Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast week, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, John Brennan, the White House's top adviser on terrorism, described the outlines of the Obama administration's new counterterrorism strategy. During his appearance, which drew several hundred people to the basement conference room at CSIS, I had a chance to ask Brennan about US policy toward Hezbollah and Hamas. In his response, Brennan opened the door a crack to the idea of a new US policy toward the two groups, and his comments stirred some unhappiness at the State Department. Here's are two transcripts, first, my exchange with Brennan and then the question-and-answer session at the State Department:
Q. Good morning, John. I'm Bob Dreyfuss from The Nation magazine. ... In between al-Qaida and general violent extremists, there are other organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, even the Taliban, that seem amenable to the kind of persuasion that you said that al-Qaida, the president believes, is not amenable to.And we've discussed this in the past, and you've suggested that it might be possible to have a dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah, and I think the president himself has said the Taliban. So I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about disaggregating these movements, which the Bush administration was so prone to rolling up into one, big Islamo-fascist ball of wax. Talk a little bit about how we could deal with some of the other formations that exist and whether or not it might be prudent to start talking to them, now.
MR. BRENNAN: Well, the two cases that you give, Hamas and Hezbollah, are interesting case studies. Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
However, within Hezbollah, there's still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large – they're going to continue to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact, they're trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process in Lebanon. And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion.
Hamas, on the other hand, started out as a very focused social organization that was providing welfare to Palestinians, primarily in Gaza. Over time, it developed an extremist and terrorist element to it that, I think, has unfortunately delegitimized it in the eyes of many, not just throughout the world, but also in the territories. And its continued embrace of violence and terrorism is something that the Palestinian people, I think, have to continue to tell Hamas leaders that this is not going to bring them what they truly deserve, which is a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel.
So you're absolutely correct. There are a number of different organizations that have both political and terrorist dimensions to it. Unfortunately, it's the terrorist dimension that, as I pointed out in my remarks, really holds the aspirations of the people. There are disenfranchised Shia within Lebanon that Hezbollah is trying to represent. But they're doing it in a corrupted and twisted manner. They're not going to help to realize those aspirations of the Shia people if they continue to embrace that violence – same thing with Hamas. And I think these aspirations of the people need to be realized, and it's not going to be through the terrorist agenda.
Q. So what do we do? What is America's role?
MR. BRENNAN: I think what we've done is to demonstrate both in Lebanon and to the Palestinians that we, the United States, are willing to engage and have a dialogue with any organizations or groups that are, in fact, dedicated to realizing peaceful solutions to existing problems. And I think those elements within Lebanon, be they Hezbollah or others, know that the United States has tried to be a very honest broker there, providing support to Lebanese institutions.
And those who shun and eschew that terrorism will, in fact, gain favor with the United States. The same thing in the Palestinian community – those Palestinians that are really going to ensure that they pursue a path towards peace that does not bring terrorism to bear are going to be partners with the United States.
In fact, as I alluded to in my question, Brennan had told me (before taking a job in the Obama administration, but while serving as Obama's top adviser on intelligence issues) that talking to Hamas and Hezbollah is the right thing to do. In his response to me at CSIS, of course, he didn't say that at all, though he hinted that both organizations might be persuaded to move away from using violence to achieve their goals, and that the United States is willing to talk to both of them if they do so.
Brennan's comments on Hezbollah led the State Department to deny that there's any change in US policy, despite Brennan's assertion that Hezbollah has political and military wings. Here's the exchange from the State Department's briefing on Friday:
QUESTION: President Obama's chief counterterrorism advisor John Brennan has said yesterday that Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early ‘80s and that it has evolved significantly over time. He added that, "I am pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are, in fact, renouncing their type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion." Can you elaborate on this issue? Have you changed your policy toward Hezbollah and have you started to differentiate between its military and political wings?MR. WOOD: Let me be very clear: Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. U.S. policy toward Hezbollah has not changed. We do not make any distinction between the political and military wings. And that is our policy. Until Hezbollah decides that it's going to change and stop carrying out the acts of terrorism and other acts that are causing instability in the region, there's no reason for our policy to change.
QUESTION: And how do you make the distinction between that and what Mr. Brennan said?
MR. WOOD: Well, I haven't seen a transcript of his remarks, but what I can tell you is what U.S. policy is with regard to Hezbollah.
QUESTION: But he seemed to say that there were some moderate elements that might be changing there, too.
MR. WOOD: Well, that remains to be seen whether there are or not. I'm not an expert on Hezbollah and the inner workings of that terrorist organization. But what I can tell you is that our policy has not changed.
QUESTION: But he differentiated between the two wings, between politicals and terrorists.
MR. WOOD: Well, our policy, the U.S. Government policy, remains the same with regard to – I haven't seen the remarks, but I'm sure that he was not saying that the United States makes a clear distinction between those two branches, because we do not.
QUESTION: But it certainly was opening up the door to the possibility that if certain members of Hezbollah were to renounce violence that the United States could do business with it.
MR. WOOD: Well, again, without seeing his remarks, I mean, it appears that he may have been speculating on what may happen if Hezbollah does this or that. But Hezbollah has not done this or that. They are still a force of instability in the region. And as a result, our policy has not changed.
QUESTION: Are you sure there's not a different opinion between the White House and the State Department on this? Because this is an advisor of President Obama that's talking about how, you know, there could be certain members of Hezbollah that are changing their tune, and he found it an encouraging sign.
MR. WOOD: Well, that's – again, there is – our policy is very clear on Hezbollah. The question of whether or not there are people inside of that organization that may want to take a different approach, a different track, change their stripes, that could very well be. I don't know. But in terms of dealing with Hezbollah as an organization, it is still a Foreign Terrorist Organization. It is, as I said, a force of instability in the region. And our policy has not changed.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
DREYFUSS: "White House Opening to Hezbollah, Hamas?"
Logical and plausible....given the estrangement from Israel by the Black House.
The State Dept. is no longer relevant today...Only Hillary doesn't know that her dept. has been changed to Dept. of Boogie....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 08/10/2009 @ 10:11am
"given the estrangement from Israel by the Black House. "----Posted by Happy at 08/10/2009 @ 10:11am
Boy, HAPP...good thing it's Obama who's the racist not the Right, otherwise you wouldn't have any CYA for using the term "Black House" and sounding like a racist, huh?
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 10:15am
On-topic, Bush wanted democracy in Palestine....Hamas elected in Gaza.
So...who else do we deal with in Gaza?
BTW, the Right won't tell you their "solution" to Hamas and Gaza...just bitch and moan about what Obama's doing about it.
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 10:16am
Seems to me that Ms. Boom Boom Clinton has got her fingers everywhere in the State-of-Chaos Dept. Wood's comments read like they could have been uttered by The Queen herself, i.e. how dare you question our beneficence and omnipresent wisdom, you wretched serf. Our policies haven't changed..... now back to your shackles.
Posted by DejaVu at 08/10/2009 @ 11:26am
legitimizing terrorism is what liberals do. Jimmy Carter started this shit, and terrorism grew unchecked! My view is, the minute the palestinian people elected hamas, they put a target on all their heads. They, the palestinian people, accepted and supported the terrorism produced and fostered by hamas, and therefore should be subjected to the same consequences as hamas. I believe the same should go for dem's.
Posted by barry25 at 08/10/2009 @ 11:28am
"Jimmy Carter started this shit..."---Posted by barry25 at 08/10/2009 @ 11:28am
Really?....how?
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 11:32am
Logical and plausible....given the estrangement from Israel by the Black House.
Posted by Happy at 08/10/2009 @ 10:11am | ignore this person | warn this person
Golly Hap - have conservatives gone mad?
Giving the middle finger to Blacks and Hispanics just doesn't seem to be good policy for putting your side back behind the wheel.
Kind of like Israel under US auspices giving the middle finger to everyone in the Middle East. The demographics just don't play.
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 11:33am
legitimizing terrorism is what liberals do. Jimmy Carter started this shit, and terrorism grew unchecked! My view is, the minute the palestinian people elected hamas, they put a target on all their heads.
Posted by barry25 at 08/10/2009 @ 11:28am
What a nut. Last I recall, REAGAN was the one who funded what became the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. And this idea that Palestinians turned themselves into targets by voting for Hamas is disgusting. Occupied, oppressed populations will choose whatever roads present themselves for inedependence and dignity. You are a sad, sad person.
Posted by Communard115 at 08/10/2009 @ 11:52am
'The serial numbers of arms captured from PKK fighters have been traced back to U.S. shipments to Iraqi military and police units. Responding to Turkish complaints, the Americans claim these arms were diverted by the Iraqis – presumably the Kurdish regional government – but the Turks aren't buying it: if the large quantity of U.S.-made arms (1,260 seized so far) turns out to have been directly provided to the PKK by the Americans, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul warned, U.S.-Turkish "relations would really break apart." U.S. diplomats immediately rebuffed this suggestion, and Washington dispatched the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes, to the scene, where he met with top Turkish military leaders. According to at least one report, "The meeting discussed an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Defense into reports that U.S. arms were being sold by U.S. troops in Iraq."'
Who's Behind the PKK?
by Justin Raimondo, October 30, 2007
And of course, Israel is doing the same.
Now PKK is a terrorist group, but hey, they are our terrorists!
Wood's hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. What else is new.
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 12:08pm
'As Seymour Hersh has reported, the U.S. and Israel are financing and otherwise aiding the Kurdish Party of Life, known as "Pejak," founded to "liberate" western Iran, which has a large and restive Kurdish population. Furthermore, the ties between the PKK and Pejak are more than merely fraternal: they are basically the same organization, sharing not only bases in the mountainous Quandil region of Kurdistan, but also common personnel and leadership.'
Who's Behind the PKK?
by Justin Raimondo, October 30, 2007
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 12:27pm
You get to employ a carrot + stick approach when you are talking. When you isolate, it's just stick. So the opposite side hardens, and 3rd parties don't come over to your side of the matter -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 08/10/2009 @ 12:29pm
found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth Posted by reg373 at 08/10/2009 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
how many times ya gonna post this? enough already.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 12:33pm
The commentary by both officials was utterly silly. Regardless of whether or not one can acknowledge the histories of either Hez'b'allah or Hamas as involving more than just "terrorism" - Hez'b'allah arose as a resistance to the brutal, illegal, and immoral Israeli occupation of Lebanon, for instance - pretending that the US is working on stabilizing relations in the region without negotiating with these two organizations is like saying that the US plan is to talk to itself in the mirror.
There has been no forward move on peace in that neighborhood for one reason: the Israelis don't want peace. The Israelis have a brutal, violent, colonial vision that they won'tove away from. They want the land. They have a supremacist view of themselves and racist view of their neighbors. Until that is changed, or until the power Israel holds in the US is diminished, there is no hope.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 12:36pm
As far as I can tell, the American position concerning Hamas has not changed: when Hamas declares, both to the Westyern press and to the Palestinian people, that it's goal is the two state solution pursuant to a permanent peace treaty, then there can be aythorized discussions with Hamas. Until then, Hamas is an outlaw terrorist organization which will be granted no legitimacy. (And please don't post about Hamas' 'offer' to abide by a temporary cease-fire (hudna) if Israel withdraws to the 67 boundary, gives up its Jerusalem holy places (from which Jews were forbidden to go while they were under Arab control from 1948 - 67), and accepts the settlement of 4 million Palestinans (who will leave the Palestinian homeland state) into Israel. Israel will not agree to those terms in return for a permanent peace treaty and full diplomatic recognition; it's cetainly not going to do so for a cease-fire.)
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 12:53pm
I think our answer should be clear to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Either renounce terrorism or prepare to meet your judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 1:29pm
"Either renounce terrorism or prepare to meet your judgment."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 1:29pm
Could you be more specific....or even a LOT more specific?
"Think Dresden"?
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 1:36pm
I think our answer should be clear to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Either renounce terrorism or prepare to meet your judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 1:29pm
oooh, you've been brushing up on those prophet chops!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2009 @ 1:47pm
The real face of Israeli racism:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L- 3759993,00.
'Day of recreation' ends in tears over Arabic music
Some 250 children from Jish church's summer camp leave country club in northern city of Katzrin, after club's manager refused to allow the counselors to play Arabic music. 'We can't have every sector coming to the pool and playing whatever music they want,' manager explains
Sharon Roffe-Ofir
Published: 08.10.09, 18:22 / Israel News
Some 250 children of an Arab village's summer camp left a country club in the northern city of Katzrin in tears on Thursday, after the club's manager refused to allow the counselors to play Arabic music ..."
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 1:48pm
This is the face of Israeli democracy:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle- east/article1738070.ece
"Israeli agents to screen judges before appointment
Fury as security service gets veto over judiciary
By Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Israel's internal security service has been given a de facto veto over the appointment of judges in an unprecedented decision that has the country's embattled liberals up in arms.
The move by the Judges Selection Committee on Friday is likely to make it harder for members of Israel's Arab minority and others with views that are not mainstream to become judges, according to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (Acri). Zahava Galon, a former MP of the dovish Meretz party, said the decision was 'a scandal'. She said: 'We are turning into a kind of police state with Big Brother everywhere. A judge shouldn't have to pass the Shin Bet's tests. This is just something that isn't done.' ..."
Yes, that's correct - the judges have to be "approved" (ie, selected) by the national security establishment specifically on the grounds of their anti-Arab credentials.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 1:55pm
As I indicated, placing aside the silliness of a question as to whether or not the US will engage with Hamas/Hez'b'allah in part of its "peace process", there is no hope for stabilization in relations because the Israelis hate the native Arab population, regard it as inferior, and want whatever land and resources their rabbis tell them is divinely granted to them.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 1:57pm
If we hadn't talked to the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the world would now be a cinder. In other words people are supposed to surrender, before we will negotiate! These people are a bunch of amateurs, who need help crossing the street.
Posted by pjcasey at 08/10/2009 @ 2:13pm
The nominal Euro-American ethnics who brazenly and unnecessarily hitch their interests with those of ethnic Ashkenazis against the teeming masses of the Islamic world aren't exactly evidence of "white supremacy" as Pat Buchanan would readily agree.
Posted by zionopp at 08/10/2009 @ 2:16pm
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Intresting how Islam and its supporters are always overflowing with the milk of human kindness for Jews worldwide! NOT
Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 2:18pm
Just as there were Jewish moneylenders and Jewisj rent collectors in the middle ages that anti-semites could point to to 'evidence" their prejudice and venomous stereotypes, Israel has the same blemishes as every other country in the world, each of which has acted exactly as Israel does when they were in similar historical situations. But only Israel suffers the vile, hateful, prejudiced judgments and stereotypes. Anti-Zionism (not the opposition or criticism of particular actions or policies, but the blanket rejection of Zionism and Israel as colonialist, imperialist, genocidal and war criminal) is the new anti-semitism.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:30pm
"But only Israel suffers the vile, hateful, prejudiced judgments and stereotypes."---Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:30pm
Really? Can I keep that for the next right-winger's discussion of...
France or most Arab countries except the ones we like?
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 2:36pm
Hello Mask-- not much of a comeback. More like an acknowledgment and admission.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:37pm
no other country is considered illegitimate, no other country is accused of acting like Nazis.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:30pm
Total BS. What post are you referring to that gives a "blanket rejection of Zionism (etc)"? Be honest, what you mean is "criticise Israel for anything and you're an automatic ANTISEMITE." I like your remark about Israel's "blemishes" and how every other country in the word has acted "exactly as Irael does when they were in similar historical situations". If that don't give them the right, golly, what does??
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/10/2009 @ 2:42pm
tell mattman --
here is an example from today. when onevote and Dejavu post, to name just a couple, it's much worse.
the Israelis don't want peace. The Israelis have a brutal, violent, colonial vision that they won'tove away from. They want the land. They have a supremacist view of themselves and racist view of their neighbors. Until that is changed, or until the power Israel holds in the US is diminished, there is no hope.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm
"the Israelis don't want peace."
SOME Israelis don't want peace.
The Americans have a brutal, violent, colonial vision that they won'tove away from.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 3:05pm
"the Israelis don't want peace."
SOME Israelis don't want peace.
The Americans have a brutal, violent, colonial vision that they won'tove away from.no other country is considered illegitimate, no other country is accused of acting like Nazis. Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
what nonsense. Israel's gov't is as legitimate as any in the region. get real.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 3:07pm
no other country is considered illegitimate, no other country is accused of acting like Nazis. Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
what nonsense. Israel's gov't is as legitimate as any in the region. get real.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 3:08pm
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm tell gren--
What about this exactly is anti-Zionist? I read a criticism of Israel's policies, not Israel's religious or ethnic identity. There is ample evidence to support the accusations Syfriendly made in this remark. Please, enlighten me how Onevote and Dejavu's comments were equally ANTISEMITIC.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/10/2009 @ 3:22pm
tell mattman --
here is an example from today. when onevote and Dejavu post, to name just a couple, it's much worse.
the Israelis don't want peace. The Israelis have a brutal, violent, colonial vision that they won'tove away from. They want the land. They have a supremacist view of themselves and racist view of their neighbors. Until that is changed, or until the power Israel holds in the US is diminished, there is no hope.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Nice Gren. If Israel doesn't want us to talk to terrorists, why do they so willingly engage terrorists to do their dirty work in Iran?
Answer the question, and try not use the word anti-semitism in your response.
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 3:26pm
I'm really tired of the bs that passes for "democracy" in America. The Palestinian people voted for Hamas because they were trying to help the people (food/money/clothes), that are under occupation. The US government has blindly supported, and the media constantly attacks the Palestinians for even being there. That Palestinian land is being stolen (it's why they call it the Occupied Territory), the people are constantly under attack, and that they have no rights - is never spoken of. It is past time for the US to stop banging it's head on the wall, and actually have a dialog with the elected leaders of Palestine. It is also past time that the US stop blindly supporting Israel and it's apartheid policies. For a people that continually talk about the genocide committed against them by the Germans - they have learned well at the hands of their masters!
Let us try something new, dialog with the elected leaders of Hamas & Hezbollah, it might actually led to positive change. I also wonder how Americans would react if what was happening to the Palestinians were recreated in America?!
Posted by Spiritgirl2 at 08/10/2009 @ 3:28pm
mattman -- I assume you misread my post, and are not trying to twist my words. I noted that your buddies engage in virulent anti-Zionism. I never said their posts are anti-semitic. Saying that anti-Zionism is the new antisemitism is not saying that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. It is an attack on the Jewish expression of peoplehood and nationalism, and the reality of a Jewish sovereign state, but it is not a prejudice or discrimination against Jews.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 3:28pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/10/2009 @ 3:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are attempting the proverbial battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Be a gentleman and leave him to himself. That, incidentally, would probably be the worst punishment of all.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 3:29pm
syfriendly -- the feeling is mutual. Enjoy your self-righteousness and smugness.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 3:34pm
tell spiritgirl2--
thanx for evidencing my point.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 3:36pm
tell spiritgirl2 -- If the native Americans started terrorbombing US citizens, notwithstanding that American Europeans anscestors stole their land and isloated them in non-sustainable ghettos, the American response would be the same or more severe than the Israeli response. And that is exactly the point.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 3:40pm
"But only Israel suffers the vile, hateful, prejudiced judgments and stereotypes. Anti-Zionism (not the opposition or criticism of particular actions or policies, but the blanket rejection of Zionism and Israel as colonialist, imperialist, genocidal and war criminal) is the new anti-semitism."
Oh, ok. Not anti-semitic but NEW anti-semitic. Totally different concepts! How could I have been so blind and attempted to "twist your words"?
This is the typical petty, semantic BS of Israel and it's steadfast supporters hiding behind "anti-semitism, anti-zionism, NEW anti-semitism"; that somehow criticising the brutal actions of Israel likens you to a Nazi out to further persecute the Jews.
History will not reflect kindly on the actions of Israel.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/10/2009 @ 3:53pm
Just as there were Jewish moneylenders and Jewisj rent collectors in the middle ages that anti-semites could point to to 'evidence" their prejudice and venomous stereotypes, Israel has the same blemishes as every other country in the world, each of which has acted exactly as Israel does when they were in similar historical situations....
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Tell me again when Israel was taken off the money-laundering blacklist? Would that be 2002? Not exactly the Middle Ages. And do note the solid support GWB in this measure, despite the fact that money laundering is still alive and well in Israel...to wit: busted Rabbis in NY recently. And the Zionist take in Israel? But of course - Obama is an anti-semite.
This nonsense really needs to stop.
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 3:54pm
'Tel Aviv, Israel -- Israel plays a prominent role in the charges of money laundering and human organ black marketing that have swept five rabbis into a New Jersey federal corruption investigation.
Among other things, Israeli banks were allegedly key transit points for the money laundering operation. The rabbis accused of laundering money were allegedly told that it came from sales of knockoff products labeled as legitimate brands and from other illicit activities.
But Israeli law enforcement agencies say they have yet to launch probes of their own.
