15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:30 am
I read the article you linked Walter, and it backs up what I've said. That is what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know how to explain it better so that you can understand what I am saying.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:40 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I read the article you linked Walter, and it backs up what I've said. That is what I've been trying to tell you. I don't know how to explain it better so that you can understand what I am saying.

I understand.

From my link:
Quote:
... archaeological digs are being carried out as part of a concerted campaign to expel Palestinians from their ancestral home.
That effort is orchestrated by an Israeli settler organization called Elad, a name formed from Hebrew letters that stand for "to the City of David."
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:52 am
Okay Walter. You posted one article about something different and I commented on it. It was not anti-Israeli nor anti-Palestinian but seemed to lay out the situation as it exists re issues with a particular archeological dig.

Now you want to change the subject with a decidedly anti-Israeli piece about something different. I have seen a gazillion such articles on myriad 'sins' committed by Israelis in their dealings with the Palestinians and am far too jaded to accept any of them at face value without at least hearing from the other side. Your article didn't even pretend to give the Israelis an opportunity to give their side. By my definition of good journalism, that makes it highly questionable that it is being accurately reported.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 10:57 am
I was obviously misguided by your response that you read the linked article. Sorry.


But do you really consider a senior lecturer in politics at the Ben Gurion University to be "decidedly anti-Israeli"? (And Prof. Dr. Neve Gordon is
teaching Political Philosophy and Human Rights there since quite some time!)
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:07 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I was obviously misguided by your response that you read the linked article. Sorry.


But do you really consider a senior lecturer in politics at the Ben Gurion University to be "decidedly anti-Israeli"? (And he's teaching there since quite some time!)


I didn't comment on any individual. I commented on the content of the article which was designed to express a particular point of view from one side of an issue only. I don't think it particularly unusual that an Israeli would be anti-Israel--I don't know whether this guy is Israeli as I frankly didn't care enough to look it up and it isn't important anyway. We certainly have a lot of Americans, some who post on this thread, who think America has never done anything right and whatever they are doing is wrong. Nevertheless, those who wish to be educated look at it from all available perspectives before drawing a conclusion. Is the motive truly to drive Palestinians out? Or is the archeological site considered of sufficient importance that an attitude of emminent domain applies regardless of who lives there?

His perspective may be exactly as it is. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the original article you posted today nor does it deal with the issue of Palestinians who want Israel to cease to exist.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:18 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I don't think it particularly unusual that an Israeli would be anti-Israel...


Well, "Neve Gordon has gotten into bed with neo-Nazis, Holocaust justice deniers, and anti-Semites" according to Prof. Alan Dershowitz.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Apr, 2008 11:24 am
I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make, Walter. I accept that you don't understand the point I have been trying to make. It might be helpful to take the separate articles on their own merit and discuss them separately. I have only commented on the content in the first which did not appear to be biased in favor of either side. The second I judge biased to one point of view and, without hearing the other side, is not that useful to assess a particular situation.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2008 03:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Sorry Blue. I just don't see it as you see it. Like many on the pro-Palestinian side you seem to think the Israelis are terrible to their Arab citizens when the evidence as I see it does not support that. Some here seem to think the Israelis should be kind and compassionate to the non-Israeli Palestinians and then the Arabs would play nice. I have seen absolutely no evidence to support that theory either.

The Palestinians were under British rule and therefore were not in charge of their own destiny when Israel was established by the UN. Britain willingly gave up its claim to that land so that the Jews could have a homeland. I don't think it is too much to ask the Arabs to accept that now 60 years later. The Israelis have demonstrated that they are willing to live in peace with anybody. It is high time that their Arab neighbors followed that example.

The Palestinians who did not abandon Israel on the theory that the Arab militants would destroy or drive out the Jews have lived and prospered as Israeli citizens with full rights since the first Arab/Egyptian wars declared on Israel. There are an estimated 1.4 million of them living in Israel now. All those who fled had been asked to stay. And now they give their alleigance to those who are pledged to destroy Israel.

Israel has done its part to make peace. It is time that the Arab people do the same.

Consider it understood that you don't see it as I see it, and that contrary to how you see it the Israeli state ("the Israelis are terrible to their Arab citizens," can you be an more obtuse?) does in fact discriminate against and repress its Arab population, as the Israeli state's very own government has acknowledged.

