MRN Propaganda 101: Lie!

Last month the Media Review Network (MRN) used their seemingly bottomless vault of cash to pay for a full page Palestinian propaganda advert. It may have appeared in numerous dailies, but I saw it in the Citizen. The advert, entitled “How Palestine became Israel” displays 3 maps which the MRN display as a story of thieving and betrayal. To maximise the propaganda effect, it is bordered by a series of scissors encouraging the reader to cut it out and display. They egregiously write “Please cut out and display map”.

Whilst there is nothing stopping anyone from paying for adverts to push their view, we should demand that the content is truthful. The MRN fell short of this mark. And it shouldn’t surprise you. You should remember that earlier this year, we caught them out in a lie denying that they had showcased articles on their website about a Jewish Broederbond (see full post here). This seems to be the behaviour we should continue to expect from them.

A friend of mine, Victor Gordon (don’t miss his latest play, Harry and Ed), penned this letter to the Citizen, exposing the paid for lie.

Sir The ability to re-write history is a specialty of the Media Review Network and is ably demonstrated in their advert, "How Palestine became Israel." The fact that they had to pay to publicise their propaganda is in itself telling. To cite just one example; "The UN passed Resolution 242 ... ordering Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories". The deceitful inclusion of the word "the" deliberately changes the intent from the actual wording of the resolution, "...to withdraw from occupied territories." At the time, the word "the" was purposely omitted to place the onus on all the warring parties to negotiate new and secure borders which the Arabs have consistently refused to do (the famous "3 No's"). Yet Israel alone is always blamed for its so-called refusal to abide by this resolution. The MRN would not have committed this error unintentionally. Res. 242 is simply too well known. The distortion can only be deliberate, reflecting the tone and purpose of much of the "information" offered by this organization - distorted propaganda. If the MRN cannot be trusted with so crucial a fact how can it be trusted with any other of its claims, like the reference to "Palestinians owning 99.6% of the land in 1897", considering that the entire region fell under Ottoman rule from 1841 to 1917. The "Palestinians" who were largely nomadic Arabs, owned not one inch. But one need look no further than the 3 maps chosen to illustrate "How Palestine became Israel ...", except that a fourth map deserves inclusion - the one showing the land mass stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the borders of Iraq that fell under the British mandate. With 80% designated to the establishment of Transjordan, the remaining 20% was finally partitioned by the UN giving roughly equal portions to the Arabs and the Jews, of who's portion 65% included the arid Negev Desert. Ironically, instead of these maps revealing to what degree Arab land has shrunk since 1948, they highlight the futility of the wars they launched against Israel in trying to regain what they had previously lost. Perhaps the MRN should reconsider its headline, "How Palestine became Israel...", the answer being, "by opting to fight two disastrous wars (1948 & 1967) and losing both." Bad choice - but hardly Israel’s fault. It was the Arabs who chose the option of war and have gone backwards ever since.

Comments

[Susan]

There are more Jewish refugees from Arab countries than Palestinian refugees from Israel.

[Ariel]

They also appear to have left out the map of the UN partition.

[Mr666]

The size of Jordan relative to the size of pre 1967 Israel isn't relevant to anything.
As there are 47 islamic states in the world there can't be any reasonable objections to a jewish homeland in principle, but it hardly follows that arabs should vacate land they have inhabited for centuries on the grounds that other arabs already own 80% the land of British Mandate Palistine.
Should a South African jew give up his house to Xhosas because jews already own lots of land in Los Angeles or Poland?

[TC]

Mr666,

The Jews have at least as much right to live in their holy land as the Arabs do. Ideally they should live together peacefully and prosperously; it indeed hardly follows that anyone should have to vacate his land, as you say. But the Arabs rejected this, and launched a genocidal war against the Jews, and this resulted in their partial displacement.

[Nyarlatoplep]

Wow, look like my email address is blocked. Sorry if my less than unconditional, 100%, support of the State of Israel and the goals of Revisionist Zionism offended anyone.
I should have realised from the other posts around the site that this is not optional.

Mr666

[Steve]

Mr666,

No email address or IP or any such thing has been blocked. Some posts get identified as spam because they are too long. If we didn't do that than there would be over 50 spam comments a day.

Nothing was blocked or deleted.

[Religous Fundamentalist 1]

Mr666 makes an excellent point, albeit with a silly no de plume:
"Should a South African jew give up his house to Xhosas because jews already own lots of land in Los Angeles or Poland?"

Surely not.
But if he tries to kill the Xhosa and the police seize his assets well then it's a different story isn't it?
Or put in a more local context:
If the Jew tries to farm on the land he should definitely be kicked out or at least offered sub-par value for his farm and instructed to leave.

[Nyarlatoplep]

Steve: There was a pop-up that simply said "we are unable to accept this post/data/something like that" I tried a few times on my old email address, failed, tried another and got through the first time. Sorry for doubting your commitment to free speech and stuff like that. I jumped to conclusions.

I guess that brings me to my other problem. The Jews and Zionists on this site are far too reasonable. On Elder of Ziyon blog they call you names and threaten to gun you down if you should ever meet on the slightest disagreement with the hard-line settler viewpoint. They defend ethnic cleansing on the grounds that arabs deserve it and make jokes about crushing mosques with D9s. On Israeli National News (i think it's called) you can also marvel at the ravings of Christian Zionists. "crush the arabs, Jesus told the Jews" "build the temple, end the world". I gawp in morbid facination.
I don't know about you guys but I'm starting to think the whole Israeli-Palistinian conflict is going to have to get a lot closer to the abyss before folks on any side catch a wake-up. Paranoia, religion and general crazyness are in the drivers seat and they reckon they drive better when they've had a few beers. I'm bugging out of the debate forever.

Peace and good luck. We're all going to need it.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Wow, nyarlatopep. They're too virulent and generally crazy there, too reasonable here.

Such a shame you can't just find the right sort of, in the middle type zionist who just agrees with you. The type who quietly disappear into obscurity and die leaving the arabs the land and newspaper pages filled with fascinating but non-violent vignettes

[David Zinn]

Victor Gordon not mentioning Al-Nakba, the root cause of the Israel-Palestine issue, and a commenter writing that "Arabs...launched a genocidal war against the Jews" whereas in reality 750 000 Palestinians were driven off their land, thousands killed and dozens of villages destroyed to found the State of Israel. Why am I not surprised? Do facts mean absolutely nothing to you people?

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Aha, so the world according to Zinn is that:

a) Fawzi Qawuqji intended to give the Jews houseboats,
b) 750,000 odd refugees are only refugees if they're arabs kicked out by zionists not vice versa
and people killed and towns destroyed by arab armies / mobs are not worth mentioning.

Got it. I'll remember not to call big Dave to protect me when the UN fails (again).

[David Zinn]

So when were 750 000 Zionists kicked out of their ancestral land by Arabs? Oh, that's right, Zionism is a movement born in the late nineteenth century by European Jews who saw themselves, particularly Herzl, as creating a Western bulwark against the Arab hordes in Palestine. Jews were also a minority in Palestine from AD70 until the 20th Century. In other words, there were no masses of Jews to be driven from a homeland that is only theirs if you believe in a "holy" book positing that the world was created in 7 days and that a talking snake is responsible for mankind's downfall. Don't even get me started on the Exodus which never happened, thus further shattering the myth of an ancestral land set aside for the "chosen people" by the mighty Jehovah, verily one of the most repugnant characters in all of fiction.
How about reading Ilan Pappé's 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' before so glibly spouting off about how wretched Arab behaviour was towards Jews, rather than the other way around. No one in their right mind can deny that Al-Nakba happened, not even the worst apologist for Israel and not mentioning, as Mr Gordon failed to do while discussing the formation of Israel, this event is a massive and inexcusable elision. It seems that every tragedy suffered by Jews must be exhaustively documented but Arab suffering, even if it far outweighs what Jews go through, can be blithely dismissed. If you want me to see you as anything but a racist, you'll have to extend as much sympathy to Palestinians as to Israelis, if not more so considering that the Israelis are the ones with all the power in the area, armed with up to 200 nukes and possessing the fourth largest military in the world, coupled with US support that totals around $4 billion every year. Let's also not forget that they actually have a state, whereas not even wanting to concede that the Palestinians might be able to have one in any foreseeable future. The massively lopsided casualty figures of the two sides should also give some indication in the disparity of power which exists between the Jews and the Palestinians, which accordingly corresponds to responsibility.
The only reason you and other Israel supporters disdain the UN is because they consistently declare Israeli actions illegal under international law, in other words they regularly shatter your cherished illusions about the state you so blindly salivate over. 'The truth hurts', as my father often says. But it will also set you free.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

I battle to understand your point. Let's, for the sake of the argument concede that Israel has done a whole lot of terrible things to the Palestinians. What is your point?

_________________________________
The following two issues you can ignore it's just me trying to fill space so my post is more "proportional" compared to yours:

I'm lead to believe from your fist two sentences that you believe there is no such thing as Sephardic Jewry, or at least that they can't be Zionists. Is this your position?

It seems you define racism as someone who allocates their sympathy unfairly - or at least not in proportion to "military might", casualty figures and US aid.
mea culpa

[David Zinn]

Religious Fundamentalist 1 (odd name, by the by)

Firstly, there is no "argument" about Israel having perpetrated "a whole lot of terrible things to the Palestinians". It's a simple matter of fact, much as is the horrible treatment of blacks in South Africa over centuries. At least South Africa has moved on from its racist colonial arrangement, whereas Israel still hasn't. Once again you display a remarkable glibness over the central issues as suggested by your pathetic question "What is your point"? My point, oh fundamentalist one, is that without understanding why Palestinians have a grievance and perpetrate what is conveniently dubbed "terrorism" by those who commit far worse acts, you will never be able to find any solution to the situation in Palestine/Israel. Israelis, and their supporters throughout the world, have to understand the significance of Al-Nakba as well as the nature of the Israeli occupation. A good place to start would be eye witness testimony from those who are actually experiencing said occupation or people who have actually been to Gaza and the West Bank. Have you ever been there?

My first two sentences were challenges to your assertion in a previous post which you decided to sidestep, raising another issue. I made no express mention of Sephardic Jews, though did imply that Jews had a presence in Palestine since the sacking of the Temple in AD70, just not a majority one. Sephardic Jews can be Zionists if they want, just as anyone in the world can be a Zionist, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I wrote. There are actually Orthodox Jews in Israel and the US who are expressly opposed to Zionism and the establishment of a state of Israel, arguing that it goes against the Torah. I'm being serious and you are more than welcome to look up this phenomenon. Some of them have been attacked by settlers in the West Bank and elsewhere. I don't endorse this view, but am referring to it to illustrate that there are a range of opinions within the Jewish community in Israel and across the world so one shouldn't preclude Serphadic Jews being Zionists anymore than we should claim that Ashkenazi are superior specimens of Jewry or who are by default Zionist. The greatest modern Jewish writer, Amos Oz, for instance, is someone who has long criticised his homeland, though he was born in Israel and has no intention of leaving. The activists of B'Tselem are also predominantly Jewish and among the finest Israelis I've ever met. My position, in short, is that there are no ready made descriptions that fit all Jews or Israelis. To do so would be highly limiting and inaccurate to boot. Avigdor Lieberman is one of the most repulsive human beings in the world today, though Naomi Klein is one of the best, in my humble opinion. The list of great Jews, past and present, is vast and magnificently impressive, though that hardly gives the race the right to act just as they please.

Your definition of racism as allocating "sympathy unfairly" is actually quite a good one, though I would go a bit further. If one has a problem with Israeli civilians being murdered, as any decent person should, one should also have a problem with Palestinian civilians being murdered. For me to take you, or anyone else, seriously as a person of principles, as opposed to one beholden to ethnically inspired rhetoric, then human rights, not just the rights of Jews or Israelis or South Africans (or any group you can think of), should be primary concern in as universal a framework as possible. We are all racists to one degree or another, though we should try and limit apportioning our concern merely for one particular cultural entity, at least in a nakedly partisan fashion. I can't say that you've shown much understanding or sympathy to the situation of the Palestinians so that's why I reached for the racism designation. If perhaps you were to display greater appreciation for their plight perhaps this term with regards yourself would fall into disuse.

To give something of a parallel, imagine what we would think of someone who, during apartheid, kept harping on about the threat posed by black people should we allow them to vote, or who consistently pointed to "terrorist" acts carried about by the ANC and other liberation groups. Even without referring to blacks using a racist epithet, the impression would be created that all that person cared about was the wellbeing of whites, regardless of the state of black people.

Impressions are naturally never an exact match to who a person really is, but that they are created is virtually unavoidable. Please correct me if this impression is way off.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David, [ nice name by the by :-) ]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. My position on any matter is for the moment irrelevant, since I am trying to understand your position. So no need to apologise for impressions mistaken or otherwise. I didn’t mean to appear glib, I’m genuinely trying to understand your position.

Based on what you’ve written, I understand your position to be:
That if we understand WHY Palestinians have their grievances we will be able to find a solution, and you posit that their grievances are land grabs, restrictions on movement etc, in short: the “nakba”.

Assuming you are right, how do you think the knowledge of the “why”, changes or influences what criteria we should look for in a solution?
Secondly, would you suggest the so-called “two state solution” meets these “why” criteria?
___________________________________________________
This gets a little long, apologies to the readers

Misc Other:
Incidentally, the term Sephardic/Mizrahi Jewry refers to communities mainly from Spain and Portugal in the 1600’s who ultimately settled across north africa and the levant. It is estimated that some 870,000 were expelled from Arab countries post 1948, the majority of whom were settled in Israel, but many of whom settled in France, America and other places.

Do you use the term “colonial” (first para) in the sense of a colony – as in say “a colony of termites” i.e. a distinguishable local population” or in the sense of
“a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state” (HT M-W)?

Are you equally dismissive of the Koran and the Pentateuch?

When you say the “Exodus” didn’t happen – are you denying that specific event, or the entire veracity of the biblical narrative?

I disagree that the allocation of sympathy is in some way a legitimate definition of racism, and if you want to claim that “there is no "argument" about Israel having perpetrated "a whole lot of terrible things to the Palestinians", you need to be fairly specific in what you mean. But I am really trying to focus on other aspects of the discussion which is why I agreed to “concede” certain points, (without prejudice of course) so I’d prefer if you help me understand your weltaunschaung before tackling the other matters. Let’s see if they become germaine later.

[Sun]

Now thats actually a great point by this here fundamentalist one.

You got him on colonial. And i also wanna know if they WHY matters!

Poo David Zinn!

[David Zinn]

Dear Religious

Thanks for complimenting my name, and perhaps I should thus clarify why I think yours is an odd choice. To describe someone as a religious fundamentalist is always an insult, at least in my book. I'm something of an adamant atheist who believes that only when the world is entirely free of religion will we grow up as a species. This background helps to answer for my distaste of not only the Torah, but also the New Testament, the Pentateuch, and the Koran, in fact all 'holy' books. I am harshly critical of religion and see the Israel-Palestine impasse as fundamentally religious in nature. The state of Israel is quite open about its religious identity as a "democratic" Jewish state, which automatically undermines any pretence towards meaningful democracy, but let's set that aside for now.

The story of Exodus is virtually entirely false, as is about 90% of the Old Testament. The Ancient Egyptians kept assiduous records of all major events throughout the history of their civilisation, most of which is preserved, and there is no record of the Israelites ever having been held as slaves in Egypt. Furthermore, a group of Israeli archeologists set about in the 1960s to find evidence of the Israelites wandering in the Sinai for 40 years and couldn't find any trace of such migratory movement for four decades. These were experts who, by virtue of their Israeli identity, actually wanted the Exodus story to be true. Scholars today believe that there may have been various small migrations around that area over centuries, but no massive one as recounted in the Exodus narrative. The story also seems like a big insult to Jews who supposedly thought that rape, murder and adultery were perfectly fine until Moses brought down the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai. There are of course two versions of the famed Commandments, but that's no bother. Nor is the fact that Pi is recorded as 3 twice in the Bible yet the Babylonians and Egyptians, centuries before the Bible was written, had the famous mathematical value down to two decimal places. But I digress. In short, anyone who believes the Bible is literally true, or who even wants it to be true, has some serious psychological issues. Or is just plain ignorant. I'd opt for ignorant if I was the person in question.

I do find it a tad unfair that you haven't answered my questions yet you insist that I clarify my position. Be that as it might be, I shall attempt to do just that in the spirit of openness and honest debate. I feel that at this stage of the game a two state solution isn't really workable considering that the two main Palestinian areas, Gaza and the West Bank, aren't contiguous and the latter territory has been parcelled up into 92 separate cantons. This is on top of the fact that there are settlers on the West Bank who use far more water than the average Palestinian, in fact due to the general water scarcity in Israel proper the West Bank's aquifers have long been plundered by Israelis. Let's also not forget the Jewish only highway system in the West Bank, plus the "Security" wall which has stolen even more land from the Palestinians and prevents them from going to school or making fool use of some plots as these have been bisected. Then there's the not insignificant issue of Israel being able to control what enters and leaves Gaza, the government's control of the air and sea around this area, and the question becomes whether these states could ever become self sufficient independent republics. I believe that at this stage, thanks to continual acts of plunder in various forms by Israel since 1967, this outcome is all but impossible. Perhaps a form of a two state solution could be introduced as a transition to a single democratic entity encompassing Israel proper and the Occupied Territories. Now I know this will rile up a number of people on this site and in the larger Jewish community. I think that we needn't see this as a precursor to the destruction of the Jews in Palestine any more than the first democratic elections in 1994 meant the destruction of whites in South Africa. The only way to preserve both sides in something approximating an equitable arrangement would be to introduce a secular constitution which guarantees equal rights to all, Arab, Jew and the Christians. That way while Arabs would represent a numerical majority, they wouldn't be able to oppress Jews using legislative or any other means. This would naturally mean that Arabs living in Israel would no longer be required to carry special ID cards, using Arabs from the West Bank as cheap labour would also have to stop, and let's also not kid ourselves by thinking that the Jews only beaches and sports clubs in Israel could remain so exclusionary. I know this may sound pie in the sky, but my model for all countries is secular democracy and I see this form of government as the best the world has to offer, particularly considering the ethnic mix in greater Palestine which could over time, much as it should do in South Africa, mitigate an openly religious or cultural identification with loyalty to a state.

I am afraid I'm not taken with your constant suggestion that you are "conceding" my points regarding al-Nakba. Contra your assertion, I have already been "fairly specific in what [I] mean" regarding the treatment of Palestinians when Israel was founded, perhaps you'd care to read my last post. Back to the first sentence of this paragraph. You cannot pretend that this is some small matter that might not quite have happened in the way history records, or doesn't quite matter as much as Palestinians make it out to be. Al-Nakba is the essence of the current conflict in Israel and Palestine and there certainly will never be any kind of solution to this situation if we just dimiss the event as old hat, or not having any relevance to the present day. I think a big part of finding a solution is indeed as you stated, namely "that if we understand WHY Palestinians have their grievances we will be able to find a solution". This generalises not just to Palestine, but to many countries. The only way Apartheid was ever going to end was if the powers that be acknowledged that the system was inherently wrong and had to change. Then the TRC was introduced as a cathartic process to come to terms with the immense amount of trauma experienced by a large portion of the South African populace. When Kevin Rudd came to power in Australia near the end of 2007 he made a commitment to apologise to Aborigines for their terrible treatment at the hands of whites for centuries, which still continues to this day. If you don't acknowledge what you did to someone, and what your action meant to them, how do you ever propose to find peace with this person?

I would argue that to seriously doubt the magnitude and sheer horror of Al-Nakba would be akin to a form of Holocaust denial, or to deny what was done to blacks in this country, or the aformentioned Aborigines, or the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey. Therefore, to further clarify, "the knowledge of the 'why'" certainly "changes or influences what criteria we should look for in a solution". The examples I've referred to should hopefully make this clear, and are in any case axiomatic, if history or human nature is any guide.

Thanks for providing some more detailed history with regards Sephardic Jews, but I can't help but feel, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you are referring to the expulsion of 870 000 Jews from "Arab countries post 48" as a sly means of saying that the 750 000 Arabs driven from their homes to found the State of Israel in 1948 is somehow okay, or at least not any worse than what Arabs did. Perhaps the date you yourself refer to, aka 1948, should be the clue as to why Jews were expelled from Arab lands. Certainly no justification, but an explanation.

As for my reference to colonialism, I prefer the Oxford definition which states that it is "the policy or practice of acquiring political control over another country, occupyiing it with settlers, and exploiting it economically". While the initial Jewish settlers didn't represent a country per se, so the traditional notion of colonial appropriation is inexact, there was certainly mass acquisition of land to found Israel, and later in the annexation of the Occupied Territories where resources have been ruthlessly exploited at the expense of the local population. The settlers in the West Bank are in many respects classic colonialists, though inspired by a fanatically rigid interpretation of their mostly fabricated "holy" book. They treat the local population like scum, regularly attacking them and even murdering some, while using up their natural resources such as water while the locals are allocated only a fraction of this selfsame resource which should rightfully be theirs for the use thereof.

