ForumGarden

When the Israilies raid the West Bank, distroy a prison and abduct one of the prisoners and the EU bleat on about Mamoud Abbas having to make sure that Palastine returns to orderly conduct and the questions being asked are whether we should continue to give financial aid to Palestine.

Not one word of condemnation about Israel's act of agression :-5

Bryn Mawr wrote: When the Israilies raid the West Bank, distroy a prison and abduct one of the prisoners and the EU bleat on about Mamoud Abbas having to make sure that Palastine returns to orderly conduct and the questions being asked are whether we should continue to give financial aid to Palestine.

Not one word of condemnation about Israel's act of agression :-5


The game has changed for the palests. The moment they declared war on Israel by electing a hamas government all bets were off.

The withdrawal of palest authority guards from the UK and EU guards on the prison meant that the UK and EU guards were exposed and that it would be a matter of days or maybe even hours before the wanted murderers were let to go free.

Up to that point Israel had acquiesced to them being banged up albeit in what amounted to little more than house arrest but they men were wanted in Israel for the murder of a government minister and other crimes. That these creatures should be let to walk was unthinkable and so what took place was inevitable.

The palests have blown it by electing hamas. They have in spite of every repeated attempt to reach a peace agreement by Israel once more decided to continue with their hostilities but raised the stakes with having a hamas government to an all time high.

As long as hamas have as their primary objective the utter destruction of Israel the palests will pay the price.

It is proper that they do.

golem wrote: The game has changed for the palests. The moment they declared war on Israel by electing a hamas government all bets were off.


So let's throw away all rules of engagement - every international law in the book - the basterds ask for it - they engaged in the democratic process

golem wrote: The withdrawal of palest authority guards from the UK and EU guards on the prison meant that the UK and EU guards were exposed and that it would be a matter of days or maybe even hours before the wanted murderers were let to go free.


I think you'll find it was the foreign monitor who withdrew - not the palestinians

golem wrote: Up to that point Israel had acquiesced to them being banged up albeit in what amounted to little more than house arrest but they men were wanted in Israel for the murder of a government minister and other crimes. That these creatures should be let to walk was unthinkable and so what took place was inevitable.


If Israel wanted the men they should have gone through the international courts five years ago - not invaded their neighbour today

golem wrote: The palests have blown it by electing hamas. They have in spite of every repeated attempt to reach a peace agreement by Israel once more decided to continue with their hostilities but raised the stakes with having a hamas government to an all time high.


Israel have made NO attempt to make peace. They have continually raided palastinian terratory at will. They are in the process of an illegal land grab and they refue to talk to the Palastinian government.

golem wrote: As long as hamas have as their primary objective the utter destruction of Israel the palests will pay the price.

It is proper that they do.


Who do you think the original Israeli government were. Where do you think Moche Dyan and Arial Sharon started. What have been their policies for the past 50 years. If you want to meet the real terrorists then you know where to look.

I'll be back to continue this on Monday - until then, peace be with you.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

( Posted by golem)

The game has changed for the palests. The moment they declared war on Israel by electing a hamas government all bets were off.

So let's throw away all rules of engagement - every international law in the book - the basterds ask for it - they engaged in the democratic process


Nothing wrong with the democratic process – the palests went down that route and elected a government that was dedicated to the destruction of Israel! Fine!

They will now get treated accordingly.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

( Posted by golem)

The withdrawal of palest authority guards from the UK and EU guards on the prison meant that the UK and EU guards were exposed and that it would be a matter of days or maybe even hours before the wanted murderers were let to go free]

I think you'll find it was the foreign monitor who withdrew - not the palestinians
Read what I wrote. The guards who guarded the monitors were withdrawn leaving the foreign observers exposed. End of story.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

( Posted by golem)

Up to that point Israel had acquiesced to them being banged up albeit in what amounted to little more than house arrest but they men were wanted in Israel for the murder of a government minister and other crimes. That these creatures should be let to walk was unthinkable and so what took place was inevitable.



If Israel wanted the men they should have gone through the international courts five years ago - not invaded their neighbour today.


The international courts count for jack. Apart from anything else the men would have simply vanished into thin air if they had not been kept banged up by the Fatah PA.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

( Posted by golem)

The palests have blown it by electing hamas. They have in spite of every repeated attempt to reach a peace agreement by Israel once more decided to continue with their hostilities but raised the stakes with having a hamas government to an all time high.



Israel have made NO attempt to make peace. They have continually raided palastinian terratory at will. They are in the process of an illegal land grab and they refue to talk to the Palastinian government.


Utter unmitigated rubbish. Total BS.

From day #1 Israel sought peace – from day #1 the arabs went to war. How about Oslo? The sweetest deal possible yet arafat-the-rat reneged on it the moment he got back ‘home’.

Bryn Mawr wrote:

(Posted by golem)

As long as hamas have as their primary objective the utter destruction of Israel the palests will pay the price.

It is proper that they do.

Who do you think the original Israeli government were. Where do you think Moche Dyan and Arial Sharon started. What have been their policies for the past 50 years. If you want to meet the real terrorists then you know where to look.


