Counting in 1200 year old history is hardly a great method for installing a modern state. By similar standards, the US should vacate all the areas used to be held by the Native Americans. The Muslims had the present claim, by actually being there in greater quantities.

Snort. Even the original Partition Part was a horribly one-sided deal. That the Palestinians aren't satisfied with the crumbs that Israel occasionally dribbles to look good is human. Real lesson: Not everyone is fooled when you give them crumbs and say it is bread.

And if, in the process of "crushing them", they kill off several other families and force thousands more to deport?

being blind to the facts on the ground doesn't help your argument any better. Nor does using history as a "one sided" viewpoint help either.

You're skewing the facts here in favor of the moslems in a wholly unfair way. But I might as well play your game.

Let me help you get the fact straight here:

http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/israel.html

http://www.levitt.com/misc/israel_history.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/trial/trial.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/imagine/imagine_n.html

And just a little bit about our neighbors:

http://www.conceptwizard.com/terror/a1.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/n-israel.html

http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html



News update from the Ottowa Citizen:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...9-7f94d5fc6d50


And an editorial on the subject of Israel:



Israel is at war and you need to know how to separate fantasy from reality. Understanding the meaning of words in such a situation is very difficult for even the best linguist or psychologist. We must go back and remember the classic book by George Orwell, 1984, in which a totalitarian government manipulates the meaning of words to confuse its citizens about reality. He called this new language "newspeak". While Orwell’s book was an attempt to satirize the Soviet communist regime, its meaning extends much more broadly.

A QUICK DECODER

1. Remember that Arabs lie and the figures given for civilian casualties are greatly exaggerated. Since most Hizbollah and Hamas terrorists wear civilian clothes and mix with the local population, it is very easy to distort the true toll on civilians.


2. Damage to Lebanese infrastructure is also greatly exaggerated. Photographers and reporters in Lebanon MUST repeat the Arab terrorist propaganda line or be tortured or executed. No such threat hangs over reporters in Israel. When the media reports from both sides, you can get a very distorted picture. We tend to think that the veracity of the two sides is equal.

3. It is a hoax that there is NO MILITARY solution to Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and genocidal terrorism. Those that come to kill Jews must be destroyed. There is no other choice. No "Mr. Nice Guy". The most moral position for Israel is to protect its own citizens and soldiers.

4. It is a hoax that the UN can do anything good for Israel. That also goes for Europe, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The usefulness of international forces separating Arab terrorists from Israeli defenders is nil, nada, zero. In fact, it is a negative, inhibiting Israel’s defensive measures.

All diplomacy is also a hoax. Only the power of the IDF allows Israel to survive. Right and justice are nice, but in the final analysis, a nation’s ability to survive depends on raw military power. Treaties, cease fires and negotiations are useless.

5. It is a hoax that public opinion is of great significance to Israel’s survival. A strong aggressive public relations campaign is quite important, but is NO substitute for unflinching resolve to protect Israel’s security and guarantee its survival.

Golda Meir once said: "I would rather have a thousand angry editorials directed at Israel, than one beautiful eulogy."

I would have to use the words of Harry Truman to express my contempt for the world that has murdered, raped, pillaged, expelled, forcibly converted and finally exterminated us. As Truman once said: "They ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit."

6. Another hoax is that Israel depends on American aid and must be willing to sacrifice its security to the interest of its ally. The reality is that Israel and America have a very useful symbiotic relationship. The many ways in which the U.S. benefits from the relationship hardly need enumeration ­ intelligence, technology, counterterrorism techniques and much more. America gets its money’s worth and more. BUT THIS IS NEVER MENTIONED IN POLITE CIRCLES.

For that matter, much or most of the monetary foreign aid to Israel is spent in the U.S. and goes into the American economy. It is Israeli leaders, for their own political purposes, who fail to utilize Israeli power to alter its asymmetric relationship to America.

7. Another hoax of the Left and the Islamists, for the past 13 years, is that when Israel defends itself it hurts its cause. That is, it should try to "win the hearts and minds" of the enemy, and "harming civilians" is counterproductive. Of course, we know that Hamas and Hezbollah barbarically and illegally operate freely within civilian neighborhoods in S. Lebanon and the PA.

A very wise Rabbi Schiff gives the analogy:

"If you and I were neighbors, and I allowed a family to move into my house in my living room and shoot rockets at your house from my yard, and to store their rockets in my basement, and the police do nothing about it for years, and have ‘Peace Now’ on my lawn telling you not to harm me standing in my kitchen - what would you do?"

