It is Forbidden to Say such Things

[Saudade]

It Is Forbidden to Say Such Things
By KURT NIMMO

It's okay to call Muslims worshippers of Satan.

That's essentially what far right Armageddon happy Lt. Gen. Boykin -- newly appointed deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence -- did recently. It seems to be okay with Rumsfeld, Boykin's boss. It's more than okay for the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other Islam-hating Christian-Zionists. For them, denigrating Muslims is an industry.

"That's the way we live," Rummy told reporters Thursday during a Pentagon news briefing. "We're a free people. And that's the wonderful thing about our country. And I think that for anyone to run around and think that that can be managed and controlled is probably wrong... Saddam Hussein could do it pretty well, because he'd go around killing people if they said things he didn't like."

Of course, it depends who you criticize.

Remarks of Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad aside, there is a campaign to portray criticism of Zionist state violence against essentially defenseless Palestinians as creeping anti-Semitism. "Liberals and leftists, traditional champions of the underdog, engage en masse in a form of fashionable, politically correct anti-Semitism by condemning Israel's 'racist,' 'apartheid,' 'Nazi' regime, portraying the tiny Jewish state (with 0.1 percent of the Mideast land mass) as the brutal aggressor Goliath, while casting the Arab world (with 99.9 percent of the land, and all of the oil) as David," writes Whistleblower Magazine.

Never mind that it's true -- Israel is a racist state.

Can you imagine the outcry if Americans passed a law denying citizenship to people of African descent who marry US citizens? The Israeli Knesset passed just such a law July 31, forcing Palestinians who marry Israelis to live "separate and unequal" lives from their spouses. "This law comes to address a security issue," Gideon Ezra, an Israeli cabinet minister, declared.

More:

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo10232003.html

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. Great piece! Thanks for posting it!

The thing I found most significant about the hue and cry over both Boykin and Mahatir was the number of minutes, column inches, threads, etc. given to both over a period of days where an untold number of Muslims were killed, maimed, starved, beaten, kidnapped and robbed by both the US and Israel, and compared to the Boykin-Mahatir coverage, none of that was hardly mentioned.

[jplawne]

3. Do you read the same papers I do

Is your argument that;
- Israel and the US have killed people because they are Muslims? Do you have any proof of this?
- Israel and the US have killed people who happen to be Muslims. That is true, but many of them were armed and trying to kill Americans and Israelis or were accidentally killed in the fighting. What is the point? Are you against all murder ever? Do you write in this chat room every time a Palestinian blows up a bus full of civilians or sneaks into a home and kills a sleeping child because she is Jewish.
Is it
- That you are upset when Muslims are killed? If so what have you done to stop the greatest killers of Muslims...other Muslims? Join any protests or chat rooms against Muslim governments or groups that preach hate and murder fellow Muslims. Did you protest when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Did you cry a team for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees? How about against Muslims that oppress Christians in Lebanon, Sudan, and Indonesia, and indigenous people in North Africa. No? Interesting, you can only find it in your heart to attack Israel. No not an anti-Semitic obsession with Israel. Just following your conscience.
-Deaths hardly mentioned: every Palestinian and Iraqi death happens to be front page news every day.
- Let’s remember that while the General was not let go, his private words were condemned by the whole spectrum and his behaviour will be watched closely. This is the opposite of the Arab world, so outraged by these remarks, who use Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism as an instrument of domestic policy.
- As for Israel being a racist state: You can argue that Israel might have a racist law, but the facts do not stand up to your characterization. The law is very controversial, but so are Palestinians who fake marriages to Israeli Arabs and then use their citizen ship to blow up a bus full of civilians. Israel is a multi-cultural society with people from of all colors from Russia, Africa, South America, the Middle East and Europe. It is the ONLY place in the Middle East where Christians, Jews and Arabs have equality and where Arabs sit in a real functioning parliament as elected officials. If you want to defeat racism, let’s start with the nations where the Constitutions prohibit non-Muslims from running for office.

[Darranar]

4. Do you deny that the US and Israel have killed Muslims...

under the guise of defending themselves? (For example, the Iraq war, extra-judicial assasinations, etc.)

