In memory: Rachel Corrie (1979 - 2003)

[Yonoz]

MEMRI and many Zionist sites (especially after 11/9) became new version of Zion protocols. They doing with Arab what anti Semite Russian and German did with them.

Why don't you take a piece on MEMRITV and prove it is fradulent? Should be quite easy since all they do is translate Arabic into English. They don't make anything up, all they do is translate it and publish reports. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are all made up. Can you see the difference between the two?

They show Arab as pure evil and root of troubles in all human history.

That's not the impression I got of Arabs on MEMRI, quite the contrary - I saw signs of reform and advancement that I didn't know existed. MEMRI has made me appreciate the effects of commercial media on Arab societies in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. I knew of the ways Arab media incites against Israel long before I learned of MEMRI.

They focus on speech or text from here and there to show the Arab in evil image …

The sources still exist - they don't make anything up. Most of the negative material is so extreme you don't expect it to be aired at all. I would rather make up my own mind rather than take the word of someone who thinks Zionism and Judaism are based on the concept of superiority over others. Besides, MEMRI also shows positive things. Do you expect them to show commercials and soap operas?
Whatever you may say, I still receive Palestinian TV channels at home, and I know what they show when they want to incite the people. It makes me sick just to think about it.

In 30s, Hitler used this strategy against the German Jews. His propaganda machine used to focus on quotes of some Jews who live in USA and UK to tell the German that Jews want to annihilate the German race, so our war with them is to be or not to be!

Do you have an obsession with Nazism? Stop comparing people and places to Hitler and Nazi Germany, you know there's a world of difference between them. You were talking earlier about showing sensitivity, and yet you constantly raise the most painful chapter of Jewish history. I hope you're not trying to inflame me.

 

[Yonoz]

R.Corrie tried to prevent jewish terrorist in a bulldozer from destroying house of Palestinian family.

Why are you calling the driver a terrorist?

 

[stoned]

Why are you calling the driver a terrorist?

not long ago I presented you definition of terrorism, what do you think this driver did ? not only he terrorized palestinians and was demolishing their property on top of this he killed human being !

 

[Yonoz]

There are difference between ‘’State terrorism’’ and ‘’individual terrorism. While I am completely against what some Palestinian doing, I see most of Israeli supporting a ‘’terrorist government’’.

The question remains, what have you done to stop those Palestinians who you disagree with? Look at all the activism in Israel. I go to so many protests to show my resentment at my side's wrongdoings, as well as a lot of other Israelis. How come that on the Palestinian side - the only side using suicide bombers - there was not even one small demonstration against the killing of innocent civilians?

Palestine was full in people, so you can not claim it was empty land!

I never said it was empty, but it certainly had a fraction of the population it had after the war of independence, and definitely a smaller fraction of its population today - which obviously means there was a lot of room back then. You even agreed that the Jewish immigration made much of the previously uninhabitable land habitable, thus increasing the land available for the population. Also, the population of the Negev desert was a tiny fraction of what it became thanks to the cultivation of it by the Jewish immigrants, and the Bedouin Arabs have flourished thanks to that.

I told before, I have no problem with Jews and I understand their suffering for ages, but this not means to solve their problem by creating another tragedy for another nation.

And I told you before, the tragedy is not entirely Israel's fault. Palestinians share a lot of the responsibility. All that doesn't matter anyway, since we need to focus on the solution, not the cause.

The problem is that there is now Jews State, and they did not satisfy.

I'm very satisfied, and I'll still be satisfied after we pull out of Gaza and then hopefully out of the West Bank. But that won't happen until you control your terrorists.

Just examples of State terrorism in recent years:

Qana massacre 1996

http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles18.htm

((Qana, southern Lebanon - It was a massacre. Not since Sabra and Chatila had I seen the innocent slaughtered like this. The Lebanese refugee women and children and men lay in heaps, their hands or arms or legs missing, beheaded or disembowelled. There were well over a hundred of them. A baby lay without a head. The Israeli shells had scythed through them as they lay in the United Nations shelter, believing that they were safe under the world's protection. Like the Muslims of Srebrenica, the Muslims of Qana were wrong. ))
Is trhat terrorism or not? also you can check the UN report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qana_Massacre

((The UN investigated the incident in detail, concluding "while the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, the pattern of impacts in the Qana area makes it unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of technical and/or procedural errors".))

So why would Israel just kill so many innocent civilians? And in a UN camp? Don't you think it would have been easier to have done that in a village? Furthermore, the UN report stated:

(a) Between 1200 and 1400 hours on 18 April, Hezbollah fighters fired two or three rockets from a location 350 metres south-east of the United Nations compound. The location was identified on the ground.

(b) Between 1230 and 1300 hours, they fired four or five rockets from a location 600 metres south-east of the compound. The location was identified on the ground.

(c) About 15 minutes before the shelling, they fired between five and eight rounds of 120 millimetre mortar from a location 220 metres south-west of the centre of the compound. The location was identified on the ground. According to witnesses, the mortar was installed there between 1100 and 1200 hours that day, but no action was taken by UNIFIL personnel to remove it. (On 15 April, a Fijian had been shot in the chest as he tried to prevent Hezbollah fighters from firing rockets.)

