What are the Isreali leaders thinking

[lord dolf vader]

http://www.palestinehistory.com/time1900.htm


there are about 5.2 million jews in isreal last census not including arab citizens .

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader

there are about 5.2 million jews in isreal last census not including arab citizens .

fascinating...

(is there a point to that somewhere that went right over my head?)

[Elfenwolf]

well, how many Jews are there counting the Arabs???

[Hangtime]

..and how many americans counting jews and arabs?

sorry.

couldn't resist.

[Steven]

I'm not sure if I started this counting of peoples or not.  My original point was more along the lines that there were already Jews in the region going a long ways back (and yes, as well as Arabs) in an area which really was not an autonomous state and never really a "Palestine" state.  Not ruled by its indigenous peoples, the area was controled by Turkey and later the British.  But as the British were packing to leave, the Jews were able to usurp the Arabs (I guess) and get their own land.  Why I said this, and my whole point, is because sometimes it sounds to me as though some people believe there was not a single Jew in the region and the UN or whoever made all the Arabs pack up and move and then shipped in Jews from Europe.  How can you steal something if you are already living there and for many, many generations prior to WW2?  As for stealing, talk with the Jordanians and Egyptians.  

I guess I have to work on my communicative skills.

[lord dolf vader]

sorry hang that figgure is hard to find . but from memory i the last figure i heard whas about 30% of the jews in isreal are from america. this was about 10 years ago . and i guess 6 or 7 arab americans also . why any aray arab would want to move from america to palistine/israel is beyond me . unless they are goin to help fight sherons final solution . ok that is a nazi word but he is a self described jewdao nazi.  (i still get a chill every time i write "jewdao nazi" just such a screwed up term )

[palef]

Ok Fellas, here's something to think about.

I don't have a closed mind, and I will consider reasonable responses. Try to batten down the patriot hatches for a bit and respond as a citizen of the human race.

1. Why is it OK to persecute, kill, torture, maim, penalise, tax, "ghetto-ise", hunt, sterilise, and generally behave badly toward Jews?

2. Why is it OK for the US to bomb and invade (albeit temporarily, though the temporary part is still in question) Afghanistan on the basis of stamping out "Terrorism?

3. What nation would allow it's citizens to be killed by terrorist action without reaction?

4. How come no one seems to understand that the Israelis were displaced from Israel over a 400 year period beginning about the time of Christ's death and therefore did nothing more than the "Palestians" are doing now in attempting to reclaim "their" "homeland" when they retook Israel in '47/'48?

5. What moral imperative do the European States (inc the UK), US, and the Commonwealth countries believe they have to judge the Israeli response to perceived terrorist acts against their people, when those very Nations ignored the Holocaust until the evidence was presented to them at the end of WWII?

Please keep the insensate screaming, and frothing at the mouth to a dull roar, and a small tributary flood, respectively.

Regards

palef

[Voss]

1:) It isn't.

2:) Afghanistan harbored terrorists engaging in International Terrorism. There's a slight difference than terrorism in land disputes. One is an outright invasion of foreign soil and the other a landlord/tenant debacle, and really Palestine does not have an argument about reclaiming land in that they are disputing land that was never claimed to be theirs AS AN EXCUSE TO KILL JEWS.

3:) Hmm, I saw a trek episode once that,...

4:) It goes back further than 400 years. Israel has not been able to mount a viable force since way back (think within three generations of King David), until 1948 that is.

5:) It's not a moral imperative on the part of the U.S. (which you will see as time progresses). Rather, I believe Bush is trying to calm things down so we can flush out ALL terrorist leaders in the region. EVERY Arab nation that I can think of is a dictatorship. They stick together pretty good, and there's a lot of money down there (albeit spread thin). Rather, then make a bad situation worse, we need to segment this snake one portion at a time, before they mount a united front against us. We can fight them all at once, or use diplomacy to find the culprits and surgically remove them. Israel action is the proper one for them, but it almost seems Sharon is helping the enemy by unifiying their conviction against the U.S. (which they see as being the real director of Israel's policy anyway).

