument that this is true. Would it not also be true of the other side?


You need to be more explicit. "The other side" are not looking for Greater Israel.

If you mean other side's violence, you can see that as a cause, or reactive.

Either way, it is "whataboutery" and gets us precisely nowhere.


----------



## tocqueville

I like the term.

No, it gets one everywhere if it leads one to be able to see the other side, which I think is essential to finding a solution. You don't seem to acknowledge that there is another side.

Let's turn your argument around:

A: Palestinians are to blame for everything. They just want to kill Jews and aren't interested in a compromise.
B: Yes, but would it not also be true of the other side?
A: Well, you can see the other side's violence as a cause or reactive, but either way it's "whataboutery" and gets us precisely nowhere.


----------



## tocqueville

By the way, on the subject of bias, I offer a joke and two variants:

A man walks into a psychologist's office and says, Doc, you have to help me, people say I'm obsessed with sex. The doctor says, "ok, let's talk about that." The doctor draws two vertical parallel lines on a paper and shows it to the man. "Now tell me, what do you see?" The man says, "that's easy, that's two people standing up having sex." Then the doctor draws two horizontal lines. "Now tell me, what do you see?" "Obviously, that's two people lying down, having sex." The doctor says, "I'm sorry, it's true, you are obsessed with sex." The man responds, "What, me? But you're the one drawing dirty pictures."

Now, a variant: A man walks into a doctor's office and says, doc, you got to help me, "Tocque says I'm an anti-Semite." The doctor says, "ok, let's talk about that." The doctor draws two vertical parallel lines on a paper and shows it to the man. "Now tell me, what do you see?" The man says, "that's easy, that's a Jew beating up an Arab." Then the doctor draws two horizontal lines. "Now tell me, what do you see?" "Obviously, that's a Jew smothering an Arab." The doctor says, "I'm sorry, it's true, you are an anti-Semite." The man responds, "What, me? But you're the one drawing Zionist propaganda."

Again: A man walks into a doctor's office and says, doc, you got to help me, "Kingstonian says I'm a Hasbara troll." The doctor says, "ok, let's talk about that." The doctor draws two vertical parallel lines on a paper and shows it to the man. "Now tell me, what do you see?" The man says, "that's easy, that's an Arab beating up a Jew." Then the doctor draws two horizontal lines. "Now tell me, what do you see?" "Obviously, that's an Arab smothering a Jew." The doctor says, "I'm sorry, it's true, you are a Hasbara troll." The man responds, "What, me? But you're the one drawing anti-Semitic pictures."

I'm not quite sure what i'm trying to say, but I think there's something to it.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> I'm not quite sure what i'm trying to say, but I think there's something to it.


Doctor I am seeing two things.

1. A man clutching at straws.

2. A man content with the existing status quo, who does not want to move things forward.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> Doctor I am seeing two things.
> 
> 1. A man clutching at straws.
> 
> 2. A man content with the existing status quo, who does not want to move things forward.


Then you, sir, are imagining things. Vilifying the other side does not help.


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> Beating of innocents is never something to defend. Whether this is a case of an innocent having been beaten is yet to be determined.
> 
> How's that?


So, if the teenager on the ground being beaten and kicked is guilty of something, then that's fine?


----------



## Langham

^ Thank you for your jokes, Tocqueville. :biggrin:


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Then you, sir, are imagining things. Vilifying the other side does not help.


You are funny.

You read the bit about whataboutery and state that it is a good thing.

Then you pointedly ignore it and carry on as usual.


----------



## tocqueville

Please. You're basically rejecting the entire notion that maybe there are two sides as "whataboutery." So, there can only be one side, your side, and everything else is irrelevent because it is "whataboutery." So, in your spirit, I will refuse to look at any alternative sides to any claims I make, because doing so would be whataboutery.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> So, if the teenager on the ground being beaten and kicked is guilty of something, then that's fine?


If the teenager on the ground has thrown bricks at police, then the police are within their rights to bring the teenager to a place where he can be appropriately managed for arrest. I wasn't there, so don't know whether he could have been brought to such a place without physical means. Nor do I know whether the teenager had done anything warranting police attention.

I'm assuming nothing regarding actions of the teenager, nor of the response of the police. "Beating and kicking" can be the criminal's accusation of physical restraint by police when he's looking to accuse the police of malfeasance ... but again, I'm in no way accusing the young man of making a false claim.


----------



## tocqueville

I'm hooked on Hamas state tv. It's so much better than Spike:


----------



## Odradek

Kingstonian said:


> You are funny.
> 
> You read the bit about whataboutery and state that it is a good thing.
> 
> Then you pointedly ignore it and carry on as usual.


That's his job.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> Please. You're basically rejecting the entire notion that maybe there are two sides as "whataboutery." So, there can only be one side, your side, and everything else is irrelevent because it is "whataboutery." So, in your spirit, I will refuse to look at any alternative sides to any claims I make, because doing so would be whataboutery.


I am not sure if you are trying to be wilfully ignorant now.

Whataboutery is the avoidance of uncomfortable arguments by raising counterclaims/old grievances against the other side.

That is precisely what you do.

That and name calling when the going gets tough.


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> I am not sure if you are trying to be wilfully ignorant now.
> 
> Whataboutery is the avoidance of uncomfortable arguments by raising counterclaims/old grievances against the other side.
> 
> That is precisely what you do.
> 
> That and name calling when the going gets tough.


And what if the counterclaims and grievances are valid? Does that not matter to you? Are you capable of conceiving of a reality in which there's _some_ truth to both claims and counter claims?


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> And what if the counterclaims and grievances are valid? Does that not matter to you? Are you capable of conceiving of a reality in which there's _some_ truth to both claims and counter claims?


The use of counterclaims to duck uncomfortable issues is "whataboutery"

The veracity of the counterclaims is a different matter altogether.

"communities use the terrible burden of past events to lay obstacles in the way of peace.