Now that IS funny! :wah:



The real terrorism started with the Moslem Brotherhood way back in the 20’s though there had been some actions that amounted to nothing much more than the banditry that was a hallmark of the local arab tribes before that time as they saw the way that the formally desolate region being turned into useful land by the returning Jewish people escaping from the growing hatred in Europe.

Believe me, I know a VERY great deal about that part of the world and its history – it’s REAL history, not the propaganda.

golem wrote: Read what I wrote. The guards who guarded the monitors were withdrawn leaving the foreign observers exposed. End of story.Perhaps you could show a reputable source making the same claim as to the facts?

Then perhaps you could look through http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4809034.stm and show where the BBC has erred in its reporting, particularly at:

A letter dated 8 March 2006 from British and American diplomats in Jerusalem warned the Palestinian Authority that the monitors were about to be withdrawn unless certain security conditions in the jail were improved.

They cited non-compliance with the Ramallah agreement over "monitoring arrangements regarding visitors, cell searches, telephones access and correspondence".

On 14 March the monitors made good their threat to withdraw. Israeli troops immediately entered Palestinian-run Jericho and attacked the jail, forcing the surrender of everyone inside.

spot wrote: Perhaps you could show a reputable source making the same claim as to the facts?

Then perhaps you could look through http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4809034.stm and show where the BBC has erred in its reporting, particularly at:


I think that you've aswered your own question in what you then posted.

golem wrote: I think that you've aswered your own question in what you then posted.On the contrary. You said that the palestinian guards were withdrawn, forcing the self-evacuation of the foreign monitors. The BBC site says that the foreign monitors withdrew, resulting ten minutes later in the Israeli takeover. Which of the two claims is true? Yours is the only claim I've seen that the Palestinian guards precipitated the events by removing themselves from the prison compound.

spot wrote: One the contrary. You said that the palestinian guards were withdrawn, forcing the self-evacuation of the foreign monitors. The BBC site says that the foreign monitors withdrew, resulting ten minutes later in the Israeli takeover. Which of the two claims is true? Yours is the only claim I've seen that the Palestinian guards precipitated the events by removing themselves from the prison compound.


The monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed.

In any case - so what. The playfield changes – the game changes.

golem wrote: The monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed.And I'm asking you to support that contention. It's a simple enough matter for you to cite a source for your facts. "In any case - so what" is a bit too dismissive, it sounds either evasive, lazy or both. I'm not trying to raise the temperature, I'm trying to nail down a very simple issue of fact so that I can get started on a few bits of meat.

spot wrote: And I'm asking you to support that contention. It's a simple enough matter for you to cite a source for your facts. "In any case - so what" is a bit too dismissive, it sounds either evasive, lazy or both. I'm not trying to raise the temperature, I'm trying to nail down a very simple issue of fact so that I can get started on a few bits of meat.


I am a credible source.

golem wrote: I am a credible source.Not without credentials, Golem. Credentials would do. Or a reasonable external source. Not just personal opinion. We can go on to opinions when we've established some mutually agreed information.

spot wrote: Not without credentials, Golem. Credentials would do. Or a reasonable external source. Not just personal opinion. We can go on to opinions when we've established some mutually agreed information.




I am not so naive as to expose that much about myself on this or for that matter on any internet forum.

How about looking at this site for further backup ---

haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695106.html

and read what has been written both in 'The Land' (Haretz) as well as the BBC, and not what you choose to interpret it as being.

golem wrote: I am not so naive as to expose that much about myself on this or for that matter on any internet forum.Then, quite simply, link to a source. Where's the problem with that?

I did read through the main stories on both Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post before I joined the thread. I'm surprised you prefer the former, to be honest. Neither of the newspapers gives support to your contention that "The monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed."

golem wrote: I am a credible source.


The guy is flying an Israeli flag on his unsername, I'll go along with his saying that he knows more about it than I.

As for me, I'm on your side, Golem. When the "Palestinians" (a joke name since there are no true palestinians, they are just a mixture of past nomadic tribes and therefore their claim to land is also a bad joke.) began their campaign of homicide bombing, they forfeited any mercy or recognition for their cause.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, any group that resorts to the slaughter of innocent non-combatants, women, and children loses any claim they might have had to justice or fairness.

Jives wrote: any group that resorts to the slaughter of innocent non-combatants, women, and children loses any claim they might have had to justice or fairness.Well thank goodness someone has the decency to come out and plain say that. The killing ratio in Israel has been around one Israeli to three Palestinians for a long time now, and it's in the thousands. The majority of dead on both sides are innocent non-combatants, women, and children.

Hamas bombed a children's toy store, for pete's sake! Exactly what "enemy" were they trying to kill there?

Despicable acts like that show that they deserve nothing in the way of recognition or compromise.

Jives wrote: Hamas bombed a children's toy store, for pete's sake! Exactly what "enemy" were they trying to kill there?

Despicable acts like that show that they deserve nothing in the way of recognition or compromise.Jives, I agreed with you - did you not notice?

