The press didnt report the truth about the Fence

I did, and you should also.

Main Entry: ethnic cleansing
Function: noun
: the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of ethnic minorities by a dominant majority group

I had done so prior to my comment.

Then you didn't know that in 1948 the jews were the minority?

The reason I "didn't know" that is because it is untrue, and I do not make a habit of taking up positions I know to be false.

Israel held the majority in population in the region they grew in.

As early as 1940 they had already secured a 30% share of the overall population, and in the area carved out for them in 1947 they had an immediate majority.

During the war in question, only 14-25% of the Arab population remained granting Israel an even greater majority to subsequently deny the return of the refugees.

When Jews are controlling the business in america, nobody would dare to criticize Israel. When Sharon killed 50 Palestenian civilians in one day, we heard Bush saying "Sharon is a man of peace". So no matter how much Israel is offending others and their lands, US politicians will never dare to crticize Israel. Kerry would simply lose the elections if he supported the the latest decision.

The Jews control me and all my opinions, yet I still manage to take up some uncomplimentary positions for them. They ain't all that bad.

LOL, Jews were still the minority.

Yes, for example Jews were in the minority in the overall region of pan-Arab states.

Jews were in the majority in the area where Arab transfer occured.

It is possible for a group to be a majority in a subset of a larger region in which they are a minority, thereby enabling your word play in calling them the minority.

Ultimately, in the area that Arabs were transferred from, they were a majority and dominant.

Insipid?? Dull?? Flavorless?? Boring?? I'm not sure I get your point.

1) Expantionism
The expansionism of Israel goes how?

If you are referring to the Biblical delineations, then Israel hasn't gotten there yet and hasn't tried to attain those borders.

If you are referring to land taken after Israel was attacked, please show me another nation on earth that has given back land won in a war while its enemy continues to attack from that land, besides Israel, which has given back land it won in a war while the enemy continued to attack from that land.

If you are referring to some other sort of expanionism, please explain.
]2) Vengefull reactions
Vengeful reactions differ from the dysfunctional Arab/Muslim cultural mandate of domination over one another at all costs - how?

3) Occupation
Jews were attacked by Muslims in Ottoman Palestine.
Israel was attacked before it became a state.
Israel was attacked after it became a state.
The Israeli occupation of the West Bank of Jordan and Egypt's Gaza Strip occurred in 1967, after Israel had been attacked almost daily for the previous twenty years by Arab Muslim States.
How were those previous twenty years of attacks the result of Occupation?

4) Claiming of land that they aquired through violence
See Expansionism, your point one and my response.
What nation has ever given back land that they continue to be attacked from?
Why would a nation give back land that they continued to be attacked from?
What other nations in the world would you suggest take this course of action?

Now, if you want real issues that are the fault of the Israelis, you could cite monumental rudeness; elitism; arrogance; and the resistance to getting their hands dirty when they have a captive population to do their dirty work.
These are points of condemnation.
But they are not excuses to intentionally, with malice aforethought, murder children, women and innocents.
I still suggest you read the histories....

Nope, not in the 1948 War of Independence.

And, that is the only accurate statement you have made.
The Israelis are trying to TURN DOWN THE HEAT by removing themselves as targets of opportunities.
And they are trying to eliminate the murderous leaders in the Palestinian areas who turn up the heat and try to force the explosions.
You are correct.

I suspect you do, and that you feign lacking understanding in order to imply that it does not merit understanding.

But I'll spell it out again:

If you claim that the mid east conflict is due to religion (as opposed to territory) it would be an inspid claim.

I speak of vapidity, not palate.



Through systemic settling, through military conquest and through annexations justified as necessary for defense.



Israel as a monolithic entity might not be attempting this but elements within Israel including parties in political power have and frequently state this as a goal.



I have never claimed to know of such an example, address this to one who does.

Whether or not you think it is just speaks nothing of whether or not it is an expantion.



Se my earlier elucidation.



Once again, Moishe3rd, I will not fall prey to intellectual laziness and be baited into a position I do not hold.

I made no claim that others do not share this quality.

Whether or not they do, says nothing about whether or not Israel does, and whether or not Israel doing so contributes toward the conflict.