What about the oppression of millions across the world by US-based multinational corporations? What about the fact that despite rhetoric to the contrary, a considerable majority of oppresive dictators in the world are propped up by corporate power and through that the US?

When Saddam gassed the Kurds, the US blocked any real UN plan to do something about it. Not only that, but Saddam acquired weapons from the US throughout the years of his regime (until the 1991 Persian Gulf War) and used them against the Kurds and the Iranians. And the CIA helped him early on, as well.

This happens to be the I/P Forum, not the General Discussion forum. We're discussing Israel. It isn't anti-semitic to discuss Israel in a forum where the purpose is discussion of Israel...

[rini]

8. I am impressed

On a topic of anti-semitism relating back to Israel, you have managed to (once again) turn on the victims, attack the United States, and not contribute one ounce to the discussion.

You've out done yourself.

[bluesoul]

10. Truth hurts

He told the truth. I fail to see why that would be attacking the USA or Israel. Or are you one of those "my country right or wrong"?

[rini]

12. never said it was a lie, except for the deliberate killing of Muslems

that's an out and out lie. It's just his posting does not pertain to the discussion.

[Darranar]

15. When did I mention deliberate killings of Muslims?

I said that many innocent Muslims have been killed by the US and Israel.

My posting was in response to someone else's posting; if you wish to complain about something not pertaining to the discussion, complain to him. And I think US policy in the Middle East as a whole has a lot to do with the discussion, especially as it relates to Islamic radicalism in the West Bank and elsewhere.

[The Magistrate]

9. A Small Point, My Friend

Admittedly attempted before imbibing sufficient coffee....

What seems to be at issue here an allegation that people are killed, etc., for no other reason than that they are Muslims. In the two matters you mention first above, that is clearly not true.

Israel kills members of Hamas, et al, because a state of war exists between the peoples of Israel and Arab Palestine. That reason being more than sufficient for the act, there is little point to invoking self-defense or religious identity.

The U.S. certainly had no real grounds of self-defense for invading Iraq, but the Muslim religion of most Iraqis was hardly the reason for it either. Political exploitation, and economic exploitation, were the reasons, and given those factors, people of any creed would have done.

That is true of the larger pattern of economic exploitation at the bottom of U.S. backing for various dictators and authoritarian and military regimes. It is simply an accident of history that many of these currently are Moslem: they might as easily have been Hindu or Buddhist, and in South America, many have been Catholic.

As you will be aware from current wrangles up in General Discussion, in one recent case the U.S. went to war specifically, and largely successfully, to prevent the wholesale massacre and expulsion of a Moslem population, in the Balkans. Similarly, the U.S., as we are frequently reminded in other contexts, backed with enthusiasm the struggle of jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, with what can fairly be characterized as mixed results: the damage to the Soviets was of great value; the enlargenment of jihadi organization and influence was of great detriment.

It would seem therefore to me very difficult, however tempting it might seem for some propaganmdist's purpose, to sustain a case that the United States acts simply against Muslims, and does so through a bigotted distaste for them. Similarly, it seems to me that Israel would act as energetically, and in about the way it does, were those who sought to kill its civilians of some other confession than they are.

[Darranar]

14. That wasn't my point...

he was trying to justify the deaths of innocent people by saying that the US was simply defending themselves; essentially trying to remove all blame from the US.

I don't think racism is the basis for US foreign policy - especially not under Clinton. Racism, however, is a means to get to the end. A sort of subtle racism does exist against Muslims and Arabs in our society; this helps enable the government to wage war where it wants in the Arab world.

This all traces back to the sort of irrational fear of Islamic extremism that multiplied - though it was there before - on 9/11/01.

This is certainly not a new phenomenum. Racism has always been a way for the government to accomplish its goals; when people are afraid of something, or united in hatred of something, they tend to complain less about the policies of the government. Examples of this can be found in the Arab countries of the Middle East (in regard to Jews and Israel) and in regard to islam (or, rather, this supposedly tremendously great threat of Islamic radicalism) here in the US.

[The Magistrate]

55. My Apologies, Mr. Darranar

The concept "just because they are Muslims" appeared nowhere in your comments, though it did seem somehow to hover about the discussion.

