George Galloway Savages SKY NEWS!

8 Aug, '06

George Galloway rips Sky News another hole, after he’s done with the US Senate previously! I’m beginning to like this guy!

And before you start attacking me for highlighting this interview, ask yourself if Galloway is not saying the truth here first. This actually is the view that the vast majority of Arabs see this conflict, all you have to do to ascertain this fact is watch, listen or read any Arab/Muslim media.

Filed in: Thoughts
Tagged with:

Comments (95)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Boilerman says:

    Galloway has always been and will remain a True Superhero.

  2. LiB Team says:

    Galloway is opposed in the west cuz he speaks the truth, and nowadays anyone who speaks the truth is public enemy no.1 …. you must be an extremist for your ideas to be heard *sigh*

  3. na9rawi says:

    Wicked!

    He cut her up good.

  4. Shachar says:

    What I don’t understand is why stop at 1982? Why not go further back, to the time when Lebanon was firing Katyusha rockets at Israel (which triggered Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the first place).

    I know this is how most of the Arab world thinks, but the Arab world seems to be intent on ignoring the facts that are inconvinent to it. Attacking Israel is ok, but Israel’s retaliation is “agression”.

    Whatever.

    Shachar

  5. MooDy says:

    He is a superHero indeed …

    Lovely ..!

  6. jaddwilliam says:

    To say that 1982 invasion of Lebanon was triggered by Katyusha rockets fired at Israel… is news to me.

    The pretext for waging Mivtsa Shalom HaGalil was an failed attempt to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to the U.K. Shlomo Argov.

    To wage a war Israeli war planners do not need a katyusha fired here or there or a couple of its soldiers killled or taken POWs.

    But who cares about a pretext here or there as long as you have the support of USA?
    AbuRasool

  7. mahmood says:

    Sorry Johny, sometimes I do get glitches and most times if I just go back I find that the post is still there, I would then copy it and keep it in memory just in case something goes wrong, as evidently did in your case.

    Would you like to resubmit?

  8. Johny says:

    Ok, it was, but I managed to save it.

    Before saying anything about the content of his speech – two things:

    1. He did shut her up pretty good… I wonder what the producers were thinking for themselves when they put such a weak interviewer with such a good shouter 🙂 .

    2. I have no cables/sattlite TV, tell me is SKY that horrid always? Even here in Israel it’s not such a one-way parrot TV. In Israel the newspeople actually heard of critisism (some people say that they’ve heard about it too much…). Oh, and as real mid-easterns, our newspeople know how to shout at people shouting at them….

    The contents of his words did not impress me as much. He’s right it didn’t start yesterday, but he’s forgetting that Israel didn’t have to do anything with Lebanon for 6 years since the withdrawal (and yes, I mean except 2002 when our soldiers were kidnapped).

    And his other arguments are not convincing –

    1. Israel admits to holding ONLY 4 lebenese prisoners + 23 palestinians who have a lebanese passport. (If someone has a more reliable source of information telling Israel has more (let alone thousands), I really want to see it. and I don’t consider sites like ANTIWAR to be reliable sources). Of these 4, only one was captured on lebenese soil (Abu-Amra Hamed, a arms dealer – I’m not sure where he was captured). One is a terrorist who killed a little girl in Israel (Samir Kuntar), a third is a Israeli citizen cought for spying for the HZ (Nissim Nasser), and a fourth is someone who was caught crossing the border a few years ago.

    2. The Shabaa farms is the only part of land which can be considered “occupied” by Israel. It’s 25 sqkm of barren lands. There’s the fact the lebenese like to forget – that the UN says it’s syrian, and the syrians haven’t given up their right on it.

    Tell me: these 2 issues are worth provocating with violence to start a war? Why couldn’t these issues been discussed through talks for a peace treaty? Jordan and Eygpt had more than 25 sqkm or 4 (or 27) prisoners, and through peace talks they got them back and much more…

    Oh, and if Lebanon gets her “occupied lands” back, then for being fair, Israel should get the land Lebanon occupied from her (here’s one of the sources telling about it:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744878.html )

    But I guess Israel won’t get it (or a compensation) back, beacause Israel doesn’t want to go to war over such a small piece of land, she has better things to do…

    And about the palestinians – I’m not happy with the situation there as well (and belive me, I not sitting at home complaining) but it’s a pathetic excuse for starting a war.

    (the following is taken from something I wrote last week, sorry for the aggresive tone, but I hadn’t the patience to write it again)

    Instead of waging a war, why don’t Lebanon, Syria, Eygpt, Jordan and the palestinian Authority make the palestinian refugees life a bit better? How about building them proper neighborhoods instead of these stinking and tiny 40 years old refugee camps? How about giving the palestinians in their states Citizenships and Social Rights? What’s the excuse, they didn’t find the time to do so since 1948/1967?

    I’ll tell you why – because it’s convenient. It’s a handy excuse to blame Israel. Nobody really cares about those people. Let me tell you a story: in the early seventies, there was a ISRAELI iniative to tear down the refugee camp in Jericho (built in 1948) and build a normal neighborhood for the sake of the people. Do you know why it was never accomplished? because the citizens of the camps held violent demonstrations against the idea, because they feared that public attention would go away if they had better life conditions. The same iniative was repeated and canceled again (due to violence) in the late seventies. Moreover, Israel game the palestinian Authority in 1993-1995 millions of dollars to build proper housing in Gaza. Let’s say gently that housing did not come out of it (it probably balanced arafat’s bank very well).

    (quote till here)

    I know that there are a few countries who did care for the refugees who came from palestine (altough I have know idea about Bahrain)

    Oh, and as Shachar said, we can go back even more – to see Lebenese attacks on Israel in 1948… (everyone can look back as long as they want but that won’t be practical.)

  9. na9rawi says:

    Ok Shachar. Let us take that step back. Why not go back to when Lebanon was firing Katyushas at Israel before 1982?

    In 1948, and again in 1967, Lebanon was a dumping ground for Palestinians who fled or were expelled by the Israeli army. Their right to return or compensation is written into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and spelled out more explicitly in UN Resolution 194 but till date has not been implemented. So, the PLO responded by launching attacks against Israel from inside Lebanon.

  10. Lujayn says:

    The man rocks!

  11. Shachar says:

    jaddwilliam,

    Interesting claim, particularily if you happen to know the meaning of the words. “Mivtsa” means operation. “Shalom” is fairly understood by most English speakers – piece. “HaGalil” means “The galili”. The operation was meant to bring piece to the galili.

    Now, if there were no Katyusha missiles fired on the galili, what, exactly, was piece meant?

    Answer – give the Galili citizens piece. The failed assasination attempt may have been the immediate trigger, but it would never have been enough to go to war on itself.

    It was a complicated war, driven in part by people (in the Israeli government) with non-pure motives, and had became very controversial within Israel over the time, but the immediate initial cause for it was never disputed. I was only 9 at the time, and I still remember the collective sigh of relief that was issued by the Galili residents at the time when the Katyusha stopped, at the start of the operation.

    If all that is news to you, you had better check your sources.

    Shachar

  12. moclippa says:

    “Why not go further back, to the time when Lebanon was firing Katyusha rockets at Israel (which triggered Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the first place).”

    Shachar… please provide a date… I’d like to research that claim a bit more.

    One more question to you buddy, would you accept the internationalization of Jeruselum to be part of the accepted terms of peace?

  13. moclippa says:

    Johny, as an Israeli citizen, I pose the question to you too…

    By saying “accepted terms of peace” I’m of course talking about the longterm peace solution as opposed to our short term cease fires, prisoner exchanges and calls for disarmament

    And yeah… the server is being a bit funny, didn’t see a lot of these replies untill they popped up just now….

  14. mahmood says:

    moclippa you couldn’t see all those replies is because several people are entering comments at the same time!

    The server does have a caching engine to speed up site loading etc, that might contribute to the delay a little bit, but not much, as it is flushed (I think) everytime someone selects the “submit” button. So it shouldn’t impact the appearance of any comment as far as I know.

    Will keep an eye on it however and see if I can get it better.

  15. Anonymous says:

    mahmood,

    I wrote along response to you post (about a page and a half I believe), from which I managed to post only the first half (when trying to post parts. the server did not let me post the whole thing). the second part was not accepted (although it is short), and the second time I tried, the computer said I have already posted that part…

    moclippa, I’ll provide you with a date in the evening , when I get home and look in a history book. and what do you mean by “internationalization of Jeruselum” ? It has a lot of different meanings (every person means something else)

  16. Loki says:

    Sky News have been a total joke (even more than usual). As usual, Galloway can be relied upon to call it as he sees it. Good for him.

  17. Johnster says:

    George Galloway is a populist politician who realised that he was losing personal control and prestige whilst in the Labour party and could do better by setting up his own party to serve a niche market.

    I agree with several of the things he said in the interview but in some areas he was fatally misguided such as envcouraging attacks on innocent civilians (attacks on innocent civilians on any side is unacceptable).

    But I think the overriding reason why he comes across powerfully is that at last on Western TV we have a white man in western clothes conveying a strong message. The Israelis have realised a long time ago that to convey a message powerfully (especially in the US) the best way is to have someone with an American accent who “looks like one of them”. that’s just the way it is.

  18. F says:

    Johnster – I concur about ‘white man in western clothes….’. There is affinity to anything as long as one looks/speaks/acts like one of them.

    Galloway rocks! – people will discredit or demonize him or anyone when
    the message is not similar to theirs. One should really look what the
    person is saying.

    Sky news anchor woman – certainly a very silly woman and like many so called ‘ journalists ‘ never give unbiased views.

    From a human perspective, he does speak the truth!

  19. Anonymous says:

    What I do not understand is that you were against Hizbullah and his leader when the war started! On the same side with the Zionists… What have changed?!

  20. Ethan says:

    I’m unimpressed.

    Galloway has always come across as a stalinist useful idiot, who’d sell out his country and culture to the highest bidder, or to whoever would give him power.

    The guy supports terrorist groups, argues as a populist, rather than with reason and is nothing more than a stooge. The only thing he has going for him is the fact he can scream really loudly. Of course, that’s all that seems to be needed these days: Manipulate the media and suddenly terrorists are freedom fighters, democracies are fascist dictatorships and the only solution is theocracy.

