The Israeli-Palestinian issue

[anthony]

"... but have abandoned the tactic of suicide bombing, which in my opinion is a very smart move as I see it as forbidden in Islam."

This glib statement cannot be left without some critical response. (Also a little glib.)

1. Suicide bombing was a tactic?? Not murderous, hate-filled, revenge, but a tactic. To grab headlines, perhaps?.

2. A smart move, in your opinion? As opposed to who else's opinion on the issue? How much does your opinion count?

3. You see it as forbidden... How does the rest of Islam see it? Where in the Koran did you find the section on Suicide Bombing anyway? Where, also do you find the section on 'Firing 1000's of rockets at a country' -which you find completely ethical? When you know that eventually there are bound to be reprisals by that country, resulting in tragic loss of life (but, on the bright side, more headlines). So one thing is OK, the other not. Very arbitrary, the Koran; or is it Adonis who's arbitrary?

When exactly do you speak for yourself; when for the people and politics of Palestine; and when for Islam?

The jumping around you are doing, throwing out quotes from every source, is making me dizzy.

Finally, 4. yes, I know: you have constantly reminded us of your opposition to attacks on 'non-combatants'. But here, most tellingly, you ascribe your primary opposition to suicide bombing, as BEING UN-ISLAMIC? Not, primarily, as evil - in the eyes of any rational being.

It's got to be said again, that for these religions to live peaceably, as you seem sincere about, Adonis, it can only be by holding in common the secular values of individual rights, self-respect, and respect. Keeping all the 'Books' to the privacy of one's home could be a start.

That's me done with this.

Tony

[Libertarian Muslim]

1. Suicide bombing was a tactic?? Not murderous, hate-filled, revenge, but a tactic. To grab headlines, perhaps?.

Of course it's a tactic. Sure, many of the bombers themselves were motivated by hate and revenge after what they'd seen their family and people put through by the Israeli Military and settlers.

2. A smart move, in your opinion? As opposed to who else's opinion on the issue? How much does your opinion count?

I won't go too much into it aside from saying that I have my own network of people, groups and organizations throughout the world which also contains some influential people who regard my opinion highly.

3. You see it as forbidden... How does the rest of Islam see it? Where in the Koran did you find the section on Suicide Bombing anyway? Where, also do you find the section on 'Firing 1000's of rockets at a country' -which you find completely ethical? When you know that eventually there are bound to be reprisals by that country, resulting in tragic loss of life (but, on the bright side, more headlines). So one thing is OK, the other not. Very arbitrary, the Koran; or is it Adonis who's arbitrary?

The majority of Islamic scholars see it as forbidden in Islam because you are taking your own life in the process.. Which is suicide..

See the only thing you're really guaranteeing by pressing the button is that you will be blown up.. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him there were fighters who fought with no armor and prayed for martyrdom, but they would fight all of their enemies with the intention of winning the battle and continuing their lives and if they so happened to die in the process, then all praises are due to God, they were martyrs.

Martyrdom is not a choice we make, we do not have the right to decide to be a martyr and it is for God to grant us. Strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up is in fact deciding to kill yourself. It's not fighting a war.

There are some 'scholars' who say that it's okay, but this is a cop out.. They say it because their governments wont intervene in Palestine and instead of taking on their governments, they say that such tactics are okay to provide some way for the Palestinians to fight.

I am very pleased that Hamas has stopped this tactic, it was counter productive and militarily useless.

When exactly do you speak for yourself; when for the people and politics of Palestine; and when for Islam?

The jumping around you are doing, throwing out quotes from every source, is making me dizzy.

Sorry if you can't keep up.

Finally, 4. yes, I know: you have constantly reminded us of your opposition to attacks on 'non-combatants'. But here, most tellingly, you ascribe your primary opposition to suicide bombing, as BEING UN-ISLAMIC? Not, primarily, as evil - in the eyes of any rational being.

Because it's an issue of Islamic jurisprudence, I want to make it clear that I find no association between this tactic and Islam and it is impermissable.. The punishment for suicide in Islam is eternal hellfire.

When is it evil? Any tactic is evil when you target non-combatants.

It's got to be said again, that for these religions to live peaceably, as you seem sincere about, Adonis, it can only be by holding in common the secular values of individual rights, self-respect, and respect. Keeping all the 'Books' to the privacy of one's home could be a start.

I'm sorry but to claim that individual rights, self respect and respect are secular rights is ridiculous. Religion contains those rights also..

Edited January 19, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[Libertarian Muslim]

The problems in Nigeria are not religion based, they're tribal and it's about money and power. Not about Islam and Christianity.

ohhhh. Of course not! See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Of course. No True Scotsman would eat his mother's liver.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You really want to go this way Ba'al?

I mean it's quite easy to show examples of Jewish 'scholars' promoting the killing of children.. Should I start doing that too and start behaving like you, claiming that any Jew who disagrees with this isn't a true Jew? For such an old man you are so hate filled and immature. I'm embarrassed for you.

[Selene]

1. Suicide bombing was a tactic?? Not murderous, hate-filled, revenge, but a tactic. To grab headlines, perhaps?.

Of course it's a tactic. Sure, many of the bombers themselves were motivated by hate and revenge after what they'd seen their family and people put through by the Israeli Military and settlers.

2. A smart move, in your opinion? As opposed to who else's opinion on the issue? How much does your opinion count?

I won't go too much into it aside from saying that I have my own network of people, groups and organizations throughout the world which also contains some influential people who regard my opinion highly.

3. You see it as forbidden... How does the rest of Islam see it? Where in the Koran did you find the section on Suicide Bombing anyway? Where, also do you find the section on 'Firing 1000's of rockets at a country' -which you find completely ethical? When you know that eventually there are bound to be reprisals by that country, resulting in tragic loss of life (but, on the bright side, more headlines). So one thing is OK, the other not. Very arbitrary, the Koran; or is it Adonis who's arbitrary?

The majority of Islamic scholars see it as forbidden in Islam because you are taking your own life in the process.. Which is suicide..

See the only thing you're really guaranteeing by pressing the button is that you will be blown up.. During the time of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him there were fighters who fought with no armor and prayed for martyrdom, but they would fight all of their enemies with the intention of winning the battle and continuing their lives and if they so happened to die in the process, then all praises are due to God, they were martyrs.

Martyrdom is not a choice we make, we do not have the right to decide to be a martyr and it is for God to grant us. Strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up is in fact deciding to kill yourself. It's not fighting a war.

There are some 'scholars' who say that it's okay, but this is a cop out.. They say it because their governments wont intervene in Palestine and instead of taking on their governments, they say that such tactics are okay to provide some way for the Palestinians to fight.

I am very pleased that Hamas has stopped this tactic, it was counter productive and militarily useless.

When exactly do you speak for yourself; when for the people and politics of Palestine; and when for Islam?