My point concerning insufficient coffee, you will see, is no mere joke.

It is true that racism is of great use to a government at war: dehumanization is essential to work people into the state where they will willingly kill.

It is also true there is about a millenia and a half of bad blood between Christendom and Islam, most of it justified on both sides.

[jplawne]

45. Under the guise of logic

under the guise of defending themselves? (For example, the Iraq war, extra-judicial assasinations, etc.): Ignoring your qualifier “under the guise” I did not deny that people who are Muslims have been killed. I was questioning your logic that somehow the statements of the Malaysian Prime Minister are somehow irrelevant since Muslims have been killed by Israel and the US. I could not follow this logic. For example if I did my best to extrapolate from your comment something logical I could say that the comments of the General are nothing compared to the thousands of Jews, Christians, and Muslims that have been killed by Islamic Militants around the world. I do not think you mean this, but I really couldn’t be sure what you meant.

What about the oppression of millions across the world by US-based multinational corporations? What about the fact that despite rhetoric to the contrary, a considerable majority of oppressive dictators in the world are propped up by corporate power and through that the US?
A very interesting topic, but one that avoids the issue that was being addressed. I was inquiring why you seem to have selective concern about who is killed. What is your logic that allows you dismiss say racist remarks by a head of state because the slandered ethnic group has done something. Are my racist remarks about an ethnic group absolved because my wife has been mugged by someone from that ethnic group? I wondered again what logic you used to determine if someone’s death deserves you interest. For example, 2 million North Koreans starved to death not by MNC’s or the US? Under your rational is this concern or does non-white lead massacre not concern you. Again just wondering.

US historical support for Iraq: again not an issue raised. But let’s remember one thing. US support for Pinochet, Saddam, etc does not absolve the people that actually did the killing. We need to hold those people responsible for their behavior. Since I believe in liberal ideas of moral quality, I do not like to hold people of color to a lower level of responsibility and the West to a higher level, because that would be patronizing and racist.

As for your last comment: What I sincerely object to on grounds of rational argumentation is the attempt to demonize Israel by citing irrelevant facts such as the ‘iDF kills Muslims.’ What does this mean? It is not part of any kind of coherent argument. Everyone kills everyone on this planet. You would need to link this basic observation to some kind of argument that reflects critical thinking. So then I think to myself ‘why would someone just repeat random observations with no discernable point and think this is convincing. Why would someone criticize Israel against absolute and utopian ideals without applying any context or reflection on the relative nature of these acts?' My conclusions, which I will work hard to keep to myself, would not further the debate, so I will end here.

[Darranar]

46. You'll notice...

that the post you originally replied to wasn't mine.

So every single thing you just said goes down the drain.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. I believe a Muslim life is just as valuable as a Hindu, Jewish, Wiccan one

I am not with the bush regime.

So I guess I'm a terrorist.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. And we wonder why so many hate us

Boykin hardly got a nod in the US press-but rest assured that the rest of the world heard his message-and Rumsfield's response-loud and clear.

[ex_jew]

6. Wow - the "baseless distinction" between Zionism and Judaism

according to Professor David Rosen. So Judaism EQUALS Zionism. And here I had foolishly seen it as some kind of universal teaching, a light to all mankind, where it apparently means nothing more than an atavistic urge to gather in a particular spot in the Middle East, with no thought or concern for the original residents (or the laws and opinions of any another person or group besides the Jews). How very unappealing !

[sushi]

7. Excellent post

Haven't read counterpunch for a while.

Why is it that anything critical of Israel is considered anti-semitic?
No country is perfect.

[rini]

11. You sir/Madam need to re-think your wordage and insinuations

BTW, IMO Boykin should have been relieved of duty.

"there is a campaign to portray criticism of Zionist state violence against essentially defenseless Palestinians as creeping anti-Semitism. They accuse Israel of being a "'racist,' 'apartheid,' 'Nazi' regime."

Nazi state? Show me documantation of ovens, pits filled with Arab bodies, children starved to death? Medical experiments on helpless victims. Apartied Laws declaring people are graded by the intensity of their color as to where they can live, schools they may attend, is not rue. Even in this country, foreigners come under extremely close scruteny when marrying American citizens. If you can't produce documentation, you are a liar.