(d) The United Nations compound at Qana had taken in a large number of Lebanese seeking shelter from Israeli bombardments. By Sunday, 14 April, 745 persons were in the compound. On 18 April, the day of the shelling, their number is estimated to have been well over 800. When the Fijian soldiers heard the mortar being fired not far from their compound, they began immediately to move as many of the civilians as possible into shelters so that they would be protected from any Israeli retaliation.

(e) At some point (it is not completely clear whether before or after the shelling), two or three Hezbollah fighters entered the United Nations compound, where their families were.

So you see, these "freedom fighters" purposefuly fired from nearby that UN installations with the aim of having an Israeli retaliation hit that compound. When a UN soldier tried to stop them, they shot him in the chest - hell, they even walked right into the UN base on that day (show of how pathetic the UN is when dealing with terrorists). These terrorists purposefuly risked the lives of their compatriots, hoping for an Israeli retaliation.

We already discussed this, the PA was offered everything Israel could afford under Arafat, but he chose the path of violence. Now that there's a real chance, it is up to Mahmoud Abbas to get terrorist organisations under control. Even though he hasn't, Israel is still pulling out of the Gaza Strip. I would say the Palestinians are getting a really good deal here.

Here is the answer from Israeli peace bloc and antiwar movement :

http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h020802.html

The first site refers to the December 2000, I am referring to the January 2001 Proposal. The second site is obviously way too extreme, the only parties he seems to accept are the Communist ones. Anyway, his views are obviously shared by an extremely small minority of Israelis. I know a few Israeli Arabs who would think this guy's crazy.

The attacks you mentioned are attacks by Lebanon-based Palestinian organization not by the people of WB and Gaza …

Oh please...

On this date, the 26th anniversary of Israeli independence, three Arabs subsequently identified as members of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), a faction affiliated with the PLO, broke into the high school in Ma'alot, a community in northern Israel, where a group of 100 14-16 year olds were sleeping on the floor after a day spent hiking.

Black September Organisation:

The Black September Organization (BSO) was a Palestinian paramilitary unit founded in 1970. It is believed to have drawn its members chiefly from Fatah, the PLO faction controlled by Yasser Arafat. In 1973, the U.S. State Department distributed documents regarding the links between the PLO and the BSO.

Avoiding responsibilty is so easy for terrorists.

The discussion about people of WB and Gaza …. We live in peace under Israeli occupation from 1967 till 1987, then we started peaceful resistance till 1993, then after Hebron massacre (1994) , the suicide bomber started.

Oddly enough it was also after the Oslo Accords. While the Hebron massacre was an isolated incident, the bombings never stopped. It seems that as the negotiations became more intense, so did the attacks. It was proved that the bombings were not only supported by the PA, it was proved the PA was actively funding acts of terrorism. One can only assume Arafat meant to use this as leverage against Israel. So if your claim is to be believed, it shows Palestinians lived peacefuly under the Israeli occupation, but became violent during the negotiations - very odd.

This historical sequence is proving that security has nothing to do with occupation.

It does, as I believe the occupation reduces Israel's security, even though you apparently proved the opposite above.

Israel builds settlements and continues the occupation because they need the land and they do not want the people who live on that land.

Israel is a democratic state and the settlers have a strong lobby. There's also something about the way the Palestinians are behaving that makes Israelis antagonistic towards them - maybe it has something to do with the fact they're killing their innocent civilian friends and families. You must remember - Israelis vote with their hearts, not their brains - you should try to win our hearts.

So why is this acceptable:Is it alright in your opinion for Jews to surrounded by fences but it's not alright for Palestinians?

I did not say that, I mean they should build the wall on the border.

Yes you did:

If you decide to separate in pure Jews State, then you can build the wall on the borders of Jews cities

If you want the wall to be built on the border, that means Israel has to move all its settlers. While I am for that, it remains a problem to convince Israelis to support such a move when they are constantly attacked. Furthermore, it would signal a victory to violence - if we pull the settlements as a result of violence, that would strengthen the terrorist organisations - it would appear to the Palestinian public as if the only way to gain something would be to support the violent struggle. If the PA worked to control these organisations, it would make it a lot easier for people like myself to convince Israelis to support that sort of move.

For settlements they can replace those ‘’extremist Jews” by “peaceful Jews” who suppose to be good citizens in democratic Palestine the same as Muslims and Christian.

I'd rather they pull the settlements out completely, I don't believe anyone "peaceful" will agree to live there.

Our freedom and dignity is the most important.

You mean it is more important than the life of innocent Israeli civilians.

I mean innocent people are innocent whether they Palestinian or Jews …..

So why do you say your freedom and dignity is the most important?

Again you spread misleading information about the wall! There are no direct shooting from Palestinian side to Israel, because there are no rockets in WB, all what Palestinian have is simple guns and explosive materials, which can not reach the Israeli side directly.

And they used those simple guns to fire onto a major highway adjacent to the west bank barrier and injure a child a few months ago. Some Israeli settlements and roads are well within firing distance of the barrier, which is why it was made of concrete in those areas.

If the wall provide security to Israel, then they can build it on the border and withdraw as Syria did in Lebanon … let the UN forces to separate both nations..

We saw how good those UN forces guarded the border which is why we don't want them here. They do more harm than good. I would like to have no barrier at all, but it's a necessity right now. I wish it would be built to interfere less with Palesitinian lives, but that would mean moving settlements and roads - and that would mean a victory to terror, which is why this barrier was constructed in the first place. If we reward terrorists with concessions, that would be like asking for more terror. It would all be unnecessary, though, if the PA would handle the terrorists themselves.