One of the key suspects charged in the money laundering operations is Levi Deutsch, an Israeli who resides in Israel but makes regular visits to America, where he was arrested July 23 as part of the federal sweep. According to the criminal complaints, Deutsch was a high-level source of cash from overseas for funding the bank checks that passed through charitable entities.
Another of the arrested rabbis, Eliahu Ben-Haim, allegedly laundered $1.5 million with the help of an as yet unidentified Israeli for a witness cooperating with the FBI. After laundering the illicit funds through Israel, the Israeli is believed to have arranged for Ben-Haim's clients to receive their money through intermediary cash houses. He is thought to have charged a 1.5% fee.
Israel is no stranger to money laundering. In 2000, Israel was featured on the inter-governmental Financial Action Task Force's blacklist of countries considered uncooperative in the fight against money laundering. The FATF is an international body that includes among its members the United States, China, Russia and countries of the European Union.
"For many years, Israel was the last Western country which wasn't fighting money laundering..'
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 3:57pm
cite to above
Israel Plays Key Role in N.J. Corruption Case, But Holds Off on Own Probe By Nathan Jeffay Published July 29, 2009, issue of August 07, 2009. The Jewish Daily FORWARD Excerpts............
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 3:58pm
tell mattman--
it must drive you crazy that we have endured as a people for over 3000 years, despite the last 2000 years in exile facing persecution, contempt, prejudice, hatred, book burning, ghettos, attack, pogroms and the Holocaust. We have survived and now prosper. 2000 years after losing our sovereignty and seeing our city razed, we have re-established our national and cultural sovereignty. Despite what you may think, history reflects gloriously on the Judaic civilization.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 3:59pm
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 3:59pm
Hey, buddy. Good for you and the Jews. Seriously. I don't believe I criticised the Jews, just the brutal actions of Israel. I know you're really smart enough to understand this, so stop pretending.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/10/2009 @ 4:05pm
The State Dept. is no longer relevant today...Only Hillary doesn't know that her dept. has been changed to Dept. of Boogie....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 08/10/2009 @ 10:11am
Since SoS is now irrelevant, guess we had better get to work on that presidential line of succession, eh?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/10/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 3:59pm | ignore this person |
News flash: what the UN created in 1948 is not some ancient nation recreated. That is the delusion of a religious maniac. What the UN did was allow a small group of Western European and Russian fanatics access to Islamic lands that Britain militarily occupied.
Presumably, with your take on reality, you're moving to Israel, because you need to give your US house back to the Cherokee or whichever tribal remnant remaining is closest to your zip code.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 4:09pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/10/2009 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person |
No, no, he is probably not smart enough to understand that.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 4:10pm
Boy, HAPP...good thing it's Obama who's the racist not the Right, otherwise you wouldn't have any CYA for using the term "Black House" and sounding like a racist, huh?
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 10:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
Hey, it's important our neocon friends have an outlet like this blog in order to act out their rage-ball frustrations in a relatively harmless way. This blog serves an important and integral mission in blunting and deflecting these individuals' deluded passions.
Can you see dudes, for instance, like a barry25 without an outlet? C'mon.
It's sort of a public service we provide here.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 08/10/2009 @ 4:15pm
tell mattman
I never said you are anti-semitic. I'll try once more. To characterize the I/P conflict as white hat / black hat, with Israel as the villan which is the ultimate source of the conflict, is either ideological blindnes, ignorance of the full history, or a prejudicial reaction to a Jewish state (i.e., not the Western non-sectarian model -- which was established when Protestants made up 90% or more of the population and de facto was a Christian state), even though the Palestinian state, like the other Arab countries, will be a Moslem state.
Former President Clinton at the close of Camp David, identified the necessary parameters for a peace treaty and the end of the conflict. Israel twice has offered to withdraw from 95% of the West Bank and provide land compensation. The PA did not accept the offers because it wants the entirety of East Jerusalem. Besides the territory issue, is the right of return. If the PA would agree to divide E. Jerusalem and give up the demand to flood Israel with 4 million Palestinians, the majority of Israelis would support a treaty, even if the Likud party and the affiliated government parties would not.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:17pm
tell syfriendly --
newsflash. Zionism was a Jewish-created movement to return to and ressurect the Jewish homeland. You may deny it (I get your 'European Jew' reference), but your opinion is irrelevant. We are an unbroken chain. Doesn't make us better, doesn't give us any more rights. But no worse, no less.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:23pm
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The majority of Israelis just elected a combination of Likud and Yisrael Beitanu to their national government. The foreign minister of Israel is on the record as favoring ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories. He lives in an illegal "settlement" in the West Bank. The majority of Israel's voting youth voted for Y.B. in the last election. Your judges are chosen by the same intelligence services that perform assassinations. Your rabbis program your soldiers to believe that killing Palestinians is a mission from your god. In your most recent savage assault on the people of Gaza, your military happily bombed, rocket'd, and shot a large number of innocent people to death while your civilians stood atop the hillsides overlooking Gaza drinking and enjoying the view. This is all documented in unchallenged Western media reports. In your last savage and barbaric assault against Lebanon, you killed a large number of innocent people because your government wanted to make a bloody point to the nation of Iran, which threatens to, in decades to come, challenge the monopoly on nuclear weapons of mass destruction your government has in the region.
Your nation is barbaric. My nation must stop giving our weapons and money to your nation, weapons which your military and intelligence services then go on to use in acts that would be regarded as absolutely criminal if committed by US military personnel at any time, in a situation, anywhere on Earth. That is all we can do, stop giving you our weapons and money - and our vote at the UNSC.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 4:25pm
tell syfriendly
BTW, Zionism was founded by Jewish socialists who were not religious. The non-religious (as I am) are fully vested and invested in Judaic civilization. The religious opposed Zionism. You actually know very little when it comes to Jews, Zionism and Israel. But don't let that stop you from pontificating.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:27pm
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person | warn
As I said, what the UN created in 1948 was not some ancient nation. What the UN did was given Western European and Russian fanatics access to Islamic lands that Britain militarily occupied. This was one of the greatest strategic disasters of all time for the modern Western world, which is now faced with huge difficulties in relating to the Islamic world because of the little monster we created.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 4:27pm
syfriendly -- Your nation? Doesn't take much before a puported leftwinger sounds indistinquishable from a rightwinger.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:29pm
thanx syfriendly for further evidencing my primary point. Just a little scratch and the emotional prejudice and hatred oozes out from beneath the facade of principle and reason. You don't like a jewish sovereign state? Too bad.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:32pm
News flash: what the UN created in 1948 is not some ancient nation recreated. That is the delusion of a religious maniac. What the UN did was allow a small group of Western European and Russian fanatics access to Islamic lands that Britain militarily occupied.
Presumably, with your take on reality, you're moving to Israel, because you need to give your US house back to the Cherokee or whichever tribal remnant remaining is closest to your zip code.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 4:09pm
straight out of Islamic talking points.
These anti semites can never counter the facts:
There has never been another nation in that land but Israel.
there has never been another nation that called Jerusalem it's capital, but Israel.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 4:47pm
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:29pm
Please see:
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person | warn
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 4:47pm | ignore this person |
Please note that your comment is essentially indistinguishable from that of the raving loony-right religious fanatic immediately following you.
Likewise, you are the only one even using the word "jew" here. I could care less if Israel was Zoroastrian. Any nation that conducts itself as Israel is a nation of barbarians. You may not like that, but hiding behind the fig leaf of silly "anti-semitism" accusations won't make it false, what I say. Sorry if reality is just not coddling you.
In any case, yelling matches with religious maniacs and Zionist fanatics is neither my forte nor my interest. You two can have each other for company.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 5:04pm
In any case, yelling matches with religious maniacs and Zionist fanatics is neither my forte nor my interest. You two can have each other for company.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 5:04pm
In other words, when confronted with the facts, you have no rebuttal.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
Either renounce terrorism or prepare to meet your judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 1:29pm
Larry, it bothers me that you are such a warmonger for Christ. Evidently, you think that Christ told us to smite our enemies before sitting down and discussing matters with them. You would have been an excellent foot-soldier in the Crusades. I realize the importance of Israel in your end times, but I would prefer NOT to kill millions of human beings in a religious war.
In my opinion, negotiation is a common enemy to all forms of extremism, whether it be fundamental Islamic extremism, or your brand of fundamental Christian extremism. One thing all extremists have in common is they don't like to be told they are extremists; they prefer thinking that they are the normal ones (hearing the words of god) and everyone else has it wrong (god doesn't talk to them directly). They wrap their extremism in the flag, or the cloth of the holy person, and instead of doing good to their fellow human beings, they only wish harm on others. To me, your form of Christianity is no better than their form of Islam; for both use violence to achieve their goals.
I have faith, but deny the power of organized religion for salvation. I look at extremists and think, "It's sad that those people need to look to violence to resolve their own internal conflicts about their faith. Instead of looking within and battling the demons inside themselves, they choose to think of themselves as flawless in the eyes of god and look outside themselves and only see the demons in others."
I hate terrorism. If I could, I would rid the world of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. But his brand of attention-getting religiosity seems to have the same end-goal as yours.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/10/2009 @ 5:29pm
"I could care less if Israel was Zoroastrian. Any nation that conducts itself as Israel is a nation of barbarians."
How does Gaza conduct itself? How do the Palestinians conduct themselves?
They blow themselves up in buses of Israeli schoolchildren. They pledge genocide against Jews. They kidnap Israelis. They harbor terrorists. They run terror training camps. They illegally attack Israel with thousands of rockets for years without retaliation.
Israel, by contrast, is a free peace-loving secular multiethnic plurastic democracy with a fast growing economy, great wealth, and a higher standard of living for both its Jewish and Arab citizens then the standard of living in any Arab country.
Israel provides most of the aid that goes to Palestinians. The Palestinians need them for food, water, and electricity. Israel allowed Gaza to attack it and threaten it for years without any retalliation. When Israel briefly attacked back, it sacrificed the lives of its own soldiers to save Palestinian civilians by giving up the element of suprise to alert them.
If Israel is barbaric, what are the Palestinians?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 5:30pm
holy shit i did not know that judaic civilisation was an execuse for land theft and extending and expanding white supramacy and colonialism.so what about the great relationship between the former nazi regime of south africa and the great "socialist progressive" jew state?and the torture chambers of guatemala,el salvador that used be run by these socialist jews?these are all forgotten now and we all are called anti semites because we expose land theives and murderers of kids.
there is nothing more disgusting and murderous that the attitude of most of american jews who claim to be the bearers of so called "liberal" values in this country and yet these same fucking liberals support shooting kids and using chemical agents against defenceless occupied people.
don,t you ever dare to call yourselves socilaists.you are nothing but a bunch of marauding tribal talmudic land thieves who have sold your souls to imperialism and colonialism.
Posted by excalibur999 at 08/10/2009 @ 5:42pm
You don't like a jewish sovereign state? Too bad.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Curious Gren how your sister moved to Israel. Did she get one of those US financed West Bank condos built by the Israeli govenment in the occuppied territories along with US financed relocation expenses?
If there was peace, would she have to move (be resettled), and give up her subsidy being paid for by US taxpayers?
Posted by OneVote at 08/10/2009 @ 5:48pm
"holy shit i did not know that judaic civilisation was an execuse for land theft and extending and expanding white supramacy and colonialism"
Arabs in Israel enjoy a higher standard of living and greater freedom than Arabs do in any Arab country.
"the torture chambers of guatemala,el salvador that used be run by these socialist jews?"
This is a conspiracy theory blaming Jews for all the evils in the world.
In November 1975, the U.N. ruled that Zionism was a "form of racism." Curious, that just a few years later these "racist" Zionists transported 51,000 Ethiopians in danger of being wiped out by massacre and man-made starvation to Israel.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 5:55pm
when Hamas declares, both to the Westyern press and to the Palestinian people, that it's goal is the two state solution pursuant to a permanent peace treaty, then there can be aythorized discussions with Hamas.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 12:53pm
Hamas have been advocating a 2 state solution since 2006. They have also said they would not oppose the arab peace initiative, which offers to recognize Israel, as per the 1067 borders.
So I take it you are suporting discussions with Hamas?
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 6:12pm
I think our answer should be clear to Hamas and Hezbollah.
Either renounce terrorism or prepare to meet your judgment.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 1:29pm
In other words, both have to give up their right to resist Israeli agression right antisocialist ?
After all, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah woudl exist were it not for Israeli occupation.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 6:15pm
I hate terrorism. If I could, I would rid the world of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. But his brand of attention-getting religiosity seems to have the same end-goal as yours.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/10/2009 @ 5:29pm
I am not a warmonger. However I am also a realist who takes people at their word. Hezbollah and Hamas have vowed death to every living Jew. What negotiation is there with that framework? Should they work a compromise where only 1/3 or 1/4 of the Jews are killed? And why would these people compromise when they declare that the Quran does not allow for the existence of Israel?
<Islamic Jihad leader, Ramadan Abdalla Shalah says [Mid-East Mirror, November 10, 1996):
In the end Israel will disappear as the Koran states. From the standpoint of the Koran, there is no place for Israel and its existence is not justifiable.
Another Hamas leader, Abdel-Aziz Rantisi, said [Jerusalem Post, May 25, 1997]:
Islam does not permit giving up one inch of Palestine and states that Palestine belongs to the Muslims, belongs to the Palestinian people, not to the Jews. Bartering land is not liberation and is not permissible in Islam.
We the Palestinian nation, our fate from Allah is to be the vanguard in the war against the Jews until the resurrection of the dead, as the prophet Muhammad said: "The resurrection of the dead will not arrive until you will fight the Jews and kill them…"
Dr. Muhammed Ibrahim Madi, Palestinian Television, 30 March 2001>
Please explain where the area of negotiation is with this thinking on the part of the Arabs?
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:18pm
You asked:
".......If Israel is barbaric, what are the Palestinians?...."
The answer appears to be, applicable to far too many of the Palestinians, that they are murderers.
A Palestinian homicide bomber walked into Sbarro Pizzeria in Jerusalem, and blew to bits people who just decided they wanted pizza for lunch.
One's life or death should not be determined by what they decide to eat for lunch, but in Jerusalem it was.
Once again, for the umpteenth millionth time:
1. In 1948 the U.N. proposed a two state solution. The Jewish people had no quarrel with the creation of a Palestinian state, side by side in peace with a Jewish State. The Arab world, Islamic people, Palestinian people opposed this because they want no Israel. They were and still are unwilling to allow the existence of a Jewish state in the area that is homeland to the Jewish people. They were and still are opposed to what originally was (and really still is) a small piece of land being owned by the Jewish people.
2. Palestinians were encouraged to flee Israel by other Arabs. Forgotten is the fact that many Jewish refugees had to flee Arab lands.
3. Israel was not in the occupied territories until 1967, and only after continual threats to it's existence. Israel ceded control of the Sinai to Egypt when it made peace with Egypt. Peace was possible only because of Anwar Sadat, who was willing to have peace when other Arabs have not been. Anwar Sadat paid for this with his life.
4. Agreements like Oslo were worthless, Palestinians did not live up to the agreements. Ehud Barak was willing to give Arafat 95% of what was asked for - the answer from Arafat was Jihad and Intifada.
5. Israel gave up Gaza, Palestinians used Gaza to attack Israel.
Israel is not to blame, Arabs and Palestinians are to blame.
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2009 @ 6:18pm
But only Israel suffers the vile, hateful, prejudiced judgments and stereotypes. Anti-Zionism (not the opposition or criticism of particular actions or policies, but the blanket rejection of Zionism and Israel as colonialist, imperialist, genocidal and war criminal) is the new anti-semitism.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:30pm
Firstly, other nations stopped behaving like barbarians centirues ago, so it's not an argument to insist that Isrlae should be allowed to have it's formative period of massacaring people gievn that are now in the 21st century.
States liek the US, and Australia, whi have butchered the indigenous people, have admiited their crimes, paid reperations and vowed never to repeat it.
Anti-Zionism is not the new anti-semitism. One does nto have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. Fewer and fewer Jews are Zionists.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 6:19pm
Typo,
Above I meant to say that libertyfortheoppressed was the one who asked the question "..If Israel is barbaric, what are the Palestinians?...."
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2009 @ 6:21pm
no other country is considered illegitimate, no other country is accused of acting like Nazis.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 2:39pm
No other contry gives a damn who regards it as legitimate, especially givent that Israel has utter contempt for international opinion anyway. The majority of the coutries in the world, including the most powerful, do recognize Israel's legitimacy, so your argument is false.
Ironically, Israel's defenders often defend Israel's actions in the occupied territories based on the tenuous arument that there is no Palestinian state.
The Nazi accusation is thrown around gratuitously, including being directed at our last few presidents.
That too is a false and patetic argument.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 6:23pm
I hate terrorism. If I could, I would rid the world of Osama bin Laden and his ilk. But his brand of attention-getting religiosity seems to have the same end-goal as yours.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/10/2009 @ 5:29pm
Stephen, in case you think this is solely directed at the Jews and not us also, perhaps this will help
<Hezbollah builds a Western base From inside South America's Tri-border area, Iran-linked militia targets U.S.
By Pablo Gato and Robert Windrem Telemundo and MSNBC.com updated 6:29 a.m. PT, Wed., May 9, 2007
CIUDAD DEL ESTE, Paraguay - The Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia has taken root in South America, fostering a well-financed force of Islamist radicals boiling with hatred for the United States and ready to die to prove it, according to militia members, U.S. officials and police agencies across the continent.
In the intervening years, Hezbollah has spread throughout Latin America.
On their Web page, local Hezbollah militants in Venezuela call their fight against the United States a "holy war" and post photographs of would-be suicide terrorists with masks and bombs. There are also Web sites for Hezbollah in Chile, El Salvador, Argentina and most other Latin American countries.>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874369/from/ET/
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:27pm
In the intervening years, Hezbollah has spread throughout Latin America.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:27pm
This was a carnard based on testimony by dubious sources. It has been debunked long ago.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 6:36pm
If Israel is barbaric, what are the Palestinians?...."
Posted by sjchermak at 08/10/2009 @ 6:21pm
Which side kills more people? There's your answer.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 6:37pm
the Right won't tell you their "solution" to Hamas and Gaza...just bitch and moan about what Obama's doing about it.
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 10:16am
You seem to be in the know, so tell us, what is "Obama's doing about it" besides putting out different signals via his BH staff and the Dept. of Boogie?
Posted by Happy at 08/10/2009 @ 6:38pm
Interesting, especially given that the State Department confirms the presence of Hezbollah operatives in Venezuela.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/10/2009 @ 6:42pm
"Hamas have been advocating a 2 state solution since 2006."
The Hamas charter clearly calls for Israel to be obliterated.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 6:44pm
What the UN did was given Western European and Russian fanatics access to Islamic lands that Britain militarily occupied.
whattacrock. Jews had been settling Palestine since the 19th century, not that they ever left Jerusalem.. in '48 millions of jews were expelled from arab lands. they came to Israel too.
the current Israel gov't, like that of the US, has acted badly. it is fitting that they be criticized for it.
there is no point in challenging the existence of the state of Israel, they have withstood four wars with their neighbors. they are there to stay.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 6:45pm
And an Israeli extremist killed 20 Arabs as they were praying.
Once again, for the umpteenth millionth time.
1. In 1948 the U.N. proposed a two state solution. Israel superficially accepted the partition, but as Ben Gurion stated, Israel always planned to throw it away once they were legitmized.
2. Israeli historiuan, Benny Morris fond there was no evidence that Palestinians were encouraged to flee Israel by other Arabs. No Jewish fled Arab lands.
3. Israel launched the 1967 war. As Menachem Begin told the world, no one was a threat to Israel. Isreal started the war because it wanted war.
4. Agreements like Oslo were worthless, becasue Israel vilated them from day 1. Ehud Barak's offer to Arafat was so pathetic than even he accepted they needed to resume discussions 6 months later at Taba. Both sides state dhtey were on the verge of an agreement but Barak called off the talks early to focus on the impending Israeli elections whcih he lost to Sharon.
5. Israel pulled out of Gaza, but turned it into a prison and shelled it with 7,700 shells over the subsequent 12 months. As Zertal and Akiva Eldar wrote in their peer reviewe daccount of the occupation.
"After Israel withdrew it's forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel's military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it's inhabitants, by means of it's formidable military might."
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 6:47pm
"Which side kills more people? There's your answer."
Hamas kills Gazans every day.
The Gaza war killed 1300 Gazans. I think that if Hamas had been toppled, it would've been worth it.
I bet Hamas will be in power 1300 days after the Gaza offensive ended if Israel doesn't topple them. So, on average, how many people do they kill every day? One? Two? Five? How many times the total amount of people that died in the Gaza war will Hamas kill? How many times the total amount of people that died in the Gaza war would have been saved by it if Israel had toppled them?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 6:51pm
Why are the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrats working so very hard to legitimize Islamic terrorist? Are they going to provide them with the legitimacy they have always craved and support their middle east terrorist efforts and Irans to total destroy and annialate forever the jewish nation as is their stated goals?