    What’s funny is that once his use is up to his handlers, his fate will be the same as the Iranian Leftists who supported Khomeini.

  21. Ibn says:

    Shachar,

    The short answer, is that if Israel had the right to be an aggressor against the Arabs in ’48 when it agreed with a UN partition plan, then just about any yahoo has the right to be an aggressor against Israel here in 2006. You sowed the seed, now reap the whirlwind.

    -Ibn

  22. william says:

    before we get all teary eyed about Georgie boy might we not read another take on the man?

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/641kyjkk.asp

  23. Fanusi Khiyal says:

    Well, the media has always had less than savory habits. However, that does not mean that Galloway is worth taking seriously.

    If Hezbollah is trying to protect Lebanon, why is it hiding among civilians? Why is actually proud of the fact that it has caused more losses amongst those civilians than among its own members?

    I have read a great deal of commentary from Lebanese – in Lebanon – who have no love for Israel, but absolutely hate Hezbollah and its loathesome practices. Furthermore, Israel while Israel has better weapons, it has not used them with the total – disregard is too mild a work – hate of life that Hezbollah has done.

    If Israel, ever, acted the way that Hezbollah has done, the Middle East would be little but a radioactive wasteland.

    Furthermore, Israel recognises Lebanon’s right to exist. Hezbollah does not recognise Israel’s right to exist.

  24. mahmood says:

    My dear young lady, thanks so much for continuing to look in on my humble site. Alas, you are not spending much time understanding what I write. For if you did, you would understand that my position has not changed:

    1. I am still against Hizballah’s actions, especially in the very first summer that Lebanon was looking forward to really welcome tourist dollars, establish a multitude of foreign investment companies and projects, and the further development of its infrastructure. Given that Nasrallah committed a “no action” summer to the Lebanese government, I am surprised that he didn’t keep to his word; unless of course the actions of the 12th of July were done without his knowledge but he took responsibility for them as that action was done by some of his faction whom he should have controlled better.

    2. After 26 days of violence, it became amply clear to me that point 1 was not the main consideration for Israel taking over Lebanon. It might have been the excuse that the weak minded will believe, but to me, I believe that Israel intended to go in, and precisely at that time in order to force a confrontation, and maybe bring in other parties in order to fall into its and its supporter’s lap. I said before that I don’t believe in conspiracies, but unfortunately I just cannot reconcile the massive “response” and use of unmitigated force by Israel and the cause which it says prompted it into action.

    3. After following the hundreds of comments and several threads of discussions put forward by people more knowledgeable than I am about this situation (Jasra Jedi, Ibn, Shachar, Loki, Sunrunner, Avi, Batzi, abaC, Brian and others) I know a little more about the Palestinian/Israeli struggle. I am convinced that their particular bridge can be crossed, but only if they sacrifice quite a lot of pride, history, and long-held positions. Israel must at least amend its Zionist laws to remove the racial elements out of it, and equate treatments of all of its citizens regardless of ethnic and religious background, remove the wall, and start trusting the Palestinians and treat them as partners rather than enemies. The Palestinians on the other hand, need to really dig in and develop their infrastructure and work towards unifying their goals and leadership in order to provide a front that Israel can actually sit and discuss things with.

    So, as you can see, I didn’t actually change my core position regarding Hizballah, but my horizons and understanding of the various elements that make a whole is getting better, thanks to all of my new and old friends from all parts of the world, especially Palestine and Israel.

    Now aren’t you missing your class? Or are you on study break again? 😉

  25. Johnster says:

    Fanusi: You make soem good points but your last para fails the logic test

    Israel = a country
    Lebanon = a country
    Hizbollah = an organisation

    Israel recognises Lebanon (yippee)
    Then you state Hizbollah does not recognise Israel
    That’s not the point
    Lebanon recognises Israel

    Ethan

    Terrorists into heroes – there’s no greater example than the murderous thug Begin. His organisation was responsible for the murder of hundreds of people.

  26. Sunrunner says:

    George Gallaway is a force of nature. While there are always nits to pick with him, his ability to expose the flaws in the reality of consensus reality is phenomenal.

    And he makes some excellent points in this exchange, the most important being made at the very end re the crododile tears of the media being shed over Lebanese/Palestinian deaths.

  27. Johny (NOT johnster) says:

    thanks anyway, mahmood – I saw it now. Can you erase the spare things that were posted above twice (so as to make the reading more comfortable for the other readers? thanks.

    and about the conspirency thing (point 2)- I think there isn’t (a Israeli one at least). I think that the only reason that the war didn’t end yesterday is that Israel wants to see if the iniative to send the lebenese army south is real (that and the fact that Olmert and Seniora are having a contest who blinks first). If the armyq goverment has a “secret plan” to conquer lebanon it won’t hold long, since the israeli audience won’t support it.
    As for point 3, I agree (although minor disagreements on the racist elemts – I don’t think we have them in the first place).

    Ibn,

    ” Israel had the right to be an aggressor against the Arabs in ‘48 when it agreed with a UN partition plan””.

    Can you say what you mean by that? I mean, what’s aggressive in accepting the UN plan?

  28. the problem with people like George Galloway that by spreading half truths and lies they berry the true and important thing people in the middle east should talk about.

    I mean , Israel is not a saint, but saying that the course of the war was
    1- a small peace of lend that belong to Syria
    2- thousand of prisoners that don’t exist (can someone find a source to that ? and how no one in Israel know about them? )

    is giving a misleading picture. there are many flats in Israel both in this war and in general. giving false accusations only make the situation worse:

    1- people in Israel say “the world is against us” – look how they buy those lies
    2- so if everyone against us we should do what it take to survive. and we mean everything.
    3- this line of thought is good for no one (except maybe Iran, weapon corporations and so on)

  29. Ramy says:

    I Thank you all…

    It just surprises me that still some people are defending israel….

    Guys all this blood and all these civilians, all this destruction all this annhillation…And israel is innocent.

    Guys the situation now is that israel is doing its best to get out of this mistake it did when it under estimated the resistance. and now it is trying with its allies to make a political wining over lebanonand its resistance.

    It is obvious now that Israel wants to stop but the US is not accepting for its prode and the pride of its little baby. So Israel is taking advantage and doing as much damage as possible to the lebanese people hoping this would divide them.

    No! this will not happen, Now Lebanon has one enemy not the christians not the druze, Israel!

    Be happy generate more hatred and peace will reign in the region.

    Thanks for all the arab countries for their “support”

    Thanks for the US for their support to Israel

    Thanks for Israel for bombing and killing as much as they can

    Thanks to all the world for watching us cry our martyrs

    Thanks for all those who are agressively defending israel on the media and everywhere not knowing about the massacres and the horrors it is causing in Lebanon

    and one more thing, there was an argument here about why didn`t lebanon solve the problem of Shebaa diplomatically,

    the answer is: Hezbollah told israel, if you want your soldiers back let`s negotiate but Israel declared war….Another thing, look at how much the diplomacy with Israel is working……

    I thank you all for defending an illegal offensive a raoe ofthe lebanese people a total destruction of a country, you hold responsibility for this:

    http://www.fromiseraeltolebanon.org

    This is only 55 of the 1000 deaths and the 4000 plus wounded. I know Israel has deaths among civilians but this is too much all for the dirty politics of the US and Israel.

    Thanks

  30. Ibn says:

    Johny,

    Can you say what you mean by that? I mean, what’s aggressive in accepting the UN plan?

    Gee I dont know. Whats so aggressive about the UN splitting your home territory along racial and sectarian lines?

    -Ibn

  31. Aliandra says:

    Somtimes splits of that nature are for the best, particularly when all those races, religions, tribes, and sectarian groups can’t get along. Put like minded folks together with other like minded folks, draw lines between them all, and avoid more bloodshed.

    Yugoslavia and Africa come to mind …

  32. Fanusi Khiyal says:

    There is one final point about Galloway: he is guilty of teason. He has publically defended terrorist factions – especially those trying to destroy Iraq utterly now, as well as accepting payments from Saddam Hussein during the war, and is guilty of conspiring against his own people, the ones who he is supposed to be representing.

    Imagine for a few seconds how you would feel if you saw a member of your parliment suddenly appear in Israel with calls for creating “greater Israel”.

    You see my point.

  33. Fanusi Khiyal says:

    In essence, if you are anywhere near the Galloway on your political views, you should be worried.

  34. Ethan says:

    Hezbollah told israel, if you want your soldiers back let`s negotiate but Israel declared war….Another thing, look at how much the diplomacy with Israel is working……

    I thank you all for defending an illegal offensive a raoe ofthe lebanese people a total destruction of a country, you hold responsibility for this:

    OK. Let me see if I can make this painfully clear.

    1. Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese Government. They are an official political party. They have official status.

    2. Part of the Party’s charter is the genocide of Jewish people as written in the Hadith. (If you want references, I will provide).

    3. A cross border kidnap is an acceptible causus belli according to international norms. Mohammed himself ordered assassinations or retalition against whole tribes on far less provocation. (Again, I’ll give refs, if asked).

    4. Therefore, Israel attacked Lebanon.

    5. One cannot have it both ways. You can’t be part of the Lebanese government and be treated as if you’re not. Logically, this is a position that makes no sense.

    An Example:

    An extreme branch of the Republican Party (which believes in the violent elimination of Mexico) begins lobbing rockets into Mexico to stop the border incursions by illegal immigrants and to just kill some Chicos. They cross the border on a raid and kill a few Mexican National Guardsmen, and kidnap some to hold for ransom until Mexico stops the traffic north.

    Would Mexico be justified in retaliating? Agents of the American Government killed their people and lobbed rockets across the border, and have stated their goal of destroying Mexico.

    Would you negotiate?
    Would you negotiate if the American government and every one of its allies supported the action by the Republican party?
    Would you negotiate if the American government and the rest of the Republican Party repudiated the actions of the group, and made movement to rein them in?
    Would you negotiate if the American government was too weak to rein them in?
    Would you negotiate with those that chant ‘Death to Mexico’?

    When is resistance justified?
    Is it only justified in one direction? Does America have the right to resist the invasion of Illegals, but Mexico doesn’t have the right to resist provocations by these hypothetical American terrorists, even if they are supportive of the invasion of illegals?