Could you check on the map how the wall surrounds the city of Qalqilya?! Do you agree to force 50000 people to live inside wall with two gates?! Is that city or concentration camp?

As I've said before, I wish there'd be no wall. The barrier, however, proved itself as since its erection there's been less attacks inside Israel. I hope we get to negotiating again and that the wall will be removed as quickly as possible.

I already proved that is a lie.

You did not prove, because I live in WB and I know when suicide bombers attacks … just after Hebron massacre in 1994. The attacks you mentioned was originated from PLO in Lebanon, and Israel reply by Sabra and Chatila massacre and by complete invasion in 1978 and in 1982. WB and Gaza were calm areas in that time..

Then we agree to disagree. I won't argue that point since it's meaningless to my basic argument - the worst attacks were during the negotiations, regardless of the Hebron massacre.

http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/255.shtml

Thanks for referring to a site called "Electronic Intifada". I am aware of those events but I would not name them a massacre, as they occurred in separate demonstrations. That day is a sad historical chapter in the history of Israel and is tought as part of the curriculum at high school, but I do not agree it can be termed a massacre.

Several settlers (belong to the secret Jews terrorist organization) attacked Hebron University. In the same year the same group tried to explode the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem.

No link? Not even to electronicintifada.net?

It is not documented also on the internet. In 1988, the Israeli soldiers attacked the town of Nahlin near Bethlehem and murdered several people in cold blood.

Rather odd it's not mentioned anywhere, seeing as the Palestinians usually have a very efficient coverage on all these incidents. I guess we'll have to take your word for it.

Rishon Litzion (south of Tel Aviv)-An Israeli called (Ami Bober) was angry from his girl friend, so he wore his military clothes and asked many Palestinian workers to stand in the work site to check their ID, then he started to shoot them by using (Uzi gun). He murdered and wounded many of them. He is prisoner now, but he got married and he is allowed to spend several days/monthly with his wife in hotel. (Five star jail!)

I think I vaguely remember when that happened. You have to understand prisoners have rights in Israel, even Palestinian ones (unless they're members of a paramilitary organisation). That guy would have that right even if he murdered Israelis. BTW, due to a decision of the government's legal aid most of the military prisons are being turned over to the civilian prisons service, which means they'll get more funding and basically better conditions than what they get now.

I said that I do not support murdering civilians, whatever their religion or race, also I do not support wars and I wish to see peaceful solution. The problem that you start to write by very biased views, so I have to balance your extreme views by showing the other side of story …..

Well, I understand we don't see eye-to-eye on most things, but no matter what is being argued, I cannot understand murder - regardless who the victims are. Surely you understand that is a problem with your side, just as I understand my side's problem is the building in the settlements.

 

[Yonoz]

not long ago I presented you definition of terrorism, what do you think this driver did ? not only he terrorized palestinians and was demolishing their property on top of this he killed human being !

I do not recall a definition of terrorism presented to me, perhaps you confuse me with someone else.
You ask me what I think the driver did. To be honest - I do not know the exact details of that operation. I can tell you those kind of operations are usually carried out in Rafah near the border with Egypt, in order to prevent the constant weapons smuggling going on there. It's a terrible reality but the army has no other way of dealing with this smuggling, and the locals pay the price. They try to stop the terrorists from using their homes to dig tunnels across to Egypt, but they can't - the terrorists are stronger and have guns. So the army comes every once in a while, discovers a tunnel and demolishes it, or the entire house. Sometimes they do it because a rocket hits an APC and kills some soldiers, so they have to demolish the area where it was launched to prevent it from happening again. I reckon it's terrible, but I know what those smuggled weapons will be used for.
Do you know why he was there? Do you know what he can and can't see? Have you ever been shot at? Those bulldozers are big and slow, you sit up there hearing shots ricochet off the metal and thick glass windows (only a few cm wide each), sometimes you even get an anti-armor rocket or an underground charge to explode on you, and you reckon you can drive that thing safely? You judge him as if you know all the facts about this terrible incident. Hopefully you made good effort to see matters from his point of view before accusing him.
No doubt that Rachel's death was completely unnecessary. But violence begets violence, and the only way to end these unncessary deaths is to end the circle of violence, not inflame it with wild accusations and calls for more violence.

 

[stoned]

Okay Yonoz, i won't argue much about tunnels and house demolishions, but tell me one thing : you remember when Yaser Arafat was almost keept prisoner in Palestinian Authority complex few years ago ? what did bulldozers did to those buildings on whos order, why they did it ?? Those buildings had no strategic value whatsoever, nobody was shooting from them at jewish soldiers. It was simply white on black state sponsored terrorism, barbarism is the word !

 

[Yonoz]

Okay Yonoz, i won't argue much about tunnels and house demolishions, but tell me one thing : you remember when Yaser Arafat was almost keept prisoner in Palestinian Authority complex few years ago ? what did bulldozers did to those buildings on whos order, why they did it ?? Those buildings had no strategic value whatsoever, nobody was shooting from them at jewish soldiers. It was simply white on black state sponsored terrorism, barbarism is the word !