Look at this and then try to declare there is no anti-semitism here.


What do Arabs think about the Holocaust?Arabs Sign Guest Book at Holocaust Exhibit

Dr. Mordechai Kedar Sunday, October 26, 2003

The SNP Museum in the Slovak town Banska Bystrica recently hosted a
>traveling exhibit of photographs of women, Jewish and non-Jewish,
>maltreated in Auschwitz and elsewhere during the Holocaust period.
>
Here is the translation of a page of the guest book, containing the entries
>of four Arab visitors dated September 7, 2003 (copy of original page
>available):
>
>1. This exhibit testifies to the quality of organization and handling >the mission]. From a historical perspective, what Hitler did to the Jews is
>exactly what they deserve. Still, we would have wished that he could have
>finished incinerating all the Jews in the world, but time ran out on him and
>therefore Allah's curse be on him and on them.
>(-) Khaled al-Zahraya from Saudi Arabia, 07.09.03
>
>2. This is a museum showing a restaurant Jewish meat,
>which is what they deserve. Sons of apes and pigs.
>The day after the attempt to murder Ahmad Yasin.
>'Umar al-Da'm, Yemen 07.09.03
>
>3. Ibrahim al-'Arimi, Sultanate of Oman
>The most beautiful sights of Jews.
> (-) 07. 09.03
>
>4. I say what they all say, and will just add that they are cursed in
>this world and the next. Madih, Yemen. 07.09.2003
>
>
>Note: The names al-Zahraya and al-'Arimi might be read differently.
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------
>IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
>Website: www.imra.org.il
>

[sushi]

13. People can be very cruel

but haven't Jews also made hateful remarks about Arabs? This is so strange because aren't they essentially the same people, Semites?

[rini]

16. yes, we are cousins

of course people being people can be very nasty. I would suggest the difference is Jews, as a whole, do not spout such hatred as a policy, nor do they teach it as curriculumn.

[Darranar]

17. Neither do Muslims, as a whole...

and hatred is taught to many Jewish children - simply cloaked behind propaganda.

[GabysPoppy]

18. how about some examples?

you make a hit and run statement like that without a shred of evidence or an example?

[Darranar]

19. I phrased it badly...

very badly.

A better term is bias, not hatred.

[bluesoul]

20. From bias to hatred

And that can lead to hatred...

[Gimel]

24. Those comments, however

...bespeak a deep-seated hatred and arrogance. It is beyond the realm of my imagination that human beings could have that reaction to the holocaust and the irrefutable horrors of the museum.

There is a Holocaust museum in Israel with an educational program that is attended by Arab children. Those comments were written with very malicious intent, by people who were intentionally mis-educated.

[GabysPoppy]

21. and of course you will now provide examples of bias, please

[Darranar]

22. Me.

[GabysPoppy]

23. Yes, you

[Darranar]

25. You didn't get it.

Me - meaning I am an example (or, rather, a former example) of thsi bias.

[GabysPoppy]

26. I got it my friend

You made a foolish statement and tried too quickly to correct it. Your correction also made an accusation that begs for a response.

[Darranar]

27. Yes, I made a foolish (or, rather, exxagerated )statement...

in response to a foolish and exxagerated statement.

Yes, I corrected it. And I stand by my corrected statement.

[bluesoul]

28. Well GabysPoppy

I guess it's hard for you to understand that someone would admit that he was exposed to that particular bias as a Jew and then giving himself as an example, something you failed to understand :eyes:

[Darranar]

29. I believed the biased propaganda...

that was my point.

In other words, my judgement fell victim to that bias.

[bluesoul]

30. Bias

Everyone is exposed to some bias one way or the other. Its the heritage of one's parents and ancestors. It's when you grow up and if you are open-minded enough you can see beyond the bias and not make the same mistakes those before you did. So...

[Darranar]

31. That is true...

but sometimes it is more, and sometimes it is less.

[sushi]

59. I agree

and I think too many people are oversensitive. It's draining.