  35. Ibn says:

    Aliandra,

    Somtimes splits of that nature are for the best, particularly when all those races, religions, tribes, and sectarian groups can’t get along.

    ..WOw! That sounds like something taken straight out of the “separate but equal” doctrine whose abcess was not removed from the USA up until the 1960s. To this day, white supremist groups advocate this position, to “solve” a myriad of racial issues in the US. To even insinuate that races cant inherently get along is quite racist. It seems like Hitler himself beat you it Aliandra. But thanks for showing us your true colors. You are one sick person.

    —————————————————-

    And be that as it may, even if you are remotely right – which is as likely as Jesus coming back as a spice girl – there is still another point you must contend with: And that point being that there was never inherent animosity between Arabs and Jews on the scale as there is now, until after the Zionists entered the equation. We cannot get along with the Israelis because their country is one founded on our exclusion. Their whole basis for existance is to make sure our ethnic-religious type, never demographically dominate.

    It is not the actions of us Arabs that really threatens the Israelis. It is our blood that threatens them.

    And THAT is why Israel must change its ways for the better. If it does not, it deserves total annihilation.

    -Ibn

  36. dror says:

    ibn said:

    And THAT is why Israel must change its ways for the better. If it does not, it deserves total annihilation.

    that doesn’t sound like hitler at all ibn,

    “if you agree to what WE think is right, we will let you live, if not – total annihilation”

    gee thanks.
    ===================================
    – what would you do in 1947 with 2 groups that refuse to live with each other? 99% of arabs in those days did’t want to live beside jews, but to throw them into the sea.
    – why jews can’t have a state of their on?
    ===================================
    “there was never inherent animosity between Arabs and Jews on the scale as there is now, until after the Zionists entered the equation”
    true,
    – jews and arabs did get a long before, but under arab regims. can it be that arabs can’t agree to the exsitnce of other state among them?
    – i could say the same about israel and palestine (the right wing is):
    “”there was never inherent animosity between Arabs and Jews on the scale as there is now, until after the PLO entered the equation”
    you see geting along with people that live under your regim with little rights is quite easy- thay do what you want, and if not – smack them.
    the probelm is getting along with all people have thier rights.

    the first right is the right to exist, which iran, HZ , hamas and you ibn don’t give to jews-israelis.

  37. Shachar says:

    Hi Mahmood,

    Regarding your current position, I’d like you to consider some points that may change your mind.

    point 2
    Regarding point 2. First, some history.

    Imagine you had a neighbour with which you have a long standing neighbour’s quarrell. It started long ago, with your neighbour claiming that the owner’s registration of your house is inherently flawed, and that your house belongs to his uncle. Maybe a better analogy is that some of the uncle’s children took residence in your neighbour’s house, and started throwing rocks at you and your home. Repeatedly. Over a prolonged period of time (since 1969, to be precise). The neighbour was busy fighting within his own family, and couldn’t care less what his uncle’s children were doing to you.

    Then, one day in 1982, you snapped. You calculated your neighbour’s uncle maximal throwing distance, and simply walked into your neighbour’s yard, and initially his living room too, and drove all of the uncle’s children away. You did one “better”, though. You marked a line which is too far to throw stones from, and you keep holding that part of your neighbour’s yard of it. That’s of course, a stupid thing to do for a prolonged period of time, but you don’t realize this at first. When you first walked in, your neighbour’s people who were actually meant to use that part of the yard welcomed you (they didn’t like the uncle’s children either), but you made several mistakes over the time.

    It turns out into a long and messy affair, but somehow, you manage to evacuate your neighbour’s yard at 2000. All but a disused electricity panel, that is. A third neighbour claims it actually belongs to him, and the municipaly agrees. By then your neighbour has finished most of his in-family fighting, and you hope that he will sieze control of his yard. After all, he was never the one doing the actual stone-throwing, and presumeably, his main beaf with you was over you sitting in his yard, which you no longer do.

    Unfortunately, that’s not what happens. The neighbour’s youngest son, who previously spent most of his time at the third neighbour’s home, is the one who takes control over the yard. He keeps making statements, not only on how you should relinquish control over the disused electricity board, but also on how your house should be demolished and you evacuated from your own home.

    Since stones were used not only against you, but also between your neighbour’s children, your neighbour claims that all children must leave their stones to the family’s head. All do, except the youngest. The youngest keeps mounting huge piles of stones, both next to your fence AND in the family’s living room, often right under where his brothers usually like to sit.

    At this point, what would you do? Would you not keep a very careful eye over where stones were kept? Would you not keep preparing yourself for the eventuality that stones will get thrown? I suggest that you would be extremely stupid not to.

    Since you cleared your neighbour’s yard, things have not gotten better. Rubble throwing into your yard happens on an almost daily basis. Instead of your neighbour taking responsibility over the yard, it is left for the son to build higher and higher forges to store rocks in and to throw rocks from. Every once in a while, actual stones are being thrown, and a few of your children actually get kidnapped (from within your own yard!).

    This is the setup. This is the context. Now regarding point 2. Israel’s ferocity of response can be easilly explained by the time it had to prepare for this outbreak. After all, everybody knew this confrontation was coming for 6 years now.

    Had such an outbreak happened to you, under similar circumstances, you would be very stupid to settle for merely removing the piles of stone next to your fence. Seeking out the piles in your neighbour’s living room, and trying to cut off the supply lines that lead from the third neighbour to your neighbour’s son only make sense. For your neighbour to cry out that his authority as head of the family is pure insanity, considering that he failed to exercise this authority for six years.

    In short, the response is going to be massive and disporportional, simply because if you don’t, rubble is going to continue being thrown on a daily basis, and occasional rocks are going to continue being thrown, and there is simply no reason for you to accept it. Of the multitude laws of war that exists, none state that, once attacked, you are only allowed to respond with the same level of force as attacked. If you are attacked, respond with enough force to make sure you are not attacked again.

    This does not make it an act of agression, it’s still a response. Likewise, the fact that the attack was predictable, and that you prepared your response in advance, also doesn’t make your response an act of agression. It merely makes you a forward planner. If Hizbollah chose to never cross the border, that would have been fine with Israel, and it would never have attacked.

    point 3
    I’m afraid you have been listening to propeganda. “Zionism” has no laws at all, and in particular, no laws meant against Arabs. Israel does have laws, but they are, in general (with regretable exceptions, but they are lone exceptions) not aimed against anyone in particular. The only law that is intentionally discriminating is the law that gives immediate citizenship to any immegrant who is Jewish. This law is the only aspect in which Israel lives up to its “Jewish sanctuary” clause that Ibn so likes to quote from its declaration of independance. In all other respects, it is the country of its citizens.

    Having said that, there are practical discriminations. They are relics of old hate, and I am very glad to say that they are, slowly (too slowly), being ractified. Some of these are based on behaviours by the Arab population leaders (and, I would like to hope, uncharacteristical of the average Arab Israeli citizen).

    In any case, a Jewish Iranian citizen is far less on equal rights as his Muslim neighbour than an Israli Arab is with his Jewish neighbour. As the Jewish community in all other Muslim states has all but been driven out, I don’t see how claims of racism can be upheld with any amount of honesty. All in all, most democracies under similar dillemas acted worse.

    Shachar

  38. dror says:

    the problem is with people like George Galloway that by spreading half
    truths and lies they berry the true and important thing people in the
    middle east should talk about.

    I mean , Israel is not a saint, but saying that the course of the war was
    1- a small peace of lend that belong to Syria
    2- thousand of prisoners that don’t exist (can someone find a source
    to that ? and how no one in Israel know about them? )

    is giving a misleading picture. there are many flats in Israel both in
    this war and in general. giving false accusations only make the
    situation worse:

    1- people in Israel say “the world is against us” – look how they buy
    those lies
    2- so if everyone against us we should do what it take to survive. and
    we mean everything.
    3- this line of thought is good for no one (except maybe Iran,
    weapon corporations and so on)

  39. Johny (NOT johnster) says:

    Ibn, you’re totaly ignoring the fact that over half a million jews lived

    in “palestine” in 1947 and they deserved a solution (since It was proven

    that any of the 2 communities can’t live under the rule of the second). Look

    at the map – it’s true the “hewish state” got 55% percent of the land – but

    look what kind of land. Most of the land of the proposed “jewish state”

    was pure desert, whereas the “arab state” recieved most of the

    populated areas.

    ” Their whole basis for existance is to make sure our ethnic-religious type, never demographically dominate.

    It is not the actions of us Arabs that really threatens the Israelis. It is our blood that threatens them.”

    Now, that’s pure antisemitism, which makes me not sure I even want to discuss with you.

  40. Johny (NOT johnster) says:

    you should read a speech that was given by one of the most smartest

    men I know, a israeli physicist. I think he sums it up pretty good.

    Mind you, he gave it BEFORE the war in lebanon (not that I think it would have changed a lot).

    http://www.freeman.org/m_online/jul04/harari.htm

  41. Hesham says:

    Mahmood:

    I’m not sure if you have seen this as well:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14415.htm

  42. Anonymous says:

    Johny(NOT Johnster)
    No Arab can be antisemetic, because we are semites like you. What I am is anit-Israeli and Anti-Zionist.
    The displaced Jews of the 2nd world war wanted a homeland, it sure as hell wasn’t gonna be anywhere like Europe or America they had been happy persecuting you for years. No, the place that was chosen was a sovreign state governed by idiots and supported by bigger idiots.i.e Palestine and the rest of the Arab world. The superior intellect of the developed world decided that the developing intellect of the Arabs wuld be no match for them, and they were right. The Jews got their homeland at the cost of the Palestinians.
    The blowback was anticipated and with the help of the USA was dealt with and is stilll being dealt with.
    To this day our leaders in the Gulf are in the pockets of the U.S.A.
    All the Gulf leaders are Sunni, so Hizballah being killed, is a result.
    Israelis being killed double result.
    If we were serious about freeing the Palestinians and providing them with a homeland we would have imposed an oil embargo on the West the likes of which would have had you all shitting in your pants! But we havn’t done that, therfore our leaders are not serious about a homeland for the Palestinians.
    You Israelis are not entitiled to the land you are on, and you are not to be trusted. The desperate nature of your existance makes you dangerous and duplicitous. What you should fear is total Arab unity combined with total Muslim unity. But as you all know while chuckling into your Kosher coffees, is that that is about as likely as the U.S.A minding their own fucking business. I.E never.
    Please don’t make me laugh by trying to find historical justification for the vile aggression of your people./ At some stage in history you have been expelled or persecuted or both by virtually every host nation in which you lived with the exception of the Palestinians whom you now persecute with alarming ease. You are for the most part European working class rejects who do not fit nor belong in the land you occupy.
    The Middle East has been the venue for proxy war many times before, and this bit of time is no more unique, Today it is America vs Iran, before that it was America vs USSR, America vs Iraq, America vs anyone who they deemed attackable and beatable. The massive congessional industrial military complex is the dog that wags the tail.
    An escalation of violence in the Middle East has paid some huge bonuses in the West. Continued war means a healthy 15% growth p.a for industries that support and supply the armaments factories, continued employment for millions of registered American voters.
    The amount of money that the U.S spends on arms could wipe out poverty and ignorance in the world. Do they do that? Nah. Make war, make money.
    Eisenhower warned of this and nobody listened.