Orwell Meets Alice - Through The Mid-East Looking Glass

We have been treated to the modern equivalent of Orwellian newspeak, not to mention a harrowing trip through Alice's looking glass. One could not help but notice the extent to which the Arabs were being portrayed as pure and innocent. A casual observer would certainly think that all violence in the Middle East was a product of bloodthirsty Jewish settlers roaming the Judean-Samarian hills looking for Arab prey.

The PLO/PA leadership, its hands dripping with Jewish and Arab blood, demanded protection from the vicious Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (YESHA). It refused to return to negotiations until its demands were met. The gullible international media took this whole charade seriously. The United Nations began debating a resolution to give protection to the poor vulnerable Palestinians. The PLO demanded that all Jewish communities of YESHA be ethnically cleansed of those rotten murderous Jews. At the very least they needed to be disarmed, to make them easier targets for Arab terrorists.

The high and the mighty beseeched Arafat to return to the talks with Israel. The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, obviously anxious to please his PLO friends, began a crackdown on Kach and Kahane Chai and other so-called Israeli extremists. Consider this "logic": Rabin determined that Baruch Goldstein acted alone in his reprisal act. He then decided to outlaw the organizations associated with him. Guilt by association is what made McCarthy big in the 50's. It was wrong then and it is wrong now.

Reality Check: Now Kach and Kahane Chai have been labeled as terrorist organizations, although they never have committed a single act of terror as a body. The PLO, which is guilty of thousands of murders of Arabs and Jews, continuing still, is labeled a "partner for peace" and will be given arms to kill some more (as "policemen").

Reality Check: Are Arabs in danger from armed Israelis in YESHA? Some research reveals the following figures since the famous handshake on September 13, 1993:

Israelis killed by Arabs = over 1600, plus 10,000 injured and maimed for life
Arabs killed by Arabs = over 500
Arab attacks onfiltered= 25,000+
Private Israeli attacks onfiltered= 1 (Goldstein killed 29)
(Of course MANY terrorists were killed in their FAILED attempts to murder Jews. This point is NOT relevant to this discussion).

It is clear that except for the attack by Goldstein, the Arabs have not been threatened by Jews and certainly need no special protection. If you travel to YESHA you will notice that every Jewish village needs a security fence, while every Arab village is open. Doesn't this tell you who is threatened and who isn't? All the talk about disarming the Jews is a cover for the Arab desire to murder them. And if you desire murder, wouldn't it be nice to disarm your victim first?

The media has begun to adopt another tactic which we should protest. In the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, CNN and most of the other media, opponents of the suicidal Oslo, Roadmap and Jewish Expulsion Plan are being referred to as rightwing extreme, Arab-hating and anti-peace groups. Do you ever remember the PLO, PA, Hezbollah or Hamas ever being referred to as Jew-hating groups, although their covenants and speeches are filled with hatred of Jews? Arafat and then Abbas often referred to Jews as "filthy, sons of monkeys and pigs", but are still rarely referred to in the media as Jew-haters.

Reality Check: To the best of my knowledge there is a distinct difference between Jewish feelings about Arabs and Arab feelings about Jews. Arabs are taught from the earliest grades to despise Jews, and their clerics preach hatred (Itbach El Yahoud - slaughter the Jews) in many of their services. Jews, on the other hand do not preach hatred, but those who are not brain dead recognize, after 120 years of being attacked, that Arabs mean them harm. The media is totally obfuscating the truth about the conflict by the use of such clichéd phrases as "Arab-hating Jews" or "cycle of violence."

Another problem with media coverage of the Israel-PLO/PA so-called "peace negotiations", is the way their opponents are described. Arabs opposed to the deal because they want to kill or expel all Jews from "Palestine" immediately, are equated with Jews and Israelis who want Israel to survive in secure borders. Opponents of national suicide are called "anti-peace", as opposed to supporters of such suicide being "pro-peace".

Reality Check: Most opponents of the deal with Arafat/Abbas oppose it because it is suicidal for many strategic, historical and objective reasons. None of us are anti-peace. We just recognize that the path chosen by the Rabin/ Peres/Barak/Olmert governments will lead not to the hoped for and advertised peace, but to Israel's destruction.

In another bizarre twist of logic the Los Angeles Times reports that Israel's leading peace group, Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), had urged Sharon to remove 500,000 Jewish inhabitants of YESHA (including Jerusalem) to avert widespread bloodshed under Palestinian self-government, and to forcibly evict all Jews within five years. They said that their continued presence, "fostering violence and bloodshed, endangers peace prospects."

Reality Check: The facts demonstrate that it is the Palestinians and not the Jews that are the cause of 99.9% of the violence. Why not remove the Palestinians? What Peace Now is really admitting is that there is NO PEACE nor any prospect of PEACE.