I suggest you read this first:
Yasser Arafat - Political Survival and Marginalisation
Yasser Arafat deceived Israel in the Oslo accords and the following agreements. While presenting himself to the west as a "dove", he actually funded terrorism using PA funds and repeatedly incited his people in speeches made in Arabic. It was therefor decided that he could not be negotiated with, and Israel decided to wait for the next political leader to emerge - and there are quite a few of those. Apart from the radical Hamas movement, there is a moderate Palestinian leadership such as Saeb Erekat, Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub, who Israel could feel safe to negotiate with, as soon as Arafat would be out of the game. The only other problem was that Arafat in the meantime was still inflaming the situation whenever he could. The least harmful way to reduce terrorism while allowing the alternative leadership some control (and a chance at gaining strength in face of the growing strength of the radicals in the PA) was to cut Arafat off as much as possible. You can see the result with your own eyes - as soon as Arafat was out of the game peace was once again a possibility. Arafat was harming the whole region with his support of terrorism, and that action was in everyone's favour (well, everyone but the radicals).

 

[stoned]

why did not you guys just killed Arafat instead of humiliating the old man in front of millions of people around the world ?? just like you guys have killed that blind,wheelchair bound paralyzed Sheik Yassin ??

 

[russ_watters]

why did not you guys just killed Arafat instead of humiliating the old man in front of millions of people around the world ??

Isn't it obvious? Humiliating the terrorist marginalizes him. Killing him martyrs him. You don't want to make a martyr out of a terrorist because that encourages other terrorists.

what did bulldozers did to those buildings on whos order, why they did it ?? Those buildings had no strategic value whatsoever, nobody was shooting from them at jewish soldiers. It was simply white on black state sponsored terrorism, barbarism is the word !

You keep using that word. I don't think you have the slightest clue what it means. I know you posted the definition before, but the way you've used it throughout the thread implies you are just utterly ignoring the definition.

Arafat was a leader. Terrorism, by definition, is not an act comitted directly against a leader, it is against a group of people (civilians) or their property. Furthermore, the Israelis weren't trying to scare him, they were trying to keep him on a leash - to disrupt his terrorist activities without killing him. Yes, I think they would have been perfectly justified in killing him, but politically it wasn't worth the backlash.

 

[stoned]

You obviously have problem with Israel being called terror sponsoring state, and I think you are little bit confused here.
Sheik Yassim was killed not by mistake, he was not fighting IDF, he was on the door steps of a mosque. Israeli air force killed him and wounded countless more, and thus made him a martyr/hero. would it be so hard to arrest him ?
I my dictionary killing him was an act of terrorism.
I also see that you finally agree with me that destroying houses, orchards (property) is an act of terror.

 

[Bilal]

Arafat was elected by 75% of Palestinian under supervision of EU. So he is elected leader and he represent nation, whether you accept or not.

Please answer this question:

Your definition of Terrorism is applied on Sharon or not or Arab victims are not count??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

- Qybia massacre in 1956: bombing 60 civilians’ houses while people sleeping at mid night.
- 1956: slaughtering hundreds of Jordanian police in Qalqilya in cold blood.

- 1967 war, he responsible about murdering thousands of Egyptian prisoners who disappear till now.
- 1982: He invaded Lebanon and murdered 20000 civilians (more than all Isareli victims in one century)

Sheik Yassin was prisoner for 10 years in Israeli jails. Israel exchanged him with four Mossad terrorist who tried to assassinate one of HAMAS leaders in Jordan, 1997, by using chemical weapons. They promised King Hussein to release Sheik Yassin and not to harm him anymore if Jordan accepts to release the Mossad terrorists who used fake Canadian passports … as usual, they did not respect their promise and they targeted this wheelchair old man who had many diseases.

Isn't it obvious? Humiliating the terrorist marginalizes him. Killing him martyrs him. You don't want to make a martyr out of a terrorist because that encourages other terrorists. You keep using that word. I don't think you have the slightest clue what it means. I know you posted the definition before, but the way you've used it throughout the thread implies you are just utterly ignoring the definition.

Arafat was a leader. Terrorism, by definition, is not an act comitted directly against a leader, it is against a group of people (civilians) or their property. Furthermore, the Israelis weren't trying to scare him, they were trying to keep him on a leash - to disrupt his terrorist activities without killing him. Yes, I think they would have been perfectly justified in killing him, but politically it wasn't worth the backlash.

 

[Informal Logic]

I'm not going to read through all of this, but I would just like to say, in response to the original topic, that I admire Rachel's courage. If someone died trying to talk down a suicide bomber, I would admire their courage as well. I don't know what really happened, so I'm not going to blame the driver or anyone else. Rather, I think we should view this as further impetus to make/maintain peace in the region. It has been host to far too many tragedies in recent years.

Agreed about her courage and the need to make/maintain peace in the region. The posts in this thread are indicative of why it is so difficult to achieve this.

It is clear which members are Jewish and which are Arab and the bias associated with each. I do feel that Bilal has made extraordinary effort to not only substantiate his claims with quotes and links, but moreover has tried to provide sources that are as reliable and neutral as possible. I can't say the same for many of the other posts.

Ultimately, it is the US that has created this mess, and the US that has helped to perpetuate this mess. After 9-11 you would think the US would stop and think why it is that this attack took place. But instead, the US only initiated more of the same with invasion of Iraq. In the meantime these debates will rage on. :zzz:

 

[Bilal]

Dear Informal Logic,

Thanks for your comments. I highly appreciate your balanced views.