The powerless have fewer options than the empowered. I don't imagine that you want Palestinian helicopter gun platforms in the skies over Gaza. I haven't seen footage of Palestinian tanks defending their own towns or borders. As you say, any group that resorts to the slaughter of innocent non-combatants, women, and children loses any claim they might have had to justice or fairness.

spot wrote: Jives, I agreed with you - did you not notice?


Oh... I noticed. I just couldn't believe it.

The powerless have fewer options than the empowered..


When I see that argument, I always think back to the early days of our country. We, too, were oppressed by a society massively more powerful and forceful than ours. Yet, George Washington never resorted to terrorist tactics, even when the British burned whole towns with the inhabitants still inside their houses.

He fought clean...and won.

I even respect the North Vietnamese. They used guerrilla tactics, as did George Washington, but they never resorted to suicide-bombing shopping malls and teen-hangouts here in the U.S.

And strangely...they won too.

That proves that terrorism is not necessary to win a cause.

spot wrote: Well thank goodness someone has the decency to come out and plain say that. The killing ratio in Israel has been around one Israeli to three Palestinians for a long time now, and it's in the thousands. The majority of dead on both sides are innocent non-combatants, women, and children.
The 3:1 ratio is correct. The last part is not, however. Although Israelis have killed three times as many Palestinians, both sides have killed about the same number of civilians. Israeli attacks target militants and the civilians deaths are often those harboring terrorists or collateral damage. When Palestinians attack, they usually target innocent civilians.

Benjamin wrote: [quote=spot]The killing ratio in Israel has been around one Israeli to three Palestinians for a long time now, and it's in the thousands. The majority of dead on both sides are innocent non-combatants, women, and children. The 3:1 ratio is correct. The last part is not, however.[/QUOTE]The most detailed statistics I know of are produced by B'Tselem - "The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel."

Their most recent press release is at http://www.btselem.org/english/Press_Re ... 060104.asp

Of Palestinians killed since 29.09.2000, 3,386, 676 were children. The gross categorization labels the deaths as "Did not participate in fighting at time of death 1,815; Killed while participating in fighting 1,008; Unknown 563".

Even ignoring the Unknown category, my comment that "the majority of dead on both sides are innocent non-combatants, women, and children" is supported by these figures. On what basis do you tell me I'm wrong?

I know you are telling the truth when you say that the Israelis have killed children too, Spot.

But I've seen those same children throwing rocks, firebombs, and bottles at Israeli tanks. From what I can tell, the dead children on the Hamas side got in the middle of battles, whereas the Israeli children were flat-out murdered.

I also don't see the Israelis teaching their children to be suicide-bombers like that Hamas web-site that was posted the other day.

When you turn your children into weapons, you can't complain if they get killed.:-3

Jives wrote: When you turn your children into weapons, you can't complain if they get killed.:-3When you turn your neighbors into segregated powerless non-citizens with nothing left to lose, you can't complain if they throw rocks, firebombs, and bottles at your tanks.

Jives, do you really think that possession of superior firepower is the litmus test of moral superiority? The fact that you can kill clean from a distance, while the peasantry can only throw themselves on your barbed wire and die protesting?

spot wrote: Jives, do you really think that possession of superior firepower is the litmus test of moral superiority?


Whoops! I had that the other way round. George Washington had inferior firepower, but superior morality.

What I said was that even people without tanks, can still win if they don't resort to terrorism.



Just ask Ghandi!:)

Jives wrote: What I said was that even people without tanks, can still win if they don't resort to terrorism.

Just ask Ghandi!:)The idea that the Israeli government might draw back its tanks from the crossing points, or stop their strafing overflights of Gaza, is more than I can imagine, Jives. I'd be delighted to see it happen, and I agree that it would be a powerful step toward defusing the timebomb. It's a lot harder for the more powerfully armed to attempt peaceful resolution, since they have what they consider to be an existing advantage. Just ask Gandhi.

spot wrote: The idea that the Israeli government might draw back its tanks from the crossing points, or stop their strafing overflights of Gaza, is more than I can imagine, Jives. I'd be delighted to see it happen,
Why is that? Why the great interest in the welfare of the Palestinians? They have a long history of terrorist acts and have shown no interest in living in peace with Israel. So why the compassion for the "poor" Palestinians? There are far more oppressed people in the world.

Benjamin wrote: Why is that? Why the great interest in the welfare of the Palestinians? They have a long history of terrorist acts and have shown no interest in living in peace with Israel. So why the compassion for the "poor" Palestinians? There are far more oppressed people in the world.I'm trying to balance the thread, Benjamin. No man is an island. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Whoever defines terrorism gets to decide which side of a conflict carries the burden of the label. Whoever quotes a "long history of terrorist acts" is selective if they think the tarbrush has a clean handle. The Israeli treatment of Palestinians has many parallels with South African apartheid, which I'll draw out for you if you want to take the thread in that direction. Is there no such concept as sympathy for the underdog in your stance?

spot wrote: I'm trying to balance the thread, Benjamin. No man is an island. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. Whoever defines terrorism gets to decide which side of a conflict carries the burden of the label. Whoever quotes a "long history of terrorist acts" is selective if they think the tarbrush has a clean handle. The Israeli treatment of Palestinians has many parallels with South African apartheid, which I'll draw out for you if you want to take the thread in that direction. Is there no such concept as sympathy for the underdog in your stance?
I've also heard people try to compare the current mess in Iraq to the United States at its inception, which is also totally ridiculous.