Evasion may not be the intention but it is the obvious effect. It occurs when individuals are confronted with a difficult or uncomfortable question. The respondent retrenches his/her position and rejigs the question, being careful to pick open a sore point on the part of questioner's 'tribe'. He/she then fires the original query back at the inquirer."


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> If the teenager on the ground has thrown bricks at police, then the police are within their rights to bring the teenager to a place where he can be appropriately managed for arrest. I wasn't there, so don't know whether he could have been brought to such a place without physical means. Nor do I know whether the teenager had done anything warranting police attention.
> 
> I'm assuming nothing regarding actions of the teenager, nor of the response of the police. "Beating and kicking" can be the criminal's accusation of physical restraint by police when he's looking to accuse the police of malfeasance ... but again, I'm in no way accusing the young man of making a false claim.


Did you bother to look at the film? If not, here's a clearer view.




Does this look like a teenager being "appropriately managed for arrest" or is he being subjected to "Beating and kicking"? If this were your son, or brother, would you think the same as you've expressed above?


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> The use of counterclaims to duck uncomfortable issues is "whataboutery"
> 
> The veracity of the counterclaims is a different matter altogether.
> 
> "communities use the terrible burden of past events to lay obstacles in the way of peace.
> 
> Evasion may not be the intention but it is the obvious effect. It occurs when individuals are confronted with a difficult or uncomfortable question. The respondent retrenches his/her position and rejigs the question, being careful to pick open a sore point on the part of questioner's 'tribe'. He/she then fires the original query back at the inquirer."


You've found an effective device for shutting down dialogue, Kingstonian.

Here is the uncomfortable argument that you have been avoiding: The people you are apologizing for are deliberately targeting civilians. More to the point, they are trying to kill my family. That is their objective.


----------



## Hitch

*Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: *"We face a very, very brutal terrorist enemy. Here's the difference between us: We're using missile defense to protect our civilians and they're using civilians to protect their missiles. That's basically the difference&#8230; The rocketeers are firing from homes. These are command posts of the Hamas and Islamic jihad army&#8230; Obviously we're not going to give them immunity. So we have to attack them. And we try to minimize it, as we can, civilian causalities&#8230; We've tried surgical action. We're not indiscriminate. It's very tough. There's always civilian causalities, which we regret. But we have to defend our people and that's what we'll do."


----------



## justonemore

tocqueville said:


> You've found an effective device for shutting down dialogue, Kingstonian.
> 
> Here is the uncomfortable argument that you have been avoiding: The people you are apologizing for are deliberately targeting civilians. More to the point, they are trying to kill my family. That is their objective.


How many are dead in Israel compared to Palistine? No politics, only numbers? What are the miltary capibilities of Israel and Palistine? Who gains the most by these "clashes"? What country is denied fresh water, fresh food, building supplies, medical supplies etc? What country has encroached on the others territory? What country was placed there by U.N. mandate over B.S. religious reasons and has dispaced the actual résidents? Which country continues to displace these people for the advantage of their own? What country continues to build in places that have been denied by the international community? What country refuses to admit or deny thier fault in doing so? What country has attacked and killed those aboard international ships trying to give basic supplies on a humanitarian basis? What country has attacked the U.S. naval ship liberty?

That's just a start.... There are many more questions that come down to the "peaceful" reasoning that Israel deploys.


----------



## Kingstonian

tocqueville said:


> You've found an effective device for shutting down dialogue, Kingstonian.
> 
> Here is the uncomfortable argument that you have been avoiding: The people you are apologizing for are deliberately targeting civilians. More to the point, they are trying to kill my family. That is their objective.


You are the one that does not want dialogue.

Ineffectual rocket attacks on Israel, with no fatalities, are welcomed as an excuse to respond with disproportionate force. Huge numbers die, women, children, it makes no difference. Pleas for moderation are ignored because the USA backs Israel. Ultimate aim is to force Palestinians out, establish facts on the ground and declare new boundaries for Greater Israel. Not publicly stated of course, but clear for all to see

As Ariel Sharon stated

"Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> As Ariel Sharon stated
> 
> "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."


One of many Israeli quotes against America that many Americans seem to ignore (or aren't knowlegeable about).


----------



## tocqueville

Kingstonian said:


> You are the one that does not want dialogue.
> 
> Ineffectual rocket attacks on Israel, with no fatalities, are welcomed as an excuse to respond with disproportionate force. Huge numbers die, women, children, it makes no difference. Pleas for moderation are ignored because the USA backs Israel. Ultimate aim is to force Palestinians out, establish facts on the ground and declare new boundaries for Greater Israel. Not publicly stated of course, but clear for all to see
> 
> As Ariel Sharon stated
> 
> "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."


Welcomed as an excuse? Really?

We're done here. Stay away from my children.


----------



## Chouan

More here:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldpolitics/comments/1v0zxu
https://www.rense.com/general91/nnet.htm


----------



## Kingstonian

The moderator has only phoney indignation to offer in response to statements about the Israeli casus belli.


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> The moderator has only phoney indignation to offer in response to statements about the Israeli casus belli.


It's the "everyone is wrong but me" attitude... The majority of the globe states that Israel is in the wrong, but Israel states that they are in the right. What's worse is that they have an International bully backing them up. As disgusting as it is, Israel thinks that there is a "Right through might" clause that is backing them up on the slaughter of Palestinians. Although they love to cry "anti-semitism" when the world is critcal (even small time calls for boycotting Israeli goods), should the reverse be true with their Neighbors, they would be calling.....ooopps..."anti-semitism".... It's a "we win, you lose" situation. I have no problem supporting an independant Israel but certainly not an aggresive, "we do what we want, and you do what we want" Israel.


----------



## Kingstonian

More on phoney excuses for Israeli violence, from a Jewish source:-

https://forward.com/articles/201764/how-politics-and-lies-triggered-an-unintended-war?p=1

Seven years of comparative peace for Israeli citizens while the Palestinians live in the world's biggest open prison.


----------



## Chouan

tocqueville said:


> We're done here. Stay away from my children.


