Palestinians have only themselves to blame

Herbert Cooper, Denver

Published April 27, 2008 at 10 p.m.

Text size

More Letters to the Editor

Comments

April 28, 2008

6:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

eyewitness writes:

You write a silly letter, Herbert.
The 20% of Israel's population that is Palestinian must definitely does NOT enjoy equal rights. That's because Israel has nationality rights and citizenship rights. All citizens can vote, but certain other rights are limited to Jews. The state defines its Palestinian population as a mortal threat to the (Jewishness of the) state. That's a fact, as you would know if you went beyond the propaganda you are told.

Palestinians who left Palestine in 1948 have a right to go back. That's international law, very simply. International law doesn't say that their neighbors have to take them in. Blaming the Arab states for not settling them is irrelevant; Israel has to let them back in.

As Israel being "hellbent" on returning land -- I wonder what you're smoking. Since Oslo it has doubled the number of settlers and has built more settlements at record pace. The wall it built is another way of grabbing land. The eastern third of the West Bank is off limits to most Palestinians. It's leaders say very clearly that it will retain control of the West Bank. So your statement about returning land is pretty foolish.
April 28, 2008

6:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Here is a topic that always gets lots of posts. As it should. I have to throw out there the fact that last week a Hamas leader (Hamas being a recognized terrorist organization and has the total destruction of Israel in its written charter) actually came out and endorsed Barack Obama for President. It was on TV and covered internationally. Now I realize that Sen. Obama did not solicit this endorsement and wants no part of it - to his credit. But what does it say about him and the left wing of this country when they (Hamas) endorse him for POTUS and meet with Jimmy Carter in the same week? BTW - Israel and the USA asked Carter not to go and visit with them and Israeli leaders refused to even meet with Carter. But as always, Jimmah knows best and he went anyway and what did he accomplish? Nothing. Except bestowing on Hamas the credibility of having met with a former US POTUS. How nice of him. Didn't Habitat for Humanity have a project going last week?
April 28, 2008

7:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

herbert:

Excuse me, but why should "their Arab bretheren" absorb them? Even advanced economies like the US won't absorb what we call "illegal immigrants". Also why didn't European Zionists get a country in Nebraska instead or in their original goal of Brazil instead?
On a more serious note (because I see so many convenient omissions in your letter), Israeli Arabs are not treated equally. "Under the law" is sort of like saying blacks in America are equal "under the law". The fact is that gerrymandered districts have made the Arabs of Israel not have a %20 representation in the Knesset. Also, the Israeli government does not spend the same proportionately on Arab villages as it does on Jewish cities (infrastructure and education). Also, Arab Israelis cannot buy property in Jerusalem. Also, Palestinians did not simply "flee" when war broke out with the surrounding Arab nations (that were never involved by the way in the UN creation of Israel), many were indeed expelled by the new jewish owners.
You can say Israel exisits and always will, which is fine. But don't justify absolutely everything Israel does by omitting inconvenient truths. Remember, since we keep saying Israel is a democracy, we must expect more from them than we do of the acknowledged dictatorships that most of the Arab world sport!
April 28, 2008

7:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

observer and eyewitness: The area designated as Trans-Jordan was supposed to be the homeland for the people labeled as "Palestinian" - who are in fact Arabs as there are no indigenous people of the area with that name and never were until Yasser Arafat appropriated the name in the mid 60s. King Hussein of Jordan wanted no part of that deal and promptly killed about 10000 of them to make his point.
"Also why didn't European Zionists get a country in Nebraska instead or in their original goal of Brazil instead?" - observer
Maybe because the Jews do not have a 6000 year history in Nebraska as they do in Israel and the Holy Land??? What an assinine question.
April 28, 2008

7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

Herb,

"Israel bashers like Kucera will never see any room in the Holy Land for the people who sanctified it."

Lemme get this straight, You assert that a book of superstition from a desert tribe mandates that modern desert tribes must be displaced for this "original" tribe the invisible cloud being allegedly gave to them?

You assert that since this invisible cloud being gave this land to his preferred tribe, that Ashkenazim from central Asia, with no genetic ties to the original desert tribe, who suffered greatly from German eugenics pograms have a home in this alleged holy land.

Your assertion demands that current tribes on this land surrender their home for European sins and guilt.

Just what kind of state does Israel offer to the Palestinian Arabs? One where Jew only roads, security walls, and illegal settlements fragment the Arab land into islands inaccessible for daily life? That is the land Israel is hellbent on trading for "peace". What kind of peace is offered? One where military occupation and hostile settlers make life in fragmented lands a virtual prison?

This pro Israel stand is easy to take and should be taken for any well meaning individual. A compassionate person that sees ONLY the news from Zionist controlled news agencies will agree to your missive Herb, the trouble is that is only what Americans see.
April 28, 2008

8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Michael:

I dare say Indians have a 6000 year history in America too. Now how irrevelant is that?

I don't think the American white citizen called Golda Meier, a school teacher in Chicago, had any more of a "right" to a new home in the middle east than did the Boers in South Africa. Please, justify Israel's existence on something modern and tangible. We need to move on from where we are, not something as innane as population stats from six thousand years ago (that lasted about three hundred years by the way).
April 28, 2008

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

AngelontheSidelines writes:

I stand corrected about no genetic ties between Ashkenazim and the Semites. One wrong point still does not mean the invisible cloud being can mandate the suffering of one tribe to benefit another.
April 28, 2008

8:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Michael:

I don't know if my last statement was listed but I'll repeat it. Yesterday, we were talking about personal attacks on the RMN blog site. The general concensus is that there is no place for it. When you move away from the subject of conversation to personal attacks like calling my question "assinine" that is a perfect example of the problem.
April 28, 2008

8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

JSeifert writes:

Its scares how many Anti-Jew/Nazis still live in this world. Its scares me even more how many people do not know history of the world. Every country the so called PLO have been in they have tried to take over they tried to lead a up rising in Jordan and the king of Jordan wipe them nearly out for it. Thats why Arab countries do not want then in their country They are untrustworthy. All these Arab countries say they help them but they live in slums. These Arab countries stopped giving them money because it was going ether into someones pocket or for weapons. Wake up you collage grads your teachers feed you a load.
April 28, 2008

8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

observer - Had I called you an ass then you would have a grievance. I did not. I called your question assinine. Better grow thicker skin my friend.
April 28, 2008

8:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Michael writes:

Another thing that is consistently overlooked or massively discounted on this issue. After WWII the Allies - with the USA at the lead - had every damn right to do whatever the hell we wanted to with regards to redrawing the globe. I know all of you left wing, "feel-good", no empire, kumbaya types will throw up at that thought but that is the truth. For the most part, much of the Arab world sided with the Nazis - BAD choice. Maybe they got a bad deal with regard to Israel, but the deal was made nonetheless by the powers that had the authority to make it. Instead of accepting it -as all Arabs residing within the new state of Israel could have remained in 1948 - most Arabs fled knowing of the coming war and assuming that Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon would win. They did not. Another BAD choice. Now they all want a "do-over". They (Arabs) want Israel to back behind the Green Line and for Israel to forget all the wars inflicted on them over the years that Israel has had to fight (and WIN). F#@& that.
April 28, 2008

8:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Marshdale writes:

Understand how powerful the Jewish Lobby is in this country and you will understand everything about why things are the way they are.
April 28, 2008

8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

It's funny how all of the anti-Semites ignore the terrorist attacks committed by Palestinians while they blame the victims for not being willing to give in to the "terrorists" blackmail demands.

But then perhaps the hatemongers like "eyewitness", "observer", "angel" and "OneCreek" were too busy dreaming up new excuses for yesterday's terrorist attacks to realize that some other Palestinians just blew up some innocent civilians.
April 28, 2008

9:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek seems confused about the facts....

Israel uses F-15/16/18's to defend themselves from people who share OneCreek's views.... nations such as Iran and Syria. There is no use for F-15/16/18's in defending themselves from OneCreek's heroes... Hamas and Hezbollah.

Rather than cheering on terrorists, OneCreek would gain some credibility if he were willing to condemn the terrorist tactics of Hamas and Hezbollah (who have also murdered Americans), rather than making excuses for the terrorists by claiming their victims "asked for it".
April 28, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Michael:

Since you seem to say "might makes right", I can understand why Iran wants nuclear weapons (I'll bet Pakistan was a shocker, Islamic bomb and all that). We are back to midieval times again in today's neo-con world.

rickg19611:
hamas and Hizbullah will tell you that suidice bombers are their version of f-15s. In Michael's world, all means of getting territory is acceptable, so stop the moralizing and accept the new world he lays out so clearly.
April 28, 2008

9:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

observer....

So you believe that if Israel uses F-15/16s to defend itself from Syria and Iran, then Hamas and Hezbollah is justified in using suicide bombers?

Do you also believe that is is ok for Al Quaeda to use suicide bombers since America uses F-15/16s to defend ourselves?

If you had an ounce of credibility, you'd be willing to condemn the use of terrorist attacks targeting civilians. Your refusal to criticize Hamas and Hezbollah, while blaming their victims, speaks volumes. Of course, others like you blamed the victims of 9/11, in their excuse making for Al Quaeda..... aka Ward Churchill.
April 28, 2008

10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

JSeifert writes:

Onecreek is also very confused, If Israel was how he said it was there would be no PLO they would all be dead. When the UN voted for the state of Isreal it was for all people and that what was offered all would be citizens but no not even a day later Arab countries invaded. This is the peace loving people onecreek talks about. Arab countries that in WW11 was allied not with us but with Hitler. So Onecreek tell me what history has told you about that area. Explain about the Islamic leader that called for death for all Arabs and Jews that lived in Israel.
April 28, 2008

10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Our letter writer gives us yet another great example of the ignorance necessary to believe that israel doesn't have some culpability for the unrest in the middle east.
April 28, 2008

10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek...

You're able to provide an ad hominem attack on Israel (which is weak factually) and yet are unable to bring yourself to offer a single sentence condemning Hamas and Hezbollah for targeting innocent Israeli, American, and other civilians in suicide bombings.

Your lack of any outrage at innocent civilians being murdered, while being outraged about the mere existence of Israel is very revealing. It is the identical thinking of Hamas and Hezbollah.
April 28, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

In other words...