[rini]

36. I'm trying to think of a response

that is polite and forceful yet expresss my utter disdain for your responses. Because you were taught hate, is not a justification to presume this is Israeli policy. To paraphrase Gabby show me the proof!

[Darranar]

39. When did I say I was taught hate?

Or that it was Israeli policy to do so?

What I'm saying is that what I learned about the conflict was overly slanted. This slantedness and bias remained with me.

[GabysPoppy]

32. Sir, you too have missed the point

He can do all the mea culpas he wants. Yet he has still not provided one example of that bias.

Was it that Santa Claus is unreal?

Your defense of the young man is admirable and if you think he needs help, fine. Yet he has still not given one example of this "bias".

And until he does, his admission of "poorly phrased" leaves him with his first statement.

"hatred is taught to many Jewish children"

It is very hard to type hatred when you mean bias.

[bluesoul]

33. Tell me

What do Israeli kids in schools learn about Palestians, Arabs, Muslims?

[Darranar]

34. You still don't get it...

the statement was in response to another statement by another poster which said basically the same thing about Muslims. So, I changed it around a bit and inserted Jews instead. Of course it was an exxageration; that was part of the point.

My example of that bias is me, as I said before. You want some more?

1. Sharon

2. AIPAC

And a host of others.

How many myths do some people believe?

Myths like how the IDF is the most moral army in the world, everything the IDf does is self-defense, etc.

[GabysPoppy]

35. Your reasoning is sound, only if you are a child

"and hatred is taught to many Jewish children"

I will remind you what you said.

However "children" are usually not "taught" about Sharon, AIPAC or the IDF.

[Darranar]

37. You don't get it, still...

what people are taught at an early age is often ingrained into them.

[bluesoul]

38. Hmm

Obviously you don't understand his point. He merely responded to the same "reasoning" that all Palestinians are learned to hate Israelis/Jews with an equally absurd statement.

[Darranar]

40. Which was an exxageration...

as was the other statement.

But people on both sides get biased perspectives on the conflict - which is why the entire affair continues.

[GabysPoppy]

41. Did you also miss the word children?

"and hatred is taught to many Jewish children"

[Darranar]

42. What is learned as a child is often ingrained throughout life.

And please check your inbox.

[GabysPoppy]

43. my reply was to bluesoul

S/he seems to have missed the point

[bluesoul]

44. Clarify

I did not. I am a he ;-)

[jplawne]

47. Debate needs to be specific to be real

No one here is wrong, because the discussion is at an abstract level. Yes, everyone has bias. Yes, each group teaches hate and/or bias. There have been some interesting things written 700 years ago about the philosophy of rhetoric in which the same word for two sides of an issue is used to create an equivocation. For example, Israelis have KILLED Palestinians and Palestinians have KILLED Israelis. Palestinians have taught BIAS and Israelis have taught BIAS. The words are the same so they must reflect the same thought and meaning and definition. But these are false equivocations. A great example I saw was a BBC documentary in which an educated Egyptian woman, who lived in Britain was being asked about the issue of terrorism as she walked down a market in Cairo. Her answer was classic: "What about the terrorism of the free market. What about the terrorism of US movies on our children." That's right; she just compared the selling of a US made piece of gum to the destruction of the WTC. And I am sure a lot of European heads were going 'that's right, what about the terrorism of Hollywood." (THe point here is not that the free market is beyond criticism. It is that she avoided/clouded the issue by creating these equivocations.)

In order to avoid rather useless false equivocations it is important to show evidence, analytical thinking, and context to create a competent argument. On this issue there is a serious problem in PA territory (and somewhat in Muslim nations in general) that the political, civic (schools etc), and religious institutions teach hatred of Jews, that the life of a Jew is not worth living, that Israel should not exist and that giving one’s life for Allah is the highest goal. I will not cite this for now, because there are so many websites that detail the text books, lesson plans, PA speeches, and Muslim sermons that teach and support violence as the only solution and demonize Jews as something other than human.