That's an unpleasant, and ridiculous thing to write, with really nasty overtones.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> That's an unpleasant, and ridiculous thing to write, with really nasty overtones.


For Tocqueville, it is not out of character.

and he is still - surprisingly - a moderator on this board.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Kingstonian said:


> As Ariel Sharon stated
> 
> "Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."


Even cursory research reveals that it is doubtful that Sharon ever said such a thing.


----------



## Kingstonian

Mike Petrik said:


> Even cursory research reveals that it is doubtful that Sharon ever said such a thing.


Netanyahu has said made very similar statements. So not much doubt that I can see.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrtuBas3Ipw


----------



## Langham

Kingstonian said:


> Netanyahu has said made very similar statements. So not much doubt that I can see.
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrtuBas3Ipw


Where did you get the original quote from, that you attributed to Sharon? I've often been perplexed by the seemingly unconditional US support for Israel. I discount theories such as Jewish control of America's gold reserve, but who knows.


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Even cursory research reveals that it is doubtful that Sharon ever said such a thing.


Quite. An Israeli based website suggests that it is one of a series of fictitious quotes.


----------



## Chouan

Kingstonian said:


> For Tocqueville, it is not out of character.
> 
> and he is still - surprisingly - a moderator on this board.


Even if meant in jest, which I doubt, it is in very bad taste, at many levels.


----------



## Kingstonian

Langham said:


> Where did you get the original quote from, that you attributed to Sharon? I've often been perplexed by the seemingly unconditional US support for Israel. I discount theories such as Jewish control of America's gold reserve, but who knows.


It is widely reported. BBC World service is referenced here


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Thou shalt not kill.

KADDISH
May God's illustrious name become increasingly great and holy
In the world that God created according to God's will,
and may God establish God's kingdom 
In your lifetime and in your days
and in the lifetime of all the house of Israel
Speedily and soon. And let us say amen.
May God's illustrious name be blessed always and forever.
Blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, extolled
Honoured, raised up and acclaimed
be the name of the Holy one blessed be He
beyond every blessing hymn, praise and consolation
that is uttered in the world. And let us say amen.
May abundant peace from heaven, and life
Be upon us and upon all Israel. And let us say amen.
May God who makes peace in high places
Make peace upon us and upon all Israel,
And let us say amen.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Kingstonian said:


> It is widely reported. BBC World service is referenced here


Yes, but the word "referenced" does a lot of heavy lifting there doesn't it? What we have is a story about one man's putative recollection of a quote he heard on a BBC radio program broadcast in Wisconsin. Then, after further recollecting that he could not thereafter locate that quote anywhere at any BBC source, he quotes a former NYT reporter as offering the rather odd theory that American Jewish journalists must have buried it at the BBC. Now, it is possible that the quote and the alleged coverup are both true, but it is neither fair nor sensible to simply assume so. I am skeptical because I cannot locate any reliable report of it. It just is not that easy to bury things these days -- too many outlets for information both in media and academic circles. The reports I found were all from websites espousing points of view unabashably critical of Israel, and in each case the quote was simply repeated at face value without any apparent vetting at all.

That said, I readily admit to the possiblity that the quote is accurate (and certainly Israeli denials cannot be regarded as dispositive), and am more than happy to be directed to a reliable confirmation; but to to simply accept it as true because it corresponds with a preferred version of the facts seems to elevate scoring a debating point over searching for truth -- not that I've never succumbed to that temptation ;-).


----------



## Kingstonian

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but the word "referenced" does a lot of heavy lifting there doesn't it? What we have is a story about one man's putative recollection of a quote he heard on a BBC radio program broadcast in Wisconsin.


We do not have a tape recording - but the Netanyahu video is along the same lines. BBC have pulled charity appeals for Palestine under Israeli pressure and that is on record, so it is entirely possible that the Sharon story could be pulled for similar reasons. You either take on trust, or you do not. It is a footnote to this debate rather than the central issue.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> Did you bother to look at the film? If not, here's a clearer view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this look like a teenager being "appropriately managed for arrest" or is he being subjected to "Beating and kicking"? If this were your son, or brother, would you think the same as you've expressed above?


I don't believe in passing judgment based on YouTube videos taken (and edited) by persons unknown.


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> I don't believe in passing judgment based on YouTube videos taken (and edited) by persons unknown.











Easier that way, of course.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> Easier that way, of course.


Perhaps you can find any number of faked or altered videos to justify whatever point of view you wish to promote. But don't expect the less credulous among us to just accept such dreck at face value. Your little insulting imagery doesn't advance your debate in the least.

Clearly you don't like the state of Israel or its policies. That's fine; I don't like a lot of their policies, either. But I also don't like the policies and practices of Hamas. Do you claim that Hamas is blameless in the current conflict?


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> Perhaps you can find any number of faked or altered videos to justify whatever point of view you wish to promote. But don't expect the less credulous among us to just accept such dreck at face value. Your little insulting imagery doesn't advance your debate in the least.
> 
> _*Clearly you don't like the state of Israel*_ or its policies. That's fine; I don't like a lot of their policies, either. But I also don't like the policies and practices of Hamas. *Do you claim that Hamas is blameless in the current conflict*?


I would, perhaps should, have expected better. What makes you think that I think Hamas blameless? Another use of the straw man! I suppose that moving the argument away from the main thrust, where the situation is clear, to a rather more muddy area is something that those who lack argument might be inclined to do. The other straw man is the suggestion that I don't like the state (by which I'm assuming the country) of Israel. I've written nothing to suggest that. I suppose that you saying that implies a dislike on my part of Jews as well? I hope not as, apart from being offensive it would be another straw man. I'm getting used to all of these straw men though; their use also tend to reveal the lack of real argument on the part of the users.
Hamas, or rather Hamas' leadership, is persistently targeted by Israel's air attacks (more cases than I'd care to mention), but that doesn't mean that I think them blameless, afterall, they've given Israel the pretext that they were looking for.


