Quote :

" This, also, is not really accurate. Iran, for example, has a Jewish population that by most accounts is treated fairly and equally under the law, and who have a strong enough attachment to Iran to stay there in spite of economic incentives from Zionist groups to move to Israel. It's also worth pointing out that a fair number of Jews abroad are fairly anti-Israel."

Seriously man? Do you really believe what you just wrote? You realize the whole Iranian Jew thing was a huge PR thing right? Right? You realize that since the 50's, and most especially after the revolution, the Jewish population in Iran has decreased dramatically right? We are talking about a 90% reduction. Jews in Iran are treated fairly under fucking Sharia.

1/13/2009 2:59:33 PM

I didn't deny that a lot left, I said a fair number stayed behind.

Beyond that, show me some stuff about the current treatment of Jews in Iran as being bad, and if its convincing I'll retract the statement. I'm only speaking from my recollection of Khater's class and my own quick verification check.

If, however, all you've got is frothing-at-the-mouth, then I'm sticking with what I've written.

1/13/2009 3:08:35 PM

Quote :

" Maybe not the whole problem, but a very large part of it. The start of European presence in the Middle East after WWI was based on outright lies told to local leaders, whose support in the campaign against the Ottomans we promised to reward with independence. Then England and France split most of the region up along fairly arbitrary lines and kept it for a while, with all sorts of negative consequences, including modern headlines in Iraq and Israel."

Quote :

"I think European colonization of Africa, Asia and the Mid-East has been the cause of lots of war and economic strife, and theoretically could be the start of this mess. Honestly though, if the holocaust had not happened Israel would not exist as it does now. The holocaust was obviously the catalyst which started this whole mess."

agreed.

dirtay's edit that i was commenting on was about the fight over the holy land being the whole problem. and dirtay phrased it in the oversimplification way so i was just playing off him but then he edited it and i looked dumb haha. but yea i totally agree with these two comments.

but splitting the region up along arbitrary lines created a HUGE problem. with the religious and ethnic diversity that existed in the region. they would have been better forming little individual religious states instead of trying to just place chunks of feuding societies together. but i also agree with repub's holocaust statement. i guess the point i was trying to make is that things have been a mess for a while.

1/13/2009 3:53:28 PM

My comment

Quote :

"Honestly though, if the holocaust had not happened Israel would not exist as it does now.""

bdmazur comment

Quote :

"Israel was going to be where it is regardless of the Holocaust. Jews had already two mass migrations there prior to WWII. Israel would have happened anyway, the Holocaust just sped up the process. "

Grumpy and bdmazur, I agree with some of your statements for the most part, which is why I phrased my comment "as it does now" There was definitely a influx of Jews into British Palestine prior to WWII, and by most accounts the Arabs n Jews got along for the most part. There was talk of the creation of Israel in 1917 with the "Balfour Agreement" but like I said the holocaust was the catalyst that sped it up and made it a reality. Had the holocaust not happened we can speculate that there would not have been as much support from both Jews as well as the world. As much as we talk about the Zionist movement, there was a huge Anti-Zionist movement among strict Jews, the thought being that only God would recreate Israel thus fulfilling biblical prophecy. Even after WWII there was still an Anti Zionist movement among strict Jews. My whole point though, and like I said Im not disagreeing with both of you, is that Israel may or may not have existed without the holocaust and if it did Im sure the situation would be slightly different and the boundaries may be different...as in less generous by the British. who knows.

1/13/2009 4:44:17 PM

Certainly it wouldn't be exactly the same, but I'm sure you meant to give us a little more leeway than that with "as it does now."

I imagine that the process to independence would've followed along similar lines, with mounting pressure in both Palestine and the UK forcing the issue to the UN. If it took a while to get to that point, the UK may have had the chance to just turn Palestine loose with the rest of its colonial holdings, leaving the Jews and Arabs to fight it out much as they did as things are. That's probably a key event in the whole timeline -- while the Holocaust certainly sped the process up dramatically, the eventual release of British colonies (which, in much of the world, happened fairly rapidly after the war) would've at the very least left Jews and Arabs to determine the issue themselves, most likely with guns.

1/13/2009 6:25:04 PM

I agree, which is why I said the borders would have been different more than likely if that was the case. We are agreeing and arguing....i love the SB

1/13/2009 6:48:48 PM

Quote :

"Beyond that, show me some stuff about the current treatment of Jews in Iran as being bad, and if its convincing I'll retract the statement. I'm only speaking from my recollection of Khater's class and my own quick verification check."