In fact I tried to be neutral as much as possible, so I did my best to use only international and accepted sources . Unfortunately, the discussion shifted to propaganda war, and the discussion is flooded by posts and links which based on biased sources of other side. If I want to reply in the same tactic by using pro Palestine propaganda sources then this discussion will convert to battlefield.(I just used Palestinian sources to show well known information as Day Land).

My English is not perfect and I waste a lot of time to find trusted article, while the others find it easy to copy from MEMRI and other propaganda sources…. Additionally, I have to worry if I continue this discussion in this way, because the other side claim that I support murdering of Israeli which is considered as crime according to Israeli laws.

Agreed about her courage and the need to make/maintain peace in the region. The posts in this thread are indicative of why it is so difficult to achieve this.

It is clear which members are Jewish and which are Arab and the bias associated with each. I do feel that Bilal has made extraordinary effort to not only substantiate his claims with quotes and links, but moreover has tried to provide sources that are as reliable and neutral as possible. I can't say the same for many of the other posts.

Ultimately, it is the US that has created this mess, and the US that has helped to perpetuate this mess. After 9-11 you would think the US would stop and think why it is that this attack took place. But instead, the US only initiated more of the same with invasion of Iraq. In the meantime these debates will rage on. :zzz:

 

[Informal Logic]

Dear Informal Logic,

Thanks for your comments. I highly appreciate your balanced views.

In fact I tried to be neutral as much as possible, so I did my best to use only international and accepted sources . Unfortunately, the discussion shifted to propaganda war, and the discussion is flooded by posts and links which based on biased sources of other side. If I want to reply in the same tactic by using pro Palestine propaganda sources then this discussion will convert to battlefield.(I just used Palestinian sources to show well known information as Day Land).

My English is not perfect and I waste a lot of time to find trusted article, while the others find it easy to copy from MEMRI and other propaganda sources…. Additionally, I have to worry if I continue this discussion in this way, because the other side claim that I support murdering of Israeli which is considered as crime according to Israeli laws.

You are welcome, and I apologize for not participating in this thread more, but I do not have as much tolerance as you do for the lack of 'objectivity' often by the same members who claim this is needed. I am American of northern European decent, including some Jewish ancestry, but raised Christian. With that said, IMO Zionist treatment of Palestinians is not unlike the horrible treatment their own people have suffered, yet want continued sympathy and support from the world for their actions. If they want to say I'm anti-semitic, that would just be par for the course.

 

[kat]

Arafat was elected by 75% of Palestinian under supervision of EU. So he is elected leader and he represent nation, whether you accept or not.

Please answer this question:

Your definition of Terrorism is applied on Sharon or not or Arab victims are not count??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Sharon

- Qybia massacre in 1956: bombing 60 civilians’ houses while people sleeping at mid night.
- 1956: slaughtering hundreds of Jordanian police in Qalqilya in cold blood.

- 1967 war, he responsible about murdering thousands of Egyptian prisoners who disappear till now.
- 1982: He invaded Lebanon and murdered 20000 civilians (more than all Isareli victims in one century)

Sheik Yassin was prisoner for 10 years in Israeli jails. Israel exchanged him with four Mossad terrorist who tried to assassinate one of HAMAS leaders in Jordan, 1997, by using chemical weapons. They promised King Hussein to release Sheik Yassin and not to harm him anymore if Jordan accepts to release the Mossad terrorists who used fake Canadian passports … as usual, they did not respect their promise and they targeted this wheelchair old man who had many diseases.

Just two small points...
1. Maybe you misunderstand how democracy works and maybe you are willing to overlook how Arafat remained in office..but, please, your statement about him being an elected leader is a bit...misleading. Arafat was elected...once...when his term ended...he was not elected again. At that point, he was no longer an elected official but a self appointed one.
2. Your link...does not contain the comments you've placed below it. I think that a lot of people don't bother to click through and read links when they believe that you've pasted the information held in the link onto your message. So, the way you've posted a link and then placed commentary that the link does not include might mislead some people into thinking what you've said is...factual and derived from Wikepedia...which on a percusory search..it isn't.

Of course..Wikepedia as a source has it's own issues as well, but we'll leave that for another time.

 

[Yonoz]

1982: He invaded Lebanon and murdered 20000 civilians (more than all Isareli victims in one century)

Outright lie.

 

[Yonoz]

With that said, IMO Zionist treatment of Palestinians is not unlike the horrible treatment their own people have suffered, yet want continued sympathy and support from the world for their actions.

No one here wants "sympathy" and "support", but there seems to be a lack of proportion when you compare the world reaction to other troubled areas - surely the treatment of Tibetans by China, the ongoing wars in Africa, the struggle of the Kurds against the regimes in Iraq, Syria and Turkey and single events such as the Hama massacre deserve just as much, if not more, of the attention of international activists.

If they want to say I'm anti-semitic, that would just be par for the course.

No one ever said you are, but you still choose to raise this subject (just like Bilal keeps raising Nazism). I do not understand why you raise the whole prejudice issue while the issue under debate is completely different. This correlates to your reference as to the objectivity of the sources I've referred to - IMO your concept of objectivity is quite subjective. You also choose to present yourself first by commenting on your descent and religion - is that how you view people - by race and faith? Do you think having Jewish ancestors grants you any special privilege? Is this your idea of keepig a debate "neutral"?