Palestinian terrorism is not random or spontaneous. It is taught, encouraged and supported by many aspects of the PA. When I compare images of a Muslim mother, whose son just killed himself on an Israeli bus, cry in happiness and that the town names the school after this individual and people who shoot guns and scream for revenge at funerals, to the iDF and Israeli government who expresses sympathy when Palestinians are killed, investigate the incident, arrest rouge right wing Israeli fanatics who have attacked Palestinians, and Israelis who mourn the deaths of loved ones with only words of sadness and regret I see a difference. I see a fringe right wings racist element in Israel (and it is further to the right than Sharon) and I see a mainstream PA element that is racist. I see a people that worship life and share the same values with the west. I see a Palestinian movement that honors sacrifice and death over negotiations and compromise and certainly do not share any liberal values with the left other than they fit the neo-Marxist reactionary image of an oppressed people of color. Does ANY of this indicate who’s right or wrong on this issue? Not really. In fact this is all besides the point, but demonizing Israel is part of the tactics used by pro-Palestinians to excuse any Palestinian action they one might feel uncomfortable with and thoroughly demonize Israel and making any attack on it beyond question and any defense by Israel a crime.

I do question the sincerity of people who are so thoroughly pro-Palestinian and so unconditionally support what has been a violent movement from the beginning and when Palestinians were just Arabs before 1947, it was simply violent towards Palestinians (as indigenous Jews were called) because of the belief that Arab soil should only be inhabited by the ‘believers’. When Palestine is a state and it is being governed like Syria or Egypt, it will be the Israelis who ask the world for help to put pressure on the PA to give the Palestinians a better life and to stop allowing cross border attacks. Just like after African de-colonization, the end of Apartheid, and the return of democracy in Latin America, Liberals, the ISM, Europe, the UN and Moslem nations will move on because in the end they were not really concerned about Palestinian welfare, just the political issue the Palestinians afforded them.

[Darranar]

48. Ah, so now I'm "dodging the issue"...

because the fact is that this Islamic radicalism - which you and so many others seem to think is such a vicious threat is in fact NOT such a vicious threat?

Btw, where are all the investigations you claim? The settler thugs who plan to kill innocent Palestinians are often released. IDF soldiers who murder in cold blood are only investigated rarely. Out of thousands of Palestinians killed, many of which were probably non-combatants (and don't give me that junk about only 17%) only eight have been investigated.

[rini]

49. You keep making accusations

yet fail to back up what you say with so much as one single bit of documentation. All you do is spout garbage.

[Darranar]

50. I can't prove it to you...

because it's not something that's been extensively documneted.

All I can give you is my personal thoughts from my personal experience. You can think what you want.

[rini]

51. then do not

write it as fact, say these are my personal thoughts. That is a very respectable thing to do, as long as you don't slander people.

[Darranar]

52. I didn't slander anyone...

and generally I accept what my eyes and ears tell me as facts.

[rini]

53. when you claim

Sharon did x,y,and z, whch are war crimes, and have not one shred of documentation, that is slander. To say I believe such and such is merely hypothesizing.

[Darranar]

54. Sharon was defense minister...

last time I checked, he was in charge of the Lebanon invasion until he resigned.

[rini]

56. deleted by me!

[Darranar]

57. "Beloved"?

LOL.

[rini]

58. LOL?

[jplawne]

66. Last time I checked he has not been convicted

I will assume for a moment that you are referring to the massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps. This is a very interesting topic and there are two points that I never see raised.

1) Sharon was found indirectly to have responsibility for what happened, under the accepted rules that a military commander is responsible for what happens in his area of operations. The interesting thing is that this definition of responsibility is based on a moral and ethical perspective that has been developed in Western Militaries; one that says one has SOME level of responsibility for what happens even if he himself does not do the act. It is one that is not only disowned every time an Arab leader says 'I had nothing to do with it, I deny any responsibility' even though the funding, support, hospitality, planning and people came from their organization or country and they themselves spew horrible words of hate. It is also that this Western definitions of moral responsibility found in the report issued by I think a liberal Israeli Attorney General is one that Pro-Palestinian supporters never apply to Palestinians. The same traditional, humanistic, ethical liberal beliefs are the very ones not practiced when Pro-Palestinians give their unconditional support and ignore the PA culture of hate and violence.