This WAR against terrorism is going to be long, hard-fought, and expensive. Jumping in and hacking away at the brush only gets things stirred up and confused. We have to hold to our convictions and NEVER forget what happened on 9/11. The U.S. is far too easily led astray by our liberals, free-thinkers, and protestors. We can't let an upcoming mood sway our conviction. We have decided upon a path of anti-terrorism, and we cannot afford to let our guard down for one minute, or we will pay the price.

Arafat IS a terrorist, but he is small fry compared to the real leaders of terrorism. Our Justice Department will root out those responsible, and our Justice has the longest reach of all.

Can you not see the danger?

[palef]

Thanks Voss.

Thanks for thinking carefully before replying.

By 400 years I meant the period of time that the Romans basically denuded the area of the Jewish population.

Regards

palef

[babek-]

1.
The palestine can ask the same:
Why is it OK that the palestines are persecuted, killed, tortured, maimed, penalised, ghetto-ised and hunted by Israel ?

3. What nation would allow it's citizens to be killed by terrorist action without reaction?
Again the palestines could ask this question to the Israelis. When the Israeli military rages in thepalestine territory like Nazi hordes - destroying houses and butchering civilians - they could be defined as terrorists.

4. The territory was stolen in an illegitime act from the palestines and given to some foreigners who built up an apartheid regime during the last decades. Now the israeli apartheid regime, which was abusing the palestine as cheap workers has changed to a Nazi-like regime.
How could anyone have sympathy to such a terroristic regime ?


5. What moral imperative do the European States (inc the UK), US, and the Commonwealth countries believe they have to judge the Israeli response to perceived terrorist acts against their people, when those very Nations ignored the Holocaust until the evidence was presented to them at the end of WWII?

Because the european countries have failed in the past to protect people against Nazi-terrorism it is their duty to intervene when history repeats.
And it is a fact that the actual Israeli regime under Sharon is acting with massive terroristic actions against the palestines.

And it is not only Europe which demands that Israel stops its terroristic policy against the palestines.
Also Russia, China and the USA have demanded that the military hordes have to leave the palestine territory and stop their senseless killings.

The only good thing is, that Sharon with his fascistoid policy had ironicly helped the palestines to get their independant country earlier.

Now just wait until the people in the civilized world see the destructions in the palestine cities after Sharons mob left and the press could get in to document the israeli terrorism.

Then the false legend of the nice israelis and the need to help them against the bad arabs will fade away - like it is doing here day by day.

[Hortlund]

Babek..I have sat quietly and read your mindless ramblings for a couple of days now, wondering whether to respond or not. Somehow I get the sinking feeling that it would be easier arguing with a wall, than with you. But here goes. You certainly seem to have passion for this issue..although you seem to be lacking heavily in knowledge.  

Originally posted by babek-
1.
The palestine can ask the same:
Why is it OK that the palestines are persecuted, killed, tortured, maimed, penalised, ghetto-ised and hunted by Israel ?

[/b]
Lots of reasons. There is no ghettoization going on in Israel though. That one is plain wrong.

Torture: Under certain conditions torture is permitted by Israeli law. Generally it is forbidden, but there is a "ticking bomb"-paragraph, meaning roughly, that if there is a "ticking bomb" hidden somwhere, and someone knows where that bomb is hidden, it is allowed for the police or military to use "physical persuation" to force him to reveal the location of the bomb.  

Killed, maimed: Here you have to realize why some palestinians are being killed or maimed. How many Pals were being killed or maimed by the IDF before the Pals declared a "new" Intifada? What are the circumstances around each death/maiming? Is the victim a civilian caught in a crossfire, is the "victim" a stone thrower or a guman. etc etc. You have to realize that the IDF dont just take to the streets looking for palestinian civilians to shoot.

Penalised, hunted: Dunno what you mean here...please explain.