----------



## MaxBuck

Chouan said:


> I would, perhaps should, have expected better. What makes you think that I think Hamas blameless? Another use of the straw man!


Bullshit. I asked the question, that's all. Putting words in others' mouths is your tactic, not mine.


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> Bullshit. I asked the question, that's all. Putting words in others' mouths is your tactic, not mine.


You said, and I quote *"**Clearly you don't like the state of Israel"*. Are you now denying that? Was that me putting words in your mouth, or was that what you said? Note the absence of offensive language in my post....... Where is a moderator when one needs one......


----------



## Chouan

Interesting report. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eenager-and-burning-him-to-death-9605371.html It doesn't appear that those charged have had their homes demolished yet. 
Just to remind people, the homes of two suspects, note, suspects, not people found guilty of, the murder of the three poor Israeli teenagers were demolished as a "punitive measure". https://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0701/627632-israel/ 
I think that we can assume that the homes of these people won't be demolished as a "punitive measure", can't we.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> Where is a moderator when one needs one......


Be careful what you wish for....


----------



## Gurdon

*non-moderation*

I have avoided participating in this discussion as I lack the aesthetic distance to contend with the multiple horrors involved, and, as a moderator, would rather not have to remind intelligent and decent individuals to temper their language, particularly to think twice before posting something deliberately hurtful or inflammatory.

Particularly on the Exchange, the line between moderation and censorship is difficult to discern. I value freedom of expression, even to the point of extreme, if not painful, excess. I have observed other comparably heated exchanges to eventually self-correct and I presume something like that will happen here.

Would that Earl of Ormond's solicitations to the diety might be answered.

Regards to all,
Gurdon

I'm in Montana for a few weeks. Standards of dress here are quite lax. I get to wear my White's and ratty espadrilles every day (not simultaneously). The days are long. It gets light between 4:30 and 5:00, and stays light till an hour after the 8:30 sunset.


----------



## Kingstonian

With the media conveniently diverted by the Malaysian plane incident, the ground invasion of Gaza begins.

Four children killed.

A hospital attacked.

Meanwhile, bloodthirsty Israelis gather to watch the spectacle unfold and cheer.


----------



## justonemore

Kingstonian said:


> With the media conveniently diverted by the Malaysian plane incident, the ground invasion of Gaza begins.
> 
> Four children killed.
> 
> A hospital attacked.
> 
> Meanwhile, bloodthirsty Israelis gather to watch the spectacle unfold and cheer.


And soon they'll ring up a civilian death toll greater than that of the Malaysian plane incident.


----------



## Odradek

Kingstonian said:


> With the media conveniently diverted by the Malaysian plane incident, the ground invasion of Gaza begins.
> 
> Four children killed.
> 
> A hospital attacked.
> 
> Meanwhile, bloodthirsty Israelis gather to watch the spectacle unfold and cheer.


Not just to wave and cheer, but to threaten the CNN reporter who saw them.

.
*Israeli Crowd Cheers as Missile Hits Gaza, Then Threatens CNN Reporter*

CNN's Diana Magnay, tweeted this and then deleted it about 20 minutes later.

No doubt she deleted it fearing being removed from her job, much like the NBC reporter who who started reporting the truth to Americans.

*NBC News Pulls Veteran Reporter from Gaza After Witnessing Israeli Attack on Children*



> _Indeed, numerous NBC employees, including some of the network's highest-profile stars, were at first confused and then indignant over the use of Engel rather than Mohyeldin to report the story. But what they did not know, and what has not been reported until now, is that Mohyeldin was removed completely from reporting on Gaza by a top NBC executive, David Verdi, who ordered Mohyeldin to leave Gaza immediately.
> Over the last two weeks, Mohyeldin's reporting has been far more balanced and even-handed than the standard pro-Israel coverage that dominates establishment American press coverage; his reports have provided context to the conflict that is missing from most American reports and he avoids adopting Israeli government talking points as truth. *As a result, neocon and "pro-Israel" websites have repeatedly attacked him **as a "Hamas spokesman" and spouting "pro-Hamas rants."*_


----------



## Chouan

Quite. More here.

It's very easy for Israel to say that Palestinians should move out when warned, but where are they to go in one of the most densely populated areas in the world?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/israel-us-caution-deaths-gaza-ground-fighting


----------



## Odradek

Chouan said:


> Quite. More here.
> 
> It's very easy for Israel to say that Palestinians should move out when warned, but where are they to go in one of the most densely populated areas in the world?
> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/israel-us-caution-deaths-gaza-ground-fighting


From ...



> "We are here to see Israel destroy Hamas," said Eli Chone, a 22-year-old American who lives in Israel.


The root of the problem. This 22 year old American ghoul has more rights than the families who've lived there for generations.
Go back to Brooklyn.









Sderot cinema. Israelis bringing chairs 2 hilltop in sderot 2 watch latest from Gaza. Clapping when blasts are heard. pic.twitter.com/WYZquV62O7


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/486954506517639170


----------



## SG_67

Opening battles of the civil war were also viewed as spectator sport.

This is why war is so ugly and what happens to a society that has become all too accustomed to it. The Palestinians behave much the same way. 

When people get used to conflict and war they become numb to it. Israelis are under constant attack or the threat of attack by Hamas. I think it's a bit silly for those of us in the west to evaluate the behavior through the lens of someone, or a nation, that is not under the constant and relentless threat of missile attacks. I'm sure that were a border town in Canada or Mexico the staging ground for constant missile attacks into the US we would probably feel much the same way and cheer as our forces retaliated to protect us.


----------



## Odradek

SG_67 said:


> Opening battles of the civil war were also viewed as spectator sport.
> 
> This is why war is so ugly and what happens to a society that has become all too accustomed to it. The Palestinians behave much the same way.


Do they really?



SG_67 said:


> When people get used to conflict and war they become numb to it. *Israelis are under constant attack or the threat of attack by Hamas.* I think it's a bit silly for those of us in the west to evaluate the behavior through the lens of someone, or a nation, that is not under the constant and relentless threat of missile attacks. I'm sure that were a border town in Canada or Mexico the staging ground for constant missile attacks into the US we would probably feel much the same way and cheer as our forces retaliated to protect us.