Leaving your gross generalities aside (did I mention your obtuseness?), the Israelis should do the moral thing and stop discriminating against and repressing its Arab population, and stop oppressing the Palestinian people it subjugates because these actions are immoral and inhumane, and contrary to the very ideals of democracy to which the Zionist state claims to adhere. At the same time terrorists and violent militants should be persecuted and brought to justice. Entire populations of peoples should not be collectively punished for their actions, however. This form of punishment is itself oppressive, and in the case of the conflict between the Zionists and the Palestinians merely serves to perpetuate the formers' oppression of the latter.

The fact that the Palestinians were under British rule does not negate the fact that they nonetheless had the right to self-determination. Furthermore, the fact that the Palestinians were under British rule does not negate the fact that the British abetted in the imposition of an ethnocentrically discriminatory state against pluralistic, egalitarian, and democratic principles. As early as 1930 when Palestinian delegates met with British colonial secretary Lord Passfield to petition for the formation of a parliament established along democratic lines, the secretary responded:

"Of course, this Parliament as you call it that you ask for, would have to have as its duty the carrying out of the Mandate . . . the Mandatory power, that is the British government, could not create any council except within which the terms of the Mandate and for the purpose of carrying out the Mandate. This is the limit of our power . . . Would you mind considering our difficulty that we cannot create a Parliament which would not be responsible and feel itself responsible for carrying out the Mandate?" (The Iron Cage: The Palestinian Struggle For Statehood p.34)

In effect Passfield was asking the Palestinian majority to subordinate its own nationalist aspirations for the nationalist aspirations of the tiny minority of Zionist immigrants in Palestine. This is what is absolutely too much to ask of anyone, however long their grievance against their discrimination and repression has lasted.

It is high time for the Zionist state to dismantle its ethnocentrically discriminatory and oppressive regime in favor of a more egalitarian, pluralistic and democratic one.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2008 08:13 pm
not even one axis of evil is annihilated.
Iran and North korea is alive and kicking.


"US GIs in Iraq Suffer Worst Week of '08
Apr 12 09:58 PM US/Eastern
By ROBERT H. REID
Associated Press Writer
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Apr, 2008 09:17 pm
We can depend on Infra to mouth all the Pal catch words and phrases used against Israel. Following his formula, the Pals take over Israel in short order. Then, the real persecution begins: Jews, Christians, Sikhs, et al., would increasingly be persecuted and murdered, just as they are in most of the Islamic ME countries. That is what Infra wants.

For a true picture of Israel, see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/36_liberal.html
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 11:39 am
link
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 02:50 pm
Some people criticize Carter for talking to Hamas, but most of those same people are like Bush; they don't believe in diplomacy. Total ignorance. Silence doesn't bring peace.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 03:14 pm
CI, in view of your love of the Pals, and hatred of the Israelis, I am surprised you are not accompanying Carter.

Carter was a terrible president, and a worse ex-president.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 04:05 pm
To Tel-Aviv, April 13, 2008

Mr. Jimmy Carter

Former President of the United States

Dear Mr. President

I am writing to you on behalf of Gush Shalom, The Israeli Peace Bloc, to congratulate you on your wise and courageous decision to meet in Damascus with Hamas leaders and talk with them on the ways to promote peace in our region. I believe this is an act whose time had come - or rather, is already long overdue - and I would have liked the Government of Israel to avail itself of your position, your prestige and your tireless energy, in order to help end the suffering and bloodshed among both peoples.

As an increasing number of people are coming to realize, the policy of boycotting Hamas, starting on the day that the movement won the democratic elections held among the Palestinians, has failed utterly and caused terrible suffering and bloodshed to both peoples. The Government of Israel, with the support of the present US Administration, has undertaken large and small military operations; constantly sought to foment civil war among Palestinians; and imposed an inhuman economic boycott of the Gaza Strip, which exactly today reaches a cruel new peak with the denial of fuel to a million and half people. Not only did all these acts fail to break Hamas' power; on the contrary, they resulted in increasing its popular support and severely weakening Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) who is more and more perceived as a collaborator, unable to bring his people any real achievement.

The time has come to turn a new page, based on recognition of reality: Hamas is a significant force among Palestinians, and will continue to be such, for better or worse, in the foreseeable future. It is impossible to reach an Israeli-Palestinian Agreement - and actually implement it - without Hamas being a party to that agreement.