While no analogy is entirely apt, and words tend to have been forged to describe very exact situations that are gradually less relevant, I do believe that anyone who takes an honest look at the situation of Palestinians in Israel/Palestine, will have no difficulty using the word colonial, or its derivatives, to describe their arrangement.

Sun

Anyone who says "Poo" isn't really worth entering into a debate with. Grow up.

[David Zinn]

Forget to ask you a question, Religious, namely what do you propose as a solution to this seemingly endlessly ongoing conflict between Jews and Palestinians in Palestine/Israel?

[Steve]

David,
You cite the non-contiguity of land between the WB and the Gaza strip as a reason why a 2 state solution is unworkable.

"Palestine" certainly wouldn't be the only non-contiguous state in the world. Other states have made it work even though they lack this contiguity. Plans have been tables at various points in time about a corridor connecting both parts of land.

Also, you mistakenly suggest that the solution that worked in SA can work in Israel. Yet you yourself state that religion is a large factor. In SA religion was not a large factor. Or at least it was a common and unifying factor. Blacks and Afrikaners were Christians. In Israel it is a polarising factor. It is a reason why a single state solution is unworkable. You need look no further than Lebanon to understand the powerfully divisive factor that religion in this region can be. I'm also slightly amused that one the one hand you wax dramatic about how bad religion can be and then on the other you ignore its effects in the potential workings of a single state solution.

Simply put, however, a one state solution will not work because Jews will not let it work. Not now and probably not ever.

Regarding the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. You say perhaps the date of 1948 helps explain why it occurred. You say it perhaps doesn't justify it, but your tone reads like a justification. Well, straight back at you, perhaps the dates 1948 and 1967 explain why there are so many Palestinian refugees!

On the knowledge of why. It should then apply to both sides. We need to look at why the Jews insist on having a Jewish state - a guardian or protector of the Jews. You seem to apply a great deal of bias in your weighting of the two whys.

On the secular government. What makes you think that the Palestinians will suddenly become so democratic? Regardless of your opinion, Jews will need proof and evidence that they are ready for this change before ever considering a joint state. The neighbouring administrations don't look very democratic - even the contiguous ones. There are laws that sentence Arabs to death for selling land to Jews...and you think we can suddenly impose secular democratic laws upon them?

Your points on religion are irrelevant. For any meaningful negotiations to take place, both sides have to accept the basic premise of the other's religion.

[Steve]

David,
Is the conflict between Jews and Palestinians? Not Israelis and Palestinians or Jews and Muslims.

Interesting.

[Steve]

David,
Are you aware that the Russian Federation is not contiguous? Neither is Brunei. There are many other examples of sovereign and non contiguous states.

The physical separation is a much smaller barrier to overcome than the political separation of the WB and Gaza - Hamas and Fatah.

I can't say it surprised me that you failed to list their own internal political turmoil as a reason for why a 2 state solution can't work. All the blame goes on the Jews (not the Israelis right?) and none to the Palestinians. I've heard it all before.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Hi David

Thanks again for your time. You raise a lot of diverse issues all of which unfortunately I can’t address without making the thread unreadable. Shorter posts, links, bullet points and a focus on the core points help.

I asked you two specific questions:
- On the 1st you answered: “If you don't acknowledge what you did to someone, and what your action meant to them, how do you ever propose to find peace with this person?” – which I’m afraid is a repetition of your point, not an answer.
- On the 2nd you advocate a secular democratic state, spanning all of Israel, WB and Gaza with a central government, and an Arab majority. Presumably you would see it having a constitution, bill of rights etc. It seems your reasoning is based on Israeli guilt for "plunder" etc and the self sufficiency of the Palestinian State(s).

I will address this in a separate post.
___________________________________________________
For the moment I’d like to “quid pro quo” answer the questions asked (I hope I didn’t miss any)

Q) When were 750 000 Zionists kicked out of their ancestral land by Arabs?
A) 850,000 Sephardi Jews were kicked out of arab countries. Incidentally, I’m interested whether you think a solution to their problem is dependent on “why” the arab governments kicked them out and if so, how. Do you think the fact that Jewish habitation of, say, Iraq predates arab culture is relevant.

Q) Have you ever been there? (Gaza, WB)
A) Yes. Israel and South Africa (during apartheid) too. I have also travelled in Europe and SADC countries. At each border I showed my ID book, Passport or dompas as appropriate and kept them with me so they were handy when stopped by Police.
___________________________________________________
I submit to you that being an “adamant atheist” is a form of religious zealotry itself, that is creating blind spots in your thinking.

In the interests the discussion and gentlemanly conduct, I would also request that you refrain from bandying about accusations of “ignorance” and “serious psychological issues”. On the former you have shown yourself ignorant of some critical points and on the latter you have demonstrated a tendency to unprovoked and unjustified slander which I assume doesn’t become you.
There might be a brief hiatus before my post on your answers to the 2 questions.
____________________________________
Sun, did you find the first question answered to your satisfaction?

[Sun]

Hell no. The man showed why why matters to him. Which is to say that he readily admits his emotional biases. He aint showed it objectively. Right?

[Mike]

Don't forget even the USA is not contiguous- Alaska and Hawaii.

[David Zinn]

Steve

You are absolutely correct that, based on all available evidence, Jews “will not let [a single state solution] work”, one of the few accuracies contained in your posts. They don’t seem to want any other solution to the conflict either, if the actions by successive Israeli governments is anything to go by. I do take issue with your negative belief that Jews don’t want a single-state solution now or ever.

Since the early 1970s an international consensus emerged that proposed a two-state solution along the pre-1967 borders, also known as the green line. UN Resolution 242 promulgated in November 1967 sought to compel Israel to end its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, which is the only way a two-state solution could conceivably work.. This resolution has been repeatedly rejected by Israel and its chief sponsor, the US government, for more than 40 years now. Israel has indeed been the biggest obstacle to a two-state solution, or any solution, which still hasn’t changed in any discernible way. Unlike you, however, I don’t believe that the attitude of Israelis is cast in stone, any more than was the attitude of white South Africans. Perhaps I’m deluding myself, but I continue to live in hope.

You presume I’m putting all the blame on the Israelis, which isn’t stated anywhere in what I’ve written thus far. That is actually what you wrote and which I’ve quoted, though I doubt this was your express intention. If I blamed them for everything, and refused to acknowledge the situation as it now is, I would advocate the expulsion of all Jews from Israel. My discussion of a single state solution in my previous post should make my position on this matter clear.

However, as the party with the most power in the present situation Israel bears the most responsibility for changing their behaviour and working towards peace. This is an elementary observation and I’m amazed you, or any other Israel supporter, consistently fail to realise this. The reason I didn’t refer to the often violent schism between Fatah and Hamas, which is undeniable, is because I never heard any sensible commentator who honestly wanted peace in South Africa ever advocate that the IFP and the ANC cease hostilities before the Apartheid regime should even begin to make movements to dismantle the whites only government. Because whites controlled the state machinery and were responsible for instituting and maintaining the Apartheid regime, the onus was on them to end the oppression of blacks, as it should have been and any rational person agreed this was the only viable course of action. Perhaps you’d be interested to know that the Israeli government created Hamas, or at least did nothing to present the organisation’s creation, as a means to divide and rule the Palestinian populace. See the history of the IFP in South Africa for further insight into how this sort of thing works.

While I will readily concede that Palestinian violence isn’t helpful for the attainment of peace, and should be harshly condemned, why is it that I never seem to hear from the supporters of Israel about how the actions of that state repeatedly scupper or seriously undermine peace initiatives? Or how it is all too obvious that Palestinian violence is directly related to how they are treated at the hands of the Israeli government? Or am I to conclude from your silence on this point that everything Israel does is always good, or at least explicable, while everything done by Palestinians is always bad, even when they appear on the surface to be positive?

I am constantly amazed at how easily apologists for Israel will create false equivalencies, such as assuming the Palestinians and Israelis are roughly equal power blocs, while ignoring obvious ones, such as the many disturbing similarities between Apartheid South Africa and modern Israel. One such false equivalence is comparing Gaza and the West Bank with Brunei and Russia. There is only a small patch of land separated from the massive hulk of land that is the Russian Federation today, and the two parts of Brunei are separated by a very narrow strip, hardly presenting any problems akin to that which is faced by Gaza and the West Bank being divided by a hostile entity in the form of Israel. These situations can’t even remotely be compared to the two disparate chunks of what could possibly form a Palestinian state. Non-contiguity was in any case not my primary reason for proposing a single state, considering how relentless Israel has been creating “facts on the ground”, a euphemism for settlements, in the West Bank, while also divvying up the land in dozens of enclaves, not to mention plundering water resources and construction of vast Jews only highway systems crisscrossing the West Bank. If Israel was prepared to dismantle all that and to stop exploiting the West Bank then perhaps a two-state solution might be workable after all.

I find the assumption by certain supporters of Israel that Palestinians have no capacity to understand, let alone implement, democracy rather richly ironic. In January 2006 there were municipal elections in the Occupied Territories for the first time ever and all international observers declared them to be free and fair. Say what you will about Hamas, they won those elections fair and square, yet Israel, the US and Europe immediately set about undermining the result and demanding a boycott of the territory until the Palestinians reverse their decision about who they want to rule them. An article in Vanity Fair which appeared in April last year revealed that the so-called violent takeover of Gaza by Hamas in June 2007 was actually to pre-empt a coup d’état by Fatah who had been armed by the US and Israel to seize control of Gaza. I invite you to read the famous article in question, available at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804. Also of interest is an article which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor entitled ‘Israel, US, and Egypt back Fatah's fight against Hamas’, available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0525/p07s02-wome.html.

You see democracy isn’t only about accepting results that go your way, but accepting the will of the people. Whether we like it or not, Palestinians are highly disillusioned with the corruption and collaborative tendencies of Fatah, hence their support for Hamas. In the last election held in Israel, Arab parties were barred from participating. Recently Israel has passed laws that threaten “imprisonment for anyone who dares to deny that Israel is a Jewish and Democratic State” and to lock someone up for three years if they mourn the Naqba. I refer you to Uri Avnery’s wryly observed article about these laws and their implications for Israeli society available at http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery06022009.html.

Avigdor Lieberman, now the Israeli foreign minister, prior to the elections seriously proposed that Israeli Arabs who fail to take a loyalty oath to the State of Israel be expelled from the country. He also said that Palestinian prisoners should be dropped in the ocean. What sterling humanitarian sentiments and deep commitment to democratic principles!! Israelis, as the last election should have amply demonstrated, as well as their actions in the West Bank and Gaza, are the last people to lecture anyone on upholding democratic ideals. Perhaps it might behoove supporters of Israel to examine the actual record of the country they admire so much, instead of just buying the rhetoric of politicians.

The only other time in your posts when you touch on an important truth is where you mention that the situation in Israel is different to that of South Africa by virtue of the religious dimension to the former conflict. While I have no doubt people take their religions seriously on both sides, this doesn’t give their respective beliefs any more credence. My harsh critiques of religion are highly relevant in the Israel/Palestine situation as the conflict highlights yet again how religion poisons everything, to borrow a phrase from Christopher Hitchens. I know well how religion warps minds, hence my belief it should be eliminated.

The “dates 1948 and 1967” obviously “explain why there are so many Palestinian refugees”, as anyone with even a vague shred of knowledge about the history of Israel should be aware. You weaken your own case greatly here by accurately implying that Israelis are plunderers and occupiers of Palestinian land, which the historical record unambiguously shows is the case. Thanks again for helping my argument!

Dear Mr Fundamentalist

I had a good chuckle over your assumption that being dead set against superstition and unfounded metaphysical beliefs is the same as being a religious fundie. That would be like saying the cure is the same as the disease. Please direct me to the atheist who blew themselves up, or who bomb abortion clinics (or who kill doctors offering abortions), or who throw acid into the uncovered faces of women, or who destroy girls schools, or blow up places of worship and symbols of opposing religions. Religion is a poison that should be extracted from the human collective if we have any hope of preserving the human species. May I refer you to books such as ‘The God Delusion’, ‘The End of Faith’ and ‘God is not great’ to gain greater insight into the manifold ills of religion and what sort of vision should be proffered to counter them.

Please refer me to when I’ve displayed ignorance that is even remotely in the same league as believing the world was created in 6 days, or that a man survived in the stomach of a big fish, or that the world experienced a ubiquitous deluge, archeological and palaeontological research be damned. Perhaps ignorance is too gentle a word for those who take such nonsense seriously. I thought I was being kind, but I can see that more precise language is needed to delineate levels of ignorance. Having said that, we are all ignorant to one degree or another, so there will be many things I won’t know, and many things that you won’t know. Or are you possibly suggesting that you know all? As someone who seems to seriously doubt that the Naqba happened I wouldn’t be so eager to brand others as “ignorant”. Just a thought. Pray tell what “critical points” I have displayed ignorance on?

Please also refer me to when I’ve “demonstrated a tendency to unprovoked and unjustified slander” as you claim? Remember I didn’t expressly call you a racist, merely made the point that this impression had been created by virtue of your original post. I stand by my “psychological issues” comment by virtue of the reasons already given.

The reason one could contend that Jews were expelled from Arab countries is because these states acted in solidarity with the Palestinians who had been expelled in 1947-48 to found Israel. I think expulsion of anyone is horrendous and should be harshly condemned, but bear in mind that you referred to 870 000 Jews expelled from a range of Arab states, whereas 750 000 Palestinians were expelled from a single state. Considering that we are discussing this single state it really isn’t too “germane” to refer to Jewish expulsion from other states, which in any case had to do with the establishment of the state of Israel in the first place. Even if the Jewish expulsion had nothing to do with Israel’s founding, I’m not sure why that would give Israeli emigrants the right to expel Palestinians who had nothing to do with Jewish expulsion from Arab lands. In all honesty I really don’t know enough about Jewish expulsion from Arab countries so will certainly look into it.

I think it’s quite insensitive to refer to your passport as a “dompas” considering the meaning of that term for black South Africans. Furthermore, it is highly disingenuous to suggest, which I believe you were, that a special passport for Arabs in Israel is the same as a regular passport which all citizens in all countries require to travel to other nations. This special passport for Arabs is clearly meant to entrench their second class status within Israel, as are the numerous restrictions on employment which also apply to them within Israel proper. Let’s also not forget about those Jews only beaches and sports clubs which surely isn’t a sign of a state that takes egalitarianism and non-racialism seriously.

By the way, I wasn’t merely restating my point, but assenting to your interpretation thereof. You posed it in the form of a question, remember, which I subsequently answered. There is a difference, last time I checked.

Thank you for at least attempting to answer some of my questions, though you failed to answer the most important one, namely what would you propose to bring about peace in Palestine?

[Steve]

David,
I havent read your full post yet. But some responses to the first few paras.

Your interpretation of the actions of successive Israeli govs is wrong. The signing of the Oslo accords was an indication that Israel was ready for a two state solution. It culminated in the Barak government accepting the Clinton principles for two states, which would have seen massive Israeli concessions on Jerusalem and territory. It is the Palestinians that have not been willing to accept the two state solution. Certain Israeli actions have certainly placed additional obstacles towards this end state. I don't believe the Netanyahu govt is taking positive steps towards this solution.

Israel does not reject resolution 242. There is a dispute over its interpretation -- on whether Israel must withdraw from some or all of the territories. Israel has indicated willingness to withdraw from 97% of all the territories as per the Clinton parameters which Barak and his government accepted.

The attitude of Israelis vis a vis a 2 state solution is not cast in stone. The degree of support it receives changes according to the amount of violence they public faces. Their support for a 1 state solution - i.e. the dismantling of the Jewish state is cast in stone. In the minds of the overwhelming majority of Jews across the world.

My presumption on where you lay the blame was formed not from what you said but from what you did not say. Even if you did blame Israel for all the problems, I am disgusted that you would advocate all-out expulsion. For even if Israel was entirely responsible, your solution is not humane and would punish all Jews for some Jewish mistakes.

"However, as the party with the most power in the present situation Israel bears the most responsibility for changing their behaviour and working towards peace."

I don't accept this. Both sides need to change their behaviours.

Your comparison with the IFP and ANC is misguided. There was never a question about who to hand power over to. We knew it was the ANC that the Nats had to negotiate with. And stopping violence between Hamas and Fatah is not a precondition for anything so your comparison is also irrelevant.

Furthermore, the two situations are very different so just because one thing worked in SA does not mean you can apply it to Israel. In SA the bantustans were formed of an illegal decision by a minority government to separate blacks from whites but to still have access to them for labour. In Israel, the separation between Israel, WB and Gaza was formed of a legal UN decision. The conquest of the WB falls into a separate category and I can understand why many see this a foolhardy decision which is today an obstacle to peace.

If you dont hear Israelis talk about their own mistakes then you are reading the wrong newspaper. Read Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post. This blog has on various occastions condemned settler violence. We have also condemned hardliners in the Likud that we believe are obstacles to peace.

What is the distance of the narrow strip separating the two parts of Brunei? Israel is smaller than the Kruger National park. How can the distance between the WB and Gaza be so big? It is smaller than the distance of the mindset between Israelis and Palestinians yet you advocate a Lebanon solution instead of a 2 state solution.

" Non-contiguity was in any case not my primary reason for proposing a single state"

Either way it was wrong and I am entitled to point that out". Your explanation seems like you are baacktracking from this point. Good.

On Palestinian democracy - I say let's give it to them in their own state. Let us see if it works. Israel should assist in this regard - economically and perhaps even institutionally along with Jordan and Egypt.

Regarding the single state - if Palestinian self rule means nothing to you (clearly it doesnt since you support a single state) then why not have them for a joint statw with Jordan? I am not suggesting we throw the problem over the Jordan- I am wondering why the WB + Jordan (+ Gaza) is not in your eyes a better alternative than WB + Israel? Shared religion, language, nationhood (in broader Arab terms). Please explain.

I will read the rest of your post later.

[Steve]

1948 and 1967 explain the refugee problem because they are the dates of wars in which aggressive Arab states expressed a desire to destroy Israel and launched (1948 and at first with the Palestinians in 47) or intended to launch (1967) wars.

This is the fundamental reason for the refugee situation. I believe it was compounded, especially in 1948, with instances of disastrous decisions and actions taken by Israel. But let us not forget who accepted the UN partition resolution and who waged war in the face of it.

Both sides have clearly erred and need to make painful concessions. Both sides need to give up on some of their "rights" and both sides need to be practical in their assessment of how they were wronged.

[Steve]

By the way, assuming Israel bore responsibility for everything:

where would you send all the Jews? would you even evict the good Jews that are opposed to zionism? would you separate families? what about poor jews who are labourers and member of unions? Them too?

You sound as radical as a religious fundamentalist.

And again...
Also, you mistakenly suggest that the solution that worked in SA can work in Israel. Yet you yourself state that religion is a large factor. In SA religion was not a large factor. Or at least it was a common and unifying factor. Blacks and Afrikaners were Christians. In Israel it is a polarising factor. It is a reason why a single state solution is unworkable. You need look no further than Lebanon to understand the powerfully divisive factor that religion in this region can be. I'm also slightly amused that one the one hand you wax dramatic about how bad religion can be and then on the other you ignore its effects in the potential workings of a single state solution.

[Steve]

"You see democracy isn’t only about accepting results that go your way, but accepting the will of the people"

I know. I voted DA but accept the will of the people in SA.

But it's also not only about elections. It is about independent institutions etc etc.

I am amazed you defend the democracy of Hamas. Aren't you against religion? Then surely religious rule should be an anathema to you? By your thinking regarding religion, Hamas shouldn't probably be allowed to even contest at the polls. They are profoundly undemocratic, even if they were elected via an election.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Dear David,

Once again, I will try to keep it brief and to the point. Steve fights his own battles. Your long winded response has however forced me to delay dealing with the actual issue of your proposed one-state solution.

We’re not playing Dr, Dr
I don’t have to “show you” my solution. You presume to lecture to the blog, I’m trying to get to grips with your understanding. (We’re not debating, yet)

Atheism
“being dead set against superstition … is the same as being a religious fundie”
No. I draw the comparison that being dead set against something unprovable (i.e. whether there is a deity) was equivalent to absolutely believing its truth and brooking no questions. Since you quote Dawkin’s, perhaps you’d like to read some of his recent debates with Lennox.

“Please direct me to the atheist who …”: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Khan …

Ignorance:
“Please refer me to when I’ve displayed ignorance…”
I didn’t say it was the “same league”, but I think you’d have a hard time demonstrating that anything more than a small minority of people consider the biblical narrative to be absolutely litteral, which you’ve asserted more than once.