"Responses to our letter writer gives us yet another great example of the ignorance necessary to blame Israel for the actions of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, while refusing to condemn the terrorists for their own decisions and actions."
April 28, 2008

10:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

JSeifert writes:

Onecreek you still did not explain the history of the area. Please in all your wisdom of history of the PLO. When did the great struggle begin funny for the jews it was before islam came to the area but hay thats just history right facts do not play into this. Your anti-jewish feeling are too hard to let facts come into play. As for the Israel ARMY and Air Force did not come into play until after Arab countries invaded. Golan hights well that poor judgement on the Arabs putting over 10,000 troops and guns on the heights then planning on a invasion problem was the defense minister worked for the Mosad and was a egyption Jew. By the way he paid for giving the invasion plans away and hanging is not pretty. Why is it so hard for people like you see the truth as it really is.
April 28, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek reveals his anti-Semitic leanings. He is outraged when Israel targets a terrorist to stop the terrorist from more killing of civilians, but then admits he is 40 times less outraged when a Hamas terrorist targets a bus load of civilians.

Typical.
April 28, 2008

11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I'm not sure that "anti-Semetic" is the correct adjective for someone fairly pointing out some of Israel's less than noble deeds (to put it kindly) since becoming a nation. There is plenty of blame to go around for the parties involved people. You can't choose just one, it's fascist.
April 28, 2008

11:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay.... Anti-Semitic is the perfect description for a person who is "outraged" when Jews do something, and then accept and defend others for doing far worse.

Which is worse? Attacking a terrorist before the terrorist can kill more civilians? Or bombing a bus full of civilians?

Anyone claiming that it is "40 times more of an outrage" to kill a terrorist, than it is to kill a busload of civilians is a racist. And in this case, clearly anti-Semitic.
April 28, 2008

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

JSeifert writes:

Onecreek under no law international or other does it say you have to allow food, gas anything pass through your land to your enemies. Thats called Stupit. If the PA is so worried or Hammas is so worried let them give up the guns and there would be no deaths and they could live in peace. And when you let terrorist fire from your home you are bound to get killed. If Hammas wants to live in peace just let them come out and let their leader say Israel has the right to exsist and that the killing will stop. There would be peace but Onecreek you know Hammas only want to kill jews nothing more they do not even care about their own poeple otherwise they would not put them in harms way.
April 28, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

rick, again, your use of "anti-Semetic" is not warranted for those folks "outraged" at either side of this ongoing conflict. i think it is pretty obvious that your bias is clouding your judgement on the use of that word
April 28, 2008

12:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay... using your claims, when a member of the KKK criticized a white person, that made it wrong to call them a racist organization?

Your statement defies common sense.

A racist that tries to cover his racism by occasionally criticizing his preferred race, is still a racist.

Just as OneCreek saying that he only has 1/40th the outrage about terrorists killing civilians as he has for Israel, it is still a racist position. Just as the members of the KKK trying to claim they're not racist because they occasionally criticize a white person.
April 28, 2008

12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

rick that's not a valid argument. the kkk is a racist organization because of their activities...not because they may be "outraged" at the policies of black people in power.

understand the difference?
April 28, 2008

12:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Until the "Palestinians" stop strapping suicide belts on their next generation, they deserve everything that Israel can dish out, and deserve far, far more retaliation than they have been receiving."

unfortunately many on the extreme of this issue forget that whereas israelis have very effective military tools at their disposal, the palestinians do not. guerilla tacts are their weapons of choice because they are available, not preferable.

I have no doubt that there is remorse on both sides of this conflict about the innocent lives lost.
April 28, 2008

1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

JSeifert writes:

Onecreek The nazis used the same science for their reasons for killing jews do you too use this science. Jews have lived on this land for thousands of years mostly under someones else's rule but they have always lived there. The temple proves this unless you think this is some kind of Jewish Hoax. Islam built on top of this Temple not visversa. Romans were not trying to put down the Islamic threat it was the Jewish threat I suggest you read more History books not The book of Zion which was a hoax. DNA only proves family lines if you use this science you could kick out all people with north african DNA from spain because they are not spainish but moorish the same goes for all other countries. Normans were not the first nor were the saxons in britain. The so called russian were not the first ether so DNA does not work soon you will be using eyes, hair and facal structure which were debunked too.
April 28, 2008

1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay,.....

So a person has to take actions to be considered racist? A person's speech can be just as racist as their actions. A person's selective "outrage" that they speak can be just as racist.

When a person expresses "outrage" that an African-American drank from a whites-only water fountain, but says they are only 1/40th as outraged when a black church is firebombed, any rational person would call that racist. The person doesn't need to take any "actions" to be a racist.

OneCreek's own statements of outrage about Israel, and being only 1/40th as outraged about a terrorist organization targeting and killing innocent civilians fits that example perfectly.

Racist.
April 28, 2008

1:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Bropous:

I happened to be in Egypt when the Palestinians broke through the fence keeping them in gaza. The reason they broke through in the first place is because they were starving to death under the Israeli embargo and vendors had set up shop on the Egyptian side to sell food and other household goods to these people. The reason Egypt built the fence in the first place is at the behest of Israel that was afraid weapons would get through to hamas from Egypt. Also, A country like Egypt, with a per capita of $2 a month, and food riots to boot, can ill afford to take on more people.

I need to get back to this whole "terrorist" argument. If you are totally inferior militarily to an occupier and the occupier not only has nuclear weapons, but always has the latest weapons electronics the US can make, you become desperate. If the occupier gets a free ride in the security council because the US has cast more vetoes in support of Israel than any other nation ever has in support of anything, Then your only response is one of desperation. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Either you never get back what you have lost because of the vast array of weapons and resources the US and Israel have, or you attack them in the only place they cannot resist. It is so disingenous to say "Israel is defending her poor little self" while the "terrible Arab hoards are killing the poor little defenseless Jewish children". Well f-15 kill many children and women too and to say otherwise is just plain old lying or else differentiating among peoples in their relative human value.
April 28, 2008

2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i don't support the killing of any innocent civilians, bporous.....including those killed by the palestians, the israelis or the americans.
April 28, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

Just a quick question:

How many Israelis have the Palestinians (not other nations, just Palestinians) killed dating back to the first Zionist colonies? How many Palestinians have the Israelis killed dating back to the first Zionist colonies?

I am not trying to say one person is wrong or right, I just wonder what the two sides of this argument claim for casualties.
April 28, 2008

2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

pborous...do you understand that sometimes israel hits targets knowing full well that innocent civilians will likely be killed?

how's the rationalization coming.
April 28, 2008

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

An example of illogic.... "It is absurd to believe that were the Iranians to get a nuke by whatever means, they would attack Israel with a first strike. The U.S. has already staked its own future on the defense of Israel, and if Israel, in spite of its denials does have nuclear weapons, Iran simply ceases to exist. Poof! The assertion is preposterous."

Just as it was "preposterous" to believe that Iraq would actually invade Kuwait. Nations have a history of doing the irrational when they are led by irrational leaders.

Especially when the irrational leaders of Iran are also on record of wanting to be martyrs and gain the 72 little girls (or boys) or whatever they claim to achieve when killing innocent civilians.
April 28, 2008

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Just as it was "preposterous" to believe that Iraq would actually invade Kuwait."

nope...not a valid argument. many folks surmised that iraq would invade kuwait if the us stopped dealing with them. the same type of consensus doesn't exist with the iranian first strike theory.
April 28, 2008

2:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Arguments using the Bible to justify Israel are irrelevant. I don't see anyone arguing we should give Native Americans all of their land back despite possessing it for at least 10,000 years and losing it only 150 - 400 years ago.
Israel has a right to exist because it declared its independence, is recognized by most countries, is an ongoing concern, and has fought several wars in self-defense and won.
Jordan was carved out of the Palestinian Mandate by Britain before Britain turned over the remainder of Palestine to the UN to sort out.
Guerilla warfare may be justified when one side has an enormously inferior military disadvantage, but why do those brave, patriotic, independence seeking suicide bombers always seem to attack such strongly fortified, militarily strategic sites like bar mitzvah reception halls, pizza restaurants, and food markets? Guerilla wars have been fought attacking the other side's military and political targets.
I agree Israel has been heavy-handed and inhumane at times, but when you have people who still want to drive you into the sea, when groups like Hamas insist that cease fires are only temporary tactics towards the day when Allah (assisted by Iran and Syria) will wipe Israel off the map, when attempts at negotiations are met with blowing up civilians, Isral has a right to defend itself.
When was the last time a suicide bomber attacked a truly military objective?
April 28, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

bropous"\:

My sources on the average Egyptian's income come from talking to many Egyptians. Realize that the food riots of last month in Egypt didn't come from people that are above the poverty line. It includes all those people living in villages throughout this impoverished country (that lives on the 2.5 billion the US gives them to match what they give rich Israel). As to less than %20 of them living below the poverty level: what are you smoking. Ninety percent of them at least live in poverty (is this the Reagan math?). Is this israeli propaganda? I can see how a nation with a per capita above $20,000 can't believe the abject poverty of its neighbors. maybe if Americans and Israelis saw the poverty they would understand something as basic as "why don't they take in their patestinian brothers".
April 28, 2008

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay....

Just because some people "surmised" that Iraq would invade Kuwait does not make the invasion rational. I can predict that a person will act irrationally, but my ability to predict it does not make it a rational act.

Your apparent belief that nations always act rationally may be fun in hypothetical world.... but in the real world, everyone knows that nations do NOT act rationally.

It is beyond intellectually weak to claim that "It is absurd to believe that were the Iranians to get a nuke by whatever means, they would attack Israel with a first strike."

History is filled with examples of nations acting irrationally. Regardless of whether people agreed with predictions of the act or not.
April 28, 2008

2:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'm simply pointing out the deficiencies in your chicken little iran rant ricky. sure it's possible...but is it probable...not so much
April 28, 2008

2:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

Will no one touch the casualty question? What is so damaging to both arguments that none of the armchair historians here will risk the answer (no offense to any academic historians in the chat)? Honestly I would like to hear your tallies, I promise this is not a bait question?
April 28, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay.... you're simply painting yourself into a corner with your defense of those who make excuses for terrorists.
April 28, 2008

3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek sure seems to get worked up simply because Israel exists.

Of course, he is mysteriously silent about Muslims blowing up a busload of INNOCENT civilians, whose only crime is to be living.
April 28, 2008

3:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

not at all, ricky. as i said before, i simply don't allow one faction in the middle east conflict exclusive rights to my defense...or my condemnation. i think it hard to believe that you could choose any regional player and attempt to make the case that they have no blood on their hands. that's the point. both israel and palestine have perpetrated deplorable acts during this now decades long conflict. they have both knowingly killed innocent civilians...and are now riding the same horrific merry-go-round. there are extremists on both sides of that ride. fortunately, there are also people who want to open the lines of communication and attempt to find some peaceful resolution. those are people that deserve your respect...not countries as a whole...because no one is without fault in this one.
April 28, 2008

3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

GWM, good question, can you answer the reverse, how many Israelis have the Palestinian people killed over the last 100 years?