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35497.htm

I guess it depends on your definition of bad. I guess if you think that Blacks weren't treated badly during the Jim Crow era, you might think they aren't. Or maybe you don't trust a State department report.

Quote :

"While Jews are a recognized religious minority, allegations of official discrimination are frequent. The Government's anti-Israel policies, along with a perception among radical Muslims that all Jewish citizens support Zionism and the State of Israel, create a hostile atmosphere for the small community. For example, during the period covered by this report many newspapers celebrated the one-hundredth anniversary of the publishing of the anti-Semitic "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Jewish leaders reportedly are reluctant to draw attention to official mistreatment of their community due to fear of government reprisal. "

You're fucking delusional if you believe the propaganda from Iran.

1/13/2009 7:01:22 PM

And you're fucking naive if you believe that the US state department, especially under the present administration and regarding Iran, is above a healthy dose of propaganda.

But, let's assume that the State Department's report is 100% accurate. If that's the case, it doesn't really undermine my original assertion, which is that anti-Israel sentiment is by far the bigger problem than anti-Jewish feelings. For one thing, it attributes the hostile atmosphere towards Jews primarily (indeed, in that quote, exclusively) to Israel. For another, it doesn't suggest that Jews are much worse off than any of the other religious minorities in Iran, suggesting that it isn't so much anti-Semitic as it is religiously exclusive in general.

1/13/2009 8:12:58 PM

Yeah man, keep smoking it. I'll take the State report over Iran's any day. And guess what? They won't let independent reporters in to investigate the situation, what does that tell you?

If they were treated so great then why has the Jewish population decreased so dramatically since the Islamic Revolution? That is an actual measure of their treatment, and it shows that it has been bad. We are talking about ~20k Jews still left in Iran.

Guess what, for Joe Muslim there isn't much difference between Jew and Israeli. They are one and the same, for better or for worse, in the Islamic world. When Islamic leaders rail against Israel, they call them Jews not Israelis.

1/13/2009 9:23:35 PM

Quote :

"Why isn't Israel stopping the air strikes to let in humanitarian aid? Because when they agreed to a 24-hour cease-fire for exactly that cause, Hamas continued to launch missiles into cities 30 miles away."

Wasn't it during a three-hour cease-fire that Israel killed U.N. aid workers?

Quote :

"There was a cease fire in effect. Unprovoked, Hamas broke the cease fire by firing rockets into Israel. Israel then responded with the current offensive."

I posted a news article on an earlier page, stating that Israel broke the cease-fire on Nov 5; however, I repeatedly see in this thread that Hamas broke the cease-fire. Was the Isreali incursion a different cease-fire? or did it happen after Hamas broke it? or do you all just not trust the Guardian newspaper?

Quote :

"Hamas on the other hand relishes in the civilian deaths and does nothing to prevent them. Rather, they actively try to put civilians in harms way because they love the propaganda."

Interesting choice of words, considering what you said is verbatim Israeli propaganda.

[Edited on January 13, 2009 at 11:48 PM. Reason : http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians]

[Edited on January 13, 2009 at 11:49 PM. Reason : for reference]

1/13/2009 11:40:22 PM

Quote :

"This isn't entirely fair. Israel has the resources and physical space to build such protection for its citizens. Gaza is not only dirt poor, but it's insanely crowded, more so by a long shot even than Israel. For any shelters it built to be effective, they'd have to be quite large and elaborate."

That may be, but they still managed to build some pretty good tunnels to smuggle weapons in. I wonder if they could have been used as bomb shelters....(to some degree at least, better than being in the open). Also, I guess they were too busy smuggling in weapons and didn't have time to bring in food, supplies, etc for the people being hurt so much by the border blockade. Then again, why would Hamas actually think of their own people?

1/14/2009 12:16:12 AM

^ Yeah, and anti-Israel zealot Jimmy Carter has been referring to those Hamas tunnels as "defensive":

Quote :

"And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html

1/14/2009 12:51:57 AM

Quote :

"That may be, but they still managed to build some pretty good tunnels to smuggle weapons in. I wonder if they could have been used as bomb shelters....(to some degree at least, better than being in the open). Also, I guess they were too busy smuggling in weapons and didn't have time to bring in food, supplies, etc for the people being hurt so much by the border blockade. Then again, why would Hamas actually think of their own people?"