 

[Informal Logic]

No one here wants "sympathy" and "support", but there seems to be a lack of proportion when you compare the world reaction to other troubled areas - surely the treatment of Tibetans by China, the ongoing wars in Africa, the struggle of the Kurds against the regimes in Iraq, Syria and Turkey and single events such as the Hama massacre

Agreed, and unfortunately because US foreign policy is not based as much on human rights as it should be, other troubled areas are not a focus.

I do not understand why you raise the whole prejudice issue while the issue under debate is completely different. This correlates to your reference as to the objectivity of the sources I've referred to - IMO your concept of objectivity is quite subjective. You also choose to present yourself first by commenting on your descent and religion - is that how you view people - by race and faith? Do you think having Jewish ancestors grants you any special privilege? Is this your idea of keepig a debate "neutral"?

Of course not, and I bring it up because it is the unfortunate truth that people from Israel will be pro-Israel, and people from Lebanon will be pro-Palestinian. Also people from the US who are indoctrinated in the Judo-Christian beliefs and resulting propaganda likewise will have bias. This is very relevant, and to pretend it is not means you lack objectivity.

 

[Yonoz]

In fact I tried to be neutral as much as possible, so I did my best to use only international and accepted sources.

Sources like electronicintifada.net?

Unfortunately, the discussion shifted to propaganda war, and the discussion is flooded by posts and links which based on biased sources of other side.

Read the first few posts in this thread and see how this shifted into a propaganda war. You posted the first 2 comments about the death of Rachel Corrie, waited for the slightest hint of politization, and then started your constant stream of propaganda with a volley of three posts, including the longest one in the thread until that time. It is you who turned this into a "propaganda war".

If I want to reply in the same tactic by using pro Palestine propaganda sources then this discussion will convert to battlefield.(I just used Palestinian sources to show well known information as Day Land).

By "battlefield" do you mean there's someone other than yourself who's well educated about the conflict?

My English is not perfect and I waste a lot of time to find trusted article, while the others find it easy to copy from MEMRI and other propaganda sources….

I suggest you count my sources - the overwhelming majority will be from Wikipedia, followed by the BBC. Now, look at the content of the MEMRI items I linked to - most of them show Arabs in a positive light. Your claims against the objectivity of MEMRI were that it is run by a retired Israeli officer and an editorial by a British journalist.

Additionally, I have to worry if I continue this discussion in this way, because the other side claim that I support murdering of Israeli which is considered as crime according to Israeli laws.

Are you implying I threatened you with prosecution?

 

[Yonoz]

Agreed, and unfortunately because US foreign policy is not based as much on human rights as it should be, other troubled areas are not a focus.

I do not understand how this answers my question - is your focus on human rights based on US foreign policy?

Of course not, and I bring it up because it is the unfortunate truth that people from Israel will be pro-Israel,

Not always. Plenty of radical left here. Benny Morris, who Bilal has quoted a few times, is an Israeli, as is Dr. Ilan Pepe who is behind the recent boycott of Israeli universities by the British Association of University Teachers. What is troubling me is the amount of Israelis willing to go to extraordinary lengths of understanding for the Palestinians, whereas the Palestinians seem ever united and firm in the same views - you'd expect at least a decent demonstration against the use of violence, and yet the Palestinian public accepts violence as a legitimate part of the struggle and Palestinian society has not a fraction of the public debate that is ongoing in Israel about the occupation with regards to Palestinian violence. The same goes for the US public, which has its share of pluralist thought - a concept that seems to evade the Palestinians.

 

[Yonoz]

You obviously have problem with Israel being called terror sponsoring state, and I think you are little bit confused here.

I believe you are the one who's confused, yet I did not dare write it until now. Must you stoop to personal comments?

Sheik Yassim was killed not by mistake, he was not fighting IDF,

He was the head of Hamas (listed as a terrorist organisation by many states including the EU), and responsible for many Israeli deaths.

he was on the door steps of a mosque.

He was on his way to morning prayer. This was the only time Israel could target him since he kept himself surrounded by civilians, knowing the Israeli military will not perform a strike knowing that it would cause an unacceptable loss of civilian life.

Israeli air force killed him and wounded countless more,

Countless? Yassin, his two body guards and six other Palestinians were killed, and over a dozen were injured. The loss of Israeli life he was responsible for, and the loss of Israeli life he would have been responsible for had he not been stopped, would have been far greater.

and thus made him a martyr/hero.

That was thought of, and apparently the loss of life prevented by his death was deemed worth that price by the leadership of that time.

would it be so hard to arrest him ?

Yes, as the head of Hamas he was well guarded. He remained in the densely populated city of Gaza and was constantly surrounded by large numbers of civilians - attempting to arrest him would have increased the death toll to unacceptable numbers.

I my dictionary killing him was an act of terrorism.

That's very nice, in my dictionary it was an attempt at self defence.

I also see that you finally agree with me that destroying houses, orchards (property) is an act of terror.

Depends on the reasons for it. I agree it is something that should be avoided as much as possible, but surely you agree human life is worth more than any amount of houses and orchards.

 

[kat]

and people from Lebanon will be pro-Palestinian.