Nothing like having another Carter traitor presidentcy in your pocket to aid muslim friends around the world!
Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 6:53pm
BigPasture, you are the kind of right-winger leftists would like to use as a stereotype for all right-wingers.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 6:54pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So tell us about these peace lovers! Just ignore what the goals and principles they have founded themselves on so no one will laugh!
Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 7:04pm
Hamas kills Gazans every day.
The Gaza war killed 1300 Gazans. I think that if Hamas had been toppled, it would've been worth it.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 6:51pm
Just like half a million dead Iraqi children was worth it libertyfortheoppressed ?
Israel kills for killing's sake.
"The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets." Ze'ev Shiff (Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha'aretz. )
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 7:05pm
So tell us about these peace lovers! Just ignore what the goals and principles they have founded themselves on so no one will laugh!
Posted by BigPasture at 08/10/2009 @ 7:04pm
The latest principal is to support a 2 state solution. You're against it I take it?
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 7:06pm
. Jews had been settling Palestine since the 19th century, not that they ever left Jerusalem.. in '48 millions of jews were expelled from arab lands. they came to Israel too.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 6:45pm
As of 1948, Jews only owned 7% of the land and were a minority.
And it wasn't millions of Jews that were expelled, it was at most, 900,000 and they weren't expelled anyway.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 7:08pm
"Just like half a million dead Iraqi children was worth it libertyfortheoppressed ?"
No, Shingo, I don't think that Saddam starving hundreds of thousands of children to death and then blaming the UN would have been worth it even if it had accomplished its goal of getting the sanctions lifted.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:08pm
No, Shingo, I don't think that Saddam starving hundreds of thousands of children to death and then blaming the UN would have been worth it even if it had accomplished its goal of getting the sanctions lifted.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:08pm
It wasn't a case of Saddam blaming the UN, but our own Secetary of State accepting responsibility.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 7:09pm
"And it wasn't millions of Jews that were expelled, it was at most, 900,000 and they weren't expelled anyway."
This internally contradictory statement is logically impossible.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:10pm
"The latest principal is to support a 2 state solution"
Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:11pm
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't recall having challenged the existence of the state of Israel. I'll thank you not to put words my mouth, or to associate me with statements I don't make. Don't be such a turnip-for-brains.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 7:12pm
This internally contradictory statement is logically impossible.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:10pm
How's this?
a) The number often citeed is 900,000 b) they weren't expelled, but migrated to Israel over a period of years
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 7:12pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Israel does not recognize the Palestinians' right to exist. In fact, Israel regularly kills and maims large numbers of them. Most recently, Israel's citizens gathered in the hillsides overlooking Gaza to celebrate and enjoy as the Israeli military slaughtered a large number of people in Gaza. This is a matter documented in unchallenged Western media reports published in newspapers such as the New York Times, itself essentially an offshore propaganda ministry of Israel's.
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 7:14pm
Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:11pm
Israel has not recognized a Palestinian state either. As the head of Hams said, publicly recognizing Israel is just a carnard anyway. Arafat recognized Israel and all it got him was killed.
In any case, a 2 state solution by definition requires 2 states.
Last but not least, Hamas have aid they woudl not opposed the Arab peace initiative, whcih offers to recognize Israel. Israel rejected the offer, proving that being recognized is not really as important as holding on to stolen land.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 7:16pm
The so-called comments posted by paid right-wing hate machine operatives are getting really old. It's not curbing free speech to defend the integrity of this site by performing admin functions.
Posted by Milhaus at 08/10/2009 @ 7:23pm
The face of Israeli savagery:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8186905.s tm
Israeli troops 'ill-treat kids'
Israel arrested 9,000 Palestinians last year, 700 of them children
" ... A former Israeli military commander has told the BBC that Palestinian youngsters are routinely ill-treated by Israeli soldiers while in custody, reports the BBC' s Katya Adler from Jerusalem and the West Bank. "You take the kid, you blindfold him, you handcuff him, he's really shaking... Sometimes you cuff his legs too. Sometimes it cuts off the circulation. "He doesn't understand a word of what's going on around him. He doesn't know what you're going to do with him. He just knows we are soldiers with guns. That we kill people. Maybe they think we're going to kill him ..."
" ... The human rights organisation Defence for Children International (DCI) has written a report accusing Israel's military of what it describes as the systematic and institutionalised ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children by the Israeli authorities ..."
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 7:27pm
The Israeli notion of "peace":
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? f=/c/a/2009/08/04/EDPN193B7P.DTL&type=printa ble
" ... "Defined as "absentee property" under Israeli law, the house is one of thousands of properties owned by Palestinian refugees who were forced from their lands by Jewish militias or fled during the war of 1948, in what would be remembered as the Palestinian "Nakba" - the Catastrophe. The Israeli Absentee Property Law of 1950 established the Custodian of Absentee Property to safeguard these homes until a resolution would be reached regarding the right of Palestinian refugees to return. For-sale signs have now appeared on dozens of these buildings across the state, and many have already been sold to private owners, frustrating the refugees' legal right to recover their homes. A grave breach of international law, Israel's sales of Palestinian homes is severing the refugees' connection to the land - the linchpin for negotiations in their right of return to their homeland. For displaced Palestinians, however, this phase of the Nakba is not limited to these illegal land sales by Israel. Eleven new unlawful settler outposts were established last week in the West Bank, undermining Israeli credibility in their discussions with the United States to freeze settlement expansion ..."
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 7:30pm
The social situation in Israel's military is appalling. Killing Palestinian women and children is openly joked about among officers in training, it is an institution of it's own. That culture has been fostered from the top, and has been thoroughly reported about on this site. Israel needs to clean up it's act in a big way. They had a chance to be an integral part of the Middle-East's heart and conscience early on, instead they squandered it with extreme overreaction and xenophobic policies for years. There have been many legitimate military actions, but those days are long gone. They seem to practice some of the same kind of behavior against others which motivated the world community to help them found a their own nation to begin with. That said, negotiating with with active terrorist groups should be totally out of the question. For better or worse, rewarding violence always leads to more violence. Neither Hamas or Hezbollah are an exception regardless of how they started. The problem now is that Israel is behaving exactly like a terrorist organization. Especially in their recent "war" if one can call it that, where they were using unmanned aircraft to murder families on the rooftops and grounds of their own homes. Exactly what is the difference between that and state sponsored terrorism from Iran or Syria? Nothing in my view.
Posted by Milhaus at 08/10/2009 @ 7:44pm
"How's this?
a) The number often citeed is 900,000 b) they weren't expelled, but migrated to Israel over a period of years"
Shingo, when you rephrase the statement so that its internal logic is consistent, then, yes, it isn't internally conttradictory.
You wrote: "And it wasn't millions of Jews that were expelled, it was at most, 900,000 and they weren't expelled anyway."
In other words: "only 900,000 Jews were expelled AND no Jews were expelled."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:49pm
syfriendly, if Israel is so savage, why don't you debunk this argument I wrote earlier:
"Hamas kills Gazans every day.
The Gaza war killed 1300 Gazans. I think that if Hamas had been toppled, it would've been worth it.
I bet Hamas will be in power 1300 days after the Gaza offensive ended if Israel doesn't topple them. So, on average, how many people do they kill every day? One? Two? Five? How many times the total amount of people that died in the Gaza war will Hamas kill? How many times the total amount of people that died in the Gaza war would have been saved by it if Israel had toppled them?"
What about the 51,000 Ethiopians that would be dead if not for Israel?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:53pm
510000 ethipians were brought in to replace the paestinians and they are not as equal as the white khazars who rule the judenland.as for the israeli arabs they are treated like 2nd class citizens and i,m not the one who has made these claims.former prez jimmy carter and archbishop desmund tutu and many other politicians and even some israeli jews such as uri avneri and the late israel shahk have come forward to accuse israel of harsh discrimination against arabs.
zionism is beggining to rot and you the gefenders of racism and occupation can,t do crap about it.the existence of zionism and the so called jewish state has created tremendous pain and suffering for not only the palestinian and lebanese but americans and others as well.if it were not for israel the U S would not be in such a shit hole.why the hell we have to give that racist shit hole 5 billion a year while our people are deprived of basic healthcare and education?those racist welfare recipients do not deserve not even one cent of american,s money.enough is enough.let the jews from around the world pay for their racist paradise.
Posted by excalibur999 at 08/10/2009 @ 8:41pm
"let the jews from around the world pay for their racist paradise."
That is plainly antisemitic and collectivist.
"Let every Jew IN THE WORLD be punished for the imaginary war crimes of SOME Jews!"
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 8:44pm
No Jewish fled Arab lands.
Shingo, this is a lie. simply a lie. the historical record is clear, the jews in arab countries such a Syria and Iraq etc were expelled.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 8:57pm
In other words: "only 900,000 Jews were expelled AND no Jews were expelled."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:49pm
You might want to explain why the two statements I made are contradictory:
a) The number often cited is 900,000
b) they weren't expelled, but migrated to Israel over a period of years
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:07pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zos8ajtTAZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBNRVgq59Y&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&feature=related
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:08pm
"You might want to explain why the two statements I made are contradictory"
Read this again, Shingo.
You wrote: "And it wasn't millions of Jews that were expelled, it was at most, 900,000 and they weren't expelled anyway."
In other words: "only 900,000 Jews were expelled AND no Jews were expelled."
This isn't brain surgery.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:10pm
"they weren't expelled"
Lie.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:12pm
Shingo, this is a lie. simply a lie. the historical record is clear, the jews in arab countries such a Syria and Iraq etc were expelled.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 8:57pm
They were not expelled. They were pressured to leave yes, but they were not incidentally cleansed the way Israel ethnically cleansed 750,000 Palestinians over a few months in 1948.
Furthermore, the highest estimate was that 900,000 were "expelled" not millions as you stated.
Most significant is that this so called expulsion happened long after the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
It should be noted that the mass majority of the vibrant and assimilated Turkish Jewish community immigrated to Israel despite of the Turkish early recognition of the "Jewish state" in 1949. So the immigration of Jews from a friendly Muslim and Arab countries (not only from Turkey, but also from Morocco, Tunisia, and even Iran before the Islamic revolution in 1979) was being encouraged by the Jewish Agency.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:13pm
"they weren't expelled"
Lie.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:12pm
There is very little evidence exists that Arab population or Arab authorities were involved in expelling their Arab Jewish minority. The Arab Jewish minority may had been a victim of sporadic revenge attacks (in response to Zionist atrocities perpetrated against Palestinians during the 1948 war), however, there is no proof whatsoever that this violence was organized by any group (state or non-state) whatsoever.
On the other hand, the plan to ethnically cleansing the Palestinians was being discussed as early as the late 1800's.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:15pm
"the plan to ethnically cleansing the Palestinians was being discussed as early as the late 1800's"
Where did you get this idea from? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:18pm
Where did you get this idea from? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:18pm
No, just from the founders of Israel, beginning with Herzl.
Ardent Zionists, Israel Zangwill, stated as early as 1905:
"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Righteous Victims, p. 140 & Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 7-10)
Arthur Ruppin wrote in 1913: "Land is the most necessary thing for establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands. . . . we are bound in each case. . . to remove the peasants who cultivate the land." (Righteous Victims, p. 61)
In 1891Ahad Ha'Am similarly wrote of the Palestinians: "If a time comes when our people in Palestine develop so that, in small or great measure, they push out the native inhabitants, these will not give up their place easily." (Righteous Victims, p. 49)
Moshe Smilansky wrote in Hapoel Hatzair in the spring edition of 1908: "Either the Land of Israel of Israel belongs in the national sense to those Arabs who settled there in recent years [before 1908], and then we have no place there and we must say explicitly: The land of our fathers is lost to us. [Or] if the land of Israel belongs to us, the the Jewish people, then our national interests come before all else. . . . it is not possible for one country to serve as the homeland of
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:26pm
In other words: "only 900,000 Jews were expelled AND no Jews were expelled."
This isn't brain surgery.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:10pm
I rephrased that statement twice already. Why are you getting stuck?
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:29pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:08pm
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zos8ajtTAZw"
So even Israel has violated not only the terms of the Balfour declaration, but it's own declaration of independence."
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBNRVgq59Y&NR=1" Ben Gurion said that he would rather Jews in Europe burn in the ovens than for the creation of Israel to be compromised.
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&feature=related" As for what Israeli teaches it's children, here you go: http://tinyurl.com/l4gh4v
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:37pm
"I rephrased that statement twice already. Why are you getting stuck?"
I'm not. I pointed out that you contradicted yourself. Then, you rephrased what you said, but after you did so, you asked me why your REPHRASED statement was contradictory. Why do you get so much joy bickering about nonsensical, petty issues?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:47pm
The Hamas charter clearly calls for Israel to be obliterated.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 6:44pm
Hamas leader, Meeshal, said that the Charter was no longer relevant.
The PLO had a charter calling for Israel to be obliterated, and Israel were perfectly happy to deal with them.
The fact remains that we have a situation now where Hamas support a 2 state solution and Israel do not.
It just goes to show who the radical extremists are.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:50pm
Why do you get so much joy bickering about nonsensical, petty issues?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 9:47pm
I don't. You seem to be the one obsessing about it.
The argument I was making are mutually exclusive.
1) the numbers of cited have been 900,000, not millions, as emile duBois claimed
2) the question of whether Jews were expelled on not is unsupported by evidence.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 9:54pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 6:54pm
LFTO, that's your BASE you're talking about, insulting RIO/Big Posture.
Without them and their jingoism, militarism, and bigotry...no "wars of liberation" and "democracy blooming like a 1000 flowers!"
Posted by Mask at 08/10/2009 @ 10:15pm
straight out of Islamic talking points.
These anti semites can never counter the facts:
There has never been another nation in that land but Israel.
there has never been another nation that called Jerusalem it's capital, but Israel.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 4:47pm
Typical of the right wing Islamphobic dead enders. if you're not for Israel, you're a jihadist, whcih is how Larry once referred to me.
Larry says that anti-semites can never counter the facts. yet when confronted with facts, Islamophobes like Larry go AWOL, or just refuse to respond.
And finally, here is an irrelevant carnard that Larry frequently cites:
"there has never been another nation that called Jerusalem it's capital, but Israel."
Not only did Jerusalem exist long before Israel was even conceived, and not only is this completely irrelevant (seeing as historic Israel ceased to exist more than a millenium ago), but after large sections of the city have been excavated over the past 150 years, the digs have turned up no remains of buildings have been found from the period of the united monarchy (even according to the agreed chronology). Given the preservation of the remains from earlier and later periods, it is clear that Jerusalem in the time of David and Solomon was a small city, perhaps with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an empire as described in the Bible.
So much for your facts Larry.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 10:15pm
"the Charter was no longer relevant."
The explicitly stated goal of Hamas that all members of Hamas pledge to believe in, as expressed in the document in which they explain themselves, is to wipe Israel off the map. If you think that is irrelevant....
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:21pm
"The argument I was making are mutually exclusive."
I know. I pointed that out.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:23pm
The explicitly stated goal of Hamas that all members of Hamas pledge to believe in, as expressed in the document in which they explain themselves, is to wipe Israel off the map. If you think that is irrelevant....
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:21pm
Meehsal said that the document was no longer relevant. It might sound nasty, but it's meaningless.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 10:25pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 5:30pm
How does Israel conduct itself? How do the israelis conduct themselves?
They blow buses of palestinians schoolchildren. They carry out genocide against Palestinians. They kidnap Palestinians. They not only harbor terrorists, but elect them to run the country. They illegally attack Palestinians with thousands of rockets for years under the guise of retaliation.
Israel, is a facist apartheid state. It is not a democracy, becasue it does not regard it's citizens as equal.
It's economy is weak and relies on massive aid, without which, it would be a 3rd world country.
Israel blocks aid that goes to Palestinians. They have stolen the main sources of fresh water and walled in Gaza and controls all air, land and sea access. Because they deny Palestinians food, water, and electricity, Gaza is forced to rely on tunnels for it's supplies.
Israel has never released Gaza from it's vice like grip. for the 12 monhts that followed Israel's withdrawl, Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza. After Hamas were elected, Israel invaded Gaza, kidnapped hundreds of law makers and and has never stopped bombing Gaza.
Israel agreed to a ceasefire with Hamas in 2008, but violated it from day 1, having reneged on a key agreement that the blockade was to be lifted. In spite of this, Hamas stuck to the ceasefire and until Israel violated in again on November 4th.
If Palestinians is barbaric, what are the Israelis, who kill more Palestinian children than Palestinians kill Israeli adults?
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 10:43pm
"was a small city, perhaps with a small citadel for the king, but in any event it was not the capital of an empire as described in the Bible."
And that's why you'd best not take such holy books seriously.
Unless you think Noah's Ark is at all possibly true. Yes, Noah gathered a male and female from all 500,000 species of beetle from every corner of the world and did the same for every species everywhere and kept track of them all and kept them alive and transported them all on one giant boat we've never found...
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:44pm
"They were not expelled. They were pressured to leave yes,"
What's the difference?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:47pm
"They not only harbor terrorists, but elect them to run the country."
I'm laughing out loud. Your battle with foot in mouth is astonishing.
As far as you copying my post and rephrasing it, very original.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:49pm
And that's why you'd best not take such holy books seriously.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:44pm
I don't but Larry clearly does, which is why he keeps insisting that "there has never been another nation that called Jerusalem it's capital, but Israel".
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 10:50pm
"It is not a democracy, becasue it does not regard it's citizens as equal."
Israel's Declaration of Independance doesn't support this view. The declaration stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:53pm
Until then, Hamas is an outlaw terrorist organization which will be granted no legitimacy. Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 12:53pm
And yet you complain that Israel's illegitimacy, the very state that was founded on terrorism by terrorists, is still being scrutinized?
Israel has not legitmate claism to land outside the 67 boundary.
When it comes to negotiations, all sides begin with unrealistic demands. Israel for example, controls all of Jerusalem and woudl love to have it legitimately. Israel woudl like nothing more than to own the West Bank too and have the Palestinians absorbed into the surrounding Arab States like Jordan.
So in your eyes, it's permissible for Israel to behave badly and illegitimately, but outrageous for the palestinians to ask for what they want or are entitled to.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 10:55pm
BTW, Israel provides 70% of the electricity in Gaza.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:59pm
Former President Clinton at the close of Camp David, identified the necessary parameters for a peace treaty and the end of the conflict. Israel twice has offered to withdraw from 95% of the West Bank and provide land compensation. The PA did not accept the offers because it wants the entirety of East Jerusalem.
Posted by gren at 08/10/2009 @ 4:17pm
Rubbish.
The Clinton parameters were proposed after Camp David, becasue Clinton realized that the offer to Arafat was woefully inadequate. And BTW. the 95% was 95% of 20% of the West Bank.
In any case, bit Clinton and Barak realized they had been unrealistic and proposed further talks at Taba, where the parameters were introduced. Both leaders accepted the parameters and stated that they weer on the verge of a settlement, and would have reached on had they had more time.
It was Barak who called off the talks as he had to focus on the Israeli elections, which he needed up losing to Sharon, the patron saint of settlements.
Once Sharon took office, he "suspended the peace process in formaldehyde" as his adviser, Dov Weislglass told us.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:04pm
BTW, Israel provides 70% of the electricity in Gaza.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:59pm
Only because Israel has destroyed all of Gaza's infrastructure, and controls all air, land and sea access to Gaza.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:06pm
The declaration stated that the State of Israel would ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:53pm
Even then, Israel has violated all those principals.
Evicting Palestinians to make room for Jews is not ensuring complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:09pm
I'm laughing out loud. Your battle with foot in mouth is astonishing.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:49pm
Laugh all you want. There's no disputing that Israel elected the leaders of terrorist groups to the office of Prime Minister. Their names are Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir.
Israel's current Prime Minister is the only political leader in the world who described the 911 attacks as a good thing.
In 2006, Israel celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel, making Israel the only so called, legitimate state, that has celebrated a terrorist attack in it's name.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:15pm
"They were not expelled. They were pressured to leave yes,"
What's the difference?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:47pm
They were given time to sell their homes and claim their property.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:17pm
"There's no disputing that Israel elected the leaders of terrorist groups to the office of Prime Minister."
I dispute that.
You want to talk about electing terrorists? How about Hamas? They're terrorists, right?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:17pm
"Israel's current Prime Minister is the only political leader in the world who described the 911 attacks as a good thing."
By the same token as one might say Pearl Harbor was a good thing.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:18pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:17pm
"I dispute that."
So what? The Irgun and Stern gangs were both terrorist groups and recognized as such by Israel.
"You want to talk about electing terrorists? How about Hamas? They're terrorists, right?"
Hamas has a militant arm yes, but seeing as Israel is a monument to terrorism and how well terrorism works, it doesn't really matter.