    Peace Taker

  43. Cindy says:

    Leave it to George Galloway. While everyone is in The UN trying to negotiate a cease fire along comes Galloway to throw jet fuel on a raging inferno.

    Yeah, what a guy!

  44. Johny says:

    It doesn’t really matter what you’d call it (antisemitism/ antisraelism), it still

    is a form of racism – hatred of people filled with prejudices and not factual

    things. And it oozes out of your writing.

    I have no desire to argue with someone who insults me without even

    knowing me (“The desperate nature of your existance makes you

    dangerous and duplicitous”), so let me correct you on one small fact, and

    send you to history books to correct the rest:

    There were more than half a million jews in Israel BEFORE WWII. Jews did not come there only after it.

    But frankly, go back to kindergarden and leave the big children alone.

  45. Aliandra says:

    Ibn;

    Rather than calling everyone you disagree with a racist, (which seems to be your style around here), you might try picking up a history book. Had the colonial rulers of Africa drawn up national borders respecting ethnic boundaries and not lumped in tribes that hated each other into the same country, there world be a lot less bloodshed in Africa than there is today. There are numerous other examples. Do your own research.

  46. Aliandra says:

    Peacetaker;

    If we were serious about freeing the Palestinians and providing them with a homeland we would have imposed an oil embargo on the West the likes of which would have had you all shitting in your pants! But we havn’t done that

    You haven’t done that because you need the petro dollars as much as the West needs the oil.

    The amount of money that the U.S spends on arms could wipe out poverty and ignorance in the world. Do they do that? Nah. Make war, make money

    Not true. The rich countries have already provided the equivalent of several Marshall Plans to poor countries. The results have been dismal. Poverty and ignorance are caused by bad governments, corruption and continual conflict, not lack of cash. Until more responsible regimes take their place, progress will be stifled, no matter how much money gets thrown at the poor.

    War doesn’t make money. The US went into debt winning the Cold War and the Iraq venture is putting great stress on the public coffers. Only a small percentage of Americans work for the defense industry. The majority are employed in the private sector, which by the way, generates a most of the country’s profit.

  47. M says:

    Ibn,

    While there are some who think you are the brightest bulb on the tree, I don’t find your comments support that logic. There doesn’t seem to be much difference between you and Steve; he wants to nuke Mecca and you want to annihilate Israel with the exception that Steve didn’t often make it personal. He also had the balls to admit when he was wrong and apologize when he had overstepped the bounds of common courtsey; that was something I could respect him for.

    You can argue your views about Israel and her annihilation, as they say until the cows come home, because they are irrevelant. Israel is a sovereign nation; as you are so fond of saying, deal with it.

  48. Ramroom says:

    Great Video.. Thanks for sharing!!!!!

  49. Anonymous says:

    Aliandra
    The last Arab to dare to impose an embargo on the west paid for it with his life namely King Faisal. And do i think we could live without your petro dollars for a week or a month or a year, absolutely no problem there. The war in Iraq, instigated by the USA, has made us rich beyond even our imaginations. But could you last for a week? a month? No way no way no way!!
    However, this is academic no one will do it becasue the USA will “arrange” to have the problem removed. No leader in this part of the world with any intelligence will risk his life. And you dare to label us terrorists!

    Also I,m not advocating “Throwing Money” at poor nations I’m advocating the same effort and energy that has been used to develop Americas vast Arms redirected to SUSTAINED programs of education and personal empowerment. The USA, in fact, as a percentage of its GDP donates far less to charitable causes than any developed nation on the planet, but as a percentage of your GDP your defence spending is more than all the members of NATO and China put together!
    I’m sorry I completely disagree with you about war not making money, it absolutely does for the corporations that are part of the industrial military complex, and it is to them that congress is attached. I watched one of your congressmen the other night saying “Thank God for our contractors” with reference to jobs created in his disrtict!
    For the USA war has and does make money.
    “Winning the cold war” DO you honestly believe the USSR was even partially close to the vast stockpiles ammassed by America under all the cold war administrations? They were not. You were lied to by your government. Lied to for years and manipulted by fear. It is the private sector I am also reffering to, Ratheon-Boeing- Northrup Grumenn..and the rest, all private, all powerful.
    Johny you have spat the dummy and run away!
    You dare call me a racist when your government are undertaking a systematic dismantling of the Palestinian Authority and it’s democratically elected representatives, because you don’t like what they represent? Tough.
    “There were more than half a million jews in Israel BEFORE WWII. Jews did not come there only after it.”
    Yes there were, but there were also 2 million Palestinians, but now the country is called Israel, go figure!
    You should stop trying to soften the tyrannical methods of Israeli governments and admit that there is another way. Why waste your time on this blog, you should be lobbying your mp’s, you should be calling for The nation of Palestine to be re-established alonside that of Israel, but you’re not, you’re on here making whoopee with the Gulf Arabs. Go tell your democratically elected government how it SHOULD be and see how many of your compatriots turn racist on you and bitch slap you silent.
    If you are offended by my opinions, I couldn’t give a damn, you fein offence because that means you don’t have to engage me in debate because you know you will lose the argument. Your people are subjugating another people and you dare to be offended by what I say?! Grow up!

  50. Anonymous says:

    Sorry Mahmood Peace Taker here, responsible for above rant. Can’t remember my log on stuff.

  51. dror says:

    dear anonimus
    “The Jews got their homeland at the cost of the Palestinians.”

    this could have been difrent had the Palestinians and arabs acted differenly on 1947-8. they did try to complite what hitler had begun and faild.

    the Palestinians could try and bargin somthing, but every time they follow leaders how tell them that they will kill israel and get all, (or fail and get nothing) – till now they got nothing. Palestinians could try to make gaza a lovley place. thy chose to keep firing rockets at israel. i guess keep blaming others in your trubles become a habit.

    ===================
    chances is that if you try embargo the west you will
    a – fail (tried it in 1973 and faild, too many actors)
    b- if you suceed , probebly you will get NATO on your door looting the OIL or CIA making a coop.
    =====================
    The amount of money that the arabs spends on arms could wipe out poverty and ignorance in the arab world

    The amount of money that the israelies spends on arms could wipe out poverty and ignorance in the israel.

    stop blaimg all the rest of the world (even if they are doing a lot of harm), and make empowment of your people by your people.

  52. Ash says:

    Galloway is vile. I appreciate that lots of you seem to like him but he remains a nasty little shit whose grovelling words to Saddam and Uday Hussein should never be forgotten. The man is a bully who arselicks to bigger tyrants. But hey, you’re welcome to him if you really want him. He looks great in a red catsuit too … (well, ok, not “great” … more like ghastly and “why oh why aren’t there burqahs for men?” -ish)

  53. more than 9000 Lebanese must be released says:

    “””Israel must at least amend its Zionist laws to remove the racial elements out of it, and equate treatments of all of its citizens regardless of ethnic and religious background, remove the wall, and start trusting the Palestinians and treat them as partners rather than enemies.”””

    Dear Mahmood,

    Thank you very much for putting things into their prospective. what u said is already been adapted even by the Iranians! No one is against jews, but everyone who has a functioning cell in his/her brain is against the Zionists. They are totally different, in a way. Many jews do not agree with the zionist regime.

    Israel is one of the worst racist countries, making it clear, the 7 million Palestinians will not return to their homeland, while they are trying to recruit as many zionists as they can, in fact, they are inflicting harm on them to increase the population of israel. That is why many jews believe that Israel has increased the hatred towards jews in general as well as anti-semitism.

    Example;
    “In 2003, a Zionist Agency appointed a former ambassador to Germany, Benjamin Navon, to lobby the German government for a change in their immigration rules.

    (December 2004) it was learned that the German government has passed a law restricting immigration of Jews from the Former Soviet Union. Only those who are under the age of 45 and familiar with the German language will be allowed to immigrate.

    The law drew praise from Zionist authorities. Michael Jankelowitz, a spokesman for a Zionist agency responsible for the immigration to Israel, said the changes were “positive”. He said that his organization had aggressively lobbied the German government for the new law. He added that the new regulations should increase the number of Jews from the former Soviet Union relocating in Israel.””

    I recommend browsing the following site;

    http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

    Internationally, and as mentioned in the above site,

    1. 1975 November 10: UN General Assembly passes Resolution 3379, in which Zionism is declared “racist”, with 72 votes to 35 (32 abstentions).

    2. 1991 December 16: UN General Assembly revokes Resolution 3379, with 111 votes to 25 (13 abstentions).

    The bottom line is;

    a. anyone who is against racism should stand against what the Israels are doing.
    b. Israel was created to be racist, and what they calim its “the jewish state” is nothing but absolute racism.
    c. for the last 50 years, they have been in war after war, and with no peace, no sattelment and no “wonder land”.
    d. the Holocaust, if it was true, does not give excuse to eradicate a whole population.
    e. It is wrong to judge anything retrospectively, and according to the economists, the economical damage to the Zionist state is at least 250 million a day!