3. What nation would allow it's citizens to be killed by terrorist action without reaction?
Again the palestines could ask this question to the Israelis. When the Israeli military rages in thepalestine territory like Nazi hordes - destroying houses and butchering civilians - they could be defined as terrorists.

[/b]
Well, first you must realize that there is no Palestinian nation. Second, the private houses the Israelis destroy are the homes of suicide bombers or known terrorists. Id say that is pretty lenient considering the circumstances. Had a suicide bomber blown up some Swedish women and children, and his family was celebrating, I dont think I would settle for rubbling their house actually.

Butchering civlians? What exactly is your definition of civilian? And how do you define "butcher"?

4. The territory was stolen in an illegitime act from the palestines and given to some foreigners who built up an apartheid regime during the last decades. Now the israeli apartheid regime, which was abusing the palestine as cheap workers has changed to a Nazi-like regime.
How could anyone have sympathy to such a terroristic regime ?

[/b]
Apparently you dont know too much about international law. The territory was not stolen (at least not by Israel). Israel is a democracy, without any apartheid elements. Problem for most palestinians are that they are not Israeli citizens, and thus dont have the same rights and obligations as normal Israelis. But there is nothing strange with that...it is the same in every European or American country.

And it is a fact that the actual Israeli regime under Sharon is acting with massive terroristic actions against the palestines.
[SNIP some ramblings]

The only good thing is, that Sharon with his fascistoid policy had ironicly helped the palestines to get their independant country earlier.

Now just wait until the people in the civilized world see the destructions in the palestine cities after Sharons mob left and the press could get in to document the israeli terrorism.

Then the false legend of the nice israelis and the need to help them against the bad arabs will fade away - like it is doing here day by day.

It is hardly a "fact" that Israel is using terrorist actions against the palestines. That is just your twisted opinion of things. An opinion that is based on a number of wrongful assumptions.

The pals will not have a country in a long time yet. In fact, I dont think they ever will. Which is fine...during the time the palestinians had some limited "self government" they behaved roughly on par wiht Iraq when it comes to respect for human rights, support for terrorists and corruption. Draw your own conclusions from that.

[babek-]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hortlund

Somehow I get the sinking feeling that it would be easier arguing with a wall, than with you. But here goes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not known to change my opinion every day - so maybe it resembles speaking against a wall.

Maybe the anger according of the daily reports and all this senseless terrorusm had let me to use a "harder way" of argumentation, but even you will agree that the other side in this discussion is also using a hard style of argumentation.

Nevertheless - I enjoy this, while I sit at the internet-computer of the station and taking part in the discussion.

So- Lets go and discuss some of your argumentations...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hortlund

Lots of reasons. There is no ghettoization going on in Israel though. That one is plain wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it ?

We have a country called Israel and inside of this country non-independant territories, where the palestines (have to) live.
Officially these territories are not part of Israel but this territory is not independent or autonomeous, but occupied by Israel.
From these territories Israel gets cheap labor crafts for their own industry.
The same concept was used by Apartheid-South Africa with the non-independent homelands.
The workers have to leave israel after their work and to go back in their - what i call - ghettos.

So - What else than a ghetto are the palestine territories ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by hortlund

Torture: Under certain conditions torture is permitted by Israeli law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not interested if barbaric torture is allowed or not. I just constated (and you obviously agreed with me in this point) that the palestines are tortured by the Israelis.
Btw - torture is also per definitionem a subpart of terrorism.
Whoever uses torture against someone, is also terrorising his victim and so becomes a terrorist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by hortlund

Penalised, hunted: Dunno what you mean here...please explain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I give one simple example - maybe it becomes more understandable, what I mean.

Some years ago, one of my collegues, a relative young MD,  was in Israel.
The man is from Algeria - so he spoke in Arab to his wife. That was enough for the israeli people around him to define him as a palestinian and to attack him. When he came back to Germany he said that he now knows how the palestines must feel.