What's more, the US supports terrorist groups also. We have been giving support to the MEK, listed by the state Department as a terrorist group. The big irony here being that this groups was also supported by Saddam.
We have also been supporting the Jihadist group, Jundullah (Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang)
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:23pm
Oh and need I remind you that Israel helped create Hamas in the first place, to blunt the influence of the PLO?
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:24pm
By the same token as one might say Pearl Harbor was a good thing.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:18pm
And all the while, you've been accusing Saddam of the same thing.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:25pm
"The big irony here being that this groups was also supported by Saddam."
Wait, Shingo, I thought Saddam had no ties to jihadists (except MEK, Hezbollah, Hamas, Osama, Abu Nidal, Palestinian suicide bombers, the Fedayeen Saddam, Yasin of the 1993 WTC attack,and ignoring his praise of 9/11, attempt to assassinate GHW Bush, and foiled plan to stage at least one terrorist attack against a US target in revenge for the Iraq liberation act).
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:30pm
"And all the while, you've been accusing Saddam of the same thing."
slate.msn.com/id/2102723
"In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:32pm
So, Shingo, where do you get your news from? Scott Ritter, George Galloway, and Seymour Hersh?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:34pm
Wait, Shingo, I thought Saddam had no ties to jihadists (except MEK, Hezbollah, Hamas, Osama, Abu Nidal, Palestinian suicide bombers, the Fedayeen Saddam, Yasin of the 1993 WTC attack,and ignoring his praise of 9/11, attempt to assassinate GHW Bush, and foiled plan to stage at least one terrorist attack against a US target in revenge for the Iraq liberation act).
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:30pm
And based on the 2006 senate Report, I maintain that. I just find it odd that you are OK with an Israeli leader praising the attacks, but argued that if Saddam had done it, it makes him a terrorist supporter.
Unless of course, you are arguing that Israel is?
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:44pm
slate.msn.com/id/2102723
"In 2001, Saddam's regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:32pm
No sources provided by Hitchens, who has been exposed as a liar numerous times.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:45pm
So, Shingo, where do you get your news from? Scott Ritter, George Galloway, and Seymour Hersh?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:34pm
Scott Ritter, who was 100% right about Iraq's WMD and Sy Hersh, a Pulitzer prize winner yes.
Galloway is not a reporter, so no. Hitchens isn't a reporter either, which is why he gets away with making things up.
Posted by Shingo at 08/10/2009 @ 11:47pm
http://tinyurl.com/l5oozy
Ritter is a liar, as this shows.
Ritter has argued in Truth Dig columns that Iranian elections are free and fair, though he may have changed his tune what with the recent election chaos (I don't bother reading him anymore).
Ritter has argued Iraqi elections were rigged in 2005, with no evidence.
Ritter claimed: "I was very clear, based upon the information given to me, and it's 100% accurate, that in October 2004, the President of the United States ordered the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran as of June 2005. That means, have all the resources in place so that if the President orders it, the bombing can begin." Oddly, when Israel was about to attack Iran, Bush took action to stop them.
On February 6, 2006, in the James A. Little Theater in Santa Fe, Ritter stated about a U.S. war with Iran: "We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," and said that after the U.N. security Council will have found no evidence of WMD, Bolton "will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves." and continued "How do I know this? I've talked to Bolton's speechwriter." Obviously, Ritter made this up.
In the link above, Ritter blames Saddam for the deaths from the sanctions, which he did years ago. Obviously, he's changed his tune.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:07am
Hitchens is a journalist and a polemicist and an honest one.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:09am
Hitchens is a journalist and a polemicist and an honest one.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:09am
He is a polemicist, a contrarian and more recently, a propagandist. He still insists that Saddam was working on nukes as of 2003 (in spite of the Duelfer Report), that Saddam really was trying to get uranium from Niger (in spite of the documents being forgeries) and that Saddam invited Zarqawi into Iraq (in spite of the 2006 Senate report that stated otherwise).
He's a liar.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 12:16am
"He still insists that Saddam was working on nukes as of 2003"
No. In 2004, he argued that Saddam planned to resume his program when the sanctions were lifted. Evidence uncovered by the Duelfer Report clearly proved him right.
Saddam WAS trying to get uranium from Niger.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:28am
Ritter is a liar, as this shows.
Ritter has argued in Truth Dig columns that Iranian elections are free and fair, though he may have changed his tune what with the recent election chaos (I don't bother reading him anymore).
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:07am
There is still no proof that it was not free and fair.
"Ritter has argued Iraqi elections were rigged in 2005, with no evidence."
Of course there was. Ballot boxes went missing. The identities of political leaders were hidden for their own safety. It was a joke.
Ritter claimed: "I was very clear, based upon the information given to me, and it's 100% accurate, that in October 2004, the President of the United States ordered the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes against Iran as of June 2005."
No contradiction there. Preparing the US to strike does not mean allowing the Israelis to do so. In any case, this does not prove that the information given to Ritter did not include what he tells us.
"We just don't know when, but it's going to happen," and said that after the U.N. security Council will have found no evidence of WMD, Bolton "will deliver a speech that has already been written.
Again, there is no evidence of this being a lie. The speech was probably already written, but with the devastating results of the mid terms, the focus on Iran was blunted.
"Ritter blames Saddam for the deaths from the sanctions, which he did years ago. Obviously, he's changed his tune.:
So does Madelaine Albright, who claimed responsibility for those deaths on behalf of the US.
Ritter is right.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 12:30am
"So does Madelaine Albright"
No, no, no. Ritter blames America NOW. In 1998, as you can see in the link, he blamed Saddam.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:35am
"There is still no proof that it was not free and fair."
The results were announced before the votes were done being cast and without any being counted. Then, faked results were released while the real records were destroyed. Ahmadinejad is extremely unpopular.
Why didn't the Mullahs count the votes if they were in their favor?
Shingo, I just can't stomach those who say Iran may be a democracy, but Iraq definitely isn't. Unless you simply hate America, no one could argue both positions are logically consistent based on the evidence.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:41am
"So does Madelaine Albright"
No, no, no. Ritter blames America NOW. In 1998, as you can see in the link, he blamed Saddam.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:35am
But Albright was Secretary of State, therefore what she said stands as official US policy. Ritter does not make US policy.
I just looked at your link and aw no comment from him stating that he blamed the deaths on Saddam.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 12:43am
"I just looked at your link and aw no comment from him stating that he blamed the deaths on Saddam."
He says that Iraqi children starved due to Saddam violating the OFF program:
"Iraq supports its retained prohibited capabilities with an extensive covert procurement network operated by Iraqi intelligence. While images of starving Iraqi children are beamed around the world by American television, Iraqi front companies have spent millions of dollars on forbidden material related to all weapons categories -- in direct violation of existing sanctions and often under the cover of the humanitarian "oil for food" program." "
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:47am
LIBBURPTY:
given your "views",
i would say that bill clinton was your favourite president of late, ¿no?
at least his imperialism was successful.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 12:47am
what nonsense. Israel's gov't is as legitimate as any in the region. get real.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 3:08pm
oh boy, that sure is a vote of confidence.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 12:49am
"i would say that bill clinton was your favourite president of late, ¿no?"
God no. He let a million people die in Rwanda and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die and left the Taliban in power and gave up chance after chance to kill Osama. He was a cheap crook, a thug, and a criminal.
Bush has been my favorite president of late.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:50am
You want to talk about electing terrorists?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 11:17pm
i bet "shock and awe" was pretty fucking terrifying to iraqi 5 year olds.
you elected terrorists.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 12:52am
He says that Iraqi children starved due to Saddam violating the OFF program:
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:47am
yes that does seem like a contradiction. Anyway, he's allowed to be wrong. It doesn't make him a liar.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 12:55am
Well, I think Saddam starving hundreds of thousands of Iraqi 5-year-olds to death may have frightened many more Iraqi 5-year-olds.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:55am
oh boy, that sure is a vote of confidence.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 12:49am
Well put Frosty. I guess the Israel is so discredited, the best they can do is compare themselves to dictators and hope to come out looking good.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 12:57am
"Anyway, he's allowed to be wrong. It doesn't make him a liar."
If he was simply wrong, that's one thing. If he stated one thing as a fact in 1998, and then something totally different as a fact in 2005, and both were incompatible yet in both cases he was authoritative and resolute, and he never openly admitted he was wrong or claimed to change his views in light of new evidence, then it stands to reason that he must have been lying at least on one of these occassions (either in 1998 or 2005).
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:00am
God no. He let a million people die in Rwanda and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die and left the Taliban in power and gave up chance after chance to kill Osama. He was a cheap crook, a thug, and a criminal.
Bush has been my favorite president of late.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:50am
Bush killed a million people in Iraq and let half a million die in Darfur. He let Bin Laden get away after 911, not to mention allowing 911 to happen on his watch becasue he was too busy taking record long vacations.
He then gave no bid contracts to his friends, who were reaping record profits while they were being investigated by the Pentagon for defrauding the government.
Under him, the image and prestige of the US sank to the lowest it's ever been. Us credibility also sank as did the economy and our credit rating.
He was a very expensive crook, a thug, and a criminal and definitively the worst US president in history.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 01:04am
If he stated one thing as a fact in 1998, and then something totally different as a fact in 2005, and both were incompatible yet in both cases he was authoritative and resolute, and he never openly admitted he was wrong or claimed to change his views in light of new evidence, then it stands to reason that he must have been lying at least on one of these occassions (either in 1998 or 2005).
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:00am
He didn't state is as fact, but expressed an opinion, which is contradicted by his current opinion.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 01:05am
Bush has been my favorite president of late.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:50am
I didn't realize how far tot eh right you were. How does it feel to belong to the 20th percentile of society?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 01:08am
"Under him, the image and prestige of the US sank to the lowest it's ever been. Us credibility also sank as did the economy and our credit rating."
Americans, Israelis, and Jews are the most hated peoples in the world. That's fine. I don't care if Islamic fundamentalists, genocidal dictators, third-world countries, insane terrorists, fascist thugs, crooks, socialists, commies, and America-hating pro-Taliban morally bankrupt mock pacifist faux rebels in Europe despise us. America and Israel are a vanguard of civilization in a sea of tyranny.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:11am
"He didn't state is as fact, but expressed an opinion, which is contradicted by his current opinion"
What do you think changed his mind? Bribes from Saddam? Perhaps blackmail, if Saddam found out above his love for underage girls before the public did?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:14am
"Bush killed a million people in Iraq and let half a million die in Darfur."
I'm waiting for you to read that article debunking the Lancet I reccommended. Iraq was doomed to descend into sectarian war and most of the Iraqis who died were not killed by the US military, but even with that in mind, Saddam killed more people in April 1991 than have died in the whole war.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:17am
Bush also saved a million people in Africa and millions of Afghans from starvation.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:19am
Americans, Israelis, and Jews are the most hated peoples in the world.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:11am
Not really. Americans have always been liked. Since Obama came to office they're back to being popular.
Israelis are disliked yes, because they are barbaric.
Jews are neither loved not hated. Anyone who has an opinion on Jews as a collective is a moron. There are Jews who are outstanding and Jews who are not, as is the case with Muslims and Christians.
Americans are however the most ignront people in the world. 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth and at lest that many can't find the US on a map.
Israel is a fascist, racist backwater that would otherwise be a 3rd world country were it not for it's massive aid. Israel's popularity even among Jews, is falling like a stone.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 01:21am
"I didn't realize how far tot eh right you were. How does it feel to belong to the 20th percentile of society?"
Who do you think in recent times has been better than Bush? Bush 1? Clinton? Reagan? Carter? Nixon? Ford? What a rouges gallery!
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:22am
What do you think changed his mind? Bribes from Saddam? Perhaps blackmail, if Saddam found out above his love for underage girls before the public did?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:14am
Who knows? Do you think that Hitchens, who opposed the Gulf War, supported the last one against Iraq because he saw a profit in it?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 01:23am
"Americans are however the most ignront people in the world."
Americans are incredibly stupid, and certainly Japan, India, China, South Korea, and most of Europe is smarter than us. But that is hyperbole. More stupid than people in third-world countries?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:25am
I'm waiting for you to read that article debunking the Lancet I reccommended.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:17am
Yes, it looks like an interesting read and I will go through it when I have a chance, so until then, I will refrain from debating it.
There is no evidence that Iraq was doomed to descend into sectarian war. Only war supporters like Hitch supoprt that claim.
I agree that most of the Iraqis who died were not killed by the US military, Saddam only killed 300,000 people, and the war has killed much more than that.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 01:26am
"Do you think that Hitchens, who opposed the Gulf War, supported the last one against Iraq because he saw a profit in it?"
No, since in his book Love, Poverty, and War, he has an essay from 1992 repudiating his opposition to the first Gulf War and appearing to favor regime change in Iraq, in which he talks about meeting Kurds in the North who told him that without GHW Bush, they'd probably all be dead.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:29am
More stupid than people in third-world countries?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:25am
Stupidity is not the same thing as education. I met some amazingly smart people in third-world countries. In Thailand and Bali, I came across street merchants who could speak 3 or 4 languages and do currency conversions in their head.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 01:30am
"Saddam only killed 300,000 people, and the war has killed much more than that."
I bet the war only has killed around 250,000 people.
And Saddam only killed 300,000 people.... in April 1991.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:31am
"Stupidity is not the same thing as education. I met some amazingly smart people in third-world countries. In Thailand and Bali, I came across street merchants who could speak 3 or 4 languages and do currency conversions in their head."
Fair point. There is also no doubt that people in third-world countries tend to be less likely to succumb to mass conformity.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:33am
No, since in his book Love, Poverty, and War, he has an essay from 1992 repudiating his opposition to the first Gulf War and appearing to favor regime change in Iraq, in which he talks about meeting Kurds in the North who told him that without GHW Bush, they'd probably all be dead.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:29am
On what evidence does he base the statement that Kurds in the North woudl they all be dead? The North was protected by the Us imposed no fly Zones, thus the Kurds in the North were protected since 1991.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 02:04am
There is also no doubt that people in third-world countries tend to be less likely to succumb to mass conformity.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:33am
I think they also tend to be confronted with the realities of life, rather than being shielded from them. Having to face survival every day tends to wisen you up.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 02:05am
It may be that Brennan reflects Obama's thinking, in which case it is far more hostile to Israel than has been let on. But whether that is the case or not, there is no doubt that Hebullah and Hamas are terrorist organizations whose raison d'etre is fighting Israel until she cracks and disappears. That is what the charters of both organizations say they are devoted to and there is absolutely no reason to suppose they have changed their mind, or are changing their mind, or will change their mind.
Dreyfuss insinuates that these organizations are not jihadists, are not terrorists, are not to be deemed extremist like al Qaeda.
Of course they are. In fact even Fatah, which has been conducting a General Assembly in Bethlehem since August 4th is not moderate and its pledge to accept Israel and to renounce armed struggle, for which Arafat got a Nobel Prize, was untrue.
It turns out Fatah has a Political Program for Western consumption and an "Internal Order". http://tinyurl.com/l4k754 It has not renounced violence and is barely distinguishable from the Hamas charter which is dedicated to the "extermination" of the Zionist entity.
Fatah has portrayed itself as a "peace partner" to the West all the while keeping its terrorist bona fides with the Palestinian public.
But Dreyfuss is pushing to have Hamas and Hezbullah also considered "moderates" and suitable peace partners for Israel.
This guy has a habit of picking up feces and pretending he is holding it by its clean end. No wonder his every column stinks to high heaven.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 08/11/2009 @ 03:43am
"And that's why you'd best not take such holy books seriously. "----Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 10:44pm
LFTO, again...what the HELL are you doing?!??!?!?
Insulting the Religious Right base who supports the neo-con agenda??? You're slitting your own throat, buddy.
(Not that I want to stop you...just noting...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 07:57am
Insulting the Religious Right base who supports the neo-con agenda??? You're slitting your own throat, budd
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 07:57am
To LFTO's credit, he does call a spade a spade when the wingnuts have gone too far. He's done so with Larry as well as Bigpasture, which proves that he's a stand up guy, even if he is misguided.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 08:21am
the bombastic invectives which poison this so called discussion reflects the same hatred that fuels the I/P tragedy.
Those who assert an Israeli right to the West Bank, deny the identity of the Palestinian people, and seek the removal of the Palestinians to Jordan, are marginalized extremists with neither brain, heart nor conscious. Those who deny the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty of the State of Israel, and intentionally target civilians, including women and children, with suicide bombings, are barbaric terrorists who should be shunned and/or hunted down by responsible elements of civilized nations.
There will be two states, and there will be peace. It will not come about through a demonizing of the other side, or military defeat of the other side. It will come when both sides want peace more than winning, and each embrace in the other each one's essential being.
Meanwhile, here in our safe, secure and prosperous environment, we have no excuse for the hatred and lies we exorcise each other with.
Peace
Posted by gren at 08/11/2009 @ 08:24am
Posted by gren at 08/11/2009 @ 08:24am
Very well put Gren. I couldn't agree more.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 08:28am
Posted by syfriendly at 08/10/2009 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you were not named in my post, nor did I ascribe any statements to you.
turnips? fresh from the farm, yum.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 08:31am
Shingo, refresh my memory. where did I say millions were expelled?
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 08:32am
Shingo, refresh my memory. where did I say millions were expelled?
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 08:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
It's not that difficult to search your own posts now is it?
Here you go:
"Jews had been settling Palestine since the 19th century, not that they ever left Jerusalem.. in '48 millions of jews were expelled from arab lands. they came to Israel too."
Posted by emile duBois at 08/10/2009 @ 6:45pm
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 08:35am
The Bedouin: population and history 1000 A.D to 1948 Main article: Bedouin
(See section on Changing Ways of Life)
Main article: Negev Bedouins
Nomadic tribes ruled the Negev largely independently and with a relative lack of interference for the next thousand years.[5] What is known of this time is largely derived from oral histories and folk tales of tribes from the Wadi Musa and Petra areas in present-day Jordan[6]
The Bedouins of the Negev historically survived chiefly on sheep and goat husbandry. Scarcity of water and of permanent pastoral land required them to move constantly. The Bedouin in years past established few permanent settlements, although some were built, leaving behind remnants of stone houses called 'baika.' [3] In 1900 The Ottoman Empire established an administrative center for southern Palestine at Beersheba including schools and a railway station.[6] The authority of the tribal chiefs over the region was recognized by the Ottomans.[6]. A railroad connected it to the port of Rafah. By 1922 its population was 2,356, including 98 Jews and 235 Christians. [7]. In contrast in 1914 the Turkish authorities estimated the nomadic population at 55,000.[8]
Prior to 1948 Censuses mentioned five major tribes in the Negev; the Tayaha, Tarabn, Azazma, Jabarat and Hanajra.
The tribal culture and way of life has changed dramatically recently, and today hardly any Bedouin citizens of Israel are nomadic..............
Wikipedia: Query: Negev
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 08:47am
The Bedouin in Israel 1948-present
Rahat, the largest Bedouin city in the Negev.Between 1948 and 1967, the new State of Israel imposed a military administration over Arabs of the region and designated 85% of the Negev "State Land." All Bedouin habitation on this newly-declared State Land was retroactively termed illegal and "unrecognized." Now that Negev lands the Bedouin had inhabited upwards of 500 years was designated State Land, the Bedouin were no longer able to fully engage in their sole means of self-subsistence – agriculture and grazing. The government then forcibly concentrated these Bedouin tribes into the Siyag triangle of Beersheba, Arad and Dimona [2]. Today, at least 75,000 citizens live in 40 unrecognized villages.
Wiki
Contemporary Negev Today, the Negev is home to some 379,000 Jews and some 175,000 Bedouin. At least 80,000 Bedouin citizens live in unrecognized villages under threat of demolition; these citizens are subject to removal at any time via the Removal of Intruders Law
Wiki
Contemporary Environmental Issues 85% of the Negev is used by the Israel Defense Forces for training purposes.[8]. In the remaining portion of the Negev available for civilian purposes, a large number of citizens live together in close proximity to a range of types of hazardous infrastructure, which includes a nuclear reactor, 22 agro and petrochemical factories, an oil terminal, closed military zones, quarries, a toxic waste incinerator Ramat Hovav, cell towers, a power plant, several airports, a prison, and 2 rivers of open sewage. [9]
The Tel Aviv municipality dumps its excess waste in the Negev Desert,[10] at Dudaim Dump....
Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 08:53am
you are correct, Shingo. my mistake.
you'll note that I am, as far as I know, the only person here to acknowledge my errors.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 09:05am
What about the 51,000 Ethiopians that would be dead if not for Israel?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/10/2009 @ 7:53pm
'Despite all of this sentiment, most of the Ethiopian Jews don't fare well in their new life in Israel as well. Some of the issues they face include discrimination in Israel, problems with finding a fair settlement and various health issues due to the drastic change in diet. Many Studies showed there was a very high level of modern illnesses like diabetes from Ethiopian Jews compared to the average Jewish citizen born & raised in Israel. Since 2005, more and more Ethiopian Rabbis living in Israel have also been complaining for equal right & equal wages comparable to that of raddis who are not from Ethiopia. Also most of these Ethiopian Jews face forced conversion to Judaism and begin their life at a disadvantage because of religious and language issues. Under the "Law of Return," the Ethiopian Jews must undergo a process of conversion to Judiasm in order to receive all the financial benefits of new immigrants. In addition, there has been a higher level of suicide reported among Ethiopian Jews in Ethiopia due to the hardship of making the big transition and because of the continuing discrimination. Some children of Ethiopian Jewish families were kicked out of municipal kindergardens because the school believed "too many Ethiopian Jews are in the kindergardens." Many Ethiopians were also denied entrance to some programs in Tel Aviv University (TAU) because of their origin and there were many incidents where Israeli policemen physically harrassed Ethiopian Jews and called them racist anti-black insults'
Anti-Israel sentiment growing in Ethiopia Gemeda Humnasa February 16, 2007 - American Chronicle - Excerpts
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 09:06am
Those who assert an Israeli right to the West Bank, deny the identity of the Palestinian people, and seek the removal of the Palestinians to Jordan,
the west bank was Jordan until the war of '67. they don't want it back. that should tell you how the rest of the arab world sees the "Palestinians".
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 09:09am
I bet the war only has killed around 250,000 people.
And Saddam only killed 300,000 people.... in April 1991."-----Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:31am
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.
President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!
General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 09:26am
Jordanians and Israelis are both Palestinians.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 10:32am
Bush has been my favorite president of late.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 12:50am
bush took the house of credit cards reagan (and laters) hard so carefully convinced the american people to construct and farted on it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 11:25am
Americans are incredibly stupid, and certainly Japan, India, China, South Korea, and most of Europe is smarter than us. But that is hyperbole. More stupid than people in third-world countries?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:25am
oh,
that's why they need smart folks like you to save them.
i see.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 11:41am
Americans are incredibly stupid, and certainly Japan, India, China, South Korea, and most of Europe is smarter than us. But that is hyperbole. More stupid than people in third-world countries?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 01:25am
oh,
that's why they need smart folks like you to save them.
i see.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 11:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
Rumor has it he didn't give up his toy soldiers till he turned 18.
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 12:07pm
I did love that movie MASK. One of Kubrick's best.
chip
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:14pm
oh,
that's why they need smart folks like you to save them.
i see.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 11:41am | ignore this person | warn this person
Rumor has it he didn't give up his toy soldiers till he turned 18.
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 12:07pm
Frosty I guess prefers the good old days when totalitarians were running these countries and regions. The terrible US going in and liberating people from tyranny. that's just evil of us in Frosty's view.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 12:14pm
They really need to get rid of that add at the top. Katrina looks like a bobblehead.
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:16pm
Either that or draw a neck on her
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:17pm
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:14pm
Not much changed, CHIP. Neo-cons now sounding like General Ripper and Turgidson.
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 12:23pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 12:14pm
Hey, Larry....when is Israel going to go in and "liberate" Historic Israel from those "Jordanians"???
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 12:23pm
Yeah, the foolish paranoia of Ripper and the "no clue" mentality of the Turgemeister.
(Good ol' GC Scott)
I heard it expoused in a book by G Hodgson once that, as overly conservative as the American leaders were during the cold war (the Mcnamara's, Nixon's etc.) they were considered to be in the school of "containment". The REAL neocon's of the day belonged to the school called "rollback": considerably more dangerous. Just goes to show one man's lib is another man's con. :)
Posted by william.harry13 at 08/11/2009 @ 12:59pm
Hey, Larry....when is Israel going to go in and "liberate" Historic Israel from those "Jordanians"???
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 12:23pm
Israel has no interest in the land east of the Jordan river. It was never part of historic Israel.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:10pm
Israel has no interest in the land east of the Jordan river. It was never part of historic Israel.---Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:10pm
And as you CAN READ...I didn't ask about anything other than "Historic Israel" and used "Jordanians" in quotes to represent your view of th Palestinians...
now....care to answer my question?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 1:23pm
Israel has no interest in the land east of the Jordan river. It was never part of historic Israel.---Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:10pm
And as you CAN READ...I didn't ask about anything other than "Historic Israel" and used "Jordanians" in quotes to represent your view of th Palestinians...
now....care to answer my question?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 1:23pm
I wish they would have done it a long time ago and be done with the conflict. But that is their determination to make, not mine.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:30pm
"But that is their determination to make, not mine."---Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:30pm
What if they never do?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 1:51pm
"But that is their determination to make, not mine."---Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 1:30pm
What if they never do?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 1:51pm
It is up to them. However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced into a treaty by the anti-christ. When that is, nobody knows. It could be next week or 10,000 years from now.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
Not much changed, CHIP. Neo-cons now sounding like General Ripper and Turgidson.
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Dr. Strangelove recommends to the President that several hundred thousand people be relocated into deep mine shafts where nuclear fallout won't reach, so the U.S. can be repopulated. To speed the repopulation, Strangelove suggests a gender ratio of "ten females to each male," with the women selected for their sexual characteristics and the men selected for physical strength, intellectual capabilities and importance in business and government (including everyone in the room).'
Wiki
Sounds like a C-Street wetdream!
We'll Meet Again...don't know where, don't know when..............
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 2:48pm
"It is up to them. However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced...."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
Well, WHICH is it, Larry? Is it up to Israel or already ordained by God?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 2:49pm
"On what evidence does he base the statement that Kurds in the North woudl they all be dead? The North was protected by the Us imposed no fly Zones, thus the Kurds in the North were protected since 1991."
Right, well, this essay was in '92, and the Gulf War made those no-fly-zones possible in '91. Some Kurdish rebels apparently had a picture of GHW Bush in some jeep they were driving in. Hitchens, then no fan of the man, asked the Kurds if he could take it down, and they told him Bush was their hero for staving off further genocide in the North. After this, Hitchens changed his view on the Gulf War and condemned the Saddam regime. In this essay, he did not outright call for a new war to remove Saddam, though I think he argued Saddam should have been toppled in '91.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 2:56pm
"I think they also tend to be confronted with the realities of life, rather than being shielded from them. Having to face survival every day tends to wisen you up."
No doubt about it.
"Some of the issues they face include discrimination in Israel, problems with finding a fair settlement and various health issues due to the drastic change in diet."
If not for Israel they'd all be DEAD!
"Anti-Israel sentiment growing in Ethiopia"
More incredibly irrational hatred of Israel!
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 3:09pm
More incredibly irrational hatred of Israel!
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 3:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Many Ethiopians, particularly in central and northern regions, are developing deep anti-Israeli sentiments by the day and it is not because they support palestine Arabs. Nor is it because these Ethiopians support any opposing sides of the Middle East quagmire. However, as the various operations that airlift Ethiopian Jews to Israel increased, the atmosphere continued to become more tense as non-Jew Ethiopians living mostly in cities like Gondar perceive the immigration as Jewish superiority and Jewish exclusivity.'
and ironically..........
'In 2005, hundreds of Ethiopian Jews (Falashas) went on hunger strike to protest against a delay in their relocation to Israel.'
Anti-Israel sentiment growing in Ethiopia, Ethiopian Times, 02/15/07
Now why would a person suffering from starvation go on a hunger strike??????
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 3:25pm
"It is up to them. However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced...."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
Well, WHICH is it, Larry? Is it up to Israel or already ordained by God?
Posted by Mask at 08/11/2009 @ 2:49pm
I'm neither Israel nor G-d. It is Israel's choice to follow into G-d's plans or not. I have nothing to do with it.
It is ordained by G-d that the land west of the Jordan belongs to Israel, but that still doesn't mean that Israel will obey that. It is primarily a secular govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 3:36pm
Hello Mask
Antisocialist is entitled to his views, values and beliefs. We all have them.
But his position with regard to the West Bank is held by probably no more than approximately 15% of Israelis. Even Netanyahu knows the only resolution is a 2 state peace. But Netanyahu does not trust Fatah (and there is no basis to negotiate, much less trust Hamas -- I know this aside will become the focus of responses; I should leave it out??) -- and seeks a pacification of the West Bank that is unrealistic under any circumstance and
Posted by gren at 08/11/2009 @ 3:47pm
certainly unrealistic after the occupation has lasted so long already. Netanyahu's demand for an elimination of all risk to Israel is not realistic. The rest of Israel is prepared to evacuate 95% of the West Bank and provide equal land compensation (I know, the numbers are nowhere that high with regard to a division of Jerusalem). But vicious anti-Israel pronouncements like those made at the recent Fatah convention make the Israelis suspicious about the PA's true intent, and its ability to control Fatah unrepentent militants, much less Hamas.
Posted by gren at 08/11/2009 @ 3:52pm
"to protest against a delay in their relocation to Israel.'
Anti-Israel sentiment growing in Ethiopia, Ethiopian Times, 02/15/07
Now why would a person suffering from starvation go on a hunger strike??????"
Sounds like that person was no longer at risk for extermination, since Israel had already found him, protected him, and vowed to take him to Israel, and he was protesting a delay in his relocation to Israel.
Beggars can't be choosers.
If they all hate Israel so much, why didn't they protest by refusing to move there?
Because then they would have died.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:01pm
the west bank was Jordan until the war of '67. they don't want it back. that should tell you how the rest of the arab world sees the "Palestinians".
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 09:09am
How the rest of the Arab world see the Palestinians says more about the Arab world. In any case, Palestinians don't want to be absorbed into the Arab world. They have been connected to Palestine for thousands of years and that is where they wish to remain.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 4:29pm
Frosty I guess prefers the good old days when totalitarians were running these countries and regions. The terrible US going in and liberating people from tyranny. that's just evil of us in Frosty's view.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 12:14pm
Who said anything about the good old days being over? The tyrnts of the Middle East, with the exception of Saddam, are all still sitting comfortably in power and still being protected by the same terrible US, so yes, it is evil.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 4:30pm
It is up to them. However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced into a treaty by the anti-christ. When that is, nobody knows. It could be next week or 10,000 years from now.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
What Biblical prophecy are you referring to Larry, that you believe will be fulfilled?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 4:31pm
More incredibly irrational hatred of Israel!
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 3:09pm
Why is hatred of Israal irrational by definition?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 4:33pm
"Black House" HAPPY Wow, just wow. You racist piece of shit.
Posted by entropy at 08/11/2009 @ 4:33pm
It is ordained by G-d that the land west of the Jordan belongs to Israel, but that still doesn't mean that Israel will obey that. It is primarily a secular govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 3:36pm
Please provide evidence that G-d ordained that the land west of the Jordan belongs to Israel. What passage in the Bible refers to Isrel being re-created, much less any refernce to the land west of Jordan.
And another thing Larry. Does this belief that G-d has ordained it explain your uncondtional support for Israel?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 4:35pm
However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced into a treaty by the anti-christ. Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
Who do you believe to be the anti-christ Larry? If it is Obama who achieves a 2 state deal, will that mean he is the anti-christ or do you agree with John Hagee, who says the anti-christ will be a Jew?
Do you also agree with John Hagee's view that Hitler was an agent of G-d?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 4:38pm
It is up to them. However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced into a treaty by the anti-christ. When that is, nobody knows. It could be next week or 10,000 years from now.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:
I can't even read the rest of the comments now after this shit. And here silly old me thought that Happy's overtly racist Black House remark would be the dumbest response. The fucking anti christ! I didn't know they had computers in the dark ages.
Posted by entropy at 08/11/2009 @ 4:38pm
"Why is hatred of Israal irrational by definition?"
I never claimed it was. I said it was irrational by definition for tens of thousands of Ethiopians saved from systematic extermination by Israel to hate Israel.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:46pm
"Who said anything about the good old days being over? The tyrnts of the Middle East, with the exception of Saddam, are all still sitting comfortably in power and still being protected by the same terrible US, so yes, it is evil."
Thanks to America, Israel exists as a free country in a sea of tyranny. Thanks to America, Kuwait and Iraq have been liberated from genocidal tyranny at the hands of a man directly and indirectly resonsible for the deaths of millions of people and are free countries. As the antiwar movement criticises the Iraq war for its negative impact on Saudi Arabia (who they say is a source of "stability" in the region), and as the left says America is too hawkish towards Iran, and as America is allied with secular democrats in Turkey, I'm curious as to which tyrannies America actively protects.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:56pm
"Do you also agree with John Hagee's view that Hitler was an agent of G-d?"
Obviously antisocialist doesn't think that.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:58pm
They have been connected to Palestine for thousands of years and that is where they wish to remain. Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is just nonsense. there have been numerous ancient migrations. many peoples have ruled that land. none of them were called Palestinians.
it is in the 19th century that the population increased by a migration from the arabian peninsula.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 5:16pm
In any case, Palestinians don't want to be absorbed into the Arab world.
they are arabs.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 5:17pm
Thanks to America, Israel exists as a free country in a sea of tyranny. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:56pm
Israel exists as a free country, while it terorrizes the Palestinians and it's neighbors. Kuwait is still run by a tyrant. The only reason we got rid of Saddam is because he outlived hius usefullness. When Saddam was commiting his worst attrocities, he was a US ally. Saudi arabi is stil lrun by a tyurnat and is a US ally. The only reason we are hawjkish with Iran, is becasue Iran ius not taking it's orders from Washington. The antiwar movement never regarded Saudi Arabia as a source of "stability" in the region.
So to answer which tyrants and dictators America actively protects:
1. The House of Saud 2. Hosni Mubarak 3. The Emir of Kuwait 4. King Abdullah of Jordan 5. Gadaffi in Lybia 6. Purvez Musharraf - until he was outsted
And of course, the US continues to stupport tyrants in El Salvador, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Kazakhstan.
So you want more?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 5:18pm
In any case, Palestinians don't want to be absorbed into the Arab world.
they are arabs.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 5:17pm
No they're not. They are Palestinians, most of whom are the decendents of the original Isrelis.
As it turns out, 85% of Palestinians have Jewish ancestry.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 5:20pm
Because then they would have died.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are conveniently missing the point.
The Ethiopians that are anti-Israel are the non-Jews passed over by Israel to be rescued from "starvation." The complaint: Jewish Supremacy and Superiority.
Secondly, it was Ethiopian Jews going on the hunger strike to protest delays in immigration to Israel. I doubt that these people were "starving" as you assert.
Third, beggars can't be chosers - is the exact attitude of Israel. Not exactly overwhelming beneficience, and what little beneficience there is is extended and done distinctly in favor of rescuing Jewish Ethiopians, or forcing reconversion of Ethiopian Jewish-Christians back to Judaism.
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 5:22pm
this is just nonsense. there have been numerous ancient migrations. many peoples have ruled that land. none of them were called Palestinians.
it is in the 19th century that the population increased by a migration from the arabian peninsula.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 5:16pm
This is rubbish.
As a recent best selling scholarly thesis in Israel explains, the Romans didn't expel whole nations from their territories. The remaining inhabitants of ancient Judea remained, converting to Islam and assimilating with their conquerors when Arabs subjugated the area. They became the progenitors of today's Palestinian Arabs, many of whom now live as refugees who were exiled from their homeland during the 20th century.
This is not a new idea.
The reference/title Palestine was determined by the British Mandate of Palestine, in 1922 and included all the land lying to the west of the Jordan River; that is, all of what is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip. The term "Palestinian" referred to all people residing there, regardless of race or religion. Those granted citizenship, were granted "Palestinian citizenship". That included descendents of Judah who were there.
For the most part Palestinians got along fine until the Russian and European refugees began to arrive.
In other words, any Jew in Israel today, who descends from a jewish citizen in British mandated Palestine, is technically a Palestinian. Chew on that for a while.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 5:23pm
Obviously antisocialist doesn't think that.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:58pm
I woudn;t be so sure. Larry is clearly a rigth wing evangelical with some pretty strange ideas and like John Hagee, one has to employ suspension of logic to assume that the Bible tells us G-d wants Israel to return.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 5:25pm
logic filed a restraining order against capt. clusterbomb a long time ago.
Posted by entropy at 08/11/2009 @ 5:31pm
In other words, any Jew in Israel today, who descends from a jewish citizen in British mandated Palestine, is technically a Palestinian. Chew on that for a while.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 5:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
To wit: The Tribes
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 5:31pm
Kuwait is a free country with free speech, elected leaders, and no political prisoners or prisoners of conscience. America has clearly weakened the House of Saud through the Iraq war, even if it does do business with it. How do we actively prop it up? Gaddaffi is our enemy and we've been secretly trying to overthrow him since Reagan. Bush got him to give up his WMD. Afghanistan is technically a tyranny, but freer than it would be without the US. Musharraf was elected like Hamas. Like Hamas, he abused his power, but he gave up power when he became unpopular. Musharraf and Abdullah may not be ideal, but they certainly are morally superior to their nieghbors and Musharraf in particular believes in democracy.
How do we prop up Uzbekistan? El Salvador is a free country. Yes, the US and Taiwan said they were pleased with the results of the free and fair Salvadoran election in 2009.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 5:35pm
"Do you also agree with John Hagee's view that Hitler was an agent of G-d?"
Obviously antisocialist doesn't think that.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:58pm
I agree with Pastor Hagee, but Hagee's point is not what the anti-Christians make it out to be.
It is consistent within Rabbinic thinking and scripture itself that G-d uses and turns the evil that man intends into good.
We know back to the story of Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery where he was in Egypt. But G-d turned that to good and ended up making Joseph in charge of all of Pharoh's store houses. He saved Egypt from starvation and then saved not only his own family, but all of Israel.
So it's not that G-d says that "Hitler is My agent for good". It's that G-d uses even the evil that men intend to bring about a greater good. As He did in finally restoring the Jews to their homeland after WWII.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 5:47pm
'NEW YORK (JTA) -- With advocates for Ethiopian immigration to Israel stepping up their pressure on the Israeli government, Israeli Interior Ministry officials are returning to Ethiopia to check the eligibility for aliyah of approximately 3,000 more Falash Mura.
The three representatives from the Interior Ministry, who were scheduled to leave Thursday for Ethiopia, are tasked with verifying whether anyone remaining in the country has legitimate claims to immigrate to Israel.
Under the new initiative, Falash Mura -- Ethiopians who claim links to descendants of Jews who converted to Christianity generations ago -- wishing to make aliyah must have a relative already in Israel who will file on their behalf and demonstrate Jewish maternal links. Spouses of such people are also eligible.
Ethiopians able to prove their Jewish lineage remain eligible for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, and 400 are currently in the process of immigrating that way, according to the Jewish Agency for Israel.
Advocates are hoping this new effort -- coming a year after the last planeload of Falash Mura immigrants landed in Tel Aviv -- will reopen the gates to mass Ethiopian immigration and lead to the eventual consideration of at least 8,700 additional Ethiopians.'
Israel begins verification for 3,000 more Ethiopians By Uriel Heilman · July 15, 2009
'Many Israeli officials believe that the 8,700 Ethiopians for which the advocates are pushing are mostly Christian Ethiopians deceptively claiming Jewish links and adopting Jewish observances in a bid to escape Africa's desperate poverty for the relative comfort of the Jewish state'
In other words - No Christians allowed.
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 5:53pm
Kuwaitruled by the Emir who is not elected, thus, is a tyrant by definition.
America has never sought to weaken the House of Saud. In fact, the House of Sadu paid for the first Gulf War and feared Saddam ever since.
Since the Iraq invasion, Gaddaffi has become our poster child. He had no WMD to give up.
Musharraf camne to power through military coup and rigged subsequent elections.
We have always supported Uzbekistan, namely becasue they have oil and gas. El Salvador is a military state.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 6:02pm
Frosty I guess prefers the good old days when totalitarians were running these countries and regions. The terrible US going in and liberating people from tyranny. that's just evil of us in Frosty's view.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 12:14pm
c'mon now, larry, don't play naïve...
do i need to make a list of totalitarian best friends for you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:09pm
It is up to them. However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced into a treaty by the anti-christ. When that is, nobody knows. It could be next week or 10,000 years from now.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
10,000 years from now?
i sure hope seven-headed dragons can swim.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:13pm
though I think he argued Saddam should have been toppled in '91.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 2:56pm
but wouldn't that have resulted in a quagmire?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:14pm
As it turns out, 85% of Palestinians have Jewish ancestry.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Can you provide a citation or reference for this claim.
Posted by gren at 08/11/2009 @ 6:16pm
It is ordained by G-d that the land west of the Jordan belongs to Israel,
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 3:36pm
wtf?
why didn't god make canada, too?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:16pm
my country sucks.
it was only created by humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:17pm
"We have always supported Uzbekistan, namely becasue they have oil and gas"
All I know is that our government has repeatedly investigated human rights abuses there and the State Department has condemned that country's government. How do we prop up the regime?
"Gaddaffi has become our poster child"
We've lifted sanctions on him because we intimidated him into giving up WMD. We don't prop up his regime.