The jumping around you are doing, throwing out quotes from every source, is making me dizzy.

Sorry if you can't keep up.

Finally, 4. yes, I know: you have constantly reminded us of your opposition to attacks on 'non-combatants'. But here, most tellingly, you ascribe your primary opposition to suicide bombing, as BEING UN-ISLAMIC? Not, primarily, as evil - in the eyes of any rational being.

Because it's an issue of Islamic jurisprudence, I want to make it clear that I find no association between this tactic and Islam and it is impermissable.. The punishment for suicide in Islam is eternal hellfire.

When is it evil? Any tactic is evil when you target non-combatants.

It's got to be said again, that for these religions to live peaceably, as you seem sincere about, Adonis, it can only be by holding in common the secular values of individual rights, self-respect, and respect. Keeping all the 'Books' to the privacy of one's home could be a start.

I'm sorry but to claim that individual rights, self respect and respect are secular rights is ridiculous. Religion contains those rights also..

Tony:

This is the first clear explanation that has me in agreement.

I can at least have a conversation with Adonis and so can you.

As you may or may not know, I have had no problem bringing libertarianism and Ayn's ideas, "o"bjectivism to fundamentalist Christian communities, Babtist, Jewish and Muslim communities. Individual rights has nothing to do with either secularism or religion. It only has to do with being an individual human being.

Good post Adonis. Good questions Tony.

Adam

[Selene]

This of course would have been quite beneficial to the citizens of Nigeria and then the "government" collapsed. It has been a complexity of corruption and chaos ever since. So the "dynamics" of allegedly torching a Christian church is a "dynamic" that we kinda just have to get used to?

Absolutely not and don't attribute such a thought to me..

The problems in Nigeria are not religion based, they're tribal and it's about money and power. Not about Islam and Christianity.

Adonis:

I did not attribute that to you, I apologize if I was not clear. Clearly, you would not agree with that act.

Just for your information, it appears that the "...problems in Nigeria..." are very much religious based. I am no expert, but the history of the "Dark Continent" is replete with Islam's global expansion. Muslim Mahdi's have come out of the desert to push out the Christians and the tribalists for 1,200 years or more.

"Usman Dan Fodio's jihad, or religious war, 1804–1810, ended with the establishment of the Sokoto sultanate. This Islamic theocratic empire extended from what is now extreme northwest Nigeria in a broad swath southeast into contemporary northwest Cameroon. Armed forces of the emirate of Zazzau, based in present-day Zaria in north-central Kaduna State, continued intermittent warfare and slave raiding in the southern half of contemporary Kaduna State, an area populated by some 15 Middle Belt minority ethnic groups. The emir claimed suzerainty over this area."

http://www.globalsec...r/nigeria-1.htm

There is more history. Therefore, I think you may want to revisit or modify the it is "Not about Islam and Christianity." statement. Appears that it is very much about this religious war that is propelling the Earth into serious danger of a battle to the death.

Adam

Post Script:

http://wwrn.org/arti...tarian-violence

Here the Christian's another religion of peace get to respond.

Post Post Script:

"The people of Central Africa too, fiercely resisted Islam for a long time, often converting nominally to Islam and immediately reverting to their pre-Islamic animistic tribal beliefs. The first recorded Muslim invasions were as early as the 8th century, but these invasions could not make significant inroads in to the deeply forested tribal vastness[sic] of Central Africa. Many of the raids were limited to the seizure of black African slaves, who were referred to as "Abeed" which in Arabic means 'Black.'"

I found this as one of the first statements temporally placing Islamic proselytizing invasions.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

I mean it's quite easy to show examples of Jewish 'scholars' promoting the killing of children.. Should I start doing that too and start behaving like you, claiming that any Jew who disagrees with this isn't a true Jew? For such an old man you are so hate filled and immature. I'm embarrassed for you.

No. It is not "quite easy". You would have to dig a bit. I on the other hand only have to casually scan the morning newspaper to find examples of egregious Muslim bloody mindedness and bloody deeds. It is not only a daily occurrence, it happens several times daily.

Yes. Jews go bad, as is the case for any other group. Once in a great while an Amish farmer goes beserk or a Quaker turns violent and nasty. But these things are so rare people talk about them for years. Sure, go dig up your Maddoff story. But you wont find too many stories of renegade Jews hijacking commercial airline flight and crashing them and their innocent passengers into tall buildings. Or Jews beheading folks that annoy them. Now that would be a story to talk about. Maybe once in a century. Go ahead work on it. I will just read by daily news paper and duly note. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh hug. Each and every day, at least once, and that is just what is reported.

Yes. I will duly note. There goes your Muslim. Different mountain, different God.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Libertarian Muslim]

No. It is not "quite easy". You would have to dig a bit. I on the other hand only have to casually scan the morning newspaper to find examples of egregious Muslim bloody mindedness and bloody deeds. It is not only a daily occurrence, it happens several times daily.

Yes. Jews go bad, as is the case for any other group. Once in a great while an Amish farmer goes beserk or a Quaker turns violent and nasty. But these things are so rare people talk about them for years. Sure, go dig up your Maddoff story. But you wont find too many stories of renegade Jews hijacking commercial airline flight and crashing them and their innocent passengers into tall buildings. Or Jews beheading folks that annoy them. Now that would be a story to talk about. Maybe once in a century. Go ahead work on it. I will just read by daily news paper and duly note. Uh huh. Uh huh. Uh hug. Each and every day, at least once, and that is just what is reported.

Yes. I will duly note. There goes your Muslim. Different mountain, different God.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Actually, it would be far easier than you think to find Jewish rabbis and scholars that promote the killing of babies and other horrible crimes.. I have never heard of an Islamic scholar that promotes the killing of babies and think that you might be hard pressed to find that.

But honestly, what would be the point of me doing that? It'll just become tit for tat and be completely unproductive.. All it proves is that there are crazy people in the world that claim to represent a religion, but their ideas are perverted and not reflective of the religion itself and thus, the religion can't be held responsible..

But of course you don't see it that way because you can't get over your own hate and prejudices.

[jeffrey smith]

Note to the rest of the community.

Is this the part where you start making a narrative for the rest of the community trying to paraphrase what I say to suit yourself and miss out the important facts? After looking below I suppose you are.. How original.. You should be in the media..

Mr. Vlahos seems to be so stuck on his own narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict--for instance, by failing to notice that the terrorism of the Zionists in the 1940s was limited to British/UN targets and specifically aimed at them, whereas the terrorism of the Palestinians today is specifically aimed at civilians, a rather important difference, and failing to notice that the Israeli state, almost as soon as it was able to, suppressed the Irgun/Stern Gang (look up the Altalena incident if you are not familiar with it), whereas the present day Palestinian Authority is either unwilling or incapable (or, in my opinion, both) of doing anything to stop the terrorist elements in its own bailiwick, and failing to notice that the Gandhi-Martin Luther King vision of non-violent opposition is a lot more than proclaiming truces you don't intend to abide by, a la Hamas--that there is no benefit to speaking with him on this topic. I am now invoking on him the doom of the Arbitrary Assertion.