Before the end of WWII, Jews and Arabs lived together in what was then called Palestine -- not peacefully, but they shared the land. In 1947, the UN offered a plan to partition the region into two states – one for the Arab “Palestinians” and one for the Jewish “Palestinians.” The Jews accepted the offer but the Arabs rejected it. In 1948, the Jews declared their own state of Israel. The next day, seven neighboring countries invaded the region. The Jews fought for the land while the majority of the Arabs fled to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The Arab “Palestinians” had the opportunity for independence in 1947 but turned it down. They could have fought along side the Jews in 1948 and gained their independence but instead fled. They’ve had other opportunities since then, but have consistently taken the destructive or cowardly path.

The United States gained its independence by fighting its oppressors for the land and so did the Israelis.

benjamin wrote: I've also heard people try to compare the current mess in Iraq to the United States at its inception, which is also totally ridiculous.That "also" is the word that has me puzzled. Firstly, I've never tried to compare the current mess in Iraq to the United States at its inception, so what's the relevance of it? Secondly, you seem to be suggesting my entire post which you quoted was - entirely - ridiculous. You sound like Hermone Grainger expelling bogeymen. What bit of my entirely did you disagree with? More to the point, why?

benjamin wrote: Before the end of WWII, Jews and Arabs lived together in what was then called Palestine -- not peacefully, but they shared the land. In 1947, the UN offered a plan to partition the region into two states – one for the Arab “Palestinians” and one for the Jewish “Palestinians.” The Jews accepted the offer but the Arabs rejected it. In 1948, the Jews declared their own state of Israel. The next day, seven neighboring countries invaded the region. The Jews fought for the land while the majority of the Arabs fled to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.


I can count five - Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Which other two neighboring countries had you in mind?

The thread has made occasional references to terrorism, which provides a lot of the background to "the Arabs rejected it". People keep talking as though terrorists are just that and there's no gray areas. Where's the gray areas in the quotes here, the first from the official Irgun Zvai Le'umi (the National Military Organization) website:

Irgun launched a series of operations against the Arabs. The central acts were the explosions in the Arab markets of Haifa and Jerusalem. On July 6, 1938, a member of the Irgun, disguised as an Arab porter, went into the Arab market in Haifa, placed a large parcel beside one of the barrows in the center of the market and left. Shortly afterwards there was a heavy explosion, which killed 21 Arabs and injured more than 50. A week later a similar incident took place in Jerusalem. A member of the Irgun concealed an electric mine in the Arab market in the Old City. It exploded shortly after the end of the prayer service in the mosque, when a large crowd had emerged onto the street. Eight Arabs were killed and more than 30 injured.and, from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 67,00.html :

Jewish terrorists plotted to assassinate Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary, in 1946, as part of their campaign to establish the state of Israel, newly declassified intelligence files have shown. The plan was devised by Irgun, the insurgent group led by Menachem Begin, who went on to become a Nobel peace prize winner and prime minister of Israel.


Or you'll remember that the Lehi underground assassinated Lord Moyne, the British government representative in Cairo, and later the UN Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte. None of these organizations were repudiated by the State - indeed, in 1980 Israel instituted the Lehi ribbon, "awarded to former members of the Lehi underground who wished to carry it". Haganah may have been more mainstream, but it was still noted for the bombing of the country's railroad network during the Mandate period. Maybe that's borderline terrorism - it gets redefined when people like Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon end up Prime Minister.

My point, I think, is that terrorist acts in the Middle East have a way, like mirrors, of reflecting the person who looks at them rather than their inherent nature. When you get Ariel Sharon, after ordering a militant assassinated with a 2000 pound bomb which killed the militant, his wife, his daughter, his apartment block and another eight children, describing the result as "a satisfactory operation", you wonder what the word innocent actually means. I've seen that mentioned in this thread as the deaths of "civilians harboring terrorists".

”spot” wrote: That "also" is the word that has me puzzled. Firstly, I've never try to compare the current mess in Iraq to the United States at its inception, so what's the relevance of it? Secondly, you seem to be suggesting my entire post which you quoted was - entirely - ridiculous. You sound like Hermone Grainger expelling bogeymen. What bit of my entirely did you disagree with? More to the point, why?
Hermone Grainger?

By “also” I meant some people “also” try to draw a parallel between Iraq and the US at its inception. This was in reference to you drawing parallels between Israel/Palestine and S. African partheid. Both are equally ridiculous.

”spot” wrote: I can count five - Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Which other two neighboring countries had you in mind?
Saudi Arabia and Yemen were also involved.

As far as the fighting between Arabs and Jews before 1948, both sides did some nasty things. They hated each other (and still do). The British could have partitioned Palestine when it was under their control and a lot of the violence could have been avoided, but they didn’t. They turned away Jews from Eastern Europe who were trying to enter Palestine, many of whom had managed to survive the concentration camps. Think about how despicable that is. The British deserved everything they got.

You need to look beyond the surface. Israel has been fighting for its survival since 1948. Until a few years ago, the Palestinians were calling for the destruction of Israel IN THEIR CONSTITUTION. The Palestinians recently put a terrorist organization in control of their Parliament. Israel has nothing to gain and a lot to loose from granting them autonomy.

I have a hard time believing anyone has any real compassion for the Palestinians. It’s really just anti-Israel sentiment.

Benjamin wrote: By “also” I meant some people “also” try to draw a parallel between Iraq and the US at its inception. This was in reference to you drawing parallels between Israel/Palestine and S. African partheid. Both are equally ridiculous.I'll put up a justification for the idea later, then. We'll see whether it makes sense after that.

Benjamin wrote: Saudi Arabia and Yemen were also involved.In what way? I had no idea that either had sent troops to the 1948 invasion. I'd be grateful for a URL detailing the involvement.

Benjamin wrote: I have a hard time believing anyone has any real compassion for the Palestinians. It’s really just anti-Israel sentiment.I wonder whether you'd like to simply accept my word for it, then. I've stayed in Jerusalem before with Jewish friends, and their attitude to the Intifada is divided much the way this thread has been. Some people I talked to there took your perspective, some took mine. I'm not anti-Semitic, anti-Jew, anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli. I might qualify as anti-intransigent.

spot wrote: Jives, I agreed with you - did you not notice?

The powerless have fewer options than the empowered. I don't imagine that you want Palestinian helicopter gun platforms in the skies over Gaza. I haven't seen footage of Palestinian tanks defending their own towns or borders. As you say, any group that resorts to the slaughter of innocent non-combatants, women, and children loses any claim they might have had to justice or fairness.


When fighting an enemy to whom death is no big deal, if anything something to be sought after in the ‘right’ circumstances because it results in a guaranteed entry pass to ‘paradise’, then the preservation of life of and by and for that enemy is simply a non-issue to him.

In addition when their leaders use the religion of the population as a means of convincing them of the benefits (ffs) of sending their own children out as expendable weapons, and who use civilian populations as comprising of sacrificial ‘things’, the deaths of which will be used for propaganda there’s little hope for reason to ever prevail.

There IS a disparity of weapons in the war being conducted between the palests and the Israelis. One side DO have vastly superior weapons and massively superior numbers and by G-d they do use them at every opportunity.

The bummer is it’s not the Israelis who are in this position, it’s the palests. It’s THEM who have the massive weapon stockpile because they use their own people.

Can anyone for a single moment in time imagine trying to persuade a Jewish mother to convince her son to strap an explosive belt on himself and then blow himself up in an attack on even a palest weapons factory?

Purleese! For one thing whoever tried it wouldn’t even make the door.

For another there is no way that any sane Jewish person would target innocent (or otherwise) kids or women or even men for that matter. It simply wouldn’t happen. It would be utterly contrary to our makeup and values.

So when the 3:1 ratio gets quoted what must e considered is just how many of the 3 have been deliberately put in harms way so as to get the propaganda and just how many of the 3 have deliberately put themselves in harms way to get the paradise ticket.

Do Israel have superior weapons and in greater numbers?

Not of they’re weapons that can’t be used we don’t.

golem wrote: Not of they’re weapons that can’t be used we don’t.Thank you Golem, that's a truly wonderful reaching-out toward those for whom you might naturally feel antipathy. Sadly, you mistake two words in the English language - superior and valuable. Superior means working better or more efficiently. Valuable means having value, as opposed to cheap which means having little value. Any life has greater value than a mere mechanical commodity, I think we can take that as a given in human society. Motherhood could even be a factor in the Israeli armed force's use of conscription rather than an all-volunteer basis for recruitment.

In your absence I was discussing the related concept of innocence with Benjamin. I wonder whether you could discuss your "no way that any sane Jewish person would target innocent (or otherwise) kids or women" and "been deliberately put in harms way" in the context of the final paragraph of http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=28 where I raised the issue of bystanders miles from any firing line - those who might reasonably be expected to be in harm's way when a ton of explosives detonates.

Relating to the OP, my earlier mention of credentials was not a request for personal information, it was an explanation of the basis of credibility. Either one knows enough about a person to give credence or otherwise to their knowledge, or one asks for evidence. Since we agree that exposing "that much" about oneself on a forum is a matter of personal choice, I would be quite content instead to read your news source that "the monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed".

spot wrote: Any life has greater value than a mere mechanical commodity, I think we can take that as a given in human society.


Not in islam.