More Ignorance:
“Pray tell what “critical points” I have displayed ignorance on?” Some examples:
1: Jewish expulsion from arab lands.
2: Pentateuch = Torah, per definition.
3: Arabs in Israel carry the same ID as Israeli’s. Arabs from “outside” of Israel do not.
4: Restrictions on Employment: I take it you’re referring to the Government’s Affirmative Action program?
5: “In the last election held in Israel, Arab parties were barred from participating.” Balad won 2.5% of the vote, Ta’al 3.4% etc
To quote a post higher up on this thread: “Do facts mean absolutely nothing to you people?”

“unprovoked and unjustified slander” Some examples:
“whereas not even wanting to concede that the Palestinians might be able to have (a state) in any foreseeable future”
“the state you so blindly salivate over”
“Avigdor Lieberman is one of the most repulsive human beings in the world today”
“… Jews who supposedly thought that rape, murder and adultery were perfectly fine until Moses …”
etc
_____________________________________________

Some Questions for the Readers to ponder:
- If Hamas is the rightfully elected majority appointed leading party of Gaza: should the Gazans be held responsible for their choice, in other words, for the actions of Hamas?
- Is “no evidence” proof positive that something didn’t occur
- Does Israel actually have power to force a solution, if in negotiation they’re forced into a suicidal result and in military conflict they’re constrained to stale-mate
- Why does “power” really confer the ultimate responsibility (except because Peter Parker says so)?
- Should G-d/religion be held responsible for peoples idiocy and evil?
- Incidentally there’s a good proof (based on mathematical induction) to suggest that David indeed does believe things far more tenuous than that an all powerful deity could create a world in “6 days” … but I’ll leave that for the readers to ponder themselves.

Sun, this is for you:
Is “ … assenting to your interpretation thereof.” the same as answering a question?

[Gary]

David Zinn-you say when have atheists ever killed people?
It is in the name of the very ideology that you espouse - Marxist-Leninism- that over 100 million people were murdered and countless more lives ruined.

Regarding your one-state solution, make no mistake, people like you want this Rwanda type solution because you want to see five million Israeli Jews massacred.
You people dont fool me for a second.

[David Zinn]

Steve

Glad to see you’re finally levelling some criticism against Israeli actions. It’s long overdue, but at least it’s a start.

I never stated that I advocated the expulsion of Jews from Israel, please read again what I actually wrote. While I believe a single state solution makes the most sense considering how integrated both Gaza and the West Bank are with Israel, I realise that this proposal poses massive difficulties for a variety of reasons. I certainly agree with you that Palestinian self determination should be taken into account so if they want Gaza and the West Bank as a separate state they should be allowed to realise this possibility. I am also willing to concede that incorporation of the West Bank back into Jordan and Egypt once more taking possession of Gaza are viable possibilities.

I haven’t backtracked on the non-contiguity issue but rather pointed out how your examples are completely inappropriate as a comparison. Brunei is a tiny nation with a population of less than 400 000 people and the entire country is probably not much bigger than a medium sized city. The population is about an eighth of that of Tel Aviv and in terms of total area Brunei is only about a tenth of the size of Israel’s second largest city. The distance between the two parts of Brunei is much more negligible compared to that of the land separating the West Bank and Gaza, even if Israel is only the size of the Kruger National Park. For the umpteenth time, non-contiguity is not my main gripe, never was, so let’s please move on.

Of course you don’t accept that “as the party with the most power in the present situation Israel bears the most responsibility for changing their behaviour and working towards peace", because your Pro-Israel bias is plainly obvious. The endlessly repeated refrain from most individuals such as yourself is that “both sides need to change their behaviours”, and you have once more acted true to form. Never mind the nature of the power wielded by both sides, or an accurate analysis of how one side bears disproportionate responsibility for the present conflict, because that actually takes some work and grasping the notion of universality. You clearly didn’t comprehend the import of what I wrote so I urge you to re-read my words in the last post. To not be able to see that the greater power a particular entity possesses confers on said entity correspondingly greater responsibility is to miss the key to unlocking a peaceful solution in the Israel/Palestine deadlock. How can you possibly think that a group of people who are subjected to checkpoints, land grabs, collective punishment violating the Geneva Conventions, brutal military occupation, deplorably inhumane assaults such as the recent Operation Cast Lead, who have no state nor army to call their own, bear equal responsibility as people who have the fourth most powerful army in the world, up to 200 nukes, and the unconditional support of the world’s pre-eminent super power?

To even think these two sides bear equal responsibility for brokering peace is positively obscene and deeply irrational. Did the Vietnamese bear as much responsibility as the Americans while the latter rained down thousands of bombs on the country and killed millions of civilians? How about the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority in Rwanda? How about the population of East Timor which saw a third of its population exterminated by the invading Indonesian Army armed by the US, UK, and Australia? Maybe the 1.5 million Angolans and Mozambiquans murdered by the old SANDF are just as culpable in their own deaths as South Africa’s Western sponsored military machine?

If “stopping violence between Hamas and Fatah is not a precondition for anything”, why bring it up in the first place? Israel, and its supporters, regularly ask that Palestinians to recognise the state of Israel and to renounce violence, two things Israel never does in relation to the Palestinians. If we were honest with ourselves we would call this hypocrisy, and your reference to the struggle between Hamas and Fatah while failing to mention the Israeli government’s far greater violence and obstructionism in the peace process falls similarly into this dishonourable tradition.

The problem I have with debating apologists for Israel is the degree to which they blatantly distort the historical record, lie outright, or are just plain ignorant of the events in question. How in a million months of Sundays could Palestinians who had their villages destroyed, family members massacred, and were driven from their homes in the hundreds of thousands be described as the aggressors? By this rationale the Aborigines were the aggressors against the marauding white settlers, just as the Native Americans surely showed aggression to the European colonisers who set about exterminating them over centuries. Jan van Riebeeck and his successors also saw the San as pesky aggressive runts who should be wiped out, therefore the Cape Government gave licenses to hunt them right up to 1927. They were probably quite “aggressive” in the face of their civilisation’s destruction so in your books probably deserved their fate.

As for 1967, the belief among many Israelis and their supporters that the State of Israel was merely defending itself against Arab aggression has been completely debunked many times over from a welter of sources. I’ve read testimony from Israeli generals at the time who knew there was no threat from any other surrounding state as Israel’s army was more powerful than all the neighbouring Arab states’ armed forces combined, as is still the case. It was a war of expansion and aggression, on Israel’s part of course.

Now to 1993 and the Oslo Accords. I really can’t believe that you seriously think Israel was actually conceding anything then, which has also been exposed as yet another myth. No American newspaper, nor any other Western media outlet as far as I know, ever showed the map of the West Bank that emerged from the Oslo Accords. I did and it’s a sick joke to have seriously expected Yasser Arafat to take the proposal back to his people and try and sell it to them as some kind of “peace deal”. The West Bank is divided up into 92 cantons separated from most of the prime water sources, and surrounded by Israeli settlements. Of course Arafat was resoundingly denounced in the West as the primary obstacle to peace, another fiction that has proved stronger than fact.

If you are going to continue to repeat Israeli propaganda and to spew outright falsehoods this discussion will have to be terminated. “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said.

Gary

I don't espouse "Marxist-Leninism" you knuckle dragging buffoon. How many hundreds of millions of lives have been destroyed by various religions down the centuries? We'll never know the exact number so it really is foolish to blame more mass murders on what people like you assume is an atheist ideology. It's the same old rot from the same old peanut brained gallery. Hitler, Stalin, Mao may have been atheists, but they were also megalomaniacal monsters who were beholden to particular ideologies and not to atheism per se. My models on how to organise a society and live one's life are Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the Swedish socialist democratic model, Spinoza, Einstein,, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others infinitely more civilised than you, or any of the regimes you cite, could ever be in a trillion lifetimes.

I certainly don't want "five million Israeli Jews massacred", but considering your twisted grasp of facts I'm not surprised that your fetid and fevered brain should have conjured this apocalyptic spectacle. I don't need to fool you as you're doing a sterling job of that yourself. Now please go away, this is a discussion for grown ups, you wing nut.

[David Zinn]

Hello Mr Fundamentalist

It’s not a matter of something being unprovable or not, but whether or not there is a greater or lesser probability that something exists. We can’t strictly disprove there aren’t fairies in the garden or a man on the moon, but that doesn’t make these propositions any more true. Who said that I don’t “brook any questions”? I ask questions of myself and others all the time. I’ve heard plenty of debates with Dawkins and he usually wins hands down. I’ve also heard virtually all the arguments for a creator, or at least the version espoused in the Bible and other Holy Books, and regardless of how dressed up they are, these arguments are almost always unsatisfactory. They’re also always old, as Hitchens points out, because religion is part of the childhood of our species.

None of the “atheists” you cite ever did what I accused religious nutcases of doing. Please see my comment regarding Gary’s idiotic observations for a knock down of your premise. Also, Hitler was certainly not an atheist, as evidenced by constant references to Christianity in Mein Kampf, not to mention his desire to be a priest as a young boy. None of the people you mention acted expressly out of their atheism, but due to a specific ideology.

About half of Americans don’t believe in evolution and think that the Bible is literally true. That’s roughly 150 million people, no small number. I’m sure millions throughout Africa and Latin America believe the Bible is literally true. In fact, considering the low levels of education throughout the world, and the high levels of religiosity(which usually go hand in hand), I think it might be fair to say that the bulk of Christians, who number half the world’s population, could very well believe the Bible is literally true.

I realise that the Torah comprises the Pentateuch, obviously, though the latter is considered to comprise the five books of Moses, while the Torah comprises the entirety Judaism's legal and religious texts. I should perhaps not have separated them out like that, for which I apologise if it gave a false impression of my ignorance in this regard.

I asked you to list ignorance of “critical points”, and I would hardly consider Jewish expulsion “germane” to a discussion of Palestinian expulsion. Then we could always excuse atrocities by referring to other ones committed elsewhere. Points 3 and 4 I’ll have to check up on. As for point 5, I was basing my assertion on an article by a former IDF soldier written prior to the elections who stated that Arab parties wouldn’t be allowed to participate.

Of the “slander” you quoted, only the second one actually qualifies. The first one needs more context, and is based on an impression. I stand by my comments about Lieberman, have you heard some of his pronouncements? The man is a truly sick and twisted individual and anyone who doesn’t condemn him in the harshest possible terms is morally questionable in my books. He would like nothing more than to remove all Arabs from not just Israel proper but also the Occupied Territories. Calling him a fanatic is being kind. The “slander” in this case is anything but “unprovoked” or “unjustified”. The fourth line is quoted completely out of context so please go back to where you found this excerpt and read the entirety of my sentence. In fact I was complimenting Jews while pointing out that to assume that the Israelites needed the Ten Commandments to tell right from wrong is a supreme slander on the entire nation. In short, the sentence whence your selected quotation comes expressly states the exact opposite of what you seem to assume it does.

Not going to address all your questions, but will venture some possible answers. As Steven Weinberg said “there are good people and there are bad people, but for good people to do bad things it takes religion”. We don’t need a higher power or religion to be idiotic and evil, but it certainly helps.

Please won’t you be so kind as to inform the readers where this “good proof (based on mathematical induction)” is which suggests that I “believe things far more tenuous than that an all powerful deity could create a world in ‘six days’”? Any argument over religion I would win hands down, because there are no good arguments for religion. I’ve heard them all, debated plenty of religious people, read many books on the subject, so I’ll gladly have that discussion with you, but that’s clearly not the topic on this blog.

I’ve already explained how "power…confers…responsibility” on a particular party in any conflict situation where negotiation towards peace is necessary. Perhaps you missed it, so please go back to the relevant part of my previous post. If you cannot realise that this is about as axiomatic a philosophical observation as it is possible to formulate, with plenty of real world examples to back it up, I do feel somewhat sorry for you.

Fine, keep dodging my questions and pretending that I’m the one presuming to “lecture to the blog”. A failure to answer suggests you have no answers to speak of, but I wouldn’t want to be any more presumptions than I’m already presumed to be.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

Would it be fair to say that you think any solution is fine (1 state, 2 state, land to Jordan etc) as long as the violence stops and all the people of the region are left to live in peace (i.e. with their human rights) such as freedom of expression, freedom of movement within their country etc ?

Do you accept that this reflects an opinion that human life is paramount, thereafter freedom is important and that you place little value on who nominally controls the secular democracy providing these rights.

(please keep the answer short)

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

" I would hardly consider Jewish expulsion “germane” to a discussion of Palestinian expulsion"

rephrased:
"and I would hardly consider any Jewish (IDF) actions germane to Palestinian terror"

Goose, Gander, anyone?

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

as an aside (please, I beg, a brief answer), on the balance of probability how do you think the world most likely came into existence?

[David Zinn]

Dear Religious

I must apologise for some of my more snide comments, had a bit of a frustrating day and probably took these out on you, and also rushed my comments a bit. I have clearly underestimated your lucidiyt. I think absolutely that any solution, agreed upon by the relevant parties, that ends the violence and "all the people of the region are left to live in peace" would be acceptable. Despite being accused of being an anti-Semitic genocidist twice on this blog, that is fundamentally not my position. The Israelis in Israel exist, nothing is going to change that, nor should it, much as white people needn't have been expelled to bring about peace in South Africa.

I also accept your interpretation of my position "that human life is paramount" and that I do "place (relatively) little value on who nominally controls the secular democracy providing these rights". Because I am a big proponent of secular democracy I see this form of government, anywhere in the world, as the best safeguard for the values I most hold dear such as freedom of expression, association, press, and even religion. That latter freedom doesn't contradict my disdain for religion but hopefully makes clear that I have no intention, now or ever, to advocate any form of suppression of observant religious people. Secularism is where it's at, as some rappers might say.

(Hope I've answered your question and not merely restated my point)

[David Zinn]

Religious Fundamentalist

Your other questions didn't come up when I returned to this site, so forgive me for not answering them, which I assure you wasn't intentional.

False equivalence seems to reign among many Israel supporters. IDF actions are as extremely germane to Palestinian terror, however Jewish expulsion as related to Palestinain expulsion is much less so. Where there is a relation your argument supporting Israel is weakened, not strengthed. After all, as you yourself noted, the expulsion of Jews in Arab countries happened AFTER the founding of the state of Israel which was created in the wake of around 750 000 Palestinian refugees, hundreds of villages destroyed, thousands of civilians killed. If there had been no founding of Israel, or if Israel hadn't been founded on a form of genocide, as Ilan Pappé argues, there would most likely have been no expulsion of Jews. That once again is a very elementary point. To not see the relation between the actions of the state of Israel and the "terroristic" response by Palestinians is to once again display a remarkable lack of logic. Then we might as well say that the actions by the ANC had no relation to the Apartheid government. Let's take it a step further and say that the very heroic Warsaw uprising had nothing to do with the actions of the Nazis. They certainly saw it that way.

As for your other question. As someone who subscribes to scientific methodology I don't throw in the towel so easily and say "god did it!!!". There are theories as to how the universe originated, but more importantly, and excitingly, scientists are still working on this problem. You also have to remember that in this life there are mysteries and things which are complicated. The latter we can work on and solve eventually, mysteries no one has any better idea than the next person. Science tends to deal in the realm of the complicated, while religion pretends to be able to understand the mysterious. The origin of the universe might prove to be one of those ineluctable mysteries, but for now we're working on it. That is how science, and with it knowledge, progresses, and that's why religions are rooted in a time when no one knew anything, as many religious people still live their lives.

In short (I know how much you love brevity) I don't know, probablistically or any other way, which is the only honest answer to that question. No one can know and to pretend otherwise is the height of hubris, much as it is highly arrogant to pretend that the universe was made with you in mind. Ahhhh, religion has ever been a grand meeting point of the narcissistic and the solipsistic.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

Thank you for your answers. I fully intend to respond on the issue of a secular state and your axioms.

The religion discussion is not relevant to the blog. If you would like, I would gladly continue the discussion via email. You can send an email to almost supernatural and they can forward it to me.

You've quoted Pappe often as authoritative and he seems to be one of you main sources.
I suggest you read,
Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians." (Efraim Karsh)
See also Pappe in his own words in interviews, his argument with Benny Morris. See also Benny Morris' discussion on Pappe.
In particular you'll note that Pappe and truth are not friends. He has been roundly denounced and discredited.

[Gary]

I have seen some disgusting stuff on this blodg but comparing the Warsaw Ghetto uprsiings to Arab terror against Jewish women and children takes the cake. How sick and twisted can anyone get?

[David Zinn]

Gary

Oh I don't know, Gary, why don't you tell us, seeing as though you seem to have cornered the market on "sick and twisted" on this blog with your disgusting slander of all atheists and imputing in me some revolting genocidal scenario for Jews.

And what about Jewish terror against Arab women and children which is far worse than what Arabs visit upon Jews in Israel, as all credible human rights groups constantly document.

Oh, I forgot, you're probably one of those deplorable racist fiends who think nothing of Arab civilians but gnash your teeth in pained anguish should anything happen to any Jews.

Religious

I'll look into it, but after reading Benny Morris justify the expulsion and murder of Arabs to found Israel, deeming it necessary, I hardly think he ranks as someone any decent human being should take seriously. Considering the many lies and distortions I've read on this blog I wonder whether many people here can even discern what's true or not, let alone denounce other people for distorting facts. The question isn't about whether or not he's been "denounced and discredited" but rather who's been doing the denouncing and discrediting. There are many people out there who screech like deranged banshees and lose all semblance of rationality should any critique be delivered against Israel, so I'm always a tad suspicious of those challenging official Western and Israeli dogma pertaining to the State of Israel. Not ruling out the possibility Pappé has erred, I mean it's not as if anyone is without error or sin, but I do urge caution in dismissing people based on their conclusions, as opposed to the facts adduced to arrive at said conclusion.

[David Zinn]

correction: meant to say "I'm always a tad suspicious of the [criticism levelled against] those challenging official Western and Israeli dogma pertaining to the State of Israel". Should also have added "based on past experience and reading relatively widely on the subject".

Pappé is one of many sources, which are constantly expanding.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

I mentioned Morris because he was beloved of "the Left" and because he's generally recognised as a competent factual historian. You need to learn to distinguish objective fact from interpretation. i.e. Morris "justifying" expulsion is interpretation, whether you agree or not. Pappe making up statements by Ben Gurion is fabrication, i.e. lying, not "erring".
The difference is fundamental.

I'll ignore your snide comments for the moment.

[Shaun]

Been sitting on the sidelines for this one, but I just have to make an observation.

David Zinn: “My models on how to organise a society and live one's life are Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, the Swedish socialist democratic model, Spinoza, Einstein,, Jean-Jacques Rousseau…”

• Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it should be noted that their ideas of liberalism didn’t include equal right for Jews. Also, their teachings lead directly to the “reign of terror”… anyone suspected of being an anti-revolutionary was beheaded.
• Thomas Paine may have been a great orator and writer but his views on the rights of man didn’t seem to include black slaves… The same goes for Tomas Jefferson who actually fathered children with his female slaves.
• The Swedish model. With a natural fertility rate of less than 2.0, the majority of the Sweden’s population will be Muslim within one generation More than half of Swede adults will receive double the health care and financial benefits than they contribute. This means that in about 15 years Sweden will face the same financial disaster as Iceland.
• Einstein: Great guy and a cool hair style, but was fully aware of the destructive force he would initiate.
I suggest you reading Fatherland by Robert Harris. It’s a historical alternative based on the Utopian, liberal, secular democracy Zinn advocates.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

Thanks again for your time, I believe I have gained "fundamentally" and I am grateful. I hope you are able to overlook the style of "wingnuts", and honestly tackle the flaws in your argument, sources and knowledge.

I will briefly (for the sake of the post and neatness) restate your argument from axiom to conclusion rather than the other way around as it is above. I will then demonstrate that your axioms are flawed, calling into question the validity of your conclusion.

Your Position:
1) Human Life is the paramount value
2) Freedom is the next most important value incl: freedom of expression, assoc., religion, etc
3) A secular (liberal) democracy is the best safeguard for these values
4) The people of the region agree with these principles (I know you didn’t say this explicitly)

Ergo, [a] secular (liberal) democracy[ies] in the place of Israel, WB, Gaza will allow the people of the region to live these principles which they share, without fear for their lives. They will be granted human rights, freedom of expression, assoc., movement etc.

A critical look:
1a) Hamas and the PA do not value human life above all else. In fact, based on their constitution, actions, press statements etc they value control over the area, and possibly the padding of their own back pockets over human life. They also value honour above life.

1b) Judaism also holds certain values above the value of human life, but this isn’t directly relevant. What is relevant is that the State of Israel agrees with you that human life is paramount – except that they value their own lives more than someone else’s and moreover, consider the long term loss of human (and in particular Jewish life) to be best minimised by having a Jewish State “at all costs”.

2) Hamas, the PA and Islam in general do not view Freedom as a positive. Islam is fundamentally a religion of submission. Hamas believes in submission to Islam. The PA, to the extent they have a coherent ideology other than plunder, doesn’t particularly value freedom either.