What number of casualties does each side claim in this century old fight?
April 28, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

I think I mis-understood your post GWM.

Are you saying that when the Israelis kill women and children they do so because the women and children want to eliminate the Jews?

If this is what you are asking, then how would the Israelis determine whether or not the women and children want to eliminate the Jews? This just seems too Orwelian.
April 28, 2008

3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

Wechasa,

I am not trying to bait anybody, because I do not know the answer myself. It would be pretty foolish to bait with a question that I do not have the answer to.

I do agree that neither side is free of terrible actions, and I agree that the idea that there are accidental casualties in warfare is absurd. None-the-less, the casualties are a very real issue for both sides of the frontlines in this war. It seems to me that the best way to keep your recruitment centers packed is to have national or cultural revenge theme to all of your propoganda.

The fact that no one wants to talk about the casualty totals tells me that the number does some harm to both side's reasoning for their own violence.

There are three possible answers in terms of which side has lost more: the Israelis have lost more, the Palestinians have lost more, or both sides have comprable losses. If either side had more losses than the other, then that side would parade this fact as evidence of the need for more violence on their part.

In our argument, however, neither side will claim the greater casualties, and so I would GUESS that they are comprable. If that is the case, then haven't these two sides essentially been fighting for fighting's sake?
April 28, 2008

3:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

I only use the last 100 years because that is when the Zionist colonization began.

No offense GWM, but I was actually just using your question to try and ask my own question again. Sorry to use you like that.
April 28, 2008

4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

GWM, I think you may have missed a couple of things in my previous posts. I have said and say again, that I do not have the answer to the question I posed.

I do feel that the present matters greatly, but not at the expense of history (Micro or Macro). I chose the 100 year colonization period because that is the phase of this conflict that we are in right now (also because the numbers will probably be easier to come by), but you are right that the whole of history matters to those who fight the war.

If you would rather, please tell me what the casualty totals are for the entire history of this region. It does not matter to me if you want to go back 2000 years or 100 just so long as people do not try to start the tally after the 100 year mark.
April 28, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

OneCreek

"What has gone on and is going on in the occupied territories is the collective punishment of the entire population for the acts of a few."

The terrorist strikes first with, for example, firing a rocket into an Israeli school bus and then hides among innocents in an apartment building. The Isreali's go after theterrorist and in the process innocent lives, perhaps even the terrorists family, are lost.

You see in that a moral equivalence that does not exist. On it's face you can say that both the terrorist and the Isreali's have taken innocent life. However, if you explore the morality just below the superficial details you will see that it is the terrorist, not the Israeli's, who are responsible for the innocent lives lost. First, by slaughtering innocents and, second, by using innocents as a shield in hopes of surviving to conduct further slaughter.

"To any one of you Israeliphiles, please explain in both historic and current terms, the benefit to the United States of America from the relationship between it and the State of Israel. Answer that."

There is no material benefit. We do have a moral obligation to protect the only liberal, tolerant and pluralistic nation in that part of the world. There are a valuable ally in the war on terror so there is benefit in that. But more importantly, if Israel is over-run there will not be peace in that area. In fact, there will be more conflict there and a greater threat to us here at home. If you think they will stop with eliminating the Jews you are very mistaken. Th US is, and has been, the ulitmate target because we represent the greatest threat to their hegemonic dreams.

We are American's first and to ignore our relationship with, and responsibilty to, Israel is to deny what America is - the home, and protector, of liberty.
April 28, 2008

4:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

Interesting that yankee used the term hegemonic to describe the enemies of the US. does that mean that you find hegemonic dreams to be a bad thing?
April 28, 2008

4:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

JSeifert writes:

Onecreek explain to me how a Bus load of kids going to school is a military target, a Pizzaria, a Weddiing, a market, a Airliner, a Disco, the Olympics. Are these military targets? The PLO and Hammas has never targeted military areas. They hide in homes in schools in grave yards in churchs, religous place theirs and ours. This is not the french resistance killing german soldiers this is manmen putting a bomb on a bus load of kids in the morning so they will die and you want me to feel sorry for them. Killing teenagers in a Pizzaria while they eat and socialize is not war its murder. How would you like it if missles not aimed at anything but a town rain down on your kids school yard or kill the old women in the apartment next to you. You complain that Israel targets civilian areas well thats were these scum of the earth fire their mortars and rockets from. They set up a mortar in a home area in the hope they will not be seen and shot at because they care about non terrorist dieing. If Israel did not care about lost life every living thing in gaza would be dead. Israel has bent over backwards to stop the killing but the PA and Hammas does nothing but kill and kill more and Idiots like you defend them.
April 28, 2008

4:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

bropous,

Googling for an answer, why didn't I think of that.

Perhaps you missed the post where I said, "What is so damaging to both arguments that none of the armchair historians here will risk the answer." I am just trying to gage the two sides in our little argument in terms of why they feel their side should keep fighting, not trying to one up someguy I don't know with google.

I noticed that you are willing to do other people's research when they use figures you disagree with. Does this mean that you just want somebody else to post their answer so that you can prove how good you are at typing in the corner of the web browser? Please please please prove your googling prowess to us oh master probus.
April 28, 2008

4:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

but you forget, gwm...it is absolutely tit for tat right now...on top of the lingering occupation of lands taken in '67.

they've said they'd stop the mortars if they get the lands back...using your tit for tat logic that would alright, no?
April 28, 2008

4:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

Posted by jibbons on April 28, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting that yankee used the term hegemonic to describe the enemies of the US. does that mean that you find hegemonic dreams to be a bad thing?

Yes, I think the hegemonic dreams of Jihadists bent on enslaving people in a theocracy is a bad thing. It is remarkable that the US is the least hegemonic, least imperialist super-power that has ever existed. We are prepared to venture militarily beyond our borders to foster liberty and independence and that's about it. Even that has limits.

Once there is leadership in Iraq which governs by the consent of the governed, as they do in Israel, then we will have no more interest in Iraq than we do in, say, Germany or Japan. You may recall we liberated them as well. Not a lot of hegemony in either of those countries is there? Don't you think that's a remarkable tribute to the sense of fair play and decency of the American people?

Makes you proud to be an American.
April 28, 2008

4:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

I would bet that the cowardly Palestinians do not think that the body counts are irrelevant. Probably not the Israelis who have lost loved ones to rocket fire.
April 28, 2008

5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

bropous:

The US's biggest nightmare is that Iraq becomes a democracy. Thney will still hate Israel, but now we have no excuse for not arming them with the latest stuff we give the Israelis. We can't even make an argument for them not having nuclear weapons. Go Iraqi democracy!!
April 28, 2008

5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

GWM:

"hi jay, thanks for your comment. Going back to the pre-1967 borders is never going to happen. That is 40+ years"

Good grief, isn't a "six thousand year history of Jews in ol' Judea and Samaria" given as a justification for Israel's right to be created as a haven for European and American Jews? come now, you can't have it both ways.
April 28, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

bporous/gwm

emotional ranting about '67 aside...those are still occupied lands, no? is an end to the violence worth trading those lands back to the palestinians?

i'm not trying to corner you here, but rather just clarifying your positions
April 28, 2008

5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay...

Sounds like you're espousing "moral relativism".

You claim that Israel is no different than Hamas or Hezbollah.

That's as intellectually bankrupt as saying that there is no difference between Al Quaeda and America.

A representatie democracy that defends itself from terrorists is NOT the same as a group of fanatics that target and murder innocent civilians. There are NO moral similarities at all.

A nation that targets terrorists, and accidentally harms a civilian in the process, is NOT on the same moral plane as a terrorist that bombs busloads of civilians.

Do you honestly believe that a person who ACCIDENTALLY has an auto accident where a person is injured or killed is no different than a person who INTENTIONALLY drives an auto in a crowd of people?

Your attempt to claim that Israel is no better than Hamas and Hezbollah is disgusting. It's as deranged as JR Wright (Obama's self-admitted mentor) saying that America is not better than Al Quaeda or Ward Churchill saying that America deserved Sep 11.

Hopefully some day you will learn the moral difference between elected representative democracies defending its innocent civilians from terrorist organizations. Until then, you simply sound intellectually bankrupt and devoid of any basic human morality.
April 28, 2008

5:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Weird.... "If the solution is a withdrawal to the legal 67' borders, so be it. "

Of course, that then presumes that the FOUNDING OF ISRAEL is legitimate!

Which is the opposite claim the same poster was making earlier.

Of course, this is the same tactic that the terrorists are making.... just turn over land to us and then we'll 'pretend' that all is forgiven. Of course, this requires that people ignore their other statements that they will not stop committing terrorist acts until Isreal is "wiped off the map".

"If the solution is a withdrawal to the legal 67' borders, so be it" is typical terrorist propaganda.
April 28, 2008

5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

Just one last question for my own curiosity, and then I am outta here (I know you'll miss me).

How many of the conservatives in here approve of pres bush? And no I am not asking this to make fun of anyone. I am just trying to get a feel for how everybody's political views line up. Again, I am not trying to set anybody up.
April 28, 2008

5:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so the answer is no, pborous...you wouldn't hand over occupied lands to end the violence. do i have your position right on that?

rick, come on man... "You claim that Israel is no different than Hamas or Hezbollah." I "claim" that there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue. no one side has a death grip on morality...if that's what you're implying. this is far from a "moral" fight...and i doubt that there will be a "moral" victory.

the rest of your post rambles a bit based on that falsehood concerning my position on the matter (many would call that type of argument a "strawman argument" for future reference)...but i did want to point out that you too are stating a falsehood in suggesting that israel "accidentally" kills innocent civilians. collateral damage isn't "accidental"....it's "morally" justified by those doing it.
April 28, 2008

5:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jibbons writes:

thank you bropous, I respect your opinion... even though you are OBVIOUSLY lying about being in the military.

I on the other hand am a 5'10" platinum blonde looking for a nice soldier to make a family with, and don't anyone dare question it.
April 28, 2008

5:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay... so say "I claim that there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue."

So when referring to Sep 11, do you say "I claim that there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue"?

How is saying "I claim that there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue" when talking about a comparison between a nation and a terrorist organization NOT an example of "moral relativism"?

As for your claim that 'collateral damage' is not accidental, that's laughable.... the very definition of collateral damage is that is unintended and accidental!!!