The liberal Jewish establishment and most of the media were appalled when Rabbi Meir Kahane first began talking about transferring the Arabs from Eretz Yisrael. Most are still appalled at this idea. A new idea has come into fashion, though, among these same righteous Jews: transferring the Jews from YESHA (heartland of Eretz Yisrael). Former Secretary of State James Baker once said it would be a good idea to use the $10 Billion in US loan guarantees to buy out and transfer the Jews from YESHA. US President Bill Clinton seemed to like the idea and so did Rabin's coalition partner Meretz.

Reality Check: There is no moral difference between transferring either Jews or Arabs from YESHA. What Kahane said years ago about the inability of Jews and Arabs to live together is being validated today by the same people who condemned him.

The 120-year war of extermination launched by the Arabs against the Jews of Israel has had many twists and turns. Sadly, it seems headed for Alice's looking glass and the world of 1984, where black is white, war is peace and good is evil.

Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. He is also the editor of its publications including THE MACCABEAN ONLINE URL:http://www.freeman.org/online.htm and its daily subscriber list of news and commentary, The Freemanlist and the Freeman Center blog.

And just now, a shooting ocurred at a Jewish center in Seattle WA. Not much information at this time, and no motives have been established.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060729/...attle_shooting

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tional/Africa/

<Edit> Indians had no city or state. They simply lived off the land. You must go south and visit the Aztecs or Mayans to use that logic. Besides, Indians did get some very valuable land and they make a bankroll off of it as we speak.

<Edit> The Palestinians never had a state before, so they should feel pretty good that they got something now - for free!


That is what happens in war. If the Heznollah were so concerned about it, they would get those families out of there. Instead you have a group willing to use innocence as a shield while they fire at Israel. Hezbollah must be wiped out so they cannot do these atrocities to future generations.

<Edit>

-S

Subman, I´ve removed some of your comments. Please be a bit more polite next time.

Ouch - censorship twice

Don't take it personally, Subman. I've asked Gizz to lend a hand in keeping the level of discussion here from erupting into battle. Thanks for your understanding.

Neal

[quote=scandium]http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tional/Africa/

No, that had been done by the UN.

When Hezbollah was all over the place, as that retired Canadian major yesterday reported to have been told by a colleague in that post, then that IS a reason - and an explanation why it was shelled 14 times before.



Then I would like to see him negotiate that with that guy who said the opposite above. Also, a spokesman, senior adviser and trainer (for what?) is not a pro military. Politicians tend to judge a fighting situation as different than militaries.

Quote:

He said that since UNIFIL's mandate is to immediately report any cross-border military activity, firing from near Khiyam would result in Israel immediately knowing where Hezbollah was firing from.

That peacekeeper that Fish has referred to, who was stationed in that post, said, that from that post you cannot see Hezbollah moving, since they do not move in the open, and probably also because vision to the north is more limited than to the south. Israel also has the abilityx all by itself to detect Katyuasho launchs, and retaliate on that position ion less than 2 minutes, they reported yesterday in a short docu on TV. The spokesman also tries to give the impression that it is okay for the UN to give advantage to one side, if it also gives an advanatge to the other side (which it does not need as descriobed above). But that is no neutrality. There has been border crossings since days. Noone in the UN is served to know within minutes when such a thing takes place - reason would have ordered that post not to report immediately, in that situaion and under those conditions, but to remain neutral. And anyway - the UN has a mandate to immediately report - who cares. World does not spin the other way around just because a UN mandate wishes to do so. And since they have withdrawn their posts now, it finally comes out that the UN and the world can live very well without UN observers in that region, currently. so far they have not acchieved anything, and enver prveenting any military violence, no matter in what direction. SO WHY HAVE THEY BEEN LEFT THERE AND PUT AT RISK IF THEIR PRESENCE WAS MEANINGLESS?

If that was the same mandate, they shouldn' have get involved in the action by allowing their base sheltering people - of whom the UN without doubt is the last to know if there were active fighters amongst them or not. The UN has no mandate to actively engage. with all the ups and downs that come as a consequence of such a mandate.

No wonder, if they stay around for thirty years without being of any use, being used maybe by enemy fighters for cover, and maybe carelessly transmit anything about Israel into the air so that their enemies maybe can take advanatge of it. WHO would trust them, under such conditions? with that 30 years-mission, once more the UN has made an idiot of itself. Well, now they are gone, and it wouldn't be a loss for anyone if they never return.