You know, a lot of the stuff you post doesn't even pass the giggle test. A very large percentage of Lebanese are not PRO-Palestinian. In fact, the Palestinians in Lebanon are treated worse then those in Palestine and have less rights then Arabs in the Palestine AND Israel. In fact, a very large percentage of Lebanese are of the Christian Faith and VERY anti-Muslim and hold very strong feelings against the PLO in part due to their massacre of the Christian people.

 

[klusener]

Outright lie.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm:
Lebanon (1975-90):
1982-87 Israeli vs PLO: 40,000 civ. + 12,000 mil. = 62,000

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Gillespie0724.htm

http://www.ahram.org.eg/acpss/eng/ahram/2004/7/5/STUD6.HTM - If you believe MEMRI, then you can believe this.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/julaug02herman.html

http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/20030312/news_6.shtml

http://baltimorechronicle.com/rules_ofthe_game.html

If you want to question the neutrality go ahead, but atleast they are from outsiders (European or American) other than ahram (incidentally its mission statement is very similar to MEMRI in terms of researching events in the Middle East) not Palestinian or Israeli.

 

[Informal Logic]

You know, a lot of the stuff you post doesn't even pass the giggle test. A very large percentage of Lebanese are not PRO-Palestinian. In fact, the Palestinians in Lebanon are treated worse then those in Palestine and have less rights then Arabs in the Palestine AND Israel. In fact, a very large percentage of Lebanese are of the Christian Faith and VERY anti-Muslim and hold very strong feelings against the PLO in part due to their massacre of the Christian people.

I was referring primarily to this thread--that Bilal is from Palestine so is pro-Palestinian, and Yonoz is from Israel and is pro-Israeli. This is a tendency that is expected. I am sure there will be exceptions to the case, but that is what it is--exceptions.

As a result, objective debate is not likely. However, Bilal has done a superior job of providing quotes and links of sources that are as reliable and neutral as possible. He also has shown diplomacy, unlike some members who just have a biased axe to grind.

 

[Yonoz]

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm:
Lebanon (1975-90):
1982-87 Israeli vs PLO: 40,000 civ. + 12,000 mil. = 62,000

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July2004/Gillespie0724.htm

http://www.ahram.org.eg/acpss/eng/ahram/2004/7/5/STUD6.HTM - If you believe MEMRI, then you can believe this.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/julaug02herman.html

http://www.umanitoba.ca/manitoban/20030312/news_6.shtml

http://baltimorechronicle.com/rules_ofthe_game.html

If you want to question the neutrality go ahead, but atleast they are from outsiders (European or American) other than ahram (incidentally its mission statement is very similar to MEMRI in terms of researching events in the Middle East) not Palestinian or Israeli.

Looking into that first site you linked to was enough - it said "during invasion". What you seem to forget is that prior to and during the invasion there was already an atrocious civil war. Attributing all casualties in Lebanon to the fault of Israel is a little out of the envelope IMO. As I showed earlier, although Israel should have done more to prevent it, the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which is the worst incident that can be linked to Israel, was in fact carried out completely by Lebanese Christian militias, who lived side by side with the Palestinians they murdered. This is further proof to the acute differences in the treatment of Palestinians in Arab countries and in Israel. While Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were getting an education and a stable economy, their brothers in Lebanon and Jordan were getting a much worse treatment.

 

[Yonoz]

However, Bilal has done a superior job of providing quotes and links of sources that are as reliable and neutral as possible. He also has shown diplomacy, unlike some members who just have a biased axe to grind.

That is your personal opinion, which I disagree with. Have you actually compared the amount of links and their targets or are you basing your comment on your 'gut-feeling'?

 

[Hurkyl]

But the problem still remains -- Bilal does not condemn Palestinian extremism. To some extent, he even glorifies it!

How can one discuss peace while continuing to support the violence?

(IMO, this is an even bigger obstacle to peace than the refusal to acknowledge Israel has legitimate self-defense concerns)

 

[alexandra]

I do feel that Bilal has made extraordinary effort to not only substantiate his claims with quotes and links, but moreover has tried to provide sources that are as reliable and neutral as possible. I can't say the same for many of the other posts.

Yes, and this is why I started up the other thread about objectivity - I did not want to divert this thread's discussion.

Bilal, you have been very patient. Remember, there are other people who understand what you are saying and who agree with you. I am sorry I did not voice my support earlier, but I am now.

 

[alexandra]

My English is not perfect and I waste a lot of time to find trusted article, while the others find it easy to copy from MEMRI and other propaganda sources…. Additionally, I have to worry if I continue this discussion in this way, because the other side claim that I support murdering of Israeli which is considered as crime according to Israeli laws.

This is a good point, Bilal - it is very time-consuming finding sources the people arguing against you may accept - but even if your references are neutral from reputable sources, they won't acknowledge this if they have already made up their minds.I think you are doing a very good job of arguing your case, and that you have found some excellent, reputable sources of information. Good stuff.

 

[alexandra]

Outright lie.

No, it's not. Here you go, a quote from Wikipedia (or perhaps Wikipedia writers are lying?):

"Outcome of the war
[edit]
Casualties
Estimations are that about 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimations about the portions of civilians killed. A Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that

17,825 killed during the invasion
Outside Beirut
Military personnel: 9,797 (PLO, Syria, etc.)
Civilians: 2,513
Beirut area: 5,515 (mil. + civ.)
[1] (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Lebanon)"

Here's the link if you're interested in verifying the information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Invasion_of_Lebanon#Outcome_of_the_war

 

[alexandra]

... surely you agree human life is worth more than any amount of houses and orchards.