What next? Bending over again to defend terrorists by claiming that their INTENTIONAL TARGETING of innocent civilians to be murdered is identical to the UNINTENDED and ACCIDENTAL damage caused when a nation is FORCED to defend itself from terrorists? Oh wait.... you've been doing that repeatedly.... like all pro-terrorist excuse makers.
April 28, 2008

5:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"How is saying "I claim that there is plenty of blame to go around on this issue" when talking about a comparison between a nation and a terrorist organization NOT an example of "moral relativism"?"

i don't think that you can generalize all palestinians as "terrorists", rick...do you?

i'm not sure why you're bringing up 9/11.

again on the innocent civilian front...you must not have ever studied or been around military strategy. there are very specific assessments as to what extent the collateral damage is for each strike option. of course the israelis know that they're going to kill innocent civilians when they carry out certain missions. to believe anything else is the epitome of naivety. i see some more emoational ranting, but i think it's all based on the point we just cleared up.
April 28, 2008

6:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay...

We cleared up one thing. You believe that there is NO difference between a nation ACCIDENTALLY killing civilians while targeting a terrorist, and a terrorist organization that TARGETS innocent civilians to murder.

The same warped thinking that believes that a person who has an auto accident that results in a person being injured is NO DIFFERENT than a person who decides to murder people by intentionally driving into a crowd of innocent people.

Speaks volumes.
April 28, 2008

6:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

haddock writes:

Bropous:

You must be loving it, so much attention to you in this blog. I want to talk to you about third world realities, or the culture of poverty.
I'd like to get back to Egyptian salaries for a minute. It is true I exaggerated when I said $2.00 was the average income per month. However, $50.00 per month is accurate. First of all, the Egyptian pound is used which translates to $1 = 5.5 L.E. (livre Egyptienne).
Based on that, know this: The average government employee receives about 300 l.e. per month (or about $50.00).
The average servant receives a pretty good wage of 700-900 L.E. per month or about $150.00. The average policeman on the street receives about 100 L.E. and is open to tips from everyone he comes into contact with. You see, people cannot live on these salaries with rent being in the hundreds of dollars per month. Appliances, food, clothes etc. are out of reach for about %80 of the population. I did not tell you about village life. The average peasant family lives on the income from 1-5 acres only. Usually this land is rented from the %5 or so that can afford huge tracts of several hundred acres. Nasser came to power and tried to equalize it all by taking land away from the land owners and redistributing it to the poor peasants. Well everyone called him a communist and the US spat on him. With this income range of 20-150 dollars per month for %80 of the population, can you visualize the resentment a whining $20,000 per year neighbor might engender? Can you even begin to see that the US giving 2.5 billion dollars to a country of 50 million then 3.5 billion to a country of 6 million (peace dividend for Egypt and Israel) might frustrate some about the filtering American mindset? American governments have time and again shown an emotional bond to Israel and thought of the Arabs as monolithic aliens, incapable of human feelings and thought. After decades of this treatment, you bet it will spill over into hideous tactics. Only the US is to blame for this. Israel will take whatever the US gives them. They would be fools not to. Israel is not "fighting for its survival" today. It is fighting to grab as much land as it can, under the pretext of God's gift, for settlements. I think you need to understand a lot more about the Arab world before you make accusations about why those nations do what they do.
April 28, 2008

8:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yankee writes:

bropous,

During the Cold War the American Left saw America as the source of evil and had nothing but excuses for the likes Stalin and Mao. They fell silent when the wall fell in Berlin and watched passively as Chinese freedom fighters faced down tanks in Tiannamen Square.

They grew more silent in the first few years after 9/11 but drags on but, due in large part to the vigilance of Bush, we haven't been attacked again. Now in their complacency they have regained their voices and are back to full-throated defense of tyrants - condemning the decent and seeking excuses for the butchers.

I don't exactly understand the pathology that allows people to call good evil and evil good but the behaviour that dates back to the Old Testament lives this day in America.

Keep fighting the good fight.
April 28, 2008

8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

stuckiniowa writes:

I hope you all live next in the same neighborhood and your kids play soccer together on the same team.
April 28, 2008

10:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

Wechasa at 5:56,
I agree with you that the bible or the fact that Jews were in the land now called Israel 2,000 years ago is irrelevant to the current situation. By the same token, whether or not Solomon's Temple existed is also totally irrelevant to the discussion.
You throw "Zionists" around the way some conservatives throw around the word "liberals".
Zionism is the belief that there should be a nation-state for Jews. Nothing more and nothing less. "Zionists" are people who believe in Zionism. There are religious Zionists *God gave us this land, and by golly we're going to keep it.", political Zionists "We sttled here, we've fought and died here, and by golly, we're going to keep it.", and other types. Some Zionists want to settle things peacefully, others want to fight and take on all comers.
But Zionism is a neutral term defining a certain political or religious viewpoint. It is not an epithet or swear word.
There are a heckuva lot of Israelis and all sorts of Zionists who would love to create a peaceful solution. There are Palestinians and other Arabs who still dream of eliminating Israel and its population. And vice versa.
Zionism is not racism, no matter how many stinking resolutions the UN passes.
April 28, 2008

10:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

gs writes:

This has been a very enlightening and informative thread. Thank you all for contributing.
April 28, 2008

10:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

observer..... perhaps you can explain what the average salary of Egyptians has to do with Hamas and Hezbollah's murders of innocent civilians.

Back the original subject.... the Palestinians elect a terrorist organization to lead them and then whine that they're not getting any positive results from it. They reap what they sowed, and Herbert Cooper is 100% correct in his assessment of the Palestinians self-inflicted failures.
April 29, 2008

9:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Do all Palestinian supporters have such warped ideas?

"When anyone brings up the original Terrorist Gangsterism of "Israelis", it is, simply dismissed as something that occured "before (the writer) was born"; and so, is not even worth mentioning today."

LOL! How hypocritical. Wechasa REJECT any history that proves that Jews were living in the land of Israel for thousands of years, but you want to use any microscopic bits of history to attack Israelis. Your so-called claims of "Terrorist Gangsterism" to describe Israeli's is so devoid of any factual basis, that it makes you appear somewhat unstable. Any OBJECTIVE, RATIONAL viewing of the history of the Middle East will see that the people you claim to be "terrorists" did NOT target innocent civilians as the Palestinian terrorist routinely do. Jews did target MILITARY forces of the British military, just as Americans targeted British military forces to win our independence as well. Do you define the founding fathers of America to be terrorists? Your illogical attempt to tarnish Israeli's would require you to say so, since the Israeli's did the same thing as Americans in winning our independence.

"But, there is a basic principle of physics that applies also to the world of human relationships and functions as well: "For every ACTION, there is an equal and opposite REACTION." "

Another way of saying "the victims of terrorism asked for it". Just as idiots like Jeremiah Wright, Ward Churchill, and a handful of other crackpots say that America deserved Sep 11.

"Which boils down to a position of: "Never mind the first ACTION. That was just our own basic 'right'. Always condemn the REACTION. That's what is always 'wrong'""

Another way of saying that BOTH actions are equally justifiable. Moral relativism.

Of course, moral relativists such as Wechasa, are saying that Palestinians are justified in killing innocent civilians because Israel won't cease to exist.

They are the same ilk that say that it is acceptable to kill illegal immigrants if they cross the border.... afterall, in the 'wisdom' of Wechasa, the ACTION of those dirty illegal aliens JUSTIFIES the REACTION of killing them.

The same illogic can apply to Native Americans attacking Denver and bombing some city buses. Afterall, those evil Americans are "occupying" land that some other people lived on hundreds of years ago. ACTION JUSTIFIES THE REACTION.

Moral relativism. It's an attempt to blur the line between right and wrong. Between good and evil.

It is WRONG and EVIL to intentionally target and kill innocent civilians. No matter how much the ilk of Wechasa tries to pass it off as a good thing.
April 29, 2008

10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"You believe that there is NO difference between a nation ACCIDENTALLY killing civilians while targeting a terrorist"

thanks for the great example of a strawman argument rickybobby.

again...israel isn't "accidentally" killing civilians. they know full well that some missions will result in civilian casualties and move forward regardless of that fact.

all the rationalizing in the world isn't going to get you any closer to making anyone believe that there's "moral relativsim" at work here.

both the palestinians and israelis are to blame for this ongoing conflict.

don't choose just one for your ire. it's fascist
April 29, 2008

10:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"terrorist apologists"---bpourusanother

really? are we unamerican too? do we hit puppies in our meantime?

you are the same guy that 5 years ago screamed about "unpatriotism" when folks like us were against the invasion and occupation of iraq. you called us "anti-troop" and "pro-terrorist". you were as irrelevant then as you are today when you spout that kind of far right, rushian crap

elevate your game a little. we don't need that kind of ignorant, bomb throwing in here.

I don't think anyone here supports the killing of innocent civilians...by any of the parties involved...and that includes israel.

If you please, as you've already admitted you wouldn't trade peace for the lands occupied since '67, why don't you give us your idea of a solution for the israeli-palestinian conflict.
April 29, 2008

10:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM...

I copy/pasted Wechasa's own statements into the response, so it would be difficult to say that it's not what he/she has stated.

Wechasa has made numerous factual errors, and his/her attempts to rationalize the murder of innocent people is deplorable.

The excuse of "action = reaction" is the same warped claims that Ward Churchill used in saying Americans deserved Sep 11. Wechasa is using the same sleazy tactic to justify Palestinian terrorism, by saying it is the "actions" of Jews that causes the "reaction" of Palestinian terrorists to murder innocent civilians.

There is NO excuse in the intentional targeting and killing of innocent civilians. All the inane rationalizations by Wechasa and others of his/her ilk in justifying such actions cannot overcome the basic inhumanity such acts..... both the act of murdering innocent civilians and the act of defending such inhumanity.

Those who refuse to stand up to sleazebags that defend, justify, and rationalize terrorism, are no different who directly fund and support the terrorists.... the end result is the same.... more terrorism.
April 29, 2008

10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Those who refuse to stand up to sleazebags that defend, justify, and rationalize terrorism, are no different who directly fund and support the terrorists.... the end result is the same.... more terrorism."

again, this isn't the kind of ignorant, Rushian talking point we need here.

rickybobby, it is pretty obvious that your feelings on this issue have hindered your ability to think objectively about it. take a breath. calm down. no one here is sending checks to al qaeda. no one is saying that the killing of innocent cilivians is a good thing. think.
April 29, 2008

11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

The questions that the Palestinian terrorism apologists are too embarrassed to answer..........