1. Hamas has changed a lot within the last few years in terms of their tactics.. Hamas today doesn't intentionally target any civilian other than adult settlers. In the past they behaved differently but have abandoned the tactic of suicide bombing, which in my opinion is a very smart move as I see it as forbidden in Islam. In addition to that the Palestinians including Hamas have historically directed most of their attacks against two groups. The Israeli police/army and adult Israeli settlers. They 100% are justified in targeting both of these groups because all of those groups carry firearms, So they are just as correct according to international law as the Israeli military is of targeting armed Hamas militants.

2. The Israeli's voted in Yitzhak Shamir, previous leader of this terrorist group that approached Hitler and offered to help him remove all the Jews from Europe if he helped remove the British from Palestine and committed many terrorist acts, the Israeli government have holidays commemorating and celebrating terrorist groups like the Stern Gang.

3. Terrorism is terrorism, Israel was a state that was created through terrorism, intimidation, murder, assassinations etc of not just British soldiers, but against politicians and UN commissioners. Israel was a nation borne out of terrorism yet when the Palestinians do the same things you criticize.

4. Before 2007 there were more than 700 aid trucks per day that were allowed to enter the Gaza Strip, carrying vital aid and other goods to keep the economy going, the people fed, the sick treated and the public servants paid. Palestinian fishermen were able to travel up to 6nm from the shore by the Israeli's to be able to catch fish which was still very close to shore as most of the fish are located 12-15nm from shore which the Palestinians had no access to. During this period up until 1999 the Palestinians were catching about 4,000 tonnes of fish per year making up $10,000,000 a year for Gaza which is about 4% of the Gazan economy, employing some 45,000 people in the fishing industry.

When Hamas was elected into power by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians the Israelis along with the US and its puppet states in the region have destroyed the Gazan economy with their siege and tried to stir up a civil war to take Hamas out of power even though Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinians themselves.

In 2007 the Israeli's put the Gaza Strip under blockade, trying to starve the Palestinians into submission preventing the majority of those 700 trucks from coming in to deliver goods in only allowing less than 70 trucks to cross in per day into the Gaza strip as a means to create discontent at the government which ultimately failed. The Palestinian fishermen were also forced to stay within 3nm of shore where the fish in the area had been depleted meaning they couldn't get enough fish and in 2008 this went down to 2,710 tonnes of fish and they were subjected to immense humiliation by the Israelis, beatings, arrests, being shot at etc.

The Gazans have been under siege by the Israelis and Egyptians being prevented from bringing in enough food to feed the people, medicine to treat the sick and other necessities such as money to pay public servants. They called for the international community to intervene and it refused to do so, during this time they did not launch rockets against Israel and still abided by the ceasefire that they agreed to. Israel however broke the ceasefire and killed some Hamas militants in Gaza in 2007, this attack was not provoked at all and the UN admits to the fact and did so at the very beginning that Israel was the one breaking the ceasefire agreement. The Israeli's broke the ceasefire agreement 7 times on June 20 and June 26. Yes, some rockets were launched from Gaza on 3 occasions on June 23rd and June 26th but not by Hamas, it was by other splinter groups that Hamas were actively working against.

At the end of the agreed ceasefire, to add insult to injury, the Israelis said they wanted to renegotiate the trucks coming into the Gaza Strip with aid and instead of reinstating the 700 trucks per day, only increasing it to 90 trucks per day from the 70 beforehand creating scarcity and havoc in Gaza.. This was far less than the 700 trucks per day and definitely would neither help restart the Gaza economy but it'd also keep them in the dire circumstances that they had been in since 2007 and this is while at that time they still didn't have enough to get by.

So what was Hamas to do then? The children of Gaza are suffering from malnutrition while Israeli's live in relative luxury in comparison. The Israeli's had also broken the ceasefire so why on earth should Hamas agree to another ceasefire under such terrible terms? Would you?

So they asked for the international community to intervene and yet again the international community refused to do so.. Preferring to sit in silence and watch..

So put yourself in the shoes of the government.. What would any person here do?

I'll paraphrase a Hamas leader's comments at the time, 'We decided that if our children would have to stay up at night from crying from hunger pains and malnutrition, then we would make the Israeli's stay up all night too fearing our rockets'.

Hamas uses unguided rockets, which are in fact next to impossible to have any accuracy with in terms of where the rockets land so they point it in a general direction. It is a form of harassment against the Israeli's, psychological warfare if you will as they know the Israelis will just spend most of their time in their bomb shelters and to try and get better terms to negotiate with. Would it be better if Hamas didn't use unguided rockets? Yes, it would.. I would much prefer them have the military technology and capability to be able to strike with accuracy against Israeli military targets within Israel and actually be able to fight a proper guerrilla war against Israeli forces including guided missiles to use against Israeli tanks and military installations and US supplied F-16s and Apache Gunships.

However, considering that this is not the case and Hamas only has limited means of being able to fight against the Israeli blockade and military strikes that broke the truce I therefore completely and 100% support Hamas' use of rockets against the Israeli towns in question and would have done the same myself. Let the Israeli's live as much of an uncomfortable life as the Gazans do and force them to return with a better negotiating stance than just trying ethnically cleanse and commit genocide against the Gazans. I mean what was the other choice? Allow themselves to be further humiliated and subjected and just roll over and die, letting their people suffer and children die whilst doing nothing? To do anything else other than what they did do would simply be dying quietly and not making too much of a fuss about it so the world wouldn't have to see the results of their inaction.. Hamas acted as a responsible government by taking the actions that they did.

Responsibility here lies only with the Israeli, Egyptian and US Governments. The Palestinians had an absolute right there to fight back because the world watched on in silence doing nothing while the Palestinians were starving to death, patients were dying from a lack of treatment and the Palestinian economy was in tatters. THAT is a war on the Gazan people, a blockade like that is an act of war and for what? The people of Palestine deciding to vote in Hamas as their government in a landslide victory? I remember so clearly Bush, Rice and others not just within the US government but around the world saying about how the elections in Palestine would be a 'great step towards democracy' and 'the Palestinian people would be able to choose for themselves' and they were so sure that the PLO would win the elections, but no sooner had Hamas been voted in the US and most of the rest of the world put their government under severe sanctions and started plotting to remove them from government, arming, training and helping dissidents attack them and try remove them from power. This is the absolute proof of how hypocritical the West has been, when it suits the US and other Anglo-European nations they are all for democracy, but when it comes to serving their interests when it comes to natural resources or Israel, democracy means absolutely nothing to them.. Outrageous.

The Goldstone Report press release stated:

"The report concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population. The destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy which has made the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.