Do you know, Yonoz, for *poor* people, who have nothing much, houses and orchards ARE their lives!

 

[Bilal]

Dear Kat,

1. Arafat was elected for 5 years from 1996 till 2001. As you know in 2001, Israel started to destroy the infrastructure of PA and rejected to arrange the election till removal or death of Arafat. Unfortunately, USA supported them. As I know, during wars, elections could be postponed, while the government is considered legal during this period.

2- Here is what my link mentioned about Sharon, but I added information because I am from town near the border and my cousins are eyewitness of some crimes (such as slaughtering hundreds of Jordanian policemen in Azzun/Kalkilia). The other point is the Egyptian prisoners, who are not mentioned in the source, but it was main topic in ME and Egyptian media to know the fate of thousands of Egyptian prisoners who surrendered to Sharon during 1967war:

((Unit 101 undertook a series of retaliatory raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image. However, the unit was also criticized for targeting civilians as well as Arab soldiers, resulting in the widely-condemned Qibya massacre in the fall of 1953, in which more than sixty Jordanian civilians were killed in an attack on their village. In the documentary "Israel and the Arabs: 50 Year War" Ariel Sharon recalls what happened after the raid, which was heavily condemned by many countries in the West, including the U.S.: I was summoned to see Ben-Gurion. It was the first time I met him. and right from the start Ben-Gurion said to me: "Let me first tell you one thing: it doesn't matter what the world says about Israel, it doesn't matter what they say about us anywhere else. The only thing that matters is that we can exist here on the land of our forefathers. And unless we show the Arabs that there is a high price to pay for murdering Jews, we won't survive."Shortly afterwards, Unit 101 was merged into the 202nd Paratrooper Brigade (Sharon eventually becoming the latter's commander), which continued to attack military targets, culminating with the attack on Kalkiliya Police in autumn 1956.))

Just two small points...
1. Maybe you misunderstand how democracy works and maybe you are willing to overlook how Arafat remained in office..but, please, your statement about him being an elected leader is a bit...misleading. Arafat was elected...once...when his term ended...he was not elected again. At that point, he was no longer an elected official but a self appointed one.
2. Your link...does not contain the comments you've placed below it. I think that a lot of people don't bother to click through and read links when they believe that you've pasted the information held in the link onto your message. So, the way you've posted a link and then placed commentary that the link does not include might mislead some people into thinking what you've said is...factual and derived from Wikepedia...which on a percusory search..it isn't.

Of course..Wikepedia as a source has it's own issues as well, but we'll leave that for another time.

 

[kat]

No, it's not. Here you go, a quote from Wikipedia (or perhaps Wikipedia writers are lying?):

"Outcome of the war
[edit]
Casualties
Estimations are that about 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimations about the portions of civilians killed. A Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that

17,825 killed during the invasion
Outside Beirut
Military personnel: 9,797 (PLO, Syria, etc.)
Civilians: 2,513
Beirut area: 5,515 (mil. + civ.)
[1] (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#Lebanon)"

Here's the link if you're interested in verifying the information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Invasion_of_Lebanon#Outcome_of_the_war

Well, you see...Bilal was attempting to attribute all of the arab deaths during that war to Sharon. Which, for anyone familiar with the intricacies of the situation in Lebanon to say this...would be an outright lie. My point in my post about Lebanon and the PLO to "Informal logic" is that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about if he perceives that it's an "exception" for Lebanese to hate..yes outright HATE..Palestinians.
He also attribituted the cause of the war TO israel, which can only be stated as OPINION not as fact. Many here need to get a grasp on the difference between OPINION and fact. From the Wikepedia link (and again, I have problems using Wikepedia as a source,or any publicly editable source for that matter)

Reasons for the war:
Starting in 1968, Palestinian groups in southern Lebanon raided northern Israel, and bombarded Israeli towns with katyusha rockets.

I wonder if Bilal can answer why Arab countries have been so hostile to Palestinians? (Why is this? Hint: It has a little something to do with the PLO)

Also, I want to welcome Yonoz to this thread and to this forum. I'm finding the difference in the tone used with Bilal and that used with Yonoz to be another great indicator of the bigotry so many of the active posters in the Political forum have.

 

[Bilal]

Sources like electronicintifada.net??

You can read again what I mentioned. Only well known information are presented from pro Palestine sources , which you can not deny it as Day Land :

In fact I tried to be neutral as much as possible, so I did my best to use only international and accepted sources . Unfortunately, the discussion shifted to propaganda war, and the discussion is flooded by posts and links which based on biased sources of other side. If I want to reply in the same tactic by using pro Palestine propaganda sources then this discussion will convert to battlefield.(I just used Palestinian sources to show well known information as Day Land).

 

[kat]

Oh yes, also from your link Alexandra

857 Pal. & Leb. k. by Christian militia in Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in 1982.

I'm sorry...I don't see Sharon's name here anywhere. I have inlaws who were members of the Phalange. In fact, General Aoun is the man who assisted my husband in getting out of Lebanon and to the U.S. to seek asylum. I can tell you, their hatred for the Palestinians who slaughtered their people after they welcomed them to their country with open arms...is very real, and although they have a "soft" bigotry in regards to the Jews..as a whole...it in no way compares to their anger at the Palestinians.