How many Americans have died at the hands of Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many buses with innocent civilians have been blown up by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many innocent civilians have been kidnapped by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many airliners have been hijacked by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many Olympic athletes have been murdered by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many schools, with children present, have been attacked by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many movie theaters have been bombed by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many markets and grocery stores have been bombed by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many university cafeteria's and restaurants have been bombed by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

The silence of the pro-Palestinian crowd is likely to be deafening.....
April 29, 2008

11:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

wow
April 29, 2008

2 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek's response was even weaker than I suspected.

Number of people killed by Palestinian terrorists since 1947? 3,211. Number injured is 10,358. Per the Brookings Institute. Number of people killed by Israeli terrorists since 1947 (even stretching the definition to include what is normally classified as violent crimes in other countries), the total killed is 27. 3,211 killed vs. 27. What excuse will the Palestinian terrorist apologists use to explain about those facts?

The USS Liberty is an excuse for Palestinians killing 3,211 innocent people!!!! ROFLMAO! Perhaps OneCreek thinks that the families of four Americans, Marla Bennett (24) of San Diego, California, David Gritz (24) of Peru, Massachusetts, Benjamin Blutstein (25) of Susquehanna Township, Pennsylvania and Janis Ruth Coulter (36) will accept the Palestinian murders of their family members since there was an accidental firing on the USS Liberty in 1967. These Americans were murdered when a remote-controlled bomb detonated in the Frank Sinatra Cafeteria on Jerusalem's Hebrew University Mt. Scopus campus. Eighty-six others were injured. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

And then there is OneCreek's refusal to acknowledge the video coverage of Palestinians dancing in the streets when the news showed the attacks of Sep 11. Every American saw it with their own eyes. OneCreek even tries to use that conspiracy theory here by claiming the Palestinians were really Israeli's "dressed like Palestinians! Where does he come up with such "conspiracy theories? Why the internet of course!!!! ROFLMAO!!!

The kooky claims continue. "Israel bombs schools, restaurants, movie theaters, markets and grocery stores and businesses with far more regularity and effectiveness than the Palestinians could ever dream of. " Ah... sure. Where is your evidence of Israel bombing Palestinian schools, restaurants, movie theaters, etc? Oops. There is none. Must be those conspiracy websites you rely on.

And of course, what little pro-terrorist, Palestinian jihadist wouldn't resist the urge to BLAME AMERICA???? OneCreek.: "They use screaming U.S. supplied aircraft and clusterbombs". Those evil AMERICANS ARE TO BLAME!!!!

The bizarre excuses continue.... "How many Israeli homes have the Palestinians systematically bulldozed, Ricky? Zero. " Israeli's FORCE the occupants to LEAVE the buildings when they bulldoze a terrorist's building. Palestinians blow up the building with INNOCENT CIVILIANS INSIDE THEM. Just review the Sbarro bombing in downtown Jerusalem, which killed 15 innocent people, including a 31-year-old tourist from New Jersey, Shoshana Greenbaum and wounded more than 90. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Typical. No wonder Palestinians will forever be stuck in a cesspool of their own making. They deserve it for trying to use terror as a weapon, instead of logic, reason, and humanity to accomplish their goals.
April 29, 2008

2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Wechasa.... come on admit it. You real name is Ward Churchill. The parallels in excuse making for terrorists and the "blame the victims" and "blame America" is too strong a correlation to Ward's claims.
April 29, 2008

2:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

wow again. rickybobby....you're failing miserably to appear well informed or objective in this debate...as is your buddy bpouranother.

again folks. the atrocities committed by both sides of this conflict are deplorable. yes kids, that means some of both palestinian and israeli activities.

i'm still waiting on that reasonable solution to the violence from you folks on the far right.
April 29, 2008

2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM....

If winning support means accepting the shallow factless excuses some make for terrorists, then no thanks. History is filled with people who accepted the wishes of hatemongers and stood by as the conditions were laid to victimize people.

Just ask a Holocaust survivor if they are happy that people in Germany decided to stand by as people make excuses for why Jews should be victimized. No doubt, all of the victims wished that Germans had been more willing to stand up to the hatemongers... and NOT accept the excuses the hatemongers were giving for their actions.

As for the postings of a handful.... sorry, but when you look at an issue like terrorism, there is no way you can explain it away with morally relavant positions like "action results in a reaction". That is no different than saying the "actions of the little Eichmanns caused bin Laden to react". The "actions of the Jews caused Germany to react". That is placing the blame on the victims.

Believe it or not, there actually is right and wrong. Good and evil.

The intentional targeting of innocent people by suicide bombers is wrong and evil. And ANYONE who provides direct or indirect support for them is wrong and evil. And anyone who JUSTIFIES it as a "reaction" to the victim's "action" is just as wrong and evil.

As long as there are some people who are willing to say that terrorism is a reaction to an action, they will always be promoting terrorism. Because any group of nuts will always be able to point to an "action" and then use it as an excuse for their "reaction".

If you really want to end violence and terrorism, the way to do is to stop encouraging people to make excuses for it, and start condemning it. And condemning those who intentionally, or unintentionally, excuse it away by claiming it is just a "reaction to an action". Making excuses for the perpetrators, by blaming the victims, just victimizes them a second time.
April 29, 2008

2:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay...

Perhaps you didn't think of this solution.

1. Palestinians stop committing terrorist attacks against innocent people.
2. Then Palestinians will garner MORE support from the world - and Israeli's - to address their concerns.

Of course, Palestinians refuse to do that, because they'd rather blow up other people, than actually do anything to solve their problems.

Especially when they have morons making excuses for their terrorist attacks... like claiming it's all just a "reaction" to those mean old Israeli's who refuse to accept the demands of the jihadists to be "wiped off the face of the earth".
April 29, 2008

2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

The silence is deafening. The result of not being able to answer without admitting the obvious.

How many Americans have died at the hands of Palestinians and their supporters? How many by the hands of Israelis?

How many buses with innocent civilians have been blown up by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many innocent civilians have been kidnapped by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many airliners have been hijacked by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many Olympic athletes have been murdered by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many schools, with children present, have been attacked by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many movie theaters have been bombed by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many markets and grocery stores have been bombed by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

How many university cafeteria's and restaurants have been bombed by Palestinians and their supporters? How many by Israelis?

Honest answers are too embarrassing to those who want to make excuses for Palestinians. The facts are undeniable. So better for them to remain silent, try to divert attention, or just try some deflecting humor, than to be honest and admit the truth.
April 29, 2008

2:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

now you're back to the strawman arguments rickybobby.

we "morons" are simply stating the obvious...that this tit for tat violence is the fault of all parties involved...not just the palestinians.

let's start small.

do you understand what you've just read?
April 29, 2008

3:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

that's not a solution that is equitable to the palestinians gw but at least you're thinking.

bporous...still waiting. you have admitted that you wouldn't trade the occupied lands for peace....so what is your idea for a solution?
April 29, 2008

3:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

"that's not a solution that is equitable to the palestinians"

That's because the only thing that Palestinians and their supporters want is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth".

How many times do they need to admit it, before people start to believe it? That is why they have REPEATEDLY REFUSED to accept any proposal that requires them to give up the killing of innocent people.
April 29, 2008

3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

rickybobby said "That's because the only thing that Palestinians and their supporters want is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth"."

this is yet another strawman argument from the far right...and can be dismissed as much.

do you have have anything of value to add to the discussion rick?
April 29, 2008

3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

bropous.... agreed. They seem too embarrassed to even attempt to answer. But then they should be. How can a "human being" even attempt to explain incidents like these as ANYTHING other than murder.....

Shalhevet Pass, age 10 months, was killed by sniper fire at the entrance to the Avraham Avinu neighborhood in Hebron. What threat was a 10 month old baby to Palestinians? Did the Palestinians simply "react" to the "actions" of a 10 month old baby? Did the 10 month old bulldoze a terrorist's house? Did the 10 month old pose a threat to the terrorists?

What did a 4 year old and 1 year old do to deserve to be murdered? Liran Zer-aviv 4, and Noya Zer-Aviv 1, and their parents were killed, including four children, and 60 wounded in a suicide bombing carried out by a female terrorist from Jenin in the Maxim restaurant in Haifa. Did these children take "action" against Palestinians? They were murdered in Haifa, which isn't even in any of the areas that the terrorist apologists say is Palestinian territories!

Can the apologists explain how the suicide bombing that killed these children can be any kind of "reaction"? Noone with an IQ above 12 would call the murder of these children a "reaction". Anyone with an IQ above 12 will call such an incident as pure murder. Not a "reaction". Not a justifiable act. Not a response to some one else's "actions". It's murder. No matter what the apologists want to claim.
April 29, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM....

Do some checking. I offered the solution. Of course, the apologists refuse to acknowledge it because it requires the Palestinians to stop killing innocent people.

That is their dilemna. The terrorists have zero interest in getting land. Their sole intent is to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth". They've admitted it.

The apologists refuse to accept that whenever any land for peace has been offered to the Palestinians, they turn it down.
April 29, 2008

3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

So i'll ask again, rick. do you understand that the killing of innocent civilians is not an exclusive trait of the palestinians? come on man, your slip is showing. you're just becoming more and more irrelevant to this discussion until you understand that the blame for the continuing violence seen in the middle east can be laid on all shoulders involved.

"the apologists refuse to acknowledge it because it requires the Palestinians to stop killing innocent people"

again with the strawman arguments, ricky?

hamas has said that they would trade peace for the occupied lands.

do you think that is an equitable solution?
April 29, 2008

3:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay....

Do you understand that there is a difference between intentionally killing a person and accidentally killing a person?

Israel has accidentally killed Palestinian civilians. They have intentionally killed terrorists. There are NO organized groups launching terrorist attacks against Palestinian civilians.

Palestinians have accidentally killed Israeli's, Americans, and others. But they have also INTENTIONALLY killed thousands of Israeli's, Americans and others. There ARE organized groups of Palestinians launching terrorists attacks against Israeli, American, and other civilians.

Can you admit some obvious facts?

Palestinians are intentionally targeting innocent civilians to murder. Agree?

Both Palestinians and Iraeli's have killed civilians, however it is common for Palestinian terrorists to intentionally target civilians to be killed, while Israel does not intentionally target innocent Palestinian civilians and those deaths are due to collateral damage. Agree?