    At the end, jews have been living Yamen, Oman and other arab countries, no one treated them badly at all. In fact, arabs used to trust them with their trasurely more than anyone else! until the 2nd world war.

    to end; I leave you with a nice “Fatwa” from Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin

    “The rabbis of the generation should gather together and issue a writ of excommunication against the Zionists and eject them from the Jewish People, and make decrees against their bread and wine, and to forbid marrying with them, JUST LIKE OUR SAGES DID WITH THE SAMARITANS.”

    at least I hope you do not marry their idiologies.

  54. Bubz says:

    A very interesting read.

  55. dror says:

    to
    more than 9000 Lebanese must be released:

    can you tell us pleaes were those Lebanese are? who they are?

    “d. the Holocaust, if it was true… ya you are right it never happend and the world is flat and jews have tails.

    nice talkign to you too.

  56. Aliandra says:

    Ibn;

    Since you don’t live in the US, you might want to admit that your knowledge of it will be compromised. Your rants are so full of hysterical distortions, I’m not going to waste bandwidth refuting them.

    And one more thing – try arguing in a way that generates light, not heat. You’ll find that folks will be more willing to listen to your side.

    Sugar works better than spice 🙂

  57. Aliandra says:

    Sorry, that last comment was directed to Peacetaker, not Ibn.

  58. Ibn says:

    Dror,

    ibn said:

    And THAT is why Israel must change its ways for the better. If it does not, it deserves total annihilation.

    that doesn’t sound like hitler at all ibn,

    “if you agree to what WE think is right, we will let you live, if not – total annihilation”

    gee thanks.

    ..You will forgive me, if I find my motivation from your past Israeli leaders.

    Anyway, that doctrine of unconditional surrender has been used before: USA-Japan, USA-Germany, Israel-Palestine in 1948. Controversey rages to this day over the morality and wisdom of the US dropping two nukes into Japan. Where is the controversey in Israel over whether or not their actions from 1917-1948 were sound, even though they have killed and displaced thousands. So this concept, must be pretty un-alien to your typical Israeli.

    “there was never inherent animosity between Arabs and Jews on the scale as there is now, until after the Zionists entered the equation”
    true,

    Good! You agree.

    jews and arabs did get a long before, but under arab regims. can it be that arabs can’t agree to the exsitnce of other state among them?

    This is not a problem of having a state Mr Dror. The problem is where that state was decided to be founded. And the state of Israel was founded on occupied Arab land. (Occupied by the British). Hence, the animosity. Its as simple as that.

    i could say the same about israel and palestine (the right wing is):
    “”there was never inherent animosity between Arabs and Jews on the scale as there is now, until after the PLO entered the equation”

    No, the animosity was always there. The means by which to do something about that animosity was provided by the PLO. Before that, there was no means for channeling that animosity.

    the first right is the right to exist, which iran, HZ , hamas and you ibn don’t give to jews-israelis.

    As Israel currently stands, it does not deserve a right to exist. What my solution is, is for Israel to renounce its Zionism, and to simply re-allign itself so that it is a nation for Jews, Arabs, etc. One country for all. That is my ideal. I could not care less if someone is a Jew, an Arab, or purple. Unfortunately, there are no signs of this happening. Israel was founded on what I have outlined to be 3 main and unforgivable crimes, and to this day, it has not even acknowledged one them, let alone done something about them.

    I have written extensively on this subject Mr Dror, so if you would like, you may follow this link to my posts on the subject, located in the “Smart Move Sherlock” thread:

    An Argument: Why Israel has no right to exist.

    Good reading.

  59. Ibn says:

    Johney,

    Ibn, you’re totaly ignoring the fact that over half a million jews lived
    in “palestine” in 1947 and they deserved a solution (since It was proven
    that any of the 2 communities can’t live under the rule of the second).

    You mis-interpret historical facts. Like I told Dror, it was not the idea of having a Jewish state that was as much a problem as where that Jewish state was to be located. The location was and is on occupied Arab land. No one, no culture and no nation in their right minds would ever accept this. Like Mr Dror, I invite you to take a closer look at my post earlier on, because I already addressed the point of how ownership does-not-equate to sovreignty. It is the same link as above:

    The Argument.

    (Dror, please use this same link because the one I posted above is wrong).

    -Ibn

  60. Ibn says:

    Mahmood,

    Ooooo…the links do not work, because for some reason the link gets changed from this:

    http://mahmood.tv/?p=2604#comment-29529

    to this:

    http://mahmood.tv/”http://mahmood.tv/?p=2604#comment-29529″

    …for some reason HTML adds the http://mahmood.tv/” Am I doing something wrong Mahmood, or is this an HTML issue? Thanks

    Dror and Johney, the link you want is simply:

    http://mahmood.tv/?p=2604#comment-29529

    Thanks,

    -Ibn

  61. Ibn says:

    Aliandra,

    Rather than calling everyone you disagree with a racist, (which seems to be your style around here), you might try picking up a history book.

    Dont blame me if your outlook on this matches David Dukes’. If you subscribe to the separate and equal, then its racism. Its very straight forward. African tribes war with one another, sure. But the parrallel drawn here to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is way of course, as I showed before.

    -Ibn

  62. Ibn says:

    M,

    While there are some who think you are the brightest bulb on the tree, I don’t find your comments support that logic. There doesn’t seem to be much difference between you and Steve; he wants to nuke Mecca and you want to annihilate Israel with the exception that Steve didn’t often make it personal.

    Why come now my dear!

    You see Israel as being this innocent little victimized country, who well, should be given the right to racially discriminate, and worry about its local Arab population, and its number of Jews, because…because…oh they are so cute and small!

    I on the other hand, prefer to call attention to the fangs of this seemigly harmless critter, and also point out to you the scars we (or at least our grandparents and parents) suffered because of its fangs.

    And quite frankly, I am worried about them biting again. But thanks for giving a damn.

    He also had the balls to admit when he was wrong and apologize when he had overstepped the bounds of common courtsey; that was something I could respect him for.

    You mean when he told that Saudi poster to his face flat out that he is no friend of America, and that he would like to eat popcorn while watching his Saudi cities burn on Fox News?

    And you “respect” this? … Wow, ok..but…but that means you’re probably pro-Israeli…oh..wait…you are! 🙂 Occam’s razor strikes again! The simplest explanation is probably the right one.

    -Ibn

  63. Aliandra says:

    Ibn,

    The parallel is very applicable. I support a two state solution, one separate state for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis. If that makes me a racist, then all right, I’m a racist. Everyone else who wants two separate and equal states is a racist too.

  64. Ethan says:

    The parallel is very applicable. I support a two state solution, one separate state for the Palestinians and one for the Israelis. If that makes me a racist, then all right, I’m a racist. Everyone else who wants two separate and equal states is a racist too.

    Well blow me down and call me a racist then!

    Me, I fully support a two state solution. You know why? Because I believe that Jews have a right to have a state – and a state that they can not only call their own, but that they can keep culturally their own.

    The fear of demographic suicide is something that not only Israel, but the whole West needs to worry about. Importing large numbers of non-native folk, especially poor folk, tends to lead to a demographic problem. Look at France in particular – it has a growing Muslim population; by 2050 projections have that immigrant-descent Muslims will be 51% of the population of France. At that point, who is to say what is ‘France’ anymore? What will happen to French culture? Will it become Frankistan? Will the next French revolution overthrow ‘Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite’ with Shari’a? That is not an unfounded fear – that’s exactly how Persia became Islamic – demographic suicide.

    I hate to sound ‘racist’ (but since I already am, why not go all out!) But what would happen to Israel if they simply allowed the Palestinians back? Would Israel remain Israel? Could the new Israeli populace respect the democratic tradition? Would they import their own (already corrupt) traditions from the PA? Would newly arrived Arabs be able to live side by side with Jews after decades of hate? How quickly would the Knesset be subjugated to Shari’a a la Hamas? How soon until Jews are rounded up and sent to the ovens again?

    Some wonder why Israel won’t “Just Negotiate”.

    Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

    Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar:

    Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’

    Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html

  65. M says:

    Ibn,

    Cute stuff; made me smile. Not your usual control show.

    “The simplest explanation is probably the right one.”

    Well, you know I was thinking that the other day when someone thought you called them a Nazi, but then I thought perhaps the simplest explaination is probably the wrong one. Go figure; I was right all along!

    In any case, it doesn’t really matter if I am a supporter of Israel or Palestine or Sweden. The only thing that matters is that your position and solution on the matter is irrelevant in the big scheme of things and does nothing to resolve the conflict.

    Oh, and add me to the racist list Aliandra.

  66. Ibn says:

    M,

    In any case, it doesn’t really matter if I am a supporter of Israel or Palestine or Sweden. The only thing that matters is that your position and solution on the matter is irrelevant in the big scheme of things and does nothing to resolve the conflict.

    I have asked two Israeli posters to date, to acknowledge Crimes 1, 2 and 3, after much debate and discussions on the previous threads. Because it is only when we acknowledge wrong-doing, can we move on, and work towards making sure such things never hapen again, and rectify our ways.
    I have had moderate success in this, but I am an optimist and I believe those acknowledgements can be sought from them.

    You however, feel content to sit there and claim I called someone (batzi) a Nazi, even though even she has since agreed with me that that was not my intention at all.

    So once you get over it, I invite you to place some more cards into your decaying deck, and perhaps add to those discussions. You can start by looking up the word “argument” and as excercise one of homework 1, you can actually try to make one here.

    ——————————————

    Aliandra,

    Everyone else who wants two separate and equal states is a racist too.

    Strawman.

    Your contention that peoples’ of different races cannot inherently get along by virtue of their races, is racist.

    But that is very different from saying that I support a two-state solution, and since it is divided among racial lines, so that makes me racist. It is divided over opinions in the dispute of territory, not ethnicity. Which is why I was saying from the get go, that you have made a flawed parallel.

    You fail to see that the underlying reason for this conflict is territory, and not someone’s ethnicity. It was the Zionists however who married territorial ambitions, to their blood/religion. The main quarell is not over the latter, (ethnicity), but over the former (territorial ambitions). The problem, is that the Zionists’ territorial ambitions stepped on the toes of Arabs, on occupied Arab land.

    Ethan

    Because I believe that Jews have a right to have a state – and a state that they can not only call their own, but that they can keep culturally their own.

    Thats fine! But dont step on my toes doing it. Unfortunately, the Zionists ala the Israeli state have done it, and continue to do it.

    The fear of demographic suicide is something that not only Israel, but the whole West needs to worry about.

    Im not going to get into this too much, although I am very tempted to. Needless to say however, this attitude goes against an ideal that I have for the future of humanity, where it is irrelevant what ones ethnicity and identity are, and we judge people by their character, than their cultural heritage and race, thank you Martin Luther King. You are putting forward a separatist doctrine that is as filthy as those advocated by racist groups around the world.

    Some food for thought for you then is why shouldnt every culture, tribe, and ethnicity on the entire planet be given an alloted piece of land on which to call home?

    This is going backwards – going backwards towards tribalism and separation based on the most irrelevant quantities of humans. One thing I particularly like and admire about the US is that is was probably the first country where people of many many diverse ethnicities, identities and cultures can co-exist and are equal under the law. The USA under your idea of separating people based on their cultural backgrounds would be the first to fissure – it would be un-American. As America’s motto goes:

    E pluribus unum: From the many, one.

    And that is an ideal worth fighting for. That all of us – all human beings irregardless of our culture and faiths and ethnicities, can come together and live together because those quantities mentioned above are artificial barriers we place on ourselves – we are all human beings, and deserve proper individual rights and protections.

    Not so Israel. Or any other country that gets founded on your separate-but-equal nonsense. Thats going backwards. Humanity arose from a family unit, into tribes, into clans, into city-states, and into countries, at each step incorporating varying members of the former step, precisely because at every step of the way, they realised that they werent that different from members of the other family, or of the other tribe, or of the other clan, or of the other city, and opted for co-existance. Because its possible. Because we are humans.

    Not so Israel. It has taken two step backwards. It is a country not founded on the inclusion of others – it is one founded on the exclusion of others. It has reverted back into the tribal stage – a country for the diffused tribe of the Jews. Backwards, not forwards, Ethan. This is going backwards. And so is your “solution” to the problem: “Lets just all fall back into our tribes and cultures and have a piece of land for every single one of us!” Lets move forward Ethan, not backwards.

    -Ibn

  67. Ethan says:

    E pluribus unum: From the many, one.

    And that is an ideal worth fighting for. That all of us – all human beings irregardless of our culture and faiths and ethnicities, can come together and live together because those quantities mentioned above are artificial barriers we place on ourselves – we are all human beings, and deserve proper individual rights and protections.

    A noble sentiment. However…

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    We are pitted in a terrible time, when the forces that would stand against Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are armed, and those that would defend those rights are slothful.

    For what is the greater sin? Refusing to invite those who do not support the ideals of liberal democracy, or seek to invert them; or to believe in multiculturalism uber alles?

    Surely all men are created equal, but not all ideas or cultures are equal.

    accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    For the forces of despotism – Islamic Fascism, Communism, Totalitarianism – destroy mankind’s will to live. Through them, Mankind is a slave to other men, physically cowed, and mentally subdued. Reason and rationality fall to ash before the triumphalism of the despot and his symbols.

    Is a mindless slave equal to that of a man? Are they not both men?

    They were born equal – but they have shown to be unequal in life. For as one will parade pictures of their slaveholders and chieftains as if they were demigods sent from on high to right their wrongs, the other bows to no earthly-revealed deity. It is the duty of the slave to usurp the slavemaster. To free their mind, given by divine providence, from the ossified shackles of man’s Gods, for no words of man are the words of God.

    When hatred spreads in the hearts of men, it can rot the soul until only the base animal insticts are left. The despot teaches men to hate. The Despot controls the minds of men, twisting them to his vile will. Subverting man’s humanity, and leaving behind nothing but the wish for death. By this, the despot is a demigod, for he has usurped God’s gift of reason.

    Should not men pull away from these slaves of tyrant death, and seek to shatter the shackles that bind his slaves?

    Or should man embrace death’s slaves, heedless that the shackles will one day kill them both?

    No man should take Faust’s bargain and accept those who wish his death into his own house.

    In the end, we are all humans. Nothing human is alien to me. If you are right, I shall do what you do. But if you are wrong, I shall be not afraid to illuminate you. Reason dictates that ideas must be free to grow and be challenged. Co-existance dictates that ideas must be free to grow and be challenged. Bad ideas will wither and die. Good ideas will flourish, and ‘eternal truth’ will be relegated to the dustbin.

    Only when the despots loosen their chains, and their slaves open their eyes to see past their unreasonable hatred can we live as one. But if

    The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’

    is unquestioned truth, no human shall never see peace.

  68. M says:

    Ibn,

    “I have asked two Israeli posters to date, to acknowledge Crimes 1, 2 and 3,…………… but I am an optimist and I believe those acknowledgements can be sought from them.”

    You truly must be the elusive eternal optimist.

    “So once you get over it, I invite you to place some more cards………

    There goes that control crap again. Listen, I have no reason or motivation to present any arguments to you. I am not here for your purposes, but rather my own. Don’t need your approval or feel the need to justify myself. If everyone once in a while I have something to say, then I will.

  69. kamal says:

    C’mon guys,, why does everyone keep on hiding the truth.. basically this whole fight is never gonna stop.. u ask y,, ill tell u:
    Well the jews believe that this land is theres.. and we muslims beleive that this land is ours.. we are never gonna agree.. and no UN or peacekeepers or whatever are gonna help us live side by side.. this has been going on ever since humans existed (fight for land).. we are basically gonna fight till we get our land back, and then you guys are simply gonna fight back till you get your land back.
    You guys will call us terrorists and we will also call you terrorists.. it doesnt really matter what other people think ..
    y guys are probably gonna call me a backward minded person,, and that since we are in the 21st century we can fix this diplomatically,, but u know that this will never work..

  70. dror says:

    to kamal

    truth is fight for land is very old.

    but its also true that fights wich were very long ended;
    – by victory of some side and the other side move to anther place or mingeld in other countries.
    – by pecae, somtimes leading to places no one had thought possible (see germany and franch for example)

    i think that the fight is for political power and culture, not for land. people how are after a fight can always find a reason “you, looking at my girlfrind? why you want her? what NO? you say im a lair? i’ll show you”

    ibn say for example that its beacouse israel is racist , not becouse fo land he hate it. other have diffrent reasons, like “love for the land” (which for many of them they don’t know) or longing for peacefull haven (well since 1948 paletineins alone got about * 100 bigger , so not alot of room or water or jobs for all the palestines that want to go back)

    things are never solved “diplomatically”. its a mirage. diplomatically is anther name for non violent force (like ecnomic force) and threat to use force to solve problems in sted of violece. but those “weak” forces are what kept israel strong and the arab world weak. israel “weakneces” like democary and invest in education and in economy insted of just geting more wepons is what made it be a strong state.

    and one more thing, kamal
    if people don’t want peace they don’t go to school but to war. after that they win or change thier tasts (lukely people can change), or both.

    what about you? do you want peace ?

  71. dror says:

    ibn , learn the facts before you make thories:

    unconditional surrender and total annihilation are 2 diifrent things.

    USA-Japan, USA-Germany, Israel-Palestine in 1948. – never was such a wars:

    it was WW2 (in which USA enterd only in 1941!) and most of it was russia -germany.

    and israel- arab countries (mostly egept , jorden and syria) in 1948. and this war ended in seace fire not in unconditional surrender or total annihilation.

    the fact that you want to say that israel is not diffrenc then japan or germany that coused the lost of lives of about 40 million pepole, including 6 million jews says alot about your claims. why stop there ? israel is satan him self , no less.

  72. dror says:

    ibn
    about seed – too many people in arab and muslim waord are doing only
    planting of seed of hate,

    they hate jews, they hate israleis, they hate zionizem, they hate progress, they hate the hipoctic west, they hate USA.

    all of this hate is not withot base. you don’t hate somone for nothing. and israel, USA and the Weast are not saints.

    but spending all your time doing nothing but hate, serve you poorly,

    some of them hate so much , it leave them little time to anything else. what did arab world acchived in the last 100 years? how did he managed to helphimself and others?

    talking about sowing the seeds? look at yourselft beforte you jump at your nagibor.

  73. dror says:

    ibn,

    your argument is as follow:

    some group of pepole G, did somthing wrong W, according to some set of values V, and there for they diserve : punisment P

    in your case
    G = zionists
    W = racisem
    V = west values
    P = total annihilation

    what i think is that your real goal is just plain old “total annihilation for all the jews”, and i’ll be gald if you show me i was wrong. your againt israel beacouse of political reasons (creed for power?) not beacouse of moral (humanitarian ) reason

    why?

    beacouse many countries are racist and built on racisem, and killed or drive away those people that lived there berfore. yet you dont call for their “total annihilation”

    beacouse imgration lows that prevent other to enter your state is somting coomon in every state, and yet they are not reason for war.

    beacouse most of islam extrems reject west values and they are themsef racisit (to the bone) and yet not you and not israleis call for their “total annihilation”

    israel can beacome one day a place where all people , not diffrent what color they are can share equal rights. in many aspects it is alrteday so , to the extent that arab citizens don’t want to belong to other states even (wihtount leaving their homes).

    but to remove susption and hate we don’t need people like you that say:
    “do it or ill kill you all”. thats only leading to “ya? we will kill you fierst”.
    hate and fear feed each other. by adopting “total annihilation” you acchive nothing (ecexpt maybe then promoting a WW3 which from propbaly no one will come out)

  74. Oren says:

    Ibn writes:

    Gee I dont know. Whats so aggressive about the UN splitting your home territory along racial and sectarian lines?

    Before the 20th century, most of the world was under the control of one empire or another as colonies. Most of the countries of the world today were created during the 20th century as part of the process of decolonization. In this process, the former empires were broken down and borders drawn along former colonial administrative divisions and… guess what? racial and secratarian lines. The process often was accopanied by violence between the involved parties, sometimes included forced migrations and virtually no one is quite satisfied with the result. The primary reason was that people of different ethnicity were often mixed or aggregated into non-contiguous areas, making it difficult to draw the borders. Nevertheless, in the 20th century we have become accustomed to many new names for countries that came into existence in those former colonized territories.

    The territory of Palestine was just another colony of the Ottoman empire. The decolonization process also included a short period of British occupation. But other than that, what’s so different about the case of Israel from any other decolonized territory in the world?

    At the time of decoloniztion some of the ethnically jewish had been in continuous residence since ancient times and some were more recent arrivals. Some of the ethnically arab had been in continuous residence since ancient times and some were also more recent arrivals (the economic development created by the jewish immigration and the influx of capital created many jobs and caused a significant migration from neighboring territories). If you accept that one of these ethnic groups has the right to establish itself as a sovereign state in the territory you must surely accept the right of the other.

    I do not accept your claim that there was some kind of fundamental “crime” in the establishment of the state of Israel. What immediately followed was self defence against a series of attempts by neighboring countries to destroy the country of Israel, some of which nearly succeeded.

    If there was a crime it was the crime of hubris, and that came a few decades later. Eventually Israel became powerful enough to deter neighboring countries from additional attacks. At that time Israel should have used this position to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the long years of wars have created a militaristic culture in Israel. It was intoxicated by victory. Some started to stare greedly at the territories occupied in these wars rather than seeing them as part of a future settlement with the Palestinians.

    So I don’t think Israel was “born in sin”. It sure made big mistakes and committed some very questionable actions since then. But the Palestinians and some of Israel’s neighbors haven’t been exactly saints, either.

    Would you rather be part of the problem or part of the solution? Do you truly believe that villification of Israel (which is quite distinct from criticism) is part of the solution?

    You probably get some kind of emotional satisfaction from seeing Hizballah give the IDF much more of a beating than they expected. But do you truly believe Hizballah is the champion of the Palestinians? Of Lebanon? It is the agent of a foreign country which is about as meddlesome in the middle east as the US has been in south america, for example. Just like the US would not accept any communist regimes in its back yard Iran does not accept any non-Islamist regimes in the area. Just like the US destabilized regimes and arranged revolutions Iran is doing the same. What makes me truly furious is that it is using Israel to do it and that my stupid government has walked very willingly into this trap.

  75. Johnster says:

    Oren, I don’t agree 100% with all you say but I think the implication of your question “But do you truly believe Hizballah is the champion of the Palestinians? Of Lebanon?” is spot on. They are just filling a vacuum.

    The problem is that there is no viable united Arab front (even amongst half a dozen countries) – and there never will be. So various organisaitons at various times come to the fore, currently it is Hizbollah. Most of the Gulf Arabs I have spoken with depsise Hizbollah, partly due to the fact that Hizbollah is Shi’ite but also partly due to the fact that they are partially responsible for the current destruction of Lebanon.

  76. abdalla says:

    this guy relaxes me

  77. Shachar says:

    Johnster,

    What the Palestinians really need is a leadership that will:
    A. Take the Palestinian needs as its #1 priority
    and
    B. Be acceptable by the Palestinian

    The problem is that the Palestinians have learned from 10 years of Arafat that the way to achieve B is to ignore A.

    I’m not sure that having a strong supporting league of Arab nations is indeed an asset, and not something that prevents a real solution from being accepted (and, yes, at least in some cases, the same could be said for Israel and the US). I actually believe that if the Palestinian start behaving like a state, which means that laws are being enforced, money is being spend on civil infrastructure and violence (i.e. – weapons) is being a monopoly of the Palestinian authority, there is no reason that they will not be able to actually become one within five years (Hamas notwithstanding).

    Shachar

  78. Ibn says:

    M,

    You truly must be the elusive eternal optimist.

    The Middle East demands no less.

    There goes that control crap again. Listen, I have no reason or motivation to present any arguments to you. I am not here for your purposes, but rather my own. Don’t need your approval or feel the need to justify myself. If everyone once in a while I have something to say, then I will.

    Really? Ohh ok! Well then every once in a while I will respond to your incoherence if I like. Isnt this great! You get to post something with no backbone, and I get to call you out on it! We’re just one big happy family! 🙂

    —————————————–

    Ethan,

    I agree with your…. tirade…. but I do not see the relevance of it here. Freedom rocks. Facism sucks. We get it. You are preaching to the choir. I do not think we have our token Islamist on this board. Half a dozen Zionists maybe.

    The one difference is that I place Zionism as closer to the latter (Facism)than the former (Freedom). It has done a great job proving itself to belong to that end of the spectrum both in theory (pre-48) and in practice (post-48).

    —————————————–

    Dror,

    unconditional surrender and total annihilation are 2 diifrent things.

    The treat of total annihilation can loom over your head before you decide to submit to unconditional surrender.

    some of them hate so much , it leave them little time to anything else. what did arab world acchived in the last 100 years? how did he managed to helphimself and others?

    I actually agree with your point here. Currently, there is no Arab country that is of real threat to Israel. It is my position that Arab countries need to undergo MASSIVE reforms and changes, before they are adept at defending themselves, from Israel, or other foreign meddlers and/or occupiers. My position is that the lack of individual freedoms in our countries has massively contributed to our downfall in many regards: Culture, music, art, science, progress, etc, and also of course, defence. Tactically, I think the Arabs must at this point forget about Israel, and let it be, and focus on themselves. Once they are strong enough and free enough to defend themselves, can they start talking again, and if need be, use force to defend their interests.

    what i think is that your real goal is just plain old “total annihilation for all the jews”, and i’ll be gald if you show me i was wrong.

    Please do not mis-quote me. I have never called for the “annihilation of the Jews”. I have absolutely nothing against the Jews, and I myself have plenty of Jewish friends. So be carefull what you say.

    I have called for the annihilation of Israel. That means, its government, and its Zionist ideology. That is what needs to be annihilated, should the Israelis themselves fail to remove Zionism. I would love to see an Israel that is a true liberal democracy, that doesnt pester itself over percentages of non-Jews vs Jews, and owns up to the crimes 1,2 and 3 that is has commited on non-Jews in the past, should it still be possible. I would welcome such a change with all my heart. This is an ideal for humanity – where our cultures and ethnicities are reduced to exotic curiosities – and not where my Arab heritage is considered a threat to the Israeli state. Like I have said before, we are all humans.

    And like I said before, should Israel fail in changing itself like this for the better of humanity, and even its citizens…should Israel fail in removing this racist ideology that governs it, then yes, it deserves to be annihilated.

    What can you, as an Israeli do? If I was an Israeli, I would start a lobby group of sorts. I would petition my government – maybe even boycott voting altogether unless the party was non-Zionist. I would create a charter, that laid out how Israel can own up to crimes 1, 2 and 3, and how Zionism can be dismantled from the inside. This is what I would do. And on public forums such as this, I would publicise my opinion that Israel is guilty of crimes 1, 2 and 3, and that I am working diligently to rectify its ways. This might sound like all words. But it makes a big difference to the minds of people you would consider your enemies. The battle Dror, starts in peoples’ minds.

    but to remove susption and hate we don’t need people like you that say:
    “do it or ill kill you all”. thats only leading to “ya? we will kill you fierst”.

    Question Dror: Just what exactly do you want me to “love” about Israel? Hmm? What great quality does Israel have or stand for or what action has Israel undertaken, that should make me, an Arab, “love” it?

    You say that I hate. I say yes, and I hate for a reason. Instead of focusing on the reason, you keep focusing on the emotion that has arisen because of that reason. You are focusing on the symptom, and not the root cause. You are “fixing” my broken leg by giving me painkillers.

    -Ibn

  79. good news :

    Breakthrough in talks over cease-fire resolution; Security Council expected to convene Friday

    hurra hope this is true and that this is the light in the end of the tunnel

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749019.html

  80. Anonymous says:

    Ibn

    It would be nice if you could direct more of that reformist energy to middle-eastern governments instead of blasting it all at Israel. Charity begins at home, you know.

  81. ibn

    being of short time i might say you have maybe a good couse done by wrong methods.

    i didn’t read yet what is crime 1,2,3 of youres , sorry for that.

    many israelis are for reforms , peace, eqal rights for arabs citizens, and there are evne jews and almos all arabs parteis that call for “country for all citiznes”‘ and in the future – one state for jews and arbas in israel.

    what stands in the way of such dreams?

    well its certnely not helping that people in hamas , HZ, Iran and so on call on killing all of the jews/ isralies/ israel state etc (they are not so consistic about it)

    what a strage thing is that people in israel don’t just say “gee lets remove the arnmy/ get the keys of tanks and paints to arabs naigbors.”

    personaly i belive that before the vision you tlaked about , thare must be a pahse where 2 nations have 2 states so people can leak up the wonds. peace and coporation take time. unlike war and hate wich are swift.

    you can hate israel , people and all kind of this. but i don’t think you are doing your couse any good by this, its better to reject the evil thing themselves and not thier allged promoters.

  82. Ibn says:

    Oren,

    Thank you for you response: I do not want to repeat myself, so I wanted to ask you if you had a chance to look at my previous post on the subject from: http://mahmood.tv/?p=2604#comment-29529

    If you havent I would encourage you to do so, since it will give you greater insight into my position, and might answer some questions that come up FYI. I will post a response to this anyway:

    First, you are correct in your assessment of the state of the world in the 20th century. That said however,

    But other than that, what’s so different about the case of Israel from any other decolonized territory in the world?

    The difference Mr Oren, is that unlike other territories in the world the British occupied, Israel is probably one of the very few where total foreingers were imported en masse (European Jews), and then allowed to create their own state. That is the difference. To further clarify this point:

    British occupy a land.
    British find sect A, and sect B.
    British leave, making state for both sect A+B. (A variety of African nations would fall into this).

    Now contrast this with Israel’s case:

    British occupy a land.
    British find sect A.
    Due to grievances of a foreign sect B, British allow mass immigration of foreign sect B into occupied land.
    Sect B asks British to promise them to create land for only sect B in land where sect A was found.

    Therefore, the de-colonization process that the majority of the world went through, is very dis-similar to the one that occured in Palestine, of 1948. Another point that you must remember, is that creating an Arab state, does not disclude Jews. But creating a Jewish state, would nessecarily disclude Arabs. The difference is because being an “Arab” is a higher state than being a “Jew”. Jew refers to belonging to a particular religion/ethnicity. An Arab refers more to a cultural affiliation, than any religious or ethnic.