The Report states that Israeli acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

Peace isn't just a lack of rockets or bombs exploding, that is just an absence of physical combat. There can be no peace until there is justice for all parties and the Palestinians haven't received justice for 60 years. If the Israeli's want peace, let them agree to the Arab Peace Initiative.. It's the only fair way to resolve this properly..

BTW, Mr. Vlahos, as a piece of impartial advice--the "Che" look may be nice fashion, but it will distinctly fail to impress anyone in Objectivist fora. Your earlier photo served you much better.

I think Che Guevara would be rolling in his grave having my look compared to his. My facial hair is not unkempt and messy, it is neat and trimmed, I dress smartly and do not look like a guerrilla and I am very sure he'd take issue with my French (imperialist) Lacoste hat being compared to his famous plain beret decorated with a star. In no way am I trying to look like Che Guevara.. This is how I dress and if you don't like it, I couldn't care less. If people on this forum look more into what I look like than what I say then that is their loss.. I'm not here to please anyone.

And BTW, thus it is written:

And if a stranger sojourn with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. But the stranger that dwells with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Mitzrayim [Egypt]: I am the Lord your G-d.

Vayikra [Leviticus in Christian terminology] chapter 19, verses 33 and 34.

Thank you I will read into this.

Well, then, since you are now attempting at least to cite facts, I will resume arguing with you.

But two side notes: Mr. Bishara's article, which you posted in another post, claims he would be subject to the death penalty. The actual fact is, that unless he was a participant in the Nazi Holocaust or other act of genocide, he would have no chance of receiving a death penalty. So there are either two explanations: first, he is badly exaggerating, which of course means the rest of his article can not be taken credibly, or, second, that he is admitting that he is helping in acts of (projected) genocide. I'll allow you to pick the explanation you want.

As to the rabbis who approve killing children, etc--unfortunately, such people do exist. What you leave out is that every other Jew who is not a religious zealot, when they hear of such pronouncements, immediately denounces, or at least disassociates themselves from such "chillul haShem" [desecration of G-d's Name). And they do it a lot quicker and with much more unanimity than Moslems do in parallel circumstances.

As to the matters you raise in this particular post, from least serious to most serious:

1)Israel has no holiday commerating any terrorist group. There are days of remembrance for the Holocaust and the military dead, and days marking the Israeli Declaration of Independence, and the reunification of Jerusalem. All other holidays are holy days--Jewish religious festivals. Nothing about terrorists. Unless you think the Maccabees were terrorists, which would make Chanukah a festival honoring terrorists....

2) More important than Mr. Shamir was Menachem Begin, who signed the Camp David Accords. And both had long abandoned terrorism before they came to lead the state of Israel. Unlike, for instance, Mr. Arafat, who continued to lead a terrorist movement even as he sat at the head of the Palestinian Authority.

3) Hamas and its allies targeted lots more than adult settlers. The very fact that they send rockets at Israeli towns (not settlements) should show that they target more than adult settlers. And of course there were the bombings of buses and restaurants in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other places, which killed children and plenty of non-settlers, and even in one or two instances Israeli Arabs and people who were simply visiting Israel. In fact, they target any and every civilian in Israeli, no matter where they live or what they do. And their truces and ceasefires are not real truces, but only pauses to rearm for the next round of attacks. And even then they still keep up with their rocket attacks. Not even for a day has Hamas tried to actually live in peace with Israel; in fact, it has never done one action which can be seen as wanting to live in peace with Israel.

4) You don't seem to understand that Hamas is at war with the Jews of Israel, and, to quote General Sherman, war is hell. Furthermore, the people of Gaza, by putting Hamas into office (and then allowing it to take violent control of Gaza and expel Fatah and other factions), have told the world that they approve of this war. Therefore they have no reason to complain when they suffer because of that war. And in electing Hamas, they chose leaders who have abandoned the basic fundamentals of civilized morality; if they think they are being treated outside the basic parameters of civilized morality, let them look in the mirror to see who is to blame.

5) Does 4 sound harsh and cruel? It is. But it is no more harsh and cruel than what Hamas wants for me and all other Jews: Hamas wants me dead. Therefore as a matter of simple practical self defense, I need Hamas dead, and I can not trust anyone who supports them, because they are supporting my murder. That's all it boils down to.

6) Of course if the Palestinians made up their minds that having the Jews dead is not what they want, then matters

would take a different course, once the Jews of Israel realized the change of attitude was serious. Hamas did not need to resort to violence when "beseiged" by Israel. All it ever needed to do is issue one simple statement: "We recognize the right of the Jews of Israel to live in secure peace and freedom under a government of their own choosing, just as the Palestinians have the right to live in secure peace and freedom under a government of their own choosing." (And you will please note that such a statement covers the possibility of a one-state solution, and leaves the Palestinian "right of return" untouched.) But it never has come even close to such a statement. It would much rather kill Jews.

Jeffrey Smith

[Libertarian Muslim]

Well, then, since you are now attempting at least to cite facts, I will resume arguing with you.

But two side notes: Mr. Bishara's article, which you posted in another post, claims he would be subject to the death penalty. The actual fact is, that unless he was a participant in the Nazi Holocaust or other act of genocide, he would have no chance of receiving a death penalty. So there are either two explanations: first, he is badly exaggerating, which of course means the rest of his article can not be taken credibly, or, second, that he is admitting that he is helping in acts of (projected) genocide. I'll allow you to pick the explanation you want.

As to the rabbis who approve killing children, etc--unfortunately, such people do exist. What you leave out is that every other Jew who is not a religious zealot, when they hear of such pronouncements, immediately denounces, or at least disassociates themselves from such "chillul haShem" [desecration of G-d's Name). And they do it a lot quicker and with much more unanimity than Moslems do in parallel circumstances.

You forgot the death penalty for treason... Which is what he's being accused of..

"The State of Israel has abolished capital punishment for all offenses other than genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people, and treason in wartime"

Source: http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html

1)Israel has no holiday commerating any terrorist group. There are days of remembrance for the Holocaust and the military dead, and days marking the Israeli Declaration of Independence, and the reunification of Jerusalem. All other holidays are holy days--Jewish religious festivals. Nothing about terrorists. Unless you think the Maccabees were terrorists, which would make Chanukah a festival honoring terrorists....

Well it's not so explicit to have a national "Let's celebrate terrorism" holiday, however Israel formed it's military to be inclusive of units of the Irgun and Lehi terrorist groups. Therefore Yom Hazikaron Celebrates their terrorist contributions to creating Israel through Yom Hazikaron and Yom Haatzmaut.

But for certain we can say that the Israeli government celebrates the terrorism of these groups.

July 20, 2006

British anger at terror celebration

The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence

The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.

They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”. On Monday city officials agreed to remove the language deemed offensive from the blue sign hanging on the hotel’s gates, though that had not been done shortly before it was unveiled last night.