Your attempt to water down the actions of the Palestinian terrorists (3000+ murders) by claiming that a handful of Palestinians were killed intentionally, is as weak intellectually as saying the Holocaust is no worse a tragedy than a drug dealer that got shot during a drug deal gone wrong. Both involve murders, but the scale and scope are not even remotely comparable. That is what you're attempting to claim by pointing the finger at Israel, while ignoring the far worse actions of Palestinian terrorists.
April 29, 2008

4:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Do you understand that there is a difference between intentionally killing a person and accidentally killing a person?"

ricky we've come back to this point several times now and I am forced to surmise that you're ability to move forward objectively on this issue is being severely hampered by your inability to come to terms with a politically or theologically inconvenient fact. that fact remains that israeli as well as palestinian forces carry out missions in which both know that innocent civilians will be killed.

I have ignored none of the violence committed by both sides of this conflict...which is why my stance on this issue is much more credible than is yours.

now...until you come to terms with that i think your relevance to this discussion is minimal at best and should therefore be taken with the pillar of salt it deserves.
April 29, 2008

4:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

Quite right Wechesa...there's only so much that can be done with willful ignorance.
April 29, 2008

4:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

don't pout about misspelled words as i type 75 a minute while doing a hundred things at once while at work, bpourusanother.....you've cornered yourself in this discussion...don't take it out on us
April 29, 2008

4:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

After reading this thread in one sitting, I came to the conclusion;

The innocent Israeli victims are "more dead" and the innocent Palestinian victims are "less dead" based on the intent and method of who's doing the killing. makes perfect sense.
April 29, 2008

4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

gs writes:

OneCreek does seem correct on one matter. there has not been one comment on possible solutions. All comments seem to say who is more to blame. Who is more wrong. Who is more evil. For me 60 years is enough. I really think there is enough blame, wrong, and evil to go around. Now is the time to work on solutions.
April 29, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

actually, gs, there have been a couple possible solutions thrown out. and as far as the thought that there is enough blame for all sides of this conflict...you betcha...but you're wrong that both sides of this discussion are unwilling to admit that fact.
April 29, 2008

5:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

as i said, i think your solution isn't equitable for the palestinians, offering nothing to address the issues of occupied lands and a palestinian state.

it's great to get both parties to the table during periods of ceasefire, though. such methods have historically been successful in spawning renewed interest in a peaceful accord. unfortunately there are enough extremists on both side of this conflict to ensure that meaningful concessions will be rare and hard fought.
April 29, 2008

6:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM....

Posted by rickg19611 on April 29, 2008 at 2:41 p.m.

1. Palestinians stop committing terrorist attacks against innocent people.
2. Then Palestinians will garner MORE support from the world - and Israeli's - to address their concerns.

Of course, Palestinians refuse to do that, because they'd rather blow up other people, than actually do anything to solve their problems.
April 29, 2008

6:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

Wechasa....

You ask "What other "Ally" of the United States ever deliberately and intentionally fired upon a United States Naval Vessel on the High Seas?"

Ever read a history book? Swallow hard as you read and realize the error of your thinking.

Here is a LIST of allies of the United States who deliberately and intentionally fired upon a United States Naval Vessels on the High Seas.....

ENGLAND
GERMANY
JAPAN
ISRAEL
ITALY
SPAIN

No wonder you don't understand how crazy it is to use a SINGLE incident (accidental at that) as an excuse for why people shouldn't be condemning Palestinians for killing THOUSANDS of innocent civilians.

Try spending less time dreaming up excuses for terrorists, and more time reading a few history books.
April 29, 2008

6:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM...

What a shame. Why is it so hard for you to just admit you made a simple mistake in falsely claiming that no solution was offered? That doesn't reflect well on you.

So you believe that Palestinians halting their terrorist attacks so they win the P.R. battle and garner sympathy for their cause is a "stupid" solution.

When people start claiming that "groups stop committing terrorism" is a "stupid" idea, then it says as much as about them as it does those who target the innocent to achieve their political aims. What a shame indeed.
April 29, 2008

6:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

peterpi writes:

rickg19611,
Your list of US allies includes 5 countries that we were at war with. They weren't our allies at the time. Of course they were deliberately firing on our ships.
Israel fired on the USS Liberty while being an ally. The Israelis have insisted it was an accident. But the Liberty was listening in on Israeli radio traffic during the Six Day War, so some people including US military types and others, aren't so sure.
Wechasa isn't using a single incident to protest Israel's activities, the Liberty is but one of his arguments.
As far as I'm concerned, every time anyone starts significant progress, someone somewhere starts shooting or setting off bombs. Or an Israeli shoots a prime minister because the prime minister dared to dream of peace.
Israel needs secure and defensiblke borders. The Palestinians need a compact contiguous state that isn't divided up into dozens of pieces.
Years ago, some pundit proposed Israel should negotiate borders. Failing that, make a reasonable determination of its borders, build a wall, and tell all Israeli settlers that they can either live outside those borders and take their chances with a Palestinian government, or move within the wall. After a date certain, all land outside the wall becomes Palestinian.
It's simplistic, but still one of the best proposals I've heard so far.
April 29, 2008

6:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

It's interesting that some claim to be for peace and an end of violence, but refuse to even endorse the idea of Palestinians halting their terrorist campaigns. Some call the idea of halting terrorism "stupid". Others try to ignore it.

The mystery is why would anyone who REALLY wants to end the violence be so opposed to Palestinians halting their terrorist campaigns?

Perhaps it is related to the same individuals refusal to acknowledge the obvious.... that Palestinian terrorists target innocent civilians.

When shown the proof of 3,000 innocent victims of terrorism, they refuse to acknowledge it and go off on a rant about some cannon fire in 1947.

When shown that Americans have been targeted by Palestinian terrorists, and dozens have been murdered, they go off on a case of mistaken identity between the Israeli military and the US Navy. Of course, anyone who has ever been anywhere near the military knows that mistaken identity during combat is common. Just ask the families of "friendly fire" incidents.

When shown the victims include infants that were killed in the past couple of years by sniper fire and suicide bombers, they ignore it.

Why the refusal to join in a call for the Palestinians to stop killing innocent civilians? Why the refusal to acknowledge their victims?

The proof is clear. Some people lie about wanting peace, but really want the war on civilians to continue. Otherwise, they would be the first in line to call on Palestinians to end their terrorist attacks.
April 29, 2008

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

GWM,

***immediate cease fire by everyone. No conditions. No prisoner exchanges. Palestinians are free to move about Israel and all blockades are lifted except searches for weapons. (If one act of terrorism is committed by Hammas or its supporters, everything stops and we go back to tit for tat.)***

Unfortunately I will not have to write much to tear apart your proposal. We would be back to tit for tat, in a heartbeat. Sorry to say the rest of your proposal would never come about. Hamas has little or no desire to work for a peaceful solution and as long as the UN Human Rights Committee is totally on the Palestinians side they have no reason to stop.

Until the Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist, and recognise it as a sovereign country there will be no peace in the Middle East. The radical governments of Syria and Iran feed off of this conflict so they will continue to fuel the fire as long as they can.

When and if the world ever comes to the conclusion that Israel is not going to go away peacefully and will not tolerate the constant attacks from terrorist, then and only then will peace come to the Middle East.
April 29, 2008

7:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

peterpi,

Wechasa's question wasn't about when they were allies.

But even bending over backward to give him the benefit of doubt, England fired on US ships by accident during WWII. Friendly fire is common, because identifying friend or foe is still an issue. And in 1967 it was an even bigger challenge.

The Liberty incident may be one of his arguments, but it's a pretty funny stretch to use the Liberty incident as an excuse when confronted with the PROOF of Palestinian terrorism.

What next? Using friendly fire incidents during the Gulf War between US and English forces as an excuse for the USS Cole bombing? How about the Canadian troops killed by the USAF F15 pilot in Afghanistan? Does that excuse Sep 11 terrorism?

The solution is simple. Palestinians halt their terrorist campaigns, and then the world - and Israeli's - will be much more supportive of helping them solve their problems.
April 29, 2008

7:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

GWM,

Sorry to say as long as individuals take a position on one side of the fence without considering the other side, nothing good will happen. The goal for too many people regarding the Middle East is to prove one side or the other, wrong. Some of the postings you are encountering does nothing more than prove my point. Good luck on trying to get a reasonable response from some of those people.
April 29, 2008

7:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

GWM,

On the other hand I believe how the Palestians (West Bank) and Israelis are working somewhat together is a positive sign and one can only hope good things will come from that.
April 29, 2008

8:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

This issue is no different than most issues facing the world, people are more interested in proving each other wrong than actually trying to find a solution.
April 29, 2008

11:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek,

Again, as I told you, reading some history books will be useful for you. Helps to avoid looking foolish.

Go to the following site for the dcoumentary evidence from the source itself.... Gauker, Eleanor D. and Christopher G. Blood. "Friendly Fire Incidents During World War II Naval Operations." Naval War College Review 48, no.1 (Winter 1995): 115-22.

The link to see it yourself is www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq11-1.htm

Here is the summary that makes me enjoy it so much.

"Casualties on US Ships Hit by Allied Gunfire During WW2". You do realize that the US was part of the Allied forces... right?

1942 1943 1944 1945 Total
Ship Type WIA KIA WIA KIA WIA KIA WIA KIA WIA KIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 16 15 16
Destroyer 8 5 0 0 21 3 80 10 109 18
Battleship 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 21 109 21
Submarine 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 83
PT Boat 0 0 0 0 23 22 0 4 23 26
Landing Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3
Salvage Ship 0 0 18 8 0 0 0 6 18 14
Cruiser 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2 21 2
Transport 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 8 1
Patrol Craft 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 6 1
Minesweeper 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1
Cargo Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Seaplane Tender 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hospital Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 5 18 8 44 108 368 65 438 186

Now that you know that 438 Americans died in as a result of friendly fire (in ONE war alone), what was that drivel line you spewed about someone being a "liar"?

Guess the proof reveals who the liar really is..... you can go ahead and apologize at any time. Be a man! Your apology will be accepted.
April 29, 2008

11:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM.....

Why are you having difficulty understanding the best solution.

"IF BOTH SIDES STOP SHOOTING, WHAT IS YOUR NEXT STEPS OF SOLUTION?"

I explained the next steps. Once Palestinians stop with the terror attacks, then they will garner support from all corners of the globe. Even within Israel from the moderate and leftists.

With that support, they are in a stronger negotiating position to achieve their goals.

As long as they keep targeting innocent civilians, they will only get support from the extremists in the world.... which means no progress towards their objectives.

As I said repeatedly, that assumes they really want peace, but all of the evidence shows they do not.

Get it now?
April 30, 2008

12:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek....

This is too much fun to resist providing even more!