Plainly you know very little about the subject, the region, or the factors involved.

golem wrote: Not in islam.I would dispute that, presuming you refer to the religion. If you'd like to discuss Islam in terms of the sanctity of life, I'd be happy to raise a thread with you and go over it.

golem wrote: Plainly you know very little about the subject, the region, or the factors involved.Then I have all the more reason to enquire for information. Where may I find your news source that "the monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed"? That's an unresolved question which I'd like to bring to a conclusion, I feel you're being evasive and I suspect that you're wrong.

spot wrote: I would dispute that, presuming you refer to the religion. If you'd like to discuss Islam in terms of the sanctity of life, I'd be happy to raise a thread with you and go over it.

Then I have all the more reason to enquire for information. Where may I find your news source that "the monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed"? That's an unresolved question which I'd like to bring to a conclusion, I feel you're being evasive and I suspect that you're wrong.


The change in government which saw a government based on a party that has sworn to destroy Israel saw changes in the security arrangements at that jail and the potential of even furtrher hanges that the EU monitors saw as being of such signifcance to warent the removal of their monitors.

That simple.

The next stage would have seen the jail doors replaced with the typical palest revolving doors and the murderous filth walking free and off to do more evil.

As for islam and the sanctity of life – don’t make me laugh. Sanctity of moslem life (provided you’re of the right tribe) maybe – or at least up to the point that the law prescribes death or disfigurement but sanctity of infidel life?

You must be joking.

The trouble is you probably aren’t and honestly believe the rubbish about islam being a religion of peace.

Peace within the bounds of islam perhaps where peace is guaranteed by fear of reprisals but peace beyond that?

If it wasn’t so offensive a suggestion it would be farcical.

I LIVE with islam, I SEE what takes place, I HEAR the Friday prayers, I SEE the palest television. I speak enough Arabic not to need English or even the closer Hebrew translations.

It makes me sick to my stomach to read the rubbish that gets circulated in the Western countries about ‘only a few militants’ or ‘a few fundamentalist’ who ‘misread the Quoran' or 'misinterpret the Hadiths'. What a load of rubbish.

If you guys in the West realised what the situation REALLY is you’d be messing your rompers.

I tell you this. The muslims don’t hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because of the West. That’s what Benny Netanyahu said once and by G-d he was and still is absolutely correct.

golem wrote: The change in government which saw a government based on a party that has sworn to destroy Israel saw changes in the security arrangements at that jail and the potential of even furtrher hanges that the EU monitors saw as being of such signifcance to warent the removal of their monitors.

That simple.Thank you for your opinion, Golem. May I please see a news report which confirms your statement that "the monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed"? I don't believe it to be true, and I can find no report to confirm it.

spot wrote: In what way? I had no idea that either had sent troops to the 1948 invasion. I'd be grateful for a URL detailing the involvement.
Saudi Arabia and Yemen played only a minor role but were involved none the less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

I wonder whether you'd like to simply accept my word for it, then.
I'll accept your word but your reasoning is myopic. I’ll agree that living conditions are deplorable for the Palestinians, but is it really the fault or responsibility of the Israelis? There were as many Jews displaced from their homes in Arab countries as Arabs displaced from their homes in Israel. A big difference is, though, the Arabs fled, not wanting to fight for their land. The Jews were forced to leave. Arab countries could have taken in the displaced Arabs but have choosen instead to maintain the Palestinian problem for political purposes. Arab countries combined have about 650 times more land than Israel. Israel is a tiny country and to retain its identity, it must remain semi-homogeneous.

Benjamin wrote: Saudi Arabia and Yemen played only a minor role but were involved none the less.I'm not surprised I missed it - the relevant Wiki material relating to Saudi Arabia was only added on 13th March at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... udi_Arabia and nobody's come up with the Yemen source there so far.

Benjamin wrote: ... Israel is a tiny country and to retain its identity, it must remain semi-homogeneous.If you feel I'm quoting you selectively, tell me and I'll stop trimming - personally, I find it a useful method to focus. The full text is still there in the preceding message. Yes, the "semi-homogeneous" is the background to the comment I made on apartheid, and I still intend to sit back and write that up after the weekend - I'm pressed for time at the moment, preparing for a trip tomorrow.

"the Arabs fled, not wanting to fight for their land" is, surely, a matter of interpretation, and the equity of subsequent treatment of their estates comes into the equation. These people owned their properties prior to the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948. They held legal title to their houses and their farms. Their title to the land was recognised by the Ottomans when they ruled it, and by the British in their turn during the Mandate period. Many of them still retain the deed documents to prove it. Would you not regard confiscation of personal property by the State, without recompense, as arbitrary and unjust?

spot wrote: Would you not regard confiscation of personal property by the State, without recompense, as arbitrary and unjust?
Just as many Jews lost land as did Arabs. Why are you not outraged the the Jews haven't been compensated?