The controversy over the plaque and the two-day celebration of the bombing, sponsored by Irgun veterans and the right-wing Menachem Begin Heritage Centre, goes to the heart of the debate over the use of political violence in the Middle East. Yesterday Mr Netanyahu argued in a speech celebrating the attack that the Irgun were governed by morals, unlike fighters from groups such as Hamas.

“It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terror action and legitimate military action,” he said. “Imagine that Hamas or Hezbollah would call the military headquarters in Tel Aviv and say, ‘We have placed a bomb and we are asking you to evacuate the area’.”

But the view of the attack was very different in 1946 when The Times branded the Irgun “terrorists in disguise”. Decades later, Irgun veterans are unrepentant. Sarah Agassi, 80, remembers spying in the King David Hotel.

She and a fellow agent posed as a couple. They danced tangos and waltzes, sipped whisky and wine while they cased out the hotel.

On the day her brother and his fellow fighters posed as Arabs delivering milk and brought seven milk churns, each containing 50kg of explosives, into the building. Ms Agassi waited across the street until her brother rushed out. She said that she then made the warning call to the British command in the hotel.

Sitting in the luxurious hotel lobby, she expressed no regret. “We fought for our independence. We thought it was the right way . . . If I had to fight for Israel, I swear even now I would do anything.”

TWO VERSIONS

The original wording:

The Hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat as well as the Army Headquarters. On July 1946 (sic) Irgun fighters at the order of the Hebrew Resistance Movement planted explosives in the basement. Warning phone calls had been made urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately. For reasons known only to the British the hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded, and to the Irgun’s regret and dismay 91 persons were killed.

The amended version

. . .Warning phone calls had been made to the hotel, the Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately.

The hotel was not evacuated, and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. The entire western wing was destroyed, and to the Irgun’s regret 92 persons were killed.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

2) More important than Mr. Shamir was Menachem Begin, who signed the Camp David Accords. And both had long abandoned terrorism before they came to lead the state of Israel. Unlike, for instance, Mr. Arafat, who continued to lead a terrorist movement even as he sat at the head of the Palestinian Authority.

Sorry, how did they abandon terrorism? Did they express regret for their terrorist attacks on the British or UN? Or was their terrorism simply unnecessary because the terrorism they committed beforehand actually resulted in the creation of the state that their had intended to create with it and could therefore disguise and legitimize it's current terrorist activities as that of a state at war?

3) Hamas and its allies targeted lots more than adult settlers. The very fact that they send rockets at Israeli towns (not settlements) should show that they target more than adult settlers. And of course there were the bombings of buses and restaurants in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other places, which killed children and plenty of non-settlers, and even in one or two instances Israeli Arabs and people who were simply visiting Israel. In fact, they target any and every civilian in Israeli, no matter where they live or what they do. And their truces and ceasefires are not real truces, but only pauses to rearm for the next round of attacks. And even then they still keep up with their rocket attacks. Not even for a day has Hamas tried to actually live in peace with Israel; in fact, it has never done one action which can be seen as wanting to live in peace with Israel.

Firstly, I condemn any of those suicide bombings.

Secondly. during a truce Israel rearms too, in fact we saw clearly this was the case as the US government had to send emergency munitions supplies to the Israeli government. But again, you're being one sided.

Again, I said in the case of Hamas using rockets as they did in 2007 was a reaction to the Israeli blockade which collapsed the Gazan economy and created a severe crisis that was in effect as of their election and has continued to be ever since in addition to Israel breaking the ceasefire that they agreed to. I stand by my comment in saying that Hamas was completely justified in rocketing Israeli towns as an attempt to get the Israelis to adhere to the ceasefires they broke and to renegotiate better conditions so that they could revive their economy and feed their people.. They had no other option and the responsibility lies with the rest of the world as the global community refused to intervene and Israel was neglecting the obligations as an occupying force (which in this case was due to controlling the borders of this nation and blockading it) according to the Geneva Convention.

I explained this quite clearly before. It was Israel who broke the ceasefire 7 times during the agreed period, Hamas didn't break it once and the Israeli government themselves admit that.

4) You don't seem to understand that Hamas is at war with the Jews of Israel, and, to quote General Sherman, war is hell. Furthermore, the people of Gaza, by putting Hamas into office (and then allowing it to take violent control of Gaza and expel Fatah and other factions), have told the world that they approve of this war. Therefore they have no reason to complain when they suffer because of that war. And in electing Hamas, they chose leaders who have abandoned the basic fundamentals of civilized morality; if they think they are being treated outside the basic parameters of civilized morality, let them look in the mirror to see who is to blame.

Hold on a second. Hamas is at war with Israel, make no distinction about race or religion here.. It's about fighting an occupier and not a religious or ethnic group.

Next, Hamas was Elected into power and the PLO refused to give the power up. Hamas tried to negotiate and when the PLO started kidnapping Hamas supporters off the street, torturing them and murdering them Hamas seized power from them using force because they refused to accept the wishes of the people.

You keep saying that the Gazans are responsible for their suffering for electing a government into power like Hamas. What a load of baloney. They elected a government that wanted to negotiate a peace deal with Israel and all Israel and the West did was create headaches by putting them under blockade and creating civil war, and then bombing them back to the stone age.

5) Does 4 sound harsh and cruel? It is. But it is no more harsh and cruel than what Hamas wants for me and all other Jews: Hamas wants me dead. Therefore as a matter of simple practical self defense, I need Hamas dead, and I can not trust anyone who supports them, because they are supporting my murder. That's all it boils down to.

Oh please.. The Nazis used collective punishment too.. It's against international law in case you didn't know, or is it that you don't believe that a Palestinian's life is worth the same as a Jews and therefore it doesn't matter what happens to them?

6) Of course if the Palestinians made up their minds that having the Jews dead is not what they want, then matters

would take a different course, once the Jews of Israel realized the change of attitude was serious. Hamas did not need to resort to violence when "beseiged" by Israel. All it ever needed to do is issue one simple statement: "We recognize the right of the Jews of Israel to live in secure peace and freedom under a government of their own choosing, just as the Palestinians have the right to live in secure peace and freedom under a government of their own choosing." (And you will please note that such a statement covers the possibility of a one-state solution, and leaves the Palestinian "right of return" untouched.) But it never has come even close to such a statement. It would much rather kill Jews.

Has Israel recognized the same right of Palestinians? Have they declared that? Stop making this so one sided.. Israel is the military power that can set the borders, let it declare it's borders so the Palestinians can recognize it as a state based on negotiation..

Hamas have made it abundantly clear that they want peace. Let the Israeli's accept the Arab Peace Initiative

[BaalChatzaf]

Hamas have made it abundantly clear that they want peace. Let the Israeli's accept the Arab Peace Initiative

The Peace of the Graveyard. And besides the Hamas people are psychopathic liars. When they kill all the Jews in the neighborhood, no doubt they will call it peace.