"28Dec1941 . Destroyer Peary (DD-226) is damaged when mistakenly bombed and strafed by RAAF Hudsons off Kina, Celebes, N.E.I.". Notice this was RAF AIRCRAFT that mistakenly attacked US Navy ship... just like the incident that you claim is the only example in history!

That is just one juicy example of your error.... enjoy the rest at
www.ww2pacific.com/friendly.html

No need for an elaborate apology. Just a simple statement indicating your error, and then we can move on to other topics.

Like how to get the Palestinians to stop killing children.
April 30, 2008

7:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM....

I'm not sure if I should feel pity for you, or just laugh. You claim that if the Palestinians STOP terrorist attacks, it WILL NOT reduce the violence and increase the chances for a lasting peace.

What next? You'll be claiming that INCREASING the terrorist attacks will reduce or eliminate the violence? Claiming that a law requiring all drivers to be intoxicated will reduce drunk driving? Claiming that increasing taxes to 100% on every person's income will increase their disposable income?

Your refusal to believe that stopping terrorist attacks will reduce or eliminate the level of violence reminds me of a quote from George MacDonald that fits you like a glove.....

"The two pillars of 'political correctness' are:
a) willful ignorance
b) a steadfast refusal to face the truth"

It's like he had you, Jay, and OneCreek in mind when he said it.
April 30, 2008

8:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek...

A real adult would simply say "I was wrong. I apologize for calling you a 'liar', when you have proven you know more about the subject."

Instead, after discovering that your claim that the USS Liberty was the only US Navy ship ever attacked by an ally was completely false, you now try to claim that it doesn't really matter because the "percentages" were low. LOL.

Instead of just being mature enough to say "I was wrong", you're now going to try to excuse it away with comments about the state of radio technology 41 years ago?

But then what should anyone expect of a person that believes the Palestinians should not be condemnded for targeting children to be murdered in suicide bomb attacks. Certainly not any intelligence, maturity, or self-reflection. And never any admission of being wrong. Even when it's obvious to yourself.
April 30, 2008

10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM...

It would be an expansion of the second step I provided.... expanding on the positive P.R. that the Palestinians gain by denouncing and STOPPING the use of terrorism. This leads to other nations putting more pressure on Israel to offer up things in return... i.e. economic development, expansion of territories, etc. That in turn enables Palestinians to start solving more of their most pressing problems. And adds to their strength at the bargaining table on future discussions about other issues.

Even within Israel itself, moderates and liberals will generate additional pressure on Israel to concede on issues since the terrorist attacks would no longer be a reason to resist Palestinian demands (demands that today are based on terroristic blackmail).

Look at Libya. They UNILATERALLY stopped their WMD programs and immediately gained economic concessions and benefits from Europe and the US. They had enough intelligence to know that they have to be willing to offer something meaningful, in order to get something in return.

Palestinians should learn from the example. If the Palestinians would gain the intelligence and humanity to stop their terrorism activities, they can immediately begin negotiating from a position of strength, rather than the position of being viewed by the world as terrorist supporting fanatics that cannot be trusted.
April 30, 2008

10:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

gwm...don't pout. you asked for my critique of your "solution" and i gave it to you. if you have a retort the the fair criticism i gave please give it, but don't attack me.

any solution has to address the israeli occupation of lands taken in '67. any solution has to address the formation of a palestinian state.

"Until the Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist, and recognise it as a sovereign country there will be no peace in the Middle East."

this is yet another strawman argument from our resident strawman factory. hamas has said they would do this and offer a cease fire for the return of lands taken by israel in '67.

i guess i don't see the problem. sounds like a good solution to me.

if that doesn't work then i say put the most holiest of sites under international rule...allowing none of the engaged parties to claim ownership.
April 30, 2008

11 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek...

Even after you saw the evidence that your accusations about Israel were inaccurate, you have a psychological need to describe those who show you the error as "liars". Perhaps that is a way of assuaging your shame at your shortcomings in understanding the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Your conspiracy theory rants about Israel are revealing. Combining that with your repeated errors in understanding historical facts, refusal to admit your own mistakes, and insistence on describing those who provide proof of your errors as "liars", is proof that you lack the intellectual capacity to offer anything of substance to the issue.

A great quote about the maturity and character in admitting ones mistakes is appropriate. "It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character."

You lack the infirmity of character. Spend less time reading conspiracy theories, and more time dealing with your character flaws. The world will be a better place if you do.
April 30, 2008

11:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

ricky, you might be right. willful ignorance doesn't make you a liar...it just makes you willfully ignorant.
April 30, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

***"Until the Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist, and recognize it as a sovereign country there will be no peace in the Middle East."

this is yet another strawman argument from our resident strawman factory. hamas has said they would do this and offer a cease fire for the return of lands taken by israel in '67.***

I must have missed the part where Hamas has said they would recognize Israel as a sovereign country. Maybe that is because they absolutely refused to do so. A cease fire with Hamas is a joke, the attacks will continue and Hamas will deny they had any involvement, a very common tactic used by Syria and mastered by Iran.
April 30, 2008

11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

conspiracy theories again jdg?
April 30, 2008

11:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'm sorry gwm, i thought i already addressed the holes in your solution.

is there anything further that you'd like to discuss?
April 30, 2008

12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

From the recent Jimmy Carter talks with Hamas

http://abcnews.go.com/International/s...

April 21, 2008

"In a separate news conference in Damascus later in the day, Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said that while Hamas would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it would not recognize Israel.

But Hamas also proposed a 10-year truce with Israel if it withdraws from lands it seized in 1967, an implicit recognition of Israel.

Hamas is excluded from the U.S.-backed peace process because it has refused to recognize Israel or renounce violence. A paragraph from its founding charter calls for Israel's destruction."
April 30, 2008

12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

Jay,

I know this is asking a lot but could you give me your opinion on why Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel knowing the only results will be is further retaliation and possible invasion from Israel?
April 30, 2008

12:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

what have i said about the pouting, gwm. let's start small. your "solution" didn't address the occupied lands taken in '67 nor the formation of a palestinian state. how do you respond to that? do you believe that neither have a place in said solution?

jdg...i disagree with hamas on that one...just as i disagree with the israelis on some of their positions. isn't it nice to be unencumbered by blind political loyalty?
April 30, 2008

1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM....

Score 1 for you. Spot on with the catch on "infirmity of character". I should have used the word "possess" instead of "lack". My mistake. That's what I get for being rushing through... and not proofreading.
April 30, 2008

1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

For those who claim that Israel should return to the 1967 borders in exchange for a promise from Hamas to stop committing terrorist attacks, you have a major problem. It has already done, with the result being an INCREASE in terrorist attacks.

In 1993, Israel handed over the pre-1967 border areas of Gaza and portions of the West Bank.

In 1995, Israel handed over even more land, extending to almost the entire West Bank.

Did the volume of terrorist attacks go down with the Palestinians gaining more land?

Exactly the opposite.

The average number of annual terrorist attacks on Israel prior to 1993 was 26. The average after the handover of land to Palestinians increased to 109.

So until Paletinians (and their apologists) start practicing what they preach, any hand over of land will be a useless gamble.... one that history has shown to be a bust.

Now that Palestinians have shot down any hope that handing over land will reduce terrorism, the ball is in the Palestinians court. If they ever want peace, they need to take the action to stop committing terror. And THEN people can trust them not to pull another con-job by lying about being willing to trade "land for peace".
April 30, 2008

1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I had no idea that israel returned all the lands they took in '67, ricky.

please provide a link. i'd love to read about it.
April 30, 2008

2:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

jay...

Read some newspapers. As I stated...

In 1993, Israel handed over the pre-1967 border areas of Gaza and portions of the West Bank.

In 1995, Israel handed over even more land, extending to almost the entire West Bank.

Are you now flipflopping and claiming that "handing over 90% of the land will result in a 300% increase in terrorism, but handing over 100% will result in a magical elimination of all terrorism"?

The evidence is irrefutable, no matter what spin you attempt for the Palestinians. They received 90% of what they were demanding.... and responded by INCREASING their terrorist attacks. You cannot refute it.
April 30, 2008

2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so did they not hand over all the lands that they took in '67 or did they, ricky?
April 30, 2008

2:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM....

You're claiming that the Palestinian Authority does not exist?

Anyone who has been in Israel knows that the security fence is installed BETWEEN the newly acquired Palestinian land that Israel handed back to them... and Israel!

Are you really going to deny reality and claim that installing a fence between Israel and the Palestinian Authority lands means the Palestinian lands do not exist? What magic potion is needed to induce the hallucination that the Palestinian lands disappeared when a mere fence was installed?

I never mentioned the Golan Heights or East Jerusalem. As I stated, Israel gave up 90% of the land captured in the 67 war. I never said it was 100%.

Until you can refute the basic facts, then your argument has no basis in reality.

FACT: Israel returned 90% of the land captured in the 1967 war in 1993 and 1995.

FACT: Palestinians INCREASED their terrorist attacks from 26 annually PRIOR to 1993, to 109 since getting the land from Israel.

FACT: Israel returned land to Palestinians and Palestinians INCREASED the number of terrorist attacks by approximately 300%.

Can you refute ANY of those three verifiable facts? No. Admit it.
April 30, 2008

2:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

and can you ricky, admit that your number mean nothing if ALL the lands weren't given back?

your argument is ironically is invalid as you chide other's to be
April 30, 2008

2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM...

Explain the logic that the best response to a 300% increase in terrorism after giving in to 90% of the demands of a radical group, is to do more of the same?

Palestinians have already proven that the more land they are handed from Israel, the more they demand. The facts (that you apparently concede are irrefutable) demonstrate that Palestinians will only respond with MORE terrorist attacks. The irrefutable history proves it.

I can understand Jay, OneCreek, and a couple of others wanting to encourage MORE terrorist attacks, but you sound like someone a little more rational. Perhaps not.
April 30, 2008

2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

guess we'll assume you've conceded the point about the invalidity of your argument, ricky.

we have bporous on record saying that he wouldn't trade peace for the rest of the occupied lands. are you of the same mind and will you fall back on the same conspiracy theories?
April 30, 2008

4:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

gwm, you never did answer the question, speaking of solutions.

your plan doesn't address the occupied lands nor the formation of a palestinian state.

do you not believe them to be necessary part of a successful accord?
April 30, 2008

5:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

so your answer is no...israel shouldn't return all of the lands occupied since '67.

isn't that a much shorter, more direct answer?

now is the tough one.

why not?
April 30, 2008

6:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i'm not sure why you feel i put you down, gw. you took the long way to getting to your position that israel should not have to return the lands occupied since '67.

again....why not?
April 30, 2008

7:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

GWM....