El Salvador is not an ideal democracy in practice but far from a military state.
Saudi Arabia feared the liberation of Iraqi Shiites and helped the Sunni insurgents. It opposed the invasion.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 6:17pm
Shingo
Never mind. I did some googling and see your point. Buttt -- the same studies about the Palestinians note that their genetic markers are similar to the Jews, including the European Askenazic Jews. The argument that the Ashkenazi Jews are converted Europeans without genetic connection to the ancient Israelites is false.
So the point is...with reard to the I/P conflict, I don't think there is one. It's a family squabble, which like many family fights, is much more viscious than one with outsiders.
Posted by gren at 08/11/2009 @ 6:27pm
I'm curious as to which tyrannies America actively protects.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 4:56pm |
well, they come and go.....
but now we have:
"Parade ranked the Sudan's Omar al-Bashir as the world's worst dictator. During his reign OECD countries gave his regime more than $6 billion in non-military aid. The U.S. accounted for more than $1 billion of that aid. Kim Jong-Il was ranked as the second worst dictator and received a little over $1 billion in aid, with more than half of it coming from the U.S. Than Shwe of Myanmar, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan round out the top five dictators on the list. The U.S. contributed $32 million to Myanmar, $1.1 billion to Zimbabwe, and $385 million to Uzbekistan.
Overall, OECD countries contributed aid to every one of Parade's 20 worst dictators. Combined, these leaders received nearly $55 billion in aid. The U.S. contributed to 19 of the 20 worst dictators; King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia was somehow left off of the U.S. gravy train. In total, the U.S. contributed more than $7 billion in aid to these leaders. In North Korea, Belarus, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the U.S. contributed more than 20 percent of the total aid these countries received from OECD countries."
mind you, that's from 2006.
and no mention of equatorial guinea.........
would you like a list from, say, the last 30 years?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:27pm
just once, libertyforthe,
please,
answer me about equatorial guinea.
just once.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:29pm
and weren't the bush folks extra upset to see GENERAL musharraf go?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:30pm
I agree with Pastor Hagee, but Hagee's point is not what the anti-Christians make it out to be.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 5:47pm
Hagee's point is what Hagee made it out to be. Hagee is an evangelical extremist and there are many Christians who find his comments offensive. Hagee also believes that the saliva of Jews has special healing powers, which is why the settlers have a habit of spitting on people.
with regard to the scriptures, you insisted that Christians take their teachings and doctrine from the New Testament only, so why then, are you referring to the Old Testament to supoprt your argument? BTW. The notion that the Jews were ever in Egypt has also been debunked by research.
In what parts fo the New Testament does G-d uses and turns the evil that man intends into good?
In any case, you are saying that the Holocaust was a worthwhile cost in order to create Israel, whcih after all, is the creation of atheists.
Last but not least Larry, can you please point to the passages in the Bible, the New testament n particular, that proves that G-d has ordained the creation of the state of Israel.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 6:32pm
Among the worst of these African tyrannies has been the regime of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea. Obiang has been in power even longer than the 28-year reign of Mugabe and, according to a recent article in the British newspaper The Independent, makes the Zimbabwean dictator "seem stable and benign" by comparison. Obiang originally seized power in a 1979 coup by murdering his uncle, who had ruled the country since its independence from Spain in 1968. Under his rule, Equatorial Guinea nominally allowed the existence of opposition parties as a condition of receiving foreign aid in the early 1990s. But the four leading candidates withdrew from the last presidential election in December 2002 in protest of irregularities in the voting process and violence against their supporters. In that election, Obiang officially received more than 97% of the vote (down from 99.5% in the previous election.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:33pm
Human rights in Chad have been described as "poor"; for example, Freedom House has designated the country as "Not Free."[1][2] Chad received a score of 6 for both political rights and civil liberties (with 1 being the most free, 7 being the least free).[2]
According to the U.S. State Department, "The government's poor human rights record deteriorated further during the year; security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses." Among the abuses listed were extrajudicial killings, beatings, torture, and rape by security forces; limits on freedom of speech and the press and freedom of assembly; arbitrary arrest and detention; and widespread corruption.[1] Security forces commit these and other abuses with "near total" impunity.[1][3][4]
Amnesty International has reported that "The widespread insecurity in eastern Chad had particularly severe consequences for women, who suffered grave human rights abuses, including rape, during attacks on villages."[4] Women face widespread discrimination and violence. Female genital mutilation, while technically illegal, is still widely practiced.[2] Harassment of journalists and human rights activists has also been documented [4] as well as the use of child soldiers by Chadian security forces, by various human rights groups. [1][5][6]
••
Relations between the United States and Chad are good. The American embassy in N'Djamena, established at Chadian independence in 1960, was closed from the onset of the heavy fighting in the city in 1980 until the withdrawal of the Libyan forces at the end of 1981. It was reopened in January 1982. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Information Service (USIS) offices resumed activities in Chad in September 1983.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:36pm
egypt?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:36pm
Gabon is controlled by the Gabonese Democratic Party (PDG), led since 1967 by President Alhadji Omar Bongo Ondimba. Titularly a republic, Gabon's government is a centralized, autocratic presidential bureaucracy where power is distributed largely through patronage. When no parliamentary assembly is in session, the president has the power to veto legislation that has been passed. He can dissolve the national assembly, call a new election, or govern by presidential decree. The police and the Defense Ministry's gendarmerie are responsible for public security. Although all ethnic groups have access to positions in government, the president's Bateke ethnic group and allied southern groups are heavily favored in positions of power, particularly in the military and the Republican Guard, which protects the president. Gabonese citizens have only limited ability to criticize or change their government.
••
Relations between the United States and Gabon are excellent. In 1987, President Bongo made an official visit to Washington, DC. In September 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell made a brief but historic visit to Gabon to highlight environmental protection and conservation in the Central Africa region. This was followed by a visit to the White House by President Bongo in May 2004. The United States imports a considerable percentage of Gabonese crude oil and manganese and exports heavy construction equipment, aircraft, and machinery to Gabon.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:38pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/10/2009 @ 6:18pm
Your entire post assumes that people (regardless of their religion) cannot change their beliefs, which only shows me that YOU cannot change your beliefs.
That makes you a zealot. Synonym: bigot.
A realist understands that everyone has their price (no human is infallible) and that negotiation is always possible. The problem with Israel and the Palestinians is that there are too many zealots on both sides and they all have the power to kill people because the land in which they operate is relatively small. I have no doubt that most Israelis and most Palistinians just want peace.
People who are willing to speak peace to murderers, and who do not shy away from a gun pointed in their face, people who emulate the life of Jesus, are the ones who will inherit the earth...
Too bad that you don't get it....with all your "realism."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 6:40pm
A report of three international fact finding missions to Togo and Benin was released today. The report documents "grave human rights violations" from the moment Faure Gnassingbé took power in Togo in a coup in February this year. Violations included extra-judicial executions of children, torture, rape and arbitrary detentions.
Togo's new leader follows in the footsteps of his father, diseased dictator Gnassingbé Eyadema, the new report documents. The Paris-based International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), which groups 144 rights organisations worldwide, today has published a report of three international fact finding missions in Togo and Benin, documenting human rights violations comparable to the worst epochs of the Eyadéma dictatorship.
••
Togo is a pro-Western, market-oriented country. The United States and Togo have had generally good relations since its independence, although the United States has never been one of Togo's major trade partners. The largest share of U.S. exports to Togo generally has been used clothing and scrap textiles. Other important U.S. exports include rice, wheat, shoes, and tobacco products, and U.S. personal computers and other office electronics are becoming more widely used.
The Government of Togo, with the support of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), established an export processing zone (EPZ) in Togo in 1989. The zone has attracted private investors interested in manufacturing, assembly, and food processing, primarily for the export market. USAID closed its local office in 1994 and runs local development programs from its office in Accra through nongovernmental organizations in Togo.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 6:42pm
The argument that the Ashkenazi Jews are converted Europeans without genetic connection to the ancient Israelites is false.
Posted by gren at 08/11/2009 @ 6:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person
How is it false? Does Judaism not allow for conversion to the religion?
The book I was referring to "When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?" , by Tel Aviv University scholar Shlomo Zand, offers detailed histories of several groups within what is conventionally known as the Jewish Diaspora, some were Jews who emigrated of their own volition, and many more were later converts to Judaism.
Contrary to popular belief, Zand argues that Judaism was an evangelical religion that actively sought out new adherents during its formative period.
Why is this even controversial?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 6:42pm
"In North Korea, Belarus, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the U.S. contributed more than 20 percent of the total aid these countries received from OECD countries."
Again, we are talking about dictators America props up. North Korea is our enemy. We do give it humanitarian aid. This is out of compassion for its starving population.
In 1995, responding to the North Korean flood that helped cause the famine, the United States government initially provided over $8 million in general humanitarian assistance (the People's Republic of China was the only country to initially contribute more aid). However, eight years later, the United States government had provided $644 million in aid to the country, which comprised nearly 50% of the aid going to North Korea.
The US spends billions all over the world giving humanitarian aid and you spin it as proof America supports dictatorships? South Korea would be a genocidal slave state if not for America and the Korean war saved millions of South Koreans from premature death. Leftists are STILL angry America fought in that war today.
America and the UK are the only governments willing to condemn Darfur as a genocide.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 6:45pm
All I know is that our government has repeatedly investigated human rights abuses there and the State Department has condemned that country's government. How do we prop up the regime?
We had military bases there until the leader of Uzbekistan did a deal with the Russians and kicked us out.
"We've lifted sanctions on him because we intimidated him into giving up WMD. We don't prop up his regime."
There was no intimidation. Gadaffi was already negotiating the WMD issue before Bush came to office. It had nothing to do with Bush, though eh took credit for it
"Saudi Arabia feared the liberation of Iraqi Shiites and helped the Sunni insurgents. It opposed the invasion."
As Bob Woodward's book explained, we sought Saudi Arabia's permission before overthrowing Saddam.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 6:47pm
A realist understands that everyone has their price (no human is infallible) and that negotiation is always possible. The problem with Israel and the Palestinians is that there are too many zealots on both sides and they all have the power to kill people because the land in which they operate is relatively small. I have no doubt that most Israelis and most Palistinians just want peace.
People who are willing to speak peace to murderers, and who do not shy away from a gun pointed in their face, people who emulate the life of Jesus, are the ones who will inherit the earth...
Too bad that you don't get it....with all your "realism."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/11/2009 @ 6:40pm
Hmm, Jesus said that at least a portion of those who hate Israel will do so until the end of this earth and the judgment. Should I believe Jesus or you?
I think I will choose Jesus. No offense intended. I just think Jesus is a better choice for me.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 6:49pm
America and the UK are the only governments willing to condemn Darfur as a genocide.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 6:45pm
That's only becasue they have no reason to deny it. More people have been killed in Iraq, and many more people displaced yet neither government would be willing to condemn Iraq as a genocide.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 6:50pm
I think I will choose Jesus. No offense intended. I just think Jesus is a better choice for me.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 6:49pm
Don't you mean you will choose the interpretation of Jesus' teachings that your cult believes?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 6:53pm
"we sought Saudi Arabia's permission before overthrowing Saddam."
We did not get it.
We had a couple of bases in Uzbekistan before they kicked us out and other than that all we've done is condemn them and investigate their crimes. This does not qualify as propping them up.
Not nearly as many people have died in Iraq as Darfur, unless the morgues in Iraq are lying. But hell, even if the numbers where THREE times as high as they say, Saddam still killed more people in April 1991.
"There was no intimidation."
After the invasion of Iraq based on allegations that it had WMD programs violating non-proliferation treaty, and the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the Libyan government announced its decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs and pay almost 3 billion US dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am flight 103 as well as UTA Flight 772.[37] Gaddafi had privately phoned Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi expressing his fear that his regime will meet the same fate if he did not take such steps.[38]
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 7:02pm
So it's not that G-d says that "Hitler is My agent for good". It's that G-d uses even the evil that men intend to bring about a greater good. As He did in finally restoring the Jews to their homeland after WWII.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 5:47pm
And the Jewish Zionists believe this too?
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 7:07pm
Prince Bandar, the Saudi Ambassador to the US, gave us permission to invade Iraq, yes.
As for Uzbekistan, we only began condemning them and investigate their crimes after they kicked us out.
More than twice as many people have died in Iraq as Darfur, and as Robert Fisk revealed, the morgues in Iraq have been lying. In March and April of 1991, Saddam Hussein's forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 maximum. 1.2 million weer killed by the Iraq invasion.
"President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, in separate but coordinated press conferences the same day, hailed the Libyan decision. In prepared remarks, the president urged Libya to continue its support for the war on terrorism, but he did not tie the Libyan announcement to the war on terrorism or the U.S. occupation of Iraq. On the contrary, he accurately stated that the negotiations leading to the December 19 announcement "began about nine months ago." In so doing, he freely acknowledged that the talks began before the United States invaded Iraq."
"The Qaddafi regime has been trying to come in from the cold for more than a decade, as I detailed in a recent article, "Libya Is Not Iraq: Preemptive Strikes, WMD and Diplomacy," published in the summer 2004 issue of The Middle East Journal (www.mideasti.org). Informal Libyan overtures, which began as early as 1992, were rebuffed by the first Bush administration and later by the Clinton administration. At the time, Libya indicated that it was willing to discuss a renunciation of terrorism and the abandonment of WMD programs in return for talks aimed at ending sanctions and normalizing relations."
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/482
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 7:21pm
America and the UK are the only governments willing to condemn Darfur as a genocide.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 6:45pm
and do nothing.
china buys sudanese oil.
china buys t-bills.
you, libertyfortheoppressed, are a pawn.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 7:24pm
c'mon, libertyforthestupidbrownies,
EQUATORIAL GUINEA.
bok, bok, bok!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 7:26pm
egypt?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 7:26pm
The Karimov dictatorship has received over one billion dollars in U.S. aid, the vast majority of that coming under President Bush, who has justified the U.S. invasion, occupation, and ongoing counter-insurgency wars in nearby Iraq because of the need to promote democracy in the Islamic world. An estimated 1,000 American troops are currently stationed in Uzbekistan and U.S. forces have engaged in military training exercises with Uzbek forces as far back as 1995.
Karimov was invited to the White House in March 2002, where he and President Bush signed a strategic partnership agreement, which included an additional $120 million in U.S. military aid. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has praised Karimov for his "wonderful cooperation" with the U.S. military. President Bush's former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill spoke admirably of the dictator's "very keen intellect and deep passion" for improving the lives of his people.
••
you are a pawn.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2009 @ 7:35pm
"the morgues in Iraq have been lying."
Sure. Whatever you say.
"In March and April of 1991, Saddam Hussein's forces killed somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000 maximum"
According to Saddam's apologists. According to the records of Saddam's henchmen, about 300,000 were killed (see the documentary Saddam's Killing Fields), and a minimum of 200,000 is all I'd call credible.
Shingo, listen to this. In Hitchens' book Love, Poverty, and War, he has an essay from 2003 that was originally published in Vanity Fair. He reveals that on May 13, 2003, American troops uncovered a mass grave in Al-Hilla with the corpses of about 15,000 Iraqis killed in the 1991 repression. That was ONE mass grave. He then tells us: "There are sixty-two such sites ALREADY [as of 2003!] identified in Southern Iraq alone." He then notes that several more have been uncovered in the North. Of course, not all of these graves are from 1991, but the number of corpses does indeed suggest a figure of around 300,000 killed in April 1991.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 7:38pm
And the Jewish Zionists believe this too?
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 7:07pm
some do. Especially among some of the orthodox.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 7:44pm
http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2007/02/saddams-killing-fields.html
Watch the documentary here.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:01pm
"Sure. Whatever you say."
No it's what the reporter Robert Fisk has uncovered.
"According to Saddam's apologists."
Since when has the Federation of American Scientists been Saddam's apologists?
http://tinyurl.com/dm3w3
"According to the records of Saddam's henchmen, about 300,000 were killed"
Calling Saddam's henchmen credible is a contradiction in terms.
I've read "Poverty, and War".
In reference to the mass grave of 15,000 Iraqis killed, there is no proof of what led to that mass grave. It was just as likely that these were deaths from the Gulf War. Some have suggested that these were killed by Coalition forces and buried because there was no way to bring the bodies back under combat conditions. As you know, Muslims are required to bury their dead within 24 hours.
The fact that not even the Bush administration was willing to cite these mass graves as evidence of Saddam's brutality suggests Hitchens is again, barking up the wrong tree.
Southern Iraq was the corridor the Coalition used to enter Iraq while they were driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Thousands weer buried alive in their trenches as coalition bulldozers covered them.
Like I said, the Federation of American Scientists, a source that you yourself have cited, says 30,000 - 60,000.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:03pm
Watch the documentary here.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:01pm
Saddam's henchmen are not credible witnesses.
There a numerous motives for inflating the numbers. Eithe they were boasting, or had turned on Saddam and were doing their own Curveball impersonation.
Either way, their testimony cannot be given any credibility.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:08pm
"the Federation of American Scientists, a source that you yourself have cited,"
When have I cited them? Oh, right. Never.
"In reference to the mass grave of 15,000 Iraqis killed, there is no proof of what led to that mass grave."
Actually according to Hitchens there were dozens of Iraqis who testified that in 1991, in that one mass grave, "three truckloads of victims, three times a day, for a month" were unloaded there.
"the number of corpses does indeed suggest a figure of around 300,000 killed in April 1991.
Southern Iraq was the corridor the Coalition used to enter Iraq while they were driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Thousands weer buried alive in their trenches as coalition bulldozers covered them."
Ah, so America planted the corpses to frame Saddam.
And Iraq's morgues are lying.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:15pm
By the way, if only, say, 17 of those mass graves were from 1991, that would give you about 300,000 corpses.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:17pm
"Either way, their testimony cannot be given any credibility."
Ah, but the Lancet is credible, even though morgues in Iraq say otherwise and even though some of its results have a less than 1 in 10,000 chance of occuring as they were recorded and even though the UN conducted a survey with the same methods wherein they conducted TEN TIMES as many interviews as the Lancet over a greater range of geographical areas and found figures in line with morgues in Iraq, the Iraqi Government, the British government, the Iraq body count,ect?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:28pm
The people know best.
-------------
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Tuesday, August 11, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -7 (see trends). Forty-five percent (45%) give the President good or excellent marks for leadership.
Posted by HelenDAO at 08/11/2009 @ 8:33pm
some do. Especially among some of the orthodox.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 7:44pm
I have read this, wondering about how "mainstream" it is among the Orthodox. I have a hard time digesting or envisioning it however. Perhaps it is the search for meaning in seemingly incomprehensible events.
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 8:33pm
Posted by HelenDAO at 08/11/2009 @ 8:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Astroturfers and Repubs are winning eh Helen? With what? Lies and deception? You should not rejoice but despair the crumbling of a civil democracy.
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 8:38pm
Ah, but the Lancet is credible
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:28pm
The Lancet is not based on the testimony of Saddam's henchmen.
It is widely accepted actual body counts are not an accurate measure of death tolls from wars, so what the Iraqi morgues say is irelevant.
As the link you provided states, the Lancet Study "used previously accepted methods" and these methods only came into question when the results proved to be damaging to the larketing of the Iraq invasion. The Lancet Study has also been corroborated by the the top British government scientists and by the British ORB statistical survey. The British government, which was complicit in the lies that led to the iraq invasion, ignored it's top scientists, who advised it against publicly criticising the Lancet conclusions. The British government looked into it. And, in spite of what Tony said in public, the government's experts came down on the side of the Lancet.
But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".
Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested".
[...] a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:41pm
By the way, if only, say, 17 of those mass graves were from 1991, that would give you about 300,000 corpses.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:17pm
There is no evidence to suggest that the graves were from 1991 or that Saddam was the one who killed them.
Like I said, the Federation of American Scientists says 30,00 -60,000. Hitch was a propagandist for the war, so what he says is of no consequence.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:44pm
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 8:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Another day of Mortician's Convention gentleman?
Posted by OneVote at 08/11/2009 @ 8:44pm
"When have I cited them? Oh, right. Never."
They were the source of data from your reference to the State Department. Hello!!
"Actually according to Hitchens there were dozens of Iraqis who testified that in 1991, in that one mass grave"
Hitchens seems to be your only source of these figures. Why do you suspect no one at the UN, the State Department and the British Government just use him for their data?
"Ah, so America planted the corpses to frame Saddam."
No they just buried them alive. As I said before, not even the Bush Administration made reference to the so called mass graves, because they knew there was no way to prove when they died, how they die and who killed them.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:48pm
The people know best.
Posted by HelenDAO at 08/11/2009 @ 8:33pm
The people voted Obama to office and gave him control of the House and Senate.
As you still sure the people know besHelenDAO?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:55pm
some do. Especially among some of the orthodox.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 7:44pm
So why don't they have a public holiday in Israel is memory of Hitler?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 8:59pm
"As the link you provided states, the Lancet Study "used previously accepted methods"
As I said above:
The UN conducted a survey with the same methods wherein they conducted TEN TIMES as many interviews as the Lancet over a greater range of geographical areas and found figures in line with morgues in Iraq, the Iraqi Government, the British government, the Iraq body count,ect.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:04pm
"There is no evidence to suggest that the graves were from 1991 or that Saddam was the one who killed them."
You don't think the testimony of Iraqis who say they saw Saddam's thugs unload truckloads of victims in the specific spots where mass graves have been unearthered counts as evidence?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:10pm
1. The FAS didn't draft that SD document. It reposted it. 2. So you agree that Saddam is responsible for all the deaths "from the sanctions"? 3. Those FAS figures were a rough estimate based on the figures avalible at the time before we liberated Iraq, when Saddam allowed in no human rights monitors. They would recquire that only about 4 of the almost 70 mass graves we had ALREADY uncovered as of 2003 contained victims from 1991.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:15pm
"there was no way to prove when they died, how they die and who killed them."
Its actually not hard to tell when and how someone died when you examine their corpse.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:17pm
figures in line with morgues in Iraq, the Iraqi Government, the British government, the Iraq body count,ect.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:04pm
The British government ignored the advice of their own experts, so they are likely involved in a propaganda stunt.
Iraq Body Count, which admits to deliberately low balling the numbers, only record deaths recorded in 2 or more news sources, one of which must be English speaking, so clearly ignore deaths not reported in the media, not reported in less than 2 sources and not reported by English sources. IRB also ignores deaths from aerial bombardment.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:19pm
You don't think the testimony of Iraqis who say they saw Saddam's thugs unload truckloads of victims in the specific spots where mass graves have been unearthered counts as evidence?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:10pm
No. Those involved will have a number of reasons to give testimony and as such, cannot be trusted anymore than Curveball, who also claimed to have witnesses the existence of WMD's.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:20pm
1. The FAS didn't draft that SD document. It reposted it. 2. So you agree that Saddam is responsible for all the deaths "from the sanctions"? 3. Those FAS figures were a rough estimate based on the figures avalible at the time before we liberated Iraq, when Saddam allowed in no human rights monitors. They would recquire that only about 4 of the almost 70 mass graves we had ALREADY uncovered as of 2003 contained victims from 1991.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:15pm
1. So do you suggest that FAS is a Saddam propagnada arm? 2. Madelaine Albright has laready claimed responsibility on behalf of the US for the deaths "from the sanctions". 3. What official reports supoprt the claim that any of those mass graves had anything to do with April 1991, and what proof is here, apart from Hithens' heresay, that any of those graves were from deatsh in 1991?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:24pm
Its actually not hard to tell when and how someone died when you examine their corpse.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:17pm
I agree. So why haven't those corpses been examined? Why is there no report of the number of corpses uncovered that can be attributed to April 1991?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:28pm
As Bob Woodward's book explained, we sought Saudi Arabia's permission before overthrowing Saddam. Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
perhaps their consent, but certainly not their permission.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:37pm
http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
HRW estimates as many as 230,000 killed in 1991.
"What official reports supoprt the claim that any of those mass graves had anything to do with April 1991"
Since Saddam killed at least 200,000 people in April 1991, if all those graves are from different occassions, that would just mean you'd have to add 200,000 or 300,000 to the number of deaths estimated by the number of corpses unearthed.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:38pm
No they're not. They are Palestinians, most of whom are the decendents of the original Isrelis. As it turns out, 85% of Palestinians have Jewish ancestry. Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 5:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you must be out of your mind. they are arabs. ask them.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:39pm
perhaps their consent, but certainly not their permission.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:37pm
Either way, the Saudi's did not oppose it.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:39pm
"I agree. So why haven't those corpses been examined?"
They have been but you won't accept the facts of reality.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:40pm
And I wrote that in response to you stupidly claiming:
"there was no way to prove when they died, how they die and who killed them."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:41pm
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
nice pivot.
unlike me, you are unable to own up to your mistakes.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:42pm
"HRW estimates as many as 230,000 killed in 1991"
I jut looked thought he report and the figure of 230,000 is not mentioned.
Perhaps you could quote the relevant passage from the report?
Now, given that there is no proof as to who was responsible for all those graves, it does NOT mean you'd have to add 200,000 or 300,000 to the number of deaths estimated by the number of corpses unearthed, becasue here is no proof that they resulted from 1991 or that Saddam was responsible.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:45pm
The Palestinian people, also referred to as Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs are an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine.
arabic speaking? Palestinian arabs?
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:45pm
nice pivot.
unlike me, you are unable to own up to your mistakes.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:42pm
You didn't point out a mistake at all. libertyfortheoppressed argued that the Saudi were opposed to the invasion. Even your interpretation does not support that argument.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:47pm
The Palestinian people, also referred to as Palestinians or Palestinian Arabs are an Arabic-speaking people with family origins in Palestine.
arabic speaking? Palestinian arabs?
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:45pm
What is your point?
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 9:49pm
my point is that you boneheadedly claimed they were not arabs. they ARE arabs. c'mon, you can do it. just admit your goddamn mistakes.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:53pm
"Either way, the Saudi's did not oppose it."
Saudi Arabia, along with the entire Arab League save Kuwait, and with Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia, Vatican City, Bangladesh, and other stupid countries, officially condemned the US invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, countries like Kuwait, Israel, South Korea, Japan, the US, the UK, Afghanistan, Australia, Georgia, Panama, ect. supported it. I think it is easy to draw a moral distinction between the two sides.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:55pm
"I jut looked thought he report and the figure of 230,000 is not mentioned."
No, but it says as many as 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shi'ites.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 10:00pm
"unlike me, you are unable to own up to your mistakes.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:42pm
You didn't point out a mistake at all. libertyfortheoppressed argued that the Saudi were opposed to the invasion. Even your interpretation does not support that argument.
my point is that you boneheadedly claimed they were not arabs. they ARE arabs. c'mon, you can do it. just admit your goddamn mistakes."
Obviously, emile, Shingo does not understand what the two of you are discussing. He has no idea what the hell you are talking about.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 10:02pm
my point is that you boneheadedly claimed they were not arabs. they ARE arabs. c'mon, you can do it. just admit your goddamn mistakes.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/11/2009 @ 9:53pm
German speaking? Geman jews?
Does that mean they are Geman or Jews?
Palestinians are often referred to as Arabs by those trying to make the case that they are recent arrivals to the land. Even Ben Gurion recognized that to be a false assertion.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 10:10pm
Saudi Arabia, along with the entire Arab League save Kuwait, and with Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia, Vatican City, Bangladesh, and other stupid countries, officially condemned the US invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile, countries like Kuwait, Israel, South Korea, Japan, the US, the UK, Afghanistan, Australia, Georgia, Panama, ect. supported it. I think it is easy to draw a moral distinction between the two sides.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 9:55pm
What exactly defines a stupid country?
And where is the source that links to a report of Saudi Arabia's condemnation of the US invasion of Iraq? In any case, the US won the Saudi support by promising to go after Iran.
Kuwait did not support the invasion.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 10:24pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2882851.stm
The whole of the Arab League save Kuwait (which includes Saudi Arabia) unanimously agreed to officially condemn the invasion as a "violation of the United Nations Charter" and a "threat to world peace".
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 10:30pm
"I jut looked thought he report and the figure of 230,000 is not mentioned."
No, but it says as many as 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shi'ites.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 10:00pm
So there is no report to suggest Saddam killed 300,000 in April 1991.
As many as does not refute the 30,000 - 60,000 official figure.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 10:30pm
"Kuwait did not support the invasion."
Of course it did.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 10:37pm
The whole of the Arab League save Kuwait (which includes Saudi Arabia) unanimously agreed to officially condemn the invasion as a "violation of the United Nations Charter" and a "threat to world peace".
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/11/2009 @ 10:30pm
I stand corrected. Saudi Arabia did indeed condemn the invasion of Iraq.
Posted by Shingo at 08/11/2009 @ 10:38pm
So, Shingo, if you've read that article I mentioned on Dreyfuss's older post, do you admit it sufficiently debunks the Lancet? If not, why?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 12:19am
Oh dear...why are there so many bad arguments here? To sum up some points that should be relatively obvious:
1) The Bible makes no authoritative statement about Israel's current claim to the West Bank or (for that matter) any specific territory whatsoever.
2) Believing that good can come out of evil does not mean that you celebrate the evil.
3) Saudi Arabia supported the invasion
4) Saddam murdered lots and lots and lots of people (and yes, they were actually murdered rather than being casualties of a war; there is a relevant difference)
5) The fact that Hitchens agreed with the war doesn't discredit anything he says. This is a dumb argument on two levels. First, it doesn't make any sense because there's no reason why agreeing with a position somehow makes you so biased that you can't provide objective analysis. If anything, why not say that the analysis drove the conclusion? Second, it would cut both ways even if it meant anything. Any evidence from any groups that opposed the war should be dismissed just as quickly. Except you won't do that...because you happen to think they're right. Discounting people's evidence based solely on the fact that you don't like their conclusion is just bad analysis.
6) We can often tell how people died. In fact, police forces have specialists that do this all the time.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/12/2009 @ 12:26am
"Saudi Arabia supported the invasion"
Why did their government officially condemn the invasion as a "threat to world peace," then?
english.cri.cn/144/2003-4-15/17@9746.htm
"A senior Saudi official warned on Monday that the ongoing US-led war will bring about negative aftermath to the Gulf region and the world at large.
"As a global village, any war, no matter wherever it happens, would bring about negative consequences to the whole world," Abdulrahman Al-Matrodi, deputy minister of Islamic Affairs, Religious Endowments, Call and Guidance, said in an exclusive interview with Xinhua.
He said even before the Iraq war broke out, Saudi Arabia was well aware of its possible negative impact and called for a peaceful solution to the crisis."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 12:45am
So, Shingo, if you've read that article I mentioned on Dreyfuss's older post, do you admit it sufficiently debunks the Lancet? If not, why?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 12:19am
The article was compelling, and surprisingly even handed. It didn't debunk the Lancet because it didn't set out to.
It's basic arguments were pointed to: 1)possible flaws in the design and execution of the study, but doesn't go beyond vague allegations 2)a lack of transparency in the data, which has raised suspicions of fraud without proving fraud took place 3)suggestions that political preferences held by the authors and the funders, which include George Soros's Open Society Institute, which in itself, proved nothing.
The Lancet studies rest on the data provided by Lafta, who operated with little American supervision and has rarely appeared in public or been interviewed about his role, but so what? Lafta has a reputation for being reliable and honest.
Some arguments are absurd and irrelevant. For example, what difference does it make whether Roberts went into Iraq concealing on the floor of an SUV with $20,000 in cash stuffed into his money belt and shoes? That's his business.
I will concede that it is odd that the original data is unavailable, but seems to be the only real argument made.
Garfield's behavior is highly suspect and I suspect he had a falling out with the others. He was only one of 4 involved in the study, along with Burnham, Lafta, and Roberts. His flip flop sounds like a personal vendetta and his explanation for why he has changed his mind on the outcome of the report is never explained.
So while the link provides food for thought, it does not debunk the Lancet.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 01:11am
He said even before the Iraq war broke out, Saudi Arabia was well aware of its possible negative impact and called for a peaceful solution to the crisis."
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 12:45am
It's clear that Saudi Arabia don't want the Middle east to ignite, but it would be an absurd suggestion to imply that Bush intended to destabilise Saudi Arabia when he went into Iraq. Some of the necons were hoping this might happen, but not the Bush Administration.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 01:15am
What about this?
"the database reveals that 22 death certificates for victims of violence and 23 certificates for other deaths were declared by surveyors and households to be missing or lost. That similarity looks reasonable, but Spagat noticed that the 23 missing certificates for nonviolent deaths were distributed throughout eight of the 16 surveyed provinces, while all 22 missing certificates for violent deaths were inexplicably heaped in the single province of Nineveh. That means the surveyors reported zero missing or lost certificates for 180 violent deaths in 15 provinces outside Nineveh. The odds against such perfection are at least 10,000 to 1"
And, since the UN used the same methods only with TEN TIMES as many interviews over a greater geographic area, aren't their estimates more credible?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 01:17am
"The numbers claimed by the Lancet study would, under the normal ratios of warfare, result in more than a million Iraqis wounded seriously enough to require medical treatment, according to this critique. Yet official sources in Iraq have not reported any such phenomenon. An Iraq Body Count analysis showed that the Lancet II numbers would have meant that 1,000 Iraqis were dying every day during the first half of 2006, "with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms.""
Doesn't this debunk the Lancet? How about the suspicious cluster?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 01:18am
"Lafta has a reputation for being reliable and honest."
Then what was up with his absurdly fabricated estimate of the number of people killed in Fallujah?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 01:25am
4) Saddam murdered lots and lots and lots of people (and yes, they were actually murdered rather than being casualties of a war; there is a relevant difference)
5) The fact that Hitchens agreed with the war doesn't discredit anything he says.
6) We can often tell how people died. In fact, police forces have specialists that do this all the time.
Posted by Thrawn at 08/12/2009 @ 12:26am
4) There's a reason that the greatest war crime is the one that states a war of aggression is the greatest of all war crimes, because it encompasses all the evils of the other war crimes. When someone elects to start a war of choice, he is making the conscious decision to put to death all those that we refer to as collateral damage. The descions is a conscious one that innocents will die in order to achieve your objective. In that regard, there is no such thing as unintended deaths when it comes to wars of choice.
5) Hitchens backed the war from the beginning. One could argue he arrives at that conclusion based on analysis, but there worse the ear got the more desperate his defense became. He kept repeating false arguments, even after they had been refuted by subsequent investigations. Those following his blog on Slate for the last 7 years will be aware of that. As such, it became clear that rather than being informed by analysis, he was motivated by a need to justify his position having made his original position irreversible.
6) True, yet with all those mass graves in Iraq, none have been investigated in this manner. Iraq has been through a deacade long war with Iran, and 2 devastating atatcks by the US, so it's premature and dishonest to claim that the existence of the graves is all the work of Saddam.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 01:33am
Then what was up with his absurdly fabricated estimate of the number of people killed in Fallujah?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 01:25am
From your link:
"Lafta's Falluja death estimate was so far off the chart that his colleagues dropped it from the study, the authors said."
So clearly, the others involved in the study knew to exclude data was clearly flawed and were not afraid to be frank about it. If anything, this speaks well of Roberts and his other colleagues and suggests there was a culture of honesty and common desire to produce a realistic report.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 01:57am
Shingo, what about the fact that 50,000 of their deaths were extrapolated from 24 deaths that happened after their survey officially ended?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 01:59am
"The numbers claimed by the Lancet study would, under the normal ratios of warfare, result in more than a million Iraqis wounded seriously enough to require medical treatment, according to this critique. Yet official sources in Iraq have not reported any such phenomenon. An Iraq Body Count analysis showed that the Lancet II numbers would have meant that 1,000 Iraqis were dying every day during the first half of 2006, "with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms.""
Doesn't this debunk the Lancet? How about the suspicious cluster?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 01:18am
Not at all.
According to an Oxfam International report in August 2007, 8 million people were in desperate need of food, shelter, water and sanitation and health services.
It's hardly inconceivable that an Iraqi government that were unable to step outside of the Green Zone negelected to provide sufficient medical treatment to Iraqis.
The Oxfam report also concluded that:
Four million Iraqis have fled homes, with half managing to escape abroad. The rest are in camps for the internally displaced which are often short of the most basic amenities. The latest figures show 32 per cent of them have no access to food rations and 51 per cent are fed intermittently.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 02:09am
Shingo, what about the fact that 50,000 of their deaths were extrapolated from 24 deaths that happened after their survey officially ended?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 08/12/2009 @ 01:59am
Based on a cliam that a car bombing that killed 60 peopel the day after the survery was uposed to end?
So what? are you sugegsting that 24 hours debunsk the Lancet?
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 02:12am
Shingo, this will be my last conversation with you. Palestinians are arabs, Jordanians are arabs. Palestinians were Jordanians. everyone in the world except you realizes this.
that said, an arab national consciousness did not evolve until the turn of the century.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 07:36am
Shingo, this will be my last conversation with you.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 07:36am
Emile, I could care less whther this is out last conversation or otherwise.
Palestinians are Palestinians. Some are part Arab, some not. Some are Jews. Palestinians were alaways Palestinians. Jordanians are Jordanians.
There is no such thing as an Arab national consciousness because ther is not one state called Arabia.
The Palestinians have been there since the Hebrews, becasue they are descendents of the Judeans. Their national consciousness has always been Palestinian.
As Gren to explain it to you if you are still confused.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 08:03am
"It is Israel's choice to follow into G-d's plans or not. I have nothing to do with it."-------Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 3:36pm
"However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced into ..."---Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
Larry, how can Israel have a "choice"...if "prophecy" says they WILL do something???? What if they choose to do something in opposition to the prophecy???
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 08:14am
this is all nonsense. you might try reading a book. tata
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 08:26am
this is all nonsense. you might try reading a book. tata
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 08:26am
I've read plenty, which is why I know this stuff. You're ignroance has been demonstrated repeatedly.
"When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?", a schalrly accound by Tel Aviv University scholar Shlomo Zand concludes that the Judeans that remined in ancient Judea remained, converted to Islam and assimilating with their conquerors when Arabs subjugated the area. They became the progenitors of today's Palestinian Arabs, many of whom now live as refugees who were exiled from their homeland during the 20th century.
Haaretz published a report yesterday that up to 85 percent of Arabs in greater Israel stem from Jewish ancestors.
"It is generally accepted that most Jews left the Land of Israel after the failed Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. Yet many remained, and of these, many are still here, after having been forced to convert to Islam. "It turns out that a large part of the Arabs of the Land of Israel are actually descendants of forced converts to Islam over the years," says Rabbi Dov Stein of the nascent Sanhedrin rabbinical council. "There are some studies that say that 85 percent of the Arabs in Israel are descended from Jews; others say there are fewer.""
Welcome to reality.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 08:37am
Ben Gurion agreed that the Palestinians are the decendents fo the Isrelis.
David Ben-Gurion and Yitzchak Ben-Tzvi wrote in a book 100 years ago:
"If we investigate the origins of the Felahim, there is no doubt that much Jewish blood runs in their veins."
The authors implied that these Jews loved the Land so much that they were willing to give up their religion. The reference is probably to an edict in the year 1012 by Caliph el-Hakim, who ordered the non-Muslims to either convert or leave the Land of Israel.
It is estimated that 90 percent of the Jews chose the former, though many continued to practice Judaism in secret. The decree was revoked 32 years later - apparently too late for about 75 percent of the converts.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 08:40am
The genetic analysis concerning the historical roots of the palestinians and the jews is based on a comparison of current genetic pools -- it obviously is not possible to compare current genetic populations to the genetic profile of the Judeans circa 100 BC. The analysis shows that the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews contain the same relevant genetic markers that also cjaracterize palestinians, as well as portions of the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian populations. In other words, we are talking in generalities here. But the analysis does refute two points that people erroneously believe. First, the Ashkenazi European Jews, despite their different phenotypes, share the same relevant gentic markers which characterize Sephardic Jews and Palestinians. Second, the Palestinians and Jews could very well represent two historical branches of the same Judean root.
Ultimately though I think this is all irrelevant as to the I/P conflict / tragedy. There is room for two states for two people, and if there is to be peace in our time it will come only as two states for two people.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 09:16am
BTW, just to be clear, Jews (as distinct from "Palestinians") have always lived in Israel (as it is now called) continuously from 500 BC (returning from the Babylonian exile with the permission of the Persians who had conquered Babylonia) through the present time. At least during the 1800s and 1900s the Jews were the majority population in Jerusalem. Though Zionism is a modern movement, it is an expression of the hope, commitment, vision and faith by the Jews worldwide to return to "Zion" from exile as they had returned from the Babylonian exile to resurrect the Jewish sovereignty. That commitment and faith was recited daily in the institutionalized prayers, proclaimed at the end of each year's seder (Passover celebration)and wept for annually furing the Tisha B'Av fast which mourns the Roman razing of the Temple and the end of Jewish sovereignty.
While the religious believed that the return to Zion would be accomplished through the arrival of the Messiah, Zionism decided that the Divine helps those who help themselves and took matters into their own hands.
Again, I share this not because it provides Jews or Israel with any special rights, but simply to provide a more comprehensive context for understanding the modern history of the I/P conflict.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 09:27am
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 09:27am | ignore this person | warn this person
"Jews (as distinct from "Palestinians") have always lived in Israel (as it is now called) continuously from 500 BC"
the jews actually lived in Palestine, named after the Phillistines, before the eleventh century B.C.
my source is, as I mentioned, Simon Dubnow's "World History of the Jewish People.