What was it that was said of the Romans? They make a Desolation and call it Victory? It could easily be said of Hamas as well.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 21, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[anthony]

I've been watching the Palestine-Israel arena 40 years now. One thing I realised long ago was that on the propaganda-disinformation front, Israel was running stone last.

Thing is, I've heard all this before, in principle, or specifically and personally:

'Israel bad.'

'Bad Israel wins wars - not right.'

'Israel takes our land.'

'What we do to the Zionists they deserve.'

'We going to f-- them up the next time.'

'Jews must go back to living in Arab countries.'

'Jews getting big ideas now!'

'We will allow peace if Israel gives back land.'

'No,we won't remove 'elimination of Zionists' clause from our Manifestos.'

'We demand you give us land,and maybe we'll negotiate.'

"Israel bad!"

The bare truths? The Palestinians have wasted their lives trying to recover lost pride and honor; once they were abandoned by the losing Arab nations, who have been cynically feeding them to Israel for the sake of their own propaganda purposes,and using them as a thorn in Israel's side, they could have, and should have, sued for their own peace and stability with Israel.

Forget what AV might say, Israel would have eventually learned to trust and accept them, and granted plenty of land to them.

Palestine, today would be in the terrific position of being a trading partner in Israel's success story.

All this half-truth, contradiction, evasion, and complete disinformation I am hearing here, is nothing new,(except for some different events) no matter how articulately it is being expressed. All AV's talk of humiliation, and "justice", is nothing but a hunger for revenge by the Palestinians, and a reflection of Islam's overbearing pride.

What makes me angry is that many more people are going to die as a result - and I won't draw any distinction between civilians and combatants- and one thing I hate (yes, Adonis) is violent Death, and the unReason and ignorance that leads to it.

[Libertarian Muslim]

All this half-truth, contradiction, evasion, and complete disinformation I am hearing here, is nothing new,(except for some different events) no matter how articulately it is being expressed. All AV's talk of humiliation, and "justice", is nothing but a hunger for revenge by the Palestinians, and a reflection of Islam's overbearing pride.

It's interesting that you say that what I am claiming is contradiction, half-truths, evasion and complete disinformation when at the same time I've provided very detailed information there to rebut your assertions that Hamas doesn't want peace, that it wants to simply kill all of the Jews, that it broke the ceasefire etc, this is information that you have thus far, refused to respond to including the video in which the UN states very clearly that it was the Israelis that broke the ceasefire and not Hamas.

You're the one who is evading, giving half truths and spreading disinformation, I've been very detailed and clear in my writings on the issue and no one could accuse me of evasion. All you need to do is address the points that I have previously made, which again you seem incapable of doing.. Why is that?

It's one thing to claim I'm lying, it's another to actually prove it.. So here's the challenge.. Prove it instead of providing false narrations and assertions.

What makes me angry is that many more people are going to die as a result - and I won't draw any distinction between civilians and combatants- and one thing I hate (yes, Adonis) is violent Death, and the unReason and ignorance that leads to it.

Undoubtedly, any loss of life is bad.. However, I find it quite odd that before you were claiming that the Palestinians basically deserved their treatment because they elected Hamas.. And now, you mourn for them? How convenient..

I'm sorry, but you can't mourn for people that you say deserve the horrific treatment they are getting. It really lacks sincerity..

Crocodile Tears in fact..

[Selene]

Adonis:

Any finding or statement by the United Nations has the probative value approaching zero (0). You should always make your points, particularly on this topic, without citing the United Nations.

Friendly advice towards advancing better argumentation.

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Adonis:

Any finding or statement by the United Nations has the probative value approaching zero (0). You should always make your points, particularly on this topic, without citing the United Nations.

Friendly advice towards advancing better argumentation.

Adam

Oh no, if someone wants to say that the UN acceptance of Israel through the partition plan justifies Israel's creation, then he can't be selective with what he accepts and doesn't accept from the UN. If the Israeli's considered the UN had any legitimacy, they'd withdraw to pre-1967 borders like they've been told to in several resolutions passed since then and provide a proper resolution for refugees.

But instead the Israeli's just use it as an excuse for existence and then completely disregard anything it says.. Kind of like a teenager that disrespects their parents and is hostile.. Except this teenager expresses hostility through bombing UN buildings in Lebanon and Gaza with cluster bombs and white phosphorous weapons which is against international law..

Edited January 21, 2010 by Adonis Vlahos

[anthony]

"Crocodile tears." ?

Now you are becoming presumptuous, and personal.

You want some examples of half-truth, evasion and contradiction? Oh and I forgot justification.

OK, just a few.

Terrorism by Irgun etc., which imo was more like guerrilla warfare, aimed at only British military, YOU say justifies any terrorism by Hamas against civilians. Anyway, two wrongs make a right?

Israel was given the most 'fertile part' of Palestine,and out of proportion to the numbers of Jews, you say; when Jeffrey pointed out that the Negev desert is a large part of that land, YOU evaded, or did not rescind your statement.

The 'elimination clause' of Hamas' Charter is the one huge obstacle to a Peace process. YOUR smart-alec response is "Which Israel should Hamas recognize - pre '67, pre '48...recognition must come with specific borders... does Israel recognize Palestine?"

Well, yes they do, in principle - and so must Hamas recognize Israel, in principle. A nation is not just its land; it is an entity, an idea.

When told that one million Israeli- Arabs are for the most part very happy with their situation, YOU respond with a meaningless article about by one disaffected ex MP, who could well be guilty of treason, as charged. You display silly little domestic squabbles in the street, on video, as though they are indicative of repression; I'd rather believe my friend Marwan, and many other sources, on this.

YOU firmly believe in the hatred of a people, like we whites in South African. But when put right on the facts, and the good-will of most of the whites here, you ignore this as inconvenient to your mind set.

In the very same post, you make these comments: "Hold on a second, Hamas is at war with Israel." and a few lines later "Hamas wants Peace". This is contradictory.

The first is at best a half-truth. If Hamas had declared war on Israel,by now, Gaza would have been invaded and Hamas overthrown.

Hamas wanting peace, is laughable, and insupportable by any facts.(Except for disinformation purposes) But the 'fighting for peace' is a sick joke.

The most startling aspect for me, is your continuing to justify giving up suicide bombing, not by personal morality, or by compassion, but because Islam condemns suicide, and the punishment is 'hell-fire.' Then your latest addition is this gem:

"...it [suicide bombing] was counter productive, and militarily useless."

Rationally, this constitutes Evasion of the reality of evil action by a.) argument to authority (Islam says) b.)irrational self-interest (punishment in hell) c.) pragmatism, the end justifies the means (counter productive, etc.)

All logical fallacies, and utmost immorality.

There are more fallacies I can't be bothered to look up. I have heard this type of argumentation before, often about the ME, and there's nothing new from you.