Do some 5 minute research. You’ll learn that I am correct. A great resource, even though they are far too accomodating to Palestinians is StratFor. Check out www.stratfor.com/pna_israelis_exercise_long_division for a pro-Palestinian slanted view that confirms what I’ve said about the West Bank.

Surely you recall the elections of Hamas? Recall how the Fatah party lost control, and in response Abbas took over control of the West Bank territories and left Gaza to Hamas?

As for your complaints about the fence, there are some crucial facts about the response of the Palestinians to the fence that confirm my solutions work. Real world proof.

The level of violence from West Bank has dropped off over the past two years. While the level of Gaza violence has INCREASED. One of the key factors in West Bank violence dropping was that Abbas and the PNA in the West Bank were much more aggressive at reducing terrorist attacks than Hamas in Gaza.

As a response, Israel has opened up MORE entry points between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank territories as a response. So when Palestinians REDUCE their terrorist attacks, Israel responds with concessions. Reduce terror = benefits for all.

"Give us some more meat than your two part proposal. What do you think the boundaries ought to be? What prisoners should be exchanged? When and under what circumstances should the checkpoints be opened?"

Libya and Abbas have proven my solution work.

Boundaries? Whatever both sides work out. For those who demand it be a return to the 67 boundaries, they are foolish. They fail to realize that if everything goes back to the 67 boundaries, Palestinians get NOTHING. The territory captured was Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian, and Egyptian. But if Israel returns any portion of it to those countries, and they decide to give it the Palestinians, so be it. Funny how those countries weren't willing to do it prior to 67, but now demand that Israel do it. Typical hypocrisy.

Prisoner exchanges? Yes, on a 1 to 1 basis. This nonsense of demanding that 5,000 terrorists for 1 kidnapped Israeli is idiotic.

The checkpoints ARE open. On the West Bank. And as I said before, a simple review of the news stories of the West Bank situation over the past year or so will show that Israel has opened more checkpoints than were open 2 years ago. Reduce terror = benefits for all

As for Gaza. Keep em closed until Hamas stops firing rockets into Israel. Keep em closed until the Hamas learns the lesson that Abbas has demonstrated when you reduce terrorism, both sides benefit.
April 30, 2008

8:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

jgd writes:

If I was Israel I would go in front of the UN security council and explain to them we are going to open more checkpoints, restore all utilities to Gaza, release any funds due them, and if the Palestinians would like we would help them in rebuilding the infrastructure within Gaza.

However the first rocket that lands inside our territory or any suicide bombers detonate within our borders. We will release HELL!
Walk away and wait for the Palestian's answer.
May 1, 2008

10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

gwm, i'd still be interested in hearing your opinion about why israel should be allowed to keep the lands they invaded and occupied in '67
May 1, 2008

11:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

gwm...you seem to be contradicting yourself...i'm not sure i'm understanding...should israel have to give back ALL the lands occupied since '67 or not?

yes or no
May 1, 2008

11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

i see a conspiracy theory about the "inevitable war" to come in the future as justification for keeping occupied lands...is that it?
May 1, 2008

12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you haven't answered the original question gw...unless you truly believe that a conspiracy theory about a future war is a reasonable justification for israel to keep lands that they invaded and occupied. seems a little weak to me, but hey, that's just one guy talking.
May 1, 2008

12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

bpor...you get more irrelevant here with each extremist post. isn't rush on?
May 1, 2008

1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prot...
May 1, 2008

2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

agreed. the most highly debated strips of land in the heights should be internationalized. no doubt about it. if you can't play nice, then mommy will take the ball away.
May 1, 2008

3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

you are absolutely right that the question i asked had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory about a future war in the middle east, gwm...that theory came to light in your answer to said question.

i'd be happy to debate...but let's get the answer to the original question before we move on shall we?

now...can you elaborate on this theory of yours that israel shouldn't relinquish the lands the took because of some future war?
May 1, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

easy trigger...take a breath...calm down. your initial "solution" didn't have any details whatsoever about the occupied lands and the formation of a palestinian state (something you're still dodging)

after chasing you around a bit, i finally got some additional information from you about the hole in your "solution" after asking again:

"gwm, you never did answer the question, speaking of solutions. your plan doesn't address the occupied lands nor the formation of a palestinian state. do you not believe them to be necessary part of a successful accord?"

to which you kindly replied that:

"Sorry Jay, I thought I had intuitively. (i'm not a mind reader....which is why we're still trying to clarify your position instead of moving on) Israel should dismantle any settlements that are East of the current fence. Yes, the settlements West of the fence but inside the former boundaries would be a concession by the Palestinians. The resulting land East of the fence and all of Gaza would be the Palestinian state. No capital for the Palestinians in Jerusalem. The current split of the Golan would continue. Did that address your question? Please don't just say that won't work, because I do not think the 1967 will work either. I know this is likely your biggest concern. But look at this realistically, who has the biggest gun at the moment? There is no way Israel is going to go back to the 1967 borders. Who is going to make them do that?"

again, at this point you still hadn't said WHY you think israel should be able to keep some of the land occupied since '67.

so i asked again:

"why not?"

and after chasing you around for another bit you said:

"They should keep the Golan up to the current international demarcation line. This is to make it more difficult for the next war that will inevitably come."

so...before we move on any further...what's the deal with your conspiracy theory about the next "war" about which you've written as a justification for israel to keep occupied lands?

i didn't think getting details about your "solution" would be so difficult.
May 1, 2008

3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

that truly is unbelievable.

thoughts, bporous, jdg, gwm?
May 1, 2008

3:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"Giving most of it back for a state is fair in my opinion"

but why not all back? you've now given two reasons. one...a security buffer and two...because of your conspiracy theory about the next "war".

you can run from your own rhetoric...but why not just establish the point so we can move forward?

for the record, i don't think the palestinian should have sole ownership of the highly contested lands any more than israel should...that's the beauty of being truly in the middle on this issue...unlike you. i think they should be internationalized and managed by a group representing all concerned parties. i don't agree with your conspiracy theory justification for israel's continuing occupation of these lands...and the fact that that is all the justification you have speaks volumes about your partisan stance on this issue.
May 1, 2008

4:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

"I am tired. But here is the conspiracy theory which is not one at all. I just believe that the peoples of this region, both Arabs and Jews, have not joined the modern civilized world. There is no conspiracy in my mind at all. I just think that whatever the solution is in the short term, animosity on both sides will prevail and war will break out again. I do not know if it is 10, 50, 100, or 500 years in the future. These people will never live in peace."

yes...and by this conspiratorial justification...you side with israel's safety instead of the shared safety of the region...by assuming that they won't be the ones to start conflict...which again shows how truly biased you are on this issue. you obviously feel very strongly about it, which is why you should take your own conclusions with a grain of salt...as will the rest of us.
May 1, 2008

4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

I"m not saying they are going to start this imaginary new war of the future, gwm. never have. i'm just pointing out the biases evident in your argument.

by internationalizing some of the highly contested areas and returning the rest of the occupied lands, israel would in effect be investing in their own safety and stability as well as the safety and stability of other nations in the middle east.
May 2, 2008

6:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek...

It's good to hear that you learned your lesson for calling people "liars" simply because they showed you the proof of your errors. That is a positive step.

While the mature thing to do would be to have apologized for it, the important thing is that you've recognize your mistake, so that you don't make the same mistake in the future. Good for you.

Of course, you still haven't learned how to avoid blaming the Jews for the actions of the Palestinians, but then some people just need more time to discover the error of their beliefs. Or to have others show them the proof of their errors.

Sooner of later, enough innocent people will be killed that you will learn to see them as the true victims. Not the terrorists that killed them. Just as it took the world some time to realize that the victims of the Holocaust were the true victims, not those who killed them.

Good luck.
May 2, 2008

9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

rickybobby, that might be single most ignorant post on this thread. well done sir, you certainly set the bar low.
May 2, 2008

10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

great post OneCreek...tough to argue with the hypocrisy of the israelis
May 2, 2008

12:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

rickg19611 writes:

OneCreek...

Still reading those skinhead pamphlets that tell you the Jews are a threat to America?

"This is typical behavior of U.S. Zionists, a minority of Jewish-Americans, led by Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman. Those two are likely the main cause of anti-Semetic feelings in the U.S., and cause more ill than good. "

Once again... the cause of anti-Semtic feelings are the result of the Jews Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman. The age old bigot's excuse... the victims are to blame for their own victimization. Not those who victimize them.

You've been reading too much Mein Kampf, and not enough history. But then that's already been proven quite easily.
May 2, 2008

1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

O_TRAIN writes:

Since this thread is still here and the only folks left are those who aren't in denial of history (for the most part). There is an interesting book called, "Buda's Wagon: A brief history of the car bomb" by Mike Davis. It devotes a few chapters to this issue. There are many examples of terror from each side, but there were a few interesting observations from Israeli Historians, including Uri Milstein.

1. Despite some improvisations (mostly failed) in the 1920s & 1930s, the car bomb was not fully conceptualized as a weapon of urban warfare until Jan 12, 1947, when rightwing Zionist Guerrillas, the Stern Gang, drove a truckload of explosives into a British police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing 4 and injuring 140. The Stern Gang, soon joined by the paramilitaries of the Irgun from whom they had split back in 1940, would subsequently use truck & car bombs to kill Palestinians as well: creative atrocity that was immediately reciprocated by British deserters fighting on the Arab side. (Fifty years later, jihadis training in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan would study Menachem Begin's "Revolt", a memoir of the Irgun, as a classic handbook of successfull terrorism).

2. Although the national Haganah leadership recoiled from the implications of indiscriminate violence against the Palestinians, LEHI and the Irgun were coldly committed to a strategy of terror via car bombs and explosions in public spaces, knowing full well that Jewish settlements would soon receive cruel repayments in kind. Milstien quotes an Arab observer; "The Jews were the first to use explosives for the purpose of killing Arabs indiscriminately, destroying houses, inflicting heavy material losses on the Arabs snd instilling fear in their hearts...But it wasn't long before the Arabs struck back using the enemy's own weapons. Once they had learned how to use the arms, and became adept at detonating all types of mines and explosives, they carried out punitive actions".

Seems clear there is plenty of responsibility on both sides for acts of terror and how this conflict has evolved. I apologize for neither side and have no solutions to offer other than stop the killing.

Home › Opinion › Letters to the Editor

Palestinians have only themselves to blame

Herbert Cooper, Denver

Published April 27, 2008 at 10 p.m.

More Letters to the Editor

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs