Debunking 6 common Isreali Myths

[p_p_man]

Come on, cough up one authoritive source. Be sure to quote your sources, or post the link.

Ishmael

I'm always quoting my sources so don't try to appear a clever little idiot by using a confrontational tone and playing to the gallery (which I'm sure you do). But as I've got a spare 15 minutes until the spaghetti boils here you are...

As I said to someone else recently...

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

Now you show me yours...

Although I doubt that you can. At least not easily.

And you really have a fucking irritating cheek to think I raise these issues and start these threads without having source material to fall back on. I leave that to my own private little fan club: miles-problem child-yourself and that new one who's name I've forgotten but it begins with b and ends with the number1...

Anyway you and anybody else who's interested now have access to some of the sources I use. At least if I'm asked in future to back up my statements I'll be able to say "Look it up your bloody self."


http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7891/index_zion1.html

http://www.thestruggle.org/Newspapers.html

http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/

http://www.arab.net/palestine/geography/pe_jordanriver.html

http://www.cactus48.com/index.html

http://www.ariga.com/peacewatch/iscyber.htm

ppman

 

[Mischka]

And you really have a fucking irritating cheek to think I raise these issues and start these threads without having source material to fall back on.

I found SexyChele's response to your sources rather interesting, p_p_man.

 

[YogiBare]

Also both you, Jigs, and Yogi Bare seem to basically be claiming that might makes right in each of these issues, and you seem to insist that perforce anyone who calls himself a Palestinian is a liar or simply disingenuous. [/B]

I think that you missed my point. I do not believe that might makes right in this situation or in any other.

My first point was to disagree with your assertion that the homocide bombings would cause Israeli citizens to force Sharon to make concessions. I stated that the Palestinians would make a fatal error if they were to follow this strategy.

My second (implied) point was that Israel has a fundamental right to defend itself. This is, IMHO, what makes Israel right, not its might.

Finally, I did not make any statement that could be interpreted to mean that I believe that "anyone who calls himself a Palestinian is a liar or simply disengenuous." You must have been referring to Jiggs or Ishmael.

 

[SexyChele]

Mischka: Thank you for noticing.


pp_man:

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

http://www.cactus48.com/index.html


Uh, you sure you want to put these links up, ppman? The document that the first link points to is without any validity whatsoever. It has been published by a "group" whose origins and stance is completely unknown. Through my research, I'm beginning such a group even exists at all. This document, at most, can only be taken at face value and not used as any valid point of argument.


The second link, to spare those individuals interested, will simply take you to the personal web site of an American Christian couple who are heavly biased in favor of Palestine. Great reading - if you only want one side of the equation. But it is their own personal opinion. This couple present their opinion in an unbalanced and biased way. Period.


ppman - I thought you were vehemently anti-American? How do these Americans - and Christians, no less - warrant such reverence from you? I thought nothing good ever came from the US, according to you. Is it because they agree with you? Or maybe they are "closet Europeans" only posing as Americans. Yeah. That must be it.


Check your sources, ppman. If you refuse to accept something because it is, in your opinion, "Jewish propaganda", then there are those of here who have the right to accuse you of "Palestinian propaganda".

 

[p_p_man]

Mischka: Thank you for noticing.


pp_man:

http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

http://www.cactus48.com/index.html


Uh, you sure you want to put these links up, ppman?

Sure why not. My idea is to publicise sources I use, for others to read. And if you don't believe the source you have the chance to say so.

As you have...

ppman

 

[Thumper]

Once again

My second (implied) point was that Israel has a fundamental right to defend itself. This is, IMHO, what makes Israel right, not its might.

I ask the question.

How does evicting civilian Palestinians from their homes and bulldozing them for new settlements equate to "self defense"?

How does leveling orchards and crops that the Palestinian people depend on secure Israel's right to exist.

How does the Israeli army's destruction of hospitals, clinics, schools, banks and infrastructure in general secure their safety.

Such actions only deepen the despair of the Palestinians and force them to rally around the only leader they have at the moment. Whether he wants to or not Sharon will have to deal with Arafat.

The suicide bombings will not bring Israel to it's knees. Israel's continued heavy handed response will accomplish that.

There was a quote in USA Today last week (Wed. May 1, pg 8A)from one David Wilder in a Jewish settlement in Hebron. He said "Until we take it all, there will be no peace."

If the Israelis end up exterminating the Palestinians then they will be no better than the Nazis.

 

[YogiBare]

Thumper, I would agree that Israel's actions were heavy-handed, certainly. I wish that they had caused only the destruction necessary to eliminate the terrorist operations. I wish that someone other than Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister of Israel. I also agree that the extreme nature of Sharon's actions hurt Israel as well as the Palestinians.

Have no fear, the Israeli's will not exterminate the Palestinians. That is not their goal, despite the angry verbal statement coming from this man, an outgrowth of the pain of having innocent friends, family members slaughtered. I would sound the same way were I in his shoes, and I daresay that you might, too. You were hearing pain and anger, not public policy.

In my view, the so-called "Palestinian territories" are, in fact, land lost by the Arab countries as a result of their varies attacks and attempts to annhialate Israel and the Jewish population. It has NEVER been the objective of Israelis to commit genocide, as it has been the oft stated OFFICIAL POLICY of the Palestinian Authority and many of the Arab didtatorships. My belief is that Israel's greatest mistake was to not immediately annex these lands following the Arab's losses on the battlefield occurred. Things would have settled down long, long time ago.

 

[Jigs]

Juicy Girl

Also both you, Jigs, and Yogi Bare seem to basically be claiming that might makes right...

I don't know whether might makes right, but it almost always decides the winner.

If the Palestinians start overtaking the Israelis in the life v. death category don't you think that someone might be willing to negotiate -- or are the Israelis and Palestinians so irrational that they would rather kill themselves

You are beginning to get the idea Juicy old girl. I know this a difficult concept for a pacifist to understand, but for those of us with a more martial viewpoint, it would be cowardly not to stand and fight, to the death if necessary. Anyway, terror begets only anger, and anger begets only vengence, never negotiation. Nothing like a dead mother, wife, or child to turn even the most devoted pacifist into a warrior.

As far as a military tactics are concerned, you better stick to arguing the right and wrong thing. You are at home there.

The IRA was finally successful in its revolution against Britain (albeit it took 300 years) by killing British soldiers and the assassination of an occasional politician, not by bombs set off in restaurants. By the 1930's there was no longer any political support in England to pour more blood and treasure into holding a country that the English voter didn't give a damn about. Basically the same thing happened to us in Vietnam. I would point out that when faced with a much more severe terror in the German blitz of 1940, when the issue was their own survival, the Brits showed considerable more grit. Indeed they did little terror bombing of their own before it was all over. I doubt that burning Dresden to the ground did much to end the war, but I'm sure a great many Londoners enjoyed the vengence immensely.

The Sandinistas and Castro seized political power largely by default. There was in fact little terror directed at the urban population in either instance. The bombs that were exploded in the cities were pretty carefully planned not to hurt anybody. The rebels in both countries were militarily strong enough to hold large segments of the countryside against inept national armies that simply would not fight. The rebels had only to wait out the inevitable collapse of political regimes that were that were rotten to the core without popular support. Do not confuse political insurrection, or guerrilla warfare, with terror. They sometimes go together but they're not the same thing.

The Afghans kicked the Russians butts by outfighting the Red Army in some pretty tough mountains in a war that was complicated for the Russians by a Soviet political structure that was already in the early stages collapse. The military situation was not dissimilar to that of Ireland and Vietnam. It became a matter of price, and the price became too high for what was at stake. I do not remember any terror ever by the Afghans against Soviet citizens within Russia proper.

If there is even the slightest political or military corollary between any of those situations and that of the Israelis/Palestinians, for the life of me I can't find it. As best I can tell the Israelis sincerely believe believe (1) that they are fighting for survival, and (2) they are absolutely committed to an emotional marriage between Masda and the Holocaust. There is no doubt in my mind that 90% of the Israelis are committed to fight to the last man if things come to that. They will too. I for one would hate like hell to have to fight against them

 

[kamuikamui]

Re:jigs

Originally posted by jigs I know this a difficult concept for a pacifist to understand, but for those of us with a more martial viewpoint, it would be cowardly not to stand and fight, to the death if necessary.

How can you say being pacifists is cowardly? It takes stronger will not to pick up a weapon.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re:jigs

How can you say being pacifists is cowardly? It takes stronger will not to pick up a weapon.

Pacifism used as a tactic in certain situations is a bona fide sword.

Pacifism as a national doctrine is suicide. A lesson in the cycle of history that has to be learned over and over again.

Pacifism has only worked effectively as a tool of liberation or protest against the existing political structure. It has never worked against an invader.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Once again

I ask the question.

How does evicting civilian Palestinians from their homes and bulldozing them for new settlements equate to "self defense"?

How does leveling orchards and crops that the Palestinian people depend on secure Israel's right to exist.

How does the Israeli army's destruction of hospitals, clinics, schools, banks and infrastructure in general secure their safety.

Such actions only deepen the despair of the Palestinians and force them to rally around the only leader they have at the moment. Whether he wants to or not Sharon will have to deal with Arafat.

The suicide bombings will not bring Israel to it's knees. Israel's continued heavy handed response will accomplish that.

There was a quote in USA Today last week (Wed. May 1, pg 8A)from one David Wilder in a Jewish settlement in Hebron. He said "Until we take it all, there will be no peace."

If the Israelis end up exterminating the Palestinians then they will be no better than the Nazis.

I'll answer your questions!!!!

Did the French farmer in Normandy deserve to have his field mined by the Germans? Or blown to hell and gone by the Allies in the retaking of France?

Did any of the cities, and infrastructure therein deserve to be the targets of tanks for the only reason that the enemy was using them as defensive structures?

No, no more than the Isreali citizens that were blown up on a bus or in a hotel lobby deserved it.

Get a clue. This is war. It's not a game. The purpose of war is to kill people and break things. The purpose of war is to so reduce your enemies means to do you harm, that they no longer represent a threat to you.