Again Moishe3rd you demonstrate either deceit or reading incomprehension. I never claimed that every instance of Arabs attacking Jews was due to occupation. Asking me to then illustrate that it is is a straw man.





See questions as a means of diverting from a simple point.

See questions that do not refute the point.

See "justified" having nothing to do with whether ot not expantion took place.



I am confident that my grasp of both the conflict's history and the intricacies of the political situation that currently exists far exceeds yours.

This, however, is a silly penis to measure and if you are done addressing points I did not make perhaps you would be so good as to address the ones that I did.

Craven de Kere wrote:


All right Craven, as you seem to insist on wordage, I will assume that you are alluding to "without merit." In your view, the mid east conflict is due to territorial claims, not religion.

Most wars and large or long conflicts between peoples tend to be about religion or values, which, for the purposes of brevity, I will use the term philosophy.

They are not about territory per se, they are about differing philosophies.

From the Peloponnesian Wars to the Crusades to the American Revolution to World War II, the conflicts were fought over different philosophies.
A useful example would be the Islamic conquests:
Muhammed had succeeded in uniting the Bedouin tribes of Arabia, ridding them of their pagan ways, and utilising their traditions of raiding and looting into political conquest.
Following the death of Muhammed, during the reign of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph after Muhammed, most of the Bedouin tribes reverted to their old ways of intertribal warfare, and Abu Bakr had to wage war against them in order to return them to the flock.
This was known as the redda wars (wars of apostasy).
After shortly succeeding in subduing the insurgency the reconverted tribes started raiding southern Iraqi cities which were under the control of the Sassanids. Many of these incursions brought great material gains for the tribal warriors, and since these cities were inhabited by older tribes (such as the Manadhira) which had settled earlier in Iraq, the warriors were met with little resistance, which encouraged them to raid and conquer more land up north along the Euphrates until they had beseiged Damascus.
During the reign of Omar, the second Caliph, the Arab tribes had already beaten the two major empires in the region and occupied Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Persia.
This Jihad was less motivated by Islamic religious fervour than by the ancient Bedouin traditions and philosophy of raiding and warfare.
Muslims were not supposed to raid fellow Muslims, but raiding was the Arab/Bedouin way of life and therefore Islam spread quickly as the tribes had to find new territories to practice their way of life.
Many often assume that Islamic conversion was forced by the sword, however the invading Arab tribes didn't care less if the conquered populations converted or not, they were just doing what they were good at - raiding and looting.

Now, the same could be said of American Manifest Destiny or European worldwide colonization. The motivation for conquest is and was based on a philosophy of life, not on the acquisition of territory.

The Palestinian/Israeli conflict is not based on territory. It is based on two diametrically opposed philosophies.

This idea is espoused by both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The following article is about the Arab/Muslim philosophy of Death.

May 24, 2004, 8:46 a.m.
Dealing in Death
The West is weak because it respects life? Too bad.

By Steven Stalinsky

In the war on terrorism, major battles from early Islamic history serve as inspiration for those fighting against the West. As al Qaeda associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi beheaded American Nicholas Berg in Iraq last week, he asked, "Is it not time for you [Muslims] to take the path of jihad and carry the sword of the Prophet of prophets?... The Prophet, the most merciful, ordered [his army] to strike the necks of some prisoners in [the battle of] Badr and to kill them... And he set a good example for us. As for you, Bush, dog of the Christians, anticipate what will harm you... And you will only get shroud after shroud and coffin after coffin slaughtered in this manner."

Another chapter from early Islamic history ?- serving as a lesson for today's Muslims at war against the West ?- is the concept of the love of death. This originated at the Battle of Qadisiyya in the year 636, when the commander of the Muslim forces, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, sent an emissary with a message from Caliph Abu Bakr to the Persian commander, Khosru. The message stated: "You [Khosru and his people] should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life." This account is recited in today's Muslim sermons, newspapers, and textbooks.