Benjamin wrote: Just as many Jews lost land as did Arabs. Why are you not outraged the the Jews haven't been compensated?Let's consider the possibility that I'm ignorant, Benjamin. Let's assume that I'm unaware that just as many Jews lost land as did Arabs. Let's assume that I've looked in a book or two and failed to find substance to the suggestion. This would be an ideal opportunity for you to show me a bit of chapter and verse about it. I assure you that if it's true, then I'm outraged that the Jews haven't been compensated as well.

spot wrote: Let's consider the possibility that I'm ignorant, Benjamin. Let's assume that I'm unaware that just as many Jews lost land as did Arabs. Let's assume that I've looked in a book or two and failed to find substance to the suggestion. This would be an ideal opportunity for you to show me a bit of chapter and verse about it. I assure you that if it's true, then I'm outraged that the Jews haven't been compensated as well.
I did a quick search and came up with this link:

http://fuelfortruth.org/thetruth/truth_9.asp

Granted, the site may be biased towards Israel, but I've never seen these facts disputed.

spot wrote: Thank you for your opinion, Golem. May I please see a news report which confirms your statement that "the monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed"? I don't believe it to be true, and I can find no report to confirm it.


I've directed you to Haretz and the specific item.

I also assert that I am a reliable source.

You want more?

You go find.

Alternativly you find anything that disproves what I have posted.

BTW - don't waste too much time on it because you won't.

golem wrote: I've directed you to Haretz and the specific item.

I also assert that I am a reliable source.

You want more?

You go find.I wonder whether you think visitors to the thread will assume you're accurately describing the content of the Haaretz item you cited in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=12 - I'm not going to copy the entire text into the thread. It says nothing whatever about your claim that "the monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed". Not the slightest hint. Either you made it up from thin air or it's documented in a news source somewhere. You keep advancing this article as your source. The article doesn't support you in the slightest. Golem, the simple way to discredit me is to copy the bit of the article that you're putting forward as justification into the thread. You must realize how stupid that would make me look.

If it isn't there, how can you be a credible source? Credibility is an earned trust. We trust credible posters not to invent material, but to have evidence for background facts if they offer facts for consideration. By all means establish your credibility at a stroke - copy the supporting text from the article into the thread. I assert that it simply isn't there.

Benjamin wrote: I did a quick search and came up with this link:

http://fuelfortruth.org/thetruth/truth_9.asp

Granted, the site may be biased towards Israel, but I've never seen these facts disputed.I've been reading on the basis of your citation and yes, you're quite right and I was mistaken. I was unaware that assertion had been made that just as many Jews lost land as did Arabs, that "they still have substantial claims against those countries which forced them to flee, often penniless, and these [claims] must be addressed in any comprehensive resolution of the refugee problem", and I am outraged the the Jews haven't been compensated. The United Nations describes the Israeli protocol for re-assigning immovable and movable property of absentee Arabs.

spot wrote: I wonder whether you think visitors to the thread will assume you're accurately describing the content of the Haaretz item you cited in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=12 - I'm not going to copy the entire text into the thread. It says nothing whatever about your claim that "the monitors were withdrawn as a result of changes in the PA staffing arrangements that left the monitors exposed". Not the slightest hint. Either you made it up from thin air or it's documented in a news source somewhere. You keep advancing this article as your source. The article doesn't support you in the slightest. Golem, the simple way to discredit me is to copy the bit of the article that you're putting forward as justification into the thread. You must realize how stupid that would make me look.

If it isn't there, how can you be a credible source? Credibility is an earned trust. We trust credible posters not to invent material, but to have evidence for background facts if they offer facts for consideration. By all means establish your credibility at a stroke - copy the supporting text from the article into the thread. I assert that it simply isn't there.


Referring to the departure of British and American monitors from the prison minutes before the operation began, she said "in this case it is clear that it was not Israel that decided on the timing [of the departure]. Unlike in 1948, we did not ask the British leave," she said.

Livni explained that the decision to remove the monitors from the jail was prompted by two factors: "The [Palestinians] did not perform their obligations [to keep the murderers imprisoned], and Hamas came to power."

According to the foreign minister, the British and Americans reached the conclusion they could no longer vouch for the safely of their representatives.

The section shown is from the Haaretz article. Learn to not just read but also comprehend.

From that it is clear that the words "The [Palestinians] did not perform their obligations [to keep the murderers imprisoned],” amounts to a relaxation having taken place of the conditions under which the scum were being kept out of reach from real justice, probably associated with the second part which reads “Hamas came to power." which is having very far reaching effects in the palest community and mostly for the worse.

Now as someone who is intimately involved with the region – VERY intimately involved – that means that guards and security had been withdrawn that would have protected the observers – there incidentally by an agreement between Israel and the PA whereby a deal; had been struck to make sure that filth was kept off the streets without loss of face to the PA – and which once the security OF the observers was no longer adequate – in this case withdrawn – all bets were off.

As an aside, I note you made reference to ‘Wilkpedia’ as a (presumably) reputable source.

That speaks volumes about your judgment of what does and what does not constitute a reputable source.

In addition although I made use of Haaratz as a source for you I did so on the assumption that you were one of those people who don’t believe what they don’t see in a Newspaper.