Yasser Arafat is the father of modern terrorism. He wrote the book. His avowed purpose is the complete destruction of Isreal. It has nothing to do with the strife of the "Palestinian" peoples. He has had ample funds to improve their way of life and has instead choosen to fritter the money away on terrorist tactics and weapons.

As long as Arafat is the "Leader" of the "Palestinian" peoples, the Isreali citizens will continue to elect the Sharon's to protect them.

The fact still remains that terrorism, as a tactic, cannot be allowed to be legitimized. To do so would be to make every civilized nation on the face of the earth hostage to any group with a grievance and some high explosive.

To support the Palestinians grievances, and they do have some legitimate grievances, is a difference of opinion with those that support the Isreali viewpoint. To support the means with which the Palestinians are attempting to achieve their goals is an abomination to civilized man.

The world, as a collective whole, must turn to the Palestinians, and every other terrorist, and say, "Stop the terror. If you stop the terror I'll support you, if not, you are my enemy too." That is what the "war on terror" is really about.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

And you really have a fucking irritating cheek to think I raise these issues and start these threads without having source material to fall back on. I leave that to my own private little fan club: miles-problem child-yourself and that new one who's name I've forgotten but it begins with b and ends with the number1...


Awwwwwwwww. Listen to pp whine. Such a victim.

 

[juicygirl]

Ishmael Michael Collins is actually the father of modern terrorism. There may be other guys earlier, but I don't know. Again no dialogue here too bad.


I hope the conflagration doesn't spread and burn the rest of the world too.

 

[Ishmael]

Ishmael Michael Collins is actually the father of modern terrorism. There may be other guys earlier, but I don't know. Again no dialogue here too bad.


I hope the conflagration doesn't spread and burn the rest of the world too.

Arrafat started in '64. I think that he operated on a scale that Collins never dreamed of.

I also think that Collins was much more of a political realist.

Ishmael

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Once again

Get a clue. This is war. It's not a game. The purpose of war is to kill people and break things. The purpose of war is to so reduce your enemies means to do you harm, that they no longer represent a threat to you.

Ishmael

And will you still have the same attitude when threads start appearing about the latest bombing atrocity in Israel this evening?

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Once again

Yasser Arafat is the father of modern terrorism. He wrote the book. His avowed purpose is the complete destruction of Isreal. It has nothing to do with the strife of the "Palestinian" peoples. He has had ample funds to improve their way of life and has instead choosen to fritter the money away on terrorist tactics and weapons.Ishmael

As is the Zionists vow over ther destruction of the Palestinian people.


ppman

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Once again

And will you still have the same attitude when threads start appearing about the latest bombing atrocity in Israel this evening?

ppman

Of course. Terrorism is a method of warfare. An abominable one, but a method. That point was impicit in my post.

The issue isn't whether it is a form of warfare, it's how civilization deals with it.

Ishmael

PS Lead on rascal.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Once again

The fact still remains that terrorism, as a tactic, cannot be allowed to be legitimized. To do so would be to make every civilized nation on the face of the earth hostage to any group with a grievance and some high explosive.
Ishmael

Aren't you just saying platitudes here. Or as you write do you see yourself in the pulpit or making a speech on TV or playing to the audience? Which I think you're fond of doing.

We all know what you say is the ideal. But you, me and nobody else is going to stop terrorism. And once terrorists win don't they then become legitimised?

Or don't you think they do win...

Anyway how about releasing some of your sources?

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Once again

The issue isn't whether it is a form of warfare, it's how civilization deals with it.

Ishmael

PS Lead on rascal.

And how would you rate Sharon's method of dealing with it. Or America's in Afghanistan.

If you deal with terrorism harshly does that make you uncivilised?

Bearing in mind that one reason for any Government's existence is to protect it's citizens. That doesn't mean lead them into war but to find a way to peace.

Sources! Sources! Give me your sources...

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Awwwwwwwww. Listen to pp whine. Such a victim.

Go to bed miles...It's way past your bedtime....

Your posts are becoming childish again.

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: Once again

The world, as a collective whole, must turn to the Palestinians, and every other terrorist, and say, "Stop the terror. If you stop the terror I'll support you, if not, you are my enemy too." That is what the "war on terror" is really about.

Ishmael

No it's not.

It's about Bush having a knee jerk response to the Twin Towers and reverting to his cowboy "dead or alive" role. He loved saying that you could see it on his face.

That and a chance for Bush to destroy countries once and for all that America sees as a threat.

Now, of course he wishes he'd kept his mouth shut. Sharon's not of course. He can use that "war on terror" excuse to justify to the Americans any atrocity Israel feels like dishing out.

ppman

 

[Weevil]

and they take our money and they eat our babies and they worship the wrong god!!!!

Why can't you people see we need to put them in special camps!!!!!!!!

 

[p_p_man]

Go to bed miles...It's way past your bedtime....

Your posts are becoming childish again.

This is grown up stuff again now...

ppman

 

[Weevil]

Hey, I'd rather be a child than a hatemonger.

 

[Weevil]

Children at least have an open-mind.