Your visit to our region, Mr. President, has the potential of imparting an enormous momentum to removing the obstacles presently hindering serious negotiations aimed at ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands conquered in 1967. To the mind of myself the my fellow activists, what is most urgently needed at present includes:

* A full ceasefire, between all Israelis and all Palestinians, which will proved a safe daily life to the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip as to those of the Israeli communities near to it;

* Removal of the shameful economic siege, which is a terrible collective punishment for Gaza inhabitants of Gaza;

* Achieving at last an exchange of prisoners which would restore to their homes and families the captured Israeli soldier Gil'ead Shalit as well as a significant number of Palestinian prisoners

* Encouraging the creation of a Palestinian National Unity Government, representing all important factions and able to negotiate on behalf of the entire Palestinian people - instead of the complete veto which the governments of Israel and the US at present impose on the creation of such a government among Palestinians.

It would have been best for all of us, Mr. President, were you able to go to Damascus with a full mandate from the Government of Israel and from you successor in the White House, to promote to the best of your ability the solution to the conflict in our region and the end to both peoples' suffering. But even in the absence of an official government mandate, know that you are going to Damascus with the warm regards and full support of the peace seekers in Israel.

Most Sincerely Yours

Uri Avnery

Former Member of the Knesset

On behalf of Gush Shalom

(The Israeli Peace Bloc)
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Apr, 2008 04:10 pm
And according to the indian press they had taken care of the poor people irrespective of their political affliation thaqn the puppets or the dancing dolls.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:06 am
blueflame1 wrote:
To Tel-Aviv, April 13, 2008

Mr. Jimmy Carter

Former President of the United States

Dear Mr. President

I am writing to you on behalf of Gush Shalom, The Israeli Peace Bloc, to congratulate you on your wise and courageous decision to meet in Damascus with Hamas leaders and talk with them on the ways to promote peace in our region.
...

Most Sincerely Yours

Uri Avnery

Former Member of the Knesset

On behalf of Gush Shalom

(The Israeli Peace Bloc)

Hamas is an organization devoted to the mass murder of non-murderers. They hate the existence of Israel in Palestine. They think Allah, the god they allege they have, has bestowed on them the right to govern all of Palestine and murder all those who think otherwise. Talking with them will not change their minds. They are evil! Horrendously evil!
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:21 am
ican, you're projecting again. Likud is an organization devoted to the mass murder of non-murderers.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:30 am
Hamas and Likud make strange bedfellows

Historically, Likud and Hamas have been entangled in a mutually beneficial dance of death. Hamas thrived on an Israeli policy that was based on the Likud Bloc strategy of cultivating an alternative to Arafat that might win the hearts and minds of the Palestinian masses while allowing Israel to extend its control. [1]

Beginning with the 1977 election of Likud founder Menachem Begin as prime minister, Israel nurtured the rise of the Islamic movement among the Palestinians, first in the Gaza Strip and to a limited degree in the West Bank.

Desperate to prevent Arafat's return under any peace accord and seeking to undermine his popularity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, a year later Israel allowed a 42-year old quadriplegic religious leader, Sheik Ahmad Yassin, to license his humanitarian organization, later called Hamas.

Begin's successor was Yitzhak Shamir. Both Begin and Shamir were leaders of the first terrorist organizations that operated in Palestine in the 1940s.

Under Begin and later Shamir, Israel created, funded and controlled the "Village Leagues," a system of local councils managed by Palestinians who were hand-picked by Israel to run local city and village administrations. The plan was devised by Sharon, who was Israel's Defense Minister. Sharon appointed Menahem Milson, a professor of Arabic literature and former Hebrew University Dean, as its first Civil Administration leader in November 1981. Less than one year later, the two broke over Sharon's role in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres and Milson resigned.[2]

In 1984, Shamir was forced into a coalition government with Labor Party's Shimon Peres. Under a shared-leadership agreement, Peres held the office for two years until 1986 before returning it to Shamir. During those two years, the Likud party leaders saw firsthand the behind-the-scenes negotiations take place between Labor Party leaders and Arafat, who was exiled in Tunisia.