Maybe they should all go home then, and give the Palestinians their country back.

And, never let it be forgotten that Hamas was the creation of the Israelis themselves. Set up by Mossad to counter the PLO and Fatah.


----------



## Kingstonian

Where is the so-called Middle East Peace Envoy Tony B Liar when all this is going on?

He knows Palestinians will not line his pockets.

What does John Kerry have to say? Try to finish this business " as soon as possible".

That is really telling them.

No wonder the ZioNazi elements in the Israeli government feel they can do exactly as they please.


----------



## Odradek

Kingstonian said:


> No wonder the ZioNazi elements in the Israeli government feel they can do exactly as they please.


They've had 60 years of doing exactly as they please. Nobody say boo to them.



> _*Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother*_


- General Moshe Dayan


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan, the 3 monkeys analogy is apt, because there are always going to be people that are ALWAYS going to think that any distatstweful evidence is faked, it's just such an easy get out. Whether it's UFOs, apparitions or so called Israeli soldiers beating the **** out of people. However, have you noticed that whenever it is Arabs or other Muslims doing something distasteful the same Americans who say that Israeli or US violence caught on video is faked suddenly bleieve everything they're shown, especially if American troops are being mistreated.


----------



## Chouan

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-im-on-the-brink-of-burning-my-israeli-passport-9600165.html


----------



## Chouan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Chouan, the 3 monkeys analogy is apt, because there are always going to be people that are ALWAYS going to think that any distatstweful evidence is faked, it's just such an easy get out. Whether it's UFOs, apparitions or so called Israeli soldiers beating the **** out of people. However, have you noticed that whenever it is Arabs or other Muslims doing something distasteful the same Americans who say that Israeli or US violence caught on video is faked suddenly bleieve everything they're shown, especially if American troops are being mistreated.


Yes, it avoids having to think thoughts that might be unpleasant or discomforting.


----------



## Kingstonian

Chouan said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-im-on-the-brink-of-burning-my-israeli-passport-9600165.html


Not all Israelis are like that, but the moderate voices rarely get a look in. However, if you read the Israeli press you see more discussion of issues. Some stuff is just considered too sensitive for non Jews to read, so they suppress it.

"The Warmongers from the Hamptons" do not help either.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwsUT3YAgRc


----------



## Odradek

Kingstonian said:


> Not all Israelis are like that, but the moderate voices rarely get a look in. However, if you read the Israeli press you see more discussion of issues. Some stuff is just considered too sensitive for non Jews to read, so they suppress it.


Indeed, Haaretz have been caught out before with different versions of articles in it's English and Hebrew editions.

https://electronicintifada.net/content/two-faces-haaretz/4507


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Kingstonian said:


> Ineffectual rocket attacks on Israel, with no fatalities, are welcomed as an excuse to respond with disproportionate force. Huge numbers die, women, children, it makes no difference.


It's unclear why Hamas uses women and children to protect it's ineffectual rockets.

Are martyrs their real weapons of choice??

Explain.


----------



## Kingstonian

WouldaShoulda said:


> It's unclear why Hamas uses women and children to protect it's ineffectual rockets.
> 
> Are martyrs their real weapons of choice??
> 
> Explain.


Need to know that they are Hamas rockets for a start.

Need to know that women and children are used as protection.

Explain.

Much more evidence of Israeli use of flimsy casus belli.

Furthermore peace talks should be chaired by a genuine honest broker.

It should be a blank sheet of paper. Nothing ruled out. Nothing ruled in.

Not the usual Israeli demand for an unconditional ceasefire.


----------



## Kingstonian

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

Golda Meir. 1957 National Press Club. Washington.

Evidence of a policy of deliberately targeting children ?

Discuss.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> Need to know that they are Hamas rockets for a start.
> 
> Need to know that women and children are used as protection.
> 
> Explain


I think this statement alone indicates that opinions on this matter are as far apart and Mars is from Saturn. And just as unbridgeable.


----------



## Kingstonian

SG_67 said:


> I think this statement alone indicates that opinions on this matter are as far apart and Mars is from Saturn. And just as unbridgeable.


It is a simple request for evidence. Unless you are happy to accept an Israeli statement, or whatever Mark Regev chooses to say.

Of course, a civilised nation would simply refrain from any action that would kill innocent civilians.

Especially if there were no fatalities - or very few - to justify such action in the first place.


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Chouan, the 3 monkeys analogy is apt, because there are always going to be people that are ALWAYS going to think that any distatstweful evidence is faked, it's just such an easy get out.


There's a huge difference between "thinking evidence is faked" and viewing such evidence without accepting it unequivocally. This distinction appears to be lost by you and some others here.


----------



## Kingstonian

Of course Israel does not need a rocket excuse to kill children.


IDF snipers often do so for no apparent reason.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> It is a simple request for evidence. Unless you are happy to accept an Israeli statement, or whatever Mark Regev chooses to say.
> 
> Of course, a civilised nation would simply refrain from any action that would kill innocent civilians.
> 
> Especially if there were no fatalities - or very few - to justify such action in the first place.


So just for the record, are you suggesting that rocket fire from Gaza into Israel may be propaganda or otherwise not as it seems?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying.


----------



## Kingstonian

I am saying I do not know who is firing the rockets. Hamas? Other groups? Dissidents ? False flag operations?

I am also saying where is the evidence that women and children are deliberately used as protection?


----------



## Kingstonian

The common decencies as we understand them in the west, may not apply to some Israeli politicians.

There is a vengeful, spiteful, vindictiveness that is not part of the Christian tradition. They play by different rules.


----------



## Odradek

Kingstonian said:


> I am saying I do not know who is firing the rockets. Hamas? Other groups? Dissidents ? False flag operations?
> 
> I am also saying where is the evidence that women and children are deliberately used as protection?