NPR had a pretty good piece on this last week, where they interviewed a journalist from the Christian Science Monitor who had been through a couple of those tunnels several years ago. They're dug small enough that you have to crawl through them, and they're entirely unsupported, so that's a negative on being used as bomb shelters. It would take a 10-man team from 2-3 months to dig a new one. They smuggle everything but the kitchen sink through the tunnels, not just weapons (food, medicine, porn, alcohol, etc.).

1/14/2009 1:12:36 AM

I'm bumping this thread up because the other one that started is shit.

1/15/2009 11:46:34 AM

i still trust the anti-Israel zealot Jimmy Carter more than i do the pro-Israel zealot hooksaw and his WorldNewsDaily/NewsMax pals.

1/15/2009 3:11:51 PM

http://sderot.aish.com/SderotPetitions/15Seconds.php

1/15/2009 4:18:37 PM

I wonder how much warning the folks in the UN's main relief compound got before Israel shelled it the other day.

1/15/2009 4:26:32 PM

^ It's irrelevant.

Neither Israel nor Hamas can bomb their way out of this problem.

1/15/2009 4:30:25 PM

fucked up quote from NPR a few minutes ago:
paraphrase - "The death toll in Gaza has reached 1000 with over 4000 confirmed injuries. The Israeli deathtoll has remained unchanged for 2 weeks at 13"

1/15/2009 4:55:08 PM

Quote :

" http://sderot.aish.com/SderotPetitions/15Seconds.php "

The finest in propaganda.

In Sderot, Israel, you have got 15 seconds to run for cover.

I strongly condemn the death of civilians on any side, but contrast it with this:

In Gaza, Illegally Occupied Palestine, you have got nowhere to run for cover.

1/15/2009 5:20:55 PM

So its more ok for Gaza to send 30 rockets daily into Israel just because there are bomb shelters?

The fact that the Israeli death toll is so small it isn't for a lack of trying.


I'm just getting so pissed off that everyone condemns Israel for what its doing and yet there is no public outcry for Hamas to stop as well. A call for the end of violence from one side is not the same as a call for peace.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 5:44 PM. Reason : -]

1/15/2009 5:43:58 PM

Quote :

"I'm just getting so pissed off that everyone condemns Israel for what its doing and yet there is no public outcry for Hamas to stop as well."

Have you not been paying attention at all during this recent issue?

Not a single person here or elsewhere in the media is saying it's okay for Hamas to bomb Israel. Where are you getting this idea?

But how much sense does it make for Israel to ask for support on the basis that it's dangerous to be Israeli in Sderot, when it's 10x more dangerous to be a Palestinian in Gaza?

You have 13 Israelies dead, near 200 dead innocent Palestinians, Hamas is still mortaring Israel when it can, and Hamas sympathizers are becoming even MORE enraged with Israel. How exactly do you expect this to turn out good for Israel? Seeing all those dead Palestinians might satisfy your feelings of vengeance, but it doesn't help Israel or the Jewish people there.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 6:10 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2009 6:09:53 PM

^ good post. excellent point at the end, that in the long run, this will hurt israel more. all the children in gaza right now, especially those whose fathers/borthers/mothers/sisters have been blown to bits, will turn into turrists. this is human nature, and they really can't be blamed.

and btw, 1,000 palestinians are dead, of which around 500 are civilians, and 300+ women and children.

1/15/2009 6:15:04 PM

As I said before, the death count isn't for a lack of trying.

Also, I'm not feeling vengeful or saying what Israel has done is ok, but whenever a protest happens on campus (3 in the past week) its all "stop Israel this" and "hate Israel for that" but no one has been calling for a true cease-fire from both sides.

I want a true peaceful cease-fire and an eventual 3-state solution.

1/15/2009 6:27:37 PM

^^ I would bet the 1000 number is slightly exaggerated. I hadn't heard recent numbers for civilian death tolls, but as of a week ago, it was ~20% of the dead being civilians. I would be skeptical of a 50% civilian casualty rate without seeing the basis for such a number.

^ IIRC, Hamas recently called for a 1 week ceasefire didn't they?

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2009 6:30:49 PM

No, Egypt did.