Within a year, Hamas leaders exploited the funds that Israel directed to the Village Leagues and collected tens of millions more from supportive Arab regimes angry with Arafat. Hamas used the money to operate a network of schools, medical clinics, social service agencies, religious institutions and provide direct services to the poverty stricken Palestinian population.

Always the survivor, Arafat and the PLO agreed in 1988 to accept the "two state" solution based on "land for peace" negotiations. While Likud responded by trying to sell "autonomy" to the Islamicist movement, Hamas reacted angrily to Arafat's move and its leaders, much to the surprise of Sharon and the Likud, by openly embracing armed struggle against Israel.

The only thing that stopped Hamas from growing further was the return of the Labor Party to power in 1992 and the return of Yasir Arafat to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Arafat's first act was to impose controls on Hamas, while Israel moved to more aggressive policies expelling, jailing and even assassinating Hamas leaders.

Hamas violence achieves Likud goals

There is a natural affinity that exists in a limited way between the policies and goals of Hamas and the political objectives of the Likud Bloc that has brought them together.

Every time Israeli and Palestinian negotiators appeared ready to take a major step toward achieving peace, an act of Hamas terrorism has scuttled the peace process and has pushed the two sides apart.

The startling ease with which terrorism has undermined peace is a testament to the fragility of the peace process and the political weakness of both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators. Two specific acts of Likud-inspired violence derailed the momentum of the peace process, too.

Terrorism has been the primary common denominator that exists in the up and down relationship between the leadership of Israel's Likud and the Palestinian Hamas movement.

Acts of terrorism can be directly associated with changes in the political leadership of Israel -- influencing the defeat of Labor Party government and the rise of the Likud.

In the last quarter century, Likud Party candidates have served as Israel's prime ministers for 17 years, more than double the eight years served by Labor Party candidates.

Since 1977, four Likud candidates have served five times as prime minister, while three Labor candidates served four times. (Likud's Menachem Begin, 77-83; Likud's Yitzhak Shamir, 83-84; Labor's Shimon Peres, 84-86; Likud's Shamir, 86-92; Labor's Yitzhak Rabin, 92-95; Labor's Peres, 95-96; Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu, 96-99; Labor's Ehud Barak, 99-01; Likud's Ariel Sharon, 01-present.)

During the Intifadah (1987- 1993), Hamas violence was mainly directed against Israeli soldiers and security forces, and not civilians. Likud backed Israeli fanatics were also trying to use violence to disrupt the peace process.

Hamas moved from "armed struggle" against Israeli military targets to the more extreme violence in 1994 after a Likud-inspired supporter and settler fanatic, Baruch Goldstein, walked past Israeli guards into the Hebron Mosque and gunned down 29 Muslims as they were praying. Goldstein took a page out of the Likud ideology and hoped the massacre would derail the peace process with Arafat.[3]

In retaliation in April 1994, a Hamas bomber rammed an explosive laden car into a civilian bus in the Israeli city of Afula, killing eight and wounding 50 people.[4]

Less than one year later, another Likud settler fanatic inspired by Likud rhetoric and policies assassinated Rabin. The murder undermined the Labor Party's future and sabotaged the Israeli-Palestinian peace process pushing all sides back to violence.

Rabin's widow, Leah Rabin, directly placed the blame for her husband's assassination on the Likud party and its anti-peace rhetoric.[5] Leah Rabin declared that the assassin was incited to violence by the vicious language of Likud's silver-tongued leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.
link
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:33 am
blueflame1 wrote:
ican, you're projecting again. Likud is an organization devoted to the mass murder of non-murderers.

Gad, that's stupid malarkey!

Likud is an organization devoted to defense of Israel against mass murderers of non-murderers.

It is you who is projecting again. It is you who blame victims for attempting to defend themselves against what victimizers are doing to them. Gad, that's not only stupid. It is sick!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 12:48 pm
The article Blueflame just posted is from an interesting site. It claims to be an impartial media watchdog; however, its founder and chief editor is a Muhammad Ali Khan and I could find no articles or columns on the website that were not specifically pro-Arab, that were not downplaying Muslim backed terrorism, and/or that were not anti-Israel.

It claims to be not for profit, but I'm pretty sure any contributions to this organization would not be tax deductible. I think we can safely question the objectivity/truth of the information presented there. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/04/2025 at 08:14:06