> The proles, normally apathetic about the war, were being lashed into one of their periodical frenzies of patriotism. As though to harmonize with the general mood, the rocket bombs had been killing larger numbers of people than usual....
> 
> .........In some ways she was far more acute than Winston, and far less susceptible to Party propaganda. Once when he happened in some connexion to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, 'just to keep people frightened'. This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him.


Nineteen Eighty Four - Part 2 - Chapter 5


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Kingstonian said:


> I am saying I do not know who is firing the rockets. Hamas? Other groups? Dissidents ? False flag operations?
> 
> I am also saying where is the evidence that women and children are deliberately used as protection?


Not that the facts will help but...

https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-strongly-condemns-placement-rockets-school

Agency Demands Full Respect for the Sanctity of Its Premises in Gaza East Jerusalem
Yesterday, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered approximately 20 rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. UNRWA strongly condemns the group or groups responsible for placing the weapons in one of its installations. This is a flagrant violation of the inviolability of its premises under international law. This incident, which is the first of its kind in Gaza, endangered civilians including staff and put at risk UNRWA's vital mission to assist and protect Palestine refugees in Gaza.
Immediately after discovery, the Agency informed the relevant parties and successfully took all necessary measures for the removal of the objects in order to preserve the safety and security of the school. UNRWA has launched a comprehensive investigation into the circumstances surrounding this incident.
UNRWA has strong, established procedures to maintain the neutrality of all its premises, including a strict no-weapons policy and routine inspections of its installations, to ensure they are only used for humanitarian purposes. UNRWA will uphold and further reinforce its procedures.
Palestinian civilians in Gaza rely on UNRWA to provide humanitarian assistance and shelter. At all times, and especially during escalations of violence, the sanctity and integrity of UN installations must be respected.


----------



## Kingstonian

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not that the facts will help but...
> .


You are right. It does not help. It says rockets were found, but not how they came to be there.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Now I get it...

Hamas fires rockets at those pesky Joos to stop them from planting more rockets in their schools!!

Brilliant!!

:teacha:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-im-on-the-brink-of-burning-my-israeli-passport-9600165.html


And I have cancelled my planned Holy Land pilgrimage to Israel in September. My conscience won't allow me to go, or to spend money that supports the economy of Israel.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

I'm reminded of a joke, if I may...

Ah, hem.

The Polish and Prussian Armies were at it again, only this time the new TNT weapons were deployed.

The Polish Army nearly overwhelmed the Prussians with the new terror weapons until the Prussians lit the fuses and tossed them back!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MaxBuck said:


> There's a huge difference between "thinking evidence is faked" and viewing such evidence without accepting it unequivocally. This distinction appears to be lost by you and some others here.


You don't know me. Nor do you know what I understand. So please keep your incorrect assumptions about me to yourself. 
What IS lost on me though is why the USA still supports Israel, and as yet hasn't branded Israel a member of the Axis of Evil along with N.Korea and whoever else the US can't coerce into its mindset.


----------



## Odradek

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You don't know me. Nor do you know what I understand. So please keep your incorrect assumptions about me to yourself.
> What IS lost on me though is why the USA still supports Israel, and as yet hasn't branded Israel a member of the Axis of Evil along with N.Korea and whoever else the US can't coerce into its mindset.


I'll refer you back a few pages on this thread....



> As Ariel Sharon stated
> _"Every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."_


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Well, indeed. It is a notion that we have all been aware of for decades, but it still comes as a shock when an Israeli politician expresses it in such a graphic and arrogant matter-of-fact manner.


----------



## Kingstonian

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well, indeed. It is a notion that we have all been aware of for decades, but it still comes as a shock when an Israeli politician expresses it in such a graphic and arrogant matter-of-fact manner.


UK cannot take the moral high ground. Our politicians are bought and paid for too.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfw5aLYiq5k

80% of Conservatives are " Friends of Israel" .

That is why William Hague could not admit again that Israeli response was "disproportionate". Stanley Kalms complained the last time that word was used and withdrew shekels from Conservative funding. Hague had to use weasel words and claim that " disproportionate" was a "totemic" word.

There are Labour "Friends of Israel" including Milliband of course.

and Liberal Democrat "Friends of Israel"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Kingstonian said:


> UK cannot take the moral high ground. Our politicians are bought and paid for too.


God yea, I know. But thankfully nowadays MY politicians are Swedes. And Sweden has traditionally been one of the most Palestine-friendly, Israel-critical nations for decades.


----------



## Kingstonian

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well, indeed. It is a notion that we have all been aware of for decades, but it still comes as a shock when an Israeli politician expresses it in such a graphic and arrogant matter-of-fact manner.


The last presidents that were not bought and paid for, as far as I can tell, were a Republican and a Democrat - Nixon and Carter.

Nixon stated -"The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality,"

Fair play to Leonard Garment though. He was not a crybaby who shouted " antisemite".

Here is Tricky Dicky with prophetic words :-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRg7xvWyYog


----------



## MaxBuck

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You don't know me. Nor do you know what I understand. So please keep your incorrect assumptions about me to yourself.


You piggy-backed onto Chouan's insulting little cartoon, so I understand enough to reasonably state what I stated. You seem to enjoy lobbing word grenades and then pretending you didn't do it.

To reiterate: I don't assume the YouTube video by persons unknown is an accurate depiction of Israeli treatment of arrested youth, and I don't assume that it isn't. We have arrested youth claiming police abuse; I'm willing to let things play out so we know more about what actually happened. And again, if the kid was beaten without actual cause, then I condemn that police action.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You don't know me. Nor do you know what I understand. So please keep your incorrect assumptions about me to yourself.
> What IS lost on me though is why the USA still supports Israel, and as yet hasn't branded Israel a member of the Axis of Evil along with N.Korea and whoever else the US can't coerce into its mindset.


 Come on Earl, you just hate nations that stood up to the NAZIs.


----------



## Odradek

Hitch said:


> Come on Earl, you just hate nations that stood up to the NAZIs.