3) This may well be true. Except that, as you point out a State comprised of Israel, WB and Gaza with full voting rights for everyone would result in an Arab majority government, which based on experience in the region is unlikely to guarantee equal rights to all religions, minority groups etc. This point can be, mutatis mutandis, made whether you’re talking about 1,2 or 3 states.

4) I’ve demonstrated that the people of the region do not share your principles, or where they do, they hold other principles to be more important.

Consequently, your solution may well be appropriate based on your axioms, but not the axioms/principles of Israel, Hamas and the PA.

Aside:
You are free to argue that the Hamas/Israel etc are wrong in their principles, but then you need to demonstrate why your principles are right and their's wrong (objectively).
You are also free to argue that for example Israel is wrong i.e. that their could never be another holocaust, that an arab government would guarantee such rights etc. But don’t be surprised when they respond that they’re not prepared to take your word for it.
__________________________
To summarise:
Hamas doesn’t want to settle down, get a job, debt, and live quietly. They want Muslim control of all previously muslim lands, i.e. the destruction of Israel. They intend murdering Jews.

Israel, at least nominally, is prepared to negotiate for a smaller piece of ground, provided their neighbours leave them alone. However, they’re not prepared to take a gamble on their (or Jewry’s) long term future, or the chance of another Holocaust based on UN and other international promises, i.e. they’re not leaving.
Offering the region something they don’t want, to achieve goals they don’t agree with doesn’t seem rational to me.

[Sun]

Holy shit. Absolute massacre. Sorry David, you was smashed with logic and temperment. (And I don't mean to offend you David with the use of the word Holy. Sorry my friend.)

I aint to fanboy of these here members of Zion but allow me to show you what sticks in me mind about your arguments.

"Anyone who says "Poo" isn't really worth entering into a debate with. Grow up"
Straight back at ya son.

"I can't say that you've shown much understanding or sympathy to the situation of the Palestinians [Israelis] so that's why I reached for the racism designation. If perhaps you were to display greater appreciation for their plight perhaps this term with regards yourself would fall into disuse."

Straight back at ya son.

"yadda yadda ... because your Pro-Israel bias is plainly obvious.

Straight back at ya son.

"The endlessly repeated refrain from most individuals such as yourself is that"

Straight back at ya son.

"The problem I have with debating apologists for Israel is the degree to which they blatantly distort the historical record, lie outright, or are just plain ignorant of the events in question"

Straight back at ya son.

"As for 1967, the belief among many Israelis and their supporters that the State of Israel was merely defending itself against Arab aggression has been completely debunked many times over from a welter of sources"

Straight back at ya son.

" “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts”"

Straight back at ya son.

Mr Fundamentalist and stev are wasting their good fingertips on you Mr Ad Hominem.

And by the way sir, I am also an atheist, though not the radical kind who is irked by people who believe in a creator. I used to believe, so I understand how they can feel. Just like i hate a believer who refuses to sit by idly whilst others have diffrent beliefs, I also hates a man who refuses to allow others to have their beliefs.

I think the discussion is ended. Mr Fudamentalist takes the prizes. David goes home empty handed but with a RFF.

[David Zinn]

Sun

Your comments once again display that you are clearly not right in the head. There was absolutely no "massacre", as you so idiotically put it, and anyone with even a modicum of rationality will read through the posts and realise that I made a number of good points, with facts to boot, while others here (not mentioning any names) either chose to smear me as a genocidist and or to completely misinterpret many of my contentions. Religious Fundamentalist has been one of the few honest brokers on this thread and has at least tried to engage with my points, though often also failed to grasp my primary contentions.

Those "straight back at yas" are not just hopelessly childish, for most of the sentences you quote they make absolutely no sense.

I also "used to believe" and I also "understand how they[religious people] can feel". Just because someone "feels" something doesn't make it right. When did I ever "refuse to allow others to have their beliefs"? You're just another smear merchant who "goes home", as ever, empty headed. The word "radical" is never an insult, at least not from the likes of you who try and use it as a smear. I believe it was Cicero who once said that “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

Shaun

You clearly don't know enough about any of the people you've deigned to "inform" us about so I really see no need to counteract so many abysmal falsehoods and distortions. Actually try and read people for what they actually meant, rather than what you think they meant. Also, try and see their writing in context. Rousseau and Voltaire had nothing to do with the terror, considering that they died more than a decade before the French Revolution.

Both Paine and Jefferson had views which progressed over time, ever heard of the phenomenon?

Einstein refused to serve on the Manhattan Project and was deeply troubled by the dropping of the atomic bomb. To slander such a great man as Einstein is really disgraceful, particularly considering that he is one of the greatest Jews to ever live. Surely that's not something to dismiss in this ostensibly pro-Jewish site.

Sweden is probably the most civilised countries on earth and what you've written, particularly the rubbish about Sweden becoming a Muslim country, is pure speculation. It is also a typical Islamophobic smear, which I'm not surprised by. I would live the rest of my days in Sweden in a New York minute. It's paradise on earth and a model for all other countries.

I really have to doubt your honesty and basic understanding of the words you so blithely bandy about. 'Fatherland' certainly is no vision of "the Utopian, liberal, secular democracy" I advocate, considering that this book details what the world would be like had the Germans won the Second World War. The Nazis stood for everything that is opposed to liberalism, democracy, secularism and Utopia, at least in the sense of that term being applied to all citizens. If you think that the Nazis are my model of how to organise a society you are either very ignorant, highly dishonest, or earnestly believe that secularism = Nazism, in which case you have some reading up to do.

Religious Fundamentalist

There are some valid points in what you wrote, as usual, however I can't help but detect the typical double standard where Israelis are seen as the really good people and Arabs are designated as the extremists who can't be trusted, even though for the last few decades it has been Arab political groups that have made far greater overtures of piece than any Israeli government. I don't particularly like Hamas, but understand that despite their founding documents, they are no longer opposed to the state of Israel, as pronouncements by a number of their leaders should make clear. I couldn't help but smirk when you wrote that the "State of Israel agrees with you that human life is paramount". So this would be after Operation Cast Lead in which almost 1400 Palestinians, most of them civilians, were wiped off the face of the earth in just three weeks. Considering the massive discrepancy between Israeli and Palestinian casualties throughout the Second Intifada, and stretching to the founding of Israel, I really find such pronouncements not just laughable but plainly false, as the record clearly shows.

You also can't state that Judaism holding "certain values above the value of human life", is not "directly relevant", when you criticise Islam for same. Either all parties value human life, in which case there is some commonality, or if, as you suggest, both groups place certain values above human life there is a stalemate courtesy of both sides.

One can bang on about how evil Islam is and what a grotesque religion it is, which as a staunch critic of religion I constantly do, but in terms of casualty rates the Islamic world has been on the receiving end of far more terrorism than it has ever meted out. In Iraq alone, since the Gulf War of 1991, probably around 2 and a half million people have died thanks to that war, harsh sanctions administered by the US and the UK, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's all very well for the West to continually pat itself on the back as the defender of civilised values, but when it comes to how they act in the real world, facts tell a very different story.

The problem is that I don't believe you, or anyone else who fancies themselves as a defender of Israel, have ever taken cognisance of just how utterly reprehensible the Israeli occupation is, even setting aside the genocidal nature of Israel's founding. Until such a time that you can actually try and understand what a degraded daily spectacle it is to live as Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza, then you won't be able to appreciate the root cause of their terrorism or propose any kind of meaningful peace settlement. The point, in other words, is therefore not just to read authors who corroborate your viewpoint apropos Israel, but those who have been at the receiving end of more than forty years of increasingly repressive occupation. To dismiss the qualms of those we oppress and deny human dignity to, is to encourage both our own moral diminishment and even potential destruction at the ends of our violently frustrated victims. South Africa stared into the abyss and stopped just short of plunging in, I fear Israelis are reaching the point of no return.

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

With regard to the current bellicose Israeli / Palestinian relations and the prospect of a "resolution" of the conflict by way of a Two State Solution , the following questions inevitably arise...

Is war peace (now) and is peace war (the future)?

[David Zinn]

I thought more needed to be said about Sweden.

What a truly horrible country it is, I mean they have one of the lowest crime and HIV rates in the world, not to mention the almost negligible poverty which exists in that dour Nordic land. It also ranks, along with its Scandinavian neighbours, as one of the least corrupt nations on earth. The spread of wealth is among the most equitable in the world, healthcare is first class, support for single woman and families puts most of the rest of the world to shame, and all education, including at universities, is absolutely free. The same applies to foreign students.

In terms of foreign aid, Sweden gives more as a percentage of its GDP in aid then any other nation. The United States, which regularly boasts about how wondrous it is, gives one of the lowest percentages of its GDP as aid in the developed world.

For all those atheist-bashers on this site it should also be noted that some polls indicate that up to 80% of Swedes don't believe in a higher power, or are at least without any form of religion.

So there you have it folks, Sweden truly is a shockingly inhumane secular tyranny that abhors freedom of any kind and is on par with those Nazi mass murders, facts be damned!! We have Shaun's word and that's good enough for me.

[David Zinn]

Wondered what the individuals on this blog might think of the following article, which I am including in its entirety:

How Israel's Occupation Affects Palestinian Children

By Juan Cole

Over one in five Palestinian children in the West Bank and Gaza (22.5 percent) now suffers from chronic or acute malnutrition. About one in five is anemic. This mass of hungry humanity amounts to a population the size of Minneapolis, about 380,000 kids.

Malnutrition in children makes them more likely to contract life-threatening diseases. It permanently reduces intelligence and vastly increases the rate of attention deficit disorder. Women who were malnourished in their youths have increased rates of premature birth and high blood pressure in pregnancy.

The occupying power in the territories, Israel, enjoys a per capita income of some $17,000 per year, higher than Spain. In contrast, half of Palestinian families must now borrow money just to buy food.

Palestinian terrorists certainly bear a great deal of the blame for this tragedy, insofar as their horrific actions against innocent Israeli civilians have understandably led Israel to close its borders to Palestinian laborers. Unemployment is a prime source of the problem.

Yet, while the scourge of terrorism in Israel has been unspeakable, none of it has been committed by toddlers or infants. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's current lockdown of the entire population of the West Bank is a massive form of collective punishment that has worsened the problem. As the occupying power, Israel cannot escape responsibility for seeing that its colonial subjects are at least fed.

The specter of a rich occupying country presiding over a famished subject population is not unusual in history. Nobel Prize winner Amartya Sen has pointed out that colonial and other undemocratic governments often allow hunger and famines, since they are insulated from popular protest.

Famously, even in the midst of the Great Hunger in Ireland of 1845 through 1850, eight ships a day left Ireland carrying exports of wheat, barley, oats, beef, pork, butter and eggs, sent abroad by British landlords while their peasants starved.

The French, who ruled Algeria 1830 to 1962, claimed to be on a "civilizing mission" to their subjects. Yet their policies of selling grain reserves on the world market led to a massive famine in the late 1860s when droughts produced starvation and pestilence.

Only the intervention of the French colonial authorities could have forestalled the deaths of thousands, but such officials have often maintained in history that they bear no responsibility for averting famine deaths. Some 300,000 Algerians died of hunger or of the consequent disease outbreaks.

In Sen's classic case, the British civil service in India failed to stop the starvation of three million Bengalis in 1943. He argues that famine is not caused by lack of food, but by an increased inability of the poor to afford it. Only government intervention, he argues, can stop such a tragedy.

That Palestinian children are not going so far as actually to die from their hunger in great numbers has helped conceal the depth of the crisis. Israel has ruled the West Bank and Gaza since it conquered them in 1967, and cannot disclaim responsibility for a population still under its military rule. A Palestinian Authority constantly under attack and immobilized cannot be expected to do hunger relief.

A wealthy and militarily powerful Israel is responsible under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to see that persons living under its occupation are not harmed. Letting 380,000 children go chronically or acutely hungry is a serious violation of international law.

Since the United States still gives Israel billions of dollars every year and has acquiesced in the current West Bank reoccupation and curfew, it also bears a responsibility for this tragedy. The Palestine issue has dropped out of news coverage, and even when it is noticed the focus is on strutting adult male politicians and military men. Will anyone speak for the children?

[reposted from http://hnn.us/articles/987.html. Originally published online on 23 September 2002]

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David

I note that instead of refuting the critique on your logic you have chosen to continue your sweeping statements. Once again exchanging brevity and logic for feelings and pontificating.

Now that we’re all clear on your position and the soundness of it’s axioms, I suppose we can “debate”, if you would like.

I’ll start with a few questions, you’re welcome to ignore them and post another long diatribe.
___________________________
Quotes are from your last post
“I can't help but detect the typical double standard…”
- Can you point out where I said something in the last post that helped you detect this?
- I don’t believe I criticised either Hamas, Islam or Israel for their views. I’ll admit however to a snide comment on PA corruption. If it will make you feel better, I know how you value empathy, here’s me admitting that Israel’s political leadership is corrupt.
- Is it possible that by framing the argument in stark logical terms you’re actually, forfend!, noticing that maybe Israel isn’t evil incarnate?

“even though for the last few decades it has been Arab political groups that have made far greater overtures of piece than any Israeli government”
Can you please give clear examples, with comment why said overtures are “far greater”.

“don't particularly like Hamas, but understand that despite their founding documents, they are no longer opposed to the state of Israel, as pronouncements by a number of their leaders should make clear”
You’re either not reading their statements, or you’re relying on secondary reporting. Please show a clear example. Preferably not one made up by Pappe
Any good theories as to why they haven’t changed the founding documents? Like say with a “first amendment”?

"…State of Israel agrees with you that human life is paramount. So this would be after Operation Cast Lead in which almost 1400 Palestinians, most of them civilians”
- I qualified the statement.
- At the very least you can agree they nominally pay lip service to the idea.
- Your comment indicates YOU think they don’t value human life at all which strengthens my argument.
- Please show what figures you’re basing the contention that more than half of the 1400 were civilians (I’ve seen at least 3 different counts of varying veracity. The total count is reflected around 1200. About 1000 have known status, of which 700 were militants. – please indicate your source. For those still battling with the proof by induction, note that 700 is “half” of 1400 and in a loose fashion “most” of 1000)

“when you criticise Islam for same.”
- I made no criticism, that was your interpretation. I pointed out a fact. Once again, you’re projecting your own bias.
- Nominally, the conflict is not between Jews and Moslems, it is between Israel and the Palestinians. Since Hamas is an Islamic movement, Islam is relevant. The State of Israel is only nominally Jewish with little consideration for actual Torah values, hence my phraseology.
- BUT, if you want to say it is a religious conflict the point remains, i.e. that Jews and Muslims have priorities higher than human life.

The West as “defender of civilised values”
David, my whole point is that Israel and the Palestinians do not share these values. You seem to believe that the West doesn’t either, this hurts your argument. What’s your point? Did you need to fill space and make a standard anti-US remark to cheer yourself up?

“The problem is that I don't believe you, or anyone else who fancies themselves as a defender of Israel, have ever taken cognisance …”
Ah, the epitome of open mindedness.
Nevertheless, you will note that I have not “defended Israel” – I merely worked through your argument – so why the bitterness? And more importantly – why the righteous indignation and myopia against someone who doesn’t agree with you?
You’re a rather dogmatic fundamentalist on a number of issues.

“Until such a time that you can actually try and understand what a degraded daily spectacle it is to live as Palestinian in the West Bank or Gaza, then you won't be able to appreciate the root cause of their terrorism”
- Right at the beginning you failed to provide a reason, other than your very important feelings that this was true or even relevant.
- There are plenty people living in far worse conditions (freedom, GDP, per capita income, foreign aid etc) who don’t resort to terror, hence it can’t be the only or even the key reason.
- You believe they’re resorting to terror because you value freedom highly and you think it’s justified in order to overcome degradation. This is based on YOUR values. The founding documents of both Hamas and the PLO say they’re fighting to liberate Palestine, not to “get the vote” as the ANC did.

“The point, in other words, is therefore not just to read authors”
A non-sequitur, but nevertheless, you don’t seem much to hold by this theory yourself. You’ve barely thought through what I wrote – how do you hope to get a grasp of Pipes, Karsh, Morris, Rubin and others who don’t make up statements to further their ideology.

“is to encourage both our own moral diminishment”
On what basis do you define what is, and isn’t, moral?
My point: why should I care about what you define as morality?

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

Shaun didn't say it was a horrible country. He said it had an unaffordable welfare structure. Thanks for elaborating on his point.

And please don't paste articles, you self-centred git! Have you no manners!?! post a link.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David

Here's what I think of the aricle, a rare candid glimpse:
1) If Hamas spent more time smuggling in supplies, medical and otherwise and instead of destroying Gush Katif farms they'd used them, there would be a lot fewer hungry kids in Gaza.
2) It would also be a change if Juan Cole actually got his facts from somewhere rather than regurgitating propaganda.
3) US aid is under 5% of Israel's Budget - i.e. peanuts.
4) US aid to Israel is a similar order of magnitude to Egypts. Why doesn't Egypt open their border with Gaza?
5) What are the Palestinians doing with their AID?

It goes without saying, that your fabulous and deep empathy for all the suffering children, which you feel the need to quote in full, doesn't redeem your lack of knowledge, fact inventions, and inability to follow logic.

[Steve]

Well argued RF. Sun is right, this has been a massacre.

David,
What details of the Clinton parameters make you dismiss it so easily? Please list the Palestinian overtures that were of greater significance than that plan.

[David Zinn]

Religious

I can’t believe I actually apologised for my snideness, considering that you’ve decided to take this quality to unprecedented heights with your last few posts. I was actually prepared to give some of your questions in the post directly following my last one a fair shake, but your last post has made this unnecessary. You have proven yourself to be an abject liar who doesn’t have the faintest foggiest clue of what he is talking about.

Let’s begin with the largest slabs of baloney. “US aid is under 5% of Israel's Budget - i.e. peanuts”. This is such contemptible hogwash I don’t know how anyone within the realm of conventional sanity could have uttered it. Israel as it is currently constituted only exists thanks to US largesse. Virtually all their military hardware, which the state needs to survive against its “enemies”(aka people they’ve stolen land from and continue to brutally oppress), is supplied by the US. Furthermore, the support that the American government offers isn’t only in the form of foreign aid, but also in the diplomatic realm. The US government continually vetoes or abstains from voting on UN resolutions condemning Israeli actions, and when the US vetoes or abstains the resolution is crushed and usually erased from the record, at least as far as the mainstream media goes.

I have read from a multitude of sources that “US aid to Israel” accounts for half of the US government’s foreign aid budget a year so there is no way that Egypt accounts for the other half. They receive plenty of aid, in fact in their category, i.e. states that are not Israel, Egypt receives about as much aid as other states heavily supported by the US including those paragons of human rights Turkey and Colombia. Your statement is a complete fabrication and you should be ashamed at yourself for openly displaying such wanton ignorance.

Your lack of sympathy for starving Palestinian children means that my initial impression of you as a racist is amply confirmed. Instead of being disgusted by what is happening to an entire population you trot out the blame game again and point fingers only at Hamas, which shows just how blindly you defend Israel, regardless of your earlier claim to the contrary. Then again considering you have failed to grasp the axiom of power relations that I have repeatedly articulated, I suppose this isn’t surprising, sick as your attitude is.

Your racism is further on display in your discussion of Operation Cast Lead where you think it’s somehow a defence of Israeli actions that 700 militants were killed, therefore ‘disproving’ that the bulk of the victims were civilians. Even using your questionable figure, there are still 300 Palestinian civilians dead after the operation. Between 2001 and 2008 only 17 Israelis were killed by rocket fire from Gaza, and during Operation Cast Lead only 13 Israelis lost their lives, three of these soldiers being killed in friendly fire. Most of the rest were IDF soldiers, leaving only about 3 or 4 Israeli civilians. In just the first day of Operation Cast Lead 200 people were killed, most of these civilians, which is more than ten times the amount of Israelis killed during 8 years of rockets. To be in no way enraged at babies being blinded and killed, which I saw with my own eyes on television and in detailed reports, is to show a contempt for human life that is breathtaking in its callousness. To even quibble with numbers when so many human lives were incinerated further demonstrates your utter lack of any discernible compassion, let alone a moral framework that any decent human being should subscribe to.

I wonder how you determine the “varying veracity” of reports regarding Operation Cast Lead? Could it have something to do with certain reports citing facts and figures that cast Israel in a negative light? The fact that you’ve chosen such a low total number, which no article or report I read ever postulated, again displays an overwhelming pro-Israel bias.

Considering I’ve hardly even put a comma out of place, let alone had my facts seriously challenged by anyone on this site, I find it truly amazing that you can refer to my “lack of knowledge, fact inventions, and inability to follow logic”. I could say ‘straight back at ya’, like Sun, but will refrain from doing so lest your embarrassment deepens even more.

I never ever even remotely implied that “Israel is evil incarnate”, which shows the ease with which you’ll slander others who don’t walk in lockstep with your ideology, while also displaying a “righteous indignation and myopia against someone who doesn’t agree with you”, to quote someone else on this blog.

I really wasn’t aware that adducing the millions of deaths in Iraq at the hands of the US government, one example among many in the Middle East, was “a standard anti-US remark” and that I was doing so “to cheer [myself] up”. Thanks for that bit of info. Here I thought I was pointing out facts, who would have thought? You apparently. I mean let’s not dare refer to the six million Jews killed by Hitler during the Holocaust because, after all, this is a “standard” anti-Nazi remark. We wouldn’t want that now would we? Those poor Nazis, we just might hurt their feelings.
[Hate to break it to you, but your dismissal of facts pertaining to the deaths of millions of swarthy people (which includes the more Western looking Kurds) as a simple “anti-US remark” yet again shows your racism.]

Considering that I’ve read on average more than seventy books a year for the last few years, even reading as many as 85 in a single year in 2004, I hardly need advice from the likes of you about reading so cut the arrogance. Daniel Pipes is a despicable propagandist and anti-democratic Muslim hating oaf, so it’s instructive that you should quote him as a resource. See Hitchens’ article “Pipes the propagandist”, available at http://www.slate.com/id/2086844/. Benny Morris may have started life as something of a supporter of Palestinian rights, but he has now become a rather right wing figure who justifies the mass expulsion of Palestinians and displays remarkably callous racist sentiments in much of his later work. Again, an instructive inclusion.

You certainly shouldn’t “care about what [I] define as morality”, and you clearly don’t. I value honesty, intellectual integrity and, most of all, universality. What’s good for me is good for other people. Being an unabashed racist, as it is now unequivocally clear, you could never grasp this notion. You don’t see two human communities when you look at the Palestine/Israel conflict but rather one set of superior beings waging war against inferior sub human specimens who deserve no understanding, compassion or anything approaching equal rights. Don’t even try and deny that is what you think, because behind all your methodical pedanticism and carefully chosen words, giving people the impression that you prize logic and reason, is a seething cesspit of racist hatred not uncommon amongst most supporters of Israel, regardless of how faux gentle their public rhetoric may be.

As someone with religious sensibilities, as you clearly have, I don’t think it’s in order even appealing to your supposedly superior logic considering all the irrational beliefs one needs to subscribe to qualify as religious.

This “discussion” has at least highlighted yet again that, on the main, defenders of Israel are basically born liars who must contort their moral sensibilities and the facts to make their case. Either they’re liars or moral monsters, but if I’m kind I’ll just go with the former because to defend a sate as lawless, corrupt, brutally violent and deeply racist as Israel one must argue that this is not the case. To know that this is the truth about Israel and to support the state nonetheless is to walk down a path of monstrous moral depravity.

I generally make a habit of avoiding discussions with racists and liars, and I’m not prepared to make an exception now. For my part, participation on this blog is now at an end.

Adios, you fact-free fundamentalist!!!

Steve

Considering that I’ve utterly vanquished all your falsehoods and distortions without anything resembling a rebuttal on your part I wouldn’t be so quick to call responses to my posts a “massacre”. It resembles nothing of the sort, and anyone not as blinded as you and your miserably mendacious ilk would realise that. Your entire life is spent lying on Israel’s behalf, so I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that your mind is so warped you can’t even realise when you’ve been thoroughly trounced in the argumentative realm. I’ve repeatedly exposed you as a fraudulent falsifier so the only person who’s been massacred in any meaningful sense is you, or at least your arguments. In any case, to even adopt this kind of language reveals to me the low level of intellect possessed by the contributors to this blog. How childish to even want to “massacre” someone’s arguments, rather than arrive at the truth. Again, typical of those who defend Israel where truth is seemingly always at a rare premium. You’re an embarrassment to the cause, Steve, who doesn’t stand a chance against me or anyone else familiar with the reality of the state you so lovingly go to bat for. Keep comforting yourself that you’ve “massacred” me if you’ve must, which would be just another delusion in an endless succession of deluded fantasies.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Thanks David for once again showing your inability to follow simple logic and blithely dismissing anything not in keeping with your narrative.

We'll leave the readers to come to their own conclusions.
__________________________
For the mathematically challenged out there:
700 is more than half of 1000. Ergo, 1000 - 700 = 300 is not "most".

Israel's State Budget is approx ILS316bn (ynet), about $83bn. US aid to Israel is $2.55bn (egypt $1.8m, source globes, USaid.gov). 2.55/83 = 3%.
__________________________________
Please do read the suggested article written by Hitchens and compare his accusations against Pipes and Pipes' response with the type of accusations levelled against say Pappe and Pilger.
_________________________________
And finally, my apologies to the blog, oops, I broke another one.

[RF2]

David

I am sure you are still reading so I'll post this

First congrats to RF1 - a demolition. David, the reasonhe demolished you is because he never defended Israel, he only showed the fundamental flaws in your logic. Your last post david was sad. No facts, no sources (not even known liars) for accusations and no manners. Its was one long emotional diatribe where your responses essentially were: No its not , because I say so.
I was like a small child throwing a tantrum after he has lost an argument.

fellas, once again this thread indicates how in a public open debate the likes of Zinn will usually appear to win. Without time to digest and dissect his lies, ignorances and faulty logic,as well as research false and unreliable sources, he will give the impression of being knowledgable and correct. I once again wish to use this as a freindly warning against those who plan to debate live and in public.

[David Zinn]

The reason I’m contributing another post is both for the public record and to disavow Religious Fool1, or anyone else on this blog, from any pretence to a pseudo-victory. RF1 certainly didn’t “break” me, considering that neither him nor any other specimens on this blog could even give me so much as a gnat bite. There certainly hasn’t been any “demolition” or “massacre”, and the use of such terms, in the absence of anything even remotely resembling evidence, smacks of desperation and naïve wishful thinking. It also gives yet more insight into the inveterately aggressive mindset of the pro-Israel brigade, mirrored in how the state deals with its subject population and surrounding countries. Might explain why certain types of people will always support certain types of states.

I will admit that I was a bit hasty in my discussion on US aid to Israel, relying on memory instead of doing any investigatory legwork on recent statistics. Not surprisingly after said investigation, and in keeping with past performance, RF1’s figure is incorrect, or at least it only tells part of the story. Richard Curtiss, in the article “True Lies About U.S. Aid to Israel” which appears on the ‘Washington Report on Middle East Affairs’ website, writes that “in fiscal [year] 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000” [available at http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1297/9712043.html].

Curtiss goes on to provide more details regarding US aid to Israel:

“America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli”.

The article entitled “U.S. Military Aid to Israel” by Kathleen and Bill Christison, and available at http://www.counterpunch.org/christison03052009.html, provides yet more insight into the aid provided by the US to their staunch ally Israel. According to this husband and wife team the “United States and Israel signed a Memorandum of Understanding in August 2007 committing the U.S. to give Israel $30 billion in military aid over the next decade”. They describe this as “grant aid, given in cash at the start of each fiscal year” and the “only stipulation imposed on Israel’s use of this cash gift is that it spend 74 per cent to purchase U.S. military goods and services”. The “first grant under this agreement was made in October 2008, for FY2009, in the amount of $2.55 billion”, which is the amount quoted by RF1 to his credit, though the article notes to “bring the total 10-year amount to $30 billion, amounts in future years will gradually increase until an annual level of $3.1 billion is reached in FY2013”. The authors provide more context as it relates to the aid given to Egypt as “Israel receives its aid under vastly more favourable terms than any other recipient” as “Egypt, for instance, receives $2 billion a year in economic aid, but this is a loan and must be repaid” while “Saudi Arabia also has U.S. military equipment in its arsenal, but it buys and pays for this equipment and is not given it, as Israel is”.

As far as I’m concerned the most acutely accurate paragraph in the article is this:

When Israel attacks Palestinians, as during the recent assault on Gaza, its instruments of destruction are U.S. fighter jets and attack helicopters, U.S. missiles, U.S.-made white phosphorus, U.S.-made Caterpillar bulldozers. All of this American-made destruction is clearly identifiable to television audiences throughout the Arab and Muslim world, where viewers receive a steady diet of news showing Palestinian civilians being killed by weapons made in the USA. It is from this vast population, which feels kinship with Palestinians and feels itself to be under assault from the United States, that terrorists such as Osama bin Laden are able to find recruits.

According to the Palestine Monitor since “World War II Israel has been the largest overall recipient of US aid” because between 1949 and 2006 “Israel received more than $156 billion of direct US aid”. Also, until “2003, Israel received approximately one-third of the annual US foreign aid budget” and in “2005, the US gave Israel more than $2.6 billion in aid, a budget exceeded only by US aid to Iraq”. In comparison “Jordan received $683.6 million, Rwanda received $77 million, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories received [just] $348.2 million”. According to this website the “US also lends money to Israel, but these loans are frequently waived before any repayments are made”, noting that the “Washington Report on Middle East Affairs has estimated that from 1974-2003 Israel benefited from more than $45 billion in waived loans from the US”. Available at http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article17.

Mitchell Bard’s article “U.S. Aid To Israel”, which appears at
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/foreign_aid.html, claims that “Altogether, since 1949, Israel has received nearly than $100 billion in assistance” which “includes the three special allocations, the $10 billion in loan guarantees (spread over five years) approved in 1992, and a variety of other smaller assistance-related accounts, such as refugee resettlement (nearly $1.5 billion overall) and cooperative development programs (a total of $186 million since 1981 )”. This total “does not include funds for joint military projects like the Arrow missile (for which Israel has received more than $1 billion in grants since 1986), which are provided through the Defence budget. President Bush requested $60 million for the Arrow for FY2003 and $136 million in FY2004”. According to Bard the “United States also has provided $53 million for the Boost Phase Intercept program and $139 million for the Tactical High Energy Laser program under development in Israel to complement the Arrow”.

Bard writes further that “Israel does receive aid on more favourable terms than other nations” because, as an example, “all economic aid is given directly to the Israeli government rather than allocated under a specific program”. According to the author “starting in 1982, Israel began to receive all its economic aid in a lump sum early in the fiscal year instead of in quarterly instalments as is done for other countries”. Surprisingly, “Israel is not required to provide an accounting of how the funds are used” and “Israel also receives offsets on FMS purchases (U.S. contractors agree to offset some of the cost of military equipment by buying components or materials from Israel)”.

In Matt Bowles’s article “US Aid: The Lifeblood of Occupation”, available at http://www.wrmea.com/html/usaidtoisrael0001.htm, we learn that “Israel usually receives roughly one third of the entire foreign aid budget, despite the fact that Israel comprises less than .001 of the world’s population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes”. This means that “in other words, Israel, a country of approximately 6 million people, is currently receiving more U.S. aid than all of Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined when you take out Egypt and Colombia”.

Bowles writes that the “total amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel has been constant, at around $3 billion (usually 60% military and 40% economic) per year for the last quarter century” but that “in addition to nearly $3 billion in direct aid, Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid: military support from the defence budget, forgiven loans, and special grants”. Bowles contends that while “some of the indirect aid is difficult to measure precisely, it is safe to say that Israel’s total aid (direct and indirect) amounts to at least five billion dollars annually”.

I noticed RF1 had nothing to say about the military and diplomatic support that the United States so unremittingly offers to Israel. Even if the percentage of Israel’s budget comprising US aid is just 3 or 5 percent, could he possibly name another country where aid from an outside nation makes up even 1% of its annual budget?

Now for the much vaunted claim that my logic has somehow been exposed as fundamentally flawed and that RF1 isn’t defending Israel. Everyone on this blog seems to do nothing but defend Israel considering my criticisms of the state have been met with nothing but harsh denunciations, outright lies, distortions, or a failure to even acknowledge my points (rather telling, methinks).

[David Zinn]

In terms of logic there are a number of ways to approach this concept. It should already be clear that my moral logic differs sharply from that of RF1’s, and by extension most people on this blog. I included the Juan Cole article as a test which RF1 failed miserably. Instead of being outraged by children being malnourished due to the Israeli government’s collective punishment of the Palestinian population, which violates the Fourth Geneva Convention, he laid the bulk of the blame on Hamas. If this isn’t defending Israel and displaying grotesque immorality to boot, I don’t know what is.

Logic, in terms of its use in philosophy, usually stems from certain principles or presuppositions. If those presuppositions are flawed or lacking much evidentiary weight, all arguments that flow from them are similarly tainted. Thus it is possible that a Holocaust denier may appear to make logically reasonable arguments but because he denies an event so thoroughly documented, his logic, such as it is, remains positively worthless. So too Christian theologians might seem to be making impressively coherent arguments, but they take as a given the belief in Christ’s divinity, that he was born of a virgin, performed miracles and rose from the dead after being crucified. All of these propositions are false, or at least not grounded in any meaningful evidence, thus theology is reduced to a parlour game of arcane linguistic gymnastics with hardly any substance to speak of, kind of like most of RF1’s posts. If one cannot agree on the facts of the matter, or terms of the debate, a discussion of any sort is rendered most problematic, as has proved the case and hence my decision to discontinue participating on this blog.

I find it quite interesting that my logic, or supposed lack thereof, has been constantly impugned while my more elementary logical observations have been dismissed or simply ignored. RF1 seriously questioned why it is that the party with the greater power in any conflict situation bears much greater responsibility for its cessation. If the powerful party is the chief instigator of the conflict in the first place, as well as being the continual perpetrator of the lion’s share of the violence, as is unequivocally the case with the state of Israel, then the responsibility to end the aggression is multiplied considerably.

RF1, however, doesn’t believe this is the case, which is all fine and well, but it raises some serious questions. In light of the failure to grasp this basic point of power relations, when RF1 outlines the lack of respect that Hamas and Fatah have for human life, and the similar lack of respect supposedly enshrined in Judaism (according to RF1 this latter fact isn’t particularly relevant while it is in the case of the Palestinian groups), he appears to be making a “logical” point, but this conceals the deeply flawed premise of his argument. He is essentially pretending as if both sides have equal responsibility in creating a peaceful solution to the conflict in Palestine, without any reference to the power that Israel wields in comparison to a people without a state, army or the unyielding support of the world’s only remaining superpower. If RF1’s logic is to be believed we need to apply his notion of equal power regardless of reality to other situations, to see if his “logic” holds up or is even remotely tenable by decent, rational, or sane people.

I have been harshly condemned for referring to the incredibly brave Jews during World War 2 who rose up against the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto, but this is an instructive example in more ways than one. Firstly, if, according to RF1’s logic, we should not take into consideration the disparity in power between two groups engaged in a conflict, which he clearly applies to the Israel-Palestinian situation, then we should similarly not apply the power dynamic when examining the uprising by Jews in a Polish ghetto. After all, the Jews had guns, which they managed to smuggle into the ghetto, so it really is irrelevant whether or not the Nazis had for more guns, soldiers and military hardware. Keep in mind that I don’t subscribe to this view in the least, as I’ve already made clear, but this is the logical conclusion to RF1’s “logic”, if he is to be consistent.

Similarly, the massive disparity in arms and state infrastructure between blacks and the Apartheid regime is rendered negligible if we subscribe to RF1’s “logic”. So too the difference between the dissidents in Stalin-era Russia and the totalitarian state mechanism of the Soviets. We could generalise his “logic” to include the not insignificant difference in firepower between the Native Americans in the New World and the European immigrants, or the Aborigines in Australia who were so violently vanquished by the white settlers. All conflicts, in RF1’s world, are always between two sides who are roughly equal, even if reality tells a completely different story. History is certainly a lot simpler if we take this view, though I would argue that this proves that very often brevity is the enemy of accuracy and necessary thoroughness.

Now RF1 probably thinks that all this sounds patently ridiculous, which of course it does, so why doesn’t he care to explain to all of us why power disparity is relevant in the case of the Nazis VS Jews, or blacks VS Apartheid regime, or any number of other conflicts the world over, but not in the case of the Israeli government VS the Palestinians, lest he be taken for the basest hypocrite?

The reference to the Holocaust opens up another avenue of speculation on one of RF1’s favourite themes, at least as far as his posts go, namely how Palestinians are the chief agents in virtually all that is wrong with their society. I recently read Hannah Arendt’s ‘Eichmann and the Holocaust’, essentially a long excerpt of her earlier work ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil’, which forms part of Penguin’s Great Ideas series. In one of the more interesting parts of this fascinating book she discusses how leading Jewish figures in various European cities assisted the Nazis draw up lists of all the Jews in that particular region whenever the Nazis had taken control of it. Jews were also in charge of policing ghettos and these significant members of the Jewish community showed a remarkable degree of co-operation with the mass murdering scum who were busy attempting to exterminate all of European Jewry. Everyone here should also be aware of the Jewish kapos who often acted brutally towards their fellow Jews in the concentration camps, as well as the numerous Jews who were forced, it has to be admitted, into assisting in the disgusting disposable of their fellow Jews in the gas chambers. Now a certain cast of mind, usually of the anti-Semitic variety, will take all this to be indicative of the lowly Jewish character, whereas I will certainly not be so quick to judge people in very extreme situations. Who knows how any of us would act when faced with the choice of either selling out our culture and living, or standing true to principles and going down with the ship, so to speak. The most salient fact about the situation just outlined is that the Nazis were the really evil monsters who forced people in the first place to behave in such morally questionable ways. Just as it would be truly sick to blame Africans for their collusion in the slave trade, rather than the slave traders themselves, it should be similarly sick to blame Jews for their collaborative efforts with the Nazis without making any reference to the latter.

As much as Hamas and Fatah behave in deeply questionable ways and have often disagreeable ideologies, without referring to the larger situation encompassing Israeli occupation and dispossession of Palestinian land, the discussion becomes an exercise in selectivity and gaping elision, and is thus fundamentally dishonest.

RF1’s constant fixation on my use of the word “most” when describing civilian casualties during Operation Cast Lead is yet another desperate ploy to obscure the real issue. Firstly, according to all the sources I’ve read on this despicable attack on a largely defenceless population, the lowest figure cited is 1300 people. I’d be interested to know who possibly provided the 1000 figure. Could this be the work of the IDF? Furthermore, how are we to be sure that 700 “militants” were killed? How are they classified? Considering how the IDF has a habit of killing twelve year olds who throw stones at tanks, and classifying these children as “militants”, I’m not sure how much credence I would give to any Israeli government sources. So by RF1’s “logic”, possibly his favourite word, would it be perfectly acceptable if Hamas killed 700 Israeli soldiers? Are these deaths magically mitigated because the people killed are actively engaged in hostilities? Even if, according to RF1's clearly questionable sources, “only” 300 civilians were killed during the three week bombardment, is that somehow acceptable, or even remotely proportional in light of the deaths of Israelis over the years which I cited in an earlier post?

I would also urge people to read articles on Pilger and Pappé, but not before they’ve actually read the work by the people in question. There is a lot of gossipy garbage on the internet, so it often becomes difficult to parse fact from fiction. One such example is the sick smear campaign against Dr Mads Gilbert which was begun by a couple of pro-Israel bloggers who claimed that he had attempted to resuscitate the already dead body of a young boy who was the brother of a militant. This story has been thoroughly debunked and I would refer readers to the relevant Wikipedia page where they provide links to the debunking. I honestly don’t know what’s worse, that people should spread such revolting stories in the first place, or that others should be so keen to believe them. Strangely, the fact that a young boy had been killed seemed to bother no Israel supporters in all this.

I would advise those reading this and not yet entirely blinkered by pro-Israel propaganda to visit such sites as electronicintifada.net/, palestinechronicle.com/, www.btselem.org, palestinemonitor.org and www.ifamericansknew.org/ for info on what life for Palestinians under occupation is really like and for stories and facts the mainstream media rarely if ever reports on. I also urge people to read writers such as Uri Avnery, a former member of the Knesset, Ramzy Baroud, Hanan Ashrawi, Norman Finkelstein, Arhundati Roy, Jonathan Cook, Neve Gordon, and Stephen Lendman, whose excellent work can be found at countercurrents.org which includes such recent articles as ‘Israeli Use of Palestinians As Human Shields’ and ‘Investigating Israeli War Crimes in Gaza’. These resources are but the tip of the iceberg, but provide a reasonably decent start.

RF2

Why don’t you reveal to us all the “lies” I’ve told and while you’re at it provide some sources and compare my “lies” with all the actual lies spewed by RF1, Shaun, Gary and Steve which I’ve exposed in the course of this “debate”.

Please do also tell us what constitutes a “reliable source”, seeing as though you seem to be some sort of authority? I wouldn’t want to just give the impression of “being knowledgeable and correct”, but would actually like to be so, with your imprimatur, of course.

I’m accused of being a liar and not providing any sources in my last post, “not even known liars” according to you, yet I referred to an article by Christopher Hitchens. So in just two short posts by yourself and RF1 you’ve both been responsible for some major falsehoods, not to mention an “inability to follow simple logic and blithely dismissing anything not in keeping with your narrative”. So who’s the “liar” now?

I think “we'll leave the readers to come to their own conclusions”, to quote someone I know.

It would seem I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t as you lambaste me for having “no facts” and “no sources” in my last post (of course that’s a lie) while the sources that I cite elsewhere are deemed “unreliable” and my “research false”. It would thus seem that the only way I could possibly be correct would be to agree with all your points of view and sources. Isn’t this a bit like countering all my arguments and facts with the statement “No it’s not, because I say so”? Or perhaps this is yet another example of your sterling “logic” which is obscure to all but yourself and those who think like you do.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

You really should have quit while you were still arguably not beaten.

Your logic is faulty, you're claiming I said things that I didn't, you're bringing facts to 'disprove' an argument I made, which in fact support my position and you're resorting to emotive arguments when you can't make it on logic. I desperately hope you're intelligent enough to realise what I'm referring to.

BTW: Egypt 2009 budget is about $47 (LE 260bn). Given say the $2bn number you quoted we have ~4% - excluding military co-operation etc.

Well done, you have proven yourself. Thanks for playing.

[David Zinn]

RF1

You and your ilk clearly don't understand how debates or discussions work, do you? You cannot, not now or ever, make an assertion and think that you have made a factual point. You have stated that "my logic is faulty" when I have entirely demolished the entire premise to your arguments and have not even made an attempt to point out where my logic is supposedly faulty. Please also point out my "emotive arguments".

Have you actually read the entirety of those last two posts, which are in fact one post but I had to break them up so that they would be posted?

In a previous post you asked "Why does “power” really confer the ultimate responsibility (except because Peter Parker says so)?" and I endeavoured to answer this question as methodically as possible. The very fact that you asked this question suggests that you don't think it's true, which is what I pointed out in my post. If you doubt that you asked that question I urge you to go back to the post you made on June 04, 2009 at 14:26.

Did you or did you not claim that 700 militants were killed in Operation Cast Lead? On this very page you wrote that "About 1000 have known status, of which 700 were militants", so it shouldn't be too difficult to trace this "argument", even for you.

As I've said, neither you nor anyone on this site could even come close to beating me in a debate. Thanks also for proving yet again that those who defend Israel are invariably dishonest, bereft of logic and are very short on facts. You have proven yourself to be a proud member of this ignoble fraternity.

Thanks for playing.

[David Zinn]

RF1

BTW: you conveniently left out that in the only article where $2 billion dollars in aid to Egypt is mentioned the authors state that this loan "must be repaid”, unlike in the case of Israel. You also once again ignore all the other forms of support Israel receives from the United States government, which is rathe typical of your style of "debate".

Thanks for going to the trouble to answer at least one of my questions by pointing out the percentage of Egypt's budget which constitutes US aid. As noted, the comparison with Israel is false because of the nature of aid to Israel and the far greater military and diplomatic assistance which this state receives and is completely unparalleled in the world. It should also be remembered that the aid to Egypt is basically a big payoff to this country so that it would cease hostilities against Israel and try and secure the border with Gaza. These payments started flowing after the Camp David accords in 1979 which brokered peace between Egypt and Israel. Peace, as ever, comes at a cost. As usual you left out the necessary context, which doesn't surprise me in the least.

Interestingly, you could cite only one state with a comparable percentage of its budget comprising foreign aid, though this money is also related to the Israel-Palestine conflict and should be seen as also benefitting Israel, at least indirectly.

Thanks for playing...

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David,

"You cannot, not now or ever, make an assertion and think that you have made a factual point"

Have you considered this should maybe apply to your side of the discussion too?

As for short on facts - you've shown yourself woefully ignorant as I've pointed out a number of times e.g. Sephardi Jews, Israel’s budget, Egypt’s budget Gaza casualties.

I mentioned that I’d found three counts which roughly tallied on about 1400 as the total casualty list, of which 1000 were identified and 700 were identified as combatants. Instead of accusing me of not reading your posts – try reading mine.

I pointed out in the beginning, I didn’t “debate” I asked you a series of questions and your short comings became apparent. Moreover, I did not defend Israel, I don’t recall saying anything about what they did being justified. I used your biases to show you why your opinions were contradictory and then you accused me of racism. But I didn’t make a value judgement on Hamas, Judaism or Israel’s values – you did.

For emotive arguments, look no further than your condemnation of me based on what I didn’t say about the Cole article.

[David Zinn]

Religious Fundie Numero Uno

We would need thousands of blogs and libraries to catalogue all the subjects that you are ignorant of so I wouldn’t be so cocksure of my superior knowledge if I were you. Particularly not in light of the pitiful ignorance you’ve shown with regards the central subject of the ‘It’s Almost Supernatural’ enterprise, namely the Israel/Palestine situation. Knowledge of Sephardic Jews or Egypt’s budget is hardly relevant and, unlike you, I have actually acknowledged my shortcomings and noted that I’d like to learn more about particular subjects. I also acknowledged that I hadn’t sufficiently researched US aid to Israel and rectified this in a subsequent post. You also repeatedly elided facets of my argument regarding US aid to Israel as this undoubtedly weakens your case. Considering that you implied that the Exodus story is grounded in historical fact, I again wouldn’t be so confident in labelling others as ignorant.

You constantly claim that you’re not defending Israel yet when I post an article by Juan Cole in which he details how children are being effectively starved due to Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinian population your response is to point fingers at Hamas and to question how the Palestinians spend their aid. Just to refresh your memory, which seems to have failed you a few times lately, these are the observations you made regarding the article in question:

1) If Hamas spent more time smuggling in supplies, medical and otherwise and instead of destroying Gush Katif farms they'd used them, there would be a lot fewer hungry kids in Gaza.

2) It would also be a change if Juan Cole actually got his facts from somewhere rather than regurgitating propaganda.

3) US aid is under 5% of Israel's Budget - i.e. peanuts.

4) US aid to Israel is a similar order of magnitude to Egypts(sic). Why doesn't Egypt open their border with Gaza?

5) What are the Palestinians doing with their AID?

There wasn’t even a hint of condemnation for the Israeli government’s barbaric treatment of children, let alone adults, nor has there ever been in any of your posts, except for a vague reference to “Israel’s political leadership [being] corrupt”. If this isn’t a defence of Israel then I don’t know what is. In fact, whenever I raise legitimate critiques of the Israeli government you challenge my assertions, usually under cover of trying to understand my position. If you were truly not defending Israel there would be no antagonism in this exchange. If you were a critic of Israel, as I am, then you would agree with me, at least on most issues. By disagreeing you automatically invite the accusation of being a defender of Israel. Try as you might to obscure this point, that is what you constantly do by failing to acknowledge the facts I raise or dismissing them as unimportant or inaccurate.

On the question of aid, all Cole mentioned was that “the United States still gives Israel billions of dollars every year”, which you yourself have subsequently admitted yet your response is to refer to the percentage of Israel’s budget that consists of aid and to talk about the aid Egypt receives. Do you still seriously expect me to believe that you’re not defending Israel?

Interestingly, Juan Cole is more critical of the Palestinians in the article I posted than you’ve ever been about Israel, as he states that “Palestinian terrorists certainly bear a great deal of the blame for this tragedy, insofar as their horrific actions against innocent Israeli civilians have understandably led Israel to close its borders to Palestinian laborers” and that “the scourge of terrorism in Israel has been unspeakable”. He is somewhat less critical of Israel than I am, as his comments apropos the Palestinians make clear, yet it is also clear that Cole is generally concerned with the side of the oppressed Palestinian population in the Israel/Palestine conflict, as anyone with even a hint of awareness would be able to pick up.

Your callous disregard for the treatment of Palestinians, which the response to the Juan Cole article amply demonstrates, has led me to conclude that you are a racist. This has been further confirmed by your blithe reference to me raising the issue that possibly 2.5 million Iraqis have died courtesy of two wars and more than a decade of horrific US/UK sanctions as a “standard anti-US remark”, without being in the least concerned with this monstrous human toll.

The key, however, lies in being a supporter of the State of Israel which is an officially racist sate. Not only are there ‘Jews only’ sports clubs and beaches in Israel, the Knesset recently moved to introduce a law demanding the recognition of Israel as a “democratic Jewish state”. Just as supporting Apartheid South Africa invited the label racist, or supporting the White Australia policy to keep out Asian immigrants, or Jim Crow laws in the American South, so too does the support of the Israeli state’s officially racist character. You may quibble with this assessment, but a failure to condemn Israel in the harshest possible terms will ensure that the label sticks.

I do so apologise for being emotional about hundreds of thousands of people being kicked off their land, the continual theft of land by aggressive colonisers, children being killed, maimed, crippled or blinded by Israeli soldiers, people being used as human shields by the IDF, an entire population slowly being starved, universities, mosques and schools blown up by fighter jets, whole families being wiped out, villages deprived of rich agricultural land because of the construction of an illegal “security” wall, checkpoints that make travelling to school or even receiving medical care a constant struggle and often nerve-racking experience. People who aren’t moved by such wanton and unremitting cruelty are the ones who have something wrong with them and should feel ashamed over their lack of humanity. There have been plenty of famous examples of groups of people who were completely without emotion in the face of immense human suffering, such as the Nazis, who you might have heard of. The death squads that targeted enemies of the Apartheid government were another such heartless group. Tell me, oh Religious one, was their lack of emotion an admirable trait?

You keep harping on about writing that Hamas, the PLO and the Israeli government all put the protection of human life beneath other considerations. Yet in your own words you write that this quality in Jews “isn’t directly relevant” and you also state that the “the State of Israel agrees with [me] that human life is paramount”. In a later post you even encourage me to “agree” that the State of Israel at least “nominally pays lip service to the idea” that “human life is paramount”. The “life” in question clearly can’t belong to any Palestinian if we take a sampling of some statements by prominent members of the Israeli government over the years:

- Last year deputy defence minister Matan Vilnai said that “Palestinians risked a ‘shoah’”(Holocaust), according to the BBC and other sources, this was after 30 Palestinians had been killed in Gaza in response to one Israeli student having died from a rocket fired into Sderot..
- Golda Meir famously once said there’s no such people as the Palestinians.
- Menachem Begin called the Palestinians “two-legged beasts” in an address to the Knesset.

Some “nominal lip service” to human rights!!

You do note an exception with the State of Israel’s supposed belief that “human life is paramount” by stating that “they value their own lives more than someone else’s and moreover, consider the long term loss of human (and in particular Jewish life) to be best minimised by having a Jewish State ‘at all costs’”, which virtually completely negates the statement that Israel considers human life paramount. Human life is a general term applicable to all people, so by vaunting Jewish lives over the lives of others one cannot possibly consider human life in the general sense to be paramount, quite the opposite in fact. This doesn’t seem to bother you, though, and you are clearly far less critical of Israel than you are of either the PLO and Hamas, despite your pretence that you’re delivering a balanced assessment of all sides.

Compare this paragraph on Israel:

Judaism also holds certain values above the value of human life, but this isn’t directly relevant. What is relevant is that the State of Israel agrees with you that human life is paramount – except that they value their own lives more than someone else’s and moreover, consider the long term loss of human (and in particular Jewish life) to be best minimised by having a Jewish State “at all costs”.

with what you write about Hamas and the Palestinian Authority:

Hamas, the PA and Islam in general do not view Freedom as a positive. Islam is fundamentally a religion of submission. Hamas believes in submission to Islam. The PA, to the extent they have a coherent ideology other than plunder, doesn’t particularly value freedom either.

You also write that “Hamas and the PA do not value human life above all else”, yet you provide no qualifying statements as in the case of Judaism or the State of Israel. I’m quite sure Hamas and the PLO value the lives of Palestinians, which is after all the entire purpose of their existence, aka to further the creation of a Palestinian state, though you strangely failed to note this in your overview of these groups, not even including the rider “they nominally pay lip service to the idea”, i.e., the idea that human life is paramount which you claim is what the State of Israel does. This shows your not too subtle bias and how you favourably weight claims and objectives of the Israeli government against Palestinian organisations, hoping no one would notice. The fact that I’ve not just noticed but repeatedly pointed this out, yet you still keep coming back to what you wrote as if this is some winning argument, is truly amazing, in a very disconcerting sort of way.

That you can even write that the PA have basically no “coherent ideology other than plunder” in the face of all the facts about how the State of Israel is predicated on massive plunder, which still continues with the expansion of settlements, speaks bombastic volumes for your pro-Israel bias.

You also seem to think that I wouldn’t notice that in your last post you wrote that you had “found three counts which roughly tallied on about 1400 as the total casualty list” during Operation Cast Lead, which clashes with an earlier post where you claimed to have “seen at least 3 different counts of varying veracity” which reflected a “total count … around 1200”. The figure of 1400 was what I cited, based on figures that I had read from various sources, which you now magically take up as the approved figure in your last post. Quite an impressive sleight of hand there.

Be that as it may, you seem to think that this is still just a discussion about my claim that “most” of those killed in Operation Cast Lead were civilians, but it has evolved into more than that. Sticking with the dead horse that you keep flogging, I still maintain that according to what I’ve read the majority of those killed during OCL were civilians. You simply assert, one of your most annoying habits, that 1000 of the dead have been identified, and of those 700 were militants. So what are your sources? And to go back to a question I asked in a recent post, how are militants classified and who does the classifying? Once again you’ve made an assertion without backing it up with facts.

In terms of the evolved argument (hate to break it to you, but you cannot dictate the direction of the debate as if you have some royal fiat), I posed the question of whether killing 700 militants makes the vast death toll in Gaza any more acceptable, and you failed to provide an answer. If it is, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, then you surely have no problem with 700 IDF soldiers being killed by Palestinian forces in a combat situation? If this is not acceptable, on what basis other than the higher value of Israeli life are you using to come to this conclusion?

For your own sake please stop, RF1, this is getting embarrassing.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

David

I actually cited the 1400 figure so that you would go back and find my original quote, thus proving that you remembered and deliberately misquoted it, hence you are a liar.

“Callous disregard” and racism are two different things, check out the dictionary. By the way, I found some empathy under some old socks when I was tidying, which goes to show that absence of proof is not proof of absence, and disproves your Exodus theory. Note, I didn’t say it was proof positive of the Exodus, before you go misquoting me, again.

Can you give us the name of this supposedly “Jewish only” sports club and “Jewish only” beach? I want to phone them up and verify if this is another David Zinn lie or something actually true.
Perhaps do this at the same time as you give us your source that “most” of the 1400 were were civilians. You might also want to explain to us what documentation and evidence you have of a Palestinian people existing prior to say 1900.

A point which I’ve made repeatedly and you constantly don’t seem to get is that stating someone has a set of values is different to commenting on the validity of those values. In other words I’m not condemning Hamas’ or Israel’s actions, I’m simply pointing out the argument that R100 will only buy either R100 of butter or R100 of guns, and not both. (i.e. Economics 101)

It also bears mention that if one chooses to buy R100 of drink and no food it is not the fault of the person who gave you the R100 in the first place that you go hungry- it’s simply a direct consequence of your action. If David Zinn thinks it is a crime to go hungry, then David Zinn is judging the person’s choice, I made no such judgement.

Finally, I did answer why Jewish values are not directly relevant to the choices made by the State. However, the fact that you needed to ask goes to show just how woefully ignorant you are about the situation under discussion. Which brings us back to Egypt’s budget and Sephardi Jews, i.e. points of which you were ignorant and disproved allegations you made. In other words, issues that are in fact relevant to your argument.

[The Blacklisted Dictator]

David Zinn ( June 13, 2009 at 19:05)

Well DZ, we can't agree on everything but I do think that we are making some progress. I am very influenced by Barack Obama's diplomacy and I know, in my heart, that we can resolve our differences.We must not live in the past and we must engage in order to bring peace.

But assuming that The ANC cannot get its act together to boycott Israel, would you support my campaign for Israel to break the dead-lock and boycott South Africa? I am not sure whether The ANC is going to take any notice of Virginia's dossier (as Steve says it is far too long) so the best bet is to follow my strategy. How about it DZ?

[David Zinn]

RF1

You must be some sort of a mental case, because I can hardly make head or tails of many of the points in your last post.

Just explain to me how I am a "liar" by pointing out that you challenged my assertion of 1400 casualties by citing a figure of 1200 and then later yourself stated that there were 1400 casualties as if you hadn't ever cited a lower figure. That really is one of the most bizarre and illogical statements you've made, which says a heck of a lot. Considering how that proves you're a liar, unambiguously so in fact, to paint me as such really does take mental gymnastics of an amazing variety.

I read about those sports clubs and beaches in the chapter "The Last Taboo" in John Pilger's 'Freedom Next Time'. Here's the URL for a Guardian article about Israel's "beach apartheid" - http://www.geocities.com/NoApartheid/BeachApartheid.html.

In Israel Shamir's article 'Acid Test Failed(by Israel)' the author refers to Israelis not letting "Palestinians... pollute the Jewish purity of our beaches". Available at http://www.mediamonitors.net/shamir1.html.

I could simply adopt your strategy and say that the "absence of proof is not proof of absence" as 'evidence' of my claims, which is completely ridiculous but that's clearly how one maintains certain beliefs without having any evidence for them. This also certainly doesn't "disprove" my Exodus theory, anymore than the failure to find fairies in one's garden proves they exist. That you can actually take the absence of evidence as not being the evidence of absence, thus opening the possibility that something like the Exodus happened, is mind boggling. Or at least it would be with one whose mind isn't as addled as yours.

I urge you to read the relevant part of my last post where I deal expressly with your claim that you're simply cataloguing a "set of values" as opposed to "commenting on the validity of those values". You seem to think that by saying, for example, that "all blacks are stupid" isn't a racist comment if you don't actually make a statement saying "I'm making a racist statement, you know". By virtue of the clearly biased way in which you discussed the relevant "values" of Israel as opposed to Hamas or the PLO you are clearly revealing where your sympathies lie. In any case, you are completely biased as I've revealed time and time again so any pretence to the contrary is just absurd.

You never explained "why Jewish values are not directly relevant to the choices made by the State", instead merely asserting why this is the case. If you'll recall this is what you wrote:

Judaism also holds certain values above the value of human life, but this isn’t directly relevant. What is relevant is that the State of Israel agrees with you that human life is paramount

I pointed out that the State of Israel certainly doesn't agree with me, or anyone that really values human life, that "human life is paramount". Again, I refer you to the relevant section of my last post. Once again, you've sidestepped my points which raise uncomfortable issues and thoroughly decimate your assertions, which is all you're ever seemingly able to make.

You've actually ignored virtually all my questions, so why should I answer yours? Seeing as though I've always done this, I suppose I shouldn't stop now, being the honest broker in this discussion. In the following article the figure of Palestinian dead is cited as 1350 of which 1100 are claimed to be civilians:

http://www.presstv.ir/classic/detail.aspx?id=97895&sectionid=351020202

"Operation ‘Cast Lead’ killed over 1,400 Palestinians, mostly civilians":

http://trendsupdates.com/israeli-soldiers-confess-to-murders-in-gaza-during-operation-%E2%80%98cast-lead%E2%80%99/

In the following article the number of civilians isn't specifically cited, though the figure of 1400 is repeated and it is claimed 400 children were killed. There is also a shocking photo of a dead Palestinian baby which might jolt certain members of society from their "callous disregard"(but not racism, of course) for Palestinian lives. Available at:

http://www.imemc.org/article/59450

According to one site "1,417 Palestinians were killed, including 926 civilians and 255 civilian police officers. 313 children and 116 women were killed. 236 combatants were killed, just 16.7% of the total". Available at:

http://nigelparry.com/news/operation-cast-lead-war-crimes-genocide.shtml

I would read the highly insightful article entitled 'Israeli War Crimes Against Children During Operation Cast Lead', available at:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43525.

Now that I've given you some of my sources, why not divulge a few of yours, oh Fundamentalist one, or is that too personal?

The notion that a "Palestinian people" didn't exist prior to 1900 is yet again one of those canards promoted by apologists for Israel. So when did a "Jewish state" exist in what is today Israel/Palestine prior to 1900? Considering that Arabs were the majority population for most of the period between 70CE to the 1940s I really don't think you've got much of a leg to stand on with what amounts to a semantic game. There were precious few blacks in Cape Town prior to 1900 so does that justify kicking them all out now, or the Apartheid-era pass laws, or any other discriminatory practice?

You brought up Sephardi Jews and Egypt's budget, not me, so how on earth are they relevant to my argument? Such irrationality, such illogic, such blatant dishonesty. Oh right, you're a defender of Israel so I almost forgot it's par for the course.

Knowledge of, or lack of it, apropos Sephardi Jews never hampered any of my arguments in the least. The fact that I might not have been quite so clued up about how much aid Egypt receives in no way impacts my points regarding how much more aid, both military, economic and diplomatic, that Israel receives. You've yet again conveniently failed to mention that Israel receives around a third of US foreign aid and that its economic aid is on far more favourable terms than that which is dispensed to Egypt. The latter actually have to pay back their loans, which I pointed out in my last post.