Dubnow is worth a google, including the fine Wiki article.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 09:43am
"It is Israel's choice to follow into G-d's plans or not. I have nothing to do with it."-------Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 3:36pm
"However, I believe that the Biblical prophecies will be fulfilled and Israel will be forced into ..."---Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 2:02pm
Larry, how can Israel have a "choice"...if "prophecy" says they WILL do something???? What if they choose to do something in opposition to the prophecy???
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 08:14am
Read the OT. I is filled with moments of history when Israel did other than what G-d prophecied. It merely delays the outcome (hint: think the 40 years wandering in the desert because they disobeyed G-d).
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 09:56am
Hello emile duBois
I did not mean to imply that the Judeans (Jews) did not live in Israel prior to 500 BC. I was focusing on continuity, which was disrupted by the first exile from approximately 570BC to 500 BC. The first kingdom is a historical fact. The wells and water tunnels described in detail in the prophetic books concerning the reign of Hezekiah and the Assyrian siege have been fully excavated, and one can (as I have) descend the well shaft and walk in darkness and waist deep water through the tunnel to emerge at the adjacent valley. The newest excavations in the City of Zion (outside the Dung Gate of the Old City) have revealed structures which might be the kings palace dating back to David or Solomon. The dispute over the evictions in this valley are politically charged because it appears that the location is likely to reveal sifgnificant architectural testimony of the existence of the first kingdom and will become an Israeli historical heritage park. Israel would be condemning and evicting Jews from this location in order to allow these architectural investigations to continue. However, Israel would be smarter and more moral to provide alternative housing for the Palestinian families it disposeses, regardless of whether their homes is properly permitted.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 10:00am
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 09:56am
Jun 8, 2009
An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America
Dear Honorable President Obama:
The period between Memorial Day and the Fourth of July is a time of meaning and reflection for all Americans. In keeping with this spirit, we express our gratitude for your deep concern for the suffering of the peoples of the Middle East.
President Obama, you have obviously been privileged to merit divine guidance by the Hand of God. With wisdom and clarity, you have won the hearts of individuals the world over. By conveying the true American ideology, you have turned former adversaries into friends of the United States.
This same approach of openness and clarity would be tremendously beneficial to your Jewish citizens. If the true Jewish philosophy – the one that does not accept Zionism – were to be publicized and accepted, much of the worldwide danger to Jews created by the Zionists will simply disappear. Once the world appreciates the difference between Judaism and Zionism, your Jewish citizens will be just as safe in their homes, schools, and businesses as the rest of your American citizens.
Accordingly, it is of utmost urgency that Israel is not viewed or referred to as the "Jewish State," but rather as the "Zionist State." By disassociating ancient Judaism from new-fangled Zionism, we can hope for peace and tranquility, now and forever.
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 10:11am
Mr. President, you have had a longstanding positive relationship with your Jewish constituents. From the time you served as a respected Senator of Illinois to your selection of a number of competent Jews to your Presidential Cabinet, there has been mutual respect between you and American Jews. As representatives of thousands of traditional American Jews, we would recommend that you ignore the arrogant, irresponsible declarations of certain Zionists. Please remember that since the founding of the State of Israel, Zionist leaders have always held their agenda to take precedence over the safety and wellbeing of innocent Jews.
We stand beside you in your yearning for peace for all men in the Middle East. May the Merciful Creator grant that we shall yet see the days, envisioned by the Prophet Isaiah, when all peoples "will wage war no more."
Sincerely,
True Torah Jews
JewsAgainstZionism.com
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 10:12am
Shalom Aleichem OneVote
I get it now. You're a closet Satmar. Who'd have guessed. LOL Say hi to Rabbi Teitelbaum for us.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 10:28am
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 10:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
of course not. sorry for misinterpreting your point.
it is important to remember that not all jews are Zionists, quite the opposite.
the last hundred years are more important in this discussion than the three or four thousand years before.
there is so much ignorance about this time period, vide some nut's assertion that the Palestinians are not arabs.
of course the jews used to be "Palestinians" but we don't use that word in that sense.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 10:50am
Shalom Aleichem OneVote
I get it now. You're a closet Satmar. Who'd have guessed. LOL Say hi to Rabbi Teitelbaum for us.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 10:28am | ignore this person | warn this person
Shalom Gren. I will ask the Rabbi to define what is meant by a "secular Zionist"? Perhaps he has a word for this.
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 10:52am
"Read the OT. I is filled with moments of history when Israel did other than what G-d prophecied. It merely delays the outcome (hint: think the 40 years wandering in the desert because they disobeyed G-d)."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 09:56am
Larry, is a "prophecy" a prediction or just a suggestion?
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 10:56am
Hello OneVote
Rabbi Teitelbaum's word is probably "apikoros", perhaps followed by "may his sinful soul rot in Gahenna." LOL
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 11:10am
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 11:10am | ignore this person | warn this person
Fair enough.
Gren - as a secular Zionist, are you on board with Oslo Accord? You apparently support a two state solution of some sort, but I am not clear on your idea of borders.
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 11:43am
Gren - as a secular Zionist, are you on board with Oslo Accord? You apparently support a two state solution of some sort, but I am not clear on your idea of borders.
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
I wish the settlements had never been built, but reality imposes quite a presence. There are four urban "settlement blocks" which basically abut the Green Line and take up approximately 5% of the West Bank area. I support those staying Israeli, with a land compensation to the Palestinian state of an equal size area that also abuts the Green Line. I support the division of East Jerusalem along the lines of present Palestinian / Jewish neiborhoods. I am against any right of return.
BTW, although I don't believe in the biblical image of the Divine as a god-being, that the Torah was revealed by the god-being to the Hebrews, or that I will be rewarded or punished depending on whether I observe the commandments and mitzvoth, nevertheless I do go to shul most shabbat (except for the summer LOL) and I celebrate all of the holidays including the holiday rituals as a spiritual practice along with my meditation. So perhaps I'm more non-religious than secular in terms of my "observance", for whatever that means or implies. In any event, I don't really care what label(s) others pin on me.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 12:17pm
"Read the OT. I is filled with moments of history when Israel did other than what G-d prophecied. It merely delays the outcome (hint: think the 40 years wandering in the desert because they disobeyed G-d)."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 09:56am
Larry, is a "prophecy" a prediction or just a suggestion?
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 10:56am
Prophecy can be predictive, but is not always. Prophecy can also be G-d proclaiming His will or desire for people, or it can be warning them. Again though, G-d can prophecy predictively yet mankind can delay the fulfillment through rebellion. So then we see situations where the prophecy fulfillment is delayed, not because of G-d, but because mankind chooses to be rebellious and suffers by not obeying what G-d proclaims.
We see this daily in the story of man.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:29pm
"Prophecy can be predictive, but is not always."----------Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:29pm
So "can be, can also not be"....works out pretty good for God that it's so ambiguous, huh?
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:34pm
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 12:17pm
gren, do you believe that Jerusalem could be made into an international city or a divided city?
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:37pm
I don't understand how an international city would be administered. Who would be the authority for providing municipal services. Who would set tax rates. Who would determine the makeup of the administrative body that would govern and administer the city. How would the residents be able to exercise democratic rights.
Re: the division, I assume we are talking about East Jerusalem only. (West Jerusalem, which does not include any part of the Old City or any of the holy sites, does not have any Arab neighborhoods and was on the Israeli side of the Green Line.) There are administrative difficulties in dividing the city and duplicating municipal services. Also, from a planning perspective, Jerusalem could be more optimally developed, socially, economically and aesthetically if it was not divided. Nevertheless, given the history and current circumstances I see no alternative.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 12:45pm
In any event, I don't really care what label(s) others pin on me.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 12:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I thought 'secular Zionist' was how you described yourself, if that is what you are alluding to.
Well, secular Zionism is a big tent I guess. The way I understand secular Zionism in its pure form is that Israel's territory pre 1967 is rationalized as rightful territory to establish a safe haven from persecution, rather than Divine right. The expansion of 1967 borders is contrary to pure secular Zionism, and is considered 'annexationist,' and more closely aligned with Zionism. So, philosophically, it would appear that you may fall somewhere in the middle. You are further right than Rabin for instance.
In any event, I respect and applaud your support for a two state solution - provided that those reparations you reference are indeed reparations and not just token compensation.
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 12:46pm
I don't think it's possible to divide Zionism as neatly as you propose. Although the haredi originally were asgainst the establishment of Israel and some refuse to participate in its governance or protection (although that appears to be significantly changing), and a few extremists still oppose the state, by the post-war era the modern Orthodox supported the Zionist project and the establishment of Israel. The real divide in Zionism is between those who hold to the vision of Greater Israel, those who do not, and those who are attracted to it but are willing to sacrifice it given the political realities. There are both secularists and religious elements who are committed to the Greater Israel vision. There are also both religious and secular elements in each of the other two camps. So, like all things Jewish, it's pretty messy. (We joke that if two Jews were marooned on a deserted island, there would have to be three shuls.)
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 1:01pm
Even for many nonreligious / secular Zionists (I did use that term one in a particular context here; I am not offended by it), although we do not believe we have any divine right to the land, nevertheless the historical connection to the first and second kingdoms is a significant component of the Zionist faith. It is why archeology is so popular in Israel. The most secularized atheists are drawn to the old biblical sites and feel connected to them. Regardless of how the terms are usually defined and applied, Jews consider themselves part of a national clan that is linked by an unbroken chain to the kings and prophets of the First Kingdom and the Maccabis and Zealots of the Second Kingdom, not just a religion. Maybe its meshuganah, but it's our self-identity.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 1:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 08/11/2009 @ 6:49pm
Good choice.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 1:11pm
(We joke that if two Jews were marooned on a deserted island, there would have to be three shuls.)
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 1:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So true!! I anxiously await the season premiere of - 'Jewish Survivor.'
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 1:15pm
So true!! I anxiously await the season premiere of - 'Jewish Survivor.'
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 1:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
LOL
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 1:16pm
Maybe its meshuganah, but it's our self-identity.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And that is what makes this world wonderful. What a boring place the world would be without cultural and ethnic diversity.
Botanists warn us of monoculture - I think the same is true for humanity.
Posted by OneVote at 08/12/2009 @ 1:28pm
"Prophecy can be predictive, but is not always."----------Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 12:29pm
So "can be, can also not be"....works out pretty good for God that it's so ambiguous, huh?
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:34pm
You are providing a definition of prophecy that is more limited than the term actually means in Jewish and Christian belief.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:29pm
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 12:34pm
Ultimately, in the minds of believers, prophesy is always correct. The nature, interpretation and timing of the prophesy's fulfillment is always at question due to the fallibility and capriciousness of mankind. And yet,
1. Mankind is fallible.
2. All prophesies are written and interpreted by man.
3. The nature of prophesy is divine (decidedly NOT human).
Those three things right there pretty much destroy the concept of prophesy for me, which is why I don't believe in it and think the Book of Revelation is primarily bunk.
The Bible was written by fallible men, as was the Quran, as was every religious book in existence. To know the mind of god is to become god and no human being can know the mind of god.
Which is the entire reason all religious books should be used as guidelines by human beings for living a good life and being kind to your fellow human begins, not justifying wars, like extremists of every religion consistently do. There is a lot of wisdom in those books (and some crap, too), if everyone would stop taking them as the literal truth handed down from on high, and recognize them for what they truly are: words from wise men, perhaps even holy men (and some women) telling stories of the consequences (both good and ill) of good and bad behavior.
Stories that have been edited, translated and interpreted through the millennia by fallible human beings with personal (and/or religious) agendas.
I hope that even Larry would admit that the modern English language Bible in no way resembles the original due the numerous translations and edits the document has been put through. Unless of course, Larry thinks every translation throughout time has been ordained by god and fallible men have not been involved.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 2:13pm
"Nevertheless, given the history and current circumstances I see no alternative."---Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 12:45pm
Well, I'm sorry to tell you this, gren...but...
you are NOT a Jew.
"Any Jew who believes in making Jerusalem an international city or a divided city, is not a Jew."--------Posted by antisocialist at 05/27/2009 @ 12:37pm
Turn in your yamulke immediately.
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 2:17pm
I hope that even Larry would admit that the modern English language Bible in no way resembles the original due the numerous translations and edits the document has been put through. Unless of course, Larry thinks every translation throughout time has been ordained by god and fallible men have not been involved.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 08/12/2009 @ 2:13pm
That is why G-d ordained pastors to be teachers to their flocks. As a pastor, it has been my role to bring clarity of the translations by teaching what confusing, ambiguous, or obsolete words and phrases mean as they were written. It is why Christianity has the field of Hermeneutics.
You cannot possibly ask all Christians to be experts in Greek and Hebrew and the manners and customs of a biblical period. Certainly I encourage believers to be intellectually curious and to research on their own, to ask lots of questions, and to not assume an answer when they aren't 100% sure of the context.
Given the ability we have to know these things, I have complete confidence in the inerrancy of the scriptures as they were written. I cannot imagine a Christian faith where one picks and chooses what they want to believe. Now that is playing G-d.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:19pm
"You are providing a definition of prophecy that is more limited than the term actually means in Jewish and Christian belief."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:29pm
Well, actually, Larry ...YOU were providing the definition of prophecy, as I was asking you what it meant.
BTW, Stephen is right....this is how a "prophecy of God" ALWAYS seems to "work out exactly as God prophesized"...
"Prophecy"="A"
If "A" comes true, it "proves that God ordained it and that His will has come to pass."
If "A" does not come true, it "can still come true some time later." OR if something bad happens, it "proves that they disobeyed God's prophecy"....or if the something bad takes a few years, see the above.
Regardless, the prophecy is never "wrong"....nor of course those people telling you what the prophecy means.
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 2:22pm
"That is why G-d ordained pastors to be teachers to their flocks."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:19pm
And tell us who tells us which pastors are authoritative, Larry. Love to see that "Pakistani Missionaries and Businessman's Assembly" list again....missed saving it last time.
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 2:24pm
"That is why G-d ordained pastors to be teachers to their flocks."----Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:19pm
And tell us who tells us which pastors are authoritative, Larry. Love to see that "Pakistani Missionaries and Businessman's Assembly" list again....missed saving it last time.
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 2:24pm
With your usual bigotry against Christianity, you and Frosty always cite one source who wasn't even at the top of the list I provided. Even then, you both get it wrong.
It is a Pakistani group of churches, pastored by Pakistani's, not missionaries.
The Full Gospel Businessman's Association is a global organization that at that time had several hundred thousand members.
I won't post it simply because of your bigotry.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 3:09pm
BTW, just to be clear, Jews (as distinct from "Palestinians") have always lived in Israel (as it is now called) continuously from 500 BC (returning from the Babylonian exile with the permission of the Persians who had conquered Babylonia) through the present time.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 09:27am
Not necessarily. At one point, Jews made up less that 1% of the population, one has to ask what revelevance that makes to the equation or Jewish claim to the land.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:27pm
Oh and BTW, the Jews were not the majority population during the 1800s and 1900s. In fact, Ben Gurion writes in his diary that Jews were less than 12% of the popualtino at the turn of the century.
Though Zionism is not only a modern movement, nit a secualr aetheistic one.
In fact, it has been demonstrated that the most of the Jews in Palestine convertedto Islam following the Roman wars.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:31pm
there is so much ignorance about this time period, vide some nut's assertion that the Palestinians are not arabs.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 10:50am
Not only has this been debunked by Ben Gurion's own opinion, but it is irrelevant, and used as propaganda to imply that the Palestinians claim to the land is illegitimate.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:33pm
shingo you misread my post -- majority population of Jerusalem.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 4:35pm
The first kingdom is a historical fact. The wells and water tunnels described in detail in the prophetic books concerning the reign of Hezekiah and the Assyrian siege have been fully excavated, and one can (as I have) descend the well shaft and walk in darkness and waist deep water through the tunnel to emerge at the adjacent valley.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 10:00am
That's not necessarily true either.
Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel.
This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.
According to the biblical chronology, Solomon built the Temple 480 years after the exodus from Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). However, no evidence has been unearthed that can sustain this chronology.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:40pm
shingo you misread my post -- majority population of Jerusalem.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 4:35pm
In which case you are right. The popualtion in Jeruslamen was 60% Jewish in 1900, which is a slight majorty.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:48pm
Maybe its meshuganah, but it's our self-identity.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 1:09pm
That's one of the most honest and realistic assessments I've heard.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:49pm
Given the ability we have to know these things, I have complete confidence in the inerrancy of the scriptures as they were written. I cannot imagine a Christian faith where one picks and chooses what they want to believe.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 2:19pm
Which is another way of saying that regardless of the outcome, doctrine can always be used to rationalize contradictionns and inconsistencies.
Larry, you never did answer my question as to where in the Bible, the New Testament in particular, does it mention Israel being restored, including Jordan.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:51pm
Regardless, the prophecy is never "wrong"....nor of course those people telling you what the prophecy means.
Posted by Mask at 08/12/2009 @ 2:22pm
Very well put Mask.
In the case of zealouts, prophecy is often self fulfilling.
It reminds me of the story about 2 villages. Both danced to bring the rains. One village had little or no success whiel the other had 100% success. When the less succesful village chief asked the other what the secret to his success was, he explained that they dance and don't stop dancing until it rains.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:55pm
You are providing a definition of prophecy that is more limited than the term actually means in Jewish and Christian belief.
Posted by antisocialist at 08/12/2009 @ 1:29pm
Does this mean Larry that a Christian who does not agree with your interpretation or beliefs is not a Christian?
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 4:56pm
The real divide in Zionism is between those who hold to the vision of Greater Israel, those who do not, and those who are attracted to it but are willing to sacrifice it given the political realities.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 1:01pm
That's debatable.
The harsh reality is that Israel woudl not exist today had 750,000 Palestinians not been driven from their land in 1948. Had Israel respected the Balfour declaration and allowed the refugees to return, Jews in Isrle woudl be a minority. So even setting aside the question of a greater Israel, Israel's founding was based on the outcome that the Palestinians had to be displaced and Zionists on both sides of the debate remain comfortable with this reality.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 5:02pm
If, if, if.
If the palistinian militias, followed by the Arab armies, had accepted Israel instead of rejecting the establishment of both a Jewish and a Palestinian state, none of this tragedy would have unfolded.
Perhaps you think Zionists should be uncomfortable, but I can assure you we are not. Jews returned to Israel, legally purchased land from the legal owners, settled communities, opened stores and shops in the cities. There was no colonial or military usurption or imposition. You want to consider Israel illegitimate in its inception, fine, that's your opinion. Whatever.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 5:27pm
If the palistinian militias, followed by the Arab armies, had accepted Israel instead of rejecting the establishment of both a Jewish and a Palestinian state, none of this tragedy would have unfolded.
Posted by gren at 08/12/2009 @ 5:27pm
False on all counts.
First, Ben Gurion made it clear that while the Zionist founders would accept the UN Partition to establish legitimacy, it would ignore it once Israel was established.
Secondly, Zionists were talking about hwo to remove teh Palestinians more than half a century before Israel was founded, so there was no way that the tragedy could have been avoided.
Moshe Smilansky wrote in Hapoel Hatzair in the spring edition of 1908:
"Either the Land of Israel of Israel belongs in the national sense to those Arabs who settled there in recent years [before 1908], and then we have no place there and we must say explicitly: The land of our fathers is lost to us. [Or] if the land of Israel belongs to us, the the Jewish people, then our national interests come before all else. . . . it is not possible for one country to serve as the homeland of two peoples." (Righteous Victims, p. 58)
So to summarize:
1) Jews were a minority within Israel and would never have been able to achieve a majority without driving the Palestinians out.
2) Jews only owned 7% of the land and the Palestinians landlords had no desire to sell.
A small number of Jews legally purchased land from the legal owners, but the majortyof the land was stolen and was made possible by colonial/military imposition.
The question of Israel's legitmacy is not an issue, but Zionists on noth sides of the expasionist debate still agree that the displacement of the indigenous population was necessary and acceptable to make the Israel of today a reality.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 5:39pm
well there was military action against England, and arrests and executions on their part. during that time the jews were the "terrorists".
very few, if any countries are born without blood.
the locals in Palestine never had self determination.
the arab countries had their present rulers installed by the west, that was so in Jordan, Iraq, Saudi, Iran, which of corse is not arab.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 6:30pm
of course...
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 6:31pm
well there was military action against England, and arrests and executions on their part. during that time the jews were the "terrorists".
very few, if any countries are born without blood.
Posted by emile duBois at 08/12/2009 @ 6:30pm
Exept these terrorists were attacking the state that played the biggest role in teh creatino of Israel. the terrorists weer atacking teh british, becasue the british stood between them and the land they wanted.
The Palestine were promised independence by Britain, which is why they fought on the side of the allies and drive out the Ottoman empire. Ironically, they rejected the calls by Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who the British installed) to undertake a jihad against the British, becasue they had already been promised independence, yet many Zionists, like Lieberman, try to imply that the Mufti's supoprt for the Nazi's implciates all Palestinians.
Posted by Shingo at 08/12/2009 @ 7:32pm