It takes the form of sweet reasonableness, to begin with, followed by a barrage of 'facts'(all of them, co-incidentally, one sided). References to history always show one sided injustices from the past; suffering, by innocent victims of brutality softens one up further;

and the whole debate degrades into a tit-for-tat snow job, that confuses any sincere participant.

Because that's what propaganda is - it leaves people feeling that a wrong is being committed... without knowing why.

Tony

[BaalChatzaf]

Because that's what propaganda is - it leaves people feeling that a wrong is being committed... without knowing why.

Tony

Are you surprised to behold a Muslim exhaling lies, or worse, quarter truths?

Ask him about Sura 3:54 when you get a chance.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 21, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Argue ideas, folks.

If the bigotry doesn't stop, I'm going to intervene.

OL is not a site for promoting bigotry. Do that elsewhere.

Thanks.

Michael

[Selene]

Argue ideas, folks.

If the bigotry doesn't stop, I'm going to intervene.

OL is not a site for promoting bigotry. Do that elsewhere.

Thanks.

Michael

Good statement.

I know I can get personal and edgy, but I would agree with being stopped with no problem. This thread is excellent in a lot of ways, but there are still entrenched positions that are relying on a "mythical"

history that cannot or have not been objectively supported by "unbiased" secondary sources. "Unbiased" is a very relative term, but there are evidentiary standards that we should all strive to meet.

For example, my comment yesterday about Adonis citing the United Nations as a source is well within normal discourse, but the serious collectivist lumping never really works. It might be a clever joke to some, but it has no serious purpose in argumentation.

Public debate is a different issue. It is a fine line, but you draw it very well.

Adam

you have my proxy vote on this one

[Robert Campbell]

The punishment for suicide in Islam is eternal hellfire.

Adonis,

Yes, I also understand the Qur'an to be saying that.

Doesn't the Qur'an further say (rather more often than it ever refers to suicide) that the punishment for unbelief is eternal hellfire?

Robert Campbell

[jeffrey smith]

Adonis:

Any finding or statement by the United Nations has the probative value approaching zero (0). You should always make your points, particularly on this topic, without citing the United Nations.

Friendly advice towards advancing better argumentation.

Adam

Oh no, if someone wants to say that the UN acceptance of Israel through the partition plan justifies Israel's creation, then he can't be selective with what he accepts and doesn't accept from the UN. If the Israeli's considered the UN had any legitimacy, they'd withdraw to pre-1967 borders like they've been told to in several resolutions passed since then and provide a proper resolution for refugees.

But instead the Israeli's just use it as an excuse for existence and then completely disregard anything it says.. Kind of like a teenager that disrespects their parents and is hostile.. Except this teenager expresses hostility through bombing UN buildings in Lebanon and Gaza with cluster bombs and white phosphorous weapons which is against international law..

Adonis--

Israel does not justify its existence on the UN.

And may I remind you that the whole Arab Israeli war started because the Arab side in 1947-48 refused to accept the UN's proposed solution?

Israel justifies its existence on the fact that Jews are there. Have been there, always. Living peacefully and without aggression against others except when others, like the Seleucids and the Romans and the Crusaders in former times, refuse to let them. In fact, the same basic justification the Palestinians give.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong: anyone who says that Jews came to the Holy Land in modern times is wrong. Either they are ignorant of history or they are willfully lying.

The UN for many years has been decidely hostile to Israel, and any statements by it, UNICEF, and UNWRA have no more value as evidence in the Arab Israeli conflict than any statement issued by Hamas or Fatah, and there have been several instances in which UN facilities were used to attack Israeli military and civilians (not necessarily with UN permission, of course, but some incidents suggest the local UN staff didn't mind much).

Jeffrey S.

[Selene]

Guys:

I hate to bring logic into this, but...

According to Adonis's representations of Islam, that latino Jesus was Jewish and lived in Bethlehem which last time I checked was in the neighborhood.

I have not read large swatches of the unlimited propaganda from both "sides" of this thread, but I would be surprised if Adonis's argument is that the Jewish folks arrived in the 20th century.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Guys:

I hate to bring logic into this, but...

According to Adonis's representations of Islam, that latino Jesus was Jewish and lived in Bethlehem which last time I checked was in the neighborhood.

I have not read large swatches of the unlimited propaganda from both "sides" of this thread, but I would be surprised if Adonis's argument is that the Jewish folks arrived in the 20th century.

If I am wrong, please correct me.

Adam

Logic? In Middle Eastern affairs? You can't be serious!

I don't think Adonis is quite that detached from reality to make that argument--but his argument does depend on ignoring both Jewish presence in the Holy Land before 1948 (and, more importantly, before 1900) and Arab violence before 1948.

In his view, the Jews of Israel imposed themselves militarily with the support of Europe and America on the Palestinians during the mid-20th century CE, and expropriated Arab lands by force and without any provocation, and that this nullifies any possible base for Israel's existence as an independent state. The facts that the military force was initially used in self defense against Arab violence, that all Jewish owned and occupied land in 1947-48 was legally owned and occupied without the use of force, and that a Jewish presence, albeit small, has always been there in the Holy Land, even after the wars of Vespasian and Hadrian, in the aftermath of which wars the Romans tried to completely uproot the Jewish community in Israel--these apparently have no relevance in his view, as well as the probable fact that the Palestinians undoubtedly must have a large number of ancestors who were members of the Jewish community in Palestine but converted or assimilated to the culture and society of the pagan/Christian/Muslim overlords, and remained in the Holy Land when most other Jews were exiled or enslaved by those overlords (particularly the Roman ones). And you will notice that I'm limiting myself to the period before 1948 because starting with 1948 Israel did expropriate Arab lands. But not before 1948, which means that issue has no bearing on the right of the Jewish community to declare itself as an independent nation .

Of course, since Nazareth and Bethlehem are now predominantly Arab towns, maybe Adonis actually thinks there was little or no Jewish presence back then.

Jeffrey S.

[Libertarian Muslim]

"Crocodile tears." ? Now you are becoming presumptuous, and personal.

I'm sorry, but you are the one saying you feel sorry for people who you also say deserve what they get for electing their government in, or is it that you only feel sorry for Israeli combatants and non combatants? Please clarify how you can maintain such a contradiction..

Terrorism by Irgun etc., which imo was more like guerrilla warfare, aimed at only British military, YOU say justifies any terrorism by Hamas against civilians. Anyway, two wrongs make a right?

No, it was terrorism.. Terrorism is a tactic to attack not only military targets, but civil institutions and civilian figures too to cause a result which is exactly what the Zionists did.

Hamas has rarely targeted civilians when using suicide attacks and majority of suicide attacks were against Israeli soldiers and unfortunately there were civilians nearby ie at bus stops and they've also targeted adult settlers, all of whom are required to carry firearms and were occupying land..