I would describe you as "woefully ignorant" about the Israel/Palestine situation, but that would do a disservice to the word ignorant and woeful. There really should be another dictionary definition for the vast chasmic depths of your ignorance on this issue, as I've repeatedly demonstrated, which you insist on displaying for all the world to see. Are you some sort of a twisted masochist, Fundie, or do you really think that you can still emerge victorious after I've so utterly vanquished almost every argument you've managed to muster?

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Shame David.

Adding simple, self righteous and indignant to your lies and ignorance isn't going to help you out here. People here rely on fact and substantiated figures, not your particular brand of long-winded propaganda.

I'm quite sure you believe you've "vanquished" me, but just because you said it and because you believe doesn't make it so. Which goes to show your sad lack of ability to follow logic.

But don't worry, to paraphrase something you said in one of your first posts "Some of the finest people I know are retarded"

Oh, and well done finding figures after the fact to support your assertions. Pity some of your other blind assertions proved to be false. Note also that a newspaper article blindly parroting a number does not qualify as a source. So try again.

And a final point. If you don't understand the simple idea of where the burden of proof lies when making a claim then you are well and truly not worth arguing with, irrespective of your ignorance and lies.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

and a final point to again highlight your lying / intellectual midget-hood:

- You claimed Jews were ever evicted from Arab lands. i.e. your ignorance raised the issue of Sephardi Jews.
- You claimed that Israel received a disproportionate share of American aid. i.e. you brought up the issue of relative aid.

Ergo, I will now consider everything you write to be a lie or fabrication or otherwise a hostile and immature ego filled distortion unless it is supported with facts and written in non-emotive language, and I suggest the rest of the blog readers do the same.

[By the way, instead of asserting there was an Palestinian people prior to say 1900 - why don't you show us some pottery shards / coins with say "Palestina Capitolina" written on them]

[RF2]

RF1

I will adress you, DZ can read if he wishes but engaging him seems to be futile. I raised a number of points in my previous post and he responded, ignoring every one and ranting in want can best be described as a maniacal "mad professor type" diatribe.

The issue with the sorts of DZ is as you have alluded to, the definition of a source. Random newspaper articles are not necessarily valid, especially when there are conflicting reports. The most important defintion of a source (and Krengel alludes to this in the above Thread) is that the author needs to be a commentator not an activist. DZ continously quotes knopwn and self professed Palestinian activists, not sources. (He then has the audacity to call the NY Times biased - if DZ is reading he should google Tuvia Grossman). Just as I would not bring an essay from Marzel and expect to be taken seriously so should the likes of DZ not bring the likes of Finkelstein.

What is shamefully obvious is the double standard applied. Those sources that seem to be apolagetic to Israel DZ brands as biased and dismisses them, but all he sources are taken as gospel truth. It is for this reason that debate with these people is meaningless - they have a clear agenda.

RF1 you make an excellent point regarding historical proof. Histroy revisionists rely on the publishing of essays etc (and sadly it often works) but it is rare for them to be able to make up physical archeology. But lets not make it too difficult for DZ. Pottery can be hard to find, how about we settle for a news article, essay, policy statement or poster that predates 1948 (or even 1967) that refers to an arab Palestinian people.

[David Zinn]

Utterly pitiful, Fundieman, utterly pitiful. You tell yet more lies, respond to none of my points, and then insist on calling me a liar.

Firstly, when did I even remotely say anything like "Some of the finest people I know are retarded"? Please do tell.

Big Lie number 2: I never "claimed Jews were ever evicted from Arab lands", you did. Go back and check if you doubt me.

You state that my "intellectual midget-hood" is indicated by my claim "that Israel received a disproportionate share of American aid", which is actually what I claimed so well done for finally stating something resembling the truth. I provided numerous sources to substantiate this claim and they indicate that Israel receives a third of all US aid, far more than any other nation, and on more favourable terms, as I've repeatedly pointed out. You have yet again ignored other forms of US asisstance in the diplomatic realm which no other nation receives. If this indicates my "intellectual midget-hood" then I suppose so does pointing out the world is round, or that the sun is essentially a large nuclear reactor as opposed to being the eye of "god".

So are we to believe, you fact-free fundamentalist fool, that Arabs weren't the majority in Palestine for at least a millenia prior to the twentieth century? Where is the coin saying "Israel Capitolina" between 70CE and the 1930s, let's say? Seeing as though most specialists in the field have found absolutely no evidence for the Exodus story, the whole Biblical justification for Jews returning to Israel is completely without basis in fact. There hasn't even been so much as a "pottery shard" found in the Sinai from the period when the Israelites were supposed to be wandering around the desert aimlessly for forty years.

I'm still waiting for your sources regarding the casualty figures for Operation Cast Lead.

Don't worry, though, as I've long considered "everything you write to be a lie or fabrication or otherwise a hostile and immature ego filled distortion". That fits with the general experience dealing with pro-Israel apologists.

RF2

Why not provide "a news article, essay, policy statement or poster that predates 1948 (or even 1967) that" doesn't refer to the majority population living in Palestine as being Arabs? Because they might not have called themselves Palestinians, which isn't the issue in any case, does that make it okay to expel 750 000 people from their ancestral land, killing thousands more in the process and destroying dozens of villages?

[David Zinn]

There is an entire book by Howard Friel and Richard Falk, called 'Israel-Palestine on Record: How the New York Times Misreports Conflict in the Middle East' about the New York Times' bias in reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict so, based on research, I can safely conclude that they are incredibly biased towards Israel, as is the mainstream US media generally.

It's interesting that I am accused of having a "double standard" because I supposedly brand "sources that seem to be apolagetic(sic) to Israel DZ...as biased and dismiss them", yet that is exactly what you do with any sources critical of Israel. The issue isn't sources, per se, but the amount of them, and as I've indicated I read widely on this issue. Even your beloved Benny Morris has noted, based on incontrovertible evidence, that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homeland, yet he thinks this was necessary for the foundation of Israel and sees no problem with it. I've read interviews with him in which he expresses such vile racism regarding the Palestinians that all decent people should be revolted.

You see, RF2, the facts are well known, as even your own trusted sources indicate, but the response to the facts is where the real difference lies. I am appalled by the way in which Israel was found, and the manner in which Palestinians are butchered and brutalised to this day, but clearly you and the Fundiefool, and most others on this blog, simply are not. That's why I've heard nothing on the lives of Palestinians from Fundiefool or anyone else. In point of interesting fact, Fundiefool hasn't even bothered to challenge any of my assertions about the Palestinians because he knows he can't.

[Shaun]

Kick him while he’s down!
A few of my choice remarks from DZ:
DZ :“80% of Swedes don't believe in a higher power, or are at least without any form of religion.”
Fact: 70% of Swedes belonged to the Church of Sweden. See the Church of Sweden website fro exact figures.
DZ: “The United States, which regularly boasts about how wondrous it is, gives one of the lowest percentages of its GDP as aid…”
Fact: The lowest ACTUAL donors of Aid vs. GDP are the Oil rich Gulf States. See UNICEF
DZ: Where is the coin saying "Israel Capitolina" between 70CE and the 1930s,
FACT: see the Barkokhba silver tetradrachm, minted between 132-135 CE.
DZ: Virtually all their military hardware, which the state needs to survive against its “enemies”(aka people they’ve stolen land from and continue to brutally oppress), is supplied by the US.
FACT: less than 1/2 of Israel’s military hardware comes from the US... And less than 1/2 is also less than “virtually all”
Israel’s Main Battle tanks are all Merkava (Made in Israel) Armored personnel carriers, Achzarit (Converted British and soviet Tanks) Infantry Fighting vehicles, Tiger (Made in Israel) Light Infantry Machine Gun, Negev (Made in Israel) Medium infantry Machine gun, FN MAG (Made in Belgium) Primary patrol jeeps DVD and Storm (Produced in Israel under license from UK and Germany) Navy Vessels: Built in Germany, Sweden (Gasp!) South Africa and the UK Air force: Primary US designed fighter and attack helicopters.
See Global Security and Middle East Power Balance for the exact numbers.
Please don’t lecture on the plight of the Palestinians, your knee jerk criticism is pathetic. How about the Palestinian woman recently sentenced to 15 years hard labor for collaboration? Or the 15 year old Palestinian boy hanged by his family or the Palestinian children used by Fatah and Hamas to courier explosives? You have made no mention of the rampant honor killings in the PA? Or the fact that homosexuality is a crime in the according in the PA? Don’t see you sympathize for them DZ?
How about the poor protestors gunned down in Teheran? Don’t you care about them either?
Is any body else reminded of the Paul Newman “classic Cool and Luke”?

[David Zinn]

Fundiefool numero uno

You’re also probably right in pointing out that “vanquish” is not entirely accurate in light of what has occurred during this debate, as this word is far too gentle for the apocalyptic destruction I’ve brought to bear on all your arguments, to use a violent description that participants on this blog might appreciate.

Also don’t think I haven’t noticed your ever shrinking circle of contention as you quietly drop earlier arguments in light of my resounding rebuttals of virtually all your points.

Dear RF2

Your reference to “activists” and their supposedly innate bias precisely reverses cause and effect, the assumption being that the likes of Finkelstein, Pilger, Pappé and Chomsky are born with some inchoate loathing of Jewish culture and the state of Israel. Why would Norman Finkelstein, a Jew, whose parents survived the Holocaust possibly hate Jews and Israel without prompting? In reality he simply learned more and more about the nature of the Israeli state, and how it was founded, and was appalled. If you read his work, which of course you never will, you’ll notice that he doesn’t harangue Jews or Israelis in any generalised manner, instead opting to focus on specific actions or words by prominent American Jews and the Israeli government.

Noam Chomsky is the son of a Jewish Ukrainian émigré who was a relatively well known Hebrew linguist, and Chomsky has revealed that in his youth he was involved in various Zionist organisations that were attempting to foster Jewish-Arab co-operation in Palestine. Him and his wife even lived on a Kibbutz for a number of years in the 1950s and seriously considered living there for the rest of their lives. So, according to you, we are to believe that a man who was raised in a very Jewish milieu, who speaks fluent Hebrew and who used to read Hebrew literature with his father on Friday nights from the age of seven or eight until he was in his teens, is an anti-Semite or self-loathing Jew merely because he criticises Israel?

I also grew up without any particular beef with Israel, but as I came to political consciousness I was horrified with the true nature of the Israeli state, as I still am. The parallels with Apartheid South Africa are striking, as is often noted by Israelis themselves. The decent and perceptive ones, of course. I have actually met Israeli members of B’Tselem and thought they were among the most decent people I’ve ever met. The group of Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories, known as the ‘refusenicks’, are also highly admirable figures. As is the courageous journalist Amira Hass who, unlike most Israelis, actually makes a point of living in the Occupied Territories to discover what conditions are like for herself, and not just relying on Israeli government propaganda like some people I know. Unlike virtually everyone on this blog I actually think it’s a terrible tragedy when Palestinian civilians are killed, but also think it’s a terrible tragedy when Israeli civilians are killed.

Most of the people on this blog seem to be Jews and Zionists so it is in fact clear that you and other participants are the ones with an inherent bias and who seek out books and articles to corroborate your positive image of Israel. The fact that no one here has raised so much as a whisper about the condition of the Palestinians is highly indicative of this blinded and uni-dimensional approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Just look at how Fundiefool discusses Operation Cast Lead. Even if we concede his unsourced information about 1200 people having been killed, 1000 of which are known and of these known casualties 700 were militants. So that would mean, according to Fundiefool, though he took care not to mention it, at least 300 Palestinian civilians were killed. Now keep in mind I’ve never encountered such a low civilian casualty rate in any of the sources I’ve read, but even if this number is correct that would mean that at least a quarter of those killed, according to Fundiefool’s low unsourced estimate, were civilians. His response is to quibble over my contention, based on sources, some of which I’ve cited, that most of those killed during Operation Cast Lead were civilians. So I asked him what would he think of a Palestinian army invading Israel and killing 700 IDF soldiers? He conveniently failed to answer this rather uncomfortable question because he knew that this would expose his innate bias on the issue. He can’t answer this question, lest the twisted logic he’ll no doubt use to justify Palestinian “militants” being killed but not Israeli soldiers exposes his racist outlook.

I would dearly love to believe what pro-Israel apologists have to write, but considering two major productions in this line during the past quarter century have proven to be outright fabrications, or at least to contain a plethora of falsehoods, I have my doubts about the factual integrity of those who go to bat for Israel. I am referring, of course, to that hoax by Joan Peters called From Time Immemorial and The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz which borrowed heavily from the Peters hoax. Not incidentally, Finkelstein exposed the fallacious scholarship of both authors, which might explain why he is so hated amongst Zionists and why Dershowitz tried to prevent Beyond Chutzpah from being published, even writing to the governor of California to prevent this embarrassing exposure of his fraudulence in print.

It ultimately has very little to do with sources themselves, but rather what they are arguing or the facts they are relying on. Naturally, if a source repeatedly proves to be an outright propagandist and noted liar such as Dershowitz, it becomes impossible to take him seriously ever again. However, even a very intelligent person who has done important work could be rendered laughable if he or she claims that, for instance, Iraq is a paradise today and that Gaza is one of the most pleasant holiday destinations on earth. Such a person, no matter how high their IQ or sterling their previous work, would be simply wrong in making these sorts of assertions, based on what we know about the conditions in Iraq and Gaza. So you see, unlike you, I actually am prepared to take people’s arguments on their merits and to assess their factual claims, though will concede that a history of dishonest theatrics such as what Dershowitz has been responsible for over the years will tend to make me highly sceptical of their statements.

The very argument you and Fundiefool rely on to seemingly justify Israel’s founding, and have rehashed again in your last post, is both utterly ridiculous and disturbingly chauvinistic. You point out that, in an echo of Golda Meir, there’s no such nation as the Palestinians. I believe an analogy will once again assist us in making sense of this distorted rationale. The term ‘Aborigines’ is one invented by Australia’s white settlers as the people known as ‘Aborigines’ are actually a collection of different tribes. The same could be said of ‘Native Americans’ in what is today the United States of America. Based on your logic, because the ‘Aborigines’ and ‘Native Americans’ didn’t refer to themselves using these designations and weren’t a single nation prior to the arrival of Europeans, this somehow justifies the genocide and mass dispossession of land that occurred in Australia and North America at the hands of the colonists. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting your argument so please correct me if I’m wrong.

You accuse me of “ignoring” all the “points [raised] in [your] previous post” and for good measure accuse me of “ranting in want(sic) can best be described as a maniacal ‘mad professor type’ diatribe”. Nice going in terms of both outright dishonesty and ad hominem smearing, quite a double whammy there. Now let’s return to what I wrote earlier in response to what you had written and then we’ll see who’s been ignoring who:

RF2 Why don’t you reveal to us all the “lies” I’ve told and while you’re at it provide some sources and compare my “lies” with all the actual lies spewed by RF1, Shaun, Gary and Steve which I’ve exposed in the course of this “debate”.

Please do also tell us what constitutes a “reliable source”, seeing as though you seem to be some sort of authority? I wouldn’t want to just give the impression of “being knowledgeable and correct”, but would actually like to be so, with your imprimatur, of course.

I’m accused of being a liar and not providing any sources in my last post, “not even known liars” according to you, yet I referred to an article by Christopher Hitchens. So in just two short posts by yourself and RF1 you’ve both been responsible for some major falsehoods, not to mention an “inability to follow simple logic and blithely dismissing anything not in keeping with your narrative”. So who’s the “liar” now?

I think “we'll leave the readers to come to their own conclusions”, to quote someone I know.
It would seem I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t as you lambaste me for having “no facts” and “no sources” in my last post (of course that’s a lie) while the sources that I cite elsewhere are deemed “unreliable” and my “research false”. It would thus seem that the only way I could possibly be correct would be to agree with all your points of view and sources. Isn’t this a bit like countering all my arguments and facts with the statement “No it’s not, because I say so”? Or perhaps this is yet another example of your sterling “logic” which is obscure to all but yourself and those who think like you do.

I’m still waiting for a response to any of these queries, even of the “mad professor type” and am beginning to realise that the reason you find it “futile” to engage with me is because you know I will thoroughly rebut all your contentions and have far more facts at my disposal, which has proven to be the case in my dealings with the Fundiefool who is still fighting battles he’s lost ages ago.

In some more online research on this topic I came across what appears to be a “small” story, but it does bear on the larger reality of Israeli occupation. The article is headlined “Israeli Army Raid and Loot Hebron Orphanage home to 110 girls” and outlines the following:

Witnesses said that approximately 40 Israeli soldiers raided the sewing workshop, which is located on the first floor of a girls' orphanage operated by the Islamic Society, at 1am on Wednesday. In the course of a two hour raid, the Israeli troops ransacked the workshop after breaking down its main gates and doors.

Israeli soldiers confiscated all the sewing machines, furniture, and clothes which were to be given to orphans.

International human rights workers with the organization Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) said: "soldiers looted the workshop of all its sewing and processing machines, office equipment, rolls of cloth, finished clothing and supplies." Members of CPT documented the raid, and the contents of the workshop being loaded into two forty foot tucks.

There are photos and a video clip available on the same page to corroborate the text. The piece and accompanying visuals are available at http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2008/05/11/video-photos-israeli-loot-girls-orphanage/.

I really am interested to know what you and RF1 make of such stories, or do you just not care?

[David Zinn]

Shauny boy!!

Most polls indicate that the vast majority of Swedes are atheists or agnostics, as anyone with access to Wikipedia would know. Here's the relevant sentence - "Sweden is one of the worlds least religious countries. 46-85% of all people in Sweden can be called agnostics or atheists, meaning non-believers (in God)". There's a reference to boot, if you can actually read that far.

In Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns, Phil Zuckerman writes the following:

According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe in God, although only 17% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001), 69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a “personal God.” According to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God.

Care to reasses the reliability of the Church of Sweden figures? Next thing we'll be hearing that England is this ultra religious nation based on Church of England figures, whereas in reality only 8% of Britons are regular church attendees. That you wouldn't know that Sweden is the most secular nation on earth is just embarrassing, and the rest of what you write is immediately rendered dubious at best and outright nonsense at worst in light of this phenomenal ignorance.

For good measure the Eurostat survey in 2005 found that 23% of Swedish citizens "believe there is a God", while 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% stated that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". According to the survey, Sweden is the third least religious country in the 27-member European Union, after Estonia and the Czech Republic.

I stated that US aid as percentage GDP ratio is "one" of the lowest in the world, not THE lowest. Having trouble reading basic English there, are we? So you haven't rebutted my point at all, so well done for a wasted sentence.

Blacks also did a lot of terrible things to fellow blacks during Apartheid, does that make Apartheid acceptable? When was the last time Palestinians killed 200 of their own on a single day, as Israel did on December 27 2008 in Gaza? Come on, I'm waiting.

Your entire worldview is "pathetic", and you and your ignoble ilk have cornered the market on "knee jerk criticism", as your last post yet again amply demonstrates. I don't base my criticism on the movements of any body part, but rather on facts, clearly a concept you have long been estranged from. Instead of taking apart(very badly, as it turns out) these minor points why not examine the entirety of my argument before making these torso jerking criticisms.

Of course I am concerned about the situation in Iran, and many other countries around the globe, but in case you hadn't noticed, you nitwit, this blog is devoted to the Israel/Palestine conflict, hence to discuss Iran would be a tad irrational. Not that you would know much about rationality, of course.

Is anybody else reminded of Dumb and Dumber, or perhaps the Three Stooges?

[Shaun]

DZ: Where is the coin saying "Israel Capitolina" between 70CE and the 1930s,
FACT: see the Barkokhba silver tetradrachm, minted between 132-135 CE.
DZ: Virtually all their military hardware, which the state needs to survive against its “enemies”(aka people they’ve stolen land from and continue to brutally oppress), is supplied by the US.
FACT: less than 1/2 of Israel’s military hardware comes from the US... And less than 1/2 is also less than “virtually all”

[Shaun]

DZ: Where is the coin saying "Israel Capitolina" between 70CE and the 1930s,
FACT: see the Barkokhba silver tetradrachm, minted between 132-135 CE.
DZ: Virtually all their military hardware, which the state needs to survive against its “enemies”(aka people they’ve stolen land from and continue to brutally oppress), is supplied by the US.
FACT: less than 1/2 of Israel’s military hardware comes from the US... And less than 1/2 is also less than “virtually all”

[David Zinn]

Okay, two can play this repeating questions game:

Blacks also did a lot of terrible things to fellow blacks during Apartheid, does that make Apartheid acceptable? When was the last time Palestinians killed 200 of their own on a single day, as Israel did on December 27 2008 in Gaza? Come on, I'm waiting.

You really are scraping the barrel if that's all you've found in what I've written to try and trip me up with.