And Israel is skeptical because during the last one they agreed to, just 24 hours short, they were still bombed.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 6:37 PM. Reason : -]

1/15/2009 6:36:38 PM

Quote :

"3-state solution."

?

Quote :

"I would bet the 1000 number is slightly exaggerated. I hadn't heard recent numbers for civilian death tolls, but as of a week ago, it was ~20% of the dead being civilians. I would be skeptical of a 50% civilian casualty rate without seeing the basis for such a number."

The number is now 1,100, and is provided by the Ministry of Health in Gaza. They also say a third are children.

Either way, the numbers are huge. BTW, that 13 Israelis dead is only 3 civilians dead, the rest are soldiers.

And see this:

Quote :

"Palestinians say more than a dozen civilians died in the fighting on Thursday, pushing the death toll to over 1,060. Witnesses described thousands of families carrying babies and pushing their elderly in wheelchairs fleeing Israeli tanks. Civilians in the densely packed slice of land carpeted with teeming slums are finding themselves with no safe places of refuge as the Israelis tighten their grip. TIME correspondent Azmy Keshawi recounted the scene in his neighborhood: "We knew that an Israeli sniper was on top of the next-door apartment building. As one of our neighbors tried to leave the building, he was shot four times and just bled to death. There was nothing we could do with the sniper there." "

Fucking cowardly animals. And they dare to call their army the "Most moral army in the world".

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1872062,00.html

Photogallery:

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1869438,00.html


[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2009 6:52:32 PM

Aren't there plenty of modern missiles the Israelis could be using that exist solely to be so accurate as to eliminate virtually all collateral damage? I'm sure they're expensive, but dropping out overkill with a >30% civilian casualty rate isn't doing anyone any good.

1/15/2009 6:57:07 PM

Quote :

"In Gaza, Illegally Occupied Palestine, you have got nowhere to run for cover."

The Israelis pulled out of Gaza before this mess. Apparently that wasn't good enough.

Quote :

"all the children in gaza right now, especially those whose fathers/borthers/mothers/sisters have been blown to bits, will turn into turrists. this is human nature, and they really can't be blamed."

Hold on here for a second. Now we can't blame the terrorists, because it's "human nature?" And it isn't human nature to defend yourself? Even to defend yourself with disproportionate, overwhelming response?

Quote :

"In Sderot, Israel, you have got 15 seconds to run for cover. I strongly condemn the death of civilians on any side, but contrast it with this: In Gaza, Illegally Occupied Palestine, you have got nowhere to run for cover."

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Exact parity of military capabilities? A completely proportionate response? Should the Israelis be making an effort to kill exactly one Palestinian for every Israeli killed in a rocket attack?

1/15/2009 7:15:12 PM

nobody is asking for a 1:1 death toll, but this is getting ridiculous.

What Israel is doing to Gaza (and believe me - i have no love lost for either side. I think they're all a bunch of religious nutjobs. I do not have a bleeding heart for Palestine, nor do I have any Zionist inklings) is akin to sitting in the back seat of your parent's car with your 7 year old brother. He keeps poking you in the arm, and slaps you on the head a sometimes. You whine to your mom to get him to stop and she tells both of you to shut up. So then, you just open the door and push him out of the car on the interstate.

1/15/2009 7:58:43 PM

Quote :

"The Israelis pulled out of Gaza before this mess. Apparently that wasn't good enough."

From what I understand Israel maintained a blockade though, that apparently was devastating for Gaza: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/09/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinians.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402214_pf.html

Quote :

"Hold on here for a second. Now we can't blame the terrorists, because it's "human nature?" And it isn't human nature to defend yourself? Even to defend yourself with disproportionate, overwhelming response? "

If you're trying to say that violence begets violence, then I generally agree. Which means Israel at least shares in the responsibility for the deaths.

1/15/2009 8:01:10 PM

Quote :

"And it isn't human nature to defend yourself?"

Isn't that Hamas' foundational position? To defend themselves against the Israelis? If you want to bring human nature and the right of defense into it, then both sides are justified in their actions.

1/15/2009 9:33:37 PM

w/r/t the defense argument - yes, Israel have a right (and obligation/duty to their citizens) to try to stop rocket fire into their territory, but back when this thing started after Christmas, they said on the radio that Hamas rockets hadn't killed an Israeli in almost 4 years

1/15/2009 10:16:33 PM

Quote :

"3-state solution."