In his speech of March 19, 2004, President Bush referred to this concept: "On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, 'We choose death, while you choose life.'... It is a mindset that rejoices in suicide, incites murder, and celebrates every death we mourn. And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions. We do love life.... We believe in the values that uphold the dignity of life, tolerance, and freedom, and the right of conscience. And we know that this way of life is worth defending. There is no neutral ground ?- no neutral ground ?- in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death."

Leading Muslim clerics often refer to the love of death. Chief Palestinian Authority cleric Mufti Sheikh Ikrimeh Sabri stated, "We tell them, in as much as you love life, the Muslim loves death and martyrdom. There is a great difference between he who loves the hereafter and he who loves this world. The Muslim loves death and [strives for] martyrdom." Saudi Sheikh Abd Al-Muhsin Al-Qassem in Al-Madina added: "The Jews preached permissiveness and corruption, as they hid behind false slogans like freedom and equality, humanism and brotherhood... They are cowards in battle... they flee from death and fear fighting... They love life."

Former head of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee Sheikh Atiyyah Saqr was asked the following question in an online chat room on March 22, 2004: "What, according to the Koran, are the Jews' main characteristics and qualities?" He explained one of their worst traits: "Cowardice and love for this worldly life are undisputable traits [of the Jews]." Hezbollah's Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah revealed in an interview after the recent prisoner swap between Israel and his group: "We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are the most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death."

Abdallah Al-Naggar, a religious columnist for the Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhuriya, has written about the differences between a "Muslim believer's" approach to death and that of his non-Muslim enemies: "The believers in Allah rightly do not dread their enemies and do not fear [waging a] jihad, because they see jihad as a profitable bargain, selling their lives to Allah [to get paradise in return]. Their enemies protect their [own] lives, as criminals do. [Allah] has already said about them: 'You will find that they are the people who protect their [own] life more than anyone else.'... The believers do not fear the enemy [during] the struggle and do not protect their lives. Allah has promised them one of two good things: [either] victory or martyrdom.... Yet their enemies protect [their] lives like a miser protects his money. They do not give [their lives] easily; they do not enter into battles seeking martyrdom; they do not act in order [to attain] martyrdom. This is the secret of the believers' victory over their enemies ?- though the believers are few and the polytheists many, with advanced weaponry and equipment."

Liberal Egyptian playwright Ali Salem mocked articles such as those by Al-Naggar in the Arab media. In a satiric column published in the London daily Al-Hayat, Salem sarcastically suggested opening a kindergarten to teach terrorist values: "You will easily notice that they love life, and that is the weak point that we will exploit. We, in contrast, love death and protect it. Do not believe that Allah created life for us to live, build, and enjoy. [No,] Allah created us to test our ability to rebel against life, to despise it, and to get rid of it at the earliest opportunity. Each and every one of you must seek out your first chance to die ?- but you must not die for free...You must know, dear children, that our martyrs gain entry to Paradise, while their dead are [sentenced] to the fires of Hell. These idiots do not believe in Paradise, in the fires of Hell, or in the Day of Judgment." Tunisian intellectual Al-Afif Al-Akhdar asked in an article for the liberal Arabic-language website www.elaph.com: "Why do expressions of tolerance, moderation, rationalism, compromise, and negotiation horrify us [Muslims], but [when we hear] fervent cries for vengeance, we all dance the war dance?... Why do other people love life, while we love death and violence, slaughter and suicide, and [even] call it heroism and martyrdom?"

As the war on terror continues, the voices coming from the Arab and Muslim world celebrating death over life have been heard more often than those criticizing this philosophy. An editorial in the Lebanese Daily Star on May 13, 2004, warned of what might happen if this issue is not addressed: "The region's kings, princes, and presidents need to learn a valuable lesson from this abhorrent incident: that fractured societies produce real-life theaters of shame like the Berg murder in a systemic manner, and that similar fractures are infecting their own societies. If the Berg beheading does not catapult the region's leaders from the world of lethargy to the world of vigorous action to establish law and order in their own societies ?- and beginning with themselves ?- then they will be considerably weakened.... What more is needed to galvanize Arab leaders into action? Today, a man named Berg was put to the sword; tomorrow, it could be the Arab nation torn asunder by the same savagery."