Oh really?
Didn't see that one coming :deadhorse-a:.

The Israelis are today's Nazis, but very few nations are willing to stand up to them.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Come on Earl, you just hate nations that stood up to the NAZIs.


What school did you go to? Your parents should ask for a refund. WWII ended in 1945, you knew that right? Israel as a state was created in....? yes, come on, you can do it, use the other brain cell.:devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

MaxBuck said:


> so I understand enough to reasonably state what I stated. You seem to enjoy lobbing word grenades and then pretending you didn't do it.


You have no idea what I enjoy. So in that regard you understand absolutely nothing. What I've quickly understood though is that you are a master of assumption.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Come on Earl, you just hate nations that stood up to the NAZIs.


You mean Poland, France and Britain? I've seen nothing that the Earl has written to substantiate that assertion.


----------



## Chouan

MaxBuck said:


> You piggy-backed onto Chouan's insulting little cartoon, so I understand enough to reasonably state what I stated. You seem to enjoy lobbing word grenades and then pretending you didn't do it.


Insulting? In what way? It describes what is happening in Israel on a daily basis. Or is it that you don't like Israel's actions being made fun of?



MaxBuck said:


> To reiterate: I don't assume the YouTube video by persons unknown is an accurate depiction of Israeli treatment of arrested youth, and I don't assume that it isn't. We have arrested youth claiming police abuse; I'm willing to let things play out so we know more about what actually happened. And again, if the kid was beaten without actual cause, then I condemn that police action.


So you are happy to see footage of Israeli security people kicking a person in the head whilst in handcuffs, on the basis that you don't know enough about it. Curious.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> What school did you go to? Your parents should ask for a refund. WWII ended in 1945, you knew that right? Israel as a state was created in....? yes, come on, you can do it, use the other brain cell.:devil:


LOL In light of some of your nonsensical responses I can believe that you dont know why Israel exist, but even that doesnt excuse you from denying your own country's shabby treatment of anti NAZI veterans.


----------



## Odradek

Hitch said:


> LOL In light of some of your nonsensical responses I can believe that you dont know why Israel exist, but even that doesnt excuse you from denying your own country's shabby treatment of anti NAZI veterans.


Why does Isreal exist so?


----------



## Hitch

To bother anti-semites.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Has anyone kept count on how many times itch has broken Godwin's Law?


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Has anyone kept count on how many times itch has broken Godwin's Law?


Poor earl. Godwin's Law refers to making comparisons between so and so and NAZIs. You know that Im talking about how your home country officially discriminated against and even called her own ,those brave enough to fight the NAZIs, deserters.

None of which excuses you and your lying ways.


----------



## Hitch

Good news for Jew haters;

The UN has just announced that in its effort to make everyone happy and because of the impossibility of correctly identifying the actual unit that fired the deadly missile that brought down the Malayisan airliner , to blame Israel.


----------



## Chouan

Hitch said:


> Good news for Jew haters;
> 
> The UN has just announced that in its effort to make everyone happy and because of the impossibility of correctly identifying the actual unit that fired the deadly missile that brought down the Malayisan airliner , to blame Israel.


Do you think this comment funny? That the deaths of nearly 300 people should be made into a joke?


----------



## Hitch

There is nothing that will bring out the antisemitism in a liberal faster than a terrorist group getting beaten by Israel.


----------



## Kingstonian

"The best thing that could happen to Israel is to get rid of these American Jews, who are warmongers from Martha's Vineyard. And they're warmongers from the Hamptons. And they're warmongers from Beverly Hills. And they're warmongers from Miami. It's been a disaster for Israel."

Norman Finkelstein

.... And they're warmongers from Oregon City?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwsUT3YAgRc


----------



## Chouan

Hospitals appear to be thought legitimate targets, as long as they're in Gaza.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/gaza-crisis-obama-ceasefire-fighting-goes-on

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-seven-more-israeli-soldiers-die-9619055.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/gaza-hospital-shelling-air-strike-israel-idf

The seventh paragraph of this last article may be of interest to people like Tocqueville.


----------



## Odradek

Hitch said:


> There is nothing that will bring out the antisemitism in a liberal faster than a terrorist group getting beaten by Israel.


The only "anti-semitism" is coming from Israel, as the Palestinians are semites, while the Khazars are not.

The old "anti-semitism" canard is losing it's wings, over-used as it is by every hasbara shill.

*A Warning to Those Who Dare to Criticize Israel in the Land of Free Speech Another Case Study: Mary Robinson*


----------



## Hitch

Hitch said:


> There is nothing that will bring out the antisemitism in a liberal faster than a terrorist group getting beaten by Israel.


Working really well so far . :icon_cheers:


----------



## Kingstonian

Hitch said:


> Working really well so far . :icon_cheers:


Hubris is an interesting phenomenon.


----------



## Kingstonian

This one did not work out so well though

https://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/judea_declares_war_on_germany.jpg


----------



## Chouan




----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> The seventh paragraph of this last article may be of interest to people like Tocqueville.


Why does Hamas insist on hiding and deploying ineffective terror weapons on Israel only to bring suffering to the Palestinian people??

Wouldn't the women and children in Gaza be safer without them??


----------



## Kingstonian

What needs to be remembered in that the apartheid state of Israel and it's bantustans now has more Arabs than Jews.

This creates a massive problem if you want to maintain the semblance of a democracy but still keep Jewish control.

Gerrymandering will only go so far. So you need to decrease the number of Arabs by killing them or frightening them into leaving.

Palestinian rockets are probably branded Brocks, Standard and Benwell. They come with a few free Catherine Wheels and Sparklers included in the deal.

If you can say there are rocket attacks it is a great excuse to keep bombarding and invading.

Worldwide, people are more clued in to what is really going on and, in my opinion, a tipping point will be reached soon. Money and bribery only go so far and sheer numbers usually win out in the end.


----------



## Kingstonian

This show on RT last night really gave me a great laugh.