Personally I believe very little that I read in Newspapers beyond looking at them as a source of smoking guns, very often the guns when you find them are not pointing the direction the newspapers indicate they are and secondly very often the smoking guns are actually a smoldering expenses voucher for some journalist. Although not the case with Haaratz – at least not in THIS case, it doesn’t show the entirety of what actually took place.



It will get very much worse before it gets better. The palests if the did but realise it are like turkeys who have voted for Christmas. Well the oven is heating up.

Benjamin wrote: This was in reference to you drawing parallels between Israel/Palestine and S. African partheid. Both are equally ridiculous.I offered to expand on the use of the word apartheid in relation to Israel and the Palestinians.

Desmond Tutu said in Boston, Massachusetts on April 13, 2002:What is not so understandable, not justified, is what [Israel] did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.The full speech provides powerful testimony from a man whose impeccable credentials warrant close attention to his opinion.

Dr Uri Davis has been at the forefront of the defence of human rights, notably Palestinian rights, since 1965. He is the author of Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, and Chair of the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine. His website at http://www.uridavis.info/ carries background information justifying the description "apartheid" in this area. He is an Israeli citizen and academic.

Finally, there's a good summary of the main points of the argument by Firoz Osman who is undoubtedly more partisan than either of the two previous witnesses. I mention this article because of the detail he brings to the case. This is a representative extract:Israel like apartheid-era South Africa, grants rights to individuals based not on their citizenship, but rather on their membership in a specific ethnic group. Israel classifies people at birth according to their ethnicity, and their rights and responsibilities towards the state vary based on this classification. In apartheid-era South Africa, only whites had full rights. In Israel, Palestinian citizens enjoy some conditional rights, such as the ability to vote and be elected, but only Jews have full rights allowing them to obtain land, to receive the benefits of military veteran status and to benefit from the "Law of Return."

There are similarities between the ideologies of Afrikanerdom and Zionism, which portray the ruling groups in each case as an outcast people who, escaping oppression, found freedom in a Promised Land. The resistance of indigenous peoples is viewed ideologically as being merely an extension of the oppression which had driven the settlers to come to their promised land in the first place, thus justifying almost any measures the ruling group saw fit to take against them.

golem wrote: From that it is clear that the words "The [Palestinians] did not perform their obligations [to keep the murderers imprisoned],” amounts to a relaxation having taken place of the conditions under which the scum were being kept out of reach from real justice,Golem, you simply cannot interpolate additional text into the Haaretz article and then claim it as evidence for your original statement. It may be your interpretation of the text, but it's not what the article said at all.

Wikipedia's an interesting source, because it has "contended" stickers where they're needed and because it has a discussion area where compromise material is negotiated. It's certainly not inherently propagandist, and I've often edited it myself where I've seen a need for clarification or correction. By all means do the same where you see errors of fact.

spot wrote: Golem, you simply cannot interpolate additional text into the Haaretz article and then claim it as evidence for your original statement. It may be your interpretation of the text, but it's not what the article said at all.

Wikipedia's an interesting source, because it has "contended" stickers where they're needed and because it has a discussion area where compromise material is negotiated. It's certainly not inherently propagandist, and I've often edited it myself where I've seen a need for clarification or correction. By all means do the same where you see errors of fact.


and I've often edited it myself where I've seen a need for clarification or correction

And therein lies precisely why Wilkpedia is so questionable. Not because you have edited it, but because so many people have edited it adding THEIR frequently limited understanding and often bias and slew to what it contains.

As regards the situation in Israel and what is taking place, is it not just possible that there may be someone closer to the (b)leading edge than yourself that can expose the error in YOUR understanding of what is taking place?

Certainly that is so with the removal of the monitors and the subsequent arrest of the scum with the intent of placing them on REAL trial and if found guilty submitting them to REAL punishment.

You may well know more about what takes place in Wales than me, but that is most certainly not the case for what is taking place in Israel.

Now, it’s nearly lunch time and so I’ll be busy for the next few hours.

Oh yes – I meant to mention this re Israel and Apartheid South Africa ----

I don’t recall seeing too many Schwartzers in the Apartheid government of ZA. We got more than a few arab MK’s though!

Your offensive comparison and the statements by tuto, again based on ignorance and his own baggage from his days as PNG in ZA is unfounded and rubbish.

As for the ‘treatment’ at borders, I wonder how the Brits would have treated German civilians who wanted to work and get hospital treatment from GB during WW2.

golem wrote: As regards the situation in Israel and what is taking place, is it not just possible that there may be someone closer to the (b)leading edge than yourself that can expose the error in YOUR understanding of what is taking place?Undoubtedly. All it takes is a track record in producing factual statements to back the opinion. Giving opinion without facts is fine, so long as it's acknowleged to be opinion. Alleging facts without evidence is folly, especially where existing news reports differ.

golem wrote: Your offensive comparison and the statements by tuto, again based on ignorance and his own baggage from his days as PNG in ZA is unfounded and rubbish.Either one has respect for Archbishop Tutu or one doesn't. I see no reason not to respect him, and many reasons why I should. Calling him ignorant does your case no credit.