Craven de Kere wrote:


Have I sufficiently addressed your point regarding the idea that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is about territory?
It is not about territory.
It is about life and death.
And the fence represents life for Israelis.

You are exhibiting the fallacy of equivocation. You segue from religion to values and call the difference a difference of philosophy.

True, according to some word play, you can describe a territorial dispute as a difference in "values" but this is misleading.

But forget that prevarication and address your fallacy of equivocation.

Your initial claim was that the conflict is due to deficiencies in the Muslim religion. Let's keep that in mind as you move the goal posts here.



I guess you can say that the Israeli 'philosophy' of "greater Israel" is in conflict with Palestinian terrorist's "push into the sea" philosophy.

This word play is interesting. I'm gonna tell my brother that we once had a "philosophical difference" over the monkey bars.



Funny that. All the breakdowns in peace talks and negotiations center on territory disputes, and not "philosophical differences".

But I suppose you might be inclined to say that this is just some code language they use to lay out their "philosophical differences" and when they walk out over strips of land it's really the opposite side's religious beliefs that make them wicked pissed.



It may be espoused by some of them, especially the religious among them who like to work their religion into anything.

Thing is, you can find someone to support any dumb idea.

For example, I am aware of an individual who claims "most" wars are over "philosophical differences".



Huh? Really Moishe3rd it is to laugh, and to laugh out loud at that.

Simply and dimplomatically put, no copying and pasting an article did precious little to make the risible case that the territorial dispute in the mid-east is due to deficiencies in the Muslim religion (your initial claim) or even the new goal posts of "philosophical differences".

While I can admire your prowess with Control C and Control V I must say that this is an underwhelming attempt to make your case.

I usually ignore the debate-by-way-of-copy-paste folk.



Riiight. So occasionally they walk out of peace talks over 3% of the territor... oops I mean 3% of the "philosophical differences".



As are all wars. This is a very underwhelming point.



Funny you should mention it. The most significant opposition to the fence in Israel came from the religious right and settlers who thought it might represent an end to territorial expantion and a defacto final line.

Sorry, I did not mean to say "territorial expantion", I meant "more expansive philosophy".

Bravo Craven, I've truly enjoyed your posts

Hi Red,
I havent seen you in a while.Nice to know you are still alive and kicking.

Craven,
While I agree with most of what you are saying,would you clarify a few things for me?
While I absolutely agree that the fence is wrong,you seem to be saying that Israel must return all the land it occupies.Am I wrong in that assumption?
Would you have Israel return the Golan Heights,which it took from Syria AFTER syria attacked Israel?
I am not arguing with you,just asking for a clarification.
While I do agree that Israel must remove their settlements from occupied land,I do not believe that they should return ANY of the land they took after they were invaded by the Arab nations.
If that is the point you are making,let me know.Maybe I missed it.
Also,on a personal note,where in San Diego? Thats my home town.

Good analysis Craven.

sometimes I think you are a bit too hard on these people, and sometimes: not

Oh my God just realised "these people" will make me an anti semite, again.

So substitute "those lacking intellectual ability"...

I know it does seem as if a little more people are beginning to speak up for the palestinians than they did just a few years ago or a year ago. It would be interesting to know why. I know I could speculate (habit of mine anyway) but it is odd.

As for me, at first when I first began reading about the whole Israel/Palestine issue I was afraid to side with Palestines openly out of fear of being called anti-semite. However the more I discussed it with people on the internet I started loosing that fear and starting saying how I felt. Before reading and talking about it on the internet about seven years ago, I must admit that I was basically ignorant and never gave the whole thing a thought one way or another. I don't think I ever even heard the world "Palestine" or thought of Israel as an actual country but just people from the Bible.

You know I think people are saying things that they haven't done before because of the extreme beliefs that are part of the bush administration and the right wing of the republican conservative party. However, if we were attacked tomorrow; we would forget all that and go back to saying that anyone that disagrees or is against us in some way is our enemy. In a way an attack would be best thing that would happen for the Bush administration. (not that i think they would welcome one, I don't think they are mosters yet)

Craven gets the home run for knocking the ball out of the park. One of the best posts I've ever encountered on A2K.