Its a fact that there are regions in Israel - like touristic-beaches - which are prohibited for palestinians.
We had similiar things in history - like the "For whites only"-things in South Africa or the "Jews prohibited"-things during Nazi-Germany time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by hortlund

Well, first you must realize that there is no Palestinian nation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is. They have an own president, an own flag and thanks Sharon in the next time their own territory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by hortlund

Second, the private houses the Israelis destroy are the homes of suicide bombers or known terrorists. Id say that is pretty lenient considering the circumstances. Had a suicide bomber blown up some Swedish women and children, and his family was celebrating, I dont think I would settle for rubbling their house actually.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice emotional statement, but only distracting.
What sense has a  rhetorical question like "Wouldnt you blow up the house of the man who had raped and killed your whole family?"

Its a fact that the Israelis blow up civilian houses. They say that the terrorists lived in these buildings. But according to the systematicly destructions they inflict to the infrastructure of the palestines I highly doubt that this is the true reason.

I doubt that this is a legitime terrorfighting and call the extreme destruction of civilian infrastructure terrorism (just check the definition of this word).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by hortlund

Butchering civlians? What exactly is your definition of civilian? And how do you define "butcher"?

There are many reports about the war-crimes of the Israeli military.


Some weeks ago german TV reported that israeli troops entered a palestinian town, drove highhanded male civilians and shot them.

I call this butchering civilians.


BBC reported in Internet how israeli soldiers have beaten a civilian before they simly shot him in his neck (a favorite method of the nazis to execute their victims).
There were even pictures of this event, which showed this crime.

I call this butchering and terrorism against civilians.

But maybe - according to your definition - these were all terrorists and they have been sentenced to death and executed in a legitime act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Originally posted by hortlund

 
The pals will not have a country in a long time yet. In fact, I dont think they ever will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just wait and see.
It seems unrealistic - but decades ago it also seemed unrealistic to believe that the Apartheid-regime in South Africa would change and the so called terrorist Neldon Mandela became their president.
It also seemed unrealistic that Germany became reunited and could heal many of the wounds of WW2 - but this also happened.

History has the nice side-effect to suprise us - and we are indeed living in interesting times.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by babek-

Is it ?
We have a country called Israel and inside of this country non-independant territories, where the palestines (have to) live.
Officially these territories are not part of Israel but this territory is not independent or autonomeous, but occupied by Israel.
From these territories Israel gets cheap labor crafts for their own industry.
The same concept was used by Apartheid-South Africa with the non-independent homelands.
The workers have to leave israel after their work and to go back in their - what i call - ghettos.
So - What else than a ghetto are the palestine territories ?

[/b]
First, you might want to check out the definition of "ghetto".
Second, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I dont actually think that the Palestinians are forced to live in the "non-independent territories" as you choose to call them.
Third, I dont think they are forced to work in Israel either.
Fourth, I also note that you have not yet replied to my legal "analysis" of the "occupied" territories I presented in some thread I cant remember right now. There might or might not be areas under palestinian limited self-rule, but there are no palestinian territories.

I am not interested if barbaric torture is allowed or not. I just constated (and you obviously agreed with me in this point) that the palestines are tortured by the Israelis.
Btw - torture is also per definitionem a subpart of terrorism.
Whoever uses torture against someone, is also terrorising his victim and so becomes a terrorist.

[/b]
No, I never said that "the palestinians are tortured by the Israelis" that statement is to general, and it gives a faulty impression. All I said was that there are situations under Israeli law where torture is accepted. Personally I think that is a good law. Let me ask you this question: Suppose a terrorist has hidded a nuke in London. He is caught, but he refuses to tell anyone where he hid the nuke. It will detonate in 2 hours. Which, in your opinion is better, to torture the terrorist, or to have a nuke detonated in London?

Also, your definition of terrorist is flawed.

Some years ago, one of my collegues, a relative young MD, was in Israel.
The man is from Algeria - so he spoke in Arab to his wife. That was enough for the israeli people around him to define him as a palestinian and to attack him. When he came back to Germany he said that he now knows how the palestines must feel.