I wonder what motovates soldiers from foreign nations to volunteer for such missions. Obviously idealism and good intentions. But what makes them seeing it with rosy glasses only? Why can'T they see the poor planning, unrealistic intention and short reach of such missions? That's no bashing by me, but a seriously-meant question. When i had finished school 1985, I spend some serious thought on the option to go to the Bundeswehr myself and start a career there (which would have been completely voluntarily, since I was living in West-Berlin and even wouldn't have been drafted). But it were doubts and questions about politician's reliability, reason and trustworthiness that finally made me turn away from that option (although back then there was not the perspective of that germany would be completely independent again just four yeras later). since thehn, i never regretted my deciison against the army. Nevertheless I feel indirectly affected, and proven right, when I see Western politicians putting troops at risk for questionable motives, which seems to have become a common habit nowadays. My sympathy and interest in the army never completely faded out.

No, not down there, sorry I give that idea.:oops:
Just watching TV.

No one must be sorry not to be down there. ;)

public opinion dosent directly affect israel your correct but it dose affect its supporters like the US and UK nand that can have a huge difference in negotiations in the UN security council so indirectly it can affect israel

I'm not making things in favor of the Arabs. I'm saying they do have a legitimate claim. H*ll, even your first chosen site says straight out that Israel got that first land by conquering it. They weren't settling a new empty area. Thus, by your own sources, Israel was on the offense even 2000 years ago.

I read to about Page 3 and I can already identify the heavy pro-Israeli propaganda in the content. While I doubt I'm fully knowledgable enough to handily dismantle any claim (Israel is an insignificant part of my life, and I'd admit I spend relatively little time studying it), what I could see makes me doubt I'm getting balanced gospel from these sites.

Take the slide marked November 1947. They conveniently forgot to mention, among others, like how they still got 55% of the land. I suppose I'm meant to read the map and figure that "poor Israel" is bisected into 3 by the original plan, but that's probably because they can't justify marking those two critical points as Jewish even with their rather generous (for Israel) calculation. What I see is that the bisection looks so narrow that the Israelis can probably interdict it and thus bisect the Arab state even with artillery fire, or just walk out and link up, establishing a physical block.

Yes, maybe he was right, in retrospect, in saying that if the Arabs had buckled under and accepted this plan, they might have had a state, which would have lasted until a little border conflict happens and the Israelis over-react. They tend to do that. For some reason, all their defensive wars will involve grabbing chunks.

Besides, agreeing to the plan meant effectively forfeiting the chunks that Arabs feel are theirs. It is at least understandable they don't agree. And worse, they will put themselves in a dire military situation if they agree, of being bisected. Yet the site pretends it is all their intrasignence.

That McKenzie guy again? Putting his own spin on words supposed E-mailed to him?

Besides, no one is saying the Hezbollahs were saints. Just that we should stop seeing Israel as particularly clean itself.

I'd just do a few here:
The onus is on Israel to prove that anyone they kill in an ostensibly anti-terrorist op is a terrorist. Any person they can't prove is a civvie and goes into your collateral damage count until otherwise known. This should encourage you to show appropriate restraint.

They can always get out of Lebanon and then report. While this would not be outside the realm of possibility, note that this guy doesn't even make a token attempt to prove it - he just asserts it and hopes that anyone but the choir will eat it.

Kill! Kill! Kill!

The UN is most definitely not about doing good for Israel. It is fairer to say it is about doing good to the world, which does not necessarily equate to doing good for Israel.

Maybe. But if you use a ruleset that denies "right and justice", then Hezbollah becomes morally equivalent. Rights and justice creates differences in morality. If there is no right and no wrong, then anything Hezbollah does is equal to what the Israelis do.

By the way, if treaties, cease fires and negotiations are useless, while that might excuse Israeli aggression one can also easily forgive any Arab aggression over the years. Since treaties, cease fires and negotations are useless, there is no point in trying them. Which means war.

This is actually currently true because the United States tends to help Israel almost no matter what. Which may have to do with the strategic benefits brought to America by Israel, but anyway.

But at some point, public opinion will become everything to Israel's survival. At some degree of atrocity or "collateral damage", even America will get fed up. The day it loses this last backer (if it had any other backers, they would almost certainly be fed up before the US), it will have to pay for all of what it has done.

Counterterrorism and intelligence, maybe, because Israel does so much of it. Technology? Well, the Israelis come up with cool toys that are sometimes useful enough for the States to just purchase every now and then, but I doubt they produce any irreplaceable or even semi-irreplaceable products.

:roll: So what you're saying is - Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel weren't terrorists until Israel shot back --

No, I'm remembering Israel invading and occupying Lebanon and thus creating the Hezbollah.