2) Christian Lebanese killed Moslem Palestinians and Jews are blamed. If this is not classic anti-Semitism then I do not know what is. Yea, I know that for the sake of reasoned debate if is helpful to not call out anti-Semitism, but it is so blatant in this issue and no different than those who blame Jews for 9/11. The Moslems and Christians had been in conflict for years, (in fact centuries thoughout Africa, the Middle East and the Baltics) committing atrocities against one another repeatedly. Right before this atrocity, the Palestinians assassinated one of the leaders of the Christians. Even though this massacre took place in a UN camp, against UN and International rules, Palestinian armed combatants occupied and ruled the camps ad used it as a base for their operations and recruitment (and the UN fed and clothed them). Therefore it was a legitimate target. The massacre was wrong, but in the proper context, it was another day or Moslem-Christian violence.

To blame Jews is pathetic and shows that one is more interested in demonizing Israel than helping Palestinians. To use a report that gave Sharon INDIRECT responsibility and then to self-convict him as guilty of war crimes is hypocritical and more revealing about the accuser than the ‘convicted.’

[Darranar]

67. Uh.. right...

I'm the usual anti-semitic anti-Israel leftist retard who will blame everything on Jews!

If you repost or edit, ommitting the (admittedly subtle) personal attacks, I'll respond.

[Gimel]

64. An excellent analysis

Thank you for expressing this so clearly. You have seen this through for what it is.

[sushi]

60. Yes, how anybody could think

everything the IDF does is self-defense is beyond me.

[rini]

63. maybe because over 90% is?

[sushi]

70. You think so?

I honestly don't see it. Well, the IDF does have problems. For example, they can't catch the perpetrators of the suicide bombings because they're dead, but, I think, to then hit back by destroying the suicide bomber's home, maybe with innocent people in it, is very wrong. I understand often the family of a suicide bomber doesn't even know of their son's or daughter's plan, and only find out after he or she is gone. To then be bombed by the IDF and lose their house will only increase their hatred.

[sushi]

61. I'm sure the Jews as a whole

do not spout such hatred as a policy. Are you saying the Palestinians AS A WHOLE do? The extremist Palestinians would love to drive the Jews out of Israel, but know they can't, and the conservative Jews want to drive the Palestinians out of their homes, and are, I think, working on it. What's the difference? I can't believe how nasty these cousins are to each other.

[rini]

62. nothing worse than a family fight

the PA has poisoned textbooks, runs anti-semetic articles in the newspaper etc. It breaks my heart to know Jordon/Egypt does the same as does Saudi. Just go to http://www.pmw.org.il/new/, breaks my heart for the kids, makes me furious at the adults.

[sushi]

65. That's what it is,

a family fight, over land. BOTH families should get rid of their heads, who can't get along, and choose reasonable replacements. Leaders willing to compromise.

As for the poisoned textbooks, bad grownups do poison children's minds, but the children also see the over-the-top reactions of the IDF!

[jplawne]

68. Over the top redux

Criticism is the poor man's thinking. Tell us more than just that the iDF is over the top-- what ever that means. How should Israel evaluate the appropriate actions to fight terrorism whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel, who attacks regardless of the political environment, who kills civilians whether the iDF responds or not, who bases their operations in civilians areas, who use mosques, hospitals, ambulances, crowded street, apartment blocks and markets purposefully, and who attacks in the middle of peace negations (as they did from (1993-1999)? Share with us you tactical and strategic thinking on this topic. If you were the Israelis, would you accept as your most important obligation protection of Israeli lives or Palestinian?

As for this being a family fight, sounds sweet, but it does not reflect the history of the PLO as a proxy for war by weaker Arab nations against Israel. Somehow Israel has managed to make peace with over a million Arabs who are citizens of Israel and Jordan where the majority of Palestinians have always lived. The Israelis have managed to make peace. The PLO has managed to wage war against Jordan, Lebanon and Israel and not even make peace with themselves.

[The Magistrate]

69. Any Police Officer Will Tell You, Mr. Lawne

"Family fights" are the most dangerous calls to respond to. Murder within families is much more common than murder by strangers. Long abuse is almost unheard of except within families.