Its a fact that there are regions in Israel - like touristic-beaches - which are prohibited for palestinians. We had similiar things in history - like the "For whites only"-things in South Africa or the "Jews prohibited"-things during Nazi-Germany time.

[/b]
I hardly think that anecdotal "evidence" from one of your friends can be taken as proof, or even indication that Israel is "penalizing and hunting" the Palestinians. I got curious thoug…when you say "attack him" what do you mean? Did they beat him up, or did the verbally attack him?  

Well, first you must realize that there is no Palestinian nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is. They have an own president, an own flag and thanks Sharon in the next time their own territory.

[/b]
I'm really sorry Babek, "having an own flag" and "an own president" is not enough to have a nation. There are lots of criteria that has to be met before that can happen. If you want I can go into detail here, and give you the exact definition as to what constitutes a nation. Let me know if you want that.

Nice emotional statement, but only distracting.
What sense has a rhetorical question like "Wouldnt you blow up the house of the man who had raped and killed your whole family?"

Its a fact that the Israelis blow up civilian houses. They say that the terrorists lived in these buildings. But according to the systematicly destructions they inflict to the infrastructure of the palestines I highly doubt that this is the true reason.

I doubt that this is a legitime terrorfighting and call the extreme destruction of civilian infrastructure terrorism (just check the definition of this word).

[/b]
I find it pretty irrelevant what you choose to call terrorism. Allow me to point out this simple fact: If it is ok according to national or international law...then it is not terrorism. Lots of actions could be described as terrorist, but they are not, because there are more to the situation than what first might meet the eye. Let me give one example: If a paramilitary group decides to blow up an airfield in their or another country, that could be described as an act of terrorism. If the US sends in some Rangers to blow up a bridge in another country, that would NOT be an act of terrorism. Accept this and move on.

As for the Israeli destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, to me that is no different than the US destruction of Serbian or Afghan infrastructure. As for the Israeli destruction of private property, as I said to my knowledge, that has only happened as retaliation to suicide bombers…and if that is true, then it only serves them right.  

There are many reports about the war-crimes of the Israeli military.

Some weeks ago german TV reported that israeli troops entered a palestinian town, drove highhanded male civilians and shot them.

I call this butchering civilians.

[/b]
Yes..hmm.."many reports". How many proved cases?

I find your second sentence puzzling, please try to explain again what happened to whom. "highhanded male civilians" what is that?

BBC reported in Internet how israeli soldiers have beaten a civilian before they simly shot him in his neck (a favorite method of the nazis to execute their victims).
There were even pictures of this event, which showed this crime.

I call this butchering and terrorism against civilians.

[/b]
I saw those pictures too. Problem is that there are more to that story than you might want to think. Consider the following:
First, what about this quote from the article " Salah - who was on a bombing mission for the militant al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade - is brought to the ground by a police".
Second, notice that there seems to be a significant jump in time between photos 3 and 4. What happened in that timespan? Any thoughs or comments?

I suppose the arab version of events would be somewhere along the lines of:
He (the suicide bomber) was subdued, then he was undressed, then he was shot in the middle of a crowded street, then (for some obscure reason) the Israelis sent in a bomb disposal robot?

It doesnt make sense. If you know the guy is a suicide bomber, you dont walk up to him.
My guess is that he was stopped for a routine check, (first 3 pictures), then he either tries to detonate his bomb, or the Israelis spots the bomb, either way, they shoot him dead (I suspect he is dead on pic 4). They then move in the robot to clear the bomb.

Put yourself in the Israeli soldiers position. You stop someone for a routine check, suddenly your backup spots a bomb strapped to him, or you see him reach for a detonator. All things considered, I'm not surprised they gunned him down. (and as I said, I dont think they knew he was carrying a bomb when they stopped him. Would make no sence at all to get up close to him in that case).
 
My conclusion
1) No evidence of an execution from those pictures
2) No sympathy for suicide bombers

[Steven]

What's funny is that the Palestinians have even less rights in [some] neighboring Arab countries which support their "independence" than they have in Israel.  

It's not about land.

edited: added [some]