The Israeli Van Creveld, with the cleft palate, gets wound up.

The he starts screaming loudly " shut up!!!"

Then he walks out and they ignore him. Comedy Gold.

https://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/174288-israel-latest-invasion-gaza/


----------



## WouldaShoulda

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why does Hamas insist on hiding and deploying ineffective terror weapons on Israel only to bring suffering to the Palestinian people??
> 
> Wouldn't the women and children in Gaza be safer without them??





Kingstonian said:


> Palestinian rockets are probably branded Brocks, Standard and Benwell. They come with a few free Catherine Wheels and Sparklers included in the deal.
> 
> If you can say there are rocket attacks it is a great excuse to keep bombarding and invading.


??????


----------



## Kingstonian

WouldaShoulda said:


> ??????


https://www.shepherdminiatures.co.uk/images/uploads/brocks_fireworks.gif

https://www.fireworkmuseum.co.uk/standardposter.jpg


__
https://flic.kr/p/3134750943


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Wouldn't the women and children in Gaza be safer without them??



Kingstonian said:


> https://www.shepherdminiatures.co.uk/images/uploads/brocks_fireworks.gif
> 
> https://www.fireworkmuseum.co.uk/standardposter.jpg
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/3134750943


I'll accept that as a Yes!!"


----------



## Kingstonian

Israelis are the ones who choose to bomb and invade Gaza.

Hamas are not in tanks blasting the hospitals.

Choice of response is in Israeli hands. Over reaction is their call.

Blame shifting is pointless. Deaths are Israel's responsibility.

Refusal to have proper peace talks that include removal of the blockade is another Israeli responsibility.


----------



## Odradek

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why does Hamas insist on hiding and deploying ineffective terror weapons on Israel only to bring suffering to the Palestinian people??
> 
> Wouldn't the women and children in Gaza be safer without them??


Wouldn't the women and children of Israel, (and the men too), be safer if they went back home to Brooklyn or Belarus wherever they hail from?


----------



## Chouan

What was Israel's justification for disproportionate attacks on Palestinians before HAmas came into power? Afterall, Hamas only became the government of Gaza in 2006. What was Israel's justification before that?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Odradek said:


> Wouldn't the women and children of Israel, (and the men too), be safer if they went back home to Brooklyn or Belarus wherever they hail from?


Helen Thomas??

Is that you??

:eek2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Chouan said:


> What was Israel's justification for disproportionate attacks on Palestinians before HAmas came into power? Afterall, Hamas only became the government of Gaza in 2006. What was Israel's justification before that?


The names may change but the attacks and Jew hate persist.

The exploitation of Palestinians living in Gaza by their leaders persists.

When Gaza becomes a DMZ, talks may begin.


----------



## Odradek

WouldaShoulda said:


> Helen Thomas??
> 
> Is that you??
> 
> :eek2:


Helen Thomas was damn right, and the world knows it.


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> Israelis are the ones who choose to bomb and invade Gaza.
> 
> Hamas are not in tanks blasting the hospitals.
> 
> Choice of response is in Israeli hands. Over reaction is their call.
> 
> Blame shifting is pointless. Deaths are Israel's responsibility.
> 
> Refusal to have proper peace talks that include removal of the blockade is another Israeli responsibility.


:biggrin::tongue2:.


----------



## Odradek

Hitch said:


> :biggrin::tongue2:.


You find mass murder funny?


----------



## Kingstonian

Odradek said:


> You find mass murder funny?


.

Nut cases can be found in all sorts of places. You just need to accept that and move on.


----------



## Hitch

Current score;

Israeli KIA 27

Hamas KIA 571*

* This number includes at least 120 children used as human shields by the terrorists, slaughtered for propaganda purposes, somewhere Goebbels smiling.


----------



## Kingstonian

Hitch said:


> Current score;
> 
> Israeli KIA 27
> 
> Hamas KIA 571*
> 
> * This number includes at least 120 children used as human shields by the terrorists, slaughtered for propaganda purposes, somewhere Goebbels smiling.


There is a Jackie Mason routine where he states that he could not believe that Israeli troops were Jews. He thought they were Puerto Ricans.

For a certain type of Jew, the nerdy type, the type that is used to getting sand kicked in their faces all this violence is actually a turn on.

Warmongers from Oregon City?


----------



## Kingstonian

To lighten things up a bit

www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h12Yxl8BvA

For our nebbish cheerleader from Oregon City.


----------



## SG_67

Kingstonian said:


> There is a Jackie Mason routine where he states that he could not believe that Israeli troops were Jews. He thought they were Puerto Ricans.
> 
> For a certain type of Jew, the nerdy type, the type that is used to getting sand kicked in their faces all this violence is actually a turn on.
> 
> Warmongers from Oregon City?


He was doing a bit about having gone to Israel and how tough the Jews there were compared to New York.


----------



## Acct2000

I have already deleted one post. I'm at work and don't have time to monitor this, although I'm considering deleting the thread. 

Please remember that bad behavior in the Interchange can affect your being welcome at AAAC.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Thank you Forsberg. Please delete the whole thread. It won't be missed.


----------



## Kingstonian

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thank you Forsberg. Please delete the whole thread. It won't be missed.


It would be missed.


----------



## Chouan

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I have already deleted one post. I'm at work and don't have time to monitor this, although I'm considering deleting the thread.
> 
> Please remember that bad behavior in the Interchange can affect your being welcome at AAAC.


Please don't. If the thread is deleted it will be a victory to those who make jokes in bad taste and who accuse people of being "Jew haters". It will also create a suspicion that the thread is being deleted because Israel is being criticised.


----------



## Hitch

Kingstonian said:


> There is a Jackie Mason routine where he states that he could not believe that Israeli troops were Jews. He thought they were Puerto Ricans.
> 
> For a certain type of Jew, the nerdy type, the type that is used to getting sand kicked in their faces all this violence is actually a turn on.
> 
> Warmongers from Oregon City?


So you think using children as human shields is funny?


----------