That makes them legitimate targets.. Other groups however have run a campaign of suicide bombings directly targeting Israelis civilians.

Now if you'd like to then say that rocketing Israeli towns is targeting Israel's civilians with the intent to kill them, then I disagree. The intent in doing so is to force the Israeli's who live in those areas to have very uncomfortable lives, living in bomb shelters so that they get sick of it and return to the negotiating table. The world refused to intervene and Hamas had no other option.

Compare that of course to Israel's blockade of Gaza which has lasted for years.. Blockades are an act of war and are deadly.. Let's also compare that to Israel's illegal use of cluster bombs, white phosphorous and flechette munitions on civilian targets..

I'm all for Hamas to not use rockets on Israeli towns, but what alternative do Hamas have? They aren't using suicide bombings anymore and it's not as if anyone is allowing them to arm themselves with more advanced guided weapons to attack US supplied Israeli F-16 fighters and Israeli Apache Gunships nor the Israeli made Merkava Tanks etc. So how else can they fight the Israeli military?

Israel was given the most 'fertile part' of Palestine,and out of proportion to the numbers of Jews, you say; when Jeffrey pointed out that the Negev desert is a large part of that land, YOU evaded, or did not rescind your statement.

I wasn't referring to the Negev when I stated that, I was referring to the majority of other land that was given.. In any case my comment about the Negev then brought up the Arab Bedouins from the Negev who's way of life has been disrupted by the Israeli state being created yet they still lack proper utilities that they need. I mean if Israel really wanted that land, surely they should have provided for the needs of the people that were there first instead of just neglecting them and taking advantage of having that area. In addition to that, Bersheeva has huge water resources through underground water from Mt Hebron.

The 'elimination clause' of Hamas' Charter is the one huge obstacle to a Peace process. YOUR smart-alec response is "Which Israel should Hamas recognize - pre '67, pre '48...recognition must come with specific borders... does Israel recognize Palestine?" Well, yes they do, in principle - and so must Hamas recognize Israel, in principle. A nation is not just its land; it is an entity, an idea.

Israel absolutely does not recognize it in principle and if they had, they wouldn't be putting armed religious extremist settlers all over the West Bank now would they? What Palestine do they recognize? What sort of borders are we talking about?

The fighting to remove all occupation from Palestine in Hamas' Charter is there because if peace doesn't come through negotiation as Hamas are saying they want, then if Hamas is forced by Israel's lack of cooperation to negotiating peace to continue fighting and somehow the tables turn and Israel loses military superiority and Hamas gets it, then they will reclaim the whole of the occupied lands leaving no Israeli state, not just that which they are offering ie the Arab Peace Initiative which is peace for a Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and a just solution for refugees..

This was made quite clear in the videos I posted:

When told that one million Israeli- Arabs are for the most part very happy with their situation, YOU respond with a meaningless article about by one disaffected ex MP, who could well be guilty of treason, as charged. You display silly little domestic squabbles in the street, on video, as though they are indicative of repression; I'd rather believe my friend Marwan, and many other sources, on this.

You claimed that he couldn't be punished by death am I not correct? But is it not correct that treason carries the death penalty in Israel?

That MP's example shows what happens to Israeli Arabs who speak out against the institutionalized racism and injustices that they face.

YOU firmly believe in the hatred of a people, like we whites in South African. But when put right on the facts, and the good-will of most of the whites here, you ignore this as inconvenient to your mind set.

I hate no people, I hate only oppression.

In the very same post, you make these comments: "Hold on a second, Hamas is at war with Israel." and a few lines later "Hamas wants Peace". This is contradictory. The first is at best a half-truth. If Hamas had declared war on Israel,by now, Gaza would have been invaded and Hamas overthrown. Hamas wanting peace, is laughable, and insupportable by any facts.(Except for disinformation purposes) But the 'fighting for peace' is a sick joke.

Hamas isn't fighting for peace, they are fighting for the liberation of Palestine which is occupied.

Your assertion is also a bit silly, Zionists also fought against the British to remove them of what they thought were their lands yet you don't condemn that action.. OR do you claim that they were fighting for peace?

Also, Hamas has made offers of peace through negotiation that will recognize Israel's existence as a state and establish peace with normalized ties like that of the Arab Peace Initiative, and Israel refuses it. What just peace that equates in the creation of a fully autonomous Palestinian state has Israel offered? Please cite examples?

The most startling aspect for me, is your continuing to justify giving up suicide bombing, not by personal morality, or by compassion, but because Islam condemns suicide, and the punishment is 'hell-fire.' Then your latest addition is this gem: "...it [suicide bombing] was counter productive, and militarily useless." Rationally, this constitutes Evasion of the reality of evil action by a.) argument to authority (Islam says) b.)irrational self-interest (punishment in hell) c.) pragmatism, the end justifies the means (counter productive, etc.) All logical fallacies, and utmost immorality.

I'd like you to pay careful attention to this because I don't believe you have.. Suicide bombing is a military tactic which can be used against civilians or military targets. I find suicide bombing against military targets morally reprehensible as I find normal suicide.

However, as I stated previously, I think you are talking about the deliberate targeting of unarmed people and I am most definitely against that from a moral, compassion and Islamic point of view.

There are more fallacies I can't be bothered to look up. I have heard this type of argumentation before, often about the ME, and there's nothing new from you. It takes the form of sweet reasonableness, to begin with, followed by a barrage of 'facts'(all of them, co-incidentally, one sided). References to history always show one sided injustices from the past; suffering, by innocent victims of brutality softens one up further; and the whole debate degrades into a tit-for-tat snow job, that confuses any sincere participant.

Of course, you can't be bothered to look them up, yet you continue to comment on them and claim it's all Hamas' fault.. Clearly you are the one who isn't being objective here as you're automatically placing the blame on Hamas.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Israel justifies its existence on the fact that Jews are there. Have been there, always. Living peacefully and without aggression against others except when others, like the Seleucids and the Romans and the Crusaders in former times, refuse to let them. In fact, the same basic justification the Palestinians give.

So then, you support the Palestinians right to have a state right?

or

How about the Native Americans in the US?

How about the Indigenous Australians?

How about the Maori of New Zealand?

If you don't support the rights of even one of the above in having their own state, then you would be quite hypocritical to support the rights of Israel to be created.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Of course, since Nazareth and Bethlehem are now predominantly Arab towns, maybe Adonis actually thinks there was little or no Jewish presence back then.

Jeffrey S.

No I know quite well that Jews had been in Palestine for thousands of years. That's not the issue.

I am against:

A. The Zionists trying to create a state based on race when there was peace and unity between the people ie Arabs and Jews, this started long before the riots.

B. The fact that it was the UN and Colonial powers that made the decisions and it wasn't a decision by referendum of the actual people of the lands. There's no justice in taking the land from some people and giving it to others.. It's theft.