    The reason I bring this up is because the immigrant Zionists in Palestine wasted no time in 1917 is asking the British to promise them a land for them in occupied Palestine. That right there is the beginning of the exclusivity. The Arabs on the other hand, prior to Balfour at least, had no qualms with someone’s ethnicity and/or religious affiliation. To attest to this evidence, I cite the myriad ethnic and religous groups that exist in the Arab world today:

    1) Circassians
    2) Armenians
    3) Druze
    4) Berbers

    etc etc. The Circassians and for example immigrated into the Arab middle east at some time, and settled in. Today, they are fully fledged Arabs, with their distinct cultural norms, practices, and funny mannerisms. But ask any one of them, and they will say, “We are Arab.” So there is no reason to suspect that the incoming Jews prior to 1917 and after would have been rejected based on their ethnicities. More likely, they would have followed their fates like the Circassians and Armenians who came before them and assimilated, and become our Arab brethren just like the rest of us.

    Alas, fate would not have it this way. It was the Zionists, who no less demanded an exclusive domain for themselves and themselves only, Mr Oren. And to damn them further, not only was this on Arab land, but on already occupied Arab land no less. And when the Arabs rejected such an abomination and fought to protect this disaster after they declared independance, the Israelis unfortunately won.

    That, my friend, is your original sin.

    -Ibn

  83. Johny says:

    Ibn,

    As you Insulted me, I did not want to converse with you again, but I will only say these things, to shut you up once and for all.

    That “outside mob” you referred to (British/French/UN) were the same that

    founded Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Jordan. All of these states did not exist

    before that. If you say one isn’t good because a “outside mob” founded it,

    what makes the others good?

    You say islamic rule? what about lebanon, made by the french for

    Christians? what about Syria ruled by alawites, and being a secular state?

    You say a “arabic rule” ? what makes a alawite (or a christian president)

    more a arabic then a iraqi jew , a mugreb Jew or a jerusalemite Jew?

    The comparison to the US is not correct, because no state existed in

    palenstine prior to Israel. It was only a barren part of the Ottoman empire

    (not even a arabic empire, if you want to be exact). if you want to compare

    it to the US, compare it to the early times, when there were french

    terratories aside spanish terratories, english terratories, Indian terratories

    and Holandish terratories. Hence no crime 1 – you’re just tring to slip your

    anti-jews views under a so-seemed inteligent jacket.

    “massacred some Arab villages and deported others” – that’s true, there

    were some cases that that happened. But most of the cases were not like

    that – there are recorded events, in which the IDF and private people

    BEGGED arabs not to flee, but they were not listened to. Anyways, if

    according to you the Zionists massecured all the palestinians, how come

    there are arab-israelis that live in Israel within the 1948 borders and hold

    Israeli passports like every jew (almost a million of them)?

    Moreover -I’m not justificing massacures and deports. They were a

    mistake. But, I wonder why

    you don’t mention the massacures and mass deportations that arabs did

    to jews in arab countries before and after 1948 (check Marroco and Iraq.

    after that check algeria and yemen) – I have a suspicion that when arabs

    do it, you approve. Only when non-jews do it (at a much smaller extent),

    then its not OK. Hence no crime 2.

    As for crime 3, I do not agree with you that Israel has racist rules or

    institutes. As for a constitution – let me tell you that israel has no

    constitution yet. She has a few BASE RULES which in the future will be the

    basis for a constitution. It nice blaming “the rules” based on propganda. If

    you don’t know the rules and can’t bring specific stuff, don’t boast of your

    knowledge.

  84. Anonymous says:

    seriously this is the best post you ever posted….
    Shame you have to upset all of your old (like yourself) jewish fans.

    – a young arab.

  85. Anonymous says:

    ibn

    The difference Mr Oren, is that unlike other territories in the world the British occupied, Israel is probably one of the very few where total foreingers were imported en masse (European Jews), and then allowed to create their own state. That is the difference

    Eh? What about the settlement of the Americas and South Africa? Not a few countries there, but a lot. Israel is not unusual in the least.

  86. Ibn says:

    Johney,

    As you Insulted me, I did not want to converse with you again, but I will only say these things, to shut you up once and for all.

    … I do not recall insulting you in any way. I have only had two interactions with you. Where have I insulted you? Please point it out.

    Anon,

    Eh? What about the settlement of the Americas and South Africa? Not a few countries there, but a lot. Israel is not unusual in the least.

    The those settlements were instances of great moral courage and actions correct? You will have to agree with me, that today, we look down on those events, and see them as black marks on humanity’s history. The American treatment of the Indians, the British/Dutch treatment of blacks in South Africa, etc. Do we not? In both cases, people were imported an masse. In both cases, the actions were atrocious for the indigenous. And in both cases, they rectified their errors, which started with acknowledgement of the wrongs.

    Israel has not.

    ———————————————

    Oren,

    I would like to add a historical document as further evidence for my position which I stated in my last post to you: This was written by King Abdullah – King Hussein’s grandfather, back in 1947. I wish for this to complement my post earlier. Please have a look see:

    http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/kabd_eng.html

    -Ibn

  87. Anonymous says:

    Just seen this. Fantastic by Galloway. Don’t always like the guy but all the Murdoch media’s have been outrageously biased towards Israel. The Dirty Digger himself has offered Israel his ‘unqualified support’ (on the grounds that even if it wasn’t a good idea to create the country now we’re stuck with it it has to be supported).

  88. Tom Penn says:

    Galloway is a stupid tool and a crook.

  89. Anonymous says:

    Another clip (aljazeera) of Mr. Galloway saying that the Arab Rulers Are in Bed, Fornicating with Foreign Occupiers:)

    Memritv.org clip number 1228

    http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S6#

    enjoy this too:)

  90. Marc says:

    Good to see someone tell it like it is. thankfully not many people outside Israel and the US actually believe any of the crap on Sky and Fox news.

  91. dror says:

    ibn

    Jews are not Arabs and while many jews have Arab culture (about 50% are from arab countries) they have a different point of view on life. is it a sin?

    Jews where here 4000 years ago. not needing Arab/brithish approval for being authentic.

    Arabs also occupied the land form Babylonian and sumer for example. so now we will demolish all Arabs to give back the land to those people?

    i think your “raciest” argument is just an excuse to “kill all those Jews (in Israel)”. the mufti was a friend of Hitler and Mussolini – he didn’t object to racism, and if racism is a seen for which nations are bound to “annihilation”
    then Arab states can have it fare share in it.

    Arabs/ Muslims as minority in Israel enjoys much more freedom and rights then Arabs /Muslims majority in Arab states ! before talking about human rights (which should be better and could be if HZ and Hamas and Iran wouldn’t try to kill Israel all the time), why not try to apply some of your high moral claims on Iran. Syria Iraq and other Arab/ Muslims states?

    “The treat of total annihilation can loom over your head before you decide to submit to unconditional surrender.”

    Sentences like that can run in both ways, and treat of total annihilation only encourage hate and racism.

    “Question Dror: Just what exactly do you want me to “love” about Israel? Hmm? ”
    Question Ibn: Just what exactly do you want me to “love” about arabs? Hmm? What great quality does arabs have or stand for or what action has arabs undertaken, that should make me, an jew, “love” it?
    – yet I don’t hate Arabs or Islam , despite people like you that try to find reasons to hate.
    “You say that I hate. I say yes, and I hate for a reason. Instead of focusing on the reason, you keep focusing on the emotion that has arisen because of that reason.”
    Emotion are powerful thing, people don’t act out of reason but out of emotions. That’s a good reason to talk about them.
    “You are focusing on the symptom, and not the root cause. You are “fixing” my broken leg by giving me painkillers.”
    We are disputed about the root cause. I don’t think your reason is the reason that is the “root”.

  92. anon says:

    A few Quotes for the misguided Jews/Israeli’s who think that the Arabs drove them out of their lands. Us Arabs are guilty alright. We are guilty of playing right into the zionist hands. They manupluated the whole thing fabricated a whole religious war (Jews vs Muslims) Just for there own gain. I have a left a link should you wish to further read. Please read below:

    ” I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the american people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave,
    Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands,
    Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives
    from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism. I write about it because I was part of it.”

    Other quotes within the same article:
    “In attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel. . . .”

    http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html

  93. David says:

    I’m not sure if people said it here already: George lies.

    There are no “thousands” of Lebanese held in Israel, as he says more then once during the interview.

    There are three Lebanese convicted terrorists (one of them, Samir Kuntar, killed a little girl with his gun in Nahariya, in northern Israel, in 1979) and 23 Palestinians with Lebanese passports, most of them convicted for criminal offences (drugs etc.).

  94. Batzi says:

    Ibn,
    On August 9th, 11:02 p.m., you write in response to Aliandra:

    “You fail to see that the underlying reason for this conflict is territory, and not someone’s ethnicity. It was the Zionists however who married territorial ambitions, to their blood/religion. The main quarell is not over the latter, (ethnicity), but over the former (territorial ambitions). The problem, is that the Zionists’ territorial ambitions stepped on the toes of Arabs, on occupied Arab land.”
    That is news!
    Considering that you tried to extract out of me such an admission
    (unsuccessfully, I might add as you to express a belief that such acknowledgement can be sought”from the two posters,” (Shachar and myself) I believe I am one of them…)
    According to you Crime # 2 which the Zionist committed at the onset of the present conflict is when in 1948, they uprooted many Arabs out fo their homes because they were “the wrong race,” or ethnicity.
    Refuting that claim on my part cost others and me much aggrevation….
    Now you say that the conflict is territorial, not ethnic?
    Am I missing something here? Perplexedly yours.

    Batzi
    P.S. if you read my latest post on “33 Days” you will realize that I, too, am in favour of a two states solution. What does it make me then?

  95. Batzi says:

    P.S
    I think it is a well known fact that George Gallawy is an MP for East London where the majority of the residents are Muslims. Why should he be any different from any other politician who wants to keep his constituants happy?
    Also, to all of you bashing Fox News. I have recently had an opportunity to watch it.
    Are you people having a problem with a TV station that in addition to showing the devastation and pain of the Lebanese civilian population is also acknowledging Israeli civilians as victims, a station that presents the other side of an issue as well? I must admit that it was heartwarming to see us Israelis presented as human beings showing the pain that this war has inflicted upon innocent Israeli civilians who were deliberately targeted. Thank you Fox News!
    Batzi

Back to Top