I've done a search on that coin and according to one site, http://www.robert-deutsch.com/en/auctions/34-188/, the words "Jerusalem" and "Year two of the Freedom of Israel" are engraved. Not quite "Israel Capitolina", but I'll be willing to concede it's close enough. Nevertheless, this has absolutely no bearing on the argument I was making, and which you've conveniently failed to even attempt to challenge. The coin nonsense was brought up by others. Between 70CE and the 1930s Jews were a minority in what is today Israel/Palestine. At the turn of the 20th Century there were more Christians in Palestine than Jews. The term Palestine dates from the Roman era and, in case you've forgotten, it was called British Mandated Palestine, and not British Mandated Israel. Names aren't really all that relevant, because the main point is that Arabs have been the majority population for the longest stretch of time during the last few millennia in Palestine.

A FACT that you have not raised but which is indisputable, is that around 750 000 people were driven off their land, dozens of villages destroyed and thousands killed, many dumped in mass graves, by Israeli settlers who stole the land to found what is today Israel. Such major Israeli historians, who happen to hate Arabs with a passion, such as Benny Morris have acknowledged the above facts, but he sees no moral problem with them. I assume you're of a similar cast of mind?

As noted in my extensive discussion on the issue of US aid to Israel (perhaps you'd care to go back to examine the relevant post in this thread), a part of this aid is in loans to Israel to procure military hardware. It is thus quite possible to speculate that all, or at least many, of those arms that Israel buys from other nations are courtesy of American money.

At least we're getting somewhere as you are at least now more and more familiar with the extensive machinery of destruction that Israel, with the world's fourth largest army, has at its disposal. In light of all this military hardware it really is difficult to argue that a ragtag bunch of Muslim militants, mostly armed with homemade rocket launchers, and children throwing rocks pose a significant "existential threat".

Perhaps you'd like to address this issue, Shaun, or will you just chicken out like all the rest? Oh, one more thing, if you don't answer my questions I'll feel no obligation to answer yours in future. Thanks, keep well...

[David Zinn]

Some great democracy Israel is. Just read an article entitled "Israeli Police and Military Brutalize Peaceful Protesters at Netanyahu's Speech". Here are some excerpts:

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was making a major foreign policy speech at Tel Aviv University Sunday, Israeli police outside the university attacked international protesters of Israel's invasion of Gaza, illegal settlements and the apartheid wall.

Heavy-handed police treatment of the unarmed, peaceful members of the CODEPINK delegation there began immediately after they unfurled several pink banners that read "Free Gaza" and "End the Occupation." CODEPINK co-founder Medea Benjamin and New York activist Zool Zulkowitz were physically dragged across the street from their original protest site next to the entrance gate to Bar Ilan University where audience members and press entered the university complex to attend the speech.

...

Israeli police and military violently shoved the group back into a wall. Delegation member Tighe Barry from Santa Monica, Cali. was struck in the face with the butt of a military rifle and pushed to the ground where he could barely breathe. He was taken by ambulance to the Trauma Center of Tal-Hashomer hospital in Tel Aviv where he was treated for a concussion, an injured neck and an asthma attack. Benjamin and several other delegation members were bruised in the arms and upper body from being shoved and manhandled by the police and military.

...

When President Obama spoke in Cairo on June 4, a separate CODEPINK delegation that had just returned from six days in Gaza in early June, held a demonstration right outside Cairo University holding signs that read "Stop funding Israeli War Crimes." Egyptian police allowed the demonstration to take place.

Article available at http://www.alternet.org/world/140666/israeli_police_and_military_brutalize_peaceful_protesters_at_netanyahu%27s_speech/.

Care to comment RF1, RF2, Shaun?

[Shaun]

When was the last time Palestinians killed 200 of their own on a single day, as Israel did on December 27 2008 in Gaza?
• February 11 1970. Read about majority population of Jordan.

Names are actually very relevant, Despite being a majority there was no independent Palestine, Palestinian self-determination or even a reference to indigenous Palestinians during the “…last few millennia in Palestine.” Even the most passionate of Arab Nationalists in the area view themselves as Syria. Please read the origins of the word Nakba.

Hundreds of Thousands of Arabs left fled and were expelled from Israel during and after the 1948 war. Equal to if not less than the number of Jews expelled from Arab countries.
Would you have preferred that all the Jews in Israel would have succumbed to the will of Hassan Azzamaha? Please read what his intensions were for the Jews?

I am as familiar with military devices as you are ignorant of them. Stipulation of US loans to Israel are guaranteed only if the purchases are made in the US or for US made equipment. UK, Germany and Sweden are not in the US despite your “speculation”.
Again less than ½ is also less than “virtually all”

If you have an axe to grind with Benny Morris, please do it on his website or write him a letter.

Cool Hand Luke is a great classic movie and if you have some time I suggest you watch it. You will notice that the appropriate reference was made about miscommunication.

[Sun]

DZ,
Why should we limit this to Palestine vs Israel when the majority of the conflict has been Arab World vs Israel.

And when did the Arabs kill more than 200? Too many times!

Syria, at Hama, killed more Arab civilians than Israel has killed Palestinians in one day.

One day brother!

Israel may have killed 200 in one day, but them would be alive if there was no rockets being fired, and you know that. And looking at total number of Palestinians killed by Israel, its less than the number of casualties for most other conflicts in the world.

This is one of the longest conflicts, with so few Palestinian casualties when Israel has such disproportionate military strength, you gots ta conclude that Israel limits numbers killed because they worrt about things like life and morality. Not like them sri lankans who smash so many a day! (including the new zealanders).

[David Zinn]

So, let me get this straight, because hundreds of thousands of Jews were "expelled from Arab countries" after 1948, that justifies Israeli immigrants expelling "hundreds of thousands of Arabs", which you finally now admit? Though of course you add that old canard about Arabs just "leaving", presumably of their own accord, which accounts for a miniscule number of the total and is also related to the fear of what the Jews would do to them if they stayed.

You also don't mention that Jews being expelled from Arab lands may have had something to do with the founding of Israel, considering this mass expulsion of Jews happened after 1948. Yet another convenient elision on your part?

Names don't matter, I'm afraid, because the real issue, which I've stressed time and time again, namely of an Arab majority population occupying Palestine for most of the last thousand years prior to the 1930s, is simply obscured with constant fixation on nomenclatorial designations. Why not read my recent post addressed to RF2 about this very issue for an analogous situation that bears keeping in mind while obsessing over whether or not the Palestinians called themselves this or that.

Considering that the Zionist enterprise is itself a very recent phenomenon, traceable to Theodore Herzl in the late 19th Century, I'll hardly be so keen to attempt to win an argument as to who has more right to the land by referring to whether or not Arabs in Palestine actually consituted an "independent" nation or had "self-determination".

Shaun, let me put the following to you:

Let's say you see yourself as a person of European descent living in an African country, but no more, in other words you don't see yourself as technically South African, but merely as belonging to a group of similar looking people who share some cultural values, who happen to occupy a particular part of land in Southern Africa, which your ancestors have also lived in for a millennia or more. Now would you be perfectly comfortable with another group of people who are of a different culture and who, based on some hoary old religious text, believe that they have a metaphysical right to your land and therefore can kick you out of your home, never allowing you or your family to ever return? So this happens to you and the group that has expelled you from your house justifies this because you, or the culture you belonged to, never expressly referred to yourselves as South Africans, even though you happened to live on land which is in what is today called the Republic of South Africa. Would you honestly be comfortable with the above scenario? Please answer as honestly as possible.

Nakba means "catastrophe", as in what happened to the Palestinians in 1947-48. Glad to see you using it.

Why not read about Plan Dalet about what the Jews planned for the Arabs and also carried out? Why not read about Winston Churchill's despicably racist sentiments regarding the Arabs and how apparently justified it was that a superior race, in this case the Jews, occupy their land.

I believe the following book excerpt might be of some interest:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that if the Palestinian Arabs in the 1930s and 1940s had agreed that a large part of Palestine – where they were still a large majority and had until recently been an overwhelming one – should be given up to form the state of Israel, they would have been acting in a way which, as far as I am aware, would have had no precedent in all of human history. It is not as if intelligent and objective observers did not point this fact out at the time. As Hannah Arendt wrote in 1945, three years before Israeli independence, the war with the Arabs and the expulsion of the Palestinians:

American Zionists from left to right adopted unanimously, at their last annual convention held in Atlantic City in October 1944, the demand for a “free and democratic Jewish commonwealth…[which] shall embrace the whole of Palestine, undivided and undiminished”. The Atlantic City Resolution goes even a step further than the Biltmore Program (1942) in which the Jewish minority had granted minority rights to the Arab majority. This time the Arabs were simply not mentioned in the resolution, which obviously leaves them the choice between voluntary emigration or second-class citizenship. It seems to admit that only opportunist reasons had previously prevented the Zionist movement from stating its final aims. These aims now seem to be completely identical with those of the extremists as far as the future political constitution of Palestine is concerned…By stating it with such bluntness in what seemed to them an appropriate moment, Zionists have forfeited for a long time any chance of pourparlers with Arabs; for whatever Zionists may offer, they will not be trusted.

Throughout history, only rarely were even the great assimilating religious-national movements and empires able to incorporate new peoples without some violence; and – despite the dreams of Herzl and others concerning a multiethnic Jewish state – Zionism is very explicitly not a force for the assimilation of non-Jews.

In other words, however one might condemn the Palestinians and Arabs for their long delay in coming to terms with the reality of Israel, to blame them for initially resisting that reality is to engage in moral and historical idiocy. While condemning the Arabs as demons, it suggests that they should have acted as saints. The tragedy of 1948 is not only that of a clash of valid rights, but also that neither side in the conflict could have acted otherwise. Years later former Israeli Foreign minister Abba Eban (1905-2002) said just as much: “The Palestinian Arabs, were it not for the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, could have counted on eventual independence either as a separate state or in an Arab context acceptable to them…It was impossible for us to avoid struggling for Jewish statehood and equally impossible for them to grant us what we asked. If they had submitted to Zionism with docility, they would have been the first people in history to have voluntarily renounced their majority states”.

America Right or Wrong by Anatol Lieven, pages 194 – 195.

[David Zinn]

correction: last word of the excerpt should be "status".

[David Zinn]

As I've written before, Sun, you're a moron who appears to be functionally illiterate. I've dealt with your central thesis countless times before, namely that just because other conflicts might produce far higher casualty rates that doesn't magically excuse Israel's actions. The issue isn't just casualties but the nature of the occupation. One could argue that the racist white regime in South Africa killed far fewer blacks during Apartheid than died during the war in Congo between 1998 and 2003, so does that make Apartheid perfectly acceptable? This is the last time I am going to answer this sort of enquiry as it is indicative of a morally warped and illogical mind.

I also made no claims about Arabs killing 200 Arabs in a single day, but was asking for when did Palestinians kill 200 fellow Palestinians in a single day. Stop misrepresenting my words!

Here's another thought, maybe if Gazans weren't forced to live in the world's largest open air prison, what some have even described as a concentration camp, and weren't being starved by the Israeli government, there would have been "no rockets fired". I certainly "know" that no one in their right mind would have sat idly by and allowed themselves to be starved to death or their children massacred without a fight. You also forgot to mention that during Operation Cast Lead only 13 Israelis died, as opposed to around 1400 Palestinians, and 4 of these Israelis died due to friendly fire. That leaves 9 killed by enemy forces, with about 6 of these being soldiers, leaving just 3 civilians. You also strangely failed to mention that between 2001 and 2008 there were just 17 Israelis killed due to rocket fire from Gaza. Sterling balance in your discussion there, Sun, absolutely top draw work. You clearly don't "know" an awful lot, or give a damn, which is, as ever with the pro-Israel brigade, perfectly run of the mill.

So am I to believe from your ridiculous and linguistically error-strewn comments that Israel is perfectly justified in killing and maiming small children so long as it keeps the death toll below, let's say that of Hiroshima or the massacre at Wounded Knee? Please do clarify, oh brilliant one.

Could you also provide some sort of citation for your garbled sentence stating that "Syria, at Hama, killed more Arab civilians than Israel has killed Palestinians in one day"?

Didn't you say on another thread that you have problems with the Zionists on this site? Then why do you sound just like them?

I'm glad to see that the defenders of Israel have such high standards for their favourite country that as long as the government isn't killing as many civilians as murderous theocratic states they're doing just peachy. This reminds me of Christians who defend the history of Christian violence by saying "Well, at least we're not as bad as the Nazis and the Communists". Funny how I was brought up to compare myself to the best and not the worst.

[Shaun]

Stop ranting… Plan Daled was never fully implemented, if it was there would be no Palestinian problem. The plan that was used in 1947 was called Operation Danny. Read Benny Morris thoroughly.
Israel did what it needed to in order to survive. (See Jordan 1970, Sri Lanka 2009)
The alternative was clearly stated by Hassan Azzamaha? You have still not commented on this.
The Arabs took a gamble and rejected the 1947 partition plan. War is tough and the Arabs lost, then they lost again in 1967. Please read the Geneva Convention protocol of Causes Bealum. Stop blaming everything on Israel. Get over it

About your Supposed beating of CODEPINK activists: “While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was making a major foreign policy speech at Tel Aviv University Sunday”
The Speech was at Bar-Ilan University not Tel-Aviv university. The whole story of the beating is fabricated and has not been corroborated by any other newscast/blog other than to copy and paste the same accusations…!
Code pink pull this same stunt at every rally in the US, they charge at the police and then sit on the ground crying like a European soccer player: See this same Code Pink action at rally in Detroit, San Francisco ,Washington DC, New York GOP and Michigan.

[David Zinn]

I'm not ranting, so stop accusing me of this just because I disagree with you.

"Get over it" seems to be your mantra, and all the other Zionist zealots on this site. You strangely haven't answered the key question I posed to you, which is rather suspicious and revealing. I'm not "blaming everything on Israel", just pointing out what they're responsible, much like I would point out that whites were responsible for Apartheid. There's a big difference between apportioning blame and responsibility. The former suggests that a person or group has been unfairly singled out, whereas the latter is an acknowledgement of reality. You've not been able to deny anything I've written, only to pull the old Zionist trick of blaming everything of the Arabs. That word works well when applied to this group, you see, because they never kicked themselves off their own land, killed one another in the thousands, or destroyed their own villages. Perhaps I'm missing something. So you use Morris when it suits you, but not when he reveals some awkward facts.

I'm going to repeat that little thought experiment I wanted you to engage in, and perhaps this time you'll care to respond:

Let's say you see yourself as a person of European descent living in an African country, but no more, in other words you don't see yourself as technically South African, but merely as belonging to a group of similar looking people who share some cultural values, who happen to occupy a particular part of land in Southern Africa, which your ancestors have also lived in for a millennia or more. Now would you be perfectly comfortable with another group of people who are of a different culture and who, based on some hoary old religious text, believe that they have a metaphysical right to your land and therefore can kick you out of your home, never allowing you or your family to ever return? So this happens to you and the group that has expelled you from your house justifies this because you, or the culture you belonged to, never expressly referred to yourselves as South Africans, even though you happened to live on land which is in what is today called the Republic of South Africa. Would you honestly be comfortable with the above scenario? Please answer as honestly as possible.

Oh, and apart from making a mistake about the university, the whole incident did happen as reported, with video to back it up. If you doubt me go to

http://palestinevideo.blogspot.com/2009/06/codepink-activist-in-israel-beaten-by.html

http://www.imemc.org/article/60848

http://palestinevideo.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

Rather quick to disbelieve stories, yet the Zionist brigade was all too willing to believe slanderous and fabricated lies about Mads Gilbert, who was a victim of a smear campaign by a group of Israeli bloggers. Check out Wikipedia with relevant links if you doubt me as all involved in that so-called "necrophilic" healing session corroborate the fact that the boy was still alive when Gilbert attempted to save his life.

I see the burden of proof is always far greater when one is a critic of Israel, than when one is a fanatical supporter of this terror state.

"War is tough", so I suppose you'd be perfectly happy with Palestinians killing 1400 Israelis, even if the bulk of them happen to be IDF soldiers? To even talk about war when one side has the fourth largest army in the world while the other doesn't even have a state is rather obscene. But I suppose such one should expect from the Zionist faction.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Fourth largest eh,

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

I assume you're using "largest", in the sense you used "most".

What is obscene is that the "fourth largest" army in the world, "massively funded by the US" is unable to stop a rag tag bunch of thugs from murdering its citizens.

[Shaun]

Can’t answer your question as you continue to ignore the alternative. Or perhaps you would have preferred it?
Please acknowledge the intension of Hassan Azzamaha.
Please read the origins of the Nakba (Hint it predated 1948)
The Middle East is a tough neighborhood. If Israel laid down their guard for even 1 second the result would be wholesale slaughter of the Jews. Read events of September 1970, Hebron 1929, Etzion Block 1948, Revolts in Syria, Various uprisings in Lebanon and power struggles within the PA.
If this is the way Arabs treat one another I shudder to think what they would do if there was no IDF to protect Israel.
With regards to CODE PINK:
First line of the report quotes the incident taking place at Tel-Aviv University. Either the writer is grossly mistaken, was not actually there, was inventing information or all of the above. The actual protest took place at Bar-Ilan University and involved activist from both the left and the right.
It will also be informative to search for other Code Pink videos to see that they use the same modes operandi at protest in the US. i.e., charging police and then claming they were harassed.
The report goes on to claim that Codepinkers were kicked and hit with rifle butts: Please review video evidence and you will see that the policemen involved in the event are not armed with rifles or even batons.
Thank you for admitting that the majority of those killed in Gaza were armed. Although is this the same are your “Virtually all” when you made claim about US hardware?

[David Zinn]

I never made the claim about the majority in Gaza being armed, I was quoting what RF1 stated in an earlier post. According to what I've read the majority of those killed were civilians, but I was trying to draw an analogy, which you've once again failed to acknowledge, between Israeli and potential Palestinian actions. By not answering this question, you have revealed yet again that you are perfectly comfortable with Israelis killing Palestinians, but not the other way around. Ahhh, love the smell of bigotry in the morning.

By failing to answer my other analogy, as related to a potential scenario in your own life, you have demonstrated yet again the "I'm alright jack" mentality of pro-Israel apologists, and once again referred to Arab hatred which simply isn't at issue. One isn't responsible for other people's actions, one is only responsible for one's own actions, that's elementary logic. The whites in South Africa for centuries oppressed blacks because they were scared of them, it's the oldest story in the book.

Your failure to answer my questions suggests my points can't be rebutted, so thanks for that.

The Foolish Fundie is back!!! And his ridiculous nitpicking continues. I raise five million points, and he quibbles over punctuation. Shame, what a sad, pathetic specimen. At least he has ever less to argue against, so overwhelmingly have I decimated every last argument he's managed to trot out. I almost pity the fool!

Perhaps I should have said fourth most powerful, as opposed to largest, implying manpower. This is courtesy of countless sources, but I'm not in the mood to try to trace each and every one.

My, but you are a pitiful pedant! Have any actual answers to any of my questions, or have you given up completely engaging in any kind of discussion for fear of me meting out yet more punishment against your person?

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Once again David demonstrates his ability to leap to conclusions he wants based on evidence that doesn't support it, and when picked out to pretend it doesn't matter.

David, you've shown yourself through your own posts to be an ignorant lying fool who can't set forth a logical argument and who can't tell the difference between opinion and fact. Which is why people don't respond to your every stupid point. Ignoring your idiocy is people's natural reaction to avoid embarassing your further.

Asking a whole lot of stupid questions doesn't show you're clever, quoting a whole lot of books doesn't either - it normally shows an ability to regurgitate - and in your case you've proven even that ability to be lacking.

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

Davidspeak:

Pitiful Pedant: Someone who can tell the difference between real facts and made up fantasies.

As an aside, if I was say, an actuary, and someone gave me a statistic of 46-85%, I'd fire them. It's more dangerous than no estimate.

[David Zinn]

The reason you don't respond, you miserable moron, is because you simply can't, so you resort to childish name-calling and pedantic obsessions with every last thing I say. Why not count how many sources I quote from, or "regurgitate" in your terms, and how many sources you bring out to buttress you contentions. If there's anyone who can't tell fact from opinion it's you, as should be obvious to all but the most blinded or idiotic. I can run circles around you with my knowledge, as I've done repeatedly, and all you have recourse to is show "liar liar" like some grade school cry baby. You are more than ignorant, or a liar, you're a deeply racist propagandist who wouldn't know a fact if it beat you to a pulp.

Nice reference to "embarrassing", considering your performance thus far. Keep avoiding my points, and pretending you're doing this because they're so stupid, it just strengthens my contention that my perspectives are correct.

[Shaun]

“Arab hatred which simply isn't at issue. One isn't responsible for other people's actions, one is only responsible for one's own actions.”

And that’s all folks!

[Religious Fundamentalist 1]

As you pointed out David, it's not the number it's the strength.

And since you're so clever - why is it that you can't do simple maths and realise that a claim of relativity makes both sides of the comparison relevant?
______________________________
Shaun,
I think that quote from the brilliant David is needed over at the Sharon thread.