Yes I did mean to say 3-state. You think West Bank wants anything to do with Gaza right now? 6 months ago they almost broke out into a Palestinian civil war. West Bank and Gaza each being independent from Israel and from each other is the best thing for everybody.

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 12:10 AM. Reason : sp]

1/16/2009 12:09:13 AM

^ states based along racial and religious lines are destined for conflict. I don't see a 3 state solution ever being stable.

1/16/2009 12:15:10 AM

^This isn't a religious thing, why is nobody getting that? Also, all the other countries in the region (ie, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Oman, Yemen, UAE, etc) are all Arab states, therefor based on a racial line...what is so bad about that? (Although Israel is a Jewish state you do not have to be Jewish to be a citizen. There also is no racial divide within Israel proper.)

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:03 AM. Reason : -]

1/16/2009 1:02:27 AM

^ Do you genuinely think Israel would or should be in good company with those countries?

1/16/2009 1:07:39 AM

I was just backing up my belief and hope in a peaceful 3-state solution against the argument that states with a racial divide are "destined for conflict."

Yes some of the countries listed have had their disputes here and there but most them want nothing to do with it.

Give Palestinians 2 free states and then we can move on.

1/16/2009 1:17:40 AM

Quote :

"^This isn't a religious thing, why is nobody getting that? Also, all the other countries in the region (ie, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Oman, Yemen, UAE, etc) are all Arab states"

This statement is wrong, on a lot of levels.

1/16/2009 1:32:58 AM

How so?

1/16/2009 2:36:28 AM

Quote :

"So then, you just open the door and push him out of the car on the interstate."

except he keeps coming back and doing it again the next time you are in the car.

Israel is damned if they do, damned if they dont. if they "overreact', people across the world condemn them. if they dont fiercely punish Hamas for the rocket attacks, their enemies will see it as weakness which would invite more attacks.

you guys are all for these 'perfect' scenario reprisals, but such a thing doesnt exist.

1/16/2009 10:09:33 AM

Last time I checked israel was occupying Gaza, which means Gaza is NOT a separate country that you will blockade (food, fuel, medicine and all life necessity) for three years, decide to start a war against and kill at least 500 civilians (those only the women and children), and attacking U.N. and red cross humanitarian aids and properties there. For the occupation forces to isolate one ethnic group without any mean of living, and start barbarian attacks against them is genocide.

I cannot find a difference between this and what happened in the Nazi camps, rather I find Palestinian act to defend themselves more patriotic and not terroristic. If you can find a difference, please, let me know?

1/16/2009 10:32:29 AM

^ this may be the most uninformed, far fetched, completely ignorant post, while at the same time having no regard whatsoever for even considering the other side of the argument, that I have seen in this whole thread.

And this is one of the people helping to organize the protests....congratulations

1/16/2009 11:01:24 AM

Some bloggers are calling it genocide. All news is calling it Israel defending itself. Weird.

1/16/2009 11:08:39 AM

Quote :

"this may be the most uninformed, far fetched, completely ignorant post, while at the same time having no regard whatsoever for even considering the other side of the argument, that I have seen in this whole thread. And this is one of the people helping to organize the protests....congratulations"

LOL

how do you even to begin to respond to tmhatem's post?

1/16/2009 11:08:42 AM

You can start my telling him how much TWW hates all Arabs

1/16/2009 11:11:59 AM

I dont hate Arabs. I hate radicals.

1/16/2009 11:14:28 AM

Guys I a, sorry if I offend anyone.

Let us say that China decided to response to terrorist attacks against it (http://pacificempire.org.nz/2007/03/18/major-terrorist-attacks-in-china-1997-2007/), so it decided to blockade Tibet (so no food, medicine, fuel, etc can go on) for three years. But since Tibetan finally discovered how to make rockets, they made some in their workshops and decided to fire it against China and they killed four chineese. Finally China decided to have a major "WAR" against Tibet and killed hundreds of civilians and destroyed almost all U.N. facilities there and blocked international media to come in. What you will call it?

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 11:36 AM. Reason : error from my side]

1/16/2009 11:34:20 AM

I would call it China defending itself. what else could you call it?

also, you need to realize that no sane Israeli is targeting the UN or Red Cross. thats idiotic.

1/16/2009 11:37:08 AM

^^ LOL! Don't use that example to argue on the side of the Palestinians. I don't care much or know about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but in that example I would side with China.

1/16/2009 11:42:19 AM